Quote: 98ClubsWe already have a weak form of Fascism, meaning the Corporate Sector controls the Congress with its massive influence and power. And yet a Corporation as an en vitro entity does not vote (but all US employees can vote). Thus the major shareholders of Copration X have great steerage with merely a handful of votes.
If you mean unions I agree with you, if not wherever there are unions the place is imploding...........
Quote: MauiSunsetI've heard that theory too. .....
Its not a theory. They had it all planned out. Obama
was the savior of the poor, and the awful Court comes
along and steals healthcare from them. Now he can't
say any of that, now he has to explain this new 'tax'.
In case you don't know, raising taxes in an election year
is the kiss of death to whoever is in favor of it.
Quote: MauiSunsetLike I said, Amerika is a Socialist country now and heading to be Marxist.
Marxism is a philosophical viewpoint, that leads to the conclusion that a Socialist Revolution is necessary (but not inevitable). Marxism can be applied to not just economics and politics, but various other social sciences.
The point being... if the country is Socialist now, it won't be "heading to be Marxist". You again use words in the way to produce a narrative that isn't there. Marxism is the view that all social interaction can be viewed through the lens of a struggle between the owners of the means of production (the bourgeois), and the workers (the proletariat).
"According to Marxism, Socialism is a historical necessity (but not an inevitability)." and the next step from Socialism is "to a communist stage of history: a classless, stateless system based on common ownership and free-access".
So a correct phrasing would be "Amerika is a Socialist country now and heading to be Communist". But only if you agree with a Marxist view of economics. I wouldn't... it's a pretty ropey theory and viewpoint, but interesting to read.
As is most left-wing political theory and history... unlike some of the more libertarianism readings, the left-wing really doesn't trust other people to act for the common good... only the cadre can act in the common good... which leads to the impossibility of the communist end point where the everyone is 'free'... the political elite will never let them. And basically where Marxist thought breaks down... the revolution leads to a new class-based system in the end (see the result of most of the places still at least nominally 'communist').
Quote:As a Conservative all I can do is try to profit from the implosion......
If the country goes Socialist, there will be no profit to be had that you can keep. Your ownership of money and means of production (property in the marxist view was the means of production) would be absorbed by the state. You should hope there is no implosion, only instability for the short term.
Quote: EvenBobIts not a theory. They had it all planned out. Obama
was the savior of the poor, and the awful Court comes
along and steals healthcare from them. Now he can't
say any of that, now he has to explain this new 'tax'.
In case you don't know, raising taxes in an election year
is the kiss of death to whoever is in favor of it.
It being a tax is probably the best thing for all concerned. I agree with AZDuffman that a compulsion by the state to make a purchase from a corporation is crazy, and also a thin end of a wedge.
A tax makes the decision VERY clear. You want this... there is a cost to your wages. It strikes me as easier to over turn by the right if they desire.
Quote: thecesspitMarxism is a philosophical viewpoint, that leads to the conclusion that a Socialist Revolution is necessary (but not inevitable). Marxism can be applied to not just economics and politics, but various other social sciences.
The point being... if the country is Socialist now, it won't be "heading to be Marxist". You again use words in the way to produce a narrative that isn't there. Marxism is the view that all social interaction can be viewed through the lens of a struggle between the owners of the means of production (the bourgeois), and the workers (the proletariat).
"According to Marxism, Socialism is a historical necessity (but not an inevitability)." and the next step from Socialism is "to a communist stage of history: a classless, stateless system based on common ownership and free-access".
So a correct phrasing would be "Amerika is a Socialist country now and heading to be Communist". But only if you agree with a Marxist view of economics. I wouldn't... it's a pretty ropey theory and viewpoint, but interesting to read.
As is most left-wing political theory and history... unlike some of the more libertarianism readings, the left-wing really doesn't trust other people to act for the common good... only the cadre can act in the common good... which leads to the impossibility of the communist end point where the everyone is 'free'... the political elite will never let them. And basically where Marxist thought breaks down... the revolution leads to a new class-based system in the end (see the result of most of the places still at least nominally 'communist').
If the country goes Socialist, there will be no profit to be had that you can keep. Your ownership of money and means of production (property in the marxist view was the means of production) would be absorbed by the state. You should hope there is no implosion, only instability for the short term.
There is plenty of profits to keep - in other countries.
We are witnessing the largest exodus of capital in the history of the world - out of Amerika and into other countries that treat the investor better.
Socialism/Obamaism/Marxism all "work" until they run out of money and then they implode.
Amerika has decided that this is our future - what can you do but try to profit from this??????
Quote: MauiSunsetIf you mean unions I agree with you, if not wherever there are unions the place is imploding...........
Some places the Unions run the big corporations, some places the industrialists. It would appear to me that there is a corporatist system being established in the US. That should worry you.
Quote: thecesspitSome places the Unions run the big corporations, some places the industrialists. It would appear to me that there is a corporatist system being established in the US. That should worry you.
There will always be 4 times as many freeloaders as rich folks in any society - I believe in the 80/20 rule when humans are involved.
The natural tendency of any group of folks is for the freeloaders to steal money from the rich and do this until the money runs out.
It's been done over and over again over the centuries - hyper-inflation awaits the end of every country, like a supernova awaits the end of our sun.
New countries are formed from the ashes of Socialism and the cycle repeats....
Quote: MauiSunsetThere will always be 4 times as many freeloaders as rich folks in any society - I believe in the 80/20 rule when humans are involved.
The natural tendency of any group of folks is for the freeloaders to steal money from the rich and do this until the money runs out.
It's been done over and over again over the centuries - hyper-inflation awaits the end of every country, like a supernova awaits the end of our sun.
New countries are formed from the ashes of Socialism and the cycle repeats....
Blah blah blah blah.
I'll wait till you are willing to debate or inform based on what the other person is saying. Other people round here manage it.
I can get enough political propaganda elsewhere.
Quote: thecesspitBlah blah blah blah.
I'll wait till you are willing to debate or inform based on what the other person is saying. Other people round here manage it.
I can get enough political propaganda elsewhere.
Hey you won, you should happy, not sad...............
Quote: MauiSunset2 guys and 1 gal are stranded on a Democratic desert island; the 2 guys vote to rape the woman because that's the definition of Democracy.
Socialism is simply redistributing money by force - taking from some to give to others.
Capitalism has nothing to do with either of the above.
Like I said, Socialists squeal at the top of their lungs when they are defined; they are criminals who believe they are moral ..........
"Socialism is simply redistributing money by force - taking from some to give to others" >>> Yep, I agree !!!
Ken
Quote: ncfatcatIt's a cellphone people on welfare or disability get. I think it's 200 min a month and 100 txts or something like that. # is handy to call 911 the neighborhoods most of these people have to live in. In general I guess the free market successful people who get the most economic benefit from the system don't want to pay for it. Fine let's change it and see who the wealthy do business with when the poor have less money than they have now.
Thats lovely. How long have I been PAYING for that?
Ken
Quote: mrjjj"Socialism is simply redistributing money by force - taking from some to give to others" >>> Yep, I agree !!!
Ken
"If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong."
Socialism may be evil and wrong. However it is not simply wealth redistribution (with or without the threat of force.)
Quote: thecesspit"If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong."
Socialism may be evil and wrong. However it is not simply wealth redistribution (with or without the threat of force.)
Of course it is:
Karl Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Socialism is all about larceny - stealing from some to buy the votes of others.
Socialism implodes without stealing money - larceny.............
Quote: MauiSunsetOf course it is: Karl Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
This was said about communism actually, not socialism (and it's not really a definition so much as a slogan).
The socialism slogan, pronounced by Lenin, by comparison is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution".
Try to argue with that :)
Quote: weaselmanThis was said about communism actually, not socialism (and it's not really a definition so much as a slogan).
The socialism slogan, pronounced by Lenin, by comparison is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution".
Try to argue with that :)
Why take/steal money from some for any reason? Why not a fee based government - you pay for what you get?
There should be no income taxes only consumption taxes - what ever you buy that is consumed is taxed with 1) Federal, 2) State, and 3) Local taxes - right on the sales slip - no hidden taxes.
That way if Chicago want's a living wage of $50/hr then that's OK - the TV you buy at a store will have a local tax of maybe 50% and the consumer decides if he wants to buy his TV in Chicago and pay for that living wage or drive to Indiana and pay 5% for a rural store that just has crushed rock roads. Chicago will have to live within the revenue it gets and then spends.
Free markets are always the answer, never government of any kind deciding who gets punished and who gets rewarded.............
Quote: MauiSunsetWhy take/steal money from some for any reason? Why not a fee based government - you pay for what you get?
I don't know why. I am just (once again) explaining to you, that you are seriously weakening your position by mixing up the labels you are so quick to assign.
Calling everything "socialism" just makes the term meaningless. You think you are making an accusation, but in fact you are not making any statement at all.
Fundamentally, socialism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution ("to each according to his contribution" - remember? It is as fair as it gets). Communism kinda does ... but that is based on the (utopical of course) idea of abundance - everybody gets everything they need, so, still, nobody is forced to give up anything against their will.
In fact, a socialist government is about the only one that is, in theory, able to exist without taxation - since it owns the means of production, it should be able to sustain itself purely on its business revenues.
It looks like you are the socialist after all.
Quote: weaselmanI don't know why. I am just (once again) explaining to you, that you are seriously weakening your position by mixing up the labels.
Calling everything "socialism" just makes the term meaningless. You think you are making an accusation, but in fact you are not making any statement at all.
Fundamentally, socialism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution ("to each according to his contribution" - remember? It is as fair as it gets). Communism kinda does ... but that is based on the (utopical of course) idea of abundance - everybody gets everything they need, so, still, nobody is forced to give up anything against their will.
I've bumped into folks like you on many political websites - consumed with not defining the current world but archaic definitions that mean nothing except to you.
I'll use my definition of Marxism/Obamaism/Socialism/Communism and you can use anything you like.
Good luck with that................
Quote: MauiSunsetQuote: weaselmanI don't know why. I am just (once again) explaining to you, that you are seriously weakening your position by mixing up the labels.
Calling everything "socialism" just makes the term meaningless. You think you are making an accusation, but in fact you are not making any statement at all.
Fundamentally, socialism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution ("to each according to his contribution" - remember? It is as fair as it gets). Communism kinda does ... but that is based on the (utopical of course) idea of abundance - everybody gets everything they need, so, still, nobody is forced to give up anything against their will.
I've bumped into folks like you on many political websites - consumed with not defining the current world but archaic definitions that mean nothing except to you.
I'll use my definition of Marxism/Obamaism/Socialism/Communism and you can use anything you like.
Good luck with that................
Watch it, Weaselman is on some kind of a mission today. Mad at the world or something, taking it out on others.
Ken
Quote: MauiSunset
I'll use my definition of Marxism/Obamaism/Socialism/Communism
If you are trying to communicate with other people, it is a much better idea to make sure you and them are using the same definions, otherwise they will not be able to understand you.
Unless you don't care about convincing your opponents or even simply communicating your point to anyone, and just want to vent pointlessly, it makes no sense whatsoever to use wrong your definition of any term, that is commonly defined in a different way.