Bernie!

[Sean Renaud]

Was FDR a Socialist?

What else would you call him?

 

[Publius1990]

We don't have pure capitalism no doubt. But that doesn't mean we are socialist. It is true that government spending as a percent of GNP (sadly - yes an opinion) is rising and government is a large part of our economy. But even where it sits now there is plenty of room for private enterprise.

Your example of flying doesn't make sense. The government regulates (safety, accident investigation, etc...) the airlines its doesn't provide the services. That is private enterprise. We don't have a national owned carrier.

Also another good example is the postal service. Yes, once government provided, now quasi, and at some point will be gone. Because of Fed Ex, UPS, and others that can do it better and cheaper.

If you are going to throw around the term socialism define it. Because they way you are using it isn't the way I learned it. Have you read Das Kapital? I did studying political science at American University in the early 80s. Incidentally taught by some very outward and unabashed socialist professors. (Yes it was long ago when I was thinner, had more hair, and could stay up all night). But I remember it well.

It's the definitive treatise on socialism. And I'm guessing old Karl knew more about it than you or me. And they way he laid it out isn't what we are. Elements of it sure. We don't have a pure economy.

And your contention that we were socialist in 1812 is preposterous and historically out of context. Marx wrote it in what the 1860s? Had we been considered socialist he wouldn't have been predicting the rise of it in America or England. The two economies he thought would experience the proletarian revolution and go through the progression of capitalism to socialism to pure communism.

 

[Sean Renaud]

There always has been and always will be. At this point you're basically quibbling about the details. We do in fact have socialism. What you are talking about is 100% pure which also doesn't seem to exist in the real world.

For starters the mere act of regulation requires a government that is providing jobs to those who regulate. And a "free market" (which is what most would define as capitalism) would have no such thing. If too many planes of TWA fell out of the sky people would vote with their wallets and fly American. So your example is private enterprise (kinda sorta I'll get to that in a moment) but it's sure as fuck not a free market.

By the by as someone who lives right outside a major airport, as in can see the planes from my house close. Airports are not built nor maintained by private funding. Remind me which airline pays for the TSA again?

The post office is is a bad example. For a couple of reasons. First Congress literally an very intentionally sabotaged them. Fed Ex, UPS and others do not however do it cheaper. Better is debatable but certainly not cheaper especially for day to day things. And that's if you conveniently forget that part of the reason they are able to offer such low prices is a combination of being partnered with the USPS AND being able to refuse service if they so choose. IT's not particularly often that they do mind you but they can.

Socialism is when the government is involved with the economy. We're in America old timer. The technical definition is absolutely pointless to cling to.

The government was in bed with business at that point as well. Hell the government forced businesses to purchases good prior to that if I recall properly. Marx is a bit beside the point. The reality is the government had been doing this things since Biblical times.

Let's flip that for a moment however. I assume as a self proclaimed capitalist you believe in supply and demand and all that goodness right? Adam Smith is considered the father of capitalism by most. Did he invent supply and demand? Fuck no he didn't. Not any more than Newton invented gravity, Einstein Relativity or Pasteur germs. These are basic rules of how the world functions. Apples will still fall long after the last man dies, e=mc2 will continue to be true and germs will continue to infect living things. Supply and demand functions very similarly between lions and hyenas as it does between Coke and Pepsi.

 

[Publius1990]

There always has been and always will be. At this point you're basically quibbling about the details. We do in fact have socialism. What you are talking about is 100% pure which also doesn't seem to exist in the real world.

For starters the mere act of regulation requires a government that is providing jobs to those who regulate. And a "free market" (which is what most would define as capitalism) would have no such thing. If too many planes of TWA fell out of the sky people would vote with their wallets and fly American. So your example is private enterprise (kinda sorta I'll get to that in a moment) but it's sure as fuck not a free market.

By the by as someone who lives right outside a major airport, as in can see the planes from my house close. Airports are not built nor maintained by private funding. Remind me which airline pays for the TSA again?

The post office is is a bad example. For a couple of reasons. First Congress literally an very intentionally sabotaged them. Fed Ex, UPS and others do not however do it cheaper. Better is debatable but certainly not cheaper especially for day to day things. And that's if you conveniently forget that part of the reason they are able to offer such low prices is a combination of being partnered with the USPS AND being able to refuse service if they so choose. IT's not particularly often that they do mind you but they can.

Socialism is when the government is involved with the economy. We're in America old timer. The technical definition is absolutely pointless to cling to.

The government was in bed with business at that point as well. Hell the government forced businesses to purchases good prior to that if I recall properly. Marx is a bit beside the point. The reality is the government had been doing this things since Biblical times.

Let's flip that for a moment however. I assume as a self proclaimed capitalist you believe in supply and demand and all that goodness right? Adam Smith is considered the father of capitalism by most. Did he invent supply and demand? Fuck no he didn't. Not any more than Newton invented gravity, Einstein Relativity or Pasteur germs. These are basic rules of how the world functions. Apples will still fall long after the last man dies, e=mc2 will continue to be true and germs will continue to infect living things. Supply and demand functions very similarly between lions and hyenas as it does between Coke and Pepsi.

LMAO! I guess we are socialist because you just say so. Socialism is not just the government being involved in the economy. That an oversimplification of a complex economic topic. And Karl Marl isn't beside the point. And if you feel you know more than one of the preeminent economic minds in history, you shouldn't be posting in a politics board, buried in a bulletin board, buried in a porn site. You should be running for office and solving our problems. Your talents are clearly wasted here.

Oh incidentally, this old timer lives by an airport too - Dulles International, which is is not taxpayer-funded. It is self-supporting. It uses a system of aircraft landing fees, rents and revenues from concessions to fund operating expenses. In other words paid by users. Maybe your airport is different, I don't know.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So your claim is that Adam Smith invented supply and demand? Sure as fuck sounds like it. If youre going to be precise this is probably the wrong forum for you though. Around here Obamacare is socialism, and Obama is a hardcore socialist.

Most Airports are tax payer funded on one level or another. Do they not have TSA?

 

[Publius1990]

So your claim is that Adam Smith invented supply and demand? Sure as fuck sounds like it. If youre going to be precise this is probably the wrong forum for you though. Around here Obamacare is socialism, and Obama is a hardcore socialist.

Most Airports are tax payer funded on one level or another. Do they not have TSA?

Nope, I never said Adam Smith “invented” supply and demand. He certainly wrote extensively on it. Similarly I never said Karl Marx “invented socialism.” All the greats on either side of the political/economic spectrum build on what they learned from thinkers before them. Marx was certainly influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and way too many to name. My point was that if you are going to use a term like socialism (or capitalism) you need to refer to the heavy hitters that wrote on the subject. I maintain Marx would have never described the U.S. economy as socialist.

Obama as a hardcore socialist? I guess if you say so. I never saw him as hardcore, but a socialist yes. That’s why I didn’t vote for him and I’m thrilled with term limits.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If Karl Marx didn't invent it, which we apparently agree upon the date of his writings has nothing to do with what was or wasn't practiced in any part of the world at any given time.

No you don't need to refer to the heavy hitters because in the real world people speak in the vernacular. Nobody has even heard of a mixed economy so it's pointless to bring it up unless your goal is to talk over people's heads.

Yeah, if you are unaware of the perception that Obama is a hardcore socialist this just isn't the place for you.

 

[Publius1990]

If Karl Marx didn't invent it, which we apparently agree upon the date of his writings has nothing to do with what was or wasn't practiced in any part of the world at any given time.

No you don't need to refer to the heavy hitters because in the real world people speak in the vernacular. Nobody has even heard of a mixed economy so it's pointless to bring it up unless your goal is to talk over people's heads.

Yeah, if you are unaware of the perception that Obama is a hardcore socialist this just isn't the place for you.

I think if you search the literature you'll find plenty of talk about mixed economies.

And thanks for the clarification on Obama. Now I really feel good about not voting for him.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I think if you search the literature you'll find plenty of talk about mixed economies.

And thanks for the clarification on Obama. Now I really feel good about not voting for him.

You're missing the point. First if Obama isn't socialist if you're aware of Mixed Economies. He's clearly, like all Americans including Sanders and Warren pretty heavily on the capitalist side of that scale.

Have you watched any of the Presidential debates over say the last 15 years? Have you ever heard anybody in any office or running for any office use the term mixed economy? Was Obamacare by either side pushed as a healthy part of a mixed economy (it's debatably not, we should have gone with Single Payer but it's better than what we had) of course not. Americans communicate primarily in black and white and there's not a lot of point in trying to debate the nuance of dictionary terms instead of the on the ground reality. I don't care if you want to call public education socialism, communism, fascism (yes many conservatives have called it that), or Jedi Mind tricks. The debate should be about whether it is good or bad and what can be done to improve or remove it. Not if Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, George Washington or Winston Churchill approved or dissaproved.

 

[Publius1990]

You're missing the point. First if Obama isn't socialist if you're aware of Mixed Economies. He's clearly, like all Americans including Sanders and Warren pretty heavily on the capitalist side of that scale.

Have you watched any of the Presidential debates over say the last 15 years? Have you ever heard anybody in any office or running for any office use the term mixed economy? Was Obamacare by either side pushed as a healthy part of a mixed economy (it's debatably not, we should have gone with Single Payer but it's better than what we had) of course not. Americans communicate primarily in black and white and there's not a lot of point in trying to debate the nuance of dictionary terms instead of the on the ground reality. I don't care if you want to call public education socialism, communism, fascism (yes many conservatives have called it that), or Jedi Mind tricks. The debate should be about whether it is good or bad and what can be done to improve or remove it. Not if Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, George Washington or Winston Churchill approved or dissaproved.

Well if you read my response in the post above I said "I never saw him as hardcore but socialist yes." I suppose when someone doesn't roll over like a submissive little dog and agree completely with your points it sends you into a tizzy. I mean that's really why you come here and have found a home.

Look you're off topic. This started out as a disagreement on whether we have a socialist economy and my disagreement with your contention that "government intervention in the economy"' your words, equals socialism. I'm only relying on oh, 200 or 300 hundred years of economic literature. If you feel comfortable with your definition, I'm happy for you. And you should be happy. You love socialism contend we are already a socialist economy, so I guess you are content.

So I assume you've been here: http://socialistparty-usa.net/platform.html

If you read the socialist party platform you will see they use terms like "we are committed to the transformation of capitalisism...."

I sent them an email and said you guys are stupid fucks. According to Sean Renaud we are already socialist. What's with this transformation shit?
I haven't heard back yet. I'll keep you posted.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Actually I was agreeing with you and affirm your position. I was only pointing out that you get to a point where you're not communicating with people. A tizzy? Grow up.

I'm not off topic, we are however largely talking past one another. I was speaking in the common tongue that anybody walking by would comprehend and your using technical jargon. In a classroom you would be correct. The fact that you as an individual never saw Obama as hardcore is meaningless since you saw him as a socialist and he's nothing of the sort in the technical meaning. Which makes you hard to speak with because you dance between dictionary definitions and on the ground reality however and whenever it suits you. I'm constant. All Americans enjoy the fruits of "socialism" which is government interference and aid in the marketplace as opposed to "capitalism" which if we're using technical terms would be lassiez-faire capitalism or at least as close as you can accomplish.

No, I haven't been to that site, they have some ideas that are great, some that are interesting and some that are insane.

Capitalism at least insofar as modern speak goes has a very loose definition so transforming it really doesn't mean anything. If you ask the average American what capitalism is at it's core they would tell you that hard work pays off. Which is a meritocracy. It's demonstrably false in the US. The best way to get rich is to be rich when you start. There is some moving around, some of it skill based, some of it luck based most of it a combination thereof. (If were being honest the mix is variable but virtually every accomplishment of any sort in history is a combination of these two things. By the time the Wright Brothers came around the math behind flight was, in theory anyway, solved. Someone would have figured it out. They were smart as fuck kept trying, were born before someone else figured it out and born after a lot of the heavy lifting had been done. Most things can be broken down like that).

Since you seem to wish to speak in technical terms ( and I will do my best to use your terms when speaking to you) that capitalism is not a meritocracy. Capitalism merely states that things are privately owned and operated vs being operated by the state. That is the dictionary definition but I'm not holding you to that at all. You're interesting. So set your terms.

Do keep me posted luv.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I will promote this here for local peeps where I've no worries of playing in a primary.

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/bernies-back-tickets-18304852306

 

[BoyNextDoor]

What else would you call him?

Desperate to save Capitalism

 

[Publius1990]

Actually I was agreeing with you and affirm your position. I was only pointing out that you get to a point where you're not communicating with people. A tizzy? Grow up.

I'm not off topic, we are however largely talking past one another. I was speaking in the common tongue that anybody walking by would comprehend and your using technical jargon. In a classroom you would be correct. The fact that you as an individual never saw Obama as hardcore is meaningless since you saw him as a socialist and he's nothing of the sort in the technical meaning. Which makes you hard to speak with because you dance between dictionary definitions and on the ground reality however and whenever it suits you. I'm constant. All Americans enjoy the fruits of "socialism" which is government interference and aid in the marketplace as opposed to "capitalism" which if we're using technical terms would be lassiez-faire capitalism or at least as close as you can accomplish.

No, I haven't been to that site, they have some ideas that are great, some that are interesting and some that are insane.

Capitalism at least insofar as modern speak goes has a very loose definition so transforming it really doesn't mean anything. If you ask the average American what capitalism is at it's core they would tell you that hard work pays off. Which is a meritocracy. It's demonstrably false in the US. The best way to get rich is to be rich when you start. There is some moving around, some of it skill based, some of it luck based most of it a combination thereof. (If were being honest the mix is variable but virtually every accomplishment of any sort in history is a combination of these two things. By the time the Wright Brothers came around the math behind flight was, in theory anyway, solved. Someone would have figured it out. They were smart as fuck kept trying, were born before someone else figured it out and born after a lot of the heavy lifting had been done. Most things can be broken down like that).

Since you seem to wish to speak in technical terms ( and I will do my best to use your terms when speaking to you) that capitalism is not a meritocracy. Capitalism merely states that things are privately owned and operated vs being operated by the state. That is the dictionary definition but I'm not holding you to that at all. You're interesting. So set your terms.

Do keep me posted luv.

Grow up? Damn, I get the same comment from my wife. Yeah, I still laugh at fart jokes. I do appreciate your thoughtful post and the concluding humor. I appreciate good sarcasm. I can dish it out and I’m okay with taking too (and with my job and TS clearance there is no way I’m emailing the socialist party of America!).

Yeah, I think we are were talking past each other. But I understand the subtlety of what you are saying. I just reacted to your original post (all Americans want and need socialism) because I understand what true socialism is and assumed you were referring to that. I do believe that while most Americans haven’t read Marx or Smith, and conceding your point that Americans do benefit from some (not all – I mean debating which government regulation/benefits service are good and efficient could go on forever) government intervention, they would not want socialism (my technical definition). America is firmly committed to private ownership.

I would also put forth they wouldn’t want pure capitalism either. Capitalism (pure) has its own set of flaws. In fact the interventionist government you refer to is a reaction over the last 100 years to unfettered (or unregulated) capitalism. Early in our history we had unfettered capitalism – the robber barons, mistreated labor, unregulated industries (See Upton Sinclair and the Jungle), and of course banking regulation (see the Federal Reserve) to deal with the inherent problems of capitalist boom and bust. Policies over these years have been designed to fix that – but within the confines of private ownership (the means of production) staying in place. What is politics about? Power. American political history is a lot about the tension and shifting power between the government and private interests.

Sean, I appreciate your thoughts. You’re obviously intelligent and passionate about your views. That’s good. And I have no idea how you are able to achieve the post count you do! I simply can’t find the time. Not sure how much I’ll check in here but we might cross paths again. Best to you.

 

[Sean Renaud]

America is firmly committed to private ownership in a sort of theoretical way. I would bet money that if you showed the average American what we pay farmers (primarily mega farmers not little family farms) in subsidies to keep them going held it up next to how many illegals do it and said the government can do this more efficiently that as long as you didn't use the word socialism and instead simply spoke of the results you'd get a big chunk. Many of us DO get our utilities either directly from the government or from a psuedogovernment agency. (Like the Post Office is kinda sorta not government depending on how far into the nitty gritty you choose to dive.) Given half the bullshit going on with the cable companies I'm not sure how big a fight you'd get there either. Especially since I believe (I admit this part is an opinion) that Americans prefer private to government on the assumption that competition forces the private sector to innovate and lower prices and all that good shit. The cable companies all have geographic monopolies. To the point that last year when Comcast and Time Warner tried to merge they argued that they wouldn't form a monopoly because they don't compete NOW. For the record I'm not advocating the government taking over the cable industry, I'm not sure I care one way or the other. I'm simply pointing out that if I don't like Time Warner I can either go satelite or fucking move.

We never had an unfettered (or regulated) capitalism in this country. Copyrights and trademarks are in fact regulations. Regulations that nearly everybody agrees with mind you but they are.

I'm not disagreeing that we were less fettered earlier mind you we clearly were and you point out great examples. I would argue that much of what you mentioned however were the result of the Industrial Age and just as is true today with the Information Age you couldn't regulate these things before they happened because they were at best difficult to predict in advance.

Yes, laws have been passed over the years to adjust the balance of power and yes that is what they are supposed to do.

Having a job that plops me behind a computer helps a lot for the post count. Also I've been here for about a decade and not all of my posts are nearly this long. There is a lot of lit outside the General Board and Politics.

If you stick around we'll cross again sooner or later. I'll do my best to remember who you are so we can skip some of the bullshit.

 

[JackLuis]

Second Poll Shows Sanders Leading Again in Key State of New Hampshire, Even Among 'Moderates'

Earlier this month, a CNN poll from New Hampshire showed Bernie Sanders had overtaken Hillary Clinton. Many wondered if this was just a fluke. It now looks like it wasn't. A second poll, from Public Policy Polling, shows Bernie Sanders leading Clinton 42 to 35 percent.

Feel the Bern!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Second Poll Shows Sanders Leading Again in Key State of New Hampshire, Even Among 'Moderates'



Feel the Bern!

Hopefully he continues....only (D) in the field worth a fuck .

 

[Sean Renaud]

Aside from being a nobody what's wrong with Chafee?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Aside from being a nobody what's wrong with Chafee?

"Assault weapons" ban clown.....but otherwise I don't have much of an issue with him.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Ah. I don't really care much about gun control and besides I view any big gun control changes with the same seriuosness I view the Pauls wanting to end the Fed. It's never happening so being worried about it is kinda pointless but I see your point.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Ah. I don't really care much about gun control and besides I view any big gun control changes with the same seriuosness I view the Pauls wanting to end the Fed. It's never happening so being worried about it is kinda pointless but I see your point.

Yea I don't either for the most part. The level of gun control issue that would chap my tits is like you said ultra fuckin' unlikely, at least in our lives.

Just goes to show what a bandwagon twat he likely is. Bernie's opinions on the subject are dynamic and like so many other issues show he's genuinely given SOME thought to addressing urban/suburban violence issues while at the same time keeping in mind there is a reason why someone living in BFE needs a god damn AR10. Because out where shit can eat you and 911 is a fucking hour+ away a semi auto .308 is fucking gold standard. And he's not just going to shit on them and send an extra 'fuck you' on top, because partisan cunt.

When a DC politician can publicly address such a divisive issue without going to a partisan canned answer such as "Ban assault weapons!" THAT makes me think Bernie just might be head and shoulders above the average "give lip service, fuck everyone I'm getting paid " kinda democrats.....like Hillary. At least he's paying attention and giving it some real thought.

 

[dan_c00000]

"Ban assault weapons!" THAT makes me think Bernie just might be head and shoulders above the average

He did vote to ban assault weapons in 2013. Hell, it's even on his fucking website.

Tell me again why we should trust your astute political commentary when you can't even get a simple fact right?

 

[BotanyBoy]

He did vote to ban assault weapons in 2013. Hell, it's even on his fucking website.

He supports it because (D) doing something and ANYTHING (D) puts up for gun control has to have a deer rifle body kit ban on it and you can't be effective in politics if you do nothing but shit in the party punch bowl.

But if you actually read his thoughts on the subject he's not much of a fan on banning assault weapons because he's smart enough to realize they aren't really the problem that needs to be addressed.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/bernie-sanders-will-talk-about-guns-later/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ndependent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

He's not the typical hysterical un-informed anti gun dip shit.....like you and like most (D)'s who think banning accessories on a class of weapon used in roughly 1% of all gun crimes is anything but stupid. Not to mention he seems to understand that popping off at the mouth about a weapons ban of any kind is a sure fire way to run gun sales through the roof. No better gun salesman than an idiot democrat shooting their mouth off.

Tell me again why we should trust your astute political commentary

I never said you should in the first place.....pay attention.

when you can't even get a simple fact right?

What fact did I not get right?

 

[dan_c00000]

He supports it because (D) doing something and ANYTHING (D) puts up for gun control has to have a deer rifle body kit ban on it

To say you got everything wrong, as usual, is a good place to start. I'll just list them quickly because I'm honestly tired of ruining your asshole on gun stuff. As a side note, you seem to have a really pathetic attachment to guns. I'm not surprised you're overcompensating for something your lacking I just find it odd that a person (you specifically) who has never even seen a gun at a distance much less cradle one like it's your stunted male appendage love them so much.

Here's just a quick example:

1. He voted against the Brady Bill not because he didn't agree with it but because he felt states should determine waiting periods for handguns not the federal government.

1a. He did vote for a Brady Bill version with background checks.

I could give you a list of his votes, in fact I will, on gun laws but you'll notice some on contradictory (guns on Amtrak trains OK, but no conceal carry across state lines...Amtrak goes across state lines...).

If you look at his recent votes you'll see they in line with his stand on guns in 1994: "But I don't believe that hunters need assault weapons and AK-47s to kill deer. I voted for the ban on assault weapons, which brought the wrath of the NRS down on me."

 

[BotanyBoy]

Here's just a quick example:

None of that proves me wrong, and in fact backs up what I said.

To say you got everything wrong, as usual, is a good place to start. I'll just list them quickly because I'm honestly tired of ruining your asshole on gun stuff. As a side note, you seem to have a really pathetic attachment to guns. I'm not surprised you're overcompensating for something your lacking I just find it odd that a person (you specifically) who has never even seen a gun at a distance much less cradle one like it's your stunted male appendage love them so much.

You're obsession with my asshole is what's odd.

And your inability to speak on the subject without resorting to 3rd grade penis size insults is indicative of your ignorance on the topic.