End of Capitalism and Beginning of Communism?

[Yar-El]

The End of American capitalism?

Market turmoil draining the nation's wealth may claim another casualty

 

Debating on LucasForums brings a variety of perspectives. Each person has a unique experience based upon where they live. People living in the United States (and in some other countries) structure everything on unregulated systems. Capitalism is what drives the American Dream. You are able to pursue different avenues to secure a house, job, and other necessities. We take it all for granted.

 

Several of the converations on LucasForums deals with regulating systems. Universal Healthcare (National Healthcare) is such a regulated system. Any type of system in which government has an involvement in is regulated. Some of the systems in place are important, but others are more redundant systems.

 

Since the 1930s, U.S. banks were the flagships of American economic might, and emulation by other nations of the fiercely free-market financial system in the United States was expected and encouraged. But the market turmoil that is draining the nation's wealth and has upended Wall Street now threatens to put the banks at the heart of the U.S. financial system at least partly in the hands of the government.

 

The Bush administration is considering a partial nationalization of some banks, buying up a portion of their shares to shore them up and restore confidence as part of the $700 billion government bailout. The notion of government ownership in the financial sector, even as a minority stakeholder, goes against what market purists say they see as the foundation of the American system.

 

If the government steps in and nationalizes systems, we will become one step closer to communism. U.S. government will be able to tell you how to eat, talk, walk, buy, and how to do buisness. Your freedom of choice, variety, and other behaviors will be over.

 

Comments? Thoughts? Theories?

[KinchyB]

Capitalism destroyed the American Dream.

 

Fixed

 

...Big Oil...Golden Parachutes...Lobbyists...nuff said

 

If the government steps in and nationalizes systems, we will become one step closer to communism.

 

Umm...so I'm assuming that you are assuming that communism is bad. Maybe in it's purist form it doesn't work well (Debatable I suppose) or maybe it's also how it was implemented previously and currently for that matter. But any government in a pure form is bad... including democracy. That's why we are not 100% democratic.

 

U.S. government will be able to tell you how to eat, talk, walk, buy, and how to do buisness. Your freedom of choice, variety, and other behaviors will be over.

 

Slight exagerration maybe...? Insenuating that if we have Universal Healthcare then all of a sudden the government "will be able to tell you how to eat, talk, walk, buy, and how to do buisness" seems a bit of a stretch.

 

Also, keep in mind no one is suggesting we have Universal Healthcare in the way that it's suggest here that is government ran. They may say that everyone needs insurance so if you don't have any you get the same insurance congress and the senate have currently, but that is it.

 

Enjoy

[GarfieldJL]

You left out groups like ACORN that helped cause the subprime mortgage mess. There are more people to blame for this than just wallstreet and regular lobbyists.

 

Slight exagerration maybe...? Insenuating that if we have Universal Healthcare then all of a sudden the government "will be able to tell you how to eat, talk, walk, buy, and how to do buisness" seems a bit of a stretch.

 

Universal Health Care doesn't work, if it did we wouldn't see Canadians run across the border to the United States to see US doctors.

[Yar-El]

Slight exagerration maybe...? Insenuating that if we have Universal Healthcare then all of a sudden the government "will be able to tell you how to eat, talk, walk, buy, and how to do buisness" seems a bit of a stretch.

I'm going to let my post speak for itself. You twisted the meaning of my words. I would go back a reread. Keep this question in mind: Is this a topic over National Healthcare, or is it a topic over a heavly regulated society? Keep in mind that this topic is also connected to an article.

 

You left out groups like ACORN that helped cause the subprime mortgage mess. There are more people to blame for this than just wallstreet and regular lobbyists.

Special interests groups?

[El Sitherino]

I'd rather government limit corporate rule than have a country run on the whims of business men. If you wish to think it as communism, you are free to do so. However it is completely untrue and displays a lack of understanding of communism.

[Tyrion]

I think the problem is that the end of strict Capitalism does not entail the rise of full-blown Communism. What we're likely to see is a mixed socialistic economy, whereby the markets have a degree of both individualistic choice and governmental oversight.

 

(FYI: Communism isn't an economic philosophy: it's a social one. Socialism is the economic term for governmental oversight of an economy, usually through regulations and controlling a varying degree of the means of production; a vast majority of countries (even the US, pre-bailout - look at the FDA) have socialistic practices in their economies. Socialism can extend from partial regulation and government ownership of only the essential means of production, as in the US' case with the stock market and energy utility companies as examples, to wholly-governmental controlled economies as in Soviet Russia. )

[Yar-El]

I was under the impression that socialism equals communism. Could you flesh out the differences? Maybe I'm loosing something in translation.

