Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

fustakrakich's Journal: There is no dichotomy between socialism and capitalism. 125

Journal by fustakrakich

Socialist leaders are just as capitalist as Warren Buffet and Carlos Slim. They simply take a different route to profit, and not really all that different when you remove the layers of abstraction. All of them use the state to their advantage. They all need an army to protect their fortunes. "Communism" in China, or anywhere else is nothing but state run capitalism, kinda like watching closed circuit TV. I believe American/European capitalists would like the same thing. They want consumers, not competition. This would be their motivation to turn the internet into TV, for instance. They want concentration of property/wealth/power through mergers and acquisition. They do not want decentralization. That is just "chaos" to them. The market collective has just as much, if not more disdain for the individual. It's what the market will bear, not the person. They use the force of law (government) to steal our wages and pensions. Capitalists are collectivists. It is their power*, which manifests itself through government, that we must redistribute more evenly.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

There is no dichotomy between socialism and capitalism.

Comments Filter:
  • Socialism tends not to care a fig for private property. The notion of private property breeds competition, which leads to redistributions of both power and wealth.
    • Socialism tends not to care a fig for private property.

      Yes it does. The state, simply being a player in the game, keeps it for itself. And in your scenario, all property ends up concentrated to the highest bidder, and there there only be one. And I will always maintain that claiming exclusivity over natural resources is theft. In such cases, private property is stolen property.

      • The state, simply being a player in the game, keeps it for itself.

        That would be 'public' property. And once the state owns everyone's bodies, health care and abortion are just a Simple Matter Of Bureaucracy (SMOB).

        • Public property is owned by and accessible to the public. If it is not accessible, then it ain't public. Government, being owned and controlled by the wealth/power of business is just another piece in the game. It is vital in concentrating that wealth/power into the hands of the financiers who steal natural resources from the public. Business is business, and government is a vital part of it. Everything is capitalist. Social benefits are metered out according to the riot index. Ideology is just not in the p

    • Socialism

      That word. You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

      • Like "fascism" and "Christianity", the spectrum of the symbol is broad.
        • Like "fascism" and "Christianity", the spectrum of the symbol is broad.

          Except that it is supposed to stay narrow enough to mean something. When you use it, the word means nothing at all.

          • I use it to mean: "bureaucratic con deployed by plutocrats to keep the proletariat on the reservation."
            Regret if this formulation is blasphemous to you on some level. It is, I feel, accurate in result, irrespective of any idealistic intentions held by some rubes.
            • I use it to mean: "bureaucratic con deployed by plutocrats to keep the proletariat on the reservation."

              Which is so wishy-washy as to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean. You need to use terms that actually can have agreed-upon meanings. Your "meaning" just again boils down to "whatever I don't like that I can stuff into a conspiracy theory against the current leaders in power".

              • Which is so wishy-washy as to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.

                Restated: "Like Obama treats ObamaCare."

                • Which is so wishy-washy as to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.

                  Restated: "Like Obama treats ObamaCare."

                  No, although your definition of what The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 does to healthcare is almost as far off as any of your definitions of socialism. Furthermore, Obama has been relatively consistent with what he has been describing The Health Insurance Bailout Act of 2010, while you are almost completely random in what you try to describe as socialism (or conversely what you try to describe socialism to be).

                  Besides, if Obama were launching The Great Socialist Takeover of Everything(

                  • The climax of the Cloward-Piven Strategy is that the people beg the government to save them.
                    The real fly in the ointment has been the internet, which has permitted too much truth [breitbart.com] to escape the Socialist Event Horizon.
                    • The climax of the Cloward-Piven Strategy is that the people beg the government to save them.

                      So again we go, projecting your odd fantasies onto the situation, instead of actually looking at what is really happening.

                      which has permitted too much truth to escape

                      Apparently, much like "socialism", the word "truth" does not mean what you think it to mean.

                      Socialist Event Horizon.

                      I would love to know what you think that term means, and how on earth it could possibly relate to reality.

                    • The vehemence of your denial underscores the truth that "actually looking at what is really happening" reveals the whole ObamaCare debacle is a Cloward-Piven Strategy.
                      We can't keep "borrowing it forward" indefinitely. The foolhardiness and ultimate impotence of "the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption" is standing totally revealed.
                      While the American people were dumb enough to elect a no-talent rodeo clown, twice, the outstanding question is whether that Darwin Award-winning level of stupidity
                    • The vehemence of your denial underscores the truth that "actually looking at what is really happening" reveals the whole ObamaCare debacle is a Cloward-Piven Strategy.

                      And right down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole we go. Why bother looking at what is actually happening when your conspiracy theories are so much more fun?

                      rodeo clown

                      Since you are so in love with that moniker (possibly because you're still desperately hoping to get me to call you racist?), I thought I would point out that it actually is counter to your claims about president lawnchair.

                      Do you know what purpose a clown serves in a rodeo? The clown is there to distract so that the show can go on. The clown has

                    • Socialism is just closed capitalism. In the states, business wants it all for themselves. They demand tax "incentives" and strong regulation to keep competition from forming. Yes, that is socialism. Only it's not the government acting directly. It is business acting through government to close off the market. Business is the government. Since you hardly see past the person, I don't expect you to comprehend that. Once somebody more to your liking gets in, you will be singing high praises, regardless that the

                    • The clown is there to distract so that the show can go on. The clown has no power in a rodeo and gets little pay in comparison to the main event.

                      Well, hell! That defines every president and all of DC for that matter. The entire kabuki is a distraction. But since you vote democrat, and probably will this year and in 2016, I doubt you understand either. The both of you are very much alike.

                    • The clown is there to distract so that the show can go on. The clown has no power in a rodeo and gets little pay in comparison to the main event.

                      Well, hell! That defines every president and all of DC for that matter. The entire kabuki is a distraction. But since you vote democrat, and probably will this year and in 2016, I doubt you understand either.

                      Actually I tend to lean towards believing it more than ever now. Previous presidents have at least given a facade of representing their own agendas, but this one is just allowing the machine to continue operating on its set course without really putting much effort in to steering it one way or the other. If ever there was a president who took his job as primarily being about distracting our attention from those who actually wield power, it would be President Lawnchair.

                      It actually seems sometimes that

                    • In which case indeed the "rodeo clown" bit is correct, but the "no talent" is most definitely not. If he is distracting us from power then he is a very highly skilled clown.

                      More like he's working a really dumb audience. Everything we know now about him, we knew before he even ran. There is no excuse.

                      Previous presidents have at least given a facade of representing their own agendas

                      Yes, well, if you knew it was a facade, why would you vote for them? In this, too, you are following Smitty's lead. Since you sti

                    • In which case indeed the "rodeo clown" bit is correct, but the "no talent" is most definitely not. If he is distracting us from power then he is a very highly skilled clown.

                      More like he's working a really dumb audience. Everything we know now about him, we knew before he even ran. There is no excuse.

                      So you knew that he would abandon all of his liberal promises and present a record of action as president that is markedly more conservative than any president we have ever had before? How exactly did you know that?

                      Previous presidents have at least given a facade of representing their own agendas

                      Yes, well, if you knew it was a facade, why would you vote for them? In this, too, you are following Smitty's lead. Since you still call him "lawnchair", it appears you still don't see through the facade. You seem to believe his intentions are different from his actions.

                      What exactly are we supposed to evaluate a candidate by, other than his actions to date and his own words? His actions as a senator were generally leaning towards liberalism. What about him gave you the foresight to realize that he was going to turn tail and go to the hard right as president

                    • How exactly did you know that?

                      His voting record in the senate, and his association with people like Joe Lieberman and with the democratic party. It was obvious from the get-go what he was and is. If he was actually any different from the rest, he would have never gotten the job, or any real attention. The requirements are very straightforward. You either comply, or hit the road. None of that implies you can't vote for somebody else. That's what makes it worth it to vote. But if you just go for what is being

                    • I will vote for the preservation of myself and my family.

                      With no concern of the consequences to others. Got it. The destruction of community is a given.

                      Strange conclusion you came to, there. I certainly don't personally know anyone who would have fared better under a President Romney or a President McCain.

                      And when all the polls indicate the race will be close I'm not about to cast a vote that is not in my own best interest. A vote that leads to my going on unemployment doesn't help me or anyone I know.

                    • I certainly don't personally know anyone who would have fared better under a President Romney or a President McCain.... A vote that leads to my going on unemployment doesn't help me or anyone I know.

                      :-) Exactly... And I have perfectly good anecdotal evidence that for me, it never mattered to me one itty bit whose guests slept in the Lincoln Bedroom, all the way back to Nixon. I had a job (can still have one anytime I want), got steady raises, and more channels on my cable... Life is good.. clears away th

                    • Oh, and by the way, when you vote democrat (or republican) you are voting against your own best interest. You are voting against improvement, making things better. You are too afraid to let go and take a risk. This is the standard used to keep you hooked in. You fear the *wrong lizard will get in*. Best to keep what we have. Just like Smitty. Just as conservative.

                    • You are too afraid to let go and take a risk

                      The risk is losing my job. That is a very steep risk. I don't have enough money in reserve to last long on unemployment. If the guy who wants me unemployed is within the margin of error of winning I have no choice but to vote for the guy who does not openly despise my work.

                      You can imagine whatever scenario you want outside of that, but the reality is black and white here. There is a candidate with a very real chance of winning who wants me unemployed. I have no choice but to vote for the other guy

                    • Man! Are you really that helpless and fearful? You're fuckin' pitiful! These people really struck gold with you, too damn easy! You're making shit up, and you're being used. This is what I meant by the clown not having to be that good. You're on a death march and you don't care who you drag along with you. Well, enjoy your monkey trap.

                      a spittin' image, in every way

                    • You have not offered an alternative. My choices in the voting booth are between "lose my job" and "maybe not lose my job". If I choose anything else the vote will benefit "lose my job".
                    • Shameful, hopeless, ignorant!

                      Oh well. If I ever need someone to convert anybody to republican, I'll call you first. You're a real poster boy for the cause.

                    • How is it that you solve problems by calling other people the source and offering no solution?
                    • -> I've offered plenty of solutions. You all dismiss them out of hand. You're stuck in your "lesser evil" charade. So screw it. I can live with whatever happens. I'm flexible that way. My well being is my problem. I make or break my life, not some goddamn politician. And I am confident that as long as you all stay the course, not much is going to happen, things will just plod along as they have for millennia. Alternatives? Make your own dammit. You are the one bitching about your choices. My eyes are op

                    • I've offered plenty of solutions.

                      Not here, you haven't. You keep insisting that everything offered is terrible, but not once have you offered an alternative. What is your solution? You are so certain that your way is infinitely better and that, as you said, we are all voting against our own best interests.

                      So what is it that you believe we should all be doing instead? What is your solution?

                      I make or break my life, not some goddamn politician.

                      There are plenty of other countries where I could do the same work I'm doing now, for comparable (or better) money, and I wouldn't have to deal w

                    • Not here, you haven't.

                      That's right. I don't need to repeat myself Mr. pudge. Go look in our other discussions.

                      If the country takes an active stance against my profession, I may have to take my leave.

                      Promises promises. Whatever you say, Ted.

                      If you could only see and hear yourself.

                    • Why bother looking at what is actually happening when your conspiracy theories are so much more fun?

                      Isn't that the source of your "Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010" gag?

                      you have no idea what socialism is, that statement has no value.

                      I would that the financial results of Socialism were neutral, but the scam is far, far more expensive than that. Yeah, "borrow it forward": yeah.

                    • I've always said that the difference between Socialism and Capitalism is one of cardinality.

                      You claim to have "learned" something over the last five years, but seeing you cheerleading different people that represent the same institutions only proves that you have learned nothing.

                      I'm never clear what viable alternative you're offering, since you claim to want purely random leader selection, yet scream when the name Sarah Palin comes up.

                    • Dude, your girl is the antithesis of funny. She's actually much closer to an "Eternal Champignon" Cycle featuring an ablino black sheep with a teleprompter named "Stormwhiner". Hmmm. I may feel some short fiction coming on.
                    • present a record of action as president that is markedly more conservative than any president we have ever had before?

                      You stroke that thing like a teenage boy who's found his first porno mag.

                    • My tax dollars pay for it.

                      No, they don't. We really are borrowing it all forward. Face it.

                    • You still haven't shown any viable improvement plan. My contention is that if you restore the three branches of government to their pre-Wilson state, you'll at least drive the corruption down to lower levels. California, Illinois and New York may be beyond hope, but the rest of the country can live.
                    • Your little "randomize it" idea doesn't get past the thought experiment stage. Sorry.
                    • We should be so lucky: lucky, lucky, lucky. [youtube.com]
                      Europe take you both.
                    • Why bother looking at what is actually happening when your conspiracy theories are so much more fun?

                      Isn't that the source of your "Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010" gag?

                      Gag? There is no gag. The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 is the largest corporate handout from a government in the history of ever. You don't like it because usually the corporate handouts come from the guys with your favorite consonants after their names, this guy had the wrong letter and you have your panties all up in a bunch as a result.

                      you have no idea what socialism is, that statement has no value.

                      I would that the financial results of Socialism were neutral

                      Being as you have plainly demonstrated that you have not the slightest idea of what socialism is, you cannot possibly even pretend to be capable of e

                    • If that's the case then your "rodeo clown" argument hold less water than a screen door. Clowns distract attention away from power. If you want to make the claim that President Lawnchair is himself pulling the levers of power then you cannot make an argument for him being a clown.

                      And your gender bender non sequitur isn't amusing this time either.
                    • present a record of action as president that is markedly more conservative than any president we have ever had before?

                      You stroke that thing like a teenage boy who's found his first porno mag.

                      Not nearly as often as you invoke your desperate attempts to get me to call you a racist or as often as you toss up various fact-free conspiracy theories that you hope will bring about the end of the party with the fourth letter of the alphabet at the start of its name.

                    • . . .said the Ponzi scheme victim. I thought I was supposed to be the guy all in the box and stuff?
                    • Nobody would have sufficient authority to do any real permanent damage.

                      You can't eliminate the chance of someone getting into office who would blow up the system. You are speaking with certainty about imponderables.

                    • So a gag is a fact when you spout it. Why are you so dead set against the uninsured getting coverage, as evidenced by your disrespect for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?
                      Why, this is borderline racist of you.
                    • It takes a special kind of fool to attempt to find logic in mockery.
                    • I'm not sure any of my thoughts on Benghazi or the IRS quite reach the magnitude of your "Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2013" conspiracy theory. You're really special, you know. A very special snowflake, indeed.
                    • But so much, much more expensive with the freeper.
                    • Oh, come on. Surely Sotheby's can fine you tolerable digs on Lake Como [sothebysrealty.com]. BYO bunga-bunga girls.
                    • No, I think the Convention of States is not "the same old stuff". But YVHV.
                    • Nah.
                    • FDR is not my idol. Bite your tongue, laddie.
                    • I mean, I joke about snorting Drano, but that does not translate into existential willingness to carry through. . .
                    • So a gag is a fact when you spout it.

                      Your "rodeo clown" gag directly opposes your endless conspiracy theories that claim President Lawnchair to be pulling the levers of power. One has to be a gag.

                      However, it is abundantly clear that the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 was nothing but a giant corporate handout. There are more senators and representatives - on both sides of the aisle - who are owned by the insurance industry than who are not. That is the real reason why single payer couldn't go anywhere, and why it never will

                    • That scores at least a 23 on the 0-10 scale of non sequitur and desperation.

                      Sorry, I had forgotten that a humor-ectomy is a requirement for you Lefty types.

                    • I'm not sure any of my thoughts on Benghazi or the IRS quite reach the magnitude of your "Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2013" conspiracy theory.

                      If I had a "Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2013" conspiracy theory, it might be on par with some of your conspiracy theories, but we'll never know for sure since I have no such theory.

                      That said:

                      • Your Benghazi conspiracy theory requires the President to have access to time travel
                      • Your IRS conspiracy theory is mad at an agency for doing its job and investigating people who openly advocate against it
                      • Your academic records conspiracy theory just doesn't make sense as it has no goals for what to do wi
                    • Pig
                    • I'm cautiously optimistic.
                    • If I had a "Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2013" conspiracy theory, it might be on par with some of your conspiracy theories, but we'll never know for sure since I have no such theory.

                      So, the very name you're using does not imply some kind of Health Care Industry conspiracy? Whoops. Coulda fooled a casual reader there.

                    • That scores at least a 23 on the 0-10 scale of non sequitur and desperation.

                      Sorry, I had forgotten that a humor-ectomy is a requirement for you Lefty types.

                      Didn't you say it was required under socialised medicine? You'll have yours soon

                      Though really, you suck terribly at humor. Especially when you try to put it into a comment where you think you are being factual. Just don't bother. Stick to just being serious. Hell, your willingness to spout utter bullshit and hyperpartisan hyperbole as fact is funny enough on its own.

                    • I'm fairly certain that if I were actually hitting the Drano, I'd know.
                    • funny enough on its own

                      Yet not enough to budge you from your undead state. Or is that just a Harry Reid impression?

                    • I've never argued that there would be any net decrease in corruption from any of my ideas. Such an assertion would be stupid: we're speaking of fallen human nature. What can be changed is the blast radius (if you will) of discrete acts of human corruption. Barack Obama, for example could be just another check-in at the governor's wing of the Illinois Sate Penitentiary, if our system didn't suck the most corrupt to the top quite so dramatically, through concentration of power.
                    • I'm curious what it is about human nature that you think I don't understand.
                    • ...I can only assume you are perfectly happy with the current situation, aside from feeling a bit powerless right now.

                      You contradict yourself. And also in general.

                    • You will have a very difficult time convincing me that a 1000 (or even 50 in this case) little corrupt fiefdoms is any better than one big one.

                      Can you grasp the naval architecture concept of compartmentalization? What about negative feedback loops from the voters? What about having a federal government decoupled from running programs, so that it can oversee them? Oh, fugghedaboudit--let's just get cozy with the new aristocracy.

                    • Really? On what scale are you measuring the suffering? How much is 'enough'? #AskingOnBehalfOfAMasochist
                    • Hamilton, and the rest of the Founders, would have fixed bayonets and run this modern lot through, if my guess isn't too far off. We are become what they rebelled against.
                    • Oh please! They only wanted to shift power, to themselves, not remove it.

                      So you agree with my point that they'd be having none of these modern clowns?

                    • Ah, back to your claims of possessing "reality".
                    • I concede your clear, uncluttered, object perception of "reality". Must be cool to be you.
                    • Clearly clarity cleaves closely to thee, Clarence.
            • "bureaucratic con deployed by plutocrats to keep the proletariat on the reservation."

              Heh, that could define, but it sure isn't limited to socialism. In the capitalist system the plutocrats use the con to regulate the competition out of business. I suppose you could say communism cuts out the middleman.

              "On the reservation"? Far more effective to make them spend their lives in the line [amazonaws.com]. What better way to keep an eye on them? (That picture just shows how sickeningly submissive people can be)

            • I use it to mean: "bureaucratic con deployed by plutocrats to keep the proletariat on the reservation."

              That is actually exactly what I saw as the driving force behind the administration of every Republican president we have ever had. Even more so I see it as the driving interest of the Tea Party as well. While the Democrats have failed to enact legislation to counter that interest, conservatives of all stripes have made it their goal in life to expand upon the exact conditions that you just described as socialism.

              Indeed if that statement you wrote was accepted by any sane person as a definition of soc

              • I thought you said you knew what that word meant. . .
                • The point here is that you are taking a wildly inaccurate definition of socialism - indeed one that is a vastly more accurate description of Tea Party ideals than of socialism - and applying it all over the place. You cannot possibly take part in a sensible conversation on something that you are so woefully - and apparently intentionally - un-knowledgeable on. This time I really do encourage you to quit while you're behind. There are some political topics that you have at least a little bit of factual in
                  • You cannot point to an unambiguous, universally-accepted definition of Socialism.
                    • You cannot point to an unambiguous, universally-accepted definition of Socialism.

                      Maybe you should start by asking people who don't view it as evil. I expect that you would give a similarly inaccurate view of Satanism, Atheism, or Science since you don't like any of those either. Hell I have given kinder descriptions of the Tea Party than your definition of Socialism.

                      But when you ask someone who uses the term as an insult for their definition, it will almost without exception be an inaccurate definition. You showed us that case clearly.

                    • When in doubt, break out the dictionary:

                      That's an awful idea. There are few things that conservatives dislike more than the dictionary. To them it is obviously an academic (and hence evil, evil, evil, liberal) attempt to take over the English Language. They will accordingly reject anything from it. The effects that rejecting all word definitions has on the ability to use language for communication is only collateral damage in their view.

                      Golly! Judging by that, it doesn't sound like such a bad idea. Maybe somebody ought to give it try and see if it works.

                      They will point out that the definition you provided does not include extermination of millions of people

                    • Splendid! Let's load-shed all of the Socialists in colleges, then, since there is nothing more to discuss.
                    • Socialism is swell, until people get involved.
                    • There are few things that conservatives dislike more than the dictionary. To them it is obviously an academic (and hence evil, evil, evil, liberal) attempt to take over the English Language.

                      The crushing irony here is that the takeover of the English is no joke. See "social justice". You so funny when you play all innocent and stuff.

                    • We're a century into a failed experiment in Progressivism. One might consider halting that insanity first, rather than doubling down on it.
                    • Socialism is swell, until people get involved.

                      So then being as the definition of socialism that you provided earlier was essentially a mission statement for the Tea Party, nobody should ever endorse the Tea Party.

                    • There are few things that conservatives dislike more than the dictionary. To them it is obviously an academic (and hence evil, evil, evil, liberal) attempt to take over the English Language.

                      The crushing irony here is that the takeover of the English is no joke. See "social justice". You so funny when you play all innocent and stuff.

                      Could you at least be so kind as to provide us with a conservative dictionary, or even better a conservative -> English translation service? You have altered the language so dramatically that without a source to translate what on earth you (think you) are talking about communications attempts are so drastically impeded to be almost hopeless.

                    • Hearing a Lefty whine about language alterations is the height of hilarious.
                    • If you honestly believe that the Webster's Dictionary has been a "leftist" conspiracy for hundreds of years, then it should be very easy for you to provide an example of a non-altered dictionary where the words you use match the definitions that you believe in.
                    • Completely meaningless. Control was simply handed over to private banks, hardly what any reasonable person would call "Progressivism".

                      Precisely my point. This is not about reason and meaning; this is about sales pitch.

                      You sir, are wagging the dog.

                      And you, sir, are "Mr. Reality", merely "observing" all this with Olympian aloofness.

                    • Well no, but reality has never phased you.
                    • You're the one saying that "Webster's Dictionary has been a 'leftist' conspiracy".
                    • If you honestly believe that the Webster's Dictionary has been a "leftist" conspiracy for hundreds of years, then it should be very easy for you to provide an example of a non-altered dictionary where the words you use match the definitions that you believe in.

                      You're the one saying that "Webster's Dictionary has been a 'leftist' conspiracy".

                      Even for you, and the standards you have set lately for willingness to proudly and openly not read the text in front of you, that is a rather epic reading failure.

                    • Boredom
                    • That one word response looks a lot like the AC replies I was seeing to comments I placed in reply to you earlier.
                    • Sure

Man must shape his tools lest they shape him. -- Arthur R. Miller

Working...