Joseph Schumpeter quote something like "if socialists stop chivying the bourgeoisie they would be better off
957371
Capitalism in Retrospect\nCE Ayres - Southern Economic Journal, 1943 - JSTOR \n\nCheck this out, if you haven't already. The quote is noted as intact within the article, and I'm sure it must be cited.\n\nInteresting quote and idea-- I'm surprised it's not more known. I don't have access to JSTOR or a library with this journal, so can't be sure of the reference. But the quotation is present in the text.
119324
Socialist thought grew out of alarm at the new institution of wage labor which came along with industrialization (in the craftsman era, workers controlled the means of production and were not subordinate to owners).  Early socialist thought focuses on replacing wage labor with either workers cooperatives (most early socialist thinkers) or nationalization (a few).\n\nKarl Marx found early socialist thought to be politically naive and with a shallow understanding of capitalism and the larger forces of history.  He declared his own analysis to be "scientific".\n\nEconomically, Marx argued that politics is the struggle of classes to design rules and institutions that serve their economic interests and that as an economy modernizes old institutional relations become barriers to further development.  In the more technical parts of Das Kapital, he tried to explain the process of wage determination (via the now antiquated and discredited labor theory of value), the price system, structural change in the economy, the process of capital accumulation and growth, the effects of technological change, the business cycle and periodic and supposedly intensifying crises of overproduction.  He argued that capitalism would polarize wealth and tend towards monopoly (or oligopoly).\n\nPolitically, Marx advocated that trade unions merge into large units and serve as the basis for a labor-based political party, that this party should seek to win control of parliaments democratically (Marx wrongly assumed this would be easy, even automatic given their numbers and the false assumption of homogeniety of interest), and begin socializing the means of production,with markets present for long to come.  In early writings, Marx called for gradual nationalization of firms (through peaceful buyouts if possible), but later in his life he instead preferred the establishment of networks of worker's cooperatives, which he assumed would prosper under a labor government.  \n\nContrary to widespread misinformation, Marx did not believe a country NECESSARILY had to develop a mature capitalist economy before making a transition to socialism.  Given the situation in various countries, the process could start very early if a labor or even peasant party could control the parliament.  Freedoms of speech and organization were regarded as the lifeblood of labor parties' rise.\n\nIn short, Marx's political ideas were very far removed from the reactionary positions of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc, which is not to say he was right, just not properly associated with that political tradition.
666937
Doubtful.  Marxists seldom help their people.
243061
I think it means things are going to get worse before they get better. I really like that quote. I do not know where it originated but it is inspiring.
621000
lol, I guess you have heard a response from a liberal, and I'll bet he is in a union.  I'm curious, how many times has he responded, "thats not my job!", when he is at work.  I'll refrain from telling the half a dozen negative stories regarding unions.\n\nAs for your answer, you seem to be making a point that in the middle is the way to go, which I agree with for the most part.\n\nYou say the right wing wants economic gaps.  I disagree with that.  The right, or conservative view, says if you work, you should be rewarded.  It is not a seperation of class, as you put it.  It is more about people doing something to better themselves, and be rewarded for it.\n\n The left wing, or liberals, aka. socialists, want to take what the workers have earned, and split it among everyone, including those who do not work.  These people do not work because they know that someone else will, and they will still get their share.  \n\nYou may often hear arguments such as, "ten percent of the people control 90% of the wealth".  I don't know how accdurate those numbers are, but I certainly am not one of those 10% of people.  I do know, however, that if I want a piece of that wealth, I can not sit on my butt and wait for my 'share' to get handed to me.  I have to go out and earn it.
749906
Quotation from Robert Louis Stevenson. 'To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive, and the true success is to labour.'
744200
The wise man would be Karl Marx.
730044
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." \n-Plato
41558
Since I'm not a Marxist, this doesn't particularly appeal to me (the quote is a famous one attributed to Karl Marx)
812860
This is a further part of socialist engineering, as I have said many times before we are heading for a totalitarian state  by stealth New Labours favourite tactic. People in the UK should remember Thomas Jefferson's famous words,"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty!"and "The issue to-day is the same as it has been throughout all history,whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite".
909165
The want a two class society, the rich elite and the "working joes".\n\nThey don't want to expand the middle class, they want to eliminate it and make one HUGE lower class.  All while retaining their posotions of power and influence.
178773
That sounds like a recipe for class warfare (which is basically marxism in disguise). Besides their leaders (and many of them) are helpless pessimistic little whiners.
921475
Benjamin Franklin:\n\n"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."\n\nIt's one of my all-time favorite quotes!\n\n.
445166
I can't write a paragraph on it for you--if you want to know the source given for the quote:\n\nAll health is better than wealth.\n\n--from a letter written by Sir Walter Scott, 18th-19th century Scottish novelist
292441
There are always sacrafices needed and made so that we can enjoy our freedoms. You can't force anyone to live together in peace. No matter how hard you try, it doesn't work. That is the big ideal that socialist/communist societies try to portray. History has shown them to be failures.
362376
"We help the comunites and without us you would be nothing."\nHAHAHAHAHAHA!\n\nOh I’m sorry I know laughing isn't very professional but that comment was so damn funny.  Obviously you either lack an understanding of basic economics or you haven’t thought things though.  The U.S. has a very capital intensive economy meaning we work 'smarter' in most sectors using machinery and educated workers in order to be more productive.  \n\nThis is totally opposite of third world countries such as Mexico which have to use large amounts of unskilled labor in order to produce labor intensive goods.  If all the illegal immigrants left the United States we wouldn't be dealt a crushing blow.  Quite the opposite, we'd be forced to eliminate tariffs and subsidies and then import labor intensive products such as strawberries and tomato’s at a cheaper price from South America.  \n\nThis would allow us to pursue our comparative advantage by producing capital intensive goods and services such as: software, engineering, financial management, etc. And propel our economy forward.  \n\nThe illegal immigrants filling positions which cannot be out-sourced or replaced by machines [which are very few positions] will be filled by citizens of this country.  But instead of those positions being filled by illegals' working under the table for $4 an hour and not paying taxes; the smaller supply of labor being provided by U.S. citizens will raise salaries these back up to a living wage.  Citizens will be able to make a living as a janitor or construction worker again, our economy will be better off due to lowered import tariffs and trade barriers, and we will know that one of Osama Bin Laden’s flunkies isn't sneaking across the border with a Nuclear Bomb.\n\nEveryone wins but the illegal immigrants.  But hey they shouldn't be here in the first place. \n\nBasically this all boils down to us looking out for our own interests as a nation.  I'm all for LEGAL immigration.  In fact I support it.  I think that we should allow people to immigrate to this country based on: \n\nEducational level - The more educated you are the more you bring to the table in our capital intensive economy.\n\nEconomic status - If you bring a lot of money to invest, it will benefit the U.S.\n\nAbility to speak english - English is the common language here.  Duh.\n\nEthnic Diversity - We are a nation of immigrants from around the world.  Diversity gives us strength.  Plus it's unfair to allow citizens of one country a greater chance at staying here then everyone else.  Also if you take a homogenous group of foreigners and place them together geographically it makes it harder for them to assimilate to our culture.  The idea is that THEY become Americans not that WE become: Mexicans, Indians, Koreans, etc.\n\nNeeded Job Skills - If the need for more workers in a given field is adversely effecting our economy we should import them.\n\nPolitical Persecution - If you are fleeing from an authoritarian regime such as Cuba, Iran, or North Korea you should be given extra consideration in coming here.\n\nI don't know why so many illegal immigrants, especially latinos have a huge chip on their shoulder all of the sudden.  After all THEY ARE THE ONES WHO BROKE THE LAW and they are the ones who shouldn't be here.  I wish our representitives would grow enough balls to tackle the problem head on and put these criminals in their place.\n\nEDIT:\n\n"When they specifically say mexicans instead of just saying undocumented workers or mentioning all the other groups that also come to the States illegally, they come off as racist."\n\nHey jackass: Mexico is a country not a race of people.  So how can people be racist when refering to a citizens of a specific country?  For example you can be of Filipino descent [and there are Filipino communities in Mexico] and be born in Tijuana and you will be a 'Mexican' citizen.  \nCalling someone
738079
Liberals with power is more dangerous.  They want a socialistic country instead of what our fathers fought for, capitalism.