Why do so many Goppers oppose Gay Marriage ?

I certainly agree that goverment is more accountable to the public than the private sector because the private sector is only accountable to stock holders. However, I disagree with your point, that as production technology advances there comes a point where there's no practical need for a private sector. The history of governments that were committed to socialism tell a different story. Russia, China, and Cuba were each built on a financial foundation of socialism and each has turned to capitalism. In Cuba, the private sector ownership has gone from 8% to 22.% since 1981. Also Cuba is opening various parts of the economy, mainly tourism to foreign investors. China which began as a government totally committed to socialist has become a system of regulated capitalism . And Russia. the birthplace of socialist government is now a Capitalist Autocracy.

I noticed you recently joined USMB. I have found that on this board, a shorter post covering a single point is more likely to get responses than a long multiscreen post with multiple points.
A government can be committed to producing and distributing everything its population consumes without markets or a private sector, but as Marx stated, material conditions may not allow it. Many socialist countries are economically under siege by the United States and its allies, especially countries like Cuba and Venezuela. Sanctions, embargoes, threats of war, actual acts of violence, and lack of technology, undermine the efforts of developing countries to implement a socialist system of production. The type of capitalism that exists now in places like China, Vietnam, and Cuba, is as you pointed out, highly regulated. It's not the typical "free market" laissez-faire capitalism often touted by neo-liberals as the ideal economy, it's rather a very limited form of market capitalism. Marx and Lenin recognized that socialism may have to go through a transition stage where capitalist production and property relations are gradually socialized and democratized, eventually fully transitioning into socialism when conditions permit.

I will attach two ebooks to this post discussing how the Soviet Union actually undermind its economy by trying to appease the United States in the hopes of ending the Cold War. The reforms or "perestroika", greatly contributed to its collapse.







With the advancement of technology, wage labor is significantly reduced and eventually eliminated. The more human beings are replaced with automated systems, robots, artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles, atomic precision manufacturing/nanotech..etc, the more we will be forced to produce everything with a new bottom line and that is, meeting human need rather than profits (human greed). By around mid century I believe production will become so efficient and automated, that socialism will become the obvious solution to the "tech apocalypse", not UBI.
 

Attachments

  • Socialism Betrayed_ Behind the - Thomas Kenny.pdf
    1.4 MB · Views: 20
  • pdfcookie.com_perestroika-the-complete-collapse-of-revisionism-by-harpal-brar-1992.pdf
    16.8 MB · Views: 21
Last edited:
I obviously triggered you. Private business relies heavily on government-maintained infrastructure. It also often relies on government contracts, loans, facilities, bailouts..etc. More, you completely ignored the fact that government, if it is actually democratic, must serve the electorate or the public good. The primary purpose of business is profits, not the good of society. You're either a millionaire or billionaire that hates government and thinks private business enterprises are entitled to our nation's resources at the expense of the public or you're a brainwashed employee and working class person, who defends his or her capitalist master/s. Either way, what you're saying is indeed "bullshit".
Infrastructure is best left to contracts with the private sector.
Government needs private business more than vice-versa. Ask the Soviets.
 
You defend the dictatorship of the workplace, working for a little tyrant, rather than a democracy, where everyone has a say on how the organization is run. I prefer mutual accountability, whereas you obviously prefer authoritarianism. Being a slave to capitalists.
You have that backwards. Government dictates. Private business encourages more business.
 
Infrastructure is best left to contracts with the private sector.
Government needs private business more than vice-versa. Ask the Soviets.

Do you think the private sector is going to build and maintain infrastructure for free? Even if the government contracts private companies to do the work, it still has to pay those companies for its work. A public works department could handle all of the infrastructural development and maintenance, there's no need for private companies to do the work. The government would simply use its funds to pay workers and purchase the materials and equipment it needs to achieve its objectives.

I believe everyone in America should be guaranteed a job, in the public sector. That would eliminate most of the unemployment.

