Total Posts:80|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

To Those Who Deny That Democracy Is a Sham

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 5:30:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A Brief Reply to Those Who Deny That Our Democracy Is a Sham

A DDO member called HououinKyouma wrote: "You said, in your previous posts, that corporations had rigged the electoral system (no evidence of that), ..."

To HououinKyouma and all those who are in any degree of denial about the possibility that our democracy is a fraud and that under our system the billionaire class has the ability to exercise too much influence and power I say have you ever heard of the Citizens United ruling? I say what alternate ideological dimension do you reside in, I say that if the Citizens United decision isn't enough of a smoking gun to get through to you in your ideological dimension that perhaps you need psychoanalysis, and I say all of the following:

Let's see, we have high-profile billionaires like the Koch brothers blatantly buying elections. We have Wall Street and the rest of corporate America using its money power and the services of lobbyists to ensure that the politicians in Washington, Albany, Sacramento, Boston, etc., see things their way and identify corporate concerns with the interests & needs of the average American. We have political leaders and public officials who, even when they aren't actually having their palms greased or being directly influence, have a worldview that's been groomed and molded by the economic & political establishment; a worlview whose beliefs and interpretations of reality are consistent with the interests of the establishment and system; and that causes them to serve those interests, to take positions and support policies that are pro-big business, even if some part of them still sincerely wishes to be a genuine public servant.

Yes, such a state of affairs prevails and yet you maintain that we have a genuine democracy, that it hasn't been totally subverted by big money! And you think that my take on our system lacks credibility and groundedness in reality! Are you really going to sit there and type rubbish denying a fairly universally known fact of political life, denying the basis of the disgruntlement of millions of people with politics as usual, denying that the democratic process has been corrupted and co-opted to such an extent that it's an out-and-out fraud? Are you intentionally trying to be a comedian, or are you just a joke? Well, you certainly seem to suffer from a ridiculous ideologically-induced derealization of reality.

(Btw, we can indeed thank the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution for the faux form of representative government that we have today. They we're after all elitists who didn't actually believe in democracy and who designed a system with only enough of the trappings of democracy to appease the masses, legitimize their rule, and prevent the rise of a political strongman who would usurp the power & privilege of men of means such as themselves.

A system that, behind the superficial democratic trappings is in fact deeply structured so as to allow the show to be run by the elite, so as to enable them to preserve the status quo, so as to keep the hoi polloi (us) at their mercy. Well, that is why they created a constitution and system in which the franchise was reserved to propertied men. In which the president is not actually directly elected by the popular vote. In which senators were appointed by state legislatures not elected [it was even proposed that members of the House of Representatives be appointed rather than elected!]. In which quite important and powerful political positions such as secretary of state, secretary of defense, attorney general, et al., are all appointed. In which the members of the Supreme Court are not elected by the people. Etc.

Yes, so let's have no naively nostalgic conservative rubbish about returning to a system based on the original intent of the Constitution. Unless you fancy a system in which renters with a low bank balance would no longer have the right to vote; or the kind of constitutional state of affairs they once upon a time had in South Carolina, when property qualifications prevented 90% of the electorate from running for office! Yes, the democratic good old days of the upper-class white men who devised our system were not all that they're cracked up to be. There was in fact no golden age of government genuinely of, by, and for the common people that we might aspire to recreate. Authentic democracy is something that still remains to be invented. - And when it is invented it won't be merely a political system, it will be a way of life that will also extend into the economic sphere. That is, no longer will wage earners spend most of their waking hours in the dictatorship of the workplace; no longer will there be an asymmetrical distribution of economic wealth that's mirrored by an asymmetrical distribution of political clout; no longer will superrich capitalists sit in the catbird seat and consign the majority of Americans to the ranks of a largely ineffectual electorate.)

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 6:06:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
https://www.youtube.com...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 6:53:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 5:30:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
A Brief Reply to Those Who Deny That Our Democracy Is a Sham



A DDO member called HououinKyouma wrote: "You said, in your previous posts, that corporations had rigged the electoral system (no evidence of that), ..."



To HououinKyouma and all those who are in any degree of denial about the possibility that our democracy is a fraud and that under our system the billionaire class has the ability to exercise too much influence and power I say have you ever heard of the Citizens United ruling? I say what alternate ideological dimension do you reside in, I say that if the Citizens United decision isn't enough of a smoking gun to get through to you in your ideological dimension that perhaps you need psychoanalysis, and I say all of the following:

Let's see, we have high-profile billionaires like the Koch brothers blatantly buying elections. We have Wall Street and the rest of corporate America using its money power and the services of lobbyists to ensure that the politicians in Washington, Albany, Sacramento, Boston, etc., see things their way and identify corporate concerns with the interests & needs of the average American. We have political leaders and public officials who, even when they aren't actually having their palms greased or being directly influence, have a worldview that's been groomed and molded by the economic & political establishment; a worlview whose beliefs and interpretations of reality are consistent with the interests of the establishment and system; and that causes them to serve those interests, to take positions and support policies that are pro-big business, even if some part of them still sincerely wishes to be a genuine public servant.

Yes, such a state of affairs prevails and yet you maintain that we have a genuine democracy, that it hasn't been totally subverted by big money! And you think that my take on our system lacks credibility and groundedness in reality! Are you really going to sit there and type rubbish denying a fairly universally known fact of political life, denying the basis of the disgruntlement of millions of people with politics as usual, denying that the democratic process has been corrupted and co-opted to such an extent that it's an out-and-out fraud? Are you intentionally trying to be a comedian, or are you just a joke? Well, you certainly seem to suffer from a ridiculous ideologically-induced derealization of reality.

(Btw, we can indeed thank the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution for the faux form of representative government that we have today. They we're after all elitists who didn't actually believe in democracy and who designed a system with only enough of the trappings of democracy to appease the masses, legitimize their rule, and prevent the rise of a political strongman who would usurp the power & privilege of men of means such as themselves.

A system that, behind the superficial democratic trappings is in fact deeply structured so as to allow the show to be run by the elite, so as to enable them to preserve the status quo, so as to keep the hoi polloi (us) at their mercy. Well, that is why they created a constitution and system in which the franchise was reserved to propertied men. In which the president is not actually directly elected by the popular vote. In which senators were appointed by state legislatures not elected [it was even proposed that members of the House of Representatives be appointed rather than elected!]. In which quite important and powerful political positions such as secretary of state, secretary of defense, attorney general, et al., are all appointed. In which the members of the Supreme Court are not elected by the people. Etc.

Yes, so let's have no naively nostalgic conservative rubbish about returning to a system based on the original intent of the Constitution. Unless you fancy a system in which renters with a low bank balance would no longer have the right to vote; or the kind of constitutional state of affairs they once upon a time had in South Carolina, when property qualifications prevented 90% of the electorate from running for office! Yes, the democratic good old days of the upper-class white men who devised our system were not all that they're cracked up to be. There was in fact no golden age of government genuinely of, by, and for the common people that we might aspire to recreate. Authentic democracy is something that still remains to be invented. - And when it is invented it won't be merely a political system, it will be a way of life that will also extend into the economic sphere. That is, no longer will wage earners spend most of their waking hours in the dictatorship of the workplace; no longer will there be an asymmetrical distribution of economic wealth that's mirrored by an asymmetrical distribution of political clout; no longer will superrich capitalists sit in the catbird seat and consign the majority of Americans to the ranks of a largely ineffectual electorate.)


I really don't feel like replying to this, but since it was addressed to me specifically, I guess I have to respond.

I don't know what is worse here the selective and one-sided view of the history of the US, in which the elite dominates everything and gives one a sense that the US was a totalitarian state on the footing of the USSR, as if there had been no change, no positive change, in American society since its foundation; or the naive (and vague) idealism that is offered to us as a solution to all the problems cited in this piece.

One would think from reading this attempt at a critique from someone who would like to appear to be very revolutionary and leftist and yet who fails to deliver present anything remotely dialectical in their "reasoning," that every rich person in the US (and the world) is inherently evil, that somehow, the moment someone becomes a millionaire, or rather, a billionaire she becomes a monster. But this is the sort of demagogy and hyperbole that one should expect from the dear comrade "charleslb."

One would also be under the impression that the Koch brothers were ruling the US, though as everyone should know, they lost the 2012 election, they lost the fight against the ACA, and they lost the fight against the tax hikes, but never mind, the comrade's version of things is much more exciting. I also fail to see how working in regulated conditions for a limited number of hours is "oppressive," but then again I am not a deluded pseudo-marxist.

The author also ignores the fact that most of the wealth in the US is earned, or made, rather than inherited, but let's leave that aside. The reduction of the very complex system of the capitalist mode of production to a single entity and the conflation of the financial and industrial sectors (obviating the agricultural and technological sectors) into a single force strikes me, at least, as overtly simplistic and silly. There certainly are problems in the financial sector of the economy but these are not unique to the US, and they can be solved, as they have been solved in the past, through reasonable and peaceful means, not through some sort of proletarian revolution, which, last time I checked, had been thoroughly discredited as a solution to the contradictions of the capitalist system.

The problems of the US can be solved through the same means that they were solved in Europe, the implementation of more regulation and other social democratic policies. A disparity of wealth is inevitable but can be reduced, there is no need to fall into despair, like our dear comrade. Electing judges and cabinet members will not solve a single problem, by the way.

But of course, the dear comrade will only be satisfied until we are all living in Marxland, and thinks that anyone who does not agree with him, I being one such person, must be a conservative, (I am a social democrat).
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 2:44:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 6:23:32 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't like the idea of rationally irrational voters running the government anyways.

Yes, it's hardly surprising that you're not much of a fan of democracy.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 3:27:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 6:53:09 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
I really don't feel like replying to this, but since it was addressed to me specifically, I guess I have to respond.

I don't know what is worse here the selective and one-sided view of the history of the US, in which the elite dominates everything and gives one a sense that the US was a totalitarian state on the footing of the USSR, as if there had been no change, no positive change, in American society since its foundation; or the naive (and vague) idealism that is offered to us as a solution to all the problems cited in this piece.

Some of us are of the view that the dark side of American history merits a bit of critical attention.

One would think from reading this attempt at a critique from someone who would like to appear to be very revolutionary and leftist and yet who fails to deliver present anything remotely dialectical in their "reasoning,"

So, I'm damned if I do, and damned as well if I don't. If I conformed more to your stereotype of a Marxist you'd no doubt dismiss me as a cliche, but since I don't quite fit the cliche mold you disparage me as a "pseudoMarxist". Oh well.

that every rich person in the US (and the world) is inherently evil, that somehow, the moment someone becomes a millionaire, or rather, a billionaire she becomes a monster. But this is the sort of demagogy and hyperbole that one should expect from the dear comrade "charleslb."

Perhaps you're projecting your own mentality's penchant for simplistic demonization.

One would also be under the impression that the Koch brothers were ruling the US, though as everyone should know, they lost the 2012 election, they lost the fight against the ACA, and they lost the fight against the tax hikes, but never mind, the comrade's version of things is much more exciting.

So you would deny that their $70 billion dollars make them a force to be noticed in American politics, and yet you fancy yourself to be more of a realist than a silly pseudoMarxist like moi!

I also fail to see how working in regulated conditions for a limited number of hours is "oppressive," but then again I am not a deluded pseudo-marxist.

Well, there are alas millions of workingpeople who've experienced the dictatorship of the workplace who could enlighten you.

The author also ignores the fact that most of the wealth in the US is earned,...

The MO of the superrich and vulture capitalist doesn't really involve "earning" his/her riches.

The reduction of the very complex system of the capitalist mode of production to a

The complexity of the capitalist system doesn't mitigate the inherence of certain destructive dynamics and social evils in it.

The problems of the US can be solved through the same means that they were solved in Europe, the implementation of more regulation and other social democratic policies.

These are palliative measures, not solutions.

A disparity of wealth is inevitable but can be reduced,

Under capitalism, that is.

there is no need to fall into despair, like our dear comrade.

In point of fact I'm a quite sanguine individual.

Electing judges and cabinet members will not solve a single problem, by the way.

It would make for a more democratic political system, which would be a part of the solution.

But of course, the dear comrade will only be satisfied until we are all living in Marxland,

Well, if one's views are Marxist it rather stands to reason that one would think a Marxist form of society preferable. But I suppose that you thought that this was a clever derisive comment (yes, the term "Marxland" is quite clever indeed).

and thinks that anyone who does not agree with him, I being one such person, must be a conservative, (I am a social democrat).

No, I'm well aware that liberalism is simply the soft version of the dominant ideology of capitalist society; i.e., just another ideologic reality system seeking to legitimize and to conceal the economically, socially, and spiritually pathologic realities of capitalism, and advocating reforms designed to perpetuate the capitalist status quo. The only reason that I usually focus more critical attention on conservatives is that they're more bumptiously pro-capitalist.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 3:34:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 5:30:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
A Brief Reply to Those Who Deny That Our Democracy Is a Sham



A DDO member called HououinKyouma wrote: "You said, in your previous posts, that corporations had rigged the electoral system (no evidence of that), ..."



To HououinKyouma and all those who are in any degree of denial about the possibility that our democracy is a fraud and that under our system the billionaire class has the ability to exercise too much influence and power I say have you ever heard of the Citizens United ruling? I say what alternate ideological dimension do you reside in, I say that if the Citizens United decision isn't enough of a smoking gun to get through to you in your ideological dimension that perhaps you need psychoanalysis, and I say all of the following:

Let's see, we have high-profile billionaires like the Koch brothers blatantly buying elections. We have Wall Street and the rest of corporate America using its money power and the services of lobbyists to ensure that the politicians in Washington, Albany, Sacramento, Boston, etc., see things their way and identify corporate concerns with the interests & needs of the average American. We have political leaders and public officials who, even when they aren't actually having their palms greased or being directly influence, have a worldview that's been groomed and molded by the economic & political establishment; a worlview whose beliefs and interpretations of reality are consistent with the interests of the establishment and system; and that causes them to serve those interests, to take positions and support policies that are pro-big business, even if some part of them still sincerely wishes to be a genuine public servant.

Yes, such a state of affairs prevails and yet you maintain that we have a genuine democracy, that it hasn't been totally subverted by big money! And you think that my take on our system lacks credibility and groundedness in reality! Are you really going to sit there and type rubbish denying a fairly universally known fact of political life, denying the basis of the disgruntlement of millions of people with politics as usual, denying that the democratic process has been corrupted and co-opted to such an extent that it's an out-and-out fraud? Are you intentionally trying to be a comedian, or are you just a joke? Well, you certainly seem to suffer from a ridiculous ideologically-induced derealization of reality.

(Btw, we can indeed thank the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution for the faux form of representative government that we have today. They we're after all elitists who didn't actually believe in democracy and who designed a system with only enough of the trappings of democracy to appease the masses, legitimize their rule, and prevent the rise of a political strongman who would usurp the power & privilege of men of means such as themselves.

A system that, behind the superficial democratic trappings is in fact deeply structured so as to allow the show to be run by the elite, so as to enable them to preserve the status quo, so as to keep the hoi polloi (us) at their mercy. Well, that is why they created a constitution and system in which the franchise was reserved to propertied men. In which the president is not actually directly elected by the popular vote. In which senators were appointed by state legislatures not elected [it was even proposed that members of the House of Representatives be appointed rather than elected!]. In which quite important and powerful political positions such as secretary of state, secretary of defense, attorney general, et al., are all appointed. In which the members of the Supreme Court are not elected by the people. Etc.

Yes, so let's have no naively nostalgic conservative rubbish about returning to a system based on the original intent of the Constitution. Unless you fancy a system in which renters with a low bank balance would no longer have the right to vote; or the kind of constitutional state of affairs they once upon a time had in South Carolina, when property qualifications prevented 90% of the electorate from running for office! Yes, the democratic good old days of the upper-class white men who devised our system were not all that they're cracked up to be. There was in fact no golden age of government genuinely of, by, and for the common people that we might aspire to recreate. Authentic democracy is something that still remains to be invented. - And when it is invented it won't be merely a political system, it will be a way of life that will also extend into the economic sphere. That is, no longer will wage earners spend most of their waking hours in the dictatorship of the workplace; no longer will there be an asymmetrical distribution of economic wealth that's mirrored by an asymmetrical distribution of political clout; no longer will superrich capitalists sit in the catbird seat and consign the majority of Americans to the ranks of a largely ineffectual electorate.)


https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

Yes folks, its a rather naive modern notion that the Founding Fathers who devised the system described above were enlightened populist believers in democracy. Such a notion actually strains credulity beyond its limits and betrays the historical illiteracy of the average American. Well, if Adams, Madison, Hamilton & company were the populist democrats of popular imagination then the makeup of the polity that they founded is rather strangely wanting in populist and democratic institutions and structures (as I pointed out, most of the federal government, from senators to Supreme Court justices were appointed, and even the presidency wasn't a [directly] elected position). In fact the great names of the American Revolution were members of the gentry, the bourgeoisie, who envisioned a bourgeois republic; Thomas Paine was perhaps the only exception, the only one of their number with the enlightenment to dream of a genuine people's republic. But if you somehow do buy that our system is authentically, and by the design of the authors of the Constitution, representative and democratic in nature then you seriously need to stop fooling yourself and begin schooling yourself. Don't be punk and swallow a load of patriotic bunk. Our system is faux, yo. It's an ideological flimflam, ma'am. A big lie, guy. This is why I maintain that democracy is something that we still need to invent, a social form of life that we still need to grow into.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 3:04:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hmm, is it the case that with the exception of darkkermit and HououinKyouma no one out there objects to my views on the faux nature of our democratic system of government?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 3:36:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 3:04:24 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, is it the case that with the exception of darkkermit and HououinKyouma no one out there objects to my views on the faux nature of our democratic system of government?

I don't think many of the site's liberals read this section. I'm personally against democracy , entirely. Giving the populace the right to decide over things they don't understand is a recipe for disaster.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 3:46:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 5:30:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
A Brief Reply to Those Who Deny That Our Democracy Is a Sham



A DDO member called HououinKyouma wrote: "You said, in your previous posts, that corporations had rigged the electoral system (no evidence of that), ..."



To HououinKyouma and all those who are in any degree of denial about the possibility that our democracy is a fraud and that under our system the billionaire class has the ability to exercise too much influence and power I say have you ever heard of the Citizens United ruling? I say what alternate ideological dimension do you reside in, I say that if the Citizens United decision isn't enough of a smoking gun to get through to you in your ideological dimension that perhaps you need psychoanalysis, and I say all of the following:

Assume I am a business owner:
Why does the structure of my company matter if I give money to a cause that I believe in (or is good for business)?

Further, how does one buy elections, exactly?
They can't force someone to vote for them, and money doesn't literally buy votes. Further, politicians who cave to these dollars should be outed, but Americans, dare I say democracy, is too gutless to do so. Why? Because a red state can't possibly let the blue guys win an election....

Party politics is more to blame than Citizens United.
My work here is, finally, done.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 5:10:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 3:36:56 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 10/3/2014 3:04:24 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, is it the case that with the exception of darkkermit and HououinKyouma no one out there objects to my views on the faux nature of our democratic system of government?

I don't think many of the site's liberals read this section. I'm personally against democracy , entirely. Giving the populace the right to decide over things they don't understand is a recipe for disaster.

What would you prefer, aristocracy and plutocracy in the guise of meritocracy? I.e., a form of society ruled by its business elite, such as capitalism? Oy vey!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 5:31:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 3:46:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/2/2014 5:30:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
A Brief Reply to Those Who Deny That Our Democracy Is a Sham



A DDO member called HououinKyouma wrote: "You said, in your previous posts, that corporations had rigged the electoral system (no evidence of that), ..."



To HououinKyouma and all those who are in any degree of denial about the possibility that our democracy is a fraud and that under our system the billionaire class has the ability to exercise too much influence and power I say have you ever heard of the Citizens United ruling? I say what alternate ideological dimension do you reside in, I say that if the Citizens United decision isn't enough of a smoking gun to get through to you in your ideological dimension that perhaps you need psychoanalysis, and I say all of the following:

Assume I am a business owner:
Why does the structure of my company matter if I give money to a cause that I believe in (or is good for business)?

Disproportionately economically empowered individuals and corporate players who exercise influence disproportionately to benefit themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens (to the extent that ordinary citizens are effectively disenfranchised) is somewhat manifestly wrong, and I don't know if I can simplify this for you any further.


Further, how does one buy elections, exactly?

Perhaps you should ask a Washington lobbyist, or the Koch brothers?

They can't force someone to vote for them, and money doesn't literally buy votes.

It sure orients the politicians who like receiving corporate donations and jobs when they return to the private sector toward the special interests of the superrich.

Further, politicians who cave to these dollars should be outed, but Americans, dare I say democracy, is too gutless to do so.

Hmm, blame the victims not the economic system that creates excessively-empowered capitalists & capitals who use their money power to subvert the democratic process.?

Why? Because a red state can't possibly let the blue guys win an election....

Party politics is more to blame than Citizens United.

And underlying, lurking behind, largely determining the nature of party politics is an economic elite whose different factions are engaged in vying for influence and predominance, and corruptively working the two party system to gain it.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 5:33:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why? Because a red state can't possibly let the blue guys win an election....

This comment is from the mind of KhaosMage.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 5:56:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 5:31:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/3/2014 3:46:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/2/2014 5:30:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
A Brief Reply to Those Who Deny That Our Democracy Is a Sham



A DDO member called HououinKyouma wrote: "You said, in your previous posts, that corporations had rigged the electoral system (no evidence of that), ..."



To HououinKyouma and all those who are in any degree of denial about the possibility that our democracy is a fraud and that under our system the billionaire class has the ability to exercise too much influence and power I say have you ever heard of the Citizens United ruling? I say what alternate ideological dimension do you reside in, I say that if the Citizens United decision isn't enough of a smoking gun to get through to you in your ideological dimension that perhaps you need psychoanalysis, and I say all of the following:

Assume I am a business owner:
Why does the structure of my company matter if I give money to a cause that I believe in (or is good for business)?

Disproportionately economically empowered individuals and corporate players who exercise influence disproportionately to benefit themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens (to the extent that ordinary citizens are effectively disenfranchised) is somewhat manifestly wrong, and I don't know if I can simplify this for you any further.

You didn't answer my question.
Tell me why I, as a sole proprietorship, can donate money as I see fit, but not as an LLC or S-Corporation.
While we're at it, explain what is wrong with a corporation giving its opinion on a subject. How is that any different than advertising or other expenditure that is designed to help them?


Further, how does one buy elections, exactly?


Perhaps you should ask a Washington lobbyist, or the Koch brothers?
For someone with a mastery of the English language it is a pity you can't answer such a simple question.
I said elections, not politicians.


They can't force someone to vote for them, and money doesn't literally buy votes.

It sure orients the politicians who like receiving corporate donations and jobs when they return to the private sector toward the special interests of the superrich.
Again, if the plebians don't vote for that candidate, it doesn't matter much, does it? So, why do the "bad" politicians win?


Further, politicians who cave to these dollars should be outed, but Americans, dare I say democracy, is too gutless to do so.

Hmm, blame the victims not the economic system that creates excessively-empowered capitalists & capitals who use their money power to subvert the democratic process.?

Victims? They are the cause.
Hey, Senator X is a Koch hack, let's vote him out of office.
What's that? You don't want to? Oh, okay then.

Who should I blame, if not the voters?


Why? Because a red state can't possibly let the blue guys win an election....

Party politics is more to blame than Citizens United.

And underlying, lurking behind, largely determining the nature of party politics is an economic elite whose different factions are engaged in vying for influence and predominance, and corruptively working the two party system to gain it.

And whose fault is it that these two parties have so much power?
Dare I say.....the voters.
My work here is, finally, done.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 8:38:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 3:27:11 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/2/2014 6:53:09 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
I really don't feel like replying to this, but since it was addressed to me specifically, I guess I have to respond.

I don't know what is worse here the selective and one-sided view of the history of the US, in which the elite dominates everything and gives one a sense that the US was a totalitarian state on the footing of the USSR, as if there had been no change, no positive change, in American society since its foundation; or the naive (and vague) idealism that is offered to us as a solution to all the problems cited in this piece.

Some of us are of the view that the dark side of American history merits a bit of critical attention.


I am of that opinion, I just think that your "critical attention" is too one sided. It is not "critical" to present a history of the US the way you do, giving attention only to the negative aspects of it.

One would think from reading this attempt at a critique from someone who would like to appear to be very revolutionary and leftist and yet who fails to deliver present anything remotely dialectical in their "reasoning,"

So, I'm damned if I do, and damned as well if I don't. If I conformed more to your stereotype of a Marxist you'd no doubt dismiss me as a cliche, but since I don't quite fit the cliche mold you disparage me as a "pseudoMarxist". Oh well.

Since the essence of marxism is dialectics, I would not mind if you were more of a marxist, not a stereotypical one of course. The problem is a lack of dialectics.

that every rich person in the US (and the world) is inherently evil, that somehow, the moment someone becomes a millionaire, or rather, a billionaire she becomes a monster. But this is the sort of demagogy and hyperbole that one should expect from the dear comrade "charleslb."

Perhaps you're projecting your own mentality's penchant for simplistic demonization.


This coming from the man who "demonized" me for supporting globalization and the US as a world power, and who demonized the Founding Fathers (I am not too fond of them, either, by the way) and rich people in general. But of course attacking a straw man is the best that you do. I haven't "demonized" you at all, I don't know where you are getting that from. I merely pointed out that you were being as demagogic as you were in our previous exchange of views.

One would also be under the impression that the Koch brothers were ruling the US, though as everyone should know, they lost the 2012 election, they lost the fight against the ACA, and they lost the fight against the tax hikes, but never mind, the comrade's version of things is much more exciting.

So you would deny that their $70 billion dollars make them a force to be noticed in American politics, and yet you fancy yourself to be more of a realist than a silly pseudoMarxist like moi!


If you had limited yourself to saying that it was a scandal that so much money could be given to a political candidate, I would have agreed. The problem is that you went further and said that the whole process is rigged and ruled by money, which is an exaggeration.

I also fail to see how working in regulated conditions for a limited number of hours is "oppressive," but then again I am not a deluded pseudo-marxist.

Well, there are alas millions of workingpeople who've experienced the dictatorship of the workplace who could enlighten you.

I know very well that the conditions of the working class in the US are not the best, and they are not as good as they are in, say, Germany, or Sweden; but it would be an exaggeration to say that they are "oppressive," I reserve that term for the living conditions of people in the USSR and China.

The author also ignores the fact that most of the wealth in the US is earned,...

The MO of the superrich and vulture capitalist doesn't really involve "earning" his/her riches.

Then you claim that you are being "demonized"? When you are portraying a large number of people as evil? Again, most millionaires and billionaires did not get their wealth through the stock market.

The reduction of the very complex system of the capitalist mode of production to a

The complexity of the capitalist system doesn't mitigate the inherence of certain destructive dynamics and social evils in it.


I didn't say that, but never mind, you will resort to putting words in my mouth if you have to, I knew it was inevitable.


The problems of the US can be solved through the same means that they were solved in Europe, the implementation of more regulation and other social democratic policies.

These are palliative measures, not solutions.

They are the best we've got, I am sorry if they disappoint you, dear comrade.

A disparity of wealth is inevitable but can be reduced,

Under capitalism, that is.


Under every political system.

there is no need to fall into despair, like our dear comrade.

In point of fact I'm a quite sanguine individual.

Your OP suggested otherwise, that's not my fault.

Electing judges and cabinet members will not solve a single problem, by the way.

It would make for a more democratic political system, which would be a part of the solution.


It would remain as politicized, and as corrupt.

But of course, the dear comrade will only be satisfied until we are all living in Marxland,

Well, if one's views are Marxist it rather stands to reason that one would think a Marxist form of society preferable. But I suppose that you thought that this was a clever derisive comment (yes, the term "Marxland" is quite clever indeed).

If you think that I am wasting my time trying to be clever in my responses, you are wrong. If one is still an old-style Marxist who believes in the victory of the proletariat, and that such a victory will usher in an age of unprecedented freedom, it "stands to reason" that one has forfeited one's claim to rationality. The revolution failed, get over it, Marx' critique of the capitalist system was great, but his prescriptions for a solution were all wrong, one would have thought that the history of the USSR and Maoist China was sufficient to prove that.

and thinks that anyone who does not agree with him, I being one such person, must be a conservative, (I am a social democrat).

No, I'm well aware that liberalism is simply the soft version of the dominant ideology of capitalist society; i.e., just another ideologic reality system seeking to legitimize and to conceal the economically, socially, and spiritually pathologic realities of capitalism, and advocating reforms designed to perpetuate the capitalist status quo. The only reason that I usually focus more critical attention on conservatives is that they're more bumptiously pro-capitalist.

Well, the point still stands, you think that I am a supporter of neo-liberalism, and you don't think that there is much of a difference between me and the conservatives. You believe that the only people who are in the right, or can possibly be correct, are yourself and those who hold to the same ideas. You should abandon this sort of narrow thinking.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 12:59:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 5:56:03 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/3/2014 5:31:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/3/2014 3:46:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/2/2014 5:30:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
A Brief Reply to Those Who Deny That Our Democracy Is a Sham



A DDO member called HououinKyouma wrote: "You said, in your previous posts, that corporations had rigged the electoral system (no evidence of that), ..."



To HououinKyouma and all those who are in any degree of denial about the possibility that our democracy is a fraud and that under our system the billionaire class has the ability to exercise too much influence and power I say have you ever heard of the Citizens United ruling? I say what alternate ideological dimension do you reside in, I say that if the Citizens United decision isn't enough of a smoking gun to get through to you in your ideological dimension that perhaps you need psychoanalysis, and I say all of the following:

Assume I am a business owner:
Why does the structure of my company matter if I give money to a cause that I believe in (or is good for business)?

Disproportionately economically empowered individuals and corporate players who exercise influence disproportionately to benefit themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens (to the extent that ordinary citizens are effectively disenfranchised) is somewhat manifestly wrong, and I don't know if I can simplify this for you any further.

You didn't answer my question.
Tell me why I, as a sole proprietorship, can donate money as I see fit, but not as an LLC or S-Corporation.
While we're at it, explain what is wrong with a corporation giving its opinion on a subject. How is that any different than advertising or other expenditure that is designed to help them?

The disproportionate money power of megacorporations is capable of subverting the democratic process, and some of us who genuinely fancy the idea of living in a democracy simply aren't at all okay with that.


Further, how does one buy elections, exactly?


Perhaps you should ask a Washington lobbyist, or the Koch brothers?
For someone with a mastery of the English language it is a pity you can't answer such a simple question.
I said elections, not politicians.

Well, this merely merits a "Well duh!" answer. Big money interests buy an election by using their big money to finance "mainstream" candidates to the point that the majority of the time alternative candidates can't compete, thus explaining the lack of diversity on the political scene that quite refutes the claim of this country to be a bona fide democracy. And apparently I also need to explicitly point out that of course buying and co-opting the two establishment parties that comprise our corrupt and not at all authentically democratic two party system is also involved.


They can't force someone to vote for them, and money doesn't literally buy votes.

It sure orients the politicians who like receiving corporate donations and jobs when they return to the private sector toward the special interests of the superrich.
Again, if the plebians don't vote for that candidate, it doesn't matter much, does it? So, why do the "bad" politicians win?


Further, politicians who cave to these dollars should be outed, but Americans, dare I say democracy, is too gutless to do so.

Hmm, blame the victims not the economic system that creates excessively-empowered capitalists & capitals who use their money power to subvert the democratic process.?

Victims? They are the cause.
Hey, Senator X is a Koch hack, let's vote him out of office.
What's that? You don't want to? Oh, okay then.

Oh, and it's really as simple as that is it?

Who should I blame, if not the voters?


Why? Because a red state can't possibly let the blue guys win an election....

Party politics is more to blame than Citizens United.

And underlying, lurking behind, largely determining the nature of party politics is an economic elite whose different factions are engaged in vying for influence and predominance, and corruptively working the two party system to gain it.

And whose fault is it that these two parties have so much power?
Dare I say.....the voters.

Dare I say the economic elite that has co-opted both establishment parties and trapped us in a two-party system that's quite a travesty of genuine democracy.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 1:56:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 8:38:59 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/3/2014 3:27:11 AM, charleslb wrote:

Some of us are of the view that the dark side of American history merits a bit of critical attention.


I am of that opinion, I just think that your "critical attention" is too one sided. It is not "critical" to present a history of the US the way you do, giving attention only to the negative aspects of it.

I choose to not be culpably complicit in the mythologization of American history, in the perpetuation of the American public's denial about the various and sundry sins that alas American history is so chockfull of and characterized by.

One would think from reading this attempt at a critique from someone who would like to appear to be very revolutionary and leftist and yet who fails to deliver present anything remotely dialectical in their "reasoning,"

So, I'm damned if I do, and damned as well if I don't. If I conformed more to your stereotype of a Marxist you'd no doubt dismiss me as a cliche, but since I don't quite fit the cliche mold you disparage me as a "pseudoMarxist". Oh well.

Since the essence of marxism is dialectics, I would not mind if you were more of a marxist, not a stereotypical one of course. The problem is a lack of dialectics.

Again, you have a very cliched idea of what a student of Marxism or a communist should sound like. One can appreciate the value of Marx's dialectical and economic interpretation of history without being a "vulgar Marxist" who subscribes to and spouts dialectical arguments in support of inevitableism, and without attributing every aspect of our humanity and history to our mode of production and the dialectical process of its evolution. But you would much prefer it if I were such a "vulgar Marxist", as that would make it easier to pigeonhole me. But some of us, in the communist camp, prefer to make the humanism, existentialism, and ethics of communism our talking points. In any event, if I were a classic dialectician it certainly wouldn't win you over.

Perhaps you're projecting your own mentality's penchant for simplistic demonization.


This coming from the man who "demonized" me for supporting globalization and the US as a world power, and who demonized the Founding Fathers (I am not too fond of them, either, by the way) and rich people in general...

There's a distinction with a difference between criticism and demonization.

One would also be under the impression that the Koch brothers were ruling the US, though as everyone should know, they lost the 2012 election, they lost the fight against the ACA, and they lost the fight against the tax hikes, but never mind, the comrade's version of things is much more exciting.

So you would deny that their $70 billion dollars make them a force to be noticed in American politics, and yet you fancy yourself to be more of a realist than a silly pseudoMarxist like moi!


If you had limited yourself to saying that it was a scandal that so much money could be given to a political candidate, I would have agreed. The problem is that you went further and said that the whole process is rigged and ruled by money, which is an exaggeration.

Unfortunately for us all it's not.

I also fail to see how working in regulated conditions for a limited number of hours is "oppressive," but then again I am not a deluded pseudo-marxist.

Well, there are alas millions of workingpeople who've experienced the dictatorship of the workplace who could enlighten you.

I know very well that the conditions of the working class in the US are not the best, and they are not as good as they are in, say, Germany, or Sweden; but it would be an exaggeration to say that they are "oppressive," I reserve that term for the living conditions of people in the USSR and China.

Blatantly confirming your bias.

The author also ignores the fact that most of the wealth in the US is earned,...

The MO of the superrich and vulture capitalist doesn't really involve "earning" his/her riches.

Then you claim that you are being "demonized"? When you are portraying a large number of people as evil? Again, most millionaires and billionaires did not get their wealth through the stock market.

Stating relevant damning facts =/= demonization.

The reduction of the very complex system of the capitalist mode of production to a

The complexity of the capitalist system doesn't mitigate the inherence of certain destructive dynamics and social evils in it.


I didn't say that, but never mind, you will resort to putting words in my mouth if you have to, I knew it was inevitable.

Translation: "I don't much like it when someone clarifies how lame one of my views is."


The problems of the US can be solved through the same means that they were solved in Europe, the implementation of more regulation and other social democratic policies.

These are palliative measures, not solutions.

They are the best we've got, I am sorry if they disappoint you, dear comrade.

In your limited conventional worldview.

A disparity of wealth is inevitable but can be reduced,

Under capitalism, that is.


Under every political system.

The kind of disparity of wealth, i.e. gross and cruel income inequality that we're all too familiar with under capitalism would quite arguably be abolished by authentic socialism.

there is no need to fall into despair, like our dear comrade.

In point of fact I'm a quite sanguine individual.

Your OP suggested otherwise, that's not my fault.

Actually, you are responsible for your erroneous subjective interpretations of where I'm coming from.

Electing judges and cabinet members will not solve a single problem, by the way.

It would make for a more democratic political system, which would be a part of the solution.


It would remain as politicized, and as corrupt.

Au contraire, the more authentic democracy, and the less capitalism, the less corruption and bias in favor of moneyed special interests.

But of course, the dear comrade will only be satisfied until we are all living in Marxland,

Well, if one's views are Marxist it rather stands to reason that one would think a Marxist form of society preferable. But I suppose that you thought that this was a clever derisive comment (yes, the term "Marxland" is quite clever indeed).

If you think that I am wasting my time trying to be clever in my responses, you are wrong. If one is still an old-style Marxist who believes in the victory of the proletariat, and that such a victory will usher in an age of unprecedented freedom, it "stands to reason" that one has forfeited one's claim to rationality. The revolution failed, get over it, Marx' critique of the capitalist system was great, but his prescriptions for a solution were all wrong, one would have thought that the history of the USSR and Maoist China was sufficient to prove that.

Again, your stereotype of the anachronistic "vulgar Marxist" who hasn't gotten the memo that the Soviet system was dreadful is not one that can be used in an intellectually honest fashion against me or most contemporary advocates of a communist form of life.


Well, the point still stands, you think that I am a supporter of neo-liberalism, and you don't think that there is much of a difference between me and the conservatives. You believe that the only people who are in the right, or can possibly be correct, are yourself and those who hold to the same ideas. You should abandon this sort of narrow thinking.

Thank you for your criticism and concern, but I assure you that both are unfounded.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 4:10:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 12:59:53 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/3/2014 5:56:03 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

You didn't answer my question.
Tell me why I, as a sole proprietorship, can donate money as I see fit, but not as an LLC or S-Corporation.
While we're at it, explain what is wrong with a corporation giving its opinion on a subject. How is that any different than advertising or other expenditure that is designed to help them?

The disproportionate money power of megacorporations is capable of subverting the democratic process, and some of us who genuinely fancy the idea of living in a democracy simply aren't at all okay with that.
This is still not an answer to my question. You site Citizens United as bad, and I want to know why. This doesn't deal with megacorporations or buying politicians, it deals with the ability for businesses to sway public opinion.

So, how is the democratic process subverted by companies that can only buy politicians (not elections), nor cast votes. What is the difference between one business and another?


Further, how does one buy elections, exactly?


Perhaps you should ask a Washington lobbyist, or the Koch brothers?
For someone with a mastery of the English language it is a pity you can't answer such a simple question.
I said elections, not politicians.

Well, this merely merits a "Well duh!" answer. Big money interests buy an election by using their big money to finance "mainstream" candidates to the point that the majority of the time alternative candidates can't compete, thus explaining the lack of diversity on the political scene that quite refutes the claim of this country to be a bona fide democracy. And apparently I also need to explicitly point out that of course buying and co-opting the two establishment parties that comprise our corrupt and not at all authentically democratic two party system is also involved.

Then explain the tea party's interference of the Republicans. For better or worse, they caused an upset.
Caucauses and primary challenges need to occur and be utilized if change is going to occur. "Democracy" got us into this mess, and it still can get us out, if people put in the effort.


They can't force someone to vote for them, and money doesn't literally buy votes.

It sure orients the politicians who like receiving corporate donations and jobs when they return to the private sector toward the special interests of the superrich.
Again, if the plebians don't vote for that candidate, it doesn't matter much, does it? So, why do the "bad" politicians win?


Further, politicians who cave to these dollars should be outed, but Americans, dare I say democracy, is too gutless to do so.

Hmm, blame the victims not the economic system that creates excessively-empowered capitalists & capitals who use their money power to subvert the democratic process.?

Victims? They are the cause.
Hey, Senator X is a Koch hack, let's vote him out of office.
What's that? You don't want to? Oh, okay then.

Oh, and it's really as simple as that is it?
It can be.
It's hard to amass political power if you are only one-term.

Who should I blame, if not the voters?


Why? Because a red state can't possibly let the blue guys win an election....

Party politics is more to blame than Citizens United.

And underlying, lurking behind, largely determining the nature of party politics is an economic elite whose different factions are engaged in vying for influence and predominance, and corruptively working the two party system to gain it.

And whose fault is it that these two parties have so much power?
Dare I say.....the voters.

Dare I say the economic elite that has co-opted both establishment parties and trapped us in a two-party system that's quite a travesty of genuine democracy.

We don't have democracy, we never did. We are a democratic republic.
This democratic republic has also created a federal government so strong, that businesses (and other special interests) have their hand in it.
Does big money factor into mayoral elections? Not really, because the power isn't there.
But, again, what got us to this point? Democracy as we knew it. So, yes, I blame voters.
Is Dr. Frankenstein the victim of the damage he suffered at the hand of his creation? Yes, but he is also the cause, and being the cause trumps being the victim. Same goes with voters and their creation of our current affair.
My work here is, finally, done.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 12:40:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 3:04:24 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, is it the case that with the exception of darkkermit and HououinKyouma no one out there objects to my views on the faux nature of our democratic system of government?

I didn't object to it, I think its a good thing. My concern does seem to be that corporate control can actually lead to anti-market policies, since corporations want to limit competition. However, in Hong Kong corporations are actually given the ability to vote, and it works for them (very low regulatory environment)
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 5:04:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 4:10:26 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/4/2014 12:59:53 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/3/2014 5:56:03 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

You didn't answer my question.
Tell me why I, as a sole proprietorship, can donate money as I see fit, but not as an LLC or S-Corporation.
While we're at it, explain what is wrong with a corporation giving its opinion on a subject. How is that any different than advertising or other expenditure that is designed to help them?

The disproportionate money power of megacorporations is capable of subverting the democratic process, and some of us who genuinely fancy the idea of living in a democracy simply aren't at all okay with that.
This is still not an answer to my question. You site Citizens United as bad, and I want to know why. This doesn't deal with megacorporations or buying politicians, it deals with the ability for businesses to sway public opinion.

So, how is the democratic process subverted by companies that can only buy politicians (not elections), nor cast votes. What is the difference between one business and another?

Not to be personally insulting, but I simply must point out that this is willfully and monumentally obtuse. You really can't grasp that money can be used to influence the outcome of elections, to such an extent that one can speak of the economic elite "buying elections"?! Hmm.


Further, how does one buy elections, exactly?


Perhaps you should ask a Washington lobbyist, or the Koch brothers?
For someone with a mastery of the English language it is a pity you can't answer such a simple question.
I said elections, not politicians.

Well, this merely merits a "Well duh!" answer. Big money interests buy an election by using their big money to finance "mainstream" candidates to the point that the majority of the time alternative candidates can't compete, thus explaining the lack of diversity on the political scene that quite refutes the claim of this country to be a bona fide democracy. And apparently I also need to explicitly point out that of course buying and co-opting the two establishment parties that comprise our corrupt and not at all authentically democratic two party system is also involved.

Then explain the tea party's interference of the Republicans. For better or worse, they caused an upset.
Caucauses and primary challenges need to occur and be utilized if change is going to occur. "Democracy" got us into this mess, and it still can get us out, if people put in the effort.

Tea Partiers are pro-capitalist, pro-business ideologues, their rise hardly refutes my claim that our system is oriented toward protecting and serving and advancing the interests and supremacy of the ruling capitalist class.


They can't force someone to vote for them, and money doesn't literally buy votes.

It sure orients the politicians who like receiving corporate donations and jobs when they return to the private sector toward the special interests of the superrich.
Again, if the plebians don't vote for that candidate, it doesn't matter much, does it? So, why do the "bad" politicians win?

Our society is fundamentally programmed to subtly condition and interpellate us into sheepish subjects who can be fairly easily managed and who seldom present any threat to the capitalist status quo; and yet you prefer to focus criticism on the victims of this conditioning and not on the system doing the conditioning! Well, in my view we need to begin thinking more in terms of the system and holding it up to richly deserved blame and scorn, rather than holding specific individuals or the public accountable.



Further, politicians who cave to these dollars should be outed, but Americans, dare I say democracy, is too gutless to do so.

Hmm, blame the victims not the economic system that creates excessively-empowered capitalists & capitals who use their money power to subvert the democratic process.?

Victims? They are the cause.
Hey, Senator X is a Koch hack, let's vote him out of office.
What's that? You don't want to? Oh, okay then.

Oh, and it's really as simple as that is it?
It can be.
It's hard to amass political power if you are only one-term.

So, lay all responsibility for the malfunctioning of the democratic process at the doorstep of the people and the politicians; completely ignore the influences operating to suborn political officeholders to serve special interests, and to condition the voting public to be the pawns of the system and of the moneyed powers that be; and hope that term limits alone will do the job of transforming our system into an authentic democracy. Not too brilliant, friend.

Who should I blame, if not the voters?


Why? Because a red state can't possibly let the blue guys win an election....

Party politics is more to blame than Citizens United.

And underlying, lurking behind, largely determining the nature of party politics is an economic elite whose different factions are engaged in vying for influence and predominance, and corruptively working the two party system to gain it.

And whose fault is it that these two parties have so much power?
Dare I say.....the voters.

Dare I say the economic elite that has co-opted both establishment parties and trapped us in a two-party system that's quite a travesty of genuine democracy.

We don't have democracy, we never did. We are a democratic republic.

No, we're a bourgeois republic. A republic whose political system amounts to a plutocratic polyarchy, in which real power is divvied up among competing elements of the economic elite, who use their money power to influence the electorate to choose their frontmen in elections that additionally function as an opiate of the people, lulling us into the false consciousness that our system is an actual democracy, lest our disgruntlement ever reach the point that we rise up and abolish the capitalist status quo.

Yes, conservatives and nonbelievers in democracy make quite a lot of the fact that our system is supposed to be a republic, as opposed to a democracy; but what they aren't up-front about is that they're such pro-capitalist ideologues that they're quite okay with our society being a plutocratic republic; a government, to quote Sinclair Lewis, of the profits, by the profits, and for the profits.

This democratic republic has also created a federal government so strong, that businesses (and other special interests) have their hand in it.
Does big money factor into mayoral elections? Not really, because the power isn't there.
But, again, what got us to this point? Democracy as we knew it. So, yes, I blame voters.
Is Dr. Frankenstein the victim of the damage he suffered at the hand of his creation? Yes, but he is also the cause, and being the cause trumps being the victim. Same goes with voters and their creation of our current affair.

Listen to him rationalize going easy on the system and the economic elite and blaming the victims again!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 5:27:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, let me quite explicitly point out that "libertarian" types and conservatives like my dear frienemy Khaos_Mage are pro-capitalist ideologues whose ideal system would be one in which capitalists are totally unfettered, in which they have utter license to operate in the egoistic fashion of capitalists. Pro-capitalists don't at all fancy a system in which capitalists & capitals can be fettered and made to respect the interests and rights of workers and consumers, i.e. ordinary people, by a democratic form of government that represents ordinary people. Yes, the pro-capitalist vicariously identifies so strongly with the superrich that s/he would prefer a system oriented to protect and promote the interests of a small elite of superrich individuals and corporations at the expense of the common people and their unalienable right to enjoy the dignity of democratically self-governing human beings. One should always realize that this is where the "libertarian" or conservative is actually coming from when s/he emphasizes that our system is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. Yes, folks, always keep this in mind.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 6:03:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 5:04:11 PM, charleslb wrote:

Not to be personally insulting, but I simply must point out that this is willfully and monumentally obtuse. You really can't grasp that money can be used to influence the outcome of elections, to such an extent that one can speak of the economic elite "buying elections"?! Hmm.

Not to be insulting, but you are a condescending blowhard who has yet to answer a simple question. But, then again, people like you, rarely do in my experience.
And, if you don't like my attack on generalization, I'll point to your post above.

I grasp fully that money can be used to influence voters, which is why I blame voters.
Just like I blame politicians for being bought, as well.
You, on the other hand, appear to blame those who influence, while refusing to explain why some entities should influence others and some entities should not.

This is where I stopped reading, and where I stop replying.
My work here is, finally, done.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 6:05:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, the pro-capitalist ideologue really doesn't appreciate how dreadful a dictatorship of the plutotariat would be.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 6:19:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 6:03:59 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/4/2014 5:04:11 PM, charleslb wrote:

Not to be personally insulting, but I simply must point out that this is willfully and monumentally obtuse. You really can't grasp that money can be used to influence the outcome of elections, to such an extent that one can speak of the economic elite "buying elections"?! Hmm.

Not to be insulting, but you are a condescending blowhard who has yet to answer a simple question. But, then again, people like you, rarely do in my experience.
And, if you don't like my attack on generalization, I'll point to your post above.

I grasp fully that money can be used to influence voters, which is why I blame voters.
Just like I blame politicians for being bought, as well.
You, on the other hand, appear to blame those who influence, while refusing to explain why some entities should influence others and some entities should not.

This is where I stopped reading, and where I stop replying.

Friend Khaos_Mage really can't understand why it's a rather bad idea to allow moneyed special interests to use their disproportionate economic power to disproportionately influence politics. He can't even admit the extent to which moneyed special interests do in fact influence and distort American politics. Instead he staunchly insists on blaming the common man (and woman) for the current appalling state of American politics. Such is his vicarious identification with the economic elite and his self-indoctrination with "libertarian" and free-marketarian ideology. In other words, although there's probably nothing wrong with his brain his bias and ideology are making him a bit of a dumb-dumb.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 6:32:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 1:56:51 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/3/2014 8:38:59 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/3/2014 3:27:11 AM, charleslb wrote:

I am of that opinion, I just think that your "critical attention" is too one sided. It is not "critical" to present a history of the US the way you do, giving attention only to the negative aspects of it.

I choose to not be culpably complicit in the mythologization of American history, in the perpetuation of the American public's denial about the various and sundry sins that alas American history is so chockfull of and characterized by.

No one here is talking about making a hagiography out of the history of the US, or denying the "various and sundry sins that alas American history is so chockfull," that is not what I said, but never mind, you'll distort my words any way it suits you.


Since the essence of marxism is dialectics, I would not mind if you were more of a marxist, not a stereotypical one of course. The problem is a lack of dialectics.

Again, you have a very cliched idea of what a student of Marxism or a communist should sound like. One can appreciate the value of Marx's dialectical and economic interpretation of history without being a "vulgar Marxist" who subscribes to and spouts dialectical arguments in support of inevitableism, and without attributing every aspect of our humanity and history to our mode of production and the dialectical process of its evolution. But you would much prefer it if I were such a "vulgar Marxist", as that would make it easier to pigeonhole me. But some of us, in the communist camp, prefer to make the humanism, existentialism, and ethics of communism our talking points. In any event, if I were a classic dialectician it certainly wouldn't win you over.


Your humanist and existentialist critique leads you to exaggerations, unfortunately. And no I didn't say that you had to make the same arguments as Marx, only to engage in dialectical argumentation, which would be more fruitful. While we are at it, you might not be a "vulgar Marxist" (your words, not mine), yet you still arrive at the same conclusion as the old comrades, even if you prefer you humanist existentialist nonsense to dialectics, that is, that the only solution is a worker's revolution.

Perhaps you're projecting your own mentality's penchant for simplistic demonization.


This coming from the man who "demonized" me for supporting globalization and the US as a world power, and who demonized the Founding Fathers (I am not too fond of them, either, by the way) and rich people in general...

There's a distinction with a difference between criticism and demonization.

Since you are aware of the distinction, then could you please explain why you fail to make the distinction in my case? When you call me an insensitive supporter, who doesn't care about the poor, of totalitarian exploitation (your definition of globalization in our previous exchange) you claim you are only criticizing me, but when I say that you are exaggerating everything you claim to have been demonized by me.


If you had limited yourself to saying that it was a scandal that so much money could be given to a political candidate, I would have agreed. The problem is that you went further and said that the whole process is rigged and ruled by money, which is an exaggeration.

Unfortunately for us all it's not.


I am aware of that, some people like to believe that the elections have been rigged, there is nothing that I can say that will disabuse them of this notion.


I know very well that the conditions of the working class in the US are not the best, and they are not as good as they are in, say, Germany, or Sweden; but it would be an exaggeration to say that they are "oppressive," I reserve that term for the living conditions of people in the USSR and China.

Blatantly confirming your bias.

I would rather say that I prefer not to lump different systems and modes of production together, I don't see what is the bias in that.

The author also ignores the fact that most of the wealth in the US is earned,...

The MO of the superrich and vulture capitalist doesn't really involve "earning" his/her riches.

Then you claim that you are being "demonized"? When you are portraying a large number of people as evil? Again, most millionaires and billionaires did not get their wealth through the stock market.

Stating relevant damning facts =/= demonization.

Referring to investment bankers as "vulture capitalists" is demonization, it is not a fact that they are vultures.

The reduction of the very complex system of the capitalist mode of production to a

The complexity of the capitalist system doesn't mitigate the inherence of certain destructive dynamics and social evils in it.


I didn't say that, but never mind, you will resort to putting words in my mouth if you have to, I knew it was inevitable.

Translation: "I don't much like it when someone clarifies how lame one of my views is."

You latched unto one sentence, of a pretty long paragraph, to say exactly the same thing that I went on to say, "that capitalism has problems," and ignored the main point. If my views are lame I don't care.

They are the best we've got, I am sorry if they disappoint you, dear comrade.

In your limited conventional worldview.

I guess anything except sartrian existentialist marxism is limited and conventional to you.



The kind of disparity of wealth, i.e. gross and cruel income inequality that we're all too familiar with under capitalism would quite arguably be abolished by authentic socialism.

Authentic socialism is a utopic dream, it's never going to happen, it can't.

Actually, you are responsible for your erroneous subjective interpretations of where I'm coming from.

You wildly exaggerate the problems of the US and claim that nothing short of a communist revolution is the solution, and then expect me not to think that you have fallen into despair. Communism is an expression of despair.

Electing judges and cabinet members will not solve a single problem, by the way.

It would make for a more democratic political system, which would be a part of the solution.


It would remain as politicized, and as corrupt.

Au contraire, the more authentic democracy, and the less capitalism, the less corruption and bias in favor of moneyed special interests.


Red states would have republican judges, mostly, blue states would have democrat judges, in a socialist society every judge would a socialist who would pander to the masses, that is a form of corruption. The problem would remain.

Again, your stereotype of the anachronistic "vulgar Marxist" who hasn't gotten the memo that the Soviet system was dreadful is not one that can be used in an intellectually honest fashion against me or most contemporary advocates of a communist form of life.


Contemporary communists seem to be ignorant of the fact that what happened in the USSR is what would inevitably happen if anyone tried to create a communist society. Communism asks too much of people, that is it's first problem, but the advocates of communism refuse to accept that.


Well, the point still stands, you think that I am a supporter of neo-liberalism, and you don't think that there is much of a difference between me and the conservatives. You believe that the only people who are in the right, or can possibly be correct, are yourself and those who hold to the same ideas. You should abandon this sort of narrow thinking.

Thank you for your criticism and concern, but I assure you that both are unfounded.

It sure doesn't seem that way.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 7:21:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 5:27:03 PM, charleslb wrote:
Yes, let me quite explicitly point out that "libertarian" types and conservatives like my dear frienemy Khaos_Mage are pro-capitalist ideologues whose ideal system would be one in which capitalists are totally unfettered, in which they have utter license to operate in the egoistic fashion of capitalists. Pro-capitalists don't at all fancy a system in which capitalists & capitals can be fettered and made to respect the interests and rights of workers and consumers, i.e. ordinary people, by a democratic form of government that represents ordinary people. Yes, the pro-capitalist vicariously identifies so strongly with the superrich that s/he would prefer a system oriented to protect and promote the interests of a small elite of superrich individuals and corporations at the expense of the common people and their unalienable right to enjoy the dignity of democratically self-governing human beings. One should always realize that this is where the "libertarian" or conservative is actually coming from when s/he emphasizes that our system is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. Yes, folks, always keep this in mind.


On this I can agree with you, I have always felt that the "libertarian" movement wants freedom for corporations only, and everyone else be damned, though there are issues on which I agree with them.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 2:37:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 1:56:51 AM, charleslb wrote:

At 10/3/2014 8:38:59 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:

At 10/3/2014 3:27:11 AM, charleslb wrote:

I choose to not be culpably complicit in the mythologization of American history, in the perpetuation of the American public's denial about the various and sundry sins that alas American history is so chockfull of and characterized by.

No one here is talking about making a hagiography out of the history of the US, or denying the "various and sundry sins that alas American history is so chockfull," that is not what I said, but never mind, you'll distort my words any way it suits you.

One can have an excessively positive take on American history, and subscribe to the mythologized version of it without going to the extreme of "hagiography", as you put it.

Your humanist and existentialist critique leads you to exaggerations, unfortunately. And no I didn't say that you had to make the same arguments as Marx, only to engage in dialectical argumentation, which would be more fruitful. While we are at it, you might not be a "vulgar Marxist" (your words, not mine), yet you still arrive at the same conclusion as the old comrades, even if you prefer you humanist existentialist nonsense to dialectics, that is, that the only solution is a worker's revolution.

Hmm, one can't help but suspect than the term "workers revolution" is being used here to imply that I conceptualize revolution in an anachronistic, nineteenth-century fashion.

Since you are aware of the distinction, then could you please explain why you fail to make the distinction in my case? When you call me an insensitive supporter, who doesn't care about the poor, of totalitarian exploitation (your definition of globalization in our previous exchange) you claim you are only criticizing me, but when I say that you are exaggerating everything you claim to have been demonized by me.

To be blunt, my criticism of your point of view is quite legitimate and, if I do say so myself, spot-on and not at all exaggerated. You've repeatedly downplayed and trivialized the concrete and cruel adverse effects of globalization on the Third-World poor. This in fact merits strong criticism. However, when it comes to your unfavorable judgment of yours truly, well, you're quite without legitimate grounds; you most definitely express inappropriate and excessive disapprobation of my point of view, making my solidarity with, the way that I express a preferential option for globalization's victims out to be deserving of derision and ridicule. In short, I'm not glue and you're not rubber, the criticisms that I toss your way don't bounce off of you and stick to me.

I am aware of that, some people like to believe that the elections have been rigged, there is nothing that I can say that will disabuse them of this notion.

Well, disabusing people of the realities of their political system involves their sociocultural indoctrination with their society's ideology; and functioning, in your small personal way, as an agent of ideological indoctrination you are in fact helping to disabuse people of the truth.

I would rather say that I prefer not to lump different systems and modes of production together, I don't see what is the bias in that.

Well, deny it if you must, but your biased perceptions are in fact very much in evidence in our exchanges on the topics of capitalism and globalization.

Referring to investment bankers as "vulture capitalists" is demonization, it is not a fact that they are vultures.

Their MO is indeed vulturous and predatory.

You latched unto one sentence, of a pretty long paragraph, to say exactly the same thing that I went on to say, "that capitalism has problems," and ignored the main point. If my views are lame I don't care.

Capitalism's problems or contradictions are inherent, destructive, pathologic, and damning. This you certainly don't acknowledge.

I guess anything except sartrian existentialist marxism is limited and conventional to you.

Oh, you've really got me pegged. UNCLE!

Authentic socialism is a utopic dream, it's never going to happen, it can't.

A viable, sustainable form of capitalism is actually the dangerous dream.

You wildly exaggerate the problems of the US and claim that nothing short of a communist revolution is the solution, and then expect me not to think that you have fallen into despair. Communism is an expression of despair.

Rubbish, it's an optimistic vision of a possible future.

Red states would have republican judges, mostly, blue states would have democrat judges, in a socialist society every judge would a socialist who would pander to the masses, that is a form of corruption. The problem would remain.

Democracy isn't a perfect panacea, therefore it and I are all wet; is this your reasoning? This is actually merely what's known as the perfect solution fallacy. One simplistically and falsely makes out that one's opponent is claiming that what he's arguing for would be a perfect and paradisal solution or state of affairs, one refutes the possibility of it being anything of the kind (which of course is invariably easy, as there are no perfect solutions in an imperfect world), one then proceeds to claim that one has thus and so thoroughly thrashed the argument and point of view of one's opponent, without ever honestly addressing it. Well, this is essentially what you're attempting to do here.

Contemporary communists seem to be ignorant of the fact that what happened in the USSR is what would inevitably happen if anyone tried to create a communist society. Communism asks too much of people, that is it's first problem, but the advocates of communism refuse to accept that.

Ah, the old human nature argument again. And would you use the same argument against democracy, a la eighteenth-century aristocrats and conservatives according to whom human beings don't have the right stuff to democratically govern themselves, let alone control the means of production? Yes, it's an old classist, cynical, and misanthropic argument that was in use long before it was adopted by anti-communists, and that simply betrays elitism and negativism in the guise of "realism".

Thank you for your criticism and concern, but I assure you that both are unfounded.

It sure doesn't seem that way.

Well, that's your somewhat hostile subjective opinion.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 2:37:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 7:21:02 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/4/2014 5:27:03 PM, charleslb wrote:
Yes, let me quite explicitly point out that "libertarian" types and conservatives like my dear frienemy Khaos_Mage are pro-capitalist ideologues whose ideal system would be one in which capitalists are totally unfettered, in which they have utter license to operate in the egoistic fashion of capitalists. Pro-capitalists don't at all fancy a system in which capitalists & capitals can be fettered and made to respect the interests and rights of workers and consumers, i.e. ordinary people, by a democratic form of government that represents ordinary people. Yes, the pro-capitalist vicariously identifies so strongly with the superrich that s/he would prefer a system oriented to protect and promote the interests of a small elite of superrich individuals and corporations at the expense of the common people and their unalienable right to enjoy the dignity of democratically self-governing human beings. One should always realize that this is where the "libertarian" or conservative is actually coming from when s/he emphasizes that our system is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. Yes, folks, always keep this in mind.


On this I can agree with you, I have always felt that the "libertarian" movement wants freedom for corporations only, and everyone else be damned, though there are issues on which I agree with them.

Good on you.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 2:58:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 2:37:07 AM, charleslb wrote:

At 10/3/2014 8:38:59 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:

Since you are aware of the distinction, then could you please explain why you fail to make the distinction in my case? When you call me an insensitive supporter, who doesn't care about the poor, of totalitarian exploitation (your definition of globalization in our previous exchange) you claim you are only criticizing me, but when I say that you are exaggerating everything you claim to have been demonized by me.

To be blunt, my criticism of your point of view is quite legitimate and, if I do say so myself, spot-on and not at all exaggerated. You've repeatedly downplayed and trivialized the concrete and cruel adverse effects of globalization on the Third-World poor. This in fact merits strong criticism. However, when it comes to your unfavorable judgment of yours truly, well, you're quite without legitimate grounds; you most definitely express inappropriate and excessive disapprobation of my point of view, making my solidarity with, the way that I express a preferential option for globalization's victims out to be deserving of derision and ridicule. In short, I'm not glue and you're not rubber, the criticisms that I toss your way don't bounce off of you and stick to me.

It occurs to me that I haven't been clear enough or explicitly connected my thoughts here. I should clarify that the criticisms that don't bounce off of you and stick to me are the ones that you would characterize as "demonizing". Yes, I'm indeed asserting that you're guilty of having resorted to demonization, but that I most certainly do not stand guilty of the same charge. (Please see the rest of my reply above.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.