Socialism is slavery

[rupol2000]

This is proven very simply.

Slavery is a lack of rights.

Ownership is the right to a certain resource - the right to own, dispose and use.

Lack of rights automatically means slavery.

These are not the only rights, but in any case it proves that the absence of property rights means a position close to that of a slave.

Slaves did not have property rights to the means of production on which they worked.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

About the only thing I've ever read of yours, that makes sense.

 

[Donald H]

You would have to address your view of socialism by naming one particular country. All democratic and capitalist countries practice some variations of 'socialist' policies but aren't socialist countries.

Can you name a country as an example?

I would suggest Cuba even though it's a communist country, unless you can name one that is a true socialist country. Then maybe we could go on to examine slavery in that country.

I'll just say on behalf of Cuba, the US supported Batista dictatorship that was overthrown by their revolution, enslaved more Cubans than their present communist system.

In actual effect, private lands owned by the regime were divided up and granted to the Cuban people to work as farm lands and to prosper.

 

[irosie91]

This is proven very simply.

Slavery is a lack of rights.

Ownership is the right to a certain resource - the right to own, dispose and use.

Lack of rights automatically means slavery.

These are not the only rights, but in any case it proves that the absence of property rights means a position close to that of a slave.

Slaves did not have property rights to the means of production on which they worked.

so true ----the history of oppression is ----lack of right to OWN PROPERTY, TO OWN WEAPONS, TO
TRAVEL ABOUT----TO LEAVE what is, essentially, the \
assigned "PLACE"

 

[rupol2000]

You would have to address your view of socialism by naming one particular country. All democratic and capitalist countries practice some variations of 'socialist' policies but aren't socialist countries.

Can you name a country as an example?

I would suggest Cuba even though it's a communist country, unless you can name one that is a true socialist country. Then maybe we could go on to examine slavery in that country.

I'll just say on behalf of Cuba, the US supported Batista dictatorship that was overthrown by their revolution, enslaved more Cubans than their present communist system.

In actual effect, private lands owned by the regime were divided up and granted to the Cuban people to work as farm lands and to prosper.

Any modern country uses the welfare state model, this is the same vector of slavery.

Capitalism is also a socialist system, because capitalism concentrates capital, and does not decentralize it, distributing rights among the population.

 

[Donald H]

This is proven very simply.

Slavery is a lack of rights.

Ownership is the right to a certain resource - the right to own, dispose and use.

Lack of rights automatically means slavery.

These are not the only rights, but in any case it proves that the absence of property rights means a position close to that of a slave.

Slaves did not have property rights to the means of production on which they worked.

Here's some help for you to find a socialist country.

15 Socialist Countries that Have Succeeded

In this article, we take a look at 15 socialist countries that have succeeded. You can skip our detailed analysis about state of socialism, and go directly to the 5 Socialist Countries that Have Succeeded. Socialism is an economic theory that stresses the ownership of means of production by...

finance.yahoo.com

But the problem still remains on then being capitalist countries that practice 'socialism' very successfully.

 

[Donald H]

Any modern country uses the welfare state model, this is the same vector of slavery.

Capitalism is also a socialist system, because capitalism concentrates capital, and does not decentralize it, distributing rights among the population.

If you can't talk about any one specific country where your theory holds true, then you have only imagined it to be true.

At least read about socialism in the link I provided. It may give you some idea on how to pursue your theory.

 

[Donald H]

Any modern country uses the welfare state model, this is the same vector of slavery.

Capitalism is also a socialist system, because capitalism concentrates capital, and does not decentralize it, distributing rights among the population.

NO! Capitalism is not socialism!
You've taken to criticizing capitalism and it appears that you've trapped yourself by not being able to name a socialist country that equates to slavery.

Do look at the 5 successful socialist countries in the link and see how they all fit the definition of 'capitalist' with the distinction of being 'socially' responsible in their acceptance of 'socialist' policy.

 

[rupol2000]

Here's some help for you to find a socialist country.

15 Socialist Countries that Have Succeeded

In this article, we take a look at 15 socialist countries that have succeeded. You can skip our detailed analysis about state of socialism, and go directly to the 5 Socialist Countries that Have Succeeded. Socialism is an economic theory that stresses the ownership of means of production by...

finance.yahoo.com

But the problem still remains on then being capitalist countries that practice 'socialism' very successfully.

this illusion that "socialist" countries like Switzerland are thriving is artificially created because they rob export economies

 

[rupol2000]

NO! Capitalism is not socialism!

Capitalism is socialism, only not ripe for complete monopolization. The Prussian model of Junker capitalism is already pure socialism of the communist type

 

[Rye Catcher]

This is proven very simply.

Slavery is a lack of rights.

Ownership is the right to a certain resource - the right to own, dispose and use.

Lack of rights automatically means slavery.

These are not the only rights, but in any case it proves that the absence of property rights means a position close to that of a slave.

Slaves did not have property rights to the means of production on which they worked.

Seriously. So a next door neighbor decides to open a fish market, and everyday the fish not sold are left out in the sun and spoil; they're put in brown paper bags and left on the side on the front of the alley between his house and yours. Then, the night before he moves the weekly spoilage left on the border of our two houses on the sidewalk.

Seems after he opened his market his cats and rats roamed on their street.

What is this? Socialism or a Free Market?

 

[rupol2000]

All who do not own the means of production are slaves, the only question here is the degree of slavery. The proletarian may be forced to work or by economic coercion or by violence, may be tied to a place of work or have the right to free movement, all these are variants of slavery.

 

[rupol2000]

Seriously. So a next door neighbor decides to open a fish market, and everyday the fish not sold are left out in the sun and spoil; they're put in brown paper bags and left on the side on the front of the alley between his house and yours. Then, the night before he moves the weekly spoilage left on the border of our two houses on the sidewalk.

Seems after he opened his market his cats and rats roamed on their street.

What is this? Socialism or a Free Market?

This is not a free market. The free market is efficient, that is, if the fish is not sold, he goes to another business or looks for another place to sell

 

[Donald H]

Seriously. So a next door neighbor decides to open a fish market, and everyday the fish not sold are left out in the sun and spoil; they're put in brown paper bags and left on the side on the front of the alley between his house and yours. Then, the night before he moves the weekly spoilage left on the border of our two houses on the sidewalk.

Seems after he opened his market his cats and rats roamed on their street.

What is this? Socialism or a Free Market?

In an effort to make some sense out of that!
When the capitalist fails to sell his product and it would be spoiled by the next business day, he serves his business better to not sell the product at a greatly reduced price or give it away to people.

Doing that would damage his market on the following day.

In a socialist system, the product not sold would be handled in a different way perhaps?

Food Banks harm the capitalist's business, but the good done is considered to outweigh the bad in most cases. The capitalist may even contribute to the food bank.

 

[Donald H]

This is not a free market. The free market is efficient, that is, if the fish is not sold, he goes to another business or looks for another place to sell

You're still not off the hook with your theory. At least it's caused a somewhat intelligent discussion.
somewhat?

 

[rupol2000]

In an effort to make some sense out of that!
When the capitalist fails to sell his product and it would be spoiled by the next business day, he serves his business better to not sell the product at a greatly reduced price or give it away to people.

Doing that would damage his market on the following day.

In a socialist system, the product not sold would be handled in a different way perhaps?

Food Banks harm the capitalist's business, but the good done is considered to outweigh the bad in most cases. The capitalist may even contribute to the food bank.

All this is nonsense, socialism and capitalism act equally inefficiently. This is clearly seen in the corruption in the management of "private" corporations, they will sell the fish to anyone, they can put it in the garbage pit, but they will receive money for this sale, which will go past the pockets of the shareholders into their own pockets. And the holes in their business will be closed by the state and banks.

 

[rupol2000]

You're still not off the hook with your theory. At least it's caused a somewhat intelligent discussion.
somewhat?

I'm fine with theory. People have been fooled by the imaginary difference between capitalism and socialism, but in fact both of these systems are equally left, based on the exploitation of the proletarians who do not have property, and both are opposite to the right model of decentralization and free market

 

[Donald H]

I'm fine with theory. People have been fooled by the imaginary difference between capitalism and socialism, but in fact both of these systems are equally left, based on the exploitation of the proletarians who do not have property, and both are opposite to the right model of decentralization and free market

The country as an example?
I think we're finished if you can't stand with theory on slavery and socialism.

 

[rupol2000]

The essence of the right system is not to protect the property of just anyone, but to ensure that property is evenly distributed in society, and there is no monopoly and big capital, and there are no proletarians without property.

 

[rupol2000]

The country as an example?
I think we're finished if you can't stand with by theory on slavery and socialism.

An example of a free economy? It is absent, now leftist scammers are everywhere.

The US is a relatively successful fight against big capital and monopoly, but this is not a real free market, it is still socialist Keynesianism and bankocracy