Stop Blaming Capitalism for the Failures of Socialism

in #economics5 years ago (edited)

A friend shared this with me earlier today:

Suggesting that community is greater than the individual is not only completely contrary to human nature, it's not much of a stretch to nationalism and tribal conflicts, which lead to the psychosis he claims to oppose. 11 dead mostly old people at a synagogue, for a recent example. Either he doesn't know that's the result of the system he's advocating, or he doesn't care.

So I would suggest he apply his own rationale to himself. Because he's self-deluded. Most of us are. We want to think we're little gods, and everyone else is at best an object to be used. If I'm the only one who's "right", that means everyone else is "wrong".

Which is why I often argue that there is no objective moral truth. We are all right and wrong, and none of us have the capacity to know everything, even if everything was known, which it is anything but.

pagebreakiron.png

I didn't run a free kitchen in Denver that fed more people than all of the shelters in that city combined because I gave a shit about community. I did it because I could, and because food is a uniting force that would bring people who were herded into divided little tribes together, but mostly because I got to eat as much as I wanted, people donated more marijuana than I knew what to do with, and it made me feel good about myself to do so. We are all selfish creatures - we perceive the world in terms of its relation to self. That is human nature. It's not something to be squashed in favor of the idolatry of "community" or "state" or "nation".

Feeding those people - and not just poor people, but anyone who wanted a meal - had a positive effect on my interaction with the people of Denver. There was a profit motive, but not in monetary terms. Otherwise I would have done something else, like I did after the city and state governments demolished our little setup and arrested us half a dozen times. Is capitalism to blame for that? No, of course not. Governments prevented us from feeding people because it wasn't benefiting governments.

After which I sold weed. In Denver. And am famous in that city for doing so. Because there was a profit motive. If you think I'm just tooting my own horn, go ask any of the locals on the 16th Street Mall who I am.

pagebreakiron.png

He's arguing for the very system he saw fail in East Germany. You can't have socialism without slavery at best, genocide at worst. Sorry/not sorry. This has been known for many years.

http://www.unionleader.com/column/Marion-Smith-On-May-1-remember-that-Socialism-is-slavery-05010218

He acts like capitalism itself is to blame, but politicians are infallible saints to be trusted with "oversight" or "regulation", which if he applied the same logic he would have to admit just translates to influence peddling.

There isn't a market for half-billion-dollar drill bits in the Arctic without government, for example.

It's delusional to think government is the opposing force whose sole concern is the well-being of humanity. Or why blame laissez-faire capitalism for the failures of feudalism, or at best mercantilism? There is a mountain of economic data proving him wrong, which means he's perpetuating that delusion.

A major part of the problem is ignorance of civics and economics. Not coincidentally, those subjects have been disappearing since the US Department of Education was created in 1979 to create yet another massive federal bureaucracy whose primary function is perpetuating its own existence. As all "institutions" do.

Or am I the only one who finds it ironic that someone who reported from both East Germany and Yugoslavia is using what amounts to negative propaganda (capitalism is bad, but he doesn't mention the alternative because he knows goddamn well what generations of us have been taught in that regard) advocating more of that in the United States?

Fucking cunt.

"Americans are so enamored with equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." - Alexis de Tocqueville

https://fee.org/articles/poverty-in-the-us-was-plummeting-until-lyndon-johnson-declared-war-on-it

https://butnowyouknow.net/truth-vs-myth/stop-blaming-capitalism-for-socialisms-failures/

pagebreakiron.png

teamgoodbanner2.png
Delegate to our project via SteemConnect:
10 SP | 20 SP | 50 SP | 100 SP | 200 SP | 500 SP | 1000 SP | 5000 SP

Follow our curation trail on @steemauto

Sort:  

"A major part of the problem is ignorance of civics and economics. Not coincidentally, those subjects have been disappearing since the US Department of Education was created in 1979 to create yet another massive federal bureaucracy whose primary function is perpetuating its own existence. As all "institutions" do."

well said

We could do well to abolish most of these "institutions", and take a long hard look at all the rest. Strict adherence to the Constitution would go far to righting the wrongs of the parasitic F'ed .GOV that has taken over. Getting back to that point is a good start...

My solutions would be the following:

  1. Re-try the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.. The SCOTUS did not issue a ruling in that case, but the court reporter's headnote afterward indicated that the Court's "sense" was that Southern Pacific Railroad did, in fact, possess rights under the US Constitution - in that case the 14th Amendment. Citizens United v. FEC could not have occurred without the foundation of the Santa Clara non-ruling. Prior to that time, most corporations were chartered, usually with public funds, to build a bridge or a road or a dam or whatever, usually for 10 or 15 years. Often these charters were extended because such projects tend to take longer than expected, but once the project was complete, the corporation was dissolved. This would not mean you could not incorporate, only that if you did so with public funds, your charter would be limited to completion of whatever the public had funded you to achieve.

  2. File suit in the US Supreme Court against the Congress and Federal Reserve for colluding to violate Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the US Constitution - the "Coinage Clause". Want to "end the Fed"? Congress is constitutionally mandated to perform that duty and not outsource it to crony banksters.

  3. End "The War on Drugs". The DEA is an administrative agency, which means this can be done with the stroke of a pen, and every US President since its creation knows it. Congress could also choose to de-fund it, and they know it.

  4. Move for a Constitutional Amendment making membership in the Union voluntary. Prospective states would still have to jump through the existing hoops to attain statehood, but could leave the Union anytime they wanted. This would restore the 10th Amendment and limit the federal government to only the most essential functions, such as national defense.

Incidentally, do you know the last time the Department of Defense was actually used for defense of the United States?
...
...
1916 at The Battle of Columbus, when Pancho Villa briefly invaded Texas and New Mexico. It was called The Department of War at the time. We use it for offense, not for defense.

Pearl Harbor doesn't count, because Hawaii was not admitted as a state until 1959.

#2, 3, partly 4 and about the "Dept. of Defense" I have said the same or similar things for a long time. As far as corporations having "rights" like people, I agree we really need to strike that down. I have actually heard it said in conjunction with that debate, that "Corporate 'RIGHTS' exceed personal rights" in most instances.
THIS IS BS!!!
Corporate Interests obviously do exceed the rights of citizen's in many cases. Likely MOST Cases. That has got to end!

Side Note: If this abomination they are calling "The Caravan" is met with the US Military, would that qualify for "National DEFENSE" in your opinion? I have also heard that there is a second one behind it, and these idiots are ARMED. We shall see, but in that case, meet force with force, IMO. For the armed bunch.

I don't think it's that simple.

Are they posing a threat to this country?

Is it relevant that US foreign policy (Woodrow Wilson's application of The Monroe Doctrine to Latin America, in particular) is the main reason folks are fleeing their shitty countries?

Aren't borders just imaginary lines we draw to justify war (profiteering)?

We cannot fix the sins of the past (of which there is a multitude) until we address the current problems. Borders have been used that way, yes. But you have also dodged the question, and I am using this in the same exact context as you did above citing the 1916 Poncho Villa Incursion ;)

Yes, they are posing a threat. Even if only for setting a very bad precedent. The second caravan, if it is indeed armed, poses a much more serious threat. I'm not so sure their existence and "readiness" is factual, however. That would be utter suicide.

What would you do, in their position?

You're advocating the mass-murder of civilians?

No, I don't think even the ideal outcome, from that perspective, justifies the cost, financially, and especially in the lives that would likely be lost.

"We" are not worth more than "them". Folks is folks, pretty much wherever you are in the world.

What would you do, in their position?

Stay Home! Or at least try and come in legally, or slip by at another time when the whole world is not watching...

You're advocating the mass-murder of civilians?

Definitely not, and if you missed it, I was strictly speaking of the supposedly "armed caravan". Once they take up arms, and storm a border, they are not civilians in any stretch of the imagination.

