OT: Richard Sherman arrested and denied bail!

[remydat]

If Dems control the cities then what say does the GOP have in enacting any policies to help those cities? You blame poverty and mass incarceration but who is responsible for the policies that created those problems? The guy sitting in the white house right now is the author of the Crime Bill that caused millions of black people to be locked up in prison for drug crimes,. He has a (D) next to his name, not an (R).

The fairest thing would be to say these problems were created over decades by bad policies passed on Capitol Hill by both liberal and conservative politicians. The fear of crime caused the federal government to over-reach, as they always do, and enact authoritarian policies that infringed on the citizens' civil liberties. Now we're seeing the consequences of what bad policies passed with good intentions can do. The government today is once again using the fear of crime to enact authoritarian measures to expand their power, infringe on civil liberties, and create the illusion of public order. This time they're using the spectre of January 6 to do it. But in the past it was the L.A. riots and inner city crime that was the justification. The worst thing anyone can hear is "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

You seem confused. Biden cant pass a bill alone. The 94 crime bill passed in the House via voice vote meaning support was so bipartisan a formal vote was not required. It passed in the Seante 95-4. So Dems and Reps own it which is precisely the point. Further crime existed before that bill as the bill was a response to pre-existing crime. So what Republicans can do is pass better laws.

Republicans are changing voting rules based on fake news about a stolen election. I think the Dem complaints about this are exaggerated but the point is both sides use such tactics to try and push their agenda.

 

[Zion]

No, it doesn't, at all. I've already told you what socialism means. The countries I mentioned are not socialist economies, they are market economies. They are examples of how it's quite possible to have a prosperous market economy built on private enterprise AND things like universal healthcare and living wages.

This is not socialism under any definition. You're describing social democracy

 

[remydat]

Don't do the "real communism has never been tried" meme with a straight face, please. It's been attempted over and over and over again, and each time the socialist countries that strived toward communism devolved into repressive authoritarian states where the people's blood filled the streets. How many fail attempts do you need to see before we all realize that this is a bad experiment

This hasnt refuted any of my actual points.

1. Did Marx not argue capitalism was required for communism?

2. Was Russia or China capitalist when they tried communism?

I am not pro one or the other. I am making objective statements based on facts. If you disagree then dispute the above facts.

 

[bearmick]

This is not socialism under any definition. You're describing social democracy

Right. That's exactly what I'm saying. So why do you keep talking about socialism and communism when the policies we are advocating are merely those of a normal social democracy?

 

[remydat]

I listed plans that I think would reduce violent crime. As you and I have both said, many of the root causes of violence range from economic structures, draconian incarceration, crony relationships between local government officials and unions, high tax rates, and a crumbling public education system.

You may disagree with many of those proposals. I may disagree with many of yours. My point is that in a lot of those cities, with exceptions of course, one party controls all local politics. And have for decades. And perhaps, it is those policies that contribute to the situation, just like they would contribute to a bad situation in places controlled by Republicans.

Again, reasonable people can disagree on the best answers. But if there was an area with some serious detrimental issues controlled by entrenched Republicans, I would never say that Democrats don’t have ideas, or a platform, to deal with them. I would say that they just haven’t had a chance to implement them because they have no power in that local political structure.

But they have had a chance is the point. The Republicans could have pushed for criminal justice reform at any point before Tim Scott came around. You are giving them a pass for not doing anything legislatively to address an issue ie black on black crime they keep crying about.

Local government is only one element of the equation. Why have they done jack shit at the State and Federal level on this? Please note the hyperbole.

 

[Zion]

You seem confused. Biden cant pass a bill alone. The 94 crime bill passed in the House via voice vote meaning support was so bipartisan a formal vote was not required. It passed in the Seante 95-4. So Dems and Reps own it which is precisely the point. Further crime existed before that bill as the bill was a response to pre-existing crime. So what Republicans can do is pass better laws.

Republicans are changing voting rules based on fake news about a stolen election. I think the Dem complaints about this are exaggerated but the point is both sides use such tactics to try and push their agenda.

Yes, exactly. More people need to realize that the problems we see now have been caused by decades of bad policies passed by the Democrat-Republican establishment. The establishment is concerned with control and power, and expanding their control and power. They use different justifications to do it; the Watts Riots in the 60s and L.A riots in the 90s led to authoritarian laws such as the one Joe Biden authored, the 9/11 attacks led to more expansion of authoritarian control, and now they're using the January 6 events as another excuse to further expand their control. More people need to be red-pilled about what's really going on, and stop viewing events piecemeal through a partisan lens.

 

[bearsfan1977]

But they have had a chance is the point. The Republicans could have pushed for criminal justice reform at any point before Tim Scott came around. You are giving them a pass for not doing anything legislatively to address an issue ie black on black crime they keep crying about.

Local government is only one element of the equation. Why have they done jack shit at the State and Federal level on this? Please note the hyperbole.

I’ve stated several times that I disagree with many of their stances. I like Tim Scott, and applaud his efforts in that area.

The recent reforms I have heard are: defund the police. Of course, there is virtual silence year after year on the thousands of people murdered by those who are not cops.

Wasn’t Biden one of the architects of the 94 crime bill that exasperated many of the problems you and I are talking about? What are your solutions to that violence? I’m hearing talk about cop-related shootings, but not a lot of substance on the tens of thousands of others.

 

[Zion]

Right. That's exactly what I'm saying. So why do you keep talking about socialism and communism when the policies we are advocating are merely those of a normal social democracy?

Who's we though? We have bona fide socialists and social democrats in government. Bernie Sanders has described himself as a socialist for most of his career, right up until 2016 when he realized he has to appeal more to the mainstream. He's a fan of Marx and a fan of socialism as it existed in countries like the Soviet Union and Cuba. He is a genuine socialist, but he's a socialist who realizes he has to scale back his ideology to remain palatable to the masses.

If you go on the Democratic-Socialists of America website, you'll see that they are open about their desire to oppose and replace capitalism. Even though some social-democrats are also members of the DSA, the DSA in general advocates for socialism as an alternative to capitalism. They don't seek to coexist with a capitalist system, and any extent to which they say they do, is just gaslighting. If all they wanted to do was just to expand the welfare state, they would be liberals not call themselves socialists. Liberals have been advocating for the expansion of the welfare state forever. If thats all democratic-socialists wanted then why don't they just say they're liberals? Because they are fundamentally opposed to the liberal order, they view liberals as lapdogs of the capitalists. They aren't interested in just spending a little bit more on some welfare programs, this is just their way to get their foot in the door.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

Yes, exactly. More people need to realize that the problems we see now have been caused by decades of bad policies passed by the Democrat-Republican establishment. The establishment is concerned with control and power, and expanding their control and power. They use different justifications to do it; the Watts Riots in the 60s and L.A riots in the 90s led to authoritarian laws such as the one Joe Biden authored, the 9/11 attacks led to more expansion of authoritarian control, and now they're using the January 6 events as another excuse to further expand their control. More people need to be red-pilled about what's really going on, and stop viewing events piecemeal through a partisan lens.

It should come down to common sense. Everyone seems so worried about "their party" being right and the other being wrong that they stopped using it. Stop watching the news. Treat everyone equally. Be a good person. It really should be that simple.
I see things on both sides that i agree with. For example i own lots of firearms including AR15"s or "lol assault rifles" but i have never aimed one at anyone. I support a womans right to choose what to do with her body. I support most police. I support good hearted people regardless of race. Maybe its just the fact that i live in Idaho. But i literally dont see skin color. I see good and bad which has nothing to do with race.

 

[remydat]

I don't know what people think democratic-socialism means, but it simply means socialism that you vote for, as opposed to socialism that comes to power via a revolution. It is a subset of socialism, i.e., they oppose capitalism and want to create a society where private enterprise is forbidden and the means of production are owned collectively, typically through a centralized government.

What people refer to as democratic-socialism in places like Scandinavia or France is what is known as social-democracy, it is not socialism. It's a way to make some socialistic policies palatable with a capitalistic/free market system of economics. Real socialists would never try to do this, real socialism is inherently opposed to any form of capitalism.

So democratic-socialism, as the term is used in America, is a misnomer. They are really social-democrats, not democratic-
socialists.

These distinctions and more are discussed in the the video posted below

This is simply incorrect. Real socialists would try to use capitalism to pave the way for communism because that was precisely the point Marx was making. Capitalism creates the very instruments of its demise.

Yes, exactly. More people need to realize that the problems we see now have been caused by decades of bad policies passed by the Democrat-Republican establishment. The establishment is concerned with control and power, and expanding their control and power. They use different justifications to do it; the Watts Riots in the 60s and L.A riots in the 90s led to authoritarian laws such as the one Joe Biden authored, the 9/11 attacks led to more expansion of authoritarian control, and now they're using the January 6 events as another excuse to further expand their control. More people need to be red-pilled about what's really going on, and stop viewing events piecemeal through a partisan lens.

Dems are using January 6. Republicans are using the stolen election fraud. My main point here is both sides are responsible.

 

[Zion]

This is simply incorrect. Real socialists would try to use capitalism to pave the way for communism because that was precisely the point Marx was making. Capitalism creates the very instruments of its demise.


Dems are using January 6. Republicans are using the stolen election fraud. My main point here is both sides are responsible.

Where in Marx's writings do you see him say that a society can go from capitalism to communism? Marx wrote that capitalism leads to socialism which leads to communism. There have been plenty of socialist states in history who called themselves communist, and operated under communist ideology, but they never got past the socialist stage and they all devolved into repressive authoritarian states.

 

[remydat]

I’ve stated several times that I disagree with many of their stances. I like Tim Scott, and applaud his efforts in that area.

The recent reforms I have heard are: defund the police. Of course, there is virtual silence year after year on the thousands of people murdered by those who are not cops.

Wasn’t Biden one of the architects of the 94 crime bill that exasperated many of the problems you and I are talking about? What are your solutions to that violence? I’m hearing talk about cop-related shootings, but not a lot of substance on the tens of thousands of others.

My argument isnt that Dems are better. My argument is Republicans are also responsible. They arent serious about addressing the issue. They simply want to use it as political tool anytime police violence comes up.

Fixing the issue is complex but police reform is one of the solutions because crime prospers when there is a distrust between police and the community.

In no particular order.

1. Criminal Justice reform.

2. Improvement in the economic prospects of those living in poverty.

3. A social safety net that is better aligned to the people that need it.

4. Promotion of nuclear families.

5. A police force that is engaged with the community and subject to the same laws and accountability as the people they serve and protect.

6. Promotion of greater personal responaibility and education on how to overcome adversity.

7. Focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment when it comes to non-violent crimes.

You will note some of these are liberal ideas and some are conservative. The only real comprehensive solution involves both sides best ideas being deployed.

 

[remydat]

Where in Marx's writings do you see him say that a society can go from capitalism to communism? Marx wrote that capitalism leads to socialism which leads to communism. There have been plenty of socialist states in history who called themselves communist, and operated under communist ideology, but they never got past the socialist stage and they all devolved into repressive authoritarian states.

Was Russia or China capitalist before moving to Socialism?

Post-scarcity - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Read the section on Marxism and let me know objectively and honestly if Russia or China or any other communist society had a society prior to the adoption of socialism consistent with what is stated? Instead if Fedualism-Capitalism-Socialism-Communism. It went Fedualism-Communism.

Hence why after the Russian revolution Marx tried to rationalize it by saying it could succeed if the Russian Revolution triggered Socialism in other more developed countries. When that failed Bukarin came up with the idea of Socialism in One Country. The point being that a worldwide revolution was the original conception of the advent of Socialism and later Communism.

If communism were to succeed and not saying it ever will, we still need a few hundred years of technological and social development to create those conditions in multiple countries. Marx IMO overestimated how far along capitalism was and as a result overestimated humans ability to execute it. He confused really the birth pangs of capitalism as its death throes. And we are no where near the level of automation required to make ir work.

 

[HeHateMe]

How much do you really know about the policies and politics of these countries? Because they've scaled back on their socialistic policies in the past few decades, if anything. They are 'socialist' only in the sense that they have a large welfare state, which we also have. They don't outlaw private enterprise and their corporate tax rates are actually lower than what our current government wants them set at. Even these 'democratic socialist' countries recognize the importance of attracting private enterprise.

And yes these places are less free than America; their speech is highly restricted, their right to self-defense is highly restricted. These are base unalienable rights that these people don't have that we do have, at least for now. Even though these rights have steadily been eroded by our own increasingly authoritarian government.

I am going to disagree that they only offer welfare state "socialist" policies, unless you consider healthcare and education to be welfare.

 

[bearsfan1977]

My argument isnt that Dems are better. My argument is Republicans are also responsible. They arent serious about addressing the issue. They simply want to use it as political tool anytime police violence comes up.

Fixing the issue is complex but police reform is one of the solutions because crime prospers when there is a distrust between police and the community.

In no particular order.

1. Criminal Justice reform.

2. Improvement in the economic prospects of those living in poverty.

3. A social safety net that is better aligned to the people that need it.

4. Promotion of nuclear families.

5. A police force that is engaged with the community and subject to the same laws and accountability as the people they serve and protect.

6. Promotion of greater personal responaibility and education on how to overcome adversity.

7. Focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment when it comes to non-violent crimes.

You will note some of these are liberal ideas and some are conservative. The only real comprehensive solution involves both sides best ideas being deployed.

You and I have reached common ground. Very valid points.

 

[Montucky]

Right. That's exactly what I'm saying. So why do you keep talking about socialism and communism when the policies we are advocating are merely those of a normal social democracy?

Yeah but that's not really what you advocate for, tankie.

 

[Zvbxrpl]

Who's we though? We have bona fide socialists and social democrats in government. Bernie Sanders has described himself as a socialist for most of his career, right up until 2016 when he realized he has to appeal more to the mainstream. He's a fan of Marx and a fan of socialism as it existed in countries like the Soviet Union and Cuba. He is a genuine socialist, but he's a socialist who realizes he has to scale back his ideology to remain palatable to the masses.

Back to frivolous generalizations, I see. You just see the words 'Bernie Sanders' and 'socialist' in the same sentence and you've already painted him as one, not the fact that his platform--twice--running for president and many years in Vermont has been that of the social democracy--which you've confirmed you can understand the exact distinguishment in post #342 separating market economies from communist in Bearmick's previous point.

Sanders' platform was quite populist, including plans/policy that the vast majority of Americans agreed with, like universal healthcare, free education, breaking up big banks/monopolies, gutting of the military-industrial complex which present politicians not-so-cleverly lump in with actual military spending so many think the hundreds of billions we hemorrhage yearly are actually going to the Army, Air Force, Marines, Space Force, Navy, and Coast Guard when its going to Haliburton, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman and Raytheon and their hefty CEO salaries/bonuses.

You don't have to agree with him, the stances he's taken (and he's taken some bad ones), or how he marketed his plan/campaign--because he didn't do that well at all trying to market his administration being a betterment of citizens desperately looking for it because they're not among the elite presidents going back to Jimmy Carter have catered to--on top of the DNC actively trying to get him to lose to HRC.

But surely a 'genuine socialist' would have been voted out/not allowed a 14 going on 15 year career as a US Senator, winning multiple re-elections...

It should come down to common sense. Everyone seems so worried about "their party" being right and the other being wrong that they stopped using it. Stop watching the news. Treat everyone equally. Be a good person. It really should be that simple.
I see things on both sides that i agree with. For example i own lots of firearms including AR15"s or "lol assault rifles" but i have never aimed one at anyone. I support a womans right to choose what to do with her body. I support most police. I support good hearted people regardless of race. Maybe its just the fact that i live in Idaho. But i literally dont see skin color. I see good and bad which has nothing to do with race.

Excuse me sir, how DARE you propose something that makes sense.

 

[Zion]

Was Russia or China capitalist before moving to Socialism?

Yes, Russia was nascent capitalist in the 19th century after the Tsars passed reforms but before the communist revolution. They were some unique mix of feudalism and nascent capitalism.

China had a weak republican government after overthrowing the Qing dynasty but before the Maoists came to power. They were capitalists. But both these countries were so underdeveloped and so influenced by centuries of autocratic monarchical rule that western style governments and capitalist system of economics never got a chance to take root.

 

[bearmick]

I am going to disagree that they only offer welfare state "socialist" policies, unless you consider healthcare and education to be welfare.

I also fail to see how a country which incarcerates more of it's population per capita than Russia, China, and Iran (second only to North Korea), has a militaristic police force with a major brutality problem, and incorporates a private prison system with a business incentive to incarcerate its citizens, is somehow the most free country just because we can also shoot each other.

 

[bearmick]

Yeah but that's not really what you advocate for, tankie.

Yeah, actually it is.