Random political thought thread.

[The Cat]

I'd have to learn in more detail, but it seems that this would solve the problems incentives. One critique of socialism I've heard is that there would be no incentive for people to work hard and produce quality. But if workers directly own the profits, that solves that problem, at least to the extent that profits result in hard work and quality "goods". It seems to me it would actually provide a stronger incentive, there would be none of those mysterious "productivity gains" that don't result in wage growth that has the brainless talking heads so baffled. If you know the work you're going to put is going to directly result in a stronger benefit for you, you're going to put in more work. If you think it's going to benefit someone else, but not you, maybe not.

I often believe that is more a projection of their own intentions if that makes sense? Like a bird that chooses not to fly trying to break other birds wings because they need "grounding" for "everyone's" sake.

 

[Virtual ghost]

This isn't the case in America. Most people assume politicians are lying (At least I hope so), so often times elections are a shot in the dark with hopeful optimism. (or naivety) This is due to the overabundance of lobbying, and the meta gaming for votes (see gerrymandering, empty campaign promises, non-cohesive approaches) . Many politicians tend to cater to the populist movements, but in actual office they don't do anything the people want. They do what their party wants. Which is funded and operated by corporate interests for the most part. Political parties campaigns are based almost entirely around popular interests, because its what they told the public to care about. Then get them to vote based on that. It is a massive manipulation game played by the people in power. Which is why it is so alien to me, to see populism as a bad thing, because its always been populism. I am just trying to figure out what is the difference between Trump and other politicians. My only conclusion, is that Trump isn't a lobbied and supported politician by corperations and or inside interests. He is a real populist, whom who has convinced people and proven to be a real one by actually attempting most his campaign promises.

I know fairly well how it is in America. This is exactly why I used the example and explanation that is making a different point.
Of course that campaigns will always carry some degree of populism but politicians need to answer for their promises (at least for the most part). In my book you can promote the most popular thing there is or make something popular. But if that isn't realistic in a way that the concept was imagined or if you end up doing something completely different (or do nothing) you are basically a fraud. A person that pushed people's buttons do get into the position of power. Especially if something urgent didn't come up and you simply had to take care of that first. What basically defines populism, emotional appeal instead of clear and transparent policy.



However this is where functional multiparty system is quite useful, since in that case you will have plenty of possible replacements for the ruling party. Which can in theory take the helm at any time through snap elections. What then forces politicians to be at least generally on point, especially since in this system you can basically kill the political party by lowering their number of seats to 0. What happens in the case that other parties will take all of their seats, because they openly screwed up plenty of people and therefore they need to go (this is why you can count liberals in my parliament on the fingers of one hand).


The politics will probably never be 100% clean but politicians should at least be generally accountable for their talking points. Interest groups can always buy people but in this case voters can always just imagine/design new party and put it into the parliament. Plus ruling party will probably always need hands of other parties since the odds that someone will have 50% alone are quite small, what serves as a good control point. Plus if you have some council or board it is much harder to hide things when there are 6 parties in there than in the case when you have only 2. Especially since someone completely new can always crash to the party on next elections. Therefore for me the politics as a system isn't fundamentally flawed but instead you should just try to keep BS-ers away. Which tend to be populists almost by definition.

Yes ?

 

[The Cat]

I know fairly well how it is in America. This is exactly why I used the example and explanation that is making a different point.
Of course that campaigns will always carry some degree of populism but politicians need to answer for their promises (at least for the most part). In my book you can promote the most popular thing there is or make something popular. But if that isn't realistic in a way that the concept was imagined or if you end up doing something completely different (or do nothing) you are basically a fraud. A person that pushed people's buttons do get into the position of power. Especially if something urgent didn't come up and you simply had to take care of that first. What basically defines populism, emotional appeal instead of clear and transparent policy.



However this is where functional multiparty system is quite useful, since in that case you will have plenty of possible replacements for the ruling party. Which can in theory take the helm at any time through snap elections. What then forces politicians to be at least generally on point, especially since in this system you can basically kill the political party by lowering their number of seats to 0. What happens in the case that other parties will take all of their seats, because they openly screwed up plenty of people and therefore they need to go (this is why you can count liberals in my parliament on the fingers of one hand).


The politics will probably never be 100% clean but politicians should at least be generally accountable for their talking points. Interest groups can always buy people but in this case voters can always just imagine/design new party and put it into the parliament. Plus ruling party will probably always need hands of other parties since the odds that someone will have 50% alone are quite small, what serves as a good control point. Plus if you have some council or board it is much harder to hide things when there are 6 parties in there than in the case when you have only 2. Especially since someone completely new can always crash to the party on next elections. Therefore for me the politics as a system isn't fundamentally flawed but instead you should just try to keep BS-ers away. Which tend to be populists almost by definition.












Yes ?

 

[Jaguar]

He claimed that he received racist phone calls over his support for public housing during his 1970 campaign for New Castle County Council. “The first time the phone rang and someone said, ‘You n----- lover, you want them living next to you?’ I was shocked. I said, ‘If you’re the alternative, I guess the answer is yes.’”

Ha! I would have said the exact same thing to the caller.

 

[Maou]

I know fairly well how it is in America. This is exactly why I used the example and explanation that is making a different point.
Of course that campaigns will always carry some degree of populism but politicians need to answer for their promises (at least for the most part). In my book you can promote the most popular thing there is or make something popular. But if that isn't realistic in a way that the concept was imagined or if you end up doing something completely different (or do nothing) you are basically a fraud. A person that pushed people's buttons do get into the position of power. Especially if something urgent didn't come up and you simply had to take care of that first. What basically defines populism, emotional appeal instead of clear and transparent policy.



However this is where functional multiparty system is quite useful, since in that case you will have plenty of possible replacements for the ruling party. Which can in theory take the helm at any time through snap elections. What then forces politicians to be at least generally on point, especially since in this system you can basically kill the political party by lowering their number of seats to 0. What happens in the case that other parties will take all of their seats, because they openly screwed up plenty of people and therefore they need to go (this is why you can count liberals in my parliament on the fingers of one hand).


The politics will probably never be 100% clean but politicians should at least be generally accountable for their talking points. Interest groups can always buy people but in this case voters can always just imagine/design new party and put it into the parliament. Plus ruling party will probably always need hands of other parties since the odds that someone will have 50% alone are quite small, what serves as a good control point. Plus if you have some council or board it is much harder to hide things when there are 6 parties in there than in the case when you have only 2. Especially since someone completely new can always crash to the party on next elections. Therefore for me the politics as a system isn't fundamentally flawed but instead you should just try to keep BS-ers away. Which tend to be populists almost by definition.

My perception has always been that parties and populist candidates have almost entirely not been held accountable for their follies, because the media and corporate propaganda, and that includes scientific research. So at some point, people realize that voting based on policy is still a shot in the dark regardless of what is actually carried out. Then often times there is a "band-aid" of a policy, championed as a cure/ultimate fix and never looked at again despite the cure/band-aid being just as bad, if not worse than the previous policy before it to keep the masses satisfied. I agree politicians should be held accountable, but they are NOT in USA. Trump is probably the first person you will ever see chastised publicly as much as he is. But that one of the reasons why I don't believe the media on his supposed blunders. He is outside of the normal paradyme of operation. Anyone who supports the "elite establishment" gets media support. Anyone who doesn't, gets hailed as the next Hitler. This perfectly aligns with my assumption that both the right and left are compromised by the elite, and they present themselves as a choice via "controlled opposition". They have getting votes down to a literal science, and exactly how to procure them based on presented policy. I don't know about other countries, but when you see one person get away with murder with the help of the media, you stop believing the mainstream narrative of what is right and wrong.

 

[Jaguar]

52 days but who's counting? I'm counting.

 

[Lark]

I'd have to learn in more detail, but it seems that this would solve the problems incentives. One critique of socialism I've heard is that there would be no incentive for people to work hard and produce quality. But if workers directly own the profits, that solves that problem, at least to the extent that profits result in hard work and quality "goods". It seems to me it would actually provide a stronger incentive, there would be none of those mysterious "productivity gains" that don't result in wage growth that has the brainless talking heads so baffled. If you know the work you're going to put is going to directly result in a stronger benefit for you, you're going to put in more work. If you think it's going to benefit someone else, but not you, maybe not.

Yeah, although most of that thinking is prior to the "managerial revolution", most of the productivity gains in any organization which are made which do not feed into dividends go to managers, CEOs, boardroom pay, and I'm really not sure what would change that.

Maybe some of the ideas within participatory economics about job rotation, balanced job complexes and things like that, although those kinds of restructured firms ideas would be feasible in either a capitalist or socialist economy.

The thing about incentives, it is cliche to say that rather than "no incentive" it would be "another" or "different" incentive but it has been business practice for years. Since Maslow at least, and lots and lots of business management books will talk about non-monetary incentives. There's definitely different opinions about this which reflect whether the people involved are managerial or operational staff.

Some of the break down during the sub-prime bubble have been attributed to the whole "greed is good" and accumulation as the only possible incentive being adopted completely or eclipsing all else. The economies which work best have been those which always treated some of those capitalist maxims as relative or at the very least embedded in other frameworks. The simultaneous troubles in the US and UK, whether you are a fan of capitalist or not, reflect those other priorities disappearing (westminister has a serious drug and alcohol problem among its politicians I dont know about the US, things too different there but that whole "accumulation is all, more, now, again" thing is definitely a consequence of addiction and excess).

Incentive problems occur in capitalist economies too, although, anyway, there's a good author called Henry who analysed the transition from communism to capitalism and the collapse of communism in the first place. He is able to make a case that the whole "collapse" was planned, as was everything which followed, by the establishment who realized their narratives where spent but they where not prepared to lose the privileges they'd gotten used to.

His account of the decline of communism I think is more convincing as he says it is not the security of employment and incentive issues that ruined everything but the complete devaluation of life, the death drives were maxed out among almost everyone, the same thing is in its early days in the US and UK.

This is part of the reason why I think socialism vs capitalism debates are a little besides the point, more fundamental threats are afoot which kind of make either idea impossible. Really.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

My perception has always been that parties and populist candidates have almost entirely not been held accountable for their follies, because the media and corporate propaganda, and that includes scientific research. So at some point, people realize that voting based on policy is still a shot in the dark regardless of what is actually carried out. Then often times there is a "band-aid" of a policy, championed as a cure/ultimate fix and never looked at again despite the cure/band-aid being just as bad, if not worse than the previous policy before it to keep the masses satisfied. I agree politicians should be held accountable, but they are NOT in USA. Trump is probably the first person you will ever see chastised publicly as much as he is. But that one of the reasons why I don't believe the media on his supposed blunders. He is outside of the normal paradyme of operation. Anyone who supports the "elite establishment" gets media support. Anyone who doesn't, gets hailed as the next Hitler. This perfectly aligns with my assumption that both the right and left are compromised by the elite, and they present themselves as a choice via "controlled opposition". They have getting votes down to a literal science, and exactly how to procure them based on presented policy. I don't know about other countries, but when you see one person get away with murder with the help of the media, you stop believing the mainstream narrative of what is right and wrong.

Yes and that is why you as country will probably end up with open revolution country wide, regardless of who wins in a few weeks. Congress wouldn't really change, Senate perhaps a little bit, while presidency is uncertain even if the game is between what you have now and what gave you what you have now. Plus CEOs and the media will stay just the same. Also saying that Trump is outside of this game is simply very short sighted. We all saw the photos with the Clinton's, he would never show up at the primaries in the case he doesn't have some approval from the elites, he didn't really end a single war if we judge from the situation 4 years ago, his party saved him in very partisan manner in the impeachment saga, while he didn't act on the virus in order to try saving the stock-market. However the virus was just too nasty and that plan failed. Therefore when the bailout came to the table he saved Biden's boys in corporations instead of common people (which is the point where the whole hell broke lose). Therefore for me Trump IS establishment, he can talk all he wants but he is evidently a part of the system in practice.



This isn't nice thing to say but life as you knew it is probably over. I understand the need to make Trump into something he is not but reality eventually always hits. The problems are big, the politicians are "drunk" and the world is caring less and less. What permanently tilts the game away from US, which is more and more struggling with solving even the most basic of it's domestic problems. What means that the country can't really represent it's interests abroad and that will only boost domestic problems. Until the whole thing just brakes. Which is because your collective philosophy is fundamentally unadaptive ... what simply doesn't work in globalized 21th century.

 

[Lark]

Orwell in his book Notes on Nationalism (well, its an essay really) wrote that he thought patriotism was meant to be a separate, acceptable, category to nationalism and it was nationalism which translated into different species of fascism quicker than patriotism proper.

 

[The Cat]

Orwell in his book Notes on Nationalism (well, its an essay really) wrote that he thought patriotism was meant to be a separate, acceptable, category to nationalism and it was nationalism which translated into different species of fascism quicker than patriotism proper.

yeah, I think that patriotism is supposed to be something else than what many americans today think it means. In many ways I suspect that it was a case of subtly "rewriting the dictionary" on buzz words like patriotism after 9/11. My own experience with the military has left me a somewhat cynical view of certain people who are extremely nationalistic and when you call them on it accuse you of not being patriotic. It has been and continues to be very disturbing to see how this "pipeline" has unfolded.

I agree with this guy on what being a patriot is...

 

[ceecee]

yeah, I think that patriotism is supposed to be something else than what many americans today think it means. In many ways I suspect that it was a case of subtly "rewriting the dictionary" on buzz words like patriotism after 9/11. My own experience with the military has left me a somewhat cynical view of certain people who are extremely nationalistic and when you call them on it accuse you of not being patriotic. It has been and continues to be very disturbing to see how this "pipeline" has unfolded.

Right. And the fact that a huge swath of Americans are unable to differentiate between the two is a massive problem.

An American flag and a Trump flag on the same flagpole stands for nationalism. That also turns the American flag into a symbol of xenophobia, fear, paranoia, zealotry and hate and has been co-opted by fascists, white supremacist and right wing domestic terrorists and jingoist chuds. And that will take decades and decades to undo, not only for Americans but the rest of the world.

 

[Lark]

yeah, I think that patriotism is supposed to be something else than what many americans today think it means. In many ways I suspect that it was a case of subtly "rewriting the dictionary" on buzz words like patriotism after 9/11. My own experience with the military has left me a somewhat cynical view of certain people who are extremely nationalistic and when you call them on it accuse you of not being patriotic. It has been and continues to be very disturbing to see how this "pipeline" has unfolded.

I agree with this guy on what being a patriot is...

I think these things are manipulated by elites who know once they have created the conditions for the emergence of a "no nothing" constituency it will be a very easy thing from that point to make the right noises at the right times, a sort of performance artistry, and they are on easy street themselves.

High pay for very little, evidence of bad policy, or no policy at all wont change things as it is not about that or any other metric for performance in office but simply being who they are that works.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Totenkindly]

51 days!

 

[Jaguar]

It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood
A beautiful day for a neighbor
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?

 

[The Cat]

It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood
A beautiful day for a neighbor
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?

Thin blue line indeed.

 

[The Cat]

Dig your heels in kiddos We're merrily on our way to nowhere at all...

 

[Jaguar]

That doesn't discredit the issue at hand - this movie exploited children.

Do you own a weapon of any kind?

 

[Red Memories]

Do you own a weapon of any kind?

A weapon?

I mean I suppose it depends what you mean by a weapon. The forks in the drawer of the house could be a weapon if I so decided. But if you're asking if I own a gun or pocket knife - the answer is no.