Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: "Forcing Capitalism" is a contradiction in terms

Expand Messages
  • JMills9786@...
    Jim Mills WWP Member (JMills9786@aol.com) THERE IS NO ARMADA OF SHIPS SURROUNDING CUBA. CUBA IS FREE TO TRADE WITH WHOEVER SHE WANTS. WE ONLY HAVE A
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 28, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim Mills WWP Member (JMills9786@...) THERE IS NO ARMADA OF SHIPS SURROUNDING CUBA. CUBA IS FREE TO TRADE WITH WHOEVER SHE WANTS. WE ONLY HAVE A LIMITED "EMBARGO" OF CUBA, BUT ONE SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO KEEP CUBA THE ARMPIT OF THE MARXIST WORLD. THE BIGGEST PARTY THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN WILL BE THE DAY THAT FIDEL KICKS OFF ! SOUTH
      FLORIDA AND HAVANA WILL HAVE ONE HELL OF A PARTY !

      WV WWP Email member and special friend of the cyber personality known as Automatic Lie (microdhses@...) In fact there is only a ''partial'' blockade with Cuba. We often see examples of companies that are allowed to trade with them.
    • Algae5636@...
      Al J WWP Email Member and Baha i(Algae5636@aol.com ) In merry old England, the imperialistic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, the Crown granted the
      Message 2 of 10 , May 8, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Al J WWP Email Member and Baha'i(Algae5636@... ) In merry old England, the imperialistic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, the Crown granted the British East India Company-- a corporation formed for the specific purpose of "laissez-faire-ing" India-- -- a charter to do just that. But oddly enough, the Company (not the Crown-- the Crown never was the government of India :-) wouldn't let the Indians trade freely too-- a colonial policy to which the free-trade loving Indians reacted rather violently, as if they had been-- ummm "colon-ized", if you know what I mean. So the Company paid the Crown to send in the troops to protect the Company's right to free trade from the Indians.

        Then the Company "laissez-faire'd" their way to a huge glut of tea they couldn't sell on the open market. (An "open market" is one in which the customers are free to decide what they will and won't buy at what price-- but capitalists insist that that's not the same as a "free market" :-), so the Crown gave the Company a monopoly on the tea trade in its other colonies-- because the BEIC was too big to fail without costing the Crown a fortune.

        Then the people of Boston celebrated the BEIC's good fortune at a huge party (put on by by some of Bostons' best tea smugglers :-), in which everybody got drunk and tried get in the Guinness Book of World Records by making Boston Harbor the largest pot of tea ever brewed-- but they stole the tea, which ya know is a no-no. This led to a war in which the Crown's proponents of free trade fought the bad guys who were denying them their right to laissez-faire-- and lost-- a win by the bad guys that we celebrate once a year to this day because it freed the bad guys to say they were the good guys. . .

        Long story short, laissez-faire capitalism was a shuck and jive from the gitgo, popularized by imperialists who had no intention of it everybody being able to do it. And the only way to believe it can be done, is to believe that the "force of logic" is big and bad enough to single-handedly overpower all the rest of what's known as "human nature", even though all of human history (aka evolution :-) plainly shows that human nature has the power to use logic and reason to justify almost any damn thing it thinks will fulfill its desires.
        At least it looks that way from here. How does it look from where you are?

        :-)

        Randist Bo7b aka Bob Wynman WWP Email Member (bobalou@...) "Forcing Capitalism" is a contradiction in terms, Jimbo. Capitalism is the system of voluntary trade without coercion. Ya can't FORCE voluntarism on anyone, they gotta wanna.

        The out-of-control US Government is not forcing capitalism on anyone; it's forcing its brand of Fabian fascist democracy on the rest of the world. PLEASE do not confuse that brand of socialism with capitalism. 'tis a disservice to those of us who still value freedom.

        Jimmy Nightshade WWP Email Member and Pakistani opponent of democracy (jimmybug@...) My assumptions are on target & quite correct. Take the case of CUBA..........United States has launched a proxy WAR upon this tiny, harmless Island.........and blockaded them (Blockades/Sanctions are ACTS of WAR) for over 40 years, just & only because they refuse to adopt "Americanism/Capitalism" which is being threatened & forced upon them. Same with North Korea ................ US applying every trick in the book to convert them to Capitalism ............, which is the crux of the entire problem. United States forcing it's System upon the World by constant propaganda, threats & BOMBS .................... you are aware that "FREEDOM & Democracy" are simply Capitalism in disguise ................
      • Cass Silva
        Cass: With respect but there was nothing laissez-faire about British colonisation. To understand the grievances and the struggles they inspired, we have to
        Message 3 of 10 , May 20, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Cass: With respect but there was nothing laissez-faire about British colonisation.
          To understand the grievances and the struggles they inspired, we have to look at the background of British colonial rule.
          "India must be bled"
          To the British conquerors, India was a source of profits and a base for military operations--using Indian troops--from Africa to Indonesia. From the early stages of conquest in the late eighteenth century, the British began setting up taxation to finance their presence and to send money home.3 As early as 1765, the British East India Company also set up monopolies on common necessities like salt in the lands it controlled.4
          These monopolies bred resentment and rebellion in the next two centuries. But the British innovation that brought misery to millions was the imposition of market relations--the cash economy--in agriculture.
          The first step in introducing cash relations was to tax all the land. As the British replaced the crumbling Mughal empire, they took over and greatly expanded the Mughal system of land-revenue, which had been based on local tax collectors known as zamindars. The British generalized the system where it existed and allowed zamindars to help themselves to ten percent of the revenues. Elsewhere, the British instituted direct taxation.5
          Peasants now needed to sell a portion of their produce on the market to raise cash to pay the taxes. By 1860, this market began to spread throughout British India, facilitated by a new railway system that carried cotton, food grains, and indigo out of the country to Britain and other markets.6
          The effect on the villages was to shift power to the moneyed classes, including zamindars and moneylenders who, backed by British legal guarantees of their property rights, began to buy up large tracts of land. Ownership allowed them to charge rent to peasant cultivators on top of the taxes they extracted.7
          Dispossessed peasants became agricultural day laborers, a class that grew from almost nothing in 1852 to 18 percent of the rural population in 1872.8 By the mid-twentieth century, agricultural proletarians--those who owned no land, or so little land that they had to work for others to survive--constituted half of the rural population.9
          So market relations shuffled wealth into the hands of Indian landowners, a process that Marx had dubbed the "primitive [i.e., initial] accumulation of capital" when it happened in England. But dispossessed Indian peasants could not seek out industrial jobs as English peasants had. England's head start in industry was allowing it to flood the Indian market with factory goods, and these imports began to crush India's skilled handicraft industries, including metalworking and, especially, cloth production.10
          The result was to trap the peasants into rural misery and to further expand the rural proletariat with unemployed spinners and weavers.
          British rule thus marked a dramatic setback in the material welfare of most Indians. Before conquest, India suffered an average of one major famine every 50 years, but famines or scarcity gripped some part of India for 20 out of the 49 years in the period 1860-1908.11 The reserves that peasants formerly held to tide themselves over through periods of low rainfall were now routinely being sold to pay rent and taxes--and shipped out to be consumed overseas.
          Lord Robert Salisbury, British Secretary of State for India, summed up British aims in this period by declaring that "India must be bled."12 Karl Marx put some numbers to it:
          What the English take from them annually in the form of rent, dividends for railways useless to the Hindoos, pensions for military and civil servicemen, for Afghanistan and other wars, etc. etc.--what they take from them without any equivalent and quite apart from what they appropriate to themselves annually within India, speaking only of the value of the commodities the Indians have gratuitously and annually to send over to England, it amounts to more than the total sum of income of the 60 millions of agricultural and industrial laborers of India! This is a bleeding process, with a vengeance!13 [Marx's emphasis.]
          http://www.isreview.org/issues/14/Gandhi.shtml


          Al J WWP Email Member and Baha'i(Algae5636@... ) In merry old England, the imperialistic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, the Crown granted the British East India Company-- a corporation formed for the specific purpose of "laissez-faire-ing" India-- -- a charter to do just that. But oddly enough, the Company (not the Crown-- the Crown never was the government of India :-) wouldn't let the Indians trade freely too-- a colonial policy to which the free-trade loving Indians reacted rather violently, as if they had been-- ummm "colon-ized", if you know what I mean. So the Company paid the Crown to send in the troops to protect the Company's right to free trade from the Indians.

          Then the Company "laissez-faire'd" their way to a huge glut of tea they couldn't sell on the open market. (An "open market" is one in which the customers are free to decide what they will and won't buy at what price-- but capitalists insist that that's not the same as a "free market" :-), so the Crown gave the Company a monopoly on the tea trade in its other colonies-- because the BEIC was too big to fail without costing the Crown a fortune.

          Then the people of Boston celebrated the BEIC's good fortune at a huge party (put on by by some of Bostons' best tea smugglers :-), in which everybody got drunk and tried get in the Guinness Book of World Records by making Boston Harbor the largest pot of tea ever brewed-- but they stole the tea, which ya know is a no-no. This led to a war in which the Crown's proponents of free trade fought the bad guys who were denying them their right to laissez-faire-- and lost-- a win by the bad guys that we celebrate once a year to this day because it freed the bad guys to say they were the good guys. . .

          Long story short, laissez-faire capitalism was a shuck and jive from the gitgo, popularized by imperialists who had no intention of it everybody being able to do it. And the only way to believe it can be done, is to believe that the "force of logic" is big and bad enough to single-handedly overpower all the rest of what's known as "human nature", even though all of human history (aka evolution :-) plainly shows that human nature has the power to use logic and reason to justify almost any damn thing it thinks will fulfill its desires.
          At least it looks that way from here. How does it look from where you are?

          :-)

          Randist Bo7b aka Bob Wynman WWP Email Member (bobalou@...) "Forcing Capitalism" is a contradiction in terms, Jimbo. Capitalism is the system of voluntary trade without coercion. Ya can't FORCE voluntarism on anyone, they gotta wanna.

          The out-of-control US Government is not forcing capitalism on anyone; it's forcing its brand of Fabian fascist democracy on the rest of the world. PLEASE do not confuse that brand of socialism with capitalism. 'tis a disservice to those of us who still value freedom.
        • Jude
          Judy Garner SEIU Member former Cook County Democrat Party member and WWP Email member (jgtea@comcast.net) No, they were trying to become world rulers, and as
          Message 4 of 10 , May 21, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Judy Garner SEIU Member former Cook County Democrat Party member and WWP Email member (jgtea@...) No, they were trying to become world rulers, and as we all know it didn’t work nor will it work as the uS is now trying the same stunt, so come on guys start using your heads for more than growing sparse hair. Sorry if I jumped in on something that may upset some of you but hey, I know history.

            Cass Silva WWP email Member (silva_cass@...) Cass: With respect but there was nothing laissez-faire about British colonisation.



            To understand the grievances and the struggles they inspired, we have to look at the background of British colonial rule.

            "India must be bled"

            To the British conquerors, India was a source of profits and a base for military operations--using Indian troops--from Africa to Indonesia. From the early stages of conquest in the late eighteenth century, the British began setting up taxation to finance their presence and to send money home.3 As early as 1765, the British East India Company also set up monopolies on common necessities like salt in the lands it controlled.4

            These monopolies bred resentment and rebellion in the next two centuries. But the British innovation that brought misery to millions was the imposition of market relations--the cash economy--in agriculture.

            The first step in introducing cash relations was to tax all the land. As the British replaced the crumbling Mughal empire, they took over and greatly expanded the Mughal system of land-revenue, which had been based on local tax collectors known as zamindars. The British generalized the system where it existed and allowed zamindars to help themselves to ten percent of the revenues. Elsewhere, the British instituted direct taxation.5

            Peasants now needed to sell a portion of their produce on the market to raise cash to pay the taxes. By 1860, this market began to spread throughout British India, facilitated by a new railway system that carried cotton, food grains, and indigo out of the country to Britain and other markets.6

            The effect on the villages was to shift power to the moneyed classes, including zamindars and moneylenders who, backed by British legal guarantees of their property rights, began to buy up large tracts of land. Ownership allowed them to charge rent to peasant cultivators on top of the taxes they extracted.7

            Dispossessed peasants became agricultural day laborers, a class that grew from almost nothing in 1852 to 18 percent of the rural population in 1872.8 By the mid-twentieth century, agricultural proletarians--those who owned no land, or so little land that they had to work for others to survive--constituted half of the rural population.9

            So market relations shuffled wealth into the hands of Indian landowners, a process that Marx had dubbed the "primitive [i.e., initial] accumulation of capital" when it happened in England. But dispossessed Indian peasants could not seek out industrial jobs as English peasants had. England's head start in industry was allowing it to flood the Indian market with factory goods, and these imports began to crush India's skilled handicraft industries, including metalworking and, especially, cloth production.10

            The result was to trap the peasants into rural misery and to further expand the rural proletariat with unemployed spinners and weavers.

            British rule thus marked a dramatic setback in the material welfare of most Indians. Before conquest, India suffered an average of one major famine every 50 years, but famines or scarcity gripped some part of India for 20 out of the 49 years in the period 1860-1908.11 The reserves that peasants formerly held to tide themselves over through periods of low rainfall were now routinely being sold to pay rent and taxes--and shipped out to be consumed overseas.

            Lord Robert Salisbury, British Secretary of State for India, summed up British aims in this period by declaring that "India must be bled."12 Karl Marx put some numbers to it:

            What the English take from them annually in the form of rent, dividends for railways useless to the Hindoos, pensions for military and civil servicemen, for Afghanistan and other wars, etc. etc.--what they take from them without any equivalent and quite apart from what they appropriate to themselves annually within India, speaking only of the value of the commodities the Indians have gratuitously and annually to send over to England, it amounts to more than the total sum of income of the 60 millions of agricultural and industrial laborers of India! This is a bleeding process, with a vengeance!13 [Marx's emphasis.]

            http://www.isreview.org/issues/14/Gandhi.shtml

            Al J WWP Email Member and Baha'i(Algae5636@... <mailto:Algae5636%40aol.com> ) In merry old England, the imperialistic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, the Crown granted the British East India Company-- a corporation formed for the specific purpose of "laissez-faire-ing" India-- -- a charter to do just that. But oddly enough, the Company (not the Crown-- the Crown never was the government of India :-) wouldn't let the Indians trade freely too-- a colonial policy to which the free-trade loving Indians reacted rather violently, as if they had been-- ummm "colon-ized", if you know what I mean. So the Company paid the Crown to send in the troops to protect the Company's right to free trade from the Indians.

            Then the Company "laissez-faire'd" their way to a huge glut of tea they couldn't sell on the open market. (An "open market" is one in which the customers are free to decide what they will and won't buy at what price-- but capitalists insist that that's not the same as a "free market" :-), so the Crown gave the Company a monopoly on the tea trade in its other colonies-- because the BEIC was too big to fail without costing the Crown a fortune.

            Then the people of Boston celebrated the BEIC's good fortune at a huge party (put on by by some of Bostons' best tea smugglers :-), in which everybody got drunk and tried get in the Guinness Book of World Records by making Boston Harbor the largest pot of tea ever brewed-- but they stole the tea, which ya know is a no-no. This led to a war in which the Crown's proponents of free trade fought the bad guys who were denying them their right to laissez-faire-- and lost-- a win by the bad guys that we celebrate once a year to this day because it freed the bad guys to say they were the good guys. . .

            Long story short, laissez-faire capitalism was a shuck and jive from the gitgo, popularized by imperialists who had no intention of it everybody being able to do it. And the only way to believe it can be done, is to believe that the "force of logic" is big and bad enough to single-handedly overpower all the rest of what's known as "human nature", even though all of human history (aka evolution :-) plainly shows that human nature has the power to use logic and reason to justify almost any damn thing it thinks will fulfill its desires.
            At least it looks that way from here. How does it look from where you are?
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.