OFFLINE

So, the big annual Bilderberg meeting was on last week:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/16/bilderberg-2011-tipping-point

Has Glenn Beck been foaming at the mouth about these guys yet, or are they perfectly OK because they're capitalists with not a trace of the s-word in sight?

OFFLINE

couldn't tell ya. don't like these guys anymore than the socialists.

OFFLINE

Kieran I'm not sure folks over here take the Bilderburg conspiracy theory seriously.  its interesting, and I like reading about them.  But there's no proof of any crime being committed I dont think.  Havent heard Beck say anything about it either.

I'm more concerned about George Soros, and the peace flotilla and the unrest in the middle east... and especially the economy here right now.  

OFFLINE

and i like how when a bunch of primarily european socialists get together to talk in secret, that it represents "capitalism" lol.

OFFLINE

Kissinger, Nixon's Secretary of State, a 'European Socialist'?  Thats news to me!

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
and i like how when a bunch of primarily european socialists get together to talk in secret, that it represents "capitalism" lol.

http://theintelhub.com/2011/06/10/full-bilderberg-2011-attendee-list/

So Henry Kissinger, the Governor of the Bank of Canada,  the Director of the NSA, and the Chairmen/CEOs of Amazon, Google and Facebook are now "European socialists"?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
and i like how when a bunch of primarily european socialists get together to talk in secret, that it represents "capitalism" lol.

http://theintelhub.com/2011/06/10/full-bilderberg-2011-attendee-list/

So Henry Kissinger, the Governor of the Bank of Canada,  the Director of the NSA, and the Chairmen/CEOs of Amazon, Google and Facebook are now "European socialists"?

i said PRIMARILY. i know there have been a lot of u.s. government officials as part of these things. i've done the research on these guys before. maybe i should've said "state-capitalism globalists" instead, but it's all the same difference. see, you guys have a problem when i say socialist, but a lot of the time when i say socialist, nowadays i mean crony-capitalist/state-capitalists. particularly when it comes to the central banks, and the monetary overlords. in my eyes, this IS socialism. strong central planning, government manipulation of the global markets. and it's being done everywhere. from china and russia, to the u.s. to europe. i mean does this come as a surprise to anyone?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
see, you guys have a problem when i say socialist, but a lot of the time when i say socialist, nowadays i mean crony-capitalist/state-capitalists. particularly when it comes to the central banks, and the monetary overlords. in my eyes, this IS socialism. strong central planning, government manipulation of the global markets. and it's being done everywhere. from china and russia, to the u.s. to europe. i mean does this come as a surprise to anyone?

If that's what you mean when you say it, why not say that then? :-P

So by that definition every country in the world is socialist to some extent.....

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
see, you guys have a problem when i say socialist, but a lot of the time when i say socialist, nowadays i mean crony-capitalist/state-capitalists. particularly when it comes to the central banks, and the monetary overlords. in my eyes, this IS socialism. strong central planning, government manipulation of the global markets. and it's being done everywhere. from china and russia, to the u.s. to europe. i mean does this come as a surprise to anyone?

If that's what you mean when you say it, why not say that then? :-P

So by that definition every country in the world is socialist to some extent.....

pretty much.

OFFLINE

and even if you look at the definition of socialism, it applies. look at it this way. socialism is defined as "an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned." right?

yet if you look up state capitalism, you find this: "Corporatized government agencies and states that own controlling shares of publicly listed firms, thus acting as a capitalist itself, are two examples of state capitalism. State capitalism has also come to refer to an economic system where the means of production are privately owned and the state exerts considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment."

so tell me what the difference is between a state that owns the means of production, and a state that exerts so much control over the means of production, that it effectively owns them? and going hand in hand with state capitalism, is crony capitalism; "a term describing an allegedly capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials."

whichever way you slice it, it is the partnership between government and economic output that is the enemy, and is dangerous. this "new model," this " third way," a synthesis between capitalism and marxist socialism is NOT capitalism. it simply uses the wealth created by a capitalist mold, and the end result is the same.

OFFLINE

i mean, how do you guys define socialism? i guess it's taken on a newer definition to make it more palatable? because the historic socialism is anything but palatable. the socialism of nazi germany, which was by definition, similar to the state-capitalism we see today. seriously, socialist economic policies and state-capitalism are only different on a semantic level. look them both up. within their own ranks, socialist thinkers claim the soviet-style economy was based on state-capitalism. others prefer market socialism, which isn't much different, really.

but basically, what is the modern, cuddly wuddly definition of socialism that the liberals like to use, which makes them feel secure with it?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

but basically, what is the modern, cuddly wuddly definition of socialism that the liberals like to use, which makes them feel secure with it?

I wouldn't know, I count as a conservative on this side of the pond :-P

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

but basically, what is the modern, cuddly wuddly definition of socialism that the liberals like to use, which makes them feel secure with it?

I wouldn't know, I count as a conservative on this side of the pond :-P

sad my friend. this is an illustration of how the goal posts shift.