Liberal Forum

GHETTOBLASTER » 24 Jan 2024, 12:46 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 12:46 am

OK..you know lots of people who are anti racism but are for segregation....

Wait.

You are now deliberately and openly imputing that resisting D.E.I. = FAVORING segregation. 

When did you become a democrat?
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 24 Jan 2024, 8:59 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 8:59 am

Take a look at the list of names of Americans living in China sometime...
Do they show ****** in  all the Chinese TV Commercials, Chinese movies and Chinese TV programs  "saving the world" from stupid or else evil Chinese people ..?  
Oh..and last night while riding the bus I ran into one of those guys who says "I'm not a racist but I don't want any ****** riding on the bus with me"...so once again I stand corrected....

AGAIN, you seem to be COMPLAINING about things the chinee have every right to BRAG about.

I am genuinely confused by your remonstrances against our commie friend. 
 

HarveyMushman » 10 Jan 2024, 9:09 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2024, 9:09 am

Yes, of course, industrialization was crucial for achieving desired socioeconomic goals. It served as the material basis for those improvements, without which socialist policies wouldn't have been worth the paper they were written on. Under capitalism, the lion's share of the wealth derived from industrialization accrues to the capitalist class, while under socialism, worker-produced wealth realized through industrialization is used to improve society as a whole rather than the sliver of society known as the capitalist class. That material basis provided by industrialization explains the success of the Soviet Union's socialist policies.  

Concerning whether those countries practiced socialism, it must be understood that socialism is a historical process, not a list of things one checks off (i.e., improved socioeconomic conditions) to say, "Now we have socialism." Capitalism and socialism are historically embedded processes unfolding dialectically and not as a static state of affairs. Therefore, socialist experiments stand distinct from one another for material reasons. As such, socialist societies will appear different based on those material conditions. The only constant is that capitalism and its social relations were eliminated within those experiments. In brief, Marxism or scientific socialism is an action guide, not a dogma. So, yes, those countries did practice socialism.  

 

I will concede your argument that the SU did indeed practice socialism as envisioned by Marx (I'd rather have a left-communist who is well-versed in this line of debate take up your point here).

The end goal of Marxist politics is communism, which I understand is an abolition of all commodity exchange and markets (not just wage labor and private property) in contrast to "bourgeois socialism/anarchism" from the likes of Proudhon.

I consider communism a pipe dream...yes, of course with more advanced technology we can produce more and more products at marginal cost. Someday the production process for certain goods may be circumvented altogether if artificial intelligence and robotic automation allows for it - and if the political/social environment favors such an outcome...

Even if something like that were to happen (who knows when, if ever), communism is also stateless which means that the borders defining nation-states would be erased. To achieve such a goal, in the spirit of Marx, requires an international revolution where "workers of the world" unite.

I do not see this happening...ever. People tend to be inherently racist (ethnocentric) and favor "their own group" for biological reasons. This is not something you can "fix" since it is an ingrained feature of human beings, hence my proposal that nation-states will remain. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So even if I were to grant your argument - that

1) states like the Soviet Union demonstrated the success of Marxist thought and socialism as envisioned by Lenin/Stalin, and
2) that they did indeed practice socialism

...the end goal was never feasible. You can try as many times as you want but you won't get there (unless you find a way to rewire human beings).

Cannonpointer » 24 Jan 2024, 12:45 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 12:45 pm

AGAIN, you seem to be COMPLAINING about things the chinee have every right to BRAG about.

I am genuinely confused by your remonstrances against our commie friend.

Maybe I have read him wrong...?
That's always a very real possibility.
You see, my recovery time from having my eyes roll 180 degrees back into my head from all the ridiculous / insane posts from posters like BCF and BV isn't as good as it used to be..  
So I think this situation  might encroach upon my ability to fully comprehend what the sane people have to say here....?    

 
 

Cannonpointer » 24 Jan 2024, 12:33 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 12:33 pm

Wait.

You are now deliberately and openly imputing that resisting D.E.I. = FAVORING segregation. 

When did you become a democrat?

Would you like to do a Venn diagram to help me understand better...?

HarveyMushman » 10 Jan 2024, 9:09 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2024, 9:09 am

And yes, all socialist societies are anti-bourgeois, but not only because they reject small businesses/petty-bourgeois businesses. They are merely anti-capitalists, which encompasses capitalism (and) petty capitalism. And yes, indeed, it was the case that "there was never any serious attempt to do away with commodity exchange," which is a topic that takes us back to the material conditions therein, which hampered the ability to eliminate commodity exchange. After all, just as the improvement of social conditions depends upon underlying material realities rather than the soundness of government policies, socialist or otherwise, the ability to eschew commodity production is also so dependent. In short, having been established within the context of a backward, mostly uneducated semi-agrarian society, the Soviet Union lacked many of the prerequisites for the total implementation of socialism and, later, communism. But as the world's first socialist experiment, it was very successful.

In Marx's ideation of socialism (the end goal of which is communism) anti-bourgeois methods must be taken. However, there are other variants of socialism (Fabian Socialism, National Socialism, Mutualism, Owenism, Guild Socialism), which undoubtedly Marxists like yourself would criticize as anti or pseudo-scientific, that allow for limited ownership of private property. 

The reason I classify National Socialism as a subset of socialism (although you could equally make the case that it should be classified under "Fascism" - why not both?) is that the Nazis were adamant about controlling the direction of their economy as a whole. Yes, there were privatizations (as duly noted by Wikipedia) but there is a historical consensus that, if you were the owner/the person running the business, you "had to do" what the Nazis told you to do or there would be devastating consequences.    

(The idea behind letting private individuals and organizations continue to run their businesses in Nazi Germany was simple - these CEOs had far more experience in their fields and would likely do a better job than a random government bureaucrat appointed to do their job. The only requirement was that once Hitler's government made some kind of 'request' you had to follow it.)   

And then we had those massive public works projects, Mefo bills, nationalization of the central bank and effectively the money supply, etc.

So as far as socialism goes...the SU was not the only one practicing socialism, and certainly not the first either (Paris Commune? Kibbutz?)
 
 

HarveyMushman » 07 Jan 2024, 12:02 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2024, 12:02 pm

Indeed, Zeets2 and all other pro-capitalists [conjobs] share more in common with Democratic politicians than I do. 

Good day.
"Harvey Mushman"

@Cannonpointer  

This is still contender for the best comment in this thread     
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 24 Jan 2024, 1:05 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 1:05 pm

Maybe I have read him wrong...?
That's always a very real possibility.
You see, my recovery time from having my eyes roll 180 degrees back into my head from all the ridiculous / insane posts from posters like BCF and BV isn't as good as it used to be..  
So I think this situation  might encroach upon my ability to fully comprehend what the sane people have to say here....?  

Well, he is an unapologetic Marxist, as far as I can tell. So I can see you having a knee jerk reaction. The whole, "Hey, this new Marxism ideer sounds kinda good" conversation has been roundly rejected on these shores.

That said, he IS interesting, and your complaints to him ARE things that I complain about here - not there. 

Any way ya look at it, having a real, genuine, unapologetic Marxist on the board is a good thing!   
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 24 Jan 2024, 1:09 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 1:09 pm

Would you like to do a Venn diagram to help me understand better...?

DEI is forcing relationships between people. So is segregation. Rejecting the one is not endorsing the other. 

Moreover, "segregation" refers to racial relationships. DEI is generally forcing people to play along with sexual fiction - not racial fact. 


 

Cannonpointer » 24 Jan 2024, 2:46 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 2:46 pm

DEI is forcing relationships between people. So is segregation. Rejecting the one is not endorsing the other. 

Moreover, "segregation" refers to racial relationships. DEI is generally forcing people to play along with sexual fiction - not racial fact.

DEI is forcing me to associate with people I don't want to associate with and segregation is the exact opposite.
I can still find ways to "self integrate" if I want to.
Not true if you live where the Section Ape Housing Program and School Bussing exists.
 

HarveyMushman » 07 Jan 2024, 12:02 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2024, 12:02 pm

Per the assertion that I support Democratic mayors, I haven't voted in favor of a Democratic politician since 1984, for like their Republican "counterparts," they are pro-capitalist politicians, while I am a Marxist, specifically a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. Indeed, Zeets2 and all other pro-capitalists share more in common with Democratic politicians than I do. 

Good day.
"Harvey Mushman"

Mad respect for this slap down of zeets and for the declaration that you are a Marxist, Leninist, and Maoist. I am quite curious how you see the Cultural Revolution. I have my own view of it - a view which does not cast Mao as quite the devil that westerners are taught to see him as. That said, I am interested in your apologia for Mao. 
 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 24 Jan 2024, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 2:51 pm

DEI is forcing me to associate with people I don't want to associate with and segregation is the exact opposite.
I can still find ways to "self integrate" if I want to.
Not true if you live where the Section Ape Housing Program and School Bussing exists.

Segregation - whatever you believe your ways around it are - is a legal doctrine that affects your associations. Same as DEI. You might as well argue that you can find "ways around" DEI. Because you can. Be an independent contractor. There ya go - a way around DEI. Just like a way around segregation. Same same. 
 

HarveyMushman » 17 Jan 2024, 8:52 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2024, 8:52 am

Well, at least it isn't a racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-Jewish invective.

Please distinguish for me the difference between racist invective and anti-jewish invective.

Isn't anti-jewish invective racist? Yet you felt the need to distinguish it as a thing apart. Will you please explain your motive for that? 
 

Cannonpointer » 24 Jan 2024, 12:32 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 12:32 pm

But WHAT point? :)

Point of no return.

Cannonpointer » 24 Jan 2024, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 11:50 am

No one likes a narc, ***.

Snitches get stitches. 
 

Tough guy, ***.

Nostradamus' omh » 24 Jan 2024, 10:56 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 10:56 am

Defending your legal typecast stereotype persona, I see.

Babbling cocksucker.

murdock » 24 Jan 2024, 4:15 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 4:15 pm

Babbling cocksucker.

Never have, don't plan on starting forward from here. Slander is all you got to defend your character because your ancestral displacement is absolutely corrupted by ideas now isn't eternity and your body only exists as evolving here living eternally separated now.

Cannonpointer » 24 Jan 2024, 2:52 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 2:52 pm

Mad respect for this slap down of zeets and for the declaration that you are a Marxist, Leninist, and Maoist. I am quite curious how you see the Cultural Revolution. I have my own view of it - a view which does not cast Mao as quite the devil that westerners are taught to see him as. That said, I am interested in your apologia for Mao.

Actually I change my mind. I don't think that was the best comment.

The best comment was when Zeets2 ascribed the basket cases known as Detroit, Chicago, etc. to "socialism." 
 

LowIQTrash » 24 Jan 2024, 6:54 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 6:54 pm

Actually I change my mind. I don't think that was the best comment.

The best comment was when Zeets2 ascribed the basket cases known as Detroit, Chicago, etc. to "socialism."

Yes, but that doesn't get "best post." That gets "Best GUMP post."
 

Zeets2 » 06 Jan 2024, 11:32 am » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 11:32 am

And isn't it ironic that you compared their plight to the most poorly run and most left-wing socialist cities like Detroit, Newark, and Dayton?  Don't leave out the mess that liberals have made of San Francisco, Chicago, LA, NY, Portland, Seattle, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, among others which you obviously support in their socialist-loving agendas!

Yeah...the capitals of finance and high tech with HUNDREDS of billions pouring in every year from private investors all over the world (possibly trillions if you count derivatives in finance and real estate valuations) for the purpose of profit are "socialist." 

@Cannonpointer  

I think this is the winner.