"Don't you hope Obama succeeds?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'm sure you'll be shocked to learn I have no problem with Obama's little announcement; a business having received a government bailout should regard itself as having been co-opted by government auspices, and so, much less guided by capitalist dogma.

---

For once we're in agreement. Good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I am sure you would argue that last is unfair to the executive, who is at bottom just another worker.

---

That's your assumption which I won't touch.

No western country today is practicing 'socialism' in its true meaning. All move towards 'capitalism' one way or the other, granted, more or less so.

Throwing the term around as one sees fit, far from illuminating the issue at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentomato

Socialism can't be that bad, when Bush never cared about the poor going broke, frozen without heat here in the north east, and Hugo Chavez Venezuelan's president gave oil to poor neighboorhoods in the United States, so your argument about socialism tells me that socialists help the poor and capitalists do not give a damn about the one's that need help the most, could it be that only exxon mobile and company had Bush in their pockets and those are the ones that benefit in capitalism?

---

Socialism can be that bad.

There are poor that go broke that don't bother to put in the work to stay afloat. You have those busting their asses to make ends meet and those that only look for handouts.

I still think capitalism is best. It spurs innovation and a sense of accomplishment. Work harder, make more money.

The problem is that like any government, proper laws need to be in place to curb crap in the system. Unchecked capitalism can lead to abuses just like any unchecked power.

---

Wowww I was been sarcastic, but you just wrote the definition of capitalism lol

Capitalism cannot survive without the exploitation of the masses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I am sure you would argue that last is unfair to the executive, who is at bottom just another worker.

---

That's your assumption which I won't touch.

No western country today is practicing 'socialism' in its true meaning. All move towards 'capitalism' one way or the other, granted, more or less so.

Throwing the term around as one sees fit, far from illuminating the issue at hand.

---

So you think I'm being obscure.

Perhaps, then, you might lift the veil on socialism and educate the lot of us - I'll make some popcorn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Capitalism cannot survive without the exploitation of the masses.

---

Yes it can; however, certain liberal auspices define even reasonable prices and fees for goods and services as "exploitation".

If, in the next few years, I develop a bunch of new contracts and become rich, while paying my employees a reasonable wage, and pay my taxes, am I practicing "exploitation"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Capitalism cannot survive without the exploitation of the masses.

---

True, very true, almost as slavery...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS

That's your assumption which I won't touch.

No western country today is practicing 'socialism' in its true meaning. All move towards 'capitalism' one way or the other, granted, more or less so.

Throwing the term around as one sees fit, far from illuminating the issue at hand.

---

So you think I'm being obscure.

Perhaps, then, you might lift the veil on socialism and educate the lot of us - I'll make some popcorn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Capitalism cannot survive without the exploitation of the masses.

---

Yes it can; however, certain liberal auspices define even reasonable prices and fees for goods and services as "exploitation".

If, in the next few years, I develop a bunch of new contracts and become rich, while paying my employees a reasonable wage, and pay my taxes, am I practicing "exploitation"?

---

So you think employers pay their workers what they deserve, expecially in this times?
High gasoline prices, food etc, these days are reasonable?
Corporations dictate what we pay, and guess what? we are slaves of what they dictate we will pay for anything they want to, so yes that's exploitation of the masses, when people have to quit their jobs because gas prices are to high, when we have to buy less food, because we can't afford what we need.
And regardless of what we pay for food or at the pump, our salaries do not go up, corporations make al the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Capitalism cannot survive without the exploitation of the masses.

---

Bunkum.

Exploitation can thrive in any system. Also what you call exploitation is a great wage in many places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Any thoughts on the difference between socialism and social democracy, J2?

Also, I don't think of Obama as a socialist, other than his choice of words, sometimes (cf "revolution"). Liberal, yes, though. Even social democrat would be moving in another direction, I reckon.

I see him as a fair bit right of any socialists I've ever met, tbh.

---

Allow me to ask you, first, as I meant to, before I was sidetracked by the wily Clocker.

For the nonce, I see social democrat-ism to be a polite way to refer to socialism without actually using the word.

Call it de-stigmatized or thinly disguised, and slightly less-than-full-strength.

---

Call it not the same thing, and you'll be on target.

While I don't have a problem with socialism, social democracy isn't it. The current batch of tards here don't even have a handle on communism, ffs.

They still share certain goals, but the way I see it, broad strokes, social democracy replaces things like having the elite run things with having elections, and revolution with persuasion.

As for how they vote and act nowadays, I'd put them somewhere slighly left of center (keep in mind that I see liberals as being more rightward bound, though). They still lobby for social justice, but they aren't anti-market/capitalist or anything.

Might as well call them social moderates, really. Inclinations towards both left and right regarding their beliefs. This is our kind, though, results may vary. The british ones seem less socialist still. But I'm not really up to speed on their ideologies, so I dunno.

Communism is not Socialism, it's State Capitalism. Fact.

We've come across this problem before: Define Socialism... I gave my definition somewhere, and also stated that I didn't think pure socialism could work above "Commune" level.


Libya is "Socialist", look at its Constitution. To me, and probably you, its a Dictatorship and I can't see how the two can work together.

However, i'll stick my head out with a current "Socialist" state (ie Social Democratic) that works and isn't Communist: Portugal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentomato

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Capitalism cannot survive without the exploitation of the masses.

---

True, very true, almost as slavery...

---

Slavery?

What slavery?