communism v capitalism

[Monk-Eye]

" Contacting NSA And CIA To Have Your Immigration Status Investigated "

* Puerto Rican Idiot And Take Beijing Biden With You *

communism is better than capitalism.
debate me using facts and not ad hominems.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1424&num=0&edition=prelim

§1424. Prohibition upon the naturalization of persons opposed to government or law, or who favor totalitarian forms of government
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b) of this Act, no person shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States-

(1) who advocates or teaches, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government; or

(2) who is a member of or affiliated with (A) the Communist Party of the United States; (B) any other totalitarian party of the United States; (C) the Communist Political Association; (D) the Communist or other totalitarian party of any State of the United States, of any foreign state, or of any political or geographical subdivision of any foreign state; (E) any section, subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or subdivision of any such association or party; or (F) the direct predecessors or successors of any such association or party, regardless of what name such group or organization may have used, may now bear, or may hereafter adopt, unless such alien establishes that he did not have knowledge or reason to believe at the time he became a member of or affiliated with such an organization (and did not thereafter and prior to the date upon which such organization was so registered or so required to be registered have such knowledge or reason to believe) that such organization was a Communist-front organization; or

(3) who, although not within any of the other provisions of this section, advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, either through its own utterances or through any written or printed publications issued or published by or with the permission or consent of or under authority of such organization or paid for by the funds of such organization; or

 

[verker]

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property private ownership and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

 

[TNHarley]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

 

[Zorro!]

 

[theHawk]

communism is better than capitalism.
debate me using facts and not ad hominems.

Move to Cuba, North Korea, or China and let us know how much better life is.

 

[theHawk]

View attachment 425502

Communists fly quite well...

 

[justinacolmena]

§1424. Prohibition upon the naturalization of persons opposed to government or law, or who favor totalitarian forms of government

That covers the entire Democratic Party of the United States.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Authoritarian Arrogance And The Wise King Meme "

* Contradiction Of Paradox Offering Liberty Through Bondage *

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property private ownership and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

The ignorance of a belief in collective ownership is its ambition to replace the hierarchy of capitalism with a hierarchy of bureaucracy , through a lie that replacing a dual system of free enterprise and bureaucracy with a single bureauracracy system will somehow guarantee all individuals greater opportunities for liberty and wealth .

While successes and failures of individuals are available through capitalism , the socialist ignores the great benefits of capitalism and dramatizes misfortunes of capitalism as an excuse for others to adopt its platform without ever relating the deleterious consequences to individual liberty and wealth of its dictatorial ideals - a sales pitch for a mentality of buy this because that is bad without consideration for why this is bad .

The socialist promotes egalitarianism as a virtue to be implemented through collective ownership , while failing to disclose that collective ownership deprives individuals of exceptionalism and reward for their efforts that consequently results in a bland , uniform , mediocrity , while bureaurats having zero actual intent to apply egalitarianism to themselves bequeath the sparse remaining vestiges of individual freedom and wealth to themselves by kleptocracy and harumph authoritarian dictates .

While plutocracy and oligarchy are capable of suppressing and even destroying individual liberty , the public has recourse to free enterprise collaboration as well as a greater individual of state to ensure that truly deleterious circumstances are mitigated .

Alternatively , socialism seeks to destroy capitalism so that only government remains - against which no individual may stand , through arrogance with ignorance for getting rid of a system far more capable of facilitating individual liberty and wealth than its own , while socialists promote its religion of secular humanism dictating everyone be indoctrinated into selflessness , or else suffer the punishments from its theocracy where bureaucrats are gawd .

* Authoritarianism And Libertarianism Are Antonyms *

A Treatise of Legal Philosophy on Adequate Political Science Terms for Civics Pedagogy

" A Treatise of Legal Philosophy on Adequate Political Science Terms for Civics Pedagogy " * Obfuscation Mock Heir Clock Hair * There is little doubt regarding my disdain for a liberal versus conservative paradigm as it is as near to intellectual buffoonery as one could conceive , as the...

www.usmessageboard.com

Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments

" Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments " * Express Agreement Or Disagreement With These Premises * Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ? Does...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Zorro!]

" Authoritarian Arrogance And The Wise King Meme "

* Contradiction Of Paradox Offering Liberty Through Bondage *

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property private ownership and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

The ignorance of a belief in collective ownership is its ambition to replace the hierarchy of capitalism with a hierarchy of bureaucracy , through a lie that replacing a dual system of free enterprise and bureaucracy with a single bureauracracy system will somehow guarantee all individuals greater opportunities for liberty and wealth .

While successes and failures of individuals are available through capitalism , the socialist ignores the great benefits of capitalism and dramatizes misfortunes of capitalism as an excuse for others to adopt its platform without ever relating the deleterious consequences to individual liberty and wealth of its dictatorial ideals - a sales pitch for a mentality of buy this because that is bad without consideration for why this is bad .

The socialist promotes egalitarianism as a virtue to be implemented through collective ownership , while failing to disclose that collective ownership deprives individuals of exceptionalism and reward for their efforts that consequently results in a bland , uniform , mediocrity , while bureaurats having zero actual intent to apply egalitarianism to themselves bequeath the sparse remaining vestiges of individual freedom and wealth to themselves by kleptocracy and harumph authoritarian dictates .

While plutocracy and oligarchy are capable of suppressing and even destroying individual liberty , the public has recourse to free enterprise collaboration as well as a greater individual of state to ensure that truly deleterious circumstances are mitigated .

Alternatively , socialism seeks to destroy capitalism so that only government remains - against which no individual may stand , through arrogance with ignorance for getting rid of a system far more capable of facilitating individual liberty and wealth than its own , while socialists promote its religion of secular humanism dictating everyone be indoctrinated into selflessness , or else suffer the punishments from its theocracy where bureaucrats are gawd .

* Authoritarianism And Libertarianism Are Antonyms *

A Treatise of Legal Philosophy on Adequate Political Science Terms for Civics Pedagogy

" A Treatise of Legal Philosophy on Adequate Political Science Terms for Civics Pedagogy " * Obfuscation Mock Heir Clock Hair * There is little doubt regarding my disdain for a liberal versus conservative paradigm as it is as near to intellectual buffoonery as one could conceive , as the...

www.usmessageboard.com

Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments

" Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments " * Express Agreement Or Disagreement With These Premises * Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ? Does...

www.usmessageboard.com

Yup. If these folks want to form a commune with other like-minded folks who want the same thing, they are free to do so now, but, as you can see by their responses, that isn't what they want, they want coercive control forcing a formerly free people into collectives. The idea that this is "Libertarianism" is just their latest Communist/Socialist lie.

Their claims are always lies, because if they told the truth, no one would want it, and they know it.

 

[Englewood]

How many nations on this Earth have a pure economic system? Does our[ Constitution only allow capitalism?

 

[Zorro!]

How many nations on this Earth have a pure economic system? Does our[ Constitution only allow capitalism?

Our system allows for you to engage in communism or socialism or whatever. Form a commune and invite the like minded to join. So long as you don't violate anyone's rights the rest of us could care less. But, no matter how many times this is pointed out to you folks, this isn't' what you actually want. You guy want authoritarianism and we refuse to surrender our Liberty to you. We see who you guys are, your corruption, how the connected are corrupt and pay no penalty, while those not connected are hounded, illegally spied on and subjected to massive witch hunts.

Firm co-owned by Omar’s husband got $635K in COVID-19 loans … while scoring millions from campaign donations; Made $4M in 2020

Grift.

Now that’s keeping it in the family. Ilhan Omar’s 2020 campaign paid the firm co-owned by her husband Tim Mynett over $2.7 million for services rendered, allowing the couple to keep a significant part of the $5.7 million they raised for her re-election. The E Street Group LLC was by far the biggest recipient of Omar’s campaign, accounting for half of all disbursements. The second-ranking recipient was the state Democratic Party (DFL in Minnesota) with just under $400K.

At the same time E Street Group and Mynett/Omar scored big incomes with the campaign, they also scored big on COVID-19 relief.

Public records show that E Street Group, co-owned by Omar’s husband, Tim Mynett, received nearly $135,000 in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans and $500,000 in Economic Injury Disaster loans. …

Federal Election Commission filings also show that the firm received payments for other campaigns, including $175,000 from the committee of Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and nearly $130,000 from the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

In what world was E Street Group LLC in need of taxpayer support? Why did a member of Congress who personally benefited from campaign donations through E Street Group allow her husband’s firm to get access to $635,000 in subsidized relief loans in the first place? One might think this kind of grift should get the attention of the House Ethics Committee at some point — if not federal prosecutors.

One has to wonder whether Omar knew this was coming out. The Daily Wire recalls that Omar suddenly announced that she would cut ties with E Street Group a fortnight after the election:

In mid-November, Omar cut ties with her husband’s firm after she won re-election in Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, saying she wanted to “make sure that anybody who is supporting our campaign with their time or financial support feels there is no perceived issue with that support,” the Star Tribune reported.

Locking the door after she robbed the place blind

“Every dollar that was spent went to a team of more than twenty that were helping us fight back against attacks and organize on the ground and online in a COVID-19 world,” she added. “And Tim — beyond his salary at the firm — received no profit whatsoever from the consulting relationship the firm provided.”

The Star Tribune noted at the time that this wasn’t a spontaneous demonstration of transparency. Omar cut ties because an outside group had filed a complaint about her campaign-finance ties:

The Federal Election Commission has taken no public action in response to a complaint last year from a conservative group that alleged money from Omar’s campaign paid to now-husband Tim Mynett and his E Street Group LLC for personal travel expenses.
Beyond being able to point to Omar as a high-profile client, the contract was a lucrative one for the E Street Group: Omar’s campaign paid the firm more than $1.1 million for advertising and consulting in the third quarter of this year alone — transactions that Omar has defended as legitimate. The firm’s leadership has also previously said that much of the advertising expenses are transferred to other vendors. …

Gee, paid hubby $1.1M in the quarter for "advertising" and then other venders handled advertising?

Omar stopped short of adequately addressing concerns about how the money was spent by E Street Group, said Thomas Anderson, a spokesman for the National Legal and Policy Center, the group that filed the initial complaint. “We feel Congresswoman Omar is attempting to clean up a mess we laid out in our complaint.”

Add the COVID-19 loans to the mix, and it’s pretty easy to see the grift in Omar’s approach to public "service." That might not make Omar unique in the Beltway, but the sheer chutzpah of draining badly needed relief aid for her family’s business puts Omar in a class of her own. Or so we hope, at least.

Just what “economic injury” did E Street Group LLC suffer in 2020? They made $4 million in this cycle, according to Open Secrets. They only made $145,000 in 2018, the first cycle of their operation. The amount of their COVID-19 relief loans was four times their entire income of the 2018 cycle. Where’s the “injury”?

She's a thief. She also is a vocal advocate of "progressivism" as well as a casual committer of felonies. And since she is a connected Lefty, she pays no price.

 

[Skylar]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing, hideous exploitation, massive inequality, and horrendous abuses of power. Due to its emphasis on unrestrained growth, capitalism also tends to be utterly brutal on the environment and consequently the people that breath, eat or drink water in such a system.

This same emphasis on growth could be argued to be a strong incentive for starting wars of conquest to open markets and acquire resources. The Opium Wars were draped in the rationale of freedom and commerce......but were in reality about forcing an addictive drug with severe social costs on a country that didn't want it.

Capitalism can also work in an environment of freedom and equality. But there's nothing intrinsic about it.

 

[Zorro!]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing,

Fake News. Those practices are not Free Markets, that is why we have laws against monopoly market distortion and price fixing and certainly the solution isn't turning our Liberty over to the ultimate monopoly, Government. We limit our Government to specific tasks spelled out in our Constitution.

capitalism also tends to be utterly brutal on the environment and consequently the people that breath, eat or drink water in such a system....

Fake News. We have one of the freest markets in the world and also one of the cleanest.

 

[Skylar]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing,

Fake News. Those practices are not Free Markets, that is why we have laws against monopoly market distortion and price fixing and certainly the solution isn't turning our Liberty over to the ultimate monopoly, Government. We limit our Government to specific tasks spelled out in our Constitution.

The criticism of communism have been that it always becomes something else. That IN PRACTICE, communism becomes authoritarian. Or collapses. Or that people refuse to give up their power.

Well, if that is our standard, then we must also judge capitalism IN PRACTICE. And see what it morphs into.

And historically, the practice of capitalism has often morphed into monopolies, grotesque exploitation, environmental disasters, horrid abuses, massive inequality. Capitalism has been perfectly comfortable with slavery, oppression, exploitation, and environmental degregation.

And if capitalism in its 'pure' form is the only 'true' capitalism, then capitalism fails for the same reason communism fails: its too fragile to actually exist. As people that accumulate power to suppress competition or exploit people don't want to give that power up.

capitalism also tends to be utterly brutal on the environment and consequently the people that breath, eat or drink water in such a system....

Fake News. We have one of the freest markets in the world and also one of the cleanest.

Absolutely. But not because of capitalism. But instead, because of a centralized government that FORCED the economy to stop polluting at the rates it had been polluting when its only focus was on growth.

It was a decision starkly opposed by many captains of industry that would see their business negatively impacted by environmental regulation necessary to produce cleaner water and cleaner air.

The impetus of cleaner air and water wasn't capitalism. it was environmentalism. And was implemented in spite of capitalism. Same with public education, child labor laws, workplace safety laws, protections against wage theft, overtime rules, and many of the protections that we take for granted today.

All of these occured *in spite* of capitalism.

 

[TNHarley]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing, hideous exploitation, massive inequality, and horrendous abuses of power. Due to its emphasis on unrestrained growth, capitalism also tends to be utterly brutal on the environment and consequently the people that breath, eat or drink water in such a system.

This same emphasis on growth could be argued to be a strong incentive for starting wars of conquest to open markets and acquire resources. The Opium Wars were draped in the rationale of freedom and commerce......but were in reality about forcing an addictive drug with severe social costs on a country that didn't want it.

Capitalism can also work in an environment of freedom and equality. But there's nothing intrinsic about it.

No pure capitalist wants people dumping chemicals into waterways and shit. You can have a true capitalist economy with basic environmental regulations.
Slavery isnt capitalism. Slavery is an anathema to capitalism.
Abuses of power isnt capitalism. That is the government abusing power.
Creating war for profit isnt capitalism. War is declared by the government.

 

[Skylar]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing, hideous exploitation, massive inequality, and horrendous abuses of power. Due to its emphasis on unrestrained growth, capitalism also tends to be utterly brutal on the environment and consequently the people that breath, eat or drink water in such a system.

This same emphasis on growth could be argued to be a strong incentive for starting wars of conquest to open markets and acquire resources. The Opium Wars were draped in the rationale of freedom and commerce......but were in reality about forcing an addictive drug with severe social costs on a country that didn't want it.

Capitalism can also work in an environment of freedom and equality. But there's nothing intrinsic about it.

No pure capitalist wants people dumping chemicals into waterways and shit. You can have a true capitalist economy with basic environmental regulations.
Slavery isnt capitalism. Slavery is an anathema to capitalism.
Abuses of power isnt capitalism. That is the government abusing power.
Creating war for profit isnt capitalism. War is declared by the government.

When have we ever had 'pure capitalism'? This is like 'pure communism'. Its too fragile to exist in the real world. Its an ivory tower idea. In which case, the 'capitalism v communism' debate is easy to resolve:

They're both too fragile to be useful.

 

[Zorro!]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing,

Fake News. Those practices are not Free Markets, that is why we have laws against monopoly market distortion and price fixing and certainly the solution isn't turning our Liberty over to the ultimate monopoly, Government. We limit our Government to specific tasks spelled out in our Constitution.

The criticism of communism have been that it always becomes something else. That IN PRACTICE, communism becomes authoritarian. Or collapses. Or that people refuse to give up their power.

Well, if that is our standard, then we must also judge capitalism IN PRACTICE. And see what it morphs into...

Fake News. First, of course we judge communism on its real world effects. Communism routinely fails to feed their own people, this is a fundamental system failure. Secondly, while yes the free flow of capital is important, so is the free flow of labor. Our system is simply Free Markets and Free Choice with labor and capital free to flow where we ask for it by price point.

... And historically, the practice of capitalism has often morphed into monopolies, grotesque exploitation, environmental disasters...

Fake News. Ours is a sensibly regulated system designed to keep market distorting monopolies in check. As for environmental impact, we have one of the freest systems as well as the cleanest.

We have the 9th cleanest air in the world. Our air is twice as clean as Venezuela and they have not even a fraction of our vibrant economy that provides our fundamental needs.

Countries ranked by PM2.5 air pollution, mean annual exposure (micrograms per cubic meter)

www.indexmundi.com

Our air is nearly 3 times cleaner than Cuba.
More than 4x cleaner than North Korea.
4 x cleaner than Vietnam.
8x cleaner than China.

... horrid abuses, massive inequality...

Fake News. Communist China has millions of men in Concentration camps and government agents placed in their homes while they are incarcerated, sharing the bed with the incarcerated men's wives. You throw these terms about like "horrid abuses, massive inequality, slavery, oppression, exploitation, and environmental degregation (sp)" as if this is occurring in the Free Market Nation you are blessed beyond belief to live in while you pine for the governmental system where that actually occurs.

... capitalism fails for the same reason communism fails: its too fragile to actually exist...

Fake News. Free People and Free Markets are very successful, feeding and providing for their people in abundance. Socialism/Communism routinely fails at these fundamental tasks.

... As people that accumulate power to suppress competition or exploit people don't want to give that power up...

And that's precisely the problem with the Authoritarian system that always comes to power on the promise that they will use that power "to make sure everything is fair". They don't. They use that power to take the best for themselves, while making sure the military and others who are essential for their maintenance of control are similarly provided for, while the majority are disarmed and exploited to serve those in power.

But, if you want to start a commune in the US, inhabited and shared by the like minded on a free will basis, you are more than free to do so.

So, what's your problem? If your way is so wondrous, go do it. What is stopping you? You sure talk a lot about how confident you are that it's vastly superior to Free Will/Choice/Markets, so how come a bunch of you Communist/Socialists aren't pooling your resources and starting a commune?

 

[Skylar]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing,

Fake News. Those practices are not Free Markets, that is why we have laws against monopoly market distortion and price fixing and certainly the solution isn't turning our Liberty over to the ultimate monopoly, Government. We limit our Government to specific tasks spelled out in our Constitution.

The criticism of communism have been that it always becomes something else. That IN PRACTICE, communism becomes authoritarian. Or collapses. Or that people refuse to give up their power.

Well, if that is our standard, then we must also judge capitalism IN PRACTICE. And see what it morphs into...

Fake News. First, of course we judge communism on its real world effects. Communism routinely fails to feed their own people, this is a fundamental system failure. Secondly, while yes the free flow of capital is important, so is the free flow of labor. Our system is simply Free Markets and Free Choice with labor and capital free to flow where we ask for it by price point.

Our system hasn't always been. Look at our history. Our system involved extraordinary exploitation, oppression and environmental devastation.

