[Cog]

From the time of the Spanish conquistadors onward, those with pure Spanish blood will be the 1% in south and central america. The elite are more than happy to get rid of their mixed population by shipping them north. Hard to blame the lower caste mixed and Indian castes for trying to flee from south america where they are so heavily persecuted by their Spanish overlords.

This is why the left wants open borders and the elimination of ice. They want to create another socialist experiment where they can subjugate another minority group while their elite ride herd on them.

[KaiserJeep]

Cog, FWIW, I do NOT recognize any group called "the Left". In fact, I believe that "the Left" and "the Right" are both fictions, imaginary groupings used so that one can hate others of opposing ideology. I do not consider myself a member of either - nor am I "middle of the road" in any sense. I have and have expressed many opinions on many things, some of my positions are Left, some are Right, most are just me, and frequently entirely unconventional.

You make an interesting observation. In the brief couple of years after my original company Tandem Computers was acquired by Compaq, and before Compaq merged with HP, I worked with a man in Houston who self-identified as a "Spanish Texan", and who was gravely offended by being referred to as "Mexican". His family had lived in Texas since before it became part of the USA, and had never lived in Mexico nor spoken Spanish, for about two centuries. Note that he was an EE with a degree and skills comparable to mine. However his culture, religion, and diet were completely Spanish - and unlike the Catholic Church down the corner from me, in Houston the English Mass easily outnumbered the Spanish Mass.

I do not believe that any credible case can be made that there will be any significant shift either R or L in American Politics in the near future, whatever the hardships imposed by the end of cheap FF's. Furthermore, I believe that the large and prosperous SouthWest, including California, Texas, and the other nearby states, will figure prominently in the new economy based on renewable energies.

Socialism in this context serves one usefull purpose. It can be used to focus the attention of one extreme of the American politically obsessed. A "Left" or even "Socialist" candidate like Bernie Sanders is unlikely to ever hold the office of POTUS. Obama was about as liberal as has been anybody in the White House. Yet as long as the opposite major party controls Congress, the damage will be minimized, and quickly reversed as the office changes hands to the other party.

FWIW, Donald Trump is not what you and others apparently believe him to be. He is not Conservative, he is not even "Right". In fact he is and will always be a blustering NYC Liberal in wolf's clothing. His posturing and pandering to "Right" voices is entirely opportunistic and also a sham, as he cares only about himself and his own.

[Ibon]

I have a specific question for KJ.

Would you agree that strengthening social services is one of the key components to prevent socialism and to keep capitalism resilient.

[Cog]

So a little socialism is good so a lot of socialism must be better? That is the message I'm hearing from the left. Yeah I use the term left because that is the side pushing socialism for all.

[Ibon]

Ibon knows exactly what I'm referring to here but you will never see him bring it up since it counters his argument that all is peace and joy south of the border.

OK. I'll admit it.

It's Shangri La here in the cloud forest. I am the big white patron and my indian staff is right now planting coffee seedlings, I can see them from here as I sip my Geisha coffee.

We have a Colombian family here at the moment for a private event. The extended family are up here for three days to establish the inheritance of their family business and determine who will have what position and who will inherit what. They own a large agricultural operation and processing plant in Colombia. They are all pure white European stock.

This morning before writing my posts I made the rounds making sure the peons knew what to do today.
They are paid well and treated fairly. Make no mistake, they know whose boss here.

The other guests here at the moment are two groups of germans. You know, that culture with six week vacations and time to come to enjoy the cloud forest. One of my indigenous staff is now guiding them to see howler monkeys and resplendent quetzals.

Life is grand down here at the Mount Totumas Cloud Forest Plantation.

[KaiserJeep]

Ibon, I CAN say with a high degree of confidence that so-called "social services" have been used for decades to suppress and oppress Blacks in America's inner cities. I remember Johnson's "War on Poverty" speeches, and I can say with confidence that there is more poverty, more squalor, and more despair in the Ghettoes now than there ever was then. I'm not sure if "social services" was the direct cause, but they are at least a major contributing factor, and the group bearing primary responsibility for such Black oppression is the US Democratic Party, and this has been true since the US Civil War and Andrew Jackson, who was probably the most prejudiced man to ever be POTUS.

I have a queation for you. Do your workers call you "El Jefe"? The literal meaning is "the boss", but since the time of Fidel Castro, there has been a subtext, and "El Jefe" is covertly despised, a term of mild contempt. It usually means they are rolling eyes behind your back as you walk away.

[Pops]

I'm not railing against anything. I simply am pointing out that we are not having a revolution anytime soon, and probably never.

I think our exchange here is the perfect example of modern debate:
You said there will never be a revolution
I pointed out the social democrat "revolution" already happened (starting with FDR & LBJ & some say WJC*) and not only is it happening now but a majority of people want more of it.

In reply you said there will never be a revolution.


LOL What we've got here is failure to communicate

To find common ground, I'll say I agree that all I have is a vote and can never overthrow .gov by force...
But again: that's not what democratic socialism is about.

Look beyond the inept, vindictive egomania of the most recent crackpot you old white guys elected and you'll see the very same populist —socialist— rhetoric used by Bernie: tax the rich, healthcare for everyone, drain the swamp, jobsjobsjobs, blahblahblah.

The reason trump is POTUS and Bernie is not is Bernie doesn't have a full hand, he only has the class card—
he doesn't have a race card nor a woman card to play.

The see-saw of parties continues. The Rs continue to hire anti-intellectual, Aw-Shucks Awthoritarians to run defense for the owners, with the latest shark jump into outright white supremacy and socialist head fake either portent or climax, not sure which. All the while, the failed Third Way Ds (losing 1,000 seats nationally under its 3rd & 4th POTUS terms) work for the New Aristocrats and their meritocratic elite court jesters while waiting for the minorities to become the unbeatable majority.

I think the great shock to the political system will be when the actual democratic socialist candidates like Cortez start to win. Democrats have been in the wilderness since LBJ. Nixon stole their thunder and Jimmy, bless his heart, just wasn't up to it. Clinton/Bush/trump tried shuffling the deck but in the end, oil & water don't mix — either you're on top or you're not, doesn't matter how many Others you throw in camps.

On one side is Darwinian Mercantilism and on the other is social justice & top-down redistribution — nothing at all about revolution (though to a dinosaur evolution may be revolutionary, LOL)

---
(* Clinton/Blair/Obama's "Third Way" and Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" are two sides of the same neoliberal coin; right wing economics glossed over with no- or low-cost social platitudes.)
.

[KaiserJeep]

Pops, any prolonged discussion of R vs. D politics, other than in the context of Socialism/Marxism, would be O/T for this thread. However, simply let me point out that "R vs. D" does not alighn with "Right vs. Left" or "Conservative vs. Liberal" for that matter.

Trump is actually more of a Communist than is Bernie Sanders. I deliberately said "Communist" as opposed to "Socialist" because Bernie and the Donald share the not-so-charming trait of imposing their will by imperial decree (i.e. Execuutive Orders), which is Authoritarian Marxism, not Socialism.

I read your whole message, then thought "this does not compute". You've made a whole lot of unfounded assumptions in that exposition. I'll just point out that Trump won, with no more of a "race card or woman card" than did Sanders. What he had instead was a whole series of "Bimbo explosions" about extra-marital affairs, and enough women were willing to ignore these to get him elected. That happened because it's not the political landscape it once was, instead it is online and in realtime.

[Plantagenet]

The reason trump is POTUS and Bernie is not is Bernie doesn't have a full hand, he only has the class card—
he doesn't have a race card nor a woman card to play.

The reason that Bernie isn't President is that (1) the system set up by the DNC was fundamentally undemocratic because the "superdelegates" weren't even elected, and (2) the DNC unfairly tilted toward Hillary during the primaries. That was proven by the leaked DNC emails published on Wikileaks. The DNC head resigned in disgrace when it was revealed.

Bernie would've beaten Trump easily in 2016---he didn't have a history of scandal or the ongoing email scandal hung around his neck like Hillary did and the voters loved him and his new ideas in 2016.

On one side is Darwinian Mercantilism and on the other is social justice & top-down redistribution — nothing at all about revolution

??????

I wish it was that clear cut, with one side wearing white hats and standing up for truth and justice and the other wearing black hats and standing for oppression and evil.

Unfortunately its a bit more complicated. For instance, in your post above you blamed "old white men" for Trump being president, when the real cause is the Ds and the DNC subverting the 2016 primary results and blocking a wave of support for Bernie to foist the detested Hilalry on the D party and then on the country---a plan that failed completely and has backfired disastrously, and resulted in Trump being elected.

Cheers!

[Pops]

Pops, any prolonged discussion of R vs. D politics, other than in the context of Socialism/Marxism, would be O/T for this thread. However, simply let me point out that "R vs. D" does not alighn with "Right vs. Left" or "Conservative vs. Liberal" for that matter.

Trump is actually more of a Communist than is Bernie Sanders. I deliberately said "Communist" as opposed to "Socialist" because Bernie and the Donald share the not-so-charming trait of imposing their will by imperial decree (i.e. Execuutive Orders), which is Authoritarian Marxism, not Socialism.

I read your whole message, then thought "this does not compute". You've made a whole lot of unfounded assumptions in that exposition. I'll just point out that Trump won, with no more of a "race card or woman card" than did Sanders. What he had instead was a whole series of "Bimbo explosions" about extra-marital affairs, and enough women were willing to ignore these to get him elected. That happened because it's not the political landscape it once was, instead it is online and in realtime.

LOL, so no politics?

.

[charmcitysking]

Gotta disagree Pops - the reason Bernie isn’t president is because his own corrupt party conspired against him to rig the primary in Hilary’s favor. She didn’t get the nod because she’s a woman - she got the nod because she cheated. Plain and simple.

[KaiserJeep]

LOL, so no politics?

.

No, politics only in relation to the thread topic of Socialism. There are beaucoups threads for partisanship.

[Pops]

IMO when the cold light of Peak Oil day dawns the house of cards debt based social safety net will evaporate in the USA.

...MQ used to spout all the time about 'Lifeboat Rules' and in this sense he was correct.

MQ was an windbag. Not to say many people don't fantasize of "getting back" at all the Cadillac Queens and dirtbag dogs: just read any post-apoc novel, LOL.

But based on my limited experience in life, a majority of people will give the shirt off their back when the chips are down. A majority may not sacrifice themselves but lots will.

No doubt there is a minority who are without empathy, psycho/sociopaths, and will that take advantage of the guy who's down regardless of general conditions. Some are murders but most are just your average corporate climber, 2-bit manipulators and ponzi conmen. Society functions because most have empathy and a moral compass.

The argument against social safety nets is we only do it because we're rich, turns out that the great US socialist revolution started during the Great Depression.


Funny thing is, it's when things are good people seem to be less empathetic.

Someday when things are good
I'm gonna leave you
I can't seem to go
When things are bad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SPugT-rJzU
.

[Pops]

The social safety net is not a luxury, and does not come from altruism or good feelings. It comes from the same "cultural self preservation" place that our military and police force comes from. It is part of the fabric that stabilizes our culture. It should be noted that the great depression gave rise to great public works and the birth of some of the most cherished social services. Constraints and severe economic corrections, instead of weakening social services, can do just the opposite. Social services insure the resiliency of a culture and are not "hand outs" or free "give aways" in their most basic form. Excesses and abuse exist of course so a healthy debate about when social services rise to the level of excess also represent part of that resiliency.

Very good!

[Pops]

No, politics only in relation to the thread topic of Socialism. There are beaucoups threads for partisanship.

Socialism is by definition political says Mr Webster:
: any of various economic and political theories...

I was trying to highlight both parties attempts to slice the electorate: trump/bern talking points; Clinton/Bush/Trump neoliberalism, really neoliberalism as THE defacto party.

This is good:

In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, it [the term neoliberalism] was a way of assigning responsibility for the debacle, not to a political party per se, but to an establishment that had conceded its authority to the market. For the Democrats in the US and Labour in the UK, this concession was depicted as a grotesque betrayal of principle. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, it was said, had abandoned the left’s traditional commitments, especially to workers, in favour of a global financial elite and the self-serving policies that enriched them; and in doing so, had enabled a sickening rise in inequality.
...
Peer through the lens of neoliberalism and you see more clearly how the political thinkers most admired by Thatcher and Reagan helped shape the ideal of society as a kind of universal market (and not, for example, a polis, a civil sphere or a kind of family) and of human beings as profit-and-loss calculators (and not bearers of grace, or of inalienable rights and duties). Of course the goal was to weaken the welfare state and any commitment to full employment, and – always – to cut taxes and deregulate. But “neoliberalism” indicates something more than a standard rightwing wish list. It was a way of reordering social reality, and of rethinking our status as individuals.

Still peering through the lens, you see how, no less than the welfare state, the free market is a human invention. You see how pervasively we are now urged to think of ourselves as proprietors of our own talents and initiative, how glibly we are told to compete and adapt. You see the extent to which a language formerly confined to chalkboard simplifications describing commodity markets (competition, perfect information, rational behaviour) has been applied to all of society, until it has invaded the grit of our personal lives, and how the attitude of the salesman has become enmeshed in all modes of self-expression.

In short, “neoliberalism” is not simply a name for pro-market policies, or for the compromises with finance capitalism made by failing social democratic parties. It is a name for a premise that, quietly, has come to regulate all we practise and believe: that competition is the only legitimate organising principle for human activity.

Oops, that was a little long, here is the rest.

[onlooker]

"You cannot understand the rise of socialism in Venezuela without understanding the disparity of wealth and the corruption of the oligarchs that was previously present in the country." Precisely, true this comment made by Ibon. You can't exonerate the excesses of Capitalism simply by saying it works better than Socialiams or Communism. You have to define also what "better" means. Is Capitalism highly efficient to convert resources to commodities and sell them for a profit? Yes exceedingly so.

But for the purpose of this discussion we have to concede the "failings" of Capitalism. It produces highly unequal and unjust results. That is evident in how the world is so unequal and how the rich countries exploit the poorer ones and in doing so keep them in a weak state. Also, in how a very tiny few have so much money compared to everyone else. Capitalism also has been highly destructive to the Environment and does not account for this. It simply labels this destruction as "externalities" and they are not accounted for or viewed as a negative in any ledger or accounting process. The owners of Capital have shown no restraint in their exploitation of Nature and people. So why talk of all this? Well, guess I personally have a passion for this. But seriously whether you label it Capitalism or our Primate behavior, it still is a manner of providing for our materials needs and wants that is insatiable and highly non egalitarian.

[onlooker]

Thanks Pops, that bold face comment above says it all. Rabid Crony Capitalism has monetized everything and what is more made everything one dimensional as simply a commodity. And that includes people. Guess it is too late now, but we should ALL have recognized this and rebelded against this unnatural state that only truly serves this interest of the already wealthy.

[KaiserJeep]

OK, onlooker. But Socialism, in fact all forms of Marxism, both social and authoritarian, produce mega income imbalances, imbalances in the distribution of vital goods, bad healthcare, bankrupt governments, genocides, and widespread environmental damage. (Don't forget we HAVE TRIED this and it has failed miserably every time.)

Capitalism is bad, I won't even argue - the only thing it has going for it is that it is way better than anything else we have tried. History speaks for itself, the successful, long lasting economies are all based on Capitalism. For any form of Marxism, we have 40-odd failures and 5 more presently failing.

Those stats say that Marx was a fool and his "insights" into economics bogus and only of historical interest. No doubt about it.

[Plantagenet]

You can't exonerate the excesses of Capitalism simply by saying it works better than Socialiams or Communism.

No one seeks to "exonerate" the excesses of Capitalism. There's even a joke that goes Capitalism is the worst possible economic system....except for the others.

You have to define also what "better" means. Is Capitalism highly efficient to convert resources to commodities and sell them for a profit? Yes exceedingly so. But for the purpose of this discussion we have to concede the "failings" of Capitalism. It produces highly unequal and unjust results.

Not necessarily. Look at the Capitalist countries of the EU and Scandinavia. Income distribution there is far less unequal then in the US, largely because (1) tax rates on the rich are higher then in the US and (2) The populations are mostly less diverse and the pockets of extreme poverty we see in the US in inner cities and poor rural areas don't exist there----at least not on the large scales seen in the US.

Capitalism also has been highly destructive to the Environment and does not account for this. It simply labels this destruction as "externalities" and they are not accounted for or viewed as a negative in any ledger or accounting process.

That just isn't true. All the major environmental movements and environmental legislation had their origin in Capitalist countries, and have been most successful in wealthy Capitalist countries. Far from "not being accounted for in a ledger" the Capitalist west invented a very basic Capitalist approach to pollution and even global warming.....and that is to fine polluters and tax polluters. The Carbon tax for example....a Capitalist idea.....is our best hope of reducing CO2 emissions.

The owners of Capital have shown no restraint in their exploitation of Nature

That just isn't true. There are thousands of environmental laws and regulations in the US and EU that restrict what the rich can do. Yes, some of them break the laws, but that doesn't change the fact that there are restraints on what the rich can do to exploit nature.

Cheers!

[Pops]

OK, onlooker. But Socialism, in fact all forms of Marxism, both social and authoritarian, produce mega income imbalances, imbalances in the distribution of vital goods, bad healthcare, bankrupt governments, genocides, and widespread environmental damage.

...Those stats say that Marx was a fool and his "insights" into economics bogus and only of historical interest. No doubt about it.

LOL Stick with the marxist ad homs KJ, you're better off than arguing capitalism is the paragon of egalitarianism.