Category Archives: Economics

Now These Are Some Rightwingers I Could Get Behind

Supposedly this group of National Revolutionaries is referred to as part of the German “New Right.” If they’re rightwing, then so am I. And if this is what National Revolutionaries are like, I am one of them.

Assads, Saddam, Habash, Hillel, Le Pen, Ghaddafi, Saddam, Aflaq, Peron, Chavez, Morales, Ortega, Villa, Juarez, Dudayev, Ho, Fidel, Che, even the Kims, what the Hell, even Arafat, oh heck, let’s throw in Dugin, what are they all if not the ultimate nationalists?

A national economy for the people; a people’s economy for the nation. I even like some of those National Communists in Eastern Europe. If there’s anything in the toilet bowl of history, it’s internationalism. Nation comes first, the rest of you, noble as ye may be, are always second in line.

I am starting to think Michel Aflaq and the rest were onto something. And I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the great Gamel Nasser, hero of the Arabs. And as evil as Saddam was, at least he was for his people until his last day. “Long life Iraq!” he yelled before he swung from the rafters. I actually think Saddam was a better man than our traitorous nation-selling neoliberal elite which has taken over the Democratic and Republican Parties forever now.

You’re either for your people or you’re a traitor to the homeland. If you’re for  your people, you know that’s got to count for something. And traitors are why lamp-poles exist at all. Might as well make use of them.

“Outside of the Homeland, what else is there?”

– famous Iraqi Baathist.

“If I am not for myself, then who am I for?”

– Hillel.

Up with the nation! Up with the people! All power to the people!

When the National-Revolutionaries out ultra-lefted the ultra-left:

The strategy of the “basis group” demonstrated itself in the most spectacular fashion at the University of the Ruhr in Bochum. A group of neo-nationalist activists militated effectively there and founded a journal, the Ruhr-Studenten-Anzeiger. Around this militant newspaper, a Republikanischer Studentenbund (RSB ; League of Republican Students) organized in 1968 which aimed to become a counterweight to the leftist SDS.

Conflict would soon follow: the militants of the RSB criticized the SDS for organizing pointless strikes in order to consolidate their power over the student masses. In the course of a blockade organized by the leftists, the RSB took the university of Bochum by storm and proclaimed, in a populist-Marxist language, their hostility to the “exploiters” and “bonzes” of the SDS, having become stakeholders in the new establishment, where leftists had henceforth been accorded a place. The proclamations of the RSB, drafted by Singer, were stuffed with citations from Lenin, Marx, and Mao.

Singer also referred to the rhetoric of the German workers in Berlin against Ulbricht’s communist functionaries, during the June 1953 uprising. The revolting RSB students insulted the East German functionaries of the SED, calling them marionettes of the Soviets, “monkeys in glasses,” “fat cats,” and “paper-pushing reactionaries.” This appropriation of the Marxist vocabulary and style of Berlin Uprising of 1953 irritated the leftists as, ipso facto, they had lost the monopoly on militant shock-language and foresaw a possible intrusion of national-revolutionaries into their own milieus, with the evident risk of poaching and counter-attraction.

9 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Europe, European, Germany, History, Internationalism, Left, Marxism, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics

Lies of the Capitalists: Capitalism Is Great Because of Competition and We Love Competition

The first part of the title is actually not a lie. Capitalism with vigorous or even extreme competition is quite a nice mode of development. It’s definitely great for consumers, offers great customer service, low prices and ferocious innovation and improvement of products. The attitude of a system with vigorous competition is not only the customer is always right but also adds to that I need to treat my customers better than my competitors.

So where’s the problem then? The problem is because the competition usually doesn’t last. As Marx noted and has been proven immaculately correct, capitalism tends towards monopoly over time as surely as day follows night. Vigorous competition is soon replaced by monopoly capitalism and Monopoly Capitalism is probably one of the worst modes of development known to mankind.

Every anti-monopoly business being harmed by a monopoly will turn pro-monopoly as soon as they get their own monopoly. And all businesses wish to be a monopoly. They all hate competition. There’s nothing a capitalist hates more than competition, which is part of the joke of capitalism, which sings the (granted, considerable) praises of robust competition, while all of the capitalists despise this very robust competition being crowed about.

Politicians and media outlets all claim to be pro-competition but they are all also pro-monopoly. The politicians are pro-monopoly because they are all whores for big business and are frankly taking open bribes from them. The media is pro-monopoly because the media only prints what its corporate advertisers want to hear (a pro-monopoly message) and also because most media outlets, as capitalists, of course long to be monopolies themselves. The fact that capitalists and their supporters rant and rave about how great capitalism is due to competition despite the fact that business and its paid propagandists all hate such competition is one of the worst lies of all of the capitalists.

 

 

 

6 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Economics, Journalism, Politics

Microsoft – A Debacle for Humanity: How One Corporation Caused Untold Damage to the World Economy, Cost Society Untold $Billions, Severely Damaged Human Productivity, and Even Significantly Set Back Human Progress

Microsoft was and is still an abusive monopoly which ripped off society for billions of dollars, caused vast losses to the world economy, and even set back technological progress for all of mankind by a significant amount. You had to buy Microsoft Windows, and Microsoft Windows was always a piece of crap. Think of how much this worthless to lousy to dysfunctional OS cost consumers, business and society due to its crappy nature.

You are always hearing that “the system is down” right, whenever you go anywhere? The ATM is down half the time you go there. Call random businesses and 10-20% of them will tell you “the system is down.”  I will bet you that that is a Windows system that has crashed at that enterprise. Windows’ endless dysfunction and crashing caused a tremendous amount of damage to the US military who moronically decided to use Windows all through our country’s fighting forces for just about everything. Great. A computer-based military where the system always crashes. I’m sure they’re going to win every war they fight.

Basically, all of humanity was forced to use a glaringly obviously inferior product for all of their computing needs. This inferior product had constant problems which drove a spike through the heart of productivity at the individual, business, nonprofit and government level. All of humanity was using inferior computer systems that barely worked and failed all the time.

All of this time, there were much superior systems out there which could have beaten Windows if they only had a chance. Amiga OS was always one of finest ever developed. BeOS was an outstanding OS, amazingly great. OS/2 was an out of the world OS. All of these OS’s were fantastic at multitasking and even mutithreading. People routinely ran up to 80 applications at a time on OS/2 with little or no slowdown. BeOS was about that good and may have even been faster. But with a monopoly on the desktop where everyone was forced to use Windows, all of these other OS’s died a sad death.

Unix has long ruled at the university and corporate level, and much of the Net runs of Unix. Larger server systems have always run on Unix at the level of the large enterprise, be it government, corporate or nonprofit. But Unix has never really broken in on the desktop where Windows still reigns. Windows is much better now than it was in the Windows 95 era (Remember how horrible that OS was?). I am currently running Windows 7, which is the best Windows I ever run, but it’s still crap. It suffers from unfixable file corruption and sometimes needs a hard reboot or goes down altogether.

Unix on the other hand is virtually uncrashable. It is very hard to take down a Unix system. They are nearly resistant to crashing. File corruption is virtually nonexistent on Unix because of Journaling File Systems and text files instead the idiotic and flawed Registry of Windows. The Registry is so flawed that it can probably never be fixed. As long as the Registry exists, Windows will continue to be slow, hog memory and hard drive, be awful at multitasking, crash your applications, suffer irreparable file corruption, and go down hard and need hard reboots.

Mac OS is an excellent OS now that it runs on a Unix core. Mac OS is almost uncrashable now, and it never or almost never needs to be reinstalled. Plug and Play is as easy as plugging in any electronic device in your house, whereas Windows plug and play has always been horrible, and it still is here at Windows 7.

Windows also harmed the world economy by forcing us to shell out untold billions for OS’s, word processors, browsers, databases, spreadsheets and presentation programs. Microsoft of course leveraged its OS monopoly to create browser, database, spreadsheet and presentation monopolies. All of these products were quite expensive. In the process, many excellent word processors (remember Wordperfect 5.1?), spreadsheets, databases, and presentation products were all destroyed. It didn’t matter how good they were. It didn’t matter if they were better or even vastly better than their Microsoft competitors (Access was always junk) because due to the OS monopoly, none of the competitors in this other software stood a chance.

The truth is that all of this stuff could have been had for free all along. Linux is free and open source, and that is one of the reasons why it is so great. Firefox and Opera are also free now, and Firefox is also open source and has been taken over by Sun. Free online email programs like Gmail have cut significantly into the market share of Outlook Express (always awful – Eudora was so much better) and Outlook.

Open Office, now taken over by Sun, is free and is starting to give Word, Access, Excel and Powerpoint a run for their money. I use Word Writer all the time, and it’s just as good as Word by now. If the world moves to free browsers, OS’s, word processors, chat software (Skype), spreadsheets, databases and presentation software, think of how much money can be saved at the individual, business, nonprofit, education and government level! It will be a great step forward for humanity. There is no way for Microsoft to compete with a free product of course, so we will hopefully begin to slowly destroy this diabolical corporation, one of the worst ones that ever existed.

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under Browsers, Capitalists, Computers, Economics, Education, Government, Scum, Software

One Man Businesses Are Inherently Noncapitalist

Stalin Tonks: All this talk about donations and paywalls makes you sound like a capitalist, Robert. I am so disappointed in you.

First of all, I live in a capitalist country. You have to do what you have to do survive in whatever country you live in. If you want to survive in a capitalist country, you have to play by the rules of capitalism. And it’s not anti-socialist to be rich or to invest in or own businesses. For instance, the FMLN revolutionaries owned and invested in businesses, farms and ranches all over Latin America. All of the money went for revolution – guns, bombs, uniforms, supplies, wages for soldiers, etc. The father of the famous terrorist Carlos was a Venezuelan millionaire and Communist. That’s not a contradiction, and he doesn’t have to give all his money away. A Communist can be rich in a capitalist country. I would like to think he would do good things with his money though and not use it to rip off the people or exploit workers. Engels was a rich businessman.

I am not a capitalist. No exploitation, no capitalism. I am simply a worker selling his labor on the open market. All one man businesses are noncapitalist. It’s just one guy selling his labor on the market mostly to other workers. It’s workers paying other workers for some service. Also I am not marking anything up, although the profit motive and marking up products as a middleman is not necessarily capitalist and is completely compatible with socialism. I also feel that small businesses are an important part of a socialist country.

Anyway, I’m not really a Communist. I am just a socialist, and I am OK with social democracy where you have private businesses and even corporations and where up to 93% of the economy is private owned, as in Sweden for instance.

Democratic socialism allows a lot of capitalism in it. It just modified it and regulates it, and that is the socialist part as capitalists accept no limits whatsoever on their profits. Any state that limits the profits of Capital is automatically acting in a socialist manner. All regulation of business is inherently socialist. It has to be. Capitalists do not accept the state regulating their businesses to limit their profits in any way, shape or form. That’s their nature.

4 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Economics, Government, Latin America, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Regional, Revolution, Socialism, South America, Venezuela

Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen, “This Land Is Our Land”

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest, to the Gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me

And I went walking that ribbon of highway
And saw above me that endless skyway
I saw below me the golden valley
This land was made for you and me

I roamed and rambled and followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me, a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me

There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me
A sign was painted said: Private Property
But on the back side it didn’t say nothing
This land was made for you and me

In the squares of the city, in the shadow of a steeple
By the Relief Office, I’d seen my people
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking
Is this land made for you and me?

Nobody living can ever stop me
As I go walking that freedom highway
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me

When the sun come shining, then I was strolling
In wheat fields waving and dust clouds rolling
The voice was chanting as the fog was lifting
This land was made for you and me

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest, to the Gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me

Written by Woody Guthrie. Sung by Bruce Springsteen and Pete Seeger (age 80).

From the great inauguration of Barack Obama in 2008. I was in a doctor’s office and the news came on that Obama had won. I saw the crowds mobbing the streets, all marching towards the main park of Chicago. The volatile Spike Lee was there. “This changes everything!” He effused. There was a little Black girl sitting next to me, maybe seven years old. I asked her if she liked Obama. She nodded her head shyly. I had tears in my eyes. How dare these idiots call me racist! What sort of racist cries tears of joy when he hears that America just elected its first Black president?

The three bolded sections above are the “forbidden lyrics.” Although Guthrie included them when he wrote the song in 1940, they are seldom performed in modern versions as they were considered subversive as promoting socialism or Communism. The song is actually a great socialist anthem. Woody Guthrie was definitely a leftwinger.

Given the choice, I would rather have the land owned by me (the state) than owned by some private individual. What’s so great about private ownership of land? What’s better for me, land that I can walk on or land that I can’t walk on? How bout the land that I can walk on?

One of the reasons for China’s great success is that the state owns all the land. Everybody just leases the land where their home or farm is. In The Netherlands also, the state owns all the land. Everybody just leases out whatever land they use. Same thing in Cuba, but in Cuba now, almost everyone owns their own residence. And a great argument for China’s success against India’s failure is that much of the poverty, malnutrition, etc. in India is caused by the private ownership of land, especially in the rural areas. India said they were going to do land reforms and they claimed to do them over and over but the truth is that no real land reform has ever been done in India, and semi-feudal relations still prevail in the countryside. Hence the horrific poverty, starvation, etc.

One of the all-time great folk songs ever written. A purely American song like virtually no other. I believe we should replace that horrible Star Spangled Banner with this much better song. This song also captures the true American spirit. The land does indeed belong to all of us, you and me. All that land the government owns, it doesn’t belong to the government. It belongs to me! It’s my land, dammit! How dare the rich give away my land to malign corporations and the 1%! Forget that. You take my land, and you give it all away to the corporations and the rich to abuse and destroy. What sort of democracy is that?

Plutocratic rule is never democracy. How can it be? The plutocrats are what? 1% 5%? Where do idiot Americans get it in their heads that rule by the rich or the ruling class is somehow democracy. Aristocratic rule is never democracy at any time or in any place. It can’t be. You either have conservatism, which is rule by the rich or the aristocrats, or you have democracy, which is rule by the people. That’s your only two choices. One or the other? Which one do you want? The rich will never rule in favor of the people. They can’t. They literally cannot. They must rule in their class interests. It’s nearly a law of social science as hard and fast as a hard science rule.

Written by Woody Guthrie! One of the best working class folk singer-songwriters who ever lived. He was also a tough, macho guy, a redneck, a worker, a blue collar roughneck with a cigarette dangling from his mouth James Dean style. This is what the Left used to be before it was taken over by effeminate men, butch women, man-hating feminists, White-hating minorities who idolize common street thugs, anti-nationalists advocating to turn all of America into a teeming Third World Calcutta, all manner of sexual identity and sexual orientation freakazoids with so many weird subgroups that they are almost beyond classification, and in general idiots, fools, deviants and dumbasses.

Woody Guthrie is what the Left used to be. He’s what the Left is supposed to be. He was born too soon. He was Alt Left before there was an Alt Left!

This guitar kills fascists!

12 Comments

Filed under Asia, Caribbean, China, Conservatism, Cuba, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Folk, Government, India, Latin America, Left, Music, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Scum, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South Asia, US Politics, USA, Useless Western Left

Obsession with and Rage Against the Incompetent, Lazy, Irresponsible and Failed: A Normative Value of US White Culture

In this country, you forget to close a door and your typical American yells at you: “Hey, you forgot to shut the door idiot! Shut the door dammit!”

You leave a door open in a Japanese house, and it is a different story altogether.

The reaction above is normal, proper and acceptable behavior in US White culture. That’s what your typical jerky White American would say because in America you are supposed to act like an prick in situations like this. It means you are not tolerating lazy, slacker in incompetent people or something.

Such people are bad for success in American ultra-capitalist society, and most White Americans are in a perpetual state of outrage over lazy, incompetent, ineffectual, irresponsible, stupid, foolish, slacker and basically immoral people when it comes to work and achievement.

Since all White Americans believe that “anyone can be successful if you try” and “everyone can get rich,” it follows that anyone who has failed in any way in life or in particular is poor, low income or lacking in money deserves their fate because they failed since they are idiots, fools, slackers, freeriders, leeches, or lazy, incompetent, irresponsible people. It’s people like this who are preventing your average White American from making it big. If it weren’t for the slackers and layabouts, we Whites would all be rich, didn’t you know?

Much of our idiot political culture is based on White outrage against these people.

There is probably no culture on Earth where “hatred for the lazy” is as extreme as it is in US White culture. It is an integral part of US White culture, and you will never understand America and especially its politics until you figure this out.

I know this because I have had this notion pounded into my head hundreds of thousands of times from just about every White person I ever met, including my own liberal mother and father, who would probably both be outraged if you suggested that they felt this way. All the friends I grew up with felt this way. All of their parents felt this way. Almost everyone in my parents’ generation (World War 2 generation) felt this way. I see White people writing about this every single day on the web countless times. I continue to meet White people who carry on like this in Meatspace, unfortunately even in the dating game, where White women like this are omnipresent. I toss any woman who carries on like this and absolutely refuse to date her. In fact, my dating profiles often say, “No Republican or conservative women! No exceptions!

Every time I pick up a paper there is some article or politician basically bitching about the weak, incompetent, ineffectual and  lazy. And undeserving. This last is important because in the US, these people are thought to be undeserving. Undeserving of what? Most White Americans will tell you undeserving of life! “You don’t work, you don’t eat!” I cannot count how many US Whites have told me this. While it may have been true in caveman days, we are rather beyond that now, are we not? Or do you think we still live in caveman days? Is that your proposition? What an odd belief.

While being a lazy leech means you are a rather lousy person, I hardly think it is deserving of the death penalty! When you say, “You don’t work, you don’t eat,” you are sentencing the lazy to death in effect! Do you realize that? Most murderers don’t even get the death penalty. Rapists and  torturers never do. Lazy people deserve the death penalty but torturers and rapists don’t? What?

 

Minority cultures are much more relaxed about this sort of thing for some reason, and they tend to feel that a given portion of the human race are lousy people of one sort or another (one Hispanic woman referred to them as “hustlers” and acted like their existence was simply a normal, typical part of quotidian existence), that they are as common as weeds, there is nothing you can do about it, and that these lousy humans are simply best avoided by a careful buyer of human relationships.

 

29 Comments

Filed under American, Capitalism, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Sociology, US Politics, USA, Whites

Anatomy of a Conservative Lie: China is a Capitalist Country

Conservatives and reactionaries keep saying that China has adopted capitalism. What a stupid joke that is. All conservatives lie, no exceptions. There is no such thing as an honest conservative. I have never met one in my life. Conservative ideology is based for the most part on lies, though some Libertarians are quite honest.

For the most part, conservatives lie like they breathe. Conservatives literally need to lie to live.

Let me tell you something.

China is one of the most Communist or socialist states on Earth today. Fully 45% of the Chinese economy is publicly owned, and it does extremely well. Much of the very high economic growth has come from the public sector.

How on Earth can conservatives say that China is capitalist when 45% of the economy is state-owned? How ludicrous. But realize that all public firms in China operate on the profit model. They all compete with each other, so you have a steel mill run by one city competing with a steel mill run by another city. Many of the fastest growing industries are run at the municipality level.

China’s fully state-owned firms also do very well. In fact, they do so well that Republicans say that China’s public firms are “not fair” because American capitalist corporations can’t compete against them! The reason is that China’s firms get subsidies from the state. Poor capitalist corporations! They’re too inefficient to compete against Communist state owned firms. Poor babies!

Do conservatives realize that the state owns every single inch of land in China? How on Earth is that possible in a capitalist country? Capitalism is primarily based on the private ownership of land. No private ownership of land, no capitalism. Real simple.

I would also like to point out that the Chinese state spends an absolutely incredible amount of money on its people. Since 45% of the whole economy goes directly to the state, they have a lot of money to spend. And they spend it very wisely too. As I understand it, US capitalists believe in a minimal state, and there is nothing they hate more than state spending. Huge state spending is seen as wasteful tax and spend policies by all capitalists on Earth. Wherever you have massive state spending, you do not have a capitalist system. But I would like to thank conservative and reactionaries for praising China, the finest example of modern Communism!

34 Comments

Filed under Asia, Capitalism, China, Conservatism, Economics, Government, Left, Libertarianism, Local, Marxism, Political Science, Regional, Socialism

“Networking Marketing is Capitalist Exploitation on Steroids,” by Magneto

Networking Marketing is Capitalist Exploitation on Steroids

By Magneto

Many of you may have had the misfortune of getting caught up in a network marketing multi-level marketing scam in the past. My own involvement in such an MLM scam is what eventually caused me to reject capitalism outright and start believing in socialism. Network marketing is capitalism on steroids. Normal capitalism is exploitation but at least in normal capitalism the worker class gets paid at least something. In network marketing you are working to make the top 1 percent rich and you are doing this for free.

Usually it starts out that an old friend will call you up and talk about how excited they are about their new business. A few days later they will call you again and see if you are interested in meeting to discuss their new “business”. If you agree to meet, they will typically show you a bunch of graphs and charts which claim you can become a millionaire within 5 years by following their program. What they don’t tell you is that 99% of people who sign up into MLM scams do not make any money at all from it. It’s literally only one out of a hundred people that profits from this.

Even worse is that most MLM companies use cult mind-control tactics to keep you from leaving their pyramid scheme. They use guilt programming and are constantly saying “Only losers quit this business”. That is a sure-fire sign that an organization is a cult when the leaders are constantly telling their followers to never leave the organization.

Network marketing companies thrive on naive young people who have never come in contact with an MLM pyramid scheme before. Older people are more mature and knowledgeable and know that pyramid schemes are wrong. But young people are easy to trick into these things because they have no experience of it. That’s why it is the duty of older people to warn younger people to never fall into these scams. No adult ever took the time to warn me when I was younger about the dangers of MLM’s, so I was just another victim of these pyramid scams.

I finally realized how immoral these types of businesses are, and I left the scam company and cut off all contact with the members of it. Donald Trump himself has a network marketing company, so that is another sign that he is just a greedy bastard who doesn’t give a shit about the common man and will do anything to exploit them so he can become rich. I realized that the logic that the MLM leaders use to justify their actions is entirely wrong. Society cannot function like this – where 1 percent manipulates the other 99 percent so that the 1 percent have all the money and the 99 percent have nothing.

Life is about more than money, but if you hear MLM leaders talk in their public speeches, you get the impression that money is all they care about. All they talk about is their expensive houses, cars and gadgets. What they don’t tell you is that 99 people had to fail in order for one person to get rich. The dreams of the MLM leaders are built on the blood, sweat, and tears of the 99 losers in the pyramid scheme.

A few common MLM’s that you should be very careful of are as followers:

  • Amway
  • Empower Network
  • Mary Kay
  • Herbalife
  • Nu Skin
  • Avon
  • Forever Living
  • Young Living

If you ever get invited or tricked into attending an MLM meeting, leave immediately. Do not even entertain the words of the MLM presenter. He will try to use a lot of logic and tricks to brainwash you into joining. Network Marketing and MLM’s are evil cults that thrive on manipulating ignorant people into joining. If we become active in warning people to avoid wasting their time and lives by joining such cults, we can save a lot of people and also stop the MLM’s because without a constant supply of new members, such pyramid schemes would collapse overnight.

64 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Capitalists, Economics, Guest Posts, Psychology, Scams, Scum, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology

What Is Capitalism? What is Socialism? A Look at Some Noncapitalist Modes of Development

Mayur: I am all against uninhibited and all pervasive capitalism. Of course,the government enterprises should have an active role to play in the economy which should, however, vary from time to time. All the citizens should have access to the barest essentials, but strictly on need basis. Besides, I am all for giving teeth to the working class.

But communism, in my opinion, is a bit unnerving. In the societies which are quite addicted to liberty, people will find it unbearable to have the government’s boot on their throat everywhere,all the time. Capitalism existing side by side with socialism, that’s what I advocate. Wealth distribution and wealth creation both are important. There has to be a good incentive to create wealth, and, the economic inequalities have to be made tolerable. Enterprise, prosperity, and, the general well being of the masses. Something for everybody.

Yes this is what I want as a socialist.

To me socialism just means anything less than totally unregulated capitalism.

Socialists are people who are willing to limit the profits of the capitalists. Of course capitalists are people who believe in no limits their profits.So anyone who believes in limiting the profits of capital is anti-capitalist in a sense. Those people who want to let a market exist but to limit the profits of capital are called socialists.

Socialists also believe in redistribution. This means taking or even stealing money from the rich to give to the middle classes, working classes and the poor. This is antithetical to all models of capitalism. All models of capitalism call that theft.

Really what I am talking about here is social democracy.

Also, you can have workers running enterprises for themselves and keeping the profits. This is socialism to me.

Socialism to me is compatible for the profit motive. Capitalism to me is exploitation. No exploitation, no capitalism. Just because someone makes a profit, they are not necessarily capitalists.

One man businesses are not capitalist. This is simply a worker selling his labor power on the labor market to other workers. Labor markets are compatible with socialism as is single proprietorships.

The Cooperative Mode is a noncapitalist mode.

Actually the Japanese model, which is similar to the economics of Nazi Germany or National Socialism, is also a noncapitalist model.

My credit union is owned by the its consumers. That is a noncapitalist mode of development.

Many nonprofits do extremely well and hire many workers. That is a noncapitalist mode of development.

This thing that some call State Capitalism is actually a noncapitalist mode of development. Some call Russia State Capitalism.

The Chinese model is also a noncapitalist mode of development. This has also been called a form of State Capitalism.

City and town operated businesses can often be run very well especially if they compete against other cities and towns. This is the Chinese model. This is a noncapitalist mode of development.

19 Comments

Filed under Asia, Capitalism, China, Economics, Eurasia, Government, Japan, Labor, Left, Marxism, Regional, Russia, Socialism

The Real Story of Zimbabwe: I Would Rather Starve on My Feet Than Feast on My Knees

RL: Reminds me of the situation in Zimbabwe when the Blacks destroyed all the White farms and drove the farmers out of the country and then all the Blacks sat around and said, “Whoa! We ain’t gots no food! Someone please gibs us some food! We hungry!”

Jason Y: Yeah, but didn’t you say Zimbabwe was a justified state. Aren’t you a fan?

I wrote some long posts on what happened.

2,000 White farmers from the UK owned half of all the land and about all of the decent arable land. The crops were all grown for export, and most of the Blacks were starving and malnourished. The Blacks were forced onto marginal lands which they farmed. However, yields were poor, and most importantly, the land was eroding away due to its poor nature for farming. So this situation was not working out.

Mugabe came in and said we have to deal with this land situation. He offered to buy out the White farmers, and then the state was going to deal with the land with state farms, leasing it out to small Black farmers or whatever.

However, no matter how much money he offered, the UK kept saying they were going to pay and then never paid, and the negotiations went on forever. The truth was the UK never intended to allow the farmers to be bought out ever, and they wanted to drag this out until the end of time. The US was helping the UK in this disgusting racist charade. This went on for a long time, and nothing happened, and people started getting mad. The US and UK started slapping all these sanctions on Zimbabwe for no good reason, and the economy started going down the tubes.

Meanwhile, Mugabe’s base were the war veterans. There had been a revolutionary war that ousted the White racist regime, and Mugabe had led the war, so he was a revolutionary war hero. He was also a Black power guy along the lines of Mandela.

The war veterans wanted land, and Mugabe kept saying it was coming. But the US and UK kept putting more and more sanctions on. Mugabe kept telling them that if they did not let him buy out those farmers, he could not hold his supporters back forever, and at some point, they would just go grab the land themselves. Mugabe kept urging peace with his supporters.

Well, at some point the war veterans had enough and they invaded all of the White farms. Nothing much happened. The Whites mostly took off and only 8% of Whites were latifundista farm owners anyway. But if you include their families, maybe it was 1/3 of the Whites. There was no genocide of Whites. It was a very ugly situation, very aggressive and menacing and some violent stuff happened. But all the Whites left. Seven whole Whites were killed in the “White genocide.” Like 1 in every 3,500 Whites got killed. It’s said when anyone is killed, but there was no genocide.

The Blacks were fine at small farming, but they could not run big farms. So like complete idiots, they simply dismantled the White farms and took everything they could. So the farms were left nonoperational, stripped of equipment, and the Blacks could not run the farms. So now there were food problems.

Mugabe knew that the Blacks could not run those large farms, and he always wanted to do this in an orderly way. He saw the whole mess as catastrophic and stupid. But it was his supporters who raided the farms, so he felt that he had to cheer them on, which is what he did, though he didn’t really want to do that. The project was more to have the state take over the farms in some way because it was assumed that the state could figure out how to run them, or even hire the Whites back to run farms for the people.

The White farmers never got paid off. A lot of the Whites stayed, and nothing happened to them. Now a lot of the Whites are coming back because Mugabe says you can farm your own lands, but we own them now, and you have to lease the land from the state. I think you have to grow food for the people too. And I think a lot of the Blacks are small farmers now. The situation is fixing itself. The government is socialist and dedicated to helping the people, which is the main reason we in the West hate them.

