Republicans Hate College Now, Apparently

[Revoltingest]

Why do you say that? Who are the "rabble"?

The teeming masses.

I disagree with the view that there is a "necessity of oppression." In our own mixed economy, we have been able to combine elements of socialism and capitalism which have not prevented voluntary economic association. Western European socialism has demonstrated that it can work, and they have a better quality of life than we do.

We have a primarily capitalist economy.
There's no example of a socialist economy which eschews oppression.
But there are plenty examples of those who revel in it....
N Korea, Cuba, PRC (pre-capitalism), USSR

 

[Stevicus]

The teeming masses.

We have a primarily capitalist economy.
There's no example of a socialist economy which eschews oppression.
But there are plenty examples of those who revel in it....
N Korea, Cuba, PRC (pre-capitalism), USSR

"Primarily capitalist." But the way most capitalists speak nowadays, their complaint is that our economy not capitalist enough. They even think Obama and Clinton are socialists.

You've only cited four examples. I wouldn't call that "plenty."

Your mistake is also due to the fact that you're citing nations which have always been oppressive and will always be so - not from a "socialist economy" but from something deeply ingrained in their culture. China and Russia are still oppressive, even though they're capitalist now.

Our culture isn't like that in America, so a socialist economy would be more reflective of our own culture and would have no resemblance to the examples you've cited.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Primarily capitalist." But the way most capitalists speak nowadays, their complaint is that our economy not capitalist enough. They even think Obama and Clinton are socialists.

I can't speak for others.
And I don't demand purity.

You've only cited four examples. I wouldn't call that "plenty."

With not one positive example, I say that 4 makes the point.

Your mistake is also due to the fact that you're citing nations which have always been oppressive and will always be so - not from a "socialist economy" but from something deeply ingrained in their culture. China and Russia are still oppressive, even though they're capitalist now.

Our culture isn't like that in America, so a socialist economy would be more reflective of our own culture and would have no resemblance to the examples you've cited.

The historical record of socialism is 100% oppressive.
Capitalism fares better.

 

[Stevicus]

I can't speak for others.
And I don't demand purity.

With not one positive example, I say that 4 makes the point.

The historical record of socialism is 100% oppressive.
Capitalism fares better.

Correction: America fares better. We would fare even better if we were socialist. The historical record of socialism (however you may interpret it) doesn't apply to America.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your mistake is also due to the fact that you're citing nations which have always been oppressive and will always be so - not from a "socialist economy" but from something deeply ingrained in their culture. China and Russia are still oppressive, even though they're capitalist now.

I think there are two primary reasons for such views. One being that many believe Capitalism is a "natural result," or an "inevitable direction for society to take," and that's something that will "just happen," similarly to how it is often believed Democracy is the "natural" course for social evolution and progress. The other reason being how it is believed that capitalism and free markets are a form of democracy, a pure form, and one that allows the consumer more power than "regular" democracy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Correction: America fares better. We would fare even better if we were socialist. The historical record of socialism (however you may interpret it) doesn't apply to America.

Goold old Americastanian exceptionalism.
What has never worked for anyone else will work here, eh?

Reminds me of a friend's research problem....
He wants to build a spinning mercury torus to create anti-gravity.
Even though hyper-intelligent highly educated physicists can't
do it, he thinks he might be the exception.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think there are two primary reasons for such views. One being that many believe Capitalism is a "natural result," or an "inevitable direction for society to take," and that's something that will "just happen," similarly to how it is often believed Democracy is the "natural" course for social evolution and progress. The other reason being how it is believed that capitalism and free markets are a form of democracy, a pure form, and one that allows the consumer more power than "regular" democracy.

I don't see democracy as quite the inexorable force that capitalism is.
Just recently, a news item showed small scale capitalism beginning
in N Korea (to cope with privations of socialism). But democracy
isn't something that individuals can create when the state doesn't
bend to their will.

 

[Stevicus]

Goold old Americastanian exceptionalism.
What has never worked for anyone else will work here, eh?

Reminds me of a friend's research problem....
He wants to build a spinning mercury torus to create anti-gravity.
Even though hyper-intelligent highly educated physicists can't
do it, he thinks he might be the exception.

Perhaps I should amend it to Western exceptionalism

 

[Valjean]

There'll always be a large percentage of a population who want to go their own way,
rather than work for some organization of the people. They would form economic
associations, eg, vendor, customer, manufacturer, retailer, employer, employee.
Were this permitted, the whole economy would drift in that direction....& there goes
socialism down the drain.

I don't see why organizations of "the people" would be incompatible with capitalist enterprises, though I doubt many people would want to work for an authoritarian boss at low wages with so say in how the company's run. Why couldn't someone who wanted to go her own way just form her own co-operative?

Still, it happens to some extent with black markets, eg, the old
USSR was notorious for this.

The USSR was a top down, command economy, nor responsive to demand.

People in Americastan could form cooperatives wherein they support each other,
share goods/services based upon need, & create a socialist system on a small
scale. But they don't in any noticeable numbers.

True, but I don't see this as inevitable. There was a time when representative republics were unknown, as well.
Capitalism is fundamentally anti-social. Unregulated, it favors competition, perpetual growth, monopoly, and accumulation of wealth and power at the top. It suppresses competition, labor costs and the general welfare.
Socialism, on the other hand, favors democracy, co-operation and general social and economic welfare.

Even socialists would rather
partake in capitalism when socialism isn't forced upon all.

I'm skeptical, though I do acknowledge there are predatory personalities that will take advantage of a system that permits their sociopathic predation.

There are no examples of it ever existing without an authoritarian government

There are no examples of it existing with an authoritarian government. Authoritarianism is a feature of capitalism and totalitarianism. I don't see it in a people centered, co-operative system.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see why organizations of "the people" would be incompatible with capitalist enterprises, though I doubt many people would want to work for an authoritarian boss at low wages with so say in how the company's run. Why couldn't someone who wanted to go her own way just form her own co-operative?
The USSR was a top down, command economy, nor responsive to demand.
True, but I don't see this as inevitable. There was a time when representative republics were unknown, as well.
Capitalism is fundamentally anti-social. Unregulated, it favors competition, perpetual growth, monopoly, and accumulation of wealth and power at the top. It suppresses competition, labor costs and the general welfare.
Socialism, on the other hand, favors democracy, co-operation and general social and economic welfare.
I'm skeptical, though I do acknowledge there are predatory personalities that will take advantage of a system that permits their sociopathic predation.
There are no examples of it existing with an authoritarian government. Authoritarianism is a feature of capitalism and totalitarianism. I don't see it in a people centered, co-operative system.

I've looked at it both theoretically & empirically.
Socialism requires authoritarianism, no matter what the level.
But top down looks inevitable...can't let a province experiment
with the dark side, you know.

 

[Revoltingest]

One reason to look down upon college...
White, male students called on last in some classrooms - The College Fix

 

[Valjean]

I've looked at it both theoretically & empirically.
Socialism requires authoritarianism, no matter what the level.
But top down looks inevitable...can't let a province experiment
with the dark side, you know.

I don't see it. Authoritarianism is pretty much the opposite of socialism. It's more typical of capitalism.

 

[Father]

The Alt-Leftist social justice warriors. communists. all around far left have already taken them over.
the Repubs were fine when it was traditional liberal but now that its authoritarian no

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see it. Authoritarianism is pretty much the opposite of socialism. It's more typical of capitalism.

And yet, history provides only examples of socialist countries which are authoritarian.
While capitalist countries has many examples of liberty.
Clearly, socialists are blind to the consequences of what they want.

 

[Valjean]

And yet, history provides only examples of socialist countries which are authoritarian.
While capitalist countries has many examples of liberty.
Clearly, socialists are blind to the consequences of what they want.

The Nordic countries are authoritarian and lack liberty?

 

[Revoltingest]

The Nordic countries are authoritarian and lack liberty?

They're capitalist.
Don't confuse having a social safety net fueled by capitalism with "socialism".

Proof.....

Here is a car made in a nordic country (Koenigsegg).....

Note the happy driver.....

But here is a car from E Germany (Trabant).....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The historical record of socialism is 100% oppressive.
Capitalism fares better.

The historical record of capitalism was 100% oppressive until it was injected with socialism via the labour movement.

 

[Revoltingest]

The historical record of capitalism was 100% oppressive until it was injected with socialism via the labour movement.

A capitalist country can have a socialist element (controls placed by government)
without earning the label, "socialist", eg, Canuckistan. But true socialist countries
(N Korea, Cuba, USSR, etc) are without exception oppressive.
See....you need capitalism in order to live the socialist dream.

Note....
Just yesterday on NPR, Jack Lessenberry opined that life in the USSR was better
than in the liberated countries. But he never lived there, & his opinion differs
from those I know who actually did live there (one doctor & one engineer).
It seems that no one knows less about socialism than socialist wannabees.
They should be forced to drive a Trabant.