Why do capitalists attack striking workers?

[Logica Humano]

(18-12-2012 09:48 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  

(18-12-2012 09:47 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Don't bother arguing with this guy. He thinks capitalism as a form of government.

Aww man

I know. I actually thought I could engage in an intelligent conversation with this guy too. Sadly, I was wrong.

[fstratzero]

(18-12-2012 09:50 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

(18-12-2012 09:48 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  Aww man

I know. I actually thought I could engage in an intelligent conversation with this guy too. Sadly, I was wrong.

The thing is I'm not against socialism at all, in fact Russia might have made it if Lenin kept Stalin away from the General Secretary position.

In 1922 the office of General Secretary followed as a purely administrative and disciplinary position, whose role was to do no more than determine party membership composition. Stalin, its first incumbent, used the principles of democratic centralism to transform his office into that of party leader, and later leader of the Soviet Union.

[Logica Humano]

(18-12-2012 09:58 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  

(18-12-2012 09:50 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I know. I actually thought I could engage in an intelligent conversation with this guy too. Sadly, I was wrong.

The thing is I'm not against socialism at all, in fact Russia might have made it if Lenin kept Stalin away from the General Secretary position.

In 1922 the office of General Secretary followed as a purely administrative and disciplinary position, whose role was to do no more than determine party membership composition. Stalin, its first incumbent, used the principles of democratic centralism to transform his office into that of party leader, and later leader of the Soviet Union.

The issue is that communism encompasses both a political and an economic philosophy, and is entirely totalitarian. Communism has inherent flaws, and that is why I believe Lenin was a fool in proceeding with his naivety. For me, it is really an issue with the economic systems they attempt to implement in an effort to achieve its goal of a "classless society". Anyone with remedial education in sociology can tell you that it is impossible to create a classless society.

Socialism, on the other hand, can easily be combined with other economic and political theories in order to create a mixed economy. That is why I am a social democrat.

[I and I]

(18-12-2012 08:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(18-12-2012 08:12 AM)I and I Wrote:  Of course, when one is faced with facts that the relationship between worker and capitalist is not a voluntary one and it never originated in that way, it is better to just have a circle jerk with other people who don't care about facts or history.

Have you heard of NAFTA? oh yeah that's right, you want to get out of the conversation now because everyone knows now that farm subsidies in the U.S. and NAFTA led to a mass exodus of former famers that couldn't find jobs to then migrate to the U.S. Once again proving my point that the relationship between worker and capitalist is never a voluntary one, as in the case of the affects of NAFTA and many other past examples.

Oh yeah that's right, you are too busy ignoring history to be able to stay in the conversation.

No, it's because you bring an agenda to every question, and pose them in such a way that they are "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions.

If you would like to actually discuss things, it would be refreshing.

So you should stop beating your wife and discuss politics more often.

[I and I]

Whether one can define capitalist as an economic or political system is simply semantics when looked at historically.

Historically governments under a capitalist system are governments that are subservient to the capitalist class and are used by the capitalist class to promote capitalist expansion domestically or through foreign policy. Not to mention most if not all of government officials come from/are heavily supported by/and when they retire from public office go back to the business world in some way.

To deny that governments under capitalism have historically been used to promote capitalist expansion through foreign policy is simply to deny history.

[fstratzero]

(19-12-2012 01:27 PM)I and I Wrote:  Whether one can define capitalist as an economic or political system is simply semantics when looked at historically.

Historically governments under a capitalist system are governments that are subservient to the capitalist class and are used by the capitalist class to promote capitalist expansion domestically or through foreign policy. Not to mention most if not all of government officials come from/are heavily supported by/and when they retire from public office go back to the business world in some way.

To deny that governments under capitalism have historically been used to promote capitalist expansion through foreign policy is simply to deny history.

I think the interesting thing is that we now have mega-corporations that exist with out borders, somewhat resembling monarchies at economic war with one another.

[I and I]

(19-12-2012 02:28 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  

(19-12-2012 01:27 PM)I and I Wrote:  Whether one can define capitalist as an economic or political system is simply semantics when looked at historically.

Historically governments under a capitalist system are governments that are subservient to the capitalist class and are used by the capitalist class to promote capitalist expansion domestically or through foreign policy. Not to mention most if not all of government officials come from/are heavily supported by/and when they retire from public office go back to the business world in some way.

To deny that governments under capitalism have historically been used to promote capitalist expansion through foreign policy is simply to deny history.

I think the interesting thing is that we now have mega-corporations that exist with out borders, somewhat resembling monarchies at economic war with one another.

Yes this is true, they don't have borders as in nations they have allegiance to, however this just means that they now influence and manipulate government policies of more nations.

Look at how the banks simply can dictate to greeks what policies they must implement. The western spring (in the west known as the arab spring) saw the appointing of several pro-western leaders, even Morsi of egypt is gladly taking IMF loans. IMF loans are kind of old school in that most leaders know that scam by now.

Austerity basically means the capitalist class will continue to have record profits while the ordinary citizen becomes poorer, look at the crisis in the U.S. the economy as a whole is getting worse but the corporate ran government of course pushed through the bail outs and further bail outs under different names. Greece was the guinea pig.

[FZUMedia]

People like this want to destroy society. Soviet dictatorship killed way more than the nazi party ever did, and you are discussing the fine details? As if tens of millions were killed because of a small problem, not that anything was fundamentally flawed.

[Logica Humano]

So is that video supposed to mean something?

Socialism =/= Soviet Dictator + Millions of dead

[FZUMedia]

(20-12-2012 01:28 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  So is that video supposed to mean something?

Socialism =/= Soviet Dictator + Millions of dead

Anyone that calls themself socialist needs to go to therapy.