|
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 |
I'm fairly pessimistic, I think at this point in time, Americans are more likely to end up with an official oligarchy than with socialism.
|
On July 11 2025 16:23 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2025 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 09:38 WombaT wrote:On July 11 2025 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 04:01 LightSpectra wrote:On July 11 2025 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 09 2025 23:18 LightSpectra wrote:On July 09 2025 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:give it a few days before they get back in line and start defending it. Happens every time. Trump's going to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. Half of conservatives will be outraged for a day or two (the length of their attention span), half of conservatives will trip over themselves to praise Trump for being brave enough to finally end this controversy. In case you thought I was joking, this just broke today: Trump Held Talks on Pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell: Biographer I'm starting to lose track of what exactly it is (besides a barely tenable negative peace [that requires disregarding a bunch of violence against vulnerable people domestically and around the world]), we're preserving by pretending the US is a "nation of laws" in the face of constant reminders that it isn't. It's not a uniquely American problem. Centimillionaires and billionaires regularly evade just consequences no matter what country they're in. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. I agree (it's fun doing this). I'd argue that the obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. I’d love to hear a good argument that it isn’t, in actual practice. I’m yet to hear one though There isn't one. It's a feature, not a bug. The best you can get are attempted rationalizations. Which leads us to 3. 1. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. 2. Obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. 3. Capitalism/Capitalists must be overcome to overcome obscene wealth inequality We all still on board or where did I lose you? I disagree, mostly in the same way and for the same reasons fleetfeet does. 1. We're all in agreement 2. Well, I'd rephrase that as "obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from any system that doesn't put checks and controls on human greed. Capitalism is a system that doesn't put checks on human greed (in fact, it encourages it)." Which still says the same thing, but with a bit more nuance and it shows the problem with the last step. The problem then is in the third statement. "Overcoming capitalism" doesn't help if you don't replace it with a different system that doesn't put checks on human greed. I know you're a socialist and are arguing that socialism is the only alternative to capitalism, but that is really not true. Getting rid of capitalism is thus a *necessary* step, but not a *sufficient* step. The other problem with step 3 is that is reductionist. There are a LOT of competing values that lead to people favouring capitalism, and extreme wealth inequality might simply be an "evil" they are willing to accept. So even if we accept that everybody agrees with your 3 points, they may not agree with your conclusion that we should get rid of capitalism: there might be greater evils than extreme wealth inequality that capitalism *does* address, and they don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Note: I am not one of those. I'm a big fan of transitioning to socialism. I don't know how we do it, especially not in a country ruled by a fascist oompaloompa, but when we figure out the how I'm on board!
Thanks, I appreciate you expanding on my frustrations. We're pretty much on the same page, as best I can tell!
|
On July 11 2025 16:11 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2025 15:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 15:11 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 11 2025 14:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 14:18 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 11 2025 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 09:38 WombaT wrote:On July 11 2025 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 04:01 LightSpectra wrote:On July 11 2025 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm starting to lose track of what exactly it is (besides a barely tenable negative peace [that requires disregarding a bunch of violence against vulnerable people domestically and around the world]), we're preserving by pretending the US is a "nation of laws" in the face of constant reminders that it isn't. It's not a uniquely American problem. Centimillionaires and billionaires regularly evade just consequences no matter what country they're in. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. I agree (it's fun doing this). I'd argue that the obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. I’d love to hear a good argument that it isn’t, in actual practice. I’m yet to hear one though There isn't one. It's a feature, not a bug. The best you can get are attempted rationalizations. Which leads us to 3. 1. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. 2. Obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. 3. Capitalism/Capitalists must be overcome to overcome obscene wealth inequality We all still on board or where did I lose you? You lose me at the simplicity of it all. Read on to learn how truly dumb and uneducated I am! I'll start with my understanding of terms. Capitalism : In a broad sense, prioritizing the accumulation of valuables ('capital') for the purpose of accumulating more capital, in a loop without end. Get richer to get richer to get richer. Socialism : In a broad sense, prioritizing the wellbeing of your society and the people within it. Now, I know the textbook definitions are concerned with who owns the means of production, but I genuinely can't understand what that changes. If my 'state' (Alberta) collectively owned the means of production, wouldn't that mean Alberta is just fucking rich and Ontario can go fuck itself? It doesn't magically make Alberta moral and willing to use its resources to help out the rest of Canada. How is it supposed to work? How does that wealth get distributed to the people? Does 'Ralph Bucks' count as socialism, or is it an awkward product of capitalist mentality? The way I see it, Capitalism can (and does, in places) work to support the wellbeing of people, and Socialism can fuck up and be horrible. In both cases, it's humans being shitbags (knowingly or unknowingly) that make it go wrong. In my gut, I'd much sooner identify as a Socialist than a Capitalist because I care a hell of a lot more about people than I do wealth, but I have a poor understanding of what those terms mean, and less so when applied to me as an individual. While "Capitalism bad abolish capitalism and boom utopia" feels good as an idea, it doesn't resonate as a sensible and grounded idea as much as an emotional one. You don't seem to have the sort of argument Wombat and DPB were looking for, and it doesn't appear you're actually arguing against point 1 or 2 at all. Before we even think about socialism, we should deal with that. GH let me know when you find an argument persuasive enough to convince the average American that handing more power and wealth to corporations and their owners doesn't make their lives better. I understand your frustration, but I don't find your phrasing conducive to productive discussion. Setting that aside to address the underlying point, most Americans are followers and they'll fall in line with organized power. That's one reason why it's important to focus much less on trying to convince anyone that isn't already on board with at least point 1 & 2 and much more on organizing those that are. If one could find a unifying tenet of American society, it would be the belief that capitalism is the best way to prosper. You want to dismantle that. I am simply asking for what you think is a good argument that would convince the majority of your fellow Americans to drop something they firmly believe in. I should point out that I am already on Team GH on this one, you don't have to convince me.
I'm saying convincing (particularly through meticulous rational argumentation) the majority of Americans isn't how things get done in the US.
As someone I don't have to convince, I'm saying it's more important for us to organize our efforts with others on "team GH" (this is silly. You're not advocating revolutionary socialism, that's fine, just identify as social democrats, dem socialists, or whatever, but it really isn't about me or my "team")
On July 11 2025 16:23 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2025 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 09:38 WombaT wrote:On July 11 2025 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 04:01 LightSpectra wrote:On July 11 2025 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 09 2025 23:18 LightSpectra wrote:On July 09 2025 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:give it a few days before they get back in line and start defending it. Happens every time. Trump's going to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. Half of conservatives will be outraged for a day or two (the length of their attention span), half of conservatives will trip over themselves to praise Trump for being brave enough to finally end this controversy. In case you thought I was joking, this just broke today: Trump Held Talks on Pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell: Biographer I'm starting to lose track of what exactly it is (besides a barely tenable negative peace [that requires disregarding a bunch of violence against vulnerable people domestically and around the world]), we're preserving by pretending the US is a "nation of laws" in the face of constant reminders that it isn't. It's not a uniquely American problem. Centimillionaires and billionaires regularly evade just consequences no matter what country they're in. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. I agree (it's fun doing this). I'd argue that the obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. I’d love to hear a good argument that it isn’t, in actual practice. I’m yet to hear one though There isn't one. It's a feature, not a bug. The best you can get are attempted rationalizations. Which leads us to 3. 1. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. 2. Obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. 3. Capitalism/Capitalists must be overcome to overcome obscene wealth inequality We all still on board or where did I lose you? I disagree, mostly in the same way and for the same reasons fleetfeet does. 1. We're all in agreement 2. Well, I'd rephrase that as "obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from any system that doesn't put checks and controls on human greed. Capitalism is a system that doesn't put checks on human greed (in fact, it encourages it)." Which still says the same thing, but with a bit more nuance and it shows the problem with the last step. The problem then is in the third statement. "Overcoming capitalism" doesn't help if you don't replace it with a different system that does put checks on human greed. I know you're a socialist and are arguing that socialism is the only alternative to capitalism, but that is really not true. Getting rid of capitalism is thus a *necessary* step, but not a *sufficient* step. The other problem with step 3 is that is reductionist. There are a LOT of competing values that lead to people favouring capitalism, and extreme wealth inequality might simply be an "evil" they are willing to accept. So even if we accept that everybody agrees with your 3 points, they may not agree with your conclusion that we should get rid of capitalism: there might be greater evils than extreme wealth inequality that capitalism *does* address, and they don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Note: I am not one of those. I'm a big fan of transitioning to socialism. I don't know how we do it, especially not in a country ruled by a fascist oompaloompa, but when we figure out the how I'm on board!
I'd start by telling you the same thing: You don't seem to have the sort of argument Wombat and DPB were looking for, and it doesn't appear you're actually arguing against point 1 or 2 at all.
Before we even think about socialism, we should deal with that.
I'd add that you're not really disagreeing with the 3rd point either.
You said we should "replace [capitalism] with a different system that does put checks on human greed"
I agree with that.
|
On July 11 2025 17:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2025 16:11 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 11 2025 15:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 15:11 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 11 2025 14:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 14:18 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 11 2025 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 09:38 WombaT wrote:On July 11 2025 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 04:01 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
It's not a uniquely American problem. Centimillionaires and billionaires regularly evade just consequences no matter what country they're in. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. I agree (it's fun doing this). I'd argue that the obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. I’d love to hear a good argument that it isn’t, in actual practice. I’m yet to hear one though There isn't one. It's a feature, not a bug. The best you can get are attempted rationalizations. Which leads us to 3. 1. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. 2. Obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. 3. Capitalism/Capitalists must be overcome to overcome obscene wealth inequality We all still on board or where did I lose you? You lose me at the simplicity of it all. Read on to learn how truly dumb and uneducated I am! I'll start with my understanding of terms. Capitalism : In a broad sense, prioritizing the accumulation of valuables ('capital') for the purpose of accumulating more capital, in a loop without end. Get richer to get richer to get richer. Socialism : In a broad sense, prioritizing the wellbeing of your society and the people within it. Now, I know the textbook definitions are concerned with who owns the means of production, but I genuinely can't understand what that changes. If my 'state' (Alberta) collectively owned the means of production, wouldn't that mean Alberta is just fucking rich and Ontario can go fuck itself? It doesn't magically make Alberta moral and willing to use its resources to help out the rest of Canada. How is it supposed to work? How does that wealth get distributed to the people? Does 'Ralph Bucks' count as socialism, or is it an awkward product of capitalist mentality? The way I see it, Capitalism can (and does, in places) work to support the wellbeing of people, and Socialism can fuck up and be horrible. In both cases, it's humans being shitbags (knowingly or unknowingly) that make it go wrong. In my gut, I'd much sooner identify as a Socialist than a Capitalist because I care a hell of a lot more about people than I do wealth, but I have a poor understanding of what those terms mean, and less so when applied to me as an individual. While "Capitalism bad abolish capitalism and boom utopia" feels good as an idea, it doesn't resonate as a sensible and grounded idea as much as an emotional one. You don't seem to have the sort of argument Wombat and DPB were looking for, and it doesn't appear you're actually arguing against point 1 or 2 at all. Before we even think about socialism, we should deal with that. GH let me know when you find an argument persuasive enough to convince the average American that handing more power and wealth to corporations and their owners doesn't make their lives better. I understand your frustration, but I don't find your phrasing conducive to productive discussion. Setting that aside to address the underlying point, most Americans are followers and they'll fall in line with organized power. That's one reason why it's important to focus much less on trying to convince anyone that isn't already on board with at least point 1 & 2 and much more on organizing those that are. If one could find a unifying tenet of American society, it would be the belief that capitalism is the best way to prosper. You want to dismantle that. I am simply asking for what you think is a good argument that would convince the majority of your fellow Americans to drop something they firmly believe in. I should point out that I am already on Team GH on this one, you don't have to convince me. I'm saying convincing (particularly through meticulous rational argumentation) the majority of Americans isn't how things get done in the US. As someone I don't have to convince, I'm saying it's more important for us to organize our efforts with others on "team GH" (this is silly. You're not advocating revolutionary socialism, that's fine, just identify as social democrats, dem socialists, or whatever, but it really isn't about me or my "team") Show nested quote +On July 11 2025 16:23 Acrofales wrote:On July 11 2025 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 09:38 WombaT wrote:On July 11 2025 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 04:01 LightSpectra wrote:On July 11 2025 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 09 2025 23:18 LightSpectra wrote:On July 09 2025 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]give it a few days before they get back in line and start defending it. Happens every time.
Trump's going to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. Half of conservatives will be outraged for a day or two (the length of their attention span), half of conservatives will trip over themselves to praise Trump for being brave enough to finally end this controversy. In case you thought I was joking, this just broke today: Trump Held Talks on Pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell: Biographer I'm starting to lose track of what exactly it is (besides a barely tenable negative peace [that requires disregarding a bunch of violence against vulnerable people domestically and around the world]), we're preserving by pretending the US is a "nation of laws" in the face of constant reminders that it isn't. It's not a uniquely American problem. Centimillionaires and billionaires regularly evade just consequences no matter what country they're in. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. I agree (it's fun doing this). I'd argue that the obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. I’d love to hear a good argument that it isn’t, in actual practice. I’m yet to hear one though There isn't one. It's a feature, not a bug. The best you can get are attempted rationalizations. Which leads us to 3. 1. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. 2. Obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. 3. Capitalism/Capitalists must be overcome to overcome obscene wealth inequality We all still on board or where did I lose you? I disagree, mostly in the same way and for the same reasons fleetfeet does. 1. We're all in agreement 2. Well, I'd rephrase that as "obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from any system that doesn't put checks and controls on human greed. Capitalism is a system that doesn't put checks on human greed (in fact, it encourages it)." Which still says the same thing, but with a bit more nuance and it shows the problem with the last step. The problem then is in the third statement. "Overcoming capitalism" doesn't help if you don't replace it with a different system that does put checks on human greed. I know you're a socialist and are arguing that socialism is the only alternative to capitalism, but that is really not true. Getting rid of capitalism is thus a *necessary* step, but not a *sufficient* step. The other problem with step 3 is that is reductionist. There are a LOT of competing values that lead to people favouring capitalism, and extreme wealth inequality might simply be an "evil" they are willing to accept. So even if we accept that everybody agrees with your 3 points, they may not agree with your conclusion that we should get rid of capitalism: there might be greater evils than extreme wealth inequality that capitalism *does* address, and they don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Note: I am not one of those. I'm a big fan of transitioning to socialism. I don't know how we do it, especially not in a country ruled by a fascist oompaloompa, but when we figure out the how I'm on board! I'd start by telling you the same thing: You don't seem to have the sort of argument Wombat and DPB were looking for, and it doesn't appear you're actually arguing against point 1 or 2 at all. Before we even think about socialism, we should deal with that. I'd add that you're not really disagreeing with the 3rd point either. You said we should "replace [capitalism] with a different system that does put checks on human greed" I agree with that.
Being anti-capitalism doesn't make one pro-socialism. Me for example, I'm anti-capitalist but I'm not strictly pro-socialist either. I just think more socialism is required in the current overly capitalistic landscape.
Most importantly I believe that there will always be mismanagement when an ideology is followed to a tee.
Stalin for example wasn't just a communist (or more accurately a totalitarian with a Marxist-Leninist approach), he was also an incredibly stupid person who fucked up everything because he thought that he could manage everything to perfection, while in reality he was one of the least competent people in charge of economic decisions. This was not strictly a consequence of communism, but it was a consequence of the zealotry of communists.
If you push any idea to the extreme, then inevitably incompetent people take control and steer the ship towards disaster. The sinking of the unsinkable. The Titanic. This is true for capitalism, socialism, and literally all other ideologies that have ever existed.
Any ideology, no matter how good it appears to be, can only serve the people if the people making up leadership are competent. That competency is something that an ideology cannot produce. It is something that requires education, empathy and humility. And the problem is that the further out to the extreme an ideology goes, the more combative the zealots get against education, empathy and humility. They destroy what they don't understand and in the process they destroy their own project.
|
I think more and strictly enforced rules and regulations on workers rights and compensation alone would solve a large part of the problem.
The issue is that no single country alone can really do this whiteout putting itself at a disadvatage so instead we are in this race to the bottom (just slower in some countries than others but the trend is clear).
I'm lucky and my country somehow manage to keep wages for most employes/fields at a decent level, having two jobs "just to survive" is unheard of here and would also actually be illegal but the trend also exists here.
|
On July 11 2025 17:34 Velr wrote:
I think more and strictly enforced rules and regulations on workers rights and compensation alone would solve a large part of the problem.
The issue is that no single country alone can really do this whiteout putting itself at a disadvatage so instead we are in this race to the bottom (just slower in some countries than others but the trend is clear).
I'm lucky and my country somehow manage to keep wages for most employes/fields at a decent level, having two jobs "just to survive" is unheard of here and would also actually be illegal but the trend also exists here.
Aside from the underlined part I agree with you. Or rather I'd like to ask for clarification on the disadvantage caused by those rules and regulations etc. What/who exactly will be disadvantaged?
|
On July 11 2025 18:17 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2025 17:34 Velr wrote:
I think more and strictly enforced rules and regulations on workers rights and compensation alone would solve a large part of the problem.
The issue is that no single country alone can really do this whiteout putting itself at a disadvatage so instead we are in this race to the bottom (just slower in some countries than others but the trend is clear).
I'm lucky and my country somehow manage to keep wages for most employes/fields at a decent level, having two jobs "just to survive" is unheard of here and would also actually be illegal but the trend also exists here. Aside from the underlined part I agree with you. Or rather I'd like to ask for clarification on the disadvantage caused by those rules and regulations etc. What/who exactly will be disadvantaged?
The nation itself will be disadvantaged because valuable multi-national companies will simply leave.
AstraZeneca is looking at moving its headquarters and stock listing from the UK to the US over much less.
|
On July 11 2025 18:51 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2025 18:17 Magic Powers wrote:On July 11 2025 17:34 Velr wrote:
I think more and strictly enforced rules and regulations on workers rights and compensation alone would solve a large part of the problem.
The issue is that no single country alone can really do this whiteout putting itself at a disadvatage so instead we are in this race to the bottom (just slower in some countries than others but the trend is clear).
I'm lucky and my country somehow manage to keep wages for most employes/fields at a decent level, having two jobs "just to survive" is unheard of here and would also actually be illegal but the trend also exists here. Aside from the underlined part I agree with you. Or rather I'd like to ask for clarification on the disadvantage caused by those rules and regulations etc. What/who exactly will be disadvantaged? The nation itself will be disadvantaged because valuable multi-national companies will simply leave. AstraZeneca is looking at moving its headquarters and stock listing from the UK to the US over much less.
If multi-national companies leave, for whom exactly is that a disadvantage? The average working Joe and Jane?
|
The guys that are now extracting more money from companies on the expense of their "workers" would get less money. These are the same guys that pretty much decide where a company is located, how much their employes earn and so on.
Sure you could regulate around that too and the fearmongering about "they will all move!" is surely overstatet and for plenty of businesses plain not possible, Walmart can't just move, but it's also not totally baseless.
I would rather have companies pay good wages than "TAX THE RICH!!!!111" and similar memes that are going around. These guys only get so filthy rich in the first place because we allow them to exploit the work force.
|
On July 11 2025 19:04 Velr wrote:
The guys that are now extracting more money from companies on the expense of their "workers" would get less money. These are the same guys that pretty much decide where a company is located, how much their employes earn and so on.
Sure you could regulate around that too and the fearmongering about "they will all move!" is surely overstatet and for plenty of businesses plain not possible, Walmart can't just "move", but it's also not totally baseless.
I would rather have companies pay good wages than "TAX THE RICH!!!!111" and similar memes that are going around. These guys only get so filthy rich in the first place because we allow them to exploit the work force.
That is indeed correct.
I'd add that big business such as for example Amazon are predatory, not productive. They bought competition until there was no competition, which explains their massive growth. That is not helping local economy, it's ripping it out and replacing it with a conglomerate.
On the one hand this results in local/small businesses being unable to sustain themselves and so the middle class breaks. No more viable career paths towards enrichment for the working class - enrichment is only possible as investors of a handful of conglomerates, thus further contributing to the decline of local/small businesses.
On the other hand innovation towards sustainability also breaks because the conglomerate has no incentive towards that. This is why the environment suffers rather than being served and serving us in return. Big business buys massive amounts of land and leaves it barren. No woodland, no housing, no transportation (unless it serves the conglomerate's bottom line).
It also results in terrible working conditions. Amazon treats and pays its workers poorly and has a high rate of workplace injuries.
The destructiveness of such hyper-capitalism can hardly be put into words. One could write a hundred papers of research and it still wouldn't cover the whole breadth and depth of destruction.
|
On July 11 2025 09:38 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2025 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 04:01 LightSpectra wrote:On July 11 2025 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 09 2025 23:18 LightSpectra wrote:On July 09 2025 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:give it a few days before they get back in line and start defending it. Happens every time. Trump's going to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. Half of conservatives will be outraged for a day or two (the length of their attention span), half of conservatives will trip over themselves to praise Trump for being brave enough to finally end this controversy. In case you thought I was joking, this just broke today: Trump Held Talks on Pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell: Biographer I'm starting to lose track of what exactly it is (besides a barely tenable negative peace [that requires disregarding a bunch of violence against vulnerable people domestically and around the world]), we're preserving by pretending the US is a "nation of laws" in the face of constant reminders that it isn't. It's not a uniquely American problem. Centimillionaires and billionaires regularly evade just consequences no matter what country they're in. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. I agree (it's fun doing this). I'd argue that the obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. I’d love to hear a good argument that it isn’t, in actual practice. I’m yet to hear one though
There's a very obvious one. There's obscene wealth inequality under every ism, current and historical. Capitalist Finland has a significantly lower Gini coefficient than socialist Cuba, Venezuela or Vietnam. Obscene wealth inequality has little to do with -ism and everything to do with culture.
If a country undergoes a cultural shift that makes them pursue a switch to socialism, it's that shift that would be the cause of decreased inequality, rather than socialism. If that switch happens by geopolitical happenstance (as we've seen in Eastern Europe) rather than a cultural shift, then there is no meaningful change in inequality, people just play slightly different games with different rules to get ahead than they did before.
|
On July 11 2025 17:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2025 16:23 Acrofales wrote:On July 11 2025 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 09:38 WombaT wrote:On July 11 2025 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 04:01 LightSpectra wrote:On July 11 2025 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 09 2025 23:18 LightSpectra wrote:On July 09 2025 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]give it a few days before they get back in line and start defending it. Happens every time.
Trump's going to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. Half of conservatives will be outraged for a day or two (the length of their attention span), half of conservatives will trip over themselves to praise Trump for being brave enough to finally end this controversy. In case you thought I was joking, this just broke today: Trump Held Talks on Pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell: Biographer I'm starting to lose track of what exactly it is (besides a barely tenable negative peace [that requires disregarding a bunch of violence against vulnerable people domestically and around the world]), we're preserving by pretending the US is a "nation of laws" in the face of constant reminders that it isn't. It's not a uniquely American problem. Centimillionaires and billionaires regularly evade just consequences no matter what country they're in. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. I agree (it's fun doing this). I'd argue that the obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. I’d love to hear a good argument that it isn’t, in actual practice. I’m yet to hear one though There isn't one. It's a feature, not a bug. The best you can get are attempted rationalizations. Which leads us to 3. 1. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. 2. Obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. 3. Capitalism/Capitalists must be overcome to overcome obscene wealth inequality We all still on board or where did I lose you? I disagree, mostly in the same way and for the same reasons fleetfeet does. 1. We're all in agreement 2. Well, I'd rephrase that as "obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from any system that doesn't put checks and controls on human greed. Capitalism is a system that doesn't put checks on human greed (in fact, it encourages it)." Which still says the same thing, but with a bit more nuance and it shows the problem with the last step. The problem then is in the third statement. "Overcoming capitalism" doesn't help if you don't replace it with a different system that does put checks on human greed. I know you're a socialist and are arguing that socialism is the only alternative to capitalism, but that is really not true. Getting rid of capitalism is thus a *necessary* step, but not a *sufficient* step. The other problem with step 3 is that is reductionist. There are a LOT of competing values that lead to people favouring capitalism, and extreme wealth inequality might simply be an "evil" they are willing to accept. So even if we accept that everybody agrees with your 3 points, they may not agree with your conclusion that we should get rid of capitalism: there might be greater evils than extreme wealth inequality that capitalism *does* address, and they don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Note: I am not one of those. I'm a big fan of transitioning to socialism. I don't know how we do it, especially not in a country ruled by a fascist oompaloompa, but when we figure out the how I'm on board! I'd start by telling you the same thing: You don't seem to have the sort of argument Wombat and DPB were looking for, and it doesn't appear you're actually arguing against point 1 or 2 at all. Before we even think about socialism, we should deal with that. I'd add that you're not really disagreeing with the 3rd point either. You said we should "replace [capitalism] with a different system that does put checks on human greed" I agree with that.
I think there are a lot of interesting points that you, Acrofales/Fleetfeet, and others are bringing up. For example, I found it useful to reflect on Acro's suggestion that "There are a LOT of competing values that lead to people favouring capitalism, and extreme wealth inequality might simply be an "evil" they are willing to accept. So even if we accept that everybody agrees with your 3 points, they may not agree with your conclusion that we should get rid of capitalism: there might be greater evils than extreme wealth inequality that capitalism *does* address, and they don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater."
It made me wonder why Americans are so afraid of socialism. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons different people give, and so tailoring responses would take time.
Is it because they feel that capitalism would be fixed if only there were a few more checks and balances, and perhaps the integration of a few more social programs?
Is it because they were born into economic privilege and wave off anyone who is struggling as too lazy and/or not properly picking themselves up by their bootstraps?
Is it because they think that the United States dropping capitalism and/or moving on to socialism would lose a global competitive advantage in some way?
Is it because they only "know" of failing socialist countries, and haven't heard of any successful socialist countries?
Is it because they might just be employing circular reasoning (socialism is bad because it's evil / because the news programs I watch say so)?
I found some data on the most popular negative and positive takes on socialism:
Pew Research Center from 2019: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/07/in-their-own-words-behind-americans-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism/
I imagine that more data exists within the past 6 years too, and perhaps if the United States had more champions of socialism / related programs (Sanders, Mamdani, etc.) resolving misconceptions, then maybe the long-standing taboo against socialism would start to fade.
Ironically, I think that Republicans (and some Democrats) labeling so many popular platforms as "socialist" could eventually backfire on them. Sanders, Mamdani, and others could lean / are leaning into this and responding with something like "You want to call universal healthcare, everyone having a living wage, and caring about others "socialist"? You're trying to scare people off by using that word, but what you're really doing is conceding that socialism aligns with being compassionate and decent, whereas capitalism doesn't care about your rights to afford food and medicine and housing and families and education." Giving a good thing a bad name doesn't stop the good thing from being good (kind of like the reverse of Trump's Big Beautiful Bill - giving something the name "beautiful" might just be a mask for something truly ugly).
|
On July 11 2025 19:27 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2025 09:38 WombaT wrote:On July 11 2025 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 04:01 LightSpectra wrote:On July 11 2025 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 09 2025 23:18 LightSpectra wrote:On July 09 2025 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:give it a few days before they get back in line and start defending it. Happens every time. Trump's going to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. Half of conservatives will be outraged for a day or two (the length of their attention span), half of conservatives will trip over themselves to praise Trump for being brave enough to finally end this controversy. In case you thought I was joking, this just broke today: Trump Held Talks on Pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell: Biographer I'm starting to lose track of what exactly it is (besides a barely tenable negative peace [that requires disregarding a bunch of violence against vulnerable people domestically and around the world]), we're preserving by pretending the US is a "nation of laws" in the face of constant reminders that it isn't. It's not a uniquely American problem. Centimillionaires and billionaires regularly evade just consequences no matter what country they're in. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. I agree (it's fun doing this). I'd argue that the obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. I’d love to hear a good argument that it isn’t, in actual practice. I’m yet to hear one though There's a very obvious one. There's obscene wealth inequality under every ism, current and historical. Capitalist Finland has a significantly lower Gini coefficient than socialist Cuba, Venezuela or Vietnam. Obscene wealth inequality has little to do with -ism and everything to do with culture. If a country undergoes a cultural shift that makes them pursue a switch to socialism, it's that shift that would be the cause of decreased inequality, rather than socialism. If that switch happens by geopolitical happenstance (as we've seen in Eastern Europe) rather than a cultural shift, then there is no meaningful change in inequality, people just play slightly different games with different rules to get ahead than they did before.
I think this is key thing people who only ever lived in capitalism dont understand. Socialism in theory is vastly different than in practice.
|
I don't find arguing socialism vs. capitalism to be a helpful discourse because it always comes down to pointing at individual atrocious things that a particular socialist or capitalist state did in history, not whether certain financial policies end up helping or hurting the citizens therein. Regardless, wealth caps can exist in both capitalism and socialism. The United States considered instituting a 100% tax bracket during World War II. The highest one was already at 99.1% if I recall correctly.
|
On July 11 2025 20:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2025 17:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 16:23 Acrofales wrote:On July 11 2025 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 09:38 WombaT wrote:On July 11 2025 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 04:01 LightSpectra wrote:On July 11 2025 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2025 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 09 2025 23:18 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Trump's going to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. Half of conservatives will be outraged for a day or two (the length of their attention span), half of conservatives will trip over themselves to praise Trump for being brave enough to finally end this controversy. In case you thought I was joking, this just broke today: Trump Held Talks on Pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell: Biographer I'm starting to lose track of what exactly it is (besides a barely tenable negative peace [that requires disregarding a bunch of violence against vulnerable people domestically and around the world]), we're preserving by pretending the US is a "nation of laws" in the face of constant reminders that it isn't. It's not a uniquely American problem. Centimillionaires and billionaires regularly evade just consequences no matter what country they're in. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. I agree (it's fun doing this). I'd argue that the obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. I’d love to hear a good argument that it isn’t, in actual practice. I’m yet to hear one though There isn't one. It's a feature, not a bug. The best you can get are attempted rationalizations. Which leads us to 3. 1. Obscene wealth inequality is inherently immoral and a risk to security of any state, the faster people realize that the faster we'll be able to fix it. 2. Obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from capitalism. 3. Capitalism/Capitalists must be overcome to overcome obscene wealth inequality We all still on board or where did I lose you? I disagree, mostly in the same way and for the same reasons fleetfeet does. 1. We're all in agreement 2. Well, I'd rephrase that as "obscene wealth inequality is inextricable from any system that doesn't put checks and controls on human greed. Capitalism is a system that doesn't put checks on human greed (in fact, it encourages it)." Which still says the same thing, but with a bit more nuance and it shows the problem with the last step. The problem then is in the third statement. "Overcoming capitalism" doesn't help if you don't replace it with a different system that does put checks on human greed. I know you're a socialist and are arguing that socialism is the only alternative to capitalism, but that is really not true. Getting rid of capitalism is thus a *necessary* step, but not a *sufficient* step. The other problem with step 3 is that is reductionist. There are a LOT of competing values that lead to people favouring capitalism, and extreme wealth inequality might simply be an "evil" they are willing to accept. So even if we accept that everybody agrees with your 3 points, they may not agree with your conclusion that we should get rid of capitalism: there might be greater evils than extreme wealth inequality that capitalism *does* address, and they don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Note: I am not one of those. I'm a big fan of transitioning to socialism. I don't know how we do it, especially not in a country ruled by a fascist oompaloompa, but when we figure out the how I'm on board! I'd start by telling you the same thing: You don't seem to have the sort of argument Wombat and DPB were looking for, and it doesn't appear you're actually arguing against point 1 or 2 at all. Before we even think about socialism, we should deal with that. I'd add that you're not really disagreeing with the 3rd point either. You said we should "replace [capitalism] with a different system that does put checks on human greed" I agree with that. I think there are a lot of interesting points that you, Acrofales/Fleetfeet, and others are bringing up. For example, I found it useful to reflect on Acro's suggestion that "There are a LOT of competing values that lead to people favouring capitalism, and extreme wealth inequality might simply be an "evil" they are willing to accept. So even if we accept that everybody agrees with your 3 points, they may not agree with your conclusion that we should get rid of capitalism: there might be greater evils than extreme wealth inequality that capitalism *does* address, and they don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater." It made me wonder why Americans are so afraid of socialism. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons different people give, and so tailoring responses would take time. Is it because they feel that capitalism would be fixed if only there were a few more checks and balances, and perhaps the integration of a few more social programs? Is it because they were born into economic privilege and wave off anyone who is struggling as too lazy and/or not properly picking themselves up by their bootstraps? Is it because they think that the United States dropping capitalism and/or moving on to socialism would lose a global competitive advantage in some way? Is it because they only "know" of failing socialist countries, and haven't heard of any successful socialist countries? Is it because they might just be employing circular reasoning (socialism is bad because it's evil / because the news programs I watch say so)? I found some data on the most popular negative and positive takes on socialism: Pew Research Center from 2019: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/07/in-their-own-words-behind-americans-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism/ I imagine that more data exists within the past 6 years too, and perhaps if the United States had more champions of socialism / related programs (Sanders, Mamdani, etc.) resolving misconceptions, then maybe the long-standing taboo against socialism would start to fade. Ironically, I think that Republicans (and some Democrats) labeling so many popular platforms as "socialist" could eventually backfire on them. Sanders, Mamdani, and others could lean / are leaning into this and responding with something like "You want to call universal healthcare, everyone having a living wage, and caring about others "socialist"? You're trying to scare people off by using that word, but what you're really doing is conceding that socialism aligns with being compassionate and decent, whereas capitalism doesn't care about your rights to afford food and medicine and housing and families and education." Giving a good thing a bad name doesn't stop the good thing from being good (kind of like the reverse of Trump's Big Beautiful Bill - giving something the name "beautiful" might just be a mask for something truly ugly).
I understand the curiosity (and the appeal of "getting in their mindset"), but the point I'm currently stressing is that we don't have to play devil's advocate for them here and now. It's more practical to focus on organizing those that don't need to be convinced. We've already had a couple people think they were disagreeing when they weren't.
As for socialism (think we're getting ahead of ourselves a bit here), you'll find a remarkable dearth of data about US public opinions on socialism, particularly after about 2022. It's basically inexplicable from a data science/sociological (sans politics) perspective.
|
On July 11 2025 17:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm saying convincing (particularly through meticulous rational argumentation) the majority of Americans isn't how things get done in the US.
As someone I don't have to convince, I'm saying it's more important for us to organize our efforts with others on "team GH" (this is silly. You're not advocating revolutionary socialism, that's fine, just identify as social democrats, dem socialists, or whatever, but it really isn't about me or my "team")
If you don't have a compelling argument/vision that most Americans can get behind and you break down the current system, say via the revolution you advocate for, then how would you ensure that you end up with people taking up socialism rather than some other ism instead?
As far as I understand it, you're just hoping that the socialist block would be the biggest block after the revolution so you can impose your will on the others; but why would that be any more successful than your current oligarchs organising something that benefits them instead?
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26341 Posts
|
On July 11 2025 21:43 LightSpectra wrote:
I don't find arguing socialism vs. capitalism to be a helpful discourse because it always comes down to pointing at individual atrocious things that a particular socialist or capitalist state did in history, not whether certain financial policies end up helping or hurting the citizens therein. Regardless, wealth caps can exist in both capitalism and socialism. The United States considered instituting a 100% tax bracket during World War II. The highest one was already at 99.1% if I recall correctly.
trying to change an entire nation's direction is a waste of time and energy. best thing any individual can do is choose from a finite list of imperfect choices and then vote with your feet. dreaming about some fantasy ideal is a waste of energy.
if you're a socialist/environmentalist then BC or maybe Washington state is prolly the ideal place to live. if you want low taxes then Alaska or Florida are your best choices. Want a middle of the road place? upstate New York or Virginia are good. want french culture? Quebec. prefer spanish? new mexico or texas.
you'll always have to choose between a finite set of imperfect choices even if some kind of revolution occurs.
the more productive, knowledgeable, and skilled you are ... the more options you create for yourself. I'd put more time into that rather than hoping for some kind of revolution which could easily make things worse than they are now.
|
My personal place of abode isn't really relevant to the fact that billionaires can easily break the law and get away with it, is it? The victims of the Epstein/Maxwell/Trump crime ring aren't going to be healed depending on whether I live in Texas or Oregon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
