Socialism anyone?

George Bush pushed us farther into socialism than anyone i9n recent memory. Why can't you accept that? Are you ashamed of it?

 

Our corporate tax rate to fund our welfare-city-states would tend to bear your statement out as very true.

 

Area of concern

Although I am vehemently opposed to the welfare-city-states, I am not nearly as much concerned about the corporate tax rate as I am about the tax burden on the middle class citizens and the small businesses. The corporations are better able to afford a heavier tax burden than honest working folks, so my sympathies, or perhaps empathies, are with the common people.

 

Slide into socialism......................

Oh, there's no doubt about it. The Republicans are as bad as the Democrats. It the same old story: "There's not a dime's worth of difference between them (George Corley Wallace)." The rhetoric is different--nothing else. The drift is in the same difference with only a relative difference of how far each has gone.

 

Yup. But at 37-42%, who really pays it ? We do, in higher prices. Corporations are who hire common people.

Lower it, and watch the revenue flow in. More jobs. It's really simple.

 

These are interesting thoughts. Makes you wonder if the best way is to not allow any corporations - only sole proprietorships and partnerships. And our economy should only be locally based, and things like eminent domain are inherently wrong, and have allowed corporations to become giants. In the end, however, if the only realistic options at this point are having the control at the state level or at the private citizen level (via large corporations), I will take the latter every time, because private citizens can't take away my free speech or religious expression, nor do they have the power of the sword. Think of it this way, every society that lets the state become the ultimate power has become a nightmare for its citizens and ultimately fails. But throughout history, we've had societies with economic control maintained by a small % of the private populace, and yes, there were abuses in these societies, but not nearly to the degree and severity as in the state-controlled societies.

 

Socialism or Capitalism or.....................?

Nope, you've bought the capitalist propaganda! In times of prosperity everyone prospers for a while but when the correction occurs after the profit taking, it is the common people who lose their jobs, homes and investments. The wealthy are affected only in the amount of their wealth, which they can usually afford to absorb although perhaps not living at the same level of extravagance. The greed of the rich feeds on the productivity of the common people. So, they sell us a line of propaganda about capitalism and prosperity.

Please refer to my other posts. Corporations tend to grow and devour other corporations. It is centralization of power and wealth as much as socialism. After all, that’s what’s its all about—wealth and power. I am opposed to both socialism and capitalism but I staunchly defend free market economics with a moral/ethical foundation. We’ve been sold a bill of goods in capitalism thinking that the only two choices are two evils—socialism and capitalism—and we choose the lesser of the two. I say there is a third choice—free market economics without the baggage of Social Darwinism. What do you think?

 

Yes, there is an element of truth in what you say but you're repeating what you've been taught--it's either socialism or capitalism. Not so. There is a third alternative--free market economics with a moral and ethical basis. Capitalism is an amoral system based on profit and greed justified by some kind of Social Darwinism. The problem is that a moral free market requires some self-control and self-restraint on our part, the people's part. It takes a responsible populace to make it work.

Your so-called free market capitalism has brought its own share of our current problems. Part of the economic mess that we're facing is due to the greed of the merger frenzy, LBO's, and other predatory economic practices. You can't blame it all on the socialists because they have been largely out of power for the past eight years. The capitalists do the same things that the socialists do with a slight variation. The capitalists borrow and spend whereas the socialists tax and spend. What's the difference?

I disagree with your analysis. There's plenty of blame for both socialists and capitalists. And you'll not find me cheering on the capitalists who would sell me out for a farthing. Consider that the biggest capitalists, the automakers and banks, were in Washington, DC with their hands out for my tax money. Also, remember that Hilter, a national socialist, achieved his rise to power in Germany through the aid of the biggest capitalists. Believe me, brother, the people have been sold wooden nickels.

 

Paid, you keep saying there is a third way, and to an extent I agree. However, it appears this third way will not be accomplished apart from a spiritual revival. Until then, give me capitalism every time. It's the worst form of economics in our sinful world, other than every other system.

 

I think you are wrong. Free markets ARE capitalism. I don't believe the government deserves a third to a half of what entrepreneurs make. Especially since they use that money to fund black genocide, bomb foreign countries, and feed those who refuse to contribute.

The government taking money they did not earn is greed. Conservative rich people donate a big percentage of their earnings to charity. This has been shown time & time again. It's the greed of those in Washington that puts people out of their jobs.

 

Think of it this way: I'd much rather have the so-called "oppression" we have in America from the large corporations than the true oppression going on in the state-dominated China. When you think of the comparison, our complaints here in the U.S. seem woefully petty.

 

The third way is called distributism. It's got some features that are too close to socialism for me and most of you too.

Capitolism does not necessitate the "greed is good" theory that some espouse. Capitolism, per se, is merely the private ownership of the means of production. It's a great system. Capitolists, on the other hand, are men with fallen natures. They over-accumulate wealth and power WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS that should be keeping those powers in check. Government officials are men with a fallen nature.

