Communism under the guise of Democracy.

For God knows what reason, I began to remember my Economics class when I came across an image calling Obama Communist (well, calling his ideals Communistic) and had a minor epiphany. This is exactly what the population wants. By definition, Communism is, quote, 'the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where the people are free from oppression and scarcity.'

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what almost everyone is crying for these days? They cry for everyone to have the same things, to be able to buy that same Ferrari that some famous star bought and crashed; for everyone to have a house, a job and health care that is fair and equal to all; a justice system that knows not a mans skin color, but the severity of his crimes? That's what they cry for right? All they want is a communistic economy under a Democratic government. They want to be able to vote someone in to make everything balanced, and one government body to control everything. Democrats want an entire democratic body and government, and Republicans want an entire Republican government.

Maybe I'm overthinking things or it's extremely late and I need to sleep, but from what I can tell, these are the things that everyone wants, and in this, what they want is a communistic government and a communistic economy.

Which is what people have been crying for recently right? They want the government to distribute everything so that everyone can get it, not for one individual to have more than any other.

Let's not forget that it kills all sorts of incentives.

Capitalism has the idea of "make a good thing and it sells" just look at how rich Ford got for making the car possible.

Communism has the idea of "good for you for making it, you get nothing" just how the guy who made the AK-47, just a pat in the back. It led to more and more improvements and competition, otherwise we would have probably the same damn vehicle from a century ago.

Look at the differences between Soviet Russia and USA, there is a good reason why the USSR fell, not just because they said it was bad.

Yes, Communism treats everyone "as equals" but that goes to far extents, I know descendants of people who lived in Communist Cuba. Everyone had the same EVERYTHING, houses, vehicles, education, medicare, etc. and a similar thing happened in the USSR where they had apartment complexes be the same everywhere, there's even a USSR movie which has a joke on that with the same name for a street, same building, same floors, same numbers and even the same key it's just that the character's apartment was in another district or state.

The people still get screwed over since the government is far more involved than right now.

Don't call this a Republic, in a nation state where State Governments are losing more power and effectively representation in Parliament. Nor is it exactly a Communistic State, though the consolidation of wealth eventually ends up creating two classes: The haves and have nots.

There are those who cry out "Communism hasn't been fully realized yet", but the exact opposite is true: Communism, Leftism has had it's experiment last far longer than any Western philosopher ever thought possible.

The consequence has been outreaching, Leftists would say that the 'right' or conservatives are too rigid. I'd counter that Leftists have no idea of a social or economic order.

To me, This is a Plutocracy guided through Liberal Principle

You couldn't get a worse combination. Not only do the wealthy exhaust political and
economic power, but they do so in a manner that increases the Public Debt and divides the people.

We're not a Communistic country, not yet anyway. Wealth hasn't been consolidated enough and federal control hasn't reached that plateau. But with the "Affordable Health Care" act(which made Health Care ironically MORE expensive)

See this

This is how the USSR fell. The military adventures into Afghanistan, the rising costs and the consolidation preventing wealth expansion.

Above all, note that we are a Nation state that spends only 3% of our budget on
Education.

The corrupt and the naive, when both forces join together it destroys a Nation State. America has to eliminate the Leftist cancer that has deprived it of its natural wealth and its proper utilization.

"The population" is a universal term as since everyone can't agree on one thing there is no universal consensus of want.




Communism:
1 : a theory advocating elimination of private property
2 : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed



The majority actually want socialism, not communism, which is why socialism the newest fad amongst today's youth.



This is just a cluster fuck of nonsense.



That exists independent of the economic structure of a society. It's a central piece to the entire legal structure of modern civilization.



Democratic and communist political systems are based on different ideological principles. Although superficially they seem to share the "power to the people" philosophy, in practice the two systems of government structure the economic and political fabric of society in markedly different ways.

In the economic sphere, communism calls for the government to take control of all the capital and industry in the country in an effort to get rid of economic inequality. On the other hand, a democracy respects individuals' right to own property and means of production.



This statement is completely false because, not everyone wants a communist government or economy. LustfulAngel wants a Fascist government and economy. I want something more akin to Anarchy. Several others want a more "Laissez-faire" economic system while others want a more socialist.

You mean it has to eliminate the people who want to keep freedom free, and keep free speech free. Because right wing politics has no place for that. Remember, right wing politics is against capitalism, it is against anyone that isn't nobility of some form getting any form of capital gain. Right wing politics seeks to destroy industrialism and get rid of education, because enlightned peasents are bad news for any heirarchy.

People who support the far right, support fascism and corporatism, and that has no place here.

The "ring wing" advocate for Laissez-faire capitalism and actively oppose socialism and "third way" economics. Try again



Last I checked, it was the "left wing" that wanted to increase capital gains taxes while the "right wing" wanted to reduce taxation.



Oh right, it's those mean ole right wingers who propose those burdensome mountains of regulations on those poor businesses each year.



The Department of Education was created by..Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, a "left winger". Since then our education system has floundered and failed. It is also conservatives and libertarians ("right wingers") who advocate for school vouchers and other school choice options while the teacher unions (predominately left leaning) fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.



Ya got me here. Fascism arises out of a Right Wing tenet of "Nationalism". Right-wing nationalism was influenced by romantic nationalism, in which the state derives its political legitimacy from the organic unity of those it governs. This generally includes, the language, race, culture, religion and customs of the "nation", all of which were "born" within its culture. Linked with right-wing nationalism is cultural conservatism, which supports the preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture, and often sees deviations from cultural norms as an existential threat

Look, you can hate the right wing as much as you want and I won't care so long as you have your goddamn facts straight. Most of the shit people attribute to "Republicans" or "right wingers" mostly fall into one of two categories. The first being shit the Neoconservatives (warmongering, corporatism, psuedo fascist behaviors) or social conservatives (anti-gay, anti-abortion, school prayer) do.

I'd like to try again but Laissez-faire capitalism was not adopted until 1848, and was brought about because of the conflict between heirarchy and worker equality. This was an alliance between the liberal capitalist ideology and the right wing nobility. This was a common adoption by most right wing nations in the late 19th century. It wasn't popularized in the first world nations until Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were appointed to their respective positions within government as leaders.

Just incase your history is failing you, the leftist ideals were highly spurred by the creation of unions during the industrual revolution which fought for a more extensive right of government intervention to create a more centralized economic system, pushing towards a hybrid marxist system. A medium between capitalism and communism. Which until more recently since the Reagen administration has been it's ideology until it's moved more towards free market.

The marxist view along with the left view also believe that nationalism, racism, anti-semitism, religion and war mongering are used by the ruling class to eliminate the working class from getting any advantage, and if american history has shown anything, that is true. Cause what happened when the right wing republicans took over like Reagen, the ruling class took over america.

Teacher Unions have lobbied to make it more difficult to remove bad teachers by increasing regulations and hurdles for teachers to be fired. The only way for a teacher to be removed in some cases is for the teacher to be a pedophile or commit a violent crime.

Teacher Unions also oppose merit based pay AND have actively fought against school choice options such as school vouchers.



Social Conservatives are the ones who advocate for creationism. Regan was a social conservative while maintaining a Neoconservative foreign policy of intervention. It might be a difficult concept for you to understand but, "Right wingers" are ideologically diverse. There are Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives and "right-libertarians".



The doctrine of laissez-faire is usually associated with the economists known as Physiocrats, who flourished in France from about 1756 to 1778.



The philosophy’s popularity reached its peak in the 19th century. Following the Civil War, the movement towards a mixed economy accelerated. Protectionism increased with the McKinley Tariff of 1890 and the Dingley Tariff of 1897. Government regulation of the economy expanded with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 and the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Then we had the Progressive Era and finally we had WW1 and the great depression when the United States officially became a mixed economy.



Organized Labor movements in response to the social and economic impact of the industrial revolution.



Allow me to let you in on a little secret. The "Republicans" and the "Democrats" are both part of the Plutocracy.

Link.

Link 2

People complain about corporate influence on our economy but, fail to realize that our government appoints people such as Michael Taylor to positions regarding the regulations of the businesses they used to work for. I am currently having difficulties locating an old graphic the shows the relationship between major corporations, banks and the former board members who later went on to be regulators concerning their industries.

Now you know why I do not trust the government. The whole goddamned system is corrupt.

You know, you have an awful tendency of over exaggerating, making false claims and never having anything to back up for it.

"Freedom", what "Freedom"? You mean the freedom as preached by Herds of people interfering with others to get to work?

Capitalism, and it's greatest myth(and you getting caught by it is no surprise) is that it grants the private sector capital. I'd hate to side with the far left, but no it doesn't.

See This

And this


Where the Left will oppose me now, on dispelling the myth of their economic program(and I know I had this debate with Lelouch) is the Minimum Wage which I oppose in the strongest terms.

Why? Because to anyone who can read between the lines, it is a cap on economic growth. It has legalized slave work for corporations, this is capitalism in a nut shell.

Tying this in with the Free Trade dilemna, we've pretty much covered why America's screwed.

So what's the solution? More Low Wage jobs! Because that's surely what we're lacking(lol)

I've proposed a Fixed Wage(IE: All Wages at $15.00 minimum(This is the minimum for what would classify as a 'good job'). In other words, All Americans would be sufficiently paid for services rendered due. As well as Education and Post secondary reform, I'll have this country producing in mass in no time.

Fascist Economic Policy of synergy and utilization is far superior to Capitalism, and the oligarchy's abuses of the masses of the people.

I want you to take close note of something here

List of top 10 countries that survived the recession the best

To put this list in perspective:

1. Australia
2. China
3. Singapore
3. India (tied with singapore)
5. Hong Kong
6. Canada
7. Japan
7. Qatar (tied with japan)
9. New Zealand
10. Sweden, Malaysia, Vietnam (all equal)


Now lets talk about this list, Australia, free trade, singapore, free trade, india, free trade, hong kong, free trade, canada, free trade, new zealand, free trade, sweden free trade, malaysia, free trade, vietnam, free tade.

There are only 2 names on that list that did not have free trade when the recession hit and that is china and japan. So whatever corrupt logic you have thinking that free trade is bad, is just blown away.

There is more than one teacher's union, multiple states with multiple multiple sets of laws.

Link

Most teachers are never "fired". They are simply shuffled around the system.

Link 2



In a nutshell, a fiscal conservative is someone who advocates for an end of deficit spending, lowering of the national debt and often a reduction of government spending.

There really isn't a "fiscal liberal" to be the opposite side of the coin as economic liberalism (aka fiscal liberalism) is a pro-capitalism, market economy,etc policy.

Come on, please. From your own article:



You also might want to look at the slowing Indian Economy

And do I need to point out the GDP of the likes of Singapore, India, Malaysia, Vietnam or Qatar? In comparison to the U.S. Or hell, Sweden?

Forget GDP, how about number of citizens? You'd have to look at China, Hong Kong(not that it's an independent nation from China. I'm sure Chinese Nationalists would agree. In the same way Taiwan was/is heavily disputed), Japan, Russia, etc.

And in regards to free trade, are these nations giving up vital resources? Ore and rare metals for example is heavily protected by the Chinese.

See This

And this

When lesser nations are able to essentially receive more than what they give out, obviously the Western Markets suffer from it. Why and how you've been unable to make this correlation continues to boggle the mind.

The true economic model nations such as China are using is a common sense approach to value their economy, more than the economies of other nations. Once upon a time, Western Nations held this approach.

Now we've given our wealth to Eurasia and "developing nations", the result being this mirage you have that if the U.S. continues to weaken the bane of its economic force than the world will be a better place(AKA: Free trade)

Well, perhaps I don't care for the rest of the world. If America is to suffer for the rest of the world, then I say the rest of the world needs to find a way to develop it's own national economies.

And as I've stated many many times before, this is percisely the reason why the human species will kill itself off, because nationalist like you have no perception of anything outside your own little bubble of an existance.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1462014/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast

Does it not give you any hints at all when you look at a movie like surviving progress, a movie that is full of critical authors and scientists, that speak out against the very thing that you are trying to defend, you sense of nationalism. Does that not register with you at all?

But it's apparently obvious that your mind can't comprehend that this planet needs people who aren't single minded, who promote things like doctors without boarders. Where do you think that term even came from? It came from a picture of the earth, as nature intended it, without countries, with no drawn boarders. A collaberation of cultures, and people around the world. As it should be.

But hey, look on the bright side, even after all this is said and done, no matter how much you believe you are right, your arguments are completely irrelevent.

Great, plan to create economic conditions that'll render this universal travel? We can speak about doctors without borders all we want, but the airliner industry isn't going to kneel itself over for a bunch of pragmatic idealists. Neither too will railroads(who've already lost out to the airliners as well as conventional car travel)

And after what happened with that incident, I'm sure cruise liners are suffering and individual boat owners(yachts) are much the same as cars.

Instead of naive ideals, here's a reality: Cultivate every country on the face of the earth. As I've pointed out before, the Founders had a country millions of dollars in debt due to inflation and the war.

If the Founders could do it, so can everyone else. Instead of "doctors without borders", how about for example modernization in North Korean medical study? By golly, it'll actually be cheaper for the North Koreans and in more abundance.


But in your utopian world, in this utopian world that is not possible. Wealth is changing hands, not expanding. In a centralized world, wealth is expanding both individually and collectively.

My philosophical and economic beliefs aren't irrelevant on the account of a bunch of sheep being sheparded in the wrong phase of history. Just as the Founders weren't incorrect just because the many were too weak to flee the tyrannical king.

As I am a commnist I feel I have to prove the differnce between state capitalism and communism. State Capitalism is the form of economy all "communist" counties have, ie USSR, China, Cuba, ect. In communism the means of production is given to the workers, but in state capitalism the means of production goes to the state. All that changed was who was exploiting the workers. This was orginally propsed by Lenin so as to gain the capital to transom the USSR into a true communist state. The problem being is that he died and Stalin came to power. Stalin decided for his own benifit not to make the switch so he could act as a dictaor witch directly goes against the ideals of communism.