Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Cruz is a much better politician than the blowhard Trump

That isn't a high bar to leap.

Heh... agreed.

 whembly wrote:
Marxist-wannabe Sanders.

This makes me think you don't actually know anything about Marx or Sanders. Hell, makes me think you know almost nothing about socialism when you conflate it with Marxism. On the other hand it does make you useful to Republican strategists trying to get a vote, so you have that going for you.

Ya know what? Your response is enlightening, and I'll tell you why.

A) It wouldn't shock anyone that I wouldn't vote for Trump/Hillary/Sanders, so I opted to lay the obvious hyperbolic sarcasm in my response.

B) You cut out my "corrupt Clinton" thing... alluding that you'd agree with that assessment?

C1) You felt the need to defend Sander's honor here... even though it's obvious that I was being sarcastic... unless, you didn't think I was.

C2) I'll bite. It's the height of hubris to believe that if Sanders does become President, they he'd be able to pass his socialistic dream budget and regulatory changes. At best, you'd see the current state. Which is fething shame.

 Laughing Man wrote:
Well, it looks like Cruz went off his meds...

Ted Cruz has been proudly talking about his goldbug stupidity for years. Basically this is what happens when a political party decides the facts suck, and so they're going to believe whatever they want. You end up with guys like Cruz as possible presidential candidates.

 whembly wrote:
He's driving the point to encourage more stable monetary policies. The funny thing is... The President doesn't "set" that policy's. Only the Feds and hypothetically something from Congress.

The really 'funny' thing is that a gold backed currency doesn't fluctuate any less than a normal currency. The gold price fluctuates wildly, like any commodity. And not just in the short term, got changes value massively over the long term as well.

When Cruz or any other goldbug talks about this, what they're actually excited about is the idea of removing expected inflation, the idea that $1 today is expected to be worth a little bit less next year. The goldbugs get excited about the idea that under gold $1 might be worth a bit less next year, but it also might be worth a bit more. That kind of randomness seems okay, because the alternative, expected inflation, just seems horrible, they even call it theft. This is because they have come to think that if prices rise 2%, they must be 2% poorer - they don't realise that the 2% inflation has also inflated their paycheck. Confused by this, they think something that stops inflation will create wealth.

 Ahtman wrote:
This makes me think you don't actually know anything about Marx or Sanders. Hell, makes me think you know almost nothing about socialism when you conflate it with Marxism. On the other hand it does make you useful to Republican strategists trying to get a vote, so you have that going for you.

In terms of who's actually got policies that match up with the Soviet Union... well the Soviet ruble was backed by gold for most of the duration of the Soviet Union, it lasted longer there than in most capitalist countries. So vote for Ted Cruz if you want the US to have the same monetary policy as the USSR.

I really love it when people talk about how money backed by gold is somehow more "real" than money that isn't, as if the value of gold is anything other than an agreement to use it as a medium of exchange. Sure, it has some useful industrial and artistic properties, but it wouldn't be worth nearly as much as it is now if we didn't all agree to use it as money.

 Peregrine wrote:
I really love it when people talk about how money backed by gold is somehow more "real" than money that isn't, as if the value of gold is anything other than an agreement to use it as a medium of exchange. Sure, it has some useful industrial and artistic properties, but it wouldn't be worth nearly as much as it is now if we didn't all agree to use it as money.

I think the issue is that people get confused about the value of currency itself, they think a dollar needs to have a real, intrinsic value, that it either needs to be made of precious metal, or at least be able to be traded in for precious metal. They don't understand that it is just a medium of exchange, that even when currency was backed by or made of precious metal, it was an entirely notional relationship - what always mattered was the ability to trade that dollar for goods and services that people actually wanted.

 sebster wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I really love it when people talk about how money backed by gold is somehow more "real" than money that isn't, as if the value of gold is anything other than an agreement to use it as a medium of exchange. Sure, it has some useful industrial and artistic properties, but it wouldn't be worth nearly as much as it is now if we didn't all agree to use it as money.

I think the issue is that people get confused about the value of currency itself, they think a dollar needs to have a real, intrinsic value, that it either needs to be made of precious metal, or at least be able to be traded in for precious metal. They don't understand that it is just a medium of exchange, that even when currency was backed by or made of precious metal, it was an entirely notional relationship - what always mattered was the ability to trade that dollar for goods and services that people actually wanted.

I think there is more to it than that. Pegging a currency to a commodity like gold also has some effect on the supply of the currency. We've seen the Federal Reserve increasing supply of dollars and making those dollars 'cheap' by keeping interest rates low. This has some folks upset.

 Ustrello wrote:
Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.

The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.

 Ustrello wrote:
Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.

The United States definitely has some socialized programs, and conservatives largely rally against them. It has even become a Republican party plank.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.

The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.

This.... and hell, if you look at our labor history, it ain't pretty.

In Germany, you have workers who said, "Ya know, I'm a human being, and I should be treated as such." so the factory owners said, "OK, cool, y'all form a union, and we'll get you sorted with decent pay, a medical and dental plan, and we'll all make more money in the long run."

In the US you have workers who say, "Ya know, I'm a human being, and I think we should be treated as such." the factory owners say, "Feth you!! you think you're something!? How's a nice PAY CUT!!!! you exist to make me money! OHHH... you want to form a union!? What are you COMMIES!? Feth off, you peasants!" (probably not an actual quote here)

 Ustrello wrote:
Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.

You cant just throw something that absurd out there without explaining yourself!

The US government has had many deviations from pure dog eat dog capitalism from Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal onwards.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.

The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.

Wait you mean the United States doesn't have public education, welfare and state funded projects which are all part of marxs socialist state? Damn I must of slipped under the radar not paying for school

Edit: Removed old content on my better judgement

Replaced with: Any New York predictions?

Well, judging by the general mood, I'd say Hillary and Trump.

This thing is sort of a new experience for NY, this is the first time I can remember where both primaries mattered. It's sort of interesting. The Trump rally on Sunday went well, both the supporters and protesters were calm and didn't get violent.

The rest of the family is getting ready for voting. I'm the only one not, as I'm registered independent.


On the other hand, we're finally getting a conversation about how badly the NY election system is run. Especially when talking about switching parties, apparently you'd have to have done it by last October to be able to vote in the primaries now, which is as stupid as it sounds.

You might want to look into it, but here in NC registered Independents could vote in the primaries but only for one party.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, judging by the general mood, I'd say Hillary and Trump.

This thing is sort of a new experience for NY, this is the first time I can remember where both primaries mattered. It's sort of interesting. The Trump rally on Sunday went well, both the supporters and protesters were calm and didn't get violent.

The rest of the family is getting ready for voting. I'm the only one not, as I'm registered independent.


On the other hand, we're finally getting a conversation about how badly the NY election system is run. Especially when talking about switching parties, apparently you'd have to have done it by last October to be able to vote in the primaries now, which is as stupid as it sounds.

My prediction:
Hillary wins a "squeaker" over Sanders

Trump wins a bunch, but struggles to get to 50% majority in each of the CD. He needs at least, 80 delegates to have a shot at getting 1237 on first ballot.
538 breaks it down nicely by CD:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/new-york-primary-republican-2016-election/

 Ustrello wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.

The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.

Wait you mean the United States doesn't have public education, welfare and state funded projects which are all part of marxs socialist state? Damn I must of slipped under the radar not paying for school

Those do not make for a socialist state because those things are "the state doing anything, at all" which even right-wingers want it to do. Socialism is more specific than that.



And, well, the US isn't really doing too hot on the whole public education, welfare and infrastructure front lately, anyway...

 CptJake wrote:

I think there is more to it than that. Pegging a currency to a commodity like gold also has some effect on the supply of the currency.

China would be king under such a system, followed closely by Australia.

 whembly wrote:
Trump wins a bunch, but struggles to get to 50% majority in each of the CD. He needs at least, 80 delegates to have a shot at getting 1237 on first ballot.

Local radio show this morning estimated that if Trump gets less than 70 delegates, it's effectively a loss for him. I can't believe he has the balls to say that he'd hire the best if he were President when he can't even hire relatively competent people for his campaign. So many missteps led to Cruz "stealing" delegates right and left.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


On the other hand, we're finally getting a conversation about how badly the NY election system is run. Especially when talking about switching parties, apparently you'd have to have done it by last October to be able to vote in the primaries now, which is as stupid as it sounds.

Remember, a vote for Tammany Hall is a vote for America

 Breotan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Trump wins a bunch, but struggles to get to 50% majority in each of the CD. He needs at least, 80 delegates to have a shot at getting 1237 on first ballot.

Local radio show this morning estimated that if Trump gets less than 70 delegates, it's effectively a loss for him. I can't believe he has the balls to say that he'd hire the best if he were President when he can't even hire relatively competent people for his campaign.

Indeedeo.

So many missteps led to Cruz "stealing" delegates right and left.

I know you put in "quote" stealing to mock such arguments... but, this whole stealing meme is getting old already.

Every single presidential candidate except for Trump knows what this system is...

It's not corrupt.

It's the system by which party members pick their nominee. The Party themselves are protected under the 1st Amendment's freedom of assembly.

No American is forced to participate.

Furthermore, these Parties are institutions. Thus, they are seen as having vested interests in perserving their brand. This is why Pepsi doesn't let Coca-Cola participate in their brand. In some states, Republicans don't let Democrat voters participate in their brand (and vice-versa). Meaning, if you put someone at the top of the ticket that is so unpopular that you lose the House... you're not doing the right thing for your party.

Right??

This is what happened to the Democrats in the '68 primary as the party elites didn't understand the strength of that party's anti-Vietnam war opposition. To a certain extent... Republican elites didn't understand the anger their constituents have towards them... which manifested itself to the rise of Trump.

Bottom line... Trump and his ilk has been flatly unprepared to do the hard work and they have only themselves to blame.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.

The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.

Wait you mean the United States doesn't have public education, welfare and state funded projects which are all part of marxs socialist state? Damn I must of slipped under the radar not paying for school

Those do not make for a socialist state because those things are "the state doing anything, at all" which even right-wingers want it to do. Socialism is more specific than that.



And, well, the US isn't really doing too hot on the whole public education, welfare and infrastructure front lately, anyway...

Well if you want to move the goalposts that is fine. But I am going by the marx definition which why I said the US is a quasi socialist state because it does provide state services.

 Ustrello wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.

The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.

Wait you mean the United States doesn't have public education, welfare and state funded projects which are all part of marxs socialist state? Damn I must of slipped under the radar not paying for school

Those do not make for a socialist state because those things are "the state doing anything, at all" which even right-wingers want it to do. Socialism is more specific than that.



And, well, the US isn't really doing too hot on the whole public education, welfare and infrastructure front lately, anyway...

Well if you want to move the goalposts that is fine. But I am going by the marx definition which why I said the US is a quasi socialist state because it does provide state services.

No. Just no. The defining feature of Marxism is the common ownership of the means of production by the proletariat, required because the act of earning profit off of someone else's work means the people being exploited lose some of their humanity. You don't get to make up definitions just because they suit you. By your definition Nazi Germany was quasi-Socialist. It's a trainwreck of an argument.

Some men... Some men just want to watch the trains burn.

 LordofHats wrote:
Some men... Some men just want to watch the trains burn.

Spoiler:

You know.... if Trump does get elected, at least we can say he made the trains burn on time.

Whembly: I would also add that Trump doesn't seem to get that the primaries are all about cozying up to the party and getting them to pick you, not a general election. He is running his primary like he thought it was only popular election. And is paying heavily on the tail end.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.

The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.

Wait you mean the United States doesn't have public education, welfare and state funded projects which are all part of marxs socialist state? Damn I must of slipped under the radar not paying for school

Those do not make for a socialist state because those things are "the state doing anything, at all" which even right-wingers want it to do. Socialism is more specific than that.



And, well, the US isn't really doing too hot on the whole public education, welfare and infrastructure front lately, anyway...

Well if you want to move the goalposts that is fine. But I am going by the marx definition which why I said the US is a quasi socialist state because it does provide state services.

No. Just no. The defining feature of Marxism is the common ownership of the means of production by the proletariat, required because the act of earning profit off of someone else's work means the people being exploited lose some of their humanity. You don't get to make up definitions just because they suit you. By your definition Nazi Germany was quasi-Socialist. It's a trainwreck of an argument.

You conveniently leave out marxs levels of state in which in the socialist the state does start to provide for the people while having a blended economy of private and public owned ventures. So no your argument is too narroe and doesn't look at the breadth of his statements.

All the more reason to stop this nonsense where "marxist" and "socialist" are thrown around as veiled code words for "unAmerican" that really just serve to mud sling opponents. The whole thing is ridiculous.

 jmurph wrote:
Whembly: I would also add that Trump doesn't seem to get that the primaries are all about cozying up to the party and getting them to pick you, not a general election. He is running his primary like he thought it was only popular election. And is paying heavily on the tail end.

That point is lost on many folks.

The absolute irony is that the Republican Primary actually encourages insurgent candidates.

 LordofHats wrote:
All the more reason to stop this nonsense where "marxist" and "socialist" are thrown around as veiled code words for "unAmerican" that really just serve to mud sling opponents. The whole thing is ridiculous.

Sounds exactly like what a socialist would say.