POLL: The GOP and "Socialism"

[kaz]

You're proving again you always were a socialist who has no idea what Republicans think.

Republicans hate Obama because he's black!

Oh, yeah, you guys absolutely lost your shit when the black guy got elected.

Exactly as I said. You have no idea what Republicans think. Try to keep up

And seriously. You think when we have single payer, you're going to get expensive medical care? Dream on

Again, every other country has single payer, they do just fine. They even waste hundreds of thousands of pounds on British Meat Babies.

You don't want good healthcare, you just want everyone else to have the same shitty coverage you do

 

[kaz]

Naw, man, that you can drag out a few Uncle Toms doesn't really impress me. Even when I was Republican, I found these folks a little off putting, like they were trying to hard to ingratiate themselves to white folks... it was kind of awkward

There you go, racist

 

[kaz]

Democrats clearly want to be ruled by government. They just believe they can control the beast they built. They're idiots

Naw, an idiot is a Libertarian who wants anarchy and then complains when he doesn't get Federal Matching Funds

What the hell does that mean, racist?

 

[Tehon]

Under capitalism, people who want to maximize their economic power in society have to do it via the market.

The capitalist system of production provides the capitalist with capital accumulation. How does "capitalism", however you are attempting to define it here, prevent the capitalist who has accumulated vast amounts of capital from using it to purchase political favor?

 

[dblack]

Under capitalism, people who want to maximize their economic power in society have to do it via the market.

The capitalist system of production provides the capitalist with capital accumulation. How does "capitalism", however you are attempting to define it here, prevent the capitalist who has accumulated vast amounts of capital from using it to purchase political favor?

Ultimately, it's the same problem (under either system): Corrupt politicians. The best we can do is to minimize the damage by maintaining strict limits on the government's ability to meddle in the economy in the first place.

 

[Tehon]

Under capitalism, people who want to maximize their economic power in society have to do it via the market.

The capitalist system of production provides the capitalist with capital accumulation. How does "capitalism", however you are attempting to define it here, prevent the capitalist who has accumulated vast amounts of capital from using it to purchase political favor?

Ultimately, it's the same problem (under either system): Corrupt politicians. The best we can do is to minimize the damage by maintaining strict limits on the government's ability to meddle in the economy in the first place.

It sounded to me like you were tying to say that the way capital accumulation was invested, market or political influence, was the determining factor as to defining whether it was capitalist or socialist.

It's not the same problem under either system. The capitalist mode of production provides the means for purchasing political favor via capital accumulation.
The socialist system of production does not provide for capital accumulation as capital is abolished. It's not the same problem.

 

[Tehon]

The thing that gets me about socialists is that they think that putting economic power under control of government, rather than property owners, will eliminate the problem of greed.

You capitalist apologists have an endless stream of strawmen.

The socialist doesn't want to give economic power to the state, the idea is to empower labor. To the degree that government needs be involved, it should not be given free reign and should be decentralized. I believe that was the idea behind the soviets in Russia after the revolution.

"Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state"."
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

 

[dblack]

It's not the same problem under either system. The capitalist mode of production provides the means for purchasing political favor via capital accumulation.
The socialist system of production does not provide for capital accumulation as capital is abolished. It's not the same problem.

Sure it is. There will just be different exchange media. People who want power will play politics rather than chase the dollar. Still the same greed. Still the same avarice. You're kidding yourself if you think it will go away just because you abolish private capital.

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly as I said. You have no idea what Republicans think. Try to keep up

It's been my experience most republican don't think these days. They wait for Hate Radio to tell them what to believe. Now they are just drinking the koolaid.

You don't want good healthcare, you just want everyone else to have the same shitty coverage you do

Again, I'd love to have the kind of coverage I had when I was in the service... that was good coverage.

The thing is, I really have no idea what kind of shit the insurance companies might try to pull. It's really a lottery.

What the hell does that mean, racist?

Did you for me need to explain the big words?

The Libertarians just hate, hate hate them some government, but Old Dope Smoking Gary wanted to hit 5% so you could get federal matching funds next time

Ultimately, it's the same problem (under either system): Corrupt politicians. The best we can do is to minimize the damage by maintaining strict limits on the government's ability to meddle in the economy in the first place.

That's right. That'll work out well.

That way you can yell FREEDOM when some asshole with more money and more influence than you run roughshod over your life to make a profit.

"I sure enjoy that freedom from gummit we have!"
"Get back to work, you little bastards!"

 

[Tehon]

It's not the same problem under either system. The capitalist mode of production provides the means for purchasing political favor via capital accumulation.
The socialist system of production does not provide for capital accumulation as capital is abolished. It's not the same problem.

Sure it is. There will just be different exchange media. People who want power will play politics rather than chase the dollar. Still the same greed. Still the same avarice. You're kidding yourself if you think it will go away just because you abolish private capital.

I said the socialist wishes to abolish capital, with no qualifications.

 

[kaz]

Exactly as I said. You have no idea what Republicans think. Try to keep up

It's been my experience most republican don't think these days. They wait for Hate Radio to tell them what to believe. Now they are just drinking the koolaid

Exactly as I said. You don't have a clue what Republicans think. That's why you're such a lame, fake, ex-Republican. The Republicans do suck. As an actual ex-Republican, I know why. And when I debate Republicans, they don't keep telling me that isn't even their position like they keep telling you.

You claim to have been a Republican most of your life. Yet, again, you don't have a clue what their positions actually are. You believe what the Democrat party tells you Republican positions are. Lame guy, lame

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly as I said. You don't have a clue what Republicans think. That's why you're such a lame, fake, ex-Republican. The Republicans do suck. As an actual ex-Republican, I know why. And when I debate Republicans, they don't keep telling me that isn't even their position like they keep telling you.

We both agree they suck, just for different reasons.

you think they suck because they actually know anarchy would be a terrible idea.

I think they suck because they put the interests of the rich ahead of working folks like me.

In other words, my reasons are legitimate concerns.

 

[kaz]

Exactly as I said. You don't have a clue what Republicans think. That's why you're such a lame, fake, ex-Republican. The Republicans do suck. As an actual ex-Republican, I know why. And when I debate Republicans, they don't keep telling me that isn't even their position like they keep telling you.

We both agree they suck, just for different reasons.

you think they suck because they actually know anarchy would be a terrible idea.

I think they suck because they put the interests of the rich ahead of working folks like me.

In other words, my reasons are legitimate concerns.

You think Republicans suck because you believe every talking point that Democrats tell you to believe, even though if you had actually been a Republican all your life as you claim, you'd know those aren't the actual Republican positions.

You don't know what my positions are either even though I keep telling you. I'm not an anarchist, dildo.

You want socialism, and you have this bizarre idea that somehow claiming to be an ex-Republican gives you more credibility. It doesn't. BTW, it wouldn't, even if you weren't so lame a fake ex-Republican. No one cares about socialist Republican views either

 

[dblack]

It's not the same problem under either system. The capitalist mode of production provides the means for purchasing political favor via capital accumulation.
The socialist system of production does not provide for capital accumulation as capital is abolished. It's not the same problem.

Sure it is. There will just be different exchange media. People who want power will play politics rather than chase the dollar. Still the same greed. Still the same avarice. You're kidding yourself if you think it will go away just because you abolish private capital.

I said the socialist wishes to abolish capital, with no qualifications.

Ok, well I'm not going to play your evasive little games. You don't seem capable of saying what you mean. Is that a problem for you in general, or just on the boards here?

 

[Tehon]

It's not the same problem under either system. The capitalist mode of production provides the means for purchasing political favor via capital accumulation.
The socialist system of production does not provide for capital accumulation as capital is abolished. It's not the same problem.

Sure it is. There will just be different exchange media. People who want power will play politics rather than chase the dollar. Still the same greed. Still the same avarice. You're kidding yourself if you think it will go away just because you abolish private capital.

I said the socialist wishes to abolish capital, with no qualifications.

Ok, well I'm not going to play your evasive little games. You don't seem capable of saying what you mean. Is that a problem for you in general, or just on the boards here?

Partly both I would guess.

The problem for me here is that I am using language that is associated with Marxism.

Marx has a lot of critics and I assume for one to be critical they would have an understanding of the language he used and an idea of his philosophy. I don't automatically assume his critics are ignorant.

I probably need to rethink that assumption.

What is capital and if it is not private what would it be?

 

[kaz]

It's not the same problem under either system. The capitalist mode of production provides the means for purchasing political favor via capital accumulation.
The socialist system of production does not provide for capital accumulation as capital is abolished. It's not the same problem.

Sure it is. There will just be different exchange media. People who want power will play politics rather than chase the dollar. Still the same greed. Still the same avarice. You're kidding yourself if you think it will go away just because you abolish private capital.

I said the socialist wishes to abolish capital, with no qualifications.

Ok, well I'm not going to play your evasive little games. You don't seem capable of saying what you mean. Is that a problem for you in general, or just on the boards here?

Partly both I would guess.

The problem for me here is that I am using language that is associated with Marxism.

Marx has a lot of critics and I assume for one to be critical they would have an understanding of the language he used and an idea of his philosophy. I don't automatically assume his critics are ignorant.

I probably need to rethink that assumption.

What is capital and if it is not private what would it be?

If socialists don't need capital, why did Hillary take $145 million in bribe money?

 

[Tehon]

It's not the same problem under either system. The capitalist mode of production provides the means for purchasing political favor via capital accumulation.
The socialist system of production does not provide for capital accumulation as capital is abolished. It's not the same problem.

Sure it is. There will just be different exchange media. People who want power will play politics rather than chase the dollar. Still the same greed. Still the same avarice. You're kidding yourself if you think it will go away just because you abolish private capital.

I said the socialist wishes to abolish capital, with no qualifications.

Ok, well I'm not going to play your evasive little games. You don't seem capable of saying what you mean. Is that a problem for you in general, or just on the boards here?

Partly both I would guess.

The problem for me here is that I am using language that is associated with Marxism.

Marx has a lot of critics and I assume for one to be critical they would have an understanding of the language he used and an idea of his philosophy. I don't automatically assume his critics are ignorant.

I probably need to rethink that assumption.

What is capital and if it is not private what would it be?

If socialists don't need capital, why did Hillary take $145 million in bribe money?

Hillary is neo-liberal, not Marxist.

 

[kaz]

Sure it is. There will just be different exchange media. People who want power will play politics rather than chase the dollar. Still the same greed. Still the same avarice. You're kidding yourself if you think it will go away just because you abolish private capital.

I said the socialist wishes to abolish capital, with no qualifications.

Ok, well I'm not going to play your evasive little games. You don't seem capable of saying what you mean. Is that a problem for you in general, or just on the boards here?

Partly both I would guess.

The problem for me here is that I am using language that is associated with Marxism.

Marx has a lot of critics and I assume for one to be critical they would have an understanding of the language he used and an idea of his philosophy. I don't automatically assume his critics are ignorant.

I probably need to rethink that assumption.

What is capital and if it is not private what would it be?

If socialists don't need capital, why did Hillary take $145 million in bribe money?

Hillary is neo-liberal, not Marxist.

What policies does she have that aren't Marxist? Don't give sweeping statements

 

[Tehon]

I said the socialist wishes to abolish capital, with no qualifications.

Ok, well I'm not going to play your evasive little games. You don't seem capable of saying what you mean. Is that a problem for you in general, or just on the boards here?

Partly both I would guess.

The problem for me here is that I am using language that is associated with Marxism.

Marx has a lot of critics and I assume for one to be critical they would have an understanding of the language he used and an idea of his philosophy. I don't automatically assume his critics are ignorant.

I probably need to rethink that assumption.

What is capital and if it is not private what would it be?

If socialists don't need capital, why did Hillary take $145 million in bribe money?

Hillary is neo-liberal, not Marxist.

What policies does she have that aren't Marxist? Don't give sweeping statements

She is owned by wall street. She supports the neo-liberal free trade agenda. She destroyed Libya for the capitalists. She is a representative of the ruling class for fucks sake. Get out of here with your bullshit.

HRC Paid Speeches - WikiLeaks

 

[kaz]

Ok, well I'm not going to play your evasive little games. You don't seem capable of saying what you mean. Is that a problem for you in general, or just on the boards here?

Partly both I would guess.

The problem for me here is that I am using language that is associated with Marxism.

Marx has a lot of critics and I assume for one to be critical they would have an understanding of the language he used and an idea of his philosophy. I don't automatically assume his critics are ignorant.

I probably need to rethink that assumption.

What is capital and if it is not private what would it be?

If socialists don't need capital, why did Hillary take $145 million in bribe money?

Hillary is neo-liberal, not Marxist.

What policies does she have that aren't Marxist? Don't give sweeping statements

She is owned by wall street. She supports the neo-liberal free trade agenda. She destroyed Libya for the capitalists. She is a representative of the ruling class for fucks sake. Get out of here with your bullshit.

HRC Paid Speeches - WikiLeaks

I said no sweeping statements and you gave nothing else. Not one of those things is a non-Marxist actual action that she ever made.

Try again. What has Hillary specifically proposed, supported or done that isn't Marxist?