@mujaku In short, if your'e anti-trade then you are anti-democracy as well.
You want to have some form of trade, be it free trade or not, but fascism and dictature can never be compared to (free trade) capitalism. To say otherwise is just riddicilus marxist propaganda.
i believe in a market were goods are traded by the value of the labor used to create them and a mutual bank gives loans with low interest (enough to pay for the maintenance of the bank) and each individual owns a means of production either individually or collectively
@death9719 The U.S. was NEVER based upon free trade - read Alexander Hamilton the father of American economic theory. You Reichwingers need to read history. Here is some history: So far President McKinley (R) has be right when you consider all the factories that have been closed down or shipped overseas.
"Free trade results in giving our money, our manufactures, and our markets to other nations."
Watch a Pre-January 8th copy of Inception. Listen closely when the actors say imagine, reality, and safe, or point pistols. You'll hear the words, Loughner, offin' her, part of the word Giffords, and much more. Some say they hear, do it.
A system / any system will fail if it,s led by mankind or one man highest in the hierarchy . We are corrupt .........( mankind will - even when united - create division ) . Eh , power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely . The examples are scattered around in our history. Their will be only one reign capable of bringing peace .
Socialism is not an answer, not for America, anyways. America was founded as a Democratic, or Constitutional Republic. Where people can make their own way in life. We need none of the Bureaucracies like the DHS and Department of Health. Nowhere are these mentioned in the Constitution, they are mentioned in the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Heinrich Marx. If he wants to change the country, he should do away with the DHS, and leave their job to the Militias (National Guard).
A class insisted Obama's socialism worked. Professor said grades would be averaged but no A's. First test averaged B's. Students who studied were upset. The rest were happy. Second test, bums who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied decided they wanted a free ride. D average results. Everyone unhappy. 3rd test average F. All failed! Socialism fails! When the reward is great, effort to succeed is great! As government takes out reward no one will try to succeed!
@sailgoal You are absolutely correct. If you're going to get paid the same amount as everyone else who sits on their lazy ass, then there's no point to working. That's what these liberals don't get. No farmers = no food. No factories = no mass production.
Socialism will turn us into Soviet Russia when Stalin was dictator (I know Soviet Union was communism, but there's no difference really since socialism turns into communism eventually).
@gamefreak1000000 That's incorrect, Socialism is compatible with the democratic process, and even some forms of Communism do not require a totalitarian state. For example, in Russia from March to November 1917, there were several different kinds of far-left parties. One such party was the Mensheviks, who conformed to Marx's theory of communism and wanted a democratic state with no central command structure.
Yeah, that's right, they were Communists but they believed in democracy...
@mixmac38 Democratic socialism is totally logical, since democracy is a form of "dictatorship of the majority" where miniorities have no say unless the MAJORITY SAY so.
This means the majority can use the initiation of force unto those few that do not follow the aggreements made on planned economy and their new deffination of what a "Free" man.
(I'm NOT against democracy though, I just want a republic to limit the power of goverment, kinda like the US constitution was supposed to have done)
@ToxinalX That is how democracy works and how it should work, with the minority attempting to win over the majority in order to get their views passed as legislation. Freedom only works to a certain extent. People should be allowed to say what they want within reason otherwise you allow groups like the KKK to be defended by law. Normal people shouldn't have access to guns otherwise gun crime skyrockets. These are all examples of how the USA's constitution is flawed in supplying "total freedom".
@mixmac38 Yes, that is how a democracy works, but I would rather see that the goverment could not pass laws that would violate the rights of those minioritys.
If the Americans had *actually followed* the constitution, they would have to defend the rights of ALL INDIVIDUALS living in the United States (including native americans, african born slaves and the members of the KKK) for as long as they where NOT violent.
The right to own private property (guns) doesn't need to be a problem. Knives...
@ToxinalX In the US there isnt a right to own private property... you have to earn it...they replaced pursuit of property with pursuit of happiness... remember?
@ToxinalX Its true that the US is a constitutional republic... however in the constitution it states that we are a indirect democracy as well. It even states how it works. In fact you could make the claim that most democracies in the world arent democracies and that they are constitutional republics... even though they run as a democracy.. Its just retarded to say that.
@eddieisfiction Democracy means majority rule period. A constitutional republic with certain democratic elements or a constitutional democracy are diffenent things as well.
I hope you understand that I am not retarded, but rather trying to be a little more precise on the meaings of certain words in order to make you understand why I prefer a republic (in your case in the form of a union between free states) under a constitution over any other form of rule.
@ToxinalX who said anything about a pure democracy.. I didnt... so why bring it up? Does it help you prove a point over nothing we even talked about?
The point I wanted to make was that even democracy needs to be limited to some degree. And, at lest according to some people like me, limiting democracy in certain areas would actually *keep* society free.
@ToxinalX when people normally discuss democracy, they dont mean the pure extreme kind that you are implying... in fact I would personally bet money on it, so its stupid to bring it up every ok?
Most people view the norm to be an indirect democracy, usually sponsored by a constitution. I would just assume that rather than making a stupid its a republic comment. Its just not smart to pretend to be stupid about what people mean.
@eddieisfiction My point was gonna be that in a state formed as any kind of a "democracy, you have the *right* to vote on everything. But not in a "republic".
The U.S was originally intended to be a constitutional republic (not the other way around.) Then it was (by ignoring law) first made into a constitutional democracy (vote on anything) and today you have a modern form of arristocracy, where the rich are practically born not only into wealth but into political influence.
@ToxinalX most countries in europe are constitutional republics or constitutional monarchies or a combination of both...socialism or capitalism to some degree. No point in putting a bearing on it... all that really means is that theres a founding document that has to have laws reflect that and not go out of bounds from it
@eddieisfiction The constitution is a free peoples last defence against any form of tyrany. The rest of the law written can not go against what is in the constitution. This is probably one of the main reasons as for why Sweden has not got the same levels of corruption that the U.S has, because we allways try to follow the "Grundlag" which gives us certain rights that can not be overruled.
I.o.t illustrate the problems of todays society I took the democracy to its extremes.
@ToxinalX no sweden has less corruption than the US becuase of how limited lobbying is, and the main industries that could effect their national security are also controlled by the government, and cant be influenced by the private sector to be bribed and milked for unreasonable profit.
@eddieisfiction The real corruption is still present in government and the small "states" "kommunerna", although at a much lower level than most other countries. In reality, lobbying is not limited other than for ordinary people who can't afford legal advice.
"the main industries that could effect their national security..." I could say I dissagree straight of the bat, but I'm not 100% sure I know which industries you would put in this category.
@ToxinalX im not going to claim that every european country only capitalizes on the industries that can effect national security and nothing else... I know in britain they have the government way too much into tv, and its the same in a few other countries there... I was shocked to find out that people have to pay a tax on tv.
Im never going to be the one to admit that the european standard is great... but neither is america's. Finding a middle ground seems to be impossible.
@eddieisfiction We we're really discussing the form of "democracy" that we wanted, and so I pointed I that I wanted more of a Classical Liberal Republic and less democratic influence in certain areas then what there usually is today.
@gamefreak1000000 too much government control or too much private control can be corrupting as long as its possible for one person or a group to attain more power than another... its stupid to argue otherwise.
g*d bless the moronic brown shirt teabaggers - their ignorance is boundless. they are being used as the jesus freaks were used in 2000 for cheneybush. we are like drug addicts that have not hit bottom. 8 years of palin/beck is needed to bottom out and complete the end of usa empire. freeeeeeeeeeedom.
Socialism maps your life for you. Capitalism gives you a choice. I am a firm believer in Laissez-Faire, we need as little government interference as possible. If I must take up a weapon against my government to secure the freedoms endowed by the Founding Fathers and my Creator, I will.
@jojomoney how? capitalism is based on a free market system. socialism gives you your job, and "amenities" if you can call them that. Look at China, look at North Korea. Look at the quality of life of these countries and then look at the quality of life of the United States, of Germany, and of Great Britian.
@Thrawn6211 ....Funny thing is "socialst " countries like Sweden and Germany etc are booming. They share their wealth in a Christian way without wailing and weeping on a Sunday with some millionaire pastor. They make real products and not BS financial services that bankrupt homeowners and benefit bankers. American bankers reverted to socialism (state rescue) pretty damn quick when they were going bust but resist any help for the poor who cannot afford the basic human right of health care.
@yokey123 Well, if Obama really wanted change, he'd do away with the Bureaucracies in DC like the Department of Health. The powers not ceeded by the Constitution to the Federal Government, should be given to the Several States. It's not that this Health Care Bill is bad, it's that it's making government bigger. You can't have a Democratic Republic with a mixture of Oligarchies (City Councils, Boards of Education, etc) and Bureaucracies mixed in.
@Thrawn6211 ...start with a smail experiment..do away with the speacial, publich healthcare that the US military receive...if that works then sure scrap the rest...!
@yokey123 "They may give the People a job, and shelter, and fill their bellies with Beans and Bacon, but there's one thing about human beings, they dream" - Ronald Regan. That, friend, is why socialism is not for America.
@yokey123 Yes, we're booming. Because we spend less and when we spend money we do that at what we really need to spend it at.
We don't do better because we're a "socialist" county, in fact not even the "Democratic Socialists" are really that socialist in the common sense. They approve of a form of corporativistic approach, just to a different degree than the "Liberals" (who are in fact social conservatives) that promote privatization of government organs.
@Thrawn6211 incorrect...COMMUNISM issues you your job, and china with the largest population of citizens on earth are actually number one in many of the global trades today. socialism is the idea of community ownership but not to the point of communism. the cold truth about it is, looking at it like a hardcore capitalist, the only way to redeem the economy is a major tax hike and the destruction on corporate power over the government check out the documentary IOUSA, and capitalism a love story
@Hydra773 whoa whoa whoa weve still got Great issues in the exact areas u mentioned, but the american public is kept ignorant of it. i totally agree that in many strong cases the chinese people lead a much harsher and less liberal lifestyle which is why i bring back my initial argument of meeting at the political middle ground of captialism and communism, which is socialism. a democracy which emphasizes the empowerment of the community rather than the a select privileged few
Billions and billions of our Grandkids dollars to save wall street and union jobs and now 2 years later, we sit at 9.8% unemployment (about 17% truthfully). Let's have MORE govt interference and taxes.... NOT! Govt will never be a solution; make your life your own and stop looking to govt to take care of you!
A class insisted Obama's socialism worked. Professor said grades would be averaged but no A's. First test averaged B's. Students who studied were upset. The rest were happy. Second test, bums who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied decided they wanted a free ride. D average results. Everyone unhappy. 3rd test average F. All failed! Socialism fails! When the reward is great, effort to succeed is great! As government takes out reward no one will try to succeed!
@sailgoal That class was stupid. Socialism is control over a resource, it's people having a say over the direction of the company they work at, it's democratically making a decision, nowhere in the idea of socialism is there "everyone has exactly the same shit". That's a myth. The only across the board equality would be everyone having a job which is a fucking goal in capitalism as well.
@GoodOldHalo That is a myth, I agree. But socialism is the fight for communism. It litteraly is. Read Marx.
Socialism is nothing more/nothing less than the fight against economic inequality. It is not necessarily any of the things which you mention.
Everybody having a job is not a *goal* of neither Capitalism nor Communism.
In a planned economy under socialism (for example democratic socialism), making sure unemployment is kept low may be a strategic goal, but some people won't work.
@ToxinalX toxinalX assuming people want extremes is stupid, and poorly debatable... you ever stop to think that barely anyone in the US wants complete government control?
But at the same time they dont want the exact opposite of the spectrum, where a few completely rich people control the entire government and economy from the private sector either.
The US is more likely to be privately controlled by a few than government controlled by party.
@eddieisfiction I try not to participate in debates. I think we all can outperform stupid people if we simply try to discuss these things in greater detail.
"The US is more likely to be privately controlled by a few than government controlled by party."
I personally don't think the two really contradict each other. Aristocracy survive through the empowerment of the "upper"class. Today, the line between government and corporations is blurred and corruption easily disguised.
@ToxinalX totally agree.. I was just trying to explain things in simple terms for them.... when a CEO's brother's best friend is the congressman of his district, hard to break it up.
@eddieisfiction Indeed. And it mostly goes on for years without much notice, until the mostly government/corporate controlled media see greater gain and revolt against the silence or are simply told it's time to release certain things for strategic reasons.
@ToxinalX Where you are wrong is that Marx didn't create socialism, therefore Marx's theory's are irrelevant to what socialism can and can't be. Communism is, in fact, a much more extreme form of socialism. To truly understand Socialism you need to learn its actual origins in the industrial revolution.
@GoodOldHalo "Communism" in daily talk is a more extreme form of socialism, but that is not the way in which the actuall communists look at the term. And they ought to know don't they?
@sailgoal That was just one part of what is literally concidered socialism (the fight for "communism"), but I totally agree with you. It just doesn't work.
@HonduranAmerican Most people do and I would say that perhaps the road to what I really want, which is a volountary socialist society in the midst of a classical libertarian society (if at all possible) would be by finding a good middle way and then go from there.
your joking. you honestly believe Obama is a socialist? As a communist myself, this makes me laugh!! hahaha. i wish he was a socialist!!!! silly capitalists dont even know who their enemy is.
there is a huge difference between socialism and communism you ignorant fuck. when governments take over industry throughout history it has been facism/socialism. with the corporate income tax of 47% i would argue that the government controls almost half of all businesses. but in reality they own closer to 2/3rds of all businesses because we are taxed at nearly every step of commerce.
@Hydra773 excuse me, but i never said there was not a difference. however, socialism is the transitional state period between capitalism and communism. and as far as he united states being socialistic...please dont make me laugh any harder at your complete lack of knowledge. the private sector simply should not exist. everyone talks about the dwindling private sector, but no one ever speaks of the now almost nonexistent public sector.
@Hydra773 What you said made almost no sense at all, when government takes over industry, that's COMMUNISM numb nuts. the corporate income tax was 47%; i think that wasn't what you were trying to say because that sounds a little something like "47% of all corporations income goes to taxes" and the industry has waaaayyy too much power over the legislative arm of the government to allow some shit like that o_0 get some!
@jojomoney I'ts not communism. It's a certain form of socialism. But even in for example the U.S in which it may seem like there is socialism/capitalism there is mostly only corporativism.
@xArmyxFiancex1990 I am a "capitalist" or at least a form of objectivist/classical liberal/volountarist that embrace capitalism in combination with an overall free society.
Yet, I totally agree with you. I would feel much more at ease knowing that Obama was really a socialist/communist. After all, rather that than a corporativist !
Today, though he mentions his faith all the time, I can't even say I feel very sure he is actually that religious. Trust is the real issue here.
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! HE NEEDS TO GO RUN A YMCA IN CHICAGO NOT BE PREZ OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY. PEOPLE ITS GONNA GET WORSE. THIS MAN IS NUTS AND HIS PEOPLE ARE TOO. GOD BLESS AMERICA
@goldsmithstudent oo and you think bush did a ''great job'' bitch he fucked up this country he started all of this economic problem fuking conservative racist fuck
@exterminador1904 The liberal rebuttal to attacks on Obama are that Bush was just as bad and they're right. The difference is that Bush WAS president and Obama IS president. When someone fucks up, saying that someone else fucked up doesn't excuse it.
The free market is a philosophical offshoot of Calvinism and expresses a faith in the religious precept that some members of society are morally deserving and reap the benefits while others are morally undeserving and subject to exclusion and deprivation. At the monopoly stage of the free market today you see the onset of massive poverty imprisonment and homelessness. These conditions are obviously the product of a failed theory but the religious and ideological underpinnings remain intact.
i say the government should take over major domestic auto mobile companies, take over the major fuel power companies, take the over the airlines, and the medical institutions. so much profit of these companies is going towards private yachts and huge mansions, instead we could have affordiable medical care, and better funding towards cops, firemen, and WAY under paid airline pilots.
Capitalism - a free market system where as one has an equal opportunity to prosper, and to succeed. Communism - a self deprivation where as the liberal, and progressive believe the government is the answer to all problems to humanity.
Communism is when one's prosperity and hard work is taken from him, and given to the unwilling, and to the sluggards.
we are thankful that our leader isn't the spoiled son of a powerful wealthy family who is supported by religious fundamentalists, operates through clandestine organizations, has no respect for the democratic electoral process, bombs innocents, and uses war to deny people their civil liberties, amen
Not supported by religious fundamentalists, talked to any global warming zealots lately. Bombs innocents, heard about his predator drones. Uses war to deny people civil liberties, hmmm wonder about Anwar Al-Alwakis right to a fair trialm oh yeah the bamster okayed his assasination. No respect for the democratic process,except his recess appointments, czars, the arizona lawsuit. Diabolical organizations like, Acorn, Tides foundation, SEIU, AFLCIO.
Tell me about it.I live in Barstow Ca. and am tired of all of these people whining about their children,friends and family always getting cancer and tumors from our local Hinkley drinking water that's polluted with chromium 6 from the nearby PG&E plant,but I know the government cares because it's only been going on for 25 years.They should be greatful that they have ANY water to drink,after all,it is the desert.
why the fuck do you guys want another president like Reagan he sucked, he was a puppet to those around him including the CEO of Meryl and Lynch at the time! That CEO owned Ronald Reagan and even ordered him around live during a speech! so fuck puppet presidents like Reagan!!
I can think of no good reason to believe the collapse of capitalism in the US means the end of the world. This economic theory is just part of the world as we have known it not the end of history itself. Capitalism will lose in the end but the world has already moved on. I say if you cant lick em, join em. Besides the US military is the biggest socialist program on this planet and I dont hear any of you free marketeers proposing we constrain them or their $1.3 trillion entitlement program, do I?
when obama came in, i was quite optimistic. I thought "Ya know, this guy seems ok good things should happen"... But as time went by.. everything he promised has not been carried out. Hes a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Presumably you would consider the 45 million Americans who cannot afford medicine to be wolves as well. I would imagine the millions of homeless and unemployed are rather wolf like as well ? Now that you mention it maybe the wolf is just the reality of massive impoverishment at the bottom of a failed economic theory.
CHAPTER 6 on THE RULE OF LAW and the DANGERS of the SOCIALIST/CENTRAL PLANNING
This chapter should be MEMORIZED VERBATIM by everyone who loves liberty and the magnificence of this nation. And despite mistakes made along the way and our imperfections (existent within ALL civil societies), the TRUTH IS that we have CONTRIBUTED MORE GOODWILL to the world and those who call themselves Americans are indeed GOOD LOVING PEOPLE.
Hayek was another 19th century moralist, no more than an untutored rightwing ideologue. There is nothing 'magnificent' about a materialist economic theory that proposes to defend the institution of slavery or a nation of 5 million homeless or 20 million unemployed in the name of free market absolutism. The equation Capitalism= Liberty is obviously fallacious. The monopoly stage of capitalism's materialist ethos has brought America to the verge of ruin as an empire.
well see where you are getting at. But i ask myselves some times, is capitalism the best for this world?? aint most contries capitalistic and why then are they so poor. Isnt capitalism one grate reason for wasting resaurces. I do not belive that pure socialism is the right way to go nighter. But there has to be a way where people have 100% freedom and a state controlled companies.
These are the Liberals of the USA.... Aren't ya proud of them? Liberals will degrade Christianity but will glamorize Islam for fear of offending Muslims... Liberals could care less about 9/11 or any future attacks...They just don't want to offend anybody.. "BOO HOO..makes me wanna cry..WAA WAA"!!! Liberals are PATHETIC !!!! Bunch of Pinko, do-gooder, Panzies !!!!!
Do I think Obama is evil? No. Do I think he is helping to shape a system that will be taken over by a despot/autocrat (Dictator)?? Absolutely. One of the reasons I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government industrialists/politicians take it over. Obama is not an evil man, he is a foolish man. He is what Stalin called a "Useful idiot."
Perhaps if obama weren't a corporate tool this could be big change. Reagan was a genius for convincing sheep that being narrow minded was a virtue. Convincing people that Economical Freedom is all that matters.
The recent fiasco in the markets was not capitalism, but a distortion of capitalism. Think about it: by the very definition it is risk taking, but the CEO's that made all the bad decisions risked nothing. If they had the same skin in the game, I'm certain that their judgement and decisions would have been modified accordingly. Right now, the European countries are reporting 25 to over 40% unemployment rates for under 20 somethings. Socialism is there, but where are the jobs?
The collapse of financial markets represents the maturation of free market economics in practice Of course you are right to note that on paper this "should not" happen. Furthermore we "should not" have 5 million people homeless or 70% of black 20 somethings unemployed either but....Capitalism is a moral philosophy that ignores its human costs as we sit transfixed before the TV screen unable to imagine any alternative to this catastrophe but to exchange one dictatorship for another?!
-Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
-Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
-Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
@EmperorProzen Actually, real wages are stagnating or declining for the vast majority of the population since Reagan smashed the workforce by destroying the unions etc. Median family income has grown, but that's because people now work longer hours and that women too have to work now for a family to responsibly raise children ("conservative family values!" lol).
It's true that there high growth under him, it all went to Wall Street and the 2% of the population that own most of the stock of US corporations, hooray. Also it's him that started the wave of deregulation of corporations and finance which eventually resulted in the economic collapse. He also was a major supporter of terrorist networks in Central America and the Middle East.
Besides, he also was the most protectionist president since WW2 and the ultimate deficit spender: to call him a conservative is ludicrous- and I think this is actually a good thing for conservatives because it would allow them to dissociate themselves from his disastrous legacy.
Why do so many Conservatives seen the Constitution as perfect? It's been ammended several times. Not to mention it was enacted by economic elites who wanted to break away from British central authority. A constitution that did not guarantee voting rights to anyone who wasn't a wealthy white protestant male. And don't use moral standards as an excuse. Thomas Jefferson felt morally wrong about slavery, yet admitted his indulgence to the profit they made...
Today Comcast won a battle to the government controlled FCC in an attempt to crush the belief of net neutrality. The FFC has been since 2002 defending our freedom on the internet, prohibiting Comcast from blocking access to legal content on the internet. The FCC lost today, on the basis of defending the FREEDOM of Comcast. Deregulation has been so excessive, that we've given corporations the freedom to take freedom away from others. Now ISP providers can block any LEGAL content they want...
It's Comcast's investment, Comcast's equipment, and therefore Comcast's decision to manage their assets. Nothing wrong here. Comcast is not the only internet provider. Capitalism says if someone does a better job cheaper, then you go do business with them. If Comcast sucks, you leave. Comcast is saying that internet hogs should not be pushing the little guys out of bandwidth. How does this hurt Comcast customers? Are you saying the few users should dominate available bandwidth?
You sound like you are quoting the Bible when you refer to capitalism as a sacred text; (capitalism says...). You rely on abstract simplicities that show no familiarity with historical experience and seem to allude to a utopia that existed somewhere in time out on the prarie during an idyllic golden age.
Socialism the people are serfs, not Free men. Capitalism you are free to become what you want to be, free to use your God given rights to make more of yourself. Under Socialism why bother, you get paid the same no matter what you do. There in lies the difference. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Communism slogan from Karl Marx.
SSGTVDOG, I'm talking about a balance between Socialism and Capitalism, not extreme socialism, or communism, which is what is portrayed by Marx and Engels. When you look at the statistics, the nations with the highest happiness index tend to practice a healthy balance between those two. According to the CIA estimates, the US is around 40% socialist. Most countries with higher happiness index tend to be around 50-60% socialist. Yet in the least socialist we see nations like Mexico (26.7%)
@metallatin - You really need a wake up call. America is heading toward National Socialist / Communist Country under the last 3 regimes that have been in power. It has shifted to a more Communist manifesto under this regime. If you haven't seen that, then you haven't been paying attention to the politics in America. They have denigrated and demeaned out CONSTITUTION. I suggest you read the it.
@metallatin - You really need a wake up call. America is heading toward National Socialist / Communist Country under the last 3 regimes that have been in power. It has shifted to a more Communist manifesto under this regime. If you haven't seen that, then you haven't been paying attention to the politics in America. They have denigrated and demeaned out CONSTITUTION. I suggest you read the it.
Capitalism collapsed in 1929 permiting corporations to buy up the future at pennies on the dollar. It is one of the more eccentric aspects of American politics that we are unable to recognize who runs the economy runs the government. The idea of heroic individualism is really the fantasy content of cowboy films and fundamentalist religious revivals. Fewer than 6,000 control about 60% of all US resources and control access to all institutional power & THEY are NOT liberals.
@jazzbo66zz Capitalism did not collapse after the stock market crash. It is true that free market economies have their depressions, but so do all economies. The reason for the Great Depression was the move towards socialism via the New Deal (redistribution of wealth).
America institutionalized the redistribution of wealth by structuring the legal basis of property to guarantee that the profits from production accrue primarily to people who have little or nothing to do with producing them. The pillaging of the nations resources follows. If we the people are not free to allocate these resources & are being structurally excluded from the means of achieving what we like to call a decent standard of living we are not free in any meaningful sense..
@jazzbo66zz Exactly, that is what is known as a welfare society.
Socialists want to provide everyone with the basic necessities of life: food, water, shelter, and medical treatment. ALL OF THE THINGS GUARANTEED TO A PRISONER OR A SLAVE. However, they ignore the happiness and dreams of the individuals. They do not realize that people want more than just the basic needs of living. That is what makes socialism evil.
@EmperorProzen I am not advocating an alternative to your fundamentalist ideology, but am making the observation that the scientific free market utopia you speak of is a pipe dream, while in reality, saddled with a failed 19th century materialist economic theory & given over to the follies of an "unseen hand" in a perpetual state of crisis markets hold the population captive via learned helplessness & perdition. Some find your predicament amusing...like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?
@jazzbo66zz Still, more government regulation is not the option. It never produces better results than a laissez-faire economic trade system with low taxes. A free market economy is not a utopia scenario, but it the best economic system.
You are faced with grim choices if you believe the only way to function in society is either as a slave or a contestant locked in battle over scarce resources with your neighbor who is your natural adversary. Some of this ideology has to do with a fear of dependency and a related desire to appear heroic. Your fears sound pretty typical of the highly standardized Republican individualist who is deeply insecure.& eventually becomes isolated paranoid and bitter. You like guns yet?
@jazzbo66zz A free market economy does not run on fear, it is about competition over the consumers. Producing higher quality goods and services efficiently; that is what having a FREE market economy is all about. If slavery is outlawed (13th Amendment) and a minimum standard of living is set (minimum wage) then capitalism can flourish with high economic growth and no poverty; so long as taxes remain low and government involvement is at a minimum level.
@pulsatingremedy Government regulation and labor unions drive up the price of goods/services in the United States. The lower employees of the company may earn more (until they get laid off in times of economic strife) but consumers and the company itself will be the ones paying the bill. It costs about $130,000 because of all the benefits demanded by labor unions to hire American labor but only $80,000 to hire workers from countries like India. That is why America is becoming de-industrialized.
@pulsatingremedy There was a time when labor unions were necessary, but that time has passed. All they do now is drive up the price of American labor by demanding higher wages and more benefits via threatening to strike.
Should Americans have safe working conditions? Yes.
Are labor unions more powerful than they should be? Absolutely!
When workers have such expensive labor demands they will get laid off at the first sign of economic decline. This will make poverty even worse.
Btw, is it not somewhat weird to imply you are concerned with families' income when you just argued that American people should be driven back to third world-style labor conditions and standards of living so that American corporations would be happy and would stop destroying the country with desindustrialization and capital flight and that we could all marvel about the wonders of the free market
@pulsatingremedy Having workers control the means of production sounds great but that is not how it works out. The people who are elected to lead the company, (CEO, CFO, etc..) by the people who have bought in the company (board of directors who have the most shares). they are the entrepreneurs who do the decision making. This is the most important of the four factors of production.
The owners should control the means of production since they own the business; not the low level workers.
I believe the workers should control the means of production, which could include electing a boss.
This also means the 'owners' will no longer own the means of production, everything should be placed into the hands of the worker.
We've seen that corportarism doesn't work. The leaders of the companies will just fuck up a lot, and then get bail outs. If you don't bail them out, you have 10.000 unemployements.
@pulsatingremedy First of all, purchasing stock of a corporation is buying the company itself (ownership of the company). The OWNERS or large shareholders can run the business as they see fit, for example, electing the CEO. Private property is one of the most important characteristics of capitalism.
Second, government bailouts whether Republican or Democrat should not have been made at all. It lessens the importance of the all the incentives to run a business efficiently.
If workers & communities had a voice, that would be to propose a de facto 2 party system w/ an economic democracy in which power and control as well as the distribution of food housing medical care were given similar institutional priority to garbage collection and sewage treatment. At the end of the day I would think insuring the care of Americas children is at least as important as the care of our nations garbage and sewage. the 'invisible hand' has been jerking us off...no?
Tell me about it.I live in Barstow Ca. and am tired of all of these people whining about their children,friends and family always getting cancer and tumors from our local Hinkley drinking water that's polluted with chromium 6 from the nearby PG&E plant,but I know the government cares because it's only been going on for 25 years.They should be greatful that they have ANY water to drink,after all,it is the desert.
I think the invisible hand does not have to be opposed per se. It is the hierarchal structure in the production area which I have the most problems with.
Unless we are talking about the highest stage of communism, the market is a decent way to distribute goods.
But we need to make sure that people are able to make these goods. So letting the people have a say in the factories will ensure that people are able to create the goods to fulfill in their needs (or to create for exchange).
If I was a worker cleaning your house then a communist revolution began. I would then be the owner of your house because I am the worker and you are (now were) just the owner. That is the communist motto, "workers of the world unite".
Should that happen shareholders of businesses would lose their stock and the employees would not have much incentive to run the business well because it is just a job rather than their money at stake.
@pulsatingremedy In order to start a business, one has to not only take out loans that their responsible for, but also have to manage the income vs expenses to sell at a price people are willing to pay while not losing money. You have to hire competant people for wages that give them incentive to do the job well. If you manage to work all of these things out Marx believes the control of the company should be put in the hands of the people do the work and know nothing about running a business.
Socialists can promise people: food, shelter, and medical treatment. However, what they don't realize that people want more than the basic essentials in life. It is NOT greed it is the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS; to work hard and be successful. "Freedom and reason" are the ingredients of CAPITALISM, not socialism.
It is because of this entitlement attitude that the generations after the Baby Boomers will suffer the aftershocks caused by excessive government spending and massive debt.
@frostycarga It is called the pursuit of happiness. It is self-interest not selfishness. For example, if a doctor of such and such treats 50 patients he should receive a larger salary than he would if he were to treat only 30.
Economic decisions should not be made based on what a person's feelings are. They should be based on the logic of supply and demand, banking policies, etc...
No society rewards virtue directly, not even American presidents and especially not communism.
@EmperorProzen Don't you understand that you will be happy if everyone is equal? Everyone gets great education, everyone gets access to the greatest libraries possibly...
@EmperorProzen "The reason for the Great Depression was the move towards socialism via the New Deal (redistribution of wealth)." - Um, no. The New Deal (1933) was the *response* to the Great Depression (1929). The Great Depression was caused by a stock market crash, caused by unrestrained speculation, caused by an unregulated financial system, caused by free market fundamentalism. moment)
After the GD regulations were put in place to avoid a encore, said regulations (e.g. the Glass-Steagall Act) were then dropped by Reagan and Clinton, following the advice of the resurgent free market fanatics, and you know the rest of the story. The social programs of the New Deal were instituted in part to stop the wretched poverty and mass starvation (it is probable that more Americans died of famine after the GD than Soviets during the Holodomor taking place at the same
What does California & Michigan have in common with the PIIGS? (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain).
Answer: They're all in debt. Why? Because of a "Big Government" socialist system that taxes everyone to death. And this same socialist system promotes entitlement programs which in turn create a DEPENDENCE on the government among its people. But at least here in this system everyone is equal right?!, Equally poor that is. Here is a novel idea: Healthcare is not a right, it's a privilege.
bmotx, those example you gave there are really bad. First of all, Italy suffers from very high political instability and a very high degree of corruption. Ireland and Greece took a heavy downfall in this recession due to their high dependance to their financial service sector. Spain suffer/ed from MANY problems (from the inflation rates, the underground economy, the uncontrolled immigration, and an economy highly dependable on foreign investments.
Excuses? Then why haven't other nations with high government dependance fallen down? What about Sweden, Germany, Norway, Canada, France, Netherlands, New Zealand and so on? But how are the living conditions in highly capitalist nations which are Russia, Brazil, India, Argentina, Mexico, and South Africa?
Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, Netherlands; do not have nearly as high a dependence on the government as the PIIGS. They've greatly cut back on wages to government workers and have asked that countries like Greece do the same. And what are the PIIGS solutions to reduce their deficit??? You guessed it, raise taxes on sales of tobacco and alcohol. (Socialism)
If you think Mexico, India and Russia are examples of "highly" Capitalist nations then you are a simply confused.
bmotx, don't tell me I'm confused. That's according to the CIA studies (which many regard for top excellence and high accuracy). And I never said we should have an extremely high dependance on government, in fact I'm against Socialism to the extreme like we see in a nation like Cuba. The fact is we need a healthy balance, and to achive that we must look the countries with higher Human Development Index, and highest rate population happines.
Capitalism divides people into artificially moralized categories of those deserving and those undeserving of dignity. Individualism as a cult, appeals to sociopaths and extremely insecure males who are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge their interdependence with others. A fear of intimacy and an inability to trust are rooted in having been shamed by authority figures during childhood. it comes down to attempting to avoid feelings of inadequacy & ultimateley is self destructive
Spoken like a true brainwashed communist. Show me a better system that has improved the lot of the ordinary man more so than Capitalism and the free market, you silly child.
@bmotx Capitalism & Communism are failed 19th century materialist economic theories. As capitalism continues its plunge into the abyss we will be forced to evolve or we will perish. The US looks and sounds like the USSR in the early 80s; socially economically and politically bankrupt. Malnourished children attending dilapidated schools , millions homeless, and half the population going w/out medical care, with a $1.3 trillion military budget, at war w/ Afghanistan?!
Workers in the US today work harder and longer than they did in the 70's, but in contrast to inflation levels, they make less money. There is a bigger percentage of people leaving below the poverty line in the US than in many countries that rank lower in GDP. Deregulation has become so absurd that even Warren Buffet criticizes Capitalism for the economic disparity it has created and supports many Socialist changes.
exactly and look at the gov regulations has skyrocketed since them in all major sections in all major enterprises, your arguments are some of the weakest come up to an academic setting and watch this get taken apart. . .
I can't beleive how you guys can defend deregulation so much. Remember when people in the US, UK, Germany, and other highly productive countries worked over 60 hours a week, and had to scrape by. By the way this even included young children. It was regulation that put a stop to it. While US CEOs make over 500 times the salary of the average worker in the US, that average worker makes less than MANY countries with higher GDP...
If workers owned the company, would they work harder, or shirk?
Would a company owned by employees be more competitive, or does it take a CEO lining his pocket and stripping out jobs for profit to make a company competitive?
Socialism is NOT communism. No one in America wants communal living or communal farming.
But workers having a share in the ownership of companies, rather than outside investors buying in for profit, which often means cutting jobs - which system is better?
"If workers owned the company, would they work harder, or shirk?"
Capitalism allows workers to own their companies and some businesses are strictly owned this way. If it works better then other businesses then it will win out in free competition. If you HONESTLY believe that such a business works better then you should advocate a smaller govt with fewer regulations so that the superior businesses can be allowed to out compete their competitors. Intellectually honest people advocate freedom.
This is for all you Capitalist tards:
"There is no such alternative as capitalism versus socialism: the issue is between plutocracy and democracy. . . . '"— George Bernard Shaw
Yep, you capitalists are anti-democratic.
mujaku 3 months ago
@mujaku you cant talk to them they r brain washed.
MrOnetedify 3 months ago
@MrOnetedify If you say so, then I won't try to convince mujaku he is wrong.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@mujaku
George Bernard Shaw was on big communist loving Stalin's friend CUNT
So are you.
platipot 2 months ago
@mujaku In short, if your'e anti-trade then you are anti-democracy as well.
You want to have some form of trade, be it free trade or not, but fascism and dictature can never be compared to (free trade) capitalism. To say otherwise is just riddicilus marxist propaganda.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
i believe in a market were goods are traded by the value of the labor used to create them and a mutual bank gives loans with low interest (enough to pay for the maintenance of the bank) and each individual owns a means of production either individually or collectively
death9719 6 months ago
@death9719 The U.S. was NEVER based upon free trade - read Alexander Hamilton the father of American economic theory. You Reichwingers need to read history. Here is some history: So far President McKinley (R) has be right when you consider all the factories that have been closed down or shipped overseas.
"Free trade results in giving our money, our manufactures, and our markets to other nations."
mujaku 1 month ago
REPUBLICONS HAVE EVIL EYE ON SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY !!!!!
kn9ioutom 6 months ago
Obama sparks :D. 1 : 0 for Obama. What's next ? :D
SomeUser9753 9 months ago
This gay satanist reagan was smart. It's poor we don't have much of those today. Who's the capitalist of two ?
SomeUser9753 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch a Pre-January 8th copy of Inception. Listen closely when the actors say imagine, reality, and safe, or point pistols. You'll hear the words, Loughner, offin' her, part of the word Giffords, and much more. Some say they hear, do it.
jamestargetedindiv 10 months ago
socialism sucks nuff said
MortTheCat 11 months ago 2
@MortTheCat You make a strong point. ¬_¬
darrouken 6 months ago
@darrouken i knowwww lolzzz
MortTheCat 6 months ago
A system / any system will fail if it,s led by mankind or one man highest in the hierarchy . We are corrupt .........( mankind will - even when united - create division ) . Eh , power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely . The examples are scattered around in our history. Their will be only one reign capable of bringing peace .
pcrvg0808 1 year ago
does ANYBODY here even understand why capitalism was so awesome in the 1950s but is so awful today??? shoot me a wild guess
jojomoney 1 year ago
Socialism is not an answer, not for America, anyways. America was founded as a Democratic, or Constitutional Republic. Where people can make their own way in life. We need none of the Bureaucracies like the DHS and Department of Health. Nowhere are these mentioned in the Constitution, they are mentioned in the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Heinrich Marx. If he wants to change the country, he should do away with the DHS, and leave their job to the Militias (National Guard).
Thrawn6211 1 year ago
A class insisted Obama's socialism worked. Professor said grades would be averaged but no A's. First test averaged B's. Students who studied were upset. The rest were happy. Second test, bums who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied decided they wanted a free ride. D average results. Everyone unhappy. 3rd test average F. All failed! Socialism fails! When the reward is great, effort to succeed is great! As government takes out reward no one will try to succeed!
sailgoal 1 year ago
@sailgoal You are absolutely correct. If you're going to get paid the same amount as everyone else who sits on their lazy ass, then there's no point to working. That's what these liberals don't get. No farmers = no food. No factories = no mass production.
Socialism will turn us into Soviet Russia when Stalin was dictator (I know Soviet Union was communism, but there's no difference really since socialism turns into communism eventually).
gamefreak1000000 1 year ago
@gamefreak1000000 That's incorrect, Socialism is compatible with the democratic process, and even some forms of Communism do not require a totalitarian state. For example, in Russia from March to November 1917, there were several different kinds of far-left parties. One such party was the Mensheviks, who conformed to Marx's theory of communism and wanted a democratic state with no central command structure.
Yeah, that's right, they were Communists but they believed in democracy...
mixmac38 1 year ago
@mixmac38 Democratic socialism is totally logical, since democracy is a form of "dictatorship of the majority" where miniorities have no say unless the MAJORITY SAY so.
This means the majority can use the initiation of force unto those few that do not follow the aggreements made on planned economy and their new deffination of what a "Free" man.
(I'm NOT against democracy though, I just want a republic to limit the power of goverment, kinda like the US constitution was supposed to have done)
ToxinalX 7 months ago
@ToxinalX That is how democracy works and how it should work, with the minority attempting to win over the majority in order to get their views passed as legislation. Freedom only works to a certain extent. People should be allowed to say what they want within reason otherwise you allow groups like the KKK to be defended by law. Normal people shouldn't have access to guns otherwise gun crime skyrockets. These are all examples of how the USA's constitution is flawed in supplying "total freedom".
mixmac38 7 months ago
@mixmac38 Yes, that is how a democracy works, but I would rather see that the goverment could not pass laws that would violate the rights of those minioritys.
If the Americans had *actually followed* the constitution, they would have to defend the rights of ALL INDIVIDUALS living in the United States (including native americans, african born slaves and the members of the KKK) for as long as they where NOT violent.
The right to own private property (guns) doesn't need to be a problem. Knives...
ToxinalX 7 months ago
@ToxinalX In the US there isnt a right to own private property... you have to earn it...they replaced pursuit of property with pursuit of happiness... remember?
eddieisfiction 1 month ago
@eddieisfiction They wrote "happiness", since they understood that individuals find enjoyment in different things.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@ToxinalX Its true that the US is a constitutional republic... however in the constitution it states that we are a indirect democracy as well. It even states how it works. In fact you could make the claim that most democracies in the world arent democracies and that they are constitutional republics... even though they run as a democracy.. Its just retarded to say that.
eddieisfiction 1 month ago
@eddieisfiction Democracy means majority rule period. A constitutional republic with certain democratic elements or a constitutional democracy are diffenent things as well.
I hope you understand that I am not retarded, but rather trying to be a little more precise on the meaings of certain words in order to make you understand why I prefer a republic (in your case in the form of a union between free states) under a constitution over any other form of rule.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@ToxinalX who said anything about a pure democracy.. I didnt... so why bring it up? Does it help you prove a point over nothing we even talked about?
eddieisfiction 1 month ago
@eddieisfiction Yes. Well, at least I hope so.
The point I wanted to make was that even democracy needs to be limited to some degree. And, at lest according to some people like me, limiting democracy in certain areas would actually *keep* society free.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@ToxinalX when people normally discuss democracy, they dont mean the pure extreme kind that you are implying... in fact I would personally bet money on it, so its stupid to bring it up every ok?
Most people view the norm to be an indirect democracy, usually sponsored by a constitution. I would just assume that rather than making a stupid its a republic comment. Its just not smart to pretend to be stupid about what people mean.
eddieisfiction 1 month ago
@eddieisfiction My point was gonna be that in a state formed as any kind of a "democracy, you have the *right* to vote on everything. But not in a "republic".
The U.S was originally intended to be a constitutional republic (not the other way around.) Then it was (by ignoring law) first made into a constitutional democracy (vote on anything) and today you have a modern form of arristocracy, where the rich are practically born not only into wealth but into political influence.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@ToxinalX most countries in europe are constitutional republics or constitutional monarchies or a combination of both...socialism or capitalism to some degree. No point in putting a bearing on it... all that really means is that theres a founding document that has to have laws reflect that and not go out of bounds from it
eddieisfiction 1 month ago
@eddieisfiction The constitution is a free peoples last defence against any form of tyrany. The rest of the law written can not go against what is in the constitution. This is probably one of the main reasons as for why Sweden has not got the same levels of corruption that the U.S has, because we allways try to follow the "Grundlag" which gives us certain rights that can not be overruled.
I.o.t illustrate the problems of todays society I took the democracy to its extremes.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@ToxinalX no sweden has less corruption than the US becuase of how limited lobbying is, and the main industries that could effect their national security are also controlled by the government, and cant be influenced by the private sector to be bribed and milked for unreasonable profit.
eddieisfiction 1 month ago
@eddieisfiction The real corruption is still present in government and the small "states" "kommunerna", although at a much lower level than most other countries. In reality, lobbying is not limited other than for ordinary people who can't afford legal advice.
"the main industries that could effect their national security..." I could say I dissagree straight of the bat, but I'm not 100% sure I know which industries you would put in this category.
Are you a Swede? I am too.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@ToxinalX im not going to claim that every european country only capitalizes on the industries that can effect national security and nothing else... I know in britain they have the government way too much into tv, and its the same in a few other countries there... I was shocked to find out that people have to pay a tax on tv.
Im never going to be the one to admit that the european standard is great... but neither is america's. Finding a middle ground seems to be impossible.
eddieisfiction 1 month ago
@eddieisfiction We we're really discussing the form of "democracy" that we wanted, and so I pointed I that I wanted more of a Classical Liberal Republic and less democratic influence in certain areas then what there usually is today.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@gamefreak1000000 too much government control or too much private control can be corrupting as long as its possible for one person or a group to attain more power than another... its stupid to argue otherwise.
eddieisfiction 1 month ago
g*d bless the moronic brown shirt teabaggers - their ignorance is boundless. they are being used as the jesus freaks were used in 2000 for cheneybush. we are like drug addicts that have not hit bottom. 8 years of palin/beck is needed to bottom out and complete the end of usa empire. freeeeeeeeeeedom.
oldbimmercoupe 1 year ago
Socialism maps your life for you. Capitalism gives you a choice. I am a firm believer in Laissez-Faire, we need as little government interference as possible. If I must take up a weapon against my government to secure the freedoms endowed by the Founding Fathers and my Creator, I will.
Thrawn6211 1 year ago
@Thrawn6211 youve got that backwards friend Socialism gives choice, capitalism maps for you watch?v=vTyJii4wRWY
jojomoney 1 year ago
@jojomoney how? capitalism is based on a free market system. socialism gives you your job, and "amenities" if you can call them that. Look at China, look at North Korea. Look at the quality of life of these countries and then look at the quality of life of the United States, of Germany, and of Great Britian.
Thrawn6211 1 year ago
@Thrawn6211 ....Funny thing is "socialst " countries like Sweden and Germany etc are booming. They share their wealth in a Christian way without wailing and weeping on a Sunday with some millionaire pastor. They make real products and not BS financial services that bankrupt homeowners and benefit bankers. American bankers reverted to socialism (state rescue) pretty damn quick when they were going bust but resist any help for the poor who cannot afford the basic human right of health care.
yokey123 1 year ago
@yokey123 Well, if Obama really wanted change, he'd do away with the Bureaucracies in DC like the Department of Health. The powers not ceeded by the Constitution to the Federal Government, should be given to the Several States. It's not that this Health Care Bill is bad, it's that it's making government bigger. You can't have a Democratic Republic with a mixture of Oligarchies (City Councils, Boards of Education, etc) and Bureaucracies mixed in.
Thrawn6211 1 year ago
@Thrawn6211 ...start with a smail experiment..do away with the speacial, publich healthcare that the US military receive...if that works then sure scrap the rest...!
yokey123 1 year ago
@yokey123 "They may give the People a job, and shelter, and fill their bellies with Beans and Bacon, but there's one thing about human beings, they dream" - Ronald Regan. That, friend, is why socialism is not for America.
Thrawn6211 1 year ago
@yokey123 Yes, we're booming. Because we spend less and when we spend money we do that at what we really need to spend it at.
We don't do better because we're a "socialist" county, in fact not even the "Democratic Socialists" are really that socialist in the common sense. They approve of a form of corporativistic approach, just to a different degree than the "Liberals" (who are in fact social conservatives) that promote privatization of government organs.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@Thrawn6211 incorrect...COMMUNISM issues you your job, and china with the largest population of citizens on earth are actually number one in many of the global trades today. socialism is the idea of community ownership but not to the point of communism. the cold truth about it is, looking at it like a hardcore capitalist, the only way to redeem the economy is a major tax hike and the destruction on corporate power over the government check out the documentary IOUSA, and capitalism a love story
jojomoney 1 year ago
@jojomoney
Compare suicide rates in USA to China please. Compare sweatshops in USA to China please. Compare freedoms of liberty in USA to China please.
Hydra773 1 year ago
@Hydra773 whoa whoa whoa weve still got Great issues in the exact areas u mentioned, but the american public is kept ignorant of it. i totally agree that in many strong cases the chinese people lead a much harsher and less liberal lifestyle which is why i bring back my initial argument of meeting at the political middle ground of captialism and communism, which is socialism. a democracy which emphasizes the empowerment of the community rather than the a select privileged few
jojomoney 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hydra773 The real slaves are those who think they are free .
pcrvg0808 1 year ago
Billions and billions of our Grandkids dollars to save wall street and union jobs and now 2 years later, we sit at 9.8% unemployment (about 17% truthfully). Let's have MORE govt interference and taxes.... NOT! Govt will never be a solution; make your life your own and stop looking to govt to take care of you!
ProudConservative2 1 year ago
A class insisted Obama's socialism worked. Professor said grades would be averaged but no A's. First test averaged B's. Students who studied were upset. The rest were happy. Second test, bums who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied decided they wanted a free ride. D average results. Everyone unhappy. 3rd test average F. All failed! Socialism fails! When the reward is great, effort to succeed is great! As government takes out reward no one will try to succeed!
sailgoal 1 year ago
@sailgoal
My father did this with his class to show that collectivism fails over time.
Hydra773 1 year ago
@sailgoal That class was stupid. Socialism is control over a resource, it's people having a say over the direction of the company they work at, it's democratically making a decision, nowhere in the idea of socialism is there "everyone has exactly the same shit". That's a myth. The only across the board equality would be everyone having a job which is a fucking goal in capitalism as well.
GoodOldHalo 1 year ago
@GoodOldHalo That is a myth, I agree. But socialism is the fight for communism. It litteraly is. Read Marx.
Socialism is nothing more/nothing less than the fight against economic inequality. It is not necessarily any of the things which you mention.
Everybody having a job is not a *goal* of neither Capitalism nor Communism.
In a planned economy under socialism (for example democratic socialism), making sure unemployment is kept low may be a strategic goal, but some people won't work.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@ToxinalX toxinalX assuming people want extremes is stupid, and poorly debatable... you ever stop to think that barely anyone in the US wants complete government control?
But at the same time they dont want the exact opposite of the spectrum, where a few completely rich people control the entire government and economy from the private sector either.
The US is more likely to be privately controlled by a few than government controlled by party.
eddieisfiction 1 month ago
@eddieisfiction I try not to participate in debates. I think we all can outperform stupid people if we simply try to discuss these things in greater detail.
"The US is more likely to be privately controlled by a few than government controlled by party."
I personally don't think the two really contradict each other. Aristocracy survive through the empowerment of the "upper"class. Today, the line between government and corporations is blurred and corruption easily disguised.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@ToxinalX totally agree.. I was just trying to explain things in simple terms for them.... when a CEO's brother's best friend is the congressman of his district, hard to break it up.
eddieisfiction 1 month ago
@eddieisfiction Indeed. And it mostly goes on for years without much notice, until the mostly government/corporate controlled media see greater gain and revolt against the silence or are simply told it's time to release certain things for strategic reasons.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@ToxinalX Where you are wrong is that Marx didn't create socialism, therefore Marx's theory's are irrelevant to what socialism can and can't be. Communism is, in fact, a much more extreme form of socialism. To truly understand Socialism you need to learn its actual origins in the industrial revolution.
GoodOldHalo 1 month ago
@GoodOldHalo "Communism" in daily talk is a more extreme form of socialism, but that is not the way in which the actuall communists look at the term. And they ought to know don't they?
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@sailgoal Bullshit
jojomoney 1 year ago
@sailgoal That was just one part of what is literally concidered socialism (the fight for "communism"), but I totally agree with you. It just doesn't work.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
I believe there should be a little bit of both.
HonduranAmerican 1 year ago
@HonduranAmerican Most people do and I would say that perhaps the road to what I really want, which is a volountary socialist society in the midst of a classical libertarian society (if at all possible) would be by finding a good middle way and then go from there.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
your joking. you honestly believe Obama is a socialist? As a communist myself, this makes me laugh!! hahaha. i wish he was a socialist!!!! silly capitalists dont even know who their enemy is.
xArmyxFiancex1990 1 year ago
@xArmyxFiancex1990
there is a huge difference between socialism and communism you ignorant fuck. when governments take over industry throughout history it has been facism/socialism. with the corporate income tax of 47% i would argue that the government controls almost half of all businesses. but in reality they own closer to 2/3rds of all businesses because we are taxed at nearly every step of commerce.
Hydra773 1 year ago
@Hydra773 excuse me, but i never said there was not a difference. however, socialism is the transitional state period between capitalism and communism. and as far as he united states being socialistic...please dont make me laugh any harder at your complete lack of knowledge. the private sector simply should not exist. everyone talks about the dwindling private sector, but no one ever speaks of the now almost nonexistent public sector.
xArmyxFiancex1990 1 year ago
@Hydra773 What you said made almost no sense at all, when government takes over industry, that's COMMUNISM numb nuts. the corporate income tax was 47%; i think that wasn't what you were trying to say because that sounds a little something like "47% of all corporations income goes to taxes" and the industry has waaaayyy too much power over the legislative arm of the government to allow some shit like that o_0 get some!
jojomoney 1 year ago
@jojomoney I'ts not communism. It's a certain form of socialism. But even in for example the U.S in which it may seem like there is socialism/capitalism there is mostly only corporativism.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@xArmyxFiancex1990 I am a "capitalist" or at least a form of objectivist/classical liberal/volountarist that embrace capitalism in combination with an overall free society.
Yet, I totally agree with you. I would feel much more at ease knowing that Obama was really a socialist/communist. After all, rather that than a corporativist !
Today, though he mentions his faith all the time, I can't even say I feel very sure he is actually that religious. Trust is the real issue here.
ToxinalX 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stick Figure Logic
/watch?v=qWNFNV9SHlc
ZombieLand 1 year ago
FYI i cant stand bush. he run the country just like a liberal. He spent way too much money. Obama is doing the same thing he did.
goldsmithstudent 1 year ago
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! HE NEEDS TO GO RUN A YMCA IN CHICAGO NOT BE PREZ OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY. PEOPLE ITS GONNA GET WORSE. THIS MAN IS NUTS AND HIS PEOPLE ARE TOO. GOD BLESS AMERICA
goldsmithstudent 1 year ago
@goldsmithstudent oo and you think bush did a ''great job'' bitch he fucked up this country he started all of this economic problem fuking conservative racist fuck
exterminador1904 1 year ago
@exterminador1904 The liberal rebuttal to attacks on Obama are that Bush was just as bad and they're right. The difference is that Bush WAS president and Obama IS president. When someone fucks up, saying that someone else fucked up doesn't excuse it.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
The free market is a philosophical offshoot of Calvinism and expresses a faith in the religious precept that some members of society are morally deserving and reap the benefits while others are morally undeserving and subject to exclusion and deprivation. At the monopoly stage of the free market today you see the onset of massive poverty imprisonment and homelessness. These conditions are obviously the product of a failed theory but the religious and ideological underpinnings remain intact.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
i say the government should take over major domestic auto mobile companies, take over the major fuel power companies, take the over the airlines, and the medical institutions. so much profit of these companies is going towards private yachts and huge mansions, instead we could have affordiable medical care, and better funding towards cops, firemen, and WAY under paid airline pilots.
mouse9111 1 year ago
Capitalism - a free market system where as one has an equal opportunity to prosper, and to succeed. Communism - a self deprivation where as the liberal, and progressive believe the government is the answer to all problems to humanity.
Communism is when one's prosperity and hard work is taken from him, and given to the unwilling, and to the sluggards.
macdogq 1 year ago 2
we are thankful that our leader isn't the spoiled son of a powerful wealthy family who is supported by religious fundamentalists, operates through clandestine organizations, has no respect for the democratic electoral process, bombs innocents, and uses war to deny people their civil liberties, amen
AxeloneX 1 year ago
Not supported by religious fundamentalists, talked to any global warming zealots lately. Bombs innocents, heard about his predator drones. Uses war to deny people civil liberties, hmmm wonder about Anwar Al-Alwakis right to a fair trialm oh yeah the bamster okayed his assasination. No respect for the democratic process,except his recess appointments, czars, the arizona lawsuit. Diabolical organizations like, Acorn, Tides foundation, SEIU, AFLCIO.
Seaworldexists 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tell me about it.I live in Barstow Ca. and am tired of all of these people whining about their children,friends and family always getting cancer and tumors from our local Hinkley drinking water that's polluted with chromium 6 from the nearby PG&E plant,but I know the government cares because it's only been going on for 25 years.They should be greatful that they have ANY water to drink,after all,it is the desert.
lute760 1 year ago
why the fuck do you guys want another president like Reagan he sucked, he was a puppet to those around him including the CEO of Meryl and Lynch at the time! That CEO owned Ronald Reagan and even ordered him around live during a speech! so fuck puppet presidents like Reagan!!
jazzmusicplayer 1 year ago
I can think of no good reason to believe the collapse of capitalism in the US means the end of the world. This economic theory is just part of the world as we have known it not the end of history itself. Capitalism will lose in the end but the world has already moved on. I say if you cant lick em, join em. Besides the US military is the biggest socialist program on this planet and I dont hear any of you free marketeers proposing we constrain them or their $1.3 trillion entitlement program, do I?
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
when obama came in, i was quite optimistic. I thought "Ya know, this guy seems ok good things should happen"... But as time went by.. everything he promised has not been carried out. Hes a wolf in sheep's clothing.
mraperish 1 year ago
@mraperish
Presumably you would consider the 45 million Americans who cannot afford medicine to be wolves as well. I would imagine the millions of homeless and unemployed are rather wolf like as well ? Now that you mention it maybe the wolf is just the reality of massive impoverishment at the bottom of a failed economic theory.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
I hate this creature.
SpreadtheButters 1 year ago
The working people didn't cause this crisis, we won't pay for it.
VousPouvezFaireMieux 1 year ago
Reagan expanded the government and raised taxes.
Stupid sheep Republicans.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
REQUIRED READING for ALL LOVERS of LIBERTY:
"Road to Serfdom" (Hayek),
CHAPTER 6 on THE RULE OF LAW and the DANGERS of the SOCIALIST/CENTRAL PLANNING
This chapter should be MEMORIZED VERBATIM by everyone who loves liberty and the magnificence of this nation. And despite mistakes made along the way and our imperfections (existent within ALL civil societies), the TRUTH IS that we have CONTRIBUTED MORE GOODWILL to the world and those who call themselves Americans are indeed GOOD LOVING PEOPLE.
PrudentPatriot 1 year ago
@PrudentPatriot
Hayek was another 19th century moralist, no more than an untutored rightwing ideologue. There is nothing 'magnificent' about a materialist economic theory that proposes to defend the institution of slavery or a nation of 5 million homeless or 20 million unemployed in the name of free market absolutism. The equation Capitalism= Liberty is obviously fallacious. The monopoly stage of capitalism's materialist ethos has brought America to the verge of ruin as an empire.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
Reagen was a corporate ass.
lionsare 1 year ago
democrats like obama just cuz their told to.. just like alot of republicans like bush just cuz their told you.. right on reagan.
letsgoforajoyride 1 year ago
well see where you are getting at. But i ask myselves some times, is capitalism the best for this world?? aint most contries capitalistic and why then are they so poor. Isnt capitalism one grate reason for wasting resaurces. I do not belive that pure socialism is the right way to go nighter. But there has to be a way where people have 100% freedom and a state controlled companies.
Kikkankleiven 1 year ago
@Kikkankleiven - There is such a system. It is called a Resource Based Economy. Check our The Venus Project or the movie "Zeitgeist : Addendum"
gorfjorf2112 1 year ago
Reality is we all goin to die one day
and everything stays behind
MONEY IS THE BASICS OF EVEL
i suggest be as happy as you can be now
lived your day last if was your last day
and you will truly find happyness
JUST REMEMBER GOD CREATED US FROM DUST
AND TO DUST SHOULD WE RETURN WAKE UP!
mayimbin 1 year ago
We need another Ronald Reagon !!!!!!! OBAMA SUCKS !!!!!
daleng1994 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
These are the Liberals of the USA.... Aren't ya proud of them? Liberals will degrade Christianity but will glamorize Islam for fear of offending Muslims... Liberals could care less about 9/11 or any future attacks...They just don't want to offend anybody.. "BOO HOO..makes me wanna cry..WAA WAA"!!! Liberals are PATHETIC !!!! Bunch of Pinko, do-gooder, Panzies !!!!!
daleng1994 1 second ago
daleng1994 1 year ago
Do I think Obama is evil? No. Do I think he is helping to shape a system that will be taken over by a despot/autocrat (Dictator)?? Absolutely. One of the reasons I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government industrialists/politicians take it over. Obama is not an evil man, he is a foolish man. He is what Stalin called a "Useful idiot."
Hydra773 1 year ago
Perhaps if obama weren't a corporate tool this could be big change. Reagan was a genius for convincing sheep that being narrow minded was a virtue. Convincing people that Economical Freedom is all that matters.
dowshipwigga 1 year ago
@dowshipwigga
I think you are a fool indeed. Throughout human history this statement has been true; Economic freedom promotes human freedom.
Hydra773 1 year ago
The recent fiasco in the markets was not capitalism, but a distortion of capitalism. Think about it: by the very definition it is risk taking, but the CEO's that made all the bad decisions risked nothing. If they had the same skin in the game, I'm certain that their judgement and decisions would have been modified accordingly. Right now, the European countries are reporting 25 to over 40% unemployment rates for under 20 somethings. Socialism is there, but where are the jobs?
cpgne 1 year ago
@cpgne
The collapse of financial markets represents the maturation of free market economics in practice Of course you are right to note that on paper this "should not" happen. Furthermore we "should not" have 5 million people homeless or 70% of black 20 somethings unemployed either but....Capitalism is a moral philosophy that ignores its human costs as we sit transfixed before the TV screen unable to imagine any alternative to this catastrophe but to exchange one dictatorship for another?!
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz
-Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
-Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
-Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
EmperorProzen 1 year ago
@EmperorProzen Actually, real wages are stagnating or declining for the vast majority of the population since Reagan smashed the workforce by destroying the unions etc. Median family income has grown, but that's because people now work longer hours and that women too have to work now for a family to responsibly raise children ("conservative family values!" lol).
PavedStones 1 year ago
It's true that there high growth under him, it all went to Wall Street and the 2% of the population that own most of the stock of US corporations, hooray. Also it's him that started the wave of deregulation of corporations and finance which eventually resulted in the economic collapse. He also was a major supporter of terrorist networks in Central America and the Middle East.
PavedStones 1 year ago
Besides, he also was the most protectionist president since WW2 and the ultimate deficit spender: to call him a conservative is ludicrous- and I think this is actually a good thing for conservatives because it would allow them to dissociate themselves from his disastrous legacy.
PavedStones 1 year ago
Why do so many Conservatives seen the Constitution as perfect? It's been ammended several times. Not to mention it was enacted by economic elites who wanted to break away from British central authority. A constitution that did not guarantee voting rights to anyone who wasn't a wealthy white protestant male. And don't use moral standards as an excuse. Thomas Jefferson felt morally wrong about slavery, yet admitted his indulgence to the profit they made...
metallatin 1 year ago
Today Comcast won a battle to the government controlled FCC in an attempt to crush the belief of net neutrality. The FFC has been since 2002 defending our freedom on the internet, prohibiting Comcast from blocking access to legal content on the internet. The FCC lost today, on the basis of defending the FREEDOM of Comcast. Deregulation has been so excessive, that we've given corporations the freedom to take freedom away from others. Now ISP providers can block any LEGAL content they want...
metallatin 1 year ago
It's Comcast's investment, Comcast's equipment, and therefore Comcast's decision to manage their assets. Nothing wrong here. Comcast is not the only internet provider. Capitalism says if someone does a better job cheaper, then you go do business with them. If Comcast sucks, you leave. Comcast is saying that internet hogs should not be pushing the little guys out of bandwidth. How does this hurt Comcast customers? Are you saying the few users should dominate available bandwidth?
cpgne 1 year ago
@cpgne
You sound like you are quoting the Bible when you refer to capitalism as a sacred text; (capitalism says...). You rely on abstract simplicities that show no familiarity with historical experience and seem to allude to a utopia that existed somewhere in time out on the prarie during an idyllic golden age.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
disgusting, big government, controlling, socialist PIGS!!
revolver1750 1 year ago
Socialism the people are serfs, not Free men. Capitalism you are free to become what you want to be, free to use your God given rights to make more of yourself. Under Socialism why bother, you get paid the same no matter what you do. There in lies the difference. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Communism slogan from Karl Marx.
SSGTVDOG 1 year ago
SSGTVDOG, I'm talking about a balance between Socialism and Capitalism, not extreme socialism, or communism, which is what is portrayed by Marx and Engels. When you look at the statistics, the nations with the highest happiness index tend to practice a healthy balance between those two. According to the CIA estimates, the US is around 40% socialist. Most countries with higher happiness index tend to be around 50-60% socialist. Yet in the least socialist we see nations like Mexico (26.7%)
metallatin 1 year ago
@metallatin - You really need a wake up call. America is heading toward National Socialist / Communist Country under the last 3 regimes that have been in power. It has shifted to a more Communist manifesto under this regime. If you haven't seen that, then you haven't been paying attention to the politics in America. They have denigrated and demeaned out CONSTITUTION. I suggest you read the it.
SSGTVDOG 1 year ago
@metallatin - You really need a wake up call. America is heading toward National Socialist / Communist Country under the last 3 regimes that have been in power. It has shifted to a more Communist manifesto under this regime. If you haven't seen that, then you haven't been paying attention to the politics in America. They have denigrated and demeaned out CONSTITUTION. I suggest you read the it.
SSGTVDOG 1 year ago
@SSGTVDOG
Capitalism collapsed in 1929 permiting corporations to buy up the future at pennies on the dollar. It is one of the more eccentric aspects of American politics that we are unable to recognize who runs the economy runs the government. The idea of heroic individualism is really the fantasy content of cowboy films and fundamentalist religious revivals. Fewer than 6,000 control about 60% of all US resources and control access to all institutional power & THEY are NOT liberals.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz Capitalism did not collapse after the stock market crash. It is true that free market economies have their depressions, but so do all economies. The reason for the Great Depression was the move towards socialism via the New Deal (redistribution of wealth).
EmperorProzen 1 year ago
@EmperorProzen
America institutionalized the redistribution of wealth by structuring the legal basis of property to guarantee that the profits from production accrue primarily to people who have little or nothing to do with producing them. The pillaging of the nations resources follows. If we the people are not free to allocate these resources & are being structurally excluded from the means of achieving what we like to call a decent standard of living we are not free in any meaningful sense..
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz Exactly, that is what is known as a welfare society.
Socialists want to provide everyone with the basic necessities of life: food, water, shelter, and medical treatment. ALL OF THE THINGS GUARANTEED TO A PRISONER OR A SLAVE. However, they ignore the happiness and dreams of the individuals. They do not realize that people want more than just the basic needs of living. That is what makes socialism evil.
EmperorProzen 1 year ago
@EmperorProzen I am not advocating an alternative to your fundamentalist ideology, but am making the observation that the scientific free market utopia you speak of is a pipe dream, while in reality, saddled with a failed 19th century materialist economic theory & given over to the follies of an "unseen hand" in a perpetual state of crisis markets hold the population captive via learned helplessness & perdition. Some find your predicament amusing...like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz Still, more government regulation is not the option. It never produces better results than a laissez-faire economic trade system with low taxes. A free market economy is not a utopia scenario, but it the best economic system.
P.S. I do not understand your Titanic comment.
EmperorProzen 1 year ago
@EmperorProzen
You are faced with grim choices if you believe the only way to function in society is either as a slave or a contestant locked in battle over scarce resources with your neighbor who is your natural adversary. Some of this ideology has to do with a fear of dependency and a related desire to appear heroic. Your fears sound pretty typical of the highly standardized Republican individualist who is deeply insecure.& eventually becomes isolated paranoid and bitter. You like guns yet?
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz A free market economy does not run on fear, it is about competition over the consumers. Producing higher quality goods and services efficiently; that is what having a FREE market economy is all about. If slavery is outlawed (13th Amendment) and a minimum standard of living is set (minimum wage) then capitalism can flourish with high economic growth and no poverty; so long as taxes remain low and government involvement is at a minimum level.
I am an advocate of the right to bear arms.
EmperorProzen 1 year ago
@EmperorProzen
Actually that is social democracy.
Socialists just want to let the workers control the means of production.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy Government regulation and labor unions drive up the price of goods/services in the United States. The lower employees of the company may earn more (until they get laid off in times of economic strife) but consumers and the company itself will be the ones paying the bill. It costs about $130,000 because of all the benefits demanded by labor unions to hire American labor but only $80,000 to hire workers from countries like India. That is why America is becoming de-industrialized.
EmperorProzen 1 year ago
@EmperorProzen
So what you are saying is that American workers should live in the same conditions like in India, so they are able to compete with them?
We need global protectionism, and not global poverty for workers.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy There was a time when labor unions were necessary, but that time has passed. All they do now is drive up the price of American labor by demanding higher wages and more benefits via threatening to strike.
Should Americans have safe working conditions? Yes.
Are labor unions more powerful than they should be? Absolutely!
When workers have such expensive labor demands they will get laid off at the first sign of economic decline. This will make poverty even worse.
EmperorProzen 1 year ago
Btw, is it not somewhat weird to imply you are concerned with families' income when you just argued that American people should be driven back to third world-style labor conditions and standards of living so that American corporations would be happy and would stop destroying the country with desindustrialization and capital flight and that we could all marvel about the wonders of the free market
PavedStones 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy Having workers control the means of production sounds great but that is not how it works out. The people who are elected to lead the company, (CEO, CFO, etc..) by the people who have bought in the company (board of directors who have the most shares). they are the entrepreneurs who do the decision making. This is the most important of the four factors of production.
The owners should control the means of production since they own the business; not the low level workers.
EmperorProzen 1 year ago
@EmperorProzen
Well I disagree with you.
I believe the workers should control the means of production, which could include electing a boss.
This also means the 'owners' will no longer own the means of production, everything should be placed into the hands of the worker.
We've seen that corportarism doesn't work. The leaders of the companies will just fuck up a lot, and then get bail outs. If you don't bail them out, you have 10.000 unemployements.
So why not try anarchism?
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy First of all, purchasing stock of a corporation is buying the company itself (ownership of the company). The OWNERS or large shareholders can run the business as they see fit, for example, electing the CEO. Private property is one of the most important characteristics of capitalism.
Second, government bailouts whether Republican or Democrat should not have been made at all. It lessens the importance of the all the incentives to run a business efficiently.
EmperorProzen 1 year ago
@EmperorProzen
Socialism means workers controling the means of production. Democracy in the workplace. Not having 2 out of the 100000 shares of the company.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
If workers & communities had a voice, that would be to propose a de facto 2 party system w/ an economic democracy in which power and control as well as the distribution of food housing medical care were given similar institutional priority to garbage collection and sewage treatment. At the end of the day I would think insuring the care of Americas children is at least as important as the care of our nations garbage and sewage. the 'invisible hand' has been jerking us off...no?
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
Tell me about it.I live in Barstow Ca. and am tired of all of these people whining about their children,friends and family always getting cancer and tumors from our local Hinkley drinking water that's polluted with chromium 6 from the nearby PG&E plant,but I know the government cares because it's only been going on for 25 years.They should be greatful that they have ANY water to drink,after all,it is the desert.
lute760 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz
I think the invisible hand does not have to be opposed per se. It is the hierarchal structure in the production area which I have the most problems with.
Unless we are talking about the highest stage of communism, the market is a decent way to distribute goods.
But we need to make sure that people are able to make these goods. So letting the people have a say in the factories will ensure that people are able to create the goods to fulfill in their needs (or to create for exchange).
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy That is NOT what socialism means. Socialism means everyone gets 100 shares, but they are all worthless.
roach062 1 year ago
@roach062
Socialism means worker control over the means of production. That is what it means, and that is what is always meant.
It is a MODE OF PRODUCTION, just like capitalism. It is NOT some sort of crazy distribution plan.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy An example of how communism doesn't work is...
If I was a worker cleaning your house then a communist revolution began. I would then be the owner of your house because I am the worker and you are (now were) just the owner. That is the communist motto, "workers of the world unite".
Should that happen shareholders of businesses would lose their stock and the employees would not have much incentive to run the business well because it is just a job rather than their money at stake.
EmperorProzen 1 year ago
@EmperorProzen
That is a lie.
Marx said in the Communist Manifesto that people would be able to own a house and personal items like a toothbrush.
Marx made a clear difference between the means of production and non-exploitative goods.
Workers of the world unite means nothing more than that the workers of the world should unite.
I suggest you read up on some Marx.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
Comment removed
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy In order to start a business, one has to not only take out loans that their responsible for, but also have to manage the income vs expenses to sell at a price people are willing to pay while not losing money. You have to hire competant people for wages that give them incentive to do the job well. If you manage to work all of these things out Marx believes the control of the company should be put in the hands of the people do the work and know nothing about running a business.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@EmperorProzen that is what makes people greedy. You care more about yourself then the wellfair of others. What kind of human are you?
frostycarga 1 year ago
@frostycarga To bad these "others" cannot and WILL NOT help themselves. Greedy my ass, you are NOT entitled to what I have earned.
OenghusLok 1 year ago
@frostycarga
Socialists can promise people: food, shelter, and medical treatment. However, what they don't realize that people want more than the basic essentials in life. It is NOT greed it is the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS; to work hard and be successful. "Freedom and reason" are the ingredients of CAPITALISM, not socialism.
It is because of this entitlement attitude that the generations after the Baby Boomers will suffer the aftershocks caused by excessive government spending and massive debt.
EmperorProzen 1 year ago
@frostycarga It is called the pursuit of happiness. It is self-interest not selfishness. For example, if a doctor of such and such treats 50 patients he should receive a larger salary than he would if he were to treat only 30.
Economic decisions should not be made based on what a person's feelings are. They should be based on the logic of supply and demand, banking policies, etc...
No society rewards virtue directly, not even American presidents and especially not communism.
EmperorProzen 1 year ago
@EmperorProzen Don't you understand that you will be happy if everyone is equal? Everyone gets great education, everyone gets access to the greatest libraries possibly...
frostycarga 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmperorProzen "The reason for the Great Depression was the move towards socialism via the New Deal (redistribution of wealth)." - Um, no. The New Deal (1933) was the *response* to the Great Depression (1929). The Great Depression was caused by a stock market crash, caused by unrestrained speculation, caused by an unregulated financial system, caused by free market fundamentalism. moment)
PavedStones 1 year ago
After the GD regulations were put in place to avoid a encore, said regulations (e.g. the Glass-Steagall Act) were then dropped by Reagan and Clinton, following the advice of the resurgent free market fanatics, and you know the rest of the story. The social programs of the New Deal were instituted in part to stop the wretched poverty and mass starvation (it is probable that more Americans died of famine after the GD than Soviets during the Holodomor taking place at the same
PavedStones 1 year ago
I hate socialists.
samspennell 1 year ago
We need another president like Reagan.
howdywy 1 year ago
What does California & Michigan have in common with the PIIGS? (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain).
Answer: They're all in debt. Why? Because of a "Big Government" socialist system that taxes everyone to death. And this same socialist system promotes entitlement programs which in turn create a DEPENDENCE on the government among its people. But at least here in this system everyone is equal right?!, Equally poor that is. Here is a novel idea: Healthcare is not a right, it's a privilege.
bmotx 1 year ago 2
bmotx, those example you gave there are really bad. First of all, Italy suffers from very high political instability and a very high degree of corruption. Ireland and Greece took a heavy downfall in this recession due to their high dependance to their financial service sector. Spain suffer/ed from MANY problems (from the inflation rates, the underground economy, the uncontrolled immigration, and an economy highly dependable on foreign investments.
metallatin 1 year ago
Comment removed
bmotx 1 year ago
@metallatin
You just made up excuses for government failure. These states and nations all took a heavy downfall due to their high dependence on goverment.
bmotx 1 year ago
Excuses? Then why haven't other nations with high government dependance fallen down? What about Sweden, Germany, Norway, Canada, France, Netherlands, New Zealand and so on? But how are the living conditions in highly capitalist nations which are Russia, Brazil, India, Argentina, Mexico, and South Africa?
metallatin 1 year ago
@metallatin
Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, Netherlands; do not have nearly as high a dependence on the government as the PIIGS. They've greatly cut back on wages to government workers and have asked that countries like Greece do the same. And what are the PIIGS solutions to reduce their deficit??? You guessed it, raise taxes on sales of tobacco and alcohol. (Socialism)
If you think Mexico, India and Russia are examples of "highly" Capitalist nations then you are a simply confused.
bmotx 1 year ago
bmotx, don't tell me I'm confused. That's according to the CIA studies (which many regard for top excellence and high accuracy). And I never said we should have an extremely high dependance on government, in fact I'm against Socialism to the extreme like we see in a nation like Cuba. The fact is we need a healthy balance, and to achive that we must look the countries with higher Human Development Index, and highest rate population happines.
metallatin 1 year ago
@bmotx
Capitalism divides people into artificially moralized categories of those deserving and those undeserving of dignity. Individualism as a cult, appeals to sociopaths and extremely insecure males who are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge their interdependence with others. A fear of intimacy and an inability to trust are rooted in having been shamed by authority figures during childhood. it comes down to attempting to avoid feelings of inadequacy & ultimateley is self destructive
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz
Spoken like a true brainwashed communist. Show me a better system that has improved the lot of the ordinary man more so than Capitalism and the free market, you silly child.
bmotx 1 year ago
@bmotx Capitalism & Communism are failed 19th century materialist economic theories. As capitalism continues its plunge into the abyss we will be forced to evolve or we will perish. The US looks and sounds like the USSR in the early 80s; socially economically and politically bankrupt. Malnourished children attending dilapidated schools , millions homeless, and half the population going w/out medical care, with a $1.3 trillion military budget, at war w/ Afghanistan?!
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
Workers in the US today work harder and longer than they did in the 70's, but in contrast to inflation levels, they make less money. There is a bigger percentage of people leaving below the poverty line in the US than in many countries that rank lower in GDP. Deregulation has become so absurd that even Warren Buffet criticizes Capitalism for the economic disparity it has created and supports many Socialist changes.
metallatin 1 year ago
exactly and look at the gov regulations has skyrocketed since them in all major sections in all major enterprises, your arguments are some of the weakest come up to an academic setting and watch this get taken apart. . .
theonemanparty7 1 year ago
I can't beleive how you guys can defend deregulation so much. Remember when people in the US, UK, Germany, and other highly productive countries worked over 60 hours a week, and had to scrape by. By the way this even included young children. It was regulation that put a stop to it. While US CEOs make over 500 times the salary of the average worker in the US, that average worker makes less than MANY countries with higher GDP...
metallatin 1 year ago
If workers owned the company, would they work harder, or shirk?
Would a company owned by employees be more competitive, or does it take a CEO lining his pocket and stripping out jobs for profit to make a company competitive?
Socialism is NOT communism. No one in America wants communal living or communal farming.
But workers having a share in the ownership of companies, rather than outside investors buying in for profit, which often means cutting jobs - which system is better?
Socialism.
kaneweb 1 year ago
"If workers owned the company, would they work harder, or shirk?"
Capitalism allows workers to own their companies and some businesses are strictly owned this way. If it works better then other businesses then it will win out in free competition. If you HONESTLY believe that such a business works better then you should advocate a smaller govt with fewer regulations so that the superior businesses can be allowed to out compete their competitors. Intellectually honest people advocate freedom.
Aliothemage 1 year ago