Socialism Is the Only Way

[L Gilbert]

Bloody hell!! No single political philosophy will work. A mix will work. Each one has its good points and bad points. If everyone decided that simply choosing a side and accepting all the bad with its good points is not acceptable, and that choosing the better points from all the sides and running with that we'd all be a lot better off. This either/or crap is extremely childish and it is retardant to the progress of the human race.

 

[darkbeaver]

Bloody hell!! No single political philosophy will work. A mix will work. Each one has its good points and bad points. If everyone decided that simply choosing a side and accepting all the bad with its good points is not acceptable, and that choosing the better points from all the sides and running with that we'd all be a lot better off. This either/or crap is extremely childish and it is retardant to the progress of the human race.

There is a fundemental misunderstanding here of what capitalism in fact is. Capitalism is not trade commerce nor industry. Capitalism pure and simple is usery, money on money for more money. The great trick of the bankers is to have obscured those simple facts from us, the de-educated masses. Compound interest is capitalism and as such is (t)he formost slaver of the modern world.
Many people in this thread believe mistakinly that they are by the exercise of thier free will, capitalists. If you allow your market investment to extract the wealth of labour in the third world in some sweat shop you are in fact commiting a crime against humanity and thereby breaking common law, despite what legal paper mechanism you hide behind.

 

[L Gilbert]

So? I was replying to the title of the thread and a few comments after. In spite of your impressions of socialism & capitalism, I remain convinced that neither one will ever work and that a mix will. Paraphrasing Galbraith; under socialism, man exploits man. Under capitalism it's the opposite.
Beav, just accept that you will never convince all human beings that they don't deserve, need, want, etc. more than their neighbor. And you extreme capitalists will never convince all human beings that sharing with their neighbor isn't a good thing.
If people worked toward a common goal and quit this inane tug-of-war we'd all be immensely better off.

 

[darkbeaver]

So? I was replying to the title of the thread and a few comments after. In spite of your impressions of socialism & capitalism, I remain convinced that neither one will ever work and that a mix will. Paraphrasing Galbraith; under socialism, man exploits man. Under capitalism it's the opposite.
Beav, just accept that you will never convince all human beings that they don't deserve, need, want, etc. more than their neighbor. And you extreme capitalists will never convince all human beings that sharing with their neighbor isn't a good thing.
If people worked toward a common goal and quit this inane tug-of-war we'd all be immensely better off.

I agree, many economist from the last century including Galbraith recognized the difficultys of free or pure unregulated capitalism, we can right now today see the results of deregulation of the banking and insurance industrys. Capitalism in it's unregulated forms will not work for the common good or goal. The crimes of the IMF WB and the neo-liberal revolution have imposed horrific hardship on every country that system was set up in. Never is a long long time Gil, never say never.;-)

 

[smdfaru]

L Gibert

You said:

"If everyone decided that simply choosing a side...."

I don't choose a side. I belong to the working class. The reason is that I was born into a working class family and the chances of any of at least 95 per cent of the population in that same catagory becoming a capitalist is next to nil.

There are only two sides; the capitalist class and the working class. Those who own the means of production and those who do not. The interest of each side is diametrically to the other, no matter how one might talk around it. One side can fire the other from a job and the other side can only beg a job from the other.

Politics follows that division and politicians better know who pays the piper and act accordingly--out of view from the public of course.

Don

 

[L Gilbert]

lmao
Sarfmud, are you implying that no-one outside your "class" works? Was Jimmy Pattison always rich? No. I think he started out as a car salesman. Does he work? At least as much as the average union worker.
I think you meant "diametrically opposed" but it matters not, because you are wrong. Jimmy Pattison is extremely generous.
I am a retired firefighter and I never "begged" for a job in my life. I worked for it. It worked in it. I retired from it. I am happily cruising and enjoying what I have earned. BTW, my wife owns a business, not me. She is doing what she likes. And she earned what she has, as well.
By the way, people DO choose political philosophies, which was my point.

 

[Toro]

lone wolf

Thank your for mentioning "National Socialist German Workers' Party." In one of my previous comments, I incorrectly referred to it as, "National Socialist Party," but no one seemed to care. Accuracy does't seem to be the center point of this thread.

Don

Kinda like moldy old Marxist/Trotskyist/Maoist/17,145otherstrandsofirrelevantdogma

 

[L Gilbert]

lol (idiotic message about post being too short)

 

[smdfaru]

lmao
Sarfmud, are you implying that no-one outside your "class" works? Was Jimmy Pattison always rich? No. I think he started out as a car salesman. Does he work? At least as much as the average union worker.
I think you meant "diametrically opposed" but it matters not, because you are wrong. Jimmy Pattison is extremely generous.
I am a retired firefighter and I never "begged" for a job in my life. I worked for it. It worked in it. I retired from it. I am happily cruising and enjoying what I have earned. BTW, my wife owns a business, not me. She is doing what she likes. And she earned what she has, as well.
By the way, people DO choose political philosophies, which was my point.

Here is what I said:

"There are only two sides; the capitalist class and the working class. Those who own the means of production and those who do not. The interest of each side is diametrically to the other, no matter how one might talk around it. One side can fire the other from a job and the other side can only beg a job from the other."

In it I did not imply anything except a social realtionaship. A capitalist might want to do work, I did imply otherwise. I simply stated that a capitalist can fire and a worker cannot. It would help to not misconstrue the point. Furthermore I do not want to get into yours or anyone elses personal matters. To put it bluntly, I do not care whether a capitalist wishes to stand on his or her head, having to power to fire is the point.

Don

 

[Kreskin]

The employee has the right to quit if he can find a better employer or career.

 

[darkbeaver]

Kinda like moldy old Marxist/Trotskyist/Maoist/17,145otherstrandsofirrelevantdogma

Irrelevant dogma?How come when you talk of capitalism with that far away look in your handsome eyes that ain't dogma, but rather some kind of revelation of the one true god. We'll see what kind of chicanery the PPT can manipulate tomorrow eh. There's no holiday so that ain't going to work this time, they already stuffed the $150 billion into the gaping maw of the servile consumer, and the insurers cut a deal with the banks behind the scenes. So what's left Toro? They'll just have to cut the wires with fire axes I guess. Run for your life, the market is falling. bawhahahahahahbluckbluckbluck:lol:

 

[Zzarchov]

Here is what I said:

"There are only two sides; the capitalist class and the working class. Those who own the means of production and those who do not. The interest of each side is diametrically to the other, no matter how one might talk around it. One side can fire the other from a job and the other side can only beg a job from the other."

In it I did not imply anything except a social realtionaship. A capitalist might want to do work, I did imply otherwise. I simply stated that a capitalist can fire and a worker cannot. It would help to not misconstrue the point. Furthermore I do not want to get into yours or anyone elses personal matters. To put it bluntly, I do not care whether a capitalist wishes to stand on his or her head, having to power to fire is the point.

Don

Thats a lie, a worker can choose to fire his capitalist and often does. Its known as quitting.

To draw an imaginary line between capital and human capital (labour) is stupid. Each side has something they want to sell and buy.

The owner of the factory needs to buy supplies and labour and sell a finished good. The supplier sells raw materials, the worker sells labour.

Labour is as much a means of production as raw materials and machinery is. If workers choose to work somewhere else (and they can) the "capitalist" is out of luck.

If there are not enough workers, they can charge a higher premium (And do), if there are too many they have to accept a lower premium.

This is no different than the "capitalist", if he has too many competitors he charges less, if he has too few, he charges more.

Take a basic economy course about supply and demand curves at your local college.

 

[smdfaru]

Zzarhov

"Labour is as much a means of production as raw materials and machinery is. If workers choose to work somewhere else (and they can) the "capitalist" is out of luck."

So, not a week goes by without reports--by the capitalist media no less--about more global outsourcing. If you haven't got the handle on that yet, it means relocating the production of commodities in another country, mainly, China.

First, machines were sent to South Korea to manufactor athletic shoes--supplying over 90 per cent of the US market. Labor was cheap. Gradually the price of labor went up. The machines were moved to China were labor was cheaper and now some went to Vietnam were labor is cheaper yet.

That is a sample of what is going on in all the production industries. Are the US displaced workers stampeading to those countries to, as you say, "choose to work somewhere else," and as you emphasis, "((and they can)."

As you say, the "capitalist are is out of luck."; far from it, the world labor market is at his or her disposal.

You said"

"Take a basic economy course about supply and demand curves at your local college."

Sorry, I never learned much from professors, they were usually behind the times or not applying knowledge to the changing times. I venture to say that I can, by keeping up to date with current events and informative reports that I can hold my own with the best of them. If you have one in mind, put us in touch with each other, most likely I will be able to throw a curve at him or her.

I am just itching to have a crack at it.

Don

 

[gerryh]

Here is what I said:

"There are only two sides; the capitalist class and the working class. Those who own the means of production and those who do not. The interest of each side is diametrically to the other, no matter how one might talk around it. One side can fire the other from a job and the other side can only beg a job from the other."

In it I did not imply anything except a social realtionaship. A capitalist might want to do work, I did imply otherwise. I simply stated that a capitalist can fire and a worker cannot. It would help to not misconstrue the point. Furthermore I do not want to get into yours or anyone elses personal matters. To put it bluntly, I do not care whether a capitalist wishes to stand on his or her head, having to power to fire is the point.

Don

Well...I guess now is as good a time as ever to find out that I'm just a tad blunter than most posters. So, to put it bluntly..you're full of shyte donny.

I can't remember the last time I had to "beg" for a job, and in fact it has been the exact opposite for well over 15 years.

Workers can't "fire" their bosses? Bullshyte...I have "fired" my boss on more than one occosion, it's called "quitting" and had them come crawling to me, begging me to come back to work.

The main difference between those that have to "beg" for a job, and those that get "begged" to work for someone ,is the former is usually an idiot or lazy, and the latter isn't.

 

[darkbeaver]

Well...I guess now is as good a time as ever to find out that I'm just a tad blunter than most posters. So, to put it bluntly..you're full of shyte donny.

I can't remember the last time I had to "beg" for a job, and in fact it has been the exact opposite for well over 15 years.

Workers can't "fire" their bosses? Bullshyte...I have "fired" my boss on more than one occosion, it's called "quitting" and had them come crawling to me, begging me to come back to work.

The main difference between those that have to "beg" for a job, and those that get "begged" to work for someone ,is the former is usually an idiot or lazy, and the latter isn't.

Fifteen whole years gerry,wow, I suppose that makes you about 35, a wet behind the ears newbe as far as work history goes, I got work boots that have been on the job longer than that. Fired your boss did you.Where do you get this nonsense? The boss issues the cheques, you cash them. Quiting is called quiting, getting fired is called getting fired. Christ Orwell would have a fit if he had to listen to crap like that. You are truley a tad blunt, and that's the opposite of sharp. The job market of the western world is a bit more wider than your tiny part of it.

 

[gerryh]

Fifteen whole years gerry,wow, I suppose that makes you about 35, a wet behind the ears newbe as far as work history goes, I got work boots that have been on the job longer than that. Fired your boss did you.Where do you get this nonsense? The boss issues the cheques, you cash them. Quiting is called quiting, getting fired is called getting fired. Christ Orwell would have a fit if he had to listen to crap like that. You are truley a tad blunt, and that's the opposite of sharp. The job market of the western world is a bit more wider than your tiny part of it.

Like I said...the difference between those that have to beg for a job....and those that don't...............................


I doubt though that you have ever had to do anything EXCEPT beg for a job.

 

[darkbeaver]

Like I said...the difference between those that have to beg for a job....and those that don't...............................


I doubt though that you have ever had to do anything EXCEPT beg for a job.

Job gerry? I don't do the job thing. I'm self employed in the botanical supply industry. If I had to beg for something I would gerry, you'd probably steal it to preserve your pride.hahaha

 

[gerryh]

pull weeds for a living eh......... that and collect welfare?

 

[smdfaru]

gerryh

You said:

"..you're full of shyte donny."

When you grow up come back and talk like a mature person.

Don

 

[darkbeaver]

pull weeds for a living eh......... that and collect welfare?

Well gerry whatever I do is what I do, and I'm always going to be happier than you are, and handsomer, and taller , and smarter and I smell better, that's just evolution gerry, it's not your fault that your under blessed. Maybe if you had a powerful god like I do things would turn arround for you. If I had to collect welfare, I would, and be damn happy that I could, you see being needy is neither a sin nor a crime despite what uncharitable pricks like you think.:lol: