Socialists Are Destructive by Definition

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

What does it mean to make money?

I means engaging in an activity which generates more than it consumes. What does this mean, 2 lb of wood go in and 3 lb of wood go out? Obviously, generation is a complicated thing to compute in relation to consumption. Luckily, nature provides a generalization that incorporates and compares a measure of both. It doesn’t have to be money, there are various levels and methods of liquidity (liquidity being a measure of generalization).

When a socialist complains that people are obssessed with making money, and that this is evil, they are saying that generating is evil. When consumption is greater than generation, this is called destruction, which is why all socialism degrades the economy of a marketplace.

Loss producing government “services” aren’t an alternative to productive enterprise. They are parasites of it. The more such “services” exist, the more productive enterprise has to exist for it to consume from, and the less that enterprise will generate.

This is why the Fascists and Nazis had to go on wars of exploitation conquest, this is why the USSR was expantionist, and this is why both it before and China now require the US, and specifically require a trade imbalance, a net balance of consumption on their part. This is why the EU both sucks from the US and seeks to expand into the Russian sphere.

It’s also why less powerful socialist regimes simply make their countries go broke, and produce mass exoduses.

Basically every “serivce” a government offers at a loss, that is, destructively, can be performed in a generative, productive fashion. A sustainable fashion. Even an army. Armies produce value, they generate, they consume assets and generate oportunities.

One of the great ironies of life that the people getting their panties in a twist over “sustainability” are, by definition, the proponents of unsustainability.

2 Likes
2

Reading that…you were on cocaine or something?

You are mostly right, but the tone of how you wrote it was off. Someone who disagrees with you, they would capitalize on that.

1 Like
3

I guess cocaine gives the attribute of hyperfocus, and high compression ration of relevant information. Like coffee, but more.

So I can see why it comes off that way. If you have the patience to read through it slowly, you might understand it and see if and how things tie together. Nothing was neglected.

1 Like
4

I don’t 100% disagree. It was just the tone of something. The character of.

2 Likes
5

As in like an overly dispassionate view? I don’t fully get it.

1 Like
6

To be a judge…someone may need to be neutral. Dispassionate.

A King was a Judge for most of human history. He was the chief judiciary. Thinking in that is a lot different than understanding judges in America with a separation of powers.

1 Like
7

I’m still not sure if I’m supposed to be Manhattan or the Comedian.

Doesn’t look like you’re too eager to explain. I’m curious, but hey, you have the right.

Past that, the thing is this: ultrapassionate or dispassionate, the only thing that matters about what any one says is whether it is true. Also, whether it is relevant. Any consequences of that truth are up to each person to decide upon. I have no interest in telling people what should motivate them. I would just like them to be honest about it.

Communism is the doctrine of destruction. By definition. If you hate making money, you hate sustainability, you hate generation and creation. You can tolerate only that which progressively (often explosively) degenerates through consumption.

1 Like
8

We have an economic system right now.

What happens if Usury and Materialism were taken from it?

It is immoral for someone to wake up in their pajama’s move around something online, and make money. He could have just raised rents on some people by $300 coping for COVID. He doesn’t care.

1 Like
9

If the money is there to be made, and it is made by destroying something, like somebody’s ability to continue to live where they currently live, then that something was net consumption. It was not sustainable. In the hypothetical, taking no other factors into account, that person’s cheap rent was, indirectly, consuming from the ability of somebody else to pay theirs. Money made means more came out than went in.

1 Like
10

To understand human beings, you need to think more pragmatically.

A CEO, he would like to make money. He may have been in extreme pride and avarice. He doesn’t care that the Rust Bowl happened. He may have ended up controlled by woke Marxist influences, and committed corporate suicide. He was a blind man.

Making money, and being profitable, this is generally good. How was someone making their money?

1 Like
11

A lot of them did care. They yelled and yelled about steel dumping by China and burdensome domestic regulation.

But destructive socialists insisted that China must not be interfered with, and that the work of the Steel Belt was too productive. So they shut it down.

True, many CEOs are socialists. They come to realize that, by playing the socialist game, they can take the uncertainties of a productive market out of the equation, and maintain an unproductive, destructive enterprise that gives them a position of arbitrage, that makes them bulletproof.

But it was by becoming socialist that they became destructive.

It was by making their company unprofitable.

1 Like
12

Are you familiar with the HBO TV series “Mad Men?” It is worth a watch towards the cultural shock, for at least a season.

Mad Men was about Advertisement Companies in New York. How does someone influence or advertise something? It is a big deal, especially with mass media and the internet.

1 Like
13

TV and derivations of it are a major vector of socialist brainwashing. It’s not that I’m scared of it, but it disgusts me. So I don’t really watch much of it.

This is because TV shows and derivations of it have a major emotional component, so it is easy to tie those emotional components to arbitrary thesis.

1 Like
14

I see what you are saying.

Satanist tend to be egotist. What good is it to be doing evil if all your buddies don’t know about it?

People tell on themselves.

I advised watching “Mad Men” on HBO…like HBO Max has been having problems…

It is worthwhile. For at least a season.

1 Like
15

Yes, they do tell on themselves.

But there are less tortuous ways to get insights into their thinking.

The Devil likes to use a little insight as bait for a lot of subliminal programming.

1 Like
16

I really enjoyed “Mad Men.”

17

I just don’t have the time for TV.

If you have any insights from it you’d like to share, I’m open to it.

18

Like Dr. Carl Jung and the Collective Unconscious?

You won’t research that either?

19

The very notion of a collective unconscious is barbaric. Brains, psyches, are individual things. Only through forced contortions can individual psyches be made to fit a collective image, artificially, presenting the illusion that the collective exists as a thing itself. It’s grotesque.

20

You are an Atomistic Thinker.

Society is not Atomistic.

Given you were to marry a porn star…how many people did you influence? Your brothers and sisters? People you knew in high school and college? You are not an atom unto yourself.