I am pretty sure someone on the left must of come up with this idea at some point and most of us never saw it coming.

I don't think that's how capitalism works... Businesses would just transport their good and manufacture everything oversees.

Except that is not what we are seeing. Businesses are shutting down or scaling back all over the country. Not every business can move production overseas. Many of them rely entirely on local economies.

Capitalism is not what drives businesses out of the country. It is adverse working conditions. If a business cannot make ends meet because of excessive regulations and/or taxes then in order to continue produce a product they have to move. This is exactly what is happening in California right now.

Capitalism is a term that was coined by Karl Marx. What it was called prior to Marx is the free market. the free market is based on buying and selling goods and/or services. The means of exchange can be a barter or it can be money. But the entire transaction happens without a 3rd party (aka the government). Once the government gets their greedy hands on that transaction the market ceases to be free and so do the people.

Because Marx thought his moronic idea of treating everyone like ants in an ant colony was superior to people acting in their own self-interest he fabricated all sorts of stuff about what capitalism is supposed to be.

And somehow generations later there are people who actually believe businesses control our lives and the government is our savior. I can stand outside of a McDonalds all day long and no one will force me to buy a hamburger. I can actually walk past any store and not buy a single thing.

The only businesses who have any type of control over people are exclusively the ones who march in lockstep with the government. Both Facebook and ImgFlip will punish you if you say something they don't like. YouTube will remove your video and if you have a channel where you have entered into a partnership with YouTube, they will demonetize your channel if you step out of line.

That is NOT capitalism or the free market, that is fascism and fascism was inspired by Marx.

wow. Ok. So I have a few suggestions.
---
-So I think you're talking about Laissez-faire not capitalism as a whole. you also get into fascism, which is not an economic model like laissez-fair, capitalism or communism.
-Fascism explicitly opposes Marxism in the google definition I got, but since it focuses on an autocratic government/nationalism I definitely think a communist economy would fit into it's ideals and so I think fascism is decently unrelated to communism at least.
-I see you listed the terms of service from youtube/imgflip as an example of why we do not have a laissez-fair economy. It isn't the best example because they are mostly unregulated. The biggest government regulations on youtube I know are taxes, to stop minors from seeing porn to their best ability, and copyright infringements.

I don't remember the name of the dude who thought up the idea of fascism but he was Italian and he was either friends with or just heavily influenced Benito Mussolini.

Modern definitions of fascism are mostly wrong. Fascism stems from socialism and 20th century socialism has been heavily influenced by Marx.

Modern definitions put fascism and Nazism as extreme right wing ideologies. That is 100% bull crap. They are authoritarian ideologies that have far too much in common with socialism and communism. You can say they are at the extreme right of the authoritarian scale but none of those ideologies allow for the individual to have any political power, rights or freedom.

The extreme right of the political scale is total and complete anarchy. No government whatsoever.

Mussolini, however, was a socialist first, as was Hitler. Both fascism and Nazism were not 180° the opposite of was the used to be. In fact Mussolini thought fascism was the fix to some of the problems he saw in socialism. Hitler was just a jerk, a power hungry control freak. Socialism and then Nazism were just tools he used to gain control of Germany.

Fascism is still about the government controlling the means of production, it's still about shared, not individual, responsibility. It is still about equality of outcome. The difference is that rather than taking ownership of everything, they just took control. Mussolini saw how Lenin almost starved the USSR to death by taking ownership of food production and putting "experts" in charge. Mussolini thought that he should let those who already know how their industry work keep doing their job. However unions were to control production, not management.

Modern 21st century fascism is a little different in that the heads of business work directly with the government to accomplish the goals of the government. In the U.S. businesses can accomplish, for the government, what the Constitution prohibits the government from doing.

That type of fascism started a little bit with Obama but really didn't get a foothold until just before Trump was elected. The system worked against Trump, not for him. The system works for Biden.

This is how conservatives are censored.

These controls on businesses aren't by regulation, they're by mutual cooperation to achieve the same goals.

To regulate (or more accurately, to legislate) would require Congress and they can't get that kind of support from Congress.

Sorry dude. But the Google definition is the same as the definition you used. And nationalism is right wing.

You're right wing anti-authoritarian, fascism is rightwing authoritarian.

Fascism is against gay ppl, ect ect because Italians were homophobic back then when it was invented anyways.

Fascism is not an economic system. Non-economic systems can't be like an economic system. Yes communism works well with fascism.

Socialism is detrimental to fascism tho, scince it hyper individualizes the market.

Socialism is when the workers own their means of production.

Communism is when the means of production is communally owned.

Maybe I didn't explain myself correctly. Fascism is a left-wing ideology, it's just right of socialism and communism. But make no mistake it is an extreme left-wing ideology.

It is not now nor has ever been on the right-wing side of the political spectrum. Not even close.

This country was founded on several ideas, one of which set the individual above the government and not the other way around. All of the left-wing ideologies put the government above the individual.

The individual under the Constitution has the right to determine how and what they will do with their own life. This is not true under socialism, communism, fascism or Nazism. None of those political and economic ideologies, inspired by Marx, believe in individual rights. The few rights they might have are given by government.

The American right has absolutely nothing to do with any of those ideologies, not now, not ever. That is not always true when talking about Republicans. Not all Republican are conservatives and not all conservatives are Republicans.

All of the Democrats follow one of those left-wing 4 ideologies, either knowingly or unknowingly.

Fascism has nothing to do with homosexuality. Hitler may have killed homosexuals but only the ones he didn't know. Those in his administration he loved. Mussolini most likely did even think anything about homosexuals.

No one thought favorably about homosexuals back then. It was considered a mental illness by the entire world. It's been that way since the beginning of mankind, up until the last 40 years.

I have no idea where you get the idea that fascism is not an economic system when it is entirely centered on controlling the means of production.

Nationalism is irrelevant. Nationalism is synonymous with patriotism. National socialism is, however, a serious problem. That's what the Nazis were/are. Globalists are trying to scare people with that word.

Nome of your definitions of communism and socialism are correct. Socialism is the gateway drug to communism. They are essentially identical.

They tell you that the collective owns everything but the collective is always controlled by the government. The people own nothing.

Private ownership is essential for freedom. There is no freedom with out it. If the collective owns everything then they own your life. It is the central planners who determine what you can do and if you even are valuable enough to be kept alive.

Ok, then it sounds like you're just using different definitions from the rest of the world. So to keep this argument in good faith, can I just ask you to define a couple terms to make sure we're on the same page.

Anarcho-communism -

communalist communism -

means of production -

[fill in the blank] - economic system where all profits are distributed to the workers equal to the amount of tangible work they do.

capitalism -

socialism

marxism -

maoism -

Primitive Communism -

"Ok, then it sounds like you're just using different definitions from the rest of the world."

You think I'm alone? There are those who pushed beyond the left's history revisionism and have found original sources on a whole lot of stuff that doesn't understand or know about who they really are.

Did you know that in the early 20th century those who called themselves Progressives all openly praised Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler and the "men of the future"? The blow to the Progressive movement was in 1928 when the New York Time reported on the atrocities that Lenin and Stalin had committed on the people of the Soviet Union. They had known this for some time before but there was just so much about to come out they had no choice but the get the scoop.

The second blow to the Progressives is when Hitler invaded Poland. And then it was all down hill from there. The Progressives went underground. They distanced themselves from Hitler and Mussolini and begin to push this idiotic notion that fascism and Nazism were right wing ideologies. Possibly because Stalin ridiculed Mussolini's fascism for not taking the same kinds of controls over the people as he did. Stalin called Mussolini a right-winger. That was an insult, not a statement of fact and both Stalin and Mussolini knew that.

Anarcho-communism - People who decide to live in a commune where they have all things in common.

communalist communism - Probably about the same thing as Anarcho-communism.

means of production - When the central planners either runs government owned business or privately owned business and tell those businesses how much they can or cannot produce in an effort to make it fair for all businesses.

The Labor Theory of the value of goods - economic system where all profits are distributed to the workers equal to the amount of tangible work they do.

Marx bought into the Labor Theory and incorporated into his version of communism. It was proven to be an entire load of crap. Business A cannot expect to sell a tuna sandwich for the same price business B sells a caca sandwich. It does not matter if it took the same amount of effort to put together both sandwiches. The fact is no one will buy a caca sandwich. And when the central planners, the "experts" get involved they will force Business A to put a certain amount of caca in their tuna sandwiches just to be fair.

You know, you actually agree with leftists. You've just been using different definitions. Labor theory and the value of goods is what leftists call socialism.

Yes but the difference is leftists love socialism and I hate it. I think all forms of collectivism are evil because they rob us of or freedom and our rights. That's why I oppose the left so much because they and their politicians have done a really good job of destroying our freedom and rights.

We both hate the same socialism as you do. Most ppl who love socialism just mean getting a barter trade system. Or are more concerned with working within our current system to make sure everyone eats at least.

capitalism - A term invented by Marx to apply his moronic definition to free market economics. Essentially freedom. Where people are free to buy and sell without 3rd party intervention.

Free market economics: The buying or selling of goods and/or services without or with a little 3rd party (aka the government) intervention as possible. The government realizes its role in keeping a strong economy by staying out of the way. Products are produced by buy demand. The consumer is offered the best value and price otherwise the consumer will not make the purchase. The price of goods and/or services is set by consumer demand and not by equality in labor. The value of the individual is infinite and not set by the labor they perform. The labor they perform has it's own value and does not reflect the value of the individual. Unlike the Labor Theory, combined with socialism, communism, Nazism and fascism, where the individual is only as valuable as the labor they perform.

socialism - a governmental/economic system where the the collective (i.e. the government) owns everything. The central planners decide what the people need. They decide how much is produce of what.

marxism - Idiocracy. The same as socialism only by much more force.

maoism - the genocide of 75 million people all because their life was devalued to nothing by a political system that values the collective more than the individual.

Primitive Communism - In Israel is it the kibbitz's. In the early Mormonism, it was the United Order. In the New Testament it was having all things in common by the disciples after Jesus was crucified. In the history of this country it is what they did in Jamestown and they nearly starved to death, not because of communism but because they thought they were snobs who thought they were above manual labor. It's been tried many ways and in many times. Some have been successful and others failures. Some may even try to pattern themselves after the teachings of Marx even though Marx believed his ideas were to be practiced globally.

Anarcho-Capitalism - I know you didn't ask for this definition but your getting it because it exists as an ideology. The definition is: straight anarchy. No government, not communes. Just people buying and selling through mostly a barter system or some agreed upon means of exchange. People are free to produce as much or as little as they want but they must be able to produce something that most of the people need and/or want.

Anarcho capitalism is actually what Leftists refer to as Anarcho communism. I'm not a fan of it personally. But the government wants to divide us. We'd get more done if we worked together.

I'm not a fan of anarchy of any kind but I have heard some very compelling arguments for it.

I just think that if the world turned anarchist overnight and people didn't starve to death first that it would be long before the narcissists began forming fiefdoms that eventually turned into monarchies, if collectivism didn't take control first.

That's actually why a lot of communists don't think communism would work very well on a large scale. If your community is smaller, it's harder to take advantage of.

"That's actually why a lot of communists don't think communism would work very well on a large scale"

Maybe that's why the goal of the World Economic Forum is trying to force on us is a newer form of fascism.

Control freaks just gotta control.

I don't think any of them work on a large scale. And sometimes they don't work on a small scale.

I have absolutely no problem with people who want to live in a commune. I think it's great. I have no desire to live in a commune but that's the thing about freedom and why, above all else, it must be defended and preserved.

You tell me that the left wants the same thing but they just use different language. Maybe you and the people you know want the same thing but that is just not what I am seeing, regardless of any language barrier.

I've learned over the years that there are 3 kinds of people, those who want to control the world, those who want to be controlled and those who just want to be left alone.

I believe government has a role, a very small anf limited role, in our lives but after that they need to stay out of our way.

Democrats in power want to control, Democrat voters want to be controlled. They want it so much that they are more than happy to assist the control freaks with every power grab they can think of. I shouldn't just say Democrats because there is a minority of Republicans who want the same thing.

The founding fathers gave us a government that by and large, left us alone. That could have been the motto of the founding father. "We're here to make sure a handful of laws are upheld and after that you're on your own.

Now our government makes it their business to get into all of your business. We are less free now than we were under King George when the colonies were a part of England.

That's the language the right has been speaking, and if you agree with most of that then you are not a leftist.

Communists already believe that we're being controlled. See there's a loophole where it's legal for rich ppl to say, if you do xyz, I'll donate this amount of money to a corporation that does your advertising.

So we think that rich ppl are the ones calling the shots with ALL politicians as their lapdogs more or less (even Biden and Bernie)

We think that's why so many conservatives use certain words for different definitions. Cuz It makes it harder for us to unite against the system. They use fear tactics to make you think we want to take everyone and force them to share all their resources.

"Communists already believe that we're being controlled. See there's a loophole where it's legal for rich ppl to say, if you do xyz, I'll donate this amount of money to a corporation that does your advertising.

So we think that rich ppl are the ones calling the shots with ALL politicians as their lapdogs more or less (even Biden and Bernie)"

But this isn't necessarily the system. The vast majority of rich people don't try to control anyone. Not even large corporations.

The only rich people/corporations who are trying to control people are those who the government is in league with. That is this new type of fascism I mentioned. It is coming from the World Economic Forum, the UN and the Biden administration (plus several other 1st world nations). It is Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and several others who are working with the government to help the government get things done that the Constitution is preventing them from doing. And they are all working with George Soros and Klaus Schwab.

If you go to the World Economic Forum website they are only moderately hiding their plans. And by moderate I mean they are using climate change as a cover. They also used the pandemic. Nothing is hiding their plans for "smart" or "15 Minute" cities (they have already created a few). These are cities where your entire life and all your needs will be 15 minutes or less away from you. Your work, your shopping, everything. You will be monitored with cameras located all over. They are using facial and gate (how you walk) recognition technology.

This sounds just like a conspiracy theory but it isn't. Conspiracy theories are ideas about events or people that can never be proven and most of them are flat out false anyway. They come about by fear.

But conspiracies happen all the time and they are not always diabolical. It is just when two or more people plan to do anything.

What the WEF is actually doing is provable and it is diabolical because it is all being hidden under the idea of saving the planet. Since when does an "economic" forum involve itself solely with environmental issues. And why are all of their solutions based on putting the entire world into smart 15-minute cities. How is taking our freedom going to save the planet? I would rather live on my feet and die of some unknown climate event than live on my knees until I die or am terminated for having no worth to the collective.

I agree with ya dawg. For the most part, but to say that The Jeff bezos and Elon musk don't lobby the government for their own benefit is just untrue. There's no real benefit to outside involvement unless we can steal those resources.

I love ya, but China isn't too interested in us. RUSSIA might be, cuz we still have history with the cold war blah blah. But China is actually too busy colonizing other countries for resources and eliminating religions that pose a threat to the hans Chinese ppl.

Yeah. Both are HEAVILY authoritarian, but neither are a threat to us. They're a threat to the neighboring countries around them. At least until all those are conquered.

"I love ya, but China isn't too interested in us"

Just our land and natural resources. They've been buying up land in the US. But so has BlackRock. It's a real competition in a land grab between China and BlackRock. And you can't say BlackRock without mentioning the WEF. The two are joined at the hip, well more than just the hip. BlackRock is essentially the financial arm of the WEF.

China isn't a military threat but they are an economic threat and Joe Biden is on their payroll.

I don't know about Russia. I think the bigger threat is how Biden keeps trying to go to war with Russia and puppet masters keep pulling him back. So while I don't think Russia is a threat on their own (although I could be very wrong), they will be a threat if they can't keep Biden from starting a war and then Russia will retaliate.

Biden, in true Democrat form, has decimated our military and our oil reserves so that we are less prepared for his war than we were before WWII.

But then Biden was installed (not elected) to destroy America.

We import most of our resources. Land is almost a moot point now that we have the tech to do hydroponics. Mammal meat needs land. Singapore is geologically similar to China and they're the most food secure of most nations.

Oh yeah... One more thing.

72zc43.jpg (click to show)

Well. At least by your definition. Cuz you've said things that most leftist would semi-agree with at least. It sucks that it's so hard to communicate when we have such different ways we use the same words.

I have never met a leftist who didn't think that Nazism and fascism were on the far right. They truly do not understand the horrors of collectivism and think they are safe kissing up to communism and socialism while labeling those you believe in the Constitution, freedom and liberty as Nazis or fascists. Those who tell me that I am a Nazi or fascist because I don't support Joe Biden or some other leftist politician or leftist idea are idiots. I am miles away from Nazism and fascism while the left is living right next door to it. A century ago they used to praise Nazism and fascism.

Yeah. That's just because you guys use different definitions.

"It sucks that it's so hard to communicate when we have such different ways we use the same words."

I think that is my design. There are people in positions of power who are dividing in anyway they can. The goal is divide and conquer. They are in the middle of collapsing our economy right now.

The two major parties have us voting against the other candidate and nor for who is best qualified. And the candidates we are to choose from just keep getting worse and worse each election. Until we have a president who lacks the ability to make a coherent thought. He's perhaps the most corrupt man to have ever filled that office but now he's gone senile and he was clearly senile before the election.

Yeah. Cuz you're using the words like how news stations use it lol. Leftists don't agree with any mainstream politicians. We all think they're too right wing.