Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CowboyJay

“Socialism is redistributionist economics.”

Not by any definition I’ve seen. The essence of socialism is government control of the means of production. Marx said “ownership.” Ownership is just another word for control. He who owns something has the right to control it. If the government waters down your right of control to nothing, then they control it, and the claim that you still “own” it is simply a sham.

Of course, there are varying degrees of control, and the liberals would like you to think that the level they’ve imposed does not rise to the level that one could say makes us socialist. I think that is a matter of debate, but as the iron hand of government continues to grow, that debate becomes more and more one-sided.

Gingrich now thinks it is the government’s prerogative to define what business practices are acceptable in the market place. That’s control no matter how you slice it.

I don’t have any problem with the government exercising control over fraud, theft, enforcing contracts, etc. These things are all assumptions of the free marketplace anyway. It’s where you have government making business decisions, which businesses to keep open, which to shut, who to lay off, who not to, etc., where you have the problem. Gingrich’s condemnation of what is commonly known as vulture capitalism is one such example. The government has no legitimate role in telling you that you can’t sell your failing company to someone who wants to break it up and sell off the pieces.


160 posted on 01/16/2012 5:35:30 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]


To: Brilliant
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

THAT is the essence of socialism. At least according to Marx and Engels. What you're stumping for is essentially anarchy.

"The government has no legitimate role in telling you that you can’t sell your failing company to someone who wants to break it up and sell off the pieces.

I think we would agree there. But there's quite an ethical leap between that, and some of what actually goes on in the financial arena. Using leverage to engineer a hostile takeover of a borderline firm or even a profitable competitor, holding a firesale or absorbing any valuable assets, and putting the employees out on the street isn't quite "cricket" in the eyes of most legitimate entrepreneurs. And IMO, putting a stop to that kind of behavior is one of the few legitimate arguments for having something like the SEC around. Is having rules for competition really that alien a concept to you? Even UFC brawls have rules.
166 posted on 01/16/2012 6:53:54 PM PST by CowboyJay (Lowest Common Denominator 2012 - because liberty and prosperity were overrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson