[Potemkin]

As a conservative, I can tell you what I care the most about is progressives keeping their hands off my shit and living their own lives without demanding others pay for all their piss-poor decisions in life.

All the spending bills we have are really about transfering private property/earnings from those who work to those who don't earn their keeps, and liberals today are fueled by nothing more than constant jealousy.

Modern day democrats are the Free Shit Army.

How many trillions did the war in Iraq cost? How many trillions for the twenty-year fiasco in Afghanistan? Paying the groceries bill of a so-called ‘Welfare Queen’ living in some rat-infested hovel in Detroit is small potatoes compared to those kind of spending bills. America is bankrupting itself fighting pointless and unsuccessful ‘forever wars’ in various shitholes around the world. But instead of addressing that issue, you are frothing at the mouth because you have to pay for somebody’s food stamps.

[BlutoSays]

How many trillions did the war in Iraq cost? How many trillions for the twenty-year fiasco in Afghanistan? Paying the groceries bill of a so-called ‘Welfare Queen’ living in some rat-infested hovel in Detroit is small potatoes compared to those kind of spending bills. America is bankrupting itself fighting pointless and unsuccessful ‘forever wars’ in various shitholes around the world. But instead of addressing that issue, you are frothing at the mouth because you have to pay for somebody’s food stamps.

First of all, I don't know what Iraq had to do with anything.

70% of the current federal budget are transfer payments. That means people on the dole.

Someone's on food stamps? We went from 24 million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps under Obama. And ya know what? They said it wasn't enough. For the left (and that includes RINO's), it's NEVER enough. Everyone could just donate 100% of their earnings to Washington DC and the DNC would be whining they need more. Seriously, why bother working at all.

Did you ever study what happened in the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain countries? Why did they collapse? Please explain it to me in your own words.

[Dimetrodon]

As a conservative, I can tell you what I care the most about is progressives keeping their hands off my shit and living their own lives without demanding others pay for all their piss-poor decisions in life.

All the spending bills we have are really about transfering private property/earnings from those who work to those who don't earn their keeps, and liberals today are fueled by nothing more than constant jealousy.

Modern day democrats are the Free Shit Army.

Yeah, because everyone who falls on hard times is just lazy or had it coming. /s I'm sure you unironically believe that billionaires work 100,000s of times harder than the average person, and completely ignore the fact that they're getting more and more at the expense of everyone else.

And the "Free Shit Amy?" They're a party of neoliberal half-measures, though this is the type of uninformed response that I would expect from a modern-day conservative.

[ckaihatsu]

(BS, RA,)

I never tire of pointing out that someone who owns *millions* would never have to work since they could just live off of the *interest* from that sum -- it doesn't get lazier than *that*, and there's no 'meritocracy' around anywhere on that kind of thing either, meaning *wealth*.

[Unthinking Majority]

Everyone always thinks that whatever they define as "other" is unwilling to compromise. This is what gives them the excuse to not compromise themselves.

I think the left are more willing to compromise than the right. Don't forget that the left are a bunch of giant pussies and the right are a bunch of giant assholes.

There's a reason why the left and right need each other: they keep each other in check, because they're both half right and half wrong about everything.

[Unthinking Majority]

As a conservative, I can tell you what I care the most about is progressives keeping their hands off my shit and living their own lives without demanding others pay for all their piss-poor decisions in life.

All the spending bills we have are really about transfering private property/earnings from those who work to those who don't earn their keeps, and liberals today are fueled by nothing more than constant jealousy.

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

[Unthinking Majority]

(BS, RA,)

I never tire of pointing out that someone who owns *millions* would never have to work since they could just live off of the *interest* from that sum -- it doesn't get lazier than *that*, and there's no 'meritocracy' around anywhere on that kind of thing either, meaning *wealth*.

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

[Unthinking Majority]

Conservatives: if you're poor it's due to your and/or your parents' own actions or inactions (bad decisions).

Liberals: if you're poor you're the victim of somebody else who has oppressed you. (ie: bourgeoisie, colonialism, uncle who molested you etc).

Have I got it right?

So basically, conservatives are uncompassionate assholes and liberals are weak simps who don't take responsibility for their own actions/inactions.

[ckaihatsu]

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

You're implying that this is *personal* for me -- ?

This is *not* personal for me.

My point stands that (necessarily pre-existing) wealth -- in its *rentier* form -- makes claims on the entire pre-existing economy, by extracting interest and/or rents, *without* initiating any kind of commodity production process whatsoever.

Anything that's *not* conducive to commodity-production isn't really worth the moniker of 'capitalism', then, because the historically-materially *backward* step, to simple estate management, for agriculture only, to economically *tread water*, doesn't require the dynamism of capital or capitalists, and is *oligopolistic* / oligarchical -- like the (non-commodity-producing) (natural resource extractors) financial titans of today.

[Unthinking Majority]

You're implying that this is *personal* for me -- ?

This is *not* personal for me.

My point stands that (necessarily pre-existing) wealth -- in its *rentier* form -- makes claims on the entire pre-existing economy, by extracting interest and/or rents, *without* initiating any kind of commodity production process whatsoever.

Anything that's *not* conducive to commodity-production isn't really worth the moniker of 'capitalism', then, because the historically-materially *backward* step, to simple estate management, for agriculture only, to economically *tread water*, doesn't require the dynamism of capital or capitalists, and is *oligopolistic* / oligarchical -- like the (non-commodity-producing) (natural resource extractors) financial titans of today.

Are you saying you don't resent the rich, or that the bourgeoisie aren't the cause for most of the world's economic problems?

[BlutoSays]

Conservatives: if you're poor it's due to your and/or your parents' own actions or inactions (bad decisions).

Liberals: if you're poor you're the victim of somebody else who has oppressed you. (ie: bourgeoisie, colonialism, uncle who molested you etc).

Have I got it right?

So basically, conservatives are uncompassionate assholes and liberals are weak simps who don't take responsibility for their own actions/inactions.

Who is "poor"? Is it 75% of the country, because a life of jealousy mandates you define redistribution to "feel" better about yourself?



Predicted 230+ years ago by the second President of the United States....

- - - - -

John Adams writes in 1787: "Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables.

Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have?

Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors.

Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... 16s15.html

[ckaihatsu]

Are you saying you don't resent the rich, or that the bourgeoisie aren't the cause for most of the world's economic problems?

*Politically*, I'd say yes-and-no. *Personally*, no, I'm not nearly as 'in-the-game' as the next person.

Sure, 'the bourgeoisie' is made up of discrete individuals, so there's that -- and such can be definitively defined as one's own relationship to the means of mass industrial production ('capital'). (So by extension, how much of a person's lifestyle is due to capital *gains*, and how much is due to *wages*, for the same individual.)

That said, I don't think there's any general political ethos of 'vengefulness' -- though that can *vary* according to particular circumstances, of course. Politics is more about certain large-scale *goals*, and objectives, I think.


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show

I want to add that we can see what happens when there's hardly any real new-values *commodity production*, for GDP growth -- the corporate world of the last two decades has been nothing but meme-coin-like *arbitrariness* (arguably white-supremacy-caste-based) over valuations, and even winners-and-losers itself. What does it mean for one private faction of (cryptocurrency) wealth to 'win-out' over *other* private factions of wealth, when it's all just static pools at-play, with no actual production taking place.

These pools of nowhere-to-go wealth just all lead into Ponzi-scheme financializations -- the latest meme hyped -- just to get *some* kind of momentum going, even if the dynamics are stupidly-simple and arbitrary 'in-group-out-group' dynamics, for king-of-the-hill status.

The New Generation Of Meme Coins ｜ Cryptoland

[ckaihatsu]

king-of-the-hill status

ADDITION:

king-of-the-hill, winner-take-all status

[ckaihatsu]

Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors.

Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

One can readily appreciate this 'stewardship'-ethos defense of private property if *all* of such wealth was actively *equity* capital, and was somehow all actively present in the form of factories and equipment, producing actual commodities that people need and use.


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show

But all capital is *not* so actively invested, and leveraged -- especially in such recent economically moribund decades (of low GDP growth). (Capital *was* far more profitable, from a much higher organic-composition-of-capital back then in colonial times, meaning *low* industrialization, and *high* exploitation of labor, even to the exhaustion and death of the serf / slave laborers themselves, under feudalism. Such estate-based feudal gains, though, were limited to conspicuous consumption, basically, since such localist gains weren't really mobile *capital*, for external *investment*.

I have to note that even if a widespread, populist-type 'jubilee' of debt-forgiveness took place, the entire system of *capitalism*, and *wealth*-power would *still* continue to exist, and the social dichotomy of divisive wealth polarization would just re-assert itself all over again, over time.

[BlutoSays]

"One can readily appreciate this 'stewardship'-ethos defense of private property if *all* of such wealth was actively *equity* capital, and was somehow all actively present in the form of factories and equipment, producing actual commodities that people need and use."

I don't knopw where you get that benchmark. Says who? You? *all* Why? Explain your reasoning.

[ckaihatsu]

"One can readily appreciate this 'stewardship'-ethos defense of private property if *all* of such wealth was actively *equity* capital, and was somehow all actively present in the form of factories and equipment, producing actual commodities that people need and use."

I don't knopw where you get that benchmark. Says who? You? *all* Why? Explain your reasoning.

Gladly.

You have a *blind spot* (for lack of any better terming), when it comes to the 'interface' of equity capital and the labor force, for the process of commodity production, for sales, for revenue, for profits.

Isn't it *ironic* -- yet your own *private* interests are for *private discretion*, and *opaqueness*, as after the committing of a crime.


material-economic exploitation

Spoiler: show

Spoiler: show

So, to sum it up, how does *live* *organic* workers' efforts (labor) ('use value', utility), translate into *inorganic* products, exactly / by-what-ratio, into commodities, particularly the means of mass industrial production / 'producer goods' / capital -- ?

I finally did-the-math, and it looks like the richest person on earth should be a *brick maker* from an early age, since what they make turns into *capital investments*. Wow. What happened there? Even building actual fucking buildings doesn't confer wealth and power. What a world!

[Mike12]

con·serv·a·tive
[kənˈsərvədiv]
ADJECTIVE
averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values:
"they were very conservative in their outlook"
synonyms:
traditionalist · traditional · conventional · orthodox · stable · [more]
(in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas. Often contrasted with liberal.

We were the "Reactionaries" for the October Revolution and President Woodrow Wilson in 1917 in Russia and Communism. Less than that, lets see what little thing is they're doing. We were the "reactionaries" to Hitler and another new World Transformation. The Allies are the Reactionaries.

re·ac·tion·ar·y
[rēˈakSHəˌnerē]
ADJECTIVE
(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform:
"reactionary attitudes toward women's rights"
synonyms:
conservative · right-wing · rightist · ultra-conservative · ultra-right · [more]
NOUN
a reactionary person:
"he was later to become an extreme reactionary"
synonyms:
conservative · right-winger

I think Americans are innovative. I think the Brits have "lived at Grandma's house too long".
All Christian Nationalities melt and dissolved together in Christendom, just like, in case the States are sub-Nation Units, thus, spoke, all the World Christians are dissolved Nationalities, a Characteristic, the inseperable Characteristic, That the Jewish Chosen People spread to All Nations and to the Greeks, neither Jew nor Greek.
There is a minor Revolution in the works at all times hoisted by Federal Government, it definitely is a Revolution of some heft or measure or whatever run by government, I'd be new to that like most people. What is inhuman, unnatural about the Nations? Being preached to by an Presbyterian-Lecturing and then Supreme Marvel Comic Coexistarians in the Whitehouse.

[Mike12]

(BS, RA,)

I never tire of pointing out that someone who owns *millions* would never have to work since they could just live off of the *interest* from that sum -- it doesn't get lazier than *that*, and there's no 'meritocracy' around anywhere on that kind of thing either, meaning *wealth*.

Says official Communist posters. The first time. Rockefeller gave 10% of his wealth like the official Church tithe rule. Bill Gates has a foundation. Accountants having a "representation" of Wealth, its like some nightmare metaphor. The limited resources for allocation represented by economy with our best mind to our share of it, what a good economic idea. Now everyone in Korea had a totally devestated non-wealth starting place in 1950, or what about similar events, fo rthe accustomed generational dynastic capitalists accustomed and put invisibly and seamlessly in the Capitalist environment, whats that calculation?

[ckaihatsu]

Mike, please don't include any content from my posts if you aren't addressing me. Thanks.