Wait...you're trolling me to suggest I shouldn't engage with trolls?

It means something about them. It doesn't mean anything about shared reality.

Did you click on that guy's profile though? I checked a few prior comments. Just another old embittered illogical angry raving far right wing lunatic. Sometimes I just want them to demonstrate that further in public. I'm relatively conservative, but people on both political sides (though it's actually way more complicated than that) just go too far and lose all critical thinking skills, including any capability to debate rationally. It's like their anger at everyone not exactly like them is their complete identity and it prevents them from any valid analysis. The potential loss of that identity is what truly horrifies them.

I try to give people chances, the benefit of the doubt. I am truly interested in all perspectives backed by logic or evidence. Heck, I'd even consider alien visits in our timeline, if anyone had any evidence or even sound logical arguments. A lack of response to my comment or a nonsensical response would make my point for me.

Can you unpack this a bit and provide any links? It seems coded and a bit conspiratorial otherwise, but I'm interested in the perspectives and evidence.

> You claim that these delusional ideas

> and murderous regimes

> that not only NEVER worked

> but brought more deaths than Hitler

> were all somehow for all the people.

I made no such claim. I am always confused when people online start arguing with the voices in their heads, which generally seem to represent Fox News. I saw this:

>> Communism has never been for the people.

I wrote this:

> This statement is hard to validate.

The rest of your post seems to be a rant along similar invalid lines about my thoughts and writings.

> no allegedly well-meaning totalitarian leader actually does any good

Agreed, but communist/socialist and totalitarian are not necessarily the same thing. USA under Trump is becoming more totalitarian. Again, individual leadership characteristics may be as important or more than the underlying system itself.

> You people still dont get it

Sorry, what category of people does this reference? Why would you include me in that group?

> you excuse the same m.o. and the same trail of blood from your great commies that you are ideologically bi-curious about.

This statement seems particularly deranged, or at least completely unfounded on anything that I wrote.

> US left wing like you disgust me so.

Why would you assume that I am left wing?

> you cannot even see the massmurdering regimes for what they are

Is that so? You think I haven’t studied these things? I’ve been to the killing fields in Cambodia. I’ve also spent a lot of time in Laos, where the USA bombed Buddhist rice farmers – admittedly some of whom were defending their country and their regional brothers – for ten years and left approximately 90,000,000 pieces of unexploded ordinance behind – and still won’t clean it up. So capitalism isn’t always exactly saintly either.

> you blindly condemn one and curiously philosophize about the others.

Where did I do this? You really need to see people as individuals, not some stereotype on steroids.

> you have no true, firm, foundational values.

This is an unfounded and extreme logical jump in a post that was already quite illogical.

> you believe in no real, actual truths.

I am always open to new information.

What are you so afraid and/or angry about? What do you have to lose from people’s opinions online? Did these pixels actually stab you in the eye or something? Where was the violation of righteousness?

> there is no such thing as a "capitalist" ideology

> the premise of PROUT is invalid

Both debatable and at least the first seems to revolve around semantics, though I don't really care to debate these issues. Capitalism is certainly a system, not an ideology, though it has proponents that have ideologies. There certainly seem to be specific ideologies behind at least some aspects of *finance* capitalism.

If your argument is that PROUT is invalid if capitalism is not an ideology, then I don't follow your logic. I am not advocating PROUT, but was hoping for a more detailed analysis by someone that understands economic systems better than I do.

We seem to agree on most things. Basically, people in general are corrupt and self-centered; the few exceptions don’t seem to make it into government, and getting there would probably change them in negative ways anyway. I absolutely detest big government. I consider myself to be financially conservative and (at least until about 2020) socially progressive. I can’t seem to reconcile these things and neither party represents me; they both seem to represent corporate interests and their campaign contributors, most of which don’t seem to be average people.

I think that associating socialism with social programs was intentional to label social programs with the evils of communism. Oversimplifications like this basically function as thought stopping red meat for certain audiences, reducing analysis as well as critical thinking and hence individual understanding. This lack of distinction has almost certainly tripped me up over the years, as I support social programs but not a completely planned economy. So maybe I’m not really a socialist, though I do support some level of social programs, even though it seems that my taxes (and really, the share of the national debt associated with me and my descendants) would go directly to others, some of whom certainly don’t seem deserving.

While I have benefited and continue to benefit significantly from capital gains tax rates relative to income tax rates, I think inequity in taxation is much more significant than just this differential. It’s just too easy to maintain wealth after acquiring or even inheriting wealth, especially considering things like IRAs and 529s (which can convert to IRAs, and for which one can change beneficiaries). People that are able to save for education and retirement seem to have significant tax advantages over those that cannot. Additionally, people that have stock portfolios and other assets can borrow against those instead of selling, which allows them to access cash without reaping investment income for which they would otherwise have to pay taxes. There’s a reason that Trump hasn’t release his tax returns.

> controlling the means of production means controlling labor

I feel some vague potential argument around something like blended capitalism/socialism that would allocate resources other than labor more equitably and with less short-term thinking as well as environmental and other damages than finance capital requires, and also about how people that don’t labor can reap incredible gains from stock market and other investments, but I don’t have the time or energy to think about it too much at the moment. From my perspective, we’re basically stuck with the systems that we have and should address some of the inequities, which include inheritance (there are certainly some families that continue to benefit from the legacies of slavery, and basically all Americans benefit from taking land from Native Americans). I know, we can’t go back and change anything, and I’m not in favor of reparations. I see many problems with no apparent reasonable solutions.

I absolutely agree that finance capital could benefit social programs including social security. I cannot understand why the democrats would have been against this. But I also fear that pumping so much money into things like the stock market creates risk by overvaluing assets, which can lead to bubbles and collapses (the cyclical economy). It can also increase housing costs by funneling money into things like REITs and corporate structures that buy real estate to rent out. The money has to go somewhere, even if the underlying assets don’t actually support such high valuations. I am not an expert on any of this; the global and national economic systems are both incredibly complex, many aspects are incomprehensible to me, and there seem to be few certainties. I am somewhat against speculation by the wealthy class, though I also benefit from this.

I really wish that the USA would focus more on profit from sustainable natural resource extraction as well as creating products and services of actual value, not crap like marketing, financial shenanigans such as crypto, and especially things like facebook.

> Communism and Socialism are inherently authoritarian systems.

All systems seem authoritarian to me; the question is really: what is the authority (who is/are the effective leaders)? Could socialism and communism could be achieved with the population as the authority, maybe using something like reddit to evolve policy (did I just lose all credibility here)? In the USA we have presidential executive orders and a stacked judicial bench subverting legislation, precedent, and even democracy, which seems relatively authoritarian. It’s not even worth mentioning our worthless representation in the house and senate.

You mention several wealthy leaders. Note also who’s president of the USA now. At least the others had some concern for the people they ruled. Of course, like Trump, the politicians may have preferred those with certain political affiliations, but certainly not as overtly and without causing as much damage.

I am curious which US presidents you would consider to be good leaders that were working more for the people at large than themselves, concentrated wealth, or certain affiliations.

I would not argue for socialism, but for tempering capitalism with socialist policies. The USA is a rich company. If it could address financial issues such as the debt, excessive military spending, and underlying taxation inequities, it could afford social programs such as social security and healthcare for everyone. Unfortunately, I do not have a solution to prevent freeloading.

I absolutely do think that *most* Americans are owned by the system and to some extent by the state. In general, I see growing state control internationally, especially using technology.

At a certain level of wealth, the US system seems to have less ownership over the individual, though there are always many forms of taxation and risks such as imminent domain. Even with extreme wealth, in some cases the state and concentrated wealth can still apply penalties (for example, Epstein was in jail and may have been murdered). Wealth and government can combine to provide greater protection, such as presidential pardons.

I have read some work on Confucianism and appreciate your summary. Note that it may be work gathered from multiple people over time, not the thoughts or efforts of a single individual, and possibly directed by the regional “state” of the period. There is definitely some value to it and its derivatives, but I don’t see it as a complete philosophy. Also, I have no interest in any external moral or behavioral authority. Nor am I one for permanent, all-encompassing rules that apply in all cases. For example, blind filial piety only makes sense if the parents are incredibly good people; it makes more sense to be aware of their strengths and weaknesses. I see how this kind of thinking could support Mao and Xi, although I think Xi is much less damaging for China.

> Xi's primary interest is Xi's wellbeing.

This is basically true for all people. I’m curious what specific facts you reference.

> Dictators do not rule for the people, they rule for their own benefit.

I find that most people that I hire (lawyers, Realtors, and so forth) work for their own benefit more than mine.

Any dictator should be benevolent or overthrown. Even monarchy can work with the right leadership.

> he cannot maintain his corruption

I’m literally not familiar with news of his corruption; do you have any specifics? And let’s not pretend that the Trump administration isn’t corrupt. So again my conclusion that leadership matters as much as whatever label we apply to the underlying system (communism and socialism as implemented either are neither or boil down to forms of capitalism).

> doesn't mean he has anyone else's interests at heart.

What is the evidence that he doesn’t? While he may prioritize his personal interests, I am sure that he is a proponent of China and all Chinese people, but from his culture and unique perspective.

> Marx' analysis was way off the mark.

If you mean das kapital, I think that his analysis of capitalism, including its excesses, inequities, and progression, was accurate in many regards. I feel that the USA is in or is entering post-late-stage capitalism, which I’m not even sure Marx foresaw (I’ve only read the illustrated version).

I am less familiar with Marx’s analysis (do you mean of society, or something else?) for the communist manifesto.

> after watching Socialism fail

Was it really implemented as socialism?

I don't disagree with you. I'd like to know what you believe defines these rights. I'm not a proponent of communism. I think that capitalism with some socialist policies is the only possible solution; socialism doesn't seem to work and extreme capitalism has downsides. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, but none can be truly pure. I'd like to read your analysis of Progressive Utilization Theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I am not a fan of Marx or Mao. I think Marx did some decent analysis of capitalism and especially finance capitalism. I think Marx intended to benefit all of humankind. Whether or not his ideas were sound, they have been misused. Mao did a lot of damage, but I don't think it was intentional. I am not a proponent of communism. I am not gay, but I don't have anything against gay people. This seems like a relatively obscure tangent relative to my statements.

I don't see that as Marx promoting murder, but looking at history and seeing that when imbalances reach a certain point, violent revolution is the natural outcome.