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

Destroying America

EatTheRich

President
So as long as they can get away with it it's not illegal?

LOL you're such a stereotypical lefty :)

Law means nothing to you.
You are assuming that the only reason people aren’t charged is because they “get away with it” ... not because they aren’t guilty.
 

EatTheRich

President
Name one that says he was a champion of free markets.
First explain what you mean by “free markets” ... the state of general competition that was typical of capitalism in its youthful, progressive period, or the state-organized rule of monopolies that that earlier state organically gave rise to and has been the invariable situation of every advanced capitalist country for over 100 years?
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
First explain what you mean by “free markets” ... the state of general competition that was typical of capitalism in its youthful, progressive period, or the state-organized rule of monopolies that that earlier state organically gave rise to and has been the invariable situation of every advanced capitalist country for over 100 years?
The former, of course - the latter is a form of (soft) socialism. And it was not "organic" - it was imposed by leftists trying to "fix" their perceived flaws in free market capitalism.
 

EatTheRich

President
The former, of course - the latter is a form of (soft) socialism. And it was not "organic" - it was imposed by leftists trying to "fix" their perceived flaws in free market capitalism.
At the instigation of capitalists who needed those leftist corrections to prevent their profit system from collapsing, via the state whose direction they primarily controlled.

What you call “free market” capitalism was an early phase of capitalism, when it was dominated by manufacturing and industrial capital. What we have now is a more advanced phase of capital, dominated by the finance capital fortunes that the earlier capitalism created.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
At the instigation of capitalists who needed those leftist corrections to prevent their profit system from collapsing, via the state whose direction they primarily controlled.

What you call “free market” capitalism was an early phase of capitalism, when it was dominated by manufacturing and industrial capital. What we have now is a more advanced phase of capital, dominated by the finance capital fortunes that the earlier capitalism created.
No, at the insistence of communists who demand(ed) more equal outcomes, which then caused "capitalism" to "collapse."
 

EatTheRich

President
No, at the insistence of communists who demand(ed) more equal outcomes, which then caused "capitalism" to "collapse."
The impetus for state intervention came from finance capital, not communists. The goals were to make possible the imperialist wars modern capitalist economies depend on, to ensure the coordination of industries financial cartels needed to profit, and to give enough concessions to the working class and middle classes to prevent communist revolution.
 

EatTheRich

President
Finance capital has two strategies for when a working class has grown powerful but has failed to take state power. One, preferred by industries without big fixed capital investments because it gives them a competitive advantage over heavy industry and because it presents an appearance of harmony, is to invite an aristocratic layer of the working class into their state capitalist machine as junior partners, i.e., establish social democracy. The other, preferred by the big industrialists because it means lower taxes and less threat of unionization and nationalization, is to instead use that powerful state machine to crush the working class in a fascist vise.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
The impetus for state intervention came from finance capital, not communists. The goals were to make possible the imperialist wars modern capitalist economies depend on, to ensure the coordination of industries financial cartels needed to profit, and to give enough concessions to the working class and middle classes to prevent communist revolution.
The wars may have been a catalyst but it's not a coincidence that both World Wars were started by "progressive" Presidents. And the goal was to "coerce" capitalism to act in ways that the progressives who implemented the state interventions desired - and certainly not to maintain free markets. That's Marxism from start to finish...
 

EatTheRich

President
The wars may have been a catalyst but it's not a coincidence that both World Wars were started by "progressive" Presidents. And the goal was to "coerce" capitalism to act in ways that the progressives who implemented the state interventions desired - and certainly not to maintain free markets. That's Marxism from start to finish...
So Czar Nicholas was a Marxist?
o_O
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
No, he was a leader who started a world war that the U.S. got involved in years later. Moving the goalposts?
I clearly referred to progressive Presidents (Wilson & FDR). You are the one trying to move the goalpost here.
 

EatTheRich

President
I clearly referred to progressive Presidents (Wilson & FDR). You are the one trying to move the goalpost here.
So you falsely claimed they started world wars that were started by, respectively, Czar Nicholas and Hitler. Hmm.

Anyway, you’re right about one thing ... the function of “progressive“ politics under bourgeois democracy is to advance the war party’s agenda. Progressive aims are the bait with which the ruling class gets the working class to accept the powerful state needed to corral the workers into war. (Fascism represents the stick to progressivism’s carrot. Instead of bribing the workers into going along, it terrorizes them by giving the middle classes the joy of taking out on the workers their own grievances against capitalism that right-wing propaganda had positioned as the fault of the left.)

What you are wrong about; socialism is not just a sort of hyper-progressivism. It is something qualitatively different, a rejection of the bourgeois politics that you, the progressives, and the fascists all have in common. In bourgeois society, the state is the organ of the capitalists’ class war against the rest of us. In a socialist society, an entirely different sort of state ... something more like a combined militia/accounts desk than like any kind of state previously seen in history ... is the organ of workers defending themselves against the capitalists and the imperialists who are their leading representatives. Where the capitalist class is not powerful, the ruling class (which in socialist society is the working class) has no reason to make the state powerful and the opportunities for capitalist-style corruption and tyranny diminish. So as the workers’ revolution progresses, you start seeing more workers’ states that look like your small-government ideal and fewer that look like, say, the Soviet Union. Right now because we live in a time of revolutionary change, both of two great classes contending for power (to say nothing of the hapless folks caught in the middle who can only rule in alliance with one or the other) are insecure in establishing their rule, therefore statism is the order of the day.
 
Top