Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 194

On January 10 2020 01:13 Stroggoz wrote: South africa opened itself up to international capitalism under nelson mandella in 1996 under the 'growth, employment and redistribution' policy, very similar to the structural adjustment programs the rest of africa was subjected to. Haiti got subjected to structural adjustment in the earl 1980's. The US overthrew the government of haiti in 1994, 2004, to keep more progressive politicians (aristede), from putting in proggressive economic policies. Venenzeula, also had very high inequality thanks to the IMF's structural adjustment programs. Highly capitalist country, although inequality was reduced under chavez's reforms, and now it's a disaster under maduro. Very amusing how you pick venezeula out of clear ideological reasons and ignore that they were a capitalist paradise up to 2002, and basically chavez hardly even changed much, though there was a reduction in inequality. 'mercantilism', is that a joke? You couldn't be more clueless about government policy in relation to inequality if you tried to be.

You are missing the point again, if free market = income inequality then we would see a close to 1 relation between freedom of markets and gini coefficient, yet there is none.

You studied math why are you doing this? its as if you claimed meatballs were cancerous, and I pointed out that these guys whose diet consist of meatballs only for the past 50 years are fine and you point out to a dead guy and say "that guy ate a meatball in 1980... so touché".

I chose Venezuela because other "socialist paradises" curiously don't publish these statistics.


FFS.. Taleb goes apeshit with people overestimate the results of an apparent strong correlation and here we have people reaching conclusion from literal 0 statistical coorelation in multi-variable complex problems lol.

On January 10 2020 01:22 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 09 2020 11:14 Liquid`Drone wrote: It's absolute fucking nonsense and it implies a dishonesty in position that makes it pointless to have any discussion. If I thought capitalism had the best mechanisms for handling climate change, I would be a die hard capitalist, but the way I see capitalism function, where the focus is not on giving people a more equitable slice of the pie, but increasing the size of the pie, is one that in many ways hinges on exploitation of nature in a way that nature can no longer handle, and it's starting to be pretty self evident. The whole 'only a madman can believe in infinite growth in a finite world' - kind of thing. I do believe that capitalism is far better suited at increasing the size of the pie - I just don't see that as a tenable goal any longer. (At the very least in western developed countries. ) Ecological concerns is a very frequent reason for people to be socialist. And the reason why many capitalists are climate deniers is that they themselves realize that the goals of capitalism are in conflict with preservation of the environment. I mean, I do think it's possible to internally be a capitalist that cares about the environment, but then you've made a personal amendment to capitalism. Socialism has ecological concerns as one of the cornerstones - it aims to increase living standards without increasing consumption. (This is also why socialists tend to be more culture-minded too - consuming culture has fewer environmental consequences than most other forms of consumption (even if streaming requires a lot of energy. ) These aren't the words of a man concerned about climate change and its potential dangers and solutions, these are the words of a man with one goal that uses climate change hysteria as a tool to pursue his goal. Capitalism simply fullfills demand, plant the seeds for conscious consuming, circular economy, culture and capitalism will provide it, I assume you are a conscious consumer, you try to minimze your ecological impact, the suffering of people and animals etc, so what I want in this world is people in through their own volition act more like you so capitalism will be reshaped, what I don't want are individual or collective tyrants what is the best for society, the world and yourself.

Please explain how capitalism is compatible with a circular economy. Capitalism is circular, but its circularity has nothing to do with the circularity that is meant by circular economy:

"A circular economy is an alternative to a traditional linear economy (make, use, dispose) in which we keep resources in use for as long as possible, extract the maximum value from them whilst in use, then recover and regenerate products and materials at the end of each service life."

Capitalism's circularity is the completely antagonistic to this type of circularity. Capitalism is only circular in that every sum of money made, every profit earned, is merely more money waiting to be re-invested in order to create more money, which is then to be re-invested. The expansion of capital has no limit and no concern for planetary boundaries. It doesn't care how it grows, only that it does. It's entirely blind to its consequences.

The purpose of this economy is not to produce useful goods, but to generate profit, which translates into power. The sole aim of production is to generate the power to get hold of everything needed to increase this power. Capital is this growth of money for its own sake. That's the absurdity of this economic system and why unsustainability and inequity is built-in. It is not a matter of choosing differently, it is written into law that companies must maximize profits for shareholders, and people are only kept around for as long as they remain blind and devoted to quarterly performance. It necessitates short-term vision and increased waste in the name of market efficiency. It doesn't allow for efforts made towards long-term visions and the maximization of technical efficiency that would benefit human society.

Capitalism doesn't "simply fulfill demand". That is just as naive and reductionist of a claim as to say that "Facebook just connects people together" or the more general claim that "technology is just a tool which we are free to use how we wish". A system is the imposition of constraints and those constraints determine the possible range of behaviors of its parts, which are shaped and transformed dynamically. So to take social media as an example, it hasn't just made it easier for people to "connect", it has transformed and simplified the way we relate to ourselves, each other and communicate with one another. It has, along with other capitalist-owned technologies, transformed and eroded the very fabric of human society, partly due to the instantaneous nature of it as a medium, and partly because power is wedded and sought through it. We can scientifically measure the way that our brains and behaviors are altered when we spend more time using certain mediums over others, and social media encourages shallow thinking and over-indulgence and messes with people's self-image. We are not some kind of static and all-knowing entity that is in control of the systems that we are and are embedded into which determine what is possible for us. We would have to be in order for your conception of libertarian free will and absolute responsibility to be sensical.

Part of what has made Capitalism so durable despite all of the suffering it has brought is precisely that it doesn't simply fulfill demand, but that it continually creates new demand in stuff that doesn't last by design, and creates new markets to exploit by destroying the environment and by creating new desires in people -- by exploiting their lack of knowledge and human vulnerability. Capitalism needs uninformed and fatigued consumers to maintain itself and so it structurally shapes them to be so by design. To then turn this predatory relationship around and blame a person for their vulnerabilities is akin to saying to someone "well, maybe you should have made yourself less attractive" because they have been molested/raped.

Or, on a larger level, acting as though a country or people that couldn't defend itself in the face of colonial/imperial aggression was simply inferior and "deserved" its fate. And this is what capitalists like you do when push comes to shove, because it is the easiest way to resolve the dissonance that your allegiance creates in you. You always bring up the crimes of the socialists wanting to redistribute land and resources and never condemn capitalists no matter the harms and injustices that have been committed by them in acquiring and maintaining "their" property. You can justify all of it and wipe your hands with it because your "outcompete or perish" mentality is an inheritance of Social Darwinist thought which you mistake as some profound law of nature. To think that this mentality can foster morality and responsibility and an ecological society is insane. Only a profoundly cooperative society can be ecologically sustainable. A growth above all economic system only co-opts these impulses and interests, perverts them and turns them into new opportunities for growth. This is precisely what is being done now by NGOs with the "green capitalism" paradigm and their using the naive youth to give themselves a veneer of credibility.

Loco claims that civilization will cease to exist as we know it in 20 years unless climate change is stopped and literally the only way to stop it is to destroy capitalism.

I am only recognizing what every scientist who doesn't have a blind allegiance to capitalism--the god of money with its limited and oppressive conception of freedom-- recognizes. The collapse of our civilization is not something that we can stamp a date on in the future, it has already begun. Capitalism being the main driver of it is evident. And yes, there is going to be a point of no return due to the nature of feedback loops, and it isn't distant to us, yet we live as if it were, and most people including yourself are deluding themselves thinking that we have a lot of time left.

As for creating culture--and I mean real culture, not pastiche-- it isn't something that's very easy to do when you are bound to wage slavery and those wages are so low and the cost of living so expensive that most of the energy that people spend is devoted to simply keeping their head above water. Those who care most about culture, art, philosophy and morality are the least likely to be the defenders of a system that commodifies everything and which hinders their ability to pursue them.

On January 10 2020 14:35 Loco wrote: Please explain how capitalism is compatible with a circular economy. Capitalism is circular, but its circularity has nothing to do with the circularity that is meant by circular economy:

"A circular economy is an alternative to a traditional linear economy (make, use, dispose) in which we keep resources in use for as long as possible, extract the maximum value from them whilst in use, then recover and regenerate products and materials at the end of each service life."[/quote]

I assume that if a cellphone came out in the market that were modular, meant to be repaired, reusable materials etc you would buy it, that is how capitalism is compatible with circular economy, through consumer choice.

it is written into law that companies must maximize profits for shareholders, and people are only kept around for as long as they remain blind and devoted to quarterly performance. It necessitates short-term vision and increased waste in the name of market efficiency. It doesn't allow for efforts made towards long-term visions and the maximization of technical efficiency that would benefit human society.

Turning private into publicly owned companies is an interesting topic actually theres currently at trend not to do so as you say the focus being on quarterly reports to shareholder is narrowsighted (for profits), for example this is what turned PokerStars from a beloved company that dominated the market into a despised company threatened from players like PartyPoker who were dead int he water years before.

Capitalism doesn't "simply fulfill demand". That is just as naive and reductionist of a claim as to say that "Facebook just connects people together" or the more general claim that "technology is just a tool which we are free to use how we wish". A system is the imposition of constraints and those constraints determine the possible range of behaviors of its parts, which are shaped and transformed dynamically. So to take social media as an example, it hasn't just made it easier for people to "connect", it has transformed and simplified the way we relate to ourselves, each other and communicate with one another. It has, along with other capitalist-owned technologies, transformed and eroded the very fabric of human society, partly due to the instantaneous nature of it as a medium, and partly because power is wedded and sought through it. We can scientifically measure the way that our brains and behaviors are altered when we spend more time using certain mediums over others, and social media encourages shallow thinking and over-indulgence and messes with people's self-image. We are not some kind of static and all-knowing entity that is in control of the systems that we are and are embedded into which determine what is possible for us. We would have to be in order for your conception of libertarian free will and absolute responsibility to be sensical.

Its not a naive reductionism, its totally true, now we obviously desire things that aren't good for us like eating chocolate instead of veggies, that example amount many other self-destructive pitfalls have to be overcome, not an easy task but certainly doable, you are a man that believes in quasi perfect plasticity but think change comes from the external, the system and I think it can work the other way around.

Capitalism needs uninformed and fatigued consumers to maintain itself and so it structurally shapes them to be so by design.

No, informed and resopnsible consumers shape a different capitalilsm, i guess we are going in circles here you think capitalism is what creates the individual when its the other way around.

I am only recognizing what every scientist who doesn't have a blind allegiance to capitalism--the god of money with its limited and oppressive conception of freedom-- recognizes. The collapse of our civilization is not something that we can stamp a date on in the future, it has already begun. Capitalism being the main driver of it is evident. And yes, there is going to be a point of no return due to the nature of feedback loops, and it isn't distant to us, yet we live as if it were, and most people including yourself are deluding themselves thinking that we have a lot of time left.

I dont share your prophecies but given the scientific findings and what is at stake it is better to err in the side of caution, which is why I think we should reduce our CO2 production in the most cost/efficient viable way for the world, attainable goals in a reasonable time-frame, you don't because you just dogmatically see capitalism as the root of all evil, of capitalism is defeated all will be fine, there is no need for actual practical fast solutions, the revolution is all there is.

As for creating culture--and I mean real culture, not pastiche-- it isn't something that's very easy to do when you are bound to wage slavery and those wages are so low and the cost of living so expensive that most of the energy that people spend is devoted to simply keeping their head above water. Those who care most about culture, art, philosophy and morality are the least likely to be the defenders of a system that commodifies everything and which hinders their ability to pursue them.

because communism has been very welcoming to culture LMAO, beautiful pun.

On your defense most artist-type people lean left because their passions aren't easily monetized and yeah, most people would rather play the flute and paint than work the land sun to sun so in your beautiful utopia we will have a lot of mediocre songs to play while we starve to death.

On January 10 2020 14:35 Loco wrote: Capitalism's circularity is the completely antagonistic to this type of circularity. Capitalism is only circular in that every sum of money made, every profit earned, is merely more money waiting to be re-invested in order to create more money, which is then to be re-invested.

This is pretty funny actually - Yuval Noah Harari's take on it is that the bottom 50%+ live like KINGS have in the past now don't save much and consume, and the above is barely true for most people.

Largely because we let ourselves be manipulated to be consumers and not capitalists.

FYI Baal that's why I think straight up lies like planet will end in 20 years are necessary. If you get moral people try to push sustainability they will get fuckall actually done.
Because they are against billions of dollars of quants psychologists and scientists that work to manipulate people's habits and perceptions, very successfully I might add.
You need manipulative psychopaths on your side, and you need to use the means the opposition does, that's just how the world works

"Largely because we let ourselves be manipulated to be consumers and not capitalists."

Nobody "lets themselves" be manipulated, just like you don't "let yourself" take a breath, or "let yourself" have the urge for sexual gratification. The various forces through which power is mediated are not something anyone of us can control, and those that shape our lives--our very behaviors and thoughts-- are usually those that are distal and have been the most removed from our direct experiences. We are human beings in and of nature, not gods that exist independently from it. We're all fragile and vulnerable beings that are the products of a biology we didn't get to choose, and a culture and society that causally determines our behaviors. There is no hierarchy where the ego stands at the top and gets to control any of this, it's just a trick of cognition and language that makes us feel like we are at the center of the world and we are shaping things through our will.

You say this as if this system could somehow exist if everyone could be a capitalist. Obviously the fact that most people aren't capitalists isn't because of manipulation, it's because society cannot be run by owners, they need people to produce shit. Capitalists are also consumers, and are also "manipulated", but they have the better end of it. The non-owner class don't need the owners though, they are only brainwashed to believe that they do in thinking that it is the best way to organize a society. The capitalists' power relies on this brainwashing to be effective and so you can bet they do everything they can to maintain the status quo. Capitalism would collapse if capitalists didn't psychologically dominate the non-owners and couldn't sell their useless/planned to be obsolescent products to them. That spending on advertising worldwide is expected to surpass $560 billion dollars in 2019 is not some strange bug of capitalism, it's not an optional feature of it, it is an absolute necessity.

The growth imperative of capitalist society necessitates for people to live above their means, to want what they would have never wanted if it wasn't for the influence of capitalists, and to create problems that you then go on to "fix" or exploit. Even people like Sanders have to fall for this, either intellectually or politically. They have to talk about "creating jobs", not because the creation of those jobs and wage labor are necessary and society couldn't function without them, but because the logic of the system demands it. David Graeber estimates that one third of the jobs that people hold today are either unnecessary/pointless or actually damaging to society. He mentions that "you expect this outcome with a Soviet-style system, where you have to have full employment so you make up jobs whether a need exists or not. But this shouldn’t happen in a free market system." Yet it does. This system is quite obviously not simply about fulfilling needs/demand or about efficiency.

You need manipulative psychopaths on your side, and you need to use the means the opposition does, that's just how the world works

Nonsense, psychopaths are by definition not on anyone's side, as they only care for themselves. The fact that capitalism is structured to reward sociopaths the most doesn't mean that this is how things have always been or have to be. And it's not like they are always rewarded even in capitalism. Domination has its risks and costs, and the more overt it is, the less likely it is to be accepted by others. Historically we have seen those costs play out in the tensions between the rich and the poor and currently it is also seen with the environmental crises where the poor will bear the brunt of the consequences for a few decades but if things continue as they are eventually it will equalize and wealth will not be able to protect any of them anywhere.

Think logically about what it is that you are proposing. It's like Trotsky saying that "all is good that serves the revolution". The things the Red Army did were obviously not good. Corrupted means only ever lead to corrupted ends. You don't "team up" with people who only care about gaining more power for themselves because you know ahead of time that they will oppose your goals at some point and you will have helped them be more effective at it. If you "compromise" on what is acceptable and just, all you end up doing is contributing to the reproduction of the same unfairness that you set out to fight to begin with.

On January 10 2020 02:31 Baalim wrote: Its not a naive reductionism, its totally true, now we obviously desire things that aren't good for us like eating chocolate instead of veggies, that example amount many other self-destructive pitfalls have to be overcome, not an easy task but certainly doable, you are a man that believes in quasi perfect plasticity but think change comes from the external, the system and I think it can work the other way around.

You are ignoring the complex reality of the relationships between consumer, what is consumed, why it is consumed, and how it's produced and how they are obscured from us on the consumer end of things as well as ignoring the reality of purchasing power. You do so in favor of a simplified view of reality in which all that matters is the responsibility of isolated agents who have the potential to be perfectly informed and moral as they are completely free of internal and external influences to choose one thing or another. You also seem to believe that the things that are found on the shelves have been "willed into reality" to be consumed simply by virtue of desiring them, free of external influences. This is extremely naive.

I think the example of chocolate over veggies is bad and misses the point entirely. Let's take an example that should hit home for you: the avocado. The avocado was initially a fruit of luxury that originated in Mexico. It was a fatty indulgence and now it is a food loved everywhere, considered a superfood and often eaten every day by those who can afford it. This avocado boom has had devastating effects on the lives of people in certain places of Latin America, as it requires very specific conditions to be grown and it is a very water-intensive fruit. The areas where they had to be grown en masse destroyed ecosystems and were depleted in water, and the water that was brought in to grow them took priority over the needs of the local people who had to boil contaminated water or purchase bottled water instead. There are four cartels fighting for the control of the avocado business in Chile and the story is the same in Mexico, creating huge amounts of suffering. It's not called "green gold" for no reason.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mexic...ontrol-of-the-avocado-business-2019-9

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43...avocados-is-causing-droughts-in-chile

Now, there are two important things to focus on. First is the reason why there was an avocado boom in the first place. Did everyone in the world who consumes them now just wake up one day and thought "I desire this thing, let me seek it out" without any external influence? No. In the US, the avocado industry created the Avocado Commission in the 70s and the farmers devoted a percentage of their revenue to advertising it and on giving it a good public image. This allowed them to create advertisements to create the desire in people to consume something new, and fund studies that made people feel good about consuming more avocados. People read about it in the Sunset Magazine, saw ads on TV, and believed the scientists and their doctors who say the fruit has the "good kind of fat", creating a situation in which there was increasing demand for the fruit and good feelings surrounding them.

So... because it is made available to them, and it is enjoyed and praised, people buy them. They don't know about possible industry manipulation of studies and those complex relationships and the suffering that it causes. It's not written like on a pack of cigarettes. And why should they be informed about this? People don't study every single thing they buy, nor should they be expected to. It's too time intensive. And even if they did, there are no incentives to give up something that they like, especially if it's actually good for them (or so they were led to think) in a consumer capitalist society.

Even if you are aware of this, and you do take action in the form of a boycott, this (1) does strictly nothing to undo the harm that has already been done, you always become aware too late and (2) it arguably does nothing to better the situation either, because capitalism doesn't foster the types of relationships that would be required in order for those actions to affect the industry significantly enough. When we shop, we sense that we are alone, that we are not part of a greater whole, and that the things in front of us exist in abundance to gratify us. Most people will keep purchasing something they know is morally problematic because it has become a habit and because, "we are just one person" -- and we aren't wrong about that. We evolved making decisions in tight-knit groups, peer pressure and mutuality were necessary for our immediate survival. They no longer are.

It's not the lack of good intentions that prevents these situations from getting better, and it's not the "inherent wickedness of human beings" either. It's the inherent devastating effects of a global capitalist economy where advertisement and spin plays an intrinsic part in what people end up doing and consuming and the relations are obscured/invisible to us so that we can rarely ever know what happened for it to get there and we can just use wishful thinking or trivialization to resolve any cognitive dissonance we may experience which requires no change in behavior.

We did not evolve to be "informed ethical consumers" so it's no wonder that we are not. Such a thing would require omniscience, a normalized morality and perfect control over impulses. We didn't even evolve as barter animals, unlike it is assumed by your economic religion. You assume that we are barter animals and markets spontaneously emerged as a result, but that is mythological; it's not based in reality. No economist was ever able to provide a shred of evidence for it. The history of human economies, as it was studied by anthropologists, was one of gift and credit; this is what we are naturally adapted to be able to live sustainably under with minimal violence, while markets were founded and usually maintained by systematic state violence. This is partly why we are failing as a species under capitalism, and why "capitalist reform" and empty moralizing about consumer responsibility is a doomed project that is disconnected from reality.

I don't believe that we are perfectly plastic, I simply recognize the fact that there is downward causation involved in the society<-->individual relationship, which conditions and restricts behaviors. I also recognize that capitalism was born out of feudalism and that both are elitist economic systems and by design an elitist system doesn't allow the majority of people who are exploited/producing for that system to ever accomplish themselves (i.e. be creative, ethical, etc).

On January 11 2020 20:04 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + You need manipulative psychopaths on your side, and you need to use the means the opposition does, that's just how the world works Nonsense, psychopaths are by definition not on anyone's side, as they only care for themselves.

they aren't there because of you, but people with high psychopathic traits are there nonetheless, are at high places in society and are doing a LOT of greater good with often ruthless methods.
You need that CEO that fires bottom 10% in a company without batting an eye to save jobs for everyone else
Just like you need people lying about impending doom for personal benefit and use climate change and woke culture for personal political gain - as a by-product of it will be changing the culture anyways nonetheless.

The people that rose up in communism were exactly that by the way - people with high psychopathic traits that manipulated the cooperative constituents and members of the party.
And those willing to make hard choices like political trials and executions against "class enemies", they sounded like you sound very closely - there was discussion of exploitation, benefits of creativity of entrepreneurs vs joint ownership before all the capitalist activists were hung (wiki Milada Horáková - that's why it's gonna be hard from us guys from former eastern block not to have the tendency to see people wanting communism as deluded)


I mean don't get me wrong, you and Drone and Strog + others have MASSIVE faith in humanity, believe people are good self-preserving and you can have a system where there's equality people won't start abusing
It's just not the people my country's lived with and the world I see every day, good for you guys I really hope the world can get there one day

I'm just going to finish this guacamole because I already purchased it....

Fuck! I got 2 more avocados sitting on the table for avocado toast.

I really have to learn how to start my own organic garden. Now, if only I could save some money to go to Thailand to learn.... Oh yeah, capitalism has me mega crunched. If it feels like there is no way out the masters are pleased. Get to work slave! Produce so my kid can go to Yale. Produce so I can donate to Yale so my kid can go to Yale.

You know how there is a site seafoodwatch.org that does research and finds what fish are green, yellow, and red based on x,y,z. I wonder if there is a website dedicated more broadly towards foods or just products in general. There might not be anything ethically viable to buy at this point.

People forget or just don't know how important ecology is. Manufacturing demand can be a very dangerous thing. We can learn a lot from the indigenous peoples around the world and also from the tribes throughout history. Did you know that South Carolina's highest import used to be rice? Naturally, Carolina Gold Rice is an absolutely wonderful rice. Sea island peas. The list of foods is endless. But, cotton became king. Did you know that the land we currently use for animal meat is the size of Africa (and increasing)? Most of the food produced in the USA is corn for cows and high fructose corn syrup and soy for soybean oil and other fillers. Cows are supposed to eat grass. We can make clothing out of hemp and also recycled plastic. It seems to me everything is mixed up. Soil is incredibly important. The current farming practices are putting us in yet another if we continue the way we are going soil will be fucked up beyond repair in 50 years. But, the rich want their cashmere suits and leather bags. And, the people look up to the rich. We need a serious paradigm shift. Fuck top down cool. FUCK TOP DOWN COOL. We need a serious movement towards local with an understanding of the global. We are citizens of earth but it is just more efficient to manufacture and distribute locally. If avocados don't grow in your fucking region then you don't fucking eat avocados. No more manufacturing demand. It's only hurting us on the whole. So much is only hurting us as a whole. And, don't even get me started on the spiritual malady that permeates most of the earth these days. Man, I could go on rants on this shit all day long but this is already entering maybe disjointed maybe not large block of text territory so I'll quit.

i envy psychopaths and sociopaths for their ability to bend the world to their will

On January 12 2020 00:14 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On January 11 2020 20:04 Loco wrote:   You need manipulative psychopaths on your side, and you need to use the means the opposition does, that's just how the world works Nonsense, psychopaths are by definition not on anyone's side, as they only care for themselves. they aren't there because of you, but people with high psychopathic traits are there nonetheless, are at high places in society and are doing a LOT of greater good with often ruthless methods.

You and I have a very different definition of "good" and "necessary". There's nothing good or necessary about a hierarchical corporate structure.

Just like you need people lying about impending doom for personal benefit and use climate change and woke culture for personal political gain - as a by-product of it will be changing the culture anyways nonetheless.

You don't need lies, and you don't need to manipulate people for the "greater good". This is the mentality that led to the cancer of American consumerism/neoliberalism as it was started by Freud's nephew Edward Bernays and which we may never recover from.

Go tell someone who is flying over Sydney currently that they need to lie about collapse.

The people that rose up in communism were exactly that by the way - people with high psychopathic traits that manipulated the cooperative constituents and members of the party. And those willing to make hard choices like political trials and executions against "class enemies", they sounded like you sound very closely - there was discussion of exploitation, benefits of creativity of entrepreneurs vs joint ownership before all the capitalist activists were hung (wiki Milada Horáková - that's why it's gonna be hard from us guys from former eastern block not to have the tendency to see people wanting communism as deluded)

They don't sound like me, they sound like the opposite of me if you were paying attention instead of nit-picking words out of context. I don't want a dictatorship of the proletariat taking control of the state. I don't believe for one second that a state will "wither away" like the Soviets argued. You are much closer to these people in your defense of some vision of overlords engineering society through public relations than I am with my advocacy of self-management through distributed/decentralized networks. My vision requires that people become interested in their own liberation and they mature into it on their own, I don't envision coercion/manipulation being necessary. That is what anarchism is about.

I mean don't get me wrong, you and Drone and Strog + others have MASSIVE faith in humanity

I don't have "massive faith", nor do I need to. I have some faith in the improbable, and it's enough to get me to say what I think needs to be said. I am well aware of just how improbable it is that humanity will not cause its own extinction and bring along with them countless more species. But the alternative -- believing that it is impossible rather than improbable -- is not rational and it is self-defeating, so I don't fall into that trap.

believe people are good self-preserving and you can have a system where there's equality people won't start abusing

People are a mix of things, they aren't born one thing or the other; it's the systems that they are embedded in that minimize or maximize their better or worse natures, in the same way that genes are turned on or turned off depending on the environment and can promote illness or good health.

