LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Asherahan]

True but then I don't like when people have a choice when their future is concerned.

Then I don't think you support voting at all.

I do the same way the capitalist system does.

[The of Japan]

how do you think US should balance the budget? military certainly needs to be curtailed, but that still leaves a deficit around 400-500 billion a year.

[Cekoviu]

how do you think US should balance the budget? military certainly needs to be curtailed, but that still leaves a deficit around 400-500 billion a year.

Drastically cut military spending and increase taxes; once the debt is mostly repaid, taxes can go to universal healthcare, environment, education, and welfare. That's ideally, of course, since that won't be happening anytime soon.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Never heard of the Iranian Crisis of 1946? Stalin's demands on Turkey that forced the United States to deploy Naval Taskforces to Istanbul?

Yes, but how did that address the issue of communist internationalism? Obviously, it was a failure anyway. The U.S. remained an imperialist power.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Considering the Baltic occupation, the Winter War, the invasion of Poland, and the occupation of all of Eastern Europe, I doubt that.

That is, at best, regionalism, not internationalism.

Probably because Stalin and the Soviet Union were the next threat to the world, as evidenced by the Cold War.
...
You said it yourself, Stalin had just expended considerable human resources and was looking for time to rebuild so he can renew his fight for global supremacy.

The Cold War had not yet started. As to fighting for global supremacy. If, indeed, such a fight took place, Stalin and his successors lost.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

how do you think US should balance the budget? military certainly needs to be curtailed, but that still leaves a deficit around 400-500 billion a year.

Corporate welfare, the war on drugs, surveillance.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

how do you think US should balance the budget? military certainly needs to be curtailed, but that still leaves a deficit around 400-500 billion a year.

Drastically cut military spending and increase taxes; once the debt is mostly repaid, taxes can go to universal healthcare, environment, education, and welfare. That's ideally, of course, since that won't be happening anytime soon.

I can't believe you've done this.

[Cekoviu]

Drastically cut military spending and increase taxes; once the debt is mostly repaid, taxes can go to universal healthcare, environment, education, and welfare. That's ideally, of course, since that won't be happening anytime soon.

I can't believe you've done this.

You know you love it. :^)

[Canadensia]

Why not both?

Well, they both have things to offer. Early Marx was still coming out of his days as a young Hegelian. Old Marx was developing more of an institutional approach to society. Personally, I think that Marx matured with age, as most do, and figured out what worked and what did not.

Perhaps "mature" as in his ideological outlook, although I'd hardly consider an adulterous drunkard who refused to work and mooched off of his best friend until the day he died "mature". Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. Marx the man was a truly deplorable human being with few redeeming qualities.

[Cekoviu]

Well, they both have things to offer. Early Marx was still coming out of his days as a young Hegelian. Old Marx was developing more of an institutional approach to society. Personally, I think that Marx matured with age, as most do, and figured out what worked and what did not.

Perhaps "mature" as in his ideological outlook, although I'd hardly consider an adulterous drunkard who refused to work and mooched off of his best friend until the day he died "mature". Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. Marx the man was a truly deplorable human being with few redeeming qualities.

True, Bread Daddy is far better.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Drastically cut military spending and increase taxes; once the debt is mostly repaid, taxes can go to universal healthcare, environment, education, and welfare. That's ideally, of course, since that won't be happening anytime soon.

I can't believe you've done this.

SQUEEZE THE RICH UNTIL THE PIPS SQUEAK

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Considering the Baltic occupation, the Winter War, the invasion of Poland, and the occupation of all of Eastern Europe, I doubt that.

That is, at best, regionalism, not internationalism.

You're really desperate to defend Stalin, aren't you?

Probably because Stalin and the Soviet Union were the next threat to the world, as evidenced by the Cold War.
...
You said it yourself, Stalin had just expended considerable human resources and was looking for time to rebuild so he can renew his fight for global supremacy.

The Cold War had not yet started.

And? The Cold War was a result of the Soviet Union and America vying for global supremacy, and it started as a direct result of Stalin and his successors' agendas.

As to fighting for global supremacy. If, indeed, such a fight took place, Stalin and his successors lost.

No shit Sherlock, we won the Cold War. Of course Stalin and his successors lost.

[Painisia]

I can't believe you've done this.

SQUEEZE THE RICH UNTIL THE PIPS SQUEAK

But what if they have a function in society?

[Arbeitersrepublik]

How do I reveal myself as a socialist to my family? I've been slowly and cautiously dropping pinkopills, such as my opposition to unrestrained capitalism and neoconservatism. How do I fully pinkopill them?

[Pilarcraft]

How do I reveal myself as a socialist to my family? I've been slowly and cautiously dropping pinkopills, such as my opposition to unrestrained capitalism and neoconservatism. How do I fully pinkopill them?

Playing the Internationale with full volume when they're sleeping sounds like a good idea.

[Arbeitersrepublik]

How do I reveal myself as a socialist to my family? I've been slowly and cautiously dropping pinkopills, such as my opposition to unrestrained capitalism and neoconservatism. How do I fully pinkopill them?

Playing the Internationale with full volume when they're sleeping sounds like a good idea.

I actually saw this exact suggestion on r/socialism.
Top comment here https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/2ugnek/how_to_come_out_as_socialist/

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Perhaps "mature" as in his ideological outlook, although I'd hardly consider an adulterous drunkard who refused to work and mooched off of his best friend until the day he died "mature". Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. Marx the man was a truly deplorable human being with few redeeming qualities.

Wow. An ad hominem against the dead. How any of what you wrote is relevant to what I wrote, other than putting you on the losing side of the argument (by definition of ad hominem) is beyond me.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

You're really desperate to defend Stalin, aren't you?

I am defending Stalin? Huh?

My point is that the Cold War could not have been involved in the U.S. decision, since it hadn't started.

As did the bolshevik Revolution fail. My point was that the failure was practically inevitable from the start.

[The of Japan]

how do you think US should balance the budget? military certainly needs to be curtailed, but that still leaves a deficit around 400-500 billion a year.

Corporate welfare, the war on drugs, surveillance.

2nd one for sure. Cant believe how so many think it is good idea. It has been a total disaster, costing money, putting more in jail, increasing violent crime, etc.

[Painisia]

Which ideology do you all from this thread align me with?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Which ideology do you all from this thread align me with?

[Oil exporting People]

Never heard of the Iranian Crisis of 1946? Stalin's demands on Turkey that forced the United States to deploy Naval Taskforces to Istanbul?

Yes, but how did that address the issue of communist internationalism? Obviously, it was a failure anyway. The U.S. remained an imperialist power.

What?

[Oil exporting People]

2nd one for sure. Cant believe how so many think it is good idea. It has been a total disaster, costing money, putting more in jail, increasing violent crime, etc.

No, that's all completely false:

It's hard to determine what the "success" or "failure" of drug prohibition really means, but if the question is what was it's impact by various objective measures, that's easier to do. In the U.S. violence has fallen by nearly 49%, and drug use has also fallen. Cocaine used to make 160 billion dollars per year on the black market, and now it makes 80 billion dollars, with cocaine use falling by half. Violence is falling and so is drug use, so one would presume that it's at least not making anything worse. In comparison in Portugal for example, a country which decriminalized most drugs, the violence rate has gone up by 60%, and so too has drug use from 8% to 12%, although it dropped back down to 9.5%. Wouldn't you know it, enforcing the law makes the crime go down, not up.

Drugs are generally bad for society for a lot of different reasons. Even legal drugs, such as cigarettes, contributes heavily to our causes of death and drive up medical costs, which is not exactly a good thing. 480,000 people die a year from cigarettes, out of 2.6 million total deaths, or 18.5%, and smokers take up a disproportionate number of the government healthcare costs to society. Smoking on average kills people 10-25 years faster than they should, and it's legal. On top of the obvious health problems, drugs also tend to increase crime. Approximately 9.4% of the population take illegal drugs on a regular basis, however 46.7% of violent criminals and 48.9% of murderers are classified as drug dependent. [1][2] Even marijuana which many view as harmless has a tendency to spike violent crimes, with 14.6% of all regular marijuana users committing violent crimes, in comparison to 6.3% of alcoholics, 4.8% of alcohol users, and 2.7% of people who took no drugs at all. In Portugal, when they decriminalized drug use, violent crime rates went up by 60%, which is to be expected when one considers that violent crimes are often caused by drug use.

To dispel another myth, only 16.3% of all people in prison are for drug related crimes (mostly committing a crime while on drugs), and 3.7% are in for possession alone, most of which is drug trafficking. 53.8% are in for violent crimes, and 18.8% percent for property offenses or theft. So the notion that the prisons are just full of mostly non-violent drug offenders is well, false. The federal bureau shows a figure of 50%, but the number of federal prisoners is close to 200,000 people, in comparison to the 1.6 million+ other prisoners when local and state prisons are included.


Finally, we get to the supposed harmlessness of taking drugs. Other than the obvious health problems of things like say cocaine, heroine, meth and so on, there's also health problems from marijuana. The most obvious is lung disease caused by inhaling smoke [1][2][3], but marijuana also decreases the blood pressure while increasing the heart rate, which puts a lot of strain on the heart. You're 4.8 times more likely to have a heart attack while consuming marijuana, and your chance of heart disease is roughly trippled. While overdoses are rare, they are also rare with cigarettes, but that doesn't men there is no chance of death. Car accidents, crime and long term damage like heart disease or cancer can also result, which kills far more people in general than overdoses. Marijuana also can't cure cancer, which is another can of worms, but the skinny of it is the source most of the pro-marijuana websites source actually says marijuana can't cure cancer. 600,000 people die from heart disease and another 600,000 from cancer, a large chunk of it caused by drugs or made worse by it. Cigarettes and other drugs are said to have of 10-25 years from your life on average, and can shave off more. The reality is drug use is not harmless even if overdoses are rare, and in general legalizing highly addictive poisons that alters one state of mind is probably a bad idea. I can get on board with the idea of having more of an emphasis on rehabilitation over incarceration, but we should not be permissive either.

[Conserative Morality]

2nd one for sure. Cant believe how so many think it is good idea. It has been a total disaster, costing money, putting more in jail, increasing violent crime, etc.

No, that's all completely false:

It's hard to determine what the "success" or "failure" of drug prohibition really means, but if the question is what was it's impact by various objective measures, that's easier to do. In the U.S. violence has fallen by nearly 49%, and drug use has also fallen. Cocaine used to make 160 billion dollars per year on the black market, and now it makes 80 billion dollars, with cocaine use falling by half. Violence is falling and so is drug use, so one would presume that it's at least not making anything worse. In comparison in Portugal for example, a country which decriminalized most drugs, the violence rate has gone up by 60%, and so too has drug use from 8% to 12%, although it dropped back down to 9.5%. Wouldn't you know it, enforcing the law makes the crime go down, not up.

Drugs are generally bad for society for a lot of different reasons. Even legal drugs, such as cigarettes, contributes heavily to our causes of death and drive up medical costs, which is not exactly a good thing. 480,000 people die a year from cigarettes, out of 2.6 million total deaths, or 18.5%, and smokers take up a disproportionate number of the government healthcare costs to society. Smoking on average kills people 10-25 years faster than they should, and it's legal. On top of the obvious health problems, drugs also tend to increase crime. Approximately 9.4% of the population take illegal drugs on a regular basis, however 46.7% of violent criminals and 48.9% of murderers are classified as drug dependent. [1][2] Even marijuana which many view as harmless has a tendency to spike violent crimes, with 14.6% of all regular marijuana users committing violent crimes, in comparison to 6.3% of alcoholics, 4.8% of alcohol users, and 2.7% of people who took no drugs at all. In Portugal, when they decriminalized drug use, violent crime rates went up by 60%, which is to be expected when one considers that violent crimes are often caused by drug use.

To dispel another myth, only 16.3% of all people in prison are for drug related crimes (mostly committing a crime while on drugs), and 3.7% are in for possession alone, most of which is drug trafficking. 53.8% are in for violent crimes, and 18.8% percent for property offenses or theft. So the notion that the prisons are just full of mostly non-violent drug offenders is well, false. The federal bureau shows a figure of 50%, but the number of federal prisoners is close to 200,000 people, in comparison to the 1.6 million+ other prisoners when local and state prisons are included.


Finally, we get to the supposed harmlessness of taking drugs. Other than the obvious health problems of things like say cocaine, heroine, meth and so on, there's also health problems from marijuana. The most obvious is lung disease caused by inhaling smoke [1][2][3], but marijuana also decreases the blood pressure while increasing the heart rate, which puts a lot of strain on the heart. You're 4.8 times more likely to have a heart attack while consuming marijuana, and your chance of heart disease is roughly trippled. While overdoses are rare, they are also rare with cigarettes, but that doesn't men there is no chance of death. Car accidents, crime and long term damage like heart disease or cancer can also result, which kills far more people in general than overdoses. Marijuana also can't cure cancer, which is another can of worms, but the skinny of it is the source most of the pro-marijuana websites source actually says marijuana can't cure cancer. 600,000 people die from heart disease and another 600,000 from cancer, a large chunk of it caused by drugs or made worse by it. Cigarettes and other drugs are said to have of 10-25 years from your life on average, and can shave off more. The reality is drug use is not harmless even if overdoses are rare, and in general legalizing highly addictive poisons that alters one state of mind is probably a bad idea. I can get on board with the idea of having more of an emphasis on rehabilitation over incarceration, but we should not be permissive either.

>> 52% of prisoners in Federal prisoners are on drug charges
>> "I-it's less than a fifth"

lol

Furthermore

According to the ACLU’s original analysis, marijuana arrests now account for over half of all drug arrests in the United States. Of the 8.2 million marijuana arrests between 2001 and 2010, 88% were for simply having marijuana.

But anything to keep 'degeneracy' away. After all, your's is the only kind of degeneracy allowed.

[Jelmatt]

Which ideology do you all from this thread align me with?