Isbjørn

Capitalism is an inherently unstable system, regardless of the amount of state control, and whether the currency is based on a gold standard or not. "Real capitalism", is unrealistic, since the US corporate oligarchy is a natural consequence of monopolization, which in turn is a natural consequence of capitalism. And I don't think "real capitalism" would be any better for the working/middle classes.

__________________

Chula Vista

Dude goes through the entire history of what went into the writing of 2A, how it's been interpreted from both sides in the centuries since, examines both sides of every argument in great detail both from a legal and passion standpoint, and at the end of it all, comes to no clear cut definitive decision on what 2A really means.

What people need to remember is that up until 2008 and the landmark DC vs. Heller case, 2A really had not much weight when it came to gun control.

30s is the new 50s.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

RoxyRollah

I look good tho right?

__________________

Xurtio

I mean, it's still better than the monarch it fell out of. But the motivation was largely monetary on the ruling class's part: If you let people own their own property, and especially means of production in the state, they are more productive and while your slice of pie gets smaller, the whole pie gets larger.

__________________
H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉

Isbjørn

Capitalism isn't the same as letting people own their own property, though. It's letting a handful of capitalists control the means of production in order to get rich on the value created by the labor of their employees. And it's arguable how productive it is. Many of the things that are produced under capitalism, aren't really needed - and many of the things that are needed, aren't produced.

I'm not sure if that "whole pie" part is true either. Planned economies, where they have been implemented, have been incredibly efficient. The Soviet Union went from a backward country with a mainly agricultural economy to a major industrial power, eventually becoming the first country to send a person into outer space. I'm not going to defend the undemocratic regime of the Soviet Union - I don't think much good would come out of that - but I want to point out that this happened while the US and the rest of Europe were feeling the effects of the Great Depression.

The alternative to capitalism, is collective ownership of the means of production. This means that the workers democratically control their workplaces (there's another thread in this subforum about workplace democracy), and that the country's economy is managed according to a common plan. This can be done top-down, as a command economy, or bottom-up, as a participatory economy. I think the last solution is the best one. This way, we avoid crises related to overproduction, while ensuring that everyone gets what they need, and that consumers and producers get to have a say in what is produced and how it is distributed.

__________________

Chula Vista

^^^^^

Considering how ****ing divided this country currently is do you even have an ounce of thinking that would work?

I own my home, well at least until it's paid off which will be in the next 10 years. I currently have about $250K in equity. I own my car. I own a bunch of expensive toys. I pay my taxes at a pretty high rate. I also have a 401K. The better the "pie" does, the better my 401K reacts.

Nothing is perfect. Nothing will ever be 100% best for everyone. We're a country of 320 million people. How the hell would you implement massive change from the current system that's already in place? Are you a dreamer?

Being realistic, as an individual looking at the landscape, you take the cards that are dealt your way and make the best possible play. Trump is a bust because he has absolutely no substance. It's all pretense. He's an unpredictable loose cannon. Sanders is a bust because the establishment will never let him make the changes he wants. He sounds great on paper but will never work in the real world. Clinton is far from perfect but has been in the national game for decades and at least knows how to work the system towards her platform.

She's not a war monger. She was conned just like everyone else that voted for that war. She messed up on how she reported after the fact on Benghazi, but how does that make her responsible for the actual event? She's the closest to my belief system and actually stands a chance of working across the aisles.

Live in la la land all you want, but someone has to be the next commander in chief. Clinton is our best bet IMO.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

Frownland

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

Looks like someone has a crush.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Chula Vista

Sir Smug, I salute you.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

grindy

Efficient? Dude. The soviet union was one big fat ****-up.
Sending someone into space means nothing if pretty much everything else in your country is falling to pieces.

__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.

Goofle

Isbjorn is on some next level drugs in this thread lmao

__________________