Coito ergo sum wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:Seth wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:It's the corporations, man. You're playing into the corporate game! See, the corporations are trying to turn you into little Eichmanns so that "they" can make money. The corporations run the entire world. And now they fooled you into working for them.
It's a remarkable hypocrisy that so many Marxists and other leftists rant and rave against Capitalism while doing so on a capitalistically-created device, on a capitalistically-created network, while sitting in the capitalistically-created basement of their Capitalist parents in their capitalistically-created underwear, isn't it?
And you rant about socialism when socialistic policy brought you your roads, your military, your police department, a number of your fire departments, your clean air, your clean water, and yes, YOUR INTERNET. Pot, meet the kettle.
Government regulation does not equal "socialism" or "socialist policy."
How in the world did "socialist policy" bring about the US military? We had a military in the 1700s, and we didn't have socialism. Monarchies had militaries, and they sure as heck weren't socialist.
I think you're confusing "government" with "socialism."
No, he's not confusing them, he's deliberately conflating them in a strawman argument he commonly uses to misrepresent my positions. You'll see him do this commonly, particularly with Libertarianism, which I would say he is utterly ignorant of, except I know he's not because I've personally thoroughly educated him on the issue. He commonly refuses to distinguish between, for example, taxation used to pay one's share of one's use of public facilities like roads and military forces and redistributive taxation intended to redirect wealth from one private individual to another. This is his most common conceit, and he will never acknowledge the difference, and when the difference is pointed out to him, as I've done many hundreds of times, he will ignore the distinction and go right on presenting his fallacious strawman version of Libertarianism. He does it as a form of protest over my criticisms of socialism and my refusal to accept that Democratic Socialism is something different than any other kind of collectivism.
The difference between he and I is that I support my assertions about collectivism with rational argument regarding the inevitable course to economic destruction that all collectivist systems set forth upon simply as a function of the root concepts of collectivism, which cannot escape creating the very class system it seeks to abolish. In all collectivist systems, bar none, a dependent class and a productive class emerge as a function of human nature because people are lazy, selfish and greedy. Because in a collectivist system, claim upon the labor and property of others is seen as a right that accrues to everyone ("To each according to his need"), but the corresponding altruistic contribution to society is unenforceable ("From each according to his ability") without the imposition of totalitarian oppression that forces people to work (as seen in the Soviet Union under Stalin, for example), the dependent class perpetually grows as people naturally seek to do the smallest amount of work possible in return for the most largess from the government by way of "entitlement" spending. This process, as Alexander Tytler stated more than 200 years ago, inevitably is made worse by "democracy," which when combined with "socialism" actually means "the tyranny of the dependent class."
The tyranny of the dependent class arises when the dependent class, who depend upon enslaving the labor and property of the productive class to fund their entitlements, seize the democratic majority in the country. Once that happens, the dependent class, which feels itself entitled to ever-better social conditions, will vote itself more and more benefits from the public treasury, which the productive class are compelled to pay for. This cycle NEVER STOPS once the dependent class gains voting majority, and the end of the society is in sight.
Eventually, the productive class is simply sucked dry of OPM (other people's money) that can be used to fund dependent class social welfare programs, and the productive class simply gives up being productive because they are tired of having the fruits of their labor seized from them by the dependent class, and they themselves become members of the dependent class demanding that the government support them too.
But the government cannot do so, because nothing is being produced, so there is nothing to be seized to fund the dependent class demands. Riots, disorder, chaos and anarchy quickly follow because the dependent class is never more than 30 days away from starvation, and once the productive-class gravy train comes to a halt, the dependent class will riot the instant it gets hungry.
The government then must use ever-more force and totalitarian repression to control the dependent class (lumpen proletariat) as it tries to maintain order. It starts to shoot dissidents down in the streets, it arrests them and sends them to gulags to die, and it brutally suppresses dissent everywhere, while simultaneously exerting more and more centralized control on the means of production in a desperate attempt to meet the basic needs of the proletariat for food and shelter. It must FORCE people to work, on pain of physical punishment or death (usually summary execution) merely in order to produce minimal food.
But the proletariat will always seek to do the minimum possible work that gets them their ration of potatoes without getting them shot in the head or sent to a gulag as a "reactionary" or "counterrevolutionary." Production lags and at best, at the very best possible, the collectivist society descends into a hand-to-mouth tortured existence of hunger and privation for everyone, except the power elite.
That's exactly what happened to the Soviet Union, and it's exactly what will happen to EVERY collectivist society, most certainly Democratic Socialism, when the OPM and abundant natural resources that can be extracted and sold on the CAPITALIST free market to other countries runs out.
It's as inevitable as entropy.
Not once has ReEvolutionist or any other Marxist dupe been able to refute this analysis. Mostly they don't even try, but predictably resort to the tactics of Saul Alinsky in a desperate attempt to smear, malign and belittle anyone who challenges their cherished indoctrinations.
ReEvolutionist usually does so by trotting out the canard "Well, what about police and military and roads?" As if this were even remotely intelligent. And we circle right back to the beginning of him deliberately mischaracterizing Libertarianism and refusing to distinguish between taxation to pay for the legitimate functions of government and one's use of public goods and redistribution of wealth that merely transfers money from one taxpayer to another for reasons of socialist social policy.
And repeat.
And repeat.
Etc.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Like I said, think harder.
