In an irony only public radio could miss, "On the Media" hosts an hour on the perils of "free speech absolutism" without interviewing a defender of free speech.
It was pointed out to me recently that the gist of this movement, whether it be critical race theory or this anti-free speech brigade, is reactionary. They fully reject the Civil Rights Movement in favor of identity group segregation and go even further to assert that individual rights should be demoted below those of the collective or done away with altogether.
This article cements that argument in my head.
The Left supported free speech until they got what they wanted, institutional and cultural power. Now they want to do away with it because it threatens them. They will disguise their desire to do so with claims of "It's to protect you!" but ultimately, it's all about them and eliminating their opposition.
It should be pointed out that the "End of History" has been claimed before, usually with horrific results.
'Communism', 'socialism', 'democracy'... all ideals rarely realized before the psycho/socio-pathic among us commandeer the system into a plutocracy of some sort. Human nature?
Exactly. *In practice*, ALL political and economic systems -- including capitalism, feudalism, etc. -- suffer the same entropy: The more capable + more sociopathic actors learn how to effect, and then execute, a concentration of power until the system grinds to a halt and cracks up. Communists are just more efficient about it. Wash, rinse, repeat.
That's what we have to figure out how to correct: Concentration of power. However, with ever-increasing power embodied in technologies (of all kinds), we might, unfortunately, be past the point of no return.
I think you are very right about dangers of power and our need to oppose it generally, but very wrong about tech. Let’s take a few largely centralized technologies and see how they don’t have to be that way.
There is nothing magical about commercial or government internet service providers that makes them necessary to run the internet. America has hundreds of community owned internet service providers that are largely faster and cheaper than the commercial options: https://www.vice.com/en/article/a3np4a/new-municipal-broadband-map
Oh and let’s not forget Linux - arguably the worlds best operating systems are Linux, and they are free open source made by hippies for everyone.
Now let’s talk about some more serious technological monopolies. What about energy? Well, green energy lets us all own our own power plant if we have a house, and we can get into a community energy trust in an apartment. Not only can you buy solar panels and wind turbines, but you can make your own cheap wind turbine https://opensourcelowtech.org/wind_turbine.html or make your own ethanol at home or with your neighbors https://survivallife.com/how-make-own-ethanol-gas/ Now we have our own energy - green energy as primary, and ethanol to fill in the gaps.
Now let’s really piss of the rulers - we don’t need them to manufacture our medicine. Sure, patent law and the FDA to send us to prison if we make our own, but it’s very possible to do so. https://openinsulin.org/ and https://fourthievesvinegar.org/ are examples of people doing that. Make your own cure for hep C or your own insulin - yeah, you can do that. Don’t need big pharma either.
How about the money monopoly? Crypto is already a massive success and the blockchain options just keep expanding.
I could go on, but the point still stands; nothing about modern technology is necessitating that we have centralized power controlling it. On the contrary; we have more power than ever to live high tech lives without centralized manufacturing, control, ownership, or authority. I think the rulers are really afraid we will figure this out - it’s important that they label everything I just talked about as something for libertarian crazies, because they are scared to death that it spreads and we take control of our own economic and technological lives.
This is why, even though I am largely libertarian, I don’t think an actual libertarian state can exist. Even if you started off with the absolute minimal level of government, whoever was in that government would eventually get the bright idea that they could do SO MUCH MORE TO HELP PEOPLE if only they had more power, and it would devolve from there.
Communisms by definition is about the socialization of the means of production. These people wish to privately own the means of production themselves and are therefore by definition not communists. They are some sort of: neo-feudalists, totalitarian aristocrats, or plutocrats.
Except that - in practice, if not definition - socialism inviariably leads to monopolistic oligarchy which primarily benefits wealthy capitalists. Show me a socialist nation and I'll show you half a dozen families who own the majority of that country.
Hmm. Communism can be modeled as a 100% tax rate with all payments as social welfare. China has done a quite good job of things in the past 30 years. Rather amazing really. I'm even liking this latest crackdown on giant tech companies -- imagine a nation that wants to ensure prosperity is shared by almost everyone. Shocking. We used to do that.
You're totally right about communism. However, I've never heard a communist or Marxist admit that its been tried or failed before, so I am not sure how its defined is actually important. When it fails, its not real.
The definition of communism has nothing whatever to do with the unarguable fact that countries that have called themselves communist have not me the definition of communism. So yes, in that sense there was a labeling attempt that failed.
Was the USSR communist? If it was it must have been a stateless society where all the people are considered equal and treated equally is known as Communism.
Yeah, but every attempt has been met with as brutal a response from global capitalism as they could without killing us all in a nuclear war.
It's like saying somebody can't drive because the rich guy up the street sends groups of drivers out to crash into you every time you pull out of the driveway.
At any route, capitalism is about done, there isn't enough planet left to keep doubling the economy, so we are either going to have to figure out some kind of planned economy compromise, or get used to fighting marauders over dwindling guzzoline.
“China’s emergence over the past four decades ranks as the biggest and longest-run economic boom in history. Its annual gross domestic product rose from a mere $191 B, or $195 per capita, in 1980 to $14.3 T, or $10,261 per capita, in 2019.
It has raised more than 770m people from poverty and transformed the Chinese economy into a high-tech powerhouse that is on course to eclipse America’s in size. This transformation is the landmark achievement of the Chinese Communist party, which celebrates its 100th anniversary on Thursday.”
I have to agree with Exhausted. China goes 60 years with real communism and kills millions of its own citizens with purges and famines. Cultural Revolution, anybody? They go (state) capitalist and in 40 years they’re a world player. I think Boris’ citation proves EM’s point.
