Socialism Is The Future

The Baluchistan Liberation Army? I hardly think so. You probably mean the Black Liberation Army, an outgrowth of the Black Panthers, last active in the early 1980s. If you mean your linking it to BLM is propaganda, I'd agree.

Of course all lives matter, but if a person says that in response to Black Lives Matter, they're missing the point. The point is that many police have been acting for decades as though black lives don't matter. And some members of that organization or their sympathizers may call that racist. I'd call it either that or obtuse.

Oh, really? When was that? What exactly do you think I said? It's really hard to respond to such a charge because it's too vague to make much sense.

I agree with your first sentence, but the irony is that the rest of what you say contradicts it by throwing around words like "left winger", which could embrace anyone with moderately liberal views to a card carrying communist.

That would be hard to do, because : (1) I'm not a Socialist; (2) there are too many examples of racists, ranging from the explicit kind, like the American Renaissance Movement or the Aryan Brotherhood, to the more subtle kind manifested by the Karens who call the cops if they see a black person in their neighborhood. And we'd have to define "racist". Does it include people who may not actually have anything against other races but is willing to use racism as a basis for political advancement. I'm thinking of President Trump, who built his career on the latter kind of racism, from birtherism to his anti-Hispanic diatribe while descending the escalator to launch his presidential campaign, to his remarks about "shithole nations", etc.

Of course, people can be unjustly accused of being a racist, rapist, pedophile, or anything else.They can even be called "Socialist" or "leftwinger", labels you bandy about quite freely.

If you've listened to a single speech by our Prez, you should be aware that false accusations, lables, slogans and divisive rhetoric are his stock in trade, and that of most Republican politicians. Listen to the campaign ads by Republican candidates in Oklahoma and you'll see what I mean. Your accusations sound like the classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

I might as well deal with the rest of your earlier post, sinc it does at least relate to the topic.

What video are you talking about? One posted on the Antifistan thread by Six-eyed Shaman? You realize, I hope, that, like most of his posts, it's propaganda intended to distort reality to convey a political message. The YouTube is by Alex Jones' InfoWars sidekick Paul Joseph Watson, and it uses a common propagandist gimmick: go out and interview a group of people you oppose and ask them a basic question. People being what they are, you're bound to find some dumbasses who will give stupid answers Some may give smart answers. You edit those out, include the dumb ones and present them as typical of the whole.

Nice rhetoric. Where did you get it? We could come up with counter rhetoric: Capitalism is a philosophy of greed, a creed of selfishness, and the gospel of indifference to the needs of others. Its inherent virtue is getting ahead at the expense of others. I don't believe that either.

Anyone who believes Obama was a Socialist and that the United States was living under that system for eight years is beyond the pale. He was re-elected and managed to get us out of a Republican induced recession despite on-going obstruction by congressional Republicans. Are you basing your characterization on the Affordable Care Act? That limited move toward a national health plan barely qualifies as social democracy, let alone socialism. Actually, it is still popular, and Trump is trying to abolish it in the middle of a pandemic. What industries did Obama nationalize? As for divisiveness, Trump has been the most divisive President in our history. He is the Bully in Chief, a fan of dictatorship, and the populist yahoos who follow him lap it up uncritically like a bunch of sheep.

Does "the right in Canada give a rats ass about the interest of aboriginal people? Not in the U.S. Trump governs almost exclusively as president of his base, which is predominantly white.

Sounds like you're as old as the hills, but have learned little about political reality. You should try following your own advice, and take off your ideological blinders.

 

What history would that be?

There are far more examples of socialist countries working than ones of them becoming dictatorships. Is North Korea or Russia really democratic? They claim to be but do they prove democracy is impossible.

China uses Trump as an example of why democracy is stupid in the same way the right wing of America will say Venezuela or the USSR. Actual socialist countries just say America has no human rights the same way China does not.

Government should evolve and Capitalism's flaws are showing more and more now. America never really has long periods of growth do they? They have a couple good years and then it's always followed by crashes where for many years people struggle. They are so quick to point out the struggle in Venezuela when they deal with the same thing and many of that countries troubles are because of elitist capitalism anyway.

In theory capitalism can work forever but it doesn't the same way some elements of true communism don't really work. Socialism is just the best logical step to a compromise.

They do well for what they are. A lot of people want to look at them and say it's communism but it's more they are a small island with few resources. The UK imports things too and they are democratic. The American gringos used to spend all their money in Cuba now they go to Hawaii instead. I've never met a Cuban who wanted to go back though. They are often pretty Republican and pro capitalism or they were until an orange man said the quiet part out loud.

 

I'm not convinced that Socialism is the wave of the Future, or if it is, that would be a good thing. Instead, I favor social democracy along the lines of the Scandanavian countries--i.e., a "mixed" economy where capitalists operate profitably but pay high taxes that are used to provide a safety net for economically marginal people and universal health care, college education, and long-term care for the elderly. I'd settle for Back to the Future--a return to the more progressive, graduated income tax of pre-voodoo economics America. Do we really want to nationalize industries? Which ones?

 

There are many types of socialism, just as there are many types of capitalism

Actually lefties put a much stronger emphasis on education than do many right wingers.

But many forms of capitalism like neoliberalism unequally shares out advantage to the advantaged to the detriment of the disadvantaged.

I covered the envy thing with the Maserati post have you a counter argument?

It seems to me that the problem with the ‘envy’ argument against lefties is that it seems more like projection

The people presenting it are the ones that are focused on having stuff so they can’t imagine people for which that is not so important – they can only think in terms of self-interest so they can imagine people who are concerned for others - they are greedy so they cannot understand those that are altruistic.


And it goes the other way I don’t understand their envy, greed and selfishness.


I don’t get angry at some guy in a Maserati – I do get angry than people don’t have access to decent healthcare when its needed -I do get angry at those been exploited on low wages that are having to go to food banks to survive.


And I don’t understand why people would want to prioritize having a Maserati over having a society where children don’t have to go to bed hungry.


As to not working hard in my experience here it is the right wingers that are the laziest group here I see people like Tish and MeAgain and many other left leaning members putting in real effort to debate and debunk the lies of the right and more often than not the right wingers just run.


And I know many lefties that work really hard like the nurses and doctors in the ongoing health crisis and I don’t think they would prioritize having a Maserati over saving a life which I’m afraid to say I think many on the right would, and that is a mentality I don’t understand.

*

What is the purpose of a society?

To me a good society should work for the benefit of all the people in it or what is the point of having it?

If a society is slanted so that it more benefits certain groups and not others then how can that be a good society?

Now you could argue over what ‘benefit’ a society should give - but I’ve always gone with the most amount of good to the most amount of people.

I believe that people should have an equality of opportunity and the ability to have healthy comfortable lives where they have the possibility of fulfilling their potential.

 

Tish

Again I’m a leftie but lean toward Keynesian ways of economic thinking

It seems to me that the political history of the 20th century (in the industrialised nations) has been to one degree or another about the curtailment of the adverse effects of 19th century exploitative capitalism (that some called classical liberalism but now would be called neoliberal).

People in many nations fought for voting rights, social benefits, safer working conditions, progressive taxation, and decent living wages. The result of that movement was that the economic benefits of production were much more distributed. Many people saw their wages grow and in the period between the end of WWII and 1970 many in Europe and the US gain middle class status.

But from the 70’s onward a new idea was promoted in some of these nations (often referred to as neo-liberalism) it was in many ways opposed to the ‘distributive’ system that had developed. One thing it promoted was economic globalisation, which basically allowed back some aspects of exploitative capitalism by promoting the moving of production to nations that had not developed the more distributive systems away from those nations that had.

In this way the long fought for distributive system has been undermined in those places where it had developed. Neo-liberals argue that to ‘compete’ in the global market the elements of the distributive system need to be dismantled what is needed they say is deregulation, the cutting of welfare, tax cuts that benefit the rich, lower wages, weak government oversight etc etc.


*


Old style revolutionary Socialism was often the spur to bring in more distributive systems as established wealth fearing such revolution (see 1848 and 1917) often brought in measures to curb exploitation (see Bismarck). The rise of Soviet Russia meant that many governments to gain popular consent for anti-communist policies (and smother discontent) had to look like they cared for their own ‘down trodden’ and brought in policies that helped their own poor. The decline and fall of the Soviets allowed wealth to believe that since there was no alternative (see End of History by Francis Fukuyama) that they could stop and even reverse distributive policies.

 

I also support this idea of a mixed system. In addition to medical-long term care for the old folks, I would like to see the government bring back a system like we had with rural legal services. Poor people need a lawyer for not just criminal cases. Poor people today need a lawyer for civil cases to after the rich business jerks who con them or abuse them financially. When there isn't enough money in a civil case today, the lawyer would not accept the case based on his own financial interest, resulting in injustice for the poor. In many Arab/Muslim nations, the poor get a government ADVOCATE to represent them in such matters. Reporting a bad business to the BBB just don't get it anymore.

 

Thing is if someone has been subject to years of anti-Socialist anti-leftist propaganda then it can be very hard to think straight. I always find it funny that those on the right that show clear signs of been brainwashed to the point that they don’t question the ideas that have been spoon feed to them are the ones that are most likely to say that lefties don’t have open minds.

The thing is that the majority of the people on the left do research and think out the heritage of their views and understand the benefits and drawbacks of such things a Socialism, Communism, Marxism etc. Ideas should move on and adapt as criticisms are made and fault discovered as well as adapting to today’s issues and problems.

Also Socialism didn’t begin with Marx he was just a champion of a particular type of socialism and then it has to be remembered that socialism was a branch of anarchist thinking. In fact most people forget that Marx’s communism was meant to be a stepping stone to Anarchy as under communism the state and old ideas of governance were meant to ‘wither away’.

The thing is that the majority of left wingers have moved on, embracing good ideas and rejecting others as they went. I think the left wingers, the socialists, mutualists and anarchists of 1800’s would not recognise todays left wing thinking.

Many of the rights ideas are from the 18th and 19th century but the thing is that a 19th century supporter of laissez-faire economics would find modern day neoliberalism very familiar. As to Social Darwinist ideas still held my many on the right these have been heavily (if no fatally) criticised as pseudoscientific junk.

I mean you only have to look at the plethora of ideas coming from the left for dealing with the pressing problems of the 21st century compared to the paucity of such ideas coming from the right.

It’s not just that they seem to have little or nothing to contribute - and what they have seems designed to make bad situations worse - it’s that many of them don’t even seem to be wanting to find any solutions.

So all the right seem to have these days is hollow sloganizing and attacks.

Think about it in relation to this forum when was the last time a right winger presented a thought through solution to any problem?

 

I first learned about Karl Marx in Sociology; though I had heard the name and new he was associated, or rather thought he was associated with communism.

I feel like one of the drawbacks or pitfalls is misinterpreting what is meant by revolution. We hear the concept a lot - that revolution is a catalyst for change. And I truly fear that many of us - particularly those with anger - fall victim to our imagination in terms of what we think "revolution" entails.

I think people get carried away by their imagination of what revolution means or was meant by Marx. They may feel it gives them license to violence. I don't believe in that sort of revolution. Some people may feel like things don't get anywhere without violent clashes and so forth. I think that's the real danger, and one of the definite drawbacks.

 

Soul

There was a revolutionary theory that came from the left that the only way of rebuild a society as a socialist state is by breaking it (or parts of it) of causing disaster(s) that then can be taken advantage of.

The thing is that there seem to be some on the right (especially the libertarian and neoliberal right) that have adopted that way of thinking growing out of the ideas around disaster capitalism (which was about taking advantage of disasters to bring in neoliberal policies) well the idea is that the next step would be to create the ‘disasters’.

For example if you defund a popular publicly funded social programme (healthcare or welfare) to the point that it is in crisis (the disaster) this can then be taken advantage of to bring in neoliberal policies that replace the public service institution with a for profit private one.

 

so you can state things and I can’t ask you why you believe that or what your sources are? Why you believe that the Got it. This is a pro socialism thread is it not? If you are arguing pro socialism, yet are not one, why be pro socialism? It makes no sense! Contradictory!

thank you for proving my point.

and regardling BLA, you are smarter than that. You know it is Black Liberation Army. Their site use to state it in the beginning.

posting against socialism is the future is necessary. In order to for people to make an informed decision. I asked you what socialism is because to put it bluntly, you don’t know. Blm,/bla is is leading the charge in it. We see it in these autonomous zones. Marxist! Far left ideals that are pushed in schools, brainwashing kids into the idea of a utopian society and it being possible. Obama was this. Is this. He is a socialist. So were the Clinton sand were quite buddy buddy with Russia.

obama and the left are behind this push, He was/is a revolutionary, as he sits in his ivory tower unwilling to get his hands dirty but is a puppet master to a bunch of drones. I don’t follow any indoctrination. I am not stuck with one party and have voted across the board. All I can do is vote and hope for the best. Obama was and is a socialist, Marxist, nor simply a democrat, he was so far left it was in line with China’s way of doing things and up the ass of the UN. His dream was never fulfilled, and it left his followers angry. He never accomplished anything he said he would in the eyes of the people. He accomplished though, exactly what he set out to accomplish and did the opposite to what he promised. Blind followers.

 

Breach

Thank you for making my point

The right don’t seem to have solutions or constructive ideas all they seem to do these days is grip shout out hollow sloganizing and attack anyone that doesn't think like they do. It's sad.

I’d ask you to think about it in relation to this forum when was the last time a right winger presented a thought through solution to any problem?

 

Where, exactly, did I "argue pro socialism"?

I only pointed out the hypocrisy in your post... Everything in that line of yours that I quoted originally can be applied to the right, but you seem to think only "the left" has problems.

No.... No he wasn't.

 

Beach

But wouldn’t we want to live in a better society; I mean the alternative is to want to live in a worse society.

As a leftie I want to live in a better society as a right winger are you saying you don’t? That to you there is no possibility of having a better society?

That for you there are no solutions to the problems that can people see?

 

No I don’t only see it on the left. This thread is socialism is the future. You don’t think it is? What do you think the future is in then?

 

Actually it's "Socialism Is The Future"

Me? I think the whole shithouse is going to go up in flames....

 

Businesses provide goods and services. And jobs. Why would we want to stifle them?
What is corporate profit? The money from sales left over once the business pays all its expenses - what happens to that? Expand/improve offerings by buying more/better equipment, space, supplies, and hiring more people. Doesn't that go back into the economy and get spread around? Why would anyone advocate taxing that money? To drive business away? To punish them for providing what the people want? For providing a better life for those served, employed, and purchased from?
When business profits are paid to individuals in the form of bonuses and paying interest to investors and such, it's then subject to individual income tax - that's where the government can get a cut to provide infrastructure and peace-keeping, as well as feeding the less industrious among us.

 

"If a society is slanted so that it more benefits certain groups and not others then how can that be a good society?"

One guy in a cave goes out every day for weeks on end, climbing rocky slopes, wrestling through thorny brush, looking for signs of prey, setting traps, fixing up blinds, etc.

Another guy in a cave down the ridge hangs around with the ol' lady and puts a good buzz on. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Is the outcome of who gets to eat better, develop and keep more kids, trade more meat for other stuff, fair?

 

I would love to live in a better world. Chaz/chop these idiots are definitely not the answer. Abolishing police is not the answer. Better training and checks on them as well. Two years on the street one year behind a desk with constant counselling so that the world doesn’t look so grim. They see the worst of the worst, need a break from it. That is my opinion. I do not like that the left is seeing the boogie man befriend every corner. It is creating fear. Unsettling things. So many false accusations, yes both sides do it, but I do see a lot of fascist and Marxist coming from the left. Mussolini! Not so much from the right. I don’t have a gun and I don’t use one. I eat meat and have uncles and aunts who live off the land. Don’t take more than necessary.

I am very disturbed by what I see happening in the USA and it is spilling over into Toronto. It is just stupid imo. I see Thing as not my problem. If we all were outraged by everything and only focused on the negatives in the world, which is what people are doing. Doom surfing and papers are feeding it, hyping it up with the backing of politics. False racist accusations are the worst in my opinion. I don’t like racism, but an accusation is hard to disprove. Many racist people exist, but to point the finger at one ethnicity as being this is wrong. What we have is a dissatisfied paranoid country who are being manipulated for votes. Oh you voted right, you must be white, we see someone of colour and they are automatically left. Truth is we can’t assume these things. But these assumptions are by design. It bothers me to see left wing politics pushing this scenario. If right wing tells people that if you are white, vote for me... let me know? This is partisan politics.

accusations of racism can get people killed, and hurt....who may be innocent. But the word is said and it is automatically assumed as true. How many here are I accepted simply by such accusations? Ultimately this creates paranoia and a larger divide. Don’t want to be with racist people. Well I don’t, but I also don’t assume it based on how someone votes or their skin colour. Them and us. Us and them. People push back because they are defending themselves, disagree, not because they are racist, but because they don’t want to join in on groups that have labelled them without knowing the individual. If you canT beat them, join them for acceptance? So many do it. Keep silent about their true thoughts in order to find safety. What an awful way to live. It is weak imo.

Big problem to is when people wont speak, communicate there will never be any common ground found, never any understanding and never agreeing to disagree. Papers throw out that word so often, in order to divide, painting the right as the racist, when in fact we don’t know how individuals voted who committed a crime. We don’t know their motivation or their beliefs, regardless of skin colour.

i admit I have seen some people at times and think, oh they are whatever and probably hate me, strictly because of how I look. I didn’t hate the individual. Assume just by looking at me. I have to check myself these days. I am constantly checking myself on such thoughts, when I never did before. I can only blame the papers and the party they have supported, and been supported by. Basically I read a lot of left news sources, or use to for the most part, now I am reading sometimes ten articles on both sides, and look for ones leaving racism accusations out of it. I don’t want this to be what I see around every corner as some news sources like to promote without evidence. Many are seeing it though simply because they red it was true, and that is scary. Most people are not racist, no matter how they vote.

 

Me too and I Dont want it to. I don’t like seeing the left side looking to blame opposition for looting, We don’t know how they voted, when it is clear in videos they are not What they claim.. Black white supremacists looting? I don’t think so, buddies, one white one black looting together are white supremacists? I don’t think so.
I am also not naive to think BLA simply went away. BLM stated on their website from the beginning and that they were BLA before and are Marxist revolutionaries.

also my in the future was a typo. I am on a device and my one finger typing often screws up.