Road to the White House 2016

[Hurlshort]

Also, he's involved in a series of conflicts that he refuses to call wars and along that he has set a series of dangerous precedents of the President bypassing Congress.

 

 

He is nowhere near the first president to do this.

[Wrath of Dagon]

From your link: "Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes."

 

If you honestly think that Bernie Sanders is going to bring back the gulag and inflict Holodomor 2.0 on the South, then I have no idea what Bernie Sanders you've been hearing about but it isn't the guy running for president.

OK, so using the alternative definition social democrat = socialist so your making a distinction earlier is redundant. No one argues he wants a violent overthrow of the government or Stalinist repression. But government is always coercive, so once he establishes a confiscatory level of taxation whoever refuses to pay will still go to prison, just like the guy in my quote (of course he'd need a like minded Congress and I don't see that happening soon, but that seems like a poor argument for electing someone President).

[Ineth]

OK, so using the alternative definition social democrat = socialist so your making a distinction earlier is redundant.

 

I gotta agree with Wrath there. Even if socialism is initially established through democratic means, the violence and human rights abuses will follow sooner or later:

1. Socialism, in its aspiration to manage society top-down, is intrinsically repressive and authoritarian, and from there it's a small step towards totalitarianism - a step that will always be taken as long as it relies on filling its central planning and leadership positions with human beings ("power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely").

    

2. And on the practical side of things, socialism's economic theories are based on ideal-world assumptions ("perfect humans"; "greed and rent-seeking won't exist"; "incentives aren't a thing") and wishful thinking ("surely via state-controlled education and media we can program people to behave like that"). They don't work in reality.

    

   In reality, prohibiting private citizens from owning means of production and replacing profit-motivated economic activity with bureaucratic central planning, does not bring about a workers' paradise - it brings about scarcity.

    

   And in order to keep up the charade, the leaders of such a "democratic socialist" state need someone to blame for that 'unexpected' onset of scarcity and approaching humanitarian crisis - they need conspiracy theories about sabotage by "bourgeoisie elements" and "class enemies", they need to stop people from listening to investigative journalists who report on the scarcity, etc. And in such an environment, laws to end free speech and persecute the opposition practically pass themselves.

---

 

If you're blind to history (with its many socialist experiments that all turned out the same way), then at least learn from current events - all of the above can currently be observed playing out step by step in Venezuela. After having reached scarcity in pretty much all essential goods, they're now at the stage where...

• opposition politicians are being thrown in jail for trumped-up charges or simply banned from participating in the upcoming election,
• private homes are being raided by the military for suspicions of "hoarding food items",
• peaceful university student activists are targeted by prosecutors with allegations of "destabilizing the government",
• media outlets and journalists are being subjected to systematic "censorship and intimidation", and TV and radio is "now almost entirely dominated by the government and its obligatory announcements".

...and things are headed to get worse from here.

 

This, ladies and gents, is "democratic socialism" put into practice.

 

---

 

So: Sorry, but I can't overlook Sander's unabashed support of socialism as some sort of peculiar but charming quirk, or something that I should pretend is just a funny way of saying "liberal" in his case. He calls himself a socialist and really means it, and that matters.

 

Bernie Sander's socialism is like Ron Paul's racist newsletters IMO - it makes someone who'd otherwise be a much needed authentic anti-establishment candidate, unelectable.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Ineth

[BruceVC]

 

From your link: "Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes."

 

If you honestly think that Bernie Sanders is going to bring back the gulag and inflict Holodomor 2.0 on the South, then I have no idea what Bernie Sanders you've been hearing about but it isn't the guy running for president.

OK, so using the alternative definition social democrat = socialist so your making a distinction earlier is redundant. No one argues he wants a violent overthrow of the government or Stalinist repression. But government is always coercive, so once he establishes a confiscatory level of taxation whoever refuses to pay will still go to prison, just like the guy in my quote (of course he'd need a like minded Congress and I don't see that happening soon, but that seems like a poor argument for electing someone President).

 

 

 

 

OK, so using the alternative definition social democrat = socialist so your making a distinction earlier is redundant.

 

I gotta agree with Wrath there. Even if socialism is initially established through democratic means, the violence and human rights abuses will follow sooner or later:

1. Socialism, in its aspiration to manage society top-down, is intrinsically repressive and authoritarian, and from there it's a small step towards totalitarianism - a step that will always be taken as long as it relies on filling its central planning and leadership positions with human beings ("power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely").

    

2. And on the practical side of things, socialism's economic theories are based on ideal-world assumptions ("perfect humans"; "greed and rent-seeking don't exist"; "incentives aren't a thing") and wishful thinking ("surely via state-controlled education and media we can program people to behave like that"). They don't work in reality.

    

   In reality, prohibiting private citizens from owning means of production and replacing profit-motivated economic activity with bureaucratic central planning, does not bring about a workers' paradise - it brings about scarcity.

    

   And in order to keep up the charade, the leaders of such a "democratic socialist" state need someone to blame for that 'unexpected' onset of scarcity and approaching humanitarian crisis - they need conspiracy theories about sabotage by "bourgeoisie elements" and "class enemies", they need to stop people from listening to investigative journalists who report on the scarcity, etc. And in such an environment, laws to end free speech and persecute the opposition practically pass themselves.

---

 

If you're blind to history (with its many socialist experiments that all turned out the same way), then at least learn from current events - all of the above can currently be observed playing out step by step in Venezuela. After having reached scarcity in pretty much all essential goods, they're now at the stage where...

• opposition politicians are being thrown in jail for trumped-up charges or simply banned from participating in the upcoming election,
• private homes are being raided by the military for suspicions of "hoarding food items",
• peaceful university student activists are targeted by prosecutors with allegations of "destabilizing the government",
• media outlets and journalists are being subjected to systematic "censorship and intimidation", and TV and radio is "now almost entirely dominated by the government and its obligatory announcements".

...and things are headed to get worse from here.

 

This, ladies and gents, is "democratic socialism".

 

---

 

So: Sorry, but I can't overlook Sander's unabashed support of socialism as some sort of peculiar but charming quirk, or something that I should pretend is just a funny way of saying "liberal" in his case. He calls himself a socialist and really means it, and that matters.

 

Bernie Sander's socialism is like Ron Paul's racist newsletters IMO - it makes someone who'd otherwise be a much needed authentic anti-establishment candidate, unelectable.

 

But Venezuela is a really bad example of a socialist experiment gone wrong...no one in the USA would follow such an extreme system of government  

[Barothmuk]

Socialism, in its aspiration to manage society top-down, is intrinsically repressive and authoritarian.

And capitalism is not?

[BruceVC]

 

Socialism, in its aspiration to manage society top-down, is intrinsically repressive and authoritarian.

And capitalism is not?

 

No its not suppose to be, its about the private sector being responsible for the growth of the economy. And parts of the profits made need to be reinvested back into the company to ensure robustness and development

 

Yes some mistakes have been made, like the 2008 financial crisis, but the system works and makes sense 

[Barothmuk]

No its not suppose to be, its about the private sector

The existence of a private sector requires repression and authoritarianism.

 

Edit: Where's my avatar?

Edited August 21, 2015 by Barothmuk

[Oerwinde]

A balance is necessary. Giving full reign to capitalism leads to monopolies, and eventually a corporatocracy, giving full reign to government control leads to oppressive totalitarian regimes. If Democracy 3 has taught me anything, balancing the two and offering a choice leads to overflowing government coffers and an advanced happy, healthy, and prosperous populace.

[BruceVC]

 

No its not suppose to be, its about the private sector

The existence of a private sector requires repression and authoritarianism.

 

Edit: Where's my avatar?

 

Well you may see it as repression and authoritarianism but I see it as competition and innovation....and this is one of the foundations that the West achieved historical  ascendancy from  and contributed towards its success  ...free markets my friend, free markets 

[Barothmuk]

Well you may see it as repression and authoritarianism but I see it as competition and innovation...

And these things aren't mutually exclusive of each other.

 

All my point was is that both socialism and capitalism will rely on repressive and authoritarian measures to protect the interests of their respective 'ruling class' and it'd be dishonest to say otherwise.

[Ineth]

 

Socialism, in its aspiration to manage society top-down, is intrinsically repressive and authoritarian.

And capitalism is not?

 

 

If you use the word capitalism to refer to the worst manifestations of the mixed-economy corporatism of today's Western world, then sure.

 

If you use it to refer to an actual free-market system, then no, it would not be those things.

 

A balance is necessary. Giving full reign to capitalism leads to monopolies, and eventually a corporatocracy

 

Same to you.

 

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Ineth

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

From your link: "Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes."If you honestly think that Bernie Sanders is going to bring back the gulag and inflict Holodomor 2.0 on the South, then I have no idea what Bernie Sanders you've been hearing about but it isn't the guy running for president.

OK, so using the alternative definition social democrat = socialist so your making a distinction earlier is redundant. No one argues he wants a violent overthrow of the government or Stalinist repression. But government is always coercive, so once he establishes a confiscatory level of taxation whoever refuses to pay will still go to prison, just like the guy in my quote (of course he'd need a like minded Congress and I don't see that happening soon, but that seems like a poor argument for electing someone President).

You already go to prison if you don't pay taxes in the US. See Wesley Snipes.

[LaSpeakeasi]

As someone who has a MA in social science, I can't believe we're still discussing middle school social science concepts like socialism and capitalism. More specifically, I can't believe there are still people throwing around the word 'socialism' as if it were a bad word; or 'capitalism' as if it were a good one. I don't know where those people got those concepts from (probably Fox news) but certainly not by paying attention in class. At least not a good one.

 

I didn't study in the US but we all had to prove we had an understanding of those words in socio-historical context before being allowed to graduate middle school, let alone college. Those are models. The thing about models is that they don't actually exist in reality. There is no socialist or capitalist society. All societies have elements of both.

 

Socialist societies all end up the same? Have you heard of Canada, most of Europe, or Japan? All of those countries have had political parties in-office readily identifying themselves as 'socialist'. Oh, and do you drive in the states? On a highway? Do you go to a public school? Public library? Public beach? Those are all socialist.

 

One potential problem with modern democracy is that regardless of your IQ, education, ethic standards, our opinions all weigh the same. If you can't judge issue past lazy labeling such the '--ism's, then honestly you don't seem smart enough to vote to me. Sorry,

 

Just because you ignorantly believe in your beliefs doesn't make them correct. Go crack a book. Unless you think you know better than the people who went to school so that they can author them. In which case I'm insulted that according to the voting ballot your opinion weighs as much as mine.

Edited August 21, 2015 by LaSpeakeasi

[BruceVC]

As someone who has a MA in social science, I can't believe we're still discussing middle school social science concepts like socialism and capitalism. More specifically, I can't believe there are still people throwing around the word 'socialism' as if it were a bad word; or 'capitalism' as if it were a good one. I don't know where those people got those concepts from (probably Fox news) but certainly not by paying attention in class. At least not a good one.

 

I didn't study in the US but we all had to prove we had an understanding of those words in socio-historical context before being allowed to graduate middle school, let alone college. Those are models. The thing about models is that they don't actually exist in reality. There is no socialist or capitalist society. All societies have elements of both.

 

Socialist societies all end up the same? Have you heard of Canada, most of Europe, or Japan? All of those countries have had political parties in-office readily identifying themselves as 'socialist'. Oh, and do you drive in the states? On a highway? Do you go to a public school? Public library? Public beach? Those are all socialist.

 

One potential problem with modern democracy is that regardless of your IQ, education, ethic standards, our opinions all weigh the same. If you can't judge issue past lazy labeling such the '--ism's, then honestly you don't seem smart enough to vote to me. Sorry,

 

Just because you ignorantly believe in your beliefs doesn't make them correct. Go crack a book. Unless you think you know better than the people who went to school so that they can author them. In which case I'm insulted that according to the voting ballot your opinion weighs as much as mine.

Yes I would think its obvious that most countries have hybrid systems of socialism and capitalism 

 

But why do you think Capitalism is a bad thing?  I have explained my definition where it means simply that the private sector is primarily responsible for the growth of the economy ...don't you agree?

 

I hope you respond because you do have a MA in social science 

[Oerwinde]

 

 

Socialism, in its aspiration to manage society top-down, is intrinsically repressive and authoritarian.

And capitalism is not?

 

 

If you use the word capitalism to refer to the worst manifestations of the mixed-economy corporatism of today's Western world, then sure.

 

If you use it to refer to an actual free-market system, then no, it would not be those things.

 

A balance is necessary. Giving full reign to capitalism leads to monopolies, and eventually a corporatocracy

 

Same to you.

 

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

 

 

Without regulation companies just get bigger and bigger, and explot their workers more and more. Wages get pushed lower and lower in order to compete, and people can't just buy from a smaller company that does things better because wages have been pushed so low that the only option is the cheaper prices of the giant company that can afford to sell for cheaper.

 

I don't believe that economies should be planned, but I do think there need to be safeguards in place to protect workers and prevent monopolies, but at the same time, essential services such as power and health care should have a public option so everyone can afford it regardless of income or social status.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Oerwinde

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Socialism, in its aspiration to manage society top-down, is intrinsically repressive and authoritarian.

And capitalism is not?

 

 

If you use the word capitalism to refer to the worst manifestations of the mixed-economy corporatism of today's Western world, then sure.

 

If you use it to refer to an actual free-market system, then no, it would not be those things.

 

A balance is necessary. Giving full reign to capitalism leads to monopolies, and eventually a corporatocracy

 

Same to you.

 

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

 

 

Without regulation companies just get bigger and bigger, and explot their workers more and more. Wages get pushed lower and lower in order to compete, and people can't just buy from a smaller company that does things better because wages have been pushed so low that the only option is the cheaper prices of the giant company that can afford to sell for cheaper.

 

I don't believe that economies should be planned, but I do think there need to be safeguards in place to protect workers and prevent monopolies, but at the same time, essential services such as power and health care should have a public option so everyone can afford it regardless of income or social status.

 

Sure I don't disagree but no one wants that type of Capitalism 

 

I also agree that there needs to be a balance between profitability and working conditions but in my country we have a issue where the trade unions have become an aberration and are directly impacting the economic transformation. Our public sector is under huge pressure and many parastatals are dysfunctional  but the private sector where I work is profitable and is actually what is keeping the country economically afloat 

 

But I do believe you should get paid what you contribute ...an uneducated  mine worker despite the hard conditions can't expect a huge salary especially when you consider the global  falling commodity prices and the Chinese economic slowdown  

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Socialism, in its aspiration to manage society top-down, is intrinsically repressive and authoritarian.

And capitalism is not?

If you use the word capitalism to refer to the worst manifestations of the mixed-economy corporatism of today's Western world, then sure.

 

If you use it to refer to an actual free-market system, then no, it would not be those things.

A balance is necessary. Giving full reign to capitalism leads to monopolies, and eventually a corporatocracy

Same to you.

 

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

Without regulation companies just get bigger and bigger, and explot their workers more and more. Wages get pushed lower and lower in order to compete, and people can't just buy from a smaller company that does things better because wages have been pushed so low that the only option is the cheaper prices of the giant company that can afford to sell for cheaper.

 

I don't believe that economies should be planned, but I do think there need to be safeguards in place to protect workers and prevent monopolies, but at the same time, essential services such as power and health care should have a public option so everyone can afford it regardless of income or social status.

Sure I don't disagree but no one wants that type of Capitalism

 

I also agree that there needs to be a balance between profitability and working conditions but in my country we have a issue where the trade unions have become an aberration and are directly impacting the economic transformation. Our public sector is under huge pressure and many parastatals are dysfunctional but the private sector where I work is profitable and is actually what is keeping the country economically afloat

 

But I do believe you should get paid what you contribute ...an uneducated mine worker despite the hard conditions can't expect a huge salary especially when you consider the global falling commodity prices and the Chinese economic slowdown

Someone working a full time job shouldn't have to live in poverty either. I agree that someone who works longer with more education should make more, but a full time worker should be able to afford both food AND shelter.

[Rosbjerg]

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions...

 

Edit: in any case - I'd love to see an America with much more power given back to the individual states.. Your strength is your pluralism, centralization doesn't seem to fit you as well as us of a more Germanic mindset.. Perhaps its some of that Italian ancestry, they never could handle it either..

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

Socialism, in its aspiration to manage society top-down, is intrinsically repressive and authoritarian.

And capitalism is not?

If you use the word capitalism to refer to the worst manifestations of the mixed-economy corporatism of today's Western world, then sure.

 

If you use it to refer to an actual free-market system, then no, it would not be those things.

A balance is necessary. Giving full reign to capitalism leads to monopolies, and eventually a corporatocracy

Same to you.

 

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

Without regulation companies just get bigger and bigger, and explot their workers more and more. Wages get pushed lower and lower in order to compete, and people can't just buy from a smaller company that does things better because wages have been pushed so low that the only option is the cheaper prices of the giant company that can afford to sell for cheaper.

 

I don't believe that economies should be planned, but I do think there need to be safeguards in place to protect workers and prevent monopolies, but at the same time, essential services such as power and health care should have a public option so everyone can afford it regardless of income or social status.

Sure I don't disagree but no one wants that type of Capitalism

 

I also agree that there needs to be a balance between profitability and working conditions but in my country we have a issue where the trade unions have become an aberration and are directly impacting the economic transformation. Our public sector is under huge pressure and many parastatals are dysfunctional but the private sector where I work is profitable and is actually what is keeping the country economically afloat

 

But I do believe you should get paid what you contribute ...an uneducated mine worker despite the hard conditions can't expect a huge salary especially when you consider the global falling commodity prices and the Chinese economic slowdown

Someone working a full time job shouldn't have to live in poverty either. I agree that someone who works longer with more education should make more, but a full time worker should be able to afford both food AND shelter.

 

You see living in Africa we face very different social and economic challengers to what you are talking about and are use to, I'll try to explain

 

Mine workers in South Africa  for example are normally uneducated but hard working, most of them can't even read. We haven't mechanized our mines like you guys so our mine workers literally work underground for 8 hours breaking rock

 

Over the last few years the various trade unions have become more and more unreasonable and intransigent. Despite the fact many of the mines aren't  nearly as profitable as they use to be or they just aren't profitable  the trade unions  still demant 9%-15 % salary increases and other demands. They are basically anti-Capitalism and opposed to the large corporations and always criticize them and use rhetoric like " greedy white mine owners who abuse there workers " ....and I work in the private sector and for large corporations so even though I work in the financial sector I have immense sympathy for the mining sector as the trade unions have often wanted to target the financial sector, which is very profitable, and claim the banking sector needs to " transform" which is just annoying 

 

Anyway where I'm going with this story is in South Africa people like the mine workers always demand more and more and don't understand how a basic balance sheet works ...so they don't care if a mine is running at a loss and there protracted strikes effect investor confidence. So my issue is  not about them being able to buy a nice house ..sadly thats just not there economic reality

 

 

 

 

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions...

 

Edit: in any case - I'd love to see an America with much more power given back to the individual states.. Your strength is your pluralism, centralization doesn't seem to fit you as well as us of a more Germanic mindset.. Perhaps its some of that Italian ancestry, they never could handle it either..

 

 Yes as I have mentioned you guys have the best system of government overall ..I really admire it but it requires a high employment rate. But your average American will consider your system too socialist and your government having too much control. I don't agree but I know the way our American friends think

[Barothmuk]

If you use the word capitalism to refer to the worst manifestations of the mixed-economy corporatism of today's Western world, then sure.

Ah yes the "my perfect version of capitalism would not have these flaws" meme. Do tell has there ever existed a period wherein capitalism did not rely on repression and authoritarianism or is this just limited to the realm of theory?

[Zoraptor]

Plus socialists would say exactly the same thing (to all practical purposes) about socialism.

 

My ideal system would be so good that no repression would be needed, everybody would be so ecstatic about living in my [econo-societal model] utopia there would be no dissenters and everyone would freely opt in to its intrinsic awesomeness!

[Barothmuk]

Plus socialists would say exactly the same thing (to all practical purposes) about socialism.

Only if they're some college kid whose just picked up the Communist Manifesto and now fancies them-self the next Lenin.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Plus socialists would say exactly the same thing (to all practical purposes) about socialism.

In all fairness, Bartho said pretty much the same thing about socialism here:https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/79124-road-to-the-white-house-2016/page-22?do=findComment&comment=1721703

 

My ideal system would be so good that no repression would be needed, everybody would be so ecstatic about living in my [econo-societal model] utopia there would be no dissenters and everyone would freely opt in to its intrinsic awesomeness!

Mine too. Edited August 21, 2015 by KaineParker

[BruceVC]

 

If you use the word capitalism to refer to the worst manifestations of the mixed-economy corporatism of today's Western world, then sure.

Ah yes the "my perfect version of capitalism would not have these flaws" meme. Do tell has there ever existed a period wherein capitalism did not rely on repression and authoritarianism or is this just limited to the realm of theory?

 

Baro I have asked you this before but you never answered, I'm not trying to catch you out and you and I have very similar views on many topics so you do know I respect your view

 

But where does this anti-Capitalism come from? Are you originally from Oz..what is your fundamental reason for this dislike of Capitalism..I am genuinely interested ?

[BruceVC]

Plus socialists would say exactly the same thing (to all practical purposes) about socialism.

 

My ideal system would be so good that no repression would be needed, everybody would be so ecstatic about living in my [econo-societal model] utopia there would be no dissenters and everyone would freely opt in to its intrinsic awesomeness!

You a strange one Zora 

What is your ideal system of government in the world at the moment ?