Socialsim is only possible through Coercion, by Paul (old title: Equity v. Equality and Government Policy) (3 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]

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.

There was no attempt to "gotcha". You are too entrenched in your views.
Capitalism is not coercive. It is ultimate freedom.
Socialism is coercive. It is state control.

 

[Paul]

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

Chávez came to power, after unsuccessfully attempting a coup, by winning an election in 1998. He won by selling the idea of giving power to the people, and ending the corruption of the traditional political parties that had governed Venezuela for the last quarter-century.

He won the election by a convincing margin. He started his presidency with the support of the people and a barrel of oil going for more than US$100.

Once in power, Chávez replaced the existing Congress by creating a new National Assembly, which he controlled. He used his new National Assembly to rewrite the constitution to perpetuate himself in power. The presidential periods were originally five-year terms without the possibility of immediate reelection. Former presidents could run again only after two terms had passed. The National Assembly changed it to six-year terms, with unlimited reelections, and extended these new parameters to governors and other elected officials.

Chavez served as president for 14 years, until his death in 2013.

The new National Assembly also reshaped the Supreme Court. They alleged the existing justices were corrupt, and inserted Chávez’s followers in their place.

Chávez created an image of an enlightened world leader, selling oil at a discount to many Latin American nations to buy good will. For example, he struck a deal to provided Cuba with deeply discounted oil in exchange for Cuban doctors.

He started a war against the private sector. He nationalized thousands of private companies and industries, to the amazement of his followers and to the astonishment of business owners and consumers who did not see it coming.

Chávez’s style was confrontational, disrespectful and self-centered. He would spend countless hours on national TV offending anyone who would dare to disagree with him, and was known for reprimanding and firing cabinet ministers on live TV.

How today's crisis in Venezuela was created by Hugo Chávez's 'revolutionary' plan

How does an oil-rich country end up with a food shortage? A GSU international development expert explains how the legacy of one man’s rise to power continues to cripple the nation.

theconversation.com

 

[samiam5211]

Chávez came to power, after unsuccessfully attempting a coup, by winning an election in 1998. He won by selling the idea of giving power to the people, and ending the corruption of the traditional political parties that had governed Venezuela for the last quarter-century.

He won the election by a convincing margin. He started his presidency with the support of the people and a barrel of oil going for more than US$100.

Once in power, Chávez replaced the existing Congress by creating a new National Assembly, which he controlled. He used his new National Assembly to rewrite the constitution to perpetuate himself in power. The presidential periods were originally five-year terms without the possibility of immediate reelection. Former presidents could run again only after two terms had passed. The National Assembly changed it to six-year terms, with unlimited reelections, and extended these new parameters to governors and other elected officials.

Chavez served as president for 14 years, until his death in 2013.

The new National Assembly also reshaped the Supreme Court. They alleged the existing justices were corrupt, and inserted Chávez’s followers in their place.

Chávez created an image of an enlightened world leader, selling oil at a discount to many Latin American nations to buy good will. For example, he struck a deal to provided Cuba with deeply discounted oil in exchange for Cuban doctors.

He started a war against the private sector. He nationalized thousands of private companies and industries, to the amazement of his followers and to the astonishment of business owners and consumers who did not see it coming.

Chávez’s style was confrontational, disrespectful and self-centered. He would spend countless hours on national TV offending anyone who would dare to disagree with him, and was known for reprimanding and firing cabinet ministers on live TV.

How today's crisis in Venezuela was created by Hugo Chávez's 'revolutionary' plan

How does an oil-rich country end up with a food shortage? A GSU international development expert explains how the legacy of one man’s rise to power continues to cripple the nation.

theconversation.com

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.

Taking over private businesses to enrich you and your friends isn’t socialism anymore than molesting kids in the locker room is football.

Venezuela is an example of democracy failing, not socialism.

 

[Goatman saint]

Chavez is closer to what Trump tried to do than what AOC is trying to do. I’m half drunk and can realize this.

 

[Paul]

Taking over private businesses to enrich you and your friends isn’t socialism anymore than molesting kids in the locker room is football.

Venezuela is an example of democracy failing, not socialism.

The Dishonesty of ‘Real Socialism Has Never Been Tried’​

One tactic that today’s socialists employ is to portray the lessons of history and world affairs as irrelevant to their cause. They claim that the Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist Cuba, and today’s regime in Venezuela are not real examples of socialism at all. Real socialism, you may have heard them say, has never been tried.

Socialists try to insulate the system they advocate from this evidence of failure by using a talking point that (as we shall see) they have used since the beginning of their movement. They put a spin on the “public ownership of the means of production” definition. Real socialism, they say, doesn’t mean state control of the economy; it means control by “the people,” especially by the workers.

The Dishonesty of 'Real Socialism Has Never Been Tried'

Only wordplay and fantasy speculation can rationalize the idea that the Soviet Union and other brutal regimes weren’t really socialist.

newideal.aynrand.org

 

[samiam5211]

The Dishonesty of ‘Real Socialism Has Never Been Tried’​

One tactic that today’s socialists employ is to portray the lessons of history and world affairs as irrelevant to their cause. They claim that the Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist Cuba, and today’s regime in Venezuela are not real examples of socialism at all. Real socialism, you may have heard them say, has never been tried.

Socialists try to insulate the system they advocate from this evidence of failure by using a talking point that (as we shall see) they have used since the beginning of their movement. They put a spin on the “public ownership of the means of production” definition. Real socialism, they say, doesn’t mean state control of the economy; it means control by “the people,” especially by the workers.

The Dishonesty of 'Real Socialism Has Never Been Tried'

Only wordplay and fantasy speculation can rationalize the idea that the Soviet Union and other brutal regimes weren’t really socialist.

newideal.aynrand.org

Use your own words.

Linking something from the internet doesn’t mean much these days.

 

[Dragon]

The Dishonesty of ‘Real Socialism Has Never Been Tried’​

One tactic that today’s socialists employ is to portray the lessons of history and world affairs as irrelevant to their cause. They claim that the Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist Cuba, and today’s regime in Venezuela are not real examples of socialism at all. Real socialism, you may have heard them say, has never been tried.

Socialists try to insulate the system they advocate from this evidence of failure by using a talking point that (as we shall see) they have used since the beginning of their movement. They put a spin on the “public ownership of the means of production” definition. Real socialism, they say, doesn’t mean state control of the economy; it means control by “the people,” especially by the workers.

The Dishonesty of 'Real Socialism Has Never Been Tried'

Only wordplay and fantasy speculation can rationalize the idea that the Soviet Union and other brutal regimes weren’t really socialist.

newideal.aynrand.org

It is an oppinion piece.. So your source is an ultra conservative think tank who works to promote selfishness and free market fundamentalism? Wonder why they dont like socialism

Rand, who died in 1982 and was alternately ridiculed and revered throughout her lifetime, is having a moment. Long the poster girl of a particularly hardcore brand of free-market fundamentalism – the advocate of a philosophy she called “the virtue of selfishness” – Rand has always had acolytes in the conservative political classes. The Republican speaker of the US House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, is so committed a Randian, he was famous for giving every new member of his staff a copy of Rand’s gargantuan novel,

 

[V Chip]

[Cut and paste job]

You asked if Venezuela is an example of Democratic Socialism.

It is not.

Thanks.

 

[SystemShock]

Chávez came to power, after unsuccessfully attempting a coup, by winning an election in 1998. He won by selling the idea of giving power to the people, and ending the corruption of the traditional political parties that had governed Venezuela for the last quarter-century.

He won the election by a convincing margin. He started his presidency with the support of the people and a barrel of oil going for more than US$100.

Once in power, Chávez replaced the existing Congress by creating a new National Assembly, which he controlled. He used his new National Assembly to rewrite the constitution to perpetuate himself in power. The presidential periods were originally five-year terms without the possibility of immediate reelection. Former presidents could run again only after two terms had passed. The National Assembly changed it to six-year terms, with unlimited reelections, and extended these new parameters to governors and other elected officials.

Chavez served as president for 14 years, until his death in 2013.

The new National Assembly also reshaped the Supreme Court. They alleged the existing justices were corrupt, and inserted Chávez’s followers in their place.

Chávez created an image of an enlightened world leader, selling oil at a discount to many Latin American nations to buy good will. For example, he struck a deal to provided Cuba with deeply discounted oil in exchange for Cuban doctors.

He started a war against the private sector. He nationalized thousands of private companies and industries, to the amazement of his followers and to the astonishment of business owners and consumers who did not see it coming.

Chávez’s style was confrontational, disrespectful and self-centered. He would spend countless hours on national TV offending anyone who would dare to disagree with him, and was known for reprimanding and firing cabinet ministers on live TV.

How today's crisis in Venezuela was created by Hugo Chávez's 'revolutionary' plan

How does an oil-rich country end up with a food shortage? A GSU international development expert explains how the legacy of one man’s rise to power continues to cripple the nation.

theconversation.com

... and since you didn't reply to my other post, I reiterate, any Latin American knows that, ironically, it was the weight of Venezuela's portfolio that did its economy in. Also, any Latin American would recognize the hyperbole and alternate facts in that piece.

I'm still wondering why it took you so long to bring up Venezuela, but not surprised you are doubling down on it.

 

[JRad]

I’m half drunk and can realize this.

This thread has taught me you are either sober or drunk, there’s no gradient.

 

[Paul]

... and since you didn't reply to my other post, I reiterate, any Latin American knows that, ironically, it was the weight of Venezuela's portfolio that did its economy in. Also, any Latin American would recognize the hyperbole and alternate facts in that piece.

I'm still wondering why it took you so long to bring up Venezuela, but not surprised you are doubling down on it.

Venezuela is just another socialist nation where people are starving. No big deal to you.
Chávez was a thug. Maduro is a bus driver, s step up above Chávez, but also a criminal.

 

[Paul]

It is an oppinion piece.. So your source is an ultra conservative think tank who works to promote selfishness and free market fundamentalism? Wonder why they dont like socialism

It is an oppinion piece.. So your source is an ultra conservative think tank who works to promote selfishness and free market fundamentalism? Wonder why they dont like socialism

You guys tell me you are all benevolent social democrats that love freedom and capitalism-------------then you all go hysterical because I put down Chávez.

 

[SystemShock]

Venezuela is just another socialist nation where people are starving. No big deal to you.
Chávez was a thug. Maduro is a bus driver, s step up above Chávez, but also a criminal.

Just as I thought; can't present a counter argument, move goal post, attack poster, make vitriolic non-germane claim.... BINGO!

 

[Paul]

Just as I thought; can't present a counter argument, move goal post, attack poster, make vitriolic non-germane claim.... BINGO!

You said: "it was the weight of Venezuela's portfolio that did its economy ".

How can I provide an argument to a one liner wit no meaning? Please tell me why people are starving in Venezuela

 

[SystemShock]

You said: "it was the weight of Venezuela's portfolio that did its economy ".

How can I provide an argument to a one liner wit no meaning? Please tell me why people are starving in Venezuela

So the Capitalism superfan doesn't know what portfolio weight is, and the self-proclaimed Latin American who knows everything Latin America, doesn't know the catalyst for decline of the Venezuelan economy either...

Quick, go to wikipedia and find out what portfolio weight is, then copy-paste some stuff.

 

[hilldalt]

So the Capitalism superfan doesn't know what portfolio weight is, and the self-proclaimed Latin American who knows everything Latin America, doesn't know the catalyst for decline of the Venezuelan economy either...

Quick, go to wikipedia and find out what portfolio weight is, then copy-paste some stuff.

Oil price in 1990s lol

 

[Dragon]

You guys tell me you are all benevolent social democrats that love freedom and capitalism-------------then you all go hysterical because I put down Chávez.

No but you keep pulling questionable sources from the internet, never actually discuss anything and never reply to the questions asked. Chavez is first and foremost a classic tin-pot dictator as several has told you and not a social democrat in any shape or form. Even the Nazi party had socialism in its name and again was anything but that.

You found an article which stated that "The Dishonesty of ‘Real Socialism Has Never Been Tried’ and I told you that It was an oppinion piece (author writes his oppinion without providing any support of his claims) and the simple fact that that he can't distinquish between communists and socialists is very revealing, just as you seem unable to fathom that a social democracy is not a socialist country but at mixture of capitalism and socialism. When the the factuallity of said article is questioned your only response is "what about chavez"

As long as you wont debate in good faith, this thread is a waste of time.

 

[SystemShock]

Oil price in 1990s lol