Yet they wonder why normal people think they are kooks.

[Carl]

First a stupid OP by DUmbfuk kentuck.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027258652

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 03:57 PM

kentuck (74,679 posts)

"Capitalism" is an economic system - "Democracy" is a political system.
A democracy chooses to have a capitalist economic system. Capitalism does not choose to have a democratic political system. Capitalism can work in a totalitarian political system, such as China's.

It was somewhat surprising to watch reporters question Bernie Sanders last night about "capitalism" as if he were some type of traitor. To her credit, Hillary also stressed the need to monitor capitalist tendencies to do harm to our democracy.

The lack of education by the news media of this country is startling. There is nothing democratic about capitalism. The citizens of a democracy have a need and a duty to set the rules for the capitalists that are permitted to do business in our country. Once capitalists are permitted to make the rules for our democracy, then we no longer have a democracy. We are nothing more than an dictatorial oligarchy.

The drool cup on too tight?

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 04:03 PM

Cleita (74,510 posts)
1. Capitalism, socialism and communism are all economic systems

which can operate under any system of government. That's what people don't understand especially those of us who were fed the capitalism vs communism spiel during the Cold War. This is why the term social democrat is important. It speaks to both.

No they can`t and why Marxist variants have always ended in a totalitarian state.

Then this pearl of almost unimaginable idiocy.

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 04:30 PM

Star Member Tierra_y_Libertad (45,638 posts)
8. And, any of them can be benevolent or tyrannical.

But, history has shown us that Capitalism is the most likely to embrace tyranny.

Which way were the guns pointing on the Berlin wall DUmbass? 

[jtyangel]

Quote

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 04:30 PM

Star Member Tierra_y_Libertad (45,638 posts)
8. And, any of them can be benevolent or tyrannical.

But, history has shown us that Capitalism is the most likely to embrace tyranny.

And to think this font of human wisdom has an equal vote to sane and apparently more observant human beings. Jeebus.

[obumazombie]

It has been during my lifetime that being socialist has gone from being a reason to ostracize, to being trendy and the latest fad.

[SVPete]

I'm not going to wander over to DU for a sewer swim, so maybe some one over there posted along the lines pf what follows. These people are engaging in meaningless hypothetical talk of at least some things have little to do with the real world.

As Marx defined them, the world has never seen socialism or communism. Governments like those of the USSR, China, Cuba, and NoKo were supposedly doing what was necessary to lead into socialism and communism, theoretically. In the real world, those governments, like Hitler's non-Marxian vision of socialism were never going to evolve into their promised pie-on-Earth. Humans are by nature selfish, and men like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the Castro Brothers, and Kim I, II, & III were NEVER going to try to evolve their economies into socialism or communism. So, while the theoretical path into socialism and communism ran through totalitarianism, it was never going to go farther: Khrushchev, Brezhnev, et al proved that in the USSR; Kim II & III have proved that in Cuba; China and Vietnam, to some degree, have "blinked" in terms of economics and have settled for a limited and regulated version of capitalism that lives under the threat of government crushing it again.

Socialism, etc., as Marx defined them, are tyrannies. A revolution intrinsically means that existing government is overthrown and replaced by the caretaker temporary government. A tyranny need not be oppressive, it's simply governance that ignores or overthrows an existing "constitution" and laws, often by a powerful leader with supporting followers. Lenin, et al, did that overthrowing and personal rule; Lenin, et al, took that a step further, by creating written constitutions that designated the way the governments were supposed to operate and "rights" of the people, but which were ignored and trampled to suit the purposes of the governments and top leaders.

Hitler, the non-Marxian socialist, accomplished his usurpation and tyranny from within. He got significant power in a republican government (DU folk, like most Americans, use "democracy" very sloppily and incorrectly) by way of elections, but then parlayed that into a full-on personal tyranny. He used Germany's republican form of government, but tyranny was always his purpose. Whether Hitler ever thought, once Germany and the Aryan peoples were settled atop the world, his government might fade away, I do not know.

So while republics are susceptible to demagogues, full tyrannous rule by those demagogues is not assured. They may be brought up short of their goal. Governments supposedly guiding their countries into socialism are usually established by tyrannous means, and never go any farther than being totalitarian; such governments, like China, Vietnam, and Lenin's NEP may step back some from centralized control of their countries' economies, but as happened in the USSR, reestablishment of centralized control is a perpetual possibility.

Those DU-folk were making mud pies in their fatuous, hypothetical, contradicted-by-history-and-reality sandboxes. And aren't even very cute.

[Movie buff- The Sequel]

"8. And, any of them can be benevolent or tyrannical.

But, history has shown us that Capitalism is the most likely to embrace tyranny."

Communism/ Socialism has killed more people than the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and every major twentieth century war COMBINED.

[txradioguy]

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 03:57 PM

kentuck (74,679 posts)

"Capitalism" is an economic system - "Democracy" is a political system.
A democracy chooses to have a capitalist economic system. Capitalism does not choose to have a democratic political system. Capitalism can work in a totalitarian political system, such as China's.

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 04:03 PM

Cleita (74,510 posts)
1. Capitalism, socialism and communism are all economic systems

which can operate under any system of government. That's what people don't understand especially those of us who were fed the capitalism vs communism spiel during the Cold War. This is why the term social democrat is important. It speaks to both.

You're both wrong on so many levels it's tragic.  Communism and Socialism are political systems that dictate the economic system that employs either.

If you do not have a true little "d" Democracy..then true economic capitalism can not and does not exist.  True free market capitalism does not exist without a democratically run government where people are allowed to choose and decide of their own free will.

What China has...and what the U.S. is devolving into is Crony Capitalism...where only a few select masterminds get to benefit from free market policies and everyone else has to suffer under the top down centrally planned economic and societal policies dictated from the Federal government.

Quote

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 04:30 PM

Star Member Tierra_y_Libertad (45,638 posts)
8. And, any of them can be benevolent or tyrannical.

But, history has shown us that Capitalism is the most likely to embrace tyranny.

Please point to me in history where there has been one instance of a "benevolent" Socialist or Communist country.


 

[USA4ME]

Please point to me in history where there has been one instance of a "benevolent" Socialist or Communist country.

Oh, they can. But they have to completely go off the rails to do it.

Corner one of these freaks and suddenly you find yourself confronting them saying that the USSR and China were not really practicing communism, but rather "state-sponsored capitalism." Yeah, you read that right; state-sponsored capitalism.

And arguing with them is a waste of time as they've already convinced themselves that capitalism is the enemy and any gov't or form of leadership they can label as evil  is one which they will somehow tie to capitalism. They're fanatics. There's no rational discussion with fanatics, as any of you participating on the Discussionist site are fully aware.

.

[jukin]

Spot the capitalist republic on this list.

The worst genocides of the 20th Century
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Suharto (East Timor, West Papua, Communists, 1966-98) 800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh)
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-96) 180,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) 150,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000

Al communist/fascist/socialist or muslim. Facts they are a bitch for super high IQ people.

[obumazombie]

^I don't see it.
Maybe a lurking DUmmie could point it out to me.

[txradioguy]

Oh, they can. But they have to completely go off the rails to do it.

Corner one of these freaks and suddenly you find yourself confronting them saying that the USSR and China were not really practicing communism, but rather "state-sponsored capitalism." Yeah, you read that right; state-sponsored capitalism.

And arguing with them is a waste of time as they've already convinced themselves that capitalism is the enemy and any gov't or form of leadership they can label as evil  is one which they will somehow tie to capitalism. They're fanatics. There's no rational discussion with fanatics, as any of you participating on the Discussionist site are fully aware.

.

IMO...the whole theory behind making capitalism out to be unfair and evil is born out of pure jealousy and envy.

It's like Revenge of The Nerds for politics.

[Karin]

Well, at  least libertard's comment didn't go unnoticed:

Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #8)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 05:24 AM

Ms. Yertle (226 posts)
10. Really?

Examples, please?

Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #8)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 11:45 AM

hack89 (32,029 posts)
12. Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? nt

She didn't answer.