Serious The Politics Thread

[Fardin]

yea i mean i rly dont even know what u are talking about here, what does "thought process" mean for the 500 different things that are all potentially grouped under "socialism" depending on who u ask.

if theres anyone ignoring facts and ignoring entire fields here i think its you, because you are making sweeping generalizations about one of the most imprecise terms in political discourse today. the 500 different "versions" of what people mean by the word socialism have virtually nothing in common with each other for it even to be meaningful to criticize them all grouped together.

idk how more clear i could have been in my last post on the thought process, im not gonna bother to explain even further if u didnt get it, but if the problem was me not being more specific on the exact definition of socialism i was critiquing, Im mainly referring to the ones that believe we need to abolish the market and go towards are more centrally planned economy (there are a lot of subsections under this, but the core of market abolishment is a very common theme, thats what im attacking). im aware the other dude in the thread was talking about market socialism or w/e, but that is a small minority of "socialism", if u can even call it that. the others I have been replying to were like 90% on the side of market abolition. tho im also half preaching to the choir cause ik a lot of people have been a victim to these socialist ideas here

aside from the market socialist guy whos ideology was not really my main concern, feel free to look at every one of the other people i replied to. if u think i was vague when i tried to get the convo to concrete examples, u should be looking at literally every other post. socialists live in the world of vague ideas without anything concrete to talk about, i think this thread was a perfect example of that. the second u give an answer to their vague questions, the convo ends there

i dont even know which academic field you are referring to here, or who it is that is engaging in ignoring evidence and cherrypicking like are you talking about something that someone in this thread said, something u encountered somewhere else.

ye sorry, not every post happens in a vacuum, i thought u read up on the posts earlier which woulda answered all ur questions here. but ig this explains also why u think im the one being vague, u must have not read the stuff i was replying to the first day i typed here

eg u bring up "violent revolution", when that is neither exclusive to "socialism" nor universal across "versions" of socialism.
i think it is absurd to think that imperialist violence will magically vanish by itself, and i absolutely support the right of colonized people to self-determination and to resist colonialism and genocide by whatever means including violent ones, but none of this necessarily has anything to do with "socialism". there are plenty of "socialists" who are also islamophobes or otherwise do not stand by the palestinian resistance, and plenty of people who defend the palestinian resistance who do not consider themselves socialists. (since "socialism" has so many different meanings nowadays and u have not at any point identified a specific meaning or set of meanings of "socialism" that u are discussing, so idk how to evaluate whether u would consider someone socialist so im j going off whether ppl "identify" as socialist). there are literally sections of genocidal zionism that claim to be "socialist", that is how diverse the uses of the term are.

i truly dont know what u think ur saying here. if there is a bad system going on, and the people want to rise up thru violence, as long as the cause is just, and the outcome of this revolution will be for the better for everyone, go all in. the problem here is when this revolution ur going for is founded on disputed ideas (centrally planned economy which vast majority of socialists believe) that will likely make things far worse.

edit: one other sidenote, i would in general suggest that no political ideology rly represents or reflects any particular "thought process", people may share the same or extremely similar political ideologies while still having very different 'thought processes'. kinda the nature of politics that people group together from a range of subjectivities to organize around something in common

the thought process i was talking about is independent of the entire topic, or the conclusion people end up with. i was simply describing a very common pattern of way of thinking that gets people brainwashed into extreme ideologies, regardless of how much concrete facts are against them. The level of ignorance of the facts, studies, and research that go into believing in socialism (the one where u advocate for market abolition into a centralized shit system, which 99% do) is akin to the same line of thinking that makes people believe in other crazy theories like the jews control the world, or vaccines dont work or etc. cherry picking facts, ignoring blatant evidence, hand waving the academic field cause they are lying to u, etc etc etc

some conclusions are just less bad than the others, but it doesnt mean they shouldn't be called out

 

[juoean]

what did i not read? the only other post i see referring to academic fields is this one <https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/the-politics-thread.3743029/post-10300440> which also does not provide any specificity as to what field(s) you are talking about regarding "academic consensus".
academia in the West is all influenced to some degree by being situated within capitalism-imperialism, and you dont rly provide specificity of what it is that u are referring to in the various comments about academic consensus and studies about failures of socialism (which socialism exactly) so i dont know.

i did read the posts about "centrally planned economy vs market economy", i also would investigate these terms, as someone touched on previously, policing is a core aspect of enforcing and perpetuating capitalism regardless of how many claims there are that capitalism is based on a free market. whether that constitutes "centrally planned" idk as i dont rly know what this term means (even if ive heard it before), but it certainly isnt a "free market".
i have no idea what % of "socialists" support a "centrally planned economy", but i cant imagine that there is anything at all that "99% of socialists" agree on, unless u are simply adjusting the definition of socialist to exclude the ppl who dont agree on that thing. ive certainly interacted w a number of ppl who identify as some form of 'socialist' over the years and idk if even one of them supported a "centrally planned economy" if you mean this in the sense of say the current economy of china, tho i have no doubt that there are many socialists who do.

you were the one who brought up "violent revolution", i thought from the context u were saying that violent revolution was specifically linked to "socialism" so thats why i commented on that, if thats not what u were saying / why u brought it up then i misunderstood.

the stuff u said abt "market economy vs central planning" was a bit more specific tho it still takes the terms for granted as if everyone should know exactly what they mean. the other comments were not specific at all, i have no idea what evidence of failures of central planned economies is referring to for example. are u talking about specific historical or present economies that u categorize in this way that have been analyzed as failures, are u talking about some sort of broad scale statistical analysis that correlates failure/success with market/centralplanning (are these binary variables, continuous variables, etc). it feels like u j assume everyone knows what it is you are talking about

 

[Fardin]

what did i not read? the only other post i see referring to academic fields is this one <https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/the-politics-thread.3743029/post-10300440> which also does not provide any specificity as to what field(s) you are talking about regarding "academic consensus".
academia in the West is all influenced to some degree by being situated within capitalism-imperialism, and you dont rly provide specificity of what it is that u are referring to in the various comments about academic consensus and studies about failures of socialism (which socialism exactly) so i dont know.

Serious Post in thread 'The Politics Thread'

Oct 12, 2024

I don't think socialism or communism could work and I think that a free market isn't neccessarily bad, but the way it's done now is unsustainable in every meaning of the word and just doesn't work anymore for most of the population at this point. And even the definition "free market" is questionable when it's exclusively determined by Blackrock and associates and couple of rich people

i'm so glad you brought up Blackrock because it is one of the weirdest myth that has surfaced since a couple years ago, and it just shows the lack of understanding u hold on how those companies even...

• Fardin

• 
• 
• 

i dedicated a whole essay on multiple people on this thread blatantly discrediting the field of economics.

and as far as "which" socialism, just because earlier i said socialist have a lot of different definitions, that doesn't mean there isnt a common theme across 90% of them, which is a centrally planned economy that I now mentioned for the 50th time in nearly every one of my reply. the second that demsoc dude mentioned market socialism and other fringe variations, i immediately state there again that my problem mainly lies with a centrally planned economy

i did read the posts about "centrally planned economy vs market economy", i also would investigate these terms, as someone touched on previously, policing is a core aspect of enforcing and perpetuating capitalism regardless of how many claims there are that capitalism is based on a free market. whether that constitutes "centrally planned" idk as i dont rly know what this term means (even if ive heard it before), but it certainly isnt a "free market".

yes that person was trying to frame tax funded social institutions as an example "planned economy", it doesn't really have much to do with anything here

i have no idea what % of "socialists" support a "centrally planned economy", but i cant imagine that there is anything at all that "99% of socialists" agree on, unless u are simply adjusting the definition of socialist to exclude the ppl who dont agree on that thing. ive certainly interacted w a number of ppl who identify as some form of 'socialist' over the years and idk if even one of them supported a "centrally planned economy" if you mean this in the sense of say the current economy of china, tho i have no doubt that there are many socialists who do.

not sure what to say here, again i wanna emphasis my critic lays with 100% a centrally planned economy. That is the core idea behind the idea of socialism, to not be a profit driven system like capitalism. i'm gonna continue to call people who support this as socialist, they are the majority under the definition. but if definition game is such a bother, just replace "socialists" with centrally planned economists or w/e

you were the one who brought up "violent revolution", i thought from the context u were saying that violent revolution was specifically linked to "socialism" so thats why i commented on that, if thats not what u were saying / why u brought it up then i misunderstood.

thats fair, i shoulda been more specific there cause i can see the confusion

the stuff u said abt "market economy vs central planning" was a bit more specific tho it still takes the terms for granted as if everyone should know exactly what they mean. the other comments were not specific at all, i have no idea what evidence of failures of central planned economies is referring to for example. are u talking about specific historical or present economies that u categorize in this way that have been analyzed as failures, are u talking about some sort of broad scale statistical analysis that correlates failure/success with market/centralplanning (are these binary variables, continuous variables, etc). it feels like u j assume everyone knows what it is you are talking about

for the evidence of failures of central planned economies, yes i just assume everyone is aware that these studies exist, and nobody really denies them. there are historical studies, comparative economic analysis for example for 40s India or like most of eastern europe when they dropped their failed systems, analysis for different sectors of the economies, macro ones and especially political analysis ones.

like this topic is not disputed ANYWHERE in the world and no socialist outright denies it. The cope usually with this is that they blame all the failures to US interference + those socialist system itself in those respective countries were not done correctly either. by using those 2 copes, along with the idea that all economists are bought and paid for, they dismiss EVERY evidence that proves their theory wrong.

its like asking me to give proof for a flat earther that the earth is round but they deny science

i wasnt going to start linking dozens of analysis cause i knew its a pointless venture, but i can always do it if people ask

 

[Myzozoa]

american leaders stay up at night thinking about how to keep you awake thinkin abt china bogeyman and a tour banned bro is fr in the yr of our lord 2024 trying to drum up scenarios itt to accuse posters of making 'no true socialist economy' fallacies...

In fact, poverty and want is a huge issue in capitalist societies, the death toll due to which is oft not even estimated, the human cost of profit. Who benefits and who is harmed so food prices in Western countries stay low? Socialism is not just an economic idea, an industrial ideology like capitalism, but a way for countries to resist neocolonial economic patterns. In fact socialism is a lot better than the colonial yokes communism is so oft consequent to. In fact mainstream academic economists are all the time discovering new failures of capitalism like inflation due to monopolization that ironically cannot occur in a socialist economy where the gov can unilaterally lower/control the price. iit is perhaps even more chilling when you set aside the ideologues lense and realize that the current capitalist system essentially delivers an economy centrally planned by monopoly brokers: the differences in what ideologies deliver to ppl may not be as great in substance as in the aspiring cong-mains' fantasies.

anyway lets go back to palestine zionist's ww3 and trump somehow winning in 2024 per the polls tm plz, this derailment for capitalism v socialism is v 10th grade plz there is a lot more to talk abt imo

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

So now we have a genocide within a genocide within Northern Gaza by way of prevention of food and fuel for ten days in a row by the Israeli forces. https://aje.io/epfyox?update=3243060

By the way, the pretty horrific video of Netanahyu threatening Lebanon with “Gaza like destruction” if they don’t turn against Hezbollah is going to go down in history as the moment that parts of the world realised this was never about self defence.

Israel have already raised a flag in Southern Lebanon this week (

) which drew a rare rebuke from the state department’s Matthew Miller.

Meanwhile the USA’s military chief Lloyd Austin has provided a neat piece of double speak - telling Yoav Gallant to pivot to diplomacy from military action when “feasible”. Thus finger wagging at Israel whilst also encouraging it to keep going. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4928378-israel-defense-secretary-austin-israel-tensions/

40 countries have signed a letter condemning Israel’s attacks on UNIFIL, with Italy, France and Spain having a joint press conference to condemn Israel’s actions. https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...ing-unifil-by-idf-joint-statement-2024-10-11/

Latest YouGov polls on Israel/Palestine in UK are interesting, highlighting that the British Public is, like an oil tanker, slowly turning against the pro-Israeli point of view, but shifts in the Palestinian views are also slowly happening.

Also, props to Liam Cosgrove, an American journalist, for having the gumption to say what we’re all thinking:

“sick of this bullshit”

Indeed!

 

[juoean]

Imo nowadays there isn't really a truth to politics, there is only perspective. political leaders aside both sides slander each other and try to make each other look worse than they actually are. I'm sure most people are more moderate in their views on politics, but there are just a few of these vocal minorities, whether heavily left or heavily right. both sides got good takes and not so good takes and there always will be some rando who comes out and say unhinged stuff I guess. maybe one side does look worse but it might also be related to your own environment idk.

btw why is the US still supporting israel? like what benefit does supporting genocide help them in any way?

i cant tell if this post is ironic, the first paragraph talks about how actually the bourgeois politicians from both parties arent that bad and they just look worse than they are bc of rhetoric/'slander', and then the second paragraph asks why almost all of them are literally carrying out a genocide.

 

[Fardin]

american leaders stay up at night thinking about how to keep you awake thinkin abt china bogeyman and a tour banned bro is fr in the yr of our lord 2024 trying to drum up scenarios itt to accuse posters of making 'no true socialist economy' fallacies...

In fact, poverty and want is a huge issue in capitalist societies, the death toll due to which is oft not even estimated, the human cost of profit. Who benefits and who is harmed so food prices in Western countries stay low? Socialism is not just an economic idea, an industrial ideology like capitalism, but a way for countries to resist neocolonial economic patterns. In fact socialism is a lot better than the colonial yokes communism is so oft consequent to. In fact mainstream academic economists are all the time discovering new failures of capitalism like inflation due to monopolization that ironically cannot occur in a socialist economy where the gov can unilaterally lower/control the price. iit is perhaps even more chilling when you set aside the ideologues lense and realize that the current capitalist system essentially delivers an economy centrally planned by monopoly brokers: the differences in what ideologies deliver to ppl may not be as great in substance as in the aspiring cong-mains' fantasies.

anyway lets go back to palestine zionist's ww3 and trump somehow winning in 2024 per the polls tm plz, this derailment for capitalism v socialism is v 10th grade plz there is a lot more to talk abt imo

This post perfectly sums up how some people end up socialists ngl

In a conversation between the 2 systems, pointing out the flaws in one of them is not an argument unless u manage to show how the other system can do it better.

Those exact same economists u mention that find new flaws in capitalism every year are the ones that also tell u that socialist is a fairly tale that would give u even worse results. But ur cognitive dissonance makes u stop taking them serious at that point, and u have absolutely 0 clue of any of the nuances. Ur entire brain runs on some hope that this clearly disproven theory will actually change things, so u stop to go for actual fixes and just yell every day about some dumb revolution

Talking about capitalism causing poverty in a convo where we compare it to socialism also has to be one of the most tone deaf comments I have ever seen.

Also yes monopolies will occur, but we have regulations to greatly hinder most bad outcomes from it. Do u know what is the alternative to not having monopolies? Inefficient allocation of resources, less incentive for innovations, too much power to central authority which always bred more corruption than ur average capitalist countries, wealth stagnations, reduced consumer choices. And this is all just in theory if ur socialist country works as intended, I could talk about the starvations, the economic collapses, heavy corruption that led to millions in poverty, hardcore dictatorships and etc

Every fault u name to capitalism without mentioning how the other fairy tale system can do it better is just an admission from ur end that ur completely out of ur element here and u would rather just scream at the sky praying things work out with some new magical and radical system, instead of being pragmatic and actually not a 10th grader, and live in the real world and work within the existing system

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

Also yes monopolies will occur, but we have regulations to greatly hinder most bad outcomes from it.

Like I don’t know if you noticed but the planet is becoming one great big monopoly at the minute.

Let’s use a well known US example though. Amazon. It has 37.6% of the market share. Walmart comes second.

It has 6.4%.

Amazon can out price, out sell and generally take over multiple markets within markets.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/274255/market-share-of-the-leading-retailers-in-us-e-commerce/

Now translate that into Amazon’s value:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/326086/amazon-brand-value/

Going up in value 100 fold within a decade and, with a “blip” in 2023, still rising.

Regulations in the USA are not stopping the rise of virtual monopolies, which is what Amazon is. The other 60% of the market share is split as scraps between very much smaller operations.

You could cogently argue that it’s not a monopoly because other companies exist. But you can’t argue that it’s not also having the single greatest effects on the US and global economies in terms of its size and model.

https://www.investopedia.com/insights/amazon-effect-us-economy/

 

[Myzozoa]

This post perfectly sums up how some people end up socialists ngl

In a conversation between the 2 systems, pointing out the flaws in one of them is not an argument unless u manage to show how the other system can do it better.

Those exact same economists u mention that find new flaws in capitalism every year are the ones that also tell u that socialist is a fairly tale that would give u even worse results. But ur cognitive dissonance makes u stop taking them serious at that point, and u have absolutely 0 clue of any of the nuances. Ur entire brain runs on some hope that this clearly disproven theory will actually change things, so u stop to go for actual fixes and just yell every day about some dumb revolution

Talking about capitalism causing poverty in a convo where we compare it to socialism also has to be one of the most tone deaf comments I have ever seen.

Also yes monopolies will occur, but we have regulations to greatly hinder most bad outcomes from it. Do u know what is the alternative to not having monopolies? Inefficient allocation of resources, less incentive for innovations, too much power to central authority which always bred more corruption than ur average capitalist countries, wealth stagnations, reduced consumer choices. And this is all just in theory if ur socialist country works as intended, I could talk about the starvations, the economic collapses, heavy corruption that led to millions in poverty, hardcore dictatorships and etc

Every fault u name to capitalism without mentioning how the other fairy tale system can do it better is just an admission from ur end that ur completely out of ur element here and u would rather just scream at the sky praying things work out with some new magical and radical system, instead of being pragmatic and actually not a 10th grader, and live in the real world and work within the existing system

It's like all you do is project: I made a post pointing out how these two ideologies would seem to have many shared elements and what I get back is an unhinged rant about how I'm too onesided to look at criticisms of socialism. Millions of ppl are unhouse and food insecure in capitalists societies https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300086, killing nearly one million ppl in america each year! Youre an oblivious debater w out much substance in between the ideological rants we all heard from uncle growing up. Theres more interesting topics, like the dems slipping to defeat and Israel's wanton aggression than to teach basic ideology 101 in the current events thread.

 

[Fardin]

Like I don’t know if you noticed but the planet is becoming one great big monopoly at the minute.

Let’s use a well known US example though. Amazon. It has 37.6% of the market share. Walmart comes second.

It has 6.4%.

Amazon can out price, out sell and generally take over multiple markets within markets.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/274255/market-share-of-the-leading-retailers-in-us-e-commerce/

Now translate that into Amazon’s value:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/326086/amazon-brand-value/

Going up in value 100 fold within a decade and, with a “blip” in 2023, still rising.

idk what these stats supposed to prove here. i never denied the existence of monopolies, especially in areas where there are companies just offering way more value to the customer, like amazon or nvidia rn. i was simply saying that the government is HEAVILY invested in stopping the negative outcomes of monopolies (ftc & and sometimes the doj) with rules and regulations, and it has been working fairly well

company like amazon that basically revolutionized the logistics of handling and shipping out inventory, that now every other delivery company or retail store is trying to imitate, like ye they gonna have a bigger market share for online stores because they just offer a far better outlet for the people to shop at

Regulations in the USA are not stopping the rise of virtual monopolies, which is what Amazon is. The other 60% of the market share is split as scraps between very much smaller operations.

You could cogently argue that it’s not a monopoly because other companies exist. But you can’t argue that it’s not also having the single greatest effects on the US and global economies in terms of its size and model.

https://www.investopedia.com/insights/amazon-effect-us-economy/

the link u sent doesn't raise any actual big concerns about the way amazon operates (at least as of right now) that could hint some disastrous effect to our economy. im aware of their semi immoral actions mainly towards small businesses that were already barely hanging on, and etc.

that is why there are like a million federal and state court cases by the ftc and others that try to hinder some of these actions from Amazon (there was one that was finally allowed allowed to proceed by a judge thats supposed to address most of the terrible and unfair practices done by Amazon, its probably gonna be one of the biggest cases for stopping a monopoly in the countries' history link )

unlike socialism, capitalism promotes actual technological advancements to make our life better, so there will always be new problems to tackle in the future as some companies get more sophisticated, and leave others in the dust. especially when those said companies like Amazon engage in some terrible practices. but i don't see how any of these would make anyone want to demolish capitalism and move to socialism that has 1000x more problems just in theory alone, let alone in the real world

 

[RaikouLover]

OMG how does she get more cringe by the second…

This election was in the bag and she keeps fumbling it so bad... who are her advisors cuz she needs to fire them asap

Word on the street which is to say unfounded I think would be that they're grabbing Hillary/Obama advisors and we all know how well one of those two worked out. I remember when they were calling the republicans weird and they were malding but i guess we cant let even an ounce of respectability politics slip for longer than like two weeks.

Standard Dem DC consultants. They are just as fucking clueless as the DC press and polling industrial complex.

I’ve tuned out the campaign completely at this point because the result is already ordained and none of this shit affects the outcome.

One thing to point out though is that Dems are perfectly okay with chasing the disaffected Republican vote since a lot of those voters are pragmatic enough to say they will vote against Trump no matter what. Meanwhile there is a small but vocal leftist contingent that like 2016 is threatening to sit out the election if policy demands are not met. I think the whole tact to the middle is cringe but I see the “logic” when the consultants are doing their little number crunching to justify their own existence.

If it were me, they should have kept the “Republicans are weird” attacks and frankly could have amplified to call them crooks and freaks. Shrug. It’s the truth, ain’t it?

 

[Bakugames]

fellas I don't think the "socialism is like antivaxxing. i know all of capitalisms flaws but mentioning them is cope" person is going to get convinced by anything that isn't just agreeing with them. let them "win", your sanity is more precious than circular arguments about how awful socialism is and how capitalism isnt that bad, which more eloquent people than all of us have tackled in both their writing and their policies over and over again

also do u like my new icon

 

[Fardin]

fellas I don't think the "socialism is like antivaxxing. i know all of capitalisms flaws but mentioning them is cope" person is going to get convinced by anything that isn't just agreeing with them. let them "win", your sanity is more precious than circular arguments about how awful socialism is and how capitalism isnt that bad, which more eloquent people than all of us have tackled in both their writing and their policies over and over again

also do u like my new icon

there is a reason u only lasted just 1 reply before the crying session. the second u move on from ur vague and naive talking points, u immediately shut in. the day any of u have to defend ur ideas with concrete pragmatic steps, instead of just staying in the world of vague platitude that offers no solution to anything aside from "but capitalism is bad" will be peak content to me comrade

i wish those eloquent people existed in the academic field as well besides smogon.com so u would have some form representation for ur ideas so u can even began to talk about why socialism would be better than capitalism, but the best ur ever gonna find is people just arguing for some socialist ideas integrated into capitalism, forming some form of mixed economy. any serious consideration of a centralized economy has become essentially irrelevant, and extremely outdated (and if u disagree with this, ur either as bais as it gets, or just dont know enuf).

the most u will get from marx is some very excellent critiques of capitalism, with an extremely dogshit alternative that was disputed countless time (shouldnt be a surprise tho, the dude isnt even an economist)

as i said earlier, to willingly ignore all the data, research papers, concrete arguments against a centralized economy, and the arrogance and delusion to think u would have a deeper insight on this topic than a whole academic field who invested decades in finding out which system would work out is akin to people not believing in doctors that the vaccine works. people who believe in a centralized economy LOVE to think they are smarter than those on the far right, but at the end of the day, its just a different side of the same coin. One of the reasons again that ur ideas are never taken seriously anywhere in the world

 

[Klobik]

Tournament Banned, it's pretty rude to respond to someone's post without answering their question. Also, I'm curious how you feel about climate change, environmental collapse, slavery, endless wars, crumbling infrastructure, etc. since you're so keen on defending the way of things. If Socialism does not have the answer to these, what is your solution for these sorts of problems? I feel it's only fair you put yourself under the same 'scrutiny' you're putting others through.

also do u like my new icon

yes

 

[Bakugames]

there is a reason u only lasted just 1 reply before the crying session. the second u move on from ur vague and naive talking points, u immediately shut in. the day any of u have to defend ur ideas with concrete pragmatic steps, instead of just staying in the world of vague platitude that offers no solution to anything aside from "but capitalism is bad" will be peak content to me comrade

don't worry, I already have :) convinced quite a few folks too, im a delight at political study groups. but I'm also not stupid: you've been plugging your ears and going "lalala youre a socialist so youre stupid" at multiple people with multiple arguments and views, even (sorry chou) rather moderate ones that people wouldn't even call socialism. you call yourself pragmatic but you don't care about material conditions of our current world nor how they came to be and how that affects both capitalism and socialism, you ignore the failure of capitalist models and the benefits of communism and bias yourself into your comfort zone. Your goal is purely to come here and epically own the tankies, which I think its rather sad, because if you had interest in hearing anything we had to say, we could have had a good convo!

Alas, back to ignoring you. I already knew kamala wouldn't do shit to israel, but this latest round of "we must secure our country and defend our border" and "we need to listen out to both parties!! we need to be bipartisan!!! #republicanlivesmatter" makes me worry about their overall international politics. Although, harris saying the us' biggest enemy is iran of all things makes me laugh. Are they that committed on the israel colonial plane, to the point of pivoting their standing ground to remain the major global power vs china to concentrate in the middle east again? Or are they going to double up on both of these countries?
If they slip up, china can def take advantage of that and exert more policial and military power, and the us might struggle to readjust

yes

Lets gooo. I drew it myself

 

[Just A Shroom God]

also do u like my new icon

4/10 the old one was better

 

[Chou Toshio]

Standard Dem DC consultants. They are just as fucking clueless as the DC press and polling industrial complex.

I’ve tuned out the campaign completely at this point because the result is already ordained and none of this shit affects the outcome.

One thing to point out though is that Dems are perfectly okay with chasing the disaffected Republican vote since a lot of those voters are pragmatic enough to say they will vote against Trump no matter what. Meanwhile there is a small but vocal leftist contingent that like 2016 is threatening to sit out the election if policy demands are not met. I think the whole tact to the middle is cringe but I see the “logic” when the consultants are doing their little number crunching to justify their own existence.

If it were me, they should have kept the “Republicans are weird” attacks and frankly could have amplified to call them crooks and freaks. Shrug. It’s the truth, ain’t it?

Republicans as crooks and freaks campaign based.

 

[SittinGamer]

Are they that committed on the israel colonial plane, to the point of pivoting their standing ground to remain the major global power vs china to concentrate in the middle east again?

In even my own American centric lens of history I've been present to, this sounds like a very America thing to do.

I still have the teeeeeeeeeeensiest bit of hope that Kamala is at the very least better than Biden on this, but probably wishful thinking. Unlike Biden who only gets grievances with Netanyahu "exposed," on her more recent interviews despite the obvious "ironclad right to defend itself" thing every single politician in this country bar a few cool ones say, she seems much more cold on Netanyahu specifically. I remember whispers pre her-campaign-getting-eaten-by-DNC-money that there were some Biden foreign policy picks she intended to replace, such as Blinken. Netanyahu also going making statements that one week and saying he liked his 1 on 1s with Biden and Trump but felt Kamala was interfering with his plans just kind of gives the vibes of some kind of harder ball.


Obviously the war has since expanded to Lebanon and the US seems to be shrugging at it, but the point is more that I hope despite the terrible messaging she is at least marginally to the left of the guy who is quite literally stamping approval on all of it right now. And of course it really needn't be restated, but Trump sure did say his plan was just to let Netanyahu finish the job. I'm not naive enough to think this will stop on her election or anything, but it feels like its hard to get worse on this specific foreign policy issue than the uniquely Zionist Biden if you have a D next to your political affiliation.

 

[RaikouLover]

Republicans a crooks and freaks campaign based.

DC Dem consultants- “That campaign is too negative and would depress turnout.”

 

[SittinGamer]

DC Dem consultants- “That campaign is too negative and would depress turnout.”

I've heard donors HATED "we're not going back" because it wasn't a preplanned ism like "I'm with her" and instead just formed naturally. Crazy within a month of the DNC we lost both weird, we're not going back, and are just dickriding the Cheney's harder than the father's first name.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Once more I would like to say—

—if the Dems lose it’s not the left’s fault.

 

[Local Dog]

as a non american

why did they pick up consultants of a widely disliked figure that lost against trump?

 

[Klobik]

feel free to post 1 single argument u guys made in this thread that i have not addressed. just 1 single one pls. (unless ur talking about that one dude who just linked me some stats of americans dying thinking he made any point. if u think that is actually something worthy to reply to, ignore this point and just assume im avoiding it cause im scared or w/e

i have no solution to these comrade, and i am not ignorant and delusional enough to pretend I do, like some socialists who would toss out our current system for something so wildly disproven and debunked, all because they think thats what the world needs.

i dont need to be able to give a solution to a very complex problem to recognize objectively bad, debunked, delusional, radical, and insane ideas like a centrally planned economy. u thought u made a point there huh

You still have not answered the question. Do you like Baku's new PFP or not?

You're right, it's unfair for me to ask you to solve all of our problems. However I believe that goes for you as well. Socialists do not argue that Socialism (or a centrally planned economy?) will solve all of our problems. One common definition of Socialism is that of a transitory state moving away from a Capitalist system to a different system, usually some form of Communism, under the idea that we need to prioritize our collective needs (food, water, shelter, stability, etc.) before anything else. I'm curious, even if you dislike Socialism (or centrally planned economies??), do you disagree with that sentiment? Should we not prioritize our collective needs first?

Socialism is a relativistic, highly contextual umbrella term that can refer to a lot of things. Is your problem with Socialism or centrally planned economies? There are instances within our current system that you could say are, or at least resemble, centrally planned economies. Supermarkets are one commonly cited example. What is your take on this? Do you feel that these systems are doomed to collapse? Are they simply unable to operate on larger scales? If so, then how much do you think such a system would be able to expand before it collapses? What would bring about the collapse?

If your problem is with Socialism, could you please be more specific about what you mean when you refer to Socialism?

Also, I would like to see your work when you mention that Socialism and/or centrally planned economies have been "wildly disproven". Could you please elaborate on that some more?

Anyways, if you're unwilling or unable to answer my questions, then I'm done. I hope you find your way, Tournament Banned. Or at least learn to follow the rules.

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

So I have over the course of this week:

• Met with my member of parliament (MP)
• Submitted my concerns on the Palestine/Israel/Lebanon conflict
• Had a very productive discussion and have been asked to submit further material

So look, I am not going to solve the problems of the Middle East from my little bit of London, but I am not standing still and doing nothing either. I will keep on doing what I can and I will try and be as objective and pragmatic as I can too.

Things will only get worse if people stand by and do nothing. Now is the time for everyone who feels strongly to talk to their local councillors, their members of congress or whatever political system you find yourself in, make your concerns known and do it in a measured and evidenced way.

 

[Divine Retribution]

Even if there is some inherent problem with centrally planned economies that causes them to always turn into the Khmer Rouge or something, socialism doesn't necessitate a centrally planned economy. Some of the other socialist posters in this thread might disagree with me on the practicality of them, but decentralized economies envisioned by anarchists and syndicalists are still, by definition, socialist.

Also seconding the notion that literally nobody thinks socialism in any form is going to solve all of society's problems by itself. Even across the past couple pages other concepts have been brought up such as degrowth and anti-colonialism that are entirely separate to socialism but equally necessary for a globally fairer society. The problem is that profit-driven capitalism is fundamentally antagonistic to these ideas, while socialism is not.