Who's Afraid of Socialism?

[Tehon]

My problem isn't with democracy. I think it is great and we need more of it.

I don't agree with the idea that we can build a socialist society on the back of capitalism. That seems to be the idea that is associated with democratic socialism and I don't believe it is feasible.

Scientific socialism (Marxism) is the study of human social development and economics using the Hegelian dialectic method. Marxism works great at interpreting the world. I think you have a lot of misconceptions about it.

I don’t have misconceptions. It is a top down, simple answer for thousands and thousands of very complex systems that are all commingling and constantly evolving in ways science doesn’t even understand yet. What you are suggesting is extremely non-creative and unadaptive system that offers a one or a few sizes fits all. It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power. It’s reactive, not proactive. And that’s when it is run optimally. It makes government too powerful and too tempting for self service for those in power. You could have Jesus running things but it’s only a matter of time for an asshole to take the reigns.

You have lots of misconceptions. The most glaring in this text is;

It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power.

This ^ is the world of capitalism. Scientific socialism would abolish money and along with it power. You've never read Marx, have you?

The abolition of money is just a naive way of thinking that one could stop human brains from doing what they are wired to do, in order to survive, which is constantly attributing value and utility to the world around us. That’s actual science, and the fact that you rolled that thought out there shows how little science is behind this type of thinking. Attributing value and utility to things is what your subconscious brain never stops doing. Currency is nothing more than an efficient way of attributing value in a more quantifiable way. Currency is a human achievement, and it is a shortcut that allows the conscious brain to keep up with the subconscious brain and do a much better job of making decisions...in a way the rest of your “tribe” agreed upon. Currency has been a constant of humanity long before we’ve had recorded history, and way long before we put a numerical value to it thousands of years ago. It’s a part of nature that even insects participate in. It’s literally a system that is millions of years old, and there’s a pretty good reason why every civilization uses money since the invention of money.

Saying that you could abolish currency is like saying you could abolish the thinking behind what makes Matthew Mcconaughey and Scarlet Johanessen hot. You’d have immensely better luck abolishing smartphones. It’s extremely naive and narcissistic thinking, but most importantly, has zero basis in actual science.

Ah, but the scientific socialist understands this. That is why Marx began his magnum opus with the commodity, value, exchange value and the money form. I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.

How do you think it possible to argue against something you've never taken the time to understand? You might consider reading the link at the bottom of my post.

"Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.[28] Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language. "

Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.

Money facilitates the exchange of equal values.

Yes it does, but it does more than that. It is a commodity but it doesn't get consumed in the transaction. It enters into circulation and takes on a social character all its own.

 

[Tehon]

My problem isn't with democracy. I think it is great and we need more of it.

I don't agree with the idea that we can build a socialist society on the back of capitalism. That seems to be the idea that is associated with democratic socialism and I don't believe it is feasible.

Scientific socialism (Marxism) is the study of human social development and economics using the Hegelian dialectic method. Marxism works great at interpreting the world. I think you have a lot of misconceptions about it.

I don’t have misconceptions. It is a top down, simple answer for thousands and thousands of very complex systems that are all commingling and constantly evolving in ways science doesn’t even understand yet. What you are suggesting is extremely non-creative and unadaptive system that offers a one or a few sizes fits all. It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power. It’s reactive, not proactive. And that’s when it is run optimally. It makes government too powerful and too tempting for self service for those in power. You could have Jesus running things but it’s only a matter of time for an asshole to take the reigns.

You have lots of misconceptions. The most glaring in this text is;

It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power.

This ^ is the world of capitalism. Scientific socialism would abolish money and along with it power. You've never read Marx, have you?

The abolition of money is just a naive way of thinking that one could stop human brains from doing what they are wired to do, in order to survive, which is constantly attributing value and utility to the world around us. That’s actual science, and the fact that you rolled that thought out there shows how little science is behind this type of thinking. Attributing value and utility to things is what your subconscious brain never stops doing. Currency is nothing more than an efficient way of attributing value in a more quantifiable way. Currency is a human achievement, and it is a shortcut that allows the conscious brain to keep up with the subconscious brain and do a much better job of making decisions...in a way the rest of your “tribe” agreed upon. Currency has been a constant of humanity long before we’ve had recorded history, and way long before we put a numerical value to it thousands of years ago. It’s a part of nature that even insects participate in. It’s literally a system that is millions of years old, and there’s a pretty good reason why every civilization uses money since the invention of money.

Saying that you could abolish currency is like saying you could abolish the thinking behind what makes Matthew Mcconaughey and Scarlet Johanessen hot. You’d have immensely better luck abolishing smartphones. It’s extremely naive and narcissistic thinking, but most importantly, has zero basis in actual science.

Ah, but the scientific socialist understands this. That is why Marx began his magnum opus with the commodity, value, exchange value and the money form. I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.

How do you think it possible to argue against something you've never taken the time to understand? You might consider reading the link at the bottom of my post.

"Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.[28] Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language. "

Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

IVE READ MARX AND HEGEL. He semi acknowledges it, and then suggests the right thing to do is to tear down that system, and essientially pretend like it doesn’t exist. Which is why Marxism needs so much “re-education” to be implemented. They’re trying to say the human brain doesn’t work right, and let’s completely ignore human nature and evolution and do this instead. Because these guys don’t understand basic human evolutionary/biological/sociological psychology (since they were alive over 100 years ago, and these are still virgining fields in science). They are narcissistic enough to think they (and/or) the “elite” are so great that they have the absolute answer for thousands of complex systems not even close to being scientifically understood by man. And surprise surprise, to get that system in place you have to jam in society back into the toothpaste tube, and obviously plenty of toothpaste is going to have to be “thrown out”. By thrown out I am obviously talking about the 100 million dead people we’ve seen die from communist oppression in the form of executions, purposeful starvation, and starvation due to extremely stubborn incompetence.

Moral of the story is, it’s much easier to simplify the world around you, vs the impossible task of understanding it in its entirety. So I have ZERO admiration for the ones who think they understand it so well, and can implement their understanding in a way that’ll be better in their fantasy. That line of thinking brings forth Hell on earth.

This is laughable. Clearly you don't understand Hegel's dialectic process put into practice by Marx.

Marx can't ignore the value relationship between commodities. That's why he breaks the commodity down to its component value forms and then reconstitutes it till he gets to the money form. At which point he shows how money begins to distort the value relationship.

The whole point of scientific socialism is to bring the value relationship between commodities back into focus.

Lie to yourself all you want but if you can't communicate with me without doing so, then stop communicating with me. I don't have the inclination to force an understanding on you. That is a personal journey.

 

[danielpalos]

A Constitution is socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

My problem isn't with democracy. I think it is great and we need more of it.

I don't agree with the idea that we can build a socialist society on the back of capitalism. That seems to be the idea that is associated with democratic socialism and I don't believe it is feasible.

Scientific socialism (Marxism) is the study of human social development and economics using the Hegelian dialectic method. Marxism works great at interpreting the world. I think you have a lot of misconceptions about it.

I don’t have misconceptions. It is a top down, simple answer for thousands and thousands of very complex systems that are all commingling and constantly evolving in ways science doesn’t even understand yet. What you are suggesting is extremely non-creative and unadaptive system that offers a one or a few sizes fits all. It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power. It’s reactive, not proactive. And that’s when it is run optimally. It makes government too powerful and too tempting for self service for those in power. You could have Jesus running things but it’s only a matter of time for an asshole to take the reigns.

You have lots of misconceptions. The most glaring in this text is;

It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power.

This ^ is the world of capitalism. Scientific socialism would abolish money and along with it power. You've never read Marx, have you?

The abolition of money is just a naive way of thinking that one could stop human brains from doing what they are wired to do, in order to survive, which is constantly attributing value and utility to the world around us. That’s actual science, and the fact that you rolled that thought out there shows how little science is behind this type of thinking. Attributing value and utility to things is what your subconscious brain never stops doing. Currency is nothing more than an efficient way of attributing value in a more quantifiable way. Currency is a human achievement, and it is a shortcut that allows the conscious brain to keep up with the subconscious brain and do a much better job of making decisions...in a way the rest of your “tribe” agreed upon. Currency has been a constant of humanity long before we’ve had recorded history, and way long before we put a numerical value to it thousands of years ago. It’s a part of nature that even insects participate in. It’s literally a system that is millions of years old, and there’s a pretty good reason why every civilization uses money since the invention of money.

Saying that you could abolish currency is like saying you could abolish the thinking behind what makes Matthew Mcconaughey and Scarlet Johanessen hot. You’d have immensely better luck abolishing smartphones. It’s extremely naive and narcissistic thinking, but most importantly, has zero basis in actual science.

Ah, but the scientific socialist understands this. That is why Marx began his magnum opus with the commodity, value, exchange value and the money form. I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.

How do you think it possible to argue against something you've never taken the time to understand? You might consider reading the link at the bottom of my post.

"Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.[28] Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language. "

Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.

Money facilitates the exchange of equal values.

You either use money in your exchanges or you go back to the barter system. There is no way for government bureaucrats to determine value. What do you suppose is the value they would place on FOX News? Zero is the answer. Anyone who wants the government to determine the value of a product is extremely foolish and naive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don’t have misconceptions. It is a top down, simple answer for thousands and thousands of very complex systems that are all commingling and constantly evolving in ways science doesn’t even understand yet. What you are suggesting is extremely non-creative and unadaptive system that offers a one or a few sizes fits all. It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power. It’s reactive, not proactive. And that’s when it is run optimally. It makes government too powerful and too tempting for self service for those in power. You could have Jesus running things but it’s only a matter of time for an asshole to take the reigns.

You have lots of misconceptions. The most glaring in this text is;

It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power.

This ^ is the world of capitalism. Scientific socialism would abolish money and along with it power. You've never read Marx, have you?

The abolition of money is just a naive way of thinking that one could stop human brains from doing what they are wired to do, in order to survive, which is constantly attributing value and utility to the world around us. That’s actual science, and the fact that you rolled that thought out there shows how little science is behind this type of thinking. Attributing value and utility to things is what your subconscious brain never stops doing. Currency is nothing more than an efficient way of attributing value in a more quantifiable way. Currency is a human achievement, and it is a shortcut that allows the conscious brain to keep up with the subconscious brain and do a much better job of making decisions...in a way the rest of your “tribe” agreed upon. Currency has been a constant of humanity long before we’ve had recorded history, and way long before we put a numerical value to it thousands of years ago. It’s a part of nature that even insects participate in. It’s literally a system that is millions of years old, and there’s a pretty good reason why every civilization uses money since the invention of money.

Saying that you could abolish currency is like saying you could abolish the thinking behind what makes Matthew Mcconaughey and Scarlet Johanessen hot. You’d have immensely better luck abolishing smartphones. It’s extremely naive and narcissistic thinking, but most importantly, has zero basis in actual science.

Ah, but the scientific socialist understands this. That is why Marx began his magnum opus with the commodity, value, exchange value and the money form. I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.

How do you think it possible to argue against something you've never taken the time to understand? You might consider reading the link at the bottom of my post.

"Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.[28] Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language. "

Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.

Money facilitates the exchange of equal values.

Yes it does, but it does more than that. It is a commodity but it doesn't get consumed in the transaction. It enters into circulation and takes on a social character all its own.

And it works much better than barter.

 

[georgephillip]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

The only ones who don't fear socialism are those who think they will be the elite leaders or those who believe they will benefit.

Those who worked for what they have should fear it because the government is looking to take a lot from them.

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

The only ones who don't fear socialism are those who think they will be the elite leaders or those who believe they will benefit.

Those who worked for what they have should fear it because the government is looking to take a lot from them.

Who currently controls government?
Is it a majority of productive workers many of whom have to work multiple jobs to keep a roof over their heads or is it a fraction of one percent of the population who believe they own government?

"As the number of men with as much wealth as half the world fell from sixty-two to just eight between January 2016 and January 2017, according to Oxfam International, fewer than 200 super-connected asset managers at only 17 asset management firms—each with well over a trillion dollars in assets under management—now represent the financial core of the world's transnational capitalist class"
Seven Stories Press

If you think government isn't currently taking a lot from the vast majority of workers in order to subsidize the lifestyles of a few economic parasite, you aren't paying attention.

 

[danielpalos]

...right wingers who have nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost!

 

[georgephillip]

A Constitution is socialism.

Individuals rely on basic laws to form equitable, free societies, yet they have difficulty reconciling the benefits of cooperation with the loss of "natural rights."

Monthly Review | Why Socialism?

"I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time.

"It concerns the relationship of the individual to society.

"The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society.

"But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence."

 

[danielpalos]

A Constitution is socialism.

Individuals rely on basic laws to form equitable, free societies, yet they have difficulty reconciling the benefits of cooperation with the loss of "natural rights."

Monthly Review | Why Socialism?

"I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time.

"It concerns the relationship of the individual to society.

"The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society.

"But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence."

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

Socialism in a nutshell.

Our Founding Fathers did an excellent job.

 

[dblack]

 

[Two Thumbs]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

the 4 million people that fled Ven.

they fear it so much that they are running to countries that they don't know the language.

the 4 million people that fled Ven.

Which four million refugees are you referring to?

3 million people have fled Venezuela, says UNHCR | News ...
https://www.dw.com/en/3-million-people-have-fled-venezuela-says...
The number of migrants and refugees who have fled Venezuela has reached 3 million, the United Nations announced on Thursday.

How many people have fled Venezuela?
At least 500,000 people have fled Venezuela this year. That's the lowest estimate around. Colombia says that over a million of them are living there now. Venezuelans have been trickling out of the country for at least 10 years.

 

[georgephillip]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

the 4 million people that fled Ven.

they fear it so much that they are running to countries that they don't know the language.

the 4 million people that fled Ven.

Which four million refugees are you referring to?

3 million people have fled Venezuela, says UNHCR | News ...
https://www.dw.com/en/3-million-people-have-fled-venezuela-says...
The number of migrants and refugees who have fled Venezuela has reached 3 million, the United Nations announced on Thursday.

How many people have fled Venezuela?
At least 500,000 people have fled Venezuela this year. That's the lowest estimate around. Colombia says that over a million of them are living there now. Venezuelans have been trickling out of the country for at least 10 years.

Do you think additional US sanctions will reduce the flow of refugees from Venezuela?
"Treasury sanctions Venezuela state-owned oil firm in bid to transfer control to Maduro opposition

• The Trump administration announces sanctions against Venezuela's state-owned energy company PDVSA.
• The sanctions aim to transfer control of Venezuela's oil wealth to the forces that oppose socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro.
• U.S. companies can continue to import oil from Venezuela, but the funds must be held in accounts that are not accessible to the Maduro regime."

Treasury sanctions Venezuela state-owned oil firm in bid to transfer control to Maduro opposition

The US has been funding Venezuelan opposition since Chavez was first elected in 1999.

Currently, Maduro has popularity numbers about equal to Trump's. During the last presidential election about 6 miilion votes went to Maduro and zero votes went to Juan Guaido whom a majority of Venezuelans had never heard of before he proclaimed himself president.

Does that sound like a coup, to you?

 

[bripat9643]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

the 4 million people that fled Ven.

they fear it so much that they are running to countries that they don't know the language.

the 4 million people that fled Ven.

Which four million refugees are you referring to?

3 million people have fled Venezuela, says UNHCR | News ...
https://www.dw.com/en/3-million-people-have-fled-venezuela-says...
The number of migrants and refugees who have fled Venezuela has reached 3 million, the United Nations announced on Thursday.

How many people have fled Venezuela?
At least 500,000 people have fled Venezuela this year. That's the lowest estimate around. Colombia says that over a million of them are living there now. Venezuelans have been trickling out of the country for at least 10 years.

Do you think additional US sanctions will reduce the flow of refugees from Venezuela?
"Treasury sanctions Venezuela state-owned oil firm in bid to transfer control to Maduro opposition

• The Trump administration announces sanctions against Venezuela's state-owned energy company PDVSA.
• The sanctions aim to transfer control of Venezuela's oil wealth to the forces that oppose socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro.
• U.S. companies can continue to import oil from Venezuela, but the funds must be held in accounts that are not accessible to the Maduro regime."

Treasury sanctions Venezuela state-owned oil firm in bid to transfer control to Maduro opposition

The US has been funding Venezuelan opposition since Chavez was first elected in 1999.

Currently, Maduro has popularity numbers about equal to Trump's. During the last presidential election about 6 miilion votes went to Maduro and zero votes went to Juan Guaido whom a majority of Venezuelans had never heard of before he proclaimed himself president.

Does that sound like a coup, to you?

ROFL! So you believe the state controlled propaganda organs of the Maduro regime?

Do you actually believe that Maduro is popular with people who are starving?

 

[sakinago]

I don’t have misconceptions. It is a top down, simple answer for thousands and thousands of very complex systems that are all commingling and constantly evolving in ways science doesn’t even understand yet. What you are suggesting is extremely non-creative and unadaptive system that offers a one or a few sizes fits all. It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power. It’s reactive, not proactive. And that’s when it is run optimally. It makes government too powerful and too tempting for self service for those in power. You could have Jesus running things but it’s only a matter of time for an asshole to take the reigns.

You have lots of misconceptions. The most glaring in this text is;

It only looks at the world through one, maybe two lenses, money and power.

This ^ is the world of capitalism. Scientific socialism would abolish money and along with it power. You've never read Marx, have you?

The abolition of money is just a naive way of thinking that one could stop human brains from doing what they are wired to do, in order to survive, which is constantly attributing value and utility to the world around us. That’s actual science, and the fact that you rolled that thought out there shows how little science is behind this type of thinking. Attributing value and utility to things is what your subconscious brain never stops doing. Currency is nothing more than an efficient way of attributing value in a more quantifiable way. Currency is a human achievement, and it is a shortcut that allows the conscious brain to keep up with the subconscious brain and do a much better job of making decisions...in a way the rest of your “tribe” agreed upon. Currency has been a constant of humanity long before we’ve had recorded history, and way long before we put a numerical value to it thousands of years ago. It’s a part of nature that even insects participate in. It’s literally a system that is millions of years old, and there’s a pretty good reason why every civilization uses money since the invention of money.

Saying that you could abolish currency is like saying you could abolish the thinking behind what makes Matthew Mcconaughey and Scarlet Johanessen hot. You’d have immensely better luck abolishing smartphones. It’s extremely naive and narcissistic thinking, but most importantly, has zero basis in actual science.

Ah, but the scientific socialist understands this. That is why Marx began his magnum opus with the commodity, value, exchange value and the money form. I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.

How do you think it possible to argue against something you've never taken the time to understand? You might consider reading the link at the bottom of my post.

"Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.[28] Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language. "

Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

IVE READ MARX AND HEGEL. He semi acknowledges it, and then suggests the right thing to do is to tear down that system, and essientially pretend like it doesn’t exist. Which is why Marxism needs so much “re-education” to be implemented. They’re trying to say the human brain doesn’t work right, and let’s completely ignore human nature and evolution and do this instead. Because these guys don’t understand basic human evolutionary/biological/sociological psychology (since they were alive over 100 years ago, and these are still virgining fields in science). They are narcissistic enough to think they (and/or) the “elite” are so great that they have the absolute answer for thousands of complex systems not even close to being scientifically understood by man. And surprise surprise, to get that system in place you have to jam in society back into the toothpaste tube, and obviously plenty of toothpaste is going to have to be “thrown out”. By thrown out I am obviously talking about the 100 million dead people we’ve seen die from communist oppression in the form of executions, purposeful starvation, and starvation due to extremely stubborn incompetence.

Moral of the story is, it’s much easier to simplify the world around you, vs the impossible task of understanding it in its entirety. So I have ZERO admiration for the ones who think they understand it so well, and can implement their understanding in a way that’ll be better in their fantasy. That line of thinking brings forth Hell on earth.

This is laughable. Clearly you don't understand Hegel's dialectic process put into practice by Marx.

Marx can't ignore the value relationship between commodities. That's why he breaks the commodity down to its component value forms and then reconstitutes it till he gets to the money form. At which point he shows how money begins to distort the value relationship.

The whole point of scientific socialism is to bring the value relationship between commodities back into focus.

Lie to yourself all you want but if you can't communicate with me without doing so, then stop communicating with me. I don't have the inclination to force an understanding on you. That is a personal journey.

What is it I’m lying about? I’m not the one saying the abolition of money is going to be a good thing...and what? Have “government” redefine value for us lowly imbeciles? Have government determine the value of my labor? Have government determine the value of the goods I want? Have them determine the value of services I want? Money is a technological achievement. One could say it is a part of human evolution much like smart phones are a part of human evolution. What you’re doing is saying “see, these phones break so easily, and they don’t get good reception everywhere, therefore let’s scrap ALL the tech completely and us “philosophically elite” will create a better form of communication.”

You probably don’t like that analogy, which I think is spot on accurate...but the rest you’d probably agree with as being you’re main point. To abolish money, and have government determine value.

 

[georgephillip]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

the 4 million people that fled Ven.

they fear it so much that they are running to countries that they don't know the language.

the 4 million people that fled Ven.

Which four million refugees are you referring to?

3 million people have fled Venezuela, says UNHCR | News ...
https://www.dw.com/en/3-million-people-have-fled-venezuela-says...
The number of migrants and refugees who have fled Venezuela has reached 3 million, the United Nations announced on Thursday.

How many people have fled Venezuela?
At least 500,000 people have fled Venezuela this year. That's the lowest estimate around. Colombia says that over a million of them are living there now. Venezuelans have been trickling out of the country for at least 10 years.

Do you think additional US sanctions will reduce the flow of refugees from Venezuela?
"Treasury sanctions Venezuela state-owned oil firm in bid to transfer control to Maduro opposition

• The Trump administration announces sanctions against Venezuela's state-owned energy company PDVSA.
• The sanctions aim to transfer control of Venezuela's oil wealth to the forces that oppose socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro.
• U.S. companies can continue to import oil from Venezuela, but the funds must be held in accounts that are not accessible to the Maduro regime."

Treasury sanctions Venezuela state-owned oil firm in bid to transfer control to Maduro opposition

The US has been funding Venezuelan opposition since Chavez was first elected in 1999.

Currently, Maduro has popularity numbers about equal to Trump's. During the last presidential election about 6 miilion votes went to Maduro and zero votes went to Juan Guaido whom a majority of Venezuelans had never heard of before he proclaimed himself president.

Does that sound like a coup, to you?

ROFL! So you believe the state controlled propaganda organs of the Maduro regime?

Do you actually believe that Maduro is popular with people who are starving?

"Nicolás Maduro Fast Facts"

Nicolás Maduro Fast Facts - CNN

"August 4, 2018 - Survives an apparent assassination attempt after several drones armed with explosives fly toward him during a speech at a military parade. Maduro blames the attack on far-right elements and Colombia's outgoing president, Juan Manuel Santos. A Colombian presidential source tells CNN that Maduro's accusations are 'baseless.'

"August 5, 2018 - Venezuela's Interior Minister Néstor Reverol says that six people have been arrested after the apparent assassination attempt on Maduro.

"September 8, 2018 - A report is published in the New York Times detailing secret meetings between US officials and Venezuelan military officers planning a coup against Maduro. CNN confirms the report, which describes a series of meetings over the course of a year. Ultimately, the US government decided not to back the coup."

There are far more Venezuelans who support Maduro than there are Venezuelans who support another US coup in South America.

 

[Tehon]

You have lots of misconceptions. The most glaring in this text is;
This ^ is the world of capitalism. Scientific socialism would abolish money and along with it power. You've never read Marx, have you?

The abolition of money is just a naive way of thinking that one could stop human brains from doing what they are wired to do, in order to survive, which is constantly attributing value and utility to the world around us. That’s actual science, and the fact that you rolled that thought out there shows how little science is behind this type of thinking. Attributing value and utility to things is what your subconscious brain never stops doing. Currency is nothing more than an efficient way of attributing value in a more quantifiable way. Currency is a human achievement, and it is a shortcut that allows the conscious brain to keep up with the subconscious brain and do a much better job of making decisions...in a way the rest of your “tribe” agreed upon. Currency has been a constant of humanity long before we’ve had recorded history, and way long before we put a numerical value to it thousands of years ago. It’s a part of nature that even insects participate in. It’s literally a system that is millions of years old, and there’s a pretty good reason why every civilization uses money since the invention of money.

Saying that you could abolish currency is like saying you could abolish the thinking behind what makes Matthew Mcconaughey and Scarlet Johanessen hot. You’d have immensely better luck abolishing smartphones. It’s extremely naive and narcissistic thinking, but most importantly, has zero basis in actual science.

Ah, but the scientific socialist understands this. That is why Marx began his magnum opus with the commodity, value, exchange value and the money form. I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.

How do you think it possible to argue against something you've never taken the time to understand? You might consider reading the link at the bottom of my post.

"Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.[28] Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language. "

Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

IVE READ MARX AND HEGEL. He semi acknowledges it, and then suggests the right thing to do is to tear down that system, and essientially pretend like it doesn’t exist. Which is why Marxism needs so much “re-education” to be implemented. They’re trying to say the human brain doesn’t work right, and let’s completely ignore human nature and evolution and do this instead. Because these guys don’t understand basic human evolutionary/biological/sociological psychology (since they were alive over 100 years ago, and these are still virgining fields in science). They are narcissistic enough to think they (and/or) the “elite” are so great that they have the absolute answer for thousands of complex systems not even close to being scientifically understood by man. And surprise surprise, to get that system in place you have to jam in society back into the toothpaste tube, and obviously plenty of toothpaste is going to have to be “thrown out”. By thrown out I am obviously talking about the 100 million dead people we’ve seen die from communist oppression in the form of executions, purposeful starvation, and starvation due to extremely stubborn incompetence.

Moral of the story is, it’s much easier to simplify the world around you, vs the impossible task of understanding it in its entirety. So I have ZERO admiration for the ones who think they understand it so well, and can implement their understanding in a way that’ll be better in their fantasy. That line of thinking brings forth Hell on earth.

This is laughable. Clearly you don't understand Hegel's dialectic process put into practice by Marx.

Marx can't ignore the value relationship between commodities. That's why he breaks the commodity down to its component value forms and then reconstitutes it till he gets to the money form. At which point he shows how money begins to distort the value relationship.

The whole point of scientific socialism is to bring the value relationship between commodities back into focus.

Lie to yourself all you want but if you can't communicate with me without doing so, then stop communicating with me. I don't have the inclination to force an understanding on you. That is a personal journey.

What is it I’m lying about? I’m not the one saying the abolition of money is going to be a good thing...and what? Have “government” redefine value for us lowly imbeciles? Have government determine the value of my labor? Have government determine the value of the goods I want? Have them determine the value of services I want? Money is a technological achievement. One could say it is a part of human evolution much like smart phones are a part of human evolution. What you’re doing is saying “see, these phones break so easily, and they don’t get good reception everywhere, therefore let’s scrap ALL the tech completely and us “philosophically elite” will create a better form of communication.”

You probably don’t like that analogy, which I think is spot on accurate...but the rest you’d probably agree with as being you’re main point. To abolish money, and have government determine value.

You are lying about having read Marx and Hegel. You're just making shit up. You've provided another example in this post.

Government doesn't determine value in a socialist system of production.

You think your analogy is spot on but you are actually manifesting symptoms of Dunning Kruger.

 

[Tehon]

You have lots of misconceptions. The most glaring in this text is;
This ^ is the world of capitalism. Scientific socialism would abolish money and along with it power. You've never read Marx, have you?

The abolition of money is just a naive way of thinking that one could stop human brains from doing what they are wired to do, in order to survive, which is constantly attributing value and utility to the world around us. That’s actual science, and the fact that you rolled that thought out there shows how little science is behind this type of thinking. Attributing value and utility to things is what your subconscious brain never stops doing. Currency is nothing more than an efficient way of attributing value in a more quantifiable way. Currency is a human achievement, and it is a shortcut that allows the conscious brain to keep up with the subconscious brain and do a much better job of making decisions...in a way the rest of your “tribe” agreed upon. Currency has been a constant of humanity long before we’ve had recorded history, and way long before we put a numerical value to it thousands of years ago. It’s a part of nature that even insects participate in. It’s literally a system that is millions of years old, and there’s a pretty good reason why every civilization uses money since the invention of money.

Saying that you could abolish currency is like saying you could abolish the thinking behind what makes Matthew Mcconaughey and Scarlet Johanessen hot. You’d have immensely better luck abolishing smartphones. It’s extremely naive and narcissistic thinking, but most importantly, has zero basis in actual science.

Ah, but the scientific socialist understands this. That is why Marx began his magnum opus with the commodity, value, exchange value and the money form. I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.

How do you think it possible to argue against something you've never taken the time to understand? You might consider reading the link at the bottom of my post.

"Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.[28] Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language. "

Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.

Money facilitates the exchange of equal values.

Yes it does, but it does more than that. It is a commodity but it doesn't get consumed in the transaction. It enters into circulation and takes on a social character all its own.

And it works much better than barter.

Socialism isn't a barter system. Barter is useless in today's modern society.

 

[Tehon]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

the 4 million people that fled Ven.

they fear it so much that they are running to countries that they don't know the language.

the 4 million people that fled Ven.

Which four million refugees are you referring to?

3 million people have fled Venezuela, says UNHCR | News ...
https://www.dw.com/en/3-million-people-have-fled-venezuela-says...
The number of migrants and refugees who have fled Venezuela has reached 3 million, the United Nations announced on Thursday.

How many people have fled Venezuela?
At least 500,000 people have fled Venezuela this year. That's the lowest estimate around. Colombia says that over a million of them are living there now. Venezuelans have been trickling out of the country for at least 10 years.

Do you think additional US sanctions will reduce the flow of refugees from Venezuela?
"Treasury sanctions Venezuela state-owned oil firm in bid to transfer control to Maduro opposition

• The Trump administration announces sanctions against Venezuela's state-owned energy company PDVSA.
• The sanctions aim to transfer control of Venezuela's oil wealth to the forces that oppose socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro.
• U.S. companies can continue to import oil from Venezuela, but the funds must be held in accounts that are not accessible to the Maduro regime."

