Really funny the book "Hypercapitalism" is translated into french into "The New Economy" trying to give it a light of "Socialism Collectivism" that's what I said they can make believe that Right is Left or Left is Right and brainwash both sides of continents
======= Harrytrader; Most likely would get out of that class, like cutten a loss,,MERCY; wouldnt waste my time ,because do not want a liar like that giving me a grade.!!!!!!! Partial disclosure ,still buy gas @ XOM [Rockerfeller related business], CVX,and cost cutter pivate label named ''Bull Market'' Disagree with the silliness that all or most capitalists are crooks. King Solomon was a trader- capitalist, never aplogized for it. And go the the public librarys ,many started by Andrew Carnegie; Andrew asked they inscribe above the entrance ''Let there be light''
Author Gary Allen gives his explanation: "If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth programme, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite." Gary Allen, Author W.Cleon Skousen wrote in his book 'The Naked Capitalist'. "Power from any source tends to create an appetite for additional power... It was almost inevitable that the super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the whole world. To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments and the establishments of a central world-wide dictatorship." W.Cleon Skousen Extreme revolutionary groups were controlled by being financed when they complied and cut off, with money sometimes being given to their opposition, when they didn't. If you find this hard to believe, listen to what the so called dictator of the new Soviet Union had to say. "The state does not function as we desired. The car does not obey. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes." Vladimir Lenin (1) Rep. Louis T. McFadden, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee throughout the 1920-30s explained it this way. "The course of Russian history has, indeed, been greatly affected by the operations of international bankers... The Soviet Government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board... acting through the Chase Bank. ... England has drawn money from us through the Federal Reserve Banks and has re-lent it at high rates of interest to the Soviet Government... The Dnieperstory Dam was built with funds unlawfully taken from the United States Treasury by the corrupt and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks." Rep. Louis T.McFadden (D-PA) (2)
It is a supression.... Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite." Capitalism is the illussion they need.... "The state does not function as we desired. The car does not obey Sounds like a statement Hitler might make... It was almost inevitable that the super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the whole world.
Funny http://www.federalobserver.com/print.php?aid=7124 The Bankers Manifesto of 1892 Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, SR from Minnesota before the US Congress sometime during his term of office between the years of 1907 and 1917 to warn the citizens. "We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance. The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them. At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination (conspiracy) and legislation. The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism. The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party. By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."
Rakovsky, one of the founders of Soviet Bolshevism, said that the Soviet Union not Socialist but in truth ANTI-COMMUNIST see why "Red Symphony", by Dr. J. Landowsky; translated by George Knupffer http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/red-symphony.html G. - Is the Soviet Union not Socialist? R. - For me only in name. It is just here that we find the true reason for the opposition. Agree with me, and by the force of pure logic you must agree, that theoretically, rationally, we have the same right to say - no, as Stalin can say - yes. And if for the triumph of Communism defeatism can be justified, then he who considers that Communism has been destroyed by the bonapartism of Stalin and that he betrayed it, has the same right as Lenin to become a defeatist. G. - I think, Rakovsky, that you are theorizing thanks to your manner of making wide use of dialectics. It is clear that if many people were present here, I would prove this; all right, I accept your argument as the only one possible in your position, but nevertheless I think that I could prove to you that this is nothing other than a sophism. But let us postpone this for another occasion; some day it will come. And I hope that you will give me the chance to reply. But at the present moment I shall only say this: if your defeatism and the defeat of the USSR has as its object the restoration of Socialism in the USSR, real Socialism, according to you - Trotzkyism, then, insofar as we have destroyed their leaders and cadres, defeatism and the defeat of the USSR has neither an objective nor any sense. As a result of defeat now there would come the enthronement of some Führer or fascist Tsar. Is that not so? R. - It is true. Without flattery on my part - your deduction is splendid. G. - Well, if, as I assume, you assert this sincerely, then we have achieved a great deal: I am a Stalinist and you a Trotzkyist; we have achieved the impossible. We have reached the point at which our views coincide. The coincidence lies in that at the present moment the USSR must not be destroyed. R. - I must confess that I had not expected to face such a clever person. In fact at the present stage and for some years we cannot think of the defeat of the USSR and to provoke it, as it is known that we are at present in such a position, that we can not seize power. We, the Communists, would derive no profit from it. This is exact and coincides {p. 12} with your view. We can not be interested now in the collapse of the Stalinist State; I say this and at the same time I assert that this State, apart from all that has been said, is anti-Communistic. You see that I am sincere. G. - I see that. This is the only way in which we can come to terms. I would ask you, before you continue, to explain to me that which seems to me a contradiction: if the Soviet State is anti-Communistic to you, then why should you not wish its destruction at the given moment? Someone else might be less anti-Communistic and then there would be fewer obstacles to the restoration of your pure Communism. R. - No, no, this deduction is too simple. Although the Stalinist bonapartism also opposes Communism as the napoleonic one opposed the revolution, but the circumstance is clear that, nevertheless, the USSR continues to preserve its Communistic form and dogma; this is formal and not real Communism. And thus, like the disappearance of Trotzky gave Stalin the possibility automatically to transform real Communism into the formal one, so also the disappearance of Stalin will allow us to transform his formal Communism into a real one. One hour would suffice for us. Have you understood me? G. - Yes, of course; you have told us the classical truth that nobody destroys that which he wants to inherit. Well, all right; all else is sophistical agility. You rely on the assumption which can be easily disproved: the assumption of Stalin's anti-Communism. Is there private property in the USSR? Is there personal profit? Classes? I shall not continue to base myself on facts - for what? R. - I have already agreed that there exists formal Communism. All that you enumerate are merely forms. G. - Yes? For what purpose? From mere obstinacy? R. - Of course not. This is a necessity. It is impossible to eliminate the materialistic evolution of history. The most that can be done is to hold it up. And at what a price? At the cost of its theoretical acceptance, in order to destroy it in practice. The force which draws humanity towards Communism is so unconquerable that that same force, but distorted, opposed to itself, can only achieve a slowing down of development; more accurately - to slow down the progress of the permanent revolution. G. - An example? R. - The most obvious - with Hitler. He needed Socialism for victory over Socialism: it is this his very anti-Socialist Socialism which is National-Socialism. Stalin needs Communism in order to defeat Communism. The parallel is obvious. But, notwithstanding Hitler's anti-Socialism and Stalin's anti-Communism, both, to their regret and against their will, transcendentally create Socialism and Communism ...; they and many others. Whether they want it or not, whether they know it or not, but they create formal Socialism and Communism, which we, the Communist-Marxists, must inevitably inherit.
Socialism is the end game of unbridled capitalism. Monopolies form, which payoff officials to protect against direct competition. Subsequent to that, representatives are further bought to orient the countries social apparatus towards a collectivist model which effectively 1) nullifies personal accountability - effectively creating a welfare state. which leads to, 2) the legal and cultural destruction of the entrepreneurial spirit No more competition. Just a hive of lifeless drones feeding a handful of corporate monoliths. The ultimate in capitalism is feudalism. Total monopoly.
Heh, most western countries do have a good amount of the latter in their society. A big bloating burrowocracy, high taxes, welfare, stupid promises and future-to-be-bankrupt programs. Cappism is much different now than it used to be.
Capitalism is about the assumption and dispersion of risk. -- This group, if any, should understand this. Socialism is about hedging the inherent risks of capitalism. -- Think about your friends that you consider to be weak for thier unwillingness to take similar risks. Will they ever be rich? Only if on accident. Of course they go together.
One of the big open questions on this site is: How many traders here are actually successful? This thread is a decent barometer for that, in my opinion. I've read over the responses to this thread and they all smack of a group who's been scorned by heartless corporations, who've now turned to trading in order to realize thier dreams of financial independence. The tone of most responses was in support of socialism - a tad ironic coming from a risk-preferring group of people. In terms of scared and/or desperate money, it doesn't get much more scared and/or desperate than that.