Are these mingy little beasts really the champions of the working class? - Page 15 - 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.
#15066699
ckaihatsu wrote:Just because you disdain the *non-equity* type of capital

See? You can't even bring yourself to call things by their correct names: production goods and privilege.
doesn't mean that such *rentier* capital in any way curtails the potential for a 'free' (unregulated) type of market.

False. Privilege inherently deprives others of their rights to liberty. A market whose participants trade in others' rights to liberty is a slave market. A slave market is not a free market, duh.
So any quasi-free-market, being based in the market mechanism, is inherently *capitalist*, and *not* anti-capitalist.

Disproved above.
No, you haven't.

Yes, I have.
The use of *any* kind of capital, in *any* kind of market, is the very practice of capitalism and is *not* 'anti-capitalist'.

No, that contradicts the definition of capitalism: private ownership of the means of production (production goods and natural resources (land)).
Don't call me 'junior'.

Very well, child.

Don't leave huge blank spaces in your messages.
Land, like anything else under capitalism, is a *commodity* -- it is bought and sold on the market.

No. It is not a "commodity" like anything else because unlike anything else -- and most specifically production goods -- its supply is fixed: it cannot be produced, and the entire supply is always available to the market with no help from its owners or any previous owners. Why do you refuse to know that fact?
You happen to *disdain* this fact, but it remains the existing practice under capitalism's markets.

It's not a question of disdaining the fact, it's a question of knowing what it implies. Which you clearly do not, or you would not be disingenuously pretending that land is a commodity like anything else.
You're even *acknowledging* that it's a necessary practice ('capitalism requires landowning').

It's only "necessary" because that is how capitalism is DEFINED. HELLO???
I'll repeat the question, How else would people handle the apportionment of land within capitalism, if not through land-commodity markets?

:roll: I'll repeat the answer: there is BY DEFINITION no way to apportion land under capitalism but through private ownership and trade because that is what capitalism IS.
My politics *don't require* belief because my reasoning / ideology is based in the empirical world.

No. Your politics is based on absurd and anti-scientific Marxist bloviation.
My *politics* is for the working class. That's it.

So you gladly sacrifice liberty, justice and truth, putatively for the working class. Hence the idiotic Marxist gibberish. OK.
This is the *opposite* of a fact, because, yes, the markets are capitalist, and, yes, libertarians *are* capitalists because they / you support the 'free market' ideal.

Already disproved. Capitalism is defined by OWNERSHIP, not MARKETS.

GET IT??
No, you haven't proved jack-shit

Yes, I have proved everything I said I have proved.
-- you're proving that you think your own repetition of a falsehood will somehow alter the greater objective world,

No, that's you -- and all Marxists/socialists.
so that it magically conforms to your opinions and wishes, much like Trump. The world doesn't work this way.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
(And, by this admission, I'll ask you / the reader to look into what economic mechanism / dynamic *is* favored by libertarians -- it's the *markets*, and markets are a feature of *capitalism*, so libertarians favor capitalism and are *not* anti-capitalist.)

No. Libertarians favor markets because markets work by CONSENT. Capitalism cannot work by consent because land is not and cannot be property by consent.
By 'liberty' you mean 'private property ownership',

No, the right to property in the fruits of one's labor is different from the right to liberty.
and you *don't* mean 'government upholding of people's own individual civil rights,

Yes, in fact, I do.
by punishing those who violate these civil rights, for social justice'.

Social justice is an oxymoron. Justice can only apply to individuals.
Socialism says to extend these personal civil rights into the *economic* realm as well, so that each person is seen to have a birthright stake in an appropriate portion of the *material* world, for their needs for life and living, instead of leaving these needs to the whims and vagaries of privately-controlled ownership over the same.

Right: socialism refuses to distinguish between the material world that is provided unconditionally by nature and the material world that is produced by others' labor.
No, I *know* that labor is not the only input to production -- I have it in a graphic right here:

Which is wrong.
But here's the thing, TTP -- all of the 'other inputs' to the process of commodity-production were created only because of the *main* input, labor.

False. Land was never created by labor.
So the landscaped land, the buildings, the equipment / machinery, the tailored raw materials, etc., are available only because they're 'dead labor', or the value that comes from applying human labor to the rough materials directly from nature.

Including the vital labor of the entrepreneur/provider of production goods.
You barely even *acknowledge* that labor exists at all,

False.
and much less that it contributes anything materially to the productive process that creates commodities (exchange values, and use values) under capitalism.

Again, false.
So you're against feudal land rights,

Also private property in land.
and you're for equity capital in modern capitalism.

But called by its correct name: production goods.
Everyone on this thread knows your position as well as their own kids' names at this point.

You just got through proving you don't know anything at all about my position.
With *this* line, TTP, you're showing yourself to *not* be a 'free market' person, because you're *upholding the state and its regulations*,

The free market can't exist without a state to secure liberty, property and contract rights.
in this case to close national borders to a free flow of human labor, and the economic opportunities in the markets on the other side of the border for those laborers.

The state is only responsible for the rights of its own citizens, not every other state's.
Currently there *are* no socialist-type countries in existence.

Sure there are: Cuba, North Korea and Laos.
Workers can *only* get jobs through private ownership, so whether it happens to be this-or-that particular employer is of *no importance* to the job-seeker.

The conditions that define his bargaining position are.
The whole dynamic is correctly called 'wage slavery' because one cannot avoid having to sell one's labor to an employer if one happens to need wages / income, to buy the necessities for one's life and living.

It could not be called wage slavery if people had their liberty rights to use land to earn their own living.
I think it's more accurate to term you a ruling-class ideologue at this point.

And you claim to know my position?? :lol: :lol: :lol:
#15066700
you know what I like? I like when these mingy little beasts call me a racist. These lily white over privileged college twerps who have never lived, worked, and partied with blacks and mexicans and natives(the only poor minority people they know are their domestic servants) are gonna call me a racist? pfff. fucking ninnies.
#15066701
Truth To Power wrote:Or they are exiled, imprisoned or killed.


Wow. You really did not think this through.

If they existed, these counter revolutionaries would be getting mad amounts of cash and support from the USA and would effectively get pushed into power.

Like every other time Latinos tried to have a socialist government.

Well, Cuba was a vassal of the USSR, but that didn't work out so well. Now it's just a vassal of Raoul Castro.


No. I know that US citizens like to think that Cuba was just a colony of the USSR, but they never provide evidence for this myth.

Neither will you.

Truth To Power wrote:No, that's a non sequitur. Redistributing privilege from your enemies to your cronies in no sense implies an understanding of how that privilege causes oppression. It just switches oppressors. They have done as much in Zimbabwe and many other failed states.


I would bet folding money that you do not provide evidence for this claim.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Blatant equivocation fallacy.

:roll: By that "logic," workers don't do the same amount of work as fish...

Work (labor) in the relevant sense -- human effort devoted to production (relief of scarcity) -- is always a three-step process: obtaining information; making a decision based thereon; and implementing the decision. The investor in production goods does all three. So to the extent that his actions relieve scarcity, he is contributing to production and earning his return just as much as a worker earns his wages.

Now you will find some disingenuous means to avoid knowing that fact.


I see. You first claim that the work done by investors is an objective fact, then you ignore the actual objective analysis of who actually does the work, then you redefine “work” so that it is not actually objective despite your previous claim.
#15066706
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. El Salvador is, and it is also capitalist. The USA has a rate of 698 people per 100 000. El Salvador has a rate of 614. Cuba is at 510.


Oh why didn't you post the numbers for Cuba? The number we have is 510 per 100,000 but who knows if that's actually true.

I applaud your good faith discourse, you are the paragon of intellectual integrity.
#15066713
Sivad wrote:Oh why didn't you post the numbers for Cuba? The number we have is 510 per 100,000 but who knows if that's actually true.

I applaud your good faith discourse, you are the paragon of intellectual integrity.


Their methodology is available from the page to which I linked.

If you think there is a problem, feel free to look.

I notice you ignored the fact that you made unsupported claims.
#15066751
Sivad wrote:you know what I like? I like when these mingy little beasts call me a racist. These lily white over privileged college twerps who have never lived, worked, and partied with blacks and mexicans and natives(the only poor minority people they know are their domestic servants) are gonna call me a racist? pfff. fucking ninnies.


This is just going the man smearing your opponents with list pejorative unsupported claims for which you have no information what so ever to make,

Could you show up with substance and refrain form making personal attacks without any validity or merit?
#15066752
Pants-of-dog wrote:Wow. You really did not think this through.

Wow, you are now going to prove your inadequacy to respond logically:
If they existed, these counter revolutionaries would be getting mad amounts of cash and support from the USA and would effectively get pushed into power.

I'm guessing you won't be providing any evidence for that absurd claim. Where do you think the anti-Castro Cubans in Miami came from, hmmmmmmm?
Like every other time Latinos tried to have a socialist government.

Latinos, or just socialists? Few Latinos are stupid enough to want a socialist government.
No. I know that US citizens like to think that Cuba was just a colony of the USSR, but they never provide evidence for this myth.

Neither will you.

<yawn> Wrong again:

"Diplomatic ties between the Soviet Union and Cuba were established after the 1959 Cuban Revolution, during which the country became dependent on Soviet markets and military aid, with Cuba becoming a major ally of the USSR during the Cold War in return. In 1972 Cuba joined the COMECON, an economic organization of communist countries dominated by the large economy of the Soviet Union."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%8 ... _relations

You are again proved objectively wrong.
I would bet folding money that you do not provide evidence for this claim.

Wrong again:

"The land reform begun under Frei has been greatly accelerated within and sometimes beyond legal limits, with virtually all the large and medium‐sized farms, or half of Chile's arable land, now in the hands of peasants under state supervision."

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/01/arch ... chile.html

I.e., in fact, controlled by Marxist commissars loyal to Allende.

You are again proved objectively wrong
I see. You first claim that the work done by investors is an objective fact,

And proved it.
then you ignore the actual objective analysis of who actually does the work,

:lol: :lol: No, your claims are false and absurd. All you offered was a spectacularly naive equivocation fallacy, pretending the physics definition of work was applicable to economics. It's not, as you know.
then you redefine “work” so that it is not actually objective despite your previous claim.

:roll: I didn't redefine it, you did. Work -- i.e., labor -- in the economic sense has never meant work -- i.e., energy -- in the physics sense, and you know it. Human effort devoted to relief of scarcity is most definitely objective.
#15066758
Truth To Power wrote:Wow, you are now going to prove your inadequacy to respond logically:

I'm guessing you won't be providing any evidence for that absurd claim. Where do you think the anti-Castro Cubans in Miami came from, hmmmmmmm?

Latinos, or just socialists? Few Latinos are stupid enough to want a socialist government.


None of this contradicts my point that there is no significant group of Cubans in Cuba who want to get rid of socialism.

<yawn> Wrong again:

"Diplomatic ties between the Soviet Union and Cuba were established after the 1959 Cuban Revolution, during which the country became dependent on Soviet markets and military aid, with Cuba becoming a major ally of the USSR during the Cold War in return. In 1972 Cuba joined the COMECON, an economic organization of communist countries dominated by the large economy of the Soviet Union."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%8 ... _relations

You are again proved objectively wrong.


If that is your evidence that the USSR controlled Cuba, then your case is very weak.

Wrong again:

"The land reform begun under Frei has been greatly accelerated within and sometimes beyond legal limits, with virtually all the large and medium‐sized farms, or half of Chile's arable land, now in the hands of peasants under state supervision."

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/01/arch ... chile.html

I.e., in fact, controlled by Marxist commissars loyal to Allende.

You are again proved objectively wrong


That does not support your argument unless you assume that the state supervisors were cronies.

And since that is what you are trying to support, you are trying to use your argument as a premise for your argument. Bad logic.

And proved it.

:lol: :lol: No, your claims are false and absurd. All you offered was a spectacularly naive equivocation fallacy, pretending the physics definition of work was applicable to economics. It's not, as you know.

:roll: I didn't redefine it, you did. Work -- i.e., labor -- in the economic sense has never meant work -- i.e., energy -- in the physics sense, and you know it. Human effort devoted to relief of scarcity is most definitely objective.


I see.

You think your ideas about economics are the only objective ones.

No.
#15066887
Truth To Power wrote:No. It is not a "commodity"

Except in a violent revolutionary setting, Georgism is politically infeasible. Given existing societal values, it is too blatantly 'unjust' to property owners. Most bought their property at the full market price (paying the full site value as well as the value of the buildings) and have paid taxes on it ever since. Moreover, as the only justifications for Georgism boil down to the contention that things would be better under Georgism, it is doubtful that even under those circumstances people would be stupid enough to embrace it.


:)
#15066889
ingliz wrote:Georgism is politically infeasible.

If the net tax burden went down for the majority of people it might be saleable at the ballot box. Farmers would be pissing themselves in terror at the prospect, though I am not sure how much political clout they have these days. I expect they would get some kind of loop hope to use anyway to keep them quiet.
#15066890
ckaihatsu wrote:
Hmmm, you're missing the point of the history, which is that historically-progressive equity capital inherently becomes *corrupted*, through its objective interests to engage in *ownership machinations*, such as forming cartels and limiting market competition through business arrangements. Logistics efficiencies have nothing to do with this dynamic, and it's seen in *all* business industries.



SolarCross wrote:
What a fucking load of shit.



No, it's *real*:



A cartel is a group of an independent market participants who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market. Cartels are usually associations in the same sphere of business, and thus an alliance of rivals. Most jurisdictions consider it anti-competitive behavior. Cartel behavior includes price fixing, bid rigging, and reductions in output. States that pursue economic interests may form cartels such as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The doctrine in economics that analyzes cartels is cartel theory. Cartels are distinguished from other forms of collusion or anti-competitive organization such as corporate mergers.



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



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Lenin's "coup" -- the Bolshevik Revolution -- was actually a mass-based historically progressive overthrow of the Russian czarist regime / dynasty, which you bourgeois types *would* support -- like the American Revolution over British control -- if it hadn't gone *further* and created workers-power, meaning the 'soviets' / workers councils.

Then there was the internal counterrevolution, and the Western imperialist invasions / support for counterrevolution, and that caused the material conditions there to atrophy, allowing Stalinism's *revisionism* of so-called 'socialism-in-one-country' to take hold for decades after.



SolarCross wrote:
The "mass-based" part had nothing to with the Bolsheviks and was done by February. Later Lenin used German gold to buy off chunks of the reforming Russian Army to carry out a coup in October. Had it not been for the Bolsheviks Russia would have transitioned into a constitutional monarchy like the UK / Canada / Australia and all the horrors of communism would have been averted. Bad luck for Russia.



I've heard this 'German funding' allegation before, but no one's been able to provide any references for it -- it's probably some misinformation that you've absorbed and are perpetuating.



Revolutionary activity lasted about eight days, involving mass demonstrations and violent armed clashes with police and gendarmes, the last loyal forces of the Russian monarchy. On 27 February O.S. (12 March N.S.) mutinous Russian Army forces sided with the revolutionaries. Three days later Tsar Nicholas II abdicated, ending Romanov dynastic rule and the Russian Empire. A Russian Provisional Government under Prince Georgy Lvov replaced the Council of Ministers of Russia.

The revolution appeared to break out without any real leadership or formal planning.[5] Russia had been suffering from a number of economic and social problems, which compounded after the start of World War I in 1914. Disaffected soldiers from the city's garrison joined bread rioters, primarily women in bread lines, and industrial strikers on the streets. As more and more troops deserted, and with loyal troops away at the Front, the city fell into chaos, leading to the overthrow of the Tsar. In all, over 1,300 people were killed during the protests of February 1917.[6]



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




The Bolsheviks had secured a strong base of support within the Soviets and, as the supreme governing party, established a federal government dedicated to reorganizing the former empire into the world's first socialist state, to practice Soviet democracy on a national and international scale.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution
#15066891
Sivad wrote:
The revolutions that succeed are those that are fought to establish individual liberty, popular sovereignty, and rule of law based on limited government, and don't seek to impose a sole permissable doctrine and a single official party on all of society. Revolutions should only ever be fought to either establish or restore liberty and democracy and ideologies should never be written into a constitution. One of the main reasons state socialism immediately deteriorates into gulagism is that the constitutions are explicitly socialist.



Are you studying to be a social engineer, because that's what this load of crap sounds like -- as though you or someone like you could just 'dictate' how to do revolution, from a non-revolutionary camp.

First off, *no* revolutions have succeeded because the working class is *not* in control of social production, anywhere in the world.

Secondly, all *you* know are *bourgeois* revolutions, which are from over 200 years ago. The world has *industrialized* since then, and *that's* what's at-stake these days, since 1917.


Sivad wrote:
Political systems like socialism should only ever be achieved democratically and never imposed with violence and no system that violates the rights of the individual should ever be viewed as legitimate. If Castro had kept his word and just restored the constitution he would be viewed today as a great liberator of the Cuban people rather than the dirty caudillo gulagist he's now regarded as.



You want a *nonviolent* revolution -- ??

Stop preventing trade unions from organizing and taking labor actions, and then we'll see what happens.

Castro, and Cuba, at least have been successfully anti-imperialist, if not outright socialist. ( See 'national liberation' on this diagram: )


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image
#15066893
JohnRawls wrote:
Monetary inequality is not something bad in itself by default. If a businessman can run a more effective business compared to a state/collective run enterprise than he should keep the profits while properly compensating his employees. It becomes a problem when the workers are either not properly compensated or the added value produced is irrelevant to the problems that inequality causes.



Guess what?

We're *there* already.

Wage labor is exploited on an hourly basis, so you may want to address *that*.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



JohnRawls wrote:
Unless everything is managed by the state/collective then inequality needs to exist to facilitate larger projects. In a lot of cases privately owner large projects are more efficient compared to collective/state ones.



No, inequality does not 'need' to exist for large-scale projects to take place. You've provided no reasoning for your glib contention.

Also, it should be obvious that the realization of large-scale projects is a matter of both politics and economics -- currently Western imperialism uses military violence to prevent international competition around large-scale initiatives, as from foreign governments, while enabling private corporations to grow to gargantuan sizes for economies-of-scale and large-scale funding.

If there are concerns about 'crony capitalism', one can simply look to how the U.S. does it, which is with military backing, which is basically cronyism -- military cronyism.
#15066895
Sivad wrote:funding

On March 23, 1917 a mass meeting was held at Carnegie Hall to celebrate the abdication of Nicolas II, which meant the overthrow of Tsarist rule in Russia. Thousands of socialists, Marxists, nihilists nand anarchists attended to cheer the event. The following day there was published on page two of the New York Times a telegram from Jacob Schiff, which had been read to this audience. He expressed regrets, that he could not attend and then described the successful Russian revolution as "...what we had hoped and striven for these long years". (Mayor Calls Pacifists Traitors, The New York Times, March 24, 1917, p. 2)

In the February 3, 1949 issue of the New York Journal American Schiff's grandson, John, was quoted by columnist Cholly Knickerbocker as saying that his grandfather had given about $20 million for the triumph of Communism in Russia. (To appraise Schiff's motives for supporting the Bolsheviks, we must remember, that he was a Jew and that Russian Jews had been persecuted under the Tsarist regime. Consequently the Jewish community in America was inclined to support any movement, which sought to topple the Russian government and the Bolsheviks were excellent candidates for the task. As we shall see further along, however, there were also strong financial incentives for Wall Street firms, such as Kuhn, Loeb and Company, of which Schiff was a senior partner, to see the old regime fall into the hands of revolutionaries, who would agree to grant lucrative business concessions in the future in return for financial support today.)


:)
#15066898
ckaihatsu wrote:
The rewards of capital ownership, by the capitalist / entrepreneur / whatever, are *significantly greater* than what the capitalist employer pays for that labor, in wages.



Truth To Power wrote:
See? You have to refuse to know the fact that labor is not the only production input that earns a return.



Again you're *sidestepping* the issue at-hand here, to go off on a tangent to some other concoction of yours.

What I'm saying is that capitalism *commodifies* human labor efforts, into a market where private property ownership 'buys-low-and-sells-high' on people's labor time itself -- wages are the 'buy low' part for a capitalist, exploiting that labor power to produce the finished good or service, and then selling that product 'high', for a profit.

This *contradicts* your prior contention that:


Truth To Power wrote:
The principle that labor earns ownership of its product



viewtopic.php?p=15066176#p15066176



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So just by 'creating a job' and owning capital, the capitalist employer gets to *own* and *control* the *results* of that labor-power, the finished commodity, to sell on the market, to make that profit off of other people's labor.



Truth To Power wrote:
Which profit represents his own net contribution: the value of what he caused to exist rather than not exist, minus the value of the inputs expended to create it.



No, you're *glorifying* the private-property / social-organization aspect with regards to commodity production -- those who deal with the business entity, including ownership, are basically *managers* of that entity, but what you're conveniently ignoring is that such duties do not even make the end-product itself.

It's the *working class* -- the workers -- who do the actual work that produces the finished product or service, so it's the *workers* who should be getting the lion's share of the remuneration from the sale of those products and services.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The 'entrepreneur's labor' is not considered to really *be* labor, by Marxist or material standards.



Truth To Power wrote:
False. It is indisputably labor by the material standard of objective physical fact. Marxist standards are merely in contradiction to objective physical fact.



No, you're incorrect -- Marxism is a far better analysis of material inputs and outputs in the capitalist commodity mode of production.

(See 'mode of production' in the following diagram, for context.)


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



Again, ownership and management 'efforts' are around the business-entity itself, and are not real material inputs into producing the actual commodity -- that's what the *workers* produce, and yet workers are *ripped-off* of their labor value because the commodity is sold on the market for more than what workers are paid for it in their wages.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's more of a private-management function, rather than efforts that are *productive*,



Truth To Power wrote:
The entrepreneur's contribution is indisputably productive as a matter of objective physical fact: it causes the product to exist rather than not exist.



No, this is more bullshit -- just because a capitalist participates in the 'market' social construction doesn't mean that such formalism is materially *productive*. It's materially a *social organization* function, nothing more. The actual commodity is produced by the wage-labor *workers*.

The way to empirically *prove* this is to remove private ownership from any given productive entity, like a factory, and to let the workers there collectively self-organize over the workplace's functioning and productive output. Some suggest *nationalization* for this process, but I'm a revolutionary and I say that the workers need to *seize* productive goods, worldwide, without recompense to existing private ownership of the same.

I happened to also have developed a 'first step' system of syndicalist-type economics for emerging from this kind of scenario:



In other words it's a continued reliance on the market mechanism, but only within the social environment of emerging worker-controlled workplaces among themselves, after strictly human-need material requirements have been collectively fulfilled through the widespread internal use of the communistic gift economy -- the workers currency would address the social factor of 'discretion', more for 'wants' than for 'needs', such as for any infrastructure development or novel production among these liberated workplaces.



global syndicalist currency

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=174857


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
meaning those that contribute to the finished good or service, and are paid-for in wages.



Truth To Power wrote:
The wages of the entrepreneur's labor are only different in not being known until after the fact when the product's value is realized through exchange.



Ownership and management (the 'entrepreneur') do not contribute / input *any* labor to the production process, because they are not themselves on the assembly line.

The end-commodity's *cost* (exchange-value) can be seen in the amount that's paid to the workers ('variable capital') in the form of wages, primarily. Here's the diagram again:


[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

Spoiler: show
Image
#15066900
Sivad wrote:
I can't name a single government in Latin America, leftist or otherwise, that has not been targeted by the USA. The USA is a predator state that has perpetrated and continues to perpetrate shocking mass atrocities on all of Latin America. But none of that is a sound justification for gulagism. In every case where a Latin American state turned authoritarian there was a viable alternative pathway for resisting US aggression and remaining free and democratic.

The authoritarian failed states of Latin America can't be entirely blamed on the US, the US played a large role for sure but the people of Latin America also bear a large share of the blame. They failed in their role as citizens to zealously guard their liberty, to stamp out corruption, and to uphold justice and the sorry state of their societies is as much a reflection of their own failure as it is the result of of US imperialism.




Yeah because Cuba self-gulaged. :knife:

gulagacide - national suicide by gulaging



On this note, I'll recommend the following video:


NICARAGUA - THE APRIL CRISIS & BEYOND With Dan Kovalik

#15066904
SolarCross wrote:
Prisoners in the US are treated better than "free" people are under communists. The vast majority of prisoners in the US are there for actual crimes rather than thought crimes. So while the US prison system probably does want a root and branch reform, I would much rather get 3 squares a day in a US prison than be forced to eat grass and watch my entire family be butchered in public for literally nothing at all. Hey, you pays your money and you makes your choice. I guess you prefer to eat grass.



What you're actually objecting to is the *politicization* of (an anti-imperialist) country's criminal justice system -- if a colony or quasi-colony is actively trying to *repel* a takeover by a Western empire like the U.S., I think they'd be justified in *detaining* / jailing anyone who would collaborate with that foreign invasion.

Today those in Europe who aided the Nazis during World War II are called 'collaborators'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collabora ... by_country
#15066906
Donna wrote:
No, they aren't. Historically the social democratic movement is an outgrowth of the socialist movement, not the liberal tradition.



You're referring to the historic SPD, in Germany, of course:



Established in 1863, the SPD is by far the oldest existing political party represented in the German Parliament and was one of the first Marxist-influenced parties in the world. The SPD "was Europe's largest Marxist party and consistently won the largest popular vote in German election between 1890 and 1930".[15] (It was virtually illegal under the Anti-Socialist Laws from 1878 to 1890.) During the First World War, the party split into a pro-war mainstream and the pacifist Independent Social Democratic Party, a part of which went on to form the Communist Party of Germany. The social democrats came to power during the 1918–19 revolution. During the Weimar Republic, the SPD was the strongest party until 1932 and Friedrich Ebert served as the first President of Germany. During the Nazi era (1933–45), the SPD was banned, and social democrats offered resistance against Hitler's dictatorship.



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



However, for the present-day I currently situate 'social democracy' as being fairly nationalist -- both corporatist and reformist:


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Please feel free to address this label further if you want -- I set up a dedicated thread for it yesterday:


Anatomy of a Platform: The News Cycle

viewtopic.php?f=71&t=177914
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 35

And finally get some better COVID-19 policies in […]

The ckaing has continued unabated so I'm posting h[…]

I doubt those emails influenced any one in a anywa[…]

Election 2020

As of the morning of the 29th, Democrat's lead in […]