|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:"This thing is racist because I've decided it is" - Kilroy, 2017
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:How about y'all motherfuckers actually engage with his argument instead of trying to find who owns a plantation or a chinese sweatshop? Suppose we close down all sweatshops tomorrow. Now what? His "argument", such as it is, rests on the false assumption that improving worker's rights will necessarily translate to said workers losing their jobs. He uses this false assumption to shill for sweatshops. Hence there's nothing to engage with, and you're defending a modern day slavery apologist because you think that you two are somehow on the same team, hth.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
why do new democrats think exploiting the third world is charity now? multinationals that use sweatshops aren't uplifting poo poo. in fact, they and their sympathizers frequently act to keep workers from advancing their labor rights. sweatshops are not charity. they are exploitation. please stop trying to pretend that multinationals are at all moral or helpful, thanks actual charity was used on the new dem's fake charities posted:“The irony is, earthquake relief funds were used to create new sweatshops,” says Scott Nova, Worker Rights Consortium’s executive director. quote:“I had a child who didn’t have a father, and I didn’t have any family or anyone who could help me. I was starving, I couldn’t eat or sleep, and my child was hungry and crying all the time. When I asked a man for a job [in the factory], he said, ‘Okay, but you have to have sex with me.’ I told him, ‘If I was looking for sex, I wouldn’t be talking to you about this job.’ quote:“The person who got me the job at the factory told me to have sex with him. Each time he wanted it, I was supposed to go along with it. I resigned myself to it, because I had to save the lives of my two children. I got pregnant, but I still worked every day, every day. He didn’t fire me because I never refused to give him what he demanded. https://otherworldsarepossible.org/action-alert-call-congress-stop-peanut-dumping-haiti-u-s-department-agriculture quote:Please join the Haitian diaspora in demanding action against this initiative: As part of its “Stocks for Food” program, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) plans to ship 500 metric tons of peanuts to Haitian schools, which could destroy Haiti’s peanut market and the livelihood and income of 150,000 peanut farmers and their families. This is the latest in a long history of U.S.-sponsored programs which have destabilized Haiti’s agricultural sector, further impoverishing the nation and increasing its dependence on foreign aid. President Clinton had to apologize for one such misguided program in the 1990’s. ^- new democrats probably think that destruction of domestic businesses in the third world is accidental, and not intentional impoverishment to the benefit of multinational megacorps Condiv fucked around with this message at 11:41 on May 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, the problem is that the Democrats are Capitalist and that's just the way it is. I used to scoff at the idea that both parties are the same, but both parties at their core support a system that requires the exploitation and dehumanization of the vast majority of the human race. What differences that do exist in the parties spring from the narratives they've spun around it in order to justify it. In some ways the Republicans are more respectable this regard because their philosophy boils down to exploitation is good because gently caress you directly while the Democrats spin elaborate think pieces explaining how sweat shops where women are raped on a daily basis are feminist and microloans used to steal what little the destitute have left are empowering.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, the problem is that the Democrats are Capitalist and that's just the way it is. I used to scoff at the idea that both parties are the same, but both parties at their core support a system that requires the exploitation and dehumanization of the vast majority of the human race. What differences that do exist in the parties spring from the narratives they've spun around it in order to justify it. In some ways the Republicans are more respectable this regard because their philosophy boils down to exploitation is good because gently caress you directly while the Democrats spin elaborate think pieces explaining how sweat shops where women are raped on a daily basis are feminist and microloans used to steal what little the destitute have left are empowering. The Democrats are harder to grasp because a portion of liberalism is certain respect for human rights, so it is far more difficult to understand how to balance that with their economic philosophy which is exploitative. Republicans obviously don't give a poo poo about much, for them against anything that gets in their way while Democrats try to dance around the subject. The Republicans are certainly more openly sexist, racist and homophobic, but in the end they are honest about their hatred while it is hard not to see the Democrats and many of their backers as two-faced. I think a better world is possible and that the status quo is not working for humanity. We have reached the end of our tether as far as globalization goes, and we are skirting the edge of a much more desperate world. The problem is it is going to require both courage and leadership and something that barely exists in our political systems these days (even among the left-wing).
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Ah yes it's a real mystery why people still favor capitalism, can't they see the glories of socialism?? No?? Then they need to come down to Venezuela, it's a fuckin' workers paradise down here!! Or heck if you don't want to go that far there's other places with working socialism. Why you could go to ummm ... umm. Well if you had a time machine you could go back to ... hmmmm. Well I'm sure it just hasn't worked ever because capitalists are big meanies!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Like if you ignore or can't tell the differences between the nordic model capitalism and late 1800/early 1900 robber baron capitalism that's just you being intellectually vacuous.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Ah yes it's a real mystery why people still favor capitalism, can't they see the glories of socialism?? No?? Then they need to come down to Venezuela, it's a fuckin' workers paradise down here!! Or heck if you don't want to go that far there's other places with working socialism. Why you could go to ummm ... umm. Well if you had a time machine you could go back to ... hmmmm. Well I'm sure it just hasn't worked ever because capitalists are big meanies! Sweatshops, indentured servitude, and sexual abuse of women in the workplace are all vital parts of capitalism? Wow! I thought capitalism was supposed to be good, but if it requires slavery to function maybe it's bad?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Like if you ignore or can't tell the differences between the nordic model capitalism and late 1800/early 1900 robber baron capitalism that's just you being intellectually vacuous. You seem to be the only one unable to tell the difference, cause you're the one claiming people wanting sweatshops to go away want full socialism now
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Hey guys check out those liberal jacobin failures. Haha, and some idiots wonder why absolute monarchy is the most popular system; I mean, when will those idealistic democratic equalitarians learn that authoritarian divine right simply is part of human nature?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
This is going to blow some people's minds but any system of government can work or fail depending on who's running it. So yes, you're going to have some capitalist success stories as well as some socialist hellholes even if socialism is objectively better.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Like if you ignore or can't tell the differences between the nordic model capitalism and late 1800/early 1900 robber baron capitalism that's just you being intellectually vacuous. Nordic model capitalism still requires vast amounts of exploitation to work it is just shifted to the global periphery where no one cares about it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:intellectually vacuous. dont sign your posts
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
It's a little creepy the attitude saying that people concerned with economic leftism are racist are being trotted out again to explain why sweat shops in foreign countries being run to benefit billionaires in first world nations are in fact a good thing and being against that exploitation is again the Real Racism.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:40 on May 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
You see first we need to ensure that the poor minorities are as well off in society as the poor whites. Maybe then we can attempt to address the issues of why there are poor in the first place
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
flashman posted:You see first we need to ensure that the poor minorities are as well off in society as the poor whites. Maybe then we can attempt to address the issues of why there are poor in the first place That seems kinda dumb, you're trying to fix a part of the system, when the system itself is already rotten, might as well just start from the beginning and with any luck your specific problem might have been resolved already.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Arguments about pragmatism are so much more interesting than ones about moral correctness. img-Graph_of_Declining_Number_of_Democrats_in_Power
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
this thread: I can't believe Nancy Pelosi said that the Democrats are capitalists also this thread: the interests of American workers are inexorably opposed to that of foreign workers such that the latter should be removed - albeit humanely - because they harm the former
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:this thread: I can't believe Nancy Pelosi said that the Democrats are capitalists new democrats: the interests of american workers are unimportant, and foreign workers should be imported and deported extremely inhumanely in order to benefit the wealthy
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
I never thought I would see actual democrats supporting the current treatment of migrants as subhumans with no rights.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Condiv posted:new democrats: the interests of american workers are unimportant, and foreign workers should be imported and deported extremely inhumanely in order to benefit the wealthy Some men, faint-hearted, ever seek Our programme to retouch, And will insist, whene’er they speak That we demand too much. ’Tis passing strange, yet I declare Such statements give me mirth, For our demands most moderate are, We only want the earth. “Be moderate,” the trimmers cry, Who dread the tyrants’ thunder. “You ask too much and people By From you aghast in wonder.” ’Tis passing strange, for I declare Such statements give me mirth, For our demands most moderate are, We only want the earth. Our masters all a godly crew, Whose hearts throb for the poor, Their sympathies assure us, too, If our demands were fewer. Most generous souls! But please observe, What they enjoy from birth Is all we ever had the nerve To ask, that is, the earth. The “labour fakir” full of guile, Base doctrine ever preaches, And whilst he bleeds the rank and file Tame moderation teaches. Yet, in despite, we’ll see the day When, with sword in its girth, Labour shall march in war array To realize its own, the earth. For labour long, with sighs and tears, To its oppressors knelt. But never yet, to aught save fears, Did the heart of tyrant melt. We need not kneel, our cause no dearth Of loyal soldiers’ needs And our victorious rallying cry Shall be we want the earth!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The Democrats are harder to grasp because a portion of liberalism is certain respect for human rights, so it is far more difficult to understand how to balance that with their economic philosophy which is exploitative. Republicans obviously don't give a poo poo about much, for them against anything that gets in their way while Democrats try to dance around the subject. The Republicans are certainly more openly sexist, racist and homophobic, but in the end they are honest about their hatred while it is hard not to see the Democrats and many of their backers as two-faced. I think what's the most demoralizing IS that our problems are all solvable. The system is savable. In order to address climate change and our failing infrastructure, we need a project on a scale that makes the New Deal look like a loving barn raising. We need to go 100% renewable yesterday. Wind, solar, geo thermal, whatever it takes. I guess it's a good thing that we have a massive chunk of the population that is either detached from the work force or marginally attached in service work that is largely meaningless that we could pay a living wage to throw at getting all this poo poo built. We also need to address that as our Spring's get wetter and our Summers get longer and hotter, the carrying capacity of our current farming method's are going to fall off a cliff which means retooling our methods and crops so that they are more resistant to that and genetically modify if need be. If we fix the problem that the system is not sustainable and increasing swaths of the population have no stake in it, then the problem of people turning towards fascism to burn it all down goes away. I know it's a bizarre concept but you can generate wealth by growing the economy instead of drilling new holes to gently caress people in. Our problems are solvable, they just require spending money. A lot of it. Money that will be worthless if it all burns down.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:His "argument", such as it is, rests on the false assumption that improving worker's rights will necessarily translate to said workers losing their jobs. He uses this false assumption to shill for sweatshops. Hence there's nothing to engage with, and you're defending a modern day slavery apologist because you think that you two are somehow on the same team, hth. No that is not his argument. His argument is that even if you were to remove sweatshops, if you do not have proper worker protections in place, we're just gonna have sweatshop-esque facilities pop up right afterwards. And since people still need money and capital, they'll continue to be exploited. That was what happened with sharecropping and that's what will happen with sweatshops.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:No that is not his argument. His argument is that even if you were to remove sweatshops, if you do not have proper worker protections in place, we're just gonna have sweatshop-esque facilities pop up right afterwards. And since people still need money and capital, they'll continue to be exploited. That was what happened with sharecropping and that's what will happen with sweatshops. "it won't fix anything, so might as well not bother. not that we actually bothered to try"
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:No that is not his argument. His argument is that even if you were to remove sweatshops, if you do not have proper worker protections in place, we're just gonna have sweatshop-esque facilities pop up right afterwards. And since people still need money and capital, they'll continue to be exploited. That was what happened with sharecropping and that's what will happen with sweatshops. Sounds like we need trade deals that require participating countries guarantee a minimum level of work place protections and the right to unionize instead of ones that push worker's rights down to one notch above chattel slavery.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
The whole point of these trade deals is to outsource your race to the bottom to a place where your citizens don't care about.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Sounds like we need trade deals that require participating countries guarantee a minimum level of work place protections and the right to unionize instead of ones that push worker's rights down to one notch above chattel slavery. Exactly. That's JC's point as well which everyone is trying very, very hard to miss.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
WHAT DO WE WANT A pretty solid sense of what is incrementally possible under current conditions WHEN DO WE WANT IT Whenever it is reasonably practical for that assessment to be made
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Exactly. That's JC's point as well which everyone is trying very, very hard to miss. he's also arguing that we continue the current system until such time as we update trade treaties to help workers. which is immoral cause sweatshops don't help workers at all, but prop up a system of exploitation. a system that will do everything it can to fight against updating these treaties to force labor protections for third world workers. his argument helps maintain the status quo indefinitely Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:52 on May 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Exactly. That's JC's point as well which everyone is trying very, very hard to miss. lol yeah I'm sure he supports reforming trade deals to add more labor protections for the developing world 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Exactly. That's JC's point as well which everyone is trying very, very hard to miss. Except whenever we argue for these things he suddenly will switch to how we can't do that because forcing workplace protections on 3rd world countries will make iPhones too expensive.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Exactly. That's JC's point as well which everyone is trying very, very hard to miss. If he's not going to argue in good faith then why should anyone else? gently caress him.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The Democrats are harder to grasp because a portion of liberalism is certain respect for human rights, so it is far more difficult to understand how to balance that with their economic philosophy which is exploitative. Republicans obviously don't give a poo poo about much, for them against anything that gets in their way while Democrats try to dance around the subject. The Republicans are certainly more openly sexist, racist and homophobic, but in the end they are honest about their hatred while it is hard not to see the Democrats and many of their backers as two-faced. Kilroy posted:
This. JC only care about his cheap clothes and cheap fruit. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 19:45 on May 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
White Rock posted:While working in a sweatshop is better than tiling the fields, This isn't necessarily true. Working in a factory can be better than tilling the fields, depending on the specific fields and the specific factory you're talking about, but it often isn't. There's a reason why, in order to fill up the factories in the first place, the people with power had to literally kick workers out of their homes and off their farms - giving them the choice between working in factories and starvation. And sweatshops are a particularly nasty subset of factories, so it's even less likely to be true in this case.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:No that is not his argument. His argument is that even if you were to remove sweatshops, if you do not have proper worker protections in place, we're just gonna have sweatshop-esque facilities pop up right afterwards. And since people still need money and capital, they'll continue to be exploited. That was what happened with sharecropping and that's what will happen with sweatshops. Actually my argument is that narratives where sweatshops are closed and the jobs come back to the US must imply unemployment for the former sweatshop workers, which makes them worse off. Those narratives are very similar to the narrative we've seen in this thread, where strict enforcement of bans on hiring undocumented labor will result in those jobs being available for US citizens, as well as the voluntary self-deportation of the undocumented workers. Those undocumented workers won't be better off if they're forced into unemployment, which will force them to return to their home country. Exploitative work is better than no work at all. The only way to help people who are exploited is to get them better work. Eliminating the exploitative work isn't sufficient.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Actually my argument is that narratives where sweatshops are closed and the jobs come back to the US must imply unemployment for the former sweatshop workers, which makes them worse off. Those narratives are very similar to the narrative we've seen in this thread, where strict enforcement of bans on hiring undocumented labor will result in those jobs being available for US citizens, as well as the voluntary self-deportation of the undocumented workers. Those undocumented workers won't be better off if they're forced into unemployment, which will force them to return to their home country. Exploitative work is better than no work at all. The only way to help people who are exploited is to get them better work. Eliminating the exploitative work isn't sufficient. The bold neoliberal narrative to face the future: "Debt Slavery Beats Starving." Man, how did the Dem establishment ever lose the confidence of the working class, real loving poser.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Actually my argument is that narratives where sweatshops are closed and the jobs come back to the US must imply unemployment for the former sweatshop workers, which makes them worse off.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
quote:Notice also how many of Trump’s unacceptable-to-the-pundits comments have focused with laser precision on the issue of immigration. That’s a well-chosen opening wedge, as cutting off illegal immigration is something that the GOP has claimed to support for a while now. As Trump broadens his lead, in turn, he’s started to talk about the other side of the equation—the offshoring of jobs—as his recent jab at Apple’s overseas sweatshops shows. The mainstream media’s response to that jab does a fine job of proving the case argued above: “If smartphones were made in the US, we’d have to pay more for them!” And of course that’s true: the salary class will have to pay more for its toys if the wage class is going to have decent jobs that pay enough to support a family. That this is unthinkable for so many people in the salary class—that they’re perfectly happy allowing their electronics to be made for starvation wages in an assortment of overseas hellholes, so long as this keeps the price down—may help explain the boiling cauldron of resentment into which Trump is so efficiently tapping. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/01/donald-trump-and-politics-of-resentment.html
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Actually my argument is that narratives where sweatshops are closed and the jobs come back to the US must imply unemployment for the former sweatshop workers, which makes them worse off. Those narratives are very similar to the narrative we've seen in this thread, where strict enforcement of bans on hiring undocumented labor will result in those jobs being available for US citizens, as well as the voluntary self-deportation of the undocumented workers. Those undocumented workers won't be better off if they're forced into unemployment, which will force them to return to their home country. Exploitative work is better than no work at all. The only way to help people who are exploited is to get them better work. Eliminating the exploitative work isn't sufficient. How much better should the work be for these exploited people, would you say? How improved should these jobs be?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Like if you ignore or can't tell the differences between the nordic model capitalism and late 1800/early 1900 robber baron capitalism that's just you being intellectually vacuous. Psssst - the Nordic model is what most of us are advocating here, at least as a stopgap. It's certainly what Bernie Sanders has advocated. 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 22:27
|
|
