Comments by "BlackFlagsNRoses" (@blackflagsnroses6013) on "Andrew Yang Dodges Question About Corporate Influence On 'Forward Party'" video.

Not really. He’s not a social democrat progressive. He’s more of a technocratic progressive. He’s never said otherwise. There are few overlaps, but gotta see how it is
4
@MrGreensweightHist I think social democrats idiotically put their marbles on centralized government to cure the problems caused by government itself. Every socialist understands capitalism is the real governing power that directs and administrates government. Yang is no where near a viable solution, however the push for electoral reform is a necessary one. The UBI should be funded through the Single Tax of LVT. Georgism is the answer to taxation. Everyone who thinks the solution is welfare funded by taxing of labor is no ally to labor. Under a Georgist policy the only tax would be on land value rent; which would be sufficient enough to fund UBI, public utilities, infrastructure, and social services. From there labor organization has better bargaining power due to the freer economy. If government funding was done through an LVT and Pigouvian taxes to disincentivize terrible practices, the land monopoly destroyed so that labor or producers will have greater control of their work. Limiting government to it’s basic functions of public projects, and social welfare would limit it’s role and centralized powers to do harm, as with military adventurism.
1
@MrGreensweightHist you mean the LIBERAL (limited government) constitution that was supposed to make the parameters of Federal government clear in that legal document? The Constitution wasn’t meant to be carte blanche to do whatever the Feds wanted at the expense of States and municipalities. At least not to the liberal branch of American founders. Others like the conservatives and Federalists desired a powerful federal centralized government that the rabble and poor may be better controlled. The further centralizing of national and federal power has lead us here, among many other things, that the Federal government seek to rule out from an out of touch district in D.C.; that the executive branch has been steadily increasing powers to the point where they make war at any time; and to the point that one appointed Justice of the SCOTUS is enough to terrify the population of loss of civil rights already fought and won. And no social democracy isn’t power to the people, it’s still representative bourgeois democracy where you leave your livelihoods to the whims of a political class, under a system of monopolist-corporate capitalism. REAL self-government is the leftist and libertarian socialist advocacy of popular assembly, worker’s councils, decentralized federalism, and free association. You know what the socialists fought for before the rise of Bolshevism and Marxism-Leninism popularized centralized bureaucracy. The enemy of socialism is the capitalist state, the government and ruling property owners. Hence why all socialists before the Bolsheviks (though even they share this end goal) called for none other than the abolition of the State for a federation of federations, and labor associations. I assure you leftism is against the band aid of social democracy which solves only first world problems at the expense of the developing and underdeveloped world. However I understand many people are just moderate and relative to leftism are still quite conservative. Social democratic movements in Europe were built on compromises of labor movements and center-right conservative Christian Democrats. Democratic Socialism would be a far better moderate road than social democracy in my opinion.
1
@MrGreensweightHist no it wasn’t. The Constitution was supported and created by nationalist-federalists who wanted to replace the Articles of Confederation to have better economic control and protect the affluent. The whole point was to respond peasant rebellions, which were actually uniting slaves, indenture servants, and poor whites to a common cause against landowners. The Father of the Constitution said: “In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes...” — James Madison
1