• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There is effectively no 'far left' in the US

aociswundumho said:
Which turns into socialism. The verb regulate literally means "to control".
Click to expand...
Government's entire function is to control, and primitive nomadic life arguments aside, the world is generally better for it, we chose it for a reason. Anarchy (no formal control), was shit.
How do you not know this? Control, like most verbs, can be used for good or bad purposes, this is like middle school level philosophy.
No good system lacks controls.

A mix of capitalism and socialism doesn't lead to single party socialists states, any more than anything else, it's the norm in the developed world for a reason.
 
aociswundumho said:
No, you've got it exactly backwards.

Suppose we had a free market in auto manufacturing across the entire USA. Explain how one auto manufacturer could prevent others in the entire country from making and selling cars, without government regulation.



Here's a real-world example of a thriving market with no monopolies, and no regulation.
Click to expand...

By hiring a private army to kill their competitors. Just like members of your “thriving market” do.
 
aociswundumho said:
No.

If you're an adult, and you consent to having your mechanic brother-in-law cut open your chest, then have at it.
Click to expand...

And if you’re an adult, and consent to have your mechanic brother in law operate on your child? There should be no regulation?
 
aociswundumho said:
Except it's in the most regulated markets where we find the most monopolies, oligopolies, and labor cartels. The US healthcare market is a perfect example. I can't think of any other market in the US where producers and workers are better protected from competition, and the result is extremely high prices.
Click to expand...
Because there aren't any large economics that aren't regulated. Do you also mistake total numbers per country vs total numbers per capita?

You don't seem to characterize healthcare accurately either. In the *more* regulated European models, they have lower prices, and better health outcomes...oops.

Libertarianism is as bad as communism, just a lot less popular.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
I would go further and say that there isn't even a left in the United States. Take our arguably most left leaning political official, Bernie Sanders. When compared in an international context, the man is a centrist, slightly left of center if that. There is no actual left in the US today at all.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting position to consider. Though I think you mean 'in federal office', not that there are no 'left' people in the country, as I argue with 'communist' supporters of Mao, Stalin, etc. And our media...
 
Craig234 said:
Can anyone point me to one American who says they want the US to adopt Stalinism? To adopt Maosim? To even adopt Castroism? One. Single. American? I don't think so.

If you look very hard, way past the 1% level, you can find a few people here and there who support something they call 'communism', but what is even what they support? It's nothing like the aforementioned regimes, it's something different and far less bad (or do I daresay possible good).

I wonder when is the last time anyone here actually listened to anything so-called communists advocate, especially their critics, rather than just making up straw men to lie about people they want to attack.

I've said for a long time that communism has essentially no purpose in American political discussion but to derail honest discussion. Since I still see it get brought up, it's time for a reminder there is essentially no "far left", much less bogeyman "communism", in the US. What is CALLED the furthest 'left' is essentially classic, American, non-oligarchic politics with more moderate inequality, democracy, and concern for the public interest.
Click to expand...
Putin wants to resurrect the Soviet Union and MAGA is supporting that endeavor.

Also, why are you concentrating on Stalinism? Communism is far left. Like for example these people are far left: https://www.cpusa.org

The Anarcho Communists from the Occupy movement were/are far left. And they want something very extreme.

There is no such thing as good Communism. No more than there is a good Nazism. Both Communism and Nazism are bad no matter how many people support them. Of course, MAGA is full of shit on everything. Trump has them angry about Communism because that's what Hitler did too. And Trump only copies people in this case it was Hitler. And history shows how Hitler treated Communists.

None of what MAGA is doing changes the fact that we must remain vigilant to communist influences. In the same way that we must be aware of Nazism's influences. This is where MAGA/Trump got the "everyone is a commy" thing from.

But pretending there is no far-left threat to democracy in the US is naive at best. AT worst you were influenced by the far-left to believe it is only the far-right Americans needing to be checked. Make no mistake the far left is learning from MAGA, they will attempt their coup eventually. And if we are still asleep at the wheel, they'll try to take over as well. They already organized as allies during the Occupy movement just like the far-right did with Unite the Right. It was after they organized that Trump tried the coup.
 
aociswundumho said:
There are a lot of people who are Stalinists. They believe Stalin was basically a good guy who did what he had to do under very difficult circumstances.
Click to expand...
In my 84 years, I have never met a single person who described Stalin as a good guy. Where might I find such people?
 
Mach said:
A mix of capitalism and socialism doesn't lead to single party socialists states
Click to expand...

You raise an interesting topic.

'Single party states' get a bad rap because of when that single party is the result of tyranny, of one party who holds power by force, denying choice to the people, like the aforementioned Mao or Stalin. No argument that's bad.

But during periods like FDR and LBJ, the US had effectively single party government with Democratic super-majorities; the Republicans played essentially no role in the governing of the country, and seem to have contributed close to nothing - yet I'd argue it not only wasn't a bad thing, but that those by far are the BEST periods of governing in US history.

I've commented before, try to make a list of the best 10 or 20 things the federal government has done in the last century (perhaps ever), and IMO it's likely you find they're concentrated in those periods of Democratic control. Try it. I'm not sure we need that 'second party' - but we do need 'voter choice and power' to keep that one party serving the people.
 
aociswundumho said:
No.

If you're an adult, and you consent to having your mechanic brother-in-law cut open your chest, then have at it.
Click to expand...
So, anyone qualifies to do open-heart surgery in your world. Someone opens a medical clinic, puts on a robe, starts taking in patients. No diplomas, certifications, nothing. Just a robe. Batshit crazy.
 
butterfly said:
I have never met a single person who described Stalin as a good guy. Where might I find such people?
Click to expand...

