Salon.com: "America is Ready for Socialism!" (Didn't we fight against Socialism in WW II?)

[Vigilante]

Mere speculation from a true believer!

Not at all; unemployment compensation has already been proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy which meets the criteria for an Investment in the general welfare. Isn't it self-evident that no one in the private sector could be worse off by eliminating a poverty of capital under Any form of Capitalism not just ours.

Only the Capital Right fails to understand that Capital concept and the implications for our economy and our tax burden.

Come on Nancy, get REAL!

Nancy Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Create ...
RealClearPolitics - Opinion News Analysis Videos and Polls/.../nancy_pelosi_extending_unemployment...
Video embedded · Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Create 600,000 Jobs "The unemployment insurance extension is not only good ... economy," House Minority Leader Nancy ...

I am real. It is the lazy Right that fails to even try to understand the issues but blame the least wealthy for not working hard enough under our form of Capitalism, where it only takes capital to make more capital.

Now, new evidence from a study commissioned by the Labor Department during the Bush Administration reaffirms the value of UI as an automatic economic stabilizer during the latest recession. This study was conducted by the research firm IMPAQ International in conjunction with the Urban Institute and using the macroeconomic model from Moody’s Economy.com. --Source: ETA News Release US Labor Department study underscores positive impact of unemployment insurance 11 16 2010

Yes, what was the American Dream of our fathers, is now the GIVE ME FREE SHIT scum!

Still don't understand Capitalism. What a coincidence; lazy Person on the Right.

Socialists....

 

[danielpalos]

Business makes money with other peoples money all the time.

Our problem is the capital right can't make money with a Commerce Clause and an official Mint.

 

[Vigilante]

Business makes money with other peoples money all the time.

Our problem is the capital right can't make money with a Commerce Clause and an official Mint.

But Obuma tried and put us over $18 TRILLION in debt!

 

[danielpalos]

Business makes money with other peoples money all the time.

Our problem is the capital right can't make money with a Commerce Clause and an official Mint.

But Obuma tried and put us over $18 TRILLION in debt!

Our current democrat president didn't have a chance, even with two terms; that is how good a job the republicans did.

 

[Bombur]

Our current economic problems are a result of decades of decisions and economic changes that have eroded the power of labor and the demand for US production.

Anyone who is trying to blame one party is just a partisan. Anyone trying to blame socialism is just an idiot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My logical argument is fairly straight forward. When more than one person shares ownership that means they have to agree on what rights that ownership implies.

Generally such agreements are in the form of law, such as the RUPA and the MBCA. Still, this does nothing to support your absurd claim that corporations are "collectivist.

Saying that one of the owners can't just up and build a house on some of the land they own together applies to plenty of examples of co-ownership. This means your understanding of ownership is ignorant nonsense like I said it was many many posts ago.

The problem you have with understanding feudalism is that you are trying to compare your modern understanding of government to that of a king or lord. This comparison is woefully incompatible but you push it anyway. I am not trying to compare modern economics to feudalism because it is a stupid comparison but if we must it is much easier to understand that feudal lords had power that came from owning the means of production and that ownership was attached to individuals.

The problem you have with understanding Feudalism is that you simply don't - and even after I have provided you with a primer, you failed to avail yourself to knowledge and continue spouting ignorance.

The people were dependent on the lord for both work and protection. Today we depend on the government for protection and private businesses for work. The various lords had to worry about conflict with other lords so there was a way of addressing weaknesses. The Lords themselves were far more similar to large businesses owned by a single family than a democratic government. The church did fill in and provide some of the services a modern government would provide.

All comparisons are imperfect but your basic understanding of what words mean is lacking. Every time you try and express an idea it is wrapped up in some very silly ideas.

I have wasted plenty of time addressing your gross ignorance but you are fairly amusing so I didn't mind.

As I stated, you have entered the Danial Palos level of ignorance and idiocy - you have nothing rational to add.

 

[Bombur]

My logical argument is fairly straight forward. When more than one person shares ownership that means they have to agree on what rights that ownership implies.

Generally such agreements are in the form of law, such as the RUPA and the MBCA. Still, this does nothing to support your absurd claim that corporations are "collectivist.

Saying that one of the owners can't just up and build a house on some of the land they own together applies to plenty of examples of co-ownership. This means your understanding of ownership is ignorant nonsense like I said it was many many posts ago.

The problem you have with understanding feudalism is that you are trying to compare your modern understanding of government to that of a king or lord. This comparison is woefully incompatible but you push it anyway. I am not trying to compare modern economics to feudalism because it is a stupid comparison but if we must it is much easier to understand that feudal lords had power that came from owning the means of production and that ownership was attached to individuals.

The problem you have with understanding Feudalism is that you simply don't - and even after I have provided you with a primer, you failed to avail yourself to knowledge and continue spouting ignorance.

The people were dependent on the lord for both work and protection. Today we depend on the government for protection and private businesses for work. The various lords had to worry about conflict with other lords so there was a way of addressing weaknesses. The Lords themselves were far more similar to large businesses owned by a single family than a democratic government. The church did fill in and provide some of the services a modern government would provide.

All comparisons are imperfect but your basic understanding of what words mean is lacking. Every time you try and express an idea it is wrapped up in some very silly ideas.

I have wasted plenty of time addressing your gross ignorance but you are fairly amusing so I didn't mind.

As I stated, you have entered the Danial Palos level of ignorance and idiocy - you have nothing rational to add.

Corporations are collectively owned. The entire argument about collectivist corporations is a red herring.

Comparing modern governments and economies to feudalism breaks down no matter how you do it. Your understanding of all reality is full of hilariously silly ideas.

Both of your arguments have hit a rather pathetic dead end. They were both really bad arguments but you tried really hard. Get better arguments next time.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Corporations are collectively owned. The entire argument about collectivist corporations is a red herring.

Corporations are jointly owned by private investors. Your attempt to paint them as "collectivist" is laughable.

Comparing modern governments and economies to feudalism breaks down no matter how you do it. Your understanding of all reality is full of hilariously silly ideas.

Both of your arguments have hit a rather pathetic dead end. They were both really bad arguments but you tried really hard. Get better arguments next time.

Pointing out that the goal of socialism is to return the ownership of all property, including the ruled populace, to a ruling elite is simply fact.

 

[SAYIT]

...The nazi's only took the word "socialism" to appeal to the lower classes, they did nothing even remotely close to trying to achieve socialism...

Of course they did. Nazis were big on slave labor.

 

[Bombur]

Corporations are collectively owned. The entire argument about collectivist corporations is a red herring.

Corporations are jointly owned by private investors. Your attempt to paint them as "collectivist" is laughable.

Comparing modern governments and economies to feudalism breaks down no matter how you do it. Your understanding of all reality is full of hilariously silly ideas.

Both of your arguments have hit a rather pathetic dead end. They were both really bad arguments but you tried really hard. Get better arguments next time.

Pointing out that the goal of socialism is to return the ownership of all property, including the ruled populace, to a ruling elite is simply fact.

You are confusing the government collectively owning property with how a corporation can and does collectively own property. Once again this argument about corporations not being "collectivist" is a blatant red herring born of your own confusion. Every time you repeat it you make it clear to me you are not following the logical flow of the conversation. For a reminder, you made a claim about a poor person building a house on a park and how that the inability to build that house meant that he didn't really own it.

I referenced corporations to demonstrate how multiple people can share ownership of property and that means that one owning member can't simply do whatever they want with that property. This means your initial argument is false. Right now you are at best criticizing the words I used to make this argument. No matter what words I use your argument is still logically false. It is time for you to move on and admit you were wrong.

Your second point about the end goal of socialism is to "return the ownership of all property, including the ruled populace, to a ruling elite is simply fact" is using a definition of socialism I don't agree with but if that is the definition of socialism you want to use then so be it. The problem at this point is that if we are going to use your definition of socialism I will have to question how you apply that definition to reality. If the reality doesn't fit your definition then it isn't socialism based on your definition.

I find your definition sophomoric but I think that goes without saying.

 

[SAYIT]

Not at all, socialism is democratic ownership of the means of production. You're an idiot.

Not so. Socialism is gov't ownership of the means of production. You must be posting directly from the keep-em-in-the-dark-&-feed-'em-BS socialist handbook.

 

[danielpalos]

Not at all, socialism is democratic ownership of the means of production. You're an idiot.

Not so. Socialism is gov't ownership of the means of production. You must be posting directly from the keep-em-in-the-dark-&-feed-'em-BS socialist handbook.

Are you quibbling the concept? Our government is by the People and for the People.

 

[Socialist]

Our current economic problems are a result of decades of decisions and economic changes that have eroded the power of labor and the demand for US production.

Anyone who is trying to blame one party is just a partisan. Anyone trying to blame socialism is just an idiot.

Haven't seen you around before, good to know that this forum has another rational member to add to the small handful.

 

[I amso IR]

Even in the early thirties the socialism thing was exposed in "Time" magazine as to Hitler's real use of socialism as mentioned in previous posts.
What is amazing, however, is that so many Americans seem to believe what Hitler wrote;, did they believe Hitler to be an honest man or what? What is the story there?

He was known as Unkel Adolph after all. The young children called him that when talking with their parents.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Are you quibbling the concept? Our government is by the People and for the People.

Actually, it's by the corporations, for the corporations.

But since corporations are people too, my friend, I guess you have a point

 

[Kondor3]

No, we didn't fight against Socialism during WWII.

We fought a Cold War against Socialism for decades during the period 1945-1991 (the end of WWII through the fall of the Soviet Union).

The Western Europeans are the ones who won the Cold War, however.

Recuperating and rebuilding while sheltering under the American Shield.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you quibbling the concept? Our government is by the People and for the People.

Actually, it's by the corporations, for the corporations.

But since corporations are people too, my friend, I guess you have a point

Hoover Dam is a good example.