6 3

There's a fundamental misunderstanding. Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services and does not initiate violence.

Communism requires violence to be implemented via taxes.

Capitalism is NOT collectivist. You earn your money based on your labor or value produced to society.

Frthough 6 Sep 26
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


There is a fundamental misunderstanding and at the same time a blind eye is turned to the reality of inherent pragmatism of capitalism. The sciolism education of the masses of people is to serve the corporatocracy of capitalism. The requires violence to implement taxation is a good example of that capitalism hegemony. Don't pay your property taxes and you will be removed by force. Don't pay the taxes on your next gasoline purchase for your vehicle and see what happens.

Capitalism IS collective; the cohesion of a free society accepts that, as general rules of society. If capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services, then why is there a need for a minimum wage that is not even a living wage. It is institutionalized slavery with wage slaves. The free society ideology of capitalism espouses alleged choices of careers, jobs, choices but to an extent, that is to the privileged and prize positions are awarded on merit system that can and has been manipulated. Then there is the occasional "Cinderella" success story of some destitute useful idiot to give 'hope' and meaning on the carrot stick to those same inculcated masses.

Communism is just colossal failure because of the inherent imperialism of its structure and the avarice of power all managed by incompetence of bureaucracy of very fallible humans with no real allegiance to any but the State because of fear and indoctrination.

Capitalism is running on a exchange system of perpetual debt, of keeping the masses in collective retention of economy.

@Frthough taxation without representation existed centuries before communism

communism by its very nature and inception is based on radicalism & overthrow by force, not natural selection

you involuntarily pay taxes with every purchase at every store on everything, you pay taxes before you get your paycheck

fine line between complicity/compliance and complacency

the centralized bank currency ~ fiat ~ is faith in the system regulatory and honor; again in existence long before communism was a Bolshevik wet dream

the FDR and confiscatory of precious metals is still centralized fiat and good will faith and forced trust of government honor system of corporate reorganization during the Depression of the inevitable Tytler Cycle of events

if people valued the protection of the government then there would be no need for a Bill of Rights nor a necessity to be armed in case that protective government becomes too protective

the police are to protect and serve, protect you from yourself and serve you warrants for your arrest

then they might take more of the money that they already get when you earn it, a true double jeopardy

@Frthough the caveman called them neanderthals lol in time they became marauders and some called them vikings or pirates lol today we call them socialist democrats lol

@Frthough "Taxation is not capitalism, taxation is communism. Capitalism requires CONSENT."

You really need to brush up on your understanding of how governments, whatever name you want to use, function

Never mind that you failed to have an understanding of the terms, even by your own logic it makes no sense to claim "Capitalism requires CONSENT". lol

If there is one thing governments don't ask for consent is taxation. Its an extortion operation.

Weather its by inflation or endless methods of more direct taxation, you are getting taxed weather you like it or not. And taxes always go up because goverment spending always goes up.

The only time taxation is reduced is when it all goes to hell and we start over.


Because capitalism fundamentally functions through the creation of surplus value (a theft of labor value), it eats itself, therefore it requires constant expansion via imperialism (theft of land, sovereignty, and lives) or social control (slavery) and cartelization. You believe in a false, reductive version of capitalism. Capitalism cannot be non-violent.

@Frthough Businesses coerce workers through the power of their accumulated capital, their monopoly on the means of production, and their hegemony over the state (to withhold care and administer violence). No individual can challenge that alone. Only by organizing with (like-interested) workers across the global economy to discipline capital can they reclaim agency.

You believe in a false, reductive version of capitalism. Capitalism cannot be non-violent.

I do not know what you mean by violent.

Capitalism is never the cause of an action, individuals are. Individuals can be violent. Generally, they are non-violent. Undoubtedly, some are and some of the most violent become politicians because it's the only way to be violent without being held accountable.

A society is created so individuals don't have to be violent. If there is a threat of potential violence, government is asked to step in and be the arbiter to thwart that potential so citizens don't have to be and they can remain in peace, continuing with their mutually beneficial production of wealth.

Socialism, a big government, a central authority needs to be fed and lives off a surplus of production. It produces nothing by itself. Anything provided to the individuals in a society from government must first be extracted from society. The bigger the government, of course, the more must be extracted from the economy. It will eventually reach a size where it must extract more than the economy can provide. At this point government cannot be non-violent. The people will need to be forced to relinquish value from their production. They will resist and become impoverished and enslaved.

@FrankZeleniuk The thing about society is that it is stratified by the aforementioned classes.

@Frthough The cause of the widespread problem of unaffordable housing that you mention is the enclosure of the commons (theft of land) and refusal of the business-dominated state to create enough of the public good of housing.

@Frthough Watch what happens if you build a nest in a public (or private and unused for that matter) space. It's not a matter of ability.

@Frthough Thanks to the predatory system of capitalism.

@Frthough It was very messy, for example when the so-called "true" capitalists and "noninterventionists" in the John Birch Society wanted to carpet bomb Korea, lock up millions of "subversives" at home, and impose a white conservative culture through the tube.


The thing about society is that it is stratified by the aforementioned classes.

Nothing wrong with classes as long as there is mobility between them.

@FrankZeleniuk There ain't.

@WilyRickWiles Then that's a problem. I would tend to disagree there isn't mobility in America. It isn't a caste system.

@FrankZeleniuk There's little mobility into the upper class. And there's little mobility from the lower class into the shrinking middle. There's basically just downward mobility from middle to lower and intra-middle mobility. Upper, middle, and lower are effectively castes. People who live in the slums are viewed as inherently "criminal."

@WilyRickWiles As government has grown I agree with you that mobility is mostly downward. but upper, middle and lower classes are not castes, the upper and middle can still move downward.

High taxation, expensive restrictions and licensing costs on small businesses, high minimum wages all contribute to that. Eight-year-olds cant' even open a lemonade stand without being harassed and/or ticketed.

I think psychologists have always claimed poverty was the reason for high crime rates. Every reason for politicians to create more poverty so they can extract more taxes. If you have noticed victims are now celebrated and criminals are simply let out to be back on the streets almost immediately - you know - the "some people did something" attitude, UNLESS you have a Trump bumper sticker on your car. They'll find a crime to pin on them and incarcerate them.

Did you watch Obama's interview on Sunday? Now there is a racist.


The US government, among other national governments, is busy creating a victim class. In other words, individuals without value, a class that feels entitled. One that the communist globalists will destroy once power is centralized in their hands. As a class, as a group, you have some value to the globalists. As soon as your usefulness ends you face extinction.

The lesson for victims is, you are being granted privilege to create mayhem. That is your value. Can you feel it? It is what individuals feel when they make a contribution to the society they live in. If you continue to support the communist globalist cause and if they gain world dominance your value to them, as a group, will quickly end. At that point you become a liability to them and your time is limited. Victimhood is just a manufactured government job today and without a job many will perish. Can you think of a way to save yourself while society still has a conscience and some compassion, instead of tarnishing those qualities with pretentious moral superiority and constant virtue signalling.


The dupes of Marxists and their sympathizers often cite the Marxist re-definition of Capitalism - including claiming that Marx invented the term, which he did not. Marx redefines Capitalism as a "collective," which actually applies to ungoverned individuals who all miraculously sacrifice any ambition for the sake of the State. And Marx claims that Capitalism is parasitic, as opposed to the reality, which is an agreement between free people for value exchanged.

It amazes me that even though history has proved the illegitimacy of socialism, some are so ignorant as to prefer to risk that and abandon the pinnacle of social achievement in the US Constitution - the only document in history written to protect the rights of citizens by limiting government.

Going any direction from the top of a pinnacle is down. Any other place than the top of that pinnacle is tyranny, suffering and death.


Just curious. Have you actually even went to investigate the origins of the word Capitalism? Its meaning and its usage?

"Capital is derived from the Latin word ‘kaput’ meaning a head. ‘Capitale’ came to mean a head of livestock in later Latin, By the 12th to 13th centuries it had expanded its meaning to include sums of money, stock bonds etc. The term capitalist devolved from that in the 17th century. It’s found in French and soon afterwards in English in the later 18th century. It meant the owner of a stock of capital.

Capitalists are frequently mentioned in economic discourse in David Ricardo’s writings. Capitalism however seems to have been invented rather later as a word in French by the socialist Louis Blanc (1811-1882) in 1850 and was further used by the French socialist philosopher Proudhon a decade later. Karl Marx (1818-1883) only uses the word twice in the first volume of his Das Kapital also known as Capital: A Critique of Political Economy or sometimes simply Capital." (probably he didn't used it in original GermAn, but English translation after his death contains it)

Answer from Quora by Dominique Dallemagne, I'm a university-trained historian who studied this period of European history

I had a look at the etymology of capitalism and, according to Wikipedia:

The initial usage of the term capitalism in its modern sense has been attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels referred to the capitalistic system (kapitalistisches System) and to the capitalist mode of production (kapitalistische Produktionsform) in Das Kapital (1867). The use of the word "capitalism" in reference to an economic system appears twice in Volume I of Das Kapital, p. 124 (German edition), and in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx did not extensively use the form capitalism, but instead those of capitalist and "capitalist mode of production", which appear more than 2600 times in the trilogy Das Kapital.
As said in the question, the first German edition of Das Kapital (1867) and particularly page 124 does not have the word kapitalismus (check it here).

However, the second text mentioned above, in its original edition, does have the word. It can be checked here.

This single proof, plus the letters in the other answer, confirm that he did use the word somewhere. In effect, in most of his work he doesn't use kapitalismus but refer to the capitalist mode of production, a significantly more precise concept. Still, the claim by Braudel has so been proven false.

answered Jun 15, 2020 at 0:18

"capital", "capitalist", and "capitalism".Capital - accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods. In the financial world it can mean accumulated possessions, real or virtual (digital) calculated to bring in income.

"Capital is a broad term that can describe anything that confers value or benefit to its owners, such as a factory and its machinery, intellectual property like patents, or the financial assets of a business or an individual." -

Capitalist - A person who owns capital.

Capitalism - A term often used to describe systems opposite to socialism or communism, said to be free market economics. This is how the term is used colloquially (informaly).

Definition of ism1 : a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory.

Logically, the term capital-ism would mean a whole system in a society that operates exclusively by economic rules of owning capital.

But what about those people who don't own capital or who's primary motivation is not accumulation of capital, or those who work for government (public sector)? How do they function in such a society?

"Despite popular misconception, the use of “capitalism” to refer to an economic system was originally coined by Louis Blanc, not Marx and Engels. The word “capitalism” was derived from “capital,” referring to productive property, and was used to refer to the emerging arrangement in which workers sell their labor to a capitalist (ie: one who owns capital) in exchange for wages. It does not refer to “free exchange” or “the free market,” and it never has. That is a recent politically-motivated redefinition by market fundamentalists."

Answer from Quora by Tyler Johns, BS in Software Development (college major), Western Governors University (Graduated 2021)

(often promoting Laissez-faire - abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market. Laissez-faire (/ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər/ LESS-ay-FAIR; from French: laissez faire [lɛse fɛʁ] , lit. 'let do'😉 is an economic system in which transactions between private groups of people are free from any form of economic interventionism (such as subsidies) deriving from special interest groups. But it also does not really interfere with religion and criminal and other laws, otherwise you would not have a civil society.

As a system of thought, laissez-faire rests on the following axioms: "the individual is the basic unit in society, i.e. the standard of measurement in social calculus; the individual has a natural right to freedom; and the physical order of nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system."

Another basic principle of laissez-faire holds that markets should naturally be competitive, a rule that the early advocates of laissez-faire always emphasized. With the aims of maximizing freedom by allowing markets to self-regulate, proponents of laissez-faire argue for a near complete separation of government regulation from the economic sector. The phrase laissez-faire is part of a larger French phrase and literally translates to "let [it/them] do", but in this context the phrase usually means to "let it be" and in expression "laid back." Although never practiced with full consistency, laissez-faire capitalism emerged in the mid-18th century and was further popularized by Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations.

While it sounds good on paper, the inherent problem of laissez-faire is thinking that market forces can solve all social problems, is as misguided as thinking that all social policies can solve market problems.

There has not been laissez-faire system of something close to it in America for centuries, so often those that argue about capitalism have no real understanding where the term comes from, what it means, or how it works in practice.)

Etymology of the term capitalism according to wiki.

The term "capitalist", meaning an owner of capital, appears earlier than the term "capitalism" and dates to the mid-17th century. "Capitalism" is derived from capital, which evolved from capitale, a late Latin word based on caput, meaning "head"—which is also the origin of "chattel" and "cattle" in the sense of movable property (only much later to refer only to livestock). Capitale emerged in the 12th to 13th centuries to refer to funds, stock of merchandise, sum of money or money carrying interest. By 1283, it was used in the sense of the capital assets of a trading firm and was often interchanged with other words—wealth, money, funds, goods, assets, property and so on.

The Hollantse (German: holländische) Mercurius uses "capitalists" in 1633 and 1654 to refer to owners of capital.  In French, Étienne Clavier referred to capitalistes in 1788, six years before its first recorded English usage by Arthur Young in his work Travels in France (1792). In his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), David Ricardo referred to "the capitalist" many times. English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge used "capitalist" in his work Table Talk (1823). Pierre-Joseph Proudhon used the term in his first work, What is Property? (1840), to refer to the owners of capital. Benjamin Disraeli used the term in his 1845 work Sybil.

The initial use of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense is attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 ("What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others" ) and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 ("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labor" ). Karl Marx frequently referred to the "capital" and to the "capitalist mode of production" in Das kapital (1867). Marx did however not use the form capitalism, but instead used capital, capitalist and capitalist mode of production, much more precise term which appear frequently.

In the English language, the term "capitalism" first appears, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), in 1854, in the novel The Newcomes by novelist William Makepeace Thackeray, where the word meant "having ownership of capital". Also according to the OED, Carl Adolph Douai, a German American socialist and abolitionist, used the term "private capitalism" in 1863.


It would seem you have very limited and misguided understanding of both the terms "capitalism" and "communism" and probably have even less of an understanding how any of the two Utopian systems work in practice when implemented. The Truth is that they are not all that much different when left to be explored in practice.

“Interestingly, Marxism, Communism and its derivative, Socialism, when seen years later in practice, are nothing but state-capitalism and rule by a privileged minority, exercising despotic and total control over a majority which is left with virtually no property or legal rights.” ― Andrew Carrington Hitchcock, The Synagogue Of Satan - Updated, Expanded, And Uncensored

“No society has succeeded in abolishing the distinction between ruler and ruled... to be a ruler gives one special status and, usually, special privileges. During the Communist era, important officials in the Soviet Union had access to special shops selling delicacies unavailable to ordinary citizens; before China allowed capitalist enterprises in its economy, travelling by car was a luxury limited to tourists and those high in the party hierarchy Throughout the 'communist' nations, the abolition of the old ruling class was followed by the rise of a new class of party bosses and well-placed bureaucrats, whose behaviour and life-style came more and more to resemble that of their much-denounced predecessors. In the end, nobody believed in the system any more. That, couple with its inability to match the productivity of the less bureaucratically controlled, more egoistically driven capitalist economies, led to its downfall.” ― Peter Singer, Marx: A Very Short Introduction

You said: "You earn your money based on your labor or value produced to society."

It is an Utopian and unrealistic argument that has never been fully achieved. Noble and simple gesture, but the society you mentioned is never that simply or noble, I'm sorry to say.

@Frthough We must be talking about different things. And for the record, yes it is that complicated. If it was that simple, we would have found a way for utopia by now, wouldn't we? Utopia means no place by the way. In the end the human nature always has the final word, and that is about the simple as you can put it. All else is complicated.

But, like I said, we must be talking about different things.

Capitalism - A term often used to describe systems opposite to socialism or communism, said to be free market economics. This is how the term is used colloquially (informaly).

Roots and origins of words are always interesting and often help to broaden the understanding of a word. I think this definition suffices as regards the general public today.

You (original poster) said: "You earn your money based on your labor or value produced to society."

It is an Utopian and unrealistic argument that has never been fully achieved. Noble and simple gesture, but the society you mentioned is never that simply or noble, I'm sorry to say.

Earth is not Utopia and capitalism never claims it is an objective, just that the perception of an exchange of one thing for another is agreed to be mutually beneficial, not "equally beneficial" because no trade would occur unless both parties felt the thing they were trading was less valuable than the thing they acquired.

@FrankZeleniuk "Earth is not Utopia and capitalism never claims it is an objective, just that the perception of an exchange of one thing for another is agreed to be mutually beneficial, not "equally beneficial" because no trade would occur unless both parties felt the thing they were trading was less valuable than the thing they acquired."

That is certainly the theory as understood by most people who use the word today. But much like the word democracy or word equality it is used incorrectly. Hence the disappointments of many. The expectation does not match the reality, resulting in disappointments.

That is why I try to make an argument that what most people think capitalism is, it is not.

"Earth is not Utopia and capitalism never claims it is an objective,"

No it is not. And I don't think capitalism ever claimed anything, because it is not a valid system that exists outside of its lose and misguided colloquial use of the term. It never really existed as an economic system, much less a system that can be used to govern a civil nation.

More often than not, it was used as colloquial derogatory term by those who were asserting the superiority of theirs, as I've tried to point out.

