Looking At Capialism from OUTSIDE THE BOX

[MoltenRock III]

Remember, nowhere in the US Constitution did it say the USA needed to be capitalistic. Instead of our current capitalistic democracy the US can easily be a socialistic democracy. The Constitution does not spell out which system it must have.

 

[JB3]

Remember, nowhere in the US Constitution did it say the USA needed to be capitalistic. Instead of our current capitalistic democracy the US can easily be a socialistic democracy. The Constitution does not spell out which system it must have.

It does, however, specify the powers of the government, none of which would allow it to be a socialistic democracy.

 

[MoltenRock III]

It does, however, specify the powers of the government, none of which would allow it to be a socialistic democracy.

WRONG!

Please tell that to all of the Social Security enrollees, Medicare enrollees, Student Loan enrollees, and the like.

 

[construct]

WRONG!

Please tell that to all of the Social Security enrollees, Medicare enrollees, Student Loan enrollees, and the like.

Those programs are not proof that Congress has the power to nationalize whole industries willy-nilly. Congress has quite a lot of power through the commerce clause, but there are limits. Starting in 1995, the Supreme Court has been putting increasing restraints on the reach of commerce clause. This is a shift away from the exceedingly broad interpretation of that clause that had prevailed since 1938.

I would define socialism as public (governmental) ownership of the means of production. I don't think it would be possible for the United States to become a socialist country under our present Constitution.

 

[JB3]

WRONG!

Please tell that to all of the Social Security enrollees, Medicare enrollees, Student Loan enrollees, and the like.

And with this post you show your understanding of socialism to be at just about the level of Laika's understanding of the real world.

Congress and the government do not have the power necessary to enact anything resembling democratic socialism. The power isn't there, and the constitution makes no allowance for it.

 

[laikaNYC]

And with this post you show your understanding of socialism to be at just about the level of Laika's understanding of the real world.

Congress and the government do not have the power necessary to enact anything resembling democratic socialism. The power isn't there, and the constitution makes no allowance for it.

Now was that necessary? Please leave my name out of your posts. Thanks

 

[Kulindahr]

Remember, nowhere in the US Constitution did it say the USA needed to be capitalistic. Instead of our current capitalistic democracy the US can easily be a socialistic democracy. The Constitution does not spell out which system it must have.

It does, however, specify the powers of the government, none of which would allow it to be a socialistic democracy.

Quite so. The Constitution allows for nothing but a free market approach to business.

WRONG!

Please tell that to all of the Social Security enrollees, Medicare enrollees, Student Loan enrollees, and the like.

Technically, those are unconstitutional. Had their originators had guts, they would have proposed amendments to authorize them. I'm certain one for Social Security would have passed.

Now was that necessary? I'm guessing you mooch off your parents? Please leave my name out of your posts. Thanks

1. This is a public board.
2. You have put your name on this board.
3. Therefore, your name is fair game on this board, Laika.

 

[JB3]

Now was that necessary? Please leave my name out of your posts. Thanks

Hey, when your posts start to show some original thought and anything resembling sanity, I will. Until then, you're fair game.

 

[construct]

Oh dear! Since we're being inundated with piffle, it's . . . time for another SING-SONG! How 'bout a jaunty little anarchist ditty?



Okay, they took all the anarchism out of that version, but it's the only one I could find. Here are the original words.

IT'S SISTER JENNY'S TURN TO THROW THE BOMB

In an anarchist's garret, so lowly and so mean
Oh, smell the pungent odor of nitro-glycerine.
They're busy making fuses, and filling cans with nails
And the little Slavic children set up this mournful wail.
Oh, its Sister Jenny's turn to throw the bomb;
The last one it was thrown by Brother Thom.
Poor Mamma's aim is bad and the Copskys all know Dad,
So it's Sister Jenny's turn to throw the bomb.

Sister Jenny took the bomb and started off.
"Oh, mind you now," said Mamma, "to blow up Templehoff."
And so the party waited, while the dawn turned into day,
And the little Slavic children set up this mournful lay
Oh it's Brother Ivanovitch's turn to throw the bomb.
Sister Jenny's gone the way of Brother Thom;
Poor Mamma's aim is bad and the Copsky's all know Dad,
So it's Brother Ivanovitch's turn to throw the bomb.

 

[laikaNYC]

Hey, when your posts start to show some original thought and anything resembling sanity, I will. Until then, you're fair game.

Don't go trashing me behind my back in a thread I wasn't in. Very cowardly.

 

[BostonPirate]

Oh dear! Since we're being inundated with piffle, it's . . . time for another SING-SONG! How 'bout a jaunty little anarchist ditty?



Okay, they took all the anarchism out of that version, but it's the only one I could find. Here are the original words.

ok...

I'll see ya and raise ya one!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZs61VCJvTg[/ame]

 

[construct]

ok...

I'll see ya and raise ya one!

Are you sure? That sounds like bourgeois capitalist decadence to me.

 

[BostonPirate]

Are you sure? That sounds like bourgeois capitalist decadence to me.

AAARRGGG

ya found me out matey.... capitalists of the caribean!!! that be me Laddie!!!

 

[evanrick]

America is not capitalism, its a plutocracy.

Whats even worse than that is people have themselves fooled into believing the "American dream" when its only a pipe dream.

Class warfare? I don't think so, the rich won a long time ago. We are only now suffering in its aftermath.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Technically, those are unconstitutional. Had their originators had guts, they would have proposed amendments to authorize them. I'm certain one for Social Security would have passed.

Not to be dismissive or rude, but the Supreme Court has found otherwise, and that's really the only 9 people's opinion that matters. Since they have found them to be Constitutional I shall defer to their findings. *shrug*

 

[JB3]

Not to be dismissive or rude, but the Supreme Court has found otherwise, and that's really the only 9 people's opinion that matters. Since they have found them to be Constitutional I shall defer to their findings. *shrug*

They found otherwise after being threatened by the executive branch through Roosevelt's infamous 'court packing' incident.

All of the acts Kuli mentioned are of dubious constitutionality. Were they evaluated at any other time they would have had a hard time standing up to their constitutional challenges.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Remember, nowhere in the US Constitution did it say the USA needed to be capitalistic. Instead of our current capitalistic democracy the US can easily be a socialistic democracy. The Constitution does not spell out which system it must have.

A true socialist state would not consist of just the united states but every nation combined. A one-nation social state that exists in a world with another state is an oxymoron and doesn't make sense.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Those programs are not proof that Congress has the power to nationalize whole industries willy-nilly. Congress has quite a lot of power through the commerce clause, but there are limits. Starting in 1995, the Supreme Court has been putting increasing restraints on the reach of commerce clause. This is a shift away from the exceedingly broad interpretation of that clause that had prevailed since 1938.

I would define socialism as public (governmental) ownership of the means of production. I don't think it would be possible for the United States to become a socialist country under our present Constitution.

There wouldn't be a constitution anymore hon... Socialism is not a free nor planned way of life. People constantly misunderstand socialism as an economic system when in reality its a way of life.

Socialism doesn't consist of religions that brainwash those who are insecure about where their mind goes when their physical body decomposes. Early stages of socialism would consist of certain characteristics of Capitalism and global faiths would still exist until people finally had a revolution that they worship something because they were INGRAINED to do it based on the current social structure. (Where people got the idea of spiritual Marxism is beyond me. That's an oxymoron.) People would be more intellectual as time goes by and would question where "facts" came from and what's the most important product to produce for society...limited finances or plentiful resources.

We currently don't use money to acquire services and needs... we use the services and needs for the actual MONEY. Yet many nations are in debt and making this money will never amount to anything because its worthless in reality and if we made another surplus, the money couldn't be backed up. That's why there will always be a cycle of rise and collapse. It is not possible under Capitalism to have a fully organized system because it stimulates competition within society like a bunch of ruthless zoo animals which pursues greed. But politicians have you believe otherwise. By allowing this to continue, people produce wasteful things to make a profit after billion dollar companies trying to sell garbage can make a dollar. But some of this shit is really not needed. You ever go to a garage sale and wonder why they bought all that useless junk in the first place? What were they thinking? What materials were used to make some ugly statue of a deformed gorilla or some generic Wal-Mart looking lawn gnome? People argue it shall be choice to want something trivial. But if they had their needs, and were happy with themselves because of a society that allowed true freedom globally, would he need that garbage or want it after all? Why do companies make toxic Styrofoam to make money so that the remains shall end up in landfills? Cups? Air pressure cars are the best source of green energy and is very efficient. Why do we allow the oil companies to have so much power over energy control? Why do we allow a health insurance company to be privately owned? Why would I want some company seeking profit to have the power over my life knowing they are of the richest companies in the nation?

Capitalism is a way of life and is designed to be run under a system of economics with an orderly form that allows private industries to own the needs of the public. However, the government shouldn't own the services either. The public should. The public should BE the government truly. For example, after we evolve morally and socially through a gradual process, people will not need to be rewarded money for their hard work, but rather an abundance of needs and the ability to express a true human potential. People could work at community run grocery stores in which the products are made naturally grown and made organically with natural ingredients that would be available to everyone seeing as money is no longer an issue with cutting back and using artificial chemicals that cause cancer and other billion-dollar making illnesses such as diabetes.

People argue money will be reinvented because products' value must be counted or measured. But people can't shake off certain patterns in thinking that are so ingrained to them. What they don't realize is that the products would never need to be counted or be given a price, because they wouldn't be sold.

We are still living in a narcissistic, prehistoric early-stage in social development. Change happens gradually. That is why Marx Said socialism nor communism can be IMPLEMENTED because it makes the implemented system an oxymoron. Society needs to make simultaneous mistakes within itself to finally be enlightened.

 

[MoltenRock III]

They found otherwise after being threatened by the executive branch through Roosevelt's infamous 'court packing' incident.

All of the acts Kuli mentioned are of dubious constitutionality. Were they evaluated at any other time they would have had a hard time standing up to their constitutional challenges.

Riiiiight. That explains Medicare and the dozens of other social programs since Roosevelt's time how?

Where did you hear that claptrap notion? The Glenn Beck show?

 

[JB3]

Riiiiight. That explains Medicare and the dozens of other social programs since Roosevelt's time how?

Where did you hear that claptrap notion? The Glenn Beck show?

You couldn't force me to watch Glenn Beck.

You do understand that medicare exists because of that dubious ruling, don't you? Without it, medicare would have been no more constitutional than social security would have been.