Im a Socialist!!!

[theconditioner]

Bump. I'm not posting down here.

 

[theconditioner]

Food for thought:

-As I have repeated numerous times before in these debates, PLEASE DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

-Socialism in its technical definition is not necessarily GOVERNMENT control of the means of production. It is more accurately described as publiccontrol of the means of production- there is a huge difference.

-Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.

-Based on these definitions, you can still have market interactions in a socialist system. Nevertheless, some people have different interpretations (andthus there are many different definitions), so again, DEFINE YOUR TERMS. If not, we can't have a logical discussion.

-Considering human nature, only an idiot would agree that a complete deregulation of markets (e.g. a completely free market) is what is best for people. How would you feel if you had buy a private police force, build roads, etc.? It would be a logistical disaster waiting to happen. Furthermore, it would onlyperpetuate the increasing wealth disparity amongst the population.

You can even see the problem with human nature in respect to the finance industry. I will quote Robert Shiller of Yale on this one:

"The problem is that not everyone is nice and not everyone is high-minded, so financial markets--the success of financial markets is, in many ways, asuccess of regulation. Governments establish regulators who set down rules for participants in financial markets and these rules may be perceived as onerousand costly to people in the financial community, but ultimately it's their salvation and it's what makes everything possible."

 

[cwalk1950]

^ i agree with this guy, most people on here are confusing socialism with communism and they are not the same thing, thats why i said do some research andreally learn what socialism entails and you might find out your a socialist too.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by infamousod

Originally Posted by sam206

Originally Posted by Sputnik

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

Socialism isn't bad. But Stalin and all those other murderers who killed many people in the name of socialism definitely gave it a bad name.

stalin was a hero.

without him, youd be living in Germany right now

co-sign with sputnik
Your dumb if it was not for stalingrad the germans would of won ww2

silly commies

Stalin was a hero? lmao
How hard was is it to simply send millions upon millions of men to die?

If Stalin wasn't such a dictatorial paranoid fool then maybe the Soviets wouldn't have been in a horrible position at the start of OperationBarbarossa.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by theconditioner


Food for thought:

-As I have repeated numerous times before in these debates, PLEASE DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

-Socialism in its technical definition is not necessarily GOVERNMENT control of the means of production. It is more accurately described as public control of the means of production- there is a huge difference.

-Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.

-Based on these definitions, you can still have market interactions in a socialist system. Nevertheless, some people have different interpretations (and thus there are many different definitions), so again, DEFINE YOUR TERMS. If not, we can't have a logical discussion.

-Considering human nature, only an idiot would agree that a complete deregulation of markets (e.g. a completely free market) is what is best for people. How would you feel if you had buy a private police force, build roads, etc.? It would be a logistical disaster waiting to happen. Furthermore, it would only perpetuate the increasing wealth disparity amongst the population.

You can even see the problem with human nature in respect to the finance industry. I will quote Robert Shiller of Yale on this one:

"The problem is that not everyone is nice and not everyone is high-minded, so financial markets--the success of financial markets is, in many ways, a success of regulation. Governments establish regulators who set down rules for participants in financial markets and these rules may be perceived as onerous and costly to people in the financial community, but ultimately it's their salvation and it's what makes everything possible."

It's not matter of regualtion. It's a matter of throwing people in jail who are criminals masquerading as businessmen.
In reality if the system was left to itself there would actually be self regulation. Sometimes.........wait for this one........ the government protects thecriminals.

If this was the jungle how long do you think certain bankers would've lasted, oh say, during the first quarter of this year? They would've prayed for aquick death.

"Regulation" protects the criminals just as much as it protects the "system" that theoretically operates in the public interest.Furthermore, when people say regulation serves the public interest, define "public interest". It is such a vague concept.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by cwalk1950

^ i agree with this guy, most people on here are confusing socialism with communism and they are not the same thing, thats why i said do some research and really learn what socialism entails and you might find out your a socialist too.

That's a %$@#$%*+ semantics argument.

There can be no such thing as "public control" of the means of production. Define "public". Who or what is "the public". Can youcome up with a concrete definition? If this "public" +*!@* me over, who do I go after? The Public?

Socialism invariably turns into communism because socialism is always practiced by the state. Not "the public". The State is an entity unto its ownregardless of the concept of "government of the people, by the people.." yada, yada.
Socialism is inherently a political system underneath all of the rhetoric of economics.

 

[infamousod]

Originally Posted by Sputnik

Originally Posted by infamousod

sam206 wrote:

---

Sputnik wrote:

---

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

Socialism isn't bad. But Stalin and all those other murderers who killed many people in the name of socialism definitely gave it a bad name.

stalin was a hero.

without him, youd be living in Germany right now

co-sign with sputnik


Your dumb if it was not for stalingrad the germans would of won ww2










silly commies
yes stalin did a lot of horrible things, but for every great cause, there are always sacrifices.
Democracy is great and sort of works wells in the states, but i think that russia is most successful under a dictatorship.
The people are more productive.

Also, you are ignorant if you believe that Nazi Germany would have been defeated without the USSR.
The USSR lost 20,000,000 men while fighting the war on the home front.

LMFAO @ more productive under a dictatorship, are you insane?

and a bunch of Russians died in WW2 because they have zero battle tactics and just throw people into battle until they win or the other guys run out ofbullets. Hence why the US sent less people than Russia lost and beat Japan and Germany. oh yeah and if the Allies hadn't beat Germany when they did a fewmonths later they would've just dropped another A-bomb in Berlin. the soviets made it easier to defeat the Axis but that's it. Germany didn't havethe manpower to hold Europe, Russia and Africa at the same time and never would have.

 

[sputnik]

Originally Posted by infamousod

Originally Posted by Sputnik

Originally Posted by infamousod

sam206 wrote:

---

Sputnik wrote:

---

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

Socialism isn't bad. But Stalin and all those other murderers who killed many people in the name of socialism definitely gave it a bad name.

stalin was a hero.

without him, youd be living in Germany right now

co-sign with sputnik


Your dumb if it was not for stalingrad the germans would of won ww2

silly commies
yes stalin did a lot of horrible things, but for every great cause, there are always sacrifices.
Democracy is great and sort of works wells in the states, but i think that russia is most successful under a dictatorship.
The people are more productive.

Also, you are ignorant if you believe that Nazi Germany would have been defeated without the USSR.
The USSR lost 20,000,000 men while fighting the war on the home front.

LMFAO @ more productive under a dictatorship, are you insane?

and a bunch of Russians died in WW2 because they have zero battle tactics and just throw people into battle until they win or the other guys run out of bullets. Hence why the US sent less people than Russia lost and beat Japan and Germany. oh yeah and if the Allies hadn't beat Germany when they did a few months later they would've just dropped another A-bomb in Berlin. the soviets made it easier to defeat the Axis but that's it. Germany didn't have the manpower to hold Europe, Russia and Africa at the same time and never would have.
what youre trying to say is American defeated Germany with a little bit of help from Russia?

its a lot harder to play defense in a war, than to periodically send in soldiers.
The US takes a lot more credit for what contributed than they deserve.

 

[verynecessary]

when did this turn into a wwii debate?

 

[auszero]

Originally Posted by Sputnik

Originally Posted by infamousod

Originally Posted by Sputnik

Originally Posted by infamousod

sam206 wrote:

---

Sputnik wrote:

---

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

Socialism isn't bad. But Stalin and all those other murderers who killed many people in the name of socialism definitely gave it a bad name.

stalin was a hero.

without him, youd be living in Germany right now

co-sign with sputnik


Your dumb if it was not for stalingrad the germans would of won ww2

silly commies

yes stalin did a lot of horrible things, but for every great cause, there are always sacrifices.
Democracy is great and sort of works wells in the states, but i think that russia is most successful under a dictatorship.
The people are more productive.

Also, you are ignorant if you believe that Nazi Germany would have been defeated without the USSR.
The USSR lost 20,000,000 men while fighting the war on the home front.

LMFAO @ more productive under a dictatorship, are you insane?

and a bunch of Russians died in WW2 because they have zero battle tactics and just throw people into battle until they win or the other guys run out of bullets. Hence why the US sent less people than Russia lost and beat Japan and Germany. oh yeah and if the Allies hadn't beat Germany when they did a few months later they would've just dropped another A-bomb in Berlin. the soviets made it easier to defeat the Axis but that's it. Germany didn't have the manpower to hold Europe, Russia and Africa at the same time and never would have.
what youre trying to say is American defeated Germany with a little bit of help from Russia?

its a lot harder to play defense in a war, than to periodically send in soldiers.
The US takes a lot more credit for what contributed than they deserve.

Your "facts" are skewed horribly. About half of you "20,000,000" Soviets died in the war. Pretty big difference. Stalin wasafraid of Hitler and at the beginning didn't want to provoke him in fear of an attack. The Soviets lack of planning led to the early losses of Sovietssoldiers. Granted the Soviets industrialized quickly helped them but in the end the demise of the Germans was based upon them spreading themselves too thin. As for "playing defense," its way easier than planning an invasion. When sending in soldiers you have limited supplies and knowledge of theenvironment. Maybe you've heard of home court advantage, its kinda like that; but you're probably too busy waxing your dad's Nissan altima coupe.

 

[sam206]

Auszero, Stalin was not afraid of Hitler the reason there was no attack was because Hitler and Stalin had a agreement and Stalin let Hitler take over Polandand the would be no harm to the U.S.S.R.
The reason the soviets beat the German was because they bombed everything so the Germans did not have any food or shelter and the weather also helped theSoviets win.
infamousod, the U.S. ain't %^$# with out the other allies (Britain, Russia, France)
The person that made the atomic bomb was not even from the United States, he was German and do you know who that is? It was Einstein because the U.S. could notdo &^%$.
You say Russia has no battle tactics, that where your wrong because the reason the soviets won was because of there battle tactics. They Used the same tacticsthat were used to defeat Napoleon and that was to destroy everything so the enemy had nothing when they advanced.
also one more thing, the only reason the U.S. used the atomic bomb was because the U.S.S.R. said they have 40 days to defeat japan or they will step in and theU.S. was afraid that the soviets will make japan a communist country and they could not bomb Germany with another atomic bomb because all the soldier are notin just one place dumb ***

 

[auszero]

Originally Posted by sam206

Auszero, Stalin was not afraid of Hitler the reason there was no attack was because Hitler and Stalin had a agreement and Stalin let Hitler take over Poland and the would be no harm to the U.S.S.R.
The reason the soviets beat the German was because they bombed everything so the Germans did not have any food or shelter and the weather also helped the Soviets win.
infamousod, the U.S. ain't %^$# with out the other allies (Britain, Russia, France)
The person that made the atomic bomb was not even from the United States, he was German and do you know who that is? It was Einstein because the U.S. could not do &^%$.
You say Russia has no battle tactics, that where your wrong because the reason the soviets won was because of there battle tactics. They Used the same tactics that were used to defeat Napoleon and that was to destroy everything so the enemy had nothing when they advanced.
also one more thing, the only reason the U.S. used the atomic bomb was because the U.S.S.R. said they have 40 days to defeat japan or they will step in and the U.S. was afraid that the soviets will make japan a communist country and they could not bomb Germany with another atomic bomb because all the soldier are not in just one place dumb ***

Youre an idiot. The Soviets invaded Poland at the same time as the Germans. Essentially the Soviets attacked a soverign nation at the same timeand thus entered into war. The two had divided up Europe based upon a non-aggression pact. It lasted til the Germans decided it was time to take out theSoviets, however it was easy for the Soviets to "play defense" in their cold climate. Mein Kampf even outlines Hitlers plans to take over easternEurope as it held resources. Pretty stupid of Stalin to agree to a pact with a super power that he knew would eventually attack.

I never said the Soviets had no battle tactics rather I said the Soviets lost men due to lack of planning. I even commended them for the speed in which theyindustrialized.

You should have a talk with your middle school social studies teacher because Einstein didn't "make" the atomic bomb. He developed the theoriesof energy used to create the bomb but his involvement was limited to a letter to the president regarding the bomb. Oppenheimer made it along with many otherdisplaced German and Jewish scientist. No one held a gun to their head either. Not to mention it was made on the back of American workers who built LosAlamos and paid with their tax dollars for the construction of the bomb.

As for your "40 day" theory you need to do some more research there too. Roosevelt asked the Soviets to enter Japan and they agreed to invade Japan90 days after the war in Europe ended, because they needed time to restock and prepare. They would have invaded Aug 9th. However the first bomb was dropped onAug 6th and the second on the 9th. Additionally they were dropped in an effort to save American lives not because of Soviets threats.

There is a lot more to war than soldiers. You dot bomb "soldiers in one place," you bomb means of production and resources, you interrupt lines oftransportation and communication. I never said America could have done it by themselves but rather was pointing out to the lil' Stalin *&%$ rider thatthe Soviets were far less influential than he hyped them up to be. If it weren't for the Soviets then the war would have lasted longer without a doubt. The non-aggression pact would have let Hitler place all his soldiers on the western front without worrying about Stalin at his back. He got too greedy andspread himself thin. Do some more research dumb ***

 

[theconditioner]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

It's not matter of regualtion. It's a matter of throwing people in jail who are criminals masquerading as businessmen.