The terms capital, capitalist and capitalist means of production are far more precise terms that were used to describe actual process by people who understood the piratical application of the terms,

Capitalism on the other hand, begun as informal term used as insult, and later adopted by people who had no idea of the meaning of the term to describe utopian free market system that more and more was being used, primerally as opposite to communism or socialism. But if you try to actually argue that point and not just assume everyone knows what you mean, you will quickly discover that term capitalism is pretty meaningless in any practical real way that matters.

To argue for capitalism is to show one does not understand much about economics or politics or human society. Its similar to arguing for communism. Like second hand smoking it can kill you without even enjoying the cigar.

If Karl Marx was careful enough to not use the term capitalism, one should ask, why do people are so quick to use the term today, even if it does not mean what they think it means?

No wonder there are so many "useful idiots" of Marxism out there. They don't know what capitalism is and when they become disappointed by wrong expectation, they are the first ones to embrace another term they don't understand. Communism.

As the postmodernist left has shown us, language matters.

The Great Depression (1930's)

"I learned more about economics from one South Dakota dust storm than I did in all my years in college." ~ Hubert Humphrey, Speech, 1960.

Marx's critical theories about society, economics and politics – collectively understood as Marxism – hold that human societies develop through class struggle. In capitalism, this manifests itself in the conflict between the ruling classes (known as the bourgeoisie) that control the means of production and the working classes (known as the proletariat) that enable these means by selling their labour power in return for wages. Employing a critical approach known as historical materialism, Marx predicted that, like previous socio-economic systems, capitalism produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism. Socialism would be not yet perfect utopia, so after enough time has passed and people have perfected this system, there would be no need for state anymore and it would be fully stateless, classless, perfect utopia. He called this communism.

For Marx, class antagonisms under capitalism, owing in part to its instability and crisis-prone nature, would eventuate the working class' development of class consciousness, leading to their conquest of political power and eventually the establishment of a classless, communist society constituted by a free association of producers. Marx actively pressed for its implementation, arguing that the working class should carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic emancipation.

By 1930's in USA the capitalist society has already been experiencing the class struggle. And so something had to be done. But not in United States. Great Depression helped create the conditions for the rise of Adolf Hitler and bring world nations into conflict. Resulting in World War II.

Another factor that influenced the rise of the totalitarian state is the Great Depression.

This economic crisis left millions unemployed and millions more staving and homeless. The downtrodden turned to forms of government that promised change and simple solutions in return for dictatorial power…for the benefit of the people of course. Communist leaders and followers of the Marxist ideals of socialism predicted this capitalist collapse and many people knew they had suspected this was going to happen for many years…it appeared that their predictions were coming true. In many countries democracy seemed to be on the defensive as it appears that the capitalist system was what led to this economic crisis. People turned to Marxism, Nazism or fascism for answers to economic problems. As well as the totality of the social problems. hence they are totalitarian systems. Capitalism to the extent the word is used, is not portrayed as totalitarian. That is a clue.

The Other Side of Debate - Critique of Capitalism.

“Capitalists can buy themselves out of any crisis, so long as they make the workers pay. Exchange, fair or unfair,always presupposes and includes the rule of the bourgeoisie. Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners. All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake "public opinion" for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are today evading taxation by bribery and through their connections; we must close all loopholes. Thus, the twentieth century marks the turning-point from the old capitalism to the new, from the domination of capital in general to the domination of finance capital. Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of “advanced” countries. Competition becomes transformed into monopoly. The result is immense progress in the socialisation of production. In particular, the process of technical invention and improvement becomes socialised” ― Vladimir Lenin, Revolution!: Sayings of Vladimir Lenin

“Deep pockets and empty hearts rule the world. We unleash them at our peril.”
― Stefan Molyneux

“The paradise of the rich is made out of the hell of the poor.”
― Victor Hugo, The Man Who Laughs

“Free trade is meaningless unless there is also fair trade.”
― Michael Crichton

"Politicians and corporations have always placed economic interests above moral interests. This is now hurting the entire planet."
― Marianne Thieme

“... Capitalism will behave antisocially if it is profitable for it to do so, and that can now mean human devastation on an unimaginable scale.
― Terry Eagleton

“We have to grasp, as Karl Marx and Adam Smith did, that corporations are not concerned with the common good. They exploit, pollute, impoverish, repress, kill, and lie to make money. They throw poor people out of homes, let the uninsured die, wage useless wars for profit, poison and pollute the ecosystem, slash social assistance programs, gut public education, trash the global economy, plunder the U.S. Treasury and crush all popular movements that seek justice for working men and women. They worship money and power.” ― Chris Hedges, The Death of the Liberal Class

