Was George Bailey really a communist?

Daqster

Was 'It's a Wonderful Life' really communist propaganda?

• FBI investigated classic Christmas film because it portrayed banker Mr Potter as greedy and evil
• FBI informants claimed the movie was a vessel for communist messages
• Claimed screenwriters Albert Hackett and Frances Goodrich associated with known communists
• Report was part of 2,000 page document compiled about communist 'influence' in Hollywood

'It's a Wonderful Life' is a Christmas classic - adored by families and praised by critics as one of the best American movies ever made.

But in 1946, when the movie came out, the FBI labelled it as subversive - a vessel for communist propaganda.

During the Red Scare after World War II, FBI informants claimed the film's portrayal of wealthy banker Mr Potter as a greedy villain was a sure sign of communist influence.

Recently-published FBI documents also reveal that investigators had their eye on 'It's a Wonderful Life' and screenwriters Albert Hackett and Frances Goodrich, a husband and wife duo who were accused of associating with known communists.

'With regard to "It's a Wonderful Life," [informant names redacted] stated in substance that the files represented a rather obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a "scrooge-type" so that he would be the most hated man in the picture,' according to a 2,000-page FBI report called 'Communist Infiltration in the Motion Picture Industry' that was assembled between 1942 and 1958.

'This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by communists.'
The declassified FBI files were unearthed by writer John Sbardellati in his 2012 book 'J. Edgar Hoover Goes to the Movies: The FBI and the Origins of Hollywood's Cold War.'

'It's a Wonderful Life' stars Jimmy Stewart as a small-town loan officer whose $8,000 deposit, enough to bankrupt his savings and loan company, is stolen by Mr Henry Potter, the greedy head of the local bank. Just as Stewart's character, George Bailey, is about to commit suicide, his guardian angel appears and shows him what life in his town of Bedford Falls would be life if he had never lived.

The Christmas classic was nominated for six Academy Awards, including best picture, best director and best actor. It has also been ranked No. 11 on the American Film Institute's top 100 American films.

However, a group convened by J. Edgard Hoover's Los Angeles FBI field office found it to be dangerous propaganda, according to media blog Aphelis.

The anonymous circle of screenwriters targeted both the writers and the film itself. 'It's a Wonderful Life' and other films were targeted under a film regime designed by Ayn Rand, the 'Atlas Shrugged' writer who has become an icon for some libertarian conservatives in recent years, according to Aphelis.

'According to [source name redacted] the writers Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett were very close to known Communists and on one occasion in the recent past... practically lived with known Communists and were observed eating luncheon daily with such Communists as Lester Cole, screenwriter, and Early Robinson, screenwriter,' the FBI document says.

The FBI file also claims that the bureau's screenwriter sources said the film 'deliberately maligned the upper classes, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters.'

I for one have never seen this picture in this light before and am shocked to my core that Frank Capra did this. He infiltrated my mind at a young age and brainwashed me with his communist propaganda. Why, if it wasn't for Stone's 'Castro is shitting all over us. You know I eat octopus three times a day? I got fucking octopus coming out of my ears. I got fucking Russian shoes, my feet's coming through.' then no doubt I may have become a communist myself.

On Friday afternoon I shall be picketing a screening of It's A Wonderful Life at the Lighthouse in protest. Our children need to be preventing from seeing any more of this communist rabble. Who's with me??

bnt

Nuts to that. George Bailey was a banker, a capitalist through and through. His famous speech about where the money goes doesn't contradict that, it's actually a basic explanation of fractional reserve banking, the way banking still works today.

The "red peril" threat was genuinely overblown in the early '50s period, between Senator McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover. Had Charles Dickens been around to write A Christmas Carol then, he would have been blacklisted and deported back to London. The Dickens influence is obvious in the movie, in its depictions of the really wealthy as Scrooge types.

