Motown Bombers Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 No wonder they never win elections, they're out here insulting themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 what's weird is that you think that's a winning strategy. very self sabotaging like maga does strange coincidence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 weird that you're still struggling so badly with the common sense notion that insulting the people who's vote you need is not a good idea. To the point that you're now proudly parading around that you're resorting to literally the same burns maga uses. what an absolute crap show man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 It is weird that these socialists call themselves and think it's a winning strategy. Oh wait, these people can't win elections outside of the bluest areas in the country like the Bronx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Just now, pfife said: weird that you're still struggling so badly with the common sense notion that insulting the people who's vote you need is not a good idea. To the point that you're now proudly parading around that you're resorting to literally the same burns maga uses. what an absolute crap show man. You're starting to get it. These self proclaimed socialists and MAGA are two sides of the same coin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 It's like wearing a MAGA hat and saying you'll vote for Biden because someone said you're wearing a MAGA hat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 I still think insulting the people who's votes you need and want is a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 It's like coming here and behaving like maga does for no reason - all stuff magatown bummers has admitted to this morning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 7 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Here's Bernie Sanders insulting himself. But to be fair, what Bernie describes as Democratic Socialism is a more limited concept that the broader concept of Socialism as understood say - 75yrs ago. Bernie is interested in redistribution of resources and much greater regulation of private interests. Maybe I've missed it but don't remember him talking much about the public ownership of production resources and nationalization of industries (other than maybe healthcare, which is a very unique 'industry') as was seen in post war England. Many countries, like those in Europe that Bernie cites, do perfectly well with the social welfare aspects of 'Socialism' that Bernie is describing here, but they by and large do not practice socialization of the means of production on the model of post war British coal. It's the latter that inevitably leads to economic malaise more than any expansion of social welfare programs in a regulated capitalist economy. This ambiguity/evolution of the practical meaning of 'socialism' leads to a lot of silly politics. People like Bernie like to give themselves the charisma of wrapping themselves in terminology that makes them seem more chicly radical than they are, while the right wing sells horror stories of the economics of the Soviet Union and pre-Thatcher England that Scandinavians can only laugh at. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 2 minutes ago, pfife said: I still think insulting the people who's votes you need and want is a bad idea. So why are they insulting Biden? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 FFS. stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 Just now, gehringer_2 said: But to be fair, what Bernie describes as Democratic Socialism is a more limited concept that the broader concept of Socialism as understood say - 75yrs ago. Bernie is interested in redistribution of resources and much greater regulation of private interests. Maybe I've missed it but don't remember him talking much about the public ownership of production resources and nationalization of industries (other than maybe healthcare, which is a very unique 'industry') as was seen in post war England. Many countries, like those in Europe that Bernie cites, do perfectly well with the social welfare aspects of 'Socialism' that Bernie is describing here, but they by and large do not practice socialization of the means of production on the model of post war British coal. It's the latter that inevitably leads to economic malaise more than any expansion of social welfare programs in a regulated capitalist economy. This ambiguity/evolution of the practical meaning of 'socialism' leads to a lot of silly politics. People like Bernie like to give themselves the charisma of wrapping themselves in terminology that makes them seem more chicly radical than they are, while the right wing sells horror stories of the economics of the Soviet Union and pre-Thatcher England that Scandinavians can only laugh at. Thank you G2. It was either true ignorance or feigned ignorance. So I was begging for more examples of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Just now, gehringer_2 said: But to be fair, what Bernie describes as Democratic Socialism is a more limited concept that the broader concept of Socialism as understood say - 75yrs ago. Bernie is interested in redistribution of resources and much greater regulation of private interests. Maybe I've missed it but don't remember him talking much about the public ownership of production resources and nationalization of industries (other than maybe healthcare, which is a very unique 'industry') as was seen in post war England. Many countries, like those in Europe that Bernie cites, do perfectly well with the social welfare aspects of 'Socialism' that Bernie is describing here, but they by and large do not practice socialization of the means of production on the model of post war British coal. It's the latter that inevitably leads to economic malaise more than any expansion of social welfare programs in a regulated capitalist economy. This ambiguity/evolution of the practical meaning of 'socialism' leads to a lot of silly politics. People like Bernie like to give themselves the charisma of wrapping themselves in terminology that makes them seem more chicly radical than they are, while the right wing sells horror stories of the economics of the Soviet Union and pre-Thatcher England that Scandinavians can only laugh at. I get it but he still calls himself a socialist and that is apparently insulting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 You get it? So you know that distinction and yet flogged it as if the distinction did not exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Just now, pfife said: You get it? So you know that distinction and yet flogged it as if the distinction did not exist? I don't think socialist is an insult and consider myself one. You seem to think referring to socialists who identify as socialists is some sort of insult. Sorry you're trapped in your pretzel logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said: I don't think socialist is an insult and consider myself one. You seem to think referring to socialists who identify as socialists is some sort of insult. Sorry you're trapped in your pretzel logic. Uh huh. Cool story. Others definitely read it differently (aka correctly) and unfortunately for you already called you on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 1 minute ago, pfife said: Uh huh. Cool story. Others definitely read it differently (aka correctly) and unfortunately for you already called you on it. Ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 speaking of pretzel logic, if you're a socialist like you said then you're a...... tankie? what a disaster area Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Just now, pfife said: speaking of pretzel logic, if you're a socialist like you said then you're a...... tankie? what a disaster area Ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 To clarify, I have always been a supporter of the European style socialism but the movement has been taken over by a bunch of do nothing tankies where everything is a purity contest and compromise is looked down upon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 I think 3+ pages of unforgivably boring and childish posts are probably all that a majority of members here are willing to tolerate. So, I will again ask that it stops. Now, please. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 30 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: But to be fair, what Bernie describes as Democratic Socialism is a more limited concept that the broader concept of Socialism as understood say - 75yrs ago. Bernie is interested in redistribution of resources and much greater regulation of private interests. Maybe I've missed it but don't remember him talking much about the public ownership of production resources and nationalization of industries (other than maybe healthcare, which is a very unique 'industry') as was seen in post war England. Many countries, like those in Europe that Bernie cites, do perfectly well with the social welfare aspects of 'Socialism' that Bernie is describing here, but they by and large do not practice socialization of the means of production on the model of post war British coal. It's the latter that inevitably leads to economic malaise more than any expansion of social welfare programs in a regulated capitalist economy. This ambiguity/evolution of the practical meaning of 'socialism' leads to a lot of silly politics. People like Bernie like to give themselves the charisma of wrapping themselves in terminology that makes them seem more chicly radical than they are, while the right wing sells horror stories of the economics of the Soviet Union and pre-Thatcher England that Scandinavians can only laugh at. Listen to "the Rest of History" podcast re: 1974 in the UK. Holy crap, that country was on its ass. They describe it as a bunch of balding, bespectcled, dandruffy old dudes with slump shoulders just treading water without actually doing the necessary to transition the UK to some actual economic model that could work. Amusingly, they cite the war records of some of the piss poor leaders on both sides and they are genuine dudes in the Don Brown sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) 48 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: But to be fair, what Bernie describes as Democratic Socialism is a more limited concept that the broader concept of Socialism as understood say - 75yrs ago. Bernie is interested in redistribution of resources and much greater regulation of private interests. Maybe I've missed it but don't remember him talking much about the public ownership of production resources and nationalization of industries (other than maybe healthcare, which is a very unique 'industry') as was seen in post war England. Many countries, like those in Europe that Bernie cites, do perfectly well with the social welfare aspects of 'Socialism' that Bernie is describing here, but they by and large do not practice socialization of the means of production on the model of post war British coal. It's the latter that inevitably leads to economic malaise more than any