• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
whyamihere said:
"Hmm. It looks like Hillary Clinton is having a bad news cycle. I guess I should lavish praise on Saddam Hussein!" - Donald J. Trump
Click to expand...

Iolo said:
"He enforced the law, Saddam did, bigly. He enforced the law. You could say he was the sheriff of the Middle East."
Click to expand...

The problem with that quote isn't that he lavished praised to Hussein its that he endorced summary executing citizens of the country you're running. "They didn't read them their rights"

Apply that to "criminals" and the problems we have with police in this country.

CmpN5ZFW8AEYemM.jpg
 
U

User 463088

Banned
I would love to be inside the mind of some of the Trump supporters there:

He said he's going to give "the Blacks" and "the Hispanics" jobs. Do I cheer or do I boo!? DO I CHEER OR DO I BOO!?
 
E

Emarv

Member
How long until the OT thread on the Hussein comments? I'm pre-gaming now to be ready for all of the "Hill is just as bad" comments.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
David Duke was very excited by Trump's Nazi tweet.

“We have situation right now where Trump is being absolutely pummeled for, guess what, posting a tweeting that shows Hillary Clinton with a big — in the midst of thousands of hundred-dollar bills — a big Star of David, and the words ‘the most corrupt candidate ever,’” Duke said. “And Trump tweeted this: ‘Hillary Clinton the most corrupt candidate ever.’ Now of course, the media immediately came out and said that this was ‘anti-Semitic.’ But of course, it’s all true. We’re not talking about something that’s not true.”

Duke said all the “Jewish extremists” were supporting Clinton.

“So everything in the tweet that Donald Trump retweeted, that his campaign retweeted was absolutely correct,” concluded Duke. “Absolutely right.”

He said it was important everyone vote for Trump, because even though he wasn’t “strong enough on these issues,” he was the only thing they had against Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkacz...-sheriffs-star?utm_term=.pmQX8zqxD#.qqkDzPa14
 
B

Boke1879

Member
East Lake said:
He has said the same stuff about Saddam for months, why is it a big deal now?
Click to expand...

Because he's an idiot. All he had to do today was blast Clinton. Just mention the emails, and what the FBI said. And then talk about jobs or some shit. That's all he had to do.

Instead, he goes off on these tangents and he doesn't have a coherent thought. Then he goes on to praise Saddam.

Slayven is right. that's whats trending on twitter right now. Higher than anything else regarding politics. Like he just lost the news cycle on that. No one is going to give two shits about this Clinton stuff that didn't already and he just saw to that.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
@oliverdarcy
Paul Ryan to Megyn Kelly: DNI should "block" Hillary Clinton's access to classified information as a candidate.

but give it to trump I guess
 
S

sphagnum

Banned
NYCmetsfan said:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/07/...corbyn-racism-xenophobia-greece-austerity-eu/


reading stuff like this shows IMO the leftists don't care about the poor, they care about "their poor" (which aren't that poor and instead are well-off but have missed the major gains of the last 20 years) and revenge on the elite. They'd let the third world burn if it ment the global 5% could screw over the global .01%
Click to expand...

You're making quite a large judgment about leftists (as if there is ever, or has ever been, leftist unity or some monolithic "Left") because one guy had an editorial in support of Brexit, when Jacobin has also run multiple pieces against Brexit.

Kristoffer said:
Sphagnumi and memeballs, I am happy we have a resident socialist to supply us with this commentary on the regular.
Click to expand...

I aim to please.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
sphagnum said:
You're making quite a large judgment about leftists (as if there is ever, or has ever been, leftist unity or some monolithic "Left") because one guy had an editorial in support of Brexit, when Jacobin has also run multiple pieces against Brexit.



I aim to please.
Click to expand...

I mean the Jacobin-intercept-twitter left

Though by and large I stand by the statement most of the left in the Western world is concerned with preserving and organizing the global Petite bourgeoisie at he expense of the real proletariat who they are happy to throw under the bus at least when it comes to trade and economics.
 
E

East Lake

Member
NYCmetsfan said:
I mean the Jacobin-intercept-twitter left

Though by and large I stand by the statement most of the left in the Western world is concerned with preserving and organizing the global Petite bourgeoisie at he expense of the real proletariat who they are happy to throw under the bus at least when it comes to trade and economics.
Click to expand...
Who is the "real proletariat"?
 
I

Iolo

Member
NYCmetsfan said:
The problem with that quote isn't that he lavished praised to Hussein its that he endorced summary executing citizens of the country you're running. "They didn't read them their rights"

Apply that to "criminals" and the problems we have with police in this country.

CmpN5ZFW8AEYemM.jpg
Click to expand...

No one got the sheriff thing.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
"My ancestors were murdered by IBM computers in the Holocaust and that's why innovation is bad." -Twitter account posted in this thread.

... Wow, that escalated so fast.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Seriously, of all the things to say when trying to move past the Star of David controversy, praising Saddam Hussein has to be one of the stupidest.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Iolo said:
Seriously, of all the things to say when trying to move past the Star of David controversy, praising Saddam Hussein has to be one of the stupidest.
Click to expand...

LISTEN, when Saddam funded terrorists to murder Jews, he was acting like a SHERIFF in his mind. It's a sheriff star of David!
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
ApharmdX said:
tumblr_lq5o2fjUgB1qz82gvo1_1280.jpg


That's what I'm getting from this.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm not saying they're should be a focus on fixing their problems, but that the left projects those problems as larger and more important than the proletariat which they proclaim to be fighting for.

Karl Marx, and other Marxist theorists used the term petite bourgeoisie to identify the socio-economic stratum of the bourgeoisie that comprised small-scale capitalists such as shop-keepers and workers who manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers
Click to expand...

The petite bourgeoisie is economically distinct from the proletariat and the lumpenproletariat social-class strata who rely entirely on the sale of their labor-power for survival; and also are distinct from the capitalist class haute bourgeoisie (high bourgeoisie) who own the means of production, and thus can buy the labor-power of the proletariat and lumpenproletariat to work the means of production. Though the petite bourgeoisie can buy the labor of others, they typically work alongside their employees, unlike the haute bourgeoisie.
Click to expand...

I'm saying global economics helps the "real" working class who produce many and increasingly most good. But western-leftists will turn to protectionism and fights between middle and upper management as more of their concern, all while proclaiming to be internationalists

I'm trying to say the left (international socialism) is broken and intellectually all over the place and doesn't represent anything approaching a coherent alternative to welfare capitalism as a means of actually improving living conditions. They're all over the place (Nationalism is good! Nationalism is bad! The global poor are important when it comes to foreign policy and war but not when it comes to trade) and attempt to place things retroactively into increasingly incoherent and internally inconsistent schema
 
P

pigeon

Banned
ApharmdX said:
tumblr_lq5o2fjUgB1qz82gvo1_1280.jpg


That's what I'm getting from this.
Click to expand...

Do you consider this a useful post?

It's absolutely true to observe that America has a relatively high standard of living even for the poorest people. A country in which it is impossible to starve to death as long as you're willing to eat from the trash is a country that has eliminated the greatest issue of humanity.

Now, obviously making people eat trash to live is terrible and unjust, but in much the same way, a colonial state is colonial even if it's eliminated poverty.
 
E

East Lake

Member
NYCmetsfan said:
global poor who produce most raw goods and increasingly manufactured goods and have no capital assets besides their labor.

Not the US where people own homes, have 401ks, welfare, etc
Click to expand...
I thought rights were more important than jobs? It seems like we basically have the inverse view here that you have overseas. If you're poor in america, jobs oriented politicians don't cut it, but if you're poor overseas then it's the best thing ever even if you live under a dictatorship.
 
V

Valhelm

contribute something
NYCmetsfan said:
global poor who produce most raw goods and increasingly manufactured goods and have no capital assets besides their labor.

Not the US where people own homes, have 401ks, welfare, etc
Click to expand...

Lmao, are you really trying to use Maoist third worldist arguments to justify liberalism?

Poor workers in the developed world are better-off than poor workers in the developing world because the mechanics of capital look to more vulnerable economies for manual labor. Many American corporations implicitly support illegal immigration for the same reason -- they're provided with a labor pool who cannot bargain for better conditions and will make do with scraps.

Even if the working class in wealthier countries aren't actually starving, material inequality puts them at the mercy of employers and bourgeois politicians. This inequality is quite literally killing the proletariat, and prevents their concerns from being adequately addressed in the political sphere.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
minor effort said:
While overall this isn't a great news cycle for Hillary Clinton, I remain confident that any minute now the Trump campaign will make some massively stupid unforced error that will steal the news cycle away from the FBI director's harsh words.
Click to expand...

Any other election this would have been prophetic, now it's just "duh"
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
minor effort said:
While overall this isn't a great news cycle for Hillary Clinton, I remain confident that any minute now the Trump campaign will make some massively stupid unforced error that will steal the news cycle away from the FBI director's harsh words.
Click to expand...

Man it took him like what...six hours to praise Hussein?
 
S

StopMakingSense

Member
sphagnum said:
You're making quite a large judgment about leftists (as if there is ever, or has ever been, leftist unity or some monolithic "Left") because one guy had an editorial in support of Brexit, when Jacobin has also run multiple pieces against Brexit.
Click to expand...

It's weird, but "leftist" != "the left"
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Valhelm said:
Lmao, are you really trying to use Maoist third worldist arguments to justify liberalism?

Poor workers in the developed world are better-off than poor workers in the developing world because the mechanics of capital look to more vulnerable economies for manual labor. Many American corporations implicitly support illegal immigration for the same reason -- they're provided with a labor pool who cannot bargain for better conditions and will make do with scraps.

Even if the working class in wealthier countries aren't actually starving, material inequality puts them at the mercy of employers and bourgeois politicians. This inequality is quite literally killing the proletariat, and prevents their concerns from being adequately addressed in the political sphere.
Click to expand...

Maoist third worldist? This is the basical liberal argument, not socialist or Maoist

And you're not really addressing my point. I've not said they don't have concerns. I'm saying the socialists are inconstant by actively, in their professed policy and political goals, choosing better off people at the expense of the worst off because they tend to relate more. In many cases they actually castigate and threaten these poor workers (as in low-income).

Sanders said:
If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries,
Click to expand...

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11139718/bernie-sanders-trade-global-poverty
 
S

sphagnum

Banned
NYCmetsfan said:
I mean the Jacobin-intercept-twitter left

Though by and large I stand by the statement most of the left in the Western world is concerned with preserving and organizing the global Petite bourgeoisie at he expense of the real proletariat who they are happy to throw under the bus at least when it comes to trade and economics.
Click to expand...

Who knew you were a Maoist-Third Worldist!

I understand what you mean and it's something that has been debated a long time in the first world's left (because what else do we do but debate things since the 70s?). The problem is that socialist movements have always historically arisen in areas on the global periphery because the first world's workers essentially have radicalism chopped off at the knees by government programs and unions, which get them a relatively comfortable life, which most people are fine with stopping at instead of pushing for total power as the end goal. But these movements have constantly failed since they tried to leapfrog capitalism into socialism, which probably can't really be pulled off. It was a worthwhile attempt on the part of the oppressed, exploited, colonized, and so forth but doesn't really accord with Marxist logic, since socialism comes out of capitalism. That's one of the main reasons why socialist movements kept ending up turning into brutally deformed workers' states. So from that perspective - the idea that socialism has to come out of an advanced capitalist system first - I think that's part of the reason why there's a lot of focus on first world workers.

I think there's also still too much of an attachment to the old communist movements. Socialists are supposed to be critical and self-critical, but too often that turns into apologism instead of rational inquiry. I think it's undeniable that globalization has caused a great reduction in poverty across the world; I also think, however, that it is undeniable that there are massive infringements on labor rights in countries that are rapidly industrializing; and as a socialist I also obviously believe that capitalism is exploitative of workers (although obviously capitalists will disagree), and I would prefer to see a globalization that doesn't benefit the proletariat secondarily but primarily by giving them control over the means of production. I think the fact that world revolution seems further away than it's ever been has caused some Internet Communists to flip their mindsets to defending anything that could be leftist, including bourgeois and petite bourgeois social democratic policies from the pre-neoliberal age. I mean, Bernie Sanders is not a socialist, much less a communist, but he was latched on to because what the hell else is there right now.

So yeah, they're not perfect, and we've got work to do building a new socialism. But thankfully there's always a diversity of opinions on the far left.

edit: Ha, I hadn't even seen that Maoism-Third Worldism already got mentioned by the time I finished typing this.
 
T

TheFatOne

Member
I made it to the part in Trumps speech where he talked about Sanders, and had to call it quits. Now I remember why I stopped watching Trump speeches. Guy says nothing thrown in with some crazy shit, and everyone just applauds.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
sphagnum said:
Who knew you were a Maoist-Third Worldist!

I understand what you mean and it's something that has been debated a long time in the first world's left (because what else do we do but debate things since the 70s?). The problem is that socialist movements have always historically arisen in areas on the global periphery because the first world's workers essentially have radicalism chopped off at the knees by government programs and unions, which get them a relatively comfortable life, which most people are fine with stopping at instead of pushing for total power as the end goal. But these movements have constantly failed since they tried to leapfrog capitalism into socialism, which probably can't really be pulled off. It was a worthwhile attempt on the part of the oppressed, exploited, colonized, and so forth but doesn't really accord with Marxist logic, since socialism comes out of capitalism. That's one of the main reasons why socialist movements kept ending up turning into brutally deformed workers' states. So from that perspective - the idea that socialism has to come out of an advanced capitalist system first - I think that's part of the reason why there's a lot of focus on first world workers.

I think there's also still too much of an attachment to the old communist movements. Socialists are supposed to be critical and self-critical, but too often that turns into apologism instead of rational inquiry. I think it's undeniable that globalization has caused a great reduction in poverty across the world; I also think, however, that it is undeniable that there are massive infringements on labor rights in countries that are rapidly industrializing; and as a socialist I also obviously believe that capitalism is exploitative of workers (although obviously capitalists will disagree), and I would prefer to see a globalization that doesn't benefit the proletariat secondarily but primarily by giving them control over the means of production. I think the fact that world revolution seems further away than it's ever been has caused some Internet Communists to flip their mindsets to defending anything that could be leftist, including bourgeois and petite bourgeois social democratic policies from the pre-neoliberal age. I mean, Bernie Sanders is not a socialist, much less a communist, but he was latched on to because what the hell else is there right now.

So yeah, they're not perfect, and we've got work to do building a new socialism. But thankfully there's always a diversity of opinions on the far left.

edit: Ha, I hadn't even seen that Maoism-Third Worldism already got mentioned by the time I finished typing this.
Click to expand...

I just looked that up. I don't agree those workers aren't "proletariat" but I think their material station does matter. I'm more just saying the people that profess socialism are internally inconsistent.

I'm a capitalist and probably like the German model the best IMO
Social market economy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2 3
106
9K
Mr Hyde replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
3K
Holammer replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
53K
Topher replied
Xbox 360 'First Party' dev/pub output DID NOT drop in 2nd half after Kinect, but barely changed. People are likely mixing up TP exclusives with FP.
2 3
148
8K
feynoob replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
61K
DGrayson replied
Top Bottom