|
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 |
5930 Posts
Then you're talking about things that basically no one, not even GreenHorizons, is arguing for.
Like what you are defining as socialism is not the same as what other people are defining as socialism. It is exactly the same as one person calling China a communist country and another person calling the USSR a communist country. There's no productive discussion to really be had if the definition of what's "communist" is so disparate.
|
On January 21 2020 22:05 Womwomwom wrote:
Then you're talking about things that basically no one, not even GreenHorizons, is arguing for.
That’s the beauty of shooting at a nebulous target that moves as you wish. This is also a helpful showing of why discussing specific policies is likely a better move than playing endless games of “Whose definition of Socialism/Capitalism/Communism is it anyway?”
|
On January 21 2020 21:58 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 21:47 NewSunshine wrote:On January 21 2020 21:00 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 20:50 nojok wrote:On January 21 2020 10:00 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised Nobody's forcing you to be a nurse, that'd be socialism. You chose to become a nurse because it pays better than other jobs, or for personal reasons. Unless you were born rich, or worked enough. What's really "forcing" you here is the desire for property, wealth accumulation, or simply earning a living. But you can achieve it however you like when the job market works, that's capitalism. Not a bad thing in my book. You don't know what socialism is. You're a terrible person because you don't see any issue fucking good will people because they're not selfish enough according to you. And I dare you to say you contribute as much to society as nurses. The German Democratic Republic wasn't socialism? You weren't even allowed to go where you wanted. Venezuela wasn't socialism? I don't even know what they are since their economy collapsed, but it isn't a fun place to live in. Everyone who believes in the virtues of socialism can take a trip to Cuba and see if they like it. Maybe you can give me an example of working socialism where individual rights aren't suppressed without that frothy undertone. So now we're back to saying it's totally okay that capitalism taking advantage of people needing to work is all hunky-dory, because otherwise you have this scary thing called Socialism. People who have a passion for helping others can be ridden for that passion all the way to the bank, because eh, they want to help people, and you wouldn't want Socialism, would you? I didn't realize the whole world worked on such stark binaries. You can reply with whataboutism all you want, there still isn't an historic example of a fair socialism. I'd be glad to be proven wrong. What would you back the currency with, if not debt? I don't understand why people who find capitalism bad just have the kneejerk reaction of flocking to another extreme. It would be sufficient to replace the broken cogs, in my opinion. Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 21:53 Womwomwom wrote:
Socialism is a super wide umbrella, what do you even define socialism as? East Germany is not the same as Venezuela is not the same as Cuba. Are socialist policies in a mixed market economy socialist enough to be socialist?
It is like saying China is communist like the USSR, they're not remotely close in how their political and economic systems work.
I mean if we're bringing up Venezuela, their economy failed because they never leveraged their state ownership of hydrocarbons into avoiding the Dutch Disease. On the flipside, Norway absolutely did. In my definition, socialism is when the government owns the economy, you get paid by the government, and you also have duties to perform towards your government.
People have been trying to fix the 'broken cogs' for about a century, and things are worse than ever.
This is because Capitalism by definition puts all the real power in the hands of the people with money. People don't have a 'kneejerk reaction', they've noticed this trend of nothing fucking working for over a century and deciding that maybe it's time to try something different.
It's a false binary anyway; the only half-decent Capitalist societies are partly Socialised anyway. It's blatantly obvious that neither extreme works and taking elements from both is the only way to make it work right now.
Furthermore, it's nonsense to declare we've solved society and shouldn't try for something better when it's blatantly obvious that what we have isn't working all that well. The appeal of Socialism is entirely because it's never quite worked right. Every Socialist society has had plenty of upsides before going wrong, so it's pretty natural to try and figure out a way to create a better version that keeps the good and suppresses those pitfalls past attempts have fallen into.
Venezuala is a terrible example to bring up, because you have to rely upon its end and forget that Venezuala went Socialist because of extreme Capitalism that was utterly fucking the country up. You can smarmily declare 'well they're not better off now, are they?' but the fact is, they actually were better off under Socialism. Vastly better off, and better off for the first time in a very long time. But anti-socialists of course aren't aware of that and pay no attention to the history of the situation, because if they do it sinks the argument.
|
5930 Posts
On January 21 2020 22:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 22:05 Womwomwom wrote:
Then you're talking about things that basically no one, not even GreenHorizons, is arguing for. That’s the beauty of shooting at a nebulous target that moves as you wish. This is also a helpful showing of why discussing specific policies is likely a better move than playing endless games of “Whose definition of Socialism/Capitalism/Communism is it anyway?”
Pretty much.
|
There is also a tonne of baggage laid on that -ism, to the point that conversations are over before they've begun. We socialised primary education, we've socialised care for the old and infirm, and we've socialised our first responders. Care for autistic people like my brother was provided by my home state. And rightfully so, these things are incredibly important. And it's worked out great. But as soon as the -ism gets attached to any other new program that could help people in a substantial and quantifiable way, you can't discuss the finer points anymore. Because then you're a Socialist. If you can manage to keep people leaping to apply that tag to the conversation, it usually goes much better.
|
On January 21 2020 22:05 Womwomwom wrote:
Then you're talking about things that basically no one, not even GreenHorizons, is arguing for.
Like what you are defining as socialism is not the same as what other people are defining as socialism. It is exactly the same as one person calling China a communist country and another person calling the USSR a communist country. There's no productive discussion to really be had if the definition of what's "communist" is so disparate.
If you think it's a good idea to just avoid all -isms altogether, fine.
I'll just condense my view into this then: There needs to be an alternative to a debt backed currency, that alternative can't be a finite resource, and I'd rather have a choice about what to do in life over a government deciding which jobs are open.
Right now, we are still in a position where you earn money by working something that people are willing to pay for, and I don't see how that goes against the interest of the masses.
I also mentioned that education and healthcare shouldn't be for-profit earlier in this thread. Call it the socialist touch to things, because it works here.
On January 21 2020 22:12 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 21:58 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 21:47 NewSunshine wrote:On January 21 2020 21:00 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 20:50 nojok wrote:On January 21 2020 10:00 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised Nobody's forcing you to be a nurse, that'd be socialism. You chose to become a nurse because it pays better than other jobs, or for personal reasons. Unless you were born rich, or worked enough. What's really "forcing" you here is the desire for property, wealth accumulation, or simply earning a living. But you can achieve it however you like when the job market works, that's capitalism. Not a bad thing in my book. You don't know what socialism is. You're a terrible person because you don't see any issue fucking good will people because they're not selfish enough according to you. And I dare you to say you contribute as much to society as nurses. The German Democratic Republic wasn't socialism? You weren't even allowed to go where you wanted. Venezuela wasn't socialism? I don't even know what they are since their economy collapsed, but it isn't a fun place to live in. Everyone who believes in the virtues of socialism can take a trip to Cuba and see if they like it. Maybe you can give me an example of working socialism where individual rights aren't suppressed without that frothy undertone. So now we're back to saying it's totally okay that capitalism taking advantage of people needing to work is all hunky-dory, because otherwise you have this scary thing called Socialism. People who have a passion for helping others can be ridden for that passion all the way to the bank, because eh, they want to help people, and you wouldn't want Socialism, would you? I didn't realize the whole world worked on such stark binaries. You can reply with whataboutism all you want, there still isn't an historic example of a fair socialism. I'd be glad to be proven wrong. What would you back the currency with, if not debt? I don't understand why people who find capitalism bad just have the kneejerk reaction of flocking to another extreme. It would be sufficient to replace the broken cogs, in my opinion. On January 21 2020 21:53 Womwomwom wrote:
Socialism is a super wide umbrella, what do you even define socialism as? East Germany is not the same as Venezuela is not the same as Cuba. Are socialist policies in a mixed market economy socialist enough to be socialist?
It is like saying China is communist like the USSR, they're not remotely close in how their political and economic systems work.
I mean if we're bringing up Venezuela, their economy failed because they never leveraged their state ownership of hydrocarbons into avoiding the Dutch Disease. On the flipside, Norway absolutely did. In my definition, socialism is when the government owns the economy, you get paid by the government, and you also have duties to perform towards your government. People have been trying to fix the 'broken cogs' for about a century, and things are worse than ever. This is because Capitalism by definition puts all the real power in the hands of the people with money. People don't have a 'kneejerk reaction', they've noticed this trend of nothing fucking working for over a century and deciding that maybe it's time to try something different. It's a false binary anyway; the only half-decent Capitalist societies are partly Socialised anyway. It's blatantly obvious that neither extreme works and taking elements from both is the only way to make it work right now. Furthermore, it's nonsense to declare we've solved society and shouldn't try for something better when it's blatantly obvious that what we have isn't working all that well. The appeal of Socialism is entirely because it's never quite worked right. Every Socialist society has had plenty of upsides before going wrong, so it's pretty natural to try and figure out a way to create a better version that keeps the good and suppresses those pitfalls past attempts have fallen into. Venezuala is a terrible example to bring up, because you have to rely upon its end and forget that Venezuala went Socialist because of extreme Capitalism that was utterly fucking the country up. You can smarmily declare 'well they're not better off now, are they?' but the fact is, they actually were better off under Socialism. Vastly better off, and better off for the first time in a very long time. But anti-socialists of course aren't aware of that and pay no attention to the history of the situation, because if they do it sinks the argument.
Yeah, sorry if I think that we're better off in this century when food, water, energy, technology, healthcare are widely available to most in the west, yet you can't afford these things without working people, and working people can't afford these without having to work.
Under what system did we achieve these things again, and why are you able to sit here arguing with me about how bad off we are instead of having to fight for your life?
Yes, I think the past sucked when we had constant wars in Europe, colonialization and violent repressions.
|
On January 21 2020 22:20 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 22:05 Womwomwom wrote:
Then you're talking about things that basically no one, not even GreenHorizons, is arguing for.
Like what you are defining as socialism is not the same as what other people are defining as socialism. It is exactly the same as one person calling China a communist country and another person calling the USSR a communist country. There's no productive discussion to really be had if the definition of what's "communist" is so disparate. If you think it's a good idea to just avoid all -isms altogether, fine. I'll just condense my view into this then: There needs to be an alternative to a debt backed currency, that alternative can't be a finite resource, and I'd rather have a choice about what to do in life over a government deciding which jobs are open. Right now, we are still in a position where you earn money by working something that people are willing to pay for, and I don't see how that goes against the interest of the masses. I also mentioned that education and healthcare shouldn't be for-profit earlier in this thread. Call it the socialist touch to things, because it works here.
No one is calling for a system that doesn't still have markets and jobs not dictated by the government. Literally no one. Calling for more socialised elements of society, like education and healthcare, can be just that. If you concede the virtues of that, then I don't understand the dogged defense of capitalism. It can't work by itself. Try to justify it to any worker whose wage hasn't caught up with inflation in the past 15 years, who's paying more than ever before on health insurance that covers less than it ever has in the past. Try to explain that it's not an issue that health insurance covers so little, that there are actually secondary and gap insurance plans, specifically because the plan you have doesn't cover shit, and it's an opportunity to charge you even more money every paycheck. Just so you aren't rendered into crippling debt upon your first doctor visit or accident.
That is the result of capitalism, working as intended, in a part of society it has no business poking its nose into. And now our insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies are so entrenched financially that they'll squeeze people for as much as they can until something drastic happens to change it. That's just one example of where capitalism can fuck over the common person. It has no chance of working in its pure form, unfettered, sustainably, across a whole society.
|
On January 21 2020 15:13 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It was the capitalists that created Homo Economicus to substantiate their arguments for capitalism (and its predecessors to a degree) .
[quote]
The concept as I understand it is that everyone pursuing their own greed results in a compromise that benefits everyone. That's why people talk about capitalism as if its organizing principle is greed. But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest. The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often  It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well. I especially like the bolded section, in part because I think it applies to a lot of argument I see on the right. Modern “conservatives” (yourself excluded, if that wasn’t obvious) often seem pretty unfamiliar with the theoretical and moral underpinnings of conservatism; they’ll use terms like “rule of law” or “limited government” like cudgels, with little regard for what they actually mean. Again, maybe it’ll be clearer what I mean with a concrete example: I think properly understood, the concept of “rule of law” would dictate a lot of fundamental changes to police procedure and criminal justice that people like GH would praise, and perhaps a majority of Republicans (certainly Trump himself!) would condemn. I find this frustrating. Not just for the hypocrisy of it - nearly everyone is a hypocrite sometimes, and I think people are a little too harsh when they spot it - but because I don’t know what these people’s ideology actually is. If someone calls themself conservative, but doesn’t actually give a shit about rule of law or limited government, well, what the hell are they really? Fascists, I'd call them fascists. Heh, maybe that is the category I’m hunting for. Is that what you get when you take conservatism and leach out its moral content? But then I still don’t understand - why? Why be a fascist? And why lie about it? To me, the statements “I favor enacting policy X” and “the world would be better overall if policy X were enacted” are inseparable. If you give up the latter, what motivates the former? Why bother leaving your house to vote if you don’t even think that winning the vote would make things better?
A variety of reasons in my view.
One way I understand it is from talking to vets that think/thought the US would be better if it was run like the military. Democracy is for disagreeing with leaders, if you have the right leaders you don't need a democracy, it only slows down progress from that perspective.
Their problem with subservience to the government isn't that it's subservience to a government, it's that THEY will be subservient to a government intended to exploit not-them and they fear it will turn into "them".
It's not a tyrannical government if it's just doing what you would in it's stead if that makes sense?
EDIT: To elaborate a bit, the thousands of bombs we drop, billions in sanctions, exponentially more military spending than any other nation, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians we kill, etc... isn't fascist tyranny to people because it is not happening to them.
xDaunt elaborated on this as foreign policy operating outside of morality/ethics as opposed to domestic policy. This is typically supported by making a particular type of person (white males) the arbiters of morality, ethics, and domestic justice. So the negative consequences of tyranny and fascism reaches them last.
"First they came for the socialists... Then there was no one left to speak for me."
|
the NYT editorial board, after offering transparency in their process, have selected two candidates to endorse: Klobuchar as the centrist and Warren as the progressive
|
On January 21 2020 22:49 IgnE wrote:
the NYT editorial board, after offering transparency in their process, have selected two candidates to endorse: Klobuchar as the centrist and Warren as the progressive
They are smart enough to know that is not how endorsements work. In a country where shame makes showering after gym in school a living nightmare, it blows my mind when those same people are so shameless politically.
|
That NYT didn't go with Biden is a good thing, that they went with a split the baby endorsement that does nothing for turnout less so.
|
I think the transparency ploy was stupid on their part
|
On January 21 2020 22:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 22:05 Womwomwom wrote:
Then you're talking about things that basically no one, not even GreenHorizons, is arguing for. That’s the beauty of shooting at a nebulous target that moves as you wish. This is also a helpful showing of why discussing specific policies is likely a better move than playing endless games of “Whose definition of Socialism/Capitalism/Communism is it anyway?”
I think a lot of posters have been trying to get to that point, but it inevitably gets pushed towards that game anyhow. Would go a long way in conversing were there actual policies and ideas put forth. But it's the Kitty Genovese syndrome all over every time. Someone is waiting for another to take action and no one does. So nothing gets done.
|
On January 22 2020 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 22:10 farvacola wrote:On January 21 2020 22:05 Womwomwom wrote:
Then you're talking about things that basically no one, not even GreenHorizons, is arguing for. That’s the beauty of shooting at a nebulous target that moves as you wish. This is also a helpful showing of why discussing specific policies is likely a better move than playing endless games of “Whose definition of Socialism/Capitalism/Communism is it anyway?” I think a lot of posters have been trying to get to that point, but it inevitably gets pushed towards that game anyhow. Would go a long way in conversing were there actual policies and ideas put forth. But it's the Kitty Genovese syndrome all over every time. Someone is waiting for another to take action and no one does. So nothing gets done.
I think one reason specific policy doesn't get discussed is because the first point made about it is that Republicans (or centrist Democrats) won't support it so it's pointless to talk about.
Then comes "well we should replace them" then "but we can't because money in politics" then "then get the money out" then "we can't, they need it to beat Republicans/the people with the power to change take it out are dependent on keeping it in and we can't expect them to act against their self-interests in that way"
Then we circle back to needing a new system to implement policy we all agree is better than what we have. Which brings us to "Socialism never works".
Then complaints that we're talking about socialism and the people in opposition don't know what it is.
EDIT: One benefit to this latest round is that we know that the biggest advocates for capitalism/opponents of socialism don't really know what capitalism is either.
The constant focus on central planning and belief that socialism doesn't have markets as well as the inability to see many problems are capitalism working as intended and the need for supplementary systems like socialist healthcare serve as recent and clear examples this is the case.
|
On January 21 2020 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 15:13 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest.
The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well. I especially like the bolded section, in part because I think it applies to a lot of argument I see on the right. Modern “conservatives” (yourself excluded, if that wasn’t obvious) often seem pretty unfamiliar with the theoretical and moral underpinnings of conservatism; they’ll use terms like “rule of law” or “limited government” like cudgels, with little regard for what they actually mean. Again, maybe it’ll be clearer what I mean with a concrete example: I think properly understood, the concept of “rule of law” would dictate a lot of fundamental changes to police procedure and criminal justice that people like GH would praise, and perhaps a majority of Republicans (certainly Trump himself!) would condemn. I find this frustrating. Not just for the hypocrisy of it - nearly everyone is a hypocrite sometimes, and I think people are a little too harsh when they spot it - but because I don’t know what these people’s ideology actually is. If someone calls themself conservative, but doesn’t actually give a shit about rule of law or limited government, well, what the hell are they really? Fascists, I'd call them fascists. Heh, maybe that is the category I’m hunting for. Is that what you get when you take conservatism and leach out its moral content? But then I still don’t understand - why? Why be a fascist? And why lie about it? To me, the statements “I favor enacting policy X” and “the world would be better overall if policy X were enacted” are inseparable. If you give up the latter, what motivates the former? Why bother leaving your house to vote if you don’t even think that winning the vote would make things better? A variety of reasons in my view. One way I understand it is from talking to vets that think/thought the US would be better if it was run like the military. Democracy is for disagreeing with leaders, if you have the right leaders you don't need a democracy, it only slows down progress from that perspective. Their problem with subservience to the government isn't that it's subservience to a government, it's that THEY will be subservient to a government intended to exploit not-them and they fear it will turn into "them". It's not a tyrannical government if it's just doing what you would in it's stead if that makes sense? EDIT: To elaborate a bit, the thousands of bombs we drop, billions in sanctions, exponentially more military spending than any other nation, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians we kill, etc... isn't fascist tyranny to people because it is not happening to them. xDaunt elaborated on this as foreign policy operating outside of morality/ethics as opposed to domestic policy. This is typically supported by making a particular type of person (white males) the arbiters of morality, ethics, and domestic justice. So the negative consequences of tyranny and fascism reaches them last. "First they came for... Then there was no one left to speak for me."
I was also thinking about xDaunt’s “amoral” foreign policy (though I understand he’s not around to defend the position any more). While I’m still baffled by the amorality of it (again, why bother leaving your house to vote? If it’s just self-interest, there must be easier ways to enrich yourself), I can at least see how drawing a sharp line between foreign and domestic is doing a lot of work. If you can be reasonably confident the US will never classify you as “foreign,” you don’t need to worry about it being turned around on you.
I’m a little uncertain how to talk to someone like that, though. I can make arguments about why it’s not actually in our self-interest to fuck over others (fucking up other countries tends to create refugee crises we don’t know how to handle, for example); but that’s also not the point. We shouldn’t massacre civilians because it’s wrong, not because a bit of the gore might splash back on us.
Meanwhile, why pretend to be a “conservative”? I’m not sure how much of it is a ploy (“I can’t admit my real beliefs so I’ll pretend to be something else”) and how much is honest misunderstanding (“wait, conservatism doesn’t mean anybody besides me has zero moral worth? Since when?”). I suspect (in keeping with my sig) it’s more of the latter, but either way I don’t know what to do with it. Take my best guess at what they actually believe, and argue against positions they never actually said aloud? Take them at their word, and keep arguing against the positions they’re defending, but probably don’t actually believe? Try to “educate” them on the “correct” conservative position, even though I don’t identify as conservative? Everything I can think of seems futile or obnoxious or both; I usually just try to disengage.
I was talking with a guy just this past weekend who told me his neighbors were “full-blown Muslims” who “complain that he celebrates Christmas” and need to be “sent back to where they came from” because they picked fruit off the fruit tree in his yard. That guy gets very indignant if you suggest he’s not a conservative; and I don’t think he’s just wearing the “conservative” label as a deception to mask his true beliefs, considering he doesn’t seem to have any shame about expressing his more vile opinions. But I also don’t think that the conservative ideals he’s name-checking would lead to his conclusions, properly understood. So what is there to say to him?
|
On January 22 2020 00:41 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2020 15:13 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:
I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though.
[quote]
I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well. I especially like the bolded section, in part because I think it applies to a lot of argument I see on the right. Modern “conservatives” (yourself excluded, if that wasn’t obvious) often seem pretty unfamiliar with the theoretical and moral underpinnings of conservatism; they’ll use terms like “rule of law” or “limited government” like cudgels, with little regard for what they actually mean. Again, maybe it’ll be clearer what I mean with a concrete example: I think properly understood, the concept of “rule of law” would dictate a lot of fundamental changes to police procedure and criminal justice that people like GH would praise, and perhaps a majority of Republicans (certainly Trump himself!) would condemn. I find this frustrating. Not just for the hypocrisy of it - nearly everyone is a hypocrite sometimes, and I think people are a little too harsh when they spot it - but because I don’t know what these people’s ideology actually is. If someone calls themself conservative, but doesn’t actually give a shit about rule of law or limited government, well, what the hell are they really? Fascists, I'd call them fascists. Heh, maybe that is the category I’m hunting for. Is that what you get when you take conservatism and leach out its moral content? But then I still don’t understand - why? Why be a fascist? And why lie about it? To me, the statements “I favor enacting policy X” and “the world would be better overall if policy X were enacted” are inseparable. If you give up the latter, what motivates the former? Why bother leaving your house to vote if you don’t even think that winning the vote would make things better? A variety of reasons in my view. One way I understand it is from talking to vets that think/thought the US would be better if it was run like the military. Democracy is for disagreeing with leaders, if you have the right leaders you don't need a democracy, it only slows down progress from that perspective. Their problem with subservience to the government isn't that it's subservience to a government, it's that THEY will be subservient to a government intended to exploit not-them and they fear it will turn into "them". It's not a tyrannical government if it's just doing what you would in it's stead if that makes sense? EDIT: To elaborate a bit, the thousands of bombs we drop, billions in sanctions, exponentially more military spending than any other nation, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians we kill, etc... isn't fascist tyranny to people because it is not happening to them. xDaunt elaborated on this as foreign policy operating outside of morality/ethics as opposed to domestic policy. This is typically supported by making a particular type of person (white males) the arbiters of morality, ethics, and domestic justice. So the negative consequences of tyranny and fascism reaches them last. "First they came for... Then there was no one left to speak for me." I was also thinking about xDaunt’s “amoral” foreign policy (though I understand he’s not around to defend the position any more). While I’m still baffled by the amorality of it (again, why bother leaving your house to vote? If it’s just self-interest, there must be easier ways to enrich yourself), I can at least see how drawing a sharp line between foreign and domestic is doing a lot of work. If you can be reasonably confident the US will never classify you as “foreign,” you don’t need to worry about it being turned around on you. I’m a little uncertain how to talk to someone like that, though. I can make arguments about why it’s not actually in our self-interest to fuck over others (fucking up other countries tends to create refugee crises we don’t know how to handle, for example); but that’s also not the point. We shouldn’t massacre civilians because it’s wrong, not because a bit of the gore might splash back on us. Meanwhile, why pretend to be a “conservative”? I’m not sure how much of it is a ploy (“I can’t admit my real beliefs so I’ll pretend to be something else”) and how much is honest misunderstanding (“wait, conservatism doesn’t mean anybody besides me has zero moral worth? Since when?”). I suspect (in keeping with my sig) it’s more of the latter, but either way I don’t know what to do with it. Take my best guess at what they actually believe, and argue against positions they never actually said aloud? Take them at their word, and keep arguing against the positions they’re defending, but probably don’t actually believe? Try to “educate” them on the “correct” conservative position, even though I don’t identify as conservative? Everything I can think of seems futile or obnoxious or both; I usually just try to disengage. I was talking with a guy just this past weekend who told me his neighbors were “full-blown Muslims” who “complain that he celebrates Christmas” and need to be “sent back to where they came from” because they picked fruit off the fruit tree in his yard. That guy gets very indignant if you suggest he’s not a conservative; and I don’t think he’s just wearing the “conservative” label as a deception to mask his true beliefs, considering he doesn’t seem to have any shame about expressing his more vile opinions. But I also don’t think that the conservative ideals he’s name-checking would lead to his conclusions, properly understood. So what is there to say to him?
That's going to need to be answered by someone who thinks fascists can be reasoned with or "defeated in the marketplace of ideas" or whatever. I wouldn't hold your breath though.
As to the general "why" of your questions, as Wombat pointed out about Vivax's "nurses need to be poor" (paraphrase) argument the beliefs are hegemonic and incoherent and the people that hold them are able to insulate themselves with people that believe it too.
Wombat won't be able to inform Vivax's hypothetical nurse that he thinks her being poor is the best way to leverage her into taking care of him because proximity to poverty will kill him first. So instead she'll be thankful to have a job not knowing that the precariousness of her survival is a feature, not a bug.
Killing children in the Middle East is obviously wrong but we get away with killing thousands and thousands of them because the hegemonic belief is that it's the best option. Which is reinforced by a cascade of other hegemonic ideas that, like premises in capitalism, people don't critically engage with unless forced to (which is nearly impossible to do, at some level they have to choose to).
|
Northern Ireland24547 Posts
On January 21 2020 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 15:13 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2020 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2020 16:22 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On January 20 2020 06:52 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2020 06:34 ChristianS wrote:On January 20 2020 06:16 Belisarius wrote:I remember you. You were usually worth reading. I really don't know what you're arguing here though. On January 20 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
But even the substitution of “greed” for “self-interest” seems false to me. Homo Economicus is self-interested, and if you need to model real-world economies mathematically, that seems like a reasonable approximation of human behavior to use. But economists usually would acknowledge that’s a pretty rough approximation, and maybe more significantly, it doesn’t seem impossible to design a capitalist-looking economic system while assuming humans are benevolent, or for that matter a centrally planned one from the assumption of self-interest.
The leap to “greed” usually feels like a ploy to excuse apparently immoral behavior by saying the alternative is socialism (as in “of course that company is being greedy by [insert apparently immoral corporate behavior]! But in capitalism, greed is good! What are you, a socialist?”). But there’s a few steps in between “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to dump hazardous waste in the river” and “let’s switch to a system of Five Year Plans and secret police.” I agree with the first paragraph here. I don't know who you're aiming at with the second. I can't think of anyone who's said anything like "of course they're being greedy, but greed is good" recently. The thread these days is pretty much wall-to-wall Bernie supporters arguing over things like whether to eat the rich or just tax them, and whether to bother voting if the general is Biden v. Trump. I’m flattered (I think)! Can’t speak to the state of the thread lately - I had 11,000 unread posts before I decided to just click to the latest page. Had a busy 2019. I guess part of my point is that “greedy” behavior is usually just as undesirable in a capitalist system as any other. Fraud, embezzlement, theft, or any other scheme in which you can profit by harming others. But sometimes when people condemn greedy behavior in our system, there’s this weird allergic reaction where people decide we can’t criticize the actions of corporations or we’re betraying patriotism or Adam Smith or something. I’ll give a concrete example. Purdue Pharma is widely credited with creating and profiting from many of the dynamics now referred to as the “opioid crisis.” The specifics depend on who you ask, but the broad strokes are they developed dangerous and highly addictive drugs, lied about their addictiveness and side effects, and generally massaged the healthcare system in whatever ways would maximize sales. Worth noting, though, it doesn’t seem like any of that was illegal. They were simply pursuing profit within the law. Does capitalism forbid us from condemning their destructive profit-seeking? Maybe I'm still unclear what you are saying, but non-socialists (even capitalists!) still recognize greed as a vice. It might do in a pinch, but any sustained discussion should drop the word greed, as you above advocated. It's not like "cooperation" doesn't have a large part of it either. Pretty sure everyone who identifies as a capitalist can be found complaining about this or that corporation's behavior quite often It follows that conversations about capitalism that contain ideas such as "greed is part of human nature" should be dropped, doesn't it? I don't see what they bring if we don't start from the premise that greed is a positive force. Edit: I think that's what you were saying. I think I would be ok with that. I have a problem with using greed as a "positive force" as you put it. I assume that many of the same people who would run to "greed" are the same people who say things like "socialism is a fine theory, it just doesn't work." It's almost too easy a way out. Rather than argue for capitalism, they will just argue against socialism. I don't know that such a one-sided focus is sustainable, espeically as those societies that tried it fade further back into history. If being a capitalist meant venerating as virtue that which is vice, it would indeed be wrong. edit: but to be clear, human fallibility is a core part of American Conservatism which if course includes a capitalist outlook. Human behavior still matters. But I wouldn't argue that greed is good. I'm probably not explaining this very well. I especially like the bolded section, in part because I think it applies to a lot of argument I see on the right. Modern “conservatives” (yourself excluded, if that wasn’t obvious) often seem pretty unfamiliar with the theoretical and moral underpinnings of conservatism; they’ll use terms like “rule of law” or “limited government” like cudgels, with little regard for what they actually mean. Again, maybe it’ll be clearer what I mean with a concrete example: I think properly understood, the concept of “rule of law” would dictate a lot of fundamental changes to police procedure and criminal justice that people like GH would praise, and perhaps a majority of Republicans (certainly Trump himself!) would condemn. I find this frustrating. Not just for the hypocrisy of it - nearly everyone is a hypocrite sometimes, and I think people are a little too harsh when they spot it - but because I don’t know what these people’s ideology actually is. If someone calls themself conservative, but doesn’t actually give a shit about rule of law or limited government, well, what the hell are they really? Fascists, I'd call them fascists. Heh, maybe that is the category I’m hunting for. Is that what you get when you take conservatism and leach out its moral content? But then I still don’t understand - why? Why be a fascist? And why lie about it? To me, the statements “I favor enacting policy X” and “the world would be better overall if policy X were enacted” are inseparable. If you give up the latter, what motivates the former? Why bother leaving your house to vote if you don’t even think that winning the vote would make things better? A variety of reasons in my view. One way I understand it is from talking to vets that think/thought the US would be better if it was run like the military. Democracy is for disagreeing with leaders, if you have the right leaders you don't need a democracy, it only slows down progress from that perspective. Their problem with subservience to the government isn't that it's subservience to a government, it's that THEY will be subservient to a government intended to exploit not-them and they fear it will turn into "them". It's not a tyrannical government if it's just doing what you would in it's stead if that makes sense? EDIT: To elaborate a bit, the thousands of bombs we drop, billions in sanctions, exponentially more military spending than any other nation, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians we kill, etc... isn't fascist tyranny to people because it is not happening to them. xDaunt elaborated on this as foreign policy operating outside of morality/ethics as opposed to domestic policy. This is typically supported by making a particular type of person (white males) the arbiters of morality, ethics, and domestic justice. So the negative consequences of tyranny and fascism reaches them last. "First they came for the socialists... Then there was no one left to speak for me."
It’s an interesting point you raise, granted I don’t know many squaddies.
My impression is they’re used to a certain black and white, meritocratic environment, where yes there’s a chain of command but you kind of have to get with the program so to speak. But if you do you’re fine. Plus there’s genuine camaraderie, plus I guess most buy into the patriotism angle too.
I don’t think they necessarily lean in an authoritarian direction for authoritarianism’s sake, more they’re extrapolating a set of factors that they felt content with outwards to society.
Which to a degree I rather sympathise with.
|
"“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.” thats a direct recent hillary quote about sanders.....she is also not sure wether she can endorse him should he be the fucking nominee.....let that sink in for a second, guys
Alright, although I never really thought that Hillary Clinton understood the fundamental problems of american democracy and I disagreed with her on many issues, I always had some admiration for her/her biography and so on. I have lost very much all of that respect. She is a disgraceful lying piece of .... The way how there clearly is a concerted effort at the moment to paint Bernie as a sexist devider is just too much. My god it is pissing me off. And yes it is in no way better than the double speak of Trump and Fox News.
Sure Bernie "hurt her" in 2016. But that is not because he actually run a smear campaign. He was so tame compared to what he could have been and to how Hillary behaved in the past. The 2008 primary was actually far more vicious and combative than 2016 could have been (and ye Hillary made some borderline racist comments back then). Bernie "hurt her" because - according to his views - there is a fundamental problem of corruption in Washington and structural change is required and Hillary is and was very much a symbol of those underlying problems. He never really exploited this though and always focused/focuses on the policies (which in my mind was a mistake). But did the way he hurt her actually manifest in the general election as is constantly claimed by nearly everyone (including the NYT and not just the hacks at CNN)? There is no!!!!!! evidence of that...more hillary supporters turned republican in 2008 than bernie supporters ever did (which is of course the fucking only reasonable possibility if you look at the worldviews of the respective supporters). He also did 40 rallies for Clinton whereas Clinton did 9 or so for Obama.
How they are tying to characterize him as a sexist, accusing him of creating division and whithholding potential support should he be the nominee while fucking personally insulting one of the leading/popular democratic candidates (doing exactly the thing they are accusing him of) bespeaks of such a fundamental ignorance and bad intent...they truly have lost touch with reality.
here is the full article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
I do enjoy my NYT subscription mostly for the in depth reportages they do. But even putting such a headline on their front page and not setting the record straight really makes me want to cancel that subscription
ok I got to vent, back to lurking I guess
|
There's a neoliberal subreddit. I'm amazed. It seems like everything there is said unironically
|
On January 22 2020 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 21 2020 22:10 farvacola wrote:On January 21 2020 22:05 Womwomwom wrote:
Then you're talking about things that basically no one, not even GreenHorizons, is arguing for. That’s the beauty of shooting at a nebulous target that moves as you wish. This is also a helpful showing of why discussing specific policies is likely a better move than playing endless games of “Whose definition of Socialism/Capitalism/Communism is it anyway?” I think a lot of posters have been trying to get to that point, but it inevitably gets pushed towards that game anyhow. Would go a long way in conversing were there actual policies and ideas put forth. But it's the Kitty Genovese syndrome all over every time. Someone is waiting for another to take action and no one does. So nothing gets done. I think one reason specific policy doesn't get discussed is because the first point made about it is that Republicans (or centrist Democrats) won't support it so it's pointless to talk about. Then comes "well we should replace them" then "but we can't because money in politics" then "then get the money out" then "we can't, they need it to beat Republicans/the people with the power to change take it out are dependent on keeping it in and we can't expect them to act against their self-interests in that way" Then we circle back to needing a new system to implement policy we all agree is better than what we have. Which brings us to "Socialism never works". Then complaints that we're talking about socialism and the people in opposition don't know what it is. EDIT: One benefit to this latest round is that we know that the biggest advocates for capitalism/opponents of socialism don't really know what capitalism is either. The constant focus on central planning and belief that socialism doesn't have markets as well as the inability to see many problems are capitalism working as intended and the need for supplementary systems like socialist healthcare serve as recent and clear examples this is the case.
I'll be quick.
Let's leave money in politics out of it. It's a wash. Let's focus solely on what policies would be good, how/who would install those policies, and what would be the preferred outcome. It can be mixed markets, social democracy, or capitalism reworked to better serve most rather than few. I think once we set some hard areas with which we can agree upon, then we can move forward.
So for starters: The need to retain/gather absurd wealth is not something that should be condoned since that same absurd wealth is not beneficial to most. A small percentage of wealth redistribution and perhaps "cap on total net wealth" could be advocated? I don't think a lot of people with that kind of money (10s of billions) would allow it to happen, but it can be made possible through capping capital gains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
