Sentences with phrase «if by capitalism»

Not exact matches

If you haven't read Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty - First Century, if you haven't read The Zero Marginal Cost Society [Jeremy Rifkin's account of how extreme gains in productivity are disrupting capitalism by rendering many goods and services almost free], you can not even have a conversation with me about what the future is holdinIf you haven't read Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty - First Century, if you haven't read The Zero Marginal Cost Society [Jeremy Rifkin's account of how extreme gains in productivity are disrupting capitalism by rendering many goods and services almost free], you can not even have a conversation with me about what the future is holdinif you haven't read The Zero Marginal Cost Society [Jeremy Rifkin's account of how extreme gains in productivity are disrupting capitalism by rendering many goods and services almost free], you can not even have a conversation with me about what the future is holding.

Its often seemed odd to me how Buffett lef these partners of his come along for a free ride... by running a company not fund... guess that's capitalism, that's shareholders... they were entitled to the slice they left with him from his partnership / hedgie days if my memory serves, but you have to say — what a deal!

If these ancient rites hadn't been co-opted by capitalism, hadn't morphed into pastel M&M s, plastic grass and My Little Ponies with bunny ears, I might find it a...

If these ancient rites hadn't been co-opted by capitalism, hadn't morphed into pastel M&M s, plastic grass and My Little Ponies with bunny ears, I might find it a relief to preach on the fecundity of spring, rather than trying to tell the story of a living, breathing dead man.

If, for instance, you try to use capitalism to promote greater equality of wealth by imposing on it a steeply progressive, redistributive system of taxation, you frustrate the way in which it rewards its chief dynamic force, the acquisitive impulse, and you are liable to end by making everyone poorer.

Or if, to take another example, you try to redistribute power within capitalism by balancing managerial authority by trade union privileges, you either choke the entrepreneurial spirit or you eliminate profits — the system's lifeblood — or, as a rule, you do both, and so again you end by making everyone poorer.

But if by «capitalism» is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

I'm not sure what it means to «serve Marx,» but if what you mean by that is «understand the inherent weaknesses of unfettered capitalism in economic terms and not be surprised when economies come violently crashing to a halt when capital and risk is valued too highly relative to labor and thus produces an unsustainable state of economic affairs,» then yes — in that case a Christian can certainly «serve Marx.»

Capitalism has shown its resilience before; and if India's ruling class feels seriously threatened by peoples» movements or if the BJP comes to power, there is real possibility of democratic freedoms being restricted.

I say intentionally, because I am as corrupted as anyone else by «late - modern commodity capitalism» whose influence is so pervasive that if I was looking for something «killing the Church» (which is a theologically impossible assertion) I would look to that and not creeds to point a loaded gun at.

If the trend to use the word Capitalism as an ideology (perhaps defined mostly by minimal governmental interference), then maybe new states in the future will take the name, but it seems the Independent category already fills that need.

Above all, if we're to have a responsible capitalism we need to make sure that the opportunity offered by the internet is spread to a large number of small businesses not restricted to a small number of large ones.

Marxism - Leninism is an oxymoron, no one can deny Lenin didn't understand Marxism but he distorted Marx whenever it suited his own ends, for instance Socialism became the interim stage to Communism for Lenin only when he realised Communism was an impossibility in Russia, infact Lenin admitted that's all that had been achieved in Russia was state Capitalism (1918) and Lenin himself thought Socialism / Communism wouldn't be established by the working classes for 500 years if left to their own devices.Sadly Socialism and the Russian workers have paid a heavy price for Lenin's distortions of Marxism.

Capitalism can not escape the gravity of its hubris, and if it is busy reconstituting itself, so must the revolutionary self - activity of the oppressed meet it in stride by rekindling the socialist imaginary.

If, based on a majority state ownership of the means of production, ie, the government or one of its agencies, some of these means of production are owned and operated by private entities, it also does not mean there is a mixed system combining socialism and capitalism.

If, in a society based on private ownership of the means of production some of these means are company owned and operated by a public entity, whether by the government or one of its agencies, this does not mean there is a mixed system combining socialism and capitalism.

That's the good news if, like me, your dreams of playing vast, deep, games of chance and capitalism have for all these years been thwarted by small technicalities like the fact that everyone you know refuses to play Monopoly with you.

If Boltanski and Chiapello's contention is right — that the challenge to bourgeois security posed by the «artistic» demands of the»60s for radical liberation and authenticity has proved uniquely compatible with a new phase of capitalism, a capitalism through which individuals are embedded within networks that turn these very freedoms into competitive mechanisms — then in a very real way, every creative gesture provides new opportunities for future exploitation.

With climate change now more and more an establishment concern, and attempts to avert it now increasingly institutionalized in the established order, some have pointed to the «death of environmentalism» as an oppositional movement in society.12 However, if some environmentalists have moved toward capitalist - based strategies in the vain hope of saving the planet by these means, others have moved in the opposite direction: toward a critique of capitalism as inherently ecologically destructive.

The anti-capitalist writer Naomi Klein claims that if capitalism isn't immediately abolished or arrested, average temperatures will soon increase by «4 to 6 degrees Celsius.»

In an ideal world, though, media is funded by regular capitalism and subscriptions but if there's underwriters it's different.

Employers and the economic interests of capitalism were protected by powerful common law defences: if a worker or co-worker could be shown to have contributed in any way (for example, slipping onto exposed machinery) the employer was not held at fault or liable.

Added later: I think it helps if you let go of capitalism and the idea that an organisation's purpose would be to maximise it's profits by generating valuable goods.