The founders knew the solution to all this. The U.S. Contstitution was originally designed to distribute political and economic powers down to a controllable level. When congressmen became career politicians, and when Senators became elected by popular vote, they became accountable only to the general electorate of their prospective districts and states. They lost their accountability to the constitution.

Today, men and women that stand for constitutional principles are labeled as "idealists" and mocked by the media before a listless and approving dumbed-down public.

So Capitolism within the original American system had distributionist principles built in, but changes to that system has unfortunately led to the ugly form of greed-based preditory capitolism we see today.

 

The Truth, Nothing Less..........................

First of all, there is nothing in my posts or position that anyone can say smells of socialism. I in no way endorse, condone, or tolerate it. On the other hand, I am not content to accept the lesser of two evils. I cannot find any Scriptural warrant for capitalism or competition or survival of the fittest. Even if these were natural laws, which they are not, they do not translate into human social and economic activity. Whatever economic system we choose must have moral/ethical underpinnings or we are exposing ourselves to the worst wickedness and evil of the human heart.

The problem is that we have been brainwashed into thinking there are only two choices. Most people are thoroughly ignorant of the philosophical basis and the rise of modern capitalism. Our founding fathers, contrary to popular belief, were not capitalists. Jefferson, like me, was an agrarian. Capitalism had its rise and popularity in the later part of the 19th century along with its relatives Social Darwinism and rationalism.

I cannot buy into capitalism because of its faulty and unscriptural foundations. It may be the lesser of the two evils but I am taught nowhere in Scripture to accept evil of any degree. Thus, I contend for truth even though the majority may reject it. "Truth however repressed and crushed is the truth nonetheless (anonymous).” We do not fight against evil by accepting a lesser evil.

 

A good public school education...........

I'm sure that you learned this in a good public school education taught from revisionist history texts. I had the same education but I kicked out of the traces when I found that things didn't add up. Read the sources and make your own inferences.

Our founding fathers were not captialists. Of course, if you broaden the definition to include anything espousing the free market, you may have somewhat of a point. However, this is all wrong-headed because capitalism is a specific economic philosophy with its roots in rationalism and Social Darwinism. It's central tenets of competition and survival of the fittest are wrong. I repeat: "Wrong!" Can you show me anything in Scripture that endorses these? Nay, but I can show you dozens of Scriptures saying the opposite. Now, are we, as Christians, going to obey the Scriptures in economics or will we justify our greed by trying to rationalize a system whose primary stimulus is greed and accumulation of wealth?

The poison is in the very roots of capitalism because it appeals to the worst of human vices to drive its system. Free market economics is sustainable without the evils of capitalism. It is necessary that the people exercise self-control and restraint. We must discipline ourselves. However, in our desire to possess and have wealth, we have played into the hands of the capitalists and have forsaken our principles. Everyone and everything is for sale, it seems. May God have mercy on us.

 

A choice of masters?

You may change your mind when you see the final stages of consumer capitalism. The corporate-state and the socialist-state are both hard taskmasters. I don't want either.

BTW, Red China is fast becoming a capitalist, corporate-state. I don't think the evolving monster there will be a pretty sight to behold.

 

Paid, all I see is railing against the two prevailing systems. However, I'd like to see your thoughts of how we as a society are to move towards your third way. Are you a libertarian on this? Or do you want to gov't to implement these changes via regulation?

 

He wants everyone to be farmers.

 

Show me where I am wrong.............

No, capitalism is a specific economic philosophy. Our founding fathers, such as Jefferson, were not capitalists. Capitalism does not encompass free market economics, as you probably have been taught.

Your argument seems to be that capitalism is better than socialism, which is analogous to dying by hanging or dying by electrocution--not much of a choice. I do not buy the old shoe: "Well, capitalism is sure better than socialism." For one, we have not fully seen the final stages of consumer capitalism or the amalgamation of communist-capitalism. Capitalism is amoral and can adapt itself to any wicked system (e.g. Nazism).

Let's speak the truth and stand for principle. It seems that capitalism has provided material wealth in sufficient quantity to entice us to abandon principle. That's the root of the problem--greed.

You seem to be a person of moral/ethical sensitivity. Do you approve of the corporate manipulation and exploitation of third countries for their wealth? All this is justified in the name of capitalist philosophy and values. Or do you not know about this?

As for donations to charity, I believe that Al Capone, et. al. made regular donations to charity. How did the conservative rich people "earn" their money? Was it made on the backs of others? Largess is not justification of wrongdoing--it won't buy you a ticket to heaven.

 

To be fair, I've seen the arguments for agrarianism, and it is much more nuanced than that. The essence of agrarianism is a locally-based economy (of course, define "local"). No eminent domain. Very libertarian (usually). No corporations. Of course, I always find it amusing to see agrarians argue their points over the Internet using a personal computer, developed, sold and marketed by corporations. I've yet to meet a consistent agrarian - I'm sure they exist, just not on the Internet. Enough, however - I will let Paid defend his posts and ideas.