Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

Bernie. fucken. SANDERS

Recommended Posts

I really want to nail this topic to the mast because socialists just don't get it.

Here's a graph of extreme poverty in today's rich countries:

end-of-absolute-poverty-in-rich-countries

 

Here's a world graph:

1280px-World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg.png

 

As you can see it is precisely AFTER the 1960s/70s that extreme global poverty falls off a cliff. This coincides neatly with market reforms in western societies, a slow turn to democratic capitalism world-wide and a greater aid budget available from the West and other wealthy states to aid poor in developing states.

 

Likewise, here's the conclusion:

The share of the population in extreme poverty is low when average incomes are high

National prosperity is a strong predictor of extreme poverty at the individual level.

and,

Extreme poverty decreases when average national incomes grow

 

The best way to lift the poor, is to eliminate all socialism from the economy, implement laissez-faire capitalism like the Scandinavians and use the proceeds to fund very efficient, effective and cheap welfare programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

A graph that in a more detailed manner charted poverty versus extremes of both capitalism AND socialism would I suspect show a somewhat different set of curves.

Either socialism or capitalism  taken to extremes leads back to a scenario of haves and have nots with a concentration of wealth with the haves. Russia is indeed an extreme case of socialism the U.S. can be thought of as an extreme of capitalism, in both nations there is a concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands.

Scandinavia has indeed managed to steer a close to middle course. Personally I'd suggest their systems err toward socialism but keep it in check.

Having been to both the U.S and Russia,, as have you Leo, or at least I think so, not quite clear on your experiencing Russia as an adult, I can say I'd take the U.S. if those were the only choices I have but the U.S. has strong aspects of evil with Russia being just as bad but in a different form.

Scandinavia is a social experiment just as the U.S. is, Russia has drifted back to what almost amounts to a dictatorship, must be something in the national character.

The U.S. needs some extreme changes of course or it will not get back onto the median path, Russia probably needs another revolution before Putin finalises becoming a czar in all but name.

Australia WAS moving along perfectly well through the 60s and seventies, using a model more based upon the U.K. than the U.S. but as it becomes more and more Americanised it is heading down the same path, just at the moment lagging behind.

In my view a significant part of the issue is longevity of government. I obviously despise Putin but he through a long period of rule is stamping his vision for his society on the country, it just happens to be the wrong vision for the majority.

Trump will probably only get four years, if that, not enough time to utterly wreck a society but it will take at least an eight year swing back to the sometimes suspect democrat path to undo the damage he is causing most of which is not yet apparent.

Australia has its chance to change direction in a matter of months, the problem being there is really no clear leader, or party, who really know what the hell they are doing.

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The history of Russia can be summarised with “and then it got worse”. Russians are the Arabs of Europe. You can rely on them to vote for the worst version of themselves and associate with losers just to spite the West at even greater cost to themselves.

But I will give Russians this: you can take them out of the country and open their eyes to reality. My wife was one of these.

 

On a different tack, there are differences between capitalism and socialism.

Socialism is disguised love of power. Altruistic socialists like Kimmo end up being mass grave lining or a political statement in the form of an icepick to the brain. This is because socialism cannot sustain the required social authoritarianism required for socialist economics without getting rid of the pesky theoreticians.

Capitalism is undisguised love of money. I make no bones about the fact that I want to be richer than everyone on this forum combined. And I wish that you all wanted the same thing for yourselves.

The thing is that capitalism allows for altruism because authoritarianism is not required to maintain the capitalist economy. In fact it generally hampers it. One capitalist (Bill Gates) has done more for the world (virtually complete eradication of Polio) than all socialist experiments throughout history, combined and compounded.

 

So to tack back to Russia - Russians have been conditioned. The problem with Russia isn’t capitalism - it’s that Russians hold no belief in a better tomorrow because of almost 80 years of socialism and as such, overlook gargantuan corruption and theft and graft because to do otherwise would be to join the West and lose “Russianness”.

 

In essence Russians lack the culture for capitalism and democracy - so what they’ve got is kleptocapitalism with no checks or balances - the purest form and a sham democracy that probably has more in common with the EU and Iran than with AU, NZ or Canada.

 

Some socialists say that they want to fix capitalism. But you can’t do that with socialism because, as I said, socialism introduces corruption of/by the elite with a mask of “fairness”.

 

The Scandinavians are a perfect model of capitalism. Low debt to GDP ratios, lower medical per-capita costs than most of the OECD, small governments, low corporate taxes, GP co-contributions, a culture of work and shaming of those who mooch and no functional duplication between varying levels of government. In addition, their unions co-operate with employer groups instead of junketing at confabs with failed communist state reps.

 

By every definition, Australia is more socialist than the Scandinavians but thankfully since I’ve been here, at least parts of that have disappeared which so why we have fewer poor, better services due to privatisation, and higher average incomes in real terms.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should clarify the above.

There is a difference between the theoretical and the practical.

Theoretical socialism is phenomenal. But it can’t happen. Practical socialism is horrific and it’s axiomatic - it happens without fail every single time.

Theoretical capitalism, taken to its natural conclusion is basically feudalism. It’s horrific. Practical capitalism is quite good, a la Australia, NZ, the Scandinavians. There’s obvious differences but we all live the good life.

Russia, my country of birth is actually the best example of practical socialism and of the horror of theoretical capitalism put to practise. The good news is not one single Western State is heading into the Russian economic direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, eveln said:

the Government running essential utilities does not sound like socialism. 

Tell that to a Yank, or Leonid. Pretty sure the only services Bernie is proposing to nationalise are health and education, but it's death squads and gulags and oh, the humanity. 

PnwvX6.gif

Edited by Kimmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and of course winding back the clock on class war also means abolishing every kind of progress, silly me. 

Drivel much? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/02/2019 at 8:33 PM, Kimmo said:

Fuck you talk shit. We had socialism here, you utter ninny. 

You know, when union membership was still a thing, when higher education was free, before public utilities were privatised, before 'public-private partnerships',...

 

 

 

Also ... apparently we all need to stay out of this thread now. It's Kimmo's alone, apparently. I hope he enjoys talking to his self 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kimmo said:

Here, Leo 

I'm quite happy to moonwalk up and down your sorry love affair with misery in this thread, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the 'multi-millionaire', 'pretending' to be a man of the people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Kimmo said:

Check out the 'multi-millionaire', 'pretending' to be a man of the people.

 

 

Hey Kimmo,

 

My family and I came from Russia to escape crushing poverty and widespread anti-semitism without a nickel in our pockets.

 

So same story as Bernie.

 

With one difference.

 

Bernie’s dad left Poland BEFORE communism. In fact he left before WW2, in 1921. Bernie was born 20 years later in 1941.

 

Bernie’s dad never saw the poverty and anti-semitism of socialism. If he had, its very unlikely Bernie would be calling himself any variant of “socialist”.

 

Then again, Bernie’s very old. The revolution, of it comes, will likely come after he’s dead so he’s in no danger of being yet another Jewish victim of an ideology that for some reason attracts a lot of Jews and then makes them victims of mass murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Leonid said:

anti-semitism of socialism

 

Regime.  It's the regime that was antisemitic - and anti a whole lot else besides.  You can blame socialism for the economic failure, and be argued with, but that one is just lying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Leonid said:

In fact he left before WW2, in 1921

 

In between wars was not really a fun time in Europe Leonid ... it's why Hitler managed to come into being ...just sayin'

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Leonid said:

Then again, Bernie’s very old.

 

Nancy Pelosi is older, and I don't hear anyone complaining about her age.  Trump could have gone to school with Bernie, age-wise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cybes said:

Nancy Pelosi is older, and I don't hear anyone complaining about her age. 

Yeah they do 🙂 ... well usually more referring to dementia with her really I guess, which is a not so subtle poke at age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Cybes said:

 

Regime.  It's the regime that was antisemitic - and anti a whole lot else besides.  You can blame socialism for the economic failure, and be argued with, but that one is just lying.

 

Every socialist regime in recorded history was anti-Semitic if there were in-country jews to blame. With one exception (Israel).

 

It ain’t a coincidence.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Cybes said:

 

Nancy Pelosi is older, and I don't hear anyone complaining about her age.  Trump could have gone to school with Bernie, age-wise.

 

Trump became Pres aged ~70. Bernie wants to become president aged ~80.

 

If Biden or Sanders win, they’ll be the oldest president ever, overtaking the current record holder (Trump).

 

But that’s not even the worst part. Reagan was 78 when he left office

 

Biden and Sanders would be older at the start of their FIRST term than Reagan was at the end of his SECOND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pffffffff... 

 

Conflate-o-rama. 

 

Hey Leo, you wanna talk about antisemitism? 

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS56v6vGjeHeFC1MWbGTw1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kimmo said:

Pffffffff... 

 

Conflate-o-rama. 

 

Hey Leo, you wanna talk about antisemitism? 

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS56v6vGjeHeFC1MWbGTw1

 

I do. A bunch of preppy losers in mum’s basement that are almost universally condemned, is of little consequence to me. When the president of the USA dog-whistles to these faux-haute-Nazis and is bitch-slapped by almost everyone in his party and loses key cabinet people over it - that tells me it’s either a slip-up that won’t happen again or that it’s just not acceptable.

 

Institutionalized anti-semitism like what is going on in the British Labour Party is of bigger concern. As is the developing identical problem in the Democratic Party in the USA.

 

To paraphrase Lord Sacks (and if it does not remind you of the modern left, you really should re-examine your attachment to dogma):

 

Antisemitism, or any hate, become dangerous when three things happen. First: when it moves from the fringes of politics to a mainstream party and its leadership. Second: when the party sees that its popularity with the general public is not harmed thereby. And three: when those who stand up and protest are vilified and abused for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, we have the same problem developing in Labor.

 

NSW Labor MP Shaoquett Moselmane blocked access to a Labor Multicultural event to a representative of one ethnicity, last August.

 

Can you guess which?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last Labor Caucus there were 19 motions on Israel and Palestine, mostly aimed at expelling Jews from their indigenous land.

 

There were none on Cyprus despite there’s being a Shitload more Turks and Greeks in Australia than Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

 

There were none on the world’s oldest occupation (Tibet, by China).

 

None supporting Taiwan’s independence.

 

None against Russian occupation of Georgia and Abkhazia. One against occupation of Ukraine. None against the occupation of Transnistria.

 

Labor bitchslapped Israel for using Aussie passports to make the world a better place by eliminating a terrorist in Dubai, but when Russia blows Aussies out of the sky over Ukraine, there’s oddly nothing in their platform to keep ramping up pressure on Russia over that.

 

 

So... do you want to talk about anti-semitism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-semitism is completely disgusting, then again all racism is but the Jews have been singled out for centuries and the reasons for it are not always obvious.

 

Some say the faith but that whilst the reason for other persecutions is difficult to explain picking on Jews for centuries.

 

I obviously have a great deal of time for Israel, served and lived there, love the place but even I can get my back up around my many Jewish friends sometimes. Then again Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons are in my circle of friends and they can annoy me if they try to recruit me, they gave up years ago. Jews never in my experience even try to convert, essentially you pretty much have to be born Jewish in the first place to qualify although I do know of exceptions.

 

I asked a bunch of fellow pilots in Israel once if they knew the reason(s) and had a pretty united response.

 

They are smart, good at making money, can act superior and can be obnoxious - heh, apart from the first, or substitute cunning and you'd be describing Trump if you believe his self-image, but plenty of other races could fit the description.

 

So, don't really know, but I do know the Jews have given a great deal to civilisation and I do know that what they achieved with Israel  far surpasses anything any other near exterminated race has done.

 

The irony of that is that an awful lot of Israelis are not in the least bit religious, and don't get annoyed if you happen to be of another faith, although even they can get pissed off with Hassidics 🙂

 

Maybe Leo has an opinion on the why ?

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we like humans and have no wish to convert people into a “race”/ethnicity that a good proportion of the world feels genocidally about.

 

That’s one reason. There are others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leonid said:

So... do you want to talk about anti-semitism?

 

If I did, maybe I'd start a thread about it. You seem to think it's an essential component of socialism, which is risible, and plainly an effort to derail the thread.

 

Which is about Bernie.

Help Bernie.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To get back to the topic, socialism needs authoritarianism and both need a class/political enemy.

 

Draw your own conclusions about why shit keeps repeating itself with that doctrine but make no mistake - the shit does keep repeating itself and is as axiomatic as the sun rising in the morning.

 

If you’re someone who believes in human rights,  environmental protection and equality/fairness, then being a socialist or voting for them is akin to voting for Trump on the basis of his good manners in public.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×