Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Provide a source for your definition.Wrong. You are so ignorant it must hurt. Read a book on economics. Not a book on Marxist horseshit.Capital is an accumulation of money that is used to purchase something with the express intent of selling it again at a profit.The only definition that matters is the one that economists use. "Capital" is goods that we used to make other goods. It's not money, and it's not stock certificates or bonds.A socialist economy managing capital is an oxymoron.
I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
In other words, you can't explain it.Stop telling everyone how ignorant you are, and read something, I am not your mother. Amazing how ignorant and brainwashed the dupes are...How was it "sabotaged" by the GOP? Did they put Chavez in power? Did they make him nationalize the oil industry?Sabotaged and sanctioned by the GOP, now Trump pushing in a new president supposedly. It's a GOP mess.Certainly one of the most developed, and the most resource rich in SA. I’m not going to argue semantics here. I’m pretty sure they meet the threshold of 1st world, but they’re much worse off now. Which is the main pointVenezuela was never a first world country, idiot. They were an incredibly corrupt oligarchy. The 1% was first world Maybe.Whoa what is fair share? What is this amorphous, subjective term that keeps getting thrown around? At what point is fair share going to be satisfactory? In the European countries there doesn’t seem to be a satisfactory amount so taxes are constantly raised, or they realize continuously raising taxes does not help at all with job creation and they are moving right. And why is it moral to give money to a institution that LOST 1 trillion dollars since the movie the hangover was made? If that was a charity we were giving our hard earned money too, we’d be burning that bitch to the ground.
Sure apple didn’t get where they are on their own. And an interesting tidbit is that military innovation is probably the largest driver of innovation and beneficial tech for the public overall. But for that to happen, a country needs to recognize that the standard bureaucracy that politics always seems to breeds is detrimental to their military and its best to keep it out as much as possible (which many countries have). However, do you believe that if apple were in the business of whatever government dept, well say Medicare, it would be hemorrhaging as much money knowing it’s competing with google for Medicare patients and healthcare providers to use their service? If amazon ran the DMV do you think my drivers license photo would like I was ready to cry tears of rage? Faaack no. Did apple get where they are on their own. No. Did they have some help from government, sure. Was a government loan the driving force of their success, nope. What free markets do is crowd source solutions to humanities problems while rewarding the people who solve those problems. It monetizes service to humanity. After all, why are you going to pay for something that you don’t need or want? Is capatialism a perfect system, hell no. No system is, but it’s the best we have come up with. It’s not fair to capatilism to define it by the areas that is has fallen short of (areas perceived in this current tiny timeframe that’s constantly changing and improving)...but then ignore the tremendous leaps and bounds it has improved human life world wide. Read Enlightenment Now please, by Stephen Pinker, a Harvard psychologist (whose on the left so this isn’t a right wing shill propagandist). It’s absolutely nothing short of a miracle to see how far humanity has come even in the past 20 years. You will be blown away by the stats. Also Better Angels is another good one by him in the same sort of vein. Also, look up Bjorn Lomborg, he has a book (I haven’t read) but has Ted Talks, articles and videos talking about prioritizing the worlds problems and analysis and the best ways to solves them. It’s good stuff, and will show you that these free market things work pretty damn well.
It’s also important to note that the countries the likes of AOC and Bernie cite are not socialists countries. They are free market countries, with larger social programs than we have, and also larger tax rates. Real socialism is what we see in Venezuela (like 5 years ago it was heralded as a admirable success by the far left), and Cuba. Both are hell holes, and hopefully the change of leadership will help Venezuela (once a modern 1st world country with immense resources) get back in its feet. So what do you mean when you’re talking about socialism?
I think you’re simplifying world problems with an equation of government + more money = problems solved. But it’s not that simple, and government, pretty much by nature, is like a hanging flower pot where you turn the hose on full power and drench it, but only see droplets coming out of the bottom. I’m not saying government isn’t capable of any good, or doesn’t have a place. Just that you should honestly question if it is the best vessel for solving problems. Once again, it lost 1 trillion dollars. That’s a full 1/3 of what it takes in annually in tax revenue. 5% of the entire national GDP it carelessly lost in the cushions of the couch within 10 years. Is government really the best way to provide the most good? Is that going to give us the best bang for our buck?
Karl Marx's labor theory of value was debunked over 100 years ago.Baby steps.....We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.... someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Well, that's certainly a non-answer. How would it be different?
It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.
An ID card won't end illegal immigration, especially not with traitors like Nazi Piglosi doing everything possible to increase it.Well we would be like every other rich country in the world, with a living wage good vacations Health Care daycare paid parental leave, an ID card to end illegal immigration, cheap college and training, higher taxes on the rich instead of our flat tax. How many times do I have to tell you? Look up brainwashed in the dictionary.So what is your definition of socialism, brainwashed functional moron? Everybody outside your bubble of GOP crap believes that socialism now means always Democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. ,,, [silly insults removed]
Another non-answer. Democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net is what we have now. How would our dream world be different?
What people consume in the market is largely based on price, and under your scheme some faceless bureaucrat would set the price based on arbitrary criteria.You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.
Yeah. You don't really get this whole "market" concept, do you?
Pick one thing out of your list of Marxist web sites. I can't argue with a Google search, dumbass.Typical GOP brainwashed functional moron who has no clue about what is going on in the world. Since Fox and Rush never tell you. Or whoever! All the same garbage propaganda. Here, this has GOP sabotaging Chile Argentina and Venezuela, and ObamaCare even. Have you ever considered reading something? LOLYou can't blame everything on the 2008 recession, especially not Venezuela. Do you recall the price of gas back them? It went over $4.00/gal. Venezuela was raking in the mazuma. How did the GOP screw up the entire world economy? What has Trump done to Venezuela? Not a thing, as far as I'm aware. He hasn't imposed any tariffs or sanctions on them.Who knows? That's been screwed up so bad by the GOP World depression of 2008 and Trump's sabotage, who knows? How about leaving other countries alone?
We should leave other countries alone, as only Republicans can't do that. They're a catastrophe. The GOP screwed up the world's economy in 2008 and Trump has been screwing with Venezuela's since he got in. And the Venezuelan oligarchy are complete assholes. let democracy reign.I mean have you seen the streets of Caracas this week? I’ve never seen so many humans fill the streets...ever, honestly. It hasn’t ever crossed your mind that maybe Maduro wasn’t really democratically elected recently, and he might just be a dictator.I'm against the GOP sabotaging democratically elected governments. Especially since the Cold War has been over for 27 years.Ok please tell me you’re not for Maduro. It really sounds like you are.
View attachment 241788
So because Maduro was “elected” must mean he’s a good guy? And that the new opposition leader is bad...because trump backs him?
Oooorrrr. Maybe socialism is as socialism does. Maybe it’s starts out with the best of intentions (a skeptical maybe), but it winds up sucking. And some guy promises to make it stop sucking. It still sucks, so more socialism, and more suck. Fast forward a little bit and a few hundred uppity citizens get gunned down ironically by the “national guard”. The citizens back off, and then realize the guy who took over is a tyrant but can’t do shit about it, and more suck comes and they start having to eat their pets.
Really, just let me hear you say Maduro is good for Venezuela. No more dancing around it. Is Maduro good or bad for Venezuela? You most certainly didn’t deny it. Stick to your guns, and just say it. The left has made movies and named streets after the how awesome socialist Venezuela is just a mere 5 years ago. You got to stick to your guns.
It's obvious that your just spouting off random excuses in the hope that someone will fall for one.
how the GOP sabotaged Chile Argentina and Venezuela - Google Search
Government meddling is not capitalism. It's socialism. The Teapot Dome scandal is an example of government corruption. How is capitalism responsible for that?Correct, it was a mismanagement of capital(ism).Their currency was worthless. That is a failure of capitalism.
Capitalism doesn't run the printing presses that's the government (central bank).
Government running the printing press is mismanagement of government.
Nothing to do with capitalism.
Of course a mismanagement of capital has everything to do with capitalism.
Government mismanaged the money supply, government mismanaged the state run oil company.
Neither was the fault of capitalism.
Neither was the fault of Capitalism? How do you know? Was the Tea Pot Dome Scandal a product of Socialism?
My concern with Venezuela is Trump has tried everything to obstruct the Mueller Investigation but invade another country. I have no doubt trump's lack of moral integrity would have no reservations in putting our military in harms way as a means to save his ass from Impeachment and conviction.
Which of the following aspects of Marx's theory has been debunked?Karl Marx's labor theory of value was debunked over 100 years ago.Baby steps.....We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.... someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Well, that's certainly a non-answer. How would it be different?
It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.
That is not what I said, liar.Not at all. He believes a stack of 100 dollar bills is "capital."We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.
Yeah. You don't really get this whole "market" concept, do you?
Under socialism, there wouldn't be a market, so how could anyone watch "market trunds?"You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.
Yeah. You don't really get this whole "market" concept, do you?
And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?
It doesn't matter what you call it, it's still the same thing, and it's still wrong.Which of the following aspects of Marx's theory has been debunked?Karl Marx's labor theory of value was debunked over 100 years ago.Baby steps.....We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.... someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Well, that's certainly a non-answer. How would it be different?
It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.
Labor theory of value - Wikipedia
"Contrary to popular belief Marx never used the term 'Labor theory of value' in any of his works but used the term Law of value,[41]
"Marx opposed 'ascribing a supernatural creative power to labor', arguing as such:
"'Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much a source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which is itself only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power.[42]'"
"Here, Marx was distinguishing between exchange value (the subject of the LTV) and use value.
"Marx used the concept of 'socially necessary labor time' to introduce a social perspective distinct from his predecessors and neoclassical economics."
ROFL!Actually, that's the history of Indonesian capitalism:Nope. That's a fantasy.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1462394042000326879?src=recsys&journalCode=riac20&
"Following an aborted coup attempt in October 1965, the Indonesian military organized what turned out to be one of the most horrifying massacres of the twentieth century.
"More than half a million people were killed while hundreds of thousands of others were detained for years in prison camps throughout the country.
"There are two major points that this paper attempts to make.
"First, that the killings are in fact a case of state violence despite of the efforts to make it look like spontaneous violence.
"Second, that the killings are crucial to the expansion of capitalism in Indonesia.
"Using Marx’s concept of ‘primitive accumulation’, it attempts to show that the mass killings and arrests, the expropriation of people from their houses and lands, and the elimination of working‐class political formations, are integral parts of an economic strategy of the New Order."
What we've seen in socialist countries like the USSR is that consumption is determine by how long you are willing to stand in line. It has little to do with price. What motive does a manufacturer have for replenishing stocks? There's only one manufacturer: the government. It faces no penalty for not meeting demand. It will never go bankrupt.Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.
Yeah. You don't really get this whole "market" concept, do you?
And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?
The capital goods that were produced in the first instance, were they sold to the secondary manufacturer (the one who produced the consumer good) for a profit?Provide a source for your definition.Wrong. You are so ignorant it must hurt. Read a book on economics. Not a book on Marxist horseshit.Capital is an accumulation of money that is used to purchase something with the express intent of selling it again at a profit.The only definition that matters is the one that economists use. "Capital" is goods that we used to make other goods. It's not money, and it's not stock certificates or bonds.I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Capital - Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought
Capital are the goods that were produced by previous stages of production but do not directly satisfy consumer's needs; they are used in production to eventually produce consumer goods.[1]
The USSR lacked the technology to build a socialist society.What we've seen in socialist countries like the USSR is that consumption is determine by how long you are willing to stand in line. It has little to do with price. What motive does a manufacturer have for replenishing stocks? There's only one manufacturer: the government. It faces no penalty for not meeting demand. It will never go bankrupt.Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.
Yeah. You don't really get this whole "market" concept, do you?
And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?
The idea that the "amount" of labor determines value in any way has been debunked. The term "socially necessary labor time" is obvious hooey. Who determines that?Which of the following aspects of Marx's theory has been debunked?Karl Marx's labor theory of value was debunked over 100 years ago.Baby steps.....We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.... someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Well, that's certainly a non-answer. How would it be different?
It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.
Labor theory of value - Wikipedia
"Contrary to popular belief Marx never used the term 'Labor theory of value' in any of his works but used the term Law of value,[41]
"Marx opposed 'ascribing a supernatural creative power to labor', arguing as such:
"'Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much a source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which is itself only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power.[42]'"
"Here, Marx was distinguishing between exchange value (the subject of the LTV) and use value.
"Marx used the concept of 'socially necessary labor time' to introduce a social perspective distinct from his predecessors and neoclassical economics."
the definition says owned or regulated by the government, regulated being the same as controlled. Thus can be just about anything.... Wikipedia says it started out as Marxist theory commas and became the USSR style, now it means well regulated always democratic faire capitalism with a good safety net.the only people in the world that have no clue are you brainwashed GOP Cold War dinosaur functional morons....No they don't, moron, especially not economists. Socialism is government control of the means of production. I've posted this 1000 times. Your definition is self serving. It allows you to ignore any country were socialism led to disaster. The countries you call "socialist" aren't really socialist. You have even admitted that they're capitalist.So what is your definition of socialism, brainwashed functional moron? Everybody outside your bubble of GOP crap believes that socialism now means always Democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Read something and see the world, brainwashed functional moron Cold War dinosaur.New Zealand is ranked #3 on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom. The US is ranked #18. New Zealand is hardly socialist. You have absolutely no clue what socialism is.Screw Republicans and screw oligarchs, especially Venezuelan ones. Hands off Venezuela.I mean have you seen the streets of Caracas this week? I’ve never seen so many humans fill the streets...ever, honestly. It hasn’t ever crossed your mind that maybe Maduro wasn’t really democratically elected recently, and he might just be a dictator.I'm against the GOP sabotaging democratically elected governments. Especially since the Cold War has been over for 27 years.
View attachment 241788
So because Maduro was “elected” must mean he’s a good guy? And that the new opposition leader is bad...because trump backs him?
Oooorrrr. Maybe socialism is as socialism does. Maybe it’s starts out with the best of intentions (a skeptical maybe), but it winds up sucking. And some guy promises to make it stop sucking. It still sucks, so more socialism, and more suck. Fast forward a little bit and a few hundred uppity citizens get gunned down ironically by the “national guard”. The citizens back off, and then realize the guy who took over is a tyrant but can’t do shit about it, and more suck comes and they start having to eat their pets.
Really, just let me hear you say Maduro is good for Venezuela. No more dancing around it. Is Maduro good or bad for Venezuela? You most certainly didn’t deny it. Stick to your guns, and just say it. The left has made movies and named streets after the how awesome socialist Venezuela is just a mere 5 years ago. You got to stick to your guns.
And it has very little to do with socialism, which is what they have in France New Zealand etc. Venezuela has always been a third world mess of a country and still is. Trump should come home like he always says he is
It has everything to do with socialism.
Every firm tries to make a profit. It doesn't matter what stage of production they occupy.The capital goods that were produced in the first instance, were they sold to the secondary manufacturer (the one who produced the consumer good) for a profit?Provide a source for your definition.Wrong. You are so ignorant it must hurt. Read a book on economics. Not a book on Marxist horseshit.Capital is an accumulation of money that is used to purchase something with the express intent of selling it again at a profit.The only definition that matters is the one that economists use. "Capital" is goods that we used to make other goods. It's not money, and it's not stock certificates or bonds.
Capital - Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought
Capital are the goods that were produced by previous stages of production but do not directly satisfy consumer's needs; they are used in production to eventually produce consumer goods.[1]
I couldn't care less what Wikipedia says. Anyone who takes that as gospel is a certified moron. Some Marxist moron like you probably wrote the entry.the definition says owned or regulated by the government, regulated being the same as controlled. Thus can be just about anything.... Wikipedia says it started out as Marxist theory commas and became the USSR style, now it means well regulated always democratic faire capitalism with a good safety net.the only people in the world that have no clue are you brainwashed GOP Cold War dinosaur functional morons....No they don't, moron, especially not economists. Socialism is government control of the means of production. I've posted this 1000 times. Your definition is self serving. It allows you to ignore any country were socialism led to disaster. The countries you call "socialist" aren't really socialist. You have even admitted that they're capitalist.So what is your definition of socialism, brainwashed functional moron? Everybody outside your bubble of GOP crap believes that socialism now means always Democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Read something and see the world, brainwashed functional moron Cold War dinosaur.New Zealand is ranked #3 on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom. The US is ranked #18. New Zealand is hardly socialist. You have absolutely no clue what socialism is.Screw Republicans and screw oligarchs, especially Venezuelan ones. Hands off Venezuela.I mean have you seen the streets of Caracas this week? I’ve never seen so many humans fill the streets...ever, honestly. It hasn’t ever crossed your mind that maybe Maduro wasn’t really democratically elected recently, and he might just be a dictator.
View attachment 241788
So because Maduro was “elected” must mean he’s a good guy? And that the new opposition leader is bad...because trump backs him?
Oooorrrr. Maybe socialism is as socialism does. Maybe it’s starts out with the best of intentions (a skeptical maybe), but it winds up sucking. And some guy promises to make it stop sucking. It still sucks, so more socialism, and more suck. Fast forward a little bit and a few hundred uppity citizens get gunned down ironically by the “national guard”. The citizens back off, and then realize the guy who took over is a tyrant but can’t do shit about it, and more suck comes and they start having to eat their pets.
Really, just let me hear you say Maduro is good for Venezuela. No more dancing around it. Is Maduro good or bad for Venezuela? You most certainly didn’t deny it. Stick to your guns, and just say it. The left has made movies and named streets after the how awesome socialist Venezuela is just a mere 5 years ago. You got to stick to your guns.
And it has very little to do with socialism, which is what they have in France New Zealand etc. Venezuela has always been a third world mess of a country and still is. Trump should come home like he always says he is
It has everything to do with socialism.
