Refuting the Standard Arguments Against Communism and for Capitalism

Yes, this, that they alas aren't really communists, is the only thing that's wrong with Democrats and liberals. Well, at least from the point of view of a Marxist like yours truly.

 

And at least Democrats will save us from the fate of a Trump presidency tomorrow! Kudos to them for that.

 

How would the American people benefit from low IQ illegal immigrants and Muslims?

 

How does our society benefit from low-enlightenment mentalities that ask questions like "How would the American people benefit from low IQ illegal immigrants and Muslims?" ?

 

I'd argue questioning conventional wisdom is often beneficial.

11million low IQ, crime prone illegal immigrants on the other hand has a net negative effect on the US economy and society - the latter due to racial diversity resulting in decreased social cohesion.

Good luck with your fact free beliefs. I'm sure economics and philosophy can be run on assumptions.

 

Any airy-fairy ideological dogma imposed with fanatical zeal has the crap kicked out of it by the unavoidable exigencies of ineluctable reality.

Witness the touted Red State Model of Kansas, an "experiment" by true believer Brownback that has earned him the distinction of "Worse Governor in the Nation" from the same conservative electorate that had bought his frothy "trickle-down" dogmatic sales pitch.

After all the abstract confections have been strutted out with all the prancing about and strewing of rose pedals in their paths, pragmatism pertains.

The empirical reality that the world's most successful nations are democratic constructs whose self-governance combines regulated capitalism with a communitarian mandate to serve the people is an undeniable testament to practicality.

I'm forever blowing bubbles
Pretty bubbles in the air
They fly so high, nearly reach the sky
Then like my dreams they fade and die

​

.

 

Racism with pretensions and delusions of being fact-based and rational is still merely racism and therefore both lame and pernicious.

 

Those who lack vision and a sense of justice that makes one incapable of settling for the status quo are of course highly susceptible to status quo bias and system justification bias, and can be heard touting the soundness and practicality of the existing order of things. Those of us, on the other hand, who have social and humanistic sensibilities that are outraged by the inbuilt injustices of the capitalist system find that we have no choice but to cultivate a vision of a socioeconomic form of life that would be more conducive to the self-actualization and well-being of the majority of human beings. And one way or the other history will vindicate us. That is, either our society will stick with capitalism and suffer its "decline and fall" as a result, or it will succeed in transcending capitalism to an authentic form of communalism that will properly diagnose and remedy the socioeconomic pathology known as capitalism. Either way, the sickness unto death of the capitalist system will be confirmed and the rightness and advisability of being a critic of it and an entertainer of what you ridicule as "airy-fairy" ideals will be borne out.

 

So facts are racist, and racism definable?

 

Dreamworlds can be fun, but the empirical reality of the most advanced nations achieving the highest level of success via the formula of democratic elections, regulated capitalism, and a communitarian commitment to assist those who find themselves in need is the proven, sustainable paradigm.

With around 200 nations on earth, there is ample opportunity to conduct de facto trials to determine if an alternate construct might be superior. Folks can and do push their various pipe dreams, but they need to get real.

Many were true believers in TP Sammy Brownback's utopian confection, his Red State Model "experiment," until it was implemented, given an extended trial, and proved to be a real stinker. I am grateful to Kansans for being the sacrificed guinea pigs in the useful demonstration.

What works works; what doesn't doesn't.

 

But alas for your point of view capitalism is not at all a successful system, not given the host of sociological ills that it generates, its pernicious effects on the ecosphere, its irremediable proneness to recurrently bringing about economic crises, its precarization and immiseration of workingpeople, etc. The evidence of capitalism's badness is in fact quite abundant and argues against entertaining your sort of system justification bias. Yes, its pro-capitalists who indeed and urgently need to get real, about the quite evident, inherent, cruel, and dangerous unworkability of the so-called "free enterprise system", which of course could more aptly be called the tyranny of capital.

 

I can easily conjure up vastly superior constructs, but without being shown an actual, working model, I would not expect first world nations to summarily abandon what they have achieved to embrace my pipe dream.

Demonstrate a decidedly better approach and, vested interests in the status quo notwithstanding, it would be adopted.

As advances occur within the existing systems, they will be emulated.

 

This is indeed of course a prescription for a static-making conservatism, for socio-economico-political stagnation. Well, if every time someone proposed an unprecedented fundamental modification of society, or a revolutionary new form of life the response was to rule out giving it a try because it was unprecedented and unproven, because its proponents weren't able to provide a working model there would simply be no development and progress. For revolutionary development and progress to take place societies must sometimes take a leap of faith in the enlightenment and potential of a previously untried idea. Well, if societies never took such leaps the status quo would never alter and we'd still be living in monarchies, more overt patriarchies, and societies with chattel slavery.

And, again: "alas for your point of view capitalism is not at all a successful system, not given the host of sociological ills that it generates, its pernicious effects on the ecosphere, its irremediable proneness to recurrently bringing about economic crises, its precarization and immiseration of workingpeople, etc. The evidence of capitalism's badness is in fact quite abundant and argues against entertaining your sort of system justification bias. Yes, it's pro-capitalists who indeed and urgently need to get real, about the quite evident, inherent, cruel, and dangerous unworkability of the so-called 'free enterprise system', which of course could more aptly, and not merely melodramatically, be called the tyranny of capital."

 

You follow the pattern of every ideologue infatuated with his own notions. I do not pre-judge; I merely note that a credible demonstration is demanded.

Kansas is the prime example of an "experiment" in revolutionary governance that realizes the actual consequences of one such dogmatic approach.

With nothing comparable to Brownback's disastrous Red State Model, ideologues ask the people to buy their particular nostrum via your "leap of faith" and the people respond, "Show me."

Otherwise, progress is achieved in increments, via tentative steps, over time.

 

You're merely attempting to make cynicism, closed-mindedness, and conservatism sound reasonable.

 

And, let me once again point out that capitalism is in fact in the process of proving itself to be irremediably unworkable and unsustainable, of failing epically and apocalyptically.

 

This, i.e. a mixed economy, fails to abolish the capitalist power structure; and fails to abolish what might be termed the spiritually pernicious aspects of capitalism, such as the objectification and commodification of human beings, alienation, and the replacement of real social, human relations with the cash nexus.

 

Dismissively assigning me to the category of "every ideologue infatuated with his own notions" indeed involves "prejudging" my viewpoint.

 

Requesting a demonstration - application with empirical results - is not "pre-judging." I would expect that any such theoretical notion be subjected to reality.

Thus, the value of Sammy Brownback's failed "Red State Model"

 

Again, I'll point out that human beings and societies would never manage to opt for anything innovative and experience any sort of progress if they were always excessively keen on conservatively sticking with what's tried and traditional. Also, there's actually plenty of empirical and historical evidence that it's certainly quite possible to base communities on pro-social and communal values. In fact most traditional societies have featured communities that were quite communitarian and to some extent communal. It's actually our modern and declining form of society based upon economic individualism and the ownership of the forces of production by a small class of sociopathically self-interested capitalists that's an aberration in human history, and that now stands discredited in the eyes of everyone except capitalism's dogmatic apologists.

 

The normal pattern for progress is evolution, not revolution. Theories abound, but practical application is the only reliable test.

 

I refer you again to my above reply.

 

I would also point out that the evolution of human civilization in fact features occasional episodes of necessary and (if not always immediately, in the long run) positive revolutionary change.

 

In an authentically democratic polity nationalization ≠ mere government control, rather socialization of the economy = the people taking and exercising ownership of the economy, of the infrastructure of production, of society's economic assets and wealth via the government, to guarantee the more equitable and compassionate distribution of material well-being.