Is the "Lost Cause" or "Parties Never Switched" mythos a bigger source of misinformation today?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Lost Cause

Parties Never Switched

[anylolone]

The parties never switched.
We see this with jim crow and the opposition to integration as one easy example.

The "lost cause" is not strictly wrong, just reductive.
They seceded before slavery was ended, and because of the fugitive slave law repeal.
It has something to do with "state rights", but the fear was that there would be increasingly new free states that would vote with the "north", shifting the balance at congress, which then would end slavery, besides other things.
But after slavery is ended, there's no more pull for free states (which are now all states) to vote with the "north", so that wouldn't necessarily disturb the "balance of power" in the government between the "north" and the "south".

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

The parties switched at the end of Jim Crow.

[anylolone]

Did they? So what's biden doing in the DNC?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Biden's not an advocate of Jim Crow Laws.

[anylolone]

Well, he was against "creating racial jungles" with forced bussing.
Note that his argument wasn't an argument against forcing people because forcing is bad, it was against creating racial jungles.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Nope, that was taken out of context:

www.usatoday.com/.../

And he never opposed integration, he just didn't think that was the best way of going about it.

[anylolone]

Oh no, you could oppose forced integration and not have anything to do with race...
But he didn't wanted to create racial jungles in his community.
Not "it's government over reach, violating the freedom of association clausure."
It's "let's not create racial jungles."

I've seen the whole thing, it doesn't get better.
And he does make some good arguments, but they seem as excuses.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Nope, he was worried about stoking racial tension captain hindsight.

[anylolone]

Yeah, that putting blacks in white schools would create racial jungles.
You see, you gotta keep them separated mentality.
Segregation is good, that sort of stuff.

I love how he asked for thomas sowell as a token black man against forced integration and learned nothing from him. Thomas saying "it will create a missmatch between the education and the educated" and biden wrote "racial jungles, alright".
"It will increase desistence" "it's federal over reach" "just fund black schools, let integration happen normaly" and biden's is like "I got it, black kids are predators."

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Oh so because Biden worried (without the benefit of hindsight) about how rapid integration could stoke racial tensions the "parties never switched" even though Trump stoked fears of black people coming into suburbia last election cycle 40 years on.

www.theguardian.com/.../donald-trump-white-suburban-voters-rule-rollback

Right -_-

[anylolone]

So trump doesn't even mention black, rolls back a law that would force white suburban to accept poor whites and you say "fear of blacks"?

You are hanging way too much with the "poor kids are just as smart as white kids" crowd, lol!

And sorry, are you saying that we gota keep them separated?
Are you one of those people who believe that when blacks are in zones which ID is required, the ID short circuits their brain and makes them vote red, instead of the obvious explanation?
It's the magic piece of paper!

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Nope, it's just that your crowd doesn't realize that the pitch on your dog whistles has gotten way too low.

I'm part of the crowd that realizes that any law that explicitly barred black people from voting would have been deemed unconstitutional since the '70s

The 1870s with the passing of the 15th amendment which is why in the Jim Crow South they used shit like literacy tests to block the black vote and when those were struck down, racists started using other tactics.

www.npr.org/.../supreme-court-declines-republican-bid-to-revive-north-carolina-voter-id-law

[anylolone]

Exactly, which is why you subjugate them through other methods, like not requiring ID to vote.
Something literally everyone never leaves home without, in case of police, or some emergency, etc...

I'm brazilian, I didn't went the school without an ID, which I got government issued while 7.

And the laws in the 60's didn't stopped biden "predators" comments, or "you ain't black" besides a full list.

It's weird how those white suburbanites (or black) aren't worried about the communist mansioner living in their neighborhoods. (and they should, by the way.)

But to be honest, it doesn't hurt the house values, which is all they care about.
People who can't maintain their home in pristine condition due to lack of funds do hurt the house value. Low income housing itself depreciates the property value.

This is also true in brazil, by the way.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Yeah, because doing away with ID laws somehow suppresses the black vote -_-

www.sandiegouniontribune.com/.../...b10-story.html

which literally 11% of he population doesn't have. [https://www. learningforjustice. org/sites/default/files/general/Percentage%20of%20People%20Who%20Lack%20ID_0. pdf] And no you can't get an alcoholic beverage, a pack of cigarettes or drive without one but those are privileges and part of what makes a free country free is that voting is a RIGHT.

And laws in the 30s put black people in the cities where they were disproportionately exposed to leaded gas fumes as children which leads to an increased propensity toward violent crime as an adult and in the Early 90s the resulting violent crime was devastating black communities as much as mass incarceration is now. However, it wasn't until 19 years after the 1994 crime bill that we realized lead poisoning was the likely culprit. But now all the cowardly republicans are using hindsight bias to project their racism on the left.

[anylolone]

It does suppress black votes, like a lot. Every illegitimate vote suppress another actual vote.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

That would be the case if voter fraud was anywhere near sufficient to overturn an election result; it's not.

[anylolone]

Gosh, they found enough in AZ. You see, if you don't investigate, you don't find.
Gosh, there's a whole mail in ballot harvesting scandal in TX that was uncovered not long a ago.
And a dead voter scandal was recently uncovered in TX as well.
Something so simple as ID is a good protection, but not enough.

Gosh, there's shit like that here, with only in person voting with ID.
Which is why the voter roles have to be regularly cleansed as well, besides a whole other world of things.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

They have been investigating and they didn't find a statistically significant difference in states that do versus don't require voter IDs (let alone enough to overturn an election result).

[anylolone]

They did find in AZ, you know, when they actually did a full audit, instead of just running the same machines. AZ is already flipped, internalize that.

Also, there's still fraud even in states that require ID, just less because it necessitates identity theft and ballot harvesting.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Nope:
www.usatoday.com/.../

And there is no evidence that voter fraud is more prevalent in states without voter ID laws.

[anylolone]

There's no real searching. And yes, there's with the AZ audit.
Part of the reason why it was possible was the lack of requirement of ID.

Compare AZ to texas and you see.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Those are just two data points; you would need more than that to establish a correlation and even if you did, you are still not even close to making a case for it being worth the cost of suppressing votes.

[anylolone]

That's the only data points with actual audits in the US.

But let's get other data points, which is more common, credit card fraud or impersonating someone to withdraw from their account at the bank? Which is easier?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Two data points can't establish a trend and that's an irrelevant comparison.

[anylolone]

It's not an irrelevant comparison, it's the same mechanism. Gosh, I'd be less worried about losing my credit card than not requiring an ID for me to vote. By a long shot, the rest of the system is way more robust.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

That's your view but like I said, credit cards are a privilege and voting is a right.

[anylolone]

Nope, but a bank account ain't a privilege, and the point here is fraud.
And ID ain't a privilege, gosh, it's almost a duty, and it's a right.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Photo ID isn't a duty and 11% of Americans don't have one (25% of black Americans). But just like they shouldn't be denied police protection because of that they shouldn't be denied the right to vote either.

[anylolone]

I said "almost a duty", and they don't have it because they believe, wrongly, that they don't need it.
(if that figure is even accurate)

Just to deal with the police you need an ID. Which is easy to get even here in brazil.
(less easy to ask for another when it's lost/robbed, but still, easy enough.)
And you need that shit to open a bank account, which is a right.
Which is why I doubt those numbers, by the way.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

That may be the case in Brazil but in the US you don't need an ID to contact the police if a crime was committed against you.

[anylolone]

To contact the police? Are you insane? You haven't ever been stopped by the police in a random search?
You can report a crime anonymously if you want, but if you are the "suspect", you are fucked without an ID.
Not to mention that you may suffer an accident, get sick or even die, and you don't want to do that as a "john doe".

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

None of that means that if you commit a crime against someone without an ID you don't have to worry about legal repercussions.

[anylolone]

Oh, you do have to worry about repercussions if you are just caught by the police without an ID.
I had plenty of friends who taught like you, it didn't ended well for them.

You get wroth worst just by not having an ID, if you don't have an ID and is found to have committed a crime, it's begging to be beaten to death.

But hey, I'm glad to know you got that thug mentality. I'd be buying my own grave if I was you.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Actually there was a time when that was the case. It was the Jim Crow South where things like the vagrancy laws were used to send black people to prison for the convict leasing system.



I know you like to blame problems in the black community (poverty and incarceration rates) on "thug culture" *cough victim blaming but these issues long predate "thug culture".

[anylolone]

Blaming organized crime is blaming the victim? Sorry?

And yeah, I misread what you said as "that means that if you commit a crime without an ID it means you don't have to face legal repercussions", sorry for that.

But still, blaming thugs is victim blaming?

And oh, for some people, walking without an ID is preferable in their mind, you know, warrants and all.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Saying that the problems with violent crime in the black community is a result of thug culture when the minds of young black children are literally being poisoned with lead is victim blaming.

[anylolone]

Well, that theory held water, until it didn't, you know, until it rose back again to historical numbers.

Are you saying being mentally deficient makes you violent?
Yes, when it's convenient you'll assume it, you will, like che, shoot the gays at first notice.
(I'm not saying you are a communist, just a reference for mentality)

Are you saying the irish were all more led poisoned? Or the italians?
Is there a thing in the torah against led?
What about the chinese?
Are hindu god's protecting hindus from led poisoning in britain but allah cursing the pakistanis with led poisoning?

Thug culture isn't a black problem, it's an inner city problem, it's not of the average inner city inhabitant, it's of the gangs and their members, including politicians. Mostly black, but they used to be white.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Also, as for what the Soviets did to win the war, the capitalists started that war, not the communists.
Does that make it OK? No but that makes the idea that it could be blamed on being socialist utter bilge (it was called the Great Patriotic War, not the Great People's War).

[anylolone]

The soviets lost the war, badly.
If hitler hadn't gone west, soviet russia would have collapsed.

You are the sort of fool who believes nazi bullshit on how the germans were an ubermench army, lol! "If only hitler had not be so stupid" lol!
Look at the casualties. That's not winning.

And capitalism didn't started the war, as we established, hitler wasn't a capitalist.
As we will established, the reason why hitler went east is because he hated the capitalists just as much as the communists, but he was more afraid of them.

And if you keep calling hitler capitalist I'll start quoting hitler to every comment of yours I can get my hands on.
Hitler literally thought that capitalism was a jewish plot to bring communism, which is fake socialism in his view, in order to destroy nations so jews could breed with aryans and that would somehow destroy humanity.

[SmokinAces2000]

“The parties never switched” because I see this all the time with republicans they keep talking about how democrats are the racist ones because they fought for slavery and all that but will say in the same breath to get over slavery because it was so long ago even though democrats fighting for slavery is just as old not to mention it’s a weak ass argument because anyone that does just a little research would be able to conclude that the parties switched and you cannot tell me that the democrats in the 1800s would be democrats in 2021.

[Rangers]

Since misinformation now means factual evidence that lefties don't like and want to censor, just as the Nazis did, then yeah, it's misinformation.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Saying that the parties never switched is like saying the Nazis were leftists TBH (i. e. it's BS).

[Snakeyes7]

They are leftists, it wasn't called "national socialism" for nothing. The state still had absolute power over everything and the reason the jews were propagandized to be criminals was because they all supposedly controlled the institutions so it was still a rough interpretation of the Proletariat vs. Bourgeois "struggle".

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@Snakeyes7 More power to the state doesn't mean "socialist" especially when the share of the GDP controlled by the owner class went up (which it did).

[Snakeyes7]

I didn't say more power I said that the state had control of everything including the thoughts of its own citizens for it to be a form of socialism.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@Snakeyes7 That has nothing to do with workers controlling the means of production.

[Snakeyes7]

And yet when communism has been put in place, people are still being forced by the government to give part of their produce to them at the threat of being thrown in a gulag or firing squad so have the workers ever controlled the means of production?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@Snakeyes7 Because it would go to help better the society in which they lived versus some aristocracy. Honestly, it's as if most of the US has this idea that communism brought tyranny to countries like Russia, China and Cuba even though they were authoritarian long before the communists came to power (threats to existing liberties come from the right, not the left). Would it be shitty to live in China or the USSR? Sure but the standard of living for the average person in those countries was way higher than it was during the times of Imperial Russia and China (they had to not only cope with an authoritarian regime but destitute poverty). Now you could point out the famines that occurred shortly after the regimes came to power BUT those were the result of rapid industrialization driven by a perceived need to defend themselves. So it wouldn't be fitting to compare Stalinist Russia to Imperial Russia, a more fitting comparison would be Stalinist Russia versus the Nazi occupation.

[Snakeyes7]

I can't say for sure about most of those countries (except for Cuba as I did a report on it in school and it's definitely a shithole) but I'm sure you can ask all of those people who immigrated to the US from those countries how wonderful their lives were from there.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@Snakeyes7 People were immigrating from there to the US long before communists came to power.

[Snakeyes7]

Nss, that's not my point. I'm saying that unless we have experienced these socialist ideas being put into practice ourselves, we can't really say that we know for sure that using those ideas will ever work. Personally, if thousands if not millions of people keep dying by the government's hand every time we try to put socialism into practice maybe we should stop.

[anylolone]

It has everything with "the workers" controlling the "means of production".
That's what always happens when people offer socialism so the "workers" can "control the means of production."

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

"I'm saying that unless we have experienced these socialist ideas being put into practice ourselves, we can't really say that we know for sure that using those ideas will ever work."

We are seeing those ideas put into practice with the growth of worker cooperatives in the US. Socialism doesn't have to come about in a violent revolution (it did in countries like Russia and China because the previous regime was authoritarian so options to enact change were limited).

"Personally, if thousands if not millions of people keep dying by the government's hand every time we try to put socialism into practice maybe we should stop."

That didn't happen every time "socialism was put into practice" nor is it exclusive to socialism. In fact far more people have died of capitalism.

[anylolone]

Cooperatives are free market consensual opt-in associations.
By that metric, corporations are socialism, gated neighborhoods are socialism.
(which by saint-simone's definition is socialism, but that's not what you are pushing.)

"Far more people have died of capitalism" if you only count the purposeful genocides of socialist countries, and every death in capitalist countries.
By all metrics, the life expectancy in free market countries is way lower.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone By the metric I'm using (do the workers or shareholders control the firm) corporations aren't socialist.

[anylolone]

How much sharehold until it's socialist? Are you aware most co-operative have way more workers than affiliates? Isn't any worker a co-operative of one that owns the means of production through his labor?
Isn't intelectual work, well, work, therefore every corporation is owned 100% by workers?

If hiring means the worker doesn't own the means of production, wouldn't outsourcing in any way (including buying even commodities) mean there's no such thing as workers owning the means of production?

[anylolone]

It does mean socialism. At least by most early socialists, and by marx.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone No, because the shareholders decide what goes on in the company while a cooperative would have administrators and owners elected by the workers.

[anylolone]

But the worker decide who they work with. They are the means of production which they control.
If they chose it over making their own co-operative, which means they controlled their means of production, favoring stability over risk. Risk assessment takes a lot of intelectual work and it's not very intuitive.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone Workers control who they work for not how those places are run. But socialists are advocating that coops be run as a representative democracy (people are elected who have demonstrated capability in risk assessment) versus a direct one.

[anylolone]

Easy, all it's needed is for workers to finance their own co-ops, they do it all the time, just not enough to be the most common kind of corporation.
Because most people chose to not deal with such high risks.

Congratulations, the US is the most socialist society that ever existed and you love it then.
Closely followed by places like mexico, brazil, britain, botswana and the likes.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone "Because most people chose to not deal with such high risks."

Nope, because even though worker cooperatives are more resilient to economic perturbations than corporations the government keeps bailing them out.

truthout.org/.../

What socialists are advocating is that the government provide the support to cooperatives that it does to corporations.

[anylolone]

Yes, I agree, the collective shouldn't bail co-orporations out, or anyone for that matter.

I agree, let nature run it's course, let capitalism run it's course.

Also, the collective does the same for co-operatives, be it in form of corporations, or in form of highly outsourced corporations you call co-operatives, specially the incredibly highly outsource corporations with mandatory membership you call unions.

=)

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone "I agree, let nature run it's course, let capitalism run it's course."

And this is what you'll get:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1dv2xkPsz0

Problem with systems like capitalism that are built around exploitation is that eventually you run out of other people's money which is why when the government only acts as a blind watchman it caves in on itself.

[anylolone]

Are you talking about the guy who got sad when people discovered a language without numbers?

Not letting nature run it's course is how you get fascism, be it communism, nazism or other forms.

I raise you stephen pinker and sowell.
www.youtube.com/watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCm9Ng0bbEQ

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone Letting it run its' course is how you get communism because national development and standard of living lags so far behind, people rise up and replace it. Everyone talks shit about not letting the left in America do to it what the left did in Russia in China but these places weren't shining beacons of liberty and prosperity before the communists came to power. You know it's not comparable to the rise of Nazi Germany in the Weimar Republic; the radical left isn't a threat to existing liberties while the radical right is.

We let capitalism go unchecked in the gilded age but reigned it in during the progressive age which resulted in the US becoming a first world country. Russia and China did not so they lagged behind leading to the communist revolutions and since then the gap in standard of living between the US and China decreased. I'd take living in the USSR to living in the Russian Empire any day.

And before you bring up Stalin's system; the reason that he forcefully industrialized the USSR at the rate that he did was because he felt threatened and the only way he saw to make the USSR capable of defending itself was to make an industrial base to supply the Red Army with the means to fight so it wouldn't be fitting to compare Stalins' Russia to the Russian empire but to compare it to the Nazi occupation.

And capitalism was making life better but so was the system of feudalism but that didn't mean that we shouldn't have replaced with a better system (capitalism). Similarly even though capitalism has given us a lot it outlived its' usefulness.

[anylolone]

Yeah, nope, that's a whole cloth bullshit. china and russia were monarchies, not capitalistic in any way.
Venezuela wasn't more "unequal" than brazil or bolivia, cuba wasn't more unequal or wealthier, the list goes on. nazi germany wasn't more unequal than several eastern european countries.
And then there's zimbabwe, congo, NK, the list is huge.

Lack of vigilance against thugs and megalomaniacs trying to nanny the whole society, besides over reliance to welfare state is what breeds those.

Nothing is more unequal than communism.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone An authoritarian regime doesn't preclude a society from being capitalist (no true Scotsman fallacy there) and the Weimar Republic had a stronger social safety net than did Nazi Germany.

Tyranny doesn't come about from dependence on government programs (the "nanny state" mythos) but from the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few (the very essence of capitalism).

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-TydNlj7d0

[anylolone]

You don't know much about history, don't you?
Specially the Nazi "economic" plan and weirmarc history.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone Yeah, like how the percent of the economy controlled by business owners actually increased under Nazi Germany; calling the "Socialist" is as asinine as calling the DPRK "Democratic" or the Libertarian party of the US "Libertarian".

[anylolone]

"Business owners" with zero rights to their own property, subject to party rule.
And that's true, that's true for any communist shit role.

Reality is, the nazi "economic" plan (by the worst of hitler's first economist "this is not an economy, therefore there's nothing an economist can do to solve it) was an even more massive welfare state of the weimar republic, which was just a democratic socialist republic, price control and massive inflation with while the money printer went burr, burr.
Free health care, guaranteed employment, mandatory federal unions, central banks, controlled economy, they even promised free vacations.
All controlled by the state.

They had co-operatives, by the way, not that they functioned in any way resembling the weimar.
They voted for hitler because of those things. In the weimar they didn't had guaranteed employment, but they did have a massive welfare state which they were dependent on, due to massive inflation which was caused by printing money to fund the welfare state. (which in weimar was unnenployment, food stamps, stuff like that, besides basic education.)

And the weimar republic had more wealth concentration when it was over than when it began.
So of course that hitler putting even more of the same policies, so of course the concentration of wealth is going up. Specially with them robbing the jews, poles, and more, and stuffing all in their pockets.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone "with zero rights to their own property," actually while the Nazi government dictated inter firm relationships, in terms of intrafirm relations (employee-employer) the Nazis dismantled protections put in place by the Weimar Republic.

It was capitalism; not free market capitalism (like how the USSR was socialist but not market socialist) but capitalism non the less.

[anylolone]

It did remove protections for the workers as well, like the USSR, and china, and cuba and itally.
And quite literally, one of the first actions was to remove private property rights with the reichstag fire decree.

And statized industries, quite literally seized whole industries and those which were seized, where issues commands on what to produce.

There was wage control. which most people would think it's a protection for the workers, basically minimum wage decrees (except with also a maximmun), and controlled prices way beyond wages, besides ordering how many and who to hire, how much and what to produce and how much to sell to each person/company.

Which is why I said co-operatives were very different under nazi regime. The free association which is expected of co-operatives in capitalist countries was all gone. And all control over who to sell, how much to sell for, etc.

But you see, how most socialist countries, the workers controlled it all, because the party belonged to the workers.
Which is how workers control anything in a non-capitalist country. In free mixed economies, like the weimar, workers control the means of production by owning the means of production, quite literally by owning it naturally (like their bodies, expertize and will) or by buying their tools of work, which is how co-operatives work.

That's the phenomena that saint-simone observed. Quite literally in an absolutist monarchy.
Which is impossible without the right and protections of private property. (or without a lot of luck and the state looking the other way as you black market your way into a business)

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone Cuba didn't and there were no workers protections in imperial Russia and nationalist China.

The state control of German industries was in preparation for wars of conquest; it had nothing to do with socialism (and state direction of inter-firm relations isn't relevant to whether the workers or owners control the means of production). And there was already wage control in Weimar Germany.

Also, communism makes a distinction between private and personal property.

Is state communism bad? Yep

Could it hold a candle in cruelty to the repressive nature of tooth and nail capitalism? Nope.

[anylolone]

Cuba did remove all protections for workers. But at least they have "free healthcare", as in, you get the equivalent of a nurse to look at you, forget a reliable source of even basic medicine.

Actually, there were at the end of imperial russia, also, china's red revolution came after the republican revolution, which is also true for russia.

Nope, the state control was in their economic plans, it's quite literally in mein kampf and it has everything to do with socialism.
Have you tried a cursory look at mein kampf?
Yes, there was already minimum wage laws in weimar. There's wage control in the US as well, basically every country, but it was a selling point of theirs.

And nope, in practice, state communism makes no distinction between private property and personal property, all can be seized at any time, like in nazi germany.

And also, communism killed more people than capitalism ever could, even excluding nazi germany.
It's a hundred million. Just russian communism killed more than nazi germany, china killed more than that, let's not even look at polpot. Proportionally speaking, their mortality rates are absurdly higher and their intentional killings are way higher.

Capitalism brought the greatest prosperity for the common man ever saw in history, communism and socialism brought only misery and death. (at least strictly speaking, some socialism is, if not useful, inevitable.)

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone Batista's Cuba had no rights for workers and even less access to medicine. As for post revolution Russia and China, they forcefully industrialized to fuel a military because they felt threatened. But post Stalin and Mao, workers lived way better lives than they did prior to the revolution (even accounting for advances in technology).

State control of interfirm relations have nothing to do with capitalism versus socialism. Capitalism and socialism are means of production while markets versus directed economies are systems of distribution. And regardless of what the Nazis said they would do, the gap between the rich and the poor increased under their rule.

Property can be siezed at any time by authoritarian regimes but that doesn't make them socialist.

Actually, claims that Stalin killed 35 million didn't take into account that 25 million of those were killed by the Nazi invasion. So how many of those 25 million deaths should go to capitalism? Well one could say that all should have because even though 10 million of those were soldiers (although 1/3rd of Red Army deaths were POWs who died in Nazi captivity) they were forced to fight or die (Hitler called it an extermination war). So in the USSR at least 15 million were killed by capitalism while 10 million were killed by communism. And Famines under British Rule in India killed more people than Mao's famine and there were many famines in China that preceded the revolution.

So capitalism killed way more than socialism and contrary to popular belief it's not needed to incentivize progress. Growth occurred in capitalist systems but capitalism wasn't responsible for it and it's an antiquated system that has outlives its usefulness.

[anylolone]

Actually no. Quite literally no. Wasn't good, clearly not, but they did have access to medicine, they just didn't have access to "free medicine", which they also basically don't in cuba, there's shortages of everything, even toilet paper. And in both cases it's not really free, you have to work.

And yes, they did lived better than imperial russia, which was an absolutist monarchy almost to the end, and in china, they lived better than imperial china. But I must remind you that russia and china had two revolutions, taiwan is the product of the first chinese revolution.

Actually, state control has everything to do with socialism, even saint-simone socialism, saint-simone's socialism is actually capitalistic.
But in S-S socialism, the purpose of the state is to protect capitalism and individual rights with law and order, it's up to the people to be socialistic. But that's not your socialism, I thought it could be, but once you asked for state bail outs for co-operatives (which there are) I saw you weren't one.

[anylolone]

Actually, you don't need to take into account how many nazis killed. Around 16,5M civilians.
It's accounted for that, by the way. One reason we know how much they killed was their ability to deploy troops. Russia had a massive population with a huge expected growth before the red terror, somehow russian troops, as we know today, were outnumbered by german troops alone.
We had communist generals bragging that their troops could live with a 1000 cal a day.

After 87, we got some better estimates for russian casualties in WWII, it's not hard to subtract those and see what's happening with the population. And that's the russian population, then we have holodomor and other genocides, like lenin's pesant genocide, stalin's pesant genocide, and so on.
And you can look up the fact that their life expectancy was abysmal and they hid their child mortality rates, tried to embellish them, up to the 10's, when it miraculously rose 10 points.
And even then, it was still abysmal. If you trust their numbers, the effective net reproductive rate was 1.1
1.1 is extinction levels of reproductive rate. Yet they grew in population.

Which is how we get the number of deaths by communism.
By not trusting hitler to tell us the number of jews he ordered killed, which is what you are doing.
Instead, you do what people did and estimate, which how we got the 6 million. (which is a gross estimate and mostly a symbolic number, the good estimate is not that far, specially how early we came up with that number.)

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone Red Army generals weren't "bragging that their soldiers could fight on 1000 Calories per day", Chuikov was boasting that he was able to supply his men with 1000 Calories per day. There was a serious food shortage because the Wehrmacht took control of the agricultural regions in the Ukraine. Also, estimating death rates based on population growth figures will inflate the death estimates because since people were also working on the 5 year plan there would be a lower birth rate so the population wouldn't have grown as much. Which is how you try to spin statistics to make it seem like communism has caused anywhere near as much suffering as capitalism.

[anylolone]

Oh, so, russia needed stolen land and oppressed farmers to feed it's army of russians?
Lol! Russia is the biggest country on earth my friend, they got land to spare back then.

Also, no, that's how we know it's around 6M jews. We look at populations.
If we do what you ask me, and we trust hitler, it's like half a million.
Estimating on growth isn't simply "oh, just have tzar's russia growth and extrapolate to infinity", I literally explained to you how you can find fudging of the numbers.

For one example, we don't need to assume much by looking on how the russians were outnumbered by germany alone. And that's with their penal legions, forcibly conscripting captive populations as cannon fodder, etc.

You know, communists aren't nice, you don't wave off the horror of one by saying the other is horrible.
The soviets, as one example, could have easily helped protect poland, instead of mutually raping with the nazis, giving the nazis resources to eventually come for them.

But communism is by it's nature imperialistic and war mongering, even if they are forced into 5th generational warfare or proxy wars by the sheer superiority of capitalism.
Stalin didn't backstab hitler first only because he literally broke his nation and couldn't amount a functional army because he genocided his population after lenin and trotsky did the same.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone
"Oh, so, russia needed stolen land and oppressed farmers to feed it's army of russians?
Lol! Russia is the biggest country on earth my friend, they got land to spare back then"

Yeah, because it's so easy to set up new farms in the wilderness in the timeframe of a year LMAO what are you on?

-I'm not "trusting Soviet Authorities" I'm disputing wehraboos who fudge numbers to make the USSR look worse than Nazi Germany. And I explained to you how you're fudging the numbers by ignoring a decrease in birth rate.

"For one example, we don't need to assume much by looking on how the russians were outnumbered by germany alone. And that's with their penal legions, forcibly conscripting captive populations as cannon fodder, etc."

Oh boy, someone's watching too much Enemy at the Gates and reading too much Antony Beevor; start reading some of the works by David Glantz instead.

"You know, communists aren't nice, you don't wave off the horror of one by saying the other is horrible."

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Authoritarians aren't nice but communism didn't bring authoritarianism to Russia or China; it had a LONG history in those countries so blaming the repressive regimes in those countries on communism would be like saying democracy and free speech was the cause of slavery and the Amerindian genocide in post-colonial America.

"But communism is by it's nature imperialistic and war mongering, even if they are forced into 5th generational warfare or proxy wars by the sheer superiority of capitalism."

Actually vanguard communism faded in the interwar period after the global uprising of the proletariat didn't happen but imperialism is a feature intrinsic to capitalism (i. e. expanding markets and the crisis of overproduction).

"The soviets, as one example, could have easily helped protect poland, instead of mutually raping with the nazis, giving the nazis resources to eventually come for them."

Actually they tried to join the Polish-British-French alliance against the Nazis but were rejected.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Also, you're accusing me of whataboutism while you Gish Gallop every bad thing the Soviets did? Seriously?

[anylolone]

No, communism brought it back to china and russia. And it always resembles something akin to imperial russia and china, or worst.

"Imperialism is capitalistic in nature" said the communists, because monarchies, which resemble communism a lot, by the way.

Capitalism has zero use for military empires, it likes to trade, that's what capitalism is, quite literally, by the mouth of adam smith. It's free trade through consent.

Communism is by it's own founders, something with a duty to expand by force or subversion and then force. It denies free trade through consent, it denies that most people can even know what's best for themselves and that the revolutionary is the one that knows best.
Quite literally marx delineates it in, "Zur judenfrage", "Das capital" and his communist manifesto with cuck engels.

My own country had a communist international right after we returned with direct elections for presidency.

Oh, so you are blaming the countries for not trusting the soviets, who conquered all the satellite states they could?
Also, the reason why negotiations bogged down was because the soviets demanded to enter an alliance with britain as well. If not that poland rejected, other countries with soviet union wanted in, like finland, romania and the baltic states feared the soviets. And the soviets proved their suspicions true. The only reason finland ever joined the war is because the soviets went out of their way to invade it.

And you know how antiFA loves to burn communities? Well, before trotsky created antiFA, they were just communists, the biggest reason hitler came to power was because the urban peasants were already used to the communists burning their neighborhoods.
And all of those countries experienced that.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone

"No, communism brought it back to china and russia. And it always resembles something akin to imperial russia and china, or worst."

It never left those counties.

"Capitalism has zero use for military empires, it likes to trade, that's what capitalism is, quite literally, by the mouth of adam smith. It's free trade through consent."

First of all, there was plenty of need for a Military empire (look how the Belgians got rubber out of the Congo) but even so, it's more like trade through coercion. Theft can be accomplished via a knife or trickery. And just as fascism enforces corporate rule through the threat of violence, proprietarianism (incorrectly referred to as "Libertarian Capitalism") does so via the extortion of essential services.

"And you know how antiFA loves to burn communities?"

Apparently you have some delusions about it.

apnews.com/.../virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748

[anylolone]

"Yeah, because it's so easy to set up new farms in the wilderness in the timeframe of a year LMAO what are you on?" Go ask those dirty capitalist jews.

"-I'm not "trusting Soviet Authorities" I'm disputing wehraboos who fudge numbers to make the USSR look worse than Nazi Germany. And I explained to you how you're fudging the numbers by ignoring a decrease in birth rate." Nope, you are quite literally demanding me to believe in hitler, sorry, the soviets. You are using their numbers.

"Oh boy, someone's watching too much Enemy at the Gates and reading too much Antony Beevor; start reading some of the works by David Glantz instead."
Sorry, we have the numbers.

Also, it's communists aren't nice, from the terror of the paris commune (which was very authoritarian as you can see) to hitler and Xi.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

-Farms to feed yourself and your family are one thing but we're talking about industrial farms to feed an army.

-You're believing neo Nazi propaganda about Stalin being worse, I'm actually looking at how populations grow.

-"Sorry, we have the numbers." And if you look at how many people served in the blocking detachments or penal battalions to how many served in the Red Army, the notion that that's why the Red Army won doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

-Communists aren't nice but they can't hold a candle to capitalism in terms of cruelty.

[anylolone]

"-Farms to feed yourself and your family are one thing but we're talking about industrial farms to feed an army." Go ask the jews.

"-You're believing neo Nazi propaganda about Stalin being worse, I'm actually looking at how populations grow." No, you are believing stalin and hitler's propaganda of the "evil capitalist". Hitler propaganda was that capitalism communism was a jewish plot, and the stupid idea of the shrinking markets.

"And if you look at how many people served in the blocking detachments or penal battalions to how many served in the Red Army, the notion that that's why the Red Army won doesn't stand up to scrutiny." The red army lost, face the fact that the red army lost, the only reason why russia wasn't completely conquered was because hitler was fighting a two pronged war with the allies.
Which meant that hitler spent all his oil. Their casualties show they lost, badly. They depended on aid from the US. It's like saying france won.

"-Communists aren't nice but they can't hold a candle to capitalism in terms of cruelty."
Yes, because capitalism is the best system ever to empower the masses, feed the poor and hinder thugs, and that's very cruel for you. Very good for everyone else.
Specially the jews. Capitalism defeated the nazis.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone
-Nope, you're just listening to revisionist history, Hitler blamed Germany's problems on Jewish Capitalism like the American Right blames the shortcomings of the US on crony capitalism/corporatism.

-Nope, the Red Army won first at the tactical and operational level; logistics were secondary. You could make a case that they were able to take Berlin with the help of the Allies but even without them the Wehrmacht would have been driven out of Eastern Europe.

-Human ingenuity is what powered the advancement of civilization as it always has (and capitalism isn't necessary to accomplish it hbr.org/.../people-dont-need-a-profit-motive-to-innovate) But I know you want to pretend it was all thanks to capitalism so you can justify hoarding wealth in the hands of the few while millions die of preventable deaths.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP9Oj65OweI&t=245s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3ILKmBA1a0

[anylolone]

Corporatism isn't capitalism, communist countries are dominated by state own corporations which are communist states on itself. Corporations are quite literally a form of state.
Crony capitalism is a thing, and a bad thing, capitalism can be bad. But cronyism is a necessity in communism and socialism. On capitalism, it's a possibility.
Also, no, the right doesn't bitch about crony or corporations the same hitler and marx bitched about capitalist jews. For starters, they do not reduce them to the status of leaches, or advocate wanton expropriation of corporations for being corporations, or crony capitalists for being crony capitalists.

Are you insane to say logistics and manpower is secondary? Without the allies, the soviets would have been destroyed. Look at the goddamn casualties.

Actually, capitalism is necessary for de-centralization, specialization and price evaluation, all vital to human ingenuity, which is no coincidence that said human ingenuity only kicked in with freer markets and private property? And basically only in those places?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone Oh boy no true Scotsman -_-
Corporatism is centered around the accumulation of capital (ergo capitalism) but in this form you manipulate state power to accomplish it. But crony capitalism does beet proprietarianism ("Libertarian" Capitalism) in delivering the goods.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7BE8CsM9ds&t=1091s

The Wehrmacht didn't lose the War, the Red Army won it.

Markets are necessary for those things; not the accumulation of wealth into the hands of the few.

[anylolone]

Well, that's not how adam smith defined capitalism.
That's not even remotely related to how the feudals defined capitalist. (which is someone who makes money through investments)

That's how the paris commune defined capitalism.

According to hitler, you know jews are evil because they are capitalists by your definition, which makes them selfish.

"The jew seized upon the possibilities which situations offered them in the future, while in one hand they organized capitalistic methods of exploitation, they curried favor with the victims, and in a short time, became the leader against the victim's struggles with the jew." Hitler, explaining how capitalism is a jewish invention, and the jews invented fake socialism (like communism) as a way to double exploit their victims.
Note how he credits jews with capitalism, not socialism, just a fake version of it.
You see, you are just like him.

[anylolone]

Corporativism isn't centered in the accumulation of capital, it was invented by the fascists, it's a mini state of workers.
What it's is literally in the name. In a free market economy, it can be used to accumulate capital, for a while.

""The jew seized upon the possibilities which situations offered them in the future, while in one hand they organized capitalistic methods of exploitation, they curried favor with the victims, and in a short time, became the leader against the victim's struggles with the jew." Hitler, explaining how capitalism is a jewish invention, and the jews invented fake socialism (like communism) as a way to double exploit their victims.
Note how he credits jews with capitalism, not socialism, just a fake version of it.
You see, you are just like him.

You see, like hitler you think accumulation of capital is bad, and that jews are evil for accumulating capital.

As someone who read adam smith and understand capitalism, I know that in a free enough economy, all businesses are bound to fail, capital can't be accumulated for ever.
You see, we both agree that socialism for business is bad, even if a crash of a company might lead to a wave of unnenployment. Which is inevitable, by the way.
You just think that socialism for communists is good.

(since you are against accumulation of capital, clearly you hate co-operatives as well. Also, corporations in the west have been translated as a co-operative of investors. And no, it's not an union of investors, those are separate.)

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone Adam Smith defined capitalism as "when individuals make a trade they value what they are purchasing more than they value what they are giving in exchange for a commodity."

So even the founder of modern capitalism admits it's built around the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. It's a system built around exploitation while socialism is built around altruism.

-That may be what Hitler SAID but what he DID was increase the percent of the GDP in the hands of business owners.

-"Cooperatives of investors" don't have leaders chosen by the workers.

[anylolone]

"Adam Smith defined capitalism as " Well, that's taking only half his words, but yeah.
Why the heck would you ever trade? I trade with you what has more value for me than what I trade, and vice versa. The worker does that with it's labor. The investor gives money now, the effort in researching later and risk for the sake of dividends. Kids do it. Monkeys do it.

"So even the" More value doesn't mean concentration of value. Read the goddamn shit. I'm already quoting hitler, don't make me quote adam smith as well.

"-That may be what Hitler SAID but what he DID" Him and all other socialists in history, including saint simone.

-"Cooperatives of investors" don't have leaders chosen by the workers.
They do, the workers are the investors, and they quite literally chose their leaders, perfect socialism.
Not much different than any co-operative, except with larger scales and more outsourcing.
If you gonna include all outsouced worker a voice, you gonna give the whole world a voice over what they don't care for, don't even know exists. You sacrifice de-centralization, and your goal is being the hitler in the story.
Which is what happened with the USSR, nazi germany, fascist italy, mao's china, cuba, zimbabwe.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone
-Trade is a defining feature of any economy; what's unique about trade in capitalism in that it's designed to accumulate wealth at the expense of others.

-Socialism didn't result in an increase in the wealth disparity between the workers and owners; that's what capitalism is built from the ground up to do.

Workers invest their labor in a corporation but they don't control how it's run. They make the show run but don't run the show.

When you're giving power from the owners to the workers, you're not sacrificing decentralization; you're promoting it.

[anylolone]

So you define theft as trade? It seems so. The only trade that doesn't "accumulate wealth", is theft.
All trade is two parties trading something they want less for something they want more, and according to you, that's bad.

All socialism in history did. From russia, to venezuela, to north korea, etc.

Of course they control how it's run, they chose the corporation they invest their labor in.
It's like saying that business owners don't control their business, they just do what the clients want.
And that clients don't control what they buy, they just buy what they need.

No socialist country in history ever gave power to the workers.

Capitalism, quite literally, discovered you can give power to the workers in exchange for a greater investment in the business.
Workers don't really like receiving shares as bonuses though.
There's even whole films of how that has been misused.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone
-Equal (Market Socialist) trade distributes wealth while unequal (capitalist) trade concentrates it.

-Nope, after the Revolutions the wages of workers went up as well as the standard of living (unless you include rapid industrialization but that wasn't a shortcoming of socialism, it was a perceived necessity to make the country capable of defending itself).

-You working for a corporation doesn't mean you're making decisions on how it's run; you're claiming that they do ad nauseum.

-See you're trying to make capitalism about freedom when it's about the domination of one over the other.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiMvcpRPUNE

[anylolone]

So, let's bring whole cloth internally inconsistent definitions not in agreement with reality regardless of how you square that circle?

Market socialism is theft and oppression that broke weimar's economy, did the same to zimbabwe, and my neighbor venezuela. Any useful socialism is unconcerned by the market.
It's "you don't own the fruits of your labor", you take someone who made money through consensual trade and say "it's mine". And call that a market.

And no, it didn't went up, stop trying to convince me to believe hitler, I debate neo-nazis all the time and they use the same bullshit. Also, the rapid industrialization was a necessity of socialism.
Without industrialization you can't produce the excess capital to rob.

No, it does. Choosing who you date is choosing how you date behaves.
Trying to wrestle control of someone you date is enslaving yourself to their enslavement.
You just argued for authoritarianism and doesn't even realize it.

Nope, capitalism is about freedom, which is why "leave it be".
Leave the gays be, is freedom. Leave the worker be instead of nannying the worker like you are a plantation owner is authoritarianism.
And capitalism is not only freedom, it's perpetual growth. Every time I buy something, I made someone else richer and they made me richer.

Concentration of what ever is just a consequence of the pareto principle.
Which also occurs in nature, everywhere. According to you, beatles are oppressing us, lol!
Or ants.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone War debts ruined the Weimar Republics' economy and neoliberalism (privatization) is what hindered economic growth in the third world.

It was a perceived necessity because they felt threatened. Hitler increased the gap between the rich and poor while he said he would do more for the workers. You're believing his lies not me.

Choosing who you work for doesn't determine how the corporation behaves unless you buy stocks. The examples you gave include people who have an equal footing; something antithetical to capitalism.

Workers don't have a say in how things are run in capitalism (reminiscent of a parent child or nanny child relationship) while they have an active role in determining how things are done in socialism. Socialism doesn't lead to a nanny state while capitalism leads to a nanny society.

[anylolone]

Hey man, you really sound like a neo-nazi there. No, it didn't ruined it's neighbors, zimbabwe had no war debts, the debt was not in german currency and therefore couldn't have caused the inflation.
Venezuela had zero war debts, the list is long.

If the debt is the problem and capitalism is the problem, just default of the debt, like argentina does all the time. As a neighbor I can tell you, does help them.

And of course choosing who to work for determines how a corporation behaves.
You can't have a business if you don't have the labor force, actually, if you are just outcompeted in labor force quality you are just fucked.

And you just compared an employed adult with a child.
A child has no choice and can't be given choice.

A neither a worker or manager can decide what work is going to bring revenue, you can't decide what the client wants.
Be it on the informal economy or not.
And that's your issue, other people have wants and needs beyond serving your every want and need.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone Sanctions caused the economic problem in Venezuela and printing too much cash to pay off the war debt in pre-Nazi Germany caused the inflation.

It doesn't influence corporate behavior to the extent that workers voting for administrators would. The Market in a capitalist system is just very inefficient.

And workers have more of a say in how things are run in worker cooperatives so market capitalism more closely resembles a parent child relationship than market socialism.

Actually it's capitalism that at its' core is about putting the wants of the few over the needs of the many which is why you're OK with children starving while foreign countries extract a nations' wealth.

[anylolone]

Sorry, sanctions hurt the autocracy? Yes, hitler only lost WWII because of sanctions, lol!
Hitler was just forced to trade with the communists because of those evil capitalists who wouldn't trade with him, lol!

"It doesn't influence to the extent" no, it doesn't. But voting clearly doesn't influence as much as lobbying. And lobbying clearly doesn't influence as much as, you know, the clients with the money.
Which is why go-woke go-broke. But now you were forced to admit that they do influence.

You just compared adult workers to kids again. You really love denying the people of their agency, don't you?
(and a good chunk of companies already ask the workers for the opinions, actually, most work today is giving your opinion. They do literal polls and votes, but it's disputed when it's useful.)

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone Pre Nazi Germany wasn't an autocracy.

Ignoring the fact markets don't lobby, in a cooperative workers do both so in socialism workers still have more say than they do in capitalism.

No I said that the parent child comparison is more appropriate in capitalism than socialism.

[anylolone]

Again, quoting hitler literally as if he was right.

Sorry, I saw nowhere in "wealth of the nations" that capitalism is about putting the interest of a few.
A lot of "leave them be", though, everywhere.
A lot of how the purpose of the state is not to control the economy, nanny the people, or anything else but persecuting violent crime, fraud, and protecting individual rights.
Gosh, in the same year we got a very similar document made by some yankies, the first of it's kind.
What's the relationship?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone Nope, you were the one who bought into Nazi propaganda not me.

And capitalism is about unequal exchange; the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many.

[anylolone]

I didn't brought nazi propaganda, I quoted hitler instead of pushing his beliefs like you do.

Nope, there's nowhere in "wealth of nations" saying anything about how capitalism can be even construed as having the purpose of wealth concentration.

"But how can you can more value by trading" because value is circumstantial and subjective.
As adam smith puts clearly "Water is more valuable in a desert than near a river."
Lumber is more valuable to the smith than to the lumberjack. Axes are more valuable to the lumberjack than to the smith. Both trade and both get wealthier as a result.

For a salesman, his time is worth less than his pay, for the business man, the salesman time is worth more than what he spends. Both grow wealthier as a result.
A one man business becomes a two men business. The cook becomes a chef.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone You quoted claims by Hitler to make him sound like a man of the people that he used to hide his capitalist/corporatist agenda.

-Unequal exchanges result in wealth concentration regardless of what was stated in "Wealth of Nations".

Wood+Metal+Labor = value of an axe => socialism
Wood+Metal+Labor < value of an axe (with excess going to the mill owner) => capitalism

[anylolone]

Hitler did exactly what he preached. He wasn't lying about his policies.
I'm not making him sound like a man of the people, quoting him on things he said and did and it looks like you. You aren't a man of the people.

You are confusing things, you do not have a right to other people's labor.
Equal rights naturally turn into unequal outcomes, because people are different and have different interests. rights over other people's work never generates equal outcomes, much to the contrary.

The value of an axe isn't fixed, it's not dependent on labor, it's not dependent on it's material.
It's dependent on it's instrumentality relative to someone's personal goals and wants.

Gold was worth very little for a lot of cultures. And a lot for others.
All the gold in the world is worth a bottle of water for someone dying of thirst in a desert.

Your denial of such facts show you have zero regard to other people's wants, you want slaves you can puppeteer. You resent the jews you owe to because they try to collect.
You resent your boss because he doesn't give you everything you want.

A gold axe is worth less than a steel axe for someone who wants to cut wood.

A talented smith makes a more valuable axe, with less materials and less time than an incompetent smith.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone Hitler lied about being pro masses versus pro business interests.

If a worker puts more effort into building an axe he gets paid more because the axe is more valuable. The distinguishing distinction between socialism and capitalism is does he earn from his labor what it's worth or does the owner class get to a cut even though the labor isn't his (i. e. capitalism is about wage slavery and you just want to be able to puppeteer them). Everything you claim is bad about socialism is intrinsic to capitalism LMAO.

And managers actually do meaningful work in coordinating activities but they are still employees, not owners.

But Adam Smith got something right:

[anylolone]

You lied about being pro-masses.

But hitler didn't lied about his socialist policies and hatred of capitalism.

Effort is not equal to value, if you spend your whole life digging a hole and refilling it, the final product is worth nothing. If your breath makes people feel good, your minimal effort is worth a lot.

As an example, prostitution. I worked with whores, they all felt guilty about it and tried to cope with it.
I have some prostitute friends, and they usually feel the same.

I will never hire a prostitute for myself, but I would also never buy meat for myself.
Never hire a massage. Those are worthless to me regardless of time and effort spent.

Also, you are confusing adam smith with saint simone, read adam smith again.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone Not wanting wealth to be concentrated in the hands of the few is pro masses.

Wow way to off on a tangent based on how I worded something. You do more valuable work you make more in socialism, in capitalism the better you are at manipulating/exploiting the more you make.

[anylolone]

Nope, wanting to steal from people's work is anti masses.
Which is why being against private property and the right to the fruit of the sweat of one's brow is anti-masses.
Like hitler, you are all empty promisses.

Robbers don't target the resilient, which is why they usually target the poor.

And actually, no. In socialism, the better you are at purging and deflecting blame, the more you get.
At capitalism, the more people you serve, the more money you make.
The problem with capitalism is that some people, when they have a lot of money, try to use it to fuck with other people because humans aren't born good, or bad.

And with capitalism, you solve the problem of assholes trying to use instrumental power to fuck with people with not being socialist with wealthy people, not thinking "we can't let all these people just lose their jobs like that".
IE, you let business fail. Which is inevitable the moment they stop serving people.
Or just fail to serve people as well as the competition.

Of course, that's something that to date, only iceland did, once.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone "wanting to steal from people's work is anti masses."

That's what capitalism is about. In socialism you get out what you put in but in capitalism there's an owner class taking some of it from you.

-Socialism makes a distinction between private and personal property; it doesn't prohibit you from owning property but it doesn't let you use property rights to extort the labor of others.

And in Market socialism, bad firms are weeded out (again your trying to misportray capitalism as a market system).

Still you project and say that's what bad about socialism are features intrinsic to capitalism.

[anylolone]

Nope, you already admitted that people have no right to the fruits of their work.
That people have no right to chose, that their consent is irrelevant and what they value is meaningless.
You, and only you are the arbiter of value.

Socialism makes no such distinction in practice, because there's no way to do it.

In market socialism, like weimar germany, or early chaves venezuela, they aren't.
Which is why their failed statized industries kept being rescued. Same for early zimbabwe.
Same for pre pinochet cuba.
Gosh, same for getulio's brazil.
List is huge.

And you sir, are projecting.
You think private property is bad, that's all people need to hear to understand you are hitler writing mein kampf.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@anylolone Nope people just have no right to the fruits of the labors of others which is what capitalism depends on. Weimar Germany had corporations, not worker cooperatives; you're bending history to fit your fictitious narrative. Hitler protected private property which is why under the Nazis, the percent of GDP owned by the owner class increased; and that they put controls on interfirm relations doesn't change that because they gave the owners more control in intrafirm relationships. You're projecting because you want to make capitalism about free exchange when it's based around exploitation and socialism is based around altruism. That's all there is to it; bye now.

[Snakeyes7]

@Ad_Quid_Orator

I never said anything about how socialism came into place and it ultimately doesn’t matter how the state gets its power, it will always use that power to enslave its own people. We cannot risk that here.

2. Dying by what? Old age? Their own hand? It certainly isn’t the government because if that was the case, dissenters like you questioning capitalism would have been thrown in prison, tortured until you agree with the establishment, or killed by a firing squad. The more power you give to the state the more leeway you will allow them to do this shit to its own people.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@Snakeyes7 In socialism and capitalism the state has the same amounts of power (it enforces all of the business agreements made between firms and individuals).

[Snakeyes7]

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You might as well be saying that they are the same thing. You're telling me that the governments of the USSR, Cuba, China, Venezuela etc. had the same exact power as all of Europe, Canada, Australia and especially the US. If you are talking about presently, I can agree that the latter countries are diving headfirst into socialism (much to the people's dismay especially those who escaped from countries like the former) but we are still far from the formers' level. I believe it is our duty as citizens to not let it get that far or we will all suffer.

The US, a capitalist society, actively tried to reduce the power of the state by making the bill of rights and giving the people the freedom to be who they want to be rather than just be slaves to the government. It has been a constant battle of power between the people and the government ever since.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@Snakeyes7 "The US, a capitalist society, actively tried to reduce the power of the state by making the bill of rights and giving the people the freedom to be who they want to be rather than just be slaves to the government."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EZ5bx9AyI4&t=9s

And FDR proposed a second bill of rights to protect people from being slaves of unaccountable concentrations of wealth and power. a lot has happened since the industrial revolution and the battle lines in the fight for liberty have been re-drawn. The main front isn't the people versus the government; it's the collective against private concentrations of power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8ba5umiqHY&t=56s

[Snakeyes7]

Private concentrations of power of which the public sources of power keep around because they are useful tools of the state. Even if they weren't using it at that time, they are now. Otherwise, Biden wouldn't be having social media company executives as a part of his cabinet.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@Snakeyes7 Companies lobby governments; not the other way around. Social media giants were only able to reconcile as much power as they do because Trump gutted competition laws and as soon as his policies made him so unpopular that de-platforming him and his supporters boosted their add revenue, that's exactly what they did. Even if a more left leaning government may adversely affect how much the shareholders make in the long term, capitalism's concerned about what's going to turn the profit the next quarter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMM-8cHFouU&t=5s

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

The right always likes to talk about how the market acts as a sort of nature to generate wealth. Well sometimes when you unleash a force of nature it turns on you.

[Snakeyes7]

@Ad_Quid_Orator Lobbying never should have been legal as it allows corporations and the government to work as one. As for Trump, I don't know about any anticompetitive laws he passed the the only ones I know of are ones that predate his presidency.

I often hear the left complain that capitalism allows greed to flourish but thats what happens when you let lobbying and monopolies exist.

[iBeowulf]

Democrats on paper resisting the abolition of slavery: "THE PARTIES SWITCHED!"

[Sabretooth]

the party switched. racist democrats became republicans.

[Nivkhia]

Who cares you dumb loser.