AG Barr considers socialism to counter Huawei - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15066340
Trump’s Attorney General William Barr said on February 6 that the U.S. and its allies should buy controlling stakes in Nokia and Erickson to counter the growing power of Chinese electronics giant Huawei. The proposals involve "American ownership of a controlling stake, either directly or through a consortium of private American and allied companies," he said.

Of course, for any government to buy up all or any part of a private company and pour money into it is the essence of socialism. Barr is the former general counsel for Verizon, more evidence of the blurred boundaries between those who control government and those who control our communications.

If Barr reflects the official policies of the President, then we have two socialists seeking the highest office in the land: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

https://news.yahoo.com/us-buy-control-nokia-ericsson-fight-huawei-attorney-191517745.html
#15066345
Robert Urbanek wrote:Of course, for any government to buy up all or any part of a private company and pour money into it is the essence of socialism. Barr is the former general counsel for Verizon, more evidence of the blurred boundaries between those who control government and those who control our communications.

That is not socialism, that is nationalism. Socialists want to expropriate private life so that people can have no independent existence from an inner cadre of socialist ideologists.

Nationalists are happy to allow the existence of private life but for the interests of national security may commandeer (usually with compensation) some aspect of private life for the security good. This was why railways were nationalised, why sometimes health care is nationalised, why public mail carriers were a thing, and why private citizens could get drafted for soldering duties.

It is fair to say nationalists are not libertarians but they are not socialists either. The means and motives are completely different.
#15066356
SolarCross wrote:That is not socialism, that is nationalism. Socialists want to expropriate private life so that people can have no independent existence from an inner cadre of socialist ideologists.

Nationalists are happy to allow the existence of private life but for the interests of national security may commandeer (usually with compensation) some aspect of private life for the security good. This was why railways were nationalised, why sometimes health care is nationalised, why public mail carriers were a thing, and why private citizens could get drafted for soldering duties.

It is fair to say nationalists are not libertarians but they are not socialists either. The means and motives are completely different.


Nationalism and socialism often go together.

Caracas, February 27, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— Venezuela’s President Chavez announced a new law-decree, which will nationalize the last remaining oil production sites that are under foreign company control. The nationalizations, which affect oil production in the Orinoco Oil Belt, will take effect on May 1st of this year, until which time companies may negotiate the terms of the nationalization.

Is there any doubt that Venezuela is a socialist country?
#15066357
SolarCross wrote:That is not socialism, that is nationalism. Socialists want to expropriate private life so that people can have no independent existence from an inner cadre of socialist ideologists.

Nationalists are happy to allow the existence of private life but for the interests of national security may commandeer (usually with compensation) some aspect of private life for the security good. This was why railways were nationalised, why sometimes health care is nationalised, why public mail carriers were a thing, and why private citizens could get drafted for soldering duties.

It is fair to say nationalists are not libertarians but they are not socialists either. The means and motives are completely different.

As Engels pointed out, if nationalisation is socialism, then Bismarck was the biggest socialist of the 19th century (hint: he wasn't). The British Labour Party made the same error in the immediate post-War period. They thought that by nationalising heavy industry and transport, that this would achieve a socialist utopia. Lol.
#15066359
Robert Urbanek wrote:Nationalism and socialism often go together.

Caracas, February 27, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— Venezuela’s President Chavez announced a new law-decree, which will nationalize the last remaining oil production sites that are under foreign company control. The nationalizations, which affect oil production in the Orinoco Oil Belt, will take effect on May 1st of this year, until which time companies may negotiate the terms of the nationalization.

Is there any doubt that Venezuela is a socialist country?

Sure, Nazi Germany for an example. It might be Chavez started out a nationalist, he was a soldier after all, so socialism may have been nothing more to him that a philosophical decoration for carrying out what was really a patriotic / nationalist agenda. In a different age he may have worn Christianity for an ideological decoration. His successor Maduro seems more socialist than nationalist though.

There is a little potential in overlap in a venn diagram of ideology but that does not make the US socialist though just because they are worried about the PRC hacking their phone conversations through their pet phone company.
#15066371
SolarCross wrote:That is not socialism, that is nationalism. Socialists want to expropriate private life so that people can have no independent existence from an inner cadre of socialist ideologists.

Nationalists are happy to allow the existence of private life but for the interests of national security may commandeer (usually with compensation) some aspect of private life for the security good. This was why railways were nationalised, why sometimes health care is nationalised, why public mail carriers were a thing, and why private citizens could get drafted for soldering duties.

It is fair to say nationalists are not libertarians but they are not socialists either. The means and motives are completely different.


You need to look up what Nationalism means before stating it as an economic theory. :roll:

Nationalists are strong advocators of their own nation and by and large racists. I doubt any of them are thinking of their private life when they wave St George and perhaps are even pro controls and more government interference to... you know.... exterminate non natives. Although I agree largely with you point that Denmark is not a socialist state (largely stated as such by ignorant capitalist Americans), nationalisation is the means of bringing industry into state ownership. It isn't Capitalism and is the path to Socialism. What determines whether Nationalsation becomes Socialism is how far the government takes the project. Denmark is a Social democratic nation and allows a free market. And as such that is why it isn't a Socialist state.
#15066373
B0ycey wrote:You need to look up what Nationalism means before stating it as an economic theory. :roll:

Nationalists are strong advocators of their own nation and by and large racists. I doubt any of them are thinking of their private life when they wave St George and perhaps are even pro controls and more government interference to... you know.... exterminate non natives. Although I agree largely with you point that Denmark is not a socialist state (largely stated as such by ignorant capitalist Americans), nationalisation is the means of bringing industry into state ownership. It isn't Capitalism and is the path to Socialism. What determines whether Nationalsation becomes Socialism is how far the government takes the project. Denmark is a Social democratic nation and allows a free market. And as such that is why it isn't a Socialist state.


I am not calling it an economic theory. What it is, is a security motivated practice. It is what soldiers do, not what ideologists talk.
#15066382
SolarCross wrote:I am not calling it an economic theory. What it is, is a security motivated practice. It is what soldiers do, not what ideologists talk.


You said "That is not socialism, it's nationalism". That implies that it is a totally different economic model. Perhaps you meant to say that "it is nationisation"? Which then I would agree. But nonetheless, I agree that you should point this out but don't you think it is ironic that Barr is asking Trump to nationalise an electronic giant to counter the state run Huawai. If Capitalism is so fucking great, why are private owned companies not competing?
#15066384
B0ycey wrote:You said "That is not socialism, it's nationalism". That implies that it is a totally different economic model. Perhaps you meant to say that "it is nationisation"? Which then I would agree. But nonetheless, I agree that you should point this out but don't you think it is ironic that Barr is asking Trump to nationalise an electronic giant to counter the state run Huawai. If Capitalism is so fucking great, why are private owned companies not competing?

No because socialism is an ideology contrived for the purpose of controlling people. There is no genuine economics in it at all.
#15066387
SolarCross wrote:No because socialism is an ideology contrived for the purpose of controlling people. There is no genuine economics in it at all.


It is an economic model. That is, it is a model where the state runs the means of production. It isn't a political model at all. You confuse it with authoritarian dictatorships all the time.
#15066389
SolarCross wrote:No because socialism is an ideology contrived for the purpose of controlling people. There is no genuine economics in it at all.

All ideologies are contrived for the purpose of controlling people. This is why Marx generally regarded ideology as a bad thing, and believed that it would disappear once a communist society had been achieved. The withering away of ideology would be the intellectual equivalent of the withering away of the state. But until then, of course, ideologies are a necessary evil. People, after all, have to be controlled....
#15066392
B0ycey wrote:It is an economic model. That is, it is a model where the state runs the means of production. It isn't a political model at all. You confuse it with authoritarian dictatorships all the time.

A "model" that deliberately pushes a highly immoral invasive and consciously destructive ideological-political program in the full knowledge of the catastrophic consequences for human life, including human economics, is not an "economic model". If it was an economic model people could use it to get rich off the stock market, lol.
#15066397
SolarCross wrote:A "model" that deliberately pushes a highly immoral invasive and consciously destructive ideological-political program in the full knowledge of the catastrophic consequences for human life, including human economics, is not an "economic model". If it was an economic model people could use it to get rich off the stock market, lol.


It is an economic model. It is a way to control the economy. :roll:

You can debate that whether it is successful or not compared to Capitalism but you cannot deny it isn't an economic model. I would say Scandinavia have it right actually. That is the free market runs best under Capitalism and essential services work best under Socialism (nationalisation).

Also I will need to point out once again that a dictatorship or a democracy can run a Socialist country. The only objective for Socialism is who runs the means of production.
#15066399
B0ycey wrote:It is an economic model. It is a way to control the economy. :roll:

You can debate that whether it is successful or not compared to Capitalism but you cannot deny it isn't an economic model. I would say Scandinavia have it right actually. That is the free market runs best under Capitalism and essential services work best under Socialism (nationalisation).

Also I will need to point out once again that a dictatorship or a democracy can run a Socialist country. The only objective for Socialism is who runs the means of production.

It is not an economic model, there is literally not one line of any socialist "thought" that has any utility at all in understanding human economics and that was never the intention of any of it ever. It is all just lies and polemics, 100% from top to bottom.
#15066404
SolarCross wrote:It is not an economic model, there is literally not one line of any socialist "thought" that has any utility at all in understanding human economics and that was never the intention of any of it ever. It is all just lies and polemics, 100% from top to bottom.


Do you know what 'economics' means?
#15066407
B0ycey wrote:Do you know what 'economics' means?

I do, you do not.

If I am a farmer and I want to increase my profits to whom would I go to for advice (assume I am not stupid or crazy), an economist or a socialist? That's right an economist.

Alternatively, what happens to the real economists when the socialists take power? I will give you a clue: it involves firing squads and mass graves.
#15066409
SolarCross wrote:I do, you do not.

If I am a farmer and I want to increase my profits to whom would I go to for advice (assume I am not stupid or crazy), an economist or a socialist? That's right an economist.

Alternatively, what happens to the real economists when the socialists take power? I will give you a clue: it involves firing squads and mass graves.


It is the same shit every single time with you. You think Capitalism is synonymous with economics and as such you just chat shit consistently. It isn't. Capitalism is an economic model. Socialism is another model. Socialism isn't and has never had anything to political theory. As I said you can have democracy under Socialism and a dictatorship under Capitalism.
#15066412
B0ycey wrote:It is the same shit every single time with you. You think Capitalism is synonymous with economics and as such you just chat shit consistently. It isn't. Capitalism is an economic model. Socialism is another model. Socialism isn't and has never had anything to political theory. As I said you can have democracy under Socialism and a dictatorship under Capitalism.

That is straight up a lie. That is the shit we get from you all the time.

What was your advice to me when I expressed an interest in bettering my material circumstances? Oh I remember, "eat grass". :hmm: That is some genius "economics" right there. They had to do that, eat grass, in the USSR did they not? Yeah. That is a nice "economic model" you have there. :lol:
Netanyahu: "Women are animals"

Netanyahu's remarks bring to mind this musical num[…]

Biden breaks his foot

Dude... the guy that you support created a whole […]

Election 2020

Why would we treat it as a credible source if who[…]

I still think ''Hellenism'' and ''Judaism'' are […]