Topic: Main difference between communism and capitalism is "private property". But NONE of you comprehend
Posted by .
Unregistered


what "private property" means.

The ASSUME (wrongly) that it means physical things, like a car, or a house, or an iFone.

It does NOT.

Property, in law, means a call upon the use of government force.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

You do not OWN anything, in law.  You would do well to comprehend how the law works.  You are literally ruled by it, without ever comprehending its workings.

In capitalism the government permits you to "hold property" in something.  That means that if another person tries to deprive you of the object that you hold property in, the government commits to using force to repel the other person's attempts at depriving your enjoyment of it.  In layman's terms, if you arrive home and find somebody in your home, you can call upon the use of government force (Police) to come and remove the offender.

In communism, no such use of government force is granted for the protection of your enjoyment of something.

Furthermore, you cannot buy or sell things and make a profit from them in a communist system, whereas you can in a capitalist regime (with some taxation applied as and when seen fit).

Do you comprehend the difference now?

Which system would YOU prefer to live in?  One where you can peaceably enjoy the security of knowing you have a home to come back to tonight?  Or one in which a burueacratic dictator can decide not only if the home you enjoyed last night will still be there (or have been knocked down to build a tractor factory), but whether you are allowed to live at all (it having been decided there is a glut of labour in Sector 8 of the Glorious Metropolis which is now surplus to the Glorious Five Year Plan)? :shrug:

Katalyst / Death2Me will vote for the latter. But all right-thinking people know that he's a mental minimus. :mittens:


Posted by .
Unregistered


:potd:


Posted by .Heterosexual Hal
Unregistered


Only a :

:winner:

Would vote for socialism or communism (same thing) over capitalism.


Posted by death2me
Gina Miller Fan Club


A lot of people don't have homes to go back to tonight. :sadbanana:


Posted by .
Unregistered


death2me said: A lot of people don't have homes to go back to tonight. :sadbanana:

­
And how is that my problem?


Posted by .
Unregistered


death2me said: A lot of people don't have homes to go back to tonight. :sadbanana:

­
In socialist Venezuela a lot of people don’t have food to eat today.


Posted by .
Unregistered


In capitalism the government permits you to "hold property" in something.  That means that if another person tries to deprive you of the object that you hold property in, the government commits to using force to repel the other person's attempts at depriving your enjoyment of it.  In layman's terms, if you arrive home and find somebody in your home, you can call upon the use of government force (Police) to come and remove the offender.

:lol:

In the US the government can take your most fundamental property, your home, if you don't pay the tithe to your feudal lord.

There is no property tax in China.

China wins.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: In capitalism the government permits you to "hold property" in something.  That means that if another person tries to deprive you of the object that you hold property in, the government commits to using force to repel the other person's attempts at depriving your enjoyment of it.  In layman's terms, if you arrive home and find somebody in your home, you can call upon the use of government force (Police) to come and remove the offender.

:lol:

In the US the government can take your most fundamental property, your home, if you don't pay the tithe to your feudal lord.

There is no property tax in China.

China wins.

­

If China is better how come Americans are not moving to live in China ?


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said: In capitalism the government permits you to "hold property" in something.  That means that if another person tries to deprive you of the object that you hold property in, the government commits to using force to repel the other person's attempts at depriving your enjoyment of it.  In layman's terms, if you arrive home and find somebody in your home, you can call upon the use of government force (Police) to come and remove the offender.

:lol:

In the US the government can take your most fundamental property, your home, if you don't pay the tithe to your feudal lord.

There is no property tax in China.

China wins.

­

If China is better how come Americans are not moving to live in China ?

­China doesn't want diversity.

China wins

Check out Serpentz on youtube and his whining about it.


Posted by .
Unregistered


Private property  in the US :lol: If you can afford it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ett4WxSMa2M


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
. said: In capitalism the government permits you to "hold property" in something.  That means that if another person tries to deprive you of the object that you hold property in, the government commits to using force to repel the other person's attempts at depriving your enjoyment of it.  In layman's terms, if you arrive home and find somebody in your home, you can call upon the use of government force (Police) to come and remove the offender.

:lol:

In the US the government can take your most fundamental property, your home, if you don't pay the tithe to your feudal lord.

There is no property tax in China.

China wins.

­

If China is better how come Americans are not moving to live in China ?

­China doesn't want diversity.

China wins

Check out Serpentz on youtube and his whining about it.


How come Chinese Americans are not moving back to China then ? They are not diverse and would be accepted by china.


Posted by CliffyClaven
Unregistered


tl;dr

cliff notes on teh OP?

TIA


Posted by .
Unregistered


 CliffyClaven said: tl;dr

cliff notes on teh OP?

TIA



Bagger attempting to screech in a scholarly fashion about communism and socialism while using the 2 interchangeably. Misses many main points, if not all. Fails to mention key things we are seeing before our very eyes like Marx's prediction of late stage capitalism and the invention of fictitious capital (ie financial crisis bailout + QE). 

Just the usual toddler like baby-boomer whining about how they should be allowed to create unlimited money and generate levels of unpayable debts so vast they destabilize all world governments for the purpose of transferring the wealth to themselves, to spend on themselves and without any re-investment or redistribution or even paying slight maintenance costs to keep society running (ie, taxes). 

Buttressed with an argument that everyone should support the conversion of democratic governments into any form of fascism that assures them they will be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains that they pretended to work for (which does not happen under fascism).


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
Bagger attempting to screech in a scholarly fashion about communism and socialism while using the 2 interchangeably. Misses many main points, if not all. Fails to mention key things we are seeing before our very eyes like Marx's prediction of late stage capitalism and the invention of fictitious capital (ie financial crisis bailout + QE). 

Just the usual toddler like baby-boomer whining about how they should be allowed to create unlimited money and generate levels of unpayable debts so vast they destabilize all world governments for the purpose of transferring the wealth to themselves, to spend on themselves and without any re-investment or redistribution or even paying slight maintenance costs to keep society running (ie, taxes). 

Buttressed with an argument that everyone should support the conversion of democratic governments into any form of fascism that assures them they will be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains that they pretended to work for (which does not happen under fascism).

This.

Marx's work has proven to be VERY accurate in diagnosing the conditions of late-stage capitalism.

The problem is that idiots like Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Ocasio-Cortez think that they can somehow by virtue of smarts and the strength of the human will accelerate a process of social change that Marx correctly foresaw would take many, many centuries to come about.

If you were a serious social reformer, and neither an oligarch nor a stooge for Capital and its deforming interests, about the only serious reform you might accomplish in our present day would be to legislate tax benefits for worker-owned companies to give them an advantage over companies owned by non-employee stockholders.


Posted by .
Unregistered


The US has crony capitalism and special interest socialism.

The working guy is left out of that equation.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
. said:
­

If China is better how come Americans are not moving to live in China ?

­China doesn't want diversity.

China wins

Check out Serpentz on youtube and his whining about it.


How come Chinese Americans are not moving back to China then ? They are not diverse and would be accepted by china.

­Yes, the poor(gimmedats) or established(own business) ones stay here but the college educated younger ones are moving back. They say there is more opportunity there and anyoen who pays attention to the Chinese economy could come to the same conclusion.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: The US has crony capitalism and special interest socialism.

The working guy is left out of that equation.

­
AMERICAN SOCIALISM IS GREAT.  I PRIVATIZE MY PROFITS AND SOCIALIZE MY LOSSES!
\
:repub:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: The US has crony capitalism and special interest socialism.

The working guy is left out of that equation.

­

I’m sure you will have a wonderful job post revolution.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
This.

Marx's work has proven to be VERY accurate in diagnosing the conditions of late-stage capitalism.

The problem is that idiots like Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Ocasio-Cortez think that they can somehow by virtue of smarts and the strength of the human will accelerate a process of social change that Marx correctly foresaw would take many, many centuries to come about.

If you were a serious social reformer, and neither an oligarch nor a stooge for Capital and its deforming interests, about the only serious reform you might accomplish in our present day would be to legislate tax benefits for worker-owned companies to give them an advantage over companies owned by non-employee stockholders.

Marx was a trojan horse.  Why do you think he is buried in Highgate Cemetary in North London, and there is a statue revering him?  Why did he write the biography of Lord Palmerston if he was such a friend of the working man?  Most importantly, why did he deliberately mis-state economic reality by claiming that land was just another function of capital.  By doing that, he totally obfuscated the fact, FACT mind, that land owners always have, and always will, hold all of the power in any country.  Industrialists (the target of his communist ire) are puppets in comparison.

That is why under ALL communist regimes landowning nobility / oligarchs have been allowed to KEEP their wealth, and have always found favourable positions of power in the ruling communist regime.
\
:moreyouknow:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:


Bagger attempting to screech in a scholarly fashion about communism and socialism while using the 2 interchangeably. Misses many main points, if not all. Fails to mention key things we are seeing before our very eyes like Marx's prediction of late stage capitalism and the invention of fictitious capital (ie financial crisis bailout + QE). 

