The US Government and Disinformation

Hey, I just have a question. I have a great deal of difficultly discerning what is strictly real and what is not (probably in part because of my understanding of dreams), so I struggle with the idea that everything I know could be a huge experiment (Truman Show style). One element that I grapple with that isn't as all-encompassing as this is the idea that our government could be flooding the country with disinformation to keep us confused. This was a common tactic in the Cold War, to send BS information at the enemy so that they couldn't tell what was real and what wasn't.

So, with all the information floating on the intertubes these days, does anyone else wonder if the US government isn't diluting the truth with nonsense to keep us confused? Just an idea that I wanted help with.

Who needs government disinformation when you have FOX news.

Do you think it's safe to post such a question on a public forums? Maybe the government will end you while you're sleeping tonight.

Don't let the matrix know you know about it.

i actually agree with someone here. i think the government (under the control of very very rich banking elite who own most of everything, oil, pharmaceutical, technology, food) is trying to confuse the masses with too much info that contradicts a lot of the time. its the reason to pick a topic and remain focused....something most people have a hard time with, nowadays.

Yes, lots of disinformation. Research everything you want to have an opinion about.

Of course there is. If you actually believe what the government tells you, you are an idiot. They come out often and flat out lie to people. Like how they said the health care bill would save a ton of money, when its mathematically impossible.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "deliberately lie to the populace." But, I do think that it is in the government's interest to keep the people occupied with petty things, rather than what really happens under the table with those of elected office.

Oh, you're from the US? Wow, I didn't realise you were actually connected to the real internet...

Yeah, sorry to break it to you; your country's a nuclear wasteland. I won't go into details but the salient point is that the few who did survive were so mentally scarred that they had to have their memories wiped. Then they were all put in this big computer simulation thing to keep everybody happy.

Oh well... hope you're okay.

I would go that far, I think they lie to people all the time on purpose with full knowledge of what they are doing.

There is a long history of government coverups in military and politics to keep the public happy and unaware. I don't think it's one large conspiracy though, rather just a series of unrelated ones.

Does it matter what anyone says, claims, or believes if one does not have the ability to know for certain how to think or speak in truth?

You present the problem in a way fit for those who desire to be told what is right or wrong, instead of knowing how to come to understand it first hand.

To know means to percieve. Hearing the words of others, or reading them, is not knowing--it is called hearsay.

The best communication one can get from others is not those which record someone else's perceptions, or those constructions which are made to decieve one, but instructions on the fundamentals of logic, grammar, the art of speaking and thinking itself. Too bad it has not been developed reliably in history.

Reason is a craft, and like all crafts one needs to learn it before one tries to live by it.

It is a good place to start by asking the question in its most general form. How does anyone know if what they think, say, read, is true or not? What is truth? One may not find the whole of it in any one place, one might take years learning, but in the end, one will conclude that if one reach the notion that predication is the inverse function of abstraction, they have attained to the rudiments of understanding.

Many people complain that the phrase "Predication is the inverse function of abstraction." is to difficult, that if it were said simpler, they could understand it, however, history has proven this to be false, for it was said simpler once, "We testify to what we have seen and speak of what we have known." Every logic and grammar book written since then testifies to the fact that it is not yet understood. Nor would there be any need for an event known as "The Second Comming", a time when something called The Spirit of Truth, has to come and reveal to man what judgment is, what truth is. It would simply be the foundation of everything taught today, but it is not. Men speak, and speak proudly, a great deal of rubbish because he is not yet mentally developed enough for the language he is attempting to use.

As far as news, one does not have to lie, just simply manipulate the focus. Ever wonder, with all the really needed information about what is going on in our daily life, how much worthless shit is passed off as News? Manipulation of content does not mean one has to lie at all. Secondly, look at the programming, it simply follows a given rule, you feed them what they like to eat. Mass Man determines the social environment--very democratic.

Fortunately, we have the internet which connects people from all over the world. Sure, it si filled with lots of disinformation, too. But most of it is not government created disinformation. Anyone can put stuff up on the internet so no one group can have a monpoly on it's data. This, what we are on right now, is the ultimate anti-propaganda machine. Not to say it is the ultimate enemy of ignorance, not at all, but that it turned people's information flow from a fairly easily controlled river to an untamable ocean.

just look up the gulf of tonkin. one of the main reasons we went to war with Vietnam, the government claimed, was that a navy ship of ours was attacked by the Vietnamese. there was NEVER such an attack. it is fully admitted and almost never talked about. certainly never on the mainstream news. iran contra is another example of government being less than honest and ethical.

Nurse Nayirah back in 1991 is also a good example of very effective war propaganda.

What would government have to gain from lying to the general public? Individuals within the government might have something to gain, but the government as a whole wouldn't gain anything.
The groups that are lying to us are the Media. I'm pretty sure they aren't communicating with each other, but the Media is definitely manipulating information to boost ratings. They aren't lying, per se, but it's not the truth. They also obfuscate the important stories by bombarding us with soft news and commercials so that the main headline lasts about 2 minutes.
This is the problem that comes with a privatized media. And therein lies the riddle: nationalized media is biased to make the government look better, privatized media is biased to boost viewings and ratings. How can we create a system that distributes information without putting any spin on it?
To summarize my statement, the US Government isn't lying to you, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and CBS are the people who are manipulating information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobobo55585

What would government have to gain from lying to the general public? Individuals within the government might have something to gain, but the government as a whole wouldn't gain anything.
The groups that are lying to us are the Media. I'm pretty sure they aren't communicating with each other, but the Media is definitely manipulating information to boost ratings. They aren't lying, per se, but it's not the truth. They also obfuscate the important stories by bombarding us with soft news and commercials so that the main headline lasts about 2 minutes.
This is the problem that comes with a privatized media. And therein lies the riddle: nationalized media is biased to make the government look better, privatized media is biased to boost viewings and ratings. How can we create a system that distributes information without putting any spin on it?
To summarize my statement, the US Government isn't lying to you, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and CBS are the people who are manipulating information.

