Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why Not Socialism?: The Right’s red-baiting has been far too effective [View all]gollygee
(22,336 posts)50. The problem is that they're calling only the most extreme, radical form of Capitalism
"Capitalism" and everything else they call "Socialism" and "Marxism"
It's just propaganda.
And what they call "capitalism" is probably better called "corporatism" anyway, as they seem perfectly happy with governmental influence that benefits corporations, but only that governmental influence.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
204 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why Not Socialism?: The Right’s red-baiting has been far too effective [View all]
marmar
Nov 2012
OP
Sweden has a capitalist economic system, with some social programs. Just like the U.S.
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#16
Here is your assignment: look up the definition of socialism, then look up Denmark....
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#43
"Getting paid according to how much time you put is no way in hell a "wage."...???
BlueMan Votes
Nov 2012
#122
They are to fairly allocate 100% of the income to those who work to generate it
eridani
Nov 2012
#154
Irrelevant. What is relevant is that 100% of the take goes to workers, and only workers
eridani
Nov 2012
#176
I don't think so. Why should anyone get to own anyone else's means of production?
eridani
Nov 2012
#190
Then he owns his own means of production. Why should he own other people's? n/t
eridani
Nov 2012
#196
he may own his own means of production- but he needs labor to make it work...
BlueMan Votes
Nov 2012
#198
Exactly- by means of an IPO. If people want to be co-owners they can buy stock in the "company"...
BlueMan Votes
Nov 2012
#201
If they got more of the money that they are responsible for generating, they'd have plenty
eridani
Nov 2012
#204
You really need to learn the definitions of economic and political terms, nadin. Sweden
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#47
Every time I read one of your post it becomes more and more clear why you were banned from Kos.
white_wolf
Nov 2012
#11
Tell that to Volvo, Saab and Mercedes Benz. All companies that succeed in socialist countries
Canuckistanian
Nov 2012
#12
Denmark has a capitalistic economic system, like Sweden. It has a liberal trading
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#23
Yes, if I write a song, I file for the copyright. Unless I sell it or give it away. Period. nt
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#34
If you write a song while you're working for X Inc. and your job involves songwriting in any way
gollygee
Nov 2012
#127
Only if you're not an independent artist, but EMPLOYED by the co. or your CONTRACT
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#175
yeah, there were no writers in communist countries & if there were, their books
HiPointDem
Nov 2012
#33
sarcasm indicator broken? it's the other poster you should be talking to, not me.
HiPointDem
Nov 2012
#82
Probably to better effect than arguing with one who is blinded by Randian horseshit. nt
patrice
Nov 2012
#88
What is the point of doing anything that has no intrinsic motivation? That's what you're saying,
patrice
Nov 2012
#86
We have some social programs in the U.S. What you mean is that people will want
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#27
People have all different ideas in their heads about what socialism means, so
limpyhobbler
Nov 2012
#32
The problem is that they're calling only the most extreme, radical form of Capitalism
gollygee
Nov 2012
#50
Do you think government ownership is an essential trait of Socialism? without it, without government
patrice
Nov 2012
#110
Thank you!! Trying to explain that down-thread & to refute the notion that profit for profit's sake
patrice
Nov 2012
#158
The search I just did didn't think that they are. & Prob is people can conceive of NO
patrice
Nov 2012
#171
It's frustrating because THAT's how things are now for the 1% & Socialist principles try to
patrice
Nov 2012
#174
One major issue to be overcome in these discussion is the conflation of politcal & economic theories
Snarkoleptic
Nov 2012
#75
On some things, I'll take a socialistic stance. For the most part, socialism is crap nt
RomneyLies
Nov 2012
#79
Would you care to be more precise about exactly how that is so? Or shall we just take your
patrice
Nov 2012
#89
Socialust roads, fire departments, and police are cool. Socialist farms and factories sucks. nt
RomneyLies
Nov 2012
#94
I'm honestly interested in why those things suck. Which ones are you referring to? China?
patrice
Nov 2012
#100
Nope, Mondragon is free enterprise. It's a cooperative, but the government does not own and...
RomneyLies
Nov 2012
#108
Wrong. Those who do the work DECIDE all of that. The profits are the workers' NOT a capitalist's.
patrice
Nov 2012
#113
The decision is private in a private corporation, ergo, it is capitalistic. nt
RomneyLies
Nov 2012
#141
Fail: There are MANY private entities that are not capitalistic. Private entities in which profit is
patrice
Nov 2012
#148
Any OPTIONAL secondary goals are served ONLY by profit. Look at our Capitalist history. How can
patrice
Nov 2012
#153
The profits are based upon SOCIAL principles & processes, not the idiosyncracies of Capitalism.
patrice
Nov 2012
#117
What Capitalists has "social welfare and Insurance" as the 2nd & 3rd objectives of FINANCE, link:
patrice
Nov 2012
#123
You mistake the natue of Capitalism. It's SOLE objective is profit. The purpose of profit at Mondrag
patrice
Nov 2012
#129
Me? Tell me that profit is not the SOLE motive of Capitalism. You are the one redefining here.
patrice
Nov 2012
#140
Profit does not enter into the definition, you are adding it to the equation
RomneyLies
Nov 2012
#143
Try to tear yourself away from other support and think. Tell me now, logically, that there'd be such
patrice
Nov 2012
#152
You reject that there'd be no such thing as Capitalism without profit for profit's sake alone?
patrice
Nov 2012
#138
Oh! hoh! That's rich! Perhaps you'd like to discuss the definition of "is". :-)))))) nt
patrice
Nov 2012
#159
Profit for profit's sake alone is clearly proven in the Capitalist financial history of the USA. nt
patrice
Nov 2012
#130
LOGIC: HOW can Capitalism even survive unless profit is it's SOLE motive? Please answer.
patrice
Nov 2012
#142
NONE of those other goals would be goals at all without profit. PROFIT first always, otherwise the
patrice
Nov 2012
#155
What kind of Capitalist allows WORKERS to manage & guide their own education & training?
patrice
Nov 2012
#128
YOU are limiting the entire, REAL LIFE, discussion to an entry in a dictionary. nt
patrice
Nov 2012
#160
So what you oppose is government ownership, i.e. government as CAPITALISM. Me too. nt
patrice
Nov 2012
#114
You are wrong - and - you are narrow-minded & refuse to at least recognize that FACT.
patrice
Nov 2012
#157
Anarchists are socialists and don't think the government should exist at all.
white_wolf
Nov 2012
#146
So we should just ignore all the anarchist writers and theorists because you say they don't count?
white_wolf
Nov 2012
#151
How can anyone who does not identify with a set of values define them? You may HYPOTHESIZE
patrice
Nov 2012
#156
Well, one thing they are doing is assuming that old saw about government owning the means of
patrice
Nov 2012
#105
True! and yet, there must be some essential trait in common that makes it all Socialism, otherwise
patrice
Nov 2012
#107
credit for Obama's re-election is not "owed" to any one group or demographic over others.
BlueMan Votes
Nov 2012
#120
"Am I my brother's keeper?" - Socialism says "yes". Capitalism says "Fuck you."
Tierra_y_Libertad
Nov 2012
#121
Agreed. Socialistic/workers'-profit-sharing for the necessities. Capitalism for everything else.
patrice
Nov 2012
#131
Just talking about the USA & what's doable, compared to 0 change. Perhaps I should point
patrice
Nov 2012
#182
Right on! Health & cognitive benefits from reduced stress = more EFFICIENT economies at
patrice
Nov 2012
#172