Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Explained

Dr. Lawrence Quill, chairman and professor of political science at San Jose State University. Explained the difference between communism, socialism, capitalism and democratic socialism -- in very professorial terms.

Capitalism — or really the concept of "liberalism" — arose in the 17th century, and centers on the right to private property. In Adam Smith's foundational "Wealth of Nations," Quill notes, "is recognition that capitalism is going to make the lives of a good majority of the population miserable, and that there will be a need for government intervention in society and the economy to offset the worse effects."

Socialism was in part a response to capitalism, largely through the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Socialism focuses on the inequalities that arise within capitalism through a number of possible responses. Quill outlined some possibilities: "[T]he state might 'wither away' or collapse altogether, in others it would regulate the production of goods and services, in yet others it would become thoroughly democratic" -- all with the aim of reducing that inequality.

You can see that's where democratic socialism arises. That philosophy, Quill writes, seeks "democratic control of sectors of society and economy in order to avoid the pitfalls of an unregulated market and -- this is most important -- the kind of terrible authoritarian government that emerged in the Soviet Union."


Socialism was in part a response to capitalism, largely through the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Socialism focuses on the inequalities that arise within capitalism through a number of possible responses. Quill outlined some possibilities: "[T]he state might 'wither away' or collapse altogether, in others it would regulate the production of goods and services, in yet others it would become thoroughly democratic" -- all with the aim of reducing that inequality.

You can see that's where democratic socialism arises. That philosophy, Quill writes, seeks "democratic control of sectors of society and economy in order to avoid the pitfalls of an unregulated market and -- this is most important -- the kind of terrible authoritarian government that emerged in the Soviet Union."
What you need to know about socialism

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been making waves as the only democratic socialist running for president. Here's what you need to know about being a democratic socialist and how it's different from socialism. (Alice Li/The Washington Post)

Communism "was the endpoint of Marx's ideas," Quill writes, though Marx didn't delineate what it would look like, exactly. "We find hints in works like 'The German Ideology" (1846) where there is a description of working life that is unalienated, i.e. creative and various -- we hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, and become opera critics in the evening." During the Cold War, though, the idea came to be inextricably and pejoratively associated with the Soviet Union and with the elimination of private property. The term, in Quill's words, "served as a shorthand for all things un-American" -- which was the way that Trump used it.

Quill's most important point is that "all of these terms are 'umbrella concepts'; in other words, they are host to a family of related ideas, not all of them compatible with one another." We tend to use the terms concretely, which necessarily introduces inaccuracies. Or, as Quill put it, "they [can] serve as excuses not to think, as belief systems that discourage explorations of the mismatch between theory and practice and the inconsistencies of any grand theory."

So that's the college-level curriculum. Next, I scaled it back a bit and talked to Tori Waite, who teaches high school history at Del Mar High School in San Jose. After all, since most of us were first introduced to these ideas in high school, perhaps we just need a refresher.

"When we teach about the different types of economies," Waite said, "the first thing we do is we talk about economic questions. How is it made? Who makes it? Who gets to buy it? Based on the economy, different people answer those questions."

Simplifying Quill's explanation: "In a communist country, the government answers those questions. There's no private business. There's no private property. The government decides."

"In a capitalist society, the people make those decisions. The businesses, the market decides how much products will cost, how many there are, where it will be made."

"In the socialist system, there's a mix of both. The government operates the system to help all, but there is opportunity for private property and private wealth. That's generally how we talk about it." Back to Quill's point: A socialist government could control all of the means of production -- or it could, for example, use taxes to redistribute resources among the population.

Both Quill and Waite note that the United States is not a purely capitalist society. There are and have long been socialist aspects to how the government makes decisions and applies its power, while still striving to keep the marketplace as free as possible. And, of course, while allowing democratic decisions to guide what it does.

That's the nature of thing, and why college students spend so much time at coffee houses arguing over nonsense.)

Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism Made Simple

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy Obama is using to overload our system

My dear friends, isn’t it time we paid the price to know your history, and to teach our history to others? History sets one of the parameters of critical thinking. By controlling the “parameters” our critical thinking skills are limited. Example: The ball is red, period. That is what Common Core wants to do with our children. They do not want our children, or grand children, or you to every say, “who said the ball is red, and who said red is red, and who said that is a ball, and who said the ball is round?” I hope you get the picture!That is an article for another day. Today I would like to talk about the current strategy that is driving today’s overloading of our systems and the philosophy and strategy behind it.

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".

Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy."

In papers published in 1971 and 1977 Cloward and Piven were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in the liberal magazine The Nation entitled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".

The two stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party. There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party-then splintered by pluralistic interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national "solution" to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national "solution" to poverty).

Cloward and Piven's article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare "would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments" that would: "deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas."

They further wrote:

“The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.”

Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews, Cloward and Piven argued that mass unrest in the United States, especially between 1964 and 1969, did lead to a massive expansion of welfare rolls, though not to the guaranteed-income program that they had hoped for.[8] Political scientist Robert Albritton disagreed, writing in 1979 that the data did not support this thesis; he offered an alternative explanation for the rise in welfare caseloads.

In his 2006 book Winning the Race, political commentator John McWhorter attributed the rise in the welfare state after the 1960s to the Cloward–Piven strategy, but wrote about it negatively, stating that the strategy "created generations of black people for whom working for a living is an abstraction".

According to historian Robert E. Weir in 2007: "Although the strategy helped to boost recipient numbers between 1966 and 1975, the revolution its proponents envisioned never transpired. But my friends it is today.

Some commentators have blamed the Cloward–Piven strategy for the near-bankruptcy of New York City in 1975

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck referred to the Cloward-Piven Strategy often on his Fox News television show, Glenn Beck, during its run from 2009 to 2011, reiterating his opinion that it had helped to inspire President Barack Obama's economic policy. On February 18, 2010, for example, Beck said: "You’ve got total destruction of wealth coming ... It’s the final phase of the Cloward-Piven strategy, which is collapse the system."

Richard Kim, writing in 2010 in The Nation (in which the original essay appeared), called such assertions "a reactionary paranoid fantasy ...", but he also pointed out: "The lefts gut reaction upon hearing of it--to laugh it off as a Scooby-Doo comic mystery--does nothing to blunt its appeal or limit its impact." The Nation later stated that Beck blames the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" for "the financial crisis of 2008, health-care reform, Obama's election and massive voter fraud" and has resulted in the posting of much violent and threatening rhetoric by users on Beck's web site, including death threats against Frances Fox Piven. For her part, Piven vigorously continues to defend the original idea, calling its conservative interpretation "lunatic".

“Who said the ball is red, and who said red is red, and who said that is a ball, and who said the ball is round”

Please share this history with whomever will listen. We may just be the last generation of critical thinkers. Ask your children “why” often, very often. Above all do your research...

More From Contributor:

Priscilla Kinchen

11 mins · Misty Mountain, GA ·

AMERICA WE HAVE A PROBLEM!!!!!
Obama is anti-american! His action record speaks for itself:
He is pro muslim
He wants to bring this country to its knees, and he is succeeding.
Look at all he has done during his presidency.
1. Fired all top generals
2. Reduced the military
3. ++ Contrary to advice from experts, he withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan paving the way for ISIS.
4. Apologized for America
5. Turned against Israel
6. Created Racial problems, not seen since the 60's.
7. *** Releasing all terrorists from gitmo
8. Traded terrorists for a trader
9. Won't call. Terrorism "Islamic Terrorism"
10. Seen more then once not saluting marines entering or exiting Marine One or Air Force One.
11. Blowing up empty buildings or a pick up truck here and there instead of giving ISIS hell, like our military is more then capable of doing.
12. Fires the defense secretaries when they disagree with him.
13. Refuses to close the border, again against expert advice (and the Will of The American People may I add).
14. Obama care, free college, both meant to bankrupt everyone.
15. Instrumental in turning AMERICA against cops..creating a possible chaotic lawless society in America. (so that he can pronounce Marshall Law, and become Dictator in Chief may I add).
16. No representative in Paris this past weekend, because it was geared toward being anti Islamic Terrorism (which he refuses to utter those words -hahahaha!! ).
Now let's examine his past:
1. His pastor and mentor, as he described him is Pastor Jeremiah Wright, as anti-american as they come.
2. His old pal, Bill Ayers , anti-american and home grown terrorist.
3. Key advisor - Al Sharpton
4. Hippie pot smoker.
5. Foreign aid student from Indonesia.
6. Not a qualified American to even become President.
7. Card carrying member of The Brotherhood.
8. Parents were both members of the Communist party.
9. Never held a 'real'job.
10. Doesn't have a valid legal Social Security number.
11. Lied on Mortgage Application papers.
12. His 'Change' platform is bringing downward Change to America and the World.
Source/References:


 Obama’s Cloward-Piven Weapon of Mass Destruction
  
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

More about Cloward–Piven strategy

 Immigration Overload: Record 42.1 Million (Im)migrants in U.S.

