Support NeoGAF

[sphagnum]

That's funny, because I have exactly the opposite perspective. It's easy for progressives to agree that we need to change the political and economic structures. It's hard for them to agree that that should include intersectionality. People have made the argument to me ad nauseam on this board that if we can just implement social programs we won't have to worry about, e.g., racial justice any more because it will just sort itself out. That's the specific thing I'm warding against, because that is literally the attitude we had to fight against to get people to understand intersectionality in the first place.

I have almost come to the regrettable conclusion, etc., etc., the white moderate, etc., etc.

I agree, but I was speaking about from the position of people who support intersectionality, not about the people who don't want to focus on it in the first place.

 

[User 463088]

Adam, maybe your berniebro is Rachel Green based on the length of his letter.

It was four pages, front and back.

Mess!

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Hasn't it been shown that he largely knew what he was talking about regarding breaking up the banks?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/u...s-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sanders-has-a-plan-to-break-up-the-big-banks/
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/

I don't think Sanders brought on anyone with experience breaking up institutions until about two months ago with William Black. And I think he's the only guy formally on either Sanders or Clinton's team that has any relevant federal experience. Maybe there's another on Clinton given her rhetoric that she knows while Sanders doesn't know, but anyway Bernie needed formal counsel badly to take on his opponents tactics to obfuscate, mislead, and pretend to be serious about reform.

 

[SheSaidNo]

And funded by a behavior tax, he wants to curb 'bad' trading and yet wants to use it to fund a program that would only grow in size and cost.

So either his tax fails to curb the behavior or it fails to make the revenue, and a similar tax already failed terribly on Sweden.

Seems like it works in other places

"The FTT is not a new idea. From 1914 to 1966, the U.S. levied a tax on stock issuances (0.1% in 1965) and transfers (0.04%). During the Great Depression, Congress more than doubled the tax to help financial recovery and job creation. Over 30 countries – including Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, and the U.K. – currently have some form of the FTT. Of the G20 nations, 16 have an FTT. There is a 0.5% tax imposed on each trade on the London Stock Exchange. In fact, the U.S. still has a very small FTT, which is used to finance the Securities and Exchange Commission."

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I think every person that cares only about helping the downtrodden can agree that people hating black people or women is bad.

I don't think every person that cares only about helping the downtrodden can agree that capitalism is bad.

 

[Armaros]

Seems like it works in other places

And if it works, how does it fund a growing and expensive program? He has been adamant it would be enough to fund his program, contrary to all nonpartisan economic research groups finding.

Either it's a tax that works to curve their behavior to eliminate extra risky trading and it doesn't make its required to report revenue of it doesn't and makes more money for the governement.

 

[VendettaRed07]

That lion thread.

 

[Iolo]

It was four pages, front and back.

Mess!

Was it in cursive? Good cursive is a rarity these days.

 

[SheSaidNo]

And if it works, how does it fund a growing and expensive program? He has been adamant it would be enough to fund his program, contrary to all nonpartisan economic research groups finding.

Either it's a tax that works to curve their behavior to eliminate extra risky trading and it doesn't make its required to report revenue of it doesn't and makes more money for the governement.

I wasn't really arguing about the tax so much as its a concrete plan to fund his bill, and while it may not be enough, its more of a policy than Clintons close some tax loopholes

 

[pigeon]

I agree, but I was speaking about from the position of people who support intersectionality, not about the people who don't want to focus on it in the first place.

Oh, I see what you mean.

The people who I learned intersectionality from (in real life, but also, like, bell hooks) were mostly people who clearly understood that the worker is also an oppressed figure. Ultimately we're all fellow travelers.

But then, intersectionality was a much more radical position even like six years ago, so the people who grasped it were more likely to be radicals themselves.

I think, ultimately, that the moral arc of the universe bends towards socialism. As the marginal costs of goods get lower and lower, the fundamental contradictions at the heart of capitalism become more and more apparent. But I agree that America is badly in need of a well-spoken defender of socialism. Bernie is not that person, but hopefully somebody else is.

 

[User 463088]

Was it in cursive? Good cursive is a rarity these days.

I have beautiful handwriting, including cursive.

He writes like he's angry with the paper and wants to hurt it. Which....actually....ya.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

It was four pages, front and back.

Mess!

Go into MS Paint, crudely draw a picture of Trump with airhorns. Print it out on the the finest card stock and mail it to him registered mail.

 

[Clefargle]

That lion thread.

I came here to escape that darkness.

Spoiler

But really, I just went back to my old friend

 

[sphagnum]

I think every person that cares only about helping the downtrodden can agree that people hating black people or women is bad.

I don't think every person that cares only about helping the downtrodden can agree that capitalism is bad.

Case in point! Not to rag on you in particular, but that's what I mean; because we're all on the left of the spectrum we can agree about social issues fairly easily but economics become trench warfare. For me, socialism is something that I deeply feel is at the center of liberation from oppression. We can't fix racially-linked poverty without attacking one of the main issues that leads to it, which is the exploitation that occurs under capitalism. We can't fix stuff like, I don't know, the problems with prostitution without attacking the commodification of human bodies that happens under capitalism. So while we can make things better within a capitalist context we can't eradicate the problem, in the same way that a race- or sex-blind socialism does not destroy racism and sexism.

Oh, I see what you mean.

The people who I learned intersectionality from (in real life, but also, like, bell hooks) were mostly people who clearly understood that the worker is also an oppressed figure. Ultimately we're all fellow travelers.

But then, intersectionality was a much more radical position even like six years ago, so the people who grasped it were more likely to be radicals themselves.

I think, ultimately, that the moral arc of the universe bends towards socialism. As the marginal costs of goods get lower and lower, the fundamental contradictions at the heart of capitalism become more and more apparent. But I agree that America is badly in need of a well-spoken defender of socialism. Bernie is not that person, but hopefully somebody else is.

I think there's a good chance it will end up being someone inspired by Bernie though, which for me is what makes his candidacy worthwhile despite its many flaws.

 

[User 463088]

Go into MS Paint, crudely draw a picture of Trump with airhorns. Print it out on the the finest card stock and mail it to him registered mail.

I once quit a job by overnighting them my key so they'd get it at 9:30 in a registered letter....Mess.

 

[shinra-bansho]

So basically if there as a candidate who supported single payer, publically funded college, stricter bank regulatons, etc. but was less irascible than Bernie vs. Hillary.

I mean the premise here is that Clinton doesn't support for instance stricter bank regulation. Or some degree of public college funding. Which seems false. While she still supports a public health care model although thinks single payer is a no go...

So essentially would you support a candidate that was like Clinton but not Clinton. Sure.

 

[pigeon]

I think every person that cares only about helping the downtrodden can agree that people hating black people or women is bad.

I don't think every person that cares only about helping the downtrodden can agree that capitalism is bad.

Since the core concept of capitalism is that people who don't work must starve, I am not sure you can support capitalism and care about helping the downtrodden.

 

[Zornack]

Case in point! Not to rag on you in particular, but that's what I mean; because we're all on the left of the spectrum we can agree about social issues fairly easily but economics become trench warfare. For me, socialism is something that I deeply feel is at the center of liberation from oppression. We can't fix racially-linked poverty without attacking one of the main issues that leads to it, which is the exploitation that occurs under capitalism. We can't fix stuff like, I don't know, the problems with prostitution without attacking the commodification of human bodies that happens under capitalism. So while we can make things better within a capitalist context we can't eradicate the problem, in the same way that a race- or sex-blind socialism does not destroy racism and sexism..

I guess I don't believe that eradicating things like racism and sexism is a realistic goal. I'm not interested in fixing these things because I don't believe they are fixable, I just want to push back in the other direction as hard as possible.

Since the core concept of capitalism is that people who don't work must starve, I am not sure you can support capitalism and care about helping the downtrodden.

Is a social safety net incompatible with capitalism?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Since the core concept of capitalism is that people who don't work must starve, I am not sure you can support capitalism and care about helping the downtrodden.

Well the premise of social democracy is essentially reigning in excesses and providing safety nets, no?

I'm perfectly comfortable with a capitalist economic model provided there are checks in place on it's more negative impacts. The poors can have some of my money through govt provision of essential services.

But I'm not a socialist. So whatever.

 

[sphagnum]

I mean the premise here is that Clinton doesn't support for instance stricter bank regulation. Or some degree of public college funding. Which seems false. While she still supports a public health care model although thinks single payer is a no go...

So essentially would you support a candidate that was like Clinton but not Clinton. Sure.

My premise is that Clinton is more moderate in her goals. I was asking if people would support someone who, like Bernie, was willing to shoot for the big goals (and you may say it's unrealistic and therefore say you wouldn't support such a person, which is fine) but was more likeable.

 

[Y2Kev]

Bernie running from party unity chasing ha

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Since the core concept of capitalism is that people who don't work must starve, I am not sure you can support capitalism and care about helping the downtrodden.

I mean, I guess it depends on the definition of capitalism you use.

Massive state control of a bunch of industries has helped Venezuela's poor be arrested for lining up for food.

 

[Y2Kev]

DWS running away with thousands of suppressed ballots from Nevada

 

[shinra-bansho]

My premise is that Clinton is more moderate in her goals. I was asking if people would support someone who, like Bernie, was willing to shoot for the big goals (and you may say it's unrealistic and therefore say you wouldn't support such a person, which is fine) but was more likeable.

Well, personally I don't agree with some of his "big goals" to begin with. Others I do but don't find the approach realistic or intellectually honest.

 

[Touchdown]

DWS running away with thousands of suppressed ballots from Nevada

Bernie loves latinos

 

[User1608]

That lion thread.

That's enough internet for me today.

 

[jack_package_200]

According to r/politics, someone who supports is an evil corporate regressive sjw.

Whatever the hell that means.

 

[sphagnum]

Well the premise of social democracy is essentially reigning in excesses and providing safety nets, no?

I'm perfectly comfortable with a capitalist economic model provided there are checks in place on it's more negative impacts. The poors can have some of my money through govt provision of essential services.

But I'm not a socialist. So whatever.

I know this is sort of meant in jest but it's a disgusting attitude and a good example of how social democracy is ultimately a way for the upper class to undercut labor's power rather than a The Most Perfect and Ideal System on Earth that people treat it as.

This post wouldn't be ignored if you said "the blacks can have some of my money" but it's fine to slight poor people because classism isn't really that serious, right?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Spoiler

I am the poors.

Also, I don't think social democracy is a perfect system. I'm a relatively practical person with no interest in waiting for perfect.

 

[sphagnum]

Then be more clear about it, jeez. You have no idea how much that kind of shit pisses me off as a worker since I have to deal with better off dipshits every day.

Spoiler

My analysis of social democracy still stands

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Sweating so hard. Nobody knows who is going to win the Austrian election. It's a total crapshoot.

 

[Suikoguy]

Spoiler

I am the poors.

Also, I don't think social democracy is a perfect system. I'm a relatively practical person with no interest in waiting for perfect.

Y2Kev is the out of touch rich Banker one.

Sweating so hard. Nobody knows who is going to win the Austrian election. It's a total crapshoot.

You have a stake in the election?

 

[jack_package_200]

Then be more clear about it, jeez. You have no idea how much that kind of shit pisses me off as a worker since I have to deal with better off dipshits every day.

Spoiler

My analysis of social democracy still stands

Are they dipshits because they are better off or are they dipshits because they act lick dipshits and their economic situation isn't really relevant?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Well I'm not actually one of the poors depending on who we're including. No one here on their internet soapbox is. But only Kev is the .01%.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Y2Kev is the out of touch rich Banker one.



You have a stake in the election?

Personally, I think it would be bad to have a white nationalist party be the head of a European nation.

 

[Suikoguy]

Personally, I think it would be bad to have a white nationalist party be the head of a European nation.

I'm not familiar with the race. Kinda disturbing the election could go either way

 

[damisa]

None of them are good wallpaper sizes though!

A question for PoliGAF in general. It seems to me like a lot of people on PoliGAF are not so much opposed to further left policies as they are to Bernie Sanders himself due to his individual issues and failures. In other words, they like social democracy but dislike him. Had a better candidate run - let's say it was a younger person, someone who could connect with minority voters better, and who was more of a policy wonk than strictly a big ideas person - would you have supported that person over Clinton? Because there are certainly some people here who are Clinton diehards because they love Hillary herself and others who support Hillary more because they are anti-Bernie than because they are big fans of her.

So basically if there as a candidate who supported single payer, publically funded college, stricter bank regulatons, etc. but was less irascible than Bernie vs. Hillary.

Does this mythical other candidate still throw other democrats under the bus? Is he/she still stupidly against free trade? I mean if you threw away all the things I don't like about Bernie you end up with Hillary. Add in younger/more charismatic and you get Obama who I voted for over Hillary.

 

[sphagnum]

Are they dipshits because they are better off or are they dipshits because they act lick dipshits and their economic situation isn't really relevant?

I don't know how they are as people outside of work, just how they relate to me and my coworkers in the context of employer-employee relations and relations with clients. Which is tied to unconscious classism and, for a socialist, will inherently be tied to control of the means of production and blah blah blah you know my spiel

 

[mo60]

Sweating so hard. Nobody knows who is going to win the Austrian election. It's a total crapshoot.

It looks like Mr Van der Bellen will win if the mail in ballots mostly go to him. I hope to god the mail in ballots swing the election to him.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I would definitely vote for a candidate that massively increased immigration to the United States and other super left leaning policies.

Just don't like some of Bernie's left-leaning ideas that much.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

None of them are good wallpaper sizes though!

A question for PoliGAF in general. It seems to me like a lot of people on PoliGAF are not so much opposed to further left policies as they are to Bernie Sanders himself due to his individual issues and failures. In other words, they like social democracy but dislike him. Had a better candidate run - let's say it was a younger person, someone who could connect with minority voters better, and who was more of a policy wonk than strictly a big ideas person - would you have supported that person over Clinton? Because there are certainly some people here who are Clinton diehards because they love Hillary herself and others who support Hillary more because they are anti-Bernie than because they are big fans of her.

So basically if there as a candidate who supported single payer, publically funded college, stricter bank regulatons, etc. but was less irascible than Bernie vs. Hillary.

Maybe? I'm not quite as familiar with other people arguing for those things that have argued it better than Sanders, and his particular arguments are bad. So I actually came into this election thinking that I believed I supported the ultimate goals of Sanders, with a path through Clinton's pragmatism. But now, I see that even if Bernie were a super emperor and could order literally his entire agenda, it wouldn't work. For a lot of reasons, not just "Republicans!"

The money just isn't there, and his numbers don't add up at all. But rationally, that doesn't mean I'm rejecting social democracy as he envisions it. But I have to logically reject his argument because it's just not sound.

 

[neurosisxeno]

That lion thread.

Just read through it. Definitely some WTF-worthy statements being made. My favorite post was this one though.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I would definitely vote for a candidate that massively increased immigration to the United States and other super left leaning policies.

Just don't like some of Bernie's left-leaning ideas that much.

Increased immigration doesn't work well in the left-right spectrum though. Because they took our jobs isn't necessarily a right wing position.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Just read through it. Definitely some WTF-worthy statements being made. My favorite post was this one though.

This one is depressing.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=204377220&postcount=262

 

[neurosisxeno]

This one is depressing.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=204377220&postcount=262

Every post of his is pretty depressing.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

It looks like Mr Van der Bellen will win if the mail in ballots mostly go to him. I hope to god the mail in ballots swing the election to him.

He's estimated to get 60% of them. If he gets 60% and Hofer gets 40% it's like 50.0 to 50.0.

...I have money on Hofer and I don't care about immigrants in Austria because I live here in the good ol' USofA, so definitely don't share the same hope as you do.

 

[pigeon]

Is a social safety net incompatible with capitalism?

Well the premise of social democracy is essentially reigning in excesses and providing safety nets, no?

I'm perfectly comfortable with a capitalist economic model provided there are checks in place on it's more negative impacts. The poors can have some of my money through govt provision of essential services.

I think the two are incompatible in the sense that I more or less believe in Marxist economics, so if we actually create a reasonable social safety net (basic income) it will just lead to worker-owned businesses taking over since they can afford to accumulate capital.

I am pretty optimistic though.

But in general, like, capitalism as a system may not be incompatible with welfare but most of the arguments about why capitalism is good kind of are.

I mean, I guess it depends on the definition of capitalism you use.

Massive state control of a bunch of industries has helped Venezuela's poor be arrested for lining up for food.

This does not seem super relevant to me. I don't remember advocating for a junta, or, perhaps more relevantly, for us to base our entire economy on the price of oil. Venezuela was doing pretty well until we invented fracking! Thanks Hillary!

I know this is sort of meant in jest but it's a disgusting attitude and a good example of how social democracy is ultimately a way for the upper class to undercut labor's power rather than a The Most Perfect and Ideal System on Earth that people treat it as.

This post wouldn't be ignored if you said "the blacks can have some of my money" but it's fine to slight poor people because classism isn't really that serious, right?

I mean, "this is a good way for rich people to maintain power" is definitely how I would sell social democracy to America, but I'm not sure I agree with your analysis. I think without a coercive labor market you end up with socialism eventually.

 

[quantico]

Austria's President is a ceremonial position anyway. I understand the concern and the prescient it sets isn't good, but for now it wouldn't have many tangible effects.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm not sure I follow the line of thought wherein "proper" social safety nets mean that people will accumulate capital and therefore every Uber driver owns the company.

 

[pigeon]

I'm not sure I follow the line of thought wherein "proper" social safety nets mean that people will accumulate capital and therefore every Uber driver owns the company.

The reason people don't accumulate capital, in general, is that the rentiers capture it and pay them wages.

The reason the wages don't include the value of the capital being produced (as free markets should require them to do) is that the lash of hunger forces people to sell their labor for under correct market value.

Remove the lash of hunger, people get paid more for their labor, they have enough money to accumulate capital, and they can take control of the means of production, etc., etc., socialist utopia.

This is clearly simplistic, but that's how I would approach the problem.