Nailed it. Its curious that people mix up governments and market so readily. As if the US is a free market system and the Communist Chinese system is purely command and control. At the bottom, the a Chinese citizen could appear to have more freedom than a poor person in the US. 1500 hours of "school" to braid hair for a living in the US. This thing is nothing but gatekeepers, even if the gatekeeper isnt the state.
China is a mingling of Socialism and Capitalism, but the ultimate economic power rests with a government interested in bringing its people out of poverty. Capitalists are working within an essentially socialist system. Capitalism is where the profiteers either keep the government out of their business* or they, as now, control the government. The free market was always where the strong devoured the weak, and that now goes on with massive government aid e.g. bailouts.
*Investopedia: "Businesses and services are free of government control."
In China the govt quietly steps in when the usual abuse from Capitalist greed goes to far. Businessmen in China do not scorn govt as their tool, but rightly fear it as an obstacle to their desire to milk workers, consumers and tenants of every last dime.
As I pointed out above, isn't this capitalism/communism debate silly at this point? Trapped in the 19th Century and all that? What matters is who get's to hold the reins--reigns.
@boris The cost of this "progress", both human cost and the cost to the environment, in China and elsewhere is yet to be paid. Inequality in China is similar to the US and Brazil. Germany was destroyed after WW2, it's population decimated, yet by 1970s it had already surpassed the US in terms of prosperity and the quality of life. In terms of quality of life, in ones, GDP, freedoms, almost all European countries are decades of not centuries ahead of primitive economies and cultures like China or the US that are based on exploitation of human capital.
hmm -- remember before this incredible and in human history unprecedented success (800M people lifted our of abject poverty) -- every ten years or so about 10M Chinese died from starvation....
Most Western Innovation was paid for at least in part if not whole by socialized research. The final adaptions to make things into market ready products are all private sector, but that is usually the least of all the innovation. Most private sector innovation is about figuring out the PR and such to sell people on products they otherwise wouldn't want or need. Indeed if you follow the money that is where most of the money in the private sector research and innovation fields have gone in the US over the last 100 or so years.
But Communist China has a population of around 1,450 million. So 750 million have NOT been raised out of poverty.
This is in fact well known. Many rural people moved to urban areas, but cannot get regular employment because the CCP never approved their move to the urban area, and they have no valid ID to work there.
Their population collapse with amplify this. Right now there are ~16 million persons in each age group 1 to 25 and 21 million in each age group 40 to 65. The population would be decreasing now if Mao had not killed off ~60 million people.
Unless they can undo the damage of the one-child policy and return to a fertility rate of at least 2.2 from their current 1.7 children per woman, they will lose at least 500 million people by 2100
You're just disagreeing to disagree. What I'm saying is this isn't "Communism" in the Red Scare sense because billionaires are pushing this and they absolutely believe in their OWN private property. They're happy to take the property of others, though.
Anthony Sutton, a professor back in the 70s, has written lengths about this apparent contradiction, for instance in "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution".
There is a strain of person that thinks the world is their oyster and the people in it are stupid and/or underserving, and they'll use any system that is convenient to bring it to heel.
These people usually end up being ruthlessly hated, for good cause.
I think what we are seeing is actually a sort of Hegelian synthesis of communism and nazism. And I specify nazism intentionally due to the racial elements and other factors.
You appear to be proof positive of this. You really think you got it going on but then you slip into all the same traps. “What about increasing IQs” 🤣🤣🤣
*the dumbest people in any advanced nation, are unable to keep up with what is going on in the world."
*No one* is able to keep up with what is going on in the world, most notably TPTB. Exhibit A: Our Dear Leader. Part of that problem is the illusion that *knowledge* is possible, when in fact only *belief* ever is. It's in the nature of limited and imperfect human beings. Which means, regarding democracy, that you can't separate the capable from non-capable. There are court jesters and village idiots who have insights, and geniuses who have blind spots.
Meanwhile, *all* have equal moral value. If you're a sociopath, you probably won't believe or even understand that last point. (U.S.) Democracy is usually misinterpreted as aggregate *functional* decision-making, but it's value is more like aggregate *moral* decision-making (judging people not policies, however imperfect the method) ... which is one reason why it is implemented with *representatives*.
What you're describing as inevitable is the re-emergence of sociopathic rule. So I'd look again at why it was defeated so many times.
I've spent many years flicking and batting away assertions that so-and-so is a communist because of some mildly leftish utterance. But in this case, I'd almost have to agree that these particular so-and-so's are -- in a general sense -- just what you say.
By your logic a slave colony is communism. And gosh, you are right, except these plantation masters got there though the back door--neoliberal capitalism. Funny that.
The truth is the communism/capitalism debate is an empty vessel and a relic of history. (Except as a tool for bad faith arguments.)
:-D No. They are just regular ol' people who mostly fell into that slot the way others fell int Rush Limbaugh. Now NPR has talk radio that makes people froth at the mouth too.
They don't believe in individual rights? We are raising kids this way somewhere in the chain. They put us all in danger and I think its time we start talking plainly about this reality.
2 DNC oligarchs (Biden, Pelosi, Schumer) are even WORSE (censorship, they concocted Russia-gate hoax, torture of Julian Assange, Daniel Hale’s persecution for Obama’s drone crimes, $16+B Haiti-corruption under Hillary/Obama – Biden-family corruption pales in comparison)
The ONLY solution – vote THIRD party – now and forever. ALWAYS vote – but VOTE for a Third (or fourth, fifth..) party – at ALL levels, especially at LOCAL levels (vote OUT each and every incumbent).
“If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you will always have evil, and you will always have less.” [Ralph Nader].
Only ACTION: Sustained organized mass civil disobedience - not distractions like DNC-controlled hollering and tweeting....
PS: Can we be perfectly clear who "won" in Afghanistan? Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, and their "shareholders" (70%+ of "shareholders" are just Wall Street and DC parasitic “blob” + Congress scumbags)
I got news for you, Trump is a 3rd party ..working within the 2 party system. He's an outsider that the RNC hates with a passion. I see that as a good thing.
That description is used way too loosely and is why I agreed only in a general way. A Marxist at minimum would have to be someone who has actually studied Marx -- a lengthy, difficult task -- and buys into the basic ideas, including the inevitability of a global "dictatorship of the proletariat." Any old loopy, self-contracicting line of reasoning doesn't fit the bill.
I doubt whether any of these clowns have read any Marx and they certainly have nothing but disdain for the proletariat, or what they call "a basket of deplorables." They clearly want to put self-appointed elites like themselves in charge.
In a popular sense, though, "communist" is a better term, given the elite-dominated system that described itself as such in the Soviet Union and currently claims the title in China. But even in these two cases the term isn't technically true since no one can reasonably argue that ordinary working people were or are running the show in those countries.
Aren't there a couple of politicians in Portland Oregon that actually describe themselves as followers of Trotsky? I seem to remember reading that at one point.
I agree with much of what you say. I think the average Antifa person (since they are not a group and have no membership or whatever the belief of the naïve is today), isn't intelligent enough to even know why they are out in the streets beating up old people and threatening violence to those that disagree with them. By extension the average Proud individual fighting the non-group in the streets has a similar issue and throws around parrot phrases for giggles.
I'd personally say the world we are now living in where companies and corporations dictate what people can and can't do, or whether they have vaccines or not to be a part of earning money is far more Mussolini than anything else.
It's looking a bit like that. The difference -- and maybe it's a minor one -- is that the leftie share of this lunacy is more about tearing things down than it is about national pride, offering little or no inspiring vision for the future.
We'll have to disagree on the history point. But what about the idea that these "Marxists" appear to deplore working people? Surely if they were Marxists in ANY sense of the term, they'd have to sympathize with people who do hard work for a living.
That said, however, they do exhibit one characteristic of Marxism in its Leninist and Maoist forms, that being their zealotry trying to impose correct thought patterns and speech. But I'd argue that's a tendency that isn't necessarily confined to Marxism.
More broadly, I think the rush to slap Marxist and communist labels on these disagreeable thought-enforcers tends to discredit those wielding the labels and undermine otherwise legit criticism. The minute I hear someone barking those words or "Hitler" or "Nazi," I tend to tune out as I figure the speaker or writer is going off the hyperbolic deep end and probably has nothing thoughtful or insightful to say.
You would have to earn that answer by establishing that they do deplore working people. How have you confirmed it?
I believe that 'marxism' as it is being used refers to what is called 'cultural marxism' or 'neo-marxism'.
By your standards you couldn't comment until you have studied, György Lukács, Antonio Gramsci, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and Angela Davis.
I admire your forthrightness about the shallowness of your analysis, however.
Except the part about doing nothing to help anyone not in their peer group, leaving millions of marginalized POC with fewer protections against predatory capitalism. It's all the completely authoritarian dissolution of the individual (for everyone but them) with none of the social safety net, equality or stability of socialism. So all the worst parts of both systems.
...says the commenter who took the time to upload an animated .gif as an icon on a message board. With such time on your hands, you must be really S-M-R-T.
Ahh, you come again. I just replied to another one of your inane points. RE: The difference between leftists that believe in labor on the board (making them naturally not labor) and the commies you pretend aren't of your ilk. You're a fool.
The thrust of the all these entreaties on foundational US constitutional/DOI concepts is the elimination of individual rights and the diminishment of the individual vis a vis the proletariat. Its socialism bordering on communism, and implementation via neo Bolshevism. Much of founders motivations were based on grievances against simple majority rule (Parliamentary structures), lack of leverage of the minority and minority representation buttressed against a background of entrepreneurship and religious differentiation. Live and let Live, with minimal government intervention a backstop of last resort, not a primary orchestrator of society, easily manipulated by simple majorities.
This just isn’t correct. If you think the views of the Founders were reflected in the Constitution, then I’m afraid to tell you that it’s a document which permits lots of government. The question isn’t “what can the government do or not do?” It is “does the federal government or local government have authority to make decisions?”
Aside from the fact that the Constitution at least tacitly permitted individuals to own other individuals as property; stealing land from Indians; and depriving women of political and economic right, I regret to inform you that the the Bill of Rights didn’t even apply to local governments. That’s right. The state of Virginia was free to set up a state church and make you pay taxes to support it or free to pass laws saying you couldn’t criticize the President. It was also free — at least under ol’ Jim Madison’s Constitution — to take away your real estate without providing you compensation or to torture you. And yes, it could also do all kinds of other regulatory stuff that wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
I’m fine with someone saying “libertarianism is good” as a philosophical matter but IK not fine with people putting their own political views into the mouths of the Founders.
This is a stupid point. These principles weren’t in the federal constitution because the founders didn’t believe in overly elevating the power of the federal government, not because they didn’t believe in any of the principles. John Adams wrote the oldest still operative written constitution on earth and the rights it granted were still held to protect the rights of gay people to marry only a decade and a half ago.
Apparently they didn't "believe in the principles" enough to make them applicable to state and local governments as well as the Federal government. It would be strange indeed if they were truly committed to the idea that free speech was a fundamental right that no government could take away at any level yet they left the state of Pennsylvania or the city government of Boston free to pass laws restricting free speech. You don't want to hear this because it conflicts with the history you've been taught and the political rhetoric you've absorbed throughout your life, but it's true.
"John Adams wrote the oldest still operative written constitution on earth and the rights it granted were still held to protect the rights of gay people to marry only a decade and a half ago." What does this have to do with anything whatsoever?
They were during the time of the Founders, because the Bill of Rights did not apply to state and local governments. At that time, it only applied to the federal government. For an example, see Baron v. Baltimore.
The Bill of Rights did not apply to state or local governments until well-after the American Civil War through a very convoluted process called incorporation of the 14th Amendment. By that time, of course, the Founders were all long-dead.
Sorry. I’m not a nanny so no one is paying me to babysit imbecile children. Especially not the ones with magical mind reading abilities that tell them what people who are smarter and know more than them are thinking. I’m done with you child. Muted.
Notice how you didn't respond to anything I said? This is not the mark of a good argument. I'm going to guess that you don't know McCullough v. Maryland from your own asshole. You are in no position to begin discuss what the Founders believed about the principles of American government.
Quick question, why do you think the labor movement of the early 19th century died off when it did not on other places? Why did we never get another Eugene Debbs?
It's more than just a mortgage, it's the actual home itself. My mortgage has been paid for 13 years yet every year the taxman shows me who really owns it & it ain't me.
I will say that boxes are nice when its 10 below zero.
:-D :-D :-D Dude. You are either batshit crazy, really not very bright, or a troll. Not sure which. Start with biology. We humans were cave dwellers for a long, long, long time. We humans, we like our caves. We used to have fires in our caves and kept warm at night. We could look out the cave entrance and see a valley full of animals to hunt. When we get stuff, we like to build fancy caves with windows. We call them - houses. Native Americans made tipis that could be hauled around, hogans that couldn't, and built towns and cities of clay and brick. Those rooms were smaller. This instinct we have for protective shelter is deep. We aren't like gorillas or chimpanzees that just sleep where ever they happen to be, or make nests in trees for the night.
This is a start. If you can understand that, it undermines all that fancy-talk political babble-gabble.
Interesting - I've heard the "pulling the ladder up behind them" idea applied to the boomer generation regarding wealth, and even power, but it never occurred to me to translate it to the information sphere. I'm making an assumption that the reference here to the Left supporting free speech until they got into power is compatible with a narrative that the roots of the 2020's lie in the 1960's, and that yesterday's radicals are today's powerbrokers, with their students and protégées carrying on the project.
Of course, this also assumes the Left is ascendant, yet another interpretation fits the same narrative: it could also be that what we're seeing is the last gasp of the 60's revolution, the final, desperate expenditure of energy before the collapse. In many ways, this seems unlikely, with the Left ensconced at the heights of cultural and political power. Yet the increasingly unmoored conversations on the Left have such a "let them eat cake" feel at times that one wonders if this increasing trend toward authoritarianism is, in the end, actually a sign of political weakness and an impending loss of power.
It was pointed out to me recently that the gist of this movement, whether it be critical race theory or this anti-free speech brigade, is reactionary. They fully reject the Civil Rights Movement in favor of identity group segregation and go even further to assert that individual rights should be demoted below those of the collective or done away with altogether.
This article cements that argument in my head.
The Left supported free speech until they got what they wanted, institutional and cultural power. Now they want to do away with it because it threatens them. They will disguise their desire to do so with claims of "It's to protect you!" but ultimately, it's all about them and eliminating their opposition.
It should be pointed out that the "End of History" has been claimed before, usually with horrific results.
You have written the exact definition of them : "identity group segregation"
They are communists. There is no debate here.
Except for the bit about being billionaire financiers and corporatists.
Do you actually believe communism reduces wealth at the top and shrinks income inequality?
'Communism', 'socialism', 'democracy'... all ideals rarely realized before the psycho/socio-pathic among us commandeer the system into a plutocracy of some sort. Human nature?
Exactly. *In practice*, ALL political and economic systems -- including capitalism, feudalism, etc. -- suffer the same entropy: The more capable + more sociopathic actors learn how to effect, and then execute, a concentration of power until the system grinds to a halt and cracks up. Communists are just more efficient about it. Wash, rinse, repeat.
That's what we have to figure out how to correct: Concentration of power. However, with ever-increasing power embodied in technologies (of all kinds), we might, unfortunately, be past the point of no return.
I think you are very right about dangers of power and our need to oppose it generally, but very wrong about tech. Let’s take a few largely centralized technologies and see how they don’t have to be that way.
There is nothing magical about commercial or government internet service providers that makes them necessary to run the internet. America has hundreds of community owned internet service providers that are largely faster and cheaper than the commercial options: https://www.vice.com/en/article/a3np4a/new-municipal-broadband-map
Now that we have established the idea that we can own and control the internet, why not just own and control social media ourselves? https://itsfoss.com/mainstream-social-media-alternaives/
Oh and let’s not forget Linux - arguably the worlds best operating systems are Linux, and they are free open source made by hippies for everyone.
Now let’s talk about some more serious technological monopolies. What about energy? Well, green energy lets us all own our own power plant if we have a house, and we can get into a community energy trust in an apartment. Not only can you buy solar panels and wind turbines, but you can make your own cheap wind turbine https://opensourcelowtech.org/wind_turbine.html or make your own ethanol at home or with your neighbors https://survivallife.com/how-make-own-ethanol-gas/ Now we have our own energy - green energy as primary, and ethanol to fill in the gaps.
Now let’s really piss of the rulers - we don’t need them to manufacture our medicine. Sure, patent law and the FDA to send us to prison if we make our own, but it’s very possible to do so. https://openinsulin.org/ and https://fourthievesvinegar.org/ are examples of people doing that. Make your own cure for hep C or your own insulin - yeah, you can do that. Don’t need big pharma either.
They can try to take away our guns, but we can make those too. https://ghostguns.com/product-category/3d-print/
How about the money monopoly? Crypto is already a massive success and the blockchain options just keep expanding.
I could go on, but the point still stands; nothing about modern technology is necessitating that we have centralized power controlling it. On the contrary; we have more power than ever to live high tech lives without centralized manufacturing, control, ownership, or authority. I think the rulers are really afraid we will figure this out - it’s important that they label everything I just talked about as something for libertarian crazies, because they are scared to death that it spreads and we take control of our own economic and technological lives.
Great book on the subject - https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-the-homebrew-industrial-revolution
Which is to say communism is less efficient at it as they tend to get to the end state faster, even acknowledging the huge push capitalism gives them.
Blended economies with elements of capitalism tend to do the best, so long as they manage corruption.
This is why, even though I am largely libertarian, I don’t think an actual libertarian state can exist. Even if you started off with the absolute minimal level of government, whoever was in that government would eventually get the bright idea that they could do SO MUCH MORE TO HELP PEOPLE if only they had more power, and it would devolve from there.
Word. And H/T
Raised and educated by phones.
In wild-frog years
Communisms by definition is about the socialization of the means of production. These people wish to privately own the means of production themselves and are therefore by definition not communists. They are some sort of: neo-feudalists, totalitarian aristocrats, or plutocrats.
Except that - in practice, if not definition - socialism inviariably leads to monopolistic oligarchy which primarily benefits wealthy capitalists. Show me a socialist nation and I'll show you half a dozen families who own the majority of that country.
If it does - it wasn't socialism. These are all discreet definitions. They are not a continuum.
Hmm. Communism can be modeled as a 100% tax rate with all payments as social welfare. China has done a quite good job of things in the past 30 years. Rather amazing really. I'm even liking this latest crackdown on giant tech companies -- imagine a nation that wants to ensure prosperity is shared by almost everyone. Shocking. We used to do that.
You're totally right about communism. However, I've never heard a communist or Marxist admit that its been tried or failed before, so I am not sure how its defined is actually important. When it fails, its not real.
The definition of communism has nothing whatever to do with the unarguable fact that countries that have called themselves communist have not me the definition of communism. So yes, in that sense there was a labeling attempt that failed.
Was the USSR communist? If it was it must have been a stateless society where all the people are considered equal and treated equally is known as Communism.
The same with China.
Yeah, but every attempt has been met with as brutal a response from global capitalism as they could without killing us all in a nuclear war.
It's like saying somebody can't drive because the rich guy up the street sends groups of drivers out to crash into you every time you pull out of the driveway.
At any route, capitalism is about done, there isn't enough planet left to keep doubling the economy, so we are either going to have to figure out some kind of planned economy compromise, or get used to fighting marauders over dwindling guzzoline.
correct
Financial Times -- July 8, 2021:
“China’s emergence over the past four decades ranks as the biggest and longest-run economic boom in history. Its annual gross domestic product rose from a mere $191 B, or $195 per capita, in 1980 to $14.3 T, or $10,261 per capita, in 2019.
It has raised more than 770m people from poverty and transformed the Chinese economy into a high-tech powerhouse that is on course to eclipse America’s in size. This transformation is the landmark achievement of the Chinese Communist party, which celebrates its 100th anniversary on Thursday.”
Not quite: "This transformation is the landmark achievement of Capitalism."
I have to agree with Exhausted. China goes 60 years with real communism and kills millions of its own citizens with purges and famines. Cultural Revolution, anybody? They go (state) capitalist and in 40 years they’re a world player. I think Boris’ citation proves EM’s point.
Nailed it. Its curious that people mix up governments and market so readily. As if the US is a free market system and the Communist Chinese system is purely command and control. At the bottom, the a Chinese citizen could appear to have more freedom than a poor person in the US. 1500 hours of "school" to braid hair for a living in the US. This thing is nothing but gatekeepers, even if the gatekeeper isnt the state.
China is a mingling of Socialism and Capitalism, but the ultimate economic power rests with a government interested in bringing its people out of poverty. Capitalists are working within an essentially socialist system. Capitalism is where the profiteers either keep the government out of their business* or they, as now, control the government. The free market was always where the strong devoured the weak, and that now goes on with massive government aid e.g. bailouts.
*Investopedia: "Businesses and services are free of government control."
In China the govt quietly steps in when the usual abuse from Capitalist greed goes to far. Businessmen in China do not scorn govt as their tool, but rightly fear it as an obstacle to their desire to milk workers, consumers and tenants of every last dime.
As I pointed out above, isn't this capitalism/communism debate silly at this point? Trapped in the 19th Century and all that? What matters is who get's to hold the reins--reigns.
@boris The cost of this "progress", both human cost and the cost to the environment, in China and elsewhere is yet to be paid. Inequality in China is similar to the US and Brazil. Germany was destroyed after WW2, it's population decimated, yet by 1970s it had already surpassed the US in terms of prosperity and the quality of life. In terms of quality of life, in ones, GDP, freedoms, almost all European countries are decades of not centuries ahead of primitive economies and cultures like China or the US that are based on exploitation of human capital.
hmm -- remember before this incredible and in human history unprecedented success (800M people lifted our of abject poverty) -- every ten years or so about 10M Chinese died from starvation....
