commies
- Thread starter Thread starter Cannavore
- Start date Start date
Eltitoguay
Well-known member
If we do not consider the one-party dictatorship of the Soviet and Chinese examples necessary, and if this "State Capitalism" is within a democratic Socialist State, then I could share the spirit of that idea.
But I understand that capitalism always has negative consequences for society and human habitation of the planet :
My opinion is then, that this State-directed-supervised Capitalism (the State being owned by the people, and democratising its management), is only justified as a strategy to fight against international capitalism and to increase the standard of living of the people (and it must be approved as a strategy by the people) .
And that if the threats and aggressions of international capitalism on a Socialist State were overcome (... I think that China if I could be on that path, and with a strategy with options to work...)I would love to hear your opinion and that of @Cannavore on this matter...), this Capitalism should be abandoned.
P.S.:
Be careful: I think a Socialist State Capitalism and its Mixed Economy, is not the same as a Socialist State with a Mixed Economy too, where Capitalism of private initiative is also permitted, but the State does not direct it.
In the first case, I don't know if the same Marxist consideration of superstructure could be applied, and just as it is said that "Imperialist Capitalism and/or Capitalist Imperialism, is "only" a superstructure of Free Market Capitalism" (that is: a strategy and way of expressing itself, growing, and conquering new territories with their possible natural and human resources and markets where it can increase its profits, of Free Market Capitalism, under certain historical-cultural-social-geopolitical circumstances and scenarios), it could be said that "this Socialist State Capitalism would be nothing more than a superstructure of Socialism/Communism; a circumstantial and punctual strategy, to be able to survive and overcome the attempt at conquest and assault by Free Market Capitalism"...(?)
Last edited:
Eltitoguay
Well-known member
View attachment 19123049
Why did Luigi Mangione become a myth?
CEO murder exposes US healthcare system's cruelty. Social crimes, remedies and placebos.
Celeste Murillo
Tuesday, December 17th
· On 4/12 Brian Thompson, CEO of the largest healthcare company in the United States, United Healthcare, was shot and killed in New York. Thompson was in that city for a meeting of the company's shareholders, a meeting that went ahead after the announcement of the CEO's death.
· If Thompson had not been CEO of a health company and his death had not sparked celebrations on social media, perhaps it would have been a case of urban violence that the police would have investigated more or less. But nothing of the sort happened.
A mug and a sticker of the CEO killer
· Before the police arrested Luigi Mangione (presumably responsible for the murder of Thompson) in Altoona (Pennsylvania) the myth had already been born: Who was this young man that nobody knew but had killed someone who symbolized something as hated as the health companies in the United States?
· Within hours, T-shirts, stickers and mugs about the CEO killer and playlists inspired by his escape appeared. Once his face was known, there was no turning back: Luigi Mangione symbolized revenge against a cruel and unjust system.
· Why was there no sadness and indignation, and instead many people celebrated the death of the executive? A quick and perhaps overly simple answer: because the whole country hates health companies. Because unless you are part of the small millionaire elite of the United States, you, someone in your family or your friends had a problem with these companies.
· According to a 2023 study : Half of working-age Americans said it was very or fairly difficult to afford their health care expenses.
· Even with a health insurance plan, one third of adults have health debts and 85% owe 500 dollars or more (between 500 and 600 thousand pesos in addition to paying the health insurance plan).
· Also during 2023, 2 in 5 adults delayed or avoided going to the doctor or buying a prescription drug because they could not afford it (even if they had health coverage).
· To complete the picture, there is no public health care in the United States (only in certain cases, very poor people have basic access).
Natural Born Killers
· Hatred of health companies is so popular that there are series like Breaking Bad that share the public's inability to pay for health treatments as a trigger. This hatred also inspires (literally) episodes of another popular series like Law & Order (Uninsured), such as one in which a desperate father murders an executive for denying health coverage to his sick son.
· Companies are also hated for their methods: imposing hours-long waits on the phone and endless bureaucratic procedures, using any excuse to deny medical treatment and even speculating on death to reduce costs.
· At the scene of the crime, three bullets were found with DENY, DELAY, DEPOSE written on them in indelible marker, closely related to the health industry in the United States.
· United Healthcare's earnings in 2023 exceeded $280 billion. Brian Thompson himself took home a $10.2 million bonus (in addition to his salary).
Social crimes, remedies and placebos
· This combination fueled a national debate: Should we mourn the death of the CEO of such a company? Is it wrong to rejoice? Is murder legitimate?
· The first thing to say is that many people experienced this event as revenge for the constant humiliation by companies and executives who are responsible for the suffering and death of many people.
· Something Nathaniel Flakin from Left Voice says about this is interesting , when he brings up the idea of “social crime” from Friedrich Engels, a partner and friend of Karl Marx :
Engels explains that when an individual kills another with premeditation it is a crime, it is clearly a murder. But when society exposes workers to premature death, “to a death as violent as death by bullet”, when it takes away their means of subsistence, we are faced with a social crime. And he also says that it is very difficult to defend oneself against these crimes because in capitalist societies it is something that is naturalized and we do not see the murderer (he is made invisible).
View attachment 19125015
· Thinking about it this way, thinking of executives as responsible for a social crime. Who would object to the motive and how? But another big question arises: whether it represents a solution.
· And the truth is, no, because Brian Thompson was one of many, perhaps thousands, CEOs. And if they didn't even cancel the meeting he was going to attend, his death probably won't change much.
· Companies will continue to deny medical care, people will continue to die because they deny treatment or cannot afford their medications.
· To change this, many more things are needed: first of all, the world must no longer be organised so that some CEOs earn a lot and most people have to work a thousand hours to buy a medicine. Priorities must be reversed and the objective must be that all people have access to health care but also that all those people live a dignified life. That would be the real remedy and not just a placebo.
¿Por qué Luigi Mangione se transformó en un mito?
El asesinato de un CEO desnuda la crueldad del sistema de salud en Estados Unidos. Crímenes sociales, remedios y placebos.www.izquierdadiario.es
if only we deregulated more and gave private companies & the market more power!!!!!
UnitedHealth, employer of slain exec Brian Thompson, found to have overcharged cancer patients for drugs by over 1,000%
The report is the latest indictment of America’s broken healthcare system.fortune.com
^^ shit like this is why capitalists hate Lina Khan, as wel
D
Deleted member 544407
If you believe in names then Eastern Germany was a socialist democracy because they called themselves so.
Hitler himself has stated that he is not a socialist.
Calling the party national socialist was a PR move to mobilize the masses and gain the votes of workers. They threw hundreds of thousands of socialists into prison, working camps and death camps. A bit cynical to call them socialists, eh?
You can prove from the Reichstag elections in and before 1932 that there were actually hardly any swing voters between the Left and the Right. In the 2nd Reichstag elections of 1932 about 17.5 million people voted for the NSDAP, namely almost the complete conservative population. Protestants more so than Catholics, but the entire conservative spectrum.Practically no former communist, socialist or social democratic voters voted for the NSDAP: By the way as a side note, the regions were NSDAP had the highest percentage are the most right wing to the present day.
The Nazi regime was a state capitalist regime. The NSDAP was heavily sponsored by big corporations and economic elites such as Krupp who saw Hitler as a chance to roll back the democratic achievements of the Weimar Republic, to reinstall pre democratic order and counter the rising influence of labor unions.
Big capital and private property in general was left untouched as was the right to accumulate. These big and also small and middle sized companies profited heavily from the deprivation of Jewish entrepreneurs and from public contracts as well as from slavery and forced labor and the war economy
A lot of those companies exist until today.
Western fascism is a type of capitalism. Each type of capitalism has its own way to deal with class struggle.
In post war European social market economy class struggle was moderated, mitigated and institutionalized through corporatism, collective bargaining, welfare state, social insurances etc. As a reaction to fascism.
In western fascisms there is a close alliance between political and economic elites, the latter dispensing with direct political power (or at least opposition) in exchange for the right to accumulate. The struggle of the working class instead of being directed against the economic elites is redirected (distracted) in an awakening movement with a leader cult against largely imagined interior (Jews, communists, liberals, unemployeds, migrants, LGBTQ, whatever) and external (the Chinese, Russia, Iran whatever) enemies. Class antagonism is denied and the working class is prompted to close ranks with the elites (who actually exploit them) against this domestic or exterior threat to......make XY great again.
Does that ring a bell?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hiddenjems
Well-known member
How many times do people need national socialism explained?
Regular socialism is supposed to be a movement that sweeps the world making it a more fair place. National socialism is when only specific groups of people, usually based on race, are supposed to share everyone else’s stuff amongst their nationality.
Regular socialism is supposed to be a movement that sweeps the world making it a more fair place. National socialism is when only specific groups of people, usually based on race, are supposed to share everyone else’s stuff amongst their nationality.
D
Deleted member 544407
National socialism has nothing to do with socialism. Literally zero. It is a name a demagogue and psychopath gave his ideology to make it appealing to the masses. The claim that Hitler was a socialist comes from right wing extremists who want to falsify history.
And it is a gross humiliation of all the socialists, communists, social democrats, social liberals etc that suffered from the Nazi regime.
Again Hitler never socialized capital, he left private property untouched, he was massively supported by big private corporations that in turn massively cashed in between 1932 and 1944. These are all well documented facts.
Many of the familiy dynasties that possessed these big companies still belong to the richtest people in Germany (Susanne Klatten, Stefan Quandt) and world wide to this present day, and many of these corporations are still active under their old names or merged with other companies. Thyssen, Bayer, Siemens, Deutsche Bank, BMW, Porsche, VW, Daimler, Lufthansa, Rheinmetall, Krauss-Maffei, Bahlsen (you know the cookies?), Oetker, Krupp, Bertelsmann.... the list goes on and on....Adi and Rudolf Dassler produced arms during WWII and later founded Adidas and Puma with their money.
Most of the above mentioned companies profited from public contracting, forced labor and slavery on a large scale. None of their owners were ever expropriated. Some of the above mentioned companies were incorporated during the war but not to the disadvantage of their managements or shareholders.
Nazi Germany was a capitalist country. Period.
If you believe the self-designations of people like Hitler you could as well assume that Joseph Kony's Liberation Army was pro freedom, that China is a democracy, that Eastern Germany was a democratic republic, that Scientology is science-based etc.
Hiddenjems
Well-known member
Oh, you’re one of the “real socialism has never been tried” crowd……
D
Deleted member 544407
No. But I guess you are not interested in anything but trolling so let's leave it like that.
Hiddenjems
Well-known member
I mean it’s called the German national socialist workers party. Who are we to question how they identified? If a man can be a woman just because they say so………
well, other than all of the things he took from those he deemed "inferior" and sent to labor camps/executed.. still court cases going on today over works of art stolen from rightful owners, many of which have never been found, and some being claimed by museums that pretend they were bought "legally" during/after WW2. they SHOULD be prosecuted for possession of stolen property instead of being negotiated with...
Eltitoguay
Well-known member
Trump's victory, an added problem for Western Sahara
In 2020, just before leaving the White House, the US president-elect declared Moroccan sovereignty over the occupied Sahrawi territory. The question remains whether he will go further in his foreign policy in this new phase and take concrete steps.
Madrid, 10/11/2024 :
Donald Trump has won the US presidential election again. Uncertainty about what policies he will pursue in the midst of the rise of the far right looms over the European Union and globally. At the international level, attention is particularly focused on Ukraine and the Middle East . But there is a very worrying spin-off in the Western Sahara conflict.
The facts to date are as follows. In December 2020 , as he was about to end his first term, Trump announced that he had signed a "proclamation recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara."
The announcement also included an agreement under which Morocco and Israel agreed to establish full diplomatic relations. The Moroccan kingdom thus joined the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan, which also signed similar agreements under the umbrella of the United States.
Related to this topic
Other perspectives - International law and Trump's recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara
The ConversationTrump's decision was not specifically reversed by the administration led by Joe Biden . But no concrete actions were taken to reflect this support. In fact, in September last year, a senior US diplomatic representative , Joshua Harris, traveled to the Sahrawi refugee camps in Tindouf (Algeria).
Sahrawi refugee camps - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There he met with the president of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) and secretary general of Polisario, Brahim Ghali .
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Polisario Front - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
He also visited Algiers and Rabat. The visit was interpreted as a US endorsement of the search for a negotiated political solution within the UN.
Related to this topic
Trump announces recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara
AgenciesWhat will happen now in Trump's second term in the White House? For the moment, the King of Morocco, Mohamed VI , took advantage of Trump's victory to congratulate him and thank him for his "historic position" in relation to the announcement made in 2020 on Western Sahara. The monarch stressed that both countries forged an alliance that reached "unprecedented levels" during Trump's first term in the White House.
The Polisario Front recalls that the context has changed because the European Justice has ruled in favor of the Sahrawis
The view of the Polisario Front , the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people before international institutions, is that it is still too early to make any assessments on the matter. "It is true that the Sahrawi people, with his re-election, are once again very aware of the tweet he published weeks before leaving office in the previous legislature," Abdullah Arabi, Polisario delegate in Spain, explains to this newspaper.
Related to this topic
The UN visit to Western Sahara and the role of the US revive the political path to resolve the conflict
Miguel MuñozHowever, Arabi recalls, beyond this fact, "the context has changed." There are several elements that justify this, according to the Sahrawi representative. The most relevant is the ruling handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) at the beginning of October. "The distinct and separate status of the territory of Western Sahara with respect to Morocco is noted and insisted upon. There is no doubt that the legal nature of the issue has not changed one iota, it is solid, and the basis from which to start to allow the Sahrawi people to exercise their right to self-determination and independence," he points out.
"We are therefore confident that, especially in the current geopolitical context, the new administration will be up to the demands of the moment. The Sahrawi people, for their part, have faced very complex situations throughout more than five decades of resistance, but they continue to fight with total determination for their right to self-determination and independence," concludes Arabi.
Related to this topic
The 'US factor' in the shift in Spain's policy towards Morocco and the Sahara
Miguel MuñozFor his part, Isaías Barreñada , professor of International Relations at the Faculty of Political Science and Sociology of the Complutense University of Madrid, highlights in conversation with this newspaper that Trump's announcement "had political relevance in the sense that it induced other countries to follow in his footsteps." At that time, there were some countries, especially African ones, that opened consulates in the occupied territories of Western Sahara.
Trump's statement in 2020 had no concrete consequences for US foreign policy
But "it had no concrete consequences for US foreign policy," Barreñada adds. He gives as an example that the joint military manoeuvres that the US carries out with Morocco are not carried out in the Sahara or that the Americans have not opened consulates.
A view shared by Laura Casielles, journalist, poet and researcher. In conversation with Público she emphasises the need to look at the situation in the Middle East, given the relationship between the US position and the role of Israel :
"Trump comes to power again with a much tougher scenario regarding the Palestinian genocide in Gaza and it is to be expected that his measures will be decisive. If Morocco is asked for something, it is to be expected that it will have a rebound effect on the Sahara. If Morocco does a favor to Israel, perhaps Morocco will return it," she muses.
Related to this topic
Spain and the US agree to "join forces" to resolve the Western Sahara conflict
Public / Europa PressBoth Barreñada and Casielles agree that Morocco can continue to benefit from the relationship it has created with Israel, but it must also take into account the fact that it has a very critical public opinion , like that of most Arab societies, regarding the Israeli military offensive.
It's not a question between Republicans and Democrats
The United States, Barreñada points out, is a member of the UN Security Council and is responsible for drafting resolutions that have to do with the Sahara. It is also in the group of friends of the Sahara created by the UN Secretary General and is one of the countries trusted by the special envoy, currently Staffan De Mistura. "The problem is that the United States, together with France and Spain, has placed itself in a group of members that have lost a certain legitimacy," he points out."Trump did not know how to locate Western Sahara on the map," says Professor Isaías Barreñada
The professor points out that there is no clear political dividing line between Democrats and Republicans on the Sahrawi issue. "The two parties are historically divided. There are Democrats who are critical of the Moroccan occupation, such as the Kennedy Foundation, and others, such as Hillary Clinton, who have always had a certain proximity to Morocco," he says. On the other hand, there is the " old Republican school," represented for example by John Bolton. They are more critical of Morocco and are closer to Algeria's centrality in the region.
How will Trump act?
"There are no elements to make many predictions. The three-party agreement was a purely transactional move . Trump himself did not know how to place Western Sahara on the map, it was cooked up by others. It is not a product of Trump's own issue and is subject to unpredictability. But we can also find the opposite," adds Barreñada.
Consulate? Economic investments?
"I don't see any signs that the US is getting more involved. There are some Algerian analysts who say that they have already reached the limit and that it is not a priority, especially in this isolationist turn that has characterized Trump," says the university professor. In any case, he adds that if there is one thing that characterizes Trump, it is that he cares little about international law or the rules. "That could be a problem for the Saharawis," he says.Regarding the consulate, Barreñada comments that the US is not Haiti, a country that has set up a consulate and does not even have personnel. "The US does not do these things, it would open a consulate if it were interested. The issue is that the Sahara is among its priorities. I would be very surprised. We will have to see how it evolves. Unlike before, it now has support from lobbies that know how the State Department works," he concludes.
"Perhaps that is something they may want to recover," Casielles says about the consulate. But the journalist focuses more on the "economic framework." "If new economic injections come in, this could compensate for what is being lost elsewhere," she points out in relation to how the CJEU ruling affects Morocco. "Perhaps preferential agreements with the US could serve as compensation for Morocco," she adds.
50 years of occupation
1975 marks the 50th anniversary of the Green March, Spain's abandonment of its former province and the Moroccan occupation of the Sahrawi territories. "It is a year in which Morocco probably wants to give visibility to this issue and for symbolic events or declarations to occur that help to assert its interests. Requests for explicitness may be more visible than at other times," warns Casielles.In 1975, 50 years have passed since the Green March and Spain abandoned its former province.
Green March - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The specialist also recalls that classified historical files have been coming to light for some time now, revealing the important role played by the US at the time of the Spanish withdrawal.
"It is a reminder that the US presence in the entire conflict is not new and with Trump it could experience a new and terrible episode," she adds.
Trump's victory also coincides with the step taken by France and Emmanuel Macron, who has also recognised, much more explicitly than Pedro Sánchez , Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. These events have angered Algeria , which decided to block economic relations. And, in the process, to unblock them with Spain, despite the fact that the Government has not changed its position. Regarding this event, sources from Foreign Affairs prefer not to make comments.
Miguel Muñoz
La victoria de Trump, un problema añadido para el Sáhara Occidental
El presidente electo de EEUU declaró en 2020, justo antes de salir de la Casa Blanca, la soberanía marroquí del territorio ocupado saharaui.
www.publico.es
Eltitoguay
Well-known member
Mary L. Trump - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Eltitoguay
Well-known member
Post in thread 'Luigi Mangione' https://www.icmag.com/threads/luigi-mangione.18133358/post-18901272
Eltitoguay
Well-known member
Well this is ICMag's Freedom of Expression, je,je,je..
Last edited:
Senzu_Seedz
Member
That's not socialism then, that's just imperialism with extra justifications. A federation of thieves who are ethno-centrists.
Americans are dumb.
The Nazi party killed off any socialists in their ranks when Hitler and the Thule Society took over(as a power grab).
Hiddenjems
Well-known member
Yes, socialism is horrible, I agree.
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
The nuances of what people call the various flavors of coercion-based governments that dominate the world are interesting, but really not my main concern. Mostly those conversations are distractions to some greater issues that rarely get discussed or considered.
At the root of every one of the world's coercion-based governments, they share a common element. They all use coercion as their primary tool to begin their existence and they all assume the consent of their subjects, even when none is actually given. They all use coercion not only at the beginning of their existence, they all use it maintain their existence. Every one of them is alike in that respect.
Using coercion and assuming consent in our human relationships is considered wrong if mere mortals like you and I do it. How does something wrong for us to do, become "not wrong" for "them" to do? I've never gotten many answers to that question. Also I've never gotten ANY "answers" that weren't mostly nonanswers or rationalizations.
For instance, all of the various political "isms" claim to protect individual rights, while none allow the right of actual individual choice to participate or not. Obvious contradiction there. A world of political entities all based in fairy tale bullshit that they exist to protect you, then the first thing they do is remove your ability to consent or not.
Even if a disinterested person is otherwise peaceful, they are forcibly compelled to obey people that claim to have a right to power over them, often including minute details of how everyone must or must not behave that go far beyond the scope of protecting innocent persons rights.
Therefore, all the political "isms" begin with a lie. I think this should be talked about more than, "my kind of forcible government" is better than that "other kind" of forcible government.
It's impossible to use coercion and violence or threats of violence to gain subjects and also respect or protect the individual consent of those same subjects. That's a fact and not subject to being changed by opinions or "yeah buts" or new ways to polish the turd of coercion to make it taste better.
In short, they all use the same operational means to exist, coercion, while differing a little in what they allow their serfs to do or the privileges they cutely call "rights" they allow their serfs to have.
Like on the plantations of old, if you are born here, you are "owned" by that particular place and in order to escape, "properly" you must have their permission and the permission of any other plantation that will take you in as one of their subjects. You can change your location, but not the status of being "owned" by a different plantation.
Commies, Socialists, Federalists, Republicans, Democrats, Tories, Whigs, etc. ALL, are bad since they assume consent of their subjects. Some are worse than others, but none honor consent.
They could go from "bad" to neutral if they gained members by voluntary consent of the individuals within the sphere of their particular gang turf. Except none do that, but they demand their subjects do it, when the subjects are interacting amongst themselves. Then most claim, they derive their power from these same people. Odd, if something's wrong for subjects to do how does it become "not wrong" for their so-called representatives or alleged protectors to do?
I like to focus on freeing people and their minds, rather than bickering about which plantation has the best working conditions or kindest masters. I recognize some plantations have meaner masters, but none have NO masters. I think that's a problem.
Am I doing it wrong? What am I missing?
Last edited:
