Why do so many Goppers oppose Gay Marriage ?

[Flopper]

They were simply following their American colleagues (who in many ways set the bar for everyone else) and throughout the West, there were mass gay protests and violent actions against psychiatry.

Actually the very opposite is true with respect to classifying homosexuality as a paraphilia or sexual disorder. People would actually have more reasons to be tolerant and compassionate because their condition would be seen as something beyond their control. If you declassify it, stripping it of its mental illness status, then it's definitely more likely to be seen as sexual depravity and perversion. The common symptoms are depression, and a much higher prevalence of suicide, among a number of other conditions, which you conveniently dismiss as being caused by bigotry, and homophobia. Shifting the cause to external factors and completely ignoring the fact that homosexuals show the same negative symptoms everywhere, not just in societies where they're mistreated. Their problems are prevalent everywhere, whether they live in Norway or in Alabama.

You make a good point, classifying homosexuality as an illness could increase tolerance and discourage people from seeing homosexuality as sexual depravity. The problem with that reasoning is that history does not support this premise. During most of the 20th century, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder but it sure did not create an environment of tolerance. Homosexuals were considered sexual deviates and a danger to the community. They were jailed, locked away in asylums, and worst of all forced to be something they are not.

The DSM is a handbook for therapist to assist in diagnosing a mental disorder and forming a treatment plan for that disorder, not to change how society views that mental condition. One of the problems which was cited when the DSM include homosexuality as a disorder was it sent researchers down blind allies looking for treatments for a disease that did not exist. This resulted in therapists recommending treatments that had no chance of success and often the symptoms that brought them to the therapist where not treated.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Countries that are truly socialist; that is government owns the means of production and bans private ownership of property have failed to become highly productive. How many 5 years plans did the USSR announce to increase crop production? The farmers just didn't want to live in communes and work for the good of the mother country. They wanted to own their own farm and work for the good of their family. To a lesser extent this happen in China and Cuba. All of these countries are becoming more capitalist because production is lower following the teaching of Marx.

Simply put unfettered socialism destroys incentive to produce. Unfettered capitalisms leads to corruption and destroys movements and institutions that exist for the good of society. As a result regulated capitalism, which is a combination capitalist and socialistic constructs is the best alternative to attaint high productivity and needed institutions that protect and enhance society.

 

[Flopper]

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.

From the time Stalin gained control to the 1970s, economic failure was always handled by scapegoating. Every failure to meet goals was due to enemies of the states or incompetency. Constructive criticism was rare because it can easily turn into criticism of the system and that was a real no no. However, the failure to meet goals was not due to Communism per sec but rather the failure of the merit system which reward workers for a good job. The workers that prospered were Communist or those with connections. In short there was no incentive to go a good job.

I'm not sure socialism can develop the incentives needed for strong economic growth. Working for the good of society is not much of an incentive for most people with ambition.

Why Did Socialism Collapse in Soviet Russia in 1989, but Survive in China?

In 1991, the biggest proponents of Socialism saw its demise in Soviet Russia. Elsewhere in the world, however, several staunch Communist leaders refused to tighten their grips. China, the most deve…

pennpoliticalreview.org

 

[Red Front]

From the time Stalin gained control to the 1970s, economic failure was always handled by scapegoating. Every failure to meet goals was due to enemies of the states or incompetency. Constructive criticism was rare because it can easily turn into criticism of the system and that was a real no no. However, the failure to meet goals was not due to Communism per sec but rather the failure of the merit system which reward workers for a good job. The workers that prospered were Communist or those with connections. In short there was no incentive to go a good job.

I'm not sure socialism can develop the incentives needed for strong economic growth. Working for the good of society is not much of an incentive for most people with ambition.

Why Did Socialism Collapse in Soviet Russia in 1989, but Survive in China?

In 1991, the biggest proponents of Socialism saw its demise in Soviet Russia. Elsewhere in the world, however, several staunch Communist leaders refused to tighten their grips. China, the most deve…

pennpoliticalreview.org

Stalin died in 1952 and wasn't even alive in 1970. What you're saying is absurd. If Americans have everything: Housing, Healthcare, Education, a nation with a modern infrastructure, and all of the modern amenities and comforts of life, they will gladly work, especially if they're worker-owners and not just employees. Worker-owned cooperatives are run democratically and salaries are better than in privately owned business enterprises. In American socialism, there will be a period where the private sector remains functioning within the consumer goods market. The heavy industries will be nationalized but consumer goods will remain private and the government will support workers in their endeavor to establish democratically run worker-cooperatives. Like in China, the consumer goods market will be guided, and advised by, the economic central planning office of the state, but it won't be forced to do anything. The government will provide loans, grants, and contracts to the private sector within the consumer goods market, to develop certain products for the public good (it will have a preference for democratically run worker-owned cooperatives).

American socialism will have its own character, we're not Russian Bolsheviks or Chinese communists. We're American socialists/communists.

 

[Red Front]

Countries that are truly socialist; that is government owns the means of production and bans private ownership of property have failed to become highly productive. How many 5 years plans did the USSR announce to increase crop production? The farmers just didn't want to live in communes and work for the good of the mother country. They wanted to own their own farm and work for the good of their family. To a lesser extent this happen in China and Cuba. All of these countries are becoming more capitalist because production is lower following the teaching of Marx.

Simply put unfettered socialism destroys incentive to produce. Unfettered capitalisms leads to corruption and destroys movements and institutions that exist for the good of society. As a result regulated capitalism, which is a combination capitalist and socialistic constructs is the best alternative to attaint high productivity and needed institutions that protect and enhance society.

The Soviet Union did very well despite all of the wars and sanctions imposed upon it. Most of what you're saying is simply capitalist propaganda.

 

[Red Front]

You make a good point, classifying homosexuality as an illness could increase tolerance and discourage people from seeing homosexuality as sexual depravity. The problem with that reasoning is that history does not support this premise. During most of the 20th century, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder but it sure did not create an environment of tolerance. Homosexuals were considered sexual deviates and a danger to the community. They were jailed, locked away in asylums, and worst of all forced to be something they are not.

The DSM is a handbook for therapist to assist in diagnosing a mental disorder and forming a treatment plan for that disorder, not to change how society views that mental condition. One of the problems which was cited when the DSM include homosexuality as a disorder was it sent researchers down blind allies looking for treatments for a disease that did not exist. This resulted in therapists recommending treatments that had no chance of success and often the symptoms that brought them to the therapist where not treated.

You ignore the symptoms of homosexuality, which are clearly indicative of an illness. You blame externalities, for the increased depression, and suicide, among other issues that are prevalent among homosexuals, irrespective of where they might live (Sweden or South Carolina). Perhaps you should consider the possibility that it's healthier for homosexuals and the general public if homosexuals aren't parading the streets in leather chaps with their buttocks exposed, carrying whips and chains. The LGBTQ community is its own worse enemy.

 

[Unkotare]

...

Why should married folk have any more rights than people who are not married?

....

Because it benefits society.

 

[Red Front]

Because it benefits society.

What would be the special rights of married couples over single people? I agree, marriage is good for society.

 

[Flopper]

Stalin died in 1952 and wasn't even alive in 1970. What you're saying is absurd. If Americans have everything: Housing, Healthcare, Education, a nation with a modern infrastructure, and all of the modern amenities and comforts of life, they will gladly work, especially if they're worker-owners and not just employees. Worker-owned cooperatives are run democratically and salaries are better than in privately owned business enterprises. In American socialism, there will be a period where the private sector remains functioning within the consumer goods market. The heavy industries will be nationalized but consumer goods will remain private and the government will support workers in their endeavor to establish democratically run worker-cooperatives. Like in China, the consumer goods market will be guided, and advised by, the economic central planning office of the state, but it won't be forced to do anything. The government will provide loans, grants, and contracts to the private sector within the consumer goods market, to develop certain products for the public good.

American socialism will have its own character, we're not Russian Bolsheviks or Chinese communists. We're American socialists/communists.

I wrote, "From the time Stalin gained control to the 1970s, economic failure was always handled by scapegoating." I did not say he was alive the 70's. I said scapegoating was used from the time Stalin gained control to the 70's.

Although there are some large co-ops, smaller co-ops work a lot better. The reason being each member has an equal vote and being a smaller business the investment of each member is likely be near the same amount. However, when the business requires far more capital to grow than members can provide, Co-OPs must turn to outside investor to supply the millions needed and those investors will generally want more control of the business than that of the janitor who invested a hundred dollar. There are ways around this but they tend to defeat the purpose of the Co-op or severely limit it's growth.

 

[Leo123]

You make a good point, classifying homosexuality as an illness could increase tolerance and discourage people from seeing homosexuality as sexual depravity. The problem with that reasoning is that history does not support this premise. During most of the 20th century, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder but it sure did not create an environment of tolerance. Homosexuals were considered sexual deviates and a danger to the community. They were jailed, locked away in asylums, and worst of all forced to be something they are not.

The DSM is a handbook for therapist to assist in diagnosing a mental disorder and forming a treatment plan for that disorder, not to change how society views that mental condition. One of the problems which was cited when the DSM include homosexuality as a disorder was it sent researchers down blind allies looking for treatments for a disease that did not exist. This resulted in therapists recommending treatments that had no chance of success and often the symptoms that brought them to the therapist where not treated.

Homosexuals were and are tolerated for the most part. Sure there were some that dissed them but only a fringe and they still exist today. Most folks just disagree with them actually promoting their lifestyle and trying to groom children in schools today. Some homosexuals do benefit from psychological help though.

 

[Red Front]

I wrote, "From the time Stalin gained control to the 1970s, economic failure was always handled by scapegoating." I did not say he was alive the 70's. I said scapegoating was used from the time Stalin gained control to the 70's.

Although there are some large co-ops, smaller co-ops work a lot better. The reason being each member has an equal vote and being a smaller business the investment of each member is likely be near the same amount. However, when the business requires far more capital to grow than members can provide, Co-OPs must turn to outside investor to supply the millions needed and those investors will generally want more control of the business than that of the janitor who invested a hundred dollar. There are ways around this but they tend to defeat the purpose of the Co-op or severely limit it's growth.

OK sorry for misreading what you said about Stalin. In the 1950s the revisionists, the "fifth column" took control of the Soviet economy. Even with that, it took thirty years for them to destroy the Soviet Union. There was still plenty of growth in the late 50s and 60s, into the 70s. You also have to consider the fact that all socialist countries are like little roses trying to grow in a field of capitalist weeds. That rose will be strangled as soon as it begins to flourish. Every opportunity to undermine a socialist economy is taken by capitalist imperialists. Technology will eventually, in the not too distant future, require us to adopt socialism and eventually communism to produce all of the consumer goods that we consume. Our mode of production will no longer be for a profit, but simply to meet our needs. The more advanced the production technology the more control the consumer will have over the means of production/the machinery/devices/robots/AI/nanotech..etc.

As far as your comment on worker-cooperatives. There's no need to rely on private wealthy investors to fund the cooperatives when it expands, because either we can get loans (from certain banks), grants, contracts..etc. More, the cooperative's profits in many ways are the capitalist's overhead. If we pay our bills and salaries, we're in business. Is it good to have a surplus or profit? Yes, it's better, it's ideal. That money will be reinvested in the company and it can be used to pay for warranties and provide better customer service. Make our products and services more competitive. Hire more workers. Cooperatives are scary monsters. The wealthy capitalist fief-lords, hate them. They may even go to the government and try to pass legislation to limit their freedom of operation in order to better compete with them. Perhaps they might even try to ban worker-owned cooperatives. Most banks now don't give loans to cooperatives but as socialists, we plan to change that. There are other sources of funding, that I won't mention or discuss here. We don't need the rich capitalist lords. We have our collective labor and skills, which is worth more than all of the money the current ruling class has.

 

[Flopper]

You ignore the symptoms of homosexuality, which are clearly indicative of an illness. You blame externalities, for the increased depression, and suicide, among other issues that are prevalent among homosexuals, irrespective of where they might live (Sweden or South Carolina). Perhaps you should consider the possibility that it's healthier for homosexuals and the general public if homosexuals aren't parading the streets in leather chaps with their buttocks exposed, carrying whips and chains. The LGBTQ community is its own worse enemy.

Symptoms must be reliable indicator of a disorder. Although homosexuals may be more likely to be chronically depressed or they may be more likely to have attempted suicided. And we may find that homosexuals are 3% more likely to have suffered from OCD. Is chronic depression, attempted suicide, and OCD a good enough indicator to diagnosis homosexuality. For symptoms to be useful in diagnostics, taken as a whole they must have high degree of correlations with the condition. That has been case with homosexuals

There was a study done a few years ago with a group of homosexuals' that had not come out and another group that have. The first group had hidden their true desires and tried to pass as heterosexuals. The second group had come out, openly taken on homosexual partners, dressed and acted the way they truly felt. Those that had hidden their feelings had many psychological problems and those that didn't were most free of those problems.

 

[Red Front]

Symptoms must be reliable indicator of a disorder. Although homosexuals may be more likely to be chronically depressed or they may be more likely to have attempted suicided. And we may find that homosexuals are 3% more likely to have suffered from OCD. Is chronic depression, attempted suicide, and OCD a good enough indicator to diagnosis homosexuality. For symptoms to be useful in diagnostics, taken as a whole they must have high degree of correlations with the condition. That has been case with homosexuals

There was a study done a few years ago with a group of homosexuals' that had not come out and another group that have. The first group had hidden their true desires and tried to pass as heterosexuals. The second group had come out, openly taken on homosexual partners, dressed and acted the way they truly felt. Those that had hidden their feelings had many psychological problems and those that didn't were most free of those problems.

If those who resisted their homosexual impulses had access to treatment, they might have been able to overcome those negative symptoms, and maybe even develop a healthy attraction for the opposite sex. Doing a cost-benefit analysis of the current LGBTQ phenomenon, with its open homosexuality, it seems to me to have more of a destructive effect on society than if homosexuals were less "mainstream" and although permitted to do whatever they want in private among themselves, we should not promote homosexuality as a healthy alternative to heterosexuality.


Unfortunately, you ignore the metaphysical, pretending it doesn't exist when it does. We can't discuss that, because you've decided to sweep it under the rug, within your psyche (it would require too much of a paradigm shift in your thinking hence you run away from it). You don't want to deal with the prospect of the existence of spirits:

That's an aspect of reality that you can't continue to ignore. You have to come to terms with it. I was an atheist for most of my adult life and a Marxist materialist. I'm still a Marxist, but my materialism has incorporated the so called "paranormal". I see it all as part of the natural, material world, but it is a different type of matter. That's all. I confirmed this phenomenon for myself and had no choice but to accept it. Spirits are real, and they can influence us.

​

 

[Flopper]

OK sorry for misreading what you said about Stalin. In the 1950s the revisionists, the "fifth column" took control of the Soviet economy. Even with that, it took thirty years for them to destroy the Soviet Union. There was still plenty of growth in the late 50s and 60s, into the 70s. You also have to consider the fact that all socialist countries are like little roses trying to grow in a field of capitalist weeds. That rose will be strangled as soon as it begins to flourish. Every opportunity to undermine a socialist economy is taken by capitalist imperialists. Technology will eventually, in the not too distant future, require us to adopt socialism and eventually communism to produce all of the consumer goods that we consume. Our mode of production will no longer be for a profit, but simply to meet our needs. The more advanced the production technology the more control the consumer will have over the means of production/the machinery/devices/robots/AI/nanotech..etc.

As far as your comment on worker-cooperatives. There's no need to rely on private wealthy investors to fund the cooperatives when it expands, because either we can get loans (from certain banks), grants, contracts..etc. More, the cooperative's profits in many ways are the capitalist's overhead. If we pay our bills and salaries, we're in business. Is it good to have a surplus or profit? Yes, it's better, it's ideal. That money will be reinvested in the company and it can be used to pay for warranties and provide better customer service. Make our products and services more competitive. Hire more workers. Cooperatives are scary monsters. The wealthy capitalist fief-lords, hate them. They may even go to the government and try to pass legislation to limit their freedom of operation in order to better compete with them. Perhaps they might even try to ban worker-owned cooperatives. Most banks now don't give loans to cooperatives but as socialists, we plan to change that. There are other sources of funding, that I won't mention or discuss here. We don't need the rich capitalist lords. We have our collective labor and skills, which is worth more than all of the money the current ruling class has.

There are thousands of startups that have few employees and need millions in capital. These companies have few assets other than one or two people brilliant entrepreneurs or developers. They now turn to private investors. Thinking the government would provide the funds is pretty farfetched. These startups would never get past the government bureaucracy. Further, the governments record at picking the right companies to put money into has never been good.

I would be interesting in knowing how you would transform the large corporations with revenues over a billion dollars and who make up 72% of the business contributions to our GDP to employee owned COOPs. These business are mostly global with investors, customers, and suppliers all over the world.

 

[Red Front]

There are thousands of startups that have few employees and need millions in capital. These companies have few assets other than one or two people brilliant entrepreneurs or developers. They now turn to private investors. Thinking the government would provide the funds is pretty farfetched. These startups would never get past the government bureaucracy. Further, the governments record at picking the right companies to put money into has never been good.

I would be interesting in knowing how you would transform the large corporations with revenues over a billion dollars and who make up 72% of the business contributions to our GDP to employee owned COOPs. These business are mostly global with investors, customers, and suppliers all over the world.

That's just capitalist-inspired rhetoric (the private sector is just as plagued with bureaucracy as any government). The SBA currently doesn't support worker-owned cooperatives, and neither do Western banks, but as unemployment increases as a result of advanced technology (automated systems, robotics, AI, self-driving vehicles, nanotech. etc), the working class will continue moving further to the left, especially the new generation. That's what we're witnessing now. A massive movement toward labor unionization and left-wing politics among our youth. So hopefully government policies will begin to reflect that shift to the left in the not-too-distant future and workers will begin to form cooperatives that will be supported by government and financial institutions. People will also form movements, that may receive funding from different sources that support socialism, workers..etc.

​

The United States government through NGOs, along with people like George Soros, love to promote neo-liberalism throughout the world. You think only the capitalists, imperialists fund projects in other countries to advance their ideology and world view? There are many sources of funding in the world, that would love to see America full of socialist-run worker owned cooperatives. It would transform our politics and economy for the better and serve the interests of not just the American people but of the whole world.