I would like to know what those of you who support trump will do when he loses the election?

[Uncle Ted]

Correct, but it’s the start of the pathway to communism, and typically leads to such. People get what they accept.



Which books are those? Socialism and Communism are both economical philosophies that share similarities. Main difference being socialism grants you the right to your own property, *with the intention of eventually taking it away.

Socialism emerged in response to the extreme economic and social changes caused by the Industrial Revolution,and particularly the struggles of workers. Many workers grew increasingly poor even as factory owners and other industrialists accrued massive wealth.

Then came Karl Marx.. the German political philosopher and economist who would become one of the most influential socialist thinkers in history. With his collaborator Friedrich Engels, Marx published The Communist Manifesto in 1848, which included a chapter criticizing those earlier socialist models as utterly unrealistic “utopian” dreams. His belief system is entirely based on the principles of Socialism. The 2 are easily linked and interchangeable. Communism is literally “Revolutionary Socialism”. This originated as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, and came to be defined by Marx’s theories—taken to their extreme end. In fact, Marxists often refer to socialism as the first, necessary phase on the way from capitalism to communism. One cannot lead the pathway without it.

If Marx had never written his manifesto, couldn't you find a way to enact socialism where everyone is guaranteed the basics of life, but expected to contribute, at the same time not using violence to carry this out?

Lets just imagine that Marx never existed. A group of gangsters named Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin had never been born.

Would we still find our way back to communism no matter how we approached this problem?

 

[Rival]

If Marx had never written his manifesto, couldn't you find a way to enact socialism where everyone is guaranteed the basics of life, but expected to contribute, at the same time not using violence to carry this out?

Lets just imagine that Marx never existed. A group of gangsters named Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin had never been born.

Would we still find our way back to communism no matter how we approached this problem?

Doubt it. It’s human nature to exploit. If not for them, Someone else would have and all roads lead back to communism IMO.

 

[flenser]

Since you believe that capitalism is not dependent on growth, and the stock market is unequivocably rooted in growth, it follows that you don't consider the stock market a truly capitalist institution. I asked if you believed that to be the case.

I half expected you to catch your error and correct it as Sworder tried to do for you. But you seem to think stock markets are somehow required by capitalism. At least that's the only way your statement above isn't a fallacy.

For the record, stock markets are a form of co-ownership that depend on property rights, and capitalism, to function. I will come back to this.

In theory a company could remain the same forever, with no growth, while paying its shareholders dividends from its profits, and there are companies that do this (SSRI for example). But I don't think this is a reasonable model for most companies which is why I agreed stock markets depend on growth.

However, there are tons of businesses NOT traded on any market, generally family owned, that do not have significant growth over long periods of time. As long as demand and the money supply remain stable, these businesses do not require growth to function.

Individuals can work their entire lives for a salary that changes only with inflation (if they are lucky). They don't "need" to increase their standards of living, though most try to do so as capitalist economies make that possible to a greater extent than other less free economies.

I'm sure you know all this. I just wanted to point out that stock markets make use of capitalism, but they are NOT capitalism and capitalism is NOT dependent on them.

So the logical fallacy is you equating the dependency of stock markets on growth with a non-existent dependency of capitalism on growth. If A is dependent on B and C it doesn't follow that B is dependent on C. If that were the case you would be accusing me of saying growth depends on capitalism.

That's not a strawman at all. I'm not attributing a position to you, I'm addressing a glaring issue with your statement that capitalism isn't dependent on growth and asking you to clarify your position, which I don't see as tenable.

I retract my straw man statement. I mistakenly thought you wrote your original statement differently than you believed (e.g. Sworder's interpretation), so I was covering all bases.

How exactly does one even go about building capital or coming to own the means of production with which to make a profit without growth, anyway?

I'll give you an example:

Family owned land for the last 200+ years. Their ancestors settled there, lived off the land, built houses, etc. Making use and improving unowned land makes it theirs. In some cases it was government awarded land (as if the government had rights to it).

Every 20 years they selectively cut a number of acres and sell the wood. They use this to maintain their homes, buy food, etc. They even sell some goods they make like preserves, honey, hand made furniture, etc.

In general, they don't improve their standards of living. They don't buy TVs or connect to the internet (with some exceptions). They don't drive cars or fly in airplanes (also with some exceptions).

They have virtually zero growth, yet they are capitalists. Can you guess who I'm talking about?

 

[flenser]

If Marx had never written his manifesto, couldn't you find a way to enact socialism where everyone is guaranteed the basics of life, but expected to contribute, at the same time not using violence to carry this out?

Lets just imagine that Marx never existed. A group of gangsters named Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin had never been born.

Would we still find our way back to communism no matter how we approached this problem?

Communism is a class based system, and it pits those classes against one another. In effect, it's hate based like our leftist radicals, and the communist revolution necessarily has to go on forever.

Other than that I agree with you. From the works of another quite talented blogger I've come to the realization communism along with all sorts of other evils were derived from liberalism. Marx didn't invent communism, he discovered it.

 

[gr8whitetrukker]

Communism is a class based system, and it pits those classes against one another. In effect, it's hate based like our leftist radicals, and the communist revolution necessarily has to go on forever.

Other than that I agree with you. From the works of another quite talented blogger I've come to the realization communism along with all sorts of other evils were derived from liberalism. Marx didn't invent communism, he discovered it.

Funny isnt it. Fascism, liberalism and antifa

Their lying to you...

 

[gr8whitetrukker]

 

[Burn bright]

Unity, pfft! How is a 78 year old racist (and his token VP) going to do what no other president in the history of presidents could do to solve racism?

More like, thanks for the votes, suckers. Another 4 years of useless Obama like governing.

Not only that but he along with his kkk buddy championed the 86 bill that lead to disparities in sentencing with rock vs powder, which many cite as evidence for institutional racism.

He also drafted the 94 crime bill with mandatory minimums, for petty repeat crime. Another example people cite as institutional racism.

He strongly opposed school choice and wanted to keep schools segregated because he didn't want his kids going to school in a "racial jungle" (implying from that use of language, hes basically saying he doesn't want his kids to go to school with those animals, as I assume its not a jungle, or even a forest when its just white kids). Access to equal education is another thing cited as institutional racism.

By his logic on this one, if the black people who wanted to have equal access to quality education for their children didn't vote for him, would they then be eligible to go to the good schools since they are no longer black and thereby remove the possibility of creating a racial jungle in joe bidens utopia?

Like what is he promising to do, fight against his own legislation over the course of his career?



We live in a clown world of inversion.

Are you going to sign up for the upcoming war biden gets us into?

 

[Burn bright]

The problem is in not observing nor defending property rights. Capitalism isn't "doing" anything. "We" don't let "it" do anything.

If you own your shit, you can do whatever you want with it as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's shit. With respect to bullshit crimes, that's anything that doesn't interfere with other people's shit being dubbed a crime. Thus locking someone up for bullshit crimes is interfering with their shit, namely their person.

Capitalism does NOT depend on growth. Never has, never will. Fractional reserve banking, on the other hand, does depend on it. I believe you are confusing the two.

So, it sounds like you are familiar with MMT. The value of money being derived from the tax base and the promise of future goods and services that have to be performed in order for the tax base to pay off their liabilities. Also the petro dollar to some extent.

Are you suggesting that we revert back to a asset backed currency?

How would that work out in our favor if we continually run trade deficits?

Its fine in our current model because the people we are trading with don't end up with all of our gold they end up with an IOU, essentially, which seems advantageous?

Like when France wanted the gold we owed them from holdings they had through trade and nixon essentially told them to go fuck themselves.

I actually haven't looked but under fractional reserve banking and the increase in potential lending wouldn't that lead to more rapid growth and abundance since access of opportunity would be higher?

 

[Uncle Ted]

Communism is a class based system, and it pits those classes against one another. In effect, it's hate based like our leftist radicals, and the communist revolution necessarily has to go on forever.

Other than that I agree with you. From the works of another quite talented blogger I've come to the realization communism along with all sorts of other evils were derived from liberalism. Marx didn't invent communism, he discovered it.

Do you think communism and socialism are natural evolution's because man is suffering constant psychological distress from living like a fish in a bowl, waiting for his master to give sprinkles and dealing with the existential dread that his sprinkle master one day won't show up.

I watch shows like Port Protection and Life Below Zero, mostly centered around loners able to survive bartering, often times no money or the little money Alaska has in the form of payments they make off oil to everyone($2000/yr). Most have the philosophy of only taking what they need and no more. Hierarchy doesn't seem to be an issue. Few people get to live this kind of lifestyle so no need for political systems, they hunt, gather, build with natural materials and that's their life. It would seem they don't sit around worrying about a collapse of a system like someone in a city who doesn't possess any real survival skills.

Is it this inability to escape. The problem of one life requiring back breaking labor in nature, or the other requiring sedation from big pharma to keep from going insane living in a city that forces all these extreme political systems both on the right and left, neither providing much in the way of calm for the masses that have found themselves stuck and want out, but have no real option to escape.

 

[flenser]

So, it sounds like you are familiar with MMT. The value of money being derived from the tax base and the promise of future goods and services that have to be performed in order for the tax base to pay off their liabilities. Also the petro dollar to some extent.

Are you suggesting that we revert back to a asset backed currency?

How would that work out in our favor if we continually run trade deficits?

Its fine in our current model because the people we are trading with don't end up with all of our gold they end up with an IOU, essentially, which seems advantageous?

Like when France wanted the gold we owed them from holdings they had through trade and nixon essentially told them to go fuck themselves.

I actually haven't looked but under fractional reserve banking and the increase in potential lending wouldn't that lead to more rapid growth and abundance since access of opportunity would be higher?

I'm familiar with the math, yes. It's essentially a model for controlling populations through economic pressure. Fortunately, no one has a working model for individuals.

I'm not suggesting "we" revert to anything. It's not as if anyone in power is interested in my opinion, and if they were it would be for the purpose of collecting even more power. The advantages you mention are good for the government IMO, but that's not the same thing as being good for the people. Imagine if your savings increased in value every year just by existing instead of being slowly inflated away under the guise of maintaining a stable currency.

I don't know how increasing the amount of money without increasing the actual wealth would actually increase growth, especially when the lion's share of that loot goes to the top 1% of the wealthiest people in the world. You might try The Case Against The Fed by Rothbard. It's a short read, under 200 pages, and free. And it uses not one variable from MMT.

 

[flenser]

Do you think communism and socialism are natural evolution's because man is suffering constant psychological distress from living like a fish in a bowl, waiting for his master to give sprinkles and dealing with the existential dread that his sprinkle master one day won't show up.

Amazing, those are my exact thoughts, word for word...

Actually, no. I never gave it much thought. The idea that communism and socialism evolved naturally is a chilling thought. I hope that's not the case.

I watch shows like Port Protection and Life Below Zero, mostly centered around loners able to survive bartering, often times no money or the little money Alaska has in the form of payments they make off oil to everyone($2000/yr). Most have the philosophy of only taking what they need and no more. Hierarchy doesn't seem to be an issue. Few people get to live this kind of lifestyle so no need for political systems, they hunt, gather, build with natural materials and that's their life. It would seem they don't sit around worrying about a collapse of a system like someone in a city who doesn't possess any real survival skills.

Most of them also don't have families, don't contribute to the advancement of the species. Nothing wrong with that IMO, but they will not be the ones deciding the future. I'm sure that's the way they prefer it.

Is it this inability to escape. The problem of one life requiring back breaking labor in nature, or the other requiring sedation from big pharma to keep from going insane living in a city that forces all these extreme political systems both on the right and left, neither providing much in the way of calm for the masses that have found themselves stuck and want out, but have no real option to escape.

I don't feel trapped; have no desire to escape. I love my family and gladly take on heavy responsibilities and work hard for their sake. I spent plenty of time in the "wilderness" when I was younger, and I enjoyed my time alone. But in the end I found it rather empty, devoid of meaning, and well, boring.

Everyone has choices in life, and those usually revolve around whether to consume or to contribute. In my experience the latter is never a mistake, and the former rarely gets you what you want. I find I get more out of making others happy than I ever did serving just myself.

 

[NorthMich]

The nevada state election commission published a list 3 pages long of dead people who voted. Miraculously, all for biden

Redirect Notice

 

[Rival]

Redirect Notice

Fact checks are incredibly biased. I can tell you that mathematically speaking the numbers Biden put up nationally were lower than Hillary other than 4 cities all of which used vulnerable Dominion Voting Machine loaded with Scorecard and Hammer. It’s an anomaly and a strange one that Biden only won where these systems were in place. There is 0 chance Biden would have won Georgia given that they didn’t use those systems. Scorecard and Hammer as well as Dominion Voting machines were one of the main presentations given at DefCon 2019 where a female colleague was able to gain administrator access within under 2 minutes. It’s so easy to tamper with, it’s hard to argue that this wasn’t done on purpose.


Also if there was clearly “no foul play at hand” then the GSA would have already certified the election, Biden would have been awarded his transition funds by now. Clearly that’s not happening and SCOTUS is taking up the cases presented because they are accurate and believable. If that wasn’t the case it would have been dropped and Trump would have conceded. I have a feeling we will see many audits and states flip within the next 14 days. It will be so bad that Trump will probably have 400 electoral votes. Apparently the Trumps representation has the exact algorithm used to flip votes. More counties are coming forward and claiming “glitch” and others are magically finding more USB drives in heavily Red areas that were never counted.

 

[Test_Subject]

If there's so much proof of rampant voter fraud, I have one question: why aren't Republican lawyers presenting said proof in court instead of dropping their suits or having them thrown out on the basis of lack of evidence?

I'm not being flippant; that's an honest question. It seems to me that if you have evidence that will likely win a court case for your plaintiff, you'd want to present it, no?

Edit: Texas, Ohio, Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee, Kansas, Alaska plus a few others I'm probably forgetting use Dominion systems and Trump won those states by quite a large margin.

 

[NorthMich]

Because there’s no factual proof of jack shit. Isolated errors. If there was ANYTHING irregular the RNC would be all over it.

They have nada

 

[gr8whitetrukker]

Redirect Notice

I would be extremely wary of big tech fact checks. By chance did you see big tech senate hearings yesterday? Yeah google, facebook, twitter, instagram are all answering to the govt for spying on users. Intentionally silencing conservative voices and promoting liberal voices. Yeah its been happening. Burying of information or making it extremely difficult to find. Especially when its damaging to their bias. They are essentially abusing a new found power we dont know how to legislate yet. Thats free speech. You know the right the left has always stood for until now? Lol, they are essentially controlling the flow of information and rewriting it as they see fit and delivering it to you in how they see fit.

 

[gr8whitetrukker]

If there's so much proof of rampant voter fraud, I have one question: why aren't Republican lawyers presenting said proof in court instead of dropping their suits or having them thrown out on the basis of lack of evidence?

I'm not being flippant; that's an honest question. It seems to me that if you have evidence that will likely win a court case for your plaintiff, you'd want to present it, no?

Edit: Texas, Ohio, Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee, Kansas, Alaska plus a few others I'm probably forgetting use Dominion systems and Trump won those states by quite a large margin.

We talked about this already. Sydney powell etc. I know i did. Not far back here in this thread

 

[Uncle Ted]

Wouldn't it also be the high cost of having a recount. I'm not sure if they all charge, but we're talking tens of millions to have all these recounts.

When someone tells you "sure we'll recount, that will be 8 million dollars please", it has a tendency to shut down the conversation.

 

[Test_Subject]

I half expected you to catch your error and correct it as Sworder tried to do for you. But you seem to think stock markets are somehow required by capitalism. At least that's the only way your statement above isn't a fallacy.

I don't think that capitalism as an economic system strictly requires them, but capitalism as we know it relies on them. Just look at what happens when the markets crash. Capitalism in Western societies is directly linked to the stock market. Even companies that aren't listed take a hit to their bottom line when the markets are bad because of the secondary effects of poorly performing markets (layoffs, cut hours, bankruptcies etc.) which lead to people having less money to spend.

Capitalism in theory is an interesting discussion, but I'm talking about capitalism in practice. If you were to remove the markets from Western-style capitalism, the system would fail overnight.

Could there, in theory, be a non-predatory capitalist system without a stock market where everyone is free to own capital or sell their labour and make a reasonable profit without doing it at the expense of others? Absolutely. But when the core of the economy is a system that expects infinite returns quarter after quarter, that's not going to happen.

 

[Rival]

If there's so much proof of rampant voter fraud, I have one question: why aren't Republican lawyers presenting said proof in court instead of dropping their suits or having them thrown out on the basis of lack of evidence?

There are open cases by the dozens. As mentioned if there was 0 irrefutable proof of such then SCOTUS wouldn’t waste their time hearing it out and the GSA would have certified the election by now.

https://greatlakesjc.org/wp-content/uploads/Complaint-Costantino-FINAL-With-Exhibits.pdf?x44644#page=26

the reason you’re not seeing republican law makers post affidavit’s is because Twitter/Facebook/Google are actively removing such posts entirely

Anyone remember when the media falsely claimed Al Gore won? And let him believe he was the president select for ~30 days before reversing it to Bush? That wouldn’t have happened had Bush conceded and not demand recounts.

If the GSA and Congress come out and certify the election for Biden, I’ll gladly accept that outcome - as I mentioned I’m a proud American and stand by my president regardless of party. But something about this smells off and I’m cautious to call Biden the president until I hear otherwise.