Some additional clarification, re: Capitalism/Socialism and my position

A couple of days ago, I started this thread, about my dissatisfaction with Capitalism. I was quite surprised at the degree of response it generated. Most of said response has been positive, and has been the type of intelligent discussion that I was aiming for. Some of said responses, however, are exasperating, because they make assumptions that I believe in and stand for certain things that I do not, at all. They also tend to indicate the severity of the brainwashing that has afflicted the American public.

For the record, I do not consciously self-identify as a Socialist or Marxist. I also never have here, despite being accused of such. There are a number of areas where I have differences of opinion with Socialist theory. These are the following:-

1. I do not fundamentally believe that any political or economic theory that has yet been devised, has any chance of working, for as long as our society is ruled by psychopaths, which it currently is. If anything, the Bolshevik and Maoist incidents more than anything else, have conclusively proven this.

Psychopaths are individuals who have inverted morality, relative to non-psychopaths. They are incapable of empathy or compassion, and their only forms of psychological gratification come from both sadism, and inequality or elitism. The main thing they need, more than anything else, is justification for the belief in their inherent superiority to everyone else around them. Money, possessions, and even power, are not valuable to them in and of itself, but only to the extent that they are capable of fulfilling that end; of providing rationalisation for the belief in superiority to others.

The removal of psychopaths from the leadership of our society, MUST become our central priority as a species. If this is not accomplished, then we simply will not survive, long term. It will not matter if we try to implement Capitalism, any form of Marxism, or whatever else. The psychopaths will ensure that stratification, hierarchy, elitism, and inequality will always exist, regardless of the name.

2. I am not an internationalist. I actually view federalism as a disease, and one of the greatest instruments of tyranny that exists. All of my analysis of economics, has consistently implied that a country's wealth (and definitely its' social wellbeing) is generally inversely proportional to its' size; that is, the smaller a given community is, the happier, and more cohesive, prosperous, and peaceful it tends to be. This is one of my major grievances with Capitalist economic theory as well; the fact that it presupposes international trade as a given.

3. It follows as a logical consequence of the above, that I am generally not going to advocate large-scale, top-down central planning, especially not at the federal level. I would not be averse to experiments of this nature, as I consider that concept highly interesting; but at no more than the local town (probably 1,000 people at the absolute most) level; and certainly not at a federal or national level. In particular, I do not advocate the existence of any legislative assembly that makes decisions which are binding on any individual who is not physically present in the room where said decisions are made.

4. While I do advocate the provision of certain basic commodities to members of a community, on the simple basis that they are human beings, and have the same right to exist that I do, that does not imply that said commodities necessarily include every single thing that any given individual might want. I advocate the provision of food of a sufficient quality to maintain a sound level of health, clothing capable of doing such, and basic shelter, again in support of this effect. I expect the usual kind of sarcastic, rhetorical trolling from Capitalist advocates in response to this point, with regards to my definitions here. I do not completely know what we could define as necessary to maintain an appropriate level of survival and wellbeing, as of yet, and admit this openly. That is something which would need to be worked out.

This also does not imply that I encourage complete indolence and inactivity. I do, however, advocate that individuals be permitted to seek the work which their own aptitude and temperament best suits them for, for the best interests of both themselves and society. I believe that this can only occur when basic subsistence has been removed as a motivation for work.

It is entirely possible that luxury items that are not strictly necessary for physical survival, could well still constitute something more closely resembling the classic Capitalist economy, as an overlay to this basic provision. I have no objection to this, as I believe that Capitalism can and does have its' place, where rare items or non-essentials are concerned.

However, I also envision a society where narcissism (and other psychopathic manifestations) is rightfully recognised by its' symptoms, as the psychiatric disorder that it is; and for the fashion industry in particular, to largely be recognised as an outgrowth and manifestation of said mental disease. Paris Hilton, as a prominent example, should be recognised as chronically mentally ill, and given the psychiatric help that she needs, rather than encouraged to be a pathological leader and example to the rest of society.

Universal subsistence provision cannot realistically occur for as long as we have psychopathic governance, and this is acknowledged. Until that point, attempts at such will remain a recipe for tyranny. The psychopaths must be removed first.

5. I advocate one law for all men, women, Muslims, and homosexuals etc. I do not believe that acts of violence should be given more or less severe penalties, based on which demographic of the population was their target. This is a belief commonly held within Socialist circles, that I have absolutely no patience for. It is a recipe for tyranny, pure and simple. It is also exclusively based on hysterical emotion, and is entirely illogical.

I also only advocate feminism to the extent that such implies educational, political, social, and economic equality with men. I do not advocate female chauvanism or dominance, and I also do not advocate the attitude of some seperatist lesbians or mysandrists, who view my gender as disposable, and believe that men do not have the right to exist.

6. I advocate individual and personal sovereignty and responsibility, as a fundamental prerequisite of ending psychopathic governance. Advocating that human beings become willing to provide each other with what is necessary for basic survival, and that we learn to treat each other with compassion, does not imply that I advocate enablement, codependency, or indolence.

Hopefully this will be enough to explain my position to most of you. I am aware that there will still be some single-minded, exclusively pro-Capitalist trolls, who will continue to make mindless and erroneous assumptions about my beliefs. I cannot prevent that; but I am hoping that I have communicated with those of you who have sufficient integrity and mental initiative to listen.

I advocate individual and personal sovereignty and responsibility,

You do understand that THIS IS AT ODDS WITH THE GUARANTEED FOOD/CLOTHING/HOUSING for everyone that you support in other parts of your post, right?

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

I advocate individual and personal sovereignty and responsibility,

You do understand that THIS IS AT ODDS WITH THE GUARANTEED FOOD/CLOTHING/HOUSING for everyone that you support in other parts of your post, right?

Actually, no. I don't.

I've already said that I still feel that everyone in a given society should in some way actively contribute from their specific abilities. I just think that if starvation isn't hanging over someone's head, said person is going to be more able to look for the work that he is ideally suited to, rather than being willing to take any job he can get, (including things that he either has no real ability at, or other cases such as people with PhDs working as janitors) purely in order to survive.

The problem is, that this would actually require that people be willing to grow up. If there's any idea that is truly Utopian and unrealistic, it would appear to be an expectation of human maturity.

Originally posted by petrus4


Actually, no. I don't.

I've already said that I still feel that everyone in a given society should in some way actively contribute from their specific abilities. I just think that if starvation isn't hanging over someone's head, said person is going to be more able to look for the work that he is ideally suited to, rather than being willing to take any job he can get, (including things that he either has no real ability at, or other cases such as people with PhDs working as janitors) purely in order to survive.

The problem is, that this would actually require that people be willing to grow up. If there's any idea that is truly Utopian and unrealistic, it would appear to be an expectation of human maturity.

Perhaps they should have taken PhD's in fields other than Women's Studies or European Literature? Where do you propose this guaranteed and thus necessarily free, housing, food and clothing come from? How is it paid for? I can only assume you want the taxpayers to fund this, essentially transferring wealth from the productive to the non-productive.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Where do you propose this guaranteed and thus necessarily free, housing, food and clothing come from? How is it paid for? I can only assume you want the taxpayers to fund this, essentially transferring wealth from the productive to the non-productive.

edit on 4-2-2012 by DarthMuerte because: (no reason given)

You're making assumptions about who is productive and non-productive. I already said that I don't condone people being non-productive. If you're not going to bother reading what I've already written, I'm not going to bother trying to answer you.

Thing is that in modern days there will always be people who are "non-productive". No matter how well a country is doing there will never ever be enough jobs for everyone who wants to work. That's just a fact. With that in mind the only solution is that the government gives to the "non-productive". Here everyone gets housing and all necessities. On top of that we get a very generous amount for entertainment etc. Schools and hospitals are free. All this comes from taxes that are high as hell but in the end give to the well being of the entire society.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Where do you propose this guaranteed and thus necessarily free, housing, food and clothing come from? How is it paid for? I can only assume you want the taxpayers to fund this, essentially transferring wealth from the productive to the non-productive.

edit on 4-2-2012 by DarthMuerte because: (no reason given)

You're making assumptions about who is productive and non-productive. I already said that I don't condone people being non-productive. If you're not going to bother reading what I've already written, I'm not going to bother trying to answer you.

Ok, so then you propose that the non productive should not get those guaranteed freebies?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Thing is that in modern days there will always be people who are "non-productive". No matter how well a country is doing there will never ever be enough jobs for everyone who wants to work. That's just a fact. With that in mind the only solution is that the government gives to the "non-productive". Here everyone gets housing and all necessities. On top of that we get a very generous amount for entertainment etc. Schools and hospitals are free. All this comes from taxes that are high as hell but in the end give to the well being of the entire society.

How about we send our non productive to your country? Work for you?

So you want to send your elderly, your disabled and your children here? No thanks. We have plenty of those.

Originally posted by petrus4

The problem is, that this would actually require that people be willing to grow up. If there's any idea that is truly Utopian and unrealistic, it would appear to be an expectation of human maturity.

Okay, that was just funny.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

I advocate individual and personal sovereignty and responsibility,

You do understand that THIS IS AT ODDS WITH THE GUARANTEED FOOD/CLOTHING/HOUSING for everyone that you support in other parts of your post, right?

now, i am no supporter of this idea of guaranteed food/clothing/housing, but i will say that in this country there are a lot of vacant houses and there's rampant over production that leads to food spoilage and other products such as clothes being stored on a shelf to never be sold. we produce enough food to feed a lot more people than we already do at much lower prices, and some estimates even claim that we produce enough to feed the whole world over almost 3,000 calories worth of food for free. the idea of people being guaranteed certain goods, or at least being guaranteed them at much lower prices and at much higher quantities than currently, is not at odds with sovereignty and responsibility.

Originally posted by eboyd
now, i am no supporter of this idea of guaranteed food/clothing/housing, but i will say that in this country there are a lot of vacant houses and there's rampant over production that leads to food spoilage and other products such as clothes being stored on a shelf to never be sold. we produce enough food to feed a lot more people than we already do at much lower prices, and some estimates even claim that we produce enough to feed the whole world over almost 3,000 calories worth of food for free. the idea of people being guaranteed certain goods, or at least being guaranteed them at much lower prices and at much higher quantities than currently, is not at odds with sovereignty and responsibility.

Exactly the point. It is entirely logistically feasible; and the only reasons why it does not occur, are Friedmanite mind control, and sociopathy.