On 9/11/2022 9:20 AM, Rhino wrote:
> On 2022-09-11 12:00 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 9/11/2022 8:13 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2022-09-10 10:58 PM, kensi wrote:
>>>> On 2022-09-10 5:23 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> How many exceedingly poor life choices did she make to end up
>>>>> par-broiling in
>>>>> that tent that day?
>>>>
>>>> Not overthrowing a capitalist system that deems whole swathes of people
>>>> "labor units surplus to requirements", I guess.
>>>>
>>> You think capitalism is bad? Just wait until you try "socialism"! Try
>>> reading a book about life in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China,
>>> North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro and you'll see
>>> REAL hardship.
>>>
>> What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries without the
>> communism.
>
> I've heard it said by people that have lived in those countries that
> they are MORE capitalist than Canada or America are. I don't know; I
> haven't visited either country nor have I read that much about them.
>
Yes, but they're also socialist in that they provide programs which
actually help their citizens. Medical, post secondary education and
other social services. It's called democratic socialism which is in no
way like communist socialism.

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>On 9/11/2022 8:13 AM, Rhino wrote:

>>>. . .

>>You think capitalism is bad? Just wait until you try "socialism"! Try
>>reading a book about life in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, North
>>Korea, Cuba or Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro and you'll see REAL
>>hardship.

>What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries without the
>communism.

No they aren't. Think about the definitions you learned in school.

Capitalism: Means of production are privately owned by those in business
to make a profit.

Socialism: A transition into Communism in which there is more and more
centralized control of the eocnomy, the means of production are commonly
owned or owned outright by the state and won't be sold off to private
businesses. Socialism can include a number of transitional systems.

Communism: The end result of socialist transition after which all
private ownership of the means of production has been abolished and
society has become classless without a central state government.

Marx saw the state as one of the means the top echelons of society
maintained control and oppressed everyone else.

Contrast state socilism in which only some means of production have
become publicly owned and the end result is not abolishing all private
ownership of the means of production.

It's kind of a welfare state in part but not entirely.

The United States has a great many aspects of state socialism,
especially all the programs that fall under Social Security -- old age
pension, disability, Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment insurance. Highway,
marine, airports, are generally examples of state socialism. Even with
highways, private ownership isn't abolished and there are a few examples
of privately owned roads.

Other examples of state socialism are regulated public utilities, even
though there is private ownership.

"State socialism" isn't a transition state into communism.

I have no idea how to classify North Korea, which is a complete pariah.
Pretty much society's only objective is to repel another conventional
war with the United States. Everything funds the military, and the
people pretty much starve much of the time.

Venezuala wanted to be Cuba but was massively incompetent.

Are all the countries Rhino mentioned truly making a transition into
communism as envisioned by Marx? I don't think that will ever happen.
But the way socialism has been implemented, it's just another means of
state control of the population who have had liberty denied them.

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>On 9/11/2022 9:20 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>On 2022-09-11 12:00 PM, suzeeq wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries without the
>>>communism.

>>I've heard it said by people that have lived in those countries that
>>they are MORE capitalist than Canada or America are. I don't know; I
>>haven't visited either country nor have I read that much about them.

>Yes, but they're also socialist in that they provide programs which
>actually help their citizens. Medical, post secondary education and
>other social services. It's called democratic socialism which is in no
>way like communist socialism.

"Provide programs which actually help their citizens"? That's not a
political philosophy, suzeeq. That's a straight line.

There is no shortage of examples of programs intended to help but result
in economic damage.

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>On 2022-09-11 12:04 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>On 2022-09-10 10:58 PM, kensi wrote:

>>>>>. . .

>>>>What a load of bigoted stereotyping.

>>>Open your fucking eyes and go see for yourself that it's exactly like
>>>BTR1701 says.

>>Rhino, there are no eyes to open. It's a seamus sockpuppet. seamus will
>>put on another stinky linty sockpuppet to argue with you trying to
>>pretend that the STOOPID and the insults are well supported, but it's
>>all sockpuppetry.

>>A sockbutton doesn't have eyes, just bits of cloth sewn on. Your demand
>>is impossible to meet.

>Yeah, I know. But if there are any actual human beings reading these
>threads, I want to make sure that "kensi's" damnable lies are challenged
>with truth rather than seeing the gullible tricked by "her" bullshit.

There is no actual human being behind the laundry basket of filthy
sockpuppets that gets rotated among various Usenet groups. It's just a
trolling entity.

On 9/11/2022 10:02 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 9/11/2022 9:20 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2022-09-11 12:00 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>
>>>>> . . .
>
>>>> What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries without the
>>>> communism.
>
>>> I've heard it said by people that have lived in those countries that
>>> they are MORE capitalist than Canada or America are. I don't know; I
>>> haven't visited either country nor have I read that much about them.
>
>> Yes, but they're also socialist in that they provide programs which
>> actually help their citizens. Medical, post secondary education and
>> other social services. It's called democratic socialism which is in no
>> way like communist socialism.
>
> "Provide programs which actually help their citizens"? That's not a
> political philosophy, suzeeq. That's a straight line.

