The Postmodern Socialist

a reply to: dfnj2015

I never once mentioned the US in the OP, nor did I state it had any socialist policies, let alone cooperative farms. Proving my point with every post.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The reality of it all is, the more socialism goes towards communism, and the more capitalism goes towards crony corporatism, the more indistinguishable they become.

I tend to agree with you on corporatism. I hear all the criticisms of socialism and communism and I just laugh. We are about as far away from communism as you can get in this country. Wealth inequality is insanely high. Most people in this country if you miss one or two paychecks and you lose your house. If you are one of the lucky ones this place is great! If you are in the bottom 99% not so much. Retirement security, healthcare security, leisure time security are non-existent. We have extreme corporatism in this country where everyone buys products from the same company store. It doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. It doesn't matter how much we spend on socialism. ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE PURCHASING POWER OF YOUR TAKE HOME PAY.

I'm really sick of people making comments like the OP. Money talks everything else is BS. "Socialism" who cares! It's all about the purchasing power.

It must be nice to live in that bubble. Don't take it for granted.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Corporatocracy = Fascism.

The Nu-Liberals and their Antifa blackshirt brigades are a striking development. Mussolini's fascist street goons wore black, although Hitler's SA Brownshirts get all the fame.

The Corporate Fascist American Empire has been promoting militarism, violent overthrow of democratically elected governments to establish brutal nationalist dictatorships worldwide for over 60 years... sure sounds like 'not unlike totalitarian communism' to me.

Yes, a capitalist economic model allows a wee bit more social mobility than a strict communist model. And it masquerades as a two party system instead of being brutally honest as a single party system ala communism. So one allows a wee bit more freedom, and is based on total decpetion. One wastes no time taking everything away and stomping your face into the mud, and the other does it in tiny increments. But both destroy liberty, economies and democracies while creating arms races and border / proxy wars across the globe, for ever and ever. And over a long enough timeline they both take damn near everything away in the end.

USSR (Communism = total socialist economics under centralized technocrat oligarch control)
vs.
USSA (Corporatism = crony capitalist economics under centralized technocrat plutocrat control)

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: dfnj2015

I never once mentioned the US in the OP, nor did I state it had any socialist policies, let alone cooperative farms. Proving my point with every post.

LOL ... sure.

Well, if the US doesn't have any socialist policies ... what are you concerned about? Specifically, since your OP is hopelessly vague evangelism.

What and where is the great threat you seem to be warning us of in your manifesto?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I agree with 99% of this post; thank you!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: dfnj2015

I never once mentioned the US in the OP, nor did I state it had any socialist policies, let alone cooperative farms. Proving my point with every post.

LOL ... sure.

Well, if the US doesn't have any socialist policies ... what are you concerned about? Specifically, since your OP is hopelessly vague evangelism.

What and where is the great threat you seem to be warning us of in your manifesto?

I appreciate the questions, sincerely.

For one, I'm not American. There is a bigger world out there, and I see it as a worldly problem. Two, the point of the OP was that socialism is an abject failure. What I'm concerned about is the sophistry and excuse-making that some will resort to in order to justify what always turns out to be inhuman, totalitarian, censorial, and often catastrophic conditions.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I like that. It's a good example. I don't disagree with that at all, but then again I do not think they are all interconnected in one grande scheme or system. Not only that, but the only way to counter such an aberration is through the very liberalism it has arisen in.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
As it turns out, the postmodern socialist employs the ignorance, sophistry, and the leap of faith, to dispel any criticism and evidence against his beloved worldview. The methods are not innocent—how could they be?—but cynical and Machiavellian.

As it turns out, the postmodern socialist is a much a thing as a fish dog.

What's more, post modernism is based on the idea that there is no fixed world view.

I know critical theory can get complicated but this stuff is pretty basic.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Many times it led to famine, starving millions to death.

Slaughtering half your country's pigs and cattle (to the tune of 40 million animals) tends to have the same effect.

In the case of Stalin it was weaponized.

Holodomor

That is a conspiracy theory and not an historical fact.

Don't listen to the postmodern socialists. They'd prefer it if people didn't know the truth.

I've got my own boat.

a reply to: ketsuko

I think our healthcare system is fantastic, free at the point of entry, doesn't discriminate, doesn't hand us a bill at the end of treatment.

All those taxes you speak of....we don't really feel them, I don't equate what I pay in tax against what services I access, we pay our dues and reap the gains.

I'd rather die than live under the US system, in fact if I lived under the US system I probably would, how dos anyone ever have any money for healthcare?

Until you have lived under the UK system it is very hard to describe just how beneficial it is and is far more in line with the Hippocratic Oath than the US system as it only has to worry about the preservation of life, not how much it is going to cost to preserve that life.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: solargeddon
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

look at capitalist societies and pretend things like taxes, universal healthcare, labour unions, public goods and services, welfare, standing armies, charity, are socialist in nature and practice, while not one these were born in any socialist society.

I don't know what country you live in but it certainly isn't the UK....if it weren't for socialism we wouldn't have these things.

Welfare....Labour

Universal healthcare....Labour

Public services....Labour

Unions....Labour

I'll give armies and charity to the Tories, seeing as they are self serving and a way to manipulate the wider population whilst falsely soothing their own conscience.

Oh and we can add education to Labour too, as they believe in ensuring everyone is given a fair crack of the whip.

I really don't think your thread adds anything to the debate when it doesn't take into consideration the differences between nations.

Luckily the Labour Party under Blaire got rid of clause 4 of their charter.

Really...is that all you got?

I assume you aren't going to dispute my points, which I am glad given they are indeed factual, however I fail to see how your OP stands up if in the UK it was socialist policies which give us the benefits we have today.

Blair was a red Tory, more centre right than centre left, which again continues to dispel your mythical capitalist benefits.

Truth is capitalism like conservatism doesn't work for the many it only benefits the minority, which in turn hurts the minority eventually as the worse conditions get over time the more likely you are to be affected by the negative effects of the conservative policies you back in the first place.

Case in point...crime, more people get burgled when more people are left with less, worse still here in the UK they have privatised 80% of the probation service and it is still failing, in fact the private arm of the probation service is under some form of special measures because it puts profit before people, unlike the public arm which is working much better.

Capitalism doesn't make society better, it only looks that way to the people treading on the majority to access it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I was not aware you aren't American; you have my apologies for implying that you were.

Yes, I'm aware of the world which is precisely why I asked question 2.

We've already traded our opinions of each others position in this issue; I was wondering if you had actual examples of what concerns you in that real wider world regarding "socialism" as defined in your OP.

Thanks though, carry on.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

I know critical theory can get complicated but this stuff is pretty basic.

A stunning and telling comment in this context.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

taxes, universal healthcare, labour unions, public goods and services, welfare, standing armies, charity, are socialist in nature and practice, while not one these were born in any socialist society

So why does anybody who endorses these things get called a Commie or a Socialist by the Wing Nuts?

Please explain that, thanks.

Wingnuts believe that universal healthcare would attract millions from South America and that they would have to pay for it, as they already do for all the others.

They believe Labour unions become corrupt, infiltrated with political activists, end up destroying companies as much as corrupt CEO's. They believe that unrestricted welfare ends up creating slackers who don't want to work.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You already replied that you knew it was flawed...Not really sure which side of the argument you are on...

I already pointed out some flaws in previous posts...which you actually responded to.

I said there were flaws, not that I knew it was flawed. Believe it or not there is a difference.

As for your points, I skipped them because this thread is about socialism, and didn't feel like responding to the deflection.

So you're acknowledging flaws and then in the same sentence saying that you don't know that it's flawed? What kind of logic is that?

That's like saying "I knew that 'A' exists, but I didn't know that 'A' actually existed."

I'm not trying to deflect...I think it's important that you defend capitalism...as your thread is about the failure of socialism as compared to capitalism. I don't think that's deflection, I think it's an important premise of your argument.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

taxes, universal healthcare, labour unions, public goods and services, welfare, standing armies, charity, are socialist in nature and practice, while not one these were born in any socialist society

So why does anybody who endorses these things get called a Commie or a Socialist by the Wing Nuts?

Please explain that, thanks.

Taxes by themselves are not socialist, but "progressive taxes" are socialist. Not to mention, socialist regimes like the fascist NAZI Germany and Mussolini's fascist regime both had "universal healthcare", "progressive taxes", "government unions", "nationalized industry" (in Germany Hitler told business owners what to make/produce "for the good of the nation". if they didn't do as commanded, their businesses were taken away from them). Yet leftists don't want to admit that "fascism" is in fact a branch of socialism.

As for "public good and services", standing armies, charity, or even roads... none of these are "socialist" and they are, and have been in fact part of capitalist regimes even before Marx and Engels defined modern socialism/communism...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse


Taxes by themselves are not socialist, but "progressive taxes" are socialist. Not to mention, socialist regimes like the fascist NAZI Germany and Mussolini's fascist regime both had "universal healthcare", "progressive taxes", "government unions", "nationalized industry" (in Germany Hitler told business owners what to make/produce "for the good of the nation". if they didn't do as commanded, their businesses were taken away from them). Yet leftists don't want to admit that "fascism" is in fact a branch of socialism.

I was going to explain some basic historical facts but I can't be bothered.

You carry on with your version. Have fun.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse


Taxes by themselves are not socialist, but "progressive taxes" are socialist. Not to mention, socialist regimes like the fascist NAZI Germany and Mussolini's fascist regime both had "universal healthcare", "progressive taxes", "government unions", "nationalized industry" (in Germany Hitler told business owners what to make/produce "for the good of the nation". if they didn't do as commanded, their businesses were taken away from them). Yet leftists don't want to admit that "fascism" is in fact a branch of socialism.

I was going to explain some basic historical facts but I can't be bothered.

You carry on with your version. Have fun.

This again. We’re going to sit here on a conspiracy board, arguing about which type of government will s—t on you less. Well this never gets old. I’m going to make this easy for everyone.

Communism, democracy, capitalism, socialism, republics, etc, are all terrible forms of government. That’s right, all governmental organizations end up failing. Why? Because they all eventually degrade into a concept known as despotism. You waste your time arguing about who was worse: Hitler with the genocide of the Jews or Stalin with the massacre of the Mensheviks, fascists or dictators. The truth is they’re all despots and despots don’t choose right wing or left wing.

What is despotism anyway?

Despotism comes from the Greek word Despotes, meaning master or one with power. Despotism grants an entity, whether it be a group or an individual, the power to limit or eliminate the power and respect of other groups. All current systems of government are despotic in nature. I will now explain why.

Nazism:

This one should be fairly obvious. Hitler rose to power, suppressed ideological differences, oppressed the Jews, and finally shipped them off to camps and — you know the rest of that story. Hitler was a despot.

Communism:

Stalin rose to power, suppressed the Mensheviks, due to ideological differences (Bolsheviks wanted the power to lie in the hands of an elite guard, while Mensheviks wanted it to be more of a democracy. Who won? Despotism).

Lenin wanted much of the same, directly advocating for the dictatorship of the proletariat, and an elite guard who would ensure despotism.

Trotsky advocated for the permanent revolution, which much like voting every four years for a new president, simply replaces the old despotic party with a new despotic party.

Capitalism:

Money is power, power is despotic. An elite few with the most amount of money rise to power by buying politicians. They then force the population, be it through legislation or manipulative psychology, to purchase their food and/or service. Governmental bodies, whether they be local or federal, become corporate entities. Dissenters will be sued or jailed on trumped up charges.

Democracy:

Majority/mob rule. Votes are power. The majority voters will suppress the minority voters through democratic legislation, while favoring their own, eventually leading to a one-party state. Despotism.

Republic:

Democracy on a smaller scale. Representatives are chosen by the populous to commit an act of democracy on their behalf. They will eventually end up serving their own interests and become despotic.

The solution? Anarchy. NOT CHAOS. Don’t twist my words. Anarchy comes from the Greek root an- meaning without, and archon, meaning ruler, leader, master, etc. It does not mean no rules. It just means no rulers. It is about self-governance, respect for life, liberty, and property. Unfortunately, due to the lack of education about morality, this would take much time. Don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t rape, don’t cheat, don’t lie — and most of all, don’t limit the liberties of others. These are simple concepts that all people should understand. Instead, we opt for someone else to tell us how to live our lives, regardless of the form of government.

Now that my tirade about despotism has come to a close, let’s make ATS a conspiracy board again.

originally posted by: solargeddon

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: solargeddon
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

look at capitalist societies and pretend things like taxes, universal healthcare, labour unions, public goods and services, welfare, standing armies, charity, are socialist in nature and practice, while not one these were born in any socialist society.

I don't know what country you live in but it certainly isn't the UK....if it weren't for socialism we wouldn't have these things.

Welfare....Labour

Universal healthcare....Labour

Public services....Labour

Unions....Labour

I'll give armies and charity to the Tories, seeing as they are self serving and a way to manipulate the wider population whilst falsely soothing their own conscience.

Oh and we can add education to Labour too, as they believe in ensuring everyone is given a fair crack of the whip.

I really don't think your thread adds anything to the debate when it doesn't take into consideration the differences between nations.

Luckily the Labour Party under Blaire got rid of clause 4 of their charter.

Really...is that all you got?

I assume you aren't going to dispute my points, which I am glad given they are indeed factual, however I fail to see how your OP stands up if in the UK it was socialist policies which give us the benefits we have today.

Blair was a red Tory, more centre right than centre left, which again continues to dispel your mythical capitalist benefits.

Truth is capitalism like conservatism doesn't work for the many it only benefits the minority, which in turn hurts the minority eventually as the worse conditions get over time the more likely you are to be affected by the negative effects of the conservative policies you back in the first place.

Case in point...crime, more people get burgled when more people are left with less, worse still here in the UK they have privatised 80% of the probation service and it is still failing, in fact the private arm of the probation service is under some form of special measures because it puts profit before people, unlike the public arm which is working much better.

Capitalism doesn't make society better, it only looks that way to the people treading on the majority to access it.

Your assumption, as I made clear in the OP and reiterated a few times now, is that policies such as these were not socialist. Welfare, national healthcare, the nationalization of industry, and so on, are not “socialist policies”.

a reply to: scolai

I don't think I HAVE HEARD of anarchy be a governmental,tribal or any kind of support system and if CHAOS is preferable AFRICA has you covered ,HOWEVER HERE too many have died in the name of a REPUBLIC,we are THE ONLY superpower,our media is in every home and the international language of aviation IS in fact english,at a guess I think we win.