Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Welfare
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 911724" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>804,</p><p></p><p>I'd like to propose to you a question to consider based on what you said above. I would hope that we can agree that in the last 100 years, our gov't (we'll call the State) today would be considered far more socialist than it was 100 years ago. Between welfare laws, labor laws, social security, medicare/medicaid, I hope you see my point. </p><p></p><p>At the same time, 100 years ago, corporations as we know them today did not have the scale of size, multi-national corporations being an example or were the various industries so dominated by so few players. Corporations also didn't enjoy such a large domination of the public commons as evidenced by the presence of "K" street in Washington nor were the terms lobbyist or think tank such a common occurrence in public discourse. But yet these corporations are seen as the pinnacle achievement of what we call today as free market capitialism.</p><p></p><p>So in both the case of socialism (the state) and in corp. capitalism (the free market), both have enjoyed healthy growth. The healthy being for them and not necessarily for the rest of us.</p><p></p><p>My question is, and for the sake of debate accepting gov't (the state) as the source of socialism and corporations as the source of unfettered capitalism, how is it then that over the last 100 years, both have grown in power, wealth and control almost in equal measure? How is it the leaders in capitalism come to achieve high positions in state authority (elected or appointed) and then returning once again to the levers of power in corp. capitalism? All the while both the state and corp. capitalism growing in power and in dominance.</p><p></p><p>And to those here who act as the <a href="http://c4ss.org/content/9106" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff0000">boot lickers for the 1%</span></a>, the defenders of the capitalist faith and opposers of all things socialist, how do you explain when your much loved capitalism has grown so powerful but that the socialist state has also grown equally powerful along side it?</p><p></p><p>Would it not stand to reason for growth to occur that a healthy environment must be present in the first place to achieve such ends?</p><p></p><p>It would therefore now beg the question, in order for one to grow, does it not need the other to do likewise and that in fact the state and corp. capitalism in truth have a symbiotic relationship with one another?</p><p></p><p>This being the case 804 and you oppose unfettered corp. capitalism, by demanding more state intervention and compelling the population to compliance under the nightwatchman of state authority, are you not equally feeding the very corp. power you oppose? </p><p></p><p><strong>"OH PLEASE DON'T THROW ME IN THE BRIAR PATCH!"</strong> Hard part is figuring out which side is saying it the loudest!</p><p></p><p>And too the boot lickers of the 1%, by equally defending and feeding your capitialist masters, are you not also feeding equally the leviathan socialist state you continually rail against?</p><p></p><p>If in both cases, both are true and you hold to the principles you espouse, seems to me you both are putting the bullet in your own heads!</p><p></p><p>Abandon both and come to the darkside!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/devil.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil3:" title="Devil :devil3:" data-shortname=":devil3:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 911724, member: 2189"] 804, I'd like to propose to you a question to consider based on what you said above. I would hope that we can agree that in the last 100 years, our gov't (we'll call the State) today would be considered far more socialist than it was 100 years ago. Between welfare laws, labor laws, social security, medicare/medicaid, I hope you see my point. At the same time, 100 years ago, corporations as we know them today did not have the scale of size, multi-national corporations being an example or were the various industries so dominated by so few players. Corporations also didn't enjoy such a large domination of the public commons as evidenced by the presence of "K" street in Washington nor were the terms lobbyist or think tank such a common occurrence in public discourse. But yet these corporations are seen as the pinnacle achievement of what we call today as free market capitialism. So in both the case of socialism (the state) and in corp. capitalism (the free market), both have enjoyed healthy growth. The healthy being for them and not necessarily for the rest of us. My question is, and for the sake of debate accepting gov't (the state) as the source of socialism and corporations as the source of unfettered capitalism, how is it then that over the last 100 years, both have grown in power, wealth and control almost in equal measure? How is it the leaders in capitalism come to achieve high positions in state authority (elected or appointed) and then returning once again to the levers of power in corp. capitalism? All the while both the state and corp. capitalism growing in power and in dominance. And to those here who act as the [URL="http://c4ss.org/content/9106"][COLOR=#ff0000]boot lickers for the 1%[/COLOR][/URL], the defenders of the capitalist faith and opposers of all things socialist, how do you explain when your much loved capitalism has grown so powerful but that the socialist state has also grown equally powerful along side it? Would it not stand to reason for growth to occur that a healthy environment must be present in the first place to achieve such ends? It would therefore now beg the question, in order for one to grow, does it not need the other to do likewise and that in fact the state and corp. capitalism in truth have a symbiotic relationship with one another? This being the case 804 and you oppose unfettered corp. capitalism, by demanding more state intervention and compelling the population to compliance under the nightwatchman of state authority, are you not equally feeding the very corp. power you oppose? [B]"OH PLEASE DON'T THROW ME IN THE BRIAR PATCH!"[/B] Hard part is figuring out which side is saying it the loudest! And too the boot lickers of the 1%, by equally defending and feeding your capitialist masters, are you not also feeding equally the leviathan socialist state you continually rail against? If in both cases, both are true and you hold to the principles you espouse, seems to me you both are putting the bullet in your own heads! Abandon both and come to the darkside! :devil3: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Welfare
Top
