Understanding the Liberal Mindset

[theprestige]

Every single capitalist country I'm aware of is corrupt. And if every communist country is corrupt and every capitalist country is corrupt, then corruption is not necessarily dependent on their economic structure? Or are you saying they are?

Has corruption isn't the same as being corrupt by nature. But either way, what I'm saying is that communism isn't an improvement over other systems of government, notably capitalism+democracy.

In general, revolutionary communist regimes perform much worse than their capitalist-democratic counterparts. In terms of economic activity, corruption, human rights, environmental conservation, etc.

Which leads me back to the question, of why so many people are so invested in defending the honor of revolutionary communism.

You and I can certainly debate the optimal balance between private property and public, or the right levels of taxation in a civil society, or the jobs government should do versus jobs that should left to private citizens.

We can have those debates, without having to bring revolutionary communism into it. We can even agree that revolutionary communism is a terrible idea that we reject wholeheartedly.

 

[acbytesla]

Has corruption isn't the same as being corrupt by nature. But either way, what I'm saying is that communism isn't an improvement over other systems of government, notably capitalism+democracy.

In general, revolutionary communist regimes perform much worse than their capitalist-democratic counterparts. In terms of economic activity, corruption, human rights, environmental conservation, etc.

You're right. Capitalist countries are corrupy by nature.

Which leads me back to the question, of why so many people are so invested in defending the honor of revolutionary communism.

Which I'm not doing.

You and I can certainly debate the optimal balance between private property and public, or the right levels of taxation in a civil society, or the jobs government should do versus jobs that should left to private citizens.

We can.

We can have those debates, without having to bring revolutionary communism into it. We can even agree that revolutionary communism is a terrible idea that we reject wholeheartedly.

I never did. Emily brought that into the debate. I'm one who believes that free markets are useful.

But I also recognize that capitalism runs an inevitable course. That it naturally becomes unbalanced to the point that it isn't good. That creative destruction results in an unreasonable amount of suffering and unfairness. That power becomes concentrated to the point that laws, courts and the security apparatus work for them and not the population as a whole.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

You may have meant this for the other thread. Not that it bothers me

Not sure I agree with this. And nothing about Trump is really far right. He is a proponent of crony capitalism. In that if it aids him and his, it's good and if it doesn't, it's bad. It's ALL about HIM. That is his only principle.

Not sure if I know what you mean. I put it this thread because it quotes the OP in this thread. If you revisit the OP you'll find I copied it word for word, only substituting 'lib-prog' (which sounds like some cringey term from Reddit or 4chan) with far-righter. It's meant to convey that they almost always seem to accuse others of the things they do themselves. Also 99% of my post was about the far-right, not their cult leader.

 

[acbytesla]

Not sure if I know what you mean. I put it this thread because it quotes the OP in this thread. If you revisit the OP you'll find I copied it word for word, only substituting 'lib-prog' (which sounds like some cringey term from Reddit or 4chan) with far-righter. It's meant to convey that they almost always seem to accuse others of the things they do themselves. Also 99% of my post was about the far-right, not their cult leader.

You also said "or Trumpkins." I notice a lot of Trump supporters goose stepping to the song he sings.

 

[theprestige]

You're right. Capitalist countries are corrupy by nature.

And yet somehow communist regimes are even worse.

Which I'm not doing.

Tu quoque looks very much like a defense attempt to me.

We can.

I never did. Emily brought that into the debate. I'm one who believes that free markets are useful.

But I also recognize that capitalism runs an inevitable course. That it naturally becomes unbalanced to the point that it isn't good. That creative destruction results in an unreasonable amount of suffering and unfairness. That power becomes concentrated to the point that laws, courts and the security apparatus work for them and not the population as a whole.

None of these real problems can be solved by replacing capitalist democracy with revolutionary communism.

 

[acbytesla]

And yet somehow communist regimes are even worse.

True. But my point was that authoritarian regimes is what is really bad.

Tu quoque looks very much like a defense attempt to me.

No, not at all. Just that corruption wasn't necessarily tied to the economic system.

None of these real problems can be solved by replacing capitalist democracy with revolutionary communism.

Again, that isn't what I have ever argued for. Merely for a Capitalism 2.0. One that takes into account John Rawls original position. One that it is more of a meritocracy and less aristocracy.

 

[theprestige]

True. But my point was that authoritarian regimes is what is really bad.

And my point is that revolutionary communist regimes are necessarily authoritarian.

No, not at all. Just that corruption wasn't necessarily tied to the economic system.

Corruption is necessarily tied to the economic system of communism, though, because communist systems are authoritarian by necessity.

Again, that isn't what I have ever argued for. Merely for a Capitalism 2.0. One that takes into account John Rawls original position. One that it is more of a meritocracy and less aristocracy.

Cool.

 

[arthwollipot]

Every single capitalist country I'm aware of is corrupt. And if every communist country is corrupt and every capitalist country is corrupt, then corruption is not necessarily dependent on their economic structure? Or are you saying they are?

I think your mistake here is in suggesting that corruption is a binary state - either a country is corrupt, or it is not corrupt.

The occasional piece of minor fraud by a government official that is caught and prosecuted is very much not equivalent to widespread financial oligarchy, nepotism, and systematic grift in a government.

 

[acbytesla]

I think your mistake here is in suggesting that corruption is a binary state - either a country is corrupt, or it is not corrupt.

I agree. It's not a binary state.

The occasional piece of minor fraud by a government official that is caught and prosecuted is very much not equivalent to widespread financial oligarchy, nepotism, and systematic grift in a government.

I'm not just talking about government officials accepting bribes. Corruption takes other forms. We have a system where elections depend on money. Professional lobbying corrupts the system. Campaign donations also corrupt the equity in the system. Totally legal and totally corrupting.

 

[dirtywick]

yeah, a handful of the ultra wealthy have kind of made it legal for them to take everything. i guess we still need to be warned of the dangers of communism regardless of what we are actually living through, it's important i suppose.

 

[dudalb]

Everyone has one. Including you.

Maybe, but at least I don't blindly follow any "Party Line:.

 

[dudalb]

Understanding the far-right mindset.

Far-righters (or trumpkins) consider themselves as the bastions of Social Justice. They claim to believe in each individual's right to an autonomous, self-directed life, free from restrictions. They claim to believe in freedom of speech, arguing that is it an important part of challenging existing ideas and finding truth. The far-righters have an absoluteness about their mindset. They are utterly convinced they are always the good guys, that they are the final arbiter of right and wrong, and that anyone who doesn't think the way they do are the bad guys. They are also utterly convinced that they, and only they, know what's best for society. They operate on the basis of the "victim v oppressor framework" which views social dynamics via a sort of "binary" consisting of the powerful groups (the Washington elites) versus the marginalized groups (the ordinary common folk). In the far-right world, everyone but them is either one or the other - everyone is either a Good American screwed over by the system or a member of an out-of-touch political elite, and the far-righters and their orange Messiah are here to equalize everyone and make everything all right. They are fantasists, the ultimate expression of idealism. These are indeed lofty ideals, but sadly, the reality of the far-right mindset is somewhat different from their stated ideals.

Their claim to believe in each individual's rights falls flat when it comes to any right that doesn't comport their mindset (like gay rights, abortion, the freedom to read perfectly ordinary books in school libraries, or due process for brown people).
Their claim to believe in free speech only applies to speech they like. Speech they don't like must be restricted, and its speaker punished, preferrably by being beaten up by cops or sent to a concentration camp by ICE.

There is nothing that demonstrates how the far-right mindset works (and exposes its deep flaws) better than their relationship with Israel and the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank.

(Far-right cultists will dutifully obey their echo-chambers and dismiss opponents as woke far-left communist snowflake anti-American virtue signaling beta groomer NPCs who should just leave America already if they hate it so much without ever reading anything they have written or hearing anything they have to say)

Oh, and every accusation from them is a confession .

You know, I could just change a few lines and apply that to the more militant progressives.

 

[dirtywick]

lol you should read the op

 

[acbytesla]

yeah, a handful of the ultra wealthy have kind of made it legal for them to take everything. i guess we still need to be warned of the dangers of communism regardless of what we are actually living through, it's important i suppose.

I think this is inevitable result of unfettered capitalism. The problem isn't that there is too much government, but who that government serves. California and Washington State have similar problems. And that is there is not enough housing. And the cause for the housing shortage is similar That local governments protect homeowners by restricting new housing. They do this through zoning laws passed by cities and counties. If you're a homeowner, you're all in favor of rising home values. But it hurts everyone else.

Lobbyists for the healthcare industry along with the politicians they lobby has led to runaway health care costs. This doesn't just hurt consumers it hurts every other business that pay for employees insurance.

I'm convinced that laws of all sorts are tailored for those with money and access. This leads to laws that aid the stock market over people.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm not just talking about government officials accepting bribes. Corruption takes other forms. We have a system where elections depend on money. Professional lobbying corrupts the system. Campaign donations also corrupt the equity in the system. Totally legal and totally corrupting.

And, as you describe it, totally American.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And what if they just don't pay? Pollute? Mistreat their employees?

Do you think that fines and legal action against a larger firm requires more actual government employees to create the fines or kick off legal action?

It doesn't take more escrow agents to buy a big expensive house than it does to buy a small one. It doesn't take more radiologists to read a wealthy person's PET scan than a poor person's PET scan. It doesn't take more DMV employees to register a rich person's car than it does to register a low income person's car.

Why do you think that more government employees is needed to do the exact same things with respect to a larger company than for a smaller company, or for a wealthier person than for a poorer person?

How are you going to enforce against a corporation with more money and manpower than the Stats?

Are you expecting armed government thugs to show up like an army to enforce regulations at gunpoint? That's not how that works.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There HAS NEVER BEEN a truly communist country.

And there we have it - the statement that makes everything following it pointless.

It's always "no true communist".

 

[plague311]

Maybe, but at least I don't blindly follow any "Party Line:.

Yes, you do. In fact, I could argue that you follow your "Party Line" more blindly than anyone else. Just because you don't place yourself in a right or left camp doesn't mean you aren't blindly holding a stupid ideology. Your incessant need to "both sides" everything, implying both sides are equally as bad, is the most ridiculous "party line" in existence. You try so hard to act like you're above politics, and people who are in a political party that you blindly pretend like both parties are the same level of problem.

That's what makes me laugh at fence sitters, and "centrists". You all have this "holier than thou" attitude about politics and it's laughably, hilariously misguided.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Every single capitalist country I'm aware of is corrupt. And if every communist country is corrupt and every capitalist country is corrupt, then corruption is not necessarily dependent on their economic structure? Or are you saying they are?

Corruption exists in ANY government, regardless of type. Communist structures have less meaningful oversight, less ability to have external objective oversight, and no good means with which to counter that corruption. The degree to which corruption occurs isn't the same, nor the magnitude.

Murder occurs in any government structure. But in totalitarian states, some of that murder occurs with the backing of the government and without any judicial means to address and punish murderers. Thus, even though murder is endemic to human societies, the degree to which it occurs and the magnitude to it's impact is different in totalitarian states than it is in democratic states. Iran's police murdered well over 40,000 of its own citizens - and there's literally nothing at all that anyone can do about it. If police in the US murder people, they are at minimum investigated, and very often indicted for it. You might not like the speed with which it happens, and you might disagree with the outcome of the investigations or the determination of the jury, but it does at least happen - a means of redress exists in the US and other democratic nations that does not exist in Iran and other totalitarian states.

It's the same kind of issue with communism. The structure of the government makes corruption not a matter of periodic exploitation that can be addressed through judicial channels, but the underlying means by which things get done. It's an inevitability, not a risk that can be managed.

 

[acbytesla]

And there we have it - the statement that makes everything following it pointless.

It's always "no true communist".

Nonsense. You apparently never studied government and economics. That is exactly what I studied. It made me qualified to vote and teach. Thats why I went into sales.

Karl Marx himself said the Soviet government wasn't truly communist. And neither did its puppet states or China.