|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 31 2019 08:06 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 07:29 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 06:25 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:15 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 06:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:04 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 05:31 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Well the USSR was a terrible guess based on the information you had. You could also have relied on this conversation we're in the middle of, where I regularly argue against the USSR system.
I misunderstood you on the deep state, I apologize. If we go on wiki: "some analysts believe that there is "a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process"". The problem with the deep state formulation is the "hybrid association" part. It fails in that it presents this as a conspiracy of people in shadowy rooms, often jewish because why not, rather than an extremely logical consequence of how the capitalist system is built. People who have more money have more power than people who have less money, so they are capable of influencing policy better than people who don't have money if they choose to do so. As a result, over time, policy is likely to reflect the will of the people with more money and influence. To counteract that, we have fought for this system called democracy, where we get to influence policy regardless of how much money or how much influence we have. This is sometimes effective and sometimes not: there is a tension there. In the US nowadays, it is almost always ineffective, which is exemplified in how rarely the will of the people has an influence on policy. The system you speak of sounds a lot more like Norway than it does the USSR. But given that you (and if I'm confusing you with GH here my bad some times I'm talking to both of you at the same time and you have different beliefs but when both interject I can mix it up) seem to think that a revolution is required from that form of government I'm left guessing. Even in the post above you say not USSR. Great what then? Why is this a difficult question? The system I speak of doesn't really sound like Norway either, no. Norway has a social democracy. But Norway is good. It's an excellent starting point to strive for, as it incorporates more socialist ideas within its economic system despite it still being capitalist. Getting the most leftwing candidate that you can find elected so that the Overton window shifts is, if you recall, the first thing that I put in the list of "stuff that we should do" that I was asked for the other day. In most cases that will be a social democrat. I disagree with nothing you say there. I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing against it is not that, that is what I want. I have be for working with in the system to make it better since the beginning. What I don't want is GH's bloody revolution followed by his version of authoritarian communism. You disagree in that you don't want to go further than that, and we should. Social democracy is, in my view, a much better entry point to worker ownership than state ownership is. But if that's your long term position, it's excessively unlikely to work out. Strategically it's also going to be pretty difficult to convince liberals that putting more socialism in their capitalism is a good idea if you have to stop in the middle of every sentence to acknowledge that socialism is the worst thing ever. Your first part I completely agree about so we would simply work together to move it until we reached the point that we disagreed, and depending on how things are going we might agree by then, assuming it all is working out. Your second statement I disagree with it is not that you need say that socialism is the worst thing ever, it is that you need harp on why socialism good, and why they agree with it, instead of the way more divisive what whats wrong with liberalism and why capitalism is so bad. Otherwise you just keep turning people off since it sounds like you have no answers and only the ability to point out weaknesses. Some of the reasons why socialism is good are the reasons why capitalism is bad. Reduced level of exploitation. Reduced level of social hierarchy. More democracy. Less emphasis on profits over alternative goals. These are the same conversation. Changing your -ism with popular support and the best of intentions doesn't make a culture more empathetic or altruistic. The reason decades of socialism failed to improve the parameters you listed in Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc, can be best explained by the Latin American term viveza criolla and the similar Brazilian term jeitinho. I recommend reading those very short wiki pages. Presumably those also manifest under capitalism, you would agree. What is it about capitalism and socialism, in your view, that causes one of the systems to be able to sustain these, while the other fails? I do agree with that and I don't think either of them is more susceptible to it than the other. However, kickstarting a socialist economy requires more intervention than kickstarting a capitalist economy, nationalizing assets and managing them requires a far more hands on approach than selling assets and wiping your hands. As seen in history books, this is a perfect opportunity to seize absolute power and purge the opposition in the name of the greater good. Being more prone to these accidents is what made socialism lose the PR war in my opinion.
Sounds like if we went to worker ownership through social democracy rather than state ownership, we would have a good chance of circumventing this issue, don't you think?
|
On May 31 2019 08:06 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 07:29 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 06:25 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:15 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 06:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:04 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 05:31 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Well the USSR was a terrible guess based on the information you had. You could also have relied on this conversation we're in the middle of, where I regularly argue against the USSR system.
I misunderstood you on the deep state, I apologize. If we go on wiki: "some analysts believe that there is "a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process"". The problem with the deep state formulation is the "hybrid association" part. It fails in that it presents this as a conspiracy of people in shadowy rooms, often jewish because why not, rather than an extremely logical consequence of how the capitalist system is built. People who have more money have more power than people who have less money, so they are capable of influencing policy better than people who don't have money if they choose to do so. As a result, over time, policy is likely to reflect the will of the people with more money and influence. To counteract that, we have fought for this system called democracy, where we get to influence policy regardless of how much money or how much influence we have. This is sometimes effective and sometimes not: there is a tension there. In the US nowadays, it is almost always ineffective, which is exemplified in how rarely the will of the people has an influence on policy. The system you speak of sounds a lot more like Norway than it does the USSR. But given that you (and if I'm confusing you with GH here my bad some times I'm talking to both of you at the same time and you have different beliefs but when both interject I can mix it up) seem to think that a revolution is required from that form of government I'm left guessing. Even in the post above you say not USSR. Great what then? Why is this a difficult question? The system I speak of doesn't really sound like Norway either, no. Norway has a social democracy. But Norway is good. It's an excellent starting point to strive for, as it incorporates more socialist ideas within its economic system despite it still being capitalist. Getting the most leftwing candidate that you can find elected so that the Overton window shifts is, if you recall, the first thing that I put in the list of "stuff that we should do" that I was asked for the other day. In most cases that will be a social democrat. I disagree with nothing you say there. I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing against it is not that, that is what I want. I have be for working with in the system to make it better since the beginning. What I don't want is GH's bloody revolution followed by his version of authoritarian communism. You disagree in that you don't want to go further than that, and we should. Social democracy is, in my view, a much better entry point to worker ownership than state ownership is. But if that's your long term position, it's excessively unlikely to work out. Strategically it's also going to be pretty difficult to convince liberals that putting more socialism in their capitalism is a good idea if you have to stop in the middle of every sentence to acknowledge that socialism is the worst thing ever. Your first part I completely agree about so we would simply work together to move it until we reached the point that we disagreed, and depending on how things are going we might agree by then, assuming it all is working out. Your second statement I disagree with it is not that you need say that socialism is the worst thing ever, it is that you need harp on why socialism good, and why they agree with it, instead of the way more divisive what whats wrong with liberalism and why capitalism is so bad. Otherwise you just keep turning people off since it sounds like you have no answers and only the ability to point out weaknesses. Some of the reasons why socialism is good are the reasons why capitalism is bad. Reduced level of exploitation. Reduced level of social hierarchy. More democracy. Less emphasis on profits over alternative goals. These are the same conversation. Changing your -ism with popular support and the best of intentions doesn't make a culture more empathetic or altruistic. The reason decades of socialism failed to improve the parameters you listed in Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc, can be best explained by the Latin American term viveza criolla and the similar Brazilian term jeitinho. I recommend reading those very short wiki pages. Presumably those also manifest under capitalism, you would agree. What is it about capitalism and socialism, in your view, that causes one of the systems to be able to sustain these, while the other fails? I do agree with that and I don't think either of them is more susceptible to it than the other. However, kickstarting a socialist economy requires more intervention than kickstarting a capitalist economy, nationalizing assets and managing them requires a far more hands on approach than selling assets and wiping your hands. As seen in history books, this is a perfect opportunity to seize absolute power and purge the opposition in the name of the greater good. Being more prone to these accidents is what made socialism lose the PR war in my opinion.
This is important.
What history and science also tells us is that Capitalism and Fascism winning has left us on the precipice of extinction with no plan to avert it.
On May 31 2019 08:09 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 08:06 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 07:29 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 06:25 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:15 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 06:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:04 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 05:31 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
The system you speak of sounds a lot more like Norway than it does the USSR. But given that you (and if I'm confusing you with GH here my bad some times I'm talking to both of you at the same time and you have different beliefs but when both interject I can mix it up) seem to think that a revolution is required from that form of government I'm left guessing. Even in the post above you say not USSR. Great what then? Why is this a difficult question? The system I speak of doesn't really sound like Norway either, no. Norway has a social democracy. But Norway is good. It's an excellent starting point to strive for, as it incorporates more socialist ideas within its economic system despite it still being capitalist. Getting the most leftwing candidate that you can find elected so that the Overton window shifts is, if you recall, the first thing that I put in the list of "stuff that we should do" that I was asked for the other day. In most cases that will be a social democrat. I disagree with nothing you say there. I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing against it is not that, that is what I want. I have be for working with in the system to make it better since the beginning. What I don't want is GH's bloody revolution followed by his version of authoritarian communism. You disagree in that you don't want to go further than that, and we should. Social democracy is, in my view, a much better entry point to worker ownership than state ownership is. But if that's your long term position, it's excessively unlikely to work out. Strategically it's also going to be pretty difficult to convince liberals that putting more socialism in their capitalism is a good idea if you have to stop in the middle of every sentence to acknowledge that socialism is the worst thing ever. Your first part I completely agree about so we would simply work together to move it until we reached the point that we disagreed, and depending on how things are going we might agree by then, assuming it all is working out. Your second statement I disagree with it is not that you need say that socialism is the worst thing ever, it is that you need harp on why socialism good, and why they agree with it, instead of the way more divisive what whats wrong with liberalism and why capitalism is so bad. Otherwise you just keep turning people off since it sounds like you have no answers and only the ability to point out weaknesses. Some of the reasons why socialism is good are the reasons why capitalism is bad. Reduced level of exploitation. Reduced level of social hierarchy. More democracy. Less emphasis on profits over alternative goals. These are the same conversation. Changing your -ism with popular support and the best of intentions doesn't make a culture more empathetic or altruistic. The reason decades of socialism failed to improve the parameters you listed in Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc, can be best explained by the Latin American term viveza criolla and the similar Brazilian term jeitinho. I recommend reading those very short wiki pages. Presumably those also manifest under capitalism, you would agree. What is it about capitalism and socialism, in your view, that causes one of the systems to be able to sustain these, while the other fails? I do agree with that and I don't think either of them is more susceptible to it than the other. However, kickstarting a socialist economy requires more intervention than kickstarting a capitalist economy, nationalizing assets and managing them requires a far more hands on approach than selling assets and wiping your hands. As seen in history books, this is a perfect opportunity to seize absolute power and purge the opposition in the name of the greater good. Being more prone to these accidents is what made socialism lose the PR war in my opinion. Sounds like if we went to worker ownership through social democracy rather than state ownership, we would have a good chance of circumventing this issue, don't you think?
Indeed. I do and keep on working towards I and others understand this dynamic more thoroughly. Might as well take a moment to thank you for your efforts on this front as well.
+ Show Spoiler +Also one day I'm going to sell an author on the idea of turning not the posters and story of this thread into an epic sci-fi novel/movie and anyone who supports capitalism will get nothing and anyone who joins team socialism will share ownership of it, just fyi
|
GH, the problem I'm having currently is that I'm still waiting on your 5 point plan for initiating, achieving, or implementing your revolution. Give me something to work with. So far, you've made it an art form to say so much and yet absolutely nothing. Start with how your revolution begins, who is leading, and what the main objective is you are trying to achieve, at the onset of the revolution. We'll take the next step after you answer that.
|
On May 31 2019 08:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
GH, the problem I'm having currently is that I'm still waiting on your 5 point plan for initiating, achieving, or implementing your revolution. Give me something to work with. So far, you've made it an art form to say so much and yet absolutely nothing. Start with how your revolution begins, who is leading, and what the main objective is you are trying to achieve, at the onset of the revolution. We'll take the next step after you answer that.
Forgive me if you will, but since you're in the "I know capitalism will lead to unavoidable catastrophe and there's nothing I can do about it but prepare and mediate the suffering of select groups" camp I'd appreciate if you waited or worked with me to get more people at least to where you're at.
|
On May 31 2019 08:09 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 08:06 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 07:29 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 06:25 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:15 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 06:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:04 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 05:31 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
The system you speak of sounds a lot more like Norway than it does the USSR. But given that you (and if I'm confusing you with GH here my bad some times I'm talking to both of you at the same time and you have different beliefs but when both interject I can mix it up) seem to think that a revolution is required from that form of government I'm left guessing. Even in the post above you say not USSR. Great what then? Why is this a difficult question? The system I speak of doesn't really sound like Norway either, no. Norway has a social democracy. But Norway is good. It's an excellent starting point to strive for, as it incorporates more socialist ideas within its economic system despite it still being capitalist. Getting the most leftwing candidate that you can find elected so that the Overton window shifts is, if you recall, the first thing that I put in the list of "stuff that we should do" that I was asked for the other day. In most cases that will be a social democrat. I disagree with nothing you say there. I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing against it is not that, that is what I want. I have be for working with in the system to make it better since the beginning. What I don't want is GH's bloody revolution followed by his version of authoritarian communism. You disagree in that you don't want to go further than that, and we should. Social democracy is, in my view, a much better entry point to worker ownership than state ownership is. But if that's your long term position, it's excessively unlikely to work out. Strategically it's also going to be pretty difficult to convince liberals that putting more socialism in their capitalism is a good idea if you have to stop in the middle of every sentence to acknowledge that socialism is the worst thing ever. Your first part I completely agree about so we would simply work together to move it until we reached the point that we disagreed, and depending on how things are going we might agree by then, assuming it all is working out. Your second statement I disagree with it is not that you need say that socialism is the worst thing ever, it is that you need harp on why socialism good, and why they agree with it, instead of the way more divisive what whats wrong with liberalism and why capitalism is so bad. Otherwise you just keep turning people off since it sounds like you have no answers and only the ability to point out weaknesses. Some of the reasons why socialism is good are the reasons why capitalism is bad. Reduced level of exploitation. Reduced level of social hierarchy. More democracy. Less emphasis on profits over alternative goals. These are the same conversation. Changing your -ism with popular support and the best of intentions doesn't make a culture more empathetic or altruistic. The reason decades of socialism failed to improve the parameters you listed in Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc, can be best explained by the Latin American term viveza criolla and the similar Brazilian term jeitinho. I recommend reading those very short wiki pages. Presumably those also manifest under capitalism, you would agree. What is it about capitalism and socialism, in your view, that causes one of the systems to be able to sustain these, while the other fails? I do agree with that and I don't think either of them is more susceptible to it than the other. However, kickstarting a socialist economy requires more intervention than kickstarting a capitalist economy, nationalizing assets and managing them requires a far more hands on approach than selling assets and wiping your hands. As seen in history books, this is a perfect opportunity to seize absolute power and purge the opposition in the name of the greater good. Being more prone to these accidents is what made socialism lose the PR war in my opinion. Sounds like if we went to worker ownership through social democracy rather than state ownership, we would have a good chance of circumventing this issue, don't you think?
I do agree and while other problems might arise, I'd love to see how such a process would unfold even if for curiosity alone.
|
On May 31 2019 08:26 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 08:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 08:06 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 07:29 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 06:25 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:15 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 06:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:04 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
The system I speak of doesn't really sound like Norway either, no. Norway has a social democracy. But Norway is good. It's an excellent starting point to strive for, as it incorporates more socialist ideas within its economic system despite it still being capitalist. Getting the most leftwing candidate that you can find elected so that the Overton window shifts is, if you recall, the first thing that I put in the list of "stuff that we should do" that I was asked for the other day. In most cases that will be a social democrat. I disagree with nothing you say there. I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing against it is not that, that is what I want. I have be for working with in the system to make it better since the beginning. What I don't want is GH's bloody revolution followed by his version of authoritarian communism. You disagree in that you don't want to go further than that, and we should. Social democracy is, in my view, a much better entry point to worker ownership than state ownership is. But if that's your long term position, it's excessively unlikely to work out. Strategically it's also going to be pretty difficult to convince liberals that putting more socialism in their capitalism is a good idea if you have to stop in the middle of every sentence to acknowledge that socialism is the worst thing ever. Your first part I completely agree about so we would simply work together to move it until we reached the point that we disagreed, and depending on how things are going we might agree by then, assuming it all is working out. Your second statement I disagree with it is not that you need say that socialism is the worst thing ever, it is that you need harp on why socialism good, and why they agree with it, instead of the way more divisive what whats wrong with liberalism and why capitalism is so bad. Otherwise you just keep turning people off since it sounds like you have no answers and only the ability to point out weaknesses. Some of the reasons why socialism is good are the reasons why capitalism is bad. Reduced level of exploitation. Reduced level of social hierarchy. More democracy. Less emphasis on profits over alternative goals. These are the same conversation. Changing your -ism with popular support and the best of intentions doesn't make a culture more empathetic or altruistic. The reason decades of socialism failed to improve the parameters you listed in Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc, can be best explained by the Latin American term viveza criolla and the similar Brazilian term jeitinho. I recommend reading those very short wiki pages. Presumably those also manifest under capitalism, you would agree. What is it about capitalism and socialism, in your view, that causes one of the systems to be able to sustain these, while the other fails? I do agree with that and I don't think either of them is more susceptible to it than the other. However, kickstarting a socialist economy requires more intervention than kickstarting a capitalist economy, nationalizing assets and managing them requires a far more hands on approach than selling assets and wiping your hands. As seen in history books, this is a perfect opportunity to seize absolute power and purge the opposition in the name of the greater good. Being more prone to these accidents is what made socialism lose the PR war in my opinion. Sounds like if we went to worker ownership through social democracy rather than state ownership, we would have a good chance of circumventing this issue, don't you think? I do agree and while other problems might arise, I'd love to see how such a process would unfold even if for curiosity alone.
This is a brand of social democracy that I have no problem with. I think we'd get along fairly well politically (and so far on this forum we probably have).
|
On May 31 2019 08:26 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 08:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 08:06 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 07:29 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 06:25 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:15 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 06:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:04 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
The system I speak of doesn't really sound like Norway either, no. Norway has a social democracy. But Norway is good. It's an excellent starting point to strive for, as it incorporates more socialist ideas within its economic system despite it still being capitalist. Getting the most leftwing candidate that you can find elected so that the Overton window shifts is, if you recall, the first thing that I put in the list of "stuff that we should do" that I was asked for the other day. In most cases that will be a social democrat. I disagree with nothing you say there. I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing against it is not that, that is what I want. I have be for working with in the system to make it better since the beginning. What I don't want is GH's bloody revolution followed by his version of authoritarian communism. You disagree in that you don't want to go further than that, and we should. Social democracy is, in my view, a much better entry point to worker ownership than state ownership is. But if that's your long term position, it's excessively unlikely to work out. Strategically it's also going to be pretty difficult to convince liberals that putting more socialism in their capitalism is a good idea if you have to stop in the middle of every sentence to acknowledge that socialism is the worst thing ever. Your first part I completely agree about so we would simply work together to move it until we reached the point that we disagreed, and depending on how things are going we might agree by then, assuming it all is working out. Your second statement I disagree with it is not that you need say that socialism is the worst thing ever, it is that you need harp on why socialism good, and why they agree with it, instead of the way more divisive what whats wrong with liberalism and why capitalism is so bad. Otherwise you just keep turning people off since it sounds like you have no answers and only the ability to point out weaknesses. Some of the reasons why socialism is good are the reasons why capitalism is bad. Reduced level of exploitation. Reduced level of social hierarchy. More democracy. Less emphasis on profits over alternative goals. These are the same conversation. Changing your -ism with popular support and the best of intentions doesn't make a culture more empathetic or altruistic. The reason decades of socialism failed to improve the parameters you listed in Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc, can be best explained by the Latin American term viveza criolla and the similar Brazilian term jeitinho. I recommend reading those very short wiki pages. Presumably those also manifest under capitalism, you would agree. What is it about capitalism and socialism, in your view, that causes one of the systems to be able to sustain these, while the other fails? I do agree with that and I don't think either of them is more susceptible to it than the other. However, kickstarting a socialist economy requires more intervention than kickstarting a capitalist economy, nationalizing assets and managing them requires a far more hands on approach than selling assets and wiping your hands. As seen in history books, this is a perfect opportunity to seize absolute power and purge the opposition in the name of the greater good. Being more prone to these accidents is what made socialism lose the PR war in my opinion. Sounds like if we went to worker ownership through social democracy rather than state ownership, we would have a good chance of circumventing this issue, don't you think? I do agree and while other problems might arise, I'd love to see how such a process would unfold even if for curiosity alone.
fwiw I'm perfectly open to hear ideas from those who oppose revolution how they would like to set up worker ownership both as a system of ownership itself and how they get it past the political system. I don't mean that as a challenge, just that if it distills down to "after the planet has been ravaged by climate change..." we should just establish that on the front end.
I admit this may be a completely unavoidable reality revolution or no, it's just not much to talk about if it's unavoidable other than how to protect yourself and the people you care about (which you probably wouldn't discuss with strangers on the internet).
I'd just add that since there's some dispute on my position, "Bloody revolution" is only a resolution of last resort and in reality not much of a solution at all but the last gasps of an exploited people before they replace their exploiter or die. As such it should be obvious it's a "solution" I'd like to avoid if it's all possible to. Except if that means condemning marginalized to an inhospitable planet to/while I maintain my privilege.
It's bad enough living with the shit like having a computer and cell phone made by kid slaves and shit, I can't handle condemning all of humanity so I can have a new one of those every year, a fancy car, a shitty house, etc...
|
On May 31 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 08:26 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 08:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 08:06 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 07:29 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 06:25 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:15 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 06:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:04 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I disagree with nothing you say there. I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing against it is not that, that is what I want. I have be for working with in the system to make it better since the beginning.
What I don't want is GH's bloody revolution followed by his version of authoritarian communism. You disagree in that you don't want to go further than that, and we should. Social democracy is, in my view, a much better entry point to worker ownership than state ownership is. But if that's your long term position, it's excessively unlikely to work out. Strategically it's also going to be pretty difficult to convince liberals that putting more socialism in their capitalism is a good idea if you have to stop in the middle of every sentence to acknowledge that socialism is the worst thing ever. Your first part I completely agree about so we would simply work together to move it until we reached the point that we disagreed, and depending on how things are going we might agree by then, assuming it all is working out. Your second statement I disagree with it is not that you need say that socialism is the worst thing ever, it is that you need harp on why socialism good, and why they agree with it, instead of the way more divisive what whats wrong with liberalism and why capitalism is so bad. Otherwise you just keep turning people off since it sounds like you have no answers and only the ability to point out weaknesses. Some of the reasons why socialism is good are the reasons why capitalism is bad. Reduced level of exploitation. Reduced level of social hierarchy. More democracy. Less emphasis on profits over alternative goals. These are the same conversation. Changing your -ism with popular support and the best of intentions doesn't make a culture more empathetic or altruistic. The reason decades of socialism failed to improve the parameters you listed in Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc, can be best explained by the Latin American term viveza criolla and the similar Brazilian term jeitinho. I recommend reading those very short wiki pages. Presumably those also manifest under capitalism, you would agree. What is it about capitalism and socialism, in your view, that causes one of the systems to be able to sustain these, while the other fails? I do agree with that and I don't think either of them is more susceptible to it than the other. However, kickstarting a socialist economy requires more intervention than kickstarting a capitalist economy, nationalizing assets and managing them requires a far more hands on approach than selling assets and wiping your hands. As seen in history books, this is a perfect opportunity to seize absolute power and purge the opposition in the name of the greater good. Being more prone to these accidents is what made socialism lose the PR war in my opinion. Sounds like if we went to worker ownership through social democracy rather than state ownership, we would have a good chance of circumventing this issue, don't you think? I do agree and while other problems might arise, I'd love to see how such a process would unfold even if for curiosity alone. fwiw I'm perfectly open to hear ideas from those who oppose revolution how they would like to set up worker ownership both as a system of ownership itself and how they get it past the political system. I don't mean that as a challenge, just that if it distills down to "after the planet has been ravaged by climate change..." we should just establish that on the front end.
I still think it's a mistake to oppose revolutionary ideas that come from electoralism and revolutionary ideas that come from revolution. I understand that in your perception one is impossible, and that may be true. Myself I'm not ready to shut any doors though.
|
On May 31 2019 08:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 31 2019 08:26 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 08:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 08:06 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 07:29 Dan HH wrote:On May 31 2019 06:25 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2019 06:15 JimmiC wrote:On May 31 2019 06:09 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
You disagree in that you don't want to go further than that, and we should. Social democracy is, in my view, a much better entry point to worker ownership than state ownership is. But if that's your long term position, it's excessively unlikely to work out.
Strategically it's also going to be pretty difficult to convince liberals that putting more socialism in their capitalism is a good idea if you have to stop in the middle of every sentence to acknowledge that socialism is the worst thing ever. Your first part I completely agree about so we would simply work together to move it until we reached the point that we disagreed, and depending on how things are going we might agree by then, assuming it all is working out. Your second statement I disagree with it is not that you need say that socialism is the worst thing ever, it is that you need harp on why socialism good, and why they agree with it, instead of the way more divisive what whats wrong with liberalism and why capitalism is so bad. Otherwise you just keep turning people off since it sounds like you have no answers and only the ability to point out weaknesses. Some of the reasons why socialism is good are the reasons why capitalism is bad. Reduced level of exploitation. Reduced level of social hierarchy. More democracy. Less emphasis on profits over alternative goals. These are the same conversation. Changing your -ism with popular support and the best of intentions doesn't make a culture more empathetic or altruistic. The reason decades of socialism failed to improve the parameters you listed in Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc, can be best explained by the Latin American term viveza criolla and the similar Brazilian term jeitinho. I recommend reading those very short wiki pages. Presumably those also manifest under capitalism, you would agree. What is it about capitalism and socialism, in your view, that causes one of the systems to be able to sustain these, while the other fails? I do agree with that and I don't think either of them is more susceptible to it than the other. However, kickstarting a socialist economy requires more intervention than kickstarting a capitalist economy, nationalizing assets and managing them requires a far more hands on approach than selling assets and wiping your hands. As seen in history books, this is a perfect opportunity to seize absolute power and purge the opposition in the name of the greater good. Being more prone to these accidents is what made socialism lose the PR war in my opinion. Sounds like if we went to worker ownership through social democracy rather than state ownership, we would have a good chance of circumventing this issue, don't you think? I do agree and while other problems might arise, I'd love to see how such a process would unfold even if for curiosity alone. fwiw I'm perfectly open to hear ideas from those who oppose revolution how they would like to set up worker ownership both as a system of ownership itself and how they get it past the political system. I don't mean that as a challenge, just that if it distills down to "after the planet has been ravaged by climate change..." we should just establish that on the front end. I still think it's a mistake to oppose revolutionary ideas that come from electoralism and revolutionary ideas that come from revolution. I understand that in your perception one is impossible, and that may be true. Myself I'm not ready to shut any doors though.
I'm mostly just taking the more radical position because we're naturally inclined in those directions (probably has a lot to do with our material conditions without offending you) and it's a privilege I took mostly by nature of coincidence and recognition rather than intentional planning.
Here I find myself at a crossroads of theory and praxis of which this thread has commented before so I see this as an opportunity.
I could be honest and expand on this as theory dictates or I can be manipulative and instead play on human emotional/social vulnerabilities and susceptibility to illusion to trick you guys into thinking my beliefs are something they aren't because it would be far more likely to fit the type of engagement often suggested to me would be more effective in changing hearts and minds.
I'll leave it up to the thread and I won't respond right away so several people can opine before we choose a course of action.
I'll consider the opinion of anyone (even lurkers) who opines regardless of the nature of our existing relationship here or politically. I'll take PM's too if people are shy or whatever.
EDIT: Fair warning
This is a perfect opportunity for anyone who claims to want to understand my positions better to do just that and passing this opportunity will call into question your sincerity in that plea.
Instead picking up with the regularly scheduled bickering with xDaunt/danglers/conservatives about Trump/insulting Republicans will also be indicative of your sincerity or lack thereof.
|
Oh lordy, look at the balls on Trump. He's imposing tariffs on Mexico that will go into effect beginning on June 10, 2019 if Mexico fails to stop illegal immigration into the US. The initial tariffs will be 5% on all goods. It will escalate 5% every month if Mexico continues to allow illegal immigration into the US.
As everyone knows, the United States of America has been invaded by hundreds of thousands of people coming through Mexico and entering our country illegally. This sustained influx of illegal aliens has profound consequences on every aspect of our national life—overwhelming our schools, overcrowding our hospitals, draining our welfare system, and causing untold amounts of crime. Gang members, smugglers, human traffickers, and illegal drugs and narcotics of all kinds are pouring across the Southern Border and directly into our communities. Thousands of innocent lives are taken every year as a result of this lawless chaos. It must end NOW!
Mexico’s passive cooperation in allowing this mass incursion constitutes an emergency and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States. Mexico has very strong immigration laws and could easily halt the illegal flow of migrants, including by returning them to their home countries. Additionally, Mexico could quickly and easily stop illegal aliens from coming through its southern border with Guatemala.
For decades, the United States has suffered the severe and dangerous consequences of illegal immigration. Sadly, Mexico has allowed this situation to go on for many years, growing only worse with the passage of time. From a safety, national security, military, economic, and humanitarian standpoint, we cannot allow this grave disaster to continue. The current state of affairs is profoundly unfair to the American taxpayer, who bears the extraordinary financial cost imposed by large-scale illegal migration. Even worse is the terrible and preventable loss of human life. Some of the most deadly and vicious gangs on the planet operate just across our border and terrorize innocent communities.
Mexico must step up and help solve this problem. We welcome people who come to the United States legally, but we cannot allow our laws to be broken and our borders to be violated. For years, Mexico has not treated us fairly—but we are now asserting our rights as a sovereign Nation.
To address the emergency at the Southern Border, I am invoking the authorities granted to me by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Accordingly, starting on June 10, 2019, the United States will impose a 5 percent Tariff on all goods imported from Mexico. If the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico, to be determined in our sole discretion and judgment, the Tariffs will be removed. If the crisis persists, however, the Tariffs will be raised to 10 percent on July 1, 2019. Similarly, if Mexico still has not taken action to dramatically reduce or eliminate the number of illegal aliens crossing its territory into the United States, Tariffs will be increased to 15 percent on August 1, 2019, to 20 percent on September 1, 2019, and to 25 percent on October 1, 2019. Tariffs will permanently remain at the 25 percent level unless and until Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory. Workers who
come to our country through the legal admissions process, including those working on farms, ranches, and in other businesses, will be allowed easy passage.
If Mexico fails to act, Tariffs will remain at the high level, and companies located in Mexico may start moving back to the United States to make their products and goods. Companies that relocate to the United States will not pay the Tariffs or be affected in any way.
Over the years, Mexico has made massive amounts of money in its dealings with the United States, and this includes the tremendous number of jobs leaving our country.
Should Mexico choose not to cooperate on reducing unlawful migration, the sustained imposition of Tariffs will produce a massive return of jobs back to American cities and towns. Remember, our great country has been the “piggy bank” from which everybody wants only to TAKE. The difference is that now we are firmly and forcefully standing up for America’s interests.
We have confidence that Mexico can and will act swiftly to help the United States stop this long-term, dangerous, and deeply unfair problem. The United States has been very good to Mexico for many years. We are now asking that Mexico immediately do its fair share to stop the use of its territory as a conduit for illegal immigration into our country.
The cartels and coyotes are having a greater and greater impact on the Mexican side of our Southern Border. This is a dire threat that must be decisively eliminated. Billions of dollars are made, and countless lives are ruined, by these ruthless and merciless criminal organizations. Mexico must bring law and order to its side of the border.
Democrats in Congress are fully aware of this horrible situation and yet refuse to help in any way, shape, or form. This is a total dereliction of duty. The migrant crisis is a calamity that must now be solved—and can easily be solved—in Congress. Our broken asylum laws, court system, catch-and-release, visa lottery, chain migration, and many other loopholes can all be promptly corrected. When that happens, the measures being announced today can be more readily reduced or removed.
The United States is a great country that can no longer be exploited due to its foolish and irresponsible immigration laws. For the sake of our people, and for the sake of our future, these horrendous laws must be changed now.
At the same time, Mexico cannot allow hundreds of thousands of people to pour over its land and into our country—violating the sovereign territory of the United States. If Mexico does not take decisive measures, it will come at a significant price.
We therefore look forward to, and appreciate, the swift and effective actions that we hope Mexico will immediately install.
As President of the United States, my highest duty is the defense of the country and its citizens. A nation without borders is not a nation at all. I will not stand by and allow our sovereignty to be eroded, our laws to be trampled, or our borders to be disrespected anymore.
Source.
|
United States24751 Posts
The criteria for what Mexico needs to do to avoid the tariffs described in that White House Press Statement above is not spelled out. The exact words are,
"If the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico, to be determined in our sole discretion and judgment, the Tariffs will be removed. If the crisis persists, however,"
"...dramatically reduce or eliminate the number of illegal aliens crossing its territory into the United States..."
"...until Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory..."
"...If Mexico fails to act..."
A threat with such unclear criteria for compliance is not effective. It may hurt Mexico, but only insofar as it also hurts the U.S. too. There are many ways Trump could show he has "balls," but this is not it. More likely, this is an attempt to show the administration is taking on two issues important to their base: illegal or undesirable immigration destroying out country (at least in their view), and jobs leaving the country. Trying to make this into a win-win for two separate issues is probably doomed to fail.
|
I don't mind Trump not giving Mexico specific criteria at the outset. The point is to get them off their asses and doing something to help. Mexico is going to have to get in the game now, because they will be harmed by these tariffs. If China is any example, the tariffs on Mexico will cause deflationary pressures on Mexican exports to the US and put a damper on capital expenditures in Mexico. Domestically, Trump is going to benefit from Wall Street and other entities with supply chains coming from Mexico placing tremendous pressure on politicians to do something to address the situation. They may not care about fixing the border situation, but they most certainly care about their bottom lines taking it in the bottoms. Hell, car manufacturers alone may have sufficient incentive now to police the border themselves just to make the tariffs go away.
|
Trump is relying heavily on a fundamentally sound economy to continue working well. I sincerely hope that there aren't many more of these, as even a good economy can be killed by government intervention. But hey, he can always lift them by election time and thus kick things back into gear! Hopefully.
|
Trumps spoken word in writing is such a trainwreck
Starts in international threat with 'As everyone knows' just to make it real serious, then add superlative exaggerations to every sentence so you make a massively tremendous impression
Also, the tariffs will only lead to business getting fucked, and more billions of state subsidies. The farmer package was recently extended for 16 billion on top of the 12 billion last year. The irony of this self-induced socialism...
|
Very Trumpian threat. No specifics = can claim victory without anything substantial actually changing.
Still, he is getting some very bad advice (Miller im guessing). Why continue to undermine just about the only argument Trump has with moderate voters: the economy doing well?
|
Behold the « balls » of the Great Leader who dares bullying a weaker country with tariffs that will hurt everybody over the actions of its citizens trying to seek a better life in the US...
« Sad! », as a very stable genius would have said.
|
On May 31 2019 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Very Trumpian threat. No specifics = can claim victory without anything substantial actually changing.
Still, he is getting some very bad advice (Miller im guessing). Why continue to undermine just about the only argument Trump has with moderate voters: the economy doing well?
I doubt that it's going to do much broad-based harm, if any. And the policy is going to be lauded in the rust belt states that Trump wants to be competitive in. Additionally, being tough on illegal immigration is a winning policy for Trump. The more he hammers on it, the better he'll do.
|
|
|
On May 31 2019 11:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2019 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Very Trumpian threat. No specifics = can claim victory without anything substantial actually changing.
Still, he is getting some very bad advice (Miller im guessing). Why continue to undermine just about the only argument Trump has with moderate voters: the economy doing well? I doubt that it's going to do much broad-based harm, if any. And the policy is going to be lauded in the rust belt states that Trump wants to be competitive in. Additionally, being tough on illegal immigration is a winning policy for Trump. The more he hammers on it, the better he'll do.
Oh lordy, look at the balls on Trump.
I hope that's the title of Comey's next book.
I don't think it's going to make much of a difference either. Trump can't win being seen as soft on immigration that's for sure and without a real wall (his supporters will cut him some slack on that but not too much) he's gotta have something else in the same vein to point to this hits that requirement as well as playing well with the anti-NAFTA dems that voted Trump/stayed home in 2016.
As I'm becoming a detached observer that's basically a doomsday prepper (on a generational scale) and see the parties from all the way on the outside I've certainly got my work cut out for me over the next 20 years. I wish I had done more sooner.
Any youngins reading this thread, learn how to survive without electricity or buyable food for weeks on end, it'll be worth more than all the fortnite skins, gucci flip flops, and college degrees (well not all of them, some of them will still be useful, so get one of those if you must) in the world one day imo.
+ Show Spoiler +And I can take a hint, I'll lay off of talking revolution for a while and if it comes up again we can make sure to pick up where we left off.
|
On May 31 2019 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:I think this is silly but as an individual, I haven't made a child which makes my carbon footprint smaller than all but the most efficient people who make children. Show nested quote +Having children is the most destructive thing a person can to do to the environment, according to a new study.
“A US family who chooses to have one fewer child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teenagers who choose to adopt comprehensive recycling for the rest of their lives,” it said. www.independent.co.ukI do plenty more (little-nothing is more important than joining folks in lifting class consciousness imo), but just that one thing puts me well ahead of your typical "green minded" liberal with with a kid. When talking about the individual level it's really not even close which is more impactful. Show nested quote +having one fewer child per family can save “an average of 58.6 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions per year compared to dramatic lifestyle changes like never driving a car, obsessive recycling, and only using reusables Show nested quote +“For example, living car-free saves about 2.4 tonnes of C02 equivalent per year, while eating a plant-based diet saves 0.8 tonnes of C02 equivalent a year.”
There's no point in saving the planet if everyone stops having children. Not having children is at best a preference, not a moral good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
