Capitalism and Socialism

Napisano przez Ludditez, 15.11.2018 at 19:13

Am curious...
amongst many other names...
last name suggested muslim ? influence.
this one german/jewish.
in christian clan.
in israel ?
why so much indicision regarding your identity,yet so certain about german history that is not entirely accurate ?

I am Jewish and my family is German. The Muslim thing was a joke.

Ok,
so you're aware that german jews received highest number of military awards relative to all german/ethnic groups during WWI ?

Napisano przez Ludditez, 15.11.2018 at 19:25

Ok,
so you're aware that german jews received highest number of military awards relative to all german/ethnic groups during WWI ?

Yes, I am.

Napisano przez boywind2, 15.11.2018 at 19:18

Napisano przez Ludditez, 15.11.2018 at 19:00

Is your english not so good...
dreshler was german workers party,hitler added national socialist to the name nsdap(German spelling)abbreviated to nazi.

oh & wikishitia no verification when info posted on site = anyone can post"facts"containing inaccurate data & it's not rectified by site.
hence reliance upon not always accurate info would therefore lessen valid statements.

Just because Hitler changed the name of the party, doesn't mean it wasn't the German worker's party. It is literally the same party.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/background-and-overview-of-the-nazi-party-nsdap

Anyone can post "facts". However, those are almost always instantly removed by the Wikipedia team. It's not 100% reliable; however, it is reliable most of the time. Also, the page has citations so that you can verify the validity of the statements from the original source.

indeed few are then you'll understand amongst many other nazi failings how ironic they destroyed their potentially most efficient fighting force !

thought i quantified my statement regarding wikishite
it was not"literally"the same party we could go on for ages back & forth but historical fact from any viewpoint is what it is.
irony of it is that hitlers ally"joe stalin"persued same policies,some before & beyond hitler.
pograms & genocide were a part of stalins trust no one/lead by fear stance.
all but forgotten because he was"an ally".

am done with this now.it's no more than (almost a) 100years old rehash.
doubtless will converse with you about outhr things in the future.???

Napisano przez Ludditez, 15.11.2018 at 19:41

Napisano przez boywind2, 15.11.2018 at 19:18

Napisano przez Ludditez, 15.11.2018 at 19:00

Is your english not so good...
dreshler was german workers party,hitler added national socialist to the name nsdap(German spelling)abbreviated to nazi.

oh & wikishitia no verification when info posted on site = anyone can post"facts"containing inaccurate data & it's not rectified by site.
hence reliance upon not always accurate info would therefore lessen valid statements.

Just because Hitler changed the name of the party, doesn't mean it wasn't the German worker's party. It is literally the same party.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/background-and-overview-of-the-nazi-party-nsdap

Anyone can post "facts". However, those are almost always instantly removed by the Wikipedia team. It's not 100% reliable; however, it is reliable most of the time. Also, the page has citations so that you can verify the validity of the statements from the original source.

indeed few are then you'll understand amongst many other nazi failings how ironic they destroyed their potentially most efficient fighting force !

thought i quantified my statement regarding wikishite
it was not"literally"the same party we could go on for ages back & forth but historical fact from any viewpoint is what it is.
irony of it is that hitlers ally"joe stalin"persued same policies,some before & beyond hitler.
pograms & genocide were a part of stalins trust no one/lead by fear stance.
all but forgotten because he was"an ally".

Forgotten only by the idiots.

I concur.:wave:

Napisano przez Acquiesce, 12.11.2018 at 14:45

Napisano przez boywind2, 12.11.2018 at 14:05

because there are lots of retards on youtube.

and on atwar

Alright so if a socialist thinks people should get paid different rates in different jobs would that be a mixed economy or a different way of socialism?
Or if a capitalist says I think health should be free and a public good would that also be a mixed economy?

Napisano przez DeepFriedUnicorn, 18.11.2018 at 16:37

Alright so if a socialist thinks people should get paid different rates in different jobs would that be a mixed economy or a different way of socialism?
Or if a capitalist says I think health should be free and a public good would that also be a mixed economy?

Just read wikipedia bro. There's more interesting discussions to be had than defining these terms.

Read carl marx = manifesto & adolf hitler = mien kampf (not being contentious)marx quick/easy read,hitler as i recall a bit meandering but still easy.

Napisano przez Ludditez, 18.11.2018 at 18:08

Read carl marx = manifesto & adolf hitler = mien kampf (not being contentious)marx quick/easy read,hitler as i recall a bit meandering but still easy.

I'm reading hitlers one, alot of hate for alot of things, didn't read karls

Napisano przez Acquiesce, 18.11.2018 at 16:53

Napisano przez DeepFriedUnicorn, 18.11.2018 at 16:37

Alright so if a socialist thinks people should get paid different rates in different jobs would that be a mixed economy or a different way of socialism?
Or if a capitalist says I think health should be free and a public good would that also be a mixed economy?

Just read wikipedia bro. There's more interesting discussions to be had than defining these terms.

I did and other info as well but would what I said actually be a mixed economy?

Written by DeepFriedUnicorn, 18.11.2018 at 16:37

Alright so if a socialist thinks people should get paid different rates in different jobs would that be a mixed economy or a different way of socialism?
Or if a capitalist says I think health should be free and a public good would that also be a mixed economy?

both cap'/soc' governments do these niether rate of pay nor social welfare define as mixed economy.
they are more ( when combined ) of a wealthier socio-economic statement.

you doing an economics thesis ?

Napisano przez Khal.eesi, 15.11.2018 at 10:47

I thought wheelo was right leaning and pro -Trump

I guess has he has to clear it himself..

My lefts balance out my rights.
So I guess that makes me a centrist.

Napisano przez dk97.__, 24.12.2018 at 14:44

I'm going with socialism
I believe free healthcare and free education is a human right that can not be denied to anyone
After all we are all human and should be treated like humans and not like robots or numbers

Exactly we are humans and should be treated like so. Therefore we should not give our rights away to the government and should freely be able to make our own property/products if we the citizens want.
A balance of the two is the best

Napisano przez Acquiesce, 18.11.2018 at 16:53

Napisano przez DeepFriedUnicorn, 18.11.2018 at 16:37

Alright so if a socialist thinks people should get paid different rates in different jobs would that be a mixed economy or a different way of socialism?
Or if a capitalist says I think health should be free and a public good would that also be a mixed economy?

Just read wikipedia bro. There's more interesting discussions to be had than defining these terms.

Subscribe on this, british wikipedia is regulated by university professors and other academics, so you should find proper explanations and contextualization for those terms there. Quite frankly, that's a discussion that's been taking place since Marx's Communist Manifest and goes nowhere xd

My country has a socialist government and i can tell you it is not fucking working, some countries have the right populations, right infrastructure and other certain requirements that make it work but holy shit since Labour have come into office I've gone twice as poor with all these new taxes and the minimum wage rise.

Napisano przez dk97.__, 24.12.2018 at 14:44

I'm going with socialism
I believe free healthcare and free education is a human right that can not be denied to anyone
After all we are all human and should be treated like humans and not like robots or numbers

You just mentioned the obvious. Most political parties nowadays tend to inclinate towards socialist tendencies because that's in the DNA of those parties. The relevancy in all this is to see who's more socialist than others..Of course (nearly) everyone would stand by those objectives as crucial elements to implement, since politics is the directed at "humanizing" our society and what not. Capitalism nowadays, with all the changes undergone in society does not disqualify free healthcare and free education to people. We, western worlders live in a social-capitalist world, though that's arguable, of course.

Napisano przez Guest, 24.12.2018 at 15:17

My country has a socialist government and i can tell you it is not fucking working, some countries have the right populations, right infrastructure and other certain requirements that make it work but holy shit since Labour have come into office I've gone twice as poor with all these new taxes and the minimum wage rise.

Socialist Parties are too ideologically contaminated, so they end up cyclingly collapse the country xd

Napisano przez Guest, 24.12.2018 at 15:21

Napisano przez Al Fappino, 24.12.2018 at 15:19

Socialist Parties are too ideologically contaminated, so they end up cyclingly collapse the country xd

Imagine paying 1.50 euros per litre for fuel bro... Imagine that :'(

Portugal has those prices for fuel so yes (we are one of the most expensive countries when it comes to fuel), it sucks, and half of it is due to taxes

Capitalism for the poor, Socialism for the rich.




2008 US corporate bailout, not a single American shoemaker or vendor received government aid

Napisano przez Skanderbeg, 24.12.2018 at 17:48

Capitalism for the poor, Socialism for the rich.

its the other way around

Napisano przez Guest, 24.12.2018 at 15:21

Napisano przez Al Fappino, 24.12.2018 at 15:19

Socialist Parties are too ideologically contaminated, so they end up cyclingly collapse the country xd

Imagine paying 1.50 euros per litre for fuel bro... Imagine that :'(

Big biznis

Napisano przez Sultan of Swing, 24.12.2018 at 21:27

Napisano przez Skanderbeg, 24.12.2018 at 17:48

Capitalism for the poor, Socialism for the rich.

its the other way around

Then answer me this questions:


1. How many vendors, shoemakers, plumbers, carpenters received money from the government?

2. How many corporations and banks received money from the government?



Speaking about USA, average people are left to fend for themselves, while corpos/banks the one that are 'too big to fall' gets government money so they don't collapse. And they still had premiums and bonus at the end of 2008 for their CEOs and managers (literally tax money distributed to the rich).

It was supposed to be the other way around, strong safety net for the average people, the working machine of the nation, and regulated market for corpos/banks, they are already too big to fall, so they don't need help, while families do need help in times of crisis.

Napisano przez Skanderbeg, 25.12.2018 at 11:46

Napisano przez Sultan of Swing, 24.12.2018 at 21:27

Napisano przez Skanderbeg, 24.12.2018 at 17:48

Capitalism for the poor, Socialism for the rich.

its the other way around

Then answer me this questions:


1. How many vendors, shoemakers, plumbers, carpenters received money from the government?

2. How many corporations and banks received money from the government?



Speaking about USA, average people are left to fend for themselves, while corpos/banks the one that are 'too big to fall' gets government money so they don't collapse. And they still had premiums and bonus at the end of 2008 for their CEOs and managers (literally tax money distributed to the rich).

It was supposed to be the other way around, strong safety net for the average people, the working machine of the nation, and regulated market for corpos/banks, they are already too big to fall, so they don't need help, while families do need help in times of crisis.

its as simple as this: capitalism works well when the economy is doing well. however, sometimes economic downturns do happen, usually from external issues or corruption, and then socialist policies are needed to revamp the economy. Socialism is terrible and is a great way to kill your countries economy when your economy is doing well. It deprives the wealthy of the incentive to pay taxes, and deprives the poor the incentive to get a job. Thus, you now have a system in which no one wants to work/pay taxes. Sounds great!

Napisano przez Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 12:58

its as simple as this: capitalism works well when the economy is doing well. however, sometimes economic downturns do happen, usually from external issues or corruption, and then socialist policies are needed to revamp the economy. Socialism is terrible and is a great way to kill your countries economy when your economy is doing well. It deprives the wealthy of the incentive to pay taxes, and deprives the poor the incentive to get a job. Thus, you now have a system in which no one wants to work/pay taxes. Sounds great!

I'll use German model as always for my argument: their economy is called Social Market Economy, with strong safety net, high taxes and amazing industrial output. Yet they are one of the (if not the) best performing economy in the last half century. So why not copy that model? Having social policies is not socialism. I only said that for joke (it is a metaphore because US distributed surplus to corporations and banks and not the people). Giving tax incentives to corporations is probably the worst idea ever in modern era (im not saying corpos must pay higher taxes, just the same as they are not special).

I could mention Chinese Socialist Market Economy, which goes further and ban private banking, heavily regulate investment and stock market, and all important companies are state owned (energy, infrastructure, security, banking). But this is too extreme to persuade western people about this due to low taxes and low regulations in the last century. Point is, they still operate in capitalist mode, yet the government chose to get involved in profit making, which is perfectly allowed and not considered socialism.