venuzuala...

[Vitolds]

This is not propaganda, these are people, residents of the Crimea. You are sitting on a couch in another country, telling what is happening in my yard. Damn, well, it's really funny.
I do not know who this blogger is, this is one of the first videos in English that I found.

[Burgerman]

Because you are a mushroom. You know, kept in the dark and fed on shit.

Those that disagree are AFRAID to say so. And the film you show only selectively shows those that want to be part of russia. You dont need tanks and guns if a country WANTS to be taken over, you just agree to do so. The once free politically, and no longer free. And no longer allowed to say they dont like it because they fear the consequences. We have plenty of FREE news channels, not government controlled ones that interview the people there too. And strangely they disagree with your state controlled film. Some dont. More do.

If they wanted it, why the weapons, and millitary? Thats called anexation. Doing so because they CHOOSE to do so would require a fair referendum. Not possible under putin. As such it isnt recognised by most of the countries of the world. Why do you think that is?

We CHOOSE to enter the EU. And we CHOOSE to leave once it turned into the EUSSR. By FREE NON CORRUPT VOTING. No tanks needed.

[Vitolds]

You’re kind of an adult, not stupid, but how is your brain soiled.
if I talk with you, why do you think that everything is closed in Russia, that someone scares us, and so on? Do you just want to think so, is it easier? Has your brain lost its ability to think?
Once again, This is not our problem with Putin, this is your problem with Putin.
I will surprise you, I am not enthusiastic about Putin’s entourage, the government and other officials. The president makes foreign policy, the government internal, and here we have a big problem.

[Burgerman]

You’re kind of an adult, not stupid, but how is your brain soiled.

I think you will find that its YOU that is the one that is brainwashed. Invading other countries by force isnt needed if they WANT to rejoin russia IS IT?

You have been fed the same crap as my ex girlfreind was all her life. Propaganda by her government is the former yugoslav republic. Everything she believed true took around 5 years to be turned around once she was out of that system and could then see it for what it was. She too was brainwashed. Tito, and milosovic etc. Now she is embarassed about how distorted her knowledge was about her system/world. Same life of propaganda. Same lack of freedoms. Same same same...

I will surprise you, I am not enthusiastic about Putin’s entourage, the government and other officials. The president makes foreign policy, the government internal, and here we have a big problem.

Well then. Vote for change. Oh yes thats right. You CANT!

[funkykeyboard]

I come in peace, no point in arguing. Just a different perspective.

But a flawed one.

Now you could argue you always need somebody in control, fair point (though some anarchists would argue with this). BUT as Tony Benn said,
"In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.

Correct.

Karl Marx denied being a Marxist. He mostly called himself a Democrat. His inspiration for his whole PHILOSOPHICAL analysis was, the Paris commune where directors of the means of production were elected and D selectable by the people.

Makes no sense.

Russia was never communist, possibly socialist (socialism, some argued, was a period of transformation from the capitalist society, a society where the means of production are controlled by the top 1%, be that the bureaucratic Russian top 1% in the USSR or the privately owned 1% in the West. In either case there is still 1% at the top of society who own and control, or just control as in the case of Russia, the means of production, that the people "cannot get rid of".

Wrong in so many ways. The FREE MARKET (capitalism) that doesent exist in socialist economies controls employment, wages, production, investment in products to compete resulting in ferraris rather than moskivichs, and far wider choice. It also ensures that there is food on the shelves. And anyone is FREE to do, own, build, travel, work where they wish or run their own business. In the US the top 1% do NOT control anything. The FREE MARKET does. Its a natural supply/demand or goods people and very thing that society needs or wants. Every top down controlled society always fails. Just like venuzuala. And they ALWAYS blame everything except themselves.

It is taught in schools that Russia was state capitalism,

Capitalist economics literally meand free markets and free market employment, investment, and production, and ownership. Thats the exact opposite to anything state controlled. So your definition is totally wrong!

the West has private capitalism, but at the end of the day they are both capitalism, and neither is communism. Communism, is a transformation in what Marx called "the social relationships". And it was fundamentally for Mark about whether 1% control society, or society control the 1%. Or at least in the modern day, the direction in which the 1% drags us.

Capitalism is the OPPOSITE to what you call state capitalism! Thats socialism. And it always ends very badly.

Whether this is possible or not is another discussion. I don't think it is, I think the right-wing have won all the arguments and the left virtually doesn't exist any longer. But, the right-wing have won the arguments fighting straw men.

Oh it exists. Theres 45% of the UK, much of europe, almost all of the media, and the likes of the UK labour party still keen to send us bankrups. As will your liberal democrats if you let them.

If you really want to attack communism you have to attack democracy.

Those are 2 different things. So no. You can have a communist dictator, or a conservative right wing dictator. Neither is democratic. You can have democraccy in either case.

the free market has never existed.

Karl Marx was a Democrat, he didn't call for the state direction of capital, he called for the destruction of the state and its replacement with real democracy by the people for the people. Socialist worker newspaper used to have a headline under every issue title, "Neither Washington nor Moscow". Pointing to the FACT that the socialist worker was a as opposed to state capitalism in Russia as it was capitalism in America. You are literally accusing people of supporting something they have categorically said they don't support. You are literally punching at shadows, hitting targets on Marxists allegedly, that Marxists don't believe. They may be wrong, but categorically for them and their definition of capitalism which is different to yours, there is no difference between the USSR and the USA in terms of what Marx called "social relations". You clearly have no understanding of the the Marxist conception, and there is no reason you should if you do not want to, but you aren't saying anything that would undermine any Marxists viewpoint, because you're not attacking anything they believe to be true.

What defined feudalism, clearly stated by Marx over and over and over, and not just feudalism, but every "mode of production" i.e. slave society, serfdom, feudal society, capitalism is the way groups in society have a relationship with the means of production. Those who own it and control it are the ruling classes, those who don't take on some other class form pertinent to the mode of production they live in.

When I 1st inclined towards left-wing politics my dad the daily express readers said "no your enemy", understand capitalism. If you honestly want to attack Marxism, then you need to attack what they say, rather than what you think they say. In order to do that, you need to read and understand what they've said.

Anyway your choice, and a nice day.

[Burgerman]

If you say so. You sound ike you have been through one of the EDU establishments that are infiltrated by the left for decades. They have been busy rewriting history, and talking bollox for years.

I disagree completely.

[funkykeyboard]

Sounds like you swallowed a load of edu establishment socialist books.

nope, they try to drum this out of me at University, it was all reading of my own choosing that got me to my own viewpoints, and even they are still constantly changing.

Very popular this anti-educationism at the moment, just as it was in Hitler's and Stalin's country. Memes are so much better than books

As far as killing hundreds of millions of people in communism, you're living a complete delusion if you think capitalism hasn't/doesn't. Out of the 200 countries in the world, there are only 22 countries in the world Britain hasn't intervened in militarily. It has treated its own people barbaricly. How many capitalism has killed absolutely dwarfs what "state capitalism" has killed. I will give you this though, particularly in Russia they had to condense the land enclosures acts, the Industrial Revolution et cetera into a much shorter period to catch up with the West, and so suffered a much more intense period of doing the same thing that the UK did to its people and everyone it came into contact with. Except Russia didn't invade as many countries.

From the horses mouth;
"War Is a Racket is a speech and a 1935 short book, by Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient. Based on his career military experience, Butler discusses how business interests commercially benefit, such as war profiteering from warfare."

Why do you think American allies in the Middle East flooded the world with cheap oil at the time of the Venezuelan revolution?

[Burgerman]

As far as killing hundreds of millions of people in communism, you're living a complete delusion if you think capitalism hasn't/doesn't. Out of the 200 countries in the world, there are only 22 countries in the world Britain hasn't intervened in militarily.

Mostly to stop religous people or socialists from caussing endless suffering and death or to free them. Or a long time ago, when every country was trying to do the same! So you are confusing the death and destruction directly caused by socialism, which is evil, to the opposite. You argument makes no sense.

It has treated its own people barbaricly. How many capitalism has killed absolutely dwarfs what "state capitalism" has killed.

An example?

Why do you think American allies in the Middle East flooded the world with cheap oil at the time of the Venezuelan revolution?

No idea. They DIDNT. But even if they had, why do you think that the once richest nation in south america, with the largest oil reserves on the planet, turned into the poorest one after they voted socialist chaves/maduro in? And it took 20 years to completely destroy the country and cause mass suffering, and extreme poverty, millons% inflation, dead people, hospitals with no money or drugs or water or power, and they ate all their pets and zoo animals?
No it isnt a bunch of excuses that every colapsing socialist country always claim, it is CAUSED by socialism. And it always does this. It has failed in every last place it was ever tried. That experiment was run well and truly - over and over. Socialist economics has been tested to death quite literally for a century.

[funkykeyboard]

So by your logic, we should abandon nationalism? Every dictator from Adolf Hitler to Castro, to Stalin has been a nationalist. More people have died in the name of nationalism, than any other belief system. World War I, nationalism. World War II, nationalism. Out of 200 countries, Britain has had military intervention in 178, all in the name of nationalism.

[funkykeyboard]

As far as killing hundreds of millions of people in communism, you're living a complete delusion if you think capitalism hasn't/doesn't. Out of the 200 countries in the world, there are only 22 countries in the world Britain hasn't intervened in militarily.

Mostly to stop religous people or socialists from caussing endless suffering and death or to free them. Or a long time ago, when every country was trying to do the same! So you are confusing the death and destruction directly caused by socialism, which is evil, to the opposite. You argument makes no sense.

It has treated its own people barbaricly. How many capitalism has killed absolutely dwarfs what "state capitalism" has killed.

An example?

Why do you think American allies in the Middle East flooded the world with cheap oil at the time of the Venezuelan revolution?

No idea. They DIDNT. But even if they had, why do you think that the once richest nation in south america, with the largest oil reserves on the planet, turned into the poorest one after they voted socialist chaves/maduro in? And it took 20 years to completely destroy the country and cause mass suffering, and extreme poverty, millons% inflation, dead people, hospitals with no money or drugs or water or power, and they ate all their pets and zoo animals?
No it isnt a bunch of excuses that every colapsing socialist country always claim, it is CAUSED by socialism. And it always does this. It has failed in every last place it was ever tried. That experiment was run well and truly - over and over. Socialist economics has been tested to death quite literally for a century.

how many people did the land enclosures and the Industrial Revolution kill? Stelling basically repeated the same process, in a much shorter period.

I personally am against any form of state, state capitalist or private individual capitalist, in favour of direct control of the means of the production by the people, where anyone with power is accountable to the people. So I'm not defending state capitalism. Just pointing out its barbarity pales compared to what capitalism has done in approaching 400 years.

Example, every single capitalist empire including Britain.

[funkykeyboard]

As far as killing hundreds of millions of people in communism, you're living a complete delusion if you think capitalism hasn't/doesn't. Out of the 200 countries in the world, there are only 22 countries in the world Britain hasn't intervened in militarily.

Mostly to stop religous people or socialists from caussing endless suffering and death or to free them. Or a long time ago, when every country was trying to do the same! So you are confusing the death and destruction directly caused by socialism, which is evil, to the opposite. You argument makes no sense.

You're telling me the biggest empire the world has ever seen, the British, was based on benevolence? Was the Roman? The Inca? The French? The US domination of economies through military and other means, is purely benevolent? Every single empire was NOT about land piracy? Or are you saying the British Empire is uniquely benevolent?

Are you arguing the plethora of interventions in the Middle East is nothing to do with controlling the flow of oil? We support and arm dictators and backward monarchies/dictators benevolently?

Thanks for the conversation burger man, interesting. :-)

[Burgerman]

how many people did the land enclosures and the Industrial Revolution kill? Stelling basically repeated the same process, in a much shorter period.

No idea I wasnt there. But ancient history and how people behaved then isnt relevant to today. I can tell you that its saved many lives inc yours as you either wouldnt have been born or would be dead from desease, bad sanitation, no heat/home, or food without it! The industrial revolution is the reason everything took off, and the reason you now have the modern clean, healthy safe, comfortable life you now have.

I personally am against any form of state, state capitalist or private individual capitalist, in favour of direct control of the means of the production by the people, where anyone with power is accountable to the people. So I'm not defending state capitalism. Just pointing out its barbarity pales compared to what capitalism has done in approaching 400 years.

Example, every single capitalist empire including Britain.

You got that totally backwards. And re read that. You are highly confused about the world, Its not even logical.

[Burgerman]

You're telling me the biggest empire the world has ever seen, the British, was based on benevolence? Was the Roman? The Inca? The French? The US domination of economies through military and other means, is purely benevolent? Every single empire was NOT about land piracy? Or are you saying the British Empire is uniquely benevolent?

Capitalism has zero to do with any of that. Some of those were not even capitalist based economies.

Are you arguing the plethora of interventions in the Middle East is nothing to do with controlling the flow of oil? We support and arm dictators and backward monarchies/dictators benevolently?

It may be that it helps to regulate the supply of oil in an unstable region. But no it isnt about oil primarily. And even if it was that has nothing whatever to do with capitalism! Rusia did the same in the middle east for the majority of the last century and they were comunists with a mass socialist centrally controlled economy. You are bewildered by the world and dont know what capitalism is.

It literally means free market. The free market means zero government interference. It means that the market decides labour, products and services an prices based on supply and demand. It means that you can own property or money. It drives everything. It asnt got anything to do with government interference or central control. Thats socialism. Like venuzuala. Or the prior soviet union. Or pre capitalist china when they were eating dead babies to survive.

[Burgerman]

The BROWN end is the zero freedom, centrally controlled socielist and abject poverty end.
The BLUE end is the rich western safe free comfortable capitalist end where there food and health and long easy lives.

[Burgerman]

UNKNOWN AUTHOR to me... I couldnt pronounce it.

It’s easy to believe in socialism in modern America. It’s easy to hear about everyone working together for the common good, the government making sure everyone plays nice, and free and affordable everything for everyone and think, “Well that sounds like a great idea.” But the only reason it is so easy to believe is because we have never lived in a fully socialist country. We don’t know what socialism actually costs. Or what it actually looks like.

There’s an interesting story about Boris Yeltsin, then head of the Soviet Union, coming for a visit to America in 1989. He visited Johnson Space Center, but that nexus of technological wizardry didn’t turn his head. What did turn his head was an informal visit to a local Randall’s grocery store:

About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin’s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn’t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia.

In Yeltsin’s own autobiography, he wrote about the experience at Randall’s, which shattered his view of socialism, according to pundits. Two years later, he left the Communist Party and began making reforms to turn the economic tide in Russia. . . .

“When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people,” Yeltsin wrote. “That such a potentially super-rich country as ours has been brought to a state of such poverty! It is terrible to think of it.”

So there you have it. Socialism works only on paper. And it works on paper only in an environment of wealth. You look around you today in the US and you think, “A small percentage of people have such fabulous wealth. If only we could spread that wealth around, then everyone would be happy.” Yet you don’t realize that wealth has already been spread around.

The tragedy of socialism is that it destroys all the wealth in a country in an attempt to create equality. It happened in the Soviet Union. And in China. North Korea. Vietnam. Many places. It’s not as if we don’t have plenty of case studies of the failures of socialism and communism. They litter the road of history like discarded bags of half-eaten takeout.

Now is the only time when socialism makes any sense. When there is still wealth enough to go around, but it’s not going around quite like you’d like. That’s when socialism makes the most sense. But give into it, and it pulls its bait and switch. The reality of socialism fully unfurled is greater injustice, totalitarianism, and abject poverty. Ask anyone who has lived through it. Ask Boris Yeltsin. All it took for him to abandon socialism was a trip to an American grocery store. What’s our excuse?

[expresso]

OR we can just print money - remember that - and dont think we dont do that for other reasons - that we are not allowed to know. in times like today with corona - who really cares if we just print money and hand it out to everyone - till it all blows over

[Burgerman]

Because its pointless.

If theres say 1 trillion dollars in circulation, and you print another 1 trillion.
That simply means that each of your dollars now has just HALF the value it did before.

So after a few weeks/months, prices everywhere will simply double.

Remember that thats what they were doing in venuzuala. Everyone poor? No worries. Will just print more money.

Now they wipe their backsides on it as it is worth less than the bog roll...

BBC a few years back long before they reached over 1,000,000% inflation! Now you need a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy 1 bog roll.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/newsbeat- ... ks-of-cash

[Gnomatic]

FED is doing that right now! Buying Treasuries and other banking securities with money out of thin air! Just to keep the stock market propped up. Much good its doing, the DOW is down 1/3rd in the last month. Profits privatized, losses socialized.

Now even some on the Trump orbit want to issue all citizens $1K, even $1K/mo until current COVID19 crisis has passed. But if history repeats, it will be WallStreet getting bailed out, and the working class the middle finger.

[expresso]

right the people are bailing everyone out - its paper and numbers on a computer - change a few numbers on a computer and your rich - print paper and it be fine - i never will understand it - and dont care really - you really think they dont print money and give it away to other countries - suit cases full of cash to buy them out -

again if they do it - its fine - you cant do it - then its a crime -

[Burgerman]

FED is doing that right now! Buying Treasuries and other banking securities with money out of thin air!

No they are not. They are borrowing and adding that to the national debt. Against bonds. Because the stock market is every member of the publics that has money in a bank, or who owns shared themselves or has savings or a pension. The people of the US.

Just to keep the stock market propped up. Much good its doing, the DOW is down 1/3rd in the last month. Profits privatized, losses socialized.

That just shows that you dont understand who own what! A fundamental miss-understanding. That money in your savings account is sat on the stock market. Its not sat at the bank. Because they also need to make a profit, and they lend that money out to you to buy your car, credit card, house etc. And to businesses as both overdrafts, venture capital, and that employs you, and produces goods, food etc.

Now even some on the Trump orbit want to issue all citizens $1K, even $1K/mo until current COVID19 crisis has passed. But if history repeats, it will be WallStreet getting bailed out, and the working class the middle finger.

If trump helps short term cash flow while people cant work, then that too will help wall street (THE PUBLICS MONEY!!! - peoples retirement plans, savings etc) and allow people to eat. To pay bills. To pay mortgage. To be paid back later from the still possible GDP. The alternative is total collapse, and that means you wont have any way to buy food, or actually find food TOO buy. Or anything else. And you or many renters will be on the street.

Its short term borrowing to cover a period where there will be zero production on behalf of the whole of society..

[funkykeyboard]

This is how private capitalism succumbed to the great depression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlQX4fmRrpI

How can private capitalism deal with the events predicted in that video? It cant.

[Burgerman]

That just wasted 10 mins of my life while I waited for them to say something that wasnt blindindly obvious.

I have a question.
What on earth is "private" capitalism? Theres capitalism and theres other systems, usually socialism, which never works. Nothing about it is "private" ?

Yes, all our governments are stupid. They run your countries like my ex ex GF with here credit cards all maxed out. The best way to end up poor imaginable. Your country and mine, is living beyond their means. And sooner or later the shit will hit the fan. They run our countries into debt. Been doing so forever. This virus may make that shit/fan interface loads worse. Obviously. No video needed to understand this. A huge depression is quite likely. So what are you getting at?

The ONLY way to pay off debt is through production. Thats where all wealth comes from. So get stuck in, and start a new business making something you can sell, and preferably export. Thats the only (and capitalist) way to sort out the problem. Or the average american or british will be having a much lower living standard than you have today. And its not a failure of capitalism. Its a failure to run the country properly. Nothing else will pay that debt that our governments have landed us with. That paying off the debt can only happen with free trade, competition etc.

[funkykeyboard]

Already explained this. For Marx, a society is a set of relationships, he's examining the "political economy". The kind of ideology they society agrees upon at least accepts as "the commonsense", a set of ground rules within which to work politically and economically. Classes.

So you have a ruling class. Doesn't matter whether it's feudalism, capitalism, slave society it just doesn't matter what form of society you are talking about, there is a group at the top who own and control the means of production (here's a task for you, point to me as society where group owned and controlled the means of production BUT weren't the ruling class.). The land, the factories, the workshops (not the minutiae of detail, you can get exceptions to this, but in the generality the Kings and the Lords were the people in the main who owned and controlled the means of production, peasants et cetera may have some independence from the Lords and Kings, but by and large the kings and lords were the dominant owners and controllers in society.) So in feudalism you have the above, but then the church also became a major "owner and controller of the means of production".

So in feudalism you kind of had 2 different social systems, or more accurately, the same social system one run by a committee of bureaucrats, the church, and another run by private individuals, kings and lords. Even though they have 2 different methods of decision-making by those who control the means of production, the bureaucratic committee and the private individuals, they are both feudalism. Here's another question.

Again for Marx, in capitalism you can have a bunch of bureaucrats controlling the means of production, Russia, China, Korea et cetera, or a bunch of private individuals running capitalism, Britain American et cetera, but they are both capitalism. There is no difference between the 2 because at the end of the day there are the ruling class, those who control the means of production, the middle classes, the ones that managed to working-class these for the ruling class, and the workers. Whether it is run by a bureaucracy, or by private individuals, it is exactly the same "political economy". The same ideology. The same "commonsense" accepted methodology of running a society and its economy.

So here's another question for you. Historians talk about feudalism. Feudalism where kings and lords control the means of production. However, you also have a committee of bureaucrat's running the economy, the church, but historians still define it as feudalism. Likewise, many historians talk about capitalism in the same way, why? If Russia is not capitalist, then the church was not feudal, yes? Clearly it is not the way it is run, private individuals or committees, that defines capitalism or feudalism?

This is what many many people including Jordan Peterson don't understand about Marx. Marx was a philosopher. He was looking for the fundamental truths in society i.e. it is always those who own and control the means of who are the ruling class. His mentor, Hagel, simply ask the question "why did human society evolve from hunter gatherers, to capitalism? What is the driving force?" So what's Marx's authoring is a theory of evolution of human society. An explanation of why human beings went from "primitive communism" to capitalist class society, and all the steps in between. Basically Marxism is a theory of evolution. The theory of human societal evolution. However, I'm digressing.

Now, private capitalism and bureaucratic capitalism. The key distinction between private capitalism and bureaucratic capitalism in the 1920s and 30s was this, the economies that had bureaucracies running them, namely Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, bureaucracies which directed investment regardless of the rate of profit. Investment is made on the basis of what society needed, rather than the private profits of private individuals. So while the rest of the world was in economic depression, depression PURELY produced by capitalism itself and its propensity to "overinvestment", Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia saw economic growth year in year out. Why? Because Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia invested regardless of the rate of profit. The rate of return on the investment. They invested in infrastructure and production, and this had a Keynesian virtuous cycle effect, stimulating the arrest of the economy.

And here is the point of the wasted 10 minutes. I would bet that China and bureaucratic capitalist countries are going to recover a lot easier from this pandemic and its financial consequences than is the private capitalist countries.

Here is another question for you, why did the great depression happen? (1930s)

[funkykeyboard]

The USSR forced union and centralised control may now have split. But the russian government still does behave as a dictator. You have no freedom, and are stuck with whatever you leader tells you or decides to do with your country or economy or military. Such as annexing the countries around you. And you cant vote him out. Because your democracy is a sham. Anyone standing against him has how shal we say "difficulties"...

how is that different to the US? The rich people which candidates can run for president, and then the people get to choose amongst the rich people's candidate. Every time it is the rich people's candidate. That's the only choice. If the leader decides to invade Iraq, "you have no freedom, and our stop with whatever the leader tells you or decides to do with your country or economy or military"whether or not there is weapons of mass destruction.

[Burgerman]

how is that different to the US? The rich people which candidates can run for president,

No they dont. Its still possible for YOU to stand, and for your people, family, or freinds to vote. For e.g. if you all decide to get rid of the orange one you can. You wont because right now the alternative would be to vote in your retard party! The venuzuala style ones with all their lefty and rediculous open borders/freebies. So the people will have more sense. In Russia, you cant even stand! You can be annexed, and STILL decide to vote for putin because everything is fake and a show for the west. Thats a dictatorship displayed to the world as a democracy, but nobody else is allowed to stand! Even the countries they took with troops and tanks soon voted to be taken over!!!

and then the people get to choose amongst the rich people's candidate. Every time it is the rich people's candidate. That's the only choice.

Want a better choice? Stand your own candidate that isnt rich. If he is popular then in YOUR country you are free to vote for him! Hell you can all sponsor him so he can afford a great campain. The fact that you dont proves that you dong want that bad enough. But its impossible for ANY party other than putin to win. Or even compete!

If the leader decides to invade Iraq, "you have no freedom, and our stop with whatever the leader tells you or decides to do with your country or economy or military"whether or not there is weapons of mass destruction.

Thats why you voted in a leader. Its so you dont have to micromanage everything. If you dont like, then vote him out in november. But I suspect that the PEOPLE wont! Because the alternative sucks worse!

[Burgerman]

Already explained this. For Marx, a society is a set of relationships, he's examining the "political economy". The kind of ideology they society agrees upon at least accepts as "the commonsense", a set of ground rules within which to work politically and economically. Classes.

All of which is completely WRONG! And so the rest of the post follows on. The "commonsense" does not work. It isnt sense to me either. I can see why it always results of poverty, lack of freedom, eventual economic callapse into starvation BEFORE you even try it. Its damned obvious to any sane right thinking human. And its not like it hasnt been tried to death (literally - tens of millions dead) is it? Over and over, the last 100 years. Desperate lack of freedom, and desperate suffering while they go downhill. Every last place it has even been tried across at least a third of the planet it failed. Its evil. "accepts as common sense" my backside. Where does inovation, development of better, cheaper products such as clothes, housing, and every product come from? The thing that gives you choice, food on shelves you can afford, that tesla, or iphone, or the supermarket? And ALL YOUR WEALTH? Yes you wont reply.

This post was end to end complete and utter illogical and reversed nonsense. I honestly dont know how you can read that garbage and think it makes the remotest sense. One incorrect claim after another.
I can easily answer all those "questions". Have done so in the past many times. But first you need to sort out all the unsuported nonsense! Once thats sorted out your question no longer make sense. But the typical socialist thinking chooses to completely ignore the answers. And NEVER answers any of mine! Because they cant without being shot in the foot.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7834&p=155524#p155499

[funkykeyboard]

capitalism
ˈkapɪt(ə)lɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: capitalism

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
"an era of free-market capitalism"
synonyms: private enterprise, free enterprise, private ownership, privatized industries, the free market, individualism; laissez-faire

Where to find this?
Rich countries mostly... Where the poor, disabled, long term out of work have wide screen TVs, houses, cars, food, heat, medical care , iphones... And where the majority of modern scientific advances and discoveries were/are made.

socialism
ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: socialism

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
communism, Bolshevism;
radicalism, militancy;
progressivism, social democracy;
labourism;
Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism
antonyms: conservatism
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
communism, Bolshevism;
radicalism, militancy;
progressivism, social democracy;
labourism;
Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism
antonyms: conservatism
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

Where to find this?
Very few places now. Most went bankrupt or starved to death over the last 70 years. Theres a few struggling on in diluted form, with some small business under the counter capitalism so they dont starve like cuba, and some that are now eating from bins, no heat in spite of having the largest oil reserves on the planet, no drugs, and suffereing tens of thousands of percent inflation like venuzuala.

why did capitalism go into crisis in the 1930s? What makes you convinced it can't happen again?

[funkykeyboard]

Already explained this. For Marx, a society is a set of relationships, he's examining the "political economy". The kind of ideology they society agrees upon at least accepts as "the commonsense", a set of ground rules within which to work politically and economically. Classes.

All of which is completely WRONG! And so the rest of the post follows on. The "commonsense" does not work. It isnt sense to me either. I can see why it always results of poverty, lack of freedom, eventual economic callapse into starvation BEFORE you even try it. Its damned obvious to any sane right thinking human. And its not like it hasnt been tried to death (literally - tens of millions dead) is it? Over and over, the last 100 years. Desperate lack of freedom, and desperate suffering while they go downhill. Every last place it has even been tried across at least a third of the planet it failed. Its evil. "accepts as common sense" my backside. Where does inovation, development of better, cheaper products such as clothes, housing, and every product come from? The thing that gives you choice, food on shelves you can afford, that tesla, or iphone, or the supermarket? And ALL YOUR WEALTH? Yes you wont reply.

This post was end to end complete and utter illogical and reversed nonsense. I honestly dont know how you can read that garbage and think it makes the remotest sense. One incorrect claim after another.
I can easily answer all those "questions". Have done so in the past many times. But first you need to sort out all the unsuported nonsense! Once thats sorted out your question no longer make sense. But the typical socialist thinking chooses to completely ignore the answers. And NEVER answers any of mine! Because they cant without being shot in the foot.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7834&p=155524#p155499

I'm not surprised, you completely miss read the sentence.

Already explained this. For Marx, a society is a set of relationships, he's examining the "political economy". The kind of ideology the society agrees upon at least accepts as "the commonsense", a set of ground rules within which to work politically and economically. Classes.

"the kind of ideology the society agrees upon, at least accepts as the commonsense "would be feudalism, capitalism, this sentence has nothing to do with communism.

He is looking at history, not the future or any alternative. He's looking at an analysis, as I said, of how we go from primitive communism to capitalist society. It's a theory of evolution. Nothing to do with communism.

[funkykeyboard]

That just wasted 10 mins of my life while I waited for them to say something that wasnt blindindly obvious.

I have a question.
What on earth is "private" capitalism? Theres capitalism and theres other systems, usually socialism, which never works. Nothing about it is "private" ?

private capitalism is the definition you provided, capitalism run by private individuals in America et cetera, the alternative at present is state capitalism, capitalism run by the state.

However, Since 1945 all countries have had an element of state capitalism/socialism, more accurately state direction of capital investment. The coalmines. The railways. The car industry. Water industry. The army. The Navy. Nuclear-weapons. Nuclear industry. "Corporate welfare".

Since 1945 arms spending in the US has been anywhere between 14% and 4% of GDP. To put this in perspective, just after the war the US represented HALF of the world's economy. That means that the US state was directing spending of 7% of the world's economy, and that is just on arms. Then there was all the infrastructure investment. After 1945 I would guess at times the US government, the state in the US, was directly responsible for the spending of between 10 and 15% of the global economy.

Throughout the Western world there was an enormous increased role of state spending in the global economy. So we then probably looking at in the West alone, this day was directing something like 20% of the global economy.

Then we have the USSR China et cetera. We have smaller economies, but total direction by the state. So we're talking about anywhere between 35 and 55% of the global economy after the Second World War was directed by states.

And what do we see? Did the global economy boom between 1945-72?

So first do you accept there was a depression in the 1930s? Do you accept there was the greatest capitalist boom between 1945 and 1972? If this state direction of capital, a mixed economy capitalism and socialism, state direction of capital investment, is always bad why was there the greatest boom in economic history? When the state was absolutely minimal in the 1930s, if capitalism is perfect, why was there a depression?

You cannot deny the facts that minimal state in the 1930s produced depression, and a much bigger state involvement in the economy after 1945 produced boom. Can you?

[Burgerman]

private capitalism is the definition you provided, capitalism run by private individuals in America et cetera, the alternative at present is state capitalism, capitalism run by the state.

Wrong.
Capitalism isnt RUN by anyone. Its simply the system that you get when people are allowed freedom.. Freedon to employ, trade, earn, and own all kinds of property and goods. Everything naturally follows the rules of supply and demand. Anything other than this is not capitalism. We need other things, too, but that is NOT capitalism. I already explained this over and over. Yet you still think someone "runs" it...

However, Since 1945 all countries have had an element of state capitalism/socialism, more accurately state direction of capital investment. The coalmines. The railways. The car industry. Water industry. The army. The Navy. Nuclear-weapons. Nuclear industry. "Corporate welfare".

There is no such thing as "state capitalism"! If the state interferes with the free market, free trade, free employment, the level of prices, wages, employment etc that is the opposite to a free capitalist market. It introduces market distortion, and makes everyone less efficient, and poorer. And as for state socialism, we all need SOME in a controlled limited way, to support the out of work (if geniun for a short time) and the sick, disabled, etc. And we need state projects like bridges, or other things society desires that are of no interest to a business or private company. Although once the tax has been gathered that may pay them to do the job/bridge etc. Thats not state capitalism, its socialist by definition!

Since 1945 arms spending in the US has been anywhere between 14% and 4% of GDP. To put this in perspective, just after the war the US represented HALF of the world's economy. That means that the US state was directing spending of 7% of the world's economy, and that is just on arms. Then there was all the infrastructure investment. After 1945 I would guess at times the US government, the state in the US, was directly responsible for the spending of between 10 and 15% of the global economy.

Throughout the Western world there was an enormous increased role of state spending in the global economy. So we then probably looking at in the West alone, this day was directing something like 20% of the global economy.

If you say so. I dont know or much care. On what? Why? Did the VOTER agree? He must have or they would get the boot. So what and what has it to do with capitalism? Other than the US and the west can afford to live well AND blow money based on their rich capital livestyle. And yes even the poor are rich in the USA.

Then we have the USSR China et cetera. We have smaller economies, but total direction by the state. So we're talking about anywhere between 35 and 55% of the global economy after the Second World War was directed by states.

And what do we see? Did the global economy boom between 1945-72?

Yes. For a massive number of different and complex reasons. Some may or may not have been related to the stuff above. But I and you dont know.

So first do you accept there was a depression in the 1930s? Do you accept there was the greatest capitalist boom between 1945 and 1972? If this state direction of capital, a mixed economy capitalism and socialism, state direction of capital investment, is always bad why was there the greatest boom in economic history? When the state was absolutely minimal in the 1930s, if capitalism is perfect, why was there a depression?

I have no reason to believe that the causes, or the reasons were in any way related. The world is a complex place. Development and knowledge drives its own boom. You are looking for affects and then trying to fit your nonsense to it.

You cannot deny the facts that minimal state in the 1930s produced depression, and a much bigger state involvement in the economy after 1945 produced boom. Can you?

Thats not how logic works. Heres how it works... First you make a claim. Then you produce the evidence that is string enough to convince me. But I suspect it had more to do with hundreds of other factors. Like knowledge, and the ability to make use of it. Sorry you make zero sense. Just because you have found some corrolation, however tenuous, doesent mean it has anything to do with it. I suspect that better education, better communication systems, better more advancing and more efficient production means, is the reason.