political division in america

[BotanyBoy]

You can't actually say 'people fail or succeed based on their own merits' and 'it's impossible for everyone to succeed' in the same sentence without it being an oxymoron.

Yes you can if you drop the erroneous loony left assumption that all people are equal. Because not everyone is equal.

What if everyone has whatever merits you identify as necessary and sufficient for success?

That is a HUGE and fantastically unrealistic "if" .

And it's not what I identify as necessary and sufficient, in a capitalist economy the market decides. Hell even in the most tightly controlled socialist shit holes ....the market still decides.

That, right there, is why it's a myth.

No, that right there is a bunch of bullshit and in no way proves that

It's not a myth, it's a repeatably provable and repeatedly proven reality not even the iron fist of the Soviet Socialist could overcome.

It's happening in Venezuela RIGHT NOW as we speak.

 

[SimonDoom]

Political division is much worse than in the past because there is much less overlap between the two major parties than in the past. As late as the 1980s, there still were conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans in Congress. Neither exists anymore, in the sense that the most liberal Republican in the Senate is more conservative than the most conservative Democrat. The division is starker than it was just 20 years ago, according to polls.

It's hard for either party to seek bipartisanship when each side sees the other as evil and as wanting what is bad for America. Why would you compromise, if that's what you think?

Plus, conservatives and liberals increasingly don't live near each other, and they get their information from different news sources.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Bitter Boy wouldn't even agree with that.

All this crap about garbage removal, basic sanitation, keeping E-coli out of our beef (forget public education) is socialist garbage. He claims he has his own septic tank and kills and eats his own food.

Meanwhile, his Mommy and Daddy paid for his private school education, which makes me think all this blabber about "survival of the fittest" is his own kind of youthful rebellion.

"people failing and succeeding according to their own merits" is pretty much the founding myth of capitalist ideology. It's a myth.

The finance/economics background explains a lot. Countries/societies are not businesses, but pretty much everyone who tries to run one from a finance/economics backgrounds works like they are.

The definition of 'coercive' is pretty subjective. One assumes you're arguing, for example, that anything more than the bare minimum of taxes necessary to keep the roads maintained is 'coercive', and that people in the Scandanavian states are fine paying extremely high taxes because they've been 'brainwashed' (or some version thereof). But of course, your understanding that 'everyone can succeed under capitalism' isn't ideology at all ... that's reality.

And finally ... why so angry? It amazes me how the second you start criticising capitalism, people start frothing at the mouth.

 

[SimonDoom]

The last few messages in this thread, unfortunately, are illustrating the problem with political division in this country.

 

[Hypoxia]

I really strongly recommend you Google 'social democracy' and do some actual reading. I'm not arguing for communism, or pure socialism.

Hold not thy breath. A position has been taken and will not be abandoned in the face of mere facts and complexity. Simplistic and frankly false meanings are assigned to words that become null terms: Socialist. Capitalist. Liberal. Conservative. All are given Orwellian spins into vapidity. Feh.

 

[KimGordon67]

Yes you can if you drop the erroneous loony left assumption that all people are equal. Because not everyone is equal.



That is a HUGE and fantastically unrealistic "if" .

And it's not what I identify as necessary and sufficient, in a capitalist economy the market decides. Hell even in the most tightly controlled socialist shit holes ....the market still decides.



No, that right there is a bunch of bullshit and in no way proves that

It's not a myth, it's a repeatably provable and repeatedly proven reality not even the iron fist of the Soviet Socialist could overcome.

It's happening in Venezuela RIGHT NOW as we speak.

I provide you with the most clearly incontrovertible evidence to demonstrate my point, and you'd still say I was wrong. So there's really no point.

Feel free to say 'that's because you don't HAVE any evidence' all you want, if it makes you happy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Bitter Boy wouldn't even agree with that.

All this crap about garbage removal, basic sanitation, keeping E-coli out of our beef (forget public education) is socialist garbage. He claims he has his own septic tank and kills and eats his own food.

