|
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 07:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +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.
Correct hence why I previously said:
On April 09 2026 05:47 GreenHorizons 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. + 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?
AND
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 the NHS in the first place.
Light's point about why it's only now starting to be taken away is related but a bit much at this point I fear.
|
On April 09 2026 07:41 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote: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.
Not exactly, but yes, The West is still extremely dependent (not just economically) on the super-exploitation (which includes ongoing genocides) in the Global South.
I'm more for worker ownership than state collectivization (I feel like you aren't using this in the classic USSR sense?) personally, I also think the former is more politically viable and generally less vulnerable to going horribly wrong horribly fast. Regardless, if the racial capitalist underpinnings aren't addressed, they end up leading us further away from liberation rather than towards it. "The New Deal" is bit of a microcosm of this.
You'd be surprised how much flexibility I actually have in expanding my perspective about various particulars when it comes to how to get from here to socialism with people that actually want to get to socialism (preferably but not necessarily in our lifetimes).
|
Worker ownership isn't inherently less exploitative of foreign peoples either.
|
On April 09 2026 08:45 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 07:41 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Not exactly, but yes, The West is still extremely dependent (not just economically) on the super-exploitation (which includes ongoing genocides) in the Global South. I'm more for worker ownership than state collectivization (I feel like you aren't using this in the classic USSR sense?) personally, I also think the former is more politically viable and generally less vulnerable to going horribly wrong horribly fast. Regardless, if the racial capitalist underpinnings aren't addressed, they end up leading us further away from liberation rather than towards it. "The New Deal" is bit of a microcosm of this. You'd be surprised how much flexibility I actually have in expanding my perspective about various particulars when it comes to how to get from here to socialism with people that actually want to get to socialism (preferably but not necessarily in our lifetimes). Worker ownership isn't inherently less exploitative of foreign peoples either.
Correct. This is where "Internationalism" as known in the BRT comes in.
Paul Robeson, Cedric Robinson, W.E.B. Du Bois, Kwame Nkrumah, C.L.R. James, and many others have worked to develop this but the simple version is "Nobody's free until everybody's free"
|
United States43863 Posts
On April 09 2026 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +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. Correct hence why I previously said: Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 05:47 GreenHorizons 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. + 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? AND 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 the NHS in the first place.
The rubber went to America and the money from the rubber stayed in America. The NHS was a domestic project using domestic resources (mostly labour). The argument that British doctors couldn’t see British patients unless Malayan rubber went to America just doesn’t work. Previously Brits had gone to doctors and paid for them directly. Subsequently they paid taxes and those taxes were used to pay the doctors. American rubber consumption isn’t involved in this transaction.
The two are simply unrelated.
But let’s go down this dumb tangent. Let’s imagine Britain didn’t get involved in global affairs and have all these colonies etc. No rubber revenues, but also no WW2 debt to the US. They can still switch from paying doctors directly in pounds to paying them indirectly in pounds.
The idea that two people living in Britain can’t exchange services with each other unless America gets Malayan rubber is absurd. Healthcare isn’t a precious metal, you don’t export it to balance a trade deficit.
|
United States43863 Posts
This aged badly in the last 24 hours.
|
On April 09 2026 08:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +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. Correct hence why I previously said: On April 09 2026 05:47 GreenHorizons 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. + 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? AND 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 the NHS in the first place. The rubber went to America and the money from the rubber stayed in America. + Show Spoiler +The NHS was a domestic project using domestic resources (mostly labour). The argument that British doctors couldn’t see British patients unless Malayan rubber went to America just doesn’t work. Previously Brits had gone to doctors and paid for them directly. Subsequently they paid taxes and those taxes were used to pay the doctors. American rubber consumption isn’t involved in this transaction.
The two are simply unrelated.
But let’s go down this dumb tangent. Let’s imagine Britain didn’t get involved in global affairs and have all these colonies etc. No rubber revenues, but also no WW2 debt to the US. They can still switch from paying doctors directly in pounds to paying them indirectly in pounds.
The idea that two people living in Britain can’t exchange services with each other unless America gets Malayan rubber is absurd. Healthcare isn’t a precious metal, you don’t export it to balance a trade deficit.
Yeah there was a lot of things involved but this isn't controversial and you're just being pedantic at this point.
Malaya was described by one British Lord in 1952 as the “greatest material prize in South-East Asia”, mainly due to its rubber and tin. These resources were “very fortunate” for Britain, another Lord declared, since “they have very largely supported the standard of living of the people of this country and the sterling area ever since the war ended”. + Show Spoiler +He added: “What we should do without Malaya, and its earnings in tin and rubber, I do not know”.
The insurgency threatened control over this “material prize”. The Colonial Secretary in Britain’s Labour government, Arthur Creech-Jones, remarked in 1948 that “it would gravely worsen the whole dollar balance of the Sterling Area if there were serious interference with Malayan exports”.
The Labour government of Clement Attlee dispatched the British military to the territory in 1948 in a classic imperial role, largely to protect those commercial interests.
“In its narrower context”, the Foreign Office observed in a secret file, the “war against bandits is very much a war in defence of [the] rubber industry”.
https://www.declassifieduk.org/britains-forgotten-war-for-rubber/
|
United States43863 Posts
On April 09 2026 09:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 08:59 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
Ideally yes, although I don't think that's a realistic expectation for 2028.
[quote]
It's the best possible starting point for further collectivization. The end goal is a Star Trek future.
[quote]
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. + Show Spoiler +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. Correct hence why I previously said: On April 09 2026 05:47 GreenHorizons 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. + 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? AND 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 the NHS in the first place. The rubber went to America and the money from the rubber stayed in America. + Show Spoiler +The NHS was a domestic project using domestic resources (mostly labour). The argument that British doctors couldn’t see British patients unless Malayan rubber went to America just doesn’t work. Previously Brits had gone to doctors and paid for them directly. Subsequently they paid taxes and those taxes were used to pay the doctors. American rubber consumption isn’t involved in this transaction.
The two are simply unrelated.
But let’s go down this dumb tangent. Let’s imagine Britain didn’t get involved in global affairs and have all these colonies etc. No rubber revenues, but also no WW2 debt to the US. They can still switch from paying doctors directly in pounds to paying them indirectly in pounds.
The idea that two people living in Britain can’t exchange services with each other unless America gets Malayan rubber is absurd. Healthcare isn’t a precious metal, you don’t export it to balance a trade deficit. Yeah there was a lot of things involved but this isn't controversial and you're just being pedantic at this point. Show nested quote +Malaya was described by one British Lord in 1952 as the “greatest material prize in South-East Asia”, mainly due to its rubber and tin. These resources were “very fortunate” for Britain, another Lord declared, since “they have very largely supported the standard of living of the people of this country and the sterling area ever since the war ended”. + Show Spoiler +He added: “What we should do without Malaya, and its earnings in tin and rubber, I do not know”.
The insurgency threatened control over this “material prize”. The Colonial Secretary in Britain’s Labour government, Arthur Creech-Jones, remarked in 1948 that “it would gravely worsen the whole dollar balance of the Sterling Area if there were serious interference with Malayan exports”.
The Labour government of Clement Attlee dispatched the British military to the territory in 1948 in a classic imperial role, largely to protect those commercial interests.
“In its narrower context”, the Foreign Office observed in a secret file, the “war against bandits is very much a war in defence of [the] rubber industry”. https://www.declassifieduk.org/britains-forgotten-war-for-rubber/
There’s a huge difference between your sources which argue that Malaya was very important for servicing British war debts and your claim which is that British doctors who were seeing British patients privately in 1947 would have been unable to do so in 1948 without Malaya. It’s not pedantry.
|
On April 09 2026 08:45 LightSpectra wrote:
Worker ownership isn't inherently less exploitative of foreign peoples either.
Thanks for answering all those questions so straightforward and in good faith. I feel like a have clear understanding of your positions. I look forward to GH doing the same when you ask him and learning his positions on things.
|
On April 09 2026 09:18 KwarK wrote:This aged badly in the last 24 hours.
dude, i thought you figured out by now that every "big win" for Trump is a running joke. Especially when it is preceded by "Donald Trump has done it again"
Any how,
the test is whether or not Insurance Companies are indemnifying ships traversing the strait. If so, then the world is back in business and the strait is effectively open. It does not matter what Trump or the leader of Iran says.
|
United States43863 Posts
On April 09 2026 10:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:dude, i thought you figured out by now that every "big win" for Trump is a running joke. Especially when it is preceded by "Donald Trump has done it again" Any how, the test is whether or not Insurance Companies are indemnifying ships traversing the strait. If so, then the world is back in business and the strait is effectively open. It does not matter what Trump or the leader of Iran says.
Is this also a joke post?
|
Netanyahu isn't very popular in the USA. How unpopular? welp,
Netanyahu, Israel’s longest serving prime minister. Less than 30% of Pew respondents said they had confidence that Netanyahu, who has an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes, would do the right thing regarding world affairs.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/04/08/israel-netanyahu-favorability-pew-poll/89519136007/
Also, a whopping 77% of Americans said the conflict between Hamas and Israel was personally important to them.
On April 09 2026 10:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 10:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 09 2026 09:18 KwarK wrote:This aged badly in the last 24 hours. dude, i thought you figured out by now that every "big win" for Trump is a running joke. Especially when it is preceded by "Donald Trump has done it again" Any how, the test is whether or not Insurance Companies are indemnifying ships traversing the strait. If so, then the world is back in business and the strait is effectively open. It does not matter what Trump or the leader of Iran says. Is this also a joke post?
no
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1255 Posts
On April 09 2026 09:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 09:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 08:59 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. + Show Spoiler +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. Correct hence why I previously said: On April 09 2026 05:47 GreenHorizons 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. + 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? AND 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 the NHS in the first place. The rubber went to America and the money from the rubber stayed in America. + Show Spoiler +The NHS was a domestic project using domestic resources (mostly labour). The argument that British doctors couldn’t see British patients unless Malayan rubber went to America just doesn’t work. Previously Brits had gone to doctors and paid for them directly. Subsequently they paid taxes and those taxes were used to pay the doctors. American rubber consumption isn’t involved in this transaction.
The two are simply unrelated.
But let’s go down this dumb tangent. Let’s imagine Britain didn’t get involved in global affairs and have all these colonies etc. No rubber revenues, but also no WW2 debt to the US. They can still switch from paying doctors directly in pounds to paying them indirectly in pounds.
The idea that two people living in Britain can’t exchange services with each other unless America gets Malayan rubber is absurd. Healthcare isn’t a precious metal, you don’t export it to balance a trade deficit. Yeah there was a lot of things involved but this isn't controversial and you're just being pedantic at this point. Malaya was described by one British Lord in 1952 as the “greatest material prize in South-East Asia”, mainly due to its rubber and tin. These resources were “very fortunate” for Britain, another Lord declared, since “they have very largely supported the standard of living of the people of this country and the sterling area ever since the war ended”. + Show Spoiler +He added: “What we should do without Malaya, and its earnings in tin and rubber, I do not know”.
The insurgency threatened control over this “material prize”. The Colonial Secretary in Britain’s Labour government, Arthur Creech-Jones, remarked in 1948 that “it would gravely worsen the whole dollar balance of the Sterling Area if there were serious interference with Malayan exports”.
The Labour government of Clement Attlee dispatched the British military to the territory in 1948 in a classic imperial role, largely to protect those commercial interests.
“In its narrower context”, the Foreign Office observed in a secret file, the “war against bandits is very much a war in defence of [the] rubber industry”. There’s a huge difference between your sources which argue that Malaya was very important for servicing British war debts and your claim which is that British doctors who were seeing British patients privately in 1947 would have been unable to do so in 1948 without Malaya. It’s not pedantry.
While I don't necessarily agree with GH's actual contention, I think his argument boils down to money is fungible.
Britain couldn't have had the NHS by the same logic of 'you can't have healthcare because we need to periodically bomb the ME'.
The funds to run the NHS has to come from somewhere, whether it's taxation or some other windfall (eg malayan rubber). And while they obviously could collect the money to support the NHS, they also had other costs that need to come out of the same pool of funds. Paying off war debts would have would have taken priority over socialised medicine (at least that's my interpretation of his argument).
In the same sense that the US has probably more than enough doctors/medical staff, hospitals, medicine and medical equipment to support universal healthcare (especially if so many of the medical admin staff didn't have full time jobs specifically to deny people actual healthcare). But as stupid as the system is, you do live in a system where those funds are coming from the same place as other things the US wants to do as a country, and sometimes those take priority.
If I were to steelman what I read as his argument. Everything a wealthy country does, it can do because they don't need to do something else with that wealth. Many wealthy countries, but certainly true for Britain at the time, has much of it's wealth directly as a result of exploitation of the global south (whether actual colonialism, or more modern resources exploitation). Since all these things they do with that wealth (wherever NHS is down on their list of priorities), it depends on everything else above that priority being supported by this same pool of wealth.
|
Once again, collectivization doesn't inherently produce less surplus than private ownership. If a country (or some other societal unit) has less money to share because it didn't engage in imperialism (or lost some because it was a victim of imperialism), then that means everyone gets a smaller slice of the pie. It doesn't mean the pie is inherently unshareable. If the UK wasn't profiting from its colonies that would mean the NHS was a little bit worse for everyone (or everyone would be paying more taxes to fund it, or simply have less excess spending power at the same tax rates, etc.), not that there couldn't be an NHS. The same is true of steel, coal, and power.
|
United States43863 Posts
On April 09 2026 11:43 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 09:37 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 09:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 08:59 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 07:11 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 05:36 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 04:45 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
It's a starting point for an administration to pursue from the moment they're in power.
[quote]
Depends on what Congress looks like in this hypothetical scenario.
[quote]
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. + Show Spoiler +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. Correct hence why I previously said: On April 09 2026 05:47 GreenHorizons 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. + 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? AND 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 the NHS in the first place. The rubber went to America and the money from the rubber stayed in America. + Show Spoiler +The NHS was a domestic project using domestic resources (mostly labour). The argument that British doctors couldn’t see British patients unless Malayan rubber went to America just doesn’t work. Previously Brits had gone to doctors and paid for them directly. Subsequently they paid taxes and those taxes were used to pay the doctors. American rubber consumption isn’t involved in this transaction.
The two are simply unrelated.
But let’s go down this dumb tangent. Let’s imagine Britain didn’t get involved in global affairs and have all these colonies etc. No rubber revenues, but also no WW2 debt to the US. They can still switch from paying doctors directly in pounds to paying them indirectly in pounds.
The idea that two people living in Britain can’t exchange services with each other unless America gets Malayan rubber is absurd. Healthcare isn’t a precious metal, you don’t export it to balance a trade deficit. Yeah there was a lot of things involved but this isn't controversial and you're just being pedantic at this point. Malaya was described by one British Lord in 1952 as the “greatest material prize in South-East Asia”, mainly due to its rubber and tin. These resources were “very fortunate” for Britain, another Lord declared, since “they have very largely supported the standard of living of the people of this country and the sterling area ever since the war ended”. + Show Spoiler +He added: “What we should do without Malaya, and its earnings in tin and rubber, I do not know”.
The insurgency threatened control over this “material prize”. The Colonial Secretary in Britain’s Labour government, Arthur Creech-Jones, remarked in 1948 that “it would gravely worsen the whole dollar balance of the Sterling Area if there were serious interference with Malayan exports”.
The Labour government of Clement Attlee dispatched the British military to the territory in 1948 in a classic imperial role, largely to protect those commercial interests.
“In its narrower context”, the Foreign Office observed in a secret file, the “war against bandits is very much a war in defence of [the] rubber industry”. There’s a huge difference between your sources which argue that Malaya was very important for servicing British war debts and your claim which is that British doctors who were seeing British patients privately in 1947 would have been unable to do so in 1948 without Malaya. It’s not pedantry. While I don't necessarily agree with GH's actual contention, I think his argument boils down to money is fungible. Britain couldn't have had the NHS by the same logic of 'you can't have healthcare because we need to periodically bomb the ME'. The funds to run the NHS has to come from somewhere, whether it's taxation or some other windfall (eg malayan rubber). And while they obviously could collect the money to support the NHS, they also had other costs that need to come out of the same pool of funds. Paying off war debts would have would have taken priority over socialised medicine (at least that's my interpretation of his argument). In the same sense that the US has probably more than enough doctors/medical staff, hospitals, medicine and medical equipment to support universal healthcare (especially if so many of the medical admin staff didn't have full time jobs specifically to deny people actual healthcare). But as stupid as the system is, you do live in a system where those funds are coming from the same place as other things the US wants to do as a country, and sometimes those take priority. If I were to steelman what I read as his argument. Everything a wealthy country does, it can do because they don't need to do something else with that wealth. Many wealthy countries, but certainly true for Britain at the time, has much of it's wealth directly as a result of exploitation of the global south (whether actual colonialism, or more modern resources exploitation). Since all these things they do with that wealth (wherever NHS is down on their list of priorities), it depends on everything else above that priority being supported by this same pool of wealth.
No, he’s explicitly referring to a currency crisis in the era of exchange settlement. This was back before free floating currencies, it’s a historical context you might not be familiar with. Essentially people in America buy stuff from Britain and are charged in pounds and all the invoices are sent to an exchange clearing house. People in Britain buy things from America and the invoices in dollars are all sent to the same building. These currencies have nominal pegs to gold and therefore there’s a set convertibility rate between them and so you can start netting. You can charge the British purchasers in pounds and the American purchasers in dollars and then you pay the American suppliers the dollars that you got from the American purchasers and the British suppliers the pounds you got from the British purchasers. In practice it’s an awful lot more complex because there’s a lot more countries but that’s the idea.
But if you can’t get it to net then you can’t just run a deficit the way you could today with a free floating currency, you need to come up with some bullion. You need to go buy some dollars with gold at the nominal rate. And if you can’t do that then you literally can’t import anymore. The clearing house essentially issues importers notes of credit that let them go to American suppliers and say “send stuff to Britain, send the dollar invoices to us, we’ll clear it”. No notes, no purchases. It was a really big deal back then.
So GH is describing a situation where the situation is very imbalanced against the UK, they have to do much better than balanced. The US gov is demanding the UK give them dollars back for help in WW2, they won’t accept pounds. That means the clearing house needs to produce surplus dollars, it means that all exports to the US need to exceed all imports from the US. In theory that would leave British exporters stuck holding dollars when they want pounds but then the UK gov swoops in, takes those dollars, gives the exporter pounds, and the US get their loans repaid.
So if the rubber from Malaya wasn’t going to the US then the pounds sold would be lower which means the dollars bought would have to be lower. The UK couldn’t buy as many Ford motor cars or whatever. That’s why his source says the population would be worse off, they’d have less access US made consumer goods.
But doctors aren’t US made consumer goods. It’s a complete nonsense argument. Even if we accept the idea that single payer healthcare is a luxury and not a lower cost alternative to private healthcare, it’s still a pound sterling expense. Raising the funds for the NHS is easy for the UK government, you need to buy buildings located in Britain, you need to pay employees who work in Britain, it's a pound sterling transaction, you can do that with taxes or government issued debt. What you can't get from the British people is dollars, that's why you need Malaya.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1255 Posts
On April 09 2026 12:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Once again, collectivization doesn't inherently produce less surplus than private ownership. If a country (or some other societal unit) has less money to share because it didn't engage in imperialism (or lost some because it was a victim of imperialism), then that means everyone gets a smaller slice of the pie. It doesn't mean the pie is inherently unshareable.
While GH might be arguing for collectivization, my reading of his basic argument doesn't require it.
The point is the NHS was not the top priority of Britain, or at least its political establishment.
Without the windfall (from the perspective of Britain), funding greater priorities, the NHS would have been one of the bits of the pie that they missed out on.
I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but there is a consistent logic to it.
|
United States43863 Posts
On April 09 2026 12:22 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 12:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Once again, collectivization doesn't inherently produce less surplus than private ownership. If a country (or some other societal unit) has less money to share because it didn't engage in imperialism (or lost some because it was a victim of imperialism), then that means everyone gets a smaller slice of the pie. It doesn't mean the pie is inherently unshareable. While GH might be arguing for collectivization, my reading of his basic argument doesn't require it. The point is the NHS was not the top priority of Britain, or at least its political establishment. Without the windfall (from the perspective of Britain), funding greater priorities, the NHS would have been one of the bits of the pie that they missed out on. I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but there is a consistent logic to it.
No, it just doesn't work. He’s drawing a line between domestic spending within the service industry and the ability of clearing houses to meet the dollar needs, in particular those needed for repayment. It’s not a good line.
It’s an especially bad line because even with rubber to the US Sterling still failed in 1947 resulting in heavy government intervention in the economy. GH is positing that the success of British exports allowed for collectivist government projects when in reality the failure of British exports imposed collectivist government policies.
|
The rebuttal still doesn't make sense because universal healthcare saves money compared to letting the poor die of easily preventable diseases. A country being poorer means they should be implementing a NHS even more urgently, not less.
|
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
This is why Trump wants to nuke CNN. People like you are incapable of processing media.
The first obstacle is unless you are a high insider, you don't know the terms of the ceasefire or indeed whether there are any terms at all and it's not just a pinky promise.
The second obstacle is you think Ghalibaf is a negotiator, or objective observer, and not just the guy who has to keep the Death To America propaganda line going domestically, so you swallow his correctly-termed (by CNBC) accusations because you like Iran more than the US. It is what it is. So lacking tangible facts, you have to uncritically believe:
1) Israel fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon (when even Lebanon has said they don't want Hezbollah doing any fighting in Lebanon) is something "Trump" did. You also have to believe Israel not fighting Hezbollah is part of a ceasefire between the US and Iran. (You verbatim: "Trump has violated")
More simply: Is Hezbollah Iran?
2) One drone flew over Iranian airspace? Wow... claimed by who? and this drone is Drumpf's personal peace-destroying warmongering ceasefire violation. (You verbatim: "Trump has violated")
3) Wtf is the "denial of the Islamic Republic's right to enrich uranium" supposed to mean? Somebody - presumably Trump (You verbatim: "Trump has violated") said with words "Iran's not going to be allowed to enrich uranium" and that's a violation of a ceasefire, which you still don't know the terms of, which is supposed to be the basis for negotiations? Did you ever think before parroting propaganda from an authoritarian state?
Yes Israel bombed Hezbollah. Iran also shot drones and missiles at Gulf states. Either or both may be a violation of a ceasefire whose terms you don't know but you trying to use Iranian propaganda to be Trump's hall monitor is a fucking joke.
|
On April 09 2026 08:12 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 07:45 dyhb wrote: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'. You seem to show a recency-bias on your thinking patterns without justifying yourself. I'd simply call it ignoring history. Year after year of absolutely lying to the IAEA on their nuclear development, sanitizing locations, stopping inspectors. Denying assistance to the Houthis, in the past also to Hezbollah, among other routine attempts to deny assistance to their proxies.
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. They certainly want one on their terms, since agreeing to a ceasefire that only binds their opponents and still allows them threats or tolls on passing ships is a win-win.
I don't claim to know precisely what was agreed to in principle. I know enough that stating Iran's *claims about what happened* as absolute fact (that the US violated the ceasefire) is ignorance or indifference to truth. It could be that the framework was simply that the US and Iran stop their attacks/threatened attacks on the country and civilian vessels while negotiations continue to how to make it last two weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
