Tom, you talk as if Capitalism was born perfectly formed, and that it has been consistently degraded by Socialist intervention since its divine conception. The truth is just the opposite. There never would have been any Socialists if it hadn't been for the abuses of Capital.
What started off as something barely distinguishable from medieval serfdom has been continuously improved in productivity and humanized in its effect by over a century of progressive, liberal philosophy. And it still rewards the true entrepreneur, and takes advantage of the self-regulation of the market, without having to condemn most who participate as wage slaves constantly blackmailed by the threat of potential unemployment.
And at every step of the way, those reforms and corrections have been bitterly opposed and subverted by a grasping status quo of special interests and petty little Scrooges and Marleys, all incapable of understanding where their true interests really lie.
The conversations we have here are practically indistinguishable from the opposition to Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting and the muckracking reformers of the early 19th century. In fact, it is the same objections offered by the forces of reaction since the beginning.
Get on the right side of History, Tom. You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Current Events » in reply to Re: Define "impossible".
Re: Define "impossible".
The whole thread (58 posts)
- "Are jobs obsolete?"
- Re: "Are jobs obsolete?"
- Re: "Are jobs obsolete?"
- Re: "Are jobs obsolete?"
- Re: "Are jobs obsolete?"
- Re: "Are jobs obsolete?"
- Re: "Are jobs obsolete?"
- Re: "Are jobs obsolete?"
- Define "impossible".
- Re: Define "impossible".
- Re: Define "impossible".
- Re: Define "impossible".
- Re: Define "impossible".
- Re: Define "impossible".
- You forgot the one about liberals eating their children.
- Re: Define "impossible".
- Re: Define "impossible".
- Re: "Are jobs obsolete?"
- Re: "Are jobs obsolete?"
- Define "impossible".