Meanwhile, his Mommy and Daddy paid for his private school education, which makes me think all this blabber about "survival of the fittest" is his own kind of youthful rebellion.

I didn't say it was garbage.

I do for the most part.

Only the primary school....because that was their job as parents. I paid for all higher education though.

Hold not thy breath. A position has been taken and will not be abandoned in the face of mere facts and complexity. Simplistic and frankly false meanings are assigned to words that become null terms: Socialist. Capitalist. Liberal. Conservative. All are given Orwellian spins into vapidity. Feh.

^ regularly assigns false meanings to every one of those terms.

 

[KimGordon67]

Hold not thy breath. A position has been taken and will not be abandoned in the face of mere facts and complexity. Simplistic and frankly false meanings are assigned to words that become null terms: Socialist. Capitalist. Liberal. Conservative. All are given Orwellian spins into vapidity. Feh.

I'm not ... and really once someone takes that 'everyone has free access to success under capitalism' position, there isn't really anywhere you can go with that - any evidence to the contrary is just either 'laziness' or whatever, or socialist propaganda.

 

[KimGordon67]

I didn't say it was garbage.

I do for the most part.

Only the primary school....because that was their job as parents. I paid for all higher education though.



^ regularly assigns false meanings to every one of those terms.

Actually, Hypoxia is one of the few people in here who is very careful with the use of specific words.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I provide you with the most clearly incontrovertible evidence to demonstrate my point, and you'd still say I was wrong. So there's really no point.

Your "evidence" doesn't demonstrate your point. Unless you move the goalpost back over to "'everyone can succeed" which has already ben shat upon as not being the same thing as "People failing and succeeding according to their own merits".


The question is can you argue that "people failing and succeeding according to their own merits" is a capitalist myth as you claim in post 76?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Actually, Hypoxia is one of the few people in here who is very careful with the use of specific words.

And she regularly conflates liberalism with socialism and capitalism with shit that evil rich people do to poor poor victims.

 

[KimGordon67]

Your "evidence" doesn't demonstrate your point. Unless you move the goalpost back over to "'everyone can succeed" which has already ben shat upon as not being the same thing as "People failing and succeeding according to their own merits".


The question is can you argue that "people failing and succeeding according to their own merits" is a capitalist myth as you claim in post 76?

Yes.

But it's pretty clear you'll be operating with a permanently shifting definition of 'their own merits' (and probably 'succeed'), so why would I bother.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm not ... and really once someone takes that 'everyone has free access to success under capitalism' position, there isn't really anywhere you can go with that - any evidence to the contrary is just either 'laziness' or whatever, or socialist propaganda.

Says the person who can't argue against it because....

Definition of capitalism

:an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

But be like Hypoxia and don't play dictionary/encyclopedia/reference book games when you have "the most clearly incontrovertible evidence" of your opinion to the contrary.

 

[KimGordon67]

Says the person who can't argue against it because....


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

But be like Hypoxia and don't play dictionary/encyclopedia/reference book games when you have "the most clearly incontrovertible evidence" of your opinion to the contrary.

Nothing in the dictionary definition you've provided relates to the success or otherwise of 'people', except (maybe) for the ones who happen to own capital goods.

An actual analysis of a system like capitalism relies on slightly deeper thinking than a dictionary definition. So let's just leave it there.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes.

Well???

But it's pretty clear you'll be operating with a permanently shifting definition of 'their own merits' (and probably 'succeed'), so why would I bother.

No it's not, that's your assumption, you haven't even asked what my definition of those things is in the first place.

You're probably dodging backing up post #76 because you can't back up your claims in post #76.

 

[KimGordon67]

Well???

The question was 'Can you ...?'
My answer is 'Yes, I can.'

 

[BotanyBoy]

Nothing in the dictionary definition you've provided relates to the success or otherwise of 'people', except (maybe) for the ones who happen to own capital goods.

A free market = free access to the opportunity for successful economic exchange.

or put another way...

"people failing and succeeding according to their own merits"

An actual analysis of a system like capitalism relies on slightly deeper thinking than a dictionary definition. So let's just leave it there.

I agree but it must start with a definition as to what capitalism even is.

If you don't want to discuss the fundamental differences creating the political division in America ok then, but I have to ask if not then what are you doing in this thread?

 

[BotanyBoy]

The question was 'Can you ...?'
My answer is 'Yes, I can.'

But you won't ....HOW convenient.

 

[KimGordon67]

But you won't ....HOW convenient.

For the reasons I've just explained. In my experience, you don't tend to engage in sustained intelligent discussion about very much, and at a general level, people on the GB are extremely reluctant to read evidence provided to back up points, so just bang on from a fairly uninformed position.

 

[BotanyBoy]

For the reasons I've just explained. In my experience, you don't tend to engage in sustained intelligent discussion about very much, and at a general level, people on the GB are extremely reluctant to read evidence provided to back up points, so just bang on from a fairly uninformed position.

I'm sure that every major dictionary and encyclopedia internet based or otherwise shitting all over your position in post #76, the one you've been trying to run away from has nothing to do with it either .....

Fairly uniformed position? LOL I'm not the one who can't back their shit up.

Oh...and fuck you too.

 

[KimGordon67]

I'm sure that every major dictionary and encyclopedia internet based or otherwise shitting all over your position in post #76, the one you've been trying to run away from has nothing to do with it either .....

Oh...and fuck you too.

Yeah ... I tend to rely on sources other than dictionaries or encyclopedias for actual analysis.

And there we go ... that's pretty much where I'd expect this to go. I just circumvented pages of me attempting to engage in rational discourse.

 

[Hypoxia]

Some here should read Adam Smith's WEALTH OF NATIONS, y'know, the capitalist bible.

Especially pay attention to the part calling for tight regulation of capitalists.

Because unregulated capitalism leads to monopoly and tyranny.

Yup; capitalism's prophet demanded social control.

But zealots don't read that far, hey?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yeah ... I tend to rely on sources other than dictionaries or encyclopedias for actual analysis.

Analysis isn't need for the basic ideological tenants of capitalism to be pointed out, the results verify the logic of the definition.

You're just wrong and you're not mature enough to admit you slipped up.

That's why you tried numerous times to move the goal post and that's why you're dodging for all your worth to not own it now.

And there we go ... that's pretty much where I'd expect this to go. I just circumvented pages of me attempting to engage in rational discourse.

You started it with this fuckhead comment.....

In my experience, you don't tend to engage in sustained intelligent discussion about very much

And you speak about rational discourse LOL the total lack of self awareness and hypocrisy is off the fucking charts.

You want to talk shit and be an asshole? Bet on getting some in return.

 

[KimGordon67]

Analysis isn't need for the basic ideological tenants of capitalism to be pointed out, the results verify the logic of the definition.

You're just wrong and you're not mature enough to admit you slipped up.

That's why you tried numerous times to move the goal post and that's why you're dodging for all your worth to not own it now.



You started it with this fuckhead comment.....



And you speak about rational discourse LOL the total lack of self awareness and hypocrisy is off the fucking charts.

You want to talk shit and be an asshole? Bet on getting some in return.

I didn't 'slip up' - I'm utterly firm in my conviction about that. The 'myth' is the ideology ... the reality is different. In order to understand the reality, you have to move beyond dictionary definitions and look at how things have developed, in the real world, over time.

All I'm saying is that based on prior experience, the chance of an actually informed discussion about this seems minimal.

 

[KimGordon67]

Some here should read Adam Smith's WEALTH OF NATIONS, y'know, the capitalist bible.

Especially pay attention to the part calling for tight regulation of capitalists.

Because unregulated capitalism leads to monopoly and tyranny.

Yup; capitalism's prophet demanded social control.

But zealots don't read that far, hey?

Look, it's a free market, and that means everyone is free to succeed.

It's like how things are self-evident because they're self-evident ...