Socialism |OT| The Dawn of a Red Era

Lafiel · Oct 29, 2017

Sorry reverse racism doesn't exist esp in the context of US race relations like it was said pretty adequately by Stokely Carmichael years ago when he made the argument "If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude, it's a question of power".

Eylos said:
Imo Corbyn and Sanders are Very good to their respective parties and i think we should support them, but idk If they will leave the reformism camp, i Hope so, but only time will tell. I think what hat is talking its that the big part of the left today is reformist or even a less brutal version of a neo liberalist. Like Tony Blair and i think thats the labour party he was talking about.

There's a lot more potential with the Corbyn project then Sanders on the basis that Corbyn unlike Sanders has very principled anti-imperialist positions there's also the fact that Corbyn is much closer to gaining power than Sanders (and honestly I think that chance is pretty much a dead-end at this point).

sphagnum · Oct 29, 2017

Unknown Soldier said:
This is a very interesting thread and I'm keeping it watched to see your discussion!

China is fundamentally authoritarian. The Chinese Communist Party does not allow any other political parties or dissent against their rule. However, I don't really believe there is any underlying philosophy or ideology that drives their political vision. It's long been said that Chinese Communism has been devoid of ideology after the death of Mao. It happens that when your policies kill untold millions of your countrymen there is often a negative response afterwards.

Under Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin, China began to make advances towards a capitalist economic structure even as the Party continued to maintain control. Xi Jinping is swinging the pendulum back towards more state ownership of enterprise but really the Party has always controlled everything. Xi's biggest contribution is an attempt to move back towards greater Party control of public discourse, including aggressive censorship of the Internet and other measures to ensure the Party's opinion is the prevailing opinion of the people.

A good article about this appeared on BBC News a few weeks ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Thoughts_Chairman_Xi

That was a fascinating article, thanks. I had no idea he was involved in the Down to the Countryside movement.

He's a frighteningly clever and ambitious man.

Hat22 · Oct 29, 2017

Lafiel said:
There's a lot more potential with the Corbyn project then Sanders on the basis that Corbyn unlike Sanders has very principled anti-imperialist positions there's also the fact that Corbyn is much closer to gaining power than Sanders (and honestly I think that chance is pretty much a dead-end at this point).

I think Corbyn is a bit unprincipled. He absolutely hated the EU but now loves it because he'd be seen as racist if he held any other viewpoint.

Corbyn has an incredible record on foreign policy but his views on the Falklands and other colonial possessions are bit nuts. The people in these places want to be British and whether or not they leave or stay should all come down to popular sovereignty. The worst event in the recent history of the UK was the decision to not challenge the PRC over Hong Kong.

Mezentine · Oct 29, 2017

sphagnum said:
That was a fascinating article, thanks. I had no idea he was involved in the Down to the Countryside movement.

He's a frighteningly clever and ambitious man.

That article is absolutely fascinating, and further cements my read of "nationalist feudalism" being the endgame here. Xi wants to keep the Han happy with rising standards of living, healthcare access, consumer goods etc and lock down ironclad control of the country and the land in the hands of the party elite. His "anti-corruption" spree increasingly reads to me like "you dipshits we can have it all because we write the rules, there's no need to take stupid bribes" (along with just cutting out political enemies)

wallmeat · Oct 29, 2017

I just read through this thread and since my account just got activated, I can finally post. Subbing this thread for the resources and loving the discussion!

pigeon · Oct 29, 2017

lmcfigs said:
I think Bernie has shown that a lot of democrats really don't respond very well to a class-based approach. Which is probably right, but if your takeaway from the election was that Bernie pandered too much to BLM and others, then I feel like we haven't learned much at all.

I kind of feel the opposite -- Bernie mostly showed that a lot of Democrats respond extremely well to a class-based approach. I think it's valid to take away that Democrats have failed to some degree on economic populism, or, at the very least, that the neoliberal "rising tide lifts all boats incrementally via lowering the marginal cost of water" strategy isn't working effectively (and there are a bunch of economic papers suggesting the same thing).

Hillary knew what we needed to do -- guarantee a basic income! Unfortunately the Democratic establishment sold out our socialist heroine.

Obviously I agree that "too much BLM" is the wrong takeaway though. That's literally the hypothetical bad socialist boogeyman I worry about. If you want social programs but not social justice, call yourself an ethnonationalist, not a socialist.

Hat22 · Oct 30, 2017

pigeon said:
Hillary knew what we needed to do -- guarantee a basic income! Unfortunately the Democratic establishment sold out our socialist heroine.

I've only ever heard her be referred to as socialistic by Alex-Jones tier conservatives.

Mezentine · Oct 30, 2017

Hat22 said:
Bernie Sanders really shook up the primary arguing for a Fourth(??) New Deal. Obviously a lot of people want to see massive infrastructure projects, employment programs and more laws that protect the economy and people.

However, race divisions are harmful and cannot be used by the left. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton (not left, I know) drove away white working class voters by pandering to BLM. I don't care about the movement much myself but lets be honest, it's got a few vocal people that hate white people and don't think that whites have any real problems. The most widely shown BLM members were upper-middle-class blacks that were racist against whites so pandering to this crowd drove away whites.

Like this is the exact way that we further entrench racism in America because this attitude will absolutely lead to any sort of economic progressivism allowing itself to be compromised by racism so that gains are distributed unequally.

louisacommie · Oct 30, 2017

What should be done about people that are actively against trump, but really only care about a return to a status quo were they can be comfortable "I miss Obama" once Dems retake power they can live carefree again no matter what the united States does to its own citizens or foreign people post trump era "this is assuming the end of the trump era doesn't lead to a dismantling of the united States oppressive military operations,t he end of racism, the death of the patriarchy" and Russia still has its own capitalist agenda that can lead to them attempting to support more Trumps.

pigeon · Oct 30, 2017

Hat22 said:
I've only ever heard her be referred to as socialistic by Alex-Jones tier conservatives.

Guaranteeing all Americans a sufficient income to survive seems pretty socialist to me. Not my fault it collides with your preconceived notions about her!

pigeon · Oct 30, 2017

louisacommie said:
What should be done about people that are actively against trump, but really only care about a return to a status quo were they can be comfortable "I miss Obama" once Dems retake power they can live carefree again no matter what the united States does to its own citizens or foreign people post trump era "this is assuming the end of the trump era doesn't lead to a dismantling of the united States oppressive military operations, and of course Russia still has its own capitalist agenda"

Accept them as part of the popular front against fascism. This is actually a problem socialists solved like sixty years ago.

louisacommie · Oct 30, 2017

pigeon said:
Accept them as part of the popular front against fascism. This is actually a problem socialists solved like sixty years ago.

I actually don't like how i started that out as "what should be done" I more was trying to go for convincing them to actively care and challenge their own ideals and grow as people.

Hat22 · Oct 30, 2017

pigeon said:
Guaranteeing all Americans a sufficient income to survive seems pretty socialist to me. Not my fault it collides with your preconceived notions about her!

So she wrote this into the book that she wrote after the election? You can say whatever after the election so I'd take that with a pound of salt. We know that she was in deep with wall street and we have her voting record and platform from 2016. The only candidate with any number of votes to put forward anything socialistic was Jill Stein.

pigeon · Oct 30, 2017

Hat22 said:
So she wrote this into the book that she wrote after the election? You can say whatever after the election so I'd take that with a pound of salt. We know that she was in deep with wall street and we have her voting record and platform from 2016. The only candidate with any number of votes to put forward anything socialistic was Jill Stein.

Right, since you've already decided that you know everything about her it's easy to dismiss any contrary evidence as being faked. Must be comfortable for you!

louisacommie · Oct 30, 2017

Hat22 said:
So she wrote this into the book that she wrote after the election? You can say whatever after the election so I'd take that with a pound of salt. We know that she was in deep with wall street and we have her voting record and platform from 2016. The only candidate with any number of votes to put forward anything socialistic was Jill Stein.

Lol Jill Stein, Jill is a capitalist and there are many issues with her, especially her saying voting for Trump was actually better than voting for Hillary, when the green parties big issue, climate change, Hillary is legitimately better than trump and the Republicans undisputable.

Deleted member 1852 · Oct 30, 2017

Why are you people talking about Hillary Clinton in the Socialism thread? Please take re-litigation of 2016 elsewhere. Thank you.

Hat22 · Oct 30, 2017

pigeon said:
Right, since you've already decided that you know everything about her it's easy to dismiss any contrary evidence as being faked. Must be comfortable for you!

I don't think anybody is really clear on what she actually believes and I'd say that's part of why she lost the election.

louisacommie said:
Lol Jill Stein, Jill is a capitalist and there are many issues with her, especially her saying voting for Trump was actually better than voting for Hillary, when the green parties big issue, climate change, Hillary is legitimately better than trump and the Republicans undisputable.

I was under the impression that the Green Party was for socialized health care and free college for poorer students.

Bonen no Max'd · Oct 30, 2017

pigeon said:
Guaranteeing all Americans a sufficient income to survive seems pretty socialist to me. Not my fault it collides with your preconceived notions about her!

Given both her dogmatic support for neoliberal programs and means-testing along with the fact that she didn't even actually support the UBI and we don't even know if any UBI she proposed would guarantee the level of income necessary for survival (her plans, after all, looked at the Alaskan program which is far from a living income), it seems a bit presumptuous to start calling her a socialist because she toyed but rejected running on a half-decent program.

I can't tell if you're trolling right now though anyways.

pigeon · Oct 30, 2017

Unknown Soldier said:
Why are you people talking about Hillary Clinton in the Socialism thread? Please take re-litigation of 2016 elsewhere. Thank you.

What, I'm not allowed to talk about people who want socialist policies in the socialism thread?

Bonen no Max'd said:
Given both her dogmatic support for neoliberal programs and means-testing along with the fact that she didn't even actually support the UBI and we don't even know if any UBI she proposed would guarantee the level of income necessary for survival (her plans, after all, looked at the Alaskan program which is far from a living income), it seems a bit presumptuous to start calling her a socialist because she toyed but rejected running on a half-decent program.

I would call her support for neoliberal programs "pragmatic" rather than "dogmatic," but sure, this is a very fair counterargument. She should've gone ahead and run on the basic income.

Bonen no Max'd said:
I can't tell if you're trolling right now though anyways.

I mean, the guy believes that BLM is racist against white people. I feel like the real question is whether he's trolling

wandering · Oct 30, 2017

Eylos said:
A little break
Some things to relax and laugh a little

This rap Battle is very good
Ok, Now back to serious stuff

I'm sorry

https://my.mixtape.moe/hghgmc.mp4

Mezentine · Oct 30, 2017

I would also like to avoid relitigation of 2016 but a certain amount of it is going to be impossible to avoid if this thread ever seriously discusses American politics

louisacommie · Oct 30, 2017

Yeah the guy defended Milo of all people, though he doesn't like Alex Jones, I don't really get hat's politics. I don't think he is a national Bolshevik. probably a brocialist.

Deleted member 721 · Oct 30, 2017

wandering said:
I'm sorry

https://my.mixtape.moe/hghgmc.mp4

The revolution Will be kawaii comrades

Mezentine · Oct 30, 2017

louisacommie said:
Yeah the guy defended Milo of all people, though he doesn't like Alex Jones, I don't really get hat's politics. I don't think he is a national Bolshevik. probably a brocialist.

I'm not entirely convinced he's not just an El Tiguere style troll

EDIT: if y'all missed it, and I wouldn't blame you, Tiguere eventually outed himself when he started going on about global Jewish banking conspiracies. Something to keep an eye out for

pigeon · Oct 30, 2017

louisacommie said:
Yeah the guy defended Milo of all people, though he doesn't like Alex Jones, I don't really get hat's politics. I don't think he is a national Bolshevik. probably a brocialist.

He's an ethnonationalist, I already said

Deleted member 2426 · Oct 30, 2017

I dont think we have a single comment by Bernie Sanders blasting neoliberalism (please correct me if I am wrong). Unlike Corbyn, who has called out neoliberalism by name and definition.

