Interesting Article On Modern Day Socialism.

[jackflash]

The speaker in the below link has definitely done his homework. I identify most closely to the Classical Liberal(Libertarian) philosophy so my viewpoints are directed more towards individual achievement/Liberty etc., though I as well appreciate the end results that 'combined effort' can create to benefit mankind. I am an individual who relates to the sod(farmer), non-typical pets, small town America, the slow life etc. This being said I realize that there remains folks who see life, society, & accomplishment from vastly different perspectives than I do. I would appreciate your opinions regarding the below vid.

 

[forkup]

The speaker in the below link has definitely done his homework. I identify most closely to the Classical Liberal(Libertarian) philosophy so my viewpoints are directed more towards individual achievement/Liberty etc., though I as well appreciate the end results that 'combined effort' can create to benefit mankind. I am an individual who relates to the sod(farmer), non-typical pets, small town America, the slow life etc. This being said I realize that there remains folks who see life, society, & accomplishment from vastly different perspectives than I do. I would appreciate your opinions regarding the below vid.

I saw it in it's entirety.

What strikes me is how much conflating he does in 12 minutes. Marxism, socialism, Social Democracy,Sweden, Venezuela, wokeness, anti Western-civilalization, all are seemingly the same thing.

As a general point. When someone is hailing Mussolini for arresting someone for his political views, it might be a good idea to examine what's being said carefully.

As I see it. And I know my history. Marxism was the reaction to exploitation of the working class during the industrial revolution. It caused workers to organize. Resulting in basically everything and anything that improved the lives of the workers to the point that they didn't just produce but also consumed the fruits of their labor. This in turn increasing production and helping Capitalism.


My point is, that at it's core, and in reality Capitalism and Socialism aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, without some aspects of both, the end result is a kleptocracy packed in an ideology.

The person in this clip favors the kleptocracy disguised in the ideology of Capitalism. No regulations, no accountability, just a naked want to accrue wealth at any cost. A viewpoint that is popular in the US and has caused it to have the highest income inequality in the Western world.

You could juxtapose this with modern day Russia. Which is basically a derivative of Communism where the ruling class takes out all the wealth of a country and directly deposits it in their bank accounts.

Different sides of the same coin.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I saw it in it's entirety.

What strikes me is how much conflating he does in 12 minutes. Marxism, socialism, Social Democracy,Sweden, Venezuela, wokeness, anti Western-civilalization, all are seemingly the same thing.

As a general point. When someone is hailing Mussolini for arresting someone for his political views, it might be a good idea to examine what's being said carefully.

As I see it. And I know my history. Marxism was the reaction to exploitation of the working class during the industrial revolution. It caused workers to organize. Resulting in basically everything and anything that improved the lives of the workers to the point that they didn't just produce but also consumed the fruits of their labor. This in turn increasing production and helping Capitalism.


My point is, that at it's core, and in reality Capitalism and Socialism aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, without some aspects of both, the end result is a kleptocracy packed in an ideology.

The person in this clip favors the kleptocracy disguised in the ideology of Capitalism. No regulations, no accountability, just a naked want to accrue wealth at any cost. A viewpoint that is popular in the US and has caused it to have the highest income inequality in the Western world.

You could juxtapose this with modern day Russia. Which is basically a derivative of Communism where the ruling class takes out all the wealth of a country and directly deposits it in their bank accounts.

Different sides of the same coin.

Just a bunch of hot button, knee-jerk phrases strung together to elicit an emotional response devoid of rational analysis. An ardent supporter of Randism--I.E. laissez-faire capitalism.
I agree, an amalgam of economic and social theories is needed. Here in the United States, we've been moving towards that since the 1930's and the New Deal.
Marxism, as written, does not really exist outside of the classroom..and never really did. As soon as it met reality it was corrupted and co-opted by those who used the promise of a better way to gain and maintain power.
In Russia, it was a case of culture trumping ideology, once again. A large uneducated mass ruled by a small elite. Instead of Czar and Boyers..they called them General Secretary and Central Committee.
Now it's Putin and the Oligarchs--but the mechanism is the same...strong man and his cronies.

To me, Socialism is like salt..a little makes it all better...too much ruins the dish~

 

[forkup]

Just a bunch of hot button, knee-jerk phrases strung together to elicit an emotional response devoid of rational analysis. An ardent supporter of Randism--I.E. laissez-faire capitalism.
I agree, an amalgam of economic and social theories is needed. Here in the United States, we've been moving towards that since the 1930's and the New Deal.
Marxism, as written, does not really exist outside of the classroom..and never really did. As soon as it met reality it was corrupted and co-opted by those who used the promise of a better way to gain and maintain power.
In Russia, it was a case of culture trumping ideology, once again. A large uneducated mass ruled by a small elite. Instead of Czar and Boyers..they called them General Secretary and Central Committee.
Now it's Putin and the Oligarchs--but the mechanism is the same...strong man and his cronies.

To me, Socialism is like salt..a little makes it all better...too much ruins the dish~

I agree. What strikes me how long this debate has been going on. The views of the guy in the clip are basically identical to those of someone like Carnegie.

The OP doesn't need to imagine what a libertarian world looks like. We've seen it before. It was a world were some people accrued vast amounts of wealth, while the vast majority worked 12 hour days or more, six out of seven, until they literally dropped dead. Where young children worked, so the family could have an income that maybe reached as high as starvation wages. Where companies hired Pinkerton's to break up strikes. That's the world the guy is calling for.

The whole "cultural Marxism" thing is simply a way to defend that viewpoint. It's a hell of a lot easier to explain culture war concepts, than it is to explain to people why there should be no affordable education and anti-trust laws are a bad thing. So conflate culture wars with Marxism and people will be willing to vote against their own interests.

 

[expat_panama]

I agree. What strikes me how long this debate has been going on....

It may be a result of something very natural in the human experience, that socialism is another form of the adolescent "reality is picking on me" story.

Kids complain about their parents and then get a job & complain about their employers. If they grow up they become the parents they once complained about and if they don't grow up they become socialists.

 

[forkup]

It may be a result of something very natural in the human experience, that socialism is another form of the adolescent "reality is picking on me" story.

Kids complain about their parents and then get a job & complain about their employers. If they grow up they become the parents they once complained about and if they don't grow up they become socialists.

Carnegie was bitching before Socialism had taken root anywhere. In fact it were those concept that caused him to bitch.

"If my employees take collective action my profit margins will suffer." The same argument someone like Bezos has when he doesn't allow unions in his warehouses.

You're right it's about something natural in the human experience. It's called "greed", "I have, or want something, and I will do anything, including hurting other people to keep or get it." It predates the concept of Socialism by thousands of years.

 

[rampart]

The speaker in the below link has definitely done his homework. I identify most closely to the Classical Liberal(Libertarian) philosophy so my viewpoints are directed more towards individual achievement/Liberty etc., though I as well appreciate the end results that 'combined effort' can create to benefit mankind. I am an individual who relates to the sod(farmer), non-typical pets, small town America, the slow life etc. This being said I realize that there remains folks who see life, society, & accomplishment from vastly different perspectives than I do. I would appreciate your opinions regarding the below vid.

no, it is a tired retake on von mises' broad generalizations during european fascist era of marx's already decades old mani8festo.l

sorry. but bernie sanders is not going to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat.

 

[pknopp]

I saw it in it's entirety.

What strikes me is how much conflating he does in 12 minutes. Marxism, socialism, Social Democracy,Sweden, Venezuela, wokeness, anti Western-civilalization, all are seemingly the same thing.

Thanks, now I don't have to bother.

 

[Votto]

Just a bunch of hot button, knee-jerk phrases strung together to elicit an emotional response devoid of rational analysis. An ardent supporter of Randism--I.E. laissez-faire capitalism.
I agree, an amalgam of economic and social theories is needed. Here in the United States, we've been moving towards that since the 1930's and the New Deal.
Marxism, as written, does not really exist outside of the classroom..and never really did. As soon as it met reality it was corrupted and co-opted by those who used the promise of a better way to gain and maintain power.
In Russia, it was a case of culture trumping ideology, once again. A large uneducated mass ruled by a small elite. Instead of Czar and Boyers..they called them General Secretary and Central Committee.
Now it's Putin and the Oligarchs--but the mechanism is the same...strong man and his cronies.

To me, Socialism is like salt..a little makes it all better...too much ruins the dish~

No despot falls in love with an ideology for the sake of an ideology to marry it, rather, a despot is attracted to an ideology that is the best tool for obtaining and exercising his power that he treats like a whore.

It just so happens that for most despots, Marxism fits the bill because for it to have a remote chance of working, the state requires complete control over the entire individual. Every financial transaction and every word spoken must be documented with the ability of the government to redistribute wealth with each financial transaction and to redistribute social justice regarding every word spoken.

But these same despots have no problem breaking tenants of the said ideology, they simply don't care.

Then you get rubes saying, "But they did not follow Marxism to the letter, so you can't judge Marxism because it was not followed properly", so they try it again, and again, and again, with the same exact results which is the worst oppression mankind has seen in human history, murdering hundreds of millions.

Sad.

 

[forkup]

Thanks, now I don't have to bother.

jackflash seemed to solicit an honest opinion. Can't really give one without watching.

If anything, it's interesting to note how seemingly serious people. Like the guy in the clip have too make such strained arguments too make their point.

 

[pknopp]

jackflash seemed to solicit an honest opinion. Can't really give one without watching.

If anything, it's interesting to note how seemingly serious people. Like the guy in the clip have too make such strained arguments too make their point.

That's the way nearly 95% of these types of video's are. One wastes a lot of time watching 100 video's to catch 5 worth watching.

I've argued over and over that people argue economic theories as opposed to the realities we face daily.

Many people argue "Capitalism" and I point out actual Capitalism doesn't actually exist anywhere and ask those promoting it why that is.

Maybe one day I'll get an answer.

 

[forkup]

That's the way nearly 95% of these types of video's are. One wastes a lot of time watching 100 video's to catch 5 worth watching.

I've argued over and over that people argue economic theories as opposed to the realities we face daily.

Many people argue "Capitalism" and I point out actual Capitalism doesn't actually exist anywhere and ask those promoting it why that is.

Maybe one day I'll get an answer.

This one was only 12 minutes. That's at my outer limits of BS, lol.

As for your answer. I think you'll be disappointed. It's basically the premise of my posts. And weirdly enough similar to that of Votto. Only from a different perspective.

He seems to identify "Marxism" as the problem. Claiming they're using that ideology as a fig leaf to get power.

I come at it from the perspective that both what he would consider "Marxism", and I would refer to as Social Democracy, and Capitalism are used as a justification for those that have power to remain in power. And the only way to prevent it is to use both.

Votto thinks that only "Marxism" leads to excesses.

As long as people aren't capable of acknowledging that the discussion is simply a way to distract, none of the people you want to answer will. Because answering means they'll have to admit that neither Capitalism or Marxism leads to a perfect society.

 

[Votto]

This one was only 12 minutes. That's at my outer limits of BS, lol.

As for your answer. I think you'll be disappointed. It's basically the premise of my posts. And weirdly enough similar to that of Votto. Only from a different perspective.

He seems to identify "Marxism" as the problem. Claiming they're using that ideology as a fig leaf to get power.

I come at it from the perspective that both what he would consider "Marxism", and I would refer to as Social Democracy, and Capitalism are used as a justification for those that have power to remain in power. And the only way to prevent it is to use both.

Votto thinks that only "Marxism" leads to excesses.

As long as people aren't capable of acknowledging that the discussion is simply a way to distract, none of the people you want to answer will. Because answering means they'll have to admit that neither Capitalism or Marxism leads to a perfect society.

China turned to capitalism, not because they love capitalism, it is because they wanted economic power. Their turn to capitalism indicates an admission that the former Marxist economic stance was inferior and faulty in this regard. However, they did a wonderful job allowing capitalism while closely controlling those corporate entities. And really, power is all that matters to a Marxist.

The US is now learning from China on how to better control corporate entities as they unveiled their new ESG system. It mirrors the Chinese social credit system that requires people to be rated on that system based on how PC they are. That way, if a business does not want to be woke or environmentally friendly, for example, they are ostracized and left for dead.

That helps keep corporations in a group think mode that shuns disunity via diversity.

 

[pknopp]

China turned to capitalism, not because they love capitalism, it is because they wanted economic power.

Did they?

China's favored state-owned companies squeeze private sector

Market cap of private concerns drops 60% in two and a half years, study finds

asia.nikkei.com

 

[Votto]

Did they?

China's favored state-owned companies squeeze private sector

Market cap of private concerns drops 60% in two and a half years, study finds

asia.nikkei.com

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2013/how-china-became-capitalist

Again, China is not looking to expand freedom with capitalism, just increase their power is all.

They have shown the world that you can squeeze the freedom out of capitalism as you can everything else.

This has caused the Left in the US to want to be just like them.

After all, freedom allows people to do and say bad things, and we can't have that now can we?

 

[forkup]

China turned to capitalism, not because they love capitalism, it is because they wanted economic power. Their turn to capitalism indicates an admission that the former Marxist economic stance was inferior and faulty in this regard. However, they did a wonderful job allowing capitalism while closely controlling those corporate entities. And really, power is all that matters to a Marxist.

The US is now learning from China on how to better control corporate entities as they unveiled their new ESG system. It mirrors the Chinese social credit system that requires people to be rated on that system based on how PC they are. That way, if a business does not want to be woke or environmentally friendly, for example, they are ostracized and left for dead.

That helps keep corporations in a group think mode that shuns disunity via diversity.

The US is now learning from China on how to better control corporate entities as they unveiled their new ESG system

In other words. China is borrowing elements of Capitalism, and the US is borrowing elements of Marxism.

It's telling how you first claim the Marxist economic system is inferior, only to turn around and claim they're superior in certain aspects.

Ever consider the possibility that both have advantages and disadvantages?

 

[expat_panama]

Carnegie was bitching before Socialism had taken root anywhere. In fact it were those concept that caused him to bitch.

"If my employees take collective action my profit margins will suffer." The same argument someone like Bezos has when he doesn't allow unions in his warehouses.

You're right it's about something natural in the human experience. It's called "greed", "I have, or want something, and I will do anything, including hurting other people to keep or get it." It predates the concept of Socialism by thousands of years.

Actually, the Socialist Labor Party was formed in the U.S. back in 1876, and their descendant American Socialist Party had some pretty good ideas: child labor laws, workman's compensation, 8-hour day, etc.

These were positive moves forward and mho is that we need to focus more on what we want and not what we hate. What's good is that people create wealth. A good way to create wealth is to hang around rich people --that's why so much of the world wants to live in the U.S. We want more rich people, not less.

 

[forkup]

Actually, the Socialist Labor Party was formed in the U.S. back in 1876, and their descendant American Socialist Party had some pretty good ideas: child labor laws, workman's compensation, 8-hour day, etc.

These were positive moves forward and mho is that we need to focus more on what we want and not what we hate. What's good is that people create wealth. A good way to create wealth is to hang around rich people --that's why so much of the world wants to live in the U.S. We want more rich people, not less.

Carnegie was born in 1835.

And I have nothing against rich people. What I have a problem with, is the idea that society should be formed SOLELY around the idea of being rich. That's why you need those "pretty good ideas" coming out of the Socialist Movement. All those "pretty good ideas were opposed by the rich at the time, and where only achieved by forcing them. Causing more people to be able to attain a higher standard of living.

As to what we want and what we hate. That's too vague. What specifically are you talking about?

 

[jackflash]

Just a bunch of hot button, knee-jerk phrases strung together to elicit an emotional response devoid of rational analysis. An ardent supporter of Randism--I.E. laissez-faire capitalism.
I agree, an amalgam of economic and social theories is needed. Here in the United States, we've been moving towards that since the 1930's and the New Deal.
Marxism, as written, does not really exist outside of the classroom..and never really did. As soon as it met reality it was corrupted and co-opted by those who used the promise of a better way to gain and maintain power.
In Russia, it was a case of culture trumping ideology, once again. A large uneducated mass ruled by a small elite. Instead of Czar and Boyers..they called them General Secretary and Central Committee.
Now it's Putin and the Oligarchs--but the mechanism is the same...strong man and his cronies.

To me, Socialism is like salt..a little makes it all better...too much ruins the dish~

EEF; That human condition(human nature) is a real S.O.B. ain't it? The worst part of it all is that we are stuck with it 24/7! But, trying to correct our human nature is tantamount to a drunk monkey trying to screw a greased football on an ice arena floor, sad but still comical to watch! As my dad once told me, "Kid, let me tell ya, the highway to hell is paved with good intentions." I didn't take his words of wisdom as sincere @ the time but living on this planet for so many years now I have to admit that I think he was right!

 

[jackflash]

Carnegie was bitching before Socialism had taken root anywhere. In fact it were those concept that caused him to bitch.

"If my employees take collective action my profit margins will suffer." The same argument someone like Bezos has when he doesn't allow unions in his warehouses.

You're right it's about something natural in the human experience. It's called "greed", "I have, or want something, and I will do anything, including hurting other people to keep or get it." It predates the concept of Socialism by thousands of years.

Human condition(human nature) again.