[Yonnipun]

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2018/03/02/are-there-any-americans-who-dont-engage-in-pure-black-and-white-thinking/

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')iterally almost everyone I meet in this country is exactly like this. Most people I have known in my life are like this. I know several people with 140+ IQ’s, and they are complete black and white thinkers, so it’s not down to intelligence.

[Yonnipun]

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/mao-zedong-greatest-humanitarian-that-ever-lived/

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ohn UK asks:

It is said more people died in India than in China during Mao’s rule is this true?

Yes, between 1949-1979, there were 100 million excess deaths in India over and above the deaths in China. That is, 100 million deaths occurred in India due to not following the Chinese model. The excess deaths are continuing at a rate of 4 million/year and by now they should be about 170 million. So capitalism in India has killed 170 million over and above the deaths in China, by not following the Chinese model. We know this because China and India were at the same level in 1949 and now China has vastly surpassed India.

All this Mao was the biggest murderer of all time crap are nothing but lies. Indian capitalism killed many times more than Mao did. Instead of being the greatest murderer ever, Mao was the greatest humanitarian that ever lived. He doubled life expectancy from 32 in 1949 to 65 in 1980, setting a world record. Mao saved more lives than any human being that’s ever lived.

In only one year did the death rate exceed that of prerevolutionary China, in 1959 in the middle of Great Leap famine. Even most of the years of the Great Leap and during all of the Cultural Revolution, the death rate was below, typically far below, the rate of 1949.

Since China has headed to capitalism, schools and medical clinics have closed all over the land. Lack of health care is killing millions of Chinese people. Health care is now only available for pay, and most people can’t afford health care or medications, so when they get sick, they hope they get better, and if not, they just die.

The entire US media and both political parties have never stopped cheering for this miserable state of affairs.

[Yonnipun]

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2017/07/19/lies-of-the-capitalists-capitalism-is-great-because-of-competition-and-we-love-competition

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he first part of the title is actually not a lie. Capitalism with vigorous or even extreme competition is quite a nice mode of development. It’s definitely great for consumers, offers great customer service, low prices and ferocious innovation and improvement of products. The attitude of a system with vigorous competition is not only the customer is always right but also adds to that I need to treat my customers better than my competitors.

So where’s the problem then? The problem is because the competition usually doesn’t last. As Marx noted and has been proven immaculately correct, capitalism tends towards monopoly over time as surely as day follows night. Vigorous competition is soon replaced by monopoly capitalism and Monopoly Capitalism is probably one of the worst modes of development known to mankind.

Every anti-monopoly business being harmed by a monopoly will turn pro-monopoly as soon as they get their own monopoly. And all businesses wish to be a monopoly. They all hate competition. There’s nothing a capitalist hates more than competition, which is part of the joke of capitalism, which sings the (granted, considerable) praises of robust competition, while all of the capitalists despise this very robust competition being crowed about.

Politicians and media outlets all claim to be pro-competition but they are all also pro-monopoly. The politicians are pro-monopoly because they are all whores for big business and are frankly taking open bribes from them. The media is pro-monopoly because the media only prints what its corporate advertisers want to hear (a pro-monopoly message) and also because most media outlets, as capitalists, of course long to be monopolies themselves. The fact that capitalists and their supporters rant and rave about how great capitalism is due to competition despite the fact that business and its paid propagandists all hate such competition is one of the worst lies of all of the capitalists.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mmasters', 'I') love it when people complain about capitalism yet they have an iPhone. That was created with capitalism.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yonnipun', '[')url]https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2017/07/19/lies-of-the-capitalists-capitalism-is-great-because-of-competition-and-we-love-competition[/url]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he first part of the title is actually not a lie. Capitalism with vigorous or even extreme competition is quite a nice mode of development. It’s definitely great for consumers, ...........
So where’s the problem then? The problem is because the competition usually doesn’t last. As Marx noted and has been proven immaculately correct, capitalism tends towards monopoly over time as surely as day follows night.

[Cog]

I see the defenders of communism never actually want to live under it. Communism is about control, not making anyone's life better.

[Yonnipun]

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2018/07/24/china-is-a-communist-country-not-a-capitalist-country/

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')S rightwingers keep saying that China is a capitalist country or it is the most capitalist country on Earth.

China is one of the most Communist or socialist states on Earth today. Fully 45% of the Chinese economy is publicly owned, and it does extremely well. Much of the very high economic growth has come from the public sector. How on Earth can China be capitalist when 45% of the economy is state-owned?

But realize that all public firms in China operate on the profit model. They all compete with each other, so you have a steel mill run by one city competing with a steel mill run by another city. Many of the fastest growing industries are run at the municipality level. Also, China’s fully state-owned firms do very well. In fact, Republicans say that China’s public firms are “not fair” because American capitalist corporations can’t compete against them. The reason is that China’s firms get subsidies from the state. Poor capitalist corporations! They’re too inefficient to compete against Communist state owned firms. Poor babies.

You realize that the state owns every single inch of land in China? How is that possible in a capitalist country? Capitalism is primarily based on the private ownership of land. No private ownership of land, no capitalism. Real simple.

I would also point out that the Chinese state spends a tremendous amount of money on its people. Since 45% of the whole economy goes directly to the state, they have a lot of money to spend. And they spend it very wisely too. They mostly spend it on their own people in one way or another.

As I understand it, US capitalists believe in a minimal state, and there is nothing they hate more than state spending. Huge state spending is seen as wasteful tax and spend policies by all capitalists everywhere. Wherever you have massive state spending, you do not have a capitalist system.

But I would like to thank US rightwingers for praising China, the finest example of modern Communism.

[KaiserJeep]

Yet here you are, still defending China. When I pointed out that the Chinese Communists had committed the largest genocide of the last century, you didn't even deny it. You invented a claim that "Indian Capitalists" had caused 100 million excess deaths during the same period. I highly doubt it, I've made a hobby of History and even published in the field, and I know of no evidence to support your claim. But Mao's actions are well known, and in any case - pointing to another instance of wrong doing does nothing whatsoever to excuse mass murder. Mao is the greatest mass murderer in history, the Chinese are destroying the environment in their country faster than anyone anywhere, and there is nothing to admire about their society, either.

Nor do I have a problem with cognitive dissonance. I find some Chinese art from past centuries quite admirable, and love many Chinese dishes, especially in the Mandarin Cuisine. But Chinese morals and politics and values are quite repugnant to my admittedly Western sensibilities.

[vtsnowedin]

Well if 45% of the economy is controlled by the government the the majority 55% is in private hands So you have a majority capitalist economy, perhaps more when you tally up which sector produces the most goods and services. I'm betting on the private sector without even looking it up.
As to the land ownership thing it is a bit dated. When agriculture was the majority industry in the world (before 1920 say) you might have had a valid point but today agriculture is a small fraction of the economy and who owns the farmland the tractors are working on matters little. Even in the west the land is subject to property taxes so is not owned free and clear except in very few cases.
Now you say that because the government owns 45% of the economy they have lots of money to spend on the people? You don't seem to realize that only the profits from the 45%'s production can be spent on the people after deducting all the industries operating costs. With a government run industry there is often no profit at all after the bureaucrats and union leaders have sucked out their (fair) share.
It has taken the Chinese government thirty nine years to move from Mao's 100% communist system to today's 55% Capitalist system and it has worked out so well compared to the Moa years I expect the last 45% to fade away much more aggressively in coming years.

[onlooker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') I expect the last 45% to fade away much more aggressively in coming years.

[GHung]

I'm still curious about what form of capitalist system people prefer. "Capitalism" is a broad term, sort of like "Christianity".
Do people prefer Laiseez-faire capitalism, anarcho capitalism, some hybrid of capitalism infused with tax-supported social programs? It's obvious that most systems are hybrid/mixed systems, including China and the US. Are those who espouse pure capitalism, free from any government intrusions, willing to divest from anything that benefits from social programs such as SNAP ($70+ billion subsidy for Big Food), Medicaid (billions for Big Health and Big Pharma), agricultural programs and subsidies, tax credits for renewables, all that?
Are so-called social democracies, with high taxes supporting social programs, while allowing successful free enterprise, valid "capitalist" systems or socialism?
Do those who prefer pure capitalism think it's OK for tax dollars to bail out corporations during an economic downturn? If so, can we call that "situational socialism" or somesuch? Or should TBTF corporations be allowed to fail?
How many of you are really wanting a "have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too" capitalism, where people and corporations are free from regulation and any form of government interference unless those government policies, tax credits, bailouts, etc, improve their bottom lines and stock prices?

Where do you draw the line?

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') I expect the last 45% to fade away much more aggressively in coming years.

[onlooker]

Ghung, when/if the Economy really goes down the drain that is when we shall see Americans crying out for some sort of Socialism ie. Communism. When the job situation is horrendous and the prospects are virtually nill for economic self sufficiency. The ironice part is that now we have the poor and Corporations both receiving handouts/bailouts of sorts. They are wanting them or needing them. For so long this country could afford to practice Laiseez-faire capitalism with the addendum of a Social Safety Net because it was the richest country in the world.

From now on, are we the richest country in the world? Or is all this just a Debt infused final hurrah? Because it does seem increasingly an inescapable fact that this country will have to provide for the necessities of people and that this will be problematic if all the funds are being diverted to the "Too big to fail" companies and industries including the Military Industrial complex. So we are fast reaching the time we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

[Cog]

So when the economy goes down the drain, as you are hoping for, from where does the money come to provide for the necessities of the people? Venezuela ring a bell? LOL

[vtsnowedin]

Onlooker you should realize that America today is a far cry from pure Capitalism. It is a capitalist economy supporting a considerable welfare state and many of the social programs have been over sold and under funded. So far we have been able to pay for it all but the future looks grim due to the aging population. When the crunch comes social programs will have to be cut but probably not eliminated and there will be plenty of blame to pass around when that time comes.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mmasters', 'I') love it when people complain about capitalism yet they have an iPhone. That was created with capitalism.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', 'I')'m still curious about what form of capitalist system people prefer. "Capitalism" is a broad term, sort of like "Christianity".
Do people prefer Laiseez-faire capitalism, anarcho capitalism, some hybrid of capitalism infused with tax-supported social programs? It's obvious that most systems are hybrid/mixed systems, including China and the US. Are those who espouse pure capitalism, free from any government intrusions, willing to divest from anything that benefits from social programs such as SNAP ($70+ billion subsidy for Big Food), Medicaid (billions for Big Health and Big Pharma), agricultural programs and subsidies, tax credits for renewables, all that?
Are so-called social democracies, with high taxes supporting social programs, while allowing successful free enterprise, valid "capitalist" systems or socialism?
Do those who prefer pure capitalism think it's OK for tax dollars to bail out corporations during an economic downturn? If so, can we call that "situational socialism" or somesuch? Or should TBTF corporations be allowed to fail?
How many of you are really wanting a "have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too" capitalism, where people and corporations are free from regulation and any form of government interference unless those government policies, tax credits, bailouts, etc, improve their bottom lines and stock prices?

Where do you draw the line?

[kublikhan]

Yonnipun, your last 10 posts have been nothing but links to the website of Robert Lindsay. Your posts are falling into the category of link baiting, which is prohibited by the code of conduct of this site:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '3').1.13 Link baiting: prohibited. Posts created with the primary intent of directing traffic to a web link are prohibited. Such posts are subject to deletion without notification to the poster. The behavior is regarded as a serious violation of the COC.

[jedrider]

The 1970's recession.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/09/24/why-did-global-economic-performance-deteriorate-in-the-1970s/

Just tell me what this means. I graduated from college during that time and couldn't understand the basis of that recession

as it just seems gratuitous to me. My daughter graduated during the 2007/8 crash. She went to work abroad because of that

and is now a happy expatriate.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jedrider', '[')b]The 1970's recession.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/09/24/why-did-global-economic-performance-deteriorate-in-the-1970s/

Just tell me what this means. I graduated from college during that time and couldn't understand the basis of that recession

as it just seems gratuitous to me. My daughter graduated during the 2007/8 crash. She went to work abroad because of that

and is now a happy expatriate.