Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1

fusir wrote (edited )

Because they vote for them.

Some may have seen that I'm the capitalist opposition but I'm with you on this one. The left are the real oligarchs. The right wants market purity which is seperation of state and market. The left love interacting goverment and business. And big business loves interacting with the government too. If you are a lobbiest who do you talk to first, the person who has to answer his constituents for every dollar they authorize or the spend happy dem who can talk about cooperation with businesses for a social outcome. Both will do it but the works are a little more lubricated with the dems.

If you want corporate welfare you talk to the dems first. If you are GE and you want a environmental tax writeoff for making wind turbines which you can use to offset your whole business's taxes for all operations, you talk to the dems. If you want money for your soon to fail solar project and want to leverage your uncle's connections, thus offsetting others from the market who may have more technical merit but can't get investment in a market where someone already has a comperitive advantage because someone else is doing it with free money, you talk to the dems. If you are big pharma and you want your research subsidized but would like to keep the patents developed with the public's money, you don't talk to the right who don't want the spending, you talk to the dems.

In a way there is an advantage to going to the most ironic politician first. If a right wing guy helped big pharma, seeing as the left are hotter on fighting big pharma, it would get used as attack ads later. If Hillary is entirely funded by big pharma the left will sweep it under the rug, let's not talk about that fact. The right isn't energetic enough on the issue to bother. If you are big pharma you get what you want at less cost to the person helping you and don't have to give them as much to do it.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

You do realize that there is no money under communism, right? Everyone has equal access to resources? But the left are the real oligarchs? You people need to read up before you try to debate with actual leftists and make yourselves look like fools.

-1

fusir wrote

Alright, well then you guys need to fix your branding problem because we seem to have no idea who the left is and I don't think that's our fault.

I'm refering to the acting left, as they exist now. I am a big fan of distinguishing between politicians and constituency within a political identity. It was pretty clear I was talking about the political structure and not the constituency. So it should be obvious that I wasn't calling people in unicorn communism oligarchs. Find me an applied communism without money. Soviet, Venzuela, China, and even NK all have money. Children litterally pay for their own public education in NK, with cash. It's very obvious that lobbiests and unicorn communism have never met so seeing as I'm talking about interacitions with lobbiests I'm clearly talking about within a bipartisan democratic system. Within our context of a bipartisan democratic system the "left" of it are the easier to shake down for govt money by cronyists.

3

Defasher wrote (edited )

I couldn't care less what you think of the left, personally. Democrats aren't leftists, they're liberals like you conservatives. "Acting left" is bunk. "Applied communism" is bunk. Either there's no money and state or it's not communism.

1

coinphrase wrote

How does retirement work in communism? Also, is there a military?

2

_ziq_ wrote (edited )

In communism the society looks after itself, so everyone is cared for. It means you can retire a lot earlier than under capitalism. And if you're unable to work, you'll still be provided for.

As for a military, there would only be defensive militias as the need arises. There would be no need to invade other lands, all imperialism is rejected by communism.

1

coinphrase wrote

How does communism have the power to transform people from self serving idiots, criminals and power hungry psychopaths to good, caring people that would join together to take care of retirees? It seems like most of our problems today are social problems, does communism have anything to do with that, or is that separate. If separate then wouldn't those problems have to be solved first, in order to bring about this model society where we all take care of each other?

2

_ziq_ wrote (edited )

By removing the very concepts of power, money and hierarchy so we no longer have to compete with each other to climb higher on the pyramid. Instead, everyone is given the same resources. The same cut of the pie.

0

coinphrase wrote

How does one remove those concepts from people's minds though? Would people be punished for illegally creating their own power hierarchies, after real communism has been realized. I'm talking about enforcing it after it is has been perfectly achieved. What does that look like? Who's job is it to enforce the laws and do they not have more power than the others?

1

________deleted wrote

If you're talking about someone trying to declare themselves king, why would millions of people that are now free put up with that? They'd tear him limb from limb.

0

coinphrase wrote (edited )

Does that mean there are no leaders, because leadership implies power and that power could then be abused if the leader had enough people following them. What kinds of laws would there be to stop people from killing each other and saying that the reason they did so was to stop the other person from gaining too much power? Where is the objectivity in that? Are there laws in communism that prevent others from having and exerting power? If so then who enforces those laws, who is the expert on those laws that gets the final say. Is it the least common denominator or is it whatever opinion is the most popular, is there a vote?

1

chaos wrote

You have no clue what you're talking about. It's frankly embarrassing how uneducated Americans are. American 'Democrats' are center-right in the US, and far right by any international standard. They have nothing to do with the left.

1

coinphrase wrote

Are you really embarrassed or is that just something you learned to say? If you're American and embarrassed by your fellow Americans because of their personal beliefs, then it's safe to say that you feel superior to others, that you think you are better somehow. If not, then why embarrassed, why not frustrated or sad? There is a certain amount of disdain implied with saying you are embarrassed by people you don't know and who probably don't care about you or what you think. In your marxist fantasy, you stand high on a peak alone, a beacon of equality placed above all others.

1

Defasher wrote

Because they vote for them.

So? There are only 2 nearly-identical rulers they get to choose between, and the people don't even choose the ruler anyway, the electoral college do.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

fusir wrote

Nah, because all ads are really targeted to moderates. You want to both convince a moderate (which the full specrum recognizes pharma is corrupt and that includes moderates), and promote your general nerative. The two have to be aligned. The left attacking George Bush because he isn't pro-gun enough doesn't make sense. But if George Bush had signed an "assault" weapons ban the right aren't going to campaign against him on that fact in the 2004.

If Hillary had then the GOP can use geographic data to find that moderates in ohio are pro-2A and swing an election. Once they are out of the primary anything they have done against their party becomes irrelevent.