╌>

Socialism pollutes a free society

  
Via:  XXJefferson51  •  4 years ago  •  55 comments

By:   Ed Vitagliano

Socialism pollutes a free society
The fight against socialism in America is no mere intellectual exercise; it is a war against a poisonous doctrine that will end our republic. True socialists don’t even try to hide that goal. They are working tirelessly to accomplish it.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People


The truth is that socialism ruins, pollutes, corrupts, taints, and bankrupts every society it is ever tried in. It is an affront to God whom it tries to replace with the state in each society.  Socialism no matter the format or the means attempted by humanity is a complete and total failure with no redeeming value whatsoever 


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The fight against socialism in America is no mere intellectual exercise; it is a war against a poisonous doctrine that will end our republic. True socialists don’t even try to hide that goal. They are working tirelessly to accomplish it.


For the vast majority of us in the Western world, it is difficult to imagine the cultural upheavals that resulted from the Industrial Revolution. Its first phase in Europe and America, from the late 1700s to the early 1800s, witnessed the beginning of a civilizational transformation from rural life rooted in agriculture to urban life based on machines and factories.

The result was “creative destruction” – the tearing down of an older way of life to make way for the new. The Industrial Revolution not only laid the foundation stones for our modern economy, but it did so by generating plenty of human misery, such as child labor, dangerous working conditions, and lung-choking pollution.

Oppressor and oppressed

The Industrial Revolution was driven by capitalism, or the private ownership of the means of creating products and getting them to market. By using family fortunes, borrowing money, or other methods of pooling wealth, vast industries began their rise in the chaotic milieu of those times. What capitalism was able to create benefited substantial numbers of people, but its societal costs also made it a target of intense criticism.

Chief among the enemies of capitalism were a growing number of socialist philosophers. From ancient times there had existed various communitarian and utopian concepts that many historians consider to have been “socialist” in a very broad sense. However, the Industrial Revolution seemed to spawn a fresh movement of theorists whose visceral reactions to and criticisms of capitalism became what we now refer to as socialism. The 1848 publication of The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, cemented the influence of those criticisms.

The difference between socialism and communism, according to Marx, was that communists were socialists who held no nationalistic sentimentality.

Marx said that during the struggles of the working class in many nations, communists “point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire [working class], independently of all nationality.”

In any case, the core idea of both socialism and communism is that private property is inherently destructive and must be abolished for mankind to achieve true greatness. Simply put, when one person owns something – be it a parcel of land, a house, or a factory – it must necessarily mean that someone else does not own it.

Wealth tends to accumulate in the hands of a small percentage of the population of any given society, socialists argue, while large swaths have nothing or very little. This disparity creates a division between the wealthy owners of capital, called the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat, or working class. It is not a benign rift, however. The Communist Manifestoinsisted that the bourgeoisie will always brutally oppress the proletariat at every turn.

Marx and his masses

Marx and Engels said this “class struggle” has driven all of human history, even before the Industrial Revolution. The reason that oppression has been so universal, they said, is that those who own great wealth naturally create societies that protect their private property.

They claim this is done by using government influence and power. For example, in terms of influence, governments support an educational system that teaches young people to respect private property. Likewise, religion keeps the oppressed focused on the afterlife so they will not attempt to overthrow their oppressors. This is why Marx called religion “the opiate of the masses.”

Marxists contend that governments use outright force to protect the privileged position of the wealthy. Whether it is the political system and its laws or the police and court systems that uphold them, coercion and punishment keep the proletariat under the thumb of the bourgeoisie.

The capitalists have allegedly rigged the system to favor themselves and facilitate their brutal oppression of the working class. Thus, Marxists believe that revolution is necessary to catapult mankind to its inevitable destiny. Capitalism is merely a phase in the history of class struggle; the exploitation of workers will cease as the internal contradictions of capitalism eventually create a proletariat that is strong enough to revolt.

That Marxist revolutionary working class institutes the dictatorship of the proletariat, creating a totalitarian socialist state that abolishes private property. On behalf of the workers, the state claims ownership of the means of the production and distribution of goods.

Democracy’s demise

Today there is plenty of confusion in America over the subject of socialism. For one thing, rather than emphasizing the revolutionary nature of capitalism’s demise, some socialists take an evolutionary approach. While Marx had little use for piecemeal attempts to mitigate what he saw as the oppression by the bourgeoisie, many socialists believe otherwise.

