I don't get it not one bit

What is communism and why are so many people on the forums communists? i dont understand why it is so prefered. i dont trust the government anymore but how can i give communism a try if i dont know what it is? i request short sentences and small words if possible. i have the attention span of a gnat. thats why i cant understand anything i read about it.

 

If you don't trust the government Communism is definately not for you. Communism gives the government the power to do pretty much anything. This power can be abused just like in any process, but communism gives one group all power.

Very corrupt system is Communism. Capitalism has it's flaws, but nothing is perfect.

 

oh, i sort of understand. thanks for the small words i appreciate it.

 

Lots of the people in here are Communists, because they think that the average person, like you & I, are total and complete morons and need an all-powerful government to keep us in line in a totalitarian police state.

Remember, these are the same people who have been apologists for Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Che Guevara, and Kim Jong-Il.

That's why a lot of the people here on HipForums are idiots.

 

because the delusion of communism is easier to swallow than the delusion of anarchy......

 

A Communist is a man who has nothing, and wants to share with you.

People here are communists cause they think they can slob around all day or work in an "enlightened" job as a philosopher king socialist ("I will work VERY HARD to be an enlightened AROMATHERAPIST!") and get everything they want.

Of course in actuality in a communist state people starve to death and those who don't work gruelling hours in the salt mines to provide more food for the HIGH RULING members of the PARTY.

 

The central credo of communism, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" has a nice sound to it.

The problem is determining what "needs" and "abilities" are and who has how much of each.

 

i just wonder if communism is so great why are there so many russian immigrants here in sacramento. i have spoken to many of them and they have told me the horror stories of living under the control of communism. also my grandparents escaped russia because of communism.
hippiewise

 

Read Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto, fucking awesome idea but its failed to work because it's easily abused. I think there is still one country out there that has followed Karl Marxes idea to the letter and there doing fine, but dont quote me on that.

 

Communism in itself is a good idea. The idea of everyone having the same amount, regardless of who they are. The problem is, the people who abuse the system, and feel they deserve more than the rest.
But, if you really think about it, America is a demented kind of communism.
Think about those people out there who are getting government assistant, that have bigger t.v.'s than you and have nicer cars, who won't work more than 20 hours a week so their assistance won't be lowered.
I understand the people who truly need the help, but I know there are abusers, and we bought them those nice things they have.

 

Christian communalism and marxist communism were completely different in intent and application. Just read...


The Peasant Commune in Russia

Matthew Raphael Johnson
The institution of the peasant commune in prerevolutionary Russia is one of the world’s unique institutions; and also one that is almost unknown. As Americans continue to work long hours for comparatively less pay, continue to see unions disappear and see any kind of job security dissipate, maybe it is time to look at other models of economic organization.

It need not be said that the commune, for American historiography, is derided. This is largely for one important reason: the architects of liberalism and capitalism in Russia were the elite; the elite political and economic forces. For them, the commune was an irritant, a set of protections that permitted the average peasant a great deal of protection against exploitation. the destruction of the commune then, was absolutely necessary for the Russian neo-Jacobins to impose constitutional capitalism on Royal Russia.

In the commune, the church calendar was the primary medium for telling time. This meant that the work year was short, for the calendar of traditional Christianity saw four fast periods as well as dozens of major feasts, whether local, national or pan-Orthodox. One of the main reasons the liberal bourgeois in Russia hated the commune was that it sanctioned the traditional agrarian practice of only working about 2/3 of the year. The rest was made up in fasting, feasting and cultural pursuits. Therefore, the protections, immunities and traditions of communal life were absolutely incompatible with capitalism, “constitutionalism” and liberalism.

A powerful and seminal article by Boris Mironov, “The Russian Peasant Commune After the Reforms of the 1860s” (Slavic Review, Vol. 44, No. 3 [Fall 1985]), is extremely important for the understanding of the peasant commune. Its significance lies in the fact that it takes its data from the survey of 816 communes between 1878 and 1880, sponsored by the Russian Geographical Society and the Russian Free Economic Society. Its results were astounding, and largely supported the claims of the pro-agrarian and pro-monarchist elements in Russia, then and now. The average peasant had it better in Russia than likely anywhere else in Europe. This data proves it.

It is important to keep in mind the structure of the Imperial Russian state around the middle of the 19th century. The tsar’s power was limited to foreign policy and general taxation. He, of course, was the chief spokesman for the nation and the defender of the Orthodox Church. However, at the agrarian level, where 90 percent of the population lived, royal authority was virtually invisible. The peasant commune was the only relevant authority the peasant had to deal with. Therefore, it is accurate to say that Russia was not a single, unitary state, but rather a collection of thousands of independent agrarian republics, held together by rather weak cords to the central monarchy. Prof. Charles Sarolea, who visited Russia regularly, wrote in the 1925 issue of The English Review:

On closer examination we find the [Imperial] Russian state was a vast federation of 50,000 small peasant republics each busy with its own affairs, obedient to its own laws and even possessing its own tribunals of starotsas (elders). The Russian state was not undemocratic, on the contrary, if anything, there was too much democracy.​

What makes the peasant commune such a unique institution is the power it had. Each commune was a completely selfcontained unit, answering to no other authority than its own body of elected elders. All police functions were discharged by the communal authorities. All legal matters were dealt with by the same. Any damage to property, any criminal offense whatsoever, was dealt with at the communal level. All public works were also within the jurisdiction of the commune. It maintained stores of grain during famines and assisted poorer members who suffered during the lean months of the spring. It controlled the cultural life of the people as well as all education. It even built its own parish churches and trained many of the rural clergy. The commune maintained all schools and hospitals. In short, it was absolute.

The state’s interest in this was clear. For the commune to be self governing, yet still loyal to the monarchy, it was necessary for it to be completely independent of the state. Mironov writes, “The government did not risk appointing its own people, who would have been independent of the peasant, to official positions in the commune; that would have been too expensive and ineffective at the same time.” (445)

However, to make sure any village executive (specifically its chief executive) was loyal, he could be removed by the royal-appointed district governor. This, however, rarely occurred, largely because irritating the peasants, the great bastion of loyalty in the country, would not be in the interests of the royal state. Mironov continues in this vein:

If, however, one analyzes how these officials actually functioned, it is clear that the government did not reach its goal: elected officials did not stand above the commune but operated under its authority, and all administrative and police measures in the commune were taken only with the consent of the village assembly. Only very rarely did elected officials become a hostile authority standing above the peasantry: they had to be periodically reelected, had no significant privileges, did not break their ties with the peasantry (elected officials were freed from taxes and other obligations, except those in kind, and continued to perform all forms of peasant labor), remained under the control of public opinion of the village (and in the event of malfeasance faced the threat of retribution), and shared the common interest of the peasants, not the interests of the state. As a rule the elected officials acted as the defenders of the commune, as petitioners and organizers. Frequently they emerged as leaders of peasant disorders despite the threat of harsh punishment. (445-6)​

Many liberal Russia scholars might counter this by claiming that the elected village heads were required, after the 1860s, to faithfully carry out the will of the district authorities. However, though this is true, it was also true that no decree of the district authorities had validity in the commune unless it was approved by the village assembly.

According to the data collected by the Russian Geographic Society, the Russian peasant assembly consisted of all male heads of household. Decisions were not finalized until unanimity was reached, or, as Mironov has said, disagreement was brought to a level of silent sulking, which, at this level, was considered agreement. It is important to note, therefore, that each peasant had a specific stake in communal affairs as well as a corresponding voice. Any specific peasant, therefore, could not afford to be alienated from the community, as all decisions could be vetoed even by a relatively small group of disgruntled peasants.

In her “The Russian Peasant Family in the Second Half of the 19th Century” (Russian Studies in History, vol. 38, No. 2,[fall 1999]), Svetlana S. Kriukova sheds some more light on the structure of the family in the peasant commune. Though this article is not nearly as rigorous as Mironov’s (and is geographically limited to the black soil region), it is still very useful.

Because all legislation needed to pass the communal assembly, which was a function of direct democracy, the family became a far more important institution than the modern bourgeois understand. The structure of the peasant family was headed by the oldest male, though a woman would have that title if she was unmarried and her sons were also unmarried (39). The wife dealt with domestic affairs and supervised the female members of the house. The wife had substantial authority in ordering marriages and the timetables concerning various economic projects. The family acted as sort of a mini-commune. It was rational for the male to cast the deciding vote. However, a “mistress of the house,” that is, the mother of the wife, had relatively equal authority with the husband. Generally, disagreements within the family were solved by any elderly living within the neighborhood (41). But, regardless of who made the final decision, all functions of the household ultimately were under the scrutiny of the commune. Interestingly, the communal structure (at least in southern Russia) invented an innovation called “women’s weeks,” which were times during the year where the females of the household would be released from family or communal obligations in order to work purely for themselves. This was done both to raise more money and goods for dowries as well as provide the women in question with sufficient resources for old age or infirmity. (45)

This, in many respects, was to maintain domestic solvency, for the assignment of tax duties made it imperative that each household maintained a proper standard of living. If the head of household was a drunk, or was incapable of keeping the family money properly, he was publicly berated by the communal authorities, often beaten and, in many cases, deprived of his status as head of household. It is clear that those who developed bad reputations as head of household either reformed quickly or lost their status. Many wound up in the army, with the commune then resuming care for the family until the minor male children came of age.

Those members of the family incapable of working, such as the elderly, the mentally ill, crippled or sick, were guaranteed support. Whatever the family could not provide was provided by the commune. The communal courts rearranged debts and taxes, as well as the more important area of land allotment, for those families who dealt with sick or invalid members. No one was permitted to enter severe poverty.

If the state desperately needed the communes to pass certain forms of legislation, they were in no position to force the matter on them. Russian peasants are rebellious; they are fanatical traditionalists, the worst threat to any bureaucracy. The state, then, would resort to every sort of preaching and begging of the village males and elders in general to get things passed, largely in the realm of taxation. But even here, only the commune was capable of assessing tax burdens according to the ability to pay. The royal state, allegedly absolute, had no clue how much money each peasant was making or how wealthy any commune might be. All taxing decisions therefore, were made by elected elders and the assembly.

The commune, through its assembly and elected elders, decided on a periodic land redistribution, where peasant families with many children were granted more, while those with fewer were granted less. The point of work for the communal peasantry was to reach a balance, to maintain a standard of living that could provide all objective needs of the family itself. Profit was unknown, distrusted and, even until the revolution, scorned. Need was the key, and all forms of exploitation were condemned not only by law, but also by the common law of communal custom.

The communal system was based around basic subsistence agriculture as well as the periodic redistribution of land, tax duties and public works. All of this was done within the village assembly in respect to the state, the informal structure of older men in the village who exercised quite a bit of moral authority (men retired at 60 and all dues were forgiven at this time) and the elected executives. This constitutional structure permitted the wealthier peasants to pay the dues of the poorer, which was considered a moral obligation taken from Byzantine times. Poorer households were maintained in lean times largely due to the communal virtue of charity, a virtue maintained not necessarily by law, but by the strong hand of communal custom, which, if it might be said, was actually the basis of the constitution of any commune. In other words, if such ancient virtues were violated, it was not uncommon for severe punishments to me meted out by the people as a whole. Chronic violations were usually punished by banishment or, if the criminal was of the proper age, induction into the army.

As Mironov reports, one of the astonishing and revisionist aspects of communal life as the 19th century began to draw to a close was its amazing vitality. It is common in the Russian history literature in English to paint a picture of the oppressed peasants chafing at the commune (when they mention it at all), waiting to escape to take advantage of the money economy. This is nothing more than bourgeois, Whig history.

There is every reason to believe that the peasantry looked upon the bourgeois with disdain, as well as their competitive money economy. When the reforms of Petr Stolypin made it easier for peasants to remove themselves from the commune and enter the bourgeois economy, very few actually did. According to the data, by the end of the 19th century, almost 90 percent of peasants were functioning within the communal structure. By Stolypin’s reforms in 1905-06, “only an insignificant number of peasants found an alternative to the commune in trade, industry or in the sale of their labor. As in the past, the great majority placed their hopes for a better life in the commune and a new agrarian reform. . . .” (464) This shows, without question, that the peasantry had no use for the liberal capitalist parties, Westernizers or Western socialists. It was the commune that maintained the peasant’s loyalty to tradition and the tsar. It was only those at the extremes of the communal structure who actually left the community for the city. Those who became wealthy and sought even more wealth moved away, and those extremely poor who, for whatever reason, could not function were the two elements that left, but these never amounted to more than 4 or 5 percent. Those that were criminal, slow or just plain uncooperative were inducted into the army, where the famous harsh discipline in the pre-Bolshevik Russian infantry would solve those problems.

The peasant commune is likely one of the greatest supporters of family liberty devised. But its superiority to Western models exists not merely in the results of such organization, but also because it was not “devised.” It was perfected over 1,000 years of often hard experience. The communal structure, the tightly organized extended family and the traditional peasant love for communal and family liberty kept the state at bay right up until the revolution. The destruction of the communes, naturally, came immediately under Lenin’s rule.

The dishonest “radicals” saw the communes as a threat. Many Russian populists (narodniks), such as Alexander Herzen, believed the communal system to be the means whereby a native Russian socialism would challenge the Western, Marxist brand. However, for these liberals, the communal structure was to be completely denuded of traditional culture and became largely a dependency of the new state. All that the socialists said they wanted had already been part of peasant life for a millennium, but the socialists simply lied as to what they wanted.

They sought a non-Christian, secular state run by urban elites who treated communes as departments of state. Ultimately, this is largely the reason the Bolsheviks liquidated large segments of the peasantry. Comparisons of the peasant communal system and modern socialism are pedestrian. They have nothing in common. This is why the Russian New Men of the 20th century ultimately destroyed the commune while publicly professing devotion to it. The commune was a Christian anarchist collective, based around ethnic tradition, the church and the extended family, all interacting on the level of basic equality.

Anarchists sounded ridiculous to the peasantry largely because their secular ideas, to be imposed by force, already existed, and where the virtues of charity and mutual self-government not only existed, but were part of the traditional mindset of the peasantry. The catch was, however, that their new society was to be run by them, on secular and materialist principles with the state, of course, being all-powerful. Peasants then would be truly goyim, mere chattel, at the service of the New Men.

 

I'm not to much into politics but I think socialism would be better than communism. Communism can be very good. But it takes a government that REALLY wants the good of it's people. Otherwise, the goverment could abuse the people and it would be much easier than under capitalism.
I think we need something that's between capitalism and communism...

 

The main problem I have with communism


is that some days I don't even feel like sharing my packet of sweets



how are you going to get me to share everything?


you cannot drop out of a communist system - because it only works if EVERYONE shares. You might one day set up a perfect communist system - but the moment someone gets greedy and stops sharing the system is fucked.

 

Read up on the cencept of Distributism


http://www.blr.folkandfaith.com/whatwebelieve.htm

 

I am an individualist. I am who I am, like Popeye. I will choose who I share with and who I support, don't force me to choose, because I will always choose myself and my family first. I don't require an organized group to support me. I know the choices I make are based on sound premises, and I will stand by them without support of anyone else.

 

people are communist because of the ideals. the only problem is you need perfect human-beings to make the system work. if things have to be arranged by the government, things will go wrong. than you will get a totalitarian state with suppression of the people, because everyone has to cooperate

 

The reason many people on these boards support communism is because many of them are just uninformed kids who really don't know who they are or what they believe, rather whatever is "hip" and trendy and embraced by their peers who are just as clueless. They know as much about history as a mentally challenged person knows about quantum physics.

Commumism was a creation of the Western Elite, who funded and helped promote people like Karl Marx, and later Trotsky and Lenin. There is not a bigger and better tool for a totalitarian government to enslave humanity than through communism, which is simply monopoly capitalism controlled by the big banks and administered by the state, which is owned by the same banks.

Communism, contrary to what institutionalized history teachers, was not a product of the downtrodden masses, but rich wealthy bankers who have promoted and used communism for close to 100 years to destablize, balkanize and take over once sovereign nations. Once you understand that Trotsky and Lenin were both funded by the central bankers, you understand that communism from the beginning was nothing more than a control system put into play by the Elite to meet their ends.

And there is no "IDEAL" form of communism as bleeding hearts dream of. Most of them don't even know how a government is structured or who possesses the REAL power. I see them as useful idiots, which many of them are.

 

Both systems view man and society as purely economic entities; both crush the human spirit, both lead to enslavement and destruction of culture and race.

by John Young

MOST AMERICANS have grown up under the erroneous assumption that capitalism and communism are polar opposites, because the former system provides for private ownership of property, whereas the latter does not.

Like most effective lies, this misconception is promulgated through the absence of full information, thereby leading to false conclusions.

On its face, capitalism allows for the ownership of private property; but upon closer examination, that ownership is illusory and conditional.

Under capitalism, most significant individual property - such as real estate - is purchased through loans which, if unpaid, serve to relieve the borrower of ownership of the property without even a court proceeding, even if the borrower has already paid the lender several times the amount originally borrowed.

Even if the property is owned outright, it can be seized by just about any lawyer. If, for example, someone slips and falls while on the property, a lawyer can quickly relieve the property owner of any ownership rights unless he has previously agreed to make large and lifelong payments to the insurance corporations. But insurance comes with myriad clauses and exemptions, including a long list of things the insured must do - and must not do - on his property in order to be protected. Thus, the owner is compelled to give up many of the assumed rights of ownership in exchange for imperfect protection.

Of course, no insurance protects property against government seizure. The IRS seizes 10,000 homes a year; and civil property forfeiture - where the owner of the property need not even be charged with a crime - is used some 3,600 times a day in America to seize everything from cash to cars to real estate.

In practice, then, ownership is illusory since there are a bunch of government agencies, insurance agencies, and mortgage contracts that tell people what they can or can't do with their property; and it is conditional in that missing just a couple of payments, getting sued, or getting in the crosshairs of the government will terminate even the illusion. What an owner really has, instead of ownership, is temporary exclusive use within a set of guidelines established by mortgage companies, insurance companies, and numerous governmental entities.

Capitalism, in effect, has very little to do with ownership of private property by ordinary people; and everything to do with their enslavement by an elite. A closer look at the finances involved in the preceeding hypothetical house reveals quite a lot.

An important thing to understand is that various governmental and banking machinations distort the free market and artificially raise the price of housing. Unlimited immigration - even if the immigrants aren't going to the particular neighborhood in which a particular house exists, still serves to raise the price because of the phenomenon of White Flight which raises demand. The deductibility of mortgage interest serves to increase the price of homes, as does the existence of mortgages at all.

