Jump to content

US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

1.  That's because you've been conditioned to think free market capitalism and socialism are antithetical.  They're not.  Marx and Engels wrote two influential books on the subject 150 years ago.  There have been plenty others.

2.  Sure.  If you want to differentiate between neo-nazis, the KKK, white supremacists, and "economic nationalists" or what have you by all means do so.  Doesn't change the fact if they're ideology is racist, I'm still going to call it racist.  Just like I would call Mao and Stalin's ideology abject genocide, no matter what they called it.

Right, and see same argument can be used to answer the question why "socialist" is a bad word in many circles today. If individuals adhering to a certain ideology kill tens of millions of people and destroy numerous countries, it will probably get a bit of a sketchy reputation among many persons regardless of what its present day adherents self define as, claim to want, or if they attempt to wash their hands of the crimes of their predecessors or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

If we go into what people self define as, though, how many of these Trump supporting "Neo-nazis" or "fascists" actually see or call themselves that?

In public, or in private?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Now you're getting it.   Especially considering the party that has either been in the governing coalition or the leading opposition in Germany's party system since World War II is called the Social Democratic Party of Germany.

In addition to this, the Social Democrats organized themselves in the 1860s and their core aims were improving the conditions of the German working class who were exploited during the Industrial Revolution (which happened quite a bit later in Germany than in other countries).

And yeah, I have to admit that worded myself a bit awkward earlier. Of course misguided economic policies were one of the factors that made living under communist dictactorships miserable. Doesn't change the fact that they didn't use social market economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

It is obviously futile to claim that among the wide spectrum of meanings that could be associated with "socialism" one is "right" and others are "wrong". The discussion about the words is completely moot. The goal is usually to condemn by association, e.g. that western European style social democratic policies (that were and to a large extent still are enacted by European mainstream conservatives as well) are historically or conceptually connected with the atrocities by Mao, Stalin etc. It should also be noted that it seems at least an open question whether social democratic systems tend to (d)evolve into more socialist or more capitalist ones. (While some may claim otherwise, for me the last 25 years show that the second possibility seems closer to the truth.)

One could use the same association for free market capitalism and genocide during the 19th century (or earlier) in the Americas, Africa or India or the starving workers in 19th century Europe.

Well yes, and I think in that case it would be more tasteful to admit that actual socialism is a rather dangerous ideology which it should be important to maintain a distance from, but that some of its policies are nevertheless good and can be appropriated by other systems, than it is to say that Mao or Stalin weren't "true socialists" and that the ideology in question can't be blamed for any of the countless atrocities of the last century. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Don't know if it would make that much of a difference. It seems to be a general trend among radical groups to be very aware of differences that to outsiders might seem rather small or trivial. 

It is a great, and long-established, trend among neo-Nazi groups to publicly avoid identifying as such for propaganda reasons despite privately ascribing to those views. So yes, it makes a huge difference and no, it's not trivial. Spencer is one individual who almost certainly privately identifies as a neo-Nazi but would vigorously deny it in public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, while condemning by association is silly and distinguishing between different aspects, "bugs" and "features" is necessary, I am all for clearly pointing out the atrocities both of "socialist" totalitarian systems and of past and present capitalism. But not to exonerate the alternative position, rather to show how easily we tend to commit atrocities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard Spencer openly advocates ethnic cleansing and a white only state. He denounces Jews and quotes Hitler and nazi propaganda. People give nazi salutes at his rallies. He accepts open neo-nazis as allies. I don't see why he would secretly in private be a neo nazi after doing all that publicly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Richard Spencer openly advocates ethnic cleansing and a white only state. He denounces Jews and quotes Hitler and nazi propaganda. People give nazi salutes at his rallies. He accepts open neo-nazis as allies. I don't see why he would secretly in private be a neo nazi after doing all that publicly.

Nevertheless, he publicly rejects the label of neo-Nazi. Why? Largely (as I say) for propaganda reasons. Nazi isn't a label anyone wants. People don't want to agree with Nazis.

Which shows there's no point in trying to apply 'self defining' to neo-Nazis, because they have a track record of being dishonest in public about what they privately self-define as. In fact, it's a deliberate tactic of theirs. So we have no choice but to define them by their actions instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

If you think that's socialism, I can't help you.  I'm rather surprised by the lack of understanding of what socialism actually is.  Democratic socialism has run the western world since World War II.  Well aware most Americans have conflated the term with with communism, but I did not expect that here.

Not gonna get any argument from me on the bolded.  On the underlined, the point is the extremes on the right are more influential and numerous than the extremes on the left.  That can be empirically demonstrated as both the mass and elite levels.

DCM,

Are you excluding Maxist-Leninist Socialism from Socialism by definition and claiming only "Fabian Socialism" is "True Socialism"?  How is that not the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

DCM,

Are you excluding Maxist-Leninist Socialism from Socialism by definition and claiming only "Fabian Socialism" is "True Socialism"?  How is that not the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

I think it's more of a case of avoiding misrepresentation by reclaiming a label.

More to the point, The discussion was started by some poster claiming that universal healthcare (or even the far less ambitious ACA) amounts to socialism and is therefore bad. What people did was to point out that the kind of socialism that promotes these kinds of programs tends to be social democracy (or the slightly more radical democratic socialism), not the totalitarian Leninist or Maoist models that are indeed incompatible with either of modern democracy or capitalism. Indeed,totalitarian dictatorships tend not to promote the health and welfare of all of their people any more, no matter where on the political spectrum they started out. (Cuba seems to be the one reasonably stable dictatorship that still provides those services to a remarkable extent. It's still a dictatorship, which I despise; but it's still better than almost all of the others)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

I think it's more of a case of avoiding misrepresentation by reclaiming a label.

More to the point, The discussion was started by some poster claiming that uuniversal healthcare (or even the far less ambitious ACA) amounts to socialism and is therefore bad. What people did was to point out that the kind of socialism that promotes these kinds of programs tends to be social democracy (or the slightly more radical democratic socialism), not the totalitarian Leninist or Maoist models that are indeed incompatible with either of modern democracy or capitalism. Indeed,totalitarian dictatorships tend not to promote the health and welfare of all of their people any more, no matter where on the political spectrum they started out. (Cuba seems to be the one reasonably stable dictatorship that still provides those services to a remarkable extent. It's still a dictatorship, which I despise; but it's still better than almost all of the others)

tgftv,

So, Stalin and Mao weren't pushing totalitarian flavors of Marxist-Leninist socialism and disclaiming them isn't an example of "no true Scotsman"?  Totalitarians can't employ socialist economics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Well yes, and I think in that case it would be more tasteful to admit that actual socialism is a rather dangerous ideology which it should be important to maintain a distance from, but that some of its policies are nevertheless good and can be appropriated by other systems, than it is to say that Mao or Stalin weren't "true socialists" and that the ideology in question can't be blamed for any of the countless atrocities of the last century. 

Sorry, I didn't quite understand what your definition of socialism is. Could you provide your definition please?

In your defense, looking up Wikipedia, the definition is significantly different in English (I'm assuming: UK & US) and in French (France, which is a social democracy).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Sorry, I didn't quite understand what your definition of socialism is. Could you provide your definition please?

In your defense, looking up Wikipedia, the definition is significantly different in English (I'm assuming: UK & US) and in French (France, which is a social democracy).

 

Rippounet,

Any politically or economic system untempered by rationality and human empathy can and is used for the purposes of oppression and the garnering of power/wealth to particular individuals.  There is not perfect system that cannot be abused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is always bad style to avoid giving an argument and instead relying on buzzwords and associations. So unless one explains why ACA or European style socialized healthcare open a plausible (or better a more plausible one than the status quo ante such a reform) causal path to Maoism or any of the bad features of 20th century Eastern bloc and similar systems, the buzzword can and should be ignored. It doesn't help much either to demand definitions of socialism if encyclopedia articles offer around dozens of subdivisions and nuances of what historically has been called socialism in the last 170 years or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Rippounet,

Any politically or economic system untempered by rationality and human empathy can and is used for the purposes of oppression and the garnering of power/wealth to particular individuals.  There is not perfect system that cannot be abused.

The thing is, the French definitions don't describe it as a system. It's generally defined as "A number of very diverse schools of thought and political movements whose common point it is to seek a fairer economic and social organisation."

The definition of it as a "system" can be found on the French "Wikiliberal" which has, as its name implies, a neo-liberal bias, and is thus anti-socialist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

tgftv,

So, Stalin and Mao weren't pushing totalitarian flavors of Marxist-Leninist socialism and disclaiming them isn't an example of "no true Scotsman"?  Totalitarians can't employ socialist economics?

That's not what I said. What I said was that there are different kinds of socialist policies. Some of them are compatible with a capitalist system (like universal healthcare, pensions systems, social security,...), some of them are required for a capitalist system (socialised police, firefighting and infrastructure) and some of them are incompatible with capitalism (common ownership of the means of production). Some are even incompatible with democracy (e.g., Mao's cultural revolution, Stalin's Gulag system). People are objecting to "Healthcare bad because Stalin bad" because the kind of socialist policy promoted is leaps and bounds away from the socialist policies that made Stalin and Mao moral monsters, and indeed in some sense diametrically opposed to those policies (because universal healthcare and Gulag go so greatly together, after all...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The thing is, the French definitions don't describe it as a system. It's generally defined as "A number of very diverse schools of though and political movements whose common point it is to seek a fairer economic and social organisation."

The definition of it as a "system" can be found on the French "Wikiliberal" which has, as its name implies, a neo-liberal bias, and is thus anti-socialist.

Rippounet,

Then the French definition (definitions themselves are not absolutes and are neccessarily malleable) is incomplete.  Socialism is not that simple claiming it to be that simple is disengenous and an example of "no true Scotsman" because it attempts to define away anything bad that arises from socialist systems by saying "socialism can only be a good".

It would be like defining Capitalism as "A number of very diverse schools of thought and political movements whose whose common point is to seek a freer economic and social organisation". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/opinion/the-original-lie-about-obamacare.html?

Quote

You hear it from Republicans, pundits and even some Democrats. It’s often said in a tone of regret: I wish Obama had done health reform in a bipartisan way, rather than jamming through a partisan bill.

Yes, yes, the poor old Republican Party. Everyone is just so mean to them. 

Quote

That it’s nonetheless stuck helps explain how the Republicans have landed in such a mess on health care. The Congressional Budget Office released a jaw-dropping report Monday estimating that the Republican health plan would take insurance from 24 million people, many of them Republican voters, and raise medical costs for others. The bill effectively rescinds benefits for the elderly, poor, sick and middle class, and funnels the money to the rich, via tax cuts.

The AARP doesn’t like the bill, nor do groups representing doctors, nurses, hospitals, the disabled and people with cancer, diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, it’s a great bill

Brownie, you're doin a hecka of a job!!!!

Quote

How did the party’s leaders put themselves in this position? The short answer is that they began believing their own hype and set out to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

The charge of the conservative light brigade!!!

Half a league, half a league,
 Half a league onward,
All in the valley of stupidity
 Rode the Republicans
"Forward, nuts"
"Charge " Mr. Ayn Rand said:
Into the valley of Stupidity
Rode the Republican Party.

Quote

over intense opposition that equated Medicare with the death of capitalism.

Well, if Ronnie said it, it must be true!!!

Quote

So Democrats slowly moved their proposals to the right, relying more on private insurance rather than government programs. As they shifted, though, Republicans shifted even farther right. Bill Clinton’s plan was quite moderate but still couldn’t pass.

Well, maybe the Republicans just asked themselves,"are we conservative enough!!".

Quote

But congressional Republicans ultimately decided that opposing any bill, regardless of its substance, was in their political interest. The consultant Frank Luntz wrote an influential memo in 2009 advising Republicans to talk positively about “reform” while also opposing actual solutions. McConnell, the Senate leader, persuaded his colleagues that they could make Obama look bad by denying him bipartisan cover.

Now surely the Republican Party wouldn't do something like that.

Quote

Today’s Republican Party has moved so far to the right that it no longer supports any plan that covers the uninsured. Of course, Republican leaders are not willing to say as much, because they know how unpopular that position is.

Well now. The Republican Party went looking for a brawl over healthcare and now they got one.

Quote

Their approach to Obamacare has worked quite nicely for them, until now. Lying can be an effective political tactic. Believing your own alternative facts, however, is usually not so smart.

Talkin trash might seem like a good idea at the time....until somebody calls you on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

That's not what I said. What I said was that there are different kinds of socialist policies. Some of them are compatible with a capitalist system (like universal healthcare, pensions systems, social security,...), some of them are required for a capitalist system (socialised police, firefighting and infrastructure) and some of them are incompatible with capitalism (common ownership of the means of production). Some are even incompatible with democracy (e.g., Mao's cultural revolution, Stalin's Gulag system). People are objecting to "Healthcare bad because Stalin bad" because the kind of socialist policy promoted is leaps and bounds away from the socialist policies that made Stalin and Mao moral monsters, and indeed in some sense diametrically opposed to those policies (because universal healthcare and Gulag go so greatly together, after all...)

Then your point was something of a non-sequitur to mine.  I do not seek to claim that all socialism is "bad" because Stalin and Mao used socialist economic policies to further their own power and goals.  I'm simply pointing out that any and all political systems can and have been abused.  That they can be twisted to further political power of some groups or individuals.  

Ideals are ideals and practice is practice.  Claiming ideals supercede practice in any circumstance is foolish.  To claim that practice means the "bad" aspect of a system means it is no longer the ideal espoused is the very definition of "no true Scotsman".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...