We've recovered from a fair amount of it because we mitigated capitalism with regulation and social safetynets, public works, public education, child labor laws, public and national parks, national banks, and a variety of other measures that borrowed tenets right out of the communist manifesto.

We have a hybrid system that has in many ways traded capitalism for greater economic stability. As pure capitalism tends to be wildly unstable, exploitative and environmentally destructive. If it can exist at all without quickly morphing into anti-competitive practices.

... And historically, the practice of capitalism has often morphed into monopolies, grotesque exploitation, environmental disasters...

Fake News. Ours is a sensibly regulated system designed to keep market distorting monopolies in check. As for environmental impact, we have one of the freest systems as well as the cleanest.

Monopolies are natural product of capitalism. As people with power, marketshare and leverage will attempt to maximize that power to make more money. Competition reduces profits. Anti-competitive practices are generally more profitable.

We have to adopt a central government control more akin to socialism to mitigate capitalism natural tendancy toward monopoly in a manner similar to how we used similar central government power to mitigate capitalism's devastating environmental impacts.

And each of these mitigations are done in spite of capitalism. Not because of it.

 

[Zorro!]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing,

Fake News. Those practices are not Free Markets, that is why we have laws against monopoly market distortion and price fixing and certainly the solution isn't turning our Liberty over to the ultimate monopoly, Government. We limit our Government to specific tasks spelled out in our Constitution.

The criticism of communism have been that it always becomes something else. That IN PRACTICE, communism becomes authoritarian. Or collapses. Or that people refuse to give up their power.

Well, if that is our standard, then we must also judge capitalism IN PRACTICE. And see what it morphs into...

Fake News. First, of course we judge communism on its real world effects. Communism routinely fails to feed their own people, this is a fundamental system failure. Secondly, while yes the free flow of capital is important, so is the free flow of labor. Our system is simply Free Markets and Free Choice with labor and capital free to flow where we ask for it by price point.

... Our system hasn't always been....

This is the thesis statement of our form of government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...​

That is the purpose of our government, for us to mutually secure our collective fundamental rights. Our government derives its legitimacy from our consent, and these rights are secured not through just any power, but through just power. In our system our government cannot legitimately exercise unjust power.

And ours is a constantly improving system. In the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

This constantly perfecting of our system to secure our rights is a task we inherit from our parents and pass to our children. The anti-slavery amendments should have been part of the original constitution, it shouldn't have waited 70 years. Women should have had the vote immediately, but the initial generation did what they could and left these improvements for following generations who didn't have to first defeat the reining world power to even begin. Rather than sitting in judgment on those that went before us, who accomplished far more than we have of this task, we should be diligently looking for ways to more perfectly secure the rights of our fellow citizens now. Should whole family lines be locked into intergenerational squalor or intergenerational incarceration?

Should our prisons be houses of systematic and daily rape?
Should our inner cities be failing hell holes little different from some elements of a 3rd world nation?
Could our criminal justice system be improved to a system of restitution rather than retribution where once restitution is made, including penalty, the violator has a clean slate and hopefully a marketable skill?

Look around, we do a great deal of belly aching when the same effort could instead improve the lot of those who share our national identity.

... we mitigated capitalism with regulation...

Sensible regulation has always been a government power, it's endemic to our system, and of course the more time we have to sensibly regulate the more improved the outcome.

... wildly unstable, exploitative and environmentally destructive...

You are perseverating. We are the longest surviving national government in the world today. There isn't a single national government in existence today that has survived as long as ours, we are also one of the very cleanest, our people's rights are secured like few others yet you throw these buzz phrases "wildly unstable, exploitative and environmentally destructive" into every post like mindlessly blown around word salad. How can you describe the most stable government in the entire world as defected for being "wildly unstable" and use the term with any sense of integrity?

... Monopolies are natural product of capitalism...

Fake News, they are deliberate distortions of Free Markets, which we deal with through sensible regulation. You claim the solution is authoritarianism, which is monopolistic by it's very nature.

... Competition reduces profits...

Exactly, which is why sensible regulation promotes the free flow of labor and capital so that when people indicate their desire for a particular good or service, others are free to provide those goods and services, which keeps supply and demand balanced, controlling prices.

... Anti-competitive practices are generally more profitable...

They actually aren't "profit" based, they are rent-seeking practices, generally a corrupt alliance between politically connected and government power.

... We have to adopt a central government control more akin to socialism...

No we don't. That central government power will promptly engate in rent-seeking monopolistic practices that steal our Freedom and Liberty.

And of course, we need free and fair elections in order to accurate transmit our walking orders to our elected representatives who govern, they do not rule us. In our system WE are the sovereign power. But, if you want to form your commune with centralized production and distribution, you are free to do so, so long as you don't attempt to coerce anyone into participating.

So, you are good to go. Go do it and then report back to us on how your social experiment is going. I wish you the best.

 

[Skylar]

Communism can work in small groups.
No, no true communist country has never existed. Because it is a pipedream. People wont give up their power. That has been shown over and over with millions of lives lost.
Capitalism is freedom. There is also no capitalist countries. Obviously.
A pipe dream vs. Freedom. Hmmm

Is Capitalism 'freedom' though? Both the guided age and the eras of slavery in the US were both capitalistic.

Capitalism in practice is very, very compatible with monopolies, price fixing,

Fake News. Those practices are not Free Markets, that is why we have laws against monopoly market distortion and price fixing and certainly the solution isn't turning our Liberty over to the ultimate monopoly, Government. We limit our Government to specific tasks spelled out in our Constitution.

The criticism of communism have been that it always becomes something else. That IN PRACTICE, communism becomes authoritarian. Or collapses. Or that people refuse to give up their power.

Well, if that is our standard, then we must also judge capitalism IN PRACTICE. And see what it morphs into...

Fake News. First, of course we judge communism on its real world effects. Communism routinely fails to feed their own people, this is a fundamental system failure. Secondly, while yes the free flow of capital is important, so is the free flow of labor. Our system is simply Free Markets and Free Choice with labor and capital free to flow where we ask for it by price point.

... Our system hasn't always been....

This is the thesis statement of our form of government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...​

That is the purpose of our government, for us to mutually secure our collective fundamental rights. Our government derives its legitimacy from our consent, and these rights are secured no through just any power, but through just power. In our system our government cannot legitimately exercise unjust power.

And while that was being written, we kept millions of people in slavery. With slavery codified into our constitution by counting them as 3/5ths a person. Undue power was baked into our nation from the moment of its inception.

Its only through imbuing the central government with more power could we mitigate the horrifying exploitation that capitalism tends toward. And the massive environmental damage. And the monopolies that capitalism natural trends toward.

All of these things weren't done because of capitalism, but in spite of it. And our nation has been better for it.

And ours is a constantly improving system. In the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

This constantly perfecting of our system to secure our rights is a task we inherit from our parents and pass to our children. The anti-slavery amendments should have been part of the original constitution, it shouldn't have waited 70 years. Women should have had the vote immediately, but the initial generation did what they could and left these improvements for following generations who didn't have to first defeat the reining world power to even begin. Rather than sitting in judgment on those that went before us, who accomplished far more than we have of this task, we should be diligently looking for ways to more perfectly secure the rights of our fellow citizens now. Should whole family lines be locked into intergenerational squalor or intergenerational incarceration?

With many of those improvements being the dilution of the undue power baked into our system. The elimination of slavery. The dismantling of Jim Crow. The cleaning up of our environment. The abolishment of child labor. The institution of public education and public safety regulation. The setting aside of public lands in our state and national forests. The establishment of national banks.

All of these were departures from capitalism, dilluttion of its most unstable, monopolistic, destructive or exploitative tendancies. And the embracing of more socialistic and even communistic tenets.

And our nation has benefited greatly from this hybrid system in which capitalism has been mitigated. And its often mitigated with socialism inspired tenets.