Socialism: An idea so great it has to be forced on everyone.

That isn't necessarily capitalism. Capital involves money, the post described a barter system.

Barter is capitalism. Capitalism does have to involve money. It is just the free exchange of one value for another value. That can be barter or that can be money. Far too many people make too much out of capitalism.

What we are really talking about is free market economics. Capitalism is a word made up by Karl Marx so that he could assign all sort of negative attributes to it that have nothing to do with capitalism.

The United States was founded on the principle of a free market. As free as possible with a government. A market can never be truly free except in anarchy. I am not an anarchist. The freer the market the more people prosper, which is the exact opposite of Marxism and all of its variations.

Fair enough... although I think money should be abolished, personally. I would love to be able to pay my rent by making wine and breeding chickens or something.

What happens when there is something that you need and you cannot barter for it? That is how money came about. It was a means of representing value for a fair exchange. Wine and chickens might not be what your landlord needs for rent. He might have more than he can handle from his other tenants.

Money isn't the problem. Corruption is the problem. Corruption makes any political/economic system worse but where it has the least negative impact is in a free market system. When businesses are not associated by law or by corrupt financial obligations they have to actually produce a product that the people want or the go out of business. A free market rewards businesses who best serve their customers needs and punishes those who try to rip off their customers. There are no government connections to fall back on to prop up a corrupt business in a free market economy. Marxist try to say that this is what capitalism is all about but it's not. Corporatism and fascism are when business and governments collude and both are corruptions. When Biden talks about public/private partnerships, he's talking about fascism.

This country used to be a free market when it first started and for about the first century. The founding fathers had all read Adam Smith's writings and used his book Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations (which came out in 1776). They understood how a free market should work.

Then corrupt businesses and corrupt politicians started colluding with each other. Now there are some types of businesses who are forced to hire lobbyist's just to run the business. If they don't the government will shut them down. These are not necessarily corrupt businesses, they are businesses who want to make a produce or sell a service that people want.

Before the new deal, capitalism was hellish and wages were shit. That is why regulation came about. Communism would've taken control of america without regulation. That's the nature of populism. So I support a corporate government merger, so as long as the government is actually decent. It just so happens that the modern American government is shit.

Even so, I think bartering encourages more ingenuity, since it encourages people to craft or make their own things, instead of working for arbitrary slips of cloth or disks of metal. It creates a more holistic and robust system.

Wages were poor because of the depression. The 1920's prior to Hoover was the most prosperous times in our nations history. Everyone, not just the rich, prospered. Why? Because Harding and Coolidge took a hands off approach to the economy. They lowered taxes (they should have eliminated the IRS but they didn't). The closest we've come to that since then was during the Reagan years.

Regulations are not the cure, they are the cause of economic downturns. Every moronic government "experts" impose an across the board law on all businesses to stop some erratic behavior of one business, they cause inflation. Under no circumstance is inflation good for the economy and the American people. That is just one of two ways the government creates inflation. Inflation does not happen without stupid government policy. The other way is excessive printing of currency. Every new dollar printed (or digitized) lower the value of each existing dollar. It dilutes the value assigned to the dollar. That is what Biden did to cause our current inflation nightmare.

Everything is corruptible, even bartering. What we need is morality. But society seems to be moving away from God rather than to God. Because of that we will never be free.

Prosperity can ONLY happen when people are free to choose how they will live their lives and when they include in that choice a strong moral code. This nation was built on Judeo/Christian ethics. The more free and the more we follow God's moral code the more prosperous everyone becomes.

Why? Because corruption damages everything and everyone. Corruption without freedom kills.

Regulations are an attempt by the government to control the economy which they must never ever do. The economy cannot be controlled but it can be damaged by government intervention.

Okay,,, but corporatocracy is peak moral degradation, and supporting corporations instead of turning the nation into an equal theocracy will just make every problem you mentioned worse. The problem with modern day society is too much corporate intervention and limp-wristed government, not the other way around.

I never said I wanted a theocracy. I want freedom. Nothing else. People must have the right to chose to follow God or not. What I was saying is that there are two conditions that always lead to prosperity for the entire nation. And history backs me up on this 100%. Maximum freedom for the individual and self governance or morality. If you reject one or both you're heading the way of the Roman Empire. Rome used to have both. Their moral standards were not the same as the Judeo-Christian ethics but at least they had standards and the people used to be free. Over time the people who want to rule everyone and the people who want to be ruled overtook the Roman Empire and created Caesars. Dictators who thought they were gods. Eventually Rome passed too many laws and choked freedom out and became debauched. They spend money like it was going out of style. All of the exact same things the Democrat party stands for today.

Go to a book store or go online and search for a book called "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell. Sowell is one of the most brilliant men alive today. He once was a devout Marxist. He even had classes in college from Milton Freidman (one of the greats in free market economics and a Nobel Peace Prize recipient - back when they meant something). Then he went to work for the government and saw how the government works and realized that Marxism is a huge fail.

Sowell has written several books. I've only read part of one of them. But I have heard him speak on several YouTube videos.

Economics, as I have come to find out, is not complicated. In fact it is quite simple. I never studied it in college. When it gets complicated is when people try to justify their bad behavior. Karl Marx and Milton Keynes both twisted things around trying to justify their stupidity. Unfortunately, both have had a huge impact on society. Keynes is NOT a Marxist or any type of socialist. Keynes advised FDR and turned Hoover's depression into the Great Depression by stretching it out for over 10 years. Had he applied free market principles it would have ended in about 18 months.

Why do I say that? History. In fact 10 years prior to the 1929 stock market crash there was another stock market crash that was just as devastating. Why has no one ever heard of it. Because of Harding and Coolidge took a hands off approach and turned that depression into a huge boom in 18 months. That's why it was called the "Roaring 20's".

Sounds like corporate revisionism then. it's always the government's fault and never the immoral corporations according to american history, when the opposite is more often true. Reagan's trickle down economics was beyond the worst economic policy. New deal era policies were better than the social darwinist crap corporations were pulling.

I would like to know how "immoral corporations" are a problem. If you separate them from the government they have no power over you. It is only when they are in collusion with the government that they can get laws passed that you and I are required to obey.

I can stand outside of a McDonalds all day long and no one will come out and force me to buy a hamburger. If I start working for a corporation, I can leave anytime I want to. They cannot force me to stay with the company.

Someone, somewhere has decided to tell you that corporations are controlling you and everyone just seemed to accept that.

Through advertisement they try to manipulate you to buy their products but they can't make you. I don't go an buy a new car every time I see a car commercials. Drug ads tell me to talk to my doctor about their drug. I have never done that. However, the pharmaceutical industry, with the government, has turned most doctors into drug salesmen rather medical practitioners. But it is the government that gave the pharmaceutical industry this power.

The New Deal is part of what prolonged the Great Depression. Social Darwinism is term created to criticize the free market. It doesn't work.

Keep the government out and bad businesses will fail and good businesses will succeed. And by good businesses I mean Moral corporations. The ones who are actually working to serve the best interests of their customers. Because they live under the fear that if they mistreat, cheat or sell an inferior product they will be out of a job. There must be no social safety net for any corporation. Bush was absolute wrong when he said a business was "too big to fail". Failure is how we weed out the bad businesses.

Trickle down economic is ridiculed by the left without even understanding what it means. It is not a new concept. It is just the free market. Money does "trickle down" when the market is free. There are no avenues for the uber rich to stop that. They just do not have that kind of power. They've tried by creating monopolies but a monopoly left alone can collapse just like a mom and pop store.

If a business does not satisfy both their employees and their customers then they collapse. When the government gives a business money they prop up bad businesses who no longer have to rely on employee retention and customers.

Government regulations causes trickle up. It steals money from everyone and it hits the poor the hardest.

Nearly ALL regulations that congress passes on businesses are a result of the large corporations lobbying to eliminate their competition. A large corporation will take a loss if it destroys their competitors so they will support bills that are even harmful to themselves. The bills that affect business which are passed, not as a result of lobbying, are written by Marxists who buy into this notion that businesses are all evil.

If you destroy business then there goes all of the products that they made. That includes all of the medical technology that saves lives. We go back to the stone ages and if we need something then we have to make it ourselves.

If you destroy capitalism then you destroy the ability to buy anything. This will cause mass starvation.

What needs to be destroyed is the governments tight grip it has on the economy. End not just corporate welfare, but ALL welfare. "Too big to fail" is the polar opposite of the free market. Bush also said, "Sometimes you have to abandon the free market to save the free market". That was such other nonsense. I think Bush must of have known that also. The way you save the free market is get the government out of the free market.

Free the market and you free the people. Free the people and you free the market.

Everyone who automatically decides that all businesses are evil are shooting themselves in the foot. The fact that we are having this conversation right now involved several corporations. The computer or cell phone manufacturer, and all of the related businesses that supply them with raw materials. The electric company and all of the business that supply them with materials to generate electricity and maintain their infrastructure. And ImgFlip themselves and all of the businesses who advertise to keep ImgFlip in business. Take that away and the only way you and I could have this conversation is face to face.

You just cannot destroy business without severely affecting yours and everyone else's life with dire consequences. It is real easy to sit back and make all sorts of claims built on a false narrative but in reality Marxism is a colossal failure every time it is tried. It is what is tearing the US down.

The free market improves everyone's lives every time it is tried. Freedom works, tyranny doesn't. Pay attention to Argentina right now. They just elected a free market libertarian president. Pay no attention to the what the mainstream media says about him.

Capitalism is the free exchange of one value for another. That is all capitalism is. Nothing more and nothing less. The exchange must be free, meaning that both parties in the exchange are doing so out of their own self interest and are not being coerced.

In the example Jack is voluntarily exchanging his services as a carpenter to fix Jean's door. First off the service was freely volunteered without expecting compensation which is what freedom is all about. People are at liberty to offer their services freely and they frequently do.

But Jean decides that she wants to offer Jack some cakes for his service. It is a free and open exchange of one value for another. Jack could demand recompense for his services and Jean could say, no thank you. Jean can say to Jack if you fix my doors I will bake you some cakes and Jack can say that his services are worth more than the cakes or he can say my services are only worth one cake, not multiple.

Whatever the arraignment both are freely entering into it.

Socialism inserts the government everywhere it can. Socialism would force Jack to fix the door and would force Jean to make the cakes. Then Socialism would take half of the cakes to give to someone else. Then they would force Jack to fix other people's doors as well.

And it's not just socialism, it is communism, fascism and Nazism as well. They are all the same thing. The all require the government to equally divide the wealth among the people by force. What they don't tell you is that the government KEEPS the majority of the wealth. The people become so oppressed they no longer have the ability and the no longer care about helping their neighbor. They are only looking out for themselves.

The major failing with all of those statist regimes is their lack of understanding how human nature works. They look at people as bees and they are the queen. Queen bees live up to 3 or 4 years. Queens do not even feed themselves, they have worker bees to feed them. Worker bees live about 45 days. They literally work themselves to death. THAT is collectivist authoritarian statism. THAT is socialism.

Humans do not work in that kind of an arrangement. We are not wired for that. Humans are more like cats. We do what we want, when we want and for whatever reason and there is nothing you can do about it. We will follow laws that make society a freer place to live. We will not serve a king, dictator or government. Liberals will but not the rest of us.

No, that's trade, barter.

You also keep confusing the same bunch of different political systems you always do erroneously, as is your definitions of them.

Barter is capitalism. The exchange is value for value. It doesn't have to be money because money only represents value. It has no actual value. It used to but massive printing from the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations have destroyed the dollar.

Nope, no confusion there. They all have a foundation in socialism. Nazis are socialists, national socialists. Fascism sought to "improve" socialism. Communism is just Marx's definition of socialism.

They're all based on fighting for the proletariats by pitting them against the bourgeoisie. There always has to be a political struggle because without it the could exist.

No, it is not.
Or are you saying all those other systems are capitalist then, because that's what they do, trade.
pffffft, breathing itself is trade.

Nope, Fascism and Nazism are called Fascism and Nazism and not Socialism or Communism because they are both quite the departure from it, as are so-called Communist countries themselves. Fascism and Nazism both very thoroughly embraced the bourgeoisie. By design.

"Or are you saying all those other systems are capitalist then, because that's what they do, trade.
pffffft, breathing itself is trade."

As much as Marx HATED capitalism, there just is no way that any Marxist can ever be rid of capitalism. Capitalism can exist in Communism, et. al. if as nothing else other than a black market. In addition you just cannot stop people from bartering with another person.

But Communism et. al. demands that the government controls the economy. A free market cannot exist when any person, group, organization or government seeks complete control.

As it was pointed out to me, by an anarchist, years ago, a free market cannot exist side by side with any kind of government because even if the government attempts to collect any kind of tax the market ceases to be free.

However, a government with minimal taxation and minimal controls on businesses have have a mostly free market. The more taxes and regulations the less free the market is until you get to a government system that seeks total control over the market and it no longer become free (except in the shadows, i.e. the black market)

"Nope, Fascism and Nazism are called Fascism and Nazism and not Socialism or Communism because they are both quite the departure from it, as are so-called Communist countries themselves. Fascism and Nazism both very thoroughly embraced the bourgeoisie. By design."

Fascism gets it name from the Italian word fascio or bundle of sticks. A word that rhymes with maggot means the same thing in English but I cannot use that word without the ImgFlip mods punishing me.

Fascism's symbol under Mussolini was a fasces or a bundle of sticks which surround a war hammer or axe. The idea was that everyone was all working together as one or a collective. Just like socialism. It is so much like socialism that it is just a variation of socialism.

