AuthorTopic: Capitalist Demonization of Communists/Socialists/Anarchists in the US PRE-1947  (Read 1495 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34230
    • View Profile
The issue here is that "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".  As long as you maintain the position the "Capitalism has some good points, it was just corrupted by a few Evil Men at the top", you are part of the problem.  This is the group of people who now try to make a distinction between "capitalism" and "corporatism". Trying to throw whitewash over a really bad system which has impoverished billions for the profit of 1%.  It's not the "few bad apples" that make Capitalism bad, the system itself is rotten to the core.

Will Socialism fix all the ills of resource depletion and population overshoot we have now?  Of course not, but it would provide a more equitable distribution of wealth during the spin down.  All the wealth of the top 10% should be stripped and used to fund the rebuilding of public infrastructure.  All excess housing besides the dwelling a person actually lives in should be converted to housing for the Homeless.  All excess vehicles besides the one the person needs for daily tasks should be converted to a fleet for pbulicly available rental cars at affordable prices.  All wages should come within 1 Standard Deviation of the mean, in our current economy around $70K household income.  Essentially this means nobody over $150K, nobody under $35K.  Medical care should be public and supported by taxation on profits and excess income above the $150K threshhold.

Most industries should be converted to Worker Cooperatives, run by the workers.  The main conduits in particular, Energy, Food, Housing, Medicine, Communications and Transportation.  Managers should be selected by the workers, not by the share holders in a corporation.  Banking and Money Creation should be done by Goobermint, not by a private cartel of International Banksters.

Many other changes are necessary of course, but this would be a good start towards managing the spin down we have ahead here.  Capitalism and its Apologists are the Enemy, they gotta go.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16122
    • View Profile
This is all so incredibly fuckin' silly.

It's ALL gonna go. Capitalist, socialist, monarchy, whatever.

What's a socialist country anyway?  Are there any in existence? Where?

I see some "social democracies". These are capitalist countries, because it's the capitalists paying the taxes that create the wealth to redistribute.

Sweden is the poster child.

Yesterday I got in trouble with Palloy because I said Russia was socialist, and he corrected me. They have rich oligarchs.

China has all kinds of rich oligarchs.

Viet Nam?

N Korea?

Cuba?

Are those your idea of a successful way to run a  country. No thanks. I'll pass. The Repressed Citizens of America are way better off than the people in any of those places. Even smack shootin' rednecks in the trailer park are better off. People in NK are HUNGRY. The poor people here are obese.

Do you mean some hypothetical socialist country where people in power DON'T feather their own nests because they can? Some perfect world socialist country. Yeah, I'll take that. But it'll only happen when flocks of flying monkeys erupt from my ass.




What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34230
    • View Profile

Do you mean some hypothetical socialist country where people in power DON'T feather their own nests because they can? Some perfect world socialist country. Yeah, I'll take that. But it'll only happen when flocks of flying monkeys erupt from my ass.

LOL.  I never said such a country or Goobermint currently exists, or in fact has ever existed.  But then again, no truly "Capitalist" country ever existed either.

My main goal is to provide a roadmap to a Better Tomorrow.  That is the goal of the SUN project.  I know the current system in the FSoA is FUBAR and will collapse of it's own accord.  So I present ideas on how to improve on things as the spin down progresses in terms of equity in collapse.  It won't take monkeys flying out of your ass either.  It will just take empty shelves at Walmart.

If you don't like the new system, feel free to hop on a sailboat and go...somewhere else.

RE
« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 01:24:47 PM by RE »
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14385
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner

Among the many targets of COINTELPRO, the most serious attention was paid to those movements that most threatened state interests. The most violent repression under COINTELPRO was used against the Black Panthers, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, the American Indian Movement, and the Puerto Rican independence movement. It was fueled by the state's need to preserve the near total political and economic disenfranchisement of people of color in the face of the first serious threats to the racial status quo since post-Civil War Reconstruction. The need of the American empire to keep Puerto Rico in its colonial orbit, while it was losing the war in Southeast Asia, drove the violent repression there and against Puerto Rican immigrants in the United States.[/size]

http://www.isreview.org/issues/49/cointelpro.shtml


MLK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, Harry and Harriette Moore, and worst of all, the state-ordered execution of Fred Hampton and mark Clark  in 1969. Chicago police formed a "select group" but his assassination was demonstrated a conspiracy between local law enforcement and the FBI. The cops claimed, of course, that they were involved in  “shootout.” A bald-faced lie: the physical evidence definitively established that the raiders fired nearly 100 shots at the Panthers while they were sleeping, while only one shot could be linked to a Panther weapon. Because ballistics.

