obama kills white people

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
i know what it means.

socialism however, comes in varying degrees..this is why i'm a fan of social/democracy aka social/capitalism and not just socialism per se. this makes allowance for the peasants to have truly living funds and means of production to have their businesses in a capitalistic sense. that's where similarities end. means of production cannot survive without peasants to produce. peasants will no longer bear the brunt of means of productions greed..MOP will simply fade and die..no bailouts!

not everything is military black and white.
Are you a fan of imposed socialism or voluntary socialism is the question.



If your answer is imposed, how is it any different from any other kind of system that imposes a central authority?
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
i know what it means.

socialism however, comes in varying degrees..this is why i'm a fan of social/democracy aka social/capitalism and not just socialism per se. this makes allowance for the peasants to have truly living funds and means of production to have their businesses in a capitalistic sense. that's where similarities end. means of production cannot survive without peasants to produce. peasants will no longer bear the brunt of means of productions greed..MOP will simply fade and die..no bailouts!

not everything is military black and white.
So socialism with privately owned means of production?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
So socialism with privately owned means of production?
Wouldn't all means of production be "privately owned" if the means of production is merely the aggregate of INDIVIDUALS labor?

In other words, don't individuals own the results of their labor ?

If they do, then can't they trade their labor for things they want?
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Wouldn't all means of production be "privately owned" if the means of production is merely the aggregate of INDIVIDUALS labor?

In other words, don't individuals own the results of their labor ?

If they do, then can't they trade their labor for things they want?
Look, I know you need attention, but grown folks is talkin. I will get around to your obfuscation later. Right now I'm correcting schuylaar who is misusing words in ways differently from the way you do but I have already been through your arguments for months.

We're just going to suspend this transaction.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
So socialism with privately owned means of production?
yes.

see nordic model.

social capitalism. or sometimes referred as social democracy.

it works well in a place where peoples are notoriously construed as 'happy' living their life to the fullest without the anxiety of a true means of production society because their government doesn't allow this.

the peoples are #1 resource; not the means of production.

specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, promoting social mobility and ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights, as well as for stabilizing the economy, alongside a commitment to free trade. The Nordic model is distinguished from other types of welfare states by its emphasis on maximizing labor force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of income redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

if means of production is greedy; they just go out of business and fade away..the people and government cannot be leveraged for bail out.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Look, I know you need attention, but grown folks is talkin. I will get around to your obfuscation later. Right now I'm correcting schuylaar who is misusing words in ways differently from the way you do but I have already been through your arguments for months.

We're just going to suspend this transaction.
n'awwwwwwwwwww @Rob Roy :hug:

i didn't even realize you needed my attention..i'm sorry..just so busy telling the world..you know how it is:wink:
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Wouldn't all means of production be "privately owned" if the means of production is merely the aggregate of INDIVIDUALS labor?

In other words, don't individuals own the results of their labor ?

If they do, then can't they trade their labor for things they want?
how do you define 'free trade society'?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Look, I know you need attention, but grown folks is talkin. I will get around to your obfuscation later. Right now I'm correcting schuylaar who is misusing words in ways differently from the way you do but I have already been through your arguments for months.

We're just going to suspend this transaction.
Translation = Communists like A.C. believe in the "good kind" of forced relations and thinks individual rights are secondary to the herd.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Translation = Communists like A.C. believe in the "good kind" of forced relations and thinks individual rights are secondary to the herd.
well AC has come from institutionalization.. the military..same as prison for the most part.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
would you vote for this idea?:

Screen Shot 2015-04-28 at 3.38.42 PM.png

according to the us government a full-time job is that of 40 hours per week.

mcdonalds suggested employee budget includes the income from working 2 full-time jobs at 80 hours/week..that is the expectation of means of production in america 2015..that is their solution, the employee is to work 80 hours rather than means of production giving up that penny per share or god forbid no executive level bonuses:shock::

 
Last edited:

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
yes.

see nordic model.

social capitalism. or sometimes referred as social democracy.
That's cute and I'm not even going to get into the merits of it. I'm just going to say that it's not socialist. It's still capitalism. Privately owned means of production, by definition, is capitalism. Oh it may be an improvement over what we have but it is capitalism. I know, you were giving the short answer, a direct yes. To be fair, the Nordic model is not completely private. The important social institutions such as health care and education are not put in private hands the way they are in Merica. To explicate your arguments charitably, I can see that you're conveying your views.

However, what I said originally still stands, you were abusing the word socialism the same way its detractors do. Obama has moved away from socialism and it shows especially with ACA. They call him socialist as a criticism and you were accepting it as endearment. Nonetheless, a socialist he is not.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Translation = Communists like A.C. believe in the "good kind" of forced relations and thinks individual rights are secondary to the herd.
Communism means stateless and classless society. Still waiting for that to happen. Now, privatization like you masturbate to, that's the real coercion.

Individual rights. That's clearly a euphemism for the right to violate rights.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
That's cute and I'm not even going to get into the merits of it. I'm just going to say that it's not socialist. It's still capitalism. Privately owned means of production, by definition, is capitalism. Oh it may be an improvement over what we have but it is capitalism. I know, you were giving the short answer, a direct yes. To be fair, the Nordic model is not completely private. The important social institutions such as health care and education are not put in private hands the way they are in Merica. To explicate your arguments charitably, I can see that you're conveying your views.

However, what I said originally still stands, you were abusing the word socialism the same way its detractors do. Obama has moved away from socialism and it shows especially with ACA. They call him socialist as a criticism and you were accepting it as endearment. Nonetheless, a socialist he is not.
thank you for your thoughts.

i still consider this a social capitalistic hybrid would address many of our issues if implemented.

unfortunately, as much as i like it, we are a too diverse people..too many, from too many lands..it seems to work where most people are the same with trace diversity.

EDIT: people alike would be into the better good..those that are diverse have different applications for the 'better good' based upon their respective culture..not all the same and quite subjective.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Communism means stateless and classless society. Still waiting for that to happen. Now, privatization like you masturbate to, that's the real coercion.

Individual rights. That's clearly a euphemism for the right to violate rights.


Mao Tse Tung called and said you should take a great leap forward, right up those basement steps and get yourself a real job young man!
 
Top