• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Democratic Party Left Me Behind

ImTheCaptain said:
living in a rundown suburban wasteland is not the same thing as the hills of western PA
Click to expand...
Well, one side of my family lives in farm country in upstate NY, the other side lives in Jackson and Rockcastle County, KY, my sister and her family live in Newport KY, i've personally worked on the Davidson/Forsythe county border, and now on a small farm in Colfax NC.
 
ha, based on your constant whining a lack of knowledge of my opinion seems the least of your concerns
 
Deacon923 said:
3. I find the comment about "low population non-diverse states" interesting, as it points out that white people will support socialist policies only if the beneficiaries are perceived to be other white people. That is a pretty poor argument to make in defense of your preferred social model.
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
#3 is very true and the history of "socialism" in this country reflects it. Poor white people will vote against a social safety net they use if they believe non-whites benefit from it.
Click to expand...

What Ph said, for reference.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
ha, based on your constant whining a lack of knowledge of my opinion seems the least of your concerns
Click to expand...

To date, your peak engagement in opinion sharing has been "lol, it's not socialism because there is a different word in there."
 
no my opinion is that you guys seem to waffle on the definition of your own beliefs while simultaneously fail to provide a comprehensive platform and then get pissy when other impose narrative on you.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
no my opinion is that you guys seem to waffle on the definition of your own beliefs while simultaneously fail to provide a comprehensive platform and then get pissy when other impose narrative on you.
Click to expand...

I struggle to see where you do that in good faith, when I share political views or my understanding of DSA and you label it "constant whining." DSA went from 5,000 members to 50,000 members very quickly. You ask for a comprehensive platform, then at the first mention of political disagreement, make wrong assumptions about our mission.

What is the comprehensive platform for republicans or democrats? What do you still want to know about DSA's platform?
 
im not asking for a bunch of gotcha points. i read the jacobin piece and i assumed that was a fair take but both of you waived parts of it
 
ImTheCaptain said:
im not asking for a bunch of gotcha points. i read the jacobin piece and i assumed that was a fair take but both of you waived parts of it
Click to expand...

As I recall, I asked you what you disagreed with in the Jacobin piece, or what led you to the conclusion that it was not socialism, and you ignored it.
 
ITC seems to struggle with the idea that different people in a political movement have different political beliefs.
 
PhDeac said:
ITC seems to struggle with the idea that different people in a political movement have different political beliefs.
Click to expand...

no i don't struggle with that at all. what is struggle with is a constant "no true scotsman" complaint, which up until like last week was the case for every conversation.

take your 'good faith' bullshit and throw it at the sailors of the world
 
MHBDemon said:
As I recall, I asked you what you disagreed with in the Jacobin piece, or what led you to the conclusion that it was not socialism, and you ignored it.
Click to expand...

that's because i didn't conclude that at all. i literally just said i assumed it was a fair take (because it was published by Jacobin) that i took at face value.

MDMH said it was "one guy's take" that didn't fit

eta: so that's why i asked (and continue to ask) why that was not a good summary of positions.
 
Last edited:
To be clear, that shit libertarian Connor Friedersdork essay was in the Atlantic. I don't think I ever made a specific comment about the Jacobin article - though I am very worried about the production of soy milk and prayer rugs under socialism.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
no i don't struggle with that at all. what is struggle with is a constant "no true scotsman" complaint, which up until like last week was the case for every conversation.

take your 'good faith' bullshit and throw it at the sailors of the world
Click to expand...

My interpretation of events is that I disagreed with Peter Thiel's vision of socialism, one that can be objectively dismissed as not socialism. And your response was:

"interesting - what are the concrete steps to revolutionize the world's largest and most complex economy again?"

You seem to conflate disagreement over how we achieve reforms while working towards socialism with disagreement over political identity.
 
This seems like a fairly reasonable take from somewhat who is likely much more conservative than me.

“Socialism” vs. “capitalism” is a false dichotomy

go-go capitalism is how you pay for safety-net soft socialism. Ocasio-Cortez has so far flailed pretty badly on the “how would you pay for all this stuff?” question. She seems not to grasp that you can’t do so just by reallocating the Navy’s budget (though that would help). In the real world, you finance soft-socialist guarantees with a level of tax revenue and borrowing you can only sustain through capitalist innovation, competition, efficiency, trade, and growth. That’s the lesson of the Nordic social democracies.


The other side of the equation, the part the right often misses, is that insuring folks against bad luck and the downside risks of capitalist disruption is how you maintain political support for “neoliberal” market dynamism — and mute democratic demand for reactionary economic nationalism. (It’s also how you ensure that prosperity is broadly shared.)
Click to expand...


Now, the problem isn’t exactly “markets without rules.” The problem is that markets are defined by an incomprehensible jumble of regulatory kludges — an accumulation of individually reasonable but cumulatively stifling technocratic fixes — that strangle economic freedom for ordinary people, allowing the powerful to capture the economy by writing and selectively enforcing the rules to their advantage.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top