What you feel about new America under Trump:-) ?

Post Reply New Topic

you are more optimistic than I am about this. granted there is a chance the GOP will conveniently impeach rump to get him out of the way so they can work on pence the pill, that won't have stopped the damage that will have been done by then that will take years to undo, if ever it is undone.

America under Trump will be a disaster for sure. How can a house divide stand? Millions of people are WELL AWARE of the recent history, and FAILURE, of National Socialism. The small-minded hicks and rednecks in the US can care less about trampling people's rights, BUT THEY WILL FAIL MISERABLY. History is staunchly against the white nationalists, or separatists, or conservatives or Tea Party or whatever the hell they call themselves these days..

the unfortunate thing here is that the people who need illuminating are just not gonna see it. all they would do is snarkily criticize you for bringing up what they call "godwin's law" and leave it at that. an old preacher said "there are none so tender as those who themselves have been skinned." IOW too many people have to have misfortune happen to them personally before they finally get it that we're all in this thing together, if then.

The problem we run into is that non-capitalist systems have also failed quite monstrously, even on the environment. So, the USSR had multiple environmental disasters. Now, it can be argued that part of it's failed socialism was also part of it being a failed state, but my guess is that this is only part. Humans have never really figured out how to organize things well on this scale, and human societies continually struggle with corruption of various forms. This isn't a full-throated defense of capitalism, but just a recognition that capitalism has shown some ability to move certain tasks away from political levers so that we can kill our failures more gracefully than in other economic systems allowing for more improvement to be made.

Frankly, we're just running into the pains of humans being silly apes optimized to promote their success in smaller pictures, like the short-run, or like themselves and their families, or optimizing only the local incentives. It's a really hard problem once one thinks much about it.

I've been listening the audio book of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago at work. Aside from learning just how bad the citizens of the USSR and particularly returning ex-pats and Germane POW's had it he also pushed another point - economic failures spurred a constant witch-hunt for 'wreckers' and for millions of so-called spies which needed to exist for the sake of explaining the inefficiency of central planning. On one hand they were persecuting success (a natural product of industriousness) and considering those farmers who were successful as reemerging Kulaks. Stalin also had a real problem with engineers arguing for little things like realistic means to implement what was asked of them, and wherever fantasy didn't meet reality engineers were hung, shot, and woven into conspiracy theories along with forced confessions along with anyone who knew someone who didn't agree with the government, or knew someone who knew someone, etc..

I think we're in a scary place though right now with what innovation is doing to the quantity of jobs. We're going to need to figure out a new system just that we'll have to look at history and take careful note to stay away from people who are peddling utopian solutions.

Right, the problem is a huge pain. I mean, some of these Soviet incentives were profoundly misplaced in ways that just did not make sense. The average corporation also has perverse incentives as well.

I get the feeling that US denialism is more unique to the US, meaning that less drastic solutions than revolution are in theory possible.

As for job loss... my best guess is that a universal basic income idea, or some modification thereof is safer. I mean, talk about taking jobs back from China is absurd.

One thing that was interesting to hear about Russia - they had a massive culture shock with atheism getting exposed to them and washing through in a decade rather than 300 years.

I've really been hooked on Jordan Peterson's maps of meaning lectures lately and I think I have to agree with him that most of our vulnerability to totalitarian fantasies is usually based on just how badly we collectively become unhinged how fast, particularly if it's too short a time for organic solutions or replacements and restabilizing to happen.

It sounds like Russia also had a monarchical history that we don't have that stayed on as a subconscious template in building the new state and it seems to an extent that Putin is yet another outgrowth of that albeit a heck of a lot more mild than what they had to deal with in the 20th century. Seems like the cultural beliefs and metadata lead to certain gaps being filled. I see something similar with Germany having been a very proudly military country, the Kaiser getting defeated, the Treaty of Versailles financially destroying them, and a good fifteen years of things getting significantly worse was enough to create a foment for really bad things to happen.

Entire books have been written on why the USSR failed. None of them change the fact that capitalism is fundamentally incapable of handling the problems we now face. It has spurred tremendous technological advancements and intellectual achievements but has reached the point of obsolescence. There isn't even much dispute about this; there aren't any fully classical liberal societies in existence; they've all tried to reconcile socialism with capitalism. It doesn't really work.

Like I said, I'd be open to other alternatives; but I've seen no better ones proposed. The only alternatives I could think of are both untenable and monstrous.



Things fell apart fast under Stalin, although counter-revolutionary forces were already pushing back at that point. Stalin's response to them was a betrayal in every sense of the word and a great tragedy not just for those who died under his tyranny, but for future generations.



We most certainly are in a scary place. Something's got to give, and very soon. It isn't going to be pleasant for anyone.

Yes, I am in agreement that entire books have been written on why the USSR failed. There are some recurring tendencies that come up, and a lot went wrong.

I don't think capitalism was devised to solve all of the problems we're facing. I may even agree with you that aspects of capitalism are failing, but I have difficulties understanding a proper solution.

So, a simple example to hopefully quickly ground both of us is the case of internet echo chambers. Capitalism is perfectly fine catering to and exploiting out confirmation biases, however, other approaches to the problem may cause worrisome balance of power issues. The best I can think of is maybe moderately trying to cull the edges of the obvious false news sites, and refocusing on trying to find ways of providing solid neutral authorities in the public sphere(So, ways of making a History channel that actually cares about History, even if publicly funded), but this is also a flawed approach to the problem. I think we may also be running into terminology issues, but in terms of how I understand the term "socialism"(as in a revolutionary sense where you used it), it doesn't provide clearcut answers to the problems.

I have no idea how to determine obsolescence in this case. Economic growth rates are slackening, which might be part of what you're referring to, but from my knowledge we only have speculative answers on why that is happening. http://www.vox.com/2016/8/1/12131216/theories-gdp-growth-slow

As for classical liberal vs capitalist vs socialist-capitalist reconciliation, I think we may have run into a difference in the use of terminology:
1) I don't define classical liberalism as equaling capitalism. So, a neoliberal state that intervenes in markets to modify incentives but that still uses market processes, and then redistributes out of some of the gains, is still a fairly capitalist system in my eyes, even if it causes libertarian purists to scream. I mean, the Affordable Care Act, despite what conservatives may scream, is oriented towards capitalism(as they should know as the idea was birthed in their thinktanks).
2) I also tend strongly towards defining "socialist" as public ownership(either the people or the state on behalf of the people) over the means of production. Defining it in other ways creates a conceptual muddle as far as I'm aware. Is universal basic income socialist? Arch-capitalist Milton Friedman suggested the idea and called it a negative income tax. Is something like the Affordable Care Act socialist? Then why is it administered by private organizations? I think this is especially the case if one is suggesting a revolution, as a revolution that literally is just to change 1-2 laws that don't cause the radical reorganization of society really might not be that much of a revolution.

As far as I'm aware the root issue is how people operate, as I stated in my post before:


I am unsure how one would quickly deploy an untested system like this and have it pick up quickly though. My best guess is that maybe you'd refer to a market socialist system to reduce on the reorganization difficulties? The problem is that this might not actually give you much advantage when it comes to resolving the organizational troubles of the existing system. Burning it down and starting anew would probably be damning as well though, as the current system is solving the problems it was meant to solve, and despite failings has provided high points that humans have never experienced before this society.

Does this all make sense? I'm not trying to be difficult, only pointing out that this path might end up being terrible.

You guys are annoyingly funny

Wait, there's a law that allows Hillary to become president?[/quote]Wait, how is that even possible?

I am not persuaded that a Trump victory would benefit anyone in the long run. Certainly Hillary may have encountered setbacks for some past misdeeds that ultimately cost her the election; albeit she is an experienced politician and methodical, hence predictable. No such luxury exists with Trump.

America crossed a 1-way gate on nov. 8, we are in uncharted territory now but it resembles dystopias from the past.

At least it means Hillary won't stack the court anti gun and so a trump election supports half the population who owns guns

I doubt Hillary would've done much about guns, especially with senate+house being republican control.

In my view- gun control laws do need to be better, but the cowards in office refuse to change things. Especially when many are either in NRA themselves or just being bribed by NRA. Less shootings in USA should've been a thing a long time ago. More background checks and more waiting time isnt too much to ask! If gun owners have a problem with this- then I honestly think they are hiding something. Waiting more time to get your precious gun isnt the end of the world...

And, from our corner of the world, a perspective from some of our most popular cartoon teams: