American Politics

kkck

Waifu Slayer
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
46,245
Reaction score
24,895
Gender
Hidden
Country
Fire Nation
Something about this story smells fishy.


But also, anything they disagree with that doesn't fit any of those that you mentioned.
You mean the bit about the government taking owner of companies through questionable means and passing the shares to workers? It's happened a number of times in my country. 2 regimes back specifically. The most notorious case was an hacienda which was owned by a dude the government came to dislike for being wealthy and extremely vocal against the government. The government passed laws which were pretty much tailor made to screw him and took ownership of the hacienda in question. The hacienda has been dead and unproductive since, not even sold to someone who could do anything with it. The guy who owned the hacienda was by no means a saint or someone whom anyone would like or even root for but ffs the guy was straight up robbed because the president disliekd him. On the cooperative front this is my own experience from work related stuff. I've talked with at least half a dozen upstarts over the years and not one of them ever stuck past a few months. I haven't seen a single one pick up in my lifetime. The ones that are around nowadays are really old but and they mostly get by but they aren't exactly innovative or exceptionally productive.
 

shionoro

Mangahelper
有名人 / Yuumeijin / Celebrity
Mangahelper
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
3,750
Reaction score
1,477
Gender
Male
Country
Germany
I mean, sure that seems logical. The issue is the people ACTUALLY critiquing socialism (and not just calling it communism) are usually only cherry-picking things they dislike and ignoring the things they'd be fine with, and it inevitably devolves into slippery slope arguments.
Yeah. It might make sense to just call the nordic model "american model" and run with it or something.
Generally, I think democrats do not need to be afraid to just let republicans call them socialists. I mean, they called Biden "manipulated by left extremists", so what is the harm if you just embrace it?

But as i said before, right now, my hopes for america are very, very dire. Sadly. It will be hard to prevent losing the senate (leave alone the house), which makes Biden a lame duck for two years. And who knows what happens then.
 

ninjabot

Registered User
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
8,247
Reaction score
3,239
Age
41
Gender
Male
Country
United States
kkck said:
I mean, I know the definition. Nothing I've said is contrary is against that definition there. While short of communism, it's still pretty much what every failed socialist state (which is to say every socialist state) has attempted and failed catastrophically at. It's failed ideological mumbo jumbo which is basically incompatible with the real world. I've seen in my lifetime businesses that have been handed to workers. Basically using some three bit government excuses to give most company shares to said workers... They were tanked immediately. The workers ended up being regular corrupt morons who wanted to squeeze as much money out of the company. If there even was someone there trying to do things right, he was simply too dumb to manage the business. They had zero notion of them owning that shit and that taking money from it was basically stealing from themselves. I don't see anything wrong with cooperatives but their failure rates are ridiculous. Successful cases exists of course but for the most part they just aren't efficient. Nationalized industries are just endless pits of corruption. You can get a good sense of what this looks like by nationalized oil across central and south america. I wouldn't really support south or central american countries privatizing oil largely because the immediate result would be a substantial portion of the population setting the country both literally and figuratively on fire but the best thing that will happen to them is invariably that either oil runs out or technology makes oil worthless so that the endless pits of corruption that arise from this nationalized industry disappears. While that would also set the region on fire there's at least a chance of something decent coming out of the ashes. On a slightly different I would also argue that socialism is insane from the "take money out of politics" angle. That usually refers to donations and such but if merely donations can corrupt a government then imagine a system where the government has direct control over all the capital that socialism would require for it to be socialism. It's entirely unworkable. It makes donation based corruption basically into childsplay.
Okay. I don't really see how any of this detracts from what I said though. Just wanted you to understand the difference between socialism as most modern american socialists are pushing for, and whatever it is you're identifying it as (which is absolutely not the same thing).

kkck said:
To me the primary issue with this socialist mumbo jumbo is it's "worker" approach. Which sounds romantic and all but it's just not good for business. I understand the appeal of the worker approach socialism has but economies are not in fact about workers. Economies aren't about who makes the shit (in that sense also businesses of course) but rather the folk who consume it. Economies are about consumers. And government policy should be aimed at preserving and improving consumer power. This of course also applies to modern US politics in the sense that government policy essentially takes wealth and power away from consumers and gives to businesses (and their shareholders). Capitalism as an economic system and therefore government policy should be about consumers. The alternatives are plain and simple corruption.
Sure, but the immediate, obvious response is going to be "It should be." And "It can be."
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
You mean the bit about the government taking owner of companies through questionable means and passing the shares to workers? It's happened a number of times in my country. 2 regimes back specifically. The most notorious case was an hacienda which was owned by a dude the government came to dislike for being wealthy and extremely vocal against the government. The government passed laws which were pretty much tailor made to screw him and took ownership of the hacienda in question. The hacienda has been dead and unproductive since, not even sold to someone who could do anything with it. The guy who owned the hacienda was by no means a saint or someone whom anyone would like or even root for but ffs the guy was straight up robbed because the president disliekd him. On the cooperative front this is my own experience from work related stuff. I've talked with at least half a dozen upstarts over the years and not one of them ever stuck past a few months. I haven't seen a single one pick up in my lifetime. The ones that are around nowadays are really old but and they mostly get by but they aren't exactly innovative or exceptionally productive.
How is this related to socialism? Or what socialists want? Seems closer to fascism.
Yeah. It might make sense to just call the nordic model "american model" and run with it or something.
Generally, I think democrats do not need to be afraid to just let republicans call them socialists. I mean, they called Biden "manipulated by left extremists", so what is the harm if you just embrace it?

But as i said before, right now, my hopes for america are very, very dire. Sadly. It will be hard to prevent losing the senate (leave alone the house), which makes Biden a lame duck for two years. And who knows what happens then.
Given that a lot of their voters don't like socialism or anything further to the left of liberalism, Dems do need to be scared, especially when they want funding from rich people and corporations.
 

kkck

Waifu Slayer
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
46,245
Reaction score
24,895
Gender
Hidden
Country
Fire Nation
Okay. I don't really see how any of this detracts from what I said though. Just wanted you to understand the difference between socialism as most modern american socialists are pushing for, and whatever it is you're identifying it as (which is absolutely not the same thing).



Sure, but the immediate, obvious response is going to be "It should be." And "It can be."
My point is that modern socialism is fundamentally the same as old school socialism. Same worthless shit reskinned but it's all the same anti democratic nonsense. The government managing the country's wealth is not workable, history proves that. Same shit as central america's or south america's 21th century socialism. It's literally the same thing as 20th century socialism. And the results were the same.

And to that I would refer you to my post... What you are proposing is basically rampant, unmitigated, uncontrollable corruption.
 

xi0

あの術
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Administrator
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
65,177
Reaction score
30,211
Gender
Male
Country
Pyke
How is this related to socialism? Or what socialists want? Seems closer to fascism.
Fascists want economic self-sufficiency in opposition to international free-trade and "productive capitalism", meaning the profit of one's own work, in opposition to loan-based capitalism. They're also strictly anti-trade union.

In communism there is no "ownership" of capital. The state organizes and provides for human needs without need for money or capital.

They're similar as far as them not being free-market capitalism, but ideologically they're not the same.
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
Fascists want economic self-sufficiency in opposition to international free-trade and "productive capitalism", meaning the profit of one's own work, in opposition to loan-based capitalism. They're also strictly anti-trade union.

In communism there is no "ownership" of capital. The state organizes and provides for human needs without need for money or capital.

They're similar as far as them not being free-market capitalism, but ideologically they're not the same.
But don't fascists also believe in punishing people, like taking away their businesses?
 

kkck

Waifu Slayer
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
46,245
Reaction score
24,895
Gender
Hidden
Country
Fire Nation
How is this related to socialism? Or what socialists want? Seems closer to fascism.


Given that a lot of their voters don't like socialism or anything further to the left of liberalism, Dems do need to be scared, especially when they want funding from rich people and corporations.
Because the government was socialist with communist wet dreams. And they piled on some rich basically for badmouthing the government. that said, autoritarism looks pretty similar across the political spectrum, what differentiates fascism and and communism is the ideological mumbo jumbo behind them.
 

xi0

あの術
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Administrator
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
65,177
Reaction score
30,211
Gender
Male
Country
Pyke
The government managing the country's wealth is not workable, history proves that.
And the US military is a foil to that.

Collective ownership = socialism. US citizens collectively fund the military. The military creates work, it creates clothes, food, medical, paying for it all, it funds research and projects, etc. All things that the "free" market would not produce. Everyone exists in different pay brackets, preventing you from earning more or less than you're allowed until the government decides otherwise.

The US Military is the largest socialist entity in the world. And the only right-wingers who have an issue with this arrangement despite it being pretty damn Stalinist are a few dozen libertarians who are at least somewhat consistent pedophiles.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---

But don't fascists also believe in punishing people, like taking away their businesses?
If they don't do what the government tells them to do, yeah I guess.

The distinction is that in communism there is no private ownership in the first place.
 

kkck

Waifu Slayer
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
46,245
Reaction score
24,895
Gender
Hidden
Country
Fire Nation
And the US military is a foil to that.

Collective ownership = socialism. US citizens collectively fund the military. The military creates work, it creates clothes, food, medical, paying for it all, it funds research and projects, etc. All things that the "free" market would not produce. Everyone exists in different pay brackets, preventing you from earning more or less than you're allowed until the government decides otherwise.

The US Military is the largest socialist entity in the world. And the only right-wingers who have an issue with this arrangement despite it being pretty damn Stalinist are a few dozen libertarians who are at least somewhat consistent pedophiles.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---



If they don't do what the government tells them to do, yeah I guess.

The distinction is that in communism there is no private ownership in the first place.
Collective ownership applies to any facet of the government. I am not against publicly funded entities or the government or regulations nor believe any of those is intrinsically socialist. It's one thing to collect taxes to pay for stuff and it's another when you have the government owning and taking charge of actual means of production.
 

xi0

あの術
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Administrator
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
65,177
Reaction score
30,211
Gender
Male
Country
Pyke
Collective ownership applies to any facet of the government. I am not against publicly funded entities or the government or regulations nor believe any of those is intrinsically socialist. It's one thing to collect taxes to pay for stuff and it's another when you have the government owning and taking charge of actual means of production.
Wholesale? I don't think any realistic advocate that isn't just some theorykid is advocating for that. But there is certain industries that the country would benefit from being nationalized, like medicine or oil refinement. And I don't really see that as a communist wetdream at all.
 

catagon87

Registered User
有名人 / Yuumeijin / Celebrity
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
3,513
Reaction score
6,055
Age
39
Gender
Male
Country
United States
Yeah. It might make sense to just call the nordic model "american model" and run with it or something.
Generally, I think democrats do not need to be afraid to just let republicans call them socialists. I mean, they called Biden "manipulated by left extremists", so what is the harm if you just embrace it?

But as i said before, right now, my hopes for america are very, very dire. Sadly. It will be hard to prevent losing the senate (leave alone the house), which makes Biden a lame duck for two years. And who knows what happens then.
The harm in embracing the label of socialism is that, believe it or not, there is a portion of Americans who could be classified as "undecided." They are typically the ones who determine which candidate will win elections. They are the ones most susceptible to influence from either side. Socialism is a toxic term in the USA, and accepting the label would be suicide for the Democrats. It would give Republicans the largest "I told you so!" platform in the history of them ever being able to say "I told you so!" There's a reason that very few politicians in this country have won elections with the label of being a socialist (or communist).

One of the reasons that the definitions of Socialism, Fascism, Communism, and Capitalism are even a topic of discussion (like here on this forum) is because they are mostly pejorative in the USA. One big truth in American Politics is that Democrats suck at branding. Republicans are very good at it. Republicans do thorough market research on who their audience is, and they market like hell to them. Your average non-Republican sees this and thinks they've gone off the deep end, but in reality they are actually rallying. Republicans are good at destroying other brands. The reason Socialism is a toxic term here, is because it's associated with higher taxes. Americans do not derive much benefit from their taxes. So we mostly consider any increase in taxes to be a complete waste. Your average person here, Republican, Democrat, Communist, Anarchist, Basement Gimp, or whatever, will take every deduction they can on their annual tax filing and pay as little as possible, regardless of their political ideology. Republicans exploit the hell out of this fact.

As an American,
If my taxes shoot up 5% next year I can be almost certain that I'm not going to get even 1% of the benefit. I will still require:
  • Employer sponsored healthcare (or expensive market-rate health insurance)
  • A car to do the majority of my commuting anywhere (unless I live in NYC / Chicago, which I do not)
  • An accountant to help me file my over-complicated taxes with the IRS
What I will not gain:
  • Any additional form of job security
  • Guarantee against any forms of discrimination (which I'm going to lump my wife in here, who was heavily discriminated against when pregnant and post-pregnancy)
  • A competitive market-place that is fair to new-comers and individuals
The large, overarching problem in America is that both Republicans and Democrats are in the pockets of markets that simply should not exist and offer zero benefit to your average citizen. We've seen Democrat majorities, and Democrat super-majorities where no significant advancements were made in access to healthcare. We've seen Republican super majorities where taxes didn't actually go down at all. The system is un-fixable, because there are no protections in place against conflicts of interest within Congress. It's why we manage to have people in Congress for decades on salaries of $150k - $174k, yet net worths of over $100M. Since nothing will ever change, ideologies that embrace higher taxation are never going to be a win here, as we derive so little benefit from them.

Regarding Biden becoming a lame duck - He already kind of is a lame duck. His approval rating is one of the lowest, historically, of any president in the USA. His age is a major concern. I honestly have no idea how the mid-terms will go, but Biden's presidency hasn't been able to produce much beyond "we're not Trump!"
 

kkck

Waifu Slayer
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
46,245
Reaction score
24,895
Gender
Hidden
Country
Fire Nation
Wholesale? I don't think any realistic advocate that isn't just some theorykid is advocating for that. But there is certain industries that the country would benefit from being nationalized, like medicine or oil refinement. And I don't really see that as a communist wetdream at all.
There's a pretty big jump between oil refinement and universal healthcare (which I would support). With nationalized medicine you are essentially aiming to tank medicine prices and profits to keep costs down for users. The government wouldn't own pharma companies but it would buy from them while leveraging the entirety of the government's power to push prices down. Hospitals would be owned by the state basically though there just wouldn't be an influx of money from them into the government, rather the other way around. And even then even successful cases of universal health care require insane oversight. Oil in turn is specifically a money making scheme regardless of whether it is private or public. The US is struggling with corruption merely from campaign financing. Imagine the corruption the US would have to deal with if you inject it's oil supply into it's government. Imagine joe manchin or pelosi making policy for nationalized oil. And realistically speaking anyone else would be equally corrupt in this scenario. The US has literally nothing that would protect it from the cartoonish amounts of corruption seen in nationalized oil across the globe, least of all now that trust in public institutions continues to erode across the political spectrum by the day... I would argue a more workable system should be something like oil companies having their very own dedicated tax brackets. It's not like they can simply move and take the oil with them. But then again, I suppose in the US even that is communism.
 

Sanity Check

Registered User
英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
4,588
Age
41
Country
Akatsuki


...
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---




Californians and Other Americans Are Flooding Mexico City. Some Locals Want Them to Go Home - American Renaissance

Mexicans say the mostly white immigrants are a "plague."

...


Wow. :toc
 
Last edited:

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
Because the government was socialist with communist wet dreams. And they piled on some rich basically for badmouthing the government. that said, autoritarism looks pretty similar across the political spectrum, what differentiates fascism and and communism is the ideological mumbo jumbo behind them.
I mean, again, that can happen under capitalism/fascism as well. Force businesses to somehow lose money and shut them down.
 

kkck

Waifu Slayer
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
46,245
Reaction score
24,895
Gender
Hidden
Country
Fire Nation
I mean, again, that can happen under capitalism/fascism as well. Force businesses to somehow lose money and shut them down.
Not really? In the end the answer to this is "it depends" but fascist governments generally attempt to have cozy relations with big businesses. While demanding and provided they get in line of course. If a fascist government ends up nationalizing a business there are other things they are more likely to do with it than pass it on to the workers. Since on an ideological level being far right wingers it wouldn't generally be coherent for them to pass the business to workers. It being kept by the government or maybe selling it cheap to someone would be some more ideologically coherent alternatives (though not the only ones, this is not easy to answer as this is a contextless hypothetical).
 

xi0

あの術
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Administrator
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
65,177
Reaction score
30,211
Gender
Male
Country
Pyke



Thank god they have a lifelong term and zero accountability. God bless America.
 

shionoro

Mangahelper
有名人 / Yuumeijin / Celebrity
Mangahelper
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
3,750
Reaction score
1,477
Gender
Male
Country
Germany
The harm in embracing the label of socialism is that, believe it or not, there is a portion of Americans who could be classified as "undecided." They are typically the ones who determine which candidate will win elections. They are the ones most susceptible to influence from either side. Socialism is a toxic term in the USA, and accepting the label would be suicide for the Democrats. It would give Republicans the largest "I told you so!" platform in the history of them ever being able to say "I told you so!" There's a reason that very few politicians in this country have won elections with the label of being a socialist (or communist).
But is that really true? The notion that the "undecided" voters decide elections does not seem true to me anymore. it all depends on turnout for democrats, and their base is increasingly young and wants to take radical action.
The average democrat might be more comfortable with biden than with AOC, that is true. But there are alsoa lot of democrat leaning voters who have to overcome voter suppression, do actual work to vote. And they only do it if they are fired up.

And firing up these people is something someone like Stacey Abrams can (and Trump could by being terrible), but in a potential Biden vs Desantis election, or in state elections, that is very hard.

I do think democrats would do well to not put focus on the undecided voters (which are not big in numbers anymore) but find ways to energize their base.

That is how republicans win, after all. In the trump era, they said "fuck it" and run on manic fever dreams like building a wall. I am not saying democrats need to do the same, but firing up your voter base is something democrats must do in order to win.
Regarding Biden becoming a lame duck - He already kind of is a lame duck. His approval rating is one of the lowest, historically, of any president in the USA. His age is a major concern. I honestly have no idea how the mid-terms will go, but Biden's presidency hasn't been able to produce much beyond "we're not Trump!
Personally, I think biden was very successful for the hand he was given. He got out more than i expected he could, and he did pass good things. Biden is not a historically unsuccessful president, he just lives in a very polarized time.
Approval ratings increasingly do not mean a lot anymore, in my book. They mean a little, but not a lot.

It is clear that democrats, no matter how far in the pocket of corporations, reflect the views of the electorate better than republicans do but republicans win elections via voter suppression. That is the biggest issue to me right now, the system being broken in ways that make it very hard for halfway decent people to act.

Midterms are probably going to make it even harder, and that is a huge issue. I am usually not alarmist, but i see america on the brink of falling apart.
 

Sanity Check

Registered User
英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
4,588
Age
41
Country
Akatsuki
Is anyone paying attention to USA 2022 election results.

If so, what are your thoughts.
 

gnut

Registered User
伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
11,490
Reaction score
18,519
Age
52
Gender
Male
Country
United States
Political thread plz...tyvm
 
Top