General US Politics Discussion

[sivispacem]

2 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Central planning is not asociated with social democracy

Broadly I agree with you, but I've provided you two examples of states that self-identify or are identified as social democracies which are not Keynesian.

 

2 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy, but it was a Keynesian one

Actually it was neither as I described on the previous page- the economy of Nazi Germany was primarily a war economy, with fiscal policies that were aimed at rearmament and mass-mobilisation of fighting forces.

Economic interventionism was not designed to "smooth out" bumps in various economic sectors, it was designed almost solely to maximise production in war-critical materials and propagation of national infrastructure to support the armed forces.

 

2 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

and thus reminiscent of a social democratic economic model, except for it being a corporatist dictatorship

This is a bit like saying "and thus reminiscent of a horse, except for being a coffee table".

 

2 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

My original point about fascism being compatible with social democratic style Keynesian welfarism stands as true.

I'm not convinced it does. 

Besides, this wasn't actually your original point; that was:

  

On 1/9/2020 at 3:21 PM, Eutyphro said:

The Nazis were social democrats and thus economically left wing.

Which you've already acknowledge isn't actually true.

It's a little bit like your original point, truth be told, but I don't think anyone argued that fascism wasn't "compatible" with Keynesian welfarism; just that the Nazis weren't social democrats.

 

2 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

The PVV in the Netherlands, a quite far right reactionary party, also advocates social security and early retirement, just like social democrats do.

All this really reinforces is the notion that welfare state models aren't solely the preserve of social democracies, which I'm fairly sure I said one or perhaps two pages back.

[Eutyphro]

The Nazis were left wing in their economic ideology. Germany was an advanced industrial society though. The Nazis were more typically pragmatic authoritarian centrists in practice, but ideologically they were in many ways anti capitalist. I should've immediately distinguished between social democracy as an economic model, which is what the Nazis embraced, and social democracy as political colour, which Nazis in every way hated.

Let us consider Hitler's economic thought in light of this framework. We do not know how Hitler came to hold his views on economic matters. Although it may be true that Hitler's notions (at least in the 1920's) reflect "a cursory reading of the business columns of the conservative press," there is also the undeniable presence of Marxist categories in his thinking. Such categories include the exploitive international financial clique, overproduction as the principal cause of unemployment, and the inevitable exacerbation of international competition caused by capital exports from the more industrialized to the less industrialized economies.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.jstor.org/stable/4545656

Nazism is definitely Keynesian in that it seeks for full employment through fiscal policy.

 

Damning those he called “the money pigs of capitalist democracy,” Goebbels in speeches and pamphlets regularly declaimed that “Money has made slaves of us.” “Money,” he argued, “is the curse of mankind. It smothers the seed of everything great and good. Every penny is sticky with sweat and blood.”

Edited January 13, 2020 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

50 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

The Nazis were left wing in their economic ideology.

I still think this is a very questionable assertion. Nazi economic ideology is most closely replicated with what's known as "third positionism" which emphasises opposition to both socialism and capitalism.

The core tenet of "left-wing" economic ideology is participative management of the means of production, whether that comes in the form of trade unions, worker's councils, election of directors, syndicalism, or direct industrial democracy...or indeed the workers actually owning the means of production wholesale. 

 

This simply did not exist in Nazi Germany; workers rights and associated organisations were rapidly destroyed and employees completely disenfranchised from any kind of participative management. 

 

50 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

I should've immediately distinguished between social democracy as an economic model

Social democracy isn't an economic model; there are economic models associated with social democracy, but it is not itself one.

I would posit what you actually mean when you talk about "social democracy as an economic model" is the Social Market Economy.

 

50 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

Nazism is definitely Keynesian in that it seeks for full employment through fiscal policy.

I feel like you're redefining- and somewhat misrepresenting- Keynesianism again.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

Warren absolutely stabbed Sanders in the back. She's getting destroyed on social media right now.

[Awful Waffle]

see it's funny because the DNC has been stabbing Liberals in the back for 30+ years now and slowly turning the party of Democratic welfare into the party of Centrist warmongering.

 

the party of compassion has no spine.

the party of spine doesn't posses any human empathy.

and no one is willing to support a viable third alternative which we so desperately need to break this Boom/Bust cycle of constantly switching between - what are essentially - 2 sides of the same utterly useless coin.

 

while you guys are up there debating the finer points of Keynesianism and Nazism, the MAGA man is cruising to another easy victory, because nobody who votes in this country cares about nuance.

it's Trump 2020 for sure.

[Tchuck]

> Centrist warmongering

> Liberals

 

To quote Pam from the office, they're the same picture.

 

DNC has been actively working against left-wing candidates, I'll give you that. Placing all their chips on the same old tired types. The best chance to remove Trump would be Sanders. The better chance would have been a Sanders/Warren ticket, appealing to lots of people. And now Warren has pretty much destroyed any chance of that happening. Curious to see how it goes.

 

Now I'm also still holding out for a Clinton sudden run to throw everything into disarray again. Failing that, seeing the DNC stick by Biden and not pick Sanders. Which, if they do, guarantees Trump through 2024.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

Nobody with a brain would vote for Hillary if she ran again. Then again there are some "dumbass motherfeckers in this country" like George Carlin used to say.

Edited January 17, 2020 by TheSpectre

[Clem Fandango]

Lol what total nonsense. Sanders told Warren to run in 2016 and there's recordings of him talking about the need for a woman president in the 80s. They must be getting desperate. 

[TheGodDamnMaster]

Warren knows she isn't going to win and so she's attacking Bernie to gain favor with Biden in the hope that he will choose her as his Vice President.

 

Also that debate was garbage. CNN is dogsh*t. The framing on the questions asked to Bernie and about his policies to other candidates were shamelessly adversarial. The contempt for which the moderators displayed towards Bernie Sanders, a fundamentally good man, is reprehensible. Shame on that woman for asking Warren how she felt when "Bernie said that", immediately after he denied it.

Edited January 17, 2020 by TheSpectre

[Shaundi.]

On 1/8/2020 at 3:14 PM, Smith John said:

And yet you loons politisise the suffering of people by blaming it on climate change or whatever

 

Example #355 of right wingers getting angry or riled up over things they made up themselves.

 

I've never seen the bushfires be politicized. Everyone agrees climate change played its role in the fires by making everything bone dry. There were arrests for arson but it's a tiny number. But those small numbers of arson mixed with climate change and other factors made the fires huge. The rest of the fires were caused by lightning strikes, bad forest management and morons disregarding state government imposed total fire bans.

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Shaundi.
words

[Awful Waffle]

9 hours ago, Tchuck said:

> Centrist warmongering

> Liberals

 

To quote Pam from the office, they're the same picture.

unfortunately I have to use the phrasing we're stuck with despite the fact that it's irrelevant in American politics.

let's be clear there's no actual Liberals anywhere near Congress.

 

if Republicans are bible thumpers, Democrats have devolved into bible-thumper-lite, at best; not an opposition.

there's not enough difference between the parties to represent real choice.

 

...which is exactly why Trump will earn his second term. easily.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Awful Waffle

[Tchuck]

15 minutes ago, Awful Waffle said:

let's be clear there's no actual Liberals anywhere near Congress.

Dude, Democrats are centrist warmongering liberals. This is a fact. They've always been that way. They've actively shunned anyone even remotely further to the left than center. Just look at how they treat Sanders. Liberal and centrist warmonger are the same damn thing.

 

As for them not really being an opposition, I don't disagree that much. You have one or other democrat who are working harder at being an opposition towards republicans, but most of them.. They're all financed by the same people.

 

Which is why I don't see Sanders being nominated. They will choose Biden, Warren, Clinton, anyone but a proper left-wing candidate.

[Awful Waffle]

Democrats are not Liberals, though.

this is American politics lol...

[Svip]

If anything, their corporatist politics suggest that there are only liberals in American politics.

[Awful Waffle]

corporatist politics having little to do with equality before the law.

ergo American politics does not equal liberalism.

 

therefore there's no Liberal Democrats.

but hey I agree the Americanization of political speech has totally bastardized the terminology...

[Svip]

Classic liberals were the laissez-faire bourgeoisie.  Their main motivation for liberalism was their bottom lines.  Their motivations were hardly true 'equality before the law'.  Sure, some of them may have actually believed that, but definitely not all of them.  The American revolution was motivated by taxation of all things.  The French revolution was motivated by salt taxes and other economical problems for the Anciént Regime.  None of them cared about the social question, or true equality.  The American liberals were accepting slavery to persist in their realm, and even wrote it into their Constitution.

 

Benjamin Franklin may have believed in the idea that 'all men are created equal', but he was definitely in the minority.  But it was a good way to motivate the lower classes of the colonies or Paris to join what is essential an elitist project.  That's why so many in the mid-1800s were so disappointed with these 'liberal' revolutions, because they were merely capitalist revolutions.  Not the monarchs nor the liberals cared about the lower classes.  Equality before the law matter more when you can make ends meet.

 

These liberals are what we associated with the liberal revolutions of the late 1700s and 1800s, but they were by and large mostly capitalist revolutions.  Sure, proto-socialists tried to join these revolutionary waves, such as the French Revolution's Conspiracy of Equals, but that was considered a step too far, even for someone like Robespierre, who might be the most pure liberal.

 

But sure, I can accept that we refer to them as 'neo-liberal' instead, since the generally accepted term for modern corporatist politics.  And in that regard, there are basically only neo-liberals in American politics.  But looking back, you may also well argue, that there never were any liberals to begin with.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Svip

[Awful Waffle]

ah, I see the problem here...

politics in the United States has become so backwards, that there are more actual Liberals in the GOP than the Democratic party.

 

which is exactly why the sitting president will likely take another victory lap.

[ilovebender.com]

While everyone's distracted with the Democrats and Trump, Disney seem to be taking over...

*best image for this story yet

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/disney-ditches-fox-name-from-branding-emails-and-logos.html

Edited January 18, 2020 by ilovebender.com

[TheGodDamnMaster]

It's an election year and you're posting about an entertainment company in a politics thread?

[ilovebender.com]

5 hours ago, TheSpectre said:

It's an election year and you're posting about an entertainment company in a politics thread?

Well, why can't it be politics and current affairs?

 

Don't take the thread title so literal. Unless you could show me where the current affairs thread is for things in America, other than politics.

[sivispacem]

6 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

Well, why can't it be politics and current affairs?

Disney renaming 20th isn't even current affairs, it's light entertainment. It would be better posted in the Random Chat topic in GC as I doubt anyone has much interest in discussing it; yourself included given that your total contribution on the subject was about 18 words.

[Smith John]

1 hour ago, sivispacem said:

given that your total contribution on the subject was about 18 words.

Could've been worse sivis, it could've been 3 words!

7 hours ago, make total destroy said:

up your butt

 

[sivispacem]

9 minutes ago, Smith John said:

Could've been worse sivis, it could've been 3 words!

Thought I'd hidden that, apparently not.

[Clem Fandango]

On 1/18/2020 at 6:51 AM, Svip said:

Classic liberals were the laissez-faire bourgeoisie.  Their main motivation for liberalism was their bottom lines.  Their motivations were hardly true 'equality before the law'.  Sure, some of them may have actually believed that, but definitely not all of them.  The American revolution was motivated by taxation of all things.  The French revolution was motivated by salt taxes and other economical problems for the Anciént Regime.  None of them cared about the social question, or true equality.  The American liberals were accepting slavery to persist in their realm, and even wrote it into their Constitution.

For posterity: these early liberals did believe in equality before the law, as they were overthrowing nobles who had legally enshrined privileges. 

[Awful Waffle]

looks like Republicans have the votes to block new witnesses and will vote to acquit as expected.

 

Teflon Don is the Immovable Object.

[Typhus]

15 hours ago, Awful Waffle said:

looks like Republicans have the votes to block new witnesses and will vote to acquit as expected.

 

Teflon Don is the Immovable Object.

I am interested in how Republicans justify this. Do they see it as a partisan move to protect their guy, or do they really believe it's in the best interests of their nation? From my observations of their political system, many Republicans hold themselves up as guardians of the constitution, so it is puzzling to me to see how reluctant they are to hold a leader to account - when checks and balances are such an integral aspect of the American system of government.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

This whole impeachment fiasco is a dog and pony show. It's a distraction. A symptom of a much larger problem. Trump is not the problem. He is a symptom. A useful idiot.

 

The people really in charge of this country are the defense contractors, the boardroom directors, the insurance companies, the Saudi and Israeli lobbies who guide our strategies for foreign intervention. 

 

The power that has taken hold of our political system is a cancer and it cannot be stopped. We're too divided and complacent to rise up. The media are complicit in this. Their job is not to inform but to sell the narratives of our corporate masters.

 

The United States of America is not a democracy. It's not a representative republic. It is an oligarchy. 

 

At the end of the day the corporate machine will get what it wants.

 

Joe Biden isnt going to save you. No politician can overthrow their influence. This is a sinking ship. The rich will continue amass even more wealth for themselves and the kids they sh*t out will hoard it for themselves when they inherit it. The middle class will continue to shrink. Rent will continue to climb. Rising tuition costs will continue to enslave the future generations in debt they cannot pay. Wages will remain stagnant.

[Creed Bratton]

4 hours ago, Typhus said:

or do they really believe it's in the best interests of their nation?

Lol, no. The GOP is essentially a crime syndicate.

[Clem Fandango]

11 hours ago, Typhus said:

I am interested in how Republicans justify this. Do they see it as a partisan move to protect their guy, or do they really believe it's in the best interests of their nation? From my observations of their political system, many Republicans hold themselves up as guardians of the constitution, so it is puzzling to me to see how reluctant they are to hold a leader to account - when checks and balances are such an integral aspect of the American system of government.

Well, they have literally no choice. Whatever they think of Trump personally their constituents worship him and they'd be vulnerable in primaries if they don't vote for moves to block impeachment. 

 

Plus, politicians are just cynical sleazes generally. 

[Awful Waffle]

when the only Checks and Balances of the Constitution are in the hands of a Congress that behaves and votes strictly along party lines, there are no longer any Checks or Balances.

America had a good run while it lasted.