Socialists may have the same mentality as Nazis: that people must be enslaved

[Estro Felino]

It's typical for you socialists to find every example
of wrongful acts under capitalism. Yet you ignore
the fact that it has offered so much better results
than every example of socialism, whose wrongful
acts you fail to mention.

You know...neo-liberism is light years away from the ancient civilizations of the Greeks and the Romans, who invented the res publica.

Economic liberalism is the result of the barbarization of civilization, where all the most squalid and lowest instincts such as selfishness and greed are unleashed and legitimized.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

OK, pay close attention....
When I point out that socialism has been a miserable
experience every time it's been tried, I'll cite not just
current examples, but also historical ones. This is
necessary to paint a full picture. China's socialist
history was one of brutal oppression & starvation.

That starvation was largely the result of occupation by Japan and the associated war and the almost simultaneous civil war against the rump of the imperial army. It was later exacerbated by the policy of colectervisation and the atrocities of the Red guards. Unfortunately the country had almost no resilience. because of the hundreds years of the western humiliation.
However all things considered, this is now just a blip in China's vast history, and they are now once again a leading nation. All the while the USA's candle is dimming.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

prices are set by supply and demand in the market

I'm surprised this myth still lives.

 

[Secret Chief]

Isn't one stupid thread enough?

 

[Wu Wei]

As for the Socialist of the Communist party..... you should probably know

1. Xi Jinping, the President of China, who is estimated to have a personal net worth of over $1 billion through his family's business dealings and real estate investments.
2. Kim Jong-un, the Supreme Leader of North Korea, who has access to a vast personal slush fund estimated at over $5 billion, in addition to the wealth of the entire North Korean state.
3. Raúl Castro, the former President of Cuba, whose family is believed to control up to 60% of the Cuban economy through various state-owned enterprises.

And lets not forget Vladimir

World's Richest Politician Is Worth $200 Billion, Owns A $700 Million Jet

Despite officially claiming an annual salary of $140,000, Russian President Vladimir Putin's reported net worth and lifestyle tell a different tale.

www.ndtv.com

 

[Magic Man]

So you don't try.
It figures.

Correct. I don't need to. I already understand. You refuse to read whole posts, because apparently it's either too tough for you, or you prefer to be dishonest. So, it would be best for all if you keep your dishonest and run along.

 

[Magic Man]

Nothing useful followed that.

Hey! Congrats on continuing to post complete drivel in an apparent attempt to waste everyone's time with your utter tripe!

So, go ahead and run along. Unless you decide you want to engage in an honest discussion where you actually say coherent, honest things. (I won't hold my breath.)

 

[Magic Man]

OK, pay close attention....
When I point out that socialism has been a miserable
experience every time it's been tried, I'll cite not just
current examples, but also historical ones. This is
necessary to paint a full picture. China's socialist
history was one of brutal oppression & starvation.

So, then, what is it about a country's government owning the means of production that causes this brutal oppression and starvation? What's the connection?

 

[Magic Man]

Of course, I know you'll just reply with some utter nonsense that avoids any hint of honest discussion, but I still have to try.

 

[Revoltingest]

You know...neo-liberism is light years away from....

Who cares.

 

[Revoltingest]

That starvation was largely the result of occupation by Japan...

There was that starvation.
But there was also Mao's disastrous agricultural
program....The Great Leap Backward....

Great Chinese Famine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm surprised this myth still lives.

Oh, it's not a myth. I've had to lower rent when
the market flagged. And I raised rent when the
market allowed.
Socialists who read about theory, but never play
the game have the luxury of believing things
unevidenced.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course, I know you'll just reply with some utter nonsense....

 

[Stevicus]

Your questions are often rhetorical or
embedded in a wall of text that doesn't
inspire wading thru.
Have any that you really want answered?

I'll admit I sometimes get carried away and write long posts, but in this case, it was hardly a "wall of text." Couldn't even get through a 30-second read?

I was stating the reasons why your criticisms of socialism were logically flawed. If you're not interested, that's your prerogative, but you're the one who's always wondering why people support socialism. If you can't come up with a good reason for people to change their minds, or you continue to use the same failed, logically flawed arguments, how do you expect to convince anyone?

I'm not suggesting anything.
I'm stating (in short) that socialism has a historical record
of always being authoritarian & economically weak.

So in other words, "just stating facts," eh? Reminds me of something I read recently:

"Just stating facts"
That phrase always warns me that someone
pursues an agenda by cherry picking some
facts, while leaving out significant others.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll admit I sometimes get carried away and write long posts, but in this case, it was hardly a "wall of text." Couldn't even get through a 30-second read?

