Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.
EXACTLY.
Why is that so hard to understand.
Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM
.
Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.
Capitalism needs some regulation.
Something you're completely unqualified to provide as what you want in "regulation" is socialism.
What you are arguing is corporatism, which is another form of socialism. Corporations get government to control the economy in their favor. Free people cannot be held in sweatshops. You're arguing against yourself
Corporatism isn't socialism: corporatism | ideology
Socialism: means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Corporatism is a form of fascism. Just sayin....
Our socialism is limited by our Constitutions.No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.
EXACTLY.
Why is that so hard to understand.
Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM
.
Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.
Capitalism needs some regulation.
Something you're completely unqualified to provide as what you want in "regulation" is socialism.
What you are arguing is corporatism, which is another form of socialism. Corporations get government to control the economy in their favor. Free people cannot be held in sweatshops. You're arguing against yourself
Corporatism isn't socialism: corporatism | ideology
Socialism: means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
"The community as a whole" is a euphemism for government.
So of course corporatism is socialism. Socialism is government. Corporatism is government picking market place winners and losers.
One end is socialism (government control), the other end is capitalism (individual choice). Every form of government is on that scale. Obviously corporatism isn't individual choice. And only government can enable corporations to make our choices for us because only government can make our choices for us.
There are democratic socialist countries. You have consistently shown an inability to separate the democratic from the socialist. Sure, in a homogeneous, small country like Sweden, socialist countries can be largely popular. In Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany they are extreme. The "socialist" refers to the government control, not what government does with that control. But all socialism by definition steamrolls individual choice and government ALWAYS acts in it's own interest even if it is relatively benevolent, like Sweden
Communism is a form of Socialism; socialism may not be a form of Communism.However,,you've been educated here that that is incorrect.....Actually if you read what I wrote (which you don't seem very good at) - I've stated the following. Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both and unique and I've posted sources for that already. Fascism is widely regarded as rightwing. Socialism as leftwing.
In fact both Stalinism and Nazism have become their own categories.
Afraid not. Open your mind and learn something new
Socialism is socialism. There is nothing new in that. What is new is your spin, which you can't even coherently describe. Stalinism isn't socialism cus. The same reason you think fascism isn't socialism. It doesn't fit the Democrat agenda. You're saying nothing
Actually, claiming fascism is leftwing and socialist is a new spin on history by those trying and demonize the left and whitewash the right. The Republican Agenda.
Yet you still can't name a real difference between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.
And you're wrong. Leftists have been challenged and argued your canard that fascism isn't left since you redefined the term after WWII to serve your interests. Apparently despite all your quotes, you don't actually read very much
However,,you've been educated here that that is incorrect.....
Afraid not. Open your mind and learn something new
Socialism is socialism. There is nothing new in that. What is new is your spin, which you can't even coherently describe. Stalinism isn't socialism cus. The same reason you think fascism isn't socialism. It doesn't fit the Democrat agenda. You're saying nothing
Actually, claiming fascism is leftwing and socialist is a new spin on history by those trying and demonize the left and whitewash the right. The Republican Agenda.
Actually it isn't. Like I have said before, back in the 1930's it was well understood that fascism and Soviet style socialism were close to the same. The leading progressives of the US and Europe, realized it, and approved of the leadership of those countries. In fact, many of the leading lights absolutely loved the very idea of dictatorship. They have spent decades trying to obfuscate their support for the leaders that the world was forced to go war to destroy.
Below are a few quotes that show how the progressives understood there were no real differences between the fascists and socialist....
Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks
- H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
- The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
- The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
- Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
- McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
- After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
- Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
- NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
- FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
- New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
- Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.
Hold on a second, what you're showing is not that "progressive understand there is no real differences between the fascists and socialist". All you're showing is quotes from various"progressives" and "liberals" complimenting aspects of fascism and that is deceptive.
Just for example the H.G. Wells quote. H.G. Wells pretty much rejected Facism:
As the bootsteps of both fascism and Communism began stamping down his influence, Wells wrote a 1924 essay, “The Spirit of Fascism: Is There Any Good in It at All?” The answer: a resounding no. Wells also rejected the British Union of Fascists. Well's ideology was also often contradictory in regards to his views fascism and socialism and his "Wellsian" ideology showed he was easily influenced by a number of new political factions in the 1930's.
None of the quotes really show that the speakers think socialism and fascism are the same, though it's hard to evaluate because they are stripped of context.
Also....Discover the Networks is a self-professed anti-left site. I don't know how much credibility to give it's claims.
Yes, it Must be an Public Sector means of production, to the extent we have a public sector and not a private sector. we allege to have social justice not capital justice on a for-profit basis.Government can be a "public sector means of production" but not necessarily so.....Government, is a "public sector means of production".
In the US, does the government make anything or do they subcontract it out to be done?
HINT: Military members know the phrase "built by the lowest bidder" very well.
Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.
Capitalism needs some regulation.
Something you're completely unqualified to provide as what you want in "regulation" is socialism.
What you are arguing is corporatism, which is another form of socialism. Corporations get government to control the economy in their favor. Free people cannot be held in sweatshops. You're arguing against yourself
Corporatism isn't socialism: corporatism | ideology
Socialism: means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Corporatism is a form of fascism. Just sayin....
Yes, but it's not socialism.
Sort of. Fascism is corporate controlled socialism. The corporations control the government in their ideal world, they dictate to the government what they want done, and the politicians that the corporations have bought do the corporate bidding. Invariably the policies benefit the corporations but harm the individuals. There will certainly be some "concessions" made to the civilians, but ultimately they pay for those concessions through higher taxes and reduced freedoms.
yes, it is another form of socialism. capitalism includes no government since all transactions must be voluntary.EXACTLY.
Why is that so hard to understand.
Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM
.
Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.
Capitalism needs some regulation.
Something you're completely unqualified to provide as what you want in "regulation" is socialism.
What you are arguing is corporatism, which is another form of socialism. Corporations get government to control the economy in their favor. Free people cannot be held in sweatshops. You're arguing against yourself
Corporatism isn't socialism: corporatism | ideology
Socialism: means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
No, it's not socialism since socialism means owned or regulated by the community - the workers.
Corporatism: According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction.
Here is a better definition. Frankly sounds like the direction we're headed in:
Corporatism - Wikipedia
Corporatism, also known as corporativism,[1] is the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.[2] It is theoretically based on the interpretation of a community as an organic body.[3] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora") meaning "body".[4]
Prove we don't have a private sector because my wife and I each have our own "private sector" businesses and I work for a private sector company. Just because all operate within government regulations and are taxed doesn't mean all are "public sector". If you insist that is true, then you must also believe we are a socialist nation because we have Social Security.Yes, it Must be an Public Sector means of production, to the extent we have a public sector and not a private sector. we allege to have social justice not capital justice on a for-profit basis.
a profit motive may influence anyone.Something you're completely unqualified to provide as what you want in "regulation" is socialism.
What you are arguing is corporatism, which is another form of socialism. Corporations get government to control the economy in their favor. Free people cannot be held in sweatshops. You're arguing against yourself
Corporatism isn't socialism: corporatism | ideology
Socialism: means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Corporatism is a form of fascism. Just sayin....
Yes, but it's not socialism.
Sort of. Fascism is corporate controlled socialism. The corporations control the government in their ideal world, they dictate to the government what they want done, and the politicians that the corporations have bought do the corporate bidding. Invariably the policies benefit the corporations but harm the individuals. There will certainly be some "concessions" made to the civilians, but ultimately they pay for those concessions through higher taxes and reduced freedoms.
Fascism is not corporate control of government, it's government control of corporations. Seriously, you think corporations controlled Hitler? That's insane. Corporations had to get government approval for all major decisions and they had to follow all government economic and social policies. Corporations didn't control shit. They defied Hitler, they disappeared and someone else took their place.
Corporatism is on the surface corporate control of government. But obviously the hand that giveth can take away. Corporations that serve the needs of policians and bureaucrats with bribes, campaign contributions, etc get what they want in the short run. But when someone offers government more, they take over. The actual control and decision making is obviously not controlled by the corporations but by the ones who control the decisions, government
You must be on the right. we allege to have social justice not capital justice on a for-profit basis.Prove we don't have a private sector because my wife and I each have our own "private sector" businesses and I work for a private sector company. Just because all operate within government regulations and are taxed doesn't mean all are "public sector". If you insist that is true, then you must also believe we are a socialist nation because we have Social Security.Yes, it Must be an Public Sector means of production, to the extent we have a public sector and not a private sector. we allege to have social justice not capital justice on a for-profit basis.
just plain, laziness of laissez-fair? socialism requires a work ethic.Harding, Coolidge and Hoover all tried, but failed to even offer hope for what they had done.
"Prosperity is just around the corner," didn't do it, but it was the best Republicans could come up with.
just plain, laziness of laissez-fair? socialism requires a work ethic.Harding, Coolidge and Hoover all tried, but failed to even offer hope for what they had done.
"Prosperity is just around the corner," didn't do it, but it was the best Republicans could come up with.
just plain, laziness of laissez-fair? socialism requires a work ethic.Harding, Coolidge and Hoover all tried, but failed to even offer hope for what they had done.
"Prosperity is just around the corner," didn't do it, but it was the best Republicans could come up with.
Socialism stifles a work ethic. Take a look at every socialist country out there. They universally produce less than a capitalist country of smaller size.
just plain, laziness of laissez-fair? socialism requires a work ethic.Harding, Coolidge and Hoover all tried, but failed to even offer hope for what they had done.
"Prosperity is just around the corner," didn't do it, but it was the best Republicans could come up with.
Socialism stifles a work ethic. Take a look at every socialist country out there. They universally produce less than a capitalist country of smaller size.
Having worked in the Netherlands nine months recently from June, 2015 to March 2016, that's for damned sure. People started coming in at 9am and by 5pm they were standing in my office pointing at their watches that it's time to leave and lock the building. That is if they were still there.
Not once did we have meetings in the evening or God forbid on a weekend. And I was there because they were losing money and their jobs were at risk from their American parent who hired me. They didn't care. They just assumed if they went under it was their government's job to be sure they got paid one way or another anyway.
They are llaaazzzzyyyy. It's pathetic
just plain, laziness of laissez-fair? socialism requires a work ethic.Harding, Coolidge and Hoover all tried, but failed to even offer hope for what they had done.
"Prosperity is just around the corner," didn't do it, but it was the best Republicans could come up with.
Socialism stifles a work ethic. Take a look at every socialist country out there. They universally produce less than a capitalist country of smaller size.
Having worked in the Netherlands nine months recently from June, 2015 to March 2016, that's for damned sure. People started coming in at 9am and by 5pm they were standing in my office pointing at their watches that it's time to leave and lock the building. That is if they were still there.
Not once did we have meetings in the evening or God forbid on a weekend. And I was there because they were losing money and their jobs were at risk from their American parent who hired me. They didn't care. They just assumed if they went under it was their government's job to be sure they got paid one way or another anyway.
They are llaaazzzzyyyy. It's pathetic
Not lazy per se, there is simply no motivation to work. Why put in long hours, when your production is taken away from you and given to the lazy slob who doesn't bother to get his ass off the couch? Socialism rewards inactivity. People aren't stupid. They will do the work they HAVE to do, and nothing more because there is no reward for doing so. That is a lesson that the idealogues seem to never learn.
just plain, laziness of laissez-fair? socialism requires a work ethic.Harding, Coolidge and Hoover all tried, but failed to even offer hope for what they had done.
"Prosperity is just around the corner," didn't do it, but it was the best Republicans could come up with.
Socialism stifles a work ethic. Take a look at every socialist country out there. They universally produce less than a capitalist country of smaller size.
Having worked in the Netherlands nine months recently from June, 2015 to March 2016, that's for damned sure. People started coming in at 9am and by 5pm they were standing in my office pointing at their watches that it's time to leave and lock the building. That is if they were still there.
Not once did we have meetings in the evening or God forbid on a weekend. And I was there because they were losing money and their jobs were at risk from their American parent who hired me. They didn't care. They just assumed if they went under it was their government's job to be sure they got paid one way or another anyway.
They are llaaazzzzyyyy. It's pathetic
Not lazy per se, there is simply no motivation to work. Why put in long hours, when your production is taken away from you and given to the lazy slob who doesn't bother to get his ass off the couch? Socialism rewards inactivity. People aren't stupid. They will do the work they HAVE to do, and nothing more because there is no reward for doing so. That is a lesson that the idealogues seem to never learn.
It sure looked like lazy to me. They completely, totally, honestly didn't give a shit. And I worked with upper management on down. The only one I knew who worked hard was the CFO and he worked really hard. He got fired before I left and was replaced with a guy I personally really liked, but considered the worst of the worst in terms of not giving a shit about his job or the company
I find it awfully ironic that this article is printed on Rense.com -- a viciously antisemitic conspiracy hate site.
You didn't vote, and you replied with an opinion not affirmed by evidence.
I did not vote because you are promoting an antisemitic hate site.
Perhaps you should ask somebody to explain European fascism to you some day, because they ALSO hated Jews.
....but, hey, if you want to reference a site that has an annual Hitler birthday celebration day, go for it. Just don't try to claim you are somehow AGAINST fascism, here.
just plain, laziness of laissez-fair? socialism requires a work ethic.
Socialism stifles a work ethic. Take a look at every socialist country out there. They universally produce less than a capitalist country of smaller size.
Having worked in the Netherlands nine months recently from June, 2015 to March 2016, that's for damned sure. People started coming in at 9am and by 5pm they were standing in my office pointing at their watches that it's time to leave and lock the building. That is if they were still there.
Not once did we have meetings in the evening or God forbid on a weekend. And I was there because they were losing money and their jobs were at risk from their American parent who hired me. They didn't care. They just assumed if they went under it was their government's job to be sure they got paid one way or another anyway.
They are llaaazzzzyyyy. It's pathetic
Not lazy per se, there is simply no motivation to work. Why put in long hours, when your production is taken away from you and given to the lazy slob who doesn't bother to get his ass off the couch? Socialism rewards inactivity. People aren't stupid. They will do the work they HAVE to do, and nothing more because there is no reward for doing so. That is a lesson that the idealogues seem to never learn.
It sure looked like lazy to me. They completely, totally, honestly didn't give a shit. And I worked with upper management on down. The only one I knew who worked hard was the CFO and he worked really hard. He got fired before I left and was replaced with a guy I personally really liked, but considered the worst of the worst in terms of not giving a shit about his job or the company
That's what decades of socialism breed. It is a systemic problem. Next time you are there find a flea market and you will find folks who work very hard indeed. They are living on the black market and thus they get to keep what they earn. They are motivated to work.
