CDZ The Economic System of the Future; My Best Guess on a Coming Synthesis of Capitalism and Socialism

[Picaro]

Regardless of how one paints it socialism is socialism, or one could call it for what it is pure unadulterated communism. Rulled by the ordained elitist class, one party, with an iron fist, for the supposed betterment of the ignorant proletariat. Sad to think people actually give this glorious concept the time of day, yet ignorance apparently has the upper hand in today’s mindset.
History will repeat itself when one fails to embrace the lessons of history.

Actually the mass ignorance comes first, self-inflicted in the modern voters' case; the middle class ceased to be able to govern in the 1960's. We can't even implement basic civics knowledge as a prerequisite for voting any more, lest some halfwit illegal alien announce it's 'offended n stuff' by having to know how to read and write the native language, or any language for that matter.

 

[Picaro]

Regardless of how one paints it socialism is socialism, or one could call it for what it is pure unadulterated communism. Rulled by the ordained elitist class, one party, with an iron fist, for the supposed betterment of the ignorant proletariat. Sad to think people actually give this glorious concept the time of day, yet ignorance apparently has the upper hand in today’s mindset.
History will repeat itself when one fails to embrace the lessons of history.

Call it socialism if you want; it's a distinction without a difference for the vast majority whether 'the state' owns everything, or 'free markets' leads to 5 or 10 companies owning everything.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Regardless of how one paints it socialism is socialism, ...

So you have ZERO ability to distinguish between Marxist Leninism and the democratic socialism I am describing?


Why then are you even here?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Call it socialism if you want; it's a distinction without a difference for the vast majority whether 'the state' owns everything, or 'free markets' leads to 5 or 10 companies owning everything.

What does that have to do with the OP?

 

[Mac1958]

Regardless of how one paints it socialism is socialism, ...

So you have ZERO ability to distinguish between Marxist Leninism and the democratic socialism I am describing?
Why then are you even here?

This is a real problem, though, Jim.

One of the primary reasons communication has broken down is that we all seem to be operating from different definitions. One example is, if it isn't pure free market capitalism (which doesn't exist), then it must be Venezuela.

The blend that you describe, then, is put into that simplistic, binary box by many, and immediately dismissed.
.

 

[impuretrash]

At this rate, the economy of the future will be based around trade of bullets, rusty bottle caps and gasoline

 

[Oddball]

Regardless of how one paints it socialism is socialism, ...

So you have ZERO ability to distinguish between Marxist Leninism and the democratic socialism I am describing?


Why then are you even here?

"Democratic socialism" is just the latest buzz phrase peddled by Marxists trying to put a "new and improved" label on the same old authoritarian crap.

Centralize that much power in the hands of The State, and you will attract to it those who seek that power as an end unto itself...Such people have been the most horrendous and murderous tyrants is all of human history.

Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

 

[Staidhup]

Regardless of how one paints it socialism is socialism, ...

So you have ZERO ability to distinguish between Marxist Leninism and the democratic socialism I am describing?


Why then are you even here?

Actually not the case, I personally lived in Europe for 10 years in the very countries that attempted to employ what you profess as the end all cure for the 21st century economic prognosis we are faced with. Your insistence that a free market “capitalist” system can coexist within a socialist governmental system is fraught with errors, and assumptions that fail to pass muster.

 

[Picaro]

Call it socialism if you want; it's a distinction without a difference for the vast majority whether 'the state' owns everything, or 'free markets' leads to 5 or 10 companies owning everything.

What does that have to do with the OP?

I was responding to a a post. I think what I said is obvious.

As for 'free markets', neither is 'Social Darwinism' going to lead to some sort of Earthly Paradise, as right wingers seem to want us all to believe. F.A. Hayek rejects that fantasy as well, but like the 'Founders', Adam Smith, and many economists fawned over by them, the right wing people get very selective in what they cite from them as well. Much of what Marxism ends up shaping itself into in real life is no different in how many end up under a Darwinistic dystopia of corporate rule, i.e. they are distinctions without a differences as far as what most people will be subjected to.

You think it's mere 'coincidence' Wall Street and corporate America gets along so well with Communist Red China and its policies? First one who claims 'the Red Chinese aren't Communist any more and are 'free traders' gets laughed out of the room.

 

[Picaro]

As for what most native Euros live under, it's is not much different than the kind of systems they lived under as tribal nations; you're not going to develop into little free market states in regions that have had more or less constant warfare for millennia, you're going to have manufacturers and trade subsidized and directed toward specific outcomes., as a matter of everyday survival; nobody is going to give a crap about your personal desire to get rich in a week or whatever, just because you found some theorist who makes your personal self-interest sound all 'sciencey n stuff'.and something 'everybody else' in the tribe should sacrifice just to appease you

 

[Tehon]

Regardless of how one paints it socialism is socialism, or one could call it for what it is pure unadulterated communism. Rulled by the ordained elitist class, one party, with an iron fist, for the supposed betterment of the ignorant proletariat. Sad to think people actually give this glorious concept the time of day, yet ignorance apparently has the upper hand in today’s mindset.
History will repeat itself when one fails to embrace the lessons of history.

You are already ruled by an elitist class.
Figure out what gives that class its power and destroy it, or submit yourself to it.
Ignorance is rampant in this country, and not coincidentally.

 

[Staidhup]

The fundamental difference is the freedom to choose, ability to vote, exercise freedom of speech. One system empowers it’s citizens the right to strive, dream, obtain their true potential through hard work and dedication and improve their standard of living, while the other controls all means of production, punishes those that succeed through confiscatory taxation, and restricts the right of freedom of speech.......I think you get the picture.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The fundamental difference is the freedom to choose, ability to vote, exercise freedom of speech. One system empowers it’s citizens the right to strive, dream, obtain their true potential through hard work and dedication and improve their standard of living, while the other controls all means of production, punishes those that succeed through confiscatory taxation, and restricts the right of freedom of speech.......I think you get the picture.

But you can have varying degrees of choice, and the more choices you have the more choices bad people get as well, like aluminum siding salesmen, Annuities reps and slave trading raiding parties.

lol, we have to trade off some of our privileges in order to secure standardization, reliability and oversight.

Imagine what our stock markets would be without government oversight.

OK, let me try again, imagine what it would be like to not have the pretense of government oversight of our markets via the SEC.

 

[Picaro]

The fundamental difference is the freedom to choose, ability to vote, exercise freedom of speech. One system empowers it’s citizens the right to strive, dream, obtain their true potential through hard work and dedication and improve their standard of living, while the other controls all means of production, punishes those that succeed through confiscatory taxation, and restricts the right of freedom of speech.......I think you get the picture.

But you can have varying degrees of choice, and the more choices you have the more choices bad people get as well, like aluminum siding salesmen, Annuities reps and slave trading raiding parties.

lol, we have to trade off some of our privileges in order to secure standardization, reliability and oversight.

Imagine what our stock markets would be without government oversight.

OK, let me try again, imagine what it would be like to not have the pretense of government oversight of our markets via the SEC.

Maybe a reading of Henry George's writings will clear up much of this. No 'system' is going to correct human nature; there is no 'science' of any kind that will do anything other than what we already have. 'Science' depends on a moral philosophy to function well, and we don't even have that reliably; some 35% of scientific papers published are false and/or use faked data these days, and over 50% of 'academics' suffer from mental illness. If you can't do it among professional scientists as a group, you for sure aren't going to do so among bureaucrats and politicians. You need reform and genuine change at a much more fundamental level if we're going to survive. It's a matter of which Master your culture chooses to serve, not whether there is a Master or not; there is going to be one no matter what you may wish for personally. Even some of the brighter sociopaths realize this truth; Joseph Kennedy said he would gladly give away 90% of his wealth in order to keep the other 10% under some kind of law and order, and he was no idiot when it came to business or politics, and neither was FDR

