Why Socialism is Necessary for Civilization - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15075159
ckaihatsu wrote:
The class character of the government response was starkly revealed on Thursday. The Federal Reserve, in a desperate and futile attempt to counteract the selloff on Wall Street, announced that it was allocating $1.5 trillion to buy up stocks and other assets. The US Congress, on the other hand, is haggling over a few billion dollars in assistance to those who are thrown out of work or otherwise impacted—a drop in the bucket compared to what is urgently required.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/0 ... s-m13.html



SolarCross wrote:
The best time to buy is when the market bottoms out. The Fed can make vast amounts of money buying up over-sold stocks then selling them on the recovery. The money they are using is 100% fake too so there have nothing to lose and the world to gain. There is nothing desperate about it.



Hmmmm, as usual you're just describing the status quo situation *empirically*, and are not really being *political*.

The *political* aspect here is 'What could $1.5 trillion best be used for?', and the answer is *not* to prop up capitalism's balance sheet.


philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show
Image
#15075161
ckaihatsu wrote:Hmmmm, as usual you're just describing the status quo situation *empirically*, and are not really being *political*.

The *political* aspect here is 'What could $1.5 trillion best be used for?', and the answer is *not* to prop up capitalism's balance sheet.

The Fed printed up the fake money, so it is for them not you to decide what they want to spend it on. If you want to spend some fake money too then start up your own fake currency.
#15075162
Donna wrote:
Capitalist firms have become so big and dependent on government subsidization (and government stimulation of financial markets) that these conservative arguments about the inefficiency of central planning won't be able to hold up much longer. You're losing the intellectual battle because capitalism is in decay.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
When the government owns the means of production and it works better than capitalism i'll change my tune. Until then, the proof is in the pudding. The markets keep going up. They've been going up for hundreds of years. Marx has predicted capitalism's collapse since 1848. We're still waiting.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The class character of the government response was starkly revealed on Thursday. The Federal Reserve, in a desperate and futile attempt to counteract the selloff on Wall Street, announced that it was allocating $1.5 trillion to buy up stocks and other assets. The US Congress, on the other hand, is haggling over a few billion dollars in assistance to those who are thrown out of work or otherwise impacted—a drop in the bucket compared to what is urgently required.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/0 ... s-m13.html



---


Why aren't you free-market types *decrying* the current intervention of the federal government, into the markets?

Why aren't you *incensed* and calling for the government to *retract* the $1.5 trillion in liquidity, in favor of your so-called 'free markets' ideology / mythology?

Hypocrites.
#15075164
Unthinking Majority wrote:
I'm defending capitalism in general, I'm not defending the corruption of politicians in the United States. The fact that some crooked paid-off politicians in the US gave tons of money to bail out some banks and insurance companies and ignored workers doesn't mean capitalism as a system of economics is wholly a failure worldwide or even in the US throughout history. That's quite the slippery slope argument.



ckaihatsu wrote:
This is *ludicrous* -- do you really think that *any other* group of politicians would do things any differently?



Unthinking Majority wrote:
People choose who they vote for. They chose Clinton and Trump over Bernie Sanders in 2016, and they're doing similar in 2020. People get the governments they deserve, it's not the fault of the market that American voters are stupid, while other western countries flourish socially.



Well, I don't defend so-called U.S. 'democracy' -- you can be as moralistic and condescending to the American public as you'd like, and it's nothing more than an exercise in front of a mirror since there's no *alternative* to the state with one elected president (or Supreme-Court-*appointed* president, Bush), or another.

What *counts* is what the state *policies* happen to be, from any given administration, and that's where officials can be criticized on a point-by-point basis, no matter *who* they are or how they got into power.


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image



I'll note that the U.S. is basically a *plutocratic empire* because, on the whole, it functions in the interests of the bourgeois *ruling class*, and not for workers. The bailout of 2008-2009 just happened *again*, so it's certainly not about this-or-that politician, but is about the state-functioning itself.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
If the system was 'malfunctioning' in 2008-2009, why didn't the supposedly-impartial politicians and officials let it fail, and look instead for alternatives to replace it? No, they used *public funds* to fix the bottom line, so as to keep that system going, with all of the social ills it maintains, like income inequality.

And here *you're* defending it as something that's 'beneficial', and fixable.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Why didn't they let it fail? Because they aren't insane. So you wanted politicians to let the system collapse, creating another great depression and horrible suffering, so they could implement whatever untested economic experiment you think is best? You're insane. Communists always think they're going to save the masses, but the results are always the same.



