Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Yeah, China's closer to anarcho-capitalist than communist.
As for the Soviet Union, it was definitely not communist in the Marxist sense, because there was still a state. Which pretty much discredits Marxism for the reasons Ambar said; each and every revolution that attempted to "transition a country to communism" has failed and collapsed into some other system. And I don't think that anyone disagrees with Marx' explanation of how capitalism works, specifically.
That said, you can have a highly functional welfare state funded by "state capitalism," assuming you have really good corruption controls (otherwise, you go the way of Venezuela or...well, the Soviet Union). That said, that form of socialism doesn't have a lot of advocates.
![]()
Still authoritarian, albeit far more effectively authoritarian than China due to a smaller area and population.
edited 21st Apr '17 8:57:52 PM by Ramidel
The US' version of capitalism is just incompatible with real democracy because you have the private sector using its vast resources to reduce and subvert democracy in order to increase their concentration of power at the expense of the public's.
And I mean not only are we in a plutocracy but we're inching closer to a complete oligopoly.
In my vague vision that I would do to fix things a little:
I mean the first step you have to do is try to cut off corporate influence from politics.
The second step is to cut off most corporate welfare, have economists not bank lobbyists write more regulations and upend the whole justice system when it comes to white collar crime.
And the third step is to democratize the economy a bit more. Not full blown socialism but I'm thinking something like making employees shareholders of the corporations they work for. Once you leave share is sold back to the company. It also gives consequences to mass firings as it would tank share worth and reduce a company's on hand cash.
edited 21st Apr '17 9:51:01 PM by MadSkillz
I mean going off that point there has been studies that say the US is an oligarchy.
Here are some quotes from that article:
The report, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, used extensive policy data collected from between the years of 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the US political system.
After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite.
The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."
I mean this is just ridiculous. But you won't see the Establishment Democrats try to do anything about it. They'll give you a bit of progress every now then, talk left when they can't implement the programs and talk about how they can't because it's not pragmatic when they can. And the Republicans are just the worst. They'll sniff butts and throw themselves on puddles of water to please their donors.
The positions of powerful interest groups are "not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens", but the politics of average Americans and affluent Americans sometimes does overlap. This is merely a coincidence, the report says, with the the interests of the average American being served almost exclusively when it also serves those of the richest 10 per cent.
Broken system.
edited 21st Apr '17 9:59:28 PM by MadSkillz
Try posting the notion that the USA is an oligarchy on the Russian thread. I'm sure the Russian tropers can give you a better understanding of what life under an oligarchy is really like.
One thing that would help matters greatly — shorter election cycles.
The election cycle for the Oval Office is way too long. And that means too much time needs to be spent making (expensive) rallies all across the country, setting up fundraisers, buying up (expensive) ad space on tv and radio and social media...campaigns are expensive. Especially since the elections for President and Congress happen all at once for the most part.
The biggest problems with American democracy are 1) the archaic system known as the Electoral College and 2) the sheer inconvenience and hassle of registering and voting. Not every state makes it as convenient as California. America's voting infrastructure, much like the rest of our infrastructure, is long overdue for an update.
edited 21st Apr '17 10:09:48 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedI think the big issue is the primary system, that effectively doubles (if not more) the length of your elections. Even goddamn India has campaigns that don't last over a year, there is no reason why the US couldn't shave some time off.
This might get me some flak, but I'd support curtailing the primary system to a relative handful of (fee paying) members, no multi state races (that give early states an unfair say anyway) or any crap like that. If a party nominates a bad ticket, they suffer for it.
Capping spending, donations, and adding public funding would also do wonders, but I realize those are non starters.
edited 21st Apr '17 10:22:06 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.The election cycle would be monumentally different if every primary happened at the same time in May and the vote stands. All 56 contests, a decisive winner, no jockeying at the convention, and six months of campaigning for the general election.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Oligarchies come in different forms just like anything else.
I mean are you suggesting that the US isn't ruled by the rich?
Because Jeffrey A. Winters who is a political scientist and specializes in studying oligarchies(so he would know more than a bunch of tropers) had this to say about the US:
Edit: Hell, Jimmy Carter even called the US an oligarchy:
When a former president says that, you know it's gotten bad.
edited 21st Apr '17 11:28:01 PM by MadSkillz
![]()
Keep in mind that the candidate of the rich this time, HRC (because they wanted a President who would be less likely to screw up the global economy) didn't win. In a true oligarchy that would not have happened.
