How poor self-esteem and cognitive ability you must have—socialists on this board—confusing rational arguments with personal insults, and basing all your opinions on authority and popularity rather than empirical facts and logic. What sorry lives you must lead, seeking prestige and approval from fellow assholes through profanity, insults and disgusting treatment of an innocent peace lover. Shame on you!
the neoliberal vision of the future
- Thread starter Dillinger4
- Start date
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
"John Galt"
Oh purlease!
Oh purlease!
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
this is the cavalry you know. Priceless.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Assholes through profanity lol
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Moral high horse fail.
I know your real name, and I've fucked your mother. That's not some kind of rhetoric, I've literally fucked your mother.
Land in its natural state is unowned. Land is legitimately acquired by mixing one's labor with the land and turning it into property (homesteading). In most countries all over the world there is land that is acquired by illegitimate means (plunder etc.) and it is not the role of a liberal government to protect such land, and in cases where it is very clear that the property was acquired illegitimately in recent times under another regime, the property rights should be reversed. However, in most cases it is not that easy, because the transgression happened several generations ago, and because since then the successive owners have in fact mixed their labor with the property over such a long time so as to "whitewash" the original sin with work and legitimacy.
Therefore, apart from the blatant examples of property theft, the poor and displaced need to acquire property by other means. In a liberal government this is done by a) making it as easy as possible to homestead unowned land. b) Throughout South-America there are millions of squatters who live on the land and have done so for many years, often generations, but who don't have official ownership of their land. Here the government should assist in providing them formal ownership. c) By reducing bureaucracy and making laws friendly for the poor it becomes easier to start formal businesses, which is also a form of homesteading. Those businesses become vehicles of income to buy land. d) reducing regulations and taxes make it easy for entrepreneurs to make businesses, and this in turn creates an abundance of employment opportunities. When there is such an abundance of opportunities salaries and working conditions are pushed upwards. Thereby it becomes possible even for the poorest to work their way into land and home ownership in a decent manner,
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Oh well that means it is all gravy then.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
No it doesn't. Those that own the land now will prevent them from doing so.
You've completely dodged the question. There is only so much land. In most parts of the world, all the land that is of any use is already owned by someone. How did they come to own that land and not somebody else? And how do you change that situation?
Let me give you a clue as to how to answer my questions. These are questions I have thought about before. I am not asking you to educate me. I am challenging you to justify your position.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Wow, what a dickhead.
It's a myth that the unions have significantly improved conditions for workers. Sure, one profession of workers (e.g. teachers) can gain benefits to the detriment of other workers with unions, but worker conditions and wages AS A WHOLE cannot and have not in any way been affected by unions. You can't strike yourself to better weather, and even though Mugabe tried to outlaw poverty, lo and behold reality didn't listen to him. You can't simply declare "now working conditions are going to be better -- somehow, magically." Wages and working conditions simply reflect the average productivity in a country. 200 years ago Western countries weren't productive, and as a consequence the wages were low. But as productivity increased wages also increased, and this happened long before any union arose. The wages continue to rise in sync with productivity during the 20th century, except that then the unions wrongfully took the credit for it. Those non-union members were constant proof that unions didn't really matter in the great scheme of things, but to a union this anomaly is explained as a "free rider." Somehow employers just think that they should be nice to non-union members even if they strictly don't have to according to the unions.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Also, maybe I missed it, but I don't think you've yet got around to explaining how you distinguish between Allende's actions and ideologically motivated economic warfare when talking about the economy of Chile onarchy.
If you want to claim damage done to that economy as proof of something about socialism, you have to show that damage was done by Allende, rather than by people who were actively trying to damage that economy (like the US government and financial institutions)
If you want to claim damage done to that economy as proof of something about socialism, you have to show that damage was done by Allende, rather than by people who were actively trying to damage that economy (like the US government and financial institutions)
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You don't even know you're doing it, but you insult a series of generations who have fought for and won the rights you now enjoy.
Shame on you.
Shame on you.
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Leave it to 'the market' eh?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
You can't bamboozle batman out of his spare kazoo
Economic forces are not weather dear. Weather cannot be controlled or accurately plotted.
It is currently in its beginning stages, but we have currently have one interesting lead, a government that has expressed interest.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Fantasia?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
It's interesting isn't it? The rest of that post contains all kinds of assumptions like that. For example, I think he's assuming that the rate of profit is also an immutable law of nature.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Are you regretting the sock-puppet now, onan?
Silly boy.
Now back to that thorny problem of land tenure...
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Also, I'm still quite keen to find out how you distinguish between the active efforts of the most powerful government on the planet, supported by most of the world's financial institutions to damage the Chilean economy, and any negative effect Allende's policies might have had.
I think you have to be able to do this in order to argue anything about the economic impact of socialism on the basis of Allende's regime.
I think you have to be able to do this in order to argue anything about the economic impact of socialism on the basis of Allende's regime.
How convenient. The fact of the matter is that at the time the radical socialism of communism was only ONE of the kinds of socialisms that were around. There were also the Fabian socialists which gave rise to social democracy and these were enchanted with Hitler and Mussolini. I am quite certain that by the standards that your textbooks judge Hitler and Mussolini not to be socialists then social democrats would not be considered socialists either. (In fact, Stalin and the communists absolutely did NOT view them as socialists because they gave concessions to private property) So to me a much more interesting comparison is between Hitler/Mussolini and the social democratic regimes of Europe *today*. You will find that there is extremely little that distinguishes the British Labour Party from the Nation Socialist German Labour Party in economic policy. In fact, in most areas the Nazis were to the LEFT of TODAY's center.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
It just keeps on giving. Having had a google he finds the fabian society (I don't like them either) ties them to british labour and then floats across the empty space where an argument should be onto the nazis. You really are quite special.
On the contrary, the connection between Jews and capitalists were very well known among socialists some 100 years ago. Here is one of my favorite cartoons to prove my point:
It is a cartoon made in the 1920s by FRENCH SOCIALISTS. Let me translate it for you (I love this):
"The Jews hold 2/3 of the riches of the world!
For every 100 Jews: 80 capitalists.
For every 100,000 French: 1 capitalist."
The numbers aren't correct, but that's beside the point. The point is that socialists at the time BELIEVED this to be true and that they saw the Jew and the capitalist as one and the same animal. (a pig as it turned out, "Judenschwein" and "capitalist pig" are the same expression)
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Oh dear ...
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
C'est magnifique!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It is indeed the greatest cartoon ever made.
And it proves it. No doubt about that. It certainly proves something.
And it proves it. No doubt about that. It certainly proves something.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I think more CAPITAL LETTERS are needed to make it fully convincing.
The rate of profit is not an immutable law, but if there ever to be a law of market forces it would be called "regression to the mean" or "race to the middle." (as opposed to race to the bottom.) Profits higher than average tend to attract profit seekers who invest so much in that field until the profit rate drops. Similarly profits lower than average lead to disinvestment and capital flight until profit rates increase towards the mean.
The same forces of competition cause the wages to rise/fall to the mean productivity in a free market. Thus, if we were to remove our national socialistic toll and immigration barriers in the West the result would be a FALL in the wages of the filthy rich Westerners and a RISE in the wages of the poor.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
So, did you ever figure out how to distinguish Allende's impact from that of US economic warfare?
Similar threads
