Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one wants to kill capitalism. Stop listening to Glenn Beck and Michael Savage. Progressives believe that the government should place regulations and controls on capitalism to ensure societal well-being, not eradicate the system entirely. Liberal democracies -- including the "evil" Western Europe -- have capitalist market economies kept in check by government controls.
Unfettered capitalism is simply feudalism reborn. The effect would be the same -- a small, super-rich class of "lords," and a huge underclass of impoverished "serfs" working for slave wages in inhuman conditions. It would be a return to the Dark Ages.
I am looking at what our president is doing... you can't see the forest for the trees in the way...
Communism owns everything.. there is no businesses owned other than the government owning them.. no free market system. Today the left wants capitalism to die and our president wants to spread the wealth around.. meaning even if you don't work you get the wealth.
Under Communism there will be no incentive to create , no ideas , no reason to dream of a better day.
We , the United States have grown wealthy because of a free market system. Now we have government dictating to the companies many rules and regulations and taxes, sending jobs oveseas when the companies move to other countries. Who suffers... the people.. no jobs means no tax base and more debt.. the welfare rolls grow and unemployment too.
The government is killing capitalism here.. the socialists and communists which have infiltrated the democratic party want to kill capitalism. It is their goal.
Except that when you have very powerful people rotating between the private and public sector, and gaming the system by writing rules and regulations, which kill competition, to which they then scoop up for pennies on the dollar, it allows them to get bigger.
As they are.
That is not capitalism.
They own the state because money allows it, which is exactly as it is in communism, where the few at the top, control the majority, which is where were headed.
And it is not the GOVERNMENT per se that is destroying capitalism, but the government in collusion with big business and banking interests that is destroying it.
Wall Street is all for it as are the big defense companies.
Look at Bush and their support for Haliburton, giving them multi billion dollar contracts, and look at Obama and his Wall Street crowd.
They are not pro capitalists because they do not want COMPETITION to take away from their power and control.
I would not speak of evil at all. Communists developed their ideas on the basis of empathy and compassion, like many radical thinkers have done. Their ideas are a bit unrealistic and naive, but evil? I don't think so. They just didn't take human nature into account the way they should have.
I agree. Communist ideas are not evil, but the systems (Stalinism, Maoism, etc.) under which they were implemented are. Communism would only work in a perfect world. Democratic socialism is a more realistic system that suits human nature.
Suggesting liberals (and I wouldn't even consider Obama to be a liberal -- he's a centrist on social issues and center-right on economic issues) are communists is exactly like suggesting conservatives are Nazis. It's a ridiculous smear tactic that caricaturizes your opponent by taking their views to an absurd extreme.
No one wants to kill capitalism. Stop listening to Glenn Beck and Michael Savage. Progressives believe that the government should place regulations and controls on capitalism to ensure societal well-being, not eradicate the system entirely. Liberal democracies -- including the "evil" Western Europe -- have capitalist market economies kept in check by government controls.
Unfettered capitalism is simply feudalism reborn. The effect would be the same -- a small, super-rich class of "lords," and a huge underclass of impoverished "serfs" working for slave wages in inhuman conditions. It would be a return to the Dark Ages.
You said it.. the are placing regulations on and they are eradicating the system by doing so.. Obama said < I don't care if I put the mining industry out of business and I don't care how much money it will cost for electricity.
But where in that model does the current situation fit today?
When we have the Government - CEO - WallStreet - Shareholder Loop, where they stuff each other pockets, yet, everyone else is bound by the global market, then there is nothing open about it, nor market driven for them.
They rotate between the private and public sector making laws to help themselves out as well.
There is nothing open, nor free market driven when you do that, nor is there anything solely private when they use the public sphere, with their henchmen in place to game the system to their favor.
Where we are today involves a system of corrupt politicians taking donations from these loosers, and also are involved in inside trading, which completes the Wall Street - CEO - Shareholder Loop
They all benefit in that circle and screw everyone else.
There is nothing market or private driven in that equation, but thieves and traitors that need to go straight to hell.
Your public/private distinction is flawed, in my opinion. Our publicly elected politicians are often cronies to private interests, so what is that? When CEOs and higher ups move smoothly into political roles and assist their former companies, this the corruption of the state by private business, not the other way around.
You have a particular definition of economic freedom, but frankly a truly "free market" is impossible. The state will always institute labor laws in some way, and that's a good thing. Corporations are more powerful than they were before, and they have more influence over our politicians.
You can agree or disagree with the way the term "neoliberalism" attempts to summarize our contemporary moment, but I think that you must at least concede that this is not a move towards Communism. Frankly, I think neoliberalism is the best way to describe our political/economic system, but if we wanted to have a real discussion about it, we'd have to have recourse to a better source than the wikipedia article, and I doubt you want to do that much reading.
Anyways, let me rephrase myself:
At a time when CEO pay and corporate profits are rising, when the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing, when union membership is at a 70 year low, when we have privatized many prisons, schools, and part of our military force, and when social programs are excoriated as "entitlements" and subject to cutbacks, it is asinine to accuse the U.S. of a move towards communism. Poster after poster has described communism as an ideology based on equality, for good or for bad, and America is very obviously becoming increasingly unequal.
Isn't this exact thread based on several posters attacking the left and suggesting that Democrats or Progressives are all communists? You're really crying about leftists attacking the right in a thread which is really just a weak, rambling attack on the left? LOL
There are countless threads (and posts) on the pages of the P&OC Forum attacking Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Christians (particularly evangelicals), Republicans et.al., and the ridicule is nasty and brutal. The only Republican I have NOT seen ridiculed is Mitt Romney and I'm not sure why he has escaped. Maybe because he is the former governor of a liberal state.
I posted pictures in this post on this thread of a May Day rally in Los Angeles of the SEIU and several communist and other organizations. So, yes, the left wing of the political spectrum is peopled by Communists. Communism stifles entrepreneurship and ambition.
A rose by any other name is still a rose... communism by any other name is still communism... we are taking steps for government take over in areas under the guise of legislation and will be a slow osmosis toward what United Soviet Socialist Republic was. The big difference of Republican to Democrat... Republicans want to give the power to the individual states and very limited Federal Government and the Democrats want big Federal Government.
Your public/private distinction is flawed, in my opinion. Our publicly elected politicians are often cronies to private interests, so what is that? When CEOs and higher ups move smoothly into political roles and assist their former companies, this the corruption of the state by private business, not the other way around.
You have a particular definition of economic freedom, but frankly a truly "free market" is impossible. The state will always institute labor laws in some way, and that's a good thing. Corporations are more powerful than they were before, and they have more influence over our politicians.
You can agree or disagree with the way the term "neoliberalism" attempts to summarize our contemporary moment, but I think that you must at least concede that this is not a move towards Communism. Frankly, I think neoliberalism is the best way to describe our political/economic system, but if we wanted to have a real discussion about it, we'd have to have recourse to a better source than the wikipedia article, and I doubt you want to do that much reading.
Anyways, let me rephrase myself:
At a time when CEO pay and corporate profits are rising, when the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing, when union membership is at a 70 year low, when we have privatized many prisons, schools, and part of our military force, and when social programs are excoriated as "entitlements" and subject to cutbacks, it is asinine to accuse the U.S. of a move towards communism. Poster after poster has described communism as an ideology based on equality, for good or for bad, and America is very obviously becoming increasingly unequal.
The base meaning of "communism" is privilege over right.
Individual rights are an obstacle to global communism.
There are countless threads (and posts) on the pages of the P&OC Forum attacking Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Christians (particularly evangelicals), Republicans et.al., and the ridicule is nasty and brutal. The only Republican I have NOT seen ridiculed is Mitt Romney and I'm not sure why he has escaped. Maybe because he is the former governor of a liberal state.
This is a comical complaint given that this very thread is attacking the left. I guarantee for every post by a leftist that you describe as "nasty and brutal," I could find 3 by a right-winger. Both sides do it, but we only call out our opponents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead
The base meaning of "communism" is privilege over right.
Individual rights are an obstacle to global communism.
This is an inaccurate comment, and has nothing to do with my remarks. You either did not read my post or are out of your depth on this issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