After the raid the Minister of Defense for the Black Panther Party, Bobby Rush, declared that J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI were responsible. But there was no hard proof. The first documentation that supported Rush’s claim came in 1971 when activists broke into an FBI office in Media, PA, and liberated a trove of FBI documents. These outlined the FBI’s COINTELPRO program and its focus in the 1960s on the Black liberation movement and its leaders. As noted above, Hoover directed all of the Bureau’s offices to “disrupt, misdirect, and otherwise neutralize” African American organizations and leaders including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the Nation of Islam, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Stokely Carmichael and H. Rap Brown.

You know the rest. Thus the wages of "revolution" here in this capitalist paradise.

"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Agent Graves

  • Rookie
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Its wrong to say Anarchists support socialism, just not soviet style. Capitalists are actually more supportive of Socialism than Anarchists. Anarchists do not want a govt at all, so they definitely don't want a govt to tax them to provide social services. Democratic Socialism actually depends on Capitalism. If they dont have capitalism to tax to provide healthcare, education and social security, it can only be done through communism, for a while. Theres a reason China didnt go down with the Soviet Union and Cuba is doing better without Castro calling the shots, pun intended. Pointing this out doesn't give me an affinity with Mitch Romny either.

Sir, you are splitting Socialist hairs. That part about Anarchists not agreeing to Soviet style Communism, which Anarchists NOW, AT PRESENT, label as "State Capitalism", is not relevant to Anarchist total solidarity with the Socialst movement in the USA, even before the 20th Century began. Had you watched the Columbia University video in my post, the  common ground between Anarchists and Socialists, due to the brutal, dangerous and deadly working conditions in the USA when the 20th Century began, would have been made clear to you.

Hoover was out to GIT the Anarchists BECAUSE they recognized, like the Communists/Socialists, the moral bankruptcy of Capitalism.

The attitude of Capitalists towards ANY economic sytem based on Liberty and Justice for ALL has always been negative, to put it mildly.

Your posts usually concentrate on the negative track record of Socialist/Communist governments while studiously ignoring the massive record of human rights abuse by Capitalist governments, especially our US Fascist Paradise Government. That is a sophistic debating technique. Yes, it is clever but it is fallacious. 

I suggest you try to be more even handed in your comparison of the two systems (yes, there are basically ONLY TWO systems in discussion here). All human run systems are flawed and it is easy to cherry pick the negative aspects of any one of them.

Nevertheless, it is incorrect to claim that Capitalism has the moral high ground over all things Socialist. The exact reverse is true.

The two comments in the following graphic provide Prima Facie evidence that Capitalists=War Loving, Greed Inspired, Conscience Free Predators are the sworn enemies of all things Socialist AND that Capitalism is morally bankrupt.


The only solution is to LEAVE NOW, before the next and final financial crash.

I have considered it. Being in the belly of the beast is no fun at all. But, as many have accurately posted here in regard to said Imperial Capitalist Beast, it's better to hide behnd the spear than to be target practice for it.

I am old. I am weak. My orthostatic hypotension is getting worse, despite the fact that I have a pacemaker for Bradycardia. Ive got to be careful when I lean over for any reason to straighten up slowly to avoid a dizzy spell.

All I can do is live frugally, as an example to others, and expose injustice and inequality based on profit over people and planet with posts here and on my forum while I still have the ability to do so. The Moral Bankruptcy of the Capitalist Powers That Be who presently Dominate the World Economy = Inevitable Collapse FOLLOWED BY a thousand years or so of an overheated planet that humans are NOT adapted to surviving in.

I know, Palloy, it IS a tough world. But, there is no planet B.


Sorry Agelbert, but if communism is the point being debated, I am not required to compare it to capitalism in every particular as that is a much larger undertaking and would leave the critical points i wished to make lost. I had hoped that "I dont believe in using money at all", should suffice to excuse me from that onerous task, but did suspect that an either with us or against us attitude would ignore all that. The main point re communism I made was the death toll. 100m in the 20th Century, that puts it in first place ahead of Christianity in 2nd and Islam in 3rd by my calculation.

 Its ridiculous to say that Socialism is pacifism because Marx SAID you only need to wait for capitalism to destroy itself. They didn't wait, they violently overthrew the monarchies and killed everyone as an ongoing process. Then communism ended up dying on its own, not capitalism. I have said the ongoing death toll is required, because communists never make everyone equal as promised, so need to keep killing anyone who mentions this or even might mention it.

Ill watch the vid now as I had planned last night, but couldnt keep awake after getting home after dark as usual. Overtime pays well, but money puts most people in a gold barred prison, either of the mind through materialism, or just practical survival. Either way, the pre-occupation and associated agitation is debasement of human nature. I believe native peoples figured this out already over 100k years. The concept of "mine" is foreign to them. If you tell a fijian you like his shirt, he will give it to you and you must take it. If you try using something like a musical instrument or weapon "belonging" to a Maori and are better with it than they are, they give it to you. I learned this when i picked up a pair of those chrome chinese balls that are meant to be spun around in your palm. Even when I said its only easy for me because my glove size is 2XL so an unfair advantage, they were very serious in insisting I take the balls. That relates directly to my point before about capitalism or any FINANCIAL system, that the most crude measure of a mans worth being money is the most important. Obviously for the native people the value is in the ability insteadand the ability benefits everyone. In fact the great Aboriginal boxer, Lionel Rose, made a joke that "blackfelllas are the original communists" when all his winning money was distributed to everyone else.

There's no reason the same principle can't be applied today if the overall culture, corrupted by the use of money, were different. There would not be endless growth, expansion, critical GDP, because there are industries where workers need money all year round to survive, then if they have excess that creates new industries whose workers also need work all year round, including even arms dealers in a vicious cycle. All things could be produced as needed. If an individuals worth without money is measured in their ability, and that ability benefits everyone, nobody will object to being asked by someone else for resources such as crude oil or iron ore. Uranium might get asked some questions. The scenes in movies where American Indian chiefs have given long consideration to what gift can match some piece of technology they do not have, such as a rifle, shows the principle. The one asking for the resource feels diminished until they can return the compliment, such as shipping back some finished goods when needed. Call this real anarchy or socialism, because with money involved there is only the real world results and the back and forth blame game, when there is no black and white between socialism and capitalism. They are the same system, with a distinction of degrees not difference.












« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 08:41:22 PM by Agent Graves »
Junior  Operative, FBI Counter-Doomsdaycult Taskforce

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3313
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
The issue here is that "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".  As long as you maintain the position the "Capitalism has some good points, it was just corrupted by a few Evil Men at the top", you are part of the problem.  This is the group of people who now try to make a distinction between "capitalism" and "corporatism". Trying to throw whitewash over a really bad system which has impoverished billions for the profit of 1%.  It's not the "few bad apples" that make Capitalism bad, the system itself is rotten to the core.

Will Socialism fix all the ills of resource depletion and population overshoot we have now?  Of course not, but it would provide a more equitable distribution of wealth during the spin down.  All the wealth of the top 10% should be stripped and used to fund the rebuilding of public infrastructure.  All excess housing besides the dwelling a person actually lives in should be converted to housing for the Homeless.  All excess vehicles besides the one the person needs for daily tasks should be converted to a fleet for pbulicly available rental cars at affordable prices.  All wages should come within 1 Standard Deviation of the mean, in our current economy around $70K household income.  Essentially this means nobody over $150K, nobody under $35K.  Medical care should be public and supported by taxation on profits and excess income above the $150K threshhold.

Most industries should be converted to Worker Cooperatives, run by the workers.  The main conduits in particular, Energy, Food, Housing, Medicine, Communications and Transportation.  Managers should be selected by the workers, not by the share holders in a corporation.  Banking and Money Creation should be done by Goobermint, not by a private cartel of International Banksters.

Many other changes are necessary of course, but this would be a good start towards managing the spin down we have ahead here.  Capitalism and its Apologists are the Enemy, they gotta go.
There is one thing that virtually everyone is missing... that "golden age" of American capitalism, the 1950s and 1960s, the one when America was "great"?  Who owned the vast majority of corporate stocks back then?  Pension funds.  So, indirectly, the corporations, in being run for the shareholder's benefits, were being run for for the worker's benefit, when they retired, on their defined benefit plan.  But then, in the 1970s, the switch was made to defined contribution plans, and participation made optional, and ownership of corporations dwindled away from the workers.
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14385
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
The issue here is that "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".  As long as you maintain the position the "Capitalism has some good points, it was just corrupted by a few Evil Men at the top", you are part of the problem.  This is the group of people who now try to make a distinction between "capitalism" and "corporatism". Trying to throw whitewash over a really bad system which has impoverished billions for the profit of 1%.  It's not the "few bad apples" that make Capitalism bad, the system itself is rotten to the core.

Will Socialism fix all the ills of resource depletion and population overshoot we have now?  Of course not, but it would provide a more equitable distribution of wealth during the spin down.  All the wealth of the top 10% should be stripped and used to fund the rebuilding of public infrastructure.  All excess housing besides the dwelling a person actually lives in should be converted to housing for the Homeless.  All excess vehicles besides the one the person needs for daily tasks should be converted to a fleet for pbulicly available rental cars at affordable prices.  All wages should come within 1 Standard Deviation of the mean, in our current economy around $70K household income.  Essentially this means nobody over $150K, nobody under $35K.  Medical care should be public and supported by taxation on profits and excess income above the $150K threshhold.

Most industries should be converted to Worker Cooperatives, run by the workers.  The main conduits in particular, Energy, Food, Housing, Medicine, Communications and Transportation.  Managers should be selected by the workers, not by the share holders in a corporation.  Banking and Money Creation should be done by Goobermint, not by a private cartel of International Banksters.

Many other changes are necessary of course, but this would be a good start towards managing the spin down we have ahead here.  Capitalism and its Apologists are the Enemy, they gotta go.
There is one thing that virtually everyone is missing... that "golden age" of American capitalism, the 1950s and 1960s, the one when America was "great"?  Who owned the vast majority of corporate stocks back then?  Pension funds.  So, indirectly, the corporations, in being run for the shareholder's benefits, were being run for for the worker's benefit, when they retired, on their defined benefit plan.  But then, in the 1970s, the switch was made to defined contribution plans, and participation made optional, and ownership of corporations dwindled away from the workers.

Excellent, excellent point. The switch from defined benefit to defined contribution plans is a foundation stone of building a precariat, and impoverishing retirees.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16122
    • View Profile
The issue here is that "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".  As long as you maintain the position the "Capitalism has some good points, it was just corrupted by a few Evil Men at the top", you are part of the problem.  This is the group of people who now try to make a distinction between "capitalism" and "corporatism". Trying to throw whitewash over a really bad system which has impoverished billions for the profit of 1%.  It's not the "few bad apples" that make Capitalism bad, the system itself is rotten to the core.

Will Socialism fix all the ills of resource depletion and population overshoot we have now?  Of course not, but it would provide a more equitable distribution of wealth during the spin down.  All the wealth of the top 10% should be stripped and used to fund the rebuilding of public infrastructure.  All excess housing besides the dwelling a person actually lives in should be converted to housing for the Homeless.  All excess vehicles besides the one the person needs for daily tasks should be converted to a fleet for pbulicly available rental cars at affordable prices.  All wages should come within 1 Standard Deviation of the mean, in our current economy around $70K household income.  Essentially this means nobody over $150K, nobody under $35K.  Medical care should be public and supported by taxation on profits and excess income above the $150K threshhold.

Most industries should be converted to Worker Cooperatives, run by the workers.  The main conduits in particular, Energy, Food, Housing, Medicine, Communications and Transportation.  Managers should be selected by the workers, not by the share holders in a corporation.  Banking and Money Creation should be done by Goobermint, not by a private cartel of International Banksters.

Many other changes are necessary of course, but this would be a good start towards managing the spin down we have ahead here.  Capitalism and its Apologists are the Enemy, they gotta go.
There is one thing that virtually everyone is missing... that "golden age" of American capitalism, the 1950s and 1960s, the one when America was "great"?  Who owned the vast majority of corporate stocks back then?  Pension funds.  So, indirectly, the corporations, in being run for the shareholder's benefits, were being run for for the worker's benefit, when they retired, on their defined benefit plan.  But then, in the 1970s, the switch was made to defined contribution plans, and participation made optional, and ownership of corporations dwindled away from the workers.

You're sure missed around here. Damn good point, I agree.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11595
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Message to Eddie, who agrees I am a "good man" man as long as I don't call him out on his erroneous view of history, at which point he shows his coarse lack of compassion for me, an aged and infirm fellow American, by going partial, and then FULL Ad Hominem:

🕵️ ;D

This entire discussion began when YOU claimed that Communism wasn't a negative "buzzword" before 1947. While it is true that the expression, "negative buzzword", did not even exist in the English language back then  ;D, I jumped because Anti-Communist propaganda and skullduggery dates to the turn of the 20th Century and before. 

I showed you evidence that you were wrong about Communism not being a negative "buzzword" before 1947.

Also, I claimed that your view that the 1930's was a "friendly" period towards Communism was also wrong.

That got your Texas pride filled drawers in a bunch and you went on the attack, starting with trying to frame me as a "touchy", "Shrill", etc. you get the idea (SEE: attack the messenger fallacious debating technique). 

Let us assume for the moment that my attitude towards Capitalism is as pedestrianly uneducated as my "simplistic irrationally positive" view of Communism/Socialism/Anarchism.

How did you put it? I think this thoroughly demeaning quote of yours pretty much covers it (I know, after this post you will Texas double down on your insults by claiming that I ain't seen nuttin' yet  ;)):

Quote
I really don't find anything in this long rant that I didn't know, at least in general terms...or anything in your broader assessment that I even disagree with that much. But like all your posts on this subject, it's the product of a very narrow view, and it's the equivalent of a five minute book report on an epic novel. It's very much the Readers Digest condensed version for rabid socialists. There's a whole lot left out.

The above quote is revealing. You do NOT, generally  ;), DISAGREE with my historical "rant", yet you are silent as death about the FACT that you previously erroneously claimed that Communism wasn't a negative "buzzword" before 1947.

Now, either you DID know that and you didn't want to talk about pre-1947 persecution of Communists, or you DIDN'T know about it. You cannot have it both ways. But, you are doing your best to do exactly that. ;D

As Eddie likes to say, "You are not going to get away with that attempt to question Eddie's vast knowledge and Eddie is not done by a Texas long shot" , RIGHT? 

So then, rather than admit your error, you procede to undermine the post that you (see your quote above) didn't seem to have issues with, by relegating it to the level of a five minute overly simplistic book report.

I wan't trying to right a comprehensive history, Tex. I was, as you KNOW, challenging your erroneous view that Communism wasn't a negative "buzzword" before 1947 (see the title of the post, please!).

OF COURSE there is a whole lot left out. And, it is clear that what was "left in" was, from your POV, suitable only for "rabid" Socialists.

 I guess you consider Surly, a man with three times the historically accurate knowledge of American History that you and I have, PUT TOGETHER,  a "rabid" Soclialist. He is a man of integrity and respect. You were attacking him as well as me. NO, Eddie, I am NOT "putting words in your mouth! You made that post after Surly praised my post as an accurate summary of the history. Try as you may to twist Surly's respect for my knowledge of history, nobody who is objective here is going to buy it, Tex.

YOU are the one going on a rampage of irrational insults and demeaning posts, trying to put words in MY mouth, making silly, childish, foolish, immature, shrill and thoroughly hateful broad statements about my accross the board "bullshit".

And, YEAH, I DO KNOW YOU! Unless there are TWO Eddies posting here where one Eddie, the mild mannered reporter from the Daily Planet who supports many Socialist programs in the US Government for the poor and disadvantaged, is the principled brother of his evil, uncaring twin who thinks the poor in America are just a bunch of lazy greedy riff raff waiting for the Loto to solve their economic problems. I certainly DO read and interpret correctly your point of view in regard to what you CARE about and what you DON'T CARE about.

The issues may be complex, but there is no justification for simultaneously holding two opposing views. 

As to the complexity of this issue of Communism versus Capitalism, yeah, it's VERY complex. I don't know WHO TF you are to think you are the only one that has come to that enlightened erudite conclusion, but the body of work in your posts, especially when you are in a good mood, evidences that you generally DO NOT DO NUANCE unless you are challenging somebody else's POV. Then you go into all sorts of, "not being sure of this or that" in regard to what the other poster stated, continually casting doubt on the validity of the post you are challenging.

However, when someone challenges YOUR overly simplistic acceptance of Capitalism as the "best system" despite it being a "mixed bag", the Texas Longhorn horns come out. What's good for Goose is SUPPOSED TO BE  good for the Gander, Tex! Holster your guns and start thinking with your mind instead of your pride! 

But let us assume for the moment that, as you have just repeatedly abused your Admin privilege to label me as such, I am just some "old crank/asshole/rabid Socialist".

The fact remains that the following graphic (see upper right hand corner) has a DATE on it that proves your claims that "Communism wasn't a negative "buzzword" before 1947" AND that the 1930's was a "friendly"  period for Communists in the USA are both incorrect.


I am not the one speading inaccurate Historical narratives here, Tex.

YOU made a BROAD, OVERY SIMPLISTIC, HISTORICALLY INACCURATE STATEMENT when you claimed Communism wasn't a negative "buzzword" before 1947. So, for you to claim I am the one being overly simplistic in my subsequent posts is hypocritical in the extreme.

No matter how you try to spin it, Capitalism is morally bankrupt. As RE said, in so many words, if you cannot see that, you are wrong.

Go ahead Eddie, "fire up the drones". That's an old expression I heard often in the FAA, based on the exact same empathy deficit disordered "sense of humor". Back then it was from some "funny" Southern boys who thought it was great fun to say, "Fire up the Ovens" when discussing Jewish businesses.

Now, don't say I am calling you anti-Jew, I am certainly not doing that. I am NOT putting "words in your mouth".

What I am doing is making it crystal clear to you that your casual offhand coarse jokes and peculiar sense of humor offends all peace loving people, of whom you claim to be one.

If you wish to be given the benefit of the doubt about your allegedly objective views on Capitalism and Socialism, stop with the jokes about Capitalist murder and mayhem for Empire. Those coarse sarcastic jokes of yours are as funny as basket full of dead babies.

Yes, I am painfully aware of the fact that you don't care what I think. It appears, from the number of views I get, that you are in the minority in that respect. Also, you may wish to revise your post where you joined into the positive recognition of my contributions here after over a million views.

You need to be consistent if you want people to take you seriously. Now, if you don't care what anybody thinks, then, by all means, have a ball by continuing your Dr. Jekell and Mr. Hyde routine.

As for me, I will continue reading your posts when you are discussing medicine, technology and many other issues you are knowlegeable about and worthy to be listened to. Your biases on political issues and history don't interfere with your technical kowledge base.

However, though I will continue to vigorously disagree with your thoroughly biased view of American History, I will avoid discussing such with you because, quite frankly, you and I will never find common ground there.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2018, 12:44:05 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11595
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Its wrong to say Anarchists support socialism, just not soviet style. Capitalists are actually more supportive of Socialism than Anarchists. Anarchists do not want a govt at all, so they definitely don't want a govt to tax them to provide social services. Democratic Socialism actually depends on Capitalism. If they dont have capitalism to tax to provide healthcare, education and social security, it can only be done through communism, for a while. Theres a reason China didnt go down with the Soviet Union and Cuba is doing better without Castro calling the shots, pun intended. Pointing this out doesn't give me an affinity with Mitch Romny either.

Sir, you are splitting Socialist hairs. That part about Anarchists not agreeing to Soviet style Communism, which Anarchists NOW, AT PRESENT, label as "State Capitalism", is not relevant to Anarchist total solidarity with the Socialst movement in the USA, even before the 20th Century began. Had you watched the Columbia University video in my post, the  common ground between Anarchists and Socialists, due to the brutal, dangerous and deadly working conditions in the USA when the 20th Century began, would have been made clear to you.

Hoover was out to GIT the Anarchists BECAUSE they recognized, like the Communists/Socialists, the moral bankruptcy of Capitalism.

The attitude of Capitalists towards ANY economic sytem based on Liberty and Justice for ALL has always been negative, to put it mildly.

Your posts usually concentrate on the negative track record of Socialist/Communist governments while studiously ignoring the massive record of human rights abuse by Capitalist governments, especially our US Fascist Paradise Government. That is a sophistic debating technique. Yes, it is clever but it is fallacious. 

I suggest you try to be more even handed in your comparison of the two systems (yes, there are basically ONLY TWO systems in discussion here). All human run systems are flawed and it is easy to cherry pick the negative aspects of any one of them.

Nevertheless, it is incorrect to claim that Capitalism has the moral high ground over all things Socialist. The exact reverse is true.

The two comments in the following graphic provide Prima Facie evidence that Capitalists=War Loving, Greed Inspired, Conscience Free Predators are the sworn enemies of all things Socialist AND that Capitalism is morally bankrupt.


Sorry Agelbert, but if communism is the point being debated, I am not required to compare it to capitalism in every particular as that is a much larger undertaking and would leave the critical points i wished to make lost. I had hoped that "I dont believe in using money at all", should suffice to excuse me from that onerous task, but did suspect that an either with us or against us attitude would ignore all that. The main point re communism I made was the death toll. 100m in the 20th Century, that puts it in first place ahead of Christianity in 2nd and Islam in 3rd by my calculation.

 Its ridiculous to say that Socialism is pacifism because Marx SAID you only need to wait for capitalism to destroy itself. They didn't wait, they violently overthrew the monarchies and killed everyone as an ongoing process. Then communism ended up dying on its own, not capitalism. I have said the ongoing death toll is required, because communists never make everyone equal as promised, so need to keep killing anyone who mentions this or even might mention it.

Ill watch the vid now as I had planned last night, but couldnt keep awake after getting home after dark as usual. Overtime pays well, but money puts most people in a gold barred prison, either of the mind through materialism, or just practical survival. Either way, the pre-occupation and associated agitation is debasement of human nature. I believe native peoples figured this out already over 100k years. The concept of "mine" is foreign to them. If you tell a fijian you like his shirt, he will give it to you and you must take it. If you try using something like a musical instrument or weapon "belonging" to a Maori and are better with it than they are, they give it to you. I learned this when i picked up a pair of those chrome chinese balls that are meant to be spun around in your palm. Even when I said its only easy for me because my glove size is 2XL so an unfair advantage, they were very serious in insisting I take the balls. That relates directly to my point before about capitalism or any FINANCIAL system, that the most crude measure of a mans worth being money is the most important. Obviously for the native people the value is in the ability insteadand the ability benefits everyone. In fact the great Aboriginal boxer, Lionel Rose, made a joke that "blackfelllas are the original communists" when all his winning money was distributed to everyone else.

There's no reason the same principle can't be applied today if the overall culture, corrupted by the use of money, were different. There would not be endless growth, expansion, critical GDP, because there are industries where workers need money all year round to survive, then if they have excess that creates new industries whose workers also need work all year round, including even arms dealers in a vicious cycle. All things could be produced as needed. If an individuals worth without money is measured in their ability, and that ability benefits everyone, nobody will object to being asked by someone else for resources such as crude oil or iron ore. Uranium might get asked some questions. The scenes in movies where American Indian chiefs have given long consideration to what gift can match some piece of technology they do not have, such as a rifle, shows the principle. The one asking for the resource feels diminished until they can return the compliment, such as shipping back some finished goods when needed. Call this real anarchy or socialism, because with money involved there is only the real world results and the back and forth blame game, when there is no black and white between socialism and capitalism. They are the same system, with a distinction of degrees not difference.

You aren't required to compare the two systems even handedly, but I insist that is the only way to rationally compare them. We will have to agree to disagree on that.

And no, it is not "ridiculous" to claim Communism/Socialism is a pacifist ideology. As I said before, the application in practice may not be pacifist, but the ideology is. Capitalist ideology, on the other hand, considers war another tool of routine national politics.

On the other hand, it really IS ridiculous to claim Capitalism is "more pacifist" that Socialism/Communism. Yeah, there was blood spilled by all groups. So? After the Russian Revolution, WTF did you expect the Russians to think when they were being attacked from all sides by various covert and overt Capitalist methods to strangle their economy? In that death count you ascribe to Communism/Socialism, are yoy including the deliberate attempts to starve Russia by Capitalist countries? Of course NOT! How convenient is that, eh?

And while we are on the subject of Russia, let's talk about all those millions that died from Russian Communism, shall we? Russian Communism, for anyone that understands Capitalist Corporate structure, PERFECTLY MIRRORS a monopoly, over EVERYTHING, Capitalist Corporation. That is why the Anarchists call it "State Capitalism".
Premier = CEO
Politburo = Board of Directors
"Communist" Party = Stock Holders
Russian Igor and Sofia vodka sixpack = employees


Communism, MY ASS!

The ideology was just Socialist lipstick on Capitalist pig.

Now you can jump in (I will studiously avoid answering any spurious bullshit thown in here by the gun tottin' Texan who manages to look in a mirror every day without flinching even though he claims he doesn't suffer fools easily) and say that  IF what I say is true, then WHY did the USA (and other Capitalist countries) try to destroy Russia by any means possible? I mean, weren't they all a bunch of fascist crooks fighing over world domination, as all good Capitalist ideologues are?

NOPE.

Socialism, even the fake kind the USSR practiced, was still an ideological threat to Capitalism. Any threat to Capitalism MUST BE ATTACKED.

Your claim that what Marx said about Capitalism self-destructing was basically happy talk no person living in the real world of rough and tumble dog eat dog took seriously is more applicable to those who push "democracy=peace" in the name of Capitalism than in regard to Socialism.

But, again, you do not want to line up the two systems side by side, so you point at all the monarchs overthrown and so on, as if the overthrow of monarchs was something that discredits any claim to pacifism by Socialist ideology.

There is a vacuum in every discussion I encounter on this subject about the 24/7 paranoia that is absolutely CENTRAL to Capitalism. That paranoia fuels much of the murder and mayhem in this world. Do you want to go there? NO, you don't.

I'll tell you why that subject is routinely disparaged as conspiracy tin foil stuff, though massive paranoia is routinely, and spuriously, ascribed to the "dysfunctional" Socialst Governments.

Capitalism is pitched as a system where everybody competes in a democratic fashion. If people really did that, they would not be routinely spying on their competitor or/and trying to sabotage the competitor's business in order to get the edge on the other business and eventually bankrupt it.

You KNOW that is how Capitalism works in practice. Now how in God's good Earth people feel justified in making the TOTALLY ERRONEOUS claim that a Government run by Capitalist True Beleivers is not going be composed of the worst kind of paranoid bastards constantly attacking by any means available any real or imagined threat to their monopoly exploitation gravy train, is NOT a mystery to me.

They DON'T want people to know that, so they propagandize the public to claim the Socialists are the ones guilty of doing what is SINE QUA NON for Capitalist ideology. It's all part of the morally bankrupt PROFIT MOTIVE.

The USA got into WWI to make money for Capitalists, PERIOD. How many of those deaths do YOU blame Capitalism for? ZIP!

After WWI, if France, England and the USA had treated Germany, another Capitalist country, fairly, there would not have BEEN a NAZI Germany. But the demand to rake Germany over the coals for PROFIT so angered the Germans that they helped the rabid Hitler gang come to power.

How many of those Germans who starved to death during the Weimar Republic are in your count of deaths caused by Capitalism? ZIP!

Even worse, the USA ended up going into WWII because OUR CAPITALISTS built up those NAZI bastards. How many of the MILLIONS of people killed by the NAZIs do you blame Capitalism for? ZIP!

The indictment of Capitalism is, as if the above history wasn't enough, multiplied by the FACT that, despite the USA OWING RUSSIA BIG TIME for the defeat of NAZI Germany, the Capitalists, true to form, weren't having any of that "Socialist disease" business. The post WWII crowd, in the USA in particular, saw massive profits in MAINTAINING A WAR ECONOMY. They needed an enemy. So, they invented one. That's how we got the MIC that is eating this planet alive for CAPITALIST profit.

During all this period, the Russians were struggling to survive economically BECAUSE of trade barriers hither and yon by their "competitors" (i.e. other countries with the Capitalist system, but without the socialist lipstick). While all the evil stuff by Lenin and Stalin is well publicized, and used repeatedly in every debate about Communism versus Capitalism, the MASSIVE advances in all forms of technology in Russia from 1905 on, where they went from a nearly totally agrarian society to an industrial powerhouse, WHICH DEFEATED THE NAZIs, is always sort of left out of the discussion. The USA became an industrial powerhouse gradually from around 1840 on up to our massive war machine in 1940. That is about 100 years. The Russians did that MUCH Faster.

Count the years. That State Capitalist Country (i.e. the USSR) exploited their people ruthlessly for what Lenin and Stalin claimed was their own good. I am not convinced of that. Their blah, blah, blah about Socialist this and Socialist that, despite it being mostly happy talk lipstick, was like waving a red flag (pun intented ;D) at the Capitalist BULL on Wall Street.

Get this, pal! WE did everything we could to destroy Russia until we needed them. We WANTED the NAZIs to crush them! When the NAZIs were eating our lunch, then we became TOKEN MR. Nice Guy with Russia. Is that part of your historical narrative? If it isn't, you have a flawed view of most of the 20th Century's history.

All that said, there are so many different definitions for Communism, as well as Capitalism, that it is an unreal rabbit whole to go down. So, I look at the historical cause and effect of systems that had the name. 

Claiming that socialism and capitalism are the same system is incorrect. Regardless of the varying definitions, one is based on a hierarchcal unequal non-egalitarian social structure (Cappitlism) and the other on an   egalitarian social structure (Socialism).

I will agree that, if the people are of good will, just about any system can work fairly well. It all depends on whether morality is integral to the system or not. I maintain that morality is anathema to Capitalism.

You said:
Quote
money puts most people in a gold barred prison, either of the mind through materialism, or just practical survival. Either way, the pre-occupation and associated agitation is debasement of human nature. I believe native peoples figured this out already over 100k years.

Agreed. The problem we have today is that the overwhelming majority of humans now have too much of a Nietzche style Territorial Imperative, so to speak.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2018, 05:00:43 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
28 Replies
4350 Views
Last post December 29, 2015, 12:44:07 PM
by Eddie
0 Replies
356 Views
Last post April 28, 2016, 05:57:47 PM
by RE
4 Replies
133 Views
Last post July 30, 2018, 04:08:23 AM
by Golden Oxen