 

I thought communism was a government that had full control over all social aspects.

[Tyrion]

Clarified my above post.

[Pavlos]

To paraphrase Sandi Toksvig on Radio 4's 'News Quiz': What an odd reversal the world is enjoying. America is invading middle eastern countries and nationalising banks while the Russians are oil-rich capitalists.

[Astor]

Universal Health Care doesn't work,

 

It does, actually, but for more I'd suggest seeing the 'Universal Healthcare' thread.

[KinchyB]

I'm going to let my post speak for itself. You twisted the meaning of my words. I would go back a reread. Keep this question in mind: Is this a topic over National Healthcare, or is it a topic over a heavly regulated society? Keep in mind that this topic is also connected to an article.

 

Point taken, however, you are still failing to show how the "U.S. government will be able to tell you how to eat, talk, walk, buy, and how to do buisness." Perhaps some detailed clarification on how we get to that point could help your argument...

 

Edit...

 

Universal Health Care doesn't work, if it did we wouldn't see Canadians run across the border to the United States to see US doctors.[/Quote]

 

How about some numbers? Specifically, how many people cross the border for healthcare from Canada to the U.S.? And vice versa...? Not to mention what are they crossing the border for exactly (healthcare is too broad, narrow it down)? Also, how does this compare to other countries...? This statement can quite literally be made for every country on earth. Without this info... Straw Man... people going across the border is not an indication that their healthcare is inadequate.

[GarfieldJL]

Canadians come across the border to see US doctors and US Citizens go to Canada to get cheap prescription medicine.

 

And my Parents have some friends in Canada that have commented to my parents about this, so I know it's going on.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=23230

 

 

Also doctors from Canada are heading here too:

http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2007/04/canadian-doctors-go-to-usa-for-better.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/06/in-canada-doctors-use-lottery-to-drop-patients/

 

We may end up slipping into socialist practices due to simple panic, problem is that Government is usually the worst group when it comes efficiency. Also on that list is Lawyers, and accountants.

[Pavlos]

We may end up slipping into socialist practices due to simple panic, problem is that Government is usually the worst group when it comes efficiency. Also on that list is Lawyers, and accountants.

Just a question: What's so bad about socialism?

[GarfieldJL]

Just a question: What's so bad about socialism?

 

Aside, from the fact that it doesn't work and doesn't encourage people to do their best?

 

 

Socialism looks good on paper but in real life it rapidly turns into a dictatorship.

 

Pure Capitalism is also very bad as well, that's why there are laws and regulations.

[Achilles]

Would it surprise you to learn that Sweden routinely ranks higher than the U.S. on the Human Development Index?

 

I think you're comparing to Pure Communism to Regulated Capitalism and declaring Capitalism the winner, but in an effort to not appear unbaised concede that Pure Capitalism doesn't work either (as the current financial crisis would indicate). Perhaps more apples-to-apples analysis would be beneficial?

[GarfieldJL]

Would it surprise you to learn that Sweden routinely ranks higher than the U.S. on the Human Development Index?

 

Sweden is a very bad example because of the size of their population compared to the US.

 

I think you're comparing to Pure Communism to Regulated Capitalism and declaring Capitalism the winner, but in an effort to not appear unbaised concede that Pure Capitalism doesn't work either (as the current financial crisis would indicate). Perhaps more apples-to-apples analysis would be beneficial?

 

If you're referring to China, I'm going to refer you to all the human rights violations.

[Achilles]

Sweden is a very bad example because of the size of their population compared to the US.

No it isn't. Population size has nothing to do with it. Your argument is that the system doesn't work. Please stick to your guns or move along.

 

If you're referring to China, I'm going to refer you to all the human rights violations.

I'm not referring to any country. I'm merely pointing out that your comparison is false. If you to compare Pure Communism to Regulated Capitalism that's fine, but realize that both are strawmen because no one is suggesting Pure Communism and the current financial crisis exists because we've become too deregulated. A more truthful comparison would be Pure Communism vs Pure Capitalism (which you alluded does not work in your previous post and we have some evidence for now).

 

Which leaves us with some sort of "Communism" (I can only assume from your posts that you view gov't involvement to any degree as "Communism")/Capitalism hybrid. Which I think many of us are in favor of. What that looks like precisely probably still needs to be discussed.

[SW01]

You underetimate the potential benefits of somewhat socialist systems. That is the current state of the British system, by and large. To my mind, more than anything else, it is better in some respects than pure capitalism as it introduces a greater degree of public accountability - something is run by the government, so the voters exercise control by booting people out of office.

 

The way things are going, with the US Treasury possibly being given the power to seize substantial stakes in US banks, I think America is looking at a UK-influenced system to some degree. Really, I doubt it could do any more harm to the US infrastructure than has already been done.

 

While I don't believe America will move towards Communism (which in it's pure form may be idyllic, but corruption kills it), I think socialism is a real part of its future.

[Tyrion]

Sweden is a very bad example because of the size of their population compared to the US.

 

Most countries, including the US, are socialistic, though. I honestly don't see what the aversion to socialism is: every country in the bloody world has some sort of regulation on their economies, usually to protect the environment, investors, and consumers.

 

If you're referring to China, I'm going to refer you to all the human rights violations.

 

Communistic, not socialistic. Besides, part of the reason for their massive pollution problem is because of their total lack of environmental regulation - a decidedly unsocialistic decision.

[Yar-El]

Most countries, including the US, are socialistic, though. I honestly don't see what the aversion to socialism is: every country in the bloody world has some sort of regulation on their economies, usually to protect the environment, investors, and consumers.

 

Communistic, not socialistic. Besides, part of the reason for their massive pollution problem is because of their total lack of environmental regulation - a decidedly unsocialistic decision.

 

Wikipedia - Communism

 

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.[1][2][3] The communist movement has attempted to produce a communist society by setting up political parties, which in some cases have become governments. These attempts have never produced a communist society, and have frequently led to totalitarian states.[citation needed]

 

Communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism, a broad group of social and political ideologies, which draws on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.[4] Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Communism states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class, or proletariat, to replace the wealthy bourgeoisie, which is currently the ruling class, in order to establish a peaceful, free society, without classes, or government.[2] The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarchist communism) also exist.

Wiki is not the most trusted source for information; however, its a quick and fast guide for answers. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and L. M. Findlay's book called The Communist Manifesto may also help. Some people in the United States lock socialism with communism; thus, they have always been interlocked. Socialism may have been adapted by communism; therefore, they became interlinked from adaptation. Some have fused both concepts due to historical events. I wrote a book on symbolism eight years ago, and I explored how imagery was adapted across societies. Socialism became a symbol of communism not intentionally; however, through a series of historical events. Russia, Germany, and China's past for example.

[Inyri]

I wrote a book on symbolism eight years ago, and I explored how imagery was adapted across societies.

Really? What's the name of it? I'd like to check it out.

[Yar-El]

Really? What's the name of it? I'd like to check it out.

I need to get to know people first. Give me some time to learn about you, and I promise to give you a copy. You see Inyri, my real name is on the cover. Online forums allow me a level of anomynity. I can move around without questions, questions, questions. Private message me sometime. I have two other books out there.

[Inyri]

What's to be afraid of? Certainly as a respected author you should be interested in providing your book to anyone interested (and making some royalties, of course).

[Tyrion]

Wikipedia - Communism

 

Wiki is not the most trusted source for information; however, its a quick and fast guide for answers. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and L. M. Findlay's book called The Communist Manifesto may also help. Some people in the United States lock socialism with communism; thus, they have always been interlocked. Socialism may have been adapted by communism; therefore, they became interlinked from adaptation. Some have fused both concepts due to historical events. I wrote a book on symbolism eight years ago, and I explored how imagery was adapted across societies. Socialism became a symbol of communism not intentionally; however, through a series of historical events. Russia, Germany, and China's past for example.

 

In that sense, it's a matter of Communism being intrinsically linked with Socialism, but not necessarily the other way around.

[Yar-El]

In that sense, it's a matter of Communism being intrinsically linked with Socialism, but not necessarily the other way around.

Yep. Well known example -

 

Buddhists the swastika means ultimate power, the sun, the brightness and the power of the sun, the wheel of life, the rotating aspect of life growing and dying, good fortune and other meanings.

More of the Explination Here

 

Hitler ended up using it for another reason. Socialism's connnection to Communism is the same thing; however, we connect them through historical establishhments. We relate the two together because of history.