The Republicans really wonder about capitalism.

[Uncensored2008]

I'm not sure. Most of Sweden's education and health care industries are in public hands, but most everything else is private.

So maybe 20% of the economy is controlled by government? Hardly socialism then.

Sweden privatized several companies such as TeliaSonera, the telecom company, in the 1990s. Sweden has a very high level of personal taxation but treats capital pretty well.

In other words, it is a capitalist country with a great deal of social welfare, as most of Europe is.

 

[doctor100]

I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread is an idiot.

One person is confirmed to be.

i mean, socialism? control of wages, production, and distribution by the government? (which is VERY VERY different from communism mind you)

What do you think communism is?

Oh, c'mon now, I was just getting into the spirit of the forum, no need to call me an idiot for it.

What do I think communism is? I think communism is a economy of abundance where everyone's basic needs are met. A bit like America. 'cept communism is suppose to be ran without money.

Near as I understand it it's been practiced to some degree in many small or primitive economies, but never by a developed nation.

But unions are not socialism, never were, never will be. Those are corporatist.

Where do you get your definitions?

I'll by Syndicate, but "corporation?" Uh - no...

i can't post links, but look up "corporatism" which has little to do with corporations, and everything to do with unions.

As for the "wealthy enjoying the benefits of socialism"? nooo, that would capitalism, socialism normally helps the lower class,

Yeah, just look at the USSR, North Korea, Mao's China, Cuba, et al... The poor were having a ball.

(You don't HAVE to be stupid to be a leftist, oh - wait...)

i should have been more careful about how i spoke. I know the difference between intentions and practice well. I should have said : People do not lean toward socialism with the intention of helping the wealthy

But Wait, I forgot, you don't know do you? business was closed, the ruling merchants were thrown down, "the wealthy" were not helped at all. Power was recentered, not to those who were wealthy, not to those who made millions of dollars in business (which, btw was what was being talked about), but rather to a ruling elite few. It was government that became rich, not those already rich.

But you are absolutely right, I was way off based saying socialism help the lower class . . .i should have said that socialism intends to help the lower class.


. . . .

Show me 35 million starving to death at any point in the history of the USA. You can't, because like most leftists, what you present is a complete fabrication.

Had to do some searches for that, y'know? because i had heard some terrible things about robber barons, pre-union days, all that sort of thing. Rail road laying? y'know. but I was wrong. Historically we have always, not only recently, been very good at feeding our people.

But i wish I could find better resources on actual starvation in the US historically . .. I assume you are correct from a lack of information. If you are correct, and emphatically so, I may need to rethink my position on food stamps.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, c'mon now, I was just getting into the spirit of the forum, no need to call me an idiot for it.

Well, you have a sense of humor, which is rare on the left. Good for you.

What do I think communism is? I think communism is a economy of abundance where everyone's basic needs are met. A bit like America. 'cept communism is suppose to be ran without money.

I assume you're kidding, right?

According to Marx, communism is the final stage of economic evolution in which the state and all power structures fade away as unneeded due to the complete and voluntary cooperation of all persons.

Currency is abolished early when the dictatorship of the proletariat determines the needs and responsibilities of each person, providing for needs and demanding responsibility according to the person. Currency is irrelevant as all needs are met and there are no need for wages.

This was a sticky-wicky for Lenin, he tried it and three million people died of starvation and exposure.... OOOPS. That was the last time any of Marx's foolish ideas were actually implemented, by anyone.

Near as I understand it it's been practiced to some degree in many small or primitive economies, but never by a developed nation.

Lenin sure gave it the old mass murderer try...

i can't post links, but look up "corporatism" which has little to do with corporations, and everything to do with unions.

{Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that involves the contract of corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, into a collective body.[1] Corporatism is based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body.[2][3] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root "corp" meaning "body".[3]}

Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmm, not quite consistent with your claim?

i should have been more careful about how i spoke. I know the difference between intentions and practice well.

The intentions of whom? Marx? Marx was delusional. The intent of Stalin, Mao, Ho, Castro, Ortega, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, et al. is precisely what occurred. Socialism is a means of crushing the middle for the benefit of the elite. It always has been such. "The People" or "The Poor" and merely rhetorical pawns bribed with scraps by the elite in their war against the middle to drive the usurpers of the Bourgeois back to peasant class. This is what socialism is and always has been. Capitalism allows the migration from the lower classes to the top. The elite seek to protect their positions by blocking this migration, socialism is the tool used to block said migration.

