Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why Not Socialism?: The Right’s red-baiting has been far too effective [View all]RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)139. That is a redefinitiion of Capitalism.
The definition of capitalism says nothing about what is done with profits from an enterprise, only that the decisions about how a company operates are made privately.
Mondragon fits the definition of capitalism perfectly.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
204 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why Not Socialism?: The Right’s red-baiting has been far too effective [View all]
marmar
Nov 2012
OP
Sweden has a capitalist economic system, with some social programs. Just like the U.S.
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#16
Here is your assignment: look up the definition of socialism, then look up Denmark....
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#43
"Getting paid according to how much time you put is no way in hell a "wage."...???
BlueMan Votes
Nov 2012
#122
They are to fairly allocate 100% of the income to those who work to generate it
eridani
Nov 2012
#154
Irrelevant. What is relevant is that 100% of the take goes to workers, and only workers
eridani
Nov 2012
#176
I don't think so. Why should anyone get to own anyone else's means of production?
eridani
Nov 2012
#190
Then he owns his own means of production. Why should he own other people's? n/t
eridani
Nov 2012
#196
he may own his own means of production- but he needs labor to make it work...
BlueMan Votes
Nov 2012
#198
Exactly- by means of an IPO. If people want to be co-owners they can buy stock in the "company"...
BlueMan Votes
Nov 2012
#201
If they got more of the money that they are responsible for generating, they'd have plenty
eridani
Nov 2012
#204
You really need to learn the definitions of economic and political terms, nadin. Sweden
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#47
Every time I read one of your post it becomes more and more clear why you were banned from Kos.
white_wolf
Nov 2012
#11
Tell that to Volvo, Saab and Mercedes Benz. All companies that succeed in socialist countries
Canuckistanian
Nov 2012
#12
Denmark has a capitalistic economic system, like Sweden. It has a liberal trading
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#23
Yes, if I write a song, I file for the copyright. Unless I sell it or give it away. Period. nt
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#34
If you write a song while you're working for X Inc. and your job involves songwriting in any way
gollygee
Nov 2012
#127
Only if you're not an independent artist, but EMPLOYED by the co. or your CONTRACT
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#175
yeah, there were no writers in communist countries & if there were, their books
HiPointDem
Nov 2012
#33
sarcasm indicator broken? it's the other poster you should be talking to, not me.
HiPointDem
Nov 2012
#82
Probably to better effect than arguing with one who is blinded by Randian horseshit. nt
patrice
Nov 2012
#88
What is the point of doing anything that has no intrinsic motivation? That's what you're saying,
patrice
Nov 2012
#86
We have some social programs in the U.S. What you mean is that people will want
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#27
People have all different ideas in their heads about what socialism means, so
limpyhobbler
Nov 2012
#32
The problem is that they're calling only the most extreme, radical form of Capitalism
gollygee
Nov 2012
#50
Do you think government ownership is an essential trait of Socialism? without it, without government
patrice
Nov 2012
#110
Thank you!! Trying to explain that down-thread & to refute the notion that profit for profit's sake
patrice
Nov 2012
#158
The search I just did didn't think that they are. & Prob is people can conceive of NO
patrice
Nov 2012
#171
It's frustrating because THAT's how things are now for the 1% & Socialist principles try to
patrice
Nov 2012
#174
One major issue to be overcome in these discussion is the conflation of politcal & economic theories
Snarkoleptic
Nov 2012
#75
On some things, I'll take a socialistic stance. For the most part, socialism is crap nt
RomneyLies
Nov 2012
#79
Would you care to be more precise about exactly how that is so? Or shall we just take your
patrice
Nov 2012
#89
Socialust roads, fire departments, and police are cool. Socialist farms and factories sucks. nt
RomneyLies
Nov 2012
#94
I'm honestly interested in why those things suck. Which ones are you referring to? China?
patrice
Nov 2012
#100
Nope, Mondragon is free enterprise. It's a cooperative, but the government does not own and...
RomneyLies
Nov 2012
#108
Wrong. Those who do the work DECIDE all of that. The profits are the workers' NOT a capitalist's.
patrice
Nov 2012
#113
The decision is private in a private corporation, ergo, it is capitalistic. nt
RomneyLies
Nov 2012
#141
Fail: There are MANY private entities that are not capitalistic. Private entities in which profit is
patrice
Nov 2012
#148
Any OPTIONAL secondary goals are served ONLY by profit. Look at our Capitalist history. How can
patrice
Nov 2012
#153
The profits are based upon SOCIAL principles & processes, not the idiosyncracies of Capitalism.
patrice
Nov 2012
#117
What Capitalists has "social welfare and Insurance" as the 2nd & 3rd objectives of FINANCE, link:
patrice
Nov 2012
#123
You mistake the natue of Capitalism. It's SOLE objective is profit. The purpose of profit at Mondrag
patrice
Nov 2012
#129
Me? Tell me that profit is not the SOLE motive of Capitalism. You are the one redefining here.
patrice
Nov 2012
#140
Profit does not enter into the definition, you are adding it to the equation
RomneyLies
Nov 2012
#143
Try to tear yourself away from other support and think. Tell me now, logically, that there'd be such
patrice
Nov 2012
#152
You reject that there'd be no such thing as Capitalism without profit for profit's sake alone?
patrice
Nov 2012
#138
Oh! hoh! That's rich! Perhaps you'd like to discuss the definition of "is". :-)))))) nt
patrice
Nov 2012
#159
Profit for profit's sake alone is clearly proven in the Capitalist financial history of the USA. nt
patrice
Nov 2012
#130
LOGIC: HOW can Capitalism even survive unless profit is it's SOLE motive? Please answer.
patrice
Nov 2012
#142
NONE of those other goals would be goals at all without profit. PROFIT first always, otherwise the
patrice
Nov 2012
#155
What kind of Capitalist allows WORKERS to manage & guide their own education & training?
patrice
Nov 2012
#128
YOU are limiting the entire, REAL LIFE, discussion to an entry in a dictionary. nt
patrice
Nov 2012
#160
So what you oppose is government ownership, i.e. government as CAPITALISM. Me too. nt
patrice
Nov 2012
#114
You are wrong - and - you are narrow-minded & refuse to at least recognize that FACT.
patrice
Nov 2012
#157
Anarchists are socialists and don't think the government should exist at all.
white_wolf
Nov 2012
#146
So we should just ignore all the anarchist writers and theorists because you say they don't count?
white_wolf
Nov 2012
#151
How can anyone who does not identify with a set of values define them? You may HYPOTHESIZE
patrice
Nov 2012
#156
Well, one thing they are doing is assuming that old saw about government owning the means of
patrice
Nov 2012
#105
True! and yet, there must be some essential trait in common that makes it all Socialism, otherwise
patrice
Nov 2012
#107
credit for Obama's re-election is not "owed" to any one group or demographic over others.
BlueMan Votes
Nov 2012
#120
"Am I my brother's keeper?" - Socialism says "yes". Capitalism says "Fuck you."
Tierra_y_Libertad
Nov 2012
#121
Agreed. Socialistic/workers'-profit-sharing for the necessities. Capitalism for everything else.
patrice
Nov 2012
#131
Just talking about the USA & what's doable, compared to 0 change. Perhaps I should point
patrice
Nov 2012
#182
Right on! Health & cognitive benefits from reduced stress = more EFFICIENT economies at
patrice
Nov 2012
#172