Trump as Jesus

[Immanuel Can]

Well, it gets frustrating dealing with stupid people. The wealthy are not going to rule society if you don't put limits on property accumulation?

Think, Gary. The government is corruptible...you say, only by the wealthy. I say it's corruptible lots of ways. But okay, let's go with just the wealthy.

Why would you advocate big government, since you know government is corruptible? Explain that.

Because only a democratic government can legitimately place a restriction on citizens if such needs to be the case.

So you're hoping to correct one type of corruption (which you seem to think all business must be), by adding a corrupt tyranny (government)?

[Gary Childress]

Think, Gary. The government is corruptible...you say, only by the wealthy. I say it's corruptible lots of ways. But okay, let's go with just the wealthy.

Why would you advocate big government, since you know government is corruptible? Explain that.

Because only a democratic government can legitimately place a restriction on citizens if such needs to be the case.

So you're hoping to correct one type of corruption (which you seem to think all business must be), by adding a corrupt tyranny (government)?

No. I'm adding a legitimate DEMOCRATIC government. You have said that the definition of socialism is found in Marx. Marx's definition of socialism is abolishing private property but allowing personal possessions. According to that definition, citizens can democratically vote to limit property accumulation. But you don't want that. You want what we currently have: governments corrupted by elites. Can a democracy be "corrupted" by the poor? No. It's people with inordinate powers who create corruption in a democracy. But limiting property is verboten because it will necessarily lead to death squads, etc., because the Stalins, Maos and Pol Pots are the only outcomes a government that limits property can have, according to you.

[Immanuel Can]

Because only a democratic government can legitimately place a restriction on citizens if such needs to be the case.

So you're hoping to correct one type of corruption (which you seem to think all business must be), by adding a corrupt tyranny (government)?

No. I'm adding a legitimate DEMOCRATIC government.

Then you'd better define what you mean by "democratic." Because for sure, you can't mean, "One person, one vote." You can't mean "direct political participation individually, by the citizenry." Socialism will never allow any of that. It can't, because it cannot endure itself being voted against.

So what is your definition?

[Gary Childress]

So you're hoping to correct one type of corruption (which you seem to think all business must be), by adding a corrupt tyranny (government)?

No. I'm adding a legitimate DEMOCRATIC government.

Then you'd better define what you mean by "democratic." Because for sure, you can't mean, "One person, one vote." You can't mean "direct political participation individually, by the citizenry." Socialism will never allow any of that. It can't, because it cannot endure itself being voted against.

So what is your definition?

One person, one vote. If people want to vote against socialism, that is fine. They can do that, and we won't have limits on private property. If the majority votes for it, then we can have limits on private property. That vote can be changed in a democracy. But it's not your place to tell everyone that they cannot vote for socialism if they want limits on private property.

[Immanuel Can]

No. I'm adding a legitimate DEMOCRATIC government.

Then you'd better define what you mean by "democratic." Because for sure, you can't mean, "One person, one vote." You can't mean "direct political participation individually, by the citizenry." Socialism will never allow any of that. It can't, because it cannot endure itself being voted against.

So what is your definition?

One person, one vote. If people want to vote against socialism, that is fine.

Socialists insist that it's not okay. They have to, because consider the alternative:

Imagine the US being run by Socialists for four years.

• They get to create their social welfare dependencies, their green agenda, their USAID scams, and create their soviet...

• But at the end of the four years, the Conservatives take over. They change the welfare programs, they cut the green agenda, the close USAID, they establish their own electoral procedures, they evict the migrants, ban the soviet...

• Four years later, the Socialists are back in. They are then forced to recreate the welfare programs, the green agenda, restaff USAID, find the migrants, revise the electoral procedures...

• And four years later, the Conservatives are back, or the Libertarians are voted in, or the Anarchists, or Monarchists, or whomever...And so on.

When will Socialism arrive?

You can see it: never. That's why Socialism cannot allow democracy.

[Gary Childress]

Then you'd better define what you mean by "democratic." Because for sure, you can't mean, "One person, one vote." You can't mean "direct political participation individually, by the citizenry." Socialism will never allow any of that. It can't, because it cannot endure itself being voted against.

So what is your definition?

One person, one vote. If people want to vote against socialism, that is fine.

Socialists insist that it's not okay. They have to, because consider the alternative:

Don't capitalists "insist" that socialism is not okay? Don't they have to say that in order to keep capitalism? What is the real difference between socialism and capitalism, other than the status of property and what a person may own?

[Immanuel Can]

One person, one vote. If people want to vote against socialism, that is fine.

Socialists insist that it's not okay. They have to, because consider the alternative:

Don't capitalists "insist" that socialism is not okay?

There are no such things as "capitalists". That's a bogeyman word made up in Marx's day. There are free markets, profit margins, enterpreneurs, businesspeople, marketers, advertisers, inventors, investors, creditors, debters, speculators...but nobody is worshipping "capital" or inventing an ideology of it. That's just silly.

But there is a thing called "Socialism," the ideology of the collective. That does exist.

[Gary Childress]

Socialists insist that it's not okay. They have to, because consider the alternative:

Don't capitalists "insist" that socialism is not okay?

There are no such things as "capitalists". That's a bogeyman word made up in Marx's day. There are free markets, profit margins, enterpreneurs, businesspeople, marketers, advertisers, inventors, investors, creditors, debters, speculators...but nobody is worshipping "capital" or inventing an ideology of it. That's just silly.

But there is a thing called "Socialism," the ideology of the collective. That does exist.

If there were people who practiced "feudalism", then what would you call that which came after feudalism? How can there not be such a thing as capitalism? Are feudalism and capitalism, therefore, synonyms? Did "feudalism" not exist either?

[Immanuel Can]

Don't capitalists "insist" that socialism is not okay?

There are no such things as "capitalists". That's a bogeyman word made up in Marx's day. There are free markets, profit margins, enterpreneurs, businesspeople, marketers, advertisers, inventors, investors, creditors, debters, speculators...but nobody is worshipping "capital" or inventing an ideology of it. That's just silly.

But there is a thing called "Socialism," the ideology of the collective. That does exist.

If there were people who practiced "feudalism", then what would you call that which came after feudalism?

In Russia, what came after feudalism was the Russian Revolution...Red Communism.

[Gary Childress]

There are no such things as "capitalists". That's a bogeyman word made up in Marx's day. There are free markets, profit margins, enterpreneurs, businesspeople, marketers, advertisers, inventors, investors, creditors, debters, speculators...but nobody is worshipping "capital" or inventing an ideology of it. That's just silly.

But there is a thing called "Socialism," the ideology of the collective. That does exist.

If there were people who practiced "feudalism", then what would you call that which came after feudalism?

In Russia, what came after feudalism was the Russian Revolution...Red Communism.

But what do you call what came after feudalism in Western Europe around the 17th century or so?

[Immanuel Can]

If there were people who practiced "feudalism", then what would you call that which came after feudalism?

In Russia, what came after feudalism was the Russian Revolution...Red Communism.

But what do you call what came after feudalism in Western Europe around the 17th century or so?

How about The Enlightenment? The Scientific Revolution? The Industrial Revolution? The Neo-Classical and Romantic Periods? Victorianism? No, that's too late. You can pick any name you like.

[Gary Childress]

In Russia, what came after feudalism was the Russian Revolution...Red Communism.

But what do you call what came after feudalism in Western Europe around the 17th century or so?

How about The Enlightenment? The Scientific Revolution? The Industrial Revolution? The Neo-Classical and Romantic Periods? Victorianism? No, that's too late. You can pick any name you like.

But I can't call it "capitalism"? Most people refer to it as "capitalism".

[Immanuel Can]

But what do you call what came after feudalism in Western Europe around the 17th century or so?

How about The Enlightenment? The Scientific Revolution? The Industrial Revolution? The Neo-Classical and Romantic Periods? Victorianism? No, that's too late. You can pick any name you like.

But I can't call it "capitalism"? Most people refer to it as "capitalism".

They don't, actually. It wasn't Marx who invented the term, but one of his contemporaries did; and Marx became its popularizer. But it's a stupid term. An "-ism" is an ideology, a religion of some kind. Socialism is: it has things like a manifesto, followers, an ideological program, an economic program, educational ambitions, and whatnot. But there's no comparable "ideology of capital." That's just silly stuff.

[Gary Childress]

How about The Enlightenment? The Scientific Revolution? The Industrial Revolution? The Neo-Classical and Romantic Periods? Victorianism? No, that's too late. You can pick any name you like.

But I can't call it "capitalism"? Most people refer to it as "capitalism".

They don't, actually. It wasn't Marx who invented the term, but one of his contemporaries did; and Marx became its popularizer. But it's a stupid term. An "-ism" is an ideology, a religion of some kind. Socialism is: it has things like a manifesto, followers, an ideological program, an economic program, educational ambitions, and whatnot. But there's no comparable "ideology of capital." That's just silly stuff.

Was feudalism and ideology?

[Immanuel Can]

But I can't call it "capitalism"? Most people refer to it as "capitalism".

They don't, actually. It wasn't Marx who invented the term, but one of his contemporaries did; and Marx became its popularizer. But it's a stupid term. An "-ism" is an ideology, a religion of some kind. Socialism is: it has things like a manifesto, followers, an ideological program, an economic program, educational ambitions, and whatnot. But there's no comparable "ideology of capital." That's just silly stuff.

Was feudalism and ideology?

I dont' think it was. There was no "feudalist manifesto," or "feudalist founder," or ideological program of feudal thinking. There was just an economic arrangement, and that's what the term "feudalism" is meant to describe, not an ideology.