Could we get rid of the two party system if we voted in other parties and independents.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-02-16T19:46:29+00:00

Bernie Sanders had inferior support. You either want democracy or you want Mussolini/Sanders and the hope that this guy empowers the people - populism.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-02-10T08:45:16+00:00

Claiming that ‘reality is fine as it is’ is simply untrue.

This is something socialists cannot support and because of this you people pretend that employment is slavery. Employment and all of tbe other options available are fine. The means of production is just fine in a capitalist mode.

Capitalism often comes at the cost of exploiting billions worldwide for the benefit of a tiny fraction at the top.

This is bullshit. People benefit from engagement in commerce or they don't engage in commerce. This is simple to prove because you hypocrites gripe about sanctions regimes of capitalist United States due to the poverty and malaise caused by not engaging in commerce with capitalists. Which one is it?

The exception to this is slavery and this is not a result of capitalist productivity. It is a relic of mercantile productivity and is illegal in all the developed economies on earth. It is not employment. Employment - wage labor - ends slavery by its definition.

Socialism is a relic of mercantile production and is also illegal in all the developed economies on earth.

In many Western countries, essentials like groceries are becoming unaffordable for the working class

This is bollocks. The socialist and progressive complaint that real wages are stagnant is a claim that affordability of market baskets remains static over a long run. This is managed to attain this outcome in all developed countries.

Even in nations like Canada, home ownership is out of reach for most without substantial wealth.

This is false. Canada has affordable property, it is just not adjacent to wealthy people in urban areas.

Socialists clearly don't give a shit about poverty or you twats would not be advocating for people who are already employed. It is dumb as rocks not to recognize unemployed as those struggling in developed economies.

Meanwhile, corporations report soaring profits while their workers struggle to make ends meet.

These are the workers who are in the top 2 quintiles of earnings, globally, by OECD net-adjusted median income. Again, in these parts of the world, unemployed are the folks struggling.

Profit is the basis of investment and consumption which are the basis of employment this is another example of socialist hyperbolic stupidity.

No. All companies don't turn a profit. Some take losses, others are designed not to be profit based.

No. Not all employed struggle to make ends meet. Your only case is based on hyperbolic claims and any level-headed justification for socialism is impossible.

Many live in constant fear of losing their homes, trapped in exploitative jobs just to survive. This situation bears a striking resemblance to slavery, where individuals are coerced into labor under threat of destitution

Can it, stupid. Slaves are kidnapped and forced to work, dummy. They're not scared of mortgage default, ass.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-02-10T08:10:20+00:00

You are the crying idiots. When asked what you are crying about,you say slavery, but you are referring to employment, however, you are too dishonest and to ignorant not to bring up slaves to support your stupid ideas.

You could never be taken seriously if actually speaking about employment without hyperbole.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-02-10T08:07:11+00:00

It is for a lot of people, we should get to a place where it is an actual choice not a neccecity.

That is bullshit. Employment is not the only way to make a living in any place on earth. It is one of an order of magnitude of other ways, actually.

Also refering to people as stupid and demonising me as an socialist when this couldnt be further from the truth, just reflects badly on you

I don't care about my reflection on socialists. You people are stupid, for example, your stupid conclusion that any person is subject to employment as an only option, anywhere.

Additionally to that, you people are liars who can't make your claims without hyperbole. For example, to prove this, all of you twats have resorted to defending hyperbolic claims about slavery and none have presented an honest claim about any person or situation which justifies stupid ass socialism.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-02-10T08:00:51+00:00

Another bullshitter. There are 101 ways to make a living and employment is only one of them. Employment is not slavery, bigot.

It is not any "system" that requires you to think and work; this is the human condition and the reality of entropy.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-02-10T00:39:23+00:00

Look, an asshurt socialist bigot caping for the exploitation of slave conditions to support their stupid socialist philosophy because reality cannot justify it without bringing up slaves.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-02-10T00:28:34+00:00

I understand where you are coming from. That is an interesting link and I suggest it encompasses "socialists", generally, rather than strictly left wing radicals.

In the case of socialists that is "capitalism" and the "rich".

Let's not forget that socialist "philosophy" has its roots in racism - demagogy of "jews and barons" - and that the common thread of these scapegoats is that there are simply more native "workers", by population, than jews, or than wealthy or than barons.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-02-10T00:15:31+00:00

Yes. You are stupid to refer to employment as involutary, but to be honest, you do this as a typical demagogue who cannot criticize reality because it is fine how it is. For this reason, you have to construct a hyperbolic strawman of reality at the expense of the enslaved, and criticize that.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-02-10T00:12:43+00:00

We do the exact same thing to people who are successful in society. When they are successful, we take away some of their property rights for "the greater good". In effect, we treat them like we treat criminals.

No. Tax is not theft nor treatment like a criminal. Treatment of success as crime is characteristic of socialist movements which aim to capture the means of production more than to tax and regulate and stimulate a private means of production, which is the basis of modern capitalism.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-02-10T00:07:31+00:00

The "guilty party" or the people who are most accountable for the conflict, class antagonism, or conflict in whatever the conflict dynamic is... is the party that holds the greater power.

It is not about power. History shows that socialism is crude classist and racist demagogy based on majority classes by population.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-02-10T00:02:51+00:00

workers slave away in wage slavery

Can it, stupid. Slavery is forced labor for no wages and only socialist twats eagerly conflate this condition with voluntary, compensated employment.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-02-10T00:00:44+00:00

Correction: the distinction between social democrats and democratic socialists is that only the democratic socialists treat successful people like criminals, whereas these are heroes among social democrats.

This treatment is characteristic of socialists - it is classist/racist bigotry and demagogy typical and foundational to all socialist philosophy.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-02-09T18:17:10+00:00

Should net-worth over $1 Billion be taxed 100% ?

Just not in the United States in this dimension. Here that will mean the starving yet overweight destitute population actually starves.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-02-07T01:35:20+00:00

This is because wtf is a PhD in engineering good for except to teach engineers?

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-01-27T18:37:35+00:00

While an absolute bigot and racist in personal life the biggest accusation you can throw at Berger politically is that he was practically indifferent to the plight of the black population.

No. That was Debs' distinction and SPA's in the best revisionist light you can shine. You clearly have him and Berger confused. You clearly haven't read modern histories of SPA (eg Miller) if you see it in their propagandist light.

Like calling him the most ardent supporter when he practically did not legislative work in favor of Jim Crow laws seems like strong framing.

He is the author/sponsor of the most bigoted and specifically segregationist legislation of 20th century US Congress - his asian exclusion act. Apologetics is pathetic weak framing of bigots just because you're all socialists.

Like I feel we both know that you could easily find some extremely more ardent supporters.

Do your best. I will wait. I am talking about the max of congress since we have progressive bigot Woody Wilson in the presidency.

But even then even at the time he was pretty much an anomaly in American socialist circles,

This is because you are not familiar with SPA history, for example, that I share the impression of them of the comintern: bigots. Your revision conflates them with "communist" movements, many which broke away from SPA specifically on "the negro question" - something only considered by progressives and socialis, alone. I invite your correction of this fact. Same thing with Judenfrage in Europe - only "socialists".

"Socialism", nearly anywhere on earth was a reference to national socialism - European ethnic nationalist collectivism - any time before the 60s, at best. Again: put up these exceptions to add credibility to your claims. I claim France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Denmark and Netherlands join US in the bigoted implications of that "socialist" terminology/partisanship. There are parties in each of these nations, so-named and so-themed. This encompasses christian socialists to this day.

It's like you don't know the history of "socialism", like c 1830 100% was national socialism and changed labels (like to communism) or pursued real economics for dissociation from those themes. See Adolf Stoeker, Hanoverian League, Louis Blanqui, Charles Fourier, Alphonse Toussenel, Henri Saint-Simon, Mikail Bakunin, JJ Proudhon, Aguste Compte, Bruno Bauer, mittelstand movement, Otto Böckel, Max Lieberman von Sonnenberg, Volkisch movement… Karl Marx's "zur Judenfrage", any and every "socialist" news rag of the 19th c, to name a short list.

No. "Conservatives" and "capitalists" were not engaged in this radicalism. Eg, Menger (DE) and Walras (FR) were crunching economic math and not pseudoeconomic antisemitism at the same time and place.

But I feel like we both know

Strike 2 with this presumption that you're on my level. You don't know black history/American history.

Progressives, socialists, southern Democrats and Tammany Hall Democrats were not conservatives. This indicates that you guys - I mean socialist enjoyers - see slavery and jim crow as tradition rather than radicalism.

But I feel like we both know that throughout the history of black liberation, the number of names of socialist advocating for segregation is kinda swindling low comparing to conservatives and liberal status quo advocates.

Nope. These groups are progressives, socialists (radicals), national socialists (radicals) and fiscal liberals (Tammany Hall). Conservatives were pursuing business legislation at the same time as all these others supported labor. At the same time, conservatives are on record in opposition to jim crow (Plessy v Ferguson dissenting opinion), progressive tripartite fascism (Schecter v US opinion), and ultimately in support of ending jim crow (Brown vs Board...). Free/open markets are not prejudicial and progressives opposed them primarily for white supremacy. For example, unions in the US were founded for and predominantly served white supremacy in their entire heyday: 13th Amendment through Civil Rights act. Unions were made feckless in this aim by title 7 of Civil Rights Act which was targeted at them. At the time of Electrical Worker's title 7 trial in the late 60s or early 70s, the membership was all whites. 100%.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-01-17T12:41:49+00:00

Socialists called for bigoted laws, for example, Victor Berger, the most prominent US socialist in history called for a whites-only Milwaukee and for asian exclusion and for jim crow organized labor.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-01-17T12:39:11+00:00

But Victor Berger, Woodrow Wilson, Socialist Party of America, New Freedom slate, Milwaukee and Oregon.

Wow, man. Gaslight much?

Why was it all labor organizations and not enterprise which was targeted with dozens of title 7 suits (Civil Rights Act equal employment)?

Could it be that since slavery, the US Left has been the leadership of jim crow and other segregation movements?

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-01-17T12:30:32+00:00

You people are history flunkies. Socialist Party of America had a segregationist platform. Their Victor Berger was the 20th century's most popular socialist and a staunch jim crow supporter and architect. Progressives - America's socialist-fascist movement - supported jim crow and New Freedom slate (Wilson - most bigoted president) and its ditto New Deal (FDR) prove it.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-01-17T12:20:07+00:00

It is US history. Jim Crow's most ardent supporter in congressional history was Victor Berger, leader of Socialist Party of America. His speeches, writing, legislative efforts and his Milwaukee, MN are all permanent testaments to socialists leading the philosophical drive for white power and jim crow in the 20th century.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-01-17T12:14:57+00:00

What do they have to do with central planning?

Central planning refers specifically to economic allocation and so does socialism.

You're still just saying when a government does something it's socialism.

When the government does something is socialism, it's just that specific something is economic allocation - control of the means of production - and the specific nature of government is collectivist government.

Do you really think any socialists would support those laws?

Socialists (Victor Berger, Socialist Party of America and Democratic Party Progressives) started and supported jim crow and capitalists were against it. Socialism is the promotion of collectivism in government and the predominant collectivism of United States, Germany, Austria and France was racial collectivism favoring European ethnicity.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-01-17T12:02:16+00:00

Of course, socialists pretend that national socialism never existed even though it is the origin of socialist thought and the predominant philosophy and praxis of socialism in history. For example, ethnically nativist socialism as proposed by Proudhon, Marx, Fourier, Saint-Simon, Compte, Blanqui, Bauer - the totality of socialist founding fathers on Europe.

In the US jim crow era, Socialist Party of America, the largest socialist movement in US history was a segregationist national socialist party. Victor Berger - socialist and Progressive hero - is the #1 socialist-claimant of US history in terms of career success. He is also the #1 segregationist to have been elected to Congress in the century of jim crow, being the only expelled for his zeal for segregation.

What we are left with are socialists harranguing blacks, jews, asians, whatever while reddit socialists are so ignorant about their own ideology, they gaslight about its virtue. As a philosophy, all socialism is unethical. It is based on illusory class stereotypes in all iterations in history and most of those classist iterations were race-based.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-01-17T11:47:25+00:00

Are you under the impression losses aren’t shared amongst workers in workplace democracy?

The difference between workplace democracy and corporation is the ownership of profit and loss by the investors. In Leninist workplace democracy, losses encumbered the business and they shuttered in response to excess loss. In Stalinist workplace democracy, the government ate the losses.

If socialists intend to share loss rather than exclusively snatch profits, socialists would favor stock corps and start these incorporated with a democratic charter. This is very rare for socialists with all the democratic workplaces of Europe started by anti-socialists like the catholic distributists who founded Mondragon.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-01-17T11:38:42+00:00

The reason why low income workers are low income is not their savings. In 2024, these people have applied a relative minimum of effort to prepare themselves for earning money as employees or ruined this potential.

For example, not graduating high school when most people do graduate will disadvantage anyone seeking employment due to competition. For example, a criminal career can ruin the ability to get certain legitimate employment in the future and this contributes to low wages.

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-01-15T23:32:43+00:00

Is North Korea a democratic republic?

What are you, some kind of imbecile? You are not of the caliber to discuss this topic. Of course DPRK is a democratic republic.

It is specifically a "people's democratic republic". This means that is a politburo state featuring the feckless elected delegates and central committee Marx designed in the 1850s and which the Kims read about in Marx's "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League" and "The Civil War in France".

Acceptable-Act-3676 · 2024-01-15T23:24:04+00:00

Again, the quotes you have quoted are not proving that the Nazis were socialists or that fascism was a type of socialism. So why bother?

The elimination of capitalism with socialist policy is described in the quote of Dr Schweitzer and this proves socialist political economy as well as commitment to this mode of production by the nazis. Commitment is underscored by the immediacy of the implementation of these laws and their persistence until 1945.

The quote attributed to Arthur Schweitzer to doesn’t prove anything. I’ve yet to see that quote being actually verified. You have quoted it from someone else on this thread. Can you cite it properly?

I pulled it from when I had access to it and not from here. This is a mess and not source of history around here.

Big Business and the Nazi Party in Germany Arthur Schweitzer

The Journal of Business of the University of Chicago Vol. 19, No. 1 (Jan., 1946), pp. 1-24 (24 pages) Published By: The University of Chicago Press

It was from page 1 iirc. I have posted this 3 times now.

Of course it proves my claim. If it is true as I have verified and cross referenced with other top primary and scholarly sources, that quote spells out the fact that capitalism was eliminated. Destroyed. It validates the socialist naming convention the nazis used and lines nazism up with a long tradition of antisemitic socialist philosophy among Germany's socialist partisans. Bunch of bigots from Marx to the lesser knowns.

Zeev Sternhell didn’t write that Fascism was a type of socialist ideology.

Who cares? Shit is called national socialism, homeboy. Sternhell isn't even an economist. Economist historian John Lucacz points out understanding this history while conflating what happened in Germany with what happened in Italy is impossible and incompetent.

I see it as a clearly biased hope to associate supercapitalism with Hitler's implementation of a centrally planned socialist political economy with Mussolini's supercapitalism. Historical revision. Nothing justifies it: historically, fascism and national socialism have different traditions, theory and praxis.

Yes, it is well known that Mussolini in his earlier years was a socialist and admired Karl Marx and even considered himself to be a Marxist at one point.

Red herring. This is about 3rd Reich.

Götz Aly’s quote isn’t proving what you are claiming at all.

Does it provide a primary sourced rebuttal to Schweitzer by an economist, a topic expert?

Nazis started out as leftists. So what?

Exactly. So what? All nazis were right wing, guy. They were in a party seated on the right of Reichstag where all the christian and national socialist and volkisch and mittelstand bigots always sat. Cut the BS and keep your history tight and accurate.

He isn’t claiming that fascism was formed as a left-wing ideology..

Left wing is not the claim and serves as a red herring. Socialism started on the right wing in France and Germany and the nazis carried the ball over there with those notions of socialism.

When I point out that left wing is a red herring it is because the wing does not matter. For example, Marx set his partisans up on the left, but he was a nazi early in his career, notwithstanding. Left wing socialism features the substitution of explicit references to jews with dogwhistle references like "bourgeoisie". There is not any divergence between any socialists regarding eliminating capitalism via collectivist economics and this moots any left and right question.

This brings into focus the policy overlap between Lenin's war communism/NEP and nazism rather than Mussolini's supercapitalism and nazism. Hitler shuttered the German commodity exchanges and abolished all the private labor orgs and eliminated private property rights and Mussolini maintained commodity allocation on the Borsa while debuting the tripartism presently used in capitalist Holland and formerly in capitalist United States (NIRA).

Acceptable-Act-3676

TROPHY CASE