|
Someone mentioned earlier this page or last that socialists don't have a good answer for internationalism, instead opting for protectionism. Some things we probably want to be protectionist of (for example we should ensure at all times we have a robust breadbasket), but I think we should have free trade and free movement with the caveat that we impose scaling tariffs on products made in countries with weaker labor laws than our own.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted: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. Did you miss where Haiti halved its minimum wage in response to American pressure?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted: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. Vietnam is also a communist country, and developing their own state-run industries is a pursued policy goal. They could also, if they want, threaten to nationalize the industrial capital of any country that threatens to leave. The same can't be said for countries like Bangladesh, which are dependent on foreign investment capital. What do you think is going to happen when industries move out en masse? Do you think the "rust belt" is just a catchphrase?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
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. if it were easy to argue socialist or communist positions in the mainstream that would necessarily mean we're under far less of a stranglehold by the bourgeoisie than we think. you don't adopt far-left politics because it's convenient, you do it because it's right. giving everything up besides ultra positions (not coincidentally both the most accepted and the least likely to alter relations of production) is essentially forfeit Yinlock posted:Progression is for dumb-asses, if we can't go from bone clubs to space lasers all at once then gently caress everything throw it all out revolution is itself a progression. we're not luddites or the khmer rouge TheDeadFlagBlues posted:tens of millions of people are being lifted out of poverty each year and motherfuckers like you are complaining about this. as a good non-marxist socialist, i support anything that lifts people out of poverty and, yes, trade is one means to accomplish this goal. free trade is entirely congruent with redistributive public policy. the issue is how we move away from a "golden straightjacket" imposed upon nations by neo-liberalism and towards some sort of global democratic governance structure. almost all the global poverty reduction you hold up as an example of neoliberalism and free trade's success has happened in china and vietnam. so good work unintentionally supporting those countries' communist parties i guess!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted: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! ok so like many others in this thread you don't know the first thing about marxism and the extent to which you are a socialist is how willing you are to say it rather than the things you materially support. good to know
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
"State capitalism owns." -- Homework Explainer, Explanations of My Homework
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
this is like the fifth or sixth time the "china isn't socialist!!!!!!" thing has come up so i refer you to earlier posts debunking it
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:ok so like many others in this thread you don't know the first thing about marxism and the extent to which you are a socialist is how willing you are to say it rather than the things you materially support. good to know to be honest i'd be considered ignorant when it comes to socialism too. the most exposure i have is through the left wing of the dem party  . try to be a little gentler on him cause i was practically him a few years ago, maybe he'll become more leftist with time too?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:this is like the fifth or sixth time the "china isn't socialist!!!!!!" thing has come up so i refer you to earlier posts debunking it Lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:this is like the fifth or sixth time the "china isn't socialist!!!!!!" thing has come up so i refer you to earlier posts debunking it no wait, China is actually capitalist because poverty is declining with foreign investment, no wait, China is actually communist because of their human rights record, no wait...
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:no wait, China is actually capitalist because poverty is declining with foreign investment, no wait, China is actually communist because of their human rights record, no wait... I don't know that I've ever seen an individual hop from one foot to another like that. Personally I am consistent in my belief that from Deng onward, China has been state capitalist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Homework Explainer's definition of 'socialist economy' is so flexible its possible for socialist economies to have stock market crashes and real estate bubbles
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:I don't know that I've ever seen an individual hop from one foot to another like that. Personally I am consistent in my belief that from Deng onward, China has been state capitalist. It's really more of an exploitation tactic. China can be whatever you want it to be based on the point you're trying to make, because its mixed economy allows for any kind of opportunistic argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Homework Explainer's definition of 'socialist economy' is so flexible its possible for socialist economies to have stock market crashes and real estate bubbles if you're stupid enough to draw one-to-one analogies between phenomena in the united states and china when their economies are entirely different, maybe
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Condiv posted: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) That's life in the big city. Like a billion people have been lifted out of poverty and some bad things have happened too and it hasn't worked everywhere all the time. You can't fixate on anecdotes or exceptions to a general trend (though you can try to fix them). Pener Kropoopkin posted: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." No capital absolutely can't pick up and leave because it's usually big and heavy and things like infrastructure and human capital literally can't leave. That's why you don't see wages in china plummet even as manufacturers look elsewhere. China commands a premium and will hold onto that premium for real reasons - they have more human and physical capital (the same reasons why first world workers are paid even more). What you see in the result belt, where industry rapidly disappeared was the result of the sudden development of containerized global trade which acted like a floodgate opening and left some previously protected industries high and dry. The gates are open so that's probably not happening again. Though a potential threat is you - protectionists, nationalists and misguided crusaders who want to claw industry back into the first world for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's really more of an exploitation tactic. China can be whatever you want it to be based on the point you're trying to make, because its mixed economy allows for any kind of opportunistic argument. That's fair, but it goes both ways. Anything that's good about China can be attributed to socialism, anything that's bad about China can be attributed to Deng being a goddamn revisionist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No capital absolutely can't pick up and leave because it's usually big and heavy and things like infrastructure and human capital literally can't leave. Uh, they absolutely can. How do you think the Soviets were able to move the majority of their industrial capital east of the Urals after the Nazi invasion? That was an unprecedented feat of industrial engineering in 1941. How do you think factories were assembled in Vietnam by foreign companies? Do you think they just manufactured and assembled all of that heavy machinery on-site? It's modular. You can break it down and ship it all out. quote:Though a potential threat is you - protectionists, nationalists and misguided crusaders who want to claw industry back into the first world for themselves. ... lmfao
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:ok so like many others in this thread you don't know the first thing about marxism and the extent to which you are a socialist is how willing you are to say it rather than the things you materially support. good to know nah i know a great deal about marxism. i just don't think that it's very relevant to the 21st century. edit: ya, i agree about china and vietnam. this is why i'm a "market socialism". in the words of rafael correa "the market is not our master." we should see it as a mechanism that can promote economic growth but, ultimately, we get to decide where the returns are distributed. china and vietnam are two examples of countries that have done development rather well; i'd argue that south korea and japan are two other examples. there are many pitfalls to their approaches. in particular, china's developmentalism is very inhumane/barbaric. i can't fully get behind it. nevertheless, it has to be a applauded to a degree imo. TheDeadFlagBlues fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:That's life in the big city. Like a billion people have been lifted out of poverty and some bad things have happened too and it hasn't worked everywhere all the time. You can't fixate on anecdotes or exceptions to a general trend (though you can try to fix them). uh, is this "billion lifted out of poverty" the same as that $1/day chart? Cause i've heard people say the current 1.90 limit describes extreme poverty, not just poverty. Here's an article with info from 2013: http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats also, please note that the graphs you posted show the reduction in poverty from a large aggregate of sources, not all of which can be attributed to capitalism or american capitalism. for example the figure most certainly includes communist nations in it Condiv fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Condiv posted: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. lol was obama supposed to drone scott walker or something? he was a liability during the recall election; that's what he sat on his hands. his approval ratings were in the toilet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Presidents can use their bully pulpits to side unequivocally with workers and their struggle, and encourage them to turnout and recall a governor that threatens to undo their legal protections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Presidents can use their bully pulpits to side unequivocally with workers and their struggle, and encourage them to turnout and recall a governor that threatens to undo their legal protections. They can also tarnish the cause of workers and their struggle and convince them to vote for their opponent when their approval rating is sitting at 40-45%, as it was throughout 2011. wtf are we seriously arguing about whether or not obama was unpopular in 2011? he was very unpopular... Look Im still butthurt about Scott Walker but everyone in the WI Dem party fought like dogs to stop the end of collective bargaining rights for public employees in WI and everyone in the party fought like dogs to stop RTW.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:lol was obama supposed to drone scott walker or something? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA9KC8SMu3o
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:They can also tarnish the cause of workers and their struggle and convince them to vote for their opponent when their approval rating is sitting at 40-45%, as it was throughout 2011. This is a terrible argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
workers needed obama to stand in their court. he couldn't because his approval ratings were a little low
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:workers needed obama to stand in their court. he couldn't because his approval ratings were a little low The workers surely would have voted in their own direct self interest if only Obama had turned a contentious state contest into a national issue. Have you considered that there may be a reason why presidents traditionally don't intervene with regard to, say, state referenda? Well, of course you haven't. You are the stereotypical "vaguely leftish guy who doesn't know much and hates the Democrats," also known as a Green Party voter. It's OK, go ahead and feel the Stein.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Yeah getting increased support and attention nationally for a contentious issue that the right is already bandying about as a national issue is a bad thing. You fuckin dullard
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:uh, is this "billion lifted out of poverty" the same as that $1/day chart? Cause i've heard people say the current 1.90 limit describes extreme poverty, not just poverty. Here's an article with info from 2013: http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats it doesn't just "include" communist nations, they are the primary (some might say only) drivers of it http://cesr.org/article.php?id=918  http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:The workers surely would have voted in their own direct self interest if only Obama had turned a contentious state contest into a national issue. Have you considered that there may be a reason why presidents traditionally don't intervene with regard to, say, state referenda? so it's ok for obama to break his campaign promises if they're potentially politically inconvenient for him? i guess that'd explain why he hasn't bothered to stand with any of the other workers trying to unionize while not being embroiled in contentious state referenda.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Yeah getting increased support and attention nationally for a contentious issue that the right is already bandying about as a national issue is a bad thing. You fuckin dullard It's great if you win, it's a disaster if you lose. I wonder if the sort of thinking that leads you to say "I don't care if the play has negative expected value, let's roll them fuckin' dice!" could be at all related to the bankruptcy of the left in America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:They can also tarnish the cause of workers and their struggle and convince them to vote for their opponent when their approval rating is sitting at 40-45%, as it was throughout 2011. maybe obama would have been more popular if he did more to stand with the people anyway the union investment in the democratic party is a huge loving joke. remember the EFCA? remember Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's chief of staff? lmao. gee whiz why has the labor movement been in free fall for the last forty years and why has the democratic party failed to do anything to improve the situation for labor you can play the same game with women (lets talk about how great tim kaine is on abortion!) or race (democrats control almost all city governments but can't seem to stop police violence) etc
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
rahm emmanuel trying to cover that video up was loving disgusting
Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Condiv posted:rahm emmanuel trying to cover that video up was loving disgusting he's loving awful on labor relations, race relations, international relations, the list goes on. but hey his brother is on entourage or whatever and he was O's chief of staff. what a dreamboat! who says politicians cant be hip? *teachers go on strike yet again*
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:This is a terrible argument. No, it is not a terrible argument. If you're concerned about a particular policy outcome emanating from a particular party, the goal is to wrest control of power from that party. It's rather clear that President Obama couldn't do anything to help Wisconsin protesters. The more he would have gotten involved, the worse it would have ultimately been for the WI Democratic Party because, like I said, his approval ratings were miserable. More to the point, WI Democrats lost the recall election. Do you really think that Obama could have put a dent in Walker's rather substantial margin of victory in 2012? I don't think so. In all likelihood, it would have achieved nothing, likely harming Barrett.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:maybe obama would have been more popular if he did more to stand with the people i don't like rahmbo nor do i approve of how the democrats handled the efca. i still think that it's very stupid to forget that the democrats had a tenuous grasp on power in washington dc between 2009-2010. they could not break the fillibusters of republicans easily and, most assuredly, the irritating conservative democratic senators blocked the efca. the efca failed because of dumbfucks like ben nelson, not because of muh obame. "Although only 41 senators were Republicans, Senators Ben Nelson (Democrat of Nebraska) and Arlen Specter (Democrat of Pennsylvania) announced that they did not support the bill in March 2009.[19] In addition, Blanche Lincoln (Democratic senator for Arkansas) and Tom Carper (Democratic senator for Delaware) both stated in April that they would not vote for EFCA in its current form." see what i mean?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:No, it is not a terrible argument. Again, maybe if Obama had made good on his promise to side with workers on the picket line he would have had better approval ratings. Using approval ratings as a measure of what a President should and shouldn't support, is a terrible way to determine policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Again, maybe if Obama had made good on his promise to side with workers on the picket line he would have had better approval ratings. Using approval ratings as a measure of what a President should and shouldn't support, is a terrible way to determine policy. "If Obama did more things that align with my values, maybe he would have higher approval ratings." - some dude who is convinced that people who do good deeds are rewarded with good things by the cosmic universe, which is controlled by the one true god, carlos marx. Im sorry but "siding with workers on the picket line" wouldn't have done loving anything. It would have accomplished nothing. It'd be a photo-op opportunity, Walker's union busting would have remained in place and he still would have signed RTW. Here's how we could have prevented this from happening: defeating Scott Walker in 2012. Anything else would have been useless. I bet you like Jeremy Corbyn too! Politics is about outcomes, it's about opening your mouth and saying things that are morally right even if this achieves nothing! edit: if I could go back in time, I'd tell Obama to be more active in Wisconsin if he'd listen to me just to see what would happen. It'd be interesting to have a counter-factual; maybe it would work. At the time, most people who followed these things closely understood that it wouldn't have much of an effect, it might even be harmful. Maybe these people are wrong; maybe I am wrong. TheDeadFlagBlues fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:I bet you like Jeremy Corbyn too! Yes. This really goes back to the conversation I had with Typo a page or two ago, where he basically admitted that Democrats shouldn't bother trying to educate the populace about the safety of nuclear energy because it's too hard. You're never going to get anywhere if you're too cowardly to engage in political struggle for the sake of your ideals, and a sitting president who does nothing to side with the labor movement hurts it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yes. first off, nuclear energy is a total non-starter and waste of time, come on bruh. secondly, where tf is your evidence to support that claim? where is your counter-factual? my argument is that, in that instance, there was nothing that president obama could do to make any sort of difference. there were liabilities and benefits attached to every decision tree; all of them look rather bad so he opted to sit out. that seems reasonable to me. anyways, this discussion was about democrats and the wisconsin democratic party made a valiant effort to defeat scott walker. maybe obama is dogshit but your argument for why he is dogshit fundmentally runs against the grain of past arguments. if he's only dogshit insofar as he failed to help the wisconsin democratic party, this implies that he's dogshit because he's not enough of a democrat. TheDeadFlagBlues fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:I am wrong 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 19:40
|
|
