Global Capitalism

[Iwannaplato]

One step would be to go back to the founders conceptions of corporate charters. That they were a privilege that could be revoked if the corporation went again public interest, committed crimes, etc. A return to this idea, which should be considered conservative, would put corporations on notice that their behavior can lead to the end of the company. The founders were also clear that they did not want corporations to have the power to influence legislators and legislation. Well, those days have passed.

Another step would be to eliminate non-productive financial instruments. IOW eliminate channels of creating wealth where one does not contribute to production. All the ways of making money through derivatives, for example. IOW a wealthy person can pay someone to do the minimal labor of making investments that do not enhance the product of a single product. No labor, not even aiding a company in the production of its products, just sucking money out of the system with no creation.

Neither of those steps eliminates free markets. In fact it would likely make them freer.

[Gary Childress]

One step would be to go back to the founders conceptions of corporate charters. That they were a privilege that could be revoked if the corporation went again public interest, committed crimes, etc. A return to this idea, which should be considered conservative, would put corporations on notice that their behavior can lead to the end of the company. The founders were also clear that they did not want corporations to have the power to influence legislators and legislation. Well, those days have passed.

Another step would be to eliminate non-productive financial instruments. IOW eliminate channels of creating wealth where one does not contribute to production. All the ways of making money through derivatives, for example. IOW a wealthy person can pay someone to do the minimal labor of making investments that do not enhance the product of a single product. No labor, not even aiding a company in the production of its products, just sucking money out of the system with no creation.

Neither of those steps eliminates free markets. In fact it would likely make them freer.

Corporations definitely need to be reined in. They're out of control.

[phyllo]

Remember that you only have two options ... capitalism or gulags, mass murder, the end of all freedoms.

Choose wisely!

[Iwannaplato]

Remember that you only have two options ... capitalism or gulags, mass murder, the end of all freedoms.

Choose wisely!

I've often asked: which capitalism? You know, getting the ground rules out there clear.

[Immanuel Can]

Remember that you only have two options ... capitalism or gulags, mass murder, the end of all freedoms.

Choose wisely!

"Capital" is just money. It's not an "-ism." Nobody worships it. It has no creed, ideology, manifesto or clubs. What you mean is free markets, I think.

As for "only two options," why? Why only two? Why is Socialism (i.e. economic collapse, gulags, murder and the end of freedoms) the only other alternative? Why not have a third? There have been many different political arrangments in human history, and probably some we have not yet invented or tried? So why make it just two?

[Iwannaplato]

Remember that you only have two options ... capitalism or gulags, mass murder, the end of all freedoms.

Choose wisely!

"Capital" is just money. It's not an "-ism." Nobody worships it. It has no creed, ideology, manifesto or clubs. What you mean is free markets, I think.

As for "only two options," why? Why only two? Why is Socialism (i.e. economic collapse, gulags, murder and the end of freedoms) the only other alternative? Why not have a third? There have been many different political arrangments in human history, and probably some we have not yet invented or tried? So why make it just two?

That was precisely his point. Often if you criticize something in what gets called capitalism you face slippery slope arguments or get labelled a commie, as if nothing in current capitalism could be problematic or the removal of which could only lead to gulags.

[Immanuel Can]

Remember that you only have two options ... capitalism or gulags, mass murder, the end of all freedoms.

Choose wisely!

"Capital" is just money. It's not an "-ism." Nobody worships it. It has no creed, ideology, manifesto or clubs. What you mean is free markets, I think.

As for "only two options," why? Why only two? Why is Socialism (i.e. economic collapse, gulags, murder and the end of freedoms) the only other alternative? Why not have a third? There have been many different political arrangments in human history, and probably some we have not yet invented or tried? So why make it just two?

That was precisely his point. Often if you criticize something in what gets called capitalism you face slippery slope arguments or get labelled a commie, as if nothing in current capitalism could be problematic or the removal of which could only lead to gulags.

Yes, that's true. You can criticize free markets without ending up in a gulag. Would that Socialism were the same.