---

So the government had no reason to make it seem like the My Lai massacre didn't happen or that instances of police brutality a0re somewhat common? They don't need to make it seem as though their policies work?

Uh, the government lying to people is not new. Nixon told people HMO were to help the sick, LBJ said Vietnam was to prevent the spread of communism, Bush told us Iraq was about WMDs, Reagan told us that cutting the taxes of the top 1% in half would boost the economy, the military told us that they don't torture prisoners, the senate told us smoking marijuana and doing LSD would cause incurable psychosis, and helplessly addict us, Nixon said Tom Leary was the most dangerous man alive, Bush told us the PATRIOT act was only to be used on suspected terrorists. Everything I mentioned was later revealed to be a deliberate lie.

You should look up some of the old WW2 propaganda that the government put out. In WW2 they put out so much bullshit, you couldn't step out of your house without getting smacked in the face with propaganda telling you to support the war. With it far behind us we can easily see how the people were manipulated by the government to support the war that most Americans never wanted to be in, in the first place.

The government still puts out propaganda, though its far more subtle today, than it was then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

You should look up some of the old WW2 propaganda that the government put out. In WW2 they put out so much bullshit, you couldn't step out of your house without getting smacked in the face with propaganda telling you to support the war. With it far behind us we can easily see how the people were manipulated by the government to support the war that most Americans never wanted to be in, in the first place.

The government still puts out propaganda, though its far more subtle today, than it was then.

---

They have to be. The internet is a wonderful thing.

Every government in the history of people has been corrupt. Who cares....

Look, some of that stuff is flat out lying, but some of that is good old-fashioned all-american stupidity. I think LBJ and Nixon at least thought that part of the goal was to get rid of communism, Dubya really believed that there were WMDs, and the Senate based their ruling on a few exceptional cases.
It's the media that puts the spin on it. If not for the media, American troops could have marched through Hanoi instead of North Vietnamese troops through Saigon. If not for the media, America as a people wouldn't be so divided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobobo55585

Look, some of that stuff is flat out lying, but some of that is good old-fashioned all-american stupidity. I think LBJ and Nixon at least thought that part of the goal was to get rid of communism, Dubya really believed that there were WMDs, and the Senate based their ruling on a few exceptional cases.
It's the media that puts the spin on it. If not for the media, American troops could have marched through Hanoi instead of North Vietnamese troops through Saigon. If not for the media, America as a people wouldn't be so divided.

---

If it wasn't for the media and the government lying, nobody would have marched through any city because the people of Vietnam would have elected Ho Chi Minh and the communist party into power. As part of our policy of making sure that any communist government either fails or falls under the influence of an established and corrupt 'communist' government, we went to war with them to make sure that that happened. There was never any need to 'win' the war. We won it just by fighting it. If we had just let democracy take it's course, there would have been no war in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

If it wasn't for the media and the government lying, nobody would have marched through any city because the people of Vietnam would have elected Ho Chi Minh and the communist party into power. As part of our policy of making sure that any communist government either fails or falls under the influence of an established and corrupt 'communist' government, we went to war with them to make sure that that happened. There was never any need to 'win' the war. We won it just by fighting it. If we had just let democracy take it's course, there would have been no war in the first place.

---

How did we win it at all? Our goal was to either A. stop the spread of communism, (which was all the Truman Doctorine really was,) or B. drain the resources of established communist governments. Since Vietnam did eventually become communist we lost goal A and since the war cost the US far more than any of our major enemies, we failed on goal B, as well. We didn't go into Vietnam to make sure Russia or China took control of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

How did we win it at all? Our goal was to either A. stop the spread of communism, (which was all the Truman Doctorine really was,) or B. drain the resources of established communist governments. Since Vietnam did eventually become communist we lost goal A and since the war cost the US far more than any of our major enemies, we failed on goal B, as well. We didn't go into Vietnam to make sure Russia or China took control of it.

---

Take control of it isn't precisely what I said. I said "fall under the influence of." And, that I've been able to find, there is no overt mention that this was the elite's strategy but reading between the lines, it's clear that it was part C of the strategy that you mentioned. Specifically, the goal was to conflate communism with totalitarian governments. This is accomplished by putting enough stress on independent communist governments to force them to appeal to the USSR for assistance with strings attached. This makes it incredibly easy to point at them and claim that this is what communism inevitably turns into.

The most obvious case of this is Cuba. Remember that the USSR didn't even know who Castro was (they initially thought that he was a CIA agent) and was perfectly willing to let the US have the western hemisphere. It's only after the Bay of Pigs and increasing US sanctions that Castro, at the time a legitimate Marxist, was forced to associate with the Stalinist USSR which was (having much more in common with say, the US), at the far end of political thought from him.

So now the elite in the US can fallaciously point to Cuba as an example of what goes wrong with communism. They have to ignore the fact that Cuba has one of the most educated populaces in the world and a life expectancy just short of the US (keep the embargo in mind when you ponder this) to do so but that's not too hard to do with a brainwashed media and 'academic' elite. So they benefited far more from Cuba remaining a non-capitalist country and being forced into the orbit of the USSR than if they had just rolled up on it with the regular army the week after Castro kicked out our pet dictator, Batista.

Some people think that this is why Che left. He didn't want to be so deep in the pockets of the USSR and went to fight for legitimate Marxism in Africa.

Keep in mind that for the elite to explicitly mention this as a goal, on the same footing as the Truman Doctrine, would require them to at least implicitly admit that communism isn't nearly as bad for the people as it's made out to be and that a functioning communist state would cause people in democracies around the world to opt for that form of economic organisation. This was the real threat. At least with Stalinist governments, they are still dealing with a ruling elite that is just as interested in suppressing freedom as they are. This is why both sides benefited from the Cold War to such a heavy degree. A near permanent enemy is almost necessary for propaganda and fear is great for staying in control.

Remember the scare tactics about marijuana, LSD, and psilocybin in high school? Careful, smoking pot will make you schitzo :P Almost all of the misinformation there came from the conservative government of the early half of the 20th century.

I think it's very dangerous. When kids find out that most of what they've been told about the harmless drugs like pot and acid is a lie, it makes them want to experiment with drugs that are actually dangerous like meth or cocaine. High school health classes call marijuana a gateway drug. It can be, but it's only because they put those gates. I think that if people had actual education about them, a lot less would migrate to the actual drugs. LSD is lumped in the same category as heroine. Once they take LSD and see that it's not actually dangerous a small few think, well, that must mean heroine isn't as dangerous as people say either. It's the boy who cried wolf idea.

Disinformation is the life we currently live in, I guess the plan is to confuse us and to have us debate each other endlessly infighting amongst each other, at the bottom of the financial pyramid while the rich scheme and benefit from our in-fighting and thats how the ruling class roll.

They keep us fighting each other and confused as to what the real truth is, so we are busy, distracted and endlessly paying bills and working day after repetitive mind numbing day, so that they can run off and do as they please while we all slave away at some shitty job robbing us of our very lives, our spirit and our humanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Take control of it isn't precisely what I said. I said "fall under the influence of." And, that I've been able to find, there is no overt mention that this was the elite's strategy but reading between the lines, it's clear that it was part C of the strategy that you mentioned. Specifically, the goal was to conflate communism with totalitarian governments. This is accomplished by putting enough stress on independent communist governments to force them to appeal to the USSR for assistance with strings attached. This makes it incredibly easy to point at them and claim that this is what communism inevitably turns into.

The most obvious case of this is Cuba. Remember that the USSR didn't even know who Castro was (they initially thought that he was a CIA agent) and was perfectly willing to let the US have the western hemisphere. It's only after the Bay of Pigs and increasing US sanctions that Castro, at the time a legitimate Marxist, was forced to associate with the Stalinist USSR which was (having much more in common with say, the US), at the far end of political thought from him.

So now the elite in the US can fallaciously point to Cuba as an example of what goes wrong with communism. They have to ignore the fact that Cuba has one of the most educated populaces in the world and a life expectancy just short of the US (keep the embargo in mind when you ponder this) to do so but that's not too hard to do with a brainwashed media and 'academic' elite. So they benefited far more from Cuba remaining a non-capitalist country and being forced into the orbit of the USSR than if they had just rolled up on it with the regular army the week after Castro kicked out our pet dictator, Batista.

Some people think that this is why Che left. He didn't want to be so deep in the pockets of the USSR and went to fight for legitimate Marxism in Africa.

Keep in mind that for the elite to explicitly mention this as a goal, on the same footing as the Truman Doctrine, would require them to at least implicitly admit that communism isn't nearly as bad for the people as it's made out to be and that a functioning communist state would cause people in democracies around the world to opt for that form of economic organisation. This was the real threat. At least with Stalinist governments, they are still dealing with a ruling elite that is just as interested in suppressing freedom as they are. This is why both sides benefited from the Cold War to such a heavy degree. A near permanent enemy is almost necessary for propaganda and fear is great for staying in control.

---

It's no wonder why Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian October Revolution, got murdered by Stalin assassins while in his exile at México, even with body guards. It's said that his Marxism approach believed that Socialism only work if the entire world sets it, and not just one country or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awakening

It's no wonder why Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian October Revolution, got murdered by Stalin assassins while in his exile at México, even with body guards. It's said that his Marxism approach believed that Socialism only work if the entire world sets it, and not just one country or two.

---

But if the entire world was Marxist, then the powers that be would run out of victims lest they devoured their own kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

But if the entire world was Marxist, then the powers that be would run out of victims lest they devoured their own kind.

---

This may be a irony, but you wrote something quite unintelligible for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awakening

This may be a irony, but you wrote something quite unintelligible for me.

---

I am saying that communism works best when there are other nations using less utilitarian systems, not worse.

Communism works best when everybody is communist, that should go without saying...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Communism works best when everybody is communist, that should go without saying...

---

Everybody in that country, maybe. But not the whole world at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Everybody in that country, maybe. But not the whole world at once.

---

Yes because trade and labour relations between communist and capitalist countries is an incredibly difficult task. A communist country would have to be as self-reliant as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

But if the entire world was Marxist, then the powers that be would run out of victims lest they devoured their own kind.

---

One of the points of Marxism is that if the entire world were Marxist, then there wouldn't be any powers that be. That implies a powerbase which is antithetical to most legitimate interpretations of Marxism. This is probably why Stalin banned a good part of Marx's work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Yes because trade and labour relations between communist and capitalist countries is an incredibly difficult task. A communist country would have to be as self-reliant as possible.

---

I just doubt the feasibility of a self-reliant communist government. @ PStoned, you're right. I suppose I should have used the word commmunist instead of Marxist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Everybody in that country, maybe. But not the whole world at once.

---

No country is an island: even if someone have steel, gold, silver, oil, abundant food; there's a thing called envy, and another wild capitalism. These two mixed are powerful as hell, to the point of a slave system surpassing a human system. You see were I'm getting to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awakening

No country is a island: even if someone have steel, gold, silver, oil, abundant food; there's a thing called envy, and another wild capitalism. These two mixed are powerful as hell, to the point of using a slave system to surpass a human system. You see were I'm getting to?

---

Except that slavery is contrary to the principles of true capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Except that slavery is contrary to the principles of true capitalism.

---

Right now you may or not be benefited from the spoils from Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awakening

Right now you may or not be benefited from the spoils from Africa.

---

Then I am benefitting from the spoils of imperialism and exploitation, not capitalism. Unless those Africans are willingly working for their worth in a system not heavily manipulated by violence, of course.

Capitalism free of exploitation sounds less feasible than communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Capitalism free of exploitation sounds less feasible than communism.

---

Either way, capitalism with slaves is no more true capitalism than communism with rich dictators is actually communism.

Except that capitalism focuses on greed and competition, it's pretty much inevitable that someone will try to make you their bitch. It's inherent to the system, not a misapplication of the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Except that capitalism focuses on greed and competition, it's pretty much inevitable that someone will try to make you their bitch. It's inherent to the system, not a misapplication of the system.

---

Capitalism is a system where an individual is free to reap the benefits of their production. Taxes, slave masters, compulsory fealty to an arbitrary government- that is all opposed to Capitalism. True Capitalism is economic freedom. The fact that something may seem inevitable doesn't make it inherent. For example, I would argue that giving power of distribution over resources to any third party makes corrupt rulers inevitable. However, I would not say that corruption is inherent in Ccommunism. Instead it would be... all but impossible to stop. It is still contrary to the philosophy behind the system, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Capitalism is a system where an individual is free to reap the benefits of their production. Taxes, slave masters, compulsory fealty to an arbitrary government- that is all opposed to Capitalism.

---

I could be misunderstanding here but it seems like Capitalism is a system where an individual is free to reap the benefits of other's production as well. At least it is my understanding that this is what the term 'capitalist' as a title applied to an individual is generally taken to connote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

True Capitalism is economic freedom. The fact that something may seem inevitable doesn't make it inherent. For example, I would argue that giving power of distribution over resources to any third party makes corrupt rulers inevitable. However, I would not say that corruption is inherent in Ccommunism. Instead it would be... all but impossible to stop. It is still contrary to the philosophy behind the system, though.

---

Likewise, true communism is economic freedom. The two are not really that different in much that same way that State Capitalism (US) and State Socialism (USSR) are not that different. The trick is in how to get from either of the latter to either of the former.

Capitalism is made to have distortions. When a individual can have vast lands (which can include water, the best resource for population) and another can be born with nothing, inequality is destined to exist. The government, in this conditions, is condemned to convey powerful individuals needs. Thus, capitalism is a disguise of slavery.

Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, argued that the law of supply and demand would rule economics (laissez-faire), while the government must not intervene on economics. The government, to him, should maintain the order and the protection of private property, the most natural right. In other words, government duty is to repress strikes (workers demands for minimum rights) and protect the bourgeoisie from workers. Therefore, spoil is in capitalism essence.

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/5683/capitalism.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I could be misunderstanding here but it seems like Capitalism is a system where an individual is free to reap the benefits of other's production as well. At least it is my understanding that this is what the term 'capitalist' as a title applied to an individual is generally taken to connote.



Likewise, true communism is economic freedom. The two are not really that different in much that same way that State Capitalism (US) and State Socialism (USSR) are not that different. The trick is in how to get from either of the latter to either of the former.

---

A capitalist only reaps the bvenefit of another's production peripherally and only in proportion to how much he/she aided, (even inadvertantly,) in the production of whomever they are reaping benefits from. Unlike a communist. A communist who produces more than he consumes has his production directly given to someone who consumes more than they produce. As far as the state argument goes, yeah, we should throw compulsory rule out the window. Government is a thing I support when it offers a trade, (citizenship for your tax dollars,) that is a 'choice' just like any other transaction. It would force the government to give us a valid return on our money, at any rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awakening

Capitalism is made to have distortions. When a individual can have vast lands (which can include water, the best resource for population) and another can be born with nothing, inequality is destined to exist. The government, in this conditions, is condemned to convey powerful individuals needs. Thus, capitalism is a disguise of slavery.

Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, argued that the law of supply and demand would rule economics (laissez-faire), while the government must not intervene on economics. The government, to him, should maintain the order and the protection of private property, the most natural right. In other words, government duty is to repress strikes (workers demands for minimum rights) and protect the bourgeoisie from workers. Therefore, spoil is in capitalism essence.

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/5683/capitalism.jpg

---

Stoppping workers strikes and maintaning the social order by keeping the rich on top and giving out money/goods/services to the rich, (money garnered from taxes payed largely by the lower class,) are ideas as anti-capitalist as you can get.

Compulsory tax is anti-capitalist and without that the government cannot afford to be oppressive or ignore the lower/middle class. Unlike state communism which can guarentee its money and so doesn't have to please the people to remain in existance. As for non-compulsory communism, that falls under the blanket of capitalism which allows people to choose how to use their own production. If a group of a thousand people, in a truly free economy, volunteer to band together under communism this is not at all anti-capitalist as long as all members are given choice. Otherwise, capitalism would not be true economic freedom.

Just to clarify something, I will answer later. Communism was never achieved, because communism is the absence of money regulating the society. Socialism is the mix of social well-being (with things such as public good health-care, education and safety) and capitalism (public and/or private enterprise, with money regulating the society). I'm aware that communism propaganda misinformation was great, but using communism instead of socialism is a large misunderstood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awakening

Just to clarify something, I will answer later. Communism was never achieved, because communism is the absence of money regulating the society. Socialism is the mix of social well-being (with things such as public good health-care, education and safety) and capitalism (public and/or private enterprise, with money regulating the society). I'm aware that communism propaganda misinformation was great, but using communism instead of socialism is a large misunderstood.

