WWII, Nazis Communists and other stuff

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I would pay good money to see some posters have to live a week as, say, a miner living in a company town in West Virginia or Kentucky in 1915.

I'd pay more to see some of them in a Soviet gulag or Chinese re education camp.

[Nicole44 22023]

I have some sweet tickets for UT football this fall if anyone wants them. 

[Brisketexan 104465]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Of course it is - which again is the point of this thread.  Not a reductionist debate in relativism.  How currently it is celebrated and openly welcomed with no ill effects to the untold horrors it has engendered in a relatively short period of time.  100 million in less than a hundred years?  Only the plague and malaria have that kind of a track record.  Yet we see open banners celebrating it's "intent".  Public proclamations that seem staggeringly brazen considering the end-state this type of ideology always results in.   

And again, I can say the same thing about our blind celebration of capitalism and excusing every excess and failing in pursuit of its relentless defense.  And, for the umpteenth time....that's what's actively happening here, at home, "right here in river city."  I am not concerned about a dictatorship of the proletariate being discussed by a bunch of violent hipsters in Portland.  I'm concerned about the ACTUAL late-stage crony capitalism and relentless attacks on the rule of law that presently runs our country and squashes any and all efforts to put it in check or reform it.

Trust me, when the Reds show up and look to be an active threat to actually upend our system of government and impose their will, I'll be raising my rifle yelling "WOLVERINES" with the rest of you.  I'm happy to fight ALL the authoritarianism.

[wildcat09 29187]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'd pay more to see some of them in a Soviet gulag or Chinese re education camp.

The thing is, nobody on our side of the aisle thinks those conditions were good or that they represented "freedom."

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

The thing is, nobody on our side of the aisle thinks those conditions were good or that they represented "freedom."

 

Of course you don't.

[BabaYaga 15202]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And again, I can say the same thing about our blind celebration of capitalism and excusing every excess and failing in pursuit of its relentless defense.

Good lord, you mean a system that has been the greatest mechanism against poverty the world have ever known.  The incredible, unprecedented rise in economic growth and per capita incomes followed close on the heels of the emergence of capitalism. For the first time in its history, humanity was offered the possibility of freedom from material poverty.  The difference is production, not distribution.  

Even mentioning this is the same breath as communism is laughable.  

[wildcat09 29187]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Good lord, you mean a system that has been the greatest mechanism against poverty the world have ever known.  The incredible, unprecedented rise in economic growth and per capita incomes followed close on the heels of the emergence of capitalism. For the first time in its history, humanity was offered the possibility of freedom from material poverty.  The difference is production, not distribution.  

Even mentioning this is the same breath as communism is laughable.  

*except for all those people it literally starved

[BabaYaga 15202]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

*except for all those people it literally starved

[Brisketexan 104465]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Good lord, you mean a system that has been the greatest mechanism against poverty the world have ever known.  The incredible, unprecedented rise in economic growth and per capita incomes followed close on the heels of the emergence of capitalism. For the first time in its history, humanity was offered the possibility of freedom from material poverty.  The difference is production, not distribution.  

Even mentioning this is the same breath as communism is laughable.  

No, I'm not talking about capitalism.  That's your mistake.  I'm talking about the system that we have today, which is oligarchical cronyism, game-rigging, and law-avoidance improperly using the name "capitalism."  

You are 100% correct that well-regulated capitalism, which also allowed the system to be focused on long-term growth and prosperity, produced incredible results.  Then, we transitioned to a different economic system, which did not have that same focus or result.  Here, you can see on this chart about when that transition really took hold:

And it's actually pretty important that you mentioned "production."  We have indeed seen incredible gains in production.....but those gains benefit those at the top exclusively.

 

Want to take away any impetus for "communism?"  Fix capitalism.  That's what I'm in favor of.  Stop excusing the thing that it has become, because that's how you kill what you rightly laud as the economic system that has produced some of the greatest human benefit in history.

The greatest bulwark against the attractiveness of communism and descent into angry populist authoritarianism is a fair, high-functioning and well-regulated capitalist system.  The greatest invitation to authoritarianism (from either direction) is a system that is broken and rigged.

[sidis 9713]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Of course.  Yet one system repeatedly cascades into tyranny time and time again based upon how it is structured - hence the point of this entire thread.  

every system eventually leads to this.  i don't know why you fail to acknowledge it as it is simply a fact.  economic rent seeking is precisely the same whether it is robber barons or if it corrupt politburo.  again, your unwillingness to undertake any separation between atrocities as a consequence of the economic system versus the despots who committed the atrocities is really inexplicable.  of course, when i mentioned way upthread the existence of communist participation in govt in which no mass casualties were endured, you simply hand-waved out of it with the sophomoric sacrasm of "it just hasn't been implemented correctly" trope and no actual substance so it is not surprising.

what you are saying is tantamount to the early american capitalist economy is responsible for the genocide of the native american and for the enslaving of countless human beings.  because america exported it to central and south america, as well as southwest asia through military juntas and far right contrarevolutionaries, capitalism is responsible for unfathomable atrocities.  wait, nevermind.  we are just victims of pre-revolutionay france (hmmm, wonder why that happened) exporting its system to us.

i can't imagine being an adult going through life with the oversimplified perspective of an 8 year old when we have so much information at our fingertips.  unfettered economic rent seeking is bad, regardless of the context in which it takes place.  and we are seeing it right in front of our eyes in this country today while those who are most directly impacted cheer it on with thunderous applause.  the inherent corruption, and abuses of power that take advantage of the proletariat for the accumulation of greater power and abuse is driven by authority, power, and corruption.  i have seen no evidence that one economic system acts as a greater catalyst for that than another.

the majority of your "100 million" (a number taken from coutois' debunked methodology) comes from the chinese famine. nobel prize winning amartya sen (a very famous development economist) wrote an important paper in the 80's called "hunger and public action" in which he drew direct comparisons between india and china.  sen presented that india, who was engaged in a democratic capitalist experiment,  saw an excess of 4 million deaths in india relative to china each non-famine year (which is substantially greater time period to evaluate).  he concluded his paper with: "India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame."  read pages 213 - 215 of their conclusions here: https://books.google.com/books?id=qScSDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=cupboard&f=false

sen presents a pretty nasty picture of both...however, based on the above, if one applies your reductive soundbites equally to each, one can easily make the claim regarding "democratic capitalism" that is has been responsible for the greatest number of deaths bla bla bla bla.

also, collectivism and community cooperation was not invented in the 20th century.  good lord.

[workswithseed 2033]

31 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

I have some sweet tickets for UT football this fall if anyone wants them. 

Like, how much?

[Huckleberry 32685]

1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

Do you actually contend that defunding of police is an actionable realistic goal for any group?

Uh, yeah. You know, considering it's already happened in multiple municipalities.

Do you not understand that defunding the police does not mean setting their budget at zero?

There's lots of shit that needs to be defunded. Like the military, for example. That doesn't mean eliminating those things.

Edited August 10, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Nicole44 22023]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

Like, how much?

How much you got? 

[washparkhorn 9931]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Good lord, you mean a system that has been the greatest mechanism against poverty the world have ever known.  The incredible, unprecedented rise in economic growth and per capita incomes followed close on the heels of the emergence of capitalism. For the first time in its history, humanity was offered the possibility of freedom from material poverty.  The difference is production, not distribution.  

Even mentioning this is the same breath as communism is laughable.  

The United States does not have a capitalist economic system. Crony Capitalism/"Growthism"/neoliberal economics ≠ Capitalism.  See Harvard Bus. Review article from 2013:

Quote

[Imagine a nation named CapitalismStan - whose] society was foundering. Its middle class was collapsing. It had already had a lost decade; and was starting on another. Its young had become a lost generation, desperately seeking opportunity. Median incomes had stagnated for decades. The economy spun headlong into a great recession; and then it “recovered”; but during the “recovery”, the richest 1% captured 95% of the gains. Millions faced chronic unemployment and poverty. Social mobility was low and decreasing. Life expectancy was dropping.

In short, life in CapitalismStan was getting shorter, nastier, unhappier, and harder. Meanwhile, other rich nations—notably those which did not worship the invisible hand so completely, totally, obediently, and unflappably—had prospered.

Does CapitalismStan’s story sound a little bit like America’s to you?

Maybe what’s practiced in the USA isn’t capitalism at all. It seems to be a toxic admixture of capitalism for the poor, who are ruthlessly whittled down, in brutal Darwinian contests; and socialism for the rich, for whom there appears to be no limit to bailouts, subsidies, and privileges. It’s a lethal cocktail of cronyism for the powerful; and endless struggle for the powerless. It’s neither fish nor fowl; but a chimera.

So what is this system that is faltering, precisely, if it’s not quite capitalism?

I’d call it “growthism.” It’s not just a system or a set of institutions. It’s a mindset; an ideology; a set of cherished beliefs. And one that’s hardened into dogma. A dogma which is palpably failing; but can’t be dislodged—because it’s become an article of faith, the central belief of a cult, whose priests and acolytes threaten mysterious, terrible, divine revenge whenever their authority is questioned.

Growthism says: growth must be achieved at all costs. When growth is achieved; societies are said to be successful; when it is not, they are said to be failing.

Growthism is willing to sacrifice everything for more growth. Even the very rights which enlightened societies once held to be inalienable. Are you concerned about the rise in extrajudicial mass spying, drone strikes, private security guards, military contractors, or even just the analytics that provide detailed information on what you say, do, and search to both the government and private companies? Too bad! Those are our growth industries, and woe to whatever or whoever stands in their way. Who cares about freedom of speech and assembly or the right to privacy when what we really need is good, growth-creating jobs? Jobs like becoming butlers and maids (or coaches, consultants, and “service-providers”) to the super-rich, who can purchase the “right” not to be frisked, stopped, or surveiled. Heaven forbid people protest. Why, that might hurt growth!

Growthism, then, is antithetical to democracy. Basic political and human rights, from the perspective of a growthist, are niggling sources of inefficiency that must be erased, rubbed out, sanded down. They are sources of social friction and tension that make people less productive workers and that encourage them to do things like wonder, question, agitate, challenge, defy, rebel, and think. Dammit! We don’t want a citizenry! We want a workforce.

Spoiler

 

Growthism contends that growth is the point; the alpha and omega; the sole purpose of all human effort—and therefore, all human effort must be directed towards growth.

That is the great mistake growthism makes. But growth is not an end. It is a means. A means to, at best, expanding eudaimonia; the capacity to live meaningfully well. And a means, at least, to expanding human freedom.

And because it is a means, not an end, growth is necessary—but not sufficient. For what? For prosperity. And nowhere is that more evident that in the USA; where the economy is “growing” but the majority of people under 40 are worse off than their forebears.

But wait! The average Joe now has riches he might never have dreamt of! Giant 3D TVs with subwoofers the size of small countries! A venti-soy-latte-ccino bigger than a beer keg…for $3.99! Soon, he’ll have a flying car…a robo-butler…a self-cleaning house…Talking Glasses That Tell You The Weather!! It’s amazing!

All of those toys are nice. But they are not substitutes for working societies, or real human prosperity, or the fact that it takes a working society to spark real human prosperity.

A good education; transport; energy; healthcare; community; food; all these and more are the foundations of real prosperity. Real prosperity isn’t a supergadget in every pocket…while educational attainment, income, wealth, community, opportunity, and life expectancy are dropping, while insecurity, loneliness, poverty, and inequality are skyrocketing.

Supergadgets, if they are to reduce you and I to something like fat miserable drooling zombies who’ve never read a book and enjoy no rights and don’t really remember why they matter…well, if that’s the upside of capitalism, maybe it’s a bargain only a fool would make.

Remember the alien cults? The aliens never arrive. The leaders turn around and say: followers! The aliens have been delayed on Jupiter! Why, the very fact that they’re not here is precisely how we know they’re coming! They’ll be here next year, same day, same time! Just hold on!

Sound familiar? It’s the story that growthism keeps telling all of us…about our lives. That one day, if we just believe in the magical power of growth, we’ll be saved! It’s just around the corner! The economy’s picking up steam! GDP’s growing again! Just hold on a little while longer. What, things didn’t get better for you this quarter? They surely will next quarter!

Growthism is a kind of cult. Like all cults, it asks us to deny reality; to sacrifice ourselves; to sever our ties with all that we love; and to indulge in magical thinking. Its high priests soothe us with incantations that have been flat wrong for decades. Its acolytes recite the prayers that have failed to bring rain for years. And still, they tell us: keep the faith. One day, salvation will be yours.

Growthism’s great crime—and yes, it is a crime; for it is costing you and I, right here, right now, lives we should be living, instead of the days we find ourselves limited to—is that it prevents societies from developing a sophisticated conception of what prosperity is. And hence, how to attain it. It is failing because it is stifling us from reaching past the tired, rusting idea that prosperity is merely stuff and trinkets, glittering baubles and gewgaws—and that it might, instead, be health, friendship, purpose, wisdom, resilience, happiness, a searing sense that all one’s days have mattered.

My answer, then, is this. Capitalism’s devolved into growthism. And growthism’s to this age what alchemy was to another. It’s a futile, mystical, laughable quest to turn lead into gold. But lead is just lead. And the truest wealth of life is having lived a life that matters.

The problem with alchemy isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it does. It works so well—at telling us what we so desperately want to hear; Pssst! here’s the Secret! The Secret Formula! The Hidden Recipe!—that it leaves us incapable of thinking, feeling, dreaming, wondering, challenging, defying, rebelling. Thus, science remained stuck for centuries while alchemists searched in vain for the Philosopher’s Stone that they knew — they just knew — had to be possible.  So, too, we’re stuck—lured by the glittering seduction of growthism.

