alexandria ocasio - cortez

[boji]

but first things first... congress.

You may be right. She'd have to really screw up to not become the darling of the dems, all the way.

 

[tands]

It's hard to ignore the last charismatic minority community organizer from Chicago who spoke at the democratic convention and made his bones. Some may see her as the second coming.

I noticed the similarity too, but Ocasio's mom wasn't CIA, and she wasn't groomed to be a deep state Manchurian Candidate from birth like that guy. Louise Mensch is already calling Ocasio a russian asset, though.

I am not smart enough to predict the future but her platform seems too narrow to appeal to fly over state voters.

I don't think this is true anymore. Bernie would have won. The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

 

[tands]

Theory: Dems who constantly thwarted the progressive agenda are not now paying homage to @Ocasio2018 because they suddenly became leftists. Theyre paying homage because they worship celebrity & aim to coopt a now-ascendant progressive brand while still thwarting the actual agenda

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1014529332411170818

Getting on the bandwagon provides these people an off-ramp from the failed ideology of triangulated centrism without having to say they were wrong.

Nice!

She's posting the declaration of independance on her twitter currently, and wishing all a happy 4th.

https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1014544107811803138

Science for any occasion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtdKvEpl-Uo

 

[tands]

Lol, check it out.

"The idea that we're going to austerity ourselves into prosperity is so mistaken, and honestly I feel like one of the big problems we have is that, because Democrats don't have a deep understanding of or degrees in economics, they allow Wall Street folks to roll in the door and think that they're giving them an education," Ocasio-Cortez told In These Times last month.

"They're not. It's a con, and they're getting conned because they don't understand the transformative power of the purse that Congress has. It's not just Democrats. I don't think most of Congress understands how economics works."

...

Ocasio-Cortez, who has an economics degree from Boston University, says the US economy needs another New Deal like the one implemented by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression.

"There has almost never been a period of substantial economic growth in the United States without significant investment," she said. "And no investment pays off within the same cycle. No investment pays off within the same year — especially a governmental investment. Even businesses don't work that way."

http://www.businessinsider.com/ocasio-cortez-gets-the-economics-of-budget-deficits-job-creation-2018-7

 

[pucho812]

if I were her I would demand my money back.

There are plenty of economists who will tell you fdr's new deal  made things worse not better.  Her wanting to do similar things is not going to help her district.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-fdrs-new-deal-harmed-millions-poor-people

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409

https://mises.org/library/how-fdr-made-depression-worse

 

[boji]

they're capitalist fascists

Ah you culled the 'hidden hand thing'.  Yeah, Cato : Koch, etc. Edit: Not so hidden.

I can appreciate that every single one of my functioning household items I use for my survival were generally supplied to me by capitalists. That makes them heroes as much as fascists (It's neither, you won't see the day where we crispr-out human greed ).
I do however want to get rid of corporate personhood. As my friend said best, if you can't put a company physically in jail, it does not deserve the rights of a person.

 

[pucho812]

Capitalism is a fascist system in any case, but the people pucho is linking are fascistic like pigs in slop.

they are, explain...

 

[gyraf]

..please keep it civilized, I know you can...

 

[tands]

they are, explain...

It's all right in my sig, pucho. Think about it for a bit.

 

[pucho812]

I still don't follow.

I can't even find any google links to support that claim.

 

[volker]

Your country has privately owned prisons that work for profit of their owners. The work force of the prisoners (in non-private prisons too of course) is sold to companies, they themselves earn cents. I probably don't need to tell you about the incarceration rates of whites compared to non-whites... Or the percentage of prisoners in general compared to other countries. You have mass imprisonment of (black) people for minor drug offenses, that wouldn't even be considered a crime in other places. After you let them out, they are stripped of their democratic rights in most states.

So basically you have a capitalist system that exploits prisoners and takes away their right to vote. It took you a couple of decades, but you eventually figured out how to replace slavery. And while slaves were once privately owned, now it is a nicely government-run machine, the corporations are the ones profiting.

Also, while Obama decided to get rid of private prisons, old Donald went in the opposite direction as soon as he took office. Quelle surprise.

 

[JohnRoberts]

some bad logic, and bad language.  Play nice.

JR

 

[pucho812]

I was just trying to understand how the cato institute = fascist. 

but since we want to talk crime statistics
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2018.html

But more importantly 
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/02/americas-incarceration-rate-is-at-a-two-decade-low/

And according to older 2010 data via a google search
Race, ethnicity                     % of US population                                   % of U.S. incarcerated population
White (non-Hispanic)                   64                                                                                       39
Hispanic                                                 16                                                                                               19
Black                                                         13                                                                                               40

The numbers are going down, the gap between white and black is getting smaller. 

 

[boji]

"And while slaves were once privately owned, now it is a nicely government-run machine"

Some friends of mine call that "Privatizing profits, socializing losses"

Hard question: if we legalize drugs, will it tip the scale?
https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf
(Table 9, page 11)

Note: If you want to remain happy, don't compensate for population disparity.

 

[tands]

I still don't follow.

I can't even find any google links to support that claim.

Link.

Fascism: What is and how to fight it is a good pamphlet discussing the rise of Fascism in the early 20th century, its characteristics etc

   

But is this good for capitalists? Wouldn't the capitalist ruling class operate more effectively without the restrictions of a nationalist agenda?

Yes and yes, but also no.

Capitalists support Fascists specifically because Capitalism itself is in crisis and on the verge of collapse, it is used as a bulwark against the revolutionary working class. In this sense Fascism is absolutely good for Capitalists, as Fascism is a movement which emerges in the context of historic weakness for the Capitalist system, in order to safeguard it.

As for the second question, the ruling class is not a homogeneous entity. There is always contradiction and conflict between capitalists as they compete for their own benefit. There are sections of the capitalist class that would indulge in national chauvinism and hugely benefit from it, like the war industry. There are other sections of the capitalist class who would be hit hard by the path nationalism leads them down, like international capital, and there can be huge amounts of damage suffered by domestic capital as a result of a war effort or even trade conflicts due to protectionist measures taken by a nationalistic government.

   

Fascism wouldn't come to power so easily through capitalism unless the capitalist ruling class had some vested interest in it, right? What are those interests?

Well I outlined this earlier in the post, but essentially, a large section of Capitalists have a vested interest in the rise of fascist movements because those fascist movements behave as a counter weight to radical, working class movements which seek to challenge capitalism. Fascists then, act as the last line of defense for the capitalist system - when all else fails and democracy becomes a luxury that they can no longer afford, call in the Brownshirts.

It's also worth keeping in mind that Capitalists often would prefer to not have Fascists take state power, but more act as a repressive force against the organised working class without having to take state power - eg. how the Italian Squadristi used to break up strikes. When Hitler rose to power as appointed Chancellor, it is not because the forces of capitalism as a whole desired a Nazi government, it is because they believed Hitler could be controlled by the parties of the bourgeois establishment. That Hitler ultimately did seize power is something they didn't expect, but also something they weren't terribly bothered by.

   

Also, why do some strains of fascism claim to be anti-capitalist and how could that be true?

Historically, Fascist movements have co-opted radical rhetoric in order to appeal to the working class. For example, Trump saying the Republican Party will be a "workers' party" under his Presidency, or how Viktor Orbán said Hungary would be a "workers' state", a section of reactionaries understand the populist appeal of such a message and use the promise of a pro-worker government to give their politics mass appeal, whilst never actually following up on that promise. These were the same rhetorical tactics that were used by the Nazis as well, who spoke out both against "Jewish Bolshevism"(i.e. genuine revolutionary socialism) and "Jewish Bankers"(liberal capitalism) in the same breath.

Fundamentally, you cannot be anti-capitalist while still upholding everything that makes capitalism, capitalism. Fascism is certainly an illiberal ideology, however. Fascists attempt to subsume the contradictions in capitalism - that is, the contradictions between capital and labour - to the will of the nation-state, essentially trying to paper over these conflicts with the ideology of national unity.

https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/4mp80z/what_is_fascism_in_relation_to_capitalism/

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

My sig means that the capitalist class is inherently immoral. It profits only from the exploitation and subjugation of human lives. Cato and the Austrians are well aware of this, they spend all their time justifying or obfuscating it. Capitalism's heirarchy, exploitation, and coersion are fascist in nature, with the integration of state power and capital. That's what you see in my sig.

I don't expect you to grasp it, pucho, btw. It doesn't matter if you do or not. None of this is for you.

 

[boji]

Capitalism itself is in crisis and on the verge of collapse

/Yawn

Edit: 

capitalist class is inherently immoral.

The McDonald's worker is a capitalist. I think the author means the 1%. Tracts like this have no serious solution to harness human nature except to proscribe limits on greed. This takes blood. Blood and guns. And then when the working class is drummed up into a frenzy to kill the 'fascists' and they win a coup, they eventually elect a chairman, and a workers party, and eventually they get Putin, or Durende or Cuba or worse.

 

[tands]

/Yawn

Edit:  The McDonald's worker is a capitalist. I think this person means the 1%. Tracts like this have no serious solution to harness human nature except to proscribe limits on greed. This takes blood. Blood and guns. And then when the working class is drummed up into a frenzy to kill the 'fascists' and they win a coup, they eventually elect a chairman, and a workers party, and eventually they get Putin, or Durende or Cuba or worse.

It's strange, that gun and blood talk you emit when I start criticizing capitalism, boji.

[mod] no personal attacks  JR [/mod]

 

[desol]

Link.

Yes and yes, but also no.

Capitalists support Fascists specifically because Capitalism itself is in crisis and on the verge of collapse, it is used as a bulwark against the revolutionary working class. In this sense Fascism is absolutely good for Capitalists, as Fascism is a movement which emerges in the context of historic weakness for the Capitalist system, in order to safeguard it.

As for the second question, the ruling class is not a homogeneous entity. There is always contradiction and conflict between capitalists as they compete for their own benefit. There are sections of the capitalist class that would indulge in national chauvinism and hugely benefit from it, like the war industry. There are other sections of the capitalist class who would be hit hard by the path nationalism leads them down, like international capital, and there can be huge amounts of damage suffered by domestic capital as a result of a war effort or even trade conflicts due to protectionist measures taken by a nationalistic government.

   
Well I outlined this earlier in the post, but essentially, a large section of Capitalists have a vested interest in the rise of fascist movements because those fascist movements behave as a counter weight to radical, working class movements which seek to challenge capitalism. Fascists then, act as the last line of defense for the capitalist system - when all else fails and democracy becomes a luxury that they can no longer afford, call in the Brownshirts.

It's also worth keeping in mind that Capitalists often would prefer to not have Fascists take state power, but more act as a repressive force against the organised working class without having to take state power - eg. how the Italian Squadristi used to break up strikes. When Hitler rose to power as appointed Chancellor, it is not because the forces of capitalism as a whole desired a Nazi government, it is because they believed Hitler could be controlled by the parties of the bourgeois establishment. That Hitler ultimately did seize power is something they didn't expect, but also something they weren't terribly bothered by.

   
Historically, Fascist movements have co-opted radical rhetoric in order to appeal to the working class. For example, Trump saying the Republican Party will be a "workers' party" under his Presidency, or how Viktor Orbán said Hungary would be a "workers' state", a section of reactionaries understand the populist appeal of such a message and use the promise of a pro-worker government to give their politics mass appeal, whilst never actually following up on that promise. These were the same rhetorical tactics that were used by the Nazis as well, who spoke out both against "Jewish Bolshevism"(i.e. genuine revolutionary socialism) and "Jewish Bankers"(liberal capitalism) in the same breath.

