Capitalism is NOT Democratic: Democracy is NOT Capitalist

The problem for whom? Compared to whom? Wanna compare Bill Gates to Stalin, point for point. Go for it.

I'm not surprised.

Doesn't matter who it's "from" - it's delivered via government.

Stalin was far more of a capitalist than Gates.
It is socialism that protects and allows competition.

Democratic government can be manipulated and used, but is still better in the long run, and can be fixed by virtue of the competition between the corrupt wealthy elite, if nothing else.
Without socialism, you just end up with a single dictator.
 
How is it unequal?
CA Labor Code: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

UICode: An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.
 
If we stop our production, oil and gas will immediately become more expensive.
By a lot.

Nope.
Foreign supplies are so much larger than ours that we have very little influence on international oil or gas prices.
If we stopped domestic production entirely, the prices would not change significantly.
 
WRONG!

In no way does or ever did socialism imply any lack of private personal possession of anything.
Anyone can invest in any means of production any time they want under socialism.
It is just that they are regulated against illegal and abusive actions.
And even if they do nothing illegal or abusive, if they do not satisfy the needs of the community, then the community may produce their own means of production for the same goods or services, and undercut the prices of anyone who is abusive.
How can you "invest" in any means of production when no one can own the means of production?
 
Yes. You've proven impervious to the fact that political power and economic power are radically different. Private corporations aren't empowered by society to apply brute force. Government is. Continue to ignore that - I'll continue to point out how naive your ignorance is.


You realize that the automobile industry is heavily regulated and the manipulation you're talking about is implemented via laws, right? The lobbyists may write these laws (obviously for benefit their employers) but Congress passes them. The democratically elected representatives of the people are feeding their friends in industry and convincing the dupes that "it's for their own good". Your government in action.

Good point in that many of the bad things about cars have been through legislation the car makers themselves are responsible for.
Like preventing the cheaper, smaller, and less polluting foreign cars from being sold in the US.

But I still think it would be even worse without government regulations?
 
CA Labor Code: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

UICode: An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.
How does that affect the rich any differently than it affects the poor?
 
So you have no proof?

Use a foreign example.

Or admit you pulled it out of your ass.


This site uses a fuel efficiency rating.
{...
TransportAverage PMPGMax PMPG
Bicycle [3]984984
Walking [1]700700
Freight Ship [10]340570
Running [2]315315
Freight Train [7]190.5190.5
Plugin Hybrid [5]110.6350
Motorcycle [4]71.8113
Passenger Train [7]71.6189.7
Airplane [9]42.653.6
Bus [8]38.3330
Car [4]35.7113
18-Wheeler (Truck) [5]32.264.4
Light Truck, SUV, Minivan [4]31.491

...}

If we use freight trains do to the fact Amtrak has so little use, we get an average factor of 190.5.
Compare that with a car at only 35.7, and we get a factor of only 6.
So then the 100 claim most likely then was wrong.
 
Socialism in no way has ever implied government prevention of private means of production.
Of course it does. Wherever private means of production is allowed, it wipes out socialist enterprise if they are both voluntary.
 
How does that affect the rich any differently than it affects the poor?
Isn't it obvious that Capitalists and the State as wealthiest have Any say whatsoever in at-will employment regarding the Labor as the least wealthy? Can Labor as the least wealthy require Good Cause from the Capitalist or the State?
 
It really got it's boom when the Govt stepped it and over regulated the booze businesses....so at the end of the day, blame Govt overreach
Prohibition gave organized crime the money to infiltrate politics along with getting political organizing out of the saloons.

Capitalism provided fertile ground for such an enterprise:


The Marxist Perspective on Crime
  1. "Capitalism is Crimogenic –This means that the Capitalist system encourages criminal behaviour.
  2. The Law is made by the Capitalist elite and tends to work in their interests.
  3. All classes, not just the working classes commit crime, and the crimes of the Capitalist class are more costly than street crime.
  4. The state practices Selective Law Enforcement – The Criminal Justice system mainly concerns itself with policing and punishing the marginalised, not the wealthy, and this performs ideological functions for the elite classes."
figure1.svg
Corporate and White-Collar Prosecutions At All-Time Lows
 

Forum List

Back
Top