But there was never any shortcut to turn lead into gold. And there’s no shortcut for building societies that work, in which every single person has a shot at a life that matters. And for each of us, there’s no shortcut for living that meaningful life.

So maybe, then, it’s time for you and I to leave this cult. The aliens probably aren’t going to arrive. The cheap, plastic junk that surrounds us probably isn’t worth what we paid – not just in cash (or, more likely, credit) to get it, but in freedom, time, and tears.

Maybe it’s time for each of us to take a deep breath, tell growthism to shove it, and chart our own new course.

 

 

https://hbr.org/2013/10/this-isnt-capitalism-its-growthism-and-its-bad-for-us

 

[Nicole44 22023]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Uh, yeah. You know, considering it's already happened in multiple municipalities.

Do you not understand that defunding the police does not mean setting their budget at zero?

There's lots of shit that needs to be defunded. Like the military, for example. That doesn't mean eliminating those things.

Can’t wait for the socialism to happen! Fuck ya! 

[washparkhorn 9931]

5 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

Can’t wait for the socialism to happen! Fuck ya! 

Already here - for those who luxuriate in the top .01% of the 1%. We are just green Soylent [stet] to them. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by washparkhorn

[Huckleberry 32685]

9 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

Can’t wait for the socialism to happen! Fuck ya! 

Did this make sense in your head?

What in my post had anything to do with socialism?

[wildcat09 29187]

20 minutes ago, sidis said:

every system eventually leads to this.  i don't know why you fail to acknowledge it as it is simply a fact.  economic rent seeking is precisely the same whether it is robber barons or if it corrupt politburo.  again, your unwillingness to undertake any separation between atrocities as a consequence of the economic system versus the despots who committed the atrocities is really inexplicable.  of course, when i mentioned way upthread the existence of communist participation in govt in which no mass casualties were endured, you simply hand-waved out of it with the sophomoric sacrasm of "it just hasn't been implemented correctly" trope and no actual substance so it is not surprising.

what you are saying is tantamount to the early american capitalist economy is responsible for the genocide of the native american and for the enslaving of countless human beings.  because america exported it to central and south america, as well as southwest asia through military juntas and far right contrarevolutionaries, capitalism is responsible for unfathomable atrocities.  wait, nevermind.  we are just victims of pre-revolutionay france (hmmm, wonder why that happened) exporting its system to us.

i can't imagine being an adult going through life with the oversimplified perspective of an 8 year old when we have so much information at our fingertips.  unfettered economic rent seeking is bad, regardless of the context in which it takes place.  and we are seeing it right in front of our eyes in this country today while those who are most directly impacted cheer it on with thunderous applause.  the inherent corruption, and abuses of power that take advantage of the proletariat for the accumulation of greater power and abuse is driven by authority, power, and corruption.  i have seen no evidence that one economic system acts as a greater catalyst for that than another.

the majority of your "100 million" (a number taken from coutois' debunked methodology) comes from the chinese famine. nobel prize winning amartya sen (a very famous development economist) wrote an important paper in the 80's called "hunger and public action" in which he drew direct comparisons between india and china.  sen presented that india, who was engaged in a democratic capitalist experiment,  saw an excess of 4 million deaths in india relative to china each non-famine year (which is substantially greater time period to evaluate).  he concluded his paper with: "India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame."  read pages 213 - 215 of their conclusions here: https://books.google.com/books?id=qScSDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=cupboard&f=false

sen presents a pretty nasty picture of both...however, based on the above, if one applies your reductive soundbites equally to each, one can easily make the claim regarding "democratic capitalism" that is has been responsible for the greatest number of deaths bla bla bla bla.

also, collectivism and community cooperation was not invented in the 20th century.  good lord.

Esto. I guess there's some comfort in it if you're too fragile to face the fact that your own forefathers might not have been saints or something. It's like that weird thing where we just want people to recognize actual history about the civil war and southerners today respond along the lines of "ARE YOU SAYING I SHOULD FEEL GUILTY BECAUSE MY GREAT GRANDPAPPY WAS A SLAVEOWNER!?" They always immediately jump to "YOU MUST BE SAYING I'M HORRIBLE AND A PIECE OF SHIT SO FUCK YOU!" (much like BurntEyes in this thread).

[BabaYaga 15202]

5 minutes ago, sidis said:

upthread the existence of communist participation in govt in which no mass casualties were endured, you simply hand-waved out of it with the sophomoric sacrasm of "it just hasn't been implemented correctly" trope and no actual substance so it is not surprising.

Participation =/= control, but you knew that.  Grand canyon-sized differences between a communist person and a functioning communist state.  But you knew that.  

 

7 minutes ago, sidis said:

what you are saying is tantamount to the early american capitalist economy is responsible for the genocide of the native american and for the enslaving of countless human beings.  because america exported it to central and south america, as well as southwest asia through military juntas and far right contrarevolutionaries, capitalism is responsible for unfathomable atrocities.  wait, nevermind.  we are just victims of pre-revolutionay france (hmmm, wonder why that happened) exporting its system to us.

The early american economies were agrarian (subsistence farming & export).  The fuck are you babbling about?

 

10 minutes ago, sidis said:

the majority of your "100 million" (a number taken from coutois' debunked methodology) comes from the chinese famine.

Yeah, no shit.  Scarcity and famine have always been one of the key tenets of Socialism/Communism.  We have dozens of recent examples in countries across the globe.  

 

20 minutes ago, sidis said:

the majority of your "100 million" (a number taken from coutois' debunked methodology) comes from the chinese famine. nobel prize winning amartya sen (a very famous development economist) wrote an important paper in the 80's called "hunger and public action" in which he drew direct comparisons between india and china.  sen presented that india, who was engaged in a democratic capitalist experiment,  saw an excess of 4 million deaths in india relative to china each non-famine year (which is substantially greater time period to evaluate).  he concluded his paper with: "India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame."  read pages 213 - 215 of their conclusions here

Jesus, from your own link - you are making comparison of a freshly independent, fledgling nation accosted by one of the worst famines in their countries history with little to no organic infrastructure.  LOL

On the other hand, given the political system of post‐independence India, it is extremely hard for any government in office—whether at the state level or at the centre—to get away with neglecting prompt and extensive anti‐famine measures at the first signs of a famine. 

[wildcat09 29187]

...what exactly do you think China in 1950 was like?

[Nicole44 22023]

10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Did this make sense in your head?

What in my post had anything to do with socialism?

Since none of your posts make sense I thought I’d play along.

[Huckleberry 32685]

7 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

Since none of your posts make sense I thought I’d play along.

I'm not going to engage with you any further because you frequently go on these little nonsensical sprees and I am genuinely concerned for your mental well-being.

The only thing I'll say is that socialism versus capitalism has nothing to do with police or military funding, particularly in this conversation. Socialism and capitalism have to do with central/ government control of resources and production versus citizen/private control. You would be much better served to read and learn about topics rather than knowingly make stupid posts (your claim).

If instead you'd actually like to discuss the topic I was addressing then we can do so. Again, the point I made was factual - defunding the police does not mean eliminating them.

[Nicole44 22023]

23 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Already here - for those who luxuriate in the top .01% of the 1%. We are just green Soylent [stet] to them. 

What will be really cool is when the ones that want it the most get their ability to “protest” or have their ability to post on social media taken away. That’s when it will be fun. It will be like all of the countries still in their “infancy” that somehow “missed out” on the industrial revolution. Can’t wait. 

[Brisketexan 104465]

26 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The United States does not have a capitalist economic system. Crony Capitalism/"Growthism"/neoliberal economics ≠ Capitalism.  See Harvard Bus. Review article from 2013:

https://hbr.org/2013/10/this-isnt-capitalism-its-growthism-and-its-bad-for-us

 

Fantastic link.

We are told two things that are utter lies: 1) the only thing saving us from the hell of communism is capitalism!  Anything that would criticize or change our current system to achieve more equitable paths and outcomes is SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM!.....and 2) that our current system is actually capitalist.

I don't want communism.  But if we don't fix this fucking crooked mess of a system we've got on our hands, we're going to lose the power/ability to be very selective about the system we end up with.  If you want to create a material risk that we will descend into an authoritarian communist state.....the path we're on is exactly how you would do that.   So it follows that if you hate communism, then you must REALLY hate the recipe that leads societies to communism....yet that's not the case at all.

We are "the greatest country in the world" (in spite of reams of hard data that say otherwise).  We have a brilliant capitalist economy! (except we don't).  Anything that would tear down any of those systems, or regulate any activity, is socialism, which is really communism, which means you favor gulags and millions of deaths and prison camps for unbelievers! (except literally every western nation has some version of the horrors that are railed against -- single-payer healthcare, a robust safety net, cheap/free education -- with a broadly happier society and way of life).  "But communism" is a fucking distraction, which has successfully staved off any meaningful efforts at fixing our broken system....which, ironically, may well eventually lead to the kind of social collapse that will create a real risk of an authoritarian communist government.  The audience's gullible focus on the sleight-of-hand to see what the oligarchs want you to see (communism!  It's here, and coming right at your house!), and not what is happening right in front of your face (see the charts above, see Washpark's article), is "useful idiot 101."

Shit, read up on most communist states.  Don't read the history of their communist regime -- read the history in the decades before that SET THE STAGE for communism.  If you want to avoid communism.....avoid the things that lead to communism.  That would seem to be pretty sound thinking, no?

I'm not worried about hypothetical communism that might come to power.  I'm worried about ACTUAL "growthism" and a rigged economy, which is what is happening, right here and right now.

If I promise to hoist my rifle and yell "Wolverines" if the commies invade and take away all of our freedoms and apple pie and stuff, will you join in the fight against the utterly broken system we have right now, which is only getting worse, and helping us stumble into the zone where having to yell "Wolverines!" is a real risk?  I'd love it if you did.

[Nicole44 22023]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

I'm not going to engage with you any further because you frequently go on these little nonsensical sprees and I am genuinely concerned for your mental well-being.

The only thing I'll say is that socialism versus capitalism has nothing to do with police or military funding, particularly in this conversation. Socialism and capitalism have to do with central/ government control of resources and production versus citizen/private control. You would be much better served to read and learn about topics rather than knowingly make stupid posts (your claim).

If instead you'd actually like to discuss the topic I was addressing then we can do so. Again, the point I made was factual - defunding the police does not mean eliminating them.

You have historically demeaned me and my posts. This would be another classic example. Go fuck yourself. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

deleted

Edited August 10, 2020 by Dahobbs

[washparkhorn 9931]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

If you want to create a material risk that we will descend into an authoritarian communist state.....the path we're on is exactly how you would do that

Isn't it ironic. 

[wildcat09 29187]

There's a few posters here in this thread that could really use therapy.

[Huckleberry 32685]

1 minute ago, Nicole44 said:

You have historically demeaned me and my posts. This would be another classic example. Go fuck yourself. 

You make terrible posts and I'm one of the few people who doesn't dogpile your inanity. This exchange speaks for itself but I will ask you again to actually address the topic. 

Do you understand that defunding the police does not mean eliminating them? Do you admit that this has nothing to do with capitalism versus socialism? 

[Incredulity 11532]

49 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

How much you got? 

[hayden_horn 11360]

50 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The United States does not have a capitalist economic system. Crony Capitalism/"Growthism"/neoliberal economics ≠ Capitalism.  See Harvard Bus. Review article from 2013:

https://hbr.org/2013/10/this-isnt-capitalism-its-growthism-and-its-bad-for-us

 

excellent link. and it's something i've noticed about stock prices, quarterly reports, etc. it's not about profit, it seems to be about growth.

it also reminds me of this little parable:

Quote

An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large fin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, “Only a little while.”

The American then asked why he didn’t stay out longer and catch more fish.

The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs.

The American then asked, “But what do you do with the rest of your time?”

The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.”

The American scoffed. “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat, and with the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats. Eventually, you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman, you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually NYC, where you will run your expanding enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But how long will this take?”

To which the American replied, “Fifteen to twenty years.”

“But what then?”

The American laughed and said that’s the best part. “When the time is right, you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich; you would make millions.”

“Millions?” asked the fisherman. “Then what?”

The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evening, sip wine, and play guitar with your amigos!”

i've never understood the requirement for growth. if you are making a tidy little profit, that's also pretty good, i reckon.

[washparkhorn 9931]

16 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

What will be really cool is when the ones that want it the most get their ability to “protest” or have their ability to post on social media taken away. That’s when it will be fun. It will be like all of the countries still in their “infancy” that somehow “missed out” on the industrial revolution. Can’t wait. 

We all want.

Economic mobility is an impossibility for most Americans. That is what concerns me the most.

We are stifling competition - the essence of Adam Smith's capitalism. 

Hook 'em.

[Bash Riprock 1695]

On 8/7/2020 at 8:47 AM, Cheeseweasel said:

"All the world's a stage & we are merely players, performers and portrayers"

-G. Lee

"You miss 100 % the shots you don't take". Michael Scott

[Brisketexan 104465]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

We all want.

Economic mobility is an impossibility for most Americans. That is what concerns me the most.

We are stifling competition - the essence of Adam Smith's capitalism. 

Hook 'em.

In the US, it is significantly HARDER to compete, and HARDER to be mobile, than it was a generation ago.  If what we had here was brilliant capitalism, the literal OPPOSITE would be true.

We shriek and fight to protect an economic system that we don't even have.

[Huckleberry 32685]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We shriek and fight to protect an economic system that we don't even have.

This is definitely the main issue. I agree with those who say capitalism is the superior model. The problem is that the United States is not currently a competitive capitalistic system. It's crony capitalism at best. 

Competitive capitalism is the best system to have, but to ensure that system the government has to get involved sometimes. Preventing monopolies is the obvious example. 

Once industry leaders grow large enough they will begin to stifle competition in order to maintain their profits, growth, and market share. That is to be expected. And once that happens, innovation in the economy begins to decrease because the competition isn't there anymore. There is a delicate balance that many lost sight of long ago. 

Interestingly, industry giants must be cut down sometimes for the exact same reason that communist systems are turned more quickly to authoritarianism than capitalistic democracies. People with power want to keep that power. They want to consolidate it and increase it. That is bad for society whether it's a central government or a mega-corporation.

[Nicole44 22023]

22 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You make terrible posts and I'm one of the few people who doesn't dogpile your inanity. This exchange speaks for itself but I will ask you again to actually address the topic. 

Do you understand that defunding the police does not mean eliminating them? Do you admit that this has nothing to do with capitalism versus socialism? 

Yes. I understand. What defunding means. It does not mean eliminate. I can read. I disagree with your stance on this topic and several others as well. I hadn’t realized that people “dogpile my inanity.” Thanks. That actually made me smile. 

[sidis 9713]

40 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Participation =/= control, but you knew that.  Grand canyon-sized differences between a communist person and a functioning communist state.  But you knew that. 

would you agree that there is a grand canyon-sized difference between a collectivist state with a murderous despot at the helm vs. a collectivist state that doesn't have a murderous despot at the helm?  because you don't seem to believe such a thing is possible.

40 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The early american economies were agrarian (subsistence farming & export).  The fuck are you babbling about?

i'm nearly certain that there is a point that you think you are making here...but i am not sure what it is.

 

41 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Yeah, no shit.  Scarcity and famine have always been one of the key tenets of Socialism/Communism.  We have dozens of recent examples in countries across the globe. 

Jesus, from your own link - you are making comparison of a freshly independent, fledgling nation accosted by one of the worst famines in their countries history with little to no organic infrastructure.  LOL

On the other hand, given the political system of post‐independence India, it is extremely hard for any government in office—whether at the state level or at the centre—to get away with neglecting prompt and extensive anti‐famine measures at the first signs of a famine. 

sometimes i feel like i am on some sort of "punk'd" or "candid camera" type show when I post on this website.

[BabaYaga 15202]

28 minutes ago, sidis said:

would you agree that there is a grand canyon-sized difference between a collectivist state with a murderous despot at the helm vs. a collectivist state that doesn't have a murderous despot at the helm?  because you don't seem to believe such a thing is possible.

Would you agree that such a system that promotes such a top-down, centralized command and control ecosystem facilitates despotism.  As the adage goes, absolute power....the model inevitably produces scarcity, leading to unrest, leading to draconian measures to maintain power after a use of force is almost always needed to implement the policies in the first place.  Again...

A government that controls everything can quash dissent by changing the economic situation of anyone who is pointing out their defects.

Socialism and Communism are never voluntary.  There is a reason they must be implemented by force, then maintained by a nationalized police force

 

[GringoSalado 1651]

38 minutes ago, sidis said:

would you agree that there is a grand canyon-sized difference between a collectivist state with a murderous despot at the helm vs. a collectivist state that doesn't have a murderous despot at the helm?  because you don't seem to believe such a thing is possible.

Are there any examples of this? I've never understood how you do collectivism w/out authoritarianism, and that usually involves murderous despots.

[workswithseed 2033]

2 hours ago, Nicole44 said:

How much you got? 

Enough to buy a cheap dinner.

[Brisketexan 104465]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Would you agree that such a system that promotes such a top-down, centralized command and control ecosystem facilitates despotism.  As the adage goes, absolute power....the model inevitably produces scarcity, leading to unrest, leading to draconian measures to maintain power after a use of force is almost always needed to implement the policies in the first place.  Again...

A government that controls everything can quash dissent by changing the economic situation of anyone who is pointing out their defects.

Socialism and Communism are never voluntary.  There is a reason they must be implemented by force, then maintained by a nationalized police force

 

"Socialism" also happens to be one of the most twisted, misunderstood words in political thought.

There are numerous things that, say, Germany, or Denmark, or Ireland do that, when proposed here, provoke screams of "NO! THAT'S SOCIALISM!".....yet I don't see jackbooted authoritarians forcing the masses to submit in any of those places.

So, either the lazy definition of "socialism" is dead-wrong, or your thesis about what it takes to impose "socialism" is dead wrong.

[BabaYaga 15202]

47 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Competitive capitalism is the best system to have, but to ensure that system the government has to get involved sometimes. Preventing monopolies is the obvious example. 

Once industry leaders grow large enough they will begin to stifle competition in order to maintain their profits, growth, and market share. That is to be expected. And once that happens, innovation in the economy begins to decrease because the competition isn't there anymore. There is a delicate balance that many lost sight of long ago. 

Interestingly, industry giants must be cut down sometimes for the exact same reason that communist systems are turned more quickly to authoritarianism than capitalistic democracies. People with power want to keep that power. They want to consolidate it and increase it. That is bad for society whether it's a central government or a mega-corporation.

Often, a bloated, bureaucratic government is what engenders cronyism.  Large corporations hate competition and will pay almost any sum to avoid it.  Projects that have the potential to be highly profitable conveniently do not get financing.  Other pet projects from politicians are lavished with government funds and lax regulations, etc.  Monies are squandered, and worse, economy does not develop as quickly or efficiently as it might because finite resources (credit) are directed away.  The argument to keep this in check is a strong, independent judiciary....though we see how well that is working out.

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Would you agree that such a system that promotes such a top-down, centralized command and control ecosystem facilitates despotism.  As the adage goes, absolute power....the model inevitably produces scarcity, leading to unrest, leading to draconian measures to maintain power after a use of force is almost always needed to implement the policies in the first place.  Again...

A government that controls everything can quash dissent by changing the economic situation of anyone who is pointing out their defects.

Socialism and Communism are never voluntary.  There is a reason they must be implemented by force, then maintained by a nationalized police force

 

i would agree that whomever controls the resources controls the government. 

part of what this thread is missing is that governmental systems do not necessarily equal economic systems. democracies can vote for socialist policies (hint: look around, dude). democracy can also create oligarchies (hint: looks around, dude).

just because the wolf cloaks itself in sheep's wool does not make it a sheep. pretty much everything you describe in your post exists in the united states of america. the control is not centralized in the government, but in the top x% (x=somewhere between 1%-5%). however, the government basically does what that top x% want, just like in every other state and economic system in the world that has ever existed. only in places where the income is more evenly distributed is the power more evenly distributed. whenever there is a concentration of wealth, regardless of governmental or economic system, there is a concentration of power.

i will say that communism is an effective means to concentrate those resources. however, capitalism is also pretty fucking effective at it. it may take longer, but it might even prove more insidious. 

to ignore that is the ultimate folly, imo.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:

Are there any examples of this? I've never understood how you do collectivism w/out authoritarianism, and that usually involves murderous despots.

Yeah there aren't any examples.  The communes died with the 60's. The peasants died by the hundreds of millions with the collectivism of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot.  

[BabaYaga 15202]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

pretty much everything you describe in your post exists in the united states of america. the control is not centralized in the government,

Pretty big difference right out of the gate

 

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i will say that communism is an effective means to concentrate those resources.

Not in the long term.  Not in any sustainable, multi-generational way, no.  

[Bevo 13493]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"Socialism" also happens to be one of the most twisted, misunderstood words in political thought.

There are numerous things that, say, Germany, or Denmark, or Ireland do that, when proposed here, provoke screams of "NO! THAT'S SOCIALISM!".....yet I don't see jackbooted authoritarians forcing the masses to submit in any of those places.

So, either the lazy definition of "socialism" is dead-wrong, or your thesis about what it takes to impose "socialism" is dead wrong.

In your mind, what is the difference between socialism and progressivism? To me there is a sliding scale of any belief whereby each person sees themselves or their leaders differently than others see them.

[workswithseed 2033]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"Socialism" also happens to be one of the most twisted, misunderstood words in political thought.

There are numerous things that, say, Germany, or Denmark, or Ireland do that, when proposed here, provoke screams of "NO! THAT'S SOCIALISM!".....yet I don't see jackbooted authoritarians forcing the masses to submit in any of those places.

So, either the lazy definition of "socialism" is dead-wrong, or your thesis about what it takes to impose "socialism" is dead wrong.

As I see it, if Sweden went from a socialist state to a capitalist dreamscape in 40 years, then why do what Sweden did? I'm gonna take a big guess and say other states will figure this out as well.

[wildcat09 29187]

What, precisely, is the difference between the "collectivism" practiced in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia, and the collectivism practiced in Germany/France/UK/etc. today?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Bevo said:

In your mind, what is the difference between socialism and progressivism? To me there is a sliding scale of any belief whereby each person sees themselves or their leaders differently than others see them.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

What, precisely, is the difference between the "collectivism" practiced in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia, and the collectivism practiced in Germany/France/UK/etc. today?

Define collectivism in the European countries.

Edited August 10, 2020 by Onboard 2.0