506e8b36 No.3759203[View All]
Previous thread:
>>3757575This is the only politics thread. Any others created will be deleted. Political discussion is allowed in existing threads, just don't be a spammy bitch about it.
6da49571 No.3760679
>>3760648>The leftist theory is that the free market doesn't work…No, the leftists theory is that the free market doesn't work for everything. Some times you need regulated markets. Some times you need socialized services.
It is delusional wish-casting bordering on cult mentality to think that unregulated capitalism is ALWAYS the the right system to use in every situation.
0e9d682b No.3760686
>>3760679I thought a "combined" system was what the USA already had.
Maybe you can think real hard, and come up with a THIRD type of system that is the perfect answer to everything.
There you go.
0e9d682b No.3760687
>>3760640Your Nazi Card has been rejected.
Do you have any other form of argument?
5207a6d6 No.3760688
>>3760686The third system is called independent.
5207a6d6 No.3760689
>>3760674along came a centipede.
it is a very inside joke
c1beb2ab No.3760691
>>3760630> Who are you talking to?Spamming nigger is only talking to himself.
7fee7782 No.3760696
>>3760679>It is delusional wish-casting bordering on cult mentality to think that unregulated capitalism is ALWAYS the the right system to use in every situation.It's not a dichotomy between completely hands-off capitalism and regulation. Leftists just want to push regulation as the panacea for all the issues, but it's really just snake oil.
Why? Here you have to understand what "regulation" is. There is law, and there is regulation: law defines the rules and regulation the implementation of the rules. It means interpreting the law according to the situation. Where the letter of the law is not clear, regulation picks up to steer the outcome towards the spirit of the law as interpreted by the regulator. That means, when the laws are vague and broadly written, the regulators get more power to make arbitrary rules that apply on the spot and in the moment. Regulation is also undemocratic, because it relies on the interpretation by the regulators and not on the public opinion. In this fashion, regulation is a version of the good old "vote-a-dictator" version of democracy where the voting public gets to choose who is allowed to piss down their necks.
What that means, when leftists demand more regulation, they're actually demanding more arbitrary powers to the state to do whatever the government wants to do. Regulation in this way is the backbone of crony capitalism, where the government can arbitrarily punish and favor corporations and people who align with or oppose the government. This invites corporate takeover of the state, otherwise known as regulatory capture.
The real alternative to regulation is writing better laws that constrain cronyism, state power and capitalist exploitation, minimizing the NEED for regulation, having the same rules for everyone - NOT laissez-faire capitalism.
7fee7782 No.3760697
>>3760679>Some times you need socialized services. Also, socialized services are not a leftist invention. In reality, socialists originally opposed public services like that, because they were seen as placating the poor from revolting against the owning classes.
It might also shock you that unions are a part of capitalism - comes from the principles of freedom of speech, assembly and association.
7fee7782 No.3760699
>>3760678>What kind of crack are you smoking? That has never been the result of capitalism at any point in history.Especially not when the trading partners are not operating under capitalism.
As with any system in the real world, capitalism fails when the people in it are trying to break capitalism to their own advantage. That however is not a good reason to throw the ideas of capitalism away and replace them with something that works even worse.
0e9d682b No.3760704
>>3760703Offer PROOF of this or shut your leftist Nazi piehole, Nazi.
I'm betting 100% this is just more fake leftist Nazi meme bullshit from that leftist Nazi site you always frequent.
Provide links to prove what you claim is true or STFU NAZI.
20d0efff No.3760706
>>3760705Nazi nazi nazi BOT
0e9d682b No.3760707
>>3760695More bullshit, you can watch Trump and hear him speak and you can tell it's AT LEAST 140.
73 is AVERAGE NEGRO IQ (And yours)
Why don't you ever post links and sources if any of what you claim is true?
Why don't you?
What are you trying to do
thinking you will,
get Trump UN-ELECTED?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
355ef640 No.3760709
>>3760705>Currently being authenticated>But lets print the story before that anywayYou're stupider than you think Trump is.
0e9d682b No.3760711
>>3760705He's President of the USA, the most powerful man in the world right now.
And you are not.
You're just a shit stain.
No, a shit stain is smarter than you.
How stupid is that.
.
83272dc6 No.3760712
>3760711
Correct, Biden is
7fee7782 No.3760714
>>3760678You also have to differentiate between capitalism understood as free competitive markets, and "capitalism" understood by the left to mean the rule of capital - or the rule of the rich.
The former is just the natural state of affairs when people trade with each other without arbitrary controls. That doesn't mean lawlessness - it just means that no individual or group has the ultimate say. It's the default state of a free society.
The latter is when the state steps in and starts playing favorites. In human history, the primary reason for the emergence of this kind of capitalism was rich people securing their own position through autocratic rulers. In the latter part of human history, this kind of capitalism is caused by well-meaning people trying to re-institute autocratic government in order to institute their version of social justice, and ending up in the rule of the rich when their system is overtaken by the very people they're trying to control.
The fundamental problem here is autocratic government - not capitalism. Socialism is the epitome of autocracy, since it places all productive assets under the control of the state, under the theory that productive assets belong to the people as a whole. The problem is that the government that represents the people is NOT the people. It's a small sub-group of the people who wield the power of the people, for or against the actual people. Being in control of the whole productive machinery of the society, or just being able to steer the outcomes to a significant degree, makes the government disconnected and disinterested in the actual desires and wants of the people. In that situation, you'd need a government made of pure saints to function as desired.
355ef640 No.3760715
>>3760714Capitalism didn't exist as a term before marxists came up with it as their boogie man. It was just free enterprise and the right to freely trade goods and services before then, but calling that evil didn't go over very well so they came up with a name to obscure it, and it worked. Marxists don't even know what capitalism is.
7fee7782 No.3760719
>>3760715Or you might say that capitalism doesn't actually exist. It's just a product of the dialectical method employed by early socialists and then Marxists and Leninists to interpret history and label it, then pretend that the label is the real deal.
Hegel pointed out that reality is what humans perceive it to be. The world you live in IS effectively how it appears to you. Marxists concluded that reality is perceived through the conditions created by social interactions according to material, not subjective, facts - and then went on to *interpret* those material facts according to their own selective subjective perception of them. In this way, Marxists, or socialists after the fact, have always held themselves to be the "unbiased critical social scientists" who are looking at the raw material realities of society without admitting their own subjectivity of it. They've declared themselves to be right, because obviously they're right, according to them.
In contrast, Republicanism, as defined by John Adams as the "science of politics", is the application of a more empirical approach to policy where you don't care about labels and definitions but see what actually works. When Republicanism is applied appropriately, you start to mind things like how is it possible to prove that your ideas actually lead to the outcomes you predict - like in modern physical sciences. At the common everyday level, it's just street smarts instead of utopian idealism.
83272dc6 No.3760723
>>3760719. "Capitalism doesn't actually exist… it's just a product of the dialectical method employed by early socialists and then Marxists and Leninists":
This statement is an extreme oversimplification. While Marxists and other thinkers have analyzed capitalism through dialectical methods, to claim capitalism "doesn't exist" ignores its tangible, observable systems of production, exchange, and accumulation. Even if interpreted through different theoretical lenses, the institutions and practices of capitalism—markets, private property, and profit-driven enterprise—are very real and have material consequences. Calling it "just a label" dismisses centuries of historical and economic evidence.
"Hegel pointed out that reality is what humans perceive it to be. The world you live in IS effectively how it appears to you.":
This grossly oversimplifies Hegel’s philosophy. While Hegel explored how consciousness and perception mediate reality, he also emphasized the development of ideas through dialectics, suggesting that reality involves more than subjective perception. Reducing his work to "reality is what it appears to you" risks confusing Hegelian dialectics with naive relativism.
83272dc6 No.3760724
>>3760723"Marxists concluded that reality is perceived through the conditions created by social interactions according to material, not subjective, facts":
This is a fair summary of historical materialism, a key Marxist idea. However, the claim that Marxists "interpret" material facts subjectively, while true to an extent (as all theoretical frameworks involve interpretation), undermines the sophistication of Marxist analysis. Marxists acknowledge their perspective is shaped by material conditions but argue it provides a scientifically grounded critique of society.
"Marxists have always held themselves to be 'unbiased critical social scientists'… without admitting their own subjectivity":
This assertion is partially accurate but somewhat reductionist. While early Marxists presented their work as scientific, contemporary Marxists often recognize and account for their theoretical biases. The claim that Marxists deny their own subjectivity oversimplifies the diversity of Marxist thought.
"Republicanism, as defined by John Adams as the 'science of politics,' is the application of a more empirical approach to policy… you start to mind things like how to prove that your ideas lead to the outcomes you predict":
This is an idealized view of Republicanism. While Adams and others emphasized a rational, empirical basis for politics, the real-world application of Republicanism has often involved significant ideological and subjective elements. Politics rarely operates with the same empirical rigor as the physical sciences due to the complexity of human behavior and societal factors.
7fee7782 No.3760730
>>3760724>However, the claim that Marxists "interpret" material facts subjectively, while true to an extent (as all theoretical frameworks involve interpretation), undermines the sophistication of Marxist analysis.Simply being "sophisticated" doesn't vindicate the idea. You can turn to much elaboration over a faulty theory and it doesn't make it right or functional. See Karl Popper's criticism in the "Poverty of Historicism" etc.
The guy btw. is a major defining influence on the theory of the modern theory of science and what it means to know that you know something.
>This is an idealized view of Republicanism.Of course it is. It's more of a call for what republicans should be doing, going back to the basics instead of employing the same tactics of gaslighting and subterfuge as the left. Unfortunately, republicans have adopted these means after the observation of "what works".
7fee7782 No.3760735
>>3760729>They just walk in, show their ID, and get the help they need. There is no insurance company involved.That's an inaccurate description. The insurance is simply mandatory, coupled with the income taxes you pay. The same applies for unemployment insurance. In some cases the insurance company is public, in other cases the insurance companies are private, or a mixture of both, and the fees are regulated by the state.
It's also not true that you pay nothing for medical attention. It's common that you pay some regulated fee - exactly to stop people from over-using the service for trivial reasons if it was completely free. There is an element of a free market applied to control expenses. That also includes limiting supply: when you turn up with some non-life-threatening injury, you may face a delay up to months or years before you get service - so you'd rather choose the private option to get treatment sooner and not put burden on the public infrastructure.
I know of a friend of mine living in the nordic countries, who had to wait two years to get treatment for a joint injury.
83272dc6 No.3760736
>3760735
Lies about Socialized medicine to make you feel better about your shit hole country?
7fee7782 No.3760737
>>3760736I contacted them, and they said they actually sell self-repair kits at the pharmacist to plug a hole in your tooth in case you want to wait for an appointment at the public dentist instead of going private.
6da49571 No.3760738
>>3760732
Yes, there are insurance companies in countries with socialized medicine, but most people don't need them.
They are for rich people who want access to a network of private doctors who specialize in servicing the elites.
7fee7782 No.3760741
And the price for a filling in the public clinic according to the information I got, with social insurance, is between €30-60 while the private clinic charges between €100-500 depending on whether there's surgery involved and what kind of filling you would like.
>but most people don't need them.
Yeah, that depends on how you define "need". Are you willing to put up with a toothache for a week, or do you want it fixed tomorrow?
7fee7782 No.3760742
>there are insurance companies in countries with socialized medicine, but most people don't need them.
That's also not true. The insurance schemes are typically set up through insurance companies, not through direct state funding.
Usually the state mandates that you buy insurance from a state or privately owned company, and they regulate the amount that you pay for insurance at the minimum level.
7fee7782 No.3760745
>>3760723>to claim capitalism "doesn't exist" ignores its tangible, observable systems of production, exchange, and accumulation.This is still begging the question. The label "capitalism" exists, but whether those observations describe a real "thing" that deserves the label in a different question. With subjective perception and simplification, it's simply not a complete or an accurate description. The map is not the territory.
But the claim that capitalism might not exist has more to do with what is added after the observations that describe it: unwarranted claims and speculations about the nature and future of the phenomenon.
>Hegel … emphasized the development of ideas through dialecticsThe problem is the dialectics. Dialectics is supposed to exclude the subjective element through argumentation between parties who are interested in arriving at a mutual truth. Not winning an argument by being more convincing, but reconciling differences and contradictions by a sort of compromise and re-interpretation of different points of view until they meet in the middle and everyone can agree. Now, if those points of views include subjective elements that are not identified and admitted, but assumed to be objective, dialectics simply results in a compromise between truth and falsehood. As the socialist thinkers themselves pointed out, a compromise between a truth and a lie is still a lie.
83272dc6 No.3760749
Don’t let insurance companies and asshole politicians con you into believing private insurance is cheaper to a single payer option, it’s not. Or that countries like Canada offer less healthcare services than Murica private healthcare, they don’t. If you get cancer in Canada, you get treated ! There’s no going back n forth with the healthcare insurance companies (cuz there are none) of what is isn’t covered. You think in Canada when you get heart surgery, their heath system is going to cut people off anesthesia while you’re on the operating table?
7fee7782 No.3760750
>>3760745And of course, if one engages in dialectics without the interest in arriving at a common truth, but to drive a personal point, they can easily spin the whole thing around any way they please.
I remember reading a piece of Marx's, or was it Lenin's correspondence with their supporters, saying that they know "enough dialectics" to turn over a political decision regardless of what the opposition was saying. The early communists knew very well that they have a system of philosophy that can be abused at will against weaker opponents, and they were not ashamed for being intellectually dishonest for the "greater cause".
7fee7782 No.3760751
>>3760749>Don’t let insurance companies and asshole politicians con you into believing private insurance is cheaper to a single payer option, it’s not.That's correct, but it's not the whole picture. You may get better treatment for cancer, but you may get worse treatment for the common problems that ail most of the people every day. It's always a compromise.
83272dc6 No.3760752
>>3760750Anti-Establishment Orientation
Marx viewed the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) as an oppressive force exploiting the working class. MAGA Republicans often frame themselves as anti-establishment, railing against "the swamp," global elites, and entrenched institutions like the media and federal bureaucracy. Both perspectives share a critique of existing power structures, albeit from vastly different ideological standpoints. Marx’s revolutionary rhetoric could superficially resonate with MAGA’s populist appeals to dismantle perceived corrupt systems.
—
2. Focus on Class Struggle (Reframed as 'Elites vs. the People')
Marx focused on the proletariat's struggle against the bourgeoisie. MAGA Republicans repurpose this dynamic as a conflict between "ordinary Americans" and "coastal elites" or "globalists." While Marx aimed to overthrow capitalism, MAGA populism redirects frustration toward cultural and identity-based grievances, shifting the target from economic systems to social and political scapegoats. A MAGA-aligned Marx might reinterpret the proletariat as the "forgotten Americans" fighting against elitist global capitalism and technocracy.
—
3. Distrust of Globalism
Marx was critical of global capitalism for its role in homogenizing cultures and exploiting labor worldwide. MAGA Republicans oppose globalization as undermining American sovereignty and destroying domestic industries. A hypothetical MAGA Marx could argue that international trade agreements and multinational corporations exploit American workers, reframing his critique of capitalism to align with MAGA's nationalist economic agenda.
—
4. Populist Economic Rhetoric
MAGA Republicans occasionally adopt superficially left-wing economic policies, such as opposing outsourcing, supporting tariffs, or advocating for industrial revitalization. These policies, while often inconsistent in execution, might appeal to a Marx reframed as a nationalist populist, railing against the concentration of wealth and power in multinational corporations.
—
7fee7782 No.3760753
>>3760752In summary, the major complain from the left is that the right is applying their own playbook against them.
Not seeing that the playbook is the problem and fault.
7fee7782 No.3760756
>>3760752>superficially left-wing economic policies, such as opposing outsourcing, supporting tariffs, or advocating for industrial revitalization. This point is interesting, as the left wing seems to be strongly in disagreement: they presently argue that outsourcing is providing cheaper prices for the poor and industrial revitalization is unnecessary because you can replace all these jobs with services. That's the neoliberal standpoint, where economic efficiency trumps self-sufficiency by the argument that production should happen where production is most (economically) efficient and the rest can just work in the upper end of the economy with services and administration. It's the idea that everyone can be artist and academicians, or administrators - as long as the basic productive element is handled otherwise - by "robots" or underpaid workers in other countries as the case happens to be.
7fee7782 No.3760757
>>3760752>Marx viewed the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) as an oppressive force exploiting the working class.This btw. is not in any ways different from the MAGA point. "Bourgeoisie" literally means "town dwellers" - the urban elite - that exists on top of the productive assets of the society and extract profits out of trading value, not producing value. This is still true today: the urban areas live off of the backs of the rural and sub-urban areas that house all the production of basic resources and manufacturing. The democrat controlled cities vote against the republicans elsewhere, and win because there's so many people in the urban areas doing jobs in services that subsist on serving the rich, not the poor.
The irony is that the early communists were "town dwellers" themselves, belonging to the upper classes who lived off of the backs of the people they were employing. When they actually instituted the communist revolution, they found the hard way that re-distributing the wealth of the land to the people resulted in no wealth getting up to the cities, so they had to force collectivization and centralized distribution to regain access to all the wealth that the country was producing Modern leftists understand this point, so they won't attempt to undermine their own position like that again.
83272dc6 No.3760758
>>3760757Karl Marx talked about how the ruling class, called the bourgeoisie, gets rich by owning factories, land, and businesses while workers do all the hard labor. MAGA Republicans also complain about elites, but they don’t mean the same thing. Marx wanted to get rid of the system where the rich control everything, while MAGA points fingers at city dwellers or "urban elites" without focusing on the real problem: capitalism itself. MAGA blames city folks for rural problems, but both city and country workers are being exploited by a system that only cares about profits.
People often say cities live off rural areas because food and raw materials come from the countryside, but cities do important things too, like creating technology and running businesses. Both depend on each other, and neither is the bad guy. The real problem is how capitalism puts profits over people. Workers in cities and rural areas are struggling because big corporations and the super-rich are hoarding the wealth, not because one group is stealing from the other.
Modern leftists know we need to help both city and rural areas by fighting the system that keeps people poor and powerless. Instead of blaming each other, we should work together to fix problems like healthcare, fair wages, and protecting the environment. MAGA tries to divide people by blaming elites or city dwellers, but Marx’s idea was to bring everyone together to fight against the systems that keep workers struggling everywhere.
0e9d682b No.3760760
Will you PLEASE knock it off with the walls of A.I.-generated text shit?
Nobody is reading any of it anyway!!
7fee7782 No.3760761
>>3760758>Both depend on each other, and neither is the bad guy.That is true to an extent, but the modern "service economy" has ballooned way beyond being helpful with the basic point of creating wealth to the people as a whole. Technology and businesses are instead created to obtain money, serving the rich instead.
The cities are not hoarding wealth per se - they're hoarding money, which is economic and political power. They vote democrat because cities have a huge underclass of people who are not part of the productive side of the economy, but dependent on serving the rich urban elites, who are essentially the democrat establishment pretending to be proponents of the working class.
7fee7782 No.3760762
>>3760758>Modern leftists know we need to help both city and rural areas by fighting the system that keeps people poor and powerless. Modern leftists don't really want to see the outcome of such actions, because they would mean a significant reduction to their own living standards and forcing many to move out of the cities to work in the productive fields outside.
7fee7782 No.3760763
>>3760760What would you have instead? Simple picture memes that repeat ineffective canned talking points without any discussion?
7fee7782 No.3760766
>>3760758Mind that living in the city is itself a living standard. The fact that you can walk two blocks to a Starbucks and not own a car is a benefit that not all people enjoy. This benefit is paid by all the people that exist underneath you, that allow you to work an office job selling advertising or sitting at home making youtube content.
0d4d0170 No.3760769
It's been statistically proven that a nigger has a better chance of becoming a medical doctor than a professional basketball player. And yet, niggers continue to believe that doing well in school is "whitey" or "uncle tom" undesirable behavior. The fact is that nigger culture is the only thing keeping niggers from joining the mainstream as prosperous members of society.
Niggers are solely responsible for the nigger condition, not anyone else.
