BCITORGB wrote:
Scott Weiser says:
============
We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal
socialist agenda
================

I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What suddenly
brought that up? Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "socialism"?

He usually does... That's his way of labelling everyone who's not as
explicitly extreme right wing politically as he is.

Don't dare to point out the obvious wrongs and shortcomings of the U.S.,
or he'll take this we're "superior" stance... and he probably believes
it as well. :-)

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Wilko wrote:
BCITORGB wrote:
Scott Weiser says:
============
We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal
socialist agenda
================

I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What
suddenly
brought that up? Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by
"socialism"?

He usually does... That's his way of labelling everyone who's not as
explicitly extreme right wing politically as he is.

Don't dare to point out the obvious wrongs and shortcomings of the
U.S.,
or he'll take this we're "superior" stance... and he probably
believes
it as well. :-)

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Hey Wilko, I don't know about this socialism thing, that has been
brought up. But I would be interested in knowing how your world view
would define the various political systems if not capitalism and
socialism. I am not so much interested at this time in the merits of
the various systems, just what the basic definitions would be. TnT

TnT says:
================
But I would be interested in knowing how your world view
would define the various political systems if not capitalism and
socialism
================

What you're referring to are not political systems but, rather,
economic systems. IMHO, it is dangerous to confuse the distinctions.

Further, I think it useful to begin by agreeing that no economic system
exists in a pure form. We might put the systems on a continuum from
less socialist to more socialist, but most developed nations --
including the USA -- would be located on this continuum.

Most right-wing Americans, for example, are reluctant to admit that the
defense industry is one of the most socialistic endeavours to be found
on this globe. If you don't believe it, ask yourself how many research
facilities are propped up by government money. How many firms in the
munitions and aircraft industry would not exist were it not for massive
government funding?

Marx talked about "government (the people) owning the means of
production." In the USA, the government may not "own", but it certainly
"controls" the means of production in more than a few cases [historical
note: what was the deal with the Krupp industries in the Germany of the
1940's? Is that or is that not a parallel?] The control is clear:
without government monies, these firms go under.

And where are the right-wing Americans when government money is doled
out in corporate welfare to huge agri-business concerns? This money
comes, too often, in the form of cheap water sold (given?) to these
businesses at prices way below the market price.

Why is it that the American right-wing can get their knickers in a knot
over welfare to unemployed poor people, but thinks nothing about
cramming more money than they need into the pockets of agri-business
executives.

Now that's socialism! Capitalism is a long lost and forgotten ideal
(not a very practical or viable one either, BTW).

Cheers,
frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
================
But I would be interested in knowing how your world view
would define the various political systems if not capitalism and
socialism
================

What you're referring to are not political systems but, rather,
economic systems. IMHO, it is dangerous to confuse the distinctions.


I see them as two sides of the same coin, you don't have a political
system without an economic system. They are joined at the hip. You
can't deal with one, without dealing with the other. Though I can
understand your fine line distinction.

Further, I think it useful to begin by agreeing that no economic
system
exists in a pure form. We might put the systems on a continuum from
less socialist to more socialist, but most developed nations --
including the USA -- would be located on this continuum.

I would agree with you on this one, though the identifying
characteristic of the US indicates stronger individual participation in
the social model. It may be in individual corruption, instead of mass
corporate corruption, but even that is changing as we watch Enron, etc.

Most right-wing Americans, for example, are reluctant to admit that
the
defense industry is one of the most socialistic endeavours to be
found
on this globe. If you don't believe it, ask yourself how many
research
facilities are propped up by government money. How many firms in the
munitions and aircraft industry would not exist were it not for
massive
government funding?

Marx talked about "government (the people) owning the means of
production." In the USA, the government may not "own", but it
certainly
"controls" the means of production in more than a few cases
[historical
note: what was the deal with the Krupp industries in the Germany of
the
1940's? Is that or is that not a parallel?] The control is clear:
without government monies, these firms go under.

And where are the right-wing Americans when government money is doled
out in corporate welfare to huge agri-business concerns? This money
comes, too often, in the form of cheap water sold (given?) to these
businesses at prices way below the market price.

Why is it that the American right-wing can get their knickers in a
knot
over welfare to unemployed poor people, but thinks nothing about
cramming more money than they need into the pockets of agri-business
executives.

Now that's socialism! Capitalism is a long lost and forgotten ideal
(not a very practical or viable one either, BTW).

Cheers,
frtzw906

Eisenhower warned us of the growing military/industrial complex after
WW2. We have seen creeping socialism more and more in USA. Not just
Defense, but Education, Arts, Interior resources like national forest
and oil. All we need to do is go out and try to drill an oil well on
your own land, and we would have all kinds of federal visitors telling
us we can't do that. Or try starting a grade school without approval of
some agency. Try starting a resturant, and here come the food
inspectors. And anyone can get a grant for some crazy scheme as long as
you are willing to have Uncle Sam looking over your shoulder.

I am self employed small business owner. If I get too big, I would have
to incorporate, which is just another way that Uncle Sam is always
there. So yeah there is plenty of social involvement in our government.
I choose to stay small and below the radar. I don't take any handouts,
which may mean I will never make the top 500 companies, but that is the
price of freedom, but then my knickers are not in a knot!

I also find that generally the conservatives try to go down the
socialistic slide slower than the liberals, at least in areas that
normally affect me on a daily basis! Selfish isolation, I know, but I
just want to be left alone. Red or Blue, I really don't care the color
of the hat of the task masters! TnT

TnT says:
=======================
I see them as two sides of the same coin, you don't have a political
system without an economic system. They are joined at the hip. You
can't deal with one, without dealing with the other. Though I can
understand your fine line distinction.
=====================

But clearly, from what you've said, you canNOT understand the
distinction. And it is not a fine line.

cheers,
frtzw906
+++++++++++++++++

On 11-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

I see them as two sides of the same coin, you don't have a political
system without an economic system. They are joined at the hip. You
can't deal with one, without dealing with the other. Though I can
understand your fine line distinction.

There are democratic socialist countries, totalitarian capitalist regimes
and everything in between. The choice of an economic system does not
dictate the political system.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
On 11-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

I see them as two sides of the same coin, you don't have a
political
system without an economic system. They are joined at the hip. You
can't deal with one, without dealing with the other. Though I can
understand your fine line distinction.

There are democratic socialist countries, totalitarian capitalist
regimes
and everything in between. The choice of an economic system does not
dictate the political system.

Mike

Just for my CEU. certificate,

Totalitarian Socialist N. Korea, China, Ex-USSR

Democratic Socialist Britain, Canada, Germany,

Democratic Capitalist United States

Totalitarian Capitalist ?????????

Im sorry, I could not feel in the Blank, could you be so kind? Thanks
TnT

Tnt says:
========
Totalitarian Capitalist ?????????
=========

Nazi Germany springs to mind. Chile in a previous iteration.

Although, given the nature of this thread, I'm going to quibble with
you a bit. I'll contend that so long as nations confer welfare (both
individual and corporate), there exist absolutely NO capitalist
economies.

Like communism, capitalism is an interesting academic concept. I'm
reminded of my college physics texts which prefaced questions with
"assuming no friction" in order to make the theoretical concepts easier
to comprehend. In the case of both communism and capitalism, if you
could preface your explanations with "assuming no human avarice, ....
oh hell, let's keep it simple: assumimg no common human traits".

I find it interesting that you should label Canada as DS, and the USA
as DC. What lead you to that conclusion? In your mind, how is the USA
more capitalist than Germany?

Cheers,
frtzw906
++++++++++=

TnT

I have found 2 definitions for you:

(1) An economic system in which the means of production and
distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is
proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in
a free market.

***Here I argue that there exists no free market. Therefore, the
definition is of academic interest only.

(2) an economic system based on private ownership of capital

***In this case Germany, Sweden. Canada, etc definitely qualify as
capitalist. Ever hear of stock exchanges in Sweden? Germany? Canada?
What do you think they trade there? Same thing that gets traded at the
NYSE. But, once again, let's not fool ourselves into believing that
there is a free market. At least not so long as there are only a
handful of oil corps (as just one example) around the globe.

Cheers,
frtzw906
++++++++++++++

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

TnT says:
================
But I would be interested in knowing how your world view
would define the various political systems if not capitalism and
socialism
================

What you're referring to are not political systems but, rather,
economic systems. IMHO, it is dangerous to confuse the distinctions.

Further, I think it useful to begin by agreeing that no economic system
exists in a pure form. We might put the systems on a continuum from
less socialist to more socialist, but most developed nations --
including the USA -- would be located on this continuum.

Most right-wing Americans, for example, are reluctant to admit that the
defense industry is one of the most socialistic endeavours to be found
on this globe. If you don't believe it, ask yourself how many research
facilities are propped up by government money. How many firms in the
munitions and aircraft industry would not exist were it not for massive
government funding?

That does not make them socialistic endeavours. In socialism, the government
would not "prop up" defense industries, it would simply take them by force
and force the workers to produce the products without compensating them.

The US government is merely a consumer of products, albeit a very rich one.
Moreover, the "government" is really we, the people. Thus, defense
industries are but one more producer of consumer products that customers pay
to acquire. The government is merely our agent for the acquisition and
disposition of those products.


Marx talked about "government (the people) owning the means of
production." In the USA, the government may not "own", but it certainly
"controls" the means of production in more than a few cases [historical
note: what was the deal with the Krupp industries in the Germany of the
1940's? Is that or is that not a parallel?] The control is clear:
without government monies, these firms go under.

That fact is what destroys your thesis. In socialism, a "firm" cannot "go
under" because it doesn't exist as an independent business entity. Thus,
communist/socialist governments maintain a monopoly on defense construction
and they don't have to pay either the owners (the proletariat) or the
workers if they don't want to.



And where are the right-wing Americans when government money is doled
out in corporate welfare to huge agri-business concerns?

Understanding that agricultural production capacity is a strategic resource,
that's where.

This money
comes, too often, in the form of cheap water sold (given?) to these
businesses at prices way below the market price.

So? Once again, government support of industry is not socialistic. It's
merely the people of the US, through their duly elected representatives,
choosing to support necessary strategic resources and production capacity.


Why is it that the American right-wing can get their knickers in a knot
over welfare to unemployed poor people, but thinks nothing about
cramming more money than they need into the pockets of agri-business
executives.

Because welfare queens don't produce anything, agriculture does.


Now that's socialism! Capitalism is a long lost and forgotten ideal
(not a very practical or viable one either, BTW).

Welfare is socialism, which is why it ought to be done away with.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser