The difference between capitalism and socialism in a nutshell

[Contumacious]

[

Exactly. 'Communism' is this vague boogeyman being used almost exclusively by people that have no idea what it is, or how its implemented. They talk of the 'incrementalism' of communism. Despite the fact that communism is never been implemented in such a fashion, but always suddenly through revolution. Ask them to describe communism, and they get vaguer still. "Communism' is just another pejorative to many of the folks that drop the term.

BULLSHIT.


Paternalism, Fascism, welfarism had been practiced in Germany since the late 1800's by the Bismarck and Weimar administrations.


When Hitler/the nazis were elected to power all the elements necessary to imposed tyranny had been previously adopted by previous administrations.

Now it is clear to me why you readily BLINDLY accept SCOTUS decisions concentrating power in DC - you are a communist scumbag.


BTW, Which Country went from Capitalism to Communism overnight?!?!?!?!?

STFU

 

[Skylar]

[

Exactly. 'Communism' is this vague boogeyman being used almost exclusively by people that have no idea what it is, or how its implemented. They talk of the 'incrementalism' of communism. Despite the fact that communism is never been implemented in such a fashion, but always suddenly through revolution. Ask them to describe communism, and they get vaguer still. "Communism' is just another pejorative to many of the folks that drop the term.

BULLSHIT.


Paternalism, Fascism, welfarism had been practiced in Germany since the late 1800's by the Bismarck and Weimar administrations.

Then describe fascism to us....specifically. Tell us what it means. And then I'll compare it to your last definition of 'fascism'. And the historical version.

We'll see how your description matches the actual meaning.

 

[Contumacious]

[

Exactly. 'Communism' is this vague boogeyman being used almost exclusively by people that have no idea what it is, or how its implemented. They talk of the 'incrementalism' of communism. Despite the fact that communism is never been implemented in such a fashion, but always suddenly through revolution. Ask them to describe communism, and they get vaguer still. "Communism' is just another pejorative to many of the folks that drop the term.

BULLSHIT.


Paternalism, Fascism, welfarism had been practiced in Germany since the late 1800's by the Bismarck and Weimar administrations.

Then describe fascism to us....specifically. Tell us what it means. And then I'll compare it to your last definition of 'fascism'. And the historical version.

We'll see how your description matches the actual meaning.

Benito Mussolini:

What is Fascism, 1932

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."


As you see , under fascism , individuals do not have rights - the BUREAUCRATS DETERMINE WHAT RIGHTS YOU NEED.


And they may allow you to be 90% free or just 10%.

But THEY decide - not you.


.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Most 'liberals' aren't going for socialism. But regulated capitalism. As capitalism has flaws of its own: a tendancy toward unfair trading practices, wild abuses of the environment, and instability.

Unfair business practices could manifest as businesses working together to fix prices, monopolies, insider trading, etc.. All explicitly serve the self interest of the individual or individuals committing such practices. But not the public doing business with them. And this is hardly something new, having been recognized for a very long time.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Adam Smith

Businesses hate competition. It cuts into their profits. So they do everything in their power to eliminate it. The very engine of capitalism, business, works to eliminate the primary advantage of capitalism: efficiency. When capitalism is regulated to prevent such unfair practices, you maximize this efficiency.

The second flaw of capitalism is its brutal outcome on the environment. Taking all the pandas, spotted owls and humpback whales off the table, capitalism is hell on the water we drink and the air we breathe. As people act of our self interest, not collective interest. If its beneficial to them to say, pollute a river downstream to save money, they will. As the water upstream where they live isn't contaminated. And they save money.

That it fucks the town downstream isn't their problem. That's self interest in action.

And we're seeing that influence effect China as it becomes more capitalistic:

Most of the workers start coming down with respitory illnesses after about 2 years.

That's in the city of Harbin, where the small particle pollution is 40 times what is considered unhealthy. Things in Beijing aren't much better:

And while this water may be beautiful......I wouldn't want to drink it

Regulated capitalism helps mitigate this damage and prevent self interest from poisoning the public.