Haha. This fucking guy.
On the backs of western innovation, they have done marvelous things when measured in this way.
Most Western Innovation was paid for at least in part if not whole by socialized research. The final adaptions to make things into market ready products are all private sector, but that is usually the least of all the innovation. Most private sector innovation is about figuring out the PR and such to sell people on products they otherwise wouldn't want or need. Indeed if you follow the money that is where most of the money in the private sector research and innovation fields have gone in the US over the last 100 or so years.
Ohh - now I see -- thank you for your thoughtful explanation...
But Communist China has a population of around 1,450 million. So 750 million have NOT been raised out of poverty.
This is in fact well known. Many rural people moved to urban areas, but cannot get regular employment because the CCP never approved their move to the urban area, and they have no valid ID to work there.
How is the poverty rate in China vs the US?
Thank you for your uninformed BS -- for pulling your "facts" out of your ass. Try to learn basic public facts before spreading your China-hatred.
Growth is easy, profitability is not.
China is quickly heading for a collapsed bubble that will make the Japanese zombie banks of the 1990's look flush with cash.
Their population collapse with amplify this. Right now there are ~16 million persons in each age group 1 to 25 and 21 million in each age group 40 to 65. The population would be decreasing now if Mao had not killed off ~60 million people.
Unless they can undo the damage of the one-child policy and return to a fertility rate of at least 2.2 from their current 1.7 children per woman, they will lose at least 500 million people by 2100
Do you actually believe the nomenklatura were mostly the families of czarist Grand Dukes or might there have been different groups involved?
I would imagine in a political environment such as this (and that), its anyone who can effectively toe the line.
You're just disagreeing to disagree. What I'm saying is this isn't "Communism" in the Red Scare sense because billionaires are pushing this and they absolutely believe in their OWN private property. They're happy to take the property of others, though.
Anthony Sutton, a professor back in the 70s, has written lengths about this apparent contradiction, for instance in "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution".
There is a strain of person that thinks the world is their oyster and the people in it are stupid and/or underserving, and they'll use any system that is convenient to bring it to heel.
These people usually end up being ruthlessly hated, for good cause.
I think what we are seeing is actually a sort of Hegelian synthesis of communism and nazism. And I specify nazism intentionally due to the racial elements and other factors.
I should comment, he also wrote "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler". That one is on deck.
A bit boring and overly academic, but some interesting history.
Well, he is right. Most people are stupid. We run into problem when these people try and fix this.
Also, how to reconcile that statement with the global IQ gains over the last 120 years?
Ha! You think IQ means something? You probably follow the Covid case count very closely as well.
Is he? How have you determined it?
Sounds like self-enhancement bias and related narcissistic cognitive distortion to me.
You appear to be proof positive of this. You really think you got it going on but then you slip into all the same traps. “What about increasing IQs” 🤣🤣🤣
I would reject your assertion, but it’s so haphazard and manic to be met with a logical response is simply impossible.
I suggest getting a sweat in, or enjoying a sunset, or perhaps back away from the yayo and/or talk to a mental health expert.
*the dumbest people in any advanced nation, are unable to keep up with what is going on in the world."
*No one* is able to keep up with what is going on in the world, most notably TPTB. Exhibit A: Our Dear Leader. Part of that problem is the illusion that *knowledge* is possible, when in fact only *belief* ever is. It's in the nature of limited and imperfect human beings. Which means, regarding democracy, that you can't separate the capable from non-capable. There are court jesters and village idiots who have insights, and geniuses who have blind spots.
Meanwhile, *all* have equal moral value. If you're a sociopath, you probably won't believe or even understand that last point. (U.S.) Democracy is usually misinterpreted as aggregate *functional* decision-making, but it's value is more like aggregate *moral* decision-making (judging people not policies, however imperfect the method) ... which is one reason why it is implemented with *representatives*.
What you're describing as inevitable is the re-emergence of sociopathic rule. So I'd look again at why it was defeated so many times.
I was kinda with ya on the first paragraph, was looking forward to the next, and....then it was kinda all over the place.
This man wish death and violence onto people regularly. He will be on the news for something radical soon enough.
A wonderful example of irony.
This is the moment when the chick in the bar backs away.
Hilarious response even w/o knowing what 'deleted' had to say!
I've spent many years flicking and batting away assertions that so-and-so is a communist because of some mildly leftish utterance. But in this case, I'd almost have to agree that these particular so-and-so's are -- in a general sense -- just what you say.
I get it. The real whopper is the realization that they are same people just enabled in more radical ways.
By your logic a slave colony is communism. And gosh, you are right, except these plantation masters got there though the back door--neoliberal capitalism. Funny that.
The truth is the communism/capitalism debate is an empty vessel and a relic of history. (Except as a tool for bad faith arguments.)
Something a commie would say for sure.
Like I was saying...
See some of the comments by others below. They get it.
"Christ, I will be glad when the rivers run with your blood."
Hello?
What is a communist? Can you define it? How is a communist different than a socialist or a Marxist?
:-D No. They are just regular ol' people who mostly fell into that slot the way others fell int Rush Limbaugh. Now NPR has talk radio that makes people froth at the mouth too.
They don't believe in individual rights? We are raising kids this way somewhere in the chain. They put us all in danger and I think its time we start talking plainly about this reality.
1 Trump and GOP are truly HORRIBLE.
2 DNC oligarchs (Biden, Pelosi, Schumer) are even WORSE (censorship, they concocted Russia-gate hoax, torture of Julian Assange, Daniel Hale’s persecution for Obama’s drone crimes, $16+B Haiti-corruption under Hillary/Obama – Biden-family corruption pales in comparison)
The ONLY solution – vote THIRD party – now and forever. ALWAYS vote – but VOTE for a Third (or fourth, fifth..) party – at ALL levels, especially at LOCAL levels (vote OUT each and every incumbent).
“If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you will always have evil, and you will always have less.” [Ralph Nader].
Only ACTION: Sustained organized mass civil disobedience - not distractions like DNC-controlled hollering and tweeting....
PS: Can we be perfectly clear who "won" in Afghanistan? Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, and their "shareholders" (70%+ of "shareholders" are just Wall Street and DC parasitic “blob” + Congress scumbags)
I got news for you, Trump is a 3rd party ..working within the 2 party system. He's an outsider that the RNC hates with a passion. I see that as a good thing.
Yeah. It worked out really well for him and Bernie.
It's not inaccurate to call them Marxists, with their line of reasoning.
Perhaps also US form of government -- corporate socialism...
That description is used way too loosely and is why I agreed only in a general way. A Marxist at minimum would have to be someone who has actually studied Marx -- a lengthy, difficult task -- and buys into the basic ideas, including the inevitability of a global "dictatorship of the proletariat." Any old loopy, self-contracicting line of reasoning doesn't fit the bill.
I doubt whether any of these clowns have read any Marx and they certainly have nothing but disdain for the proletariat, or what they call "a basket of deplorables." They clearly want to put self-appointed elites like themselves in charge.
In a popular sense, though, "communist" is a better term, given the elite-dominated system that described itself as such in the Soviet Union and currently claims the title in China. But even in these two cases the term isn't technically true since no one can reasonably argue that ordinary working people were or are running the show in those countries.
Aren't there a couple of politicians in Portland Oregon that actually describe themselves as followers of Trotsky? I seem to remember reading that at one point.
I agree with much of what you say. I think the average Antifa person (since they are not a group and have no membership or whatever the belief of the naïve is today), isn't intelligent enough to even know why they are out in the streets beating up old people and threatening violence to those that disagree with them. By extension the average Proud individual fighting the non-group in the streets has a similar issue and throws around parrot phrases for giggles.
I'd personally say the world we are now living in where companies and corporations dictate what people can and can't do, or whether they have vaccines or not to be a part of earning money is far more Mussolini than anything else.
It's looking a bit like that. The difference -- and maybe it's a minor one -- is that the leftie share of this lunacy is more about tearing things down than it is about national pride, offering little or no inspiring vision for the future.
It is true that fascism and nationalism are right-wing positions, not left-wing positions.
Apart from all the ways it isn't. Such as no Mussolini.
The US is governed as a plutocracy not as a fascist state.
Not at all. All one has to do is to subscribe to the marxist platform. There is no requirement on history any more than there is for any other 'ism'.
One doesn't even have to receive the marxist platform. One could arrive at it independently and still be marxist.
We'll have to disagree on the history point. But what about the idea that these "Marxists" appear to deplore working people? Surely if they were Marxists in ANY sense of the term, they'd have to sympathize with people who do hard work for a living.
That said, however, they do exhibit one characteristic of Marxism in its Leninist and Maoist forms, that being their zealotry trying to impose correct thought patterns and speech. But I'd argue that's a tendency that isn't necessarily confined to Marxism.
More broadly, I think the rush to slap Marxist and communist labels on these disagreeable thought-enforcers tends to discredit those wielding the labels and undermine otherwise legit criticism. The minute I hear someone barking those words or "Hitler" or "Nazi," I tend to tune out as I figure the speaker or writer is going off the hyperbolic deep end and probably has nothing thoughtful or insightful to say.
You would have to earn that answer by establishing that they do deplore working people. How have you confirmed it?
I believe that 'marxism' as it is being used refers to what is called 'cultural marxism' or 'neo-marxism'.
By your standards you couldn't comment until you have studied, György Lukács, Antonio Gramsci, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and Angela Davis.
I admire your forthrightness about the shallowness of your analysis, however.
The 1950's called. It wants its labels back.
Except the part about doing nothing to help anyone not in their peer group, leaving millions of marginalized POC with fewer protections against predatory capitalism. It's all the completely authoritarian dissolution of the individual (for everyone but them) with none of the social safety net, equality or stability of socialism. So all the worst parts of both systems.
Well, actually there is ...
Yea, but its a waste of time. The color of the wool does not make a sheep a sheep.
Sorry, Nick, forgive my denseness - not sure where your emphasis was, on "no debate" or "here"
Nick -- have started drinking again? Socialism is a future for humanity....
Funny you should say that. I gave it up almost 20 months ago to the day but feel crazier and crazier with each passing month.
;-)) -- I like your response
Pinko scum, this fool.
...says the commenter who took the time to upload an animated .gif as an icon on a message board. With such time on your hands, you must be really S-M-R-T.
Ahh, you come again. I just replied to another one of your inane points. RE: The difference between leftists that believe in labor on the board (making them naturally not labor) and the commies you pretend aren't of your ilk. You're a fool.
Best part about this comment is your other comment replying to the comment I made. And you're a mad kid. Good shit pal.
The thrust of the all these entreaties on foundational US constitutional/DOI concepts is the elimination of individual rights and the diminishment of the individual vis a vis the proletariat. Its socialism bordering on communism, and implementation via neo Bolshevism. Much of founders motivations were based on grievances against simple majority rule (Parliamentary structures), lack of leverage of the minority and minority representation buttressed against a background of entrepreneurship and religious differentiation. Live and let Live, with minimal government intervention a backstop of last resort, not a primary orchestrator of society, easily manipulated by simple majorities.
This just isn’t correct. If you think the views of the Founders were reflected in the Constitution, then I’m afraid to tell you that it’s a document which permits lots of government. The question isn’t “what can the government do or not do?” It is “does the federal government or local government have authority to make decisions?”
Aside from the fact that the Constitution at least tacitly permitted individuals to own other individuals as property; stealing land from Indians; and depriving women of political and economic right, I regret to inform you that the the Bill of Rights didn’t even apply to local governments. That’s right. The state of Virginia was free to set up a state church and make you pay taxes to support it or free to pass laws saying you couldn’t criticize the President. It was also free — at least under ol’ Jim Madison’s Constitution — to take away your real estate without providing you compensation or to torture you. And yes, it could also do all kinds of other regulatory stuff that wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
I’m fine with someone saying “libertarianism is good” as a philosophical matter but IK not fine with people putting their own political views into the mouths of the Founders.
This is a stupid point. These principles weren’t in the federal constitution because the founders didn’t believe in overly elevating the power of the federal government, not because they didn’t believe in any of the principles. John Adams wrote the oldest still operative written constitution on earth and the rights it granted were still held to protect the rights of gay people to marry only a decade and a half ago.
Apparently they didn't "believe in the principles" enough to make them applicable to state and local governments as well as the Federal government. It would be strange indeed if they were truly committed to the idea that free speech was a fundamental right that no government could take away at any level yet they left the state of Pennsylvania or the city government of Boston free to pass laws restricting free speech. You don't want to hear this because it conflicts with the history you've been taught and the political rhetoric you've absorbed throughout your life, but it's true.
"John Adams wrote the oldest still operative written constitution on earth and the rights it granted were still held to protect the rights of gay people to marry only a decade and a half ago." What does this have to do with anything whatsoever?
Are you asserting that Cities, States and Localities in the US are free to restrict free speech outside of constitutional bounds?
They were during the time of the Founders, because the Bill of Rights did not apply to state and local governments. At that time, it only applied to the federal government. For an example, see Baron v. Baltimore.
The Bill of Rights did not apply to state or local governments until well-after the American Civil War through a very convoluted process called incorporation of the 14th Amendment. By that time, of course, the Founders were all long-dead.
Sorry. I’m not a nanny so no one is paying me to babysit imbecile children. Especially not the ones with magical mind reading abilities that tell them what people who are smarter and know more than them are thinking. I’m done with you child. Muted.
Notice how you didn't respond to anything I said? This is not the mark of a good argument. I'm going to guess that you don't know McCullough v. Maryland from your own asshole. You are in no position to begin discuss what the Founders believed about the principles of American government.
The founders views are in the constitution. It is just that there was more than one founder. Go figure.
Agree on the irrelevancy of the founders views to today.
“There has never been a class revolution in America because the working class is too busy working” Eric Hoffer
“Revolution” was left to the idle rich of Ivy League and Cal-Berkeley trust gnd babies and grad students…..
I’d rather live in my own tiny box than be jammed into a Brutalist high-rise with 1000 other dwarfs.
I love the passion. Don't ever stop posting.
Quick question, why do you think the labor movement of the early 19th century died off when it did not on other places? Why did we never get another Eugene Debbs?
It's more than just a mortgage, it's the actual home itself. My mortgage has been paid for 13 years yet every year the taxman shows me who really owns it & it ain't me.
I will say that boxes are nice when its 10 below zero.
You don't own the roads, the schools, or the power lines either. You do own the increasing equity in your home, however.
Purifying flames aren't carbon-neutral.
You burn first.
:-D :-D :-D Dude. You are either batshit crazy, really not very bright, or a troll. Not sure which. Start with biology. We humans were cave dwellers for a long, long, long time. We humans, we like our caves. We used to have fires in our caves and kept warm at night. We could look out the cave entrance and see a valley full of animals to hunt. When we get stuff, we like to build fancy caves with windows. We call them - houses. Native Americans made tipis that could be hauled around, hogans that couldn't, and built towns and cities of clay and brick. Those rooms were smaller. This instinct we have for protective shelter is deep. We aren't like gorillas or chimpanzees that just sleep where ever they happen to be, or make nests in trees for the night.
This is a start. If you can understand that, it undermines all that fancy-talk political babble-gabble.
Chairman Mao would approve of your description!
Interesting - I've heard the "pulling the ladder up behind them" idea applied to the boomer generation regarding wealth, and even power, but it never occurred to me to translate it to the information sphere. I'm making an assumption that the reference here to the Left supporting free speech until they got into power is compatible with a narrative that the roots of the 2020's lie in the 1960's, and that yesterday's radicals are today's powerbrokers, with their students and protégées carrying on the project.
Of course, this also assumes the Left is ascendant, yet another interpretation fits the same narrative: it could also be that what we're seeing is the last gasp of the 60's revolution, the final, desperate expenditure of energy before the collapse. In many ways, this seems unlikely, with the Left ensconced at the heights of cultural and political power. Yet the increasingly unmoored conversations on the Left have such a "let them eat cake" feel at times that one wonders if this increasing trend toward authoritarianism is, in the end, actually a sign of political weakness and an impending loss of power.