"The essence of capitalism is to turn nature into commodities and commodities into capital. The live green earth is transformed into dead gold bricks, with luxury items for the few and toxic slag heaps for the many. The glittering mansion overlooks a vast sprawl of shanty towns, wherein a desperate, demoralized humanity is kept in line with drugs, television, and armed force." — Michael Parenti (Against Empire)

"Nature shrinks as capital grows. The growth of the market cannot solve the very crisis it creates."
— Vandana Shiva (Soil Not Oil: Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis)

By those arguments. the so called "capitalism" sells itself to the Marxism, does it not?

Profit motive

The majority of criticisms against the profit motive centre on the idea that the profit motive encourages selfishness and greed, rather than serve the public good or necessarily creating an increase in net wealth. Critics of the profit motive contend that companies disregard morals or public safety in the pursuit of profits.

“Instead of man being the aim of production, production is the aim of man and wealth the aim of production, instead of tools and the productive mechanism in general liberating man from the slavery of toil, man has become the slave of tools and the industry has become synonymous with business and people have been duped into asking, “what’s good for business?” instead of, “what is business good for?” ― Michael Taussig, The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America

“Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations was in large part a critique of imperialism. We often associate opposition to imperialism with Marxism and the Left, but Smith was an outspoken critic of imperialism long before Marx.” ― Jason Brennan, Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know

“Society must increasingly become polarized between a shrinking capitalist class and a massive proletariat that suffers worsening misery. A crisis point will arrive when this cannot continue and revolution must occur.”― Rupert Woodfin, Introducing Marxism: A Graphic Guide

“The secret of wealth is that workers are systematically underpaid.”
― Julie Rivkin, Literary Theory: An Anthology

"How people themselves perceive what they are doing is not a question that interests me. I mean, there are very few people who are going to look into the mirror and say, 'That person I see is a savage monster'; instead, they make up some construction that justifies what they do. If you ask the CEO of some major corporation what he does he will say, in all honesty, that he is slaving 20 hours a day to provide his customers with the best goods or services he can and creating the best possible working conditions for his employees. But then you take a look at what the corporation does, the effect of its legal structure, the vast inequalities in pay and conditions, and you see the reality is something far different." — Noam Chomsky

"Our economy is based on spending billions to persuade people that happiness is buying things, and then insisting that the only way to have a viable economy is to make things for people to buy so they’ll have jobs and get enough money to buy things." — Philip Slater

“If capitalism was under another system which regulated it, so that supplies would fit the demand, rather than the suppliers trying to manipulate demands with deception to sell, then capitalism would be a great system.” — Oscar Auliq-Ice

...indeed, that is why capitalism even as a term is dangerous. Because it does not represents what people mean it does, anymore than democracy, equality and other terms people throw around without thinking about them or understanding of them.

...anyway its getting late, but I just wanted to point out that language matters and imprecise terms can lead to precisely the results people who used them, did not expect.


By those arguments. the so called "capitalism" sells itself to the Marxism, does it not?


How a word is how concepts are expressed indicate how deeply the subject is understood. Recently, a poster said I had little understanding of what communism was. While I am no scholar, he would never even see it coming.

@FrankZeleniuk Probably true. Yeah.


Well said. I would add that socialism requires the same violence as communism does. Hence the statement “socialism is theft.”

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 13

Photos 8,665 More

Posted by JeffHoneyagerDo you agree?

Posted by JeffHoneyagerCould this be true?

Posted by JohnHouk(Puppet) Biden Regime Wants to Wreck S.

Posted by EdgeworkBiden voters, pay attention!

Posted by JohnHoukReclaim Liberty – Resist Tyranny SUMMARY: I have two Rumble videos today demonstrating the TYRANNY is upon you.

Posted by ObiwannosiWhat a genius

Posted by timon_phocasFederalist: The Most Passionate Science Deniers Are Pro-Trans ‘Experts’ Who Profit From Carving Up Kids. []

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

  • Top tags#video #youtube #world #government #media #biden #democrats #Police #truth #USA #children #reason #Canada #money #society #god #rights #freedom #culture #China #hope #racist #vote #death #politics #evil #TheTruth #justice #kids #socialist #communist #conservative #evidence #hell #democrat #Socialism #nation #laws #liberal #crime #racism #federal #climate #community #fear #military #politicians #book #violence #joebiden ...

    Members 9,315Top