Where have I stated that? Where have I insinuated that?
You taking your job elsewhere constitutes another office; an Taiwanese worker taking their job elsewhere constitutes poverty and/or death. How is that equal? You seem to abstract equality away from any basis in reality in order to make it a premise in your Free Market theory. Your choices between workplaces and the choices an impoverished Chinese or Indian worker make could not be more different.
Also, when I spoke of Revolution, show me where I mentioned American Corporate Workers, please. I was speaking exactly about conditions such as in China and India (even mentioned it) which DO mirror the slave-like conditions of that period. Hm, I wonder what effect a worker's revolution and subsequent economic collapse in Asia Major would have in America? Hm, I wonder how our consumption habits (providing low-priced goods, as you said) could precipitate that?
You will labor to prove your assumption here. My point is that such slave-like conditions are the current status-quo, and that can potentially be revolutionary conditions.
My whole point was to show you those conditions are not slave-like. They may be poor conditions. But there is choice involved.
As for the revolution, its always a possibility with poor workers and professional revolutionaries.
Keynesianism;
Interventionism;
Capital;
Socialist;
Equality;
Liberty;
Monopoly;
Free Market;
The Bolshevik Revolution;
Corporate Capitalism;
Perfect Competition;
Market Equity;
and so forth.
That all you got? :lol:
I'll write what I think they all mean without using wiki.
Keynesianism- A market theory attempting to harness the positives benefits of capitalism, while using government intervention to overcome the natural market low points. Keynesianism also believes that maximizing employment leads to economic prosperity and government should also use infrastructure growth to minimize unemployment.
Interventionism- Goverment involving itself in the free market in some capacity.
Capital- Money, goods, labor, machinery.
Socialist- A system of government predicated on ownership of the means of production and control of the economy.
Equality- To be equal.
Liberty- Freedom.
Monopoly- One company controlling the entire means of production in a portion of the economy.
Free Market- Capitalism unhindered by government intervention.
The Bolshevik Revolution- Oct 1917 revolution in St. Peterberg and Moscow. Overthrew the provisional government instilled in Feb 1917.
Corporate Capitalism- Capitalism predicated on the modern marketplace with corporations controlling the means of production.
Perfect Competition- Not too much, not too little competition.
Market Equity- no idea on this one.
Exactly what I have told you all along, in fact. I find it very comical that after incorrectly and cavalierly tossing the term 'Socialist' around for some time, (with me correcting you with those very points) you are now attempting to educate me on the divergences between these systems.
This is what you said:
c) Define Socialism. Better yet, define the differences between Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, and Marxism. Then, at such point where you have reached an adequate description, rephrase your first sentence. It is incorrect.
I wasn't attempting to educate you, you said to define the differences. I did. My original statement still stands with one modification, only because I thought it was implicit when I originally wrote it. I said:
Please show me an example of Socialism that does not involve Totalitarianism in some form. I can't think of one. Perhaps I should have said show me a "real world" example of Socialism that does not involve Totalitarianism in some form.
Perfect! Now, does it not feel better to understand the terms you derogatorily use to describe others?
At what point does description become derogatory. Do you think it is inaccurate to say that nationalizing health care is the same as socializing health care? Should I call it Stalinizing health care instead, since he believed in single country communism?
(btw, Marx viewed Capitalism as the necessary step for Socialism. He did not feel any society could adequately develop without that particular stage of development).
I read that as well.
Good to know you are expanding your knowledge base!
Its the only way for a guy with a puny Bachelor of Arts to understand what you're saying!
Exactly. And, historically, the more labor of one class is abused by the other (whether via Capital or Government) revolution ensues. In recent history, it has taken the form of Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism and so forth.
Leninism also talks about the necessity of the professional revolutionary. Without those, very few revolutions would have happened.