 

[JimBowie1958]

Maybe a reading of Henry George's writings will clear up much of this. No 'system' is going to correct human nature; there is no 'science' of any kind that will do anything other than what we already have. 'Science' depends on a moral philosophy to function well, and we don't even have that reliably; some 35% of scientific papers published are false and/or use faked data these days, and over 50% of 'academics' suffer from mental illness. If you can't do it among professional scientists as a group, you for sure aren't going to do so among bureaucrats and politicians. You need reform and genuine change at a much more fundamental level if we're going to survive. It's a matter of which Master your culture chooses to serve, not whether there is a Master or not; there is going to be one no matter what you may wish for personally. Even some of the brighter sociopaths realize this truth; Joseph Kennedy said he would gladly give away 90% of his wealth in order to keep the other 10% under some kind of law and order, and he was no idiot when it came to business or politics, and neither was FDR

Take the SEC for example, a bunch of masturbating nit-wits who really dont give a crap about the public and who are easily manipulated by the Market Makers like Goldman Sachs.

We have HFT algorithms dominating the electronic markets like its nobodies business. These programs will enter and cancel thousands of trades in a second to simply misguide other trading applications. GS admitted to all this in court when they sued a young software engineer for selling an application that used a lot of the cheating techniques that he had helped to design.

The point I am trying to make is that without the SEC the cheating and conniving would be much worse. At least for the moment they have to maintain a facade of legality and even handednes even as they try to look away from malfeance right under their noses.

 

[Tehon]

The fundamental difference is the freedom to choose, ability to vote, exercise freedom of speech. One system empowers it’s citizens the right to strive, dream, obtain their true potential through hard work and dedication and improve their standard of living, while the other controls all means of production, punishes those that succeed through confiscatory taxation, and restricts the right of freedom of speech.......I think you get the picture.

But you can have varying degrees of choice, and the more choices you have the more choices bad people get as well, like aluminum siding salesmen, Annuities reps and slave trading raiding parties.

lol, we have to trade off some of our privileges in order to secure standardization, reliability and oversight.

Imagine what our stock markets would be without government oversight.

OK, let me try again, imagine what it would be like to not have the pretense of government oversight of our markets via the SEC.

Maybe a reading of Henry George's writings will clear up much of this. No 'system' is going to correct human nature; there is no 'science' of any kind that will do anything other than what we already have. 'Science' depends on a moral philosophy to function well, and we don't even have that reliably; some 35% of scientific papers published are false and/or use faked data these days, and over 50% of 'academics' suffer from mental illness. If you can't do it among professional scientists as a group, you for sure aren't going to do so among bureaucrats and politicians. You need reform and genuine change at a much more fundamental level if we're going to survive. It's a matter of which Master your culture chooses to serve, not whether there is a Master or not; there is going to be one no matter what you may wish for personally. Even some of the brighter sociopaths realize this truth; Joseph Kennedy said he would gladly give away 90% of his wealth in order to keep the other 10% under some kind of law and order, and he was no idiot when it came to business or politics, and neither was FDR

You need reform and genuine change at a much more fundamental level if we're going to survive.

Truth!

It's a matter of which Master your culture chooses to serve, not whether there is a Master or not; there is going to be one no matter what you may wish for personally.

Man only has one master, nature. Any other master is only a product of our efforts to conquer nature. Reorganize the way we produce what we need for the reproduction of life and we will fundamentally transform society.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Man only has one master, nature. Any other master is only a product of our efforts to conquer nature. Reorganize the way we produce what we need for the reproduction of life and we will fundamentally transform society.

My Master is Jesus Christ, the Author of Nature.

What say you?

