Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[Jason Harvestdancer]

One thing that humans do is form hierarchies. The key question then is if that hierarchy is to be voluntary or coerced. Unter seems to feel there is no difference.

Show

 

[BH]

Jason Harvestdancer wrote:

Mr. BH, before we discuss which works better, we have to be able to discuss what it is. Nothing in your posting even came close to that issue, except for a point that appears to maybe possibly define socialism as a safety net, which it isn't. I award you no points, and my god have mercy on your soul.

Even though directed at me that is a fucking hilarious reply.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pol Pot had nothing to do with socialism.

Hunger is natural.

Capitalist exploitation and theft is not.

Agreed. Pol Pot was about trying to go back to the old glory days.

However, the "theft" you refer to is the value added to the situation by the capitalist. Your inability to perceive this value doesn't make it go away.

 

[untermensche]

Pol Pot had nothing to do with socialism.

Hunger is natural.

Capitalist exploitation and theft is not.

Agreed. Pol Pot was about trying to go back to the old glory days.

However, the "theft" you refer to is the value added to the situation by the capitalist. Your inability to perceive this value doesn't make it go away.

All value comes from labor.

The value added comes from all labor combined.

Capitalists do not labor.

They do not create value.

They own and exploit those that do.

- - - Updated - - -

The history of the world since WWII is the US has attacked any nation that did not submit to the capitalist system.

The US attacked the Greeks, the Vietnamese, the Chileans, the Nicaraguans, the Venezuelans, and many more.

The US killed millions in Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia. Mostly civilians.

The US attacked the Iraqis and carried out a decade long military occupation that gave us ISIS.

And you have the balls to talk about violence?

I note again your serial failure to answer the question directly. Exactly what do you do with someone who wants to work for someone else or hire someone else? In my personal experience I have always chosen to take a job instead of work for myself. It has worked out ok for me. Not starving yet. Fortunately I haven't lived in a socialist country so haven't been sent to camps either.

People are not born wanting to work for somebody else.

They must be pounded into submission.

Some are more malleable than others.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

People are not born wanting to work for somebody else.

They must be pounded into submission.

Some are more malleable than others.

Some people value security. Some people value opportunity. Some people think a risk is worth it to acquire a greater reward than can be had otherwise. Some people prefer a more secure, if lesser reward in order to avoid a risk. People are not interchangeable.

Some people do prefer to work for another instead of taking the risk of entrepreneurship.

Your steadfast belief in the nonuniqueness and interchangeability of all people would have you dictate that they are not allowed to choose security over opportunity. Who are you to dictate to other people where they should fall on the security to risk spectrum?

 

[untermensche]

Nobody ever dreamed of being somebody else's pissboy.

To submit to another is to lose dignity.

Worker owned and run is to maintain dignity.

 

[Axulus]

Wrong thread

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Nobody ever dreamed of being somebody else's pissboy.

"Employee" and "pissboy" are not synonyms. You need to find a better job.

That might be hard with a minority studies degree, but I'm sure you can do it.

To submit to another is to lose dignity.

Worker owned and run is to maintain dignity.

What is so undignified about being able to hold down a full time job? What about those who actually value the security of employment? Who are you to dictate to them that they must work for themselves?

 

[arkirk]

One thing that humans do is form hierarchies. The key question then is if that hierarchy is to be voluntary or coerced. Unter seems to feel there is no difference.

View attachment 15828

So under this "voluntary" system people work for slave wages rather than starve! I see now what you like about this...willing workers...not bargaining for fair wages. Believe me, your notion about people is all wet. It is not voluntary. It is avoiding consequences the capitalists visit on the working class if they don't exactly comply with the honchos or if the honchos just get lazy thinking up work for them to do. Your "voluntary" idea is pure bullshit.

 

[untermensche]

What is undignified is being reduced to a tool of another's ambitions.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

One thing that humans do is form hierarchies. The key question then is if that hierarchy is to be voluntary or coerced. Unter seems to feel there is no difference.

So under this "voluntary" system people work for slave wages rather than starve! I see now what you like about this...willing workers...not bargaining for fair wages. Believe me, your notion about people is all wet. It is not voluntary. It is avoiding consequences the capitalists visit on the working class if they don't exactly comply with the honchos or if the honchos just get lazy thinking up work for them to do. Your "voluntary" idea is pure bullshit.

So you also say there is no difference between voluntary hierarchy and involuntary hierarchy. That does say a lot about socialism.

What is undignified is being reduced to a tool of another's ambitions.

It is true that slavery is undignified, but that is a weak word you are using. But I'm discussing holding down a full time job. Maybe the reason you are using such a weak word to describe slavery is so that you can use it to cover those who find dignity in holding down a full time job as well.

 

[untermensche]

If you have no control, no real power, you are just a tool of the person with power.

 

[arkirk]

So you also say there is no difference between voluntary hierarchy and involuntary hierarchy. That does say a lot about socialism.

What is undignified is being reduced to a tool of another's ambitions.

It is true that slavery is undignified, but that is a weak word you are using. But I'm discussing holding down a full time job. Maybe the reason you are using such a weak word to describe slavery is so that you can use it to cover those who find dignity in holding down a full time job as well.

I don't think democracy has to function in the same way as the totally coercive CAPITALIST SYSTEM OF HIERARCHY. You keep equating all systems of governance to the one we have today. You must believe in your heart there is nothing we can do but obey da boss! What a wimpy form of Libertarianism that is! We can rename it slavatarianism. You paint of picture of the system we live under then put a little hammer and sickle symbol on it. That is WRONG. You must know that is wrong and your idea of people in a very capital controlled society cannot be volunteers on any basis other than coercion. Either they are hired and working for da boss or they are on the street with a shopping cart and a tarp. Your chickenshit little cartoon did not have representation of elections and issue voting as would happen in a democracy that was not just something calling itself democracy.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you have no control, no real power, you are just a tool of the person with power.

True. That's the key difference between holding a job and slavery. A slave has no power to walk away.

It is true that slavery is undignified, but that is a weak word you are using. But I'm discussing holding down a full time job. Maybe the reason you are using such a weak word to describe slavery is so that you can use it to cover those who find dignity in holding down a full time job as well.

I don't think democracy has to function in the same way as the totally coercive CAPITALIST SYSTEM OF HIERARCHY. You keep equating all systems of governance to the one we have today. You must believe in your heart there is nothing we can do but obey da boss! What a wimpy form of Libertarianism that is! We can rename it slavatarianism. You paint of picture of the system we live under then put a little hammer and sickle symbol on it. That is WRONG. You must know that is wrong and your idea of people in a very capital controlled society cannot be volunteers on any basis other than coercion. Either they are hired and working for da boss or they are on the street with a shopping cart and a tarp. Your chickenshit little cartoon did not have representation of elections and issue voting as would happen in a democracy that was not just something calling itself democracy.

Will you please stop confusing an economic system and a political form? I know that untermensche will never be able to tell the difference but you theoretically can tell the difference.

Also, I'm not the one saying people are basically identical. Untermensche says that nobody ever wants to hold a job where someone else is the boss. You think capitalists believe everyone wants to hold a job where someone else is the boss. I explicitly said, just a few posts ago, that some people want to work for themselves and some want to work for others because different people have different risk tolerances. I said that since different people have different risk tolerances, some want to go into business for themselves and others want to work for someone else. Since I, NOT YOU, was the first to acknowledge the differences between people, then your accusing me of wanting everyone to be the same is the height of absurdity and illogic. Now that you make an assumption that was refuted before you made it, you then go on to some absurd conclusions of libertarianism.

 

[untermensche]

True. That's the key difference between holding a job and slavery. A slave has no power to walk away.

Having only the power to walk away is to be a tool.

And people are not tools because they want to be tools.

Circumstance forces them to submit to being a tool.

Capitalist think submission and freely choosing are the same thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All value comes from labor.

The value added comes from all labor combined.

Capitalists do not labor.

They do not create value.

They own and exploit those that do.

You're just proving what I said--you're incapable of seeing the value. The thing is, in your fantasyland the means of production simply exist, people know how they work, no investment or organizing is needed.

In the real world they have to come from somewhere and must be managed by someone who understands what needs to be done.

The history of the world since WWII is the US has attacked any nation that did not submit to the capitalist system.

The US attacked the Greeks, the Vietnamese, the Chileans, the Nicaraguans, the Venezuelans, and many more.

The US killed millions in Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia. Mostly civilians.

The US attacked the Iraqis and carried out a decade long military occupation that gave us ISIS.

And you have the balls to talk about violence?

I note again your serial failure to answer the question directly. Exactly what do you do with someone who wants to work for someone else or hire someone else? In my personal experience I have always chosen to take a job instead of work for myself. It has worked out ok for me. Not starving yet. Fortunately I haven't lived in a socialist country so haven't been sent to camps either.

People are not born wanting to work for somebody else.

They must be pounded into submission.

Some are more malleable than others.

You still didn't answer his point. And looking over your list:

Attacked the Greeks? Refusing to loan someone money isn't attacking them.

Vietnam? Only after they sided with the communists.

Venezuela? While we supported the opposition that did no harm to the country. Venezuela has destroyed itself as would be expected from his policies.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Sorry, Loren, but according to untermensche, failing to provide his every need IS a form of oppressing him. He needs professional ass-wipers when he goes to the bathroom.

But they need to be democratically voted to be his ass-wipers, otherwise it is oppression.

 

[arkirk]

Sorry, Loren, but according to untermensche, failing to provide his every need IS a form of oppressing him. He needs professional ass-wipers when he goes to the bathroom.

But they need to be democratically voted to be his ass-wipers, otherwise it is oppression.

Jason: Try to control your contempt. Contempt itself is an involuntary reaction. Untermensche has NEVER ASKED YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE TO WIPE HIS ASS. We would like to see a more cooperative society of people who are not afraid to work in harmony with others....who are not afraid to act in good faith...who are not afraid to express their opinions...who are not afraid to face the realities of social and environmental need. Your first reaction is that of a coward who feels trapped unless he is free to walk away. There are a lot of reasons people may not be able to walk away from helping their society. Some of them are moral reasons and have nothing to do with being coerced. I don't know if you can understand that. So far you haven't proven to me you can. Attacking Untermensche is attacking a person with the best intentions. Your labeling them personal demands and also your inability to conceive of possibly cooperating on saving our planet for our human race is striking and does not serve humanity. It also does not serve you. I find your remarks and Loren's often to be so insensitive to the human condition as to be downright frightening...not unlike the insensitivity of Trump or Pence or Dubbiya.

 

[untermensche]

Sorry, Loren, but according to untermensche, failing to provide his every need IS a form of oppressing him. He needs professional ass-wipers when he goes to the bathroom.

But they need to be democratically voted to be his ass-wipers, otherwise it is oppression.

This is insanity pulled from your backside.

If you have only the power to leave you have been totally reduced to a tool of another.

You are their slave during working hours.

And of course in the real world many people are still slaves when they get home. They still are working as a tool.

 

[untermensche]

Vietnam? Only after they sided with the communists.

The scumbags that defend what the US did in Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos are the lowest form of humanity.

There is no crime too great they will not defend it. No human outrage and misery too great they will not defend them.

They are Germans defending the mass killing of Jews.

"Once those Jews sided with Satan they sealed their fate."