Why Do Socialists Equate Capitalism With The State?

[Brassmouth]

I recently came across a comment on a socialist facebook group.


crimes of capitalism:
Extermination of the Native Americans(1492-1890): 70 000 000
Atlantic slave trade(1503-1865): 14 000 000
French repression of Haitian slave rebellion(1802-03): 200 000
Irish potato famine(1845-49): 1 000 000
British repression of the Indian mutiny(1857-58): 150 000
The American civil war(1861-65): 600 000
Blacks killed in lynchings/race riots(1865-1969): 6 000
Massacre of the Paris Commune(1871): 20 000
Famine under British rule in India(1876-1902): 29 000 000
Crackdowns by military/police on labor strikes in U.S.(1877-1938): 700
Belgian rule in the Congo(1885-1908): 10 000 000
U.S. conquest of the Phillipines(1898-1913): 250 000
Anglo-Boer War(1899-1902): 57 000
French rule in Equatorial African rainforest (1900-40): 3 000 000
German extermination of the Herero(1904-07): 55 000
The First World War(1914-18): 15 000 000
Allied blockade of the Soviet Union(1918-21): 7 000 000
White Russian pogroms(1918-20): 150 000
Italian invasion of Ethiopia(1935-36): 400 000
Spanish civil war(1936-39): 400 000
The Second World War(1937-45): 60 000 000
> Nazi terror, concentration camps: 29 000 000
> Japanese war crimes: 15 000 000
> Anglo-American bombing of Germany & Japan: 1 000 000
Greek civil war(1945-47): 150 000
Israeli Zionist aggression against Palestinians/Lebanese(1948-present): 40 000
Shah of Iran(1953-79): 16 000
French repression of the Algerian revolution(1954-62):
1 000 000
Military junta in Guatemala(1961-96): 200 000
The Vietnam war(1963-75): 4 500 000
Colombian civil war(1964-present): 150 000
Anti-communist purge in Indonesia(1965): 500 000
Biafra war(1967-70): 1 000 000
Mexico city Olympics massacre(1968): 400
Pakistani military massacres in Bangladesh(1971): 1 500 000
Chilean dictatorship(1973): 5 000
Angolan civil war(1974-2002): 700 000
Mozambique civil war(1975-90): 1 000 000
Indonesian invasion of East Timor(1975-98): 200 000
Argentina military junta(1976-82): 30 000
El Salvador dictatorship(1977-92): 70 000
South Korean military crackdown in Gwanju(1980): 500
Iran-Iraq war(1980-88): 1 000 000
'Contra' terror in Nicaragua(1981-90): 30 000
Bophal Union Carbide plant leak(1984): 22 000
U.S. invasion of Panama(1989): 3 000
The Iraq wars(1991-present): 2 000 000(inc. sanctions)
Mexican migrant deaths on US border(1994-present): 5 000
U.S. invasion of Afghanistan(2001-present): 30 000

TOTAL: 225 740 600
I have seen this sort of propaganda before. It's mind-boggling. (I mean, seriously, the National Socialists were capitalist murderers? :rolleyes:) What's interesting is that these people are opposed to same fundamental evil that we are, yet are totally and completely wrong as to its causes.

Why do these people equate capitalism (which is simply voluntary trade and private property rights) with State warmongering (and a myriad of other State oppression)?

I think figuring this out could help us in our ongoing endeavor to convince people of the evils of socialism and collectivism.

[Standing Like A Rock]

You make a valid point.

[heavenlyboy34]

I recently came across a comment on a socialist facebook group.

I have seen this sort of propaganda before. It's mind-boggling. (I mean, seriously, the National Socialists were capitalist murderers? :rolleyes:) What's interesting is that these people are opposed to same fundamental evil that we are, yet are totally and completely wrong as to its causes.

Why do these people equate capitalism (which is simply voluntary trade and private property rights) with State warmongering (and a myriad of other State oppression)?

I think figuring this out could help us in our ongoing endeavor to convince people of the evils of socialism and collectivism.

The same reason the media tries to equate the State with "capitalism"-they're part of the Matrix (or ignorant, or just dupes).

