Under capitalism, socialists are FREE to be socialists.

[fittosurvive]

Capitalists believe in individual rights, self-determination and voluntary associations. On the other hand, socialists believe in collective rights, central control and coerced associations.

In a capitalist, individualist, and voluntary society, those who want to live under socialism are free to do just that. They can institute mutual aid societies, housing co-ops, subsidize irresponsible behavior, or even establish a full-blown commune for themselves if they are true believers.

Capitalists will not meddle if they choose to equalize their incomes, redistribute their wealth, ban politically incorrect jokes, incandescent light bulbs, meat, SUVs, electricity, bathing, or whatever.

Indeed, capitalists do not object to their choices, because capitalists recognize the right to dispose of your energy and your property as you see fit; no matter how irrational or mindless it seems to them.

However, socialists do not reciprocate. In a socialist society, capitalists are not FREE to follow their own paths and deal with like-minded capitalists without the socialists meddling in their affairs. The socialists point their guns at the capitalists and FORCE them sacrifice their lives to their ambiguous notion of the common good.

Then, the socialists have the nerve to tell us that all this is for our own good. Well, gee, if socialism is really the path to a utopian society, why does it have to be instituted at gun-point?

This country was founded on the liberal principle that the inalienable rights of life, liberty and property, are not negotiable. Socialism is antithetical to that principle; hence, socialism is antithetical to liberalism.

[Morning Dew]

1. Oh, boy.

[madinmaryland]

2. Yeap. Save some for me!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

44. The best seats are over there, close to the wonderful evisceration The Magistrate is applying. -nt

[quinnox]

3. Sounds like an argument made by CEOs sitting in mansions

Yea, the system works awesome for the super rich.

[Shagbark Hickory]

4. capitalism is fine. Capitalism gone wild with regulation bought and paid for by industry is another

matter.

The reason you see this resurgence in socialism is because of the American model of capitalism. It's capitalism gone wild.

[fittosurvive]

14. I agree, commerce must be properly regulated to establish market integrity

and ensure free and fair competition. Those who game the system, should be hammered without mercy.

[Bandit]

133. So what's your point?

Even if what you say had any merit, what is your point? Do you hear socialist whining and wailing about in some fit to be tied rant about how Capitalistic the President is? All of the Right Wing seems truly upset at Democrats for being socialists...I rarely ever hear Democrats railing about how Capitalistic Republicans are..I believe anyone that even brings up such tripe is trying to put a wedge between Americans and help in the destruction of America..Is that what you are about, the destruction of America? I can think of no other reason to post such gibberish, can you? I doubt you even understand what socialism truly is and how virtually every single country on Earth has some socialistic policies, which have been deemed to help their citizens..

[NightWatcher]

5. pass the popcorn

[deutsey]

20. I love this poster

[JoePhilly]

35. Socialists "point their guns"???? Bwahahahahah ....

The Tea Baggers are SOCIALISTS? The NRA? Those threatening to use bullets of ballots don;t work??

Hilarious.

[fittosurvive]

62. Ballots decide who controls the guns.

[JoePhilly]

116. Which explains the US invasion of Iraq I guess.

Socialists did it.

[deutsey]

134. ?

[anneboleyn]

36. Love it. That idiot in Maine would have this image banned, too "pro-labor."

[Rage for Order]

42. While cute, that same poster could depict any economic system in practice

Capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other. The only difference would be the number of layers. The end result, however, would be the same.

[RedArmy300]

136. No, no it couldn't.

Capitalism is weaved into every bad idea in history, because capitalism is just a fancy way of saying a system about pure greed.

So this only applies to monarchies and anything right-of-center but everything to the left actually guarantees that the poorest bastard in the country will have food and a roof over their head, which is hell more I can say then about this country. Wealth is hard to find in socialism but true poverty is even harder.

[LeftofObama]

6. Coming up next on fox news...

Did Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden attend the same madrassa? Stay tuned to find out.......

[WillyT]

7. So I Take It You Were A Business Major ???

Cause you sure weren't a History Major.

[fittosurvive]

17. Do you need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind is blowing?

[WillyT]

39. No... But I Rely On Meteorologists To Warn Me When A Huge, Well Organized, System Is Threatening...

me, my family and friends, and the very society that WE WORKERS built with our blood, sweat and tears.

And if that well huge, well organized, system consists of human beings doing the same, I expect MY GOVERNMENT to see it, alert us, and take appropriate actions to prevent the impending destruction.

Jail some/all of the Mother Fuckers who caused this, and tax the rest to appropriate levels to pay for the services and society that we have been building all along.

[Ikonoklast]

8. Then why does unregulated Capitalism try to crush Socialism at every turn?

The very thing we are currently witnessing in our country?

[fittosurvive]

16. Please provide an example where capitalism has "crushed socialism."

The opposition of legislation is not a legitimate example, because legislation requires FORCE to implement.

[white_wolf]

79. You want an example? Fine here is one.

On 11 September 1973, the democratically elected President Salvador Allende was overthrown in a coup d’état organised by the Chilean military and supported by the USA. A military junta took control of the government. There is your example of Capitalism crushing not only socialism, but democracy. Defend that, if you can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%...

[Armstead]

89. Look into the history of efforts by communities tio set up public Internet service

Numerous communities across the country without adequate Internet service have attempted in recent years to establish public networks to bring broadband service locally, as municipal utilities or enterprises.


While some were successful, many faced legal challenges by corporate ISPs, who claimned that these pubnlic services were "interfering with the market illegally" and thus should be blocked.

(Many were places the big Internet Service Corps chose not to bring service to because they were not profitable enough, but the companies chose to be dogs in the manger to prevent precidents.)

[Sheepshank]

158. errrr, Winconsin and Walker ring any bells? Duh!

[readmoreoften]

171. Arbenz assassinated for United Fruit Co., Guatemala

Allende assassinated, Pinochet propped up by Ford, ITT, and the US gov't. Pinochet fills football fields with socialists and mass assassinates. Also throws them out windows.

Mossadeq wants to nationalize oil in Iran. CIA assassinates him. Props up Shah. Shah murders thousands.

Citibank sends memo to president of Mexico in 1994: get rid of those people. Those people are the Zapatistas, the militant body who represented the 28 million indigenous people who had their lands sold out from under them due to NAFTA in 1994.

The US govt. funded training camps at Ft. Benning, Georgia to teach rightwing paramilitaries the finer points of rape (tear the clothes off women, make men take off their own clothes). Priests and nuns are murdered trying to shut the military school down.

Are you joking? You are completely ignorant of history.

Take yourself to Libertarian Underground or educate yourself, please.

[cali]

9. what utter codswallop

in fact, Norway- which has a socialist form of gov't- has the highest number of entrepreneurs per capita of any country.

[Diclotican]

124. cali

cali

More to the point a Social-Democratic form of government.. Not as socialist as an pure socialist form of government, but close as we can do it, when we still have a democracy in place..

And we do have a high number of enteprenours pr capita in Norway, thats true.. And even tho the State have a lot of say in economical matters, most of the economical life, is still on private hands.. I belive it to be 40-60, in favour of the private economical life.. But the state OWN a lot of land, and have also a lot of shares in companies, and we do have a lot of laws, that everyone have to obey if they want to do business in the country. Its a country of LAWs this little country in the north of Europe..

IT WORKS for the size of Norway.. It works for the size of Sweden, it works for the size of Denmark.. Im not sure how this system wil work in US... And everying what sounds like "socialism" is dangrous for most americans.. Even tho if it is sensible to work togheter rather than fight eatch other for nothing..

Diclotican.

[shraby]

10. I don't believe I've seen so many wrong ideas in one post..

some have come close, but you win the prize.

[fittosurvive]

19. Well, if you consider the inalienable rights of life, liberty and property to be "wrong ideas,"

you have a misguided sense of morality.

[shraby]

49. The following shows where you are on the wrong foot.

"However, socialists do not reciprocate. In a socialist society, capitalists are not FREE to follow their own paths and deal with like-minded capitalists without the socialists meddling in their affairs. The socialists point their guns at the capitalists and FORCE them sacrifice their lives to their ambiguous notion of the common good."

You have the wrong gun pointers.

[apocalypsehow]

11. Hoo-boy - that's no moon we got here, it's a space station!!!

[Runework]

12. huh?

"Capitalists believe in individual rights, self-determination and voluntary associations"

capitalism is an economic system, it doesn't necessarily extend to civil liberties

people can start small businesses in china, but they can't speak freely


buy a dictionary or something. please

[fittosurvive]

23. Capitalism cannot exist without civil liberties.

You should buy a few books regarding the subject of The Age of Enlightenment / Age of Reason.

[Ozymanithrax]

33. The primary economic system of the Age of Enlightenment was Mercantilism...

Capitalism grew out of ideas in Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. Mercantalism dominated econoimic systems until the late 1800's. By the time Capitalism replaced it, the Enlightenment was dead.

[Donnachaidh]

47. FTW!

[Runework]

48. plain wrong

you can assert all you want. simultaneity does not prove causality

Capitalism is an economic system. There's nothing in it that states or necessitates, for instance, you have Miranda rights.

Again, in China, there has been a ROLLBACK in individual human rights the same time that capitalistic opportunities for individuals have increased.

[white_wolf]

58. Bullshit!

Capitalism does fine in China, with no civil liberties. So don't give me that tired of capitalist line. It is utterly false!

[TransitJohn]

72. signed, Augosto Pinochet.

[white_wolf]

78. Wasn't he the guy

who with U.S. help overthrow the democratically elected leader of Chile?

[malaise]

13. Pre-1930s???? n/t

[athenasatanjesus]

15. This is true.

Just don't forget the part where socialism is needed to bail capitalism out of every one of it's inevitable failures.

[fittosurvive]

24. Failures that were created by the meddling of mindless bureaucrats,

resulted in bailouts being implemented by the same mindless bureaucrats.

[socialist_n_TN]

34. Faux Noise much?

[Zynx]

43. What caused the crash in 1929? There was no government intervention at any point during the 1920s.

Similarly, the 2008 crash was precipitated by a period in which government intervention in the economy declined to the lowest levels in recent history.

[EOTE]

130. Here's the answer I'd expect.

[Donnachaidh]

50. and those same mindless bureaucrats de-regulated the shit out of the laws

And the capitalists decided to suck every cent out of the country - and every decent paying job. And then have the utmost GALL to think we should bail them out because of their ponzi financial schemes.

Bail outs were needed because lobbyists for the capitalists asked for and got de-regulated. And they KNEW they would get bailed out -- win win for them.

[WinkyDink]

75. Laissez-faire was discredited about 150 years ago.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. What a crock of shit. If you honestly think that profit-driven corporations aren't capable of idiocy

you've never worked for a corporation.

[PA Democrat]

100. Pray tell which "meddling beaurocrats" created credit default swaps?

[MedicalAdmin]

106. Dude. They are setting you up to be fired.

This assumes that you are a paid troll that has been encouraged by one of your bosses to go off the rails. My guess is they are preparing the paper trail to can your butt.

This is pure speculation on my part but as a theory it has as much veracity as your OP.

[blm]

125. The Wall Street thugs OWNED the bureaucrats and CAUSED the crash as they lined THEIR pockets - they

socialize the COST as a matter of THEIR vision of capitalism that has NO RULES for..... them.

[Generic Other]

18. And Jesus was a long haired radical socialist jew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_v9tz2nxvs

[PA Democrat]

102. I pray to Supply Side Jesus.

Blessed are the capitalists, for they shall inherit the earth.

[EFerrari]

21. LOL

[Kingofalldems]

22. Explain the Koch brothers and all their activities

[fittosurvive]

27. Are the Koch brothers preventing you from being a socialist?

[Kingofalldems]

30. They are certainly buying power and legislation--the other part comes later

[Donnachaidh]

51. the Koch Brothers are funding every single conservative plan to destroy the New Deal.

They are terrorists.

[white_wolf]

63. Yes they are.

They own the means of production. Trotsky was right, socialism and capitalism cannot coexist. Capitalism will always try to crush Socialism at the first chance it gets.

[WinkyDink]

67. "Being a socialist" has no meaning; "Socialist society" does.

[Armstead]

91. They're doing their best to -- (See destroying unions)

[joshcryer]

25. Capitalism and socialism are economic concepts that are not fundamentally different...

...in implementation by the state.

[fittosurvive]

53. Capitalism is more than just and economic system; it is also a social system.

And it is the only socio/economic system that is compatible with the concept that life, liberty and PROPERTY are inalienable rights.

[joshcryer]

64. Wrong. Capitalism is perfectly compatible with Fascism and has been implemented that way in the past

[MNBrewer]

127. PROPERTY is not an inalienable right

I'll agree that one's own life and one's own liberty are inalienable. Property is an extrinsic entity.

[The Magistrate]

26. Tell It To the Tortured And Disappeared Of The 'Dirty Wars', Fella....

[fittosurvive]

38. Are you suggesting that the "military industrial complex" is an example of free market capitalism?

If so, you are incorrect. The defense industry represents an example of a market where bureaucrats facilitate the "gaming" of the system.

[The Magistrate]

The Oldest Wheeze, Sir, is Contrasting the Ideal Of One Side With the Practice Of The Other

Do not try that on with me....

[Donnachaidh]

52. bureaucrats facilitate the gaming of the system at the suggestion of capitalists.

Thick as a brick -- Ayn Rand would be proud of such thickness.

[The Magistrate]

54. Exactly, Sir: Mr. Smith's Complaints Of Government Interference All Relate To Laws Merchants Sought

[white_wolf]

74. Yes it is. The MIC is a perfect example of capitalism.

It is private industries (your favorite thing) making and selling products to a consumer. Sounds like capitalism to me.

[The Magistrate]

83. Nor, Sir, Were Guatemala, San Salvadore, Chile. Etc. Selling Weapons To The Pentagon

The fellow is simply trying to shy away from facts he does not want to face, that demonstrate the degree of idiocy embodied by his opening remarks.

[eShirl]

28. Pardon, would you have any Grey Poupon?

[TomClash]

29. "Capitalists will not meddle if they choose to equalize their incomes"

The first principle of capitalism is MAKE MONEY . . . ant way you can.

If you eliminate a market, a capitalist will always want it back. Always. And he will use the State to get it. Always.

In many years of posting here, this has to be one of the worst posts I've seen. It makes me salivate for the comparatively reasonable posts by the extremist Israeli partisans in the IP Forum.

[WinkyDink]

31. And your point would be? That American Capitalism has just been peachy-keen? Bwahahahaha!

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. And capitalism means the rich and poor are equally free to sleep under a bridge

so it must be a good thing, mustn't it? Thanks to Anatole France or whoever did say that first.

[JoePhilly]

37. The only people I see bring GUNS to political events are TEA baggers.

I think that we should remove all regulations so that the free market can decide if a company's products kill too many people. If they do, then people will stop buying those products.

Of course, I also believe that there should be CAPS on the damages a company might have to pay when its products kills people.

