Voters steer Europe to the right

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 16:35
VIEWED: 24282
PAGE 20 of 23

PREV PAGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT PAGE

JKIDDO

Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:53 PM

Oh, that's me BTW-

Jkiddo, aka SignyM.

KPO

Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:02 PM

Quote:
Capitalism is natural

There's some truth in that, but it's a bit of a blanket statement, which is why I didn't say it.

Heads should roll

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:24 PM

So Bluesun- are you interested in a discussion?

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:44 PM

I guess I have my answer.

So much for honesty.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

KPO

Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:11 PM

Quote:
the more I talk to Americans and Europeans the more it makes sense.

Do you think Americans with their more acute sense of personal freedom are more suited to marxism then?

Quote:
So I would say that "marxism" brings you freedom from corporate exploitation. Ideally, it would also mean the whithering away of the state (the state

Wasn't marx's idea that socialism was just the step on the way to communism, ie. state controlled everything? Which do you personally favour signy?

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Wasn't marx's idea that socialism was just the step on the way to communism, ie. state controlled everything? Which do you personally favour signy?

Communism was supposed to be the first step to the withering of the state and social class hierarchy altogether.

KPO

Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:42 PM

What, does the communist state implement that withering of the social class hierarchy, and then dismantle itself?

Heads should roll

SIGNYM

Friday, June 19, 2009 12:26 AM

In theory, a "communist state" is an oxymoron.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

KPO

Friday, June 19, 2009 12:35 AM

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say competition and survival of the fittest for businesses, but not that same kind of ruthlessness towards people, that's just callous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But how do you suppose capitalism works???? You pay people the very least you can get away with-- less than starvation wages if you can-- so you can pocket the profit. And EVEN IF you're a capitalist with a heart of gold, those who take in higher profits will eventually either buy you out or simply out-compete you. There isn't any room for charity in capitalism, no matter how generous a business owner feels because he will simply be swamped by those less charitable, and go out of business.

Good argument - so again I believe there's a role for government intervention to ensure that every individual has the freedom of opportunity to reach their potential - there needs to be equal opportunity for everyone (decent standard of education, healthcare etc., for all ). But signy you have to ask yourself if there would really be opportunity in a marxist society that is economically uncompetitive?

Would the wage-slaves in these developing capitalist economies be better off in a marxist country, even if that country's industry loses out, and becomes slowly more and more uncompetitive? What about in ten years, thirty years, fifty years...? Seems to me if you want to be a tiger economy that will lift your people out of grinding poverty, capitalism is your best bet. You have to acquire the wealth before you can spread it around - and it seems to me that wealth is needed to create opportunity, through decent schooling for all, etc. The more wealth you acquire the more you can invest it in your people.

Heads should roll

KPO

Friday, June 19, 2009 1:07 AM

Quote:
In theory, a "communist state" is an oxymoron.

Okay, you two are disagreeing with each other, but it seems to me signy is closer to the mark - this from wiki:

"Communism in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless, and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life."

The thing is, marxist governments never seem to give up power to the people, they always seem to tighten their grip on it. On this basis voting for a marxist party in the hope of gaining more freedom would appear foolish. I would like to see an example of this 'classless, stateless, oppression-free society' though (and then gauge whether it would be worth the loss in economic competitiveness). Has communism had the opportunities for better, more promising leadership, and just missed them? And so generally just been unlucky to have been largely perpetrated by thugs?

Heads should roll

PREV PAGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT PAGE