Example of how Capitalists impose harm upon the poor DIRECTLY...

[Scott Mayers]

[This is for those lately on this site arguing for how Capitalism serves to lift up the poor as though Corporations have virtuous intentions.]

I'm presently watching the news and discovered WHY certain stores in my 'inner city' areas are closing and not returning:

Loblaws, the company of "SuperStore", "Extra Foods", and now, "No Frills", had ownership of two known stores of which one closed a few years back and another is closing soon. The area seemed to NEED these stores but for some reason, these stores closed AND, what I discovered that is most disturbing, ....Loblaws uses contracts to the new buyers that NO STORE can replace the owner's purchases EVEN IF IT IS IN DEMAND!

This proves a good example of the 'legal' abuses in our system that permits Corporations to manipulate means to FORCE unnatural FAVOR for them. The means of LOCKING OUT NEW stores is done by buying out major store locations and, when or where they fall below expected profits, they close the ones in the inner cities (not necessarily poor here in Canada, ....yet).

[jayjacobus]

[This is for those lately on this site arguing for how Capitalism serves to lift up the poor as though Corporations have virtuous intentions.]

I'm presently watching the news and discovered WHY certain stores in my 'inner city' areas are closing and not returning:

Loblaws, the company of "SuperStore", "Extra Foods", and now, "No Frills", had ownership of two known stores of which one closed a few years back and another is closing soon. The area seemed to NEED these stores but for some reason, these stores closed AND, what I discovered that is most disturbing, ....Loblaws uses contracts to the new buyers that NO STORE can replace the owner's purchases EVEN IF IT IS IN DEMAND!

This proves a good example of the 'legal' abuses in our system that permits Corporations to manipulate means to FORCE unnatural FAVOR for them. The means of LOCKING OUT NEW stores is done by buying out major store locations and, when or where they fall below expected profits, they close the ones in the inner cities (not necessarily poor here in Canada, ....yet).

At one time, the local communities decided what could be done in their communities. They weren't always fair to out of town land owners but they considered what was best for their citizens.

The law, often out of town law, backed the out of town landowners and In doing so allowed the out of town landowners to take profits out of the town and this is what supermarket owners did.

Had small grocery stores, owned by people who lived in town, been supported and kept in business, the town's people would have benefited by from the flow of money in the town. The town's people didn't get any benefit from the profit money flowing out of town.

Superstores offer reasonable prices but once they have gotten all that they want, they leave town and take what isn't nailed down.

[Immanuel Can]

Example of how Socialists impose harm upon the poor directly...

North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Albania, Cuba, Russia, China, and every other Socialist society that has ever existed. Now it's also Canada, the USA, Great Britain...because to the measure that the Socialists hold sway, they are decaying at the roots. And to the measure that the Socialists don't, they are doing much better than the former countries.

[jayjacobus]

Example of how Socialists impose harm upon the poor directly...

North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Albania, Cuba, Russia, China, and every other Socialist society that has ever existed. Now it's also Canada, the USA, Great Britain...because to the measure that the Socialists hold sway, they are decaying at the roots. And to the measure that the Socialists don't, they are doing much better than the former countries.

Wealthy people prefer to be taxed rather than giving directly to less privileged people.

But they don't want to give to less privileged people and they don't want to be taxed. They want less privileged people to go away so they can eat their truffles and caviar in peace.

Socialism is not the cure for wealthy people nor is it a cheap way to help citizens in need.

[Immanuel Can]

Wealthy people prefer to be taxed rather than giving directly to less privileged people.

That's because wealthy people, like Biden, Pelosi, Sanders,Trudeau, the Davos group and so on, have offshore accounts and investment gurus to shelter their money from the taxes they impose on the middle and lower classes. So the taxes only hit the "less privilileged" people, who don't have these strategies available to them or who don't have the surplus income to put into them.

What these Socialist totalitarians want is the right to play games with *your* money, not their own.

If it were otherwise, then they would already have donated their fortunes to the common good. They would never have an offshore account anywhere, and would not have any tax-shelters. After all, taxes, they tell us, are good.

But they don't want to give to less privileged people and they don't want to be taxed. They want less privileged people to go away so they can eat their truffles and caviar in peace.

It's worse. They don't want us to "go away" at all. They want to have their truffles and caviar, but they want also to have power and influence. They want to play "social engineer," and be able to do with everybody else's money.

[Age]

Wealthy people prefer to be taxed rather than giving directly to less privileged people.

That's because wealthy people, like Biden, Pelosi, Sanders,Trudeau, the Davos group and so on, have offshore accounts and investment gurus to shelter their money from the taxes they impose on the middle and lower classes. So the taxes only hit the "less privilileged" people, who don't have these strategies available to them or who don't have the surplus income to put into them.

What these Socialist totalitarians want is the right to play games with *your* money, not their own.

If it were otherwise, then they would already have donated their fortunes to the common good.

What is this so-called 'common good', of which you speak of here?

And, is there absolutely NO one within that 'common good' who would steal or misuse donated money there?

They would never have an offshore account anywhere, and would not have any tax-shelters. After all, taxes, they tell us, are good.

But they don't want to give to less privileged people and they don't want to be taxed. They want less privileged people to go away so they can eat their truffles and caviar in peace.

It's worse. They don't want us to "go away" at all. They want to have their truffles and caviar, but they want also to have power and influence. They want to play "social engineer," and be able to do with everybody else's money.

[Scott Mayers]

Example of how Socialists impose harm upon the poor directly...

North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Albania, Cuba, Russia, China, and every other Socialist society that has ever existed. Now it's also Canada, the USA, Great Britain...because to the measure that the Socialists hold sway, they are decaying at the roots. And to the measure that the Socialists don't, they are doing much better than the former countries.

:roll

If you respond, respond to the material content, thank you. This is a critique of capitalism, not an argument regarding socialism; A rational capitalist would be welcoming to self-reflect upon the abuses of this system. If you are actually so dumb as to think that capitalism is not flawed or that governments can actually exist without any socialist ideals in our MIXED government systems, you are as equally as cruel and intolerant as those 'socialist' countries you think you know.

Note that propaganda is FAR MORE powerfully antirational and dangerous in the West than it EVER has been in any of the Eastern 'socialist' systems. 'Non-socialist' factors of governments are pro-dictatorship. If it is not socialist, the system is a dictatorship. "Non-social" implies one is a 'loner'; A con artist is the greatest example of a "Capitalist": they don't welcome anyone interfering in their scams and so would not welcome 'social' intervention in their affairs.

[Immanuel Can]

Example of how Socialists impose harm upon the poor directly...

North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Albania, Cuba, Russia, China, and every other Socialist society that has ever existed. Now it's also Canada, the USA, Great Britain...because to the measure that the Socialists hold sway, they are decaying at the roots. And to the measure that the Socialists don't, they are doing much better than the former countries.

:roll

Well, you know it's true. It's only in 100% of the cases that have ever existed.

Oh, and hey...here's another. BLM, an organization claiming to represent the poor and oppressed, an organization whose founders and original member pride themselves as "trained Marxists" (their term), has received donations in excess of 90 million last year. How many neighbourhoods in Chicago or Baltimore or Atlanta or Los Angeles has BLM "blessed" with that money?

Orwell was right. Socialists don't love the poor; they just hate the rich -- and, he could have added, want free stuff for themselves.

[Scott Mayers]

Example of how Socialists impose harm upon the poor directly...

North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Albania, Cuba, Russia, China, and every other Socialist society that has ever existed. Now it's also Canada, the USA, Great Britain...because to the measure that the Socialists hold sway, they are decaying at the roots. And to the measure that the Socialists don't, they are doing much better than the former countries.

:roll

Well, you know it's true. It's only in 100% of the cases that have ever existed.

Oh, and hey...here's another. BLM, an organization claiming to represent the poor and oppressed, an organization whose founders and original member pride themselves as "trained Marxists" (their term), has received donations in excess of 90 million last year. How many neighbourhoods in Chicago or Baltimore or Atlanta or Los Angeles has BLM "blessed" with that money?

Orwell was right. Socialists don't love the poor; they just hate the rich -- and, he could have added, want free stuff for themselves.

When making such blatant claims, you require proving these extreme claims as FACTS to me before using them to declare some validity to your logic. Given I don't accept your input assumptions, I cannot soundly infer anything from you.

I hold to siding with the DEMOCRATIC majority due only to the increased numbers of people who are satisfied, not to some arrogant belief that one's monetary power represents their intrinsic value to us all. How does it benefit the majority to favor the SPECIFIC minorities of those in contemporary power just because one is born under their rule?

You are indirectly arguing for a position that CAUSES the very division that the present paradigm of Western religious 'Left' is propogating from the perspective of a right-wing demogogue. When the victims, however in error they are regarding wholes, are counter-discriminating due to how capitalist extremes favor the abusive ideal of favoring one's own while simultanously encouraging increased populations of the poor elsewhere (your religious beliefs against things like abortion are intentionally to prop your own power up by contrast: Making anti-abortion laws, for instance, fosters one's own wealthy class to populate where they have a tendency to have less children while imposing the poor to accept DISTRIBUTING their poverty by requiring they KEEP their children making the demands by those in power (however it came about) easier to acquire and keep.

[Scott Mayers]

Example 2: for how capitalism imposes harm...

A belief that it is FAIR to utilize intentional deception upon others in order to profit from another.

While simply stated, there are too many instances that qualify. In general, advertising, media ownership rights (any 'media', like owning tranportation routes as well as the normal information highways).

My sample instance will be the tiny page of writing that flashes for a part of a second on car and drug commercials that caveate everything they asserted as being 'qualified' (defined to permit one to redefine what one says as opposite or contrary to the intentional misleading claims.) To this day, they have expanded this legal requirement in the written part by being permitted to make it even smaller than the traditional cathode-tube resolution. Even though the present 1080i o 1080p is the standard, they are actually using 4K that is downscaled (and then reupscaled for those with 4K resolution). So basically, anyone with a normal 1080p/i literal screen will by unable to read the caveate page of disclaimers!

Why, if corporate ethics is supposedly more fair, do they need deception at all? Of course it would be harder to 'sell'. But ethically, isn't it better that we are sold fair? And .....why is the caveates (disclaimers, etc) needed such that we are EXPECTED to trust (gamble) in them but THEY ALWAYS act as though WE, the consumer are more likely to fuck them over?

[Scott Mayers]

Example 3: Commercials/Informercials that sell to us product that assert being made at home but presented in dollars of a country that generally has a higher dollar worth. Example,

a product sold as "Canadian Made X....$19.99 USD" when the exchange rate adjusted turns this into (?) say, $29.99 CAN when billed.

They also often add that they will send a second one 'free' ....you just have to pay the extra shipping and handling.

While such overt advertising may be obvious to question as real, the reality is that this dumbs down the audience's expectation. Fox News was set up intentionally rag magazine like this way. Yet we've witnessed such absurd political advocacy by right-wing nutcases who literally think these ARE real news networks? The 'legal' loophole is only that the liability is left with the audience and not the seller, ....thus, demonstrating a means to legally con or lie to consumers while simultaneously formally entrapping the consumer into real liability as a default. [The consumer must be the one to sue if needed: the cost of the consumer's burden to do this cost more than the product or service's potential 'win' in court making it unfeasible for the consumer to be compensated where necessary.]

[Immanuel Can]

:roll

Well, you know it's true. It's only in 100% of the cases that have ever existed.

Oh, and hey...here's another. BLM, an organization claiming to represent the poor and oppressed, an organization whose founders and original member pride themselves as "trained Marxists" (their term), has received donations in excess of 90 million last year. How many neighbourhoods in Chicago or Baltimore or Atlanta or Los Angeles has BLM "blessed" with that money?

Orwell was right. Socialists don't love the poor; they just hate the rich -- and, he could have added, want free stuff for themselves.

When making such blatant claims, you require proving these extreme claims as FACTS to me

Okay. https://nypost.com/2021/02/24/black-liv ... last-year/

You are indirectly arguing for a position that CAUSES the very division that the present paradigm of Western religious 'Left' is propogating from the perspective of a right-wing demogogue.

Not at all. I'm asking why Socialists are so rotten to the poor. That means I'm advocating FOR the poor, against the Socialist propagandists, asking why they never seem to help the people they always claim to advocate for.

That would seem a rather "Socialist" concern -- if only they were as concerned.

[Scott Mayers]

Well, you know it's true. It's only in 100% of the cases that have ever existed.

Oh, and hey...here's another. BLM, an organization claiming to represent the poor and oppressed, an organization whose founders and original member pride themselves as "trained Marxists" (their term), has received donations in excess of 90 million last year. How many neighbourhoods in Chicago or Baltimore or Atlanta or Los Angeles has BLM "blessed" with that money?

Orwell was right. Socialists don't love the poor; they just hate the rich -- and, he could have added, want free stuff for themselves.

When making such blatant claims, you require proving these extreme claims as FACTS to me

Okay. https://nypost.com/2021/02/24/black-liv ... last-year/

You are indirectly arguing for a position that CAUSES the very division that the present paradigm of Western religious 'Left' is propogating from the perspective of a right-wing demogogue.

Not at all. I'm asking why Socialists are so rotten to the poor. That means I'm advocating FOR the poor, against the Socialist propagandists, asking why they never seem to help the people they always claim to advocate for.

That would seem a rather "Socialist" concern -- if only they were as concerned.

Why the fuck would anyone opt to ever select favoring ANY ideal defined to serve people? That is, even if SOME "Socialist" systems have flaws, it would require a LEADERSHIP con who favors 'capitalizing' on pretending to BE 'socialist'; In contrast, Capitalism is defined as a self-serving concept, to which IF there are anyone interested in the ideal, those who are horrific are to be EXPECTED by default of its very philosophy.

Note that the present war with Ukraine is based upon Putin recognizing how Trump's rightwing strategy and cons have worked to appeal to stupid people and hides accountability. Thus, it emboldened him to CAPITALIZE upon the West's own behavior based upon its own ideal. Both Ukraine and Russia are 'capitalist'.

The reason for the problems with post Communist countries is due to the very problem of capitalism. When you suddenly switch to something capitalist where ownership didn't exist for generations, HOW do you think they distributed who gets what? They didn't; in their newly recognized wisdom, those in power recognized that they should 'capitalize' on taking first dibs on the claims. So you get an aristocrasy/oligarchy of absurdly powerful rich capitalists EXPLOITING others in a way that the corporate world envies in kind.

This thread was opened to point out how DECEPTION is normalized here under capitalism as though it were a virtue. Yet it is THIS VERY FUCKING FACTOR that is and has always caused all wars, hate, and destruction. The ideals of the 'socialist' is for the poor where the ideals of 'capitalism' is for the wealthy. We need some of each because politics is NOT POSSIBLE TO RECONCILE logically. But your stance is absurdly one-sided and falsely maligns the ideal as defined. While it COULD be impossible to create the ideal in total, the people who cause the problems are the NOT representative of the ideal because they are NON-socialist opportunist who capitalize upon government positions in order to exploit the whole. If it is impossible, it is due to the ugly fact that we are naturally motivated (and emotivated) to be greedy.

Selfishness is the norm of evolution that doesn't want others interfering in that freedom. However, it is anti-civil and favors killing in a world we are trying to progress beyond our cavemen brains. So this thread is meant to point out how the power of the capitalist has the default capacity to deceive others. Without the 'social' concept of government with its means to regulate abuses, everything is 'free' capitalistically as it is for all the wild animals.

The 'freedom' in capitalism is the freedom to deceive and exploit and this freedom belongs to those with the power of wealth to command it. But it is the socialism, of which Christianity was born from by the way, that embraces utilizing government to HELP others to be 'socially' fair to one another with priority. We don't WANT anything infringing on our absolute freedom by default. But because it always has greater force for living beings in deciding what we do individually, we need a check on this by others.

[Immanuel Can]

Note that the present war with Ukraine is based upon Putin recognizing how Trump's rightwing strategy and cons have worked to appeal to stupid people and hides accountability.

I'm not interested in Trump here, but I have to say I find that comment hilarious.

So...Putin doesn't invade anybody while Trump's president. Then Biden becomes president, and he "becomes emboldened" invades Ukraine. Which is Trump's fault.

Very, very entertaining.

The reason for the problems with post Communist countries is due to the very problem of capitalism.

Nope.

Communist states have always had a free hand in their own territory. And look what they do with it? Their record speaks for itself. Stalin's killing of at least 12 million, and Mao's of many, many more, and the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and the starving gnomes of North Korea...

And your explanation is, "It's capitalism's fault?"

[Scott Mayers]

Note that the present war with Ukraine is based upon Putin recognizing how Trump's rightwing strategy and cons have worked to appeal to stupid people and hides accountability.

I'm not interested in Trump here, but I have to say I find that comment hilarious.

So...Putin doesn't invade anybody while Trump's president. Then Biden becomes president, and he "becomes emboldened" invades Ukraine. Which is Trump's fault.

Very, very entertaining.

And IF you actually believe in your rhetoric, you are retarded.

I'm done with you. You never respond to the specific issues or questions I challenge you with, you focus on politic propaganda for your cult, and just reassure me that you remain intentionally deceptive. Since this is off topic, you're wasting both our times responding back. Bye.