Bonen no Max'd · Oct 30, 2017

Melkr_ said:
I dont think we have a single comment by Bernie Sanders blasting neoliberalism (please correct me if I am wrong). Unlike Corbyn, who has called out neoliberalism by name and definition.

I can't recall this either, though I think that this is partly a result of the American association of liberal with the New Deal and social democratic programs of the past, which would make it difficult for Sanders to really attack the term since a large number of his supporters probably consider themselves 'liberals'. Neoliberal certainly isn't in the common vernacular here, as we can see from all the libs who talk about how the term isn't real or whatever.

Though, of course, it's more proof that Corbyn is the best.

Deleted member 2426 · Oct 30, 2017

Bonen no Max'd said:
I can't recall this either, though I think that this is partly a result of the American association of liberal with the New Deal and social democratic programs of the past, which would make it difficult for Sanders to really attack the term since a large number of his supporters probably consider themselves 'liberals'. Neoliberal certainly isn't in the common vernacular here, as we can see from all the libs who talk about how the term isn't real or whatever.

Though, of course, it's more proof that Corbyn is the best.

LibGAF reaction to the use of neoliberalism as a descriptive concept in political discussions was always super interesting to me. It gave me tons of Zizekian giggles.

You really see how the hegemonic ideology in a society ends up being so imbued inside it that even educated people become oblivious to such.

pigeon · Oct 30, 2017

Melkr_ said:
LibGAF reaction to the use of neoliberalism as a descriptive concept in political discussions was always super interesting to me. It gave me tons of Zizekian giggles.

You really see how the hegemonic ideology in a society ends up being so imbued inside it that even educated people become oblivious to such.

Zizek, really? Your level of discourse has really degraded since you stopped posting PopGAF gifs.

Deleted member 2426 · Oct 30, 2017

pigeon said:
Zizek, really? Your level of discourse has really degraded since you stopped posting PopGAF gifs.

When Zizek gets into ideology and Lacanian psychoanalysis he is on point. He gets awfully close to be reactionary, altright apologetic trash when he tries to be a cultural critic, though.

Dont drag me. I dont subscribe to his cult.

Shy · Oct 30, 2017

So my fears from last night about important social issues being marginalised and ignored were correct.

louisacommie said:
Yeah the guy defended Milo of all people, though he doesn't like Alex Jones, I don't really get hat's politics. I don't think he is a national Bolshevik. probably a brocialist.

I was going to write a massive point to point rebuttal to his offensive post (i've been putting it off, as i have a have problems articulating myself)

But then i read your post, and it saved me the trouble of having to waste my time on a person who defends a white supremacist

Thanks.

Cryptosporidium · Oct 30, 2017

Eylos said:
The revolution Will be kawaii comrades

I can support this revolution. weeaboos of all fandoms unite!

memesaf · Oct 30, 2017

Woohoo, finally managed to read all of the great discussion.
So, hi comrades, I'm a Marxist Anarchist, love the non-sectarian good-faith discussions here.

Millions · Oct 30, 2017

wasn't sure where else to put this, but came across this really interesting new series on the black experience of the Russian Revolution http://www.aaihs.org/tag/black-october/

lmcfigs · Oct 30, 2017

Melkr_ said:
When Zizek gets into ideology and Lacanian psychoanalysis he is on point. He gets awfully close to be reactionary, altright apologetic trash when he tries to be a cultural critic, though.

Dont drag me. I dont subscribe to his cult.

Yeah I only like him ironically really. He's all over the place.

Lafiel · Oct 30, 2017

pigeon said:
What, I'm not allowed to talk about people who want socialist policies in the socialism thread?

I would call her support for neoliberal programs "pragmatic" rather than "dogmatic," but sure, this is a very fair counterargument. She should've gone ahead and run on the basic income.

She is not a socialist though - to be as nice as I possibly can to Hillary. Someone who implicitly supports the US imperialist capitalistic status can't be anywhere considered a socialist and there's nothing empowering about how she presents her politics like at all, she also isn't being pragmatic when she expresses support for neoliberalism... she's part of the neoliberal economic status quo!

And supporting UBI is meaningless in itself because the question that has to be asked is what kind of UBI? In australia we technically have a UBI but it's tied to a incredibly bureaucratic system that's way too low of a payment and constantly looks for ways to punish you for being on the system!

Melkr_ said:
LibGAF reaction to the use of neoliberalism as a descriptive concept in political discussions was always super interesting to me. It gave me tons of Zizekian giggles.

You really see how the hegemonic ideology in a society ends up being so imbued inside it that even educated people become oblivious to such.

Depends on how you phrase it - David Harvey did it best when he described neoliberalism as a class project, sometimes I've seen more centre-of-left people just use neoliberalism as a pejorative in response to anything that a state does in regards to privatization of a public asset, but it encompasses more than just that imo.

Deleted member 2426 · Oct 30, 2017

UBI could be the ultimate welfare state dismantler.

UBI is sold as the final palliative for inequality when it is not. A socialist logic would be that inequality should not be alleviated, it should not even exist.

Lafiel · Oct 30, 2017

I'm totally for a UBI but I think it's frequently framed in the discourse as a technological fix that will alleviate the problems of Capitalism in the context of increasing automation. That's a reasonable analysis, but technological advancement isn't automatically going bring the end of capitalism, isn't you are willing to stand up and fight for it's demise through building the political struggle on the ground.

Bonen no Max'd · Oct 30, 2017

Lafiel said:
Depends on how you phrase it - David Harvey did it best when he described neoliberalism as a class project, sometimes I've seen more centre-of-left people just use neoliberalism as a pejorative in response to anything that a state does in regards to privatization of a public asset, but it encompasses more than just that imo.

I've always defined it by its main four programs, marketization, privatization, austerity, and deunionization, along with its moral vision of an end to politics by granting power to the private sphere and a meritocratic vision of markets and power. Is that wrong?

Deleted member 1852 · Oct 30, 2017

On an intellectual level, I would say that a UBI is a tacit admission that capitalism will remain the economic law of the land and all we can do is put patches on it to make it less fundamentally unfair.

On a practical level, I support it in stable capitalist economies where it's obvious no one is ever going to revolt in favor of Socialism, such as the United States.

Bonen no Max'd said:
I've always defined it by its main four programs, marketization, privatization, austerity, and deunionization, along with its moral vision of an end to politics by granting power to the private sphere and a meritocratic vision of markets and power. Is that wrong?

This is an accurate description of neoliberalism but on a higher level you can really just think of it as a modernized version of "laissez-faire economics" which has been dressed up for today's economists. It's still the same failed principles underneath.

Lafiel · Oct 30, 2017

Bonen no Max'd said:
I've always defined it by its main four programs, marketization, privatization, austerity, and deunionization, along with its moral vision of an end to politics by granting power to the private sphere and a meritocratic vision of markets and power. Is that wrong?

None of that is wrong but all of those elements need to be taken in the context of a class relationship ie the term socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor is one example of how neoliberal ideology is utilised by the ruling class. Like the contradiction of how neoliberalism apparently abhors government intervention into the economy on paper but is happy to use it when it suits the economic interests of the ruling class explains that contradiction.

pigeon · Oct 30, 2017

Lafiel said:
She is not a socialist though - to be as nice as I possibly can to Hillary.

Well, of course this is exactly what a socialist would say about another socialist. Pretty standard splitter discourse.

Lafiel said:
Someone who implicitly supports the US imperialist capitalistic status can't be anywhere considered a socialist

This ties to one of the main issues I perceive with the left today, which is that the ideological commitment to opposing the international Pax Americana status quo at all levels makes it impossible to articulate a functional, coherent and humane foreign policy.

Lafiel said:
and there's nothing empowering about how she presents her politics like at all, she also isn't being pragmatic when she expresses support for neoliberalism... she's part of the neoliberal economic status quo!

I mean, everybody is part of the neoliberal economic status quo. That is part of what makes it the status quo, it currently reigns supreme over the majority of the world.

It's not clear to me by what means you feel able to judge somebody's inmost ideals. Frankly, I think the desire to do so, much less the conceit that you have the ability to do so, is intrinsically problematic, and tends to lead to conversations just like the one that's happening in this thread, where the people you like are assumed to always be honest even when they lie and the people you dislike are assumed to be dishonest even when they have no reason to be. This is is why technocrats took over, they focused on results rather than Humean froth!

Personally I don't think this tangent about whether Hillary Clinton is a socialist is particularly important, but it's a little surprising to me to see how many people feel very strongly that they need to argue about it!

Melkr_ said:
UBI could be the ultimate welfare state dismantler.

That's...good, right? The welfare state is composed of all those incremental, targeted, means-tested neoliberal programs that socialists hate. Dismantling it and replacing it with a more all-encompassing socialist solution should be a good thing. Fewer regulations to abuse or manipulate means more consistent application of governmental power which means more economic equality as a result.

The last major expansion of the welfare state was the ACA, which I don't recall socialists being too big a fan of. If the ACA isn't socialist, and a basic income isn't socialist, then it seems impossible to identify or create any socialist policies.

Melkr_ said:
A socialist logic would be that inequality should not be alleviated, it should not even exist.

This is the "I don't see race" of class. Inequality is a fundamental state. That's the whole point of socialism, that we should constantly seek to eliminate it. The Soviet Union got pretty far into a crony capitalist system by insisting that inequality didn't exist. You have to see it to fight it.

Deleted member 2426 · Oct 30, 2017

pigeon said:
Well, of course this is exactly what a socialist would say about another socialist. Pretty standard splitter discourse.

This ties to one of the main issues I perceive with the left today, which is that the ideological commitment to opposing the international Pax Americana status quo at all levels makes it impossible to articulate a functional, coherent and humane foreign policy.

I mean, everybody is part of the neoliberal economic status quo. That is part of what makes it the status quo, it currently reigns supreme over the majority of the world.

It's not clear to me by what means you feel able to judge somebody's inmost ideals. Frankly, I think the desire to do so, much less the conceit that you have the ability to do so, is intrinsically problematic, and tends to lead to conversations just like the one that's happening in this thread, where the people you like are assumed to always be honest even when they lie and the people you dislike are assumed to be dishonest even when they have no reason to be. This is is why technocrats took over, they focused on results rather than Humean froth!

Personally I don't think this tangent about whether Hillary Clinton is a socialist is particularly important, but it's a little surprising to me to see how many people feel very strongly that they need to argue about it!

That's...good, right? The welfare state is composed of all those incremental, targeted, means-tested neoliberal programs that socialists hate. Dismantling it and replacing it with a more all-encompassing socialist solution should be a good thing. Fewer regulations to abuse or manipulate means more consistent application of governmental power which means more economic equality as a result.

The last major expansion of the welfare state was the ACA, which I don't recall socialists being too big a fan of. If the ACA isn't socialist, and a basic income isn't socialist, then it seems impossible to identify or create any socialist policies.

This is the "I don't see race" of class. Inequality is a fundamental state. That's the whole point of socialism, that we should constantly seek to eliminate it. The Soviet Union got pretty far into a crony capitalist system by insisting that inequality didn't exist. You have to see it to fight it.

I am not saying we should move forward as if inequality does not exists. I am saying that UBI would not erase inequality and it could even make it worse since $2500 a month would meant little if the welfare state gets dismantled, specially when it comes to healthcare costs and affordable housing.

As it is, UBI could end up as an "incrementalist" wet dream and magnific news for oligarchs.

pigeon · Oct 30, 2017

Melkr_ said:
I am not saying we should move forward as if inequality does not exists. I am saying that UBI would not erase inequality and it could even make it worse since $2500 a month would meant little if the welfare state gets dismantled, specially when it comes to healthcare costs and affordable housing.

As it is, UBI could end up as an "incrementalist" wet dream and magnific news for oligarchs.

Sure, I'm happy to agree that a minimalist UBI along with the rollback of targeted programs would ultimately be regressive. But the thing that's regressive there is the rollback, not the UBI. Given any arbitrary policy regime, adding a UBI and changing nothing else makes it more equal economically.

I understand your concerns about the political climate and the fear of UBI being used as a trojan horse, though.

Deleted member 721 · Oct 30, 2017

Its not because she likes an Idea identified with the left she's socialist, not everyone on the left is socialist, If Hillary Said "All means of production to the proletariat!" Or "you have nothing to lose but your chains" , "All the Power to the soviets"

Then i would maybe start to guess "look at that, Hillary might be a commie"

Keynesianists, reformists, light neo liberals arent socialists, they dont want the socialist state. They want the human capitalism.

otaku_777 · Oct 30, 2017

Socialism doesn't work because there is a problem to how much information a human or a collaboration of humans can physically process. A dictator or a central planner cannot exceed a pricing system in terms of allocation of resources. A price limits scarcity and it produces availability at the same time. If a product is harder to ship or export or produce, the price changes dynamically so that product is still available.

Socialist governments have a very very hard time allocating resources. The USSR just gave up, and it collapsed. Venezuela attempted socialism again, and they are too poor to even export oil (!) and oil is the most valuable resource in the world.

I believe that socialist governments made an earnest attempt to make an alternative to capitalism, and it was a very good try, and were an attempt of a "natural experiment" on the economy. We can now see socialism doesn't work from a scientific standpoint, and we should move on. Karl Marx made a good critique about capitalism, but he was from a time before the invention of calculus. We have much better economic thought than what socialists envisioned, and I recommend reading literature from Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes, and my favorite Friedrich Hayek.

I really like Friedrich Hayek. He had a metaphor for socialists who all envisioned or dreamed about the world without capitalism. Socialists all have the same desire, to create a "better world," but they all have different idea of how to do it or what should be done. Socialists are all on the same boat, but they all have a different idea of where they are going.

pigeon · Oct 30, 2017

otaku_777 said:
Socialism doesn't work because there is a problem to how much information a human or a collaboration of humans can physically process. A dictator or a central planner cannot exceed a pricing system in terms of allocation of resources. A price limits scarcity and it produces availability at the same time. If a product is harder to ship or export or produce, the price changes dynamically so that product is still available.

This would be perfect if markets actually worked consistently. In practice, in some situations they do and in some situations they don't, and the situations in which they don't are rapidly expanding. Public goods don't work with a market structure, monopolistic entities corrupt them, crony capitalism damages them, etc.

In a world in which everything in America costs six to eight times as much in real dollars as they did sixty years ago even as our production of wealth has multiplied by many degrees, it's simply Pollyannaish to say that "the free market will just allocate resources to fix it." It's already failed! The neoliberal dream of lowering the cost of everything by producing more has had literally the exact opposite effect it was intended to create.

Given that the free market doesn't work, it's necessary to manage it in some way. Whether you want to do that with a central planner (more realistic now that computing power has multiplied so aggressively) or simply with a managed market, ultimately some aspect of socialist thought will be involved.

It's also worth noting that this argument is purely about the functioning of the economy, while socialism is ultimately a moral question. I am less concerned with the market working and more concerned with ensuring that people are not coerced with the threat of death into giving up most of the proceeds of their labor to rentiers.

Bonen no Max'd · Oct 30, 2017

I know you're kind of trolling but I expected a bit better of you tbh

pigeon said:
Well, of course this is exactly what a socialist would say about another socialist. Pretty standard splitter discourse.

If you want to call someone whose political career has consistently sided with capital over labor, the burden of proof is on you to prove that they are a socialist, not on socialists to prove they aren't.

This ties to one of the main issues I perceive with the left today, which is that the ideological commitment to opposing the international Pax Americana status quo at all levels makes it impossible to articulate a functional, coherent and humane foreign policy.

Hillary's vision of foreign policy is totally unhumanitarian, she holds favorably Kissinger's worldview, supports wars to profit American capitalists, and criticizes the global south for their post-colonial troubles. Regardless of the incoherence of the left on some foreign policy issues, her support for the brutality of the American empire is inexcusable.

I mean, everybody is part of the neoliberal economic status quo. That is part of what makes it the status quo, it currently reigns supreme over the majority of the world.

This is dumb, Hillary has consistently supported the neoliberal order and defended it against the left even when it became increasingly clear that her base didn't accept or believe it (unless, of course, her base isn't the voters but the financial interests backing her).

It's not clear to me by what means you feel able to judge somebody's inmost ideals. Frankly, I think the desire to do so, much less the conceit that you have the ability to do so, is intrinsically problematic, and tends to lead to conversations just like the one that's happening in this thread, where the people you like are assumed to always be honest even when they lie and the people you dislike are assumed to be dishonest even when they have no reason to be. This is is why technocrats took over, they focused on results rather than Humean froth!

Sure, reading the real politics of someone instead of looking at their record and platforms is what got the left into trouble with thinking Obama was on their side. Luckily with Hillary, we can observe her record and policy positions and see that absent fear of abstentionism from the left, she will always favor the interests of capital and absent those pressure will claim a social democratic reform like universal free college is a "free pony" while supporting substantially more expensive wars because they profit wealthy interests (and make her look presidential).

Personally I don't think this tangent about whether Hillary Clinton is a socialist is particularly important, but it's a little surprising to me to see how many people feel very strongly that they need to argue about it!

I mean, you were the one who came in here and mourned the loss of our socialist heroine. I realize you're trolling but I'm not sure what else you'd expect.

The last major expansion of the welfare state was the ACA, which I don't recall socialists being too big a fan of. If the ACA isn't socialist, and a basic income isn't socialist, then it seems impossible to identify or create any socialist policies.

That's...good, right? The welfare state is composed of all those incremental, targeted, means-tested neoliberal programs that socialists hate. Dismantling it and replacing it with a more all-encompassing socialist solution should be a good thing. Fewer regulations to abuse or manipulate means more consistent application of governmental power which means more economic equality as a result.

This seems like a false choice, the options aren't only"means-tested targeted neoliberal programs" or "UBI", there's also state ownership of public goods like nationalized energy or transportation or universal social democratic programs like a single payer healthcare system. The concern that the good welfare programs will get replaced with UBI is real and worth discussing. A UBI that does not guarantee public housing, healthcare, or other necessary goods as rights isn't a solution to inequality. What is to prevent the rentiers from raising their rents if their goods are not publicly held?

Mezentine · Oct 30, 2017

I think Clinton earns more grief than she probably deserves for a wide number of reasons, many of them unpleasant or just unfounded, but I strongly struggle to describe her as meaningfully socialist. And I don't mean that pejoratively, nessecarily, I think that we can't classify anyone who isn't socialist enough as an enemy or active socialists are always going to be a tiny majority (this taps into a larger issue as well) but its really hard to see where she espouses a socialist perspective on labor

Deleted member 1852 · Oct 30, 2017

Mezentine said:
I think Clinton earns more grief than she probably deserves for a wide number of reasons, many of them unpleasant or just unfounded, but I strongly struggle to describe her as meaningfully socialist. And I don't mean that pejoratively, nessecarily, I think that we can't classify anyone who isn't socialist enough as an enemy or active socialists are always going to be a tiny majority (this taps into a larger issue as well) but its really hard to see where she espouses a socialist perspective on labor

Well the American labor unions revolted pretty strongly against her so that should give you an idea of how they felt about her perspective on labor. Had she meaningfully carried the labor vote in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, she would be President now. Normally labor is a Democratic stronghold but not for Hillary. One hopes a lesson will be learned and the next Democrat will care more about that. American labor in general is in a nearly extinct state as membership has been in decline for decades after demonization from both the right and center but they are still a voting bloc that Democrats must carry if they actually plan on winning elections.

Socialism |OT| The Dawn of a Red Era

What tendency/ideology do you best align with?

Anarchism

Marxism

Marxism-Leninism

Left Communism

Democratic Socialism

Social Democracy

Other

User requested account closure

flâneur

User-requested account closure

user requested account closure

user requested account closure

user requested account closure

user requested account closure

User requested account closure

user requested account closure

User-requested account closure

User requested account closure