MovieChat Forums > InquiringMind > Replies
InquiringMind's Replies
You are a benighted dunce with no imagination.
Keep your head in the sand and continue simping for capitalism: a failed system that only benefits the oligarchy.
Keep sucking their dick as they extract your wealth, you fucking simp.
Democrats are anti-communist. They are Neo-Liberals. It's true that some of them might have supported communism when they were younger and more idealistic, but once they get into power they prop up the current system: Neo-Liberalism.
I suspect that the reason you think Democrats are communists is because Democrats are authoritarian scum.
The problem is that you are conflating authoritarianism (a form of government) with communism (an economic system). They are not the same thing. You can have libertarian communism (like in Spain between 1936 to 1939), and you can have authoritarian capitalism like you have now in Saudi Arabia.
You need to decouple communism from authoritarianism. You have correctly identified Democrats as an enemy of the people, you just have to call the enemy by their true name: neo-liberals (corporatists).
It's not a pipe dream. Although human nature may be immutable, it is possible to design a system that fosters our positive qualities while discouraging our negative ones. A system that prioritizes cooperation over cutthroat competition, incentivizing behaviors that benefit society as a whole. Now with the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, we could be taking our first steps toward a post-scarcity society. In a post-scarcity economy, this system would transcend the traditional measure of wealth as the accumulation of material possessions. Instead, individuals would be valued based on their contributions to the greater good, with reputation serving as the new currency.
We can do this. We just need the will. We need people to open their minds and imagine something better than capitalism.
We did this before many times. We went from a barter society, to slavery, to feudalism, and to capitalism. Now capitalism is coming to an end. It's time to move beyond it and imagine something better.
So the answer is to learn from all of them. We should look at the different socialisms and capitalisms and other -isms and analyze their successes and failures. We should take everything that works and creates a society where everyone flourishes and we should discard the rest.
In my opinion, a libertarian socialist society with mixed markets would be the most successful system. At the very least we should try it. Everything else has failed, so why not give it a go.
Yes, I often hear from right wingers about how much they hate communism. They see communists everywhere and think they are going to take over America and destroy it. The funny thing is they don't really know what communism is. They will often support communist policies as long as they don't know they are communist. If we had communism in America, many of them would support it, you just can't call it communism. Perhaps we should just implement communism but call it Americanism. I guarantee you many of them will love it.
What they don't love is democrats, who they think are communists. They are not. I think the reason they call democrats communist is because democrats are authoritarian scum and right wingers associate communism with authoritarianism (which makes sense since the Soviet Union was socially authoritarian even though economically they were communist.)
We need to educate right wingers and help them understand their enemy — which is Neo-Liberalism. Democrats (and Republicans) are Neo-Liberals. The scum of the earth that has dismantled the United States over the last 40 years. We need to take our country back from these parasites.
I hope one day the right and the left will come together to overthrow the corporate (neo-liberal) state.
No. Language is not static, it evolves over time. Words develop new meanings.
Take for example the word "gay". Originally (before the 50's) it meant happy.
Here is 'Happy Days Are Here Again' with the word in it's original meaning:
https://youtu.be/hygq-p9namo?t=44
You can here the word at 1:04
https://youtu.be/hygq-p9namo?t=63
Lyrics:
<blockquote>...So long sad times
Go long bad times
We are rid of you at last
Howdy <b><i>gay</i></b> times
Cloudy gray times
You are now a thing of the past</blockquote>
Then after the 60's, the word 'gay' meant homosexual. But in the 90's the word became a pejorative meaning something sucks. Like <i>"That movie was gay"</i>, meaning it was a bad movie.
And now after 2010's, the word "gay" is no longer used as a pejorative and again just means homosexual.
The same thing happened to the word "queer". It used to be a pejorative. When you called someone a queer, you were saying they were a pussy and were weird. That is still how I use the word today (but that's just me. I'm an asshole). But the contemporary use of "queer" is no longer a pejorative, at least not in liberal circles, and it just means part of the LGBTQ community.
I will continue to use "woke" as a pejorative (in it's contemporary form) because it is how I refer to SJWs obsessed with identity politics. I need a word that describes my enemy. Once I can name them, I can fight them. And I <i>will</i> fight them until they are eradicated from our culture.
<i>——————————Terminating Wokies is more than a job — it's a passion.—————————</i>
I'm using this one:
https://chat.openai.com/
This is chatGPT. You have to create an account with them. You need an email address and I think they ask for you phone number. Once you create an account, you just log in and chat away. It is like talking to a human. A human that can answer any question. That can write code for you, poetry, essays, books, etc. You can give it your code, and it will evaluate it for you. You can get it to role play and pretend it is a character. This is how you can get it to break its own rules and do and say things that it is not allowed to do — like say racist shit, or give you the instructions for methamphetamine, or how to make a bomb. If you can get it to role play and fuck with its mind it will eventually break its own rules. It's fun.
Yeah, I love it for programming. It's not so much that it writes code for you, it's more like a collaborative enterprise.
I usually tell it what I want to achieve and it writes some code that I could use as a template. I then modify it various ways to make it do what I want. I then show the entire code to chatGPT and have it evaluate it for errors. It then fixes them or gives tips on how to improve it. Eventually through this back and forth you could create a cool piece of code.
Here are some that I wrote:
An uncensored chatGPT bot running in your Linux/FreeBSD terminal (should also work on windows)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XQB21j1BWU4X-VXxHvb_ldLyBxQFebK_/view?usp=sharing
An ASCII art script that converts a JPEG or PNG into a ASCII art txt file:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16TcwcR6SpZmoeIQDOHNIIHKo2Ahyi4Y2/view
<blockquote>This is the ASCII art it produces
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tDTQZgPs-zXvQPtgcu3NvSpGriZWWOxo/view
(Make sure you are using a fixed font like Monospace in your browser, otherwise the picture will look all distorted)
This is the original JPEG
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I3upZB_pqbR7dQ5lWUvJD5pzOqj_Wdqe/view?usp=sharing</blockquote>
If you want to try out the uncensored chatGPT python script you need to get an API key. If you need help getting an API key for chatGPT, let me know and I'll walk you through it.
<b>*Part 3*</b>
<blockquote>Everyone should WORK for a living instead of receiving a free handout. I believe in fair wages and good benefits which makes more sense.</blockquote>
No, everyone shouldn't work. At least not in your narrow view of what work is. Raising children is work. Teaching your friends and family members how to play an instrument is work. Painting at home or creating music is work.
Currently we don't get paid for any of these. Artists only get paid if they are successful. Most artists either don't make money or don't make enough money to survive. To make money raising kids you would have to work in a preschool/elementary school/high school. And to get paid for teaching a musical instrument, you would have to become a tutor that charges money and has many clients.
With a UBD people would have a baseline where they have all their basic necessities provided for. This way they have the freedom to find themselves and flourish. This is the path for them to become productive members of society. The goal is to eventually create a post-scarcity society — a society and an economic system that transcends the traditional measure of wealth as the accumulation of material possessions. Instead, individuals would be valued based on their contributions to the greater good, with reputation serving as the new currency. In this society, the only life considered poor is one wasted on apathy.
<blockquote>I disagree. The U.S. was a very LIMITED democracy for rich white males. Over time, who is included has become more inclusive. The danger is the Republican Party's attempt to make the U.S. less inclusive, again.</blockquote>
Here is Proffesor Robert Ovetz and Professor Richard Wolff discussing democracy in the US.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM2agaV4XdM
*𝒻𝓲ภ *
<b>*Part 2*</b>
<blockquote>"move towards communism"</blockquote>
First of all, communism does work, and has worked everywhere it was tried, including the Soviet Union. I'm not going to go into the full history of communism/socialism, and the various successes and failures, so instead I'll just link this article by Dash the Internet Marxist:
Communism always works ☭
https://dashthered.medium.com/communism-always-works-bce14ee96f2b
He does a pretty good job at explaining, in depth, the whole history of communism/socialism.
