US Politics: Loyalty Oaths for Everyone!

[TrueMetis]

56 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Socialism ,  Collective ownership of the means production  and distribution of good , everyone get paid  the same,  ect. Its the stage of civilization before  Communism to create a new Utopia . And yes Im well aware  socialism existed long before Karl Marx even came up with the his tabloid  Communist  Manfesto or his monumentally boring   Capital . I have copies of both of those works by Marx.  

Socialism in no way requires collective ownership of the means of production, nor does it require everyone getting paid the same.

ETA: Unless you're using an incredibly strict definition of socialism, in which I fully expect the same strictness to apply to capitalism in which case claiming capitalism is the best system to date is false on it's face since capitalism, and socialism for that matter, has never actually been implemented.

Quote

Yes Capitalism is not not and of itself inherently good and there have been lots of ruthless business who did pretty horrendous things in the name of capitalism and Im not making any excuses for them. I have a suggestion , try to imagine what your existence would be like in a  world which didn't experience capitalism .  If you even  existed at all in such alternate world you'd  be living the medieval life and you'd probably   have life expectancy  of maybe 35 years of less depending on what felled be felled by flu or a simple infection or  that bad piece unrefrigerated spoiled  food you decide to eat one day.

No dude, the invention of the refrigerator did not require capitalism nor did vaccines or hygiene.. It's frankly fucking ridiculous that you apparently think scientific progress only happens under capitalism.

1 hour ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

Not an argument, folks. Insults are not an argument.

I'm not making an argument, there's nothing to argue against.

[GAROVORKIN]

Just now, James Arryn said:

Honestly, I thought that whole ‘right-wingers will try and call Hitler left-wing ‘cause “Socialist” thing was a derogatory myth. You live and learn. 

 The Nazis like the The Russians had a command economy, the main difference  was the Nazis left private  enterprise alone so  long as they produced what the Nazis wanted . 

[DraculaAD1972]

4 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Honestly, I thought that whole ‘right-wingers will try and call Hitler left-wing ‘cause “Socialist” thing was a derogatory myth. You live and learn. 

I feel that in the name of accuracy I should clearly state, right here and now, that I am no right-winger. I am a political pick n mixer- I love Trump but despise Pence. I generally disdain Republicans unless they are also libertarians. I despise the welfare state but I'm not sure what could replace it. Above all I hate political correctness and feminist Leftist propaganda, which these days is absolutely everywhere. We're saturated with it. I believe government's role is to maximize freedom not reduce it.

Many Trump voters are the same, is my guess

[all swedes are racist]

16 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Socialism in no way requires collective ownership of the means of production,

the hoxhaist tankie in me must contest and repudiate this revisionist bullshit! 

[all swedes are racist]

5 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

I feel that in the name of accuracy I should clearly state, right here and now, that I am no right-winger. I am a political pick n mixer- I love Trump but despise Pence. I generally disdain Republicans unless they are also libertarians. I despise the welfare state but I'm not sure what could replace it. Above all I hate political correctness and feminist Leftist propaganda, which these days is absolutely everywhere. We're saturated with it. I believe government's role is to maximize freedom not reduce it.

Many Trump voters are the same, is my guess

uh, yeah dude, that’s pretty much all extremely right wing

[Darth Richard II]

Lol, not a right winger but loves Trump. Thinks Hitler was a socialist and Sweden is somehow a shithole. 

 

It's like starting into the abyss some days, isn't it?

[GAROVORKIN]

27 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Socialism in no way requires collective ownership of the means of production, nor does it require everyone getting paid the same.

ETA: Unless you're using an incredibly strict definition of socialism, in which I fully expect the same strictness to apply to capitalism in which case claiming capitalism is the best system to date is false on it's face since capitalism, and socialism for that matter, has never actually been implemented.

No dude, the invention of the refrigerator did not require capitalism nor did vaccines or hygiene.. It's frankly fucking ridiculous that you apparently think scientific progress only happens under capitalism.

I'm not making an argument, there's nothing to argue against.

Socialism make mention of Public ownership of the means of production .

With Regard to Science , Now that I think about it , Your right and Im wrong and in a big way.  A good example might be discoveries  made in ancient times.     I was looking at things forma modern 21st century perspective a. rather sizable error on my part. 

[Darth Richard II]

1 minute ago, dr. thicc president said:

uh, yeah dude, that’s pretty much all extremely right wing

You beat me too it.

[all swedes are racist]

2 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Socialism make mention of Public ownership of the means of production .

With Regard to Science , Now that I think about it , Your right and Im wrong and in a big way.  A good example might be discoveries  made in ancient times.     I was looking at things forma modern 21st century perspective a. rather sizable error on my part. 

like @TrueMetis was saying, that’s only in very pure marxist sense, a more academic ideal. there is a lot is demsoc tendencies in many countries, that focus on redistribution of wealth, public safety nets,  fair and equal treatment of all, anti imperialist foreign policies, etc

[TrueMetis]

7 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Socialism make mention of Public ownership of the means of production .

Capitalism make mention of private ownership of the means of production. And yet in no country is that entirely true. Just like in no country are the means of production entirely publicly owned. Hence neither socialism nor capitalism exist outside of theory under your definition.

 

[denstorebog]

3 hours ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

I'm not sure this is about vising Sweden. We're not writing a Lonely Planet tour guide. 

I have no idea how we ended up with the prevalence of sexual violence as the main indicator of whether US capitalism beats Scandinavian socialism in a cage fight (thank god we didn't pick mass shootings, press freedom, political corruption, poverty, persecution of minorities, drug abuse or access to education and healthcare), but alright, sexual violence is your pick.

So, next question (and beforw you answer, keep in mind that this is what you've decided to build your entire argument on): Do you think that sexual violence is statistically more prevalent in Sweden than in the US on average?

[DireWolfSpirit]

Did someone actually try to imply Hitler was a Socialist?

Its always one of those amazing moments to witness, like seeing an albino Gorilla I suppose?

Snowflake- https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/7-famous-albino-animals/snowflake-the-gorilla

 

[OldGimletEye]

On 2/3/2018 at 10:27 PM, DraculaAD1972 said:

Wasn't Hitler a socialist? 

Oh great, we got somebody that read Jonah Shitbirds Liberal Fascism and thinks he's got an argument.

And what are you a "libertarian"?

For a guy, that was allegedly a socialist its rather interesting that he got the support of some capitalist pretty early on, like say the Becksteins who were piano manufacturers. It's also rather interesting for a guy that was allegedly a socialist, he failed to get the support of the Social Democratic Party during the enabling act. And for a guy that was allegedly a socialist he sure did seem to crack down unions pretty hard.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Did someone actually try to imply Hitler was a Socialist?

This is an old argument from the right that goes back awhile.

[OldGimletEye]

On 2/4/2018 at 0:39 AM, DraculaAD1972 said:

I feel that in the name of accuracy I should clearly state, right here and now, that I am no right-winger. I am a political pick n mixer- I love Trump but despise Pence. I generally disdain Republicans unless they are also libertarians

It does seem though many of our high libertarian overlords are willing though to back Trump. And are willing to overlook his authoritarian impulses or civil rights abuses and then presume to lecture everyone else about "freedom", so long as they get cut tax cuts. Kind of like they did under George Bush with his horrid civil liberties record.

Where were you for example when Arpaio blatantly violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the latino community and Trump supported him?

And by the way libertarianism is fucking bread dead philosophy that is useless. 

Anyway, please tell us all about the wonders of the gold standard and expansionary austerity.

And finally if you love Trump so much, you really have no business lecturing others about freedom.

[OldGimletEye]

On 2/4/2018 at 0:39 AM, DraculaAD1972 said:

 We're saturated with it. I believe government's role is to maximize freedom not reduce it.

And what makes you so sure that private actors don't reduce freedom. But, I guess your on of those "libertarians" that would be against say the 1964 Civil Rights Act, assuring everyone it was only because of your love of "freedom".

And while I think civil liberties are very important and I wouldn't want to live in an authoritarian regime, why is freedom the only thing for a government to consider?

[OldGimletEye]

On 2/4/2018 at 0:39 AM, DraculaAD1972 said:

I despise the welfare state but I'm not sure what could replace it.

That's because "libertarianism" is a fucking brain dead philosophy that offers nothing of practical relevance when it comes to solving a variety of economic and social issues. The idea of libertarian state is a pipe dream that nobody really would support.

When an economic issue needs to be fixed or resolved, don't look to libertarians for an answer as they have nothing, other mumbling shit about the gold standard and making vague references to "freedom".

If your economy happens to experience a financial crash, don't look to libertarians, they don't have an answer. Hayek was wrong in the 1930s and libertarians were wrong again starting about 2008.

If you want to know how to regulate your banking system, don't look to libertarians they don't have a practical answer.

If you want to stop civil rights abuses in the South, don't look to libertarians, they don't have an answer.

The source of libertarian errors tend to come from their often very childish notions about economics and their sorry ass conceptions about "freedom". As I said before the libertarians conception of freedom based on absolute property rights is a fine example of how starting with a mistake a remorseless logician ends up in bedlam. And it's exactly how his high libertarianness  Ron Paul, concludes the 1964 Civil Rights Act was wrong.

But perhaps, trying to engage libertarian political thought on a theoretical level is a mistake, because it just might be that libertarians are generally full of crap, and don't make their arguments in good faith anyway, and that's how they end up lecturing everyone about "freedom", but then end up loving Trump, the libertarians Pinochet for the 21st Century.

[Rorshach]

6 hours ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

I'm not sure this is about vising Sweden.

I’m not Swedish myself (Norwegian, so faaaaaar away indeed), but I do have friends and relatives living in Sweden. 

They would see it as a favour if you pledged to abstain from visiting Sweden at any time. Mind you, you’re legally free to visit, but .... 

Could we just say that your arrival would actually make the country more stupid? Think that covers it.

[OldGimletEye]

Why does every alt right troll, try to call themselves a "libertarians"? Why do people that sit around pissed off that the South lost the Civil War call themselves "libertarians"?

[OldGimletEye]

On 2/3/2018 at 6:56 AM, GAROVORKIN said:

 

If your contemplating socialism as  viable  alternative to what you see as being wrong with capitalism.  You might want to look at its historical record .   Capitalism for all its  faults,  has so far proven to be. best system to date. 

 

I guess a lot of this depends on how one wants to define “socialism”.

Me personally, I believe that decentralized markets, have some advantages. Yet on the other hand, I’m pretty much a Keynesian welfare state sort of person. I do believe the state or the community does have legitimate role in providing various types of social insurance to the population at large. I also believe the community has an obligation to provide citizens with the opportunity for a good education for all and that the state should seek to maintain high levels of employment  for all.

In some people’s book my Keynesian/Welfare statism would make me a “socialist”. And of course, I make about no effort to deny the charge, as I believe the proper response to Republican sorts of people that think they are going to smear you with that term is simply “fuck off”, as I believe its about time to start playin’ a little hard ball with Republicans and generally just not taking any shit from the conservative clown crew. I really don’t mind being called a socialist, but where I get hotter than a two dollar pistol is when some conservative clown thinks he can shut down an entire policy discussion over some matter by simply saying “golly, that’s socialism”. 

Of course when the conservative clown crew usually promotes “capitalism” they usually endorse promote a variety that promotes free market fundamentalism and tax cuts for the rich and claim that any government interference in the market will inevitability lead to disaster, claiming that “economics” justifies their views. James Kwak talks a lot about “economism”, which is simplistic economic reductionism in resolving a variety of problems, and while I agree with many of his points, the fact of the matter is that mainstream  economics provides plenty of theory to rebut the crude type of free market fundamentalism that the Republican Party or the conservative clown crew preaches. We know that adverse selection problems and informational asymmetries can exist. It teaches that free rider problems and negative externalities can exist. And the marginalist theory of neo classical economics seemingly teaches that a poor person will value a dollar more than a rich person. It also has theories of monopoly and monopsony and these generally are held not be efficient or socially desirable. All these ideas within mainstream  marginalist economics justifies government intervention.

And then of course by now, we should know that markets don’t clear leading to aggregate demand failures and the Robert Lucas RBC type models of the world ie “the market will correct itself” are simply wrong, meaning that government action can improve the state of affairs. And certainly we should know by know that super rational homo economicus  doesn’t price assets correctly, though evidently conservatives can’t make their minds up on this issue, seemingly believing it when it’s convenient to blame poor minority people for housing crises, but then switching their opinion when conducting asset mispricing concern trolling when they don’t like monetary policy, but then switching yet back again to super rational homo economicus when attacking Dodd-Frank. Also, I’d be remiss that this year’s winner of the Nobel Prize was Richard Thaler whose work was mainly in behavioral economics, which rejects the model of super rational homo economicus.

And when so called “libertarians” don’t have very good answers or explanations within the the neoclassical marginalist method, they just start mumbling crap about “freedom”, even though they end up supporting people like Trump, showing they have always been full of crap.

Of course one of the most sorry ass tactics of the Republican Party and the conservative clown crew is deny the role of class in economic matters. Marx I do believe does have some useful things to say here.

But talk about the issue of class in economic matters and you get people like Rick Santorum, saying, “golly that’s Marxist talk!”. Like uh yeah, fuck off Santorum, because kind of really really silly not to consider the role of class and how it shapes economic matters. I personally don’t necessarily endorse Marxian solutions to problems, but I do believe that Marxian analysis of matters is useful and it’s just really dumb for the Republican Party to deny it’s an issue. Fact is most people will stay in the class they were born into. And certainly the upper classes often spew lots of dubious and self serving bullshit to confuse people, like “give me tax cuts and watch the economy boom!” or “golly there is a skills gap” or “watch that inflation!” when that wasn’t the main issue a few years back.

Of course the conservative or libertarian clown crew will often resort to the most crude marginalist arguments to justify current wage distribution and income inequality. Though just leaving aside issues of bargaining power and monopsony and so forth, a persons marginal product may often be a matter of luck ie the class they were born into. Of course, marginal theory itself may need some tweeks as it would seem not all of its theoretical problems have yet resolved as shown by Saffra and others.

It’s been over 30 years since the so called Washington Consensus started, and while it was seemingly successful in weakening labors power and getting tax cuts for the rich, it has generally failed to produce the type of growth meaningful to most working class, poor and middle class people, particularly compared to the period right after WW2 to the late 1970s which might call more “socialist”, despite its big promises.

So in sum there are two key points here. One is that in order to promote they type of capitalism the right likes, it often uses very dubious economics, from a theoretical and empirical point of view. And secondly, it would seem that the conservatives had their chance to promote their version of what capitalism should look like and has generally produced poor results (well for everyone that is not rich) and yet still feels it can just continue to lecture others about the wonders of capitalism and be taken seriously. Even if one is willing to endorse capitalism, there are good reasons right now, to believe that it’s current version isn’t working very well for most people. So one can’t just simply make general assertions about “capitalism” and how awesome it has been and then think they have won an argument.