SlimFast would pay big bucks for the opportunity to sponsor this board.
The New Socialists
- Thread starter MHBDemon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
SlimFast would pay big bucks for the opportunity to sponsor this board.
Well, their methodology is almost identical to Trump's.
myDeaconmyhand
First man to get a team of horses up Bear Mountain
You all are cute. I'm systematically murdering every blue collar white Trump voter in Elkheart County, Indiana. What the fuck have YOU done for the Resistance? #stillwithher
I think i agree with most of this. I just worry to the extent it’s used to keep politics for some people and not others. Also as I said, it’s not the responsibility of the oppressed to have to perfect plan before demanding justice.
Shooshmoo
Well-known member
I miss the Old Socialists.
No, I don't believe we can empower working class people to provide "solutions," at least not in many cases. I think we should absolutely look to working class people to understand what the problems are, and which problems are the most pressing, which is something we've done a poor job of generally. But to expect working class people to provide the solutions to what can be incredibly complex issues requiring specific expertise strikes me as unrealistic. Policy is hard. If anything, I'd argue that we aren't listening to "smart, educated people" enough (or at all, in the current administration).
The tiltdeac blueprint: None of it can happen until we kick out the cartoon villains that are in office and elect smart people with a shared set of values, so that's step one. And the values are much more important than intelligence, as long as they are willing to listen to experts. We need to worry less about the labels we put on each other or our programs, and worry more about the end result (e.g. no kid should go hungry, period, end). We need to ask different experts to provide specific, actionable policy solutions (not slogans) to those problems. We need to test those solutions as best we can, whether it be modeling, pilot programs, randomized trials, etc. We need to be realistic and transparent about the costs and benefits of those solutions. We need to weigh that evidence and being willing to reject our priors about the best way to tackle that problem if the best available evidence supports another approach. And when we implement our best solution, we need to measure its effectiveness and be willing to admit we fucked up if it's not working. And it's sad to me that the above seems completely unrealistic
This is too close to technocracy for me. That's fine. Seems like an easy agree to disagree. Everybody thought Obama was a genius with this great wealth of knowledge, but he still governed as a centrist to protect capital rather than demand justice.
Louis with the brainiac "i bet you use an iphone, hmmm interesting" take. Great job.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,341
- Reaction score
- 22,347
Because he thought bipartisanship was possible if he was nice enough. No actual liberal is going to make that mistake again.
JuiceCrewAllStar
Whole Milk Drinker
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 37,182
- Reaction score
- 9,922
you're talking about something different than MHB
you're saying he was unable to enact his desired policies because he was failed by the GOP and didn't go bully pulpit hard enough
MHB is saying that his desired policies are not actually progressive
myDeaconmyhand
First man to get a team of horses up Bear Mountain
Both are true. Obama was never really the Hawaii free spirit socialist that he was portrayed as by the GOP and their "Choom Gang" attack ads, Harvard Law isnt exactly q bastion of liberalism, and Obama sadly spent way too much time and political energy trying to win the respect of the GOP, which they were never going to give.
Last edited:
JuiceCrewAllStar
Whole Milk Drinker
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 37,182
- Reaction score
- 9,922
don't disagree, just pointing out that they're arguing different elements of the Obama presidency
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,341
- Reaction score
- 22,347
No. I’m saying what MHB was saying although both are true. Obama compromised from the beginning. He thought that was how to be a uniter.
JuiceCrewAllStar
Whole Milk Drinker
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 37,182
- Reaction score
- 9,922
so you're saying Obama was not progressive, and he further compromised his centrist values rightward in a misguided effort to unite?
Strickland33
Well-known member
No, I don't believe we can empower working class people to provide "solutions," at least not in many cases. I think we should absolutely look to working class people to understand what the problems are, and which problems are the most pressing, which is something we've done a poor job of generally. But to expect working class people to provide the solutions to what can be incredibly complex issues requiring specific expertise strikes me as unrealistic. Policy is hard. If anything, I'd argue that we aren't listening to "smart, educated people" enough (or at all, in the current administration).
The tiltdeac blueprint: None of it can happen until we kick out the cartoon villains that are in office and elect smart people with a shared set of values, so that's step one. And the values are much more important than intelligence, as long as they are willing to listen to experts. We need to worry less about the labels we put on each other or our programs, and worry more about the end result (e.g. no kid should go hungry, period, end). We need to ask different experts to provide specific, actionable policy solutions (not slogans) to those problems. We need to test those solutions as best we can, whether it be modeling, pilot programs, randomized trials, etc. We need to be realistic and transparent about the costs and benefits of those solutions. We need to weigh that evidence and being willing to reject our priors about the best way to tackle that problem if the best available evidence supports another approach. And when we implement our best solution, we need to measure its effectiveness and be willing to admit we fucked up if it's not working. And it's sad to me that the above seems completely unrealistic
I'm on board with this to an extent.
I feel uneasy, though, throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to not believing in the emancipatory potential of the working classes. In the system that we have set up, it's incredibly hard for laypeople - regardless of class position - to navigate "the system." That said, in advocating for a form of state socialism, the idea - at least in my understanding of it - is to create a less vertical and more horizontal ordering of governance at different levels.
Another way of stating the Marxian position (via Gramsci) is that we need "traditional" intellectuals who are probably what we're referring to as bourgeoisie technocrats and academics on this thread, but also organic intellectuals who emerge out of the working classes and can, at least in theory, navigate the interests of the ruling classes with those of the working classes. Our issue as a society seems to me to be the fact that we value certain forms of technocracy and certain types of technocrats. There isn't much social mobility right now if you want to work in policy and politics...
Last edited:
Strick busting out the gramsci! Hell yeah. I sincerely apologize to people I’ve offended. But too many people come here intentionally to troll. It rubs me the wrong way and i have a hard time ignoring it. I hope that most people get that. if not pm me and I’d be glad to engage without the risk of RJ misreading posts.
I hope that most people understand that I care about this deeply. Hopefully i can do a better job ignoring the trolls.
I hope that most people understand that I care about this deeply. Hopefully i can do a better job ignoring the trolls.
Well said, just look at the way some politicians are shamed for being in debt. Being in debt shouldn’t be a disqualification for public service. Also, we should pay politicians for public service to make it possible for people that don’t have wealth to serve.
You want me to leave you alone but you can't even go one post without bringing me up.
I may be a lot of things, but a troll isn't one of them.
I've shown that I agree with you on healthcare. I agree with you on minimum wage. I agree with having major prison reform. I agree that we need more education and training. None of this is enough for you. But because I don't lick your ass and genuflect you continually challenge and insult me.
I may be a lot of things, but a troll isn't one of them.
I've shown that I agree with you on healthcare. I agree with you on minimum wage. I agree with having major prison reform. I agree that we need more education and training. None of this is enough for you. But because I don't lick your ass and genuflect you continually challenge and insult me.
No, I don't believe we can empower working class people to provide "solutions," at least not in many cases. I think we should absolutely look to working class people to understand what the problems are, and which problems are the most pressing, which is something we've done a poor job of generally. But to expect working class people to provide the solutions to what can be incredibly complex issues requiring specific expertise strikes me as unrealistic. Policy is hard. If anything, I'd argue that we aren't listening to "smart, educated people" enough (or at all, in the current administration).
The tiltdeac blueprint: None of it can happen until we kick out the cartoon villains that are in office and elect smart people with a shared set of values, so that's step one. And the values are much more important than intelligence, as long as they are willing to listen to experts. We need to worry less about the labels we put on each other or our programs, and worry more about the end result (e.g. no kid should go hungry, period, end). We need to ask different experts to provide specific, actionable policy solutions (not slogans) to those problems. We need to test those solutions as best we can, whether it be modeling, pilot programs, randomized trials, etc. We need to be realistic and transparent about the costs and benefits of those solutions. We need to weigh that evidence and being willing to reject our priors about the best way to tackle that problem if the best available evidence supports another approach. And when we implement our best solution, we need to measure its effectiveness and be willing to admit we fucked up if it's not working. And it's sad to me that the above seems completely unrealistic
Great post. This is how grown ups think and solve problems Plus its "fuck you asshole" -free. Well done Tilt.
Before the socialist uprising here, I used to think libertarians were the most annoying idealogical pure condescending assholes around. Now, Im not so sure. So much hubris here.
You’re not a troll but your incapable of reading an argument and coherently providing a response. I think most people here understand that. If you’d like to be taken seriously, stop saying anyone that disagrees with you is just like Trump. I’ve told you before that my organizing is nothing like Trump because I’m supporting union rights and organizing against police and prisons. If you want to stick to your argument that I’m just like Trump, then most people will dismiss you as a fool. If you want to keep saying “this is just like Trump” then you have to explain why, and to-date, you haven’t done that. That’s why i tell you to leave me alone.