In response to, 'crying red (socialism).'

[TropicalStarfish]

Nobody really wants a free market; very few people who say they do, could actually swallow it.  The Republicans and Democrats; probably to equal degrees, have been pushing, 'social,' programs for some time.  Corporate well-fare is historically a republican thing.  To the best of my knowledge though, the wealthiest of the wealthy have acquired increasingly progressive views and means; and as a guess, I would say, they are doing so because it is in their best interest; it supports the bottom line.

Is it possible, that if a Republican president presided over the disaster bush left us with in 2008, that he/she would have NOT bailed out the banks?  I'd say probably not.  But, to say that the democrats are 100% responsible for, 'well-fare,' style programs is absolutely ludicrous.  If the sentiment is anger towards those who refuse work and seek handouts; then, I'd wager the persons you are most angry at are corporations.  Corporations, their bailouts, their tax loop holes, and the army of accountants and lawyers they have, are more than happy to avoid giving back to the community in the form of labor of some kind; not to mention the hedge fund managers, money movers, spread sheet fillers, etc.. etc..

So, to cry, 'socialism,' is really kind of absurd if you voted for George W. Bush; the architect of stimulus, corporate wellfare, and foreign wars to arguably shape the landscape of a major oil producing region; if not, 'THE,' 'REIGNING,' oil producing region.

Socialism, as a concept, is difficult to understand; I'm not sure I could accurately explain it myself, and I consider myself an intellectual.  Sadly, it is the intellectual who is arguably, not the enemy of socialism; but, the enemy of conformity, which, is an essential ingredient to rule by fear, oppression, and power (tyranny.)  And, unfortunately, tyranny, by definition, and practice, is insidious.  It has a creeping, stalking, quality to it; not unlike how a snake hunts it's prey; but, that may not be the only way it operates.  I believe tyranny also has the ability to operate in the open, be seen by all and yet witnessed by very few; heard by everyone, but understood by only too few.  Tyranny, to the best of my knowledge, has always succeeded when it was welcomed as the savior by a majority.

There is nothing inherently wrong OR right with socialism and or communism.  The biggest complaint one would have against socialism and communism is when it is forced on the wealthy; so that, they are equalized.  If I had one million dollars and some one said to me, "you didn't work for that money; you didn't earn it; and I'm going to take it from you and distribute among all of us equally," I would most likely be rather upset.  Further more, if people came banging on my doors with rocks and clubs to physically take that money from me and do me grave harm; I can't say I'd be too happy about.  So, IF, taxation is theft, it stands to reason theft is also theft.  Now, if you steal my dog and I steal it back; yet for some reason you were convinced it was YOUR dog; then, we have a much more deeper and fundamental problem.

To me, the biggest problem, that these United States of America faces, is that, 'fundamental problem.'  And, I believe it's roots are in language.  If we can't agree on the definition of the words we use and we can't agree on what they actually point to, it's very difficult to come to ANY understanding about ANYTHING; except, that we, 'FEEL,' a certain way. *lol*  And that's actually a very funny situation.  It makes me think of two people who don't know any language to express themselves; but, they are both hungry and can't agree on how to go about solving the problem.

The Democrats are not, 'socialist,' though.  If they are anything, they would probably define themselves in terms of what we consider a, 'libertarian,' to be, today (which is very different, to my understanding, to what an ACTUAL libertarian is); and it just so happens, that in seeking their own self-interest, implementing a lot of social programs helps further their self-interest.  Social programs help big-pharma, the insurance companies, the auto-industry even, the health-care industry, the psychiatric institution, the social-media giants, big data companies like google, and even to a lesser degree, Microsoft, and others.  Amazon and Wallmart don't have to pay their employees decent wages if they are receiving food-stamps, the same goes McDonalds, Wendy's, Target, etc.. etc..

The neo-liberal agenda promotes social well-fare as opposed to corporate well-fare; because poor people generally only spend money on 1 thing; **** they can't afford!  lol, and of course food, and shelter.  The conservative agenda has, historically, and to the best of my knoweldge, still is, only interested in corporate well-fare; which, by virture of trickle down, also leaves the poor with a little bit of money to spend on things they can't afford; but, probably not nearly as much as social well-fare; but, what social-wellfare does for the poor, corporate-wellfare does for the affluent.

Currently, my guess, is that the neo-cons are aging and beginning to die out, so they need a new voter base; and they go about building that base by all kinds of various means.  The neo-libs, if I were to guess, aren't so much trying to build a base, so much as by co-opting progressive, socialist, libertarian, and socialist-libertarian would-be movements.  And, again, to guess, and break it down, I think what they are really doing, is finding the worst of the people in these movements, elevating them; and also buying them off to their particular agenda.  To me, I visualize a string, and one half is blue and the other is red; but, the middle, is largely likely purple.  The people in this small region likely have aligning interests as well as place they don't agree; but, largely, I doubt they consider themselves red or blue (or green or yellow for that matter).

So, that's my take.  Essentially, what you have, is rule by persons; and those persons are corporations.  In the corporate world, there is the old guard, and the new guard.  The old guard, is essentially industrial, and has it's base at resource extraction, and it's head at tangibles; such as roads, buildings, infrastructure, fuel, power, energy; and so forth (this also included Internet Service Providers; but, a lot of mergers have happened since the 90's, such that, I think some Media companies now own a lot of ISPs).  The new guard, I would say, is the tech giants; that which sits on top of the head of the old guard; and, also, as defined by me, there is a guard in between those two, and that's the media industry (movies, T.V., etc..); however, they are arguably, also, technically, old guard; they weren't so much the, 'head,' of the old guard as an adjunct.  People need entertainment; especially when so little of their life has time to find any.

Anyway, if I were to make a point; it's that, you can't communicate with some one who knows the same language as you; but, holds different definitions for the words; you can each grunt at each other and make loud noises; but, not until you sit down and, hopefully, go back far enough into history to see what the words you are using actually mean, could you get anywhere.  However, I don't think that will happen; at least it's not what people are doing now; unfortunately, the way things may turn out, is that people come to an agreement on what words mean; having lost all contact with what they actually meant, like a dead language.  History has a way of losing it's impact; and, historians can debate among themselves; and then there is revisionists and the architects of the time may not have given an accurate portrayal of the present, etc.. etc..

What's at stake, is liberty, and freedom; and you'd have to know what that is, to know you you don't have it anymore.  Perhaps I have certain freedoms denied me; freedoms that if I had, you wouldn't make use of, because you have no interest in pursuing happiness that way...

I mean, sorry to say; but, the very locus of oppression in the United States, largely hinges on corporations that benefited from corporate well-fare.  Facebook, Google, Twitter; and the like, are going to decide what is true and what is not true; what is racist and what is sexist; but those corporations can't exist without YOU.  You are the product.  Red social programs (corporate well-fare) is what got us here in the first place.  So to cry socialism now, is to be pissed at your neighbor for their dog shitting in your yard; when in fact, it was your dog, and you just forgot that you weren't feeling great that day and didn't pick up after your dog.  Sure, your neighbor may be bad about that too, maybe worse, maybe not; but, you stepped in your own **** and you're mad at some one else about it and blame them; that doesn't help the situation.

That to me, in my view, is the crux of Red American Socialism; blaming Blue FOR socialism; and neither of it is REALLY socialism; it's exploitation, a con-job, the clever trick that can make a person, extremely wealthy; and ultimately, it's often our own fault, for being fooled so many times...  Some times I'd say we even wanted to be fooled, on some sub-conscious level; because perhaps it was easier and more convenient than the alternative...

I'm not sure I understand what true Liberty and Freedom are (capitalized).  But, I do like words, and ideas; and lately, it seems there is a lot of disagreement on what they actually mean...  I have enjoyed, through out my life, freedom of thought and the freedom to express that through speech.  I have also known times when I was not free to express my thoughts; and times when I shouldn't have expressed them...

 

[AndyRP]

Its interesting when you talk about the free market. I personally don't see being a commodity for businesses as a freedom.

Businesses milk us every which way wanting more money. Our skills and labour. Every business contains a human a human forced to work for their own survival.

When you look at the three economic systems of communism socialism and modern day capitalism, there will always be loosers. Its just on who it is placed.

Communism makes everyone loose as no one but the elite or government own everything. This infers alot of government control into peoples lives.

Socialism is abit like the grandma that tells you to give everyone a slice of cake at your birthday. The problem with giving everyone cake whether they deserve it or not is that the celebrator of the birthday will no longer have cake for themselves.

Capitalism as a system which determines that their will always be losers. There will always be people with worse lives than you. The system is designed to create individual losers and that can destroy many lives.

Its a zero sum game at the moment with a mixture of hybrid socialist states and capitalist states pritty much everywhere even where there are communist governments. Personally I would love to see widespread socailism, however this cannot be achieved in a capitalist world as socialism costs alot of money and human resource. Until we can accept the costs of socialism economically and human resource wise nothing will ever change.

The US is slowly transferring to a hybrid state to focusing on more socialist elements of governing.

Arguably the costs of socialism are significantly less than capitalism and communism. Which is why internationally it is becoming the more favoured economic system

 

[Aardra]

My take is that socialism is cool and good

 

[Efbee]

Nobody really wants a free market; very few people who say they do, could actually swallow it. The Republicans and Democrats; probably to equal degrees, have been pushing, 'social,' programs for some time. Corporate well-fare is historically a republican thing. To the best of my knowledge though, the wealthiest of the wealthy have acquired increasingly progressive views and means; and as a guess, I would say, they are doing so because it is in their best interest; it supports the bottom line.

Is it possible, that if a Republican president presided over the disaster bush left us with in 2008, that he/she would have NOT bailed out the banks? I'd say probably not. But, to say that the democrats are 100% responsible for, 'well-fare,' style programs is absolutely ludicrous. If the sentiment is anger towards those who refuse work and seek handouts; then, I'd wager the persons you are most angry at are corporations. Corporations, their bailouts, their tax loop holes, and the army of accountants and lawyers they have, are more than happy to avoid giving back to the community in the form of labor of some kind; not to mention the hedge fund managers, money movers, spread sheet fillers, etc.. etc..

So, to cry, 'socialism,' is really kind of absurd if you voted for George W. Bush; the architect of stimulus, corporate wellfare, and foreign wars to arguably shape the landscape of a major oil producing region; if not, 'THE,' 'REIGNING,' oil producing region.

Socialism, as a concept, is difficult to understand; I'm not sure I could accurately explain it myself, and I consider myself an intellectual. Sadly, it is the intellectual who is arguably, not the enemy of socialism; but, the enemy of conformity, which, is an essential ingredient to rule by fear, oppression, and power (tyranny.) And, unfortunately, tyranny, by definition, and practice, is insidious. It has a creeping, stalking, quality to it; not unlike how a snake hunts it's prey; but, that may not be the only way it operates. I believe tyranny also has the ability to operate in the open, be seen by all and yet witnessed by very few; heard by everyone, but understood by only too few. Tyranny, to the best of my knowledge, has always succeeded when it was welcomed as the savior by a majority.

There is nothing inherently wrong OR right with socialism and or communism. The biggest complaint one would have against socialism and communism is when it is forced on the wealthy; so that, they are equalized. If I had one million dollars and some one said to me, "you didn't work for that money; you didn't earn it; and I'm going to take it from you and distribute among all of us equally," I would most likely be rather upset. Further more, if people came banging on my doors with rocks and clubs to physically take that money from me and do me grave harm; I can't say I'd be too happy about. So, IF, taxation is theft, it stands to reason theft is also theft. Now, if you steal my dog and I steal it back; yet for some reason you were convinced it was YOUR dog; then, we have a much more deeper and fundamental problem.

To me, the biggest problem, that these United States of America faces, is that, 'fundamental problem.' And, I believe it's roots are in language. If we can't agree on the definition of the words we use and we can't agree on what they actually point to, it's very difficult to come to ANY understanding about ANYTHING; except, that we, 'FEEL,' a certain way. *lol* And that's actually a very funny situation. It makes me think of two people who don't know any language to express themselves; but, they are both hungry and can't agree on how to go about solving the problem.

...

I think you forgot the banksters. If anyone holds all the governments by the cahones, it's certainly the banks and IMF.
This Covid so-called crisis, they have closed businesses for a long period of time, something like that couldn't have been possible without the agreement of the banks, or was it the banks that played the music and the governments were dancing to their tune?

 

[TropicalStarfish]

In my defense, I didn't forget about the banksters. I just only briefly touched on it. However, they by and large are a part of that corporate sphere; to your credit, arguably, more powerful than any one corporation, or even nation, alone. But I use money, you use money. You'd have to get a hell of a lot of people to agree to not honor their currency to change that situation. And even if people did, all it takes is one stroke of the pen and a few votes in congress to make it illegal to do business in an alternative currency.

If Marx and his ilk were correct in their postulates, Capitalism's greatest enemy isn't socialism or communism. Capitalism's greatest enemy is capitalism.

Speaking of money, I would bet about 10 dollars that Nikola Tesla never said such a thing. heh.

 

[xephier102]

I'd say probably not.

You would be correct. The governments effectively work for the world banks, majority shareholders and large company/corporation CEO's. Because the latter two pay for their campaigns to get them in, and the former is effectively where they get the money to do anything.

Think about it, Both Canada and America are in multi trillion dollar debts, which only get deeper over time. Our tax dollars alone are clearly not enough to fund the bloated government salaries, on top of new roads and general infrastructure which they need to build, in order to get more people in to leach tax dollars from. Then there's the public schools and hospitals which are mostly ignored for decades at a time, and given minimal resources otherwise.

I've said this on a number of other platforms, and probably here as well at some point, but I'll say it again. This entire governmental system should have been torn down to the ground, and rebuilt from scratch, back when they came to the conclusion that systematic racism, systematic sexism, and political corruption, were all very much a thing. Political corruption not only being a 'thing', but also being extremely easy to slip under the radar with loopholes that are built into the very system itself.

Do people not see something wrong with a system in which the relative few horde the largest percentage of the country's wealth, while there's still people in that same country, homeless, jobless, struggling from day to day to put food on the table .etc?

It's actually very comparable to the old medieval days, in which a king/queen would sit at a table stuffed with so much food, that the bulk of it would rot before it could be eaten, while their subjects starved. There were fewer niceties back then, and it was surely more lawless than it is now, and with much fewer rights for the people. However, the general idea of living under disgustingly rich people, while they shake the last shillings loose from our pockets to pay whatever taxes they deem acceptable, hasn't changed one iota..

Forget about your republican, democrat, liberal, conservative.. A pile of **** by any other name still smells like ****. All the elections are is a reality show that was invented before reality shows. A popularity contest in which the richest, and most popular people win. Arnie proved that and then Trump proved it even better. You don't need to be super smart, you don't even need to be a decent human being, just rich, and popular.

The ordinary people that actually get into politics; they only focus on the brand names, and not the actual context of, what's being done, how, and when. Then they follow the popular propaganda, a lot of which is likely steered, or leaked by the social media groups these days (which as I stated in another thread just now, have way too much direct control over other people's opinions (or rather, which opinions are actually seen)..).

The people these days don't even have a voice unless it's the same voice as the mainstream, and beyond that, to choose what's behind door number 1, 2, or 3, and spoiler alert, it's a steaming pile of crap behind all three doors..

The schools only teach us how to listen, copy, and follow instructions, and society only teaches us how to do the same, and to shut up if we have any opinion that's unpopular (with such propaganda/memes with quotes like "Sometimes when no one is listening, it's best to remain silent". And these things get thousands of likes on them.. They're not insightful.. They provoke pure idiocy at it's finest..). So that's all most people know how to do. It's not that the people are inherently stupid, it's that most people were never taught how to be smart. Critical thinking, question those in charge, question anything that seems off, objectively immoral, illogical .etc.. And to always know that anything you know, especially that which was taught to you by others, could be wrong.

But hell, who needs critical thinking when we can just follow whatever's trending..?

 

[xephier102]

Its interesting when you talk about the free market. I personally don't see being a commodity for businesses as a freedom.

Businesses milk us every which way wanting more money. Our skills and labour. Every business contains a human a human forced to work for their own survival.

When you look at the three economic systems of communism socialism and modern day capitalism, there will always be loosers. Its just on who it is placed.

Communism makes everyone loose as no one but the elite or government own everything. This infers alot of government control into peoples lives.

Socialism is abit like the grandma that tells you to give everyone a slice of cake at your birthday. The problem with giving everyone cake whether they deserve it or not is that the celebrator of the birthday will no longer have cake for themselves.

Capitalism as a system which determines that their will always be losers. There will always be people with worse lives than you. The system is designed to create individual losers and that can destroy many lives.

Its a zero sum game at the moment with a mixture of hybrid socialist states and capitalist states pritty much everywhere even where there are communist governments. Personally I would love to see widespread socailism, however this cannot be achieved in a capitalist world as socialism costs alot of money and human resource. Until we can accept the costs of socialism economically and human resource wise nothing will ever change.

The US is slowly transferring to a hybrid state to focusing on more socialist elements of governing.

Arguably the costs of socialism are significantly less than capitalism and communism. Which is why internationally it is becoming the more favoured economic system

Problem is, in every current system, the only winners are the wealthy folks at the top of the pile. Too much focus on hierarchy in general, and the concept that capital gain is the only thing that a person should be judged upon. IMHO, in any system in which there needs to be rulers, only those at the bottom of society should be allowed to rule. Because if you haven't even had a clear and direct view of the worst parts of society, then what rights do you have to rule over it? It's easy enough to ignore the woes of those at the bottom, when you spend the bulk of your spare time at the country club.

Either way, you're right. All of the current systems are ****, and if they aren't going to fully redo them, they should at least be adapting to become better, not sticking with so many of the same static, unchanging laws that were implemented when the systems were first created.. Like, 1-200+ years ago.. For example; what good is 'free speech' when somewhere around 70-95% of modern day communication around the world is done online, where corporations control free speech?

 

[HidingfromtheReaper]

Man is a Product of his own culture, any ideas for changing something that has lived since the beginning of written history ? You can believe and embrace whatever you like, but if I were you I would be sure and keep a working weapon and possibly a good trenching tool. Pay less attention to the worst governing systems in our world and more attention to current events. Like say for instance how many billions of people out there on the other continents that hate you. This is not a friendly world you live in !

 

[ardour]

Socialism, as a concept, is difficult to understand

It wouldn't be if people didn't constantly misuse the term. Social safetey nets and progressive taxes does not socialist a country make. 'Big Guvment' does not equal socialism. And socialism and communism are different, communism being the (highly implausible) end goal of Marxism.

 

[user 139760]

In the next 20-50 years, when technology makes pretty much 90% of jobs obsolete and human workers unnecessary, wellfare programs will become essential. Socialism will become the norm.
I believe that Communism though is an entirely different deal. Communism pushed to it's logical conclusion always becomes a dictatorship, just as rampant Capitalism does as well. Alternativs nes need to be implemented.

 

[Unsigned]

Nobody really wants a free market; very few people who say they do, could actually swallow it.

I sure do.
It's worked very well for me (financially, anyway), and I would love if it was the law of the land.
I really would.

 

[ardour]

I sure do.
It's worked very well for me (financially, anyway), and I would love if it was the law of the land.
I really would.

Ah yes.

This must have been when Wall Street was getting multi-billion dollar taxpayer bailouts 15 years ago.

Or corporate tax breaks., effectively meaning someone on median income pays higher income tax than a giant multinational.

Or Trump's proposed 25% tariffs imposed on goods from Mexico, Canada, and China.

The invisible hand of cronyism.

 

[TheSkaFish]

I sure do.
It's worked very well for me (financially, anyway), and I would love if it was the law of the land.
I really would.

It has not worked too well romantically, though.

I don't mean that as a dig either. I mean it as a statement of fact, and more like "this is exactly what I'm talking about".

I've seen some similarities between some of your situation growing up and mine, which I feel lets me understand where you're coming from a bit. I used to think along somewhat similar lines. But there are differences politically.

I think the gist of it is,
I blame genetics/talent (which the free market/Reaganomics is basically an expression of) for my romantic problems.
You on the other hand, blame the sexual revolution of the 1960s for changing what women want in men from simply a provider, to a provider and entertainer.

Even as a leftist there are things I don't agree with or like about the sexual revolution. I think it took some things too far, and does some things purely for shock value where I feel like, "is that really necessary?" For example while I think women should be free as anyone else, have good jobs and all that, I don't think "(A Certain Garden Implement) Culture" is a good thing. Some people say it is "empowerment" but I don't agree, I don't think it's respectable.

I would never hurt someone over it, or make fun of them for it.
But if they asked me if I thought it was cool, I would have to say "no".

Nevertheless, Pandora's Box is open, the cat is out of the bag.
This is going in one way only. Things are not going back to how they were pre-sexual revolution.
Love it or hate it, the reality is that a man has to be more than just a provider in today's day and age.
Today a man has to also be entertaining, at least as much if not more.
And being more than a provider, requires time, energy, and ideas.

What does this have to do with the free market?
Well, the more we've shifted away from the postwar prosperity with social safety nets, the more competitive the world has become and forced us to be, the less work life balance we have, meaning we have less time to create interesting enough lives to attract a partner.

But in a less free-market world, where we valued work-life balance and did something to ensure things cost less, you would have more time outside of work to cultivate more of a personality and a life, to have something to talk about to create connections.

Under the free market, it favors people whose personalities and jobs are one and the same. They don't have to do anything outside of work, to be "themselves". They don't need as much work-life balance to live lives they feel good about. That's great if you're a pro athlete, A-list entertainer, or if you are honestly into your job and the person it makes you into. If you're just doing it for the money though, then you need to do something to be "you" somewhere outside of work. But that requires you have an "outside of work" to figure out what "you" even is, and to be it.

This is another area where the dudebros have a massive advantage. It's hard to attract someone when you don't like yourself or your life that much. Dudebros like themselves - to the point that they are full of themselves. They don't wish they could be someone else, who could do something else. They're content to be audience members and spend their lives cheering for their favorite teams or famous people, while having little to talk about with their own lives except mundane everyday topics. They don't need to do things outside of work, or get good at things, or have original thoughts, in order to like themselves. They can be happy just doing things casually, and coasting on the jobs they have and bodies they were born to. They're OK with not cultivating much depth or individuality. They don't want to be different, they want to be the same. They're easily amused. But that doesn't work for me. I don't enjoy it that much.

And since I'm not that type of guy, I can't connect with women that like that type of guy.
We're not likeminded.
But without any work life balance, I can't connect with the women that I'm interested in either.
I'm too boring for them. I wouldn't be able to learn, think, and do things to make myself likeminded with them.
I'd fall through the cracks.

I would a million times rather be in the corporate world than in menial work.
Being in menial work would be a complete and utter humiliation. I wouldn't be able to enjoy anything or have interests at all, because nothing would make me feel better than that makes me feel like sh*t because it makes me feel biologically inferior - one of my biggest "hates" in life. It would make me feel like giving up on life and drinking, getting on drugs, or just going ahead and ending it.
I could at least feel OK about myself in a corporate setting.
But, that's just it - I could also at most feel OK about myself in a corporate setting.
I wouldn't be humiliated, but I wouldn't love myself or my life either.
And "just OK" doesn't make others feel good about you and interested in you.
It's hard to be interesting, fun, and attractive when all you feel is either tired or wishing you were someone else.
I'd never have anything to talk about, I couldn't keep conversations going. I'd have no passion.
To attract someone you need more than a good job now, you need to get someone to feel something for you emotionally. That's hard in and of itself, but it only makes it harder when you feel negative emotions most of the time. It's hard to do that when you're not stoked to be you.

And that brings me full circle.
Your situation is very close to what I fear would have happened to me if I went all in on the corporate world like I was supposed to.
I would never have found myself. I still haven't but I'm working on it.
I would never even have known what I was doing wrong or why.
I would have thought, I'm doing what I was told to do, what I was told would work - so why am I still single?
And I fear I'd have no time or energy to figure it out.
I would not deal with it with prostitutes.
Instead I'd just languish in singledom, anger, and despair.
I'd come home from work and lose myself in a fog of video games and beer.

You have to act like you're having fun in your life, to get someone into you.
But I don't really enjoy or care about anything as long as I'm stuck in "just OK".
So I have to go out of my way to pretend that I'm having fun when I'm not. I have to put on an act.
It's exhausting, it makes my head spin.

Long story short, my point is, I'm pro work-life balance, and social safety nets, because the less of myself I have to spend competing to survive, the more of myself I have available to get a life and personality, which is essential in today's dating environment.

 

[Unsigned]

This is another area where the dudebros have a massive advantage.

The dudebros are into stuff like snowboarding, jet skiing, sports bars/sports betting, etc...
Women seem to like those types of "shiny object" things...

And yes, you are right, I do long for the "old days".
You are also right that unless there is some type of horrific disaster, like an asteroid hitting the earth (in which case all of us who are not "preppers" will be dead) , they are not returning.

I've been going to a lot of nice restaurants by myself recently...