|
On November 06 2020 21:23 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:15 m4ini wrote:On November 06 2020 21:10 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 21:04 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 21:00 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:54 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 20:38 Tictock wrote:
To a native... it's downright disheartening. CNN had a short op-ed that summed it up fairly well, I thought. It's hardly a controversial position, but it really is beyond belief that this is truly what half of America seems to think. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/04/opinions/us-global-image-after-election-night-2020-wierson/index.htmlNo matter the outcome, America's standing in the world took a big hit on election night
Joe Biden may still end up winning this election, but no matter how you cut it, it was clear here and around the globe that roughly half of America believes that the character of our President doesn't matter all that much, an impeachment is meaningless and the Department of Justice really should serve as the chief executive's personal law firm.
More importantly, from a global perspective, roughly one in two of American voters signaled to the world that not only are capricious trade wars palatable, but long-standing global alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) don't matter anymore.
What about withholding funding from the World Health Organization amid a global pandemic that has claimed well over a million lives across the globe? Many voters apparently thought that was OK. Abrogating leadership on the existential issue of climate change? Another check. Not to mention what this split decision says about the US and our moral fabric on the topics of social justice, racial equality and inclusiveness.
[...]
Our friends across the world can no longer count on us to do the right thing. No matter who wins this election, America is already weaker for it. We had an opportunity as a country to turn a page on this dark chapter in our history, but we, as a people and a nation, came up well short.
Fool me once, and all that. The world is a much scarier place since Tuesday morning. It wouldn't surprise me if the EU starts working on their own alternative to NATO, just in case another lunatic becomes president again. EDIT: Taiwan must be really worried about the future also. Taiwan is just screwed. Utterly screwed. I have the deepest admiration for their principles and determination, but I really can't see any path forward for them. Xinjiang is the future of Hong Kong, is the future of Taiwan, is the future of any middle power that China pulls into its orbit, imo. The last category includes us, so things are not looking good here either. Is Australia being pulled into China's orbit? Wouldn't the connections to europe prevent that? Australia never struck me particularly connected to europe, to be honest. I might be wrong here, but the only real ties are to the commonwealth (more or less). And i'm pretty sure that i can find a few people who want to get as far away from the queen as they can. As i said, i might be wrong here, but that's my impression. Our tangible links to the EU are surprisingly weak, despite a very close ideological alignment. Also, with respect, you have little real power projection in Asia and would likely have your hands full with Russia if things hit the fan.
Yeah, i absolutely agree with that.
Rudy Giuliani alleges that Joe Biden voted 5,000 times this election. Yes, five thousand. I have a feeling that Mr. Giuliani is slightly stretching the truth here.
He's probably what i would describe the dumbest person in the US. As in, there's actual neurons firing in the wrong direction with that guy.
|
On November 06 2020 21:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 21:03 maybenexttime wrote:On November 06 2020 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:45 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:20 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I don't think so. I think he was being pragmatic about what can be achieved in the US but he definitely wanted the good stuff. Social democracy has a better historical track record of being the "good stuff" than actual socialism. Also if you think that Sanders wants to abolish private property, give the entire control of the means of production to the workers, end capitalism and take his ideas from Vladimir Lenin, you haven't been following. All he's fought for all his life is to make the US look like something like Denmark, not a hypothetical successful USSR fantasyland. But again, it's all about the ambiguity of the word socialism, and that's why it's a shit word. Sanders uses it in a French way, to mean, social democracy. And the older folk think that he wants what you want, and so of course they get scared and vote against it because no one except five guys want to retry Lenin but *this time* get it right. His program contained incentives for worker co-ops, which a social democrat has no use for and we socialists do. So yeah I've been following. Most social democrats are totally positive about workers co-op, what are you talking about? What kind of definitions are you using? Social democracy maintains a mixed economy between private owners and a strong welfare state. Co-ops are basically the difference between market socialism and social democracy. If you're for co-ops and a social democracy you're a socialist. Jesus, are there *any* nuances in your world or do you only work with 100% this or 100% that? It's not because you are positive about workers co-ops that you want to expropriate and nationalize the whole economy and consider anyone who owns a business a parasitic kulak. There is absolutely room for workers cooperatives in a social democracy, and most social democrats see that as a very good thing to be encouraged. Including Sanders. So again. Sanders wants a very strong welfare state, a highly regulated economy, high taxation, and, yes, help workers cooperatives when they are viable. It's the exact definition of a social democrat program. Well typically if your program contains incentives for something it's because you want more of that thing? The difference Biff is pointing out is that social democrats may encourage co-ops while accepting private ownership as a viable alternative, whereas socialists would like to abolish private ownership. Sanders is in the former camp. I get what Biff is saying, I just believe he's incorrect. Having a social democracy and then pushing it left is literally the position of market socialism. Sanders wanted a social democracy and then he had incentives to go further left with more worker co-ops within his plan, and he called himself a socialist. There is a simple explanation there, and it's not "oh wow Sanders is an idiot he has confused two terms that have different definitions". Oh he is not an idiot, he just thought that making people like you or GH believe he shared your ideas was worth scaring off voters that he knew wouldn't vote for him anyway. I think it's a bad idea. Winning some "revolutionary" young voters is not worth being mischaracterized as Maduro by older voters or moderates. Maybe you should stop thinking in little boxes and black and white theoretical definitions with zero regard to any kind of nuance. Because according to you guys, and if I follow, I am now a neo-liberal socialist. The level of absurd we reach with these lines of thought of yours is just painful.
I don't know. One of Sanders proposals was workers owning 20% of shares of all large companies. It's not unreasonable to think that Sanders would want to go further if the political climate allows it. It goes much further than something like Denmark at least.
|
On November 06 2020 21:25 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 21:03 maybenexttime wrote:On November 06 2020 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:45 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Social democracy has a better historical track record of being the "good stuff" than actual socialism.
Also if you think that Sanders wants to abolish private property, give the entire control of the means of production to the workers, end capitalism and take his ideas from Vladimir Lenin, you haven't been following. All he's fought for all his life is to make the US look like something like Denmark, not a hypothetical successful USSR fantasyland.
But again, it's all about the ambiguity of the word socialism, and that's why it's a shit word. Sanders uses it in a French way, to mean, social democracy. And the older folk think that he wants what you want, and so of course they get scared and vote against it because no one except five guys want to retry Lenin but *this time* get it right. His program contained incentives for worker co-ops, which a social democrat has no use for and we socialists do. So yeah I've been following. Most social democrats are totally positive about workers co-op, what are you talking about? What kind of definitions are you using? Social democracy maintains a mixed economy between private owners and a strong welfare state. Co-ops are basically the difference between market socialism and social democracy. If you're for co-ops and a social democracy you're a socialist. Jesus, are there *any* nuances in your world or do you only work with 100% this or 100% that? It's not because you are positive about workers co-ops that you want to expropriate and nationalize the whole economy and consider anyone who owns a business a parasitic kulak. There is absolutely room for workers cooperatives in a social democracy, and most social democrats see that as a very good thing to be encouraged. Including Sanders. So again. Sanders wants a very strong welfare state, a highly regulated economy, high taxation, and, yes, help workers cooperatives when they are viable. It's the exact definition of a social democrat program. Well typically if your program contains incentives for something it's because you want more of that thing? The difference Biff is pointing out is that social democrats may encourage co-ops while accepting private ownership as a viable alternative, whereas socialists would like to abolish private ownership. Sanders is in the former camp. I get what Biff is saying, I just believe he's incorrect. Having a social democracy and then pushing it left is literally the position of market socialism. Sanders wanted a social democracy and then he had incentives to go further left with more worker co-ops within his plan, and he called himself a socialist. There is a simple explanation there, and it's not "oh wow Sanders is an idiot he has confused two terms that have different definitions". Oh he is not an idiot, he just thought that making people like you or GH believe he shared your ideas was worth scaring off voters that he knew wouldn't vote for him anyway. I think it's a bad idea. Winning some "revolutionary" young voters is not worth being mischaracterized as Maduro by older voters or moderates. Maybe you should stop thinking in little boxes and black and white theoretical definitions with zero regard to any kind of nuance. Because according to you guys, and if I follow, I am now a neo-liberal socialist. The level of absurd we reach with these lines of thought of yours is just painful. Oh I don't think you're a "neo-liberal socialist social democrat", I just think you're dishonest. That's how I've solved this little incoherence long ago. You are now arguing that Sanders was interested in pretending he was further left than social democrat to get the GH vote, even though it must have been as obvious to him as it is to you and me that the US is, as a society, decidedly to the right of GH. That electoral strategy would be fairly stupid. I stand by the idea that my explanation is much more logical and reasonable.
Oh don’t put on me your inability to put me in one of your little boxes.
|
On November 06 2020 21:27 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 21:03 maybenexttime wrote:On November 06 2020 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:45 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Social democracy has a better historical track record of being the "good stuff" than actual socialism.
Also if you think that Sanders wants to abolish private property, give the entire control of the means of production to the workers, end capitalism and take his ideas from Vladimir Lenin, you haven't been following. All he's fought for all his life is to make the US look like something like Denmark, not a hypothetical successful USSR fantasyland.
But again, it's all about the ambiguity of the word socialism, and that's why it's a shit word. Sanders uses it in a French way, to mean, social democracy. And the older folk think that he wants what you want, and so of course they get scared and vote against it because no one except five guys want to retry Lenin but *this time* get it right. His program contained incentives for worker co-ops, which a social democrat has no use for and we socialists do. So yeah I've been following. Most social democrats are totally positive about workers co-op, what are you talking about? What kind of definitions are you using? Social democracy maintains a mixed economy between private owners and a strong welfare state. Co-ops are basically the difference between market socialism and social democracy. If you're for co-ops and a social democracy you're a socialist. Jesus, are there *any* nuances in your world or do you only work with 100% this or 100% that? It's not because you are positive about workers co-ops that you want to expropriate and nationalize the whole economy and consider anyone who owns a business a parasitic kulak. There is absolutely room for workers cooperatives in a social democracy, and most social democrats see that as a very good thing to be encouraged. Including Sanders. So again. Sanders wants a very strong welfare state, a highly regulated economy, high taxation, and, yes, help workers cooperatives when they are viable. It's the exact definition of a social democrat program. Well typically if your program contains incentives for something it's because you want more of that thing? The difference Biff is pointing out is that social democrats may encourage co-ops while accepting private ownership as a viable alternative, whereas socialists would like to abolish private ownership. Sanders is in the former camp. I get what Biff is saying, I just believe he's incorrect. Having a social democracy and then pushing it left is literally the position of market socialism. Sanders wanted a social democracy and then he had incentives to go further left with more worker co-ops within his plan, and he called himself a socialist. There is a simple explanation there, and it's not "oh wow Sanders is an idiot he has confused two terms that have different definitions". Oh he is not an idiot, he just thought that making people like you or GH believe he shared your ideas was worth scaring off voters that he knew wouldn't vote for him anyway. I think it's a bad idea. Winning some "revolutionary" young voters is not worth being mischaracterized as Maduro by older voters or moderates. Maybe you should stop thinking in little boxes and black and white theoretical definitions with zero regard to any kind of nuance. Because according to you guys, and if I follow, I am now a neo-liberal socialist. The level of absurd we reach with these lines of thought of yours is just painful. I don't know. One of Sanders proposals was workers owning 20% of shares of all large companies. It's not unreasonable to think that Sanders would want to go further if the political climate allows it. It goes much further than something like Denmark at least.
Interesting. Missed that one, but it’s certainly a good idea; would be curious how he would implement that, and I doubt he would get support to pass it, but I like it.
On November 06 2020 21:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 21:03 maybenexttime wrote:On November 06 2020 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:45 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Social democracy has a better historical track record of being the "good stuff" than actual socialism.
Also if you think that Sanders wants to abolish private property, give the entire control of the means of production to the workers, end capitalism and take his ideas from Vladimir Lenin, you haven't been following. All he's fought for all his life is to make the US look like something like Denmark, not a hypothetical successful USSR fantasyland.
But again, it's all about the ambiguity of the word socialism, and that's why it's a shit word. Sanders uses it in a French way, to mean, social democracy. And the older folk think that he wants what you want, and so of course they get scared and vote against it because no one except five guys want to retry Lenin but *this time* get it right. His program contained incentives for worker co-ops, which a social democrat has no use for and we socialists do. So yeah I've been following. Most social democrats are totally positive about workers co-op, what are you talking about? What kind of definitions are you using? Social democracy maintains a mixed economy between private owners and a strong welfare state. Co-ops are basically the difference between market socialism and social democracy. If you're for co-ops and a social democracy you're a socialist. Jesus, are there *any* nuances in your world or do you only work with 100% this or 100% that? It's not because you are positive about workers co-ops that you want to expropriate and nationalize the whole economy and consider anyone who owns a business a parasitic kulak. There is absolutely room for workers cooperatives in a social democracy, and most social democrats see that as a very good thing to be encouraged. Including Sanders. So again. Sanders wants a very strong welfare state, a highly regulated economy, high taxation, and, yes, help workers cooperatives when they are viable. It's the exact definition of a social democrat program. Well typically if your program contains incentives for something it's because you want more of that thing? The difference Biff is pointing out is that social democrats may encourage co-ops while accepting private ownership as a viable alternative, whereas socialists would like to abolish private ownership. Sanders is in the former camp. I get what Biff is saying, I just believe he's incorrect. Having a social democracy and then pushing it left is literally the position of market socialism. Sanders wanted a social democracy and then he had incentives to go further left with more worker co-ops within his plan, and he called himself a socialist. There is a simple explanation there, and it's not "oh wow Sanders is an idiot he has confused two terms that have different definitions". Oh he is not an idiot, he just thought that making people like you or GH believe he shared your ideas One of the first things I learned about Sanders around his presidential run was that he wasn't a revolutionary socialist (as I was learning what that was). That was when I would have identified as a progressive or social democrat.
For what it’s worth, i align with basically everything he says and does, though I disagree with the tactical soundness of some of his rhetoric. Including of course his decision to support Biden.
|
On November 06 2020 21:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:27 RvB wrote:On November 06 2020 21:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 21:03 maybenexttime wrote:On November 06 2020 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:45 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
His program contained incentives for worker co-ops, which a social democrat has no use for and we socialists do. So yeah I've been following. Most social democrats are totally positive about workers co-op, what are you talking about? What kind of definitions are you using? Social democracy maintains a mixed economy between private owners and a strong welfare state. Co-ops are basically the difference between market socialism and social democracy. If you're for co-ops and a social democracy you're a socialist. Jesus, are there *any* nuances in your world or do you only work with 100% this or 100% that? It's not because you are positive about workers co-ops that you want to expropriate and nationalize the whole economy and consider anyone who owns a business a parasitic kulak. There is absolutely room for workers cooperatives in a social democracy, and most social democrats see that as a very good thing to be encouraged. Including Sanders. So again. Sanders wants a very strong welfare state, a highly regulated economy, high taxation, and, yes, help workers cooperatives when they are viable. It's the exact definition of a social democrat program. Well typically if your program contains incentives for something it's because you want more of that thing? The difference Biff is pointing out is that social democrats may encourage co-ops while accepting private ownership as a viable alternative, whereas socialists would like to abolish private ownership. Sanders is in the former camp. I get what Biff is saying, I just believe he's incorrect. Having a social democracy and then pushing it left is literally the position of market socialism. Sanders wanted a social democracy and then he had incentives to go further left with more worker co-ops within his plan, and he called himself a socialist. There is a simple explanation there, and it's not "oh wow Sanders is an idiot he has confused two terms that have different definitions". Oh he is not an idiot, he just thought that making people like you or GH believe he shared your ideas was worth scaring off voters that he knew wouldn't vote for him anyway. I think it's a bad idea. Winning some "revolutionary" young voters is not worth being mischaracterized as Maduro by older voters or moderates. Maybe you should stop thinking in little boxes and black and white theoretical definitions with zero regard to any kind of nuance. Because according to you guys, and if I follow, I am now a neo-liberal socialist. The level of absurd we reach with these lines of thought of yours is just painful. I don't know. One of Sanders proposals was workers owning 20% of shares of all large companies. It's not unreasonable to think that Sanders would want to go further if the political climate allows it. It goes much further than something like Denmark at least. Interesting. Missed that one, but it’s certainly a good idea; would be curious how he would implement that, and I doubt he would get support to pass it, but I like it.
Corbyn proposed something similar here in the UK.
It was a popular policy, but not coming from a socialist.
Figure that one out.
|
|
|
While I generally agree with you, Biff, I think you're wrong that Sanders is shooting for Denmark. Practically, yes, Denmark is the best possible outcome he could hope to achieve, but he has always been pretty clear that he wants more. He chose to label himself a democratic socialist rather than a social democrat for a reason.
|
On November 06 2020 21:37 Belisarius wrote:
While I generally agree with you, Biff, I think you're wrong that Sanders is shooting for Denmark. Practically, yes, Denmark is the best possible outcome he could hope to achieve, but he has always been pretty clear that he wants more. He chose to label himself a democratic socialist rather than a social democrat for a reason.
Isn t someone, who is labeled democratic socialist in the US a social democrat in EU. I mean I m quite a centralist in Germany (somewhere between Merkels party and the greens) and I like quite some idears by Sanders.
|
On November 06 2020 21:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:27 RvB wrote:On November 06 2020 21:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 21:03 maybenexttime wrote:On November 06 2020 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:45 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
His program contained incentives for worker co-ops, which a social democrat has no use for and we socialists do. So yeah I've been following. Most social democrats are totally positive about workers co-op, what are you talking about? What kind of definitions are you using? Social democracy maintains a mixed economy between private owners and a strong welfare state. Co-ops are basically the difference between market socialism and social democracy. If you're for co-ops and a social democracy you're a socialist. Jesus, are there *any* nuances in your world or do you only work with 100% this or 100% that? It's not because you are positive about workers co-ops that you want to expropriate and nationalize the whole economy and consider anyone who owns a business a parasitic kulak. There is absolutely room for workers cooperatives in a social democracy, and most social democrats see that as a very good thing to be encouraged. Including Sanders. So again. Sanders wants a very strong welfare state, a highly regulated economy, high taxation, and, yes, help workers cooperatives when they are viable. It's the exact definition of a social democrat program. Well typically if your program contains incentives for something it's because you want more of that thing? The difference Biff is pointing out is that social democrats may encourage co-ops while accepting private ownership as a viable alternative, whereas socialists would like to abolish private ownership. Sanders is in the former camp. I get what Biff is saying, I just believe he's incorrect. Having a social democracy and then pushing it left is literally the position of market socialism. Sanders wanted a social democracy and then he had incentives to go further left with more worker co-ops within his plan, and he called himself a socialist. There is a simple explanation there, and it's not "oh wow Sanders is an idiot he has confused two terms that have different definitions". Oh he is not an idiot, he just thought that making people like you or GH believe he shared your ideas was worth scaring off voters that he knew wouldn't vote for him anyway. I think it's a bad idea. Winning some "revolutionary" young voters is not worth being mischaracterized as Maduro by older voters or moderates. Maybe you should stop thinking in little boxes and black and white theoretical definitions with zero regard to any kind of nuance. Because according to you guys, and if I follow, I am now a neo-liberal socialist. The level of absurd we reach with these lines of thought of yours is just painful. I don't know. One of Sanders proposals was workers owning 20% of shares of all large companies. It's not unreasonable to think that Sanders would want to go further if the political climate allows it. It goes much further than something like Denmark at least. Interesting. Missed that one, but it’s certainly a good idea; would be curious how he would implement that, and I doubt he would get support to pass it, but I like it. Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2020 21:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 21:03 maybenexttime wrote:On November 06 2020 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:45 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
His program contained incentives for worker co-ops, which a social democrat has no use for and we socialists do. So yeah I've been following. Most social democrats are totally positive about workers co-op, what are you talking about? What kind of definitions are you using? Social democracy maintains a mixed economy between private owners and a strong welfare state. Co-ops are basically the difference between market socialism and social democracy. If you're for co-ops and a social democracy you're a socialist. Jesus, are there *any* nuances in your world or do you only work with 100% this or 100% that? It's not because you are positive about workers co-ops that you want to expropriate and nationalize the whole economy and consider anyone who owns a business a parasitic kulak. There is absolutely room for workers cooperatives in a social democracy, and most social democrats see that as a very good thing to be encouraged. Including Sanders. So again. Sanders wants a very strong welfare state, a highly regulated economy, high taxation, and, yes, help workers cooperatives when they are viable. It's the exact definition of a social democrat program. Well typically if your program contains incentives for something it's because you want more of that thing? The difference Biff is pointing out is that social democrats may encourage co-ops while accepting private ownership as a viable alternative, whereas socialists would like to abolish private ownership. Sanders is in the former camp. I get what Biff is saying, I just believe he's incorrect. Having a social democracy and then pushing it left is literally the position of market socialism. Sanders wanted a social democracy and then he had incentives to go further left with more worker co-ops within his plan, and he called himself a socialist. There is a simple explanation there, and it's not "oh wow Sanders is an idiot he has confused two terms that have different definitions". Oh he is not an idiot, he just thought that making people like you or GH believe he shared your ideas One of the first things I learned about Sanders around his presidential run was that he wasn't a revolutionary socialist (as I was learning what that was). That was when I would have identified as a progressive or social democrat. For what it’s worth, i align with basically everything he says and does, though I disagree with the tactical soundness of some of his rhetoric. Including of course his decision to support Biden.
Really I'd be happy if you just stop saying things like he just thought that making people like you or GH believe he shared your ideas was worth scaring off voters that he knew wouldn't vote for him anyway. I think it's a bad idea. Winning some "revolutionary" young voters is not worth being mischaracterized as Maduro by older voters or moderates.
Because you know it's not an accurate characterization of my politics or my support of Bernie and Republicans convinced those people Biden was Castro's ghost anyway.
|
On November 06 2020 21:42 dbRic1203 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:37 Belisarius wrote:
While I generally agree with you, Biff, I think you're wrong that Sanders is shooting for Denmark. Practically, yes, Denmark is the best possible outcome he could hope to achieve, but he has always been pretty clear that he wants more. He chose to label himself a democratic socialist rather than a social democrat for a reason. Isn t someone, who is labeled democratic socialist in the US a social democrat in EU. I mean I m quite a centralist in Germany (somewhere between Merkels party and the greens) and I like quite some idears by Sanders.
No and Sanders knows that. I respect him for not pretending to be a moderate.
I mean, he's not far-far left and would be accepted in a normal SD party in Europe, but would still have to deal with the same stuff that Democrats do to him.
|
Northern Ireland26796 Posts
Could part of Sanders actually using the dreaded socialist word merely be an attempt to reclaim it in the US context?
If you don’t go ‘here is x policy, oh you like that? Well that’s actually socialistic’ then how can you hope to counteract the invocation of Stalin by your political opponents?
|
Germany1307 Posts
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kLZg8duNQpw/VD2dnAjxblI/AAAAAAAABnc/uIXO2vA7jlI/s1600/compass%2B-%2Bpost.jpg)
The US view on left and right is kind of limited on a certain spectrum, if you compare with the rest of the world. You have two parties but while they are at each others throat, from an outside perspective they are not so different at all.
|
On November 06 2020 21:50 WombaT wrote:
Could part of Sanders actually using the dreaded socialist word merely be an attempt to reclaim it in the US context?
If you don’t go ‘here is x policy, oh you like that? Well that’s actually socialistic’ then how can you hope to counteract the invocation of Stalin by your political opponents?
It's exactly it, yes. But, like, you're trying to reclaim it for a reason. If you wanted to just stop at social democracy you wouldn't need to reclaim it.
|
On November 06 2020 21:54 Chosi wrote:The US view on left and right is kind of limited on a certain spectrum, if you compare with the rest of the world. You have two parties but while they are at each others throat, from an outside perspective they are not so different at all.
I'd disagree with the "not so different at all". It is true that the US is lacking in a real left-wing party, but they make up for that by having their rightwing be much, much more crazy than the mainstream rightwing of other countries.
|
If you believe that joke of a chart yes. It has Romney almost as authoritarian as Hitler and apparently Obama is almost the same as McCain.
+ Show Spoiler +[/url]
|
I wish there were some Trump supporters left here so we could ask them whether or not they support Trump asking people to stop the count. I'm genuinely curious what kind of support he has among his base for this and all these conspiracy theory based legal challenges.
|
On November 06 2020 21:54 Chosi wrote:
The US view on left and right is kind of limited on a certain spectrum, if you compare with the rest of the world. You have two parties but while they are at each others throat, from an outside perspective they are not so different at all.
Your description is true but that particular chart looks like a bunch of nonsense tbh.
I also think that Europeans jerk off a little too much about their differences with the US. We are better off for sure, but the difference isn't as night and day as we sometimes make it out to be.
Like, the US has maybe 35% fascists or something like that, we have maybe 25%... "Wow".
Part of giving up on american exceptionalism is giving up on the idea that America is exceptionally bad :p
|
Germany1307 Posts
On November 06 2020 22:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:54 Chosi wrote:
The US view on left and right is kind of limited on a certain spectrum, if you compare with the rest of the world. You have two parties but while they are at each others throat, from an outside perspective they are not so different at all. Your description is true but that particular chart looks like a bunch of nonsense tbh.
I am sorry for the chart, I had something else in mind but could not find it right away.
This is better but on the other hand still an all American view:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html
|
Germany1307 Posts
On November 06 2020 21:58 RvB wrote:If you believe that joke of a chart yes. It has Romney almost as authoritarian as Hitler and apparently Obama is almost the same as McCain. + Show Spoiler + [/url]
But that is kind of my point, in the limited US spectrum they seem far apart, in a broader spectrum they are not so much and I would agree with that.
|
On November 06 2020 21:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 21:27 RvB wrote:On November 06 2020 21:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 21:03 maybenexttime wrote:On November 06 2020 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:45 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Most social democrats are totally positive about workers co-op, what are you talking about? What kind of definitions are you using? Social democracy maintains a mixed economy between private owners and a strong welfare state. Co-ops are basically the difference between market socialism and social democracy. If you're for co-ops and a social democracy you're a socialist. Jesus, are there *any* nuances in your world or do you only work with 100% this or 100% that? It's not because you are positive about workers co-ops that you want to expropriate and nationalize the whole economy and consider anyone who owns a business a parasitic kulak. There is absolutely room for workers cooperatives in a social democracy, and most social democrats see that as a very good thing to be encouraged. Including Sanders. So again. Sanders wants a very strong welfare state, a highly regulated economy, high taxation, and, yes, help workers cooperatives when they are viable. It's the exact definition of a social democrat program. Well typically if your program contains incentives for something it's because you want more of that thing? The difference Biff is pointing out is that social democrats may encourage co-ops while accepting private ownership as a viable alternative, whereas socialists would like to abolish private ownership. Sanders is in the former camp. I get what Biff is saying, I just believe he's incorrect. Having a social democracy and then pushing it left is literally the position of market socialism. Sanders wanted a social democracy and then he had incentives to go further left with more worker co-ops within his plan, and he called himself a socialist. There is a simple explanation there, and it's not "oh wow Sanders is an idiot he has confused two terms that have different definitions". Oh he is not an idiot, he just thought that making people like you or GH believe he shared your ideas was worth scaring off voters that he knew wouldn't vote for him anyway. I think it's a bad idea. Winning some "revolutionary" young voters is not worth being mischaracterized as Maduro by older voters or moderates. Maybe you should stop thinking in little boxes and black and white theoretical definitions with zero regard to any kind of nuance. Because according to you guys, and if I follow, I am now a neo-liberal socialist. The level of absurd we reach with these lines of thought of yours is just painful. I don't know. One of Sanders proposals was workers owning 20% of shares of all large companies. It's not unreasonable to think that Sanders would want to go further if the political climate allows it. It goes much further than something like Denmark at least. Interesting. Missed that one, but it’s certainly a good idea; would be curious how he would implement that, and I doubt he would get support to pass it, but I like it. On November 06 2020 21:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2020 21:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 21:03 maybenexttime wrote:On November 06 2020 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:45 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Most social democrats are totally positive about workers co-op, what are you talking about? What kind of definitions are you using? Social democracy maintains a mixed economy between private owners and a strong welfare state. Co-ops are basically the difference between market socialism and social democracy. If you're for co-ops and a social democracy you're a socialist. Jesus, are there *any* nuances in your world or do you only work with 100% this or 100% that? It's not because you are positive about workers co-ops that you want to expropriate and nationalize the whole economy and consider anyone who owns a business a parasitic kulak. There is absolutely room for workers cooperatives in a social democracy, and most social democrats see that as a very good thing to be encouraged. Including Sanders. So again. Sanders wants a very strong welfare state, a highly regulated economy, high taxation, and, yes, help workers cooperatives when they are viable. It's the exact definition of a social democrat program. Well typically if your program contains incentives for something it's because you want more of that thing? The difference Biff is pointing out is that social democrats may encourage co-ops while accepting private ownership as a viable alternative, whereas socialists would like to abolish private ownership. Sanders is in the former camp. I get what Biff is saying, I just believe he's incorrect. Having a social democracy and then pushing it left is literally the position of market socialism. Sanders wanted a social democracy and then he had incentives to go further left with more worker co-ops within his plan, and he called himself a socialist. There is a simple explanation there, and it's not "oh wow Sanders is an idiot he has confused two terms that have different definitions". Oh he is not an idiot, he just thought that making people like you or GH believe he shared your ideas One of the first things I learned about Sanders around his presidential run was that he wasn't a revolutionary socialist (as I was learning what that was). That was when I would have identified as a progressive or social democrat. For what it’s worth, i align with basically everything he says and does, though I disagree with the tactical soundness of some of his rhetoric. Including of course his decision to support Biden. Really I'd be happy if you just stop saying things like Show nested quote +he just thought that making people like you or GH believe he shared your ideas was worth scaring off voters that he knew wouldn't vote for him anyway. I think it's a bad idea. Winning some "revolutionary" young voters is not worth being mischaracterized as Maduro by older voters or moderates. Because you know it's not an accurate characterization of my politics or my support of Bernie and Republicans convinced those people Biden was Castro's ghost anyway.
My bad then, glad to hear it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
