|
Condiv posted:LOL no they aren't running towards socialism. Did you miss the red baiting during the primary? They're crying for help and Bernie swooped in to save em. For what it's worth, I'm a Democrat and I'm a socialist. I'm a dues-paying DSA member but I'm also a massive Democratic hack. I cringe mightily when I encounter people like yourself tbh. How the gently caress could any self-professed socialist oppose the party that is almost uniformly supported by unions and, to this day, receives most of its support from working people? How could you oppose the only party that stands opposed to RTW laws being enacted nation-wide and the only party the supports increasing the minimum wage? Honestly, all of this is baffling to me but, then again, I am a socialist not because I read Capital but because I care about egalitarianism and raising living standards for people. I can understand being lukewarm or indifferent towards the Democrats but whining about them and acting like they're "just as bad" as the GOP is maddening imo. It's utterly insane dogshit!
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
cams posted:for real, asdf32 at least argues in good faith and sticks to a premise. you're just tedious and boring. condiv u thick motherfucker this is c-span not d&d, this is the place to drink and shitpost and not bother with the sisiphian task of converting internet strangers to your political beliefs. i am bewildered and confused by people itt's attempts to engage me in some kind of constructive discourse in between slams
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
the Ben Carson guy talks in bad faith that is my C-SPAN post for the month in this thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:condiv u thick motherfucker this is c-span not d&d, this is the place to drink and shitpost and not bother with the sisiphian task of converting internet strangers to your political beliefs. i am bewildered and confused by people itt's attempts to engage me in some kind of constructive discourse in between slams Weeping Wound posted:the Ben Carson guy talks in bad faith (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
cams posted:it's not that hard to present intelligent ideas. do you baby, you wanna post garbage for funsies have at it. i just think you're boring and not worth dealing with. oh no u called me a baby thus goading me into a serious intellectual discussion with jeb av guy #2 at 4am in the morning lol gently caress off cams (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:actually i got actual responses rather than rapid goalpost shuffling and hyperbole Why are you claiming that a socialist would want anything different than progress when you already got real answers. Democrats don't care about you or unions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
I meant to say C-SPAM goddamnit!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
Deimus posted:Why are you claiming that a socialist would want anything different than progress when you already got real answers. Then why do unions back the Democratic Party? Do you think they're useful idiots and dupes, that the working class is voting against its best interest time and time again? What, exactly, is your argument here? I'd share a Dissent article with you but this forum is low-brow so I'm going to keep it low-brow: I think that voters are rational and that parties are also rational. The idea that "Democrats don't care about unions" is stupid because unions remain the base of Democratic support in many parts of the country, particularly in the Midwest and "Rust Belt". Of course Democrats are going to care about unions if unions supply the party with activists and GOTV people and so on. Tbh, I don't give a poo poo what Democratic politicians think; they're forced to pander towards their irritating prole base and this forces them to produce solid piece of legislation. That's enough for me to be placated to the point where I feel comfortable supporting them. I'm happy that the ACA exists and that, in due time, we'll see the EITC expand, the minimum wage increase etc. TheDeadFlagBlues fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:oh no u called me a baby thus goading me into a serious intellectual discussion with jeb av guy #2 at 4am in the morning lol gently caress off cams Deimus posted:Democrats don't care about you or unions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:Then why do unions back the Democratic Party? Do you think they're useful idiots and dupes, that the working class is voting against its best interest time and time again? What, exactly, is your argument here? We have a two party system and the GOP cares about unions less.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Deimus posted:Yeah, I'll give you that. I think the only attractive economic position we could endorse is a worker Co-op system, democracy in the workplace. That's a controversial (ultraleft) position though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Deimus posted:We have a two party system and the GOP cares about unions less. Well, you see, I'm a brown so I'm obviously going to gravitate towards the party that tolerates my existence in this country rather than the fascists. Hence why I'm a Democrat. I don't want to get beaten up by a gang of skinhead hoodlums. No offense but, generally speaking, white people tend to gravitate towards this True Leftist stance where Democrats are about as bad as Republicans. You aren't going to find many left-wing African-American or Latino activists who say these things... TheDeadFlagBlues fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Deimus posted:Why are you claiming that a socialist would want anything different than progress when you already got real answers. There's a city called Chicago,
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Wikkheiser posted:Even if they're not cults (like I don't think I'd describe the PSL as a cult), the moment I hear the words "democratic centralism" I back away very slowly. I have to agree with the party's decision after they internally decide it? What if the decision is that you can't publicly express disapproval of policies decided under the democratic centralist model? Very quickly everyone is mouthing the same words in unison. Well, I don't know much, I don't even care about PSL. I don't know where to start, but it has to do with basic Marx-Leninist things like 'what a state is' 'what democracy actually is' 'what a revolution is and how capitalism overcame feudalism.' I'm not the right person to ask, but I get the same uneasiness about it sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
My final and chief point: do you realize that you newspaper-slinging trots are condescending mfers? Chief goal ought to be pressing for policies/legislation that improves the material condition of working people, not promoting some farcical teology where if we seize the means of production all will be well. Read marx 3:16 and you'll be converted son of the sheep just read this newspaper right here! Ultimately, I think the most salient cleavage between left-wing Democrats and various non-Democrat leftists is that the former aren't Marxists or "deep ecologists" and the latter embrace some strange sect's rigid way of thinking about social problems and inequity. Reality is that there is no teology, we all just got throw poo poo at things and see what works and what doesn't. This means being flexible and pragmatic and being apart of coalitions that are uncomfortable to be a part of sometimes. idk guys, just letting you know how i feel about this whole thing. sometimes it's very embarrassing to be a socialist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:Then why do unions back the Democratic Party? Do you think they're useful idiots and dupes, that the working class is voting against its best interest time and time again? What, exactly, is your argument here? With this perspective though, like with the new deal example it still helps to have a radical section of the left that is trying to work in different ways to push for change. If the democratic party knows that there are a bunch of voters sitting out due to their militaristic foreign policy or milquetoast economic policies, there is more of a chance they will try to appeal to those groups. If those voters fall in line, they will try to win independents and center right wing voters. Also, there is a general dissatisfaction with both parties, so it also helps to have organizers that are unaffiliated with the main parties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
Deimus posted:Well, I don't know much, I don't even care about PSL. I don't know where to start, but it has to do with basic Marx-Leninist things like 'what a state is' 'what democracy actually is' 'what a revolution is and how capitalism overcame feudalism.' I'm not the right person to ask, but I get the same uneasiness about it sometimes. see, this right here is what i'm talking about folks. why is it okay to say "marxist-lenninist" in 2016? you mean the ideology that murdered millions of people? the ideology that has forever stained the word "socialism" and that has done more than anything force to prepare eastern europe for the rise of toxic reactionary nationalism by destroying civil society? olof palme/bruno kreisky 2016 imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:Well, you see, I'm a brown so I'm obviously going to gravitate towards the party that tolerates my existence in this country rather than the fascists. Hence why I'm a Democrat. I don't want to get beaten up by a gang of skinhead hoodlums. Yeah I understand. I've been next to homeless for years now and I'd rather see Clinton than Trump. Though, african-american history is full of revolutionary socialists, like the Black Panthers. MLK jr was incredibly anti-capitalist and that part of him gets white-washed a lot, especially near the end. He was going to organize a poor-peoples movement, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
IronyGuy6669 posted:With this perspective though, like with the new deal example it still helps to have a radical section of the left that is trying to work in different ways to push for change. If the democratic party knows that there are a bunch of voters sitting out due to their militaristic foreign policy or milquetoast economic policies, there is more of a chance they will try to appeal to those groups. If those voters fall in line, they will try to win independents and center right wing voters. Also, there is a general dissatisfaction with both parties, so it also helps to have organizers that are unaffiliated with the main parties. I agree, of course, and I support people doing direct action and lighting a fire under the asses of politicians. I don't think this means not voting for Democrats against Republicans in competitive races. That's self-defeating and dumb. Voting takes 5 minutes, who care, just do it. However, I think it's fine to vote for smelly hippies in safe districts if you want. If the Greens threw up Howie Hawkins instead of Joke Jill Stein, I'd vote for him tbh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:see, this right here is what i'm talking about folks. why is it okay to say "marxist-lenninist" in 2016? you mean the ideology that murdered millions of people? the ideology that has forever stained the word "socialism" and that has done more than anything force to prepare eastern europe for the rise of toxic reactionary nationalism by destroying civil society? Well, it really gets defended with context. Like, the process of industrialization in the west was also horrifying, and lasted centuries longer. Poverty was rampant with the classic proletariat, Farming land was being privatized (when before they had land guaranteed by a lord) stuff like that.. Capitalism has killed millions, and also made toxic, fascist reactionaries, if you say it like that.. Socialists are dis-satisfied with capitalism, because it's just another form of exploitation that previous societies had. Exploitation is put clearly, 'When an upper class appropriates the surplus that another class created'. Socialists just believe we can do better than this, and believe that everyone should have a say (at least through representation) with how profits/surplus are appropriated. Right now these decisions are in the hands of the private owners of workplaces (and a smaller number of the top shareholders), with motives of self interest and market forces. And of course these decisions have massive socio-economic consequences that effect everyone's daily life, in a dramatic way. We just want to change that. Like, if everyone had a say in our economic circumstances, they wouldn't vote to pollute their own town. They wouldn't want one rich guy to own all the media that everyone gets information from, they wouldn't want their communities profits to go to a headquarters 10k miles away, they would probably want their profits to help the disenfranchised in their town (at least more so than a corporate owner). That's usually what the spirit, and uncompromising position of socialism is about IMO. The interests of big business is on both parties minds, because in capitalism they're the ones that make the system work, it's just natural and politics can't really be much else. Hope I cleared up some things I guess. Deimus fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
Yeah I never could really buy into certain forms of left-wing activism being more of a "white" thing or not, because at least in my anecdotal experience around communists and anarchists, it's wildly diverse racially. More Hispanic than anyone else in my neck of the woods. If anything, the problem is communist parties attempting to impose their system in a top-down, authoritarian way. And this can apply to racial politics as well. Richard Wright talked about this in his essay on joining (and eventually being kicked out of) the CPUSA way back in the 1930s. He came under tremendous pressure by the party to act in a stereotypical manner befitting his role as a black communist, and also depict African-Americans in a similar way in his writing, which he found insulting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Deimus posted:Well, it really gets defended with context. Like, the process of industrialization in the west was also horrifying, and lasted centuries longer. Poverty was rampant with the classic proletariat, Farming land was being privatized (when before they had land guaranteed by a lord) stuff like that.. Capitalism has killed millions, and also made toxic, fascist reactionaries, if you say it like that.. Yeah, and with stuff like the relationship with the third world markets, they are exploited because they work for very low wages to make goods or mine resources they don't get to utilize at all. You could have products with similar prices without the exploitation if instead of Capital/private investors pocketing profits for something like an iphone, that money goes towards paying workers all over the world well and bettering their work conditions, like say building mines and providing equipment and safety regulations to mine Coltan instead of having people dig for it by hand. We still get reasonably priced products, with the added benefit that demand is created from money going towards previously destitute people who can now consume goods made in traditionally wealthy countries. As far as an actual path to this, maybe a combination of trying to push for laws that make companies have higher standards for workers in other countries, combined with encouraging and financing workers movements in other countries. Much of the mainstream and social democratic left still has a strong nationalist bent, and a zero sum view of the international economy. This was one of my problems with bernie sanders, and it has left neoliberals as the only mainstream voice articulating internationalism. IronyGuy6669 fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
Deimus posted:Why are you claiming that a socialist would want anything different than progress when you already got real answers. I never claimed that, I'm claiming that some people would rather throw all progress away because it didn't fit their exact vision of it. They want progress, but specifically their progress. It's the FYGM of socialism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:Reality is that there is no teology, we all just got throw poo poo at things and see what works and what doesn't. This means being flexible and pragmatic and being apart of coalitions that are uncomfortable to be a part of sometimes. The most important thing for humanity's survival in my opinion. To digress more over my morning coffee this captures both of the most important things actually - reason and collectivism. Humans have thrived as a species because we can manipulate our surroundings AND work together while doing it. Fixating on a dead book is abandonment of reason (regardless of whether the stop clock it represents has some arrows pointing in the right direction), and de-legitimizing those that aren't with you is abandonment of collectivism (yep even if that's nominally one of your stated goals). asdf32 fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:I never claimed that, I'm claiming that some people would rather throw all progress away because it didn't fit their exact vision of it. They want progress, but specifically their progress. It's the FYGM of socialism. Which people, and why'd you pose the original question at me then cause that's not my stance, nor has it ever been. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:They're crying for help and Bernie swooped in to save em. Because I've lost faith in the Democratic Party to actually do any of that. I mean, just for your union example we had barack obama sit on his hands while unions were being busted on Wisconsin. We have the current dem nominee advocating for greater wallstreet input on their own regulation, etc. I'm pretty similar to you on the other hand. I've never read any Marx, and I've voted and supported dems since the age of majority. But I've been becoming disillusioned with the dems since Obama's ppaca and it's only gotten worse since this election
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:I never claimed that, I'm claiming that some people would rather throw all progress away because it didn't fit their exact vision of it. They want progress, but specifically their progress. It's the FYGM of socialism. So because people think the ACA isn't good enough, and want to replace it with a better system, you think that involves throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Do you think leftists want to immediately roll back all existing legislation before they've even been able to enact their agenda?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
All of these appeals to incremental progress in the name of "realism" ignores that millions of people are in dire straits right now, and need massive corrective action right now. People are going to die because they still can't afford healthcare under the ACA. People are trapped in cyclical poverty because they can't stop working in low wage jobs without becoming destitute. Union density in the population declines every year as more and more right to work laws get passed, which sap their membership and activism. Millions of people in the third world are at risk of being killed or driven homeless by conflicts which are driven by the destabilizing nature of American foreign policy. Tens of millions of people will be killed by the ravages of climate change, and the resulting shocks to the food supply. The stakes are astronomically high right now, and they require a radical commitment to change right now. Committing yourself to a process that's responsible for the avoidable deaths of tens of millions of people every year isn't progress, it's a slow slide into barbarism. Being "realistic" is a conscious decision that you're willing to gamble away lives on the false hope that liberal democracy is capable of a politics which can adequately correct these problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Right. Instead of helping people right now you need to cling all or nothing to unachevable revolution based on ideas from two centuries ago. The people of the third world are indebted to you for your efforts. Bravo. On a related note, most of the places you assign blame are wrong and so are the solutions you're holding out for. Continuing - which is in no small part because you don't understand the system you oppose...which is in no small part because you've adopted a dead, incomplete language for trying to understand it. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Right. Instead of helping people right now you need to cling all or nothing to unachevable revolution based on ideas from two centuries ago. The people of the third world are indebted to you for your efforts. Bravo. Is American capitalism helping the third world instead of hurting it? That's news to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Is American capitalism helping the third world instead of hurting it? That's news to me. The one word answer is yes. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
I loving love "sweatshops are actually good" arguments
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The one word answer is yes. Could you post something a bit more up to date? The most recent poverty line was at 1.90, and the line for the graph you posted was 1.25 at the time, not the outdated $1 your graph uses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Could you post something a bit more up to date? The most recent poverty line was at 1.90, and the line for the graph you posted was 1.25 at the time, not the outdated $1 your graph uses. On quick look I don't see anything. Global statistics tend to lag. This graph projects out and also charts poverty rather than $1/day. With that higher bar it doesn't bottom out like the previous one. The third world wasn't impacted by the financial crisis as much so I assume this projection is reasonable.  Pener Kropoopkin posted:I loving love "sweatshops are actually good" arguments Well you claimed to care about poor people right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I loving love "sweatshops are actually good" arguments I thought we'd previously established that one of the reasons Stalin wasn't that bad is that the process of industrialization sucks real bad wherever you go. Isn't the process still ultimately desirable?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:I thought we'd previously established that one of the reasons Stalin wasn't that bad is that the process of industrialization sucks real bad wherever you go. Isn't the process still ultimately desirable? His response is going to be: "profit".
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
And that's basically a fine response. Actually I'd be interested in reading about quality of life for a Soviet or Chinese factory worker during their periods of crash industrialization. I wouldn't be at all surprised if (apolitical) factory workers were better off than American workers were during a comparable stage of economic development. But even if that were so, there were pretty huge trade-offs involved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:On quick look I don't see anything. Global statistics tend to lag. This graph projects out and also charts poverty rather than $1/day. With that higher bar it doesn't bottom out like the previous one. The third world wasn't impacted by the financial crisis as much so I assume this projection is reasonable. So, I looked it up and the world bank says that 10% of the world lives under the current global poverty line in 2013. My big complaints about your suggestion that American capitalism is helping the 3rd world is its proclivity to abandon a developing nation as soon as standards of living rise a bit (see India) and other externalities that are not compensated by American companies (little to no environmental protections and private militaries being used against the populace). Finally, American capitalism actually gets in the way of progress in order to keep wages lower (see: Haitian minimum wage) Condiv fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:I thought we'd previously established that one of the reasons Stalin wasn't that bad is that the process of industrialization sucks real bad wherever you go. Isn't the process still ultimately desirable? It's one thing when industrialization is carried out for the advancement of one's own country, it's another thing when industrialization is carried out in service to profit for foreign elites. When the wage demands of labor in the host country exceed acceptable profit margins, the capital can be packaged up and shipped out to the next country with basement level wage demands. The industrial capital isn't going to stay, and that's not really "industrialization."
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:When the wage demands of labor in the host country exceed acceptable profit margins, the capital can be packaged up and shipped out to the next country with basement level wage demands. The industrial capital isn't going to stay, and that's not really "industrialization." But the wage demands of labor increase because of the benefits of economic development. If sweatshops move out of, say, Vietnam, it's precisely because Vietnam has reached a stage in development where there are now other industries prepared to offer higher wages. Otherwise, the mere threat of companies leaving en masse should be enough to keep wages perpetually low in relative terms, and that's not what we're seeing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:50
|
|