loosecannon
Senior Member
- May 7, 2007
- 4,888
- 269
- 48
Our founding fathers considered it slavery if you DIDN'T own your own means of production!
What did they know?
What did they know?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
history has shown a blurring between these forms. For instance, in the Soviet Union the means of production were controlled by a ruling elite (Politburo)
If social security were to become "privatized," the means of production would be at least partly collectively owned by all the workers.
Both of these forms present challenges to equal protection before the law. A ruling minority may exercise a corrupt prerogative over the interests of the many. When a majority holds an interest in corporate affairs, they may wield the same corrupt power over a minority
Our founding fathers considered it slavery if you DIDN'T own your own means of production!
What did they know?
Have y'all ever considered having a civil conversation? o_0
Have y'all ever considered having a civil conversation? o_0
Government is an entity, it does nothing, imbecile. It is those that control to do something, and those are corporation dumbass, the ones who control ever fool Representative we have. Got that Davey??
Yeah. It's the corporations who are fighting for more and more of the entitlement that are bankrupting us.
America worked best when there was a blending of capitalism and socialism.
1) such is not the only definition of socialismOne of the central questions of any political ideology is "Who should own and control the means the production?" (Means of production refers to factories, farmlands, machinery, office space, etc.) Generally there have been three approaches to this issue.
1.The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood.
2.The second is capitalism, which disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded.
3.The third approach is socialism, which is defined as "the collective ownership and control of the means of production." That is, everyone owns and controls productive wealth, which is accomplished through the vote.
As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
====http://www.huppi.com
I believe we are currently between 2 & 3 as we add more regulations, etc. to those that own & control production, due to flaws in Capitalism.
Who should own and control the means of production?
Who should own property?The people who own the property used.
And who exactly are you to take someone elses property?
I am me, who is everyone but the owner of production that I must make a living wage from. He the owner is a known dangerous person who must be owned and controlled from destroying us all. He should only exist as the government where I can control him.
Capitalism is bankrupt to the tune 14Trillion
so stop talking nonsense.
Actually, Shin's a fascist, if you read carefullyAnd who exactly are you to take someone elses property?
I am me, who is everyone but the owner of production that I must make a living wage from. He the owner is a known dangerous person who must be owned and controlled from destroying us all. He should only exist as the government where I can control him.
You are a communist. Isn't there a communist country you could move to?