[K-Dog]

A strange title for this you may think.  But the following quote is from POLITICO.  A news agency that fully supports the money trick.  Investigation of the ownership of POLITICO supports my claim.

Four years later, Thunberg, 20, has entered the adult world herself. And she's still on the warpath, albeit in a different direction. In the wake of the most barbaric attacks on Jews since the Holocaust, the world's most famous truant has turned her sights on Israel. Not only has she been a regular at recent anti-Israel protests across Europe, but Thunberg has also endorsed the view that Israel's military response to the killing of its citizens amounts to "genocide." The truculent Swede's anti-Israel turn is dividing "Fridays For Future" and alienating many of her one-time supporters, leaving the future of the movement in question.

   But I KNOW not all jews agree with POLITICO.

[K-Dog]

The Illusions of Capitalism: Exposing Virtues as Hidden Vices 

Wealth Accumulation: A Proxy for Superiority? 

What if the key to dismantling capitalism lies in exposing its so-called virtues for what they truly are—sick vices that maintain a choke-hold on life?  Wealth accumulation is perhaps the most flaunted "virtue" under capitalism.

We are told that such-and-such individual is "worth" such-and-such amount of money, as if wealth were a state of being rather than having.

Erich Fromm wrote in To Have or to Be:

If I am what I have, and if what I have is lost, who then am I? Nobody but a defeated, deflated, pathetic testimony to a wrong way of living.

Wealth is treated as a proxy for industriousness, intelligence, even moral superiority. But wealth accumulation never questions:

• Are these qualities real?
• How are they acquired?
• Why should we reward them?
• What are the consequences of limitless accumulation? 

In truth, wealth accumulation is a game of hoarding to prove one is "better" than others—generating inequality, oppression, and destruction. It is not a virtue but a cancerous vice. 

The Myth of Hard Work 

Hard work is heralded as the backbone of success, yet only owners of capital reap its rewards, not doctors, nurses, or gig workers. Bertrand Russell wrote in In Praise of Idleness: "A great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by belief in the virtuousness of work." 

Why must we work endlessly? To produce and consume useless stuff before we die? True well-being comes from relationships, health, and a thriving environment—not mindless toil. 

The Tyranny of Meritocracy 

Meritocracy claims success comes from talent and effort, not privilege. But Michael Sandel warns in The Tyranny of Merit that a "perfect meritocracy" erodes solidarity by ignoring luck and circumstance.  Every trait—intelligence, effort, opportunity—stems from uncontrollable prior causes. Meritocracy is a delusion that justifies inequality. 

Philanthropy: Virtue or Vanity? 

Anand Giridharadas writes in Winners Take All that elite philanthropy is often patronage, not true aid. Real change requires dismantling the systems that create inequality—not Band-Aid donations. 

Efficiency: A Self-Defeating Vice 

Efficiency gains under capitalism lead to more consumption, not sustainability. Jason Hickel notes in Less Is More that "efficiency improvements" often accelerate ecological destruction. 

The Hidden Virtues Capitalism Rejects 

• What if capitalism's "vices" are actually virtues? 
• Idleness as reflection and resistance. 
• Unproductive creativity for self-fulfillment. 
• Slowness as mindfulness. 
• Collaboration over competition. 
• Dependency as solidarity (Ubuntu: "I am because we are"). 
• Nonconformity as moral resistance. 

Conclusion: An Economy for Life 

Capitalism's virtues are vices in disguise. We must build an Economy for Life—prioritizing well-being, equity, and sustainability over endless growth. 

[K-Dog]

Christian nationalism is in the news.  Another Trump bait and switch.  As I respect the ethics that the nationalists pollute they piss me off. 

I really like what this guest has to say.

[TDoS]

The Illusions of Capitalism: Exposing Virtues as Hidden Vices 

Wealth Accumulation: A Proxy for Superiority? 

What if the key to dismantling capitalism lies in exposing its so-called virtues for what they truly are—sick vices that maintain a choke-hold on life?  Wealth accumulation is perhaps the most flaunted "virtue" under capitalism.

So...it strikes me as reasonable that dismantling something is easy, compared to replacing it, maybe? Pick up a hammer, do what Stalin did to Russia after he took over...but the kicker is.....then you've got to replace it. And Stalin did that too and BOY did it kill off a bunch of folks before the teachings of Marx were firmly installed for the betterment of....some....after WWII.

I agree that wealth accumulation is hardly a virtue and as white cracker raised in the holler it wasn't wealth I wanted, I just wanted OUT. Wouldn't object if someone threw me a bone of opportunity though. Can't say I was ever "told" what is quoted below though. 
 

We are told that such-and-such individual is "worth" such-and-such amount of money, as if wealth were a state of being rather than having.

I had heard what people are "worth" in terms of $$, but never interpreted it as a state of being. Just how much was in a bank somewhere.

Great quote. Below. Never thought this way ever though, but I can probably name a friend of family member who has.

Erich Fromm wrote in To Have or to Be:

If I am what I have, and if what I have is lost, who then am I? Nobody but a defeated, deflated, pathetic testimony to a wrong way of living.

Conclusion: An Economy for Life 

Capitalism's virtues are vices in disguise. We must build an Economy for Life—prioritizing well-being, equity, and sustainability over endless growth. 

Well, sure, but what do we do with all the 7 figure or better net worth folks who sure as hell don't want to give it up to help those less fortunate because, you know, WE GOT OURS, why should anyone just take it away, we EARNED IT!

[K-Dog]

You frame socialism as the arbitrary seizure of property. Nowhere have I advocated for that.  Reasonable socialists are about structured, progressive contribution (taxation) for collective investment.  As things shift hedonism is replaced by freedom from want, resulting in tranquility. 

[TDoS]

You frame socialism as the arbitrary seizure of property.

I didn't say the word "socialism", nor did I refer to it. I am distrustful of labels that have relative meanings. To some, socialism is the equivalent of communism (not myself) and to others the US is already socialist with its social security safety nets like Social Security, food stamps, SNAP benefits, Medicare, Pell Grants and various other programs for those at certain income levels or circumstances.

So I don't frame socialism as anything. I notice words used to sell a perspective without an acknowledgement of the relative nature involved. To you, socialism=X. To someone else, socialism=Y.

Nowhere have I advocated for that.

I don't recall saying you have. You certainly have a political view (most do), one I am only vaguely familiar with based on your postings, as opposed to any single word you use to represent it. I am distrustful when folks try and encapsulate an entire structure of rules and thoughts and concepts into one term....and then believe others should know all contained within when they use it. Socialism sits in that realm.

The USSR claimed socialism. Right there in the title...proud of being it. Denmark,Sweden,Finland and Norway seem to consider themselves socialist in some form or the other. One of these is not the same as the others...yet they supposedlt are or represent the principles of socialism.

So if someone says "lets all be Socialist" it seems reasonable to ask....who's version of it?

Reasonable socialists are about structured, progressive contribution (taxation) for collective investment.  As things shift hedonism is replaced by freedom from want, resulting in tranquility. 

Good ol' tranquility. Certainly the USSR suffered tranquility all over the place as it was structured, wealth was evenly distributed (everyone was mostly poor) and no one went hungry, citizens had state housing where they had vodka to enjoy and jobs to work and all the freedom their socialism allowed. 

The Scandavanians seem to have things ok, but expensive. Both claim socialism type principles.

I'll settle for Orwell...."some animals are more equal than others" as this seems to apply to any manmade economic system/culture. And is the underlying principle you appear to be displeased with.

I don't blame you, wouldn't we all like to be Brezos?

[K-Dog]

No, I didn't say "socialism." But you went straight to the most tired, brain-dead anti-socialist talking point anyway, so yeah — I'm going to address it.  And of course Russia comes up. It always fucking does. It's tedious. It's lazy. And it has nothing to do with the discussion.  Socialism is more American than apple pie, and half the shit wrapped in the American flag.  Always Russia is brought up, and as always the comparison is tedious and brain dead.

The Socialist Party of America was one of the largest socialist parties in the world in the early 1900s.
Eugene Debs, an American, won 6% of the 1912 presidential vote in 1912.  Milwaukee, Flint, Berkeley, Schenectady, Minneapolis, Reading, Bridgeport, and other cities had socialist mayors.  The new deal is the largest social-democratic program ever.

And unless you want to give them up, you rely on socialist programs every day: Public Libraries, Social Security, Medicare, Public highways, Public Universities, National Parks, Fire and Police Services.
Socialism is American, but the first thing every detractor wants to do is move the discussion to Europe a hundred years ago.

If you knew anything about what happened in Russia you would know that the Revolution was Betrayed and Stalin's system was STATE CAPITALISM.  Leon Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed

I don't blame you, wouldn't we all like to be Brezos?

Fuck no. Why the fuck would I want to be a billionaire parasite who treats workers like disposable trash? That's a joke.  Not having to pay tax so he could  provide free shipping was an abomination.  But the big bucks always come from an asymmetrical power arrangement and exploitation, so there is nothing new under the sun about that.

Back to socialism, you assume that the word has no stable meaning. It actually does and getting hung up on words is only useful when you are making a bad argument.  When I use the word socialism, I'm not expecting anyone to guess my private definition. I use the standard, academically recognized one, which is:

Collective investment in public goods, financed by progressive taxation, within a democratic political system.

Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland somewhat qualify.  The USSR implemented a dictatorship and does not qualify at all.  The Nazi Party, formally known as the National Socialist German Workers' Party, did not embrace socialism in any meaningful way.  "National Socialist" was a marketing lie. The Nazi system was ultra-capitalist, ultra-nationalist, and violently anti-worker. The label meant nothing.

ere are words as labels, and then there is reality which has nothing to do with words.

Workers democratically owning or controlling the means of production.

Also describes socialism, and this definition is not not mutually exclusive from the first.

[RE]

RE

[TDoS]

No, I didn't say "socialism." But you went straight to the most tired, brain-dead anti-socialist talking point anyway, so yeah — I'm going to address it.

You frame socialism as the arbitrary seizure of property.😛

How can I be framing socialism when I didn't even say it?

Socialism is more American than apple pie, and half the shit wrapped in the American flag.  Always Russia is brought up, and as always the comparison is tedious and brain dead.

So...good for socialism! Except for socialism that has been co-opted by all the places that claim it...but you don't like those examples anyway?

So can we agree that like any political system, socialism and claims of who has it, or who doesn't, or why Russia did it poorly, can also be nothing but a chocolate flavored turd regardless of what it might theroretically be capable of?

The Socialist Party of America was one of the largest socialist parties in the world in the early 1900s.
Eugene Debs, an American, won 6% of the 1912 presidential vote in 1912.  Milwaukee, Flint, Berkeley, Schenectady, Minneapolis, Reading, Bridgeport, and other cities had socialist mayors.  The new deal is the largest social-democratic program ever.

Cool! So the US did social programs good, and the USSR didn't. And didn't I list all the social stuff that the US has already? Is there something wrong with comparing and contrasting good socialism, which I did with the Scandanavian countries, to the bad ones?

My point being its a crap shoot. It is just a word for a thing that can be good or bad, and as I said before is relative in the mind of the claimant. You have a good perpective of it. I simply note that there is ZERO requirement it be a positive system.

If you knew anything about what happened in Russia you would know that the Revolution was Betrayed and Stalin's system was STATE CAPITALISM.

And again....I offer up the relative nature of definitions/perspectives. Thank you for providing more evidence for my original point.

I don't blame you, wouldn't we all like to be Brezos?

Fuck no. Why the fuck would I want to be a billionaire parasite who treats workers like disposable trash?

Because then you wouldn't have to complain about the fraction of your hourly wage that danish and coffee cost?

Back to socialism, you assume that the word has no stable meaning.

I was specific. I said it has a relative to the user meaning. Characterize correctly please.

When I use the word socialism, I'm not expecting anyone to guess my private definition. I use the standard, academically recognized one, which is:

Collective investment in public goods, financed by progressive taxation, within a democratic political system.

Excellent. I like definitions....be it for oil, or social systems.

Socialism is a political and economic theory advocating community (social) ownership and control of the means of production (factories, resources) rather than private ownership, aiming for more equitable wealth distribution and societal benefit over individual profit, often through democratic or state control, differing from capitalism's emphasis on private enterprise and free markets

Sure sounds like it fits places like the USSR, and the US has components of it, primarily in the redistribution of wealth for the social systems previously mentioned.

So...in summary...socialism can be all sorts of things...and as I've previously stated...relative to the person who happens to use the word. You don't like Russia, but it certainly fits into parts of the definition as the US. And as you pointed out the US has quite a few components of socialism already built into it, why your strident voice against  current political conditions? Because our socialist country allows too many rich folks into the mix? Or even high net worth individuals....whom you and I are personally familiar with.

[K-Dog]

Rich folks think that just because they are rich they can make all the rules.  Rich folks think that because they are rich, they are superior.  Rich folks think that because they are rich they have a better understanding of things.  And they are wrong.

The rules in America totally suck and people suffer.

If that does not answer your continual curiosity about my motives, nothing will.  It is also scientifically established beyond doubt that equality is better for everyone.

The Spirit Level

...whom you and I are personally familiar with.

True that, I have met three billionaires in my life, and have seen the rich.  I have talked to them.  They like me, I can blend.  And I know how smart and dumb they are.  So, the fact is, I may be coming from a clear-headed place, and not have the warped agenda you are always fishing for.

Because then you wouldn't have to complain about the fraction of your hourly wage that danish and coffee cost?

I do not recall complaining.  Noting that wages are not keeping up with costs is not complaining.  Using a personal example only shows I know what I am talking about.  My financial situation is interesting.  I earned my money, I did not inherit it, and I did not earn it from investment significantly.  For the most part what I have is straight up earned wages. Leaving me with savings significantly above the median and a sense of personal satisfaction.

I have what I would have in a socialist world, and I earned it the same way I would have earned it in a socialist world.  By work.  I am well off, and I am not complaining about anything.

In socialism everyone would be at my level.

[TDoS]

Rich folks think that just because they are rich they can make all the rules.  Rich folks think that because they are rich, they are superior.  Rich folks think that because they are rich they have a better understanding of things.  And they are wrong.

The rules in America totally suck and people suffer.

See...this is a reasonable statement. We can disagree on the relative nature of "totally suck" I suppose, and the strength of the correlation between that and "people suffer" if only because people always suffer, somewhere, in all human systems, because...we are humans and it seems it is what we do. There is no utopia that anyone has figured out quite yet.

...whom you and I are personally familiar with.

True that, I have met three billionaires in my life, and have seen the rich.  I have talked to them.

So have I. But you know what? Folks who's net worth is perhaps...in the millionaire class, we think about that next leg up, the billionarie class. But you know what? I'll bet that folks in the "not a pot to piss in" class talk about knowing folks who have a $100k house and eat well. And then those folks know a millionaire of net worth, and so on and so forth.

They like me, I can blend.  And I know how smart and dumb they are.  So, the fact is, I may be coming from a clear-headed place, and not have the warped agenda you are always fishing for.

Well, based on the tales around of interesting recreational....hobbys.....some posters have, we can hope that clear-headed is the normal condition anyway.

You are hardly alone in the clear-headed realm however. Just because your clear headed doesn't like another clear headed opinion on some subjective topic doesn't make either warped.

Because then you wouldn't have to complain about the fraction of your hourly wage that danish and coffee cost?

I do not recall complaining.

Well....sounding irriated perhaps?

Noting that wages are not keeping up with costs is not complaining.

True. But it is a complaint that has been going on since...I dunno....either of us began making money? Sometimes better, sometimes worse, and so it goes.

It is like...getting irritated that humans age. It is no fun, it always happens, sometimes you change faster, sometimes slower, but it is always there.

Using a personal example only shows I know what I am talking about.

Well, I'm not allowed to use those because...you know...but certainly you aren't the only one who knows what you are talking about.

My financial situation is interesting.  I earned my money, I did not inherit it, and I did not earn it from investment significantly.  For the most part what I have is straight up earned wages. Leaving me with savings significantly above the median and a sense of personal satisfaction.

Hey! Me too! But I don't find this situation interesting, just....the result of doing all the stuff you just said.

In socialism everyone would be at my level.

Seems like that is what the Soviets and Stalin were selling to their citizens as well.

I disagree that humans could ever make socialism work at the level you just described. We are talking about humans here, and George Orwell had what that means in our psyche before either of us were born.

[K-Dog]

George Orwell also played The Great Game.  If you do not know what that is, look it up.

I am going to stop answering the Grand Inquisitor.  Perhaps it is time to send our resident fascist back to the cooler.  I am quite sick of his justifications for inequality, his continual criticism, and a total failure to bring anything else to the Diner but his bad attitude.

To disinfect this thread I am going to close it with the first session of a course I am watching.

The rest of the course can be found here:

https://www.inequalitymedia.org/wealth-and-poverty


Class One

[RE]

I am going to stop answering the Grand Inquisitor.  Perhaps it is time to send our resident fascist back to the cooler.  I am quite sick of his justifications for inequality, his continual criticism, and a total failure to bring anything else to the Diner but his bad attitude.

Don't sugar coat it.  Tell us what you really think of him.  lol.



RE