---

Which is why I conceded that an anarchistic communism is not bad. It is fine and not at all contrary to capitalism. From now on, if you wish, I will refer to state communism as socialism. On the flip side, I hope you will concede that any sort of regulation over someone else's economic life with the exception of direct crimes against property, (which does not include chocies that will end up harming that property indirectly,) is an infringement upon capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Stoppping workers strikes and maintaning the social order by keeping the rich on top and giving out money/goods/services to the rich, (money garnered from taxes payed largely by the lower class,) are ideas as anti-capitalist as you can get.

Compulsory tax is anti-capitalist and without that the government cannot afford to be oppressive or ignore the lower/middle class. Unlike state communism which can guarentee its money and so doesn't have to please the people to remain in existance. As for non-compulsory communism, that falls under the blanket of capitalism which allows people to choose how to use their own production. If a group of a thousand people, in a truly free economy, volunteer to band together under communism this is not at all anti-capitalist as long as all members are given choice. Otherwise, capitalism would not be true economic freedom.

---

(I didn't slept well but here it goes)

If you can call the Nordic countries such as Finland by capitalism then I agree you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Which is why I conceded that an anarchistic communism is not bad. It is fine and not at all contrary to capitalism. From now on, if you wish, I will refer to state communism as socialism. On the flip side, I hope you will concede that any sort of regulation over someone else's economic life with the exception of direct crimes against property, (which does not include chocies that will end up harming that property indirectly,) is an infringement upon capitalism.

---

In the capitalism the private property is shackled by the rich.

First the person have to pay for a private education so it fits some private enterprise needs (which means, generally, no focus in philosophy, history and geography).

Second is the need to get a job and work a tiring 40 hours a week (but here's the law of supply and demand, the more workers available, the less they have to pay to someone, so do not expect much money if you are luck enough to get one).

Third need is to get a home. But buying a house is like 6 years of work without eating food. And one must be a robot to do this. One's must now resort to banks.

Fourth, luck is necessary for a crisis doesn't explode when you are paying your bills to banks. And crisis is something normal, because ethics isn't something taught in capitalism...

@about socialism =/= communism: I talked about Marx definition of socialism and communism. The exchange of socialism for communism sounds like calling capitalism by feudalism, in my opinion. Communism is the ultimate evolution of socialism, it's when everyone agrees everyone and everyone knows how to exert full individuals potentials and freedoms while not disturbing others rights and disturbing equilibrium of ecosystem/industry . An utopia that I don't have much hope to see while I'm alive.

On the other hand, the socialism don't preach taking away private property, on the contrary, it means delivering everyone their own private property. Of course the super rich are abolished in this course, but so are super poor. Everyone have right to have food and furniture equally to their work (on the proportion they aid, like you said of capitalism) along with free education and health care. And here's the deal: factories and banks works for workers and not for profiters. So workers have to work less, and don't feel the need to overconsumption that is impregnated on capitalism propaganda. And all this is contemplated by democracy, a real one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awakening

Adam Smith, the father of capitalism

---

Richard Cantillon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awakening

(I didn't slept well but here it goes)

If you can call the Nordic countries such as Finland by capitalism then I agree you.





In the capitalism the private property is shackled by the rich.

First the person have to pay for a private education so it fits some private enterprise needs (which means, generally, no focus in philosophy, history and geography).

Second is the need to get a job and work a tiring 40 hours a week (but here's the law of supply and demand, the more workers available, the less they have to pay to someone, so do not expect much money if you are luck enough to get one).

Third need is to get a home. But buying a house is like 6 years of work without eating food. And one must be a robot to do this. One's must now resort to banks.

Fourth, luck is necessary for a crisis doesn't explode when you are paying your bills to banks. And crisis is something normal, because ethics isn't something taught in capitalism...

@about socialism =/= communism: I talked about Marx definition of socialism and communism. The exchange of socialism for communism sounds like calling capitalism by feudalism, in my opinion. Communism is the ultimate evolution of socialism, it's when everyone agrees everyone and everyone knows how to exert full individuals potentials and freedoms while not disturbing others rights and disturbing equilibrium of ecosystem/industry . An utopia that I don't have much hope to see while I'm alive.

On the other hand, the socialism don't preach taking away private property, on the contrary, it means delivering everyone their own private property. Of course the super rich are abolished in this course, but so are super poor. Everyone have right to have food and furniture equally to their work (on the proportion they aid, like you said of capitalism) along with free education and health care. And here's the deal: factories and banks works for workers and not for profiters. So workers have to work less, and don't feel the need to overconsumption that is impregnated on capitalism propaganda. And all this is contemplated by democracy, a real one.

---

So can I take it you don't believe in, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Richard Cantillon?

---

Could you elaborate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

So can I take it you don't believe in, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need?"

---

On the contrary, I totally believe this. Suppose that there's two men living in a isolated house. One is sick and the other is healthy. The healthy have the ability to get food for the two with ease; while the sick cannot get for himself without suffering too much. Likewise, capitalism would let the sick man all by himself; while socialism, help him with the most basic needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awakening

Could you elaborate?

---

You said Adam Smith is the "father of capitalism." But Richard Cantillon wrote his Essay on the Nature of Trade in General in, probably, the 1730's. That's roughly 40 or so years before Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations. Not only did Cantillon influence Smith and other classical economists, he wrote of entrepreneurial risk and monetary theories. So I would contend that Cantillon is the "father of capitalism."

Quote:

---

On the contrary, I totally believe this. Suppose that there's two men living in a isolated house. One is sick and the other is healthy. The healthy have the ability to get food for the two with ease; while the sick cannot get for himself without suffering too much. Likewise, capitalism would let the sick man all by himself; while socialism, help him with the most basic needs.

