What Is American Socialism, Communism, and Marxism: Open Q&A

[d0gbreath]

Anyone who's read Das Kapital knows that Marx predicted where we would be today, in the Usury States of America.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Anyone who's read Das Kapital knows that Marx predicted where we would be today, in the Usury States of America.

I read it and his every prediction failed.

Exactly the opposite has happened

 

[Richard-H]

Anyone who's read Das Kapital knows that Marx predicted where we would be today, in the Usury States of America.

Some people apparently think that while the American people have been dumb enough to become debt slaves, they could have the intelligence to live in a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

 

[Red Front]

Once again, your ranting on and on and changing subjects just show poor writing skills. You babble. You could not pass a high school composition class.

It does seem unusual that a CNC operator would also be a coder. I've worked as an 'Engineering/Technician' on CNC machines. Coders never operate them. I may have physically built the electrical and electronics parts, while machinists built the mechanical parts, but the coders never touched the machines. Odd that you would work as an operator if you had coding skills.

Tin Foil Hat much?

Your first point is nonsense. There was no 'Workers Democracy' in the USSR. There may have been in Caledonia during the Spanish Civil War, but not in the USSR. You see, people aren't fooled by Communist propaganda and lies. We know what Democracy is, and while Communists may talk of 'Workers Democracy' it was nothing but a lie.

Wait I'm wrong. Communists were known to have open discussions, then they executed everyone that disagreed with them, then they held there votes.

Did the millions of people in the USSR that were forcibly relocated and those that died due to the relocation enjoy your 'Worker Democracy'?

Basically, they beat the horse to death, then called it a unicorn.

As for your points 2-5, I've already acknowledged that the USSR did provide for every major economic need of those people who were obedient and they didn't arrest or execute. BUT, all those major economic needs could be provided by Liberalism and Democratic-Socialism without the authoritarianism.

Point Number 5. There were no political OR economic rights in the USSR. Ownership was forbidden for almost everything. The government seized ownership of every significant asset. So if your saying that there were economic rights, they were only for the conformist sheep that had not yet been slaughtered - and those 'rights' went only as far as the government permitted - which means that they were not 'Rights' at all.

Point 7 is circular logic. They had phony Unions that were controlled by the Communist party - that's not a Union. I'm sure that minor grievances where conceded, but anybody that made any substantial problems were dealt with severely.

Your cherry picked history of Stalin's persecutions kind of leaves out a few million people. You don't even mention Beria. Not a very convincing assessment.

In short you propose a totalitarian police state, which murders all that dissent, which has no economic, political or personal freedoms, but only doles out some economic support to the people who are too scared to dissent. You promote a one party state where the government seizes all substantial properties.

Then say that you are for 'True Democracy'

You may be a true socialist in that you want to seize all property, it may be true that I'm not a true socialist because I believe in the rights of the individual and of property ownership. Neither I nor anyone else could give a damn about what a 'True Socialist" is.

Liberals and Democratic socialists have been very successful in creating a very high standard of living everywhere that they have been politically successful (Like most of Western Europe).

We have never succeeded in the U.S. because the Fascist/Capitalists have blocked us - and the primary cause of their blocking us is because of people like you promoting a brutal and idiotic form of government that scares the daylights out of the majority of Americans and gives any form of Liberalism and Social Democracy an bad name.

Once again, your ranting on and on and changing subjects just show poor writing skills. You babble. You could not pass a high school composition class.

You're conveniently ignoring most of the points I make and continue ranting about irrelevant issues, like for example the USSR. Stop with the evasive maneuvering and ad hominem and finally address all of the points that I've made.

It does seem unusual that a CNC operator would also be a coder. I've worked as an 'Engineering/Technician' on CNC machines. Coders never operate them. I may have physically built the electrical and electronics parts, while machinists built the mechanical parts, but the coders never touched the machines. Odd that you would work as an operator if you had coding skills.

I haven't worked as an operator in over a decade, but I sometimes train them. I work with companies as an operations manager and consultant, due to my experience with the hardware and my coding skills. You can believe whatever you want about me.

Your first point is nonsense. There was no 'Workers Democracy' in the USSR. There may have been in Caledonia during the Spanish Civil War, but not in the USSR. You see, people aren't fooled by Communist propaganda and lies. We know what Democracy is, and while Communists may talk of 'Workers Democracy' it was nothing but a lie.

You need to improve your reading comprehension skills because you're at a middle school level at best. I never claimed the USSR was an actual worker's democracy but I did point out some of the freedoms and benefits that existed in the USSR for its workforce, that we generally don't have here in the US. Why are you even talking about the USSR? I've already conveyed to you why it's irrelevant, and you continue to beat this dead horse, in an attempt to prove something.

Wait I'm wrong. Communists were known to have open discussions, then they executed everyone that disagreed with them, then they held there votes.

You have no evidence for your scary campfire stories. All you have are the claims of Western capitalist-funded academia and the rhetoric of the Russian opposition, which hated socialism from the very beginning. They were the oligarchal aristocracy of Russia or those who benefited from them in some way and didn't want their way of life of exploiting the less fortunate to end. Well, boohoo.

​

Did the millions of people in the USSR that were forcibly relocated and those that died due to the relocation enjoy your 'Worker Democracy'?

Do you mean what our capitalist-run US government did in Iraq, and in Syria? Displacing millions of people, forcing them to move and even settle in UN refugee camps?

​

The US government created the chaos that led to ISIS and even armed these Islamic radicals.

​

Do you recognize the immense amount of harm that these capitalist-led wars have inflicted on tens of millions of innocent people? Do you? No, you don't give a rat's ass.

Present your evidence for all of your bullshit USSR-Stalin stories. Even if they were true, revolutions are bloody, because there are people like you and people like me, and when there's a hot-shooting war, the millions like you and the millions like me, hurt each other. It's called "war", look it up in the dictionary.

Basically, they beat the horse to death, then called it a unicorn.

Sounds like what you're doing with all of this irrelevant USSR drivel.

As for your points 2-5, I've already acknowledged that the USSR did provide for every major economic need of those people who were obedient and they didn't arrest or execute. BUT, all those major economic needs could be provided by Liberalism and Democratic-Socialism without the authoritarianism.

You're not a socialist, you're a capitalist bootlicking tool, believing and propagating all of the bullshit rhetoric they spew about the USSR. Here is a good example of your CIA buddies spreading misinformation about communists:

​

Point Number 5. There were no political OR economic rights in the USSR. Ownership was forbidden for almost everything. The government seized ownership of every significant asset. So if your saying that there were economic rights, they were only for the conformist sheep that had not yet been slaughtered -

Your portrayal of the USSR is based on several misconceptions.

1. Economic Rights and Ownership: It's not accurate to say ownership was forbidden for almost everything in the USSR. While major industries and means of production were state-owned, personal property was recognized and protected. Citizens owned and passed down personal items, such as furniture, cars, jewelry, and even apartments after the housing reforms. Additionally, collective farms (kolkhozes) allowed for personal ownership of a small plot of land where families could grow their own produce.
2. State Ownership: The state's ownership of significant assets was a feature of the planned economy, aiming to ensure that resources were allocated based on societal needs rather than profit. This system had its challenges, but it also led to achievements like rapid industrialization, universal employment, free healthcare, and education.
3. Political Rights: While it's true that the USSR did not have a multi-party system and political dissent was often suppressed, there were avenues for citizens to participate in governance. Soviets, or councils, were established at various levels, from local to national, where citizens could voice concerns and participate in decision-making processes. The effectiveness and genuine democratic nature of these councils can be debated, but they existed as a mechanism for political participation.
4. Conformity and Dissent: It's a misconception to label all Soviet citizens as "conformist sheep." Throughout Soviet history, there were individuals and groups who voiced dissent or sought reforms, and not a hair on their heads was touched by the government. The people who were in danger of being arrested or killed were enemy agents and counter-revolutionaries, who were caught planning a coup or trying to assassinate Soviet officials (Lenin was shot by one of those dissenters). Those certainly went to the gulag or worse, were executed.

and those 'rights' went only as far as the government permitted - which means that they were not 'Rights' at all.

Sounds like the United States and practically every other nation on Earth. Big freaking deal. Where do you think our rights come from? Invisible elves?

Point 7 is circular logic. They had phony Unions that were controlled by the Communist party - that's not a Union. I'm sure that minor grievances where conceded, but anybody that made any substantial problems were dealt with severely.

I actually admitted that labor unions in the USSR weren't like unions here in the US or in other Western countries. Your assertion that people were "dealt with severely" for attempting to implement substantial reforms is more of your exaggerated, unfounded bullshit, anti-communist propaganda.

Your cherry picked history of Stalin's persecutions kind of leaves out a few million people. You don't even mention Beria. Not a very convincing assessment.

What about Beria? Go ahead, elaborate on Beria. What about him? If anyone is "cherry picking" it's definitely you.

In short you propose a totalitarian police state, which murders all that dissent, which has no economic, political or personal freedoms, but only doles out some economic support to the people who are too scared to dissent. You promote a one party state where the government seizes all substantial properties.

You're just spewing a bunch of Cold War bullshit propaganda. You've swallowed it all hook, line, and sinker. I don't propose we adopt a totalitarian state or the same form of government that existed in the USSR. I've already expressed this several times, but you conveniently ignore that.

Then say that you are for 'True Democracy' You may be a true socialist in that you want to seize all property...

I don't want "all property" seized by the people's government. The only property that should be seized is PRIVATE PROPERTY, not PERSONAL PROPERTY. In actual socialism (not the fake socialism that you subscribe to), a clear distinction is made between private and personal property. They're not both the same. Private property is the "means of production" or property that is used to produce goods and services for a profit (private capital accumalation), like factories, commercial farms and ranchland, including privately owned for-profit business enterprises.

It's those expensive assets, generally owned by a privileged few, who use such properties to produce products for a profit through other people's labor, exploiting other human beings, for their labor power. That's what is prohibited, not properties owned by people for personal use, like their homes, gardens, cars, computers, toothbrushes..etc. All of these possessions are personal properties and 100% legal and accepted within a truly socialist and communist society.

it may be true that I'm not a true socialist because I believe in the rights of the individual and of property ownership. Neither I nor anyone else could give a damn about what a 'True Socialist" is.

You're just a stupid liberal, who doesn't even know the difference between private and personal property, from a socialist perspective. This is basic 101 socialism. Not all property is prohibited.

Liberals and Democratic socialists have been very successful in creating a very high standard of living everywhere that they have been politically successful (Like most of Western Europe).

Perhaps the only thing you've said so far that I agree with. Indeed, applying some fundamental socialist ideals into one's society and economy has its benefits. However, as technology continues to advance, automating production to a level never seen before, all liberal, mixed economies are going to have to adopt a non-profit, fully democratic system of production. True socialism is going to have to be adopted from necessity. American society (including the rest of the world), is going to be forced to adopt socialism (a democratized, non-profit system of production), by necessity.

We have never succeeded in the U.S. because the Fascist/Capitalists have blocked us - and the primary cause of their blocking us is because of people like you promoting a brutal and idiotic form of government that scares the daylights out of the majority of Americans and gives any form of Liberalism and Social Democracy an bad name.

In the golden age of our economy, we were more liberal and socialistic, with respect to taxes, labor unions..etc. It wasn't communists who closed down all of our factories, busted most of our labor unions, and established supply-side, trickle-down Reaganomics. The capitalist ruling elites were chipping away at our economic policies from the end of ww2 to the early 1980s when they finally defeated our pro-working class economy.

You're barking up the wrong tree blaming communists.

 

[Red Front]

Some people apparently think that while the American people have been dumb enough to become debt slaves, they could have the intelligence to live in a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

I don't believe a stateless society is possible. However, a society without socioeconomic classes or the need for money is inevitable due to advanced automation.

 

[d0gbreath]

I read it and his every prediction failed.

Exactly the opposite has happened

So we're not in debt up to our eyeballs?