So in other words, you're saying its a matter of regulation too.

If this was the jungle how long do you think certain bankers would've lasted, oh say, during the first quarter of this year? They would've prayed for a quick death.

What? You're not being very clear. If you're trying to say that a deregulated financial industry would have solved the problems relatedto the credit crisis, you're severely mistaken. More regulation is precisely what is needed in order to ensure that these circumstances don't ariseagain. If we had no regulation before all of this, you would probably be searching for a job or some food instead of posting on Niketalk.

"Regulation" protects the criminals just as much as it protects the "system" that theoretically operates in the public interest.
Not disagreeing, and that is not the type of regulation that I am referring to nor advocating (as well as Professor Shiller).

Furthermore, when people say regulation serves the public interest, define "public interest". It is such a vague concept.
Why don't you define it? I'm not sure who has used it in the context of this discussion except you.


Edit:

There can be no such thing as "public control" of the means of production.
You're just totally wrong here. Yes, the public can own the means of production.

Define "public". Who or what is "the public". Can you come up with a concrete definition?
The definition depends on how people are using the word "Socialism." There is no right or wrong answer (well, there probably is), butpeople have got to be clear on what they mean when they use these terms. When you use "Socialism", are you referring to GOVERNMENT control? If so,okay, now lets see if your argument makes any sense. Or when you use the word, are you referring to Democratic control by everyone? Or are you referring tosomething else? That is why semantics are crucial. You can't have a logical conversation without knowing what people mean when they use certain words. So the job is on you to come up with a concrete definition. If you can't do that, then don't use the word at all.

Socialism invariably turns into communism because socialism is always practiced by the state.
Not necessarily. Again, DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

 

[ill since 92]

Originally Posted by HOVKid

Fine. I'm not working hard anymore to support your sorry @!%

stop complaining.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by theconditioner

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

It's not matter of regualtion. It's a matter of throwing people in jail who are criminals masquerading as businessmen.

So in other words, you're saying its a matter of regulation too.

If this was the jungle how long do you think certain bankers would've lasted, oh say, during the first quarter of this year? They would've prayed for a quick death.

What? You're not being very clear. If you're trying to say that a deregulated financial industry would have solved the problems related to the credit crisis, you're severely mistaken. More regulation is precisely what is needed in order to ensure that these circumstances don't arise again. If we had no regulation before all of this, you would probably be searching for a job or some food instead of posting on Niketalk.

"Regulation" protects the criminals just as much as it protects the "system" that theoretically operates in the public interest.
Not disagreeing, and that is not the type of regulation that I am referring to nor advocating (as well as Professor Shiller).

Furthermore, when people say regulation serves the public interest, define "public interest". It is such a vague concept.
Why don't you define it? I'm not sure who has used it in the context of this discussion except you.


Edit:

There can be no such thing as "public control" of the means of production.
You're just totally wrong here. Yes, the public can own the means of production.

Define "public". Who or what is "the public". Can you come up with a concrete definition?
The definition depends on how people are using the word "Socialism." There is no right or wrong answer (well, there probably is), but people have got to be clear on what they mean when they use these terms. When you use "Socialism", are you referring to GOVERNMENT control? If so, okay, now lets see if your argument makes any sense. Or when you use the word, are you referring to Democratic control by everyone? Or are you referring to something else? That is why semantics are crucial. You can't have a logical conversation without knowing what people mean when they use certain words. So the job is on you to come up with a concrete definition. If you can't do that, then don't use the word at all.

Socialism invariably turns into communism because socialism is always practiced by the state.
Not necessarily. Again, DEFINE YOUR TERMS!



It's not that difficult to understand. No matter how many times you insist on "define your terms". Something that you probably heardfrom one of your professors and are now parroting.

What is the purpose of regulation? Why does the state interfere in markets? The purpose is to serve a "greater" interest. That greater interest isdefined as the "public interest". The problem is that "public interest" is whatever the state defines it as at a specific point in time. The State is not the public. Never has been, Never Will be.

As for regulation, it runs both ways. Regulation can just as easily protect certain criminals as often as it prevents abuses and crimes. Why do you thinkcorporations lobby for certain regulations. Why would they lobby for the state to place restrictions in their markets? Many times regulation is just a shellgame that protects established capitalists from further competition.

I referred to the jungle in the sense that even a jungle has an inherent set of "regulations". A Certain order and unspoken laws. There is not aninherent need for state regulation. That doesn't mean that regulation isn't sometimes necessary but most of the time it's because the state"failed" to act on existing laws in the first place.

Why would we need more regulation as it pertains to our situation when it solely arose because the FED, a monopoly sanctioned by THE STATE, inflated asset prices through absurdly cheap rates starting in 2002. One of the easier ways to put off economicproblems is to create bubbles and that is what the State in conjunction with the FED did in 2002 after the dot com crash and subsequent economic downturn.
There is no credit crisis. The FED, along with the State, inflated prices and the market simply deflated those prices to reflect reality. Is it a surprise thatthe FED and the State is again attempting to inflate it's way out of problems that were of their own creation?

Again, it's not a problem of regulation. It's a problem of corrupt states not throwing criminals in prison when they ought too. An identical scenariothrough all of human history.

 

[b smooth 202]

wawaweewa
Keep on posting back to back to back responses, and even MULTIPLE edits on those, we don't mind, and your totally NOT cluttering NT.

He earns his money. Has it taken away by force and he can't even complain?

Lifes not fair is it?

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by iLL Since 92

Originally Posted by HOVKid

Fine. I'm not working hard anymore to support your sorry @!%

stop complaining.

He earns his money. Has it taken away by force and he can't even complain?

 

[nash]

Originally Posted by Sputnik

Originally Posted by infamousod

Originally Posted by Sputnik

Originally Posted by infamousod

sam206 wrote:

---

Sputnik wrote:

---

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

Socialism isn't bad. But Stalin and all those other murderers who killed many people in the name of socialism definitely gave it a bad name.

stalin was a hero.

without him, youd be living in Germany right now

co-sign with sputnik


Your dumb if it was not for stalingrad the germans would of won ww2

silly commies

yes stalin did a lot of horrible things, but for every great cause, there are always sacrifices.
Democracy is great and sort of works wells in the states, but i think that russia is most successful under a dictatorship.
The people are more productive.

Also, you are ignorant if you believe that Nazi Germany would have been defeated without the USSR.
The USSR lost 20,000,000 men while fighting the war on the home front.

LMFAO @ more productive under a dictatorship, are you insane?

and a bunch of Russians died in WW2 because they have zero battle tactics and just throw people into battle until they win or the other guys run out of bullets. Hence why the US sent less people than Russia lost and beat Japan and Germany. oh yeah and if the Allies hadn't beat Germany when they did a few months later they would've just dropped another A-bomb in Berlin. the soviets made it easier to defeat the Axis but that's it. Germany didn't have the manpower to hold Europe, Russia and Africa at the same time and never would have.
what youre trying to say is American defeated Germany with a little bit of help from Russia?

its a lot harder to play defense in a war, than to periodically send in soldiers.
The US takes a lot more credit for what contributed than they deserve.

not to get caught up in this plane crash of a thread but it is far, far easier to fight a defensive war than an offensive one...how do youthink that the Confederacy was able to hold out so long against the Union in the American Civil War when the Union had more than twice as many people and farmore money? It was because the Civil War was fought primarily in the South, on the Confederacy's turf.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

wawaweewa

Keep on posting back to back to back responses, and even MULTIPLE edits on those, we don't mind, and your totally NOT cluttering NT.

You afraid for Yuku's servers?
There is an edit function, right? Oh wait, it's probably there to be ignored.
I won't even use the "backspace" key on my keyboard anymore.

He earns his money. Has it taken away by force and he can't even complain?

Lifes not fair is it?

He can at least complain. Can't he?
Better yet, he can use the system to avoid paying his share. Life's not fair right?
It cuts both ways.

 

[theconditioner]

I really don't think you understand what I am trying to say.

It's not that difficult to understand. No matter how many times you insist on "define your terms". Something that you probably heard from one of your professors and are now parroting.
Not really. It's just common sense. Even if I was "parroting" what my professors said, it would be appropriate especially in thiscontext, since people have no idea what they are talking about.

What is the purpose of regulation? Why does the state interfere in markets? The purpose is to serve a "greater" interest. That greater interest is defined as the "public interest". The problem is that "public interest" is whatever the state defines it as at a specific point in time. The State is not the public. Never has been, Never Will be.
That's great. And this has nothing to do with what I am trying to get across.

As for regulation, it runs both ways. Regulation can just as easily protect certain criminals as often as it prevents abuses and crimes. Why do you think corporations lobby for certain regulations. Why would they lobby for the state to place restrictions in their markets? Many times regulation is just a shell game that protects established capitalists from further competition.
You're repeating what you've already said. Many times, yes, regulation is not used for benign purposes. Many times, it is. You arecorrect. That is obvious.

I referred to the jungle in the sense that even a jungle has an inherent set of "regulations". A Certain order and unspoken laws. There is not an inherent need for state regulation. That doesn't mean that regulation isn't sometimes necessary but most of the time it's because the state "failed" to act on existing laws in the first place.
I chuckled. Good one. What planet are you from again? I mean, this is so basic I'm not going to comment on it. The irony is thatcapitalism itself is driven by the one aspect of human nature that you seem to be forgetting.

Again, it's not a problem of regulation. It's a problem of corrupt states not throwing criminals in prison when they ought too. An identical scenario through all of human history.
And again, you're contradicting yourself. You're saying it's not a problem ofregulation, but instead......it's a problem of regulation.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by theconditioner

I really don't think you understand what I am trying to say.

It's not that difficult to understand. No matter how many times you insist on "define your terms". Something that you probably heard from one of your professors and are now parroting.

Not really. It's just common sense. Even if I was "parroting" what my professors said, it would be appropriate especially in this context, since people have no idea what they are talking about.

What is the purpose of regulation? Why does the state interfere in markets? The purpose is to serve a "greater" interest. That greater interest is defined as the "public interest". The problem is that "public interest" is whatever the state defines it as at a specific point in time. The State is not the public. Never has been, Never Will be.
That's great. And this has nothing to do with what I am trying to get across.

As for regulation, it runs both ways. Regulation can just as easily protect certain criminals as often as it prevents abuses and crimes. Why do you think corporations lobby for certain regulations. Why would they lobby for the state to place restrictions in their markets? Many times regulation is just a shell game that protects established capitalists from further competition.
You're repeating what you've already said. Many times, yes, regulation is not used for benign purposes. Many times, it is. You are correct. That is obvious.

I referred to the jungle in the sense that even a jungle has an inherent set of "regulations". A Certain order and unspoken laws. There is not an inherent need for state regulation. That doesn't mean that regulation isn't sometimes necessary but most of the time it's because the state "failed" to act on existing laws in the first place.
I chuckled. Good one. What planet are you from again? I mean, this is so basic I'm not going to comment on it. The irony is that capitalism itself is driven by the one aspect of human nature that you seem to be forgetting.

Again, it's not a problem of regulation. It's a problem of corrupt states not throwing criminals in prison when they ought too. An identical scenario through all of human history.
And again, you're contradicting yourself. You're saying it's not a problem of regulation, but instead......it's a problem of regulation.


You're the one who claimed that we needed more regulation and implied that regulation inherently solves abuses within the economy.
You also claimed that socialism and communism are not one and the same which is just a semantics argument

Capitalism is driven by self interest. However, self interest is many things to different people. I know you'll try to claim that self interest equalsgreed but that is simply not true across the board. For some it is and yet for others it isn't.

I understand what you're trying to say. You prob. don't understand what you're saying because you're simply parroting what you heard in class.
I was spot on that one.

 

[theconditioner]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

You're the one who claimed that we needed more regulation and implied that regulation inherently solves abuses within the economy.

Okay, and?

You also claimed that socialism and communism are not one and the same which is just a semantics argument
Wrong again. But they're not necessarily the same, depending on how you define them. Do you understand that?

Capitalism is driven by self interest. However, self interest is many things to different people. I know you'll try to claim that self interest equals greed but that is simply not true across the board. For some it is and yet for others it isn't.
No, not really. But you seem to be discounting the fact that there are individuals who will do whatever it takes to get ahead.

I understand what you're trying to say. You prob. don't understand what you're saying because you're simply parroting what you heard in class.
I was spot on that one.

Hardly. And this comment has no basis nor point whatsoever, except to attempt to degrade me. You're probably just salty because you'vecontradicted yourself a number of times already.

Lames.

 

[corporatejp]

Mr. Obama...









Welcome to NikeTalk.

 

[dagreatj]

Socialism/Liberalism/Progressives > Conservatives/Fascism/Racism


through Racists because not all Conservatives are Racists, but if you are a Racist you are probably a conservative.

 

[infamousod]

lol@ scorched earth policy being a battle tactic. that's a retreating tactic. you fail.