Did you even read that garbage? Governments are going to legislate climate to not rise. You have to be extremely stupid or fully indoctrinated in globull warming BS to put any stock in that. Might as well pass a law banning weather.
Capitalism can not eradicate poverty
- Thread starter gore0bsessed
- Start date
Did you even read that garbage? Governments are going to legislate climate to not rise. You have to be extremely stupid or fully indoctrinated in globull warming BS to put any stock in that. Might as well pass a law banning weather.
What does a mixed socialist/capitalist economy even look like? Both workers and capital have equal ownership of production? There might be some businesses that operate that way but not countries.
China, for example, is "mixed" but it's not a labour/capital mix. It's state/capital. Other 'communist' countries with mixed economies are like this.
China, for example, is "mixed" but it's not a labour/capital mix. It's state/capital. Other 'communist' countries with mixed economies are like this.
That's why I used quotes. It's an indicator that the word being used should be taken with a grain of salt. It's also a reference to earlier in the post where I said "countries that professed communism."
In point of fact, there has never been a communist country. Most of the countries that professed communism could best be described as authoritarian socialist.
Your Marxist fantasy is just that, a fantasy. As is the fantasy of the Adam Smith purists. The spectrum isn't a line, it's a horseshoe. And both ends of the horseshoe are dreamers, fools, and internet trolls.
Can't be that hard. Probably more'n 150 countries out of the 207 are mixed capitalist/socialist.
How does "mixed" imply "equal?" And workers have a larger share than capital of the 25-odd percent of the country's wealth that lies in the government treasury.
Further, in most of the countries in question, workers own stock, either directly or through various investment plans, including retirement plans. Ergo, workers do own a significant chunk of the means of production.
The whole argument is bloody stupid anyhow. Marx was a mid-19th century writer. How does his worker/capital dichotomy apply to a post-industrial economy? How do you classify a solo graphic designer who works out of his home under the Marxist dichotomy?
The US domestic policies are unsustainable, too.
Time to build that wall to keep the barbarians out.
I thought we'd be building the wall to keep the barbarians in.
Or are you talking from the Canadian side of the wall?
Funny how different the wall looks from the two sides. And I speak as a bit of an expert on the subject.
Especially since you'll be taking in 25K Syrians! Get that wall built quick will you.
I don't think it is a good thing innovation is fueled by money. I think it's a horrible thing, a stifling and corrupt thing. Take money out of the equation (somehow) and innovation might be about addressing specific goals or needs, and on a global scale.
My take is when something, anything, pervades all that is and nothing is done without that something being at the root of the impetus then there may be a problem with it. Especially when that something is artificial, hoardable and stifles true innovation because of a protectionist reflex in securing market shares.
Yet here we are turning gold to ****. I just want one nut cracker; one that will last forever. As i sit here there are three pens in front of me. They all do the same thing...they write. Yet they all have their little gimmicks that entices me to buy them. Different colors and mechanisms from different factories and plants. Two are broken in some way....I really just needed one to work forever and be refillable.
Printers that become garbage because a counter estimates the lifespan based on an estimate of a saturated sponge....one of my favorites. Planned obsolescence, ain't capitalism grand?
'Sup, Eagle? You ain't been around much. Enjoying the Patriots rampage over pretty much everything?
Now that my Ravens have imploded, the smart money's on a Patriots/Packers Super Bowl.
Mixed would imply equal in context. A worker owning a fraction of a company's stock is hardly ownership of the means of production. In order for an economy to be socialist, labour would have to own their workplaces and in order for it to be capitalist, capital would have to own it. Partial ownership would have to have some controlling function or else it would be pointless. You could argue that a little control is enough to make an economy mixed, but to me it's hardly convincing, and that ownership takes capitalist forms and any control workers exercise is within the bounds of capitalist organization. Which is why I say "equal" control would be necessary to call an economy both socialist and capitalist.
I could answer that, but there isn't a dichotomy. Marxism, despite its name, isn't a single belief system based soley on Marx. It's a political philosophy that has had an ongoing dialogue for decades. You could criticize Marxists for hanging onto the foundations of a 19th century writer, but you can't say they haven't expanded and reinterpreted that philosophy since.
Legislate climate to not rise? No, legislation to keep anthropogenic global warming in check.
Because you say so? Sorry, no sale. If anything, "mixed," applied to a range of countries, as it is here, would imply varying levels of worker/capital ownership.
True. But seriously, why did you just kinda slide from "a worker" to "labor" in the rest of your post?
Please tell me you were being dishonest.
They'll flood into the US with temporary visas, then sneak across the border into Canada in Vermont or Minnesota. It's happening already and we're getting illegals from all of the world's armpit places enterring Canada illegally. That deep fear of a legion of terrorists hiding out in the Canadian woods just waiting for the right moment to invade the US is actually a reality in the reverse direction. The difference is that no Canadian politician can figure out how to make political hay from that information, up here. It's much easier to scare those poorly educated Americans who have that vague notion of where and what Canada is and no idea at all of what Canada is like. That covers about a third of your populace, maybe more.
I didn't just say it. I tried to explain it. Maybe my explanation wasn't adequate.
I think you're imagining a difference in those words and apparently a motive. I meant them as synonymous.
How is it a fantasy? There mere fact that the ruling bourgeois treated it with such aggression to stamp it out from sheer fear is clear evidence of that power it could give the working class and most of society in general if ever allowed to flourish.
Talk about a ****ing fantasy, this exists nowhere, what the hell are you even talking about?
It's a fantasy in that it doesn't and won't exist, like Harry Potter and gods. The fact that it's been fought is irrelevant. The people, bless their little hearts, have been led to fight many things that don't exist. As to the last, I'll be happy to discuss it with somebody who knows what she's talking about.
You call it a fantasy and don't explain why. I don't even think you know what socialism/communism is.
Haiti earthquake brought it out, Cuba sent doctors, the US sent Hillary for a photo shoot.
Because it does not, has not, and will not exist.
Prove me wrong. Name a communist country.
My indifference knows no bounds.
Hence the desperation you see dripping all over his posts. The ship has sailed to the bottom of the sea.