US Politics

Eboue said:
They mean specific things. They aren't outdated at all. It's a fundamental difference in how one believes society should be ordered.
Click to expand...

They mean specific things that relate to 19th century economies. Considering no 21st century advanced economy is "socialist" or "capitalist" but entirely mixed economies, the terms are quite outdated.

An society should not be "ordered" on either of those shite 19th century systems. Utopian socialism and utopian capitalism are both failed shite views of political economy.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
They mean specific things that relate to 19th century economies. Considering no 21st century advanced economy is "socialist" or "capitalist" but entirely mixed economies, the terms are quite outdated.

An society should not be "ordered" on either of those shite 19th century systems. Utopian socialism and utopian capitalism are both failed shite views of political economy.
Click to expand...

dont have time to reply to crappy or you in full, but "utopian" has a particular meaning within socialism.
 
This thread just confirms that America is fecked and Trump is likely to be reelected.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
They mean specific things that relate to 19th century economies. Considering no 21st century advanced economy is "socialist" or "capitalist" but entirely mixed economies, the terms are quite outdated.

An society should not be "ordered" on either of those shite 19th century systems. Utopian socialism and utopian capitalism are both failed shite views of political economy.
Click to expand...
We've had that discussion before, but I don't think there's anything "mixed" about a capitalist society with state regulation of the market, extensive taxation, and a welfare system. The balance between these elements can be quite variable, but capitalism is always a system of market and state.

In my book "socialism" only applies to full public ownership of the means of production (which doesn't necessary equal state ownership or "nationalisation" either). In that sense, I'd be surprised if there's an actual socialist candidate in the race - the idea of a socialist POTUS is a contradiction in itself.
 
Synco said:
We've had that discussion before, but I don't think there's anything "mixed" about a capitalist society with state regulation of the market, extensive taxation, and a welfare system. The balance between these elements can be quite variable, but capitalism is always a system of market and state.

In my book "socialism" only applies to full public ownership of the means of production (which doesn't necessary equal state ownership or "nationalisation" either). In that sense, I'd be surprised if there's an actual socialist candidate in the race - the idea of a socialist POTUS is a contradiction in itself.
Click to expand...

I dont subscribe to that vague operational definition of "capitalism" because it then becomes so broad then a no income tax market fundamentalist laissez-faire system is "capitalist" and so is a massive social safety net welfare state. At that point the word loses all meaning in any kind of policy debate and just becomes anothet meaningless Rorshach test that 100 will have 100 different personal definitions of.

No modern economist I ever met called advanced mixed economies "capitalist" because that term has no analytic meaning at such a broad definition and refusing to break free of 19th century terminology invented to describe very different systems than what we have now absolutely does more harm than good.

The first welfare state didnt evolve out any capitalist system anyway - Bismarcks Germany implemented social safety net without being capitalist so I dont think it has a valid historical foundation to reduce a welfare social safety net to just "capitalism".

As we see now, many Europeans and "democratic socialists" are already using both terms different than in the 19th century.
 
Last edited:
oneniltothearsenal said:
I dont subscribe to that vague operational definition of "capitalism" because it then becomes so broad then a no income tax market fundamentalist laissez-faire system is "capitalist" and so is a massive social safety net welfare state. At that point the word loses all meaning in any kind of policy debate and just becomes anothet meaningless Rorshach test that 100 will have 100 different personal definitions of.

No modern economist I ever met called advanced mixed economies "capitalist" because that term has no analytic meaning at such a broad definition and refusing to break free of 19th century terminology invented to describe very different systems than what we have now absolutely does more harm than good.

The first welfare state didnt evolve out any capitalist system anyway - Bismarcks Germany implemented social safety net without being capitalist so I dont think it has a valid historical foundation to reduce a welfare social safety net to just "capitalism".

As we see now, many Europeans and "democratic socialists" are already using both terms different than in the 19th century.
Click to expand...
Hm, I find a lot of this at least debatable, some questionable - for example the straight-out characterization of late Prussia/the German Empire as non-capitalistic. I'd also be surprised if the rejection of the term "capitalism" for today's economies is as universal among economists as you say, and not just the standpoint of some specific schools - but I acknowledge that you'd know more about that than me.

In general, I'd say capitalism is always a mix of various elements - a "pure" economic form is an impossibility -, but under the primary mode of wealth generation through capital accumulation processes. I see this variability and flexibility as one of capitalism's main strengths and survival traits - the fact that capital accumulation can function under very different regulatory regimes, who can adjust to changing circumstances.

But I stop here, as this is not the thread to go deeper into this discussion.
 
Synco said:
Hm, I find a lot of this at least debatable, some questionable - for example the straight-out characterization of late Prussia/the German Empire as non-capitalistic. I'd also be surprised if the rejection of the term "capitalism" for today's economies is as universal among economists as you say, and not just the standpoint of some specific schools - but I acknowledge that you'd know more about that than me.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you believe the Bismarkian welfare state grew out of capitalism? That Bismark's welfare state itself was capitalist in origin and design? If so that would be the first I've ever heard anyone make that

Bismark's model was about adopting specific policies to prevent people advancing even further radical changes to policies. His change of model did not derive from capitalism and in fact went against the free market fundamentalists of the time period.

In general, I'd say capitalism is always a mix of various elements - a "pure" economic form is an impossibility -, but under the primary mode of wealth generation through capital accumulation processes. I see this variability and flexibility as one of capitalism's main strengths and survival traits - the fact that capital accumulation can function under very different regulatory regimes, who can adjust to changing circumstances.
Click to expand...

If you are saying that capitalism itself cannot exist without a state that provides 1) the legal system to enforce contracts and 2) some form of state enforcement of law then yes I agree but your broadening the definition to go beyond any concrete demarcation really makes capitalism a mostly meaningless term that feeds right into the right wing propaganda machine.

Of course your 'pure' version of capitalism is an impossibility but so is your definition of pure socialism (public ownership of the means of production). First there is no way to achieve public ownership of the means of production without using the state's top down power unless you move towards Kevin Kelly style digital socialism and even then we've already seen both private and state actors corrupt some of the benefits. This is one aspect where I simply think Marx runs out of steam and again, we have to move beyond the predictions of a mid 1800s ragamuffin because the world has evolved beyond Adam Smith and Karl Marx (and Hayek and Fourier and Friedman and Owen as well).

We approach the third decade of the 21st century and its time to start building new models based on what we know from behavioral economics, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, the results of coercive marketing, planned obsolescence, the tragedy of the commons and the fact that public ownership of the means of production is also impossible.

Better terms in general because they are more concrete would be profit-seeking vs. self-sustainable. There are simply certain industries in society that should NEVER be profit-seeking because they simply create massively misaligned incentives - prisons, health care, education, utilities. A society that allows some profit seeking areas and doesn't allow others is IMO neither traditional "capitalism" or "socialism" and labeling it as one or both obfuscates the real important aspects that need to be highlighted and analyzed: profit seeking motives and how they skew incentives. That's the debate that needs to be had and cloaking it in 19th century loaded terms that people have drastically different definitions of isn't helping, its hurting.

Also, this is relevant to the thread US Politics because what we actually debating are the underlying principles US political economy should be angled around. I believe strongly that if the next 20 years are about a ridiculous capitalism vs socialism then the US is well and truly fecked. For me its simple, no need to use charged words from the 1900s to debate the empirical effects of profit-seeking motives in different industries.

You can call capitalism the thesis or the antithesis and socialism the other but as long as people are stuck debating thesis vs. antithesis society will never move on to create a synthesis and enter the next phase of social evolution.
 
Last edited:
@oneniltothearsenal
I'm not sure I want to go into all of this at length in the first place, but if so, it'd be in another thread anyway.

Edit - Okay, perhaps just one remark: I understand your thesis/antithesis model as (erroneously) turning the aspects of market and state inside capitalism into a matter of capitalism and socialism.
 
Last edited:
Synco said:
@oneniltothearsenal
I'm not sure I want to go into all of this at length in the first place, but if so, it'd be in another thread anyway.

Edit - Okay, perhaps just one remark: I understand your thesis/antithesis model as (erroneously) turning the aspects of market and state inside capitalism into a matter of capitalism and socialism.
Click to expand...

No, you aren't understanding my point at all. Like, that is a horrible paraphrase that is nothing that I am saying.

Or at least you don't appear to understand it bro.

If you believe everything that is not "public ownership of all means of production" = "capitalism" then that just illustrates my point on how debating with those words is just useless because you clearly have your own personal definition of "capitalism" that differs from anyone else's I've heard.
EDIT: actually you sound a lot like Francis Fukuyama in The End of History and the Last Man on this issue now that I think about it.

So its pointless to debate it.

Profit-seeking is really the concept that needs to be debated in policy circles bereft of the loaded and charged words that cause more misunderstanding than mutually beneficial discussion.
 
Last edited:
oneniltothearsenal said:
No, you aren't understanding my point at all.

Or at least you don't appear to understand it bro.
Click to expand...
Might be, although this feeling is mutual. That's why I assumed any discussion in necessary depth would have to be rather exhaustive - more than I'm ready to commit atm.
 
Synco said:
Might be, although this feeling is mutual. That's why I assumed any discussion in necessary depth would have to be rather exhaustive - more than I'm ready to commit atm.
Click to expand...

Then I am just going to repeat my main point. Using the words capitalism and socialism in policy debate does far more harm than any good it could cause because no one will ever agree on actionable definitions. So they are useless words for 2020 and forward.

Profit-seeking is really the concept that needs to be debated in policy circles bereft of the loaded and charged words that cause more misunderstanding than mutually beneficial discussion.

^and thats why my posts are appropriate in this thread, because I ain't interested in some economic definitions debate but rather how to frame meaningful policy debates because that's whats important in 2020.
 
Florida Man said:
We already have a thread called What is Socialism?
Click to expand...

The point is people waste time, energy and resources debating definitions and this academic textbook jargon vs. colloquial use by people like Bernie Sanders, the DSA and AOC. That's the wasted time that feeds right into either the far right frame and/or corporate neoliberals.

No one should be using capitalism and socialism in debates anymore. The concepts that need to be on the table are concepts like profit-seeking and externalities, sustainability and long term costs. Those concepts contain actionable value.

The biggest problem for the US in debating economic issues is that they are far too caught in arguing rubbish terminology instead of debating the actual issue of profit-seeking in certain industries. It only benefits the right wing and the corporate elites to focus on contested terminology definitions instead of debate that focuses on the costs and externalities of profit seeking across certain industries.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
The point is people waste time, energy and resources debating definitions and this academic textbook jargon vs. colloquial use by people like Bernie Sanders, the DSA and AOC. That's the wasted time that feeds right into either the far right frame and/or corporate neoliberals.

No one should be using capitalism and socialism in debates anymore. The concepts that need to be on the table are concepts like profit-seeking and externalities, sustainability and long term costs. Those concepts contain actionable value.

The biggest problem for the US in debating economic issues is that they are far too caught in arguing rubbish terminology instead of debating the actual issue of profit-seeking in certain industries. It only benefits the right wing and the corporate elites to focus on contested terminology definitions instead of debate that focuses on the costs and externalities of profit seeking across certain industries.
Click to expand...
All great points that belong in that thread :)
 
Anyone know exactly what information the whistleblower arrested today is alleged to have leaked? They mentioned a foreign weapons system but which country?
 
DavidDeSchmikes said:
Click to expand...
Ellen's awful these days. It's depressing that someone who it could be argued was the most influential person on gay rights in 90's America is now proudly defending her friendship with the person who was the most influential person against gay rights in the 2000's.

Not that Bush's legacy on homophobia bothers me more than his legacy in the middle east but it's easier to understand her not caring about foreigners than her not caring about the best thing she ever did.
 
@Sweet Square This still image bit there from the video was very well done.

Also, whoever thought it was a good idea to try copyright claims on the video is so clueless about the world we live in that I could absolutely believe it was Ellen herself.

It feels a bit like a moment, to me. The GWB rehabilitation thing has been something only the more angry amongst us had previously had the energy to complain about but she's made it so stark. She's not Michelle Obama at a solemn political event cheerfully accepting a mint. She's saying to millions we should all be nice to George W Bush.
 
Oh come on you are all being far too harsh on Ellen. She constantly has people on her show how have done nice or inspiring things and she showers them with gifts courtesy of TARGET and trips to DISNEY LAND™ and makes sure we know how much she admires them and that THEY ARE THE REAL HEROES ON THIS SHOW.

She also gives soccer moms a platform to dance like nobody is watching and get all giddy at the gifts they are going to be showered with courtesy of GAP, Chrysler, Wendy's and a credit card with $100 free cash courtesy of AMEX.

Really difficult to justify the criticism of someone who is that generous.
 
Pexbo said:
Oh come on you are all being far too harsh on Ellen. She constantly has people on her show how have done nice or inspiring things and she showers them with gifts courtesy of TARGET and trips to DISNEY LAND™ and makes sure we know how much she admires them and that THEY ARE THE REAL HEROES ON THIS SHOW.

She also gives soccer moms a platform to dance like nobody is watching and get all giddy at the gifts they are going to be showered with courtesy of GAP, Chrysler, Wendy's and a credit card with $100 free cash courtesy of AMEX.

Really difficult to justify the criticism of someone who is that generous.
Click to expand...
The celebrity and corporate worship is grim. I hate it but if she didn't do it someone else would. Her unique evil, to me, is that I will cry every time I watch a documentary about her coming out, not cause I give a shit about her, but because I know what it meant to so many people. And she uses the good will she got from that to do this. To hurt the very people who saw her as a hero.
 
Obviously, as a straight male, I can’t quite fathom the disappointment and feelings of betrayal from the LGBTQ+ community, but if you look at it logically, just from her studio crowd alone, her audience is middle age suburban white moms, and I doubt that group need any help rehabilitating W’s image.

There’s also something deeply ironic in that a posh white person who married another posh white person (my English teacher in high school attended the same private school Portia attended, 2 years later, as a matter of fact) is the poster child of a community often impoverished and bereft of fair treatment/opportunities, and now we found out she doesn’t quite empathise that much. Feet of clay and all that.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Obviously, as a straight male, I can’t quite fathom the disappointment and feelings of betrayal from the LGBTQ+ community, but if you look at it logically, just from her studio crowd alone, her audience is middle age suburban white moms, and I doubt that group need any help rehabilitating W’s image.

There’s also something deeply ironic in that a posh white person who married another posh white person (my English teacher in high school attended the same private school Portia attended, 2 years later, as a matter of fact) is the poster child of a community often impoverished and bereft of fair treatment/opportunities, and now we found out she doesn’t quite empathise that much. Feet of clay and all that.
Click to expand...
She is. I wish the gays had more control of this but you're right, the white mothers of America have control of this. And Ellen's chosen to take their acclaim, and the money she makes from that, over the queer community.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
The celebrity and corporate worship is grim. I hate it but if she didn't do it someone else would. Her unique evil, to me, is that I will cry every time I watch a documentary about her coming out, not cause I give a shit about her, but because I know what it meant to so many people. And she uses the good will she got from that to do this. To hurt the very people who saw her as a hero.
Click to expand...

If you want to look for anything positive in it whatsoever and can look past the irony, perhaps it could be celebrated that somebody "like her" is now accepted not only as a valid member of the corporate elite but elevated to the status of an icon because of "who she is" or maybe "who she represents". I'd say that a pretty good acid test of what is accepted without controversy within culture/society is what family friendly corporations are comfortable using to sell their products.
 
Pexbo said:
If you want to look for anything positive in it whatsoever and can look past the irony, perhaps it could be celebrated that somebody "like her" is now accepted not only as a valid member of the corporate elite but elevated to the status of an icon because of "who she is" or maybe "who she represents". I'd say that a pretty good acid test of what is accepted without controversy within culture/society is what family friendly corporations are comfortable using to sell their products.
Click to expand...
No, I'm grumpy.

She's been a family friendly gay for years now. That's not new. It was exciting at the time but things move on. She's absolutely not helped since to progress queer rights.
 
Eboue said:
The libs are gonna do the same thing for trump in 10 years
Click to expand...
Like the good ol days

5abe8e075c791e35008b463a-1136-852.jpg
 
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/11/pge-power-shutdown-california/

Power shutoffs affecting more than 1 million residents, scheduled by PG&E this week throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and Northern California, have sparked a massive backlash, with many community members telling reporters that they are shocked that the company has not done more to upgrade its transmission lines.

The decision to shut off the electricity services, a precaution over concerns about high winds, raises the question of precisely how PG&E has been spending its rate-payers’ money. And the answer isn’t pretty: While neglecting safety upgrades and investments in its aging infrastructure, PG&E has instead been lavishly rewarding shareholders and buying political influence.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.