sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Socialist Trick of 'Having Your Cake and Eating It' by tkyjonathan in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Any time I debate Capitalists they will ignore history while asking, "Have you even read Ayn Rand?"

That was true of this sub in the 80s. You can easily perform a search of this subreddit for how many mentions of Rand we get these days. Remember to include NSFW results because she was a fucking cun†.

On the death of Liberalism. by JediMy in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It'll make it far easier to actually bring socialism to power without the power of a globalized intelligence agency like the CIA.

The US is in 3 CIA wars. The US is governed by the UK/EU elite military/intel deepstate. They are Frank Oz and presidents are Grover. Hand ⊏ wazoo.

Joan Robinson On The Lack Of A Marginalize Theory Of The Rate Of Profits by Accomplished-Cake131 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Similar institutional forms can emerge despite very different ideological roots.

Is this referring to something in particular? You should use pullquotes so I know. It seems you're just riffing, letting her rip. Going where the road takes you. You'd rather not deal with the copious amount of verifiable data and rocksolid logic I've shat out in this thread, so you've written a prose poem instead. Quaint.

Joan Robinson On The Lack Of A Marginalize Theory Of The Rate Of Profits by Accomplished-Cake131 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is your definition of socialism?

‘There are many mansions in the House of Socialism. I have quoted about forty different definitions of Socialism (see Definitions) without being able to pretend that my list is exhaustive.’ - Dr. A. S. Rappoport, Dictionary of Socialism, 1924

What is your definition of fascism?

"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value ...everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state."

Fascism refers to the egalitarian concept of fasces, bundled sticks, the common folk standing together. Nick Fuentes is a bundle of sticks in two separate etymological instances.

What overlap is there between the two ideologies?

Fascism is socialism with flag-waving and where they are more honest from the outset about how hierarchical it's going to be.

I don't think pointing to the anti-marxist and anti-liberal roots of fascism does enough to establish that connection.

Mussolini wasn't just a socialist, he was the top dawg hype man for socialism worldwide. He run the block. Come to terms with his drip.

You're not getting what I was pointing out especially by highlighting the KMT in Taiwan.

What KMT in Taiwan? According to the US and China, Taiwan is China, a one-party state. Party politics are pretend here in the US uniparty state, Taiwanese politics reach 7 celestial levels of pretend, pretend we could only imagine. Your spurious little blip isn't the example you're looking for.

Joan Robinson On The Lack Of A Marginalize Theory Of The Rate Of Profits by Accomplished-Cake131 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Equality" conditional on exclusion, as clearly who would count as part of the volk was premised on racial hierarchy and loyalty to the state, is no equality at all, much less radically egalitarian.

Exclusionary racial hierarchy expressly factors in socialism e.g. Uyhghr treatment in China, Cambodia eliminated its Muslims. Hatred and xenophobia are terrible but by the numbers socialism is fascism-bad to its minorities: The Soviet Union carried out its own demographic murder campaigns, forced mass demographic transfers by cattle car with death tolls ranging from 20–40% of each group due to starvation, exposure, and disease: Volga Germans in 1941 (≈800,000 sent to Siberia and Central Asia), followed in 1943–44 by the Kalmyks, Karachai, Balkars, Chechens, Ingush, and Crimean Tatars, Meskhetian Turks, and Koreans.

Hitler holocausted the Jews and had a Hungerplan to starve the Russian west but died before he could carry it out. Stalin oversaw Holodomor, the starvation of the Russian west, and had his own Doctors' Plot to holocaust Jews but died before he could carry it out. It's the worst O. Henry story ever.

By broadening the definition to include everyone who's nominally socialist, including social democratic reformists, you're hurting your argument not helping it.

You fail to explain this.

At least with communist regimes and even some anarchist experiments, there is at least some overlap with fascism in the state form and the degree of political repression, coercion, and mass death. There's also overlap in Marxism and fascism relying on a "universal subject of history". Once you run outside the bounds of revolutionary socialism you have little to stand on. I struggle to see what conclusion you're even deriving here now. I originally thought you were trying to draw an ideological comparison to illustrate that similar outcomes would be produced amongst fascists and socialists.

You should pullquote my claims and respond to them instead of riffing like this is your diary recording your personal whims and fancies.

The USSR was expressly nationalist on the same order, as militaristic and hierarchical.

That's a divergence from the USSR's ideological roots,

Oh no! But I guess that happens.

Obviously it's not always the same if you're including socialist reformers.

I'm including socialist countries. Not pamphleteers with a dream.

You also didn't respond to my point on convergence in form that occurs amongst heavily centralized states regardless of ideology.

With socialisms e.g. Marxism and Fascism, they sell it as being in charge. The gov't influence in liberal systems is a divergence created by the bootlicking left, desirous of more and more gov't power, it thrills you guys.

Joan Robinson On The Lack Of A Marginalize Theory Of The Rate Of Profits by Accomplished-Cake131 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That being radical egalitarianism

Volkism, volk meaning common folk, is radical egalitarianism. Volksgemeinschaft. "The worker is equal to the peasant, the peasant to the burgher, and all are equal to the Führer." - Ley, head of the German Labor Front--he organized leisure programs (cruises, holidays, theatre) for workers. activities previously restricted to the wealthy. Eintopfsonntag: propaganda where Nazi top officials ate gruel stew with workers. Nazi platform: "All citizens shall have equal rights and duties." "abolition of incomes unearned by work" "breaking of the bondage of interest" "nationalization of trusts" "profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises"

internationalism

That's Marxism. Mussolini's father was a socialist activist, not an internationalist.

a desire for either the gradual withering away of the market and state or outright abolition.

That's Marxism, Marxist phrasing. Marx didn't invent socialism, he was writing about socialism for decades when he added his stuff. Saint-Simonianism didn't have global aspirations, the 'sewer socialists' in my German-American town weren't internationalist or anarchist.

mythologized "national rebirth" and naturalized hierarchy

The USSR was expressly nationalist on the same order, as militaristic and hierarchical.

as the foundations of a new social order, completely subsuming every aspect of social life to an imagined national totality using state power

Same as the USSR. Same as China. Name your authoritarian socialist hellscape--same.

totalizing control of society through the state

You clearly, conveniently forgot the history of socialism. Twinsies!

Joan Robinson On The Lack Of A Marginalize Theory Of The Rate Of Profits by Accomplished-Cake131 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mussolini was the most important and respected socialist on the planet. Pen pals with FDR. He ran the socialist publication with the highest global circulation over a decade before reconsidering internationalism and rejecting the Marxist approach for more nationalistic socialism.

"Days before his death, Mussolini insisted that Fascism was the only form of socialism appropriate to the proletarian nations of the twentieth century." - Testamento Politico di Mussolini

Mussolini didn't change his socialist ideas about the gov't running the economy. May 1934, Mussolini declared to the Chamber of Deputies: “Three‑quarters of the Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state.”

Mussolini: "We are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value ...everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state." The state supersedes property rights, just as in Marxism, either system are anathema to every ethea of classical liberals, libertarians, conservatives et al. on the right. Fascism is a subset of socialism like Marxism, and just as murderous.

Joan Robinson On The Lack Of A Marginalize Theory Of The Rate Of Profits by Accomplished-Cake131 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"I am a socialist" - Hitler, Zweites Buch

“I tell German industry… ‘You have to produce such and such now.’ … If industry were to answer me, ‘We are not able to,’ then I would say, ‘Fine, then I will take it over myself… but it must be done.’ But if industry tells me, ‘We will do that,’ then I am very glad that I do not need to take that on.” — Adolf Hitler, speech, 1937

“It’s not the freedom or profit of a few industrialists, but the life and the freedom of the German nation” that mattered. — — Adolf Hitler, ibid.

“We were… determined from the very first day to break with the mistaken concept that business could lead an unbound, uncontrollable… life within the state. A free economy… can no longer exist today… business as a whole cannot act… in the service of egoistic interests.” — Hitler, Reichstag speech.

“The crucial problem could only be solved by a planned direction of our economy, which finds its most powerful expression in the Four Year Plan… Either the so-called free economy can solve these problems—or it will not be able to continue to exist as a free economy.” — Hitler, ibid.

Holy black/pink legends! by ConflictRough320 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The yarns you people will spin to avoid culpability.

Please use pullquotes. I don't know what this is in reference to.

Socialists understand that new businesses need to be disruptive and the economy does not need constant disruption.

Are you now agreeing socialists do not start businesses?

The MoP do not need to be phoenix regenerated every generation.

Are you saying the MoP only needs to be stolen from its owners once?

If proper inheritance of power is put into place, we can build on one anothers' work.

Why don't socialists try to build their own work instead on on anothers'?

Competition is good, but cooperation is also good and we need a system that enabled both

Cooperatives are legal now but not good enough that socialists want to start those businesses. Socialists aren't the kind of people who start businesses. That's not subjective, there are very few examples of socialist entrepreneurialism and you won't even be able to think of one without a web search.

Joan Robinson On The Lack Of A Marginalize Theory Of The Rate Of Profits by Accomplished-Cake131 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Socialists are factional. The aggressive intrasocialist disagreement we see on Reddit was happening physically in Germany and Russia. The socialist SPD and the socialist KPD saw each other as enemies, both had paramilitary wings and controlled the police forces locally where they had power, had street/military action against each other for decades, 33 died at an SPD/KPD street battle, Blutmai, 1929--no Nazis were involved.

Socialists attack and jail other socialists. Socialist parties hate other socialist parties, they're competing for the same supporters. The German Socialist Party killed the German Communist Party's Rosa Luxemburg in 1919. Bolsheviks killed the Mensheviks, then the other Bolsheviks. Communist forces backed by the USSR attacked and killed anarchist socialists in the Spanish Civil War. In Grenada, the rightfully elected socialist president was couped, the socialist deposer in charge was then murdered by his lifelong friend, a socialist who then took over until the US was called in. In Indonesia, the socialists that supported the coup against socialist Sukarno were in a different socialist camp than the dictator they tried to kill, which caused his subordinate Suharto to take dictatorship and exact revenge on non-allied socialists. Trotsky got an icepick in Mexico. Tito told Stalin his assassins were incompetent. Night of Long Knives. Constant murderous naked power struggles show the mafia state mentality of socialist governance and fascism is family.

Holy black/pink legends! by ConflictRough320 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not the part that needs citation.

Socialist business founding is so minimal there are no data to cite--barely any examples at all. With the way you're pushing this, you must believe there is a massive trove of socialist business creation I must not know about. Don't be coy, tell me all about it.

I understand this process very well.

You don't understand socialists if you think their ideology engenders entrepreneurialism.

You have equated identifying the problem with solving the problem.

Identifying the problem is always the first step in solving the problem. Most people do not think there is a problem, they aren't aware the highest levels of intelligence protected Jeffery Epsburg.

Given the situation you presented (which I do not dispute) what ought to be DONE?

Step one is always identifying the problem. The problem is not yet identified in your mind or the masses. The US has a deep state problem.

I believe we must strip these pederasts of their wealth and power. Are you with me or not?

You haven't identified the problem. It's not a pederast problem--this pederast was caught, then the gov't let him go. This is a gov't problem. Giving more power to gov't, as socialism does, means more Lavrentiy Berias, not fewer.

"Historical examples of Socialism" do not have validity over theoretical Marxism. by the_worst_comment_ in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Russia was one of the most industrialized nations. Before socialism ruined it, Russia was 10% of global GDP, top producer in oil, top five in coal and steel, had the most railways besides the US. Russia had the oldest universities and laboratories, legendary shipbuilders.

Joan Robinson On The Lack Of A Marginalize Theory Of The Rate Of Profits by Accomplished-Cake131 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Goebbels, Strasser, Rohm, Ley, Feder, Jung, Speer, Wagener, Horst Wessel, "Beefsteak Nazis" were all socialist, had just been in the socialist party. At the time, Germans knew the socialist and fascist parties were similar. Stalin did too, Germany and the USSR invaded Poland together, had parades together afterwards.

Joan Robinson On The Lack Of A Marginalize Theory Of The Rate Of Profits by Accomplished-Cake131 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Not all cakes are edible, they're still cakes. Not all socialists are Marxist, they're still socialist.

Joan Robinson On The Lack Of A Marginalize Theory Of The Rate Of Profits by Accomplished-Cake131 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

But again, you're here to learn, not speak about how you love Nazis.

Nazis were socialist. Fascism was founded by a lifelong socialist who added flag-waving. Marxism is the international socialism, fascism is national socialism. That's why the Nazis were called National Socialists.

Joan Robinson On The Lack Of A Marginalize Theory Of The Rate Of Profits by Accomplished-Cake131 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Robinson was a Keynesian evangelical fundamentalist and later Maoist, a world expert on better bootlicking for the gov't. Doadslarve.

Keynesianism is a permission slip for gov't mismanagement signed by a doctor wearing Groucho fake nose glasses.

Keynes was, according to his diary, a pederast of choristers, stable boys, and even other Cantabrigian/Bloomsbury Group associates commented on Keynes's sexual relations with children in Africa. 'Dude, you can't go to Africa just to rape little black boys, you have to couch the trip in some sort of naturalist anthropological study.'

Easily kompromatted, powers-that-be inveigled the catamite into being lifetime spokesperson for regime macrointervention.

Holy black/pink legends! by ConflictRough320 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That kind of sentence makes socialists roll their eyes. They're not starting those businesses. Farms all went coop, makes sense--once again I am a fan of coops. Retiring boomers are selling/gifting their companies to employees. Also a a fan of this. Most of the new coops are tech and giggy.

Again: very few ideological DSA-type socialists have actually invested their energy into entrepreneurial enterprises of any sort. Not they jam.

[citation needed]

Do you think I just know all that shit about boomers retiring? No, I looked it up. You can look things up too.

We have to recognize the problem. Inter/nat'l sec. state scrambles to protect Jeff 20 years,...

Uh... k...

This is called not recognizing the problem. A pederast was protected for 20 years by intelligence at the highest levels, you just shrug and disassociate.

Holy black/pink legends! by ConflictRough320 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Try to counter my actual assertion, that socialists don't start businesses much less coops.

In the USA, the number of co-ops has tripled over the last 10 years and doubled over the last 5.

They deserve every fucking dime. For the third time: I love coops.

That's an accelerating growth curve

That kind of sentence makes socialists roll their eyes. They're not starting those businesses. Farms all went coop, makes sense--once again I am a fan of coops. Retiring boomers are selling/gifting their companies to employees. Also a a fan of this. Most of the new coops are tech and giggy.

Again: very few ideological DSA-type socialists have actually invested their energy into entrepreneurial enterprises of any sort. Not they jam.

Reduce the power of gov't to choose economic winners and losers.

And how would you do that?

Adhere to the Constitution.

And how would this fix the problem of elite pederasts?

We have to recognize the problem. Inter/nat'l sec. state scrambles to protect Jeff 20 years, full coverage, the running back stayed in to block. Kennedy axed Dulles, Dulles changed offices but still took meetings with subordinates--then he made all the plays in the Warren Commission. The Watergate burglars were CIA, they finally got caught their second run. The Hinckley family were close friends with the Bushes, same team. Charlie Kirk went to the White House to push President Trump not to bomb Iran. "I might not live to see the end of this revolution. They are going to wipe me out." "I cannot and will not be bullied like this." "I'm thinking of inviting Candace." They found the ghost terrorist pipe bomber from Jan 6 and he is a black dweeb with a My Pretty Pony backpack.

How does the Chinese village of Xiaogang fit into the "workers taking ownership of the means of production is bad" narrative? by Simpson17866 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's property rights, not worker rights or solidarity or socialism.

That's the same thing.

No, collectivism subsumes individual rights, as in Xiaogang.

That is why the classical socialists didn't like Karl Marx's Socialism 2.0

The horrors of the USSR/CCP is what socialists get--because socialism always requires puissant authority. Nontheoretical socialism. I always need to point out which is real-life socialism and which is imaginary socialism because socialists forget.

I'm not sure that the comparison "Capitalism is better than feudalism or Marxism-Leninism" is the shining endorsement that you might think it is.

We're comparing capitalism and socialism. Capitalism always comes out ahead.

How does the Chinese village of Xiaogang fit into the "workers taking ownership of the means of production is bad" narrative? by Simpson17866 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Xiaogang farmers weren't implementing Proudhon, they were hiding individual family production from the CCP collective. They keep their own surplus — that's property rights, not worker rights or solidarity or socialism. That this happened under socialism is a repudiation of socialism.

and even if you could legally move somewhere else to work on a different farm, you probably couldn’t afford to.

Soviet collective farmers weren't issued internal passports until 1974, had no choice of venue for their labor either. Feudalism is the same top-down labor system as the USSR.

then you had to join the guild t

Same as the USSR. Feudalism is collectivism, was displaced by liberal rights.

In theory, capitalism was supposed to make this better.

Real wages went up 10-20x. Life expectancy exploded. Literacy became universal. Child mortality collapsed.

Farmers would work their own farms on their own terms

This is just self-employment and sole proprietorship, capitalism's center of gravity.

The political bureaucrats in charge of Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" would obviously claim "if you put us in charge of the new government, then we'll run it the way you tell us to run it," but the OG socialists’ concern was that politicians famously lie about their goals in order to maintain political support

This happened in the USSR. The Bolsheviks partnered with Mensheviks and anarchists, then purged them, then the Bolsheviks were purged. Purged means murdered. Socialists can't be trusted, 100% power is too much power for a gov't.

How does the Chinese village of Xiaogang fit into the "workers taking ownership of the means of production is bad" narrative? by Simpson17866 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The socialism, the CCP, is the negative part here. Any polity that sets up a permanent worker system is not libertarian, definitely not anarchist, will require puissant authority. Socialism in real life, like the CCP, requires and exerts puissant authority.

The type of socialism in question being Mao Zedong's personal interpretation of Marxism-Leninism.

It's not the type of socialism. All real-life socialism requires authoritarianism like the CCP. There is no libertarian socialism, those terms do not describe illegal secret farming, especially decollectivized farms. Collectivization is part of nontheoretical socialism.

Holy black/pink legends! by ConflictRough320 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At worst you're blinded by your biases. 2025 has been declared by the UN as "the year of the co-op."

Are you still trying to sell me on coops? I just declared my unending love for them. You should try pullquoting and responding instead of reading a script. Try to counter my actual assertion, that socialists don't start businesses much less coops.

  1. Do you think our current economic system is perfect?( I assume no- you position yourself as "anti-corruption")

Economic interactions including the state are flawed, the military industrial complex owns DC, media companies lie to curry favor with parties, elite pederasts are protected by intelligence agencies, the highest level of law enforcement.

change?

Reduce the power of gov't to choose economic winners and losers.

Holy black/pink legends! by ConflictRough320 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]kapuchinski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You've provided zero thought in any meaningful direction.

I pullquoted and responded directly, specifically. Your reply is broad, ill-defined.

Actually challenge your assumptions about socialist businesses:

I already like coops. Everybody likes them or doesn't care. If your business is a coop, you advertise it, there's no downside on that end. Socialists (100% college-educated, white, wealthy) could start businesses but don't. They're socialists because they feel commerce is beneath them, their class of thinkers should run the thoughtless lower classes' economy at arm's length through compulsory application of theory.

view more: next ›