Treasury sanctions Venezuela state-owned oil firm in bid to transfer control to Maduro opposition

The US has been funding Venezuelan opposition since Chavez was first elected in 1999.

Currently, Maduro has popularity numbers about equal to Trump's. During the last presidential election about 6 miilion votes went to Maduro and zero votes went to Juan Guaido whom a majority of Venezuelans had never heard of before he proclaimed himself president.

Does that sound like a coup, to you?

ROFL! So you believe the state controlled propaganda organs of the Maduro regime?

Do you actually believe that Maduro is popular with people who are starving?

I don't believe the Western corporate media.

Abby Martin visited Venezuela this past year. She tells a different story than what the corporate media is telling. She says that Maduro still has a lot of support among the poor people living in Venezuela.

 

[bripat9643]

the 4 million people that fled Ven.

they fear it so much that they are running to countries that they don't know the language.

the 4 million people that fled Ven.

Which four million refugees are you referring to?

3 million people have fled Venezuela, says UNHCR | News ...
https://www.dw.com/en/3-million-people-have-fled-venezuela-says...
The number of migrants and refugees who have fled Venezuela has reached 3 million, the United Nations announced on Thursday.

How many people have fled Venezuela?
At least 500,000 people have fled Venezuela this year. That's the lowest estimate around. Colombia says that over a million of them are living there now. Venezuelans have been trickling out of the country for at least 10 years.

Do you think additional US sanctions will reduce the flow of refugees from Venezuela?
"Treasury sanctions Venezuela state-owned oil firm in bid to transfer control to Maduro opposition

• The Trump administration announces sanctions against Venezuela's state-owned energy company PDVSA.
• The sanctions aim to transfer control of Venezuela's oil wealth to the forces that oppose socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro.
• U.S. companies can continue to import oil from Venezuela, but the funds must be held in accounts that are not accessible to the Maduro regime."

Treasury sanctions Venezuela state-owned oil firm in bid to transfer control to Maduro opposition

The US has been funding Venezuelan opposition since Chavez was first elected in 1999.

Currently, Maduro has popularity numbers about equal to Trump's. During the last presidential election about 6 miilion votes went to Maduro and zero votes went to Juan Guaido whom a majority of Venezuelans had never heard of before he proclaimed himself president.

Does that sound like a coup, to you?

ROFL! So you believe the state controlled propaganda organs of the Maduro regime?

Do you actually believe that Maduro is popular with people who are starving?

I don't believe the Western corporate media.

Abby Martin visited Venezuela this past year. She tells a different story than what the corporate media is telling. She says that Maduro still has a lot of support among the poor people living in Venezuela.

If Abby Martin says so, then it must be true!

 

[bripat9643]

The abolition of money is just a naive way of thinking that one could stop human brains from doing what they are wired to do, in order to survive, which is constantly attributing value and utility to the world around us. That’s actual science, and the fact that you rolled that thought out there shows how little science is behind this type of thinking. Attributing value and utility to things is what your subconscious brain never stops doing. Currency is nothing more than an efficient way of attributing value in a more quantifiable way. Currency is a human achievement, and it is a shortcut that allows the conscious brain to keep up with the subconscious brain and do a much better job of making decisions...in a way the rest of your “tribe” agreed upon. Currency has been a constant of humanity long before we’ve had recorded history, and way long before we put a numerical value to it thousands of years ago. It’s a part of nature that even insects participate in. It’s literally a system that is millions of years old, and there’s a pretty good reason why every civilization uses money since the invention of money.

Saying that you could abolish currency is like saying you could abolish the thinking behind what makes Matthew Mcconaughey and Scarlet Johanessen hot. You’d have immensely better luck abolishing smartphones. It’s extremely naive and narcissistic thinking, but most importantly, has zero basis in actual science.

Ah, but the scientific socialist understands this. That is why Marx began his magnum opus with the commodity, value, exchange value and the money form. I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.

How do you think it possible to argue against something you've never taken the time to understand? You might consider reading the link at the bottom of my post.

"Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.[28] Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language. "

Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

I understand that there has to be an exchange of value, that doesn't mean it has to be in the form of circulating money that exists now. It can be a simple exchange of equal values.

Money facilitates the exchange of equal values.

Yes it does, but it does more than that. It is a commodity but it doesn't get consumed in the transaction. It enters into circulation and takes on a social character all its own.

And it works much better than barter.

Socialism isn't a barter system. Barter is useless in today's modern society.

Check out Venezuela. It's effectively a barter system. Their currency is absolutely worthless.