|
I agree with Cicero. I would say I'm further left than social democrat but I bet that probably stems from our disagreement over capitalism's ability to be reformed.Jolly Jumbuck posted:The main one being, how would you classify Venezuela and make sure any attempt at socialism doesn't end up like Venezuela? I'll leave it to others to "classify" I guess. I will say that if I was in charge I wouldn't have let the agriculture industry remain private so that it could buy all the cheap gov't food and export it for a profit, and wouldn't have remained dependent on the biggest baddest capitalist on the block for my food supply. In general though I think a lot of the failures of socialist/communist states are the result of a lot of top down changes without much changing in the work place or on a micro level. You need workers having a say in what happens over production that they do or it's bullshit, imo. So an economy structured around worker co-ops as a minimum requirement. This would be my primary criticism of the USSR's economic reforms. Although also I keep in mind they were under the gun and weren't really comparable to modern day western/rich countries - it's just something we should look at and learn from. Jolly Jumbuck posted:You can claim "defense is necessary" all day, but unless you're actively trying to discourage needless projects, eliminate waste on useful projects or avoiding the general placing of the shareholders above the warfighter, then you're a hypocrite by decrying other forms of government spending. Plus when you do nothing but start fires all over the world then stumble around trying to put them all out... COMRADES fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jan 28, 2019 |
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
quote:On the other hand, if people want to live by themselves, The other problem with this is that this is a fantasy that has no basis in reality. Where are they going to go? Mars? Some rural area that's still owned by the government anyway (then they demand payment for it and send men with guns?)? Then if you so happen to be sitting on something the capitalists want you're gonna get took for it. Say your independent and free cabin sits on a good deposit of rare earth minerals. Say a real estate developer decides that's his forest now and he has all the permits to show it. And even if you wanted to do that, you'd have to learn tons of survival skills first. Go out into the woods right now, likely you'd die in a day or two. All the skills you've accumulated and worked on until saying "screw it I'm outta here" are more than likely worthless in the wild. There's no real ability to just pack up and move to the frontier and be left alone in 2019. There's no real voluntary choice of whether or not to participate in society. People are communal which is why: Rent-A-Cop posted:The problem here is that segment of society is 1% Davey Crockett cosplayers and 99% weird pedophile doomsday cults. and really this is all one reason (of a few) why land itself should be communal but anyway. COMRADES fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Jolly Jumbuck posted:So Obamacare was really capitalism with redistribution tendencies and not socialism like so many people claimed? Also yeah. There's nothing socialist about requiring people to purchase private insurance via a private healthcare system. I like this line of argument: "Obama is a communist! ACA! Venezuela!" -> "Ahh what the Scandinavians have isn't real socialism though!" What? Which is it then? They don't know. They probably even benefit from ACA. COMRADES fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
Just because government does a thing doesn't mean it is 'socialist,' though. That's just kind of the narrative that conservative Koch Bro propaganda wants to push. Medicare still funnels tons of government money to private companies. I wouldn't say the military is socialist even though I like to rib conservatives by telling them it is nothing more than a massive welfare jobs program.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I still don't see why it wouldn't count, if you accept that the USSR was a form of socialism chiefly because the government owned and controlled various industries, with the government counting as "the workers" in some sense. So far you've just pointed out that the delivery of healthcare itself is still private and for-profit, but that's not the industry I'm talking about. The difference (in theory mind you) is that with the USSR the people run the healthcare system via the government which they elect and which then appoints officials who run the healthcare system at all levels for the people's benefit, whereas Medicaid does nothing regarding healthcare companies run in an autocratic manner with 0 input from the workers or patients for the shareholders' benefit. The fundamental relationship between employer and employee isn't changed. All it is is the govt pays for private healthcare for people who can't afford it. The most collective thing about it is the govt is supposed to negotiate pricing with the private companies but that doesn't really happen. So yes, providing healthcare for people who can't otherwise afford it is a social program but that doesn't necessarily mean it is 'socialism.' Definitions can be fuzzy of course, that's why you have the thread. E: I would say the USA has been getting to the point where even proper shepherding of capitalism is called 'socialism' in recent years tbh. The supply siders hijacked everything and in their frenzied greed are running it into the ground as fast as possible. EE: when leftists say 'nationalize that' they generally mean 'and operate it under a democratic framework.' Nationalization in of itself is not socialism. Eminent Domain is 'nationalization.' The Fed buying securities to save banks is 'nationalization.' COMRADES fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
Yeah I suppose so. Could also say it's just making the most efficient risk pool possible but yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
Jolly Jumbuck posted:If your system involves pulling right-wingers out of their comfort zone and forcing them to provide for the better good, you'll have riots on your hand and they'll try their hardest to force something in a completely opposite, and likely backward, direction. Most of the red states in the USA are taking in quite a bit more federal money than they put out in taxes, and vice versa for the blue states. IE the conservative right wingers are already being provided for, for the greater good. Poor as gently caress people in Kansas don't have anything to lose already. The fundamental problem isn't left vs right wingers, it is a mass of people who think they'll suddenly be a peasant so that everyone can be a peasant alongside them when in reality it is the top 1% hoarding over half the wealth that exists.  And that graph is a little old iirc, meaning things have become even more skewed. The question is how to set up economic systems such that they come out with a result that the society finds desirable. Right now our economics aren't geared to help society as a whole, they are geared to the benefit of a very small handful of people. And some people I guess just have been sipping the Cold War Koolaide for too long and they probably are unreachable yeah but you don't need 100% of the vote in a democracy. quote:hardest to force something in a completely opposite, and likely backward, direction. And ya know maybe if their response to all this really is just "idc I'm not paying taxes to support some black welfare queen I guess I'll be a nazi now then" maybe that's a failing on their part somewhere. Tired of treating these people with kiddie gloves to be honest. COMRADES fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 21:47
|
|