Red Mosquito

Also

Bi_3 wrote:

Rob wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Rob wrote:I don't hear any of the candidates suggesting we change systems entirely.

It's odd how the Jacobin set and red rose Twitter are going all in on Bernie despite this observation. It really seems like merely calling oneself a socialist means a lot to those people as signaling.

I think it does. I would think that it would benefit them to have at least some of the stigma attached to socialism removed. I doubt that Jacobin or even DSA would consider Bernie to be an ideal candidate, but he may help them escape the "fringes" better than anyone else.

Good point. The gulags and concentration camps weren’t nearly as bad as “those people” made them out to be and what’s the point of judging a system of economic control by every modern historical example anyway?

You mean this sarcastically but it's actually true, for the record

Rob wrote:Well, if you associate socialism with gulags and mass death, rather than things like public schools and Medicare, then we will come to different conclusions. Seems many people can clearly see that we supplement capitalism with collectivism (especially at the local level) but just don't want to call it socialism. So maybe we just need to replace the scary term? I happen to believe both systems work in tandem. Can't have one without the other. 20th century socialism (communism) was extreme, and just about every idea/system taken to the extreme ends poorly.

We are definitely using the term differently. Communism has never been attempted on a nation-state scale, no need to confuse what the Nazis and Soviets (and Castro, North Korea, etc.) did with anything but Socialism:

wikipedia wrote:Democratic socialism is distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism using governmental means, whereas social democrats are opposed to ultimately ending capitalism, and are instead supportive of fair and progressive reforms to capitalism to keep a balance between private, state and public ownership.[7]

The first, Democratic Socialism, is a terrible idea that has consistently lead to mass death and violence on a global scale over the last 100 years. The second, Social Democracy, is reasonable way to balance the needs to many in a world where power is concentrated with the few.

When asked about democratic socialism, Bernie always responds "what democratic socialism means to me is... (pretty much exactly what you'd hear from a social democrat in Europe)." FDR is the other obvious source of his platform. All I'm saying is that the textbook definition isn't necessarily applicable. It is not controversial to be a "socialist" in other capitalist countries. Again, I think it's more about where the balance between socialism and capitalism stands, not an either/or, as some people want to put it.

Bi_3 wrote: The first, Democratic Socialism, is a terrible idea that has consistently lead to mass death and violence on a global scale over the last 100 years.

Also, I would argue that authoritarian socialism is what we saw, not democratic socialism. You cited 4 countries - 3 of which were/are one party rule, and one which wasn't socialist in nature (Nazis).

If you're referring to the form of political economy in the Third Reich as socialist you truly don't have any idea what the fuck you're talking about.

In before the "it's short for national socialism!" post. Go read a fucking book

Mickey wrote:If you're referring to the form of political economy in the Third Reich as socialist you truly don't have any idea what the fuck you're talking about.

The Nazis originated as a socialist party and moved to redefine socialism to suit their political needs (sound familiar?) into an anti-Marxist, anti-Semitic ideology and then extinguished those who opposed the new model like the prominent German Marxists of the time and while they didn’t extinguish capitalism under the third Reich in terms of private ownership of industry, the government directed nearly every aspect of the means of production and manipulated market forces as part of Hitlers war machine and thus isn’t that different from the classical definition of socialism vice whatever the internet is calling socialism this week.

No, try again. Try reading a book, even.

Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism is particularly good at debunking this bit of pablum.

Mickey wrote:Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism is particularly good at debunking this bit of pablum.

Which part, specifically? I honestly want to understand if I’m wrong here

Mickey wrote:Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism is particularly good at debunking this bit of pablum.

Another Ivy Leaguer

Spoiler: show

Added to my reading list.

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism is particularly good at debunking this bit of pablum.

Which part, specifically? I honestly want to understand if I’m wrong here

It's a genealogical study of fascism so there's not "one part" about the workings of the Nazi economy. If you can find the PDF, the introduction and the fourth section about the Nazi execution of power would probably be the most relevant. The basic conclusion is that it was a corporatist system. The book is only about 200 pages, it reads pretty quickly.

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism is particularly good at debunking this bit of pablum.

Which part, specifically? I honestly want to understand if I’m wrong here

It's a genealogical study of fascism so there's not "one part" about the workings of the Nazi economy. If you can find the PDF, the introduction and the fourth section about the Nazi execution of power would probably be the most relevant. The basic conclusion is that it was a corporatist system. The book is only about 200 pages, it reads pretty quickly.

https://libcom.org/files/Robert%20O.%20 ... 004%29.pdf

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism is particularly good at debunking this bit of pablum.

Which part, specifically? I honestly want to understand if I’m wrong here

It's a genealogical study of fascism so there's not "one part" about the workings of the Nazi economy. If you can find the PDF, the introduction and the fourth section about the Nazi execution of power would probably be the most relevant. The basic conclusion is that it was a corporatist system. The book is only about 200 pages, it reads pretty quickly.

Thanks, I’ll read it. I had always learned it was the other way around, that the Nazis assigned party loyalists to lead industrial concerns in order to control production. Interesting that the corporations ran the show instead.

Edit: this is pretty close to what I had been told, interesting they are so divergent:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 86455.html

So is the general consensus the Biden is the only person who can beat Trump? That’s the vibe I’m getting. He’s old, white, and probably not far left enough, but if he’s the only one that can give Trump a legit fight, then he’s my guy.

darth_vedder wrote:So is the general consensus the Biden is the only person who can beat Trump? That’s the vibe I’m getting. He’s old, white, and probably not far left enough, but if he’s the only one that can give Trump a legit fight, then he’s my guy.

I think the majority of Democratic candidates can give Trump a legit fight.

If anything, Biden is probably the dem candidate Trump can defeat most easily, IMO.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:If anything, Biden is probably the dem candidate Trump can defeat most easily, IMO.

Outside of clear losers like Klobuchar or Gabbard or any of those nameless congressman who gave declared, I think this is true.

You know, running the country shouldn't be treated like a sports game where every four years your 'team' wins and defeats the other one. It should be about the best candidate who will help the country the most. This is so stupid.

I have the flu and slept for shit.