This evolutionary socialist approach further muddies the waters because it can easily be confused with the modern welfare state, as evidenced by capitalistic democracies that uphold the importance of private property, yet still provide large “safety nets” for the poorer members of society.

Perhaps this explains polling results in which Millennials and Gen Zers say they support socialism, when in reality they are demanding things like free health care and free college tuition.

One can certainly sympathize with critics when they point to the devastation that can result when forms of capitalism are unfettered by Christian conscience and untethered to compassion. As Westerners have turned away from God, that apostasy has manifested itself in a variety of ways. Unbridled greed in a capitalist society is as much an evidence of a godless people as legalized theft in a socialist one.

Some current economic trends in Western civilization – for example, the role of artificial intelligence in replacing human workers – also put enormous financial pressure on people. They are demanding answers to their economic woes.

Atheism and apostasy

The problem is that sometimes, people can ask the right questions but get the wrong answers – and socialism is a wrong answer. The dangers of Marxist thought within our nation should not be underestimated. True socialism is rooted in atheism. It demands the end of private property. Because it longs for a totalitarian state, socialism requires a revolution that would overthrow our constitution and our economic way of life.

Moreover, we can clearly see the foundations for socialism being laid in America. An aggressive form of atheism has gone to war against the Judeo-Christian principles of our founding. Progressive ideology has created an acceptance of and appetite for expansive government that suppresses individual rights for the “common good.”

Attacks on the legitimacy of private property and the acquisition of wealth are mouthed on network cable talk shows and shouted in protests on college campuses. Finally, the Marxist philosophical framework of oppressor and oppressed is propagated as dogma everywhere in the institutions of power.

The true solution to our economic afflictions will come only from a Christian worldview because such a perspective reflects the world as it truly operates – that is to say, the way God created it.

The fight against socialism in our nation is no mere intellectual exercise; it is a war against a poisonous doctrine that will end our republic. True socialists don’t even try to hide that goal. They are working tirelessly to accomplish it.



Ed Vitagliano is executive vice-president of American Family Association.



Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

As President Trump has repeatedly said, America will never ever become a socialist or a communist nation.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    4 years ago

https://www.instagram.com/p/CFkoB_VltX1/?igshid=1de9fb0glaq4r

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
1.2  MonsterMash  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    4 years ago
As President Trump has repeatedly said, America will never ever become a socialist or a communist nation.  

Put the Democrats in charge of all 3 branches of government it will be.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3  seeder  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

The problem is that sometimes, people can ask the right questions but get the wrong answers – and socialism is a wrong answer. The dangers of Marxist thought within our nation should not be underestimated. True socialism is rooted in atheism. It demands the end of private property. Because it longs for a totalitarian state, socialism requires a revolution that would overthrow our constitution and our economic way of life.

Moreover, we can clearly see the foundations for socialism being laid in America. An aggressive form of atheism has gone to war against the Judeo-Christian principles of our founding. Progressive ideology has created an acceptance of and appetite for expansive government that suppresses individual rights for the “common good.”

Attacks on the legitimacy of private property and the acquisition of wealth are mouthed on network cable talk shows and shouted in protests on college campuses. Finally, the Marxist philosophical framework of oppressor and oppressed is propagated as dogma everywhere in the institutions of power.

The true solution to our economic afflictions will come only from a Christian worldview because such a perspective reflects the world as it truly operates – that is to say, the way God created it.

The fight against socialism in our nation is no mere intellectual exercise; it is a war against a poisonous doctrine that will end our republic.

https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/10277/socialism-pollutes-a-free-society

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4  TᵢG    4 years ago
That Marxist revolutionary working class institutes the dictatorship of the proletariat , creating a totalitarian socialist state that abolishes private property .

I wonder if the author knows the meaning of totalitarianism (per Oxford ):

totalitarianism = A system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

Marx sought a democratic society — the complete opposite of a totalitarian state.   Marx wanted the proletariat to be in charge (proletariat = people who work for a living).   The state was deemed to be an interim structure to administer the needs of the people and would eventually fade away — absolutely NOT the reverse where the state controls the people.   ( Who on Earth would want a totalitarian state other than a dictator?? )

... that abolishes private property .

I wonder if the author knows the meaning of the Marxian terms:  private property and personal property.     There is a profound difference between these terms.


Oddly, the author seems to get a number of things right in this article.   But he then spins into the fear-mongering Red-scare absurdity which equates Marxism with systems such as the former USSR.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4    4 years ago

The author was right about everything he wrote in his American Family Association article one News Now published.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1    4 years ago

Brilliant rebuttal.    jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.1    4 years ago

I’m glad that you finally accept that I am brilliant.  That’s why I’m a capitalist!  

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
4.1.3  Dig  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.2    4 years ago
That’s why I’m a capitalist!

But, you're not a capitalist. From things you've said in the past you're an employee somewhere, not a business-owning employer, or someone who lives off of returns on capital investments, right?

That makes you a worker — a member of the working class.

Or, as Marx put it:

 ... a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital.

Someone else's capital, by the way.

Or if you prefer someone less radical, but even more blunt about it, here's James Mill (father of John Stuart Mill) talking about the capitalist-worker class relation:

The great capitalist, the owner of a manufactory, if he operated with slaves instead of free labourers, like the West India planter, would be regarded as owner both of the capital, and of the labour. He would be owner, in short, of both instruments of production: and the whole of the produce, without participation, would be his own. What is the difference, in the case of the man, who operates by means of labourers receiving wages? The labourer, who receives wages, sells his labour for a day, a week, a month, or a year, as the case may be. The manufacturer, who pays these wages, buys the labour, for the day, the year, or whatever period it may be. He is equally therefore the owner of the labour, with the manufacturer who operates with slaves. The only difference is, in the mode of purchasing. The owner of the slave purchases, at once, the whole of the labour, which the man can ever perform: he, who pays wages, purchases only so much of a man’s labour as he can perform in a day, or any other stipulated time. Being equally, however, the owner of the labour, so purchased, as the owner of the slave is of that of the slave, the produce, which is the result of this labour, combined with his capital, is all equally his own. In the state of society, in which we at present exist, it is in these circumstances that almost all production is effected: the capitalist is the owner of both instruments of production: and the whole of the produce is his.

By the way, socialism isn't about enslaving everyone to a totalitarian dictatorship. It's about moving past exploitative master and servant, employer and employee class relations by replacing the separate capitalist and working classes with a single, combined 'worker-owner' class. If you've seen definitions saying something like "the means of production are owned by the workers or the community as a whole", that's what that means.

And if you really can't imagine how that might work, a business model exists in the Basque Country in which you can see a viable, successful example of combined class relations: the Mondragon Cooperatives , a large collection of worker-owned and operated businesses in which there are no capitalists employing wage workers for their own private, individual gain.

You can see their stated operating principles here . Note the stuff about democratic organization, sovereignty of labor, subordinate nature of capital, and payment solidarity. Basically the essence of a socialistic economic organizational form.

A healthy, successful society lacking the capitalist/worker relationship isn't exactly the pipe dream that many want to pretend it is, and it has nothing to do with totalitarian dictatorships.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
4.1.4  pat wilson  replied to  Dig @4.1.3    4 years ago

Excellent !

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Dig @4.1.3    4 years ago
But, you're not a capitalist.

Class consciousness is weak with many.   It is amazing to me how much effort is required to counteract institutional ignorance.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.6  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dig @4.1.3    4 years ago

I’m an employee.  Have been one my entire career.  I’m also an investor.  I have everything I own except physical possessions, home, car, along with my rainy day fund and physical gold and silver in the stock market via individual stocks and mutual/ exchange traded funds and not just for retirement.  My future economic well being as well as the quality of life of my retirement are all 100% dependent upon the well being of wall st and our capitalist system. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.5    4 years ago

We intent to make America as classless and as least class conscious as we can.  

 
 
 
Account Deleted
Freshman Silent
4.1.8  Account Deleted  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.7    4 years ago
We intent to make America as classless and as least class conscious as we can.

Well, I have to hand it to Trump - he is certainly making progress at making America classless.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.6    4 years ago
I’m an employee.  Have been one my entire career.

You are then a member of the proletariat in Marx terminology.   Marx' purpose was to empower the proletariat.

I’m also an investor.

In this regard, you could claim to be indirectly part of what is called petite bourgeoisie.    It is a result of living in a nation such as the USA where one can purchase stocks and bonds of public entities.

Your livelihood, however, is a result of you working for a capitalist entity.   You are not the capitalist of the equation, you are the worker.   Thus you are not part of any bourgeoisie but are squarely proletariat.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.7    4 years ago
We intent to make America as classless and as least class conscious as we can.  

Who are you speaking for now?   All R's?   All conservatives?  All religious?  

How do you plan to accomplish this?    What could you possibly have planned to address the fundamental class differences that enable Jeff Bezos to amass a net worth of $200 billion in comparison to your own net worth (and that of virtually everyone else)?    Or between yourself and the functioning poor?   

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
4.1.11  Dig  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.7    4 years ago
We intent to make America as classless and as least class conscious as we can.

That makes zero sense. Capitalism can never be classless, and do you even know what class consciousness is?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Dig @4.1.11    4 years ago

No attempt to look up those terms before emitting a bullshit reply;  refusal to even take the first step of learning.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
4.2  MonsterMash  replied to  TᵢG @4    4 years ago
totalitarianism = A system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

The Democrats goal.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5  Kavika     4 years ago
The truth is that socialism ruins, pollutes, corrupts, taints, and bankrupts every society it is ever tried in. It is an affront to God whom it tries to replace with the state in each society.  Socialism no matter the format or the means attempted by humanity is a complete and total failure with no redeeming value whatsoever 

It doesn't seem that the author knows the difference between socialism and a dictatorship. 

An affront to God? Now that is really some nonsense. Socialism is much closer to Jesus' teaching than capitalism is.

.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Kavika @5    4 years ago

Those aren’t the words of the article author.  They are none the less 100% correct.  Socialism sees God and religion as an opiate of the masses.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    4 years ago
Socialism sees God and religion as an opiate of the masses.  

Marx' view of organized religion has nothing whatsoever to do with the defining characteristics of socialism.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Kavika   replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    4 years ago
Those aren’t the words of the article author.  They are none the less 100% correct.

Then you have no idea of the difference between socialism and a dictatorship. 

Socialism sees God and religion as an opiate of the masses.  

Are you pulling quotes from Karl Marx now? You should give him credit for this part... "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6  Tessylo    4 years ago

That's what Karl Marx called religion "the opiate of the masses"

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @6    4 years ago

He did believe and say that.  That’s why his vision had no chance here

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
6.1.1  Dig  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1    4 years ago

Why are you so fixated on that quote? There's nothing nefarious about it. When people are struggling or suffering, many turn to religion and self medicate with it. Are you saying they don't? It happens all the time.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7  bbl-1    4 years ago

Don't know about 'socialism' and free societies--but--I do know this.  Supply Side Economics and Citizens United has polluted and defiled our American free society.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @7    4 years ago

in what ways has CU affected you?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    4 years ago

In what ways has it not affected you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.1    4 years ago

not at all, but that wasn't my question

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7.1.3  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.2    4 years ago

"not at all."  ? ?

You must not live in America.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.3    4 years ago

What is Un American is the concept that corporations are somehow not made up of groups of humans working toward a common goal?  Corporations have human rights.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.3    4 years ago

I do

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.4    4 years ago
Corporations have human rights.  

Such as?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.6    4 years ago

Since they are comprised of a group of human beings they have each and every single right that every individual human has without exception.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.7    4 years ago

A corporation has " each and every single right that every individual human has without exception ".

I am curious:  do your R / conservative / religious compatriots agree with the jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png above tripe ?

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
7.1.9  Gazoo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.7    4 years ago

So does that mean when a corporation commits a crime it (shareholders, ceo, board, coo, etc) will face the same consequences a person would? Seems to me if your going to give rights the responsibilities should go with it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @7.1.9    4 years ago

Apparently MAGA holds that a corporation has the right to vote, to hold political office, etc.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.11  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.10    4 years ago

The individuals who make up a corporation can do all the above.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.11    4 years ago

Yes, MAGA, the individual human beings who act as officers of a corporation and those who are employees of a corporation are indeed human beings with human rights.

Your reasoning here is just flat out bizarre.

If I have a collection of marbles in a bag, does the bag have the same properties as the marbles?   Is the marble bag a special kind of marble?

A corporation is a legal entity.   It has legal characteristics.   And human beings operate the corporation.   But the presence of human beings with rights does not mean that the corporation, the legal entity, has those same rights.   The bag is not a special kind of marble.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  bbl-1 @7    4 years ago

CU and Supply side economics are what helped make America great! 

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
7.2.1  Dig  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.2    4 years ago

Only if you consider an ever increasing gap between rich and poor to be "great". After closing for decades earlier in the century, the gap reversed and took off in the 80's because of SSE, and has only worsened since.

All CU did was let the already rich spend even more money on politics than they were, with the aim of making themselves even richer. And that's exactly what's happened.

Yeah. Go us...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.2.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dig @7.2.1    4 years ago

Before Covid 19 hit us from China those gaps were narrowing and incomes at the lowest levels were rising fastest.  Reversing decades of internationalism in trade with America first was restoring forgotten areas of America and most all demographic groups had their best unemployment low numbers and wage increases numbers ever.  Trump will get us back to that.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.2.3  Kavika   replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.2.2    4 years ago

 June and July trade deficit with China is almost what it was for the same two months in 2019.

June and July trade deficit with Mexico is worse than it was in the same months of 2019.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
7.2.4  Dig  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.2.2    4 years ago
Reversing decades of internationalism in trade with America first

LOL. Mindblowing.

You know all that 'internationalism' was a Republican initiative for all those decades, don't you? Remember Reagan's neoliberal revolution?

Free trade! Free trade! Free trade! Get government out of the economy! Free trade! Let companies do what they want and produce where they want! Free trade! So what if boatloads of American capital chases cheap labor overseas! Free trade! It all balances out! Free trade!

That was you guys. It's frikking hilarious that lately it's become damn near the opposite... Free trade bad! Free trade bad! We need government intervention! We need government intervention! Tariffs! Tariffs! Trade war! Trade war! Free trade bad!

Republicans today = No principles, no shame, and no honor.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
7.2.6  Dig  replied to    4 years ago

The left has been for fair trade for ages. It's an anti-imperialism/anti-colonialism thing, and even an anti-capitalist-exploitation in third world countries thing. Ever heard of fair trade coffee?

And of course I'm opposed to state sanctioned theft of intellectual property, like software.

It's probably worth noting that Western nations have been ripping the rest of the world off for centuries (the aforementioned imperialism and colonialism). I'm not happy about any of it, but what goes around comes around, I guess.

Is any of that supposed to change the fact that Republicans were the vociferous champions of neoliberal free trade for nearly the past four decades, and now, quite hypocritically, they're not? Not on the global stage, at least.

Government intervention in the economy was a great big no-no for Republicans before Trump came along, remember?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.2.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dig @7.2.6    4 years ago

Republicans and Democrats have traded places on the issue of globalization vs fair trade.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8  JBB    4 years ago

Who knew that Farmer's Cooperatives and Rural Electrical Associations were a threat to America?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  JBB @8    4 years ago

They are voluntary associations and are a threat to no one.  My city over 100 years ago bought its way out of the power company and created its own public utility.  One of the most profitable things they ever did for which we are still grateful.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8.1    4 years ago

Those organizations are closer to Marxist socialism than anything that you have naïvely declared to be 'socialism'.    They at least have the element of people collectively holding some economic control.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.1    4 years ago

Our public utility is very capitalist in how it operates.  It buys production from other utilities public and private, it creates its own power production sources. It provides power at prices well under what PG&E charges, creates power reserves and production for future growth and when the state has brown outs or power shortages, it sells our excess power to the state for top dollar.  When covid 19 hit they gave all their customers/shareholders a $250 electricity credit.  Our city water, desegregation, garbage, electricity are all separate services consolidated into one single bill.  Our conservative city council runs the utility as if it were a private company other than providing electricity cheaper than the surrounding area (PG&E) gets it.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8.1.2    4 years ago
Our public utility is very capitalist in how it operates.  ...

You did not describe capitalism, you described business.   Just more evidence that you have no idea what 'Marxist socialism' means.

The socialist aspect I described was collective ownership / control over productive resources.   You should have focused on that aspect if you really understood this concept.    If the community truly owns the power company you are then seeing a tiny bit of what would be taking place if 'Marxist socialism' were in effect.   Yet you deemed this 'capitalistic'.  

I bet if you understood what Marx was describing you would call it capitalism.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.3    4 years ago

I don’t care what your vision of Marxism or socialism or any combination of the two is as I will resist to the bitter end the imposition of any of it in this country as long as I shall live.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8.1.4    4 years ago

It is not my vision.    But you would not know that because you clearly refuse to do any research on the topic.

Further, you used the term 'Marxist Socialism';  I just asked you what you meant by the term.   The answer is clearly:

69731823.jpg

I will resist to the bitter end the imposition of any of it in this country as long as I shall live.  

You are resisting that which you cannot even define.    That is pretty high up on the ridiculous scale.

 
 

Who is online

Trout Giggles
Dragon
Greg Jones


82 visitors