The Case Against Capitalism

all powers are expressly delegated.

- - - Updated - - -

but, they chose a warfare-State, just like the right; instead of a welfare-State, like some on the left want.

 

How is that socialism?

 

Wow you went there? Okay, let's look at this piece by piece.

On what basis? That it (the ratification of the US Constitution) preceded all the events you mention? This is the correlation = causation fallacy in a historical setting. Just because event A precedes event B doesn't mean, necessarily, that event A caused event B. In fact it's quite possible that event B happened despite event A. This error applies to everything you say below.

History is a complex plethora of facts. It is impossible to derive any sound conclusion, based on the facts alone, without analysis aided by theory. It is possible to draw just about any conclusion you want if you're sloppy.

The US is indeed an empire today. It's power comes not from the Constitution, but precisely what is not prescribed by the Constitution: the operation of the free market. The US only had the power to dominate others because it could utilize the productive might the market created without it.

No one is living under the kind of "liberty" that was discussed in the Constitution, and definitely not the kind in the Declaration of Independence. No one, in the US or outside.

This is simply not historically accurate.

There was no power in WWI at all ready and able to take over the world (assuming that's what you mean). All of the European powers had grinded themselves to essentially a bloody stalemate, until the US intervened in 1917 and tipped the balance against Germany. The humiliating terms the Germans were forced to accept radicalized post-war Germany and led to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. Also, in their desperation, the Germans allowed Lenin to return to Russia to instigate his revolution, hoping it would weaken the Eastern front. Thus US intervention led in part to the development of the Soviet Union. I don't consider these outcomes favorable.

WWII was even worse. Hitler couldn't even cross the 10 miles of English channel to invade Britain. He was at a stalemate with the British (with whom it is said he didn't even want a war with, the British being of Germanic descent) after the fall of France. His decision to invade Russia the next year, although consistent with his ideological goals of a hegemonic German state on the continent, can only be described as insane. Operation Barbarossa was bound to fail from the start, it was only a question of when. The Germans were indeed a formidable opponent, but they were not going to conquer the world, let alone the US, let alone Europe. At best they would have established a Western European empire with great antagonism to their Soviet neighbors. No need for American superheros.

Instead, the Soviets established their empire in all of Eastern Europe (while the US established their empire in Western Europe). Given the size and scope of Soviet liquidation of their population through the gulag system (much, much more than the Holocaust), and the communist hell of Stalinist Russia, I don't think one can plausibly argue that this was a much better outcome had the Nazis won. As bad as the Nazis were, the Soviets were much worse. It was the worse of two evils that the US ended up allying with in the war. Had the US stayed out, the Nazis and Soviets would've worn each other down and weakened each other, and both the Nazi and Soviet empires would've been relatively contained.

Whatever can be said about the Japanese, they were not going to take over the world.

Why is this a good thing?

Not sure what you're referring to here.

Again why is this a good thing? US intervention has been arguably disastrous for the world, leading to the rise of the Nazi, the Soviet Union, the Cold War, and all of the post-Cold War fallout, including the chaos of the Middle East.

None of those people are or were in any position to be in the one America is in today (world hegemon). Why? Because their countries were much, much weaker than the US. Why? Because they never benefited from the tremendous productive capacity of a robust free market.

Hitler couldn't even beat the British, let alone the Soviets.

The Soviets never had the ability to project power beyond their immediate borders.

Mao's country of starving peasants were in no position to do anything.

Pol Pot, Castro, and Assad are even weaker.

ISIS (a US creation, by the way), despite the number of terror attacks they might commit, will never conquer the West (i.e. "forcibly drink from the Mississippi", to borrow a phrase from Lincoln).

Putin's Russia is similar to the Soviets.

The US is simply trying to maintain its privileged status as world hegemon, one made possible by the free markets it had in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But as markets continue to be more regulated and taxed, that engine of wealth will continue to fail, and the US will lose that status soon enough.

 

If an economy is doing not so good(high unemployment, poverty, etc.), any improvement(even small ones) can make a huge difference. China may make capitalism look like the way to go. It doesn't make capitalism the way to go though, since all its doing is making state capitalism look terrible.

 

Truer socialism would simply ensure full employment of the use of the Peoples' monies, and start filling empty cities by emptying any slums.

 

want to try that again in english that makes sense?? Does anyone know what this liberal means?

 

How can China's instant elimination of 40% of the entire planets poverty look terrible unless you are the devil himself or an utterly brainwashed liberal?

 

well Jefferson said, "now there is something new under the sun" and instantly all of human history changed thanks to the new Republican freedom Jefferson introduced against liberal big govt opposition.

 

actually freedom assumed economic freedom. It was as natural as breathing to them and fully protected or enhanced by the Commerce Clause. Sorry to rock your world.

 

dominating?? when all we asked was a place to bury our dead?? How utterly stupid!!!. Hitler Caesar Alexander Attila dominated. Do you understand?

 

because our values are far superior to those of the great 20th Century liberals Hitler Stalin Mao Tojo. 1+1=2

- - - Updated - - -

Jefferson's Republican empire of liberty just freed a billion people in China. Where did you think the idea came from???

 

THe USA won 2 world wars and recreated the world in its image. The exactg opposite of a disaster!!!Peace is only possible through Republican freedom. If you have a world of Nazi liberal govts they will always war against each other since power is their only real objective. 1+1=2

 

sub moronic since it is not authorized. Is this some conspiracy only you know about? The US is trying to bring peace to the world through individual liberty established by fighting big govt liberalism: HItler Stalin Mao Tojo ISIS King George
1+1=2

Thomas Jefferson:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

notice how liberty and government are presented as opposites??

 

Sorry dude, you made your troll status too obvious with these last few posts. Have fun.

 

translation: I lack the ability to respond intellectually so I"ll call names and leave hoping to fool everyone.

 

Your misunderstanding what I meant, state capitalism is when the state(government) owns and regulates the means of production(a form of socialism). I am just using state capitalism as a word for public socialism. Just replace the "state capitalism" part with socialism.
"It doesn't make capitalism the way to go though, since all its doing is making socialism look terrible."

 

The discussion is about free market capitalism which results in maximum increases in the standard of living.

 

It is why I don't take the right very seriously, politically; they are just a bunch of communists and don't know it.

 

dear, supply side economics is "focused" or "command economics".

 

Now we now where Hostess management learned their trade?

 

Sorry it was too complicated for you, dear. Here it is again, for your ease and convenience:

Truer socialism would simply ensure full employment of the use of the Peoples' monies,

and start filling empty cities by emptying any slums.

- - - Updated - - -

so what. socialism can eliminate homelessness and provide work in a brand new city.

should the US bargain with China for section 8 housing?

Just socialism hard at work, so you don't have to.

 

Sounds good but socialism fails over and over again.

 

EBT cards and section eight housing assistance works. Just socialism at its finest.

 

Once again you confuse social safety net programs paid for by capitalism with socialism.

 

he has no idea that socialism is when govt owns and manages business.