5 reasons capitalism is better than socialism

[cashmcall]

How can a country be capitalist when money is manfactured just like another commodity i.e. to excess and then relentlessly marketed to the public.

What is the meaning of capital then ?

Comrade Stalin

One’s politics depends on the more fundamental branch of philosophy called ethics ,the branch of philosophy that studies the nature and means of human knowledge; it asks: how do I know it? In other words ones view of what is the proper social system for men to live together in, depends on how one views man, and how he grasps the world he lives in — that is on one’s philosophy.

 

[Gipper]

What about the poor under capitalism?

The other side of that question is: what about those who are not poor?
What of them? Let us not forget that the “rich” are people too, and they also have the right to their life, their right to liberty, and their right to their property, and their right to pursue happiness.
Is the fact that one is poor, a justification to rob the rich?

That a man does not have riches and another does, is no excuse for the first to rob the latter — neither is it a moral justification for the state to rob the first for the benefit of the latter.
What is welfare?

Welfare — the extortion of wealth from those who produce by the “humanitarians” in government, to be distributed to those who consume (but do not produce), is to render the producers slaves and the “humanitarians” thieves. Whether the thief is wearing a ski mask, or is a dressed in a pinstripe suit with the letters IRS labeled on it, does not change the nature of their actions in principle: both are looters as both are initiators of force. With one exception, the man wearing the ski mask is more honest: he is not a big enough hypocrite to tell the citizen that he is robbing him of his hard earned wealth “for his own good”, or even worse “for the good of the people.”
What of the poor under capitalism?

As for poverty, under capitalism, no poor man is prohibited from creating a fortune — observe that in late 19th century and early twentieth century America how hundreds of really “poor” immigrants, who could not even speak a word of English, came to America and within a generation were America’s newest elite — and they did it without the government on their backs, or on the backs of others. Even today, in semi-free America, many such immigrants come here starting with nothing and create fortunes — though this is a rarer occurrence due to the vast weight of the volumes of incoherent and irrational regulations that punish those who have an urgent need to accumulate capital (the poor).
Your question accepts the collectivist premise that wealth is a static quantity owned by that amorphous super-organism the “collective” to be looted from those individuals who create it. The “poor” don’t need government handouts — they need government off their backs and most importantly off the backs of those who can really help them — the “rich.”
Who is the poor man better off under: Mother Teresa or Bill Gates?

A Mother Teresa who hands them bowls of slop every day, so they can barely exist — or a genius like Bill Gates who creates a fortune for himself by helping others to create fortunes for themselves, i.e., “where the first feeds them for a day, the second helps them feed themselves.” Observe that it is the Bill Gates of the world who are not allowed to exist in India — and the Mother Teresas who are.
What do you mean by “rich”?

Now when I mean “rich”, I do not mean those scabs who gained their fortunes by political pull, by having government grant them favors and franchises at the expense of their fellow-men. When I mean “rich” I refer to businessmen who who achieved their fortunes by economic means — through production and trade.
What is the cause of mass poverty?

To answer the question, “What about the poor under capitalism?” one must first answer, “Why are there poor people in the first place?” The source of all poverty is the lack of wealth, which must be produced. The source of production (and thus wealth) is man’s mind, which politically has only one requirement: freedom. Politically, this is the single cause of mass poverty: the lack of freedom. Observe the poorest countries are those where capitalism is lacking.
What is the solution to mass poverty?

Capitalism did not create poverty, but it inherited it. Far from being a cause of poverty, laissez-faire capitalism is the only solution to solving it.
Observe that the freedom that a rich man needs to maintain and add to his wealth, is the same freedom a poor man needs to create his wealth — and the creation of wealth for both, has the same root — reason. The only requirement of reason from the state is entirely singular in principle: freedom, that is, the banishment of the initiation of force from all social relationships. Yet, this is precisely the freedom that the “humanitarians” do not wish to give either of them, since this “right” to freedom and liberty, can only come at the expense of the alleged humanitarian’s “might.”
“Those humanitarians who claim to help the poor, but oppose capitalism, do not really have the interests of the poor in mind.” [AR paraphrase I think, need to check.]
Since all men are free to create wealth under capitalism, no one is forced into poverty, as in non-capitalist countries. In a capitalist country, the only poor are those who choose to remain so of their own free-will (such as many of the “back to nature” types who wish to live like hippies).
Keep in mind that the moral justification of capitalism is not the it serves the “needs of the many”, but that it protects the rights of every individual — in particular, it protects the individual from the “many” (majority). Capitalism is not egalitarian, nor “compassionate”; Capitalism is just.
What of those who cannot truly help themselves?

The few individuals in a capitalist society who are incapable of taking care of themselves — such as the retarded, crippled, and orphans (which are a small and tiny minority in any free country) — are provided for through voluntary means, i.e., private charity.

Well we sure know that under Socialism the poor do really well.

Can you explain why you think Reagan is a terrorist and Stalin a hero?

 

[cashmcall]

Well we sure know that under Socialism the poor do really well.

Can you explain why you think Reagan is a terrorist and Stalin a hero?

What?

 

[dogtowner]

When a real socialist policy, which works spectacularly as the Worgl shilling is posted, you say nothing.

Why ?

because its a fishbowl scenario of a depressed microeconomy over a very brief time.

communes "work" fine until some animals become more equal than others.

try reading a book called "Animal Farm", very enlightening.

 

[cashmcall]

Like nature itself capitalism is based on the survival of the fittest. Somehow Obama wants to change human nature. He wants to change the extremes by taking the strongest animals and weaken them and conversely strengthen the weakest. That may work in a test tube but it doesn’t in real life. Nature is funny that way.

Capitalism’s “competition” is its survival mechanism. Its “creative destruction” and its “bankruptcy” are the lifelines to fight another day. Striving to be better is not greed or selfishness; it is human nature. To get up after you fall down and start fighting again is human nature 101. Unfortunately for the left under socialism there is no reward for striving to be better. You may never fall down but you never have a chance to really stand up.

In America the left’s socialist policies have run up over $130 trillion of debt or over a million dollars of debt for each and every one of the 115 million households.

It will only get worse if the Democrats and Obama are re-elected in November and allowed to continue driving us off an economic cliff with their unnatural, illogical attempt to change human nature..

 

[Stalin]

After all your hero did say "One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic."

Wrong...again !!!!

• "Mustering Most Memorable Quips" by Julia Solovyova, in The Moscow Times (28 October 1997) states: Russian historians have no record of the lines, "Death of one man is a tragedy. Death of a million is a statistic," commonly attributed by English-language dictionaries to Josef Stalin. Discussing the book by Konstantin Dushenko (Константин Душенко) Dictionary of Modern Quotations (Словарь современных цитат: 4300 ходячих цитат и выражений ХХ века, их источники, авторы, датировка).
• Variants: One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is just a statistic.
  A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic
  When one dies, it is a tragedy. When a million die, it is a statistic.
  "When one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's statistics." This is the exact quote from the McCullough biography of Truman, books.google.de According the the citation in that book, McCullough got it from page 278 of the book "The Time of Stalin: Portrait of Tyranny", by Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko. McCullough quotes Stalin as having said this to Churchill at Teheran. "Churchill had been arguing that a premature opening of a second front in France would result in an unjustified loss of tens of thousands of Allied soldiers. Stalin responded that 'when one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's statistics'".
• This quotation probably was originated from «Französischer Witz» by Kurt Tucholsky (1932): «Darauf sagt ein Diplomat vom Quai d’Orsay: «Der Krieg? Ich kann das nicht so schrecklich finden! Der Tod eines Menschen: das ist eine Katastrophe. Hunderttausend Tote: das ist eine Statistik!»» («At which a diplomat from France replies: «The war? I can't find it too terrible! The death of one man: that is a catastrophe. One hundred thousand deaths: that is a statistic!»»)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Oh dear ... Harry Truman - I suppose in your playbook, Truman is as bad as Stalin because he was a socialist.

Comrade Stalin

 

[Stalin]

After all your hero did say "One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic."

I am not an Ur-fascist so I do not belong to the cult of the hero.

As usual, you are wrong.

"Misattributed

The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.

• "Mustering Most Memorable Quips" by Julia Solovyova, in The Moscow Times (28 October 1997) states: Russian historians have no record of the lines, "Death of one man is a tragedy. Death of a million is a statistic," commonly attributed by English-language dictionaries to Josef Stalin. Discussing the book by Konstantin Dushenko (Константин Душенко) Dictionary of Modern Quotations (Словарь современных цитат: 4300 ходячих цитат и выражений ХХ века, их источники, авторы, датировка).
• Variants: One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is just a statistic.
  A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic
  When one dies, it is a tragedy. When a million die, it is a statistic.
  "When one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's statistics." This is the exact quote from the McCullough biography of Truman, books.google.de According the the citation in that book, McCullough got it from page 278 of the book "The Time of Stalin: Portrait of Tyranny", by Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko. McCullough quotes Stalin as having said this to Churchill at Teheran. "Churchill had been arguing that a premature opening of a second front in France would result in an unjustified loss of tens of thousands of Allied soldiers. Stalin responded that 'when one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's statistics'".
• This quotation probably was originated from «Französischer Witz» by Kurt Tucholsky (1932): «Darauf sagt ein Diplomat vom Quai d’Orsay: «Der Krieg? Ich kann das nicht so schrecklich finden! Der Tod eines Menschen: das ist eine Katastrophe. Hunderttausend Tote: das ist eine Statistik!»» («At which a diplomat from France replies: «The war? I can't find it too terrible! The death of one man: that is a catastrophe. One hundred thousand deaths: that is a statistic!»»)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Comrade Stalin

 

[Gipper]

Wrong...again !!!!

• "Mustering Most Memorable Quips" by Julia Solovyova, in The Moscow Times (28 October 1997) states: Russian historians have no record of the lines, "Death of one man is a tragedy. Death of a million is a statistic," commonly attributed by English-language dictionaries to Josef Stalin. Discussing the book by Konstantin Dushenko (Константин Душенко) Dictionary of Modern Quotations (Словарь современных цитат: 4300 ходячих цитат и выражений ХХ века, их источники, авторы, датировка).
• Variants: One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is just a statistic.
  A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic
  When one dies, it is a tragedy. When a million die, it is a statistic.
  "When one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's statistics." This is the exact quote from the McCullough biography of Truman, books.google.de According the the citation in that book, McCullough got it from page 278 of the book "The Time of Stalin: Portrait of Tyranny", by Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko. McCullough quotes Stalin as having said this to Churchill at Teheran. "Churchill had been arguing that a premature opening of a second front in France would result in an unjustified loss of tens of thousands of Allied soldiers. Stalin responded that 'when one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's statistics'".
• This quotation probably was originated from «Französischer Witz» by Kurt Tucholsky (1932): «Darauf sagt ein Diplomat vom Quai d’Orsay: «Der Krieg? Ich kann das nicht so schrecklich finden! Der Tod eines Menschen: das ist eine Katastrophe. Hunderttausend Tote: das ist eine Statistik!»» («At which a diplomat from France replies: «The war? I can't find it too terrible! The death of one man: that is a catastrophe. One hundred thousand deaths: that is a statistic!»»)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin


Oh dear ... Harry Truman - I suppose in your playbook, Truman is as bad as Stalin because he was a socialist.

Comrade Stalin

Well that does it!!! Uncle Joe was really a boy scout. Who knew???

The Mass Murder from Gori has been so terribly misunderstood.....like a like a.....all those gulags, all those executions, the Ukrainian genocide, the enslavement of E. Europe....all those lies he told....his love of Hitler.....like a like a....its all lies.

But, let me try to educate you further....Truman was a progressive...which is just shy of socialist. He was however an American hero for dropping the A-bombs and ending the war with Imperial Japan. But he like Stalin's Stooge FDR, had an administration contaminated with commies spying for your idol and refused to do anything about it even after being informed.

 

[Gipper]

What?

Come on now....you must know I am being factious.

I am dealing with a harden commie here who is a true believer in Marxism. He thinks Stalin a wonderful hero and Reagan a murdering scumbag terrorist. I am trying to help him overcome his mental deficiencies, but it is tough going.

 

[dogtowner]

Come on now....you must know I am being factious.

I am dealing with a harden commie here who is a true believer in Marxism. He thinks Stalin a wonderful hero and Reagan a murdering scumbag terrorist. I am trying to help him overcome his mental deficiencies, but it is tough going.

he also seems to believe that Uncle Joe didn't have a habit of cleansing history of inconvenient things.

 

[Cruella]

I don't see this bunch in the White House as wanting to change human nature. They are very good a using human nature to divide and conquer. Rich and poor, black and white and so on. The truth is their ideology will actually destroy the middle class, just like Stalin did. The Rich and powerful will just take their wares somewhere else. What's left? The masses that will allow themselves to be ruled by a dictatorship.

 

[cashmcall]

Genseneca...I recieved that via e-mail..but thanks..

 

[Stalin]

because its a fishbowl scenario of a depressed microeconomy over a very brief time.

communes "work" fine until some animals become more equal than others.

try reading a book called "Animal Farm", very enlightening.

I read Animal Farm in 1965 and all the rest of Orwell's works including his diaries in the next few years.

Conmrade Stalin

 

[Stalin]

Well we sure know that under Socialism the poor do really well.

Can you explain why you think Reagan is a terrorist and Stalin a hero?

First of all, I do not believe in heroes.

"...In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Spanish Falangists was Viva la Muerte ("Long Live Death!"). In nonfascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death..."

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

Second, Stalin was never convicted of terrorism and Reagan was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair


Comrade Stalin

 

[dogtowner]

I read Animal Farm in 1965 and all the rest of Orwell's works including his diaries in the next few years.

Conmrade Stalin

so its a comprehension issue then. the book is a clever telling of how marxism has played out where tried.