Just the usual toddler like baby-boomer whining about how they should be allowed to create unlimited money and generate levels of unpayable debts so vast they destabilize all world governments for the purpose of transferring the wealth to themselves, to spend on themselves and without any re-investment or redistribution or even paying slight maintenance costs to keep society running (ie, taxes). 

Buttressed with an argument that everyone should support the conversion of democratic governments into any form of fascism that assures them they will be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains that they pretended to work for (which does not happen under fascism).

Wrong.  YOU fail to comprehend the (deliberate) failure of Marx's Das Capital.  YOU fail to comprehend WHO holds the power in any given country, and HOW their privilege is enshrined in law, even protected when the country becomes a communist regime.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
That is why under ALL communist regimes landowning nobility / oligarchs have been allowed to KEEP their wealth, and have always found favourable positions of power in the ruling communist regime.
\
:moreyouknow:

Tell that to the Russian Orthodox Church, who saw most of its property confiscated by the government and most of its priests blackmailed or otherwise convinced into becoming minor state spies.

Tell that to the Chinese landowners who were forced to pull hoes side-by-side with the coolies their families had employed for generations.

Tell that to the landlords in Phnom Penh who were brutalized and sent into the countryside to do manual labor while Angka let the buildings sit unmaintained for years until the regime was overthrown.

The scandal of Communism is that it begets a NEW land-owning class composed mostly of party functionaries who are then insulated from the worst effects of their own policies.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
That is why under ALL communist regimes landowning nobility / oligarchs have been allowed to KEEP their wealth, and have always found favourable positions of power in the ruling communist regime.
\
:moreyouknow:

Tell that to the Russian Orthodox Church, who saw most of its property confiscated by the government and most of its priests blackmailed or otherwise convinced into becoming minor state spies.

Tell that to the Chinese landowners who were forced to pull hoes side-by-side with the coolies their families had employed for generations.

Tell that to the landlords in Phnom Penh who were brutalized and sent into the countryside to do manual labor while Angka let the buildings sit unmaintained for years until the regime was overthrown.

The scandal of Communism is that it begets a NEW land-owning class composed mostly of party functionaries who are then insulated from the worst effects of their own policies.

Wrong.

https://www.cairn.info/revue-histoire-politique-2009-1-page-2.htm#


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
This.

Marx's work has proven to be VERY accurate in diagnosing the conditions of late-stage capitalism.

The problem is that idiots like Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Ocasio-Cortez think that they can somehow by virtue of smarts and the strength of the human will accelerate a process of social change that Marx correctly foresaw would take many, many centuries to come about.

If you were a serious social reformer, and neither an oligarch nor a stooge for Capital and its deforming interests, about the only serious reform you might accomplish in our present day would be to legislate tax benefits for worker-owned companies to give them an advantage over companies owned by non-employee stockholders.

Marx was a trojan horse.  Why do you think he is buried in Highgate Cemetary in North London, and there is a statue revering him?  Why did he write the biography of Lord Palmerston if he was such a friend of the working man?  Most importantly, why did he deliberately mis-state economic reality by claiming that land was just another function of capital.  By doing that, he totally obfuscated the fact, FACT mind, that land owners always have, and always will, hold all of the power in any country.  Industrialists (the target of his communist ire) are puppets in comparison.

That is why under ALL communist regimes landowning nobility / oligarchs have been allowed to KEEP their wealth, and have always found favourable positions of power in the ruling communist regime.
\
:moreyouknow:

­French revolution. Not a happy ending for them.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
. said:
­China doesn't want diversity.

China wins

Check out Serpentz on youtube and his whining about it.


How come Chinese Americans are not moving back to China then ? They are not diverse and would be accepted by china.

­Yes, the poor(gimmedats) or established(own business) ones stay here but the college educated younger ones are moving back. They say there is more opportunity there and anyoen who pays attention to the Chinese economy could come to the same conclusion.



After graduating from an American university they go home to China and their families to get a job. How come no American citizens of Chinese descent move back ?


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
. said:

How come Chinese Americans are not moving back to China then ? They are not diverse and would be accepted by china.

­Yes, the poor(gimmedats) or established(own business) ones stay here but the college educated younger ones are moving back. They say there is more opportunity there and anyoen who pays attention to the Chinese economy could come to the same conclusion.



After graduating from an American university they go home to China and their families to get a job. How come no American citizens of Chinese descent move back ?

­China doesn't want American born Chinese.



Quick Reply
Moniker:
 

Registration Required

Thank you for your vote!

But in order to make it count, you must be a registered user.

Log In | Register | Close