all 56 comments

[–]The_In-Betweener 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Nobody has time to be truly woke. Only enough time to have their wokeness spoonfed via marketing. Shamwow!

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Being Woke is a mental state, where you understand that you cannot see the entire picture, because powerful groups have agendas and deliberately mislead the public.

History is written by the winners, etc.

[–]Jesus 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

True Socialism in the middle class doesn't exist. It never has. Yes, we have shitty corproate elements of socialism, and in the future the US might turn into a crony socialist welfare state. But socialism and its true principles will never be fully practiced just like classical capitalism never is or was. The very rich, the CEO's, the banks run on a crony form of socialism for their class. Everyone else below can F-off.

[–]sawboss[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

Socialism destroys the middle class, by design. The elites have enough social and financial mobility to exploit or avoid any economic problem. The middle class are invested in their homes, families, and communities, all of whom are hurt most by Socialism. Socialism can't touch the elites: only force backed by the threat of violence can. That's why Socialist states inevitably tend toward totalitarian dictatorships.

[–]Jesus 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

Most people do not own their own land. A large portion of the middle class is in debt bondage due to a neoliberal predatory financialization. The elites run on a cronyist Socialist structure, very much like market socialism with a welfare (bailout) status for predatory multi-national corporations and large banks who circumvent any policy agenda of the middle class. Hence, why they are staunchly anti-public banking, which would siphon the profits into the communtiy and thus help to lower taxes. Other than the crappy welfare state that will ruin the morale of the middle class, social ownership in the middle class is not entirely common. Nor is collective or cooperative ownership. Of course debt bondage is quite common. The problem is the property allocation of private ownership. Freemarket capitalism can work if we obliterate monopolies and give the middle class free reign as well as create regulations that favor the middle class. I'd much rather have 50+ health care companies in a state competeing against each other and if one fails it is left to wither. This would keep prices down, and open up the market for competition. Rather than one giant monopoly of a healthcare company that sets prices at will and is bailedout when ever something goes wrong. THERE HAS TO BE CONSEQUENCES in free market capitalism. The opposite is true in America where most monopolies are highly protected.

The reason they are able to exploit or avoid any economic problem is because of the bailout incentive as well as the deregulation by regulation, which gives them more control over their profits and bonuses. So what would you call the 0% interest schemes, the numerous billion dollar bailouts to banks and multi-national corporations? The Nordic model, which is social democracy and really not socialism in its true extent does have elements of socialism. But they are much more free market than the US. Americans and others who are pro-Socialist will sometimes point to Sweden and the Nordic countries as an example of where Socialism has worked.

However Sweden isn’t a Socialist country, not are any of the other nordic model countries.

The idea of lean Nordic government will come as a shock both to French leftists who dream of socialist Scandinavia and to American conservatives who fear that Barack Obama is bent on “Swedenisation”. They are out of date. In the 1970s and 1980s the Nordics were indeed tax-and-spend countries. Sweden’s public spending reached 67% of GDP in 1993. Astrid Lindgren, the inventor of Pippi Longstocking, was forced to pay more than 100% of her income in taxes. But tax-and-spend did not work: Sweden fell from being the fourth-richest country in the world in 1970 to the 14th in 1993.

Since then the Nordics have changed course—mainly to the right. Government’s share of GDP in Sweden, which has dropped by around 18 percentage points, is lower than France’s and could soon be lower than Britain’s. Taxes have been cut: the corporate rate is 22%, far lower than America’s. The Nordics have focused on balancing the books. While Mr Obama and Congress dither over entitlement reform, Sweden has reformed its pension system (see Free exchange). Its budget deficit is 0.3% of GDP; America’s is 7%.

On public services the Nordics have been similarly pragmatic. So long as public services work, they do not mind who provides them. Denmark and Norway allow private firms to run public hospitals. Sweden has a universal system of school vouchers, with private for-profit schools competing with public schools. Denmark also has vouchers—but ones that you can top up. When it comes to choice, Milton Friedman would be more at home in Stockholm than in Washington, DC.

The west, TODAY, does not have a classical liberal (as in Libertas; not modern liberal or neoliberalism) democracy, we are now 180 degrees from that and our current liberal parties (democratic party, even many of the faux-alternative parties) are strongly statist in the sense they are closer to the modern communist ideal. The definition of classical liberal ideals are often quite ambiguous, whereas libertarians are far more practical. The libertarian principles might be seen as a more radical classical liberal, but in actuality classical liberals never defined how the social structure of society should work because it was its own antithesis.

By giving the individual the right to self-determination and above all, the principles of liberty it surely leaves the question open as to if that would be achieved by a big centralized, benevolent Government or no Government at all ( natural human society without rules; anarchy). Due to this ambiguity, one is unable to decipher anything but the basic of principles, which can be interpreted several ways.

Libertarians move towards a more practical proposition; that is the ideal of a minimum Government needed to uphold common laws, while retaining maximum liberty and self determination.

The political system in the West, which is close to modern fascism or communism in its scope, is why it is called Neo liberal. Neo liberalists are really fascists (look at fascist definition prior to 1980's). The economic plan adopted by the National Socialist party was Keynesian ( big public spending programme which meant eventual expansionism that could be utilized for rearmament) but the modern west is Neo Keynesian which means expansionism by large corporations and especially centralized banks. So, we have a strange hybrid of this show of prosperity which was common to communist and Facist statism, such as city sky scrapers and events like the Olympics to create the illusion of high ideals of mind and body.

It is a society of mock individualism, mock freedom and especially mock democracy.

In the United States (not to be confused with the Republic of the United States of America) we the people are plagued with an ever expanding Soft faced Facism or Communism in which control is by the very rich (plutocracy), and within that plutocracy comprises a tightly knit oligarchy (read the Princeton Study which investigated the socioeconomic, legislative, judicial, executive branches as well as the social aspects of governance and the US citizenries participation in government over a 30 year period. Their study concluded that the US is an oligarchy).

Within this plutocratic oligarchy is a crony-corportocracy or complete corporate control over all branches of government; in congress for example, cronyism is defined therein. Basically, powerful corporate and banking bodies and their amalgamation with Government.

Concerning government regulations. That monopolies, the consolidation of omnipotent power that is detrimental to the common person and infringes on their liberty and livelihood should NOT be regulated is most certainly not the classical libertarians stance. Many neoliberals claim a free market is good, many libertarians also claim, the freer the market the freer the people, however, the neoliberal's definition of a free market is much different than that of a Libertarians. For the neoliberal believes in deregulation, even at the expense of liberty and freedom for the common person. That very deregulation could also cause future environmental damage, constitutional infringements, wealth inequality, higher possibilities of economic collapses, increased monopolization powers, etc,. Libertarians seek a happy medium. That is that government regulation is needed to curtail creditor deregulation if it imposes any austerity measures that reduce liberty and freedom of self-determination.

The only problem is it's most likely the big money, the corportocracy itself, that writes the regulations and to their favor. So, we lose here too.

Moreover, the economics of the corportocracy have socialistic tendencies in that the production, distribution and exchange is owned by THIER community, not ours; their coportocracy, their plutocracy, their coming technocracy. In reality, we have a mixed system with elements of modern communism, in that property ownership is being placed into the hands of the state, not YOUR private hands. Modern in modern communism implies the once private ownership, such as the home you own, is now in the hands of the state and its corporate handlers. The future goal is a complete eradication of private property and the setting up of a half-baked welfare state. So, these principles are in direct contrast to classical liberalism or even true Marxism.

We should have a democracy here. At least on the local level!!! Where national laws thwart liberty and self-determination local and state laws are allowed to block them; local being of a higher deviation than state. However, Democracy is mob rule, so if 51% vote yes in the local community on something and 50% vote no and it passes, what do the 50% do. We should have a vestige of the moral principles of democracy, such as a system of government where the citizens exercise power in all maters, However, most people these days have not a clue of politics, geopolitics or anything else for that matter. It wasn't like this in antiquity; the dumbing down of society has been purposeful and this has to change. Education in the philosophical sense and ethical sense needs to change drastically, so the majority of citizens can be knowledgable in these fields.

We need a mixed government, where principles of democracy rule, but that these mob rulings do NOT infringe on local rights, of self-determination, property, privacy and liberty.

An example would be contract law and how to teach children at a young age, how contract law can work in tacit agreements. That is what private entities like to do now. If you do not say no, then that means yes, even if they never told you they were going to do it. That has to END!

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Excellent articulation.

I couldn't have said it better.

+3

Edit: In classical economics the term "Free Market" meant goods produced for the common community good should be priced barely above the cost to produce them, as if they were almost free; plus the cost to produce. A free market.

That was the original, and technical meaning of the "free market" economy. This was implemented in relatively effective manner for a brief time (and in specific instances). Utilities are a vestige of this philosophy, with a publically granted monopoly to subsidize and protect the investors; in exchange for modest margins.

The economy grew tremendously in the early 20th for this reason. This is an example of middle class socialism in action.

This fact of US economics has been written out of the history books.

College texts don't even discuss it.

The brainwashing and propaganda has been so effective that most in the public cannot even hear the words; let alone discuss the obvious facts.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's why people allow the neoliberals and neocons to think for them. It's much easier but more destructive in the long run.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You may be right.

[–]sawboss[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I have very little faith in democracy to bring about true liberty though. Imagine in a purely democratic state that the majority voted to legalize slavery. Now what?

I say every man is the sole owner of his own body, and to claim ownership of another man's body is to violate his liberty. If the state is to have any just role, it must be to assist in the protection of my body (life).

I say that every man requires freedom of speech and association. Speech allows me to negotiate peaceful solutions rather than engage in violence with other men. Free association allows me to choose who will I will live near, and allow me the option to move elsewhere if negotiation fails and I wish to avoid the violence of other men. If government is to have any role in society, it must assist in protecting my freedoms of speech and association.

