Maybe we might have a better engagement in that thread I posted. Thank you for linking it so that it gets more exposure.

So you’re a worker. And you sell your labor.

You aren’t a capitalist.

So to go back and reiterate, I was pointing out how much of a pleasant surprise Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have been compared to Sotomayor and Kagan. Trump basically won his election by entering into a dark bargain with the religious right and offering them up staunch federalist society approved candidates even though Trump himself was rather obviously pro-choice at heart. And even with that scrutinizing, Trump's first two picks at least have established themselves as having sincere philosophical beliefs of jurisprudence and as a result have openly sided against Trump and the Republicans when they went against those principles. They aren't just party line hacks rubber stamping anything the Republicans want. Unlike Kagan and Sotomayor who basically serve no intellectual purpose and exist only to cast predetermined votes. I haven't had time to really evaluated Amy Coney Barrett so I can't say the same about her, good or bad. But its also to the credit of the Federalist Society themselves, showing their interest was is sincere convictions and beliefs, not naked partisan ambition.
But at any rate, despite the court's long history of colorful and independent minded liberal justices and even the evolving views of some who shifted liberal, its been a deep disappointment how shallow the liberal wing was, and it was reduced to Breyer being the only one willing to actually follow his conscience and judicial pragmatism even if it meant voting against his allies. He was the lone centrist liberal, paired with Roberts. Didn't get enough respect that he deserved, and its hard to imagine that any replacement in 2022 is going to exercise the same level of independence, especially if they're chosen by racist quota fillers.

If any democrat still in the party had a realistic chance of appointing a reasonable liberal voice, I would have said it would be Joe Biden, but the incompetence of his first year and the fact he sold his soul to far darker elements, and has already promised himself to filling that racist quota, makes holding out hope on Joe like holding your breath. But I guess the other side of this is, in a few years we'll forget all about Joe "Who?" Biden and still be talking about justice childs or whoever. Although I must say if he tries to nominate someone like judge jackson it would send the republicans into a furor and they might try to bork her

Hello again!

the fundamentals of Capitalism are unlimited economic mobility without the need for government to approve of it -- you own your own financial future. I don't believe owning a business requires that, but rather, it's simply about making your time worth as much as possible through skills and merit. There are many non-business owners making 7+ figures as well.

The difference between Capitalism and Communism is that a Capitalist earns their keep on their own merits. Communists just believe they should have to do as little as possible for the most profit (there are truly internet forums dedicated to this theme). That's why the Capitalist usually ends up financially secure and the Communist...... not so much in America.

I welcome your thoughts

This post was edited by CyrusTheGreat on Jan 27 2022 02:00pm

Your first paragraph is literally describing Marxism while calling it capitalism.

Your second sentence is silly. If the unproductive parasitic capitalist is no longer feasting on 99% of the value projected by the laborer, then the laborer needs to work less to earn more. The capitalist is financially secure only because of the laborer.

A capitalist is somebody who owns capital and invests capital to make their living.

Somebody who works for a wage is not a capitalist.

cap·i·tal·ist
/ˈkapədləst/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.
"the creation of the factory system by nineteenth-century capitalists"

"Your first paragraph is literally describing Marxism while calling it capitalism."

Well, no - I am describing the capitalist society I live in and what has allowed me to succeed through simply those traits. I think we see far too often these days that in Colleges, they are attempting to blur the line between both in order to hopefully usher in Marxism (which is never happening on US soil), but those are simply fallacies.

"Your second sentence is silly. If the unproductive parasitic capitalist is no longer feasting on 99% of the value projected by the laborer, then the laborer needs to work less to earn more. The capitalist is financially secure only because of the laborer."

Describe an "unproductive parasitic capitalist", please. You do know the CEO of companies themselves work 18+ hour days, right?

CEOs are generally laborers, not capitalists.

You don’t seem to understand what Marxism is. Give me a basic definition of what you think it is, please.

(You also don’t understand the word capitalism but I’ll save the correction for later)

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Jan 27 2022 03:57pm

CEOs are highly paid and given many privileges specifically so that they side with the capitalist owners rather than their underlings. Or conversely: an employee who has a history of putting class solidarity ahead of profits or his own career will never be allowed to reach the C-suite.

I gave one prior, but, sure:

Marxism is the forcible taking with government backing of resources and capital that one didn't earn (and if you as a successful individual dissented against this form of theft, the government simply authorized the ending of your life). If you didn't create the business / take said risks, you have no right to anything Marxism tells you that you do. That's just a core fact.

Capitalism has nothing to do with business ownership and I think you don't understand the true meaning of it. Capitalism at the core (as I said before) offers any person the means to decide what they want for their life and does not limit them on economic mobility without government approval. Not everyone wants to be a CEO, not everyone wants to own a business, but those with innovative and ground-breaking ideas can go from rags to millions very quickly (unlike in a Marxist society, where the only government-approved millionaires are the friends of the administration).

As I also said prior, you don't have to own a business in a capitalist society in order to make a very, very nice living. I literally live it.

No one is ever getting someone else's money for free -- the story of Robin Hood was just that -- a story, and any student loan payments for one's chosen University career path that had no value will still need to be paid at end of month

This post was edited by CyrusTheGreat on Jan 27 2022 09:40pm