The left has gone full retard

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Im not dumb you are the one fighting 160 years of socialist history. Did you even read what you posted? Its just more of the same trying to distance themselves from the core ideology. Trying to make distinctions that arent even distinctions but more or less just describe an incrementalist approach to the same outcome. Here is the distinction trying to be made. Soviets were autocratic and socialism-lite pretends to be democratic but only in so much as it is a step towards autocratic socialism.

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Edit: the particular labels of squares are different depending on the book basically. Some say the bottom right one is Capitalism and the upper right one is Fascism -- which I find to be easier to accept for most Americans...but probably less accurate. The very top of the right square is probably Fascism, where Capitalism (as in what we have in America) is more toward the bottom. Most of Asia is closer to Fascism than capitalism IMO (Japan is an obvious exception).

There is a distinction in Europe between Conservative welfare states like Germany -- that want to keep the traditional family in tact and keep hierarchies going -- compared to a Socialist welfare states; which want real equality to be promoted.

Wonder how different political science treats that graph outside of the US

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Serious question for you leftists (except Alarti, who is incapable of critical thought). Do you feel this is a fair description of your opinion:

1. We have seen a massive increase in social redistribution programs in the United States during the past 50 years
2. These programs primarily benefit the bureaucracy, e.g. welfare doesn't reduce poverty, Obamacare doesn't increase healthcare coverage, etc
3. You want more social redistribution programs or at least to maintain the ones we have

Says the guy getting proved wrong by members on both sides of the argument.

[Pokesan]

I believe in the idiotic strawman you've presented Raev

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The largest redistribution that has occurred since the 1950's (The time of the greatest economic equality in US history) has been wealth into the hands of corporations and the financial elite, through deregulation, wage depression, declining union membership, political corruption, globalization, and cultural changes.

I want universal healthcare. I want the government to start trustbusting again and breaking up the monopolies and cartels that have developed in nearly every American industry. I want the traditions and practices of unions to make a comeback so labor isn't getting raped so fucking hard. Not public sector unions. I want business interests and Democrats to stop blocking immigration reform worldwide, depressing wages and driving up safety net costs across Europe and the US. I want multinational corporations to pay the taxes they owe (They use all the benefits of globalization including cheap labor, access to domestic infrastructure, education, and technological sophistication, but still use national borders to hide their money from being taxed).

However, none of the above can happen if the Ayn Rand/Libertarian selfishness and contempt for collective responsibility that spread like a plague since Reagan is wiped out, and none of it can happen until political campaigns are free of bribery. Luckily the voting trends of young people seem to indicate that things are headed in that direction.

I'm not going to argue about your perception of the growth/efficacy of social programs/liberalism over the last 50 years because you continually fail to address my points.

Its not the objectivist you have to worry about blocking what you want. Its the fact that what you want will only happen successfully in a culturally homogenous state. See if we have to live in a relativist multiculturalist society then rampant capitalism and liberalism is what you will get. If you want deep communal ties, sense of duty, and a collectivist state that works for the interest of the people then you need national socialism. Think of ethnocentric nationalism as the tie that binds the fasci.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Says the guy getting proved wrong by members on both sides of the argument.

Did anyone really expect this guy to answer some direct questions involving his views?

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Its not the objectivist you have to worry about blocking what you want. Its the fact that what you want will only happen successfully in a culturally homogenous state. See if we have to live in a relativist multiculturalist society then rampant capitalism and liberalism is what you will get. If you want deep communal ties, sense of duty, and a collectivist state that works for the interest of the people then you need national socialism. Think of ethnocentric nationalism as the tie that binds the fasci.

It is true that this is a good explanation for why we don't have the kind of government that they have in the more successful European countries. But that doesn't mean we cannot find ways to form social cohesion without ethnic homogeneity.

Basically Civic Nationalism -- where you feel connection to be a citizen of America -- is lot prettier than ethnic nationalism. The problem with some Muslim populations is not that their skin is brown and they believe Mohammad is the profit. The problem is they reject what it means to be American. But when you make it about being Muslim, we can't make the distinction between Muslims that believe in America and Muslims that want to make some kind of shitty theocracy out of America.

So people like Obama -- who conservatives hated a lot more than Clinton for some reason...[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] -- try to stay away from making this about religion or race. They want to keep it about politics. We also try to bring the younger generations together regardless of race/cultural background (we don't waste the effort on older people). Hopefully we can eventually create enough civic nationalism in due time, without having to resort to ethnic nationalism like Santa advocates for here.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is true that this is a good explanation for why we don't have the kind of government that they have in the more successful European countries. But that doesn't mean we cannot find ways to form social cohesion without ethnic homogeneity.

Basically Civic Nationalism -- where you feel connection to be a citizen of America -- is lot prettier than ethnic nationalism. The problem with some Muslim populations is not that their skin is brown and they believe Mohammad is the profit. The problem is they reject what it means to be American. But when you make it about being Muslim, we can't make the distinction between Muslims that believe in America and Muslims that want to make some kind of shitty theocracy out of America.

So people like Obama -- who conservatives hated a lot more than Clinton for some reason...[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] -- try to stay away from making this about religion or race. They want to keep it about politics. We also try to bring the younger generations together regardless of race/cultural background (we don't waste the effort on older people). Hopefully we can eventually create enough civic nationalism in due time, without having to resort to ethnic nationalism like Santa advocates for here.

How does the left propose civic nationalism when they perpetuate identity politics? They make victims of minorities and create resentment towards America. Literally what you described is how it was always setup to be and it worked pretty well until we opened immigration to non-europeans. I see your point though its like Jews. They got to come in on the "white and european" bandwagon but have destroyed this country (and every other one they have been in) and have divided allegiances between the US and Israel a divided cultural identity.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1. ignores the massive roll back of welfare in the 80s, and trys to blame the middle class decline following the 80s on stuff that happened in the 40s-50s (when the middle class came rose and became strong).

If we amend this to 'nonmonotonic' will you be satisfied? Also, I'm curious why you think a decline in welfare (the bottom 15%) would be destructive to the middle class.

Originally Posted by JurisDictum

2. Obamacare did increase coverage. Deal with it. BTW, the conservative governors purposefully tried to sabotage the program throughout most of conservative America. This is why you notice much more issues with Obamacare in conservative states than liberal ones. All that being said, I want socialized medicine for all. There will still be private medicine for the rich if they want cushy waiting rooms and more patient drs.

So I had to look this up. this was the best data I could find. It looks like Obamacare (implemented 2010) did nothing but when the government started to tax people for not having insurance, they bought it. So I'm going to say you're right and my information was a bit out of date, but I'm not really sure that's an achievement.

Originally Posted by JurisDictum

3. I want us to change directions when it comes to social programs. I don't want programs that help people subsist in poverty. I want programs that invest in the workforce, programs that train people in skills than place them in jobs. I want programs that allow preferential loans to particularly productive things -- like college and home ownership. In short, I want to take the programs that work in Europe, and modify them as necessary to work for America.

I'll take this as you agreeing with #2, that our current programs suck.

But you aren't different from LBJ. He specifically wanted programs that gave people a boost out of poverty, not ones that kept them there forever. In fact, I don't think welfare has ever been intended to do that, yet that is what we have.

Again, given the past history of social programs simply not accomplishing their goals, how do you expect to succeed this time? And remember, the obstinate Republican governors aren't going way.

Originally Posted by Lune

The largest redistribution that has occurred since the 1950's (The time of the greatest economic equality in US history) has been wealth into the hands of corporations and the financial elite, through deregulation, wage depression, declining union membership, political corruption, globalization, and cultural changes.

100% agree, but it doesn't mean that the social programs haven't increased. This is why I don't like socialism: it is always corrupted.

Originally Posted by Lune

I want universal healthcare. I want the government to start trustbusting again and breaking up the monopolies and cartels that have developed in nearly every American industry. I want the traditions and practices of unions to make a comeback so labor isn't getting raped so fucking hard. Not public sector unions. I want business interests and Democrats to stop blocking immigration reform worldwide, depressing wages and driving up safety net costs across Europe and the US. I want multinational corporations to pay the taxes they owe (They use all the benefits of globalization including cheap labor, access to domestic infrastructure, education, and technological sophistication, but still use national borders to hide their money from being taxed).

I mean, you have my full support for trustbusting (I'd love to see corporate progressive income tax), immigration reform, and elimination of public sector unions. I don't think your problem there is the libertarians but the politicians and their corporate masters who profit immensely from the current state of affairs.

IIRC our corporate tax rate was the highest in the world but I'm not really knowledgeable about that area.

Originally Posted by Pokesan

I believe in the idiotic strawman you've presented Raev

You are remarkably bad at posting on the internet.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Did anyone really expect this guy to answer some direct questions involving his views?

The irony of your statement. Pot and kettle

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Seems you care about the militarys?


So you retract your statement then? Please explain a realistic scenario where a "league of nations" attacks the USA. I'm waiting although it seems obvious you don't want to answer my question with your sidestep there at the end.

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are remarkably bad at posting on the internet.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]