Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Endus]

In a purely communistic state, how do you deal with people who refuse to work, or be productive?

Why should you do that in the first place? I don't agree that should be the case in a capitalist society, why would I change that position for a hypothetical communist one?

[uuuhname]

Welcome to libertarianism.

Well, this is awkward for you.

I mean I have plenty of sympathy for some libertarian ideas but in you're case you swap out the government for corporations. not much of an upgrade.

[Machismo]

You have absolutely zero basis for the latter, and a cursory examination of the last century of human history completely debunks it.

The Soviet Union saw more-rapid productivity increases than any Western capitalist nation, in its heyday, for decades. Modern China is repeating that as we speak, growing more rapidly than any capitalist nation.



You're talking about authoritarian governments, not communist economics, here. That's deflection. You can't seem to attack communism on its merits (and, indeed, directly misrepresented them above), so you attack authoritarianism and staple communism's face to it.



So you . . . prefer the economic system which explicitly puts the selfish assholes in charge of the entire economic system and garnering all the wealth produced by that system?

That's literally capitalist theory.

To be clear, I want to acknowledge that you are now touting the efforts of Mao and Stalin.

Modern China isn't even close to being communist. But hey, at least it's very authoritarian...

I'll attack them on the two governments you just cited... how fucking authoritarian they are. And don't bitch about it being a strawman, because they are your argument.

Crack that whip.

[Specialka]

I said if you have a problem with authoritarian governments then you should be an anarchist. every government that exists is itself "an authority".

Why do people like you only deal in extreme ? Do you know the word "nuance" ?

[Machismo]

I mean I have plenty of sympathy for some libertarian ideas but in you're case you swap out the government for corporations. not much of an upgrade.

I'll take individual liberty over authoritarian regimes any day of the week.

[Endus]

I mean I have plenty of sympathy for some libertarian ideas but in you're case you swap out the government for corporations. not much of an upgrade.

All the potential exploitation.

None of the democratic checks and balances.

Libertarians pushing for a cyberpunk corpo-authoritarian future unapologetically under the name of "liberty" really gets tiresome.

[Machismo]

Why should you do that in the first place? I don't agree that should be the case in a capitalist society, why would I change that position for a hypothetical communist one?

Once again, how would you deal with them? It's not a difficult question, no need for you to sidestep. if your answer is, that you wouldn't deal with them, and would simply provide for them all, just come out and say it.

[uuuhname]

Why do people like you only deal in extreme ? Do you know the word "nuance" ?

ironic seeing you had to bring up Stalin to have any sort of point********.

[Machismo]

ironic seeing you had to bring up Stalin to have any sort of point********.

Great, then show us other examples of wonderful communist nations and regimes.

[uuuhname]

I'll take individual liberty over authoritarian regimes any day of the week.

this means nothing.

[Machismo]

this means nothing.

It means nothing to you, but liberty means a great deal to me.

[Endus]

To be clear, I want to acknowledge that you are now touting the efforts of Mao and Stalin.

In terms of their historical productivity, relative to Western nations. If you're seeing anything else, that's you making shit up to engage in slander.

I'm not communist in any ideological sense.

Modern China isn't even close to being communist. But hey, at least it's very authoritarian...

So you're arguing that state capitalism isn't communist, since I think we can comfortably agree that modern China's economy is "state capitalism"?

If that's the case, congrats, we're coming around to admitting that capitalism has the same issues as communism, in the end. And that maybe your issue should be "authoritarianism", not economic systems. Actually stick to the common thread, rather than pushing propaganda.

I'll attack them on the two governments you just cited... how fucking authoritarian they are. And don't bitch about it being a strawman, because they are your argument.

Crack that whip.

See, the point is that if you keep trying to talk about how bad authoritarianism is, and keep pretending that you're talking about communism, then you're misrepresenting the facts to push propaganda.

I'm not going to defend or support authoritarianism in any sense. But you've been trying to make an argument about communist economics, not authoritarianism. Stop shifting goalposts every time you get challenged. The two things aren't the same.

[uuuhname]

Great, then show us other examples of wonderful communist nations and regimes.

I said Cuba, and plenty of other communists/socialist countries have had major successes in lowering poverty and expanding education. I can mention China and you can scream "Uighur Muslims!" and I can point to North American Indians and hear the yawning silence.

[Mayhem]

You are the one ignoring it. I am citing "real world" exemples which failed. But whatever, talking to a brick wall is more productive.

Funny considering you completely ignored my post.

- - - Updated - - -

this means nothing.

Welcome to arguing with Machismo.

[Endus]

Once again, how would you deal with them? It's not a difficult question, no need for you to sidestep. if your answer is, that you wouldn't deal with them, and would simply provide for them all, just come out and say it.

We should deal with them the same way we already deal with them. Children, homemakers, students, retirees. Determining whether someone is supported by society based on their productivity is a position fundamentally rooted in exploitation and abuse, and I reject it on base principles.

There's nothing to "deal with". That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. You're asking a leading question, and I'm just not playing your game.

[Slant]

Oh I've read plenty of history books and books on theory

You speak like a person who hasn't opened a history book.

You couldn't miss the point harder if you tried... Zero.

Zero is the number of fucks I give about what you just said. Well done.

[Machismo]

In terms of their historical productivity, relative to Western nations. If you're seeing anything else, that's you making shit up to engage in slander.

I'm not communist in any ideological sense.



So you're arguing that state capitalism isn't communist, since I think we can comfortably agree that modern China's economy is "state capitalism"?

If that's the case, congrats, we're coming around to admitting that capitalism has the same issues as communism, in the end. And that maybe your issue should be "authoritarianism", not economic systems. Actually stick to the common thread, rather than pushing propaganda.



See, the point is that if you keep trying to talk about how bad authoritarianism is, and keep pretending that you're talking about communism, then you're misrepresenting the facts to push propaganda.

I'm not going to defend or support authoritarianism in any sense. But you've been trying to make an argument about communist economics, not authoritarianism. Stop shifting goalposts every time you get challenged. The two things aren't the same.

No, you want to argue that, no need to make my arguments for me.

You touted their productivity, as your argument. You wanted to tout them. It's amazing how productive people can be, when you will literally kill them if they don't work harder.

let's not forget, they were your argument.

I stated a while back, communism on paper is fine, it's the implementation that's the problem. Communism simply promotes complacency, laziness, and is an easy target of corrupt and selfish people.

This is the fundamental flaw with communism, it easily allows for the likes of those regimes, and those people to ruin it.

So, on an economic and personal level, capitalism allows for more liberty, and promotes productivity.

- - - Updated - - -

I said Cuba, and plenty of other communists/socialist countries have had major successes in lowering poverty and expanding education. I can mention China and you can scream "Uighur Muslims!" and I can point to North American Indians and hear the yawning silence.

You mean one of the least-free nations on the planet?

https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table

https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores

- - - Updated - - -

Funny considering you completely ignored my post.

- - - Updated - - -



Welcome to arguing with Machismo.

To be clear, are you saying liberty also means nothing to you?

[uuuhname]

You mean one of the least-free nations on the planet?

https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table

https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores

I mean you're the one who says people are inherently evil so why are you complaining when governments put a clamp on people's inherent desire to be evil? curious.

[Machismo]

We should deal with them the same way we already deal with them. Children, homemakers, students, retirees. Determining whether someone is supported by society based on their productivity is a position fundamentally rooted in exploitation and abuse, and I reject it on base principles.

There's nothing to "deal with". That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. You're asking a leading question, and I'm just not playing your game.

So, if there's no negative impacts if a person decides to not be productive, then what incentive to they have to contribute? They will still be taken care of, and they will still be given everything they want/need as part of the collective.

Are we to assume they would be productive out of the goodness of their hearts?

[Slant]

Those history books only cover basically a single sub-branch of communism, one that's a strong rejection of Marxist principles. Stalin is the archetype, and from there, we get Maoism and Castroism and all the rest, springing from that origin point. And not even Lenin was anywhere close to what Stalin was; Lenin spoke strongly near the end against authoritarianism and centralizing power into the hands of someone like Stalin. As in, he named Stalin, directly, in that accusation.

These autocratic regimes are not the expression of the whole body of communist theory. They are not the only way communism can be implemented. Pretending otherwise is McCarthy level propagandizing. As is pretending that the choices are "capitalism" or "Stalinist communism", when there's a wide range of other economic systems beyond those two.

And it's not like capitalism was not responsible for comparable horrors, either. If you want to delve down into the "which is worse" fight, it's a long and drawn-out argument about how awful and abusive both systems have historically been. Hand-waving the abuses of one system to laud another is how you get propaganda, not history.

The point wasn't to open a bigger debate on Communism. The point was that the rule of society isn't decided by the rich few, it's decided by society, aka THE MOB. Whatever they want to happen, they can make happen. And there's not much a Government (and even less random individuals that don't own an army) can do about it except killing everyone last one that dissents. Typically, that is a pretty successful strategy to a point. But you're not making any friends and when you eventually fail (which most do, inevitably), it's your head.

So, making fun of the notion that these billionaires can't be stopped, that's just hilarious on a historical scale. It's like literally, millenia of European history looking at that post and going...



Edit: That our little pro-communist friend here gets a hardon for defending the glory of the great Soviet is his problem.. yours, however, is that there is arguably only one, maybe two semi-successful examples of communism in the history of this planet that demonstrate it might be working under certain conditions. And last I checked, Cuba wasn't doing so well and China... well, the jury's still out on them, I guess. It's certainly a very Chinese variant of Communism. But one out of a few dozen doesn't make Communism as a concept a success story. In theory maybe... but I don't give a shit what Marx and Engels dreamt up in their smokepipes. It's not what it turned into later, that's for sure. Turns out humans are assholes after all.