Here Comes The Left

[Derec]

Huh...there's something that I seem to remember about the "burden of proof." If someone makes the claim that it is undeniable that Mamdani is a Marxist, then...well, you know the rest.

Just look up.

 

[scombrid]

I think the real immediate damage from the DSA is not to the country itself, but to the Democrat party. Polling in recent years has shown Democrat party favorability dropping. Adding far left kooks to the party is going the wrong way for improving that situation. It would behoove more moderate, mainstream Democrats to push back against the DSA and their nutty ideas, instead of welcoming them into their "big tent". They have already started dissing Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, et al.

"All of the failed attempts at managed economic socialism, and excluding all the successful attempts at social democracies."

Because social democracies are capitalist, not socialist. So they are rightly excluded from the set of socialist systems.

And yet you people label any Democratic Socialist or anyone with social democratic ideas to be “radical hyper liberal marxists”. Here cokes the left and whatnot. Elizabeth Warren had a lot of common sense ideas for tempering the excesses of corporate hegemony, blunting the worst of the current American model of privatize profit and wealth extracting while socializing risk. Nope, she was Hugo Chavez in drag.

DeSantis announced that Florida will have a task force force combating terrorists from Antifa to the Cartels. He didn’t mention the violent meth addled militias we have around here. Funny that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are you disputing that Mandani is a Marxist?

Can you define Marxism?

It is the socialist ideology developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the mid to late 19th century. You can read the Wiki page if you want more details.
 Marxism

Mamdani is most definitely a Marxist. We went over it in the Mamdani thread. He, while a state legislator, he talked about "class consciousness" and stated that he wants to "win socialism by seizing the means of production". Those are Marxist ideas.

Note that electing more socialists, which is what he is doing right now by endorsing extremists like Chevalier, is exactly what he is doing right now. This is all part of his plan.

Class consciousness isn't Marxism. It is econonic awareness. Seizing means of production woupd be marxist.

 

[southernhybrid]

when our country is heading towards Fascism under the current administration.

lol, not hardly.

I finally have a few minutes to straighten out somebody who apparently needs to find a new source of news or to pay attention to what's happening in this country.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/trump-fascism-tyranny/

ir you don't like the source of this info, do some of your own DD as there are more sources than I care to count that proclaim fascism has come to the US and/or Trump is a fascist. It's obvious to anyone that has a working brain or pays attention to what dear leader and his toadies are doing to our country.

As we come up on the anniversary of the 2024 election, it seems as good a time as any to ask, “Has it happened here?” Can we meaningfully call the second Trump administration a fascist regime? For most casual observers, it’s not much of a question. What are you supposed to call it when masked and uniformed federal police show up at a political rally for an opposition politician? Or when the president essentially declares martial law in the capital city? Or, for that matter, when the executive is trying to enforce its cultural policy on a nation’s universities and museums? And what else to call it when the administration is trying to cook the unemployment numbers to hide a struggling economic picture? What do you call it when a senior White House aide says they are “looking at” suspending habeas corpus? Or when the government deports people without due process to camps beyond the rule of law, where internees are subject to torture? Pedants will still protest that this or that detail does not align historically, and that it is not as violent, dramatic, and all-encompassing as Hitlerism or Mussolini-ism, but they can’t really tar their opponents as hysterics or alarmists anymore. They must admit, the alarms were somewhat justified. Surely this is it, or some version of it.

Grasping at straws here and the article is behind a paywall.

You can read most of it without subscribing, but as I said previously, there are more articles by respected historians than I care to count that give overwhelming evidence that Trump is a fascist and that he and his followers have brought fascism to the US. But then, there is that old saying that "people believe what they want to believe and disregard the truth". Some of your posts seem to put you in that category. Either that or you need to get a better source of news.

While I'm not a socialist and I don't think socialism has ever worked out as well as people who support it have hoped, I find fascism far more frightening compared to socialism. Socialsts at least usually have good hearts and mean well. Fascists are selfish, hateful people who only care about heir own kind and their own wealth.

Trump lacks the ability to empathize and is the biggest narcissistic person. I've ever seen lead a country. Even his own supporters are regretting their votes. His family has been grifting, taking tax dollars for their own. It's so obvious, but some people don't like to admit they were wrong by supporting this monster. I will never understand why it's so hard to admit one has made a mistake. Trump has never admitted he was wrong, unlike most people and leaders. Even the crook Nixon stepped down when he realized he was going to be impeached. I used to think when I was a young adult that no president could ever be worse than Nixon, but I sure was wrong about that.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Waaahhh Jan 6th wasn't the most obvious example of a fascist insurrection attempt ever waaaahhh

 

[Jarhyn]

I will never understand why it's so hard to admit one has made a mistake

Spoiler: Vaguely off-topic

my observation here is that "all change is a death".

Very few things in this world come into existence with the hope that the thing will die buried in the thing itself. While there are notable exceptions to this, MOST things that exist exist with the desire to not, on account of the fact that "ceasing to exist is usually not a contributor to stability", and if something is "short-lived" it is unlikely anyone will be around to see it. It ends up being "ephemeral" and so, at least within the set of things that endure and survive, change is a burdensome thing.

Not only this, but change is also, generally a lot of energy-intensive work, usually spread over a very long time-frame. Between the fact that change forever takes the instance of what was out of that location of the universe, and the fact that doing so is expensive to boot, it's no wonder that organisms might want to consider or pursue every option for lesser or more trivial changes rather than accept the burdensomeness of having to re-learn something and then force everything built on that into compatibility with the new concepts.

To that end, it's usually metabolically cheaper to be "right" than it is to be "wrong", and reproductively unappealing to those who don't want to have kids who waste all the time and effort of raising them in someone who will go down more such wasteful paths in life and suffer so many more pointless "deaths in parts" which the event of change represents.

This presents a conundrum though for those who are consummate fuckups, in that admitting to the need to change makes them reproductively less desirable to those that see it. As a result, the population will always gravitate towards hiding the signs that they are reproductively less fit, because their behavior is on average less stable and less conducive to stability.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Are you disputing that Mandani is a Marxist?

Can you define Marxism?

It is the socialist ideology developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the mid to late 19th century. You can read the Wiki page if you want more details.
 Marxism

Mamdani is most definitely a Marxist. We went over it in the Mamdani thread. He, while a state legislator, he talked about "class consciousness" and stated that he wants to "win socialism by seizing the means of production". Those are Marxist ideas.

Note that electing more socialists, which is what he is doing right now by endorsing extremists like Chevalier, is exactly what he is doing right now. This is all part of his plan.

Class consciousness isn't Marxism. It is econonic awareness. Seizing means of production woupd be marxist.

Also, Marx didn't himself come up with the idea of social ownership, that existed prior with socialists such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Henri de Saint-Simon, or Robert Owen, for example. And this, once again, just took me a few seconds of Googling. Right-wingers wouldn't be interested in pesky historical facts like that though. Too intellectual.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Are you disputing that Mandani is a Marxist?

Can you define Marxism?

It is the socialist ideology developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the mid to late 19th century. You can read the Wiki page if you want more details.
 Marxism

Mamdani is most definitely a Marxist. We went over it in the Mamdani thread. He, while a state legislator, he talked about "class consciousness" and stated that he wants to "win socialism by seizing the means of production". Those are Marxist ideas.

Note that electing more socialists, which is what he is doing right now by endorsing extremists like Chevalier, is exactly what he is doing right now. This is all part of his plan.

Class consciousness isn't Marxism. It is econonic awareness. Seizing means of production woupd be marxist.

Do you think that the average voter in the US would understand this definition?

 

[laughing dog]

Universal healthcare is a an example.

"Universal healthcare" is a broad field, and not necessarily socialist. For example, German-style public option (called AOK there) is not socialist, but a single payer system with a government monopoly on healthcare delivery would be.

Thank for the lesson in pedantry.

The DSA controls no county, state or country.

This thread is about them more and more taking over the Democratic Party. That said, I would not be so sure that they do not control some county governments by now.

The thread is about a number of things and my point is they haven’t taken over any county, state or the country which strongly suggests they are not a real threat.

Hell, Mandami doesn’t even control NYC.

