Hillary Is A Socialist

[Capitalist Lawyer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

What else can one call a person who fully advocates that taking of the profits of an independent corporation so that the gov't and the gov't alone can decide what to do with them.


But let's take a CLOSER look at the Exxon-Mobil profits that the left and news media are all excited about.

Total income: $377.6 billion
Income before taxes: $67.4 billion
Income taxes: $27.9 billion
Net Income: $39.5 billion

Some quick calculations gives us:
Return on sales: 10.5%
Effective income tax rate: 41.4%

So… Exxon gets 11% return, while the gov't gets 40%... And that's just not good enough for Hillary… she openly states she wants to take all of it.
And 11% it apparently just TOO much for people to handle.

Therefore, Exxon-Mobil is the devil and the gov't needs to step in and do SOMETHING.

You communists and other associated leftists should be excited.

[Demogorgon]

:lol:

[apathy maybe]

I thought you were banned. I'm disappointed.

Anyway, your analysis of socialism is crap, you're crap and your post is crap.

Haven't you got better things to do with your time? Like killing yourself?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:31 pm
Your back where have you been Capitalist Lawyer?
Clearly not anywhere deadly enough.

Welcome back, shitbasket.

Anyway, you have some how managed to avoid learning anything about socialism in your long and pointless membership. Tell you what, define socialist to a standard that we can all agree on and then try this. Otherwise just fuck off.

[Leo]

What else can one call a person who fully advocates that taking of the profits of an independent corporation so that the gov't and the gov't alone can decide what to do with them?

A capitalist who actually has a brain...

You don't know anything about socialism and communism, this is natural as you don't know anything about real capitalism. Yet, of course you are not the only one: every bourgeois shithead who actually calls himself a capitalist is like you and I am really having fun hearing this neo-classical economics bullshit from you guys. It's like 1929 all over again. That women who you call a "socialist" is trying to save capitalism using the "by the book" approach (that is Keynesian economics - a requirement of the world capitalist system since the early 20th century). Even the neo-cons have always had to use the Keynesian model. Yet the pool is emptying out, Keynesian model can't be afforded anymore by the capitalists, and poor Hillary is going to fail. 'Social benefits' are being taken everywhere in the world, unemployment has never been higher before, capitalism is slowly being decomposed... Of course, you are unable to recognize what a massive crisis this whole process will bring to the capitalist system, and you have no idea that you are actually advocating the acceleration of this process. You think that this process will be a good thing for capitalism. How wonderful it must be for someone who considers himself a capitalist to be a sign of the massive crisis capitalism is entering.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21, 2007 01:03 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

What else can one call a person who fully advocates that taking of the profits of an independent corporation so that the gov't and the gov't alone can decide what to do with them.


But let's take a CLOSER look at the Exxon-Mobil profits that the left and news media are all excited about.

Total income: $377.6 billion
Income before taxes: $67.4 billion
Income taxes: $27.9 billion
Net Income: $39.5 billion

Some quick calculations gives us:
Return on sales: 10.5%
Effective income tax rate: 41.4%

So… Exxon gets 11% return, while the gov't gets 40%... And that's just not good enough for Hillary… she openly states she wants to take all of it.
And 11% it apparently just TOO much for people to handle.

Therefore, Exxon-Mobil is the devil and the gov't needs to step in and do SOMETHING.

You communists and other associated leftists should be excited.
So countries with nationalized energy sectors are socialist?

Hilary is a capitalist. It's in the interest of the capitalist to promote general welfare so as to protect their rule from dissatisfaction among the masses. That's why they do things like this. This in no way distributes power. If I'm wrong, then sign me up for the Democratic Party!

[EwokUtopia]

My god, shes a COMMUNIST!

First she's taking the hard earned profits from Oil Giants and putting them into stable energy sources, next thing she'll take the money from the Church collection plates and give them to Richard Dawkins for his Atheist Crusade from Hell, and finally she will outlaw Heterosexual Marriage and make Abortion Manditory.


We gotta vote for Jesus to keep this Communist Witch out!!!!!111!!!!1!!!









Never mind her unwavering support for Zionism and unwillingness to end American Imperial Capitalism (going so far as to support that unwaveringly as well)

[Guerrilla22]

poor Exxon Mobile. I really feel sorry for them, since they're barely getting by and all.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:51 pm
Why the hell do all of you right wingers think every Democrat is a closet Socialist?
Because they don't know anything about socialism except that it's a left-wing ideology, and they think Democrats are on the left too because they're even more right-wing than the Democrats are.

[Tungsten]

What's wrong, boys, is Mrs Clinton not radical enough for you?

[colonelguppy]

cue endless arguement about who has the right definition about socialism

if socialists can consider anyhting that isn't full collectivsim capitalism (including social democacy), than why can't capitalists include anything that isn't laissez faire socialism?

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:26 pm
What's wrong, boys, is Mrs Clinton not radical enough for you?
No shit, Einstien

Its not a matter of her not being radical, as being on a completely seperate political track. You really must stop this silly thought of politics as being a continuous spectrum, and that we are all just super-liberals. If Hilary was the furthest left on her party, if she was further left than any of us on certain issues, it wouldnt matter, because she still supports the general Status Quo. She supports the system of nationalism and imperialism, and above all Capitalism. It doesnt matter how liberal she is, she still supports that. As far as the spectrum goes, the Democrat party is actually quite conservative. They are more or less the equivalent of the Conservative Party in Canada, or other right-of-centre parties in Europe. Just because they are not as radically conservative as the republicans, they have been demonized (literally) by the American media as Liberal fanatics. This is far from the truth.


That being said, a Liberal president is better than a conservative president, because though they still leave society an inequal shamble of privilege, they do make positive reforms on certain issues.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:26 pm
What's wrong, boys, is Mrs Clinton not radical enough for you?
The problem is that she's a fucking capitalist. She supports a system whereby the bourgeoisie form the ruling class and people are oppressed within the worker/boss paradigm. Where is the socialism?

If people have spent as much time on this board as you or capitalist lawyer and still don't know what "socialism", "communism" or "anarchism" mean then you should be fucking banned or at least fuck off for a while whilst you learn some basic reading comprehension.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:45 pm
cue endless arguement about who has the right definition about socialism
I'd imagine marxists, what with the fact they have it written down in front of them. Capitalists are a little shaky on their definitions. Oh yeah and we also know what capitalism is, being that it was defined in Das Kapital.


if socialists can consider anyhting that isn't full collectivsim capitalism (including social democacy), than why can't capitalists include anything that isn't laissez faire socialism? Under the absurd definition system you propose there would be systems that are capitalist and socialist at the same time, which makes no logical sense.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:12 pm
I'd imagine marxists, what with the fact they have it written down in front of them. Capitalists are a little shaky on their definitions. Oh yeah and we also know what capitalism is, being that it was defined in Das Kapital.
dude thats like using ayn rand to define socialism


Under the absurd definition system you propose there would be systems that are capitalist and socialist at the same time, which makes no logical sense.

that's why most sane people realize the concept of a "mixed economy".

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+February 21, 2007 11:34 pm--> (colonelguppy @ February 21, 2007 11:34 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 06:12 pm
I'd imagine marxists, what with the fact they have it written down in front of them. Capitalists are a little shaky on their definitions. Oh yeah and we also know what capitalism is, being that it was defined in Das Kapital.
dude thats like using ayn rand to define socialism


Under the absurd definition system you propose there would be systems that are capitalist and socialist at the same time, which makes no logical sense.

that's why most sane people realize the concept of a "mixed economy". [/b]
Well it was Marx who really started populirising the idea of capitalism as a system. eople like Adam Smith didn't refer to economics in thsoe terms. So Marx is a good person to explain what the system is.

And as for mixed economy, well obviously that's going to happen under capitalism, and that's how it is going to work, because capitalism is naturally a mixed system, not a completely free market one.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

dude thats like using ayn rand to define socialism
Not really, Das Kapital was an economic study of capitalism, unlike the Communist Manifesto, which is probably what you're thinking of.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+February 21, 2007 11:34 pm--> (colonelguppy @ February 21, 2007 11:34 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 06:12 pm
I'd imagine marxists, what with the fact they have it written down in front of them. Capitalists are a little shaky on their definitions. Oh yeah and we also know what capitalism is, being that it was defined in Das Kapital.
dude thats like using ayn rand to define socialism [/b]
Not really. Das Kapital predates Rand's semi-literate outpourings, for a start. Capitalism is any bourgeois/petit-bourgeois/proletariat/lumpenproleteriat ordered system. As I described earlier. Taxes and so on have fuck all to do with it.



Under the absurd definition system you propose there would be systems that are capitalist and socialist at the same time, which makes no logical sense.

that's why most sane people realize the concept of a "mixed economy". Which is a form of capitalism. :lol: Fucking cretin.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+February 21, 2007 06:38 pm--> (Demogorgon @ February 21, 2007 06:38 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:34 pm

[email protected] 21, 2007 06:12 pm
I'd imagine marxists, what with the fact they have it written down in front of them. Capitalists are a little shaky on their definitions. Oh yeah and we also know what capitalism is, being that it was defined in Das Kapital.
dude thats like using ayn rand to define socialism


Under the absurd definition system you propose there would be systems that are capitalist and socialist at the same time, which makes no logical sense.

that's why most sane people realize the concept of a "mixed economy".
Well it was Marx who really started populirising the idea of capitalism as a system. eople like Adam Smith didn't refer to economics in thsoe terms. So Marx is a good person to explain what the system is.

And as for mixed economy, well obviously that's going to happen under capitalism, and that's how it is going to work, because capitalism is naturally a mixed system, not a completely free market one. [/b]
government action driven by political forces is outside the market, i think it's absurd to classify a system of price controls and subsidizing and protectionism as "free" market.

as for marx, i think he was still too early in the inudstrial revolution to truely understand market eocnomics. it wasn't untill the 20th century that people really started to understand.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:43 pm
government action driven by political forces is outside the market, i think it's absurd to classify a system of price controls and subsidizing and protectionism as "free" market.

as for marx, i think he was still too early in the inudstrial revolution to truely understand market eocnomics. it wasn't untill the 20th century that people really started to understand.
Well actually government action is very deeply affected by markets. if you examine what they are doing you will see they are trying to tweak the markets rather than trying to operate outside of them. At any rate that wasn't really my point. Government intervention is natural in capitalism. It's part of the system really. Hence I call capitalism a mixed economic system in all cases.

And as for Marx, well of course there have ben economic developments since he lived, but don't underestimate nineteenth century economists-The Victorians (to be irratingly anglo-centric) knew a lot more than we tend to think. And Marx's views were quite sophisticated (in the sense they offered quite a deep insight) for the time.

[Publius]

I heard she was a nihilist.

[bezdomni]

as for marx, i think he was still too early in the inudstrial revolution to truely understand market eocnomics. it wasn't untill the 20th century that people really started to understand.

So...Smith didn't understand Market economics either?

What about Lenin? He was around in the 20th Century. So were Trotsky and Mao.

[Rasta Sapian]

Hilary Clinton is a politician.
lies
She can appear liberal, conservative, democratic, feminist, socialist, or capitalist.
thief
She is to Bill Clinton as George W Bush is to Gerorge Bush Sr.
witch
Don't be fooled by the politics, read between the lines.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:41 pm


dude thats like using ayn rand to define socialism
Not really, Das Kapital was an economic study of capitalism, unlike the Communist Manifesto, which is probably what you're thinking of.
i know what it is, he defines cpaitalism in terms of classes instead of what it actually is, a market system driven by supply and demand.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:48 pm
Well actually government action is very deeply affected by markets. if you examine what they are doing you will see they are trying to tweak the markets rather than trying to operate outside of them. At any rate that wasn't really my point. Government intervention is natural in capitalism. It's part of the system really. Hence I call capitalism a mixed economic system in all cases.

And as for Marx, well of course there have ben economic developments since he lived, but don't underestimate nineteenth century economists-The Victorians (to be irratingly anglo-centric) knew a lot more than we tend to think. And Marx's views were quite sophisticated (in the sense they offered quite a deep insight) for the time.
well, the whole point of the market in capitalism is to allow for voluntary transaction of goods in services, where as government agencies interact using coercion, warping the market to whatever effect it has.


And as for Marx, well of course there have ben economic developments since he lived, but don't underestimate nineteenth century economists-The Victorians (to be irratingly anglo-centric) knew a lot more than we tend to think. And Marx's views were quite sophisticated (in the sense they offered quite a deep insight) for the time.

well as a capitalist, i would disagree ;)

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:41 pm


as for marx, i think he was still too early in the inudstrial revolution to truely understand market eocnomics. it wasn't untill the 20th century that people really started to understand.

So...Smith didn't understand Market economics either?

What about Lenin? He was around in the 20th Century. So were Trotsky and Mao.
no, smith didn't have the advantage of observing the post industrial stage. he was really more of an economic philospher than a scientist.

and i didn't know anyone ever thought of lenin or mao to have much knowledge in market economics.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:42 pm
Not really. Das Kapital predates Rand's semi-literate outpourings, for a start. Capitalism is any bourgeois/petit-bourgeois/proletariat/lumpenproleteriat ordered system. As I described earlier. Taxes and so on have fuck all to do with it.
capitalism is defined by the private market, and yes taxes have an enormous effect on this. just syaing it is a system of classes ignores the defining characteristic of it.


Which is a form of capitalism. :lol: Fucking cretin.

god i hate argueing with commies and there fucked up definitions... look, a mixed economy has both market and command economy features, which is why it is "mixed".

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If the government protects free enterprise and any amount of capital belongs to the private sector, capitalism is the economic system. It is a capitalist government. A capitalist establishment. A "command economy" has nothing to do with socialism. It's capitalism under the control of the government. "State capitalism" as we like calling it.

[BobKKKindle$]

One can differentiate between Capitalism and Socialism by examining the nature of the power relationships that exist in the economic and political structure of a society. Hillary is not advocating worker's ownership and control of the means of production and so she cannot be considered a Socialist. She wishes to maintain an economic system under which economic resources are owned and commanded by a small minority - the Capitalist class. Therefore she is a bourgeois politician.

Under a command economy, the capitalist class is no longer composed of a multitude of competing firms, but by a homogenous state apparatus. A qualitative change in the the ruling class does not necessarly change the structure of the economic system. Society is still divided into classes. The same power relationships exist.


capitalism is defined by the private market

One of the key characteristics of Capitalism is that commodity production is the dominant form of economic activity, yes. But this existed in a limited form in previous forms of economic organisation, so alone it cannot be used to define Capitalism.


no, smith didn't have the advantage of observing the post industrial stage. he was really more of an economic philospher than a scientist.

You know why the present economic orthodoxy is called Neo-Classical Economics? Because it is based on classical ideas that were not in use during the keynesian period of 1945 - 1975 . Classicalal referring to the ideas of Adam Smith, who believed the market was a self-regulating entity in which the state should not intervene. So your point is absurd and shows how you don't even know the theoretical basis of Capitalism.

[colonelguppy]

One of the key characteristics of Capitalism is that commodity production is the dominant form of economic activity, yes. But this existed in a limited form in previous forms of economic organisation, so alone it cannot be used to define Capitalism.

well that's not exactly how i defined capitalism, but yeah commodity production is the dominant form of economic activity in every system, it's basically what economics is.


You know why the present economic orthodoxy is called Neo-Classical Economics? Because it is based on classical ideas that were not in use during the keynesian period of 1945 - 1975 . Classicalal referring to the ideas of Adam Smith, who believed the market was a self-regulating entity in which the state should not intervene. So your point is absurd and shows how you don't even know the theoretical basis of Capitalism.

just because smith prefered laissex-faire doesn't mean he understood the detailed interworkings of a post industrial market place, which is what i said. read my post.

[BobKKKindle$]

well that's not exactly how i defined capitalism, but yeah commodity production is the dominant form of economic activity in every system, it's basically what economics is.

A commodity is something that is produced for the purpose of exchange so as to yield a profit for the owner of Capital. When a Capitalist invests in the manufacture of any commodity the actual nature of the commodity he produces is really no consequence to him, his primary concern is seeing a profitable return on his investement. In economic systems before Capitalism, most goods were produced primarily in order to directly take advantage of their use value, and many goods (especially basic foodstuffs produced through agriculture) did not even enter any market place where a transaction could take place. Thus these goods would not be considered commodities. Thus you do not understand what a commodity is ;)


just because smith prefered laissex-faire doesn't mean he understood the detailed interworkings of a post industrial market place, which is what i said. read my post.

The ideas of Adam Smith represent the classical school of economics. The present economic orthodoxy is called neo-classical because it is based on these ideas, even though they were written what may seem like a long time ago. Hence the term classical. Just because developed countries are now-post industrial, does not mean they are not based on the same economic system as in the 19th century. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because something is old is cannot be applied to the modern era - The ideas of thinkers such as Plato and Machiavelli, for example, are still of great importance in political philisophy, just as the ideas of Marx and Adams are of great use in economics.

[The Feral Underclass]

The arbitrary closing of threads makes me horny!