Yes. ANYONE can make a deal with the Devil...
Posted on 07/18/2012 11:10:31 AM PDT by jda
The Community Organizer-in-Chief's latest evidence of his extreme, left-wing, socialist religion suggest two questions.
1. Is it possible for a successful business person (someone who knows what it's like to try to comply with government regulations, to have to make a payroll, etc., etc., etc.) to be a socialist?
2. Are socialists only those who have never had a real job?
Yes. ANYONE can make a deal with the Devil...
Yes. I think we have a number of successful (rich) individuals who are backers of Obama, which says to me they are in favor of the socialist ideology.
2. Are socialists only those who have never had a real job?
No, some of them have real jobs and have worked hard and are rich. They are in favor of socialism because they believe they will be part of the ruling elite if that ever comes to pass. They don't think they will lose any of the perks of having money. Only the peons who need someone to rule over them (everyone else) will be without.
It’s called “crony capitalism”
Where a person/company curries favor with government and government assists the person/company and penalizes its competitors.
Baraq and ValJ have a masters degree in “operations” from Chicago political mob and are experts in this.
Yes, Mike Bloomberg.
I submit to you Ben and Jerry’s
Absolutely. Socialism is a way to lock out their competition. Successful businessmen hate competition and will do anything to keep it out, especially using the government to do it for them.
Or, ya could become PM of France, or POTUS.
Bingo. It's the Original Position Fallacy, as summarized by this quote:
Mrs. Asimov: How pleasant it would be if only we lived a hundred years ago when it was easy to get servants.
Yes because:
Socialism is about power.
Take Warren Buffett.
He gets rich. He can get so much wealthier if he can be in the inner circle of a government that manipulates the economy.
So he becomes a socialist.
There are only the types that cecome socialists: The intellectuals who sit around the dinner table with a few drinks and talk about how the world should b e, the totally stupid like the two black women on TV that were going to get gas money from obummers “stash? and the power hungry that work the system to their own gain.
In last group are the Warren Buffetts, Pelosis, Reids, etc.
Just had a needle in my eye, so excuse typos, spelling, etc.
In terms of (1) is Yes and (2) is No. I cite the example of Robert Owen who ran the New Lanark cotton mill Scotland with some financial success. He became an advocate of Pre-Marx socialism along cooperative lines. He came to American and established the community of New Harmony in Indiana. As one could of predicted it collapsed.
Certainly it’s possible. Michael Berry was just talking about this this morning. Of course they don’t start out that way, but once they get up to the 100 million mark they don’t have much in common with common people any more, and they start feeling guilty because they have sooo much and the “schmaaawlll people” have so little so they become democrats at least publicly.
Privatize the Upside, Socialize the Downside!
Whoa, Nellie.
Are you an occupier, now?
What a leftist thing to say.
Well, I would say that HATE is an awfully strong word, but they’ll do anything to be successful, and if that means letting the government destroy the competition, so be it. OTOH, any SMART business man knows they can be cut down by the same blade.
A Simple Question: Is it Possible for a Successful Business Person to be a Socialist?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes. Provided that Business Person realizes his profits are solely dependent upon the State allowing him to succeed or fail.
Which explains why they make those payments to the DNC coffers.
The problem with answering such a question or really, almost *any* question is that the question seeks a yes/no answer but the question utilizes words that have multiple meanings.
First, you have to define “successful”. OK, most people would say that is a biz that has a multi-year lifespan, is profitable, and is >>salable<<, meaning, others would agree and ratify those attributes. Someone who built and thus owned such a business would probably not be a socialist, thinking about a sole proprietor. But someone who inherited such a business and owned it as much as the builder of same owned it, might very well be a socialist. Of course, we’re projecting and making a wide generalization in either case. Wind the clock back fifty years, say, to a textile manufacturer located within the US. Maybe the owner of same started on the lower East Side in NYC, was an immigrant at the turn of the century. I would posit that a great many who started businesses under those conditions would, by most measures, favor socialism. And still do, today.
The trouble with these generalities is that one person’s conception of “socialism” is a fairly benevolent situation wherein gov’t provides healthcare, minimum wages, safe working conditions, and these types of things. But we have entered into an era where those “hard-to-argue-with” benefits have morphed into a 1984 carnival of trick-mirror doublespeak and insidious control from on high of almost every aspect of interpersonal relationships that must occur of people to come together in any of those thousand organized purposes we normally speak of “businesses”.
I might add one of the fathers of Marxism Friedrich Engels worked at a cotton mill in Manchester his father was a partner in. He eventually worked his up to partner. Part of his reason was to financially support Marx.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.