General US Politics Discussion

[Svip]

1 minute ago, sivispacem said:

I'm glossing  over your definition of "Keynesian" in this context which I think somewhat misrepresents actual Keynesian though; that is to say, "economic stimulus through large spending" reads more as a libertarian straw-man of Keynesianism than "economic and fiscal interventionism by central banks and governments to promote market economy stability", which is a more accurate synopsis.

An approach we've seen numerous times by political parties and governments, that are definitely not Social Democratic.

[sivispacem]

16 minutes ago, Svip said:

An approach we've seen numerous times by political parties and governments, that are definitely not Social Democratic.

Indeed; I doubt anyone would describe Donald Trump or George W. Bush as social democrats even though both have extensively used state spending in certain market areas in (often unsuccessful) attempts to bolster failing industries.

[Eutyphro]

But then again both of them also hollow out social security, which the Nazis did not.

[Svip]

Some of them, maybe, but not all of them.  The Tories in the UK can't get rid of NHS, because the people like it too much, but I would hardly describe them as Social Democratic.  And there are numerous of other examples of non-Social Democratic parties, not able or unwilling to lessen welfare systems within their own states.

 

Additionally, the Nazis did hollow out welfare systems just enough that they remained tolerable.  For the Nazis, it was just a useful programme to keep the people satisfied enough with their regime for a while.  Of all the things, you seem to focus on with regards to the Nazis, a better 'comparison' would be Neo-Liberals, who maintain welfare systems (or at least enough for them to remain tolerable), while increasing benefits or lowering regulations for corporations.  The latter of which the Nazis definitely did, for their cronies in the private sector.

 

But does that mean I am saying Nazis were Neo-Liberals?  No, because that comparison would also be stupid.  Nazis were Nazis.  And if their policies had tendencies from other ideologies, it's merely coincidence than some sort of deep connection.  Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't leaned on the fact that Mussolini was a Syndicalist before he became a Fascist.  But I guess Fascism isn't as 'sexy' as Nazism.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Svip

[sivispacem]

2 hours ago, Svip said:

But I guess Fascism isn't as 'sexy' useful to strawman other positions or Reductio ad Hitlerum as Nazism.

FIFY

[Eutyphro]

Comparing Nazis to neoliberals is completely bizarre consider the Nazis ideologically oppose liberalism and free trade, and utterly hate it in every way.

 

3 hours ago, Svip said:

Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't leaned on the fact that Mussolini was a Syndicalist before he became a Fascist.

I did read that Italian fascism was more socialist in its aims than the NSDAP but it was besides the point of the discussion.

 

I'm not 'strawmanning' Nazism for a 'purpose', as I don't oppose social democracy at all. I to a significant extent support it.

  

3 hours ago, Svip said:

Additionally, the Nazis did hollow out welfare systems just enough that they remained tolerable.  For the Nazis, it was just a useful programme to keep the people satisfied enough with their regime for a while.

They fundamentally keeped them intact, to the extent that they were aimed at people that they considered worthy. Social security remained, but the weak had to go. It's telling they kept them intact, because they were in need for quite a lot of funds to fight a World War.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Eutyphro

[Svip]

11 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

Comparing Nazis to neoliberals is completely bizarre consider the Nazis ideologically oppose liberalism and free trade, and utterly hate it in every way.

As bizarre as comparing them to Social Democrats.  Nazis hated Socialism and democracy too.  But they were also extremely cynical and exploited anything they could to maintain power.

 

11 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

I did read that Italian fascism was more socialist in its aims than the NSDAP but it was besides the point of the discussion.

 

I'm not 'strawmanning' Nazism for a 'purpose', as I don't oppose social democracy at all. I to a significant extent support it.

Then what is the point of the discussion then?

 

11 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

They fundamentally keeped them intact, to the extent that they were aimed at people that they considered worthy. Social security remained, but the weak had to go. It's telling they kept them intact, because they were in need for quite a lot of funds to fight a World War.

How is it telling?  That they saw a popular programme, and knew they needed the popular support to at least maintain a somewhat stable regime?  That just seems like old-fashioned exploitation of other people's ideas for your own benefit.  You don't have to believe what you exploit.

 

For the record, come towards the ends of the 1930s, the Nazis' unpopularity was growing, considering the same welfare programmes weren't as good as people were told they were going to.  So a war was also seen as an alternative to welfare programmes, as a better way to have the people unite behind the regime.

 

The German welfare programmes really took a hit during the Second World War, for those who weren't actively working for the war effort.  And besides, the Nazis weren't expecting to fight a world war in the 1930s.  Hitler was hoping he could get appeasement with Poland just like Sudetenland and Austria.  But then somehow, the British grew some balls, and couldn't get Poland without actual war.

 

But even then, the Germans weren't planning to fight France, despite a war declaration, until Hitler realised that the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was actually costing him dearly, as the cheap oil they used to get out of the Baltic states was no longer possible, as the Germans now had to pay Soviet prices.  Nazi Germany's use of funds was incredibly careless.  Just assuming they could exploit whoever for whatever, and if that didn't work; war!  Didn't work out in the long run, particularly because France turned out to be costing them more than they gained by capturing.  Factories aren't useful if no one is working in them.

[Eutyphro]

It tells you that if they were genuinely economically right wing they would've cut social security and public healthcare in a World War. An economically right wing faction like the Tories or Republicans would cut social security if they could with a surplus.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

2 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

It tells you that if they were genuinely economically right wing they would've cut social security and public healthcare

Only if you believe that all political movements must be slavishly devoted to their ideology, with no room to act pragmatically in order to maintain or reinforce their power.

 

In reality, the development of a welfare system designed to basically help (and only help) healthy aryans is exactly what you would rationally expect from a political movement whose firm belief was that warfare was the engine of economic growth, and who held the racial views of the Nazis. 

Public healthcare and social security were effectively tools to help build a Wehrmacht. Running a conscription model and rearming to fight a "total war" against European adversaries who (in terms of citizens) significantly outnumber you requires mobilising extremely large numbers of healthy and motivated combatants. Social security and public healthcare are tools to achieve that end.

[Smith John]

*Just thought I'd drop the following comment off before I get ready for work. Apologies if it offends the woke machine in here

 

Just checked the BBC News headlines - as I do each week day morning - to see an article on the upcoming Osacr awards. They made it a whole two very short paragraphs before, "All eyes will also be on how many minority actors, and female directors, make it onto the shortlists." If by "All eyes" they mean 'the identity politics-obsessed, modern leftist bubble will be making sure we keep an eye on those white male devils and make sure they don't win on merit', then I guess they're correct. However, I'd rather they just came out and said it if they're going to force me to pay their tv license tax. It really, really baffles me how these people still don't listen or get it. What is that bubble made of? Graphene?

[sivispacem]

22 minutes ago, Smith John said:

Osacr awards

What's they?

 

23 minutes ago, Smith John said:

However, I'd rather they just came out and said it if they're going to force me to pay their tv license tax.

Nobody's forcing you though, are they? 

[Smith John]

1 minute ago, sivispacem said:

What's they?

Bringing up a typo? Really?...

[sivispacem]

1 minute ago, Smith John said:

Really?...

Apparently so, yes.

[Smith John]

1 minute ago, sivispacem said:

Nobody's forcing you though, are they? 

Well you're right on one thing; the BBC are pretty much a nobody these days.

[sivispacem]

Just now, Smith John said:

Well you're right on one thing; the BBC are pretty much a nobody these days.

If you have such a pathological hatred of the BBC, why do you pay the license fee?

[Smith John]

Just now, sivispacem said:

If you have such a pathological hatred of the BBC, why do you pay the license fee?

Because television has certain friendly programmes that accommodate my family's interests.

Anyway, I don't have time for this right now. Got work to attend, 'n' all that. I'll leave my comment for the 99% in here to tell me how woke they are, and I'll get back to you this evening. If I can be arsed.

[sivispacem]

Just now, Smith John said:

Because television has certain friendly programmes that accommodate my family's interests.

I'd have thought you'd have completely shunned the BBC by this point given your abject hatred of it.

Not like you need the license to watch any other platform except the BBC digitally.

[Smith John]

I repeat, Anyway, I don't have time for this right now. Got work to attend, 'n' all that. I'll leave my comment for the 99% in here to tell me how woke they are, and I'll get back to you this evening. If I can be arsed.

[sivispacem]

Just now, Smith John said:

and I'll get back to you this evening. If I can be arsed.

I wouldn't rush.

[Smith John]

23 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

I'd have thought you'd have completely shunned the BBC by this point given your abject hatred of it.

Not like you need the license to watch any other platform except the BBC digitally.

Just a quick throw in before I set off: The SJW political wing of the BBC (BBC News/Panorama/Newsnight/Question Time etc =/= the good wildlife documentaries they produce as well as other aspects. I just don't feel the obligation to write 'News' after 'BBC' everytime I express my acknowledgement of their bias. Hope that cleared things up for you, Mr multiple degrees.

[sivispacem]

11 minutes ago, Smith John said:

I just don't feel the obligation to write 'News' after 'BBC' everytime I express my acknowledgement of their bias. Hope that cleared things up for you, Mr multiple degrees.

Glad to hear you don't feel the need to be accurate and just "hope" that someone gets what you mean. 

[Clem Fandango]

Yeah I'm sure 99% of posters here will rush to tell you how ecstatic they are that the Oscars are giving awards to black directors and how you're an evil bigot for not caring. Oh wait, nobody in here gives a sh*t about the Oscars, just like nobody gives a sh*t about the Golden Globes. 'Woke' is also a weird way to describe a section that runs entirely off horserace politics and historical discussion, as if anybody in here (radical leftists included) are making posts about evil yt men and spamming gifs of Lizzo snapping her fingers. 

 

Recent points of discussion in D&D include the ideological motivation behind Nazi welfarism, British foreign trade policy and the legality of US aggression towards Iran. Curiously few posts about how we're ready for a black James Bond.

 

If you want to understand my specific views on woke identity politics, here's a short clip since I'm not sure if you can actually read or if you use some sort of speech-to-text software to post:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM0kSNMPxNc

 

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Clem Fandango

[Awful Waffle]

4 hours ago, Smith John said:

I don't have time for this right now

4 hours ago, Smith John said:

Just a quick throw in before I set off

so you did have time.

 

I smell a casual hypocrite.

 

[Eutyphro]

2 hours ago, Clem Fandango said:

If you want to understand my specific views on woke identity politics, here's a short clip since I'm not sure if you can actually read or if you use some sort of speech-to-text software to post:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM0kSNMPxNc

Was totally expecting Paul Joseph Watson tbh. In stead got a production by that blubbery fúck Michael Moore.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Eutyphro

[Clem Fandango]

4 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

Was totally expecting Paul Joseph Watson tbh.

Yeah because he is so famous for sophisticated materialist critiques of the left. Is it because you learned the term 'identity politics' from him (as John Smith surely did) and thought he coined it?

 

5 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

In stead got a production by that blubbery fúck Michael Moore.

Are you confused by 'Trumpland' being in the title? The clip had nothing to do with Michael Moore. I do like how you apparently think Michael Moore (whose films make millions of dollars and play in theatres) made a film criticising online wokeness.

[Eutyphro]

I'm not sure where I learned the term identity politics from, probably from Dutch newspapers and magazines when I was in my mid teens, but I think I started using it when I got into Haidt. It's not untypical of radleftist think to throw Haidt and PJW into the same container though, because hysteria classically undermines and destroys nuance.

 

  

On 1/11/2020 at 11:55 AM, sivispacem said:

Er no, they're not. Social Democracy as a movement predates Keynes birth by more than two decades. Most social democracies are Keynesian, but the two are not mutually inclusive. Notable examples of social democracies that haven't been Keynesian include early post independence India, which was a centrally-planned economy, and that of South Korea, with its Chaebol-driven corporatist oligopoly.

Didn't have time to read up on this yet, but after doing so found out that post 1920's social democracy and Keynesianism are fundamentally associated. Central planning is not asociated with social democracy, and people saying it is seem to mostly be libertarian hacks. Libertarian hacks seem to think the goverment leading the economy through fiscal policy is central planning, but it isn't. Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy, but it was a Keynesian one, with a welfare state, and thus reminiscent of a social democratic economic model, except for it being a corporatist dictatorship, thus not being democratic, and it's genocide of people it considered 'weak', thus being the most anti social it could possibly be. My original point about fascism being compatible with social democratic style Keynesian welfarism stands as true. The PVV in the Netherlands, a quite far right reactionary party, also advocates social security and early retirement, just like social democrats do.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Eutyphro

[Clem Fandango]

I'm not conflating your mate with PJW, that was genuinely my best guess as to why you thought I would link a PJW video. "Oh so you're saying Haidt is a far-right weirdo" dude I literally never mentioned him, in fact you'll never hear me mention him unless you bring him up, because I find him genuinely uninteresting and nobody knows who he is and wouldn't care if you told them.

 

Hadit, though his work is tedious and pointless, is obviously not the same as some youtube dude. But fine, I'm so hysterical(???) that I lump him in with Milo Yabadadoo and Sargon the Last Living Dwemer. Whatever helps you wank yourself off about how nuanced you are in between making posts about how the Nazis were social democrats because "they did welfare LOL."

[Eutyphro]

You're desperately trying to lump me in with PJW, because PJW is a baddy, and if you associate me with him then I am a baddy as well, and then you can disregard your failure to enage with certain arguments. This is a typical game ideologically led hacks play. You're just another tool trying to win arguments through demonization because you suck.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Eutyphro

[Clem Fandango]

5 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

You're desperately trying to lump me in with PJW, because PJW is a baddy, and if you associate me with him then I am a baddy as well, and then you can disregard your failure to enage with certain arguments. This is a typical game ideologically led hacks play. You're just another tool trying to win arguments through demonization because you suck.

motherfecker, you're the one who accused me of being a PJW fan. It was an incredibly baffling statement, so I guessed you considered him some authority on identity politics because again I literally couldn't think of another explanation. I don't think he's a bad person (I barely know who he is tbh) and that you're a bad person if you like him, though I do think he's an idiot and that therefore you must an idiot if you like him. I have no idea whether or not you like him and I genuinely don't care.

 

Also, 'ideologically led'? You couldn't pick my ideology out of a lineup. This might shock you but most ideologies (in my case anarchism) are broad enough that a number of different positions can fall into them on any given issue. For example my views on morality and theism (I'm Catholic educated, after all) don't align with Egoism but I'm more of a mutualist than a Communist, so that puts me somewhere in the middle. You are however a pretty vulgar liberal ideologue. 

[Eutyphro]

I don't like him, but I also don't hate him that much, and the entire PJW comment was a sarcastic joke.