Socialist Progressives

tama

(9,137 posts)

32. Capitalism as we know it (to avoid discussing ideological idealized definitions)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:39 PM

Nov 2012

is based on interest/usury leading to exponential growth of fractional fiat monetary systems outside any democratic control, effectively controlling capitalistic states. Socialism as we know it - e.g. Cuba - has it's monetary system under state/party control and it does not by necessity have inherent growth incentive, but of course works within the confines of global capitalism.

It's not really important what to call a system which is not ruled by banks and money creation system based on interest, if you'd wish to call such system some form of capitalism, no problem, but it would not be capitalism as we know it, but closer to socialism as we know it. And it would have much less or even no inherent growth incentive - if it were able to develop sustainable agriculture (as Cuba is doing) and other fields of production.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

134 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What does Socialism look like to you? [View all] Starry Messenger Nov 2012 OP

I like China's approach to socialism of limiting women to one baby and eventually using genetic jody Nov 2012 #1

China is Communist, which is more authoritarin than many varieties of Socialism are. nt patrice Nov 2012 #4

Still China is socialist and shame on you for trying to cherry-pick. nt jody Nov 2012 #6

& Shame on you for trying to turn a thread about Socialism into a whatever forum. Start patrice Nov 2012 #8

BS I responded to the OP. Are you ignorant of China's socialist policies to limit population and jody Nov 2012 #9

China =/= USA no matter how much you try. patrice Nov 2012 #11

Have a blissful evening and goodbye. nt jody Nov 2012 #14

Do you think all Republicans hate Obama? Same logic as the statement above. Weak. patrice Nov 2012 #26

On edit you added "it has more to do with autocracy". Don't you know that socialism requires a jody Nov 2012 #12

Don't you know that Socialism requires no such thing. You have just disqualified yourself patrice Nov 2012 #20

No, it doesn't, Jody. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #112

This message was self-deleted by its author pangaia Nov 2012 #52

This is a safe haven group for people who support socialism. Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #15

I've read the cited post. Facts are still facts or are those banned also? nt jody Nov 2012 #18

I block posters who do not post in support of the SOP. Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #19

I concede and understand your policy, your group allows only pro-red posts and bans "red-baiting" jody Nov 2012 #21

Thank you. Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #23

It's an oversimplification to assume that the weight of any fact is the same in all situations, all patrice Nov 2012 #24

Ask Pol Pot and all the people in mass graves in Europe and Asia.. Systemshock212 Nov 2012 #42

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were not communists or socialists. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #113

China's approach is decidedly capitalist. joshcryer Nov 2012 #84

Worker defined & governed Real Value in exchange for Real Value. The MOST efficient economic patrice Nov 2012 #2

Who determines "Real Value"? nt jody Nov 2012 #7

I like the definition that Adam Smith uses in The Wealth of Nations, in the simplist terms, patrice Nov 2012 #10

Precisely equivalent to Marx's Labor Theory of Value. Jackpine Radical Feb 2013 #98

which has a long pedigree, including some classical economists. HiPointDem Jun 2013 #125

Superb rebuttal ... Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #114

Thanks! I'm about ready to give up on this place myself. nt patrice Jun 2013 #122

Don't give up. We need you and your insight. nt Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #123

I don't mind people disagreeing with me; what I don't like is being mis-understood. patrice Jun 2013 #124

Worker-owned industries Jackpine Radical Nov 2012 #3

+++1 patrice Nov 2012 #5

That's Malthusianism, not socialism. David__77 Nov 2012 #17

It's not JUST Maltusianism. Jackpine Radical Nov 2012 #25

Marx wasn't the only socialist. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #115

Of course. David__77 Jun 2013 #120

I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #121

Really? tjnite Feb 2013 #97

about nine letters Festivito Nov 2012 #13

It's far off in the future. David__77 Nov 2012 #16

I really hope it is not too far off. Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #22

A different way to organize production while we destroy the planet NoOneMan Nov 2012 #27

Not a lot of optimism here today. Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #29

I am sorry to disagree NoOneMan Nov 2012 #30

Capitalism as we know it (to avoid discussing ideological idealized definitions) tama Nov 2012 #32

Cuba's GDP has doubled in the last 10 years NoOneMan Nov 2012 #34

Well, I hate to be mom again- Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #35

Kropotkin, Tolstoi, Anarcho-Primitivism etc. Green Anarchism tama Nov 2012 #36

Basically, yes NoOneMan Nov 2012 #37

May your wish come true :) tama Nov 2012 #40

capitalism has a growth imperative. socialism doesn't. there's no requirement for growth in HiPointDem May 2013 #110

Odd how what appears to be "Libertarian" folk are AGAINST worker AUTONOMY, isn't it. Apparently patrice Nov 2012 #28

When I was living tama Nov 2012 #31

The way I see Socialism NickP Nov 2012 #33

More democracy, limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #38

I especially love the last item. Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #39

Pigs tama Nov 2012 #41

Oddly enough this was all-women bosses. Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #43

"More democracy" but do you support unalienable rights? If so which ones? nt jody Nov 2012 #44

Sure I love rights. limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #45

Thanks, your "traditional liberties" aka natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights in jody Nov 2012 #46

True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #47

I still don't understand how those things you want to call "rights" can be shown to pre-exist our jody Nov 2012 #48

Why does it matter if something pre-exists the Constitution? limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #49

Because such rights cannot be alienated, given away, however SCOTUS has offered opinions that allow jody Nov 2012 #50

Which kind of state of nature tama Nov 2012 #54

A state of nature is one without a social organization aka government. nt jody Nov 2012 #55

That only tells tama Nov 2012 #57

Apparently you and I have a different understanding of rights. My thoughts on the topic are at jody Nov 2012 #59

Precisely. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #117

How do you know which rights are inalienable and which one are not? limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #66

Because some states declared them and it's up to state and federal courts to decide whether jody Nov 2012 #68

So you think rights are inalienable because they are declared in state constitutions? limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #70

A right is either enumerated or unenumerated. Suggest you read the history of our Bill of Rights. nt jody Nov 2012 #71

This message was self-deleted by its author limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #73

thanks for the tip limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #74

Please read jody Nov 2012 #75

What is your point in posting state constitutions? What point are you trying to make, if any? limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #76

You deleted the post to which I replied. nt jody Nov 2012 #77

My question exactly. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #118

The notion of unalianable rights tama Nov 2012 #79

Understand, please see link below. jody Nov 2012 #82

Perhaps you do tama Nov 2012 #83

Beautifully said. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #119

You are spewing the ideology of the Capitalist ruling class, not fact. Odin2005 Dec 2012 #92

I was wondering the same thing. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #116

They are naturally derived tama Nov 2012 #53

Natural, inherent, unalienable/inalienable rights pre-exist a community. nt jody Nov 2012 #56

Ah, tama Nov 2012 #58

No, I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat in the mould of Jefferson and Madison. Are you? nt jody Nov 2012 #60

Well, I'm not a slave owner. tama Nov 2012 #61

Why do you introduce slave owner? You do know that WA and CO just exercised nullification by making jody Nov 2012 #63

Because tama Nov 2012 #64

OK one major problem is a generation gap or perhaps two but we've had an interesting exchange. Have jody Nov 2012 #65

I'm closer to 50 :) tama Nov 2012 #67

I'm 77 and survived a near death experience via heart attack five years ago. Every morning I wake up jody Nov 2012 #69

Nice to know you tama Nov 2012 #72

The 10th amendment doesn't grant the right to nullifcation. white_wolf Nov 2012 #78

See DU thread jody Nov 2012 #80

Jefferson and Madison may have held that view... white_wolf Nov 2012 #81

Nullification per Jefferson&Madison is states exercising their Tenth Amendment power, see link below jody Dec 2012 #93

Starry Messenger I'm very disappointed that your OP has not triggered a spirited, intelligent jody Nov 2012 #51

I think we've had some interesting discussions though. Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #62

An increased percentage of the mix as a transitional step along the path to our next plane TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #85

Great post, TheKentuckian. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #86

You're right about that, Starry. I'm on the edge of that propaganda effort myself. TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #87

I haven't mentally gone that far into the future. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #88

Right again, no matter which way we go I've yet to catch a projection that they don't make worse. TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #89

Bottom up and long term multigenerational development tama Dec 2012 #90

You're assuming that the ruling class has some investment in maintaining the lives of the HiPointDem May 2013 #111

An econonomy of co-ops. Odin2005 Dec 2012 #91

I envision the ideal socialism to be LeftTurnOnly Dec 2012 #94

What does socialism look like.... Oakenshield Jan 2013 #95

Message auto-removed Indoctrinated idiots Mar 2013 #99

Price controls and corporate abolition BudHardener Jan 2013 #96

The workers control the means of production - period. Taverner Mar 2013 #100

How is what you described not capitalism? David__77 Mar 2013 #101

In capitalism, the means of production are owned by an owner class Taverner Mar 2013 #102

Production LWolf Mar 2013 #103

Hey! Nice to see you. :) Starry Messenger Mar 2013 #104

It's what I've got. LWolf Mar 2013 #105

Ideally? It would be this Witan00 Apr 2013 #106

Great list Witan00. Starry Messenger Apr 2013 #107

Socialism is the Public Library. Beer Swiller Apr 2013 #108

Libraries are great. limpyhobbler Apr 2013 #109

Libraries are the crown jewel of socialism Kolesar Jun 2013 #126

I see what you see, but the 1% sees too many people comfortable with their lives and less profit Cleita Jun 2013 #127

This message was self-deleted by its author BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #128

endless parades BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #129

After over a year I figured out how to frame what socialism looks like. joshcryer Dec 2013 #130

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2013 #131

Please familiarize yourself with the rules of this group - TBF Dec 2013 #132

It is? Agschmid Dec 2013 #133

Capitalism is destroying Detroit, the city in your profile Starry Messenger Dec 2013 #134