Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#1  Postby Arthur Methoxy » Aug 25, 2013 1:31 pm

Free enterprise refers to a socially parasitic practice built on social fragmentation. It is mandated by a duplicitous government that allows its society to be governed by alien financial and social forces exploiting that society or nation. It is one of many propagandist terms used by an invasive financial aristocracy to endorse their exploitation of society:

The American dream is the name of a doctrine that re-packages and sells the idea of winner-takes-all, or every-man-for-himself, doctrines that undermine and dis-empower society and family.

Profit is the name given to wealth moved out of society and into the hands of the members of an invasive financial enterprise or aristocracy.

Success is the name given to the efforts of individuals working for the masonry of free enterprise who have taken wealth out of society. Such individuals are parasitic in that they operate outside of the social mandate yet absorb its wealth and benefits. They are empowered by duplicitous government.

Freedom of the Individual is a proclamation disseminated by the advance scouts of an invading alien financial aristocracy. It is directed against individuals. Its purpose is to sell the idea of social fragmentation and to create a chaotic aggregate of disparate individuals. It is successful when the society or nation, reduced to an aggregate, loses its power to organize and to repel the forces that threaten it: community threatens a masonic free enterprise and its conspiratorial government and must be removed if free enterprise and its alien financial governance is to succeed.

Supply and demand, regulated through a freely competitive market (capitalism) are terms that describe an attenuated financial slavery in which the supplier/seller of labour is free to offer his labour, or "compete", but only at the point at which he is socially forced to do so. The market is not free in capitalism but is grounded on forced and constrained bargaining, set up by a conspiratorial government working wholly, or in part, against bargaining unions and with the financial forces of free enterprise that are independent of, and exploit, the sellers of labour, their families, community, and society.
User avatar
Arthur Methoxy
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Arthur Mendoza
Posts: 165

Country: Uk
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#2  Postby campermon » Aug 25, 2013 2:11 pm

What is it you want to discuss here?
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#3  Postby Arthur Methoxy » Aug 25, 2013 2:37 pm

Your financial demise and what you tried to do to prevent it. Would be good. Unless you wish to continue to promote a duplicitous, sycophantic, "I'm all right Jack" co-conspiratorial ethic, which I doubt entirely.
User avatar
Arthur Methoxy
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Arthur Mendoza
Posts: 165

Country: Uk
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#4  Postby lobawad » Aug 25, 2013 2:47 pm

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Your financial demise and what you tried to do to prevent it. Would be good. Unless you wish to continue to promote a duplicitous, sycophantic, "I'm all right Jack" co-conspiratorial ethic, which I doubt entirely.


Campermom is in financial demise? That's bad news- I was just thinking how groovy it woud be to meet the guy for drink next time I'm in England, especially as his son is the same age as mine.
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#5  Postby Blood » Aug 25, 2013 2:54 pm

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Free enterprise refers to a socially parasitic practice built on social fragmentation. It is mandated by a duplicitous government that allows its society to be governed by alien financial and social forces exploiting that society or nation. It is one of many propagandist terms used by an invasive financial aristocracy to endorse their exploitation of society:

The American dream is the name of a doctrine that re-packages and sells the idea of winner-takes-all, or every-man-for-himself, doctrines that undermine and dis-empower society and family.

Profit is the name given to wealth moved out of society and into the hands of the members of an invasive financial enterprise or aristocracy.

Success is the name given to the efforts of individuals working for the masonry of free enterprise who have taken wealth out of society. Such individuals are parasitic in that they operate outside of the social mandate yet absorb its wealth and benefits. They are empowered by duplicitous government.

Freedom of the Individual is a proclamation disseminated by the advance scouts of an invading alien financial aristocracy. It is directed against individuals. Its purpose is to sell the idea of social fragmentation and to create a chaotic aggregate of disparate individuals. It is successful when the society or nation, reduced to an aggregate, loses its power to organize and to repel the forces that threaten it: community threatens a masonic free enterprise and its conspiratorial government and must be removed if free enterprise and its alien financial governance is to succeed.

Supply and demand, regulated through a freely competitive market (capitalism) are terms that describe an attenuated financial slavery in which the supplier/seller of labour is free to offer his labour, or "compete", but only at the point at which he is socially forced to do so. The market is not free in capitalism but is grounded on forced and constrained bargaining, set up by a conspiratorial government working wholly, or in part, against bargaining unions and with the financial forces of free enterprise that are independent of, and exploit, the sellers of labour, their families, community, and society.


Like many non-Americans, you underestimate the effects of the Cold War on the American psyche. It's not communism, and that's all that matters to the American voter. Everything else is irrelevant.
"One absurdity having been granted, the rest follows. Nothing difficult about that."
- Aristotle, Physics I, 185a
User avatar
Blood
 
Posts: 1506
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#6  Postby Arthur Methoxy » Aug 25, 2013 3:06 pm

Blood wrote:
Arthur Methoxy wrote:Free enterprise refers to a socially parasitic practice built on social fragmentation. It is mandated by a duplicitous government that allows its society to be governed by alien financial and social forces exploiting that society or nation. It is one of many propagandist terms used by an invasive financial aristocracy to endorse their exploitation of society:

The American dream is the name of a doctrine that re-packages and sells the idea of winner-takes-all, or every-man-for-himself, doctrines that undermine and dis-empower society and family.

Profit is the name given to wealth moved out of society and into the hands of the members of an invasive financial enterprise or aristocracy.

Success is the name given to the efforts of individuals working for the masonry of free enterprise who have taken wealth out of society. Such individuals are parasitic in that they operate outside of the social mandate yet absorb its wealth and benefits. They are empowered by duplicitous government.

Freedom of the Individual is a proclamation disseminated by the advance scouts of an invading alien financial aristocracy. It is directed against individuals. Its purpose is to sell the idea of social fragmentation and to create a chaotic aggregate of disparate individuals. It is successful when the society or nation, reduced to an aggregate, loses its power to organize and to repel the forces that threaten it: community threatens a masonic free enterprise and its conspiratorial government and must be removed if free enterprise and its alien financial governance is to succeed.

Supply and demand, regulated through a freely competitive market (capitalism) are terms that describe an attenuated financial slavery in which the supplier/seller of labour is free to offer his labour, or "compete", but only at the point at which he is socially forced to do so. The market is not free in capitalism but is grounded on forced and constrained bargaining, set up by a conspiratorial government working wholly, or in part, against bargaining unions and with the financial forces of free enterprise that are independent of, and exploit, the sellers of labour, their families, community, and society.


Like many non-Americans, you underestimate the effects of the Cold War on the American psyche. It's not communism, and that's all that matters to the American voter. Everything else is irrelevant.


The Americans have a private language. "Communism" is the name given to a non-existent, Al-qaeda'esque scarecrow designed by their embedded financial aristocracy, specifically to scare the natives. The truth of the matter is that Lincoln's doctrine is socialist (by, for,of the people), while the republican doctrine that seeks the dissolution of government IS Marxian communism.
User avatar
Arthur Methoxy
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Arthur Mendoza
Posts: 165

Country: Uk
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#7  Postby Weaver » Aug 25, 2013 3:51 pm

You see, everyone, the OP has had his ass handed to him in other discussions, so he's following his M.O. by starting another irrelevant discussion elsewhere, which he will shortly depart to pigeon-crap on the chessboard of RatSkep when this one is demolished as well.

Communism was non-existent? Really? All made up by fear-mongering Americans?

Lincoln was a Socialist?
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#8  Postby UtilityMonster » Aug 25, 2013 11:20 pm

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Free enterprise refers to a socially parasitic practice built on social fragmentation. It is mandated by a duplicitous government that allows its society to be governed by alien financial and social forces exploiting that society or nation. It is one of many propagandist terms used by an invasive financial aristocracy to endorse their exploitation of society:


I see a bunch of conclusions without any premises to support them. You have not actually presented an argument that free enterprise is a bad thing. You have, in essence, just called it a bunch of pejorative terms.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:
The American dream is the name of a doctrine that re-packages and sells the idea of winner-takes-all, or every-man-for-himself, doctrines that undermine and dis-empower society and family.


That is not accurate. Capitalism is not winner takes all. In a competitive marketplace, products sell because they are worth more to the consumer than his money. Both the buyer and seller benefit from economic transactions. Moreover, new innovations make both the inventor and society better off. This is also known as progress, and it is why you are using the sophisticated piece of machinery you are using to post what you are posting. In a world where innovation was not rewarded, computers would not have been created. The same applies to most other goods.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:
Profit is the name given to wealth moved out of society and into the hands of the members of an invasive financial enterprise or aristocracy.


Profits are the rewards of efficiency, productivity, and ingenuity. When firms develop things that people want or need and find ways to distribute them to the public, the public rewards them with revenues. A successful firm profits from this good deed. An unsuccessful firm does not profit and goes out of business. As a result, only those businesses that people buy from exist, ensuring that the society's needs are most efficiently met, and that hours and days and years are not spent wasting away producing goods that no one wants.

I'll leave it at that for now.
The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"
User avatar
UtilityMonster
 
Posts: 1416
Age: 30
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#9  Postby Varangian » Aug 26, 2013 5:04 am

There's always room in North Korea for people who don't like market economy...
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7298
Age: 56
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#10  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Aug 26, 2013 6:14 am

Would you like fries with that word salad?
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 28
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#11  Postby Arthur Methoxy » Aug 27, 2013 8:00 pm

UtilityMonster wrote:
Arthur Methoxy wrote:Free enterprise refers to a socially parasitic practice built on social fragmentation. It is mandated by a duplicitous government that allows its society to be governed by alien financial and social forces exploiting that society or nation. It is one of many propagandist terms used by an invasive financial aristocracy to endorse their exploitation of society:


I see a bunch of conclusions without any premises to support them. You have not actually presented an argument that free enterprise is a bad thing. You have, in essence, just called it a bunch of pejorative terms.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:
The American dream is the name of a doctrine that re-packages and sells the idea of winner-takes-all, or every-man-for-himself, doctrines that undermine and dis-empower society and family.


That is not accurate. Capitalism is not winner takes all. In a competitive marketplace, products sell because they are worth more to the consumer than his money. Both the buyer and seller benefit from economic transactions. Moreover, new innovations make both the inventor and society better off. This is also known as progress, and it is why you are using the sophisticated piece of machinery you are using to post what you are posting. In a world where innovation was not rewarded, computers would not have been created. The same applies to most other goods.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:
Profit is the name given to wealth moved out of society and into the hands of the members of an invasive financial enterprise or aristocracy.


Profits are the rewards of efficiency, productivity, and ingenuity. When firms develop things that people want or need and find ways to distribute them to the public, the public rewards them with revenues. A successful firm profits from this good deed. An unsuccessful firm does not profit and goes out of business. As a result, only those businesses that people buy from exist, ensuring that the society's needs are most efficiently met, and that hours and days and years are not spent wasting away producing goods that no one wants.

I'll leave it at that for now.


"Reward" is a charity. It is the name we give to the partial return of frozen or captured wealth to favoured individuals, rather than to society that alone is the creator and supporter of wealth. "Reward" is, in any case, wealth that has been moved out of society by an invasive financial aristocracy.

"Profit" is a financial transition. Profit is not created by individuals or companies. It is secured and validated entirely within the social infrastructure. Profit can be charity or reward, theft or loss of wealth, or if it is returned to its source, an increase of wealth to society. Profit is parasitic on society when wealth creation is retained by firms, businesses or individuals. These stand outside of society yet draw on society's infrastructure (where alone wealth has meaning), for its benefits. In breaking the social contract, profiteers are invasive, and not part of society.

"Capitalism" is as I defined it in my last point. It is founded on unfair bargaining between the buyer and seller of labour.

In capitalism the value of money - wealth - is a product of the infrastructure of society. As such, society should be the first recipient of wealth creation, not the capitalist. Except in the case I drew, where an invasive financial agent has been allowed entry by a duplicitous government.

"Communism"
is a dissolution of government. The republican party have advocated the dissolution of government.
User avatar
Arthur Methoxy
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Arthur Mendoza
Posts: 165

Country: Uk
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#12  Postby Paul Almond » Aug 27, 2013 8:40 pm

Arthur Methoxy wrote:"Communism" is a dissolution of government. The republican party have advocated the dissolution of government.

Pitifully simplistic.

First, Republicans do not want the the dissolution of the state. They tend to be conservatives. Conservatives tend to believe in small government - not no government. They don't think the government should be responsible for social justice - or at least not on anything like the scale that socialists do. However, conservatives do think that the state has a role in preserving social institutions, moral ideas and traditions which have stood the test of time. Conservatives think that the fact these things have survived so long is evidence of their usefulness, and any attempt, no matter how well meaning, to change them abruptly is likely to damage with society. While change may be acceptable, it needs to occur gradually. The state, as far as conservatives are concerned, has a role in protecting all this. So, you are wrong about what Republicans are.

Second, you are wrong about what communism is. In an amazingly display of ineptitude, you seem to think that if you can show that both Republicans and communists have a feature in common - wanting dissolution of the state - then your point is made. The fallacy here, apart from the fact that, as I just said, it misrepresents Republicans, is that it assumes that this is the main feature and that there are no other very important features.

Communism, as proposed by Marx, does indeed say that the state should whither away, and this may be where you have got your stupid idea that communism is dissolution of government. However, it is not the only feature of communism. Marx said that the state should whither away when a communist society had been created - and he thought that such a society should be self-sustaining in the absence of a state. To get to this stage, there had to be a revolution in which the proletariat seized control of the state, and then the state, under the control of the proletariat, had to seize the means of production. All this was intended to produce social justice in the short term, but in the long term to set up the conditions for the state to whither and die - leaving a communist society. Trying to dismantle the state before any of this had been achieved would not have been acceptable to Marx, because it would not have led to a communist society. Even if Republicans did want to get rid of the government (and they don't), it would be idiotic to think that this would make Marxists Republicans, as a Republican would never want the revolution preceding the dissolution of the state , would never want the period of state control of the economy, nationalization of practically everything and confiscation of wealth that follows it and would never want the society that Marx thinks will result after the state has died.

This is as idiotic as saying that the British government after World War II was just like the Nazis because they both wanted... motorways.
If I ever start making posts like "On the banning and partial banning of words!" then I view my life as less than worthless and I hope that my friends here would have a collection to pay for ninjas to be sent to my home to kill me*. (*=humanely)
User avatar
Paul Almond
 
Name: Paul Almond
Posts: 1541
Male

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#13  Postby Regina » Aug 27, 2013 8:42 pm

lobawad wrote:
Arthur Methoxy wrote:Your financial demise and what you tried to do to prevent it. Would be good. Unless you wish to continue to promote a duplicitous, sycophantic, "I'm all right Jack" co-conspiratorial ethic, which I doubt entirely.


Campermom is in financial demise? That's bad news- I was just thinking how groovy it woud be to meet the guy for drink next time I'm in England, especially as his son is the same age as mine.

Campy is a teacher. His financial demise is a given. :shifty:
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#14  Postby Arthur Methoxy » Aug 27, 2013 8:49 pm

Paul Almond wrote:
Arthur Methoxy wrote:"Communism" is a dissolution of government. The republican party have advocated the dissolution of government.

Pitifully simplistic.

First, Republicans do not want the the dissolution of the state. They tend to be conservatives. Conservatives tend to believe in small government - not no government. They don't think the government should be responsible for social justice - or at least not on anything like the scale that socialists do. However, conservatives do think that the state has a role in preserving social institutions, moral ideas and traditions which have stood the test of time. Conservatives think that the fact these things have survived so long is evidence of their usefulness, and any attempt, no matter how well meaning, to change them abruptly is likely to damage with society. While change may be acceptable, it needs to occur gradually. The state, as far as conservatives are concerned, has a role in protecting all this. So, you are wrong about what Republicans are.

Second, you are wrong about what communism is. In an amazingly display of ineptitude, you seem to think that if you can show that both Republicans and communists have a feature in common - wanting dissolution of the state - then your point is made. The fallacy here, apart from the fact that, as I just said, it misrepresents Republicans, is that it assumes that this is the main feature and that there are no other very important features.

Communism, as proposed by Marx, does indeed say that the state should whither away, and this may be where you have got your stupid idea that communism is dissolution of government. However, it is not the only feature of communism. Marx said that the state should whither away when a communist society had been created - and he thought that such a society should be self-sustaining in the absence of a state. To get to this stage, there had to be a revolution in which the proletariat seized control of the state, and then the state, under the control of the proletariat, had to seize the means of production. All this was intended to produce social justice in the short term, but in the long term to set up the conditions for the state to whither and die - leaving a communist society. Trying to dismantle the state before any of this had been achieved would not have been acceptable to Marx, because it would not have led to a communist society. Even if Republicans did want to get rid of the government (and they don't), it would be idiotic to think that this would make Marxists Republicans, as a Republican would never want the revolution preceding the dissolution of the state , would never want the period of state control of the economy, nationalization of practically everything and confiscation of wealth that follows it and would never want the society that Marx thinks will result after the state has died.

This is as idiotic as saying that the British government after World War II was just like the Nazis because they both wanted... motorways.


Communism, like republicanism, wants the removal of the state, of the removal of central government by and for the people. The difference between them, which you have not alluded to, is that in republicanism the state (centralised government) utterly vanishes and is replaced by a caretaker body whose role is simple enforcement of government by and for a corporate capitalist baronry. Communism, on the other hand, being by of and for the people, rejects financial aristocracies and operates very much like many primitive forest communities.
User avatar
Arthur Methoxy
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Arthur Mendoza
Posts: 165

Country: Uk
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#15  Postby Paul Almond » Aug 27, 2013 8:56 pm

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Communism, like republicanism, wants the removal of the state, of the removal of central government by and for the people. The difference between them, which you have not alluded to, is that in republicanism the state (centralised government) utterly vanishes and is replaced by a caretaker body whose role is simple enforcement of government by and for a corporate capitalist baronry. Communism, on the other hand, being by of and for the people, rejects financial aristocracies and operates very much like many primitive forest communities.

Oh. There is a difference now is there? Really? So - you've just claimed that the desired endpoints of Republicanism and communism are actually quite different - leaving aside whether you are even correct on this - and you don't even see a problem with what you said previously?
If I ever start making posts like "On the banning and partial banning of words!" then I view my life as less than worthless and I hope that my friends here would have a collection to pay for ninjas to be sent to my home to kill me*. (*=humanely)
User avatar
Paul Almond
 
Name: Paul Almond
Posts: 1541
Male

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#16  Postby Arthur Methoxy » Aug 27, 2013 9:08 pm

Paul Almond wrote:
Arthur Methoxy wrote:Communism, like republicanism, wants the removal of the state, of the removal of central government by and for the people. The difference between them, which you have not alluded to, is that in republicanism the state (centralised government) utterly vanishes and is replaced by a caretaker body whose role is simple enforcement of government by and for a corporate capitalist baronry. Communism, on the other hand, being by of and for the people, rejects financial aristocracies and operates very much like many primitive forest communities.

Oh. There is a difference now is there? Really? So - you've just claimed that the desired endpoints of Republicanism and communism are actually quite different - leaving aside whether you are even correct on this - and you don't even see a problem with what you said previously?


The republican doctrine that seeks the dissolution of government IS Marxian communism.
User avatar
Arthur Methoxy
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Arthur Mendoza
Posts: 165

Country: Uk
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#17  Postby jamest » Aug 27, 2013 10:10 pm

Arthur Methoxy wrote:
Paul Almond wrote:
Arthur Methoxy wrote:Communism, like republicanism, wants the removal of the state, of the removal of central government by and for the people. The difference between them, which you have not alluded to, is that in republicanism the state (centralised government) utterly vanishes and is replaced by a caretaker body whose role is simple enforcement of government by and for a corporate capitalist baronry. Communism, on the other hand, being by of and for the people, rejects financial aristocracies and operates very much like many primitive forest communities.

Oh. There is a difference now is there? Really? So - you've just claimed that the desired endpoints of Republicanism and communism are actually quite different - leaving aside whether you are even correct on this - and you don't even see a problem with what you said previously?


The republican doctrine that seeks the dissolution of government IS Marxian communism.

Isn't communism a form of totalitarian government?
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18548
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#18  Postby theropod » Aug 27, 2013 11:15 pm

jamest,

Not in an ideal communist state where each person is equal to another. Trouble is there's always some scum sucking asshole that takes power by any means possible all the while claiming the dictatorship he/she creates is the will of the people. Glorious leader kills everybody that even sneezes wrong. To compare the ideal with the examples to date is sortta silly. Human nature. Some people just are megalomaniacs, and every once in a while they attain ultimate power. It just happens that some have cloaked their insanity with the moniker of "communism", while having none of the qualities that would qualify their freedom stifling actions as even close to communism.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#19  Postby jamest » Aug 27, 2013 11:22 pm

theropod wrote:jamest,

Not in an ideal communist state where each person is equal to another. Trouble is there's always some scum sucking asshole that takes power by any means possible all the while claiming the dictatorship he/she creates is the will of the people. Glorious leader kills everybody that even sneezes wrong. To compare the ideal with the examples to date is sortta silly. Human nature. Some people just are megalomaniacs, and every once in a while they attain ultimate power. It just happens that some have cloaked their insanity with the moniker of "communism", while having none of the qualities that would qualify their freedom stifling actions as even close to communism.

RS

I'm not sure I understand. How can communism work without comprehensive governmental involvement?
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18548
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Free enterprise, the individual, and the American dream

#20  Postby chairman bill » Aug 27, 2013 11:46 pm

Weaver wrote:Communism was non-existent? Really? All made up by fear-mongering Americans?
By the definition of communism, communism did indeed not exist. WHat has been referred to as 'communism' bears no similarity to that which Marx or Engels ever described.

Lincoln was a Socialist?

You might find this interesting - http://isreview.org/issue/79/reading-karl-marx-abraham-lincoln

I'm not arguing that he was, but there is an argument to be made nonetheless.
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28319
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest