CDZ Communism, Capitalism, Fascism

Which of the major political systems is most conducive to healthy human communities?

  • fascism (nationalist)

  • communism (globalist)

  • capitalism (globalist)

  • capitalism (nationalist)


Results are only viewable after voting.

Street Juice

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
769
Points
940
Location
Baltimore
In a fascist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the nation and its citizens. It is explicitly nationalist.

In a communist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the party and the international proletariat. It is explicitly globalist.

In a capitalist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the market and the rich. It is implicitly globalist, but, through state intervention, can have nationalist characteristics imposed.

It is clear that an important political dividing line is globalist vs nationalist.
 

alpine

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
803
Points
130
oh god, this will make right wing nut jobs slip the clutch... :)
 

lg325

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Messages
1,465
Reaction score
1,044
Points
1,918
It should be communist, fascist, democracy. Capitalism is an economic system not political. Example- China has embraced capitalism but not democracy
 

Deplorable Yankee

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
9,875
Reaction score
6,405
Points
1,065
Location
DIXIE
We dont have capitalism in this country ...but i voted for nationalist capitalism
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,974
Reaction score
6,210
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
In a fascist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the nation and its citizens. It is explicitly nationalist.

In a communist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the party and the international proletariat. It is explicitly globalist.

In a capitalist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the market and the rich. It is implicitly globalist, but, through state intervention, can have nationalist characteristics imposed.

It is clear that an important political dividing line is globalist vs nationalist.
Capitalism is always the best system for all humanity.

I'm confused on what you mean by "state is supreme". Which country in this world, or in all history, was the state not supreme?

I don't see a difference between globalist or nationalist. All nations prioritize themselves over other nations. No nation has ever destroyed itself, for the benefit of the international community, and nor should it, as that would be a betrayal of the purpose of a government.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
75,434
Reaction score
16,991
Points
2,180
Globalists buy whatever they want from whomever can sell it. Pretty dog gone sweet.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
13,131
Reaction score
1,878
Points
245
Location
Virginia
In a fascist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the nation and its citizens. It is explicitly nationalist.

In a communist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the party and the international proletariat. It is explicitly globalist.

In a capitalist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the market and the rich. It is implicitly globalist, but, through state intervention, can have nationalist characteristics imposed.

It is clear that an important political dividing line is globalist vs nationalist.
Neither communism nor capitalism are political systems. If you're talking economics I think a mix of all three is the healthiest, like we have here in the US and most of the world. The exact proportions may vary but most countries have mixed economies.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,974
Reaction score
6,210
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
In a fascist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the nation and its citizens. It is explicitly nationalist.

In a communist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the party and the international proletariat. It is explicitly globalist.

In a capitalist system, the State is supreme and exists for the benefit of the market and the rich. It is implicitly globalist, but, through state intervention, can have nationalist characteristics imposed.

It is clear that an important political dividing line is globalist vs nationalist.
Neither communism nor capitalism are political systems. If you're talking economics I think a mix of all three is the healthiest, like we have here in the US and most of the world. The exact proportions may vary but most countries have mixed economies.
I would disagree with that. Show me one communist system that doesn't involve political power?

Because I can show you infinite amounts of Capitalists that don't. 1-800-GOT-JUNK was started by a high school student with a $900 pickup truck.

Further, I would claim that while it is true that ultimately all economies are mixed, I think we can see that those areas that are more socialized worked terrible, and those those that are most free-market Capitalist, work best.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,974
Reaction score
6,210
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
I would disagree with that. Show me one communist system that doesn't involve political power?
Show me one capitalist system that doesn't involve political power. Certainly not the US where corporations are people too (Citizens United).
Corporations are people. Show me a corporation with no people. Name one company that has no people at all. Good luck with that. That is what a company is... it's a group, or even one single person. You have a company of one person. But there is no company of zero people.

I already showed you an example of capitalist without political power. A student in high school, built a massive half billion dollar international company, with a $900 pickup truck, purchased using his income from his part time job.

I could list you millions of examples like that. Take a tribal people in the Congo, where they exchange mud bricks for food, in order to build bigger homes, and of course better arrows and bows to hunt with. That Capitalism.

Now if you are asking show me a capitalist society in which there is no government.... show many any society where there is no government? Even in tribes, you have a the head of the tribe that enforces the rules of their society.

Without some body of enforcing the rules, you have Somalia, with chaos, murder rape and thievery.

Even in communes, you have some body of people in the commune that enforce the rules.

But saying you need government to create Capitalism? No, capitalism is the default standard of all humanity. Go all the way back to the early times in human history, where farmers farmed the land, and exchanged goods for their produce. Capitalism was the defacto standard.

Socialism requires government to create it. Without government, socialism never exists.
 

Dogmaphobe

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
17,861
Reaction score
9,366
Points
1,295
Location
Or uh gun
I'm reminded of that old saying in computing "garbage in/garbage out"

The definitions given are incorrect, so it is really futile to discuss one's preference.
 
OP
Street Juice

Street Juice

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
769
Points
940
Location
Baltimore
I'm confused on what you mean by "state is supreme". Which country in this world, or in all history, was the state not supreme?

I don't see a difference between globalist or nationalist. All nations prioritize themselves over other nations. No nation has ever destroyed itself, for the benefit of the international community, and nor should it, as that would be a betrayal of the purpose of a government.
Which country in this world, or in all history, was the state not supreme?

State not supreme in monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, warlordism, tribalism, confederacies, commonwealths...

All nations prioritize themselves over other nations. No nation has ever destroyed itself, for the benefit of the international community, and nor should it, as that would be a betrayal of the purpose of a government.
Why did the US attack Iraq in 2003? It wasn't for the benefit of the United States. States very often act against the best interests of the members of that state.

And Bolshevik Russia explicitly destroyed itself for the sake of the Internationale, the world proletariat.

And free trade and open immigration has been great for the very rich who control the US governemtn for the most part, but very bad for the nation as a whole.
 
OP
Street Juice

Street Juice

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
769
Points
940
Location
Baltimore
I'm reminded of that old saying in computing "garbage in/garbage out"

The definitions given are incorrect, so it is really futile to discuss one's preference.
Well, I notice you didn't provide and corrections.
 
OP
Street Juice

Street Juice

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
769
Points
940
Location
Baltimore
Neither communism nor capitalism are political systems. I
Hitler campaigned as a fascist against communism. Same with Mussolini. If they weren't campaigning against communism, what were they campaigning against? And when communists seize power, they seize political power. You are correct about capitalism.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,974
Reaction score
6,210
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
I'm confused on what you mean by "state is supreme". Which country in this world, or in all history, was the state not supreme?

I don't see a difference between globalist or nationalist. All nations prioritize themselves over other nations. No nation has ever destroyed itself, for the benefit of the international community, and nor should it, as that would be a betrayal of the purpose of a government.
Which country in this world, or in all history, was the state not supreme?

State not supreme in monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, warlordism, tribalism, confederacies, commonwealths...

All nations prioritize themselves over other nations. No nation has ever destroyed itself, for the benefit of the international community, and nor should it, as that would be a betrayal of the purpose of a government.
Why did the US attack Iraq in 2003? It wasn't for the benefit of the United States. States very often act against the best interests of the members of that state.

And Bolshevik Russia explicitly destroyed itself for the sake of the Internationale, the world proletariat.

And free trade and open immigration has been great for the very rich who control the US governemtn for the most part, but very bad for the nation as a whole.
State is not supreme in all those things? In what way? Give me an example.

Why did the US attack Iraq in 2003? It wasn't for the benefit of the United States. States very often act against the best interests of the members of that state.

Actually, no we have documented the reasons for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. We believed at the time, based on the intelligence we had at that time, that Iraq was a potential geo-political threat. And honestly, some of that was verified. We know people who came back from Iraq with illnesses linked to chemical weapons. In fact, I know a man who was part of the weapons disposal unit in Iraq, that found chemical weapons in Iraq. New. In original barrels, still with lot numbers on them.