Mugabe has not been nice to the opposition, but they are in bed with the US, UK and the West. Their project is neoliberalism. They lack majority support because nobody wants this crap, and the Opposition basically fronts for the US and the UK. Most people see them as traitors and carpetbaggers. Mugabe is still a patriotic hero. The opposition has maybe 30% support, and no matter how bad things got, people would still not support them. They stuck with Mugabe through thick and thin. Yes elections were not fair, but Mugabe would have won a fair election anyway. The Opposition offered nothing but surrender to the nation’s worst enemies, selling out the country to the same enemies, and frankly treason and being puppets for the hated West. Their economic project was privatization and selling the whole place off to Western money.

There was a big deal about Mugabe tearing down some neighborhoods where a lot of Opposition supporters lived. He called it Operation Tear Down Trash. It was not handled well. The West lied, went crazy and said that Mugabe was tearing down all the homes of the Opposition people, leaving them homeless. But this was not true. The operation was done in a mean way, but their homes were shantytowns, and Mugabe tore down their shantytowns and built a lot of much better, decent modern state housing. Then he invited the former residents, many Opposition people, to come live in the new houses.

People stuck with Mugabe all the way. The sanctions ruined the economy because they were locked out of the world banking system. This was all done for some racist bullshit that the UK wanted to let 2,000 White farmers continue to monopolize the land and create a system of gross injustice. The British acted very bad in this case, and their behavior was quite racist. We shamefully went along with them.

The US and UK media wrote the situation up in a disgusting racist way which basically said that the Blacks destroyed the White farms and were now hungry because niggers are so dumb they can’t even grow food and they need superior White people to even grow food for them so they don’t starve. Yep that’s how dumb niggers are. That was the actual subtext of the West’s reporting on this case, and the openly racist tone was disgusting for the supposedly nonracist Western media.

Anyway it’s not true that niggers are so stupid they can’t even grow food. Blacks have been growing food in Africa forever, and they even started plantation agriculture in East Africa 900 years ago. They also excelled at animal husbandry for thousands of years. Granted Blacks mostly ran small farms, but they were generally able to grow enough food to survive. How hard is it to grow food? The Papuans grow yams and raise pigs. It’s not real hard to do. You don’t have to be a genius to do it. Any human can do this.

However, Blacks never got good at running large modern farms which are run more like a good-sized business. You need higher education, accounting skills and a lot of others smart brain skills to run large farms. It’s almost like running a big factory, or harder.

There are still Whites in Zimbabwe. I watched a video recently of downtown Harare. Crowded parking lot, lot of Blacks but some Whites, everyone dressed nicely, nice cars. They went into a nice restaurant where there were Blacks and Whites both in there, and everything was cool. Apparently a number of Blacks have some money, and there are still moneyed Whites there. If you have some money, it does looks like a nice place to live. You go to downtown Harare on a weekday afternoon, and there are workers in office clothes eating lunch in the park. There’s a brand new fancy radiology center that Mugabe built. Most people are pretty chill and laid back.

You can go to the slums which are not great, but I would say that Harare has the least bad slums in all of Africa. The slums are state housing, and the state spends a lot of money on the people.

This just goes to show you that people would rather stand in misery than die on their knees in comfort. It was very bad under Mugabe due to sanctions, but he represented African pride and self-determination against the predatory West that was trying to screw them over.

It was like the Blacks not wanting to live under White rule in South Africa or the Palestinians not wanting to live under Israeli rule. People have pride, and idiots who think humans are only about money are wrong. Not all people are capitalist hogs who worship money. A lot of people will take poverty with pride over more stuff and living in indignity under people who think you are inferior. The West can’t seem to figure out that humans have pride and don’t want to be lorded over by those who act superior to them. You can’t even buy people off to live under supremacist rule as inferiors. The West doesn’t get it because our only value is money, and we can’t see how many humans will gladly trade money for pride and prefer poverty over being ruled by condescending supremacists.

80 Comments

Filed under Africa, Agricutlure, Blacks, Britain, East Africa, Economics, Europe, Livestock Production, Neoliberalism, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Socialism, Sociology, South Africa, USA, War, White Racism, Whites