Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 11
No. of Recommendations: 3
But Vance knows that the MAGA base is insulated from factual reporting, so they won't know that Trump called Kamala a fascist...and a commie...and a stupid woman.
Trump and Vance have a real advantage in having such an insulated base. They can get away with shit that a Dem cannot.
It is asymmetrical political warfare.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 3
She can't be both. They are incompatible economic philosophies.
Nope. Both rely on top-down control of the economy. Neither are any good.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Incorrect. Marxist philosophy relies on NO control. It's a "dictatorship of the proletariat". No one is in charge, so there is no "top-down".
You may be thinking of state socialism, similar to what the USSR had, and China (until they made their "communist compromise with capitalism"). That is NOT Marxism.
Though Marxism also isn't good, but for very different reasons than fascism or state socialism.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Marxist philosophy relies on NO control. It's a "dictatorship of the proletariat". No one is in charge, so there is no "top-down".
...but in practice relies on an authoritarian government to implement. This is now called Marxist-Leninist.
So to be pedantic about it Trump should have called her that instead.
No. of Recommendations: 5
It's never been "in practice". Without the dictatorship of the proletariat, you do not have Marxism.
Which is one of the problems with Marxism. Someone has to set the wheels in motion for a societal change of that sort, but once that person has that power, they don't give it up. Lenin didn't. Mao didn't. So you do end up with an authoritarian state which is not Marxist, and not even really communist. The USSR tried to make a show of workers sharing everything, but it wasn't ever really communism. China quickly realized that, and made their compromise with capitalism pretty early-on, which is why -one reason- their economy is generally better than the Russians' (even before the breakup of the USSR).
In both cases, the state owned the means of production (to varying extents), so it was a form of socialism. Compare and contrast to fascism where the state controls industry, but doesn't own it, and workers are paid in a more capitalistic fashion.
Harris is neither a Marxist, nor a communist, nor a fascist, nor an authoritarian. Her policies seem to be more pro-business than Biden's, in fact, but she still favors UHC and other left-leaning policies. And she favors democracy.
No. of Recommendations: 2
It's never been "in practice". Without the dictatorship of the proletariat, you do not have Marxism.
Marxism as put forth by Marx and Engels has several fatal flaws, one of which is the fact that nation-states exist and the cultural bonds between citizens of those states trumps any international sense of economic class, especially since "rich" and "poor" mean different things when one crosses borders. Marxism was never going to be a thing.
But state-sponsored Marxism...definitely was, and this was seen in Communist Russia, China and the Eastern Bloc. Then you had similar in-goal authoritarian states such as Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany that merely took the tops-down economic control and added an extreme racial/nationalistic flavor to it. And decided that instead of dissolving corporations that they were instead tools to be co-opted and used as engines of the state.
Harris is neither a Marxist, nor a communist, nor a fascist, nor an authoritarian. Her policies seem to be more pro-business than Biden's, in fact, but she still favors UHC and other left-leaning policies. And she favors democracy.
Harris' ideas for the economy are so nonsensical they defy being placed in a category. Suing companies for "price gouging" when their margins are 1-2% is...nonsensical, as I said. Her notions of "let's build everyone a house" and "let's give everyone x or y" or your typical collectivist tax-and-spend nonsense you see from democrats.
And she favors democracy when "democracy" favors her. Hillary!, one of the biggest slingers of disinformation ever, now favors people for spreading "disinformation".
No. of Recommendations: 3
The USSR tried to make a show of workers sharing everything, but it wasn't ever really communism.
I agree, didn't look like communism to me, but there seems to be some agreement that the short period of time where there was no private property qualified to be communist. Socialism was supposed to be a transition state to communism, but it looks like it always breaks down into authoritarianism.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Suing companies for "price gouging" when their margins are 1-2% is...nonsensical
Price gouging did exist, but margins in July returned to pre-pandemic levels - see the effect? Trump wants to claim he did that. :)
