Conversation at The Unrepentant Patriots about Economic Systems

Earthhope Action Network

(On fascism and socialism)

They are both statist stances. In the one, socialism, the state owns the means of production (from schools to car factories), in the other, the state controls the means of production, while allowing "capitalists" to own them, as long as they make what the state tells them to, to buy what the state tells them to, and to pay what the state tells them to.

So, one might ask, if there is a practical difference, what is it?

Le

Yes, and now all of the collectivist economic systems:

state capitalism

–noun

a form of capitalism in which the central government controls most of the capital, industry, natural resources, etc.

 

state capitalism

noun

an economic system that is primarily capitalistic but there is some degree of government ownership of the means of production

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

So state capitalism is a mix of capitalism and communism. Ouch!, huh? Yikes.

so·cial·ism

   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Not looking good for us, unless of course, you desire communism, as Tom has demonstrated.

fas·cism

   /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled[fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun

1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.

3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Sho, too, sounds like what we got here if I didn't know better.

com·mu·nism

   /ˈkɒmyəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled[kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

4.communalism.

Of course, in reality there is no such thing, as it's never been demonstrated to exist yet. There have been totalitarian states that have called themselves communist (and so I guess that is the actual definition) but not one has had a system where the ownership of production is the people. It's always the state and there are always a hand full of elites who get a lot more. (With the possible exception of Nikita Khrushchev in the USSR).

In any case it looks like that's where we're headed.

cor·po·rat·ism

   /ˈkɔrpərəˌtɪzəm, -prəˌtɪz-/ Show Spelled[kawr-puh-ruh-tiz-uhm, -pruh-tiz-] Show IPA

–noun

the principles, doctrine, or system of corporative organization of a political unit, as a city or state.

Word Origin & History

corporatism

1890, from corporate + -ism. Used over the years in various senses of corporate, in 1920s-30s often with ref. to fascist collectivism.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source

cor·po·ra·tist (kôr'pər-ə-tĭst', kôr'prə-tĭst') adj. Of, relating to, or being a corporative state or system. cor'po·ra·tism n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.


So take your pick:
collectivism 1.
collectivism 2.
collectivism 3.
collectivism 4.
collectivism 5.

OR:

Free Market Capitalism

Financial Dictionary

Free Market definition

A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sells are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.

I rest my case.

Maggie

Here's Your Prez, America

White House Has No Information on Hundreds of Kidnapped, Executed Americans in Mexico

Earthhope Action Network
by Steve Watson & Paul Watson Infowars


"Recent Mexican army and police force conflicts with heavily-armed narcotics
cartels have escalated to levels equivalent to military small-unit combat and
have included use of machine guns and fragmentation grenades," said the State
Department alert.

The White House has declared that it has no information on any ongoing judicial processes concerning hundreds of kidnappings and murders of American citizens by Mexican drug cartels and gangs between 2005 and 2007.

Cybercast News Service specifically asked Press Secretary Dana Perino last Friday for information pertaining to a still operative travel alert issued by the State Department, which warned travelers that violence "equivalent to military small-unit combat" was taking place along the southern U.S. border with Mexico.

"Recent Mexican army and police force conflicts with heavily-armed narcotics cartels have escalated to levels equivalent to military small-unit combat and have included use of machine guns and fragmentation grenades," said the State Department alert.

Perino told CNS that she did not know whether the President was aware of the alert or not.

A follow up email to the White House requesting specific information on legal action concerning 128 documented cases of murders and executions of Americans in Mexico in the last two years was met only with a recommendation to contact the attorney general of Mexico.

The Justice Department and the State Department have also both previously stated that they have no information on any arrests, prosecutions or convictions related to the murders.

Last month the Houston Chronicle reported that two representatives urged Congress to take action to address the worsening situation on the southern border.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, urged the Congress to take action regarding the frequent incursions of military style Mexican commandos into the U.S. that has seen over 6000 deaths in the past two and a half years according to conservative estimates.

Poe highlighted the fact that the guerrilla-style commandos are regularly crossing the border into the U.S. and have been involved in violence and killings as far north as Dallas. Poe cited reports indicating that there have been over 250 documented incursions by suspected military forces into the United States over the past decade.

Another Congressman, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, called border drug violence "an imminent security threat right on our doorstep" and compared the urgency of situation to that of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In March, award winning National Security and Pentagon reporter for the Washington Times, Sara A. Carter, detailed the national media blackout on the Mexican incursions and the border war:

"There’s a lot of people who don’t realize how serious the situation is on the southern border." Ms. Carter told the Alex Jones show. "Even to the extent when sometimes some of our own government officials choose to ignore it, even though they know it’s going on."

"It is a huge story. It is bigger than most of us even know, and people are afraid of covering the story. We hear reports but we don’t see in depth detail." Carter said.

According to reports, members of Mexico’s elite counter-narcotics teams, trained at Fort Benning, Ga., are regularly defecting into the pay of drug cartels.

Drug cartels in Mexico have increasingly targeted policemen in various parts of the country. Seven other policemen were killed last week, as The New York Times reported. More than 30 federal agents and 170 local police officers have been killed in the last 18 months.

As the LA Times reports, 40,000 soldiers and 5,000 federal police officers have been deployed onto the streets in Mexico in an attempt to secure large swaths of the country against entrenched drug traffickers in what has been described by the President Felipe Calderon as an all out war.

Many within Mexico are worried that the army could prove as vulnerable to corruption as the police. History dictates that the move to deploy troops may only worsen the crisis, as explained in this LA Times report:

During the 1980s, the army’s job was mainly to find and destroy opium poppy and marijuana crops in western and northern Mexico.

In the 1990s, then-President Ernesto Zedillo ordered the air force to chase drug flights and named an army general as the nation’s top anti-drug officer.

That general, Jose de Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, was later convicted on charges that he helped Amado Carrillo Fuentes, reputed head of the Juarez cartel.




view here



While reports of soldiers, narcotics agents and cops dealing drugs are almost routine, the real head of the hydra has always been CIA involvement in smuggling drugs that end up on America’s streets, a symbiotic process that also helps finance wars and terrorist groups to do the bidding of the U.S. government around the world.

The corporate media will report on lesser drug smuggling scandals involving cops and customs agents, but when it comes to the gargantuan sprawling CIA drug smuggling racket, the silence is deafening.

In September 2007, a Florida based Gulfstream II jet aircraft # N987SA was forced to crash land in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula after it ran out of fuel.

After accident investigators arrived on the scene they discovered a cargo of nearly 4 tonnes of cocaine.

Journalists discovered that the same Gulstream jet had been used in at least three CIA "rendition" trips to Guantanamo Bay between 2003 and 2005.

Kevin Booth’s underground hit documentary American Drug War features footage of former DEA head Robert Bonner admitting that the CIA was involved in cocaine smuggling operations.

Retired DEA Agent Celerino "Cele" Castillo, who has appeared on The Alex Jones Show many times, personally witnessed CIA drug smuggling operations funneled through terrorists that were also involved in kidnappings and the training of death squads on behalf of the U.S. government.

Watch this hour long feature from 2006 where Alex Jones and Castillo explain how and why US Agencies are behind the largest smuggling operations.

Investigative reporter Gary Webb was instrumental in exposing CIA cocaine trafficking operations before his alleged suicide in 2004. In the You Tube clip below, Webb traces the history of Agency involvement in drug smuggling and its links to financing wars in central America.

Source: Infowars


Keywords • Executed Americans in Mexico • narcotics cartels CIA cocaine trafficking operations • White House Has No Information on Hundreds of Kidnapped

Rape Laws in Islamic Pakistan / forced marriage 12 yr old girl / Arab Men Should Sexually Harass Israeli Woman As Resistance

(A Snippet from) An Ongoing Conversation in The Unrepentant Patriots:








Boyd White

Do you and Muslims agree in freedom of expression. If you purport you do then you need to make up your mind.

Every time some one tries to express themselves with a caricature of Mohatmed....bam, violent censorship arises.

Which leads to the questions, if you won't grant freedom of expression to us why should we grant it to you.

This isn't a one way street.

-----

realitynotideology

Boyd, depicting Muhammad has been banned in Islam for damn near as long as it has existed. Don't depict the prophet and don't express yourself aren't exactly the same statement. That's like saying the prohibition of the 7 dirty words on the airwaves makes it impossible to express yourself.

Yup, they are pretty uptight about depicting their prophet, clearly.

Clearly the reactions are over the top and not acceptable. On the other hand, when people do something purposefully inflammatory, especially against religion, and they get a reaction they didn't expect, I'm not really one for having sympathy.

Yes, the reaction that Salmond Rushdie got was way over the top. However, he wanted to be the publicity whore, well he sure as hell got his wish.
-----

The Unrepentant Patriot

So in other words, Tom, if a political cartoonist here in America, in keeping with the First Amendment and our system of Constitutional liberties and the rule of law (as differentiated from the norms of the various theistic autocracies whose very raisons d'etre you claim to abhor), were to draw a cartoon depicting Muhammad doing something caricaturally foolish (like wearing a bomb in his turban, or copulating with a nanny-goat), and in response some Islamist were to kidnap, torture and murder the cartoonist and his family by sawing off their heads with a butcher knife, you would be "not really one for having sympathy."

Is that about right?
-----

realitynotideology

Is that what I said? Funny, I don't remember saying that. Rushdie going into hiding... don't really feel bad. Fuck him. Murder is another story.

Let's put it another way: if you were to pull into a cemetery and find someone popping a squat on the grave of someone you care about, and you beat the shit out of them, I really don't feel bad for them. You still could be charged with assault, and assault is not something I support, but to hell with the POS who was squatting on a grave.

Clearer? What, you think the cartoon guys didn't know there was going to be a reaction?
-----

The Unrepentant Patriot

What you said was, "...when people do something purposefully inflammatory, especially against religion, and they get a reaction they didn't expect, I'm not really one for having sympathy."

What that clearly implies is that anything a person of any religion might choose to do to someone in reaction to a perceived offense against that person's religion is O.K. by you. Which was why I asked the question, which you have now answered -- and I think your response and attitude are disturbing.

Because what your response means -- and you don't have to say it explicitly for it to still mean this -- is that protecting the sensibilities of some particular religion takes precedence over protecting the rights of other people to speak their minds, and, more importantly, protecting people's individual rights in general according to the rule of secular law, a concept you have repeatedly brayed about loudly when asserting that the "National Day of Prayer" legislation amounts to an establishment of religion. If a National Day of Prayer amounts to an establishment of religion, what is the implication of supporting the right of a Muslim to murder (or even threaten and intimidate) a non-Muslim, or even another Muslim, within a country governed by secular laws based upon individual Constitutional rights, in reaction to some perceived theistic slight? Doing so would require the complete abandonment of the philosophy of individual right of conscience, because telling a Muslim that it's O.K. to react as he sees fit to what he deems an affront to his faith is tantamount to telling me that I cannot be free to worship, speak and express myself as I feel inspired or compelled to by my own faith. I suppose that's fine for countries governed by theistic law, as is the case in Saudi Arabia, because the citizens of those lands presumably accept it as part of the price of admission into their own societies. But the reason Americans live in America and not in Saudi Arabia is because we have chosen a different path and have installed a form of government that guarantees each citizen his individual rights without the fear of coercion or intimidation by his fellow citizens, and without the right to similarly impose his will upon them either. The notion that it should be acceptable for the dictates and compulsions of some particular religious faith to take precedence over the principle of equal protection under the law is positively anathema to the very foundational philosophies that birthed of our nation.

I can't believe I'm actually having to elucidate this concept.

If we accept your view, as illustrated by your words quoted in excerpt above, the original settlers of America had no right to ever expect to be permitted to leave England so that they could worship as their consciences told them to, and the men and women who risked everything in declaring independence from the English Crown did so illegitimately, and could not claim any moral foundation for their actions, because the Crown (and particularly the King) was considered a literal extension of God through the Church of England, and rebellion against the King was therefore considered heretical rebellion against God himself. So is it your position that the very moral foundation of America is without merit because the Founding Fathers spoke out against the actions of the King, or do you believe that they were (and we are also, by historical and genetic extension) justified in asserting the right of each individual to pursue the imperatives of his own conscience, and to express himself accordingly? Because if you believe the former, then you place yourself among the camp of those who believe we should be governed by intolerant, blinkered theism; if the latter, then you must accept that in a pluralistic society people will often express themselves in ways offensive to their fellow citizens, but must be allowed to do so without fear of being repressed by those around them. You cannot have it both ways.

And in that respect, I am quite sure I would be extremely offended and angry if I discovered someone "copping a squat" on my mother's grave, and I would feel emotionally justified in opening up a jumbo-sized can of whoop-ass on him for doing so. And if I lived in a society governed by laws based upon the worship of my mother, then perhaps I would indeed open up that can of whoop-ass on him accordingly. However, since I live in a society that does NOT empower me to harm my fellow citizens, except in self-defense or the physical defense of another person, I would have to satisfy myself with calling the police and having him arrested for violating the applicable laws debarring his particular odious behavior -- because my indignation over my mother's grave being "squatted upon", no matter how righteous, would not justify my violating the secular laws written to protect all members of the society equally, without respect to their individual religious beliefs. If that didn't suit me, then I could always move to Momma-Moose-Stan, that far-away land where even depicting Momma Moose in a cartoon is forbidden. However, if I wanted to stay here in America, then I would have to accept that taking a dump on Momma Moose's grave, or drawing a political cartoon caricaturing her for public ridicule, is not justification for harming the person taking that action, regardless of how personally offensive I find it.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Moose
-----

Maggie

I can't believe I'm actually having to elucidate this concept.

Accurate but hilarious.

Everything else, awesome. What a dissertation on freedom and superb job, Moose!
-----

The Story of Your Enslavement or How the State Farms its Citizens

---

Earthhope Action Network

-----