|
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 |
Norway28756 Posts
On July 12 2025 01:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2025 19:27 Dan HH 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'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. Correct IMO but I don’t think it’s a great argument that wealth inequality isn’t an absolute innate problem with capitalism. At least in a part A consideration, which is recognising a problem. The part B, getting a viable alternative is a good bit trickier, but one lacking a solid proposition doesn’t mean the analysis of part A is off base. I think you make a great point overall. One that’s frequently overlooked for, some reason. They’re economic systems absolutely, but they’re inextricable from cultural values. If the culture doesn’t shift, you’ll get quite similar outcomes. Socialism certainly suffers from not being the status quo, plus its history isn’t great. As much as some will deny the latter, I wouldn’t personally. There’s probably some alternate timeline where idk a nation like Finland went from capitalism with a kinder face, to something approaching socialism in a gradual way, and you don’t have these cautionary tales of authoritarian attempts at socialism and things look rather different.
Allende was ousted largely because the Nixon administration (especially Kissinger, obviously) was afraid that he would represent a successful example of structural change that other countries might choose to emulate - not because there was a real fear of the Soviet Union getting a stronger foothold in South America. The public rationale at the time was cold war-era fear of communism, but declassified documents paint a pretty clear picture that they were more afraid that Chile might prove that socialism could be achieved democratically and successfully.
Basically; the cold war was really destructive also for this reason. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian shit-state, but if you wanted to achieve socialism without the US destroying your efforts, you were largely forced to become a client state of theirs. Allende's regime had very limited ties.
Nordic countries are the exception, we were, for whatever reason, allowed to go a reasonably socialist route without significant interference, while a Norwegian-style nationalization of oil would have been a risky endeavor if you were in some other part of the world. I'm not at all defending the communist/fully socialist regimes we've actually had - because they were truly shitty - but there's also truth to the idea that less shitty ones weren't allowed to really materialize, because the US was afraid of that happening. In Chile they just went fascist coup, in other countries, civil war, other places, soviet union supported totalitarian regimes, and none of these end up looking great, but some of them - perhaps - could have.
|
On July 12 2025 04:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 03:32 oBlade wrote:On July 12 2025 03:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 12 2025 01:33 oBlade wrote:On July 11 2025 22:15 EnDeR_ wrote: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? Another reason idealist socialism doesn't happen by or after revolution is even among "labor" the interests are competing. For example, people wanting to overturn the system are not interested in what police unions want, but they are interested in what teacher's unions want even though teacher's unions don't help education, and they want to eradicate the industry of health insurance, which those workers don't want. Once you're post-scarcity the argument of urgency/necessity of revolution isn't convincing. The reasons one nation's single payer is great and another's universal healthcare is dog shit tend to be more about the nation at the time, the reasons are less ideological and far more mundane. Teachers' unions are the teachers. This is somewhere between making no sense and wrong. Teachers' unions are not teachers for the same reason pumpkin pies aren't pumpkins. One is a component in the other. You're volunteering a basic category error here. Teachers' unions are organizations that have members (certain teachers), pressures, issues, interests, leadership, and so on. Trust me when I say: you don't want it to be true that "unions" are the "people," because such an equivalence would make the whole existence and concept of the union superfluous/redundant so we could just get rid of them. Teachers' unions are indeed organizations that have members, and those members help decide what the unions focus on. If you're saying that a teachers' union isn't helping education, then you're also saying that its members aren't helping.
No, I'm not, for the same reason saying a plane is broken doesn't contain the claim that the tires are broken. You should seek out a union member to help you with categorical logic.
Otherwise you would have discovered one rhetorical bullshit fallacy that makes every union on Earth unassailable because you can't attack the union without attacking the innocent good faith hardworking contributing members of it.
|
On July 12 2025 04:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 04:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 12 2025 03:32 oBlade wrote:On July 12 2025 03:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 12 2025 01:33 oBlade wrote:On July 11 2025 22:15 EnDeR_ wrote: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? Another reason idealist socialism doesn't happen by or after revolution is even among "labor" the interests are competing. For example, people wanting to overturn the system are not interested in what police unions want, but they are interested in what teacher's unions want even though teacher's unions don't help education, and they want to eradicate the industry of health insurance, which those workers don't want. Once you're post-scarcity the argument of urgency/necessity of revolution isn't convincing. The reasons one nation's single payer is great and another's universal healthcare is dog shit tend to be more about the nation at the time, the reasons are less ideological and far more mundane. Teachers' unions are the teachers. This is somewhere between making no sense and wrong. Teachers' unions are not teachers for the same reason pumpkin pies aren't pumpkins. One is a component in the other. You're volunteering a basic category error here. Teachers' unions are organizations that have members (certain teachers), pressures, issues, interests, leadership, and so on. Trust me when I say: you don't want it to be true that "unions" are the "people," because such an equivalence would make the whole existence and concept of the union superfluous/redundant so we could just get rid of them. Teachers' unions are indeed organizations that have members, and those members help decide what the unions focus on. If you're saying that a teachers' union isn't helping education, then you're also saying that its members aren't helping. No, I'm not, for the same reason saying a plane is broken doesn't contain the claim that the tires are broken. You should seek out a union member to help you with categorical logic. Otherwise you would have discovered one rhetorical bullshit fallacy that makes every union on Earth unassailable because you can't attack the union without attacking the innocent good faith hardworking contributing members of it.
I know you're being sarcastic here, but plenty of people have no problem demonizing teachers (with or without mentioning unions).
Also, comparing the teachers in a union to tires on a plane is not an apt analogy when considering that the tires are not almost all of the plane, nor are the tires responsible for almost all of the plane's features, but let's bring it back to your original claim: why do you think "teacher's unions don't help education"?
|
On July 12 2025 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 02:34 Dan HH wrote:On July 12 2025 01:29 WombaT wrote:On July 11 2025 19:27 Dan HH 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'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. Correct IMO but I don’t think it’s a great argument that wealth inequality isn’t an absolute innate problem with capitalism. At least in a part A consideration, which is recognising a problem. The part B, getting a viable alternative is a good bit trickier, but one lacking a solid proposition doesn’t mean the analysis of part A is off base. I think you make a great point overall. One that’s frequently overlooked for, some reason. They’re economic systems absolutely, but they’re inextricable from cultural values. If the culture doesn’t shift, you’ll get quite similar outcomes. Socialism certainly suffers from not being the status quo, plus its history isn’t great. As much as some will deny the latter, I wouldn’t personally. There’s probably some alternate timeline where idk a nation like Finland went from capitalism with a kinder face, to something approaching socialism in a gradual way, and you don’t have these cautionary tales of authoritarian attempts at socialism and things look rather different. My point is that the importance of the ism is heavily overstated + Show Spoiler + and sort of misses the forest for the trees. The flavor of local capitalism or socialism and how much inequality they allow is dictated by local values rather than the other way around.
This isn't a chicken-and-egg situation, we know empirically that merely having a coup/revolution and changing the economic system without an underlying cultural shift doesn't fix this.
If we want a better future for everyone we need more people on 'team empathy' and make more people derive self-worth from something other than comparing possessions and holiday destinations.
The countries that would be good at socialism are the ones that need it the least, the ones with a culture that's already less individualistic and materialistic, and with a high level of trust in institutions and each other. The US is at the opposite end at the moment, thinking that the solution to its problems is a socialist revolution right now is sort of like thinking that the solution to 'how to build a bridge' is having an engineering degree mailed to you. It really isn't. Doing capitalism correctly specifically requires obscene wealth inequality and exploitation. I'm trying to focus on describing what many of us specifically and actually agree on, while you all keep jumping the gun and rushing to the socialist revolution you disagree with (or being weird and talking about furries). So far it seems we're mostly in agreement on the these three points thus far: 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 I believe we should craft a 4th starting with 4. We need to overcome capitalism with a different system that does put checks on human greed (as suggested by Acro)
Alternatively, you could also engage. It isn't hard to get agreement on "the current system is shit, it needs replacing". You'll find agreement on that even from MAGA people, you just don't like their proposal.
|
If you were to have a real discussion you would probably need to break it down first between democracy and dictatorship. Then within each of those boxes go Socialism and Capitalism. If you did that I think (have no researched just head cannon) that more socialist democracies would out preform less socialist democracies. Then on the other side I bet we would see little to no difference.
And I think a lot of that would come down to things people have already mentioned like checks and balances, culture, proportional representation and so on. I also think if you went down this path you could also come up with compelling arguments that Ender is looking for.
The issue would be keeping it on track as rightwingers try to point out how bad communism worked out, no matter if you bring it up and tankies bring up how unpure and still not perfect the countries most people (including the conservatives I know) would agree are ran better than the US (or Canada for that matter). I get basically no pushback when I talk about what a Scandinavia country is doing and that we should do more like that.
Interestingly enough I also get to have some good conversations if I shift the focus from taxes need to be lower to we need to get better value for your tax dollar. I generally bring up something they like and have, such as there sweet new diesel truck, and mention that it was not the cheapest but they were happy to pay for it.
|
On July 12 2025 04:56 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2025 02:34 Dan HH wrote:On July 12 2025 01:29 WombaT wrote:On July 11 2025 19:27 Dan HH 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: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. Correct IMO but I don’t think it’s a great argument that wealth inequality isn’t an absolute innate problem with capitalism. At least in a part A consideration, which is recognising a problem. The part B, getting a viable alternative is a good bit trickier, but one lacking a solid proposition doesn’t mean the analysis of part A is off base. I think you make a great point overall. One that’s frequently overlooked for, some reason. They’re economic systems absolutely, but they’re inextricable from cultural values. If the culture doesn’t shift, you’ll get quite similar outcomes. Socialism certainly suffers from not being the status quo, plus its history isn’t great. As much as some will deny the latter, I wouldn’t personally. There’s probably some alternate timeline where idk a nation like Finland went from capitalism with a kinder face, to something approaching socialism in a gradual way, and you don’t have these cautionary tales of authoritarian attempts at socialism and things look rather different. My point is that the importance of the ism is heavily overstated + Show Spoiler + and sort of misses the forest for the trees. The flavor of local capitalism or socialism and how much inequality they allow is dictated by local values rather than the other way around.
This isn't a chicken-and-egg situation, we know empirically that merely having a coup/revolution and changing the economic system without an underlying cultural shift doesn't fix this.
If we want a better future for everyone we need more people on 'team empathy' and make more people derive self-worth from something other than comparing possessions and holiday destinations.
The countries that would be good at socialism are the ones that need it the least, the ones with a culture that's already less individualistic and materialistic, and with a high level of trust in institutions and each other. The US is at the opposite end at the moment, thinking that the solution to its problems is a socialist revolution right now is sort of like thinking that the solution to 'how to build a bridge' is having an engineering degree mailed to you. It really isn't. Doing capitalism correctly specifically requires obscene wealth inequality and exploitation. I'm trying to focus on describing what many of us specifically and actually agree on, while you all keep jumping the gun and rushing to the socialist revolution you disagree with (or being weird and talking about furries). So far it seems we're mostly in agreement on the these three points thus far: 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 I believe we should craft a 4th starting with 4. We need to overcome capitalism with a different system that does put checks on human greed (as suggested by Acro) Alternatively, you could also engage. It isn't hard to get agreement on "the current system is shit, it needs replacing". You'll find agreement on that even from MAGA people, you just don't like their proposal.
Alternatively to what?
I don't really want to talk about furries or be the 62094793409th time someone has fallen for oBlade's latest bad faith bait.
|
On July 12 2025 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 04:56 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 12 2025 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2025 02:34 Dan HH wrote:On July 12 2025 01:29 WombaT wrote:On July 11 2025 19:27 Dan HH 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'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. Correct IMO but I don’t think it’s a great argument that wealth inequality isn’t an absolute innate problem with capitalism. At least in a part A consideration, which is recognising a problem. The part B, getting a viable alternative is a good bit trickier, but one lacking a solid proposition doesn’t mean the analysis of part A is off base. I think you make a great point overall. One that’s frequently overlooked for, some reason. They’re economic systems absolutely, but they’re inextricable from cultural values. If the culture doesn’t shift, you’ll get quite similar outcomes. Socialism certainly suffers from not being the status quo, plus its history isn’t great. As much as some will deny the latter, I wouldn’t personally. There’s probably some alternate timeline where idk a nation like Finland went from capitalism with a kinder face, to something approaching socialism in a gradual way, and you don’t have these cautionary tales of authoritarian attempts at socialism and things look rather different. My point is that the importance of the ism is heavily overstated + Show Spoiler + and sort of misses the forest for the trees. The flavor of local capitalism or socialism and how much inequality they allow is dictated by local values rather than the other way around.
This isn't a chicken-and-egg situation, we know empirically that merely having a coup/revolution and changing the economic system without an underlying cultural shift doesn't fix this.
If we want a better future for everyone we need more people on 'team empathy' and make more people derive self-worth from something other than comparing possessions and holiday destinations.
The countries that would be good at socialism are the ones that need it the least, the ones with a culture that's already less individualistic and materialistic, and with a high level of trust in institutions and each other. The US is at the opposite end at the moment, thinking that the solution to its problems is a socialist revolution right now is sort of like thinking that the solution to 'how to build a bridge' is having an engineering degree mailed to you. It really isn't. Doing capitalism correctly specifically requires obscene wealth inequality and exploitation. I'm trying to focus on describing what many of us specifically and actually agree on, while you all keep jumping the gun and rushing to the socialist revolution you disagree with (or being weird and talking about furries). So far it seems we're mostly in agreement on the these three points thus far: 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 I believe we should craft a 4th starting with 4. We need to overcome capitalism with a different system that does put checks on human greed (as suggested by Acro) Alternatively, you could also engage. It isn't hard to get agreement on "the current system is shit, it needs replacing". You'll find agreement on that even from MAGA people, you just don't like their proposal. Alternatively to what? I don't really want to talk about furries or be the 62094793409th time someone has fallen for oBlade's latest bad faith bait.
Try explaining how your version of communism is going to avoid the pitfalls of the USSR, China, Venezuela and so on.
|
On July 12 2025 04:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 04:21 oBlade wrote:On July 12 2025 04:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 12 2025 03:32 oBlade wrote:On July 12 2025 03:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 12 2025 01:33 oBlade wrote:On July 11 2025 22:15 EnDeR_ wrote: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? Another reason idealist socialism doesn't happen by or after revolution is even among "labor" the interests are competing. For example, people wanting to overturn the system are not interested in what police unions want, but they are interested in what teacher's unions want even though teacher's unions don't help education, and they want to eradicate the industry of health insurance, which those workers don't want. Once you're post-scarcity the argument of urgency/necessity of revolution isn't convincing. The reasons one nation's single payer is great and another's universal healthcare is dog shit tend to be more about the nation at the time, the reasons are less ideological and far more mundane. Teachers' unions are the teachers. This is somewhere between making no sense and wrong. Teachers' unions are not teachers for the same reason pumpkin pies aren't pumpkins. One is a component in the other. You're volunteering a basic category error here. Teachers' unions are organizations that have members (certain teachers), pressures, issues, interests, leadership, and so on. Trust me when I say: you don't want it to be true that "unions" are the "people," because such an equivalence would make the whole existence and concept of the union superfluous/redundant so we could just get rid of them. Teachers' unions are indeed organizations that have members, and those members help decide what the unions focus on. If you're saying that a teachers' union isn't helping education, then you're also saying that its members aren't helping. No, I'm not, for the same reason saying a plane is broken doesn't contain the claim that the tires are broken. You should seek out a union member to help you with categorical logic. Otherwise you would have discovered one rhetorical bullshit fallacy that makes every union on Earth unassailable because you can't attack the union without attacking the innocent good faith hardworking contributing members of it. I know you're being sarcastic here, but plenty of people have no problem demonizing teachers (with or without mentioning unions). Also, comparing the teachers in a union to tires on a plane is not an apt analogy when considering that the tires are not almost all of the plane, nor are the tires responsible for almost all of the plane's features, but let's bring it back to your original claim: why do you think "teacher's unions don't help education"?
I wonder if he also believes "police unions don't help policing"
|
On July 12 2025 07:45 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 04:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 12 2025 04:21 oBlade wrote:On July 12 2025 04:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 12 2025 03:32 oBlade wrote:On July 12 2025 03:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 12 2025 01:33 oBlade wrote:On July 11 2025 22:15 EnDeR_ wrote: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? Another reason idealist socialism doesn't happen by or after revolution is even among "labor" the interests are competing. For example, people wanting to overturn the system are not interested in what police unions want, but they are interested in what teacher's unions want even though teacher's unions don't help education, and they want to eradicate the industry of health insurance, which those workers don't want. Once you're post-scarcity the argument of urgency/necessity of revolution isn't convincing. The reasons one nation's single payer is great and another's universal healthcare is dog shit tend to be more about the nation at the time, the reasons are less ideological and far more mundane. Teachers' unions are the teachers. This is somewhere between making no sense and wrong. Teachers' unions are not teachers for the same reason pumpkin pies aren't pumpkins. One is a component in the other. You're volunteering a basic category error here. Teachers' unions are organizations that have members (certain teachers), pressures, issues, interests, leadership, and so on. Trust me when I say: you don't want it to be true that "unions" are the "people," because such an equivalence would make the whole existence and concept of the union superfluous/redundant so we could just get rid of them. Teachers' unions are indeed organizations that have members, and those members help decide what the unions focus on. If you're saying that a teachers' union isn't helping education, then you're also saying that its members aren't helping. No, I'm not, for the same reason saying a plane is broken doesn't contain the claim that the tires are broken. You should seek out a union member to help you with categorical logic. Otherwise you would have discovered one rhetorical bullshit fallacy that makes every union on Earth unassailable because you can't attack the union without attacking the innocent good faith hardworking contributing members of it. I know you're being sarcastic here, but plenty of people have no problem demonizing teachers (with or without mentioning unions). Also, comparing the teachers in a union to tires on a plane is not an apt analogy when considering that the tires are not almost all of the plane, nor are the tires responsible for almost all of the plane's features, but let's bring it back to your original claim: why do you think "teacher's unions don't help education"? I wonder if he also believes "police unions don't help policing"
I know GH is curious to find out! Let's make the most out of this 62094793409th try 
|
12688 Posts
Every nation is a mixed market and difference is the scale and the subsequent effect.
Socialism leaning country need to have a strong gov, the most successful ones are Singapore and China.
It's not without a reason why many socialism heavy countries eventually get to dictatorship and totalitarian.
Because effectiveness of a socialism heavy nation requires not just the planning done well, but act together as one to make it effective.
|
On July 12 2025 07:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 07:45 misirlou wrote:On July 12 2025 04:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 12 2025 04:21 oBlade wrote:On July 12 2025 04:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 12 2025 03:32 oBlade wrote:On July 12 2025 03:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 12 2025 01:33 oBlade wrote:On July 11 2025 22:15 EnDeR_ wrote: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? Another reason idealist socialism doesn't happen by or after revolution is even among "labor" the interests are competing. For example, people wanting to overturn the system are not interested in what police unions want, but they are interested in what teacher's unions want even though teacher's unions don't help education, and they want to eradicate the industry of health insurance, which those workers don't want. Once you're post-scarcity the argument of urgency/necessity of revolution isn't convincing. The reasons one nation's single payer is great and another's universal healthcare is dog shit tend to be more about the nation at the time, the reasons are less ideological and far more mundane. Teachers' unions are the teachers. This is somewhere between making no sense and wrong. Teachers' unions are not teachers for the same reason pumpkin pies aren't pumpkins. One is a component in the other. You're volunteering a basic category error here. Teachers' unions are organizations that have members (certain teachers), pressures, issues, interests, leadership, and so on. Trust me when I say: you don't want it to be true that "unions" are the "people," because such an equivalence would make the whole existence and concept of the union superfluous/redundant so we could just get rid of them. Teachers' unions are indeed organizations that have members, and those members help decide what the unions focus on. If you're saying that a teachers' union isn't helping education, then you're also saying that its members aren't helping. No, I'm not, for the same reason saying a plane is broken doesn't contain the claim that the tires are broken. You should seek out a union member to help you with categorical logic. Otherwise you would have discovered one rhetorical bullshit fallacy that makes every union on Earth unassailable because you can't attack the union without attacking the innocent good faith hardworking contributing members of it. I know you're being sarcastic here, but plenty of people have no problem demonizing teachers (with or without mentioning unions). Also, comparing the teachers in a union to tires on a plane is not an apt analogy when considering that the tires are not almost all of the plane, nor are the tires responsible for almost all of the plane's features, but let's bring it back to your original claim: why do you think "teacher's unions don't help education"? I wonder if he also believes "police unions don't help policing" I know GH is curious to find out! Let's make the most out of this 62094793409th try I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon
Did you happen to look for more data since 2022 of public opinion on "socialism" specifically? I am curious what has turned up for you or others?
|
On July 12 2025 04:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 01:29 WombaT wrote:On July 11 2025 19:27 Dan HH 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'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. Correct IMO but I don’t think it’s a great argument that wealth inequality isn’t an absolute innate problem with capitalism. At least in a part A consideration, which is recognising a problem. The part B, getting a viable alternative is a good bit trickier, but one lacking a solid proposition doesn’t mean the analysis of part A is off base. I think you make a great point overall. One that’s frequently overlooked for, some reason. They’re economic systems absolutely, but they’re inextricable from cultural values. If the culture doesn’t shift, you’ll get quite similar outcomes. Socialism certainly suffers from not being the status quo, plus its history isn’t great. As much as some will deny the latter, I wouldn’t personally. There’s probably some alternate timeline where idk a nation like Finland went from capitalism with a kinder face, to something approaching socialism in a gradual way, and you don’t have these cautionary tales of authoritarian attempts at socialism and things look rather different. Allende was ousted largely because the Nixon administration (especially Kissinger, obviously) was afraid that he would represent a successful example of structural change that other countries might choose to emulate - not because there was a real fear of the Soviet Union getting a stronger foothold in South America. The public rationale at the time was cold war-era fear of communism, but declassified documents paint a pretty clear picture that they were more afraid that Chile might prove that socialism could be achieved democratically and successfully. Basically; the cold war was really destructive also for this reason. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian shit-state, but if you wanted to achieve socialism without the US destroying your efforts, you were largely forced to become a client state of theirs. Allende's regime had very limited ties. Nordic countries are the exception, we were, for whatever reason, allowed to go a reasonably socialist route without significant interference, while a Norwegian-style nationalization of oil would have been a risky endeavor if you were in some other part of the world. I'm not at all defending the communist/fully socialist regimes we've actually had - because they were truly shitty - but there's also truth to the idea that less shitty ones weren't allowed to really materialize, because the US was afraid of that happening. In Chile they just went fascist coup, in other countries, civil war, other places, soviet union supported totalitarian regimes, and none of these end up looking great, but some of them - perhaps - could have.
I actually find bolded interesting. You see I agree on the fact that Cold War was destructive for all, however I think that end of the Cold War turned out to be destructive to Western countries. You see during cold war west had common enemy and that unified it to the degree (as in people were willing to overlook their disagreements and work together against common enemy - in a way fear united them). Since it ended and people who didnt remember cold war grew up, west basically turned on itself (yeah there was Iraq, Afghanistan, but even Russia isnt this big bad Russia it was during cold war) frankly what you have is west pretty much falling apart, left vs right, liberal vs conservative, pro choice vs prolife, pro immigration vs anty immigration and so on.
On July 12 2025 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 02:34 Dan HH wrote:On July 12 2025 01:29 WombaT wrote:On July 11 2025 19:27 Dan HH 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'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. Correct IMO but I don’t think it’s a great argument that wealth inequality isn’t an absolute innate problem with capitalism. At least in a part A consideration, which is recognising a problem. The part B, getting a viable alternative is a good bit trickier, but one lacking a solid proposition doesn’t mean the analysis of part A is off base. I think you make a great point overall. One that’s frequently overlooked for, some reason. They’re economic systems absolutely, but they’re inextricable from cultural values. If the culture doesn’t shift, you’ll get quite similar outcomes. Socialism certainly suffers from not being the status quo, plus its history isn’t great. As much as some will deny the latter, I wouldn’t personally. There’s probably some alternate timeline where idk a nation like Finland went from capitalism with a kinder face, to something approaching socialism in a gradual way, and you don’t have these cautionary tales of authoritarian attempts at socialism and things look rather different. My point is that the importance of the ism is heavily overstated + Show Spoiler + and sort of misses the forest for the trees. The flavor of local capitalism or socialism and how much inequality they allow is dictated by local values rather than the other way around.
This isn't a chicken-and-egg situation, we know empirically that merely having a coup/revolution and changing the economic system without an underlying cultural shift doesn't fix this.
If we want a better future for everyone we need more people on 'team empathy' and make more people derive self-worth from something other than comparing possessions and holiday destinations.
The countries that would be good at socialism are the ones that need it the least, the ones with a culture that's already less individualistic and materialistic, and with a high level of trust in institutions and each other. The US is at the opposite end at the moment, thinking that the solution to its problems is a socialist revolution right now is sort of like thinking that the solution to 'how to build a bridge' is having an engineering degree mailed to you. It really isn't. Doing capitalism correctly specifically requires obscene wealth inequality and exploitation. I'm trying to focus on describing what many of us specifically and actually agree on, while you all keep jumping the gun and rushing to the socialist revolution you disagree with (or being weird and talking about furries). So far it seems we're mostly in agreement on the these three points thus far: 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 I believe we should craft a 4th starting with 4. We need to overcome capitalism with a different system that does put checks on human greed (as suggested by Acro)
1 - this is correct
2 - is partially true, because it is also, as pointed out, inextricable from any other ism
3 - this one is incorrect, due to the omission in 2. Capitalism at its current state indeed reached obscene wealth inequality it however took it time to get to this point (to reach this point it needed enough of people amassing enough wealth to influence government- and then some time to push for necessary legislations). In socialism this is pretty much starting point and is much more insidious due to fact that people on top control not only money but also other resources, so even if you managed to get money, you may not be able to do anything with them.
4 - again incorrect due to omission in 2, incorrect 3 and the fact that there is no other ism currently making a difference. Capitalism doesnt need to be overcome, it needs something like restart/hard reset as it is currently the only ism which may warrant enough time to come up with some working ism.
|
On July 12 2025 02:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2025 10:44 BlackJack wrote:On July 11 2025 10:14 Sermokala wrote:
A lot of the lives lost in Texas could have easily been saved if the people wernt brain rotted against the government being able to do anything to better the lives of people. The very simple infrastructure to combat and monitor flash flooding could have been built at any time, and the funding for it was given to them by Bidens infrastructure bill.
Do you have a source for this? When I googled it I could only find that the county had made several requests for funding for a warning system but they were unable to procure the funds. Hard to believe they would turn down free money just because it came from Biden's bill. Did you see the minutes of the meeting I posted? They didn’t believe it was free money, they believed it was part of the 15 minute city secret plan. They weren’t specifically rejecting flood sirens in that meeting, just infrastructure money generally, but they were very insistent that it should returned. Though the money wasn’t even on the agenda in that meeting, it was just a group of “patriots” that had gotten themselves extremely worked up role playing Facebook Red Dawn and organized to mob a random unrelated meeting to save America. It’s like how the lunatics kept showing up at elementary school board meetings demanding an end to CRT without checking whether CRT was taught. Those social media circles get extremely incestuous and unhinged as they work each other into a frenzy with escalating stories they heard about furries.
I read a few lines of it but not much. It was kind of long. It also appeared to consist just of public comments where anyone and everyone can get up and say whatever they want. I've seen a lot of whackos in those types of meetings.
I was looking more for a source that says something like the city council rejected free funds, not that there exists some unhinged residents that wanted to reject the money but ultimately had no authority on the matter.
|
On July 12 2025 08:04 ETisME wrote:
Every nation is a mixed market and difference is the scale and the subsequent effect.
Socialism leaning country need to have a strong gov, the most successful ones are Singapore and China.
It's not without a reason why many socialism heavy countries eventually get to dictatorship and totalitarian.
Because effectiveness of a socialism heavy nation requires not just the planning done well, but act together as one to make it effective.
There are just as many capitalist dictatorships.
The most successful ones are the Scandinavian countries and there are quite a few.
|
On July 12 2025 08:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 02:48 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2025 10:44 BlackJack wrote:On July 11 2025 10:14 Sermokala wrote:
A lot of the lives lost in Texas could have easily been saved if the people wernt brain rotted against the government being able to do anything to better the lives of people. The very simple infrastructure to combat and monitor flash flooding could have been built at any time, and the funding for it was given to them by Bidens infrastructure bill.
Do you have a source for this? When I googled it I could only find that the county had made several requests for funding for a warning system but they were unable to procure the funds. Hard to believe they would turn down free money just because it came from Biden's bill. Did you see the minutes of the meeting I posted? They didn’t believe it was free money, they believed it was part of the 15 minute city secret plan. They weren’t specifically rejecting flood sirens in that meeting, just infrastructure money generally, but they were very insistent that it should returned. Though the money wasn’t even on the agenda in that meeting, it was just a group of “patriots” that had gotten themselves extremely worked up role playing Facebook Red Dawn and organized to mob a random unrelated meeting to save America. It’s like how the lunatics kept showing up at elementary school board meetings demanding an end to CRT without checking whether CRT was taught. Those social media circles get extremely incestuous and unhinged as they work each other into a frenzy with escalating stories they heard about furries. I read a few lines of it but not much. It was kind of long. It also appeared to consist just of public comments where anyone and everyone can get up and say whatever they want. I've seen a lot of whackos in those types of meetings. I was looking more for a source that says something like the city council rejected free funds, not that there exists some unhinged residents that wanted to reject the money but ultimately had no authority on the matter.
According to this its a combination of factors, like messing up the application but then also wanting to reject the Federal money and then using some of it but on other stuff.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/10/texas-kerr-county-commissioners-flooding-warning/
In 2021, Kerr County was awarded a $10.2 million windfall from the American Rescue Plan Act, or ARPA, which Congress passed that same year to support local governments impacted by the pandemic. Cities and counties were given flexibility to use the money on a variety of expenses, including those related to storm-related infrastructure. Corpus Christi, for example, allocated $15 million of its ARPA funding to “rehabilitate and/or replace aging storm water infrastructure.” Waco’s McLennan County spent $868,000 on low water crossings.
Kerr County did not opt for ARPA to fund flood warning systems despite commissioners discussing such projects nearly two dozen times since 2016. In fact, a survey sent to residents about ARPA spending showed that 42% of the 180 responses wanted to reject the $10 million bonus altogether, largely on political grounds.
“I’m here to ask this court today to send this money back to the Biden administration, which I consider to be the most criminal treasonous communist government ever to hold the White House,” one resident told commissioners in April 2022, fearing strings were attached to the money.
“We don't want to be bought by the federal government, thank you very much,” another resident told commissioners. “We'd like the federal government to stay out of Kerr County and their money.”
|
On July 12 2025 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 01:29 WombaT wrote:On July 11 2025 19:27 Dan HH 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'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. Correct IMO but I don’t think it’s a great argument that wealth inequality isn’t an absolute innate problem with capitalism. + Show Spoiler +At least in a part A consideration, which is recognising a problem. The part B, getting a viable alternative is a good bit trickier, but one lacking a solid proposition doesn’t mean the analysis of part A is off base.
I think you make a great point overall. One that’s frequently overlooked for, some reason. They’re economic systems absolutely, but they’re inextricable from cultural values. If the culture doesn’t shift, you’ll get quite similar outcomes.
Socialism certainly suffers from not being the status quo, plus its history isn’t great. As much as some will deny the latter, I wouldn’t personally.
There’s probably some alternate timeline where idk a nation like Finland went from capitalism with a kinder face, to something approaching socialism in a gradual way, and you don’t have these cautionary tales of authoritarian attempts at socialism and things look rather different. It isn't one. That not even oBlade or JJR attempted one (intro won't either) + Show Spoiler +(this isn't encouragement to let them bait any of you for the 2142195039th time) should demonstrate to everyone that there simply isn't one. One irony is that the "human nature" argument, which is basically where the thread is at currently, is actually a much stronger argument against capitalism than it is socialism (which again, most people have jumped the gun on).
Idk if this counts as "bait" but if you drop the word "problem" for a more neutral word I wouldn't disagree. I think I'm on the record as saying something along the lines of "greed is bad" under any system. Defenses of capitalism are not to answer the question "why does Jeff Bezos need so much money" because he clearly doesn't "need" it in any physical sense. It's an attempt to find the best way to allocate resources, make decisions, and advance what in past days might have been called "human flourishing" both for individuals and a society in general.
And I wouldn't trust a billionaire in this or in an unfettered capitalistic system any more than I would trust a Soviet bureaucrat in the 1970s or a ancient king of some pre-industrial empire. The "human nature argument" is more of a predicate than anything, imo it's a fact that should be taken as assumed but unfortunately given the...utopian ideas of many on the left it becomes a thing to argue about. It's not that human nature can't be said to mess up our perfect capitalistic meritocracy, it's that we don't have to pretend that it won't. The system doesn't require it.
|
On July 12 2025 08:04 ETisME wrote:
Every nation is a mixed market and difference is the scale and the subsequent effect.
Socialism leaning country need to have a strong gov, the most successful ones are Singapore and China.
It's not without a reason why many socialism heavy countries eventually get to dictatorship and totalitarian.
Because effectiveness of a socialism heavy nation requires not just the planning done well, but act together as one to make it effective.
Why are you so sure socialism requires greater state control? Why can't we have grassroots socialism? I'd even argue that that is the only socialism that has any real hope of long-term success: power of decision-making needs to be just as distributed as power over the means of production.
|
On July 12 2025 09:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 08:04 ETisME wrote:
Every nation is a mixed market and difference is the scale and the subsequent effect.
Socialism leaning country need to have a strong gov, the most successful ones are Singapore and China.
It's not without a reason why many socialism heavy countries eventually get to dictatorship and totalitarian.
Because effectiveness of a socialism heavy nation requires not just the planning done well, but act together as one to make it effective. Why are you so sure socialism requires greater state control? Why can't we have grassroots socialism? I'd even argue that that is the only socialism that has any real hope of long-term success: power of decision-making needs to be just as distributed as power over the means of production.
bolded - Because someone has to manage everything, and you cant hold referendum on every single issue.
|
On July 12 2025 09:07 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 08:33 BlackJack wrote:On July 12 2025 02:48 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2025 10:44 BlackJack wrote:On July 11 2025 10:14 Sermokala wrote:
A lot of the lives lost in Texas could have easily been saved if the people wernt brain rotted against the government being able to do anything to better the lives of people. The very simple infrastructure to combat and monitor flash flooding could have been built at any time, and the funding for it was given to them by Bidens infrastructure bill.
Do you have a source for this? When I googled it I could only find that the county had made several requests for funding for a warning system but they were unable to procure the funds. Hard to believe they would turn down free money just because it came from Biden's bill. Did you see the minutes of the meeting I posted? They didn’t believe it was free money, they believed it was part of the 15 minute city secret plan. They weren’t specifically rejecting flood sirens in that meeting, just infrastructure money generally, but they were very insistent that it should returned. Though the money wasn’t even on the agenda in that meeting, it was just a group of “patriots” that had gotten themselves extremely worked up role playing Facebook Red Dawn and organized to mob a random unrelated meeting to save America. It’s like how the lunatics kept showing up at elementary school board meetings demanding an end to CRT without checking whether CRT was taught. Those social media circles get extremely incestuous and unhinged as they work each other into a frenzy with escalating stories they heard about furries. I read a few lines of it but not much. It was kind of long. It also appeared to consist just of public comments where anyone and everyone can get up and say whatever they want. I've seen a lot of whackos in those types of meetings. I was looking more for a source that says something like the city council rejected free funds, not that there exists some unhinged residents that wanted to reject the money but ultimately had no authority on the matter. According to this its a combination of factors, like messing up the application but then also wanting to reject the Federal money and then using some of it but on other stuff. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/10/texas-kerr-county-commissioners-flooding-warning/Show nested quote +In 2021, Kerr County was awarded a $10.2 million windfall from the American Rescue Plan Act, or ARPA, which Congress passed that same year to support local governments impacted by the pandemic. Cities and counties were given flexibility to use the money on a variety of expenses, including those related to storm-related infrastructure. Corpus Christi, for example, allocated $15 million of its ARPA funding to “rehabilitate and/or replace aging storm water infrastructure.” Waco’s McLennan County spent $868,000 on low water crossings.
Kerr County did not opt for ARPA to fund flood warning systems despite commissioners discussing such projects nearly two dozen times since 2016. In fact, a survey sent to residents about ARPA spending showed that 42% of the 180 responses wanted to reject the $10 million bonus altogether, largely on political grounds.
“I’m here to ask this court today to send this money back to the Biden administration, which I consider to be the most criminal treasonous communist government ever to hold the White House,” one resident told commissioners in April 2022, fearing strings were attached to the money.
“We don't want to be bought by the federal government, thank you very much,” another resident told commissioners. “We'd like the federal government to stay out of Kerr County and their money.”
So they petitioned the federal government for funding, but didn't receive it. Then they eventually got some federal pandemic relief money and they spent it, just not on a flood warning system. Quite a bit different than how Serm's post reads, which made it sound like they turned down federal money for a flood warning system because let's go brandon.
|
On July 12 2025 10:20 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2025 09:07 Billyboy wrote:On July 12 2025 08:33 BlackJack wrote:On July 12 2025 02:48 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2025 10:44 BlackJack wrote:On July 11 2025 10:14 Sermokala wrote:
A lot of the lives lost in Texas could have easily been saved if the people wernt brain rotted against the government being able to do anything to better the lives of people. The very simple infrastructure to combat and monitor flash flooding could have been built at any time, and the funding for it was given to them by Bidens infrastructure bill.
Do you have a source for this? When I googled it I could only find that the county had made several requests for funding for a warning system but they were unable to procure the funds. Hard to believe they would turn down free money just because it came from Biden's bill. Did you see the minutes of the meeting I posted? They didn’t believe it was free money, they believed it was part of the 15 minute city secret plan. They weren’t specifically rejecting flood sirens in that meeting, just infrastructure money generally, but they were very insistent that it should returned. Though the money wasn’t even on the agenda in that meeting, it was just a group of “patriots” that had gotten themselves extremely worked up role playing Facebook Red Dawn and organized to mob a random unrelated meeting to save America. It’s like how the lunatics kept showing up at elementary school board meetings demanding an end to CRT without checking whether CRT was taught. Those social media circles get extremely incestuous and unhinged as they work each other into a frenzy with escalating stories they heard about furries. I read a few lines of it but not much. It was kind of long. It also appeared to consist just of public comments where anyone and everyone can get up and say whatever they want. I've seen a lot of whackos in those types of meetings. I was looking more for a source that says something like the city council rejected free funds, not that there exists some unhinged residents that wanted to reject the money but ultimately had no authority on the matter. According to this its a combination of factors, like messing up the application but then also wanting to reject the Federal money and then using some of it but on other stuff. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/10/texas-kerr-county-commissioners-flooding-warning/In 2021, Kerr County was awarded a $10.2 million windfall from the American Rescue Plan Act, or ARPA, which Congress passed that same year to support local governments impacted by the pandemic. Cities and counties were given flexibility to use the money on a variety of expenses, including those related to storm-related infrastructure. Corpus Christi, for example, allocated $15 million of its ARPA funding to “rehabilitate and/or replace aging storm water infrastructure.” Waco’s McLennan County spent $868,000 on low water crossings.
Kerr County did not opt for ARPA to fund flood warning systems despite commissioners discussing such projects nearly two dozen times since 2016. In fact, a survey sent to residents about ARPA spending showed that 42% of the 180 responses wanted to reject the $10 million bonus altogether, largely on political grounds.
“I’m here to ask this court today to send this money back to the Biden administration, which I consider to be the most criminal treasonous communist government ever to hold the White House,” one resident told commissioners in April 2022, fearing strings were attached to the money.
“We don't want to be bought by the federal government, thank you very much,” another resident told commissioners. “We'd like the federal government to stay out of Kerr County and their money.” So they petitioned the federal government for funding, but didn't receive it. Then they eventually got some federal pandemic relief money and they spent it, just not on a flood warning system. Quite a bit different than how Serm's post reads, which made it sound like they turned down federal money for a flood warning system because let's go brandon.
I'm really not sure how you can be critical of anyone else's version of events accuracy and write that in the same paragraph. That is pretty funny if done on purpose or....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