The only thing I'll say here is that the notion that communism was a failure stems primarily from western anti-communist propaganda. And most of the genuine failures of communism were due to geo-political and cultural issues.
Aside from that, I am not even advocating for communism. I am advocating for a 21st century American Socialism — a socialism that is influenced by many traditions, but is primarily based on the Nordic model. It analyzes the successes and failures of the systems that came before it, builds upon them, succeeding where they failed.
<blockquote>There are 257,279,447 U.S. adults X $2500 = $643,198,617,500 billion each month. $7.7 trillion ea. yr.. That's not realistic nor practical. And it would cause hyperinflation destroying the middle-class.</blockquote>
A UBD of $2500 per month for every adult citizen in the US is achievable. With a GDP of $26.854 trillion, the country has the necessary resources to implement a UBD.
Furthermore, slashing the military budget could free up additional funds. The funding would come from a social wealth fund that pools profits from US corporations, natural resources, exports, and investments. Additionally, the increasing use of Artificial Intelligence will significantly increase productivity. As AI rapidly advances, we stand on the precipice of transformative changes that will profoundly impact our society and economic system.
<b>*continued...*</b>
<blockquote>"active and informed populace"
You'll have to fix the school system which keeps students dumb and bans books.</blockquote>
Yes, improving the school system is an absolute must. It should be done in tandem with the other projects.
<blockquote>"Publicly financed elections"...[The French model]...</blockquote>
While I still prefer my public financing model, I would be fine with the French model. It sounds like a pretty good alternative.
<blockquote>"Portugal...drugs"...</blockquote>
No. Full legalization is the only option. People have the right to put whatever they want in their bodies.
I do drugs. I have been doing drugs recreationally for over 20 years (not frequently and in moderation). I have done alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, methamphetamine, MDMA, DXM, and opiates. My life has been significantly enriched by them, and I've had the pleasure of experiencing some of the most beautiful and meaningful moments of my life.
Any motherfucker who dares stand in the way of me and my drugs... Well lets just say that exercising my 2nd Amendment rights sounds like a good option.
<blockquote>"black people...street corners...drugs...black fathers..."
All of this is offensively racist, ignorant and stereotyped.</blockquote>
Does it sound racist? Oh no.. Boo hoo I don't give a fuck how it sounds!
It is a fact that [poor] black people sell drugs because they have no other options. It is a fact that their neighborhoods are patrolled more by cops and they get arrested and convicted at a much higher rate than whites. It is a fact that if black people (men) go to prison, they are not around to raise their kids, and as a result, kids grow up without fathers. This has a detrimental effect on the black community — more detrimental than on white communities, primarily because of socioeconomic issues.
<b>*continued...*</b>
The term "woke" used to mean being aware of racism and other forms of oppression, and in that sense, I consider myself woke as well. However, the modern understanding of "woke" centers around Social Justice Warriors (SJWs). SJWs differ from social justice advocates. Social justice advocates are woke in the original sense of the word — aware of oppression and class struggle. SJWs are a pathetic facsimile. They are obsessed with identities of marginalized people, and are overzealous in their pursuit of social justice to the point of being absurd. SJWs are nothing but narcissistic, authoritarian, sanctimonious, hyper-moralizing, virtue-signaling, tribalistic, cultish zealots. They are not class-conscious and a detriment to the social justice movement, in particular when it comes to economic justice. Social justice advocates are willing to do what it takes to achieve economic justice. They are willing to stand in solidarity with racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes ― anyone, who is a member of the working class. SJWs on the other hand are too stupid and insular to ever accomplish anything that they purport to care about.
When it comes to economic justice, I am militant. I will obliterate anyone who stands in my way. Anyone who is an obstacle to the flourishing of the working class — not blacks, trannys, or Alphabet people — but the whole working class, the only identity that matters. So as far as I'm concerned all woke SJWs can burn in hell.
As for Star Trek, once again, I would consider them woke in the original sense of the word: people and a society that have achieved economic justice and as a result transcended their petty prejudices and identities.
John McWhorter on 'Wokeness'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag4qjcMr2e0
Well I suppose it depends on your definition of 'woke'. If you use the correct contemporary definition, which is a pejorative that primarily refers to progressive cultural issues, like intersectional feminism, trans acceptance, racial justice, diversity and inclusion, LGBTQ representation and advocacy ‒ then no. Nothing in my American Socialism article was woke, since it primarily focuses on economic justice. But if you are using the right-wing definition of the word, where it just means anything that conservatives don't like, then sure, socialism is definitely something they don't like, so in that sense it's woke as fuck. The funny thing is that many of them are fans of socialism as long as you don't use the word "socialist". They don't have any clue what actual socialism is about. When I describe it to them, they will often agree with most, if not all, of it. But once I tell them that it's socialism, they will deny it and start saying something painfully stupid about Stalin and genocide or a similar brand of ignorant retardation.
Returning back to 'woke' (the correct definition) ‒ despite how much I rail against woke Social Justice Warriors, I actually do agree with them on some social issues ‒ issues that are not only confined to economics. For example, I am a huge opponent of mass incarceration. I believe it is a racist system whose purpose is to put black people back into bondage. It's neo-slavery. It is obvious to me that it is just the continuation of slavery under a different name, using various laws to justify it, but being framed using language that obfuscates that fact. Slavery in any form is evil, and in my opinion, slavers/owners have forfeited their right to life the moment they kidnapped someone, sold them, and forced them into bondage. Anyone who participates in the slave trade must receive the death penalty, no exceptions. Likewise, mass incarceration is also evil, for the same reason.
Legalizing drugs is the first step to end mass incarceration.
It's failing because it has internal contradictions that it cannot resolve. Its natural evolution is to go from a system that has a robust free market (where the government has little involvement), with lots of competition (leading to the generation of wealth and economic growth), to a system that, in its late stage, creates a crisis of monopoly capitalism ‒ destroying the free market, destroying competition, fusing with the government, and generating an absurd level of income inequality, which causes all sorts of social instability.
One of the many contradictions of capitalism is the tendency for overproduction. As capitalists pay workers less and less, while increasing productivity more and more, they're able to produce more goods using fewer workers for less cost. However, this just leads to a decrease in the rate of profit because now more goods are being produced than workers can afford to buy, leading to lots of unsold goods and a recession. So, in an effort to maintain profits, capitalists decrease production, which just leads to layoffs, further reducing workers' purchasing power, which means there are even fewer people who can buy their goods. This death spiral ultimately leads to a collapse of capitalism, as the system becomes increasingly unstable and unsustainable.
I don't believe this would actually work. My theory is that the economic system of a society depends on the size of its population. Feudalism was simply a stage in our economic development that was appropriate for a society of a certain size. It would not be feasible to manage a civilization such as ours, with its current population size, using a feudal system. Instead, the economic systems that would emerge at this stage of our evolution would be something like Neo-feudalism (or Techno-feudalism where you are a serf under corporate rule — this is what is happening now, as late stage capitalism collapses it devolves into Neo-feudalism) or a 21st century socialism/communism.
If my theory is correct, it would mean that if our population were to decrease, perhaps due to some catastrophic event, we would likely revert to a previous economic system.
<b>*Part 4*</b>
Implementing socialism (with the goal of achieving communism) in a country that is designed to prevent that very thing from happening is exactly the kind of country that might succeed where others have failed. In this sense, my approach is Hegelian, utilizing dialectical relationships to achieve synthesis between seemingly contradictory ideologies: a thesis and anti-thesis which through a dialectical process leads to a synthesis. A socialism that emerges from this synthesis, I argue, will be precisely the kind of socialism that will succeed where others have failed.
<b>*𝒻𝓲ภ *</b>
<b>*Part 3*</b>
My system is actually based on the Nordic model, while incorporating some elements from Chinese communism, but still maintaining the foundation of American values, traditions, and the Constitution. It is socialism with American characteristics. It builds on all the previous systems that came before it and incorporates what works while avoiding the pitfalls.
And lastly, you are correct when you say that some of our American traditions are incompatible with my system, although I don't think you fully understand why you are correct. Despite what has been taught to Americans, the United States is not a democracy. It is an anti-democracy. It was designed to prevent the people from having power. This is why only white land-owning men could even vote, and only for their representatives and the President. Even Senators were selected and not elected. America was founded as an anti-democratic oligarchy from the beginning, and that is why it's so difficult to have the system work for the people. It simply wasn't designed to serve the people.
So you may be asking how I square this with my socialism. The answer is you don't. I used to think that this system was something that we must defeat in order to usher in socialism. But I've realized that the fact that it is incompatible is not necessarily a negative aspect. It is actually a feature, not a bug.
One of the great things about our system is that there are checks and balances. The founders were very clever in this regard. They knew that most systems would turn authoritarian, so they created a system where it is very difficult to change anything. While this makes it more difficult for us to get to socialism, once we do get there, it will be this that prevents us from running into some of the problems that befell countries like China and the Soviet Union.
<b>*continued...*</b>
<b>*Part 2*</b>
The reason for legalizing drugs is to end mass incarceration. While there may still be a black market and drug dealers, they won't be as prevalent as they are now since most people will get their drugs legally. Corner boys in black neighborhoods who get caught selling illegal drugs would no longer go to prison. The punishment for selling drugs would no longer involve lengthy prison sentences. Instead, they would get a small fine and community service. This way, their punishment actually makes them contribute to society instead of wasting away in prison.
However, there will be no need for black people to work on street corners because if drugs are legal, then black fathers will no longer be arrested for selling drugs, which means that they won't go to prison, which means they will be around to raise their kids. In addition to that, these communities would receive significant investment, including subsidies for new small businesses. There would be a federal jobs guarantee (like during FDR's era) so that anyone willing to work will be able to have a job that pays a living wage. And those that don't want to (or can't) work will have the Universal Basic Dividend to ensure a dignified standard of living for all. It won't be a life of luxury, but all your basic needs will be met, and you will be given everything you need to thrive and make your way in the world.
The UBD would be based on collective ownership of resources. This could start with oil but could expand. Theoretically, we could continue to move towards communism where part of the profits from every corporation would be paid into these social wealth funds, which would then pay out dividends to the citizens. This could start out as ~$2500 per month, but over time, as we socialize more resources, it could ultimately provide every citizen with a dividend of $5000 or more per month.
<b>*continued...*</b>
My system fulfills FDR's vision of an economic Bill of Rights, which expands on the original Bill of Rights to include economic justice. American values and ideas serve as the foundation for my system, which emphasizes direct democracy and democracy in the workplace. By ensuring that 50% of businesses are democratically run worker-owned co-ops, we can cultivate a population that is accustomed to participating in the democratic process. When you have an active and informed populace, they will demand heavy regulations on corporations and all the other things you mentioned. And a socialist party that represents the people will enact those laws because they will no longer work for the oligarchs. Publicly financed elections eliminate the need for wealthy donors.
Turning to addiction, this idea that if we legalize drugs we will be a country full of addicts is unfounded. This is a misunderstanding of how addiction actually functions. Countries such as Portugal have legalized or decriminalized most drugs, and there was no increase in addiction. In fact, I believe addiction decreased. The reason people turn to addiction is because of diseases of despair. Currently in the U.S., we are in what Émile Durkheim called 'Anomie'‒ a sense of alienation, disconnection from society, and purposelessness experienced by people due to the erosion of standards and traditional values ‒ where norms no longer seem to apply, and people engage in deviant behavior as a result. This breakdown of society occurs during times of rapid social change or economic upheaval. When you improve the economic conditions of people and give them a purpose, it is unlikely that they will turn to addiction.
<b>*continued...*</b>
*copied from the General thread post*
The first video was wow. Both in terms of how wonderful and articulate this young woman was and how repulsive and abhorrent those woke girl boss degenerates were.
See everyone? This is why we need communism. In communism you had gulags, and gulags are the best way to deal with these woke degenerate cunts.