Resistance Intimidating Trump Supporters

[Dukasaur]

Capitalism has resulted in as many or more unhealthy economies and societies and citizens. If you don't think capital is not a major fuel, if not main cause, of conflagration in the middle east, Africa, south America (including the arguably not socialist Venezuela [I won't be pedantic over whether Venezuela is actually socialist with you, because I'm already seeing what's going on here]), and elsewhere, you aren't paying attention. Nevermind that free Healthcare and education is working just fine in social democracies across the world.

The social democracies that are successful in providing healthcare and education are successful because they're careful not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Societies like Denmark and Finland have strong supports for their people, but they also have a strong respect for the individual and for the role that the free market has to play. The type of extremist socialism you seem to advocate (and where, pray tell, do you draw the line between that and communism?) results in some of the worst hellholes imaginable: Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and yeah, we can add Venezuela to the list unless you can argue convincingly otherwise.

I'll grant you that places like Haiti which have been deliberately impoverished by force (first by France and then by the U.S.) are not exactly a fair test of socialism. But what is Greece's excuse?

[Neoteny]

The social democracies that are successful in providing healthcare and education are successful because they're careful not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Societies like Denmark and Finland have strong supports for their people, but they also have a strong respect for the individual and for the role that the free market has to play.

That's a cute way of saying they are operating within the dominant economic system with a few socialist adjustments and are noticeably thriving due to those additions. Maybe they should go all the way.

The type of extremist socialism you seem to advocate (and where, pray tell, do you draw the line between that and communism?) results in some of the worst hellholes imaginable: Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and yeah, we can add Venezuela to the list unless you can argue convincingly otherwise.

This is some pretty poorly thought out reasoning to be basing our entire economic system on. Watch. Capitalism results in some of the worst hell holes imaginable: Indonesia, Chile (and the various other a Latin American military dictatorships), the atrocities committed by the US in Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere. Hey, maybe these are all complicated conflicts with a variety of factors that include things like: ethnicity, capital, power, class, geography, etc. To boil a genocide or conflict down to the economics is myopic at best, and willfully ignorant at worst.

Oh no, the dreaded communism...

I'll grant you that places like Haiti which have been deliberately impoverished by force (first by France and then by the U.S.) are not exactly a fair test of socialism. But what is Greece's excuse?

Greece... isn't really socialist? The workers don't own the means and all that... They are a social democracy like the Scandinavians and the English, so, I dunno, you tell me. What makes some capitalist countries fail while others don't? Not enough respect, I guess.

Socialism is a pretty new system. The first sort of modern socialist movements arose only a couple centuries ago. It's first state effort survived for almost a century, and was one of the two dominant world powers for most of that. Literally the first run. Every state level socialist attempt has been undermined militarily and economically by established external capital. Sadly, the USSR succumbed to a cult of personality fairly early on (something that surely never happens in Capitalist countries), and had its share of atrocities. But let's not pretend that socialism has been the root of any more evil than capitalism has been. Plenty of evil, indeed, historically more evil, has been done if not in the name of capitalism, then at least under that system's influence.

So, in light of the atrocities of capitalism, why do you choose to sing its merits while blaming socialism for comparable ills? Just habit? Ignorance? Let's get educated. Like, the Khmer Rouge weren't killing people because industries got nationalized or whatever. They were doing it to consolidate and retain control. I missed that bit in Capital when Marx was all "you totes need to kill lots of people too."

[warmonger1981]

Does the size of economies and a countries population have anything to do with a countries standards and its ability to sustain such standards?

[Dukasaur]

The social democracies that are successful in providing healthcare and education are successful because they're careful not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Societies like Denmark and Finland have strong supports for their people, but they also have a strong respect for the individual and for the role that the free market has to play.

That's a cute way of saying they are operating within the dominant economic system with a few socialist adjustments and are noticeably thriving due to those additions. Maybe they should go all the way.

When they've achieved a society that fulfills all its people's needs as far as they can be fulfilled, why would they go further? Europe's social democracies are happiest societies on earth. They've achieved something like the perfect balance between capitalism and socialism. Any movement toward either extreme would shatter that.

The type of extremist socialism you seem to advocate (and where, pray tell, do you draw the line between that and communism?) results in some of the worst hellholes imaginable: Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and yeah, we can add Venezuela to the list unless you can argue convincingly otherwise.

This is some pretty poorly thought out reasoning to be basing our entire economic system on. Watch. Capitalism results in some of the worst hell holes imaginable: Indonesia, Chile (and the various other a Latin American military dictatorships), the atrocities committed by the US in Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere. Hey, maybe these are all complicated conflicts with a variety of factors that include things like: ethnicity, capital, power, class, geography, etc. To boil a genocide or conflict down to the economics is myopic at best, and willfully ignorant at worst.

Societies of every kind have gone to war, and societies of every kind have committed atrocities. There's no limit to how brutal people can get when they feel threatened. A valid comparison of economies can only be made between their peacetime performances.

Oh no, the dreaded communism...

I'll grant you that places like Haiti which have been deliberately impoverished by force (first by France and then by the U.S.) are not exactly a fair test of socialism. But what is Greece's excuse?

Greece... isn't really socialist? The workers don't own the means and all that...

Workers owning the means of production isn't socialism. It's communism. Socialism in the modern sense is workers demanding a decent share of the fruits of their production, whilst still recognizing that capitalism is the the most efficient framework for creating wealth. When I think modern socialism, I think Willy Brandt. The kind of extremism that you are preaching is not modern socialism, it's some kind of throwback to the 19th century, before socialists and communists went their separate ways.

Socialism is a pretty new system. The first sort of modern socialist movements arose only a couple centuries ago. It's first state effort survived for almost a century, and was one of the two dominant world powers for most of that. Literally the first run. Every state level socialist attempt has been undermined militarily and economically by established external capital. Sadly, the USSR succumbed to a cult of personality fairly early on (something that surely never happens in Capitalist countries), and had its share of atrocities. But let's not pretend that socialism has been the root of any more evil than capitalism has been. Plenty of evil, indeed, historically more evil, has been done if not in the name of capitalism, then at least under that system's influence.

Despite masquerading as "socialist", the Soviet Union was communist. Its failure can't be blamed on the fact that it "succumbed to a cult of personality" That cult of personality was responsible for the worst horrors: the Ukrainian famine, the KGB, the Lubyanka, that Gulag, etc. It was NOT however, responsible for the general stagnation and poverty. Those things are direct results of the fact that Marxist economics is a fatally flawed theory. If Lenin and Stalin and Beria had all been saints who never hurt a fly, there might not have been tortures and murders committed in the Lubyanka, but there would still have been widespread misery from the general stagnation and poverty.

So, in light of the atrocities of capitalism, why do you choose to sing its merits while blaming socialism for comparable ills? Just habit? Ignorance? Let's get educated. Like, the Khmer Rouge weren't killing people because industries got nationalized or whatever. They were doing it to consolidate and retain control. I missed that bit in Capital when Marx was all "you totes need to kill lots of people too."

Marx was a dreamer who never had to work for a living. Nor did he ever live under the system he advised.

There are two fundamental flaws in Marxist theory. Either alone would be fatal. The first is the effect of profit on innovation. Bessemer didn't create the blast furnace because he wanted to serve society. He did it because he wanted to make more money than his neighbours. Edison didn't spend a thousand sleepless nights finding the correct filament for his lightbulb because he wanted to serve society. He did it from an unashamed burning need to become rich and famous. Communist economies are not completely incapable of innovation, but their performance in that regard is dismal. 95% of the inventions that have made our lives prosperous and long, are birthed from someone's desire to be richer and more famous than his colleagues. Without the free market, we probably wouldn't have a transcontinental railroad yet, much less airplanes or the caterpillar tractor or the internet.

The second independently fatal flaw in Marxist economics is the inability to properly prioritize, what is known as the economic calculation problem. Without price competition there simply is no feedback for how much of a product to make, what is the most efficient way to make it, where to distribute it, and a thousand related questions.

There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that the free market is the engine that creates wealth. It just isn't an issue an issue any more. I've read a lot of left-wing economists over the years. I haven't seen one in 30 years or more who seriously entertains the thought of doing away with the free market. The only question is, how to curb the free market's excesses. And this, really, isn't a head-scratcher. Look at the five happiest countries in the world: Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland. They all have a strong capitalist economy along with laws that make sure the working man isn't locked out of the benefits of the wealth he helped create. Look at the next five in the top 10: Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia. Progressively more flawed versions of the same. Basically countries that have hope of becoming Finland one day.

[Symmetry]

The social democracies that are successful in providing healthcare and education are successful because they're careful not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Societies like Denmark and Finland have strong supports for their people, but they also have a strong respect for the individual and for the role that the free market has to play.

That's a cute way of saying they are operating within the dominant economic system with a few socialist adjustments and are noticeably thriving due to those additions. Maybe they should go all the way.

When they've achieved a society that fulfills all its people's needs as far as they can be fulfilled, why would they go further? Europe's social democracies are happiest societies on earth. They've achieved something like the perfect balance between capitalism and socialism. Any movement toward either extreme would shatter that.

The type of extremist socialism you seem to advocate (and where, pray tell, do you draw the line between that and communism?) results in some of the worst hellholes imaginable: Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and yeah, we can add Venezuela to the list unless you can argue convincingly otherwise.

This is some pretty poorly thought out reasoning to be basing our entire economic system on. Watch. Capitalism results in some of the worst hell holes imaginable: Indonesia, Chile (and the various other a Latin American military dictatorships), the atrocities committed by the US in Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere. Hey, maybe these are all complicated conflicts with a variety of factors that include things like: ethnicity, capital, power, class, geography, etc. To boil a genocide or conflict down to the economics is myopic at best, and willfully ignorant at worst.

Societies of every kind have gone to war, and societies of every kind have committed atrocities. There's no limit to how brutal people can get when they feel threatened. A valid comparison of economies can only be made between their peacetime performances.

Oh no, the dreaded communism...

I'll grant you that places like Haiti which have been deliberately impoverished by force (first by France and then by the U.S.) are not exactly a fair test of socialism. But what is Greece's excuse?

Greece... isn't really socialist? The workers don't own the means and all that...

Workers owning the means of production isn't socialism. It's communism. Socialism in the modern sense is workers demanding a decent share of the fruits of their production, whilst still recognizing that capitalism is the the most efficient framework for creating wealth. When I think modern socialism, I think Willy Brandt. The kind of extremism that you are preaching is not modern socialism, it's some kind of throwback to the 19th century, before socialists and communists went their separate ways.

Socialism is a pretty new system. The first sort of modern socialist movements arose only a couple centuries ago. It's first state effort survived for almost a century, and was one of the two dominant world powers for most of that. Literally the first run. Every state level socialist attempt has been undermined militarily and economically by established external capital. Sadly, the USSR succumbed to a cult of personality fairly early on (something that surely never happens in Capitalist countries), and had its share of atrocities. But let's not pretend that socialism has been the root of any more evil than capitalism has been. Plenty of evil, indeed, historically more evil, has been done if not in the name of capitalism, then at least under that system's influence.

Despite masquerading as "socialist", the Soviet Union was communist. Its failure can't be blamed on the fact that it "succumbed to a cult of personality" That cult of personality was responsible for the worst horrors: the Ukrainian famine, the KGB, the Lubyanka, that Gulag, etc. It was NOT however, responsible for the general stagnation and poverty. Those things are direct results of the fact that Marxist economics is a fatally flawed theory. If Lenin and Stalin and Beria had all been saints who never hurt a fly, there might not have been tortures and murders committed in the Lubyanka, but there would still have been widespread misery from the general stagnation and poverty.

So, in light of the atrocities of capitalism, why do you choose to sing its merits while blaming socialism for comparable ills? Just habit? Ignorance? Let's get educated. Like, the Khmer Rouge weren't killing people because industries got nationalized or whatever. They were doing it to consolidate and retain control. I missed that bit in Capital when Marx was all "you totes need to kill lots of people too."

Marx was a dreamer who never had to work for a living. Nor did he ever live under the system he advised.

There are two fundamental flaws in Marxist theory. Either alone would be fatal. The first is the effect of profit on innovation. Bessemer didn't create the blast furnace because he wanted to serve society. He did it because he wanted to make more money than his neighbours. Edison didn't spend a thousand sleepless nights finding the correct filament for his lightbulb because he wanted to serve society. He did it from an unashamed burning need to become rich and famous. Communist economies are not completely incapable of innovation, but their performance in that regard is dismal. 95% of the inventions that have made our lives prosperous and long, are birthed from someone's desire to be richer and more famous than his colleagues. Without the free market, we probably wouldn't have a transcontinental railroad yet, much less airplanes or the caterpillar tractor or the internet.

The second independently fatal flaw in Marxist economics is the inability to properly prioritize, what is known as the economic calculation problem. Without price competition there simply is no feedback for how much of a product to make, what is the most efficient way to make it, where to distribute it, and a thousand related questions.

There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that the free market is the engine that creates wealth. It just isn't an issue an issue any more. I've read a lot of left-wing economists over the years. I haven't seen one in 30 years or more who seriously entertains the thought of doing away with the free market. The only question is, how to curb the free market's excesses. And this, really, isn't a head-scratcher. Look at the five happiest countries in the world: Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland. They all have a strong capitalist economy along with laws that make sure the working man isn't locked out of the benefits of the wealth he helped create. Look at the next five in the top 10: Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia. Progressively more flawed versions of the same. Basically countries that have hope of becoming Finland one day.

Is there a serious economist who believes that the free market exists? Or has ever existed?

[thegreekdog]

Capitalism has resulted in as many or more unhealthy economies and societies and citizens. If you don't think capital is not a major fuel, if not main cause, of conflagration in the middle east, Africa, south America (including the arguably not socialist Venezuela [I won't be pedantic over whether Venezuela is actually socialist with you, because I'm already seeing what's going on here]), and elsewhere, you aren't paying attention. Nevermind that free Healthcare and education is working just fine in social democracies across the world. Nevermind that places like Cuba have successful "free" healthcare systems despite being embargoed by the most economically domineering and militaristic country on the planet. Nevermind that every attempt at leftist economics is militarily and economically undermined by established capital (read: the entire history of Central and South America). Please, tell me more about what capitalism has done for Haiti. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Yemen, for that matter.

And none of this touches on how sick the US system is. How many people have to turn to gofundme for healthcare?

But sure, socialism is less just. Because empowering the lower class is somehow less just to those who have all they need and more.

Heh - socialism = empowering the lower class.
Heh - capitalism doesn't work in Haiti because capitalism sucks.
Heh - "free" healthcare

They will if they want to start winning elections again. Responding to your base is how you motivate your voters. It's how you build support. That's why Trump won. But I don't really expect you to be the sort of person to listen to antifa or any other working class movement. I'm honestly shocked you have time for BLM, because every position you hold is tonguing the treads of the wealthy and powerful.

The Dems are responding to a vocal minority of their base, not their actual base. They just happen to be extremely well-positioned to say whatever the f*ck they want because of our current president. I think I read today that the generic ballot is something ridiculously high +Dem. Does that happen because they are "responding to their base" or because the man in charge is a certified moron?

BLM does not directly attack capitalism; frankly it's an attack on government overreach and intervention. Seems like something right up my alley.

What sort of shithead dislikes populism? Oh, right, people interested in sucking the capital out of the populace. Sure, populism can be misused in the service of the elites, which is pretty much the Republican platform. Calling Trump some sort of subversion or failure of the system is silly. This has been the level of discourse for decades. Trump is just saying the quiet parts loud.

God, libertarians are garbage.

I mean... we're seeing the problem with populism right now. We'll see the problem with populism in a few months and then again in 2020. Giving people "free" stuff doesn't work. Promising people a result for something that a democracy with the rule of law can't control doesn't work.

[Neoteny]

I need to preface this with a few comments. One of the hardest parts of leftist discourse is putting solidarity into practice with left-leaning centrists. One can see the motivation to improve lives and a willingness to rebuild the structures of society with egalitarianism in mind, but they suffer from horseshoe theory brain rot and whatever disease conservatives have where words don't have meanings anymore. I keep bringing up the Overton window, but it's so illustrative when you talk to a radical centrist like yourself who will defend discourse with people to the right of them who rapidly become nazis and ancaps as you slide down the spectrum, but who will look to the breadth of political thought to their left and see only stalinists. They're around, don't get me wrong, but you apparently wouldn't know a tankie if they loaded you into a Hind and crashed it into the Lubyanka building. Ostensibly John McCain is flying the helicopter.

When they've achieved a society that fulfills all its people's needs as far as they can be fulfilled, why would they go further? Europe's social democracies are happiest societies on earth. They've achieved something like the perfect balance between capitalism and socialism. Any movement toward either extreme would shatter that.

Because the workers are still being exploited, even if it's not as bad as in the US or elswhere. They are entitled to all the fruits of their labor. So, no, they aren't fulfilling all its people's needs as far as they can be, even ignoring, say, Sami populations and literal Danish ghettos. Like, I know you don't believe that labor is exploited by capital because you are a centrist, and Scandinavian countries are better at this than most, but that doesn't make it less true.

Societies of every kind have gone to war, and societies of every kind have committed atrocities. There's no limit to how brutal people can get when they feel threatened. A valid comparison of economies can only be made between their peacetime performances.

That's a bold defense of genocide. Weird that you only apply it to your side. Disgusting, frankly. The Khmer Rouge "felt threatened," despite being as not threatened as the US were in Korea and Vietnam. The Indonesian genocide was a response to an alleged coup attempt that was crushed the next day. There was no war or existential threat. Sri Lankan abuses occurred during civil war, and are therefore moot according to your view. But whatever. Your willingness to wave that off in the name of loyalty to an economic system is pretty disturbing.

Workers owning the means of production isn't socialism. It's communism. Socialism in the modern sense is workers demanding a decent share of the fruits of their production, whilst still recognizing that capitalism is the the most efficient framework for creating wealth. When I think modern socialism, I think Willy Brandt. The kind of extremism that you are preaching is not modern socialism, it's some kind of throwback to the 19th century, before socialists and communists went their separate ways.

What the everloving f*ck are you talking about here? Of course workers owning the means of production is socialism. Social ownership is literally the only uniting characteristic of the different threads of socialism. The role of the state in this or the nature of reform or any number of other theory divides can be used to distinguish, say communism from trotskyism or whatever, but if common ownership in some form isn't in there, it isn't socialist. Willy Brandt wasn't a socialist. He was a Social Democrat. He was a capitalist (at least, by the time he got into power he was, conveniently) in favor of a strong welfare state. Which is fine; it's definitely a vast improvement over American-style neoliberalism. As a transitional step, it's absolutely acceptable means to the eventual end of social revolution. But these words have meanings, Duk, and I don't think it's strictly pedantic to require they be maintained.

And to criticize socialism as stagnant ignores a history of economic though from Marx to the likes of Gromsci and Luxemburg to Frankfurt school theorists to whatever we will eventually refer to the "New Left" as. It's only going to be viewed as outdated if the breadth of your knowledge of marxism is "Stalin is bad."

Despite masquerading as "socialist", the Soviet Union was communist. Its failure can't be blamed on the fact that it "succumbed to a cult of personality" That cult of personality was responsible for the worst horrors: the Ukrainian famine, the KGB, the Lubyanka, that Gulag, etc. It was NOT however, responsible for the general stagnation and poverty. Those things are direct results of the fact that Marxist economics is a fatally flawed theory. If Lenin and Stalin and Beria had all been saints who never hurt a fly, there might not have been tortures and murders committed in the Lubyanka, but there would still have been widespread misery from the general stagnation and poverty.

Through this discussion, I've wondered what it is that leads you to think I'm toward the extreme end of leftist. I'll admit to some anarchist sympathies, but I'm really not so far gone. I'm not necessarily anti-market, and I could definitely be convinced that we don't need to guillotine everyone who makes over $100,000 per year. Is it really just because I made my avatar a picture of my dog wearing an ushanka? I keep falling back on the Overton window; have the radical centrists really moved so far right? But reading these paragraphs makes it incredibly clear: you don't have a fucking clue what is to your left. Like I said, I'm no tankie. I'm not going to defend the abuses of the Soviet Union, and I take issue with plenty of their economic policies and methods for transitioning to a fully worker-centric model. But it was the first try and deserves some credit and slack (economically) for it. It was challenged and subverted internally and externally. Despite all that, it was a system that survived for almost a century, so there's something to that. None of this is to lessen the personal suffering experienced by those who experienced the famine and poverty under the Ussr, but I don't see you criticizing capitalism for the fallout from the market crash in the thirties. It's perfectly fine for you to make a few adjustments, call yourself a socialist and pretend you've created the best, if not only, workable economic system. What hubris!

Our first run at socialism could be improved upon in a lot of ways, but it was an attempt at socialism, and to rebrand it as "not socialist" just because you didn't like the outcome reveals a massive presumption and not insignificant cowardice. If you don't like socialism, more power to you. But don't claim to be socialist (you very obviously aren't, you're a social Democrat; I may even be overstepping by applying the term radical centrist since you don't even seem to upset by the status quo) and use that claim to bolster your crooked view of politics.

Marx was a dreamer who never had to work for a living. Nor did he ever live under the system he advised.

There are two fundamental flaws in Marxist theory. Either alone would be fatal. The first is the effect of profit on innovation. Bessemer didn't create the blast furnace because he wanted to serve society. He did it because he wanted to make more money than his neighbours. Edison didn't spend a thousand sleepless nights finding the correct filament for his lightbulb because he wanted to serve society. He did it from an unashamed burning need to become rich and famous. Communist economies are not completely incapable of innovation, but their performance in that regard is dismal. 95% of the inventions that have made our lives prosperous and long, are birthed from someone's desire to be richer and more famous than his colleagues. Without the free market, we probably wouldn't have a transcontinental railroad yet, much less airplanes or the caterpillar tractor or the internet.

The second independently fatal flaw in Marxist economics is the inability to properly prioritize, what is known as the economic calculation problem. Without price competition there simply is no feedback for how much of a product to make, what is the most efficient way to make it, where to distribute it, and a thousand related questions.

There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that the free market is the engine that creates wealth. It just isn't an issue an issue any more. I've read a lot of left-wing economists over the years. I haven't seen one in 30 years or more who seriously entertains the thought of doing away with the free market. The only question is, how to curb the free market's excesses. And this, really, isn't a head-scratcher. Look at the five happiest countries in the world: Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland. They all have a strong capitalist economy along with laws that make sure the working man isn't locked out of the benefits of the wealth he helped create. Look at the next five in the top 10: Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia. Progressively more flawed versions of the same. Basically countries that have hope of becoming Finland one day.

Do you... how do you think the internet was created? Never mind, it doesn't matter. But please forgive me for not taking seriously the criticism of Marx and Marxism from someone who doesn't know what socialism is, much less what its component parts are, or indeed even what his own economic ideology is. If I wanted a meandering lecture on the glory of the free market, I would just read Wealth of Nations. I've heard the lines before, Duk. I'm an American. I suggest you educate yourself on socialism. Since I now have to throw an essay in greek's general direction, I'll leave you with the following:

Dukasaur in 2018: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that the free market is the engine that creates wealth."

Dukasaur in 1900: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that imperialism is the engine that creates wealth."

Dukasaur in 1800: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that slavery is the engine that creates wealth."

Dukasaur in 1600: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that mercantilism is the engine that creates wealth."

Dukasaur in 1400: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that feudalism is the engine that creates wealth."

History hasn't actually ended, Mr. Fukuyama. Stop pretending it has.

[Neoteny]

Heh - socialism = empowering the lower class.
Heh - capitalism doesn't work in Haiti because capitalism sucks.
Heh - "free" healthcare

I used your damn scare quotes. What do you people want from me.

The Dems are responding to a vocal minority of their base, not their actual base. They just happen to be extremely well-positioned to say whatever the f*ck they want because of our current president. I think I read today that the generic ballot is something ridiculously high +Dem. Does that happen because they are "responding to their base" or because the man in charge is a certified moron?

BLM does not directly attack capitalism; frankly it's an attack on government overreach and intervention. Seems like something right up my alley.

They aren't even responding to their "base." That's part of the problem and to my point. Their base used to be labor and minorities. They've completely abandoned the former, and barely pay lip service to the latter. You're right in that their current surge is 100% due to our gelatin president. I'm saying they need to reconnect with someone, anyone at this point, if they want to be able to maintain that power when they get it back. Right now the closest thing they can call a base that they can rely on is wine moms.

I mean... we're seeing the problem with populism right now. We'll see the problem with populism in a few months and then again in 2020. Giving people "free" stuff doesn't work. Promising people a result for something that a democracy with the rule of law can't control doesn't work.

We're seeing the problem with fascist populism right now. Leftist populism has its own strengths and weaknesses. But I'd abolutely rather have a populist than an oligarch. Bush did this country no good. It's funny how we got both this time and it feels somehow worse (even though, in practice, Trump has still done less harm).

[saxitoxin]

History hasn't actually ended, Mr. Fukuyama.

wait wat - did u just get gang banged by 10 freshman coed IR majors or something

[Neoteny]

Saxi wants us to know that he got that reference. Thanks for your input Saxi, you're so very smart!

[2dimes]

Dukasaur in 2018: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that the free market is the engine that creates wealth."

Dukasaur in 1900: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that imperialism is the engine that creates wealth."

Dukasaur in 1800: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that slavery is the engine that creates wealth."

Dukasaur in 1600: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that mercantilism is the engine that creates wealth."

Dukasaur in 1400: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that feudalism is the engine that creates wealth."

So he's a highlander?

[Neoteny]

Honestly, it might explain a lot.

[saxitoxin]

Saxi wants us to know that he got that reference. Thanks for your input Saxi, you're so very smart!

[Dukasaur]

When they've achieved a society that fulfills all its people's needs as far as they can be fulfilled, why would they go further? Europe's social democracies are happiest societies on earth. They've achieved something like the perfect balance between capitalism and socialism. Any movement toward either extreme would shatter that.

Because the workers are still being exploited, even if it's not as bad as in the US or elswhere. They are entitled to all the fruits of their labor. So, no, they aren't fulfilling all its people's needs as far as they can be, even ignoring, say, Sami populations and literal Danish ghettos. Like, I know you don't believe that labor is exploited by capital because you are a centrist, and Scandinavian countries are better at this than most, but that doesn't make it less true.

The relationship between labour and capital can and should symbiotic. It doesn't need to be exploitative.

Societies of every kind have gone to war, and societies of every kind have committed atrocities. There's no limit to how brutal people can get when they feel threatened. A valid comparison of economies can only be made between their peacetime performances.

That's a bold defense of genocide. Weird that you only apply it to your side. Disgusting, frankly. The Khmer Rouge "felt threatened," despite being as not threatened as the US were in Korea and Vietnam. The Indonesian genocide was a response to an alleged coup attempt that was crushed the next day. There was no war or existential threat. Sri Lankan abuses occurred during civil war, and are therefore moot according to your view. But whatever. Your willingness to wave that off in the name of loyalty to an economic system is pretty disturbing.

To borrow a phrase that you millennials love so much: LOLWUT?!

I made no defense of genocide. If you want to compare genocides, Stalin murdered 30 million, Mao murdered 60 million, throw in Pol Pot and the Kims and Jomo Kenyatta and Ceausescu and a dozen other rogues and the total death toll from Communist democides easily bursts above 120 million. All the crimes of all the capitalist nations combined can't hold a candle to even a generous reckoning of Communist crimes.

I was simply saying that I'm willing to leave those out of the picture and set them aside as desperate acts of paranoid men, and compare only apples to apples: compare capitalist to communist economies under conditions of stability.

Workers owning the means of production isn't socialism. It's communism. Socialism in the modern sense is workers demanding a decent share of the fruits of their production, whilst still recognizing that capitalism is the the most efficient framework for creating wealth. When I think modern socialism, I think Willy Brandt. The kind of extremism that you are preaching is not modern socialism, it's some kind of throwback to the 19th century, before socialists and communists went their separate ways.

What the everloving f*ck are you talking about here? Of course workers owning the means of production is socialism. Social ownership is literally the only uniting characteristic of the different threads of socialism. The role of the state in this or the nature of reform or any number of other theory divides can be used to distinguish, say communism from trotskyism or whatever, but if common ownership in some form isn't in there, it isn't socialist. Willy Brandt wasn't a socialist. He was a Social Democrat. He was a capitalist (at least, by the time he got into power he was, conveniently) in favor of a strong welfare state. Which is fine; it's definitely a vast improvement over American-style neoliberalism. As a transitional step, it's absolutely acceptable means to the eventual end of social revolution. But these words have meanings, Duk, and I don't think it's strictly pedantic to require they be maintained.

Wrong. The language evolves as our understanding evolves. The very fact that you're using words like "social revolution" shows you're mired in long-debunked ideas like Marxism. Modern socialism acknowledges that those early thinkers, while they may have had their heart in the right place, knew nothing of economics. Modern socialism is what you call social democracy, a strong set of protections for workers' rights coupled with a robust economy based on letting the market do its job.

And to criticize socialism as stagnant ignores a history of economic though from Marx to the likes of Gromsci and Luxemburg to Frankfurt school theorists to whatever we will eventually refer to the "New Left" as. It's only going to be viewed as outdated if the breadth of your knowledge of marxism is "Stalin is bad."

LOL. Nobody but saxitoxin thinks Gramsci was anything but a joke. Gramsci spent his life trying to answer the question of "why aren't all the workers rushing to support communism?" What Gramsci spent his life trying to answer most of us could answer in 10 seconds: because communism failed to deliver. It promised workers that they would live in paradise, and instead had us living in a giant forced labour camp. While the capitalists put a chicken in every pot, the communists had us standing in line 6 hours for a chicken, only to get to the front of the line and be told there wasn't any left.

Despite masquerading as "socialist", the Soviet Union was communist. Its failure can't be blamed on the fact that it "succumbed to a cult of personality" That cult of personality was responsible for the worst horrors: the Ukrainian famine, the KGB, the Lubyanka, that Gulag, etc. It was NOT however, responsible for the general stagnation and poverty. Those things are direct results of the fact that Marxist economics is a fatally flawed theory. If Lenin and Stalin and Beria had all been saints who never hurt a fly, there might not have been tortures and murders committed in the Lubyanka, but there would still have been widespread misery from the general stagnation and poverty.

Through this discussion, I've wondered what it is that leads you to think I'm toward the extreme end of leftist. I'll admit to some anarchist sympathies, but I'm really not so far gone. I'm not necessarily anti-market, and I could definitely be convinced that we don't need to guillotine everyone who makes over $100,000 per year. Is it really just because I made my avatar a picture of my dog wearing an ushanka?

No, none of those things. It's the fact that you fall back on outdated concepts like "social revolution" and the abolition of capital.

On my bad days, I'm more extreme than you. I would gladly go up to the head office of my company and guillotine every motherfucker there. But on my clearheaded days, I can be persuaded to negotiate...

Dukasaur in 2018: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that the free market is the engine that creates wealth."

Dukasaur in 1900: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that imperialism is the engine that creates wealth."

Dukasaur in 1800: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that slavery is the engine that creates wealth."

Dukasaur in 1600: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that mercantilism is the engine that creates wealth."

Dukasaur in 1400: "There isn't any serious economist today that doesn't acknowledge that feudalism is the engine that creates wealth."

You'd be wrong on those earlier years. Life in 1400 was essentially the same shit as life in 5,000 BC. For thousands and thousands of years nothing changed except the names on the obelisks. Then along came Enlightenment and laissez-faire, and in two or three centuries the average life expectancy has gone from 35 to 80, and starvation has gone from being our ever-present companion to being a rare affliction that only pops up in the very worst circumstances. Even in the last 30 years, regular famines have gone from affecting about half the world to affecting about one-tenth of the world.

Anyway, I'll have to wrap it up as I'm late for work, but I think I covered all the critical bases.

[thegreekdog]

Heh - socialism = empowering the lower class.
Heh - capitalism doesn't work in Haiti because capitalism sucks.
Heh - "free" healthcare

I used your damn scare quotes. What do you people want from me.

The Dems are responding to a vocal minority of their base, not their actual base. They just happen to be extremely well-positioned to say whatever the f*ck they want because of our current president. I think I read today that the generic ballot is something ridiculously high +Dem. Does that happen because they are "responding to their base" or because the man in charge is a certified moron?

BLM does not directly attack capitalism; frankly it's an attack on government overreach and intervention. Seems like something right up my alley.

They aren't even responding to their "base." That's part of the problem and to my point. Their base used to be labor and minorities. They've completely abandoned the former, and barely pay lip service to the latter. You're right in that their current surge is 100% due to our gelatin president. I'm saying they need to reconnect with someone, anyone at this point, if they want to be able to maintain that power when they get it back. Right now the closest thing they can call a base that they can rely on is wine moms.

I mean... we're seeing the problem with populism right now. We'll see the problem with populism in a few months and then again in 2020. Giving people "free" stuff doesn't work. Promising people a result for something that a democracy with the rule of law can't control doesn't work.

We're seeing the problem with fascist populism right now. Leftist populism has its own strengths and weaknesses. But I'd abolutely rather have a populist than an oligarch. Bush did this country no good. It's funny how we got both this time and it feels somehow worse (even though, in practice, Trump has still done less harm).

I agree on your comment regarding the base. The Democrats did abandon their base and I think there's a risk that they will continue to abandon their base or at least alienate the straight white people that make up the labor part of their erstwhile base (caveat - I'm talking purely politics here - as far as I'm concerned BLM is good, be gay and get married, be trans and go into the bathroom, whatever the f*ck you want). Anecdotally, apart from teachers, most of my friends are blue collar workers who find the socialist side of the Democratic party to be too extreme for them. Perhaps that will change (I am, after all, a "boomer" or, more accurately GenX). I also think my friends understand that "free" doesn't actually mean free. And, to take it a step further, after educating many of them, they understand that when the government pays for college or healthcare or otherwise pays a private institution for something, there is no incentive for the private institution to keep prices low. College tuition is already insanely high and arguably insanely high because of bureaucracy; if the government starts handing out free college, what incentive to colleges have to keep costs low?

I suspect populism leads to the silencing of the minority in many, if not all, circumstances (we can call it fascism or a dictatorship or whatever you want to call it). You can label Trump populism as fascism (even though it's really, at worst, racially motivated populism). People are drawn to Trump the same way they would be drawn to Bernie - free stuff. "I'm going to get your jobs back." "I'm going to provide you free education." It's almost exactly the same thing with little or no examination of the consequences. Combine that with a desire to silence opponents whether because you want the libel laws on the press to be opened up or "fake news" or because you get to call anyone who disagrees with you "alt-right" or "racist." It's a combination of populism/free stuff and silencing reasoned debate. I don't like it.

[spurgistan]

OK. So, the socialist side of the congressional Democratic party is one person. And Bernie is just a left-wing Democrat who has the same views as the national party did 40 years ago. Ocasio-Cortez is a lock, so it will be two, in a flood of Dems. If your friends are concerned that the national party is slowly, slowly moving to the left in response to activist millennials (which is a stupid and reductionist thing but it's not the worst stereotype), then that's something they can vote for in local elections. Conor Lamb in PA just got elected, if we'd run a liberal Dem odds are we lose that district. I'd encourage them to get active in local Dem elections, if they're actual Democrats. It's a big party, and about to get a lot bigger, congressionally speaking.

[armati]

Dems about to get bigger?, looks like they might in Florida.

[thegreekdog]

OK. So, the socialist side of the congressional Democratic party is one person. And Bernie is just a left-wing Democrat who has the same views as the national party did 40 years ago. Ocasio-Cortez is a lock, so it will be two, in a flood of Dems. If your friends are concerned that the national party is slowly, slowly moving to the left in response to activist millennials (which is a stupid and reductionist thing but it's not the worst stereotype), then that's something they can vote for in local elections. Conor Lamb in PA just got elected, if we'd run a liberal Dem odds are we lose that district. I'd encourage them to get active in local Dem elections, if they're actual Democrats. It's a big party, and about to get a lot bigger, congressionally speaking.

I agree; they are kind of like the Never Trump Republicans but without the spectre of a populist presidential candidate.

[Neoteny]

The relationship between labour and capital can and should symbiotic. It doesn't need to be exploitative.

And people say communists are utopian.

To borrow a phrase that you millennials love so much: LOLWUT?!

I made no defense of genocide. If you want to compare genocides, Stalin murdered 30 million, Mao murdered 60 million, throw in Pol Pot and the Kims and Jomo Kenyatta and Ceausescu and a dozen other rogues and the total death toll from Communist democides easily bursts above 120 million. All the crimes of all the capitalist nations combined can't hold a candle to even a generous reckoning of Communist crimes.

I was simply saying that I'm willing to leave those out of the picture and set them aside as desperate acts of paranoid men, and compare only apples to apples: compare capitalist to communist economies under conditions of stability.

You were just very quick to dismiss the efforts to militarily or otherwise force capitalism onto unwilling populations. The US had wars where that was explicitly the goal (and still have wars where it is implicit; ask an Iraqi), and slaughtered millions in the process. But it's just things societies do. I'm not going to defend Stalin or Mao, but they were trying to modernize massive populations with new economies, which, you know, is something that societies do (and succeeded to various extents, for what that's worth). They made extremely poor decisions, and arguably made them intentionally (I'm comfortable admitting Pol Pot was just a monster), and I'm willing to stand by criticisms of that. You, on the other hand, are moving the goalposts to keep your argument appearing pristine, despite all the blood in the soil.

Wrong. The language evolves as our understanding evolves. The very fact that you're using words like "social revolution" shows you're mired in long-debunked ideas like Marxism. Modern socialism acknowledges that those early thinkers, while they may have had their heart in the right place, knew nothing of economics. Modern socialism is what you call social democracy, a strong set of protections for workers' rights coupled with a robust economy based on letting the market do its job.

I've always been one to be more lenient on the idea of respecting vernacular and the evolution of language. Socialism has reentered the political discourse in the last decades as a slander for center left politics, especially from the extreme right, and if the center wants to appropriate that, more power to them I guess. If you feel Obama was a socialist, I don't know what to tell you. But we aren't really talking about how racist hicks feel about Democrats. We're skirting the weeds of serious economic discussion here, and for all your hand-waving about modern socialists and serious economists, of which you have named zero, you can't really explain how capitalism with, at most, the nationalization of a few industries is somehow now socialism. Any economist would tell you that is a mixed economy. You have some socialized industries in these successful Scandinavian countries; I would concede that some markets have been socialized, but none of these social democracies are socialist if they are relying on a free market economy. Socialism with any substantial free market is not socialism. At this point, I'm not even interested in chatting about which is better. I just want to hammer that point home, because saying modern socialism is just social democracy is clearly absolutely false.

And one of the reasons I've no expectation of convincing you of anything else:

LOL. Nobody but saxitoxin thinks Gramsci was anything but a joke. Gramsci spent his life trying to answer the question of "why aren't all the workers rushing to support communism?" What Gramsci spent his life trying to answer most of us could answer in 10 seconds: because communism failed to deliver. It promised workers that they would live in paradise, and instead had us living in a giant forced labour camp. While the capitalists put a chicken in every pot, the communists had us standing in line 6 hours for a chicken, only to get to the front of the line and be told there wasn't any left.

Holy hell look at all this irony. Barring the fact that by the time Gramsci was writing his ideas down, you know, during the great depression created by capital, the first attempt at socialism at state level wasn't even old enough to drink yet. And his biggest contribution to socialist thought was the idea that the ruling class manipulates the culture of society to maintain the status quo by proposing and enforcing that the dominant ideology is natural, inevitable, and beneficial for all, which sounds exactly like western society and for which your paragraph serves as an unquestioning mouthpiece. The image that quote conjures is of some sort of industrial assembly line that shunts boots by fast enough that you could put your tongue out and lick scores per minute. If Ben Garrison drew it, it would be a big cauldron of boot stew and you would be standing over it with a ladle labeled sycophancy or something.

No, none of those things. It's the fact that you fall back on outdated concepts like "social revolution" and the abolition of capital.

On my bad days, I'm more extreme than you. I would gladly go up to the head office of my company and guillotine every motherfucker there. But on my clearheaded days, I can be persuaded to negotiate...

Then we have statements like these where you seem so close to getting it. Where is the real Dukasaur?

You'd be wrong on those earlier years. Life in 1400 was essentially the same shit as life in 5,000 BC. For thousands and thousands of years nothing changed except the names on the obelisks. Then along came Enlightenment and laissez-faire, and in two or three centuries the average life expectancy has gone from 35 to 80, and starvation has gone from being our ever-present companion to being a rare affliction that only pops up in the very worst circumstances. Even in the last 30 years, regular famines have gone from affecting about half the world to affecting about one-tenth of the world.

Anyway, I'll have to wrap it up as I'm late for work, but I think I covered all the critical bases.

All that progress o er the last couple hundred years and we're just done now, eh?

[Neoteny]

I agree on your comment regarding the base. The Democrats did abandon their base and I think there's a risk that they will continue to abandon their base or at least alienate the straight white people that make up the labor part of their erstwhile base (caveat - I'm talking purely politics here - as far as I'm concerned BLM is good, be gay and get married, be trans and go into the bathroom, whatever the f*ck you want). Anecdotally, apart from teachers, most of my friends are blue collar workers who find the socialist side of the Democratic party to be too extreme for them. Perhaps that will change (I am, after all, a "boomer" or, more accurately GenX). I also think my friends understand that "free" doesn't actually mean free. And, to take it a step further, after educating many of them, they understand that when the government pays for college or healthcare or otherwise pays a private institution for something, there is no incentive for the private institution to keep prices low. College tuition is already insanely high and arguably insanely high because of bureaucracy; if the government starts handing out free college, what incentive to colleges have to keep costs low?

Won't someone please think of the straight white people? The democrats are going to be fine on that front. The younger generations are starting to understand race and class in ways that the generation you claim, and the one you are in spirit, do not, and if they can tap into that, they'll get plenty of straight, white, working class folks to stick with them (or come back). The question is if they are willing to commit to that. For the most part, anyone who is afraid of the social democracy of Bernie or AOC is not going to vote consistently for any left wing party,and shouldn't be the target of that party.

I love your use of education to make this point. If ever there was a model for free-market efficiency and accessibility, it's private college.

I suspect populism leads to the silencing of the minority in many, if not all, circumstances (we can call it fascism or a dictatorship or whatever you want to call it). You can label Trump populism as fascism (even though it's really, at worst, racially motivated populism). People are drawn to Trump the same way they would be drawn to Bernie - free stuff. "I'm going to get your jobs back." "I'm going to provide you free education." It's almost exactly the same thing with little or no examination of the consequences. Combine that with a desire to silence opponents whether because you want the libel laws on the press to be opened up or "fake news" or because you get to call anyone who disagrees with you "alt-right" or "racist." It's a combination of populism/free stuff and silencing reasoned debate. I don't like it.

I sense that we're winding down here, so I won't go back into this free stuff discussion. It's a red herring and we've circled it plenty recently. We absolutely could pay for a lot of "free stuff" simply with deep cuts to military spending and taxing essentially unused wealth from the rich, but both of those are anathema to the corporate class in power, as they are the tools they use to maintain that power.

[thegreekdog]

I sense that we're winding down here, so I won't go back into this free stuff discussion. It's a red herring and we've circled it plenty recently. We absolutely could pay for a lot of "free stuff" simply with deep cuts to military spending and taxing essentially unused wealth from the rich, but both of those are anathema to the corporate class in power, as they are the tools they use to maintain that power.

Just stating that something is a red herring does not make it so. I don't have any links anymore because it was from a few weeks ago but some liberal or left-leaning think tank put the cost of "free" healthcare in the US at a number that dwarfed our military budget. In any event, I am looking forward to that new NBC show New Amsterdam which looks to be a realistic account of how a hospital can take care of everyone for free by "getting back to being doctors again." Perhaps AOC will use that show as the model for her free healthcare plan. (Sorry, I saw that ad like 12 times last night while watching the Eagles defense put a whooping on Matt Ryan).

[Neoteny]

Ah yes, the left leaning, Koch-funded think tank, Mercatus. Which doesn't matter because actual liberal think tanks have confirmed the conclusion that Medicare for all will reduce health spending overall while federal spending does go up modestly. But the increase will be covered by payroll taxes which are for some reason left out of the Mercatus analysis despite being listed as the source for the funding by currently proposed m4a plans.

[Neoteny]

Here's jacobin on how even centrist/liberal media are terrible on this topic:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/bern ... re-for-all

[thegreekdog]

Ah yes, the left leaning, Koch-funded think tank, Mercatus. Which doesn't matter because actual liberal think tanks have confirmed the conclusion that Medicare for all will reduce health spending overall while federal spending does go up modestly. But the increase will be covered by payroll taxes which are for some reason left out of the Mercatus analysis despite being listed as the source for the funding by currently proposed m4a plans.

Here's jacobin on how even centrist/liberal media are terrible on this topic:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/bern ... re-for-all

It was something else from an actual liberal think tank (not Mercatus).

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/fil ... e-Plan.pdf

Ties pretty much to the Mercatus study so probably not worth splitting hairs. In any event, I take umbrage with the "federal spending does go up modestly."

(1) $32 trillion federal government cost over 10 years so let's make this easy - $3.2 trillion a year
(2) 2017 budget has total mandatory spending of $2.5 trillion and discretionary spending of $1.2 trillion.
(3) $3.2 trillion is greater than both $2.5 trillion and $1.2 trillion.
(4) Cutting defense to $0 would result in a $0.59 trillion savings, leaving us with $2.61 trillion to pay for.
(5) If we raise capital gains rates from 15% to 20%, we would get a 5% increased rate on, in 2017 $660 billion in short term and long term capital gains (from Urban Institute) which gets us another $0.33 trillion. Now we're down to $2.28 trillion we need to pay for.
(6) We haven't factored in the $2 trillion savings per year. Wait, what's that? Oh, it's $2 trillion over 10 years. Okay, so everyone in the US gets back $0.2 trillion a year which they will now pay in taxes (assuming everyone is now paying taxes, which they aren't, because a large number of individuals don't actually pay federal taxes). So that gets us from $2.28 trillion cost to $2.08 trillion.
(7) ?
(8) Free healthcare for all.

Unrelated - I love this line from jacobin:

This is the kind of nonsense we are dealing with here. Tribal affiliations are getting in the way of basic presentations of facts and figures.

[Neoteny]

Christ I didn't want this.

Just so I'm clear on your numbers, where does the $37 trillion or so expected to be paid by the public into our current healthcare system that would be freed up by the Sanders plan go? The capital gains and defense cuts are for other things btw.

Hint: it goes to covering the shortfall and 2 trillion (over ten years of course) stays in our pockets.