Marxism-socialism consists in blaming the factory owner for what the landowner does to the worker. Of course they are. They are privately owned by those workers. Don't you know how co-ops work? Any time you feel tempted to make claims like that, remember that you will be making a fool of yourself. There is no such thing as state capitalism.
No point. You do not show any understanding of socialism and you're not discussing or debating. You are posturing with nonsense and personal attacks. So don't expect any further replies if you can't do better.
FDR's liberal Great Depression laid the groundwork for Hitler. People turn to extremes in a depression!!
true enough! this is why everyone dressed the same in Mao's china. It was irrational to allow stupid people to make frivolous choices about their own clothes.
huh???? when we speak of a right to own property we don't include human beings anymore. Now the right to own is based on mutual consent and does not include humans
fact! French live at 60% of our GDP and with tax rates that our libcommies can only dream of yellow vests still riot in the streets becuase they still cant make ends meet. With out our inventions they would live at 30% our standard of living. Silicon Valley is here , not there!!
No slave owner claimed a natural right to own human beings. They, like you, believe that rights came from the state.
Yep, capitalism has raised the human condition beyond anything that ever existed before; therefore, it must be bad.
Capitalism's main problem is what Marx stated it to be. The cycles of boom and bust make it more and more top heavy until it collapses on itself. This can be prevented, however, by rather simple government management combined with regulation to prevent monopolies. Communism is not necessary.
No, Marx got it completely wrong. The boom-bust cycle is caused by the positive feedback from private banks' privilege of issuing debt money as loan proceeds, a problem Marx never mentioned, probably was not aware of, and did not come close to understanding. Or possible.
But we still include their rights to liberty, which the privileged own. The only difference between owning slaves and owning privileges -- land titles, IP monopolies, etc. -- is that owning a slave removes all of one person's rights to liberty, owning a privilege removes one of all people's rights to liberty. Garbage. No one ever asked for my consent to forcibly remove, in return for no compensation, my liberty right to use what nature provided for all and give it to landowners as their private property.
They most certainly did. Read your Aristotle, whom slave owners often cited as their authority. That is just baldly false. They routinely quoted the Bible and thus divine sanction for slavery, much as Muslims today quote the Qu'ran for the same purpose.
A far better way would be public issuance of debt-free fiat money for the Treasury to spend into circulation, by an independent Mint whose sole mandate is price stability. And IMO it would be better to use a commodity price index rather than consumer prices, as that way you are measuring and comparing prices for the exact same items.
That sounds strongly socialistic (or rather State capitalist) to me. You're having this mint control prices rather than having actual debt control growth