Come One, Come All-Free Stuff

Socialism never took root in America BECAUSE RACISM – MSNBC morons of the day » The Right Scoop -

You know I’m kinda disappointed with the “what’s the stupidest thing someone can say on the Melissa Harris Perry show” award today. I watch that whole hellish wit-sucking chasm of intelligence, I gaze into the abyss for the benefit of finding something stupid, and this is all they can come up with is Pretty stupid

Read more:

Must see! Percentages reflect amount of conservative positions taken in voting.

The top three quarters of this list need to be replaced. Ranking are provided by the Conservative Review. Percentages reflect amount of conservative positions taken in voting. We have a lot of liberal republicans on this list. A-F grades provided by CR

16% ME Sen. Susan Collins F
20% CO Sen. Cory Gardner F
20% AK Sen. Lisa Murkowski F
20% SD Sen. Mike Rounds F
20% WV Sen. Shelley Capito F
24% TN Sen. Lamar Alexander F
26% ND Sen. John Hoeven F
28% IL Sen. Mark Kirk F
30% MS Sen. Roger Wicker F
33% MS Sen. Thad Cochran F
38% AZ Sen. Jeff Flake F
38% MO Sen. Roy Blunt F
40% GA Sen. Johnny Isakson F
40% NC Sen. Thom Tillis F
41% NH Sen. Kelly Ayotte F
43% AZ Sen. John McCain F
47% SC Sen. Lindsey Graham F
48% IN Sen. Daniel Coats F
49% NC Sen. Richard Burr F
50% AR Sen. John Boozman F
51% TN Sen. Bob Corker F
52% NV Sen. Dean Heller F
52% SD Sen. John Thune F
52% KY Sen. Mitch McConnell F
52% UT Sen. Orrin Hatch F
54% OH Sen. Rob Portman F
55% KS Sen. Pat Roberts F
56% NE Sen. Deb Fischer F
59% TX Sen. John Cornyn F
60% LA Sen. Bill Cassidy D
60% AK Sen. Dan Sullivan D
60% OK Sen. James Lankford D
60% IA Sen. Joni Ernst D
60% MT Sen. Steve Daines D
60% AR Sen. Tom Cotton D
61% WY Sen. John Barrasso D
62% KS Sen. Jerry Moran D
63% PA Sen. Pat Toomey D
64% WY Sen. Michael Enzi D
66% AL Sen. Richard Shelby D
67% WI Sen. Ron Johnson D
71% LA Sen. David Vitter C
72% IA Sen. Charles Grassley C
76% ID Sen. Michael Crapo C
77% OK Sen. Jim Inhofe C
78% ID Sen. Jim Risch C
80% NE Sen. Benjamin Sasse B
80% GA Sen. David Perdue B
80% AL Sen. Jeff Sessions B
80% FL Sen. Marco Rubio B
85% SC Sen. Tim Scott B
93% KY Sen. Rand Paul A
96% TX Sen. Ted Cruz A
100% UT Sen. Mike Lee A
https://www.conservativereview.com/Scorecard

Visit Our Daily Newsletter at TheRedPill.Website

Pope Lays Out Global Marxist Agenda-Bernie Sanders is Ecstatic

 Pope Lays Out Global Marxist Agenda

Listen to this artical



Socialist Bernie Sanders is ecstatic over the pope’s address to Congress. In a message to his supporters, titled, “Why we must listen to Pope Francis,” he was particularly pleased with the fact that in his address to Congress, “Pope Francis spoke of Dorothy Day, who was a tireless advocate for the impoverished and working people in America. I think it was extraordinary that he cited her as one of the most important people in recent American history.” Day was a Marxist apologist for socialism and communist regimes. We covered this territory in my column, “With Pope’s Help, U.N. Bypasses Congress on Global Socialism.”
With Republican congressional leaders under fire from conservatives for cowering in the face of a Democratic Party onslaught, all that they needed was to roll out the welcome mat for a Marxist pope who would put them further on the defensive. But that’s exactly what happened.
Phyllis Bennis of the Marxist Institute for Policy Studies was right: “Pope Francis’ address to Congress was almost certainly not what John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and other congressional leaders had in mind when they invited the pope to speak.” Speaking for many on the left, including the pro-abortion lobby, she said, “His clear call to end the death penalty was the only example he gave of protecting the sanctity of life: Even amid a raging congressional debate over Planned Parenthood, he never mentioned abortion.”
The list of left-wing causes in the pope’s address was extensive. Bennis noted “his calls to protect the rights of immigrants and refugees, end the death penalty, preserve the planet from the ravages of climate change, and defend the poor and dispossessed.” And then there was the attack on the policies of peace through strength, which keep us free. “Being at the service of dialogue and peace also means being truly determined to minimize and, in the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world,” the pope said. He then asked, “Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society?”
He should ask that of Vladimir Putin.
Most Americans understand the rationale for legal immigrants. But illegal aliens who commit crimes are something else. The pope seems not to recognize a difference.
The death penalty is a punishment reserved for heinous killers. But he doesn’t mention abortion, which has taken tens of millions of innocent lives. This seemed strange to conservative Catholics, who are starting to come to grips with the fact that this is a “progressive” pope, who is not hostile toward what anti-communist Pope John Paul II called the “culture of death” through population control and reduction.
Francis’s answer on the arms control issue was to challenge the United States alone and blame its spending on national defense on monetary motives. “Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood,” said the pope. “In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.”
That’s a slander of our brave fighting men and women, many of whom have given their lives or sacrificed their limbs to bring freedom to people around the word, especially Muslims in such places as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Against the global Jihad, what does the pope expect the U.S. to do? Disarm?
Praising “his uniquely progressive papal perspective,” far-left radio host Amy Goodman noted that “The pope has been frank in his criticism of much of the core of U.S. society: capitalism, consumerism, war and the failure to confront climate change.” This is a fraud, of course. They used to warn us against global cooling. It then became global warming and now climate change. The cause always changes until they find something to lure people into schemes for bigger government and higher taxes.
Recognizing the socialism of the pope, Al Jazeera posted an article, “Bernie Sanders, the pope and the moral imperative of systemic change,” by Gar Alperovitz, the co-chair with James Gustave Speth of The Next System Project. Speth, former administrator of the United Nations Development Program, put his name on its 1994 “Human Development Report,” which openly promoted global taxes for world government.
The “Next System” is another name for the replacement of global capitalism by global socialism.
Those endorsing this project, in addition to Alperovitz and Speth, include:
 Jane Mansbridge, Harvard University
 Gerald Hudson, Service Employees International Union
 Annie Leonard, Greenpeace USA
 Robert B. Reich, University of California at Berkeley
 Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
 Barbara Ehrenreich, Author
 Jeffrey D. Sachs, Columbia University
 Gerald Torres, Cornell University Law School
 Larry Cohen, Communications Workers of America
 Julie Matthaei, Cornerstone Cohousing
 Leo Gerard, United Steelworkers
 John James Conyers, Jr., 13th District, Michigan
 Bill McKibben, 350.org
 Saskia Sassen, Columbia University
 Frances Fox Piven, City University of New York
 Manuel Pastor, University of Southern California
 Phillip Thompson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 Oliver Stone, Academy Award-winning Filmmaker
 Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK
 Timothy E. Wirth, United Nations Foundation and Better World Fund
 Sarita Gupta, Jobs With Justice
 Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 Van Jones, The Dream Corps & Rebuild The Dream
 Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute
 Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, California State University
 Daniel Ellsberg, Author
 Herman E. Daly, University of Maryland
 Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate, Author, Former Presidential Candidate
 Ai-jen Poo, National Domestic Workers Alliance
 Anna Galland, MoveOn.org Civic Action
 Danny Glover, Actor, Social Activist
 Tom Morello, Musician, Activist
 Jill Stein, 2012 Green Party Presidential Nominee
 Nancy Fraser, New School for Social Research
“We have fundamental problems because of fundamental flaws in our economic and political system,” the New Project proclaims. “The crisis now unfolding in so many ways across our country amounts to a systemic crisis. Today’s political economic system is not programmed to secure the wellbeing of people, place and planet. Instead, its priorities are corporate profits, the growth of GDP, and the projection of national power.”
The group goes on, “Large-scale system change is needed but has until recently been constrained by a continuing lack of imagination concerning social, economic and political alternatives. There are alternatives that can lead to the systemic change we need.”
Yes there are. They are called socialism and communism. But they would rather call it “sustainable development,” in order to confuse people about how the American way of life is being targeted for extinction. Visit our daily newsletter The Red Pill.website

Visit Our Daily Newsletter at TheRedPill.Website

Sources