The defamation of socialism

Once again, only focusing on relative prosperity “well wage slavery is bad, but be thankful you’re not a real slave, so let’s not aspire for more, but be happy with what we have.” Focusing on what the other guy has to justify your own suffering. No motivation to prosper, but only motivation to perpetuate suffering in the name of appreciation.

Chomsky talked about the proliferation of religion as a means for people to take their focus off of this world and concentrate on the other. “Well don’t worry about this place or bettering yourself, just focus on the next world.”

Don’t worry about this world…
Be thankful for what you have…
Now bend over and grab your ankles!

No thanks, I don’t want that philosophy.

Suit yourself. It’s your life.

The “Fallacy of relative privation” is the dismissal of arguments due to the existence of more important arguments. Saying the US doesn’t have it as bad as other countries seems to fit this, especially in response to the argument that the US could have it better. The US having room for improvement isn’t a failure to appreciate what it does have.

There is something wrong with a system that boils down to just two representatives to figurehead one of two political agendas that they choose, and even if more people vote for one, the other gets in. Even when the more popular does actually get in (I wonder how much it resembles random chance), it’s unclear whether it would have been any different if they hadn’t. It’s still all just lobbying by rich people anyway… To call that democracy is generous even if there is some truth to it. The format of it all too, is exactly like a sports game - support your team and watch them try to win, then resume your life as normal. You could get less democracy, but you could get more! An argument in its favour is that at least the two choices you’re ultimately left with have to be offering something at least partly preferable to the populace that they are to be governing, but a skeptical point might be that it is just another autocracy like any other undemocratic rulership - only it’s a rich, powerful and well connected one. I.e. the democracy thing is just PR, when really things are just being run for you and happen to be going relatively well. A lot of the reason why the PR of Socialism or Communism hasn’t done well is because the rich, powerful and well connected countries cut them off in addition to the infrastructure that they’re left with being poor to begin with. We all know that the US was founded on genocide, but somehow it’s only remembered and reprimanded when poorer, more economically isolated countries with different PR do it.

In short, you have to wonder how much politics is just smoke and mirrors, and how much it’s all really to do with resources, infrastructure, trade agreements and reputation. To phyllo, I’m not flatly saying it’s all the same anyways, but the degree to which it is all the same anyways is not to be underestimated. The ways in which it’s not all the same anyways - that at least seems to matter in theory, and I would like to test whether it actually does.

:laughing: Nearly fell outta my chair laughing :obscene-drinkingcheers:

I gave him a link to the Democracy Index and he knows that the US ranks 25th out of 167 countries. He still makes this bizarre statement: " … but the US does not have democracy."

What can one say? Count your blessings. Get therapy.

Various forms of democracy, communism, fascism, monarchy, etc have been tried and tested.
You don’t think the differences have been shown? It’s just PR?

What I find about the whole discussion today is that it is taking place on the wings and people in the center are becoming more and more confused. The secret agendas of the various people involved are not so secret as they would have us believe since it is often just an overdoing of what everybody does. If you don’t have a political agenda, you are criticized by both the right and left, even though your agenda may be just getting through the day.

I’m not familiar with all these colour definitions, after all, I’m a Brit in Germany, and I’m not so sure they actually represent anything that we can grasp.

Chomsky is fighting for the lost cause of socialism, which only works when the country is thriving. The problem is that when the country is thriving, most people don’t want socialism. It is when the country isn’t prosperous that people turn to socialism, but that only means that they fall foul of the secret agendas of their leaders, who are often dictators.

I’m not so sure they will be better equipped. The illusion of continual growth is slowly losing its appeal. People are finding that the elderly are continually and evermore falling into poverty because their precautions have proven to be inadequate, or haven’t kept up with the cost of living. There, and of course, single parents, who have to work at three jobs to get through, is really where the society is failing, rather than with those who have a regular job. In Europe, the children that suffer under the poverty of their parents have a chance to get back on the ladder, which seems to be less possible in the USA. So that may be an area that needs more attention.

How do the extremes criticize the center for not having an agenda? I’m confused.

Oh, well, I can help:

Red = all the red parties in history = communists, nazis, various totalitarians, the RedCoats defeated in the Revolutionary War in America (the Tories), class feudal structured societies, Republicans (republics), etc. Essentially, top-down governments.

Blue = worker’s rights = socialism, democracy, unions, etc. Bottom-up governments.

Green = climate and environmental awareness.

Green has been merged with Blue, but now appears to be splitting into factions where Blue = economic conservatism + social liberalism (like Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton) while Green = progressive = economic and social liberalism + environmental concern.

That’s an interesting point. Yes, that’s what happened: from 1930 to 1980 america enjoyed the prosperity of socialism, but the prosperity caused people to let their guard down while the Reds slipped in the back door. Perhaps taxation and regulation became somewhat overbearing too, so the Reds had some justification. But the cycle continues with the disaster the Reds have made that will usher the Bluish Greens into power.

Even Milton Friedman admitted that perpetually growth isn’t a requirement.

Welfare for the rich demands low interest rates (QE, money printing) so the elderly can’t earn interest on savings.

Yes, Bernie Sanders intends to fix that.

Phyllo can’t seem to understand:

All 55 counties in West Virginia voted for Bernie, but Hillary won the state.

3 million more votes were cast for Hillary, but Trump won the election.

In 2000, Gore won 1/2 million more votes, but lost the election.

The US does not have democracy.

Voter disenfranchisement is rife.

There are more democrats than republicans washingtonexaminer.com/wash … red-voters

Republicans wouldn’t be in power in democracy existed.

If the US ranks 25th, then the 26th - 167th countries also do not have democracy.

Why is this so hard for you to get through your hard head? Because it conflicts with your propagandish agenda??? Yes.

Your fallacies are meddling with my freedom, canuckie. :angry-cussingblack:

You should consider it.

I suppose a strict definition of democracy as only “Full Democracy”, with everything else having no (full) democracy, then the statement wouldn’t be so bizarre. But it also wouldn’t be very helpful in distinguishing flawed democracies (as the US is classified) from Hybrid and Authoritarian regimes, which do have definite differences. If your argument is that such strict criteria to qualify as Democratic is bizarre, I would still say that your argument would not obviously be valid - at least as much as you appear to be making out. I think the things I’ve pointed out are worth consideration before we rush to conclude that the US has acceptable democracy, if it can be said to have any.

Whether or not a country has democracy, according to the Democracy Index that you linked, depended on certain factors:

  1. Electoral process and pluralism: yes it has a process whether or not it works, and with every other president getting in with less voters that’s a dubious one. The first-past-the-post system is a hugely flawed one that dominates US states, which encourages tactical voting for the main competition against the party you least want in - which in practice devolves into a two party system, which barely qualifies as pluralism. The US still got 9.17 for this for some reason…
  2. Civil Liberties: yeah there’s due process, but with the largest prison population per capita in the world, nearly 1% of its adult population, that’s some major evidence against US civil liberties. The US still got 8.24, hmm…
  3. Political Participation: the US chooses Tuesday for its election day, which is only a public holiday for a few states. Not ideal for the unskilled worker with multiple weekday jobs for one. There’s some token ways around it, but I seem to remember hearing a few arguments against the US encouraging voting participation. It shows in the consistent 50-odd percentage of voter turnout, but that translated to 7.78 (~78%) in the democracy index for some reason.
  4. Functioning of Government 7.14 & 5) Political Culture 7.50: not impressive.

The average of nearly 80% democratic seems more like 70% or less considering the above, which would put them down from around 25th to around 50th (assuming all other nations below it don’t also deserve lower scores). But I dunno, only half the population participating in a FPTP voting system via electoral colleges to supercede the popular vote for 1 of 2 prescribed options… there’s reason to be hesitant to call that democratic.

Count your blessings, get therapy (and get back to work) is the current status quo. Not ideal in my opinion. Gratefulness is so important I agree, but so is realism and even idealism. No need to invoke the fallacy of relative privation to drown out the real and the ideal.

Huge differences have been shown, although not necessarily in the beginnings of new and different economic models. And what follows the beginnings isn’t solely down to which economic model you’re using - is my point.

criminalized poverty.jpg

Prisons are concentration camps for undesirables.

“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics … index.html

turnout-by-age.jpg

The youth only vote when they like a candidate, otherwise they don’t bother.

Coincidentally, this hit the news today: The Oppression of the Supermajority

Yes no kidding.

One either has love or socialism.

I wrote some more but this captures the essence.

Anyone who lets go of socialism does so out of love.
Ive seen this happen several times. Witnessing it is among the most wonderful experiences one can have, like I would imagine seeing the birth of a star.

Yes, time to let go of socialism and embrace our love of the servitude, suffering, and impoverishment of our fellow people for our own selfish gain.

Gain wealth forgetting all but self!

I actually think a better strategy is to work on the self-interest of the wealthy. They actually feel worse also. In societies where the gap is huge all parties feel more stress. This doesn’t necessarily prove socialism is the best, but pure free markets have lower quality of life at all levels.

That’s an acceptable loss to them so long as it means a relative difference in wealth. Remember the baby video?

Around 10:25

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU[/youtube]

Actually I don’t think they are aware of it. I think they are running on automatic pilot and assume they will be happier with more. I don’t think the guilt trip is every going to work, for two reasons. Most of the rich will view it as the best possible solution - through some kind of trickle down proccess and/or they earned it, it is justified fantasy. They have been rationalizing this for a long time, and the emotional stakes are enormous. Two, the true elites, the ones who frame the debates, do not give a fuck about anyone. I think many rich do, but not the true elites. They have no empathy and actually enjoy being cruel. Shaming them will fall on deaf ears and they in turn will keep spewing out justifications to the other outsider rich to compete with your guilt trip. But if you can show many of the still human rich that they are actually hurting themselves and they will not be as happy in those huge economic gap societies - which research actually shows to be the case - that might make them notice their own experience in new ways and consider changing.

Right, they are not aware of it, just like the kids are not aware of it.

It’s not the rich I’m worried about; it’s the poor. The rich are, have been, or will be coddled which generally works against the backwards thinking.

The poor are the problem.

The rich want to raise their own taxes for the public good, but the poor will not let them.

The rich control lobbying, both parties, the media. I find it hard to imagine they cannot manipulate the poor into being positive about taxing the rich. And of course the rich can always pay extra. There certainly are some rich who are willing, but not most, not a majority. Or it would happen.

That’s a good point, but I’m unable to identify these people. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are the richest and are trying to raise their own taxes. The Patriotic Millionaires are trying to raise their own taxes. You see in the chart that people making $100k+ want to raise their own taxes.

It’s probably that politicians know that proposing the raising of taxes is political suicide and not really a matter of lobbying. The rich could try all they want, but the voters would vote them out.

The poor uneducated people are the problem.

that is entirely correct, and it’s marxism 101. the lumpen proletariat and/or the working class without conscience or interests. but there is a new specter haunting the first world countries… and that’s the millennial generation, a generation that is not as susceptible to the forces of indoctrination that have held the prior working class generations under the yoke. the old conservative minded ‘backward masses’, as marx called them - the epitome being that good 'ol boy in the pic you posted - are slowly, and finally, dying off, to make way for a more progressively minded working class. atheism is on the rise, environmental conscience is on the rise, attention to poverty and famine is on the rise, and all matters that demand radical new approaches to governing the world. one of the seeds of capitalism’s own destruction is just this new dawning age of humanism and enlightenment; the forces that once kept the backward masses under the yoke no longer wield the power that they once did. we aren’t seeing the conservative working class stock we once saw prior to the 21rst century… who were born already thumping a bible and ready to work a 9 to 5 cuz they gwine go up to heaven if they do the right thing. it’s over for these knuckleheads. we’ve got a new and improved working class not so easily fooled, see, and there’s no more philosophers to cook up some bullshit to keep em brainwashed and obedient. everything that capitalism relied on to keep it’s machine in motion is dying. smoke em if you got em, boys.

Woot! :obscene-smokingjoint: