The mentality of socialism versus capitalism

It's the method they use to convince the poor man to relinguish his last piece of personal power. Convince him it's 'evil', and that he doesn't need to work that hard anyway. It's a perfect ****ing long con.

 

Because they have NOTHING to do with one another! One is a political model, the other is a personal lifestyle.

It's your own confusion on show here, no one else's.

 

YOU are the one who keeps pointing out the evils of private property. Marx isn't here doing that, you are.

 

Become one of whom? Corporate Investors? No Dude, I'm here defending the little guy's access to private property, and you're busy running along behind trying to erase that message. You can't be so oblivious.

For god's sake ... think about what you're saying, and whose interests that message is in.

 

Let's backtrack.
You have criticised property owners for exploiting those who don't own property.
Yet you own property. You have become what marx called the bourgeoisie which should be overturned because they exploit tenants. So you agree with marx and yet become one of that class.
You have said you are a socialist and then called socialists evil and devisive.
You have criticised communism but live in a collective after saying communism and socialism (which you support) are collectives.

Frankly, if it really matters to you, I think you should decide what economic system you have chosen to support because it is clear you are full of contradictions, which I suggest arise from an ingrained reluctance to support capitalism (which allows you to own property) and yet live in a "collective" or in a communist manner which you have to rationalise due to your having been conditioned by American paranoia about the evils of communism, socialism or indeed any collective.
IOW you have painted yourself into a corner

 

He doesn't have to be here. He left writings I am referring to.
Please avoid confusing marx with me. Never once have I divulged whether I agree with marx or not. I am merely explaining his theories which, give him his due, liberated the peasants from exploitation by advocating abolishing private property. Among other things.
However you have this conflict between seeing private property as exploitative, (Marxism)yet owning private property. (Capitalism) as a way to counter exploitation.
It just doesn't compute.

 

It's been explained to you several times. I choose to live collectively, because it advantages more little people than just myself. You don't choose to live that way, and you choose to demonise the private property necessary for we little people to have any kind of self-determination.

Make peace with it .. so you don't keep up this charade of 'confusion'.

 

Marx was a ****ing idiot toff. He didn't give frig what happened once the peasants lost all their land.

"Liberated"? What an eager little servant of the elites you are!

And of course it's exploitative if all the property is owned by your elites, instead of by the peasantry! How could it not be? We are trying to keep the power with the people dude, not hasten into the hands of your overlords. Holy hellfire .. you can't be this oblivious. I don't believe it.

 

You haven't addressed your problems.
Just hid behind a tree.
I haven't demonised private property. YOU did when you said it caused tenants to subvert the collective.
You still cannot reconcile your conflicts.

 

The peasants didn't lose their land.
Can you please explain what you refer to?

It seems your power to the people is defined as power to landowners. You. The elite.

You are not being honest with yourself.
What makes you think that others don't own land for the very reason you do...to secure a foothold against exploitation?
Yet you criticise property owners and assume that somehow your motive has a moral imperative.
You are just the same as any other property owner. What you do with it is your option. But you are still what Marx (father of socialism) declared against.
So calling yourself a socialist is speaking against yourself.
Either you hold property TOGETHER and be a socialist, which you say you are even if socialism is evil and devisive, or admit you are a capitalist property owner who shares an allotment.
You can't be both.

 

Dude, you really need to start being honest. This obfuscation and pretending you don't get it, is ridiculous.

Meantime, the goal of anyone genuinely invested in the working and middle classes, is to protect their access to PRIVATE PROPERTY. Because property and community are the only things standing between them and enslavement to the overlords. When the little people all own a little patch of earth, they benefit from the security and independence that gives them. All who want that for themselves and their families, should be championed in that quest.

Your own argument against the two most important power structures of the peasantry - property and community - means you're invested in something or someone else. Since the only other party at play are the elites who want to eradicate private property for the common man, and create a massive dependent underclass, they must be your primary consideration. We can all see it, here. I have no idea why you're even trying to pretend otherwise at this point. So freaking pointless.

 

You're correct, of course - and I'm going to expand on all three of your points.

1) It is a destroyer of freedoms. As the Founding Father quoted in my signature noted:

“The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.

The fact is, State socialism is antithetical to individual freedom. It cannot exist and operate without destroying freedoms, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about this on the theoretical or practical level.

2) It is horribly inequitable and unfair. As F.A. Hayek articulated out in The Road to Serfdom, a system that tries to make everyone equal must treat people unequally.

If you pay close attention to the language "progressives" in my country (USA) use, all their bleating and babbling about equity is a tacit admission that they are not interested in equality. Of course, their actions only reinforce the point.

3) It is medieval in that it seeks to re-establish the hierarchal, centralized power structure of the feudal era, when property and power were monopolized by the ruling classes. In many respects it is even more antiquated, because the feudal/manorial systems that we associate with the Middle Ages were actually developed and established during the Roman Era, which is why Ancient would be a more accurate term. In other words, it's even worse and more regressive than medieval.

 

But then "progressives" wouldn't be able to control people and order them around, and power is the only thing they truly care about.

C'mon, man...

 

Well, they do also want to see the lower classes disenfranchised completely. They want them hooked up to the corporate umbilicus for life, siphoning off every cent that crosses their path.

Prise those grubby peasant hands of private property, and you have them in your thrall forever. That's the goal of these Do-Gooders (it's hilarious that that term is still used for them - more like Evil Doers).

 

I said, when a choice exists, and working/middle class people still choose to avoid private property, they play directly into the hands of those who would control them. There's a big picture involved here .. and it's all about that. Your avoidance of the big picture (obfuscating with individual examples as though they mean something) tells me that you're at least partially aware - either of your own error, or being found out.

Remember their motto, and all of it becomes very ****ing obvious:

"YOU WILL OWN NOTHING"

 

I agree.

But these numpties are so intent on thinking only in terms of the immediate comfort of ocassional individuals, and in such an irrational and illogical way (Poor Person A, cannot currently find the resources to buy property [because they pissed all their money away like a child], therefore we need State socialism), that any hope of them gaining insight is probably futile.