Communism, Capitalism, Marxism, Fascism, Socialism... (and Obama)

[christian]

It's arguable that both Marxism and Fascism are both fundamentally Totalitarian, in very much the same way. [...] Interesting subject to discuss separately.

Not arguable at all, Bill.

I'll have a go at it, for what it's worth. :)

-------



I think there is plenty of horrible Marxism and Socialism in Obama and his policies.

So, I would be glad to read your arguments indicating that Obama is a Marxist and has been applying Marxist policies.

I heard that many of his "czars" espoused Mao... but I'd never even think of labeling Obama and his policies as "Maoist," "Marxist," or "Socialist." To me he's simply someone who ushers in more control mechanisms and tells more lies. He's someone who sucks up to those above him and kicks down to those below him.



As far as I know and as far as evidences go, Obama has been totally working in favor of mega-capitalist institutions, taking money from the poor and middle class and giving it to the super-rich, which is exactly the opposite of the Marxist ideal. [...] If Obama was a Socialist, one of the first things he would've done was to nationalize these companies. There would be no private corporations at all.

It's either the state subverting the corporations or the corporations subverting the state. The middle class is crashed both times and only the very few "benefit." It's always about control of the people. It's about a tiny robber baron class that sometimes wears "Communism" and sometimes "Capitalism" or many other -isms on its shirts.





There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the communists, or any other group, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records.

—Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope


One of Karl Marx's most visible backers had been the wealthy German industrialist Friedrich Engels. Engels even co-authored the Communist Manifesto with Marx. Significant support for communism also came from the German banking community. Max Warburg, a top leader in German finance, lent his assistance to the Bolsheviks, as did banker Jacob Schiff who, though an American, came from the same German family which had shared a house in Frankfurt generations earlier with the Rothschild family.

According to Schiff's grandson, Schiff had loaned about twenty million dollars to the early communist government in Russia.

—William Bramley, Gods of Eden



It's what we see every day in our own capitalist system, by the way.

The most rudimentary definition of Capitalism merely requires a free market and privat property. I like both of that, and it's both something that is not there at the moment. All the taxes and required insurances for my belongings (and even my body) keep my property in bondage. As for the free market, as a citizen of this planet I'm hardly allowed to do business with everybody, and with those that I do business with, I'm supposed to meet bazillions of requirements and regulations while the robber baron class gets waivers and subsidies.

I think Gerald Celente has it right in that we currently experience the merger of state and corporate power, what Mussolini had described as Fascism. This definition applies to the "early stages" in the developments towards Communism or Marxism as well, I think. There, the state would allegedly just vanish at some rapturous point in time, but only after there had been that merger of power. But of course, this phase has never been reached and will never, because it is based on the premise that forcing people to comply can facilitate the creation of a genuinely happy society in later stage(s).

I do believe in the idea that people can at some point act, give, receive, and share wisely. However, I feel that a Communistic approach is not the way to go to get there, that approach to me appears to be the pipe dream of a person who doesn't really understanding the dynamics of life... a dream where you think you could herd cats and eventually run amok.

I think the general discussion does not even have to be about -isms. Maybe about humanity getting a grip on the basics in life. Am I free? What masters, laws, and structures do I acquiesce to?

8Zq4f6WYmHU

[Moz]

Hello dear friends,
tried to understand the fundamental idea of this post but it somehow eludes me.

I for one believe in an utopian society: I sincerely believe that one day the people of this planet will live in peace with themselves and thus with their neighbours.
Then we will explore the depths of the human soul as well as the incredible cosmos.
But it is hard for me to see these things come to life with money, companies, wars, power and the mass media as these things stand in the human mind today.
It is my understanding that there is no such thing as a communist country, or a real capitalist one either. These are ideas that have never been possible.

Would it be possible for you to state the actual idea of this post?

Many thanks!

[christian]

Would it be possible for you to state the actual idea of this post?


What do these -isms actually mean?
What does Obama stand for?
What -ism is the solution for the mess we're in?


I have read these posts from Bill, Raf, and risveglio on the other thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65473-Who-really-is-Barack-Obama-THIS-APPEARS-TO-BE-THE-TRUTH.) and felt like figuring this out. Solving this through communication, or at least give it my best shot.

[mosquito]

Christian, maybe you could be so kind as to provide a link to "the other thread", whatever and wherever it is

[araucaria]

Here is my contribution to this debate (click on (Here) after one of the names to find the original thread). These -isms are various areas on the political spectrum, and the answer I suggest is not an -ism at all, it is integrity.





Well I think Obama is definitely a Marxist and I am not the only one.

This is a common misconception.

Just tell me one thing Obama has done in the Marxist/Socialist/Communist direction. Just one.

This is the usual Alex Jones far right brainwashing.

As far as I know and as far as evidences go, Obama has been totally working in favor of mega-capitalist institutions, taking money from the poor and middle class and giving it to the super-rich, which is exactly the opposite of the Marxist ideal.

Raf.


Hi, Raf -- risveglio will surely explain his view, but this might have been meant in the sense that Marxism <--> Fascism is not a linear spectrum, but a kind of circle where the "ends" actually loop round to meet.

It's arguable that both Marxism and Fascism are both fundamentally Totalitarian, in very much the same way. George Orwell made this plain in his [other] masterwork, Animal Farm. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm) Interesting subject to discuss separately.

The political spectrum is indeed similar to the colour spectrum, where red and violet meet to form the colour wheel, which is the basis of colour theory, although in this case, there is no ‘round the back’: it’s complementary colours all the way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_wheel ).

Totalitarian far left and far right meet in the sense that they have the same populist constituency – those fallen by the wayside. This is particularly obvious here in France, where the far right feeds on the former communist vote in the same inner-city and other underprivileged areas. But round the front the sociological and economic situation is out of synch with the politics. The ‘centre’ is completely off-centre, rather like magnetic north deviating from true north.

For it is also true that left and right meet round the front at the point called centrism. Most so-called stable societies move very little either side of this point. It is also known as liberalism, a feelgood word for out-and-out capitalism. In other words, the political ‘centre’ is way to the right of the sociological centre, which would be the lower middle class. Hence you get someone like Tony Blair leading a ‘left-wing’ Labour party, who in his true colours becomes a multi-millionaire. Between the aristocratic right and the centre, you have the right of the nouveau riche. The US system is even further to the right, to the extent that the nouveau riche, the selfmade man of the American dream, is seen as something of a left-winger. Everyone is ushered rightwards by the drawing power of money and the use of ‘socialism’ as a dirty word. In other words, the political centre is currently aligned with the economic centre, which in terms of numbers is entirely and increasingly elitist.

Right-wing totalitarianism occurs seamlessly. Follow the money: bought-and-paid-for politicians financed by their wealthy neighbours on the political spectrum and pushed towards more control.
Left-wing totalitarianism on the other hand is a treacherous aberration: bought-and-paid-for politicians financed by their wealthy enemies on the political spectrum to abandon their own people. These are the wolves in sheep’s clothing, and their role is to disenfranchise the large populist constituency from the political system through the threat of totalitarianism. It also has the effect of turning away traditionally very left-leaning intellectuals (ever wondered why?) towards the right. As public figures, these intellectuals have been corrupted in one way or another: I doubt whether a purely intellectual process has led them to where they are; at all events, the kindest way of looking at them is to say they lack integrity. The right-wing loop has been twisted into the left-wing Moebius strip.

All in all, the sociological centre, where the vast majority of the population lie (regardless of their voting habits), is considerably to the left of the political centre, and heading further leftwards as the lower middle classes are increasingly pauperized. The objective of achieving critical mass will be reached when the political centre is aligned with the sociological centre – away from the economic centre. This has to be done by people with integrity: political integrity (avoiding the temptations of power), economic integrity (avoiding the temptations of money), and sociological integrity (avoiding separation from one’s roots by avoiding the temptations of social status). People with true humility prepared to see things as they are and act accordingly.

I see Simon Parkes is back on the forum. Welcome back Simon.

[mosquito]

Thank you ! I didn't know that "here" could be clicked !!

[RMorgan]

Hey folks,

Well, I really don't have much else to say about this subject anymore.

However, if there's one thing I'm 100% sure about, is that getting stuck in a linear left/right paradigm is just stupid.

Politics, economics and sociology are multidimensional disciplines...Setting it all in a flat bi-dimensional line is close to ridiculous; it's insane.

The way I see it, lots of great minds have created amazing ideas and concepts regarding this subject. It's pointless to feel obliged to pick just one of them, when we can simply pick up the best aspects of each of these incredibly complex currents of thoughts, merge them, and create something even greater, specially now when people are finally able to directly participate in government's decisions through the internet.

Honestly, I see myself as a Libertarian. I totally agree with both individual and corporate private property. However, essential resources should be 100% public, such as energy, food, water, pharmaceutical and financial companies, among others. You see, just merged elements of capitalism and socialism...We wouldn't be in this mess if gigantic corporations didn't monopolize our most essential resources, in the first place.

I also believe in elections, but people should have the right to de-elect any politician who's not performing his work as he should.

I also believe that people should have the right to vote about every political decision from their homes, using a secure internet system. We could pretty much have direct democracy nowadays, which would eliminate a lot of useless politicians and public employees and cut a considerable amount of costs by deflating the machine. Obviously, it would make the people's voices be heard once again.

I believe private financing of political campaigns should be prohibited...It would be much better to use public money to finance campaigns. It's the only way to make politicians work for the people, not for lobbyists and gigantic corporations. Long term, public financing of political campaigns would turn out as a worthy investment for the people, just like it turns out as a highly profitable investment for the current corporations which invest in politics as well. If it works so well for corporations, it should also work for the benefit of the people.

Anyway, back to Obama being a communist issue. The USA is completely run by private corporations from its very core. There's simply no indicative that Obama's doing anything to change that. Honestly, the USA is probably the most privately owned country in the whole world by now.

Sure, currently, the USA is not an ideal example of a free-market capitalist country. It's more like a Capitalist Corporatocracy. However, the USA isn't, by any means, a socialist country.

Now, if Obama himself, as an individual, carries socialist principles as personal convictions, it's irrelevant. The point is that his administration isn't doing anything to buy back the country from the private corporations which currently own it, just the contrary; The Obama administration is working really hard to sell out whatever's left of the USA. Call it what you want, but not Socialism or anything associated with it.

Sure, the US government is becoming Totalitarian, but with a relevant twist. Totalitarianism is a term used to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible...The twist is that, in the USA's case, the State itself doesn't belong to the State anymore, so what we're actually seeing, for the first time in history, is a Corporate Totalitarian regime, or a Totalitarian Corporatocracy...It's something completely new that can't possibly be compared to any other Totalitarian regime from the past.

Raf.

[christian]

I totally agree with both individual and corporate private property. However, essential resources should be 100% public, such as energy, food, water, pharmaceutical and financial companies, among others. You see, just merged elements of capitalism and socialism...We wouldn't be in this mess if gigantic corporations didn't monopolize our most essential resources, in the first place.

You say it yourself, monopolies are bad. How can you then argue that the state (public) should have the monopoly on the most ubiquitous goods? Corporations on a free market never develop monopolies, only when you have an idiotic population that allows itself to be cheated. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me..."

I think the way to go is to individually and collective develop a sense of responsibility (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?61565-Am-I-really-responsible-for-everything-that-happens-to-me&p=708888&viewfull=1#post708888). When there would be someone who would use his wealth and machinery to capture all water from all springs, this person must be charged with crimes against humanity, the same applies for cases of lesser magnitude.

The public (and the judges, prosecuters, ...) should simply develop common sense and not let ruthless sociopaths run amok. This cannot be merely legislated, there is more to it, as can be seen in the US. They had the legislation (Constitution, Bill of Rights), but we all know how little it is applied and how moderate the public outrage still is.



I believe private financing of political campaigns should be prohibited...It would be much better to use public money to finance campaigns.

I'm perfectly willing to finance someone's campaign, but only someone's I choose! Politicians should do it the old way, present good solutions and ask for support among people on a local, state, or national level, depending on where you are in your career.

Not only should the public be interested in (and the press report about) who donated to which candidate, but the candidates should also reveal it truthfully themselves, as should the companies who donate. This should not be the law, but a common sense criteria of discernment for the public, because it arouses suspicion whenever there is a secret flow of money between politicians and businessmen.



It's the only way to make politicians work for the people, not for lobbyists and gigantic corporations.

What you do is you make them work for the state, the one giant monopolistic company. How much did Communist apparatschiks care for the people and how much for themselves?

Politicians should work for themselves and common sense. They're best served when they are humble and moderate, when they promote peace and self-responsibility. Then both they and the people that entrust them with certain tasks benefit. It's both the politicians' responsibility to be that way and the public's responsibility to demand such politicians.

In my view, it's not about organizing a disoriented public, but teaching the public how to orient themselves. Then, ingenious solutions will come up naturally. It's less about an immature humanity making big plans, and more about coming to terms with the basics on a personal and interpersonal level. With that new awareness, we will find good solutions for all kinds of problems.



The USA is completely run by private corporations from its very core.

Exactly, like the FED. Private gangsters that take over the world on both the political and the economical level. "Competition is a sin," said John D. Rockefeller. That can be seen as Socialist.



in the USA's case, the State itself doesn't belong to the State anymore, so what we're actually seeing, for the first time in history, is a Corporate Totalitarian regime, or a Totalitarian Corporatocracy...It's something completely new that can't possibly be compared to any other Totalitarian regime from the past.

But when they own the big corporations and basically took over the state, then we have merger of state and corporate power again. Of course, the more important decision makers of this network are probably not often found among heads of states anymore.

[araucaria]

The problem with public ownership is that such utilities are run by national and local government officials who are very often corrupt, handing out contracts to their friends and taking a cut. Private industry is still the main beneficiary. We need to get to a point where integrity pays, then whatever the system in place, it will evolve in a positive direction - just the opposite of the current trend.

How do we get to that point? We need more people with integrity, from the grassroots up. Too many people are milking the system in their own small or not-so-small way.

To do this we need to change our mentality. Currently it seems to be 'Who would want to be a policeman, a soldier, a judge etc.? The police, army, judiciary etc. are so corrupt'. This at least is the mainstream depiction of the situation. In actual fact, there are quite a few responsible people already in these occupations who need reinforcements to turn this thing around.

[RMorgan]

I totally agree with both individual and corporate private property. However, essential resources should be 100% public, such as energy, food, water, pharmaceutical and financial companies, among others. You see, just merged elements of capitalism and socialism...We wouldn't be in this mess if gigantic corporations didn't monopolize our most essential resources, in the first place.

You say it yourself, monopolies are bad. How can you then argue that the state (public) should have the monopoly on the most ubiquitous goods? Corporations on a free market never develop monopolies, only when you have an idiotic population that allows itself to be cheated. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me..."

I think the way to go is to individually and collective develop a sense of responsibility (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?61565-Am-I-really-responsible-for-everything-that-happens-to-me&p=708888&viewfull=1#post708888). When there would be someone who would use his wealth and machinery to capture all water from all springs, this person must be charged with crimes against humanity, the same applies for cases of lesser magnitude.

The public (and the judges, prosecuters, ...) should simply develop common sense and not let ruthless sociopaths run amok. This cannot be merely legislated, there is more to it, as can be seen in the US. They had the legislation (Constitution, Bill of Rights), but we all know how little it is applied and how moderate the public outrage still is.



I believe private financing of political campaigns should be prohibited...It would be much better to use public money to finance campaigns.

I'm perfectly willing to finance someone's campaign, but only someone's I choose! Politicians should do it the old way, present good solutions and ask for support among people on a local, state, or national level, depending on where you are in your career.

Not only should the public be interested in (and the press report about) who donated to which candidate, but the candidates should also reveal it truthfully themselves, as should the companies who donate. This should not be the law, but a common sense criteria of discernment for the public, because it arouses suspicion whenever there is a secret flow of money between politicians and businessmen.



It's the only way to make politicians work for the people, not for lobbyists and gigantic corporations.

What you do is you make them work for the state, the one giant monopolistic company. How much did Communist apparatschiks care for the people and how much for themselves?

Politicians should work for themselves and common sense. They're best served when they are humble and moderate, when they promote peace and self-responsibility. Then both they and the people that entrust them with certain tasks benefit. It's both the politicians' responsibility to be that way and the public's responsibility to demand such politicians.

In my view, it's not about organizing a disoriented public, but teaching the public how to orient themselves. Then, ingenious solutions will come up naturally. It's less about an immature humanity making big plans, and more about coming to terms with the basics on a personal and interpersonal level. With that new awareness, we will find good solutions for all kinds of problems.



The USA is completely run by private corporations from its very core.

Exactly, like the FED. Private gangsters that take over the world on both the political and the economical level. "Competition is a sin," said John D. Rockefeller. That can be seen as Socialist.



in the USA's case, the State itself doesn't belong to the State anymore, so what we're actually seeing, for the first time in history, is a Corporate Totalitarian regime, or a Totalitarian Corporatocracy...It's something completely new that can't possibly be compared to any other Totalitarian regime from the past.

But when they own the big corporations and basically took over the state, then we have merger of state and corporate power again. Of course, the more important decision makers of this network are probably not often found among heads of states anymore.

Come on, Chris.

Don't distort what I'm saying, please.

I'm not saying that Mr.John Doe would be committing a crime if he uses machinery to capture water or plant vegetables on his own land...I'm sure you know that.

I'm saying that essential resources should not be treated as commodities. Water, food, medicine and energy companies should be public and run by capable people, managed without the goal of generating profit.

Putting basic resources on the "hands" of gigantic private companies not only violates the sovereignty of any country and compromises national security. Using the excuse of "free-market", those companies form cartels to fix their prices, always to the expense of the consumer, and they oppress every possible viable alternative that could threat their businesses.

This has nothing to do with left or right, ultimately. It's about securing what is essential for society, as an organism, to function. As an example, when Brazil was governed by a far right Dictatorial system, not too long ago, this was considered a strategic national security issue.

Think about the sick man who has to hook himself every day into a hemodialisis machine to filter his blood, outsourcing the functions of his liver...If he doesn't have money to pay for the treatment, he dies. The same goes for society; It works as an organism and some essential resources should not be controlled by heartless mega-corporations which cannot be hold accountable for their own actions. It's extremely irresponsible to give so much power to private companies, of which the only goal is to profit.

Let free market self-regulate anything else, but not essential resources; Those should be kept public, because they always involve basic human rights, and human rights should not be put on the market for speculation or profit.

So, I'm a firm believer that essential resources should be managed by non-profit organizations, whether governmental or cooperative.

And no man...Absolutely no. When John D. Rockefeller said, "Competition is a sin", he didn't mean it in the Socialist sense...I'm sure you know that as well. He said that referring to the formation of cartels, which always happen behind the curtain in alleged "free-market" environments...Sharing profits through cartels among the super-rich by creating the illusion of a free and competitive economic environment is not Socialism, it's Elitism.

And man, you're doing something wrong here...You're being very biased. You're always referring to capitalism as the beauty behind its basic theoretic principles, but when you refer to socialism, you're instead using practical examples of how "communism" was applied here or there and didn't work.

If you're going to stick to the theories behind both systems, stick to them equality. If you're going to evoke practical examples, do it for both as well...You cannot compare things by saying that Capitalism, in theory, is beautiful, but Socialism, when it was applied in the former Soviet Union sucked. Either compare theory vs theory or reality vs reality.

Anyway, I'm sure you know that the people involved in the creation of both ideologies had nothing to do with the way they were applied...Most branches of socialism, capitalism and even anarchism are equally beautiful and efficient as theories.

By now, I'm sure that most of you guys here know that, the socialism vs capitalism was an experience conducted by the same people, to create polarity, generate profit and ultimately to see, long term, which system would be more profitable for them.

The problems are not in the books, but on how the theories were translated into reality by a single elite for their own purposes.

Socialism, the way it was applied, didn't work, but it could have worked if it was applied with genuine interest to benefit the people. Capitalism, as it is now, clearly is not working, but it could work if it was applied aiming to achieve the genuine welfare of humanity as well.

Between ifs, hows, shoulds and coulds, we have to face things as they are. Period. Capitalism isn't working because it's controlled by an all powerful elite. Socialism didn't work because it was controlled by exactly the same elite, which was responsible for its downfall as well.

So, the problem is not about those ideologies. Essentially, we're just wasting our time discussing them, which is exactly what they want...Left vs Right, Republican vs Democrat, Catholics vs Protestants, Blacks vs Whites, Homosexuals vs Heterosexuals, East vs West, X vs Y....It's pointless.

In terms of practicality, the only problem is that, independently of the system, the very same elite will be in control of it all. Do you think these people have any attachment to ideals? They are not socialists, or capitalists or anything else. They'll make whatever they want of the world as long as it gives them more control and more power...They've always done it..They change the name of the game, a few rules here and there, but their goal is always the same.

We cannot be naive and think about what system would be best, because every system, even the most honest one, will be subverted by the same people, for the same reasons.

I'm not saying that humans are naturally prone to form elites to rule above the rest...This is still up to debate. I'm saying that the same elite has always been there, and the same people were behind the application of socialism as they are behind the application of capitalism as it is.

If we don't find a way to remove the elite from power and to prevent the same thing from happening again afterwards, we are condemned to walk around in circles for all generations to come. The problems is that, so far, no one came up with a viable plan to remove them, and even if someone did, they literally could start everything from scratch with the press of a button, like they've done before countless times.

Raf.

[Ernie Nemeth]

My buddy laughed at my parting comment about chemtrails. Luckily it was a bright sun shining day. I told him, look up. See that supposed contrail, why in the world would a passenger jet circle the horizon? Yup, a circle of non-dissipating emissions thirty degrees from the horizon, all around. He said those must be military airplanes. I said, ya right, they are practicing dogfights at ninety degree angles, what with all the criss-crossing lines. What ya gonna do?
As long as the public will not use their own brains we are just the minority.
Talking about responsibility is like explaining the color red to a blind person.
And all your "isms" will not change that fact. People simply do not want to think - ever!
We have all been trained to be suspicious of our neighbors and their motives. We have been trained to hold contradictory opinions on every subject and just rant and rave if our feeble opinions are challenged - then plug our ears and go, "Na, na, na na, na na, I can't hear you!". We all do that, not just the asleep ones. Your intellectuallizations have no more bearing on the average person's life than a hungry archon on a diet.
Wanna change something? Stop talking and do!
Answers will not come from some round table discussion on the latest and best philosophical position.
Anarchy is the only way. Down with centralized government and establishment organizations. Power to the people!

[christian]

I'm not saying that Mr.John Doe would be committing a crime if he uses machinery to capture water or plant vegetables on his own land...I'm sure you know that.

Of course!



I'm saying that essential resources should not be treated as commodities. Water, food, medicine and energy companies should be public and run by capable people, managed without the goal of generating profit.

Where do you draw the line between essential resources and commodities? Who decides on who's capable? What would these capable people live from, if they're not allowed to make a profit? Of course, in the end somebody has to pay them. And in Socialism, you simply force people to pay for a certain product, whether they want it or not. "Everyone wants water." But what water to what prices? That's best organized without central planning, I think. Good ideas spread by themselves, you don't need to force them on everybody.

I still think the idea to let people organize things freely and flexibly depending on the needs in a given area works best.



Putting basic resources on the "hands" of gigantic private companies not only violates the sovereignty of any country and compromises national security. Using the excuse of "free-market", those companies form cartels to fix their prices, always to the expense of the consumer, and they oppress every possible viable alternative that could threat their businesses.

You can turn this around and make the same point; putting basic resources into the hands of gigantic states violates the sovereignty of companies and individuals.

If someone makes unethical business, there are two solutions to that, I think; people gotta stop making business with that person or company, and this person or company has to be charged with crimes against humanity if it's obviously just about creating artificial scarcity and controlling people.



It's about securing what is essential for society, as an organism, to function.

And that is first of all freedom, individual liberty, in my opinion. Without freedom, everything's a drag.



Let free market self-regulate anything else, but not essential resources; Those should be kept public, because they always involve basic human rights, and human rights should not be put on the market for speculation or profit.

So instead put them in the hands of a central government? Pick your poison. :wink:



When John D. Rockefeller said, "Competition is a sin", he didn't mean it in the Socialist sense...I'm sure you know that as well.

I'm not too sure about that. Wall Street bankers financed the Bolshevik revolution, so there must be at least some degree of sympathy for Socialism.



You're always referring to capitalism as the beauty behind its basic theoretic principles, but when you refer to socialism, you're instead using practical examples of how "communism" was applied here or there and didn't work. [...] If you're going to evoke practical examples, do it for both as well...

I think the basic idea of Capitalism is freedom, while the basic idea of Communism and Socialism is strict control and the absence of true individual liberty.

Capitalism or freedom is something that can easily be applied. It's the absence of most rules and regulations. True Communism or Socialism on the other hand is something that can allegedly be achieved after implementing strict central control over most commodities.

So the first step to take towards a Capitalistic system is to do away with most laws and let people be free. The first step towards a Communistic or Socialistic system is to take control of the most essential commodities and create monopolies.



Socialism, the way it was applied, didn't work, but it could have worked if it was applied with genuine interest to benefit the people.

If this genuine interest for the people would be there, we wouldn't need Socialism, cause it would just flow fine naturally. If this genuine interest is not there and you implement Socialist measures nevertheless, the result will be catastrophic. So either way, no need for Socialism.



Capitalism, as it is now, clearly is not working, but it could work if it was applied aiming to achieve the genuine welfare of humanity as well.

The US is the prime example. They had (a lot of) freedom, didn't care for it, and lost it. The people are as much to blame as those who took advantage of the laziness of the population.



If we don't find a way to remove the elite from power and to prevent the same thing from happening again afterwards, we are condemned to walk around in circles for all generations to come.

I agree, I think the way is for the common people to become aware and get involved. And then stay involved, stay vigilant. I think that's the only way.

[RMorgan]

[
If this genuine interest for the people would be there, we wouldn't need Socialism, cause it would just flow fine naturally. If this genuine interest is not there and you implement Socialist measures nevertheless, the result will be catastrophic. So either way, no need for Socialism.


That's the point, mate.

Longer before the invention of the term "socialism", aboriginal tribes from all over the planet lived by it, so maybe it is our natural state indeed, but we've been conditioned to think otherwise.

Native people from indigenous tribes didn't go hunting to sell the meat afterwards. They all shared whatever they produced. No exception.

There was no conceptual meaning of private property as well within the biggest part of tribal societies, which were obviously much closer to be naturally formed human beings than we are.

If you think about it, long before the invention of any kind of currency, there was only barter, which is based on common values, not on profit; even then, barter was mostly used to trade among different tribes, not within tribes.

The human being lived a collectivist, communal lifestyle for tens of thousands of years...

Anyway, we're all socialists in our homes, even if we aren't consciously aware of it. We work and we share with the people we love, without thinking about profit. We work hard, so we can share whatever we earn with our offspring and other loved ones...Our natural state is to share; The scope of the sharing, meaning that what decides if we happily share among family only or among everybody else, is shaped by the current social rules.

I could go on and on, but I believe that, if you think about how humans lived before the invention of governments, you'll see that they all shared a communal lifestyle. Calling them communists would be a mistake because the concept wasn't present back then, but they lived by similar rules of what we know as Socialism, a little bit closer to Anarchism, actually, which is also of socialist nature nonetheless.

So, judging by how ancient humans lived, I can say that our natural state is cooperative and communal, which is way closer to socialism than capitalism; I'm sure about that.

Do you really and honestly believe that capitalism as we know it in real life happened naturally? I'm not talking about theoretical capitalism, because in practice, just like large scale practical socialism, large scale practical capitalism was always used for the benefit of a few and to the detriment of the majority, not because the theories are flawed, but because both were applied by the elites and for the elites.

Do you seriously believe that humans adhered to this ideology, knowing history as I know you do, freely? Even knowing that, at least historically, our natural state is much closer to communal collectivism aka "communism"?

Anyway, the way I see it, we, as humans can be both good or bad. We have all latent qualities from both sides. Social systems shape individuals by shaping societies and vice-versa. Unfortunately, for the last few thousands of years, we've been living in societies which encourage and stimulate the worse of us much more than the best of us. The problem isn't with the systems, which varied along the centuries. The problem is the elite, which have been basically the same all along.

Raf.

[christian]

In general I think we agree; there is a way to live with common sense and a genuine interest to live in harmony with each other and with nature, as has been demonstrated in parts by various tribal communities.

However, I think there are still some misunderstandings.



There was no conceptual meaning of private property as well among the biggest part of tribal societies [...] The human being lived a collectivist, communal lifestyle for tens of thousands of years...

I think this is just a bit too oversimplified. I have no proof, but I bet that if during that time I were to take some other person's bow, axe, pants, or something like that, he wouldn't let me. He might share if I'm in need, but I think they did have some private property. Think especially of items with a strong personal or emotional value.



Anyway, we're all socialists in our homes, even if we aren't consciously aware of it. We work and we share with the people we love, without thinking about profit. We work hard, so we can share whatever we earn with our offspring and other loved ones.

You could also argue that we're Capitalists in our homes. We have our own private things and we have a free market. On that free market, most families decide to share rather than sell. The definition of Capitalism applies, private property and free market. Some things in a house are shared, but only because those who acquired these things chose to share, i.e. to sell for nothing to someone they chose to sell to. This is Capitalism. Striving for profit is not essential to Capitalism.



I can say that our natural state is cooperative and communal, which is way closer to socialism than capitalism; I'm sure about that.

In the very old days, the one who'd bring home food would share it cause he wants to. In Socialism, the one who works gets robbed, and before he even goes to work, he gets told what he may or may not work on. In Capitalism, however, you'd work as you see fit and give the fruits of your labor to who you want and for whatever price you want, maybe in exchange for someone else's labor or even for free.



Do you really and honestly believe that capitalism as we know it in real life happened naturally? I'm not talking about theoretical capitalism, because in practice, just like large scale practical socialism, large scale practical capitalism was always used for the benefit of a few and to the detriment of the majority.

I do believe that many people, like the Founding Fathers of the US, wanted to have a free society, a Capitalist society meaning that it should have private property and a free market. I think over time all kinds of people with all kinds of agendas have pushed the word "Capitalism," but it's like pushing "Christianity." Are you really aspiring to live according to Jesus's teachings, or are you just claiming you are? Did nefarious really push free market and private property or did they just use the word "Capitalism"?

[araucaria]

A single term to cover everything that has not been working would be civilization. If we need to replace it with an -ism here, it would be a new form of tribalism. See Daniel Quinn's Beyond Civilization: Humanity’s Next Great Adventure.

The basic idea is to think local, whichI see as a path leading to greater participation and less representation (misrepresentation).