Dissecting John Stossel's Anti-Communist Lies

[HikerGuy83]

Productivity increases at the expense of workers. The capitalists consume most of the output, taking what workers produce. You are perpetuating a system of exploitation, which drives workers into the ground.

Your first sentence is correct. And the workers let it happen.

They have not caught on yet. That or they are simply to lazy to do anything about it.

You don't know what I am doing. And from what I can tell (and according to many), workers are much better off today than they were 50 years ago in terms of the goods available to them. I don't know anyone who does not own a cell phone. Even some homeless do.

A great many of those in the lower income brackets (or who are out of the workforce altogether) are there becasue of bad choices. However, mobility has slowed considerably.

Technology will address all of that, by making production much less labor intensive.

And that will drive a whole new equilibrium.

You are ironically appealing to one of the contradictions of capitalism. People work harder and still don't have what they need.

There is nothing ironic about it. It happens.

I was the one who brought it up.

The disparity of the haves vs the have-nots, becomes even more pronounced with an increase in production output, because the surplus value is going to the owners of the means of production.

That "value" only exists because there is a market for it. When that goes away, we'll see what happens.

I am concerned about the income inequality issue. I am also concerned about the wealth accumulation problem. But one thing I know....government won't be the way to change things.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You ignored almost every point I made.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq had repercussions far beyond mere food shortages.

I know! Saddam could only build half as many palaces.
And he had almost no money for weapons. It was horrible!

 

[Red Front]

Your first sentence is correct. And the workers let it happen.

They have not caught on yet. That or they are simply to lazy to do anything about it.

You don't know what I am doing. And from what I can tell (and according to many), workers are much better off today than they were 50 years ago in terms of the goods available to them. I don't know anyone who does not own a cell phone. Even some homeless do.

A great many of those in the lower income brackets (or who are out of the workforce altogether) are there becasue of bad choices. However, mobility has slowed considerably.



And that will drive a whole new equilibrium.



There is nothing ironic about it. It happens.

I was the one who brought it up.


That "value" only exists because there is a market for it. When that goes away, we'll see what happens.

I am concerned about the income inequality issue. I am also concerned about the wealth accumulation problem. But one thing I know....government won't be the way to change things.

Your first sentence is correct. And the workers let it happen.

American workers, the aristocracy of labor, citizens of the empire, allows it to happen, because for several decades after WW2, workers generally, did well. We were in a cold war with the Soviet Union, and Americans were brainwashed by the capitalist-run media, to hate everything communist, and were fed the lie that capitalism is eternal and essential to the survival of America and the world.

The current American working-class are still living in the 1950s and 60s, when 1/3rd of the workforce was unionized and could support a family on one blue-collar wage.

​

The American working-class are currently asleep, but as advanced, intelligent automation continues to replace jobs, they will eventually wake-up and smell the coffee. That's what the wealthy ruling elites in this country, fear the most. The awakening of the American working class, to the fact that they are in control. All of the power is really in their hands.

They have not caught on yet. That or they are simply to lazy to do anything about it.​

Americans aren't lazy, they're the hardest working people on the planet. People will wake up when they lose their job to a robot, and ask themselves "why do these few rich people own all of the robots and factories, while we are here living in poverty, hungry and unemployed?"...That's the beginning of a radical and necessary reform in our society.

You don't know what I am doing. And from what I can tell (and according to many), workers are much better off today than they were 50 years ago in terms of the goods available to them. I don't know anyone who does not own a cell phone. Even some homeless do.

Owning a smart phone isn't a very good metric for determining if you're doing well financially or not. One's wages, the cost of housing, food, access to healthcare, an education..etc. That's what really matters.

That "value" only exists because there is a market for it.

That's what your capitalist master/s told you. A product or service is valuable if it's useful, irrespective of its marketability or commercial viability.

When that goes away, we'll see what happens.
I am concerned about the income inequality issue. I am also concerned about the wealth accumulation problem. But one thing I know....government won't be the way to change things.

Our government might be the only solution. Even the billionaires are pleading with the government to provide people with a UBI (Universal Basic Income), because the alternative is the collapse of capitalism.

 

[Red Front]

I know! Saddam could only build half as many palaces.
And he had almost no money for weapons. It was horrible!

You think you're making a relevant point, but you're not.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Our government might be the only solution. Even the billionaires are pleading with the government to provide people with a UBI (Universal Basic Income), because the alternative is the collapse of capitalism.

As we know it which is really nannystate capitalism.

