reply to post by daskakik
Why do you get to use the most widely used term of communism but choose the least widely used, and probably never seen, definition of capitalism?
Then you haven't seen much? You quote something that talks about ownership, yes we own things... You don't think that is a good idea? Come on now...
You work, you buy something and then you own it... You really have a problem with that? It wasn't brought up because it is a non issue!
Personally I don't advocate anything. All systems are the same. You can come across dozens of posts by ElectricUniverse, who is strongly
anti-communist, stating that in communist countries the party members and those with ties to them are better off than the rest. There are also many
countries that are capitalist with oppressive governments. It would seem that political labels are not good indicators of content.
I'm not talking about what is going on here today though, I'm talking about the bare bones ideology... We do not have capitalism... If you take anoks
version of communism and it seems pretty popular lol... Then I think you can argue that some of it has been done with disastrous effect but anyway it
is immoral to steal off people wouldn't you say?... True free market capitalism has never been done, except for perhaps at the beginning of foundation
of america, it worked perfectly until the government started to grow... What a surprise!
I'll play devils advocate and say the bailouts were pure capitalism. Why? Are the banks privately owned? Yes. Did the move help them increase profits?
Yes. According to this definition:
You are not playing devils advocate you are playing statist advocate lol... Your definition says nothing about the government stealing off people and
then giving to the banks though does it? It says " or through a state apparatus" through is the important word here... It is talking about
sub-contracting for the government or on behalf of them.
it would seem that it was a capitalistic venture.
Only if you misinterpret the definition...
As for the video I hate to break it to you but that is what Anok means by socialism.
I have not talked with anok about socialism all too much so I don't exactly see what you are breaking to me? Anok would HATE these people because they
collectively OWN the land and means of production, just like a damn corporation would! Anok and his merry men couldn't just go there and work, it is
private property, one of the 7 owners says that himself...
Tell me, how are these 7 owners any different from 7 shareholders?
You said it yourself "It would of been better if they ALL owned it". I think Anok would agree.
Well it seemed actually that non of the workers owned it, 7 people did, shareholders... This is capitalism with a more generous laid back boss! Tell
me, what is there to stop those 7 owners selling up?
Anok doesn't believe in ownership so he would not approve! He thinks everyone should own that land and means to production... So these 49 families nor
the 7 shareholders could own this land... It belongs to all the people of the country... He also doesn't like people that work for profit, as these
edit on 17-11-2012 by mee30 because: (no reason given)
Edit: Oh I see your stealth edit there lol... least realistic? basically I am taking it from the other side of the glass but it is the same... I'm
talking about purchasing and you are talking about selling, simple as that really... But yes I wholeheartedly advocate property rights.
17-11-2012 by mee30 because: (no reason given)