Jump to content

Capitalism and Communism


TexasTiger

Recommended Posts

They are not mutually exclusive. We reject Cuba, and embrace China-- China's success is ultimately the greatest threat to freedom in the world and we support it wholeheartedly. O'Reilly's busy boycotting France. Utterly clueless.

KLEIN: "The communism, Stalinism, market Stalinism, authoritarian capitalism, I think this is an incredibly efficient, actually, a scarily efficient way of organizing society that's actually being celebrated here, which is a hybrid of some of the worst elements of authoritarian communism—mass surveillance of the population, total lack of civil liberties, lack of a free press, lack of democratic rights, authoritarian central planning, all harnessed not to advance the goals of social justice, even in name, although there may be some lip service still paid to that, but to advance the goals of global capitalism. So it is Stalinism meets global capitalism. And it works. China is the most successful capitalist economy in the world: 11 percent growth, year after year after year. It is the most successful economy in the world. And that efficiency, that success, is intimately tied, I would argue, to the suppression of democratic rights. It's not successful despite the fact that it's not a democracy, despite the fact that you don't have independent trade unions; it is successful in large part because of that, because workers can't organize independent unions..."

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=...10+01%3A15%3A51

Link to comment
Share on other sites





I long thought the inconsistency in how we treat China vs Cuba is utterly stupid. If we think engaging China and trading with them will ultimately usher in more freedoms and bring China into the community of nations, there's no good reason that same thing won't work with Cuba. Why make one our biggest trading partner while boycotting and placing an embargo on the other, much less threatening one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She does not understand the true nature of Communism. Scratch the paint and it is very very ugly.

I think you missed her point. China is merging the two in a frightening way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't government control of commerce called facism?

Fascism has been called "corporatism" but in the case of China, you have multi-national corporations working in partnership with a totalitarian communist regime, going along with their freedom restraining tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with being so friendly with them, either. But......we have seen in the past what can happen when you isolate yourself from emerging super powers (Germany 1936). I don't have the answers, but Cuba has been an aggressive nation towards the U.S. in the past (Nukes and USSR). The same could be said for China.

It's not an easy answer, but I'd like to see us be more aggressive with our ideals and back them with policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with being so friendly with them, either. But......we have seen in the past what can happen when you isolate yourself from emerging super powers (Germany 1936). I don't have the answers, but Cuba has been an aggressive nation towards the U.S. in the past (Nukes and USSR). The same could be said for China.

It's not an easy answer, but I'd like to see us be more aggressive with our ideals and back them with policy.

The larger point is what they represent-- the merging of capitalism and totalitarianism. Are they still communist? If so, why is their economy so strong? Communism failed, right? What do we call the system China has developed? One thing is certain-- we make them stronger every day we shop at Walmart, just as we do radical Muslims by our reliance on their oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with being so friendly with them, either. But......we have seen in the past what can happen when you isolate yourself from emerging super powers (Germany 1936). I don't have the answers, but Cuba has been an aggressive nation towards the U.S. in the past (Nukes and USSR). The same could be said for China.

It's not an easy answer, but I'd like to see us be more aggressive with our ideals and back them with policy.

The larger point is what they represent-- the merging of capitalism and totalitarianism. Are they still communist? If so, why is their economy so strong? Communism failed, right? What do we call the system China has developed? One thing is certain-- we make them stronger every day we shop at Walmart, just as we do radical Muslims by our reliance on their oil.

Wal-Mart isn't the only store in America like this. Name me one that isn't? If the U.S. would get rid of unions, square the playing field, and refire the textile industry, then we could put a hurtin' on the China machine and their exports to the U.S. That, along with other materials. Of course, we would isolate ourselves from them and loose out in the end. I'm all for it, but there's too many special interests on both sides of the isle to remedy it.

As for oil, we can cut that dependency out! We have to agree on comprehensive measures to ensure it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with being so friendly with them, either. But......we have seen in the past what can happen when you isolate yourself from emerging super powers (Germany 1936). I don't have the answers, but Cuba has been an aggressive nation towards the U.S. in the past (Nukes and USSR). The same could be said for China.

It's not an easy answer, but I'd like to see us be more aggressive with our ideals and back them with policy.

The larger point is what they represent-- the merging of capitalism and totalitarianism. Are they still communist? If so, why is their economy so strong? Communism failed, right? What do we call the system China has developed? One thing is certain-- we make them stronger every day we shop at Walmart, just as we do radical Muslims by our reliance on their oil.

Wal-Mart isn't the only store in America like this. Name me one that isn't? If the U.S. would get rid of unions, square the playing field, and refire the textile industry, then we could put a hurtin' on the China machine and their exports to the U.S. That, along with other materials. Of course, we would isolate ourselves from them and loose out in the end. I'm all for it, but there's too many special interests on both sides of the isle to remedy it.

As for oil, we can cut that dependency out! We have to agree on comprehensive measures to ensure it.

Of course Walmart is not the only one-- they are just the masters of it. When Walton was alive, Walmart made a concerted effort to find American producers. Now it's just about getting the cheapest. Everyone loves cheap, but it comes with a price.

But the bigger issue is that the world is in partnership with China's totalitarian regime. Corporations don't care what China does, as long as they produce cheap products, and their billion plus people provide a market for other items. What does "communism" and "capitalism" really mean these day? These terms get thrown around here and other places as if it is all very black and white. It's not. Is China becoming the model for other countries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with being so friendly with them, either. But......we have seen in the past what can happen when you isolate yourself from emerging super powers (Germany 1936). I don't have the answers, but Cuba has been an aggressive nation towards the U.S. in the past (Nukes and USSR). The same could be said for China.

It's not an easy answer, but I'd like to see us be more aggressive with our ideals and back them with policy.

The larger point is what they represent-- the merging of capitalism and totalitarianism. Are they still communist? If so, why is their economy so strong? Communism failed, right? What do we call the system China has developed? One thing is certain-- we make them stronger every day we shop at Walmart, just as we do radical Muslims by our reliance on their oil.

Wal-Mart isn't the only store in America like this. Name me one that isn't? If the U.S. would get rid of unions, square the playing field, and refire the textile industry, then we could put a hurtin' on the China machine and their exports to the U.S. That, along with other materials. Of course, we would isolate ourselves from them and loose out in the end. I'm all for it, but there's too many special interests on both sides of the isle to remedy it.

As for oil, we can cut that dependency out! We have to agree on comprehensive measures to ensure it.

Of course Walmart is not the only one-- they are just the masters of it. When Walton was alive, Walmart made a concerted effort to find American producers. Now it's just about getting the cheapest. Everyone loves cheap, but it comes with a price.

But the bigger issue is that the world is in partnership with China's totalitarian regime. Corporations don't care what China does, as long as they produce cheap products, and their billion plus people provide a market for other items. What does "communism" and "capitalism" really mean these day? These terms get thrown around here and other places as if it is all very black and white. It's not. Is China becoming the model for other countries?

China and Iraq are also set to finalize a deal to develop an oil field.

LINK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KLEIN: "The communism, Stalinism, market Stalinism, authoritarian capitalism, I think this is an incredibly efficient, actually, a scarily efficient way of organizing society that's actually being celebrated here, which is a hybrid of some of the worst elements of authoritarian communism—mass surveillance of the population, total lack of civil liberties, lack of a free press, lack of democratic rights, authoritarian central planning, all harnessed not to advance the goals of social justice, even in name, although there may be some lip service still paid to that, but to advance the goals of global capitalism. So it is Stalinism meets global capitalism. And it works. China is the most successful capitalist economy in the world: 11 percent growth, year after year after year. It is the most successful economy in the world. And that efficiency, that success, is intimately tied, I would argue, to the suppression of democratic rights. It's not successful despite the fact that it's not a democracy, despite the fact that you don't have independent trade unions; it is successful in large part because of that, because workers can't organize independent unions..."

The writer of this article is wrong. Without allowing more and more freedoms (as they have been doing, although very gradually), China's growth will stagnate in the future. This happens because without proper freedom, there is no real free market. You can't have capitalism and a controlled population. Even Soviet economies grew at very quick rates until the government control became too much to bear. If China wishes to continue growing economically, they will provide more freedom to their people. So, we really have nothing to worry about in the long-term. China will either not allow more freedoms and have its economy stagnate, therefore not representing any challenge to us, or China will allow more freedoms and therefore become the type of country they should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Members Online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...