Tyre Nichols beating: Race Theory vs CRITICAL Race Theory

Fidel yes, Ho Chi Minh, no.

 

Try Googling the term. It’s useless if it can’t be researched or even found.

They failed to build one in 1800 too. Capitalists failed to build an economy by 1600 too. What part of “earlier efforts” don’t you understand? …-or “first sequence”?

Exploiting and meddling…
”US Coup in Venezuela Motivated by Oil and Corporate Interests – Militarist John Bolton Spills the Beans"
Also….

But that is your personal and I’ll say uninformed speculation. All Americans should be ashamed and angered by the history in the articles I just linked.

 

There never has been a nation state with a successful socialist economy. Never. Not one.

So you say. I'm an economist and historian.

As I've said, socialism doesn't work at the nation state level--as a way of organizing the economy--because it doesn't allocate capital well.

 

Hard to say about Ho. He had a long history of involvement with socialist parties going back to his younger years in France. I met a Col. Pennington who was a liaison to Ho in WW2 and he told me he thought Ho might have opted for a liberal democracy if we had supported Vietnamese independence instead of reestablishing the French colonial regime.

 

That's exactly the case. He was a nationalist far far moreso than a communist. He was rebuffed by the west multiple times before he finally embraced the communists.

 

That’s what I’ve been saying for YEARS! Finally you see it! But do you know the history well enough to say why? No, because capitalist theory and education won’t teach it.

Sure, but a capitalist’s “Classical” economist, and a capitalist’s education in economics doesn’t teach the relevant facts about this subject.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND! You just said there has been no nation state with a successful socialist economy, so you couldn’t possibly know that, ESPECIALLY since even the world’s socialist community hasn’t fully developed the necessary methods and strategies that are ready for prime time. So how in hell could you know that what hasn’t been developed can’t work!

 

Col. Pennington told me he was incredibly disappointed we didn't try to work with Ho.

 

It would have prevented that war for sure. When declaring independence from France, Ho even used a speech modeled after the US declaration of independence.

 

I keep telling you why it doesn't work.

You seem to have the impression that economics is about promoting capitalism.

Huh?

The "world's socialist community" hasn't come up with a collectivist production model that doesn't fly in the face of the most basic economic laws, starting with the laws of demand and supply.

 

He did indeed allude to the Declaration, but he knew that France without U.S. support was in no position to reclaim Vietnam. Was it "know your enemy" or an opening we missed?

I had an uncle whose name I won't mention who worked in the White House for Kennedy and Johnson. He thought the Vietnam War was a huge mistake. LBJ undid much of the energy in our country for meaningful social reform.

 

And he pretty much copied our Constitution. “But dammit we are gonna fight the commies over there before we have to fight them over here!”
Obviously, the progressives here have rejoined the commies fight!
“End the fuel of capitalism: Killing fossil fuels kills the beast!”

 

That depends very much on how you define "socialist nation state", and what extent of socialism you are talking about. There is plenty of socialism in many very successful nation states. The best of them usually are a mix of socialism and capitalism.

Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism work. You need a mix. I can only imagine the horrors of privatized military or police or justice system with profit motive to protect some over others. Public school is a good idea, so all can get a basic education. Privatized roads, sanitation, and privatizated medical system also have horrible bad results for the poor.

What you need is highly regulated capitalism with plenty of social programs and some aspects of society run by government companies/organization. Many industries that everyone needs to survive should not be profit driven, and often SHOULD operate at a loss if they are to actually meet the needs of the people.

 

Ever wonder why it’s so much easier to spot end-stage Marxism? It’s because there’s no other kind.

 

I said there "never has been a nation state with a successful socialist economy” because the means of establish one and maintaining it were not known previously. There was no solid analysis of the role of the state, and that caused efforts to fail before any socialist society was established. You can’t disprove the possibility of something that has never existed. Your reasons are bogus.

Classical economics is NOT about the truth about socialism or promotion of it. And it is about subtly promoting “principles” of capitalism.

Not at all true, but you could prove it by citing your view of demand and supply although it is a small and brief departure from the subject of this thread. But I’d be interested in seeing what you can produce on the subject.

 

Yeah, just like there has never been any “early-stage Marxism”.

 

Agreed. The human misery that inevitably follows any serious attempt to implement Marxism usually puts things on the wrong track.

 

We have socialist public schools. police, fire services, military, public health, VA hospitals... it's not as though we reject socialism. A "socialist nation state" is one the rejects free enterprise for all but small businesses. The Soviet Union Gosplan evolved from an advisory body to full state planning based on a giant input-output model.

I just think our mix is far superior to the Soviet or even Chinese model.

We can finance privatized services like education and health, but we have to be careful that these systems work for everyone, especially the poor.

As I was saying to @Kode, I think Northern Europeans are close to what works best. For whatever reason, we would rather drive an SUV on crumbling, overcrowded roads than a live with a smaller vehicle we can afford while paying higher taxes for good roads.

 

End stage Marxism (communism) will never exist.

 

Yes, I agree. It will collapse before making it that far.

 

You don’t know that. That is just talking points and propaganda with no meaningful analysis behind it.

 

You and Nat are a real case for BS propaganda. Marxism is an ideology, a strategy, a conceptual proposal. It has existed for a century. So there’s no such thing as “end-stage Marxism” unless it is a Marxian analysis of end-stage capitalism and/or proposals for dealing with it.

 

Indeed.

 

It's a reflection of the constipated thinking of a guy who spent too much time in the library.

Yeah, we've read and heard the BS about the "New Man" and withering away of the state. Ain't gonna happen.

Marxism has no more future than laissez-faire capitalism.

 

Indeed, both Marxism and unfeterred capitalism end in oppression due to unfortunate facts of human nature.

 

Far too many dead bodies for it to be just propaganda, don't you think?