[tomder55]

do you believe these statements to be true ?

In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties. The difference between these parties is as small

man does not exist on theories and phrases, on declarations or on systems of political philosophy

Everything points to the fact that capitalism is fighting against peoples, and against the progress of humanity

We see that the primary cause for the existing tensions lies in the unfair distribution of the riches of the earth.

One might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the masses is greater than anywhere else.

the people as such are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the factories and their stock and, through them, control the people

The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.

I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us ....' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the ideas which are accepted facts to us today.

[talaniman]

Now you know I googled all those quotes so what's the point of the exercise?

[tomder55]

seems to me I hear these sentiments on this board all the time .

[talaniman]

Aw well you know humans, especially with self serving agendas like conquering the world. You're not accusing liberals of something nefarious are you? I don't think you are, but do we both agree that shepherding the sheeple is lucrative for whatever agenda left or right, or should we focus on the top down capitalists ways that are as old as man and a religion unto itself?

[tomder55]

capitalism is not that old . As an economics system where there is private ownership of the means of production for profit , is about 3-400 years old .So no it is not as old as man and a religion unto itself .

No I was not accusing you or anyone else of something nefarious . All I'm says is that the rhetoric of socialism ,be it national socialism or international socialism has not changed since the days of Henry de Saint-Simon or Robert Owen. Later when Marxism and Fascism became part of 2th century socialism ,the same rhetoric used today was still employed .

Yeah without factoring in your google search . I bet you agree with most of the sentiments in the statements ;if not all. You've written variations of them here many times .

[talaniman]

1. Empires were built on capitalism, but were monopolies with armies, but making money and protecting merchant trade routes goes back to well before Christianity. I define capitalism as any endeavor for profit. Has it been refined, and somewhat complicated absolutely, but at least we have moved to marketing strategies from conquest strategies to gain wealth. Even slavery was about capitalism using subjugation as a tool to get enriched and that has evolved to keeping labor cheap and paying unlivable wages despite the spin justifying the devaluations of humans to exploit them for personal gains. Yeah, all that is and always has been part of capitalism.

2. All these labels doesn't hide the fact that it's the capitalist bad mouthing the socialists as opposites instead of acknowledging most societies on earth have both a combination of capitalism and socialism at the core of there economic structures in varying degrees of balance.

3. Yes but I'm not greedy or corrupt and trying to use propaganda to take over the world by wrangling the sheeple for my own private gain. That's why I looked them up to get better context of who said what and why. Anything no matter how good it sounds on paper can be corrupted...that includes capitalism, patriotism, and all the other isms, liberalism included.

[tomder55]

Empires were built on capitalism

now you are making up history .

Throughout history there have been many economic models .I won't bother discussing ancient models except none of the democracies became empires until representative government was lost and dictatorships developed .

Europe went through various forms of economics systems post Rome . Feudalism being the dominant one in the Middle Ages . Post feudalism ,European nations that became empires used mercantilism which emphasizes nations accumulating wealth by means of extraction. Typically mercantile nations collect wealth by exporting products (think today's China ) . Empires would steal the wealth of territories they colonized and then manufacture and export the goods ;often to the territories they colonized .

Capitalism is an economic philosophy built around competition and productivity.In capitalism, most property and tools of production are held in private hands. While the government can, and typically does, produce a range of goods and services for general consumption, this role is typically limited. The default position for a capitalist economy is that, unless otherwise specified, a given product or service will be produced and marketed by private individuals using privately-held wealth.

The logic of capitalism is built around productivity and the idea that wealth can increase over time. Mercantilism is a zero sum game .

[talaniman]

They all enrich the guy(S) at the top and the posse they surround themselves with. Its always been a top down class system with layers to the bottom. Think pyramid schemes.

[jlisenbe]

I define capitalism as any endeavor for profit.

1. You don't understand what capitalism is.

2. Wouldn't that describe your entire life? Didn't you work in order to make a living, a "profit"? So if endeavors for profit are wicked, then wouldn't that make you wicked as well?

3. If you really think capitalism has been a negative for the guys "at the bottom", then you don't know your history.

[talaniman]

1. I fully understand what capitalism is as well as all the other isms and except for subtle nuances of implementation and applications they all are eerily similar despite the labels applied.

2, Striving to thrive and survive as I follow my path in lifes journey.

3. I should give you a chance to explain your position on that but fair warning, don't compare our poor to any 2nd, or 3rd world developing nation. Life is better here for the poor, as well it should be for a dynamic country, when things are working smoothly.

[jlisenbe]

1. I fully understand what capitalism is as well as all the other isms and except for subtle nuances of implementation and applications they all are eerily similar despite the labels applied.

You said capitalism is "any endeavor for profit". That's what I was questioning.

2, Striving to thrive and survive as I follow my path in lifes journey.

Exactly, and true of most of us. So you have engaged in your description of capitalism all of your adult life.

3. I should give you a chance to explain your position on that but fair warning, don't compare our poor to any 2nd, or 3rd world developing nation. Life is better here for the poor, as well it should be for a dynamic country, when things are working smoothly.

Go back three or four centuries ago prior to the widespread development of capitalism. The vast, vast majority of people were poor. Practically all wealth was concentrated at the VERY top. Capitalism changed that.

[paraclete]

Go back three or four centuries ago prior to the widespread development of capitalism. The vast, vast majority of people were poor. Practically all wealth was concentrated at the VERY top.

What makes you think that this isn't true today, population is greater, so there are more wealthy people, but as a proportion of the population not much has changed

[jlisenbe]

The financial condition of poor people in capitalist countries is so much better than what existed centuries ago that it's hard to make that comparison. The development, for instance, of a large, vibrant middle class has been almost miraculous.

[talaniman]

You said capitalism is "any endeavor for profit". That's what I was questioning.

Should have clarified that as PERSONAL profit. My bad.

Exactly, and true of most of us. So you have engaged in your description of capitalism all of your adult life.

Doesn't that make every working person everywhere a practicing capitalist then even in communist countries?

Go back three or four centuries ago prior to the widespread development of capitalism. The vast, vast majority of people were poor. Practically all wealth was concentrated at the VERY top. Capitalism changed that.

Go back further than that and it was the same dynamic even after they changed the name on the label.

[jlisenbe]

Doesn't that make every working person everywhere a practicing capitalist then even in communist countries?

It does if your definition is right. That's what I'm questioning. What kind of work gets done that is not an "endeavor for personal profit"? There is some charity work, but most work done anywhere is an endeavor for personal profit.

[Wondergirl]

It does if your definition is right. That's what I'm questioning. What kind of work gets done that is not an "endeavor for personal profit"? There is some charity work, but most work done anywhere is an endeavor for personal profit.

For "personal profit"? -- or to pay the bills?

[jlisenbe]

How can you pay the bills unless you have made a personal profit?

[Wondergirl]

How can you pay the bills unless you have made a personal profit?

After I've paid the bills (money I owe), if there's any money left, that's personal profit, my financial gain.

[jlisenbe]

So you made a personal profit. Congratulations. According to Tal's definition, you are a committed capitalist.

[Wondergirl]

So you made a personal profit. Congratulations. According to Tal's definition, you are a committed capitalist.

And it went into the offering plate on Sunday.