View Full Version : Are you Socialist or Capitalist?
Frans Hals
2012-01-18, 17:49
Nice quiz.
You are 24% Capitalist, 76% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops. As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral.
And what are you?
http://www.blogthings.com/areyouasocialistorcapitalistquiz/
You Are 96% Capitalist, 4% Socialist
"You're a capitalist pig - and proud of it.
You believe that business makes the world great...
And you'd never be ashamed of being rich!"
This quiz is clearly biased
cinnamona
2012-01-18, 18:05
You Are 20% Capitalist, 80% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
Well, I don't know much about USA (the test clearly was made by an American), but American capitalism seems too wild for me.
Belisarius
2012-01-18, 18:11
You Are 56% Capitalist, 44% Socialist
While you are definitely sympathetic to a free economy, you also worry about the less fortunate.
Wealth and business is fine, as long as those who are in need get helped out too.
You tend to see both the government and corporations as potentially corrupt.
DragonRouge
2012-01-18, 18:14
You Are 36% Capitalist, 64% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral.
You Are 64% Capitalist, 36% Socialist
In general, you support a free economy and business interests.
You tend to think people should fend for themselves, even when times get tough.
However, do think the government should help those who are truly in need.
mariposa
2012-01-18, 18:20
You Are 72% Capitalist, 28% Socialist
In general, you support a free economy and business interests.
You tend to think people should fend for themselves, even when times get tough.
However, do think the government should help those who are truly in need.
Sailor Ripley
2012-01-18, 18:25
You Are 36% Capitalist, 64% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral.
Same, but it's bullshit. I don't support small, locally owned shops.
You Are 8% Capitalist, 92% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
cafman21
2012-01-18, 18:36
You Are 40% Capitalist, 60% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral.
You Are 96% Capitalist, 4% Socialist
"You're a capitalist pig - and proud of it.
You believe that business makes the world great...
And you'd never be ashamed of being rich!"
This quiz is clearly biased
Well, nobody is perfect ;)
You're a capitalist pig - and proud of it.
You believe that business makes the world great...
And you'd never be ashamed of being rich!
100% Capitalist
I agree with it, but the implementation is flawed. Agreeing with anything made you a capitalist, and disagreeing made you a socialist. They need to mix it up a bit. It wouldn't change my result, but someone who wanted to get a result could merely check every box or none just for the hell of it.
DragonRouge
2012-01-18, 18:42
Same, but it's bullshit. I don't support small, locally owned shops.
I do, especially for food. I'd rather eat locally grown food than crap that was coated with preservatives and then shipped from somewhere far away. God knows what those preservatives do to your body. :sick:
Plus, fresh food tastes a lot better. When I buy my fish, it is actually still alive.
Plus, watching your cat play with your dinner is fun.
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/8735_147964595783_515300783_2849250_7453232_n.jpg
You Are 4% Capitalist, 96% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
Haha not that surprising. I'm a persuaded anti-capitalist.
quotablepatella
2012-01-18, 18:59
You Are 16% Capitalist, 84% Socialist.
You Are 4% Capitalist, 96% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
Haha not that surprising. I'm a persuaded anti-capitalist.
welcome to the club ;)
Vallespir
2012-01-18, 19:47
You Are 28% Capitalist, 72% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral.
In the eyes of an American, I suppose.
You Are 44% Capitalist, 56% Socialist
While you are definitely sympathetic to a free economy, you also worry about the less fortunate.
Wealth and business is fine, as long as those who are in need get helped out too.
You tend to see both the government and corporations as potentially corrupt.
jibarodepr
2012-01-18, 19:52
http://www.blogthings.com/areyouasocialistorcapitalistquiz/results/?result=28
You Are 28% Capitalist, 72% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral. Right accurate. ;)
Altought I bleive not all rich people are like that, there are some and some.
Rochefaton
2012-01-19, 05:37
You Are 92% Capitalist, 8% Socialist
You're a capitalist pig - and proud of it.
You believe that business makes the world great...
And you'd never be ashamed of being rich!
:)
This test does not measure a difference between socialism and capitalism. Nothing is asked about ownership of means of production, which is essence of socialism. It must have been created by some neo-liberals. It measures if you support changes in capitalist systems inspired by socialist, liberal and christian-democratic ideologies and I support them.
You Are 16% Capitalist, 84% Socialist
I am lucky, my country is socialist:) also the test is wrong on a number of statements, this one is one of the worst:
"Over the course of the 20th century, countries with free market economies truly prevailed."
The world have never really had free markets, and the economies that prevailed did so due to advantages in technology, then when they had the advantage they imposed Free trade on the less developed markets using military might and economic loans given to ignorant political leaders, so they would be able to overtake them, this is especially true of the British post-industrial revolution in relations to India and China.
In a free market economy, the country with the lowest wages and most advanced technology would be leaders, not a world i want to live in..
You Are 16% Capitalist, 84% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
I'd say it's somewhat accurate in relation to my beliefs but the questions/statements weren't accurate, diverse or in depth enough to give you a truly good idea of where you fall along the line beween capitalism and socialism. Personally, I'd describe myself as 30% Capitalist and 70% Socialist.
This test does not measure a difference between socialism and capitalism. Nothing is asked about ownership of means of production, which is essence of socialism. It must have been created by some neo-liberals. It measures if you support changes in capitalist systems inspired by socialist, liberal and christian-democratic ideologies and I support them.
I came to say exactly this.
The test is obviously made by an American.
And I guess he's a Republican who thinks Obama is socialist.
This is my score:
You Are 4% Capitalist, 96% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
Bullshit! Socialism has nothing to do with the "redistribution of wealth". It's all about the ownership of the means of production. There is no "wealth" in a socialist country.
Btw, you'll see my profile says I'm "democratic socialist". Take it as a spinoff of Chersteron's Distributionism.
---------- Post added 2012-01-19 at 11:52 ----------
You Are 96% Capitalist, 4% Socialist
"You're a capitalist pig - and proud of it.
You believe that business makes the world great...
And you'd never be ashamed of being rich!"
This quiz is clearly biased
Capitalist "pig"... is a century old epithet, search it in google.
abenjaldún
2012-01-19, 12:14
You Are 20% Capitalist, 80% Socialist.
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
But the wonder of this is that I am not a Socialist...:whoco:
The Europeans (especially Northern Europeans) on this forum will find that they are more Socialist than Capitalist, the new worlders (especially 'White' Americans/'White' South Americans) will find that they are more Capitalist than Socialist.
I wonder if this distinction might be due to history, does the fact that (barring troublesome recent immigration) Northern European countries are often small and homogenous mean that they are more willing to be equal with their ethnic brethren also reflect on New World countries (distinction between richer white and non-white populations) their Capitalist mentality whereby a White member of the upper class is less happy to pay taxes to support a black/native child going to school? Obviously economics transcends just these factors alone, but it does bring questions of where race lies within economics, and how racial history interacts with modern perceptions in society.
Nice quiz.
You are 24% Capitalist, 76% Socialist
And what are you?
http://www.blogthings.com/areyouasocialistorcapitalistquiz/
The same for me.
jibarodepr
2012-01-20, 09:11
People you should try this one: http://www.politicalquiz.net
My results:
Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.
You Are 12% Capitalist, 88% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
I don't like the sort of questions that have been put there,too much positivity about Capitalism. I also like to add that this is a more of an economical stance.
Saif ad-Dhib
2012-01-21, 17:08
I am both. I believe in a socialist market economy of worker-run cooperatives and hierarchical corporations defined by both profit and security with worker's councils assisting in practical management. The idea has been successful in other countries. My belief is that it is possible to make a profit and be ethical.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notabene/socialism.html
It is as simple as putting your money where your mouth is:
http://allusaclothing.com/
http://www.allamericanclothing.com/
http://www.justiceclothing.com/thereis/justice/
You Are 48% Capitalist, 52% Socialist
While you are definitely sympathetic to a free economy, you also worry about the less fortunate.
Wealth and business is fine, as long as those who are in need get helped out too.
You tend to see both the government and corporations as potentially corrupt.
Pot-Kettle
2012-01-21, 17:36
Neither, and I don't need that quiz to figure that out.
EiCibaeño
2012-01-21, 17:42
You Are 92% Capitalist, 8% Socialist
:)
Listen up, pinko:
You Are 96% Capitalist, 4% Socialist.
Rochefaton
2012-01-21, 22:31
Listen up, pinko:
You Are 96% Capitalist, 4% Socialist.
WHAT?! All right, that proves this test is faulty. When an anti-capitalistic, hippie like you is more capitalistic than a cold-blooded heartless bastard like me, it can't be right.
Madden11
2012-01-21, 22:40
You Are 16% Capitalist, 84% Socialist
Soul Unlimited
2012-03-21, 00:25
You Are 84% Capitalist, 16% Socialist
In general, you support a free economy and business interests.
You tend to think people should fend for themselves, even when times get tough.
However, do think the government should help those who are truly in need.
You Are 8% Capitalist, 92% Socialist
This would likely come out differently if certain factors were taken into account. Mostly if immigrants and immigration was taken into account.
Soul Unlimited
2012-03-21, 00:32
You Are 8% Capitalist, 92% Socialist
This would likely come out differently if certain factors were taken into account. Mostly if immigrants and immigration was taken into account.
I am quite surprised at your results:p
ageladakos
2012-03-21, 00:35
You Are 12% Capitalist, 88% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
I am quite surprised at your results:p
The only thing I checked was that people should be able to buy drugs. Of course I also believe it should be highly regulated but I don't think there is anything wrong with people doing them in their own home if they choose too.
You Are 100% Capitalist, 0% Socialist
You Are 36% Capitalist, 64% Socialist
Soul Unlimited
2012-03-21, 00:42
You Are 100% Capitalist, 0% Socialist
Dam :lol:.
I believe that both very lazy and very hard working people suport capitalism. capitalism promises you that you will not have to work, just live off work of others. On the other hand, it includes the risk that someone can live off your work and you have to work for two (or more, depends how leechy the system is). In general, in capitalism you work for two or you dont work at all.
In socialism it is one for one, everyone work equally. I believe it should be better allocation of human power, intelligence and all assets. The only thing which stand in the way is mindset- people naturally tend to not work and are lazy. Therefore in socialism noone works and noone profits.
In capitalism half of people work very hard, another half does not do fuck all and takes all the cream.
I believe that both very lazy and very hard working people suport capitalism. capitalism promises you that you will not have to work, just live off work of others. On the other hand, it includes the risk that someone can live off your work and you have to work for two (or more, depends how leechy the system is). In general, in capitalism you work for two or you dont work at all.
In socialism it is one for one, everyone work equally. I believe it should be better allocation of human power, intelligence and all assets. The only thing which stand in the way is mindset- people naturally tend to not work and are lazy. Therefore in socialism noone works and noone profits.
In capitalism half of people work very hard, another half does not do fuck all and takes all the cream.
Respectfully Kwestos, I don't think it's fair to say that in capitalism you work for two or for no-one. People who do no work and yet enjoy a very high standard of living are few and far between, certainly far less numerous than recipients of benefits.
Capitalism tends to reward someone's ability to be a big thinker, to have the grand plans and to then put a project together and make it work, not everyone is capable of doing this. And capitalism, as we know it anyway, is very unforgiving. 95% of businesses fail within the first two years, apparently. To be profitable you generally have to do something better than everyone else, to be very profitable you need a huge competitive edge.
Why is one man on the factory floor and another man up in the office commanding three times as much money as the bloke working beneath him, and yet another man is just moving money around in a skyscraper in London or NYC and making ten times as much as the factory manager? I would say it is because capitalism values the person who does what he's told and nothing more least, it values those who can organise and innovate to some extent a little more and it values those who know how best to allocate capital the most. Put simply, capitalism gives you a living and not much more if all you do is put another man's plans into action, if you can come up with the plans you will be rewarded more.
Now I know it can become a little absurd, even to someone like me who worships great wealth, when one person is making 20,000 times as much as another, but the super-rich, and especially the idle super-rich, are so small numerically as to be almost irrelevant to a debate about the distribution of wealth. Aren't they? I mean, how many playboy billionaires or captains of industry do you pass in the street everyday? None, most likely. You can compare the guy who happens to be born into a family in which he doesn't have to work with the pleb who wins the lottery, they are both just out of the ordinary and quirks of an otherwise well-oiled, productive and clever system. People like that give us something to dream about perhaps? :lol: ;)
ItaloPortuga
2012-03-21, 01:33
84% capitalist
16 % socialist
You're a capitalist pig - and proud of it.
You believe that business makes the world great...
And you'd never be ashamed of being rich!
:lol:
I´m not! Why should I be? I give to charity.
Obviously I am exagerating and radicalising, jr1:)
I am pointing at a 'model scheme', the core of capitalism and socialism. Capitalism= power of capital. Essence of capitalism is ownership of means of production. You own them- it makes you money. You dont need to work (just to control others who work) In socialism yoou dont own them- so you need to earn money to live. No shortcuts.
Obviously, its theory- very abstract, and very surreal. Also number 50/50 would be in reality 90/10 or 99/1, and there is no capitalism nearly anywhere in the world anyway- and no socialism either. It is kind of (one of many_ paradox of capitalism- internal contradiction- which if worked 100% perfectly, would mean what I am saying, but it never works properly.
I dont oppose capitalism- I believe in innovation and healthy competition much more than passiveness and repetitiveness. I dont know though if 'capiltalism' is the best description of that. Maybe the problem is with the quantity of reward. The level of the reward in capitalism should be high enoguh to motivate and low enough to not to stop a person to contribute.
You can analyse it in the scale of a medium size corporation/company. There is the boss, management and workers. What do managers do? Very often nothing. What supervisor do? Not much too. But they earn the most. Thats what I mean- in capitalism you are 'rewarded' for work by not having to work anymore. Thats a common conception. It is illogical=- why to take away a hard work and 'promote' them and make them stop working? Maybe its kind of 'reward' for the work- ok, fair enough, but I would not call it 'promoting hard work ethos'.
I mainly contemplated the common misconception that capitalism is about hard work. It sounds nice, but its not true. Capitalism is about being more clever, quicker and more ruthless in a way. It is in general semantic fun:D
Obviously I am exagerating and radicalising, jr1:)
I am pointing at a 'model scheme', the core of capitalism and socialism. Capitalism= power of capital. Essence of capitalism is ownership of means of production. You own them- it makes you money. You dont need to work (just to control others who work) In socialism yoou dont own them- so you need to earn money to live. No shortcuts.
And would there not be provision made for those who can't work? Shortcuts are available there.
Anyway, humans will always find shortcuts to what they want, would it not be fairer to say that socialism has no formalised 'shortcuts'. I mean what is to stop someone just stealing his co-worker's wallet, or car in a socialist society? For as long as there are limited resources and needs/wants which exeed those resources contemporaneously humans will find shortcuts. In fact, the search for shortcuts and improvements in efficiency is what has allowed society to progress, not that I am extolling the virtues of petty theft or trying to portray the common criminal as being an innovator.
Obviously, its theory- very abstract, and very surreal. Also number 50/50 would be in reality 90/10 or 99/1, and there is no capitalism nearly anywhere in the world anyway- and no socialism either. It is kind of (one of many_ paradox of capitalism- internal contradiction- which if worked 100% perfectly, would mean what I am saying, but it never works properly.
I dont oppose capitalism- I believe in innovation and healthy competition much more than passiveness and repetitiveness. I dont know though if 'capiltalism' is the best description of that. Maybe the problem is with the quantity of reward. The level of the reward in capitalism should be high enoguh to motivate and low enough to not to stop a person to contribute.
So do you believe in being able to pass one's wealth on in its entirety? For some people that forms a big part of their motivation to work and to be 'efficient' and thrifty. It's odd how leftists who often attack the right for their lack of altruism promote inheritance tax (what is more altruistic than allowing for money and assets to be handed over for the enjoyment of your loved ones when you are not even alive to see the joy on their faces as they spend it?).
I mainly though contemplated the common misconception that capitalism is about hard work. It sounds nice, but its not true. Capitalism is about being more clever, quicker and more ruthless in a way. It is in general semantic fun:D
Oh indeed, I agree. Capitalism is not about playing fair, it's about winning. Reptilian instincts prevail over mammalian ones. The funny thing is that a lot of people who think they are winning in this system, who think that the system exists for their benefit, don't realise that they simply got given a larger crumb than most of their enslaved brethren did. Though, I would be very happy with a large crumb which drops off the table of the elite.
I see contented, suited people in their BMWs and think to myself, "A) You don't own that, you are in debt, B) If you are earning £75,000 a year someone else is probably making as much off you. A+ B= C) You're a muppet".
You Are 4% Capitalist, 96% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
There is no way that I'm that socialist. I'd say 20% Capitalist and 80% Socialist is more accurate.
In a way its better to have 1% superrich than 30% rich, cause it means there are 29% less people who do not work. Another question is, what serves better to society, what gives more result in general? In ideal society, everyone would work/do what they can best and the best to their abilities. However, there are many jobs which are 'unwanted' in society- probably half of all jobs- and the funny paradox is, the most unwanted josb are the worst paid too. Why? It is oppressive system of capitalism- and here is the big part of the problem. Capitalism is a system that does not reward hard work. hard work is frowned upon actually.
Cleaners, builders, shelf- stackers, soldiers or factory workers are the low class of society, laughed at.
Managers, stock holders, 'owners', bankers, politicians- are the top- in general lazy people who all day eat lunches and drink wine at work.
I have no opinion of inhertage tax. It is in a way against prinicples of liberalism- as a liberal I would be against, but the question is- what instead? It would be bad to strip someone off property at the end of their life too. Noone can take money to the grave, so its not about the but the rest.
In general, I believe in free market- cause competition is better than dictature and hard work should be rewarded- yes, even in the form of not having to work anymore. a bit like in the story of the tortoise and the hare, but with no winner. If you work harder, are clever, devoted- you work 20 years, a lazy dumb bugger has to work 40. It would be fair. Or- what you have to do after work etc.
It is all in scale, not direction in my opinion. I believe in capitalism, but with small gaps. Wide gaps in my opinion destroy society in every way possible. Also- what shuld be rewarded. i would promote combination of brain+ actual work+ results+ intentions. So- you can 'make up' with your brain for weak muscles and vice versa. It is actually accumulating resources- an anemic sloppy guy with a good brain can do teaching, and the macho can be a builder.
I believe that in most of the world, especially 'the west' it is healthy to some extend- but it depends. In Latin America or USA I believe its unhealthy. In Europe or Japan healthier-ish.
In a way its better to have 1% superrich than 30% rich, cause it means there are 29% less people who do not work. Another question is, what serves better to society, what gives more result in general? In ideal society, everyone would work/do what they can best and the best to their abilities. However, there are many jobs which are 'unwanted' in society- probably half of all jobs- and the funny paradox is, the most unwanted josb are the worst paid too. Why? It is oppressive system of capitalism- and here is the big part of the problem. Capitalism is a system that does not reward hard work. hard work is frowned upon actually.
Cleaners, builders, shelf- stackers, soldiers or factory workers are the low class of society, laughed at.
Well, this boils down to what one considers hard work. Most employed people work between 20 and 60 hours a week, with most falling around the mid-point. So, is 40 hours in an office any less hard that 40 hours stacking shelves? Stacking shelves may be poorly paid but it is a mindless task, you can listen to your iPod while you do it, you can chat to your colleagues; whereas if you are a barrister who is preparing a case you have to be focused on what you are doing every minute you are working because there is a lot more at stake than someone not being able to find the Heinz baked beans.
Those jobs are probably unwanted, in part at least, because they are not well paid. Anyway, it comes down to specialisation, how many people can perform a particular function? Anyone, more or less, can stack a shelf- how many people can design an aeroplane? If both jobs paid the same money most people capable of both would choose to be a shelf stacker, and by doing so would incur much less stress. So, there has to be a sufficiently powerful incentive in operation to encourage enough people to become aeroplane designers to design the aircraft that humanity wants. In short, the market does decide. Now, I don't for one minute think that if shelf stackers got a 10% pay rise and rocket scientists a 10% pay cut there would be too many shelf stackers and no rocket scientists, but in principle if the wages paid for two dissimilar jobs (in terms of conditions, hours, qualifications etc) converge then the less appealing job will not be filled.
Managers, stock holders, 'owners', bankers, politicians- are the top- in general lazy people who all day eat lunches and drink wine at work.
Do they? Many traders are frantic, cocaine-fuelled types who manage on 4 hours sleep so they can be up to trade on different markets around the world. Politicians have to win over the electorate, that is not easy, a lot of lying is required. Managers have to troubleshoot, again, not easy work most of the time.
Owners may have an easy time, but usually they have earned it. If you run a business for 30 years, working 60 hours a week non-stop, and reach a point where the business is so perfectly organised that it will generate income without the need for much interference by you then you have 'earned' the money you receive subsequently during the 30 years of anguish and hard work.
I have no opinion of inhertage tax. It is in a way against prinicples of liberalism- as a liberal I would be against, but the question is- what instead? It would be bad to strip someone off property at the end of their life too. Noone can take money to the grave, so its not about the but the rest.
Fair enough. I think if they want to take a death duty it should be a couple of percent of your assets, not 40% above £350k as it is now, but I suppose this is a political issue and not one which goes to the heart of one's philosophy.
In general, I believe in free market- cause competition is better than dictature and hard work should be rewarded- yes, even in the form of not having to work anymore. a bit like in the story of the tortoise and the hare, but with no winner. If you work harder, are clever, devoted- you work 20 years, a lazy dumb bugger has to work 40. It would be fair. Or- what you have to do after work etc.
It is all in scale, not direction in my opinion. I believe in capitalism, but with small gaps. Wide gaps in my opinion destroy society in every way possible.
I don't agree with the last part, but we see eye to eye on most of this stuff, surprisingly :lol:
modernsappho
2012-03-21, 02:35
For the question about business people being more important than artists, I think they're of equal value(artists) as far as human capital is concerned... but I don't believe they should be so grossly overpaid.
You Are 44% Capitalist, 56% Socialist
While you are definitely sympathetic to a free economy, you also worry about the less fortunate.
Wealth and business is fine, as long as those who are in need get helped out too.
You tend to see both the government and corporations as potentially corrupt.
...It goes the other way too. I see the dangerous potential and the dent already caused in society by a lot of Socialist programs here in the US. So it's a 50/50 split i'd say.
Do they? Many traders are frantic, cocaine-fuelled types who manage on 4 hours sleep so they can be up to trade on different markets around the world. Politicians have to win over the electorate, that is not easy, a lot of lying is required. Managers have to troubleshoot, again, not easy work most of the time.
Owners may have an easy time, but usually they have earned it. If you run a business for 30 years, working 60 hours a week non-stop, and reach a point where the business is so perfectly organised that it will generate income without the need for much interference by you then you have 'earned' the money you receive subsequently during the 30 years of anguish and hard work.
The main problem with bankers/managers etc is the stake. i could understand if they even were doing nothing- apart from control and stress- if the chances of winning and loosing were high. But, the risks connnected to loosing when dealing with big stakes are none.
Like, lets have a banker paid 3 million a year in bonuses- but in case he wins. In case he looses- death penalty. I woudl agreee with that. Now- it is- won- 3 million bonus, lost- 2 milion bonus.
Sorry, but I can go and be a banker like that any second (but they wont let me in of course, they will shoto me at the door).
This is the biggest unresolved mystery of modern 'city' capitalism to me- how to hell get there? How do they get there to be paid millions for nothing? I want it too- can I?
The main problem with bankers/managers etc is the stake. i could understand if they even were doing nothing- apart from control and stress- if the chances of winning and loosing were high. But, the risks connnected to loosing when dealing with big stakes are none.
Yes and no. Are we talking traders or conventional 'bankers'? I mean, I know it can be irritating to think that someone gets paid millions of pounds a year to drink champagne and have idle conversation with the bank's clients, but those people are pretty rare. If you are making money in the city it is usually because you are worth it. Most of the old institutions like Barings Bank have died out, the idea of people making a substantial, but not obscene, amount of money advising clients and managing money seems to be unappealing :( We've lost a lot of class as a nation.
Like, lets have a banker paid 3 million a year in bonuses- but in case he wins. In case he looses- death penalty. I woudl agreee with that. Now- it is- won- 3 million bonus, lost- 2 milion bonus.
Sorry, but I can go and be a banker like that any second (but they wont let me in of course, they will shoto me at the door).
This is the biggest unresolved mystery of modern 'city' capitalism to me- how to hell get there? How do they get there to be paid millions for nothing? I want it too- can I?
No, I'm afriad not, it is a closed shop. You can make millions from it, but not the really easy way. To get paid millions just to pass the time of day with clients you have to be a Baron, with a double-barrel surname and an Eton & Oxbridge education, and of course if Daddy worked at the same bank that will help you.
I know a couple of prop traders, and basically you are trained by a firm over a few months, then you go to work for them trading in a particular market (they put you on a simulator for a couple of months first), say energy futures or equity options.
For the first two years they keep you on a tight leash, so you can't make much money, and they keep like 80% of what you make (most guys make about £10 grand a year at this point) but if you can survive five or so years profitably then you start getting 50% or more of what you make and they loosen the controls so you can make more.
For people who make profits consistently, and they are probably less than 1% of those who start out, £500,000 a year is nothing special (obviously some people make much more than that but they are rare).
If you are amoral you can make good money working for a boiler room. ;) And this is an easy gig, just ringing up pensioners all day trying to sell them worthless crap and take their life savings, 80/20 split, £10,000 a month cash in hand, more if you're really good.
28% Capitalist
72% Socialist
amerinese
2012-03-21, 09:04
Results:
You Are 84% Capitalist, 16% Socialist
---------- Post added 2012-03-21 at 03:21 ----------
I suppose I'm uncultured but I couldn't give a damn about subsidizing artists.
I believe drugs and prostitution should be legalized.
I don't feel obligated to provide costly and specialized medical care to people who in many cases have made themselves ill through their own lifestyle choices.
Yeah, I'm that ruthless bastard who will let you buy drugs legally, overdose, and die on the sidewalk from your own compulsions and stupidity.
Capitalism can be exploitative and should be regulated, but socialism also breeds laziness and corruption in its own way. I'm comfortable in my role as an advanced ape, but still an ape. I feel no national or species-wide obligation to deadbeats in my nation or of my species. I think people are greedy and lazy apes who need a carrot and stick to make them productive. I do concern myself with the overall survival and advancement of the species, but not to the extent that I'm offering them all a piggy-back ride to the finish line. I prefer a more Darwinian meritocracy where the strong and smart survive and prosper, and the others don't.
Capitalism can be exploitative and should be regulated, but socialism also breeds laziness and corruption in its own way. I'm comfortable in my role as an advanced ape, but still an ape. I feel no national or species-wide obligation to deadbeats in my nation or of my species. I think people are greedy and lazy apes who need a carrot and stick to make them productive. I do concern myself with the overall survival and advancement of the species, but not to the extent that I'm offering them all a piggy-back ride to the finish line. I prefer a more Darwinian meritocracy where the strong and smart survive and prosper, and the others don't.
What do you think of this though:
1. If hard capitalism creates a society with no ties, which is usually more hostile, less safe, probably you need more security, police, you need also many people controlling other people. Is it really cheaper and more effective than social 'jusitice'?
2. In reality in modern system taxpayers have to subside private business. If companies pay people little, they come for a 'compensation' paid by welfare- paid from budget.
3. Smart and strong survive- is it definitely a true statement? Is it verified?
Smart- when they researched on various occassions how people achieve financial success, they had to create idea of 'emotional intelligence'. Why? Cause they could not link life success and inteligence (actually there is correlation between very high intelligence and lack of success).
In other words, capitalism may eliminate 'too intelligent' people (as being too 'odd')
and in fact promote average ones- but 'socialy skilled', which means- self-confident, talkative, probably a bit sly/manipulative. I wonder what is more important, IQ or EQ- my life experience says its the latter- as I have seen hundreds of idiots on top positions and hundreds of clever people in low places- but I havent seen that much otherwise (managers being very intelligent oddballs and builders being eloquent, socially skilled people- they are usually somehow socially weird.
Strong- rich people are often sick and weak and still pass their genes. Also children of rich people have bigger chances of survive, even if they are ill and disable, cause they have better access to healthcare and higher quality of life. They may be disabled mentally or physically, doesnt matter.
What I am saying are some points to debate, I dont negate capitalism and promote 'socialism' as as you pointed, it brings pathologies too (and I believe, having seen what was happening in eastern block, does not promote intelligence either, but EI, opportuinists and confomrists).
I believe in mix of systems and not being a slave of tags 'capitalism' 'socialism' which mean, looking at facts not ideologies and looking overall. I hope it doesnt sound patronising.
Results:
---------- Post added 2012-03-21 at 03:21 ----------
I suppose I'm uncultured but I couldn't give a damn about subsidizing artists.
I believe drugs and prostitution should be legalized.
I don't feel obligated to provide costly and specialized medical care to people who in many cases have made themselves ill through their own lifestyle choices.
Yeah, I'm that ruthless bastard who will let you buy drugs legally, overdose, and die on the sidewalk from your own compulsions and stupidity.
Capitalism can be exploitative and should be regulated, but socialism also breeds laziness and corruption in its own way. I'm comfortable in my role as an advanced ape, but still an ape. I feel no national or species-wide obligation to deadbeats in my nation or of my species. I think people are greedy and lazy apes who need a carrot and stick to make them productive. I do concern myself with the overall survival and advancement of the species, but not to the extent that I'm offering them all a piggy-back ride to the finish line. I prefer a more Darwinian meritocracy where the strong and smart survive and prosper, and the others don't.
What do you think of this though:
1. If hard capitalism creates a society with no ties, which is usually more hostile, less safe, probably you need more security, police, you need also many people controlling other people. Is it really cheaper and more effective than social 'jusitice'?
2. In reality in modern system taxpayers have to subside private business. If companies pay people little, they come for a 'compensation' paid by welfare- paid from budget.
3. Smart and strong survive- is it definitely a true statement? Is it verified?
Smart- when they researched on various occassions how people achieve financial success, they had to create idea of 'emotional intelligence'. Why? Cause they could not link life success and inteligence (actually there is correlation between very high intelligence and lack of success).
In other words, capitalism may eliminate 'too intelligent' people (as being too 'odd')
and in fact promote average ones- but 'socialy skilled', which means- self-confident, talkative, probably a bit sly/manipulative. I wonder what is more important, IQ or EQ- my life experience says its the latter- as I have seen hundreds of idiots on top positions and hundreds of clever people in low places- but I havent seen that much otherwise (managers being very intelligent oddballs and builders being eloquent, socially skilled people- they are usually somehow socially weird.
Strong- rich people are often sick and weak and still pass their genes. Also children of rich people have bigger chances of survive, even if they are ill and disable, cause they have better access to healthcare and higher quality of life. They may be disabled mentally or physically, doesnt matter.
What I am saying are some points to debate, I dont negate capitalism and promote 'socialism' as as you pointed, it brings pathologies too (and I believe, having seen what was happening in eastern block, does not promote intelligence either, but EI, opportuinists and confomrists).
I believe in mix of systems and not being a slave of tags 'capitalism' 'socialism' which mean, looking at facts not ideologies and looking overall. I hope it doesnt sound patronising.
Maybe a futurable socialist legacy is the possibility of a balanced social control of this type, in order to avoid contradictory aspects of a totally free economy. Certainly not take money for nothing neither statalism, but to foster a healthy developement and/or blocking degenerative mechanisms, if this is possible. It is also important to introduce to the job without creating high frictions or psychological blocks, and this can be largely a matter of communication. I'm just outlining it because I don't really have great clue about economics.
capitalism does NOT mean free maket, does NOT mean competition- it means only who owns means of production. Capitalism naturally tends to get monopolised- in case of monopolies theres no free market and no competition. It is a power of the un-electable government.
You Are 100% Capitalist, 0% Socialist
That is hard to believe with that Chinese flag in you profile.
That is hard to believe with that Chinese flag in you profile.
China is a purely capitalist country. The nation has nothing to say, only the owners of factories- who for change are called 'communists', but its only for fun.
China is a purely capitalist country. The nation has nothing to say, only the owners of factories- who for change are called 'communists', but its only for fun.
That is False, They are industry based, but no Capitalistic:
1) All the money comes from the state.
2) Have you ever try to establish a business in China? Impossible
3) All the commercial decisions are made by the CCP
2) Have you ever try to establish a business in China? Impossible
Right...
The number of Chinese billionaires is second only to the US.
No for much time, they kill rich people
http://www.forbes.com/sites/raykwong/2011/07/25/friends-dont-let-friends-become-chinese-billionaires/
China Daily reported Friday that unnatural deaths have taken the lives of 72 mainland billionaires over the past eight years. (Do the math.)
Which means that if you’re one of China’s 115 current billionaires, as listed on the 2011 Forbes Billionaires List, you should be more than a little nervous.
Mortality rate notwithstanding, what’s more disturbing is how these mega wealthy souls met their demise. According to China Daily, 15 were murdered, 17 committed suicide, seven died from accidents and 19 died from illness. Oh, yes, and 14 were executed. (Welcome to China.)
I don’t know about you but I find it somewhat improbable that among such a small population there could be so many “suicides,” “accidents” and “death by disease” (the average age of those who died from illness was only 48). I’m only speculating but the homicide toll could really be much higher.
That is False, They are industry based, but no Capitalistic:
1) All the money comes from the state.
2) Have you ever try to establish a business in China? Impossible
3) All the commercial decisions are made by the CCP
1 State= corporation. In US called 'General Electric' or 'McDonalds', in China called 'Government. They should name it 'Chinese Government Ltd'.
2 I accidentally have not tried to start a business in China, but I suppose its easy as long as you are connected to 'Chinese Government Ltd' board.
3 CCP= 'Chinese Government Ltd'.
1 State= corporation. In US called 'General Electric' or 'McDonalds', in China called 'Government. They should name it 'Chinese Government Ltd'.
2 I accidentally have not tried to start a business in China, but I suppose its easy as long as you are connected to 'Chinese Government Ltd' board.
3 CCP= 'Chinese Government Ltd'.
According to that logic Lenin was Rockefeller and the soviets General Motors. Come on.
It is not that China is becoming Capitalistic, it is the west that is becoming communist (totalitarian).
Capitalism means free market, you buy products, produce and sell products and no one gets involved. No CCP, no FDA, etc.
I think the US is less capitalistic as the years pass.
According to that logic Lenin was Rockefeller and the soviets General Motors. Come on.
It is not that China is becoming Capitalistic, it is the west that is becoming communist (totalitarian).
Capitalism means free market, you buy products, produce and sell products and no one gets involved. No CCP, no FDA, etc.
I think the US is less capitalistic as the years pass.
Capitalism means: who owns the means of production, they rule, they have a say. In communism factories or shops are in theory 'property of all' but in practice noone have a say.
In a competetive, free-market capitalism many or most people own means of productions, in corporate capitalism its a few on the top who do.
Corporate capitalism is very similar to real-socialism. Concentrated, corrputed power at the top, no competition, no choice, high bareers of entry into the market, high risk.
Another similarity is with stocks- since most people are 'stock holders' it means most people are 'owners' of a small anomymous part of some factory- with no say- exactly like in communism. The only diffference is, their stocks may go up or down (for one to gain there must be one to loose, no perpetum mobile in economy).
Corvus Albus
2012-03-21, 14:54
Neither
Capitalism means: who owns the means of production, they rule, they have a say. In communism factories or shops are in theory 'property of all' but in practice noone have a say.
In a competetive, free-market capitalism many or most people own means of productions, in corporate capitalism its a few on the top who do.
Corporate capitalism is very similar to real-socialism. Concentrated, corrputed power at the top, no competition, no choice, high bareers of entry into the market, high risk.
Another similarity is with stocks- since most people are 'stock holders' it means most people are 'owners' of a small anomymous part of some factory- with no say- exactly like in communism. The only diffference is, their stocks may go up or down (for one to gain there must be one to loose, no perpetum mobile in economy).
According to my definition of Capitalism it is the system were means of production and property belongs to the private (and not to the state). About making the rules it is not an inherent quality of the Capitalism.
According to my definition of Capitalism it is the system were means of production and property belongs to the private (and not to the state). About making the rules it is not an inherent quality of the Capitalism.
In communism all property belong to private people- cause 'state' is nothing else as people, different name of society.
In socialist system, in theory, when there is a driller, a hammer, a car and a packet of nails, it belongs to you and me together. In capitalism, it belongs to either me or you or we can co-own it. In both cases it is 'ours. In theory.
In practice- in socialism it belongs to 'state' which is a group of people alienated from society. In capitalism it belongs to 'corporation' which is a group of people alienated from society. One equals another.
The only healthy system in my opinion is when I have some means of production (a car and a pack of nails) and you have other (a hammer and a driller) and we exchange service or cooperate. In corporate capitalism though you are an employee- not an owner. Most people do not own a thing.
So, in communism 95% people do not own means of productions, in corporate capitalism 95% do not own means of production.
At the same time, in both system they have an illusion of possessing it- by being a citizen or being a stock holder.
In communism all property belong to private people- cause 'state' is nothing else as people, different name of society.
The state gets Power using the violence, and after that they have the monopoly of the violence.
A business man earns Power (Money) Working, saving and beating the competence with better product and lower cost.
Before the French Revolution the power was in the hands of armed people. (Nobility)
After the French Revolution the power was in the hands of the Bourgeois.
Private sector =/= State
In socialist system, in theory, when there is a driller, a hammer, a car and a packet of nails, it belongs to you and me together. In capitalism, it belongs to either me or you or we can co-own it. In both cases it is 'ours. In theory.
Capitalism is better because it is a motivation for the people to work hard for a hammer.
In practice- in socialism it belongs to 'state' which is a group of people alienated from society. In capitalism it belongs to 'corporation' which is a group of people alienated from society. One equals another.
In Capitalism it belongs to the one that works harder.
The only healthy system in my opinion is when I have some means of production (a car and a pack of nails) and you have other (a hammer and a driller) and we exchange service or cooperate. In corporate capitalism though you are an employee- not an owner. Most people do not own a thing.
The most healthy system is the freedom, nature cant be wrong.
So, in communism 95% people do not own means of productions, in corporate capitalism 95% do not own means of production.
You share some crypto-communist similarities with Mary. jk :p
I think people in capitalist countries have more than people in Communist countries.
Do you know it is really easy to have a mean of production in a Capitalist society?
1) Write a Business Plan
2) Get Financial support (Banks)
3) Do it
I'm 60% Capitalist, 40% Socialist
I think the questions are manipulated to maximize the socialist point of view. I would consider my self more than 60% Capitalist , but I'm not completely uncompassionate either. I'm socially somewhat liberal, but much more heavily fiscally conservative. This pool does not reflect that and lumps social and fiscal positions together.
I am not a crypto-communist. I believe in free market and free competition, freedom and liberty- thats why I oppose capitalism, cause it is against these all principles. I oppose socialism too. I believe in mixed systems, where:
- honesty is the basic rule of the market, unlike now- in the era of adverts, manipulation and corruption
- cooperation is better than fight- competition obviously means than one wins, one is eliminated- but it should not be a deadly race-and the losers get a signal to try somewhere else
- power of one man is limited
In your world, its all easy, simple and nice- but check your knowledge from Druckers books about management in reall life.
^ So you are basically a Social democrat?
^ So you are basically a Social democrat?
I find tags quite restricting, but somethin like- social democrat or liberal democrat. I dont like dictature and oppression, so I dislike both communism/socialism as corporate wild capitalism with big boys. I prefer societies with a stronger middle class, where most people are 'active' members of society. Its ideal obviously. Sometimes some kind of oppression/must is needed, but limited as much as its possible.
ItaloPortuga
2012-03-22, 02:01
I believe drugs and prostitution should be legalized.
:thumbsup:
Yeah, I'm that ruthless bastard who will let you buy drugs legally, overdose, and die on the sidewalk from your own compulsions and stupidity.
It´s an excellent form of population control :lol:
People who really want to buy and use drugs will find a way to do it whether it´s legal or not. The same goes for prostitution. It´s time to go after the real criminals and let the pimps and crack whores kill themselves off.
You Are 36% Capitalist, 64% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral
i suppose this is pretty close to reality.
Ihateyou
2012-03-22, 02:13
84% Socialist , 16% Capitalist
---------- Post added 2012-03-22 at 01:15 ----------
"You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed. As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power. You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person."]You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed. As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power. You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
I am not a crypto-communist. I believe in free market and free competition, freedom and liberty- thats why I oppose capitalism, cause it is against these all principles.
According to the Mises institute free market and free competition, freedom and liberty is capitalism.
I oppose socialism too. I believe in mixed systems, where:
- honesty is the basic rule of the market, unlike now- in the era of adverts, manipulation and corruption
Capitalism is honest because you can buy to your favourite company.
- cooperation is better than fight- competition obviously means than one wins, one is eliminated- but it should not be a deadly race-and the losers get a signal to try somewhere else
I think the opposite, there are law (anti-trust) to prevent the collaboration of companies. Lest say all the Car companies settle an agreement to put high prices instead of compete. The loser is the buyer.
- power of one man is limited
The limit of a man should be his abilities.
If you limit people you will get a society of losers.
Self regulation is the key. Steve jobs was powerful, picture what would happen if someone had limited his power: no Ipad, no Iphone, etc.
In your world, its all easy, simple and nice- but check your knowledge from Druckers books about management in reall life.
No, it is not easy I can tell from experience but it is not impossible.
Ron Paul 2012
Nice quiz.
You are 24% Capitalist, 76% Socialist
And what are you?
http://www.blogthings.com/areyouasocialistorcapitalistquiz/
haha i'm not surprised
"You Are 20% Capitalist, 80% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person."
this is so on point though the last question was so manipulative :confused:
According to the Mises institute free market and free competition, freedom and liberty is capitalism.
there are various forms of freedom and liberty, you are talking about economical freedom- it is also not uterly true- in monopolised/olygopolised/patented/corporate economy it doesnt apply. Even bareers of entry are too high for anyone but big players.
Capitalism is honest because you can buy to your favourite company.
Provided you have access to right information. They say information is the most expensive good nowadays. Obviously, companies are not interested in telling the truth, but selling. It is the market/regulations which should show the truth.
I think the opposite, there are law (anti-trust) to prevent the collaboration of companies. Lest say all the Car companies settle an agreement to put high prices instead of compete. The loser is the buyer.
yes and existence of this law proves that capitalism is not self-efficient.
The limit of a man should be his abilities.
If you limit people you will get a society of losers.
Of course. The best system is when the most is taken from the most. The question is, what makes it possible.
El Andullero
2012-03-22, 02:33
40% Capitalist, 60% Socialist.
"You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral. "
Almost fairly balanced as I am, IMHO.
Provided you have access to right information. They say information is the most expensive good nowadays. Obviously, companies are not interested in telling the truth, but selling. It is the market/regulations which should show the truth.
Market regulations are not good. There is a company in America that made great advances in the cure to the Children Leukaemia but the drug cannot be used because the FDA (regulation agency) doesnt grant them the necessary licences.
People is not stupid, and companies know that. If a company try to scam me i would go for another company.
In a real capitalism there is no place for scam.
alb0zfinest
2012-03-22, 02:49
You Are 36% Capitalist, 64% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral.
In a real capitalism there is no place for scam.
I totally disagree. There are plenty of naive people who waste their money on scams.
Market regulations are not good. There is a company in America that made great advances in the cure to the Children Leukaemia but the drug cannot be used because the FDA (regulation agency) doesnt grant them the necessary licences.
People is not stupid, and companies know that. If a company try to scam me i would go for another company.
In a real capitalism there is no place for scam.
yes, but 'real capitalism' is possible in a village of 200 citizens of XVII century, not in a dynamic globalised economy. 'Invisible hand' of the market probably always works, sooner lr later (usually later)- but you want to focus peoples and businesses activities on constructive and positive actions, not on repairing and reverting damages.
If we get to an economy based on lies, half of activity will be focused around of this 'invisible hand' and this hand becomes too visible. You can see it alreay now in many sectors, for instance insurance, private healthcare or even banking sector.
You need to pay over the odds for insurance, cause you need to pay for 'invisible-visible' hand, all cons, cheats, fake acccidentes, lawyers, assessors and plus, hundred of middle men.
The worst thing is, it is a vicious circle. You pay a lot for insurance, so you are tempted to 'get the money back' so you try to con the system and then it makes the system even more expensive etc.
---------- Post added 2012-03-22 at 01:58 ----------
I totally disagree. There are plenty of naive people who waste their money on scams.
Yes, totally- cause they have no access to information. This is the basic role of regulation of the market- to provide this access. Companies (especially the bad ones) are interested in restricting this access.
The market with no this access plays according to the rule of levellling down to the worst.
32 Capitalist
68 Socialist
Darth Moltke
2012-03-29, 05:29
76% Capitalist, 24% Socialist
EliasAlucard
2012-03-29, 06:02
Poll added.
//mod
36% Capitalist ; 64% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral.
40% capitalist 60% socialist
I thought I am more capitalist than socialist
quotablepatella
2012-03-29, 09:05
People you should try this one: http://www.politicalquiz.net
I'm not American whilst the quiz itself is, but I think the results are mostly accurate.
Conservative/Progressive score: 11
You are a social progressive. You generally consider yourself a humanist first. You probably think that religion and patriotism go too far in society. You probably consider yourself to be a citizen of Earth first rather than a citizen of your country.
Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 11
You're a Social Capitalist, you think that, left to its own, Capitalism leaves a lot of people behind. You think that Health Care should be free to all, that the minimum wage should be raised, and that the government should provide jobs to all that are capable of having them. You likely hated the Bush tax cuts, and believe that the middle class has gotten poorer, and the rich have gotten richer over the past several years. The far extreme of social capitalism is socialism.
Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 1
You are libertarian. You think that the government is making way too many unnecessary laws that are taking away our innate rights. You believe that the government's job is primarily to protect people from harming other people, but after that they should mind their own business, and if we give the government too much power in controlling our lives, it can lead to fascism.
Pacifist/Militarist score: 1
You're a Pacifist. You are angered that the United States thinks it should dominate the world through its military force. You think that the only time war is necessary is when we are in direct danger of being attacked. You also believe the US spends way too much of its money on defense, as we can practically cut it in half and still easily defend ourselves, and use that money to fix all our economic problems.
Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Hardcore Democrat
EliasAlucard
2012-03-29, 09:12
By the way, I see a lot of Capitalist votes so far. In my experience, most self-proclaimed Capitalists aren't very consistent with Capitalist ideology.
I'm a night-watchman minarchist libertarian who believes in free market capitalism.
~Elizabeth~
2012-03-29, 10:30
It says I'm 12% Capitalist, 88% Socialist
No way. Where did this 12% Capitalist come from? Gotta send to Eurgoenes for a second opinion.
I was raised by a Socialist/activist mother, and I grew up seeing the harsh side of life, so this makes sense.
I don't like Capitalists. :mad:
Ironically, my first vote was for a Republican. My mother cried about that. I was a registered Independent (no party affiliation).
Republicans tend to be more capitalistic, but there are Democrats who are also.
I vote for the candidate I like. Sometimes I vote Republican, sometimes Democrat. Last year I switched from Independent to Democrat.
I like some of the third parties, but I will vote Democrat later this year.
On some issues I agree with reps, some issues with dems.
I'm for strong immigration control (DEPORT ILLEGALS!!! Over 20 million illegals!) but I am PRO-CHOICE on women's issues.
http://i39.tinypic.com/so4sc5.jpg
---------- Post added 2012-03-29 at 05:35 ----------
In my experience, most self-proclaimed Capitalists aren't very consistent with Capitalist ideology.
That is so true. I've seen the same thing. They're pompous hypocrites.
---------- Post added 2012-03-29 at 05:50 ----------
http://www.politicalquiz.net/
The Quiz
The following are your scores. They are based on a gradual range of 0 to 12. For instance, a Conservative/Progressive score of 3 and 0 will both yield a result of social conservative, yet 0 would be an extreme conservative and 3 a moderate conservative
Conservative/Progressive score: 3
You are a social conservative. You believe in traditional values, and care first and foremost about your country, your family, and your religion. You dislike the agenda of the left because you see them as trying to destroy these things.
Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 12
You're a Social Capitalist, you think that, left to its own, Capitalism leaves a lot of people behind. You think that Health Care should be free to all, that the minimum wage should be raised, and that the government should provide jobs to all that are capable of having them. You likely hated the Bush tax cuts, and believe that the middle class has gotten poorer, and the rich have gotten richer over the past several years. The far extreme of social capitalism is socialism.
Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 9
You're an Authoritarian. You believe that that, left to their own, many people will do immoral or harmful things. You despise drug users, pornography, violence, and all other things that you consider immoral. You also think that security is often more important than protecting rights. You think children need to be protected from seeing these things so it doesn't warp their minds, and that the will of the majority sometimes is more important than the rights of the minority.
Pacifist/Militarist score: 3
You're a Pacifist. You are angered that the United States thinks it should dominate the world through its military force. You think that the only time war is necessary is when we are in direct danger of being attacked. You also believe the US spends way too much of its money on defense, as we can practically cut it in half and still easily defend ourselves, and use that money to fix all our economic problems.
Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Democrat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I see this thread is in a Communism & Anarchism sub-forum, which I've never seen/visited before.
When I logged into the forum, this thread was in the "Latest Posts" section at the top of the main page. That's how I noticed it.
My main interest is following the Eurogenes thread.
By the way, I see a lot of Capitalist votes so far. In my experience, most self-proclaimed Capitalists aren't very consistent with Capitalist ideology.
In my opinion capitalism is not an ideology, it is just the freedom of commerce, a natural human activity-.
There is a form of organized capitalism name it neo-capitalism and I am against that, it is not capitalism when a company uses military forces, political lobbies or public resources.
I do support the welfare state, but i am against the universal welfare state and mandatory taxes.
Excellent test. Thanks Elizabeth
Soul Unlimited
2012-03-29, 18:09
This quiz is much more detailed. Props to you Jibaro
The Quiz
(http://www.politicalquiz.net/)
The following are your scores. They are based on a gradual range of 0 to 12. For instance, a Conservative/Progressive score of 3 and 0 will both yield a result of social conservative, yet 0 would be an extreme conservative and 3 a moderate conservative
Conservative/Progressive score: 7
You are a social moderate. You think the progressive movement is overall well meaning, but sometimes it goes too far. On issues like abortion and affirmative action, you see the negatives of both extremes on the issue. You probably value religion, but at the same time you think it should still stay separate from the government
Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 3
You're a Capitalist Purist. You believe that the market should be completely free, and that the invisible hand of the market will make sure that the people get what they want and will do it in the most efficient way possible. You believe in small government, less taxes, and more privatization.
Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 2
You are libertarian. You think that the government is making way too many unnecessary laws that are taking away our innate rights. You believe that the government's job is primarily to protect people from harming other people, but after that they should mind their own business, and if we give the government too much power in controlling our lives, it can lead to fascism.
Pacifist/Militarist score: 5
You're a Moderate. You think that in very rare occasions, the United States should invade a country in order to make the world better by spreading democracy or ending a tyrants rule. You also think that defense is very important, and we shouldn't lower the defense budget. You think that, while the Iraq War probably was a mistake, that we can make the world a better place by sticking with it and spreading democracy in the middle east.
Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Libertarian
dr. Drago
2012-03-29, 18:18
lol. my score:
You're a capitalist pig - and proud of it.
You believe that business makes the world great...
And you'd never be ashamed of being rich!
You Are 8% Capitalist, 92% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
Nordenskjöld
2012-07-11, 05:56
You Are 56% Capitalist, 44% Socialist
While you are definitely sympathetic to a free economy, you also worry about the less fortunate.
Wealth and business is fine, as long as those who are in need get helped out too.
You tend to see both the government and corporations as potentially corrupt.
You Are 28% Capitalist, 72% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral
Among Rhine capitalism and Social democracy... I think
Nordenskjöld
2012-07-11, 07:41
Weird for a Chilean
The quiz is not working for me at the moment, but I guess my results won't be very different from Elizabeth's
Weird for a Chilean
Almost everyone around me are left-wing, and some anticapitalists too. Less my ultraconservative dad (UDI) :whoco:
jibarodepr
2012-07-11, 18:46
Almost everyone around me are left-wing, and some anticapitalists too. Less my ultraconservative dad (UDI) :whoco:It seems you are a Socialist minority on a capitalist country, like I am, but that is good as it shows political diversity.
Edwards Aguiar
2012-07-11, 18:49
I am 100% liberal;
Capitalism is a biased term that Marxists invented to refer to Liberalism.
Socialism, Marxism has brought only trouble, misery and hunger in the nations where they were applied.
Liberalism seeks to lower taxes, provide more job opportunities and less interference in the economy.That are the three pillars for the development of a nation
Unfortunately, America is full of Lefties, this corresponds directly with the fall of the development in the U.S.Even President Barack Obama is Lefty, I hope that Americans learn their lesson and would never vote for leftist for president
jibarodepr
2012-07-11, 18:51
Liberalism seeks to lower taxes, provide more job opportunities and less interference in the economy.That are the three pillars for the development of a nationThe "Libertarians" I know here seem to advocate for the opposite of what you stated, maybe your type is what it is needed on here.
Unfortunately, America is full of Lefties, this corresponds directly with the fall of the development in the U.S.Even President Barack Obama is Lefty, I hope that Americans learn their lesson and would never vote for leftist for presidentWhat caused the fall was the former president wasting the money of the nation on weapons of war.
It seems you are a Socialist minority on a capitalist country, like I am, but that is good as it shows political diversity.
Chile has never been a right-wing country. In the last 100 years we've only had two right-wing presidents elected democratically, and one of them was brought to power by the center (Radical party).
Edwards Aguiar
2012-07-11, 19:09
Many Americans "liberal" are interventionists and in favor of high taxes, like many Brazilian Leftists.These leftists are pretending to be liberal, we should not take seriously these politicals.
I did not like Bush, but if a country is invaded by terrorists, the right thing to do is fight back, he only complied with its obligation.
Lefts people love to defend criminals, terrorists.For this reason, the leftists were against his plan to invade Iraq
---------- Post added 2012-07-11 at 18:15 ----------
However Chile is economically liberal, with little intervention in the economy.
And chile is the best country in South America
Meanwhile, Ecuador and Venezuela are getting more miserable, because the fucking socialism
jibarodepr
2012-07-11, 19:15
Chile has never been a right-wing country. In the last 100 years we've only had two right-wing presidents elected democratically, and one of them was brought to power by the center (Radical party).it seems that one learn something new everyday, but it is nice to hear both sides.
---------- Post added 2012-07-11 at 14:21 ----------
Many Americans "liberal" are interventionists and in favor of high taxes, like many Brazilian Leftists.These leftists are pretending to be liberal, we should not take seriously these politicals.Lol, who understand politicians, right. ;)
I did not like Bush, but if a country is invaded by terrorists, the right thing to do is fight back, he only complied with its obligation.
Lefts people love to defend criminals, terrorists.For this reason, the leftists were against his plan to invade IraqYes but he didn't had to waste the amount of money he wasted for it, he nearly left the country in bankrupt.
Nordenskjöld
2012-07-11, 23:35
Almost everyone around me are left-wing, and some anticapitalists too. Less my ultraconservative dad (UDI) :whoco:
So what? nearly everyone around me is right-wing. That says nothing.
Jíbaro: in Chile, even the centre-left applied right-wing policies in their political periods, since they realized it's the best for the country. Chile might have been leftist in the past, BUT the country learnt and now most people support neoliberalism. Of course we've got to perfect it, but as far as I know, it's the best system.
Besides, the dictatorship of Pinochet applied tough changes in a short period of time, so a lot of people changed their mentality about politics and economy. People now tend to be afraid of the State, and it's good that they are, because it's quite inefficient and ineffective.
Chile has have a lot of right-wing presidents such as Prieto, J. Montt, Bulnes, A. Alessandri, J. Alessandri, Pérez, Errázuriz Zañartu, Errázuriz Echaurren, Santa María, Pinto, Riesco, J. Montt, P. Montt, Barros Luco, Sanfuentes, etc.
Põhjamaalane
2012-07-11, 23:42
You Are 52% Capitalist, 48% Socialist
While you are definitely sympathetic to a free economy, you also worry about the less fortunate.
Wealth and business is fine, as long as those who are in need get helped out too.
You tend to see both the government and corporations as potentially corrupt.
Chile has have a lot of right-wing presidents such as Prieto, J. Montt, Bulnes, A. Alessandri, J. Alessandri, Pérez, Errázuriz Zañartu, Errázuriz Echaurren, Santa María, Pinto, Riesco, J. Montt, P. Montt, Barros Luco, Sanfuentes, etc.
The Liberal Party was a left/center-wing party until the constitution of 1925. From liberal-conservative union had no more rightist president except Jorge Montt who came to power through a coup. After they just Alessandri Rodriguez and Piñera.
The left is not just socialism.
Leftism is the worst cancer of society, and the only way to cure a cancer is extirpating it.
I remember a dictator and murderer that said the same...
I remember a dictator and murderer that said the same...
If you're talking about Pinochet, he was a pussy in when it comes to kill commies, that's why Chile is still full of them.
Is funny when people in Europe and so thinks that Pinochet was like Hitler, and they don't even know who is Videla, our neighbor dictator who killed more than 10 times the quantity of commies than Pinochet; maybe because there where not commies left to go to Europe and spread the bull shit LOL
Anyway, if you're not capitalist there are 3 options:
-You don't know what capitalism is and you get you're ideas from wrong literature and what millionaire weird actors like Shean Peen say.
-You don't like to make your own decisions and prefer that someone, like a government or a leader, tells you what to do (where to work, what to buy, where to live, what to buy, etc)
- You're poor and lazy, and you want the government to pay for all your shit
Nordenskjöld
2012-07-12, 02:33
The Liberal Party was a left/center-wing party until the constitution of 1925. From liberal-conservative union had no more rightist president except Jorge Montt who came to power through a coup. After they just Alessandri Rodriguez and Piñera.
The left is not just socialism.
The Liberal Party wasn't leftist :lol:
It was less religious than the Conservative Party, but still rightist. The Liberals, along with the Nationals of Manuel Montt/Antonio Varas, and the Conservatives, ended being the National Party of the 60s and 70s.
The Radical Party was centrist. The Democratic Party was centre-leftist. The Communist Party from the 20th Century was actually leftist.
You've got to review the policies of the Liberal Party: no taxes, etc. The only difference with the Conservatives was the role of the Church in the society. That doesn't mean that they are leftist, but that they're liberals. And yes, it's the Liberal Party so it sounds legit.
---------- Post added 2012-07-11 at 21:39 ----------
Anyway, if you're not capitalist there are 3 options:
-You don't know what capitalism is and you get you're ideas from wrong literature and what millionaire weird actors like Shean Peen say.
-You don't like to make your own decisions and prefer that someone, like a government or a leader, tells you what to do (where to work, what to buy, where to live, what to buy, etc)
- You're poor and lazy, and you want the government to pay for all your shit
:lol:
+1
Leftism is the worst cancer of society, and the only way to cure a cancer is extirpating it.
Spoken like a true fascist :)
dr. Drago
2012-07-12, 02:54
Spoken like a true fascist :)
fascists and nazis were/are leftists.
fascists and nazis were/are leftists.
Nazis and fascists persecuted communists and killed them en masse. They also fought communism very passionately.
The capitalist bourgeois allied with the Nazi party and allowed it to get the power because it worked for their interest as they felt threatened by the waves of communism across Europe .
jibarodepr
2012-07-12, 03:03
Then what are far rightists?
52% capitalist and 48% socialist.
It says:
While you are definitely sympathetic to a free economy, you also worry about the less fortunate.
Wealth and business is fine, as long as those who are in need get helped out too.
You tend to see both the government and corporations as potentially corrupt.
Anyway, if you're not capitalist there are 3 options:
-You don't know what capitalism is and you get you're ideas from wrong literature and what millionaire weird actors like Shean Peen say.
-You don't like to make your own decisions and prefer that someone, like a government or a leader, tells you what to do (where to work, what to buy, where to live, what to buy, etc)
- You're poor and lazy, and you want the government to pay for all your shit
I did not say that I'm not capitalist. Not everything is black or white.
In your speech is clear that you are someone who thinks that if you're not ultra-fascist like you are communist... bad for you.
As a society, long ago, we reached consensus about best for all (to high cost). Differences between them are subtle, if you don't think that, or you stay in the cold war or you was indoctrinated and filled your head with hate.
Nazis and fascists persecuted communists and killed them en masse. They also fought communism very passionately.
The capitalist bourgeois allied with the Nazi party and allowed it to get the power because it worked for their interest as they felt threatened by the waves of communism across Europe .
Fascist and Nazis are not capitalists.
Fascist cancer was extirpated long ago (WW2), they are not a threat to freedom today, leftists are.
---------- Post added 2012-07-11 at 22:53 ----------
I did not say that I'm not capitalist. Not everything is black or white.
In your speech is clear that you are someone who thinks that if you're not ultra-fascist like you are communist... bad for you.
As a society, long ago, we reached consensus about best for all (to high cost). Differences between them are subtle, if you don't think that, or you stay in the cold war or you was indoctrinated and filled your head with hate.
Sorry, I that was directed to everyone, I wasn't calling you a commie, unless you are.
I'm not a fascist, I hate them, I also hate every kind of left, I love freedom, pure beautiful freedom.
Fascist and Nazis are not capitalists.
I didn't say they were, just that they have been historical allies.
I didn't say they were, just that they have been historical allies.
You are the one that called me fascist for being anti leftist, typical leftie "argument", calling fascist Hitelr lover Nazi to everyone that dares to call himself capitalist
I did not say that I'm not capitalist. Not everything is black or white.
In your speech is clear that you are someone who thinks that if you're not ultra-fascist like you are communist... bad for you.
As a society, long ago, we reached consensus about best for all (to high cost). Differences between them are subtle, if you don't think that, or you stay in the cold war or you was indoctrinated and filled your head with hate.
Some self proclaimed capitalists speak with such agression and hate about 'the left' that it makes you wonder about their true intentions regarding human rights and freedom.
I respect true liberalism, classical liberalism like John Locke type for which human rights were fundamental, but this neoliberalism is a joke. More often than not neoliberalism from our times is very authoritarian and talks about freedom when at the same time they are very angry and intolerant of everything that doesn't agree with them which they often label as 'the left'.
These times' neoliberalism also often goes hand in hand with classism and social darwinism; it subordinates everything to the idea of making money and reproducing it and for which values like empathy , solidarity and compassion have no place in society.
Sometimes it seems to me that many neoliberals are in fact fascists in disguise who use the neoliberal label (and the word 'freedom') to mask their oppressive and hierarchical nature.
---------- Post added 2012-07-11 at 22:09 ----------
You are the one that called me fascist for being anti leftist, typical leftie "argument", calling fascist Hitelr lover Nazi to everyone that dares to call himself capitalist
I didn't call you fascist for being 'anti leftist' (whatever that means) I called you that because of the creepy authoritative, violent tone of your statements - which is very common among far right wingers-
I didn't call you fascist for being 'anti leftist' (whatever that means) I called you that because of the creepy authoritative, violent tone of your statements - which is very common among far right wingers-
Leftism = slavery
Some things must be treated like the things they are.
And fore sure you have no idea what capitalism is, it isn't corporatism...
You better stop listening to Sean Peen
Leftism = slavery
Some things must be treated like the things they are.
And fore sure you have no idea what capitalism is, it isn't corporatism...
You better stop listening to Sean Peen
I do have an idea of what capitalism is, and also what neoliberalism is ;) You don't seem to know though what socialism and marxism are about.
I have no idea who Sean Peen is.......
"Some things must be treated like the things they are.
"
Don't you realize how angry and hateful that makes you sound..??? :confused: That's something one expects to hear from an actual fascist, not a true liberal.
I do have an idea of what capitalism is, and also what neoliberalism is ;) You don't seem to know though what socialism and marxism are about.
I have no idea who Sean Peen is.......
"Some things must be treated like the things they are.
"
Don't you realize how angry and hateful that makes you sound..??? :confused: That's something one expects to hear from an actual fascist, not a true liberal.
I'm a peace loving person, and over all I love freedom, I'm even against immigration restrictions and things like that.
But when I see this every day:
http://observadorglobal.com/adjuntos/99216.jpg
http://www.theclinic.cl/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Encapuchados_Congreso-521x300.jpg
http://www.meganoticias.cl/files/img/2012/07/11/2012_07_11_0516_1342041411_original.jpg
http://img.portaldeblogs.com/actualidad/2012/03/26/encapuchados-prendieron-fuego-a-un.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vbQlBbEC0nk/TsccKC5AF8I/AAAAAAAAeBY/X-NCGS1OMa0/s1600/Imagen+repetida%252C+encapuchados+destuyen+todo+a+ su+pasa+en+convocatorias+de+estudiantes+y+profesor es..jpg
People (leftists) trying to destroy our democracy and impose their own totalitarian government... yeah! I get fucking angry, and the only way to deal with this people is with violence, not with flowers and songs.
Oh come on... :rolleyes: those people don't represent 'the left' , they are extemists and there are extremists on both sides of the spectrum.
The average socialist oriented person is just a regular person who will not throw a molotov at you or bash your car. It is useless to behave in a sensationalist way and try to discredit a very big group of people by the few of them that behave like that.
That can also be done the other way arund, I could also post a bunch of pics of police abuse and violence from capitalist and neoliberal governments or supporters.
Oh come on... :rolleyes: those people don't represent 'the left' , they are extemists and there are extremists on both sides of the spectrum.
The average socialist oriented person is just a regular person who will not throw a molotov at you or bash your car. It is useless to behave in a sensationalist way and try to discredit a very big group of people by the few of them that behave like that.
That can also be done the other way arund, I could also post a bunch of pics of police abuse and violence from capitalist and neoliberal governments or supporters.
I already wrote the 3 kinds of leftists, you're obviously the first one (the ignorant and least harmless one).
But still, people like you would vote for leftist politicians until all your freedom is gone because "capitalists are evil"
I already wrote the 3 kinds of leftists, you're obviously the first one (the ignorant and least harmless one).
But still, people like you would vote for leftist politicians until all your freedom is gone because "capitalists are evil"
Lol.... Way to dodge and assume.
I can call you ignorant back, but this insult means nothing, it's clear we just have different values so there's no point.
Buenas noches.
jibarodepr
2012-07-12, 05:18
Do conservative leftists exist?
amerinese
2012-07-12, 05:20
Do conservative leftists exist?
Of course. The most powerful leftist in history was conservative on many issues.
http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/tmp_assets/stalin-bio.jpg
Do conservative leftists exist?
they are called Communists, apart from being leftists, they are usually homophobic, racists, etc.
jibarodepr
2012-07-12, 05:31
And who represents the conservative right?
amerinese
2012-07-12, 05:55
In recent history? Reagan is the main conservative icon in the US, but he was considered very liberal early in his career.
jibarodepr
2012-07-12, 05:56
But does communism represent the conservative left?Sorry for aksing too much, but I learn something new everyday when I ask.
Azvarohi
2012-07-12, 05:57
Capitalists own capital, which I doubt most here do...since you would be too busy managing your capital than surfing this site.
dr. Drago
2012-07-12, 06:14
Nazis and fascists persecuted communists and killed them en masse. They also fought communism very passionately.
The capitalist bourgeois allied with the Nazi party and allowed it to get the power because it worked for their interest as they felt threatened by the waves of communism across Europe .
uhh so? protestants and catholics fought each other doesn't mean both aren't Christian.
as far as big business' support for the nazis (which of course stands for National SOCIALIST lol) it's just supporting the lesser of 2 evils. kinda like US support for mujaheddin against the soviets.
jibarodepr
2012-07-12, 06:19
Info about nazism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_socialism
A majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.[30] Far right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over others and purge society of supposed inferior elements.[28] Adolf Hitler and other proponents officially portrayed Nazism as being neither left- nor right-wing, but syncretic.[23][24] Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany, saying:
Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.he Nazis were strongly influenced by the post-World War I far-right in Germany, which held common beliefs such as anti-Marxism, anti-liberalism, and anti-Semitism, along with nationalism, contempt towards the Treaty of Versailles, and condemnnation of the Weimar Republic for signing the armistice in November 1918 that later led to their signing of the Treaty of Versailles.[32] A major inspiration for the Nazis were the far-right nationalist Freikorps, paramilitary organizations that engaged in political violence after World War I.[32] Initially, the post-World War I German far right was dominated by monarchists, but the younger generation, who were associated with Völkisch nationalism, were more radical and did not express any emphasis on the restoration of the German monarchy.[33] This younger generation desired to dismantle the Weimar Republic and create a new radical and strong state based upon a martial ruling ethic that could revive the "Spirit of 1914" that was associated with German national unity (Volksgemeinschaft).[33]
The Nazis, the far-right monarchist and reactionary German National People's Party (DNVP), and others, such as monarchist officers of the German army and several prominent industrialists, formed an alliance in opposition to the Weimar Republic on 11 October 1931 in Bad Harzburg; officially known as the "National Front", but commonly referred to as the Harzburg Front.[34] The Nazis stated the alliance was purely tactical and there remained substantial differences with the DNVP. The Nazis described the DNVP as a bourgeois party and called themselves an anti-bourgeois party.[35] After the elections in 1932, the alliance broke after the DNVP lost many of its seats in the Reichstag. The Nazis denounced them as "an insignificant heap of reactionaries".[36] The DNVP responded by denouncing the Nazis for their socialism, their street violence, and the "economic experiments" that would take place if the Nazis rose to power.[37]
There were factions in the Nazi Party, both conservative and radical.[38] The conservative Nazi Hermann Göring urged Hitler to conciliate with capitalists and reactionaries.[38] Other prominent conservative Nazis included Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich.[39]
The radical Nazi Joseph Goebbels, hated capitalism, viewing it as having Jews at its core, and he stressed the need for the party to emphasize both a proletarian and national character. Those views were shared by Otto Strasser, who later left the Nazi Party in the belief that Hitler had betrayed the party's socialist goals by allegedly endorsing capitalism.[38] Large segments of the Nazi Party staunchly supported its official socialist, revolutionary, and anti-capitalist positions and expected both a social and economic revolution upon the party gaining power in 1933.[40] Many of the million members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) were committed to the party's official socialist program.[40] The leader of the SA, Ernst Röhm, pushed for a "second revolution" (the "first revolution" being the Nazis' seizure of power) that would entrench the party's official socialist program. Further, Röhm desired that the SA absorb the much smaller German Army into its ranks under his leadership.[40]
Prior to becoming an anti-Semite and a Nazi, Hitler had lived a Bohemian lifestyle as a wandering watercolour artist in Austria and southern Germany, though he maintained elements of it later in life.[41] Hitler served in World War I and after the war his battalion was absorbed by the Bavarian Soviet Republic from 1918 to 1919, where he served with distinction and was elected Deputy Battalion Representative of his communist-led battalion. According to historian Thomas Weber, he attended the funeral of communist Kurt Eisner (a German Jew), wearing a black mourning armband on one arm and a red communist armband on the other.[42] Further that Hitler's political beliefs had not yet solidified, and at that time he supported the idea of a classless society and was an anti-monarchist.[42] In Mein Kampf, Hitler never mentioned any service with the Bavarian Soviet Republic, and he stated that he became an anti-Semite in 1913 in Vienna. This statement has been disputed with the contention he in fact was not an anti-Semite at that time.[43] Hitler altered his political views in response to the Treaty of Versailles of June 1919, and it was then that he became an anti-Semitic, German nationalist.[43] As a Nazi, Hitler had expressed opposition to capitalism; he regarded capitalism as having Jewish origins, and accused capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.[44]
Hitler took a pragmatic position between the conservative and radical factions of the Nazi Party, in that he accepted private property and allowed capitalist private enterprises to exist as long as they adhered to the goals of the Nazi state. However, if a capitalist private enterprise resisted Nazi goals, he sought to destroy it.[38] Upon the Nazis achieving power, Röhm's SA began attacks against individuals deemed to be associated with conservative reaction, without Hitler's authorization to do so.[45] Hitler considered Röhm's independent actions to be violating and possibly threatening his leadership, as well as jeopardizing the regime by alienating the conservative President Paul von Hindenburg and the conservative-oriented German Army.[46] This resulted in Hitler purging Röhm and other radical members of the SA in what came to be known as the Night of the Long Knives.[46]
Although he opposed communist ideology, Hitler on numerous occasions publicly praised the Soviet Union's leader Joseph Stalin and Stalinism.[47] Hitler commended Stalin for seeking to purify the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of Jewish influences, noting Stalin's purging of Jewish communists such as Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev and Karl Radek.[48] While Hitler always intended bring Germany into conflict against the Soviet Union to gain Lebensraum ("living space"), Hitler supported a temporary strategic alliance between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to form a common anti-liberal front to crush liberal democracies, particularly France.[47]
dr. Drago
2012-07-12, 06:22
”We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions”
- Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s speech on May 1, 1927. Cited in: Toland, John (1992). Adolf Hitler. Anchor Books. pp. 224–225. ISBN 0385037244.
jibarodepr
2012-07-12, 06:24
Hitler seemed to like to contradict himself. ;)
dr. Drago
2012-07-12, 06:31
Hitler seemed to like to contradict himself. ;)
he was a politician so he was attacking other parties and forming alliances to achieve his goals - political and then later on - military.
when talking about his own party though he was pretty clear what they were all about - as evidenced by the quote in my previous post.
look at point #13 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP
"We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts)."
Just because he used the word socialism doesn't make him any more socialist than Saddam Husseins' Iraq Republican Guard was republican. That's just semantics. But in foundation nazism/fascism and socialism are opposites.
Hitler's nazism is as far from anti-capitalist socialism as can be. Socialism believes people should equal, nazism believes certain people are superior by default and have a natural right to dominate others.
Hitler declared communism as his main enemy and came to great measures to destroy it.
jibarodepr
2012-07-12, 06:36
he was a politician so he was attacking other parties and forming alliances to achieve his goals - political and then later on - military.
when talking about his own party though he was pretty clear what they were all about - as evidenced by the quote in my previous post.And that is why I dislike politicians.
dr. Drago
2012-07-12, 06:36
Just because he used the word socialism doesn't make him any more socialist than Saddam Husseins' Iraq Republican Guard was republican. That's just semantics. But in foundation nazism/fascism and socialism are opposites.
Hitler's nazism is as far from anti-capitalist socialism as can be. Socialism believes people should equal, nazism believes certain people are superior by default and have a natural right to dominate others.
Hitler declared communism as his main enemy and came to great measures to destroy it.
socialism talks about economical equality, just like Hitler does in the quote I posted.
nazis had a racist twist to their view of equality and just like communists in russia or cambodia or china had to wipe out millions of people to enforce their view of the said equality.
jibarodepr
2012-07-12, 06:39
Hitler was a national socialist, different to socialist, nazism and socialism are diferent.
dr. Drago
2012-07-12, 06:47
Hitler was a national socialist, different to socialist, nazism and socialism are diferent.
nazism IS national socialism. it's just a sub-type of a socialist doctrine with a racist twist to it. however in it's core it' extremely similar to what is traditionally considered to be socialist/communist traits - increased/absolute power of the central government controlling pretty much all of the economy in a "planned" manner, nationalization of large companies, totalitarian control of mass media. the only deviation from a "traditional" marxist interpretation is that instead of doing all of that " for the good of the common worker", it's done "for the good of the german workers and the nation".
jibarodepr
2012-07-12, 06:50
nazism IS national socialism. it's just a sub-type of a socialist doctrine with a racist twist to it. however in it's core it' extremely similar to what is traditionally considered to be socialist/communist traits - increased/absolute power of the central government controlling pretty much all of the economy in a "planned" manner, nationalization of large companies, totalitarian control of mass media. the only deviation from a "traditional" marxist interpretation is that instead of doing all of that " for the good of the common worker", it's done "for the good of the german workers and the nation".So let say the oppsote of nazim is socialdemocracy right?
This country is both and thank God for food stamps!
socialism talks about economical equality, just like Hitler does in the quote I posted.
nazis had a racist twist to their view of equality and just like communists in russia or cambodia or china had to wipe out millions of people to enforce their view of the said equality.
Socialism really means a socialized means of productions, that they belong to the workers and are administrated by them.
State ownership of the means of productions is a perverted interpretation of it and is not the final objective of socialism. Socialism is often taken as te same as state ownership of everything, and it's understandable to think of it that way considering it's what Stalin and others did, but don't forget such a state is not a real , marxist socialists' aim. I doubt you'll find many socialists who will support Stalin-like states.
btw Capitalism can also be state based.
This was bit OT, but to get back, capitalism can also be easily discredited if one resorts to the argument of colonialism, which was a phase of it and also entailed genocide and slavery.
jibarodepr
2012-07-12, 06:53
This country is both and thank God for food stamps!Your country is sociocapitalist?I haven't known of any who practices it.
Your country is sociocapitalist?I haven't known of any who practices it.
We have government-ran programs, loans and subsidized housing in the US. Tiny Bit Socialist to you?
jibarodepr
2012-07-12, 06:57
We have government-ran programs, loans and subsidized housing in the US. Tiny Bit Socialist to you?Maybe
dr. Drago
2012-07-12, 14:45
Socialism really means a socialized means of productions, that they belong to the workers and are administrated by them.
... in reality, when applied to a large scale on a state-level this means that various government agencies do this "on behalf" of the workers. very inefficiently too I might add.
another point to make here is that nazism's "socialism with a racist twist" had a very fertile hate-mongering soil prepped for them by the Marxist "class warfare" doctrine. They just added racial/ethnic hate to the already existing class hate agenda.
---------- Post added 2012-07-12 at 09:52 ----------
So let say the oppsote of nazim is socialdemocracy right?
well generally speaking democracy is the opposite of totalitarian regime which is how most if not all state-wide all-out socialist implementations end up.
Just because he used the word socialism doesn't make him any more socialist than Saddam Husseins' Iraq Republican Guard was republican. That's just semantics. But in foundation nazism/fascism and socialism are opposites.
Hitler's nazism is as far from anti-capitalist socialism as can be. Socialism believes people should equal, nazism believes certain people are superior by default and have a natural right to dominate others.
Hitler declared communism as his main enemy and came to great measures to destroy it.
Hitler was far from being capitalist, in real capitalists states the state stay away from your business, the economy of Nazi Germany was controlled by the state.
Socialism by definitions is when the individual works for the good of society and not for himself. Humans naturally don't work like that...
You Are 68% Capitalist, 32% Socialist
In general, you support a free economy and business interests.
You tend to think people should fend for themselves, even when times get tough.
However, do think the government should help those who are truly in need.
Hitler was far from being capitalist, in real capitalists states the state stay away from your business, the economy of Nazi Germany was controlled by the state.
Socialism by definitions is when the individual works for the good of society and not for himself. Humans naturally don't work like that...
Socialism is really when the government has control over a huge chunk of country's assets to give to the people. One more step leads to Communism.
Pioterus
2012-07-13, 09:52
20% Socialist, 80% Capitalist
In general, you support a free economy and business interests. You tend to think people should fend for themselves, even when times get tough. However, do think the government should help those who are truly in need.
Hmmm..., it's definitely for Americans. Also the questions are biased towards being good, empathic Socialistic Jedi Guardian or Evil-Dictatorial, pro-Big-Corpo Capitalistic Sith (Shit?)
BULLshit, as most times I do believe, grown, independent people prefer to fend for themselves not to be force-fed any kind of govern-mental pseudo-aid (or being forced to share their income with loosers who suck the system) etc... Also I find big corpos anti-effective in economical sense. I see it everyday how they loose the potential of their employees over the political games between management, how indecision is the valid behaviour (I am taken for a kamikaze-cretin as I usually give my decisions quickly and never play "the waiting game" etc...), how idiots are being protected over some "good old friendships" and even promoted so they stop causing damage where they work now etc...
Small and Medium Businesses are way to go :thumbsup:
mizrahi jew
2012-07-13, 12:29
You Are 16% Capitalist, 84% Socialist
JamesSteal
2012-07-13, 21:47
You are 100% Capitalist, 0% Socialist.
I'm an elitist, which means that I support any economic system that recognizes the need for rank between men. The means of production should be in the hands of those who are strong and intelligent enough to obtain and keep them. To make my point even clearer, I would support a manorial/feudal economy over a socialist economy without hesitation.
You Are 8% Capitalist, 92% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
You Are 8% Capitalist, 92% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
---------- Post Merged at 11:54 ----------
I'm an elitist, which means that I support any economic system that recognizes the need for rank between men. The means of production should be in the hands of those who are strong and intelligent enough to obtain and keep them. To make my point even clearer, I would support a manorial/feudal economy over a socialist economy without hesitation.
To be strong and intelligent does not equal morally right acts or does not exclude morally wrong strategys. Only people who are strong and intelligent with a mindset based on a morally right sense of fairness and justice, should lead the economy.
Hitler was far from being capitalist, in real capitalists states the state stay away from your business, the economy of Nazi Germany was controlled by the state.
Socialism by definitions is when the individual works for the good of society and not for himself. Humans naturally don't work like that...
Actually fascism adopted a kind of Keynesism, both in Italy and Germany. It was a "mixed" economic system, with capitalists and unions (state-controlled) "forced" to work together and a state planning of national production. Fascism controlled private finance, too. Old school socialists thought that fascism was a favour done to the capitalists in countries where social revolution was ready to happen, since it didn't delete capitalism but only regulated it, and made some compromises with the big trusts. On the other hand, old school capitalists despised fascism because they thought the role of State was exaggerated, and fascist powers were also protectionist. I think fascism was a "half-way" phenomenon between capitalism and socialism, a kind of experiment situated in the historic context of Great Depression.
I don't like non-working parasites, but then I think the weak in society should be helped.
I think those who work hard should be privileged, but I'm against plutocracy.
You Are 24% Capitalist, 76% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral.
Thebrodie
2012-11-03, 21:51
Capitalism is for seflish faggots, who like to own everything and exploit othIers. It's a bullshit system that should have been dismantled and replaced already. Free market capitalism is not going to end well, with the state of the world today.
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
You Are 60% Capitalist, 40% Socialist
While you are definitely sympathetic to a free economy, you also worry about the less fortunate.
Wealth and business is fine, as long as those who are in need get helped out too.
You tend to see both the government and corporations as potentially corrupt.
Yeah, I don't trust any large organization with too much power.
You Are 52% Capitalist, 48% Socialist
While you are definitely sympathetic to a free economy, you also worry about the less fortunate.
Wealth and business is fine, as long as those who are in need get helped out too.
You tend to see both the government and corporations as potentially corrupt.
Free market capitalism is not going to end well
It hasn't even started.
Nice quiz.
You are 24% Capitalist, 76% Socialist
And what are you?
http://www.blogthings.com/areyouasocialistorcapitalistquiz/
I'm a capitalist. Communism was a largely-Jewish phenomenon. Almost all the top communists of the Russian Revolution were Jews, as well as almost all the atomic spies, and the Bolshevik Revolution was financed in large measure by Wall Street Jews. Socialism is communism-lite (Socialism is a more subtle form of Communism) so if Socialism dominates, worldwide, it will be the Jews who are running the world. Jews running the world would not be a nice place for gentiles so I am ardently against it.
Socialism: just another more subtle form of Communism so Jews can rule the world with their gentile underling dupes
http://startheory.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/anti-jewish-propaganda-256x300.gif
EliasAlucard
2012-11-04, 21:26
Personally, I want to abolish money (yes, I'm serious), so I'm not a Capitalist, nor am I a Communist/Socialist because these are thoroughly Jewish ideologies. I do to some extent sympathise with the anti-profit aspects of Communism and Socialism though (always loved Jesus' anti-rich rants). At the same time, I do sympathise to some extent with the Capitalist concept in the sense that I believe hard work should be rewarded somehow (Communists don't believe in equal work = equal pay).
But I believe the world would be a better place once we abolish money for good and thereby get rid of all the profit corruption. People are at their most immoral behaviour in their love for money.
yahooland
2012-11-04, 21:36
Personally, I want to abolish money (yes, I'm serious), so I'm not a Capitalist, nor am I a Communist/Socialist because these are thoroughly Jewish ideologies. I do to some extent sympathise with the anti-profit aspects of Communism and Socialism though (always loved Jesus' anti-rich rants). At the same time, I do sympathise to some extent with the Capitalist concept in the sense that I believe hard work should be rewarded somehow (Communists don't believe in equal work = equal pay).
But I believe the world would be a better place once we abolish money for good and thereby get rid of all the profit corruption. People are at their most immoral behaviour in their love for money.
Then we will replace money by something else as a medium of exchange like i don't know... weed for example lol ,don't be naive ,money is vital to our society unless you want to live as an hermit in Kazakhstan ,breeding goats,cultivating tomatoes and all that shit.
Personally, I want to abolish money (yes, I'm serious), so I'm not a Capitalist, nor am I a Communist/Socialist because these are thoroughly Jewish ideologies. I do to some extent sympathise with the anti-profit aspects of Communism and Socialism though (always loved Jesus' anti-rich rants). At the same time, I do sympathise to some extent with the Capitalist concept in the sense that I believe hard work should be rewarded somehow (Communists don't believe in equal work = equal pay).
But I believe the world would be a better place once we abolish money for good and thereby get rid of all the profit corruption. People are at their most immoral behaviour in their love for money.
Seems you are a communist and you don't even know about it. Money is just a medium of exchange, measue of value. Let's abolish value;-)
EliasAlucard
2012-11-04, 21:45
Then we will replace money by something else ,don't be naive ,money is vital to our society unless you want to live as an hermit in Kazakhstan ,breeding goats,cultivating tomatoes and all that shit.That hermit lifestyle is better than the current exploit-and-destroy-all-life-on-earth-for-profit lifestyle that we live by today.
Seems you are a communist and you don't even know about it. Money is just a medium of exchange, measue of value. Let's abolish value;-)No, I'm well aware of what Communism is, and I think "value" is a subjective bullshit concept. Of course we can always place value on everything, I place much higher value on the Pietà by Michaelango (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet%C3%A0_%28Michelangelo%29) than I do on modern entartete kunst. But that's obvious for anyone who can think straight.
In any case, in the future we'll hopefully have fusion energy, and robots and whatnot, so money will be abolished one way or the other because money will become obsolete in future society.
You Are 68% Capitalist, 32% Socialist
In general, you support a free economy and business interests.
You tend to think people should fend for themselves, even when times get tough.
However, do think the government should help those who are truly in need.
This summary captures my feelings. A free economy serves humanity the best in the long run. Just look at how the standard of living has increased in the last 225 years or so, within nations who exercise free (relatively speaking) economies. Those who are TRULY needy I will help. The assistance should be short term because each person should eventually be able to fend for themselves. I should say family rather than individual because I am a big believer in the family or clan helping each other. So, within an extended family system communal sharing is fine by me.
Hevneren
2012-11-06, 09:15
You Are 28% Capitalist, 72% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral.
The questions are biased and inaccurate, and since it's an American test, specific questions (like one relating to Martha Stewart) weren't relevant or interesting to me.
Strictly speaking, I don't consider myself either a capitalist or a socialist. I think the fundamental idea of trade and commerce is a good one, but it has become corrupted over the decades. Today, people trade in other people's wealth or wealth that doesn't exist (investment bankers, stock brokers etc.), and people at the top skim the wealth that the workers at the bottom are creating. That's not the true spirit of reaping the fruits of your labour.
I can agree that the means of production should belong to those who are actually producing the wealth. I. e. the workers of a factory should own the factory, since they're the ones actually responsible for creaing the wealth of said factory. That's not anti-capitalist to me, but rather true capitalism.
Furthermore, the introduction of fiat currency has facilitated a debt spiral which is in rapid growth. This debt spiral has caused untold suffering, as we have seen since 2008.
I think the fundamental idea of trade and commerce is a good one, but it has become corrupted over the decades. Today, people trade in other people's wealth or wealth that doesn't exist (investment bankers, stock brokers etc.), and people at the top skim the wealth that the workers at the bottom are creating. .
Very important thought. Modern society believed blindly that 'investing' is good.Rich people are good cause they 'invest' their money. what is this investment about? Its is about creating money out of money, not out of work. Proper investment is different, must be followed by some movement in the real world, while here its only accounntancy and speculation.
I am really fed up with this myth being so alive, the mythology of 'investing'. Thats what I hate about very rich people. I dont dislike them for their money. I would be glad to see them consuming their money in even the most vulgar ways. Palaces, yachts, eccentric food, designer clothes, golden door kobs and toilet taps- I am ok with that, as it creates something, creates jobs, creates goods. In fact in some ways it is even positive for the society (provided the rich guy has a good taste). Many great buildings, palaces etc wouldnt exist without people having lots of money and able to come with such an idea. But 'investing'- it is the disease of modern world.
Hybrid99
2012-11-09, 15:09
You Are 12% Capitalist, 88% Socialist
"You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person. "
Very important thought. Modern society believed blindly that 'investing' is good.Rich people are good cause they 'invest' their money. what is this investment about? Its is about creating money out of money, not out of work. Proper investment is different, must be followed by some movement in the real world, while here its only accounntancy and speculation.
I am really fed up with this myth being so alive, the mythology of 'investing'. Thats what I hate about very rich people. I dont dislike them for their money. I would be glad to see them consuming their money in even the most vulgar ways. Palaces, yachts, eccentric food, designer clothes, golden door kobs and toilet taps- I am ok with that, as it creates something, creates jobs, creates goods. In fact in some ways it is even positive for the society (provided the rich guy has a good taste). Many great buildings, palaces etc wouldnt exist without people having lots of money and able to come with such an idea. But 'investing'- it is the disease of modern world.
You are talking about usury and it has been around since the beginning of times. The Bible condemned it, but people do it. It is lending your money expecting a return over and above the amount you lent. While you might lend to a family member or a friend and not expect a return, I am not lending my money to company and corporation for nothing. That is what investing means. I give my money to a company because I believe they will use it wisely and make a profit. They will then give me back my money with something extra because I gave it to them the money they needed to make their profit. That is how I plan on retiring. I have put my meager excess earnings into the stock market. I expect the person investing my money is going to make me a profit, not lose it. For the record. I don't appreciate those who lend money to others with the expectation for an excessive fee. This what loan sharks do and it is what some lending institutions do. I couldn't do it, but, there are plenty of people out there with little to no conscience who will. There are also desperate, foolish people who enter into agreements like this. Sort of like those who pawn their possessions for a fraction of their worth.
Yes, usury and banking have been around, but apart from the fact that the scale was much smaller, it is how banks changed their role from banking to banking and investing. Another thing is lack of responsibility- with usury the lender is responsible fot the money lost, so he needs to calculate the risk, while with credit crunch and crash the money were transferred from one pocket to another a few times till noone is responsible anymore, the profits were taken despite the fact that the risk was wrongly calculated. And so on.
The thing I was about though is more about the wealth distribution vs so called investments. The rich have more and more spare money, more and more above their needs and even possibility to spend, so what they do? They 'invest'. Investing doesnt mean usually going to a small town and building a factory and paying scientists for researches. It means going to a broker and saying 'I will give you 3 milllion, how muich in return' and the broker says 'wink wink, we have a good ways to increase your money, you will have back 3.5 in 6 months'. How? Hmm, speculation its called.
Have you read that in 2011 the UK GDP fell, debts rose, spending fell, average wages fell, but the richest 1% of society increased their wealth by a few good %, even above inflation. How comes?
Yes, usury and banking have been around, but apart from the fact that the scale was much smaller, it is how banks changed their role from banking to banking and investing. Another thing is lack of responsibility- with usury the lender is responsible fot the money lost, so he needs to calculate the risk, while with credit crunch and crash the money were transferred from one pocket to another a few times till noone is responsible anymore, the profits were taken despite the fact that the risk was wrongly calculated. And so on.
The thing I was about though is more about the wealth distribution vs so called investments. The rich have more and more spare money, more and more above their needs and even possibility to spend, so what they do? They 'invest'. Investing doesnt mean usually going to a small town and building a factory and paying scientists for researches. It means going to a broker and saying 'I will give you 3 milllion, how muich in return' and the broker says 'wink wink, we have a good ways to increase your money, you will have back 3.5 in 6 months'. How? Hmm, speculation its called.
Have you read that in 2011 the UK GDP fell, debts rose, spending fell, average wages fell, but the richest 1% of society increased their wealth by a few good %, even above inflation. How comes?
True. When I studied at the university we were taught to invest money where it will yield the most return because this is how you serve your investor, whether they be a rich individual, or your client with a money market account, or a group of mill workers with a pension fund. So, money flows to where it will get the greatest return, even if that means it flows out a your nation to a foreign entity. Money certainly is very fluid. There was a time where they spoke about social responsibility for corporations, but, to be honest, just like religion has faded in the minds and souls of the people of western civilization (for most people), so has the idea that corporations should be socially responsible. I wonder if there is some sort of correlation?
True. When I studied at the university we were taught to invest money where it will yield the most return because this is how you serve your investor, whether they be a rich individual, or your client with a money market account, or a group of mill workers with a pension fund. So, money flows to where it will get the greatest return, even if that means it flows out a your nation to a foreign entity. Money certainly is very fluid. There was a time where they spoke about social responsibility for corporations, but, to be honest, just like religion has faded in the minds and souls of the people of western civilization (for most people), so has the idea that corporations should be socially responsible. I wonder if there is some sort of correlation?
I dont know, I largely blame ii on eighties, Reagan and Thatcher and their 'ethos'.
It is a good principle if money flow where the biggest return is- in theory. In theory this way the market promotes well functioning entities. However, markets and economy have their limits, but appetites of investors and brokers have no limit and this is where the problem starts. If they want to gain more than the market allows, the s[eculations comes to play. Plus, competition between brokers, 'come to me I will give you more', doesnt matter whether in a lawful or criminal way.
Do you know how American house crisis happenned? Bankers sold houses with very high prices to people with low incomes. Then, knowing its risky, they repacked the debts and transformed into... shares. Other people 'invested' in those bonds and finally lost it.
In general its ordinary 'investors' who loose and big fish who profit. A lot of movement on stock markets is about gambling or, more clearly, its not a gambling, just the public thinks it is, its more often speculation, attacking currencies and sucking money out, false alarms to drop price of shares then correcting it etc, its all illegal but what can I say- illegal? hahaha.
Acquisitorz
2012-11-10, 13:05
You Are 92% Capitalist, 8% Socialist
You're a capitalist pig - and proud of it.
You believe that business makes the world great...
And you'd never be ashamed of being rich!
Sakarisker
2012-11-10, 13:38
Neither, i'm against Socialism and Capitalism, I'm Mutualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)).
Mutualism is an economic theory and anarchist school of thought that advocates a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market. Integral to the scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate, just high enough to cover administration.
Do you know how American house crisis happenned? Bankers sold houses with very high prices to people with low incomes. Then, knowing its risky, they repacked the debts and transformed into... shares. Other people 'invested' in those bonds and finally lost it.
Oh, yes, sir. i recently commented on this in another post related to the US elections. What is not often told is that the liberals in the US were primarily responsible for this. Community organizers cried that the poor couldn't afford to buy a house, so they demanded that bankers relax their standards and issue them loans. These community organizers would protest at the door of bank presidents and threaten to picket their bank if they didn't concede. The Democrats in Congress jumped in and passed the Community Reinvestment Act (Google it). Banks usually don't loan money to people who they know can't pay it back. However, they were promised by Congress that they would be covered for losses. After a while, some banks got greedy and really exploited it. Then, when most of those with the loans couldn't pay it back, some banks started to package bad loans with good. Thus, the housing crisis. And guess what? There are Democrats out there now wanting to re-institute this, in the name of social justice, because after the crisis bankers really tightened up the standards for lending. I know many family and friends who can't get a credit card or new auto loan because they have ruined their credit. It is another hand out to those who can't afford it, but it sure gets votes at election time. Somebody will pay for it. Oh wait, we are $16 trillion in debt and climbing. Well, China is always eager to loan, and, hey, we can just put off the payment until our children and grandchildren start working.
Acquisitorz
2012-11-10, 17:43
Oh, yes, sir. i recently commented on this in another post related to the US elections. What is not often told is that the liberals in the US were primarily responsible for this. Community organizers cried that the poor couldn't afford to buy a house, so they demanded that bankers relax their standards and issue them loans. These community organizers would protest at the door of bank presidents and threaten to picket their bank if they didn't concede. The Democrats in Congress jumped in and passed the Community Reinvestment Act (Google it). Banks usually don't loan money to people who they know can't pay it back. However, they were promised by Congress that they would be covered for losses. After a while, some banks got greedy and really exploited it. Then, when most of those with the loans couldn't pay it back, some banks started to package bad loans with good. Thus, the housing crisis. And guess what? There are Democrats out there now wanting to re-institute this, in the name of social justice, because after the crisis bankers really tightened up the standards for lending. I know many family and friends who can't get a credit card or new auto loan because they have ruined their credit. It is another hand out to those who can't afford it, but it sure gets votes at election time. Somebody will pay for it. Oh wait, we are $16 trillion in debt and climbing. Well, China is always eager to loan, and, hey, we can just put off the payment until our children and grandchildren start working.
True liberals would not whine about some layers of the society being unable to afford houses. True liberals would say that being able to afford a house depends upon individuals themselves.
the real reason for the crisis is our greed, greed is eternal and very natural. Crisis will pass, as all other crisis's in the past. Just give it some time. Besides, the crisis is good, it makes us more efficient, it makes the economy also more efficient, weak companies go bankrupt, to make room for new one's, its all good, perfect even, embrace the crisis.
True liberals would not whine about some layers of the society being unable to afford houses. True liberals would say that being able to afford a house depends upon individuals themselves.
the real reason for the crisis is our greed, greed is eternal and very natural. Crisis will pass, as all other crisis's in the past. Just give it some time. Besides, the crisis is good, it makes us more efficient, it makes the economy also more efficient, weak companies go bankrupt, to make room for new one's, its all good, perfect even, embrace the crisis.
This would be true and correct if we didn't have the government intervening and preventing that which needs to happen for things to self correct. Case in point: the bailout of the auto industry. GM and Chrysler should have had to file bankruptcy and gone through a logical process to correct their problems. Instead the government propped them up (temporarily), at a cost of billions,and, more than likely, these corporations will be in the same situation in a few years. An analogy to explain this would be a parent, who constantly bails their young adult child out of problem after problem. Rather than learn to be self-sufficient, the person grows to learn that every problem will be "fixed," so he can continues on the same reckless path until it is too late.
Acquisitorz
2012-11-10, 18:18
This would be true and correct if we didn't have the government intervening and preventing that which needs to happen for things to self correct. Case in point: the bailout of the auto industry. GM and Chrysler should have had to file bankruptcy and gone through a logical process to correct their problems. Instead the government propped them up (temporarily), at a cost of billions,and, more than likely, these corporations will be in the same situation in a few years. An analogy to explain this would be a parent, who constantly bails their young adult child out of problem after problem. Rather than learn to be self-sufficient, the person grows to learn that every problem will be "fixed," so he can continues on the same reckless path until it is too late.
well I agree with this, the entire "bailout" is a joke, even for banks. They should have let hem all go bk, the best banks like Goldman Sachs for example would have stayed.
We have the same shit in Belgium as well, "too big to fail", in fact, we have unproductive lazy countries in Europe, which get trillions of €'s in aid, while the same countries also make remarks about the North being guilty of their bankrupsy ;) Talk to an average Greek, he will have some interesting theories about it all.
well I agree with this, the entire "bailout" is a joke, even for banks. They should have let hem all go bk, the best banks like Goldman Sachs for example would have stayed.
We have the same shit in Belgium as well, "too big to fail", in fact, we have unproductive lazy countries in Europe, which get trillions of €'s in aid, while the same countries also make remarks about the North being guilty of their bankrupsy ;) Talk to an average Greek, he will have some interesting theories about it all.
I am fearful, not for me, but for my children and grandchildren, that the US will see the same problems as Greece in 40 or 50 years.
Acquisitorz
2012-11-10, 18:30
I am fearful, not for me, but for my children and grandchildren, that the US will see the same problems as Greece in 40 or 50 years.
40-50 years could be optimistic imo. Unless things change quickly. All the recent money printing and budget deficit will backfire eventually.
btw when Greece (and now Spain, Portugal and soon others) whined for a bailout there were obviously reasons to help them to keep the euro alive in the entire eurozone, to keep local banks from filing for chapter 11 and so on. BUT there was also very high pressure from the left wing organisations from Greece AND from the rest of Europe as well. They used arguments like "solidarity" and "think about our children, you cant do it to them (you cant refuse to give us money)" and so on, pretty disturbing.
The word "solidarity" in Europe has different meaning in the south and in the north. In one part (guess where) it means to get and in the other one it means to give ;) anyway this is off topic.
You Are 20% Capitalist, 80% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
Well, i am deffinitelly more on the left side, but i am also on liberal side... And i support green politics too. I don't think that business should be in hands of "people" or government, because experience of ex-communistic states showed that it didn't give results. Power was in hands of politicians, not in hands of people. And no one carred about factories because it was public property, so no one really had interests. Politicians were those who decided, not people. However, some rules about trade and business should exist and all citizens should be socially protected. Health and social care, as well as education must be free and universal because those are basic human rights. I am against elitism, chances should be same for everybody and people should decide alone how they will live. No one has right to tell to one human how he will live(not even state and not even private corporation), if his choices don't harm others.
kustaren
2012-11-11, 00:28
"You Are 32% Capitalist, 68% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral"
I was somewhat sloppy in my answering though. I don't really agree with the description either, since it greatly exaggerates my views.
The American
2012-11-12, 05:15
I believe in government of the self, following the self-existence of God as an example. Such a view of the world is called yogi, faki, priest, philosopher, saint, nut, or patriot-- depending on your terminology.
I have studied elementary economics. Hence, I'm a capitalist.
tauromenion
2012-11-12, 06:50
Capitalist.
I don't believe in letting people starve or go without a roof over their heads, but once you get past that level, I think it's unfair to make those who have worked hard for what they have, provide for those who have not. I think if you didn't earn it, you're not entitled to it.
The Apple
2012-11-12, 09:29
You Are 68% Capitalist, 32% Socialist
In general, you support a free economy and business interests.
You tend to think people should fend for themselves, even when times get tough.
However, do think the government should help those who are truly in need.
I feel like I should be more capitalist...
Wickedgirl
2013-01-07, 02:26
Capitalist. I'm not a huge fan of Socialism. I'd think people should be more in control of their own destiny, I believe Socialism can make a society lazy and unmotivated.
The quiz is too short. Needs more questions for a more accurate result.
You Are 24% Capitalist, 76% Socialist
The quiz gave me a high socialist score, not at all what I'd expected. But "Are you Socialist or Capitalist?" is not a yes or no question. There are good and bad sides of both.
looney black
2013-01-12, 06:46
You Are 4% Capitalist, 96% Socialist
it seems i'm in the extreme left :lol:, the test is funny but isn't accurate at all
Achilles
2013-01-12, 07:00
You Are 32% Capitalist, 68% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral.
The only thing which stand in the way is mindset- people naturally tend to not work and are lazy. Therefore in socialism noone works and noone profits.Not true, research has found that monetary incentives only contribute to productivity when the task being performed requires little or no cognitive effort whereas intrinsic movitation applies to those that do involve cognitive or mental imput of some sort. The reason that worker productivity was an issue(albeit an overly exaggerated one) in former socialist economies is that a high rate of automation was achieved, leaving only tasks that require cognitive input whilst the economy still employed a Price System under which the acquisition of money was imperative for one's livelihood, ergo intrinsic motivation was not subtituted for the monetary incentive in prompting people to deliver work.
This is not a fault of socialism, it is simply of one many pathologies inherent to operating a monetary economy(Price System) under technological and material conditions which did not exist during its inauguration and which it was not designed to accomodate. Westerrn capitalist economies evaded the worker productivity problem by creating new work in the tertiary sector that is largely non-cognitive in nature.
Not true, research has found that monetary incentives only contribute to productivity when the task being performed requires little or no cognitive effort whereas intrinsic movitation applies to those that do involve cognitive or mental imput of some sort. The reason that worker productivity was an issue(albeit an overly exaggerated one) in former socialist economies is that a high rate of automation was achieved, leaving only tasks that require cognitive input whilst the economy still employed a Price System under which the acquisition of money was imperative for one's livelihood, ergo intrinsic motivation was not subtituted for the monetary incentive in prompting people to deliver work.
This is not a fault of socialism, it is simply of one many pathologies inherent to operating a monetary economy(Price System) under technological and material conditions which did not exist during its inauguration and which it was not designed to accomodate. Westerrn capitalist economies evaded the worker productivity problem by creating new work in the tertiary sector that is largely non-cognitive in nature.
Can you source the research you are citing? I would be interested to see what qualifies as a purely cognitive or mental task in this research. The reality is, no society can exist without producing real goods. Name one sizable nation whose entire economy is completely service oriented?
Radagast
2013-05-06, 00:44
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral.
This definition isn't even correct. Socialists don't like any business big or small, they want everything to be run by the government. Of course, they also want to be the bigshots reaping all the rewards in those governments as well while they continue to blame business for inequality.
This definition isn't even correct. Socialists don't like any business big or small, they want everything to be run by the government. Of course, they also want to be the bigshots reaping all the rewards in those governments as well while they continue to blame business for inequality.
In the US many a "public servants" have made a very comfortable life for themselves. They enjoy education, travel. food. lodging, entertainment, and material possessions on a level that rivals the great robber barons of the past.
Can you source the research you are citing? I would be interested to see what qualifies as a purely cognitive or mental task in this research.The original paper appears to have been taken down, so this annoying but functional video will have to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
The reality is, no society can exist without producing real goods. Name one sizable nation whose entire economy is completely service oriented?Where did I assert such a thing?
Blodeuwedd
2013-05-07, 03:27
You Are 4% Capitalist, 96% Socialist
You can't be a capitalist just because you like the system; you have to own the means of production. For that reason, I find the quiz silly.
IstenmeyenTuy
2013-05-07, 16:33
You Are 32% Capitalist, 68% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral.
32% Capitalist, 68% Socialist kinda surprised.
idk if i would say im a socialist, but i support the arts (which was like 3 or 4 questions on there) and programs that help the poor and keep big business in check from running rampant, so thats probably why im apparently a pinko commie bastard.
Halagetit
2013-05-07, 21:06
You Are 8% Capitalist, 92% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/images/thumbs/fist_propaganda250_250.gif
Belgae Celt
2013-05-08, 09:44
Mine says I am 52% Capitalist and 48% Socialist.
says I am definitely sympathetic to a free economy as long as it doesn't get in the way of the less fortunate.
wealth and business are fine as long as those in need get helped too.
it says I tend to think that both, government and corporations, are potentially corrupt.
I also took the political persuasion quiz and the results say I am a "don't tread on me' type of Libertarian"
The test claims I am 20% Capitalist, 80% Socialist, despite the fact that I shun them both in actuality.
Many questions are poorly formulated and fundamentally non-ideological. For example, ticking Business, not the government, does a better job at advancing technologies. would be interpreted as support for Capitalism, though the test-taker is vehemently opposed to "advancing technologies" in the first place yet acknowledges that the "free market" may possess great efficacy to perform just that.
A properly formulated and all-encompassing test should put me at 0% Capitalist, 0% Socialist. :lol:
aurora borealis
2013-05-12, 21:07
"You Are 4% Capitalist, 96% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person."
^^ Seems very accurate, although as has been pointed out before, some of the questions are a bit misleading.
http://www.sv.uio.no/isv/forskning/aktuelt/blogg/ta-politika/bilder/Swedish_Social_Democratic_Party_1936_poster.jpg
In this one: http://www.blogthings.com/howliberalorconservativeareyouquiz/
I scored as follows:
Overall: You Are 35% Conservative, 65% Liberal
Social Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal
Ethics: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
does any of you think it was right to call German nazism as "far-right"?
aurora, any socialist you could find who certainly not call you socialist.
aurora borealis
2013-05-12, 21:29
does any of you think it was right to call German nazism as "far-right"?
aurora, any socialist you could find who certainly not call you socialist.
Not the internationalist left, of course, though those arrogant asshats think they have a monopoly on such words and that we "nazi fascists" are secretly allied with the global capitalists, so I don't take such degenerate stoner fools seriously :lol:
German national socialism is financially left-winged. I think the main reason for its status as "right-winged" is
1. the need for national socialists to somewhat distance themselves from the internationalist socialists and
2. the need for internationalist left-wingers (especially journalists and authors in the post war era) to distance themselves from nationalist socialists.
Of course, it makes no real sense to lump them together with "open up all borders, free markets, to each his own" librultarians
Sven Olov Lindholm, early and leading member of the "swedish national socialist party" (later the "Swedish socialist unity") supported the communist and participated in anti-vietnam war protests in the post war period. Mussolini was a communist initially, as was the former red army faction member turned nationalist Horst Mahler.
The Apple
2013-05-12, 22:55
"You Are 4% Capitalist, 96% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person."
^^ Seems very accurate, although as has been pointed out before, some of the questions are a bit misleading.
http://www.sv.uio.no/isv/forskning/aktuelt/blogg/ta-politika/bilder/Swedish_Social_Democratic_Party_1936_poster.jpg
In this one: http://www.blogthings.com/howliberalorconservativeareyouquiz/
I scored as follows:
Overall: You Are 35% Conservative, 65% Liberal
Social Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal
Ethics: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
You Are 65% Conservative, 35% Liberal
Social Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal
Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
I didn't agree with either option for the tax question so I just picked one.
I don't think the rich should be taxed more or that taxes should be cut.
http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/246435/
http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/246435_eng.jpg"]http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/246435_eng.jpg
This test classifies me as a leftist-fascist, or a national socialist. I've done it twice on separate occasions.
I guess it's a fairly good description in a way, but I don't really label myself as such. I think "Third Position" is the only self-designation vague enough to accurately describe my political stance.
aurora borealis
2013-05-13, 01:56
I didn't agree with either option for the tax question so I just picked one.
I don't think the rich should be taxed more or that taxes should be cut.
Just picked one as well. Some of the questions really require you to be up to date on US domestic politics. Also, I guess "liberal"/"conservative" doesn't really work for a third positioner like me. I'm both and neither, in various ways.
---------- Post Merged at 03:36 ----------
http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/246435/
http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/246435_eng.jpg"]http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/246435_eng.jpg
This test classifies me as a leftist-fascist, or a national socialist. I've done it twice on separate occasions.
I guess it's a fairly good description in a way, but I don't really label myself as such. I think "Third Position" is the only self-designation vague enough to accurately describe my political stance.
"The globalization is desirable, as long as all the nations can profit from it." Might as well have written "Nuclear world war is desirable if every nation can profit from it" from my point of view.
"You are a patriotic and authoritarian communist. 0 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 47 percent are more extremist than you. " At least I am Unique :D Not really a communist though. I just think private businesses should be kept small and local, that natural resources should belong to the people (state) rather than private owners, and that the state should have a responsibility for its citizens' standards of living (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhemmet). I guess I'm at least leaning towards ecofascism.
Also not much of a flag waving (https://www.realisten.se/wp-content/uploads/nationaldagen2009-kronogarden2-560x320.jpg)/state loving patriot retard (http://war.resolve.us/Content/SupportOurTroops.jpg). Ethnocentric nationalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_soil)is more like it.
Link to my results: http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/259954/
chtucker18
2013-05-13, 02:29
You Are 16% Capitalist, 84% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.
German national socialism is financially left-winged."Financially left-winged" is an oxymoron because economical Leftists seek to abolish money or any medium of exchange as a means of allocation, and this entails the substitution of economic planning for a market mechanism.
No fascist or 'national socialist' countries or movements in history have met these criteria for qualifying as economical Leftists of any sort, and some fascist ideologues have explicitly objected to genuine socialism for destroying economic inequality and private property:
""It is not by chance that one person accomplishes more than the other. The principle of private ownership is rooted in this fact" - Adolf Hitler
This is my result on the test that you and Simi took.
You are a patriotic and authoritarian communist. 0 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 15 percent are more extremist than you.
http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/261503_eng.jpg
http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic6/261503_eng.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.