Socialism superiour to US capitalism
Daovonnaex @ Wed May 09, 2007 2:43 pm
OPP OPP:
The Nazis practised command economy as did the fascists in Italy. It's not sufficient to me, as someone on the left, to generalize socialism in this way.
Who should deal the cards here, the ones who confess themselfs as socialists or the ones who confess themselfs as capitalists.
Who should deal the cards here, the ones who confess themselfs as socialists or the ones who confess themselfs as capitalists.
I consider fascism to be a form of socialism, as would most economists.
OPP OPP:
If I accept this generalization of socialism I would imediately have to defend these corrupt forms of socialism, as a socialist.
I'm not about to.
I'm not about to.
Looks like you're SOL...
OPP @ Wed May 09, 2007 2:49 pm
Daovonnaex Daovonnaex:
OPP OPP:
The Nazis practised command economy as did the fascists in Italy. It's not sufficient to me, as someone on the left, to generalize socialism in this way.
Who should deal the cards here, the ones who confess themselfs as socialists or the ones who confess themselfs as capitalists.
Who should deal the cards here, the ones who confess themselfs as socialists or the ones who confess themselfs as capitalists.
I consider fascism to be a form of socialism, as would most economists.
OPP OPP:
If I accept this generalization of socialism I would imediately have to defend these corrupt forms of socialism, as a socialist.
I'm not about to.
I'm not about to.
Looks like you're SOL...
SOL?
EyeBrock @ Wed May 09, 2007 2:51 pm
OPP OPP:
Daovonnaex Daovonnaex:
OPP OPP:
The Nazis practised command economy as did the fascists in Italy. It's not sufficient to me, as someone on the left, to generalize socialism in this way.
Who should deal the cards here, the ones who confess themselfs as socialists or the ones who confess themselfs as capitalists.
Who should deal the cards here, the ones who confess themselfs as socialists or the ones who confess themselfs as capitalists.
I consider fascism to be a form of socialism, as would most economists.
OPP OPP:
If I accept this generalization of socialism I would imediately have to defend these corrupt forms of socialism, as a socialist.
I'm not about to.
I'm not about to.
Looks like you're SOL...
SOL?
Yea, you comment on our North American way of life from your little socialist wonderland, but you know nothing about us.
Shit Out of Luck wanker.
OPP @ Wed May 09, 2007 3:00 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
OPP OPP:
Daovonnaex Daovonnaex:
OPP OPP:
The Nazis practised command economy as did the fascists in Italy. It's not sufficient to me, as someone on the left, to generalize socialism in this way.
Who should deal the cards here, the ones who confess themselfs as socialists or the ones who confess themselfs as capitalists.
Who should deal the cards here, the ones who confess themselfs as socialists or the ones who confess themselfs as capitalists.
I consider fascism to be a form of socialism, as would most economists.
OPP OPP:
If I accept this generalization of socialism I would imediately have to defend these corrupt forms of socialism, as a socialist.
I'm not about to.
I'm not about to.
Looks like you're SOL...
SOL?
Yea, you comment on our North American way of life from your little socialist wonderland, but you know nothing about us.
Shit Out of Luck wanker.
And, I see EyeBrock took his valuable time to comment on... ?
OPP @ Wed May 09, 2007 3:03 pm
Daovonnaex Daovonnaex:
OPP OPP:
The Nazis practised command economy as did the fascists in Italy. It's not sufficient to me, as someone on the left, to generalize socialism in this way.
Who should deal the cards here, the ones who confess themselfs as socialists or the ones who confess themselfs as capitalists.
Who should deal the cards here, the ones who confess themselfs as socialists or the ones who confess themselfs as capitalists.
I consider fascism to be a form of socialism, as would most economists.
OPP OPP:
If I accept this generalization of socialism I would imediately have to defend these corrupt forms of socialism, as a socialist.
I'm not about to.
I'm not about to.
Looks like you're SOL...
Ooooh.. now I get it. Shit out of luck..
Took me a while though. So many shorts these days.. hard to keep up.
BartSimpson @ Wed May 09, 2007 3:17 pm
Nick-the-Canadian Nick-the-Canadian:
see, compare your answer to the one Bart gave me just above.
It shows everyone that left-wingers are more tolerant and less close-minded.
It shows everyone that left-wingers are more tolerant and less close-minded.
Really? You people are tolerant of people you like and you're "open-minded" about only those ideas and thoughts you already agree with.
Now, there are exceptions to that, but I call the people who are really tolerant and open minded "moderates" because they can actually think for themselves without having to form a consensus of coffee-sipping elites before daring to utter an opinion.
Che (Ernesto Guevara de la Serna) scared the hell out of Castro and Castro wanted Che out of Cuba. If you'd be TOLERANT of some new ideas and OPEN YOUR MIND enough to read some of the things Che's own supporters have written through the years you'd see he was more of an idolized killer than a true ideological revolutionary. If you've ever read Che's book Guerilla Warfare you'll see a model for anarchy and violence on an amazing scale. He advocated Al Qaeda style organization long before it was fashionable and, in many ways, could be considered the father of modern day terrorism. He is the Clausewicz of terrorism IMHO.
Gabriel Garcia Márquez (not exactly the William F. Buckley of Latin America) once remarked of Che that he loved revolution and violence and was all too eager to shed blood when sometimes words were all that was needed. Che's fantasies of himself as El Jefe of Ibero-America have shown up in Marquez' oblique essays on the leftists who stray from seeking justice to seeking power. Che criticized the US as imperialist -imposing it's views on Latin countries - and Marquez saw the hypocrisy when Che went to impose his own views on those same countries.
Did the USA kill Che? Well, you think so. I've never seen any evidence to that effect. The US was involved in his capture and the Bolivian Army that took credit for killing him likely did it as they were no band of innocents and civil rights lawyers anyway. I'll posit that had the Bolivians not all so willingly killed him that the US likely would have just on the grounds that doing so would aid in the political stability of so many countries. Ergo - lives would be saved from fighting in unnecessary revolutions.
I've read Che's book - have you?
EyeBrock @ Wed May 09, 2007 3:29 pm
OPP OPP:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
OPP OPP:
Daovonnaex Daovonnaex:
OPP OPP:
The Nazis practised command economy as did the fascists in Italy. It's not sufficient to me, as someone on the left, to generalize socialism in this way.
Who should deal the cards here, the ones who confess themselfs as socialists or the ones who confess themselfs as capitalists.
Who should deal the cards here, the ones who confess themselfs as socialists or the ones who confess themselfs as capitalists.
I consider fascism to be a form of socialism, as would most economists.
OPP OPP:
If I accept this generalization of socialism I would imediately have to defend these corrupt forms of socialism, as a socialist.
I'm not about to.
I'm not about to.
Looks like you're SOL...
SOL?
Yea, you comment on our North American way of life from your little socialist wonderland, but you know nothing about us.
Shit Out of Luck wanker.
And, I see EyeBrock took his valuable time to comment on... ?
Your lack of knowledge on our culture.
OPP @ Wed May 09, 2007 8:44 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
OPP OPP:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
OPP OPP:
Daovonnaex Daovonnaex:
OPP OPP:
The Nazis practised command economy as did the fascists in Italy. It's not sufficient to me, as someone on the left, to generalize socialism in this way.
Who should deal the cards here, the ones who confess themselfs as socialists or the ones who confess themselfs as capitalists.
Who should deal the cards here, the ones who confess themselfs as socialists or the ones who confess themselfs as capitalists.
I consider fascism to be a form of socialism, as would most economists.
OPP OPP:
If I accept this generalization of socialism I would imediately have to defend these corrupt forms of socialism, as a socialist.
I'm not about to.
I'm not about to.
Looks like you're SOL...
SOL?
Yea, you comment on our North American way of life from your little socialist wonderland, but you know nothing about us.
Shit Out of Luck wanker.
And, I see EyeBrock took his valuable time to comment on... ?
Your lack of knowledge on our culture.
And the topic is?
ziggy @ Thu May 10, 2007 7:00 pm
OPP OPP:
ziggy ziggy:
OPP OPP:
ridenrain ridenrain:
On Che or socialism in general?
I can dig up mountains of details on Che and his murders, at San Carlos de La Cabaña prison or way before that. The fact that he's the darling posterboy for rebellion is delicious indeed because he's become more of a brand label for capitalist exploitation more than anything else.
There's a joke that since he's spinning in his grave so much these days, they wrapped his body with copper wire and now he powers all of South America.
I actually agree that these big, sweepng statements are meaningless because there are no conditions and even the candidates are muddy. I'd also second that all forms of controlled economies have failed. Even China is tripping over itself to shed the constrains of communism, and they don't mind poisoning or polluting the world while their at it.
I can dig up mountains of details on Che and his murders, at San Carlos de La Cabaña prison or way before that. The fact that he's the darling posterboy for rebellion is delicious indeed because he's become more of a brand label for capitalist exploitation more than anything else.
There's a joke that since he's spinning in his grave so much these days, they wrapped his body with copper wire and now he powers all of South America.
I actually agree that these big, sweepng statements are meaningless because there are no conditions and even the candidates are muddy. I'd also second that all forms of controlled economies have failed. Even China is tripping over itself to shed the constrains of communism, and they don't mind poisoning or polluting the world while their at it.
China has a lot of cathing up to do. Untill then, why not waste your breath on the real villan when it comes to polution, namely the U.S of A?
Nope....China,do some reading,your letting your hate for the USA cloud your judgement.
What China? You're saying China is a bigger polutor than the U.S.A?
Yes,and they build a new dirty coal fired generating plant about once a week,Environmental laws would never let you burn that type of coal in the USA or Canada without being cleaned or blended with a low sulpher coal like BC Canada sells to the rest of the world,China buys our coal for steel making,they burn theres for power,very bad shit,high in sulpher,no scrubbers on the plants and lots of radiation comes from the slag from dirty coal. I know a bit about China's coal industry haveing worked in the mine and they were our primary customer for 22 years.
Toro @ Fri May 11, 2007 7:15 pm
Canadaka Canadaka:
.. is france even in the top 10, no.
The socialist countries in the index are mostly Scandinavian countries.
I think the point the first post is trying to make is that modern democratic socialist countires are doing better in many ways than modern democratic capitalist countires.
This is not about the failed soviet era socialism.
All the Scandinavian countires also have a capitalist balance, unlike the purely socialist countries, most of which have failed.
The socialist countries in the index are mostly Scandinavian countries.
I think the point the first post is trying to make is that modern democratic socialist countires are doing better in many ways than modern democratic capitalist countires.
This is not about the failed soviet era socialism.
All the Scandinavian countires also have a capitalist balance, unlike the purely socialist countries, most of which have failed.
The Scandanavian countries also have a high degree of protection for property rights, don't tax corporations that highly, have fairly flexible labour markets and are free traders.
Toro @ Fri May 11, 2007 7:18 pm
tritium tritium:
Canadaka Canadaka:
"The United States has one of the widest rich-poor gap of any high-income nation today." Canada is heading down this road as well.
![[cheer]](./images/smilies/icon_cheers.gif "Cheer"){kind=icon}
"American energy giant, Enron, and telecommunications company, WorldCom, committed massive corporate fraud and illegal acts. Declaring bankruptcy in December 2001, they left thousands of American workers jobless and without pensions."
"Exxon Mobil Corp. posted record profits for any U.S. company on Monday — $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter and $36.13 billion for the year.."
There is capitalism for ya!!
Who really owns America?
One word
Bre-X
Toro @ Fri May 11, 2007 7:28 pm
Banff Banff:
Capitalists need a huge number of poor but enough consumers to make it viable .
This is an astonishingly ignorant statement.
The progression of an economy based on private property rights and the pricing system is based on technological advancement, which cannot occur without an educated population. Since education is closely linked to productivity, and since productivity is closely linked to wages (over time), then its critical that a large mass of the population must be paid well for an economy, and thus the rich, to get richer.
Besides, about 80% of all trade done by the West is within the West. And if you exclude China, its about 90%. And if you exclude India, its 95%. Both those countries, BTW, have seen some of the greatest advancements in living standards since they decided to engage the west over the past 25 years.
Toro @ Fri May 11, 2007 7:33 pm
Banff Banff:
What may work more efficiently in the Global Market is the largest industries should belong to the state (gov)
This is absolutely completely totally wrong.
The reason why so many industries were privatized in the 1980s is because the returns on investment they were generating were far below the cost of capital.
States have decided that certain industries should be either regulated or owned by the state because they are critical to the population in that there can be no one shut out - from infrastructure to healthcare. Everything else has pretty much been sold, and rightfully so. When businesses earn below its cost of capital, it destroys the wealth of the nation. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand how wealth is created.
Otherwise, its just socialist dogma.