No. People should work on their on terms as their own boss and reap the full benefits of their labor.
no that would only cause a sharp downturn of production. people need to stick to the organization of capitaliasm
By organization do you mean highly bureaucratic profit driven hierarchy? Why do you people believe so fanatically that a man can't manage himself without a foreman or a commissar, and that he is incapable of cooperating with his fellow man? Who is really against free enterprise here? The person who supports a system where a few control everything and stomp out "competition"(small business) whenever it turns up, or the person who thinks everyone should have a fair chance to put their skills and ideas to use for the good of their community and be fully compensated for the effort they put in?
I am not ralling agianst the working man but looking at things from a pragmatic not an idealistic standpoint. It be nice if everyone if left to their own devices could prosper but that is not the case. if you want to assiat your community than more power to you, however people should not be artifically propped up or coddled, withen free enterprise it is survival of the fittist and only the truly exeptional will have the power to create. You may tout this moral superioraty but I ask you how have you put it in to practice, how have you skills helped the community?
You can't look at things in such a way forever, eventually you have to an idealist. Progress would become stagnant otherwise. I'm not trying to take some moral high ground and I'm sorry if I came off that way. An to that last question: I'm still in the process of acquiring an education (If you want to call it that, although I have been lucky enough to have a majority of good teachers.) and figuring out how best to apply myself.
looking at things realisticly wont stop progress- it might slow it but that might be a good thing two word: erotic novels :lol:
I would agree that realistic solutions won't slow progress, but society's mentality has to progress as well. We can't survive off this "survival of the fittest" attitude forever. I like the way you think.
http://bss.sfsu.edu/geog/bholzman/courses/fall99projects/armadillo.htm here's your reference but your taking my exaple too literally
Well I would say that they both didnt control the state, I would say that the state was in the hands of the political elite. But then again you can probably single out capitalists who had power within this governement to "prove" that fascism is actually capitalism, but then using this rethoric you can actually prove that alot of socialist states and socialists/communists are actually capitalist. Which brings me back to my point that it depends on your definition of capitalism. That does not take away that the fascist movement was anti-capitalist, so saying that fascism equals capitalism is quite an abstraction.
It's in the the middle of Capitalism and Socialism, in other words, Fascism has Capitalism and Socialism. Mussolini and a bunch of members called them self's as "Socialists", and the Nazi party too. Bourgeoisie society will eventually die out, has the mass majority of the Proletariat will start to rebel!
Corporatism has neither a worker or Labor Party controlled economy or the ability for the individual to create a privet monopoly. Corporatism isn't socialist or capitalist, it's corporatist.
Corporatism is prorobly the most idealised form of economics. It gives the power to groups of people with totally opposing goals. More to the point, i am a socialist/communist, and believe capitalism itself will turn the world into the blandest mush ever, as all are forced to be the same in capitalism.
Well, that's not really true at all. Capitalism promotes consumerism and individualism, while communism promotes collectivization and conformity...