The last great flaw of capitalism is its instability. Its prone to wild expansions followed by crippling contractions. inflation, followed by deflation. With each boom and bust cycle wasting enormous resources and causing havoc on the lives of those working for a living.

Regulated capitalism helps mitigate this instability, shortening the contractions and extending the expansions. Since the implementation of the Fed, we've seen half the years in depression or recession than we saw before it. Regulated capitalism also creates a social safety net that helps mitigate the harm to individuals and families as they weather the economic downturns.

With all of these reasons why most 'liberals' support regulated capitalism. When properly managed, its the most efficient system of economy we've yet produced. But like fire, it will burn the shit out of you if left uncontrolled.

Wrong! The far left wants government to control every aspect of your life, you know the examples you just posted..

Which is why you vote far left without question or hesitation..

Also a far left drone (like you) pretending to be a "Liberal" should offend every true "Liberal" out there.

The far left wants to eliminate government, the far right is authoritarian and wants to control everything and everyone.

Regulated capitalism is what we have, and what capitalists want to see go away. Without regulations, who or what would save capitalism from the capitalists?

The pollution is a short term, temporary problem and it beats the fuck out of starvation and poverty

 

[Skylar]

[

Exactly. 'Communism' is this vague boogeyman being used almost exclusively by people that have no idea what it is, or how its implemented. They talk of the 'incrementalism' of communism. Despite the fact that communism is never been implemented in such a fashion, but always suddenly through revolution. Ask them to describe communism, and they get vaguer still. "Communism' is just another pejorative to many of the folks that drop the term.

BULLSHIT.


Paternalism, Fascism, welfarism had been practiced in Germany since the late 1800's by the Bismarck and Weimar administrations.

Then describe fascism to us....specifically. Tell us what it means. And then I'll compare it to your last definition of 'fascism'. And the historical version.

We'll see how your description matches the actual meaning.

Benito Mussolini:

What is Fascism, 1932

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."


As you see , under fascism , individuals do not have rights - the BUREAUCRATS DETERMINE WHAT RIGHTS YOU NEED.


And they may allow you to be 90% free or just 10%.

But THEY decide - not you.


.

That's but one sentence in a vast description given by Mussolini. I'm not asking you to tell us an ASPECT of fascism. I'm asking you to tell us what fascism is. For example, dictatorship. Fascist governments are lead by them. But I don't see any such mention in your description.

State sanctioned racism is another aspect. Mussolini himself wrote 'The Manifesto of the Racist Scientist' espousing the racial superiority of Italians. Hitler wrote 'Mein Kampf' outlining his struggle against the Jews. Yet I don't see any mention of state sanctioned racism in your description/

Belligerent nationalism, where the nation is placed above all and expansion is violently pursued is another aspect of fascism. Yet you don't mention it.

Violent suppression of the opposition and the press is another aspect of fascism. But you don't mention it.

Why do you skip past these core tenets of fascism in your description? Because you don't have the slightest clue what fascism is. You've never read Musollini's' description beyond the one sentence you were told to quote. You're using the term as a pejorative, a name to call anyone who disagrees with you.

But your use of the term doesn't match its actual meaning. Exactly as I said earlier. You're a living breathing demonstration.

 

[Skylar]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Most 'liberals' aren't going for socialism. But regulated capitalism. As capitalism has flaws of its own: a tendancy toward unfair trading practices, wild abuses of the environment, and instability.

Unfair business practices could manifest as businesses working together to fix prices, monopolies, insider trading, etc.. All explicitly serve the self interest of the individual or individuals committing such practices. But not the public doing business with them. And this is hardly something new, having been recognized for a very long time.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Adam Smith

Businesses hate competition. It cuts into their profits. So they do everything in their power to eliminate it. The very engine of capitalism, business, works to eliminate the primary advantage of capitalism: efficiency. When capitalism is regulated to prevent such unfair practices, you maximize this efficiency.

The second flaw of capitalism is its brutal outcome on the environment. Taking all the pandas, spotted owls and humpback whales off the table, capitalism is hell on the water we drink and the air we breathe. As people act of our self interest, not collective interest. If its beneficial to them to say, pollute a river downstream to save money, they will. As the water upstream where they live isn't contaminated. And they save money.

That it fucks the town downstream isn't their problem. That's self interest in action.

And we're seeing that influence effect China as it becomes more capitalistic:

Most of the workers start coming down with respitory illnesses after about 2 years.

That's in the city of Harbin, where the small particle pollution is 40 times what is considered unhealthy. Things in Beijing aren't much better:

And while this water may be beautiful......I wouldn't want to drink it

Regulated capitalism helps mitigate this damage and prevent self interest from poisoning the public.

The last great flaw of capitalism is its instability. Its prone to wild expansions followed by crippling contractions. inflation, followed by deflation. With each boom and bust cycle wasting enormous resources and causing havoc on the lives of those working for a living.

Regulated capitalism helps mitigate this instability, shortening the contractions and extending the expansions. Since the implementation of the Fed, we've seen half the years in depression or recession than we saw before it. Regulated capitalism also creates a social safety net that helps mitigate the harm to individuals and families as they weather the economic downturns.

With all of these reasons why most 'liberals' support regulated capitalism. When properly managed, its the most efficient system of economy we've yet produced. But like fire, it will burn the shit out of you if left uncontrolled.

Wrong! The far left wants government to control every aspect of your life, you know the examples you just posted..

Which is why you vote far left without question or hesitation..

Also a far left drone (like you) pretending to be a "Liberal" should offend every true "Liberal" out there.

The far left wants to eliminate government, the far right is authoritarian and wants to control everything and everyone.

Regulated capitalism is what we have, and what capitalists want to see go away. Without regulations, who or what would save capitalism from the capitalists?

The pollution is a short term, temporary problem and it beats the fuck out of starvation and poverty

The pollution continues, unchecked for decades, until regulations prevent it. As unregulated capitalism is motivated by personal gain. And if pollution is more profitable than not....many a capitalist will poison the water and air. And live themselves in a cleaner, safer area than that which their factories create.

The resolution of pollution doesn't occur without explicit regulation preventing it, regulation that is vigilantly enforced both through statutory law and civil tort actions.

Both of which libertarians insist we either abolish or make dramatically more difficult to enact. No thank you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Most 'liberals' aren't going for socialism. But regulated capitalism. As capitalism has flaws of its own: a tendancy toward unfair trading practices, wild abuses of the environment, and instability.

Unfair business practices could manifest as businesses working together to fix prices, monopolies, insider trading, etc.. All explicitly serve the self interest of the individual or individuals committing such practices. But not the public doing business with them. And this is hardly something new, having been recognized for a very long time.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Adam Smith

Businesses hate competition. It cuts into their profits. So they do everything in their power to eliminate it. The very engine of capitalism, business, works to eliminate the primary advantage of capitalism: efficiency. When capitalism is regulated to prevent such unfair practices, you maximize this efficiency.

The second flaw of capitalism is its brutal outcome on the environment. Taking all the pandas, spotted owls and humpback whales off the table, capitalism is hell on the water we drink and the air we breathe. As people act of our self interest, not collective interest. If its beneficial to them to say, pollute a river downstream to save money, they will. As the water upstream where they live isn't contaminated. And they save money.

That it fucks the town downstream isn't their problem. That's self interest in action.

And we're seeing that influence effect China as it becomes more capitalistic:

Most of the workers start coming down with respitory illnesses after about 2 years.

That's in the city of Harbin, where the small particle pollution is 40 times what is considered unhealthy. Things in Beijing aren't much better:

And while this water may be beautiful......I wouldn't want to drink it

Regulated capitalism helps mitigate this damage and prevent self interest from poisoning the public.

The last great flaw of capitalism is its instability. Its prone to wild expansions followed by crippling contractions. inflation, followed by deflation. With each boom and bust cycle wasting enormous resources and causing havoc on the lives of those working for a living.

Regulated capitalism helps mitigate this instability, shortening the contractions and extending the expansions. Since the implementation of the Fed, we've seen half the years in depression or recession than we saw before it. Regulated capitalism also creates a social safety net that helps mitigate the harm to individuals and families as they weather the economic downturns.

With all of these reasons why most 'liberals' support regulated capitalism. When properly managed, its the most efficient system of economy we've yet produced. But like fire, it will burn the shit out of you if left uncontrolled.

Wrong! The far left wants government to control every aspect of your life, you know the examples you just posted..

Which is why you vote far left without question or hesitation..

Also a far left drone (like you) pretending to be a "Liberal" should offend every true "Liberal" out there.

The far left wants to eliminate government, the far right is authoritarian and wants to control everything and everyone.

Regulated capitalism is what we have, and what capitalists want to see go away. Without regulations, who or what would save capitalism from the capitalists?

The pollution is a short term, temporary problem and it beats the fuck out of starvation and poverty

Q. Short term pollution means exactly what?

A. In X amount of years, when cancers spike in teens and adults, frogs grow 8 legs and human babies are still born or born deformed, an EPA will be established, a Superfund will be created, and a crazy right wing will develop opposing the expenditure of money to clean up the mess, which no amount of evidence will every convince this crowd that pollution was the cause.

 

[Contumacious]

[

The pollution continues, unchecked for decades, until regulations prevent it. As unregulated capitalism is motivated by personal gain. And if pollution is more profitable than not....many a capitalist will poison the water and air. And live themselves in a cleaner, safer area than that which their factories create.

The resolution of pollution doesn't occur without explicit regulation preventing it, regulation that is vigilantly enforced both through statutory law and civil tort actions.

Both of which libertarians insist we either abolish or make dramatically more difficult to enact. No thank you.

Shut the fuck up.

Who came up with NUCLEAR ENERGY and then decided to weaponize it and use it willy nilly against other nations

1- Iran
2- North Korea
3- The United States of America


2- Which country has created a massive highway system in which many of those roads are PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER , go to the same destination and were created in order to grandstand for political parties and not actual need, ie, pork barrel spending.

1- Germany
2- South AFrica
3- The United States of America

 

[Skylar]

[

The pollution continues, unchecked for decades, until regulations prevent it. As unregulated capitalism is motivated by personal gain. And if pollution is more profitable than not....many a capitalist will poison the water and air. And live themselves in a cleaner, safer area than that which their factories create.

The resolution of pollution doesn't occur without explicit regulation preventing it, regulation that is vigilantly enforced both through statutory law and civil tort actions.

Both of which libertarians insist we either abolish or make dramatically more difficult to enact. No thank you.

Shut the fuck up.

Smiling.....Cont, you know you I'll say what I like. Just as you know that there's nothing you can do about it. Get used to the idea.

Who came up with NUCLEAR ENERGY and then decided to weaponize it and use it willy nilly against other nations

1- Iran
2- North Korea
3- The United States of America


2- Which country has created a massive highway system in which many of those roads are PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER , go to the same destination and were created in order to grandstand for political parties and not actual need, ie, pork barrel spending.

1- Germany
2- South AFrica
3- The United States of America

And what relevance does any of these questions have with the issues of pollution and environmental damage we're discussing? If you can't establish relevance, then you're offering us a non-sequitur....an awkward attempt to change the topic.

And I'm quite happy with this one.

 

[JoeB131]

HUH?

WTF?

DO NOT confuse Libertarians with left or right wing fascists.

Libertarians do not give a shit if you like being butt-fucked. To each his own.

Libertarians do not understand why two adult individuals seek the blessings of bureaucrats in order to considered themselves married. That's all.

You mean Libertarians do not understand why we need legal protections to protect the interests of spouses and children?

The only reason you guys want to get rid of "legal" marriage is because they are letting the fags do it now.

 

[Coyote]

In a nutshell: pure capitalism is an economic system with no moral compass and a view of workers as nothing more than machinary, pure socialism is an economic system with no individual incentives to do better, improve productivity or create something new.

Well no.
No economic system has a moral compass. People have a moral compass.

Economic systems are made of of people however.

Capitalism produces opportunities for people to do better for themselves, and in doing so they do better for others as well.

I think that's the theory but the reality doesn't work that way because human nature is involved. Some of the worst abuses have occurred under unrestricted capitalism - sweat shops, triangle shirtwaist factory fire etc - those abuse's didn't stop on their own do to the kindness of the owners, human life is cheap in that kind of society. They stopped because of compulsion - via government regulation.

Socialism produces opportunities for poltiicians and bureaucrats to dole out favors to their friends,cronies, and supporters.

Socialism forces a moral compass on the process by creating safety nets and making the rights of workers as important as the rights of employers.

Using your logic capitalism produces opportunities for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

Socialism fails every single time. Capitalism succeeds every single time.

I disagree.

As an economic system pure socialism fail in practice because it offers no incentives for the individual to work harder, be innovative or take risks.
As an economic system pure capitalism fails in practice because it encourages the cheapening of human rights and rewards a few very highly at the expense of the many.

In my opinion - a blend of the two is the best because each tends to assume that humane nature is better than it really is.

Economic systems are people, my friend!

You point out an isolated incident like Triangle Shirt Waist and condemn the entire system because of it? Much worse industrial abuses occurred under the Soviets
All the ills usually attributed to capitalism generally come from lack of capitalism and government control in the market.

Actually, I don't condemn the entire system - it's still the best system we have, but it needs to be regulated to keep it from the excesses it would naturally tend towards. The Triangle Shirt Waist was not isolated - it was representative of wide spread abuses, abuses in fact that still go on in countries with little or no regulation or workers rights such as Bangladesh.

Unlike Capitalism, Socialism provides an important safety net - it makes sure that our most vulnerable people have the minimum they need to survive with dignity. It may not be perfect - but it is a system that does not depend on the fickleness of human kindness.

 

[Skylar]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Most 'liberals' aren't going for socialism. But regulated capitalism. As capitalism has flaws of its own: a tendancy toward unfair trading practices, wild abuses of the environment, and instability.

Unfair business practices could manifest as businesses working together to fix prices, monopolies, insider trading, etc.. All explicitly serve the self interest of the individual or individuals committing such practices. But not the public doing business with them. And this is hardly something new, having been recognized for a very long time.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Adam Smith

Businesses hate competition. It cuts into their profits. So they do everything in their power to eliminate it. The very engine of capitalism, business, works to eliminate the primary advantage of capitalism: efficiency. When capitalism is regulated to prevent such unfair practices, you maximize this efficiency.

The second flaw of capitalism is its brutal outcome on the environment. Taking all the pandas, spotted owls and humpback whales off the table, capitalism is hell on the water we drink and the air we breathe. As people act of our self interest, not collective interest. If its beneficial to them to say, pollute a river downstream to save money, they will. As the water upstream where they live isn't contaminated. And they save money.

That it fucks the town downstream isn't their problem. That's self interest in action.

And we're seeing that influence effect China as it becomes more capitalistic:

Most of the workers start coming down with respitory illnesses after about 2 years.

That's in the city of Harbin, where the small particle pollution is 40 times what is considered unhealthy. Things in Beijing aren't much better:

And while this water may be beautiful......I wouldn't want to drink it

Regulated capitalism helps mitigate this damage and prevent self interest from poisoning the public.

The last great flaw of capitalism is its instability. Its prone to wild expansions followed by crippling contractions. inflation, followed by deflation. With each boom and bust cycle wasting enormous resources and causing havoc on the lives of those working for a living.

Regulated capitalism helps mitigate this instability, shortening the contractions and extending the expansions. Since the implementation of the Fed, we've seen half the years in depression or recession than we saw before it. Regulated capitalism also creates a social safety net that helps mitigate the harm to individuals and families as they weather the economic downturns.

With all of these reasons why most 'liberals' support regulated capitalism. When properly managed, its the most efficient system of economy we've yet produced. But like fire, it will burn the shit out of you if left uncontrolled.

Wrong! The far left wants government to control every aspect of your life, you know the examples you just posted..

Which is why you vote far left without question or hesitation..

Also a far left drone (like you) pretending to be a "Liberal" should offend every true "Liberal" out there.

The far left wants to eliminate government, the far right is authoritarian and wants to control everything and everyone.

Regulated capitalism is what we have, and what capitalists want to see go away. Without regulations, who or what would save capitalism from the capitalists?

The pollution is a short term, temporary problem and it beats the fuck out of starvation and poverty

Q. Short term pollution means exactly what?

A. In X amount of years, when cancers spike in teens and adults, frogs grow 8 legs and human babies are still born or born deformed, an EPA will be established, a Superfund will be created, and a crazy right wing will develop opposing the expenditure of money to clean up the mess, which no amount of evidence will every convince this crowd that pollution was the cause.

This is an argument the ideologues consistently lose because people don't want to live in pollution and recognize the harm that it causes to them and their families.

Clean water and clean air transcend political parties.

 

[Coyote]

Genocidal dictatorships taking an ideology to an extreme (and for personal gain) were responsible for horrendous acts. There is nothing in the actual ideology that calls for that. Look at modern socialist countries, like in Scandinavia, for example.

The real failing in socialism is that it fails to reward the individual and we are individuals.

Edited to add - actually, Sweden isn't socialist, it's a blend so I'm wrong about that

Comrade, what percentage of the industry in Scandinavia is centrally planned or government owned?

Leftists lie that European welfare states are "socialist." when they are anything but.

I agree (and said) I was wrong about Sweden (and other European countries) being socialist in government - they have socialist programs but they aren't socialist.

 

[JoeB131]

Only the German model was racist. The Japanese nor the Italian were.

Are you kidding, the Japanese were as racist as fuck. They still are. It's why the country is going into an demagraphic death spiral, because they won't allow immigration.

 

[Contumacious]

[

Exactly. 'Communism' is this vague boogeyman being used almost exclusively by people that have no idea what it is, or how its implemented. They talk of the 'incrementalism' of communism. Despite the fact that communism is never been implemented in such a fashion, but always suddenly through revolution. Ask them to describe communism, and they get vaguer still. "Communism' is just another pejorative to many of the folks that drop the term.

BULLSHIT.


Paternalism, Fascism, welfarism had been practiced in Germany since the late 1800's by the Bismarck and Weimar administrations.

Then describe fascism to us....specifically. Tell us what it means. And then I'll compare it to your last definition of 'fascism'. And the historical version.

We'll see how your description matches the actual meaning.

Benito Mussolini:

What is Fascism, 1932

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."


As you see , under fascism , individuals do not have rights - the BUREAUCRATS DETERMINE WHAT RIGHTS YOU NEED.


And they may allow you to be 90% free or just 10%.

But THEY decide - not you.


.

That's but one sentence in a vast description given by Mussolini.



That is all you need to know. In a fascist country individuals have no rights. They can only exercise whatever "privileges" the bureaucrats allow them to exercise.


What else do you really need to know.


If the bureaucracy decide to be racist, engage in ethnic cleansing and/or genocide then it will happen.

Fascists are typically warmongers.

But Sweden and other countries European countries have not engaged in militarism.


.

 

[Skylar]

Only the German model was racist. The Japanese nor the Italian were.

Are you kidding, the Japanese were as racist as fuck. They still are. It's why the country is going into an demagraphic death spiral, because they won't allow immigration.

Absolutely. And the italians weren't racist?

6. There exists by now a pure "Italian race". This premise is not based on the confusion of the biological concept of race as the historical-linguistic concept of a people and of a nation, but on the purist kinship of blood which unites the Italians of today to the generations which have populated Italy for millennia. This ancient purity of blood is the greatest title of nobility of the Italian Nation.

7. It is time that the Italians proclaim themselves frankly racist. All the work that the regime in Italy has done until now is founded in racism. Reference to racial concepts has always been very frequent in the speeches of the Leader. The question of racism in Italy ought to be treated from a purely biological point of view, without philosophic or religious intentions. The conception of racism in Italy ought to be essentially Italian and its direction Aryan-Nordic. This does not mean, however, to introduce into Italy the theories of German racism as they are or to claim that the Italians and the Scandinavians are the same. But it intends only to point out to the Italians a physical and especially psychological model of the human race which in its purely European characteristics is completely separated from all of the non-European races, this means to elevate the Italian to an ideal of superior self-consciousness and of greater responsibility.

RacistScientists

They weren't simply racist. The label of 'Racist' was a state sanctioned title. It was national policy.

 

[Contumacious]

[

Exactly. 'Communism' is this vague boogeyman being used almost exclusively by people that have no idea what it is, or how its implemented. They talk of the 'incrementalism' of communism. Despite the fact that communism is never been implemented in such a fashion, but always suddenly through revolution. Ask them to describe communism, and they get vaguer still. "Communism' is just another pejorative to many of the folks that drop the term.

BULLSHIT.


Paternalism, Fascism, welfarism had been practiced in Germany since the late 1800's by the Bismarck and Weimar administrations.

Then describe fascism to us....specifically. Tell us what it means. And then I'll compare it to your last definition of 'fascism'. And the historical version.

We'll see how your description matches the actual meaning.

Benito Mussolini:

What is Fascism, 1932

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."


As you see , under fascism , individuals do not have rights - the BUREAUCRATS DETERMINE WHAT RIGHTS YOU NEED.


And they may allow you to be 90% free or just 10%.

But THEY decide - not you.


.

That's but one sentence in a vast description given by Mussolini.

[

The pollution continues, unchecked for decades, until regulations prevent it. As unregulated capitalism is motivated by personal gain. And if pollution is more profitable than not....many a capitalist will poison the water and air. And live themselves in a cleaner, safer area than that which their factories create.

The resolution of pollution doesn't occur without explicit regulation preventing it, regulation that is vigilantly enforced both through statutory law and civil tort actions.

Both of which libertarians insist we either abolish or make dramatically more difficult to enact. No thank you.

Shut the fuck up.

Smiling.....Cont, you know you I'll say what I like. Just as you know that there's nothing you can do about it. Get used to the idea.

Who came up with NUCLEAR ENERGY and then decided to weaponize it and use it willy nilly against other nations

1- Iran
2- North Korea
3- The United States of America


2- Which country has created a massive highway system in which many of those roads are PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER , go to the same destination and were created in order to grandstand for political parties and not actual need, ie, pork barrel spending.

1- Germany
2- South AFrica
3- The United States of America

And what relevance does any of these questions have with the issues of pollution and environmental damage we're discussing? If you can't establish relevance, then you're offering us a non-sequitur....an awkward attempt to change the topic.

And I'm quite happy with this one.

Well, that is true.


One must understand what a pollutant is before discussing environmental damage.

It appears that you have no fucking idea what a pollutant is in that case nuclear power is "irrelevant.


Here , I quote from your own people, greenpeace:


Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. There is no such thing as a "safe" dose of radiation and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn't mean it's "clean."

 

[Skylar]

That is all you need to know. In a fascist country individuals have no rights. They can only exercise whatever "privileges" the bureaucrats allow them to exercise.

