The Trump Presidency

[jpx7]

By "relatively malleable" you mean that you shape the discourse as you see fit using sleight of hand and technicality.

No, I mean that meaning is relative and arbitrary. But you honor me with such praise of my illusionist discursive capabilities; you're certainly no slouch at such sleights.

You took the bait on the communism thing, and you might have had a convincing case to actually make until you tossed in the 18th and 19th century for (pure) theatrics.

I don't take "theatrics" as a pejorative, given my history of study and current line of work. But I'm interested in why my off-hand invocation of industrializing capitalism (versus 20th-century industrialized capitalism) somehow invalidates the case I "might" have had about the 20th century.

(As for taking bait: you're right there, but only in the sense that I think this logic of numerical "tallying" is a fool's errand, whether you're studying capitalism, communism, or Verdukianism, because you end up in an ouroborous of responsibility and contingency, eating up time and effort and ending up nowhere useful.)

[thethe]

As an aside JPX - How do you speak in person? Does it mirror your written word? Further - How long does it take you to construct a post or does the language flow through you naturally?

Please do not take this as anything other than someone who admirers how incredible your written word is.

[jpx7]

Again - You are conflating the actions of the elite with actual capitalism that we have in America. Comparing that to what we saw in the USSR and Mao's China shows that the power given to the state is what killed people.

(a) The "actual capitalism that we have in America" is dominated by elites, most of whose actions are pretty ****ty and not for the good of most people.

(b) The history of "the USSR and Mao's China" does not "show" or prove or evince that "power given to the state" kills people. It just speaks to the corruptibility of man.

[sturg33]

(a) The "actual capitalism that we have in America" is dominated by elites, most of whose actions are pretty ****ty and not for the good of most people.

Please elaborate. The amount of goods and services in provided in this country is astronomical and not centralized to but a few.

(b) The history of "the USSR and Mao's China" does not "show" or prove or evince that "power given to the state" kills people. It just speaks to the corruptibility of man.

Socialism/Communism requires the individual to give away freedom. When people don't comply, the state must use force

[thethe]

(a) The "actual capitalism that we have in America" is dominated by elites, most of whose actions are pretty ****ty and not for the good of most people.

(b) The history of "the USSR and Mao's China" does not "show" or prove or evince that "power given to the state" kills people. It just speaks to the corruptibility of man.

And when you put so much power into the hands a few men, which will always be the case in a system you espouse, it will always lead to the mass murder of their own people. A society without a ruling body will never exist or at least it won't exist until we reach a new stage of enlightenment which I don't foresee happening for a thousand years.

[sturg33]

By the way, the quality of our lives has been made substantially better due to people's endless pursuit of profit.

[jpx7]

The collection of elites will always exist. I wish it weren't the case but that is the reality of the world we live in. Not coincidentally this is the reason why I love the show 'Mr Robot' so much. If you haven't seen it I'd advise watching it. I think it would line up with your ideology well.

What we do know is that when a government embraces communism the murder of countless of its own people follow. That is absolutely not the case with capitalism.

I'd dispute that "is absolutely not the case with capitalism", and I don't think we "know" that about communism, either. But I'm not advocating for communism, as I've maintained, so "defending" communism is far less my aim than critiquing capitalism.

And when you put so much power into the hands a few men, which will always be the case in a system you espouse, it will always lead to the mass murder of their own people. A society without a ruling body will never exist or at least it won't exist until we reach a new stage of enlightenment which I don't foresee happening for a thousand years.

Again: the system I "espouse" is not communism, nor a system that concentrates "so much power into the hands of a few men"—indeed, I am seeking the very opposite of that, by seeking redistributive policies and practices. We already have "so much power in the hands a few men" under our slightly-mitigated form of capitalism, and further reducing the extent of mitigation will further increase the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

[jpx7]

Please elaborate. The amount of goods and services in provided in this country is astronomical and not centralized to but a few.

Their affordability and access is concentrated in measure with the concentration of wealth. That's fine for luxuries, but not for necessities (healthy food, healthcare, information access).

Socialism/Communism requires the individual to give away freedom. When people don't comply, the state must use force

We've been through the "force" line before. There's just as much coercion in capitalism, it just takes on different forms.

[sturg33]

Again: the system I "espouse" is not communism, nor a system that concentrates "so much power into the hands of a few men"—indeed, I am seeking the very opposite of that, by seeking redistributive policies and practices. .

I'd love to understand specifics here... because it sounds an awful lot like socialism

[sturg33]

We've been through the "force" line before. There's just as much coercion in capitalism, it just takes on different forms.

People who live in socialist countries do not have an option to not participate.

But I'd love to hear specifics on the different forms of coercion in a true capitalist system... I haven't heard any yet from you

[jpx7]

As an aside JPX - How do you speak in person? Does it mirror your written word?

I said it years ago when grooveone asked the same thing: depends on how many beers I've had.

Further - How long does it take you to construct a post or does the language flow through you naturally?

Depends on the post, but usually I just type. I'm trying to spend less time on here, after all, not more.

Please do not take this as anything other than someone who admirers how incredible your written word is.

Thanks. Hoping to make it a day-job until we hit that magical post-work society, and then I can just read and write for my own edification—or a day-job until the globe burns, seas rise, and perpetual famine hits. You know, whichever comes first.

[jpx7]

I'd love to understand specifics here... because it sounds an awful lot like socialism

Your point? socialism =/= communism

People who live in socialist countries do not have an option to not participate.

But I'd love to hear specifics on the different forms of coercion in a true capitalist system... I haven't heard any yet from you

People who live in capitalist countries likewise do not have an option to not participate. I'm coerced everyday into participating in the capitalist economy. But we live in an increasingly crowded world, and very few people enjoy the luxury of not participating in its various institutions.

As for "the different forms of coercion in a true capitalist system" ... we've likewise been down this road before. Do you honestly not remember it? Humor me, then, and let's phrase it another way: how do you see a "true capitalist system" being altogether free of coercive participation? And keep in mind that states/governments are not the only entities/institutions that wield coercive force.

[sturg33]

Your point? socialism =/= communism



People who live in capitalist countries likewise do not have an option to not participate. I'm coerced everyday into participating in the capitalist economy. But we live in an increasingly crowded world, and very few people enjoy the luxury of not participating in its various institutions.

As for "the different forms of coercion in a true capitalist system" ... we've likewise been down this road before. Do you honestly not remember it? Humor me, then, and let's phrase it another way: how do you see a "true capitalist system" being altogether free of coercive participation? And keep in mind that states/governments are not the only entities/institutions that wield coercive force.

I remember having many back and forths with you that go a lot like this. I'm pressing you for specifics today and you're not providing any.

i've lost count already of how many direct questions I've asked you in this exchange that have yet to be answered

[57Brave]

Comparing Trump to Stalin on the floor of the Senate is a start; it means someone in the GOP sees Trump's autocratic nature and how dangerous it is. But if you want a GOP Senator to suddenly vote like a Democrat, you're just not understanding what the GOP is up to agenda-wise.
2 replies 4 retweets 39 likes

[Hawk]

I don't take "theatrics" as a pejorative, given my history of study and current line of work. But I'm interested in why my off-hand invocation of industrializing capitalism (versus 20th-century industrialized capitalism) somehow invalidates the case I "might" have had about the 20th century.

Well, good; it wasn't a pejorative jab. It was just kind of surprising to see you make such an erroneous claim, and then turn around and zealously re-highlight the same position from an even more questionable angle. It seemed, to me, that you were more in tune with solidifying a rhetorical 'stake in the heart' climax than establishing any useful parameters from which to qualify/quantify your assertion. Hence my quip about theatrics.

In terms of invalidating your argument, I'd suggest that pre-industrial (or 'industrializing') capitalism isn't actually even capitalism to begin with, to start.

(As for taking bait: you're right there, but only in the sense that I think this logic of numerical "tallying" is a fool's errand, whether you're studying capitalism, communism, or Verdukianism, because you end up in an ouroborous of responsibility and contingency, eating up time and effort and ending up nowhere useful.)

Well, it entirely depends on the kind of statement you are trying to make and how into the weeds you are willing to go to demonstrate your point. The numbers can be twisted any number of ways, but the most obvious derivations here are the ones that I find instructive.

[thethe]

Silicon Valley is bad news. They are members of the true elite that want to reshape society.

[Hawk]

Comparing Trump to Stalin on the floor of the Senate is a start; it means someone in the GOP sees Trump's autocratic nature and how dangerous it is. But if you want a GOP Senator to suddenly vote like a Democrat, you're just not understanding what the GOP is up to agenda-wise.
2 replies 4 retweets 39 likes

Who wrote this? I want to ridicule them publicly.

[thethe]

When the argument starts to devolve to comparing trump to stalin you know the dems are nervous about all the success America is seeing under responsible direction.

I am going to enjoy the next 7 years as the left devolves into pathetic sociopaths. Oh noes! TRUMP!!!

[jpx7]

I remember having many back and forths with you that go a lot like this. I'm pressing you for specifics today and you're not providing any.

i've lost count already of how many direct questions I've asked you in this exchange that have yet to be answered

It's like four, so if you've lost count, you can't count very high.

And I like that you respond in-kind, by not answering my own direct question. Not setting a very good example for me.

Let's try this simply: physical space to exist. In the modern world, I can't just go out and live somewhere where people aren't, and call it mine. I either have to pay rents to landowners (coercing participation in the capitalist system), become a landowner (coercing even more participation in the capitalist system), or exist illegally in vagrancy (a state out of which I will eventually be coerced). I have no-option of non-participation; and even if I'm not being directly taxed by the government, most people will end up taxed by landowners in the way of rent (with many fewer protections thereof in the absence of regulatory bodies).

[sturg33]

It's like four, so if you've lost count, you can't count very high.

And I like that you respond in-kind, by not answering my own direct question. Not setting a very good example for me.

I get a little tired of being the only one to ever answer direct questions. I guess since I asked first, I don't feel the need to answer your follow up because it inevitably leads to your responding to that, and thus never answer my original questions. I'm trying to be better about not letting people off the hook. To date, you still haven't answered my questions

Let's try this simply: physical space to exist. In the modern world, I can't just go out and live somewhere where people aren't, and call it mine. I either have to pay rents to landowners (coercing participation in the capitalist system), become a landowner (coercing even more participation in the capitalist system), or exist illegally in vagrancy (a state out of which I will eventually be coerced). I have no-option of non-participation; and even if I'm not being directly taxed by the government, most people will end up taxed by landowners in the way of rent (with many fewer protections thereof in the absence of regulatory bodies).

I honestly think you've gone off the deep end if you think this is some sort of meaningful or good point.

You're basically saying you are being coerced to live. If you have a problem with the above scenario - what is your alternative? I've asked several several several times so maybe we'll get the answer this time. Specifically, what is your ideal "system."