No, I don't think even the ideal outcome, from that perspective, justifies the cost, financially, and especially in the lives that would likely be lost.

Well, just throwing open the border at this time is going to make a mockery of legal immigration for all time. I happen to believe that there is a concerted effort to "take back" territories that broke away from Mexican rule before becoming sovereign US States. Besides, our military slash national guard has more "less than lethal" options than we know about. I suspect these will be employed against this first caravan, and that is what I hope happens.

"We" are not worth more than "them". Folks is folks, pretty much wherever you are in the world.

This is true, and I hope Zero lives are lost. There are plans for housing and feeding these folks, just south of the border. The true blam lies in the hands of the "organizers" who have urged, cajoled, and funded these poor people to start a mass Exodus that will certainly end in disappointment. I have read that Maduro and groups supporting him have been behind this. Need more info on that assertion...

your proposals would be an excellent post in and of themselves

We are all equal, except some like to be "more" equal than others. It is unfortunate human nature seems to dictate we all should achieve (is that nature though, or peer pressure) focussing on what we gained when in reality what we did - and who we helped along the way is far more honourable yardstick.

Politics, religion or personal gain - is taking another persons life ever justified? Sometimes I wonder at Darwins theory, is the human race the most evolved or actually the least.

c0ff33commentaimage.png
#thealliance #witness

We aren't equal, and our species would have gone extinct long ago if we were.

If a panel of nuclear physicists is discussing how to design the next particle collider, and a pipe from the restroom breaks, the plumber who comes to fix it may have a wonderful design for a particle collider, but he or she is not automatically given time at the panel without submitting it for peer review first. Likewise, none of those nuclear physicists will probably be trusted to fit the pipes correctly. They are both superior within their fields of expertise, and it is this specialization that has allowed innovation and the advancement of our species.

Even if we are equal, is that a natural state? Or is it something that can be forced by a government?

If we agree that theft is wrong, we cannot morally make exceptions to that rule. Likewise for murder, coercion, kidnapping, etc. If a 100% tax rate is equivalent to slavery, what is a 40% tax rate, if not simply a matter of degrees?

If I rob you at gunpoint, we probably agree that I have committed a crime against you. But if my friends and I get together and take a vote to rob you at gunpoint, suddenly it's justified? Because that seems to the be rationale used by supporters of various governments, whose primary function has always been first to live at the expense of others, and second to perpetuate its own existence.

That first sentence so reminded me of the famous animal farm which I do believe the same line was said, and funnily the same problem happened there too they all turned on it's leader in the end.
Taking another life in justification is a hard question to answer, I think often of such subject and law its self, what we ourselves percieve to be right and wrong which I wonder if most of it is based on feeling alone when the outcome has been reached.
Infact to be honest until the day we reach contact with other civilisations in space which I believe there are we will never truly grow as a race, because we don't comprehend how small and insignificant we actually are, in the grand scheme of things.

One solution to the Fermi Paradox is that once most species reach a level of technical sophistication enough to destroy themselves, they proceed to do so.

Also glad to see you're still around. 🤗

Funny how markets and liberty get blamed for the failures and corruption in government in order to justify new governmental impositions by moralistic busybody control freaks.

It is not "funny", it is "by design" ;-)
I'm sure you knew that...

SNOWFLAKES such as the ones you cite above would rapidly cease to exist in a "real world" that did not coddle them with all the current PC and other BS that the far left foists upon us daily. ;-)

The far right does the same thing. Just different people who are supposed to believe the almighty State is their only salvation from the nine-foot-tall demons who are coming to eat their children.

Not to argue, but I have met a lot less of those types. Or at least the ones I know would be (generally) more adaptable than the lefty-snowflake variety. But a symmetrical opposing bias definitely does exist. I'd much rather see less "law enforcement" and more "constitutional carry" because who is gonna fuck with me if they "think" I might be carrying? ;-)

I encounter a dozen right-wing "conservatives" every single day who obsess over trans women (not trans men, oddly) and who whine incessantly about "liberal sjw snowflakes". it's the tribalism, the collectivism, the refusal to think for one's self, not exclusive to any tribe or collective.

Good Points, I tend to possibly temper the bad behavior around me because I can bring forth logical arguments and these tribalists tend to abhor logic
😆 😉
I did meet a real-life "Nazi" once at work, I got stuck with this guy cuz no one else wanted to be around him... Ditto for me, I refused to put up with his BS and asked to be moved. But I did tell him I refused to think his way. Sickening just to listen to this guy. Every imaginable stereotype was FACT to him, and I do not recall if he missed any of the usual groups, Blacks, Jews, Gays, etc. He hated everyone! Everyone else... yuk

I do tend to find the "left" to be far more hypocritical and condescending than the "right". The latter is openly hostile. The former is equally hostile but expects you to believe it's for your own good.

If I was stupid enough to believe we lived in a totalitarian dictatorship (it's a two-party system!), I would have voted for Donald Trump in the last election. Because sure, in terms of policy he's little to no difference from Hillary Clinton. But at least he's honest about being a scumbag. As it was, I campaigned for Gary Johnson but didn't vote in the presidential election.

I mean, that was 1996 ffs. We never learn.

On a compass heading, going the direction of Killary would have us in a totally different time zone than Trump. Going to ANCAP would have us in a totally different universe ;) Catch my drift?

Ya, well if I ruled the world my first and only official act would be to eliminate my position.

I said two things the day Trump got the Republican nomination: 1) Bernie Sanders was the only Democrat who could have beaten him in a general election (and that Bernie Sanders v. Ron Paul was the actual debate that we should be having), and 2) I would rather Trump than Clinton, because most Washington insiders hate his guts (for not being in their little club) and the federal government getting nothing done for at least four years was vastly preferable to the alternative.

They're not going to allow free markets by choice. They would all have to get real jobs.

"An armed society is a polite society." - Robert Heinlein

The "right-wing" snowflakes tend to be the uber-patriots who get upset if you don't do the magic skycloth theme song ritual right, don't condemn foreigners as inherently criminal, and do oppose the warfare state.

I call those neo-cons ;-)
I'm pretty much Libertarian, ideally. Practically?
"They" call it "conservatarian" but that sounds stupid to me.
Not a big fan of labels, for the most part.
But they have some uses, I guess...

Well, the socialists say I am not allowed to call myself an anarchist because I don't embrace Marxism or blind rioting, and instead favor market transactions and Lockean property rights. I call myself an anarchist anyway. They don't rule me.

:D

Anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron.

Of course you're "alt-right" or something if you point that out to them.

Oh, yes. If not an outright Nazi. Because we all know Hitler, Mussolini, etc. were renowned their laissez-faire economic policies and support for individualism above the authority of The State.

Preach it I’ve been saying this for ages now and I must say whoever came up with the capitalism is inherently a corrupt system propaganda is a genius because there’s no facts to support it but somehow they got people to believe it blows my mind and they will argue their point and point to arbitrary anecdotal evidence there’s no reasoning with these people they just hate capitalism because it’s not socialism

Posted using Partiko iOS

If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists.

Funny how they all seem to think they will be among the ruling class, in their "classless society".

Socialism is a drain on any system it is attached to...

This post has received a 35.34 % upvote from @boomerang.

One point of contention...

There isn't a market for half-billion-dollar drill bits in the Arctic without government, for example.

Actually, there is such a market for the exact same drill bits, except very likely at a much lower price. Assuming it is for oil exploration. 😎

I upvoted your post.

Keep steeming for a better tomorrow.
@Acknowledgement - God Bless

Posted using https://Steeming.com condenser site.

Thanks for the upvote, but I don't appreciate people placing unsolicited links on my posts. There are many phishing scams out there, and it may be considered spam.

As your self-appointed Steem Pope, I approve of your response to bot spam.

we're all popes :)
tosses apple
more apple tossing is needed on this platform

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.24
TRX 0.11
JST 0.031
BTC 61875.79
ETH 3013.13
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.69