|
Seph posted:It seems kind of absurd to me to insinuate a country with free universal healthcare, free higher education, subsidized child care, free long-term elder care, subsidized public transit, and a top tax rate of 56% is right wing. It's about as left as you can get without going full communism. Not one thing you listed is "left" unless the workers own and control the means of production. The state doing a thing is not socialism no matter how much conservative propaganda you have consumed.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
AlternateNu posted:The one thing I've realized over the last 20 years of adulthood is that regardless of the system, people will game it for power and eventually mold it into something that only benefits the entrenched and the only thing you can really do is constantly push back against that force hoping to minimize the damage. The label is pretty much meaningless. There's truth to this, but we can design better systems, or we can remain trapped in worse ones. Anyone who's spent the past twenty years playing video games online knows that better design *is* possible, even if seldom implemented.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
Star Man posted:A lot of goons and "no war but class war" types think socialist policies or communism is a magic spell to cure all problems rooted in patriarchy and racism. Discrimination has economic and health effects - LGBT people are poorer than cis straight people, women get paid less than men, black people are poorer with worse health outcomes, poor immigrant communities are disproportionately affected by pollution, etc, etc. This results in cycles of poverty and entrenched discrimination. Economic levelling helps these disadvanted groups especially. At the same time, fixing the horrors of our economic system is impossible if you ignore discrimination (especially because it is a tool to separate the working class). Any good leftist needs to advocate for economic justice and simultaneously fight against any other forms of inequality, including ones that may seem not primarily economic on their surface. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Jun 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
karthun posted:Not one thing you listed is "left" unless the workers own and control the means of production. Then you are working with a different definition of "left" than most people discussing American politics, and should probably be clear about that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Seph posted:But it objectively has one of the strongest welfare systems in the world and still sets its retirement age for its pension to 67 years old. Framing Social Security's retirement age as some sort of outlier is simply disingenuous. This was my post: Willa Rogers posted:How many other countries force people to work till ages 67-70 in order to get a barely livable government pension? There was nothing "disingenuous" about it & I didn't "frame it as some sort of outlier." Please don't assume bad faith on my part for asking a genuine question. GJB's link shows that around a half-dozen European countries set retirement age at 67--and none at age 70 for maximum benefits, as the U.S. does (although they might be an error of omission). I was surprised at how many European countries did have ages older than 65, fwiw, but I've also watched as Europe has become more neoliberal over time, as has the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
karthun posted:Not one thing you listed is "left" unless the workers own and control the means of production. The state doing a thing is not socialism no matter how much conservative propaganda you have consumed. You are describing the left wing of the political spectrum, i.e. the furthest point to the left. That does not mean that something to the right of full blown socialism is right wing. It's a spectrum, not a binary classification.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
It's also not a linear spectrum. Many aspects of American liberalism are completely at odds with leftism, such as the primacy of the market for determining economic outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:It's also not a linear spectrum. Many aspects of American liberalism are completely at odds with leftism, such as the primacy of the market for determining economic outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Which is a good illustration of why the American peculiarity of using "liberalism" as a near-synonym for "leftism" is very confusing. It's the other way around; Americans use "leftism" as a near-synonym for "liberalism," because everything to the left of the Clintons spent roughly three generations not just out of political power, but so far out of power that they were effectively shut out of the national political discussion completely (counting from, say, the initiation of the Hollywood black list in 1947 to Bernie's candidacy in 2016). There hasn't been a "left" in America, in the sense that Europeans or maybe academic writers mean by "leftist", in a statistically significant sense, for a long long long time. Americans hear the word "left", what they hear you say is "Clintons, maybe Al Gore." For most americans anything that fit a more traditional definition of "leftism" isn't even on the political spectrum, it's just "commie bullshit." Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Jun 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Seph posted:It seems kind of absurd to me to insinuate a country with free universal healthcare, free higher education, subsidized child care, free long-term elder care, subsidized public transit, and a top tax rate of 56% is right wing. It's about as left as you can get without going full communism. Perhaps the real problem here is that we're trying to boil the politics of entire countries, with hundreds of issues they all have their own stances on along with their own unique historical contexts and legacies, down to a single national position on a single binary left/right spectrum. It's an absolutely ridiculous analysis, being done on the service of a rather hamfisted narrative. I AM GRANDO posted:Socialized medicine is probably the single most effective step the American government could take to make society more equitable, both in terms of racism and women’s health issues. This is probably a contributing factor as to why it’s unpopular with conservative voters who would massively benefit from it. That's a pretty specific claim. Do you have any hard data backing it up? There's certainly wealth disparities between groups that contribute to inequities in outcomes, but there's also an absolute fuckin of real deal direct discrimination. If you've got numbers comparing the impacts of those two things and coming up with a conclusive result, I'd love to see them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
Seph posted:It seems kind of absurd to me to insinuate a country with free universal healthcare, free higher education, subsidized child care, free long-term elder care, subsidized public transit, and a top tax rate of 56% is right wing. It's about as left as you can get without going full communism. TBH a top tax rate of 56% isn’t much. We were solidly above that pre-Reagan for quite a while. Hopefully we can get back there and get some of those other things that we don’t already have as well. Also, you should probably realize that those things aren’t great indicators of what economic structure that a country is “closest” to Kalit fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jun 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:It's also not a linear spectrum. Many aspects of American liberalism are completely at odds with leftism, such as the primacy of the market for determining economic outcomes. American liberalism would be a lot better if it did primarily rely on the market for economic outcomes and not the whims of oligarchy. The problem with capitalism isn't the market; market isn't even *in* the word, the problem is capital.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Socialized medicine is probably the single most effective step the American government could take to make society more equitable, both in terms of racism and women’s health issues. This is probably a contributing factor as to why it’s unpopular with conservative voters who would massively benefit from it. Socialized medicine would not in and of itself undo the centuries of racist medicine training and philosophies that persist in medicine today and lead to worse outcomes for black people even controlling for socioeconomic status. Serena Williams might have died in child birth if she didn't have a white husband advocating for her. I am a firm believer in communism and the benefits that a communist or even socialist society would bring, and it could do a lot to help reduce equity across the board. I will even grant that there are racist aspects of society that would be eliminated via socialism alone. But there are still racist structures built into society that have very little to do with capitalism and are instead rooted in, uh, racism that has persisted for as long as humans have found ways to other one another. And those still need to be dealt with alongside the economic conditions. I am very sus of leftists who are highly dismissive of IDpol as a whole. However I do agree with folks who think that IDpol is frequently used as a wedge to prevent change to the status quo. "You can have a few black female CEOs and politicians, as a treat" isn't going a whole lot on its own.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Perhaps the real problem here is that we're trying to boil the politics of entire countries, with hundreds of issues they all have their own stances on along with their own unique historical contexts and legacies, down to a single national position on a single binary left/right spectrum. Kalit posted:TBH a top tax rate of 56% isn’t much. We were solidly above that pre-Reagan for quite a while. Hopefully we can get back there and get some of those other things that we don’t already have as well. The entire point of my comment was to point out that Denmark, a country with incredibly robust social welfare system, has a retirement age of 67. There was a bit of derail when one poster insinuated that it's actually a right wing country, which I hope everyone can agree is absurd on its face. At no point was I making an argument that Denmark is a perfect leftist country, nor that it has leftist policies on every single subject. It's possible to be one of the most left countries in the world and still not have a socialist or communist economic structure. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Perhaps the real problem here is that we're trying to boil the politics of entire countries, with hundreds of issues they all have their own stances on along with their own unique historical contexts and legacies, down to a single national position on a single binary left/right spectrum. I'm not really sure how we define "single must effective step" in equality here in a way that will produce meaningful numbers but the simplest to me is that currently according to the last census census bureau posted:The U.S. uninsured rate in 2021 across race and Hispanic origin groups ranged from 5.7% for White, non-Hispanic people to 18.8% for those identifying as American Indian and Alaska Native, non-Hispanic. Hispanic or Latino people had among the highest uninsured rate in the nation at 17.7%. and so socialized universal healthcare would make those numbers equitable which would have knock on benefits. At the least universal healthcare has been a drum beat of the civil rights movement since at least MLK and has been directly opposed to restricting civil rights. Public policy creates societal changes. Universal healthcare doesn't solve racism. But also nothing does dummy, it's incremental change over generations and it can be encouraged by equitable public policies. Professor Beetus posted:Stuff I agree with. Class consciousness and idpol are two sides of the same coin and either without the other is a problem. The civil rights movement was economic policy Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Jun 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
We saw how big of a difference the Child Tax Credits made for people when they were still in effect. There is absolutely a major benefit to giving lower income people access to more government assistance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 19:36
|
|
|
Seph posted:The entire point of my comment was to point out that Denmark, a country with incredibly robust social welfare system, has a retirement age of 67. There was a bit of derail when one poster insinuated that it's actually a right wing country, which I hope everyone can agree is absurd on its face. At no point was I making an argument that Denmark is a perfect leftist country, nor that it has leftist policies on every single subject. It's possible to be one of the most left countries in the world and still not have a socialist or communist economic structure. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. Fair enough, thank you for the clarification
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 19:36
|
|
|
It's a criticism that cuts both ways. Like yeah, obviously full communism now isn't going to magically fix racism, but you also can't just hire a bunch of black CEOs and pretend that everything is OK. The key is in recognizing how capitalism requires racism (and/or some other form of social inequality) to function: both by creating an easily exploitable underclass, and by keeping the working class pitted against each other rather than united against the capitalists. Racism can exist without capitalism, but capitalism cannot exist without racism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
That's definitely false; lots of things about capitalism have evolved in order to continue to survive, capitalism can absolutely exist without racism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
Such as? Like I said, it doesn't specifically have to be racism, any other kind of discrimination will do as well. Capitalism is an inherently unequal system, so it requires some kind of inequality to function.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
Seph posted:The entire point of my comment was to point out that Denmark, a country with incredibly robust social welfare system, has a retirement age of 67. There was a bit of derail when one poster insinuated that it's actually a right wing country, which I hope everyone can agree is absurd on its face. At no point was I making an argument that Denmark is a perfect leftist country, nor that it has leftist policies on every single subject. It's possible to be one of the most left countries in the world and still not have a socialist or communist economic structure. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. "One of the most left countries in the world" isn't a ringing endorsement when the whole world is hard right. It's like saying Italy was the 'most left' of the Axis Powers, or Biden is the 'most left' President in nearly a century. If Denmark and Sweden are squealing about how they must secure a future for their people because there's a tide of Others threatening to wash them away, then at best they're some kind of nationalist socialists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 20:19
|
|
|
Seph posted:The entire point of my comment was to point out that Denmark, a country with incredibly robust social welfare system, has a retirement age of 67. There was a bit of derail when one poster insinuated that it's actually a right wing country, which I hope everyone can agree is absurd on its face. At no point was I making an argument that Denmark is a perfect leftist country, nor that it has leftist policies on every single subject. It's possible to be one of the most left countries in the world and still not have a socialist or communist economic structure. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. Right, except I referred to Denmark's anti-refugee policies, which isn't neither here or there when it comes to full luxury gay communism, or however you wish to phrase it. It remains unclear to me how stating this is somehow absurd, other than being inconvenient for the talking point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:It's a criticism that cuts both ways. Like yeah, obviously full communism now isn't going to magically fix racism, but you also can't just hire a bunch of black CEOs and pretend that everything is OK. The key is in recognizing how capitalism requires racism (and/or some other form of social inequality) to function: both by creating an easily exploitable underclass, and by keeping the working class pitted against each other rather than united against the capitalists. Racism can exist without capitalism, but capitalism cannot exist without racism. TBH, it sounds like you’re convoluting racism and classism/equality in general. And while it’s hard to imagine no racism in a capitalist society, it’s also hard for me to imagine no bigotry in any economic system due to human nature. It’d probably just be varying degrees