I should have said : People do not lean toward socialism with the intention of helping the wealthy

People lean toward socialism because they seek unearned wealth. Whether in the form of scraps such as foodstamps and AFDC, or in the form of grand larceny such as TARP and Obama's fascist care.

But Wait, I forgot, you don't know do you? business was closed, the ruling merchants were thrown down, "the wealthy" were not helped at all.

The merchants never ruled. The merchants are the middle. The elite waged war against the middle to ensure their rule was not challenged by migratory usurpers who rose beyond their caste. Socialism ensures that the masses are kept in their place.

Power was recentered, not to those who were wealthy, not to those who made millions of dollars in business (which, btw was what was being talked about), but rather to a ruling elite few. It was government that became rich, not those already rich.

The "government" was comprised of the same Aristocracy which had always ruled.

But you are absolutely right, I was way off based saying socialism help the lower class . . .i should have said that socialism intends to help the lower class.

Hardly, socialism intends to ensure that the lower class remains the lower class.

 

[Toro]

I'm not sure. Most of Sweden's education and health care industries are in public hands, but most everything else is private.

So maybe 20% of the economy is controlled by government? Hardly socialism then.

Sweden privatized several companies such as TeliaSonera, the telecom company, in the 1990s. Sweden has a very high level of personal taxation but treats capital pretty well.

In other words, it is a capitalist country with a great deal of social welfare, as most of Europe is.

It depends what you mean. I would view Sweden as a social democracy. About half the economy is government spending but you are right, it has an active capitalist segment where capital is surprisingly free and relatively lightly taxed. However, income and consumption taxes are very high. The government has nationalized large swaths of the economy they believe is in better hands in the government - education, infrastructure, healthcare for instance. They are also not hesitant to use government power when needed. Sweden had a similar financial crisis in the early 1990s after a housing bubble collapsed. Rather than bailing out the banks, they just nationalized them, wiping out the shareholders. They cleaned the banks up then sold them back to the public.

In America, we don't have socialism or communism. We have a mixed economy, like every single other rich country in the world. The only difference is degree.

If I were to classify the systems, we are a mixed economy where the government is somewhat involved but for the most part allows the pricing system to work (it rarely sets prices), and doesn't own much of the productive economy outside of education, health care and infrastructure. A social democracy is like a mixed economy with high taxes and wealth redistibution programs. A socialist economy is one with a significant degree of government ownership of the productive economy but generally let's the pricing system work. A communist economy owns most of the productive economy and generally sets prices. A political scientist will quibble with these definitions, but practically that's how I see it.

I grew up in a socialist economy. There isn't a socialist economy in America, and Obama isn't a socialist let alone a communist. A social democrat maybe.

 

[Brutus]

I grew up in a socialist economy. There isn't a socialist economy in America, and Obama isn't a socialist let alone a communist. A social democrat maybe.

Obama had

1) 2 communist parents
2) voted to the left of Bernie Sanders( an open socialist)
3) is loved b the CPUSA
4) is openly for single payer

he can't say he's a communist and be a successful politician in a center right country of course but he can slowly subvert the country. Did you ever hear him say how big is big government. Ever heard of creeping socialism?

Norman Thomas( socialist presidential candidate)
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

 

[Toro]

I grew up in a socialist economy. There isn't a socialist economy in America, and Obama isn't a socialist let alone a communist. A social democrat maybe.

Obama had

1) 2 communist parents
2) voted to the left of Bernie Sanders( an open socialist)
3) is loved b the CPUSA
4) is openly for single payer

he can't say he's a communist and be a successful politician in a center right country of course but he can slowly subvert the country. Did you ever hear him say how big is big government. Ever heard of creeping socialism?

Norman Thomas( socialist presidential candidate)
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

1. So? This isn't a serious argument.
2. On somethings and not on others.
3. lol
4. So do almost all developed economies

 

[Flopper]

Socialism and Capitalism are too opposite ends of a scale. Every country on earth is both socialist and capitalist. In its purest form neither can survive.

Most socialist policies exist for the purpose of aiding and encouraging corruption in order to funnel fund to the well connected.

And what socialist policies are those?

 

[Brutus]

In its purest form neither can survive.

Why can't pure capitalism survive. Are you worried it would make people too rich?

 

[editec]

Socialism?

Here in American the brand of socialism we have is really CLASSISM.

The WEALTHY enjoy the benefits of socialism, the rest of us struggle with their version of CLASS DRIVEN, cronny-capitalism.

so then why be so liberal and afraid to give us your best example of socialism for the wealthy??? What does your fear tell you about liberalism?

Liberalism?

Conservatism?

Poltically speaking, they are mostly meaningless phases used by those who'd rather hurl epithets at their neigbors than face the reality of the duelopoly, in my opinion.

Best RECENT example of classim in action?

The bailout of the BANSTERS by BUSH II admin and then continued by the Obama admin.

Get it?

Apparently, not yet.

But you eventually will, if you keep paying attention and START FOLLOW THE MONEY

You see, I completely understand why people who are either self describing liberals or conservatives are pissed off.

I just think these political partisans don't understand WHO they really need to be angry with.

What CLASS is running our government, amigo?

Welfare mothers? Gun owners? Queers? middle class working stiffs? the more affluent upper middle or even slightly more affluent lower upper classes?

Hell no!

Those are the CLASSES OF people who are TRULY getting screwed by the masters, since it is they who end up paying most of the taxes for our governmentS (FED STATE AND LOCAL)

Wake up amigo.

American needs you to stop beating up imaginary boogiemen and start paying attention to what those in charge are REALLY doing to OUR nation.

.

 

[Brutus]

so then why be so liberal and afraid to give us your best example of socialism for the wealthy??? What does your fear tell you about liberalism?

Liberalism?

Conservatism?

Poltically speaking, they are mostly meaningless phases used by those who'd rather hurl epithets at their neigbors than face the reality of the duelopoly, in my opinion.

Actually all of human history is about liberalism( government) and freedom from government( conservatism). It was what our Revolution was all about and what our current politics is all about. Welcome to your first history lesson.

Best RECENT example of classim in action?

The bailout of the BANSTERS by BUSH II admin and then continued by the Obama admin.

Get it?

Apparently, not yet.

Actually, the stock market droped to 6500 after Lehman failed and it was a tiny firm. All agree that if we had let all of Wall Street fail there would have been instant severe Depression , and, the only way out would have been through government management! So the bailout was not for banksters many of whom went bankrupt, but for all of America. it was 100% common sense.

What CLASS is running our government, amigo?

Welfare mothers? Gun owners? Queers? middle class working stiffs? the more affluent upper middle or even slightly more affluent lower upper classes?

Hell no!

Those are the CLASSES OF people who are TRULY getting screwed by the masters, since it is they who end up paying most of the taxes for our governmentS (FED STATE AND LOCAL)

in fact the top 1% pay 40% of all Federal taxes and the bottom 50% pay nothing!!!. Where have you been??

American needs you to stop beating up imaginary boogiemen and start paying attention to what those in charge are REALLY doing to OUR nation.

and now even you know better. Classism?? you are 100% brainwashed and have no idea


.[/QUOTE]

 

[rdean]

Try to get Conservatives to explain "Supply and Demand". It's hilarious.

Then, get them to explain "investment". The hilarity didn't end with "Supply and Demand".

Conservatives think those are "Wild Liberal Theories". See? Hilarious!

 

[Flopper]

In its purest form neither can survive.

Why can't pure capitalism survive. Are you worried it would make people too rich?

Think about it, no antitrust laws, and no regulations on issuance of stocks and bonds, lending, advertising, deceptive business practices, price fixing, insider trading, etc... Businesses with enough resources are free to use any means to destroy competition and monopolize markets. If the strongest businesses are totally unfettered by government, they will destroy their competition and thus the free enterprise system.

Pure capitalism is purely theoretical, just as pure socialism is. Neither can really exist.

 

[Brutus]

In its purest form neither can survive.

Why can't pure capitalism survive. Are you worried it would make people too rich?

Think about it, no antitrust laws, and no regulations on issuance of stocks and bonds, lending, advertising, deceptive business practices, price fixing, insider trading, etc... Businesses with enough resources are free to use any means to destroy competition and monopolize markets. If the strongest businesses are totally unfettered by government, they will destroy their competition and thus the free enterprise system.

too stupid by 1000% no capitalist believes we don't need police and courts and laws and rules to create maintain and support capitalism, and to print money.

No one was more capitalist than Friedman and even he was for pollution laws etc. capitalism does not mean 100% without government.

Got it now I hope?

ITs like saying pure water doesn't exist. So what?? All have agreed forever, but, relatively pure water does exist.

What you ought to spend your time think about is what you have against relatively pure capitalism

 

[expat_panama]

I grew up in a socialist economy. There isn't a socialist economy in America, and Obama isn't a socialist let alone a communist. A social democrat maybe.

Obama had

1) 2 communist parents
2) voted to the left of Bernie Sanders( an open socialist)
3) is loved b the CPUSA
4) is openly for single payer

he can't say he's a communist and be a successful politician in a center right country of course but he can slowly subvert the country....

Yikes, I'd hate to see his subversion if he was doing it fast!!!

 

[expat_panama]

Socialism and Capitalism are too opposite ends of a scale. Every country on earth is both socialist and capitalist. In its purest form neither can survive. The United States remains one the most capitalistic counties in the world. Taxation and regulation are necessary parts of every modern society.

In my Econ 1A class the prof defined the term "pure capitalism" as a market where prices can't be affected by any one buyer or any one seller, but that was for distinguishing between monopolies and free markets.

With markets and governments, we should all agree that neither can control the other and neither can survive without the other.

 

[rdean]

Why do right wingers go on and on about "capitalism" when they clearly don't know what "supply and demand" is and think "investing" is merely "throwing away money"? How can you have a "serious" conversation? It's not possible.

 

[Flopper]

Why can't pure capitalism survive. Are you worried it would make people too rich?

Think about it, no antitrust laws, and no regulations on issuance of stocks and bonds, lending, advertising, deceptive business practices, price fixing, insider trading, etc... Businesses with enough resources are free to use any means to destroy competition and monopolize markets. If the strongest businesses are totally unfettered by government, they will destroy their competition and thus the free enterprise system.

too stupid by 1000% no capitalist believes we don't need police and courts and laws and rules to create maintain and support capitalism, and to print money.

No one was more capitalist than Friedman and even he was for pollution laws etc. capitalism does not mean 100% without government.

Got it now I hope?

ITs like saying pure water doesn't exist. So what?? All have agreed forever, but, relatively pure water does exist.

What you ought to spend your time think about is what you have against relatively pure capitalism

Pure (unregulated) capitalism operates without governmental constrains and is destructive to the free market. That's why unregulated capitalism does not exist and hopefully never will. The point I was making is that capitalism and socialism are at the opposite ends of the economic spectrum. In their purest form they are both theoretical. Every economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism. Anything government does that could be done by the private sector is socialist.

When you say relative pure capitalism, I assume you are speaking of some degree regulation. Regulated capitalism is a necessity for our economic system to work. I think most of the regulations we have on business are needed. We need regulations to keep our markets free, safeguard bank deposits, protect our food supply, keep unsafe drugs off the market, insure a safe workplace, and insure the air we breath and water we drink is safe. I think we go too far with consumer protection and privacy regulations.

 

[The Rabbi]

too stupid by 1000% no capitalist believes we don't need police and courts and laws and rules to create maintain and support capitalism, and to print money.

No one was more capitalist than Friedman and even he was for pollution laws etc. capitalism does not mean 100% without government.

Got it now I hope?

ITs like saying pure water doesn't exist. So what?? All have agreed forever, but, relatively pure water does exist.

What you ought to spend your time think about is what you have against relatively pure capitalism

Pure (unregulated) capitalism operates without governmental constrains and is destructive to the free market.

You didnt just write that, did you? That capitalism (which is defined by a free market) is destroyed by free markets? Nah, no one is that dumb.

 

[edthecynic]

Pure (unregulated) capitalism operates without governmental constrains and is destructive to the free market.

You didnt just write that, did you? That capitalism (which is defined by a free market) is destroyed by free markets? Nah, no one is that dumb.

There is no such thing as free market Capitalism.

 

[Flopper]

Pure (unregulated) capitalism operates without governmental constrains and is destructive to the free market.

You didnt just write that, did you? That capitalism (which is defined by a free market) is destroyed by free markets? Nah, no one is that dumb.

Apparently you're have a reading problem. That's not what I wrote.