Biden is no socialist

Racism has a specific meaning. Anything else is engaging in semantics.

There is no way in hell you are going to tell me that Obama would pick a racist for VP, nor backed by Rep Jim Clyburn and the vast majority of blacks would vote for Biden if he were a racist, period. And his picking Harris as a running mate is tokenism? Get real.

I lived in the racist south, I know racism. THIS is racism:




You want tokenism? This is Trump's intern staff, THIS is 'tokenism'.

 

I asked crank, "Are you a member of a socialist party? If so, which one, if I may ask?"

crank wrote: "Staying out of 'organisations' until such time as membership is comprised of something other than vogueing capitalists."

My response: What might a 'vogueing capitalist' be? Thank you.

crank wrote: "Former member of the Commies. Abandoned them when they were hijacked by bored middle-class poseurs."

My response: If you're talking about the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), although founded upon Marxist lines, the CPUSA abandoned its revolutionary objectives during the 1930s in favor of reformism. So the CPUSA was hijacked more than eighty years ago if that is the party you are describing.
Too, are these 'bored middle-class poseurs' members of the CPUSA and or other parties?

I asked, crank,"Given that the following chart approximates what a socialist society would look like, what exactly do you mean by socialist society is 'a choice now'? ( www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf .)"

crank wrote: "Socialism is a verb."

My response: Respectfully, the word 'socialism' is a noun. Socialism is nothing more than a sociopolitical theory that would inform a socialist society if one were to exist."

crank: "It's in every facet of our daily lives, as lived."

My response: Well, again, socialism is a theory that exists within the context of books and the like. So, beyond the written word, socialism is not in every facet of our lives except in perhaps the most esoteric of ways.

crank: "It's individual collectives existing with a high degree of self-reliance (and thus able to exist at a remove from the buying/selling of labour), within the framework of the broader politics and economy of time and place."

My response: By 'individual collectives,' are you referring to Tennessee's 'The Farm' and other agrarian collectives?

I asked crank, "...how is it that we socialists could take 'that [socialist] option?'

crank: "We all have the choice to live collectively, but VERY few make that choice. When it comes down to it, the vast majority much prefer to buy/sell labour. Few want to work for nix, and that's what it takes."

My response: Although I, for example, do not relish having to sell my intellectual power to an employer, most workers are devoid of a realistic alternative. The Marxian assertion that "an island of socialism cannot survive in a sea of capitalism" is correct. And that is borne out by the fact that virtually all collectives fail rather quickly (a well-known example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llano_del_Rio ).

Of those that do not fail, neither are they very effective at delivering what they promise. These places' well-intentioned residences lead mostly hand-to-mouth existences complete with no medical insurance, no Social Security contributions, and indeed no other retirement plans. The decision to quit one's job and move oneself and one's family to one of these places is both feckless, irresponsible, and fraught with personal disaster. After all, a socialist society's primary objective would be the social ownership and democratic administration of an industrialized society for society's benefit. The goal would not be a return to 19th-century agrarianism.

That is not to say that I relish having to sell my intellectual power to an employer; I do not. Indeed, I resent being a wage slave or, in my case, a salary slave. As a Marxist, I would much prefer that we delete the capitalist system and initiate a socialist means of production ( www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf ). But that isn't going to happen within the time I have left.

Moreover, pushing the concept of collective living arrangements would alienate many workers who might otherwise be supportive of bringing about a socialist commonwealth.

Then again, I still do not know that crank had the likes of The Farm in mind when he wrote of the "choice to live collectively." Perhaps crank had something else in mind. If so, I apologize for being tangential.

*****

Guy Marsh
Member (since 1990):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
http://www.slp.org/

What is socialism?
http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
https://freespeech.org

Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
http://www.pacifica.org/

 

I have taken courses in French and English about marks and angles and I'm not really interested. They seem to have missed the point of fair capitalism. Or socialism as understood by French Italian Spanish German Scandinavian etc socialists. You're talking about socialism being communism so you are just as wrong as republicans. Well not quite because they think that Nazis are also socialists and Communists oh my God. The Communist parties have disappeared since they are no longer supported by the USSR.

 

Phooey

 

he would tell you he made a mistake or two going along with lying scumbag Republicans who are the real problem obviously. Turn off the GOP propaganda

 

Yes. Yes, of course, marks and angles.

Who is the idiot here? Me.

Moving on...

 

No the smartphone that I am talking into is the idiot. Of course you know what I was saying. Any actual argument?

 

So you define racism as merely the mention of a person's skin color without mentioning an issue or a story?

 

Because he is a politician with 40+ years in the swamp, he will tell you whatever it is he thinks you want to hear. Like many, his public statements are but lip service, and very different from what he tells his corporate donors.

 

They've been taken over by Marks & Spencer anyway...

 

I see. So you didn't bother to proofread your twenty-seven-word "response."

You're kidding, right, hellofromwarsaw? In "response" to a post of mine consisting of some five-hundred-words, you wrote nothing more than "Phooey," yet you have the temerity to ask if I have "any actual argument." That is disordered hubris at its finest.

 

No, I do not now, nor have I ever supported Bernard Sanders. However, for the record, it is not true that Sanders played the spoiler relative to the 2016 presidential election, for Hillary Clinton garnered three-million more votes than did Donald Trump. It was the Electoral College that played a hand in the (selection) of Donald Trump.

Moreover, Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate who was reliant upon the DNC's sabotage of Sander's campaign, who referred to millions of human beings as "deplorables," who behaved callously toward coal miners and other workers, and who poopooed the Black Lives Matter movement. Ergo, so, too, did Hillary Clinton play a hand in the selection of Donald Trump.

Finally, CenterField, why do you think this thread's parent post (my post) represents extremism? Please be specific. Thank you.

*****

Guy Marsh
Member (since 1990):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
http://www.slp.org/

What is socialism?
http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
https://freespeech.org

Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
http://www.pacifica.org/

 

I asked crank, "Are you a member of a socialist party? If so, which one, if I may ask?"

My response: What might a 'vogueing capitalist" be?
Too, If you're talking about the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), although founded upon Marxist lines, the CPUSA abandoned its revolutionary objectives during the 1930s in favor of reformism. So the CPUSA was hijacked more than eighty years ago if that is the party you are describing.
And are these 'bored middle-class poseurs' members of the CPUSA and or other parties?

I then asked crank,"Given that the following chart approximates what a socialist society would look like, what exactly do you mean by socialist society is 'a choice now'? ( www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf .)"

crank wrote: "Socialism is a verb."

My response: Respectfully, the word 'socialism' is a noun. Socialism is nothing more than a sociopolitical theory that would inform a socialist society if one were to exist."

crank: "It's in every facet of our daily lives, as lived."

My response: Well, again, socialism is a theory that exists within the context of books and the like. So, beyond the written word, socialism is not in every facet of our lives except in perhaps the most esoteric of ways.

crank: "It's individual collectives existing with a high degree of self-reliance (and thus able to exist at a remove from the buying/selling of labour), within the framework of the broader politics and economy of time and place."

My response: By 'individual collectives,' are you referring to Tennessee's 'The Farm' and other agrarian collectives?

I asked crank, "...how is it that we socialists could take "that [socialist] option?"

crank: "We all have the choice to live collectively, but VERY few make that choice. When it comes down to it, the vast majority much prefer to buy/sell labour. Few want to work for nix, and that's what it takes."

My response: Although I, for example, do not relish having to sell my intellectual power to an employer, most workers are devoid of a realistic alternative. The Marxian assertion that "an island of socialism cannot survive in a sea of capitalism" is correct. And that is borne out by the fact that virtually all collectives fail rather quickly (a well-known example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llano_del_Rio ).

Of those that do not fail, neither are they very effective at delivering what they promise. These places' well-intentioned residences lead mostly hand-to-mouth existences complete with no medical insurance, no Social Security contributions, and indeed no other retirement plans. The decision to quit one's job and move oneself and one's family to one of these places is both feckless, irresponsible, and fraught with personal disaster. After all, a socialist society's primary objective would be the social ownership and democratic administration of an industrialized society for society's benefit. The goal would not be a return to 19th-century agrarianism.

That is not to say that I relish having to sell my intellectual power to an employer; I do not. Indeed, I resent being a wage slave or, in my case, a salary slave. As a Marxist, I would much prefer that we delete the capitalist system and initiate a socialist means of production ( www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf ). But that isn't going to happen within the time I have left.

Moreover, pushing the concept of collective living arrangements would alienate many workers who might otherwise be supportive of bringing about a socialist commonwealth.

Then again, I still do not know that crank had the likes of The Farm in mind when he wrote of the "choice to live collectively." Perhaps crank had something else in mind. If so, I apologize for being tangential.

*****

Guy Marsh
Member (since 1990):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
http://www.slp.org/

What is socialism?
http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
https://freespeech.org

Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
http://www.pacifica.org/

 

But a socialist government ( www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf ) would be utterly distinct from the bureaucratic government we have today. No longer would workers be represented geographically and by bureaucratic politicians. Instead, they would be expressed through their respective industries and by their fellow workers. (Please familiarize yourselves with the concept of Socialist Industrial Unionism (SIU) - www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf ).

Per "...those who control the government [could] easily decree high incomes for themselves," a futuristic socialist society would likely determine an income ratio of, say, 7 to 1, thereby making it difficult if not impossible for SIU representatives to decree themselves higher incomes.* If any such representatives would attempt to do so, they would likely be recalled by those who elected them - their fellow workers. That, workers' ability to recall their representatives lies at the very foundation of Socialist Industrial Unionism. Moreover, I doubt that a mechanism for granting oneself more money or, in this case, "labor-time vouchers" would exist.

(Note: Benjamin Franklin himself supported a 7 to 1 pay ratio).

Even if the increasingly reactionary American plutocracy were to allow for those things, it would not alter the fact that, under capitalism, workers are paid back, in the form of wages and salaries, only a small fraction of the wealth their labor power produces. Ultimately, the capitalist system is a system of mass thievery protected by a bourgeois system of legality known as private profit or, in Marxian parlance, surplus value. It is a robbery system facilitated by the likes of trade unions that merely negotiate the terms of workers' exploitation. What is needed, therefore, is an entirely new society, not typically worthless "reforms."

*****

Guy Marsh
Member (since 1990):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
http://www.slp.org/

What is socialism?
http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
https://freespeech.org

Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
http://www.pacifica.org/

 

Oh no, I don't think that racism is defined by merely mentioning a person's skin color, and I apologize if I gave that impression. Indeed, as distinguished from institutional or systemic racism, simple racism mainly concerns the erroneous belief that oneself is better than people of other pigmentations. Though mostly meaningless, it is at the very least rude and thus unproductive behavior that only "serves" to further divide workers against themselves. In brief, you will learn nothing about a person by discussing their skin color save for perhaps which latitude they originate. It is uninteresting and demonstrates a lack of sophistication.

*****

Guy Marsh
Member (since 1990):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
http://www.slp.org/

What is socialism?
http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
https://freespeech.org

Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
http://www.pacifica.org/

 

Cutting it short and using dot points ... apologies in advance!

1) Socialism is officially a noun, but technically a verb. It is an economic/domiciliary model. Nothing to do with politics. Socialists come in every flavour of politics, culture, religion, ethnicity, etc.

2) Capitalist voguers are Progressive Leftists. AKA, bored middle class poseurs.

3) Socialism can and does exist within capitalist democracies. In fact a capitalist democracy is the very best environment for collectivism, because it brings with it the freedom to opt out of buying/selling labour - while retaining access to the infrastructure and social benefits of capitalism ... free education, free healthcare, etc.

4) Anyone can live collectivism, any time. There are millions of such groups, all over the world. Every extended family co-habiting, agrarian farming communities and cooperatives, some businesses, religious groups, etc etc etc. The only requirements are fully owned property, and willingness to work in exchange for lifetime access to the benefits of that fully owned property. And the property is absolutely crucial, in every iteration. It's the only thing which allows collectives to abide. The failures are those which either tried to scale it to a public level (which can never work, because only familiarity produces the kind of loyalty and commitment required), or who did not own property. Human nature is the weak link in the chain, so the other link must be rock solid to compensate. If rent is being paid, the exercise fails the philosophical model, AND introduces a variable beyond the control of the collective. Will always fail, IOW.

 

yabberrefugee said to Vailhundt:

Vailhundt's understanding that healthcare is a human right makes him a good and pragmatic human being. And if support for Medicare For All makes one a "minion for the socialist movement," then seventy-percent of Americans are minions of the socialist movement. (According to a Reuters survey, "...85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans [favor Medicare For all]. Only 20 percent of Americans say they outright oppose the idea.")

Contrary to the highly conditioned belief that a Medicare For All system would be a "government-run system," America's medical and pharmaceutical industries would remain in private hands just as they are in Canada. The only difference would be that, rather than hospital capitalists, medical devise capitalists, and pharmaceutical capitalists billing large numbers of insurance capitalists each month, they would instead send one bill to the federal government every month. By removing insurance companies from the equation, such a system would be much less expensive than our current system. Currently, many hospitals devote entire floors and dozens of employees to the complicated task of billing a plethora of insurance companies. In Canada, most hospitals allot two desks and two employees to send (one) bill to the Canadian government at the end of each month.

As for yabberrefugee's statement that many Canadians come to the U.S. seeking medical treatment, only about fifty-thousand of them come South of the 49th parallel for such care each year. Virtually none of them come here for routine screening, emergency care, and prescriptions. After all, the Canadian healthcare system provides excellent but not always timely service. During the two-plus years that two of my children and my wife and I lived in Vancouver, British Columbia, we found the Canadian system excellent. Those few who come to the U.S. for medical care do so for the very specialized professional treatments that the Canadian government does not support. Professional athletes and the very rich comprise a lot of these patients. Therefore, very few if any doctors and staff are knowledgeable or trained or experienced with these specialties.

(Related reading: "Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans" by Wendell Potter, a former vice-president of CIGNA Insurance, Bloomsbury Press, 2010.)

*****

Guy Marsh
Member (since 1990):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
http://www.slp.org/

What is socialism?
http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
https://freespeech.org

Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
http://www.pacifica.org/

 

Many other thousands go to Clinics on top of Swiss mountains that specialize in keeping movie stars and Melania looking young. Swiss medicine is justifiably world-renowned for that but it isn't nearly as taxpayer-supported as is the American system to my knowledge

Americans pay more than twice as much for Medical care as any other place in the world but our overall level of service is 37th. Something needs to be done and just shouting "Murica, Murica" and "No Socialism" whenever the subject comes up isn't it.

 

I'm fully aware of what the Electoral College is, dear. But you may want to look at a piece of social research published on Newsweek, authored by a political sciences professor, who looked into the three states that gave to Trump his EC victory, the difference in vote, and how many Bernie or Bust people switched sides or abstained in those three states.

I'm also fully aware of Hillary Clinton's shortcomings. I never liked her.

As for your extremism, sorry, I do not have any interest in further discussing it with you. Have a nice life. Over and out.

 

Well done, you almost convinced me I should have voted for Trump!

 

Although medical care in the U.S. is not all that taxpayer-supported, it is nonetheless true that although Switzerland does have universal healthcare, the Swiss government pays for no amount of free services. All Swiss citizens are required to maintain private medical insurance. As a result, Switzerland sports one of the world's most expensive healthcare systems.

Well said, Aleksander. We pay twice as much because typically worthless intermediaries known as insurance capitalists/medical gatekeepers take-in billions of dollars each year while providing no useful service at all, let alone medical services. Through the capitalist media, they have conditioned workers, like yabberrefugee, to act against their interests relative to healthcare.

*****

Guy Marsh
Member (since 1990):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
http://www.slp.org/

What is socialism?
http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
https://freespeech.org

Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
http://www.pacifica.org/

 

Have you a link to that story, CenterField? Thank you.

Yes, that dislike is widespread. It informs her defeat.

Okay. Then perhaps it wasn't all that extreme.

*****

Guy Marsh
Member (since 1990):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
http://www.slp.org/

What is socialism?
http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
https://freespeech.org

Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
http://www.pacifica.org/

 

A rather creative response, freedom8. And I do understand your point. But voting for the lesser of two "evils" only paves the way for more "evil." One needs to look no further than Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama to confirm that point. After all, the anti-worker practices of their administrations created the widespread resentment that led to Trump. On the other hand, a hypothetical President Ralph Nader, as an example, would not have put forth anti-worker practices.

*****

Guy Marsh
Member (since 1990):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
http://www.slp.org/

What is socialism?
http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
https://freespeech.org

Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
http://www.pacifica.org/

 

Thanks for the compliment, Guy. But what then? I must confess I didn't fully read all your posts but I don't remember your mentioning any names and Ralph Nader wasn't on my ballot paper. Neither was Ross Perot, btw, if you want to widen the field.
Should I have abstained and left the decision to others?

Yes, I still think the lesser of two evils is...well, the lesser of two evils, unless you can convince me that voting for the worse of two evils "paves the way for less evil".