Socialsim is only possible through Coercion, by Paul (old title: Equity v. Equality and Government Policy) (2 Viewers)

[coldseat]

I thought of posting this in the All Things Racist thread, but ultimately felt it would be better in it's own thread. I ran across this opinion by George Will warning about the creeping danger of equity based government policy pushed by progressives. His overriding point is:

Harlan’s Plessy dissent insisted that the Constitution’s post-Civil War amendments forbid “the imposition of any burdens or disabilities that constitute badges of slavery or servitude.” Today, 125 years later, multiplying departures from colorblind government — myriad race-based preferential treatments — are becoming a different but also invidious badge: of permanent incapacity.

Laws or administrative policies adopted for (in the words of today’s chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr.) the “sordid” practice of “divvying us up by race” can be deleterious for the intended beneficiaries. Benefits allocated to a specially protected racial cohort might come to be seen as a badge of inferiority. Such preferences might seem to insinuate that recipients of government-dispensed special privileges cannot thrive without them.

Government spoils systems, racial or otherwise, wound their beneficiaries. Getting used to special dependency, and soon experiencing it as an entitlement, the beneficiaries might come to feel entitled to preferences forever. Hence, progressives working to supplant equality of opportunity with “equity” — race-conscious government allocation of social rewards — are profoundly insulting, and potentially injurious, to African Americans and other favored groups.

Canellos’s stirring biography resoundingly establishes that Harlan was a hero. So, what are those who today are trying to erase the great principle of colorblindness that Harlan championed?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/30/pursuing-equity-over-equality-reveals-nations-moral-regression/

This is a very convincing argument for equality based government policy, one that I used to believe in, but it ignores a lot of realities and history. First, it ignores that centuries of purposeful inequality in government policy have directly led to the economic, social, and community destabilization and destitution that prevented black families for accumulating wealth. And how those purposeful actions have lead to the astonishing difference in the wealth gap between black and white families that has only worsened over time. While conservative will acknowledge this wealth gap and pay lip service to closing it, they fail to admit/consider how equality based public policy (something we've been trying to implement in race neutral government policy since the 60's) has failed to correct the issue and in many case has served to exacerbate it. While race neutral, equality based government policy may be easier for white voters to accept, it fails to address the historic inequalities entrenched by centuries of purposeful government based inequality. John Oliver make this point perfectly in this piece on housing discrimination. It's a 30 minute commitment, but well worth it because he provides a lot of prospective.



My overall point here is that if we you actually care or want to correct the effects centuries has purposeful government inequality, you actually have to target the aid and remediation to the people who where targeted in the inequality (i.e. equity based government policy). Anything else is paying lip service to the problem and asking black people in particular to "just get over it".

 

[Paul]

Trump was also democratically elected and he attempted and almost succeed in a coup had it not for a very few people in power at the DOJ and different states standing up and saying NO. Just because somebody is democratically elected doesn't mean they actually believe in democracy, whether they're capitalist or socialist. The very same tyranny almost happened here.

Thank you for making my point. Democratic socialism remains an oxymoron.

 

[RebSaint]

Has anybody declared shenanigans yet?

 

[UriUT]

Has anybody declared shenanigans yet?

Along time ago. Oh I got my monthly news letter from the social democratic r us and the plan is on schedule. Its a full go for 2030 when we are full socialist. Only wrench in the cog is that we can't fool the brightest of the bright. They see our ideology as an oxymoron. All our tactics have been laid bear as scarecrows. If he gets his message out, we are done for. Can't fool those Facebook University graduates.

 

[coldseat]

Thank you for making my point. Democratic socialism remains an oxymoron.

I didn't make your point. The point I made was that because somebody claims to be a capitalist (ala Trump) it does not mean that they believe in democracy. The two are not synonymous, as you would like us to believe.

By the same token, because somebody believes that a socialist economic approach is better for specific segments of our economy (ala democratic socialist), it doesn't mean they don't believe in democracy and that the way they accomplish that is through authoritarianism.

Its really about the person and their motivations. Bernie Sanders and AOC believe in democracy a lot more than Trump and Republicans currently. Trump and Republicans at the moment believe in corrosion to accomplish their goals.

 

[UriUT]

I didn't make your point. The point I made was that because somebody claims to be a capitalist (ala Trump) it does not mean that they believe in democracy. The two are not synonymous, as you would like us to believe.

By the same token, because somebody believes that a socialist economic approach is better for specific segments of our economy (ala democratic socialist), it doesn't mean they don't believe in democracy and that they way they accomplish that is through authoritarianism.

Its really about the person and their motivations. Bernie Sanders and AOC believe in democracy a lot more than Trump and Republicans currently. Trump and Republicans at the moment believe in corrosion to accomplish their goals.

Wait, was autocracy linked exclusively to socialism?

 

[zztop]

capitalism : anybody can be rich
communism: nobody can be rich
socialism: anybody can be rich but nobody should be poor

 

[coldseat]

Wait, was autocracy linked exclusively to socialism?

That's pretty much the link @Paul has been trying to get us to believe this whole time. Or at least that you can't have any economic model with the word "socialism" in it that isn't accomplished through autocracy.

 

[Paul]

I didn't make your point. The point I made was that because somebody claims to be a capitalist (ala Trump) it does not mean that they believe in democracy. The two are not synonymous, as you would like us to believe.

By the same token, because somebody believes that a socialist economic approach is better for specific segments of our economy (ala democratic socialist), it doesn't mean they don't believe in democracy and that they way they accomplish that is through authoritarianism.

Its really about the person and their motivations. Bernie Sanders and AOC believe in democracy a lot more than Trump and Republicans currently. Trump and Republicans at the moment believe in corrosion to accomplish their goals.

Any leader whether on the left or the right can lean into authoritarianism. In this regard I would say the left has a greater proclivity to the authoritarian side than than the right despite the tendencies of Trump who is mostly a populist nationalist.

I am talking about the systems it self and not a particular leader. Within this context socialism requires much more coercion than capitalism. In essence in socialism there is government control whereas in capitalism is every man for himself. I am simply making an observation and that does not mean I do not favor National Medicare, free college, social security, maternal leave, etc. In this regard the liberals have the high moral ground.

 

[Paul]

capitalism : anybody can be rich
communism: nobody can be rich

I agree!

socialism: anybody can be rich but nobody should be poor

How do you define poor? Is the definition relative to the wealth gap?

Don't get me wrong I also love the concept of socialism. I also accept that for many it is not pleasant to live in a capitalist society where a person needs to move the hands and feet perennially to keep the head above water. I can see the appeal of waking up every day in a society where the state provides everything and there are no worries or concerns. That has always been attractive to the masses.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Any leader whether on the left or the right can lean into authoritarianism.

In this regard I would say the left has a greater proclivity to the authoritarian side than than the right despite the tendencies of Trump who is mostly a populist nationalist.

You preach both sides do it but yet every single time, you attempt to place the blame with the left while excusing pretty much everything that the right does. And you do it by blaming the left for the actions of the right. You have no credibility. I sincerely hope that others will reconsider engaging with you as it is a waste of time and effort. You are extremely and impressively misinformed on so much.

 

[V Chip]

Chávez was democratically elected to establish a socialist state. Do think that is democratic socialism?

No. It’s not even close. Try another bogeyman.

 

[Paul]

No. It’s not even close. Try another bogeyman.

Now is your turn to provide a definition of democratic socialism. By the way since people use the term democratic socialism we must conclude that there is such a thing as non-democratic socialism.

 

[brandon]

You guys claim to be in favor of a free market economy, however, for the hard core lefty democratic socialism is the first step towards establishing full blown socialism.

I see we've added the slippery slope to our fallacy arsenal.

 

[RebSaint]

You preach both sides do it but yet every single time, you attempt to place the blame with the left while excusing pretty much everything that the right does. And you do it by blaming the left for the actions of the right. You have no credibility. I sincerely hope that others will reconsider engaging with you as it is a waste of time and effort. You are extremely and impressively misinformed on so much.

BOTH SI....(I forgot, somebody has this [tm]) Was it Brandon?

 

[Dragon]

Now is your turn to provide a definition of democratic socialism. By the way since people use the term democratic socialism we must conclude that there is such a thing as non-democratic socialism.

This is my last reply to you. I have been living in a country who since the mid 1930 has had a social democratic government for the majority of the time and a country where both left AND right agrees that both the social AND the business elements of our society is equally important. So you do not need to lecture me about definitions because I have been living it for almost 60 years by now!

You see a social democratic society is not against businesses. Rather we have as previously mentioned lots of ways to help our companies succeed. However their success are created by a well educated workforce, and systems like free medical care, paid vacations which helps to keep them healthy, motivated and focused on their jobs.

We have wellfunctioning public transportation that helps those employees report to work in a timely og reliable fashion and we have an "ombudsmand" who helps sort out issues between employees and employers so they don't escalate.

We have a supervised and licensed daycare system which enable parents to leave their kids while they work and know that they are safe and will be taken good care of,

We have one of the highest productivity per manhour in the EU which again helps increase company profits.

So whatever you have read on wiki that you keep on repeating here is just smoke and mirrors. I don't need a wiki - I'm living in it every day!

 

[brandon]

BOTH SI....(I forgot, somebody has this [tm]) Was it Brandon?

I appreciate you respecting my trademark.

BOTH SIDES!

 

[Paul]

This is my last reply to you. I have been living in a country who since the mid 1930 has had a social democratic government for the majority of the time and a country where both left AND right agrees that both the social AND the business elements of our society is equally important. So you do not need to lecture me about definitions because I have been living it for almost 60 years by now!

OK, so you live in Helsingør, Denmark. The Nordic countries are much smaller than America and up until recently they were quite homogeneous. They were basically a large family with a lot of kinship. Within this context it is easy to go for social programs that benefit all. When it comes to family members I am a communist.

Socialism works well in small groups where everybody has the same goals. Socialism tends to fall apart when there is no unity and when different groups have their own agenda. It seems to me Denmark encourages full assimilation of immigrants to preserve the unity. The overwhelming majority of Danes are culturally Christian and Christianity is the state religion. That is another point for unity and kinship. Danes trust each other.

In America we have no unity, people prefer multiculturalism over American culture, and many groups remain unassimilated . We are becoming a balkanized nation where group identity politics is king.

You see a social democratic society is not against businesses. Rather we have as previously mentioned lots of ways to help our companies succeed. However their success are created by a well educated workforce, and systems like free medical care, paid vacations which helps to keep them healthy, motivated and focused on their jobs.

I have said at nauseam I am for all of those values. My fears are centered on those that want much more than that.

We have wellfunctioning public transportation that helps those employees report to work in a timely og reliable fashion and we have an "ombudsmand" who helps sort out issues between employees and employers so they don't escalate.

We have a supervised and licensed daycare system which enable parents to leave their kids while they work and know that they are safe and will be taken good care of,

We have one of the highest productivity per manhour in the EU which again helps increase company profits.

So whatever you have read on wiki that you keep on repeating here is just smoke and mirrors. I don't need a wiki - I'm living in it every day!

Easier to do in a small nation that is united. If we could only become united and stop bickering.

 

[V Chip]

Now is your turn to provide a definition of democratic socialism. By the way since people use the term democratic socialism we must conclude that there is such a thing as non-democratic socialism.

I posted a good one from a speech by Bernie Sanders in the Language thread.

Language

In another thread, it was brought to my attention that we am not allowed to use certain centuries old definitions because they have been 'updated'. That discussion was about the definition of 'racism'. I asked who controls the 'words' and who exactly gets to update the meaning of those commonly...

madaboutpolitics.com

It was in response to you in that thread.

Yes there is a thing such as non-democratic socialism. There is a thing such as non-democratic capitalism, or communism, or any other economic government system. This is not the "gotcha" you think it is.