[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You are obviously joking now. I even re-post it for you, and you still “miss” it. Perhaps a third time will be sufficient:
[quote]This is very easy, so pull your chair up close and pay attention:
exploitation of the masses requires a power structure. Otherwise, it couldn’t be done. The mob would simply carry you off. It is evident, if you think about it for even a second, that the state provides this power structure. Capitalism always and everywhere concentrates state power in the hands of a few with interests opposed to those of the rest of society.
Socialism reverses this role, overthrowing and destroying the capitalist state, and establishing a workers’ state. From then on, it is much more difficult to exploit people, first, because the class character of the state is drastically altered, and those who make the laws are now also the ones who are affected by these laws. Second, if a law is passed that the citizens do not like, they can recall their representative immediately and end his term, and possibly review the vote. Easy.[/quote][/quote]
You said “much more difficult to exploit people” “much more difficult” =/= impossible
Even you have to admit it might not work, and you still have not proven how socialism is going to alleviate and prevent the evil deeds of men . . .
EPIC FAIL . . . try again . . .
You are keeping me in stitches - LMAO!!!
“Epic fail” at the same time you equivocate and once again avoid responding. This is hilarious.
If you ever DO have anything to say, PM or something.
man up Ryan - own your comments and provide that proof - quit hiding from your statement!!
I partly skimmed the 22 pages of this thread and saw mostly bickering so I’m going to respond to the original post and attempt to jump in this conversation.
There can be freedom and liberty in both a socialist and a capitalist system. The reason it’s so hard to have an actual debate on the subject is that peoples’ ideas of both systems are very distorted in America. Most people think of totalitarian dictatorships when you say socialism and that’s just not what the real meaning of the word is. Socialism would have everything owned by the people, which can be practiced with a totalitarian government or could be practiced in a more community-like setting where decisions are made for the common good of the community. In a true socialist system people would control production and allocation of resources, not private companies like we have in America today. The fact that private companies control resources is a big part of the reason why the general public has for decades wanted to make a move away from fossil fuels but can’t seem to make any progress.
Capitalism on the other hand is praised as the ONLY way for a country to succeed, which is pretty funny because the system we have is not anything like free market capitalism. We subsidize the fuck out of corn, oil, and other stuff which skews prices and also the size and power of certain companies/industries. The recent bailouts by our government too are also not capitalist at all, yet despite all of this many people still accept the complete shit coming out of most politicians’ mouths when they talk about why capitalism makes us so great.
[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
Capitalism on the other hand is praised as the ONLY way for a country to succeed, which is pretty funny because the system we have is not anything like free market capitalism. We subsidize the fuck out of corn, oil, and other stuff which skews prices and also the size and power of certain companies/industries. The recent bailouts by our government too are also not capitalist at all, yet despite all of this many people still accept the complete shit coming out of most politicians’ mouths when they talk about why capitalism makes us so great. [/quote]
I would describe the current economic model in America as more corporatism vs real capitalism.
Thoughts?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I would describe the current economic model in America as more corporatism vs real capitalism.
Thoughts?
[/quote]
Corporatism certainly more accurately describes what we practice rather than capitalism in my opinion. The academic term for the economic system of “corporatism” would be neoliberalism, which wikipedia defines as an “approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that maximise the role of the private business sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state.”
Socialism seeks the tyranny of the majority at the expense of the minority . . . it is blatently anti-individualistic in its design, focus and reward system. It’s political and economic hogwash thru and thru . . .
hm… capitalisme seeks the tyranny of the minority at the expense of the majority…
Its structures of power are vertical to its core as a contrast to the horisontal power structures
of socialisme. All discussions are silenced and from their mighty towers the plutocratic lords cast down
their orders to the working masses who dwell in the shadow of the plutocrats. This is the dark nature
of capitalisme and it will remain so untill the working masses wake up an see the shadow for what it is.
Then they will fight the final battle for their freedom and for the solidarity among men. when the
shadowis been crushed by the fire within the hearts of men. Then a reign of all will take its place, and
and there will be peace among the people of the earth.
A new name I will give the dark empire of capitalisme, and it name from now on are: the great enemy of the earth!
ps. If it seems a bit weird its because I just read silmarillion again.
[quote]florelius wrote:
hm… capitalisme seeks the tyranny of the minority at the expense of the majority…
Its structures of power are vertical to its core as a contrast to the horisontal power structures
of socialisme. All discussions are silenced and from their mighty towers the plutocratic lords cast down
their orders to the working masses who dwell in the shadow of the plutocrats. This is the dark nature
of capitalisme and it will remain so untill the working masses wake up an see the shadow for what it is.
Then they will fight the final battle for their freedom and for the solidarity among men. when the
shadowis been crushed by the fire within the hearts of men. Then a reign of all will take its place, and
and there will be peace among the people of the earth.
A new name I will give the dark empire of capitalisme, and it name from now on are: the great enemy of the earth!
ps. If it seems a bit weird its because I just read silmarillion again. [/quote]
wrong again - if there was a minority in charge of everything your criticism might have some merit, but since there is no single minority(group of people) in charge of everything - there is no tyranny. they would have to have absolute control in order to be a tryanny and they do not, thus your criticism fails before it launches . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
hm… capitalisme seeks the tyranny of the minority at the expense of the majority…
Its structures of power are vertical to its core as a contrast to the horisontal power structures
of socialisme. All discussions are silenced and from their mighty towers the plutocratic lords cast down
their orders to the working masses who dwell in the shadow of the plutocrats. This is the dark nature
of capitalisme and it will remain so untill the working masses wake up an see the shadow for what it is.
Then they will fight the final battle for their freedom and for the solidarity among men. when the
shadowis been crushed by the fire within the hearts of men. Then a reign of all will take its place, and
and there will be peace among the people of the earth.
A new name I will give the dark empire of capitalisme, and it name from now on are: the great enemy of the earth!
ps. If it seems a bit weird its because I just read silmarillion again. [/quote]
wrong again - if there was a minority in charge of everything your criticism might have some merit, but since there is no single minority(group of people) in charge of everything - there is no tyranny. they would have to have absolute control in order to be a tryanny and they do not, thus your criticism fails before it launches . . .[/quote]
But there is a minority in charge, the bilderbergers 
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Socialism seeks the tyranny of the majority at the expense of the minority . . . it is blatently anti-individualistic in its design[/quote]
Democracy also seeks the tyranny of the majority at the expense of the minority . . . it is blatently anti-individualistic in its design
If 51% of the population decides that something shouldn’t be allowed then the other 49% is fucked and left without a say in the matter. Where’s the individualism there?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
hm… capitalisme seeks the tyranny of the minority at the expense of the majority…
Its structures of power are vertical to its core as a contrast to the horisontal power structures
of socialisme. All discussions are silenced and from their mighty towers the plutocratic lords cast down
their orders to the working masses who dwell in the shadow of the plutocrats. This is the dark nature
of capitalisme and it will remain so untill the working masses wake up an see the shadow for what it is.
Then they will fight the final battle for their freedom and for the solidarity among men. when the
shadowis been crushed by the fire within the hearts of men. Then a reign of all will take its place, and
and there will be peace among the people of the earth.
A new name I will give the dark empire of capitalisme, and it name from now on are: the great enemy of the earth!
ps. If it seems a bit weird its because I just read silmarillion again. [/quote]
wrong again - if there was a minority in charge of everything your criticism might have some merit, but since there is no single minority(group of people) in charge of everything - there is no tyranny. they would have to have absolute control in order to be a tryanny and they do not, thus your criticism fails before it launches . . .[/quote]
ever heard about the burgeois class?
[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Socialism seeks the tyranny of the majority at the expense of the minority . . . it is blatently anti-individualistic in its design[/quote]
Democracy also seeks the tyranny of the majority at the expense of the minority . . . it is blatently anti-individualistic in its design
If 51% of the population decides that something shouldn’t be allowed then the other 49% is fucked and left without a say in the matter. Where’s the individualism there?[/quote]
Which is why I would prefer to live in a representative republic. I agree with you in that a direct democracy in it’s purest form is absolutely the tyranny of the majority.
“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner”…“Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote”