Workable Socialism

[Centrist Simon Steele]

23 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Imagine if a large tech corporation in the United States were forcibly broken up, nationalized, or partly nationalized like a utility. The best example tech corporations would be Amazon and Facebook. And this isn't done through violence, but through the political system. Now I don't think that's actually going to happen I should note. Probably what is coming for Facebook is regulation. There has been growing chatter about those 2 particular companies though in the U.S. and the chatter is coming from both the left and the right. So, it is at least possible that something like that could happen. 

We are in 2024 and this event has already happened to one of these example corporations. Would this change anything as far as rethinking what is possible to achieve with out violence? What if a share of the profits are already being automatically sent to the bank accounts of regular Americans?

 

You know, where I live, Comcast has a stranglehold on Internet. For 150 mbs, it's about 110 bucks (after taxes and everything). Recently, we passed city run broadband, and they're rolling out the first plans now. 1 gbps (almost 10x as fast) for about 75 (80ish) per month after taxes. Suddenly, Comcast has gigbit service on that side of town and the prices are competitive. For me, the shittiness of the corporate internet over the course of my lifetime means I will never go back to Comcast once I can get the city provided service. It is so much better, and net neutrality won't matter. The point being, these regulations are needed and infinitely better than what capitalism provided.

You should have seen the massive amounts of money Comcast sunk into fighting this measure when it went up for vote. Even in a small podunk town like ours, they dropped about 1 million bucks! 

[Martell Spy]

14 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

You know, where I live, Comcast has a stranglehold on Internet. For 150 mbs, it's about 110 bucks (after taxes and everything). Recently, we passed city run broadband, and they're rolling out the first plans now. 1 gbps (almost 10x as fast) for about 75 (80ish) per month after taxes. Suddenly, Comcast has gigbit service on that side of town and the prices are competitive. For me, the shittiness of the corporate internet over the course of my lifetime means I will never go back to Comcast once I can get the city provided service. It is so much better, and net neutrality won't matter. The point being, these regulations are needed and infinitely better than what capitalism provided.

You should have seen the massive amounts of money Comcast sunk into fighting this measure when it went up for vote. Even in a small podunk town like ours, they dropped about 1 million bucks! 

Well you could make Internet a utility. You could also allow cities and states to implement their own public service.

Some things just work a lot better without capitalism involved. It's well known in developed countries that are not the backwards U.S. that healthcare is the big one. We are doing the world a service in running a big experiment in terrible healthcare systems. Obviously post ACA is better, but there are still large problems, even assuming the ACA is not attacked again. 

It turns out when you allow Big Pharma and the hospitals to gouge the populace as much as possible, they show little restraint. I guess the hope was that they would treat fellow human beings better than that. 

You know what's fun? When you have to rush to the hospital because your body is failing you. And soon after you are admitted, a hospital bill collector comes in to see you. Been there, done that.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

3 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Well you could make Internet a utility. You could also allow cities and states to implement their own public service.

Some things just work a lot better without capitalism involved. It's well known in developed countries that are not the backwards U.S. that healthcare is the big one. We are doing the world a service in running a big experiment in terrible healthcare systems. Obviously post ACA is better, but there are still large problems, even assuming the ACA is not attacked again. 

It turns out when you allow Big Pharma and the hospitals to gouge the populace as much as possible, they show little restraint. I guess the hope was that they would treat fellow human beings better than that. 

You know what's fun? When you have to rush to the hospital because your body is failing you. And soon after you are admitted, a hospital bill collector comes in to see you. Been there, done that.

I know it, and I hate to hear it happened to you. When my son was diagnosed with Leukemia (long ago, he's good now), I'll never forget the following year when our superintendent stood in front of us on the first day back from summer and said our insurance was changing (high deductible, high premiums in place of our middling premiums and middling deductible) because some of us were using it too much. I was sitting next to a teacher who'd been diagnosed with breast cancer a year earlier as well. I'll never, never forget that. 

[Altherion]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

That's... negative, even by my standards.
Yes, I agree that it feels like whatever we (the people) do, the neoliberals end up controling things. And tbh it's not like I see any possibility of radical change in the near future. Nonetheless, I think there are also some reasons for cautious optimism...

What are these reasons? As far as I can tell, the capitalists are firmly in control and only getting more powerful as time goes on.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

What are these reasons? As far as I can tell, the capitalists are firmly in control and only getting more powerful as time goes on.

I think with the popularity of candidates like Warren and Sanders (and AOC and a bunch of other young congress people), we are seeing the shift away from those hording the wealth and power.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

I think with the popularity of candidates like Warren and Sanders (and AOC and a bunch of other young congress people), we are seeing the shift away from those hording the wealth and power.

Right.  Cuz Warren and Sanders and AOC are all saints of a different kind.  

[Martell Spy]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right.  Cuz Warren and Sanders and AOC are all saints of a different kind.  

Well, we are seeing a growing number of unorthodox candidates, you might call them. There is a growing dissatisfaction with the stagnant wages. It's just been currently diverted to racism. Just read that employers in the U.S. are still being stingy, even with the incredibly low unemployment rate and lack of labor. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Well, we are seeing a growing number of unorthodox candidates, you might call them. There is a growing dissatisfaction with the stagnant wages. It's just been currently diverted to racism. Just read that employers in the U.S. are still being stingy, even with the incredibly low unemployment rate and lack of labor. 

K.  Not sure what that has to with the fact that Warren/Sanders/AOC are all just politicians like the rest of them.  Them appealing to a different constituency only makes them unique in terms of strategy.

[all swedes are racist]

and yeah, the post you responded to was totally talking about their saintliness and not like, how their unique political positions have made them incredibly popular

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

I think with the popularity of candidates like Warren and Sanders (and AOC and a bunch of other young congress people), we are seeing the shift away from those hording the wealth and power.

It's true that left-wing parties in the US and in some other countries are moving at least slightly to the left. However, I have not seen a single instance of them actually fighting the capitalists and this is not likely to happen in the US even if Warren or Sanders wins (and that's a big "if") and even if they genuinely want to fight. The same system of checks and balances that currently prevents Trump from doing almost anything (but, naturally, didn't prevent his corporate tax cut) would also prevent them from doing anything to annoy the rich.

[DMC]

Just now, a good and nice guy said:

and yeah, the post you responded to was totally talking about their saintliness and not like, how their unique political positions have made them incredibly popular

It'd be nice to have an actual discussion with you instead of just respond to you being a huge smartass.  One of these days.

[all swedes are racist]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's true that left-wing parties in the US and in some other countries are moving at least slightly to the left. However, I have not seen a single instance of them actually fighting the capitalists and this is not likely to happen in the US even if Warren or Sanders wins (and that's a big "if") and even if they genuinely want to fight. The same system of checks and balances that currently prevents Trump from doing almost anything (but, naturally, didn't prevent his corporate tax cut) would also prevent them from doing anything to annoy the rich.

i think there is an argument to the idea that something g line a sanders campaign is more than just any electoral or legislative wins he might produce (like, he’s clearly never going to be able to make m4a happen on his own if at all) but it is about a greater leftist messaging... i think it’s no coincidence that the initial sanders campaign kicked off or coincided with a resurgent leftist movement (not a 1:1 correlation, but a lot of overlapping root causes) increasing labor militancy, greater acceptance of socialism health care and education, increasing disenchantment with the overall capitalist system... all of these things can potentially have an impact on the world we live in, all in popular grassroots movements. and that’s why i think this message is so important, despite what folks here may think of admittedly brash messengers

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

It's true that left-wing parties in the US and in some other countries are moving at least slightly to the left. However, I have not seen a single instance of them actually fighting the capitalists and this is not likely to happen in the US even if Warren or Sanders wins (and that's a big "if") and even if they genuinely want to fight. The same system of checks and balances that currently prevents Trump from doing almost anything (but, naturally, didn't prevent his corporate tax cut) would also prevent them from doing anything to annoy the rich.

The same mechanism, reconciliation, that was used to pass the tax cut will be used to repeal a large chunk of the tax cut and expand healthcare. Provided of course Democrats capture the Senate and Presidency. Which is why all sane people that are not millionaires or billionaires want it to happen. 

And by playing fast and loose with reconciliation, the Republicans have made it even more likely to happen.

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

K.  Not sure what that has to with the fact that Warren/Sanders/AOC are all just politicians like the rest of them.  Them appealing to a different constituency only makes them unique in terms of strategy.

Yes, I understand that politicians in general routinely are cynical and manipulate voters. I happen to think AOC is genuine though and I'm not sure how to help you if you believe different.

Mainly though, I was making the point that politicians with non-standard beliefs have been appearing. And it's all happening at once and this is not a coincidence. And it's happening on both the right and the left. Trump and Sanders appearing near the same time is not some huge accident. People are fed up.

I'd also add that despite the idiots marching with rifles, non-violence is strongly ingrained in Americans in 2019. Trump and Sanders ARE the violence. They are expressions of rage, in a socially acceptable manner.

[Iskaral Pust]

Left wing populism is a natural counter-balance to right wing populism.  There is a fundamental problem of a precarious middle class that is dissatisfied with their own status quo, although not overly concerned with the truly poor.  Right wing populists promise to reverse globalism (which is part of the cause for middle class stagnation, but hard to reverse), while left wing populists promise redistribution (focusing on outcome more than cause), although left wing policies to reduce the influence of wealth in politics would help with part of the cause too.  In the UK, the populist left under Corbyn seems to have claimed both anti-globalization and redistribution, but the US voting bloc coalitions don’t allow for that.

Unfortunately the US electorate currently seems to be split between the populist left and right, with neither able to get sufficient majority to pursue their path.  And there’s still a solid centrist faction that is skeptical of both.  So they’ll both either be stymied or have to reach grudging compromise; that’s pretty much how the US governance structure was designed.

But even the most left wing of the populists in the US (Sanders) is not calling for socialism. They all want to preserve capitalism but increase the redistribution in order to move along the spectrum to where the Nordic social (capitalist) democracies are located.  Actual socialism is such an unmitigated faiilure that “socialism” has now been co-opted to be a hipster revolution for student loans forgiven, free healthcare and open boarders within an ongoing capitalist system, funded by taxes on the wealthy rather than on the middle class (whereas the Nordic social democracies have much higher tax rates on their middle class* and more regressive taxes overall).  Which will all improve the material quality of life of the US middle class, but it won’t change the long term problem that people with less education have less relative economic participation in the Technology Age and they are being dragged toward a global convergence of unskilled wages.

*The US already has a much more progressive tax system than Germany, the Nordics, etc.  Only France’s short-lived wealth tax made their taxes briefly as progressive as the US, but they could not sustain it politically or practically.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I happen to think AOC is genuine though and I'm not sure how to help you if you believe different.

I don't think AOC is disingenuine, or Warren nor Sanders for that matter (although I do think the latter is).  That wasn't my point.  My point was they're no more genuine than anyone else, really.  

5 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Mainly though, I was making the point that politicians with non-standard beliefs have been appearing.

Yeah, sure, the "outsider" point is something to make.  I don't know how much it matters at this point.  Does that mean we should all get behind Sanders or Warren or something?  Because other than that I really don't see the relevance.  People tend to like outsiders more now.  K.

[Martell Spy]

5 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Left wing populism is a natural counter-balance to right wing populism.  There is a fundamental problem of a precarious middle class that is dissatisfied with their own status quo, although not overly concerned with the truly poor.  Right wing populists promise to reverse globalism (which is part of the cause for middle class stagnation, but hard to reverse), while left wing populists promise redistribution (focusing on outcome more than cause), although left wing policies to reduce the influence of wealth in politics would help with part of the cause too.  In the UK, the populist left under Corbyn seems to have claimed both anti-globalization and redistribution, but the US voting bloc coalitions don’t allow for that.

Unfortunately the US electorate currently seems to be split between the populist left and right, with neither able to get sufficient majority to pursue their path.  And there’s still a solid centrist faction that is skeptical of both.  So they’ll both either be stymied or have to reach grudging compromise; that’s pretty much how the US governance structure was designed.

But even the most left wing of the populists in the US (Sanders) is not calling for socialism. They all want to preserve capitalism but increase the redistribution in order to move along the spectrum to where the Nordic social (capitalist) democracies are located.  Actual socialism is such an unmitigated faiilure that “socialism” has now been co-opted to be a hipster revolution for student loans forgiven, free healthcare and open boarders within an ongoing capitalist system, funded by taxes on the wealthy rather than on the middle class (whereas the Nordic social democracies have much higher tax rates on their middle class* and more regressive taxes overall).  Which will all improve the material quality of life of the US middle class, but it won’t change the long term problem that people with less education have less relative economic participation in the Technology Age and they are being dragged toward a global convergence of unskilled wages.

*The US already has a much more progressive tax system than Germany, the Nordics, etc.  Only France’s short-lived wealth tax made their taxes briefly as progressive as the US, but they could not sustain it politically or practically.

No one is calling for open borders. Trump has claimed that the Democrats are for open borders, but this is not true. 

[all swedes are racist]

well the actual left is for open borders, but that’s neither here nor there

[Martell Spy]

14 minutes ago, a good and nice guy said:

well the actual left is for open borders, but that’s neither here nor there

Well, the libertarians are technically open border, but no, no one with any scrap of actual power is open border. I'm extremely friendly to immigration to the U.S. and I'm still not open border. That is pretty close to saying you don't believe in nation states. I tend to think we need them, at least until Picard sets up the Federation. I'm not thrilled with the nasty parts of maintaining borders, but I'm not really ready to completely give up on them.

[all swedes are racist]

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

Well, the libertarians are technically open border, but no, no one with any scrap of actual power is open border. I'm extremely friendly to immigration to the U.S. and I'm still not open border. That is pretty close to saying you don't believe in nation states. I tend to think we need them, at least until Picard sets up the Federation. I'm not thrilled with the nasty parts of maintaining borders, but I'm not really ready to completely give up on them.

why? i mean, i’m all for the dissolution of the nation state, but why should immigration be controlled? do people deserve less just because of the accident of where they are born? i genuinely don’t understand it