Relatively egalitarian systems that you don't think are possible have already existed and have done so throughout most of human history, and still exist today. It wasn't perfect then and it wouldn't be perfect at any point in the future, but the things that we can learn and apply from those societies stand to make our world a lot better than what we have now, and it doesn't serve anyone's long-term interests to limit their knowledge and imagination to the atrocities that were committed under the name of some outdated 19th century communism theorists.

lol discovered this dumb fuck thread. whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhy. WHYYYYYYYYY?

why do loco/rikd exist as ppl. they are just so utterly useless human beings rofl.

sweet contribution bro

sorry bro forgot to mention you as well.

in law = rich guy/corporation hiring team of lawyers to flood u with endless paperwork/legal fees = valid defense
in us politics = filibuster = valid defense
in liquidpoker = loco/rikd have the most free time // lowest hourly$ labor value // are crazy hikikomoris therefore are able to flood u with endless words, rabbit-holes, etc = not a valid defense.

never listen to these dumb fuck HiKiKOMORRRIs lollll seriously wtffffffffffff

Oh come on Loco, you seriously believe The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change or 20?

And come on hiems, Drone has a back and forth at least?

Loco is here to "win" and feel good about himself

I found that very few people that seek knowledge actually talk in statements so much

Relatively egalitarian systems that you don't think are possible have already existed and have done so throughout most of human history

Which ones? When it comes to industrialized worlds on a large scale (you need a complex system like and empire or a large country I suppose)
And I mean straight up socialist economy and communism - that's what you're proposing right?

They don't sound like me, they sound like the opposite of me

not sure what you're talking about, they weren't soviets and you didn't even hear the trials with horakova I assume? It seems like you did with your definite statements, very puzzling to me?

There literally were ideological back and forths about joint ownership vs entrepreneurs and factory owners during the trials and the prosecutors did sound like you do

Except disagreeing with them was a crime

And well, she openly admitted she would support hostile takeover through enticing war with western countries if that'd mean taking down communist totality and allow people the freedom to own property and be entrepreneurial again, she's a damn hero in my book that got hung for her belief that people should have the freedom to choose capitalism

not sure what you're talking about, they weren't soviets

I was responding to your statement which said "The people that rose up in communism were exactly that by the way". You were likening me to "those people that rose up in communism", i.e. to power-hungry sociopaths. Which is very kind of you and very useful and contributes greatly to a discussion on political economy and post-capitalist potentials of the human species... /s. The communism you're talking about is Soviet communism. There are other forms of communism, and a number of different strategies that people advocate to get there which have nothing to do with Soviet ideology and praxis. The trial you're talking about was also Soviet-influenced:

"The trial of Horáková and twelve of her colleagues began on 31 May 1950. It was intended to be a show trial, like those in the Soviet Great Purges of the 1930s. It was supervised by Soviet advisors and accompanied by a public campaign, organised by the Communist authorities, demanding the death penalty for the accused." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milada_Hor%C3%A1kov%C3%A1

If I'm not here engaging in good faith discussions and I "only want to win", why do you ask me questions? I've currently lost any interest in discussing with you, so just engage someone else.

By the way, if I was so power-hungry, it seems logical that I'd be spending as much time as I can on ascending the ranks of some hierarchy or another to be in a position of power over others. I certainly wouldn't waste my time and energy in an environment in which I cannot have power over other people, such as this one. Do you disagree? If so, who do you think I have power over on here exactly? As far as I can tell, I'm only sharing thoughts and making arguments. I have not exploited anyone on here for personal gain in any way.

I don't even engage in any competitive endeavors. I quit competitive video games years ago. Most of my time and energy in the last years has been spent doing caretaking work.

loco is not "trying to win"

rather if all of these ideas that locos world revolves around fail to hold up, his entire world will fall apart. same goes for rikd. think about what the hell is he going to have left? you can say similar things about ourselves, but IMO he/rikd are way less balanced and have way more to lose.