But what's more common is that the Socialists insist that their way doesn't HAVE to lead to economic collapse, murder, gulags and the end of freedoms, whereas in reality, that's exactly what's happened, in 100% of the cases. The implication of their claim is that if THEY, the Western Woke, were the ones implementing Socialism, then -- unlike in the case of all those 'stupid' Russians, the millions of 'dumb' Chinese, the 'foolish' Cambodians and Koreans, the 'rash and uneducated' Venzuelans and Cubans, or the 'doltish' Albanians, Romanians, and Hungarians or the 'mentally thick' Zimbabweans and Congolese, the milliions and millions who have tried Socialism before -- Socialism would work. All that is lacking, they want you to think, is their own personal wisdom, virtue and insight, and Socialism will produce flowers and rainbows.

Yeah, right.

[Gary Childress]

"Capital" is just money. It's not an "-ism." Nobody worships it. It has no creed, ideology, manifesto or clubs. What you mean is free markets, I think.

As for "only two options," why? Why only two? Why is Socialism (i.e. economic collapse, gulags, murder and the end of freedoms) the only other alternative? Why not have a third? There have been many different political arrangments in human history, and probably some we have not yet invented or tried? So why make it just two?

That was precisely his point. Often if you criticize something in what gets called capitalism you face slippery slope arguments or get labelled a commie, as if nothing in current capitalism could be problematic or the removal of which could only lead to gulags.

Yes, that's true. You can criticize free markets without ending up in a gulag. Would that Socialism were the same.

But what's more common is that the Socialists insist that their way doesn't HAVE to lead to economic collapse, murder, gulags and the end of freedoms, whereas in reality, that's exactly what's happened, in 100% of the cases. The implication of their claim is that if THEY, the Western Woke, were the ones implementing Socialism, then -- unlike in the case of all those 'stupid' Russians, the millions of 'dumb' Chinese, the 'foolish' Cambodians and Koreans, the 'rash and uneducated' Venzuelans and Cubans, or the 'doltish' Albanians, Romanians, and Hungarians or the 'mentally thick' Zimbabweans and Congolese, the milliions and millions who have tried Socialism before -- Socialism would work. All that is lacking, they want you to think, is their own personal wisdom, virtue and insight, and Socialism will produce flowers and rainbows.

Yeah, right.

If there is no such thing as "capitalism" then is there such a thing as "socialism"? Or is "socialism" simply public administration of economic institutions as opposed to administration by private investors and wealthy moguls?

[Immanuel Can]

That was precisely his point. Often if you criticize something in what gets called capitalism you face slippery slope arguments or get labelled a commie, as if nothing in current capitalism could be problematic or the removal of which could only lead to gulags.

Yes, that's true. You can criticize free markets without ending up in a gulag. Would that Socialism were the same.

But what's more common is that the Socialists insist that their way doesn't HAVE to lead to economic collapse, murder, gulags and the end of freedoms, whereas in reality, that's exactly what's happened, in 100% of the cases. The implication of their claim is that if THEY, the Western Woke, were the ones implementing Socialism, then -- unlike in the case of all those 'stupid' Russians, the millions of 'dumb' Chinese, the 'foolish' Cambodians and Koreans, the 'rash and uneducated' Venzuelans and Cubans, or the 'doltish' Albanians, Romanians, and Hungarians or the 'mentally thick' Zimbabweans and Congolese, the milliions and millions who have tried Socialism before -- Socialism would work. All that is lacking, they want you to think, is their own personal wisdom, virtue and insight, and Socialism will produce flowers and rainbows.

Yeah, right.

If there is no such thing as "capitalism" then is there such a thing as "socialism"?

That's easy. Before there was Socialism, there were societies, and social groups, and social habits. But they are not SocialISM. They occur everywhere, and aren't specific to any political project. Likewise, before CapitalISM, there was capital, and free markets, and private property -- but nowhere, even to this day, do these so-called "capitalist" things collect into an ideology or social system.

As etymology shows, the concept "Capitalism," as an ideology, is a pure invention of Socialist propaganda, not a real thing. As I pointed out, guys like Marx needed a bogeyman to be their foil, their evil twin, to excuse their own ideological twistedness. So they invented an alternate ideology "CapitalISM," to parallel SocialISM.

So it's pure hogwash. Even today, you'll find this bogeyman, "CapitalISM" has no theory, no groups, no manifesto, no political project or orientation, and not even a particular set of economics. Rather, it gets thrown around loosely, and applied to everything from radical LIbertarianism to Classical Liberalism of the Lockean kind. It has no substance, no particular definition, no adherents, and no particular direction. Maybe all it has is some measure of freedom in markets, plus a recognition of the right to property.

It also hasn't killed 120 million in the last century, like Socialism has.

[Gary Childress]

Yes, that's true. You can criticize free markets without ending up in a gulag. Would that Socialism were the same.

But what's more common is that the Socialists insist that their way doesn't HAVE to lead to economic collapse, murder, gulags and the end of freedoms, whereas in reality, that's exactly what's happened, in 100% of the cases. The implication of their claim is that if THEY, the Western Woke, were the ones implementing Socialism, then -- unlike in the case of all those 'stupid' Russians, the millions of 'dumb' Chinese, the 'foolish' Cambodians and Koreans, the 'rash and uneducated' Venzuelans and Cubans, or the 'doltish' Albanians, Romanians, and Hungarians or the 'mentally thick' Zimbabweans and Congolese, the milliions and millions who have tried Socialism before -- Socialism would work. All that is lacking, they want you to think, is their own personal wisdom, virtue and insight, and Socialism will produce flowers and rainbows.

Yeah, right.

If there is no such thing as "capitalism" then is there such a thing as "socialism"?

That's easy. Before there was Socialism, there were societies, and social groups, and social habits. But they are not SocialISM. They occur everywhere, and aren't specific to any political project. Likewise, before CapitalISM, there was capital, and free markets, and private property -- but nowhere, even to this day, do these so-called "capitalist" things collect into an ideology or social system.

As etymology shows, the concept "Capitalism," as an ideology, is a pure invention of Socialist propaganda, not a real thing. As I pointed out, guys like Marx needed a bogeyman to be their foil, their evil twin, to excuse their own ideological twistedness. So they invented an alternate ideology "CapitalISM," to parallel SocialISM.

So it's pure hogwash. Even today, you'll find this bogeyman, "CapitalISM" has no theory, no groups, no manifesto, no political project or orientation, and not even a particular set of economics. Rather, it gets thrown around loosely, and applied to everything from radical LIbertarianism to Classical Liberalism of the Lockean kind. It has no substance, no particular definition, no adherents, and no particular direction. Maybe all it has is some measure of freedom in markets, plus a recognition of the right to property.

It also hasn't killed 120 million in the last century, like Socialism has.

So today is the US a "capitalist" country or is it not? Can you answer that question for me?

[Immanuel Can]

If there is no such thing as "capitalism" then is there such a thing as "socialism"?

That's easy. Before there was Socialism, there were societies, and social groups, and social habits. But they are not SocialISM. They occur everywhere, and aren't specific to any political project. Likewise, before CapitalISM, there was capital, and free markets, and private property -- but nowhere, even to this day, do these so-called "capitalist" things collect into an ideology or social system.

As etymology shows, the concept "Capitalism," as an ideology, is a pure invention of Socialist propaganda, not a real thing. As I pointed out, guys like Marx needed a bogeyman to be their foil, their evil twin, to excuse their own ideological twistedness. So they invented an alternate ideology "CapitalISM," to parallel SocialISM.

So it's pure hogwash. Even today, you'll find this bogeyman, "CapitalISM" has no theory, no groups, no manifesto, no political project or orientation, and not even a particular set of economics. Rather, it gets thrown around loosely, and applied to everything from radical LIbertarianism to Classical Liberalism of the Lockean kind. It has no substance, no particular definition, no adherents, and no particular direction. Maybe all it has is some measure of freedom in markets, plus a recognition of the right to property.

It also hasn't killed 120 million in the last century, like Socialism has.

So today is the US a "capitalist" country or is it not? Can you answer that question for me?

