EPTtho for the record fuk attempts at socialism, especially by shitty weak countries like pretty much every country thats tried it
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3536
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
tho for the record fuk attempts at socialism, especially by shitty weak countries like pretty much every country thats tried it | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 04 2016 23:23 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: u know just because certain gross inefficiencies and distortions were a factor in one instance of an attempted socialist system struggling doesnt mean theyre necessarily inherent to all attempts at implementing that system tho for the record fuk attempts at socialism, especially by shitty weak countries like pretty much every country thats tried it Yeah, and this is one of the great conceits of the far left: "We know socialism has repeatedly failed, but we'll get it right!" | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 04 2016 23:21 Plansix wrote: I am sorry, I cannot help but roll my eyes as grand, over sweeping declarations like this: I am sure we could add up all the deaths “caused by” the pursuit of democracy and compare it to communism too, if that seemed like a productive thing to do. There is a discussion to be had, but comparing the number of people who died over periods of time is a shit way to prove a point. Yes this comparaison is stupid, I agree with you (I said, below the link, that I disagreed) ; much like the black book of communism. On April 04 2016 23:25 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, and this is one of the great conceits of the far left: "We know socialism has repeatedly failed, but we'll get it right!" Well we would need to define socialism and communism. Socialism as in Fourier's phalanstère or Owen's factories didn't fail, it actually worked a lot, especially in the US. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On April 04 2016 23:25 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, and this is one of the great conceits of the far left: "We know socialism has repeatedly failed, but we'll get it right!" starting with a pretty wealthy and educated society is like a baseline starting point imo for any decent attempt so obviously keep that shit out of the u.s.a pls in my head any semi functional communist society has to come out of a fabulously successful capitalist one | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6271 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23785 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 04 2016 23:25 WhiteDog wrote: Well we should need to define socialism and communism. Socialism as in Fourier's phalanstère or Owen's factories didn't fail, it actually worked a lot, especially in the US. I'm referring more to those who are preoccupied with systems such as Cuba's. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On April 04 2016 23:16 GreenHorizons wrote: How... Ill try to say this very simply. The HVA can give Hillary as much money as it wants, see that they have already given her $4 million+. She can raise money for the HVA. So instead of writing a $33k dollar check to Hillary's campaign, they write it to the HVA. The HVA takes it and divides it. The first chunk fills the FEC limit to Hillary. The next chunk gets dumped into the HVA. The HVA piles up those donations, then hands them back to Hillary to spend as if they were standard campaign donations. So they aren't added to the maxed out total of the person who gave the HVA and Hillary money, instead they are counted as coming from HVA even though HVA was just serving as a pass-through for the donation that the Hillary campaign can't legally accept directly from the original donor. Her campaign staff is the HVA staff, the treasurer is the COO of her campaign. So yes it's all legal with separate accounts and such, that was never my point although you seem insistent on arguing that instead of what I am telling you. As for the tracking, there's several reasons why you can't find anything showing you how much money the Hillary campaign, of the ~$23M they raised last month, or any other month for that matter, came from the HVA. But again that would just be for us, as I've already said several times, there's nothing the FEC could do anyway because using the HVF as a pass through for large donations (while pretty unethical and not great PR) is totally legal. Is that not clear enough? And how is the HVF piling money together and putting it into the Hillary campaign's general funds without it being illegal and obvious? Because it would be both illegal and obvious. Money is tracked and moving it through a couple different hands doesn't change the original source or magically exempt it from limits. If Soros gives 353K and it's moved through the HVF it doesn't magically become magical money that magically appeared in the HVF account-- money is fungible, but the amounts are accounted for. A money trail can be hidden in laundering cases because an auditor does not have all the financial docs, but the FEC does have all the financial docs. If campaigns were companies, they'd be the most financially transparent on Earth, they basically publish their general ledgers every month. No one cares about this because it's a non-issue built on a misunderstanding of accounting and campaign finance. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
On April 04 2016 23:25 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, and this is one of the great conceits of the far left: "We know socialism has repeatedly failed, but we'll get it right!" And this why Sanders' lack of nuance is becoming more and more bothersome; the appropriate argument in favor of socialistic policy implementation in the US regards just that, socialistic policies, rather than "Socialism" in the broad, general sense. The latter is significantly more susceptible to attack by association and through historical relativism like that employed by oneofthem just a page ago. The former, however, requires a degree of nuance in critique that most politically active US citizens simply do not have the acumen to implement; one can thank our distended approach to humanities education for that. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
the meaning of socialism changed several times, and means something different in almost every country. communism is a bit clearer on what is meant, but there are also wildly varying types of implementation attempts in the current american public discourse "socialism" seems to mean reform socialism as proposed by the german left wing parties at the turn of the 20th century: labour organisations, voting and reforms in a capitalist system to strive for equality and social integration of the working class (reducing the divide of capital owners and wage labourers), common reforms are: legislated labour bargaining rights, general welfare (health, housing support, monetary support) for children and elderly, job training (community colleges, vocational schools, trade apprenticeships etc pp) and health care for the working age population somehow the word is also used to frame those things it is supposed to mean in a bad light by saying it invariably leads to starving by politcal oppression through the creation of колхоз this is disingenious and poisons the well | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 04 2016 23:30 xDaunt wrote: I'm referring more to those who are preoccupied with systems such as Cuba's. Yeah, the people that defend that kind of systems are one-eyed, partially blinded by some kind of grandiose and artificial sense of moral superiority. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 04 2016 23:34 puerk wrote: can we please, please, please, sometime soon, start in any way using accurate descriptors for what we mean? the meaning of socialism changed several times, and means something different in almost every country. communism is a bit clearer on what is meant, but there are also wildly varying types of implementation attempts in the current american public discourse "socialism" seems to mean reform socialism as proposed by the german left wing parties at the turn of the 20th century: labour organisations, voting and reforms in a capitalist system to strive for equality and social integration of the working class (reducing the divide of capital owners and wage labourers), common reforms are: legislated labour bargaining rights, general welfare (health, housing support, monetary support) for children and elderly, job training (community colleges, vocational schools, trade apprenticeships etc pp) and health care for the working age population somehow the word is also used to frame those things it is supposed to mean in a bad light by saying it invariably leads to starving by politcal oppression through the creation of колхоз this is disingenious and poisons the well There does need to be a consensus how to define socialism for further discussion to take place. If people can’t agree on the definition or are unwilling to stick on one, there isn’t a lot of purpose to having the discussion at all. It is why academic discussions start with a consensus on terms. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
On April 04 2016 23:34 puerk wrote: can we please, please, please, sometime soon, start in any way using accurate descriptors for what we mean? the meaning of socialism changed several times, and means something different in almost every country. communism is a bit clearer on what is meant, but there are also wildly varying types of implementation attempts in the current american public discourse "socialism" seems to mean reform socialism as proposed by the german left wing parties at the turn of the 20th century: labour organisations, voting and reforms in a capitalist system to strive for equality and social integration of the working class (reducing the divide of capital owners and wage labourers), common reforms are: legislated labour bargaining rights, general welfare (health, housing support, monetary support) for children and elderly, job training (community colleges, vocational schools, trade apprenticeships etc pp) and health care for the working age population somehow the word is also used to frame those things it is supposed to mean in a bad light by saying it invariably leads to starving by politcal oppression through the creation of колхоз this is disingenious and poisons the well See, I'm totally with you in terms of the necessity relative to complicating the term "socialism"; however, such a discussion simply veers too far into the realm of well educated differentiation to be of much use relative to US electoral politics. If we're simply having an academic discussion, then I think you've raised some very good points in terms of there being patently different forms of socialism. Sadly, the populist pull on discourse exerted by popular understandings of complicated concepts requires that proponents of socialistic policies reduce their points into digestible pieces of policy that do not immediately raise the sort of defenses best represented by McCarthy-era thinking relative to anything that smells like a communist. We're not collectively smart enough to wrestle with these ideas in their pure form; such is what happens, in part, when states and localities are basically given free reign to dictate education standards. What incentive is there for the Texas Board of Education to appropriately promulgate curricula that describe concepts like socialism? Unfortunately, little to none. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On April 04 2016 23:25 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, and this is one of the great conceits of the far left: "We know socialism has repeatedly failed, but we'll get it right!" Because FDR and the New Deal never happened, right? Ronald Reagan got us out of The Great Depression and won WW2 before single-handedly destroying Commie Russia. I'm pretty sure this is U.S. History according to the average Republican voter. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
Couldn't help myself, policy proposals circumvent terminology still. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On April 04 2016 23:44 Leporello wrote: Because FDR and the New Deal never happened, right? Ronald Reagan got us out of The Great Depression and won WW2 before single-handedly destroying Commie Russia. I'm pretty sure this is U.S. History according to the average Republican voter. despite both sides' propensity to paint the other in the most extreme way possible, there are some principled conservatives with some on-the-surface valid ideas about how they think the recovery from the great depression went down that happened separately from, or in spite of, new deal policy i'm not going to profess to be an expert and have an opinion here or offer examples, but the way you talk is super counterproductive to actually having any sort of conversation that isn't as caricatured as your shitty caricature basically youre not contributing anything by typing this so could you not | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
 and to be fair: no we should not have food lines, but guess what happens in (pure and purer) capitalist systems outside of churches? ... soup kitchen lines.. it is not so black and white and policies should not only be judged by their intent or principles but also by their real world impacts | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 04 2016 23:51 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: despite both sides' propensity to paint the other in the most extreme way possible, there are some principled conservatives with some on-the-surface valid ideas about how they think the recovery from the great depression went down that happened separately from, or in spite of, new deal policy i'm not going to profess to be an expert and have an opinion here or offer examples, but the way you talk is super counterproductive to actually having any sort of conversation that isn't as caricatured as your shitty caricature basically youre not contributing anything by typing this so could you not The debate over the new deal revolves around if the actions of the government were effective at restoring the economy or if they were simply helped provide the population with hope. More nuanced studies shows what we would expect, that it helped some industries, but not all. But the effect on the US population cannot be understated, since the national moral was below anything we have any context for. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23785 Posts
On April 04 2016 23:31 ticklishmusic wrote: And how is the HVF piling money together and putting it into the Hillary campaign's general funds without it being illegal and obvious? Because it would be both illegal and obvious. Money is tracked and moving it through a couple different hands doesn't change the original source or magically exempt it from limits. If Soros gives 353K and it's moved through the HVF it doesn't magically become magical money that magically appeared in the HVF account-- money is fungible, but the amounts are accounted for. A money trail can be hidden in laundering cases because an auditor does not have all the financial docs, but the FEC does have all the financial docs. If campaigns were companies, they'd be the most financially transparent on Earth, they basically publish their general ledgers every month. No one cares about this because it's a non-issue built on a misunderstanding of accounting and campaign finance. Let's try it this way. Let's look at the Clooney dinner. The "fundraising expenses" can be paid by the HVF as it's actually their event (they being Hillary's Campaign staff) instead of the Clinton Campaign paying the expenses, which do you think her staff chooses? Tadaa, you've turned Soros $300k check into paying for a Clooney fundraiser for your campaign, and it's all legal. | ||
| ||