Even 30 seconds of vague assertions of little relevance is taxing.

I was stating the reasons why your criticisms of socialism were logically flawed. If you're not interested, that's your prerogative, but you're the one who's always wondering why people support socialism.

Your criticisms have been stupid.

If you can't come up with a good reason for people to change their minds, or you continue to use the same failed, logically flawed arguments, how do you expect to convince anyone?

There's one of those questions that looks rhetorical.
You really want an answer to an insulting loaded
question, eh. That's stupid.

Try my technique.....if a question isn't really
a question, punctuate with ",eh." instead of
a question mark. That's how it's done.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There was that starvation.
But there was also Mao's disastrous agricultural
program....The Great Leap Backward....

Great Chinese Famine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is well documented. and is what I inferred by collectivisation,
and entailed the forced relocation of every able bodied person including academics and intellectuals into manual agriculture. It was of course a failure. But those that survived had changed. They and their children are the ones that have lead the real leap forward, that we are still witnessing today. That has been the start of an almost fantastical journey, where not even the sky is the limit.
China has risen from the depths of despair to the potential world leaders in some thirty years
Was it worth the pain and suffering? That is not for us to say. But China will give
the the only answer that matters. They will thank all those that came before.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is well documented. and is what I inferred by collectivisation,
china and entailed the forced relocation of every able bodied person including academics and intellectuals into manual agriculture. It was of course a failure. But those that survived had changed. They and their children are the ones that have lead the real leap forward, that we are still witnessing today. That has been the start of an almost fantastical journey, where not even the sky is the limit.
China has risen from the depths of despair to the potential world leaders in some thirty years
Was it worth the pain and suffering? That is not for us to say. But China will give
the the only answer that matters. They will thank all those that came before.

China rose from poverty only because of capitalism.
Alas, it kept the old socialist authoritarianism.

 

[Stevicus]

Even 30 seconds of vague assertions of little relevance is taxing.

I didn't realize I was exhausting you so much.

Your criticisms have been stupid.

No, my criticisms have been brilliant and flawless. You just can't understand them and/or you're ill-equipped to address them.

There's one of those questions that looks rhetorical.
You really want an answer to an insulting loaded
question, eh. That's stupid.

Try my technique.....if a question isn't really
a question, punctuate with ",eh." instead of
a question mark. That's how it's done.

All this deflection doesn't change the fact that you still haven't answered the question.

But okay, let's set that question aside. Here's another question: Why is this topic so important to you? There's absolutely zero chance of socialism ever coming to power in the U.S., so what's the point? Is it just for nostalgia, or what?

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't realize I was exhausting you so much.

You aren't.
Because I skip most of the fluff.

No, my criticisms have been brilliant and flawless.

You've the confidence of a very stable genius.

All this deflection doesn't change the fact that you still haven't answered the question.

There are many I've not answered.
This avoids wasting my time.

But okay, let's set that question aside. Here's another question: Why is this topic so important to you?

Primarily because I want to dissuade people
from pursuing ever more wrongful government
control over us

There's absolutely zero chance of socialism ever coming to power in the U.S., so what's the point? Is it just for nostalgia, or what?

But there's 100% probability that people will
pursue policies that lean in a socialist direction,
eg, price controls, government confiscation of
assets. These have already been done, & many
want such policies increased.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

China rose from poverty only because of capitalism.
Alas, it kept the old socialist authoritarianism.

Their version of capitalism is even tougher than ours. It is competitive in the extreme. Bankruptcies are rife as are extreme successes.
Billionaires are subject to regulation as much as workers are. If they cross the line they lose everything. The wellbeing of China always comes first.
Anti corruption is in the hands of the second highest party official. It is taken extremely seriously nobody is exempt.
China has never believed in patent protections. They believe intellectual property is a national asset and that it is showing respect to copy.
However they have, for now at least, bowed to western pressure to respect patent rights. Even if it is against their traditional competitive instincts.

I have some sympathy with their point of view. As patents always stifle progress and put blocks in the way of advancements.
I would prefer to see patents open to unrestricted licences, where the paten holder receives a percentage of the users profits from its use.
And products could be sold in competition to the holder at once, Creating real competition.

Huawei have only recently started collecting on their patent licences, in return for all the obstructions put in place against them.

Their usual practice is to exchange patent rights with their competitors. With no limits on their use. This seems to work well in China.
And perhaps in part accounts for their extremely rapid scientific advances.