No, it's a socialist idea. Just ask the republicans.
>
> There is no shortage of examples of programs intended to help but result
> in economic damage.
>

On 9/11/2022 9:59 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 9/11/2022 8:13 AM, Rhino wrote:
>
>>>> . . .
>
>>> You think capitalism is bad? Just wait until you try "socialism"! Try
>>> reading a book about life in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, North
>>> Korea, Cuba or Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro and you'll see REAL
>>> hardship.
>
>> What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries without the
>> communism.
>
> No they aren't. Think about the definitions you learned in school.
>
> Capitalism: Means of production are privately owned by those in business
> to make a profit.
>
> Socialism: A transition into Communism in which there is more and more
> centralized control of the eocnomy, the means of production are commonly
> owned or owned outright by the state and won't be sold off to private
> businesses. Socialism can include a number of transitional systems.
>
> Communism: The end result of socialist transition after which all
> private ownership of the means of production has been abolished and
> society has become classless without a central state government.
>
> Marx saw the state as one of the means the top echelons of society
> maintained control and oppressed everyone else.
>
> Contrast state socilism in which only some means of production have
> become publicly owned and the end result is not abolishing all private
> ownership of the means of production.
>
> It's kind of a welfare state in part but not entirely.
>
> The United States has a great many aspects of state socialism,
> especially all the programs that fall under Social Security -- old age
> pension, disability, Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment insurance. Highway,
> marine, airports, are generally examples of state socialism. Even with
> highways, private ownership isn't abolished and there are a few examples
> of privately owned roads.
>
> Other examples of state socialism are regulated public utilities, even
> though there is private ownership.
>
> "State socialism" isn't a transition state into communism.

I wasn't speaking in economic or political terms, but more about social
programs.

> I have no idea how to classify North Korea, which is a complete pariah.
> Pretty much society's only objective is to repel another conventional
> war with the United States. Everything funds the military, and the
> people pretty much starve much of the time.
>
> Venezuala wanted to be Cuba but was massively incompetent.
>
> Are all the countries Rhino mentioned truly making a transition into
> communism as envisioned by Marx? I don't think that will ever happen.
> But the way socialism has been implemented, it's just another means of
> state control of the population who have had liberty denied them.
>

On 2022-09-11 1:03 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-09-11 12:04 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-09-10 10:58 PM, kensi wrote:
>
>>>>>> . . .
>
>>>>> What a load of bigoted stereotyping.
>
>>>> Open your fucking eyes and go see for yourself that it's exactly like
>>>> BTR1701 says.
>
>>> Rhino, there are no eyes to open. It's a seamus sockpuppet. seamus will
>>> put on another stinky linty sockpuppet to argue with you trying to
>>> pretend that the STOOPID and the insults are well supported, but it's
>>> all sockpuppetry.
>
>>> A sockbutton doesn't have eyes, just bits of cloth sewn on. Your demand
>>> is impossible to meet.
>
>> Yeah, I know. But if there are any actual human beings reading these
>> threads, I want to make sure that "kensi's" damnable lies are challenged
>> with truth rather than seeing the gullible tricked by "her" bullshit.
>
> There is no actual human being behind the laundry basket of filthy
> sockpuppets that gets rotated among various Usenet groups. It's just a
> trolling entity.

I'm not talking about "kensi" as such a person. I meant other people,
especially lurkers who we never or only rarely see but are here anyway.

--
Rhino

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 9/11/2022 8:13 AM, Rhino wrote:
>
>>>> . . .
>
>>> You think capitalism is bad? Just wait until you try "socialism"! Try
>>> reading a book about life in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, North
>>> Korea, Cuba or Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro and you'll see REAL
>>> hardship.
>
>> What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries without the
>> communism.
>
> No they aren't. Think about the definitions you learned in school.
>
> Capitalism: Means of production are privately owned by those in business
> to make a profit.
>
> Socialism: A transition into Communism in which there is more and more
> centralized control of the eocnomy, the means of production are commonly
> owned or owned outright by the state and won't be sold off to private
> businesses. Socialism can include a number of transitional systems.
>
> Communism:

I always liked “a communist is a socialist with a gun“

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>On 9/11/2022 10:02 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>On 9/11/2022 9:20 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>On 2022-09-11 12:00 PM, suzeeq wrote:

>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries without the
>>>>>communism.

>>>>I've heard it said by people that have lived in those countries that
>>>>they are MORE capitalist than Canada or America are. I don't know; I
>>>>haven't visited either country nor have I read that much about them.

>>>Yes, but they're also socialist in that they provide programs which
>>>actually help their citizens. Medical, post secondary education and
>>>other social services. It's called democratic socialism which is in no
>>>way like communist socialism.

>>"Provide programs which actually help their citizens"? That's not a
>>political philosophy, suzeeq. That's a straight line.

>No, it's a socialist idea. Just ask the republicans.

I have no experience with social welfare provided through government
programs which may help a few people in the short term but haven't done
serious economic damage in the long term.

I'll grant that it's possible to have government that's not incompetent,
even possibly in Norway and Sweden. Maybe other states have less
incompetent government. A couple I'm friends with had moved to Indiana.
The wife kept telling me that the move was relatively easy with respect
to changing their primary residence to Indiana on myriad forms filed
with different government offices.

I'm just not familiar with this helpful nature of government.

>>There is no shortage of examples of programs intended to help but result
>>in economic damage.

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>On 9/11/2022 9:59 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>On 9/11/2022 8:13 AM, Rhino wrote:

>>>>>. . .

>>>>You think capitalism is bad? Just wait until you try "socialism"! Try
>>>>reading a book about life in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, North
>>>>Korea, Cuba or Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro and you'll see REAL
>>>>hardship.

>>>What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries without the
>>>communism.

>>No they aren't. Think about the definitions you learned in school.

>>Capitalism: Means of production are privately owned by those in business
>>to make a profit.

>>Socialism: A transition into Communism in which there is more and more
>>centralized control of the eocnomy, the means of production are commonly
>>owned or owned outright by the state and won't be sold off to private
>>businesses. Socialism can include a number of transitional systems.

>>Communism: The end result of socialist transition after which all
>>private ownership of the means of production has been abolished and
>>society has become classless without a central state government.

>>Marx saw the state as one of the means the top echelons of society
>>maintained control and oppressed everyone else.

>>Contrast state socilism in which only some means of production have
>>become publicly owned and the end result is not abolishing all private
>>ownership of the means of production.

>>It's kind of a welfare state in part but not entirely.

>>The United States has a great many aspects of state socialism,
>>especially all the programs that fall under Social Security -- old age
>>pension, disability, Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment insurance. Highway,
>>marine, airports, are generally examples of state socialism. Even with
>>highways, private ownership isn't abolished and there are a few examples
>>of privately owned roads.

>>Other examples of state socialism are regulated public utilities, even
>>though there is private ownership.

>>"State socialism" isn't a transition state into communism.

>I wasn't speaking in economic or political terms, but more about social
>programs.

That social and welfare programs and some aspects of business are
provided by the state to citizens is very much a matter of economics and
politics and cannot be seen in a separate light. The question is whether
aspects of socialization are seen by those who run a country as the
first step in further socialization of more of the economy and further
restricting the liberty of citizens, or if it's just seen as a better
way to provide basic services. It is absolutely a political question.

>>. . .

On 2022-09-11 1:27 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 9/11/2022 10:02 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2022 9:20 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>>> On 2022-09-11 12:00 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>
>>>>>> . . .
>>
>>>>> What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries without the
>>>>> communism.
>>
>>>> I've heard it said by people that have lived in those countries that
>>>> they are MORE capitalist than Canada or America are. I don't know; I
>>>> haven't visited either country nor have I read that much about them.
>>
>>> Yes, but they're also socialist in that they provide programs which
>>> actually help their citizens. Medical, post secondary education and
>>> other social services. It's called democratic socialism which is in no
>>> way like communist socialism.
>>
>> "Provide programs which actually help their citizens"? That's not a
>> political philosophy, suzeeq. That's a straight line.
>
> No, it's a socialist idea. Just ask the republicans.

That's one of the biggest problems with "socialism": the word has taken
on so many meanings that it's nearly impossible discuss it because each
person in the conversation has a different understanding of what
socialism actually is.

Adam has correctly defined several forms of socialism - and the
implications of those forms - in his remarks in this thread. However,
when "people" like "kensi" talk about "socialism" while wanting to smash
capitalism, it's very clear to me that "she" (or soulmates like AOC)
are cheerleading for the "socialism" that was practiced in the Soviet
Union, Mao's China, North Korea and Venezuela.

While the Bolshevik Party eventually changed its name to the Communist
Party, it was strictly an aspirational thing: they wanted communism but
they didn't know how to get there. Marx hadn't known in any detail and
Lenin didn't either. All they could do was to install socialism, as best
they could understand it, and hope against hope that Marx was right in
asserting that after socialism had been in place for a long enough time
- and NO ONE knew how many years or centuries that might take! - real
communism would arise. In the meantime, they told their citizens that
they were "building socialism" and that actual communism would come
along eventually. They even named their empire the Union of Soviet
SOCIALIST Republics to emphasize that.

My remarks to "kensi" were to contrast "her" juvenile fantasies about
workers paradises with the reality of life in those countries once their
"socialists" had come to power. We KNOW what this life was like because
various observers, many of whom lived through those times in those
places, have given us first-hand accounts. We see many of the same
privations in today's "socialist" states like Venezuela and North Korea.

COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK AND NEVER HAS. No one has been able to make
communism work on even the level of a small village except via coercion
- a gun to the head or the threat of being deprived of all food - and as
soon as the coercion vanished, the experiment of communism failed in
that place. The day someone gets communism to work WITHOUT coercion,
even on the level of a small village, then there may be something to
talk about and even try. Until then, anyone talking of smashing
capitalism and implementing "socialism" is trying to sell snake oil and
needs to be actively resisted.

>>
>> There is no shortage of examples of programs intended to help but result
>> in economic damage.
>>
>

--
Rhino

On Sep 11, 2022 at 8:13:13 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:

> On 2022-09-10 10:58 PM, kensi wrote:
>> On 2022-09-10 5:23 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>> How many exceedingly poor life choices did she make to end up
>>> par-broiling in
>>> that tent that day?
>>
>> Not overthrowing a capitalist system that deems whole swathes of people
>> "labor units surplus to requirements", I guess.
>>
> You think capitalism is bad? Just wait until you try "socialism"! Try
> reading a book about life in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, North
> Korea, Cuba or Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro and you'll see REAL
> hardship.

These kooks always say that's not *real* socialism or communism, which is why
it failed and there were atrocities.

> In today's Venezuela, everything is tremendously expensive and it can
> take an entire month's wages to buy a few items of food. Stores are
> nearly always empty and only get a meagre restocking once a week so
> people line up there the night before to increase their odds of getting
> into the store right when it opens the next day. But despite large
> numbers waiting in line, Maduro's regime packs a bus with its supporters
> and supplies a few armed police which arrive at the store a few minutes
> before it opens; the police bar the people who had been waiting all
> night from entering and then allow the people from the bus to pick over
> all the newly arrived stock in the store, rarely leaving anything for
> the people who had been in line all night. THAT is how the "socialists"
> do "social justice"!

People in Venezuela are eating their pets.

Progress!

On Sep 11, 2022 at 9:00:11 AM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:

> On 9/11/2022 8:13 AM, Rhino wrote:
>> On 2022-09-10 10:58 PM, kensi wrote:
>>> On 2022-09-10 5:23 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> How many exceedingly poor life choices did she make to end up
>>>> par-broiling in
>>>> that tent that day?
>>>
>>> Not overthrowing a capitalist system that deems whole swathes of people
>>> "labor units surplus to requirements", I guess.
>>>
>> You think capitalism is bad? Just wait until you try "socialism"! Try
>> reading a book about life in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, North
>> Korea, Cuba or Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro and you'll see REAL
>> hardship.
>>
> What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries without the
> communism.

And it only worked when they had a homogenous, near universally-employed
populace. Now that they've voluntarily imported hundreds of thousands of
3rd-worlders, a significant percentage of whom refuse to assimilate into the
culture or even work, their socialist system is collapsing. When the takers
outweigh the makers, the center cannot hold.

On Sep 11, 2022 at 10:51:54 AM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2022 8:13 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>
>>>>> . . .
>>
>>>> You think capitalism is bad? Just wait until you try "socialism"! Try
>>>> reading a book about life in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, North
>>>> Korea, Cuba or Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro and you'll see REAL
>>>> hardship.
>>
>>> What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries without the
>>> communism.
>>
>> No they aren't. Think about the definitions you learned in school.
>>
>> Capitalism: Means of production are privately owned by those in business
>> to make a profit.
>>
>> Socialism: A transition into Communism in which there is more and more
>> centralized control of the eocnomy, the means of production are commonly
>> owned or owned outright by the state and won't be sold off to private
>> businesses. Socialism can include a number of transitional systems.
>>
>> Communism:
>
> I always liked “a communist is a socialist with a gun“

Collectivism: Ideas so awesome they have to be mandatory, and always seem to
be just one execution away from utopia.

On 2022-09-11 2:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2022 at 8:13:13 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-09-10 10:58 PM, kensi wrote:
>>> On 2022-09-10 5:23 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> How many exceedingly poor life choices did she make to end up
>>>> par-broiling in
>>>> that tent that day?
>>>
>>> Not overthrowing a capitalist system that deems whole swathes of people
>>> "labor units surplus to requirements", I guess.
>>>
>> You think capitalism is bad? Just wait until you try "socialism"! Try
>> reading a book about life in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, North
>> Korea, Cuba or Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro and you'll see REAL
>> hardship.
>
> These kooks always say that's not *real* socialism or communism, which is why
> it failed and there were atrocities.
>
And yet when you ask them what they'd do differently than Stalin, Mao,
Pol Pot or whoever, they never have an answer. They have NO IDEA how to
make socialism or communism work yet keep insisting it will be AWESOME
if only you will get out of the way and let them establish it.

>> In today's Venezuela, everything is tremendously expensive and it can
>> take an entire month's wages to buy a few items of food. Stores are
>> nearly always empty and only get a meagre restocking once a week so
>> people line up there the night before to increase their odds of getting
>> into the store right when it opens the next day. But despite large
>> numbers waiting in line, Maduro's regime packs a bus with its supporters
>> and supplies a few armed police which arrive at the store a few minutes
>> before it opens; the police bar the people who had been waiting all
>> night from entering and then allow the people from the bus to pick over
>> all the newly arrived stock in the store, rarely leaving anything for
>> the people who had been in line all night. THAT is how the "socialists"
>> do "social justice"!
>
> People in Venezuela are eating their pets.
>
> Progress!
>
>

--
Rhino

On 9/11/2022 10:56 AM, Rhino wrote:
> On 2022-09-11 1:27 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 9/11/2022 10:02 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/2022 9:20 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-09-11 12:00 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> . . .
>>>
>>>>>> What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries without the
>>>>>> communism.
>>>
>>>>> I've heard it said by people that have lived in those countries that
>>>>> they are MORE capitalist than Canada or America are. I don't know; I
>>>>> haven't visited either country nor have I read that much about them.
>>>
>>>> Yes, but they're also socialist in that they provide programs which
>>>> actually help their citizens. Medical, post secondary education and
>>>> other social services. It's called democratic socialism which is in no
>>>> way like communist socialism.
>>>
>>> "Provide programs which actually help their citizens"? That's not a
>>> political philosophy, suzeeq. That's a straight line.
>>
>> No, it's a socialist idea. Just ask the republicans.
>
> That's one of the biggest problems with "socialism": the word has taken
> on so many meanings that it's nearly impossible discuss it because each
> person in the conversation has a different understanding of what
> socialism actually is.
>
> Adam has correctly defined several forms of socialism - and the
> implications of those forms - in his remarks in this thread. However,
> when "people" like "kensi" talk about "socialism" while wanting to smash
>  capitalism, it's very clear to me that "she" (or soulmates like AOC)
> are cheerleading for the "socialism" that was practiced in the Soviet
> Union, Mao's China, North Korea and Venezuela.

That's not what I'm talking about.
>
> While the Bolshevik Party eventually changed its name to the Communist
> Party, it was strictly an aspirational thing: they wanted communism but
> they didn't know how to get there. Marx hadn't known in any detail and
> Lenin didn't either. All they could do was to install socialism, as best
> they could understand it, and hope against hope that Marx was right in
> asserting that after socialism had been in place for a long enough time
> - and NO ONE knew how many years or centuries that might take! - real
> communism would arise. In the meantime, they told their citizens that
> they were "building socialism" and that actual communism would come
> along eventually. They even named their empire the Union of Soviet
> SOCIALIST Republics to emphasize that.
>
> My remarks to "kensi" were to contrast "her" juvenile fantasies about
> workers paradises with the reality of life in those countries once their
> "socialists" had come to power. We KNOW what this life was like because
> various observers, many of whom lived through those times in those
> places, have given us first-hand accounts. We see many of the same
> privations in today's "socialist" states like Venezuela and North Korea.
>
> COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK AND NEVER HAS. No one has been able to make
> communism work on even the level of a small village except via coercion
> - a gun to the head or the threat of being deprived of all food - and as
> soon as the coercion vanished, the experiment of communism failed in
> that place. The day someone gets communism to work WITHOUT coercion,
> even on the level of a small village, then there may be something to
> talk about and even try. Until then, anyone talking of smashing
> capitalism and implementing "socialism" is trying to sell snake oil and
> needs to be actively resisted.
>
True commmunism can work in small groups, not in countries. And even
there, only for a short period of time.

On 2022-09-11 4:47 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 9/11/2022 10:56 AM, Rhino wrote:
>> On 2022-09-11 1:27 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2022 10:02 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/11/2022 9:20 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-09-11 12:00 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>
>>>>>>> What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries without
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> communism.
>>>>
>>>>>> I've heard it said by people that have lived in those countries that
>>>>>> they are MORE capitalist than Canada or America are. I don't know; I
>>>>>> haven't visited either country nor have I read that much about them.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but they're also socialist in that they provide programs which
>>>>> actually help their citizens. Medical, post secondary education and
>>>>> other social services. It's called democratic socialism which is in no
>>>>> way like communist socialism.
>>>>
>>>> "Provide programs which actually help their citizens"? That's not a
>>>> political philosophy, suzeeq. That's a straight line.
>>>
>>> No, it's a socialist idea. Just ask the republicans.
>>
>> That's one of the biggest problems with "socialism": the word has
>> taken on so many meanings that it's nearly impossible discuss it
>> because each person in the conversation has a different understanding
>> of what socialism actually is.
>>
>> Adam has correctly defined several forms of socialism - and the
>> implications of those forms - in his remarks in this thread. However,
>> when "people" like "kensi" talk about "socialism" while wanting to
>> smash   capitalism, it's very clear to me that "she" (or soulmates
>> like AOC) are cheerleading for the "socialism" that was practiced in
>> the Soviet Union, Mao's China, North Korea and Venezuela.
>
> That's not what I'm talking about.

Then what ARE you talking about?
>>
>> While the Bolshevik Party eventually changed its name to the Communist
>> Party, it was strictly an aspirational thing: they wanted communism
>> but they didn't know how to get there. Marx hadn't known in any detail
>> and Lenin didn't either. All they could do was to install socialism,
>> as best they could understand it, and hope against hope that Marx was
>> right in asserting that after socialism had been in place for a long
>> enough time - and NO ONE knew how many years or centuries that might
>> take! - real communism would arise. In the meantime, they told their
>> citizens that they were "building socialism" and that actual communism
>> would come along eventually. They even named their empire the Union of
>> Soviet SOCIALIST Republics to emphasize that.
>>
>> My remarks to "kensi" were to contrast "her" juvenile fantasies about
>> workers paradises with the reality of life in those countries once
>> their "socialists" had come to power. We KNOW what this life was like
>> because various observers, many of whom lived through those times in
>> those places, have given us first-hand accounts. We see many of the
>> same privations in today's "socialist" states like Venezuela and North
>> Korea.
>>
>> COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK AND NEVER HAS. No one has been able to make
>> communism work on even the level of a small village except via
>> coercion - a gun to the head or the threat of being deprived of all
>> food - and as soon as the coercion vanished, the experiment of
>> communism failed in that place. The day someone gets communism to work
>> WITHOUT coercion, even on the level of a small village, then there may
>> be something to talk about and even try. Until then, anyone talking of
>> smashing capitalism and implementing "socialism" is trying to sell
>> snake oil and needs to be actively resisted.
>>
> True commmunism can work in small groups, not in countries. And even
> there, only for a short period of time.

I actually did a full course in Utopian communities in university and
looked at a variety of them in a variety of places. All of them were
small groups, not countries, and none of them lasted more than a few
years before falling apart. Yet the "socialists" who despise capitalism
- let's face it, these people are Marxists - keep trying to make whole
countries become "socialist" (building up to a communism that they don't
know how to achieve). It's insane. If they had a brain in their pointed
little heads, they'd get communism working on a small scale and then
figure out how to scale it up to larger and larger groupings until the
finally hit the size of a province, state or region and it worked
successfully there. Then, and only then, should they ever begin to talk
about doing it and a national level. NO ONE should pay any attention to
them until they can do that much.

--
Rhino

On 9/11/2022 2:39 PM, Rhino wrote:
> On 2022-09-11 4:47 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 9/11/2022 10:56 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2022-09-11 1:27 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/2022 10:02 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/11/2022 9:20 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-09-11 12:00 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries
>>>>>>>> without the
>>>>>>>> communism.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've heard it said by people that have lived in those countries that
>>>>>>> they are MORE capitalist than Canada or America are. I don't know; I
>>>>>>> haven't visited either country nor have I read that much about them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but they're also socialist in that they provide programs which
>>>>>> actually help their citizens. Medical, post secondary education and
>>>>>> other social services. It's called democratic socialism which is
>>>>>> in no
>>>>>> way like communist socialism.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Provide programs which actually help their citizens"? That's not a
>>>>> political philosophy, suzeeq. That's a straight line.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's a socialist idea. Just ask the republicans.
>>>
>>> That's one of the biggest problems with "socialism": the word has
>>> taken on so many meanings that it's nearly impossible discuss it
>>> because each person in the conversation has a different understanding
>>> of what socialism actually is.
>>>
>>> Adam has correctly defined several forms of socialism - and the
>>> implications of those forms - in his remarks in this thread. However,
>>> when "people" like "kensi" talk about "socialism" while wanting to
>>> smash   capitalism, it's very clear to me that "she" (or soulmates
>>> like AOC) are cheerleading for the "socialism" that was practiced in
>>> the Soviet Union, Mao's China, North Korea and Venezuela.
>>
>> That's not what I'm talking about.

Social programs paid for by the government. Education, health care and
all those services the republicans want to do away with.
>
> Then what ARE you talking about?
>>>
>>> While the Bolshevik Party eventually changed its name to the
>>> Communist Party, it was strictly an aspirational thing: they wanted
>>> communism but they didn't know how to get there. Marx hadn't known in
>>> any detail and Lenin didn't either. All they could do was to install
>>> socialism, as best they could understand it, and hope against hope
>>> that Marx was right in asserting that after socialism had been in
>>> place for a long enough time - and NO ONE knew how many years or
>>> centuries that might take! - real communism would arise. In the
>>> meantime, they told their citizens that they were "building
>>> socialism" and that actual communism would come along eventually.
>>> They even named their empire the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics
>>> to emphasize that.
>>>
>>> My remarks to "kensi" were to contrast "her" juvenile fantasies about
>>> workers paradises with the reality of life in those countries once
>>> their "socialists" had come to power. We KNOW what this life was like
>>> because various observers, many of whom lived through those times in
>>> those places, have given us first-hand accounts. We see many of the
>>> same privations in today's "socialist" states like Venezuela and
>>> North Korea.
>>>
>>> COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK AND NEVER HAS. No one has been able to make
>>> communism work on even the level of a small village except via
>>> coercion - a gun to the head or the threat of being deprived of all
>>> food - and as soon as the coercion vanished, the experiment of
>>> communism failed in that place. The day someone gets communism to
>>> work WITHOUT coercion, even on the level of a small village, then
>>> there may be something to talk about and even try. Until then, anyone
>>> talking of smashing capitalism and implementing "socialism" is trying
>>> to sell snake oil and needs to be actively resisted.
>>>
>> True commmunism can work in small groups, not in countries. And even
>> there, only for a short period of time.
>
> I actually did a full course in Utopian communities in university and
> looked at a variety of them in a variety of places. All of them were
> small groups, not countries, and none of them lasted more than a few
> years before falling apart.

Yep, that's what I meant by working for only a short time. It's just not
sustainable.

> Yet the "socialists" who despise capitalism
> - let's face it, these people are Marxists - keep trying to make whole
> countries become "socialist" (building up to a communism that they don't
> know how to achieve). It's insane. If they had a brain in their pointed
> little heads, they'd get communism working on a small scale and then
> figure out how to scale it up to larger and larger groupings until the
> finally hit the size of a province, state or region and it worked
> successfully there. Then, and only then, should they ever begin to talk
> about doing it and a national level. NO ONE should pay any attention to
> them until they can do that much.
>

On 2022-09-11 7:00 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 9/11/2022 2:39 PM, Rhino wrote:
>> On 2022-09-11 4:47 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2022 10:56 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>>> On 2022-09-11 1:27 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>> On 9/11/2022 10:02 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/11/2022 9:20 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-09-11 12:00 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What about Norway and Sweden? They're socialist countries
>>>>>>>>> without the
>>>>>>>>> communism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've heard it said by people that have lived in those countries
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> they are MORE capitalist than Canada or America are. I don't
>>>>>>>> know; I
>>>>>>>> haven't visited either country nor have I read that much about
>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but they're also socialist in that they provide programs which
>>>>>>> actually help their citizens. Medical, post secondary education and
>>>>>>> other social services. It's called democratic socialism which is
>>>>>>> in no
>>>>>>> way like communist socialism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Provide programs which actually help their citizens"? That's not a
>>>>>> political philosophy, suzeeq. That's a straight line.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's a socialist idea. Just ask the republicans.
>>>>
>>>> That's one of the biggest problems with "socialism": the word has
>>>> taken on so many meanings that it's nearly impossible discuss it
>>>> because each person in the conversation has a different
>>>> understanding of what socialism actually is.
>>>>
>>>> Adam has correctly defined several forms of socialism - and the
>>>> implications of those forms - in his remarks in this thread.
>>>> However, when "people" like "kensi" talk about "socialism" while
>>>> wanting to smash   capitalism, it's very clear to me that "she" (or
>>>> soulmates like AOC) are cheerleading for the "socialism" that was
>>>> practiced in the Soviet Union, Mao's China, North Korea and Venezuela.
>>>
>>> That's not what I'm talking about.
>
> Social programs paid for by the government. Education, health care and
> all those services the republicans want to do away with.

I was reading conservative media in the US for years and I didn't see
anything that suggested any serious percentage of Republicans were
pushing for that. A few libertarians may have wanted to privatize some
functions normally done by the government but I never had the sense that
this was anything like a groundswell. For instance, I remember some
people thinking that the FEDERAL department of education was a very bad
idea and that education should revert to being ENTIRELY a state-level
concern as it has been before Jimmy Carter created the Department of
Education. But that's not the same as ELIMINATING publicly funded
education by a long shot.

>>
>> Then what ARE you talking about?
>>>>
>>>> While the Bolshevik Party eventually changed its name to the
>>>> Communist Party, it was strictly an aspirational thing: they wanted
>>>> communism but they didn't know how to get there. Marx hadn't known
>>>> in any detail and Lenin didn't either. All they could do was to
>>>> install socialism, as best they could understand it, and hope
>>>> against hope that Marx was right in asserting that after socialism
>>>> had been in place for a long enough time - and NO ONE knew how many
>>>> years or centuries that might take! - real communism would arise. In
>>>> the meantime, they told their citizens that they were "building
>>>> socialism" and that actual communism would come along eventually.
>>>> They even named their empire the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics
>>>> to emphasize that.
>>>>
>>>> My remarks to "kensi" were to contrast "her" juvenile fantasies
>>>> about workers paradises with the reality of life in those countries
>>>> once their "socialists" had come to power. We KNOW what this life
>>>> was like because various observers, many of whom lived through those
>>>> times in those places, have given us first-hand accounts. We see
>>>> many of the same privations in today's "socialist" states like
>>>> Venezuela and North Korea.
>>>>
>>>> COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK AND NEVER HAS. No one has been able to make
>>>> communism work on even the level of a small village except via
>>>> coercion - a gun to the head or the threat of being deprived of all
>>>> food - and as soon as the coercion vanished, the experiment of
>>>> communism failed in that place. The day someone gets communism to
>>>> work WITHOUT coercion, even on the level of a small village, then
>>>> there may be something to talk about and even try. Until then,
>>>> anyone talking of smashing capitalism and implementing "socialism"
>>>> is trying to sell snake oil and needs to be actively resisted.
>>>>
>>> True commmunism can work in small groups, not in countries. And even
>>> there, only for a short period of time.
>>
>> I actually did a full course in Utopian communities in university and
>> looked at a variety of them in a variety of places. All of them were
>> small groups, not countries, and none of them lasted more than a few
>> years before falling apart.
>
> Yep, that's what I meant by working for only a short time. It's just not
> sustainable.
>
>> Yet the "socialists" who despise capitalism - let's face it, these
>> people are Marxists - keep trying to make whole countries become
>> "socialist" (building up to a communism that they don't know how to
>> achieve). It's insane. If they had a brain in their pointed little
>> heads, they'd get communism working on a small scale and then figure
>> out how to scale it up to larger and larger groupings until the
>> finally hit the size of a province, state or region and it worked
>> successfully there. Then, and only then, should they ever begin to
>> talk about doing it and a national level. NO ONE should pay any
>> attention to them until they can do that much.
>>
>

--
Rhino

On 2022-09-10 11:17 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
> kensi <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2022-09-10 5:23 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>> How many exceedingly poor life choices did she make to end up par-broiling in
>>> that tent that day?
>>
>> Not overthrowing a capitalist system that deems whole swathes of people
>> "labor units surplus to requirements", I guess.
>>
>>> "Certain spots". Media soft-pedal for "they were banned from camping in front
>>> of schools and other places frequented by children". Because refusing to allow
>>> vagrant encampments in and around schools, forcing the kids to have to play
>>> Turd Hopscotch and Needle Roulette on their way into and out of school
>>> everyday, having to run a gauntlet of sex offenders and violent ex-cons is
>>> just *such* an extreme position to take.
>>
>> What a load of bigoted stereotyping.
>
> Why are all you leftists suddenly so invested in exposing children to every
> manner of human degradation?

We're not. You rightists are suddenly seeing threats to children's poor
innocence everywhere (e.g., drag queens in libraries, trans people in
school bathrooms, etc.) but that's just your paranoia. Nobody is
plotting against the children ... unless you are, and you're projecting.

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate

On 2022-09-11 1:56 p.m., Rhino wrote:
> Adam has correctly defined several forms of socialism - and the
> implications of those forms - in his remarks in this thread. However,
> when "people" like "kensi"

Gratuitous dehumanization noted and logged, ko0k.

> talk about "socialism" while wanting to smash capitalism, it's very
> clear to me that "she" (or soulmates like AOC) are cheerleading for the
> "socialism" that was practiced in the Soviet Union, Mao's China, North > Korea and Venezuela.

Nope. Try New Harmony:

https://www.workers.org/2018/09/38915/

From 1825 to 1827, New Harmony [in Indiana], now in the hands of Owen,
attracted many of the most idealistic and inventive reformers of the
day, as well as women and men of the natural sciences. In addition, many
jobless people found their way there, inspired by public lectures Owen
gave in many Eastern cities.

The principles of the community were explained as follows: “Within the
community all work was to be equal. One was to receive that which was
necessary to him. The teachers’ work was to be on the same footing with
the laborer, the farmer the equal of either. All were to perform to the
best of their ability and receive the same compensation.” (“The New
Harmony Story” by Don Blair)

In its few short years of existence, the communist society at New
Harmony broke new ground. It introduced into the United States the first
kindergarten, the first infant school, the first trade school, the first
free public school system, the first women’s club, the first free
library, the first civic dramatic club, and it was the seat of the first
geological survey.

The progressive achievements of this little utopian colony inevitably
became the basis for important demands taken up later by the
working-class movement. The bosses are still fighting tooth and nail
against such benefits and cutting them back wherever they can. To the
extent that they are today more generally available to the workers, it
is owing to bitter class battles across the country. How interesting
that what were at that time considered utopian have now become very
practical and indeed necessary.

Long after it ceased to be a communist colony, New Harmony was a social
and cultural oasis. It was to become a center of both the abolitionist
and the women’s movements.

> Until then, anyone talking of smashing capitalism and implementing
> "socialism" is trying to sell snake oil and needs to be actively
> resisted.

Bring it, kOOk.

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate

On 2022-09-11 4:26 p.m., Rhino wrote:
> And yet when you ask them what they'd do differently than Stalin, Mao,
> Pol Pot or whoever, they never have an answer.

Worker-owned business co-ops. Decentralized governance. No despotic
dictator. No centrally-planned command economy.

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate

In article <tfm8nf$nvm$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
kensi <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:

> On 2022-09-11 1:56 p.m., Rhino wrote:

> > Adam has correctly defined several forms of socialism - and the
> > implications of those forms - in his remarks in this thread. However,
> > when "people" like "kensi"
>
> Gratuitous dehumanization noted and logged, ko0k.

LOL! "Logged". As if you're the keeper of some official Usenet archive.

What are your plans for this log of yours, kooky? Gonna sit in the dark
and masturbate furiously over it or something?

On 2022-09-11 11:44 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tfm8nf$nvm$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> kensi <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-09-11 1:56 p.m., Rhino wrote:
>
>>> Adam has correctly defined several forms of socialism - and the
>>> implications of those forms - in his remarks in this thread. However,
>>> when "people" like "kensi"
>>
>> Gratuitous dehumanization noted and logged, ko0k.
>
> LOL! "Logged". As if you're the keeper of some official Usenet archive.
>
> What are your plans for this log of yours, kooky?
You need to change that nym. Using that number while being not only
virulently anti-socialism but out-and-out fascist is an insult to the
memory of Gene Roddenberry.

Until you do, I will refer to you only as "kOok" and variations thereupon.

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate

In article <tfm7rn$9q7$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
kensi <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:

> On 2022-09-10 11:17 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
> > kensi <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2022-09-10 5:23 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:

> >>> "Certain spots". Media soft-pedal for "they were banned from camping in
> >>> front of schools and other places frequented by children". Because
> >>> refusing to allow vagrant encampments in and around schools, forcing
> >>> the kids to have to play Turd Hopscotch and Needle Roulette on their
> >>> way into and out of school everyday, having to run a gauntlet of sex
> >>> offenders and violent ex-cons is just *such* an extreme position to
> >>> take.
> >>
> >> What a load of bigoted stereotyping.
> >
> > Why are all you leftists suddenly so invested in exposing children to
> > every manner of human degradation?
>
> We're not.

Kid-time drag queen shows called. They beg to differ.

> You rightists are suddenly seeing threats to children's poor
> innocence everywhere (e.g., drag queens in libraries, trans people in
> school bathrooms, etc.)

Except when boys are putting on dresses so they can waltz into a girl's
bathroom and go a-rapin'.

https://wjla.com/amp/features/i-team/teen-suspect-found-guilty-in-loudoun
-county-public-school-stone-bridge-high-bathroom-assault

And, of course, the school admin then proceeds to cover it up because a
boy in dress raping a girl in the girl's bathroom is bad for the Agenda.

> Nobody is plotting against the children...

Weird, then, that when the L.A. City Council met last week to vote to
clear out the vagrant encampments around schools (after several students
have been assaulted by vagrants while trying to get into their schools
and others have come down with medieval diseases like trench fever after
having been exposed while jumping over turds in the encampments that
surround their schools), the 'progressive' activists slithered out of
the weeds to stage a screaming protest and tried to shut down the
council meeting so a vote could not be taken. They sure as shit seemed
pretty invested in making sure kids continue to be exposed to filth and
degradation on a daily basis.