Capitalism or Communism? Is communism really that horrible?

[Uncensored2008]

As to your question, why don't I go to college rather than ask dumb questions maybe I will but what if the college asks dumb questions?

We have a mixed economy in that there are controls, but prior to Obama's Fascist care, the economy was market driven.

Remember that Socialism is "Ownership or Control of the means of production by the state." Prior to 2008, the government had virtually no control of the means of production. True, they had regulations on oil, and had created monopolies in communications to funnel wealth to well connected looters via AT&T, but the percentage of control was in single digits. Fascist care puts about 20% of the economy in the hands of state planners and their cronies.

We have traditionally been a capitalist country, now we are not. We have traditionally been a prosperous nation, now we will not be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, since the progressives like to pretend places like the former Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia "weren't practicing REAL communism" as an excuse, how about THIS example? I know this story has been told many times.

When the Pilgrims arrived on the Mayflower, they set up a society in which no one could own property and everyone shared equally, no matter how much work they did. The result was misery and hunger. But when the governor allowed each man to plant and raise crops for his own household, something amazing happened.

William Bradford recorded the experiences of the Separatists who came to the New World on the Mayflower and later voyages some years after the events actually occurred. His memory was evidently aided by personal letters that had been retained as well as his own contemporary writings. The following occurred around 1622 and 1623, three years after the establishment of Plymouth colony. It involved not more than probably two-dozen families. For some time, the “Pilgrims” had raised meager crops, running short of food stores every winter. Infusions of new mouths to feed on ships from England did not help, but that, it turns out, was not the source of their problem. Mr. Bradford can speak for himself:

All this while no supplies were heard of, nor did they know when they might expect any. So they began to consider how to raise more corn, and obtain a better crop than they had done, so that they might not continue to endure the misery of want. At length after much debate, the Governor, with the advice of the chief among them, allowed each man to plant corn for his own household, and to trust to themselves for that; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. So every family was assigned a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number with that in view, — for present purposes only, and making no division for inheritance, — all boys and children being included under some family.

This was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to plant corn, while before they would allege weakness and inability; and to have compelled them would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

The failure of the experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, — that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.

William Bradford's writings go on to explain that the young men objected to being made to labor to support other mens' wives and children. The older and more experienced men felt that being ranked equally with those younger and less-wise was an insult to them. And the women regarded being made to labor for men other than their own husbands as a form of slavery, and their husbands were offended by it.

It wasn't until the Pilgrims - or Separatists, as they called themselves - were released from their communal arrangement to work solely on behalf of themselves and their own families that their colony became prosperous.

The Pilgrims' failed experiment with communism | Goldwater Institute

Feel free, if you don't like this source, to find any references you like to Bradford’s History of the Plymouth Settlement; 1608-1650, by William Bradford. The whole sad tale is down there in black and white.

You don't have to go back to America's early history to find the failure of communism, check out Owen's New Harmony Indiana experiment. Check out the USSR and its failure of communism. Can anyone name any Marxian communist nation that has worked? So if the USSR did not practice Marxian communism, what did they practice? What economic system does Red China practice, what economic system does the United States practice?

As I said, I offered this example because so many "progressives" are rejecting the former Soviet Union and China as examples.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well, since the progressives like to pretend places like the former Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia "weren't practicing REAL communism" as an excuse, how about THIS example? I know this story has been told many times.

When the Pilgrims arrived on the Mayflower, they set up a society in which no one could own property and everyone shared equally, no matter how much work they did. The result was misery and hunger. But when the governor allowed each man to plant and raise crops for his own household, something amazing happened.

William Bradford recorded the experiences of the Separatists who came to the New World on the Mayflower and later voyages some years after the events actually occurred. His memory was evidently aided by personal letters that had been retained as well as his own contemporary writings. The following occurred around 1622 and 1623, three years after the establishment of Plymouth colony. It involved not more than probably two-dozen families. For some time, the “Pilgrims” had raised meager crops, running short of food stores every winter. Infusions of new mouths to feed on ships from England did not help, but that, it turns out, was not the source of their problem. Mr. Bradford can speak for himself:

All this while no supplies were heard of, nor did they know when they might expect any. So they began to consider how to raise more corn, and obtain a better crop than they had done, so that they might not continue to endure the misery of want. At length after much debate, the Governor, with the advice of the chief among them, allowed each man to plant corn for his own household, and to trust to themselves for that; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. So every family was assigned a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number with that in view, — for present purposes only, and making no division for inheritance, — all boys and children being included under some family.

This was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to plant corn, while before they would allege weakness and inability; and to have compelled them would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

The failure of the experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, — that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.

William Bradford's writings go on to explain that the young men objected to being made to labor to support other mens' wives and children. The older and more experienced men felt that being ranked equally with those younger and less-wise was an insult to them. And the women regarded being made to labor for men other than their own husbands as a form of slavery, and their husbands were offended by it.

It wasn't until the Pilgrims - or Separatists, as they called themselves - were released from their communal arrangement to work solely on behalf of themselves and their own families that their colony became prosperous.

The Pilgrims' failed experiment with communism | Goldwater Institute

Feel free, if you don't like this source, to find any references you like to Bradford’s History of the Plymouth Settlement; 1608-1650, by William Bradford. The whole sad tale is down there in black and white.

You don't have to go back to America's early history to find the failure of communism, check out Owen's New Harmony Indiana experiment. Check out the USSR and its failure of communism. Can anyone name any Marxian communist nation that has worked? So if the USSR did not practice Marxian communism, what did they practice? What economic system does Red China practice, what economic system does the United States practice?

As I said, I offered this example because so many "progressives" are rejecting the former Soviet Union and China as examples.

on what grounds can they possibly reject the USSR as an example given that they spied for it and gave it the bomb?? And given that the great liberal economists like Paul Samuelson, who taught 4 generations of students that the USSR was acheiving higher rates of economic growth than America??

Barry had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. What more proof do we want that our liberals cant be separated from the soviet ideology??

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You don't have to go back to America's early history to find the failure of communism, check out Owen's New Harmony Indiana experiment. Check out the USSR and its failure of communism. Can anyone name any Marxian communist nation that has worked? So if the USSR did not practice Marxian communism, what did they practice? What economic system does Red China practice, what economic system does the United States practice?

As I said, I offered this example because so many "progressives" are rejecting the former Soviet Union and China as examples.

on what grounds can they possibly reject the USSR as an example given that they spied for it and gave it the bomb?? And given that the great liberal economists like Paul Samuelson, who taught 4 generations of students that the USSR was acheiving higher rates of economic growth than America??

Barry had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. What more proof do we want that our liberals cant be separated from the soviet ideology??

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

You'll have to ask THEM on what grounds they reject the USSR as "not REAL communism".

I can tell you why nothing you said makes a difference to them, though. It's because leftists can't SPELL "consistency", let alone show any. And that lack really doesn't bother them at all.

 

[Unkotare]

what economic system does the United States practice?

oh great here we are with the idiotic questions again. State your conclusion or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so!

Any Econ 101 text will tell you we have a mixed economy with some socialism and some capitalism. Why not go to college rather than ask dumb questions here??

Did YOU go to college? Is that where you became convinced of your incredibly high IQ? Just how high is it, by the way?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Unregulated capitalism or communism: both are of the devil.

Consider monoculture sugar capitalism in 1958 in Cuba and communism there in 2008.

Neither forms are acceptable.

 

[bripat9643]

Unregulated capitalism or communism: both are of the devil.

Consider monoculture sugar capitalism in 1958 in Cuba and communism there in 2008.

Neither forms are acceptable.

Cuba before Castro took over was a paradise compared to what it was like after.

Furthermore, Cuba also grew tobacco. It has iron mines and the tourist industry was a big source of revenue.

Your example doesn't support your claim

You sound just like a fucking commie, Fakey. You have devoted numerous posts to defending the Communist government of Cuba.

 

[regent]

As I said, I offered this example because so many "progressives" are rejecting the former Soviet Union and China as examples.

on what grounds can they possibly reject the USSR as an example given that they spied for it and gave it the bomb?? And given that the great liberal economists like Paul Samuelson, who taught 4 generations of students that the USSR was acheiving higher rates of economic growth than America??

Barry had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. What more proof do we want that our liberals cant be separated from the soviet ideology??

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

You'll have to ask THEM on what grounds they reject the USSR as "not REAL communism".

I can tell you why nothing you said makes a difference to them, though. It's because leftists can't SPELL "consistency", let alone show any. And that lack really doesn't bother them at all.

Read the history of the Soviet Union. Read of Karl Marx's communism. The USSR began its excursion into communism and quickly dropped it for a New Economic Program, I think it was 1921. No country has made communism work. Perhaps the Mbuti of the Kalahari came closest.

 

[Cecilie1200]

on what grounds can they possibly reject the USSR as an example given that they spied for it and gave it the bomb?? And given that the great liberal economists like Paul Samuelson, who taught 4 generations of students that the USSR was acheiving higher rates of economic growth than America??

Barry had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. What more proof do we want that our liberals cant be separated from the soviet ideology??

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

You'll have to ask THEM on what grounds they reject the USSR as "not REAL communism".

I can tell you why nothing you said makes a difference to them, though. It's because leftists can't SPELL "consistency", let alone show any. And that lack really doesn't bother them at all.

Read the history of the Soviet Union. Read of Karl Marx's communism. The USSR began its excursion into communism and quickly dropped it for a New Economic Program, I think it was 1921. No country has made communism work. Perhaps the Mbuti of the Kalahari came closest.

No, really? You don't say. Can't imagine how I wasn't aware of that previously.

 

[JakeStarkey]

65% were in absolute misery in 1958 and you call it a "paradise."

The economy was overwhelmingly based on sugar, and the money powers that made huge profits exploited the agricultural workers.

You have no idea of what you are discussing.

Unregulated capitalism or communism: both are of the devil.

Consider monoculture sugar capitalism in 1958 in Cuba and communism there in 2008.

Neither forms are acceptable.

Cuba before Castro took over was a paradise compared to what it was like after.

Furthermore, Cuba also grew tobacco. It has iron mines and the tourist industry was a big source of revenue.

Your example doesn't support your claim

You sound just like a fucking commie, Fakey. You have devoted numerous posts to defending the Communist government of Cuba.

 

[bripat9643]

65% were in absolute misery in 1958 and you call it a "paradise."

That's communist propaganda, Fakey, and you're defending it.

The economy was overwhelmingly based on sugar, and the money powers that made huge profits exploited the agricultural workers.

More communist horseshit.

You have no idea of what you are discussing.

I know commie propaganda when I see it, especially when it comes directly from the Communist government of Cuba.

Face it, Fakey, not only are you a senile moron, you're a communist as well.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Uh, there are communists and socialists in this country and many of them are hiding in the Democrap party. They typically don't come out in the open but they are working to undermine this country from within.

Obamacare was the first step to take away the free market with healthcare, which would be the Govt controlling a vast majority of our economy....the first step. Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc understood the baby steps and the nationalization of private sectors to control the masses.

Human greed will never be eliminated by capitalism or communism, the key thing is which system better controls the greed.

In communism the power resides with the poltical elites that openly show off greed by living well while the masses work hard for nothing in the "planned" economy.

In capitalism power resides with the public and private sectors depending on wealth, popularity, etc. A politician can be powerful yet poor in this system given we are talking a democracy like this country. A powerful politician can pass laws to counter greed by some rich people in the private sector that are harming others like say child labor in factories.

In capitalism there is a free flow of money and power to the individual, while in communism the power and money resides with those making the laws. You are screwed when all the power resides with greedy people that also write the laws.

Communism can only survive as long as the powerful political elites can keep the oppressed masses under their thumb, see the USSR, China, North Korea, etc.

For you pro-communist idiots....tell me when a capitalist country needed to put up walls to keep its people from escaping..

For an American to be pro-communist one necessarily would need to be either utterly destitute with no hope of improvement, or abjectly ignorant, or both.

There is a common misunderstanding in contemporary American thought which holds that someone who recognizes the need for certain socialist controls over a capitalist economy is "pro-communist." This perception is as ignorant as is the notion that communism has the slightest chance of taking hold in contemporary America.

The problem we have today is the effect of Reaganomics, which is in fact the rise of laissez-faire capitalism. The Nation's wealth resources have been distributed upward while the middle (working) class economic status has been stagnant for three decades and is now declining. This is the result of three decades of deregulation of the finance industry and the banks, which has permitted a legalized form of looting.

Anyone who wishes to know more about how it was done is urged to follow the link in my signature line.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Nation's wealth resources have been distributed upward while the middle (working) class economic status has been stagnant for three decades and is now declining.

too stupid and perfectly liberal!! We live in a free country. If you don't want Gates and Jobs to have so much money don't buy their products.
You want to buy their great products and then steal the money back like a common liberal thief!!

Also, if you want to help the middle class make liberal unions illegal again to bring back the 30 million jobs they moved off shore!! and ship 20 million liberal illegals home for another 20 million jobs here!!

 

[regent]

what economic system does the United States practice?

oh great here we are with the idiotic questions again. State your conclusion or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so!

Any Econ 101 text will tell you we have a mixed economy with some socialism and some capitalism. Why not go to college rather than ask dumb questions here??

Well I'm pleased that you have access to an econ 101 textbook. Tell us what does your econ 101 textbook say about governnment's role of redistribution of wealth or income.
I don't think we need to ask you to cite the text.

 

[bripat9643]

Well I'm pleased that you have access to an econ 101 textbook. Tell us what does your econ 101 textbook say about governnment's role of redistribution of wealth or income.
I don't think we need to ask you to cite the text.

That's like asking what role does an armed robber play in armed robbery.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

what economic system does the United States practice?

oh great here we are with the idiotic questions again. State your conclusion or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so!

Any Econ 101 text will tell you we have a mixed economy with some socialism and some capitalism. Why not go to college rather than ask dumb questions here??

Well I'm pleased that you have access to an econ 101 textbook. Tell us what does your econ 101 textbook say about governnment's role of redistribution of wealth or income.
I don't think we need to ask you to cite the text.

why ask idiotic questions. Why not state your conclusion and defend it or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so??

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ideal communism, Most or all communism is corrupted. And i dont belive ideal capitalism exist either.

You are looking for perfection. Not happening.
Our system has stood the test of time. It is not perfect. Far from it.
The highest and best quality of our system of capitalism is that it does the best for the most.

 

[regent]

oh great here we are with the idiotic questions again. State your conclusion or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so!

Any Econ 101 text will tell you we have a mixed economy with some socialism and some capitalism. Why not go to college rather than ask dumb questions here??

Well I'm pleased that you have access to an econ 101 textbook. Tell us what does your econ 101 textbook say about governnment's role of redistribution of wealth or income.
I don't think we need to ask you to cite the text.

why ask idiotic questions. Why not state your conclusion and defend it or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so??

Do you mean knowledge or intelligence they are not the same you know. How can I answer what your econ 101 textbook says about government's role in redistribution of wealth. It's your textbook.

 

[MikeK]

Uh, there are communists and socialists in this country and many of them are hiding in the Democrap party. They typically don't come out in the open but they are working to undermine this country from within.

There also is a Flat-Earth Society in America. And there is an untold number of Americans who are busily constructing underground survival cells, some of which are former missile sites purchased from the government and cost tens of thousands of dollars. The fact is there is a little bit of everything in America, including communists. (Nazis, too.)

Obamacare was the first step to take away the free market with healthcare, which would be the Govt controlling a vast majority of our economy....the first step. Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc understood the baby steps and the nationalization of private sectors to control the masses.

It appears your mind is made up on this subject so I won't waste time and space trying to reason with you. But you really should give some thought to the fact that the notion of communists taking over America was played out in the fifties and is widely regarded as crackpot paranoia today.

I respectfully suggest you spend some time learning what communism is and why contemporary America is the least likely place for it to make any serious inroads.

 

[blackhawk]

Over the years many people have risked life and limb to flee a communist country to live capitalist one I don't know of many who have risked the same to flee a capitalist one for a communist. I feel like that pretty much say's it all.