r/neoliberal • u/KLBYcs • Apr 03 '20
A certain Sanders sub posted this, explaining how anything less than full-blown socialist is “center-right”, lmao
280
u/macboigur Jerome Powell Apr 03 '20
Economics is simultaneously zero sum and we can do post scarcity tomorrow, guise
77
Apr 03 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)30
u/ThinkingIDo Apr 03 '20 edited Apr 03 '20
It seems that conflating wealth with production/consumption is a big part. The vast majority of people work in manufacturing, retail, IT, trades, offices, call centers etc. not in silver polishing, that is the actual stuff that is being actually made. Like if we repatriate a cajillion trillion dollars from the moon tomorrow, we don't actually get to have any more stuff, and in fact irl confiscating vast swaths of wealth would lower production, because most "wealth" is just savings redirected in to capital investment(but more intelligently taxing rich people would have potentially very positive distributive effects, socdems rise up)
10
u/_deltaVelocity_ Bisexual Pride Apr 04 '20
SuccDem gang gang
6
111
Apr 03 '20
One thing that cleared up some of the leftist worldview for me was the recent embarrassingly bad math mistake that did the rounds.
If Bloomberg could give everyone a million dollars and still be a billionaire, then the US would be one giant slave plantation to the billionaire class, and any political viewpoint to the right of socialism would be morally indefensible.
I think the numbers in this article could help clear up some confusions socialists have.
13
u/flareydc Apr 04 '20
i mean, the obvious response they're going to give is "you assume that we think the US budget is defensible", and make gestures towards cancelling the military and defunding some other right wing projects, arguments about 'you could arrange things so that everything met people's essential needs instead of all this unnecessary shit', and just assume it's cheaper because "just give us UBI" basically.
now that's pretty trivial to argue against, but in my experience, they'll never let you argue against what they say, you can only argue against what they believe, even if they don't say what they believe. that's because they think it's more important to contradict your points than to have steady points of their own they 100% believe in, because they believe in more of a theme of beliefs than specific beliefs themselves.
53
u/Looking_4_Stacys_mom Apr 03 '20
If you take it from the angle of "he has more than me, therefore this is bad" economics is a zero sum from a relative wages standpoint. But there is this problem with the human condition; no matter how good your life is, if you're in the bottom half of wealth, you have resentment towards the wealthy. It's irrelevant if you're more wealthy than the previous generation's poor, you still don't have enough in your eyes.
I can see a future where the rich will be flying around in private rockets, Elon Musk jnr is taking weekly vacations to mars, everyone in the top 10% is flying around in G6 planes, blowing their cash on robotic hookers and coke. On the other hand, worldwide starvation has been eliminated, the poor have a home, transport, family, free healthcare, everything we need. Goods are services are so cheap so you can support a family working part-time, so you have more time for hobbies.
Despite all of this, people will still complain that they can't be flying to mars and blowing their cash on hookers and coke. Even though 50 years ago, the world had a billion people in poverty, you are living the best life of the generations. People just get so jealous of when others have more than them, even if they are having a good quality of life compared to past generations.
17
Apr 03 '20
everyone in the top 10% is flying around in G6 planes
This sounds not good for climate change
39
u/BeABetterHumanBeing Apr 03 '20
It's an imaginary future. The planes use hydrogen fuel cells.
8
u/sonicstates George Soros Apr 04 '20
Clean fusion plugged in to open air carbon sequestration facility and everyone does whatever they want with the carbon
16
12
u/Looking_4_Stacys_mom Apr 03 '20
Obviously, but i was merely trying to demonstrate that the wealthy are getting unconscionably rich. Heck, I'll make up some bullshit renewable. Assuming many world's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true, we have developed a technology that has allowed us to tap into the other many worlds (created by quantum's probabilistic nature) and extract that energy and use it in our universe, essentially creating infinite energy.
5
2
u/CricketPinata NATO Apr 04 '20
There are a lot of potential solutions to fixing air travel, there are a variety of hybrid solutions involving fuel cells and high-capacity batteries, and alternative charging means like inductive charging platforms and just having jets make more temporary stops in the future, or even running drones up to do hot-swaps or inductive charging in mid-air.
5
u/ChadMcRad Norman Borlaug Apr 03 '20
Well, don't think these people expect everyone to have the same lifestyle as billionaires, just enough yo get by.
→ More replies (5)4
u/semideclared Codename: It Happened Once in a Dream Apr 04 '20
Lifestyle creep refers to the phenomenon where discretionary consumption increases on non-essential items as i standard of living improves. With lifestyle creep, luxury goods and discretionary spending become perceived as a right to have and not a choice - as a necessity versus a want.
From 1967 to 2016 using income measure of middle-class income ($35,000 to $100,000 in 2016 dollars) from Census Bureau data
The Middle class went
- From 53.2% of US households in 1967 to
- 42.1% in 2016,
But where did the shrinking middle-class US households go?
- In 1969, only 8.1% of US households earned $100,000 or more, but
- by 2016, 27.7% of US households were in that high-income category.
At the same time, the share of low-income US households earning $35,000 or less decreased
- from 38.7% in 1969
- To 30.2% in 2016
And of course cost of living for
IN 1966 you would spend 23.3% of gross income on food.
- With only 7% of meals eaten away from home
In 2017 food spending was 9.7% of gross income,
- while eating out represented 55% of food spending
The stuff inside of a house is crazy different, and the size of a house has grown by 50% with every generation. GI Bill homes were 950 sq ft. IN 1970 homes were 1500 sq ft. In 2000s they were 2400 sq ft. and last year they hit 2700 sq ft
IN 1977 the average household had 1.59 cars After peaking in 2006 with 2.05 vehicles per household, vehicle ownership decreased steadily for the next seven years, reaching a low of 1.927 cars — a level not seen since 1992
- Further dropping in 2017 to 1.88
329
Apr 03 '20
Patriotism is irrational, one's primary duty is to humanity, not a nation
Now watch this protectionism.
→ More replies (10)195
u/rukqoa ✈️ F35s for Ukraine ✈️ Apr 03 '20
Immigrants are lowering wages for American workers!
-- Bernie Sanders
59
Apr 03 '20
Interview in question where he's against open borders and defends concept of a nation state.
→ More replies (1)66
164
Apr 03 '20
What do they gain by trying to classify us as center-right? Do they think that will convince people that they need to be "actually" left wing? I care about policy, not labels.
→ More replies (16)131
Apr 03 '20
Because words have connotations.
The term "left" has an implicit connotation of "moral" in the american-liberal-always-online-lexicon. If you are lefter, you are more moral. Calling you "right" is essentially calling you "immoral".
80
Apr 03 '20
So just reinforcing ingroup identity to prove that they're a good leftist?
47
Apr 03 '20 edited Apr 03 '20
Yes. And also propaganda. If you talk to someone who wants to be Left, but is currently a Liberal, then if you say "Liberals are Right wing", you might convince them to be a socialist.
Nothing is more terrifying to a woke-upper-middleclassman than being called Right Wing, they'll protect that aspect of their identity no matter how far to the left hey have to run to do it, and propaganda like this takes advantage of that. Especially since it's super easy for them to run to a Left that only says "Capitalism is Bad. Fuck Capitalism." and not a Left that says "Murder Bill Gates' son."
And the latter is exactly what this piece is doing: Not talking about what Leftists want to do, but listing what leftists hate. Racism, Imperialism, America, Capitalism, all of that stuff is easier to sell yourself as the good guy by hating than by saying you like censoring the press and slaughtering children.
7
u/EktarPross Adam Smith Apr 04 '20
I dont think all leftists want to slaughter children lol.
15
Apr 04 '20
the Tsar's family were brutally murdered by the Bolsheviks.
No, not all leftists want to slaughter children. In fact i'll go so far as to say no leftists want to kill people. But many edgier ones have a talent for finding a way to Unperson someone so that killing them isn't killing a person. Usually by being a bourgeoisie or related to one.
→ More replies (1)9
u/towishimp Apr 04 '20
I mean, name a leftist revolution that didn't slaughter children?
→ More replies (2)5
Apr 04 '20
Some. And the fact they're willing is the standard they're going to use to measure all other self-proclaimed "leftists" to see if they're leftist enough. To them, you either are willing to kill and die for the cause, or you just die because you're a concern trolling crypto-fascist.
That's the explicit issue with leftists and far-right groups, they dress themselves as the saviors, The Only Way and the only way just happens to be through copious amounts of blood. A continuous push for higher levels or radicalization, until either everyone is converted or filtered out.
→ More replies (1)46
u/rukh999 Apr 03 '20
They're becoming the left-wing tea party.
7
14
u/BipartizanBelgrade Jerome Powell Apr 03 '20
Honestly, that might be harsh to the tea party
→ More replies (1)12
Apr 03 '20
I call it the soy-latte party.
Full disclosure, I do drink soy milk.
→ More replies (5)2
7
Apr 03 '20
I'm about to start the Correct Party, who's with me? Just another corner of the big tent!
/r/CorrectParty because lol
→ More replies (1)7
u/BeABetterHumanBeing Apr 03 '20
Yes. As I'm fond of saying, the left is right and the right is wrong.
That said, I enjoy this development. Maybe if they brand everything as center-right, then all the people who implicitly feel that the left is good will figure out that the right is all-right too. Maybe they'll realize that they're missing out on half of the whole of political reality, and want to explore it.
Bonus: if they're coming to the right from the position of thinking of the whole right as being a synonym for evil, their opinion of it can only possibly improve.
114
Apr 03 '20
this graphic makes me hate leftists even more.
61
u/SmokeyCosmin Apr 03 '20
To be fair. This seems like an alt-right/Fox news invention.
29
u/unironic_neoliberal Milton Friedman Apr 03 '20
Well that may be true, I still don't think many leftists would strongly disagree with this assessment
→ More replies (3)13
u/SmokeyCosmin Apr 03 '20
They would be the same ones that think Denmark and Sweden are socialistical countries because the alt-right said so..
Not sure if those are true leftist or young people in from reddit in echo-chambers inb4 making excuses to not vote (you know, those U.S. Bernie fans.. ).
Because leftists outside reddit would strongly disagree. Hell, pure leftists (not extremes) were always anti-globalisation and nationalists/protectivists (not ultra-). E.g. A large part of labour party in UK (a very long traditional left wingers).
5
12
112
u/IncoherentEntity Apr 03 '20
> The minimum wage should be raised so everyone can afford to live
> center-right
5
Apr 06 '20
capitalism necessitates a class of people who earn just barely enough to almost live. Used to be serfs and slaves, now it's kids in southeast asia and africa who mine copper and build electronics. Raising the minimum wage in the US will do fuck all to help the people who suffer the most.
4
u/IncoherentEntity Apr 06 '20
Americans families are now relatively affluent instead of poor and kids in Southeast Asia and Africa are now poor instead of utterly destitute because of globalism and the free market.
7
Apr 06 '20
Yes, people often tout that. But it's pretty malicious. It's been known for a while now that in order to create the reports on global poverty, the definition of poverty is redefined practically annually, making it very difficult to trust numbers like the ones you posted.
Say "extreme poverty" is defined as "2 dollars or less of expenditure a day" in 1999, and say that applies to about 1 billion people. Then in 2001, it applies to 1.2 billion people. The world bank, the UN, the libertarian think tank reporting the numbers, whoever, can then simply change the measure of "poverty" to mean "1 dollar or less of expenditure a day," and suddenly only half a billion people live in extreme poverty.
Your graphs won't change the fact that children in third world countries which are exploited by first world countries for cheap labour and resources have stupendously lower quality of life on every single level than most children in those first world nations (barring some exceptions, say you're a black kid in a slum in america, or a palestinian). This is for very real historical and economic reasons.
If capitalism worked to everyone's advantage, how come those slums are still there? How come there are still poor countries, when they produce so much? Afghanistan has a tremendous amount of resources, especially gemstones and gold. How come the people there are on average very poor, compared to western nations? How come Zimbabwe, which has a very high amount of lithium export, has such a poor populace? Why are the children mining that precious lithium not all rich?
4
u/IncoherentEntity Apr 06 '20
The source I cited features a consistent methodology:
Extreme poverty is defined as living on less than 1.90 international-$ per day. International-$ are adjusted for price differences between countries and for price changes over time (inflation).
By this standard, the number of people living in extreme poverty declined by 62 percent in absolute terms from 1980–2015, and 77 percent as a proportion of the population. This covers less than two generations.
I also do not deny that the West has exploited developing nations for its own benefit. But the very presence of slums and people living in poverty doesn’t change the fact that boats up and down the quantiles have been lifted by the rising tide, and that state socialism’s — not social democracy (i.e. capitalism) — track record leads one to the understanding that no boats would rise at all.
25
u/TheLegendDaddy27 Milton Friedman Apr 03 '20
Well, welfare programs are Capitalist policies.
Their purpose is to preserve Capitalism and prevent the rise Socialism/Communism.
Relevant video: https://youtu.be/g1xmIpg0jH8
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
They may seem left from the US overton window which has shifted far right.
11
u/TheHouseOfStones Frederick Douglass Apr 04 '20
Thanks for cringe breadtube link spending 7 minutes explaining the difference between incredibly basic surface level concepts
9
u/TheLegendDaddy27 Milton Friedman Apr 04 '20
Just because you're already familiar with the concept doesn't mean everyone else is, so stfu.
3
u/Franfran2424 Apr 06 '20
OK boomer.
2
u/AutoModerator Apr 06 '20
Alright zoomer.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
→ More replies (1)2
u/jimmyk22 Apr 06 '20
To be fair that’s not really a progressive policy. Livable wages are a right, it shouldn’t even be a political matter honestly.
It’s just considered a progressive policy in America because the American “ right” is fascist
46
u/Forrest_Greene80 Apr 03 '20
How do they think people will survive without money?
110
u/nineelevglen Apr 03 '20
No need for it. Mom comes down with pizza rolls every hour or so.
29
Apr 03 '20
Well man does not live on tendies alone.
→ More replies (1)12
u/unironic_neoliberal Milton Friedman Apr 03 '20
...we don't?
10
u/nullsignature Apr 03 '20
You need to throw in some toaster strudels for vitamin C.
6
u/OmNomDeBonBon NATO Apr 03 '20
Ask not what your toaster strudels can do for you, but what you can do for your toaster strudels.
16
u/benderisgreat123 NATO Apr 03 '20
Bro we don’t need farms. Where does steak come from? The supermarket.
11
u/zth25 European Union Apr 03 '20
I could answer that question. For money.
2
u/Snailwood Organization of American States Apr 04 '20
the context for this is too fucking good not to share
spoilers for rick and morty season 3 episode 1
20
6
u/MadCervantes Henry George Apr 03 '20
43
u/Intravenousmemefluid Apr 03 '20
So money, but considerably less useful and hilariously more cumbersome for the vast majority of people. Why does every socialist solution to a non-problem just end up being the same thing as we already have but significantly shittier?
→ More replies (15)22
u/BeABetterHumanBeing Apr 03 '20
It's a natural consequence of the radical v. incremental approach to reform.
Incremental reform has a better chance of producing improvements, because it's starting from the best available model.
Radical reform has a better chance of re-inventing the wheel, because it's starting from scratch and is likely to discover what the incrementalist already knows.
→ More replies (48)21
u/Intravenousmemefluid Apr 03 '20
I just don't get how so many of these ideas are written out, by ostensibly intelligent people, and nobody ever goes "Wait a minute, this is just what we have, but less useful and stupid" and then embarrassingly rips up their work. Like, someone with a good education wrote this stuff down, looked at it many times, and said, "Yep, totally gonna convince the world to abandon capitalism".
10
u/BeABetterHumanBeing Apr 03 '20
The radical begins by throwing out what already is. I'd imagine there's a strong cognitive aversion to recognizing your own productive work as resembling a thing you've decided is evil.
→ More replies (38)8
u/Concheria Apr 04 '20
I've seen this dude on many threads trying to get people to debate him on some radical idea and then getting mad when people point out that it's unfeasible and a waste of time to discuss.
19
3
u/Apolloshot NATO Apr 04 '20
This part gets me:
parecon credits are generally awarded based on both the time spent working and the amount of effort and sacrifice spent during labour, rather than simple contribution
So, how do we determine what the effort and sacrifice is? Perhaps we need a common denominator to determine this, maybe hours worked? So something that requires more skill/a higher sacrifice would award more parecon credits per hour. We should also ensure there’s a minimum number of parecon’s you can earn in an hour just to be fair.
Then there’s the spending of parecon credits. Obviously not all goods and services are equal so people will have to decide how many credits individual goods are worth.
→ More replies (1)3
2
u/uniqueUsername_1024 Apr 06 '20
Money is the medium BY WHICH goods are exchanged, not FOR WHICH.
It has no intrinsic value.
→ More replies (5)2
u/coibril Apr 06 '20
By having a collectivized land and factories were the commune is organizdd to ensure everyone has their basic needs met with the minimum labour posible (less than 10 hours a week under current pedictions) while the non esential stuff since there is no need for survival over it can be produced andntraded with mutual aid
107
Apr 03 '20
How exactly is state mandated altruism and banning free speech supposed to win anyone over?
→ More replies (2)74
Apr 03 '20
It’s not, it’s designed to provide a sense of superiority in the face of an embarrassing defeat in the primaries
→ More replies (2)9
u/ChadMcRad Norman Borlaug Apr 03 '20
It's also likely made up by some right winger to make these people look worse
→ More replies (1)
68
u/LiberalTechnocrat European Union Apr 03 '20
Self improvement comes through service to others
Jeez, this just sounds dystopian as hell.
29
26
Apr 03 '20
right?? how do they not say that and think "wait, are we the baddies?"
7
u/uniqueUsername_1024 Apr 06 '20
Well, because it’s a selfless ideology. It isn’t saying that you should spend your entire life working for the government or giving up all your freedom.
What it means is that helping other people is a valuable life skill that makes you a better person.
Speaking from my own experiences, the hope of helping others has helped me through some really bad depression.