So it was very much for the benefit of the United States.

Regardless, you would have a better argument if you said Bosnia or Mogudishu.

And Bolshevik Russia explicitly destroyed itself for the sake of the Internationale, the world proletariat.

What are you smoking? They most certainly did not destroy themselves for the sake of the world proletariat.

They destroyed themselves because socialism doesn't work. Had nothing to do with being a benefit to others.

In fact, part of the reason for a never ending need to gain control over more and more people and land, was because socialism destroys itself, and you have to get more wealth to confiscate, to keep the system going.

We saw this play out the last two decades in Venezuela. Once they started confiscating property, they couldn't stop, because taking wealth was the only way to feed the socialists system. Until of course they ran out of wealth to confiscate, and then then end up with mass starvation.

Has nothing to do with 'for the good of Internationale world proletariat'. Not even close.
 
OP
Street Juice

Street Juice

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
769
Points
940
Location
Baltimore
I would disagree with that. Show me one communist system that doesn't involve political power?
Show me one capitalist system that doesn't involve political power. Certainly not the US where corporations are people too (Citizens United).
Corporations are people. Show me a corporation with no people. Name one company that has no people at all. Good luck with that. That is what a company is... it's a group, or even one single person. You have a company of one person. But there is no company of zero people.

I already showed you an example of capitalist without political power. A student in high school, built a massive half billion dollar international company, with a $900 pickup truck, purchased using his income from his part time job.

I could list you millions of examples like that. Take a tribal people in the Congo, where they exchange mud bricks for food, in order to build bigger homes, and of course better arrows and bows to hunt with. That Capitalism.

Now if you are asking show me a capitalist society in which there is no government.... show many any society where there is no government? Even in tribes, you have a the head of the tribe that enforces the rules of their society.

Without some body of enforcing the rules, you have Somalia, with chaos, murder rape and thievery.

Even in communes, you have some body of people in the commune that enforce the rules.

But saying you need government to create Capitalism? No, capitalism is the default standard of all humanity. Go all the way back to the early times in human history, where farmers farmed the land, and exchanged goods for their produce. Capitalism was the defacto standard.

Socialism requires government to create it. Without government, socialism never exists.
Corporations are people. Show me a corporation with no people. Name one company that has no people at all. Good luck with that. That is what a company is... it's a group, or even one single person. You have a company of one person. But there is no company of zero people.
That's like saying a school's administration is a person because there is no school administration of zero persons.

Corporations aren't persons, and here's why we should care.

A corporation as a corporation exists for the financial benefit of its shareholders. It exists for profit. A corporation is indifferent to whether it makes its profit selling a better mousetrap or it makes its profit grabbing you off the sidewalk and harvesting your organs. Corporations don't have ethics. Certainly the shareholders and directors and officers do, sometimes, and a corporation has to comply with applicable laws, of course, but the corporation itself has only one value: profit. This is why the Citizens United decision was such a flawed decision. A corporation can "vote for" policies that no civic-minded member would support individually, so our political system is perverted by private profit, or, to put it another way, our political system is corrupt. And we see the results all around us.
 
OP
Street Juice

Street Juice

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
769
Points
940
Location
Baltimore
that Iraq was a potential geo-political threat.
Iraq, a country with an economy the size of Deleware's, was zero threat to the United States. Our attack had nothing to do with the safety of the American people.
 
OP
Street Juice

Street Juice

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
769
Points
940
Location
Baltimore
And Bolshevik Russia explicitly destroyed itself for the sake of the Internationale, the world proletariat.
I should have written: "And Russia, under the Bolsheviks, explicitly destroyed itself for the sake of the Internationale, the world proletariat."
 
OP
Street Juice

Street Juice

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
769
Points
940
Location
Baltimore
I would disagree with that. Show me one communist system that doesn't involve political power?
Show me one capitalist system that doesn't involve political power. Certainly not the US where corporations are people too (Citizens United).
It's especially true if you count a central bank, fiat money, and usury as essential aspects of capitalism, which may be what distinguishes "capitalism" from "free market".
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top