It's been a long time since I've seen the film, but between my memory and Wikipedia I see no point at which the government is invoked or praised. George defuses the bank run crisis himself, without appealing to the government to back him - which he could have done, since the FDIC was created in 1933 (roughly the time of that scene) to guarantee bank deposits. Since it's all about self-reliance without the government, I wouldn't call the film even slighgtly Socialist, never mind Communist. :cool:

Dartz

What's wrong with being a communist?

Daqster

Dartz wrote: »

What's wrong with being a communist?

You a Communist? How'd you like it?

They tell you all the time what to do, what to think, what to feel. Do you want to be like a sheep? Like all those other people? You own nothing, you got nothing. Do you want a chivato on every corner watching everything you do? Everything you say? How'd you like that?

wazky

Daqster wrote: »

You a Communist? How'd you like it?

They tell you all the time what to do, what to think, what to feel. Do you want to be like a sheep? Like all those other people? You own nothing, you got nothing. Do you want a chivato on every corner watching everything you do? Everything you say? How'd you like that?

Totally different to other forms of government so?

baboo800

Thought he batted no6 for Australia

George Bailey is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Dartz wrote: »

What's wrong with being a communist?

lol

Canis Lupus

Daqster wrote: »

You a Communist? How'd you like it?

They tell you all the time what to do, what to think, what to feel. Do you want to be like a sheep? Like all those other people? You own nothing, you got nothing. Do you want a chivato on every corner watching everything you do? Everything you say? How'd you like that?

You ever lived in London? :P

Sunnyisland

Tell ya in two hours looking at him now on tv ...

Daqster

Deleted User wrote: »

George Bailey is not a communist.

When his brother Harry went off to war, he pretended he couldn't cause of his gammy ear. Bit of cold water got in it when he acting the maggot as a kid but sure many deaf people fought and died in the wars. Sure at the very end of the film there is a big meeting where there is clear distribution of wealth. He was a commie, no question.

20Cent

J Edgar Hoover was head of the FBI until his death at 77. He prioritised reds under the bed policies while ignoring the rise of the mafia. He used his position to spy on those in power collecting dirt to use so he could influence public policy. Several presidents wanted to fire him but were afraid of what was in his secret files and let him do his own thing.
Today there is a vastly superior sytem of spying and no one seems to think the information gained would be used to subvert democracy in a similar way

Daqster

Daqster wrote: »

When his brother Harry went off to war, he pretended he couldn't cause of his gammy ear. Bit of cold water got in it when he acting the maggot as a kid but sure many deaf people fought and died in the wars. Sure at the very end of the film there is a big meeting where there is clear distribution of wealth. He was a commie, no question.

Harry Bailey went to war, he got the Congressional Medal of Honor, and he saved the lives of every man on that transport.

I don't think he would have associated with any members of the communist party, even his own brother.

Sure, George may have had socialist leanings but socialism is not communism. And, in the end, isn't that what it's all about.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

20Cent wrote: »

Today there is a vastly superior sytem of spying and no one seems to think the information gained would be used to subvert democracy in a similar way

what? ****ing everybody does. have you not been paying attention for the past few months?

KyussBishop

Communism can be interpreted as an idealistic political theory, which aims to transition to an anarchistic communal society without any government - a theory which has proven not to work in reality, and has unintentionally resulted in dictatorship and a massive death toll.

Libertarianism can also be interpreted as an idealistic political theory, which aims to transition to an anarchistic capitalist society without any government - a theory so riddled with practical flaws, that it also would not work in reality, and is likely to result in an oligarchy/dictatorship, with a significant death toll on the less well off who come to depend upon the whims of 'charity'.

They're both political theories that are completely impractical in reality, so aren't they both equally stupid ideas? :pac:


You rarely hear people going on about "anarcho-capitalists under the bed!" or "Libertarianism lol" (not by itself anyway ) - people actually have rational criticisms of the theory, not kneejerk reactions.

I doubt many kneejerk posters can even describe Communism accurately, just point to Stalin and say "Look! This is what Communists support" (which is about as rational as pointing to Pinochet, and saying "Look! This is what Capitalists support") - so come on guys, what is worse about supporting one non-reality-based theory (Communism) over another (Libertarianism)?

Capt'n Midnight

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."
Hélder Câmara

Dartz

Daqster wrote: »

You a Communist? How'd you like it?

They tell you all the time what to do, what to think, what to feel. Do you want to be like a sheep? Like all those other people? You own nothing, you got nothing. Do you want a chivato on every corner watching everything you do? Everything you say? How'd you like that?

That's not Communism. That's Stalinism.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah, pretty sure stalin was welsh

camel jockey

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."
Hélder Câmara

You forgot to mention that he is catholic archbishop. Perhaps of the catholic church didn't sit on it's billions these people wouldn't be poor...

Hande hoche!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

yeah, pretty sure stalin was welsh

Don't get me started on those Welsh-Georgians.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Watched the film this morning.The whole situation seems quite similar to Ireland, just on a smaller scale .Idiotic banker, loses concentration and loses all the banks money and then rely's on the good people of the town to bail him out and he gets off scot-free.

NuckingFacker

I've no idea if he was a communist or not, I can't even say I hugely care - the missus loves his cream liqour - and when the drink runs out there's always a sneaky bottle of it knocking round somwhere to fill the gap. It does get a bit sickening after a glass or three though.

Frank Lee Midere

KyussBishop wrote: »

Communism can be interpreted as an idealistic political theory, which aims to transition to an anarchistic communal society without any government - a theory which has proven not to work in reality, and has unintentionally resulted in dictatorship and a massive death toll.

Libertarianism can also be interpreted as an idealistic political theory, which aims to transition to an anarchistic capitalist society without any government - a theory so riddled with practical flaws, that it also would not work in reality, and is likely to result in an oligarchy/dictatorship, with a significant death toll on the less well off who come to depend upon the whims of 'charity'.

They're both political theories that are completely impractical in reality, so aren't they both equally stupid ideas? :pac:


You rarely hear people going on about "anarcho-capitalists under the bed!" or "Libertarianism lol" (not by itself anyway ) - people actually have rational criticisms of the theory, not kneejerk reactions.

I doubt many kneejerk posters can even describe Communism accurately, just point to Stalin and say "Look! This is what Communists support" (which is about as rational as pointing to Pinochet, and saying "Look! This is what Capitalists support") - so come on guys, what is worse about supporting one non-reality-based theory (Communism) over another (Libertarianism)?

You've invented your own straw man there. Plenty of people attack both Communism and libertarianism based on lots of knowledge, or none. Both theories are nuts but surely the "State withering away" part is that bit nuttier.

Frank Lee Midere

Dartz wrote: »

That's not Communism. That's Stalinism.

A distinction without a difference. I'm afraid those of us outside the cult can't really see how the State owning "all the means of production" including all sources of information cannot be otherwise than totalitarian, nor can a Marxist state have multi party elections or the Marxists would lose their deposits and Marxism would end. Nor would people naturally vote for a flawed economic system which would make them poorer. The empirical evidence supports my thesis, not yours ( apparantly democratic communism).

Aidric

Was 'Red Red Wine' by UB40 a communist anthem?

Clandestine

KyussBishop wrote: »

Libertarianism can also be interpreted as an idealistic political theory, which aims to transition to an anarchistic capitalist society without any government

That is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarianism. There is several different forms of libertarianism e.g minarchism, voluntaryism, mutalism etc. of which not all call for the abolition of the state.

KyussBishop wrote: »

a theory so riddled with practical flaws, that it also would not work in reality, and is likely to result in an oligarchy/dictatorship,

with a significant death toll on the less well off who come to depend upon the whims of 'charity'.

How would libertarianism ever result in an oligarchy or a dictatorship? Giving people more rights would not result in them being taken away. Look at history, all dictatorships have resulted by taking the rights (and weapons) of the people away.

On the second point, I believe the state essentially steals people's money (taxation) under the guise of "welfare" to provide for non-working citizens, who have no right to this money they have not earned. Charity would ensure that money is given on a voluntary basis and considering the amounts of voluntary services and money given to charity annually so I think not many people would be starving. There more to the process, but it is a lot to explain.

Regardless, is it greedy to want to keep money you've earned but not greedy to want to take someone else's money?

KyussBishop wrote: »

You rarely hear people going on about "anarcho-capitalists under the bed!" or "Libertarianism lol" (not by itself anyway ) - people actually have rational criticisms of the theory, not kneejerk reactions.

Can you make specific criticisms here?

KyussBishop wrote: »

so come on guys, what is worse about supporting one non-reality-based theory (Communism) over another (Libertarianism)?

I agree communism is next to impossible to implement in reality accurately but whats makes libertarianism not have a basis in reality?

KyussBishop

Clandestine wrote: »

That is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarianism. There is several different forms of libertarianism e.g minarchism, voluntaryism, mutalism etc. of which not all call for the abolition of the state.

All of the touting of 'free markets' that these forms of Libertarianism use as founding arguments, are based on anarcho-capitalism, because you can't have free markets without anarcho-capitalism - the very existence of the state means the markets are not free (because the state creates laws, i.e. regulations, which constrain the markets).

These forms of Libertarianism are based on the faith, that the closer you get to 'free markets', the more the economy and society starts to see the benefits of free markets - past precedent shows this is false though, the closer you get to this (deregulation/privatization etc.) the worse off a larger and larger section of society becomes, and it is nothing like the theoretical perfect model of free markets.

Most of the arguments for these forms of Libertarianism, immediately become internally inconsistent once you step past anarcho-capitalism; for example, you say:
"I believe the state essentially steals people's money (taxation)" - that is an anarcho-capitalist argument, and if you agree that there should be any state at all, then that means there must be taxes, so that puts you in contradiction with yourself (you can't pick-and-choose where you apply that argument, which is what Libertarians tend to do - that just turns it into a meaningless soundbite used for rhetorical effect, instead of being used with consistency).

"Regardless, is it greedy to want to keep money you've earned but not greedy to want to take someone else's money?" - you already agree the state should exist, that mandatorily requires taxes, so that means your argument here is inconsistent: you already agree money you've earned should be taken away (and assuming you want the state to be a democratic one, are free to vote, to collectively decide how government allocates that money).

Clandestine wrote: »

How would libertarianism ever result in an oligarchy or a dictatorship? Giving people more rights would not result in them being taken away. Look at history, all dictatorships have resulted by taking the rights (and weapons) of the people away.

On the second point, I believe the state essentially steals people's money (taxation) under the guise of "welfare" to provide for non-working citizens, who have no right to this money they have not earned. Charity would ensure that money is given on a voluntary basis and considering the amounts of voluntary services and money given to charity annually so I think not many people would be starving. There more to the process, but it is a lot to explain.

It would result in an oligarchy/dictatorship, because Libertarianism's express goal is to allow extremely wealthy/politically-powerful people, the 'freedom' to continue gaining unchecked wealth/political-power without any restriction, which would end with a small group of people gaining massive control over the economy, society and politics, being able to shape all to run in their favour (to maximize their power).

Money will always be usable for gaining power, and Libertarianism would remove all limits on the ability for money to accumulate in the hands of a few, would maximize the amount of power over the economy/society that can be gained through money, and would fail to prevent money being used to gain political power (which is pretty much impossible).


Most of charities funding comes from the state already, and on top of cutting that off, you would need charities to make up the multiple billions of Euro's required to take up spending for all the people that will lose their welfare payments (and ability to survive without charity) - that amount of additional money would be comparable to the welfare budget, and there's no way that much can be fundraised every year - people will suffer, becoming homeless and many starving/dying.

Clandestine wrote: »

Can you make specific criticisms here?

The whole point that Libertarianism's arguments depend upon 'free markets', which are theoretically impossible, and that even the state-accepting forms of Libertarianism use these forms of arguments (despite the existence of the state making 'free markets' literally impossible), rendering them internally inconsistent - these are all specific arguments.

Clandestine wrote: »

I agree communism is next to impossible to implement in reality accurately but whats makes libertarianism not have a basis in reality?

Anarcho-capitalism, complete abolition of the state, is a practical impossibility in reality - other forms of Libertarianism that accept the existence of the state, depend upon anarcho-capitalist arguments, which causes these forms of Libertarianism to be internally inconsistent and contradict themselves - making the benefits touted from them, impossible to achieve in reality (since they are based on impossible to achieve 'free markets').

Chefrio

Capitalism with minimum government interference is best for a society's well being.

Wealth isn't static, it can be created, but crucially there needs to be the motivation in an society's citizens to create wealth and minimum restrictions, barriers and obstacles to creating wealth.

P. Breathnach

Chefrio wrote: »

Capitalism with minimum government interference is best for a society's well being.....

It's surprising how strongly some people hold ideological beliefs that are inconsistent with observable reality.

Light-touch regulation of banking is a version of minimum government interference. That didn't work too well.

Chefrio

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's surprising how strongly some people hold ideological beliefs that are inconsistent with observable reality.

Light-touch regulation of banking is a version of minimum government interference. That didn't work too well.

Then thats not minimum.

P. Breathnach

Chefrio wrote: »

Then thats not minimum.

So less than the little that we had would have produced a better outcome?

Banking regulation was devised because unregulated banking led to frequent bank failures.

DoozerT6

I prefer to think of It's a Wonderful Life as a feel-good Christmas film with a slightly flawed hero.

Does politics have to ruin everything? Can we not just enjoy the fact that every time a bell rings, an angel gets their wings??

Brian?

KyussBishop wrote: »

All of the touting of 'free markets' that these forms of Libertarianism use as founding arguments, are based on anarcho-capitalism, because you can't have free markets without anarcho-capitalism - the very existence of the state means the markets are not free (because the state creates laws, i.e. regulations, which constrain the markets).

These forms of Libertarianism are based on the faith, that the closer you get to 'free markets', the more the economy and society starts to see the benefits of free markets - past precedent shows this is false though, the closer you get to this (deregulation/privatization etc.) the worse off a larger and larger section of society becomes, and it is nothing like the theoretical perfect model of free markets.

Most of the arguments for these forms of Libertarianism, immediately become internally inconsistent once you step past anarcho-capitalism; for example, you say:
"I believe the state essentially steals people's money (taxation)" - that is an anarcho-capitalist argument, and if you agree that there should be any state at all, then that means there must be taxes, so that puts you in contradiction with yourself (you can't pick-and-choose where you apply that argument, which is what Libertarians tend to do - that just turns it into a meaningless soundbite used for rhetorical effect, instead of being used with consistency).

"Regardless, is it greedy to want to keep money you've earned but not greedy to want to take someone else's money?" - you already agree the state should exist, that mandatorily requires taxes, so that means your argument here is inconsistent: you already agree money you've earned should be taken away (and assuming you want the state to be a democratic one, are free to vote, to collectively decide how government allocates that money).


It would result in an oligarchy/dictatorship, because Libertarianism's express goal is to allow extremely wealthy/politically-powerful people, the 'freedom' to continue gaining unchecked wealth/political-power without any restriction, which would end with a small group of people gaining massive control over the economy, society and politics, being able to shape all to run in their favour (to maximize their power).

Money will always be usable for gaining power, and Libertarianism would remove all limits on the ability for money to accumulate in the hands of a few, would maximize the amount of power over the economy/society that can be gained through money, and would fail to prevent money being used to gain political power (which is pretty much impossible).


Most of charities funding comes from the state already, and on top of cutting that off, you would need charities to make up the multiple billions of Euro's required to take up spending for all the people that will lose their welfare payments (and ability to survive without charity) - that amount of additional money would be comparable to the welfare budget, and there's no way that much can be fundraised every year - people will suffer, becoming homeless and many starving/dying.


The whole point that Libertarianism's arguments depend upon 'free markets', which are theoretically impossible, and that even the state-accepting forms of Libertarianism use these forms of arguments (despite the existence of the state making 'free markets' literally impossible), rendering them internally inconsistent - these are all specific arguments.


Anarcho-capitalism, complete abolition of the state, is a practical impossibility in reality - other forms of Libertarianism that accept the existence of the state, depend upon anarcho-capitalist arguments, which causes these forms of Libertarianism to be internally inconsistent and contradict themselves - making the benefits touted from them, impossible to achieve in reality (since they are based on impossible to achieve 'free markets').

Phenomenally good post.

Capt'n Midnight

Aidric wrote: »

Was 'Red Red Wine' by UB40 a communist anthem?

Ask Neil Diamond , he wrote it.

Capt'n Midnight

Chefrio wrote: »

Capitalism with minimum government interference is best for a society's well being.

Wealth isn't static, it can be created, but crucially there needs to be the motivation in an society's citizens to create wealth and minimum restrictions, barriers and obstacles to creating wealth.

Almost all the growth in wealth since the recession started is by the top few.

The rich have gotten richer, almost all the rest of us have seen declines in income and the value of assets. The has been no trickle down. Stock markets have done very well thank you over the last few years. But how many of us have seen that in our pay packets. How many of us have seen increased prices for services.



Capitalism with minimum government interference is best for a rich person's well being.

KyussBishop

Chefrio wrote: »

Capitalism with minimum government interference is best for a society's well being.

Wealth isn't static, it can be created, but crucially there needs to be the motivation in an society's citizens to create wealth and minimum restrictions, barriers and obstacles to creating wealth.

Chefrio wrote: »

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's surprising how strongly some people hold ideological beliefs that are inconsistent with observable reality.

Light-touch regulation of banking is a version of minimum government interference. That didn't work too well.

Then thats not minimum.

You've just repeated the exact 'free market' myth I've just destructed: The 'minimum' you are seeking here, is anarcho-capitalism with no government whatsoever (which is practically impossible), because that is the only way to you get enough deregulation for the pure 'free market' theory to start delivering its benefits.

Reality shows, that when you try to move towards these mythical 100% unregulated (i.e. no-government) 'free markets', that it's nothing like what the free-market supporters promise - and when they say, as a cop-out, "it's just not deregulated enough; more deregulation", what they are really saying is "it's not anarcho-capitalism yet; remove government".

It's a utopian, impossible to reach goal, that ends in dystopia - just like Communism.

Brian?

KyussBishop wrote: »

You've just repeated the exact 'free market' myth I've just destructed: The 'minimum' you are seeking here, is anarcho-capitalism with no government whatsoever (which is practically impossible), because that is the only way to you get enough deregulation for the pure 'free market' theory to start delivering its benefits.

Reality shows, that when you try to move towards these mythical 100% unregulated (i.e. no-government) 'free markets', that it's nothing like what the free-market supporters promise - and when they say, as a cop-out, "it's just not deregulated enough; more deregulation", what they are really saying is "it's not anarcho-capitalism yet; remove government".

It's a utopian, impossible to reach goal, that ends in dystopia - just like Communism.

Agreed.

Anyone who believes this free market myth should look at the real world experiments supported by Friedmanite economists in Chile, Indonesia etc. the result was an increased gap between rich and poor and mass unemployment.

If you listen to Mr. Friedman he will tell you it went wrong because the markets weren't deregulated enought, based on theoretical projections. I'm sure that made the thousands struggling to put food on the table feel better.

Chefrio

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So less than the little that we had would have produced a better outcome?

Banking regulation was devised because unregulated banking led to frequent bank failures.

No, if the current amount wasn't enough then that was below minimum.

Phoebas

Chefrio wrote: »

No, if the current amount wasn't enough then that was below minimum.

When you say minimum, do you really mean optimum?

Brian?

Phoebas wrote: »

When you say minimum, do you really mean optimum?

I honestly don't think he knows what he means.

Chefrio

Phoebas wrote: »

When you say minimum, do you really mean optimum?

The least interference necessary should be the aim.

Brian?

Chefrio wrote: »

The least interference necessary should be the aim.

So the minimum amount of regulation is the amount that works?

So you agree that the banking sector wasn't well regulated enough as it failed massively? So you want to increase regulation until no further failure of this type is possible?

That's not capitalism.

Chefrio

Brian? wrote: »

So the minimum amount of regulation is the amount that works?

So you agree that the banking sector wasn't well regulated enough as it failed massively? So you want to increase regulation until no further failure of this type is possible?

That's not capitalism.

When did I say it was capitalism, I'm not interested in the semantics of definitions.

Regulation should be set at a reasonable level to benefit society.

Brian?

Chefrio wrote: »

When did I say it was capitalism, I'm not interested in the semantics of definitions.

Regulation should be set at a reasonable level to benefit society.

Ahem......

Chefrio wrote: »

Capitalism with minimum government interference is best for a society's well being.

Wealth isn't static, it can be created, but crucially there needs to be the motivation in an society's citizens to create wealth and minimum restrictions, barriers and obstacles to creating wealth.

Chefrio

Brian? wrote: »

Ahem......

Ok I'll amend the description but this is just semantics of definitions.

An economy and society should be set up such that the free market is the default system of allocating resources, derermining prices etc. If it is in the best interest of society then the government should intervene. For example, providing a police force and banking regulations.

Brian?

Chefrio wrote: »

Ok I'll amend the description but this is just semantics of definitions.

An economy and society should be set up such that the free market is the default system of allocating resources, derermining prices etc. If it is in the best interest of society then the government should intervene. For example, providing a police force and banking regulations.

I'm not taking the piss here, but why mention capitalism in the first place? The system you are describing is not a truly capitalist society. It's a democracy when the amount of regulation is decided indirectly by the people.

A democratic socialist society could easily fit that description.

It's not semantics to point this out. You stated with certainty you thought a capitalist society is the way forward and contradicted yourself by describing a system which isn't very capitalist.

I'm honestly not having a go here. I just think you, like a lot of people, need to educate yourself on what capitalism actually is.

Chefrio

Brian? wrote: »

I'm not taking the piss here, but why mention capitalism in the first place? The system you are describing is not a truly capitalist society. It's a democracy when the amount of regulation is decided indirectly by the people.

A democratic socialist society could easily fit that description.

It's not semantics to point this out. You stated with certainty you thought a capitalist society is the way forward and contradicted yourself by describing a system which isn't very capitalist.

I'm honestly not having a go here. I just think you, like a lot of people, need to educate yourself on what capitalism actually is.

If I understanding of capitalism is wrong then I'll look it up, I used the term capitalism to describe an economy which is liberal economically.

More importantly, how did the neo-McCartyist picket go?

tony007

jank

Dartz wrote: »

What's wrong with being a communist?

I would equate a communist to being a fascist. Two sides of the same coin. Only one hates your wealth the other hates your race and both want to strip your personal freedoms from you to make a 'better' world in their own image.

I see this crap all the time in Sydney. Posters on lampposts proclaiming the good of the 1917 October revolution and so on. Nobody bats an eyelid which I find bizarre.

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

Libertarianism can also be interpreted as an idealistic political theory, which aims to transition to an anarchistic capitalist society without any government

Stop peddling bull$hit. No Libertarian that I know of thinks that society cannot have a government.