The Postmodern Socialist

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Many socialist countries are and were run by Marxist and Communist parties. Communism is the end goal; socialism is the means to attain it. But so long as the state exists, it is socialism.

Really I am having a hard time thinking of any type of socialist policy. Internet censorship is common, but not unique to socialism.

Oh yeah, for sure. I agree with that.
Although I'm not sure there are many Socialists out there right now that want the Communist end goal nowadays.
I sure don't, I'd be purged for my Faith alone.

If we cannot include welfare and the likes we probably won't be able to come up with a single Socialist policy...
Makes me wonder why people worry about it so much, hehe.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Oh yeah, for sure. I agree with that.
Although I'm not sure there are many Socialists out there right now that want the Communist end goal nowadays.
I sure don't, I'd be purged for my Faith alone.

If we cannot include welfare and the likes we probably won't be able to come up with a single Socialist policy...
Makes me wonder why people worry about it so much, hehe.

What we should worry about is when people attempt to achieve socialism. They always end up using human beings as the raw material with which to build it. With foundations like that, it is doomed to collapse.

The power pyramid comes in many forms and the resources do not trickle down but up. Soviet union was a state controlled power pyramid.



To be able to have a large middle class society who slowly crumble the trickle up have to be really slow and the push on corporations to pay an honest share of what is created to the people working have to be inforced.

Venezuela never had a chance since it was not the poster boy (propaganda tool) for power pyramid greed. The difference between the 1% and the rest was to big from the start for them to be able to demand more. So they went against the 1% and for a majority of them it is logical to choose that path since the alternative is being a very badly paid wage slave for the owners of FED.

America is being destroyed from within since it have been buttered up so much it was time to export the dream/propaganda tool to other places like China and divide up the spoils of US imperialism.

Capitalism do not work since the free market will always be destroyed by those who control a big share of it pushing the creation of monopoly and oligarchy.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Nice word salad.

Problem is, socialism and postmodernism are antithetical. Socialism is collectivist and postmodernism is individualist.

Liberalism can be postmodernist. Socialism can't: if its post modern it can't be socialism.


Carry on.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

Although I'm not sure there are many Socialists out there right now that want the Communist end goal nowadays.

You'd be hard put to find any because they are different things.

Carry on.

originally posted by: seeker1963


Post Modernism is just a rebrand of Cultural Marxism.

We can trace an evolution of ideas from Marxism to postmodernism but they are no more the same thing than we are small dinosaurs.

Also, Cultural Marxism is not a thing. There are Marxist ideas about culture, some of which are still quite healthy - like historicism - but Cultural Marxism is an empty cliche.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

No, I'm saying that banks were guilty of predatory lending which is why H.R. 1728 was introduced in 2009, to stop such practices.

Is that one of those nasty pinko pieces of legislation that Trump wants to repeal? Like the Dodd Frank Act?

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Problem is, socialism and postmodernism are antithetical. Socialism is collectivist and postmodernism is individualist.

Liberalism can be postmodernist. Socialism can't: if its post modern it can't be socialism.

That's funny because postmodernism is generally regarded as an attack on the enlightenment and liberalism. Care to cite an example?

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

No, Cultural Marxism is not an empty cliche.

It comes from the Frankfort school where they studied ways to use social technique and theory to implement the workers' revolt against capitalism.

The dominant theory they came up with critical theory. Sound familiar? It should. It has become very fashionable in certain areas of "studies" in our universities. You often see it called critical race theory where it used to justify the idea that because a bunch of old white men wrote the foundational documents of the nation, then the nation is from its roots onward a racist, oppressive one.

It is the theoretical roots of the ideology and philosophy used to justify the people who say that no minority can ever be racist because they have no institutional power no matter what they do or say.

These were a bunch of Marxists at the Frankfort School who looked for ways to upend capitalism through social/cultural means and CRT and other means of critical theory are the way they did it. The common shorthand for these schools of thought are cultural Marxism because the end aim is to impose a Marxist society through culture rather then through the economy.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Capitalism also begets wealth and a middle class.

True. It also begets welfare and a reliance upon a governmental system to keep people from starving, etc. Hence welfare capitalism. Welfare is contradictory to capitalism. Welfare, or a basic level of resources to maintain one's existence, is complimentary to socialism.

So it does appear that capitalism is reliant upon the collective wealth of the people to help offset the flaws in capitalism.

It is untrue that Capitalism is just as flawed as any other sort of system.

Are we now going to debate the varying degrees of "flaw"?

Regardless, it has it's many flaws. Flaws that have been manipulated and given rise to the need to highly-regulate the system in order to keep capitalism from destroying itself. Not much different than communism.

a reply to: introvert

True. It also begets welfare and a reliance upon a governmental system to keep people from starving, etc. Hence welfare capitalism. Welfare is contradictory to capitalism. Welfare, or a basic level of resources to maintain one's existence, is complimentary to socialism.

So it does appear that capitalism is reliant upon the collective wealth of the people to help offset the flaws in capitalism.

Capitalism also begets self-reliance, the opportunity to improve one's condition, and gives people the freedom to make their own way in life. So no it doesn't rely on a governmental system to keep people from starving, but is so well off that it can have that option if someone wants it. Socialism on the other hand relies on the government for everything.

Are we now going to debate the varying degrees of "flaw"?

Regardless, it has it's many flaws. Flaws that have been manipulated and given rise to the need to highly-regulate the system in order to keep capitalism from destroying itself. Not much different than communism.

We might have to argue it, because you stated Capitalism is just as flawed as any other system, when that clearly isn't the case for the exact same reasons I stated. We have watched as two states starting over at the same time after a war, one capitalist and one socialist, grew side by side. It is a literal absurdity to state that one is just as flawed as the other.

No, capitalism is nothing like communism.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Capitalism also begets self-reliance

What you mean to say is that it can, but does not necessarily mean that it will. Self-reliance is only available to those that can work within the system to keep their heads above water. The rest are reliant upon the state.

So no it doesn't rely on a governmental system to keep people from starving, but is so well off that it can have that option if someone wants it.

Again, what you mean to say is if they need it. If capitalism is allowed to go unchecked, and even if it's highly-regulated, it creates the need to use government resources, which is the collective wealth of the people, to care for the lowest among the society. Welfare capitalism, right?

If capitalism in the US worked so well, why are half of it's people reliant upon the state?

To cover for the flaws in capitalism.

We might have to argue it, because you stated Capitalism is just as flawed as any other system, when that clearly isn't the case for the exact same reasons I stated. We have watched as two states starting over at the same time after a war, one capitalist and one socialist, grew side by side. It is a literal absurdity to state that one is just as flawed as the other.

Two very bad examples. You cannot credit their success or failures to the system of choice alone. There are many other factors in play that will affect their ability to rebuild successful economies and societies. That includes resources, their allies, leadership, etc.

As far as "just as flawed", that's just arguing an irrelevant point. What matters is to be honest enough to recognize their inherent flaws and find a way to work those flaws out. In the case of capitalism, it must rely on the collective wealth of the people to keep it alive, without eating itself from within.

No, capitalism is nothing like communism.

In that both have it's inherent flaws, yes...they are very much comparable.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

And there are no mega corporations and conglomerates, right? And this country isn't an oligarchy, right? And the disparity in wages is getting much better, right?

Not a socialist, but certainly I'm one that can see flaws in the capitalist system we have imposed here in this country.

No one is saying there aren't flaws in capitalism, only that they pale in comparison to those of socialism, feudalism, and so on.

Your OP was singing the praises of capitalism...not the flaws.

As for Oligarchy and disparity, one only has to look at the middle class...where as few as 30 years ago a single earner could afford to own a home, an automobile, and raise children. This isn't the case now, with both parents working in most homes.

I honestly don't see why some industries shouldn't be government controlled/owned. We might actually get something useful out of the government for once.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Oh, you mean like our educations? That's completely government owned/controlled unless you are wealthy enough to afford to escape the system.

You can see how well that works out for the majority of kids who are stuck in substandard schools.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Oh, you mean like our educations? That's completely government owned/controlled unless you are wealthy enough to afford to escape the system.

You can see how well that works out for the majority of kids who are stuck in substandard schools.

Excellent example. Capitalism funnels the wealth and resources down to a very few among us and the rest are reliant upon the government to do something as simple as educating our children.

To maintain capitalism, we have to redistribute wealth and resources, or it stands to destroy itself.

originally posted by: 4003fireglo

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: 4003fireglo
Since there were so many expensive, confusing, and taxing words in your post I couldn't help but wonder if you ran it through turnitin.com to check for plagiarism before you posted it here.

So your criticism of the OP is that he used big words?

Ummm...nah...that was the red herring...the real intent was to accuse LeMis of plagiarism...

YouSir

Wrong.

The whole post sounded pedantic and unsincere, as though the OP just wants to try out his writing skills before he starts a blog.

I could be wrong, though. I typically am.

Ummm...I think your wrong...here's why...I accused LesMis of much the same when I first encountered reading some of his/her/its...musings here...

Then I juxtaposed their thoughts against some of the things that I had written and pondered about...I found an awful lot of common ground there...Not only that...I got bored and my snarky character had to move on to easier prey...

Besides...if one were truly insincere...then what would be the point...why make the effort...why post your thoughts for consideration and expose yourself to ridicule if it weren't in sincerity's stead...
You merely had an issue with what was written...that's why you took aspersions easy route...You played it safe...

That is of course...unless LesMis is using your head for an experiment...homesteading your medula oblongta...
I usually use that method when I write...
it's actually a great deal of fun to interject oneself into the readers mind...take over their emotional state...lay waste to their self control...

Sneaky...sneaky...



YouSir

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Those banks only gambled so that they could make record profits, unfortunately the people paid for their mistakes. I'd say their gambling was a result of unbridled capitalism but I'm no expert on the issue.

Or was it because of unbridled socialism...seems you do not see that side of the coin as even being possible.

a reply to: ParasuvO

In what way was it unbridled socialism? The banks were keeping the money for themselves, going for profit, not giving it away.

Please explain?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

And many more would argue those people are full of # since our economy was the number one economy in the world with even stricter Socialist policies on the books than we have today.

And EVEN MORE people would argue that people with money found a way to avoid those socialist policies.

AND EVEN EVEN MORE MORE people would argue against whatever your next rebuttal is.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Just because you don't see it yet, capitalism is failing.