Re: because more people think she's better than him.

You might also like...

On the one hand we must ruthlessly suppress* the uncultured capitalists who refuse to have anything to do with "state capitalism" or to consider any form of compromise, and who continue by means of profiteering, by bribing the poor peasants, etc., to hinder the realisation of the measures taken by the Soviets. On the other hand, we must use the method of compromise, or of buying off the cultured capitalists who agree to "state capitalism", who are capable of putting it into practice and who are useful to the proletariat as intelligent and experienced organisers of the largest types of enterprises, which actually supply products to tens of millions of people.
*In this case also we must look truth in the face. We stlll have too little of that ruthlessness which is indispensable for the success of socialism, and we have too little not because we lack determination. We have sufficient determination. What we do lack is the ablllty to catch quickly enough a sufficient number of proflteers, racketeers and capitalists -- the people who infringe the measures passed by the Soviets. The "ability" to do this can only be acquired by establishing accounting and control! Another thing is that the courts are not sufficiently firm. Instead of sentencing people who take bribes to be shot, they sentence them to six months' imprisonment. These two defects have the same social root: the influence of the petty-bourgeois element, its flabbiness.
,,,
Bukharin is an extremely well-read Marxist economist. He therefore remembered that Marx was profoundly right when he taught the workers the importance of preserving the organisation of large-scale production, precisely for the purpose of facilitating the transition to socialism. Marx taught that (as an exception, and Britain was then an exception) the idea was conceivable of paying the capitalists well, of buying them off, if the circumstances were such as to compel the capitalists to submit peacefully and to come over to socialism in a cultured and organised fashion, provided they were paid.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC18.html

Illych was talking about "compromising" with capitalists who were willing to embrace "state capitalism" and I sure as heck don't see any of those kinds of capitalists around here. I see the other kind. The kind that must be "ruthlessly suppressed."

The "more people might think ..." argument doesn't move me. More people thought Ronald Reagan was the better candidate, more people thought Dick Nixon was the better candidate, more people thought George W. was the better candidate (second term). You're talking about a population that includes a non-trivial number of folks who parade signs reading, "Government Hands Off My Medicare!" I don't follow the herd and you'll never convince me to believe anything based upon "how many people think this." Eight in ten Americans think angels are real. 'Nough said.

Post #408,260 by mmoffitt 2/23/16 8:32:44 AM 2/23/16 8:32:44 AM Reply	Re: because more people think she's better than him. No one ever lost any money betting on the stupidity of the Murican Peeple.
Post #408,262 by Another Scott 2/23/16 9:21:08 AM 2/23/16 9:21:08 AM Reply	So only "good enough" people should vote then? ;-p
Post #408,265 by mmoffitt 2/23/16 11:14:10 AM 2/23/16 11:14:10 AM Reply	I was in a hurry. You might also like... On the one hand we must ruthlessly suppress* the uncultured capitalists who refuse to have anything to do with "state capitalism" or to consider any form of compromise, and who continue by means of profiteering, by bribing the poor peasants, etc., to hinder the realisation of the measures taken by the Soviets. On the other hand, we must use the method of compromise, or of buying off the cultured capitalists who agree to "state capitalism", who are capable of putting it into practice and who are useful to the proletariat as intelligent and experienced organisers of the largest types of enterprises, which actually supply products to tens of millions of people. In this case also we must look truth in the face. We stlll have too little of that ruthlessness which is indispensable for the success of socialism, and we have too little not because we lack determination. We have sufficient determination. What we do lack is the ablllty to catch quickly enough a sufficient number of proflteers, racketeers and capitalists -- the people who infringe the measures passed by the Soviets. The "ability" to do this can only be acquired by establishing accounting and control! Another thing is that the courts are not sufficiently firm. Instead of sentencing people who take bribes to be shot, they sentence them to six months' imprisonment. These two defects have the same social root: the influence of the petty-bourgeois element, its flabbiness. ,,, Bukharin is an extremely well-read Marxist economist. He therefore remembered that Marx was profoundly right when he taught the workers the importance of preserving the organisation of large-scale production, precisely for the purpose of facilitating the transition to socialism. Marx taught that (as an exception, and Britain was then an exception) the idea was conceivable of paying the capitalists well, of buying them off, if the circumstances were such as to compel the capitalists to submit peacefully and to come over to socialism in a cultured and organised fashion, provided they were paid. http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC18.html Illych was talking about "compromising" with capitalists who were willing to embrace "state capitalism"* and I sure as heck don't see any of those kinds of capitalists around here. I see the other kind. The kind that must be "ruthlessly suppressed." The "more people might think ..." argument doesn't move me. More people thought Ronald Reagan was the better candidate, more people thought Dick Nixon was the better candidate, more people thought George W. was the better candidate (second term). You're talking about a population that includes a non-trivial number of folks who parade signs reading, "Government Hands Off My Medicare!" I don't follow the herd and you'll never convince me to believe anything based upon "how many people think this." Eight in ten Americans think angels are real. 'Nough said.
Post #408,266 by Another Scott 2/23/16 11:21:28 AM 2/23/16 11:21:28 AM Reply	Fair enough. People make mistakes. Film at 11. ;-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!