[AutoDas]

Perhaps because they think property rights require a state to protect them which is circular and dogmatic reasoning because there are taxes on private property.

[anaconda]

I recently came across a comment on a socialist facebook group.

I have seen this sort of propaganda before. It's mind-boggling. (I mean, seriously, the National Socialists were capitalist murderers? :rolleyes:) What's interesting is that these people are opposed to same fundamental evil that we are, yet are totally and completely wrong as to its causes.

Why do these people equate capitalism (which is simply voluntary trade and private property rights) with State warmongering (and a myriad of other State oppression)?

I think figuring this out could help us in our ongoing endeavor to convince people of the evils of socialism and collectivism.


These are war mongering states. Not free market capitalists. They are mixed up completely.

[Kotin]

because all they have seen is crony capitalism..

[Optatron]

simple answer is they believe property and capitalism only exists with the state.

they don't believe people naturally respect property, just like you don't believe people are naturally altruistic

[Young Paleocon]

Because they are ignorant, emotional, gullible, and don't reflect on themselves to form a cohesive/coherent/consistent/moral/ethical/philosophic worldview.

[Brassmouth]

The same reason the media tries to equate the State with "capitalism"-they're part of the Matrix (or ignorant, or just dupes).

I don't buy the argument that they are simply unintelligent. On the contrary, most socialists I know are very intelligent. There's something deeper at work...


Perhaps because they think property rights require a state to protect them which is circular and dogmatic reasoning because there are taxes on private property.


simple answer is they believe property and capitalism only exists with the state.

Perhaps. I think it has a lot to do with the big, statist corporations. You can't listen to a socialist talk for more than 3 seconds without them telling you how evil the corporations are. And once again, they are right, but for the wrong reasons. They see the corporations as having corrupted the State, as opposed to the reality of the matter, which is that the State provides the "legal" framework required for the corporations to exist, and becomes a vehicle for exploitation.

They also see the corporations as being synonymous with free enterprise, which is also erroneous.

Strangely, many socialists love mom + pop businesses for some reason as well. (At least, the non-Marxist ones) Not that there's anything wrong with small businesses, but start a debate with a socialist about Walmart and you'll hear how big, evil Walmart destroys small businesses and "wrecks towns" because it can out-compete the little guys. It's strange.



because all they have seen is crony capitalism..

Yes, but they've also seen real socialism. The horrors of the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, etc. are readily available to anyone. I'm trying to figure out why they equate capitalism with the State, and how they excuse the true socialist regimes that have existed. I think it is vital to our debate with them.

[Epic]

The socialists are generally heavily indoctrinated by public schools and mainstream media.

Most of them don't even know that strict socialism/communism killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century. The system did not allow resources to flow to the economic activity that demanded them.

[Optatron]

Perhaps. I think it has a lot to do with the big, statist corporations. You can't listen to a socialist talk for more than 3 seconds without them telling you how evil the corporations are.


As if you can hear
Alex Jones .................NWO are
libertarians ................the State is
anarchists ....................government is




And once again, they are right, but for the wrong reasons. They see the corporations as having corrupted the State, as opposed to the reality of the matter, which is that the State provides the "legal" framework required for the corporations to exist, and becomes a vehicle for exploitation.




They also see the corporations as being synonymous with free enterprise, which is also erroneous.


They think free enterprise includes freedom to buy your government to work against others. (freedom to hire a hitman)



Strangely, many socialists love mom + pop businesses for some reason as well. (At least, the non-Marxist ones) Not that there's anything wrong with small businesses, but start a debate with a socialist about Walmart and you'll hear how big, evil Walmart destroys small businesses and "wrecks towns" because it can out-compete the little guys. It's strange.


They don't know the difference between going out of business because corporations forced them out with government help, or forced out of business because people chose corportations voluntarily.

They seem to think that corporatists are a special race of people that don't deserve to live or make money. Only poor people are people with rights.

[Andrew-Austin]

simple answer is they believe property and capitalism only exists with the state.

No the simple answer is they don't know what laissez faire capitalism is to begin with.



They don't believe people naturally respect property, just like you don't believe people are naturally altruistic.

