Politics Rise of Marxism/Communism.

[M3J]

Thanks for being our resident pro cancel culture guy.

But can you do something other than pointless name calling.

Imagine if I called everyone with a different opinion a troll and said they know nothing. Simply for them having a different opinion from my own.

If diversity is important then should not a diversity of ideas and concepts also be important?

1. Learn what cancel culture is. It doesn't even exist anyway, it's made up by people who don't like to be held accountable.

2. Ironic coming from someone whose sources are dumb memes or biased sources that have been proven false. Based on your posts, I see no reason why I should take you seriously or consider you in any way intelligent enough to really "debate" with.

3. You mean, how the right call everyone with different opinion names like idiot, cuck, snowflake, "un-American," retard, and whatnot? And actually being the divisive ones while acting like victims?

4. This tired point again? Bigotry and hatred should not be important. You have continuously made up facts about the left and whatnot in order to justify your hatred of them and probably get people to hate them. It's funny how you and the right fall back on diversity of ideas and concepts when criticized when you guys are the ones that are opposed to diversity.


Interestingly, even the "capitalist" citizens/voter base support communism to an extent, they just don't know it until someone slaps a label.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 23, 2020, Original Post Date: Dec 23, 2020 ---

I wouldn't call someone an idiot because they had different ideas or different skin color from my own. But apparently in the left wing that is not only acceptable but a way of life.

I'm 95% sure you would and have. Before pointing fingers at the left, look at how guilty the right are.

 

[shionoro]

I feel like it makes sense to use other words for measures that would be deemed socialist today, because the word itself triggers a lot of people.

I am aware that most american modern socialists want something more akin to a scandinavian country and nothing even close to a udssr country. Yet, it makes exactly that harder to sell.

I encountered a lot of double think there. Republican asks me why there is no healthy socialist country. I say norway is one. He says norway is not socialist. I say :"ALright, then lets have these 3 measures norway does done in the US", he says "no, that'd be socialism".
Real doublespeak,

But a lot of socialist measures are good and even popular. We just need better methods to sell them.
Personally, i like the word 'progressive'. Or even couple it and go with 'progressive centrism', a word that signals both finding something better than just very slow incremental change but also finding a solution that benefits everyone.
That is also a word so boring that it is not scary, but still, if the right people embrace it, the leftist bases will still be energized. Just without singing the internationale or arguing about cuba.

 

[Shobu_Yoruichi]

The rise of the cancer, huh?
Yeah, i've seen it. It's happening, it's extremely easy with the amount of ignorance and lack of mental usage out there.

The political ideology known for killing 150 millions of human beings, more than Vietnam or the Nazis... and still on use.
It's in the UN, the WHO and basically everywhere.

I find incredibly interesting how the greed of those corrupted men is performed under the next great migration because of hunger is around the corner, with the excuse of sharing resources (and imaginative resources) equally to all, in order to steal and then flee as soon as possible.

Interesting thread @Ramen
Sadly, pretty self-centered on US.

 

[Sanity Check]

I am aware that most american modern socialists want something more akin to a scandinavian country and nothing even close to a udssr country. Yet, it makes exactly that harder to sell.

American modern socialists: "I'm so smart because I don't believe in God."

American modern socialists: --Blindly believe in gender fluidity, 200+ genders and many things far more insane than the concept of God--

They can't be credited with a consistent ideology they adhere to.

Many of their current talking points are 100% the opposite of what they were said only a few years ago.



American modern socialists in 2010: "Islam and religion are the root of all evil in the world."

American modern socialists in 2020: "We must adopt open borders to accept more islamic migrants, diversity is important."

...

Consistency is the opposite of what socialists are known for.

I encountered a lot of double think there. Republican asks me why there is no healthy socialist country. I say norway is one. He says norway is not socialist. I say :"ALright, then lets have these 3 measures norway does done in the US", he says "no, that'd be socialism".
Real doublespeak,

Norway is a sparsely populated nation of 5 million.

Being sparsely populated with a small population automatically negates most of the problems larger nations like the united states with its population of 300+ million have.

But a lot of socialist measures are good and even popular. We just need better methods to sell them.
Personally, i like the word 'progressive'. Or even couple it and go with 'progressive centrism', a word that signals both finding something better than just very slow incremental change but also finding a solution that benefits everyone.
That is also a word so boring that it is not scary, but still, if the right people embrace it, the leftist bases will still be energized. Just without singing the internationale or arguing about cuba.

NASA is socialist. Space X is capitalist.

One makes rockets at low cost with cutting edge technology(SpaceX). The other is too inefficient and dysfunctional to make rockets despite having a far larger budget(NASA).

The reason socialism is popular is people not knowing basics behind these precedents.

...

...

edit


Great content for anyone interested in this topic btw ^

 

[M3J]

Is it me or does anyone else get the impression that Sanity Check pulls everything out of his ass?

 

[shionoro]

Norway is a sparsely populated nation of 5 million.

Being sparsely populated with a small population automatically negates most of the problems larger nations like the united states with its population of 300+ million have.

That argument is often brought forward but it is very wrong.
If NOrway would be a US state, it would be bigger than half of them. So whatever works in norway would automatically work in half of the US states, who usually handle important things like healthcare, police and schoolthings largely on their own.

The US is a federation of most small states. Only few of them like california or FLorida are of moderate size. As a point of reference: If poland would be a US state, it would be the biggest one, even tho it is just the fifth biggest european country.

There is no actual reason to think that the norway prison system, the norway healthcare system or the norway minimum wage would not work well in states like georgia.

 

[xi0]

American modern socialists: "I'm so smart because I don't believe in God."

American modern socialists: --Blindly believe in gender fluidity, 200+ genders and many things far more insane than the concept of God--

They can't be credited with a consistent ideology they adhere to.

Many of their current talking points are 100% the opposite of what they were said only a few years ago.



American modern socialists in 2010: "Islam and religion are the root of all evil in the world."

American modern socialists in 2020: "We must adopt open borders to accept more islamic migrants, diversity is important."

...

Consistency is the opposite of what socialists are known for.

Gender fluidity doesn't require blind belief. The entire reason some people have an issue with religion and a belief in God is because that is what it requires.

You're expecting consistent ideology when you're not even talking about the same group of people. There is no unified socialist platform that people adhere to. You're only tilting at windmills in regards to concepts you don't understand and willingly refuse to attempt to understand, like gender. Or bellyaching about the country accepting migrants of any race, religion, or creed. Something they've done forever.

NASA is socialist. Space X is capitalist.

One makes rockets at low cost with cutting edge technology(SpaceX). The other is too inefficient and dysfunctional to make rockets despite having a far larger budget(NASA).

The reason socialism is popular is people not knowing basics behind these precedents.

NASA is a government agency whose means of production still largely exists in the private sector. There's nothing socialist about it at all, in fact one could say its reduced budget is a result of crony capitalism awarding government subsidies to large conglomerates.

 

[Ramen]

NASA is socialist?

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 27, 2020, Original Post Date: Dec 27, 2020 ---

The rise of the cancer, huh?
Yeah, i've seen it. It's happening, it's extremely easy with the amount of ignorance and lack of mental usage out there.

The political ideology known for killing 150 millions of human beings, more than Vietnam or the Nazis... and still on use.
It's in the UN, the WHO and basically everywhere.

I find incredibly interesting how the greed of those corrupted men is performed under the next great migration because of hunger is around the corner, with the excuse of sharing resources (and imaginative resources) equally to all, in order to steal and then flee as soon as possible.

Interesting thread @Ramen
Sadly, pretty self-centered on US.

I made this with focusing on Europe lol.

 

[Sanity Check]

NASA's Shuttle Program Cost $209 Billion — Was it Worth It?

NASA has spent 39 years and more than $209 billion on its iconic shuttle program. With the final shuttle mission to launch July 8, now is as good a time as any to ask: Was it worth it?

www.space.com

Socialist NASA spent $209 billion to develop the space shuttle ^

Capitalist Space X spent how much to develop their rocket technology.

...



All you have to do is read this headline:

SpaceX Spends 320 Times Less on Building the Dragon Than NASA Does on the Orion

SpaceX’s Dragon capsule was in the news once again when NASA announced that it passed a design review for a manned launch. NASA is expecting Dragon — and at least one other of the three capsules it selected for its commercial crew development…

www.mic.com

Capitalism can do the same job socialism does. 300 times cheaper. And better.

...

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 5, 2021, Original Post Date: Jan 5, 2021 ---

That argument is often brought forward but it is very wrong.
If NOrway would be a US state, it would be bigger than half of them. So whatever works in norway would automatically work in half of the US states, who usually handle important things like healthcare, police and schoolthings largely on their own.

The US is a federation of most small states. Only few of them like california or FLorida are of moderate size. As a point of reference: If poland would be a US state, it would be the biggest one, even tho it is just the fifth biggest european country.

There is no actual reason to think that the norway prison system, the norway healthcare system or the norway minimum wage would not work well in states like georgia.

Think about what you said carefully.

Then try to explain why sparsely populated rural areas have lower crime, better average health and less pollution in contrast to densely populated cities.

Essentially you're saying a big city like New York could enjoy the same health benefits and low crime rates a sparsely populated country like norway enjoys which is intrinsically impossible.

 

[M3J]

Nah, it is possible for NYC to have extremely low crime rate and great health benefits if capitalism wasn't designed to keep people poor or middle class, and if majority of our tax money went back to us in some form, like infrastructures, welfare, and whatnot. But then again, I've seen most right wingers not understand economical or social issues in regards to anything.

 

[xi0]

NASA's Shuttle Program Cost $209 Billion — Was it Worth It?

NASA has spent 39 years and more than $209 billion on its iconic shuttle program. With the final shuttle mission to launch July 8, now is as good a time as any to ask: Was it worth it?

www.space.com

Socialist NASA spent $209 billion to develop the space shuttle ^

Capitalist Space X spent how much to develop their rocket technology.

...



All you have to do is read this headline:

SpaceX Spends 320 Times Less on Building the Dragon Than NASA Does on the Orion

SpaceX’s Dragon capsule was in the news once again when NASA announced that it passed a design review for a manned launch. NASA is expecting Dragon — and at least one other of the three capsules it selected for its commercial crew development…

www.mic.com

Capitalism can do the same job socialism does. 300 times cheaper. And better.

None of these things suggest NASA is "socialist". Government bureaucracy, poor management, or comparing it to a company with far less red tape that only answers to stockholders doesn't make a government agency "socialist". The equipment NASA uses is made by private industry. Did the US government make the rocket engines for the Space Shuttle? No, Rocketdyne did. What about the orbiter? No, Rockwell did. What about the ISS? No, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, etc did.

If a capitalist method is a "better" avenue, then why did SpaceX accept NASA funding for the development of Falcon 9 and Dragon? Explain NASA's entire history of accomplishments despite being "socialist". Your own faulty logic defeats your point here.

 

[Sanity Check]

If socialism is a competitive and cost effective model.

Why isn't it currently deployed to build automobiles, produce goods and services in a competitive atmosphere vs capitalist enterprise.

If socialism can't compete vs capitalism on a 1:1 scale, what purported value does it have.

 

[shionoro]

hink about what you said carefully.

Then try to explain why sparsely populated rural areas have lower crime, better average health and less pollution in contrast to densely populated cities.

Essentially you're saying a big city like New York could enjoy the same health benefits and low crime rates a sparsely populated country like norway enjoys which is intrinsically impossible.

Yes, they could. Or at least they could be far lower. The US does not have terribly many huge cities. All over the US, there are only 22 cities that are bigger than norway's capital, Oslo (which is a densely populated urban area).
Yet, Oslo has far, far less crime than smaller cities in rural states like memphis, atlanta or fort wayne.

A system that works, works. Population density is an argument for SOME more crime, because bigger cities tend to attract organized and petty crime more than smaller ones. It is certainly not a reason to think there needs to be FAR more crime. But US cities have far more crime, even the ones which are smaller than Oslo and less densely populated.

 

[ninjabot]

I THINK the most likely identifier for me is SocDem. I'm a huge Vaush fan, and love the idea of market socialism, but think the ideal market economy would be somewhere in between capitalism and socialism... but heavily skewed more towards the socialist side.

So maybe DemSoc? Ugh, it's so confusing, lol. I just know I'm pro UBI, universal healthcare, and worker co-ops.

I haven't read any "theory" as the meme says though. I typically just call myself a "leftist" when people ask my political leanings.

 

[kkck]

I consider myself a capitalist and am in favor of social democracy (basically european welfare systems). The government owning or controlling means of production is just an absurd idea that history proves doesn't work (but that doesn't mean the government can't provide services or care for it's citizens).

 

[ninjabot]

I consider myself a capitalist and am in favor of social democracy (basically european welfare systems). The government owning or controlling means of production is just an absurd idea that history proves doesn't work (but that doesn't mean the government can't provide services or care for it's citizens).

Right, but I'm not advocating for the government owning the MoP. I advocate for the people owning the MoP. If I remember correctly that's what market socialism is. Though I can see how wanting things like UBI and universal health care makes it seem like that's what I'm asking for. I don't think that's the only way to acquire my ideal market economy.

 

[kkck]

Right, but I'm not advocating for the government owning the MoP. I advocate for the people owning the MoP. If I remember correctly that's what market socialism is. Though I can see how wanting things like UBI and universal health care makes it seem like that's what I'm asking for. I don't think that's the only way to acquire my ideal market economy.

In practice I would argue those two are the same. I mean, how do you have "the people" own the means of production? Do you distribute shares from means of production equally across the people? One way or the other you get back to the government handling this. In the failed socialists models from the 20th century (cuba, the soviet union, you name it) this is pretty much what they went for.

 

[M3J]

I consider myself a capitalist and am in favor of social democracy (basically european welfare systems). The government owning or controlling means of production is just an absurd idea that history proves doesn't work (but that doesn't mean the government can't provide services or care for it's citizens).

you suck

In all seriousness though, crimes can drastically reduce if communities get increased funding, and its people get support and aid. Oftentimes, most people are forced to resort to committing crimes like robbery in order to put food in their bellies or make ends meet, and by ensuring that they have access to hot meals at all times, this can reduce the rate. Not to mention, offenders probably relapse because there's no other way. They barely make enough in prison to support themselves once/if they get out, so what else can they do?

Imagine if NYC pumped the money into making its transit fares cheaper instead of hiring police to watch for fare jumpers. More people are likely to actually buy fares than be compelled to jump because they can't afford the tickets, especially if they have a low paying job. Plus, if the cities have money to turn spaces into anti-homeless spaces, then they have the money to support the homeless people.

What irks me about people who defend capitalism is that the wealthy shouldn't have any justification for hoarding wealth. If the top 50 wealthiest people combined put their money and resources into helping the poor and vulnerable, then they'd still be among the richest. YOu can complain that socialism has killed millions of people, but capitalism isn't any better.

 

[kkck]

you suck

In all seriousness though, crimes can drastically reduce if communities get increased funding, and its people get support and aid. Oftentimes, most people are forced to resort to committing crimes like robbery in order to put food in their bellies or make ends meet, and by ensuring that they have access to hot meals at all times, this can reduce the rate. Not to mention, offenders probably relapse because there's no other way. They barely make enough in prison to support themselves once/if they get out, so what else can they do?

Imagine if NYC pumped the money into making its transit fares cheaper instead of hiring police to watch for fare jumpers. More people are likely to actually buy fares than be compelled to jump because they can't afford the tickets, especially if they have a low paying job. Plus, if the cities have money to turn spaces into anti-homeless spaces, then they have the money to support the homeless people.

What irks me about people who defend capitalism is that the wealthy shouldn't have any justification for hoarding wealth. If the top 50 wealthiest people combined put their money and resources into helping the poor and vulnerable, then they'd still be among the richest. YOu can complain that socialism has killed millions of people, but capitalism isn't any better.

Welp, as I capitalist I do not oppose increased funding for communities and social programs in general. I will stress a point I have made before (though perhaps not with these words). Capitalism isn't about businesses and hoarding money. Capitalism is about consumers and a capitalist government should implement policy that aims to increase consumer spending power. So that, you know, they can buy shit and the economy keeps going. The problem with republicans nowdays is that their version of capitalism is built around businesses. And thus do every bit of policy around increasing businesses profits and power. in short, the version of capitalism defended by even the most decent republicans is inherently twisted, corrupt and unethical. Let alone the travesty that further right wing members of the party defend..

Socialism in the sense of government (or people) owned means of production has zero victories... Private ownership is fine. But it's unethical and corrupt to suggest that taxes are punishment for success... rather than merely giving back a bit to the system in which you succeeded and doing your share of helping others do well.

 

[M3J]

Welp, as I capitalist I do not oppose increased funding for communities and social programs in general. I will stress a point I have made before (though perhaps not with these words). Capitalism isn't about businesses and hoarding money. Capitalism is about consumers and a capitalist government should implement policy that aims to increase consumer spending power. So that, you know, they can buy shit and the economy keeps going. The problem with republicans nowdays is that their version of capitalism is built around businesses. And thus do every bit of policy around increasing businesses profits and power. in short, the version of capitalism defended by even the most decent republicans is inherently twisted, corrupt and unethical. Let alone the travesty that further right wing members of the party defend..

Socialism in the sense of government (or people) owned means of production has zero victories... Private ownership is fine. But it's unethical and corrupt to suggest that taxes are punishment for success... rather than merely giving back a bit to the system in which you succeeded and doing your share of helping others do well.

The "you suck" was the only thing directed at you. Everything else is just what my views are and not directed at anyone. In case you think I"m accusing you of anything.

Capitalism in America is messed up, it's not as much about consumers as it is about Wall Street and the wealthy. Likely that I am ignorant on capitalism, but it doesn't work in USA, for a reason you pointed out - US focuses too much on businesses and not enough on people, even though people increase profits.

I don't remember people saying taxes are punishment for success, but that taxes should be paid to help other people out, and that the wealthier people should pay more rather than less than middle class or the poor, especially since they can afford it.