Comments by "Emanon" (@Emanon...) on "Cornel West Makes Tucker Carlson Look Like Total Fool On Fox" video.

  1. Mad tough: New Zealand had a large social sector until the neoloberal policies of the 70's. How did that work out for you. Yes, specifically you. Ask your parents and grandparents how it was before that. Ask the sick, poor and immigrant how it became after the "reforms". I would argue that people were better off back then. And being socialist today does not mean that everything is owned by the gov,s. You brought sweden as an example: Energy - public Transportation - public Infrastructure- public Healthcare - public Education - public With fair regulations to dam up the greed, corruption and excesses of crony capitalism. The US and New Zealand could certainly learn a thing or two from that... Just my two cents, brother.
    2
  2. And on the index of economic freedom link: It's made by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall street Journal. And Singapore - a dictatorship is ranked no 1. The list tells you nothing about personal liberty or rights. Know your sources, my brother.
    1
  3. Guys, it's seriously an exercise in semantics. Look up the definition of socialism, especially democratic socialism: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." The key word here being owned OR regulated by the community as a whole. It's an umbrella term open for interpretation. By that definition, yes, the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands and France are socialist countries. Getting back to New Zealand "stagflation" economics in the 70's. * Name me a single time in history where solely austere measures have had a positive impact on growth, employment and purchase power * Name me a single instance of severe tax cuts bringing measurable equal growth in a market system This is not a zero sum game, fellas. Unfortunately that's how it is presented to a lot of people who have no idea of underlying economic mechanisms and political theories. But it's easy to understand. Really. If you're interested in this, check out lectures and books by Mark Blyth and Yanis Varoufakis. Final thought: When has economists as groups ever been right about anything? Exactly. It's not science based on evidence. It's religious dogma. Thanks for a respectful tone guys :)
    1
  4. Singapore? Emirates? Djibouti? All undemocratic. All capitalism "on steroids". No public social institutions and limited personal freedom. You say China and Cuba and USSR etc? Guess what? I can say: Every single monarchy, empire and oligarchic republic from the beginning of history that "failed"... Your list is waaaaay longer than mine, brother. None of these countries were democratic either. It's not socialism OR democracy. Its BOTH: Political AND economic rights. A well regulated liberal market by a government of the people. You do know that socialist theories are not the word of God, right? That we can shape and interpret it to serve us in the best way possible? The irony is that people are so afraid of socialist ideas because of former authoritarian regimes (which is fair), but at the same time your rights are being trampled by hateful "freedom lovers" that see themselves your superiors.
    1
  5. That's a strawman argument and you know it. I'm not arguing for worker control or central planning. I'm arguing for the human right that is health, education and a possibility to influence your own fortune if your born disenfranchised - via democratic means. That is in essence also socialism. Having a bit of socialistic regulation to what essentially is laissez-faire capitalist markets ie. the US is not a bad thing. You can't disagree with that. Right?
    1
  6. Being part of the DSA (a party) and following democratic socialism (an idea) are not the same thing. If so, why do you even bring up other countries? In Denmark we have Socialists, Social Democrats, Communists and Alternative Socialists. All follow socialist ideas but disagree vastly on immigration, EU, regulating wealth distribution and "means of production". I honestly think we've been talking past each other, as I think we agree on the basics. The rest, I reiterate, Semantics.
    1
  7. THAT IS MY POINT EXACTLY! JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE SOCIALIST IN YOUR NAME, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE AN AUTHORITARIAN THAT FOLLOWS CASTRO/STALIN/POT TO THE LETTER. It's nuanced. Please be able to see that. Example: Is conservatism racist and against abortion? It certainly was 150 years ago. But it evolved and grew. Some have the same views, but not all conservative fucking parties in the world are racist and against abortion today. Yes? Semantics is arguing about the meaning of words. This is what we have done for the last 5 posts now. RIP.
    1