|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 09 2026 04:45 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 03:43 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are you saying you want to see the next Democratic nominee run on that platform, Ideally yes, although I don't think that's a realistic expectation for 2028. that it's basically what you see as the end goal of democratic socialism, It's the best possible starting point for further collectivization. The end goal is a Star Trek future. or perhaps you see it (British society under Attlee's premiership) as reflective of what a society on a path to replacing capitalism (which you support) and embracing democratic socialism might look like within our lifetimes? I don't want to imply that all sorts of problems that existed in the UK circa 1945-1951 (e.g. colonialism, conservative Christian mores about single motherhood and homosexuality, etc.) are negligible, so I wouldn't word it like this. Only that on a purely economic level, it's feasible to nationalize 20% of the economy within six years without major societal disruptions or violence. Would it be fair to think of it as something other than a "starting point" if it's not something you believe can even be on the only viable party platform years from now? It's a starting point for an administration to pursue from the moment they're in power. Depends on what Congress looks like in this hypothetical scenario. Show nested quote +I'm sure others will touch on this (Walter Rodney does in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa), but I don't believe you can honestly say "without major societal disruptions or violence" unless you just don't count a lot of humans that endured major societal disruptions and violence as part of facilitating the British economy generally. I am aware that Britain was a colonial empire at the time. I am assuming you aware that Attlee was the one who began the decolonization process. So what are you implying here? Nationalizing healthcare, steel, etc. would have failed if there wasn't a colonial empire underpinning it? Or perhaps, there's no point in pursuing socialism because some people somewhere in the global economy will still be exploited?
That doesn't sound like a "Starting point"? Do you mean their voters could start demanding it of them (despite them not campaigning on doing that. And/or explicitly campaigning against doing that) after they win?
I'm saying it's quite well known/documented that the anti-communist "Malayan Emergency" was central even from a strictly financial perspective in what you've described as your Atlee inspired "model for domestic policy".
So I don't believe it is honest to say "without major societal disruptions or violence" unless one is cruelly disregarding a LOT of human beings.
|
Iran closing the straight again.. because TACO.
Trump, Kegstand and PJ2025 really might have lost the middle east for the US.
"Look in just 10 days we bombed 95% of your military"
"But we need only 5% to close the straight and hold up the regime in Teheran .... and you can't change that without invasion sending Gas to $15, and you don't do that.. so tell Israel to GTFO of Lebanon and whereever else"
"Surprised Pikachu in geriatric diapers"
|
On April 09 2026 05:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 05:04 LightSpectra wrote:
What's the implication? Nationalization only works if there's a labor shortage? I'm not going to spend time replying to an argument you're only insinuating. To you, the economy was already state run. People were already getting government issued food rations, a large share of the national product was seized by the government for collective use, a large part of the workforce was already directly or indirectly employed by the state including millions of men in uniform. When compared to the starting point Attlee moved the UK economy away from state control. But even if we ignore that, the Attlee model is inseparable from the cultural context, you can’t meaningfully imagine it outside of a national calamity on the scale of WW2. And also to GH who seems to want to make this about imperial exploitation, 1945 wasn’t a great time for the British Empire. Colonial treasure wasn’t pouring in to subsidize British socialist programs.
The essence of socialism isn't state control. You can have state-controlled capitalism, like modern Singapore. You can also have stateless socialism, like anarchist Catalonia. The difference between capitalism and socialism is whether the surplus value derived from labor is distributed to private shareholders or to all of society. When it's said that "20% of the economy was nationalized by 1951" it means 20% of the economy was creating surplus to the benefit of the entire country. This was considered such a good thing that nobody had the political capital to undo it for nearly 30 years, when Thatcher came to power on the back of the 1970s malaise primarily caused by OAPEC's oil embargo.
|
On April 09 2026 05:24 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 03:22 Gorsameth wrote:On April 09 2026 03:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 01:25 hitthat wrote:
Aaaaand the fun resumes after short half-time. And this time I cannot blame Trump "directly" for that. This went through unremarked but yeah, ceasefire never started. Israel insisted on continuing in Lebanon and Iran refused to reopen strait it the Israeli attacks continued. No ships have passed and the US proposal was contingent on ships passing. All that happened was Trump’s deadline expired and so he announced an extension. Israel no caring about any deal between the US and Iran (or indeed them actively sabotaging it) is the least surprising thing to happen this year. Israel will do whatever Trump tells them. Netanyahu has left himself with no other option. Lebanon wasn't part of the ceasefire. At least in the understanding of the Trump administration.
It’s even messier than that. Lebanon isn’t even in the war, Israel isn’t attacking the Lebanese army. They are attacking Hezbollah within Lebanons boarders.
|
On April 09 2026 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 04:45 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 03:43 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are you saying you want to see the next Democratic nominee run on that platform, Ideally yes, although I don't think that's a realistic expectation for 2028. that it's basically what you see as the end goal of democratic socialism, It's the best possible starting point for further collectivization. The end goal is a Star Trek future. or perhaps you see it (British society under Attlee's premiership) as reflective of what a society on a path to replacing capitalism (which you support) and embracing democratic socialism might look like within our lifetimes? I don't want to imply that all sorts of problems that existed in the UK circa 1945-1951 (e.g. colonialism, conservative Christian mores about single motherhood and homosexuality, etc.) are negligible, so I wouldn't word it like this. Only that on a purely economic level, it's feasible to nationalize 20% of the economy within six years without major societal disruptions or violence. Would it be fair to think of it as something other than a "starting point" if it's not something you believe can even be on the only viable party platform years from now? It's a starting point for an administration to pursue from the moment they're in power. Nevermind what it would actually take to get through Congress? Depends on what Congress looks like in this hypothetical scenario. I'm sure others will touch on this (Walter Rodney does in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa), but I don't believe you can honestly say "without major societal disruptions or violence" unless you just don't count a lot of humans that endured major societal disruptions and violence as part of facilitating the British economy generally. I am aware that Britain was a colonial empire at the time. I am assuming you aware that Attlee was the one who began the decolonization process. So what are you implying here? Nationalizing healthcare, steel, etc. would have failed if there wasn't a colonial empire underpinning it? Or perhaps, there's no point in pursuing socialism because some people somewhere in the global economy will still be exploited? That doesn't sound like a "Starting point"?
Okay, then call it something else.
Do you mean their voters could start demanding it of them (despite them not campaigning on doing that. And/or explicitly campaigning against doing that) after they win?
That also depends on the circumstance of this hypothetical.
I'm saying it's quite well known/documented that the anti-communist "Malayan Emergency" was central even from a strictly financial perspective in what you've described as your Atlee inspired "model for domestic policy". So I don't believe it is honest to say "without major societal disruptions or violence" unless one is cruelly disregarding a LOT of human beings.
Give me a full, logical argument here. Like, "universal healthcare doesn't work unless some Malayans are being slaughtered because (X) reasons". Because right now all you're saying is "Attlee's government did something bad unrelated to democratic-socialism, what do you have to say about that?"
|
On April 09 2026 05:24 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 03:22 Gorsameth wrote:On April 09 2026 03:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 01:25 hitthat wrote:
Aaaaand the fun resumes after short half-time. And this time I cannot blame Trump "directly" for that. This went through unremarked but yeah, ceasefire never started. Israel insisted on continuing in Lebanon and Iran refused to reopen strait it the Israeli attacks continued. No ships have passed and the US proposal was contingent on ships passing. All that happened was Trump’s deadline expired and so he announced an extension. Israel no caring about any deal between the US and Iran (or indeed them actively sabotaging it) is the least surprising thing to happen this year. Israel will do whatever Trump tells them. Netanyahu has left himself with no other option. Lebanon wasn't part of the ceasefire. At least in the understanding of the Trump administration. If you think Netanyahu does what Trump says you have not been paying attention for the last 2 years.
Heck the last month. Have you already forgotten that Rubio strait up admitted the US is only at war with Iran because Israel was going to attack them anyway so the US was forced to join in aswell?
If Netanyahu did whatever Trump tells him then the war with Iran wouldn't even exist.
Israel needs the US for more bombs but they don't need Trump for that, Congress will write them a blank check whenever Israel asks for it.
|
On April 09 2026 05:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 05:04 LightSpectra wrote:
What's the implication? Nationalization only works if there's a labor shortage? I'm not going to spend time replying to an argument you're only insinuating. + Show Spoiler +To you, the economy was already state run. People were already getting government issued food rations, a large share of the national product was seized by the government for collective use, a large part of the workforce was already directly or indirectly employed by the state including millions of men in uniform. When compared to the starting point Attlee moved the UK economy away from state control. But even if we ignore that, the Attlee model is inseparable from the cultural context, you can’t meaningfully imagine it outside of a national calamity on the scale of WW2. And also to GH who seems to want to make this about imperial exploitation, 1945 wasn’t a great time for the British Empire. Colonial treasure wasn’t pouring in to subsidize British socialist programs.
You understand accounting nuances better than I do, so you know that while the Malayan Emergency didn’t directly fund the NHS, it was a vital economic pillar for the British Treasury and the welfare state being developed concurrently.
That much is not really something I know people to dispute?
|
United States43860 Posts
On April 09 2026 05:30 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 05:16 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 05:04 LightSpectra wrote:
What's the implication? Nationalization only works if there's a labor shortage? I'm not going to spend time replying to an argument you're only insinuating. To you, the economy was already state run. People were already getting government issued food rations, a large share of the national product was seized by the government for collective use, a large part of the workforce was already directly or indirectly employed by the state including millions of men in uniform. When compared to the starting point Attlee moved the UK economy away from state control. But even if we ignore that, the Attlee model is inseparable from the cultural context, you can’t meaningfully imagine it outside of a national calamity on the scale of WW2. And also to GH who seems to want to make this about imperial exploitation, 1945 wasn’t a great time for the British Empire. Colonial treasure wasn’t pouring in to subsidize British socialist programs. The essence of socialism isn't state control. You can have state-controlled capitalism, like modern Singapore. You can also have stateless socialism, like anarchist Catalonia. The difference between capitalism and socialism is whether the surplus value derived from labor is distributed to private shareholders or to all of society. When it's said that "20% of the economy was nationalized by 1951" it means 20% of the economy was creating surplus to the benefit of the entire country. This was considered such a good thing that nobody had the political capital to undo it for nearly 30 years, when Thatcher came to power on the back of the 1970s malaise primarily caused by OAPEC's oil embargo.
But what you’re describing is a reduction in the proportion of the economy serving the public good, not an increase. More people served society at the start of his government than at the end.
You cannot separate it from the historical context. You might as well talk about Lincoln’s centralization of power without talking about the Civil War.
|
On April 09 2026 05:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 05:30 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 05:16 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 05:04 LightSpectra wrote:
What's the implication? Nationalization only works if there's a labor shortage? I'm not going to spend time replying to an argument you're only insinuating. To you, the economy was already state run. People were already getting government issued food rations, a large share of the national product was seized by the government for collective use, a large part of the workforce was already directly or indirectly employed by the state including millions of men in uniform. When compared to the starting point Attlee moved the UK economy away from state control. But even if we ignore that, the Attlee model is inseparable from the cultural context, you can’t meaningfully imagine it outside of a national calamity on the scale of WW2. And also to GH who seems to want to make this about imperial exploitation, 1945 wasn’t a great time for the British Empire. Colonial treasure wasn’t pouring in to subsidize British socialist programs. The essence of socialism isn't state control. You can have state-controlled capitalism, like modern Singapore. You can also have stateless socialism, like anarchist Catalonia. The difference between capitalism and socialism is whether the surplus value derived from labor is distributed to private shareholders or to all of society. When it's said that "20% of the economy was nationalized by 1951" it means 20% of the economy was creating surplus to the benefit of the entire country. This was considered such a good thing that nobody had the political capital to undo it for nearly 30 years, when Thatcher came to power on the back of the 1970s malaise primarily caused by OAPEC's oil embargo. But what you’re describing is a reduction in the proportion of the economy serving the public good, not an increase. More people served society at the start of his government than at the end. You cannot separate it from the historical context. You might as well talk about Lincoln’s centralization of power without talking about the Civil War.
If you're saying "for psychological reasons people won't vote for socialism" or something like that, ok. That might be true, but I'm not going to take a fatalistic attitude about that and give up.
But if you're saying "it's literally impossible to transfer ownership of private hospitals and prisons to national control without a preceding war," no. There have been many instances of that happening.
|
On April 09 2026 05:24 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 03:22 Gorsameth wrote:On April 09 2026 03:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 01:25 hitthat wrote:
Aaaaand the fun resumes after short half-time. And this time I cannot blame Trump "directly" for that. This went through unremarked but yeah, ceasefire never started. Israel insisted on continuing in Lebanon and Iran refused to reopen strait it the Israeli attacks continued. No ships have passed and the US proposal was contingent on ships passing. All that happened was Trump’s deadline expired and so he announced an extension. Israel no caring about any deal between the US and Iran (or indeed them actively sabotaging it) is the least surprising thing to happen this year. Israel will do whatever Trump tells them. Netanyahu has left himself with no other option. Lebanon wasn't part of the ceasefire. At least in the understanding of the Trump administration.
You think Trump told them to bomb apartment buldings in Lebanon? Trump thinks Lebanon is when two women like eachother
|
On April 09 2026 06:04 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 05:24 RvB wrote:On April 09 2026 03:22 Gorsameth wrote:On April 09 2026 03:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 01:25 hitthat wrote:
Aaaaand the fun resumes after short half-time. And this time I cannot blame Trump "directly" for that. This went through unremarked but yeah, ceasefire never started. Israel insisted on continuing in Lebanon and Iran refused to reopen strait it the Israeli attacks continued. No ships have passed and the US proposal was contingent on ships passing. All that happened was Trump’s deadline expired and so he announced an extension. Israel no caring about any deal between the US and Iran (or indeed them actively sabotaging it) is the least surprising thing to happen this year. Israel will do whatever Trump tells them. Netanyahu has left himself with no other option. Lebanon wasn't part of the ceasefire. At least in the understanding of the Trump administration. You think Trump told them to bomb apartment buldings in Lebanon? Trump thinks Lebanon is when two women like eachother
I think Trump told them they can attack Hezbollah as much as they want. Especially after Hezbollah started sending rockets into Israel.
But to your point, does Trump know that Hezbollah is Iran, probably not.
|
It’s funny trying to watch the Trump admin people try to explain how Trumps “ending a civilization “ was both , not an empty threat, and also not about genocide.
My theory is, ever the showman, Trump decided to say the scariest thing he could think of, knowing he was going to surrender, but he figured then he could sell his surrender had Iran fearing his threat, even though clearly they didn’t.
What an absolute clown show this is. If Trump and this admin was characters in a movie, no one would believe this level of incompetence.
|
i guess now is about the time Trump pretends to be angry with Israel for the 14th time for bombing someone when they were not supposed to.
The price of oil is way down. Another big win for Donald Trump!
|
On April 09 2026 05:36 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 04:45 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 03:43 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are you saying you want to see the next Democratic nominee run on that platform, Ideally yes, although I don't think that's a realistic expectation for 2028. that it's basically what you see as the end goal of democratic socialism, It's the best possible starting point for further collectivization. The end goal is a Star Trek future. or perhaps you see it (British society under Attlee's premiership) as reflective of what a society on a path to replacing capitalism (which you support) and embracing democratic socialism might look like within our lifetimes? I don't want to imply that all sorts of problems that existed in the UK circa 1945-1951 (e.g. colonialism, conservative Christian mores about single motherhood and homosexuality, etc.) are negligible, so I wouldn't word it like this. Only that on a purely economic level, it's feasible to nationalize 20% of the economy within six years without major societal disruptions or violence. Would it be fair to think of it as something other than a "starting point" if it's not something you believe can even be on the only viable party platform years from now? It's a starting point for an administration to pursue from the moment they're in power. Nevermind what it would actually take to get through Congress? Depends on what Congress looks like in this hypothetical scenario. I'm sure others will touch on this (Walter Rodney does in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa), but I don't believe you can honestly say "without major societal disruptions or violence" unless you just don't count a lot of humans that endured major societal disruptions and violence as part of facilitating the British economy generally. I am aware that Britain was a colonial empire at the time. I am assuming you aware that Attlee was the one who began the decolonization process. So what are you implying here? Nationalizing healthcare, steel, etc. would have failed if there wasn't a colonial empire underpinning it? Or perhaps, there's no point in pursuing socialism because some people somewhere in the global economy will still be exploited? That doesn't sound like a "Starting point"? + Show Spoiler +Okay, then call it something else. Do you mean their voters could start demanding it of them (despite them not campaigning on doing that. And/or explicitly campaigning against doing that) after they win?
That also depends on the circumstance of this hypothetical. I'm saying it's quite well known/documented that the anti-communist "Malayan Emergency" was central even from a strictly financial perspective in what you've described as your Atlee inspired "model for domestic policy". So I don't believe it is honest to say "without major societal disruptions or violence" unless one is cruelly disregarding a LOT of human beings. Give me a full, logical argument here. Like, "universal healthcare doesn't work unless some Malayans are being slaughtered because (X) reasons". Because right now all you're saying is "Attlee's government did something bad unrelated to democratic-socialism, what do you have to say about that?"
I'm saying (and the overwhelming historical consensus is) that without the super-exploitation of the people like those during the "Malayan Emergency" Atlee's government (and Britain generally) couldn't close the dollar gap and would have been forced into severe austerity instead developing as a welfare state. So it demonstrably isn't accurate for you to say "without major societal disruptions or violence" using this example.
This is the same sort of phenomena that is demonstrated repeatedly in "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" where the "development" of European countries is inextricably entangled with the super-exploitation of the people of the colonies.
|
United States43860 Posts
On April 09 2026 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 05:36 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 04:45 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 03:43 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are you saying you want to see the next Democratic nominee run on that platform, Ideally yes, although I don't think that's a realistic expectation for 2028. that it's basically what you see as the end goal of democratic socialism, It's the best possible starting point for further collectivization. The end goal is a Star Trek future. or perhaps you see it (British society under Attlee's premiership) as reflective of what a society on a path to replacing capitalism (which you support) and embracing democratic socialism might look like within our lifetimes? I don't want to imply that all sorts of problems that existed in the UK circa 1945-1951 (e.g. colonialism, conservative Christian mores about single motherhood and homosexuality, etc.) are negligible, so I wouldn't word it like this. Only that on a purely economic level, it's feasible to nationalize 20% of the economy within six years without major societal disruptions or violence. Would it be fair to think of it as something other than a "starting point" if it's not something you believe can even be on the only viable party platform years from now? It's a starting point for an administration to pursue from the moment they're in power. Nevermind what it would actually take to get through Congress? Depends on what Congress looks like in this hypothetical scenario. I'm sure others will touch on this (Walter Rodney does in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa), but I don't believe you can honestly say "without major societal disruptions or violence" unless you just don't count a lot of humans that endured major societal disruptions and violence as part of facilitating the British economy generally. I am aware that Britain was a colonial empire at the time. I am assuming you aware that Attlee was the one who began the decolonization process. So what are you implying here? Nationalizing healthcare, steel, etc. would have failed if there wasn't a colonial empire underpinning it? Or perhaps, there's no point in pursuing socialism because some people somewhere in the global economy will still be exploited? That doesn't sound like a "Starting point"? + Show Spoiler +Okay, then call it something else. Do you mean their voters could start demanding it of them (despite them not campaigning on doing that. And/or explicitly campaigning against doing that) after they win?
That also depends on the circumstance of this hypothetical. I'm saying it's quite well known/documented that the anti-communist "Malayan Emergency" was central even from a strictly financial perspective in what you've described as your Atlee inspired "model for domestic policy". So I don't believe it is honest to say "without major societal disruptions or violence" unless one is cruelly disregarding a LOT of human beings. Give me a full, logical argument here. Like, "universal healthcare doesn't work unless some Malayans are being slaughtered because (X) reasons". Because right now all you're saying is "Attlee's government did something bad unrelated to democratic-socialism, what do you have to say about that?" I'm saying (and the overwhelming historical consensus is) that without the super-exploitation of the people like those during the "Malayan Emergency" Atlee's government (and Britain generally) couldn't close the dollar gap and would have been forced into severe austerity instead developing as a welfare state. So it demonstrably isn't accurate for you to say "without major societal disruptions or violence" using this example. This is the same sort of phenomena that is demonstrated repeatedly in "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" where the "development" of European countries is inextricably entangled with the super-exploitation of the people of the colonies.
I am once again begging you to remember WW2. You're referring to exports to the US to make payments on the vast war debts owed to the US. None of this funded the NHS.
|
Northern Ireland26523 Posts
On April 09 2026 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 05:36 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 04:45 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 03:43 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are you saying you want to see the next Democratic nominee run on that platform, Ideally yes, although I don't think that's a realistic expectation for 2028. that it's basically what you see as the end goal of democratic socialism, It's the best possible starting point for further collectivization. The end goal is a Star Trek future. or perhaps you see it (British society under Attlee's premiership) as reflective of what a society on a path to replacing capitalism (which you support) and embracing democratic socialism might look like within our lifetimes? I don't want to imply that all sorts of problems that existed in the UK circa 1945-1951 (e.g. colonialism, conservative Christian mores about single motherhood and homosexuality, etc.) are negligible, so I wouldn't word it like this. Only that on a purely economic level, it's feasible to nationalize 20% of the economy within six years without major societal disruptions or violence. Would it be fair to think of it as something other than a "starting point" if it's not something you believe can even be on the only viable party platform years from now? It's a starting point for an administration to pursue from the moment they're in power. Nevermind what it would actually take to get through Congress? Depends on what Congress looks like in this hypothetical scenario. I'm sure others will touch on this (Walter Rodney does in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa), but I don't believe you can honestly say "without major societal disruptions or violence" unless you just don't count a lot of humans that endured major societal disruptions and violence as part of facilitating the British economy generally. I am aware that Britain was a colonial empire at the time. I am assuming you aware that Attlee was the one who began the decolonization process. So what are you implying here? Nationalizing healthcare, steel, etc. would have failed if there wasn't a colonial empire underpinning it? Or perhaps, there's no point in pursuing socialism because some people somewhere in the global economy will still be exploited? That doesn't sound like a "Starting point"? + Show Spoiler +Okay, then call it something else. Do you mean their voters could start demanding it of them (despite them not campaigning on doing that. And/or explicitly campaigning against doing that) after they win?
That also depends on the circumstance of this hypothetical. I'm saying it's quite well known/documented that the anti-communist "Malayan Emergency" was central even from a strictly financial perspective in what you've described as your Atlee inspired "model for domestic policy". So I don't believe it is honest to say "without major societal disruptions or violence" unless one is cruelly disregarding a LOT of human beings. Give me a full, logical argument here. Like, "universal healthcare doesn't work unless some Malayans are being slaughtered because (X) reasons". Because right now all you're saying is "Attlee's government did something bad unrelated to democratic-socialism, what do you have to say about that?" I'm saying (and the overwhelming historical consensus is) that without the super-exploitation of the people like those during the "Malayan Emergency" Atlee's government (and Britain generally) couldn't close the dollar gap and would have been forced into severe austerity instead developing as a welfare state. So it demonstrably isn't accurate for you to say "without major societal disruptions or violence" using this example. This is the same sort of phenomena that is demonstrated repeatedly in "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" where the "development" of European countries is inextricably entangled with the super-exploitation of the people of the colonies.
Where there’s a will no?
Us Brits are IMO rightly proud of an institution like the NHS but it wasn’t a British innovation, Uruguay beat us to that particular punch in terms of a universal healthcare system and they weren’t a colonial power.
The US has assumed global dominance from the UK for 70+ years and still hasn’t done it
|
On April 08 2026 23:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2026 23:13 Billyboy wrote:
oBlade is just not an authentic person. I doubt if he believes a quarter of what he says. He is just playing the role of MAGA super fan because what he loves to do is argue. Actual MAGA people have actual positions on things.
Remember way back to a week ago when oBlade was saying that they needed to accomplish Rubios 15 points. They failed them miserably and he is declaring victory. He is just doing it to irk people. You will never convince him of anything no matter how good your facts and logic is because he only exists to argue.
By all means take your shots for cathartic reasons, but don’t waste any actual time or energy in trying to have a good faith discussion. It’s not possible. Who is declaring a victory? Me? I'm not fighting a war. Rubio? Link. I agree with the 11 of the leaked, if legitimate, points that hold Iran to not being a regional and world threat. At the moment the US has clearly been winning soundly. The two sides through Pakistan have agreed to a 2 week ceasefire. That means at the end of two weeks, if the US doesn't like how things are progressing, meaning Iran's not serious about meeting enough of those, they can have a "resumefire." Think of it as a pause button for negotiations.
And, unfortunately, Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire... three times. In less than one day!
Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, accused the U.S. on Wednesday of violating the two-week ceasefire agreement.
“The deep historical distrust we hold toward the United States stems from its repeated violations of all forms of commitments — a pattern that has regrettably been repeated once again,” Ghalibaf said in a statement posted on social media.
Three parts of Iran’s 10-point ceasefire proposal have been violated, Ghalibaf said. The violations are Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon, the entry of a drone into Iranian airspace, and the denial of the Islamic Republic’s right to enrich uranium, he said. ...
Ghalibaf’s statement comes less than a day after Trump said he agreed to halt attacks for two weeks in exchange for Iran allowing ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz during that period. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/08/ceasefire-iran-war-lebanon.html
|
On April 09 2026 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 05:36 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 04:45 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 03:43 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are you saying you want to see the next Democratic nominee run on that platform, Ideally yes, although I don't think that's a realistic expectation for 2028. that it's basically what you see as the end goal of democratic socialism, It's the best possible starting point for further collectivization. The end goal is a Star Trek future. or perhaps you see it (British society under Attlee's premiership) as reflective of what a society on a path to replacing capitalism (which you support) and embracing democratic socialism might look like within our lifetimes? I don't want to imply that all sorts of problems that existed in the UK circa 1945-1951 (e.g. colonialism, conservative Christian mores about single motherhood and homosexuality, etc.) are negligible, so I wouldn't word it like this. Only that on a purely economic level, it's feasible to nationalize 20% of the economy within six years without major societal disruptions or violence. Would it be fair to think of it as something other than a "starting point" if it's not something you believe can even be on the only viable party platform years from now? It's a starting point for an administration to pursue from the moment they're in power. Nevermind what it would actually take to get through Congress? Depends on what Congress looks like in this hypothetical scenario. I'm sure others will touch on this (Walter Rodney does in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa), but I don't believe you can honestly say "without major societal disruptions or violence" unless you just don't count a lot of humans that endured major societal disruptions and violence as part of facilitating the British economy generally. I am aware that Britain was a colonial empire at the time. I am assuming you aware that Attlee was the one who began the decolonization process. So what are you implying here? Nationalizing healthcare, steel, etc. would have failed if there wasn't a colonial empire underpinning it? Or perhaps, there's no point in pursuing socialism because some people somewhere in the global economy will still be exploited? That doesn't sound like a "Starting point"? + Show Spoiler +Okay, then call it something else. Do you mean their voters could start demanding it of them (despite them not campaigning on doing that. And/or explicitly campaigning against doing that) after they win?
That also depends on the circumstance of this hypothetical. I'm saying it's quite well known/documented that the anti-communist "Malayan Emergency" was central even from a strictly financial perspective in what you've described as your Atlee inspired "model for domestic policy". So I don't believe it is honest to say "without major societal disruptions or violence" unless one is cruelly disregarding a LOT of human beings. Give me a full, logical argument here. Like, "universal healthcare doesn't work unless some Malayans are being slaughtered because (X) reasons". Because right now all you're saying is "Attlee's government did something bad unrelated to democratic-socialism, what do you have to say about that?" I'm saying (and the overwhelming historical consensus is) that without the super-exploitation of the people like those during the "Malayan Emergency" Atlee's government (and Britain generally) couldn't close the dollar gap and would have been forced into severe austerity instead developing as a welfare state. So it demonstrably isn't accurate for you to say "without major societal disruptions or violence" using this example. This is the same sort of phenomena that is demonstrated repeatedly in "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" where the "development" of European countries is inextricably entangled with the super-exploitation of the people of the colonies.
Weird, the UK still has an NHS. Are they still massacring Malayans to this day?
That aside, I'm not talking about a welfare state. I'm talking about collectivization. Unless you're asserting private ownership inherently creates more surplus by the laws of nature, nationalizing an industry doesn't increase or decrease how much foreign exploitation it runs on, just who profits from it.
|
On April 09 2026 07:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2026 23:21 oBlade wrote:On April 08 2026 23:13 Billyboy wrote:
oBlade is just not an authentic person. I doubt if he believes a quarter of what he says. He is just playing the role of MAGA super fan because what he loves to do is argue. Actual MAGA people have actual positions on things.
Remember way back to a week ago when oBlade was saying that they needed to accomplish Rubios 15 points. They failed them miserably and he is declaring victory. He is just doing it to irk people. You will never convince him of anything no matter how good your facts and logic is because he only exists to argue.
By all means take your shots for cathartic reasons, but don’t waste any actual time or energy in trying to have a good faith discussion. It’s not possible. Who is declaring a victory? Me? I'm not fighting a war. Rubio? Link. I agree with the 11 of the leaked, if legitimate, points that hold Iran to not being a regional and world threat. At the moment the US has clearly been winning soundly. The two sides through Pakistan have agreed to a 2 week ceasefire. That means at the end of two weeks, if the US doesn't like how things are progressing, meaning Iran's not serious about meeting enough of those, they can have a "resumefire." Think of it as a pause button for negotiations. And, unfortunately, Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire... three times. In less than one day! Show nested quote +Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, accused the U.S. on Wednesday of violating the two-week ceasefire agreement.
“The deep historical distrust we hold toward the United States stems from its repeated violations of all forms of commitments — a pattern that has regrettably been repeated once again,” Ghalibaf said in a statement posted on social media.
Three parts of Iran’s 10-point ceasefire proposal have been violated, Ghalibaf said. The violations are Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon, the entry of a drone into Iranian airspace, and the denial of the Islamic Republic’s right to enrich uranium, he said. ...
Ghalibaf’s statement comes less than a day after Trump said he agreed to halt attacks for two weeks in exchange for Iran allowing ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz during that period. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/08/ceasefire-iran-war-lebanon.html And since it's Iran, not Trump, we have to believe them!
(I beg you to have the barest form of common sense when it comes to the world's largest state funder of terrorism. Just because they say Trump agreed to force Israel to end its attacks in Lebanon, cease all drone overflights, and tolerate uranium enrichment, doesn't mean anything of the kind was agreed upon prior to the ceasefire. The opposite of trusting Trump is not declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump.)
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1254 Posts
On April 09 2026 07:45 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 07:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 08 2026 23:21 oBlade wrote:On April 08 2026 23:13 Billyboy wrote:
oBlade is just not an authentic person. I doubt if he believes a quarter of what he says. He is just playing the role of MAGA super fan because what he loves to do is argue. Actual MAGA people have actual positions on things.
Remember way back to a week ago when oBlade was saying that they needed to accomplish Rubios 15 points. They failed them miserably and he is declaring victory. He is just doing it to irk people. You will never convince him of anything no matter how good your facts and logic is because he only exists to argue.
By all means take your shots for cathartic reasons, but don’t waste any actual time or energy in trying to have a good faith discussion. It’s not possible. Who is declaring a victory? Me? I'm not fighting a war. Rubio? Link. I agree with the 11 of the leaked, if legitimate, points that hold Iran to not being a regional and world threat. At the moment the US has clearly been winning soundly. The two sides through Pakistan have agreed to a 2 week ceasefire. That means at the end of two weeks, if the US doesn't like how things are progressing, meaning Iran's not serious about meeting enough of those, they can have a "resumefire." Think of it as a pause button for negotiations. And, unfortunately, Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire... three times. In less than one day! Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, accused the U.S. on Wednesday of violating the two-week ceasefire agreement.
“The deep historical distrust we hold toward the United States stems from its repeated violations of all forms of commitments — a pattern that has regrettably been repeated once again,” Ghalibaf said in a statement posted on social media.
Three parts of Iran’s 10-point ceasefire proposal have been violated, Ghalibaf said. The violations are Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon, the entry of a drone into Iranian airspace, and the denial of the Islamic Republic’s right to enrich uranium, he said. ...
Ghalibaf’s statement comes less than a day after Trump said he agreed to halt attacks for two weeks in exchange for Iran allowing ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz during that period. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/08/ceasefire-iran-war-lebanon.html And since it's Iran, not Trump, we have to believe them! (I beg you to have the barest form of common sense when it comes to the world's largest state funder of terrorism. Just because they say Trump agreed to force Israel to end its attacks in Lebanon, cease all drone overflights, and tolerate uranium enrichment, doesn't mean anything of the kind was agreed upon prior to the ceasefire. The opposite of trusting Trump is not declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump.)
Well, Iran has a recent history of just not agreeing to a ceasefire, and the US has a (less) recent history of attacking Iran during negotiation or breaking a ceasefire.
Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of 'believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'.
That and the fact that if Iran didn't want a ceasefire and just wanted to keep the strait closed, then they had no incentive to agree to one in the first place given their stated, and well justified, distrust of US 'negotiation'.
That and there is the distinct possibility that there is only an agreement in principle to a ceasefire, and noone has actually agreed to actual terms. So both sides just operate under what think they can and can't do, and will accuse the opposition of violating what they think shouldn't be done.
We could just be watching in real time, both sides discover that they don't actually have terms both sides can agree to for a ceasefire. I say both sides, because I have a hard time believing Israel even want a ceasefire, so it's really only the US and Iran negotiating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
