Printable View
No they are not!
In a capitalist system I make a product. I take the risk of putting my resources into the product. I make a good product and a perceived good price and I succeed.
In a socialist system the government makes all the products. The is no reward or incentive for me to improve or do a better job. Further if the product is shoddy or perceived of as too expensive (i.e. poor value) I have no choice. There is only one source!
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
Just look at the "cost" of your drivers license! In my state at least it is only supposed to cost what it costs the state to produce it for me. I even have to pay an extra fee to see the person at the counter, and a "convenience" fee to do it online.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
You realize that the "black market" in a socialist system is capitalism. Capitalism that exists because the socialist system fails the customer!
One should realize that in socialism the government doesnt nessesarally own everything only some things...just like here in the USA.
The point I am making is one of the reality of economic preceptions: IE every economic system to date in human history has basically worked the same in the end regardless of who owned what portions of production and or suppy and or consumption/demand.
Necessity is ultimately unescapable as the ocean in which the economic boat is driven regardless of who is at the helm.
Weather the village cron is assisting in midwifery for the exchange of a couple chickens or out of the goodness of her heart knowing someday the mother will perhaps return the favor, or by the direction of the king whom she submits to for what land he grants her to live upon and ply her trade for food...the laws of equivelant exchange still prevail.
Since you and the rest of Obama's detractors have been equating "socialist" with "communist" from the start (otherwise you wouldn't be using it as an insult), it's a bit late to move the goalposts and exclude communist states from the dicussion. The more so since most of them call themselves socialist, so you are essentially arguing within your own private framework which you invented to give the answer you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
By any strict economic definition the USA has not been a purely capitalist state since the 1930s, at the very latest, so even before the current crisis it could by your strict terms be already described as a failed capitalist state. It is more realistic to recognise that all working economies contain elements of both private and public enterprise, and we define them as "socialist" or "capitalist" according to which predominates.
In most developed democracies the balance swings from capitalist to socialist and back according to political trends, which is why I said that most European countries have had socialist periods. In my lifetime the UK has seen a period of predominantly socialist organisation from the '50s to the '70s, when even the Conservatives shared the concensus that most important things should be done by the state, and a predominantly capitalist period from the election of the Thatcher government to the credit crisis, when the Labour Party accepted the concensus that most things were best done by private enterprise. In between the pendulum passed through a midpoint of fully mixed economy, and is swinging back to there now. This cycle is normal all over the democratic world, except in the US, where the swing to the left hits an ideological spanner and bounces back to the right ahead of time. It will take more than the first black President to unjam the works.
Ah, the "silent majority", I remember them from British politics. They don't vote, they don't show up on opinion polls, but we know they are there and only we speak up for them, so we're really in the majority even if we look like a handful of radicals.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
On the Left the equivalent imaginary constituency is called "the workers" or "the people".
A very sensible judgement, so why are you so panicked over the possibility that some very moderate social programs may be introduced to the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
I am only an ignorant foreigner, but I had the impression that one or two previous Administrations had amended the Constitution without being judged as subversives. Wasn't there someone who wanted to put in an amendment about gay marriage? Or was that another lie by the liberal media?Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
That's not what I am talking about. He stated, "The Constitution is fundamentally flawed"Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
FUNDAMENTALLY flawed.
That's the same as saying it needs to be fixed. That the document we were founded on is incorrect.
Obviously it's not the "silent majority". The recent voting results show that.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
I don't want to live in a Communist country either. If I did, I would move to one.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
PERFECT! I couldn't figure out a way to explain that.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Then what is it in a so called capitalist country?
The drug trade is a prime example of a demand not being allowed by the state and yet a supply is developed for it and continues to exist unabated despite it. Same with protitution where thats illegal.
Black markets dont care if your a proponent of communisim, socialism, captitalism, or any other ideologies used to explain economic theory. When one devlopes to meet a supply for a demand it is simpley the current of economic nescesity doing what it does regardless of what you call it or how you try to control it.
You're speaking of illegal items/trade. LEGAL items are often on the black market in a socialist country.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
There's a huge difference between using an underground economy to purchase luxuries (non-medicinal drugs, prostitutes, etc.) and being forced to use that underground economy to purchase necessities (food, clean water, clothing) because the government can't supply sufficient quantities. This is the kind of thing that happened in the USSR. But only for the common people. The party elite always had enough, with their own private stores.
so·cial·ism
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
so·cial·ism
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Encyclopedia of Economics
* | Socialism
Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. Yet the idea and the ideal of socialism linger on.
Dictionary: so·cial·ism (West's Encyclopedia of American Law.
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
Seems to me all the definitions place ownership and or control in the hands of the Government? Your example does not apply. Grant of land and freedom to set prices for a service are not equivalent to socialism. Ownership of land by the "Lord", their decision as to what a person's work will be, setting the price for that work, now that is socialism. Your eaxmple is actually capitalist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
First you do not know if I am in fact an "Obama detractor" Second I did not exclude anything. You are reading something into my response that is not there. While at the same time ignoring the substance and turning the focus away from the subject and on to me personally. I believe such an action is incorrect within the confines of this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
Because there is nothing moderate about them!
Social Security is actually a moderate program and look how intrusive it has become.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
Administrations do not "amend" the Constitution.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
And this is the most recent amendment!
"Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 5/7/1992
History
Article 1, Section 6 "
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
May be puh-tey-tohes - puh-tah-tohes but the issue is actually called illegal. Black-market transactions typically occur as a way for participants to avoid government price controls or taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Fundamentally flawed ...hmmm. Well it sure wasn't handed down from on high, like the Ten Commandments were. If the US Constitution were divinely ordained, then it would never need to be fixed. As it is, however, it was written by inter alia merchants, trading with the enemy, land dealers, stealing land from the Crown, and other speculators - none of whom saw any reason why they should pay for the defence they had sought from Britain, and all of whom were ready to get the French, Dutch, Russians and Spanish to fight their wars for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
(Yet look how America sneers at Europe now, and the French especially.)
There is nothing sacrosanct about ANY part of the Constitution, and, indeed it has already been amended many times, and even some amendements have been amended.
Funny thing: neither were the Ten Commandments.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
My, oh my, he really does want the colonies back, doesn't he?Quote:
As it is, however, it was written by inter alia merchants, trading with the enemy, land dealers, stealing land from the Crown, and other speculators - none of whom saw any reason why they should pay for the defence they had sought from Britain, and all of whom were ready to get the French, Dutch, Russians and Spanish to fight their wars for them.
In truth, though, these men who stole the land from the Crown (who stole it for themselves simply by weight of arms) were perfectly willing to pay taxes, provided they had some representation in Parliament about how those taxes were used.
All quite true, which is part of the beauty of the document. It was designed to be adaptable, allowing for change when necessary. Which means it's not fundamentally flawed, unless you disagree with the notion that the government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people". There seems to be a growing group within the government who have forgotten, or ignored, that statement. They want people who are servants OF the government, controlled BY the government, and existing only FOR the government to abuse.Quote:
There is nothing sacrosanct about ANY part of the Constitution, and, indeed it has already been amended many times, and even some amendements have been amended.
YES HE IS, change in some ways are good, but for the most part America is wonderful as it is, if we change it to much, we may make the rest of the world happy.. BUT will we still be the U.S.A?, NO COUNTRY IS PERFICT, BUT DAMN WE ARE SO GOOD, FUCK ALL THAT, THIS AND THAT SHIT, IN THE END WE ARE SO GOOD AS WE ARE, WE MUST GROW YES, BUT LET IT BE OUR GROWTH NOT THE WORLDS. WE WILL MAKE MISTAKES AND FUCK UP TO THE HILT, BUT IT WILL BE OURS NOT THE WOLD AT LARGE
Only in the USA would the right-wing be so desperate as to peddle this sort of illiterate nonsense on a bdsm forum. Who cares what the party of white Southern racists thinks? Reagan and both Bushes massively hiked the deficit, and none of them were remotely competent to manage the government. As for honesty, the party of Abramoff doesn't have even a shred of credibility. Under Bush II the economy collapsed, the deficit soared, and we invaded Iraq on the basis of lies. Don't tell us that the right-wing is good for anything. except licking out the public latrines with their lying, greedy, cowardly tongues.
Yes they were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Well, after you left the Empire and went your own sweet way, we did quite well without your help ... reluctant and tardy though it was, and are still doing reasonably well for a nation the size of Kentucky and the population of California and Texas. So come back if you want to: there's always a welcome for the prodigal son.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
However, I doubt many Americans could stomach the tolerant, socially aware lifestyle that prevails in European and Commonwealth nations and it would rebel once again ... I hope not by provoking another world war like it did the first time.
We obtained the colonies by conquest and settlement. Not necessarily noble means of acquisition, but far better than stealing from one's own compatriots: that's treachery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
As for taxation in return for representation, that was mere posturing: (a) you could have had it if you really wanted it; (b) America was already becoming more and more republican in response to the belief that Britain was a den of iniquity and that the only way to prevent the disease from infecting the colonies was to secede; (c) it preferred to trade with the enemy; (d) it wanted to occupy more and more Indian or French territory, despite British Treaties recognising the rights of the Indians/French ...
A beautiful, adaptable, versatile document can still be fundamentally flawed if its provisions are found wanting ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
You final statement reeks of the rantings of the radical right, which does not represent the People at all, but simply a vocal minority paranoid at the prospect of a legally constituted government actually taking its role and responsibilities seriously.
It seems as though a reminder to stay on topic ... and off each others backs ... is needed.
Please do so ...
Instead of calling each other out on your arguing styles ... how about you try just posting some facts that support your opinion? ... just a thought.
Respectfully,
Tantric
Proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
A rag-tag bunch of rebels did all that?Quote:
... I hope not by provoking another world war like it did the first time.
Only if you fail!Quote:
We obtained the colonies by conquest and settlement. Not necessarily noble means of acquisition, but far better than stealing from one's own compatriots: that's treachery.
Well I for one would appreciate someone showing me how the US Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Is it because it protects us from a tyrannical government? Is it because it allows us freedoms rarely seen in the world before it's formation? Is it because of the built in checks and balances which keep the government more-or-less under control? Just what is the big "flaw" here?Quote:
A beautiful, adaptable, versatile document can still be fundamentally flawed if its provisions are found wanting ...
I'm not claiming that either side is in the right here. The radical right is as bad as the radical left. The moderate middle is shrinking. And if the government were,indeed, taking its role and responsibilities seriously, they would not be trying to tear down that Constitution which they swore to uphold and defend! And that goes for conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, left wing and right wing. I play no favorites.Quote:
You final statement reeks of the rantings of the radical right, which does not represent the People at all, but simply a vocal minority paranoid at the prospect of a legally constituted government actually taking its role and responsibilities seriously.
Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
??? Who shouted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathryn Blackthorne
For your first statement - do you really think a little privately owned restaurant (a mom-and-pop establishment) that makes poor quality dishes, is dirty, people get sick from eating there, etc. will stay in business in America?Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
As to the second statement - he wrote positive notes on both systems, as well as negative ones. He was unbiased, no matter what you want to call him.