There's no such thing as "Capitalism." There never has been, and probably never will be. So it's not an askable question.

Politically and economically, the USA is a democratic republic, as I understand it. It has a mixed system of state controls and free enterprise. What would you call that?

[Gary Childress]

That's easy. Before there was Socialism, there were societies, and social groups, and social habits. But they are not SocialISM. They occur everywhere, and aren't specific to any political project. Likewise, before CapitalISM, there was capital, and free markets, and private property -- but nowhere, even to this day, do these so-called "capitalist" things collect into an ideology or social system.

As etymology shows, the concept "Capitalism," as an ideology, is a pure invention of Socialist propaganda, not a real thing. As I pointed out, guys like Marx needed a bogeyman to be their foil, their evil twin, to excuse their own ideological twistedness. So they invented an alternate ideology "CapitalISM," to parallel SocialISM.

So it's pure hogwash. Even today, you'll find this bogeyman, "CapitalISM" has no theory, no groups, no manifesto, no political project or orientation, and not even a particular set of economics. Rather, it gets thrown around loosely, and applied to everything from radical LIbertarianism to Classical Liberalism of the Lockean kind. It has no substance, no particular definition, no adherents, and no particular direction. Maybe all it has is some measure of freedom in markets, plus a recognition of the right to property.

It also hasn't killed 120 million in the last century, like Socialism has.

So today is the US a "capitalist" country or is it not? Can you answer that question for me?

There's no such thing as "Capitalism." There never has been, and probably never will be. So it's not an askable question.

Politically and economically, the USA is a democratic republic, as I understand it. It has a mixed system of state controls and free enterprise. What would you call that?

I would call it a country that identifies itself as a capitalist, democratic republic and has a mixed system of state controls and free enterprise. Am I incorrect?

Is "democratic republic" a "economic" description?

[Immanuel Can]

So today is the US a "capitalist" country or is it not? Can you answer that question for me?

There's no such thing as "Capitalism." There never has been, and probably never will be. So it's not an askable question.

Politically and economically, the USA is a democratic republic, as I understand it. It has a mixed system of state controls and free enterprise. What would you call that?

I would call it a country that identifies itself as a capitalist, democratic republic and has a mixed system of state controls and free enterprise. Am I incorrect?

Well, you're mostly right, but you included a nonsense word: "capitalist." It doesn't refer to anything. It's just a Leftist dog whistle.

[Gary Childress]

There's no such thing as "Capitalism." There never has been, and probably never will be. So it's not an askable question.

Politically and economically, the USA is a democratic republic, as I understand it. It has a mixed system of state controls and free enterprise. What would you call that?

I would call it a country that identifies itself as a capitalist, democratic republic and has a mixed system of state controls and free enterprise. Am I incorrect?

Well, you're mostly right, but you included a nonsense word: "capitalist." It doesn't refer to anything. It's just a Leftist dog whistle.

OK. So we want to avoid "socialism", is that correct?

If I want to avoid "socialism" then what are the signs that someone is a "socialist" or not a "socialist"?

[Immanuel Can]

I would call it a country that identifies itself as a capitalist, democratic republic and has a mixed system of state controls and free enterprise. Am I incorrect?

Well, you're mostly right, but you included a nonsense word: "capitalist." It doesn't refer to anything. It's just a Leftist dog whistle.

OK. So we want to avoid "socialism", is that correct?

What part of totalitarianism, economic collapse, loss of freedoms and casual murder seems to be something not to avoid?

If I want to avoid "socialism" then what are the signs that someone is a "socialist" or not a "socialist"?

You don't know? Then why would you want to be a thing you don't even understand? That doesn't even make sense.

Let me ask you this, Gary: how do you think America going Socialist is going to work out for you? It it your thought that, contrary to every historical precedent, it will work in America? It won't be anything like Maoism, Stalinism, or North Korea? Instead, it will be a merciful government that showers freebies on everybody who wants/needs them? Or do you realize that you are far more likely to be one of the first into their political meat grinder? Socialists are not notorious for their patience with the underprivileged, you should realize. They're on an ideological mission; and if you present any kind of problem...you're the first target.