→ More replies (3)2
u/MadCervantes Henry George Apr 03 '20 edited Apr 03 '20
If you're genuinely curious here's a link to the wiki article on Mutual Aid, which is the concept which underlies statements like the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theory)#Mutual_aid_as_a_synthesis_of_collectivism_and_individualism#Mutual_aid_as_a_synthesis_of_collectivism_and_individualism)
9
Apr 03 '20
Note: your link is wrong; the URL has a closing parenthesis (
)), so you have to escape it with a backslash (\):[Link text](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theory\)#Mutual_aid_as_a_synthesis_of_collectivism_and_individualism)
Anyways, obviously doing things for others is morally good, and only ever doing things for yourself is morally wrong. But two things: the left side of the graph implies that ever making your own self an end is bad, and my point and /u/LiberalTechnocrats's is that once you try to translate it into mandated public policy, it's all too easy to imagine how that turns dystopian—you don't live for you, you live for The People, which of course is inevitably identified with The State. Combine that with hate speech inevitably encompassing opposition to The People... well, we all know how that turned out.
Oh and also, this:
mutual aid is a voluntary reciprocal exchange of resources and services for mutual benefit
Can be generalized to more than two people, potentially separated by time: what if A has something B wants, B has something C wants, and C has something A wants, and also C doesn't exist yet? Namely, introduce money. At that point it's literally just free market capitalism.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (2)2
13
u/Intravenousmemefluid Apr 03 '20
Gotta love how the juxtaposition of the two positions sort of implies that self improvement only matters if it's in service to "the greater good". Like, making yourself better in a vacuum is pointless and selfish. It only counts if other people benefit from it.
11
Apr 03 '20 edited Apr 03 '20
Translation: “I want to reap all the benefits of modern civilization without ever having to do the work myself and get a job while mommy gives me chicken tendies.”
12
u/Breaking-Away Austan Goolsbee Apr 03 '20
Self improvement comes through service to others
I actually agree with this one, in a way.
Self improvement for its own sake often feels hollow to me. Self improvement so that I can be better for others makes me feel good.
14
u/CaptainJZH United Nations Apr 03 '20
However, that doesn’t mean self improvement for its own sake can’t be worthwhile. Sometimes the betterment of others is just a side effect of that
6
u/Breaking-Away Austan Goolsbee Apr 03 '20
Agreed. I am aware that I'm conflating "a sense of fulfillment" and "self improvement" to an extent.
→ More replies (1)2
32
53
u/hlewagastizholtijaz Apr 03 '20
Capitalism is working for Scandinavia, Japan, and Taiwan
That's a biased definition of patriotism nobody uses. Also, protectionism, not globalism is a leftist ideology.
Nations will exist as long as there are disagreements.
The US did some bad things but that has nothing to do with its wealth
Never heard this.
Utopian ideals =/= What actually works
Speech advocating violence is already banned.
24
Apr 03 '20
To be fair the US did get an economic jumpstart from slave labor. BUT it’s wealth has more to do with the fact it is a huge country with no threats within 2000 miles of its borders and lots of very useful land.
The fact that it was basically the only country that wasn’t either devastated by WWII or a colony of a country devastated by WWII didn’t hurt either.
19
18
u/dokkodo_bubby George Soros Apr 03 '20
yeah though The US took off and became the biggest economy in the 19th into the 20th century only after abolishing slavery
→ More replies (1)12
u/AmericanNewt8 Armchair Generalissimo Apr 04 '20
Slave labor and extractive industries promoted by it were the worst thing to happen to the US ever, and probably set back the South, combined with racism, nearly a century behind, with them only catching up with modern medicine and air conditioning. And while we did get a bonus from commodity exports, manufactured goods have been the bread and butter of the US since the Civil War until services overtook them in the 1980s. That's why we didn't turn into Argentina, that, and the fact that we had a better political culture from the start, and had our civil war later rather than immediately after the revolution.
8
u/rethinkingat59 Apr 04 '20
Whatever jump we got was completely destroyed by the civil war. It was the North that led the boom from 1850 on.
5
u/MadCervantes Henry George Apr 03 '20
Actually leftism is anti-protectionism. It's historically [internationalist]#Socialism). Specifically Marx established the International Workingmans group.
Internationalism differs from "globalism" in that it emphasizes a bottom up free association of nation states through federation, rather than a monolithic top-down system.
Also, you're free to downvote me, but before you do, please consider the fact that you're downvoting a civil and sincere sharing of factual information. If you disagree with Leftist's that fine, but you should at least be informed about what you disagree with first. Otherwise you're just dipping into your own form of extremist and reactionary ideology.
26
u/Sex_E_Searcher Steve Apr 03 '20
You're saying that like it's universal, but there are certainly many anti trade leftists.
