What if capitalist defeated commies? What would be outcomes for entire world? AND what if commies defeated capitalism? What would be outcome ?

[bripat9643]

Not at all.
Since capitalism is only the PROFIT motivation, transactions do NOT at all have to be voluntary. When a robber holds up a bank, that obviously is pure capitalism.

Wrong. Otherwise Genghis Khan is capitalism. Armed robbery is how socialism operates.

Socialism is the oppositive of force, because socialism is where an individual does not do something on their own, for profit, and instead get input and shared resources into the project, with the expectation of shared results.

Hardly. Socialism can exist without the use of force.

Anyone who things socialism is at all involuntary, does not at all have even the vaguest clue.

When has it ever been voluntary?

 

[struth]

Not at all.
Since capitalism is only the PROFIT motivation, transactions do NOT at all have to be voluntary.
When a robber holds up a bank, that obviously is pure capitalism.

Socialism is the oppositive of force, because socialism is where an individual does not do something on their own, for profit, and instead get input and shared resources into the project, with the expectation of shared results.

Anyone who things socialism is at all involuntary, does not at all have even the vaguest clue.

hahaba

robbing a bank is a crime.

capitalism is where private individuals own their own means of production

socialism is when the state does…people don’t do things for profit, because they don’t own anything…they are slaves to the state. socialism is slavery…capitalism is freedom

where are you getting indoctrinated with this stuff?? one of castros re-education camps that bernie praised?

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong.
A dictator controls the means of force, like police, so then is a private owner.

Private owners don't control the monopoly on force. Government does. That's what defines government.

Dictators can never be socialist, at all, in any way.

No one believes that horseshit. You have simply redefined socialims to mean "no dictators." Of course, there has never been such a brand of socialism.

What is a dictator motivated by?
If it is personal profit, then that is capitalism.

Could you restate that in English?

 

[dblack]

Here is the dictionary defintion of capitalism.
{...
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state:
...}
When a dictator then uses force, in order to demand personal unearned profits, that is capitalism.

That doesn't follow from the definition. A dictator is not a private owner.

In fact, when a bankrobber holds up a bank, that is capitalism.

Neither does that. You're really not making any sense here.

 

[dblack]

No it wasn't, moron.


He gets investors. That's how Elon Musk did it. You are totally ignorant about the economic history of this country. The bottom line is that government didn't get involved in stuff like that until WW II



So you admit that the Wright brothers got no funding before they had produced a product. After that they had willing buyers.

What did government do to develope the telephone or the light bulb?

You just don't understand the primacy of government. All good things originate, and only originate, from the state. Without government to guide our every move, we'd wallow in our own feces and starve to death.

Duh.

 

[vetea]

Boom, Nailed It!

This is why I highly favor socialism! (Nyah, Nyah, happy non-gay erotic sounds!)

i guess we already had the winner ( CowboyTed ) . who was made silenced by these all ignorant morons. who thinks that they can benefit the world by there personal motives.

 

[Rigby5]

No it wasn't, moron.


He gets investors. That's how Elon Musk did it. You are totally ignorant about the economic history of this country. The bottom line is that government didn't get involved in stuff like that until WW II



So you admit that the Wright brothers got no funding before they had produced a product. After that they had willing buyers.

What did government do to develop the telephone or the light bulb?

Elon Musk is only an investor, and has invented nothing.
The Wright Brothers had no product.
A plane capable of a hundred feet of tenuous flight is not capable of being sold as a product.
It was the Navy that funded it into a product.
Government has always funded the main advancements of technology.
For example, firearms, mass production, and the assembly line were funded by the government, when Eli Whitney produced muskets for the government.

{...
The motives behind Whitney's acceptance of a contract to manufacture muskets in 1798 were mostly monetary. By the late 1790s, Whitney was on the verge of bankruptcy and the cotton gin litigation had left him deeply in debt. His New Haven cotton gin factory had burned to the ground, and litigation sapped his remaining resources. The French Revolution had ignited new conflicts between Great Britain, France, and the United States. The new American government, realizing the need to prepare for war, began to rearm. The War Department issued contracts for the manufacture of 10,000 muskets. Whitney, who had never made a gun in his life, obtained a contract in January 1798 to deliver 10,000 to 15,000 muskets in 1800. He had not mentioned interchangeable parts at that time. Ten months later, the Treasury Secretary, Oliver Wolcott, Jr., sent him a "foreign pamphlet on arms manufacturing techniques," possibly one of Honoré Blanc's reports, after which Whitney first began to talk about interchangeability.

Whitney's gun factory in 1827
In May 1798, Congress voted for legislation that would use eight hundred thousand dollars in order to pay for small arms and cannons in case war with France erupted. It offered a 5,000 dollar incentive with an additional 5,000 dollars once that money was exhausted for the person that was able to accurately produce arms for the government. Because the cotton gin had not brought Whitney the rewards he believed it promised, he accepted the offer. Although the contract was for one year, Whitney did not deliver the arms until 1809, using multiple excuses for the delay. Recently, historians have found that during 1801–1806, Whitney took the money and headed into South Carolina in order to profit from the cotton gin.[16]

Although Whitney's demonstration of 1801 appeared to show the feasibility of creating interchangeable parts, Merritt Roe Smith concludes that it was "staged" and "duped government authorities" into believing that he had been successful. The charade gained him time and resources toward achieving that goal.[16]

When the government complained that Whitney's price per musket compared unfavorably with those produced in government armories, he was able to calculate an actual price per musket by including fixed costs such as insurance and machinery, which the government had not accounted for. He thus made early contributions to both the concepts of cost accounting, and economic efficiency in manufacturing.
...}

Eli Whitney - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Edison could not have ever sold a single light bulb if not for the government producing generators and stringing up the wiring for them.

 

[vetea]

Elon Musk is only an investor, and has invented nothing.
The Wright Brothers had no product.
A plane capable of a hundred feet of tenuous flight is not capable of being sold as a product.
It was the Navy that funded it into a product.
Government has always funded the main advancements of technology.
For example, firearms, mass production, and the assembly line were funded by the government, when Eli Whitney produced muskets for the government.

{...
The motives behind Whitney's acceptance of a contract to manufacture muskets in 1798 were mostly monetary. By the late 1790s, Whitney was on the verge of bankruptcy and the cotton gin litigation had left him deeply in debt. His New Haven cotton gin factory had burned to the ground, and litigation sapped his remaining resources. The French Revolution had ignited new conflicts between Great Britain, France, and the United States. The new American government, realizing the need to prepare for war, began to rearm. The War Department issued contracts for the manufacture of 10,000 muskets. Whitney, who had never made a gun in his life, obtained a contract in January 1798 to deliver 10,000 to 15,000 muskets in 1800. He had not mentioned interchangeable parts at that time. Ten months later, the Treasury Secretary, Oliver Wolcott, Jr., sent him a "foreign pamphlet on arms manufacturing techniques," possibly one of Honoré Blanc's reports, after which Whitney first began to talk about interchangeability.

Whitney's gun factory in 1827
In May 1798, Congress voted for legislation that would use eight hundred thousand dollars in order to pay for small arms and cannons in case war with France erupted. It offered a 5,000 dollar incentive with an additional 5,000 dollars once that money was exhausted for the person that was able to accurately produce arms for the government. Because the cotton gin had not brought Whitney the rewards he believed it promised, he accepted the offer. Although the contract was for one year, Whitney did not deliver the arms until 1809, using multiple excuses for the delay. Recently, historians have found that during 1801–1806, Whitney took the money and headed into South Carolina in order to profit from the cotton gin.[16]

Although Whitney's demonstration of 1801 appeared to show the feasibility of creating interchangeable parts, Merritt Roe Smith concludes that it was "staged" and "duped government authorities" into believing that he had been successful. The charade gained him time and resources toward achieving that goal.[16]

When the government complained that Whitney's price per musket compared unfavorably with those produced in government armories, he was able to calculate an actual price per musket by including fixed costs such as insurance and machinery, which the government had not accounted for. He thus made early contributions to both the concepts of cost accounting, and economic efficiency in manufacturing.
...}

Eli Whitney - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Edison could not have ever sold a single light bulb if not for the government producing generators and stringing up the wiring for them.

GET OUT with your shit from here. i dont want any rubbish anymore. since you cats and dogs cant touch even an simply thing that what would happen if capitalists or commies came to full power ?

and so far reality goes now. so there is no more possiblity of you declining varna sankars to continue anymore. so those poor commies are going to come into power.

so **** out of here you all cats and dogs. HUT! for im sure that nothing informative or knowlegable or say rational is going to come out from you all idiots.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong. Otherwise Genghis Khan is capitalism. Armed robbery is how socialism operates.


Hardly. Socialism can exist without the use of force.


When has it ever been voluntary?

Genghis Khan most definitely was a capitalist.
Armed robber is not only capitalism, but the oldest and more common form of capitalism.

Socialism is where a bunch of people agree to do something together, collectively, so than can not be criminal.
Socialism is always voluntary because it is the most beneficial and essential.
Socialism is an extension of the family unit, into tribal or larger groupings.
Socialism sets the social rules for how you deal with strangers.
With the capitalist profit motive, you would see strangers as someone to steal from.
With socialism you have a deeper empathy, so can accommodate strangers peacefully.
There is not a single primitive tribe that is not inherently socialist.
Societies can have varying degrees of socialism and capitalism, but the more socialist the better.
Like the post office, fire fighting, defense, utilities, education, museums, harbors, transportation, etc.

 

[vetea]

Genghis Khan most definitely was a capitalist.
Armed robber is not only capitalism, but the oldest and more common form of capitalism.

Socialism is where a bunch of people agree to do something together, collectively, so than can not be criminal.
Socialism is always voluntary because it is the most beneficial and essential.
Socialism is an extension of the family unit, into tribal or larger groupings.
Socialism sets the social rules for how you deal with strangers.
With the capitalist profit motive, you would see strangers as someone to steal from.
With socialism you have a deeper empathy, so can accommodate strangers peacefully.
There is not a single primitive tribe that is not inherently socialist.
Societies can have varying degrees of socialism and capitalism, but the more socialist the better.
Like the post office, fire fighting, defense, utilities, education, museums, harbors, transportation, etc.

and how the **** you can talk about socialism ? huh? when you are intermingling like anything in west ? and no one remains as husband, wife, son, daughter, or anything ? huh?

daughters and sons both flies away because parents do not take care of them. so what the ******* socialism you will talk about ? huh? socialism ? but do you have any cast? creed? sect or anything ? huh? do you have anything like that ?
___________________________
and at the whole GET OUT FROM HERE. GET OUT!

 

[Rigby5]

hahaba

robbing a bank is a crime.

capitalism is where private individuals own their own means of production

socialism is when the state does…people don’t do things for profit, because they don’t own anything…they are slaves to the state. socialism is slavery…capitalism is freedom

where are you getting indoctrinated with this stuff?? one of castros re-education camps that bernie praised?

Wrong.
Since 1830 or so, no individual could afford their own means of production unless they were privileged aristocracy who harmed others.
There is no such thing as "the state" in a democratic republic.
And socialism does not at all preclude private enterprise in any way.

 

[vetea]

just like other things, this thread is also hijacked it seems. alright. carry on whatever off-topic rubbish one likes to one can post here.

its now new off-topic banter here. so carry on.