Capitalism is NOT Democratic: Democracy is NOT Capitalist

Michael Hudson (economist) - Wikipedia

"Hudson graduated from the University of Chicago (BA, 1959) and New York University (MA, 1965, PhD, 1968) and worked as a balance of payments economist in Chase Manhattan Bank (1964–1968). He was assistant professor of economics at the New School for Social Research (1969–1972) and worked for various governmental and non-governmental organizations as an economic consultant (1980s–1990s)."
New School of social research - commie.
 
"New Democrats" like Bill Clinton were never liberal, and they were pushed by their new best friends on Wall Street to deceive poor people (Latinx and Black) into massively overpaying for homes and interest rates that would never apply to normal (white) people under market rates. All the fraud was coming from lenders, not buyers.
They paid the same as white people, moron.
 
Socialism does not work without capitalism just a capitalisms does work without socialism. The two countries that are the most socialist are Cuba and North Korea which are both pretty crappy places to live. Somalia when it was under the control of pirates and war lords was a near pure example capitalism free to operate without interference. Again, a pretty crappy place to live.

Capaitalism works beautifully without socialism. Can you provide an example where it didn't?
 
Plundering the poor: the role of the World Bank in the Third World - PubMed

"The World Bank, the most important so-called development assistance agency, annually dispenses billions of dollars to Third World governments, ostensibly to 'develop' their economics through a variety of loan projects.

"But even a superficial analysis reveals that the Bank is the perfect mechanism to help (i.e., subsidize) the large transnational corporations from the industrial countries to expand their industrial, commercial, and financial activities in the Third World, at the expense of the latter and particularly at the expense of the rural and urban proletariat."
So lets end the World Bank. I'm perfectly OK with that. You see, I don't gigantic multinational organizations are a good way to promote capitalism.
 
Michael Hudson (economist) - Wikipedia

"Hudson graduated from the University of Chicago (BA, 1959) and New York University (MA, 1965, PhD, 1968) and worked as a balance of payments economist in Chase Manhattan Bank (1964–1968). He was assistant professor of economics at the New School for Social Research (1969–1972) and worked for various governmental and non-governmental organizations as an economic consultant (1980s–1990s)."

Hudson identifies himself as a Marxist economist, but his interpretation of Karl Marx is different from most other Marxists. Whilst other Marxists emphasize the contradiction of wage labor and capital as the core issue of today capitalist world, Hudson rejects that idea and believes parasitic forms of finance have warped the political economy of modern capitalism. Hudson points to Marx's view of capitalism as the historic force that tends to eliminate all forms of pre-capitalist rent seeking, i.e. land rent, monopoly rent and financial rent (usury). The original meaning of a free market as discussed by classical political economists was a market free from all forms of rent. The gist of classical political economy was to distinguish earned and unearned income (also known as rent or free lunch). He then argues that unlike Marx's optimistic expectation history did not go in that direction and today modern capitalism is dominated by rentier classes. The concept of the proletariat as a class for itself presupposes a rent-free society, saying that "wages have been going no where recently, I hope you've been making a killing on your house price!". The other form of rent is imperialist rent, flowing from underdeveloped countries to developed ones. All of these forces distort the political economy of the modern capitalism, pushing labour-capital contradiction to the background and bringing other issues to the foreground. This is as if instead of progress, history has regressed back to a neo-feudal system.

Although Hudson's views are unpopular amongst other Marxists and sometimes vehemently rejected by them, his views converge with later writings of Marx himself. Hudson points out that most Marxists never go beyond Capital, Volume I, where Marx assumes there is a rent-free market where all commodities are sold at their values. That is how Marx deduces the exploitative nature of capitalism and labour-capital dichotomy as its underlying contradiction, but in Capital, Volume II and Capital, Volume III he relaxes his assumptions and discovers other contradictions that are much closer to what can be observed in today's economic system. In Capital, Volume III, Marx discusses the tendency of productivity and supply to increase at a faster pace than the consumption power and demand. Marx also revised his earlier ideas as he studied and learned more about the asymmetric development of capitalism. This ultimately led him to soften his revolutionary tone[citation needed] as he realized how dominance of industrially advanced nations over underdeveloped nations blocks revolutionary tendencies among the working classes of dominating nations. On the other side, Marx clashed with Karl Schapper, suggesting that the idea of workers taking over the state power ends up in disaster because they are not ready to practice that power.
 
main-qimg-20b75f012b31a88a6c8c60b03da5bb93

Poor Russia, it's almost like their neighbors don't trust them.

I wonder why?
 
Like what?

How many are as effective as the World Bank?


Poverty crisis in the Third World: the contradictions of World Bank policy - PubMed

"Politicians, the mainstream media, and orthodox social science have all been telling us of a final victory of capitalism over socialism, suggesting that capitalism is the only viable option for solving the world's problems.

"Yet, the global capitalist system is itself entering the third decade of a profound structural crisis, the costs of which have been borne largely by the exploited and oppressed peoples of the underdeveloped periphery."
Just to be clear, you are supporting what china is doing in africa and other poor countries?
 
The US military has killed millions of innocent civilians on the opposite side of the planet since 1945.
Can you name another country whose record compares to that?
Thats simply not true

The US has been involved in wars where civilians died

But few of them were killed by the US military

And certainly not millions
 
Except it was money chasing people in those poor neighborhoods not the other way around:

Bill Black Pt 3/9 - The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One

"The weak, the meek, and the ignorant are our best targets.'

"Those are the words they put on paper to describe those folks.

"So, that has meant that the quintessential victim, if you wanted a single face, that face would be of an elderly black woman. That’s the quintessential victim of predation in the financial sphere."
If you scratch around you can easily find some lefty that hates America as much as you do

And then you can quote them but I’m not buying it because I remember what happened at the time

Libs were pissin’ their pants to have more home loans in poor neighborhoods
 
Everything you post is a flat-out lie. If socialism is so superior, it shouldn't matter what capitalist countries do. 200
Capitalist countries use industrial scale warfare to destroy any economic competition. You may be blind to the millions of innocent human beings who have been murdered, maimed, displaced, and enslaved by capitalism over the past few hundred years, but that's only because you're an intellectual and moral imbecile.
 
Crony capitalism is the core of corporatism. see: Corporatism - Wikipedia
Your link:

"Corporatism is not government corruption in politics or the use of bribery by corporate interest groups.

"The terms corporatocracy and corporatism are often confused due to their use of corporations as organs of the state.

How does crony capitalism exist without government corruption in politics and the bribery of corporate interest groups?

"Corporatism developed during the 1850s in response to the rise of classical liberalism and Marxism, as it advocated cooperation between the classes instead of class conflict.

"Corporatism became one of the main tenets of fascism, and Benito Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy advocated the collective management of the economy by employers, workers, and state officials to reduce the marginalization of singular interests.

"Corporatism is a collectivist ideology where the corporates work together for a common interest.[5]"
 
Capitalist countries use industrial scale warfare to destroy any economic competition. You may be blind to the millions of innocent human beings who have been murdered, maimed, displaced, and enslaved by capitalism over the past few hundred years, but that's only because you're an intellectual and moral imbecile.
You didn't address my point: If socialism is so superior, then why should socialist nations care if capitalist nations embargo them? The USA and Europe certainly didn't care if Cuba and the USSR embargoed them

So the USSR and NK didn't have industrial sized armies?

Innocent people get killed in all wars, nimrod.

What you can't seem to be absorb is the fact that capitalism didn't create war. War is 10,000 years old.
 
Last edited:
And why liberals love it. Popular vote would set the president every time. A few big cities would overrule the will of the majority of our nation.
A majority of voters would decide who becomes POTUS regardless of where they live. If that scares you, move to Singapore.

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

"The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

"The Compact ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election.

"The Compact is a state-based approach that preserves the Electoral College, state control of elections, and the power of the states to control how the President is elected."
 

Forum List

Back
Top