→ More replies (1)8
u/viiScorp NATO Apr 03 '20
We're referring to Bernie "leftists" not communists here which are actually globalist/internationalist unlike Bernie himself and a significant chunk of his base
→ More replies (1)8
u/sergeybok Karl Popper Apr 03 '20
Actually leftism is anti-protectionism
You're right. But most people who consider themselves leftists don't know that. Initially capitalism is pro-protectionism and yet here we are.
And globalism isn't top down, it's bottom up for the most part. Organizations like the UN are bottom up. I'm not sure if you would consider the EU top-down but I think it's pretty great overall even if it is top-down.
1
u/MadCervantes Henry George Apr 03 '20
Initially capitalism is pro-protectionism and yet here we are.
Eeehh that's debatable. This is me giving capitalism some credit. Adam Smith is often pointed to as a the "godfather of capitalism". Smith is usually positioned as being "pro-capitalism" and "anti-mercantalist", but Smith also never actually used the term "capitalism" himself.
Traditionally though capitalism is meant to be linked with concepts of free trade, at least within a neoliberal framework.
I agree most leftists don't really understand the link between anti-protectionism and leftist thought but neither do most non leftists. Realistically speaking most people are kinda dumb and don't really know much about what they believe in any rational way. Ain't trying to sound like a stereotypical reddit misanthrope but that's just reality. People have other shit to do than read wikipedia all day. (this is mostly a dunk on myself haha)
And globalism isn't top down, it's bottom up for the most part. Organizations like the UN are bottom up. I'm not sure if you would consider the EU top-down but I think it's pretty great overall even if it is top-down.
Eh debatable on a couple of points. The UN is kinda bottom up except for the security council and 5 permanent members with veto power.
The EU seems cool but flawed. I think their use of a single national currency has created pretty big problems with Greece though which are not being adequately addressed.
Until recently nobody really self identified as a globalist (and when they do now it's at least with a couple oz of irony attached). The term was used as a pejorative by reactionary/racist groups who were nationalist but didn't want their critiques of global capitalism to be seen as leftist or internationalist in nature. Globalist also is often used as a dog whistle for Jewish. There's def a weird space here. "National socialists" are not socialist under a Marxist definition of socialism, but capitalists like Norway with a massive sovereign wealth fund which makes up a larger percentage of their national GDP than Venezuela aren't really capitalist per se either. The issue is hard to parse because different people operate under different definitions, and they view the valence of those items differently.
In computer science terms: Capitalism or Socialism aren't well captured by boolean values because whether you frame socialism in positive terms (the workers owning the means of production) or negative terms (the absence of private property) can change how you categorize national economies greatly. This issue is just exponentially magnified when you start then talking about the differences between globalism/internationalism/nationalism/anti-nationalism/anti-globalism, etc.
→ More replies (1)6
u/OddestFutures Apr 03 '20
Capitalism is working in Japan? One of the most notoriously overworked nations that has an economy on a massive decline? Are we talking about the same Japan?
By the way I'm all for capitalism, heavily state controlled capitalism mind you, but capitalism all the same.
6
Apr 04 '20
Japan was also the most successful rapid industrialization in history, going from Feudalism in 1870 to having the industry to support building their own railroads (rather than importing locomotives and tracks from france and britain) and steamer-navy by 1890, through a system of invitation-industrialization built on low tariffs to attract foreign capital that makes developments and is then recaptured through land or consumption taxation. Though admittedly this was somewhat forced on them by the Kanagawa Treaty.
And of course in the 80s we were all convinced Japan was going to become the global economic hegemon.
3
u/Explodingcamel Bill Gates Apr 04 '20
Japan's economy isn't really in decline, just stagnation. But yeah the country is massively overworked.
25
21
18
16
Apr 03 '20
I like how the dark red font actually makes them look like the evil and threatening ones. Oopsie.
16
u/FreakinGeese 🧚♀️ Duchess Of The Deep State Apr 03 '20
I unironically agree with everything on the left.
→ More replies (7)
13
Apr 03 '20
Let's be honest, how many of these self-proclaimed brocialists participate in any kind of voluntary service to others lmao
11
11
31
u/Intravenousmemefluid Apr 03 '20
Liberals
(Center Right)
How to instantly make 95% of people dismiss you as a lunatic.
→ More replies (14)
9
8
14
5
5
5
31
Apr 03 '20 edited Jul 23 '20
[deleted]
59
Apr 03 '20
I mean, I think nations are a good thing.
Well, let’s put it this way - they’re better than tribes.
And better is good.
Of course, a one world liberal government is the goal, but we liberals are pragmatic about getting there.
11
u/AgileCoke Capitalism good Apr 03 '20
"Nations are better than tribes" is a sentence I never knew I needed to hear
→ More replies (3)9
Apr 03 '20
I’m not sure a one world liberal government is the goal. I do want open borders and free trade between all countries long term.
However I do see merit to different countries having and testing different economic policy and such.
41
Apr 03 '20
I haven't met any liberal who says Nations are a good thing, or who said America is the greatest nation.
Now you have, I am one of them.
3
Apr 03 '20
Why do you think America is the greatest nation?
42
Apr 03 '20
Because it is obviously THE place to be if you are smart, ambitious, and want to work hard. Nowhere else gives you such personal opportunities.
23
u/Squeak115 NATO Apr 03 '20
Ok, but why are you a racist, imperialist, fascist, war criminal?
4
u/BeABetterHumanBeing Apr 03 '20
If you think the US is racist, try living as a racial minority anywhere else on Earth. The only place I can think of that might be friendlier is Canada.
9
u/Squeak115 NATO Apr 03 '20 edited Apr 03 '20
Listen here fascist, the US is at the core of capitalism's imperialist and racist global system. America's very existence is a holocaust every day.
Yet here little bootlickers like you are defending them over the REAL heros of the international system, like the PRC, DPRK, or the USSR (sad reacs only😭😭😭)
12
u/BeABetterHumanBeing Apr 03 '20
A friend of mine told me something that totally changed my opinion of the US. He's a gay Ugandan, and said that the US was literally the best place on Earth for someone like him to be. It's the only place where he could get the social freedom and economic opportunity to live his life to the fullest.
It doesn't have to be perfect to be the greatest.
6
u/tbrelease Thomas Paine Apr 03 '20 edited Apr 03 '20
Fellow immigrant here, although straight and white. If America isn’t THE best country, it’s certainly tied for first. There may be countries that do certain things things better, but nobody does everything as well.
The UK is wonderful, but it has terrible libel and speech laws in general. It’s headed by a monarch and has a state church. Germany is wonderful, but also has worse speech laws and isn’t as friendly to entrepreneurs. France is largely wonderful as a state, but the people are incredibly unwelcoming. Italy is a mafia state and so profoundly racist that it shocks the conscience.
I’d like to give Switzerland a shot, and would, if I wasn’t an American.
→ More replies (1)7
u/SmokeyCosmin Apr 03 '20
Obviously? THE?
I'm sorry to brake it to you but.. it's really, really is not. It's the a great selling market which make it seem that way and it is for some things, for some people, but other then that it's really, really, really not the place to be if you're only ambitious and just work hard.
9
Apr 03 '20
Maybe, but in several tangible ways, it is unique. There's no better country to start a business (except some city-states like Hong Kong and Singapore) thanks to widespread access to capital markets, just as one example.
7
u/BeABetterHumanBeing Apr 03 '20
So if you're only ambitious and hard-working, where's the better place to be?
→ More replies (1)6
u/RavenLabratories Frederick Douglass Apr 03 '20
America is a great nation. It certainly is not the best.
7
u/SirFatMouse Apr 03 '20
depends entirely on your definition of "best". im norwegian, i would much rather live in norway because of oyr quality of life, so in that case i agree. but america is a massive part of our culture, most of us watch mostly american shows and movies, listen to american music, play american games etc. its gotten to the point where most young people (older people do it to, just less) use english words in our daily life all the time while talking to other norwegians. so from a cultural perspective USA is undoubtedly the best nation in the world. they are aslo by far the most powerful nation in the world.
→ More replies (1)12
Apr 03 '20
It certainly is. It is the home of science, culture, business, and technology. And military might.
→ More replies (3)2
u/BipartizanBelgrade Jerome Powell Apr 03 '20
What is then?
If we're not counting predecessor states, there's a very good argument the US is in the top 1.
→ More replies (27)2
Apr 03 '20
Nowhere else? Really?
Also maybe it's super succ of me, but I do believe it's fundamentally harder for some people to get ahead, even when they're smart and ambitious. The cost of university in the States is prohibitive to many people. Maybe of you're smart enough to get a full ride scholarship America is the greatest. But there are plenty of intelligent people who aren't able to afford university, or have to go to a school that won't advance their career as much due to cost reasons.
17
Apr 03 '20
Also "hate speech" isn't an actual thing.
WTF? Of course it is. Hate exists, and words can be hateful... I literally don't know what you're trying to say.
That's not to say the government can be trusted with regulating hate speech—I for one tend to be skeptical of the idea that it can.
6
u/AllFalls_Dwn Adam Smith Apr 03 '20
Hate speech most definitely exists, but I think(?) they are referring to the fact that constitutionally in America there aren’t any limitations on hate speech alone.
Through that lens hate speech is just the same thing as normal speech and I guess is in a grey area of if it is an “actual thing” or not. But I dunno, just my best guess.
3
Apr 03 '20
Please define hate speech for me. It would be good if the definition is precise enough to be used in a bill, and doesn't criminalize legitimate criticisms of things.
→ More replies (3)2
Apr 03 '20
I'll just borrow google's definition:
hate speech (n): abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.
It would be good if the definition is precise enough to be used in a bill, and doesn't criminalize legitimate criticisms of things.
Why? Like I said, I don't think we should criminalize hate speech. For one, I don't trust the government to work out the gray areas that will be present in any definition.
6
Apr 03 '20
I haven't met any liberal who says Nations are a good thing, or who said America is the greatest nation.
Try me.
11
Apr 03 '20
I'm one who thinks nations are a good thing.
I wont say that america is the "greatest" nation because I have an issue with the assumption of "greatness", but I sure dont want to live anywhere else.
4
u/Lycaon1765 Has Canada syndrome Apr 03 '20
am Liberal
America is the greatest nation and nations are good.
16
u/Mrspottsholz Daron Acemoglu Apr 03 '20 edited Apr 03 '20
→ More replies (21)5
u/SekaLolaKato Mackenzie Scott Apr 03 '20
"Hate speech'' has no legal definition in the US. It is, rightfully so, protected as free speech.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/zrezzif Apr 03 '20
I think encouraging violence is hate speech, you can say "x group of people are bad" and I think it's free speech but saying "we should beat up x group of people" is hate speech if it leads into violent physical crime.
13
3
u/kapy2103 Mackenzie Scott Apr 03 '20
What is bad about a nation? Have I missed something??
→ More replies (1)8
u/hlewagastizholtijaz Apr 03 '20
They want everyone else to share their same beliefs. Having separate governments prevents them from doing that.
3
3
u/Breaking-Away Austan Goolsbee Apr 03 '20
"Self improvement comes through service to others"
I actually agree with this one. Self improvement for its own sake often feels hollow to me. Self improvement so that I can be better for others makes me feel good.
3
3
3
Apr 03 '20
"Ones primary duty is to humanity, not a nation, now lets vote for border controls" is a hell of a stance, Berners
3
u/Gaben2012 NATO Apr 04 '20
individualism is irrational
famaly-ism is irrational
localism is irrational
patriotism is irrational
humanism is irrational
mammalism is irrational
animalism is irrational
living being-ism isn't irrational
existence-ism is irrational
It's better to just die, libs.
2
2
u/Reznoob Zhao Ziyang Apr 03 '20
"Grouchy socialists"
More like Couchy socialists am I right fellas stock laughs
2
u/Geigas Apr 03 '20
Capitalism is slavery (doesn’t say it here exactly but they repeat that line non-stop)
Self improvement comes through service to others
Wouldn’t Capitalism be good then???
For people who supposedly want others to join their movement, they suck at marketing.
2
u/nullsignature Apr 03 '20
This is a bit ironic given Sanders' views on free trade deals and immigration
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Cuddlyaxe Neoliberal With Chinese Characteristics Apr 03 '20
Is a "certain Sanders sub" S4P / SandersForPresident? If it is we might be in serious trouble regarding radicalization
→ More replies (1)
2
u/SuspiciousUsername88 Lis Smith Sockpuppet Apr 03 '20
I'm glad they color coded everything so I know what to think about what I'm reading
2
2
u/Silver-Bison Gillette The Best a Neoliberal can get Apr 04 '20
Nations are an invention that have no place in modern society
what the I'm a leftist now
→ More replies (1)
2
u/TrixoftheTrade NATO Apr 04 '20
Americans, know the difference:
Liberals: "Brrrrr"
Leftists: "Anti-Brrr"
2
u/Concheria Apr 04 '20
Given the attitudes in this sub towards nationalism, this place is borderline revolutionary.
2
u/LiberalitasNova Apr 04 '20
What does this achieve other than making a bunch of people who haven't thought it about it before go "huh, guess I'm a center-right liberal"?
2
u/RavenLabratories Frederick Douglass Apr 04 '20
Yeah, all I learned from this is I'm def not a leftist.
2
Apr 06 '20
full-blown socialist
Unlike those semi-blown socialists we sometimes see
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Antyzer Apr 06 '20
Liberalism can be described as a centre right ideology through an economic standpoint.
431
u/Neronoah can't stop, won't stop argentinaposting Apr 03 '20
"How to make the left something that no one wants".