And they want it so that people don't revolt.

I would prefer they do.

The Billionaires have way to much leverage.

 

[HikerGuy83]

That's what your capitalist master/s told you. A product or service is valuable if it's useful, irrespective of its marketability or commercial viability.

Like I said, you don't understand economics. It's only value is what someone is willing to trade for it.

If it is useful, then the assumption is that someone wants it and is willing to pay for it.

If they are not....it's really not of much value.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Owning a smart phone isn't a very good metric for determining if you're doing well financially or not. One's wages, the cost of housing, food, access to healthcare, an education..etc. That's what really matters.

Yes, well I-phones are not cheap and it seems everyone has one.

One's wages is important. On that we agree. Workers sell themselves for way to little. And of course they can't not in some cases because of the cheap labor that comes up from the south.

Cost of housing is a different story. That has been impacted by a great many things.

Food....? Not even a discussion. I am unaware of anyone who has starved to death in the U.S.

Healthcare is a huge concern for me.

 

[HikerGuy83]

That's the beginning of a radical and necessary reform in our society.

One of the first things they'll figure out is that big business and government are no longer different. They stroke each other continually. Government will never be an answer. It is not independent and there are very few instances where those in government are NOT corrupted by the power they wield.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Those who are foolish enough to connect this to Reagan don't know what's gone on.

There are so many factors that play into this, it's stupid to try and make that connection.

The baby boomer generation and it's appetite for housing. Meaning if you look at what people bought in the 50's and 60's.....those houses today are passed up by most young people looking for something larger. Many people were raised in 1,200 ft2 homes. Today they are double and triple that. Many families had one care. Today, you have to have two it seems. And the list goes on and one.

The impact of women entering the workforce has not really been understood. You'll hear how women entering the workforce has raised waged. That ignores a great many other things going on around it. One thing it did for sure was put pressure on prices as households had a lot more discretionary income.

Look at the number of people who use air travel today vs. how many did so many years ago.

The list goes on and on.

Carter got to eat the results of Vietnam and the increasing pressure on Social Security. Reagan and the democrats (the house was democratic the entire time Reagan was in office and he lost the senate in 1986) were not going to resist natural forces. His tax cuts were sustainable (Clinton almost balanced the budget and we might have turned it around if not GWSTUPID.

There is just way to much happening to blame this on Reagan.

The increased entry of women int othe

 

[Soupnazi630]

The Berlin wall had nothing to do with communism.

Built by communists to imprison communists.

It had everything to do with communism moron

 

[Soupnazi630]

Stalin's paranoia and need for absolute power had nothing at all to do with any economic or political system one may choose.

Yes it did as it is exactly what communism always demands of government.

It is precisely what the dictatorship of the proletariate is all about

 

[Soupnazi630]

The problems with Venezuela have nothing to do with socialism.
Their oil is tar sands, so very difficult to extract.
Their government is not really socialist at all, but secret capitalists.

The government is socialist and caused their problems. They had prosperity and wealth befoore Chavez

 

[Soupnazi630]

All primitive human societies are communist hunter/gatherer societies.
Capitalism came about when we became sedentary agriculturalists, and that is what also started "chattel slavery and feudalism".
Returning to communism will be a return to normal social values.

Few if any primitive hunter gatherer societies were communist.

Capitalism came about centuries later and never caused slavery

Returning to communism means returning to slavery dictatorship and poverty

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
The whole economic blockade of Iraq was an illegal war crime to start with.
And we did not really allow any significant food shipment until around 1995.
And we decided how much Iraq would have to pay and what food we would allow.
It was evil, totally illegal, and we greatly profited by it.
Iraq has limited agricultural resources, so has to import food.

It was legal.

We did not profit from it

 

[dudmuck]

The problems with Venezuela have nothing to do with socialism.
Their oil is tar sands, so very difficult to extract.
Their government is not really socialist at all, but secret capitalists.

Venezuela is/was corrupt as fuck-all. They took possession of foreign oil infrastructure. Then they let it rot and didnt invest in maintaining & upgrading it.

Its a terrible example of socialism. Better examples is Portugal or Vietnam or Laos. Perhaps even Nepal, Tanzania or Bangladesh; are the policies improving life there.

 

[Red Front]

As we know it which is really nannystate capitalism.

And they want it so that people don't revolt.

I would prefer they do.

The Billionaires have way to much leverage.

Well, at least your thinking is almost where mine is on this issue. Where we disagree is the role of government. You've been led to believe by your wealthy capitalist employers, and their brainwashed, right-wing minions, that the government is BAD, and the private sector is GOOD, or that the government can't do anything right. Do you know why the rich, especially the big money capitalist elites, have such contempt for democracy in government? Because a true democratic republican government doesn't let them make a profit, in whichever way they choose to do it, even at the expense of the public good.

A genuine democratic, republican government is their worse nightmare, because their corporations aren't dictating the rules of the game, for everybody. Hiker, the government is simply a social apparatus, organized by the people, to manage their large-scale socioeconomic, civil affairs and projects. It's the administrative arm of the people, which allows them to establish a civilization, based on laws and a social order that serves the interests of the public.

Capitalism, like every other previous mode of production, eventually is replaced with a more efficient and productive one, thanks to better technology. When that occurs, relationships change, because that new mode of production, requires new "social contracts", to make that new system of production function. Slaves and masters, were replaced with feudal lords and serfs, and then feudalism was replaced by industrial capitalism, creating a new relationship between the owners of production and those who do the actual work ("employers" and
"employees").

Adam Smith the father of modern, industrial capitalism, called capitalists "masters" and their waged labor, "servants" and "workmen". In the 19th century, and even into the early 20th century, wage-labor was looked at by many in Western society as another form of slavery. It was a bit better than chattel slavery and feudalism, but not that much. The power dynamic between employers and employees under capitalism, is indeed one of a master over a "servant" (a nice way of saying "slave"). Your employer/exploiter owns you for much of the day or night, depending on when you work.

You're concerned about civil government being dictatorial, let me tell you something my friend about what is the most dictatorial system in our country. It's not the US government, it's those little despot-run governments called "corporations" in the capitalist sense. Companies, business enterprises, that "employ"/exploit, human labor to turn a profit. Paying their employees/exploitees, less than what they produce and not allowing them to have much input, if at all, in how the workplace is run.

It's SHUT THE F UP AND GET TO WORK. That's the order of the day and if you don't like it, there's the door. The worse type of tyranny in America today isn't the US government or senile Biden and his queer democrats, it's the private sector. Big business, and a few small businesses as well. Mom and Pop pizzeria owner, aren't generally evil capitalists. They're living under capitalism, and they worked really hard, for thirty plus years, saving their money and building their credit, to now in their late 40s, early 50s, open a neighborhood Pizzeria. Provide some jobs, to get some of those young people off the street. Good intentions, not a despot, they treat their employees well.

The big money capitalists:

​

Believe it or not, Capitalism will also kick the bucket and will be replaced with something else, when material conditions necessitates that historical transition to another mode of production. Advanced 21st century technology, will by necessity force capitalist economies to adopt a worker-owned, non-profit system of production, due to the lack of waged labor. Thanks to technology, the "employees" (exploitees), will collectively own and democratically run production in collaboration with a government under the heel of the working-class and its worker-councils.

​

The central planning and accounting of production, will be handled by a centralized system, using super-computers and onsite sensors. In other words, to be more specific, that central hub of planning and accounting, is best handled by democratic governments, under the authority of its working-class. In our country, that would be our federal government, in cooperation with local and state authorities, which are under the direct control of the worker-councils.

The entire logistical supply chain, from the extraction, processing and storing of raw materials, to the manufacturing of goods and its delivery to consumers through local stores. This will require human supervision, and at some levels of production, human labor will actually have to break a sweat, and work, both physically and mentally. Work is healthy and creates strong social bonds and opportunities for people to forge new relationships and add value to their lives, and their community. Work is healthy, when done in a democratic environment of mutual respect and comradery.

People under this high-tech communist system will work 20 hours weekly and will have everything they have now and more. Communism makes a distinction between private and personal property. There's no reason why under high-tech communism, you can't own one or two homes, two acres of land to grow your own food. You will have more (as in more goods, more freedom, more friends, more of everything that is good), living in a democratic, communist America than under the capitalist tyranny we live under now.

As production technology continues to advance, eventually the means of production, will become smaller and more accessible to the consumer. Hence, in 80 years or maybe in 125 years, the individual consumer, will have access to production technology at home, capable of producing all of the goods and services that they consume and use to live. Public-run electric grids will become obsolete. Even public water sanitation and maybe even sewer systems, will become a thing of the past, no longer needed thanks to advanced tech. It's not just the capitalists or capitalism that will be replaced with technology, but government functions/services will likewise wither away.

Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to Karl Marx, modern, "high" communism is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Libertarians, anarchist and communist, want the same thing. We just differ on how to get there. We believe communism is necessary, before we can develop the technology to become completely free of all coercion and non-voluntary adult relationships.

"A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9] Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a more libertarian approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more authoritarian vanguardist or communist party-driven approach through the development of a socialist state followed by the withering away of the state.[10]"

Source: Communism - Wikipedia

The individual citizen and consumer, will produce practically everything themselves:

ATOMIC PRECISION MANUFACTURING

​

Eventually the individual consumer will be able to produce everything themselves without anyone else's input or assistance. You will be able to live anywhere and survive, even thrive, on your own or with a group of your comrades. That's the power of advanced technology. We don't have Star Trek replicator technology in the 21st century, but we do have advanced automation and artificial intelligence, along with powerful computational capabilities. We're now entering the post-capitalist, socialist/high-communist stage of human production.

​

​

 

[Mac-7]

It's not how you start the race, it's how you finish it that matters. It took centuries for capitalism to replace chattel slavery and feudalism, and it will take time for socialism and then communism to replace capitalism. It's just a matter of time.

Communism has only ever produced dictators along with masses of poor people

 

[Red Front]

Communism has only ever produced dictators along with masses of poor people

You're not listening, but that's OK, because others are listening. I don't expect you to read anything I post or to think rationally. I will respond to your silly comment for the sake others, who are genuinely searching for answers. I will start my response with a rhetorical question. How do you define communism? What you define as communism, isn't communism. It's a Cold War caricature of communism.

The USSR wasn't a communist state, because communism is stateless, without a state or with a very small state. Is that what the Soviet Union was? NO. The USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Do you see the word "communist" there anywhere? No you don't. The USSR was a national socialist union comprised of several republics.

Right wingers like you often identify the American democrats as communists or socialists. How many times do we read posts posted by right-wing conservatives on this forum, asserting that AOC and the Democratic Party in general, are all a bunch of "commies"? They say this because a few democrats, like AOC and Bernie Sanders, are for universal medicare, tuition free education, for housing the homeless, and for labor unions and...etc. What you fail to grasp is that, following your right-wing conservative metric of what is "commie", Western Europe is now COMMIE. The modern, industrialized world is COMMIE/SOCIALIST. You can't have your cake and eat it too, sorry.

Communism is the final objective or goal of socialism. Communism is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Why do socialists identify themselves as communists? For the same reason that Christians identify themselves or their brethren in Christ, as "saints" or the "sons of God", even without being fully sanctified and inheriting eternal life. Sainthood is the objective, or archetype of your devotion to Christ.

Far-left socialists like me, often identify themselves as communists, because communism is the goal or aim, of our socialism. We identify ourselves with the final objective, to inspire and direct us towards that reality, in the future. Technically, we are socialists on the path to communism.

There are many countries in the world that are socialist and provide their citizens with a very good standard of living. If a society tries to advance socialism, beyond markets and any form of capitalism, before it has the technology and required social consciousness and attitude, it will fail, especially in a world under the heel of American big money capitalists and their cronies in the US and EU governments. Every nation that has tried to establish a non-market socialist economy, identifying itself as a Marxist, socialist country, without any private property, invites the full wrath and power of the capitalist American empire.

The US controls the world economy by having its USD the world's reserve currency. This grants the US, an extreme amount of control over world finance. Banks are under the authority and thumb of American capitalist elites and their cronies in Washington, hence if a nation is sanctioned economically, it will be ostracized from the international community and turned into a leper. No country or private corporation, wants to send its expensive cargo ships to Cuba, because any ship that anchors in a Cuban port is barred from anchoring in American territory for 180 days (six months). You want your ships locked out of American ports for six months, in order to do business with Cuba? Nope.

The USSR was in a state of war from its birth in 1917 to its death in 1991. Can anyone rationally argue that because the USSR eventually lost its war with capitalism, socialism will never replace capitalism? That's an irrational argument, because the conditions and circumstances of the USSR in the 20th century are not the same conditions and circumstances socialism is in now in the 21st century. We are in a much better position, due to advanced production technology and the fact that China and Russia are allies. Russia isn't a socialist country, as it once was and one might argue that China isn't that "socialist" either, but nonetheless they're very "commie friendly".

American socialists won't have the same challenges that the USSR had, because we were the big capitalist bully in the room. The 800 pound capitalist gorilla, will convert to socialism, hence we will not be bullied by capitalists as the USSR and countries like Cuba are today. We also have very advanced automation technology, hence we're in a completely different situation than the USSR was, or Cuba, and North Korea are today. We won't be under sanctions, we will be close friends with Russia and China, creating an extremely powerful alliance. So your appeal to the past to try to give the false impression that socialism can't work in America, is quite misinformed and irrational.

 

[SeaMajor7]

You're not listening, but that's OK, because others are listening. I don't expect you to read anything I post or to think rationally. I will respond to your silly comment for the sake others, who are genuinely searching for answers. I will start my response with a rhetorical question. How do you define communism? What you define as communism, isn't communism. It's a Cold War caricature of communism.

The USSR wasn't a communist state, because communism is stateless, without a state or with a very small state. Is that what the Soviet Union was? NO. The USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Do you see the word "communist" there anywhere? No you don't. The USSR was a national socialist union comprised of several republics.

Right wingers like you often identify the American democrats as communists or socialists. How many times do we read posts posted by right-wing conservatives on this forum, asserting that AOC and the Democratic Party in general, are all a bunch of "commies"? They say this because a few democrats, like AOC and Bernie Sanders, are for universal medicare, tuition free education, for housing the homeless, and for labor unions and...etc. What you fail to grasp is that, following your right-wing conservative metric of what is "commie", Western Europe is now COMMIE. The modern, industrialized world is COMMIE/SOCIALIST. You can't have your cake and eat it too, sorry.

Communism is the final objective or goal of socialism. Communism is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Why do socialists identify themselves as communists? For the same reason that Christians identify themselves or their brethren in Christ, as "saints" or the "sons of God", even without being fully sanctified and inheriting eternal life. Sainthood is the objective, or archetype of your devotion to Christ.

Far-left socialists like me, often identify themselves as communists, because communism is the goal or aim, of our socialism. We identify ourselves with the final objective, to inspire and direct us towards that reality, in the future. Technically, we are socialists on the path to communism.

There are many countries in the world that are socialist and provide their citizens with a very good standard of living. If a society tries to advance socialism, beyond markets and any form of capitalism, before it has the technology and required social consciousness and attitude, it will fail, especially in a world under the heel of American big money capitalists and their cronies in the US and EU governments. Every nation that has tried to establish a non-market socialist economy, identifying itself as a Marxist, socialist country, without any private property, invites the full wrath and power of the capitalist American empire.

The US controls the world economy by having its USD the world's reserve currency. This grants the US, an extreme amount of control over world finance. Banks are under the authority and thumb of American capitalist elites and their cronies in Washington, hence if a nation is sanctioned economically, it will be ostracized from the international community and turned into a leper. No country or private corporation, wants to send its expensive cargo ships to Cuba, because any ship that anchors in a Cuban port is barred from anchoring in American territory for 180 days (six months). You want your ships locked out of American ports for six months, in order to do business with Cuba? Nope.

The USSR was in a state of war from its birth in 1917 to its death in 1991. Can anyone rationally argue that because the USSR eventually lost its war with capitalism, socialism will never replace capitalism? That's an irrational argument, because the conditions and circumstances of the USSR in the 20th century is not the same conditions and circumstances socialism is in now in the 21st century. We are in a much better position, due to advanced production technology and the fact that China and Russia are allies. Russia isn't a socialist country, as it once was and one might argue that China isn't that "socialist" either, but nonetheless they're very "commie friendly".

American socialists won't have the same challenges that the USSR had, because we were the big capitalist bully in the room. The 800 pound capitalist gorilla, will convert to socialism, hence we will not be bullied by capitalists as the USSR and countries like Cuba are today. We also have very advanced automation technology, hence we're in a completely different situation than the USSR was, or Cuba, or North Korea is today. We won't be under sanctions, we will be close friends with Russia and China, creating an extremely powerful alliance. So your appeal to the past to try to give the false impression that socialism can't work in America, is quite misinformed and irrational.

Swim to Cuba, asshole!

 

[Red Front]

Funny (1)​

• 
  
  1. [IMG alt="SeaMajor7"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/87/87067.jpg?1654898901[/IMG]
     
     
     24 minutes ago
     

     SeaMajor7​

     Diamond Member · 54 · From Long Island, NY
     • Messages 3,485
     • Reaction score 4,201
     • Points 1,938
     
     What do you find funny about what I said? Go ahead, don't run away, answer the question and debate me like a man.