No, I never made this statement -- I *do* favor a bailout, for the reasons you're stating, but now you're not a 'free-market' person anymore. Here's your stated overall political position, from previously:


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Competition fuels efficiency and innovation. It may not fuel equality of outcome, nor should it, but that's where the government can help out by providing things like universal healthcare, social housing, etc so that nobody goes without needs. This was proven throughout the 20th century, the proof is in the pudding. The most successful country in the world in terms of economic and social indicators are mixed capitalist with elements of democratic socialism. Not a communist country anywhere to be seen, never has and never will.



So, then, where is the agitation for the populist-type *reforms* that you supposedly support? And when do *workers* get to receive a government bailout, as with higher wages, more benefits, more time off, paid sick leave, maternity / paternity paid days, etc.? You *claim* to be a reformist / liberal, but how does your line really benefit *workers*, the ones doing the actual production in society? You seem mostly concerned with the U.S.-economy entity.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's not enough to nationalize -- it also has to be done *well*. We have nationalized schools, roads / transportation, health care (to a degree), etc., and yet these sectors are woefully underfunded and basically set-up to fail. Where's the bailouts for *these* sectors of government spending???



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Exactly. This often happens when you let politicians run things, many of them are corrupt and inept, but you want them to run the entire economy? Oh hells no.



So then who should be able to wield state power, if not professional bourgeois politicians?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again you're trying to *personalize* politics -- this isn't about demographics, nor is it about me.

And who do you think would be in a position to 'tax the rich and redistribute it to the masses' -- ??

That would be *government*, which you're maligning as an instrument of redistribution of wealth, when you just *recommended* a redistribution of wealth.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
I'm for a healthy mix of capitalism and socialism. Too much capitalism or too much socialism leads to economic ruin, and the evidence is vast. Western and northern Europe are good examples of successfully mixing the two, as are much of east Asia in terms of developing countries. I'm not for laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism needs strong regulation, and social programs to meet the basic needs of people, especially those on the margins.



Okay, I'll take you at your word, for now -- would you like to address *workers* needs at all?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Why don't you expand on this theme / issue of *how* to redistribute wealth, more?



Unthinking Majority wrote:
See Scandanavia, Canada, New Zealand etc. The US is far behind the ball.



Okay, agreed, relativistically, but if you're not for the state, and you want wealth redistribution, then how, exactly, it that wealth redistribution supposed to be carried out?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And here you're oblivious to *history*. Recall that it was *foreign invasions* that knocked the Bolshevik Revolution off-course, so why aren't you blaming *Western imperialism* for the monstrosity that Stalin's 'socialism-in-one-country' became?

You seem to think that socialism comes through a petri dish, that certain countries are experimented-on, so that we can see
(from 'above', presumably) if it's viable or not -- this is *disgusting* and you sound like an elitist eugenicist for taking such a reprehensible top-down perspective on people's lives.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Huh? How do you know if something works unless you try it? Top-down? WTF are talking about?



Again, what is the *process* that enables the redistribution of wealth, in society?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Why should *anyone* defend capitalism *in the least* when it's *elitist*??



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Capitalism isn't perfect. But it's lifted billions out of poverty. I'm willing to change my mind if we discover a better system. Do I like the massive concentration of wealth you see in the USA? No. That's why I support taking a bunch of that money from them via taxes and redistributing to your average workers and the poor. But based on voting patterns, Americans don't want that for whatever reason. I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, ironically. That's their choice I guess, they have free will and democratic freedom.



Wow -- that's an *incredibly* blase attitude to have, concerning the *gaping* social wounds going on, now added-to with this coronavirus pandemic. Should we just wait for 'free will and democratic freedom' to eventually vote-in Bernie Sanders, so that we can get this shit started? How long do you think that'll take?

Your defense of capitalism means that you inherit capitalism's foreign-policy *imperialism*, as well. What do you think about U.S. and European imperialism?


Spoiler: show

United States

Main article: American imperialism

Made up of former colonies itself, the early United States expressed its opposition to Imperialism, at least in a form distinct from its own Manifest Destiny, through policies such as the Monroe Doctrine. However the US may have unsuccessfully attempted to capture Canada in the War of 1812. The United States achieved very significant territorial concessions from Mexico during the Mexican-American War. Beginning in the late 19th and early 20th century, policies such as Theodore Roosevelt’s interventionism in Central America and Woodrow Wilson’s mission to "make the world safe for democracy"[96] changed all this. They were often backed by military force, but were more often affected from behind the scenes. This is consistent with the general notion of hegemony and imperium of historical empires.[97][98] In 1898, Americans who opposed imperialism created the Anti-Imperialist League to oppose the US annexation of the Philippines and Cuba. One year later, a war erupted in the Philippines causing business, labor and government leaders in the US to condemn America's occupation in the Philippines as they also denounced them for causing the deaths of many Filipinos.[99] American foreign policy was denounced as a "racket" by Smedley Butler, a former American general who had become a spokesman for the far left.[100]

At the start of World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was opposed to European colonialism, especially in India. He pulled back when Britain's Winston Churchill demanded that victory in the war be the first priority. Roosevelt expected that the United Nations would take up the problem of decolonization.[101]

Some have described the internal strife between various people groups as a form of imperialism or colonialism. This internal form is distinct from informal U.S. imperialism in the form of political and financial hegemony.[102] This internal form of imperialism is also distinct from the United States' formation of "colonies" abroad.[102] Through the treatment of its indigenous peoples during westward expansion, the United States took on the form of an imperial power prior to any attempts at external imperialism. This internal form of empire has been referred to as "internal colonialism".[103] Participation in the African slave trade and the subsequent treatment of its 12 to 15 million Africans is viewed by some to be a more modern extension of America's "internal colonialism".[104] However, this internal colonialism faced resistance, as external colonialism did, but the anti-colonial presence was far less prominent due to the nearly complete dominance that the United States was able to assert over both indigenous peoples and African-Americans.[105] In his lecture on April 16, 2003, Edward Said made a bold statement on modern imperialism in the United States, whom he described as using aggressive means of attack towards the contemporary Orient, "due to their backward living, lack of democracy and the violation of women’s rights. The western world forgets during this process of converting the other that enlightenment and democracy are concepts that not all will agree upon".[106]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism#United_States



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Why should *anyone* defend capitalism *in the least* when it's *elitist*??

It also *fails*, as we saw in 2008-2009, and are seeing currently, with the coronavirus outbreak and the unwillingness of capitalist plutocratic-interested governments, to address it. *You're* not addressing it, or any other pressing social issues that are left unaddressed by capitalism and its elitist politicians.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Capitalism didn't "fail" in 2008. The market corrected itself when people were over-speculating. When investors get too greedy the market always punishes them & brings things back into balance. And the market went on to reach spectacular new highs and the lowest unemployment rates not seen in 40-50 years. The markets will recover from this Corona slump too. Socialism wouldn't have stopped travel and large venues from shutting down and slowing economic production. Failure is when the USSR literally disintegrated and ceased to exist forever, causing horrible economic suffering eastern Europe still hasn't recovered from. Failure is when millions starve to death due to government inefficiencies in a centrally planned economy.



Okay, well, I'm not a Stalinist, so I don't defend so-called 'socialism-in-one-country'. I'm all about the workers of the world controlling social production. Here's a recent graphic that encapsulates my politics:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



If you see capitalist markets -- and market failures -- as being 'normal functioning', then why are there market failures, like the ongoing one, and why are you defending it? Are you defending the current $1.5 trillion bailout, and why shouldn't that money just go directly to people / individuals who need it instead directing it to prop up a failing system?
#15075165
ckaihatsu wrote:
Hmmmm, as usual you're just describing the status quo situation *empirically*, and are not really being *political*.

The *political* aspect here is 'What could $1.5 trillion best be used for?', and the answer is *not* to prop up capitalism's balance sheet.



SolarCross wrote:
The Fed printed up the fake money, so it is for them not you to decide what they want to spend it on. If you want to spend some fake money too then start up your own fake currency.



So you're *defending* the U.S. state intervention in the markets -- you're no longer a 'free market' person, SC.

Why shouldn't the U.S. just give that money to the *demand*-side of the economy, instead of to the *supply*-side of the economy? (This is a perfect opportunity for that 'redistribution of wealth' that you favor, UM.)
#15075166
ckaihatsu wrote:---
Why aren't you free-market types *decrying* the current intervention of the federal government, into the markets?

Why aren't you *incensed* and calling for the government to *retract* the $1.5 trillion in liquidity, in favor of your so-called 'free markets' ideology / mythology?

Hypocrites.

The Fed is a private company selling fake money. If people like the government like buying fake money then more fool them. Caveat Emptor :excited:

Freemarket types have been pointing this out for ages, literally for decades, but none of you silly fucks pay any attention to anyone unless their first, last and only answer to every problem is "make government bigger".

Normie: I can't find the car keys!
Me: Where did you see them last?
Chiakatsu: I told you the free market would fail! Now we have to institute an enormous government bureaucracy tasked with tracking all the world's car keys and storing all the data on an easily hacked database! Now where did I leave my death squads?



Listen and learn.
#15075167
SolarCross wrote:
The Fed is a private company selling fake money. If people like the government like buying fake money then more fool them. Caveat Emptor :excited:

Freemarket types have been pointing this out for ages, literally for decades, but none of you silly fucks pay any attention to anyone unless their first, last and only answer to every problem is "make government bigger".

Normie: I can't find the car keys!
Me: Where did you see them last?
Chiakatsu: I told you the free market would fail! Now we have to institute an enormous government bureaucracy tasked with tracking all the world's car keys and storing all the data on an easily hacked database! Now where did I leave my death squads?

youtube.com

Listen and learn.



Nope, I'm *still* not a Stalinist, so I *don't* favor bureaucratic-elitist nationalism.

Would you favor a Fed / government *non-intervention* regarding the markets at this point in time?

Here's a recent graphic that encapsulates my politics:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image
#15075184
ckaihatsu wrote:Would you favor a Fed / government *non-intervention* regarding the markets at this point in time?

Yes, stock prices should find their level naturally. The impact of coronavirus on international trade and really any trade needs to be priced in, and it will be priced in eventually no matter what shenanigans the Fed pulls. At the end of the day if you allow anyone a monopoly on fake money production then they will end up owing everything to the detriment of all. If the Fed goes on a stock shopping spree while the prices are tanking they are not saving anyone but taking advantage of a crisis to line their own pockets.

In the long run the Fed is cancer and should be abolished. I might even go as far as to suggest we should bring back hanging as a punishment for currency counterfeiting.
#15075212
Unthinking Majority wrote:Ok then go start a co-op, you have that freedom. Nobody is stopping you.


But the capitalists do try to stop us when we try to implement democratic socialism. They come with guns and dictatorship.

————————

@SolarCross

You are the one who brought up co-ops.
#15075217
Unthinking Majority wrote:If you want to stop massive campaign donations and lobbying, then ban it or regulate it. There's nothing in capitalism that says you can't. Many western countries do this far better than the US.


As long as we agree that this thing where capitalist governments bail out failed companies (capitalism is so successful! And does not need public money!) is how capitalism is supposed to work. Our tax dollars are supposed to keep rich people rich no matter how much it costs us.

Climate change is largely caused by automobiles burning fossil fuels. Go buy an EV or a hybrid. You have that freedom, as does everyone. Capitalism is democratic, everyone votes with their wallet.


As long as we agree that capitalism is causing climate change and has no solutions.

The USA is behind the 8-ball because Trump is a moron. Capitalism will probably find a Corona vaccine because companies would love to get rich from it.


Trump is part of the problem, but many of the problems the USA has is because of private health care. The best shot at a vaccine right now is a government funded lab. And if you want to force people to pay for a vaccine, you are still creating financial disincentives to stop people from getting better.

—————

@SolarCross

Do you have an actual argument?
#15075218
Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you have an actual argument?

I asked you a question: do you think pofo should be a co-op?

It is really simple just answer with one of the following and be done with it:
1. yes
2. no
3. maybe
4. I don't know
For bonus points you can explain your reasoning for your preference.
#15075220
SolarCross wrote:I asked you a question: do you think pofo should be a co-op?

It is really simple just answer with one of the following and be done with it:
1. yes
2. no
3. maybe
4. I don't know
For bonus points you can explain your reasoning for your preference.


My answer is “who cares?”.
#15075232
SolarCross wrote:ok so apparently you don't care about co-ops then. Why the hell were you making a big fuss about them for the last few pages? :?:


You made a factually incorrect claim: that workers’ conditions are the same in both.

I corrected you.

Do you want me to keep talking about your error?
#15075235
Pants-of-dog wrote:You made a factually incorrect claim: that workers’ conditions are the same in both.

I corrected you.

Do you want me to keep talking about your error?

As far as sweeping generalisations go that is true. I have friends who work in coops and friends that work in other types. There is nothing in it.
#15075245
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, there is significantly less chance of sexual harassment, and there is more job security.

So pofo should get some of that good stuff too. A lot of people get arbitrarily unperson-ed on the whim of the bosses. How can we be a community without community ownership? :?:
#15075256
SolarCross wrote:So pofo should get some of that good stuff too. A lot of people get arbitrarily unperson-ed on the whim of the bosses. How can we be a community without community ownership? :?:


You should talk to @noemon.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 14

@Doug64 Right, I forgot Drlee’s other schtick t[…]

Well, the US already set up a black ethnostate fo[…]

The fact is that capitalist ideology will never f[…]

Provide evidence for this claim. Why is it that[…]