Unionization vs corporatism?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Finding High Revenue Growth Canadian Stocks
If the membership had that neat little remove-em-all-with-one-push button, this spam crap wouldn't be getting in the way of forums enjoyment. Moderator approval of the first few posts would keep the spammer from posting in the first place,
To an extent. I am all in favor of free enterprise but not necessarily rampant capitalism.
Capitalism has killed the global economy and we are at war to expand this failing system to other nations?
That would be the epitome of fascism would it not?
That would be the epitome of fascism would it not?
Actually, neither is Marxist. Unionization is actually a very capitalist concept, the idea that the workers get together and negotiate collectively so as to raise their value to the employer. Looking at it that way, it was foolish for the NDp to get into bed with the unions.
And as for corporatism, seeing that it doesn't really care much for who owns the means of production, that's hardly Marxist. Again, it leans closer to capitalism than it does to socialism, though it does have some moderate socialist elements in it. Hardly Marxist though.
I don't think it right to say that Capitalism killed the global economy. Without capitalism we would likely still be living as we did hundreds of years ago. Sure capitalism, or at least laise faire, can bring about major crashes which hurt us all, but to have never had it would mean we would all hurt all the time. I hate to say it, cuz I use to be more a socialist than I am now, but without capitalism, we would not have gotten very far.
To say that capitalism brought about this crash therefore it's bad is to say that cars can result in car crashes therefore we should get rid of them. Cars are also hugely beneficial, and thus the benefit far outweighs the negatives.
Don't sweat it. Most of us had socialist leanings when we were young. As a theory it is almost perfect. Just like computer models. When it hits the real world is when the flaws appear. Age and experience smartened us up though.
I can't remember who this quote is from but I rather like it.
"Any man that is not a socialist when he is twenty has no heart
If he is still a socialist at forty he has no brain."
Ooooooooooh I must be really stupid, I'm pretty sure I helped vote that son of a bitch of a Glen Clark into power. I would have been about 52...........:lol::lol::lol:
It's a bastardized quote of Churchill's which went thus:
“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."
Winston Churchill was generally regarded as a Red Tory, hough an Imperialist to, of the Greater Britain variety, believing in the white mans' burden.
I agree with the hybrid theory as a lot of these ideals depend on the industry and how much 'power to authority' should be given for that industry. Laissez-faire is better for industries where there already exists a flourishing competitive environment that is also beneficial to society. In other industries, social intervention is necessary to ensure a positive affect on as many people as possible.
Last edited: