The specter that still haunts capitalism

[JahFocus CS]

After 4 pages it'd be nice if someone refuted the points in the article instead of going somewhat off-topic and repeating themselves from other threads

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

So capitalism doesnt require poverty?
Dont worry bout answering that, lets look a your claim that "too few/too many" are left outside.
How many is too many?
Measured how?
According to whom?
Compared to what?
and what hard evidence do you have to support this claim?

*waits for the dancing to commence*

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Either one.

In an adequately developed world, destitution need not exist. Capitalism's job is to get us there.

Destitution in the USA is hitting the lotto in like 80% of the world. What are we talkinga bout here?

Capital seeks to shape society around it.

How can you claim to be so educated yet be so dismissive of anything you don't agree with? How disingenuous can you be? Seriously bro?

Markets become dominated and coerced by the powerful forces within them. States grow into the role advocated by capital interests. No one wants free markets so we won't have them. Any example?

Then why were the closest we've seen to such systems(mid 1800s Europe, 1880s-1920s America, Pinochets Chile) all horrible? Why did all capitalist countries move away from this system?

Pinochet was killing socialists for sport. Stop that bullshyt.

1800s Europe had slaves and kids working in mines.

C'mon son.

How much more ridiculous can you be with some of these talking points?

SOME regulation is needed to actually protect the safety of the worker from losing limbs and shyt.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You seem to have little to understanding of what socialism entails past central planning, which isn't present in every form of socialism.

Would you like to discuss life expectancy in Russia over the past 30 years? Not to advocate for Marxist Leninism but let's not pretend that capitalism has proven a success in the eastern bloc, or in Africa, or in South America, or in most of Asia.

I'm confused about your comment on US markets pre 1913. Do you advocate for gilded age economics? Regardless the markets even there were hardly free, the progressive Roosevelt and the conservative Taft broke many trusts and attempted to regulate the economy and expand government's role in reaction to the horrendous abuses of the times.

Extremists points lead no where.

And BTW life expectancy in Russia is dwindling. Fast.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

As if capitalists don't use physical force... it's called the police and the military

Oh, so now the police and the military are just physical force?

I guess we're ignoring Afghanistan in the 80s

You say that in retrospect because in 2015, monarchy as the dominant form of government is mostly discredited. You wouldn't be dismissing monarchy back in 1615 too much, because the dominant ideas of that time were those of the ruling class at the time... just as in 2015, you trumpet the ideas of the ruling class. Literally parrot all their talking points.

I don't support monarchies because the public is not represented, or at least informed members of the public.

Nation-states didn't even exist, only kingdoms and fiefdoms. Stop with this obfuscation and wild spin you're putting on everything.

Monarchies also reinforce religious/divine rule...aka bullshyt. Miss me with that.

Hmmm...

So in one thread, socialism is the purview of elitist intellectuals who live in ivory towers and are disconnected from the real world.

Those who have no experience

Now in this thread, you claim that "poor and uneducated people" champion it.

Those who have no will.

It can't be both. But you'll play both sides on that because you just want to try to arrogantly dismiss socialism and its proponents. Saying it's "impossible" and "can never happen" and "is unrealistic." Absolutely absurd considering if you study history, it is almost literally seeing what was once seen as "impossible" and "unrealistic" being swatted away as it is overcome.

As a matter of public policy, its a poor one.

Same lame, Social Darwinist-style rhetoric.

You can keep misrepresenting words, but you can't do it in front of people who know what they're talking about.

And if the workers at those companies went on strike, what would happen to that company? How successful would it be? Would profits still be generated without the workforce? Labor is the source of profits.

UNSKILLED labor can't effectively strike.

Remember that.

Skills = Assets = Value.

That's fine if that's your position. That's your attitude because you're not in a precarious position in this system. It's working pretty good for you. Unless you have a big heart, you won't be convinced to fight for socialism if economic democracy is against your material interests.

Actually, i enjoy the freedom to experiment and to live out my life with my own incentives and rewards, not those mandated by those who pretend to know more than me when in reality they wish to control my outlook

I'm not hating on that (just as the aristocracy and slaveholding classes couldn't be expected to militantly oppose the systems that benefited them), it is what it is.

I really hope you're not black, because every time you equate slavery to modern capitalism you recount how fukking ridiculous some of your talking points have evolved into.

But you're out here spewing garbage to get the working class to doubt its own power and own capability. Telling it that this is the best it can hope for... a servile, precarious life under the exploitative rule of the bourgeoisie. That shyt isn't going to fly.

I didn't say they didn't have power. I said they have limited power UNLESS they can figure out a novel way to introduce their own path in the system and sustain their own independence. No one forced you to work for corporate.

Your position can be that everyone can't be saved. But those people who the system cannot or will not save? They have every right to buck it, and anyone who tries to keep them down.

To an extent.

Some people just want something for nothing though. And you won't ever address this.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

No doubt, the working class needs to study and take lessons from the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, etc. See what accomplishments were made, what mistakes were made, and what lessons can be gleaned as the class moves forward to fight for its interests and freedom. And decide, as a class, how it wants to deal with what was learned from those experiences.

Maybe socialism is less efficient than capitalism
Maybe central planning hasn't worked as intended
etc.

If such things turned out to be true, then the class weighs the trade-offs and how it would like to structure society. Maybe some sort of market socialism is implemented. Maybe the economy gets converted to worker cooperatives but market competition is retained, a safety net is provided, and capital is provided for startup cooperatives.

These are things for the working class to debate out, discuss, and decide on. But what is clear is that it is getting a raw deal right now. This shyt doesn't work for the vast majority of people. And they shouldn't be fooled or discouraged into thinking the best that can be done in society... is for them to get royally fukked.

Why do you want citizens to all have some same standard of living? As if once achieved, higher levels won't be aspired to?

 

[JahFocus CS]

When people say they're "moderate" on an issue, they either simply don't care much about it, or they're too uneducated or too cowardly to take a real stand.

I am "moderate" on the question of chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream. Both are good I might lean more towards vanilla

On matters of people's lives and livelihood, being a "moderate" generally means siding with oppression.

"I'm a moderate on the question of slavery."
"I'm a moderate on the question of human trafficking."
"I'm a moderate on police brutality."

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

After 4 pages it'd be nice if someone refuted the points in the article instead of going somewhat off-topic and repeating themselves from other threads

I started to but it was just too emotionally dishonest and childish for me to take seriously. It was an insult even reading that, as someone who is occasionally sympathetic to some socialist propaganda.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

When people say they're "moderate" on an issue, they either simply don't care much about it, or they're too uneducated or too cowardly to take a real stand.

I am "moderate" on the question of chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream. Both are good I might lean more towards vanilla

On matters of people's lives and livelihood, being a "moderate" generally means siding with oppression.

"I'm a moderate on the question of slavery."
"I'm a moderate on the question of human trafficking."
"I'm a moderate on police brutality."

Working a job is not the same as being a slave, a human sex toy, or being a police punching bag.

Your attempts to employ metaphor just reveal how incredibly naive and immature you're being about anything in this discussion. Its frankly insulting

 

[JahFocus CS]

@Napoleon if my arguments are so weak and immature, surely everyone would be able to see I am making an ass out of myself and debating poorly.

The audience should also be able to see the strength of your arguments and your high level of maturity, and should be able to appreciate that.

Where are your daps and rep from this thread, then, breh? In light of those facts, I think your whole perception is inverted, bud.

Oh let me guess, everyone is just delusional except you

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@Napoleon if my arguments are so weak and immature, surely everyone would be able to see I am making an ass out of myself and debating poorly.

The audience should also be able to see the strength of your arguments and your high level of maturity, and should be able to appreciate that.

Where are your daps and rep from this thread, then, breh? In light of those facts, I think your whole perception is inverted, bud.

Oh let me guess, everyone is just delusional except you

fam, i don't understand either why no one else is not calling you out for making simple and trivial comparisons like human trafficking and slavery to...working at walmart.

You gotta be trolling

 

[Tate]

1. Every book or lecture that I've seen or heard always mentions central planning as one of the keys of socialism/communism.

But please elaborate on the type of socialism you think America would embrace.


2. No I don't not care about life expectancy in Russia. And I'm not sure how it's relevant either. Those other places you named did not have Free markets with NO Goverment intervention.


3 I am for Freemarkets backed by a commodity currency with very light (if any) Govt. regulations



@Swavy Karl Marx

Syndicalism and anarchism/libertarianism, as well as general market socialism are all socialistic systems that avoid central planning in a top down manner. I have no idea what type of socialism Americans will embrace.

Ok and I'm telling you that having a state that doesn't interfere in the economy is impossible over any period of time. Nor is it desirable. Again, look at the closest examples we have of free markets. Every one is fukking awful.

 

[Tha Sircus]

Personal Beef?

 

[Tha Sircus]

Syndicalism and anarchism/libertarianism, as well as general market socialism are all socialistic systems that avoid central planning in a top down manner. I have no idea what type of socialism Americans will embrace.

Ok and I'm telling you that having a state that doesn't interfere in the economy is impossible over any period of time. Nor is it desirable. Again, look at the closest examples we have of free markets. Every one is fukking awful.

Breh anarchism/libertarianism is not the same as socialism. It's not even close. I'm not sure how you could equate a system that has no Govt and limited Govt to a system were the state controls most of everything



And I'm telling you it is desirable to not have Gov't messing with the prices of things.

 

[DEAD7]

I started to but it was just too emotionally dishonest and childish for me to take seriously.