Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
POG Politics Thread POG Politics Thread

05-04-2017 , 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Banana
Quite.




Enrichment of a small elite is not part of socialism and I don't really know why you'd think it is.
Theory vs practice
05-04-2017 , 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
Theory vs practice
Oh right, so the vast corporations that control so much of the economic activity and trade in this world are trying to follow socialist doctrine but somehow in practice the whole workers' ownership thing just isn't going well?
05-04-2017 , 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Banana
I mean, it's cute that you share IANAWW's misconception that socialism is somehow synonymous with government but you can't just describe everything a government does as "socialism" because you simply render the word useless. You end up in the ridiculous position of claiming that a man who strengthened the insurance model of health provision is a "socialist" or that any redistribution of income is "socialist" or that building roads is "socialist". Socialists may redistribute income and they may build roads but so might a lot of people.
My use of the term does not render it useless, of course, even if you aren't happy with the use that it retains. It does start to fade once the public/private distinction is sufficiently scrutinized, but nobody wants to deal with that so okay. We are left with a spectrum from anarchy to socialism, in terms of political mechanism, with certain policies being more socialistic than others.

Why aren't you contented with the phrase "worker socialism" for what I expect you to intend?
05-04-2017 , 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Banana
Oh right, so the vast corporations that control so much of the economic activity and trade in this world are trying to follow socialist doctrine but somehow in practice the whole workers' ownership thing just isn't going well?
Definitely not what i am saying
05-04-2017 , 12:31 PM
See, right here, you guys are quibbling semantics without meaningfully communicating with each other.

Both of you are using "socialism" in disparately narrow ways, and neither of you will get anywhere but frustrated.

Luckbox, you are not an anarchist, right? So some social economic control is appropriate?
05-04-2017 , 12:34 PM
Luckbox's obsession with geographic scale is an issue entirely separate from the propriety of interpersonal autonomy per se.

So Luckbox, I would say, has a problem with "global socialism".
05-04-2017 , 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
Luckbox, you are not an anarchist, right? So some social economic control is appropriate?
Believing in the rule of law vs some form of socio economic control seem to be two different things entirely. I think it's possible to not be an anarchist and also not believe in control.
05-04-2017 , 02:37 PM
What do you say to the proposition that lack of economic control can lead to companies becoming so rich and powerful they can buy the government, and then enact whatever controls they want to protect and increase their power?
05-04-2017 , 02:43 PM
Welp. Here's to hoping I never lose my job
05-04-2017 , 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkMagus
What do you say to the proposition that lack of economic control can lead to companies becoming so rich and powerful they can buy the government, and then enact whatever controls they want to protect and increase their power?
05-04-2017 , 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004
Welp. Here's to hoping I never lose my job
lead a good life and you won't have preexisting conditions
05-04-2017 , 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amplify
lead a good life and you won't have preexisting conditions
Mine is genetic. Guess my genes didn't pull themselves up by their bootstraps enough
05-04-2017 , 03:31 PM
Everything is genetic.
05-04-2017 , 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
I think it's possible to not be an anarchist and also not believe in control.
What would it mean to be an anarchist at that point?
05-04-2017 , 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
My use of the term does not render it useless, of course, even if you aren't happy with the use that it retains. It does start to fade once the public/private distinction is sufficiently scrutinized, but nobody wants to deal with that so okay. We are left with a spectrum from anarchy to socialism, in terms of political mechanism, with certain policies being more socialistic than others.

Why aren't you contented with the phrase "worker socialism" for what I expect you to intend?
No meaningful spectrum runs from anarchy to socialism.

Socialism IS "worker socialism". There isn't any other socialism.
05-04-2017 , 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
Definitely not what i am saying
Then you are not talking about socialism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
Believing in the rule of law vs some form of socio economic control seem to be two different things entirely. I think it's possible to not be an anarchist and also not believe in control.
They are not "versus" each other.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
What would it mean to be an anarchist at that point?
Apparently, whatever the hell you want it to mean.
05-04-2017 , 05:08 PM
You both seem confused into thinking that socialism means "more tightly controlled by government", because the right wing calls anything run by the government "socialist".
05-04-2017 , 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004
Welp. Here's to hoping I never lose my job
ObamaCare repeal bill could affect employer health plans

If a large employer chose the benefit requirements in a waiver state, they could be able to impose lifetime limits on healthcare costs and eliminate out-of-pocket caps from their plans, for example.

“It’s huge,” Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under former President Barack Obama, told the Journal. “They’re creating a backdoor way to gut employer plans, too.”
05-04-2017 , 06:35 PM
maybe the human race needs to be culled.

ignore me. im having another nervous breakdown.
05-04-2017 , 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Banana
Socialists do not seek public control of the economy as such.
05-04-2017 , 06:41 PM
05-04-2017 , 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amplify
ObamaCare repeal bill could affect employer health plans

If a large employer chose the benefit requirements in a waiver state, they could be able to impose lifetime limits on healthcare costs and eliminate out-of-pocket caps from their plans, for example.

“It’s huge,” Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under former President Barack Obama, told the Journal. “They’re creating a backdoor way to gut employer plans, too.”
I work for a company that is pretty considerably left and conscious of their community standing. They've never ****ed their employees in the past and I don't expect them to start now
05-04-2017 , 08:25 PM
I work for a company in a declining market that ****ed 70% of the IT department in the ass last year so anything goes.
05-04-2017 , 10:14 PM
pretend I posted the Humpty Dumpty thing again
05-05-2017 , 05:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VarianceMinefield
It's definitely time to celebrate. The House just voted to strip 24 million people of their healthcare and give a trillion-dollar tax cut to the top 2%.

Yay! Down with socialism! Let these people die in the streets.

      
m