March 30, 200917 yr Author First, let me say that I do not support a pure socialist society. BUT, one must recognize that the US has not been a pure capatalist society. Government control of money, regulation of the banking industry, the control of monopolies, unions (workers rights), free education, and even the end of slavery are traits of a socialist society. What I believe we must do is achieve some type of balance between the two. Most people do not understand true socialism. They point at the failed policies of Russia, or other countries. They were not true socialists but state capitalists. If there are wages and salaries, it is not socialism. State ownership is not socialism. Social programs are not socialism. Socialism means democracy at all levels of society, including the workplace. Socialism means a wageless, moneyless society. Socialism means voluntary labour. Socialism means free access to the goods produced by society. I guess half the European countries aren't socialist. Wow. I wonder why they themselves call it European Socialism? Just like there is no "pure" form of capitalism there is no pure form of socialism. Why is it that people who support a socialist agenda, like to pull out a dictionary and say "See, by the exact definition it's not socialism."? Why won't they admit that they want: More and more government control? More and more redistribution of wealth? More and more taken away from the people who produce? To drag the people at the top down, not raise the people at the bottom up? Universal Health care is Socialized Medcine. Why won't they call it what it is? Mr Marx and socialism are based upon. To each based upon their need, from each based upon their ability. Let's not reward the people who work so hard and sacrifice so much. Let's take away from them so others can be better off and we can drag the producers down.
March 30, 200917 yr I guess half the European countries aren't socialist. Wow. They aren't. I wonder why they themselves call it European Socialism? I've never heard a European use that term. Unless talk-radio hosts are European, of course. It is true that socialism has resonated much more deeply in Europe than here, which is likely the result of their stringent class hierarchies stemming from aristocracy. However, socialists have had an increasingly limited voice in European governments for decades now. Just like there is no "pure" form of capitalism there is no pure form of socialism. Right. Why is it that people who support a socialist agenda, like to pull out a dictionary and say "See, by the exact definition it's not socialism."? Actually, the dictionary is a rather poor barometer of what is socialist and what isn't, considering it is a rather broad concept that spans much more than a mere sentence. I would turn, rather, to economic theories and their principles. Why won't they admit that they want: More and more government control? More and more redistribution of wealth? More and more taken away from the people who produce? To drag the people at the top down, not raise the people at the bottom up? All of these, of course, are found in capitalist economies with the exception of the extremely subjective last question. Universal Health care is Socialized Medcine. Why won't they call it what it is? Because they aren't synonymous. Mr Marx and socialism are based upon. To each based upon their need, from each based upon their ability. Let's not reward the people who work so hard and sacrifice so much. Let's take away from them so others can be better off and we can drag the producers down. Well, at least that represents a step in the right direction toward defining socialism, but, unfortunately, it doesn't support your argument.
March 30, 200917 yr Boy, the Obama lemmings are sure gathering at the cliff. Before they jump, I have some swamp property in Florida that I want to sell them.For the 100th time. My house is not for sale! :banana:
March 30, 200917 yr No offense but I doubt your business, should it fail, would have a ripple effect on the nation's economy. Banks failing would. No credit. No business expansion. While we can certainly question how it was handled I don't think the underlying argument that its necessary to keep people and businesses spending can be questioned. No offense taken. I see your point, but like I said earlier, where do you draw the line? Are only fortune 500 companies elgible? Or only companies with XXX number of employees? There just seems to be a lot of grey areas out there surrounding this. Also, I do think the underlying argument of the bailout could be questioned.
March 30, 200917 yr No offense taken. I see your point, but like I said earlier, where do you draw the line? Are only fortune 500 companies elgible? Or only companies with XXX number of employees? There just seems to be a lot of grey areas out there surrounding this. Also, I do think the underlying argument of the bailout could be questioned. I agree. I think your posts here have embodied the problems I have with the bailout. On one hand, markets sort themselves out, companies fail, and their weaknesses are purged away during a period of suffering for the population. On the other hand, if that route is taken, the United States takes a severe risk in losing its position as the world's superpower. So do we let the companies fail, allow for an indefinite period of suffering, and hope other countries don't surpass us, or do we keep spending money we don't have in hopes of mitigating the latter two issues? I don't know, personally. So I can only watch the current actions taken by the administration with a skeptical eye.
March 30, 200917 yr No offense taken. I see your point, but like I said earlier, where do you draw the line? Are only fortune 500 companies elgible? Or only companies with XXX number of employees? There just seems to be a lot of grey areas out there surrounding this. Also, I do think the underlying argument of the bailout could be questioned. Case by case.
March 30, 200917 yr I've never heard a European use that term. Unless talk-radio hosts are European, of course. It is true that socialism has resonated much more deeply in Europe than here, which is likely the result of their stringent class hierarchies stemming from aristocracy. However, socialists have had an increasingly limited voice in European governments for decades now. HIS 4245: A History of European Socialism The European Origins of Socialist Thought, 1789-1917 Professor Steven Kreis Florida Atlantic University, Davie Fall 1995 Not every term we use is a direct attack on the left. Some of them are real, even if you haven't heard of them.
March 30, 200917 yr HIS 4245: A History of European Socialism The European Origins of Socialist Thought, 1789-1917 Professor Steven Kreis Florida Atlantic University, Davie Fall 1995 Not every term we use is a direct attack on the left. Some of them are real, even if you haven't heard of them. I can agree with this. I don't mean to speak in such absolutist terms. But, it's been my experience that Europeans do not refer to their style of economics as "European socialism," and I'm not sure how a course on socialism in Europe undermines that, since I clearly noted socialism has firm roots in Europe.
March 30, 200917 yr Boy, the Obama lemmings are sure gathering at the cliff. Before they jump, I have some swamp property in Florida that I want to sell them. Maybe your anti-Obama lemmings are interested in your property.
March 30, 200917 yr I guess half the European countries aren't socialist. Wow. I wonder why they themselves call it European Socialism? Just like there is no "pure" form of capitalism there is no pure form of socialism. Why is it that people who support a socialist agenda, like to pull out a dictionary and say "See, by the exact definition it's not socialism."? Why won't they admit that they want: More and more government control? More and more redistribution of wealth? More and more taken away from the people who produce? To drag the people at the top down, not raise the people at the bottom up? Universal Health care is Socialized Medcine. Why won't they call it what it is? Mr Marx and socialism are based upon. To each based upon their need, from each based upon their ability. Let's not reward the people who work so hard and sacrifice so much. Let's take away from them so others can be better off and we can drag the producers down. I am interested in how capitalism is designed to do the bolded.
March 30, 200917 yr If we are asking people to resign because of failure of their job, the Capitol Building should be emptier tomorrow.
March 30, 200917 yr I am interested in how capitalism is designed to do the bolded. Simple explanation: Enlightened self interest, you want to make more money. In order to do so you need to expand your business, to expand your business you need to hire more workers. If you want good and competent workers you need to offer competitive wages and benefits. If neither or good enough or too much is being asked of said workers then they will leave and look for a better opportunity. That is the basic idea. Capitalism works on the idea that humans are inherently self centered and banks on that eventuality.
March 30, 200917 yr For the 100th time. My house is not for sale! :banana: I'm talking about the piece down the swamp from you.:thumb:
March 31, 200917 yr I'm talking about the piece down the swamp from you.:thumb:That's my sister's place. Now, you might be able to cut a deal with her. :thumb:
March 31, 200917 yr For those that are bothered by this move do you consider it unprecedented? Is that one of your issues?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.