" Liberalness ... a mental disorder "

James my man, You just seem to harp on, and post your same crap on multiple threads. You know it has been my experience from other forums that the peole who blast gov't handouts are themself feeding at the public trough. The difference is, They feel they deserve theirs. You critizise all the social programs put in by the democrats, but don't mind taking advantage of them. My questiuon for you is, Are you on Social Security? Are you on Medicare? Have you ever drawn unemployment? My guess is , if the answer is yes, you will ignore this post.

 

If his position has merit, that doesn't change if he receives certain benefits from the state. I oppose public roads but still use them. I don't see a problem here.

 

So you oppose public roads, Thats a good one

 

Let me be more literal. I oppose govt ownership of the roads. The term "public" is overused and in some cases improperly used.

 

I am sick of this petty disputes over terminology that you simply dont want to consider. I'll just cut to the chase so we can end this and you can comprehend my point.

No. Use your own explanation and think it through; A free market is a market with little or no state intervention. Now given the US extensive use of protectionism which is ENTIRELY CONTRARY to free trade and hence a MAJOR form of state intervention, not little, and this has not stopped completely nor has state intervention to prop up large businesses there is no way America cna be called capitalist.

Of which capital and business creation were limited concepts requiring regulation by the state. This point is irrelevant however as there was no free market.

Which is a form of state-capitalism! You have just gone round in a huge circle. Perhaps you think my motive is to demonize America or belittle its achievements. Your very first post to me was a (poor) attempts to belittle my own nation. I have not attempted to return the favor, rather to point out the reality of 'capitalism' in the US.

BUT Also requires a free market (in the most maximal sense - so no huge government intervention, like Obama bailouts, or extensive protectionism as has been consistently used by US governments)

No it is both a result and cause - it is a feature - exactly like property rights.

How so? Do you believe protectionism is in keeping with a free market???

No, it doesnt ensure that at all, because the state can still intervene. Let us set a definition of capitalism to determine this (I'll use your sources - look where I highlight):

cap·i·tal·ism (kp-tl-zm)
n.
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.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/capitalism

capitalism
Definition
Economic system characterized by the following: private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services.
Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/713/capitalism.html#ixzz1X5ITKBap

Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

Capitalism
What Does It Mean?
What Does Capitalism Mean?
An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp#ixzz1X5IksRUV

As Rothbard points out, if there is no free market, then there is state intervention or interference and hence a state-capitalist system is in effect.
http://mises.org/daily/1559

Then you can at least agree there are different applications of the term, as I have demonstrated, that economists and theorists of the right and left, have used.

A definition none the less. But I think you have the mental capacity to at least concede the intervention of the state within a state-capitalist system is not absolutely defined?

'hand number'? You mean handful? No. See my graph above. It has been employed extensively by post-Washington governments.

See my links above.

Which is, in YOUR words?

This description does not contradict my assertion.

More like 4 to your three. Most have accompanying descriptions showing the level of state intervention can vary - in this it is not defined, hence my application stands ACCURATELY. Furthermore, the analysis along with my definitions of capitalism WHICH ALL CLEARLY STATE THE REQUIREMENT OF A FREE MARKET, prove my point.

Find ONE economist to back up this absolutely ABSURD claim. JUST ONE.

No they dont, I have given examples. Again, find ONE economist who believes it has "always" been a free market economy. Find ONE PERSON ON THIS ENTIRE FORUM!

Its the best one, no more are necessary to prove my point, but I did mention more actually - government sized, taxes etc. Not to mention state debt, military spending and so forth.

Says the women who thinks the US has had a free market since the early 17th century! HAHA You have no idea how ludicrous that is.

 

What are you an objectivist?

 

I think its YOU who hasn't been paying attention.

I'd like to see evidence of that

if you look at the frequent musinderstanding of globally accepted terms by conservatives such as yourself, what I stated appears to be valid.

exactly my point.

its pretty clear that you have confused a particular interpretation of economics with reality.

 

Why should I consider it? You don't agree with my definition but I'm suppose to agree with yours? Give me a break. In simple terms, you think State Capitalism has various means. Assuming that the rest of the world subscribes with that philosophy, it wouldn't matter what anyone thinks America really is.

Not to mention I asked for you examples several times and you only gave me one example with Reagan which was the most common example. You started your assessment off with your weakest argument. Now it's all down hill from here for you.

You would have to outline what increases protectionism, which you have not. You have only done it from the 1980s. You are simply arguing that because there is state intervention, there is no free market. You're arguing for a pure free market, which is Laissez-faire.

You cannot explain how there was no free market during that time period so you have no case. Saying there was regulation is different from actually pointing it out.

Corporatism is not synonymy with State Capitalism. You've just defined State Capitalism to coincide with Corporatism, which it doesn't.

No. I really don't care what you say about this nation to be honest. I'm not even a citizen. I've just had to explain what makes a Capitalist society over and over on this thread to the point at which it gets very tiring.

No one disputes that Government has been increasingly involved in the Free Market from the Mid 90s to this point in time. You however said that America has never been a true Capitalist country or Free Market Society from the very beginning and that is pretty much not true.

You can consider an economy a market economy but without capitalism it can't be a true free market. You just want to argue what type of free market.

I believe the free market should make fraud and abuse unprofitable.

If you put it like this, then yes when the government intervenes it becomes a state capitalist country. However if you define it the same way everyone else puts it that is simply not the case. State capitalism occurs when the state controls the means of production and the source of all capital. A guarantee of property rights prevent this from occurring. When you have government dictating how production is used in the private sector, it is no lower capitalism. It's state capitalism.

If you want to put it that way but you can't say that your term is absolute because it's used different.

Capitalism is not used differently anywhere. If it's used differently in other parts of the world then it's not capitalism. Plain and simple.

If your definition has real world applications, then state capitalism can mean anything you want it to me. It's only from an analytic perspective. It doesn't necessarily make you correct unless you outline your case, which you haven't done.

What graph? I don't see any graph. You still haven't outline a single point in history. I can give you several but none which are anywhere near the founding era.

Yeah, I see. It is clearly outline in the source. But you have no examples of how it began during the founding era.

Every term I looked up outlined that State Capitalism is a political system in which the state has control of production. Only one term outlined it had various means was the Webster definition?

Of course not, simply because you don't agree with the term. It supports my assertion even more on the other hand.

Four to three? Can you count? When did you give four definitions of state capitalism?

I've given definitions from dictionary.com, oxford dictionaries, your dictionary.com, the English dictionary and the free dictionary.

All you've provided was the Webster definition. If you count your Wikipedia definition -- which more coincides with everyone elses definition. ("State capitalism has various different meanings, but is usually described as management of business and productive forces by the state") -- I actually have six definitions. If you count your Marxist.org definition -- which applies to Marxist theory only -- you have 1 1/2. But I'll give you two. You can have a freebee if you want.

When you tally this all up, it's 6 to 2 (1 1/2?). But nice job moving the goal post and changing the score board.

No you don't. Your source only outlines obviously and well known points in US history like the Vietnam war and the New Deal. These are points in US history I could have told you increased government intervention. But it doesn't go back far enough to prove your point even remotely. Not to the 1870s when it explained how we switched off the silver standard to the gold standard. Not even back to the late 1700s with the Perpetual Union.

That is your definition.

You want me to find economist who thinks America isn't a state capitalist country? Peter Schiff pretty much. We can play this refute experts game until the thread closes. It won't prove anything.

You've only given me one. I've given you one.

Pretty much any economist who doesn't go along with the "state capitalism" rhetoric I would say agrees with my assessment.

Everyone can agree that the government size has increased over the years, but you still have yet to provide examples. Again, your rhetoric falls flat on your face like everyone else.

When did I say that? I said an example of property rights was tried during the 17th century. If you're going to create a straw man, you can at least sound like you know what you're saying.

 

Yes, I guess each person should be resposable for repaving the road in front of his house, wonder who would fix the bridge over the river? That sounds like a plan to me. You ought to put that idea in the suggestion box

 

OBJECT227, I'm sorry for razzen you over your statement, it a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) when you stick your foot in your mouth. But , we all do it on occasion. I'll just let it drop,sorry

 

this is even more retarded than miss J's views

this is stupid. Most of America's economy is private, ie capitalist. Protectionism doesnt mean it is state capitalist. State capitalism is stuff like the nationalisation of a failing bank or whatever.

you should know by now that there are various strands which claim to be Marxist. I will tell you most Marxists today do not consider the USSR state capitalist, I have already explained it was a degenerated workers state.

 

You're just mad cuz nothing good ever came from anything Marx inspired.

There you go trying to push Trotsky on me again.

 

What else do you have to offer than, "You're not paying attention."

The evidence has been overwhelming. I've been closed minded to your particular strand of ignorace.

Nah, you're just stereotypical. Good thing people don't really care about what you think of them.

Your point is that you have no point? That's really pointing the obvious.

Who is talking about economics? I'm talking about you. You've pretty much given up that discussion and lost that argument when your couldn't rebuttal anything. Try to keep up.

 

You never said that.

Well, that's just speculation. The New Economic Policy with their 'State Capitalism' was still in effect. There is no indicator that he would have lost his power.

Who cares? It was government run poll so the options were most likely favored Marx. Out of all the Ancient Chinese, 17th -19th philosophers they could have chosen, they choose Karl Marx. The BBC always writes articles and opinions which reflect the Government's opinion. And I suppose because Marx spent most of the last years of his life in London and wrote is most famous piece of work there has no barring on his decision.

Nope. Nothing out of ordinary about that.

When did I say that they believed the same thing. And they did work together through WWII. They had alterior motives but they were still working together.l

What has he been right about Globalization? All he say was that science and technology are a force of production in their own right. And this was done during the Industrial Revolution. It's not like it was that hard to see.

Huge Capitalist Recessions? Everyone predicted Huge Capitalist recessions. From Adam Smith, John Locke and Frederic Bastiat. He predicted that the cause would be under consumption, which was way off.

The impossibility of socialism in a backward country? Trotsky always thought that it was possible. Not to mention Tanzania and Cuba seems to be doing just fine with their version of Socialism. Not economically anyway.

The impossibility of socialism in one country? Well that's about the only thing he really did get right. In order for socialism to work, 'everyone' would have to be socialist. The moment someone actually decides to be a winner and start producing their own goods and start making a profit, socialism fails.

What right-wing blogs would that be? You can't name any can you. I speak my own words and think my own thoughts. You're the only one who relies on blogs. Haha!

Countries have done their socialist revolution isolated. Russia could have done it as well.

Again with the assumption that he was trying to sabotage everyone else? And what Revolution was Stalin trying to sabotage of Germany? The only German revolution I have ever heard of was the Revolution in the 1918s.

Very few predictions actually came true. Marxian theory is a total flop.

No you don't. You would have answered the question.

Another secret that no one know about. And I can't even look it up or research it so people have no way of actually knowing that it's true. Yeah, I'm suppose to buy that nonsense. I find it hard that barely anyone has ever heard of this book but of course it's a 'secret' that would be convenient.

Yeah yeah yeah that's about the only thing regarding history that historians will actually take you seriously on, because it actually happened.

By that theory they could have always started a socialist country. Russia started being capitalist ever since the 1870s.

That's about the only thing you've said that actually made since. Except for the fact that the German revolution did not coincide with the Russians. The only Revolution which did was the Chinese Revolution and that happened some time before Stalin even saw power. Not to mention that the Spain Revolution happened way after in the 1930s.

What exactly is there to think about? What would be the purpose of sabotaging the Revolution in Spain?

 

You are very correct, MissJonelyn.

This review was also very interesting.

 

No I actually do I agree, in part with your definition. They key I agree with your premise - ON BOTH TERMS. They problem is you wont budge form your silly interpretation of both. To you everything American is capitalism and everything that isnt is whatever else. This is just ridiculous.

No, in simple terms I believe all the definitions are exactly as I describe the only difference being the level of 'state control of economy'. Some say it is "most of the economy" other say "in the economy" and other again say "varying". Point is though its capitalism with EXTENSIVE state intervention. You can at least agree the definitions say that much? The premise of state-capitalism is a capitalist system with extensive government intervention, yes?

I gave you protectionism - no other example is required. I dont think I have to mention all the extensive bailouts. Protectionism and bailouts are the two BIGGEST violations of the free market. You reveal your ignorance by dismissing them. Ever since Adam Smith, protectionism has been defined as CONTRARY to a free market. The fact you dont know or can rebut this point shows you have already lost. Protectionism has been extensively used by US government SINCE AMERICA'S INCEPTION - NOT SINCE REAGAN. Consequently it is safe to say the US has NEVER had a free market, because in between any deregulation has been extensive government support for huge industries - another epic violation of what a capitalist system should be. This doesnt mean it has to be lasseiz faire to be capitalist. We already determined multiple times that capitalism is a system with MAXIMAL (NOT ABSOLUTE) private property recognition and a free market. If it were the case the US only had the OCCASIONAL protectionism, or the occasional bailout, then I would (as I have said REPEATEDLY) classify the US as text book capitalist. BUT IT DOESN'T. It has used these two forces EXTENSIVELY. Hence the state involvement in the economy is not minimal - it is EXTENSIVE. I am not saying (again I repeat it so you get it) that the US economy has to have NO intervention to be capitalist, I am saying it needs to have MINIMAL INTERVENTION. However protectionism and what not are not minimal. I need not provide anymore examples of statism in the US economy because these are two crucial one - ones you have yet to actually address

I apologize, my graph didnt appear. Here you go. I cant believe you seriously think the US has been a free market economy since the 17th century! Do you know what mercantilism is? It isnt free trade.

USA - Federally protectionist since 1792:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism#Protectionism_in_the_United_States
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opinion/06iht-edlighthizer.1.10774536.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10983
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com...ee-trade-vs-protectionism-why-history-matters

By 1816 the US had imposed a 35% tax on most imported manufactures, which rose to 50% in 1832. Between 1864 and 1913 it was the most heavily protected nation on earth, and the fastest-growing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/09/eu.globaleconomy

Ok, define corporatism. I assure you it is merely another form of state-capitalism.

Then why did you begin our first interactions with an (ignorant) attack on my country? Also you haven;t explained what makes a capitalist society - only what YOU THINK is a capitalist society. See below.

You think this is only a recent thing? Really? Why?

How is it not true? I have given plenty of evidence, which you have yet to refute.

Essentially yes, but more specifically what type of market (because a "free" market is a type of market) is required to be dubbed capitalist. America's is way too encroached upon by state intervention to be considered free and hence, cant be called capitalist. Again I am using the classical definition of capitalism - not the Ayn Rand version. This means that, as I said repeatedly above, if US date intervention were still there BUT MINIMAL, so hardly any intervention, then I would consider it a capitalist system. If it had absolutely no intervention, I wouldnt call it capitalist, I would call it anarcho-capitalist.

That doesn't answer my question. Again I repeat it: Do you believe protectionism is in keeping with a free market??? You will be the first person I have ever heard say yes. No joke.

Thanks for finally, at the very least, considering my position.

Again clearly "everyone else" is not "everyone else". Dont be rhetorical. Dont make broad brushed statements that just anger me and dont prove your case.

Which it does in the US. The thing you seem to be thinking however is that it needs to control everything - no definition you have provided says this.

No it doesn't. Private property merely means there is private property. It in no way ensures no government interaction, ownership or control. If everything was privatized, as you seem to be implying, then it wouldn't be a capitalist system it would be an anarcho-capitalist system as absolutely no state control would be allowed or required - there would only be the law.

Which is what the US government does. Protectionism is a key example, hence I use it. It directly forces consumers to choose products dictated by the government, usually domestic.

I never did say it was absolute. You know, if you just revised your history, dropped a political agenda (which it seems you have, but you might not have one which would be good) then you would probably find you are thinking mostly the same as me.

Exactly, hence the US has state-capitalism

 

How so? No it means immense state control/intervention in a capitalist economy.

I have repeatedly done so with one example - protectionism.

Not one definition said "all means of production" rather some or a lot or varied. Again, I am using the term with complete validity.

No, to support your assertion you would have to show how the US has a free market - because the definition of capitalism requires a free market, something the US, nor any other country, has. I asked earlier, since it cant be called capitalist, and you dont think it can be called state-capitalist, what you would call it?

Yes, which doesnt refute anything I have said.

Point out one definition of yours that refutes my use of the term.

Did I not provide nearly 5 definitions? So no its not only mine - by your logic earlier its "everyone's".

You have a reading problem it seems. No I want you to find ONE economist that says the US has had a free market from the time of its creation to now. You have yet to provide an example. You not have to name him but give an example of where this absolutely stupid contention is made.

Where did Peter Schiff say the US has always had a free market? He would lose all credibility if he said that.

Again, name one. Also dont twist me question. This isnt about "state-capitalism" its about your assertion there has always been a free market. Dont twist my question around.

If you are talking about Reagan, here you go:
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
http://mises.org/daily/1544
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/03/05/63361/it-only-looks-different-both-parties.html
http://thenewamerican.com/history/american/6215-reagan-centennial-facts-are-stubborn-things

No you said capitalism has been in the US since the 17 century. This means a free market must have been created. Who supports you on this? NO ONE.
Again, capitalism requires property rights AND a free market, to the most maximal degree, not necessarily complete lasseiz faire, but free in so far as government intervention is MINIMAL. How do we define minimal? Well we begin by seeing if the most MAJOR violations of free trade exist. Protectionism is THE FIRST. Does it exist a lot in the US? Yes it does! Hence no free market.

 

How so? Capitalism requires a free market in the most maximal (not necessarily absolute) sense of the term. Protectionism is the REVERSE of free market, hence the US cannot be said to have a free market.

Just because something is private doesn't make it capitalist.

Yes it does.

No it includes state intervention - bailouts, protectionism all this stuff is part of it.

Yep.

I consider it state-socialist, but state-capitalism, when stretched far enough can esentially been as the same thing, as least they are by Ms J.

 

Well he did inspire class analysis of society, and indeed ideas of exploitation and domination within the economy as he outlined, whilst not entirely correct (if at all) are still notions to be kept weary of. It was at least good he contributed to the workers' movement of Europe, which would inspire future endeavors to obtain workplace rights. Not only this but the anti-war sentiments expressed by himself and others were also positive tendencies. But dont get me wrong, his philosophy generally was quite terrible, particularly his endorsement of statism as a tool against anarchists like Bakunin who argued differently, although often more violently.

ps, I dont endorse Marx, just pointing out some benefits of his work.

 

According to you because you agree with that definition. I happen to disagree and many of the sources I have looked at reflect on your term differently.

Okay. I know you said protectionism, but what kind of protectionism. Tariffs? Quotas? You never said what form and by whom.

It doesn't have to say all the means of production. You won't find a definition of capitalism which says "all means of production" either. You can't move the goal post to justify your own world view.

It is capitalist because Private Property Rights and Rule of Law is guaranteed. These things allow a free market to exist. I said recently that it has been more of a Corporatist Society than a Capitalist, which is not synonymous with State Capitalism.

All of them. You said you didn't agree with any of those terms.

No, I already told you how many definitions that you have provided: Three. One of them was from Maxist.org. The other two were from Wikipedia and Webster dictionary and the Wikipedia definition agreed with my assessment on State Capitalism more.

Pretty much any economist who doesn't subscribe to the ridiculous assessment that America has never been a Free Trade agrees with me. No economist I've encounter has never uttered that America has never been a Free Trade country.

Lose credibility? He's been predicting bubbles and burst ever since the early 90s. If you disagree with him, it wouldn't matter. It's already been established that you are not important.

You're the one who has said that it has always been a state capitalist country. Not me. I'm merely saying that every economist I've encounter or listened to has never uttered that America has never been a Free Trade country.

But if you want an example I'll throw you another Freebee. Professor Don Boudreaux from George Mason University. He pretty much said that America has a Free Market and always has been since the beginning of the Free Trade Zone.

Reagan is the only example you can give. It's been over 10 points and you're still talking about Reagan. America was not founded in 1981. You have yet to outline how Free Trade never existed starting from 1789. You have no case.

Never did I say that. Anyways, it doesn't matter. Pretty much everything you said here and everything you are going to say is irrelevant. Free Market was very strong in the beginning of the founding era. Especially during times of slavery. It gradually got weaker as America grew older. When the Marxist of the forum doesn't even agree with your rhetoric on Capitalism, that's when you know your knowledge of the subject is skewed. Not that Daft's understanding is any better than yours. He wouldn't know a if he were living in a capitalist country if it made him a millionaire.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/free-market-regulation.asp#axzz1X2rJQDuE

Everything else that you've said is irrelevant in this post because I already refute that stuff. Unfortunately I really don't care about wikipedia links, it doesn't refute anything that I've said. The fact that their have always been tariffs means that there have never been free trade? That's ridiculous. Also your wikipedia example on protectionism doesn't refute the fact that a Free Market has never exist. Protectionism is defined as a government intervene which restrict or restrain international trade. There was nothing restricting Free Trade during the late 18th century or all throughout the first half of the 19th century. There only interventions which actually did restrict free trade were during times of war or recession.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy130.html

The Free Market was very strong during the time of slavery. The history of slavery in America the Free Market made owning slaves unprofitable. The economic advantage of hiring a slave is that it's cheaper than hiring a worker. The Free Market continued to make labor more and more efficient so that the cost of the employer for a job that paid the same wages was lower. Not every actually owned a slave. Only the rich plantation owners actually had slaves.

Actually aside from this article there is no evidence of this at all to support how high or low the tax rates were for that time period.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0301a.asp

Other than a few points in American history (1812, 1860, 1874) America has always has a very strong Free Trade. Barely any prominent economics actually thinks that America has never been a Free Market economy.The problem with you is that you think the Free Market should be perfect. It's not. There is no such thing as the perfect system. If you think that, you can go start your own economic system on the moon.

http://youtu.be/7njIlZ2xYq0

http://youtu.be/l-oWOCwpNtw

 

I said it a million times.

He ended the NEP partly because he feared losing power, partly because it wasnt delivering.

Stalin killed the Marxists in Russia in the 1930s

I dont know of anyone who came close to Marx and Engels' analysis. I already showed how inequality played a major part in the two big recessions of the 30s and the current one.

No he didnt. He said that a socialist revolution could start in a backward country, spread to advanced ones, and then the advanced ones could help the backward one achieve socialism.

They arent socialist.

silly analysis. There would already be people making profit at the very start, the starting point is capitalism.

You mentioned some site you get you stuff from.

No country has been socialist

1923 he discouraged the German communists from attempting to take power.

Virtually everything came true.

The link was to a reputable history site. The pamphlet was called "The Road to Resurgence." It was distributed by Kirdorf to Germany's leading industrialists.

another source

"Hitler's pamphlet "The Road to Resurgence" blames Marxism and "the international Jew" for Germany's ills, saying, "The economies of the world's great powers are backed up by their political power. And the decisive factor in economic conflict in the world never rested in the skill and know-how of the various competitors, but rather in the might of the sword they could wield to tip the scales for their businesses and hence their lives" (Hitler has written the pamphlet at the suggestion of the 80-year-old right-wing industrialist Emil Kirdorf)."
http://www.enotes.com/peoples-chronology/year-1927

Apparently just one copy survived and was found in the library of a big industrial firm according to this book..

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...q=The Road to Resurgence. hitler 1927&f=false



and here

need any more? Try google.

Progress, amazing, you actually agree with me on something. And it's a pretty big thing.

What? Stalin did not want anything to do with socialism. He wanted his bureaucratic dictatorship in Russia and capitalism everywhere else. Russia was not properly capitalist in the 1870s at all, you need to read this
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/11/oct.htm
This explains why the Russian revolution happened. Spend 10 minutes reading it. You wont believe how much you learn. Just remember it was limited in content by the Danish government.

I'm not talking about the German revolution, I'm talking about the end of WW2 when Eastern Europe slid into the Eastern Block despite Stalin's wishes that they went capitalist. He was desperately trying to maintain good relations with Britain and America. Stalin, Churchill and Truman carved up Europe between them. Stalin's job was to stop revolutions happening. He failed, so Truman started the Cold War, as a way to get into military intervention in the Greek civil war Stalin had failed to prevent. I'm also talking about China, Korea and Vietnam. In Spain the same policy was applied but the fascists won, mainly because the Stalinists had sabotaged the socialist/anarchist side. It was also applied in China in 1927. Even in Chile in 1973 the Stalinist ideas continued to influence and mess things up, the worst and most tragic example was Indonesia in 1965 where a million died.

If genuine democratic socialism had happened in Spain, the Russian workers would have wanted to overthrow Stalin's dictatorship, so independent workers organisation was crushed by the Stalinists. They attacked the POUM and the anarchists and so on.

 

I'm not the topic of this thread.

if we go back to the OP ...liberalness ... a mental disorder, with the responses of people who take a limited and specific interpretation of terminology, we see they have a lot in common with people who have a mental disorder.

quite often, people who are psychotic have their own interpretation and meanings associated with words, objects and events .. and this is symptomatic of disordered thinking.

people who have a mental dosrder are usually closed to accepting more broadly understood ways of understanding.

there are people here who would make very interesting case studies ...

 

Capitalism is about people who have money using it to make more money. Classically they did this through trade and most importantly production. Recently they concentrated on the parasitic side - finance. They call it capitalism, most economists call it capitalism, the FT calls it capitalism, Marxists call it capitalism. Of course Marx virtually defined all the things anyway. The capitalist class don't care what you think - they like protectionism. They like bailouts and subsidies and tax breaks. They like big contracts off the government. This is the reality of capitalism, and the capitalist class is the group who own the means of production and the investment wealth (obviously that doesn't include pensioners who have a small pension - these funds are simply raided by the capitalists).

yes it is if it is production for profit, as is most of the modern world.

Says who? Regardless, it doesnt, you are wrong, all the economists will agree with me.

support

So you see no difference between Stalinist Russia and modern America? Both are simply 'state capitalist'? Despite the fact that one was almost 100% planned economy and the other is almost 100% market economy?

 

The Govornment needed land for a Hiway .. and Hampton was compensated.

If a State wants to build a highway and someone's property happens to be along the route .. Good luck telling the State to put their road somewhere else.

http://www.ecb.gov.bc.ca/decision/4394159.htm

I hope your other examples are less rediculous than the one I looked up.

Some provinces have nationalized things such as Power and Water. They did not "expropriate" assets of these industries.

You claim to have not claimed that Canada is socialist and the same paragraph say "they are far more socialist". This is confusing.

I agree that Canada is more socialist than the US.

There is no such thing as private property when the Govornment taxes it.

It is "rented" property.

Really ? So if the tax rate goes to 100% that is not socialism ?

Why is it that you Claim "Canada is more socialist". You said it yourself .. Canada has higher taxes.

Taxes = redistribution of wealth = socialism

I should clarify that when I use the term "the state" it means any governing authority .. Fed, State, Municipal.

The collective taxation at all levels is a redistribution of wealth .. roads and schools are part of it but so is health care and military.