What IS The Free Market

[bripat9643]

There are different aspects of socialism:

Socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

including

Market socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

and different types of capitalism:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

including state capitalism:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Market socialism" is an oxymoron.

"State capitalism" is a euphemism for "communism.

"capitalism" is not socialism. It's the opposite of socialism.

Of the fifteen or so types of socialism one was Marx's Scientific Socialism. It was to ready people for communism. The USSR dropped scientific socialism in a couple of years, it was a bomb and created the New Economic "Program. Because Marx had used the scientific socialism label, many associated socialism with communism.

regulation that protects people is not communism.

only people ignorant to the results of laissez faire capitalism, which even Adam Smith ultimately rejected, act as shills for the corporatists who are perfectly happy with a permanent underclass of cheap labor.

Communism is just the end point of regulation. what you know about laissez faire capitalism is pure bullshit propaganda. Your claim that Adam Smith rejected it is an outright lie.

 

[regent]

There are different aspects of socialism:

Socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

including

Market socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

and different types of capitalism:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

including state capitalism:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Market socialism" is an oxymoron.

"State capitalism" is a euphemism for "communism.

"capitalism" is not socialism. It's the opposite of socialism.

Of the fifteen or so types of socialism one was Marx's Scientific Socialism. It was to ready people for communism. The USSR dropped scientific socialism in a couple of years, it was a bomb and created the New Economic "Program. Because Marx had used the scientific socialism label, many associated socialism with communism.

regulation that protects people is not communism.

only people ignorant to the results of laissez faire capitalism, which even Adam Smith ultimately rejected, act as shills for the corporatists who are perfectly happy with a permanent underclass of cheap labor.

Communism is just the end point of regulation. what you know about laissez faire capitalism is pure bullshit propaganda. Your claim that Adam Smith rejected it is an outright lie.

So what countries practice laissez faire capitalism today?

 

[jillian]

There are different aspects of socialism:

Socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

including

Market socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

and different types of capitalism:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

including state capitalism:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Market socialism" is an oxymoron.

"State capitalism" is a euphemism for "communism.

"capitalism" is not socialism. It's the opposite of socialism.

Of the fifteen or so types of socialism one was Marx's Scientific Socialism. It was to ready people for communism. The USSR dropped scientific socialism in a couple of years, it was a bomb and created the New Economic "Program. Because Marx had used the scientific socialism label, many associated socialism with communism.

regulation that protects people is not communism.

only people ignorant to the results of laissez faire capitalism, which even Adam Smith ultimately rejected, act as shills for the corporatists who are perfectly happy with a permanent underclass of cheap labor.

Communism is just the end point of regulation. what you know about laissez faire capitalism is pure bullshit propaganda. Your claim that Adam Smith rejected it is an outright lie.

Poor dear. Take a deep breath and get out of the basement for a while.

 

[bripat9643]

There are different aspects of socialism:

Socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

including

Market socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

and different types of capitalism:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

including state capitalism:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Market socialism" is an oxymoron.

"State capitalism" is a euphemism for "communism.

"capitalism" is not socialism. It's the opposite of socialism.

Of the fifteen or so types of socialism one was Marx's Scientific Socialism. It was to ready people for communism. The USSR dropped scientific socialism in a couple of years, it was a bomb and created the New Economic "Program. Because Marx had used the scientific socialism label, many associated socialism with communism.

regulation that protects people is not communism.

only people ignorant to the results of laissez faire capitalism, which even Adam Smith ultimately rejected, act as shills for the corporatists who are perfectly happy with a permanent underclass of cheap labor.

Communism is just the end point of regulation. what you know about laissez faire capitalism is pure bullshit propaganda. Your claim that Adam Smith rejected it is an outright lie.

So what countries practice laissez faire capitalism today?

None. what do you think that proves?

 

[bripat9643]

There are different aspects of socialism:

Socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

including

Market socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

and different types of capitalism:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

including state capitalism:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Market socialism" is an oxymoron.

"State capitalism" is a euphemism for "communism.

"capitalism" is not socialism. It's the opposite of socialism.

Of the fifteen or so types of socialism one was Marx's Scientific Socialism. It was to ready people for communism. The USSR dropped scientific socialism in a couple of years, it was a bomb and created the New Economic "Program. Because Marx had used the scientific socialism label, many associated socialism with communism.

regulation that protects people is not communism.

only people ignorant to the results of laissez faire capitalism, which even Adam Smith ultimately rejected, act as shills for the corporatists who are perfectly happy with a permanent underclass of cheap labor.

Communism is just the end point of regulation. what you know about laissez faire capitalism is pure bullshit propaganda. Your claim that Adam Smith rejected it is an outright lie.

Poor dear. Take a deep breath and get out of the basement for a while.

In other words, you can't backup what you claim. Your post was just pure shooting your mouth off.

 

[regent]

"Market socialism" is an oxymoron.

"State capitalism" is a euphemism for "communism.

"capitalism" is not socialism. It's the opposite of socialism.

Of the fifteen or so types of socialism one was Marx's Scientific Socialism. It was to ready people for communism. The USSR dropped scientific socialism in a couple of years, it was a bomb and created the New Economic "Program. Because Marx had used the scientific socialism label, many associated socialism with communism.

regulation that protects people is not communism.

only people ignorant to the results of laissez faire capitalism, which even Adam Smith ultimately rejected, act as shills for the corporatists who are perfectly happy with a permanent underclass of cheap labor.

Communism is just the end point of regulation. what you know about laissez faire capitalism is pure bullshit propaganda. Your claim that Adam Smith rejected it is an outright lie.

So what countries practice laissez faire capitalism today?

None. what do you think that proves?

 

[regent]

Of the fifteen or so types of socialism one was Marx's Scientific Socialism. It was to ready people for communism. The USSR dropped scientific socialism in a couple of years, it was a bomb and created the New Economic "Program. Because Marx had used the scientific socialism label, many associated socialism with communism.

regulation that protects people is not communism.

only people ignorant to the results of laissez faire capitalism, which even Adam Smith ultimately rejected, act as shills for the corporatists who are perfectly happy with a permanent underclass of cheap labor.

Communism is just the end point of regulation. what you know about laissez faire capitalism is pure bullshit propaganda. Your claim that Adam Smith rejected it is an outright lie.

So what countries practice laissez faire capitalism today?

None. what do you think that proves?

Only evidence. The questions could go on, but no need.

 

[bripat9643]

regulation that protects people is not communism.

only people ignorant to the results of laissez faire capitalism, which even Adam Smith ultimately rejected, act as shills for the corporatists who are perfectly happy with a permanent underclass of cheap labor.

Communism is just the end point of regulation. what you know about laissez faire capitalism is pure bullshit propaganda. Your claim that Adam Smith rejected it is an outright lie.

So what countries practice laissez faire capitalism today?

None. what do you think that proves?

Only evidence. The questions could go on, but no need.

Evidence of what? You obviously don't want to pursue the issue because you know you're going to get creamed.

 

[regent]

Communism is just the end point of regulation. what you know about laissez faire capitalism is pure bullshit propaganda. Your claim that Adam Smith rejected it is an outright lie.

So what countries practice laissez faire capitalism today?

None. what do you think that proves?

Only evidence. The questions could go on, but no need.

Evidence of what? You obviously don't want to pursue the issue because you know you're going to get creamed.

So why do no nations practice laissez faire capitalism?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So why do no nations practice laissez faire capitalism?

in the case of China, so liberalism won't slowly starve another 60 million human beings to death but rather will make them rich. Rich is far better than starving to death.

 

[regent]

So why do no nations practice laissez faire capitalism?

in the case of China, so liberalism won't slowly starve another 60 million human beings to death but rather will make them rich. Rich is far better than starving to death.

So is China practicing laissez faire capitalism?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So why do no nations practice laissez faire capitalism?

in the case of China, so liberalism won't slowly starve another 60 million human beings to death but rather will make them rich. Rich is far better than starving to death.

So is China practicing laissez faire capitalism?

they have a mixed economy moving rapidly toward more and more capitalism and more and more wealth for their citizens

 

[SwimExpert]

Poor dear. Take a deep breath and get out of the basement for a while.

Mold would explain alot with him...

 

[RKMBrown]

Not necessarily. Socialism can be a component of a command based economic system but that would require it to be a mix of market and command based systems. Otherwise there is nothing to socialize. If the government owns you and all land and all commodities, and you are just a slave to the government... Then there is no distribution from one group to another, there is only top down distribution.

What you said was that government can own all property and the economy not be socialist, you have yet to back it up and this sure doesn't do it

Incorrect I gave an example. Do you need a link to command based economic system? Most economic systems are a mix.

