Democrats 2020

[Elixir]

How are government subsidized roads, police, schools and power systems NOT "socialism"?
All you anti-socialists out there should avoid being hypocrites, and not use any of these things (or anything else that the government pays for).
I'll be very interested to see how that works out for you.

 

[PyramidHead]

How are government subsidized roads, police, schools and power systems NOT "socialism"?

The government doing stuff is not socialism!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bernie just dropped the ball in a huge way by taking the "humanitarian aid" of the likes of Bolton and Abrams at face value.

View attachment 20295

Venezuela also blocked aid from other adjacent nations.

This is why he's the compromise candidate for the left. Not perfect by any stretch.

There is no perfect candidate, except Curt Henning, and unfortunately, he isn't alive anymore.

Funnily enough, the only one in the race who seems to have the right take on Venezuela is Tulsi Gabbard:

View attachment 20296

...but like most of her positions, this one seems comparatively recent, since she co-sponsored the economic sanctions on Venezuela that helped cause its current crisis.

"Current crisis"?

I would say, the US should provide aid to adjacent nations providing aid to those who have fled the nation, and the US shouldn't be intervening too deeply... as US Intervention in Central/South America has had a checkered past, and when I say checkered, I mean really fucked up.

 

[untermensche]

How are government subsidized roads, police, schools and power systems NOT "socialism"?

The government doing stuff is not socialism!

It ain't capitalism.

 

[Elixir]

How are government subsidized roads, police, schools and power systems NOT "socialism"?

The government doing stuff is not socialism!

Then neither would UHC be socialism. But the insistence seems to be that the US is an example of capitalism, which it certainly is NOT.

 

[PyramidHead]

How are government subsidized roads, police, schools and power systems NOT "socialism"?

The government doing stuff is not socialism!

Then neither would UHC be socialism. But the insistence seems to be that the US is an example of capitalism, which it certainly is NOT.

UHC is not socialism, correct. It's social democracy. Capitalism is compatible with social democracy. It is more than compatible with public roads and police forces--it depends on them for its continued existence. These services do not exist outside the realm of capital just because they are provided by the state; the state provides them because capital needs them, more than anything else.

 

[Elixir]

Then neither would UHC be socialism. But the insistence seems to be that the US is an example of capitalism, which it certainly is NOT.

UHC is not socialism, correct. It's social democracy. Capitalism is compatible with social democracy. It is more than compatible with public roads and police forces--it depends on them for its continued existence. These services do not exist outside the realm of capital just because they are provided by the state; the state provides them because capital needs them, more than anything else.

Excellent post - short and to the point. Puts the correct light on the alarmist cries of SOCIALISM!!! that arise every time UHC is proposed.

 

[untermensche]

Then neither would UHC be socialism. But the insistence seems to be that the US is an example of capitalism, which it certainly is NOT.

UHC is not socialism, correct. It's social democracy. Capitalism is compatible with social democracy. It is more than compatible with public roads and police forces--it depends on them for its continued existence. These services do not exist outside the realm of capital just because they are provided by the state; the state provides them because capital needs them, more than anything else.

Capitalism is incompatible with democracy.

It is harmful to democracy. It distorts the playing field.

And China proves democracy is not needed to have capitalism.

Capitalism is most compatible with oligarchy.

Which is what the US presently is.

 

[PyramidHead]

Then neither would UHC be socialism. But the insistence seems to be that the US is an example of capitalism, which it certainly is NOT.

UHC is not socialism, correct. It's social democracy. Capitalism is compatible with social democracy. It is more than compatible with public roads and police forces--it depends on them for its continued existence. These services do not exist outside the realm of capital just because they are provided by the state; the state provides them because capital needs them, more than anything else.

Excellent post - short and to the point. Puts the correct light on the alarmist cries of SOCIALISM!!! that arise every time UHC is proposed.

The light should also be shone on those who try to insist that they are proudly advocating for socialism in America when they are just putting a safety railing around capitalism. Don't get me wrong, it needs those railings, but that's not a socialist platform. Ironically, though, it's exactly the platform of the countries that have been demonized as socialist by the right, like Venezuela, and those that have been held up as beacons of progress by the left, like Norway. Norway and Venezuela have essentially the same economic system, highly regulated capitalism centered around state control over a valuable natural resource. That one of them is a thriving, peaceful, egalitarian nation with the happiest people in the world while the other is in the midst of overthrow should tell everyone to stop pointing to them as examples (negative or positive) for whatever economy they are trying to pontificate about.

 

[lpetrich]

Democratic Voters’ Second Choices Show How Fluid The 2020 Primary Race Is | FiveThirtyEight

Author Nathaniel Rakich concludes that the numbers are largely from name recognition. He also concludes that it is rather hard to find evidence of division into well-defined factions. The candidates who did the best were, in order, Joe Biden, establishment Democrat, and Bernie Sanders, self-described socialist, yet each one's voters wanted the other one as their second choice.

(* Democrats' Second Choices. "Names" is which candidate, \
"PercentSecond" is which second choice for each first choice, and \
"SampleSizes" is how many first choices. *)

scnd = <||>; 
scnd["Names"] = {"Biden", "Sanders", "Harris", "Warren", "O'Rourke", 
  "Booker", "Klobuchar"}; 
scnd["PercentSecond"] = 
 Transpose[{{0, 26, 19, 17, 20, 20, 15}, {28, 0, 15, 24, 22, 16, 
    15}, {12, 7, 0, 13, 12, 17, 12}, {8, 16, 14, 0, 8, 8, 12}, {8, 6, 
    11, 7, 0, 10, 8}, {6, 4, 11, 5, 8, 0, 6}, {3, 2, 6, 4, 4, 3, 0}}];
 scnd["SampleSizes"] = {4546, 4215, 1583, 1111, 1057, 577, 530};

I used some preference-voting algorithms on these numbers, and I found that Joe Biden was the clear winner. With him absent, Bernie Sanders was the clear winner. With both gentlemen out of the race, Kamala Harris was the clear winner, though Bernie Sanders voters preferred Elizabeth Warren over her.

 

[Elixir]

Then neither would UHC be socialism. But the insistence seems to be that the US is an example of capitalism, which it certainly is NOT.

UHC is not socialism, correct. It's social democracy. Capitalism is compatible with social democracy. It is more than compatible with public roads and police forces--it depends on them for its continued existence. These services do not exist outside the realm of capital just because they are provided by the state; the state provides them because capital needs them, more than anything else.

Capitalism is incompatible with democracy.

It is harmful to democracy. It distorts the playing field.

And China proves democracy is not needed to have capitalism.

Capitalism is most compatible with oligarchy.

Which is what the US presently is.

You're confusing democracy with socialism.
Capitalism is perfectly compatible with democracy, as long as democratic constraints on it are in place. Which they're currently not, which is why we have an oligarchy.

 

[poster]

Capitalism is incompatible with democracy.

It is harmful to democracy. It distorts the playing field.

And China proves democracy is not needed to have capitalism.

Capitalism is most compatible with oligarchy.

Which is what the US presently is.

You're confusing democracy with socialism.
Capitalism is perfectly compatible with democracy, as long as democratic constraints on it are in place. Which they're currently not, which is why we have an oligarchy.

That oligarchy did not develop just over the past 2 years, it's been in the making via moderates compromising with capitalists over the past many decades. It's time to apply the brakes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Capitalism is incompatible with democracy.

It is harmful to democracy. It distorts the playing field.

And China proves democracy is not needed to have capitalism.

Capitalism is most compatible with oligarchy.

Which is what the US presently is.

You're confusing democracy with socialism.
Capitalism is perfectly compatible with democracy, as long as democratic constraints on it are in place. Which they're currently not, which is why we have an oligarchy.

That oligarchy did not develop just over the past 2 years, it's been in the making via moderates compromising with capitalists over the past many decades. It's time to apply the brakes.

In the making over many decades? What in the heck did we have in the late 18th Century? Corporate entanglement in Government is umm... as old as corporations.

 

[PyramidHead]

Capitalism is incompatible with democracy.

It is harmful to democracy. It distorts the playing field.

And China proves democracy is not needed to have capitalism.

Capitalism is most compatible with oligarchy.

Which is what the US presently is.

You're confusing democracy with socialism.
Capitalism is perfectly compatible with democracy, as long as democratic constraints on it are in place. Which they're currently not, which is why we have an oligarchy.

I think there is equivocation going on here. We can speak of capitalism as in "wealthy capitalist societies", i.e. societies where capitalism is the main engine for economic growth, which themselves may have democratic elements and usually do. We can also speak of capitalism as in "the capitalist organization of production", literally what capitalism means in terms of its structure, and ask whether democracy is anywhere to be found in it, or whether democracy is helpful or harmful to what it does best. In the first sense, capitalism can certainly accommodate democracy. On the scale of nations, capitalism is extremely malleable and adaptable. But in the guts of production, it can't tolerate too much democracy without coming apart at the seams. Historically, when the mass of workers have subverted capital's attempts to impose long and dangerous working conditions by demanding more free time, safer workplaces, and better wages, capitalism has gone into crisis mode in response to these pressures. What emerged in each case was a reconfiguration of capital that found some new way to impose work and thereby shape society. It certainly doesn't thrive on robust democratic control, as it is predicated on minority control to begin with.

 

[untermensche]

Capitalism is incompatible with democracy.

It is harmful to democracy. It distorts the playing field.

And China proves democracy is not needed to have capitalism.

Capitalism is most compatible with oligarchy.

Which is what the US presently is.

You're confusing democracy with socialism.
Capitalism is perfectly compatible with democracy, as long as democratic constraints on it are in place. Which they're currently not, which is why we have an oligarchy.

Capitalism has no connection to democracy. That is how it can work just fine in China.

Capitalist leaders are not elected. They are hired.

Capitalist structures are rigid top down dictatorships. All real power exists at the top. Others within the organization are sometimes free to make suggestions.

Capitalism leads to oligarchy. It leads to wealth becoming more and more concentrated.

 

[Elixir]

Capitalism is incompatible with democracy.

It is harmful to democracy. It distorts the playing field.

And China proves democracy is not needed to have capitalism.

Capitalism is most compatible with oligarchy.

Which is what the US presently is.

You're confusing democracy with socialism.
Capitalism is perfectly compatible with democracy, as long as democratic constraints on it are in place. Which they're currently not, which is why we have an oligarchy.

Capitalism has no connection to democracy. That is how it can work just fine in China.

Capitalist leaders are not elected. They are hired.

Capitalist structures are rigid top down dictatorships. All real power exists at the top. Others within the organization are sometimes free to make suggestions.

Capitalism leads to oligarchy. It leads to wealth becoming more and more concentrated.

Families are rigid top down dictatorships, or biumverates at best. That doesn't make them incompatible with democratic governance.
Yawn.

 

[untermensche]

The parent child relationship is a relationship where one party is a child. And it is only a moral relationship if the parent acts in the best interests of the child. It would be an immoral relationship if the parent were profiting off the labor of the child or exploiting the child for personal gain.

These third rate criticisms are the yawn.

 

[Elixir]

The parent child relationship is a relationship where one party is a child. And it is only a moral relationship if the parent acts in the best interests of the child. It would be an immoral relationship if the parent were profiting off the labor of the child or exploiting the child for personal gain.

The employer/employee relationship is a relationship where one party is an employee. And it is only a moral relationship if the employer acts in the best interests of the employee.

Funny thing is, that over the long term, within a democratic system, heeding the needs of a the employee is not only a moral requirement, but a financial one as well. Have you never hired anyone?

 

[PyramidHead]

The parent child relationship is a relationship where one party is a child. And it is only a moral relationship if the parent acts in the best interests of the child. It would be an immoral relationship if the parent were profiting off the labor of the child or exploiting the child for personal gain.

The employer/employee relationship is a relationship where one party is an employee. And it is only a moral relationship if the employer acts in the best interests of the employee.

Funny thing is, that over the long term, within a democratic system, heeding the needs of a the employee is not only a moral requirement, but a financial one as well. Have you never hired anyone?

Everything you said could be (and has been, historically) applied to every authoritarian relationship or structure ever created. The lord acts in the best interests of his subjects, the wise and benevolent master doesn't mistreat his slaves. It's a bullshit take and I'm surprised you're making it

 

[poster]

Families are rigid top down dictatorships, or biumverates at best.

Not mine. We negotiate everything. We are obligated to follow the law, but nobody here rules anyone else. It's always been that way since I've been parenting. That you see family structures the way you do is telling.