I say that every man must be allowed full control of the products of his labor. Labor is how men gather resources and create goods for peaceful voluntary trade in order to provide for their own survival and flourishing. To take away the product of a mans labor is to deprive him the means to sustain his own life, and therefore a threat to his very existence. If government is to have any role in society, it must assist in the protection of my property rights. This is the only peaceful way I can provide for my own survival and flourishing, as well as produce valuable goods for peaceful voluntary trade.

Anything the government does beyond providing protection of my personal liberties stands a better chance of harming me than helping.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If government is to have any role in society, it must assist in the protection of my property rights. This is the only peaceful way I can provide for my own survival and flourishing, as well as produce valuable goods for peaceful voluntary trade.

Anything the government does beyond providing protection of my personal liberties stands a better chance of harming me than helping.

Voluntarism and community based, sustainable solutions is very important and something that is severely lacking in the US. I agree with you on all points. However, Government on merit should have the ability to protect your property rights, as should the community at all costs whilst also making it illegal for private predatory monopolies and debt bondage entities to confiscate YOUR labor and property.

[–]sawboss[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Monopolies don't survive long in free markets.

https://invidio.us/watch?v=0_PQlX9NDL0

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=0_PQlX9NDL0

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0_PQlX9NDL0

idk what you mean debt bondage

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

In which case we don't have free markets despite what the neoliberals say.

[–]sawboss[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

we don't have free markets

exactly. we have economic fascism.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree 100%.

[–]sawboss[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's a powerful revelation. People who understand it are more resistant to propaganda. Once you know that America is not Capitalist, at least not purely, a lot of things make more sense.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

exactly. we have economic fascism.

And socialism for the wealthy

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Are you an anarchist/volunteerist?

That is a fairly reasonable personal stance.

[–]sawboss[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

i won't use gay slurs against you

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Go back to riding your upside down bar stool.

Edit: A sawboss quotation.

[–]sawboss[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

fuck off

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Sawboss. I'm not discouraged in the least by your hostility.

In fact, I agree with much of what you post.

You are A-OK in my book.

Ya bitch! ;-)

[–]sawboss[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

fuck off retard

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Faux-Capitalists wrapped Socialism into the hands of the elites. Bailout money, corporate welfare checks, 0% interest. The rest of us are left under a corporatocracy, with feudal and totalitarian elements. If they wanted socialism for the masses they'd control it and create cronyism under the guise of the principles of socialism. It never turns out that way though.

[–]kazenmusic 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (30 children)

What does this mean, "What if"?

[–]sawboss[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

It's a hypothetical proposition, therefore "what if".

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They did, but for themselves, not us.

[–]kazenmusic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

Ha, I guess I should have included an /s for sarcastic. I suggest to you that "What if" moved some time ago into action/marketing.

That boat has sailed, IMO.

[–]sawboss[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

Examples?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Corporate handouts, bailouts, giveaways, tax breaks, subsidies, etc. All for the wealthy.

American capitalism, is socialist for the wealthy. They socialize the risks, and keep the profits private.

[–]sawboss[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

fuck off

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

He's making a valid point (that in fact mostly agrees with your overall point), and all you have is an insult? You can do better.

[–]sawboss[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

I didn't want him to reply so I told him to fuck off.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

If you don't want him to reply, then just don't reply to him :P

[–]sawboss[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That's not working. Stronger action is required, and the block function doesn't work.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

sawboss, how about you follow the pyramid of debate and stop using ad hominems to make yourself look ignorant.

[–]Snow 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You are very polite.

[–]sawboss[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

no

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Pretty please... :-x

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

BTW:

I'm not a socialist.
I'm a realist, and this is reality.

[–]sawboss[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I don't care about you, and didn't invite your opinion. Go back to riding your upside down bar stool.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You wouldn't have had this reaction if I had posted some nonsense comment.

I'm pretty sure that you recognize that there is a serious problem with the current system, but you've fully accepted the propaganda that socialism is fully evil, and doesn't exist in the US.

It's does.

The wealthy love it, but they don't want you (and the public) to know it.

[–]kazenmusic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Nah, by now if you don't know what I mean I can't help you. For what it's worth, I know and respect your username, so I'm not sure quite why you'd take this approach to me- but I'm declining a full discussion. Corporate socialism for purposes of market control is such an old topic by now that I'm sure I'd find nothing new to add.

[–]sawboss[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not sure quite why you'd take this approach to me

Because I'd rather not assume I understand your meaning. Perhaps I don't. Also, assuming you're correct, it would be nice to have some compelling examples to point to.

[–]HeyImSancho 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd just like to add my thoughts, since this thread discusses economic servitude, and slavery, a few points I've learned in my life.

There's very few barriers that can't be overcome; whether over, around, under, or right through the mother fucker.

Try to be kind, be humble, and be the boss; walk with purpose!

Try to communicate at a level all can garner, and gain real insight from.

Don't think pride is bad, it's a force, to be used for good, or evil; learn how to use it.

I say all of this, as I've overcome a lot of adversity, and struggle in my life. I guess my partner, who sometimes, I think I've destroyed, has lifted me from the thoughts as many here, that 'we can't get anywhere because of 'them''; the oligarchy. Yet, dig deep, it may take a while, a year, or like for myself a lot longer(lol), but we each can overcome their control paradigms.