|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
On May 31 2019 13:53 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +I've noticed the argument of "not true capitalism" has been gaining traction so I presume you allow the same for Stalin representing communism? No, because it's not the same thing. You can't take an economy that is just barely converting out of imperialism and mercantilism and then peg all the old ills on what is just beginning. All we need to is just run the clock forward. What happens when capitalism enters a system? The more entrenched it becomes, eventually slavery ends. By contrast, what happens whenever someone tries to implement Communism? Some sort of one party, super state that suppresses opposition. Every time. Lenin had actually temporarily backed off on his efforts to convert Russia over to Communism (New Economic Policy and the rise of the Kulaks). A limited form of capitalism was reintroduced to make sure people didn't starve. When Stalin came to power, he started collectivizing. Why? Because the communist system was supposed to have no private property. The workers needed to own the means of production. It wasn't happening naturally, so Stalin forced it. The motivation is to create a communist system through and through. So then we also run the clock forward again. The more entrenched a system tries to adopt Communism, they more they must resort to cohersion because most people won't give up on their private property voluntarily. So you kill or enslave them. There's a very obvious causal through line from motivation, to implementation, to result.
It's not converting out of imperialism. We're going to have imperialism for a while after that still. Imperialism is quite profitable, and capitalism likes to maximize profits.
Something that's generally true when it comes to progress under capitalism is that it happens in spite of capitalists, not thanks to them, so in my view it's a bit of a stretch to herald that progress as a victory of capitalism. If capitalists could get away with paying us 0$, they would, as it maximizes their profit. They just can't though, because we have worker rights that we fought for. That resistance is where the progress comes from every time (almost every time?).
Your explanation for what falls under "not true capitalism" and "not true communism" falls short. Look at how you describe what happens under Stalin. "The workers needed to own the means of production. It wasn't happening naturally, so Stalin forced it." ... except after what Stalin did, the workers still aren't owning the means of production either, so there's no change there. We would need some progress there to justify the distinction you made.
By contrast, the part that is described as "not true capitalism" is entirely consistent with capitalism. There's nothing about capitalist theory that excludes imperialism or colonialism - correct me if I'm wrong; on the contrary I would say it's encouraged. As a result there's no reason to separate the two in the way you did.
|
On May 31 2019 16:18 opisska wrote:
I have sadly not much time to discuss this, as this has become my favorite thing to red about lately, but in short:
If you want to "oppose communism", shouting "commies bad", "it's like nazi" and "look at how it never worked" is misinformed bullshit and whoever does that should be at least ashamed of themselves, if not banned from civilized discussion. Sitgmatizing a viewpoint with simplistic catchphrases isn't a proper way to discuss. If you are willing to look past that, I urge you to at least read something on Marx - Capital isn't the easiest read of all, but do read something about it. It is pretty obvious the guy was a genius, he has actually foreseen a lot of things we are only beginning to think en mass about now - however a lot of his thinking was also heavily influenced by his era and is, in my opinion, pretty outdated - which is also one of the big flaws of some people advocating for communism nowadays, that they can't free themselves of the framework which is actually ultimately still built on 19th century phillosphy.
Now I personally think that having "true communism" would be cool - to trace back to Marx again, he actually believed that this would be the ultimate way to make any person free to do whatever the hell they want, as it will end any kind of scarcity. Sadly, we have never seen that in practice, because everyone got stuck in implementing the "socialism" step of the progress, as the people implementing the step never failed to notice how nice for them it is to do keep it that way. And this is kinda enough for me to acknowledge that this is probably not worth trying all over again in the same form.
I am no big thinker and I am willing to admit it, I am also lazy to read a lot of philosophy, so I am pretty sure my thought have been fleshed out much better by much smarter people already, but to me it seems almost surprisingly clear what we should do and even more surprising that it's not happening:
Firstly, People need to seize the means of communication. Yeah, it's a shitty pun, but it's true - we (as in "we in the western countries") live in a supposed democracy, but a lot of things are not beneficial for the majority people (especially so in the US) - how the fuck is that possible? How come the people don't just outvote the corporations? Because they constatntly fail to organize themselves! It's absolutely stunning, again especially in the US, and even more in the age of instant worldwide communication. Even the craziest sounding policies I will talk about below can be implemented completely within the current democratic system, it literally require people to stand up and do it.
My primary philosophy for a social system would be for people to be as free to do things as possible. I have talked about it earlier that I consider human labor the most outrageous thing of our age. Honestly, I can't help but evaluate that human time is the most valuable thing in the world - how the hell are some people so concerned about well-being of chicken while being completely OK with almost everyone wasting their lives away doing some boring job? I know this is still a fringe opinion, but it is interesting to me that this actually was the original point of communism, already in the 19th century people understood that in a different social system, people should work much less, eventually even only as much as they really want to and this could be enough to maintain everything running.
The thing where I don't agree is that we need to do a hard revolution and start seizing the means of production. Why don't we just use the existing state to that help further this goal? In my opinion, we should not seize anything, we should have the state to gradually purchase the means of production and eventually provide all basic goods, leaving a "leftover free market" which would be expected to provide luxuries, stuff for fun, thus still driving innovation by competition (which I believe is somewhat neccessary and ignoring that is a super big flaw of many communists). The state production should be a strongly political issue, constantly checked by the people, in their own benefit, to steer it towards not being a "capitalism light with more corruption" but to invest money into automation and efficiency for the consumer, in the absence of an owner to profit from it.
Yeah, you say, the state is corrupt and is in the pockets of the rich, who would very much not like this to happen, but again, we are the fucking legion, we outvote the rich by 99:1, how the hell is the system so skewed for the rich still? The literally only thing people need to do is to realize that they aren't on the side of the barricade they think they are ...
In this sense, UBI is for example somewhat silly, because it does the absolute opposite - by giving people extra money, you allow them to just funnel those back to the owners of the means of production. It is nice in that it allows people more freedom from wage slavery, but it sortof fails in the main goal, because it doesn't change the incentive from making money. I still like it at least because it is a first glimmer of hope and I have definitely started watching politicians by their stance of this.
Anyway, I digressed a bit off topic - however it was a bit needed as a buildup to what I wanted to summarize, as expressing these opinions without context only always leads to confusion and shouting contests. So let me try to somewhat more coherently say, what I wanted to say:
Communism as a philosophy is not equivalent gulags and hlodomor, that is, actually, just post-carist imperialism, however ironic that is. It's one of the most humane philosophies we ever invented, however it is marred with historical baggage, misunderstanding and is also being sticked as a label on various things that are not quite related to its key principle. I think it needs to be adopted for the 21st century into some smarter, more thought out version of my current head-canon opisskaism and implemented as gradual change within capitalism. It surely will need a large transfer of wealth and resources from the top 1% towards the state, but hell yeah, that's why we invented taxes and if even the bloody US could have had a 90% bracket, the others can do that as well now (and the US can go back to that). A good way to start the needed societal shifts is for people to remove their heads out of their asses and to realize that capitalism, as we have it now and especially as it is in the US is terribly flawed and stop, for fuck sake, downplaying all its faults for a vague fear that not doing that will open the floodgates of bad, bad commies.
I'd trade 90%+ of the posts in either thread for a handful more of these. I could nitpick but I just want to appreciate your contribution. It's not because you mostly agree with me either, but because it's thoughtful.
There's the "all we have to do is stand up and their game is over" and variations this img (just pulled from google) that I think express the same general sentiment
+ Show Spoiler +
If I were to use the analogy from the image the reason I would say we don't all "rise up" is tied to a lot of things but one big one is the image is missing some things.
The image needs to show some people crowding to get closer to the politician or oligarch in some interpretations, they got the one leaving, but they need another turned to keep him and some in the middle indecisive whether to move toward the crowd, enjoy their place of privilege ("better view/Closer to power" in this analogy) or walk further onto (what should be) the narrowing plank where people are jockeying for limited space near power and some or dangling or falling (you could probably have them hanging along the whole thing really but that'd get visually messy).
Just out of frame should be the police forces beating and killing people who left the plank. On the other side of the police force just off frame there should be marginalized people going through an Israeli style checkpoint (the ones Palestinian school kids go through) desperately trying to get to a visually obscured plank.
I'm probably forgetting some things (definitely needs some panicked liberals trying to balance the plank) but that's my general take on why people don't recognize their power and accept this rigged game and even defend it at their own peril.
|
Why so much Gabbard love in the poll? To her supporters - why do you support her?
|
I feel like it should be a lot easier to find a front-runner for 2020, yet it seems very muddy at the moment. + Show Spoiler +(I'm not an american, but I follow the politic scene there closely because it is covered so much, and cuz it's interesting. I'm a centrist/ bit of a conservative by European standards, which i guess means squarely on the left by US standards).
My 2 cents, as an outsider, on the people with good chances:
The old
1. It can't be Joe Biden. I get it, he has name recognition, he has legitimacy and experience because of the VP history, but he just cant. He's too old, he's been passed over too many times, if he ends up on top than it's a failure for the Dems, it means that they're so divided that a guy can get to the top with being the least disliked, but having name-recognition.
2. Bernie Sanders. I like Bernie, he stuck to his guns even when it seemed like it's a completely hopeless, and proudly took on the mantle of a social-democrat even though it was thought to be a deadly stigma on the national level. yet it turned out it wasnt, he almost won. Hell, he should have won, but let's not go there. Would i like him to win the nomination this time? No. Some of the reason are the same as for Joe Biden, plus his name has been eroded enough in the media these past five years to make it harder for him to compete. I'd say he rose to national prominence on the back of a new, suddenly enthusiastic base, but i think the enthusiasm is a bit lower this time around. Could he win it? Maybe.
The "new"
3. Elisabeth Warren. The Dems probably would like a female candidate, and a president, and EW is as good as you can get. She's progressive, fiscally more conservative than many Republicans... My one nitpick with her was over the whole ancestry gimmick/ media stunt, I really disliked that whole string of events, but anyways, overall it's a non-issue. I have one main problem with her, I dont believe she would beat Trump. He'd just rebrand all of his anti-Hillary messaging, i could see him campaigning on EW being Hillary 2.0, which is a silly idea, but hey they're both look kinda similar, older white women, I'd think it would work with a lot of his base. aaand i dont think she could carry the swing-states. As it's obvious for everyone, it doesnt matter how hard you win in CA, NY and the small ultra-blue states, it's all about the swing-states.
4. Beto O Rourke, aka the young southern white democrat with an appeal to the latino community. Ok, so why isnt he a lock? he kicked off his national career with losing to Ted Cruz. Yes, it's still widely regarded as a win, since Texas was deemed unwinnable, not even worth the contest, and he fundraised like crazy and made out of Texas a battleground state, instead of the let's phone it in and win with 20+% which previously it was for the GOP. So there you have Trump's first slogan, he couldnt beat Ted, i beat him so bigly, it was the biggest primary win of all time. The second is obviously "he s trying to be a mexican".
the Dark horse
Pete Buttigieg - the only one of the unknowns that I was pleasantly surprised by. When i heard that a young gay guy is throwing in his lot, I was like, yeah, of course he is, we need to check that box as well... but hey, he speaks amazingly well for someone that young and inexperienced. I watched a few interviews, including the one on Fox with Chris Wallace, and i gotta say im impressed. And a new, previously unknown face could be just what the Dems need. Buuut it's maybe too much at once: very young, unknown, gay, religious... all of those could be an advantage but all of them at once might be too much
The rest really arent worth mentioning from my point of view.
So who should it be? I guess it's gonna come down to head to head between one of the old and one of the new
Edit: some grammar and spelling
|
Amy Klobuchar is the easy win that the coastal Democrats are ignoring because they hate the midwest, yet need it to actually win against trump. Trump can't touch her, she sweeps the midwestern states and comes from a state with a successful history of immigration, Huge stake in healthcare, and a public utility whos well ahead on their renewable goals.
Warren is not going to win shes an easier target then Hillary Clinton and provides even less of a benefit for the Dems.
Beto O'Rourke Isn't a winner has nothing about him to make him win in the midwest and is no JFK on the mic.
Buttigieg is as much of a dark horse as yang, He doesn't have anything that makes him different from the pack of other young candidates this cycle.
I guess democrats just enjoy loseing elections I don't know.
|
On June 06 2019 04:31 Sermokala wrote:
Amy Klobuchar is the easy win that the coastal Democrats are ignoring because they hate the midwest, yet need it to actually win against trump. Trump can't touch her, she sweeps the midwestern states and comes from a state with a successful history of immigration, Huge stake in healthcare, and a public utility whos well ahead on their renewable goals.
Warren is not going to win shes an easier target then Hillary Clinton and provides even less of a benefit for the Dems.
Beto O'Rourke Isn't a winner has nothing about him to make him win in the midwest and is no JFK on the mic.
Buttigieg is as much of a dark horse as yang, He doesn't have anything that makes him different from the pack of other young candidates this cycle.
I guess democrats just enjoy loseing elections I don't know.
Would you vote for Klobuchar? Why or why not?
|
I don't know how to quote Bourgeois. Reducing US war-making is an important issue for me. I supported Mike Gravel with my vote because he is clearly the most dovish, and he successfully took on the Military Industrial Complex during the Vietnam War. Tulsi Gabbard is my second pick. Even though she isn't nearly as good as Mike Gravel (She embraces the War on Terror.), at least she openly opposes regime change wars like the one in Syria (as opposed to "phase out Assad" Bernie Sanders) and has voted against funding for the war on Yemen.
|
Warren or sanders would be nice. They have a lot of support in this poll but I doubt either of them will make it. Sanders seems highly unlikely,warren a bit less unlikely.
I don't know what the democrats game is in this election. Do they consider it to be lost already or do they think they have a shot. If they consider it to be lost already maybe they could go with a bit low profile candidate who would run only once so that he/she would not be "damaged" for the elections in 2024 (which the democrats are going to win for sure I think).
They could "sacrifice" sanders and by doing that also harm the movement of very progressive democrats. Then its like "well sanders had his shot and didn't make it,now its time for something else" Or give biden his shot because party politics.
If they think they have a shot and want to try to win then there should be a candidate that can defeat trump. None of the candidates in this poll can defeat trump I think. It would have to be someone like michelle Obama (who has no interest in running as far as I know) or oprah winfrey or someone else completely new who is widely popular based on non political achievements and work,
I don't know,i am really curious who will make it but unfortunately it seems a lost election to begin with.
|
|
|
You guys do realise that a 2 term trump will damage international relations for... decades?
Aside from the fact that it requires a seriously stupid populous to vote such a disgrace in TWICE. The democrats should be able to nominate a fucking turtle and it should be an easy win.
|
The Democrats should not make the mistake of underestimating Trump's election chances again. Of the present crop of candidates, I think Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with a shot at beating him although it seems like her most vicious opposition comes from her own side.
|
On June 06 2019 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 04:31 Sermokala wrote:
Amy Klobuchar is the easy win that the coastal Democrats are ignoring because they hate the midwest, yet need it to actually win against trump. Trump can't touch her, she sweeps the midwestern states and comes from a state with a successful history of immigration, Huge stake in healthcare, and a public utility whos well ahead on their renewable goals.
Warren is not going to win shes an easier target then Hillary Clinton and provides even less of a benefit for the Dems.
Beto O'Rourke Isn't a winner has nothing about him to make him win in the midwest and is no JFK on the mic.
Buttigieg is as much of a dark horse as yang, He doesn't have anything that makes him different from the pack of other young candidates this cycle.
I guess democrats just enjoy loseing elections I don't know. Would you vote for Klobuchar? Why or why not?
I would. She slots right into what everyone wants and promises to deliver good times for the future. People I have to believe don't like living in a nation that hates itself so much. They need health care and immigration to be settled positively and to move onto the next thing. She doesn't have the headaches or baggage so many other canidates have and has a record of winning her race in a landslide in the only state in the union currently with a mixed political house.
|
On June 06 2019 14:06 gotchaman wrote:
The Democrats should not make the mistake of underestimating Trump's election chances again. Of the present crop of candidates, I think Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with a shot at beating him although it seems like her most vicious opposition comes from her own side.
You tell dems to not understand trump's chances and then advocate for a worse Hillary Clinton but without the money and name recognition?
|
On June 06 2019 14:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2019 04:31 Sermokala wrote:
Amy Klobuchar is the easy win that the coastal Democrats are ignoring because they hate the midwest, yet need it to actually win against trump. Trump can't touch her, she sweeps the midwestern states and comes from a state with a successful history of immigration, Huge stake in healthcare, and a public utility whos well ahead on their renewable goals.
Warren is not going to win shes an easier target then Hillary Clinton and provides even less of a benefit for the Dems.
Beto O'Rourke Isn't a winner has nothing about him to make him win in the midwest and is no JFK on the mic.
Buttigieg is as much of a dark horse as yang, He doesn't have anything that makes him different from the pack of other young candidates this cycle.
I guess democrats just enjoy loseing elections I don't know. Would you vote for Klobuchar? Why or why not? I would. She slots right into what everyone wants and promises to deliver good times for the future. People I have to believe don't like living in a nation that hates itself so much. They need health care and immigration to be settled positively and to move onto the next thing. She doesn't have the headaches or baggage so many other canidates have and has a record of winning her race in a landslide in the only state in the union currently with a mixed political house.
Fair enough. How do you identify yourself politically again? Conservative, libertarian, etc?
|
On June 06 2019 14:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 14:06 gotchaman wrote:
The Democrats should not make the mistake of underestimating Trump's election chances again. Of the present crop of candidates, I think Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with a shot at beating him although it seems like her most vicious opposition comes from her own side. You tell dems to not understand trump's chances and then advocate for a worse Hillary Clinton but without the money and name recognition? Your post is an excellent example of Tulsi Gabbard's most vicious opposition coming from her own side. Seeing as Hillary Clinton was particularly hawkish and regime changey, the comparison to Gabbard makes no sense. Also, Gabbard sided with Sanders over Clinton in the last primary go around. Gabbard represents a departure from the losing Clinton way, a departure needed to have a chance at beating Trump.
|
On June 06 2019 15:39 gotchaman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 14:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 06 2019 14:06 gotchaman wrote:
The Democrats should not make the mistake of underestimating Trump's election chances again. Of the present crop of candidates, I think Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with a shot at beating him although it seems like her most vicious opposition comes from her own side. You tell dems to not understand trump's chances and then advocate for a worse Hillary Clinton but without the money and name recognition? Your post is an excellent example of Tulsi Gabbard's most vicious opposition coming from her own side. Seeing as Hillary Clinton was particularly hawkish and regime changey, the comparison to Gabbard makes no sense. Also, Gabbard sided with Sanders over Clinton in the last primary go around. Gabbard represents a departure from the losing Clinton way, a departure needed to have a chance at beating Trump.
I've never seen anything from her. Care to select a video where she shines and represents her point of view? I'm not really interested in a campaign page but an interview/debate sort of thing
|
On June 06 2019 14:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 14:06 gotchaman wrote:
The Democrats should not make the mistake of underestimating Trump's election chances again. Of the present crop of candidates, I think Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with a shot at beating him although it seems like her most vicious opposition comes from her own side. You tell dems to not understand trump's chances and then advocate for a worse Hillary Clinton but without the money and name recognition?
Being the most anti-establishment candidate in the field, taking only single donor donations, putting an end to the endless wars etc. Yeah that sounds exactly like Hillary...
|
On June 06 2019 08:33 Velr wrote:
You guys do realise that a 2 term trump will damage international relations for... decades?
Aside from the fact that it requires a seriously stupid populous to vote such a disgrace in TWICE. The democrats should be able to nominate a fucking turtle and it should be an easy win.
Hey, we had the same thing twice before.
"They are not gonna vote for someone as bad a president as Bush2 twice"
"Okay, okay, they voted for Bush2 twice, but they are not gonna vote for someone who is even worse as a president, like Trump"
I am not certain that the third time is the charm. I think the US citizens just really like really, really bad presidents.
|
Bush was more likeable, say what you will about him being a leader in person he was more affable. Plus the econ was doing well and the position about the wars weren't that opposed.
Trump can very easily lose the election if between now and the election we have another recession. With a strong econ hes much more likely to stick.
Its hard for me to speculate on any of them atm due to how many there are. The passing grade isn't exactly can they excite the Democrats base but if they have broader appeal on some level.
|
On June 06 2019 14:06 gotchaman wrote:
The Democrats should not make the mistake of underestimating Trump's election chances again. Of the present crop of candidates, I think Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with a shot at beating him although it seems like her most vicious opposition comes from her own side.
Wut. She has no chance whatsoever. She's so far behind the pack that she will never catch up. She's boring, she's being promoted artificially on many websites and subreddits I've seen by posters who speak questionable English (she keeps saying it's "fake news" that she's getting pushed on us by foreign actors but you can see it plain as day), and I have heard absolutely nothing groundbreaking from her policy-wise. She seems like a pretty good person with good intentions, but she has fuckall chance of getting double digit support, let alone winning the election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://papalibertarian.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/truepower.jpg)