Oh, for fuck's sake. I hate the guy, but at least I know what his name is. Mamdani. It's not that difficult to write -easier than eating biryani with your fingers.
But he most certainly controls NYC. For example, he just imposed a rent freeze for two years. There is the city council, you might say. I doubt they will go against any of his proposals.

Your doubts are evidence of your psychology and nothing else.

BTW NYC rent freezes go back to 1943. Hardly a communistic plot.

But hey, focus on the virtually nonexistent threats like Trump wants you to.

They are certainly a threat.

Just want Trumps want you to believe.

They are already associated with socialism.

And you think leaning in and embracing that ideology will make it better?

Maybe - only time will tell.

 

[thebeave]

I will never understand why it's so hard to admit one has made a mistake

Spoiler: Vaguely off-topic

my observation here is that "all change is a death".

Very few things in this world come into existence with the hope that the thing will die buried in the thing itself. While there are notable exceptions to this, MOST things that exist exist with the desire to not, on account of the fact that "ceasing to exist is usually not a contributor to stability", and if something is "short-lived" it is unlikely anyone will be around to see it. It ends up being "ephemeral" and so, at least within the set of things that endure and survive, change is a burdensome thing.

Not only this, but change is also, generally a lot of energy-intensive work, usually spread over a very long time-frame. Between the fact that change forever takes the instance of what was out of that location of the universe, and the fact that doing so is expensive to boot, it's no wonder that organisms might want to consider or pursue every option for lesser or more trivial changes rather than accept the burdensomeness of having to re-learn something and then force everything built on that into compatibility with the new concepts.

To that end, it's usually metabolically cheaper to be "right" than it is to be "wrong", and reproductively unappealing to those who don't want to have kids who waste all the time and effort of raising them in someone who will go down more such wasteful paths in life and suffer so many more pointless "deaths in parts" which the event of change represents.

This presents a conundrum though for those who are consummate fuckups, in that admitting to the need to change makes them reproductively less desirable to those that see it. As a result, the population will always gravitate towards hiding the signs that they are reproductively less fit, because their behavior is on average less stable and less conducive to stability.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

when our country is heading towards Fascism under the current administration.

lol, not hardly.

I finally have a few minutes to straighten out somebody who apparently needs to find a new source of news or to pay attention to what's happening in this country.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/trump-fascism-tyranny/

ir you don't like the source of this info, do some of your own DD as there are more sources than I care to count that proclaim fascism has come to the US and/or Trump is a fascist. It's obvious to anyone that has a working brain or pays attention to what dear leader and his toadies are doing to our country.

As we come up on the anniversary of the 2024 election, it seems as good a time as any to ask, “Has it happened here?” Can we meaningfully call the second Trump administration a fascist regime? For most casual observers, it’s not much of a question. What are you supposed to call it when masked and uniformed federal police show up at a political rally for an opposition politician? Or when the president essentially declares martial law in the capital city? Or, for that matter, when the executive is trying to enforce its cultural policy on a nation’s universities and museums? And what else to call it when the administration is trying to cook the unemployment numbers to hide a struggling economic picture? What do you call it when a senior White House aide says they are “looking at” suspending habeas corpus? Or when the government deports people without due process to camps beyond the rule of law, where internees are subject to torture? Pedants will still protest that this or that detail does not align historically, and that it is not as violent, dramatic, and all-encompassing as Hitlerism or Mussolini-ism, but they can’t really tar their opponents as hysterics or alarmists anymore. They must admit, the alarms were somewhat justified. Surely this is it, or some version of it.

Grasping at straws here and the article is behind a paywall.

You can read most of it without subscribing

I don't think reading is something he's interested in.

 

[Playball40]

Y'all make is sound like socialism would be worse than what we have right now.

What socialist countries, past or present, would you say is/was better off than the US with regard to the economy, freedom, opportunities and human rights then ours right now?

Norway, Sweden, Denmark......hell even the UK and France are BETTER than what we have here in the US.

None of these are socialist countries.

sure they are.

 

[Jarhyn]

I will never understand why it's so hard to admit one has made a mistake

Spoiler: Vaguely off-topic

my observation here is that "all change is a death".

