Not sure Republicans understand difference between "capitalism" and "exploitation"

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Private ownership used to imply capitalism. But now liberal socialists have realized that they are far too dumb to own and manage businesses. Instead they leave ownership in private hands and seek to control businesses somewhat with taxes and regulation. With continued hard work conservatives will teach liberals they they are also far too dumb to control businesses with taxes and regulations.

"Liberal socialists" *leave* ownership in *private hands* and seek to control business *somewhat* with *taxes* and *regulation*.

I don't think that you understand the basic economic models. What you just described there is America. Period. Not "Liberal socialist" America. Just America.

idiotic as usual! The subject was not America. It was capitalism and socialism in America.


Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.


This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp."[4]

C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium


Buckley endorsed Chambers’ analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but “revolutionary” in its nature and intentions, seeking “a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”

 

[expat_panama]

...Others (including me) avoid the term because it's not accurate in differentiating between state and privately run economies. Lot's of people very much involved in private enterprise that don't have much capital. How can a 'captialist' not have 'capital'?

You think maybe I'm not being politically correct enough for the right-wing whack jobs...

We're loosing our connection here from all the static. When I said I liked using words that meant what I was thinking you asked if I was thinking about something about right-wing whack jobs. Maybe I need to hang up, call back in, and see if we can be chatting on a better connection.

Internet surfing in a rain-forest is not for the faint of heart.

 

[samjones]

Socialism has failed every single time it has been implemented.

You keep saying that, but it's at best an unnuanced statement.

For example, I'm not really sure that people would say that China or Vietnam are failing right now.

And while it is true that there have been some unqualified Socialist failures, by the same token I'm not sure that the economy of most countries would really qualify as "capitalist" or at least not an American brand of capitalism. In countries that did have socialism implemented there could be some debate over whether things were better under socialism or whether they were better off than their neighbors who did not live under socialism. Particularly in Africa.

In some parts of Africa, ownership works like this. The guy with the gun in the truck owns the truck because he has the gun. If some other guy with a gun or some alcohol jumps in the truck then you got yourself a business called "Mayhem, Inc." Anybody else who may happen to jump in the truck automatically gets part ownership. They file for bankruptcy whent the truck breaks down.

I agree that the capitalist USA triumphed over communist USSR. I just don't see how that paints a complete picture of the relative success of socialism.

 

[samjones]

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

Since nobody is really talking about or doing anything about the problems that face us, I would say the most likely way America would become socialist is the same way we basially did under George W. Bush.

1. A total reliance on credit - we all both borrowers and lenders be.

2. A lack of understanding and polices that regulate credit markets to the point that they're safe.

3. Companies, scrupulous and unscrupulous alike, find and exploit holes in the system to generate incredible profit in ways that are not well understood by government regulators or thh common people

4. By the time we realize what the problem really is, it's way too late and most of America's major industries are collapsing under the weight of the money they owe and the money they'll never collect. Auto, banking, health, airlines, manufacturing, education .... etc, etc.

5. The only realistic option is for Uncle Sam to take ownership and next time, he ain't giving it back until we all prove we can play nice.... that might take a few generations.

There you have it - the United Socialist States of America. It basically already happened in '08 - if it happens much worse in the future that's the way it's going to go. And we haven't done much of anything to stop if from happening in the future. I suppose you think that's the liberal's fault.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There you have it - the United Socialist States of America. It basically already happened in '08 - if it happens much worse in the future that's the way it's going to go. And we haven't done much of anything to stop if from happening in the future. I suppose you think that's the liberal's fault.

Of course what you say is idiotic and disorganized but perfectly liberal. The liberals spied for Stalin, and BO voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. If we elect radical conservatives and libertarians we will move rapidly away from treasonous anti American liberal socialism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I agree that the capitalist USA triumphed over communist USSR. I just don't see how that paints a complete picture of the relative success of socialism.

Of course there are numerous other examples:

East/West Germany, Cuba,Fla., North/South Korea, Israel before/after 1999, Ghana/Ivory coast, Red China before and after communism, Hong Kong/Red China, Taiwan/Red China, El Salvadore before and after Funes . The list is endless. The more capitalism the better. Liberals lack the IQ to grasp what is simple for conservatives to grasp.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Socialism has failed every single time it has been implemented.

You keep saying that, but it's at best an unnuanced statement.

For example, I'm not really sure that people would say that China or Vietnam are failing right now.

And while it is true that there have been some unqualified Socialist failures, by the same token I'm not sure that the economy of most countries would really qualify as "capitalist" or at least not an American brand of capitalism. In countries that did have socialism implemented there could be some debate over whether things were better under socialism or whether they were better off than their neighbors who did not live under socialism. Particularly in Africa.

In some parts of Africa, ownership works like this. The guy with the gun in the truck owns the truck because he has the gun. If some other guy with a gun or some alcohol jumps in the truck then you got yourself a business called "Mayhem, Inc." Anybody else who may happen to jump in the truck automatically gets part ownership. They file for bankruptcy whent the truck breaks down.

I agree that the capitalist USA triumphed over communist USSR. I just don't see how that paints a complete picture of the relative success of socialism.

I said it once, but I will repeat it.

People might not say that West Poland is failing right now either, that doesn't mean that my statement is wrong, does it? Both the countries you mentioned have moved from a socialist economy to a market based economy, much closer to capitalism than socialism. Am I supposed to look at the fact that they are moving away from socialism and conclude that socialism is a viable alternative?

You certainly have a point that some people people in Russia were better off under socialism than they are now, a point many politicians there continue to make. I will point something out though, despite the efforts to return to socialism, they are still a capitalistic country because most people prefer to live in a system where they actually participate in the economy instead of just being a resource, as you so quaintly put it.

I also loved the way you managed to throw in Africa and the meme that people with guns there own whatever they can control. Not quite sure how that helps you make the point that socialism is somehow inherently a better system than what we use now, despite the fact that it has failed every single time it has been implemented. Please, feel free to attempt to nuance my statement by pointing to other formerly socialist countries that are moving towards capitalism to prove me wrong, I enjoy the smile I get when I refute the idiots who try to defend socialism and the totalitarian governments that result when it is implemented.

By the way, if we are comparing results, don't forget to mention that no one in Libya was homeless because Qaddafi promised that everyone would have a roof over their heads before his grandparents got one, and he kept the promise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree that the capitalist USA triumphed over communist USSR. I just don't see how that paints a complete picture of the relative success of socialism.

Of course there are numerous other examples:

East/West Germany, Cuba,Fla., North/South Korea, Israel before/after 1999, Ghana/Ivory coast, Red China before and after communism, Hong Kong/Red China, Taiwan/Red China, El Salvadore before and after Funes . The list is endless. The more capitalism the better. Liberals lack the IQ to grasp what is simple for conservatives to grasp.

Hell, it is so obvious to non liberals that people in Cuba turn pickups into boats and drive them to Florida.

 

[syrenn]

Socialism has failed every single time it has been implemented.

You keep saying that, but it's at best an unnuanced statement.

For example, I'm not really sure that people would say that China or Vietnam are failing right now.

And while it is true that there have been some unqualified Socialist failures, by the same token I'm not sure that the economy of most countries would really qualify as "capitalist" or at least not an American brand of capitalism. In countries that did have socialism implemented there could be some debate over whether things were better under socialism or whether they were better off than their neighbors who did not live under socialism. Particularly in Africa.

In some parts of Africa, ownership works like this. The guy with the gun in the truck owns the truck because he has the gun. If some other guy with a gun or some alcohol jumps in the truck then you got yourself a business called "Mayhem, Inc." Anybody else who may happen to jump in the truck automatically gets part ownership. They file for bankruptcy whent the truck breaks down.

I agree that the capitalist USA triumphed over communist USSR. I just don't see how that paints a complete picture of the relative success of socialism.

ah yes... china and vietnam...... are you land locked somewhere in the middle of the country?

I take it you have not seen the flight of chinese and vietnamese peoples trying to get away and out from under socialism.

 

[samjones]

ah yes... china and vietnam...... are you land locked somewhere in the middle of the country?

I take it you have not seen the flight of chinese and vietnamese peoples trying to get away and out from under socialism. [/COLOR]

I live in New York City. I see alot of moneyed Chinese people moving back to China.

 

[samjones]

If we elect radical conservatives and libertarians we will move rapidly away from treasonous anti American liberal socialism.

But it was George W Bush that bailed out the financial system, which is the closest we've come to Socialism in my lifetime. How do you reconcile your rhetoric with the facts that easily disprove what you say?

Do you just ignore history?

 

[samjones]

Please, feel free to attempt to nuance my statement by pointing to other formerly socialist countries that are moving towards capitalism to prove me wrong, I enjoy the smile I get when I refute the idiots who try to defend socialism and the totalitarian governments that result when it is implemented.

There have been plent of totalitarian governments under capitalism. It's the norm in the world. You may contend that China is "moving toward capitalism" but they're still socialist and I don't see the Chinese Government handing over the keys to the car any time soon. Same's true for Vietnam.

You also contend that Socialism has failed every time it's been implemented, but even with the USSR - despite the fact that Communism ultimately failed in '89 - I believe it would be overly simplistic to say that Socialism failed in that country. It was their form of government for 70 years. They repelled the 2nd most aggressive invasion in the history of the world under Socialsim and were a primary participant in 1st. They became the second most powerful country in the world under Socialism. They were the first to put a man in space. They spread the ideaology to their neighbors and to those further afield.

"I don't like it" does not equal "it failed."

 

[editec]

Not sure Republicans understand difference between "capitalism" and "exploitation"

Sure they do. According to their POV:


Capitalism is where the rich get to fuck over the poor with impunity.

Exploitation is when any government demands the rich to pay any taxes whatever.

 

[expat_panama]

...You may contend that China is "moving toward capitalism" but they're still socialist...

In real life socialism and free enterprise never exist in a pure state.

For decades China has been putting more and more control of it's economy into the hands of its people and the nation has become less ideological and more prosperous. Over the past half dozen years the US has become less prosperous while it's economy has been changed to conform more and more to a leftist ideology.

 

[samjones]

Over the past half dozen years the US has become less prosperous while it's economy has been changed to conform more and more to a leftist ideology.

It's hard to place blame for the economic crisis of '08 on any act of congress or maladministration of any corporation. Bottom-line, we had (and still have) fundamental flaws in our credit markets. It doesn't look like a big problem right now because we're all broke and tapped and we just opened one eye and started pondering what it's going to take to recover from the hangover that we're left with after the subprime debacle.

We'll take a couple aspirin, have some tomato juice, have some caffeine, maybe a few electrolytes and maybe a bit of the hair of the dog and we'll start to feel a little better.

Great - we fixed the hangover. No what are we going to do to fix the binge drinking problem. Because as soon as we get a chance, we'll do this again.

 

[Intense]

Not sure Republicans understand difference between "capitalism" and "exploitation".

When I think of capitalism, I think of something being made and that something being sold, hopefully for a profit.

Can what Romney does, indulging in predatory take over, firing people, selling the assets and making millions be called "capitalism"? I understand this Republican Party has a "make money no matter what the cost or who it screws" attitude. But can you still call that capitalism? If it's not capitalism, then what is it?

Does RDean understand Capitalism at all? Could RDean run a Lemonade Stand without bankrupting it in less than a day? Could he make his way from the Bronx to Brooklyn on the Subway in less than a day and a half?

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

What's the difference between capatalism and exploitation? That's easy...

Capatalism is an economic system involving profits, loss, and competition. It has provided the United States with the world's largest economic engine on the planet. It is volatile, sometimes unstable, and much more subject to outside influences. Yet, because of it's volatility, it can recover more quickly from outside influences than 'planned' economies can. Capatalism recognizes 'winners' and 'losers', something that all other economic models do as well, regardless of their claims otherwise (Refer to the Dacha's on the Black Sea for the Soviet Unions elite during their stint of communism).

Exploitation, when referring to economics, is a word that has been gleened from all of those little red books that they hold up in North Korea and China during meetings of their "People's Congress." Exploitation is the economic equivalent to the word racist. Leftists use these two words so much that they currently have no meaning or weight.

I hope that helps...

You didn't get that from the Austrian School of Economics?

 

[expat_panama]

Over the past half dozen years the US has become less prosperous while it's economy has been changed to conform more and more to a leftist ideology.

It's hard to place blame for the economic crisis of '08 on any act of congress or maladministration of any corporation. Bottom-line, we had (and still have) fundamental flaws in our credit markets...

Describing what's happening is a lot easier than describing something that others will see when they look at the same thing.

Say what you will about the credit market but total credit market debt owed right now is at an all time high. The most easily measured economic malfunction is the drop in employment. Four years ago there were six million more Americans with jobs than we have today. I see credit's fixed, jobs are broken, and since '07 the public hatred of employers has reached a fevered pitch.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If we elect radical conservatives and libertarians we will move rapidly away from treasonous anti American liberal socialism.

But it was George W Bush that bailed out the financial system, which is the closest we've come to Socialism in my lifetime. How do you reconcile your rhetoric with the facts that easily disprove what you say?

Do you just ignore history?

Bush was not a conservative.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

i see we have a group of well versed economists in here.