US Politics Thread, 2.0

[Alistair]

If your "best example" of a working capitalism.......

Why do you presume my own favored political/economic system is Capitalism?

It isn't, by the way.

I have and I've came to the conclusion that is full of shit. Why? Because it's a generational experience, like for example half of people my age still live with their parents and half of Poles earn less than the amount that lets them be independent.

Would you argue that it was better for the average Pole under the former, Communist, system?

Remind me, were you alive and an adult during that time, or were you born afterwards?

He wasn't. At that point I'm certain I'm arguing with 20 sth year olds that are still in their rebellious rose tinted glasses phase.

Still, I'm interested to hear his thoughts and arguments, Venec may not like me much (it seems), but I always thought he was a good egg, and I'm interested to hear what he thinks.

Last time I was in Poland (for the record, I loved Poland, and have some family history there my spouses side), I had the pleasure of a long drive with a young Pole (was going to see the Wieliczka Salt Mine), and the conversation ranged over the current Poland vs. the Poland under the Soviet system. Like I presume Venec is, the driver was young, maybe in his early 20's, and he had both positives and negatives to say about both periods, relating his elders stories of the old times vs. his own struggles today.

I am sure Venec has family, and has heard from them what it was like then, and knows what it's like now. We should respect his viewpoint.

[NoirAvlaa]

Yes, the only 2 possible systems of governance are ultra capitalism and all it's material wealth or ultra communism and all it's starving populations.

[erichkknaar]

Yes, the only 2 possible systems of governance are ultra capitalism and all it's material wealth or ultra communism and all it's starving populations.

Also the purges.

[Liare]

The point I was making was that it was quite a while ago, was very short lived, and never ruled during a peacetime for a "best in-practice example" of a governmental/economic system.

by this reasoning, democracy is a massive failure due to the way the French revolution played out. after all, the first attempt didn't actually work and the following wars was on a unprecedented scale.

if you want to make that argument fine, you can go over to the far right and join the monarchists and Phrenologists.

It was also unsuccessful at the basic test of any governmental/political system, it failed to win over the majority of the people and failed to successfully defend itself from aggressive rival systems of the time.

I would expect a "best example" of your preferred system, the one you posted that propaganda cartoon about (which doesn't include people shooting class enemies), to not engage in the same types of human rights abuses and political-based mass murder that we're critical of Communists systems for engaging in.

these two statements are directly contradictory, you are calling for such a socio-political system to show it's able to defend itself, while also arguing that the usage of violence to establish it automatically invalidate it.

you cannot have one without the other. we're looping back to the french and american revolutions that are, broadly speaking, understood to be the origin of modern liberal democracy, does it's use of violence in these automatically invalidate the outcome ? does the execution of the gentry in order to force trough land reform by French peasants somehow mean that everything that followed is tainted ?

Pointing this out isn't "demonizing", nor have I described them as "monstrously evil" nor am I defending Franco or the Fascists or their actions during the Civil War.

If you don't think these are points worth considering, that's certainly fine.

i am going to let you into a little secret Alistair, you do not seem to grasp this simple, fundamental truth. politics is the application of violence, when you vote for Joe Biden you explicitly endorse the act of selling weapons to Saudi Arabia so that they can continue bombing school busses, hospitals and weddings. you are complicit in this action trough your endorsement of this flagrant violation of international law. it doesn't matter that you didn't have a choice in the matter, both candidates wanted to continue this practice, you actively endorsed it by participating in the system.

social change, be it trough armed revolution or otherwise, are inherently disruptive and probably violent affairs especially when it means tearing down the existing political power structures wholescale. in such a situation, people are going to die. if you balk at that fine, but consider the cost of not doing so.
consider the people of texas and oregon freezing to death, so that people like Cruz could pay even less in taxes, the millions that have died the last 50 years because your "good friends" the house of Saud have exported their domestic religious problems to the rest of the world. consider the numerous injustices borne directly as a result of western imperialism and capitalism, there are libraries of tomes detailing these atrocities if you cared to actually read them.

but you do not engage with any of that, you do not want to engage with any of that, instead you are demanding impossible standards, and if those are suddenly met, by say the Zaptistas, you simply shuffle the goalposts out of reach, you have done that in this very thread. all in the name of ignoring the whole thing so it does not impede upon your happy little bubble where everything is okay.

except you just had a attempted fascist takeover.

[Lief Siddhe]

If you value leisure time this current economic system is probably the worst in the west for at least a millennium.

WAT

[Liare]

I believe it's your side, with rigid adherence to a disproven 200 year old theory and purity tests to ensure nothing is ever good enough to be the goal.

philosophy is by its very nature not provable science, your entire argument falls apart on this basis alone. but lets ignore that for now.

because what you're doing here is more interesting, you're having an argument with a literal fucking strawman in your head. you imagine that i derive my live philosophy wholly from a "disproven" 200 year old theory, where does this come from ? where did i give that impression ?
the closest thing i have done in terms of actually stating a coherent socio-political standpoint here, or on discord, is discussing Anarcho-syndicalism in the explicit context that i live in and find myself in, only that's 100 years old at this point, now you could be referencing it's underpinnings, harkening back to Proudhon. but i am reasonably certain you don't even know who that is or what he actually wrote about and did in his lifetime.

instead, you're having this battle with a strawman that you seem to have poured everything you dont like, but can't pin on the "republicans" into and continually post ragey snippets at, most of these ragey snippets aren't even your own, it's almost word-for-word reproductions of the sort of snide editorial comments that permeate the liberal media sphere. you, intentionally or not, continue the tradition of infantilizing rather than engaging with left wing arguments and for what ?

because you think it makes people like me angry and you get a jolly out of trolling ?

are really the ones who are out of arguments, tbh, as evidenced by the fact the voting record in favor of such is more or less non existent in the west, recently. A problem you refuse to come to grips with.

that is a whopper of a statement considering the legacy of social democracy and socialism in europe.

You literally said in another thread the other week, the social democrats are "irrelevant" and implied they were turning fascist too.

should we add the concept of "time" to the list of things you do not understand ?

there is no contradiction between lauding something's legacy, and calling it irrelevant today, you might consider the horse for another example of this.

[rufuske]

If you value leisure time this current economic system is probably the worst in the west for at least a millennium.

WAT

I'm not getting paid for golfing and I need to park my Vauxhall near Lambos at the course.

[erichkknaar]

I believe it's your side, with rigid adherence to a disproven 200 year old theory and purity tests to ensure nothing is ever good enough to be the goal.

philosophy is by its very nature not provable science, your entire argument falls apart on this basis alone. but lets ignore that for now.

because what you're doing here is more interesting, you're having an argument with a literal fucking strawman in your head. you imagine that i derive my live philosophy wholly from a "disproven" 200 year old theory, where does this come from ? where did i give that impression ?
the closest thing i have done in terms of actually stating a coherent socio-political standpoint here, or on discord, is discussing Anarcho-syndicalism in the explicit context that i live in and find myself in, only that's 100 years old at this point, now you could be referencing it's underpinnings, harkening back to Proudhon. but i am reasonably certain you don't even know who that is or what he actually wrote about and did in his lifetime.

instead, you're having this battle with a strawman that you seem to have poured everything you dont like, but can't pin on the "republicans" into and continually post ragey snippets at, most of these ragey snippets aren't even your own, it's almost word-for-word reproductions of the sort of snide editorial comments that permeate the liberal media sphere. you, intentionally or not, continue the tradition of infantilizing rather than engaging with left wing arguments and for what ?

because you think it makes people like me angry and you get a jolly out of trolling ?

are really the ones who are out of arguments, tbh, as evidenced by the fact the voting record in favor of such is more or less non existent in the west, recently. A problem you refuse to come to grips with.

that is a whopper of a statement considering the legacy of social democracy and socialism in europe.

You literally said in another thread the other week, the social democrats are "irrelevant" and implied they were turning fascist too.

should we add the concept of "time" to the list of things you do not understand ?

there is no contradiction between lauding something's legacy, and calling it irrelevant today, you might consider the horse for another example of this.

Ok, but it's still irrelevant.

[Liare]

Ok, but it's still irrelevant.

you literately do not have a argument, as usual.

[erichkknaar]

Ok, but it's still irrelevant.

you literately do not have a argument, as usual.

Wake me up when some relevant leftists actually convince people to let them run a country to prove us all wrong, and don't immediately turn capitalist, now they control the money spigot.

[Keckers]

If you value leisure time this current economic system is probably the worst in the west for at least a millennium.

WAT

Obviously it depends on how far down the income distribution you are, but it certainly holds for the independent working poor who are often the most indoctrinated into praising capitalism.

Do you really think the millions of hours worked in bullshit jobs have any real social value? That's all stolen leisure time.

[NoirAvlaa]

Ok, but it's still irrelevant.

you literately do not have a argument, as usual.

Wake me up when some relevant leftists actually convince people to let them run a country to prove us all wrong, and don't immediately turn capitalist, now they control the money spigot.

scandinavia calls with their social democracies.

[erichkknaar]

If you value leisure time this current economic system is probably the worst in the west for at least a millennium.

WAT

Obviously it depends on how far down the income distribution you are, but it certainly holds for the independent working poor who are often the most indoctrinated into praising capitalism.

Do you really think the millions of hours worked in bullshit jobs have any real social value? That's all stolen leisure time.

You're welcome to go back to the victorian times and dark satanic mills, or perhaps serfdom before that. Now to be fair, you life was more or less tied to agricultural cycles then, and had literally no other purpose as far as those in power were concerned.

[Lief Siddhe]

Dude

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

[erichkknaar]

Ok, but it's still irrelevant.

you literately do not have a argument, as usual.

Wake me up when some relevant leftists actually convince people to let them run a country to prove us all wrong, and don't immediately turn capitalist, now they control the money spigot.

scandinavia calls with their social democracies.

yes

[RazoR]

Dude

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

listen here buddy if you want your kids to have education and/or not die from cancer you are going to have to put in *some* overtime okay?

[Joshua Foiritain]

If you value leisure time this current economic system is probably the worst in the west for at least a millennium.

WAT

Obviously it depends on how far down the income distribution you are, but it certainly holds for the independent working poor who are often the most indoctrinated into praising capitalism.

Do you really think the millions of hours worked in bullshit jobs have any real social value? That's all stolen leisure time.

wat. So people who used to work in the field 13 hours a day 6-7 days a week had more leisure time as opposed to people now who clock in 8 hours 5 days a week? the logic being that because the work they did had social value it therefor counts as leisure time?

[erichkknaar]

If you value leisure time this current economic system is probably the worst in the west for at least a millennium.

WAT

Obviously it depends on how far down the income distribution you are, but it certainly holds for the independent working poor who are often the most indoctrinated into praising capitalism.

Do you really think the millions of hours worked in bullshit jobs have any real social value? That's all stolen leisure time.

wat. So people who used to work in the field 13 hours a day 6-7 days a week had more leisure time because the work they did had social value and therefor counts as leisure thing? As opposed to people now who clock in 38-40 hours 5 days a week?

Yes but they only had to work like that for 3 seasons, then they could concentrate on not dying of cold or starvation and fending off Barbarian invasions in the winter.

[Keckers]

It was work necessary for the survival of the community, not purely surplus to be a contributed to their boss's next yacht.

I was trying to make a broader point about alienation and productivity but I'm trying to do too many things at once while poasting and instead have made myself look silly.

[Alistair]

by this reasoning, democracy is a massive failure due to the way the French revolution played out.

There are literal libraries written critical of the actions of the French Revolution Liare, rightfully so. That does not alone make Democracy a failed system.

With that said, I have a number of far more recent examples I would cite to show the weaknesses and problem of Democracy, at least as practiced in the United States. I don't have any need to go back 100 years to show that.

And I'd add, the French Revolution overthrew a Monarchy, a Tyrant.

For your system of Anarcho-Syndicalism to be the system in power, it would either need to forcefully overthrow a duly elected western representative Democracy or convince the majority within that Democracy to vote for that economic system.

How well do you think you're doing convincing doubters such a vote would be in their best interests?

Let me be honest, I don't think you care about convincing people. I think you relish, at least conceptually, the idea of violent revolution and all that comes with that.

you can go over to the far right and join the monarchists and Phrenologists.

You think I'm on the far right anyway, You think almost everyone is on the far right. And as such you seem to see little difference between the rest of us, we're all fascists to you.

these two statements are directly contradictory, you are calling for such a socio-political system to show it's able to defend itself, while also arguing that the usage of violence to establish it automatically invalidate it.

Defending yourself and your territory in War from an opposing army is not the same as rounding up the formerly wealthy resident and/or average unarmed civilians suspected of not being anarchists, and mass murdering them.

does the execution of the gentry in order to force trough land reform by French peasants somehow mean that everything that followed is tainted ?

You tell me. I didn't see any executed gentry in your cartoon. If it was something you should be proud of, something righteous, I think it's be in there.

i am going to let you into a little secret Alistair, you do not seem to grasp this simple, fundamental truth. politics is the application of violence

Ah, the Clausewitz obverse.

Interestingly, this is the very same rhetoric the far-right often uses, that even mild policy they disagree with is really abhorrent violence against them by the State.

More, I believe that mankind should be moving away from violence being our solutions over ideological differences.

Ultimately, philosophies that believe in violence as the prime methodology to change system believes that it is ok to impose their own beliefs on everyone without obtaining consent from them in any way. I don't agree with such mindsets. The consent of the governed is a requisite for legitimacy in my book.

when you vote for Joe Biden you explicitly endorse the act of selling weapons to Saudi Arabia so that they can continue bombing school busses, hospitals and weddings. you are complicit in this action trough your endorsement of this flagrant violation of international law. it doesn't matter that you didn't have a choice in the matter, both candidates wanted to continue this practice, you actively endorsed it by participating in the system.

When I vote for Biden, I am making a choice between him and Trump, and choosing the lesser in my view of the two evils. The only third option is not to vote.

Unless you think like a Trumpist, and believe the violent overthrow of the U.S. to impose your own system is a legitimate third option.

social change, be it trough armed revolution or otherwise, are inherently disruptive and probably violent affairs especially when it means tearing down the existing political power structures wholescale. in such a situation, people are going to die. if you balk at that fine, but consider the cost of not doing so.
consider the people of texas and oregon freezing to death, so that people like Cruz could pay even less in taxes, the millions that have died the last 50 years because your "good friends" the house of Saud have exported their domestic religious problems to the rest of the world. consider the numerous injustices borne directly as a result of western imperialism and capitalism, there are libraries of tomes detailing these atrocities if you cared to actually read them.

but you do not engage with any of that, you do not want to engage with any of that, instead you are demanding impossible standards, and if those are suddenly met, by say the Zaptistas, you simply shuffle the goalposts out of reach, you have done that in this very thread. all in the name of ignoring the whole thing so it does not impede upon your happy little bubble where everything is okay.

I do not believe in physical violence as the tool to solve political or economic philosophical differences. It really is that simple for me. I find it abhorrent. Mankind needs to move beyond the simple paradigm of "Might makes Right".

I believe in educating people, and convincing those who disagree peacefully. Without bloodshed or revolution.

I see you as no different that any other bloodthirsty revolutionary. You think your ideas are the only right ideas, and you'd happily kill anyone who disagrees to see your personal vision implanted if they get in your way or oppose you in any form.

except you just had a attempted fascist takeover.

We did. An rather pathetic one by any historical standard, and one that was swiftly and easily defeated.

But one that remains a risk, and as I say to Erich, and now to you, killing them all via Erich's death camps or your own violent revolution isn't the solution.

Lets be honest too, the 50 Anarcho-Syndacalists in the U.S. have little chance at beating 75 million Trumpists in armed conflict anyway.