---

Why assume that the healthy man would not help the sick man? It is not as if, once capitalism becomes dominant, people will throw away their values and morals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awakening

Everyone have right to have food and furniture equally to their work (on the proportion they aid, like you said of capitalism) along with free education and health care.::On the contrary, I totally believe this. Suppose that there's two men living in a isolated house. One is sick and the other is healthy. The healthy have the ability to get food for the two with ease; while the sick cannot get for himself without suffering too much. Likewise, capitalism would let the sick man all by himself; while socialism, help him with the most basic needs.

---

Then don't claim that you want people to be entitled to their own production or deserve resources according to the proportion they aid- not if you believe from each according to their ability, to all according to their need. A magical happy system with unicorns may allow for people to recieve the resources they produce but then those who don't produce much automatically get lots of resources anyway, like property and health care and education. For people who produce little, the only way for them to get an adedquate amount of resources is for them to be given those resources by someone who produces more, (which the rich are very welcome to do,) OR, as in compulsory communism or in a society where there is no alternative to communism since the concept of wealth does not exist, the more productive person is stolen from to help the less productive person.

Those are your options. I do not pretend that in a system of privatized government it is very possible that private charities and government aid programs created as an incentive to raise a governments public image will not be enough. A true capitalist may prefer that a rich person helps those in need, but will defend the rich person's right to use their own money however they choose, (assuming it does not violate another's rights,) even if someone in need is totally negleted. I cannot deny that as part of my value system since value systems should be consistent. So a global communist or a state commnist should be prepared to admit that, yes, it is based on thievery but the benefits of everyone getting what they need and the moral society that comes from the new system far outweighs any immorality that comes from the taking of resorces from the productive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You said Adam Smith is the "father of capitalism." But Richard Cantillon wrote his Essay on the Nature of Trade in General in, probably, the 1730's. That's roughly 40 or so years before Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations. Not only did Cantillon influence Smith and other classical economists, he wrote of entrepreneurial risk and monetary theories. So I would contend that Cantillon is the "father of capitalism."



Why assume that the healthy man would not help the sick man? It is not as if, once capitalism becomes dominant, people will throw away their values and morals.

---

The first quite didn't even try to have morals to be called a father;

Capitalism is already dominant. People can be born without any land at all, relying on the people who have the magic paper to command their lives.

[QUOTE=spockman;1555444]Then don't claim that you want people to be entitled to their own production or deserve resources according to the proportion they aid- not if you believe from each according to their ability, to all according to their need.%2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Then don't claim that you want people to be entitled to their own production or deserve resources according to the proportion they aid- not if you believe from each according to their ability, to all according to their need.%2

---

What?

EDIT: I didn't see response to this other than a 2 percent added on to the end. I am not sure what you are getting at or if you forgot to respond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awakening

The first quite didn't even try to have morals to be called a father;

---

What does this mean?

Quote:

---

Capitalism is already dominant.

---

Depends on your definition. How do you define capitalism?

Quote:

---

People can be born without any land at all, relying on the people who have the magic paper to command their lives.

---

It's funny how most anti-capitalist criticism of capitalism always assumes that for one person to benefit, another must be exploited.

This is really weird, my post somehow bugged... but I will try to recover it. If it isn't possible, I will answer tomorrow.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Then don't claim that you want people to be entitled to their own production or deserve resources according to the proportion they aid- not if you believe from each according to their ability, to all according to their need. A magical happy system with unicorns may allow for people to recieve the resources they produce but then those who don't produce much automatically get lots of resources anyway, like property and health care and education. For people who produce little, the only way for them to get an adedquate amount of resources is for them to be given those resources by someone who produces more, (which the rich are very welcome to do,) OR, as in compulsory communism or in a society where there is no alternative to communism since the concept of wealth does not exist, the more productive person is stolen from to help the less productive person.

Those are your options. I do not pretend that in a system of privatized government it is very possible that private charities and government aid programs created as an incentive to raise a governments public image will not be enough. A true capitalist may prefer that a rich person helps those in need, but will defend the rich person's right to use their own money however they choose, (assuming it does not violate another's rights,) even if someone in need is totally negleted. I cannot deny that as part of my value system since value systems should be consistent. So a global communist or a state commnist should be prepared to admit that, yes, it is based on thievery but the benefits of everyone getting what they need and the moral society that comes from the new system far outweighs any immorality that comes from the taking of resorces from the productive.

---

I'm not talking about that fascism called URSS (after Lenin's death). I'm talking about natural socialism. People have what they deserve; a workaholic obviously will receive more than a regular worker.

It's a irony, but the thievery you are talking about is exactly what capitalism means: while the regular worker wastes much of his energy on tiring work (even if it's mental work), the CEO and shareholders can work less than 4 hours a day and the enterprise will still get going. And who have the mansions? You answer.

Meanwhile, various jobless persons are trying to get a job, so they can maybe have their own simple house, some industrial shit food and maybe an electronic device that will be surpassed by a better one the next month, by the market.

Free market is a reckless thing. See that bankruptcy, BP oil spill? It's all results from this focus at profit that is impregnated on capitalism nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

What does this mean?



Depends on your definition. How do you define capitalism?



It's funny how most anti-capitalist criticism of capitalism always assumes that for one person to benefit, another must be exploited.

---

Adam Smith made the necessary adjustments of free market for the society, even if it was that "invisible hand" thing. The other guy only focused on flaws of free market and made profit from it, it was like pure greed. Anyway, I really think that this is irrevalant to the topic.

Capitalism, to me, is a system where you can own vast lands on the other side of planet without giving a damn to the people who lives there, well, at least for their dignity.

Quote:

---

It's funny how most anti-capitalist criticism of capitalism always assumes that for one person to benefit, another must be exploited.

---

Well, the privatizated Brazilian Vale and the American Monsanto can give you a clue on why I'm so radical.

Oh good, has someone else made the Monsanto corporation their mortal enemy? They are the worst monopoly of all.
How did the argument get from government disinformation to capitalism versus communism?

Alright, I'll weigh in on the debate.

Communism will never work in real life. Sure, it works great in theory, but people are greedy. I don't say that in a bad way, it's one of the best things about humans. If people could be happy only getting what they needed and nothing else, then communism could work. But ask yourself this: would you be happy if you were eating only enough food to keep yourself alive? That would be getting what you need, not what you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awakening

Free market is a reckless thing. See that bankruptcy, BP oil spill? It's all results from this focus at profit that is impregnated on capitalism nature.

---

If by bankruptcy you mean the financial crisis in the U.S., then that does not apply to the free market. Those bankruptcies were caused by a cartelized fractional reserve banking system under the Federal Reserve. Mix in affirmative action lending policies and the Community Reinvestment act, and you have a recipe for disaster.

BP oil spill also does not apply. Corporations have to abide by a multitude of regulations and laws, yet are granted "limited liability" by the state. BP and other oil companies have many state-offered incentives to drill as deep as they do, which leads to problems which we saw when the spill occurred.

Quote:

---

Adam Smith made the necessary adjustments of free market for the society, even if it was that "invisible hand" thing. The other guy only focused on flaws of free market and made profit from it, it was like pure greed. Anyway, I really think that this is irrevalant to the topic.

---

What are you talking about? Necessary adjustments? Who is the "other guy?" Cantillon? How did he focus on the flaws? He was, more or less, the first to even codify how a modern economy works. You're being totally incoherent.

Quote:

---

Capitalism, to me, is a system where you can own vast lands on the other side of planet without giving a damn to the people who lives there, well, at least for their dignity.

---

So clearly we disagree here. Capitalism is an economic system based on private property and the private ownership of the means of production. As economics is value-free, it does not deal with not "giving a damn" or any sort of subjective value judgments.

Quote:

---

Well, the privatizated Brazilian Vale and the American Monsanto can give you a clue on why I'm so radical.

---

You'll need to elaborate. Something tells me you're placing blame on "corporations" as if any corporation is actually a free market one, and not merely one that started out as a public company by the government, given a monopoly, then "privatized."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobobo55585

Oh good, has someone else made the Monsanto corporation their mortal enemy? They are the worst monopoly of all.
How did the argument get from government disinformation to capitalism versus communism?

Alright, I'll weigh in on the debate.

Communism will never work in real life. Sure, it works great in theory, but people are greedy. I don't say that in a bad way, it's one of the best things about humans. If people could be happy only getting what they needed and nothing else, then communism could work. But ask yourself this: would you be happy if you were eating only enough food to keep yourself alive? That would be getting what you need, not what you want.

---

Are you kidding me? Monsanto persecutes small farmers, created the Agent Orange and carcinogenic pesticide. They are everyone's mortal enemy.

Hmm... maybe you are proud of things like this?

Spoiler for >>>WARNING: Shocking image/Agent Orange<<<:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...uanminh203.jpg

I actually have much greed, but I am also intelligent enough to not let it destroy me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If by bankruptcy you mean the financial crisis in the U.S., then that does not apply to the free market. Those bankruptcies were caused by a cartelized fractional reserve banking system under the Federal Reserve. Mix in affirmative action lending policies and the Community Reinvestment act, and you have a recipe for disaster.

---

From Wikipedia:

"Economists, including those from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, dispute this contention. The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis.[100] At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA, calling it a "scapegoat" and declaring it "NOT guilty."

I don't think any government would encourage subprime (risky) loans. It isn't profitable on a long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

BP oil spill also does not apply. Corporations have to abide by a multitude of regulations and laws, yet are granted "limited liability" by the state. BP and other oil companies have many state-offered incentives to drill as deep as they do, which leads to problems which we saw when the spill occurred.

---

You are being totally fallacious here. Firstly, if the state can encourage you to do something, it doesn't means that you have to do that. Second, you can drill deep and still follow secure measures – which weren't followed: BP seems "to have made multiple decisions for economic reasons that increased the danger of a catastrophic well failure".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

What are you talking about? Necessary adjustments? Who is the "other guy?" Cantillon? How did he focus on the flaws? He was, more or less, the first to even codify how a modern economy works. You're being totally incoherent.

---

What? You want me to write an essay about this?

I will try to make it clear. From Adam Smith:

"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote. * .... I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."

Such can be called capitalism, because it involves the greater good in the lust for profit. Capitalism, to me, is a mercantilism fused with fallacy.

Cantillon could not even live his life in peace, with all his codify of modern economics. His greed was so unsustainable that made his own life a hell. From Wikipedia:

"Most of his debtors had suffered financial damage in the bubble collapse and blamed Cantillon—until his death, Cantillon was involved in countless lawsuits filed by his debtors, leading to a number of murder plots and criminal accusations.[25]"

These are my last words on this issue, because it's a subjective thing. I couldn't care less if you think that Cantillon is the father of capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

So clearly we disagree here. Capitalism is an economic system based on private property and the private ownership of the means of production. As economics is value-free, it does not deal with not "giving a damn" or any sort of subjective value judgments.

---

Give me the ownership of a factory, work 8 hours a day like your life depend on it, with minimum wages for your entire life and promise to never complain about it – and we'll talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You'll need to elaborate. Something tells me you're placing blame on "corporations" as if any corporation is actually a free market one, and not merely one that started out as a public company by the government, given a monopoly, then "privatized."

---

How about the pollution of water and destruction of human rights that Vale is making? How about the creation of Agent Orange by Monsanto? You think that what they do are acceptable things?

Here's some food for your critical thought:

The legacy of Agent Orange - (warning: shocking image)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awakening

From Wikipedia:

"Economists, including those from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, dispute this contention. The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis.[100] At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA, calling it a "scapegoat" and declaring it "NOT guilty."

I don't think any government would encourage subprime (risky) loans. It isn't profitable on a long term.

---

You ignored the biggest point which is that the entire banking sector has been cartelized under the Federal Reserve. The lending practices I mentioned, along with the CRA were merely icing on the cake. But since you wanted to reply with an argument appealing to authority (Wikipedia and Fed "economists" of all choices...), I'll merely point out the logical fallacy and bite anyway.

After the government made some changes to the way the Community Reinvestment Act works, banks were allowed and pressured to start lending without using their usual standards of evaluating who could get a loan. Instead of largely choosing those who would actually give a return on their loans, they began the "risky lending" practices you and I are familiar with. I believe that various mechanisms such as looking at payment-to-income relations, income verification, and even savings histories were thrown out the window by the Fed, and replaced with the belief that participation in credit counseling programs proved that people would be able to make a return on their loans. Clearly this was not the case given the current recession. Hell, even using the term "pressured" is unsatisfying. The banks were more or less forced to behave this way. And why should they not have? They knew they would be bailed out anyway.

Finally, to your last statement: the government by its nature is not concerned with what is profitable and what is not profitable. The government does not run on a profit/loss system. It either externalizes the costs of its actions onto the taxpayers, thereby taking money away from the productive, private sector, or merely creates more money ex nihilo.

Quote:

---

You are being totally fallacious here. Firstly, if the state can encourage you to do something, it doesn't means that you have to do that.

Second, you can drill deep and still follow secure measures which weren't followed: BP seems "to have made multiple decisions for economic reasons that increased the danger of a catastrophic well failure".

---

Let's take a look at incentives, which are important to economic reasoning. Ignoring limited liability, why would any company want to put itself in a situation where 1) people will die, and 2) a situation arises where the company's very existence hangs in the balance. "Greed" is not an answer-all response, by the way. Other than a bail out (which we'll ignore as well for the time being), destroying your company is not conducive to satiating your greed.

Moving on, the government passed laws which essentially "incentivized risk." Even after such laws like the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act expired, practices remained such as allowing more royalty relief for drilling farther offshore, where the amounts of oil and natural gas rise greatly. And what of the $75mil liability cap? And isn't it funny how Federal regulators named the Deepwater Horizon rig as an industry safety model just a year before the incident?

Quote:

---

What? You want me to write an essay about this?

---

No, I wanted you to stop being incoherent and vague.

Quote:

---

I will try to make it clear. From Adam Smith:

"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote. * .... I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."

Such can be called capitalism, because it involves the greater good in the lust for profit. Capitalism, to me, is a mercantilism fused with fallacy.

---

What does this mean? Capitalism involves...the greater good in the lust for profit? You're not being clear. Not to me, at least. Maybe someone can clarify.

Quote:

---

Cantillon could not even live his life in peace, with all his codify of modern economics. His greed was so unsustainable that made his own life a hell. From Wikipedia:

"Most of his debtors had suffered financial damage in the bubble collapse and blamed Cantillon—until his death, Cantillon was involved in countless lawsuits filed by his debtors, leading to a number of murder plots and criminal accusations.[25]"

These are my last words on this issue, because it's a subjective thing. I couldn't care less if you think that Cantillon is the father of capitalism.

---

Even ignoring the fact that I know the guy who wrote the Cantillon wikipedia page, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Cantillon being the father of capitalism. You're just attacking the character of Cantillon.

Quote:

---

Give me the ownership of a factory, work 8 hours a day like your life depend on it, with minimum wages for your entire life and promise to never complain about it – and we'll talk.

---

What do minimum wages have to do with this? I don't understand where you're going.

Quote:

---

How about the pollution of water and destruction of human rights that Vale is making? How about the creation of Agent Orange by Monsanto? You think that what they do are acceptable things?

Here's some food for your critical thought:

The legacy of Agent Orange - (warning: shocking image)

---

It seems that Monsanto was contracted by the U.S. government to manufacture Agent Orange. So there's one example supporting my last statements in my previous post...

And the other example is Vale, which was a government corporation, then "privatized." Even with that, you'll need to show some examples of their abuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It seems that Monsanto was contracted by the U.S. government to manufacture Agent Orange. So there's one example supporting my last statements in my previous post...

---

And what blocks the free market from doing wars and more wars?

note: I don't support dictatorships either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awakening

And what blocks the free market from doing wars and more wars?

note: I don't support dictatorships either

---

Unlike government, businesses in a free market cannot externalize their costs to taxpayers or printing presses. So while government can merely use tax funds, credit-creation schemes, and printing presses to financially support their wars, businesses cannot. Businesses rely on revenue coming from the satisfaction of consumers to survive. Imagine some rogue business declaring war on [insert poor innocent victim here]. In all likelihood, the majority of the businesses' consumers would not support such a business and would cease to buy its goods/services. Thus, the business would lose its source of revenue and be unable to follow through with conflict. A government, on the other hand, merely steals from the productive private sector and calls it "taxation." It uses this money to bomb brown people in the name of "freedom" and "security."

Even if a business was somehow able to keep a war going without a consistent source of income, there is little reason to believe that people would not defend themselves. And this is not a concession. If a business did actually do such a thing, such as declare war and, in order to support itself, steal from people, it would cease to become a business. It'd be a government.