Mortgages raise the price of housing by placing buyers who plan to pay back loans over a period of thirty years in competition with buyers who have saved up their money to buy the house outright. A person can much more easily come up with a large loan than actually save money; and the amount of money accessible by financing far exceeds what the average person is able to save in a reasonable amount of time. Likewise, the availability of financing raises demand, and thus prices. Since not all houses go up for sale simultaneously, just a small proportion of buyers using mortgages can raise the price of houses outside the range of people who are trying to save the money to buy a house without a mortgage. In practice, then, wide availability of mortgages causes prices to rise at a rate faster than the rise in wages, meaning that saving to buy a house outright without a mortgage is impossible for most people. So the mechanism of mortgages in and of itself serves to raise the price of housing high enough that mortgage loans are required in order to purchase a house at all.

Here is a case where capitalism in the form of banking is obviously in play, but the actual free market is distorted rather than facilitated by capital, and the distortion is to the detriment of people who wish to own a house, both in terms of absolute price, and in terms of the excessive costs incurred through purchasing via a mortgage.

As an example, take the case of a house purchased for $170,000 using 100% financing at an interest rate of 7.5%. The average person stays in a particular home for five years. Assume that the price of the property appreciates at 4% compounded annually, which is double the rate of inflation, so that the property sells in five years for $206,830, at which point he still owes $160,850 on the mortgage - netting the owner $45,980 in cash, minus the 6% real estate commission of $12,400 for a net profit of $33,580. Not including any upkeep and maintenance requirements, what did the owner have to invest in order to net $33,580?

First, he paid about $9,000 in closing costs for the loan. Then he made sixty monthly payments of $1,189, for a total of $71,340. Then, he paid $3,100 a year in property taxes for a total of $15,500. Finally, he paid homeowner's insurance of $710/year for a total of $3,550. The grand total of his investments over five years, from which he has netted $33,580, is $99,390. So, over a five year period, even with the value of his house increasing at a compound rate double the rate of inflation, he has actually lost $65,810.

So, if the owner has lost - who has gained? Mainly the bank. Over the same five year period, the bank has collected about $80,000 including closing costs. The bank's cost for the money from the Federal Reserve was only $8,500, netting the bank a cool $71,500 without ever breaking a sweat. Since the property owner needs to earn about $62,000 yearly in order to afford such a large mortgage, that means that over the prior sixty months, he has worked fifteen months for the bank - or fully 25% of all of his productive effort has gone to producing $71,500 in free and clear profit to the bank and $8,500 to the Federal Reserve. At the end of the five years, he still has no practical ownership since, if he gets injured and misses just a couple of payments, the bank will simply take ownership of the property, sell it themselves for $206,830, and distribute far less than the $33,580 to the erstwhile owner since they get to deduct all of their "reasonable" legal costs. In practice then, after sixty months of hard work - the bank has everything, and the owner has nothing.

This is the "ownership of private property" of which capitalists are so appreciative. In practice, private ownership only serves to force people to invest 25% of their productive effort into the banks, while reserving for the banks all of the real power so that anyone who finds himself injured or out of work for even a relatively short time is quickly reduced to absolute destitution. The only difference between such Capitalism and Bolshevism is that the illusion of private ownership serves to keep the workers more motivated, so they work harder. But they are still slaves in that they have no real claim of ownership to most of the results of their productive labor. In the one case the Politburo members lived large, while in the other case the bankers live large. But in both cases, at the end of the day, the workers on the global ant farm end up with nothing. Capitalism and Bolshevism are both, therefore, alternate means to the same end.

Private ownership of businesses is very little different. Communism is often described as a system in which ownership of the "means of production" is vested in the state as a proxy for the people; which in practical terms means that control of the means of production lies in the hands of a powerful elite. Capitalism is supposed to be different in that ownership, and therefore control, lies in private hands. In practice, though, this is not the case since control lies with government rather than the "owners." In a democracy, elections are controlled through media perception; so whoever controls the media controls elections in the main; and so, in practice, control by government also translates into control by a small elite.

Control of private business becomes vested in the government through the clever mechanism known as "incorporation." Unincorporated businesses vest liability in the individuals within that business, especially the owner. Long ago, lawyerly notions of tort and "joint and several liability" created an environment in which no individual would be able to do business productively since all of his profits - and then some - could be gobbled up by lawyers at the drop of a hat. Thus came the idea of incorporation - in which the state created a corporation - an artificial person - in law which, at least in theory, the owners could control as a proxy while limiting their civil liability. The problem lies in the fact that a corporation is actually a creation of government rather than the creation of an individual, and therefore, once created, has to live under laws of government that would affect corporations but not individuals. Natural persons have rights, however imperfect; but corporations do not. Likewise, the laws for corporations were crafted by the very same lawyers from whom people seeking to gain some protection through incorporating were trying to shield themselves. As such, incorporation is just another scheme for vesting all important control in the hands of an elite, while reserving all the liabilities for the owners.

So, as a result of government regulatory control of corporations, they serve, in practice, as extensions of government power rather than as the portrayed bastions of private initiative and free choice. Corporations collect federal withholding taxes, enforce affirmative action laws which take away choice in hiring, enforce political correctness with an iron fist against people who express disallowed views even when outside the workplace, and otherwise act as a proxy for government rather than individuals. They serve as a mechanism for applying economic pressure to individuals in order to make them conform to societal standards generated by an elite.

Once a company has become publicly traded, the matter gets even worse in that, through the action of numerous regulations, the original creators of the enterprise can be forced out entirely and replaced with individuals who work better within the corporate framework. This can also be done simply through a cabal purchasing enough corporate stock. In this way, corporations can be perverted from their original goals; as happened when Michael Eisner took over the Disney Corporation and started cranking out pornography and propaganda destructive to Western peoples and values. Controlling a huge media empire, corporations such as Disney can also control the fate of other corporations and even legislators through selective and biased reporting giving them enormous power.

All of the foregoing should put the capitalist notion of private ownership of the "means of production" into better perspective. In the case of both Capitalism and Bolshevism an enterprise's most important decisions are controlled by the state, thus vesting effective control, and thus ownership, in the state. In both cases the personnel running the enterprise serve at the pleasure of the state, and can be removed from that control at any time. In both cases, enterprises serve to extend the supervision and power of the state into the lives of the workers. The only practical difference is that in a capitalist system, as long as participants play by the rules, they can derive greater profit without having to hide it from the workers; but in all other respects it serves the same end in both systems, with only a difference in methodology.

Capitalism is likewise advertised as promoting competition and thus lowering prices for consumers. In practice, this is not the case. What actually happens is that large corporations establish a sort of feedback loop with politicians who need money for campaigns. This feedback loop creates an environment in which regulations which prevent competition are passed. These regulations serve to create such insurmountable barriers to entry into the market that only the largest of corporations that have surplus cash for a large contingent of lawyers and regulatory compliance officers can even hope to compete. Thus, capitalism serves to stifle free enterprise and creates artificially restricted economic environments that serve to raise rather than lower prices.
Since the only thing that Capitalism provides over Bolshevism is the ability to openly profit; it stands to reason that the drive of capitalists is purely a profit motive.

Two notable examples of this are the fact that many corporations that notoriously pollute the environment will move manufacturing facilities to countries with fewer environmental regulations rather than invest the money to comply with stricter regulations in their home country. Likewise, corporations have no loyalty to the people of the nation in which they were formed, and seek to reduce the cost of labor through any legal method, which increasingly puts the people in Western nations in direct competition with low wage or even slave labor in the Third World; with devastating long term effects in terms of both national wealth and labor displacements. Corporations even sponsor the importation of alien labor, forcing domestic wages lower, stressing social service systems, and placing the genetic continuity of the domestic population at risk. All for a profit.

These examples, again, show no difference between Capitalism and Bolshevism in that, in the end, both systems have the same effects and therefore only differ in methodology. Legislation in Capitalist systems serves to create de-facto state enterprises in important sectors such as media and electricity, while pollution, wage depression and globalization without regard to cultural preservation or preservation of human bio-diversity work the same in both instances.

How can these systems be so similar in their results?

The first answer lies in their remarkably similar fundamental premises. Fundamentally, both systems see man in a purely economic or materialistic sense, with humans being interchangeable with each other as long as productive work is accomplished in the most profitable fashion for whomever is in charge. The very term "Human Resources" used in so many corporations spells this out pretty clearly. Aesthetic, historic, evolutionary and spiritual aspects of humans aren't considered by either system except insofar as they affect production and the maintenance of control by an elite. (Elite in terms of position, not necessarily merit.)

The second answer lies in the matter of control. All economic systems, no matter whence derived or their ultimate motivation, are run by humans; and will tend to take on the character of the humans running them. The cabal which runs today's capitalist system is a continuation of the same cabal which ran the early USSR. In fact, many of the capitalists exercising ultimate economic control in Russia today and funding section 527 political groups in the United States today were tightly connected with the communist and underground criminal apparatus during communism. The fact that the original funding for the Bolshevik Revolution was provided by bankers in the United States should speak volumes about the true nature of what is going on; and the fact that Capitalists and Communists are actually allies rather than foes. When the New York bankers funded the Bolshevik revolution, they were making an investment - but it was not an investment in purely economic terms. Rather, like all banking investments ultimately turn out, it was an investment in the control of human beings.

So, both capitalism and communism treat humans who are not part of the controlling elite as resources for production and achievement of the goals of the elite. It simply turns out that capitalism is the more efficient system for that purpose.

Capitalism, like Democracy, is an idea that was foisted upon Western peoples through linguistic subterfuge. The word "Democracy" never appears in the U.S. Constitution, and neither does the term "Capitalist." The United States was designed to be a Republic, in which the responsibility of the government was to secure the blessings of liberty for the posterity of the country's founders. The founding fathers abhored democracy as a horrible system that would allow the best and brightest - who are always fewest in number - to be dominated legally by mob rule. They so abhored the notion of debt that is so integral to modern capitalism that they mandated a gold currency in the constitution, and even wrote bankruptcy as relief from debt and the abolition of debtor's prisons into the constitution as well.

Over time, the elites who now run things have managed, through clever lies a little at a time, to pervert our system of government into a pluralistic democracy, while having people believe that such a concept is "American." These same elites have managed to pervert our economic system of free enterprise into a capitalist system in which the element of freedom is distinctly lacking, while convincing people that capitalism - even when it ships jobs overseas in droves - is "patriotic."

However, as demonstrated above: it is a lie. Free enterprise is not an outgrowth of capitalism. Rather, capitalism squashes free enterprise and subjugates people, just as does communism. Simply looking around with wide open eyes should reveal this to anyone not glued to the television.

As a final example, one should recall that the Bolshevist system labeled people who uttered politically incorrect thoughts as ‘mentally ill,’ and forced them to be treated for that ‘illness’. Under capitalism, when John Rocker gave voice to his candid thoughts regarding the New York City subway system, his corporate employer forced him to undergo ‘therapy’ as a precondition for keeping his job.

The portrayal of capitalism as a road to freedom, just as Bolshevism's portrayal as a road to freedom, is a lie. It is just a different road to the same envisioned global slave plantation ruled by an elite. The good news is that lies - all lies - have a limited lifespan before they, and their promulgators, are revealed, rejected and reviled.

The time draws nigh for the revelation of the lies and the unmasking of the liars. The time draws nigh for free enterprise, true ownership of property, and freedom from control by purveyors of philosophical poison. The time draws nigh when, once again, an American can speak his thoughts without fear; which means that the slippery ones will have a great deal to fear, and had best be packing their bags.

 

Yes capitalism is working so far but what you have to realize is that we as a human race need to find a better more efficient way of governing. Im not saying we should turn to communism but we should definitely fill the holes that capitalism leaves behind.

 

We need to return to small free enterprise.