This is why we need to tax the wealthy

[Ghost of a Rider]

Why not, wealth does.

Opinion | The Federal Reserve Has an $8 Trillion Secret

I ask this over and over. Who exactly worked for this?

Apparently no one. But then, it’s irrelevant to this discussion because we’re talking about taxing the rich and capitalism as an economic system.

Simply trillions and trillions of dollars pumped into the markets that NO ONE didn't any work for.

And? Again, we’re talking about taxing the rich. I’m not in favor of the wealthy getting bailouts and whatnot but neither do I think they should be taxed at a higher rate just for being rich.

Your complaint is exactly what happened with the markets. They screwed up and weren't making money so the Federal Reserve (government) saw to it that the money was there for them.

So? The government giving special concessions to corporations and taxing the rich simply for making more money are two different things.

You seem to want to punish the rich for being rich because a few of the rich take advantage of government concessions.

The government granting privileges to the rich is a flaw in the government’s manner of treating the rich, not the fault of the rich.

Maybe some day a country will actually practice this great system. That NO country actually practices this system doesn't seem to register with you.

So no one’s practicing capitalism but you want to do away with capitalism?

Tell me, where in Capitalism do we find the idea of the government taking money from taxpayers to bail out business concerns?

Nowhere.

Are you under the impression that I support these things?

"Succeed". My ass. You deal in theories, not reality.

People succeeding is a theory?

 

[Oldestyle]

I'm answering two of your posts here...

Only working-class people should work, not the wealthy who own them for eight, or twelve hours + daily, right? When the working class receives public goods and services from the government, they're being lazy and don't want to work. When the rich get public services in the form of bailouts, plenty of yearly subsidies, "rewards", guaranteed contracts (without even having to bid for them), perks, and benefits, it's just normal, hey why not? On top of that, they have their cronies in government passing laws that serve their vested interests at the expense of the public. We live in a plutocracy (Rule of The Big Money), not a democracy (Rule Of The People).

View attachment 887241​

Stop pretending America is a democracy, we just have the illusion of it and you've fallen for it. How many people die in this country due to a lack of public services that are taken for granted in other modern, industrialized nations? Scores, hundreds of thousands yearly, yet you're clueless. How many Americans die annually due to not being able to afford regular checkups or being overwhelmed with medical bills and unable to support themselves as a result?

My stepfather twelve years ago almost died, when he was in his late 50s due to medical bills and not getting the healthcare coverage he needed from his private health insurance. He had to file for bankruptcy and apply for SSD and Medicaid.

As far as what you said about communism. FIrst of all, the USSR wasn't communist, it was socialist.

USSR = UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
​

Do you see the word "communist" there anywhere? Lenin and Stalin never used the word "communist" to describe the economy of the USSR, but rather SOCIALIST. Communism as defined by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and practically all well-informed academics, is a society without a state, socioeconomic classes, or the need for money. So for you to use the term "Communist State" is oxymoronic. It can't exist. The only reason socialists like me sometimes identify ourselves as communists, is because communism is the objective of socialism. It's where we're heading, not where we are.

Communism ".... 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]

Note: We communists, make a distinction between private and personal property. Your house, car, computer, smartphone, toothbrush, and Fruit Of The Looms, are your personal property. Any property used to make a monetary profit, especially if it can be used to exploit other human beings, is considered private property.

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The State and Revolution — Chapter 5

The State and Revolution: Chapter 5: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State

www.marxists.org

Learn Marxist socialism before criticizing it. At least know what we believe and represent.

View attachment 887245

Young Russian Soldiers 2022​

This is a 2017 poll in Russia about the USSR:

In Russia, nostalgia for Soviet Union and positive feelings about Stalin

Many Russians say the collapse of the Soviet Union has been a bad thing for their country. Nostalgia for the Soviet past also extends to views of Josef Stalin.

www.pewresearch.org

2018:
View attachment 887250

​

You're just parroting the old capitalist Cold War propaganda that you grew up with. A poll was taken in the late 1980s when the Soviet Union was at its worst financially due to all of the "Perestroika" and "Glasnost", that was verified by the UN, showing that 77% of Soviet Citizens were satisfied with their government. Even then, they were mostly pro-USSR and didn't feel "oppressed" or destitute.

Let me ask you, doesn't the US restrict travel to certain countries? Cuba, Venezuela..etc. You can find the list on the US State Department website. Soviet Russia was surrounded by capitalist powers, even to the point of being invaded right after its birthday in 1917 by several empires:

1. 
   United Kingdom: The UK was a leading force in the intervention. British troops were involved in Northern Russia and the Arctic, as well as in the Baltic states and the Black Sea region. The UK also provided significant military supplies and financial support to anti-Bolshevik forces (i.e. White Armies).
2. France: France was another major player, sending troops primarily to the Black Sea region and Northwestern Russia. The French were instrumental in supporting anti-Bolshevik White forces vs the Socialist Bolshevik Red Army.
3. United States: American troops deployed in North Russia (around Archangel) and Siberia. The U.S. aimed to protect military stores and, to a lesser extent, to help the Czechoslovak Legion evacuate.
4. Japan: Japan sent a significant number of troops to Siberia, focusing on Eastern Russia.
5. Italy: Italian troops were primarily deployed in the Black Sea region.
6. Canada: Canadian forces participated as part of the British Empire's contribution, particularly in Northern Russia.
7. Australia: Australia, also part of the British Empire, contributed a smaller contingent of troops, mainly serving under British command.
8. Greece: Greek forces, under French command, participated in the Crimea campaign in 1919. This involvement was part of Greece's broader post-World War I foreign policy objectives.

And several other countries, like Serbia, Romania..etc. Over 200 thousand troops in all, not counting the Russian Tsarist, pro-capitalist "White Armies", which numbered about another quarter million troops. That's what the Soviets had to deal with from the very beginning. Throughout its history, it only had relative peace in the 1930s, until it was invaded by four million Nazi Germans in 1941, resulting in the death of approximately 28 million of its citizens. We never hear about that holocaust, just the Jewish one. Nine million Red Army soldiers died on the battlefield and eighteen million Soviet civilians. That's 14% of its population dying as a result of WW2.

View attachment 887297​

The Soviets had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and rebuild their country after being left in ruins. Why are you complaining about its travel restrictions? If the US had suffered the same level of destruction at home, it would also impose its restrictions. There are many restrictions that the US government imposes on its citizens during a crisis. Japanese Americans were forced into concentration camps and there was plenty of rationing and other laws that came into effect during the war, which could be seen as overbearing.

• 
  World War II (1941-1945): During World War II, the U.S. government imposed restrictions on domestic travel to conserve resources for the war effort. This included rationing gasoline and limiting civilian access to transportation.
• Cuban Travel Restrictions (1960s - present): After the Cuban Revolution and the subsequent deterioration of U.S.-Cuba relations, the U.S. imposed strict travel restrictions on American citizens visiting Cuba. These restrictions have fluctuated over the years, with periods of loosening and tightening.
• Iran Hostage Crisis (1979-1981): Following the Iran Hostage Crisis, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran, which included travel restrictions for American citizens.
• Travel Alerts and Warnings (Post-9/11): After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. Department of State began issuing more frequent travel alerts and warnings for American citizens traveling to areas of conflict or where there was a high risk of terrorism.
• North Korea Travel Ban (2017-present): In response to the heightened risk of arrest and long-term detention of Americans in North Korea, the U.S. government prohibited the use of U.S. passports for travel into, in, or through North Korea.
• COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-2023): During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government imposed a series of travel restrictions to control the spread of the virus. These included bans on entry for non-citizens from certain countries and regions heavily affected by COVID-19, as well as domestic travel advisories and requirements for testing and quarantine.

The point is that for whatever reason stated above, the US government has no issue with imposing travel restrictions, and the USSR given its situation also had its travel restrictions. The US and its allies were doing everything possible to undermine the Soviet economy, including enticing its scientists, engineers, and academics to leave and work for the CIA, writing ugly books about the USSR, and giving away secrets..etc. It was a war, so of course there were restrictions. Despite this, most Soviet citizens were satisfied with their government and didn't try to leave, even when they had the opportunity to do so.

There were student exchange programs, between the US and the Soviet Union and the vast majority of Soviet students didn't defect. They returned home, back to the USSR, after studying in the USA.

1. The United States Information Agency (USIA) conducted exchanges under various programs.
2. Fulbright Program: While initially limited during the height of the Cold War, the Fulbright Program, which aims to increase mutual understanding through educational exchange, eventually expanded to include the Soviet Union. This program allowed for the exchange of scholars and students.
3. Cultural Exchanges: Beyond academic programs, there were also cultural exchanges, including visits by artists, musicians, and other cultural figures. These exchanges were often more visible and had a broader public impact.
4. National Council for Soviet and East European Research: Established its office in the U.S, this organization facilitated scholarly research and exchanges.

Why didn't these Soviet citizens all defect if the USSR was "SO BAD"? Maybe it wasn't as bad as our Cold War American propaganda claimed.

Going back to the situation right after WWII. Much of Soviet Russia's national infrastructure which had been built since the 1920s, was rubble after the war. Was there an American "Marshal Plan" for the Soviets, who had sacrificed so much on behalf of the Allies in the war? No.

The American "Marshal Plan" to rebuild the nations of Europe and Asia, didn't apply to the Soviet Union. The US was left unscathed after the war, fully intact, without losing even one structure. I believe only one or two American civilians died within the United States as a result of enemy fire, through a Japanese weather balloon bomb. Google it. The US lost 460 thousand of its citizens, practically all of them were combatants. American casualties amounted to 0.03% of its population. Again, the Soviets lost 14%, with 28 million casualties. Is there any comparison at all between those two? Russia lost over 50 times the people, due to being in Europe, rather than protected by thousands of miles of two vast oceans (i.e. Pacific - Atlantic).

View attachment 887284
​

Notwithstanding all of the aforementioned facts the Soviet Union got back on its feet and became a world nuclear superpower with the second largest economy in the world. They were launching rockets with cosmonauts into space not that long after the devastation they suffered during World War II.

View attachment 887286​

They were the FIRST IN SPACE! That's impressive and to pretend otherwise is simply disingenuous. No other political and economic system can achieve that other than socialism. There's no other system that can industrialize and build a nation as quickly as a socialist, rationally, centrally planned economy.
The Soviet Union, a new nation, was in a state of war, encircled by the most powerful nations in human history, so if it eventually lost the Cold War and dissolved, does that imply that it will never rise again much stronger or that markeless socialism at a national scale as what we saw in the USSR will never be successful in another country? No.

Every single country that has mostly a centrally planned economy without major markets today is under the heel of American economic sanctions and the constant threat of military invasion by the United States. Have you ever factored that into your assessment of the viability of a centrally planned, socialist economy? They're all in a state of war, encircled by the US and its cronies. Hello?

You don't have the ideological luxury of claiming socialism doesn't work when your capitalist, imperialist buddies in Washington are depriving such nations of engaging in international trade and normal diplomatic relations with other countries. No one defies the US embargo on centrally planned, marketless socialism unless they plan to suffer the same fate and lose their economies and perhaps their lives. No one wants to trade with these countries because they get blacklisted, penalized, if not economically and politically sanctioned themselves.

To give you an example. Every single cargo ship that ports in Cuba can't anchor in American ports, anywhere, be it in the lower 48 or Alaska, Hawai, Guam the US Virgin Islands, or Puerto Rico. etc, for six months. Your expensive cargo ship is barred from The Empire for 180 days. Who the hell wants to port in Cuba? No one. If you have a bank and you give Cuba a loan, you will get audited by the US and most likely fined. They'll find some violation, somewhere, or they'll conjure it up from their magical hat. What international banks want to open a line of credit with the Cuban government or Cuban companies? None.

Despite this, Cuba survives in the shadow of a hostile, capitalist empire, 90 miles from its shores.

The US owns and controls the world's reserve currency and its banking institutions, hence no one resists The Empire. Whatever its demands, the world cowers.

Why are the American wealthy elites so afraid that they have to lobby Washington so hard, to continue punishing little marketless, socialist nations like Cuba? The market-socialist nations or mixed economies of the world (Western Europe is mostly a mixed economy), don't have much to worry about from the United States provided they continue serving American foreign policy. But the mostly non-profit, marketless economies, or true socialist-Marxist-run countries, have everything to worry about. AND YET THEY SURVIVE. Hello? The resilience and power of socialism.

In your fantasy world, do economic and political systems replace others overnight? Did capitalism replace chattel slavery and feudalism, in one single swoop of the sword? It took centuries for the mercantile class to replace the royal aristocracy of Europe as the dominant, ruling class. It wouldn't occur until technology permitted the merchants to become the powerful industrialists of the 19th century. That's when capitalism and its republicanism, took hold in the world. For centuries the royals and their nobles laughed at the prospect of a bunch of merchant traders replacing them and eventually that's what happened.

Now with the advent of advanced automation, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, we are entering into the socialist age. When production becomes so advanced that human input is reduced to a minimum, due to intelligent automation, that's the end of capitalism.

If a powerful computer can do all of the accounting and with onsite sensors can collect data and then control all of the robots and self-driving vehicles, all of the machinery, essentially automating the process of production with all of its logistics, that's the end of capitalism and the beginning of the socialist age. You can pout, huff, and puff, have your tantrum, and thumb down all of my posts, but nonetheless, if you're smart, you know this is true. You're suffering from a bad case of cognitive dissonance hence your inability to admit it openly and come to terms with it. Socialism is the natural successor of capitalism, due to technology, it's that simple. The alternative is techno-feudalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2aH9tu4s30​

Replying to you is tedious. You spew non stop left wing talking points about the wonders of Communism to the point where it's a chore to respond to them all...but I will!

First of all America is a Constitutional Republic...not a democracy!

Once again you make the ludicrous claim that the Soviet Union wasn't a communist country because Socialist is in their name! Please stop with that nonsense. They WERE a communist country! Everyone KNOWS they were a communist country!

Then you blame the short comings of communism on outside forces. How many millions were killed by their own government in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and Cambodia under communist regimes? The range of that has been estimated to be anywhere from 20 million to 148 million.

The Soviet Union had relative peace in the 1930's, Christian? Gee was that when they were signing a nonaggression pact with Germany and invading Poland? Or was it when they were invading Finland? Or annexing the Baltic States and parts of Romania? Your efforts to paint the Soviets as "victims" is laughable! Would you like me to list ALL of the nations that the Soviets invaded?

 

[pknopp]

Apparently no one. But then, it’s irrelevant to this discussion because we’re talking about taxing the rich and capitalism as an economic system.

I'm discussing why the rich should be on the hook for a larger portion of the $34 trillion debt. I'm not interested in economic theories.

And? Again, we’re talking about taxing the rich. I’m not in favor of the wealthy getting bailouts and whatnot but neither do I think they should be taxed at a higher rate just for being rich.

But that's irrelevant as they have already been bailed out and we are in a massive debt.

So? The government giving special concessions to corporations and taxing the rich simply for making more money are two different things.

You seem to want to punish the rich for being rich because a few of the rich take advantage of government concessions.

The government granting privileges to the rich is a flaw in the government’s manner of treating the rich, not the fault of the rich.

It needs paid for now.

So no one’s practicing capitalism but you want to do away with capitalism?'

I never argued that. One cant get rid of something that doesn't exist.

Nowhere.

Are you under the impression that I support these things?

People succeeding is a theory?

Irrelevant. These things happened.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Replying to you is tedious. You spew non stop left wing talking points about the wonders of Communism to the point where it's a chore to respond to them all...but I will!

First of all America is a Constitutional Republic...not a democracy!

Once again you make the ludicrous claim that the Soviet Union wasn't a communist country because Socialist is in their name! Please stop with that nonsense. They WERE a communist country! Everyone KNOWS they were a communist country!

Then you blame the short comings of communism on outside forces. How many millions were killed by their own government in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and Cambodia under communist regimes? The range of that has been estimated to be anywhere from 20 million to 148 million.

The Soviet Union had relative peace in the 1930's, Christian? Gee was that when they were signing a nonaggression pact with Germany and invading Poland? Or was it when they were invading Finland? Or annexing the Baltic States and parts of Romania? Your efforts to paint the Soviets as "victims" is laughable! Would you like me to list ALL of the nations that the Soviets invaded?

Replying to you is tedious. You spew non stop left wing talking points..............

No easy way out if you debate me.

You're "spewing nonstop" right-wing, Cold War propaganda talking points. I can stick whatever label I want on your "talking points" and you can do the same to mine, but labels don't invalidate or refute your opponent's position, so why don't you give the labeling a rest and just address my points with some relevant facts and reasonable, consistent arguments. Try it.

....about the wonders of Communism to the point where it's a chore to respond to them all...but I will!

Great....

First of all America is a Constitutional Republic...not a democracy!

The United States can be accurately described as a democratic constitutional republic. It incorporates principles of democracy (such as elections and majority rule) and republicanism (such as the rule of law and constitutional governance). So your objection is silly if not moot.


Once again you make the ludicrous claim that the Soviet Union wasn't a communist country because Socialist is in their name!

I didn't say the USSR wasn't a communist country because the word "socialist" is in its name, you're the one saying that, resorting to a strawman argument. What I did say is that communism according to Karl Marx, Engels, and Lenin himself, the founder of the Soviet Russian Revolution, along with practically all scholarship, define Marxist communism as a society without a state, socioeconomic classes or the need for money.

The USSR had a state, it's debatable whether it had some type of a socioeconomic hierarchy and it certainly had a national currency, hence based on these facts, it's clear that the USSR wasn't communist, but rather a nation with a marketless, centrally planned, socialist economy in the long process of becoming a truly communist society. If you're unable or unwilling to accept the reality that the Soviet Union wasn't actually communist, that's fine, continue with your delusions.

We socialists, identify ourselves as communists, not because we have a "communist state" but because communism is the objective of our socialism. It's the final stop on the train, and we're nowhere near the last stop. We are socialists, en route to communism, and that's what the USSR was. A socialist republic en route or on the way to communism.

Please stop with that nonsense. They WERE a communist country! Everyone KNOWS they were a communist country!

Actually no they weren't, but rather a socialist country on the way to communism. You can call the people communists, sure, but the Soviet system in practice and name wasn't communist, due to having a state and a national currency. They were socialists just as their name says, who identified with communism as their end goal.

Then you blame the short comings of communism on outside forces.

Is that inconvenient for you? The facts sometimes don't align with your simplistic capitalist one-way street critique of socialism, which ignores historical facts or the conditions that centrally planned socialism has been forced to endure by capitalist powers (i.e. "outside forces"). It completely undermines your claims that socialism fails because it's inadequate, which couldn't be further from the truth given the facts that you conveniently ignore.

How many millions were killed by their own government in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and Cambodia under communist regimes? The range of that has been estimated to be anywhere from 20 million to 148 million.

I was waiting for the silly, hypocritical body count arguments, I'm surprised you waited this long to fire it at me. Do you really believe as a defender of capitalist-imperialism that you have the moral high ground upon which to stand and point your finger at communists for killing people? Do you realize how many people have been killed in the name of capitalist imperialism? Tens of millions, so save it. Give it a rest.

I do commend you for at least admitting that the figures vary anywhere from 20 million to 150 million (I'll be generous and round it off at 150M, giving you an extra two million dead to criticize us for). Wars are deadly, people die. Look at the attitude of capitalist Zionists in their present mass bombardment of women and children, including newborn infants, in Gaza.

Again, spare me and everyone else your crocodile tears about communist body counts, because you have your own mountain of dead, rotting corpses under your feet to explain.

The Soviet Union had relative peace in the 1930's, Christian? Gee was that when they were signing a nonaggression pact with Germany and invading Poland? Or was it when they were invading Finland? Or annexing the Baltic States and parts of Romania?

You're referring to events that occurred in 1939, so what I said stands perfectly. The 1930s were relatively peaceful for the USSR compared to the years of its founding and the 1920s. Poland, Romania, and other states allied themselves with Western powers and attacked Soviet Russia after WW1, so they weren't exactly on the best of terms.

Stalin made a pact with Nazi Germany to avoid being invaded. Any wise leader in Stalin's position would've done the same thing if given the opportunity. It's called "survival", look it up in the dictionary.

Your efforts to paint the Soviets as "victims" are laughable! Would you like me to list ALL of the nations that the Soviets invaded?

Go ahead. However, you're missing the point of why I mentioned the fact that Soviet Russia was invaded by Western powers, from its inception, a few months after its birthday in 1917. The fact that the USSR was forced by its powerful capitalist enemies to constantly defend itself, it didn't have the luxury to become more democratic or develop its economy to the extent it could've, so your claim that Soviet socialism didn't work is disingenuous, given everything the Soviets accomplished.

The US in practically all of its emergencies and wars has also imposed fewer democratic laws and has behaved in a more heavy-handed way than usual. That's just natural given the dangerous circumstances of a crisis.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I didn’t ignore them, I disagreed with them.


I’m one of those workers.


It’s not a question of should/shouldn’t, it’s a question of choice.

If a group of people get together and want to start a business where everyone manages and makes the decisions, by all means, have at it. But requiring businesses to operate this way would be wrong and unconstitutional.


I don’t think any capitalist thinks they can manage the business and do every job on the production line at the same time. They know they can’t which is why they pay people to do the work.


That’s fine for those who choose it but again, requiring it is simply not right.

I don’t like all the automation either but that is their right as Americans.

I didn’t ignore them, I disagreed with them.

You didn't address most of them.


I’m one of those workers.

You're a waged worker? What is the working class and capitalism in general, going to do when advanced automation eliminates waged work?


It’s not a question of should/shouldn’t, it’s a question of choice. If a group of people get together and want to start a business where everyone manages and makes the decisions, by all means, have at it.

Try applying for an SBA loan or for a loan at your local bank to start a worker-owned cooperative. Good luck! Practically impossible. The system is rigged against workers owning the means of production. Private business owners or capitalists see labor cooperatives as a threat and hence push for laws that make them difficult, if not impossible to launch.


But requiring businesses to operate this way would be wrong and unconstitutional.

I agree, it would be unconstitutional under our current system. I'm not for forcing people to turn their privately owned and operated businesses into worker-owned and run co-ops, although, in principle and practice, I believe the people who work a business should own and operate it together. I consider mass production a social project and endeavor requiring many people, hence people, not one individual should own the productive enterprise.

Eventually, in the not-too-distant future, production will be forced by necessity to adopt a non-profit, more centrally planned system of production. Socialists aren't going to have to fire a shot, it will happen due to the circumstances created by advanced, intelligent automation.


I don’t think any capitalist thinks they can manage the business and do every job on the production line at the same time. They know they can’t which is why they pay people to do the work.

When you sell your labor power to a capitalist, you're selling yourself. Under a capitalist system, you have to sell your presence, and power, placing yourself in the position of the product that is being sold. Capitalism commodifies people, turning them into products in a "labor market" for capitalist consumption. There are no elections at work, you're at the whim of your employer/exploiter. The system which commodifies human beings this way under an authoritarian, profit-based system, is what leads to much of the suffering in the world.


That’s fine for those who choose it but again, requiring it is simply not right.

I agree, that socialism should happen gradually and as organically, naturally as possible. Advanced technology pushes society into the lap of socialism, there's no need to force anyone to accept it. At the right time, people will adopt it.

I don’t like all the automation either but that is their right as Americans.

Production-Automation in a modern, capitalist economy is necessary, or you'll go out of business. Your competitors will automate and leave you behind in the dust.

 

[Oldestyle]

Replying to you is tedious. You spew non stop left wing talking points..............

No easy way out if you debate me.

You're "spewing nonstop" right-wing, Cold War propaganda talking points. I can stick whatever label I want on your "talking points" and you can do the same to mine, but labels don't invalidate or refute your opponent's position, so why don't you give the labeling a rest and just address my points with some relevant facts and reasonable, consistent arguments. Try it.

....about the wonders of Communism to the point where it's a chore to respond to them all...but I will!

Great....

First of all America is a Constitutional Republic...not a democracy!

The United States can be accurately described as a democratic constitutional republic. It incorporates principles of democracy (such as elections and majority rule) and republicanism (such as the rule of law and constitutional governance). So your objection is silly if not moot.


Once again you make the ludicrous claim that the Soviet Union wasn't a communist country because Socialist is in their name!

I didn't say the USSR wasn't a communist country because the word "socialist" is in its name, you're the one saying that, resorting to a strawman argument. What I did say is that communism according to Karl Marx, Engels, and Lenin himself, the founder of the Soviet Russian Revolution, along with practically all scholarship, define Marxist communism as a society without a state, socioeconomic classes or the need for money.

The USSR had a state, it's debatable whether it had some type of a socioeconomic hierarchy and it certainly had a national currency, hence based on these facts, it's clear that the USSR wasn't communist, but rather a nation with a marketless, centrally planned, socialist economy in the long process of becoming a truly communist society. If you're unable or unwilling to accept the reality that the Soviet Union wasn't actually communist, that's fine, continue with your delusions.

We socialists, identify ourselves as communists, not because we have a "communist state" but because communism is the objective of our socialism. It's the final stop on the train, and we're nowhere near the last stop. We are socialists, en route to communism, and that's what the USSR was. A socialist republic en route or on the way to communism.

Please stop with that nonsense. They WERE a communist country! Everyone KNOWS they were a communist country!

Actually no they weren't, but rather a socialist country on the way to communism. You can call the people communists, sure, but the Soviet system in practice and name wasn't communist, due to having a state and a national currency. They were socialists just as their name says, who identified with communism as their end goal.

Then you blame the short comings of communism on outside forces.

Is that inconvenient for you? The facts sometimes don't align with your simplistic capitalist one-way street critique of socialism, which ignores historical facts or the conditions that centrally planned socialism has been forced to endure by capitalist powers (i.e. "outside forces"). It completely undermines your claims that socialism fails because it's inadequate, which couldn't be further from the truth given the facts that you conveniently ignore.

How many millions were killed by their own government in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and Cambodia under communist regimes? The range of that has been estimated to be anywhere from 20 million to 148 million.

I was waiting for the silly, hypocritical body count arguments, I'm surprised you waited this long to fire it at me. Do you really believe as a defender of capitalist-imperialism that you have the moral high ground upon which to stand and point your finger at communists for killing people? Do you realize how many people have been killed in the name of capitalist imperialism? Tens of millions, so save it. Give it a rest.

I do commend you for at least admitting that the figures vary anywhere from 20 million to 150 million (I'll be generous and round it off at 150M, giving you an extra two million dead to criticize us for). Wars are deadly, people die. Look at the attitude of capitalist Zionists in their present mass bombardment of women and children, including newborn infants, in Gaza.

Again, spare me and everyone else your crocodile tears about communist body counts, because you have your own mountain of dead, rotting corpses under your feet to explain.

The Soviet Union had relative peace in the 1930's, Christian? Gee was that when they were signing a nonaggression pact with Germany and invading Poland? Or was it when they were invading Finland? Or annexing the Baltic States and parts of Romania?

You're referring to events that occurred in 1939, so what I said stands perfectly. The 1930s were relatively peaceful for the USSR compared to the years of its founding and the 1920s. Poland, Romania, and other states allied themselves with Western powers and attacked Soviet Russia after WW1, so they weren't exactly on the best of terms.

Stalin made a pact with Nazi Germany to avoid being invaded. Any wise leader in Stalin's position would've done the same thing if given the opportunity. It's called "survival", look it up in the dictionary.

Your efforts to paint the Soviets as "victims" are laughable! Would you like me to list ALL of the nations that the Soviets invaded?

Go ahead. However, you're missing the point of why I mentioned the fact that Soviet Russia was invaded by Western powers, from its inception, a few months after its birthday in 1917. The fact that the USSR was forced by its powerful capitalist enemies to constantly defend itself, it didn't have the luxury to become more democratic or develop its economy to the extent it could've, so your claim that Soviet socialism didn't work is disingenuous, given everything the Soviets accomplished.

The US in practically all of its emergencies and wars has also imposed fewer democratic laws and has behaved in a more heavy-handed way than usual. That's just natural given the dangerous circumstances of a crisis.

No, the United States can be accurately described as a Constitutional Republic because that is what it is! You throw Democratic in front of what it is in a vain attempt not to lose that point of our debate!

Then you go on to describe your "train" that is taking us from Capitalism...to Socialism...and finally to the "promised land" of Communism! I studied Marx and Engels in college. Marx bases his theories on workers being taken advantage of by the Bourgeois...who exploit labor to deprive those workers of profits that should rightfully belong to them. His theories to be quite blunt don't hold up to even a casual examination of the relationship between labor and ownership in a Capitalistic economic system. Workers are not slaves...they have the ability to take their skills to other jobs if they are mistreated by owners. They also have the ability to start their own business with those aquired skills...something that happens literally every day. Owners compete with other owners to keep skilled labor. Competition that is an integral part of the "invisable hand" that exists in a Capitalist economy! Better workers with better skills command higher wages. Innovation and hard work are rewarded. Workers that don't care about their jobs languish. Or they do unless they can form a union that will protect them despite their unwillingness to better themselves. I'm assuming that you were a union man, Christian? I'd be shocked if you weren't.

 

[Oldestyle]

Replying to you is tedious. You spew non stop left wing talking points..............

No easy way out if you debate me.

You're "spewing nonstop" right-wing, Cold War propaganda talking points. I can stick whatever label I want on your "talking points" and you can do the same to mine, but labels don't invalidate or refute your opponent's position, so why don't you give the labeling a rest and just address my points with some relevant facts and reasonable, consistent arguments. Try it.

....about the wonders of Communism to the point where it's a chore to respond to them all...but I will!

Great....

First of all America is a Constitutional Republic...not a democracy!

The United States can be accurately described as a democratic constitutional republic. It incorporates principles of democracy (such as elections and majority rule) and republicanism (such as the rule of law and constitutional governance). So your objection is silly if not moot.


Once again you make the ludicrous claim that the Soviet Union wasn't a communist country because Socialist is in their name!

I didn't say the USSR wasn't a communist country because the word "socialist" is in its name, you're the one saying that, resorting to a strawman argument. What I did say is that communism according to Karl Marx, Engels, and Lenin himself, the founder of the Soviet Russian Revolution, along with practically all scholarship, define Marxist communism as a society without a state, socioeconomic classes or the need for money.

The USSR had a state, it's debatable whether it had some type of a socioeconomic hierarchy and it certainly had a national currency, hence based on these facts, it's clear that the USSR wasn't communist, but rather a nation with a marketless, centrally planned, socialist economy in the long process of becoming a truly communist society. If you're unable or unwilling to accept the reality that the Soviet Union wasn't actually communist, that's fine, continue with your delusions.

We socialists, identify ourselves as communists, not because we have a "communist state" but because communism is the objective of our socialism. It's the final stop on the train, and we're nowhere near the last stop. We are socialists, en route to communism, and that's what the USSR was. A socialist republic en route or on the way to communism.

Please stop with that nonsense. They WERE a communist country! Everyone KNOWS they were a communist country!

Actually no they weren't, but rather a socialist country on the way to communism. You can call the people communists, sure, but the Soviet system in practice and name wasn't communist, due to having a state and a national currency. They were socialists just as their name says, who identified with communism as their end goal.

Then you blame the short comings of communism on outside forces.

Is that inconvenient for you? The facts sometimes don't align with your simplistic capitalist one-way street critique of socialism, which ignores historical facts or the conditions that centrally planned socialism has been forced to endure by capitalist powers (i.e. "outside forces"). It completely undermines your claims that socialism fails because it's inadequate, which couldn't be further from the truth given the facts that you conveniently ignore.

