Communism and libertarianism have failed- distributism is our hope for the future

[Almanac]

Not just Rockefella. History is full of people who believed they were helping society by making themselves rich. Its also full of people they stood on to get there. Capitilasm is the system that has been truely shown to be a failure, it has been tried everywhere in millions of different guises and caused misery to the vast majority every time. Communism as a concept has never been tried to the same extent so how can someone say it has failed whilst still supporting its completely refuted counterpart.

What, Marxism?

[idontgethangovers]

If not marxism then lets try something else, you come up with it, i would be willing to try it.

[Almanac]

If not marxism then lets try something else, you come up with it, i would be willing to try it.

That's what this thread's about.

[idontgethangovers]

Problem is people have been trying to come up with an alternative to Capitalism since the industrial revolution and nothing has worked yet.There are many strands of marxism, it is a living theory changing to suit the circumstances of the day. Just because the state capitalism of Stalin didnt work does not mean the concepts are wrong. For it to work requires that it does not have to spend most of its GDP on defending itself from outside assault. When that fails come back to me.

[west'sawake]

But we also had Korean war through 53 and subsequently Vietnam for ten years, not to mention the last twenty+ years of multibillion dollar conflicts.

Does this really make a difference to the author's central point?

He adds:

I think the key question is whether or not the latter were intended or unintended consequences. To me, the idea that they were unintended, as in the sense of unforeseen, might be the weakest part of his argument, if that's what he's saying. After all it was the World Bank.

You cannot compare those regional conflicts with WWI and WW2 after which the U.S.A became the dominant superpower. WWI and WW2 involved many more industrial powers than those wars you mention and benefitted the U.S. and British armaments industry the most. It does make a key difference to the author's central point in that he failed to recognise that it was not the lack of official kKeynsianism that caused frequent recessions, rather it was the shock of going from one hyper State stimulus in many countries to a sudden ending of such stimuli and their affect of global commodity price . The regional conflicts or cold war related conflicts you refer too benefitted the U.S.A. economy in the long run and strengthened its hegemony and as you know though your own research in other areas, i.e. the princely houses that have always gained from it, that war and Keynesianism has suited these same oligarchs/puppet masters well. So in that sense his servility allusion is a good one but he failed to join the dots, I think. (Though I have not read enough of what he wrote to be confident about that.)

[feargach]

Starting from scratch or working on an already existing entity?

Either/or. They all must be working for the same entity. And it should have a reasonably complex model. Ten individuals working in a loose cooperative probably wouldn't cut it.

[SevenStars]

It's always been there as I said:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Property

Than why wasnt St Ambrose and St John Chrystomn (among others) condemned as heretics? Or St Odo of Cluny for that matter?

The Catholic Encycolpedia isnt the best source anyway.

[SevenStars]

That's a handy explanation.

Where you have wages, price and profit you have capitalism.

http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/bordiga.html

http://www.theoryandpractice.org.uk/...-barrot-197497

[Cunctator]

Young lady, thank you so much for being so productive. And, before I forget, cheers for holding the economy on your shoulders, I really appreciate it.

haha good joke, but come on you didn't really think about that before you posted it


If a heir is equal to her money it serves him, if not it destroys her. But you look on and cry that money corrupted her. Did it? Or did she corrupt her money? Do not envy the worthless heir her wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one. would not bring back the dead virtue which was the hilton value, made iniatially by the man who earned it. Money is a living power which dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it.

She goes out gets pisses, gets thrown in jail, is abused in public and has no values. She is not selfish. Shes selfless. She has no self, she destroyed it long ago. Pity her, damn her. Why are you using her to argue against me when I agree shes a waste?.


Also other poster, If john d. earned his profits by his own mind then yes of course he should keep them, also he undertook the responsibility to pay tax therefore he pays it. If however his money was gotten by means of government interference then of course, his money is unearned. If that was the case perhaps that is why he gave so much to charity?

[SevenStars]

Problem is people have been trying to come up with an alternative to Capitalism since the industrial revolution and nothing has worked yet.There are many strands of marxism, it is a living theory changing to suit the circumstances of the day. Just because the state capitalism of Stalin didnt work does not mean the concepts are wrong. For it to work requires that it does not have to spend most of its GDP on defending itself from outside assault. When that fails come back to me.

And there are many strands to Marx. Consistancy isnt a human strong point (you just have to look at my posts to see that).