Funny enough, in Russia. And funny enough, plenty of Stalin period Americans felt ok about "Uncle Joe" from his time as our WWII ally and the figure who did more to defeat Hitler than anyone. There really were Americans who thought Stalin and the USSR might offer the world some good. And they weren't entirely wrong in some criticisms of the US, who had some military leaders who wanted to nuke 'the commies'.
 
Craig234 said:
Funny enough, in Russia. And funny enough, plenty of Stalin period Americans felt ok about "Uncle Joe" from his time as our WWII ally and the figure who did more to defeat Hitler than anyone. There really were Americans who thought Stalin and the USSR might offer the world some good. And they weren't entirely wrong in some criticisms of the US, who had some military leaders who wanted to nuke 'the commies'.
Click to expand...
Okay, yes I remember some having positive thoughts following WW II until McCartyism spread like a cancer.
 
Michael Cole said:
So, anyone qualifies to do open-heart surgery in your world.
Click to expand...

If you're an adult, and you wish to hire someone to cut your chest open, that's your business.

Michael Cole said:
Someone opens a medical clinic, puts on a robe, starts taking in patients. No diplomas, certifications, nothing. Just a robe. Batshit crazy.
Click to expand...

Again, if you wish to hire someone with no medical training, that's your business. You're an adult, not a child.
 
Craig234 said:
You raise an interesting topic.
'Single party states' get a bad rap because of when that single party is the result of tyranny, of one party who holds power by force, denying choice to the people, like the aforementioned Mao or Stalin. No argument that's bad.
But during periods like FDR and LBJ, the US had effectively single party government with Democratic super-majorities; the Republicans played essentially no role in the governing of the country, and seem to have contributed close to nothing - yet I'd argue it not only wasn't a bad thing, but that those by far are the BEST periods of governing in US history.
I've commented before, try to make a list of the best 10 or 20 things the federal government has done in the last century (perhaps ever), and IMO it's likely you find they're concentrated in those periods of Democratic control. Try it. I'm not sure we need that 'second party' - but we do need 'voter choice and power' to keep that one party serving the people.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, recent Democrats tend to be decent people who believe in good governance based on classical liberalism...

Those were not single party rule, though they were a liberal Democratic Republic with a decent Constitution and legal system, oversight and free press, etc., and a second party....
much different from say China, where it's an actual single party rule, where you cannot mount an opposition to government, legally or practically.

But I agree, good people are not really what most laws/regulations and checks/balances are about...it's the bad actors we have to design for, sadly.
 
Mach said:
Well yeah, recent Democrats tend to be decent people who believe in good governance based on classical liberalism...

Those were not single party rule, though they were a liberal Democratic Republic with a decent Constitution and legal system, oversight and free press, etc., and a second party....
much different from say China, where it's an actual single party rule, where you cannot mount an opposition to government, legally or practically.

But I agree, good people are not really what most laws/regulations and checks/balances are about...it's the bad actors we have to design for, sadly.
Click to expand...
What I was saying, though, is that it's when the US has been closest to 'single party rule' by Democrats, that it's had its best governments. That it's wrong to equate that 'single party rule' with the tyrannical versions, but some try to.
 
aociswundumho said:
If you're an adult, and you wish to hire someone to cut your chest open, that's your business.



Again, if you wish to hire someone with no medical training, that's your business. You're an adult, not a child.
Click to expand...
Brilliant. Good luck with all the death.

Government's job involves protecting its citizens. Requiring certification protects the public. There are enough quack doctors as it is. Under your dystopia, people would be dropping like flies.

Being an adult doesn't give one the means to assess a robe clad man's expertise. That's government's job and duty.
 
Joe Biden would be a moderate Tory in most commonwealth countries, meanwhile the GOP come off as a Golden Dawn style extremist party.
 
Michael Cole said:
Government's job involves protecting its citizens. Requiring certification protects the public.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with certifications, as they were created by the market. Certification does not prevent non-certified products or services from competing.

You're arguing for government licensing, not certification. Licensing schemes are what create state-backed labor cartels.
 
aociswundumho said:
No, you've got it exactly backwards.

Suppose we had a free market in auto manufacturing across the entire USA. Explain how one auto manufacturer could prevent others in the entire country from making and selling cars, without government regulation.



Here's a real-world example of a thriving market with no monopolies, and no regulation.
Click to expand...

So what do you think of Peter Thiel's anti competition ideas?


If competition makes them less money, why would the corporate overlords who control the economy want more competition?

Libertarians said for decades that tycoons should do almost everything they can to deliver a greater return for their share holders. If less competition gives them a greater return, then why would they support more competition?
 
Mach said:
Well yeah, recent Democrats tend to be decent people who believe in good governance based on classical liberalism...
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Modern Democrats are hostile to free speech, freedom of association, and limited government, all of which are classical liberal values.
 
aociswundumho said:
Nonsense. Modern Democrats are hostile to free speech, freedom of association, and limited government, all of which are classical liberal values.
Click to expand...
Thats what Fox told you huh?
 
aociswundumho said:
Trump is not a classic liberal, nor did he ever claim to be. He's a former Democrat, ffs.

Here he is advocating for gun confiscation without due process:

Click to expand...


"Classical liberal" is a phrase invented by the Right, for the Right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom