Capitalism or Communism? Is communism really that horrible?

[GoneBezerk]

Why is JaketheFake allowed to waste bandwidth???

The FCC needs to be alerted a nutjob is on the internet.

 

[daveman]

#693 above answers daveman, who is merely davying along.

#693 claims that Communism is part of the American narrative. It is, but as something to be fought, not embraced, as Fakey believes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The libertarian hyena pack is cackling on the extremes of society.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why is JaketheFake allowed to waste bandwidth???

The FCC needs to be alerted a nutjob is on the internet.

 

[daveman]

daveman cannot define socialism or communism and show how they are part of the American narrative.

daveman is merely davying along.

Boy, whenever anyone criticizes ANYTHING on the left, you show up to defend it.

And the really funny bit? You believe people buy your "moderate Republican" bullshit.

Fakey has been vociferously defending the Communist government of Cuba, and he's been using propaganda published by official organs of that government to do it.

Now get this: Fakey claims he's not a communist!

Well, that's only because he's a liar.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I see two of the libertarian liars making noise here.

Boy, whenever anyone criticizes ANYTHING on the left, you show up to defend it.

And the really funny bit? You believe people buy your "moderate Republican" bullshit.

Fakey has been vociferously defending the Communist government of Cuba, and he's been using propaganda published by official organs of that government to do it.

Now get this: Fakey claims he's not a communist!

Well, that's only because he's a liar.

 

[daveman]

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.

I've tried this before. They claimed it wasn't real socialism.

Whenever socialism is tried and fails, the libturds claim it wasn't "real socialism," and whenever they point to an example of successful socialism, it appears to be virtually indistinguishable from the governments they demonize as mean, heartless capitalism.

Of course. They have no successes or heroes of their own, so they have to co-opt others'.

 

[daveman]

I see two of the libertarian liars making noise here.

Fakey has been vociferously defending the Communist government of Cuba, and he's been using propaganda published by official organs of that government to do it.

Now get this: Fakey claims he's not a communist!

Well, that's only because he's a liar.

I'm not a libertarian, you poo-flinging monkey. You leftists don't get to dictate what my views are.

 

[bripat9643]

I see two of the libertarian liars making noise here.

Well, that's only because he's a liar.

I'm not a libertarian, you poo-flinging monkey. You leftists don't get to dictate what my views are.

He's referring to me an uncensored.

 

[daveman]

I see two of the libertarian liars making noise here.

I'm not a libertarian, you poo-flinging monkey. You leftists don't get to dictate what my views are.

He's referring to me an uncensored.

...yet he quoted me.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Going into this i would like to say that i am more on the capitalist end of the spectrum. Though going into this i am generally capitalist knowing the pros and cons of them both may change your own mind. Even though communism was originally a social thing it has also found itself as a government with one man in control. So lets try and picture it with a U.S or near that style democracy.
In essence capitalism is smaller government and communism is huge government. Now before your western instincts tell you to instantly choose capitalism think of the benefits of huge government control in your life.
In communism ideal/original communism everyone is equal. Though it almost never happens that a nation goes completely on the guidelines of a known social policy. Everyone is equal and therefore have the same things to live on and lean on their whole lives. Everyone once again must be equal in society and as a result you lose the right to earn. So in exchange for a lifetime safety net given by the government you give up the ability to earn your way up the ladder. This is because only one social class exist and that is common working class. So you have nothing to look foward to besides that life forever.
It is up to you to decide whether that is a bad or a good thing for you. As a result of this innovation potential is silenced. So is a lifelong safety net really worth losing earning rights and silencing so much potential for innovation?
Now knowing the main gains and losses of communism lets talk about capitalism.
Essentially capitalism is the exact opposite of communism in its original and purest form. In ideal/original capitalism they're is pretty much no government interference in your life. Of course they still have laws as any other nation but if you follow them you are left alone for all of your life. Capitalism is that sweet freedom you taste, love and learn about. In ideal capitalism you can go out and earn it all. You can dream big and dream about the journey there. You can be a bigshot nobody will ever forget. But with that ability to dream big and earn it all you lose that security you had with communism. And if someone earns too much capital they can decide to make everyone else work for dirt cheap money if they choose. They can dominate or without a law from it a monopoly can occur. And if you fail you have nothing to fall back on unless a generous citizen with decent capital decides to help you up.
So is the freedom of capitalism worth the possibility of ending up with nothing?
In conclusion i would like to share my opinion. I belive the risk involved with capitalism is worth the big dreams and potential unlocked that comes with it. People have bigger things to live for and more fuel to live on. Because "the dream" actually exist. In addition to the fact that the world/nation could innovate so much faster.
I would like for you to build an opinion of your own and for you to give me your feedback and for you to discuss amongst youselves.

I dont know, did a country ever suffer an economic collapse under the weight of capitalism?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Depressions of 1893 and 1933 and the Recession of 2008.

Going into this i would like to say that i am more on the capitalist end of the spectrum. Though going into this i am generally capitalist knowing the pros and cons of them both may change your own mind. Even though communism was originally a social thing it has also found itself as a government with one man in control. So lets try and picture it with a U.S or near that style democracy.
In essence capitalism is smaller government and communism is huge government. Now before your western instincts tell you to instantly choose capitalism think of the benefits of huge government control in your life.
In communism ideal/original communism everyone is equal. Though it almost never happens that a nation goes completely on the guidelines of a known social policy. Everyone is equal and therefore have the same things to live on and lean on their whole lives. Everyone once again must be equal in society and as a result you lose the right to earn. So in exchange for a lifetime safety net given by the government you give up the ability to earn your way up the ladder. This is because only one social class exist and that is common working class. So you have nothing to look foward to besides that life forever.
It is up to you to decide whether that is a bad or a good thing for you. As a result of this innovation potential is silenced. So is a lifelong safety net really worth losing earning rights and silencing so much potential for innovation?
Now knowing the main gains and losses of communism lets talk about capitalism.
Essentially capitalism is the exact opposite of communism in its original and purest form. In ideal/original capitalism they're is pretty much no government interference in your life. Of course they still have laws as any other nation but if you follow them you are left alone for all of your life. Capitalism is that sweet freedom you taste, love and learn about. In ideal capitalism you can go out and earn it all. You can dream big and dream about the journey there. You can be a bigshot nobody will ever forget. But with that ability to dream big and earn it all you lose that security you had with communism. And if someone earns too much capital they can decide to make everyone else work for dirt cheap money if they choose. They can dominate or without a law from it a monopoly can occur. And if you fail you have nothing to fall back on unless a generous citizen with decent capital decides to help you up.
So is the freedom of capitalism worth the possibility of ending up with nothing?
In conclusion i would like to share my opinion. I belive the risk involved with capitalism is worth the big dreams and potential unlocked that comes with it. People have bigger things to live for and more fuel to live on. Because "the dream" actually exist. In addition to the fact that the world/nation could innovate so much faster.
I would like for you to build an opinion of your own and for you to give me your feedback and for you to discuss amongst youselves.

I dont know, did a country ever suffer an economic collapse under the weight of capitalism?

 

[LibertyLemming]

Much like the purist form of Communism never being tried, so goes Capitalism. On a national scale of course, one could say the Drug market is pretty pure Capitalism

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The Depressions of 1893 and 1933 and the Recession 2008

The recession of 2008 was the result of our country's progressive movements towards more entitlements and government dependency, embracing a more socialist ideology or perception for the role of government. This was not role as envisioned by our nation's Founders.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why is JaketheFake allowed to waste bandwidth???

The FCC needs to be alerted a nutjob is on the internet.

It's a free country; even a Soros paid hack like Jakematters is permitted to voice the opinion of the DNC.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, that's only because he's a liar.

I think with Jakematters it's pronounced, "LAIR!"

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm not a libertarian, you poo-flinging monkey. You leftists don't get to dictate what my views are.

He's referring to me an uncensored.

...yet he quoted me.

Jakematters ain't the sharpest marshmallow in the bag...

 

[LibertyLemming]

He's referring to me an uncensored.

...yet he quoted me.

Jakematters ain't the sharpest marshmallow in the bag...

this

 

[PaulS1950]

Socialism: How do you define it?
Is it not the government control of the population through the administration of the necessities of life?
Like food production and distribution? Like health care? Like profits? Housing? etc.
The one thing that limits socialism is power possessed by the people. It is necessary to socialism that the people become powerless, helpless groups that rely on the government for their very lives. It is this requirement that fuels the loss of rights in the name of "security" which is actually lost along with the rights.
In the name of security we allow searches of people before we board airplanes.
In the name of security we limit access to the same weapons that every soldier carries.
In the name of security we hve given control of health care to our government - which can't be trusted to keep the USA solvent.
How does any of that make the individuals safer?
The searches have never stopped an individual from getting on a plane with a weapon or bomb but it has limited our defense of the plane in those cases where someone was out to cause harm on or with the plane.
The restrictions to weapons has never stopped or even slowed violent crime in the USA but it has restricted many successful defenses in response to violence by criminals.
The national health care system and requirement for private insurance will not improve health care because it will limit what the doctors can do with the resources that are available. You won't be able to select your own doctor because not all doctor will be a part of the program. The government has proven that it needs to spend more money than it brings in - no matter how much money they have they borrow more in interest only loans that keep adding up. How can you expect government to pay for proper health care?
The USA has been slowly becoming more socialist for a long time, in little steps so no one notices. We are at the point where it is not difficult to see if only we open our eyes and look at what history has shown us.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Socialism: How do you define it?
Is it not the government control of the population through the administration of the necessities of life?
Like food production and distribution? Like health care? Like profits? Housing? etc.
The one thing that limits socialism is power possessed by the people. It is necessary to socialism that the people become powerless, helpless groups that rely on the government for their very lives. It is this requirement that fuels the loss of rights in the name of "security" which is actually lost along with the rights.
In the name of security we allow searches of people before we board airplanes.
In the name of security we limit access to the same weapons that every soldier carries.
In the name of security we hve given control of health care to our government - which can't be trusted to keep the USA solvent.
How does any of that make the individuals safer?
The searches have never stopped an individual from getting on a plane with a weapon or bomb but it has limited our defense of the plane in those cases where someone was out to cause harm on or with the plane.
The restrictions to weapons has never stopped or even slowed violent crime in the USA but it has restricted many successful defenses in response to violence by criminals.
The national health care system and requirement for private insurance will not improve health care because it will limit what the doctors can do with the resources that are available. You won't be able to select your own doctor because not all doctor will be a part of the program. The government has proven that it needs to spend more money than it brings in - no matter how much money they have they borrow more in interest only loans that keep adding up. How can you expect government to pay for proper health care?
The USA has been slowly becoming more socialist for a long time, in little steps so no one notices. We are at the point where it is not difficult to see if only we open our eyes and look at what history has shown us.

shh bro, we're supposed to call it liberalism now.