As for those dead people ... FUCK THEM and their families ... they should have known better.

[Fuzz]

40. You have confused Socialism with Communism, so your entire post is pointless.

[fittosurvive]

56. Socialism advocates government ownership of the means of production.

PROPERTY rights, i.e., private ownership, is the basis of capitalism.

[The Magistrate]

59. Actually, Sweet-heart, Socialism Is Workers Ownership Of The Means Of Production

The means by which this is to be effected is undefined, and obvously would vary with circumstances. In a democratic polity, where universal adult suffrage determines government personnel and policy, 'government ownership' could be a reasonable form for workers ownership to take; other forms might be industrial union councils, or regional commune authorities selected on a representative system layer by layer from local councils.

Past a certain point, 'private ownership' requires a good deal of armed force to sustain, and in capitalist societies a good deal of the business of government consists in keeping secure in their prerogatives persons of great wealth, even when, or rather, especially when, their use of 'private property' to their personal benefit has tremendous adverse consequences to many other people, ranging from penury to plague....

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

84. Helluva post.

Condescension, depth, sarcasm, thought-provocation and good ole common sense.


Something to aspire to.

[fittosurvive]

90. Well, darlin', you can call it public ownership, common ownership, or whatever,

for they all result in the elimination of a person's right to his own life.

[The Magistrate]

107. They Remove The Power Of One To Affect Hundreds and Thousands Of Other Lives For His Profit, Fella

What you are arguing for, in a remarkably ignorant fashion, is aristocracy of wealth, entailing private power to extract labor and goods from others without full compensation for same.

The acts of private persons in possession of sorts of property routinely, for their personal profit, blast and ruin the lives of many other persons, in manners ranging from depriving them of livelihoods to poisoning the air they breathe. Any right of these people to their own lives is effectively eliminated by the action of such persons.

[MNBrewer]

129. How so?

[CreekDog]

149. in case any one here wonders whether you will last beyond today.

there's that post.

[MNBrewer]

128. Wrong.

What The Magistrate said!

[Xenotime]

138. wrong

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. You don't get to redefine the word "socialism".

It doesn't mean "dictatorship".

The excellent social policies you find in Western Europe, Canada and other places ARE socialism. Saying they aren't so is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Nice flamebait.

[fittosurvive]

60. It means that the concept of the inalienable rights are not recognized.

That is the essence of tyranny.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

68. Repeating bullshit over and over doesn't make it true. -nt

[fittosurvive]

81. Repeating...? I have observed as one socialist narrative after another is presented

in an effort to rationalize the breach of a person's inalienable PROPERTY rights by people who identify themselves as liberals.

When did the concept of inalienable rights become negotiable?

[The Magistrate]

85. What is 'Inalienable' About a Right To Property, Sir?

Many people, after all, have none at all, and under some functioning capitalist systems, many people have been property.

For wht it is worth, the only reference to inalienable rights in the founding documents of the United States specifies Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness: while it states there are among the inalienbale rights, suggesting the writer believed there are others, ownership of property is not mentioned, and so cannot be rashly assumed to be one of those possible 'other inalienable rights' not deemed important enough to mention specifically....

[fittosurvive]

93. Surely, you must know that Jefferson borrowed from Locke on that one.

It goes something like this: Property rights are an inherent consequence of the right to life.

[white_wolf]

98. Read Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine

then get back to me.

[The Magistrate]

108. So What, Sweet-Heart? He Did Not Quote Him Straight On the Topic, Did He? Why, Do You Think?

The statement you have made, that property rights are an inherent consequence of a right to life is unsuportable nonesense. Uncounted millions have lived without a shred of property, many of them in societies which lack any concept closely approaching property as our present society understands it.

[Ikonoklast]

113. And one of those 'property rights' the originators of the Constitution backed

was called Slavery.

You know, the Ultimate Capitalist Wet Dream, Free Labor.


You cannot argue these concepts using a documant as flawed as the Constitution as a basis for them.

A political construct put forward by capitalists that were fighting a corporate hegemony put in place and supported by a monarchy that profited from it hugely.

[hifiguy]

176. Reading your takedown of this troll

is the high point of my day so far.

This troll reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.....

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

86. Some questions:

Do you think a progressive income tax with a ~40% top bracket is a "breach of a person's inalienable property rights"?

Do you think Sweden is a tyranny?

Do you think the Scandinavian model of a welfare state doesn't have anything of socialism?

Do you think Augusto Pinochet was a socialist?

[sudopod]

Randomly capitalizing WORDS makes you look KOOKY.

Please go someplace else where that is appreciated.

[sudopod]

101. Randomly capitalizing WORDS makes you look KOOKY.

Please go someplace else where that is appreciated.

[The Magistrate]

70. Tyranny, Fella, Means Power Usurped Unlawfully

You really ought to stop slinging ten-dollar words you do not know the meanng of: it provides great amusement to an informed audience, mind, but it cannot be good for your self-respect....

[fittosurvive]

99. Well son, are you familiar with the notion of "tyranny of the majority?"

Fortunately, we have a Constitution that was designed to prevent that. But that doesn't stop those with immoral intentions from trying.

[The Magistrate]

109. That Many People Do Not Understand The Terms They Employ, Fella, Is Not My Problem

The history of the term back to its roots in Greece of the Classical Period establish the actual meaning: cruelty and arbitrarines often accompanied tyrannical rule but were not necessary elements of it, and certainly not necessary to accurately describe a ruler as a tyrant.

It is certainly true enough the genlemen who set up our system of government were quite concerned to restrict majority rule, lest the majority of persons with little or no property should use government in their own interests against the interests of the handful possessing large amounts of property. Why that would be immoral, as you seem to feel, while it is not immoral for government to act in the interests of a handful owning much property against the interests of the great proportion of society who own little or no property, escapes me....

[EOTE]

132. So... the bulk of Western Europe is living under tyranny.

Dear god, do you ever get tired of not thinking before posting?

[Sheepshank]

167. WTF do you mean by inalienable rights?

I don't think it means what you think it means. I don't think it's obtained the way you think it's obtained. Please explain what you mean by inalienable rights and contrast that specifically with socialistic programs that stop those rights. Empty rhetoric won't work I want real life examples and cites.

eta...I'm 100% positive I can find and equal or better number of verifiable examples of how capitalism removes and destroys inalienalbe rights.

[readmoreoften]

173. No it means working people owning the means of production

and sharing. Why are you on this website?

[Zynx]

45. Hmmm... If I try to start a business in Sweden, I don't think I am threatened or executed by the

government of Sweden. I'm not certain of that as I've never been there, but I've certainly never heard of it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

80. But, you see, if something is good, it can not be socialist, since socialism is evil.

Which proves (a) everything socialist is evil, and (b) everything evil is socialist. QED.

[blondeatlast]

139. I don't hink Ikea has any complaints, either. nt

[DutchLiberal]

164. Sweden has a right-wing government.

Not agreeing at all with the OP. Just sayin'. Spain or Portugal would be better examples.

[Hawkowl]

46. Idiot

Capitalists believe in capital. Period. It is not a political/freedom belief system. You conflate capitalism with democracy and socialism with dictatorship. If you paid for your higher education you should have your tuition refunded.

[Canuckistanian]

55. But only if you're a senator from Vermont

The rest of the country's socialists can fuck off.

[anarch]

57. What in the world are you talking about?

"Capitalists will not meddle..."? You are mixing metaphors.

[provis99]

61. Been smoking the libertarian doobie, I see.

Nazi Germany's economic system was based on capitalism. Even during wartime, production was carried out by businesses (perhaps Krupp, Siemens I.G. Farben ring a bell?), not by government.

The Soviet Union was organized on the principle of state capitalism; not much freedom there.

[white_wolf]

65. You keep going on about personal property.

If you had read my socialism 101 thread you would know that your free to own a house, car, or whatever under socialism. What you cannot own are the means of production, which allows you to control the lives of others and exploit them for your own personal gain.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Ayn Rand lives!! God Bless the freedom of the Rat Race.

[grahamhgreen]

69. capitalism leads to Somalia.

[hifiguy]

177. Indeed

Few places could be better said to represent the ultimate triumph of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman than Mogadishu.

[WinkyDink]

71. I take it you think one day you will be rich?

[ensemble]

73. under capitalism...

if you have no money, you have no right to basic surival. Great, huh?
Not sure how that is justified, when the Preamble of our Constitution speaks of "promoting the general welfare".

And our country was founded on life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - not property.

Libertainism is just another fundamentalism... freedom fundamentalists.

[TheKentuckian]

76. No, under capitalism it is the capitalist that are free to socialize the downside of their ventures

and the risks of their gambles based on perverse incentives.

[white_wolf]

77. To the OP

You seem to have a very flawed understand of what Socialism is. So read this thread and then get back to me: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[SOS]

156. The OP thinks socialism = Stalinism

He is apparently unfamiliar with the democratic socialism of Western Europe.

[H2O Man]

82. gosh

[PA Democrat]

87. OMG. Yeah, capitalists don't meddle until they need a bailout.

How DARE we socialists meddle in their affairs and demanding regulation of their irresponsible behavior.

And stay away from the Swedes, they are some violent socialists.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

88. I think you posted this just because you knew it would get ripped apart.

Should you have used the ?
Because this was hilarious. Thanks for the Pre-bed laugh. I don't think I need to watch Craig Ferguson now.

[blondeatlast]

140. One of the truly great threads; I've bookmarked it. nt

[toddaa]

92. How's that perpetual motion machine coming?

Capitalism is where you "voluntarily" trade in your "rights" for paycheck. It's the very essense of liberty.

This may zip right past your 2 dimensional brain, but socialism does not require a government. You do know that, don't you? Of course you do. That MBA diploma hanging on your wall says you know lots of stuff.

[treestar]

94. They have to point the guns

Capitalists won't help their fellow man, and will exploit their fellow man - see the Triangle Shirtwaist incident and many others.

It takes gunpoint to get the capitalist to act decently. If capitalist and his family and friends are OK, he/she doesn't care if others starve.

[HughBeaumont]

95. B - 6!!

O - 74!!

You seem to be confusing Socialism with totalitarianism. You don't get to define it as you see fit.

[blondeatlast]

142. Iwas already gasping for breath, now my stomach hurts. nt

[geardaddy]

148. Winner and still champion!

[hifiguy]

178. OMG

[Warren DeMontague]

96. Do you drive on privately funded roads and flush your shit into your own personally financed sewer?

No?

Congratulations, you're a "socialist", too.

[MadHound]

103. Another fool conflating political and economic dogmas

Capitalism isn't a social philosophy, it is an economic one. You can have capitalist states in dictatorial countries, China is a great example. You can also have socialism in democratic states, Sweden is a great example.

Until you get those things straight in your head, it is pointless to talk with because you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Not to mention that your knowledge of socialism seems to come from Fox and Friends.

[DefenseLawyer]

104. Well, you can do what you want to us...

but we're not going to sit here and listen to you bad mouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!

[MasonJar]

105. Who siad this? Where did the philosophy fall so short and why?

It isn't true.

[Kingofalldems]

110. Hmmmm. Strangely familiar.

[marmar]

111. ............

[JVS]

115. Nice!

[HughBeaumont]

154. Stealing.

[fishwax]

166. .

[hifiguy]

181. Oh Lordy Lu

I am laughing so hard my eyes are watering from not letting it out...

I NEED a link to that!

[LatteLibertine]

112. We do not have free markets

Just look at the relationship between big business and our government. We've crony capitalism at best.

[JVS]

114. Under feudalism capitalists are FREE to be capitalists, but capitalism makes no allowance for the...

feudalists to continue operating their system of mutual economic obligations.

[blindpig]

117. Capitalist hold all the cards in capitalist society.

We know very well how capitalists respond when socialist show some strength and demand justice, thugs, the militia, blackballing, lockouts, prison, the knock on the door at night. So please, take your fantasy of just, decent, reasonable capitalism and put it where the sun don't shine.

Property is an 'inalienable right' cause some guys in wigs said so? Don't think so.

Your suggestion that Capitalism is fine with others taking the socialist road is absurd and belied by history. Even were capitalist to do so they would lust after and conspire to control the resources, labor and markets of the socialists, as indeed has happened. Of necessity a system based upon continual growth cannot be satisfied with half a loaf.

[OwnedByFerrets]

118. Most stupid post I've ever read here on DU. And that

is saying alot.

[blondeatlast]

143. Search the username; you'll be amazed. nt

[RegieRocker]

119. It's under Democracy. Damn

This Democratic country could be all socialist and those rights would still exist because of it's constitution.

[fasttense]

120. Yeah those capitalist never bother the UNIONS.

Why are Koch brother trying so hard to take away UNION rights of free association?

Why are laws in many states currently trying to outlaw Unions?

Why did capitalist murder thousands of Union members when the Unions tried to organize in the 1800 to 1900?

Why did you change Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness to read "life, liberty and property,"? That tells me where your priorities are they are NOT with We The People, but with We The Rich.

[Heidi]

121. Just out of curiosity, when were you last coerced into or out of an association by a socialist? (nt)

[TBF]

122. The Palmer Raids

Leftists are often targeted, and just as likely to be targeted by democrats. Please do your historical reading before posting such an inane OP -




The Palmer Raids were attempts by the United States Department of Justice to arrest and deport radical leftists, especially anarchists, from the United States. The raids and arrests occurred in November 1919 and January 1920 under the leadership of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. Though more than 500 foreign citizens were deported, including a number of prominent leftist leaders, Palmer's efforts were largely frustrated by officials at the U.S. Department of Labor who had responsibility for deportations and who objected to Palmer's methods and disrespect for the legal process. The Palmer Raids occurred in the larger context of the Red Scare, the term given to fear of and reaction against political radicals in the U.S. in the years immediately following World War I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids

[EstimatedProphet]

123. This is so bad, it's not even wrong

You literally have written a post which is anti-true.

Capitalists believe in individual rights, self-determination and voluntary associations. On the other hand, socialists believe in collective rights, central control and coerced associations.

Capitalism: an economic system based on private ownership of capital. Socialism: refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. Economic systems do not deal with rights - that is the province of political theory.

In a capitalist, individualist, and voluntary society, those who want to live under socialism are free to do just that. They can institute mutual aid societies, housing co-ops, subsidize irresponsible behavior, or even establish a full-blown commune for themselves if they are true believers.

Not if they are under a capitalistic system. By definition, they cannot be socialistic under a capitalistic system. If they want to do what you are talking about, they leave society. Exactly like those who set up communes did throughout the history of this country. You don't have to rely on the 60's hippies for evidence - look at the Amana colonies as an example, or the Amish.

Capitalists will not meddle if they choose to equalize their incomes, redistribute their wealth, ban politically incorrect jokes, incandescent light bulbs, meat, SUVs, electricity, bathing, or whatever.

Of course they will. If someone chooses not to play the game in a capitalistic system, they are out of the game. In a capitalistic system, if you have no property or no income to acquire property, you lose, and people who aren't "the right sort" don't stay hired for very long. They end up on the street in short order if they lose their job. Do you honestly think that the crisis in rising homelessness in this country is due to an economic system based on SHARING?

However, socialists do not reciprocate. In a socialist society, capitalists are not FREE to follow their own paths and deal with like-minded capitalists without the socialists meddling in their affairs. The socialists point their guns at the capitalists and FORCE them sacrifice their lives to their ambiguous notion of the common good.

I think the people of Sweden would be amused to find out that their society is holding them at gunpoint. Sweden, you know, the country with the highest standard of living on the planet? And as far as socialists not allowing capitalist endeavors, see China.

Then, the socialists have the nerve to tell us that all this is for our own good. Well, gee, if socialism is really the path to a utopian society, why does it have to be instituted at gun-point?

What you seem to be experiencing is a free-form delusion based on Fox News broadcasts. Please provide cases where this is happening.

This country was founded on the liberal principle that the inalienable rights of life, liberty and property, are not negotiable. Socialism is antithetical to that principle; hence, socialism is antithetical to liberalism.

Actually, it is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Perhaps you should read the document next time before you try to tell us all what it says. Perhaps also you should consider the rising homeless population in this country, who have no property. Are they no longer human? Between the two, socialism is far more likely to allow people to keep the rights listed in the Declaration of Independence, and capitalism is far more likely to take them away, being in essence a winner-take-all system.

[The Magistrate]

135. Hear Hear, Sir!

[EstimatedProphet]

144. Thank you, sir! Let's get these fascist bastards!

[MNBrewer]

126. Humans are not just individuals

we are innately social animals, therefore any politics that seeks to deny the social (collective) aspects of our nature is doomed to failure.

P.S. Is someone channeling Ayn Rand from beyond the grave here?

[backscatter712]

131. Socialism was developed because capitalism has plenty of its own coercion.

Unfettered, capitalism degenerates into a few big sharks devouring everyone else in the fish tank, then we get the robber barrons imposing their own tyranny upon everyone else, leaving them with the choice: "Submit or starve".

Big business is at least as tyrannical and destructive to liberty as any authoritarian government.

[Taverner]

137. What!?!?! How the hell did you come up with that???

And FTR, Sweden, The Netherlands, Germany, UK all have a socialist model of economics in place. They also have freedom of speech.

You might be thinking Marxist-Leninism or Marxist-Maoism, but Socialism is defined by the workers owning the means of production. It could be anything ranging from a central command economy to employee ownership (or even through employee majority stock ownership)


At one point you could have considered Merrill Lynch a 'socialist company' since the employees were the owners of the company for a time.

[immoderate]

141. Ayn Rand much?

I get this shit from my Objectivist friends. And it comes down to restricting the definitions of common words to proprietary meanings.

It goes like this:
Capitalism, is not an economic system, it means individual rights. And the only right available to an individual is to be a capitalist. (Any other rights would be a restriction on greed, so is not allowed.)

The circle is complete.

--imm

[Jack Rabbit]

175. Excellent summation. Let me provide a little gloss.

(I)t comes down to restricting the definitions of common words to proprietary meanings.

That is why Objectivism is a system of thought based on a moralistic justification of greed and selfishness and a poor reading of Aristotle. Ayn Rand often invoked the law of identity to "prove" her points. "A is A and man is man," she would say. It works as long as man is defined as an aggressive, possessive individual, period, and denies any assertion that man may be also be a social animal.

Yet man is also a social animal who must reach to his fellows in order to survive. Even a capitalist needs to reach out to his fellows and employ them on his project. This is social activity. So is human sexuality and the bonding it engenders. It also engenders more humans, who need the nurturing and protection of the adults in order to survive into adulthood and procreate themselves. As Rousseau said, the family is the only natural social institution.

Objectivism is based on a half truth, not a complete lie. When a more complete definition of man (or, for those who prefer, human) is used, the problem is solved and Objectivism crumbles. Living in a society is natural to human beings. It is as much a part of our nature as the impulse to possess. This gives rise to conflicts, both external and internal to the individual. The best art and literature, none of which was created by Ms. Rand, plays on the conflict between the individual and the social. Rousseau, who wasn't really a philosopher, is still a better philosopher than Ayn Rand; Balzac and Dostoyevsky create far superior works of fiction than Ayn Rand (as did Robert Howard, creator of the Conan the Barbarian stories).

That is why, when all is said and done, Ayn Rand is nothing more than a literary hack and philosophical quack.

[The Magistrate]

179. Regarding Half-Truths, My Friend

"People who tell lies know what the truth is; people who tell half-truths have forgotten where they put it."

Favorable mention of Mr. Howard is pleasnt to come across; an odd fellow, who could indeed yell a ripping yarn....

[hifiguy]

184. Rand is "philosophy"

for people whose capacity for reason never encompassed anything more complex than the Conan the Barbarian comics they read as pimply adolescents. They just traded up to a more adult-appearing form of superhero worship. Were Objectivisim a mode of transportation it would be a tricycle. With training wheels.

John Kenneth Galbraith was, as usual, 100% correct when he observed that the modern day conservative (and libertarian) is engaged in one of mankind's oldest exercise in moral philosophy - the search for a superior justification for base selfishness.

[ceile]

145. sigh....

[geardaddy]

146. Is that you John Galt?

[ItNerd4life]

147. Interesting concept, the underlying principle is correct

but the practicality of of socialists can be socialists in a capitalistic society doesn't work if the government
doesn't follow the mantra of 'Promote the general welfare'. Republicans (the capitalists) believe in 'Ignoring the general welfare' and that
is where your argument falls apart.

True Socialism does not allow individual rights, that is very true.

I like people who think differently and put out theories like this that have some basis in reality.

[The Magistrate]

150. The Underlying Principle, Sir, Is False

Nothing n Socialism denies individual rights, as most people understand the term, anyway. Of course, if your definition of 'individual rights' is that one person may levy tribute on many other people, taking what they make for his own profit without compensation, then you coud say Socialism restricts 'individual rights'....

[white_wolf]

152. Capitalists don't give a damn about rights.

The only rights they care about are their own rights to exploit others and hold them in serfdom.

[The Magistrate]

162. One Might Say, Sir, Many Peoples' Slavery Is One Person's Individual Rights

That would seem to sum up the argument being pressed here by some....

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

151. This is Teh Awesome!

[HughBeaumont]

153. "DELETE THIS ENTIRE THREAD MODS!!!!"

This must be "Take a Libertarian Dump and Not Own Up to (or at least clean) It" week in GD. The OP seems to be conspicuously absent. Classic.

[white_wolf]

159. I say sticky it.

That way we can keep it as a reminder of the ignorance of the the Right wing.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

161. You say "Augusto Pinochet" and he vanishes. *POOF*

Like Kirk proving to Nomad that it is flawed.

[The Magistrate]

165. He Stuck Around A Few Hours, Sir

Seems to have packed it in as a stack of fillets around nine-thirty Central last night....

[LeftishBrit]

155. If you mean by 'socialists' left-authoritarian governments like North Korea or the Soviet Union

then there are very few here who will support such governments (which I would consider in most respects right-wing).

If you mean by 'socialist' what is meant by socialist parties in Western Europe, or other democratic countries, then you are wrong. Such countries have mixed economies, and people are free to pursue careers in the private sector, and certainly to own property, etc. Their socialists believe in state-run *public services*. They do not believe that public services should depend on the free market. That doesn't mean that they oppose a free market for *anything*.

Socialist parties in democratic countries believe in a social safety net for all. They believe that no one should live under threat of severe poverty, and yes, they tax better-off people to prevent such extreme poverty - but show me the developed country that doesn't have taxation, to fund such services as roads and the police force that are seen even by non-socialists as essential for all, or too often for wars. Socialists and non-socialists differ in terms of the level and progressive/regressive nature of taxation; not on whether it exists.

And socialist parties in Britain, Scandinavia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. do not impose socialism at gunpoint! To equate such parties with the Communist Party in Stalin's Soviet Union is like assuming that all capitalist countries are run by military dictatorships, because of Pinochet and other military dictators who ran capitalist countries.

[readmoreoften]

180. NKorea is not a "leftist" country. It is closer to a fascist state with leftwing iconography

than anything else. It's state discourse is dominated by the language of racial purity and racial supremacy.

But good post otherwise.

[Sheepshank]

157. Go home, RimJob is missing a village.......resident

[LiberalAndProud]

160. It is possible that you have confused capitalism with democracy.

Capitalism is an economic structure. Democracy is a political structure. The foundation of your argument is faulty, so I cannot give it much credence. I know this won't change your mind about socialism, but your propaganda-induced bias is showing.

[LeftinOH]

163. The Chinese government couldn't have said it better.. n/t

[fishwax]

168. the OP is an avalanche of wrong

but the responses have been quite entertaining to read

[readmoreoften]

174. +1

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

169. This thread is the equivalent of running up to a karate dojo, sticking your head inside and

yelling "I'm gonna gonna kick all your punk asses!!!!". It might seem like a funny thing to try but the result is never gonna be pretty.

[NoGOPZone]

170. I'm trying to figure out how Operation Ajax fits into your theory nt

[RyanPsych]

172. There has never really been an actual socialist/communist society

yet. The USSR was on the right track until Stalin got into power. Thus, after that, all communist societies were started by opportunists under the guise of a leftist revolutionary(ies) and manipulated people into what we now see in Cuba and China. The USSR was about as socialist as the tea party is liberal. Stalinist/Maoist would be better terms. Unfortunately these power hungry murderers ruined the idea of socialism for generations. They bastardized what could have been a good system.

True socialism is in essence democratic. However, as I said, there has never been a true socialist society. There are current mixed systems, as seen in Europe.

[HughBeaumont]

182. Well. Looks like DU Shrugged.

Poster went to MarbleRow Country.

Guess he really wasn't that fit after all.

[Kingofalldems]

183. And MSNBC is the left wing version of Fox? Oh wait--TSed.

Another 'teaching freeper'.

[pinto]

185. Poster is no longer with us.

Locking. Thanks all.