I wouldn't know, I happened to be a Reagan loving child at the time. Are you implying something? Do tell...
True, but considering there are about 7 billion people on Earth, your life is very meaningless in capitalism, too. That is if the whole world were capitalist. So, what's the difference??
I was six when Reagan came to office, I wasn't even aware there was any disparity of anything. That would have been a few letters too much for me at six. Granted I grew and learned even 10 letter words and such. Sadly 10 letter words are now a dying thing, I can only hope the disaster that is American Liberalism will follow that road...
Are you saying the disaster of American neoliberalism of Chicago School? I expect that people learn what disaster are these neoliberal policies. Because it only means the bankrupcy of the countries. And what is taking to this disgrace are this policies, deregulation of the markets, theory of the laissez-faire...
Good lord man, the disaster is everywhere. Fitting as it may be, Chicago is only a cog in the rest of this mess. Although, some real attention should be spent at the failure of schools in IL. That was Obama's home and all for.
I think that you don't know to what I was refering... I talked about the economic policies of the Chicago School, Friedman and his students. Their policies are guilt of the crisis that we are suffering. Their policies make more unstable the markets, so is easier to appear new crisis. And it is the opportunity of changing that they are applying. Neoliberalism is the ideology of the theft. Steal to the majority to give to a few.
This is perhaps a more important question.. Seriously, NO system of anything will make any ONE individual matter on the grand scheme of things.
Nothing in the OP of interest - just tired old Troskyite propaganda. This sort of sophistry fools no one. Both Trotsky and Lenin were tyrants just like Stalin. Leon Trotsky He was a mass murderer, not the true champion of the working class. Lenin Paints Himself Black With His Own Words quote: For decades Soviet specialists have debated whether the most brutal features of the Soviet dictatorship stemmed from Lenin or were introduced by Stalin, who in this second interpretation is viewed as the great betrayer of the revolution. But this book argues strenuously for Lenin's responsibility. In this sense, it supports Lenin's most recent biographer, Dmitri A. Volkogonov, a former Soviet general who was the first researcher to have unhindered access to many of the same archives out of which Mr. Pipes's documents emerge. In the Pipes-Volkogonov view, Lenin plotted to foment revolution in other countries even as he sought their financial help; he had lists of unreliable intellectuals drawn up and ordered the secret police to deport them ''without mercy''; he was instinctively secretive and he understood very clearly the value of harshness in wielding unopposed authority; he urged pitilessly cruel treatment of the Russian and Ukrainian peasants who opposed the Communists' rural policies, anticipating the massacres of the Stalinist period. Perhaps most chilling, Lenin ordered mass terror in the Soviet Union, calling it just that: terror. ''It is necessary secretly -- and urgently -- to prepare the terror,'' he wrote in a document that Mr. Pipes places in early September 1918. It is all the more bloodcurdling because of its matter-of-fact brevity. The papers show what Mr. Pipes calls Lenin's ''utter disregard for human life, except where his own family and closest associates were concerned.'' Here is Lenin in August 1918, ordering the leaders of Penza Province to hang at least 100 people: ''Do it in such a way that for hundreds of versts around, the people will see, tremble, know, shout: they are strangling and will strangle to death the bloodsucker kulaks.'' (A verst is about five-eighths of a mile, and a kulak was a well-off peasant.) Having given these instructions, the leader of the Bolshevik revolution orders: ''Find some truly hard people.'' Communists (I use the word to refer to the actual regimes of Cambodia, Russia, China, North Korea, Ethiopia, etc.) have killed something like 94 million people in only about 80 years! No sane person will ever let them near the levers of power ever again. Though of course they always promise next time the true worker's paradise will arrive. lol
Because Wealth Disparity is only a big deal to the jealous liberals of the world and the rest of us are perfectly capable of closing that gap individually in our own lives and don't wish Government to "help" us close it. It is not government's job to dole out the benefits of capitalism. It's strictly "first come, first serve" basis.
No, the individual is supreme. You are not bound to the collective. You make your own decisions and live your own life. Why anyone would want to be a borg uh I mean slave to the collective is beyond me.
Why do big government collectivists get so mad when people talk about individual liberties, and the value of the individual?
No one negates the individual freedom. But you're not talking about individual freedom. You're talking about the freedom to exploit others. It is different. I think that here I am most libertarian, the one that more individual freedom have defended. But never I will agree with your concept of individual freedom, when what you're saying is freedom to enslave the people, or recovery of the feudalism.
Both of us know you did read it. And you shouldn't try arguing it, becuase you know you can't. Everything I said was true, realistic, and undeniable. So therefore inarguable.
you are very correct, Especially when you say, "Capitalism with all of it's flaws, believes in the individuals expertise in knowing what is the best for his/herself during financial transactions. Only "I" can know what is best for myself, because my life is unique, just like everyone elses. A "one solution fits all" govt can only cause havoc in a society. And that is the only type of solutions that such a govt can ever create." Excessively sweet union contracts, open borders, unlimited welfare benefits, income redistribution and free broadband service courtesy of the liberal Democrats! ... Socialism is theft! Pure and Simple!
Well the big stuff has to be planned centrally - energy, public transport, health and so on. These would be run by boards made up of elected people representing the consumer/public, the workers in that industry, and the government (to integrate it with other industries). The board members would get the average skilled wage, would be subject to recall, and would hopefully be rotated every now and then. They would get info from teams of experts eg statisticians, town planners and so on. But planning goes right down to the shop floor and there is no reason why people there shouldn't be directly involved. Good point. Marx wrote about alienation caused by capitalism, introducing the concept to sociology.
Unarguable? Don't me laugh. If you only said nonsense. Liberals are capitalists, and much less communists. Do they nationalize banks, and the means of production? No. Then they aren't. Point.
Well you didn't argue a single thing I actually said. Not only that, but by you saying liberals are capitalists shows everyone on the forum clearly that you do not know what you are talking about. Liberals support more regulations, less freedom, bigger government, higher taxes, more welfare...ALL ELEMENTS OF SOCIALISM. Infact many liberals admit they are socialists plain and simple. You have actually made me laugh.
Ok, first let me quickly deal with the last bit. As I said in the OP and other posts, there has never been a socialist/communist country. The closest was Russia for the first few years. In 1922 Lenin said that they had not even built the foundations of a socialist economy, and that it would be their children or even grandchildren who did so. He also stressed that socialism in Russia was impossible if it remained isolated, which it did. Stalin led a political counter-revolution culminating in the show trials and purges of 1936-7. Cambodia was nothing like socialist. Neither was North Korea. Mao wanted China to be capitalist as I showed in this thread. That plan failed. It's no good just stating this stuff. I already quoted Mao talking about a class-collaboration system, ie basically capitalism. Now then. You quote Lenin saying "It is necessary - secretly and urgently to prepare the terror". You fail to mention that he had just been shot by a terrorist. When Al Qaeda bombed the twin towers America launched a campaign of terror did it not? If someone shot you would you want them on or off the streets? Lenin didn't just do it from a personal point of view of course, this was clearly in the stages of the beginning of a full scale civil war. You talk about Lenin saying to hang 100 kulaks. Again, let us look at the facts. The wealthy peasants were stockpiling their grain. Wikipedia: "As a result, hundreds of thousands of people were on the brink of starvation." So, if he did say it, it was to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Three million Russians had died in WW1. Lenin was trying to end it. The capitalists had started a civil war. He needed food for the soldiers and the workers in the cities. The bit about Trotsky is equally stupid. It says "But the Russian civil war that turned Trotsky into one of the century's most effective amateur generals also unleashed his capacities as a mass murderer. The sailors at Kronstadt, proclaiming their right to opinions of their own about the Revolution, were massacred on his order. " Again. Let's look at the actual facts. Yes of course he was a good general, they built the Red Army from scratch, ended WW1, and had to deal not only with the White armies and other uprisings, but 200,000 troops from Britain, America, Japan etc, plus an economic blockade. In 1921 at the end of the civil war, sailors mutinied at the vital Kronstadt fortress which protected the capital city, Petrograd. They were being used by the Whites. They were mostly peasants, who had replaced the earlier sailors to a large extent. The fortress was an island and was separated from Petrograd by sea ice. The Bolsheviks told them to put down their weapons, and even sent delegates to try to negotiate a surrender. The mutineers refused. In a few days, the ice would melt, and this would mean that British warships would be able to sail right up to Petrograd. The revolution was at stake and they had only a few days to act. As soon as the party congress was over, delegates volunteered. The Reds crawled over the ice and fired on the rebels. In actual fact many people within the fortress turned on those organising the rebellion. Thousands were killed on both sides, mainly on the Red side as they crawled over the ice, but still they took the fortress back. Victor Serge, the anarchist who had joined the Bolsheviks, mistakenly agreed with the mutineers, but still sided with the Bolsheviks' suppression of the mutiny.
Bottling up of almost all wealth towards the top tiny percentage of the population is natural under an unrestricted free market. Even people who work hard and have ability would, for the most part, be poor under such a system. Do you not remember the "robber baron" days? Well, more accurately speaking, do you not remember reading about them?
What does non-anarchy have to do with being a "slave to the collective"? What does that even mean? And really, more importantly, why is being a slave to "the collective" any worse than being a serf to corporate titans?