Actually, businesses need the government because without it there would be no laws, law enforcement, courts, electric grid, sewage, highways..etc,. Without the government, there would be chaos hence no market or the public infrastructure that supports it. The Soviet Union collapsed when it began implementing market reforms in an attempt to appease the US and end the Cold War. When it had no markets at all, and the work cooperatives handled all production, in cooperation with government central planning, the Soviet Union had the most robust economy, becoming the second largest economy in the world. With socialism, the USSR accomplished in a couple of decades what took the US over a century of industrialization to accomplish with capitalism.
 
Last edited:
Do you think the private sector is going to build and maintain infrastructure for free? Even if the government contracts private companies to do the work, it still has to pay those companies for its work. A public works department could handle all of the infrastructural development and maintenance, there's no need for private companies to do the work. The government would simply use its funds to pay workers and purchase the materials and equipment it needs to achieve its objectives.

I believe everyone in America should be guaranteed a job, in the public sector. That would eliminate most of the unemployment.

Actually, businesses need the government because without it there would be no laws, law enforcement, courts, electric grid, sewage, highways..etc,. Without the government, there would be chaos hence no market or the public infrastructure that supports it. The Soviet Union collapsed when it began implementing market reforms in an attempt to appease the US and end the Cold War. When it had no markets at all, and the work cooperatives handled all production, in cooperation with government central planning, the Soviet Union had the most robust economy, becoming the second largest economy in the world. With socialism, the USSR accomplished in a couple of decades what took the US over a century of industrialization to accomplish with capitalism.
The private sector works more efficiently and cost-effectively than government.
No citizen is guaranteed work nor should be. Opportunity should be secured but that’s the extent of it.
‘Guaranteed work’ is nothing more than welfare. Look how disastrous that has been.
 
The private sector works more efficiently and cost-effectively than government.
No citizen is guaranteed work nor should be. Opportunity should be secured but that’s the extent of it.
‘Guaranteed work’ is nothing more than welfare. Look how disastrous that has been.

RoshawnMarkwees writes:​

The private sector works more efficiently and cost-effectively than government.

Response:

Privatization has been thoroughly scrutinized, there are numerous studies, surveys, and, indeed, surveys of surveys of its effects. The consistent conclusion: there is no evidence of greater efficiency.

PSIRU, Public and private sector efficiency, May 2014





Private sector efficiency is a neoliberal economic construct and myth, pushed in the 1970s by the Chicago school of economics to promote private sector and limit the role of states (government) in running economies. In the 1980s this idea was promoted by the US government and many university economic departments and unfortunately developing countries were forced by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) to privatize every sector of their economies, often resulting in American and Western European companies controlling the major and vital industries of these nations. Privatization increases poverty and inequality, undermines democracy and decreases public health.

More, even if the private sector was more efficient, efficiency shouldn't be the primary concern for a nation's economy or the production and delivery of goods and services. What's more important is to have a system of production that makes the public good its "bottom line" and priority, rather than profits.

RoshawnMarkwees writes:​

No citizen is guaranteed work nor should be. Opportunity should be secured but that’s the extent of it. ‘Guaranteed work’ is nothing more than welfare. Look how disastrous that has been.

Response:

Guaranteed work for everyone who can work is far from a government handout, for the simple reason that those who work produce and deliver a product or service to their communities. It eliminates unemployment and poverty. There is no reason why a community can't have a public works department in their government and put people to work. A free people can organize and establish a democratic government that has a public works departments, to pretend otherwise is silly and irrational.

If a society decides that all of its members have a right to food, housing, employment, healthcare, and an education, then that society is more likely to get rid of starvation, homelessness, unemployment, people not having access to healthcare or an education. Creating a more socially conscious society leads to less scarcity and more happiness for everyone. Are people truly free if they don't have food, housing, employment, healthcare and an education? Not really, ask the homeless or those who are going bankrupt with medical bills if they feel like they're free. There's no freedom there.
 
Last edited:
When did BLM identify itself as a "Marxist organization"? Are they trying to nationalize the major centers of economic power in America, like the banks, oil, mining, utilities, telecom..etc? The vast majority of people that were identifying themselves as BLM, don't have a clue about Marxism or Communism.
Since you clearly didn’t bother to investigate anything about BLM before your post, it seems silly of you to ask your question here. Helpful hint Comrade Douchosky:

Even you can use Google.
It’s in there alright. Take MY word for it, dope
There is no reason (ever) to take your word for much of anything.

But again, I do appreciate the fact that you sign your moronic posts, ya dope.
 

RoshawnMarkwees writes:​

The private sector works more efficiently and cost-effectively than government.

Response:

Privatization has been thoroughly scrutinized, there are numerous studies, surveys, and, indeed, surveys of surveys of its effects. The consistent conclusion: there is no evidence of greater efficiency.

PSIRU, Public and private sector efficiency, May 2014





Private sector efficiency is a neoliberal economic construct and myth, pushed in the 1970s by the Chicago school of economics to promote private sector and limit the role of states (government) in running economies. In the 1980s this idea was promoted by the US government and many university economic departments and unfortunately developing countries were forced by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) to privatize every sector of their economies, often resulting in American and Western European companies controlling the major and vital industries of these nations. Privatization increases poverty and inequality, undermines democracy and decreases public health.

More, even if the private sector was more efficient, efficiency shouldn't be the primary concern for a nation's economy or the production and delivery of goods and services. What's more important is to have a system of production that makes the public good its "bottom line" and priority, rather than profits.

RoshawnMarkwees writes:​

No citizen is guaranteed work nor should be. Opportunity should be secured but that’s the extent of it. ‘Guaranteed work’ is nothing more than welfare. Look how disastrous that has been.

Response:

Guaranteed work for everyone who can work is far from a government handout, for the simple reason that those who work produce and deliver a product or service to their communities. It eliminates unemployment and poverty. There is no reason why a community can't have a public works department in their government and put people to work. A free people can organize and establish a democratic government that has a public works departments, to pretend otherwise is silly and irrational.

If a society decides that all of its members have a right to food, housing, employment, healthcare, and an education, then that society is more likely to get rid of starvation, homelessness, unemployment, people not having access to healthcare or an education. Creating a more socially conscious society leads to less scarcity and more happiness for everyone. Are people truly free if they don't have food, housing, employment, healthcare and an education? Not really, ask the homeless or those who are going bankrupt with medical bills if they feel like they're free. There's no freedom there.
Who guarantees the work? (rhetorical question)
A socially conscious society requires genuineness. When government tries to divvy, dependency and poverty result.
 
Who guarantees the work? (rhetorical question)
A socially conscious society requires genuineness. When government tries to divvy, dependency and poverty result.
The government guarantees the work. If the product or service lacks quality, proves ineffective, or causes injury, there are negative consequences for government officials and the consumer is compensated. The government can also provide warranties for their products.

The rest of your post amounts to presumptuous platitudes. On what grounds are government projects and personnel not "genuine"? How is being dependent on a profit pursuing, private business enterprise or product better than being dependent on a democratic socialist state that holds elections and is genuinely committed to serving the public good? Government-led worker cooperatives produce products to meet human needs, not to turn a monetary profit. The bottom line of socialist production isn't personal greed, or the private pursuit of money, but a genuine effort to eliminate scarcity and create abundance, without human exploitation and abuse.







service
 
The government guarantees the work. If the product or service lacks quality, proves ineffective, or causes injury, there are negative consequences for government officials and the consumer is compensated. The government can also provide warranties for their products.

The rest of your post amounts to presumptuous platitudes. On what grounds are government projects and personnel not "genuine"? How is being dependent on a profit pursuing, private business enterprise or product better than being dependent on a democratic socialist state that holds elections and is genuinely committed to serving the public good? Government-led worker cooperatives produce products to meet human needs, not to turn a monetary profit. The bottom line of socialist production isn't personal greed, or the private pursuit of money, but a genuine effort to eliminate scarcity and create abundance, without human exploitation and abuse.







service
Every demmunist run jurisdiction is either elitist wealthy whites or poverty-dominated minorities.
Go back to the USSR. Oh, you can’t. It was choked off by the Darwinism of capitalism.
 
Every demmunist run jurisdiction is either elitist wealthy whites or poverty-dominated minorities.
Go back to the USSR. Oh, you can’t. It was choked off by the Darwinism of capitalism.
The USSR failed when it stopped being socialist in the 1980s, through a process that began in the late 1950s:



I've attached a copy of the book "Socialism Betrayed" in PDF format to this post, plus Harpal Brar's "Perestroika".


Soviet government officials made the mistake of trying to appease the United States with the hope of ending the Cold War and establishing peaceful co-existence. That Soviet miscalculation proved to be catastrophic to its economy. Socialism nonetheless proved to be a very effective system of production able to industrialize a nation much quicker than capitalism and meet the needs of its citizens. The USSR was constantly at war with capitalist powers, starting from its very beginning, it was invaded by over a dozen capitalist European nations, including 7000 US Marines, in 1918, right after WW1. The invasion failed and Soviet Russia continued to develop itself into an industrial juggernaut rivaling the United States. By the late 1930s, it was more mechanized in its agriculture than the United States and one of the world's top producers of steel. Soviet Russia by the late 1930s was one of the most industrialized nations on Earth, with thousands of factories, worker cooperatives, hundreds of mining operations, and foundries.



The United States had over 120 years of a headstart on the Soviet Union as far as its industrialization and building its economy. Despite this, and the devastation caused by WW2 (being invaded by four million Germans), the destruction of most of its national infrastructure, and the death of 27 million Soviets, the USSR in less than ten years was able to once again, become a world superpower rivaling the US. Russia went from being one of the poorest nations in Europe to an industrial giant with the second largest economy in the world, and a military feared by the United States and its allies. Nonetheless, the further away from socialism the Soviet Union went, the less secure and powerful it became until it fully collapsed in 1991.

Your critique and snide remarks are disingenuous for the following reasons:

#1: You ignore the context of where the Soviet Union came from before the 1917 revolution,

#2: You conveniently ignore its geopolitical situation and challenges, with all of the wars and enemies that it had, trying desperately to destroy it by whatever means they could. Through economic sanctions, wars, cold wars, causing internal conflicts within the Soviet government..etc.

#3: You ignore all of its great accomplishments both economically and in the area of science and technology.

#4: Why do you assume that if socialism is better than capitalism, it has to replace it immediately, overnight, or within a few years? It took centuries for capitalism to replace slavery and feudalism, and it has taken more than a century for socialism to take root and begin replacing capitalism. You're being unfair and unreasonable when you make such demands of socialism.

Karl Marx admits to the superiority and virtues of capitalism, over previous economic systems, like slavery and feudalism. But just like capitalism replaced previous systems of production, capitalism will likewise be replaced with a socialized and democratized mode of production, namely, socialism and later communism. Why? Technology:









Advanced 21st-century technology (robotics, automated systems, artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles, nanotechnology.etc) will necessitate the adoption of a socialist economy, that produces and delivers goods and services to consumers without wage labor or for a profit. The bottom line of capitalist production must change from the private pursuit of money (i.e. capital), to pursuing production for the purpose of meeting human needs. Technology is going to eliminate wage labor to such an extent that society will have to establish a new and better mode of production that doesn't rely on wage labor. That's called socialism, the process that leads to communism. You may not like that fact, but that's the inevitable consequence of advanced production technology. The need for wage labor is eliminated by the capitalists themselves, creating what they're calling a "tech apocalypse". Why do you think these billionaires are talking about giving everyone a "Universal Basic Income"? They see the writing on the wall for capitalism.


NO WAGE LABOR (OR NOT ENOUGH OF IT) = NO PAYING CONSUMERS (OR NOT ENOUGH CUSTOMERS DUE TO EXTREME UNEMPLOYMENT) = NO MARKETS (OR TOO SMALL OF A MARKET WORTH INVESTING IN) = NO CAPITALISM = MUST PRODUCE PRODUCTS TO MEET HUMAN NEEDS, RATHER THAN FOR A PROFIT (SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM).


Read the book "Fully Automated Luxury Communism" by Aaron Bastani
Socialism is the future, due to advanced technology, which eliminates wage labor.
 

Attachments

  • Socialism Betrayed_ Behind the - Thomas Kenny.pdf
    1.4 MB · Views: 20
  • pdfcookie.com_perestroika-the-complete-collapse-of-revisionism-by-harpal-brar-1992.pdf
    16.8 MB · Views: 21
  • Another view of Stalin - Martens, Ludo.pdf
    2.9 MB · Views: 19
  • The Principles of Communism - Friedrich Engels.pdf
    224.7 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
Do you think the private sector is going to build and maintain infrastructure for free? Even if the government contracts private companies to do the work, it still has to pay those companies for its work. A public works department could handle all of the infrastructural development and maintenance, there's no need for private companies to do the work. The government would simply use its funds to pay workers and purchase the materials and equipment it needs to achieve its objectives.

I believe everyone in America should be guaranteed a job, in the public sector. That would eliminate most of the unemployment.

Actually, businesses need the government because without it there would be no laws, law enforcement, courts, electric grid, sewage, highways..etc,. Without the government, there would be chaos hence no market or the public infrastructure that supports it. The Soviet Union collapsed when it began implementing market reforms in an attempt to appease the US and end the Cold War. When it had no markets at all, and the work cooperatives handled all production, in cooperation with government central planning, the Soviet Union had the most robust economy, becoming the second largest economy in the world. With socialism, the USSR accomplished in a couple of decades what took the US over a century of industrialization to accomplish with capitalism.
The Soviet Union slaughtered tens of millions of its own people. It treated citizens like chattel. The Russian citizens are a resilient people deserving better than what they have been forced to give up.
 
The Soviet Union slaughtered tens of millions of its own people. It treated citizens like chattel. The Russian citizens are a resilient people deserving better than what they have been forced to give up.
R.gif














You have no moral high ground upon which to stand and point your crooked feculent finger at communism.




 
Last edited:
The USSR failed when it stopped being socialist in the 1980s, through a process that began in the late 1950s:



I've attached a copy of the book "Socialism Betrayed" in PDF format to this post, plus Harpal Brar's "Perestroika".


Soviet government officials made the mistake of trying to appease the United States with the hope of ending the Cold War and establishing peaceful co-existence. That Soviet miscalculation proved to be catastrophic to its economy. Socialism nonetheless proved to be a very effective system of production able to industrialize a nation much quicker than capitalism and meet the needs of its citizens. The USSR was constantly at war with capitalist powers, starting from its very beginning, it was invaded by over a dozen capitalist European nations, including 7000 US Marines, in 1918, right after WW1. The invasion failed and Soviet Russia continued to develop itself into an industrial juggernaut rivaling the United States. By the late 1930s, it was more mechanized in its agriculture than the United States and one of the world's top producers of steel. Soviet Russia by the late 1930s was one of the most industrialized nations on Earth, with thousands of factories, worker cooperatives, hundreds of mining operations, and foundries.



The United States had over 120 years of a headstart on the Soviet Union as far as its industrialization and building its economy. Despite this, and the devastation caused by WW2 (being invaded by four million Germans), the destruction of most of its national infrastructure, and the death of 27 million Soviets, the USSR in less than ten years was able to once again, become a world superpower rivaling the US. Russia went from being one of the poorest nations in Europe to an industrial giant with the second largest economy in the world, and a military feared by the United States and its allies. Nonetheless, the further away from socialism the Soviet Union went, the less secure and powerful it became until it fully collapsed in 1991.

