[quote]pittbulll wrote:
they do it Via the tax code , super big business pays very little tax , ma and pa pay big [/quote]
Prove this.
You can’t, but please try to. [/quote]
[/quote]
Not a single return linked in that article, and no mention of “ma and pa”. (Not to mention the second bullet point is all one really needs to know, and the first one is a discussion about fraud, not tax reduction, but whatever.)
Nice try, but this doesn’t prove your assertion.
[/quote]
I am telling you Ma and Pa pay taxes
[/quote]
No shit, I’m well aware of that.
But you have failed to prove your assertion in any substantial way. For every news story of a big company that doesn’t pay I could offer a “ma & pa” that reduces their tax bill too.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
they do it Via the tax code , super big business pays very little tax , ma and pa pay big [/quote]
Prove this.
You can’t, but please try to. [/quote]
[/quote]
Not a single return linked in that article, and no mention of “ma and pa”. (Not to mention the second bullet point is all one really needs to know, and the first one is a discussion about fraud, not tax reduction, but whatever.)
Nice try, but this doesn’t prove your assertion.
[/quote]
I am telling you Ma and Pa pay taxes
[/quote]
No shit, I’m well aware of that.
But you have failed to prove your assertion in any substantial way. For every news story of a big company that doesn’t pay I could offer a “ma & pa” that reduces their tax bill too.
[/quote]
It’s more than a simple reduction. Some very large coporations effectively don’t pay any taxes.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Do we really have a “free market” here?[/quote]
I hope nobody would attempt to argue that we do.[/quote]
There is no such thing as a Free Market economy, anywhere in the world. All markets are manipulated, almost by definition. The Free Market only exists as a hypothetical idea.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Do we really have a “free market” here?[/quote]
I hope nobody would attempt to argue that we do.[/quote]
There is no such thing as a Free Market economy, anywhere in the world. All markets are manipulated, almost by definition. The Free Market only exists as a hypothetical idea.
[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It has always been my opinion that Communism is where the Government controls the Market .
But I contend , what is the difference where the market controls the Government?
I am not trolling and will not answer a suspected troll [/quote]
Theoretically what you’re describing isn’t really communism per Marx’s quasi-utopian visage; you’re describing what mostly amounts to central planning. However, since essentially all modern communist countries have resorted to extensive central planning, it works as very basic description of how the systems evolved in practice rather than the theoretical.
I’m not so sure there’s a widely accepted term for what you are describing on the opposite end of the spectrum, since political and economic systems are viewed as separate entities, despite the obvious entanglement of the two in most any civilized nation.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It has always been my opinion that Communism is where the Government controls the Market .
But I contend , what is the difference where the market controls the Government?
I am not trolling and will not answer a suspected troll [/quote]
Theoretically what you’re describing isn’t really communism per Marx’s quasi-utopian visage; you’re describing what mostly amounts to central planning. However, since essentially all modern communist countries have resorted to extensive central planning, it works as very basic description of how the systems evolved in practice rather than the theoretical.
I’m not so sure there’s a widely accepted term for what you are describing on the opposite end of the spectrum, since political and economic systems are viewed as separate entities, despite the obvious entanglement of the two in most any civilized nation.
[/quote]
You will have to correct me if I am wrong but if I read your post right you are stating that socialism and communism are the same . the way I understand it was the Communists hated the Socialists , to the point of declaring war on Socialism
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You will have to correct me if I am wrong but if I read your post right you are stating that socialism and communism are the same . the way I understand it was the Communists hated the Socialists , to the point of declaring war on Socialism
[/quote]
Communism is the purest form of socialism, but socialism is not inherently communism per se. There’s also a difference between theoretical communism and communism as it has generally evolved in practice.
Case in point - the U.S.S.R. and China were both considered communist countries (not in the strictly theoretical, Marxist sense though), as is North Korea. Sweden and Norway are generally best described as being very socialist countries, but they are not, nor have they ever been, communist nations. You could make an argument that the U.S. incorporates a degree of socialism, though it tends to lie much closer to the free enterprise end of the continuum than, say, most of Europe.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You will have to correct me if I am wrong but if I read your post right you are stating that socialism and communism are the same . the way I understand it was the Communists hated the Socialists , to the point of declaring war on Socialism
[/quote]
Communism is the purest form of socialism, but socialism is not inherently communism per se. There’s also a difference between theoretical communism and communism as it has generally evolved in practice.
Case in point - the U.S.S.R. and China were both considered communist countries (not in the strictly theoretical, Marxist sense though), as is North Korea. Sweden and Norway are generally best described as being very socialist countries, but they are not, nor have they ever been, communist nations. You could make an argument that the U.S. incorporates a degree of socialism, though it tends to lie much closer to the free enterprise end of the continuum than, say, most of Europe.
[/quote]
You will have to excuse me while I say this is conjecture.
Just like it is conjecture that all forms of Government in Ideals are perfect . that it is the inperfections that ruin them . Nothing is ideal
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You will have to excuse me while I say this is conjecture.
Just like it is conjecture that all forms of Government in Ideals are perfect . that it is the inperfections that ruin them . Nothing is ideal
[/quote]
Well, you could make an argument that few things in life are absolute, but notwithstanding the whole game of relativism, I answered your question. You oftentimes demonstrate a reluctance to accept anything you don’t agree with on this forum.
I’m not sure what I stated that was conjecture. Though you’ll likely find few ideas or concepts that are accepted without any disagreement, those concepts are widely accepted as being accurate in a political science or historical perspective. You’re free to scrutinize academic definitions as you wish, as this information is widely available online and in print. If I’ve stated something inaccurate, then instead of going back and forth, cite where I am in error with academic sources. This is how I teach it. Marx’s Communist Manifesto is available to read, and it’s probably reprinted online for free. A simple Google search will yield good sources on definitions of socialism, capitalism and central planning, as will any solid economics 101 textbook.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You will have to excuse me while I say this is conjecture.
Just like it is conjecture that all forms of Government in Ideals are perfect . that it is the inperfections that ruin them . Nothing is ideal
[/quote]
Well, you could make an argument that few things in life are absolute, but notwithstanding the whole game of relativism, I answered your question. You oftentimes demonstrate a reluctance to accept anything you don’t agree with on this forum.
I’m not sure what I stated that was conjecture. Though you’ll likely find few ideas or concepts that are accepted without any disagreement, those concepts are widely accepted as being accurate in a political science or historical perspective. You’re free to scrutinize academic definitions as you wish, as this information is widely available online and in print. If I’ve stated something inaccurate, then instead of going back and forth, cite where I am in error with academic sources. This is how I teach it. Marx’s Communist Manifesto is available to read, and it’s probably reprinted online for free. A simple Google search will yield good sources on definitions of socialism, capitalism and central planning, as will any solid economics 101 textbook.
[/quote]
let’s take the statement that
“Communism is the purest form of socialism,” where did you get this info and why do you believe it to be fact rather than conjecture ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
let’s take the statement that
“Communism is the purest form of socialism,” where did you get this info and why do you believe it to be fact rather than conjecture ?[/quote]
It’s based on the basic dictionary or political science definition of the two terms, coupled with an understanding of what Marx wrote in his and Engels’ Communist Manifesto, which is available online. These are basic social studies concepts.
Here’s a basic definition from a 12th grade sociology textbook that I pulled:
“For some socialists the ultimate goal of socialism is communism…i.e., “pure” forms are ideal types. Keep in mind that the descriptions of capitalism and socialism are ideal types - that is, they are descriptions of the essential characteristics of the systems in their purest forms. In reality, no society has a purely capitalist or a purely socialist system, but some societies lean heavily toward one or the other.” Further, “Ideally communism is a political and economic system is which property is communally owned, social classes cease to exist, and the role of the government declines as individuals learn to work together peacefully and willingly for the good of all…in socialism, on the other hand, factors of production (land/labor/capital) are owned by the government, which regulates economic activity.”
Holt Sociology, by W. LaVerne Thomas, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, c - 2008.
I noticed you didn’t bother to answer my question, so I am done here. There is no point in my arguing basic concepts if you have your own interpretations beyond which nothing I can present is going to convince you otherwise.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
let’s take the statement that
“Communism is the purest form of socialism,” where did you get this info and why do you believe it to be fact rather than conjecture ?[/quote]
It’s based on the basic dictionary or political science definition of the two terms, coupled with an understanding of what Marx wrote in his and Engels’ Communist Manifesto, which is available online. These are basic social studies concepts.
Here’s a basic definition from a 12th grade sociology textbook that I pulled:
“For some socialists the ultimate goal of socialism is communism…i.e., “pure” forms are ideal types. Keep in mind that the descriptions of capitalism and socialism are ideal types - that is, they are descriptions of the essential characteristics of the systems in their purest forms. In reality, no society has a purely capitalist or a purely socialist system, but some societies lean heavily toward one or the other.” Further, “Ideally communism is a political and economic system is which property is communally owned, social classes cease to exist, and the role of the government declines as individuals learn to work together peacefully and willingly for the good of all…in socialism, on the other hand, factors of production (land/labor/capital) are owned by the government, which regulates economic activity.”
Holt Sociology, by W. LaVerne Thomas, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, c - 2008.
I noticed you didn’t bother to answer my question, so I am done here. There is no point in my arguing basic concepts if you have your own interpretations beyond which nothing I can present is going to convince you otherwise.[/quote]
your post seems well founded , i am sorry I did not see your question , I will admit I am a reluctant believer :)I have been here too long possibly
I noticed you didn’t bother to answer my question, so I am done here. There is no point in my arguing basic concepts if you have your own interpretations beyond which nothing I can present is going to convince you otherwise.[/quote]
lol, welcome to the problem the rest of us have encountered.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have listened to the communist’s manifesto . I posted it a while back I feel it should be mandatory reading hear at PWI
I read the Communist Manifesto when I was fifteen and my understanding of Communism and socialism is in accord with what JR249 explained. Can you explain your understanding of Communism and socialism please?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I read the Communist Manifesto when I was fifteen and my understanding of Communism and socialism is in accord with what JR249 explained. Can you explain your understanding of Communism and socialism please?[/quote]
This is basically what I was getting at, which was that if one had a full understanding of the Manifesto itself, having read Marx’s philosophy on the matter, then it should be self-explanatory. I’d be interested in hearing what pit’s understanding of communism is, having apparently read Marx and Engels.
Most people mistakenly equate communism to either economic central planning, which it did incorporate in its “perverted” practice in nations that tried to implement communism, or some sort of authoritarianism/totalitarianism, which is essentially a political model of distributing power solely in the hands of the state, with extreme controls over the lives of its citizens (e.g., North Korea).
I don’t know of any examples where communism was ever implemented, according to its strictest philosophy, in anything near a pure form. As someone pointed out previously, neither has capitalism really, since all nations who gravitate towards free enterprise inevitably embrace some degree of government regulation. I’m not an advocate for communism, just pointing out that a lot of people seem confused on how it is really supposed to work or even how it worked in practice.
I noticed you didn’t bother to answer my question, so I am done here. There is no point in my arguing basic concepts if you have your own interpretations beyond which nothing I can present is going to convince you otherwise.[/quote]
lol, welcome to the problem the rest of us have encountered.
