If not now when, if not us than who?

[ZigZagZeke]

That shows your misunderstandings of the two "systems". Communism has to murder people eventually when people wake up and see how oppressive it is.

Capitalism may kill a few people, but it doesn't mean to, killing is counterproductive.

Capitalism is a word I don't really like because it has a sinister connotation of greedy traders who, like communists, don't actually produce anything.

I don't really think there is a name for what I see producing all the real wealth in the world, entrepreneurialism comes close, free market is very close but has never existed for long.

What does the murder of anyone do to increase production? Fear is the calling card of communists, not producers. Communism is another name for thieves, thievery and intimidation have always been related.

To answer you, not many. Many billions have been made wealthier, happier and more comfortable by entrepenurialism.

Capitalism involves the conversion of raw materials into goods. The profit element is the result of taking advantage of the difference between the total cost of raw materials plus labor, and the selling price of the finished goods. Capitalism requires the availability of cheap raw materials and cheap labor. Capitalism is willing to kill people to acquire and maintain cheap raw materials. Most of our wars have been fought under the guise of national security or religion, but in the end they are always about acquisition of raw materials. So yes, capitalism has killed a lot of people.

That's not to say that all capitalism is always bad. It is unrestrained capitalism, when companies and corporations become so powerful that they dictate public policy that we begin to go off the rails. Capitalism that is required to provide for worker safety, that is required to provide ethical compensation to its workers, that is prohibited from eliminating its own competition, and that is required to contribute to the common good is an admirable economic model.

I have no use for socialism, and the results of communism speak for themselves. But there are certain responsibilities that a civilized society must take upon itself. People should not be allowed to sleep and starve in the streets. People should not be allowed to die for lack of medical care. Old people who can no longer work need to be cared for, not discarded. People should be able to aspire to advance their own economic condition and that of their children.

There are many things a great society needs that cannot be accomplished on a voluntary or profit driven basis. An interstate highway system cannot be built by volunteers who donate property and labor. An adequate common defense cannot be paid for with bake sales. We vote to levy taxes on ourselves to do these things. The argument is simply over which things we need to do that fall into that category. When these endeavors have been left to the forces of capitalism these services are provided only where there is a profit to be made. Airline regulation was instituted to ensure that necessary service was provided even in areas where it was less profitable. If highway construction was left to toll road companies we would not have highways to unprofitable areas. Presently, health care is left to profit driven providers, and we see exactly the same result. Those on whom the health care providers cannot make a profit go without care, and therefor suffer and die needlessly. I can't say without reserve that I am a capitalist. I would say that I'm a limited capitalist.

 

[bugeye]

That shows your misunderstandings of the two "systems". Communism has to murder people eventually when people wake up and see how oppressive it is.

Capitalism may kill a few people, but it doesn't mean to, killing is counterproductive.

Capitalism is a word I don't really like because it has a sinister connotation of greedy traders who, like communists, don't actually produce anything.

I don't really think there is a name for what I see producing all the real wealth in the world, entrepreneurialism comes close, free market is very close but has never existed for long.

What does the murder of anyone do to increase production? Fear is the calling card of communists, not producers. Communism is another name for thieves, thievery and intimidation have always been related.

To answer you, not many. Many billions have been made wealthier, happier and more comfortable by entrepenurialism.

Ahh, but to get your 100 million figure you needed to add millions that starved to death, and that was not intended. If you make all comparisons with double standards you can come to all maner of goofy conclusions.

 

[bugeye]

While we argue over misunderstood terms with concepts fed us by an agenda driven media, this country is in grave danger. While our officals yap the pablum that 'no one can compete with the American Worker' we export our production systems and jobs everyday to countries where people can live well for a month on what it costs us to survive for a day. They graduate 500 times our engineers every year, and do so at low costs. The free traders have created the most unfair playing field ever, one that puts the US in the worst possible position. And to the folks that aren't involved in the production of tangible goods, you are next on the menu. If you think for a second that production systems that can produce something as complex as a PC mother board for $30 retail can't manage to reproduce the sort of boilerplated paperwork BS that is your stock in trade for a few pennies per ton you are out of your agrandized mind.

But lets not deal with the obvious, not when we can stand on either side of the sinking deck throwing folding chairs at each other feeling righeous.

I guess we deserve what we are going to get, we are far too dumb to be on top for long.

Just needed to correct a typo, I said they graduate 500 times our engineers, and that should have been 15 times, oops.

 

[bugeye]

And if jobs can't be exported to a place where labor is $5 a day then the large corporations and small businesses will hire illegally imported labor to fill those jobs at half the legal rate here. We need a workable guest worker program to kill the market for illegal labor, and level the playing field for American workers.

This isn't going to work, the cheapest most degraded illegal labor we can get is propped up by free medical care (at the worlds highest rates) emergency food aid and education for their children (also at nearly the worlds highest rates). The only thing that is going to save us is a protected economy, or an amazing set of technical achievements. Since the forces at the top in both gov and private enterprise are unwilling to seriously invest in such technical advancements, like fusion power, we can only protect. One thing that makes no sense is to protect our economy only to allow sacred cows that have been milking us dry for decades to stay in the cat bird seat. Problem is that these cows own our political process and the best congress money can buy.

 

[AGCR]

Gee, how many people have been killed by capitalism?

A better way to phrase it is: How many people have died from capitalist imperialism?

I would differentiate between millions killed during the Native American genocide as being just "imperialist" related deaths– and the tens of millions of East Indians starved to death intentionally through famines created by the British East India Company as "capitalist imperialist" deaths. The tens upon tens of millions of Africans slaughtered by imperial powers could fall in either camp. Of course that's just a tiny fraction of examples. Either way, I suspect the numbers game falls fairly equally, depending upon definitions. It's naturally murky, since no one ever wipes out a people for the glory of capitalism. They just do as a messy byproduct of accumulating wealth. And everyone wants a cheaper cup of tea...

 

[Trlsmn]

A better way to phrase it is: How many people have died from capitalist imperialism?

I would differentiate between millions killed during the Native American genocide as being just "imperialist" related deaths– and the tens of millions of East Indians starved to death intentionally through famines created by the British East India Company as "capitalist imperialist" deaths. The tens upon tens of millions of Africans slaughtered by imperial powers could fall in either camp. Of course that's just a tiny fraction of examples. Either way, I suspect the numbers game falls fairly equally, depending upon definitions. It's naturally murky, since no one ever wipes out a people for the glory of capitalism. They just do as a messy byproduct of accumulating wealth. And everyone wants a cheaper cup of tea...

And how many people have died as a direct result of Communism/Socialists? Yeah the working mans party, they're a happy go lucky, live and let live bunch of progressives aren't they!

People's Republic of China
Body Count: 73,237,000

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Body Count: 58,627,000

Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic
Body Count: 3,284,000

Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Body Count: 3,163,000

Cambodia
Body Count: 2,627,000

Etc..etc...

 

[AGCR]

[QUOTE

People's Republic of China
Body Count: 73,237,000

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Body Count: 58,627,000

Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic
Body Count: 3,284,000

Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Body Count: 3,163,000

Cambodia
Body Count: 2,627,000

Etc..etc...[/QUOTE]

I'm well aware of those figures. They are not in dispute, with the exception of Cambodia, which is somewhat more complicated.
Point being, since people like numbers so much:

India: Over 20 million dead in just two intentional specific famines caused by converting food production to opium farming by British East India Co to enslave Chine with...which led to how many Chinese dead? We don't know.

Africa: 10 million dead under the Belgians in the Congo. That is only the best documented case, nearly every country Africa has a similar story. It goes on and on...

There's no convenient list to cut examples from for reasons I mentioned earlier. I'm not trying to make a value judgment, I don't care whether capitalists or communists killed more people- they both are responsible for untold millions dead- that's why I don't consider myself either one.

 

[Trlsmn]

[QUOTE

People's Republic of China
Body Count: 73,237,000

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Body Count: 58,627,000

Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic
Body Count: 3,284,000

Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Body Count: 3,163,000

Cambodia
Body Count: 2,627,000

Etc..etc...

I'm well aware of those figures. They are not in dispute, with the exception of Cambodia, which is somewhat more complicated.
Point being, since people like numbers so much:

India: Over 20 million dead in just two intentional specific famines caused by converting food production to opium farming by British East India Co to enslave Chine with...which led to how many Chinese dead? We don't know.

Africa: 10 million dead under the Belgians in the Congo. That is only the best documented case, nearly every country Africa has a similar story. It goes on and on...

There's no convenient list to cut examples from for reasons I mentioned earlier. I'm not trying to make a value judgment, I don't care whether capitalists or communists killed more people- they both are responsible for untold millions dead- that's why I don't consider myself either one.

Well then what is your solution for a world that works for all? People always point toward evil capitalists but I can honestly say I have never been employed by a poor person.

 

[AGCR]

If I had a solution that worked for all I wouldn't be turning a wrench under cars all day. However, my extremely brief goal would be an economical and political system patterned on Germany, Switzerland and the US. Germany (where I used to live) for its vigorous socialist economy which is according to all reports you hear lately, the economic engine of Europe. Switzerland (where I've also spent time) for its successful mix of socialism with political freedoms and the US (where I'm a citizen) for its wide open freedoms of speech, expression and etc. in the Constitution. There's good reasons more socialist leaning countries like Germany and Canada have stayed strong the last few years while Ireland, for recent example, which let capitalism run hog wild, had a brief upswing before the financiers and speculators brought it all crashing down. Like I told Mayor Adams last week, for a healthier society I want banker control, not gun control.

 

[Stomper]

If I had a solution that worked for all I wouldn't be turning a wrench under cars all day. However, my extremely brief goal would be an economical and political system patterned on Germany, Switzerland and the US. Germany (where I used to live) for its vigorous socialist economy which is according to all reports you hear lately, the economic engine of Europe. Switzerland (where I've also spent time) for its successful mix of socialism with political freedoms and the US (where I'm a citizen) for its wide open freedoms of speech, expression and etc. in the Constitution. There's good reasons more socialist leaning countries like Germany and Canada have stayed strong the last few years while Ireland, for recent example, which let capitalism run hog wild, had a brief upswing before the financiers and speculators brought it all crashing down. Like I told Mayor Adams last week, for a healthier society I want banker control, not gun control.

Ummm... that's because Germany has taken agressive "austerity actions" and started cutting government spending with more to follow. It's funny how there are those (not specifically inferring you AGCR) who want to drag us into being "more like Europe", while Europe is starting to be more like the U.S. used to be... at least in some areas.

 

[Correctthought]

Careful with that,...
Green is the new RED!

I prefer watermelon kool aide, its green on the outside, red on the inside. Actually kinda a neat trick.

 

[Partsproduction]

but to get your 100 million figure you needed to add millions that starved to death, and that was not intended.

Most of the deaths by starvation were indeed deliberate murders. Stalin decided that capital for industrialization could best be got by selling grain needed to keep Russians alive. Once you really look hard at communism it looks even worse than what people like me tell you it is.

 

[Karma]

Most of the deaths by starvation were indeed deliberate murders. Stalin decided that capital for industrialization could best be got by selling grain needed to keep Russians alive. Once you really look hard at communism it looks even worse than what people like me tell you it is.

LOL. Sounds almost like when the nation followed one of Mr. Gore's ideas to use 1/3 of our corn supply to make ethanol. As we use more and more of our food supply for inferior fuel, it drives the cost of pretty much all food up. At the same time our gas mileage drops, and we have increasing problems with the cars we put them in.

Of course we haven't got to starvation yet, but I suppose if we keep going down the road we are on, we may get there one day.

 

[AGCR]

Ummm... that's because Germany has taken agressive "austerity actions" and started cutting government spending with more to follow. It's funny how there are those (not specifically inferring you AGCR) who want to drag us into being "more like Europe", while Europe is starting to be more like the U.S. used to be... at least in some areas.

Those austerity actions you refer to are very recent necessities enacted for Germans to do the heavy lifting required to help their less responsible neighbors out. I'm looking at the big picture, starting with Bismark in the late 1800s realizing that a strong society should avoid class turmoil by simply giving workers the best deal in town. It could be called the "trickle up" effect and it was quite successful. German industrialists were wise enough to realize they might be able to get richer short term, but allowing unions a seat on the company board, for one example, gave everybody a better shake long term. That's what I'm interested in, time tested beneficial social solutions that last for generations, not Utopian dreams or winner-take-all-screw-tomorrow unregulated capitalisms.

 

[Trlsmn]

Those austerity actions you refer to are very recent necessities enacted for Germans to do the heavy lifting required to help their less responsible neighbors out. I'm looking at the big picture, starting with Bismark in the late 1800s realizing that a strong society should avoid class turmoil by simply giving workers the best deal in town. It could be called the "trickle up" effect and it was quite successful. German industrialists were wise enough to realize they might be able to get richer short term, but allowing unions a seat on the company board, for one example, gave everybody a better shake long term. That's what I'm interested in, time tested beneficial social solutions that last for generations, not Utopian dreams or winner-take-all-screw-tomorrow unregulated capitalisms.

Long term, last for generations? how long do you consider "long term"? Need I point out turn of the century Germany up through the rise and fall of the Nazi's? "Trickle up" is not the way I would have described that situation.

 

[Trlsmn]

Bismark in the late 1800s realizing that a strong society should avoid class turmoil by simply giving workers the best deal in town. It could be called the "trickle up" effect and it was quite successful.

The parallels of the rise of the German welfare state in the 1880's as a result of these Bismark social reforms are a very good example of what is happening today, so does it all end with the USA 4th Reich in parallel?

Otto von Bismarck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AGCR]

Ah, yes, I knew a Nazi reference would be upcoming when I say nice things about Deutschland. I was of course referring to the social benefits of giving ordinary people stronger power to forge a better place in the economy. That in no way necessarily ends in Nazism, as most every other countries from Denmark to Sweden with a similar Bismarkian history seem to have avoided such mistakes. One proof of the value is height. I am of very average height for an American man, but in European countries with a century or so of Bismark's legacy, I'm a complete shorty. Americans are currently the shortest members of the European diaspora due to generations under substandard medical and public health conditions. I'm against that cos I want to live in a strong society, not a sickly one. Lets, see, nobody'll believe me unless the internet has a handy link... here we go. Are You One of the Shrinking Americans? | Personal Health | AlterNet

 

[Stomper]

Sounds like you ought to move over there then...

 

[Karma]

Sounds like you ought to move over there then...

LOL.

 

[Jamie6.5]

to generations under substandard medical and public health conditions. I'm against that cos I want to live in a strong society, not a sickly one. Lets, see, nobody'll believe me unless the internet has a handy link... here we go. Are You One of the Shrinking Americans? | Personal Health | AlterNet

Wow, good thing you included that link. You know, the one that doesn't support your assertions?!?
From the article linked:

We conjecture that the U.S. healthcare system, as well as the relatively weak welfare safety net, might be why human growth in the United States has not performed as well in relative terms ...

Whew! Conjecture, loose neutral terms and outright speculation.
You've got us there AGCR!!
Looking around on the .net however, we find Wiki has an actual chart of various heights by nationality here:
Human height - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh and look! Right there under U.S. it separates out hispanic Americans, White, black etc.
Now given that the percentage of Hispanics (and other races/nationalities) in the US has increased five-fold or more since WWII, it is highly probable that it is our racial diversity that is dragging us down. It lists Hispanics as 3.5" shorter than the average white American,... Is that the fault of our healthcare system too?
Not to mention the FACT that it points out the falsehoods in your alternet article, as the disparity between American height and European's shrinks.

In the 25 years following WWII, American born (baby boomer) children were the best fed generation in the history of the world.
And last I checked, we were still alive, and the among the largest segment's of America's population.
Your "alternet" article is flawed at best, and looking around at the rest of that website, I think it's easy to see why.

There is no doubt the average American's diet could use some work, so until that issue is laid to rest, you should rest your argument for socialist healthcare being the be-all end-all. Especially when at the moment, it is economic anathema.