Its pretty obvious people are not naturally altruistic in the truest sense of the word.

altruism: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

[Optatron]

No the simple answer is they don't know what laissez faire capitalism is to begin with.



Its pretty obvious people are not naturally altruistic in the truest sense of the word.

altruism: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

it's also supposed to be obvious people aren't unlimitedly greedy, but that doesn't seem to be reality when you seen CEOs with billions and don't stop working, not knowing what's enough.

[Andrew-Austin]

it's also supposed to be obvious people aren't unlimitedly greedy, but that doesn't seem to be reality when you seen CEOs with billions and don't stop working, not knowing what's enough.

Maybe it has nothing to do with the accumulation of wealth, kind of awkward to just assume what their motivation is, perhaps they just like doing what they do? You basically just labeled someone who works for the sake of working as greedy, sorry not everyone is lazy enough for you.

[idirtify]

Pardon my armchair psychology but I think socialists suffer from a pseudo-religious moralism I like to call “Goodism”. Or Goodism might possibly be the most common element of pseudo-religious moralism. However you want to shuffle it, Goodism is extremely common. It is the belief that what you are doing/believing is so “Good” that it: a) is beyond the need for intellectual analysis; b) should be forced on everyone. This Goodism is typically reinforced with another pseudo-religious concept: Puritanical anti-materialism. While Goodism is also demonstrated by non-religious people, it resides within the same area of the brain normally reserved for non-rational religious belief.

[Optatron]

Maybe it has nothing to do with the accumulation of wealth, kind of awkward to just assume what their motivation is, perhaps they just like doing what they do? You basically just labeled someone who works for the sake of working as greedy, sorry not everyone is lazy enough for you.

they don't love what they do enough to do it for free, do they?
(not saying that they should)

not everybody is lazy enough for me, not everybody is anything for me, how about that?

[Theocrat]

Pardon my armchair psychology but I think socialists suffer from a pseudo-religious moralism I like to call “Goodism”. Or Goodism might possibly be the most common element of pseudo-religious moralism. However you want to shuffle it, Goodism is extremely common. It is the belief that what you are doing/believing is so “Good” that it: a) is beyond the need for intellectual analysis; b) should be forced on everyone. This Goodism is typically reinforced with another pseudo-religious concept: Puritanical anti-materialism. While Goodism is also demonstrated by non-religious people, it resides within the same area of the brain normally reserved for non-rational religious belief.

I think what you're describing is best summed up as utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism).

[idirtify]

I think what you're describing is best summed up as utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism).

Not at all. Since utilitarianism consists of a somewhat analyzed approach to ethics, it is largely opposite of “Goodism”. Goodism generally goes along totally free of analysis. Remember: it’s already “Good”, so it doesn’t need any analysis. The only thing it really needs is peer-group support.

Of course since I am only arguing a concept-name of my own making, I admit an unfair advantage.

[Kraig]

They are probably just switching things around to make their argument seem better, who knows if they are consciously doing it or if they are so entrenched in their beliefs that they just do it. While they are usually quite intelligent, I haven't known many socialists that will debate using honest facts, I think socialism is more of an appeal to emotions than rationality. However intelligent they are, they are still using an emotional argument.

[ClayTrainor]

Socialists equate ALL rich people with capitalism. It doesn't matter to them HOW the rich get their money, they're just pissed that they have it at all, when there is still poverty and other social negatives in their nation. They think economics is a zero-sum game, where if someone has something, then they must be depriving it from someone else.

So if there is some rich guys in power, they blame capitalism for everything that happens.

[RevolutionSD]

Because the government and their accomplices in the MSM stole words like "privatization" and changed their meaning. Now, to propagandized socialists, privatization and corporatism are the exact same thing. :(

[Freedom 4 all]

If the socialists manage to pull their heads out of their asses and realize what they hate is markedly not capitalism, they could be good allies for us.

[Brassmouth]

Pardon my armchair psychology but I think socialists suffer from a pseudo-religious moralism I like to call “Goodism”. Or Goodism might possibly be the most common element of pseudo-religious moralism. However you want to shuffle it, Goodism is extremely common. It is the belief that what you are doing/believing is so “Good” that it: a) is beyond the need for intellectual analysis; b) should be forced on everyone. This Goodism is typically reinforced with another pseudo-religious concept: Puritanical anti-materialism. While Goodism is also demonstrated by non-religious people, it resides within the same area of the brain normally reserved for non-rational religious belief.

Could you elaborate on this, if possible?


Socialists equate ALL rich people with capitalism. It doesn't matter to them HOW the rich get their money, they're just pissed that they have it at all, when there is still poverty and other social negatives in their nation. They think economics is a zero-sum game, where if someone has something, then they must be depriving it from someone else.

Precisely. I was once told by a professor that economics is a zero-sum game and that wealthy countries were rich because the Third World is poor. This is definitely a factor, but I believe ethics is where the real debate lies.

Oh, and they love Michael Moore, despite his millions. I guess dressing like a slob and wearing a baseball cap means you aren't really rich. :D

[Brassmouth]

Because the government and their accomplices in the MSM stole words like "privatization" and changed their meaning. Now, to propagandized socialists, privatization and corporatism are the exact same thing. :(

Propaganda is certainly a factor, but if we were able to escape it, there's no reason why they can't, with our help, of course.


If the socialists manage to pull their heads out of their asses and realize what they hate is markedly not capitalism, they could be good allies for us.

I agree.

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by idirtify
Pardon my armchair psychology but I think socialists suffer from a pseudo-religious moralism I like to call “Goodism”. Or Goodism might possibly be the most common element of pseudo-religious moralism. However you want to shuffle it, Goodism is extremely common. It is the belief that what you are doing/believing is so “Good” that it: a) is beyond the need for intellectual analysis; b) should be forced on everyone. This Goodism is typically reinforced with another pseudo-religious concept: Puritanical anti-materialism. While Goodism is also demonstrated by non-religious people, it resides within the same area of the brain normally reserved for non-rational religious belief.


Could you elaborate on this, if possible?


please specify. how? which part(s)?

[acptulsa]

Socialists don't equate capitalism with the state. They just try to blame every bad thing the state does that blows up in our faces with capitalism. And since we have budding fascism, that's not too hard to do.

Why does a kid break the vase and then say his little brother did it? They're socialists; it's hardly realistic to expect them to take responsibility...

[Imperial]

It is the belief that what you are doing/believing is so “Good” that it: a) is beyond the need for intellectual analysis; b) should be forced on everyone. This Goodism is typically reinforced with another pseudo-religious concept: Puritanical anti-materialism. While Goodism is also demonstrated by non-religious people, it resides within the same area of the brain normally reserved for non-rational religious belief

It is important to note that libertarians can suffer from this same problem. You can come to the correct conclusion and not understand why.

Whoever was talking about corporatism was making an excellent point. Corporatism can operate independent of capitalism or socialism in the real world. Even the Soviet Union practiced corporatism, and the US practices corporatism on many levels today. It is prevalent in some degree in practically any system (As an example, the US practiced corporatism in the late 1800s with railroads).

If people learned the actual definition of corporatism it would clear up much.

[mczerone]

The same reason the media tries to equate the State with "capitalism"-they're part of the Matrix (or ignorant, or just dupes).

I try my best to not be antagonistic toward "sheeple" or get bogged down with the conspiracy boogey-men trying to control the world, but you are entirely correct.

A small group of wealthy bankers pulled a Keyser Soze on the governments and people of the world, convincing them that they had a free market system while taking complete control of the apparatus they denied creating.

The blame for the horrible acts may indeed lay with some wealthy corporatist, but it was the force, arms, and legitimacy of the State, of governments, that gave them the power to kill so widely and broadly with impunity.

Burn Madoff! Create a super regulator! Don't you dare look behind the curtain!

[ClayTrainor]

It is important to note that libertarians can suffer from this same problem. You can come to the correct conclusion and not understand why.

Whoever was talking about corporatism was making an excellent point. Corporatism can operate independent of capitalism or socialism in the real world. Even the Soviet Union practiced corporatism, and the US practices corporatism on many levels today. It is prevalent in some degree in practically any system (As an example, the US practiced corporatism in the late 1800s with railroads).

If people learned the actual definition of corporatism it would clear up much.

What i don't understand is, what is the difference between socialism and corporatism?

Socialism is the public ownership of capital and industry, which would require a central democratic authority aka government, which would essentially be a government controlling business.

Isn't corporatism just business + government? How is that fundamentally different than socialism?

[Todd]

If people learned the actual definition of corporatism it would clear up much.




What i don't understand is, what is the difference between socialism and corporatism?

Socialism is the public ownership of capital and industry, which would require a central democratic authority aka government, which would essentially be a government controlling business.

Isn't corporatism just business + government? How is that fundamentally different than socialism?

Yes...It sure would be nice to get a definition of this entity that we could wrap our minds around.

[Optatron]

Socialists equate ALL rich people with capitalism. It doesn't matter to them HOW the rich get their money, they're just pissed that they have it at all, when there is still poverty and other social negatives in their nation. They think economics is a zero-sum game, where if someone has something, then they must be depriving it from someone else.

So if there is some rich guys in power, they blame capitalism for everything that happens.

right on!

sadly, many people here think economics is zero-sum as well, that's why they're angry and listen to Alex Jones about how Rothchilds and Rockefellers own this and that, as if it matters.

many people here don't care how happy the rest of the country is with socialism, they think their rights are more important than the market.

many people here don't care how much good has been done with government and violence, they'll never be convinced that government or violence can be a good thing, even if they benefit from it.

[ClayTrainor]

right on!

sadly, many people here think economics is zero-sum as well, that's why they're angry and listen to Alex Jones about how Rothchilds and Rockefellers own this and that, as if it matters.


I can't speak for everyone, but most people that have a problem with rockefeller, don't have a problem with him simply because he's rich, they dislike him because he's pushing a corrupt globalist agenda, and influencing government policy with some of his organizations.

I doubt people here believe economics is a zero-sum game.



many people here don't care how happy the rest of the country is with socialism, they think their rights are more important than the market.


If rights were respected, the market would be free. A free-market can't exist with out individual rights.



many people here don't care how much good has been done with government and violence, they'll never be convinced that government or violence can be a good thing, even if they benefit from it.

So if a thief steals someones money, uses it to buy a gun and rob a bank using violence and coercion, and then gives the money from the bank to sick children, we should be convinced that this was the right thing to do?

I think your mistaken. Everyone here is an individual, and there are some conflicting views, but most people here are against the using violence in order to do something good. We don't believe the ends justify the means, even if we benefit from it. Most of us would gladly give up those benefits, in exchange for freedom, however we know that freedom is never given.

[Brassmouth]

please specify. how? which part(s)?

I wasn't sure if that was a summary, or all you had to say. If it was the former, please elaborate, your post was interesting.


What i don't understand is, what is the difference between socialism and corporatism?

Socialism is the public ownership of capital and industry, which would require a central democratic authority aka government, which would essentially be a government controlling business.

Isn't corporatism just business + government? How is that fundamentally different than socialism?

Socialists think profit is evil; which is true is the profit comes from exploitation. Socialists correctly see that corporations can use the State to exploit people in order to make a profit. However, they cannot distinguish between that and true profit-making institutions, like Wal-Mart (for the most part). They also harbor a skepticism of corporations and free enterprise that is very similar to our skepticism of the State.



If rights were respected, the market would be free. A free-market can't exist with out individual rights.


Neither can human beings.

[idirtify]

I wasn't sure if that was a summary, or all you had to say. If it was the former, please elaborate, your post was interesting.


It was an opinionated armchair analysis only.

Sorry, I do much better when someone disagrees with something. But I will try to elaborate.

“Goodism” is a subconscious and unanalyzed system of belief about what is good. Of course along with it come unanalyzed beliefs about what is bad. The roots are largely based in pseudo-religious moralism like Puritanical anti-materialism that values “spirit” over “flesh” and collective liberalism that values “giving” over “getting” (material wealth). The beliefs are felt to be so GOOD that believers feel that laws should be made to force those values on everyone. The beliefs are generally unanalyzed because they were deeply programmed into their identities/personalities by their cultural environment since very young.