|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:first off, nuclear energy is a total non-starter and waste of time, come on bruh. Again, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Liberal politics are a dearth of imagination, driven by political cowardice. The public's position on nuclear energy isn't going to change if you make no effort to change it, of course. quote: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. It's not like Obama is dogshit because he's a "bad democrat," he's dogshit because he's not willing to support the political left. Like, when he didn't show any support for labor during the Scott Walker recall.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
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. I like how the Democratic party suddenly becomes more than capable of fixing the problems of capitalism, when they conveniently choose not to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:I bet you like Jeremy Corbyn too!  TheDeadFlagBlues posted:How the gently caress could any self-professed socialist oppose the party that is almost uniformly supported by unions
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I like how the Democratic party suddenly becomes more than capable of fixing the problems of capitalism, when they conveniently choose not to. Yes, the Democratic party isn't interested in fixing the problems of capitalism. Thanks for summing up the last couple pages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yes, the Democratic party isn't interested in fixing the problems of capitalism. Thanks for summing up the last couple pages. Wow Bernie's got a lot of em fooled. Maybe the disconnect here is you define the problems of capitalism as private ownership of capital and democrats define the problems of capitalism as environmental destruction, poverty and inequality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Wow Bernie's got a lot of em fooled. And Democrats aren't willing to adequately address those issues, either. That's what we've been talking about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:And Democrats aren't willing to adequately address those issues, either. That's what we've been talking about. Yes but you define "adequately" as seizing the means of production.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes but you define "adequately" as seizing the means of production. We've been explaining to you, multiple times, that democrats aren't capable of creating the necessary regulatory environment to correct these problems - and your response is to just say what we think the solution should be. If people control the means of production, then they can choose the direction of the economy onto a corrective path, which liberal democracy can't do. The Democratic party is a party of the bourgeoisie. At some point you have to be able to put 2 and 2 together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes but you define "adequately" as seizing the means of production. Democrats are saints, and if only we didn't have a GOP they would just create a utopia, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:We've been explaining to you, multiple times, that democrats aren't capable of creating the necessary regulatory environment to correct these problems - and your response is to just say what we think the solution should be.= JeffersonClay posted:Maybe the disconnect here is you define the problems of capitalism as private ownership of capital and democrats define the problems of capitalism as environmental destruction, poverty and inequality. So I was right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So I was right. Private Ownership isn't the 'problem' it's the cause.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Deimus posted:Democrats are saints, and if only we didn't have a GOP they would just create a utopia, I guess? Sounds like an empirical question that might get answered in the next few years. Oh wait Marxstradamus figured this out 160 years ago nm Deimus posted:Private Ownership isn't the 'problem' it's the cause. So all yall's whining about Obama is beside the point, because the democrats cannot change the nature of the system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Sounds like an empirical question that might get answered in the next few years. what
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Deimus posted:what Turn on your TV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So I was right. The reason Democrats can't correct those problems, is because those problems are being created by private ownership of the means of production. It's the profit motive which creates an incentive to cause environmental devastation, poverty, and economic & social inequality, and the Democratic party serves the interests of the bourgeois class which profits from this system. What's happening here, is that you can't comprehend why anybody would support the PSL instead of the Democrats despite every single reason we've spelled out for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
No, I understand that you've internalized Marxist axioms about government. I'm not trying to cure you of them, I'm trying to stop the infection from spreading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, I understand that you've internalized Marxist axioms about government. I'm not trying to cure you of them, I'm trying to stop the infection from spreading. You're doing a pretty poo poo job of it, because you're basically conceding every point about the Democrats not being capable of correcting the problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
You're not doing a good job. Out of everything on the whole planet to put all your faith into, you chose something as lame as the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:You're doing a pretty poo poo job of it, because you're basically conceding every point about the Democrats not being capable of correcting the problems. Oh am I? JeffersonClay posted:Sounds like an empirical question that might get answered in the next few years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Oh am I? Yes. You're not addressing any of our points, you just keep falling back on these indignant & huffy "well I never" responses. This isn't an argument, you're just sort of crossing your arms and pouting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Oh am I? We're saying Neoliberals are going to impliment neoliberal policies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:You're doing a pretty poo poo job of it, because you're basically conceding every point about the Democrats not being capable of correcting the problems. The population doesn't want them too. If it did they'd have too. Like how the republicans didn't want trump but the voters did and the voters won (and got help us).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The reason Democrats can't correct those problems, is because those problems are being created by private ownership of the means of production. It's the profit motive which creates an incentive to cause environmental devastation, poverty, and economic & social inequality, and the Democratic party serves the interests of the bourgeois class which profits from this system. Emphasis mine. Why would anyone support a gadfly party within a bourgeois liberal democracy? Seems like a pointless distraction. Is it supposed to form the nucleus of a future vanguard, or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Again, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Liberal politics are a dearth of imagination, driven by political cowardice. The public's position on nuclear energy isn't going to change if you make no effort to change it, of course. No, the issue here is that nuclear power is stupid when the cost curve for wind/solar is plummeting; why bother making investments that require a metric gently caress-ton of fixed costs and that also produce radioactive waste when we can push forward on wind/solar and also energy conservation? It's rather wild that you think liberal politics surrounding nuclear energy are emblematic of anything besides pragmatism. Is nuclear energy intrinsically valuable? No, of course not; it's one tool among many to decrease carbon emissions. It does not particularly matter whether we promote solar or wind or whether we promote nuclear energy; how we decide to go about reducing carbon emissions ought to be a function of the efficiency of each policy choice, whether or not each policy choice is just and also whether or not each policy choice is plausible. Nuclear energy violates the latter criterion; wind/solar violate none of these criteria. So you concede that the Democrats are the political left in this country then? Because, the last time I checked, it was the Wisconsin Democratic Party that spearheaded the recall effort and that made every possible attempt to thwart Scotty's agenda.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Um, just so we're clear, I support Labour and I'd vote for them in any circumstance if I was British. I also think that Corbyn is a pest and a dumbass. I agree with most of his policy views; I think that his mentality towards governance is wrong-headed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yes. You're not addressing any of our points, you just keep falling back on these indignant & huffy "well I never" responses. This isn't an argument, you're just sort of crossing your arms and pouting. Your point: democrats cannot solve the problems of capitalism because they haven't so far. My response: sometimes things change; the Republican Party is dying in front of our eyes. We might get to test your assertions that democrats won't solve these problems even if they have the power very soon. Your point: the nature of capitalism as analyzed by Marx tells us that no political party can address the problems of capitalism. My response: marxtrodamus isn't a good authority on contemporary political behavior. Deimus posted:We're saying Neoliberals are going to impliment neoliberal policies. You are refusing to engage with the actual platform of the Democratic Party and justify that stance by appealing to a centuries old conspiracy theory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:Um, just so we're clear, I support Labour and I'd vote for them in any circumstance if I was British. I also think that Corbyn is a pest and a dumbass. I agree with most of his policy views; I think that his mentality towards governance is wrong-headed. thanks for clearing that up TheDeadFlagBlues
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The reason Democrats can't correct those problems, is because those problems are being created by private ownership of the means of production. It's the profit motive which creates an incentive to cause environmental devastation, poverty, and economic & social inequality, and the Democratic party serves the interests of the bourgeois class which profits from this system. "The PSL's primary objective is to form a revolutionary workers' party based in Marxism–Leninism." I can't comprehend why anybody would support a party that's "based in Marxist-Leninism", which is a cult that poses as a pseudo-science that poses as an actual science. No, the profit motive does not cause environmental devastation, poverty and economic/social inequality. Only a fuckstick would believe this. In the 13th Century, there was no profit-motive and poverty was all-encompassing, inequality was intractable and deforestation was sweeping Europe. Even Marx would not argue that capitalism is solely responsible for these problems; he'd argue that there's a teology from feudalism to capitalism to socialism and that bourgeois capitalism is preferable to feudalism because it gets us closer to socialism. I don't share Marx's view; I think it's quite clear that "command economies" without the profit motive are just as disposed to poverty, environmental devastation and economic/social inequality as market economies. I doubt that Marx would hold this view if he were still alive! He died nearly 150 years ago! edit: no wait, this whole time this was a thread for the actual PSL. God drat it, I thought it was a general thread for socialists! My b folks, my b. If I would have known that this was a place for ML people to congregate, I would have avoided it like the plague tbh. I'll let you guys have your safe space. TheDeadFlagBlues fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
dont let the door hit you where the good chairman split u
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
electing democrats sure has done a great job curbing police brutality and the racist carceral state lmao. let one thousand marilyn mosbys bloom
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:edit: no wait, this whole time this was a thread for the actual PSL. if the democratic party is so good how come you can't read
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
We don't have devil horns, or weird mixed up fundamentalist genetics or something dude..
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
We aren't even making arguments that are particular to Marxist dialectics, they're pretty general positions that socialists hold in common. Yet The DeadFlagBlues is a self-identifying "socialist" who thinks British Labour made a mistake electing an actual socialist, so what the gently caress ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:Um, just so we're clear, I support Labour and I'd vote for them in any circumstance if I was British. I also think that Corbyn is a pest and a dumbass. I agree with most of his policy views; I think that his mentality towards governance is wrong-headed. "socialist" concern trolling. kick rear end
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Bryter posted:if the democratic party is so good how come you can't read okay my last post: i forgot about the existence of this socialist sect so i read the thread title as "party for socialism and liberation 2016" as "a party for socialism and liberation in 2016" if that makes sense. to explain better, by that i mean that i interpreted the thread title as "celebrate socialism and liberation in 2016 with pbr and some edibles homie". my bad folks, i'll leave you be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Emphasis mine. Why would anyone support a gadfly party within a bourgeois liberal democracy? Seems like a pointless distraction. Is it supposed to form the nucleus of a future vanguard, or what? Yeah. The point of supporting a revolutionary socialist party is to create the conditions for a socialist revolution. If you don't think it's necessary to have a revolution to overthrow the bourgeois dictatorship, then of course it's pointless to support anything other than mainstream bourgeois parties. JeffersonClay posted:Your point: democrats cannot solve the problems of capitalism because they haven't so far. The actual platform of the Democratic Party isn't sufficient, and it's only as left-leaning as it is because of intervention by a leftist insurgency which Democratic leadership fought against tooth and nail. The most common refrain from the neoliberals who maintain control of the levers of power, is also "the platform doesn't matter." If the Democrats don't take action to actually implement their platform, then of course it doesn't matter. We already had a situation where Democrats had significant majorities in Congress, and held the presidency - yet no real progressive agenda was pushed through because too many right-wing Democrats resisted it. The best we got out of the Obama administration was the ACA, which doesn't come even close to addressing the healthcare needs of our society. When people tried to campaign for a better system to replace the ACA, the refrain from establishment Democrats was that it wasn't "realistic" and that we shouldn't even try. Leftists are accused ITT of not being interested in "progress" when it's the Democratic liberal establishment that resists significant progress at every goddamn turn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
you and the guy who thinks marxism stopped when karl died are made for each other (to dead flag man)TheDeadFlagBlues posted:No, the profit motive does not cause environmental devastation, poverty and economic/social inequality. Only a fuckstick would believe this. That's Some Good rear end Praxis, Socialist Homie!!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yeah. The point of supporting a revolutionary socialist party is to create the conditions for a socialist revolution. If you don't think it's necessary to have a revolution to overthrow the bourgeois dictatorship, then of course it's pointless to support anything other than mainstream bourgeois parties. A few follow-up questions. Why are there so many tiny American socialist parties? Why can't they all just come together behind a minimal "eat the rich" platform? Did SA socialists decide on the PSL at random? Which of the parties is it safe to say are actually secretly counterrevolutionary and in likely correspondence with fascist Germany and Japan?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:A few follow-up questions. Why are there so many tiny American socialist parties? Why can't they all just come together behind a minimal "eat the rich" platform? Did SA socialists decide on the PSL at random? Which of the parties is it safe to say are actually secretly counterrevolutionary and in likely correspondence with fascist Germany and Japan? There's a lot of little bitty socialist parties because a lot of them were driven by ego, like Bob Avakian's followers. Some of them were old left wing parties that used to be effective in their heyday, but couldn't survive the fall of the Soviet Union or got infiltrated by the government and torn apart. Speaking personally, the reason I support the PSL is because they don't reject Lenin from their analysis of capitalism - since Lenin's theorizing on imperialism is still relevant today in order to understand how global capitalism functions. Also, rather than being held up on Lenin they've moved on their analysis to dealing with the crisis of the 21st century, and they have a platform that I feel can address it. Basically, a lot of left wing parties are goofy cults or compromised, but the PSL is serious and they're nominating serious people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Well the left is kinda really diverse. It's not just the US, it's like that everywhere..
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:53
|
|