Shadow1980 said:
o_O.Q said:
under what political system would you place the authoritarian redistribution of resources in this way? beyond that can you quote for me where she has mentioned another business?
You do know the government has broken up monopolistic businesses before, right? In 1911 Standard Oil was split up into multiple smaller companies, which went on to become oil companies familiar to us today like Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, and Amoco. Then in 1982 AT&T (the original version of the company) was required to divest itself of the Bell System, which was broken up into seven regional "Baby Bells." In both instances the breakup of a major corporation resulted in the creation of multiple smaller corporations, capitalistic entities all. The proposed breakup of certain tech giants today would be no different. It wasn't socialism then, and it wouldn't somehow be socialism today. So, you ask "under what political system would you place the authoritarian redistribution of resources in this way?", and I answer: "The same one we've always had, the same one that existed under Taft and Reagan." There is nothing inherently socialistic about anti-trust policies. And all governments redistribute wealth and property through their policies. Even the most simple changes in the tax code will necessarily redistribute some wealth. Supply-side tax cuts redistribute wealth upward by concentrating it into the hands of those who are already wealthy, but nobody considers that to be "socialism" even though it is redistributive. Redistribution is not socialism.
which is a completely irrelevant red herring
How so? All other advanced nations have a universal public health insurance system. All other nations have not forcibly nationalized all health insurance providers, and private for-profit insurance companies still exist in those nations. A single-payer system does not inherently involve the nationalization of private businesses. What makes you believe the situation will be any different in the U.S., assuming we ever do move to a truly universal single-payer system? Do you think Medicare and Medicaid are socialist?
When all of the private options are consolidated into a centrally controlled system then yes, yes it does
So public roads, police, emergency services, military defense, and other government services are socialism? Are you sure you're not one of those "Socialism is anything the government does" types?
I'm curious btw if you're going to jump as far as claiming its only socialism when there is no state
No. If the state nationalizes the means of production, I consider that a form of socialism. And no mainstream U.S. politician has advocated nationalizing any extant private for-profit business. I've seen them advocate for better regulation (of pollution, etc.), more progressive taxation, and expansion/improvement of services already provided by the government that may or may no compete with similar services offered by the private sector, but that's not socialism because there's no transfer of ownership of a private entity to the public.
but is gaining traction which was my point
No more traction than it had a century ago, which even then wasn't much. It's not a mainstream thing.
the nazis controlled all of the businesses in germany, they decided how they would operate and only allowed businesses inline with their agenda to survive, that can hardly be considered a mixed economy and especially not a capitalist economy as many dishonest people have claimed
What does privatization of state enterprises say about their economy? What do the continued existence of large corporations like Thyssen, Krupp, IG Farben, Daimler-Benz, Junkers, Messerschmitt, Siemens, and Volkswagen say about their economy? How is the active promotion of private for-profit business not capitalism? Does it cease to be capitalism when the state says corporations have to toe the party line, even if those corporations do so willingly and happily because it helps their bottom lines? No, it does not.
what does this say about their policies? I thought we were talking about policy?'
Hitler hated socialism and viewed it as a Jewish plot, and that informed his policies. But I guess since he was a statist he actually didn't really hate socialism, right? All statists are socialists by definition, and only libertarians are true "anti-socialists," huh? That whole "socialism is whatever the government does" bit really does seem to be your general attitude.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/05/workplace-democracy-policy-bernie-sanders
"Bernie Sanders’s embrace of worker ownership and control aims to extend democracy from the political sphere to the economy."
"As revealed Tuesday by the Washington Post, the Sanders presidential campaign is currently working on two proposals designed to win American workers a greater share of profits and give them a bigger say in company decisions.
While details are forthcoming, the first will involve requiring large businesses to put a portion of their stock into employee-controlled funds, which would in turn pay out dividends to workers — potentially turning them into owners."
what do you think the ultimate goal of the proposals made here is?
Giving the employees of big businesses some say in what goes on in said businesses in this era we live in where employees are mostly "wage-slaves" existing in an the authoritarian power structure that is the modern corporation and have lost almost all means of unionizing thanks to Orwellian-named "right to work" laws gutting the power of labor. The employees as a group being a shareholder doesn't necessarily fundamentally alter the nature of that business, that being a private for-profit corporation selling its goods and services in an open market and selling stock to current and potential investors. I suppose you're concerned that these measures are an incrementalist thing that will ultimately result in forced conversion of those businesses into worker co-ops, but that's not what's actually being pushed for.
I understand your desire to caricature my argument in this way, but I've clarified how you are wrong
Sure doesn't seem like that. You've pointed to any government intervention in the economy or government-provided service and have insinuated it was somehow socialistic. How else am I suppose to interpret that except as "socialism is everything the government does."
which is what democrats are calling for in some areas as I've clarified
I don't think you understand what "public ownership" means. If the federal government one day passed a law nationalizing, say, auto manufacturing or the oil industry, that would be socialism. If they passed a law forcing Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, etc., to become credit unions, that would be socialism. And that's not what the Democrats are pushing for. The Democrats by and large are moderates and capitalists, though you occasionally get a social democrat like AOC (Sanders is running as a Democrat for president, but he is not a member of the party). Even if they don't necessarily believe in the nominally laissez faire "vulture capitalism" the GOP ascribes to, the Democratic mainstream are not intent on fundamentally restructuring our economy, especially not along socialistic lines. Democrats get their re-election campaigns financed by big private for-profit capitalist entities. That comes with a certain tacit quid pro quo. They aren't going to challenge that relationship. They want to moderate capitalism and tone down its excesses. They don't want us to start resembling
who exactly are you arguing with? are you doing the thing where someone makes a point you disagree with and so therefore you just lump them in with everyone you disagree with and assume they are saying the exact same thing?
I think you even at one point suggested I'm right wing lol
Are you just unfamiliar with right-wing talking points? Do you not know anyone that spends all day listening to conservative talk radio and/or Fox News? Right-wing propagandists have spent decades lumping everybody that disagrees with them together and calling them "socialists," "Marxists," and "communists," and now there's the whole "argumentum ad Venezuela" strawman that's making the rounds. It's farcical to the extreme and lacks any factual basis, but this red-baiting works to agitate the base, and (to get back to the main topic of the thread) that's one reason why Trump supporters are so fervent in their love of the man. They've been fed this stead line of garbage that the Democrats are (among other things) Stalin incarnate, and they believe Trump is the ultimate embodiment of everything the Democrats hate, which makes him awesome in their book. I hear this red-baiting garbage all the time and I'm honestly sick of it. I don't know what you believe, but it's clear that you've at least picked up on some right-wing talking points through simple cultural osmosis if you think the Democrats are in any way socialist.
why do people say that?
Because they're either right-wing propagandists or people who spend all day listening to right-wing propaganda. Again, do you not know anyone who spends all day listening to right-wing radio talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage? CNN doesn't kiss Trump's ass and, more broadly, they don't kiss the GOP's ass and mindlessly spew right-wing talking points and condemn the Democrats every chance they get, so they're the enemy, and the enemy must be tarred with whatever slurs are deemed appropriate, up to an including insinuating that they're communists.
|
|
""under what political system would you place the authoritarian redistribution of resources in this way?", and I answer: "The same one we've always had, the same one that existed under Taft and Reagan.""
so for you policies can only be socialist when all means of production are publicly owned and the state is abolished?
"Redistribution is not socialism."
what is the goal of socialism?
"All other nations have not forcibly nationalized all health insurance providers, and private for-profit insurance companies still exist in those nations."
"If the state nationalizes the means of production, I consider that a form of socialism. And no mainstream U.S. politician has advocated nationalizing any extant private for-profit business."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-insurance-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders.html
"At the heart of the “Medicare for all” proposals championed by Senator Bernie Sanders and many Democrats is a revolutionary idea: Abolish private health insurance."
"No more traction than it had a century ago"
they were calling for the abolition of private charter schools a century ago?
"What does privatization of state enterprises say about their economy?"
"Does it cease to be capitalism when the state says corporations have to toe the party line, even if those corporations do so willingly and happily because it helps their bottom lines?"
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
"On one hand, the intense growth of governmental regulations on markets, which heavily
restricted economic freedom, suggests that the rights inherent to private property were destroyed."(the ultimate goal of socialism, anyone who understands what socialism is understands this)
" “the State in fact divested itself of a great deal of its previous direct participation in
industry….But at the same time state control, regulation and interference in the conduct of the
economy affairs was enormously extended.”"
"Consistent with Sweezy’s approach, Merlin (1943, p. 207) states that the Nazi Party was
looking not only for business support, but also for increased control over the economy."
"Hitler hated socialism and viewed it as a Jewish plot, and that informed his policies"
he had a weird way of showing it when you consider that most of his policies are the same policies socialists are advocating for today
"But I guess since he was a statist he actually didn't really hate socialism, right?"
look socialists as far as i've seen are stupid, they largely don't even understand their own ideology and how it doesn't make sense
they'll argue on the one hand that they want to abolish the state and private property, but then on the other hand they don't know how they'll manage to stop people from acquiring private property without a ridiculously authoritarian government
"That whole "socialism is whatever the government does" bit really does seem to be your general attitude."
ok what is socialism from your perspective? since nothing is ever socialism, nazi germany was not socialist, venezuela was not socialist, cuba, soviet union etc etc etc whenever socialists or communists fuck things up and end up fucking up a whole lot of people its never socialism right?
so what is socialism then? you tell me
"Giving the employees of big businesses some say in what goes on in said businesses in this era we live in where employees are mostly "wage-slaves" existing in an the authoritarian power structure that is the modern corporation and have lost almost all means of unionizing thanks to Orwellian-named "right to work" laws gutting the power of labor."
lol let me guess, you've read marx?
how else would a business work outside of a structure where the owner has authority over how the business is run? oh, by being owned and run by the workers? well that's bernie's argument, wasn't your whole point here that this was't being argued for?
" I suppose you're concerned that these measures are an incrementalist thing that will ultimately result in forced conversion of those businesses into worker co-ops, but that's not what's actually being pushed for."
what is actually being pushed for?
"You've pointed to any government intervention in the economy or government-provided service and have insinuated it was somehow socialistic."
""And a service provided by the government does not socialism make"
When all of the private options are consolidated into a centrally controlled system then yes, yes it does"
"If the federal government one day passed a law nationalizing, say, auto manufacturing or the oil industry, that would be socialism."
but for some reason not if its private health insurance?
"and now there's the whole "argumentum ad Venezuela" strawman that's making the rounds."
"If the federal government one day passed a law nationalizing, say, auto manufacturing or the oil industry, that would be socialism."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-nationalizations/factbox-venezuelas-nationalizations-under-chavez-idUSBRE89701X20121008
"
OIL
* In 2007, Chavez’s government took a majority stake in four oil projects in the vast Orinoco heavy crude belt worth an estimated $30 billion in total.
Exxon Mobil Corp and ConocoPhillips quit the country as a result and filed arbitration claims. Late last year, an arbitration panel ordered Venezuela to pay Exxon $908 million, though a larger case is still ongoing.
France’s Total SA and Norway’s StatoilHydro ASA received about $1 billion in compensation after reducing their holdings. Britain’s BP Plc and America’s Chevron Corp remained as minority partners.
* In 2008, Chavez’s administration implemented a windfall tax of 50 percent for prices over $70 per barrel, and 60 percent on oil over $100. Oil reached $147 that year, but soon slumped.
* In 2009, Chavez seized a major gas injection project belonging to Williams Cos Inc and a range of assets from local service companies. This year, the energy minister said the government would pay $420 million to Williams and one of its U.S. partners, Exterran Holdings, for the takeover.
* In June 2010, the government seized 11 oil rigs from Oklahoma-based Helmerich & Payne Inc."
"Because they're either right-wing propagandists or people who spend all day listening to right-wing propaganda."
what would you consider to be left wing propaganda? or does that not exist?
