Ah, the joys of socialism.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
How is helping your fellow man theft? What cause could be more noble then helping your neighbor instead of yourself when they need it? *lost*
A society grows strong by working together and is the reason we aren't up in the trees picking lice from each others hair and hunting for ourselves only.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Stunt
Ummm...this whole post was made to make Germany look bad...and the OP went the extra mile.
A little bit of US finger pointing and raildogg goes off the deep end...
Blind Patriotic Nationalist...how sad.
Except I'm not American.
That was directed at raildogg.
he was mad that DMA went the extra mile in bashing the US...and i said you had with germany as well :)
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Ummm what are people going to do with nothing? They have a lot of peeps in ethiopia and have been xtrian longer then anyone else but live in a dirt poor resource area. They are dirt poor.
(A lot of those people dont count that BUILT this country back in the day. They were SLAVES or damn close to being so. (until unions and other socialist inventions to better the lot of the average worker)

Actually most people were NOT slaves or even close to it. They had it rough, no question, but they were free all the way (excepting the *actual* black slaves, of course). Unions are an issue of mixed value and effect. At one time and in SOME areas, yes, they served their purpose: to fetch appropriate wages for SKILLED labor.

At other times, though, they've done far more harm than good. In the 1800's Riverboat unions on the Mississippi became so entrenched that they prevented any man who wanted to be a riverboat pilot from doing so, no matter his skill or experience, unless he joined the Union and paid them a portion of his earnings. Today they are worse even than that, working hard to fetch absurd wages for UNSKILLED labor. Observe grocery checkers being paid $15-20 an HOUR.

Again, Liberty, not Socialism, is the right direction.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: fornax
Germany is way less socialistic than, say, the Nordic contries or Holland. Yet those countries have a fairly low level of unemployment, their productivity is higher than the US's, and generally the living standards are higher. So it's not so much about "socialism" (whatever that means), than about structural problems, the sinkhole called East Germany, and the fact the their "unemployment" counts include under-employed people. If the same standard was used here, we'll be probably at about 10% or so.

What is "Under-employed", exactly? Don't you think that's up to each person to decide for him or herself and then act accordingly?

Jason

That would be anarchy we have to have controls to varying degrees, so no, individual will alone will not make the trains run on time.

So a person deciding for himself whether he has adequate employment is "Anarchy", is it?

Have you *ever* touched a dictionary?

Jason
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
whats wrong with grocery store people makign that much? bagging ungrateful peoples groceries and providing clean food is not a important part of society to you?
BTW labor union were not mainstream until early 20th century. All things have examples of corruption but dissing unions is lame if your boss had his way you'd work 7 days a week..
Why not? anything less is not true free market capitalism, right?

BTW factory workers until unions came around were straight up SLAVES with 4 year old children working too in your utpian free market capitalism.
Not to mention the chinesse, irish, italians and anyone else not anglo-saxon back then.
Until we incorprated a bit of socialism in this country we were basiclly slaves to capitalists.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
I disagree with the theft aguement.
If it were theft, as a democracy, people would vote against it.
We elect governments who spend as their platform dictates.
Canadians...not me as i am a minority here, elect governments that take a margin higher than the next political party to help the fellow man.
If that is the will of my country i must accept it. Just as dems must accept the current admin. In the sense that they must live within it. Vocally criticizing is a right and should be used in any democracy.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: fornax
Germany is way less socialistic than, say, the Nordic contries or Holland. Yet those countries have a fairly low level of unemployment, their productivity is higher than the US's, and generally the living standards are higher. So it's not so much about "socialism" (whatever that means), than about structural problems, the sinkhole called East Germany, and the fact the their "unemployment" counts include under-employed people. If the same standard was used here, we'll be probably at about 10% or so.

What is "Under-employed", exactly? Don't you think that's up to each person to decide for him or herself and then act accordingly?

Jason

That would be anarchy we have to have controls to varying degrees, so no, individual will alone will not make the trains run on time.

So a person deciding for himself whether he has adequate employment is "Anarchy", is it?

Have you *ever* touched a dictionary?

Jason
Becasue we have to work TOGETHER we cannot just do as we please.
If you can't grasp that i shall waste my time posting with you further.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: drewshin
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
socialist nazi germany? you need a history book enema.
national socialism is just a name. corporate fascist dictatorship was the goverment choice of the day for germany, italy and spain.
USSR was not communist except in name..get a clue about history before posting drivel like that.
Notice that almost real commie governments are still alive and somewhat-well (but in decline like our capitalist system also)
The more moderate socialist countries that combine the best of both communism and capitalism are the next big thing.

Yes, because the NAZI party wasn't the "National SOCIALIST Party", was it?

Get a book, open it, READ.

Jason

LOL Do we have to start requiring an intelligence test before allowing people in this forum?
He sees the word "Socialist" and automatically believes that the Nazi party was about Socialism. I'm surprised he didn't think it was also some weekend getaway in the Caribbean because of the word "Party". :)

One of the many reasons why Hitler gained his power was because he was seen by many to be an answer to what they saw as being rising Bolshevism and Communism in Europe in the 20s and 30s.

I'm very familiar with the history, thank you; apparently more so than yourself. Hitler's Nazi's were about the CONTROL of the individuals for the "benefit of society" very much in concert with Socialist principles. They were NOT in it for "private" benefit of the individual nor of corporations:

"I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property."

"Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers."

The significant difference between Socialism proper and Fascism is merely in the direction of obedience: fascism demands obedience to the State, Socialism demands obedience to Society. Of course, who is it that represents Society? The State, of course.

Jason
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: drewshin
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
socialist nazi germany? you need a history book enema.
national socialism is just a name. corporate fascist dictatorship was the goverment choice of the day for germany, italy and spain.
USSR was not communist except in name..get a clue about history before posting drivel like that.
Notice that almost real commie governments are still alive and somewhat-well (but in decline like our capitalist system also)
The more moderate socialist countries that combine the best of both communism and capitalism are the next big thing.

Yes, because the NAZI party wasn't the "National SOCIALIST Party", was it?

Get a book, open it, READ.

Jason

LOL Do we have to start requiring an intelligence test before allowing people in this forum?
He sees the word "Socialist" and automatically believes that the Nazi party was about Socialism. I'm surprised he didn't think it was also some weekend getaway in the Caribbean because of the word "Party". :)

One of the many reasons why Hitler gained his power was because he was seen by many to be an answer to what they saw as being rising Bolshevism and Communism in Europe in the 20s and 30s.

I'm very familiar with the history, thank you; apparently more so than yourself. Hitler's Nazi's were about the CONTROL of the individuals for the "benefit of society" very much in concert with Socialist principles. They were NOT in it for "private" benefit of the individual nor of corporations:

"I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property."

"Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers."

The significant difference between Socialism proper and Fascism is merely in the direction of obedience: fascism demands obedience to the State, Socialism demands obedience to Society. Of course, who is it that represents Society? The State, of course.

Jason

That would be a DICTATORSHIP state-run.
People have a choice and a vote in socialism to mold it to fair values and respect.
Socialism does not = dictatorship
Heck, most western socialist goverments have more parties and more choice in voting then the united states, I dont know where you get your information from.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Stunt
Ummm...this whole post was made to make Germany look bad...and the OP went the extra mile.
A little bit of US finger pointing and raildogg goes off the deep end...
Blind Patriotic Nationalist...how sad.
Except I'm not American.
That was directed at raildogg.
he was mad that DMA went the extra mile in bashing the US...and i said you had with germany as well :)
:eek:
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Communism I agree is flawed becasue of the greed of human nature.
But Stalin distanced himself from lenin and marx early on (like the first few years after ww1)
What it came to in reality was a totalitarian dictatorship not what marx wrote about.
And the democratic socialist governments of the west now are miles away from communism.
If anything WE are headed down the same path as Stalin with corprate mergers etc.

It's not greed that's the problem, it's *irrationalism* and a lack of a *rational* moral standard. It's *natural* for man to be concerned with the interests of himself and his loved ones. Guided by his Reason and by an ethical standard that compels him to respect the rights of other men to their own lives and livelihood as much as he respects his right to his own, all can be well in the world. The conflict arises because some men, whether they seek to be dictators or to be "good deed doers" (for lack of a better term) believe that they have some RIGHT to the energy, the products or the persons of others.

Jason
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Exactly that is a dictatorship, we are talking about socialism here. Please stay focused.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
At other times, though, they've done far more harm than good. In the 1800's Riverboat unions on the Mississippi became so entrenched that they prevented any man who wanted to be a riverboat pilot from doing so, no matter his skill or experience, unless he joined the Union and paid them a portion of his earnings. Today they are worse even than that, working hard to fetch absurd wages for UNSKILLED labor. Observe grocery checkers being paid $15-20 an HOUR.

Again, Liberty, not Socialism, is the right direction.

Jason

But who's "Liberty" are you talking about? The liberty of workers to unionize and try to get the best wages that they can get? Isn't that part of the 'market' setting prices? Are you talking about the "liberty" of grocery stores to make as much money as they want without thinking about their workers?

i assure you that if we got rid of our "socialist" vestiges like labor laws, companies like walmart would immediately start hiring orphans, kids, deaf/mutes for pieces of candy for 8 hour days. but damn socialism! LIBERTY LIBERTY LIBERTY! heh ehheh
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Socialism and Capitalism work together well. Nothing like some good old know how making loads of cash and doing it together! whoo hoo!
To say everyone should do their thing make as much as possible screw the little guy who is disadvantaged is plain anti-american.
This is how dictatorships start. pure plain unadulterated greed for nothing other then getting yours.
Our country is capitalist and socialist. We would have failed miserably if we haden't adapted new aspects of socialism in the early 20th century and I am sure the baby boomers
with their dads with their stable union jobs back then wouldn't have been able to raise so many children. just another great aspect of American history and the awesome way we can change for the better as long as we keep our eyes facing the future.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: drewshin
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
socialist nazi germany? you need a history book enema.
national socialism is just a name. corporate fascist dictatorship was the goverment choice of the day for germany, italy and spain.
USSR was not communist except in name..get a clue about history before posting drivel like that.
Notice that almost real commie governments are still alive and somewhat-well (but in decline like our capitalist system also)
The more moderate socialist countries that combine the best of both communism and capitalism are the next big thing.

Yes, because the NAZI party wasn't the "National SOCIALIST Party", was it?

Get a book, open it, READ.

Jason

LOL Do we have to start requiring an intelligence test before allowing people in this forum?
He sees the word "Socialist" and automatically believes that the Nazi party was about Socialism. I'm surprised he didn't think it was also some weekend getaway in the Caribbean because of the word "Party". :)

One of the many reasons why Hitler gained his power was because he was seen by many to be an answer to what they saw as being rising Bolshevism and Communism in Europe in the 20s and 30s.

I'm very familiar with the history, thank you; apparently more so than yourself. Hitler's Nazi's were about the CONTROL of the individuals for the "benefit of society" very much in concert with Socialist principles. They were NOT in it for "private" benefit of the individual nor of corporations:

"I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property."

"Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers."

The significant difference between Socialism proper and Fascism is merely in the direction of obedience: fascism demands obedience to the State, Socialism demands obedience to Society. Of course, who is it that represents Society? The State, of course.

Jason

it seems funny that you take the nazi philosophy word for word. if you read their 25 points, there are socialist principles in it, but if you look at history, how many of these socialist principles did they actually try to accomplish? there is no record of it, they hijacked a party and used it as a power grab to centralize power from the german states at the time to turn it into a fascist dictatorship. you say the nazis were in it for the "control of individuals for the benefit of society". i only see "control of individuals" when i read about the nazis.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Socialism is like iodine, a tiny amount is necessary to keep the capitalist body functioning but too much is poison. It even has similar effects in economics as it does in medicine, those who don't have enough wind up with stunted growth and mentally retarded, those with too much end up dead.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
whats wrong with grocery store people makign that much? bagging ungrateful peoples groceries and providing clean food is not a important part of society to you?
BTW labor union were not mainstream until early 20th century. All things have examples of corruption but dissing unions is lame if your boss had his way you'd work 7 days a week..
Why not? anything less is not true free market capitalism, right?

BTW factory workers until unions came around were straight up SLAVES with 4 year old children working too in your utpian free market capitalism.
Not to mention the chinesse, irish, italians and anyone else not anglo-saxon back then.
Until we incorprated a bit of socialism in this country we were basiclly slaves to capitalists.

What's wrong is that grocery clerks aren't providing a skill that's in short supply. The clerks do NOT provide clean food; if they did we wouldn't have to wash everything when you bring it home. The "Clean" stuff is canned or frozen and has NOTHING to do with the grocery clerns.

Incidentally, if my boss had his way no, I would NOT work 7 days a week. Most people realize that a person CAN'T work every day without getting burned out, and when they get burned out they are LESS productive than they can nad should be. I work 5 days a week on a set schedule and if we need something accomplished that has to be done on the weekend I do it, but I'm paid well for my overtime. I am NOT part of a union and I never, EVER will be.

You might be correct to say that labor unions became CORRUPT in the 20th century in the United States, but they are certainly not the PRODUCT of the 20th century.

At NO TIME were Americans "Slaves to Capitalists". You obviously have no idea what a Capitalist even IS. A Capitalist is ANYONE who works for their own benefit, who has an entrepreneurial spirit that seeks th ACHIEVE in order to acquire wealth, whether that wealth be money or goods or some other form of profit. Profit can be *anything*, including the feeling of pride that one has from simply helping someone they love to accomplish something they maybe couldn't have done alone.

Your MISREPRESENTATION and DECEIT about Capitalism and Capitalists is SHAMEFUL. You are attempting to graft the definition of an IMPERIALIST onto a Capitalist, and they are NOT the same thing.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot

That would be a DICTATORSHIP state-run.
People have a choice and a vote in socialism to mold it to fair values and respect.
Socialism does not = dictatorship
Heck, most western socialist goverments have more parties and more choice in voting then the united states, I dont know where you get your information from.

Socialism REQUIRES strong central authority which, guess what? Is Dictatorship. Like it or not, that's the way it is. The Western nations (keyword there: WESTERN) of Europe are not full Socialist nations but are mixed governments with strong Capitalist elements and Democracy of one shape or another as their method of determining representation in the government.

Perhaps you've heard this before, but you're clearly a fraud and a very nice DISINFORMATION junky.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Stunt
Ummm...this whole post was made to make Germany look bad...and the OP went the extra mile.
A little bit of US finger pointing and raildogg goes off the deep end...
Blind Patriotic Nationalist...how sad.
Except I'm not American.
That was directed at raildogg.
he was mad that DMA went the extra mile in bashing the US...and i said you had with germany as well :)

Yeah, extra mile bashing the US, eh? What thread have YOU been reading?

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Becasue we have to work TOGETHER we cannot just do as we please.
If you can't grasp that i shall waste my time posting with you further.

Absolutely we can and should work together to accomplish greater goals. It's called COOPERATION and it's best done by VOLUNTARY CHOICE among people who share COMMON GOALS.

However yes, to the extent that you don't violate the rights of others, you CAN do as you please. That doesn't mean you'll always be right or successful as a result; a wise person knows when to go it alone and when to cooperate and share goals and responsibilities.

Jason
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Steeplerot

That would be a DICTATORSHIP state-run.
People have a choice and a vote in socialism to mold it to fair values and respect.
Socialism does not = dictatorship
Heck, most western socialist goverments have more parties and more choice in voting then the united states, I dont know where you get your information from.

Socialism REQUIRES strong central authority which, guess what? Is Dictatorship. Like it or not, that's the way it is. The Western nations (keyword there: WESTERN) of Europe are not full Socialist nations but are mixed governments with strong Capitalist elements and Democracy of one shape or another as their method of determining representation in the government.

Perhaps you've heard this before, but you're clearly a fraud and a very nice DISINFORMATION junky.

Jason

The truest form of marxist socialism has NO authority at all. Just individual free will. Didn't you say you read marx? You should know that the end result of communism's goal is NO goverment but a worker controlled utopia.
(which I think is bunk but were not arguing about communism.)
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Exactly that is a dictatorship, we are talking about socialism here. Please stay focused.

I am VERY focused; you, meanwhile, are ignorant. A Socialist nation is *necessarily* a dictatorship. In a Socialist government individuals are NOT free to their own lives, labors and pursuits, their needs and desires are SUBORDINATE to the needs of Society at large. Who determines those needs? The State. Obviously. Duh.

Jason
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
whats wrong with grocery store people makign that much? bagging ungrateful peoples groceries and providing clean food is not a important part of society to you?
BTW labor union were not mainstream until early 20th century. All things have examples of corruption but dissing unions is lame if your boss had his way you'd work 7 days a week..
Why not? anything less is not true free market capitalism, right?

BTW factory workers until unions came around were straight up SLAVES with 4 year old children working too in your utpian free market capitalism.
Not to mention the chinesse, irish, italians and anyone else not anglo-saxon back then.
Until we incorprated a bit of socialism in this country we were basiclly slaves to capitalists.

What's wrong is that grocery clerks aren't providing a skill that's in short supply. The clerks do NOT provide clean food; if they did we wouldn't have to wash everything when you bring it home. The "Clean" stuff is canned or frozen and has NOTHING to do with the grocery clerns.

Incidentally, if my boss had his way no, I would NOT work 7 days a week. Most people realize that a person CAN'T work every day without getting burned out, and when they get burned out they are LESS productive than they can nad should be. I work 5 days a week on a set schedule and if we need something accomplished that has to be done on the weekend I do it, but I'm paid well for my overtime. I am NOT part of a union and I never, EVER will be.

You might be correct to say that labor unions became CORRUPT in the 20th century in the United States, but they are certainly not the PRODUCT of the 20th century.

At NO TIME were Americans "Slaves to Capitalists". You obviously have no idea what a Capitalist even IS. A Capitalist is ANYONE who works for their own benefit, who has an entrepreneurial spirit that seeks th ACHIEVE in order to acquire wealth, whether that wealth be money or goods or some other form of profit. Profit can be *anything*, including the feeling of pride that one has from simply helping someone they love to accomplish something they maybe couldn't have done alone.

Your MISREPRESENTATION and DECEIT about Capitalism and Capitalists is SHAMEFUL. You are attempting to graft the definition of an IMPERIALIST onto a Capitalist, and they are NOT the same thing.

The only shameful thing here is your lack of knowledge and your obvious bias of socialism.
Your own country even. You ever get tired of bashing USA? ;)
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Socialism and Capitalism work together well. Nothing like some good old know how making loads of cash and doing it together! whoo hoo!
To say everyone should do their thing make as much as possible screw the little guy who is disadvantaged is plain anti-american.
This is how dictatorships start. pure plain unadulterated greed for nothing other then getting yours.
Our country is capitalist and socialist. We would have failed miserably if we haden't adapted new aspects of socialism in the early 20th century and I am sure the baby boomers
with their dads with their stable union jobs back then wouldn't have been able to raise so many children. just another great aspect of American history and the awesome way we can change for the better as long as we keep our eyes facing the future.

no one but you has said anything about screwing anyone. As I've said repeatedly (you don't pay much attention, do you?), free men must pursue their own best interests within the larger confines of respecting the rights of others to do the same as much as they respect their own.

Pay attention, please.

Jason
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Steeplerot

whats wrong with grocery store people makign that much? bagging ungrateful peoples groceries and providing clean food is not a important part of society to you?
BTW labor union were not mainstream until early 20th century. All things have examples of corruption but dissing unions is lame if your boss had his way you'd work 7 days a week..
Why not? anything less is not true free market capitalism, right?

BTW factory workers until unions came around were straight up SLAVES with 4 year old children working too in your utpian free market capitalism.
Not to mention the chinesse, irish, italians and anyone else not anglo-saxon back then.
Until we incorprated a bit of socialism in this country we were basiclly slaves to capitalists.

What's wrong is that grocery clerks aren't providing a skill that's in short supply. The clerks do NOT provide clean food; if they did we wouldn't have to wash everything when you bring it home. The "Clean" stuff is canned or frozen and has NOTHING to do with the grocery clerns.

Incidentally, if my boss had his way no, I would NOT work 7 days a week. Most people realize that a person CAN'T work every day without getting burned out, and when they get burned out they are LESS productive than they can nad should be. I work 5 days a week on a set schedule and if we need something accomplished that has to be done on the weekend I do it, but I'm paid well for my overtime. I am NOT part of a union and I never, EVER will be.

You might be correct to say that labor unions became CORRUPT in the 20th century in the United States, but they are certainly not the PRODUCT of the 20th century.

At NO TIME were Americans "Slaves to Capitalists". You obviously have no idea what a Capitalist even IS. A Capitalist is ANYONE who works for their own benefit, who has an entrepreneurial spirit that seeks th ACHIEVE in order to acquire wealth, whether that wealth be money or goods or some other form of profit. Profit can be *anything*, including the feeling of pride that one has from simply helping someone they love to accomplish something they maybe couldn't have done alone.

Your MISREPRESENTATION and DECEIT about Capitalism and Capitalists is SHAMEFUL. You are attempting to graft the definition of an IMPERIALIST onto a Capitalist, and they are NOT the same thing.

The only shameful thing here is your lack of knowledge and your obvious misinformed bias against socialism.
Something that is a big part of America your own country even. You ever get tired of bashing USA? ;)