American Marxism

[Gary Childress]

Now, now, Gary...play nice. I think I treat you pretty well...we may disagree sometimes, and sometimes not, but I don't insult you, do I?

I have good reasons for opposing Marxism. Anybody would. It's quite literally, and by orders of magnitude, the most lethal creed the human race has ever known. That is, if we count numbers of bodies. And it's utterly ruined every economy where it's been tried, causing untold additional misery. So for anybody that likes human beings, and wants them to stay free, alive and prosperous, Marxism is the opposite of that.

So that's a pretty good reason, don't you think?

People cooperating and helping one another survive in the world is a "lethal creed"? How do you figure that's the case?

Because Marxists are not about helping people survive. They're about their ideology being made mandatory for everybody. And if you don't believe in their ideology, then you're not "humanized," to use their word, and so you're sub-human and disposable. And they'll kill you.

That's why it begins with cries for the collective good, but ends in gulags, re-education camps, torture chambers and firing squads.

Unfortunately, private ownership of massive business entities that ultimately allow a few individuals to operate above any accountability to the public seems to have its problems too. However, I suppose it's the nature of the world we live in. There don't seem to be any clear cut solutions to any of the maladies that plague us in this world. Gulags and reeducation camps vs. exploitation and starvation of the lowest castes. It seems like a case of picking poison and who to give it to. Praise God for the hopeless world we live in, I guess.

[Immanuel Can]

Unfortunately, private ownership of massive business entities that ultimately allow a few individuals to operate above any accountability to the public seems to have its problems too.

Look around you, Gary.

Blackrock. Amazon. Apple. Disney. Lockheed. Warner. The banks. Credit companies.

There have never been bigger or more powerful corporations.

Yet, they're all backing Socialism. They all want us "woke." None of them is campaigning for free markets, or for small government. They all want globalism, big government, a monopoly on information, and economic Socialism for the masses...

Ask yourself why. Why? Why?

If Socialism delivers us from big business, why are all the really big businesses in such a desperate hurry to make us all Socialists? Are they mad? Have they no self-interest? Can they be making a mistake? Are these people stupid? Are they hell-bent on destroying themselves? Do they not know that Socialism is supposed to be against capitalism? Aren't they all capitalists?

Or do they know something of which the ordinary supporters of Socialism are utterly and blithely oblivious?

What seems more likely to you?

[Iwannaplato]

Unfortunately, private ownership of massive business entities that ultimately allow a few individuals to operate above any accountability to the public seems to have its problems too.

Look around you, Gary.

Blackrock. Amazon. Apple. Disney. Lockheed. Warner. The banks. Credit companies.

There have never been bigger or more powerful corporations.

Yet, they're all backing Socialism. They all want us "woke."

There are a lot of socialisms, but if we go by the core definition of socialism

Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a wide range of economic and social systems[1] which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2][3][4] as opposed to private ownership.[

None of those companies what that.
Tell lockheed you want social ownership of Lockheed...lol. So, for the rest.
Yes, you said socialism for the masses.
But the truth is, that's an oxymoron.
Socialism is an economic system but without it affecting the way companies are owned and run it's not socialism. It's something else.

Socialism is a social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another.

Those companies would go to war, literally, if there was a movement to move their ownership to public ownership.
And they want the right to buy smaller companies. They don't want the government taking over smaller companies and businesses.

As usual, you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Now it's not just people on the right who see everything in binary terms, the left does this also. Or it's not just conservatives who see everything in binary terms, liberals do this also.

And the giant companies who own the governments laugh when both sides babble on in binary terms. They love what Peter Kropotnik is doing in this forum. And they love what you are doing.

The neo cons have always loved their scam over religious conservatives.

[henry quirk]

None of those companies what that.

Neither do I. I self-employ. I am the company. Say what you will about mega-corps but if they can be nationalized so can
a rinky-dink one man operation. In other words: if I can justify takin' away and controlling the property of another without just cause, then my own moral claim to my property is forfeit.

Those companies would go to war, literally, if there was a movement to move their ownership to public ownership.

So would I.

[Gary Childress]

Unfortunately, private ownership of massive business entities that ultimately allow a few individuals to operate above any accountability to the public seems to have its problems too.

Look around you, Gary.

Blackrock. Amazon. Apple. Disney. Lockheed. Warner. The banks. Credit companies.

There have never been bigger or more powerful corporations.

Yet, they're all backing Socialism. They all want us "woke." None of them is campaigning for free markets, or for small government. They all want globalism, big government, a monopoly on information, and economic Socialism for the masses...

Ask yourself why. Why? Why?

If Socialism delivers us from big business, why are all the really big businesses in such a desperate hurry to make us all Socialists? Are they mad? Have they no self-interest? Can they be making a mistake? Are these people stupid? Are they hell-bent on destroying themselves? Do they not know that Socialism is supposed to be against capitalism? Aren't they all capitalists?

Or do they know something of which the ordinary supporters of Socialism are utterly and blithely oblivious?

What seems more likely to you?

What seems most likely to me is that any form of social organization--whether it be economic, political, religious or just a street gang--is going to take on a hierarchical structure where most humans are involved. It's probably indicative of a basic genetic survival strategy. Of course, not all survival strategies are winning ones. The fossil record contains many false starts and trials that didn't last the duration. The universe seems to do it's own thing whether it aligns with what will benefit its residents or not. The fact that our ecosystem appears to be experiencing catastrophic results from an overabundance of human proliferation seems to me to make a good case that we're screwed no matter what we do. Our gain is something else's loss and eventually will result in our own loss as well.

[Iwannaplato]

None of those companies what that.

Neither do I. I self-employ. I am the company. Say what you will about mega-corps but if they can be nationalized so can
a rinky-dink one man operation. In other words: if I can justify takin' away and controlling the property of another without just cause, then my own moral claim to my property is forfeit.

Those companies would go to war, literally, if there was a movement to move their ownership to public ownership.

So would I.

So, these companies, nor you, are Socialist.
They are doing things that conservatives don't like. And ironically they are doing things that the Left doesn't like. And they love it when the left and right, liberals and conservatives fight. They love it.

And note: I am not saying there aren't value differences and serious fights between left and right (and other groups).
But the true parasites only want people to think it's all binary and the real fight is with people with very little power.

[promethean75]

"Look around you, Gary."

u never begin your appeal in a symposium with pathos like that, IC. the audience (becuz we are greek philosophers and sophists) knows u are tryna persuade them to expect to be in disagreement with the subject matter that u then critique, before they consider it and hear your argument/critique. setting the stage. leading the witness, etc. 

it used to be that u could do that but philosophers are hip to it these days. anytime u walk up to a dude and say 'look around u my friend!' all dramatically, u already got em and it's unfair. they know that so it doesn't work.

[henry quirk]

And they love it when the left and right, liberals and conservatives fight. They love it.

Me too.

[Immanuel Can]

Unfortunately, private ownership of massive business entities that ultimately allow a few individuals to operate above any accountability to the public seems to have its problems too.

Look around you, Gary.

Blackrock. Amazon. Apple. Disney. Lockheed. Warner. The banks. Credit companies.

There have never been bigger or more powerful corporations.

Yet, they're all backing Socialism. They all want us "woke."

Socialism is an economic system but without it affecting the way companies are owned and run it's not socialism. It's something else.

In theory, that's right. In practice, it's not.

The Socialist theorists are right about this much: there never has been the kind of Socialism promised in the theory. Somehow, it never works out that way. That's why they invariably claim there's "never been" Soclalism. (But, of course, there have been many, many serious attempts by very capable people: it's just always failed disastrously, every time.)

But let's pretend they're right. In theory, Socialism means the rich elites get their wealth stripped. But here's the billion-dollar question: if the rich elites at Lockheed, or Burisma, or the banks know that the theory says that, why are they backing it so furiously as they clearly are? Do they just not know that?

Of course they do. These people are not fools. They're educated. They're savvy. They're very rich, very good at calculating their best interests, and very successful at coming out on top. That's how they got where they are.

So why do they want the average person made Socialist? Answer: because they know that when it happens it WON'T apply to them. They've got the Socialist program scammed already. When the blade comes down, it will come down on the average citizen...never on them.

It never does. The Socialist state exempts its own elite, every time. And for some reason, these people know they're already in that exempt elite. If they didn't, they'd have every reason to worry. But they're cool with it. They want it, and want it in a big hurry.

Now, if you were a conspiracy theorist, you might suspect the fix was already in. They somehow know that whatever the government does, and no matter how big it gets, it's not going to come for them.

How do they know that? Use deduction. It's not hard to figure it out.

[Immanuel Can]

What seems most likely to me is that any form of social organization--whether it be economic, political, religious or just a street gang--is going to take on a hierarchical structure where most humans are involved.

Yes, hierarchy is inevitable, it's true. And some hierarchies are created by power differentials. Most are not.

As Jordan Peterson so cogently points out, most hierarchies are ranks of competence, quality and achievement, not of power. To hate hierarchy is to hate excellence, in any form it may come. Inequality is naturally created by somebody being more smart, kind, rich, inventive, aesthetically skilled, athletically able, good at entertaining, good at cooking...all kinds of metrics. They all result in hieararchical orderings.

The fact that our ecosystem appears to be experiencing catastrophic results from an overabundance of human proliferation

I don't see any evidence for that. I do see that we've done some damage with the technologies we've elected to use, or with the things we do like bombing the Russian pipeline -- which was the single biggest carbon-pollution disaster in history. But I don't see that mere numbers of humans have represented any such threat.

The old 1970s "population bomb" thinking proved to be wrong in several ways. We're not overpopulated now, and given our trajectory, are never likely to be, for various reasons, such as that even moderately wealthy people tend to manage their own reproduction to slightly below replacement levels, and we have interventions like the pill and baby murder, to say nothing of wars and such.

So I think the dangers will come from other quarters than mere population.

[Iwannaplato]

And they love it when the left and right, liberals and conservatives fight. They love it.

Me too.

Well, those companies don't care at all about what you own and if it makes them money or gives them power, they'll happily take it from you direclty. They will also do this indirectly, via policy changes, legislation changes, control of foreign policy and undermining of democracy, release of poisons or whatever that have as a side effect that you and yours...poof and are gone. Without ever being conscious of you as an individual person or your name. And part of how they hold that power and expand the power to roll over you and others, is people are distracted by their fight with other at this point relatively powerless people, and they can't manage to see the common enemy.

[Gary Childress]

What seems most likely to me is that any form of social organization--whether it be economic, political, religious or just a street gang--is going to take on a hierarchical structure where most humans are involved.

Yes, hierarchy is inevitable, it's true. And some hierarchies are created by power differentials. Most are not.

As Jordan Peterson so cogently points out, most hierarchies are ranks of competence, quality and achievement, not of power. To hate hierarchy is to hate excellence, in any form it may come. Inequality is naturally created by somebody being more smart, kind, rich, inventive, aesthetically skilled, athletically able, good at entertaining, good at cooking...all kinds of metrics. They all result in hieararchical orderings.

The fact that our ecosystem appears to be experiencing catastrophic results from an overabundance of human proliferation

I don't see any evidence for that. I do see that we've done some damage with the technologies we've elected to use, or with the things we do like bombing the Russian pipeline -- which was the single biggest carbon-pollution disaster in history. But I don't see that mere numbers of humans have represented any such threat.

The old 1970s "population bomb" thinking proved to be wrong in several ways. We're not overpopulated now, and given our trajectory, are never likely to be, for various reasons, such as that even moderately wealthy people tend to manage their own reproduction to slightly below replacement levels, and we have interventions like the pill and baby murder, to say nothing of wars and such.

So I think the dangers will come from other quarters than mere population.

So you hate the "excellence" of people like Musk, Bezos, Soros and others? Or do you just hate the ones that at least talk about worker rights, democratic worplaces and government? I suppose if those people just sat on their duffs and quietly collected money, they'd be more to your liking? Am I to take it the Koch brothers (among other conservative donors) are at least better than the ilk of those others?

At least I'm glad to hear from you that global climate change due to the economic activity of over 7 billion people is a hoax and we can proceed to polute to our hearts desire.

[henry quirk]

Well, those companies don't care at all about what you own and if it makes them money or gives them power, they'll happily take it from you direclty. They will also do this indirectly, via policy changes, legislation changes, control of foreign policy and undermining of democracy, release of poisons or whatever that have as a side effect that you and yours...poof and are gone. Without ever being conscious of you as an individual person or your name. And part of how they hold that power and expand the power to roll over you and others, is people are distracted by their fight with other at this point relatively powerless people, and they can't manage to see the common enemy.

All true.

And?

I mean, none this is new. Slavers (and that's what these folks are, bottomline) leashing free men (directly and thru hoodwink), this is human history in a nutshell.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Mine, loopin' back: if I can justify takin' away and controlling the property of another without just cause, then my own moral claim to my property is forfeit.

[Immanuel Can]

So you hate the "excellence" of people like Musk, Bezos, Soros and others?

It depends, of course: what sort of "excellence" do they have? How have they come to possess their "excellence"?

You've flopped to the other extreme: it does not follow, Gary, that if some hierarchies are based on excellence, that none are based on arbitrary power, or theft, or cruelty, or exploitation. It just means that we can't tell from the bare fact of the existence of a hierarchy whether or not that hierarchy is one that is legitimate or not. We can only tell that from the specific thing that creates the hierarchy, the criterion in play.

So what criterion do you believe gave, say, Soros, his position at the top of the hierarchy? Was it "moral excellence"? Was it "personal achievement?" Was it "beneficence?" Or was it cunning, cruelty, exploitation, the leveraging of wealth, surreptitious manipulation, and so on?

The answer will determine whether you think you're dealing with a just hierarchy or an unjust one.

At least I'm glad to hear from you that global climate change due to the economic activity of over 7 billion people is a hoax and we can proceed to polute to our hearts desire.

You certainly didn't hear that from me. All you heard from me is that global population is likely to turn out to be self-regulating, and that if we use the planet wisely we won't pollute it.

How you got the rest, well, that you'll have to explain to me.

[Gary Childress]

So you hate the "excellence" of people like Musk, Bezos, Soros and others?

It depends, of course: what sort of "excellence" do they have? How have they come to possess their "excellence"?

You've flopped to the other extreme: it does not follow, Gary, that if some hierarchies are based on excellence, that none are based on arbitrary power, or theft, or cruelty, or exploitation. It just means that we can't tell from the bare fact of the existence of a hierarchy whether or not that hierarchy is one that is legitimate or not. We can only tell that from the specific thing that creates the hierarchy, the criterion in play.

So what criterion do you believe gave, say, Soros, his position at the top of the hierarchy? Was it "moral excellence"? Was it "personal achievement?" Was it "beneficence?" Or was it cunning, cruelty, exploitation, the leveraging of wealth, surreptitious manipulation, and so on?

The answer will determine whether you think you're dealing with a just hierarchy or an unjust one.

At least I'm glad to hear from you that global climate change due to the economic activity of over 7 billion people is a hoax and we can proceed to polute to our hearts desire.

You certainly didn't hear that from me. All you heard from me is that global population is likely to turn out to be self-regulating, and that if we use the planet wisely we won't pollute it.

How you got the rest, well, that you'll have to explain to me.

From what I've heard Soros is at least no less "excellent" than any other wealthy donor out there. What wealthy donor do you believe possesses more benevolent intent than whatever may or may not be possessed by Soros?