I rule completely

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Spiffor knows what I mean, and he's not going to rescue you from this one son.

Sorry.

Europe is still largely social-democratic ("Socialist" in the American meaning, i.e. a form of capitalism that has significant economic restrictions in order to protect the people and redistribute income)

Europe is not "Socialist" in the traditional meaning, considering that its economy is inherently capitalistic. It's just not barbaric yet.

The trend in the EU is to liberalize the economy more and more, because, even though the social-democratic principles are still mostly viewed as good ideas even by politicians, they see the current implementation is seen as unaffordable.

In effect, we are increasingly ****ing the working man over. We have just not reached the US level's yet

[Spiffor]

Che: how can a society possibly save money (= amass capital = be able to invest) if no activity makes a profit?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Except Striker was talking about in the US.

He was implying that massive privatization isn't going on in Europe. See the Ted post you quoted yourself.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Che: how can a society possibly save money (= amass capital = be able to invest) if no activity makes a profit?

heh. And you thought I was joking with the freeware response.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
He was implying that massive privatization isn't going on in Europe. See the Ted post you quoted yourself.

Ah. I construed your post as support for his original claim.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Che: how can a society possibly save money (= amass capital = be able to invest) if no activity makes a profit?

Not all the surplus product will be returned to the workers. A portion needs to be saved for future investment and some to be used to help those who are incapable of helping themselves. I thought Marx was fairly clear in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


When you agree with someone you do it in a toolish manner.

By the way, I realized today that you chat on the web exactly like my little brothers...

We're around the same age, so it isn't a shock.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, but I hadn't fully realized yet that you are a little kid

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Not all the surplus product will be returned to the workers. A portion needs to be saved for future investment and some to be used to help those who are incapable of helping themselves. I thought Marx was fairly clear in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

So, what exactly is wrong (read: un-socialist) with autonomously starting an economic activity, provided this activity creates surplus value?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Spiffor

So, what exactly is wrong (read: un-socialist) with autonomously starting an economic activity, provided this activity creates surplus value?

That's not what free enterprise is.

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Odin
No, Capitalism is when investors own the means of production. EMPLOYEE ownership of the means of production is not capitalist.

Employee ownership turns the employees into investors if their are making goods for the purpose of selling them for a profit. If employee ownership is about employee control over the means of production for the purpose of socialist distribution, that's another story.

It depends on if you are talking of a vital industry (like Agriculture, energy, mining, utillities, some construction, public transportation, air travel, etc.) Those should be centrally planned to a greater or lesser extent, but things like entertainment, the arts, resturants, etc. should NOT be centrally planned, bun run as co-ops. You really want Ma & Pa Pizzaria to be nationalized?

[Odin]

Spiffor:

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Spiffor

So, what exactly is wrong (read: un-socialist) with autonomously starting an economic activity, provided this activity creates surplus value?

That's not what free enterprise is.

What is free enterprise then, in the meaning of Odin's system? You accuse co-ops of inherently looking for profit, like any other kind of enterprise. But why couldn't they be simply looking for surplus value, off which they live (just like any person who works)?

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Only Ted Striker rules completely

the same Ted Striker from "Airplane" the movie??