Republicans have definitely convinced the poorer areas, especially in rural parts of our country, that Democrats are the reason they are poor, that jobs are shipped overseas, that wages have been stagnant for decades. Republican culture war divisions stoke people's fears of the other - "elite" city folks, darker skinned people's, LGBTQ persons - demonizing them, dividing all of us not in the top 2% economically. It's crazy that many poor whites feel they have more in common with rich white people, than other poor groups. Stoked by racist and homophobic and xenophobic hate and fear, the peasant class is being primed to accept oligarchial rule as preferable to democracy. How can we ever change this disconnect? How?
Your posts are always a special kind of retarded written for the enjoyment of retarded people (myself included!) Let me guess, you have a quick response explaining I’m a Russian troll with a link to a news article that proves it! Let me guess, you’re gonna block me now! LOL, bye dumbass
Sorry I accidentally posted before finishing a sentence. I was going to say that a redistribution could be accomplished one time, but thereafter no one is going to take the risk of another forfeiture of their assets, no one will go back to energetically creating wealth lest it be seized by the government
Not claiming any special wisdom or insight, but for example, under something approaching capitalism, South Korea moved from the third to the first world, and India is closer and closer. Real, inflation-adjusted incomes, living standards rise, not fall as and where capitalism modes, markets are allowed any exercise at all. Even the strange dictatorial pseudo capitalism of China has substantially enriched a billion people.
The whole appeal of neo-Marxism, cultural Marxism is due to the fact that traditional economic “vulgar” Marxism failed. That is, the proletariat, working men and women were not seen, by Marxist theoreticians themselves, as likely to rise, revolt against a system that allowed them a house, car, a swimming pool, a boat, etc.
And that’s leaving aside the totalitarian aspect, the murderous human rights record, of collectivist countries.
• I’d already alluded to increased prosperity among many Chinese due to policies somewhat more in line with capitalism. In the example you yourself cite, what is praised is specifically the establishment of limited land rights—in other words, a small move away from socialist collectivism toward capitalism
• As for “capitalism” killing millions of people between 1980 and 2007, this is just absurd, well beyond economic illiteracy.
“Capitalism” is said to do various things as if it were a person, a living being. I don’t think that’s quite what Adam Smith meant by alluding to an “invisible hand.”
“Capitalism” doesn’t “keep” things like higher education artificially expensive. This is just an infantile way to view the world.
No, capitalism is understood as an interplay of various elements, like free institutions, laws respecting rights to life, liberty and property. There is no Wizard of Capitalism one can visit in the Emerald City and say “O Capitalism, I need some help with my rent this month.”
No such being exists.
But freedom, at least to some extent still does. We each can apply our talents and efforts in what is still a substantially free marketplace and see how we will do.
I’m open to suggestions that we replace the existing welfare-state apparatus with some sort of minimum income, money that wouldn’t be taken away when one took a job. This at least wouldnt trap people on welfare.
But if the argument is that X number of people would fare better with more money in their pockets I agree. So really the question is what system generates more wealth? Obviously the answer is some version of capitalism, for the only alternative is collectivization, redistribution. And for that there must first be something to redistribute.
Yes, you could do a one-time redistribution, loot all the wealthy on a given day. But they’re unlikely in my view
This is why I pointed up the high and rising living standards wherever anything like capitalism is allowed.
Okay, in terms of factual content it’s economically illiterate, a morality play suitable for children, but you get full marks (Marx?) for eloquence. Your appeal has emotional force to it. To an unfortunately large number of people your fantasy account of wealth and poverty would appear to have explanatory power. I’ll give you all that
You like to use the term "economically illiterate" to dismiss all criticism of capitalism. But the only one who sounds illiterate is you. You keep repeating debunked capitalist propaganda that has been proven false again and again.
America is not even in the top 10 best places to live. All the top places on the list are social democracies.
Sorry America, Norway ranks No. 1 for ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’
I’m saying it’s economically illiterate in the sense that in terms of economics as a science or academic discipline, forced collectivism is on the intellectual level of flat-earth theory in terms of generating wealth. And Norway is not collectivist. Yes, there are high taxes and high welfare budgets, but people are allowed to keep much of what they earn, some strong incentives remain for people to produce. Ownership and profit are not outlawed
Irving Kristol (who started out as a Trotskyist Communist):
“In the area where it promised so much, namely economics, socialism has been a calamitous failure. That failure is due to its basic conception that production can be separated from distribution, that is, that production can be organized according to the dictates of whoever is running the state, and that distribution is a separate process also at the command of the state. But it turns out that there is a link between production and distribution, the link called human incentives. In order to distribute, there must be something to distribute. Production is not autonomous, and distribution is not autonomous. Human incentives are what create wealth, and to create affluence, as socialism promises, an economy must be respectful of human incentives.
Socialism says that we do not need that human incentive we call self-interest, that we can rely on altruism, on the pure spirit of fraternity. The experience of the world says, no-not in large societies. In the Israeli kibbutz, a self-selected elite may work altruistically for the common good for a gencration or two. But this is not possible in a large heterogeneous socicty. It is not only impossible; it is inherently absurd. To increase wealth, production must be increased through the use of materialistic incentives. Without those materialistic incentives, there will be less and less to distribute, and any redistribution will become less effective in bettering the material condition of human beings than was the capitalist system it replaced. Again, I think this is quite evident in the economies of all the socialist nations.”
You might scroll down to “The Incentives” section at this link to see why collectivist systems fail. Even the best intentioned are not getting out of bed if not rewarded for their efforts
Because people who write anti-capitalism posts have no idea what they are advocating. So if you agree with this post, if you like communism so much, stop talking and move to China.
China is capitalist, just like the US, numbnuts. Actually China is better at capitalism than the US. China has more billionaires than the US. There are no communist billionaires. All billionaires are capitalists.
Thats the ignorance I am talking about. They are not capitalist. They are a collectivist culture and if you start a business there, the government owns it. Learn before you speak
Good grief, you MAGA dumbfucks are dumb as fuck. You just repeat the bullshit propaganda you hear on Fox News and you think that's the same as actually knowing something. Educate yourself:
There are more people in China period! There are more poor people also. Irrelevant statistic in relation to my comments. Go away now ideologue. Move out of my country
I really needed all this laughing today!
Republicans have definitely convinced the poorer areas, especially in rural parts of our country, that Democrats are the reason they are poor, that jobs are shipped overseas, that wages have been stagnant for decades. Republican culture war divisions stoke people's fears of the other - "elite" city folks, darker skinned people's, LGBTQ persons - demonizing them, dividing all of us not in the top 2% economically. It's crazy that many poor whites feel they have more in common with rich white people, than other poor groups. Stoked by racist and homophobic and xenophobic hate and fear, the peasant class is being primed to accept oligarchial rule as preferable to democracy. How can we ever change this disconnect? How?
https://youtu.be/MmirKUAMgGo?si=MC84-gDSjasS4yM4&t=101
☠️donnys poorly educated low IQ Sheeple!👺🤮
Your posts are always a special kind of retarded written for the enjoyment of retarded people (myself included!) Let me guess, you have a quick response explaining I’m a Russian troll with a link to a news article that proves it! Let me guess, you’re gonna block me now! LOL, bye dumbass
https://kgt49.substack.com/p/inflation-dont-be-stupid?r=2tqycd
Sorry I accidentally posted before finishing a sentence. I was going to say that a redistribution could be accomplished one time, but thereafter no one is going to take the risk of another forfeiture of their assets, no one will go back to energetically creating wealth lest it be seized by the government
Not claiming any special wisdom or insight, but for example, under something approaching capitalism, South Korea moved from the third to the first world, and India is closer and closer. Real, inflation-adjusted incomes, living standards rise, not fall as and where capitalism modes, markets are allowed any exercise at all. Even the strange dictatorial pseudo capitalism of China has substantially enriched a billion people.
The whole appeal of neo-Marxism, cultural Marxism is due to the fact that traditional economic “vulgar” Marxism failed. That is, the proletariat, working men and women were not seen, by Marxist theoreticians themselves, as likely to rise, revolt against a system that allowed them a house, car, a swimming pool, a boat, etc.
And that’s leaving aside the totalitarian aspect, the murderous human rights record, of collectivist countries.
Capitalism Kills Nearly 1 Million Americans Per Year
https://invisiblepeople.tv/capitalism-kills-nearly-1-million-americans-per-year/
How China lifted 500 million people out of extreme poverty
https://news.trust.org/item/20140408110950-ndf6e/
Wow.
• I’d already alluded to increased prosperity among many Chinese due to policies somewhat more in line with capitalism. In the example you yourself cite, what is praised is specifically the establishment of limited land rights—in other words, a small move away from socialist collectivism toward capitalism
• As for “capitalism” killing millions of people between 1980 and 2007, this is just absurd, well beyond economic illiteracy.
“Capitalism” is said to do various things as if it were a person, a living being. I don’t think that’s quite what Adam Smith meant by alluding to an “invisible hand.”
“Capitalism” doesn’t “keep” things like higher education artificially expensive. This is just an infantile way to view the world.
No, capitalism is understood as an interplay of various elements, like free institutions, laws respecting rights to life, liberty and property. There is no Wizard of Capitalism one can visit in the Emerald City and say “O Capitalism, I need some help with my rent this month.”
No such being exists.
But freedom, at least to some extent still does. We each can apply our talents and efforts in what is still a substantially free marketplace and see how we will do.
I’m open to suggestions that we replace the existing welfare-state apparatus with some sort of minimum income, money that wouldn’t be taken away when one took a job. This at least wouldnt trap people on welfare.
But if the argument is that X number of people would fare better with more money in their pockets I agree. So really the question is what system generates more wealth? Obviously the answer is some version of capitalism, for the only alternative is collectivization, redistribution. And for that there must first be something to redistribute.
Yes, you could do a one-time redistribution, loot all the wealthy on a given day. But they’re unlikely in my view
This is why I pointed up the high and rising living standards wherever anything like capitalism is allowed.
Capitalism is not your friend.
https://badchoicesmakegoodstories.substack.com/p/capitalism-is-not-your-friend
Great material!
Okay, in terms of factual content it’s economically illiterate, a morality play suitable for children, but you get full marks (Marx?) for eloquence. Your appeal has emotional force to it. To an unfortunately large number of people your fantasy account of wealth and poverty would appear to have explanatory power. I’ll give you all that
You like to use the term "economically illiterate" to dismiss all criticism of capitalism. But the only one who sounds illiterate is you. You keep repeating debunked capitalist propaganda that has been proven false again and again.
America is not even in the top 10 best places to live. All the top places on the list are social democracies.
Sorry America, Norway ranks No. 1 for ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/america-continues-its-long-slide-on-the-world-happiness-report-2017-03-20
I’m saying it’s economically illiterate in the sense that in terms of economics as a science or academic discipline, forced collectivism is on the intellectual level of flat-earth theory in terms of generating wealth. And Norway is not collectivist. Yes, there are high taxes and high welfare budgets, but people are allowed to keep much of what they earn, some strong incentives remain for people to produce. Ownership and profit are not outlawed
This post is economically illiterate. It would make a great pamphlet for the Young People’s Socialist League about 1935
Enlighten us, oh wise one.
Irving Kristol (who started out as a Trotskyist Communist):
“In the area where it promised so much, namely economics, socialism has been a calamitous failure. That failure is due to its basic conception that production can be separated from distribution, that is, that production can be organized according to the dictates of whoever is running the state, and that distribution is a separate process also at the command of the state. But it turns out that there is a link between production and distribution, the link called human incentives. In order to distribute, there must be something to distribute. Production is not autonomous, and distribution is not autonomous. Human incentives are what create wealth, and to create affluence, as socialism promises, an economy must be respectful of human incentives.
Socialism says that we do not need that human incentive we call self-interest, that we can rely on altruism, on the pure spirit of fraternity. The experience of the world says, no-not in large societies. In the Israeli kibbutz, a self-selected elite may work altruistically for the common good for a gencration or two. But this is not possible in a large heterogeneous socicty. It is not only impossible; it is inherently absurd. To increase wealth, production must be increased through the use of materialistic incentives. Without those materialistic incentives, there will be less and less to distribute, and any redistribution will become less effective in bettering the material condition of human beings than was the capitalist system it replaced. Again, I think this is quite evident in the economies of all the socialist nations.”
Predatory Capitalism vs "Socialism"
https://badchoicesmakegoodstories.substack.com/p/predatory-capitalism-vs-socialism
You might scroll down to “The Incentives” section at this link to see why collectivist systems fail. Even the best intentioned are not getting out of bed if not rewarded for their efforts
https://fee.org/articles/socialism-and-incentives/
6 Successful Companies That Are Employee-owned
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/051316/6-successful-companies-are-employeeowned.asp
Move to china
Why would anyone move to China?
Because people who write anti-capitalism posts have no idea what they are advocating. So if you agree with this post, if you like communism so much, stop talking and move to China.
China is capitalist, just like the US, numbnuts. Actually China is better at capitalism than the US. China has more billionaires than the US. There are no communist billionaires. All billionaires are capitalists.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-which-country-has-the-most-billionaires-in-2024/
Thats the ignorance I am talking about. They are not capitalist. They are a collectivist culture and if you start a business there, the government owns it. Learn before you speak
Good grief, you MAGA dumbfucks are dumb as fuck. You just repeat the bullshit propaganda you hear on Fox News and you think that's the same as actually knowing something. Educate yourself:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/299513/billionaires-top-countries/
There are more people in China period! There are more poor people also. Irrelevant statistic in relation to my comments. Go away now ideologue. Move out of my country