How many millions were killed by their own government in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and Cambodia under communist regimes? The range of that has been estimated to be anywhere from 20 million to 148 million.

I was waiting for the silly, hypocritical body count arguments, I'm surprised you waited this long to fire it at me. Do you really believe as a defender of capitalist-imperialism that you have the moral high ground upon which to stand and point your finger at communists for killing people? Do you realize how many people have been killed in the name of capitalist imperialism? Tens of millions, so save it. Give it a rest.

I do commend you for at least admitting that the figures vary anywhere from 20 million to 150 million (I'll be generous and round it off at 150M, giving you an extra two million dead to criticize us for). Wars are deadly, people die. Look at the attitude of capitalist Zionists in their present mass bombardment of women and children, including newborn infants, in Gaza.

Again, spare me and everyone else your crocodile tears about communist body counts, because you have your own mountain of dead, rotting corpses under your feet to explain.

The Soviet Union had relative peace in the 1930's, Christian? Gee was that when they were signing a nonaggression pact with Germany and invading Poland? Or was it when they were invading Finland? Or annexing the Baltic States and parts of Romania?

You're referring to events that occurred in 1939, so what I said stands perfectly. The 1930s were relatively peaceful for the USSR compared to the years of its founding and the 1920s. Poland, Romania, and other states allied themselves with Western powers and attacked Soviet Russia after WW1, so they weren't exactly on the best of terms.

Stalin made a pact with Nazi Germany to avoid being invaded. Any wise leader in Stalin's position would've done the same thing if given the opportunity. It's called "survival", look it up in the dictionary.

Your efforts to paint the Soviets as "victims" are laughable! Would you like me to list ALL of the nations that the Soviets invaded?

Go ahead. However, you're missing the point of why I mentioned the fact that Soviet Russia was invaded by Western powers, from its inception, a few months after its birthday in 1917. The fact that the USSR was forced by its powerful capitalist enemies to constantly defend itself, it didn't have the luxury to become more democratic or develop its economy to the extent it could've, so your claim that Soviet socialism didn't work is disingenuous, given everything the Soviets accomplished.

The US in practically all of its emergencies and wars has also imposed fewer democratic laws and has behaved in a more heavy-handed way than usual. That's just natural given the dangerous circumstances of a crisis.

No, the United States can be accurately described as a Constitutional Republic because that is what it is! You throw Democratic in front of what it is in a vain attempt not to lose that point of our debate!

Then you go on to describe your "train" that is taking us from Capitalism...to Socialism...and finally to the "promised land" of Communism! I studied Marx and Engels in college. Marx bases his theories on workers being taken advantage of by the Bourgeois...who exploit labor to deprive those workers of profits that should rightfully belong to them. His theories to be quite blunt don't hold up to even a casual examination of the relationship between labor and ownership in a Capitalistic economic system. Workers are not slaves...they have the ability to take their skills to other jobs if they are mistreated by owners. They also have the ability to start their own business with those aquired skills...something that happens literally every day. Owners compete with other owners to keep skilled labor. Competition that is an integral part of the "invisable hand" that exists in a Capitalist economy! Better workers with better skills command higher wages. Innovation and hard work are rewarded. Workers that don't care about their jobs languish. Or they do unless they can form a union that will protect them despite their unwillingness to better themselves. I'm assuming that you were a union man, Christian? I'd be shocked if you weren't.

I didn’t ignore them, I disagreed with them.

You didn't address most of them.


I’m one of those workers.

You're a waged worker? What is the working class and capitalism in general, going to do when advanced automation eliminates waged work?


It’s not a question of should/shouldn’t, it’s a question of choice. If a group of people get together and want to start a business where everyone manages and makes the decisions, by all means, have at it.

Try applying for an SBA loan or for a loan at your local bank to start a worker-owned cooperative. Good luck! Practically impossible. The system is rigged against workers owning the means of production. Private business owners or capitalists see labor cooperatives as a threat and hence push for laws that make them difficult, if not impossible to launch.


But requiring businesses to operate this way would be wrong and unconstitutional.

I agree, it would be unconstitutional under our current system. I'm not for forcing people to turn their privately owned and operated businesses into worker-owned and run co-ops, although, in principle and practice, I believe the people who work a business should own and operate it together. I consider mass production a social project and endeavor requiring many people, hence people, not one individual should own the productive enterprise.

Eventually, in the not-too-distant future, production will be forced by necessity to adopt a non-profit, more centrally planned system of production. Socialists aren't going to have to fire a shot, it will happen due to the circumstances created by advanced, intelligent automation.


I don’t think any capitalist thinks they can manage the business and do every job on the production line at the same time. They know they can’t which is why they pay people to do the work.

When you sell your labor power to a capitalist, you're selling yourself. Under a capitalist system, you have to sell your presence, and power, placing yourself in the position of the product that is being sold. Capitalism commodifies people, turning them into products in a "labor market" for capitalist consumption. There are no elections at work, you're at the whim of your employer/exploiter. The system which commodifies human beings this way under an authoritarian, profit-based system, is what leads to much of the suffering in the world.


That’s fine for those who choose it but again, requiring it is simply not right.

I agree, that socialism should happen gradually and as organically, naturally as possible. Advanced technology pushes society into the lap of socialism, there's no need to force anyone to accept it. At the right time, people will adopt it.

I don’t like all the automation either but that is their right as Americans.

Production-Automation in a modern, capitalist economy is necessary, or you'll go out of business. Your competitors will automate and leave you behind in the dust.

And the stark difference between the millions that have been killed by Communist governments and the millions that have died at the hands of Capitalist governments is that Stalin, Mao, Castro and Pol Pot killed their OWN!

 

[TruthNotBS]

No, the United States can be accurately described as a Constitutional Republic because that is what it is! You throw Democratic in front of what it is in a vain attempt not to lose that point of our debate!

Then you go on to describe your "train" that is taking us from Capitalism...to Socialism...and finally to the "promised land" of Communism! I studied Marx and Engels in college. Marx bases his theories on workers being taken advantage of by the Bourgeois...who exploit labor to deprive those workers of profits that should rightfully belong to them. His theories to be quite blunt don't hold up to even a casual examination of the relationship between labor and ownership in a Capitalistic economic system. Workers are not slaves...they have the ability to take their skills to other jobs if they are mistreated by owners. They also have the ability to start their own business with those aquired skills...something that happens literally every day. Owners compete with other owners to keep skilled labor. Competition that is an integral part of the "invisable hand" that exists in a Capitalist economy! Better workers with better skills command higher wages. Innovation and hard work are rewarded. Workers that don't care about their jobs languish. Or they do unless they can form a union that will protect them despite their unwillingness to better themselves. I'm assuming that you were a union man, Christian? I'd be shocked if you weren't.

And the stark difference between the millions that have been killed by Communist governments and the millions that have died at the hands of Capitalist governments is that Stalin, Mao, Castro and Pol Pot killed their OWN!

1. On the U.S. as a Democracy and a Republic:
   
   • A republic refers to a system where public affairs are not the private concern of rulers, and a democracy indicates a system where the government is elected by the people. The U.S. fulfills both criteria: it has a government elected by the people (democracy) and the head of state is not a monarch (republic). Therefore, the term 'democratic constitutional republic' accurately describes the U.S. political system. Practically all political scientists agree with me on this issue, none with you, so I'm in good company.
2. On the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism and Communism:
   
   • The progression from capitalism to socialism and eventually to communism is a core aspect of Marxist theory. This transition is viewed not as an abrupt change but as an evolutionary process, driven by the inherent contradictions and class struggles within the capitalist system.
   • For example, the inherent contradiction in capitalism of capitalists making production more efficient in pursuit of profits eventually makes production so simple, quick, and cheap, that it no longer requires as many human laborers as before, if any at all. This leads to a reduction in the size of the marketplace, due to fewer people earning a wage and making purchases. Eventually, this contradiction becomes so destructive, that it needs another government intervention, or "bailout" lest the whole financial system collapse.
3. On Marx’s Critique of Capitalism:
   
   • Marx's critique of capitalism is rooted in the concept of surplus value and the exploitation of labor. It's not merely about workers being taken advantage of but about how the capitalist mode of production inherently leads to the exploitation of labor, where the value produced by workers is greater than the wages they receive. This exploitation is systemic and not just a matter of individual relationships between workers and owners.
   • The ability of workers to change jobs or start their own businesses does not negate the existence of exploitation within the capitalist system. Marx’s critique goes beyond individual cases of mistreatment and addresses systemic issues where the working class, despite having labor mobility, remains within a system where their labor is exploited for profit.
   • Marxian economics offers a deep, structural analysis of capitalist economies, focusing on how the dynamics of capital accumulation, class struggle, and economic crises are inherent in capitalism.
4. On the Role of Unions and Worker Rights:
   
   • Unions play a crucial role in protecting workers' rights and addressing the power imbalance between workers and employers. The formation of unions is not about protecting workers who are unwilling to better themselves but about collective bargaining to ensure fair wages, safe working conditions, and reasonable working hours. This collective action is essential in a system where individual workers often have limited power against large employers.
   • The argument that better workers with better skills command higher wages oversimplifies the labor market dynamics. It disregards systemic issues like unequal access to education, discrimination, and the influence of non-meritocratic factors in wage determination.

​

 

[Oldestyle]

1. On the U.S. as a Democracy and a Republic:
   
   • A republic refers to a system where public affairs are not the private concern of rulers, and a democracy indicates a system where the government is elected by the people. The U.S. fulfills both criteria: it has a government elected by the people (democracy) and the head of state is not a monarch (republic). Therefore, the term 'democratic constitutional republic' accurately describes the U.S. political system. Practically all political scientists agree with me on this issue, none with you, so I'm in good company.
2. On the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism and Communism:
   
   • The progression from capitalism to socialism and eventually to communism is a core aspect of Marxist theory. This transition is viewed not as an abrupt change but as an evolutionary process, driven by the inherent contradictions and class struggles within the capitalist system.
   • For example, the inherent contradiction in capitalism of capitalists making production more efficient in pursuit of profits eventually makes production so simple, quick, and cheap, that it no longer requires as many human laborers as before, if any at all. This leads to a reduction in the size of the marketplace, due to fewer people earning a wage and making purchases. Eventually, this contradiction becomes so destructive, that it needs another government intervention, or "bailout" lest the whole financial system collapse.
3. On Marx’s Critique of Capitalism:
   
   • Marx's critique of capitalism is rooted in the concept of surplus value and the exploitation of labor. It's not merely about workers being taken advantage of but about how the capitalist mode of production inherently leads to the exploitation of labor, where the value produced by workers is greater than the wages they receive. This exploitation is systemic and not just a matter of individual relationships between workers and owners.
   • The ability of workers to change jobs or start their own businesses does not negate the existence of exploitation within the capitalist system. Marx’s critique goes beyond individual cases of mistreatment and addresses systemic issues where the working class, despite having labor mobility, remains within a system where their labor is exploited for profit.
   • Marxian economics offers a deep, structural analysis of capitalist economies, focusing on how the dynamics of capital accumulation, class struggle, and economic crises are inherent in capitalism.
4. On the Role of Unions and Worker Rights:
   
   • Unions play a crucial role in protecting workers' rights and addressing the power imbalance between workers and employers. The formation of unions is not about protecting workers who are unwilling to better themselves but about collective bargaining to ensure fair wages, safe working conditions, and reasonable working hours. This collective action is essential in a system where individual workers often have limited power against large employers.
   • The argument that better workers with better skills command higher wages oversimplifies the labor market dynamics. It disregards systemic issues like unequal access to education, discrimination, and the influence of non-meritocratic factors in wage determination.

​

I'm curious, Christian. Do you ever have an original thought? Or is the best that you can do is to cut and paste the propaganda that you obviously believe in whole heartedly?

There was a time when unions were about protecting workers. Is that really the case now? Or have we reached the point where unions are more about protecting the political power of union leadership and the perks that come with that? The fastest growing sector of unions these days is in the public sector...a sector where workers are already "protected" to the point where it's extremely hard to get rid of Government workers who do shoddy work!

 

[beagle9]

I'm curious, Christian. Do you ever have an original thought? Or is the best that you can do is to cut and paste the propaganda that you obviously believe in whole heartedly?

There was a time when unions were about protecting workers. Is that really the case now? Or have we reached the point where unions are more about protecting the political power of union leadership and the perks that come with that? The fastest growing sector of unions these days is in the public sector...a sector where workers are already "protected" to the point where it's extremely hard to get rid of Government workers who do shoddy work!

The biggest problem I see with Christianman, is that he is promoting an unChristian thing, so he is definitely suspect to a high degree as to what he truly represents... Example - I watched as a street preacher was approached by demon's at a rally, and they of course knew the Bible just as good as he did, but they studied it for nefarious reasons in order to try and confuse the message by attempting to interject their own interpretation of it for nefarious reasons. The preacher was not persuaded by any of it, and therefore countered their attempts with the true interpretation of the word and of the truth.

Beware of devil's speaking in ways that attempt to ride a line that is parallel to the truth, but is revealed as a lie once the two lines collide.

We see this more and more these days.

Put on the armor of God, because it is that we as American Christians are fighting for truth today.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm not referring to that but to a transactional or trade tax for speculative trading. You're the one "over your head" apparently.

So...you want to de facto ban retirement savings. Thanks a fuckload!

I'm answering two of your posts here...

Only working-class people should work, not the wealthy who own them for eight, or twelve hours + daily, right? When the working class receives public goods and services from the government, they're being lazy and don't want to work. When the rich get public services in the form of bailouts, plenty of yearly subsidies, "rewards", guaranteed contracts (without even having to bid for them), perks, and benefits, it's just normal, hey why not? On top of that, they have their cronies in government passing laws that serve their vested interests at the expense of the public. We live in a plutocracy (Rule of The Big Money), not a democracy (Rule Of The People).
(Six-pages of bullshit and images deleted.)

Stop listening to those voices in your head.

 

[JWBooth]

 

[Libby von H]

Clearly countries with the most confiscatory taw rates are the world's most prosperous, just like, er, um, well, hmmmm, lemme see,

The wealthy is always "those who make more than I do"
In the same way the stupid are "Those not as smart as me"


The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Only last year,[ 2018 ] French president Emmanuel Macron killed it..

 

[TruthNotBS]

I'm curious, Christian. Do you ever have an original thought? Or is the best that you can do is to cut and paste the propaganda that you obviously believe in whole heartedly?

There was a time when unions were about protecting workers. Is that really the case now? Or have we reached the point where unions are more about protecting the political power of union leadership and the perks that come with that? The fastest growing sector of unions these days is in the public sector...a sector where workers are already "protected" to the point where it's extremely hard to get rid of Government workers who do shoddy work!

I'm curious, Christian. Do you ever have an original thought? Or is the best that you can do is to cut and paste the propaganda that you obviously believe in wholeheartedly?

Read your statement out loud while recording it then play it back to yourself a few hundred times.

There was a time when unions were about protecting workers. Is that really the case now?

Yes,

Or have we reached the point where unions are more about protecting the political power of union leadership and the perks that come with that?

No. You're just conveniently emphasizing the negative possibilities of some unions, and ignoring the many benefits of practically all of them. I speak from experience as a CNC machinist and coder, if it wasn't for my membership in the union I would've made about 1/3rd less throughout my career and I wouldn't have even half of the benefits that I enjoy now.

The few workers that I know who work for the companies that I am sometimes contracted out to who aren't unionized make less than me and have little benefits if any. Read what the father of capitalism, Adam Smith, had to say about unions:

What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine (to unionize) in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine (the masters/employers/capitalists also "combine"/unionize with their chambers of commerce, industry organizations, guilds, super-PACs, with their army of lobbyists, think tanks, cronies in government..etc) much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. (Wealth of Nations: Book I, Chapter VIII)

EMPHASIS MINE

At the end of the quote above Smith states that the law or government, "prohibits" the "combinations" (i.e. unions) of labor, while allowing the unions or organizations of masters (i.e. capitalists). Scholars are divided as to whether he means that the government outright criminalizes labor unions or that creates conditions that make them difficult to organize and sustain, being that without government-protected rights, workers can't unionize effectively.

Smith the father of industrial, modern capitalism, admits that masters (i.e. employers/capitalists), and their employees have different interests, and when it comes to one having the upper hand over the other in negotiating their terms of employment, the masters possess the increased leverage and power, not the employees, hence it behooves workers to unionize.

Are you a capitalist master? You sound like one, not a worker. Either you're a capitalist or you're one of their brainwashed peasants who associate and identify with the upper class rather than with the working class. Sometimes management, which is still part of the working class, identifies more with their employers than with their fellow workers. They see themselves as being part of a superior class of workers closer in proximity to their master/s when it comes to their interests than their subordinates. That's also one of the reasons workers need labor unions, in order to protect them against people like yourself who will betray them in a labor dispute.

The fastest-growing sector of unions these days is in the public sector


Let's assume you're correct, so what? Labor is labor, whether it's working for a capitalist or the state.


...a sector where workers are already "protected" to the point where it's extremely hard to get rid of Government workers who do shoddy work!

Not necessarily, that depends. You're just parroting your silly capitalist rhetoric against government workers, advancing the canard that government workers are inferior to workers in the private sector. Are you suggesting that our men and women in uniform, both in the military and law enforcement are less than mercenaries, who are contracted by a for-profit company to do the same type of job?

Your views are always stupid. Everything that comes out of your right-wing Republican keyboard amounts to a pile of shit. The only reason I respond to your posts is for the sake of others who might be sincerely searching for the truth on these matters.

 

[TruthNotBS]

View attachment 887753

I agree, replace it with a sales tax for certain products and services. The role of taxes in a fiat currency monetary system is to control inflation and maintain the value of the dollar. Taxing capitalists on their transactions, along with the consumer, would be more effective than sending IRS agents out to collect an income tax. When you buy a car, just pay an extra 10% retail tax, but when you purchase the basics like food, residential rent, and utilities (electric, gas, water..), you pay nothing in taxes. Only taxes for luxury items, speculative trading, electronics..etc, not the basics someone needs to survive (food, housing, utilities).

 

[BrokeLoser]

The only reason I respond to your posts is for the sake of others who might be sincerely searching for the truth on these matters.

The real “truth on these matters” is that you commie-lite socialist beggars believe your Father Government should hold your hand and walk you through life while productive folks believe they are in command of their own life trajectory…just the way the founders intended.

 

[pknopp]

The real “truth on these matters” is that you commie-lite socialist beggars believe your Father Government should hold your hand and walk you through life while productive folks believe they are in command of their own life trajectory…just the way the founders intended.

We didn't pump trillions and trillions into the markets and provide private business with billions in taxpayer dollars (largely debt) because people are in full control of their life trajectory.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The real “truth on these matters” is that you commie-lite socialist beggars believe your Father Government should hold your hand and walk you through life while productive folks believe they are in command of their own life trajectory…just the way the founders intended.

You're a capitalist leech who wants workers working and slaving for you, hence when workers assert their interests and rights you maliciously slander them as wanting to live off of the government that they created to protect their rights against people like you. You're butt hurt that you can't exploit well-informed workers who protect their own interests, just like you do as a capitalist. Capitalists have no reservations about protecting their interests vs workers, but when workers turn around and do the same, they start bitching like babies.

 

[Nostra]

I'm answering two of your posts here...

Only working-class people should work, not the wealthy who own them for eight, or twelve hours + daily, right? When the working class receives public goods and services from the government, they're being lazy and don't want to work. When the rich get public services in the form of bailouts, plenty of yearly subsidies, "rewards", guaranteed contracts (without even having to bid for them), perks, and benefits, it's just normal, hey why not? On top of that, they have their cronies in government passing laws that serve their vested interests at the expense of the public. We live in a plutocracy (Rule of The Big Money), not a democracy (Rule Of The People).

View attachment 887241​

Stop pretending America is a democracy, we just have the illusion of it and you've fallen for it. How many people die in this country due to a lack of public services that are taken for granted in other modern, industrialized nations? Scores, hundreds of thousands yearly, yet you're clueless. How many Americans die annually due to not being able to afford regular checkups or being overwhelmed with medical bills and unable to support themselves as a result?

My stepfather twelve years ago almost died, when he was in his late 50s due to medical bills and not getting the healthcare coverage he needed from his private health insurance. He had to file for bankruptcy and apply for SSD and Medicaid.

As far as what you said about communism. FIrst of all, the USSR wasn't communist, it was socialist.

USSR = UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
​

Do you see the word "communist" there anywhere? Lenin and Stalin never used the word "communist" to describe the economy of the USSR, but rather SOCIALIST. Communism as defined by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and practically all well-informed academics, is a society without a state, socioeconomic classes, or the need for money. So for you to use the term "Communist State" is oxymoronic. It can't exist. The only reason socialists like me sometimes identify ourselves as communists, is because communism is the objective of socialism. It's where we're heading, not where we are.

Communism ".... 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]

Note: We communists, make a distinction between private and personal property. Your house, car, computer, smartphone, toothbrush, and Fruit Of The Looms, are your personal property. Any property used to make a monetary profit, especially if it can be used to exploit other human beings, is considered private property.

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The State and Revolution — Chapter 5

The State and Revolution: Chapter 5: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State

www.marxists.org

Learn Marxist socialism before criticizing it. At least know what we believe and represent.

View attachment 887245

Young Russian Soldiers 2022​

This is a 2017 poll in Russia about the USSR:

In Russia, nostalgia for Soviet Union and positive feelings about Stalin

Many Russians say the collapse of the Soviet Union has been a bad thing for their country. Nostalgia for the Soviet past also extends to views of Josef Stalin.

www.pewresearch.org

2018:
View attachment 887250

​

You're just parroting the old capitalist Cold War propaganda that you grew up with. A poll was taken in the late 1980s when the Soviet Union was at its worst financially due to all of the "Perestroika" and "Glasnost", that was verified by the UN, showing that 77% of Soviet Citizens were satisfied with their government. Even then, they were mostly pro-USSR and didn't feel "oppressed" or destitute.

Let me ask you, doesn't the US restrict travel to certain countries? Cuba, Venezuela..etc. You can find the list on the US State Department website. Soviet Russia was surrounded by capitalist powers, even to the point of being invaded right after its birthday in 1917 by several empires:

1. 
   United Kingdom: The UK was a leading force in the intervention. British troops were involved in Northern Russia and the Arctic, as well as in the Baltic states and the Black Sea region. The UK also provided significant military supplies and financial support to anti-Bolshevik forces (i.e. White Armies).
2. France: France was another major player, sending troops primarily to the Black Sea region and Northwestern Russia. The French were instrumental in supporting anti-Bolshevik White forces vs the Socialist Bolshevik Red Army.
3. United States: American troops deployed in North Russia (around Archangel) and Siberia. The U.S. aimed to protect military stores and, to a lesser extent, to help the Czechoslovak Legion evacuate.
4. Japan: Japan sent a significant number of troops to Siberia, focusing on Eastern Russia.
5. Italy: Italian troops were primarily deployed in the Black Sea region.
6. Canada: Canadian forces participated as part of the British Empire's contribution, particularly in Northern Russia.
7. Australia: Australia, also part of the British Empire, contributed a smaller contingent of troops, mainly serving under British command.
8. Greece: Greek forces, under French command, participated in the Crimea campaign in 1919. This involvement was part of Greece's broader post-World War I foreign policy objectives.

And several other countries, like Serbia, Romania..etc. Over 200 thousand troops in all, not counting the Russian Tsarist, pro-capitalist "White Armies", which numbered about another quarter million troops. That's what the Soviets had to deal with from the very beginning. Throughout its history, it only had relative peace in the 1930s, until it was invaded by four million Nazi Germans in 1941, resulting in the death of approximately 28 million of its citizens. We never hear about that holocaust, just the Jewish one. Nine million Red Army soldiers died on the battlefield and eighteen million Soviet civilians. That's 14% of its population dying as a result of WW2.

View attachment 887297​

The Soviets had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and rebuild their country after being left in ruins. Why are you complaining about its travel restrictions? If the US had suffered the same level of destruction at home, it would also impose its restrictions. There are many restrictions that the US government imposes on its citizens during a crisis. Japanese Americans were forced into concentration camps and there was plenty of rationing and other laws that came into effect during the war, which could be seen as overbearing.

• 
  World War II (1941-1945): During World War II, the U.S. government imposed restrictions on domestic travel to conserve resources for the war effort. This included rationing gasoline and limiting civilian access to transportation.
• Cuban Travel Restrictions (1960s - present): After the Cuban Revolution and the subsequent deterioration of U.S.-Cuba relations, the U.S. imposed strict travel restrictions on American citizens visiting Cuba. These restrictions have fluctuated over the years, with periods of loosening and tightening.
• Iran Hostage Crisis (1979-1981): Following the Iran Hostage Crisis, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran, which included travel restrictions for American citizens.
• Travel Alerts and Warnings (Post-9/11): After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. Department of State began issuing more frequent travel alerts and warnings for American citizens traveling to areas of conflict or where there was a high risk of terrorism.
• North Korea Travel Ban (2017-present): In response to the heightened risk of arrest and long-term detention of Americans in North Korea, the U.S. government prohibited the use of U.S. passports for travel into, in, or through North Korea.
• COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-2023): During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government imposed a series of travel restrictions to control the spread of the virus. These included bans on entry for non-citizens from certain countries and regions heavily affected by COVID-19, as well as domestic travel advisories and requirements for testing and quarantine.

The point is that for whatever reason stated above, the US government has no issue with imposing travel restrictions, and the USSR given its situation also had its travel restrictions. The US and its allies were doing everything possible to undermine the Soviet economy, including enticing its scientists, engineers, and academics to leave and work for the CIA, writing ugly books about the USSR, and giving away secrets..etc. It was a war, so of course there were restrictions. Despite this, most Soviet citizens were satisfied with their government and didn't try to leave, even when they had the opportunity to do so.

There were student exchange programs, between the US and the Soviet Union and the vast majority of Soviet students didn't defect. They returned home, back to the USSR, after studying in the USA.

1. The United States Information Agency (USIA) conducted exchanges under various programs.
2. Fulbright Program: While initially limited during the height of the Cold War, the Fulbright Program, which aims to increase mutual understanding through educational exchange, eventually expanded to include the Soviet Union. This program allowed for the exchange of scholars and students.
3. Cultural Exchanges: Beyond academic programs, there were also cultural exchanges, including visits by artists, musicians, and other cultural figures. These exchanges were often more visible and had a broader public impact.
4. National Council for Soviet and East European Research: Established its office in the U.S, this organization facilitated scholarly research and exchanges.

Why didn't these Soviet citizens all defect if the USSR was "SO BAD"? Maybe it wasn't as bad as our Cold War American propaganda claimed.

Going back to the situation right after WWII. Much of Soviet Russia's national infrastructure which had been built since the 1920s, was rubble after the war. Was there an American "Marshal Plan" for the Soviets, who had sacrificed so much on behalf of the Allies in the war? No.

The American "Marshal Plan" to rebuild the nations of Europe and Asia, didn't apply to the Soviet Union. The US was left unscathed after the war, fully intact, without losing even one structure. I believe only one or two American civilians died within the United States as a result of enemy fire, through a Japanese weather balloon bomb. Google it. The US lost 460 thousand of its citizens, practically all of them were combatants. American casualties amounted to 0.03% of its population. Again, the Soviets lost 14%, with 28 million casualties. Is there any comparison at all between those two? Russia lost over 50 times the people, due to being in Europe, rather than protected by thousands of miles of two vast oceans (i.e. Pacific - Atlantic).

View attachment 887284
​

Notwithstanding all of the aforementioned facts the Soviet Union got back on its feet and became a world nuclear superpower with the second largest economy in the world. They were launching rockets with cosmonauts into space not that long after the devastation they suffered during World War II.

View attachment 887286​

They were the FIRST IN SPACE! That's impressive and to pretend otherwise is simply disingenuous. No other political and economic system can achieve that other than socialism. There's no other system that can industrialize and build a nation as quickly as a socialist, rationally, centrally planned economy.
The Soviet Union, a new nation, was in a state of war, encircled by the most powerful nations in human history, so if it eventually lost the Cold War and dissolved, does that imply that it will never rise again much stronger or that markeless socialism at a national scale as what we saw in the USSR will never be successful in another country? No.

Every single country that has mostly a centrally planned economy without major markets today is under the heel of American economic sanctions and the constant threat of military invasion by the United States. Have you ever factored that into your assessment of the viability of a centrally planned, socialist economy? They're all in a state of war, encircled by the US and its cronies. Hello?

You don't have the ideological luxury of claiming socialism doesn't work when your capitalist, imperialist buddies in Washington are depriving such nations of engaging in international trade and normal diplomatic relations with other countries. No one defies the US embargo on centrally planned, marketless socialism unless they plan to suffer the same fate and lose their economies and perhaps their lives. No one wants to trade with these countries because they get blacklisted, penalized, if not economically and politically sanctioned themselves.

To give you an example. Every single cargo ship that ports in Cuba can't anchor in American ports, anywhere, be it in the lower 48 or Alaska, Hawai, Guam the US Virgin Islands, or Puerto Rico. etc, for six months. Your expensive cargo ship is barred from The Empire for 180 days. Who the hell wants to port in Cuba? No one. If you have a bank and you give Cuba a loan, you will get audited by the US and most likely fined. They'll find some violation, somewhere, or they'll conjure it up from their magical hat. What international banks want to open a line of credit with the Cuban government or Cuban companies? None.

Despite this, Cuba survives in the shadow of a hostile, capitalist empire, 90 miles from its shores.

The US owns and controls the world's reserve currency and its banking institutions, hence no one resists The Empire. Whatever its demands, the world cowers.

Why are the American wealthy elites so afraid that they have to lobby Washington so hard, to continue punishing little marketless, socialist nations like Cuba? The market-socialist nations or mixed economies of the world (Western Europe is mostly a mixed economy), don't have much to worry about from the United States provided they continue serving American foreign policy. But the mostly non-profit, marketless economies, or true socialist-Marxist-run countries, have everything to worry about. AND YET THEY SURVIVE. Hello? The resilience and power of socialism.

In your fantasy world, do economic and political systems replace others overnight? Did capitalism replace chattel slavery and feudalism, in one single swoop of the sword? It took centuries for the mercantile class to replace the royal aristocracy of Europe as the dominant, ruling class. It wouldn't occur until technology permitted the merchants to become the powerful industrialists of the 19th century. That's when capitalism and its republicanism, took hold in the world. For centuries the royals and their nobles laughed at the prospect of a bunch of merchant traders replacing them and eventually that's what happened.

Now with the advent of advanced automation, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, we are entering into the socialist age. When production becomes so advanced that human input is reduced to a minimum, due to intelligent automation, that's the end of capitalism.

If a powerful computer can do all of the accounting and with onsite sensors can collect data and then control all of the robots and self-driving vehicles, all of the machinery, essentially automating the process of production with all of its logistics, that's the end of capitalism and the beginning of the socialist age. You can pout, huff, and puff, have your tantrum, and thumb down all of my posts, but nonetheless, if you're smart, you know this is true. You're suffering from a bad case of cognitive dissonance hence your inability to admit it openly and come to terms with it. Socialism is the natural successor of capitalism, due to technology, it's that simple. The alternative is techno-feudalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2aH9tu4s30​

Does anyone read this Commiebot’s dipshittery?

 

[pknopp]

Does anyone read this Commiebot’s dipshittery?

As is typical, you fall back on name calling as opposed to the ideas being posted.