Slavery Is Everywhere

[Bernie Sanders]

Is China socialist or capitalist? What tzor's head explode as he tries to answer.

I am afraid the correct answer is no longer politically correct so I won't say it. Suffice to say it is neither. It's that thing we don't talk about anymore.

show

New York Times? Why are you reading the FAKE NEWS media? Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and that guy who cries Glenn Beckkk is who I would suspect you would trust with your TRUE News.

[mrswdk]

A communist country is a libertarian country.

That's like saying "matter is antimatter."
No, it's the opposite in every possible way.
EVERY POSSIBLE WAY.

A society that has achieved communism has no state.

Is China socialist or capitalist? What tzor's head explode as he tries to answer.

I am afraid the correct answer is no longer politically correct so I won't say it. Suffice to say it is neither. It's that thing we don't talk about anymore.

show

Fascism is not an economic system and is not mutually exclusive with either capitalism or communism. And in any case your article says China isn't fascist. One of the defining characteristics of fascism is mobilization, which is lacking in China.

China is actually a good example of a country not ruled by a political ideology. The government quite nakedly doesn't give a shit about anything except China being powerful. If it will help China be rich and powerful then it is okay. As Deng Xiaoping famously said: 'it doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice'.

[tzor]

A society that has achieved communism has no state.

That's the "ideal" state. No communist state has ever achieved this because in order to get to that state you need an absolute central state that never dies.

In addition, once you do get such a state "communism" collapses to individualism and individualism reforms capitalism because the individuals how have both capital and "property."

Fascism is not an economic system.

See Wikipedia article: Economics of fascism

Fascists opposed both international socialism and free market capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third position. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism.[12] They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and social hierarchy was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists),[13][14] while also arguing that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists).[15]

An important aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigism,[16] meaning an economy where the government often subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[17]

Let me repeat that ... "fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state." This is exactly what China is today. All of the so called "private companies" are subservient to the dictates of the ruling party without exception.

[mrswdk]

A society that has achieved communism has no state.

That's the "ideal" state society. No communist state has ever achieved this

No one has ever created a libertarian society either. That doesn't mean the two groups don't share the same goals.

Fascism is not an economic system.

See Wikipedia article: Economics of fascism

Fascists opposed both international socialism and free market capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third position... They favored corporatism

An important aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigism

So fascists like the economic doctrines of corporatism and dirigism? Thanks for proving my point.

I presume the fact you decided to take a failed shot at semantics instead of responding to anything else I said means you accept that China's government is not fascist. Glad we found some common ground (y)

[tzor]

No one has ever created a libertarian society either.

Actually a few number of them have existed in history. Unfortunately, most existed before people started calling them that. Not that it matters because libertarian societies are not the end point in a process.

China's Close Government-Business Ties Are A Key Challenge In U.S. Trade Talks

"It didn't feel right," recalls Korchmar, whose family runs a 102-year-old Florida-based company that makes briefcases and travel bags. The Chinese government maintained a heavy hand in his staffing and factory decisions, and its minders followed him everywhere.

...

"The government runs the economy," he concluded. "To think the government's not involved in any business practice in China is really I think a bit naïve."

"A lot of private companies in China, even publicly listed companies, take a lot of direction from the government, or are picked by the government as state champions," says Patrick Chovanec, chief strategist at Silvercrest Asset Management, who taught in China for years.

Let's face it. Italy took pasta from China and China took Fascism from Italy. It's a perfect Ying Yang and you know it.

[mrswdk]

No one has ever created a libertarian society either.

Actually a few number of them have existed in history. Unfortunately, most existed before people started calling them that.

Good point, cavemen had communist/libertarian small societies.

Let's face it. Italy took pasta from China and Yin Yang you know it.

If you're going to ignore any parts of my posts you can't be bothered responding to then so will I.

[Symmetry]

Huh? Socialism in, say Sweden, means slavery? Weird argument Tzor.

One can argue that Sweden isn't technically "Socialist."
One can also argue that there is no way in hell people like Bernie would ever implement what is implemented in Sweden anywhere else.
These are the types of people who look at narwhals and say, "see, unicorns do exist."
Try another nation please.

I thought this might end up with you in a circular argument.

Socialism can't succeed- and if it does, then it's not socialism, as socialism can't succeed, and if it does, then it's not socialism, as socialism can't succeed...

I think part of the problem is that you obviously associate socialist ideas with a kind of utopianism, or as you say "unicorns"- a kind of blind fantasy. I wonder the opposite- if someone described a rhinoceros to you, if you had no knowledge of its existence, wouldn't you dismiss the evidence of an eye-witness as a fantasy of a unicorn?

It's a tough concept to absorb, but you should give it a try.

[Dukasaur]

Huh? Socialism in, say Sweden, means slavery? Weird argument Tzor.

One can argue that Sweden isn't technically "Socialist."
One can also argue that there is no way in hell people like Bernie would ever implement what is implemented in Sweden anywhere else.
These are the types of people who look at narwhals and say, "see, unicorns do exist."
Try another nation please.

I thought this might end up with you in a circular argument.

Socialism can't succeed- and if it does, then it's not socialism, as socialism can't succeed, and if it does, then it's not socialism, as socialism can't succeed...

I think part of the problem is that you obviously associate socialist ideas with a kind of utopianism, or as you say "unicorns"- a kind of blind fantasy. I wonder the opposite- if someone described a rhinoceros to you, if you had no knowledge of its existence, wouldn't you dismiss the evidence of an eye-witness as a fantasy of a unicorn?

It's a tough concept to absorb, but you should give it a try.

Bingo!

[waauw]

Tzor, I'm curious. Obviously you dislike socialism, but does that count for all aspects of socialism? Are there any aspects of it that you think do/could work?

[mrswdk]

I'd just like to issue a correction and retract 'cavemen' in favor of the more inclusive 'cavepeople'.

I don't want to edit my post because I hate having that little 'last edited' message under it.

[Bernie Sanders]

Is China socialist or capitalist? What tzor's head explode as he tries to answer.

I am afraid the correct answer is no longer politically correct so I won't say it. Suffice to say it is neither. It's that thing we don't talk about anymore.

show

Oh no.....poor Tzor .....suffering from confusion and party loyalty. Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmarrk, Germany, The Netherlands and other wealthy countries have better overall healthcare, housing, education and happier citizens. They have a mix of capitalism and socialism.

No wealthy country in the world wishes the American Healthcare system on their own citizens.

Time to fix Amerikkka for the good of the working families and not the fat cats of Wall Street.

[spurgistan]

Tzor is saying Sweeden is not socialist as the government doesnt hold the means of production, the facilities and resources for producing goods.
"in a socialist society, the means of production are communally owned"

But most who describe themselves as socialist, Senator Sanders certainly among that number, want the US to have a more Northern European style of government. The programs they recommend are in the democratic socialist tradition of an improved safety net and government role in certain public interest sectors of the economy, things that have been lovely (if not perfect) for our friends from the frozen north. I am kind of with you in that calling these things that people really like "socialist" is kind of using a broadly unpopular term to describe popular government programs, but it may be the most accurate.

TL;DR - nobody in a position of power in the US, and a very small minority of people who call themselves socialist, want the state to control the means of production. They are democratic socialists who want a larger government role in the economy, like our friends from Sweden (among other countries)

[Symmetry]

Tzor is saying Sweeden is not socialist as the government doesnt hold the means of production, the facilities and resources for producing goods.
"in a socialist society, the means of production are communally owned"

But most who describe themselves as socialist, Senator Sanders certainly among that number, want the US to have a more Northern European style of government. The programs they recommend are in the democratic socialist tradition of an improved safety net and government role in certain public interest sectors of the economy, things that have been lovely (if not perfect) for our friends from the frozen north. I am kind of with you in that calling these things that people really like "socialist" is kind of using a broadly unpopular term to describe popular government programs, but it may be the most accurate.

TL;DR - nobody in a position of power in the US, and a very small minority of people who call themselves socialist, want the state to control the means of production. They are democratic socialists who want a larger government role in the economy, like our friends from Sweden (among other countries)

Doesn't North America have a "Frozen North", that kinda does well with socialist policies? I'm not sure you even have to look outside of the North American continent for a society that is happier for its citizens.

[mrswdk]

The packaging usually says that socialism needs to be stored at temperatures of 5-14 centigrade.

[tzor]

I thought this might end up with you in a circular argument.

It's not a circular argument, although in the modern trans/cis universe it might appear as one.

In order for a thing to be a thing, it needs all the fundamental components of a thing. If it has fundamental components of some other thing then it's not that thing. A whale, for example is not a fish even though it swims in the ocean. (Having lungs instead of gills is the deal breaker.)

Private ownership of the means of production is in opposition with non private ownership of the means of production.

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

This is a critical key point here. Socialism is not about being nice. It is not about charity to the poor. It is not about a centralized health system. Capitalist nations can do all of the above and it doesn't make them socialist. The health system can be run by the government or run by a legion of nuns and it doesn't make the system "socialist." Furthermore, any well operating economy can afford to carry inefficient systems.

Tzor, I'm curious. Obviously you dislike socialism, but does that count for all aspects of socialism? Are there any aspects of it that you think do/could work?

Let's look at the definition: "owned collectively or by a centralized government." The later becomes a monopoly and all monopolies are doomed to stagnation and eventual collapse. The former, if it was not a monopoly and was a true voluntary collective, would have none of the problems of traditional socialism and if it was allowed to come into existence and cease to exist on the merits of the collective, would be a very viable economic model.

Let's talk about health care. There is an odd system in the Untied States that constantly bombards the satellite radio called medical sharing. This is a good example of the "collective." A lot of startup companies basically are voluntary collectives, at least by the founding workers, who turn capitalist when they have to hire more workers (but that doesn't have to be the case).

[armati]

Bernie Sanders is just another warmonger.

Bernie has voted for every military appropriations bill there is to continue the wars, he doesnt challenge the military establishment, and is welcoming of contractors into Vermont for jobs.

Bernie supports Israel in their Palestinian genocide and Saudi Arabia in the Yeman genocide, thats all warmonger stuff and any warmonger sure doesnt give a poop about people.

Ya can tell a politician is lying cause their lips move.

Abby Martin & Chris Hedges: War, Propaganda and the Enemy Within.
https://youtu.be/s0LOYvk0y3o

[Bernie Sanders]

Bernie Sanders is just another warmonger.

Bernie has voted for every military appropriations bill there is to continue the wars, he doesnt challenge the military establishment, and is welcoming of contractors into Vermont for jobs.

Bernie supports Israel in their Palestinian genocide and Saudi Arabia in the Yeman genocide, thats all warmonger stuff and any warmonger sure doesnt give a poop about people.

Ya can tell a politician is lying cause their lips move.

Abby Martin & Chris Hedges: War, Propaganda and the Enemy Within.
https://youtu.be/s0LOYvk0y3o

Bernie supports Saudi Arabia? Armati you assumed wrong.

Warmonger and I have a romantic relationship, but our political ends are different.

[spurgistan]

Tzor is saying Sweeden is not socialist as the government doesnt hold the means of production, the facilities and resources for producing goods.
"in a socialist society, the means of production are communally owned"

But most who describe themselves as socialist, Senator Sanders certainly among that number, want the US to have a more Northern European style of government. The programs they recommend are in the democratic socialist tradition of an improved safety net and government role in certain public interest sectors of the economy, things that have been lovely (if not perfect) for our friends from the frozen north. I am kind of with you in that calling these things that people really like "socialist" is kind of using a broadly unpopular term to describe popular government programs, but it may be the most accurate.

TL;DR - nobody in a position of power in the US, and a very small minority of people who call themselves socialist, want the state to control the means of production. They are democratic socialists who want a larger government role in the economy, like our friends from Sweden (among other countries)

Doesn't North America have a "Frozen North", that kinda does well with socialist policies? I'm not sure you even have to look outside of the North American continent for a society that is happier for its citizens.

I'd be surprised if typical American had a better view of Canada than Sweden.

[armati]

sorry Bernie, Bernie is another warmonger.

I dont think there is going to be any getting away from the wars of the empire until the empire crumbles.

Dissenting voices are silenced, how often is Assange in the news now?
6 yrs jailed? no charges, for journalism?

The politicians are paid for, Bernie Sanders too.

Sad, but thats what we livin in.

[Bernie Sanders]

sorry Bernie, Bernie is another warmonger.

I dont think there is going to be any getting away from the wars of the empire until the empire crumbles.

Dissenting voices are silenced, how often is Assange in the news now?
6 yrs jailed? no charges, for journalism?

The politicians are paid for, Bernie Sanders too.

Sad, but thats what we livin in.

You might as well get a revolver with one bullet and end it. Living in a world with no hope and spreading that depressing message around you is a virus that needs to be stamped out of existence.

You are the reason why the world is so fukkking fukkked up! I want to slap the shit out of you and get you out of your obviously paranoid state.

[armati]

So, you figure Bernie does not support the wars?

You have an idea other than historical precedence for ending empires?

Empires are always crushed from an outside source or they destroy themselves from over reach.

The U.S. has about 22 TRillion in debt right now, the unfunded debt is about 200 TRillion, and they still want more for the mic....which Bernie votes for every time.

Just mentioning as you seem to be a pretty gung ho Bernie guy, no issues, I'm merely pointing out he is the same as the rest of them.

[Bernie Sanders]

So, you figure Bernie does not support the wars?

You have an idea other than historical precedence for ending empires?

Empires are always crushed from an outside source or they destroy themselves from over reach.

The U.S. has about 22 TRillion in debt right now, the unfunded debt is about 200 TRillion, and they still want more for the mic....which Bernie votes for every time.

Just mentioning as you seem to be a pretty gung ho Bernie guy, no issues, I'm merely pointing out he is the same as the rest of them.

You have no clue about Senator Bernie Sanders.

If you’re an American, he’s still out there among the “maybe” candidates. But if you live in the Middle East – whether you’re Arab or Israeli, Muslim, Jew or Christian – you should keep your eye on Bernie Sanders.

He’s no shoo-in, of course – certainly not after his pitiful handover to the awful Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. I still remember shouting “No!” myself when I heard his fans cursing his decision to stand down in favour of Clinton. But the guy just might have the guts, even the courage, to stand up to the ally to whom the US always gives groveling, uncritical, slavish, immoral support.

Note how at this point I don’t need to identify Israel as the ally in question. Nor did I have to mention in my first paragraph that Sanders is one of the two most prominent Jewish members of the US Senate. In fact, Sanders wears his origins, race, religion, social background and integrity so easily that he comes across, even to a cynical European still living in a pre-Brexit world (just), as a patently nice guy. Unlike Donald Trump, he’s sane. But unlike Obama, he’s not so goody-two-shoes or optic-obsessed to think that he can fandangle voters with ageing good looks and the right heart.

It’s one thing for a black candidate to go for the black vote in the US, but for an American Jew to go for the American Jewish vote is a very different matter.

Sanders’ campaign is not just going to be about economics or the futility of Mexican walls. It might well be about Iran. It’s going to raise a lot of questions among the Christian fundamentalists. But, most importantly of all, it’s going to be about Israel. And, if this liberal intellectual is going to be a serious candidate for 2020, he’s going to meet plenty of latent anti-Semitism in the United States. It took long enough for John Kennedy, the first Catholic American to become president, to shake off the claim that he would be more loyal to the Pope than to America.

Just imagine how Sanders will have to confront the same bigots when they insinuate that he’s more loyal to Israel than to his own country. He’s not – as one television presenter once suggested – a dual national. He’s not an Israeli. He’s the child of Polish Jewish immigrants.

“You know,” he told the same television host, “my Dad came to this country from Poland at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket. He loved this country … I am, obviously, an American citizen and I do not have any dual citizenship.” He was, he said in a later interview, “proud to be Jewish” but not “particularly religious”. He spent time on an Israeli kibbutz near Haifa in 1963 after college graduation. So did thousands of other Americans and Europeans – and they weren’t all Jewish.

Take a look through his Israel/Palestine CV, and Sanders is clearly neither an aggressive Zionist nor a liberal patsy. He’s a New Deal Democrat, which is how many would judge him. Younger, leftist voters might consider him as a kind of upwardly mobile intellectual, a Chomsky on wheels – even though the great (Jewish) philosopher, activist and linguist said before the last presidential election that he’d vote for Clinton as a frontrunner rather than Sanders in swing states in a final vote to keep Trump out. Much good did that do him.

But let’s remember a few more things about Sanders. He’s always supported the “right of Israel to exist” and its right to self-defence, and he’s always condemned Palestinian attacks on Israelis. But he’s also kept away from pro-Israeli Jewish lobby groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and he didn’t restrain himself when he chose to condemn Israel for its illegal colonial project of building homes for Jews and Jews only in the occupied West Bank, nor when Israel has blatantly interfered in US domestic or electoral politics.

When Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress in 2015 – with the usual Saddam-like standing ovations from American representatives more fearful of being critical of Israel than standing up to the lobby – Sanders skipped the speech. “He [Netanyahu] doesn’t have the right to inject himself into an American political discussion by being the speaker before a joint session of Congress to criticise the United States,” he told CNN. This is breath-of-fresh-air stuff from a leading American politician, even if his 77 years gives Sanders the patina of wisdom – and thus more leeway than usual for a critic of Israel.

The 2014 Gaza war (with its usual exchange rate of 2,100 Palestinians dead, most of them civilians, for 72 Israelis) seems to have been a critical moment in the Sanders horror of Israeli-Palestinian killings. He spoke of “the Israeli attacks [sic] that killed hundreds of innocent people – including many women and children” and referred to Israel’s ruthless air strikes as “disproportionate” and “completely unacceptable”. Unlike Hillary Clinton, he didn’t cosy up to AIPAC by speaking at their 2016 policy conference. In the speech he would have given to them, he said that “it is absurd for elements within the Netanyahu government to suggest that building more settlements in the West Bank is the appropriate response to the most recent violence. It is also not acceptable that the Netanyahu government decided to withhold hundreds of millions of shekels in tax revenue from the Palestinians.”

But, he added, it was unacceptable for Palestinian “president” Mahmoud Abbas – my inverted commas, here, for a man who has long run out of presidential legality – to “call for the abrogation of the Oslo agreement”. This would make sense – only Abbas had actually threatened Oslo because the continued building of Jewish colonies on Arab land had already effectively destroyed the agreement. And in a later AIPAC-encouraged Senate round robin letter, Sanders appeared to give all the usual caveats to Israel, complaining that the UN delivered disproportionate criticism of Israel and demeaning the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). He later said he didn’t actually write the letter even though he signed it, which was a bit like apologising to the Palestinians after you have thrown them under the proverbial bus.

The nearest he’s got to confronting the great taboo – the sacrosanct economic-military relationship between Israel and America which no candidate ever wants to talk about – was half-Chomsky and half-Obama. “What must be done,” he said, “is that the United States of America must have a Middle East policy which is even-handed, which does not simply supply endless amounts of money, of military support to Israel, but which treats both sides with respect and dignity, and does our best to bring them to the table.”

But he even got a nod of approval from that brilliant grudge Norman Finkelstein when he told J Street liberals that Donald Trump’s support for a peace deal didn’t amount to much. “The real question is: peace on what terms, and under what arrangement? Does ‘peace’ mean that Palestinians will be forced to live under perpetual Israeli rule, in a series of disconnected communities in the West Bank and Gaza? That’s not tolerable, and that’s not peace.

“If Palestinians in the occupied territories are to be denied self-determination in a state of their own, will they receive full citizenship and equal rights in a single state, potentially meaning the end of a Jewish majority state? These are very serious questions with significant implications for America’s broader regional partnerships and goals.”

If you want to see what Sanders is up against in the abuse stakes from American Jews who would definitely not vote for him, you have only to glance at columnist Andrea Peyser’s critique in the New York Post in 2016. “Bernie Sanders is not quite Jewish,” she wrote. “He’s Jew-ish – a non-practising, anti-Israel, kinda, sorta Hebrew … What’s ‘disproportionate’ about Israel’s self-preserving responses to rocket fire on civilians’ heads, Bernie?” Sanders, she said, had “forged a far-left political brand, siding with Jew-haters and Israel foes, which is redundant”.

But Bernie Sanders can also dish it out. When anti-Israeli audience members interrupted him in Vermont, he told them to shut up – itself a red rag to the super-left, who immediately condemned him for being pro-Israel. He’s talked about the dangers of Hamas, but he’s also condemned proposed US legislation that would punish boycotts against Israel and Israeli colonies on the West Bank (the Israel Anti-Boycott Act) on the grounds that it would harm free speech in America.

He’s now bashing Trump for destroying the Iran nuclear agreement, Saudi Arabia for its Yemen war and Israel for its shooting down of Palestinians on the Gaza Strip fence. He’s even critical of that imperial journalistic messenger Thomas Friedman for blaming the Palestinians for their own suffering. So things can’t be that bad.

Of course we have to remember the numbing sickness of American politics; the absolute need to kowtow to power when there’s no alternative; the use of the word “compromise” instead of capitulation; the personal pressures that might be used against a Jewish presidential contender. I’m not sure Bernie Sanders can resist all this. I still recall how Judge Richard Goldstone, a fine and decent man whom I wrote of two weeks ago, believed in justice for the Palestinians and wrote so eloquently of their suffering in the 2008-2009 Gaza war in his massive UN report. Yet he, after pressure on him from Jewish groups and from his own Jewish family, then recanted and turned his back on those who trusted him.

Be sure Bernie Sanders knows of Goldstone’s Calvary, but he may be made of sterner stuff. The Arabs will watch Sanders, if they’re wise, though they are still blinded by the Trump bauble. The Israelis, whose lives depend on their future dependence on America as much as their past reliance, may come to fear him.

One certainty is that if Sanders is up for the 2020 race, the US-Israel Middle East collusion is likely to lose its taboo status for a long time to come.

Join the debate on Facebook
More articles by:ROBERT FISK
Robert Fisk writes for the Independent, where this column originally appeared.

[Symmetry]

And yet, the Bernie Sanders parody account somehow still continues to fail.

[Bernie Sanders]

And yet, the Bernie Sanders parody account somehow still continues to fail.

Symm, you sausage smoking stool pushing troll. Shouldn't you be going to a Turkish bath instead of wasting space here?

[Symmetry]

And yet, the Bernie Sanders parody account somehow still continues to fail.

Symm, you sausage smoking stool pushing troll. Shouldn't you be going to a Turkish bath instead of wasting space here?

I can multi-task.

Sadly, you are still just you pretending to be someone else.