Socialism will save us all (technology edition)

[Jack McOck]

it's ok to call someone homosexual as an insult

If you take it as an insult than you're not only homosexual, but also the homophobic one...

Just saying that your boyfriend should be more careful with inserting his dick in your ear next time, because he appearently has damaged your brain.

Accusing Marx of being an idiot, or even worse, of being a genius is nothing but a pure misunderstanding of his texts.

His only achievement was actually describing the capitalistic economy in detail.

Does it take an idiot or a genius to notice that shit stinks?

You're confusing "achievement" with "attempted achievement". And to say that something stinks is very different from being able to understand why it stinks. The solutions he proposed, which have been en vogue on a global scale both before and after his time only betray his true lack of comprehension.

In other words, Marx didn't do shiat but whinge—just like any true socialist.

[pulsoc]

For example, Veolia is a huge French company that does projects from district cooling and heating to mass transit. They basically operate many U.S. city infrastructures.

So yeah, they do make stuff, even if it isn't the shit you shop for in Walmart.

[TomViolenz]

Is either Obama or Hollande socialist?
Of course not, and here's my "Is X a socialist?" checklist to prove it (Note that it took me many years of study and discussion with untermensch to compile this comprehensive list of points):

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.
Obama: YES
Hollande: YES

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Obama: YES
Hollande: YES

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Obama: YES
Hollande: YES

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Obama: YES
Hollande: YES

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Obama: YES
Hollande: YES

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.
Obama: YES
Hollande: YES

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state.
Obama: YES
Hollande: YES

8. Free education for all children in government schools.
Obama: YES
Hollande: YES

9. Everybody is free and happy.
Obama: NO
Hollande: NO

Weird on all points except maybe 5 and 8, I come to the exact opposite answer. Please explain why you came to your conclusion!

For 5 one could argue that the final power of credit is in the hands of the respective central banks (for Hollande obviously the European one). But since they seem to do everything their capitalist masters desire, I fail to see how that is relevant.

And 8? OH THE HORROR free schools for everyone!

(Left out 10 for obvious reasons )

[SuburbanThug]

Our "federal" bank (in the U.S.) as you call it is anything but. It is called a federal bank but it is merely a private banking company not held to any U.S. governmental control.

Abolition of private property? LMAOOOOOO! Obama's political campaign was first and foremost supported by the real estate sector he supported in Chicago. His main aim was to take tax money and give it to private companies to develop low income housing. Low income housing cannot be supported by private companies. He merely helped divert public money to private interests and they all let their projects fall apart within ten years. This is Obama's policy across the board! To "marry" government and private interests, i.e. give tax money to corporations. This is blatant support of capitalism. That's why Marx and Trotsky and rolling in their graves.

A "heavy" progressive or graduated income tax? Middle class homes pay %25 of their income in taxes. Wealthy: %30. Boy, that sure is heavy! It has been on a slow rise since the Reagan era. It is supported by the rightest of the right wing which you have been falsely lead to believe means smaller government. Fascism surely doesn't mean small government now does it?

Abolition of all rights to inheritance. Now, this is a bit messed up but you can't put it all on Obama. Over the years we've been whittling that down bit by bit. And it's certainly not "abolished" yet. The idea that Obama is even the one that comes up with these policies is in and of itself pretty silly. He's simply the one that gets to take the heat for supposedly implementing them.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants/rebels? LOL, again. This does occasionally happen to "rebels" but it's certainly not our strict policy.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. Skipped this one didn't you? The federal bank mentioned on our money is a private bank. It's a private bank. A God-damned private bank for shits sake. Should be clear now.

Centralisation of communication/transportation in the state. Oh my God this is getting ridiculous. If you think Obama handing out cell phones to poor people is this^ you've got more than a few screws loose. We have bailed out the auto industry but we have absolutely no say over how those companies operate. Most of our "public" transit is also run by private companies. At this point I'm pretty sure you've only heard about the U.S. from the sheep herder down the road.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state. The state doesn't own shit here man, you are crazy! The move to privatization of every single publicly funded venture has been secured over the last 30 years. Obama was part of the move to privatize public housing as I mentioned earlier.

Equal liability of all to labor and the establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Skipped this one too. I can see why.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of population over the country... Monsanto is a private corporation. It is not behest to state will. More like the other way around. CORPORATE OLIGARCHY IS NOT SOCIALISM. CAN YOU HEAR ME, McFLY?

Free education. The moves to privatize public education and divert public money into corporate pockets are in the works in my state as we speak so I hope you're happy you EDIT

[H20nly]

Of course he showed foresight. His writings keep getting proven right.

so why aren't you supporting Confucianism?

[H20nly]

if writings that get proven right are the prerequisite for frequent references to a particular doctrine and fighting tooth and nail to defend and spread that doctrine appeal to you... then Confucianism seems like a good one to add to your repertoire.

i mean hey, since the U.S. does the same with democracy it's not like you're the only global force doing this, but we all know that we can't influence U.S. policy and it is not in need of further touting... so why not start on a smaller, more humble scale?

[SuburbanThug]

Yes, why are we bring Confucius into this? Are we trying to uphold the ruling class and subjugate women or abolish these things?

[H20nly]

because being proven right is the most important thing. many of Confucius taechings were spot on, just like Marx.

Communism works great in theory. right?

so maybe by cherry picking...

[Machinesworking]

The idea that socialism is so easily used in threads like this to mean dictatorial communist states is ridiculous.
By this logic I should easily be able to call anyone who espouses capitalism a fascist.

The sad truth is the only stable decent governments we've had that don't truly suck are democratic capitalisms with a huge socialist safety net and a decidedly libertarian civil liberty policy. Every other more "pure" form of government has resulted in more poverty and at worst total subjugation to the state and/or corporate owning class needs. A less socialist version can and does result in tyranny, a more socialist version does the same. The same is true in terms of capitalism and social safety nets.

And to bring it home, the most successful countries with happy people world wide are ones that follow this model. Pure capitalist states and pure communist states have never existed because they simply do not work with where mankind is right now evolutionarily. This has been proven again and again by the Hitlers and Stalins of this world. The move towards a conservative government working for big business and capitalism results in suspended constitutions and slave states, same with the move towards communism.

Face it, at this moment in time, mankind is stuck with a blend of the two for good reasons.

[Machinesworking]

I disagree. Stalin was not 'more socialist'. He actually led a bloody counter-revolution against socialism. This continued from the 1920s up to the day he died in 1953 and beyond.

Russia was never socialist or communist. It attempted it from 1917 to 1924, and it fizzled out from 1924 onwards. By 1928 Stalin was completely anti-socialist. Ironically it was 1928 that he started forced collectivisation, which had nothing in common with socialism and was simply his attempt to save his sorry ass.

Not interested in arguing semantics with you on this, the USSR proposed itself to the rest of the world as a socialist state, much like how Nazi Germany posed itself to the world as a semi democratic capitalist state. Neither were really anything of the sort, and that's my point, that people will quickly take power and abuse any watershed elimination of choice between these two forces, total free market capitalism and communism. Neither is currently a valid political choice from what history tells us. <-- Doesn't mean they won't be in the future, but so far not happening.

[H20nly]

because being proven right is the most important thing. many of Confucius taechings were spot on, just like Marx.

Communism works great in theory. right?

so maybe by cherry picking...

Communism has never been tried in practice. Not remotely. So of course it can't be judged very easily in terms of how it actually would work in practice.

that's what i said - Communism works great in theory.


Taoism (modernly: Daoism) is a philosophical and religious tradition that emphasizes living in harmony with the Tao (modernly romanized as "Dao"). The term Tao means "way", "path" or "principle", and can also be found in Chinese philosophies and religions other than Taoism. In Taoism, however, Tao denotes something that is both the source and the driving force behind everything that exists. It is ultimately ineffable: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."

The keystone work of literature in Taoism is the Tao Te Ching, a concise and ambiguous book containing teachings attributed to Laozi (Chinese: ??; pinyin: L?ozi; Wade–Giles: Lao Tzu). Together with the writings of Zhuangzi, these texts build the philosophical foundation of Taoism. This philosophical Taoism, individualistic by nature, is not institutionalized. Institutionalized forms, however, evolved over time in the shape of a number of different schools, often integrating beliefs and practices that even pre-dated the keystone texts – as, for example, the theories of the School of Naturalists, which synthesized the concepts of yin and yang and the Five Elements. Taoist schools traditionally feature reverence for Laozi, immortals or ancestors, along with a variety of divination and exorcism rituals, and practices for achieving ecstasy, longevity or immortality.

Taoist propriety and ethics may vary depending on the particular school, but in general tends to emphasize wu-wei (action through non-action), "naturalness", simplicity, spontaneity, and the Three Treasures: compassion, moderation, and humility.

Taoism has had profound influence on Chinese culture in the course of the centuries, and clerics of institutionalised Taoism (Chinese: ??; pinyin: dàoshi) usually take care to note distinction between their ritual tradition and the customs and practices found in Chinese folk religion as these distinctions sometimes appear blurred. Chinese alchemy (especially neidan), Chinese astrology, Zen Buddhism, several martial arts, Traditional Chinese medicine, feng shui, and many styles of qigong have been intertwined with Taoism throughout history. Beyond China, Taoism also had influence on surrounding societies in Asia.

After Laozi and Zhuangzi the literature of Taoism grew steadily and used to be compiled in form of a canon – the Daozang, which was at times published at the behest of the emperor. Throughout Chinese history, Taoism was several times nominated as state religion. After the 17th century, however, it fell much from favor. Like all other religious activity, Taoism was suppressed in the first decades of the People's Republic of China (and even persecuted during the Cultural Revolution), but continued to be practised in Taiwan. Today, it is one of five religions recognized in the PRC, and although it does not travel readily from its Asian roots, claims adherents in a number of societies.

[Jack McOck]

Weird on all points except maybe 5 and 8, I come to the exact opposite answer. Please explain why you came to your conclusion!

For 5 one could argue that the final power of credit is in the hands of the respective central banks (for Hollande obviously the European one). But since they seem to do everything their capitalist masters desire, I fail to see how that is relevant.

And 8? OH THE HORROR free schools for everyone!

(Left out 10 for obvious reasons )

On public education: I feel that it is an absolute privilege that I am obligated by law to send my children to be routinely brainwashed by social-sexual losers and fascist pigs up to 8 hours a day, for 11 years straight. Where would we be today, if it were not for such benevolence?

As for the rest, briefly:
1. Property you must pay tax on is not logically yours—what you may keep, you may by permission, not by right.
2. The tax is both graduated and, in my view, heavy (0%-45%-75% in France since 2013 under Hollande; In America "individuals are subject to federal graduated tax rates from 10% to 39.6%" (Wikipedia). Do you really think that if we were to up this to 80%, then socialism would finally "work"?
3. See 1.
4. Try rebelling and see what happens to you.
5. When you come to understand that those who rule are by definition oligarchs, this sort of distinction disappears. As it stands, the Fed is state-sanctioned, and as regulated or as unregulated as the state (elected by you good people!) may choose.
6. No, you're entirely right, the state doesn't regulate communication or transportation in any way (sources: http://www.dot.gov, http://www.fcc.gov)
7. Again, spot on, the government is entirely separate from the economy, and never the twain shall meet... *cough* (Fanny Mae)... *cough* (Freddy Mac).
8. Addressed above.

What I love about socialists is that they seem to believe that points 1-8 and point 9 are somehow unconnected. It's as if for a society to be socialist, points 1-8 AND 9 must be met, but if point 9 is not, then there must obviously be a fascist plot afoot, and points 1-8 must obviously have been corrupted somehow. Obviously.

Of course, anyone who's every actually studied such simple economic concepts as supply-and-demand, and such philosophical concepts as "ownership" knows full well that the current situation in Europe and the USA is the direct product of unadulterated application of socialist principles.

Marx's objective theory of value is so utterly and totally flawed that even child could refute it. As for the problem of calculation in a socialist society, don't get me started.

And as for Machinesworking, capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." This is the very definition of free-marketism, and thus the antithesis of fascism. You'd have a better understanding of the world you live in if you were to replace this:

LEFT-WING(SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST/GOOD) <--------> RIGHT-WING(FREE-MARKET/FASCIST/BAD)

With this:

ANTI-FREEDOM(SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST/FASCIST)<--------> PRO-FREEDOM(FREE-MARKET/CAPITALIST)

And as for Suburban Thug, yes, I'm very happy that your future children are to be spared. If now you don't have enough cash set aside to give them a decent education yourself, well then I guess that will just make you an irresponsible father.

Get a vasectomy.

[myrnova]

Jack mcock, you are rich, for sure. If you were poor you would not talk like that... Your optimistic vision about "free market", capitalism and other crimes does not consider 4.000.000.000 people out of 7.000.000.000 survive with 1-2 dollars a day. 56% of mankind are poor. So, your's the typical "yankee" point of view. Lucky you, then...

[Jack McOck]

Myrnova, I'll see your starving Africans and raise you a bunch of Jews.



And a random duckling, for the win:

[myrnova]

that is not funny at all