New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Next question: Will the FBI Kavanaugh probe be thorough?

EatTheRich

President
True Nixon did give in to the racism and the hate mongers and that is very sad indeed.
Affirmative action was a conquest of the fight against Jim Crow. Johnson, Nixon, and the racist power structure they represented backed down in the face of the mass struggle led by Blacks and supported by the unions.
 

redtide

Mayor
76% of Black people support affirmative action, 69% of Hispanic people, and 51% of white people support affirmative action. Is it because they all are racists who hate black people?
https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/10/30/survey-draws-attention-white-perceptions-affirmative-action
yep libbers have gotten real good at social engineering people to see bad as good. Heck you are the perfect example of it. They control our kids education, our media, our universities and the rate of infection of the liberal mental illness and hate
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
If history teaches anything, it is that human nature is plastic to be molded by our environment. Communism (which is not a system the way capitalism is a system, since it is not based on regimentation and control) doesn’t require superhuman goodness in order to work, it requires only self-interest and an absence of self-defeating malice.
Oh, puhleeze! Communism not based on regimentation and control? On what planet? Because in the history of earth, every time it has been implemented, "regimentation and control" was a feature, not a bug. You can't achieve "redistribution" without it!
 

sear

Mayor
"Oh, puhleeze! Communism not based on regimentation and control? On what planet?" RL #264
Perhaps you're each half-right here RL.
Some political scientists may argue pure communism as Marx & Engels described it in their Communist Manifesto has never been implemented on Earth at national scale.
As you know, communistic clusters not only exist but thrive at the family and local church-group levels.
Did the Soviet Union ever claim to be communist, despite what NATO nations might have called it during the Cold War? The second S in USSR stands for "socialist", not communist.
Though the Soviets had a politburo, it was a horrendous mess, and possibly its own undoing. Weren't there hundreds of members, in the Kremlin?

Contrast the former Soviet politburo with China's current politburo. According to what I've read of it, China's politburo has about half a dozen members. This Chinese result provides a much more agile deliberative body. Is the collapse of the Soviet Union and the relative prosperity of China unrelated? Some might think so.
 

EatTheRich

President
Oh, puhleeze! Communism not based on regimentation and control? On what planet? Because in the history of earth, every time it has been implemented, "regimentation and control" was a feature, not a bug. You can't achieve "redistribution" without it!
That’s a straight-up lie. Primitive communism is the only mode of production that existed without statism, and the growth of the state and of private property coincided.

You are mistaking the most capitalistic features of the most immature and therefore capitalistic forms of socialism for the overcoming of those capitalist features.
 

EatTheRich

President
Perhaps you're each half-right here RL.
Some political scientists may argue pure communism as Marx & Engels described it in their Communist Manifesto has never been implemented on Earth at national scale.
As you know, communistic clusters not only exist but thrive at the family and local church-group levels.
Did the Soviet Union ever claim to be communist, despite what NATO nations might have called it during the Cold War? The second S in USSR stands for "socialist", not communist.
Though the Soviets had a politburo, it was a horrendous mess, and possibly its own undoing. Weren't there hundreds of members, in the Kremlin?

Contrast the former Soviet politburo with China's current politburo. According to what I've read of it, China's politburo has about half a dozen members. This Chinese result provides a much more agile deliberative body. Is the collapse of the Soviet Union and the relative prosperity of China unrelated? Some might think so.
For all their drawbacks, both the USSR and China made quite a bit of progress due to socialism.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
That’s a straight-up lie. Primitive communism is the only mode of production that existed without statism, and the growth of the state and of private property coincided.

You are mistaking the most capitalistic features of the most immature and therefore capitalistic forms of socialism for the overcoming of those capitalist features.
You are conflating cooperation with communism, which is SOP for Marxists. Like when you guys claim insurance is a socialist construct (which, of course, is absurd).
 

EatTheRich

President
You are conflating cooperation with communism, which is SOP for Marxists. Like when you guys claim insurance is a socialist construct (which, of course, is absurd).
A society based on voluntary cooperation is a communist one.

Feel free to show me where I or any Marxist ever made the claim that insurance was “a socialist construct.”
 

trapdoor

Governor
That you describe the Putin regime as better demonstrates that yours is the side that wants a larger, more intrusive government.

Of course socialism has a capitalist influence, just as capitalism has a feudal influence. But it was because of socialism, not capitalism, that the USSR became the first large country with rural electrification and the first country to put a man in space. It was as the USSR became increasingly capitalistic that a parasitical butraucracy developed and the country started lagging behind rather than leaping ahead. China before the revolution was starving and actively exporting what little infrastructure it had; it was only due to the all-time world record economic growth under Mao that it was in position to accumulte wealth using capitalist methods in the 1990s.
From the stand-point of the man-in-the-street, Putin is absolutely better. Under the Soviet Union, the Ivan Ivanov had to wait in line for bread, and lacked freedom of speech, free press, etc. His freedom hasn't improved under Putin, but the breadlines are gone and consumer goods are available.
The USSR was no more rurally electrified by WWII than the US after TVA. China's growth under Mao amounted to a slightly slower form of starvation -- and its citizens lack freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. (read sometime about the "Great Firewall" of China, even today). China got a couple of gifts in the 1990s. It got Hong Kong back, giving it access to world trade, and it got MFN status, giving it a way to develop that trade.
 

EatTheRich

President
From the stand-point of the man-in-the-street, Putin is absolutely better. Under the Soviet Union, the Ivan Ivanov had to wait in line for bread, and lacked freedom of speech, free press, etc. His freedom hasn't improved under Putin, but the breadlines are gone and consumer goods are available.
The USSR was no more rurally electrified by WWII than the US after TVA. China's growth under Mao amounted to a slightly slower form of starvation -- and its citizens lack freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. (read sometime about the "Great Firewall" of China, even today). China got a couple of gifts in the 1990s. It got Hong Kong back, giving it access to world trade, and it got MFN status, giving it a way to develop that trade.
China’s life expectancy went from 36 in 1949 to 66 in 1976. GDP in constant dollars went from $29 billion to $154 billion.

Breadlines are better than no bread, consumer goods are useless to those who can’t afford them.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
A society based on voluntary cooperation is a communist one.

Feel free to show me where I or any Marxist ever made the claim that insurance was “a socialist construct.”
LOL! Yeah, that's why the soviet union had the Berlin Wall. Your arguments all refute themselves...
 
Top