Greek crisis: Banks shut for a week - Page 7

yeah except almost none of these points hold true in current system

On August 10 2015 11:21 lebowski wrote: If you wish you can correct my ignorance on my last post (all of them would be too much)

this whole topic is a collection of you posting bs and others correcting you #greekpride

On August 10 2015 15:21 dogmeat wrote: yeah except almost none of these points hold true in current system Show nested quote + On August 10 2015 11:21 lebowski wrote: If you wish you can correct my ignorance on my last post (all of them would be too much) this whole topic is a collection of you posting bs and others correcting you #greekpride

you are knocking on the wrong door if you think cheap country bashing is going to get on my nerves. I don't even consider myself a patriot.
Btw repeating to someone that they post bs is neither an argument nor a sign of intelligence

Also lol @ almost none of the wiki definition holding true in current system.
Perhaps after a lot of debate you could convince someone of this if you somehow found the skills.
But to hold such a rare perception of wtf is going on with the world and to act like a cardinal who can't even bear with the ignorants thinking otherwise is troll level material

or maybe just think for a second how strict labour regulations and central banking deny these points. i also hope you know central bank, government agency holding monopoly over currency, is one of the points of communist manifesto

Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labour and, in some situations, fully competitive markets

Interference/regulations from the state were obviously there when the communist manifesto was written. Just because you think state-type intervention holds the system back it doesn't mean that you redefine what a capitalistic society means historically. Whether capitalism can even function without the state intervening is up for debate, my guess is that having a very strong opinion on this isn't by itself enough to convince anyone

since you are insisting on debating over a pretty vague quote from wiki, check this out:
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[3][4] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership (achieved by nationalization), citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[5]

one could post this def and claim "he doesnt give a single fuck on what you think this system should be called, or what socialism really is according to your unique pov"

lebowski has been mostly correct in this thread. any competent observer of how successful austerity is under recession can check all the countries its been applied in, over the past 30 years or so. And we know why the results have always been terrible, because it reduces aggregate demand. So it makes no sense as an economic policy. In fact there arn't that many winners over austerity, the rich are losing as well here (although it is the rich that have been bailed out by the ECB and not the poorer greek people). It cant be that money is the only motive here, The people in power are sending a message to other states, italy, spain, ect. That this is what happens when people get out of line and try to elect a left wing alternative.

All political terms are subject to ideological and real definitions, any reader of Orwell will know this. If capitalism is supposed to be about free markets as well as private enterprise, then one cannot ignore the fact that corporations become more oligopololistc the more influence they get over the state. Plenty of evidence for that, one can read the evidence in a book called 'the endless crisis'. Actually, if economists took these facts into account they would say that capitalism is highly inneficient since it tends to ologipolize(which means resources arn't allocated efficiently in a competitive market). Certainly by the free market definition of capitalism, capitalism has never really existed but especially in the 20th century. since corporations themselves are state interventions in the market, to create limited liability. This means that by definition of free market capitalism, it cannot exist as corporations are a violation of it. However, there have been times where there was pretty much no labor regulation, like in 1810 when there was essentially no regulation in labour and 4 year olds could work in coal mines and the satanic mills

On August 10 2015 16:46 dogmeat wrote: since you are insisting on debating over a pretty vague quote from wiki, check this out: Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[3][4] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership (achieved by nationalization), citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[5] one could post this def and claim "he doesnt give a single fuck on what you think this system should be called, or what socialism really is according to your unique pov"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

If we -at least- agree that words are tools used to efficiently communicate, then judging by the above list of self proclaimed socialist states you'd be misunderstood if you stated that the system we live is socialist.

If eg it ever came to the point that socialism meant exactly communism, I'd have no trouble if you used them interchangeably as long as we managed to understand each other.
The word capitalism historically and in modern use is still massively used to describe systems that also include socialist elements, state intervention etc

Maybe it shouldn't; if you wanted to make a point that the whole thing shouldn't really be called capitalistic, you would have been more effective had you left out the sand in vagina attitude one liners
But no, you have to be the guy who tilts over simple disagreement with his own choice of words, not even disagreement regarding the content of these words

http://imgur.com/gallery/tuG5A