Your critique and snide remarks are disingenuous for the following reasons:

#1: You ignore the context of where the Soviet Union came from before the 1917 revolution,

#2: You conveniently ignore its geopolitical situation and challenges, with all of the wars and enemies that it had, trying desperately to destroy it by whatever means they could. Through economic sanctions, wars, cold wars, causing internal conflicts within the Soviet government..etc.

#3: You ignore all of its great accomplishments both economically and in the area of science and technology.

#4: Why do you assume that if socialism is better than capitalism, it has to replace it immediately, overnight, or within a few years? It took centuries for capitalism to replace slavery and feudalism, and it has taken more than a century for socialism to take root and begin replacing capitalism. You're being unfair and unreasonable when you make such demands of socialism.

Karl Marx admits to the superiority and virtues of capitalism, over previous economic systems, like slavery and feudalism. But just like capitalism replaced previous systems of production, capitalism will likewise be replaced with a socialized and democratized mode of production, namely, socialism and later communism. Why? Technology:









Advanced 21st-century technology (robotics, automated systems, artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles, nanotechnology.etc) will necessitate the adoption of a socialist economy, that produces and delivers goods and services to consumers without wage labor or for a profit. The bottom line of capitalist production must change from the private pursuit of money (i.e. capital), to pursuing production for the purpose of meeting human needs. Technology is going to eliminate wage labor to such an extent that society will have to establish a new and better mode of production that doesn't rely on wage labor. That's called socialism, the process that leads to communism. You may not like that fact, but that's the inevitable consequence of advanced production technology. The need for wage labor is eliminated by the capitalists themselves, creating what they're calling a "tech apocalypse". Why do you think these billionaires are talking about giving everyone a "Universal Basic Income"? They see the writing on the wall for capitalism.


NO WAGE LABOR (OR NOT ENOUGH OF IT) = NO PAYING CONSUMERS (OR NOT ENOUGH CUSTOMERS DUE TO EXTREME UNEMPLOYMENT) = NO MARKETS (OR TOO SMALL OF A MARKET WORTH INVESTING IN) = NO CAPITALISM = MUST PRODUCE PRODUCTS TO MEET HUMAN NEEDS, RATHER THAN FOR A PROFIT (SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM).


Read the book "Fully Automated Luxury Communism" by Aaron Bastani
Socialism is the future, due to advanced technology, which eliminates wage labor.

The only advantages the Soviets ever gained was a result of German rocket scientists. Everything else came at the end of a gun barrel.
 
The only advantages the Soviets ever gained was a result of German rocket scientists. Everything else came at the end of a gun barrel.

Everything the Soviets invented didn't come exclusively from German rocket scientists. The first cell phones, the first personal computers were produced by the Kiev Institute of Cybernetics in the 1960s in a series including the Mir-1, Mir-2 and Mir-3 computers. These were full-scale personal computers with all the necessary features, memory, and the capability for use in industrial production facilities of the time:




Mir2_l_p.jpg


The 1960s, and early 70s, the soviets were quite advanced with computers.

First microwave ovens, first lasers, and LED lights..etc, many inventions came from the Soviet Union. German rocket scientists had nothing to do with those inventions and the Soviets had many Russian rocket scientists and engineers, so you're quite mistaken, putting it mildly. You're just, again, as usual, being disengenious and petty. You just want to crap on the Soviet Union. That's fine, you can do that if it makes you feel better. Maybe you'll impress someone and they'll join you in your imaginary world where the USSR was completely dependent upon German rocket scientists for all of its technology. The fantasy world of Roshawn Markwees.
 
The private sector works more efficiently and cost-effectively than government.
No citizen is guaranteed work nor should be. Opportunity should be secured but that’s the extent of it.
‘Guaranteed work’ is nothing more than welfare. Look how disastrous that has been.
The private sector is more likely to cut corners in order to maximise profit. There are numerous examples of this. Your statement has some merit but is not the whole story.
 

Forum List

Back
Top