Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[WEATHER53]

I used to be a Marxist, but not anymore. I'm a National Socialist, and the success of National Socialism in restoring a nation's economy and making it prosperous is highlighted the Germany of the 1930s. Stalin who was also a nationalist, completely contradicting Marx in his internationalism, turned Soviet Russia into an industrial juggernaut, rivaling Germany and the US. That was almost 100 years ago, so today with all of our modern technology, it's even more the case that socialism whether Marxist or not, is the most effective mode of production.

Without socialism, capitalism can't function or survive, it always goes into a deep recession requiring public funds to save it. Now due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, socialism is even more necessary and will eventually replace market-capitalism.



It's capitalism that always collapses and needs socialism to bail it out. Capitalism privatizes profits and makes its losses public.

​

Socialism is replacing capitalism right now. The assertion that it's always forced upon the populace or working class is false. It's forced upon the capitalist class. Most of the working class supports it, especially when the cost of living is through the roof and people are living paycheck to paycheck. Gross inequality and lack of access to healthcare, affordable education, housing..etc, ensures socialism replaces capitalism. Especially today thanks to advanced automation and artificial intelligence.

Capitalism is an economic system based on the exploitation of human labor by a class of people who own the means of production. Workers are commodified and forced out of necessity to sell their labor power (themselves) to a capitalist owner for eight, ten, or twelve-plus hours daily for a wage. Wages are the foundation of capitalism, and without it the system collapses, making socialism necessary.

People work, people get paid, owners are richer
Just like it’s supposed to be.
You cry for nothing

 

[Curried Goats]

All you're doing is repeating yourself. Again, the point is that equity is just more of the same.

I'm repeating myself because you fail to address the point being made. Equity is not more of the same. The same is pretending rights are inalienable that people have acquired or have failed to have acquired capital and wealth due to merit.

 

[irosie91]

IMVO---(in my vaunted opinion) ---Kamala has the mind of a
sophomore Coed in a typical college majoring in sociology
(or psychology) and eager and able (in a practical sense) to
join a Sorority and spend time in college "demonstrations" and
mix in "mixers"

 

[TruthNotBS]

People work, people get paid, owners are richer
Just like it’s supposed to be.
You cry for nothing

People work for their parasite masters, who apparently want an easy life and don't want to work. Workers under capitalism, don't own what they produce, or the means of production. This social arrangement is unsustainable and will be phased out soon as advanced automation and AI replace wage labor. Without wages, there's no capitalism or your beloved parasite leech, who relies on the labor of others to live. The only type of property that should be allowed in society is personal property (for personal use), not private property that is used to exploit others for a profit.

 

[Kilroy2]

when everyone is a winner, it also means everyone is a loser

competition requires a winner and loser or they can play to a draw.

You see most of you all seem to think sports makes your point. Yet most do not understand sports. Sports is about competition and playing fairly. Playing by the rules. If they do not play by the rules then it is cheating and they will be disqualified.

Yet its is obvious in sports you do have a winner or loser and sometimes a draw.

Yet they shake hands at the end of the game and may say good game which shows respect.

All sports have rules. Your problem is your concern with winning or losing sitting in you chair or watching TV.

Respect is something fans do not require as they just want their team to win. Yet they are not the ones playing. the game.

 

[WEATHER53]

People work for their parasite masters, who apparently want an easy life and don't want to work. Workers under capitalism, don't own what they produce, or the means of production. This social arrangement is unsustainable and will be phased out soon as advanced automation and AI replace wage labor. Without wages, there's no capitalism or your beloved parasite leech, who relies on the labor of others to live. The only type of property that should be allowed in society is personal property (for personal use), not private property that is used to exploit others for a profit.

People work to provide for themselves and move up the ladder
You probably just never tried and are bitter and ignorant of the reality

 

[Kilroy2]

You are an idiot. Here is an example; two workers, one produces fifty widgets an hour, the other produces two widgets an hour. You want them both to be paid the same. What happens when people like you get the power to implement their totally unrealistic and stupid ideas, is that the worker making fifty widgets an hour starts making two widgets an hour just like the worker he is subsidizing.

You are an idiot.,

If the contract says that they are paid by the number of widgets then that is the contract. they both signed.

Yet if the are both paid 10 dollars an hour then they both receive the same pay.

You claim you made your point with an example where someone can produce a widget at about 1 widget in 1 minute. Whereas the other guy take 30 minutes to make a widget..

You claim that you made a point but you just made an unrealistic example and are doing your happy dance.

as the owner then I world create an environment for the person (who is producing the low number) so that he can make 50 widgets in an hour if that is the goal. More training, etc.
if he cannot do it then all options are on the table.

Solving an issue requires more thought than just one example.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What exactly where you correcting? We both said the same thing in our own subjective way. I understood what that poster meant and vice versa.

I told you what he said.

Because you clearly don't understand it.

Did you take a night course on this concept or something? Any idiot understands this concept; it's not quantum physics.

 

[TruthNotBS]

People work to provide for themselves and move up the ladder
You probably just never tried and are bitter and ignorant of the reality

Your assertion that "people work, people get paid, owners are richer, just like it's supposed to be" justifies an unnecessary reality that inherently exploits the majority to benefit a select few who, like parasites, want to enrich themselves through other people's labor. This arrangement that you're so comfortable with is fundamentally unjust, inhumane, and unsustainable. Any wonder why so many people hate their 9 to 5 jobs? It's not that they're lazy, but rather that people intrinsically sense they're getting screwed, working in a totalitarian workplace, disempowered, and subject to the whims of a parasitic capitalist who lives off others' labor.

Under capitalism, workers are commodified and exploited. Their labor is treated as just another input in the production process, and their well-being is secondary to profit maximization. Workers do not own the fruits of their labor or the means of production. Instead, they sell their labor power (their lives, bodies, presence, time) to capitalists, who then extract surplus value from this labor to enrich themselves. This relationship reduces human beings to mere cogs in the capitalist machine, existing primarily to generate profit for others. It keeps people desperate for jobs, in order to increase the capitalist employer's leverage in negotiating the terms of employment.

The government could recognize and protect everyone's right to employment by ensuring full employment in the public sector, thereby empowering the working class to more effectively negotiate their terms of employment with wealthy, powerful capitalists. But it doesn't do that because capitalists control the government, undermining democracy, and turning it into a plutocratic oligarchy ruled by the wealthy. Capitalists want there to be a certain degree of unemployment and poverty because it increases their power when negotiating wages, decreasing the cost of human labor.

Capitalism privatizes profits but socializes losses, as seen in the repeated bailouts of failing industries and financial institutions with public funds. This cycle of boom and bust underscores the system's inherent instability and its reliance on public intervention to survive.

Moreover, with the advent of advanced automation and artificial intelligence, the capitalist model becomes even less viable. As machines and algorithms replace human labor, the traditional wage labor relationship upon which capitalism depends will erode. Without wages, capitalism cannot function, as it relies on the continuous exploitation of human labor.

In contrast, socialism offers a more just and sustainable alternative. It advocates for the abolition of private property that exploits people for profit, allowing only personal property for personal use. This distinction is crucial; while everyone should have the right to own their home, car, or personal belongings, no one should have the right to own property that enables them to exploit others.

Under socialism, the means of production are publicly owned and democratically managed by those who work them. This ensures that the benefits of production are more generously and abundantly shared and that decisions regarding production are made in the collective interest of society, rather than the narrow interest of a wealthy few capitalist parasites.

Workplace democracy is essential. Just as political democracy ensures that citizens have a voice in the governance of their country, economic democracy ensures that workers have a voice in the governance of their workplaces. This creates a more equitable and just society, where the exploitation of workers is eliminated, and everyone has the opportunity to contribute to and benefit from economic production.

In summary, capitalism commodifies and exploits human beings, reducing them to means of production for the benefit of a parasitic class of wealthy capitalists. Socialism seeks to end this exploitation by abolishing private property that enables such exploitation and replacing it with a system where the means of production are publicly owned and democratically managed. With the rise of automation and AI, the transition to socialism is not only desirable but necessary for a sustainable and just future.

 

[Curried Goats]

I told you what he said.

I didn't need you to.

Did you take a night course on this concept or something? Any idiot understands this concept; it's not quantum physics.

Can you? Because you continually fail at it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I'm repeating myself because you fail to address the point being made. Equity is not more of the same.

Yes, it is. Imposing equal outcomes will eventually and inevitably kneecap someone more qualified or more deserving.

The same is pretending rights are inalienable that people have acquired or have failed to have acquired capital and wealth due to merit.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you're saying not everyone had equal rights and equal opportunity in the past, you are correct and you're repeating yourself.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I didn't need you to.

Didn't say you did.

Can you? Because you continually fail at it.

No, I'm just not a slave to it as you are.

 

[Curried Goats]

Didn't say you did.

No, I'm just not a slave to it as you are.

So what was the point of this entire exchange?

 

[Soupnazi630]

I used to be a Marxist, but not anymore. I'm a National Socialist, and the success of National Socialism in restoring a nation's economy and making it prosperous is highlighted the Germany of the 1930s. Stalin who was also a nationalist, completely contradicting Marx in his internationalism, turned Soviet Russia into an industrial juggernaut, rivaling Germany and the US. That was almost 100 years ago, so today with all of our modern technology, it's even more the case that socialism whether Marxist or not, is the most effective mode of production.

Without socialism, capitalism can't function or survive, it always goes into a deep recession requiring public funds to save it. Now due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, socialism is even more necessary and will eventually replace market-capitalism.



It's capitalism that always collapses and needs socialism to bail it out. Capitalism privatizes profits and makes its losses public.

​

Socialism is replacing capitalism right now. The assertion that it's always forced upon the populace or working class is false. It's forced upon the capitalist class. Most of the working class supports it, especially when the cost of living is through the roof and people are living paycheck to paycheck. Gross inequality and lack of access to healthcare, affordable education, housing..etc, ensures socialism replaces capitalism. Especially today thanks to advanced automation and artificial intelligence.

Capitalism is an economic system based on the exploitation of human labor by a class of people who own the means of production. Workers are commodified and forced out of necessity to sell their labor power (themselves) to a capitalist owner for eight, ten, or twelve-plus hours daily for a wage. Wages are the foundation of capitalism, and without it the system collapses, making socialism necessary.

Wrong
Capitalism doe snot need socialism to survive. Nor does i require public funds to save it.

Stalin did not contradict marx he was a pure marxist

Once again renting labor is not selliung one self. Socialism is not replacing anygthing i is simplty being forced to get votes and it is what causes the economic problems such as recession.

Wages are going no where and in fact have gone exactly the opposite of what you describe. They dresult in fewer hours worked not longer and a high standard of living

 

[Curried Goats]

Yes, it is. Imposing equal outcomes will eventually and inevitably kneecap someone more qualified or more deserving.

More qualified and more deserving are subjective terms. I keep bringing up this fact because I'm pointing out that when we take this fact into account your statement is actually saying that we will inevitably kneecap someone you feel is more qualified and deserving. What do I care who you feel is more deserving?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you're saying not everyone had equal rights and equal opportunity in the past, you are correct and you're repeating yourself.

I'm also saying rights to property are incompatible with rights to life and liberty and that capitalism creates a system of inherent inequality.

 

[dblack]

More qualified and more deserving are subjective terms. I keep bringing up this fact because I'm pointing out that when we take this fact into account your statement is actually saying that we will inevitably kneecap someone you feel is more qualified and deserving. What do I care who you feel is more deserving?

All of these questions of value, and who deserves what, are indeed subjective. The salient question is, who decides? Society, or government?

 

[Curried Goats]

All of these questions of value, and who deserves what, are indeed subjective. The salient question is, who decides? Society, or government?

Is society separate from government?

 

[dblack]

Is society separate from government?

Always. Even if you imagine a "pure democracy", best case scenario, government will be forcing the will of the majority on everyone else. When I say "society decides", I mean all of us, freely and individually, decide for ourselves how much goods and services are worth. And we "vote" with our choices.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Wrong
Capitalism doe snot need socialism to survive. Nor does i require public funds to save it.

Stalin did not contradict marx he was a pure marxist

Once again renting labor is not selliung one self. Socialism is not replacing anygthing i is simplty being forced to get votes and it is what causes the economic problems such as recession.

Wages are going no where and in fact have gone exactly the opposite of what you describe. They dresult in fewer hours worked not longer and a high standard of living

Your assertion that "capitalism does not need socialism to survive" and that it "does not require public funds to save it" overlooks historical and contemporary evidence. Capitalism has repeatedly required massive public bailouts to survive economic crises, as seen in the 2008 financial crisis when trillions in public funds were used to rescue failing banks and industries. This pattern of privatizing profits while socializing losses is a hallmark of capitalism's inherent instability. It's endemic to capitalism.

Regarding Stalin, your claim that he was a pure Marxist is inaccurate. Stalin's approach to socialism diverged significantly from Marxist principles, particularly in his implementation of a highly centralized, authoritarian regime. Marx envisioned a classless, stateless society achieved through the self-emancipation of the working class, not the top-down control that characterized Stalin's rule. Moreover, Stalin was a nationalist, unlike Marx, who was an internationalist.

Your statement that "renting labor is not selling oneself" misses a crucial point. When a person sells their labor power to a capitalist, they are indeed selling themselves—their body, time, and life energy. Unlike renting a car, where the car's owner remains separate from the vehicle, selling labor means selling a part of oneself. If the car crashes, the owner is unaffected; however, when a worker sells their labor and is exploited, it directly affects their well-being and autonomy.

Under this arrangement, workers do not own the fruits of their labor or the means of production, and they lack democratic rights in the workplace, reducing them to wage slaves. They are paid less than the value they produce, with the surplus value extracted by capitalists as profit.

Your claim that socialism is being "forced to get votes" ignores the reality that many people genuinely support socialist policies due to the failures and inequities of capitalism. Rising inequality, lack of access to healthcare, education, and housing, and the exploitation inherent in capitalist systems drive popular support for socialist alternatives. Socialism seeks to address these issues by promoting economic democracy, where workers have a say in the governance of their workplaces, ensuring that the benefits of production are shared rather than hoarded by a capitalist parasite leech.

The assertion that wages are going nowhere and result in fewer hours worked with a higher standard of living is misleading. While there have been improvements in some areas, many workers still face precarious employment, low wages, and poor working conditions. Moreover, automation and AI are increasingly displacing human labor, challenging the sustainability of the traditional wage labor system.

In summary, capitalism commodifies and exploits human beings, treating them as mere inputs in the production process for the benefit of a parasitic class of capitalists. Socialism seeks to end this exploitation by abolishing private property that enables such exploitation and replacing it with a system where the means of production are publicly owned and democratically managed. The rise of automation and AI makes the transition to socialism not only desirable but necessary for a sustainable and just future.

 

[Curried Goats]

Always. Even if you imagine a "pure democracy", best case scenario, government will be forcing the will of the majority on everyone else. When I say "society decides", I mean all of us, freely and individually, decide for ourselves how much goods and services are worth. And we "vote" with our choices.

What I mean is, the same society that's going to be answering that question is the same society that's going to be forming the government. The government we have stems from the sort of society we have. And again, all laws and all governments represent force. There is no law or government without force.