I already replied to that. A command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, it is directly socialism. The question is to name a system where government owns all property and the economy is NOT socialist, not one that is socialist

No. Socialism is not the same thing as a command based economic system. While you can have a command based economic system that includes socialsm, they are not the same thing.

Said another way a feature of communist system is using a command based economic system. But that does not mean that socialism and command based economic systems are the same thing.

Command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, that is socialism by definition. You are claiming government can own all assets and the economy can not be socialist, which is ridiculous, as is your saying socialism isn't socialism

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why do you think central government is a requirement for socialism? Why can't two people implement socialism? Why do they need a central government to implement socialism between two people?

I suspect you are confused about what constitutes socialism if you think a central government is required to implement it anymore than capitalism.

What part of my disagreement above confused you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I suspect you are confused about what constitutes socialism if you think a central government is required to implement it anymore than capitalism.

please tell us how you can have socialism without central govt when under socialism the liberal govt owns the commanding heights??

 

[RKMBrown]

I suspect you are confused about what constitutes socialism if you think a central government is required to implement it anymore than capitalism.

please tell us how you can have socialism without central govt when under socialism the liberal govt owns the commanding heights??

 

[SwimExpert]

I suspect you are confused about what constitutes socialism if you think a central government is required to implement it anymore than capitalism.

please tell us how you can have socialism without central govt when under socialism the liberal govt owns the commanding heights??

I'm afraid I can't explain it to you, until you rid yourself of the false belief I've highlighted in your above post.

 

[kaz]

What you said was that government can own all property and the economy not be socialist, you have yet to back it up and this sure doesn't do it

Incorrect I gave an example. Do you need a link to command based economic system? Most economic systems are a mix.

I already replied to that. A command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, it is directly socialism. The question is to name a system where government owns all property and the economy is NOT socialist, not one that is socialist

No. Socialism is not the same thing as a command based economic system. While you can have a command based economic system that includes socialsm, they are not the same thing.

Said another way a feature of communist system is using a command based economic system. But that does not mean that socialism and command based economic systems are the same thing.

Command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, that is socialism by definition. You are claiming government can own all assets and the economy can not be socialist, which is ridiculous, as is your saying socialism isn't socialism

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

Well asshole, there are a lot of forms of socialism. Socialism isn't a monkey, it's a mammal. Command based is a monkey. Your argument boils down to no it's not a mammal, it's a monkey.

Socialism is a centrally planned economy, There are communist socialists, democracy based socialists, Kibitzes, command based economies, fascists, but they are all socialists, they all centrally planned economies.

We do have the answer to bripat's question though, you didn't know what socialism means, you thought there was only one form of it. There isn't even only one form of it in modern governments so I don't know how you thought that. Personally I think you're smarter than that and you're being obstinate because of the stick up your butt. Maybe you should focus on pulling it out instead off digging deeper into stupid

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect I gave an example. Do you need a link to command based economic system? Most economic systems are a mix.

I already replied to that. A command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, it is directly socialism. The question is to name a system where government owns all property and the economy is NOT socialist, not one that is socialist

No. Socialism is not the same thing as a command based economic system. While you can have a command based economic system that includes socialsm, they are not the same thing.

Said another way a feature of communist system is using a command based economic system. But that does not mean that socialism and command based economic systems are the same thing.

Command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, that is socialism by definition. You are claiming government can own all assets and the economy can not be socialist, which is ridiculous, as is your saying socialism isn't socialism

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

Well asshole, there are a lot of forms of socialism. Socialism isn't a monkey, it's a mammal. Command based is a monkey. Your argument boils down to no it's not a mammal, it's a monkey.

Socialism is a centrally planned economy, There are communist socialists, democracy based socialists, Kibitzes, command based economies, fascists, but they are all socialists, they all centrally planned economies.

We do have the answer to bripat's question though, you didn't know what socialism means, you thought there was only one form of it. There isn't even only one form of it in modern governments so I don't know how you thought that. Personally I think you're smarter than that and you're being obstinate because of the stick up your butt. Maybe you should focus on pulling it out instead off digging deeper into stupid

Again, you don't seem to understand what the term "is" means. If socialism was a centrally planned economy, then there would be no need for the term socialism. But again your definitions are completely fucking wrong.

Websters: Socialism is a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

Websters: A command economy is an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned.

NOTE THE USE OF THE TERM IS.

Now you CITE TO YOUR SOURCE FOR YOUR fucked up DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM and your fucked up definition of command economy.