Very few things in this world come into existence with the hope that the thing will die buried in the thing itself. While there are notable exceptions to this, MOST things that exist exist with the desire to not, on account of the fact that "ceasing to exist is usually not a contributor to stability", and if something is "short-lived" it is unlikely anyone will be around to see it. It ends up being "ephemeral" and so, at least within the set of things that endure and survive, change is a burdensome thing.

Not only this, but change is also, generally a lot of energy-intensive work, usually spread over a very long time-frame. Between the fact that change forever takes the instance of what was out of that location of the universe, and the fact that doing so is expensive to boot, it's no wonder that organisms might want to consider or pursue every option for lesser or more trivial changes rather than accept the burdensomeness of having to re-learn something and then force everything built on that into compatibility with the new concepts.

To that end, it's usually metabolically cheaper to be "right" than it is to be "wrong", and reproductively unappealing to those who don't want to have kids who waste all the time and effort of raising them in someone who will go down more such wasteful paths in life and suffer so many more pointless "deaths in parts" which the event of change represents.

This presents a conundrum though for those who are consummate fuckups, in that admitting to the need to change makes them reproductively less desirable to those that see it. As a result, the population will always gravitate towards hiding the signs that they are reproductively less fit, because their behavior is on average less stable and less conducive to stability.

View attachment 54639

It's OK if you don't understand, but you shouldn't project your confusion onto anyone else.

"Change is hard. Some changes are harder than others. There will be evolved mechanisms in place to drive people to the least expensive change that allows them to keep existing, and in a way that preserves the majority of what they are and were, because anything else is more tiresome and lethal to 'that which remains'."

If that's still too much for you...

"Change is hard and hurt. It like dying a bit. Few things accept die, and few things accept change. Same reason."

 

[Playball40]

I tend to think of myself as a centrist. My adult kids see me as fairly conservative and at least some on this board and some of my conservative friends see me as a far left radical. So I figure I’m a centrist.

That said: I believe in:

Subsidized daycare ( probably means tested) universally available. I don’t think parents ts should be compelled to put their kids in daycare but it needs to be much more accessible and affordable and frankly, for at least most people, free of charge.

I believe in free education for all from preschool through university and perhaps graduate school/professional schools. States have pulled back funding from state universities. This is a significant factor in the rising cost of college and enormous crippling student debt. The biggest concern I have is that government tend to want to control what they fund. I absolutely believe 100% in academic freedom just as I believe 100% in free speech, and freedom of/from religion.

I further believe that the government must not fund private or religious schools at any level.

I very much believe in excellent universal health care, my biggest concern being government intrusion into dictating medical decisions that must be left to patients and their doctors.

If the government is funding healthcare, which is what the universal means (I presume), then the government is already intruding. You are just arguing about where it should, or should not, intrude more.
Remember the golden rule - "Whoever has the gold makes the rules".

I believe in affordable and excellent services for disabled and elderly—including housing and nutrition support, with a focus on helping older adults age in place but also having excellent options if staying at home is no longer desirable or possible.

I believe in strong infrastructure ( all of what I mentioned is infrastructure) including water, transportation, power. Good government services, support for mental health and addiction, law enforcement, social workers/mental health professionals, etc.

American workers NEED more time off. I think that perhaps a 4 day/32hr work week would help but so would having at least 30 vacation days plus holidays plus generous medical and family leave. A year leave ( minimum) after the birth or adoption of a child, plus expanded family leave for ill, injured or disabled or elderly family members).

We also need to more more forcefully away from consumerism and focus more on enjoying our lives rather than the small jolts of endorphins that come from making online purchases.

All of them sound so wonderful. Has to be funded somehow though.

Single payer insurance is what we need.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are you disputing that Mandani is a Marxist?

Can you define Marxism?

It is the socialist ideology developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the mid to late 19th century. You can read the Wiki page if you want more details.
 Marxism

Mamdani is most definitely a Marxist. We went over it in the Mamdani thread. He, while a state legislator, he talked about "class consciousness" and stated that he wants to "win socialism by seizing the means of production". Those are Marxist ideas.

