Posts by crimsonwolf20

Benjamin Taylor6 said:You completely missed the point here.
Some massive American corporation was looking to swoop in, buy out the place, and toss everyone onto the street.
That’s how those Americans would have wiped out the competition entirely.
But the workers saw it coming—they actually caught wind of it—and they stepped up to buy the shares themselves.

Anyway, moving past your trolling—the real issue is that every single capitalist dreams of seeing worker-managed competition, mostly because, let's face it, those self-managed groups usually don't have a clue how to run a business.

We really need to draw a line between the way things work in the USA and actual Western capitalism.
In our version of capitalism, the rules are just... different. And by different, I mean "my company's profit depends entirely on who I know in politics and how well I can manipulate, cheat, and embezzle."
Our local "self-managers" tend to pick up the business basics pretty quickly once they realize they're about to lose their livelihoods.
The key is whether the current management decides to back them or not.
If the board wants to buy the company without involving the staff, we end up with a situation very similar to what happened at the firm where I work: drive the company right to the edge of bankruptcy, then buy it all up for pennies on the dollar. And then? You step in and pose as the hero saving the day!!! 😲 😂 😲

Exactly! This isn't even real capitalism—it's more like this weird, unnatural mashup of an interventionist government and their little buddies running the market. Everywhere you look, it's just cronyism born from having way too much power concentrated in the hands of the state.

So, yeah, it's strictly the government and its bloated, overreaching authority that's to blame for this mess. If we want things to actually change, we've gotta rein in that power wherever we possibly can.

You basically answered your own question, though I honestly don't think you even realized it!

nimblemarlin6 said:Well, I suppose we’ve learned from history—and hopefully there are enough safeguards in place, ranging from basic morality, religion, and upbringing to Constitutionally guaranteed rights and the separation of powers, to prevent a society from turning into a pack of cannibals and mass murderers overnight.

But still—what do you do when the people say, "We don't want the kind of freedom you are peddling; we want a strong state"?
What then? Then you’d have to force the kind of system you prefer onto them. And who does that? Some single individual? An elite class?
Look, most people are idiots—it's just how it is. Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best thing we've got for now. You got anything better to offer?

Maybe after years of being disappointed by attempts to convert everyone to the Truth, the libertarians will finally admit they're actually pro-monarchy.

Well, look—we've learned from history, and there are hopefully some serious built-in safeguards in the system... like those individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution...

That's exactly it! So, even if a crowd gets together and decides they want to strip away someone else's freedom, it doesn't matter—neither they nor the government actually have that right. The state's power is limited; it isn't allowed to pass laws that stomp on individual liberty. That’s the whole point! Limited government powers.

I mean, whether people say "we want a strong state that crushes civil liberties," "we want a strong state to crush economic freedoms," or "we want a strong state to crush religious freedoms"—it's all the exact same thing.
My freedom to swing my fist ends where your head begins, and the same logic applies to the state (well, it *should* apply, but we both know what kind of mess that collectivist madness brings when it gets a monopoly on force and starts looking down its nose at individual liberty, just like you mentioned)

nimblemarlin6 said:..

And let's not forget the USA—which, after a period of crisis that wasn't nearly as apocalyptic as today's right-wingers try to paint it, was actually on a solid path toward economic recovery by 1989. But instead, it all got derailed by this irrational nationalism rooted in deep historical grievances. From 1991 onward, that irrationality just became a playground for criminal, cancer-like structures of corrupt elites in power.

Quincy:

There is no such thing as "true" capitalists; there is only a rule-of-law state that establishes the legal framework for a free market to function—a state that punishes crime and protects private property. ...In America, that often doesn't exist, which is a failure of the politicians...

Well, obviously it's a failure—that's why we need people in charge who actually know how to do their jobs. How small the government should be, who runs it, and what its actual purpose is—well, that should be decided by the citizens. You get the kind of government you deserve based on the kind of citizens you are.

So who’s the one actually tearing us apart here? 😂

Man, stop talking nonsense—back in '89, everything was already heading for a total meltdown, we're talking triple-digit inflation and basically every other socialist system falling apart. This whole thing is just historical revisionism being used as a convenient excuse for why central planning failed miserably. It's Socialism 101, folks! 🤦

Well, obviously—what's missing is leadership at the top. We need people who actually know what they're doing running the show.

Oh, so you mean we need the "right kind" of socialists. 😂

How big the state should be, who gets to run it, and what kind of government it should be—that should all be decided by the citizens. A state is just a reflection of its people.

That's the core issue right there—you seem to think it's perfectly fine for the citizens to decide which rights and freedoms the government is allowed to strip away, simply because the majority votes for it.

But what happens if those citizens—say, like German National Socialists—decide that capitalists and Jewish people should be sent to gas chambers? Does that capitalist or that Jewish person still have a right to freedom, regardless of what the regime or the majority of citizens wants to take from them?

Seriously, nobody in the socialist camp ever gives a straight answer to this one. Come on, be the first to step up.
☕

nimblemarlin6 said:I'm willing to nagađati what the response from the crowd will be:

"Sure, but American capitalists aren't the real deal—they're actually socialists in disguise. In America, it isn't true capitalism; it's actually socialism."

😁

Nah, you’ve totally mixed things up with that classic socialist excuse about why socialism fails everywhere and every single time.

You socialists are always the ones claiming that "true" socialism has never actually existed—arguing that those socialist sociopaths and dictators weren't the "real" deal—so then you retreat into these tired clichés about an American conspiracy, sanctions, Western saboteurs, or bad actors being at the top of the socialist power pyramid every time. It's the go-to move, right? Because otherwise, there's no other way to explain why your centrally planned paradise on earth consistently turns out to be a literal hellscape that impoverishes and ruins billions of unlucky souls who just happened to be born into these unnatural social experiments under the boot of socialist totalitarianism.

At the end of the day, people are people. American "capitalists" (whatever that even means—capitalism isn't some mystical cult, it's just the natural, voluntary exchange of value for value) and socialists are all humans. Everyone is greedy, selfish, good, bad, kind, cruel, or whatever else you want to throw at them. There's no such thing as "real" capitalists; there's just a rule of law that sets up the framework where a free market can actually function—a state that punishes crime and protects private property.

In America, that often doesn't exist, which is a massive failure by politicians—people are going to exploit any gap in the system for their own gain, whether they call themselves "capitalists" or socialists. People are people! If there's an opportunity, they'll grab it. And if the government is incompetent, sluggish, and meddling in the market in a million different ways—hey, that's great for them! It just gives them way more room to maneuver and pull shady deals compared to a minimal government with limited authority.

Oh, please, you’re totally right—the world was just as loaded back in 1665 as it was in 1995, obviously. 🤦

Oh, please, quit whining, you clueless amateur.

Sophia Moore52 said:The world is constantly evolving, and there’s no denying that capitalism was a massive leap forward compared to the old feudal systems... but its era is drawing to a close, much like all the structures that came before it

Oh, hold on there, my friend—you’ve got it all wrong! If you look at the big picture, nothing truly massive has changed for about 10,000 years. I mean, think about it—the daily grind for an average farmer in the 1700s wasn't all that different from how they lived back in the 1400s, or even the 1100s, or the 200s, or the 2nd century!

But man, talk about a sudden jump! We've seen this insane explosion of progress—like, a total skyrocketing of living standards and tech innovations that people couldn't even dream up in their wildest fantasies—all packed into just the last 200 years. In that tiny window, we basically went from riding horses to boarding spacecraft. It's wild!

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kru...600_2003_2.gif

And honestly? All of this was made possible because of capitalism, the free market, and the power of private initiative.

Honestly, if you look at history, humanity has never seen this much material wealth as we’re seeing right now! I mean, seriously—the standard of living for your average American today absolutely crushes what even the richest European count could have dreamed of back in the 1600s. We aren't talking about the old days where kids were literally starving to death right in front of their parents—that is ancient history now. Even infant mortality rates are plummeting every single year, sitting at around 2% globally right now, which is basically the lowest it's ever been in human history. On top of that, life expectancy just keeps climbing higher and higher. People are healthier, stronger, taller, living longer, and way more educated than any generation before us. And honestly? All of this is the direct result of the free market and capitalism in action.

Because the market is so competitive, the Western world has hit this insane level of technological progress that’s moving at breakneck speed. Think about it—airplanes, cars, smartphones, advanced medical tech... we aren't just talking about stuff that sci-fi writers 50 years ago couldn't even wrap their heads around, but it's actually *accessible* to everyone. Thanks to capitalism, it's almost impossible to find someone without a cell phone or a house without internet, and most folks working entry-level jobs are out there driving their own cars.

http://www.labor-front.com

crimsonwolf21 said:Socialism was never "the real thing" either, which is why people always find a million excuses to tear it down. It's just the way things go—Klet. 🙂

Honestly, even the self-proclaimed socialists can't seem to agree on what "true" socialism actually looks like—and it's not because it's some mythical utopia sitting on a blueprint somewhere, no way. It's because they're dealing with the pure embarrassment that every single, and I mean every single one, attempt has been a spectacular disaster. We're talking tens of millions of lives lost in shallow graves and hundreds of millions more trapped in socialist totalitarianism, living in levels of poverty that you wouldn't even dream of seeing under American capitalism.

It's a tough pill to swallow, ☕

Gary Martinez2 said:Tell me, hourly workers, what kind of rate are you pulling in these days?
Do you happen to run a side hustle on the side too?

Oh, you betcha! I've got my own business running, and yeah—I even hire people! And get this—I’ve got all the time in the world to drop knowledge on these socialists and fascists for absolutely zero dollars.

No worries at all 😁

Sophia Moore52 said:A Jew being an anti-Semite? Well, that certainly takes the cake...

☕

"It is the circumvention of law that makes the religious Jew a religious Jew." (Das Kapital, 162)

"The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races." (The New York Times)

He called Ferdinand Lassalle, "Judel Itzig-Jewish Nigger." (Der Judische Nigger, 82, July 30, 1862)

"Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas." (490, August 25, 1879)

"Let us look at the real Jew of our time; not the Jew of the Sabbath, whom Bauer considers, but the Jew of everyday life.

"What is the Jew's foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.

"What is the object of the Jew's worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.

"Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time." ("A World Without Jews," p. 37)

"What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism." (Ibid, p. 40)

"Money is The zealous One god of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is The universal and self-constituted value set upon All things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is The essence of man's Life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.

"The god of The Jews Has become secularized and is now a worldly god. The Bill of exchange is The Jew's real god. His God is the illusory bill of exchange." ("A World Without Jews," p. 41)

Sophia Moore52 said:Sending Jews to concentration camps isn't socialism either (it makes zero sense to suggest Marx, being a Jew, would advocate for his own destruction), yet people still make a huge deal out of it, while you seem perfectly fine with it.

How can you say that? I mean, Marx was actually an anti-semite himself—did you skip that part of history? 🤷

Look, any power a government grants itself under socialism theoretically gives the state total control over the individual, their property, and their basic freedoms. Everything belongs to the state and the regime running its machinery. That’s exactly why those German socialists were able to shove people into death camps—it was all "legal" in the name of the collective, the people, society, socialism, anti-capitalism, and all those other national socialist principles 👍

Socialism is essentially the state using its monopoly on force to crush fundamental personal and economic liberties. It's not exactly a massive leap to assume that a regime that doesn't respect its own boundaries will toss "undesirables" into Gulags, Alcatraz, or deal with them via an axe to the head like Đureković or in Treblinka like the German socialists did. That right there is the backbone of statism and every statist model out there, from socialism all the way to fascism.

Giving a regime too much power is never, ever a good idea. 👍

Karen Rodriguez3 said:I guess you're just totally missing the point here.

If someone is being upfront and admitting that things were split up among cronies back in the nineties—which wasn't right—why do you keep acting like that's some textbook example of capitalism? It's not.
Do you really think there aren't any legit businesses in America that actually work and were built the right way?
There are.
And they deserve a fair shake.
Everything that's bothering you isn't actually capitalism, and nobody's saying it was good, but you just fixate on the bad stuff and call it capitalism. You fight against it without actually listening to a word anyone tells you.
Sorry, but you're just lost.

Someone pointed out a weird paradox somewhere, maybe on this thread or one like it.
We end up in a mess because of government overreach, yet the "smart" solution people suggest is usually even more government control.
Sure, we need more influence, but specifically when it comes to shrinking the bureaucracy, staying out of the economy, fighting corruption, and actually making sure laws are applied fairly.
Everything else? Just let the market handle it.

Exactly! I say this all the time, but honestly? Sound logic isn't exactly a superpower for socialists.

Everyone loves to trash politicians, but their actual answer to all that theft and incompetence is just this utopian dream that fair and honest people will somehow magically take over those seats of massive power—as if they haven't been searching for "honest" leaders for over a century! The seats and the authority itself are the whole issue here; power corrupts, and absolute power? Well, that corrupts absolutely.

Everybody knows corruption is everywhere, from D.C. down to your local sheriff, but instead of fighting to actually limit political power and stop the flood of corporate cash through their pockets, people think that even more authority will somehow make those same corrupt officials fight against corruption. It’s a joke!

Everyone sees the nepotism—how jobs and subsidies go straight to buddies and big donors—but the response isn't to tighten the leash on the state's ability to hand out other people's money. Instead, they paradoxically believe that even bigger powers will allow those same bureaucrats to monitor themselves. Like, seriously?

Everyone knows the government is inefficient, wasteful, irresponsible, creates zero value, and is packed with opportunists, liars, scammers, and criminals—yet ironically, they want to hand *those exact people* more power and a total monopoly over healthcare, education, Social Security, the military, highways, national industries, etc. Where on earth do they get the faith in politics and its army of cronies and bureaucrats... only they seem to know.

It’s hard to wrap your head around these kinds of paradoxes from a liberal perspective. Only true statists could possibly believe in the "benevolence" of the state enough to demand they take even more of our hard-earned money, especially when the results of that kind of setup have been nothing short of catastrophic...

Look, we’re totally against today's socialists too—the ones running up massive debts that our kids haven't even been born to pay off yet! You and everyone else who thinks like you basically handed over the keys to your socialist idols—whether it was Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Joe Biden—letting them spend like drunken billionaires and grab total control over the entire economy through that whole "socialist interventionism" nonsense.

The US is drowning in debt because of these incompetent socialists sitting pretty in their comfy office chairs and the absolute lack of real capitalism in the system.

The most fascinating thing about these anti-market fanatics is their absolute hatred of private property—which, if you ask me, mostly stems from how badly privatization went down back in the 90s. It was handled so poorly that tons of unprofitable companies just folded, leaving workers out on the street.

News flash!

The party and its leftovers were basically handing out assets to their own people. This wasn't some free market or actual private capital; it was just the government divvying up state property based on who you knew within the system and who had the power to distribute it. Besides, the actually competitive, high-quality factories and businesses survived even without help from stolen capital, US subsidies, or doing business with non-aligned nations. General Electric, Hershey, Whirlpool, Kraft Heinz... they all stayed competitive and crushed it in the market.

The losers—you know, the ones who followed that old socialist model by hiring 30-40% more staff than necessary, picking directors based on political connections, and putting incompetent people in key roles because they didn't understand basic economics due to years of Marxist indoctrination—those guys traded with non-aligned dictatorships and sucked up taxpayer money every year just to cover their deficits? Yeah, they failed. And honestly? They deserved it.

Cry all you want, but the whole point of working isn't just "working"—it's about creating actual value. If nobody wants to buy what you're selling, you either go bust or you pivot your business model to satisfy the market.

So, ironically, the Democratic Party doesn't actually have any real arguments against private ownership or privatization itself. Their issue is really just how their buddies first gutted those companies under socialism and then sliced them up for their pals, relatives, and everyone else they could squeeze some cash out of during the transition.

At the end of the day, this is just another case of terrible governance, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the free market. Which brings me back to my point: if we want to move forward, we need to get the government out of the way of the market entirely.

Yeah, it honestly baffles me—if this model is such a massive upgrade, why aren't all those big-shot neoliberal capitalists at Google, Facebook, Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, and YouTube actually practicing "worker self-management"?

I guess those clueless capitalists just don't realize what's actually good for them! 🤷
We basically need to force their hands so they start doing what’s actually in their own best interest—since they clearly have no clue. I mean, what do they even know about running a business anyway? That's what we socialists are here for—to teach 'em a thing or two! 👍

Gary Martinez2 said:But nowadays, you can do whatever you want and everything is just wonderful. Just imagine that.

Nah, let’s be real—we’re still totally stuck in the grip of that old-school, failed socialist legacy. We're dealing with a system that is way too massive, super sluggish, and just plain inefficient. It feels like the government is sticking its nose into every single little corner of society—including the economy, which is basically held hostage by the state and all that leftover baggage.

Gary Martinez2 said:Worker self-management essentially means that the employees—which would include the management team as well—are the ones actually running the business.

As for unions today, what do they really do besides shouting about workers' rights only when people actually decide to strike?
Workers definitely had more leverage before the war.

Look, before the war, we were dealing with a violent, totalitarian regime running a totally broken economic model called "self-managed socialism"—but let’s be real, by the end, that entire state, the whole regime, and that unnatural economic mess just completely fell apart.

When you talk about workers in a socialist system—or honestly, any aggressive economic setup where the government calls all the shots instead of the people doing the actual work—you aren't talking about "rights." They didn't have any rights, basically zero choice, and absolutely no freedom whatsoever.

Instead of letting the workers decide, the regime was constantly stepping in to dictate where they worked, who they worked with, how much they got paid, and under what conditions they had to labor. It was the government calling the plays on how companies were run, who was in charge, what stuff got manufactured, who could buy it, what the prices were, the terms of sale, wages, hours, earning caps, production quotas... you name it! There were a million different central-planning restrictions piled on top of each other—which is exactly why such a massive black market ended up blooming in that old socialistic era.

William Anderson5 said:Well, why don't you try running things with some workers? Nobody is stopping you.

Actually, it’s quite the opposite—back when worker self-management held a monopoly on the economic order, private entrepreneurship was strictly forbidden. In a capitalist system, there's no ban on worker management. In the USA, you actually have several small to mid-sized companies successfully operating on cooperative principles. They decide on business direction through voting, elect their own supervisors for set terms, and things like that.

Under capitalism, worker self-management is just one way to run a company, and anyone can choose to do it. However, under socialism, entrepreneurship is prohibited. Your question assumes there are inherent restrictions on how a business is managed within capitalism, but those kinds of restrictions were mostly a feature of our old system of worker self-management.

So, really, the real question is why socialists and worker-managed systems find capitalists and entrepreneurs such a threat that they outlaw them, whereas capitalists don't mind self-management enough to ban it...

👍

Exactly! As long as it's voluntary and nobody is being forced into it, socialists and any other fans of self-management are totally free to start their own thing or go work for a company that operates on those socialist/self-managed principles. That’s perfectly doable in a liberal market.

The headache only starts if socialists tried to force *every* single company to adopt this model by sheer force—basically mandating how everyone has to do business. And let's be real—judging by the vibes on this forum—most socialists are only interested in a regime of violent, centralized control over other people and their property.

neonhound18 said:It really isn't all that surprising that America is heading toward a total meltdown when you consider how many people here insist on babbling about things that Marx supposedly "proved" ages ago.🙄 😵

What I find absolutely wild is how the entire American mainstream media is basically built on trash logic from the ground up.

But hey, it’s not exactly a shocker once you realize all those news outlets and big media conglomerates are either tightly knit with the political elite or are straight-up sucking at the government teat—living off taxpayer money, obviously. Throw in the state monopoly on education, and you've got the perfect storm. Of course they aren't going to push for smaller government or stop the massive waste of money being snatched from current and future generations—they're profiting from the status quo, so why change? They want this system to drag on forever. But mark my words, it won't last.

It still blows my mind every single time how this whole Marxist-leaning mainstream machine manages to turn supposedly rational people into total zombies who don't have even a shred of basic economic knowledge, historical context, or common sense.