For anyone in the "socialism bad" chanting group

[Owledge]

Required watching.

How many more wakeup calls are needed?

 

 

The video adds some heavy footnotes on the systematic omissions and deceptions that are abundant in the imperialist propaganda sphere.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Owledge

[joeblast]

Required watching, here's a 45 min vid

 

[Marblehead]

I didn't watch the video.

 

However,

 

Socialism is bad!!!

 

All it does is take from those willing to work and give to those too lazy to work.

 

And, more importantly, it takes away the people's freedoms.  People become totally dependent on Government.

 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

I didn't watch the video.

 

However,

 

Socialism is bad!!!

 

All it does is take from those willing to work and give to those too lazy to work.

 

And, more importantly, it takes away the people's freedoms.  People become totally dependent on Government.

 

 

 

Hey stop picking on lazy people - I'll take it personally.

 

[Lost in Translation]

I heard this quote today.

 

"The logical extreme of socialism is Marxism.

 The logical extreme of capitalism is capitalism."

   -- Mark Levin

[Marblehead]

But Capitalism works, Marxism doesn't.  Go figure.

 

[thelerner]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

I heard this quote today.

 

"The logical extreme of socialism is Marxism.

 The logical extreme of capitalism is capitalism."

   -- Mark Levin

I might say the extreme of capitalism is feudalism,

ie if too much wealth gets concentrated and

some own all the marbles and country becomes

a Company Store. 

 

 

I prefer Capitalism with a decent social net, intelligent environmentalism and sense of we're in this together, not just for ourselves.   

Edited August 6, 2018 by thelerner

[Aetherous]

3 minutes ago, thelerner said:

I prefer Capitalism with a decent social net, intelligent environmentalism and sense of we're in this together, not just for ourselves. 

 

Couldn't agree more.

[Lost in Translation]

7 minutes ago, thelerner said:

I prefer Capitalism with a decent social net, intelligent environmentalism and sense of we're in this together, not just for ourselves.   

 

I also agree. The question then becomes "how much is enough?" Unfortunately the answer to this always seems to be "more."

 

Brief aside, in economic theory there are four ways that money can be spent.

 

Quote

Milton Friedman on the four ways you can spend money

 

1. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.

 

2. You can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost.

 

3. I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!

 

4. I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get.

 

Capitalism is the method #1. Socialism is method #4. 

 

https://m.signalvnoise.com/milton-friedman-on-the-four-ways-you-can-spend-money-ce1588a9e345

[idquest]

1 hour ago, thelerner said:

I prefer Capitalism with a decent social net, intelligent environmentalism and sense of we're in this together, not just for ourselves.   

 

Here is one small problem which is called Government Bureaucracy. It proliferates in geometrical progression  unless put in checks.

[thelerner]

2 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

I also agree. The question then becomes "how much is enough?" Unfortunately the answer to this always seems to be "more."

 

Brief aside, in economic theory there are four ways that money can be spent.

 

 

Capitalism is the method #1. Socialism is method #4. 

 

https://m.signalvnoise.com/milton-friedman-on-the-four-ways-you-can-spend-money-ce1588a9e345

interesting.. what's 2 & 3?

 

Also many interchange Socialism w/ Communism.  An easy thing to do,  Communist regimes tend to hide behind the Socialist label.  Whereas I see most Socialist systems ie European/Canadian as Capitalism with a wider social net.  More taxes and more social benefits.  

 

I was just in Canada, I liked it.  It felt cleaner, safer, maybe saner then the U.S.  Course I was just a visitor.. and perhaps being from Chicago, I'm used to a lower bar.   Not that the city doesn't have its good points.

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, thelerner said:

interesting.. what's 2 & 3?

 

#2 is private charity. #3 is ... Let me think about it.

[Lost in Translation]

15 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

1 hour ago, thelerner said:

interesting.. what's 2 & 3?

 

#2 is private charity. #3 is ... Let me think about it.

 

#2 is private charity of the kind that gives away non-money rewards, such as church housing or soup kitchen or clothing/blankets/etc from the Salvation Army.

 

#3 is charity (private or public) of the kind that gives away money, for example a scholarship grant or some kind of cash dispensing welfare program.

[wandelaar]

Much one-liners, and little reasoning. But it's the chanting group here, so why bother.

 

As to the extreme of capitalism, it's plutocracy. See:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

 

Capitalism when left to it's own naturally leads to extreme inequality. That's why some checks and balances are needed. So I agree with:

 

5 hours ago, thelerner said:

I prefer Capitalism with a decent social net, intelligent environmentalism and sense of we're in this together, not just for ourselves.   

 

The golden mean, as always.

[Zork]

It's ironic to say that "socialism is bad" in America. You are using socialist policies as we speak (i..e antitrust laws, 2008 bank bailout etc) . This happens because the average American can't distinguish socialism from communism.

Many countries in the european north have extensive socialist systems blended with capitalism and it works fine with little bureaucracy. The problem as i see it is that there are countries that this system won't work due to mentality of the local population.

[Owledge]

8 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

I heard this quote today.

 

"The logical extreme of socialism is Marxism.

 The logical extreme of capitalism is capitalism."

   -- Mark Levin

Saying that capitalism is good unless it corrupts is like saying firearms are good as long as they're not hurting anyone.

 

1 hour ago, Zork said:

It's ironic to say that "socialism is bad" in America. You are using socialist policies as we speak (i..e antitrust laws, 2008 bank bailout etc) . This happens because the average American can't distinguish socialism from communism.

Many countries in the european north have extensive socialist systems blended with capitalism and it works fine with little bureaucracy. The problem as i see it is that there are countries that this system won't work due to mentality of the local population.

All power always rests with the People. Often this power is wielded through deliberate passivity, i.e. lent to proxies.

 

BTW, I just saw a video of a channel all about people's rights and freedoms and anti-establishment and that revolutionary stuff and then the guy does 'white-American' adventure tourism in Venezuela and talks about how dangerous it is and has the audacity to state the belief that the government is fostering crime as a tool to control the population.

People are rarely principled, as their weak spots reveal. Never confuse social revolutionary and Murican revolutionary.

[Zork]

It's very easy to implement communism when you have enlightened citizens that are prepared to defend their rights and their government and not sidestep their obligations and the rights of others. And then you realise that any government works under these conditions.

Similarly the western world's interpretation of democracy isn't a true democracy but a kind of republic. It's far easier to manipulate proxies than the whole population. It follows that if you can control the representatives, what the majority of people think or do, doesn't matter. I personally don't know any country in the world that practices true democracy. The only country that comes close is Switzerland.

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Zork said:

It's very easy to implement communism when you have enlightened citizens that are prepared to defend their rights

interestingly, communism is defined as a society where individuals have no rights whatsoever.

[Zork]

5 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

interestingly, communism is defined as a society where individuals have no rights whatsoever.

I am not aware of this definition and it doesn't change the conclusion.

[Apech]

8 hours ago, thelerner said:

I might say the extreme of capitalism is feudalism,

ie if too much wealth gets concentrated and

some own all the marbles and country becomes

a Company Store. 

 

 

I prefer Capitalism with a decent social net, intelligent environmentalism and sense of we're in this together, not just for ourselves.   

 

 

Capitalism grew out of feudalism.  Feudalism invests wealth and power in a few by not only ownership but heredity - the sons of Lords are Lords - so there is no or very little social mobility.  The only way you could loose your position (theoretically) was war with other dynasties.  It was not all completely bad though as a serf - provided you had a benign Lord, living off the land in your village you could be quite well looked after (obviously no guarantee of this).  In the UK at least what really broke this down was the double pressure of the industrial revolution (1750 - 1850) when the double effect of agrarian reform (the Enclosure Acts) and the move to urban living and factory working - had the effect of drastically reducing the living standards of ordinary people, health, housing and so on.  So capitalism in this period produced massive suffering.  It wasn't inequality (which always existed and may have actually reduced) but just poverty.  In equality in wealth is actually a kind of false indicator - for instance if you have enough for food, housing and a reasonable lifestyle what does it matter what your neighbour has?  Apart from jealously it doesn't really affect you if your neighbour has more than you.

 

Marxism and socialism arose in reaction to the terrible conditions in which the working classes were being forced to live.  Not only their physical degradation but also their lack of freedom - being tied to the factory shop and so on.  Marx, Engels and so on rightly condemned this situation.  They rejected the Liberal solution of charity coupled with legislation to control the worst aspects (eg. Factory Acts and so on) and said that the only way to cure this inhumanity was a radical redesign of the system by changing the relationship between people and capital and labour.  Part of this (the backbone) is the ownership of the means of production by first the state and then communally by people themselves (socialism and communism).  Unlike Marx himself we can now say that this does not work - in fact attempts to implement it in history have led to some of the worst examples of despotism and inhumanity in the 20 century.  So we can discard Marxism as a failed experiment (Stalin, Mao etc.).

 

In the West we have never had socialism properly, what we have in Europe is various forms of governmental social policy used to address issues such as healthcare and welfare, but based in a free market economy or at least a mixed economy.  This is what pertains in the UK, Scandinavia, France, Germany and so on.  The exact balance between the market and the public sector grew organically in each nation dependent on the conditions they faced and were introduced through democratic means.  the most successful models such as say, Denmark and Norway - are social democracies and not 'democratic socialism' as if often said.  For many decades these models have functioned as the best way to live and be - but are currently under threat.  I think the threat comes because for various reasons the centre, the liberal centre (both right and left) has lost its bearings and we have factionalised into far left and far right, although the centre itself seems to have shifted left, into a weird moralising neo-marxist intersectionalism which dominates the media and academia and public life generally.

[Owledge]

10 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

interestingly, communism is defined as a society where individuals have no rights whatsoever.

Interestingly, that's total bullshit.

 

Communism is communal self-government and self-determination, flat hierarchy, weak or non-existent central authority. Basically cutting out the influences that are too far detached from person-to-person to have empathy and a reliance on good relations.

 

It might be difficult to see individual rights for some people when the rights are the same for everybody.

[Owledge]

3 minutes ago, Apech said:

Unlike Marx himself we can now say that this does not work - in fact attempts to implement it in history have led to some of the worst examples of despotism and inhumanity in the 20 century.  So we can discard Marxism as a failed experiment (Stalin, Mao etc.).

Then humankind is a failed experiment, too.

Have you watched the video I posted? (You can speed it up if you like.)

Edited August 7, 2018 by Owledge

[Apech]

Just now, Owledge said:

Then humankind is a failed experiment, too.

 

Not really.  Why do we have to rely on 19th century solutions in 2018?  Being a marxist now is like rebooting an old movie franchise instead of producing a new one.

[Zork]

10 minutes ago, Owledge said:

Interestingly, that's total bullshit.

 

Communism is communal self-government and self-determination, flat hierarchy, weak or non-existent central authority. Basically cutting out the influences that are too far detached from person-to-person to have empathy and a reliance on good relations.

 

It might be difficult to see individual rights for some people when the rights are the same for everybody.

He is confusing rights with freedoms. I just wanted him to figure it out by himself.

[Zork]

14 minutes ago, Apech said:

Capitalism grew out of feudalism.

No it didn't. Capitalism, in a crude form, existed long before the dark ages. Also many countries independently arrived at this economic system without the transition through feudalism.

The correct statement would be "In the western world, Modern Capitalism grew out of Feudalism"