[DanDaMan]

dandaman, you're more concerned about being taxed progressively than you are about eating?

The industrious never go hungry. We do what it takes to eat.
What I am asking is do I get to keep all the fruits of my labors and gambles or shall they be progressively taken from me as I do better?

And I would like to add that the above law is a tyranny overlooked by American Modern Liberals.
Collectivism not only punishes achievers... it starves to death those unable to work.
So state run charity is actually a myth.
American modern Liberals cannot see the society they bring tomorrow.
They only grasp the revolution. They do not think of how the society will actually function.

[QatzelOk]

The industrious never go hungry. We do what it takes to eat.

Please explain this the the 20 million Ukrainian farmers who starved to death.

They were subsistence farmers, and it doesn't get any more industrious than that.

Unless, by "industrious," you meant ruthless and conniving.

[DanDaMan]

The industrious never go hungry. We do what it takes to eat.

Please explain this the the 20 million Ukrainian farmers who starved to death.

They were subsistence farmers, and it doesn't get any more industrious than that.

What government was in charge then?
I am arguing against that style of government here in the USA. It is why I oppose Obama changing this country into something similar to that regime.

[MB.]

In no way does the Obama administration's current agenda resemble the domestic policies of the Soviet Union in the 1930s.

[chuuzetsu]

I am arguing against that style of government here in the USA. It is why I oppose Obama changing this country into something similar to that regime.

Could you list specific policies of Obama to that of the Soviet Union in the 1930s? I don't want Glenn Beck's analysis, either. I ask this because I fail to see how the United States in 2009 and the Soviet Union in the 1930s even have the same historical conditions to make policies like the Soviet Union in the 1930s. The Soviet Union was a backwards country pushing for modernization, and Stalinism reflects that. How the most advanced nation in the world would have to adopt Soviet Union policies is beyond me.

[QatzelOk]

How the most advanced nation in the world would have to adopt Soviet Union policies is beyond me.

Because it's also a failure, as is the entire Modern project.

Humanity never did manage to control nature, or human nature the way the Moderns wanted to.

But it looks like he died trying.

[DanDaMan]

In no way does the Obama administration's current agenda resemble the domestic policies of the Soviet Union in the 1930s.

And Obama never will resemble that outright. That would tip his hand. Not to mention the dynamics of this country wouldn't allow it to play out identically. But that doesn't change the fact that he thinks like a communist and is trying to instate communist values.

Let's face it..
In the last year we have dropped nearly all capitalist thinking and now have state run automotive industries, financial institutions, insurance companies, a government that owns half the homes in the country and wants to literally control our health care.

Bush shares some blame too but Obama, IMO, loves everything Bush did.

Then Chavez says that he and Castro have to watch out that Obama may place them on the right!

[chuuzetsu]

And Obama never will resemble that outright. That would tip his hand. Not to mention the dynamics of this country wouldn't allow it to play out identically. But that doesn't change the fact that he thinks like a communist and is trying to instate communist values.

He can't resemble it because the conditions of the Soviet Union in the 1930s are not the United States in 2009. What exactly is he trying to resemble?

In the last year we have dropped nearly all capitalist thinking and now have state run automotive industries, financial institutions, insurance companies, a government that owns half the homes in the country and wants to literally control our health care.

You act as if people ever really owned their homes.

Bush shares some blame too but Obama, IMO, loves everything Bush did.

Then how is Obama a communist?

Then Chavez says that he and Castro have to watch out that Obama may place them on the right!

Source?

Last I heard, Chavez called Obama a devil and accused him of perpetuating neoliberal policies.

[MB.]

But that doesn't change the fact that he thinks like a communist and is trying to instate communist values.

Dude are you serious? Obama is not a communist and he doesn't think like a communist. He thinks like a middle class white liberal, and his policies clearly reflect that ideological bent.

Only someone astoundingly ignorant of communism, soviet history, and American domestic policy could make the argument that the Obama administration is pursuing or intends to pursue policies that could be described as communist.

So yah, you don't know jack.

[DanDaMan]

communism

noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

Ok... you got me!
Obama currently only owns half the homes in the country and controls nearly all the financial institutions.
And technically there is a republican party in the house that.... wait for it... Obama has said he will push healthcare without!

Facta, non verba. We should judge government, not by its words, but by its deeds.

[chuuzetsu]

"Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right," Chavez joked on a live television broadcast.

Don't you remember that recently Chavez accused the Obama-led United States of planning military intervention against Venezuela? Or is that something you conveniently left out, Dan Beck?

[youtube]27hq0yel6FY[/youtube]

[The Immortal Goon]

That's nice. But it never answered my question as to whether or not I get to keep ALL I earned?

If you don't want to work with everyone else, you don't have to, but it would be about the same percentage of people that currently want to go running naked out in to the wilderness and live off of things they make by hand with absolutely no aid from anyone else in anyway whatsoever.

It would be enforced in the same way that relapsing to feudalism is enforced in capitalism - it would be such a shit idea that it's a laughable suggestion

Your "keeping everything" is something that can never be literally true, especially with the specialization of basic foodstuffs through agriculture.

Further, if "keeping everything" is a requisite for your chart that you just made up (further proving that it's an arbitrary 'whatever I feel like it means' system), then capitalism should be on the far left as it necessarily means that you don't keep everything you make, as you will always lose profit from your labor.

If you make sprockets, and you work hard to make a sprocket, you don't retain your full value in making the sprocket because maintance needs to be made on your sprocket machines, the management and boss that don't make sprockets need to be paid, the distributor needs to be paid, petrol to keep the shipping in order needs to be bought - and all of this comes out of your labor; hence, in capitalism, you never "keep ALL I earned" as the system would entirely collapse if you did.

Your chart just gets less and less credible as you try to pin anything down. That's why everyone rolls their eyes when you trot it out; it doesn't make sense. It's a crass emotional argument, not a useful tool.

[DanDaMan]

Of course there are operating costs and cost of living!

Grasp the reality of life that your operating costs and costs of living are in both capitalism and socialism/collectivist states.

What I am looking at is how the capitalist works for himself and keeps the majority of his pay instead of it progressively going to statism.

[pugsville]

<sigh> Capitalists do not work, they provide capital which buys the labour of others and materials which are they hopefully sold for a tidy profit. A Capitalist is some one having Capital previously acquired wealth which is used to generate more wealth. It's workers who do the work, workers being people not having previously acquired wealth so must labour in order to live. This is an inherantly asysmetric relationship one side has wealth thus power and control that can take or leave proposals the other must sooner or later take what is offered or be without the means to substain life.

Capitalist society is organized for the benefit of capitalists. They have been very sucessfull in this. General one can so the accumulation of concentration of wealth by capitalists makes very enterprizes possible that may not be possible. In the "Free Market" Economy things tend to favour those with the wealth over those with the labour. It's what about what the market will bear rather than whats reasonable or fair.

By the way I really really really dont like Marxists.

pugville

[The Immortal Goon]

Grasp the reality of life that your operating costs and costs of living are in both capitalism and socialism/collectivist states.

Socialism/collectivist states has nothing to do with communism as per the discussion.