|
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 January 16 2020 10:22 Emnjay808 wrote:
No deep knowledge =\= zero knowledge.
Basically ,in theory, the person would only know what they would see on national TV or Twitter.
What do you value?
|
On January 16 2020 10:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 10:22 Emnjay808 wrote:
No deep knowledge =\= zero knowledge.
Basically ,in theory, the person would only know what they would see on national TV or Twitter. What do you value?
I value a strong econ, I’d like to invest in property (I live in Hawaii so it’s very expensive) and have the property appreciate in value (as it should) and not worry about it outside of typical property taxes and managing tenants.
I want “immediate” action on renewable energy for vehicles and homes. Elon said something along the lines that even if we immediately stopped production of all carbon based vehicles it would still take another 20 years (average life span of a car) to completely switch over to EVs.
Those are just off the top of my head.
|
|
|
|
|
I always figured Trump is heavily endorsed/lobbied by Oil/Power companies. Id recon at least he believes in climate change but cant speak of action.
Either way it doesnt matter. I dont think my expecations would be met within the foreseeable future (with either party), as sad as it is to admit.
|
|
|
|
|
So Nunes was in on it as well as Pence and Barr according to Lev Parnas
|
On the impeachment case there is some news, yesterday a lot of files were released by one of the Giuliani goons, Lev Parnas. Among it was a letter Giulani sent to the Ukrainian president where he asks for a meeting representing Trump and specifically adds he represents Trump as a person not a president but still has Trumps full knowledge and consent.
Letter
+ Show Spoiler +
And today Parnas gave a extensive interview to Maddow where he says out loud Trump knew everything. He also says Devin Nunes was involved in it all. Given Nunes position in this whole investigation, it's all getting complicated.
Remember we already knew Nunes was called by Parnas by the phone records released earlier but then Nunes ' didn't recall' this ' random person' Parnas at all.
+ Show Spoiler +
Trump knew and consented to everything:
+ Show Spoiler +
Pence and Bolton:
+ Show Spoiler +
Barr:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 16 2020 07:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2020 06:38 Belisarius wrote:Ah good, we are here again.
It will take a monumental change of peoples lifestyles and goals to fix the environment, globally. The environment does not care if workers own the means of production or not. And there is zero evidence that once they do the people make decisions collectively that are better for the environment and not to make their own lifestyles more comfortable.
This is the core problem that I have never seen a satisfactory response to. At this point, you two might as well be advocating we solve everything by magic. You are welcome, at any time, to remove that impression by describing what you would like to do. No problem, thanks for asking. There are two main drivers of climate change, it's emissions by the more developped countries and emissions by the industry. Industry is responsible for most of the emissions of course but there's also a more individualistic element in that our way of life produces a level of emissions that is not really sustainable long term. The issue that capitalism has in dealing with this is that because it allocates too much power to the specific people who run the industries, the capitalist class, it is ill-equipped to activate change in those. So instead we observe what we have seen in the world today: people should take personal responsibility and change their lives according to climate, we should stop having vacations, we should stop using cars, we should pee in the shower. This is something but it's not enough because of the dual nature of the problem we face. We see that capitalism is "decent" at demanding that people change their lifestyles, it can use propaganda, it can tax them if they behave poorly, that sort of thing. We also see that capitalism is atrocious at demanding that industry changes, because of the amount of power allocated to the bosses of industry, and because of the profit motive that causes every change to be adopted reluctantly. Therefore a logical step to make is to increase the power that we have over industry. We can do that using social democracy and have the government regulate the businesses so that they are forced to be more ecofriendly. That has issues, but either way it's the only realistic step that we have so let's do that. The reluctance that will be shown by industry and the general issues of corruption and propaganda will make it so that it's not enough though. It isn't realistic to expect that the capitalist class won't fight back. Corruption will be more profitable than respecting their limits, so they will corrupt the controllers. All the change that we see will be done reluctantly, thus basically ensuring that it isn't bold enough to lead us to where we need to be. And they will still hold more power on society than the rest of us do, which means they will be in prime position to influence politics and make the discourse drift right again in the near future even if we manage to win right now. That's why we shouldn't stop there, logically, in an ecologic framework. Luckily not stopping there is also a good thing in general, so it's not a problem that we have to continue. You didn't address his point tho. Show nested quote +And there is zero evidence that once they do the people make decisions collectively that are better for the environment and not to make their own lifestyles more comfortable If you change up who owns the industry then they become the class of people who fight against climate change regulations because they now control the industry. By changing ownership from a couple of rich people to a lot of 'poor' people your just increasing the number of people you are fighting and not reducing their power at all, they still control the industry.
Did this not strike anyone else as anti-democratic?
Can't we use precisely this argument against democracy generally by basically replacing "ownership" with "voting rights"?
For example:
If you change up who has voting rights in the country then they become the class of people who fight against climate change regulations because they now vote on the country's actions. By changing voting rights from a couple of rich people to a lot of 'poor' people your just increasing the number of people you are fighting and not reducing their power at all, they still control the country.
|
I'm glad Clinton strategists are helping Warren because it's paying off big time for Bernie. I hope this "ur a woman hater" continues to serve Bernie well!
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/15/warren-sanders-dispute-2020-099467
Even by the standards of Bernie Sanders’ fundraising juggernaut, Tuesday was a big day: He raised $1.7 million from more than 100,000 small-dollar donors, his biggest debate-day haul of the 2020 campaign.
Sanders’ debate performance wasn’t the driving force behind the outpouring of cash. Rather, it was largely a response to his recent tensions with long-time ally Elizabeth Warren — a show of support and defiance that provides a window into the loyalty and motivation of Sanders’ grassroots base.
|
I realise this was a while ago now, capitalism is slightly more effective at incentivising my employment than it is neb's.
On January 16 2020 07:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 07:28 Gorsameth wrote:On January 16 2020 07:21 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2020 07:15 Gorsameth wrote:On January 16 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2020 06:38 Belisarius wrote:Ah good, we are here again.
It will take a monumental change of peoples lifestyles and goals to fix the environment, globally. The environment does not care if workers own the means of production or not. And there is zero evidence that once they do the people make decisions collectively that are better for the environment and not to make their own lifestyles more comfortable.
This is the core problem that I have never seen a satisfactory response to. At this point, you two might as well be advocating we solve everything by magic. You are welcome, at any time, to remove that impression by describing what you would like to do. No problem, thanks for asking. There are two main drivers of climate change, it's emissions by the more developped countries and emissions by the industry. Industry is responsible for most of the emissions of course but there's also a more individualistic element in that our way of life produces a level of emissions that is not really sustainable long term. The issue that capitalism has in dealing with this is that because it allocates too much power to the specific people who run the industries, the capitalist class, it is ill-equipped to activate change in those. So instead we observe what we have seen in the world today: people should take personal responsibility and change their lives according to climate, we should stop having vacations, we should stop using cars, we should pee in the shower. This is something but it's not enough because of the dual nature of the problem we face. We see that capitalism is "decent" at demanding that people change their lifestyles, it can use propaganda, it can tax them if they behave poorly, that sort of thing. We also see that capitalism is atrocious at demanding that industry changes, because of the amount of power allocated to the bosses of industry, and because of the profit motive that causes every change to be adopted reluctantly. Therefore a logical step to make is to increase the power that we have over industry. We can do that using social democracy and have the government regulate the businesses so that they are forced to be more ecofriendly. That has issues, but either way it's the only realistic step that we have so let's do that. The reluctance that will be shown by industry and the general issues of corruption and propaganda will make it so that it's not enough though. It isn't realistic to expect that the capitalist class won't fight back. Corruption will be more profitable than respecting their limits, so they will corrupt the controllers. All the change that we see will be done reluctantly, thus basically ensuring that it isn't bold enough to lead us to where we need to be. And they will still hold more power on society than the rest of us do, which means they will be in prime position to influence politics and make the discourse drift right again in the near future even if we manage to win right now. That's why we shouldn't stop there, logically, in an ecologic framework. Luckily not stopping there is also a good thing in general, so it's not a problem that we have to continue. You didn't address his point tho. And there is zero evidence that once they do the people make decisions collectively that are better for the environment and not to make their own lifestyles more comfortable If you change up who owns the industry then they become the class of people who fight against climate change regulations because they now control the industry. By changing ownership from a couple of rich people to a lot of 'poor' people your just increasing the number of people you are fighting and not reducing their power at all, they still control the industry. It's somewhat easy for a few rich people to insulate themselves from the consequences of climate change. It's a lot harder for the entirety of the workers of a company to do so. So no, I don't think that a democratic worker force would make the same decisions than a single CEO would, in fact I think that's pretty ludicrous to believe. It's not just that, it would also be harder for them to promote actively lying to the people for personal benefit, as the whole enterprise would have to agree to do that. So we wouldn't see as much propaganda and in consequence, not as much climate change or overall science denial. You are underestimating the dynamic of an elite vs a people. Replacing the elites with the people doesn't just make the people the elite. They're still the people. They don't have to insulate themselves from the consequences. They just don't have to give a shit, or less shit then they give about losing 20% of their pay (random ass number) for the company to become green. People are really good at ignoring negative consequences that are not directly apparent, and by the time we see direct consequences of climate change, beyond "oh this year is a little hotter then the previous one" it will be way way to late. Which do you think is more likely, that 50% of the workers of a company that are not insulated collectively decide not to give a shit, or that a board of CEOs that are insulated decide not to give a shit? Sounds fairly clear cut to me, do you disagree? I'd love to see why.
This isn't the question, though. The question we currently face is: which is more likely, successfully pressuring the current group of CEOs to give a shit, or attempting to rebuild the entire structure of society in an impossibly short window, in the vague hope that the new group of owners will give more of a shit.
On January 16 2020 07:41 Gorsameth wrote:
Walk up to 100 average Joes and ask them how much salary and living comfort they will give up to save the environment. The answer will be "not enough".
Our national public broadcaster ran a huge survey last year. Climate change was the #1 issue selected out of a list of “immediate person concerns”. 72% of respondents said it concerned them. This was before the country became an infernal hellscape.
Immediately afterwards, they asked the same people how much they would be willing to spend to address it. The answers were:
21% zilch
18% <$100
28% $100-$500
10% $500-$1000
5% $1000-$2000
4% >$2000
13% idk
That is less than 10% of people who say they are willing to pay anything like the amount it might actually cost, and this is in a response-biased group that already skews educated and left.
I can’t find the original article but here is a fancy interactographic thing they did afterwards.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-17/what-youd-spend-to-halt-climate-change-and-what-you-could-get/11784704
Everyone agrees climate change is a problem. Nobody will ever agree to do anything meaningful about it unless they are forced to. This problem is not solved by socialism because it is not due to power structures, it is due to people - and not just rich people - being ignorant and selfish and short-sighted.
|
Everyone agrees climate change is a problem. Nobody will ever agree to do anything meaningful about it unless they are forced to.
How do you suggest we force them?
|
On January 16 2020 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 07:15 Gorsameth wrote:On January 16 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2020 06:38 Belisarius wrote:Ah good, we are here again.
It will take a monumental change of peoples lifestyles and goals to fix the environment, globally. The environment does not care if workers own the means of production or not. And there is zero evidence that once they do the people make decisions collectively that are better for the environment and not to make their own lifestyles more comfortable.
This is the core problem that I have never seen a satisfactory response to. At this point, you two might as well be advocating we solve everything by magic. You are welcome, at any time, to remove that impression by describing what you would like to do. No problem, thanks for asking. There are two main drivers of climate change, it's emissions by the more developped countries and emissions by the industry. Industry is responsible for most of the emissions of course but there's also a more individualistic element in that our way of life produces a level of emissions that is not really sustainable long term. The issue that capitalism has in dealing with this is that because it allocates too much power to the specific people who run the industries, the capitalist class, it is ill-equipped to activate change in those. So instead we observe what we have seen in the world today: people should take personal responsibility and change their lives according to climate, we should stop having vacations, we should stop using cars, we should pee in the shower. This is something but it's not enough because of the dual nature of the problem we face. We see that capitalism is "decent" at demanding that people change their lifestyles, it can use propaganda, it can tax them if they behave poorly, that sort of thing. We also see that capitalism is atrocious at demanding that industry changes, because of the amount of power allocated to the bosses of industry, and because of the profit motive that causes every change to be adopted reluctantly. Therefore a logical step to make is to increase the power that we have over industry. We can do that using social democracy and have the government regulate the businesses so that they are forced to be more ecofriendly. That has issues, but either way it's the only realistic step that we have so let's do that. The reluctance that will be shown by industry and the general issues of corruption and propaganda will make it so that it's not enough though. It isn't realistic to expect that the capitalist class won't fight back. Corruption will be more profitable than respecting their limits, so they will corrupt the controllers. All the change that we see will be done reluctantly, thus basically ensuring that it isn't bold enough to lead us to where we need to be. And they will still hold more power on society than the rest of us do, which means they will be in prime position to influence politics and make the discourse drift right again in the near future even if we manage to win right now. That's why we shouldn't stop there, logically, in an ecologic framework. Luckily not stopping there is also a good thing in general, so it's not a problem that we have to continue. You didn't address his point tho. And there is zero evidence that once they do the people make decisions collectively that are better for the environment and not to make their own lifestyles more comfortable If you change up who owns the industry then they become the class of people who fight against climate change regulations because they now control the industry. By changing ownership from a couple of rich people to a lot of 'poor' people your just increasing the number of people you are fighting and not reducing their power at all, they still control the industry. Did this not strike anyone else as anti-democratic? Can't we use precisely this argument against democracy generally by basically replacing "ownership" with "voting rights"? For example: If you change up who has voting rights in the country then they become the class of people who fight against climate change regulations because they now vote on the country's actions. By changing voting rights from a couple of rich people to a lot of 'poor' people your just increasing the number of people you are fighting and not reducing their power at all, they still control the country.
This is precisely why democracy moved on past the people actually voting on the day to day workings of state. Voting rights for climate change are still in the hands of the rich (either in wealth or influence) but rather that they have to keep happy the people from which they gain their inherent power.
In this example "seizeing the means of democracy" would mean a return to greek democracies instead of roman democracies that modern republics are based on.
On January 16 2020 14:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Everyone agrees climate change is a problem. Nobody will ever agree to do anything meaningful about it unless they are forced to. How do you suggest we force them?
Do you really need it explained to you that doing it through force is bad? The only way to legitimately do it is to outnumber the people who don't agree its an issue. To gain consent to action through numerical majority. Its the basic concept of democracy.
|
On January 16 2020 14:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 07:15 Gorsameth wrote:On January 16 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2020 06:38 Belisarius wrote:Ah good, we are here again.
It will take a monumental change of peoples lifestyles and goals to fix the environment, globally. The environment does not care if workers own the means of production or not. And there is zero evidence that once they do the people make decisions collectively that are better for the environment and not to make their own lifestyles more comfortable.
This is the core problem that I have never seen a satisfactory response to. At this point, you two might as well be advocating we solve everything by magic. You are welcome, at any time, to remove that impression by describing what you would like to do. No problem, thanks for asking. There are two main drivers of climate change, it's emissions by the more developped countries and emissions by the industry. Industry is responsible for most of the emissions of course but there's also a more individualistic element in that our way of life produces a level of emissions that is not really sustainable long term. The issue that capitalism has in dealing with this is that because it allocates too much power to the specific people who run the industries, the capitalist class, it is ill-equipped to activate change in those. So instead we observe what we have seen in the world today: people should take personal responsibility and change their lives according to climate, we should stop having vacations, we should stop using cars, we should pee in the shower. This is something but it's not enough because of the dual nature of the problem we face. We see that capitalism is "decent" at demanding that people change their lifestyles, it can use propaganda, it can tax them if they behave poorly, that sort of thing. We also see that capitalism is atrocious at demanding that industry changes, because of the amount of power allocated to the bosses of industry, and because of the profit motive that causes every change to be adopted reluctantly. Therefore a logical step to make is to increase the power that we have over industry. We can do that using social democracy and have the government regulate the businesses so that they are forced to be more ecofriendly. That has issues, but either way it's the only realistic step that we have so let's do that. The reluctance that will be shown by industry and the general issues of corruption and propaganda will make it so that it's not enough though. It isn't realistic to expect that the capitalist class won't fight back. Corruption will be more profitable than respecting their limits, so they will corrupt the controllers. All the change that we see will be done reluctantly, thus basically ensuring that it isn't bold enough to lead us to where we need to be. And they will still hold more power on society than the rest of us do, which means they will be in prime position to influence politics and make the discourse drift right again in the near future even if we manage to win right now. That's why we shouldn't stop there, logically, in an ecologic framework. Luckily not stopping there is also a good thing in general, so it's not a problem that we have to continue. You didn't address his point tho. And there is zero evidence that once they do the people make decisions collectively that are better for the environment and not to make their own lifestyles more comfortable If you change up who owns the industry then they become the class of people who fight against climate change regulations because they now control the industry. By changing ownership from a couple of rich people to a lot of 'poor' people your just increasing the number of people you are fighting and not reducing their power at all, they still control the industry. Did this not strike anyone else as anti-democratic? Can't we use precisely this argument against democracy generally by basically replacing "ownership" with "voting rights"? For example: If you change up who has voting rights in the country then they become the class of people who fight against climate change regulations because they now vote on the country's actions. By changing voting rights from a couple of rich people to a lot of 'poor' people your just increasing the number of people you are fighting and not reducing their power at all, they still control the country. This is precisely why democracy moved on past the people actually voting on the day to day workings of state. Voting rights for climate change are still in the hands of the rich (either in wealth or influence) but rather that they have to keep happy the people from which they gain their inherent power. In this example "seizeing the means of democracy" would mean a return to greek democracies instead of roman democracies that modern republics are based on. Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 14:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Everyone agrees climate change is a problem. Nobody will ever agree to do anything meaningful about it unless they are forced to. How do you suggest we force them? Do you really need it explained to you that doing it through force is bad? The only way to legitimately do it is to outnumber the people who don't agree its an issue. To gain consent to action through numerical majority. Its the basic concept of democracy.
I would say more democracy is pro-democracy and less democracy is an anti-democracy position. Are you arguing that reducing democratic participation is a pro-democracy argument?
On January 16 2020 14:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Everyone agrees climate change is a problem. Nobody will ever agree to do anything meaningful about it unless they are forced to. How do you suggest we force them?
On January 16 2020 14:25 Sermokala wrote:
Do you really need it explained to you that doing it through force is bad? The only way to legitimately do it is to outnumber the people who don't agree its an issue. To gain consent to action through numerical majority. Its the basic concept of democracy.
No. The argument was the only way to do what is necessary to (remotely) adequately address climate change was to "force" them so "legitimate" options would seem to be off the table in my reading of that.
|
On January 16 2020 14:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 14:25 Sermokala wrote:On January 16 2020 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 07:15 Gorsameth wrote:On January 16 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2020 06:38 Belisarius wrote:Ah good, we are here again.
It will take a monumental change of peoples lifestyles and goals to fix the environment, globally. The environment does not care if workers own the means of production or not. And there is zero evidence that once they do the people make decisions collectively that are better for the environment and not to make their own lifestyles more comfortable.
This is the core problem that I have never seen a satisfactory response to. At this point, you two might as well be advocating we solve everything by magic. You are welcome, at any time, to remove that impression by describing what you would like to do. No problem, thanks for asking. There are two main drivers of climate change, it's emissions by the more developped countries and emissions by the industry. Industry is responsible for most of the emissions of course but there's also a more individualistic element in that our way of life produces a level of emissions that is not really sustainable long term. The issue that capitalism has in dealing with this is that because it allocates too much power to the specific people who run the industries, the capitalist class, it is ill-equipped to activate change in those. So instead we observe what we have seen in the world today: people should take personal responsibility and change their lives according to climate, we should stop having vacations, we should stop using cars, we should pee in the shower. This is something but it's not enough because of the dual nature of the problem we face. We see that capitalism is "decent" at demanding that people change their lifestyles, it can use propaganda, it can tax them if they behave poorly, that sort of thing. We also see that capitalism is atrocious at demanding that industry changes, because of the amount of power allocated to the bosses of industry, and because of the profit motive that causes every change to be adopted reluctantly. Therefore a logical step to make is to increase the power that we have over industry. We can do that using social democracy and have the government regulate the businesses so that they are forced to be more ecofriendly. That has issues, but either way it's the only realistic step that we have so let's do that. The reluctance that will be shown by industry and the general issues of corruption and propaganda will make it so that it's not enough though. It isn't realistic to expect that the capitalist class won't fight back. Corruption will be more profitable than respecting their limits, so they will corrupt the controllers. All the change that we see will be done reluctantly, thus basically ensuring that it isn't bold enough to lead us to where we need to be. And they will still hold more power on society than the rest of us do, which means they will be in prime position to influence politics and make the discourse drift right again in the near future even if we manage to win right now. That's why we shouldn't stop there, logically, in an ecologic framework. Luckily not stopping there is also a good thing in general, so it's not a problem that we have to continue. You didn't address his point tho. And there is zero evidence that once they do the people make decisions collectively that are better for the environment and not to make their own lifestyles more comfortable If you change up who owns the industry then they become the class of people who fight against climate change regulations because they now control the industry. By changing ownership from a couple of rich people to a lot of 'poor' people your just increasing the number of people you are fighting and not reducing their power at all, they still control the industry. Did this not strike anyone else as anti-democratic? Can't we use precisely this argument against democracy generally by basically replacing "ownership" with "voting rights"? For example: If you change up who has voting rights in the country then they become the class of people who fight against climate change regulations because they now vote on the country's actions. By changing voting rights from a couple of rich people to a lot of 'poor' people your just increasing the number of people you are fighting and not reducing their power at all, they still control the country. This is precisely why democracy moved on past the people actually voting on the day to day workings of state. Voting rights for climate change are still in the hands of the rich (either in wealth or influence) but rather that they have to keep happy the people from which they gain their inherent power. In this example "seizeing the means of democracy" would mean a return to greek democracies instead of roman democracies that modern republics are based on. On January 16 2020 14:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Everyone agrees climate change is a problem. Nobody will ever agree to do anything meaningful about it unless they are forced to. How do you suggest we force them? Do you really need it explained to you that doing it through force is bad? The only way to legitimately do it is to outnumber the people who don't agree its an issue. To gain consent to action through numerical majority. Its the basic concept of democracy. I would say more democracy is pro-democracy and less democracy is an anti-democracy position. Are you arguing that reducing democratic participation is a pro-democracy argument?
No and I would take your argument as childishly simplistic that fails when it comes to the most basic of examples.
Democracy is as abstract as capitalism. The greeks learned that pure democracy is a sad joke and everyone would be happier under tyrants. Communists learned that having one party to vote for is a sad joke and everyone would be happier under tyrants.
Tomas Jefferson said that the republic was a lie and that federalism gave people enough of democracy to matter without burdening them with the power that corupted them. Now its 230 odd years later and we've survived a couple of executives who decided rules didn't apply to them and they could do what they want as long as they won an election.
|
On January 16 2020 14:42 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 14:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 14:25 Sermokala wrote:On January 16 2020 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 07:15 Gorsameth wrote:On January 16 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2020 06:38 Belisarius wrote:Ah good, we are here again.
It will take a monumental change of peoples lifestyles and goals to fix the environment, globally. The environment does not care if workers own the means of production or not. And there is zero evidence that once they do the people make decisions collectively that are better for the environment and not to make their own lifestyles more comfortable.
This is the core problem that I have never seen a satisfactory response to. At this point, you two might as well be advocating we solve everything by magic. You are welcome, at any time, to remove that impression by describing what you would like to do. No problem, thanks for asking. There are two main drivers of climate change, it's emissions by the more developped countries and emissions by the industry. Industry is responsible for most of the emissions of course but there's also a more individualistic element in that our way of life produces a level of emissions that is not really sustainable long term. The issue that capitalism has in dealing with this is that because it allocates too much power to the specific people who run the industries, the capitalist class, it is ill-equipped to activate change in those. So instead we observe what we have seen in the world today: people should take personal responsibility and change their lives according to climate, we should stop having vacations, we should stop using cars, we should pee in the shower. This is something but it's not enough because of the dual nature of the problem we face. We see that capitalism is "decent" at demanding that people change their lifestyles, it can use propaganda, it can tax them if they behave poorly, that sort of thing. We also see that capitalism is atrocious at demanding that industry changes, because of the amount of power allocated to the bosses of industry, and because of the profit motive that causes every change to be adopted reluctantly. Therefore a logical step to make is to increase the power that we have over industry. We can do that using social democracy and have the government regulate the businesses so that they are forced to be more ecofriendly. That has issues, but either way it's the only realistic step that we have so let's do that. The reluctance that will be shown by industry and the general issues of corruption and propaganda will make it so that it's not enough though. It isn't realistic to expect that the capitalist class won't fight back. Corruption will be more profitable than respecting their limits, so they will corrupt the controllers. All the change that we see will be done reluctantly, thus basically ensuring that it isn't bold enough to lead us to where we need to be. And they will still hold more power on society than the rest of us do, which means they will be in prime position to influence politics and make the discourse drift right again in the near future even if we manage to win right now. That's why we shouldn't stop there, logically, in an ecologic framework. Luckily not stopping there is also a good thing in general, so it's not a problem that we have to continue. You didn't address his point tho. And there is zero evidence that once they do the people make decisions collectively that are better for the environment and not to make their own lifestyles more comfortable If you change up who owns the industry then they become the class of people who fight against climate change regulations because they now control the industry. By changing ownership from a couple of rich people to a lot of 'poor' people your just increasing the number of people you are fighting and not reducing their power at all, they still control the industry. Did this not strike anyone else as anti-democratic? Can't we use precisely this argument against democracy generally by basically replacing "ownership" with "voting rights"? For example: If you change up who has voting rights in the country then they become the class of people who fight against climate change regulations because they now vote on the country's actions. By changing voting rights from a couple of rich people to a lot of 'poor' people your just increasing the number of people you are fighting and not reducing their power at all, they still control the country. This is precisely why democracy moved on past the people actually voting on the day to day workings of state. Voting rights for climate change are still in the hands of the rich (either in wealth or influence) but rather that they have to keep happy the people from which they gain their inherent power. In this example "seizeing the means of democracy" would mean a return to greek democracies instead of roman democracies that modern republics are based on. On January 16 2020 14:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Everyone agrees climate change is a problem. Nobody will ever agree to do anything meaningful about it unless they are forced to. How do you suggest we force them? Do you really need it explained to you that doing it through force is bad? The only way to legitimately do it is to outnumber the people who don't agree its an issue. To gain consent to action through numerical majority. Its the basic concept of democracy. I would say more democracy is pro-democracy and less democracy is an anti-democracy position. Are you arguing that reducing democratic participation is a pro-democracy argument? No and I would take your argument as childishly simplistic that fails when it comes to the most basic of examples. Democracy is as abstract as capitalism. The greeks learned that pure democracy is a sad joke and everyone would be happier under tyrants. Communists learned that having one party to vote for is a sad joke and everyone would be happier under tyrants. Tomas Jefferson said that the republic was a lie and that federalism gave people enough of democracy to matter without burdening them with the power that corupted them. Now its 230 odd years later and we've survived a couple of executives who decided rules didn't apply to them and they could do what they want as long as they won an election.
Granted my Athenian history is a little rusty I don't think that's what happened... I know the Communist one is wrong, and your conceptualization of Jeffersonian democracy (juxtaposed with Jacksonian) seems a bit off as well. I mean especially if we consider the role women played in all this.
Feels like this also glosses over the civil war and how a handful of battles (political and/or on the battlefield) going differently could have ended that union.
|
You don't think that they went through democracy and that it was a horrible disaster that cost them repeatedly until they returned to having kings? And that communist governments aren't defined by a strongman leader like Stalin Gorbachov mao Castro and Tito?
I don't think Andrew Jackson was a federalist as he was the creator of the democratic party and Jefferson was the creator of the federalist's party but again you don't provide any actual argument on that so ....
I don't want to have to be the one to break this to you but women have been historically oppressed and dismissed from leadership positions in history.
I really don't know where the civil war really imprints into my argument other then supporting it. Lincon sent marines into the congress of Maryland to ensure that the capital wouldn't be surrounded by a slave state. I think you wildly overestimate the confederacy chances in the civil war. but that's teetering into armchair generalship that I'm sure no one wants.
|
On January 16 2020 15:06 Sermokala wrote:
You don't think that they went through democracy and that it was a horrible disaster that cost them repeatedly until they returned to having kings? And that communist governments aren't defined by a strongman leader like Stalin Gorbachov mao Castro and Tito?
I don't think Andrew Jackson was a federalist as he was the creator of the democratic party and Jefferson was the creator of the federalist's party but again you don't provide any actual argument on that so ....
I don't want to have to be the one to break this to you but women have been historically oppressed and dismissed from leadership positions in history.
Pretty sure they were digging on democracy (probably not so much the women and they needed to be incentivized) then there was a coup/lost battle/some other stuff, about a year under the "30 Tyrants" then struggled to rebuild their democracy (that excluded ~50% of the population based on gender). Then some notable figures came through and conquered the land/subjugated the people a couple times over the next 100 or so years (presuming the kings you're referring to are Philip and Alexander).
The Wiki sums it up this way:
The Thirty Tyrants' brief reign was marred by violence and corruption. In fact, historians have argued that the violence and brutality the Thirty carried out in Athens was necessary to transition Athens from a democracy to an oligarchy.[15] However, the violence produced an unanticipated paradox. The more violent the Thirty's regime became, the more opposition they faced
en.wikipedia.org
I think we've reached the end of constructive dialogue between us on this though.
|
On January 16 2020 14:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Everyone agrees climate change is a problem. Nobody will ever agree to do anything meaningful about it unless they are forced to. How do you suggest we force them?
Laws and strict surveillance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
