Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 24 Jan 2024, 6:56 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 6:56 pm

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

A GUMP post is amazing, doubly so if the poster believes it unironically   

LowIQTrash » 24 Jan 2024, 6:58 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 6:58 pm

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.

Of the Gump Award. 
 

Cannonpointer » 23 Jan 2024, 10:05 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2024, 10:05 pm

You forgot to call him envious.

You're off your game.

You should have asked yourself the crucial question - What Would Hannity Say?

Hannity would say nobody in America is poor because everyone, even the homeless, can afford a smartphone and refrigerator.   

Sumela » 23 Jan 2024, 9:13 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2024, 9:13 pm

Sir.....

Wow, they control immigration? They control their ancient identity?

Makes sense, right?  Wish we did.

Ackyshually it didn't quite work out when Genghis Khan decided to run roughshod...  

Nostradamus' omh » 24 Jan 2024, 4:33 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 4:33 pm

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.

Babbling cocksucker.

LowIQTrash » 24 Jan 2024, 7:06 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 7:06 pm

Ackyshually it didn't quite work out when Genghis Khan decided to run roughshod...

  Fair enough, sir.

LowIQTrash » 24 Jan 2024, 7:03 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 7:03 pm

Hannity would say nobody in America is poor because everyone, even the homeless, can afford a smartphone and refrigerator. 

Bitch Hannity would say

"**** the poor, the poor are lazy pieces of ****"
 

LowIQTrash » 24 Jan 2024, 1:21 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 1:21 pm

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?)

You and CP have the best posts on the site.  Im still researching and considering these Communist/Socialist ideas.
My sister is a Maga-Communist in the vein of Jackson Hinkle and Haz.  20 years ago I was a bloodthirsty Neocon.
I then became anti-war and evolved into a Paleo-Con much like Tucker Carlson. BUT, even Tucker is now showing
tendencies lately of considering a more communal style of governance.

I may have become something that I cant even quite express in a cohesive manner.  I still hold to strong traditional
cultural conservatism and nationalism, but now believe all SANE countries must have universal healthcare.
I will stop there for now.

 

Sumela » 24 Jan 2024, 8:22 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 8:22 pm

Bitch Hannity would say

"**** the poor, the poor are lazy pieces of ****"
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK9hqBF9bMQ

murdock » 24 Jan 2024, 9:42 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 9:42 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK9hqBF9bMQ

I would never watch a porn video from you.....creeper
 

Sumela » 24 Jan 2024, 9:46 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 9:46 pm

I would never watch a porn video from you.....creeper
 

The babbler speaks again!

Sumela » 24 Jan 2024, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 8:35 pm

You and CP have the best posts on the site.  Im still researching and considering these Communist/Socialist ideas.
My sister is a Maga-Communist in the vein of Jackson Hinkle and Haz.  20 years ago I was a bloodthirsty Neocon.
I then became anti-war and evolved into a Paleo-Con much like Tucker Carlson. BUT, even Tucker is now showing
tendencies lately of considering a more communal style of governance.

I may have become something that I cant even quite express in a cohesive manner.  I still hold to strong traditional
cultural conservatism and nationalism, but now believe all SANE countries must have universal healthcare.
I will stop there for now.

 

**** your communist ***.

Cannonpointer » 23 Jan 2024, 9:34 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2024, 9:34 pm

 

(PART I OF...

Cannonpointer: "You just said a lot of stuff that DIDN'T explain away the incredible success of National Socialism."

If that pertains strictly to National "Socialism" pulling Germany from its crisis of accumulation of the 1920s and 1930s, I will agree that it was successful in doing so. However, the methods used to achieve that turnaround, militarism and the slashing of wages and pensions, indicate National "Socialism" not serving the interests of workers. 

So, although many German workers were deluded into believing the Nazis served their interests, at least for a time, National "Socialism" proved disastrous for Germany's working class. As the Nazis' utter inhalation by Allied forces, particularly the U.S.S.R., proved, this National "Socialism" was an utter and spectacular failure. Nonetheless, to be accurate, it - Nazism - lives on through its quasi-official promotion by the U.S. government. 

Moreover, the phrase "National Socialism" is a contradiction, for nationalism is a rejection of socialism, and socialism is a rejection of nationalism. The Nazis merely adopted that idiotic phraseology toward the usurpation of the word "socialism." They sought to steal the proverbial thunder from Germany's then-burgeoning socialist movement. And, given the level of their brutality, they were mostly successful. 

After outlawing genuine socialist parties and falsely imprisoning their memberships (Dachau held socialists and trade unionists exclusively from its opening in March of '33 until January of '34), the Nazis created several fraudulent "socialist" organizations. From "socialist" youth organizations to "socialist" sports leagues and "labor" associations, the Nazis channeled worker's socialist ambitions off to nowhere. In brief, the Nazis' "socialist movement" was noise without action, like an automobile devoid of wheels. 

Cannonpointer: "I give all due respect to FDR for using socialist methods to save capitalism. I'm not saying it was good that he did so - just that it reflected what the Romans called "virtu." Even Roosevelt's prodigious results paled compared to Hitler's."

Respectfully, FDR didn't use "socialist methods" to end the then-current depression, appease the working class, and thus save capitalism. As I wrote in this thread's parent post, "The progressive achievements won by Soviet workers pressured the U.S. capitalist state to concede reforms for American workers." Hence, New Deal "reforms" can be likened to an army's defensive fortifications erected in the face of an advancing opponent. 

Toward the reinforcement of that latter point, please consider something else I wrote in the said parent post, to wit: "...in a 1917 Washington Post op-ed, New York financier and banker Simon Straus wrote, 'Widespread and successful homeowning activities in the U.S. would do more to alleviate social unrest and build a bulwark against the encroachments of Bolshevism than any other development.'" 
In some ways, Simon Straus and many others of his ilk were, effectively, field generals in the battle for hearts and minds that quickly ensued following the Czar's defeat and the Bolshevik's ascendency. The capitalist class had been understandably frightened and responded accordingly. 


(END OF PART I)
 

Cannonpointer » 23 Jan 2024, 9:34 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2024, 9:34 pm

Cannonpointer

(PART II) Cannonpointer: "I believe that dismissing national socialism as 'not real' begs the question: given its tremendous ability to uplift its people, why isn't it superior to 'real' socialism?" 

Again, since socialism's character is, at its core, international and necessarily anti-nationalistic, "National Socialism" is not only not real socialism, it isn't socialism at all. And yes, much like the way Trump's demagoguery has uplifted many marginalized Americans, so, too, did Hitler's emotional appeals comfort many German workers. But, unless we are to deem being bombed an uplifting experience, those German workers allowed themselves to be duped.  

Cannonpointer: "I have bias neither toward nor against any particular ism. My concern is with the welfare of the people on whom the isms are enacted. My ism is humanism. The Russians' ism certainly appeared to **** the Russian people - and to really **** the Ukrainians." As I have delineated in some detail within this thread, the Bolshevik Revolution didn't negatively affect the majority of Russians - indeed, the lives of the social majority improved immensely. Socialism transformed Russian society from a backward semi-agrarian, mostly peasant society to an industrial powerhouse with one of the most educated populaces on Earth in fewer than fifty years. It increased Soviet society's average life expectancy from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975. It nearly eliminated all social ills, including illiteracy, unemployment, homelessness, and malnutrition. It significantly reduced rates of infant mortality and neonatal death. And, among many other positive socioeconomic indicators, it beat the U.S. vis-a-vis the space race.  

Cannonpointer: "Reading you blaming the Kulaks was a shocker. I was under the impression that the agreement the kulaks were scapegoated was universal." If I gave the impression that I blamed anything solely upon the Kulaks, which I did, I do apologize. The Kulaks, like anyone else in Soviet society, were not exclusively to blame for anything, let alone the demise of the U.S.S.R. I am trying to remember the context in which I discussed the Kulaks. Still, many factors contributed to understandable and expected challenges faced by the Soviets early on, including but not limited to the Kulaks.

First and foremost, there was the problem concerning the civil war and the armies of nineteen (19) countries that invaded the Soviet Union beginning in 1918, including the U.S. Army. The most severe domestic problem was illiteracy, which negatively affected the country's industrial capacity and, thus, its economy. A downstream effect of illiteracy was the problem of relying on the previous owners of various manufacturing facilities and their managers due to insufficiently educated workers to operate those plants. Those understandably bitter owners and like-minded managers often sabotaged equipment and sold it to the highest bidders, which was a considerable problem. For their part, many Kulaks killed livestock and burned crops to hamper the Revolution, but they were not the only source of problems for the Bolsheviks. Again, I apologize for not being clear.  

(END PART II)
 

Cannonpointer » 23 Jan 2024, 9:34 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2024, 9:34 pm

 

(PART III)

Cannonpointer: "From what I gleaned, you oppose capitalism even when enacted by the state - such as in the case of Singapore. I wonder if - in addition to your providing a more comprehensive and less dismissive critique of National Socialism - I might impose upon you to say precisely how a proper socialist state ought to order its economy if NOT through the application of the people's capital..."

Given that Marxism is a guide to action rather than a typically static dogma, it would contradict fundamental Marxist principles for me or any other Marxist to proscribe what we might think to be the precise way to order a futuristic socialist economy. Beyond the basics of a society where the means of production are socially owned and democratically administered by those who work in the various industries, I cannot say. That will be the task of those who forge such societies. 

It's also the case that the material realities in each newly revolutionized state are different. As such, each approach to achieving a socialist society and, eventually, a communist society is also distinguishable by necessity. In essence, there's no precise way to order a socialist economy. That is why Marx and Engels never did so. 

Cannonpointer: "...and if you might critique the hybrid socialist/capitalist system in Singapore?"

To be continued.

(END PART III)

Be well
Good day
"Harvey Mushman"
 
 

LowIQTrash » 24 Jan 2024, 6:58 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 6:58 pm

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.

So, you approve of our urban slums packed with homeless, crime, drug abuse, high taxes, massive regulation, poor and failing public schools, traffic, high housing costs, higher service fees, dirtier streets, huge dependency on food stamps, high road and bridge tolls, subsidized housing, and welfare, thousands of illegals, high insurance costs, and city noise that generally have large populations of the wealthy and the poor, with a relatively small middle class who are constantly get squeezed and are leaving our cities in droves, huh?

Ever read Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities?
If that's the kind of city life you enjoy, more power to you.
You won't find me spending very much of my time or money in any US city any longer, even though I may miss watching a ballgame at Yankee Stadium or taking in a Broadway show, which I once did a dozen or so times a year.
 

Zeets2 » 25 Jan 2024, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 9:33 am

So, you approve of our urban slums packed with homeless, crime, drug abuse, high taxes, massive regulation, poor and failing public schools, traffic, high housing costs, higher service fees, dirtier streets, huge dependency on food stamps, high road and bridge tolls, subsidized housing, and welfare, thousands of illegals, high insurance costs, and city noise that generally have large populations of the wealthy and the poor, with a relatively small middle class who are constantly get squeezed and are leaving our cities in droves, huh?
 

That's how I read it. 

Well - had it read TO me.

By a ***. 
 

HarveyMushman » 25 Jan 2024, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 8:43 am

So, although many German workers were deluded into believing the Nazis served their interests, at least for a time, National "Socialism" proved disastrous for Germany's working class. As the Nazis' utter inhalation by Allied forces, particularly the U.S.S.R., proved, this National "Socialism" was an utter and spectacular failure. Nonetheless, to be accurate, it - Nazism - lives on through its quasi-official promotion by the U.S. government.

The fact that Germany was unable to defeat EARTH is not a "spectacular failure" of ANY ism. That is just silly.

HarveyMushman » 25 Jan 2024, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 8:43 am

Moreover, the phrase "National Socialism" is a contradiction, for nationalism is a rejection of socialism, and socialism is a rejection of nationalism.

That seems preposterous on its face. Tribal societies cannot be socialist?

I think I am going to need you to define socialism, because the more you talk about it, the confuseder I get.

HarveyMushman » 25 Jan 2024, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 8:43 am

Cannonpointer: "I give all due respect to FDR for using socialist methods to save capitalism. I'm not saying it was good that he did so - just that it reflected what the Romans called "virtu." Even Roosevelt's prodigious results paled compared to Hitler's."

Respectfully, FDR didn't use "socialist methods" to end the then-current depression, appease the working class, and thus save capitalism. As I wrote in this thread's parent post, "The progressive achievements won by Soviet workers pressured the U.S. capitalist state to concede reforms for American workers." Hence, New Deal "reforms" can be likened to an army's defensive fortifications erected in the face of an advancing opponent.

You just said that the methods were not socialist in nature, and then you said the methods were forced by socialist successes. That is rather confusing. If the State using the workers' capital to build good things for the workers is not Socialism, then what is it? It's not capitalism - capitalism is rapine. 

Or maybe it is capitalism - alleviation of rapine to avoid the pitch forks?

It is my understanding that at no time have wages and conditions been better in Russia than in the U.S. - and this, due to a worker glut there and a worker shortage here, occasioned purely by accidents of history. Perhaps you have information that I do not.

HarveyMushman » 25 Jan 2024, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 8:43 am

Toward the reinforcement of that latter point, please consider something else I wrote in the said parent post, to wit: "...in a 1917 Washington Post op-ed, New York financier and banker Simon Straus wrote, 'Widespread and successful homeowning activities in the U.S. would do more to alleviate social unrest and build a bulwark against the encroachments of Bolshevism than any other development.'" 
In some ways, Simon Straus and many others of his ilk were, effectively, field generals in the battle for hearts and minds that quickly ensued following the Czar's defeat and the Bolshevik's ascendency. The capitalist class had been understandably frightened and responded accordingly. 

(END OF PART I)

Cattle get herded. That is the way of the world. Herders study and stroke their herds.
 
 

HarveyMushman » 25 Jan 2024, 8:49 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 8:49 am

(PART II) Cannonpointer: "I believe that dismissing national socialism as 'not real' begs the question: given its tremendous ability to uplift its people, why isn't it superior to 'real' socialism?" 

Again, since socialism's character is, at its core, international and necessarily anti-nationalistic,

WOW!

Really? Isn't socialism an ECONOMIC system that can work in an isolated environment? Why does it take more than one tribe to make a country socialist?

HarveyMushman » 25 Jan 2024, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 8:43 am

As I have delineated in some detail within this thread, the Bolshevik Revolution didn't negatively affect the majority of Russians - indeed, the lives of the social majority improved immensely. Socialism transformed Russian society from a backward semi-agrarian, mostly peasant society to an industrial powerhouse with one of the most educated populaces on Earth in fewer than fifty years. It increased Soviet society's average life expectancy from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975. It nearly eliminated all social ills, including illiteracy, unemployment, homelessness, and malnutrition. It significantly reduced rates of infant mortality and neonatal death. And, among many other positive socioeconomic indicators, it beat the U.S. vis-a-vis the space race.  

If I gave the impression that I blamed anything solely upon the Kulaks, which I did, I do apologize. The Kulaks, like anyone else in Soviet society, were not exclusively to blame for anything, let alone the demise of the U.S.S.R. I am trying to remember the context in which I discussed the Kulaks. Still, many factors contributed to understandable and expected challenges faced by the Soviets early on, including but not limited to the Kulaks.

The impression you gave is that the Kulaks were essentially terrorists, destroying food supplies. My understanding - admittedly pedestrian, but believed nonetheless - was that the Kulaks were put upon because they did not wish to cede their properties to state run agribusiness.

HarveyMushman » 25 Jan 2024, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 8:43 am

First and foremost, there was the problem concerning the civil war and the armies of nineteen (19) countries that invaded the Soviet Union beginning in 1918, including the U.S. Army. The most severe domestic problem was illiteracy, which negatively affected the country's industrial capacity and, thus, its economy. A downstream effect of illiteracy was the problem of relying on the previous owners of various manufacturing facilities and their managers due to insufficiently educated workers to operate those plants. Those understandably bitter owners and like-minded managers often sabotaged equipment and sold it to the highest bidders, which was a considerable problem. For their part, many Kulaks killed livestock and burned crops to hamper the Revolution, but they were not the only source of problems for the Bolsheviks. Again, I apologize for not being clear.  

(END PART II)

Fair enough. I can certainly imagine that is what I might do in their place.
 

HarveyMushman » 25 Jan 2024, 8:51 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 8:51 am

(PART III)

Cannonpointer: "From what I gleaned, you oppose capitalism even when enacted by the state - such as in the case of Singapore. I wonder if - in addition to your providing a more comprehensive and less dismissive critique of National Socialism - I might impose upon you to say precisely how a proper socialist state ought to order its economy if NOT through the application of the people's capital..."

Given that Marxism is a guide to action rather than a typically static dogma, it would contradict fundamental Marxist principles for me or any other Marxist to proscribe what we might think to be the precise way to order a futuristic socialist economy. Beyond the basics of a society where the means of production are socially owned and democratically administered by those who work in the various industries, I cannot say. That will be the task of those who forge such societies. 

Then Singapore may claim to be a proper hybrid-socialist state, making its way in a sea of capitalism - and you are in no position to judge? The State owns about a third of the means of production. Singapore is a small island nation and cannot exist in a vacuum. It is doing socialism in the only way that it can, without inviting invasion.

HarveyMushman » 25 Jan 2024, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 8:43 am

It's also the case that the material realities in each newly revolutionized state are different. As such, each approach to achieving a socialist society and, eventually, a communist society is also distinguishable by necessity. In essence, there's no precise way to order a socialist economy. That is why Marx and Engels never did so. 

That sounds like there IS room for nationalism within socialism - that you DON'T need to import foreigners to make it work. Swedes cannot be socialist unless they get some arabs involved? I DO NOT understand why nationalism and socialism are antithetical. One is an ECONOMIC system and the other a cultural system - is this not fact?