"Memory Laws"

[CornusKousa]

The shitheads definition of a white supremacist is anyone who is white.

Not even....

Notice when black people attack Asian seniors in broad daylight of blue cities???

White supremacy!!!

Whiteness, white privilege, white supremacy and white nationalism are all just bunk terms for things (D)'s don't like.

It gets them triggered so they call it racist and white _____.

Because WHITE IS BAD!!!!!

 

[Vetteman]

Not even....

Notice when black people attack Asian seniors in broad daylight of blue cities???

White supremacy!!!

Whiteness, white privilege, white supremacy and white nationalism are all just bunk terms for things (D)'s don't like.

It gets them triggered so they call it racist and white _____.

Because WHITE IS BAD!!!!!

I do notice it. I'm glad you notice it too.

 

[phrodeau]

LOL

Can't point to any of this history.

Show us some of these successful socialist states....

You do not define any of those last three words correctly.

 

[CornusKousa]

You do not define any of those last three words correctly.

Now you're going to ignore the dictionary/encyclopedia definitions of those things.

Yea that's what I thought.

 

[phrodeau]

Now you're going to ignore the dictionary/encyclopedia definitions of those things.

Yea that's what I thought.

Denmark is a successful socialist state. But you will disagree.

 

[pecksniff]

Denmark is a successful socialist state. But you will disagree.

I will disagree -- it's a successful social democracy. Socialism, even democratic socialism, requires at minimum the nationalization or in some form the socialization of a significant part of the means of production.

 

[CornusKousa]

Denmark is a successful socialist state. But you will disagree.

Because Denmark has a capitalist economy LOL

It's a social democracy, not a socialist state.

 

[CornusKousa]

I will disagree -- it's a successful social democracy. Socialism, even democratic socialism, requires at minimum the nationalization or in some form the socialization of a significant part of the means of production.

Or some form of forced collectivization. Like what E. Warren and many others have proposed.

Socialism doesn't have to be state ownership...just collective. Direct state ownership is just the most in your face authoritarian form of it.

 

[pecksniff]

Or some form of forced collectivization. Like what E. Warren and many others have proposed.

Socialism doesn't have to be state ownership...just collective. Direct state ownership is just the most in your face authoritarian form of it.

Well, business enterprises of the worker-owned co-op form have had a pretty good performance record.

 

[phrodeau]

I will disagree -- it's a successful social democracy. Socialism, even democratic socialism, requires at minimum the nationalization or in some form the socialization of a significant part of the means of production.

Railroads, for one.

 

[pecksniff]

Railroads, for one.

Rather in the nature of a public utility. Never a good idea to privatize those.

 

[phrodeau]

Rather in the nature of a public utility. Never a good idea to privatize those.

They’re privatized in America.

 

[pecksniff]

They’re privatized in America.

And American railroads aren't worth much any more. They're vestigial. We don't even have HSR.

 

[CornusKousa]

Well, business enterprises of the worker-owned co-op form have had a pretty good performance record.

Liberal socialism essentially as described by John Stuart Mill or any other liberal collectivism along those lines is cool.

Not my cup of tea but I have absolutely no problem with it....everyone who wants in on that should fuckin do it to it.

Hippie commune farm or a uber-box megacorp that's employee owned. All fine by me.....because none of them involve sending people with guns to take my shit and force me into it.

And American railroads aren't worth much any more. They're vestigial. We don't even have HSR.

As far as passenger transportation goes.

Because we have airports, flying > trains.

They're still used rather for heavily industrial/commercial purposes though.

 

[pecksniff]

They're still used rather for heavily industrial/commercial purposes though.

Even there, railroads appear to have been mostly supplanted by trucking.

Which is a shame, because rail is more energy-efficient.

 

[CornusKousa]

Even there, railroads appear to have been mostly supplanted by trucking.

In a lot of the light weight or high value items yea.

Especially where time is concerned.

Which is a shame, because rail is more energy-efficient.

Yea but it's not more time and thus in more ways than one cost efficient.

 

[pecksniff]

Very much so.

How is Google a biased source? Have you ever failed to find Fox or Newsmax by Googling?

 

[WillJ8787]

Because Denmark has a capitalist economy LOL

It's a social democracy, not a socialist state.

Bingo....you finally got it.

This is what we want for the USA....not perfect but better than what we have today.

 

[Rightguide]

The New Deal did not lengthen the Depression, that's an infamous canard no serious historian will support, and it established several useful institutions we have kept, such as Social Security. No sane American would want to roll back any part of it.

BS.

A year before FDR was elected, In 1931, the unemployment rate was 16.3% after almost two terms of his administration and his New Deal in 1939 nine and a half million Americans were unemployed and the rate stood at 17.2% in the 1939, Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt’s treasury secretary, said the following in regard to FDR's New Deal:

“We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”

Moreover the National Recovery Administration (NRA) which was the centerpiece of the New Deal, stifled banks abilities to expand and diversify their portfolios and made them more susceptible to failure. The NRA's social security taxes and minimum wage laws pushed many private businesses into bankruptcy. It goes on and on. Much of the NRA was declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS on May 27, 1935 in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) it ended FDR's Mussolini-type corporativist system in America.

 

[CornusKousa]

Bingo....you finally got it.

Finally?

Welcome to 1995.

This is what we want for the USA..

Not even close by words or actions.

Social democracy doesn't include nationalization or forced collectivization....

Certainly not in any sort of liberal model that would be appropriate for the USA.

It tends to leave that half of socialism out, mostly because it doesn't work as an economic system much less provide for a welfare state.

..not perfect but better than what we have today.

That's a nice opinion.

Problem is half the people and almost a super majority of states disagree with that opinion.

So why don't you and the other control freak Karens put the guns down, take the jackboots off for a second and let the states who don't want it...opt out.

Everyone gets what they want!!!

Hell I bet a bunch of (R)'s would support it. Enough to pass it.

 

[pecksniff]

BS.

A year before FDR was elected, In 1931, the unemployment rate was 16.3% after almost two terms of his administration and his New Deal in 1939 nine and a half million Americans were unemployed and the rate stood at 17.2% in the 1939, Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt’s treasury secretary, said the following in regard to FDR's New Deal:

“We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”

Moreover the National Recovery Administration (NRA) which was the centerpiece of the New Deal, stifled banks abilities to expand and diversify their portfolios and made them more susceptible to failure. The NRA's social security taxes and minimum wage laws pushed many private businesses into bankruptcy. It goes on and on. Much of the NRA was declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS on May 27, 1935 in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) it ended FDR's Mussolini-type corporativist system in America.

Historiography and evaluation of New Deal policies:

Historians debating the New Deal have generally been divided between liberals who support it, conservatives who oppose it, and some New Left historians who complain it was too favorable to capitalism and did too little for minorities. There is consensus on only a few points, with most commentators favorable toward the CCC and hostile toward the NRA.

Consensus historians of the 1950s, such as Richard Hofstadter, according to Lary May:

elieved that the prosperity and apparent class harmony of the post-World War II era reflected a return to the true Americanism rooted in liberal capitalism and the pursuit of individual opportunity that had made fundamental conflicts over resources a thing of the past. They argued that the New Deal was a conservative movement that built a welfare state, guided by experts, that saved rather than transformed liberal capitalism.[135]
Liberal historians argue that Roosevelt restored hope and self-respect to tens of millions of desperate people, built labor unions, upgraded the national infrastructure and saved capitalism in his first term when he could have destroyed it and easily nationalized the banks and the railroads.[81] Historians generally agree that apart from building up labor unions, the New Deal did not substantially alter the distribution of power within American capitalism. "The New Deal brought about limited change in the nation's power structure".[136] The New Deal preserved democracy in the United States in a historic period of uncertainty and crises when in many other countries democracy failed.[137]

The most common arguments can be summarized as follows:

Harmful
The New Deal vastly increased the federal debt (Billington and Ridge)[138] while Keynesians criticize that the federal deficit between 1933 and 1939 averaged only 3.7% which was not enough to offset the reduction in private sector spending during the Great Depression[139]
Fostered bureaucracy and administrative inefficiency (Billington and Ridge)[138] and enlarged the powers of the federal government[140]
Slowed the growth of civil service reform by multiplying offices outside the merit system (Billington and Ridge)[138]
Infringed upon free business enterprise (Billington and Ridge)[138]
Rescued capitalism when the opportunity was at hand to nationalize banking, railroads and other industries (New Left critique)[141][better source needed]

Neutral
Stimulated the growth of class consciousness among farmers and workers (Billington and Ridge)[138]
Raised the issue of how far economic regulation could be extended without sacrificing the liberties of the people (Billington and Ridge)[138]

Beneficial
Allowed the nation to come through its greatest depression without undermining the capitalist system (Billington and Ridge)[138]
Made the capitalist system more beneficial by enacting banking and stock market regulations to avoid abuses and providing greater financial security, through, for example, the introduction of Social Security or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (David M. Kennedy)[142]
Created a better balance among labor, agriculture and industry (Billington and Ridge)[138]
Produced a more equal distribution of wealth (Billington and Ridge)[138]
Help conserve natural resources (Billington and Ridge)[138]
Permanently established the principle that the national government should take action to rehabilitate and preserve America's human resources (Billington and Ridge)[138]

 

[phrodeau]

Finally?

Welcome to 1995.



Not even close by words or actions.

Social democracy doesn't include nationalization or forced collectivization....

Certainly not in any sort of liberal model that would be appropriate for the USA.

It tends to leave that half of socialism out, mostly because it doesn't work as an economic system much less provide for a welfare state.



That's a nice opinion.

Problem is half the people and almost a super majority of states disagree with that opinion.

So why don't you and the other control freak Karens put the guns down, take the jackboots off for a second and let the states who don't want it...opt out.

Everyone gets what they want!!!

Hell I bet a bunch of (R)'s would support it. Enough to pass it.

I thought you were adamant about the US being a republic. Suddenly, you think majority rule is what counts.

 

[pecksniff]

Finally?

Welcome to 1995.

What happened in 1995?

 

[CornusKousa]

What happened in 1995?

I went to middle school and in civics class got an interest in political science, started learning about the different forms of government.

 

[CornusKousa]

I thought you were adamant about the US being a republic. Suddenly, you think majority rule is what counts.

No.

Learn to read.