expansion of social welfare programs in a regulated capitalist economy. This ambiguity/evolution of the practical meaning of 'socialism' leads to a lot of silly politics. People like Bernie like to give themselves the charisma of wrapping themselves in terminology that makes them seem more chicly radical than they are, while the right wing sells horror stories of the economics of the Soviet Union and pre-Thatcher England that Scandinavians can only laugh at. To finish the little digression here, I will say that what Hayak argued in 'Road to Serfdom' is correct on one level, you will ruin an economy and polity if government 'control' of the economy reaches too high a level, when too many economic decisions are colored by political or even corrupt and otherwise non-economic factors. What Hayak was wrong about was his measurement model. His model was that government control of the economy was equal to the government's share of spending in GDP. That is another example of a plausible but flawed model leading to flawed ideology. What Hayak missed was that in the modern welfare state, the majority of government spending is transfer payments, and transfer payments are fundamentally different than other forms of spending. When the government buys jets for the Air Force, that is spending where all the decisions are driven at the political level. If the government owns the car company, the decision about where to buy steel becomes a political or patronage decision, likewise who to hire or where to put the factory. Too much of that and you do tank the economy and the general level of liberty in society. But in the US over 50% of government spending is transfer payments. In a transfer payment an individual ends up making the decision about how that money is spent and he spends it in a free market. So it's a completely different animal with regard to what Hayak was worried about. Once you take out the transfer payments, the percentage of US (or Euro welfare state) economy 'controlled' by direct political/government decision making falls below the practical concern level for a failing 'socialist' - old school meaning- economy. Edited March 1 by gehringer_2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.TaterSalad Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) 1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said: To clarify, I have always been a supporter of the European style socialism but the movement has been taken over by a bunch of do nothing tankies where everything is a purity contest and compromise is looked down upon. I'm all for compromise, it's just what the center/moderate wing of the Democratic Party have been willing to compromise on that disgusts me and lots of other people on the left. Most notably among the worst compromises of all time is the Iraq War. 500,000 Iraqi civilians and over 4,440 servicemembers died because cowardly politicians in the center acquiesced to George DubyaMD Bush out of political fear. They voted to send people into a meatgrinder, on a nation build without an exit strategy. One of them being the current President and another one being our last presidential nominee. Off the top of my head, here are a host of other issues I feel the center has compromised on that made things actively worse for the average American. Issues I believe that politicians on the left largely would not comprise on. There are a few cases below where politicians on the left, including Bernie Sanders, did shamefully vote in favor of. Adopting Gramm-Leach-Bliley (Financial Services Modernization Act) in place of Glass-Steegall Biden using Title 42 border policy that Trump did (Bill) Clinton refusing to take real action to stop an active genocide in Rwanda (Hillary) Clinton supporting a coup in Honduras and then wanting to send refugees and migrants back to the region she helped destabilize Deregulating high-risk derivatives trading through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act Giving China permanent, normalized trade relation status Joining the CAFTA trade agreement Joining the NAFTA trade agreement Passing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1994, aka welfare reform, that doubled the extreme rate of poverty in America Passing the Riegle–Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act Passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that deregulated big media and ruined local control over radio airwaves Passing the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (the 1994 Crime Bill) and other tough on crime legislation (Yes, Congressman Sanders voted for this one and shame on him for doing so) Preventing LGBTQ individuals from marrying who they love by adopting DOMA Prioritizing the budget surplus over more economic and social welfare programs Removing the public option from the ACA because of Joe Lieberman Repealing Glass-Steegall measures that kept the economy on solid financial footing for decades after the Great Depression Repealing the Fairness Doctrine Replacing AFDC with the TANF program Supporting human torture through the use of "enhanced interrogation" Supporting warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act The current far-right border bill: Secure the Border Act of 2023 The TARP bank bailouts instead of having a bailout for homeowners like they should have done US membership into GATT US membership into the World Trade Organization Edited March 1 by Mr.TaterSalad 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 So are we allowed to talk about socialists again or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.