A Discussion With An Actual Socialist

[Rhakron90]

Yup, the guy who regularly eviscerates PragerU propaganda.

And was eviscerated by Sargon of Akkad, and numerous other more Right-leaning YouTubers.

I've seen the guy debate. He's honestly not much above the average poster on here.

 

[Geoist]

And was eviscerated by Sargon of Akkad, and numerous other more Right-leaning YouTubers.

I've seen the guy debate. He's honestly not much above the average poster on here.

I have not seen the Sargon debate, but he absolutely embarrassed Tim Pool.

 

[Rhakron90]

I have not seen the Sargon debate, but he absolutely embarrassed Tim Pool.

Sargon and ShortFatOtaku are my usual "Millennial Talk Radio" go-tos if I'm bored and looking for something to listen to in the background. I'll watch Tim on occasion, just because he's pretty good at finding news stories the MSM won't cover.

His style is a bit "high strung" for me, however.

 

[Geoist]

And was eviscerated by Sargon of Akkad

20 minutes in and Sargon is just arguing over the definition of conservative the whole time. That's not evisceration. That's just annoying.

He seems to be just one of those shits who wants to debate semantics all day to avoid actual productive discussion.

 

[Geoist]

And was eviscerated by Sargon of Akkad

Vaush to Sargon: "Why did you say Richard Spencer is a progressive?"

Sargon: "Because he said he was."

Vaush: "That's it?"

Sargon: "Yeah. Well, also because it winds up the lefties."

What a smug pompous asshole.

 

[Antiwar]

I've seen the guy debate. He's honestly not much above the average poster on here.

I've engaged you in debate. You're not much below the average poster on here.

 

[Rhakron90]

20 minutes in and Sargon is just arguing over the definition of conservative the whole time. That's not evisceration. That's just annoying.

He seems to be just one of those shits who wants to debate semantics all day to avoid actual productive discussion.

As the expression goes, "words mean shit." It is a salient point given how the Left tends to want to conflate between terms, using only the "overton window" as their guide.

American and British "Conservatives," are, in reality, "Liberals" (actual 'Conservatives,' in original sense of the word, would be found somewhere like Saudi Arabia or Iran). Whereas supposedly "Liberal" parties these days tend to actually be Leftist Social Democrats, if not Democratic Socialists.

Vaush to Sargon: "Why did you say Richard Spencer is a progressive?"

Sargon: "Because he said he was."

Vaush: "That's it?"

Sargon: "Yeah. Well, also because it winds up the lefties."

What a smug pompous asshole.

Kind of his brand, yes. He does lay it on a bit thick at times, but I enjoy it in doses (I imagine in much the same way my father enjoyed William F. Buckley back in the day).

The ironic thing is, 15 years ago, during the Bush Administration and the height of the "Christian Right," me and him would've been on almost completely opposite sides of the aisle. He's a militant atheist, humanist, and rationalist.

The rise of the "Social Justice" movement, and - later - Trump, has really been quite a paradigm shift in this regard. People like Sargon basically oppose the new Left for the exact same reasons they opposed the old "Christian Right." Its a fundamentally irrational movement, that seeks to impose dogmatic beliefs on other people, using the means of authoritarianism and moral panic. Its simply at the opposite extreme of the spectrum from the older generation of "moral guardians."

 

[Geoist]

If anyone wants a real WTF debate, holy shit, Vaush vs Stefan Molyneux. I knew he was racist, but didn't realize how bat-shit crazy Molyneux really is.

 

[Lafayette]

Yet at 2:32 he supports Biden's plans regarding climate change and healthcare, so he definitely approves of the commonly accepted definition of socialism.

With an idiot-comment like that one it is painfully evident that you haven't the faintest notion of what is and is-not "Socialism".

It is the Social Democracies of Europe that instituted National Healthcare Systems, the key reason why Europeans live four years longer than Americans! (Lifespan 81 in the EU and 78.5 in the US.)

Eat your heart out ...

 

[Lafayette]

People like Sargon basically oppose the new Left for the exact same reasons they opposed the old "Christian Right." Its a fundamentally irrational movement, that seeks to impose dogmatic beliefs on other people, using the means of authoritarianism and moral panic. Its simply at the opposite extreme of the spectrum from the older generation of "moral guardians."

Given the above, you would not recognize the New Left if it bit you on the nose.

The New Left is to be found in the capitalist Social Democracies that have evolved in Europe. What it might be in the US is pure hearsay on a clearly overworked Debate Site like this one.

The heart of any Social Democracy can be wrongly reduced to "High-taxation and bold remuneration of low-income families". Which means tritely that one has a higher chance of a longer-life in the European Union than one does in the US. (A little more than two-years longer.)

Does that really matter? In a way it does - regardless of one's situation we humans remain VERY attached to living a long life ...

PS: In the US, one need not look to far to see a closer version of a capitalist Social Democracy. There's one sitting on your head on a map. Called Canada!

 

[Juks]

It's interesting, but it is certainly a very different view on socialism and liberal socialism than what we have in Europe. Socialism in Europe does not want a "overtaking" of private business like they are talking about and Social liberalism is not about workers representation in private companies board rooms at all . I am therefor having difficulties to follow their mindset on that regards. But it gives me an insight on how you American views the both ideologies.

simplified overview (of European view):

Communism: Overtaking production, workers own their production and share through productionvalue logarithm the growth in value.

Socialism: Controlling main society production: Like healthcare, schools, energy a s o (doesn't have to be owned by state, can be controlled through regulations and rules) Besides that workers rights should be guarded, either with strong institutions like strong union organizations or through regulations of salary contra profit regulations. (you can’t underpay the workers)

Social liberalism: No control what so ever of production or private companies , (no regulation for pensions or for salaries what so ever: Liberals (left and right) believe the market will handle that on their own) just a set of human rights issues that needs to be provided from state; such as healthcare, food for the day, children’s right to education and roof over your head

Sorry for the bad english but it is a complicated subject to explane in another language than your native one.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

He was talking about the hypocrisy of how society allows us to buy computers with components mined by slaves. If you buy/download child porn you are supporting the sexual abuse/exploitation of children. But when you buy a computer, how is that not also supporting the exploitation of others? While I don't totally agree with Vaush's conclusion (I think there is more nuance than that), I totally understand it and see the merit of the argument.

I seriously doubt most of the components are mined by actual slaves versus people who Recieve low wages because they live in a culture that’s inferior and cannot produce an advanced society.

but regardless vaush thinks he’s smart when he is really not. The idea of evil and cooperation with evil is a moral question which has already been resolved, remote cooperation is perfectly acceptable. Child porn is not remote cooperation however.

vaush also said that Kyle Rittenhouse should’ve let himself be lynched because a mob of people is more right then one person and it’s not worth 3 people dying,

this is someone who is fundamentally evil in his outlook

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Given the above, you would not recognize the New Left if it bit you on the nose.

The New Left is to be found in the capitalist Social Democracies that have evolved in Europe. What it might be in the US is pure hearsay on a clearly overworked Debate Site like this one.

The heart of any Social Democracy can be wrongly reduced to "High-taxation and bold remuneration of low-income families". Which means tritely that one has a higher chance of a longer-life in the European Union than one does in the US. (A little more than two-years longer.)

Does that really matter? In a way it does - regardless of one's situation we humans remain VERY attached to living a long life ...

PS: In the US, one need not look to far to see a closer version of a capitalist Social Democracy. There's one sitting on your head on a map. Called Canada!

No, the new left is not based on capitalist social democracies in Europe, which are themselves being usurped by the new left. Like in Norway it’s now illegal to insult a transsexual in your own home.

the new left is really a repackaging of cultural Marxism.

 

[Lafayette]

LIBERALISM IS AS LIBERALISM DOES

Social liberalism: No control what so ever of production or private companies , (no regulation for pensions or for salaries what so ever: Liberals (left and right) believe the market will handle that on their own) just a set of human rights issues that needs to be provided from state; such as healthcare, food for the day, children’s right to education and in some countries: roof over your head (but that is rarely the case: Our liberal socialist doesn't believe this is a right for example)

Social liberalism does have certain "controls", one of them being manifestly Income Taxation. The higher the remuneration, the higher the taxation. Which never gets "confiscatory" in the US but sometimes very close. It was once above 90% for the higher-categories of Income. (Which is where, I feel, it should get back!)

There are no Liberals Left&Right. They are all on the Right and it's better that way. It's easier for them to understand what they want and what they don't want. Turns out, however, it's a brazen rip-off for them of the economy.

So let's define this much employed-but-maligned word "liberalism" to signify a political PoV:

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. ... Liberals ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free trade and free markets.

Free trade has its shortcomings. Whyzat? Just look what it has done to American internal-economics. Extract from The Atlantic here: The U.S. Only Pretends to Have Free Markets

When I arrived in the United States from France in 1999, I felt like I was entering the land of free markets. Nearly everything—from laptops to internet service to plane tickets—was cheaper here than in Europe.

Twenty years later, this is no longer the case. Internet service, cellphone plans, and plane tickets are now much cheaper in Europe and Asia than in the United States, and the price differences are staggering. In 2018, according to data gathered by the comparison site Cable, the average monthly cost of a broadband internet connection was $29 in Italy, $31 in France, $32 in South Korea, and $37 in Germany and Japan. The same connection cost $68 in the United States, putting the country on par with Madagascar, Honduras, and Swaziland. American households spend about $100 a month on cellphone services, the Consumer Expenditure Survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates. Households in France and Germany pay less than half of that ....

The US is a free-trade market but, about a quarter century ago, it went bonkers on Market Consolidation with full-the approval of successive Replicant presidents beginning with Reckless Ronnie (Ray-gun). When looking for articles on Market Consolidation in the US, it becomes apparent that the writing is "by industry".

There are damn few articles that treat the entire market for what it is worth in terms of consolidation by means of America's "buyout" frenzy of the last 30-years or so. Of course, any search depends upon - on the Internet - the key-words employed. And despite this fact the result is industry-wide in terms of the articles produced. Which is fine!

But not exactly the analysis for which what I was searching - that is, the coverage insufficiently total economy inclusive.

But I WILL keep looking because I fundamentally believe that such is the key economic-problem of the US today. After Reckless-Reagan, the US went on a Replicant-bent for market-consolidation the purpose of which was to generate billions of dollars in profits much of which went to stockholders but also to a select small percentage of the upper-income population.

But, most Americans thought "Hey! That's just great!" (Especially for stock-markets ... !)

And what happened? To the great amusement and joy of corporate CEO's, business got a LOT less competitive (bad for consumers) and, consequently, corporate profit-values e-x-p--l--o--d---e----d!

Sorry for the bad english but it is a complicated subject to explane in another language than your native one.

Your English is quite good enough for posting in this forum. Even native-born Yanks, like me, make spelling mistakes here!

 

[Evilroddy]

When I was listening to Vauch's words I was also watching his eyes and subtle facial expressions. On the surface he seems to be a reasonable and moderate socialist. But my gut feeling from those facial expressions is very different and I think an authoritarian socialist lies behind those cold blue eyes. Caveat Emptor!

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Juks]

LIBERALISM IS AS LIBERALISM DOES



Social liberalism does have certain "controls", one of them being manifestly Income Taxation. The higher the remuneration, the higher the taxation. Which never gets "confiscatory" in the US but sometimes very close. It was once above 90% for the higher-categories of Income. (Which is where, I feel, it should get back!)

This is also a difference, I don't see taxation as a regulation. it is a means of (financing) implementing policies, regulations are another mean for implementing policies.

 

[eohrnberger]

No but human nature has not changed and business owners will still try to take as much of the profits for themselves as they possibly can. They would go back to paying us 2 dollars a day if they could. The pay raises stopped in the 1980's after Reagan slashed the top rates. I don't think that is coincidence sorry.

There are a number of reasons we’ve had the greatest income inequality in the last century, and perhaps ever.
But this is the primary reason: wages and salaries, as a percent of GDP, peaked in 1970 at 51.7% and fell dramatically to 42.1% in late 2011.
They’re currently around 43%.
That’s a fall of 29%. Wages – from 1945 to 1974 – in the last great boom and bust averaged around 50% of GDP. They were more stable and hence no extremes in income inequality or stock crashes greater than 20% happened during the Bob Hope boom from 1942 to 1968.
Corporate profits took a hit in the inflationary 1970s and into the early 1980s. But since 1986, they’ve gone straight up from 4.2% of GDP to 10.1% in late 2011.
They’re still at 9.4% currently. That’s an increase in their share of the economy by 141%.
So, wages go down 29% since 1970, and corporate profits go up 141% since 1986. How do you like them apples?

View attachment 67306680

https://talkmarkets.com/content/eco...es-and-the-tax-cuts-arent-helping?post=179292

You are completely ignoring the fact of the local labor market and it setting the compensations for the jobs in that market.
You seem to believe that a federal 'one size fits' all solution of dictating wages, i.e. centralized economic planning, is the better solution. Isn't that rather Soviet?

 

[rocket88]

Is the world, the US economy, the required workforce skillsets the same as it was in the 1950's?

No. Ironically the right realizes the 1950s are over.

 

[rocket88]

You are completely ignoring the fact of the local labor market and it setting the compensations for the jobs in that market.
You seem to believe that a federal 'one size fits' all solution of dictating wages, i.e. centralized economic planning, is the better solution. Isn't that rather Soviet?

It's rather Soviet to promise everyone a job in a coal mine also, but that didn't stop Trump.

I'm just saying that as much as you guys love to use tge word "socialist" as a weapon, you already stand for a lot of socialist things.

 

[Geoist]

It's interesting, but it is certainly a very different view on socialism and liberal socialism than what we have in Europe. Socialism in Europe does not want a "overtaking" of private business like they are talking about and Social liberalism is not about workers representation in private companies board rooms at all . I am therefor having difficulties to follow their mindset on that regards.

David Pakman (the host) considers himself a social democrat, which some people refer to as 'socialism', but is more in line with what much of Europe has. Although I only just discovered Vaush, his ideas are more in line with European anarchist thinkers like Proudhon and Kropotkin but it seems he is pragmatic and even said he voted for Joe Biden.

In the 19th century, there was a battle of ideas within the socialist/anarchist/communist community. On the one hand, you had the anti-state socialists and the other you had the pro-state socialists. Obviously the pro-state socialists won that battle, but anti-state socialists still exist in academia (like Chomsky, Bookchin, Carson, etc) and now Youtubers like Vaush.

But it gives me an insight on how you American views the both ideologies.

Tbh, most Americans are not all that familiar with libertarian-socialism and do not think of this brand of socialism.

simplified overview (of European view):

Sorry for the bad english but it is a complicated subject to explane in another language than your native one.

You did great. It's a complicated subject for even us native English speakers.

 

[eohrnberger]

It's rather Soviet to promise everyone a job in a coal mine also, but that didn't stop Trump.

Eh? Not sure if that's what he said or not. I rather doubt it.

I'm just saying that as much as you guys love to use tge word "socialist" as a weapon, you already stand for a lot of socialist things.

Sort of how the left is using Nazi, bigot, racist, et. al. as weapons?

 

[Lafayette]

This is also a difference, I don't see taxation as a regulation. it is a means of (financing) implementing policies, regulations are another mean for implementing policies.

I do. Light taxation - in the US - means that BigEarners can contribute to their favorite party.

I, for one, do not think that money employed for political advertising should be allowed. Electing a candidate to political office is not like selling hamburgers. (Except perhaps in the US.)

The money goes to creating ridiculous adverts that rarely communicate the basic political sentiments of the candidates. That can be more easily done by means of a TV-debate. Exactly what we Americans seem to prefer for the presidency.

So, why not simply make political-adverts illegal ... ?

 

[aociswundumho]

It is the Social Democracies of Europe that instituted National Healthcare Systems, the key reason why Europeans live four years longer than Americans! (Lifespan 81 in the EU and 78.5 in the US.)

Eat your heart out ...

There is a very good reason life expectancy has gone up in certain countries, but it's not a reason you would approve of.

 

[dairyair]

And you believe that significantly hiking taxes on corporations is going to motivate them to keep their workforces here in the US?
If anything it would be a motivator for them move their workforces offshore, which we've already witnessed.
Wouldn't that be a logical conclusion from the recent history that we've witnessed?

What do corporate taxes have to do with where them employ people?
The number of people employed is related directly to the amount of products sold vs the efficiency of making said product.

 

[Rhakron90]

Given the above, you would not recognize the New Left if it bit you on the nose.

One of us certainly wouldn't.

The New Left is to be found in the capitalist Social Democracies that have evolved in Europe. What it might be in the US is pure hearsay on a clearly overworked Debate Site like this one.

No, the "New Left" is the branch of Neo-Marxist incrementalist thought which rose out of the "Frankfurt School" in the 1950s and 1960s as an alternative to the Stalinist model.

The ideology of this movement has gradually come to dominate the Democratic Party since the late 1960s. though - in past years - they would often actively try to hide it behind other, euphemistic, labels, like "Progressivism."

Recently, however, it has gone into overdrive and "dropped the mask," with the rise of a more radically militant and authoritarian wing within the movement. This pre-dominantly Millennial new wing aggressively seeks to suppress and even destroy the "Five Olds" of Western Society and culture, and rebuild it in their own image. This "New New Left" movement runs the gambit from "Cancel Culture," to the "SJW" movement and its "Intersectionalist Critical Theory," to the ideological cores of groups like ANTIFA and BLM.

Even a lot of people who generally swing against "Social Conservatism" find the rise of this new brand of militant radicalism to be rather disturbing.

The heart of any Social Democracy can be wrongly reduced to "High-taxation and bold remuneration of low-income families". Which means tritely that one has a higher chance of a longer-life in the European Union than one does in the US. (A little more than two-years longer.)

Does that really matter? In a way it does - regardless of one's situation we humans remain VERY attached to living a long life ...

PS: In the US, one need not look to far to see a closer version of a capitalist Social Democracy. There's one sitting on your head on a map. Called Canada!

Good to know... And also utterly irrelevant.