Nazi is an acronym for "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei " which in English is National Socialist German's Workers Party. As much as the left want to call it right-wing, it's not. The adjective "National" does not alter the meaning. It is just socialism with a strong national identity. The word "national" doesn't even stop it from being international because Hitler wanted to rule the world. Once Hitler got power, he ruled as a megalomaniac not a socialist, which is normal because socialism gives too much political power to one person. It's why socialism will never work.

Deflection...

Deflection...

Deflection...

And now we're back to where the ultimate Right Winger in history somehow is community rule by consensus because dictator,,,

Did you even read your own meme? Hitler was comparing his socialism to Marxian socialism. He was against Marxian socialism, which is odd seeing how he loved Marx. I guess that changed, just like how he loved Mussolini until they met and after that he hated him.

Also you have compare his words to his actions. Hitler had no value for the individual. He killed the weak, infirm, down syndrome, and all other kinds of handicapped. Then he went after the Jews. Does that sound like anyone who values the individual? He killed gays and lesbians, not all of them, just the ones he didn't know personally. The ones he knew personally he had no problem with.

So no matter how much he protested Marxian socialism, he was a Marxian socialist.

Hitler, in case you didn't notice, was a dictator. That's antithetic to Communism. As in as totally opposite as anyone could possibly get.

Words mean things. And do take it personally - I'm going to take his words about himself and it's policies over your fanfic. WWII. You should learn about it.

What was Mao Tse Tung? What is Kim Jung Un?

People called the Soviet Union communist but Lenin called himself a Democratic Socialist and Stalin called himself an International Socialist (as opposed to a National Socialist, like his buddy Adolf was).

But Mao and Un were/are communist dictators. Maduro is also a communist dictator in Venezuela. Fidel Castro was a communist dictator in Cuba. Barack Obama is a communist and tried to be a dictator. Gavin Newson is a communist dictator in California.

"Words mean things."

Except to you. You just make of crazy stuff all day long. You constantly try to put words in my mouth. You label every single person born to the south of the Bronx a racist who is pining away for the return of slavery. How would you ever know anything different, you've never stepped foot out of NYC. You have absolutely no idea how the rest of the country thinks.

By definition, there's no such thing as a Communist dictator, HINT HINT

Technically speaking there is no such thing as a dictatorship, communist or otherwise. There may be one megalomanic who thinks they run the show but they can't do anything without help of others. All dictatorships are actually oligarchies.

There appears to be two types of communism. Marxism and communism that predates Marx. I think this confuses even a lot of Marxists and non-Marxists. Non-Marxists think that Marx was talking about the original type of communism and Marxists think that the original communism is no different than what Marx wrote about.

Here's what I see as the difference. Non-Marxian communism is a smallish group of people who decide to live in a commune and equally share all of the produce of their labor. All things are held in common. People enter into this agreement voluntarily. Sometimes the commune decides if they will accept or reject a new member.

Marxian communism takes that basic idea and then tries to apply it to an entire nation or even the world. There is a massively huge problem with Marx's approach. His approach to turning a nation communist is by coercion through propaganda. He must first convince everyone that there is a constant political struggle between the bourgeoises and the proletariat. Once he can create this perpetual envy of all who have a penny more than them then he can cause the rift he needs to collapse the economy and force everyone into the concept of communal living without it actually being communal living. Marx uses the some of the same words as the original communists.

But the entire system always ends up being an oligarchy that makes slaves out of the people to supply riches to the power elites. People have to self-determination, no free will, no property ownership, they don't even own their lives. In some variation of communism, families are non-existent. Children are raised communally because "It takes a Village" and because they do not want children to ever hear any outside voices telling them that they were born to be free. Freedom is the enemy of communism. That isn't the case in all communist regimes. Castro, while claiming to be the father of all of the children of Cuba, still let families stay together.

BTW Communism is not the cure for racism, it exacerbates it. It causes the people to always be suspicious of each other.

YOUR WORDS - YOUR WORDS - YOUR WORDS
| | |
V V V
"Hitler, in case you didn't notice, was a dictator. That's antithetic to Communism. As in as totally opposite as anyone could possibly get."
^ ^ ^
| | |
YOUR WORDS - YOUR WORDS - YOUR WORDS

DICTIONARY - DICTIONARY - DICTIONARY - DICTIONARY
| | | |
V V V V
antithetic
adjective
- Pertaining to antithesis, or opposition of words and sentiments; containing, or of the nature of, antithesis; contrasted.
- Diametrically opposed.
- Antithetical.
^ ^ ^ ^
| | | |
DICTIONARY - DICTIONARY - DICTIONARY - DICTIONARY

ADAMSMITH'SINVISIBILEHAND - ADAMSMITH'SINVISIBILEHAND
| |
V V
Remember when you told me "words have meanings" and I agreed? That was cool, huh.

Remember when I listed a bunch of communist dictators because you said that dictators are "antithetical" to communism?

Remember when you said, referring to the communist dictators that I listed, "they were dictators"? Yeah, that was cool.

Remember when you fell into your own logic trap? That was awesome, huh?
^ ^
| |
ADAMSMITH'SINVISIBILEHAND - ADAMSMITH'SINVISIBILEHAND

I should have done my last comment in a meme. So here it is.

Guess what I found out about ImgFlip. They remove extra spaces. That's why my last comment was a bit on the weird looking side.

Why do Right Wingers pretend to disown Hitler while hanging his posters on their walls?

Why do left wingers eat babies and perform secret ritualistic dances, covered in blood, wearing KKK hoods and robes, and praising Che Guevara under a burning cross?

I was never a Democrat.

No, it is not.
Or are you saying that all those other systems are capitalist then, because that's what they do, they trade.
pffffft, breathing itself is trade.

Nope, Fascism and Nazism are called Fascism and Nazism and not Socialism or Communism because they are both quite the departure from it, as are so-called Communist countries themselves. Fascism and Nazism both very thoroughly embraced the bourgeoisie. By design.

Repeating yourself and adding a meme still does not make it true. Hitler was an authoritarian. He ruled by force. It does not matter that he allowed businesses to continue to operate as private businesses, he still ruled by force.

Force is the opposite of the free market, therefore, Hitler was NOT a capitalist. If Hitler were alive and heard you compare him in anyway to a capitalist you would be dead. He hated capitalism just as much as Karl Marx.

You cannot have a free market without freedom of the individual. What you have is a controlled market, which is exactly the goal of socialists, communists, nazis and fascists.

It doesn't matter that the entire world is under the delusion that Nazis and fascists are right-wing they just aren't. They cannot based on the definition of who they are.

In a political spectrum it is just idiotic to say that you can move from total authoritarian control on the left and as as you move right you end up with total authoritarian control. What kind of idiot thinks that even makes any sense? Where does that leave anarchists? Where does that leave libertarians? You cannot find total freedom from government in the middle of two identical political systems.

Think about it. It just doesn't work.

The political spectrum MUST put all authoritarianism at one end and at the other end is no government at all. That is just far more logical. It doesn't matter if what end but in our current situation we have put total authoritarian government control on the left so logically the extreme right has to be where anarchy lives. Nothing other than that makes any kind of sense.

"You just keep repeating the same lines over and over and over and over again for the last two years under two different accounts, all the time deflecting and never directly replying."

Because it just won't get through to you that I am right and you are wrong. Why else would I keep repeating the same lines. I am trying to get through to you.

Actually I'm just kidding about that. Perhaps it meets Einstein's definition of insanity. If you keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result then you are insane.

But you keep repeating yourself over and over and over which is why I have to tell you over and over and over just how wrong you are. Sometimes I get bored with it and just mess with you other times I just don't reply.

Perhaps it is long past time to quit doing this silliness.

Hey, no grand "your party" statements and how my great grandparents in Puerto Rico forced your grandparents to own slaves? My FDR ended Hitler and saved your people. Aren't you going to complain about that and excuse Hitler because Karl Marx him go to war against Communists and yous just got caught in the crossfires, so it wasn't really his fault?

"Hey, no grand "your party" statements and how my great grandparents in Puerto Rico forced your grandparents to own slaves?"

Do you think about what you are about to say before you say it? Yeah my grandparents were born a long time ago but they were born after slavery had ended. My great grandmother was 12 when Sherman's army came through and tortured the slaves trying to get them to tell were the valuables were. Remember, she was 12. She didn't start slavery. Her parents weren't forced into owning slave by your grandparents (who most likely hadn't been born yet).

Your FDR got us into WWII. Your FDR prolonged the depression Hoover started. You FDR turned it into the great depression and did everything in his power to make it worse.

Your FDR locked up 100's thousands of innocent Americans because they're ancestors were either Japanese, Italian or German.

Your FDR was one of the worst presidents we've ever had.

And didn't us winning WWII save your people also? And who are you calling "your people"?

Karl Marx died 6 years before Hitler was born. Marx didn't tell Hitler anything.

Hey cousin. How y'all doin'?

Seriously? Your mother owned slaves when she was 12? How many slaves do you own?

Why couldn't your grandmother vote in Puerto Rico? That's strange coincidence because my grandmother couldn't vote in the Philippines.