Note that electing more socialists, which is what he is doing right now by endorsing extremists like Chevalier, is exactly what he is doing right now. This is all part of his plan.

Class consciousness isn't Marxism. It is econonic awareness. Seizing means of production woupd be marxist.

Do you think that the average voter in the US would understand this definition?

Of course not. Derec didn't either and he is more involved in following politics than the average voter.

The irony is the flyover / rust belt country voter is very class conscious. They see their economic potential has shriveled. And they aren't happy about it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it's bizarre that some of you are afraid of a small number of liberal politicians who identify as Democratic Socialists

The likes of Chevalier and Mamdani are not liberals, they are full on Marxists.

This is the reason to adhering to the strengths of tradition for Governance is important. Because it should be capable of managing radicals from either wing. In NYC, Mamdani the "Marxist" can't seize the wealth of the bourgeoise. He can't seize property and redistribute it. Our Government protects things such right to property ownership.

I didn’t say he could. Mamdani is merely the mayor of NYC and doesn’t have any power to do the things you mention. But he is still a full on Marxist.

Who cares even if he were?

Are you disputing that Mandani is a Marxist?

I don't know much at all about Mamdani. I know he is definitely well to the left and is a member of the SDP.

I also do know historically, socialists elected to power in the US, from the very late 1800s to now, have not resulted in much radicalness coming forth. So it doesn't scare me.

But there are guardrails still, at least in most states, if no longer in DC.

Thankfully. Because if he did have that kind of power, you can be sure he would be doing it. He doesn’t hide it.

It is odd that you are concerned about what Mamdani can't do verses what the idiot in the White House has done.

Sure, Jan.

I'm not certain why you post in PD at all, other than the obvious reason.

 

[thebeave]

I will never understand why it's so hard to admit one has made a mistake

Spoiler: Vaguely off-topic

my observation here is that "all change is a death".

Very few things in this world come into existence with the hope that the thing will die buried in the thing itself. While there are notable exceptions to this, MOST things that exist exist with the desire to not, on account of the fact that "ceasing to exist is usually not a contributor to stability", and if something is "short-lived" it is unlikely anyone will be around to see it. It ends up being "ephemeral" and so, at least within the set of things that endure and survive, change is a burdensome thing.

Not only this, but change is also, generally a lot of energy-intensive work, usually spread over a very long time-frame. Between the fact that change forever takes the instance of what was out of that location of the universe, and the fact that doing so is expensive to boot, it's no wonder that organisms might want to consider or pursue every option for lesser or more trivial changes rather than accept the burdensomeness of having to re-learn something and then force everything built on that into compatibility with the new concepts.

To that end, it's usually metabolically cheaper to be "right" than it is to be "wrong", and reproductively unappealing to those who don't want to have kids who waste all the time and effort of raising them in someone who will go down more such wasteful paths in life and suffer so many more pointless "deaths in parts" which the event of change represents.

This presents a conundrum though for those who are consummate fuckups, in that admitting to the need to change makes them reproductively less desirable to those that see it. As a result, the population will always gravitate towards hiding the signs that they are reproductively less fit, because their behavior is on average less stable and less conducive to stability.

View attachment 54639

It's OK if you don't understand, but you shouldn't project your confusion onto anyone else.

"Change is hard. Some changes are harder than others. There will be evolved mechanisms in place to drive people to the least expensive change that allows them to keep existing, and in a way that preserves the majority of what they are and were, because anything else is more tiresome and lethal to 'that which remains'."

If that's still too much for you...

"Change is hard and hurt. It like dying a bit. Few things accept die, and few things accept change. Same reason."

I wasn't projecting my confusion onto anyone else. How did you come up with that?

It's needlessly gobbledygook. There are more simple, succinct explanations out there, involving pride, ego, shame, embarrassment, etc.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Donald Trump held a riot to retain the Presidency... and half of the GOP in the House voted to support the throwing out of the election results. And when that didn't work, the GOP in the House and Senate en masse saved his ass from impeachment! That isn't hyperbole, that is historical fact.

Again with the whataboutism!

Not whataboutism. The actual thing that is threatening to destroy our democracy. Trump's riot, conspiracy among the House GOP to overthrow the election, and GOP coverup was among the absolute worst things to happen to our democracy, up there with the Hayes/Tilden election and Civil War.

There are plenty of threads about Trump and the GOP. This thread is about the far left takeover of the Democratic Party.

They aren't taking over. This is about exaggerating risks to our country. The far left is no where near the imminent risk to the US as the the MAGA movement has ACTUALLY BEEN.

I don't want to read about how getting some people on the farther out portions of the left into Congress is "bad for the country". Our democracy has Stage 3 cancer right now. It was Stage 1 when Gingrich became the Speaker of the House.

Hyperbolic for sure, but why do you think increasing polarization in Congress by electing more socialists would help things rather than make them worse?

Over half of the US House GOP voted to overthrow the General Election results. How in the heck is that not stage 3?

You apparently have no faith in the US Economic engine and it's ability to be survive. Heck, with all the consolidation, it won't require all too much to maintain a general status quo.

Any economic engine can be wrecked with poor governance.

Again, what do you think is going to stop the massive corporations from putting their thumb on the scale to stop what they would consider very risky to their bottom lines?

 

[TSwizzle]

I also do know historically, socialists elected to power in the US, from the very late 1800s to now, have not resulted in much radicalness coming forth. So it doesn't scare me.

Things are changing as more and more of the Mamdani Marxist types get their hands on the levers of power. California governor Newsom is starting to sound like them. The thing you should be concerned about is not so much how much power they actually get but the damage they do to the Democratic Party and their chances of getting into the Whitehouse.

 

[Jarhyn]

I will never understand why it's so hard to admit one has made a mistake

Spoiler: Vaguely off-topic

my observation here is that "all change is a death".

Very few things in this world come into existence with the hope that the thing will die buried in the thing itself. While there are notable exceptions to this, MOST things that exist exist with the desire to not, on account of the fact that "ceasing to exist is usually not a contributor to stability", and if something is "short-lived" it is unlikely anyone will be around to see it. It ends up being "ephemeral" and so, at least within the set of things that endure and survive, change is a burdensome thing.

Not only this, but change is also, generally a lot of energy-intensive work, usually spread over a very long time-frame. Between the fact that change forever takes the instance of what was out of that location of the universe, and the fact that doing so is expensive to boot, it's no wonder that organisms might want to consider or pursue every option for lesser or more trivial changes rather than accept the burdensomeness of having to re-learn something and then force everything built on that into compatibility with the new concepts.

To that end, it's usually metabolically cheaper to be "right" than it is to be "wrong", and reproductively unappealing to those who don't want to have kids who waste all the time and effort of raising them in someone who will go down more such wasteful paths in life and suffer so many more pointless "deaths in parts" which the event of change represents.

This presents a conundrum though for those who are consummate fuckups, in that admitting to the need to change makes them reproductively less desirable to those that see it. As a result, the population will always gravitate towards hiding the signs that they are reproductively less fit, because their behavior is on average less stable and less conducive to stability.

View attachment 54639

It's OK if you don't understand, but you shouldn't project your confusion onto anyone else.

"Change is hard. Some changes are harder than others. There will be evolved mechanisms in place to drive people to the least expensive change that allows them to keep existing, and in a way that preserves the majority of what they are and were, because anything else is more tiresome and lethal to 'that which remains'."

If that's still too much for you...

"Change is hard and hurt. It like dying a bit. Few things accept die, and few things accept change. Same reason."

I wasn't projecting my confusion onto anyone else. How did you come up with that?

It's needlessly gobbledygook. There are more simple, succinct explanations out there, involving pride, ego, shame, embarrassment, etc.

None of those "simple" or "succinct " "explanations" are actually explanatory in any sort of constructive way.

This is the same issue that any naturalist might find with the explanation of the sky being blue because "God thought that would look best", namely that "Pride" doesn't explain why the pride exists in the first place.

"Change is expensive and self-reconstructive" actually explains why "pride" arises, namely that Pride forces less tiresome possibilities to be explored before the more tiresome ones.

It also exposes the shortcomings of pride, especially excessive pride through its ostensible function, in excessively preventing fail-over into acceptance of change.