sooo... about those socialist domestic policies ...
You're right, Americans use the term incorrectly.uziq wrote:
sooo... about those socialist domestic policies ...
Here is your prize:
Last edited by Jay (2016-11-03 08:33:39)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
you use the term incorrectly. i've not seen any other american reason.com autodidacts calling neoconservatism 'domestic socialists'. you're an moran.
Last edited by uziq (2016-11-03 08:47:16)
Did I not say that it was pseudo-socialism via regulation? Socialism and welfare state are synonymous in American politics.uziq wrote:
you use the term incorrectly. i've not seen any other american reason.com autodidacts calling neoconservatism 'domestic socialists'. you're an moran.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
regulations don't infer socialism either. oh dear this is embarrassing.
Embarrassing? For whom? You? I know you're trolling at this point, but I did say that economic regulation acts as a form of pseudo-socialism with political control over the means of production. Utilities are governed in this manner.uziq wrote:
regulations don't infer socialism either. oh dear this is embarrassing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +643|3980
Anyway, I really resent articles getting written in mainstream press calling for liberals to be more sympathetic to Trump supporters and blue collar workers because of their economic anxiety. I have worked around blue collar types for 10 years and I think the writers are being overly generous to them. There is a lot of purposeful ignorance among em and I find it really difficult to feel sorry for people so willing to cut their own throats because they feel left out.
Those articles are written because they want union votes on Tuesday, not because they have any sympathy for them. Unions are a core constituent, don't forget, at least when it comes time to solicit donations. Every rank and file union member I've met in the construction industry is a Republican though.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Anyway, I really resent articles getting written in mainstream press calling for liberals to be more sympathetic to Trump supporters and blue collar workers because of their economic anxiety. I have worked around blue collar types for 10 years and I think the writers are being overly generous to them. There is a lot of purposeful ignorance among em and I find it really difficult to feel sorry for people so willing to cut their own throats because they feel left out.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
it's pretty funny to me that a regulation put in place by conservatives for a conservative-nationalist end will be described as 'pseudo-socialism' rather than conservatism.Jay wrote:
Embarrassing? For whom? You? I know you're trolling at this point, but I did say that economic regulation acts as a form of pseudo-socialism with political control over the means of production. Utilities are governed in this manner.uziq wrote:
regulations don't infer socialism either. oh dear this is embarrassing.
in other news, the state seizing control of all means of production and placing it under its own control is 'pseudo-communism'
jay you have no understanding of the ideologies that underpin these political creeds. to say that neoconservatives are 'domestic socialists' shows that you have no basic understanding of these various -isms at all. the guiding ideal and 'end', so to speak (if at all practicable) is fundamentally different to a socialist. socialists want to end relative poverty; conservatives will maybe concede the tiniest state spending to prevent absolute poverty. socialists want all of the state industry and public services to be owned by the common people; conservatives regard the state and its institutions as sacrosanct, with little concession to the people except as a sort of denuded noblesse oblige or social contract. socialism's end is a basic equality among all people, which is very different from conservatives agreeing with a basic liberal-democratic consensus that certain 'basics' must be taken care of by the state, because of cost/efficiency, national-level organisation, etc., or whatever. your example basically states that it's 'socialist' to insist on a common-gauge for all the railways, or a standardised way of delivering water to the home. that is not socialism.
not all dirigisme is left-wing or socialist. not all forms of state intervention or state-level organisation is 'socialistic'. the ideology of socialism is inimical to a capitalist society. even the nordic countries, with their generous public spending and high taxation, are essentially capitalist democracies with a tax-client relationship to their citizens: pay higher taxes, get better services. only their most extreme policies, for e.g. 'maximum earnings' enforced by law for CEOs, actually contravene the principles of capitalism and become socialistic (i.e. aiming to reduce relative poverty rather than ameliorating absolute poverty). america has nothing of the sort – and certainly, definitely not never from the fucking neoconservatives.
to call a right-wing policy 'pseudo-socialism' is like standing on your head and insisting the world is upside down. just call a right-wing policy a fucking right-wing policy and stop switching your hands around like an idiot.
Last edited by uziq (2016-11-03 11:09:59)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +643|3980
I think it has more to do with the deeply held and frankly stupid liberal view of tolerating intolerance like it is a virtue. They don't have enough experience around them to understand the respect isn't reciprocated.Jay wrote:
Those articles are written because they want union votes on Tuesday, not because they have any sympathy for them. Unions are a core constituent, don't forget, at least when it comes time to solicit donations. Every rank and file union member I've met in the construction industry is a Republican though.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Anyway, I really resent articles getting written in mainstream press calling for liberals to be more sympathetic to Trump supporters and blue collar workers because of their economic anxiety. I have worked around blue collar types for 10 years and I think the writers are being overly generous to them. There is a lot of purposeful ignorance among em and I find it really difficult to feel sorry for people so willing to cut their own throats because they feel left out.
purposefully ignorant and obdurate in some ways, yes. my example is always workers who refuse to move or adapt to follow the capital. it's very easy to say, 'well, why don't you just move or diversify?' but there's always a limit-case at which point the community ethos and very social basis of these peoples' lives becomes disrupted. you can't say to a blue-collar community in a one-industry town to up sticks and move: it's more than just changing a job to them. they are abandoning their identity and the main source of meaning in their lives. so it's tough. capitalism endlessly expands and diversifies and cares not a jot for these 'human elements', which are otherwise irrational and inefficient barriers to its liquid flow.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Anyway, I really resent articles getting written in mainstream press calling for liberals to be more sympathetic to Trump supporters and blue collar workers because of their economic anxiety. I have worked around blue collar types for 10 years and I think the writers are being overly generous to them. There is a lot of purposeful ignorance among em and I find it really difficult to feel sorry for people so willing to cut their own throats because they feel left out.
you can bet we're going to have to rationalise and come to terms with the ignorance and stubbornness of blue-collar workers a lot more as technology and automation really ramps up.
I read none of this.uziq wrote:
it's pretty funny to me that a regulation put in place by conservatives for a conservative-nationalist end will be described as 'pseudo-socialism' rather than conservatism.Jay wrote:
Embarrassing? For whom? You? I know you're trolling at this point, but I did say that economic regulation acts as a form of pseudo-socialism with political control over the means of production. Utilities are governed in this manner.uziq wrote:
regulations don't infer socialism either. oh dear this is embarrassing.
in other news, the state seizing control of all means of production and placing it under its own control is 'pseudo-communism'
jay you have no understanding of the ideologies that underpin these political creeds. to say that neoconservatives are 'domestic socialists' shows that you have no basic understanding of these various -isms at all. the guiding ideal and 'end', so to speak (if at all practicable) is fundamentally different to a socialist. socialists want to end relative poverty; conservatives will maybe concede the tiniest state spending to prevent absolute poverty. socialists want all of the state industry and public services to be owned by the common people; conservatives regard the state and its institutions as sacrosanct, with little concession to the people except as a sort of denuded noblesse oblige or social contract. socialism's end is a basic equality among all people, which is very different from conservatives agreeing with a basic liberal-democratic consensus that certain 'basics' must be taken care of by the state.
not all dirigisme is left-wing or socialist. not all forms of state intervention or state-level organisation is 'socialistic'. the ideology of socialism is inimical to a capitalist society. even the nordic countries, with their generous public spending and high taxation, are essentially capitalist democracies with a tax-client relationship to their citizens: pay higher taxes, get better services. only in their most extreme policies, for e.g. 'maximum earnings' enforced by law for CEOs, actually contravene the principles of capitalism and become socialistic (i.e. aiming to reduce relative poverty rather than ameliorating absolute poverty). america has nothing of the sort – and certainly, definitely not never from the fucking neoconservatives.
to call a right-wing policy 'pseudo-socialism' is like standing on your head and insisting the world is upside down. just call a right-wing policy a fucking right-wing policy and stop switching your hands around like an idiot.
Here is a picture of a swan
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That, and most of their net worth is tied up in their now-worthless house. To then tell them to move to a much more expensive location in order to possibly find work, it's a non-starter. If they have no family connections or social network outside of their small community then they are going in completely blind. If they have kids? Forget about it. Too much risk.uziq wrote:
purposefully ignorant and obdurate in some ways, yes. my example is always workers who refuse to move or adapt to follow the capital. it's very easy to say, 'well, why don't you just move or diversify?' but there's always a limit-case at which point the community ethos and very social basis of these peoples' lives becomes disrupted. you can't say to a blue-collar community in a one-industry town to up sticks and move: it's more than just changing a job to them. they are abandoning their identity and the main source of meaning in their lives. so it's tough. capitalism endlessly expands and diversifies and cares not a jot for these 'human elements', which are otherwise irrational and inefficient barriers to its liquid flow.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Anyway, I really resent articles getting written in mainstream press calling for liberals to be more sympathetic to Trump supporters and blue collar workers because of their economic anxiety. I have worked around blue collar types for 10 years and I think the writers are being overly generous to them. There is a lot of purposeful ignorance among em and I find it really difficult to feel sorry for people so willing to cut their own throats because they feel left out.
you can bet we're going to have to rationalise and come to terms with the ignorance and stubbornness of blue-collar workers a lot more as technology and automation really ramps up.
I used to be the callous coastal dweller that would look at them and say "move to the jobs like your grandparents did" but that's much easier to say when you're in your 20s and have no attachments.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
keep reading those amazon best-sellers and kidding yourself you even have a high-school level grasp of political science.
are you still going to become a history lecturer when you semi-retire and your kid has gone off to art school to become a transgender sculptor?
are you still going to become a history lecturer when you semi-retire and your kid has gone off to art school to become a transgender sculptor?
Last edited by uziq (2016-11-03 11:16:08)
uziq wrote:
keep reading those amazon best-sellers and kidding yourself you even have a high-school level grasp of political science.
are you still going to become a history lecturer when you semi-retire and your kid has gone off to art school to become a transgender sculptor?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
it must be quaint to think that state or federal level organisation of utilities is a socialist conspiracy.
Conspiracy? No, not a conspiracy. It was rather overt. Carried out under FDR.uziq wrote:
it must be quaint to think that state or federal level organisation of utilities is a socialist conspiracy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I have a single local utility for electricity. A single local utility for gas service. I have a single provider of cable television. Same for telephone service. They are government sponsored monopolies designed to eliminate competition. In return, the profits for these companies are limited, and they must abide by stringent regulations imposed by government agencies. Everything from the rates they charge to the information they must display on their bills is dictated by the agencies. The only thing that separates them from overt state ownership is that the workers are not paid out of the government budget.uziq wrote:
By the same token, Obamacare was a nationalization of the health insurance industry. Every facet of every policy is now dictated by the Department of Health and Human Services. They have to beg for rate increases.
Honestly, I think your puerile grasp of how the world works is sad.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +643|3980
I have always been critical of the "just move" argument for economics and other stuff. You can go back and find my post yelling at Jay for saying gays should "just move if they want to get married". You can also find post with me arguing with Cyborg about gentrification while he praises blowing up poor neighborhoods for condos and luxury apartments. I get the fact that moving away from social support networks is hard and people don't want to do it. I don't see how any of that justifies the rest of their cultural anger and pettiness. There isn't any legitimate connection between a saw mill closing down and throwing a fit for being around a gay person or upset about a black guy dating a white woman on T.V. Obviously a lot of upper income white collar people often carry the same views regarding those things but there isn't such an intense focus or willingness to broadcast that shit to everyone else in public like it is their duty. They really pride themselves on being stupid and vindictive for perceived slights against their worldview.uziq wrote:
purposefully ignorant and obdurate in some ways, yes. my example is always workers who refuse to move or adapt to follow the capital. it's very easy to say, 'well, why don't you just move or diversify?' but there's always a limit-case at which point the community ethos and very social basis of these peoples' lives becomes disrupted. you can't say to a blue-collar community in a one-industry town to up sticks and move: it's more than just changing a job to them. they are abandoning their identity and the main source of meaning in their lives. so it's tough. capitalism endlessly expands and diversifies and cares not a jot for these 'human elements', which are otherwise irrational and inefficient barriers to its liquid flow.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Anyway, I really resent articles getting written in mainstream press calling for liberals to be more sympathetic to Trump supporters and blue collar workers because of their economic anxiety. I have worked around blue collar types for 10 years and I think the writers are being overly generous to them. There is a lot of purposeful ignorance among em and I find it really difficult to feel sorry for people so willing to cut their own throats because they feel left out.
you can bet we're going to have to rationalise and come to terms with the ignorance and stubbornness of blue-collar workers a lot more as technology and automation really ramps up.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +643|3980
A lot of communist today argue that the Soviet Union wasn't a communist state because the means of production were not in the hands of the proletariat but instead the state. Essentially the USSR was a state capitalist system instead of a communist one they say. Marx did argue that state capitalism was the final stage of capitalism where the state's interest and the interest of the bourgeoisie fully converge. Really interesting arguments take place between tankies and the various other commies.uziq wrote:
it must be quaint to think that state or federal level organisation of utilities is a socialist conspiracy.
puerile grasp? you talk as if i disagree with that arrangement. my only point is that it's not socialism. if you read a single introduction to socialism you'd know this is a modern, organised democracy. socialism is rather radically different than utility companies having to comply with regulations. a curb on capitalism, monopoly or otherwise, is not therefore 'socialism'. as many conservatives and tories want to place regulations on capitalism as marxist-leninists. i don't think it's me here who has a problem grasping something rather simple. you seem to think that the government assuming control of something becomes 'socialist'. the most simple definition of socialism is that the common people own things, as shareholders or cooperatives or committees or whatever, rather than the state. the literal, equally kindergarten-level definition of fascism is where the state owns and dictates everything. see why your grasp seems so fucking dumb?Jay wrote:
I have a single local utility for electricity. A single local utility for gas service. I have a single provider of cable television. Same for telephone service. They are government sponsored monopolies designed to eliminate competition. In return, the profits for these companies are limited, and they must abide by stringent regulations imposed by government agencies. Everything from the rates they charge to the information they must display on their bills is dictated by the agencies. The only thing that separates them from overt state ownership is that the workers are not paid out of the government budget.uziq wrote:
By the same token, Obamacare was a nationalization of the health insurance industry. Every facet of every policy is now dictated by the Department of Health and Human Services. They have to beg for rate increases.
Honestly, I think your puerile grasp of how the world works is sad.
@ macbeth, yes, the classic post-marxian critique of the ussr was that it stalled and became state capitalism. same as china, obviously. communism (and socialism for that matter) has far more involvement of the common worker in the various committees set-up to manage macro-level organisation. the USSR essentially developed its own political bourgeois that were no better than the old landed feudal gentry. old story. and yes, i agree, the endless fractal arguments about 'true communism' are amusing. and depressing. still, very different set-up to FDR's america, isn't it?
Last edited by uziq (2016-11-03 11:45:37)
They pulled from the same ideological scientific management of the economy trough. Soviet five year plans and FDR's economic controls and work agencies were both spawned by thinking at Harvard Business School.uziq wrote:
puerile grasp? you talk as if i disagree with that arrangement. my only point is that it's not socialism. if you read a single introduction to socialism you'd know this is a modern, organised democracy. socialism is rather radically different than utility companies having to comply with regulations. a curb on capitalism, monopoly or otherwise, is not therefore 'socialism'. as many conservatives and tories want to place regulations on capitalism as marxist-leninists. i don't think it's me here who has a problem grasping something rather simple.Jay wrote:
I have a single local utility for electricity. A single local utility for gas service. I have a single provider of cable television. Same for telephone service. They are government sponsored monopolies designed to eliminate competition. In return, the profits for these companies are limited, and they must abide by stringent regulations imposed by government agencies. Everything from the rates they charge to the information they must display on their bills is dictated by the agencies. The only thing that separates them from overt state ownership is that the workers are not paid out of the government budget.uziq wrote:
By the same token, Obamacare was a nationalization of the health insurance industry. Every facet of every policy is now dictated by the Department of Health and Human Services. They have to beg for rate increases.
Honestly, I think your puerile grasp of how the world works is sad.
@ macbeth, yes, the classic post-marxian critique of the ussr was that it stalled and became state capitalism. same as china, obviously. communism (and socialism for that matter) has far more involvement of the common worker in the various committees set-up to manage macro-level organisation. the USSR essentially developed its own political bourgeois that were no better than the old landed feudal gentry. old story. and yes, i agree, the endless fractal arguments about 'true communism' are amusing. and depressing. still, very different set-up to FDR's america, isn't it?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
scientific management was the paradigm of thought across the ENTIRE political spectrum. just like 'reason' and 'rationalism' were the standard frameworks for all political theories in the 18th and 19th centuries. you can't call FDR's america socialist because both applied scientific management and technological organisation. again, like i said, that is MODERN governance.
you do know a bunch of extremely fascist, right-wing governments in south america equally applied scientific management, right? ones your socialist united states installed, furthermore. god it must be confusing being you.
you do know a bunch of extremely fascist, right-wing governments in south america equally applied scientific management, right? ones your socialist united states installed, furthermore. god it must be confusing being you.
When did I ever say otherwise?uziq wrote:
scientific management was the paradigm of thought across the ENTIRE political spectrum. just like 'reason' and 'rationalism' were the standard frameworks for all political theories in the 18th and 19th centuries. you can't call FDR's america socialist because both applied scientific management and technological organisation. again, like i said, that is MODERN governance.
you do know a bunch of extremely fascist, right-wing governments in south america equally applied scientific management, right? ones your socialist united states installed, furthermore. god it must be confusing being you.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat