Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
No matter who wins the German elections, Germany is still occupied
While there was some talk by the SPD and Greens against the US war with Iraq, Germany remains the largest US military outpost. With 70,000+ US troops can Germany even really be considered its own country? There are protests in Japan and Puerto Rico against US occupation, but are there any such protests in Germany?
Below are listed the deployments in countries, and in seas, where the U.S. maintains at least 100 troops.
|
United
States and its Territories: 1,109,280 Troops
|
|||||
|
Country |
Troops
|
Army
|
Navy
|
Air
Force
|
Marines
|
| U.S. |
1,109,280
|
374,141
|
302,334
|
290,977
|
141,828
|
|
Europe:
117,241 Troops
|
|||||
|
Country
|
Troops
|
Army
|
Navy
|
Air
Force
|
Marines
|
| Germany |
70,126
|
54,835
|
265
|
14,727
|
299
|
| Italy |
11,348
|
2,283
|
4,838
|
4,049
|
178
|
| United Kingdom |
11,170
|
392
|
1,246
|
9,359
|
173
|
| Serbia (includes Kosovo) |
5,398
|
5,390
|
0
|
2
|
6
|
| Bosnia and Herzegovina |
4,125
|
4,090
|
30
|
1
|
4
|
| Turkey |
2,059
|
190
|
19
|
1,767
|
83
|
| Spain |
1,945
|
39
|
1,570
|
250
|
86
|
| Iceland |
1,666
|
2
|
1,012
|
602
|
50
|
| Belgium |
1,574
|
916
|
96
|
528
|
34
|
| Portugal |
994
|
13
|
57
|
917
|
7
|
| Greece |
696
|
77
|
262
|
186
|
171
|
| Netherlands |
673
|
356
|
17
|
285
|
15
|
| Hungary |
373
|
350
|
0
|
7
|
16
|
| Macedonia |
351
|
350
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
| Croatia |
133
|
125
|
0
|
1
|
7
|
| Greenland |
132
|
0
|
0
|
132
|
0
|
| Russia |
107
|
18
|
4
|
13
|
72
|
| Afloat |
3,949
|
0
|
1,659
|
0
|
2,290
|
|
Africa,
Middle East, and South Asia: 18,335 Troops
|
|||||
|
Country
|
Troops
|
Army
|
Navy
|
Air
Force
|
Marines
|
| Saudi Arabia |
5,176
|
775
|
30
|
4,058
|
313
|
| Kuwait |
4,527
|
2,230
|
9
|
2,028
|
260
|
| Bahrain |
1,433
|
29
|
769
|
24
|
611
|
| Diego Garcia |
652
|
3
|
626
|
23
|
0
|
| Egypt |
486
|
343
|
33
|
65
|
45
|
| United Arab Emirates |
425
|
0
|
7
|
411
|
7
|
| Oman |
199
|
3
|
1
|
186
|
9
|
| Kenya |
111
|
10
|
1
|
3
|
97
|
| Afloat |
4,875
|
0
|
4,875
|
0
|
0
|
|
East
Asia and Pacific: 110,695 Troops
|
|||||
|
Country
|
Troops
|
Army
|
Navy
|
Air
Force
|
Marines
|
| Japan |
40,025
|
1,749
|
5,398
|
13,179
|
19,699
|
| South Korea |
36,171
|
27,202
|
311
|
8,563
|
95
|
| Australia |
167
|
11
|
65
|
72
|
19
|
| Singapore |
151
|
6
|
90
|
43
|
12
|
| Thailand |
104
|
38
|
8
|
25
|
33
|
| Afloat |
33,832
|
0
|
33,332
|
0
|
500
|
|
Latin
America: 12,314 Troops
|
|||||
|
Country
|
Troops
|
Army
|
Navy
|
Air
Force
|
Marines
|
|
Cuba
|
614
|
7
|
450
|
0
|
157
|
|
Honduras
|
371
|
173
|
2
|
184
|
12
|
|
Afloat
|
10,800
|
0
|
10,800
|
0
|
0
|
|
Source: Department
of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Dictorate for Information
Operations and Reports
|
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
There is no reason for US troops being in Europe except for having those trrops be nearer to the Middle East and other areas the US likes to bomb.
Isn't Europe (mainly Germany and Italy) just as responsible as the US since it will be used as a staging area?
Words are one thing, actions another. To prevent a war Europeans should realize that THEY are the 2nd main supporter of the US military.
Isn't Europe (mainly Germany and Italy) just as responsible as the US since it will be used as a staging area?
Words are one thing, actions another. To prevent a war Europeans should realize that THEY are the 2nd main supporter of the US military.
The fact is lost to you that because there were 500,000 U.S. troops in Europe for the better part of half a century, Europe and the U.S. staved off an almost certain war with the U.S.S.R, thereby protecting your right to not have to think and the Europeans right to forget.
But then you're probably too young to know about history.
But then you're probably too young to know about history.
50 years protecting Germany from the Soviets should give the US the right to now protect them from themselves (what are the 70,000 troops still there doing there now?) As Bush's new foreign policy makes clear when it states that the US will never let any other country aproach US power, the real threat to the US is not Iraq it is Europe, China and Russia.
Imperial America is much more of a threat to the rest of the world than the USSR ever was.
Imperial America is much more of a threat to the rest of the world than the USSR ever was.
US troops around the world, including Germany, are there to protect the profits of US corporations.
As to Germany: After the decisive battle of World War 2, the Battle of Stalingrad, November 19, 1942 to January 10, 1943, in which the Red Army defeated Nazi Germany without US Lend-Lease aid, the race to Berlin began. The US entered the war in Europe, the main theater of the war, on D-Day, June 6, 1944, with the invasion of Normandy, long after the war in Europe officially began, September 1, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland, and unofficially began in 1936, when Franco fought and succceeded in overthrowing the Spanish Republic. The US lost the race to Berlin, ending some 110 miles west of Berlin; the Red Army liberated Berlin, May 8-9, 1945, and the red flag was planted in Berlin by female Red Army officers. At the expense of 20 million Soviet lives, out of the 50 million deaths of WW2, and the devastation of most of their European cities and their breadbasket farm area, the Soviet Union, in spite of the counter-revolutionary Stalin, defeated the mightiest war machine the world had known to that time.
This writer heard the stories of WW2, including the above, many times at the dinner table from my WW2 veteran parents, one of whom managed to escape the Holocaust, although not all members of her family did. I had forgotten some of the exact dates, but have William Shirer's benchmark Rise and Fall of the Third Reich always at my side when providing this basic background.
Turning to the present, American troops remained in Germany and are there to this day to prevent socialist revolution in Germany, which attempt was made in 1918, forcing the Kaiser to bring home German troops during WW1 in which Germany was at that point winning the war, and subsequently the Kaiser fled to Holland. American planes bombed the workingclass districts of German cities during WW2, rather than bomb the train tracks to Auschwitz and other death camps, over which they flew. The Nazis hoped, correctly, that they would fall into the hands of the Americans, because the American officers, like the Nazis, were first and foremost anti-Communist and anti-workingclass. The Soviet Union, at the end of the war, wanted to take the top 5,000 Nazi officers and execute them, but they settled for the Nuremberg trials, which allowed for the execution of a handful and short prison terms of other Nazis. Of course, the death penalty did not solve anything as the problem is capitalism, in particular, the profit motive.
The American presence in Germany, and especially in Berlin, has been a history of anti-Soviet provocation, not to prevent war with the Soviet Union. The issue of re-arming West Germany, the American puppet government, was a major issue of the 1950s.
In spite of all the crap emanating from the counter-revolutionary Stalin and his lackeys and posterity, the Soviet Union managed to keep US imperialism in check. There would be no saber-rattling over the Middle East today and no Nazi-like pronouncements from George War Bush that the "US is Supreme" much like the Nazis proclaimed to be supreme as they made war everywhere, if we had the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union is no more but the class struggle continues. The people of Europe, both East and West, have no use for the horrors of capitalism. They know their history very well, better than the above, which I have as much a part of my basic consciousness as the average American thinks of football and Hollywood's garbage movies. Germany had a national health care system and Social Security under Bismarck, in the 1870s, due to the successful struggles of the German workingclass. Europe today has no death penalty and a national health care system. The workingclass political organizations know their socialist history and the workingclass knows they are workingclass. I urge all concerned about world peace to become equally knowledgeable as the struggle needs all of us.
As to Germany: After the decisive battle of World War 2, the Battle of Stalingrad, November 19, 1942 to January 10, 1943, in which the Red Army defeated Nazi Germany without US Lend-Lease aid, the race to Berlin began. The US entered the war in Europe, the main theater of the war, on D-Day, June 6, 1944, with the invasion of Normandy, long after the war in Europe officially began, September 1, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland, and unofficially began in 1936, when Franco fought and succceeded in overthrowing the Spanish Republic. The US lost the race to Berlin, ending some 110 miles west of Berlin; the Red Army liberated Berlin, May 8-9, 1945, and the red flag was planted in Berlin by female Red Army officers. At the expense of 20 million Soviet lives, out of the 50 million deaths of WW2, and the devastation of most of their European cities and their breadbasket farm area, the Soviet Union, in spite of the counter-revolutionary Stalin, defeated the mightiest war machine the world had known to that time.
This writer heard the stories of WW2, including the above, many times at the dinner table from my WW2 veteran parents, one of whom managed to escape the Holocaust, although not all members of her family did. I had forgotten some of the exact dates, but have William Shirer's benchmark Rise and Fall of the Third Reich always at my side when providing this basic background.
Turning to the present, American troops remained in Germany and are there to this day to prevent socialist revolution in Germany, which attempt was made in 1918, forcing the Kaiser to bring home German troops during WW1 in which Germany was at that point winning the war, and subsequently the Kaiser fled to Holland. American planes bombed the workingclass districts of German cities during WW2, rather than bomb the train tracks to Auschwitz and other death camps, over which they flew. The Nazis hoped, correctly, that they would fall into the hands of the Americans, because the American officers, like the Nazis, were first and foremost anti-Communist and anti-workingclass. The Soviet Union, at the end of the war, wanted to take the top 5,000 Nazi officers and execute them, but they settled for the Nuremberg trials, which allowed for the execution of a handful and short prison terms of other Nazis. Of course, the death penalty did not solve anything as the problem is capitalism, in particular, the profit motive.
The American presence in Germany, and especially in Berlin, has been a history of anti-Soviet provocation, not to prevent war with the Soviet Union. The issue of re-arming West Germany, the American puppet government, was a major issue of the 1950s.
In spite of all the crap emanating from the counter-revolutionary Stalin and his lackeys and posterity, the Soviet Union managed to keep US imperialism in check. There would be no saber-rattling over the Middle East today and no Nazi-like pronouncements from George War Bush that the "US is Supreme" much like the Nazis proclaimed to be supreme as they made war everywhere, if we had the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union is no more but the class struggle continues. The people of Europe, both East and West, have no use for the horrors of capitalism. They know their history very well, better than the above, which I have as much a part of my basic consciousness as the average American thinks of football and Hollywood's garbage movies. Germany had a national health care system and Social Security under Bismarck, in the 1870s, due to the successful struggles of the German workingclass. Europe today has no death penalty and a national health care system. The workingclass political organizations know their socialist history and the workingclass knows they are workingclass. I urge all concerned about world peace to become equally knowledgeable as the struggle needs all of us.
> "The people of Europe, both East and West, have no use for the horrors of capitalism."
I suggest you guys with your head in your sand support your assertions. Your prejudice has blinded you so much that you cannot not even grasp reality, history, or what capitalism is.
Fortunately, such irrational nonsense as yours always ends up in the garbage can of history. The totalitarianism and slavery you want for mankind will never rear its ugly head again.
But have fun while you can - the rest of us opt for democracy and freedom.
I suggest you guys with your head in your sand support your assertions. Your prejudice has blinded you so much that you cannot not even grasp reality, history, or what capitalism is.
Fortunately, such irrational nonsense as yours always ends up in the garbage can of history. The totalitarianism and slavery you want for mankind will never rear its ugly head again.
But have fun while you can - the rest of us opt for democracy and freedom.
Democracy and Freedom cant really exist when one is occupied. Give me one good reason for all the US troops still in Europe?
>But have fun while you can - the rest of us opt for democracy and freedom.<
what if a free and democratic society votes into office a socialist government? high taxes. state run health and education services. that sort of socialism?
the point i want to get accross is that freedom and democracy, and capitalism, are two Incredibly Different Things. they are not one and the same.
what makes america special is our freedom. our bill of rights that much of the world has copied. not the dollar bill. not the stock market. every country has an economy, whether they can freely vote or not.
it is not necessary to have freedom in order to have wealthy people. look at saudi arabia. in fact, look at all the kingdoms of europe. there was wealth, there was trade accross borders, there was big outfits and small craftsmen. but, there was no freedom. no ability to decide who was leading the country. no recourse when the regal throne abused its powers. no freedom to criticize the kings.
capitalism is an economic ideology. it is not a "freedom" ideology. it doesn't create laws of governance.
so once again, we should realize that there are two separate things going on in america. the freedom's we won from the british and wrote into law, and the capitalism that has evolved from the trading companies that set up shop in places like jamestown. but, but, they are very different things. and because they are different, maybe we should all personally figure out which one is most important to us. which one is priceless. which one we will lay down and die for. the freedom or the money.
what if a free and democratic society votes into office a socialist government? high taxes. state run health and education services. that sort of socialism?
the point i want to get accross is that freedom and democracy, and capitalism, are two Incredibly Different Things. they are not one and the same.
what makes america special is our freedom. our bill of rights that much of the world has copied. not the dollar bill. not the stock market. every country has an economy, whether they can freely vote or not.
it is not necessary to have freedom in order to have wealthy people. look at saudi arabia. in fact, look at all the kingdoms of europe. there was wealth, there was trade accross borders, there was big outfits and small craftsmen. but, there was no freedom. no ability to decide who was leading the country. no recourse when the regal throne abused its powers. no freedom to criticize the kings.
capitalism is an economic ideology. it is not a "freedom" ideology. it doesn't create laws of governance.
so once again, we should realize that there are two separate things going on in america. the freedom's we won from the british and wrote into law, and the capitalism that has evolved from the trading companies that set up shop in places like jamestown. but, but, they are very different things. and because they are different, maybe we should all personally figure out which one is most important to us. which one is priceless. which one we will lay down and die for. the freedom or the money.
Capitalism is incapable of guaranteeing democracy as it is based on economic inequality, and the inequality is growing daily because we have no labor movement. When there is economic equality, there is democracy. Only a socialist society can guarantee economic equality because there is no profit motive and those who labor, rule, in a socialist society.
As to Germany, 80% of the population just voted yesterday, in stark contrast to the US voting population of 50% in a high voter turnout election, because the small parties have representation if they get at least 5% of the vote in Germany. The winner-take-all system is viciously anti-democratic and anti-workingclass. The twin parties of capitalism do their best to keep out all other parties as they have total contempt for democracy.
What few freedoms we had guaranteed by the Bill of Rights were just destroyed by the Fascist Act of October 2001, which Congress approved without even reading the 200-plus page bill. Thus, not even bourgeois democracy exists in the USA anymore.
The death penalty is the epitome of contempt for democracy as it is a class weapon of terror against the workingclass by the capitalist class. It is routinely given and executed in many states much as lynching was once done. The trials of most workingclass people are a farce; their public defenders are often incompetent, drunk and/or asleep at their farcical trials. There is no money for investigation and the juries are not of their peers. Justice is bought and paid for in the USA, both in the civil and in the criminal courts. The workingclass has no rights.
We can make some minor adjustments with the propositions on the ballot, but our rights can onl y be guaranteed by a labor movement.
Only the middle class and the rich prattle about democracy and freedom, usually as a sales pitch for their bankrupt social order; the workingclass knows better. We never, ever experience any democracy and freedom. We experience exploitation by the capitalist class so they can maximize their profits, maximization of profits being the primary law of capitalism.
As to Germany, 80% of the population just voted yesterday, in stark contrast to the US voting population of 50% in a high voter turnout election, because the small parties have representation if they get at least 5% of the vote in Germany. The winner-take-all system is viciously anti-democratic and anti-workingclass. The twin parties of capitalism do their best to keep out all other parties as they have total contempt for democracy.
What few freedoms we had guaranteed by the Bill of Rights were just destroyed by the Fascist Act of October 2001, which Congress approved without even reading the 200-plus page bill. Thus, not even bourgeois democracy exists in the USA anymore.
The death penalty is the epitome of contempt for democracy as it is a class weapon of terror against the workingclass by the capitalist class. It is routinely given and executed in many states much as lynching was once done. The trials of most workingclass people are a farce; their public defenders are often incompetent, drunk and/or asleep at their farcical trials. There is no money for investigation and the juries are not of their peers. Justice is bought and paid for in the USA, both in the civil and in the criminal courts. The workingclass has no rights.
We can make some minor adjustments with the propositions on the ballot, but our rights can onl y be guaranteed by a labor movement.
Only the middle class and the rich prattle about democracy and freedom, usually as a sales pitch for their bankrupt social order; the workingclass knows better. We never, ever experience any democracy and freedom. We experience exploitation by the capitalist class so they can maximize their profits, maximization of profits being the primary law of capitalism.
> "Democracy and Freedom cant really exist when one is occupied. Give me one good reason for all the US troops still in Europe?"
Give us one good reason to support your assertion that Europe is "occupied."
Take your time.
Give us one good reason to support your assertion that Europe is "occupied."
Take your time.
You ought to learn the definition of Capitalism.
It is certainly not an "economic ideology." Capitalism exists ONLY in a free country and is predicated on the existence of political freedom and it is the natural extension of it. To be fully free, you can only have Capitalism.
What we have here is not Capitalism - it is a mixed economy. (See Econ 101 text books). The abuses in our economy invaribaly trace their genesis to political mucking around with the economy. (The California energy crisis is a wonderful example of government regulation's effect on economics - and the subsequent weaseling by California politicians out of their responsibilty is the natural outcome.)
So, before you criticize Capitalism learn the true definiton of the word - and use it correctly.
It is certainly not an "economic ideology." Capitalism exists ONLY in a free country and is predicated on the existence of political freedom and it is the natural extension of it. To be fully free, you can only have Capitalism.
What we have here is not Capitalism - it is a mixed economy. (See Econ 101 text books). The abuses in our economy invaribaly trace their genesis to political mucking around with the economy. (The California energy crisis is a wonderful example of government regulation's effect on economics - and the subsequent weaseling by California politicians out of their responsibilty is the natural outcome.)
So, before you criticize Capitalism learn the true definiton of the word - and use it correctly.
> "Capitalism is incapable of guaranteeing democracy as it is based on economic inequality, and the inequality is growing daily because we have no labor movement."
You can't even get the first sentence out without screwing up. You're blinded by prejudice and an inability to understand the nature of Capitalism, freedom and democracy.
The three are inextribaly linked, just as socialism is inextriably linked to social, political, and economic repression.
Take your blinders off and learn a little history and for God's sake learn the proper definition of Capitalism.
You can't even get the first sentence out without screwing up. You're blinded by prejudice and an inability to understand the nature of Capitalism, freedom and democracy.
The three are inextribaly linked, just as socialism is inextriably linked to social, political, and economic repression.
Take your blinders off and learn a little history and for God's sake learn the proper definition of Capitalism.
It's not the same thing as a free market or a decentralized economy. Capitalism started in the late 19th century as a replacement to monarchism. It is the concentration of capital is the hands of a few capitalists, who operate as the directors of a privatized command economy, as opposed to a 'public' command economy like the USSR.
>It is certainly not an "economic ideology." Capitalism exists ONLY in a free country and is predicated on the existence of political freedom and it is the natural extension of it. To be fully free, you can only have Capitalism.<
you don't understand.
the freedom to freely criticize capitalism in a public forum is infinitely more important than capitalism itself.
the freedom to freely criticize capitalism in an open forum IS NOT found anywhere on the dollar bill, or in corporate charters, or in interest rates, or in exchange rates, or in banking laws. it is found in The Bill of Rights. it is found in the law. it is fleshed out in court decisions. it is, if you'll kindly notice, being practiced right this very instant. am i practicing capitalism this very instant? no, i am not. i am thinking, speaking, writting and communicating freely. i am not buying anything, or selling anything.
so imagine it's the year 1304 a.d. you live in england. you are a metal smith. you make swords, among other things. you make these metal things because you like to, and because they feed and provide shelter for you and your family. when you sell a sword, you are given gold coins of the realm. you take these gold coins and buy more materials for your metal smithing shop. your outfit slowly gets a little bit bigger. maybe you have to hire an apprentice to help. you also take some of the gold coins home with you for own personal enjoyment. is this not capitalism? are you not privately in charge of your capital? is your success not in your hands?
if only life were so simple...
so lets add some more to the story. some of the kings soldiers see your swords. they like your work. but they don't want to pay the price you have put on the sword because they are part of the kings army. "the king before all else." they threaten you when you refuse. they leave and come back the next day. they beat you and throw you in the dungeon of the nearest castle. is this freedom and democracy? what recourse do you have? none. can you throw out the knight who owns the castle by voting? no.
but you can go along and stay alive and keep taking home some gold coins...
it doesn't require absolute freedom to make money freely. and crucially, it doesn't require the kinds of freedoms we enjoy in this country. all capitalism requires (capitalism. n. - an economic system characterized by open competition in a free market and by private or corporate ownership of the means of production or distribution.) is Enough freedom for someone to decide they want to be a metal smith, and to be left alone to their own devices. that's all the freedom involved. but life ain't that simple.
how many millions of people live in this society? and billions throughout the world... how many trillions of competing interests... it's complex, to say the least.
let's talk about things like commodity markets. if you're a farmer, the price for Your Corn You Grew Based On Your Own Hard Work is not set by you and the costs you had to cover to grow it or by the changes of supply and demand in your local community in iowa. they are set by a global commodity market. ONE PRICE everywhere. if you can't meet that price, your farm folds.
the point i am trying to get accross is capitalism is a system. it is a global system because that's how it can offer the lowest prices or find the cheapest labor. the problem is, it's not free. your fate, as a farmer lets say, has nothing to do with how hard you're willing to work or how lazy and dumb you are. it's out of your hands. it's a big, global, integrated system, run from the top down. the big outfits make the rules. the small guys try to go along to get along. this isn't freedom. this is freedom enough.
so let's say the global systematic capitalism as practiced today gets thrown out and in its place, absolute laizze-faire capitalism. no rules at all. how long before two things happen?
one: the anarchy becomes so intense, that nothing ends up getting done. there is no economy persay.
or two: in order to keep things going, like minded people and companies band together. people start working together. rules start getting made. little systems start getting created because its very efficient. and after a century or two, bam. the same old shit. the same old problems. absolute economic freedom could not function so the system and its rules slowly came back into play.
absolute laizze-faire capitalism is as much a deluded utopia as the societies put forward by hard-line communists.
about the california energy crisis. was that whole thing, from start to finish, all covered in the state governments finger prints? no. was it the state's idea to deregulate the energy market? just out of scratch one morning, the idea was born? no. where do you think the impetus and momentum behind deregulation came from? the state? no. it came from the private sector energy companies like enron. they wispered in the state's ear. they lobbied. they got what they wanted.
yes, you're right that the state failed in its duties. but how could they ever succeed if the the idea was shite to begin with. how could they succeed if what was needed was regulation but what they passed into law was deregulation? enron made a killing. they got what they wanted. unregulated capitalism sure worked well for enron. that's the point. the capitalism worked. but for people in california who wanted lights that turned on? how well did unregulated capitalism work for them?
you don't understand.
the freedom to freely criticize capitalism in a public forum is infinitely more important than capitalism itself.
the freedom to freely criticize capitalism in an open forum IS NOT found anywhere on the dollar bill, or in corporate charters, or in interest rates, or in exchange rates, or in banking laws. it is found in The Bill of Rights. it is found in the law. it is fleshed out in court decisions. it is, if you'll kindly notice, being practiced right this very instant. am i practicing capitalism this very instant? no, i am not. i am thinking, speaking, writting and communicating freely. i am not buying anything, or selling anything.
so imagine it's the year 1304 a.d. you live in england. you are a metal smith. you make swords, among other things. you make these metal things because you like to, and because they feed and provide shelter for you and your family. when you sell a sword, you are given gold coins of the realm. you take these gold coins and buy more materials for your metal smithing shop. your outfit slowly gets a little bit bigger. maybe you have to hire an apprentice to help. you also take some of the gold coins home with you for own personal enjoyment. is this not capitalism? are you not privately in charge of your capital? is your success not in your hands?
if only life were so simple...
so lets add some more to the story. some of the kings soldiers see your swords. they like your work. but they don't want to pay the price you have put on the sword because they are part of the kings army. "the king before all else." they threaten you when you refuse. they leave and come back the next day. they beat you and throw you in the dungeon of the nearest castle. is this freedom and democracy? what recourse do you have? none. can you throw out the knight who owns the castle by voting? no.
but you can go along and stay alive and keep taking home some gold coins...
it doesn't require absolute freedom to make money freely. and crucially, it doesn't require the kinds of freedoms we enjoy in this country. all capitalism requires (capitalism. n. - an economic system characterized by open competition in a free market and by private or corporate ownership of the means of production or distribution.) is Enough freedom for someone to decide they want to be a metal smith, and to be left alone to their own devices. that's all the freedom involved. but life ain't that simple.
how many millions of people live in this society? and billions throughout the world... how many trillions of competing interests... it's complex, to say the least.
let's talk about things like commodity markets. if you're a farmer, the price for Your Corn You Grew Based On Your Own Hard Work is not set by you and the costs you had to cover to grow it or by the changes of supply and demand in your local community in iowa. they are set by a global commodity market. ONE PRICE everywhere. if you can't meet that price, your farm folds.
the point i am trying to get accross is capitalism is a system. it is a global system because that's how it can offer the lowest prices or find the cheapest labor. the problem is, it's not free. your fate, as a farmer lets say, has nothing to do with how hard you're willing to work or how lazy and dumb you are. it's out of your hands. it's a big, global, integrated system, run from the top down. the big outfits make the rules. the small guys try to go along to get along. this isn't freedom. this is freedom enough.
so let's say the global systematic capitalism as practiced today gets thrown out and in its place, absolute laizze-faire capitalism. no rules at all. how long before two things happen?
one: the anarchy becomes so intense, that nothing ends up getting done. there is no economy persay.
or two: in order to keep things going, like minded people and companies band together. people start working together. rules start getting made. little systems start getting created because its very efficient. and after a century or two, bam. the same old shit. the same old problems. absolute economic freedom could not function so the system and its rules slowly came back into play.
absolute laizze-faire capitalism is as much a deluded utopia as the societies put forward by hard-line communists.
about the california energy crisis. was that whole thing, from start to finish, all covered in the state governments finger prints? no. was it the state's idea to deregulate the energy market? just out of scratch one morning, the idea was born? no. where do you think the impetus and momentum behind deregulation came from? the state? no. it came from the private sector energy companies like enron. they wispered in the state's ear. they lobbied. they got what they wanted.
yes, you're right that the state failed in its duties. but how could they ever succeed if the the idea was shite to begin with. how could they succeed if what was needed was regulation but what they passed into law was deregulation? enron made a killing. they got what they wanted. unregulated capitalism sure worked well for enron. that's the point. the capitalism worked. but for people in california who wanted lights that turned on? how well did unregulated capitalism work for them?
>It is certainly not an "economic ideology." Capitalism exists ONLY in a free country and is predicated on the existence of political freedom and it is the natural extension of it. To be fully free, you can only have Capitalism.<
you don't understand.
the freedom to freely criticize capitalism in a public forum is infinitely more important than capitalism itself.
the freedom to freely criticize capitalism in an open forum IS NOT found anywhere on the dollar bill, or in corporate charters, or in interest rates, or in exchange rates, or in banking laws. it is found in The Bill of Rights. it is found in the law. it is fleshed out in court decisions. it is, if you'll kindly notice, being practiced right this very instant. am i practicing capitalism this very instant? no, i am not. i am thinking, speaking, writting and communicating freely. i am not buying anything, or selling anything.
so imagine it's the year 1304 a.d. you live in england. you are a metal smith. you make swords, among other things. you make these metal things because you like to, and because they feed and provide shelter for you and your family. when you sell a sword, you are given gold coins of the realm. you take these gold coins and buy more materials for your metal smithing shop. your outfit slowly gets a little bit bigger. maybe you have to hire an apprentice to help. you also take some of the gold coins home with you for own personal enjoyment. is this not capitalism? are you not privately in charge of your capital? is your success not in your hands?
if only life were so simple...
so lets add some more to the story. some of the kings soldiers see your swords. they like your work. but they don't want to pay the price you have put on the sword because they are part of the kings army. "the king before all else." they threaten you when you refuse. they leave and come back the next day. they beat you and throw you in the dungeon of the nearest castle. is this freedom and democracy? what recourse do you have? none. can you throw out the knight who owns the castle by voting? no.
but you can go along and stay alive and keep taking home some gold coins...
it doesn't require absolute freedom to make money freely. and crucially, it doesn't require the kinds of freedoms we enjoy in this country. all capitalism requires (capitalism. n. - an economic system characterized by open competition in a free market and by private or corporate ownership of the means of production or distribution.) is Enough freedom for someone to decide they want to be a metal smith, and to be left alone to their own devices. that's all the freedom involved. but life ain't that simple.
how many millions of people live in this society? and billions throughout the world... how many trillions of competing interests... it's complex, to say the least.
let's talk about things like commodity markets. if you're a farmer, the price for Your Corn You Grew Based On Your Own Hard Work is not set by you and the costs you had to cover to grow it or by the changes of supply and demand in your local community in iowa. they are set by a global commodity market. ONE PRICE everywhere. if you can't meet that price, your farm folds.
the point i am trying to get accross is capitalism is a system. it is a global system because that's how it can offer the lowest prices or find the cheapest labor. the problem is, it's not free. your fate, as a farmer lets say, has nothing to do with how hard you're willing to work or how lazy and dumb you are. it's out of your hands. it's a big, global, integrated system, run from the top down. the big outfits make the rules. the small guys try to go along to get along. this isn't freedom. this is freedom enough.
so let's say the global systematic capitalism as practiced today gets thrown out and in its place, absolute laizze-faire capitalism. no rules at all. how long before two things happen?
one: the anarchy becomes so intense, that nothing ends up getting done. there is no economy persay.
or two: in order to keep things going, like minded people and companies band together. people start working together. rules start getting made. little systems start getting created because its very efficient. and after a century or two, bam. the same old shit. the same old problems. absolute economic freedom could not function so the system and its rules slowly came back into play.
absolute laizze-faire capitalism is as much a deluded utopia as the societies put forward by hard-line communists.
about the california energy crisis. was that whole thing, from start to finish, all covered in the state governments finger prints? no. was it the state's idea to deregulate the energy market? just out of scratch one morning, the idea was born? no. where do you think the impetus and momentum behind deregulation came from? the state? no. it came from the private sector energy companies like enron. they wispered in the state's ear. they lobbied. they got what they wanted.
yes, you're right that the state failed in its duties. but how could they ever succeed if the the idea was shite to begin with. how could they succeed if what was needed was regulation but what they passed into law was deregulation? enron made a killing. they got what they wanted. unregulated capitalism sure worked well for enron. that's the point. the capitalism worked. but for people in california who wanted lights that turned on? how well did unregulated capitalism work for them?
figure out what's more important. freedom or money. and go from there. i don't have any solutions at this point. but at least i'm not deluded enough to believe there's nothing wrong and everything is fine.
you don't understand.
the freedom to freely criticize capitalism in a public forum is infinitely more important than capitalism itself.
the freedom to freely criticize capitalism in an open forum IS NOT found anywhere on the dollar bill, or in corporate charters, or in interest rates, or in exchange rates, or in banking laws. it is found in The Bill of Rights. it is found in the law. it is fleshed out in court decisions. it is, if you'll kindly notice, being practiced right this very instant. am i practicing capitalism this very instant? no, i am not. i am thinking, speaking, writting and communicating freely. i am not buying anything, or selling anything.
so imagine it's the year 1304 a.d. you live in england. you are a metal smith. you make swords, among other things. you make these metal things because you like to, and because they feed and provide shelter for you and your family. when you sell a sword, you are given gold coins of the realm. you take these gold coins and buy more materials for your metal smithing shop. your outfit slowly gets a little bit bigger. maybe you have to hire an apprentice to help. you also take some of the gold coins home with you for own personal enjoyment. is this not capitalism? are you not privately in charge of your capital? is your success not in your hands?
if only life were so simple...
so lets add some more to the story. some of the kings soldiers see your swords. they like your work. but they don't want to pay the price you have put on the sword because they are part of the kings army. "the king before all else." they threaten you when you refuse. they leave and come back the next day. they beat you and throw you in the dungeon of the nearest castle. is this freedom and democracy? what recourse do you have? none. can you throw out the knight who owns the castle by voting? no.
but you can go along and stay alive and keep taking home some gold coins...
it doesn't require absolute freedom to make money freely. and crucially, it doesn't require the kinds of freedoms we enjoy in this country. all capitalism requires (capitalism. n. - an economic system characterized by open competition in a free market and by private or corporate ownership of the means of production or distribution.) is Enough freedom for someone to decide they want to be a metal smith, and to be left alone to their own devices. that's all the freedom involved. but life ain't that simple.
how many millions of people live in this society? and billions throughout the world... how many trillions of competing interests... it's complex, to say the least.
let's talk about things like commodity markets. if you're a farmer, the price for Your Corn You Grew Based On Your Own Hard Work is not set by you and the costs you had to cover to grow it or by the changes of supply and demand in your local community in iowa. they are set by a global commodity market. ONE PRICE everywhere. if you can't meet that price, your farm folds.
the point i am trying to get accross is capitalism is a system. it is a global system because that's how it can offer the lowest prices or find the cheapest labor. the problem is, it's not free. your fate, as a farmer lets say, has nothing to do with how hard you're willing to work or how lazy and dumb you are. it's out of your hands. it's a big, global, integrated system, run from the top down. the big outfits make the rules. the small guys try to go along to get along. this isn't freedom. this is freedom enough.
so let's say the global systematic capitalism as practiced today gets thrown out and in its place, absolute laizze-faire capitalism. no rules at all. how long before two things happen?
one: the anarchy becomes so intense, that nothing ends up getting done. there is no economy persay.
or two: in order to keep things going, like minded people and companies band together. people start working together. rules start getting made. little systems start getting created because its very efficient. and after a century or two, bam. the same old shit. the same old problems. absolute economic freedom could not function so the system and its rules slowly came back into play.
absolute laizze-faire capitalism is as much a deluded utopia as the societies put forward by hard-line communists.
about the california energy crisis. was that whole thing, from start to finish, all covered in the state governments finger prints? no. was it the state's idea to deregulate the energy market? just out of scratch one morning, the idea was born? no. where do you think the impetus and momentum behind deregulation came from? the state? no. it came from the private sector energy companies like enron. they wispered in the state's ear. they lobbied. they got what they wanted.
yes, you're right that the state failed in its duties. but how could they ever succeed if the the idea was shite to begin with. how could they succeed if what was needed was regulation but what they passed into law was deregulation? enron made a killing. they got what they wanted. unregulated capitalism sure worked well for enron. that's the point. the capitalism worked. but for people in california who wanted lights that turned on? how well did unregulated capitalism work for them?
figure out what's more important. freedom or money. and go from there. i don't have any solutions at this point. but at least i'm not deluded enough to believe there's nothing wrong and everything is fine.
You are not serious, are you? Of course, there was some talk against the war with Iraq (not only by the SPD and the Greens), as they public opinion is more or less against it at the moment - and they wanted to win. What they really want is a bigger piece of the cake (that's why they wanted the war with Serbia und sent troops to Afganistan). And in case - if there will be a war with Iraq, they will find a way to offer their support. Who in Germany cares about some US troops if the own government is behaving as if they are the 'better peace-makers'?
Wrong.
Try again.
Try again.
Why is it wrong?
You means those Germans who were on the wrong side of the last two world wars and who would be speaking Russian and licking the boots of those who hold high the hammer and sickle if it weren't for the USA? Oh yeah, them. What are they bitching about now?
>no. by this thing here • Monday September 23, 2002 >at 10:20 AM
>It is certainly not an "economic ideology." Capitalism exists ONLY
>in a free country and is predicated on the existence of political
>freedom and it is the natural extension of it. To be fully free, you
>can only have Capitalism.<
>
>you don't understand.
>
>the freedom to freely criticize capitalism in a public forum is
>infinitely more important than capitalism itself.
Of course. But then it's natural that you would want to use the term
"capitalism" correctly, no?
>
>the freedom to freely criticize capitalism in an open forum IS NOT
>found anywhere on the dollar bill, or in corporate charters, or in
>interest rates, or in exchange rates, or in banking laws. it is
>found in The Bill of Rights. it is found in the law. it is fleshed
>out in court decisions. it is, if you'll kindly notice, being
>practiced right this very instant. am i practicing capitalism this
>very instant? no, i am not. i am thinking, speaking, writting and
>communicating freely. i am not buying anything, or selling anything.
Capitalism requires individual rights as you described. It cannot exist
without individual rights.
>
>so imagine it's the year 1304 a.d. you live in england. you are a
>metal smith. you make swords, among other things. you make these
>metal things because you like to, and because they feed and provide
>shelter for you and your family. when you sell a sword, you are
>given gold coins of the realm. you take these gold coins and buy
>more materials for your metal smithing shop. your outfit slowly gets
>a little bit bigger. maybe you have to hire an apprentice to help.
>you also take some of the gold coins home with you for own personal
>enjoyment. is this not capitalism? are you not privately in charge
>of your capital? is your success not in your hands?
Go on...
>
>if only life were so simple...
>
>so lets add some more to the story. some of the kings soldiers see
>your swords. they like your work. but they don't want to pay the
>price you have put on the sword because they are part of the kings
>army. "the king before all else." they threaten you when you refuse.
>they leave and come back the next day. they beat you and throw you
>in the dungeon of the nearest castle. is this freedom and democracy?
>what recourse do you have? none. can you throw out the knight who
>owns the castle by voting? no.
In other words, you do not have a government system protecting
your individual rights and your right to free exchange - as required
by capitalism's definition - does not exist.
>but you can go along and stay alive and keep taking home some gold
>coins...
Yes, people did survive under feudal systems, as some did under
repressive systems. But those epople did not live under a capitalist
system.
>
>it doesn't require absolute freedom to make money freely. and
>crucially, it doesn't require the kinds of freedoms we enjoy in this
>country. all capitalism requires (capitalism. n. - an economic
>system characterized by open competition in a free market and by
>private or corporate ownership of the means of production or
>distribution.) is Enough freedom for someone to decide they want to
>be a metal smith, and to be left alone to their own devices. that's
>all the freedom involved. but life ain't that simple.
Actually, no, becuause once you take some freedoms away, meaning
once the law restricts your freedom, you are no longer operating
under a capitalist system.
>
>how many millions of people live in this society? and billions
>throughout the world... how many trillions of competing interests...
>it's complex, to say the least.
It's complex, indeed, and we have a mixed economy rather than
capitalism.
>
>let's talk about things like commodity markets. if you're a farmer,
>the price for Your Corn You Grew Based On Your Own Hard Work is not
>set by you and the costs you had to cover to grow it or by the
>changes of supply and demand in your local community in iowa. they
>are set by a global commodity market. ONE PRICE everywhere. if you
>can't meet that price, your farm folds.
So you must agree that you are not describing "capitalsim."
>
>the point i am trying to get accross is capitalism is a system. it
>is a global system because that's how it can offer the lowest prices
>or find the cheapest labor. the problem is, it's not free. your
>fate, as a farmer lets say, has nothing to do with how hard you're
>willing to work or how lazy and dumb you are. it's out of your
>hands. it's a big, global, integrated system, run from the top down.
>the big outfits make the rules. the small guys try to go along to
>get along. this isn't freedom. this is freedom enough.
Again, you are not describing capitalism, you are describing a mixed
econonmy rife with government rules - arrived at politically.
>
>so let's say the global systematic capitalism as practiced today
>gets thrown out and in its place, absolute laizze-faire capitalism.
>no rules at all. how long before two things happen?
>
>one: the anarchy becomes so intense, that nothing ends up getting
>done. there is no economy persay.
>
>or two: in order to keep things going, like minded people and
>companies band together. people start working together. rules start
>getting made. little systems start getting created because its very
>efficient. and after a century or two, bam. the same old shit. the
>same old problems. absolute economic freedom could not function so
>the system and its rules slowly came back into play.
>
>absolute laizze-faire capitalism is as much a deluded utopia as the
>societies put forward by hard-line communists.
The term "laissez-faire capitalism" is redundant. There is only
capitalism. That's like saying there is "communist communism."
But your point is "absolute economic freedom could not function..."
which means that you are describing a system which is not capitalism.
It is SOMETHING that you think is capitalsim but, in reality, it
is not.
>
>about the california energy crisis. was that whole thing, from start
>to finish, all covered in the state governments finger prints? no.
>was it the state's idea to deregulate the energy market? just out of
>scratch one morning, the idea was born? no. where do you think the
>impetus and momentum behind deregulation came from? the state? no.
>it came from the private sector energy companies like enron. they
>wispered in the state's ear. they lobbied. they got what they
>wanted.
So, you had a regulated market, right? Who regulates markets?
Businessmen? No, of course not. Government regulates business.
Now, when government regulates business do you have a capitalist
business. No, you have a regulated business. Now, do you for one
moment think that the government is better than the marketplace
at managing a complex system like energy creation and distribution?
If you do then you can join the millions who've been successfully
duped by the Governor of California, the state Attorney General,
and even the Democrat who designed the so-called "deregulation"
bill, which, as we all know, was bnot a deregulation bill at all.
It was a re-regulation bill, just the kind of thing you apparently
love.
But, you are right that the energy companies wanted such a bill and
lobbied for it.
Precisely because they hate having to compete in the marketplace, i.e.,
they wouldn't want to have capitalism either.
Imagine having to work your butt off to make a success of your
energy company if politicians will pave the road for you to NOT
having to compete. Attractive, eh?
But then economic reality sets in when politicians do dumb things
to satisfy the political whims of the electorate. Like actually
deregulating wholesale prices but CAPPING retail prices. Can you
imagine running a business that way? Would YOU call that "capitalism
at work?"
>
>yes, you're right that the state failed in its duties. but how could
>they ever succeed if the the idea was shite to begin with. how could
>they succeed if what was needed was regulation but what they passed
>into law was deregulation? enron made a killing. they got what they
>wanted. unregulated capitalism sure worked well for enron. that's
>the point. the capitalism worked. but for people in california who
>wanted lights that turned on? how well did unregulated capitalism
>work for them?
As you by now realize, you've got it completely backwards. Which
brings us back to the importance of using correct terminology. It
was not "unregulated capitalism" that created the energy crisis.
it was a "government controlled re-reulated market" that did
California in.
Big difference, don't you think?
>figure out what's more important. freedom or money. and go from
>there. i don't have any solutions at this point. but at least i'm
>not deluded enough to believe there's nothing wrong and everything
>is fine.
You didn't find me saying everything is fine. Au contraire. What
we need is capitalism, not buffoon politicians telling us we need
the opposite.
Remember the importance of words. What you are criticizing is not
capitalism, so it's best to use the proper term. That way, whenever
we dicuss "capitalism," we are all on the same page.
>It is certainly not an "economic ideology." Capitalism exists ONLY
>in a free country and is predicated on the existence of political
>freedom and it is the natural extension of it. To be fully free, you
>can only have Capitalism.<
>
>you don't understand.
>
>the freedom to freely criticize capitalism in a public forum is
>infinitely more important than capitalism itself.
Of course. But then it's natural that you would want to use the term
"capitalism" correctly, no?
>
>the freedom to freely criticize capitalism in an open forum IS NOT
>found anywhere on the dollar bill, or in corporate charters, or in
>interest rates, or in exchange rates, or in banking laws. it is
>found in The Bill of Rights. it is found in the law. it is fleshed
>out in court decisions. it is, if you'll kindly notice, being
>practiced right this very instant. am i practicing capitalism this
>very instant? no, i am not. i am thinking, speaking, writting and
>communicating freely. i am not buying anything, or selling anything.
Capitalism requires individual rights as you described. It cannot exist
without individual rights.
>
>so imagine it's the year 1304 a.d. you live in england. you are a
>metal smith. you make swords, among other things. you make these
>metal things because you like to, and because they feed and provide
>shelter for you and your family. when you sell a sword, you are
>given gold coins of the realm. you take these gold coins and buy
>more materials for your metal smithing shop. your outfit slowly gets
>a little bit bigger. maybe you have to hire an apprentice to help.
>you also take some of the gold coins home with you for own personal
>enjoyment. is this not capitalism? are you not privately in charge
>of your capital? is your success not in your hands?
Go on...
>
>if only life were so simple...
>
>so lets add some more to the story. some of the kings soldiers see
>your swords. they like your work. but they don't want to pay the
>price you have put on the sword because they are part of the kings
>army. "the king before all else." they threaten you when you refuse.
>they leave and come back the next day. they beat you and throw you
>in the dungeon of the nearest castle. is this freedom and democracy?
>what recourse do you have? none. can you throw out the knight who
>owns the castle by voting? no.
In other words, you do not have a government system protecting
your individual rights and your right to free exchange - as required
by capitalism's definition - does not exist.
>but you can go along and stay alive and keep taking home some gold
>coins...
Yes, people did survive under feudal systems, as some did under
repressive systems. But those epople did not live under a capitalist
system.
>
>it doesn't require absolute freedom to make money freely. and
>crucially, it doesn't require the kinds of freedoms we enjoy in this
>country. all capitalism requires (capitalism. n. - an economic
>system characterized by open competition in a free market and by
>private or corporate ownership of the means of production or
>distribution.) is Enough freedom for someone to decide they want to
>be a metal smith, and to be left alone to their own devices. that's
>all the freedom involved. but life ain't that simple.
Actually, no, becuause once you take some freedoms away, meaning
once the law restricts your freedom, you are no longer operating
under a capitalist system.
>
>how many millions of people live in this society? and billions
>throughout the world... how many trillions of competing interests...
>it's complex, to say the least.
It's complex, indeed, and we have a mixed economy rather than
capitalism.
>
>let's talk about things like commodity markets. if you're a farmer,
>the price for Your Corn You Grew Based On Your Own Hard Work is not
>set by you and the costs you had to cover to grow it or by the
>changes of supply and demand in your local community in iowa. they
>are set by a global commodity market. ONE PRICE everywhere. if you
>can't meet that price, your farm folds.
So you must agree that you are not describing "capitalsim."
>
>the point i am trying to get accross is capitalism is a system. it
>is a global system because that's how it can offer the lowest prices
>or find the cheapest labor. the problem is, it's not free. your
>fate, as a farmer lets say, has nothing to do with how hard you're
>willing to work or how lazy and dumb you are. it's out of your
>hands. it's a big, global, integrated system, run from the top down.
>the big outfits make the rules. the small guys try to go along to
>get along. this isn't freedom. this is freedom enough.
Again, you are not describing capitalism, you are describing a mixed
econonmy rife with government rules - arrived at politically.
>
>so let's say the global systematic capitalism as practiced today
>gets thrown out and in its place, absolute laizze-faire capitalism.
>no rules at all. how long before two things happen?
>
>one: the anarchy becomes so intense, that nothing ends up getting
>done. there is no economy persay.
>
>or two: in order to keep things going, like minded people and
>companies band together. people start working together. rules start
>getting made. little systems start getting created because its very
>efficient. and after a century or two, bam. the same old shit. the
>same old problems. absolute economic freedom could not function so
>the system and its rules slowly came back into play.
>
>absolute laizze-faire capitalism is as much a deluded utopia as the
>societies put forward by hard-line communists.
The term "laissez-faire capitalism" is redundant. There is only
capitalism. That's like saying there is "communist communism."
But your point is "absolute economic freedom could not function..."
which means that you are describing a system which is not capitalism.
It is SOMETHING that you think is capitalsim but, in reality, it
is not.
>
>about the california energy crisis. was that whole thing, from start
>to finish, all covered in the state governments finger prints? no.
>was it the state's idea to deregulate the energy market? just out of
>scratch one morning, the idea was born? no. where do you think the
>impetus and momentum behind deregulation came from? the state? no.
>it came from the private sector energy companies like enron. they
>wispered in the state's ear. they lobbied. they got what they
>wanted.
So, you had a regulated market, right? Who regulates markets?
Businessmen? No, of course not. Government regulates business.
Now, when government regulates business do you have a capitalist
business. No, you have a regulated business. Now, do you for one
moment think that the government is better than the marketplace
at managing a complex system like energy creation and distribution?
If you do then you can join the millions who've been successfully
duped by the Governor of California, the state Attorney General,
and even the Democrat who designed the so-called "deregulation"
bill, which, as we all know, was bnot a deregulation bill at all.
It was a re-regulation bill, just the kind of thing you apparently
love.
But, you are right that the energy companies wanted such a bill and
lobbied for it.
Precisely because they hate having to compete in the marketplace, i.e.,
they wouldn't want to have capitalism either.
Imagine having to work your butt off to make a success of your
energy company if politicians will pave the road for you to NOT
having to compete. Attractive, eh?
But then economic reality sets in when politicians do dumb things
to satisfy the political whims of the electorate. Like actually
deregulating wholesale prices but CAPPING retail prices. Can you
imagine running a business that way? Would YOU call that "capitalism
at work?"
>
>yes, you're right that the state failed in its duties. but how could
>they ever succeed if the the idea was shite to begin with. how could
>they succeed if what was needed was regulation but what they passed
>into law was deregulation? enron made a killing. they got what they
>wanted. unregulated capitalism sure worked well for enron. that's
>the point. the capitalism worked. but for people in california who
>wanted lights that turned on? how well did unregulated capitalism
>work for them?
As you by now realize, you've got it completely backwards. Which
brings us back to the importance of using correct terminology. It
was not "unregulated capitalism" that created the energy crisis.
it was a "government controlled re-reulated market" that did
California in.
Big difference, don't you think?
>figure out what's more important. freedom or money. and go from
>there. i don't have any solutions at this point. but at least i'm
>not deluded enough to believe there's nothing wrong and everything
>is fine.
You didn't find me saying everything is fine. Au contraire. What
we need is capitalism, not buffoon politicians telling us we need
the opposite.
Remember the importance of words. What you are criticizing is not
capitalism, so it's best to use the proper term. That way, whenever
we dicuss "capitalism," we are all on the same page.
you need to describe by example "your" version of capitalism, by using examples of it in practice.
if i am so totally wrong, well then, please, tell me, what IS capitalism. don't use the dictionary definition, or the economy 101 text book. use an example of it in action. write something personal. otherwise, your argument is only half done, and i am still confused about what you mean when say this is capitalism, but this is not.
if i am so totally wrong, well then, please, tell me, what IS capitalism. don't use the dictionary definition, or the economy 101 text book. use an example of it in action. write something personal. otherwise, your argument is only half done, and i am still confused about what you mean when say this is capitalism, but this is not.
I.G. Farbin (Who brings us Bayer asprin) also
gave us Zyclon B which was far quicker than mere
starvation and 20 hour days of labor.
gave us Zyclon B which was far quicker than mere
starvation and 20 hour days of labor.
Another item for the FILE
Good dig, thanks.
Good dig, thanks.
And to people in other countries who get shot because they belong to organizations that critize capitalism - or are these no capitalist countries?
What about: capitalism is the transformation of everything in goods?
What about: capitalism is the transformation of everything in goods?
And to people in other countries who get shot because they belong to organizations that critize capitalism - or are these no capitalist countries?
What about: capitalism is the transformation of everything in goods?
What about: capitalism is the transformation of everything in goods?
And to people in other countries who get shot because they belong to organizations that critize capitalism - or are these no capitalist countries?
What about: capitalism is the transformation of everything in goods?
What about: capitalism is the transformation of everything in goods?
And to people in other countries who get shot because they belong to organizations that criticize capitalism - or are these no capitalist countries?
What about: capitalism is the transformation of everything in goods?
What about: capitalism is the transformation of everything in goods?
I have given you sufficient information for you to question what you think you know.
The rest is up to you.
The rest is up to you.
it's somewhat annoying, frankly, Sam B.'s tactic of always not addressing what i asked him to address.
if i say something, well, it's immeadiately incorrect because my "definitions" are wrong. if i say something else, nope, definitions are wrong again. o.k., then what is the definition? perhaps a few examples of it in practice would help the audience to understand. this really isn't too much to ask, is it? but apperently, it is for Sam B.
we are all not on the same page as Sam B. so, what page are you on, Sam B.? "that is up to you."
but you see, Sam B., you are making assertions without backing them up with examples. you're not putting forward anything. you're not even arguing. everything you say is half done. it's a sort of a patronizing attitude. "i'll say you are wrong. but i will not say what is right. i am the teacher. you are the student." i find that annoying, and all it does is kill the discussion. plus, it's inappropriate in my view. save the patronizing schoolhouse stuff for the classroom.
if i say something, well, it's immeadiately incorrect because my "definitions" are wrong. if i say something else, nope, definitions are wrong again. o.k., then what is the definition? perhaps a few examples of it in practice would help the audience to understand. this really isn't too much to ask, is it? but apperently, it is for Sam B.
we are all not on the same page as Sam B. so, what page are you on, Sam B.? "that is up to you."
but you see, Sam B., you are making assertions without backing them up with examples. you're not putting forward anything. you're not even arguing. everything you say is half done. it's a sort of a patronizing attitude. "i'll say you are wrong. but i will not say what is right. i am the teacher. you are the student." i find that annoying, and all it does is kill the discussion. plus, it's inappropriate in my view. save the patronizing schoolhouse stuff for the classroom.
language is an abstraction held in common between multiple people, unless it is the inner language inside your head. So, a word holds the meaning that multiple individuals agree that it means. Words can change definition over time - this is part of the reason there are so many different languages in the world, minus the languages of indigenous people that have been driven extinct. Supposedly, 20% of words change in meaning every 100 years, and this is how linguists can trace the timing of when various groups became geographically separated. It is possible for a word to have multiple meanings. The people who operate the Oxford dictionary claim to run the english language, and they're supposed to be good about making new entries such as 'dis' and so forth. In any case, it is difficult to argue that there is one true, hard to decipher meaning for a word. It is possible to propose coining a new term for this abstract concept that you're excited about, or to name 'capitalism, definition 4, oxford dictionary', if it seems that most people are working with a different type of english than you.
And the right everybody has is the right to sleep under a bridge.
(snip)
Wasn't it Anatole France who said that the Law, in its magnificent equality, prohibits the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges and begging in the streets?
(snip)
Wasn't it Anatole France who said that the Law, in its magnificent equality, prohibits the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges and begging in the streets?
(snip)
>"Absolutely not.
by nessie • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 09:04 AM
>"Nazi Germany was a capitalist country. IG Farben was a corporation. Capitalism, even modern American capitalism, is not about individual rights. It's about corporate rights. Why do have trouble grasping this?"
Not only do you have trouble reading, you don't even understand what Nazi Germany was. You poor fellow.
by nessie • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 09:04 AM
>"Nazi Germany was a capitalist country. IG Farben was a corporation. Capitalism, even modern American capitalism, is not about individual rights. It's about corporate rights. Why do have trouble grasping this?"
Not only do you have trouble reading, you don't even understand what Nazi Germany was. You poor fellow.
>"the thing with Sam B.
by this thing here • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 10:23 AM"
>"it's somewhat annoying, frankly, Sam B.'s tactic of always not addressing what i asked him to address."
Check my replies. It's all there.
>"save the patronizing schoolhouse stuff for the classroom."
I guess you don't like the choice of educating yourself.
by this thing here • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 10:23 AM"
>"it's somewhat annoying, frankly, Sam B.'s tactic of always not addressing what i asked him to address."
Check my replies. It's all there.
>"save the patronizing schoolhouse stuff for the classroom."
I guess you don't like the choice of educating yourself.
>"words
by cp • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 10:47 AM"
>"So, a word holds the meaning that multiple individuals agree that it means."
Fair enough. Let's try this exercise. Gather and list the various definitions of "capitalism" that have surfaced in this thread. Who agrees with whom and what defintion is prevalent?
Does "by this thing here's" defintion agree with"Socialist's" definition? Who is right?
Try the exercise with a wider audience.
Get back to us with agreed-upon defintion.
by cp • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 10:47 AM"
>"So, a word holds the meaning that multiple individuals agree that it means."
Fair enough. Let's try this exercise. Gather and list the various definitions of "capitalism" that have surfaced in this thread. Who agrees with whom and what defintion is prevalent?
Does "by this thing here's" defintion agree with"Socialist's" definition? Who is right?
Try the exercise with a wider audience.
Get back to us with agreed-upon defintion.
this is incredible!
here it is again. it all my fault. it's all up to me! i love it! what a great stonewalling tactic to use in an argument with a sisgnificant other, or anyone.
"we're not arguing about the same thing. until you argue the same thing i'm arguing, we won't speak."
"i'm a little confused there guy. why not just share what it is, and then we can discuss it further."
"no. i refuse. it's all your fault for not figuring it out."
"no it isn't. all you offered was a criticism of what i said. you just kept saying i was wrong, and never said what was right in your mind. how can i read your mind? my fault, whaddya mean my fault. what's the big deal?"
"i offered more than ample evidence."
"this is insane! would i be confused if it was perfectly clear? gimme a break. what are you hiding? i just asked you to supply some info, that's all. what the hell. why are you yanking my chain guy? i get the feeling this gets your rocks off or something."
"it's all your problem."
"yeah, yeah. heard it all before. never mind. it's not worth the trouble having a simple conversation with you, so i'll see ya later guy..."
see ya sam. my points are on the record. yours are still somewhere in your head...
here it is again. it all my fault. it's all up to me! i love it! what a great stonewalling tactic to use in an argument with a sisgnificant other, or anyone.
"we're not arguing about the same thing. until you argue the same thing i'm arguing, we won't speak."
"i'm a little confused there guy. why not just share what it is, and then we can discuss it further."
"no. i refuse. it's all your fault for not figuring it out."
"no it isn't. all you offered was a criticism of what i said. you just kept saying i was wrong, and never said what was right in your mind. how can i read your mind? my fault, whaddya mean my fault. what's the big deal?"
"i offered more than ample evidence."
"this is insane! would i be confused if it was perfectly clear? gimme a break. what are you hiding? i just asked you to supply some info, that's all. what the hell. why are you yanking my chain guy? i get the feeling this gets your rocks off or something."
"it's all your problem."
"yeah, yeah. heard it all before. never mind. it's not worth the trouble having a simple conversation with you, so i'll see ya later guy..."
see ya sam. my points are on the record. yours are still somewhere in your head...
>"see ya sam...
by this thing here • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 04:15 PM"
>"this is incredible!"
>"here it is again. it all my fault."
No, it's not your fault. It's your responsibility.
>"it's all up to me!"
Right! Now you're catching on.
Have a nice day.
by this thing here • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 04:15 PM"
>"this is incredible!"
>"here it is again. it all my fault."
No, it's not your fault. It's your responsibility.
>"it's all up to me!"
Right! Now you're catching on.
Have a nice day.
> "by nessie • Wednesday September 25, 2002 at 08:16 AM"
>"Read these, then say that again with a straight face."
Already did, Nessie, which is why I'm having a hoot laughing at your total ignorance.
Where do you loons come from, anyway?
>"Read these, then say that again with a straight face."
Already did, Nessie, which is why I'm having a hoot laughing at your total ignorance.
Where do you loons come from, anyway?
there's no point, Nessie. These robots can't define capitalism, let alone distinguish it from free market theory.
I'm not so sure they even have an idea what the state enterprise system was all about. I think when you say 'capitalist' and 'command economy' to them in the same sentence they kind of short-circuit.
I'm not so sure they even have an idea what the state enterprise system was all about. I think when you say 'capitalist' and 'command economy' to them in the same sentence they kind of short-circuit.
It isn't a mixture of facism and liberalism.
The econimic system in which all or most of the means of production and distribution, as land, factories, railroads, etc., are privately owned and operated for profit under fully competitive conditions.
BTW, the definition of 'capitalism' as defined above clearly shows that Nazi Germany was NOT an economy built on capatilism.
If you are unable to comprehend this, click below:
http//http://www.imsodamnstupidimactuallygoingtoquestionsomeonewhowillintellectuallykickmyassliketheyalwaysdo.com/nazigermany/notcapitalism
If you are unable to comprehend this, click below:
http//http://www.imsodamnstupidimactuallygoingtoquestionsomeonewhowillintellectuallykickmyassliketheyalwaysdo.com/nazigermany/notcapitalism
That's all way too easy, isn't it? (You can own something and subsist on it - economic theory - capitalism - is about realization of surplus value etc, etc.) And in Nazi Germany full competition didn't exist. It was sort of crisis management, replacing the idea of competition by the idea of the 'Volkagemeinschaft (national community). Nevertheless, Nazi Germany was a capitalist country (and the corporations etc. of course supported Hitler).
I don't know what dictionary you used but the essence of capitalism is merely the concentration of the means of production into a small number of private hands. Capitalism really isn't about competition; this is part of free market theory. Capitalism is only about concentration of capitol in private hands.
Germany was NOT free market, though. There was in fact some competition in Germany's state enterprise system although the major players were cooperating with the government.Mind you, the Nazis had no violation of free market such as you see in the Unicor project of the USA, a government-owned prison labour outfit with mandatory sourcing and the ability to compete on the open market with less advantaged, private firms. However there was such collusion with government that it could not really be called a laissez-faire system.
You people need to learn to distinguish free market from capitalism. You can have one, without having the other.
Germany was NOT free market, though. There was in fact some competition in Germany's state enterprise system although the major players were cooperating with the government.Mind you, the Nazis had no violation of free market such as you see in the Unicor project of the USA, a government-owned prison labour outfit with mandatory sourcing and the ability to compete on the open market with less advantaged, private firms. However there was such collusion with government that it could not really be called a laissez-faire system.
You people need to learn to distinguish free market from capitalism. You can have one, without having the other.
I didn't say capitalism is about competition.
I said it's about the scandal of unpaid labor for profit.
I said (more or less) it's about the scandal of unpaid labor for profit.
unpaid labour for profit existed before capitalism in the form of slavery or the patriarch systems of Roman rule and in the medieval Guild system, also in labour tax economies like feudalism or the Inca empire of Peru. Capitalism is about more than that, even, its about pooling all the means of production in fewer and fewer hands. It goes beyond mere exploitation. Its a doctrine of control by the Few. Labour is nothing new, but such unheard of concentration of the means of production was completely new when capitalism arrived.
Your interpretation is way too Marxist influenced. Marx had some good ideas, at times, but he had a poor grasp of the basic concepts of capitalism and the whole doctrine of concentration behind it. All he could ever see was an old system, a feudal system in it, this was all he could understand. Its worse than mere feudalism.
Your interpretation is way too Marxist influenced. Marx had some good ideas, at times, but he had a poor grasp of the basic concepts of capitalism and the whole doctrine of concentration behind it. All he could ever see was an old system, a feudal system in it, this was all he could understand. Its worse than mere feudalism.
The dictionary used was Webster's New World, College Edition. Your argument is with Daniel. If you want to change the definition because it doesn't fit into what you already believe, go for it. God knows it's never stopped any of you before.
-Capitalism was concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists, who operated as the directors of a privatized command economy. Ergo, by definition, it was a capitalist country.
-Capatilism - The economic system in which all or most of the means of production and distribution, as land, factories, railroads, etc., are privately owned and operated for profit under fully competitive conditions.
Capital in the hands of a few is not capitalism. Capital in the hands of a few invites and creates Monopolies. Monopolies are not conducive to "competitive conditions", and in fact, they are quite the opposite. That's why we have anti-trust laws. If the US government didn't care if wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few, why create anti-trust laws? Why piss on Rockefeller, Astor, Vanderbilt, Morgan, etc?
German was Fascist. Fascim is defined as "A system of government characterized by ridged one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of the opposition, and the retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized governmental control." That describes Nazi Germany to a "T".
-Capitalism was concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists, who operated as the directors of a privatized command economy. Ergo, by definition, it was a capitalist country.
-Capatilism - The economic system in which all or most of the means of production and distribution, as land, factories, railroads, etc., are privately owned and operated for profit under fully competitive conditions.
Capital in the hands of a few is not capitalism. Capital in the hands of a few invites and creates Monopolies. Monopolies are not conducive to "competitive conditions", and in fact, they are quite the opposite. That's why we have anti-trust laws. If the US government didn't care if wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few, why create anti-trust laws? Why piss on Rockefeller, Astor, Vanderbilt, Morgan, etc?
German was Fascist. Fascim is defined as "A system of government characterized by ridged one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of the opposition, and the retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized governmental control." That describes Nazi Germany to a "T".
If capital were not concentrated in the hands of a few, it would not be capitalism. Was medieval cottage industry capitalism? No. Capitalism was something to come after the medieval age. Concentration is essential to capitalism, not competition. Obviously you don't comprehend the difference that came about at the rise of capitalism between it and earlier forms of non-agrarian production.
That doesn't jive with the definition. Capital in the hands of a few creates monopolies which is the polar opposite of fully competitive conditions.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network