Fundamentally, you cannot be anti-capitalist while still upholding everything that makes capitalism, capitalism. Fascism is certainly an illiberal ideology, however. Fascists attempt to subsume the contradictions in capitalism - that is, the contradictions between capital and labour - to the will of the nation-state, essentially trying to paper over these conflicts with the ideology of national unity.

https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/4mp80z/what_is_fascism_in_relation_to_capitalism/

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

My sig means that the capitalist class is inherently immoral. It profits only from the exploitation and subjugation of human lives. Cato and the Austrians are well aware of this, they spend all their time justifying or obfuscating it. Capitalism's heirarchy, exploitation, and coersion are fascist in nature, with the integration of state power and capital. That's what you see in my sig.

I don't expect you to grasp it, pucho, btw. It doesn't matter if you do or not. None of this is for you.

I thought this post was an interesting read TandS.

Capitalism is in need of a long overdue face-lift imo.  It contains simplistic loopholes that allow capital abuses and unfair leveraging against lower classes. It exposes human greed, exploits resources and is unsustainable. I consider capitalism a crude stepping stone of a political system. Die hard capitalism needs an update that forces care for it's people, while remaining innovative and competitive. This is the change that the majority in the US want(things like health care, instead of f*** u, die...i don't care about u) and there is no reason other than greed, that it can't work.

I'm in Canada and I live in a province that traditionally has socialist values, while retaining capitalist notions. Trump is a fascist in conservative clothing imo(this much should be fairly obvious to anyone with eyes, ears and a conscience).

China's more recent evolving communist/capitalism is of interest(to me); I'm interested to see how they integrate/handle it.

 

[boji]

Capitalism is in need of a long overdue face-lift imo.

 
Facelifts typically require cutting behind the ear and pulling back the elastin-depleted skin.  Not a simple procedure. It's wet work.

{Capitalism] exposes human greed, exploits resources and is unsustainable.

I'd say capitalism exposes resources and exploits human greed. =D

I consider capitalism a crude stepping stone of a political system.

I welcome an outline on your utopian system that will become what you imagine it will.

Die hard capitalism needs an update that forces care for it's people, while remaining innovative and competitive.

How to you propose to 'force' care?

This is the change that the majority in the US want(things like health care, instead of f*** u, die...i don't care about u)

Big pharma is a problem, doctors are not a problem. I want my doctor to be paid well, because that means they are good at what they do.

and there is no reason other than greed, that it can't work.

You're right. How do you remove greed? You can't as evidenced by pretty much all of history, independent of the type of governance.

Trump is a fascist in conservative clothing imo(this much should be fairly obvious to anyone with eyes, ears and a conscience).

Fascism is becoming a overused word that simply means, I have more virtue than this person 'x'. 
Better to call him a narcissistic, antisocial (in the clinical sense), real estate mogul-come-celebrity, who has an unhealthy respect for totalitarianism.

 

[desol]

 
Facelifts typically require cutting behind the ear and pulling back the elastin-depleted skin.  Not a simple procedure. It's wet work.
I'd say capitalism exposes resources and exploits human greed. =D
I welcome an outline on your utopian system that will become what you imagine it will.

How to you propose to 'force' care?
Big pharma is a problem, doctors are not a problem. I want my doctor to be paid well, because that means they are good at what they do.
You're right. How do you remove greed? You can't as evidenced by pretty much all of history, independent of the type of governance.
Fascism is becoming a overused word that simply means, I have more virtue than this person 'x'. 
Better to call him a narcissistic, antisocial (in the clinical sense), real estate mogul-come-celebrity, who has an unhealthy respect for totalitarianism.

I've been a fan of Tibetan culture and the Dalai Lama for about 25 years......