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Such as? Like I said, it doesn't specifically have to be racism, any other kind of discrimination will do as well. Capitalism is an inherently unequal system, so it requires some kind of inequality to function. You did but then changed your wording towards the end: "Racism can exist without capitalism, but capitalism cannot exist without racism." Which is what I am primarily responding to; in any case inequality doesn't automatically entail discrimination (insofar as we're referring to traits you are born with) insofar as we're referring to economic inequality which is fundamental to capitalism as the extraction of value from surplus labour requires there existing some sort of unequal class dynamic but this could theoretically exist in a society without racism or discrimination, these are just low hanging fruit in which the political class preserves their institutions, political power and so on and would use some other tool if it was more viable. And of course if you have a useful tool why not sharpen it? But likewise if the tool is no longer useful it may be left to rust away into nothingness. I think to an extent these sorts of claims come about because by virtue of living within a capitalist system its tempting to think since its always been this way that it's inherent, but I think looking at it more objectively it isn't really the case. e: Fister Roboto posted:Yes, that's exactly my point. Any economic system can be racist, but capitalism can't not be racist (or some other form of discrimination). Though we've had the discussion about "human nature" before about how it's a poorly defined concept and ultimately becomes an argument for futility. Depending on what you mean by "discrimination"; I'd still disagree with the claim that "capitalism can't function without (x/y)". I think these are entirely irrelevant to the core "gameplay loop" of capitalism. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jun 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Kalit posted:TBH, it sounds like you’re convoluting racism and classism/equality in general. Yes, that's exactly my point. Any economic system can be racist, but capitalism can't not be racist (or some other form of discrimination). Though we've had the discussion about "human nature" before about how it's a poorly defined concept and ultimately becomes an argument for futility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Yes, that's exactly my point. Any economic system can be racist, but capitalism can't not be racist (or some other form of discrimination). Though we've had the discussion about "human nature" before about how it's a poorly defined concept and ultimately becomes an argument for futility. "Capitalism cannot exist without racism", "capitalism can't not be racist (or some other form of discrimination)", and "capitalism requires some kind of inequality to function" are all very different claims, but you keep conflating them and treating them as if they're equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Yes, that's exactly my point. Any economic system can be racist, but capitalism can't not be racist (or some other form of discrimination). Though we've had the discussion about "human nature" before about how it's a poorly defined concept and ultimately becomes an argument for futility. …so in response of me suggesting that you’re convoluting terms with very different meanings, you double down and continue to convolute them and simply add parentheses? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You did but then changed your wording towards the end: "Racism can exist without capitalism, but capitalism cannot exist without racism." Which is what I am primarily responding to; in any case inequality doesn't automatically entail discrimination (insofar as we're referring to traits you are born with) insofar as we're referring to economic inequality which is fundamental to capitalism as the extraction of value from surplus labour requires there existing some sort of unequal class dynamic but this could theoretically exist in a society without racism or discrimination, these are just low hanging fruit in which the political class preserves their institutions, political power and so on and would use some other tool if it was more viable. And of course if you have a useful tool why not sharpen it? But likewise if the tool is no longer useful it may be left to rust away into nothingness. If you think it's theoretically possible, then demonstrate your theory. How would a capitalist society function without some kind of discriminated lower class? How would it determine who does all the lovely jobs for lovely pay? Furthermore, how would this determination be unaffected by the historical legacy of racism that preceded it? Slavery has been abolished but its effects still persist through generations. Kalit posted:…so in response of me suggesting that you’re convoluting terms with very different meanings, you double down and continue to convolute them and simply add parentheses? Yes, I'm clarifying my position for you. Also the term you're thinking of is "conflating" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Yes, I'm clarifying my position for you. Also the term you're thinking of is "conflating" That does not clarify you understanding how racism and socioeconomic systems work. Can you please try again and specify how racism must always exist within a capitalist system? And fair enough, thank you for correcting my wording
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
Kalit posted:That does not clarify you understanding how racism and socioeconomic systems work. Can you please try again and specify how racism must always exist within a capitalist system? I did that in my previous post: Fister Roboto posted:The key is in recognizing how capitalism requires racism (and/or some other form of social inequality) to function: both by creating an easily exploitable underclass, and by keeping the working class pitted against each other rather than united against the capitalists. It doesn't necessarily have to be racism that keeps the working class divided, but racism is the most prominent form of it here in America specifically. As Raenir pointed out, it's the lowest hanging fruit here. But it's also just part of the repertoire, as we see misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, religious discrimination, nationalism and many other kinds of prejudice employed to great effect. To be clear, capitalism did not invent racism out of whole cloth. It exploited and exacerbated the already existing antagonisms between groups. A great example of this is in Africa, where colonial powers would elevate people of one tribal affiliation while lowering another. To me, the most important question of any economic system is: how do you decide who does the worst jobs, and how do you compensate them? In capitalism, the answer is by making people desperate enough that they'll do those jobs for very little pay. And what's the best way to make people desperate? Good ol' fashioned racism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 21:56
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Such as? Like I said, it doesn't specifically have to be racism, any other kind of discrimination will do as well. Capitalism is an inherently unequal system, so it requires some kind of inequality to function. You did explicitly say it has to racism. You have the "and/or some other form of social inequality" but then end it with "capitalism cannot exist without racism". Then when someone says "capitalism can absolutely exist without racism" you act like they're putting words in your mouth. Fister Roboto posted:It's a criticism that cuts both ways. Like yeah, obviously full communism now isn't going to magically fix racism, but you also can't just hire a bunch of black CEOs and pretend that everything is OK. The key is in recognizing how capitalism requires racism (and/or some other form of social inequality) to function: both by creating an easily exploitable underclass, and by keeping the working class pitted against each other rather than united against the capitalists. Racism can exist without capitalism, but capitalism cannot exist without racism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:If you think it's theoretically possible, then demonstrate your theory. How would a capitalist society function without some kind of discriminated lower class? How would it determine who does all the lovely jobs for lovely pay? Furthermore, how would this determination be unaffected by the historical legacy of racism that preceded it? Slavery has been abolished but its effects still persist through generations. Again, this depends on what you mean by discrimination. Insofar as I assume you're referring to discrimination between groups of people based off of more intrinsic characteristics or xenophobia in the case of cultural characteristics, I think there's absolutely a possibility for some future hypothetical "Woke" capitalist society that's largely bulldozed the vast majority of discrimination in the name of profit. Classism, insofar as this can mean rich people disliking poor people I don't think is in the same category and is actually a good example because in the past you absolutely had a sense of there being a "virtuous poor" representing the core moral rural folk who are the backbone of the nation and the monarch's authority to rule over the nobility, etc. But this changed with the industrial revolution albeit with aspects of this continuing to persist like with the Protestant Work Ethic and so on. Clearly the views of groups of people are very malleable and intrinsically political which I think pretty substantially argues the point that this isn't something that's intrinsic to capitalism but is societal driven; capitalism intersects with and acts upon these societal trends in various ways, but more in service of largely political goals and aren't really something that's factored into the core of what makes capitalism a systemic influence on human history. Also slavery is a good example here, "capitalists" particularly the northern industrialists swung hard against slavery, and produced individuals who advocated for the rights and freedoms of slaves because slavery was an archaic institution that made it more difficult to extract surplus through mechanization. And of course in the more modern political discourse the capital class would love to have migrant workers to work agricultural jobs; and trade agreements like NAFTA make it even easier to enable this freedom of movement of people; but the political backlash against hispanic migration into the US is very much contradictory to what's in the interests of the capital class. Like its why we have free trade, if there's no one who works lovely jobs at home in the hinterland capitalism finds that labour somewhere else around the globe that can be exploited instead; capitalism isn't about "producing" an underclass through social-engineering as its modus operandi, but finding it. I feel like this isn't a very complete view of capitalism to boil it down to underclass/discrimination as inherent aspects of it, like it has an intention to it versus capitalism being a sociological paperclip factory. Fister Roboto posted:To me, the most important question of any economic system is: how do you decide who does the worst jobs, and how do you compensate them? In capitalism, the answer is by making people desperate enough that they'll do those jobs for very little pay. And what's the best way to make people desperate? Good ol' fashioned racism. Like this in particular I don't think makes a lot of sense in context; it isn't about deciding who works those jobs, that's not what capitalism is. Capitalism oversees the ruthless creation and destruction of new modes of production; taking people who used to be in the bourgeoisie and plummeting them into the proletariat, from a early marxist overview of capitalism racism/discrimination has nothing to do with this process; it's an inevitability of technological and economic development; in fact its the opposite; because the core mission of capitalism is transplanting itself around the world, transforming, or rather, terraforming, entire societies into carbon copies of itself; racism and discrimination I think slow down this process. What matters is who has capital, who is a member of the bourgeoisie, etc. All humans are interchangeable under this process. This is what makes capitalism lovecraftian, because it is ammoral, unknowable, uncaring, and unassuagable. It has no need or care for petty bigotries to proceed with its processes; that's just a side effect of humans standing inevitably on a cliff is to grab someone else to plummet with them into the abyss; the abyss did not making them grab each other or care if they do or don't; all fall equally in the end. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jun 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 22:28
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Again, this depends on what you mean by discrimination. Insofar as I assume you're referring to discrimination between groups of people based off of more intrinsic characteristics or xenophobia in the case of cultural characteristics, I think there's absolutely a possibility for some future hypothetical "Woke" capitalist society that's largely bulldozed the vast majority of discrimination in the name of profit. You're not really addressing my point here. You can claim that there's a hypothetical form of capitalism without any discrimination, just as easily as I can claim there's a hypothetical form of society where I have a trillion dollars and a moon base. You still need to demonstrate how such a society would come about, how it would be structured, and how it would address the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. The rest of your post, I'm honestly having a hard time following. Like I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's very confusingly worded and seems to contradict itself a lot. Is your point that capitalism can eventually produce a society free of discrimination? Or that capitalism is ultimately a product of the unequal forces of society? Or is it some kind of otherworldly cosmic horror (what)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I did that in my previous post: This bolded part is the crux that I’m looking for. Why do you think this with regards to a capitalist system? Obviously, in the US this is true due to our history. But do you have anything to back this claim if we solely look at capitalism itself?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 23:30
|
|
|
For the love of god can a mod rescue us from the ten millionth no true leftism troll derail. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 23:45
|
|
|
Kalit posted:This bolded part is the crux that I’m looking for. Why do you think this with regards to a capitalist system? Discendo Vox posted:For the love of god can a mod rescue us from the ten millionth no true leftism troll derail. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 23:48
|
|
|
Kalit posted:This bolded part is the crux that I’m looking for. Why do you think this with regards to a capitalist system? What do you mean by "solely look at capitalism by itself"? I already provided an example outside of the US in the post that you quoted. Another example is racist immigration policies in Europe (which is what started this conversation iirc), which make it so that the people who do get in are more likely to take terrible jobs and are less likely to report abuses by their employers. I think this speaks to Raenir's point about how the capital class in the US wants more migrants to work for them - the missing part of this is that they also want more workers who are terrified of being imprisoned or deported.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 23:48
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:It's a regular companion piece to "Democrats keep moving right to meet Republicans" that was arguably true once when a lot of online people on the left first were thinking about politics, but just never stopped being said even when it wasn't. Like a miniature version of the right wing arguments that US private health care might be really expensive but it's better quality and shorter waits then Canada or Europe. Obama compared himself to 80s/90s Republicans
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 00:00
|
|
|
Seph posted:It seems kind of absurd to me to insinuate a country with free universal healthcare, free higher education, subsidized child care, free long-term elder care, subsidized public transit, and a top tax rate of 56% is right wing. It's about as left as you can get without going full communism. A country can have all of those things and be quite far right wing -, they just need to be working on actively dismantling then. And guess what's happening in many places... You need to understand institutional and historical inertia and how the governing ideology is expressed depends on those things. You can't look at specific features of a country and somehow determine their dominant political philosophy - instead you should be looking at their political direction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:What do you mean by "solely look at capitalism by itself"? Come on, examples don’t mean something holds true. I guess keep trying to claim that once we get rid of capitalism, only then can racism be solved or whatever (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 00:19
|
|