White people...

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Scrapiron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Either you don't know what 'Ad Hominem' means or you had trouble processing my statement. Perhaps you could do some introspective analysis on what it means to mistake a comment like mine as ad Hominem.

Also I could take your statements seriously, I'd really like to, but then you went on this whole conservative labeling kick right after your ad hominem mistake thing? WTF is up with that?

I wanted to explain its not just my opinion. Because something in Raev post seem to imply that. So I was just clarifying.

Environments shape the brain -- including your past experiences and ideas about things. So it's not genetic or anything -- but conservatives have been conditioned in the ways I described. There may be natural proclivities, I'd have to look into. That wasn't really the point though.

It was probably stupid to post that RIGHT next to the ad hominem thing.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your ideas are convoluted because they are an idealism. Egalitarianism is idealism. It is not observed reality. You keep bringing up the Nordics but ignore the vast wealth they accumulated through capitalist means and a homogeneous culture which is OK with sharing with like people. Otherwise they would be Valenzuela or Vietnam. Like all leftist you only come up with excuses for why your ideas fail when put into practice. The rights ideas are observed reality for centuries.

Again note: Pivit to a Communist system

Ignore the real Social-Democratic argument (which includes that capitalist wealth you accused me of ignoring).

Edit: You used other communist examples besides Russia -- my mistake. Same basic concept though. Rightwing thinkers conflate the two to straw man the situation.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your right, better listen to the Koch brothers and adopt their ideology instead. Obviously the majority of people with a PHD in political science, is first and foremost concerned about justifying the ruling class. That's all the do. Where as the Koch's and their think tanks have our real interest in mind. Or maybe we should listen to creepy youtube videos on the internet -- they obvious know what their talking about. Maybe you don't like those entities -- but you sure agree with them a lot.

I agree with you on economics, so do most academics. They know some useful things but their models don't reflect universal truths about "the economy" that exist independent of government and society. The economy can't be separated from governments and society like that. You have to realize a certain subset of economists are the ones tapped by government-- not necessarily reflecting mainstream opinion outside the beltway.

History is somewhat dependent on where you learn it. It's a lot better in college than high school generally speaking. There was no justifying of the ruling class in any coarses I took. My high school was very pro-Israel slanted...but its common in America outside of middle east experts (who are usually holding back their real thoughts).

Democracy is a spectrum -- just so were clear. There are different definitions, but everyone agrees that there is no such thing is a "pure" democracy currently. And some argue we should call it Pluralities or various other stupid names they make up. But we find that the difference between places like England and Russia to differentiate the two.

All I'm saying is that just because we haven't had universal healthcare or 2ndary education yet -- doesn't mean its impossible. You seem to think this is a crackpot idea with no connection with reality...I feel comfortable on the ground I'm standing on with that one.

Maybe later ill post some shit about physical anthropology and why blacks aren't dumber and they really aren't one "race." It's not really my area and your the first person i met in a long time that pushed back on this. I friend who teaches Physical Anthropology and I can probably just ask him.

Modern academia is nothing but an echo chamber for Franklin School cultural marxist that have merged with post structuralist so of course they wont defend the ruling class they will only apply critical theory to tear down cultural norms and offer nothing in its place but division.

There was an interesting piece in the Times the other day about how academia has been silencing the right from within for quite some time creating this echo chamber.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/op...ance.html?_r=0

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again note: Pivit to a Communist system

Ignore the real Social-Democratic argument (which includes that capitalist wealth you accused me of ignoring).

Edit: You used other communist examples besides Russia -- my mistake. Same basic concept though. Rightwing thinkers conflate the two to straw man the situation.

The problem is you and most contemporary leftist dont understand socialism is an economic theory not a sociological one. You do understand where socialism came from right? You do understand that it is the underpinning of communism correct? Communism is just the application of socialism with communism being the predicted outcome (that being a classless society and the abolishment of the state).

[Nihilist_santa]

These new school commies dont even bother to read Marx and Engels these days. Posers really.

[Swish]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

These new school commies dont even bother to read Marx and Engels these days. Posers really.

Probably hold meetings in Starbucks

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Swish [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Probably hold meetings in Starbucks

Starbucks has been designated a SafeSpace™ and micro-aggresion free zone.

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Starbucks has been designated a SafeSpace™ and micro-aggresion free zone.

sick buzzwords my man, you must be pretty sharp

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The problem is you and most contemporary leftist dont understand socialism is an economic theory not a sociological one. You do understand where socialism came from right? You do understand that it is the underpinning of communism correct? Communism is just the application of socialism with communism being the predicted outcome (that being a classless society and the abolishment of the state).

I have actually know quite a bit about this.

Socialism started with the utopian-socialists. The utopians split into anarchists and socialists (Karl Marx). The difference between the two, is the socialists believed in the dictatorship of the proletariat -- where the working classes rise and seize power, before the state could whither eventually. Anarchists believed you could somehow skip this step and go straight to no State (instead, "administration"). Chomsky has done a lot to make that ideology more coherent.

Marx started off as a humanitarian that was concerned with the poor. It didn't occur to him that it was the economic system at first -- but eventually that is what he determined. He wrote a small book (or pamphlet) about Communism more toward the end of his life and articulated the inevitability of the communist revolution.

Marx was very much an ivory tower kind of guy, who forcefully argued against any elite-planned revolutions while he was alive. He thought the revolution would happen without people like him helping -- and we need to just wait.

Marx died and Lenin decided he waited long enough. So he led the October revolution as a dictator more or less -- with faithful bureaucrats like Stalin at his side. He insisted that "trade unionism" (which is what was going on in Germany and a few other countries at the time) was just "better conditions for the slave" and would delay the revolution (that was inevitable remember) -- so he opposed them and eventually had many prominent opponents killed.

Lenin didn't stick with Marx economics that long -- but I've never been one to sit around and talk about "what Marx really wanted" -- who gives a shit? Communism as it was practiced in the world is what I'm referring to when I speak of Communism. And there is no denying that economics of communism are much different than capitalism. Resources are allocated by inevitably corrupt governments that are concerned about looking good to their party because that is the only way to make more money in that kind of system. Predictably the elite have disproportionate wealth -- even more so than most capitalist systems.

Communism, as it exists in the world, involves a single party system where every level of government is shadowed by the party- equivalent where the real power is. Power is concentrated in a small council that convenes every so often where all the decisions are made. Sometimes a particularly charismatic individual exercises most the power (Stalin) and forms a "Cult of Personality" around themselves. You get these images of Mao portrayed as the sun or Stalin as a wise benevolent grandfather etc. It replaces religion at times.

This is nothing like modern social-democracies -- which come from Trade Unionism....not Communism. North Korea = Communism. Sweden = Trade Unionism.

Trade unionism contends that Marx is compatible with democracy. And through votes we can obtain a more socialist vision. But there are key differences between this vision and the vision Lenin had.

No violent revolution, no Marxist economics, no dictatorship of the proletariat (as understood by lenin) or single party system.

Democratic-socialist think capitalism is better way of generating resources than communism. However, they don't agree that you have an absolute right to every dollar that happens to ever enter your bank account. So they don't have as big of hang ups about taxing wealthy and subsidizing the middle and lower classes.

Keep in mind this is all different than the German tradition (which started with Bismark and their own thinkers) which is not considered a democratic-socialist state.

In either case, you are ignoring the clear split between them and communist countries and conflated the two. Blaming Marx for Stalin is like blaming Jesus Christ for the war in Iraq because Bush said he influenced him. Ridiculous guilt by association argument.

[Lune]

Modern conservative ideology is largely based on a set of simplistic, widely-discredited economic principles, such as Austrian economics.

Raev says the things that made America great were limited government and individual liberty, and yet the golden age of our civilization occurred in the middle of the last century when even conservatives recognized the need for a safety net, expansive regulations, and government intervention in general:

Originally Posted by Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

At the time, Republicans like Ike were reasonable. Even Nixon allowed the establishment of the EPA. Their platform wasn't about selling out the country to corporate interests. (Note right here that I'm not singling out Republicans in that regard, modern Democrats are just as culpable). It was the Supply-Side, libertarian swing this country took after Reagan that truly threw this country into the shitter. Those "Texas oil millionaires" and "Business men" got into positions of power, and they haven't left. And to this day, people like Raev, confident in the junk-science that is their faction of economics, advocate on their behalf.

I'd also like to put an end to this "Soviets as a demonstration of socialism not working" idiocy right here and now. If you attribute socialist politics to the failure of the Soviet Union, which:
-Had just weathered the purge of tens of millions of people, including a famine in which millions died
-Suffered a scorch and burn invasion of its most productive territory and near capture of Moscow by Nazis
-Has a culture of corruption and mistrust
-A heterogeneous population of many different cultures far in excess of what the US had

Then I really don't know what to tell you. Are you telling me things would have turned out better for them if they had gone the free market direction? They'd still have fucked it up. They aren't doing well now even after market reform, in spite of the fact that they are an energy superpower. It's like saying Democratic-Socialism doesn't work because one time a group of retards living under a bridge tried a particular adaptation of full-blown socialism and it didn't work. It completely ignores any complexity behind the issue. It's reductive for purposes of rhetoric. It's just bad. But I'm not going to cite Sweden and Germany as reasons why socialism would work in the US, because that's bad too, at the other end of the spectrum.

Instead, I'm going to cite FDR and Dwight Eisenhower, and the American state we had until Reagan came along. Safety nets, labor laws, collective responsibility, massive infrastructure investment, trust-busting, robust financial regulation-- they are all good ideas, and they've worked before... here.