That's all YOU know because you've never bothered to study what fascism actually is. You're quite literally arguing your own ignorance, insisting that because that one sentence is all you know of fascism, that's all anyone else needs to know.

And you're obviously wrong. Fascism is far, far more than you comprehend. Encompassing dictatorship, belligerent nationalism, state sanctioned racism, violent oppression of the press, free speech and opposition, and stringent socio-economic controls.

None of which are regulated capitalism.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And worse, don't want to know.

 

[Borillar]

Fairly basic. The truth is the best countries, with the highest level of upward mobility for its citizens enjoy a healthy mix of collectivist, and capitalist ideals. Capitalism run amuck is every bad as socialism run amuck.

Humanity has made the greatest advances in its history in the last Century due to one thing and one thing only -- Free Market Capitalism.

socialism reared its ugly, regressive head and tried to set us back by a thousand years but -- We prevailed.

socialism is inevitable in this Country and we will pay for it dearly.

I am right.

Did free market capitalism get us to the moon?
Did free market capitalism build our interstate highway system?
Did free market capitalism build our hydroelectric dams and bring electricity to the rural areas of the country?
Can you point to some major accomplishments by free market capitalism that didn't have one iota of government involvement?

 

[Skylar]

[

Exactly. 'Communism' is this vague boogeyman being used almost exclusively by people that have no idea what it is, or how its implemented. They talk of the 'incrementalism' of communism. Despite the fact that communism is never been implemented in such a fashion, but always suddenly through revolution. Ask them to describe communism, and they get vaguer still. "Communism' is just another pejorative to many of the folks that drop the term.

BULLSHIT.


Paternalism, Fascism, welfarism had been practiced in Germany since the late 1800's by the Bismarck and Weimar administrations.

Then describe fascism to us....specifically. Tell us what it means. And then I'll compare it to your last definition of 'fascism'. And the historical version.

We'll see how your description matches the actual meaning.

Benito Mussolini:

What is Fascism, 1932

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."


As you see , under fascism , individuals do not have rights - the BUREAUCRATS DETERMINE WHAT RIGHTS YOU NEED.


And they may allow you to be 90% free or just 10%.

But THEY decide - not you.


.

That's but one sentence in a vast description given by Mussolini.

[

The pollution continues, unchecked for decades, until regulations prevent it. As unregulated capitalism is motivated by personal gain. And if pollution is more profitable than not....many a capitalist will poison the water and air. And live themselves in a cleaner, safer area than that which their factories create.

The resolution of pollution doesn't occur without explicit regulation preventing it, regulation that is vigilantly enforced both through statutory law and civil tort actions.

Both of which libertarians insist we either abolish or make dramatically more difficult to enact. No thank you.

Shut the fuck up.

Smiling.....Cont, you know you I'll say what I like. Just as you know that there's nothing you can do about it. Get used to the idea.

Who came up with NUCLEAR ENERGY and then decided to weaponize it and use it willy nilly against other nations

1- Iran
2- North Korea
3- The United States of America


2- Which country has created a massive highway system in which many of those roads are PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER , go to the same destination and were created in order to grandstand for political parties and not actual need, ie, pork barrel spending.

1- Germany
2- South AFrica
3- The United States of America

And what relevance does any of these questions have with the issues of pollution and environmental damage we're discussing? If you can't establish relevance, then you're offering us a non-sequitur....an awkward attempt to change the topic.

And I'm quite happy with this one.

Well, that is true.


One must understand what a pollutant is before discussing environmental damage.

It appears that you have no fucking idea what a pollutant is in that case nuclear power is "irrelevant.

If you have a point to make, make it. But you're insinuating an argument you can't even articulate. Let alone factually support. Unregulated capitalism results in horrendous damage to the environment, dirty air and dirty water. Its only through strict regulation and enforcement that this inevitable consequence of unchecked self interest can be mitigated.

If you disagree, tell us why. Make your argument.