 

[Tehon]

Man only has one master, nature. Any other master is only a product of our efforts to conquer nature. Reorganize the way we produce what we need for the reproduction of life and we will fundamentally transform society.

My Master is Jesus Christ, the Author of Nature.

What say you?

I don't believe that.
But since you do, did Jesus Christ authorize you to take any part of his creation as your own? To profit off of it? To exclude others from partaking in it?

 

[Picaro]

Man only has one master, nature. Any other master is only a product of our efforts to conquer nature. Reorganize the way we produce what we need for the reproduction of life and we will fundamentally transform society.

My Master is Jesus Christ, the Author of Nature.

What say you?

Some real history for the Peanut Gallery:


“….how did the dominance of Christianity affect the knowledge of, and attitudes towards nature? The standard answer, developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and widely propagated in the twentieth, maintains that Christianity presented serious obstacles to the advancement of science and, indeed, sent the scientific enterprise into a tailspin from which it did not recover for more than a thousand years. The truth, as we shall see, is far different and much more complicated.

One charge frequently leveled against the Church is that it was broadly anti-intellectual – that the leaders of the church preferred faith to reason and ignorance to education. In fact, this is a considerable distortion…Christians quickly recognized that if the Bible was to be read, literacy would have to be encouraged; and in the long run Christianity became the major patron of European education and a major borrower from the Classical intellectual tradition. Naturally enough, the kind and level of education and intellectual effort favored by the Church Fathers that which supported the mission of the Church as they perceived it….whether this represents a blow against the scientific enterprise or modest, but welcome, support for it depends largely on the attitudes and expectations that one brings to the question. If we compare the early church with a modern research university or the National Science Foundation, the church will prove to have failed abysmally as a supporter of science and natural philosophy. But such a comparison is obviously unfair. If, instead, we compare the support given to the study of nature by the early church with support available from any other contemporary social institution, it will become clear that the church was one of the major patrons – perhaps the major patron – of scientific learning. Its patronage may have been limited and selective, but limited and selected patronage is better than no patronage at all. But a critic to view the early church as an obstacle to scientific progress might argue that the handmaiden status accorded natural philosophy is inconsistent with the existence of genuine science. True science, this critic would maintain, cannot be the handmaiden of anything, but must process total autonomy; consequently, the “disciplined” science that Augustine sought is no science at all. The appropriate response is that totally autonomous science is an attractive ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world. Many of the most important developments in the history of science have been produced by people committed not to autonomous science, but to science in the service of some ideology, social program, or practical end; for much of its history, the question has not been whether science will function as handmaiden, but which mistress it will serve.”

--David C. Lindberg The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 BC to AD 1450 pg.149-51

Anyone who believes 'constructivist rationalism' will solve social problems is deranged, and has no real idea of the limits of rationalism. No one is going to be better off under such delusional beliefs in 'Logic'. What they follow now is circular reasoning and mindless self-indulgence.

"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained

Stirling S. Newberry

What we should be doing is what the Founder of the Democratic Party would be recommending right now, re his own Party's base these days:

Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.

Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816

It's more than 'okay' to get rid of vermin like pedophiles and traitors. Really, it is.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Man only has one master, nature. Any other master is only a product of our efforts to conquer nature. Reorganize the way we produce what we need for the reproduction of life and we will fundamentally transform society.

My Master is Jesus Christ, the Author of Nature.

What say you?

I don't believe that.

So how do we get this idea of 'laws of Nature' if there is no Law Giver?

But since you do, did Jesus Christ authorize you to take any part of his creation as your own? To profit off of it? To exclude others from partaking in it?

Oh, yes He has, through the duly divinely approved civil authorities and the laws of the land that He has allowed to come into power.

Now He has proscribed some activities that are legal, like divorce, prostitution, bringing lawsuits on fellow Christians, etc, but enjoying the gifts of property are not so proscribed.

I simply do not find my purpose and joy in them like I do my family, my faith and what virtues I may attain.