Since he has an infantile understanding of what it does or how it works, he doesn't think highly of it. He's even flouted the idea of the USA leaving the UN security council. It's part of his bullshit nationalism shtick. The USA is Number One, it can stand alone and fuck the rest of the world!
edited 21st Apr '17 11:38:11 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedMaybe if Trump was Bernie Sanders, I could agree with you.
But he's not. He's a billionaire CEO supported by other rich people. So they're both candidates of the rich.
I mean you think Wall Street isn't happy that Trump won? Just look at the stock market.
edited 21st Apr '17 11:38:16 PM by MadSkillz
One problem with this idea is that a candidate has to campaign everywhere at once if there's a single primary, which vastly pushes up the money required.
@Mad Skillz: Okay, let's take your suggestions from the top, as they are good for vague ideas.
The second step is to cut off most corporate welfare, have economists not bank lobbyists write more regulations and upend the whole justice system when it comes to white collar crime
The devil is in the details there - actually, parts of the second are the prequel to the first, not vice versa. Once we get rid of money=speech and thus limit the power of lobbyists, and elect progressives who are willing to make some serious changes (or who can be threatened into doing so by the voters) and who are willing to bulldoze a lot of interest groups (including interest groups who are in the working class, both black and white!), a lot of the problems will be solved.
As for corporate welfare specifically, I'm afraid that crusading against that is highly misguided. First, most "corporate welfare" is government spending to specific ends, which usually means contracting to companies to do legit government jobs. And secondly, in the last ten years, eliminating earmarked money has proven to be an unmitigated disaster, because legalized Congressional corruption is what kept there from being a budget showdown every couple of years. Pork barrels allowed Congressmen to cut deals with each other.
Simpler: Raise taxes on the rich, use them to fund a social welfare net, including a minimum basic income, so that all Americans are able to make ends meet even before they worry about getting a job. I honestly prefer how the Danish set up their labor system: companies are even more free to fire you than they are in right-to-work America, and because Denmark has comprehensive unemployment insurance and social programs that keep you paid, fed and housed between jobs, nobody cares. It's kinda the best of both worlds.
It depends...note if you want to use Classical Greek standards or even writers all the way up to (probably) Montesquieu, every modern republic is an oligarchy, elections and democracy being incompatible. But that helps no one as that groups states as diverse as Germany, Canada, Russia, Venezuela, and even the USSR and China. Plus, sortition won't be widely adopted anytime soon.
As for making US government more responsive, it probably involves constant reminders that voting isn't the end all be all. On the local level, tis a painstaking affair to get people to turn out for local meetings that directly affect their lives in the city. (The first rule of public policy is bring food, it turns out
).
Then there's local turnout itself: school board elections that affect how their children are taught to a much greater degree than what DeVos does are scarcely known to exist. In that sense, good governance probably requires either less elections or having them all on the same day with constant reminders on the news. (This of course, is all balanced by the low enthusiasm for political stuff and people's understandable focus on their day-jobs and family lives in the narrowest sense).
Voter and political apathy more than anything else are the biggest problems with America's democracy.
Reminds me of that one Last Week Tonight episode covering special districts. That video clip of a meeting where only two people showed up and held the meeting despite the lack of an audience...
I can't help but think that the simple change of making voting day a Federal holiday — or at least, making sure it's not on a workday — would improve turnout considerably.
edited 21st Apr '17 11:52:20 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedHoping that nobody minds, I'm just going to quickly explain how that model works. Essentially in Denmark, you have two types of 'paid unemployment.' The first is dagpenge note
If you get fired, and you worked approximately 52 weeks over the last two years, you're qualified for two years of dagpenge, with the payout usually being something like 2/3 of your wage as a full-time employee up to a maximum of i think...2000 dollars a month?
You can remain on dagpenge for two years assuming you don't find relevant work, after which you have to start on kontanthjælp [[note]] lit: 'cash-help' . This is paid out directly by the government and has a lot of stringent requirements, largely owing to 17 years of liberal (and one left-wing government leaning too heavily on the Social Liberal Party) 'reform' of the system, but in essence it's a last-resort measure. If you cannot find a job and you have no way to feed yourself or liquidate assets (houses, cards or whatever), the government steps in and offers this service. Again, it's not a lot of money, and there are stringent requirements for receiving it, mostly in the form of being 'on-call' for just about any kind of job that comes up in your area, but it keeps you alive.
The former is at the heart of the Danish model, since it means that even if you're unemployed, you can secure at least part of your income, so assuming your spouse still has regular work, your quality of life shouldn't degrade too much while you're looking for other work. The latter is last-resort.
Knowing that someone who becomes unemployed can claim benefits as long as they've worked for you for about 1½ years means that companies are generally free to fire people with much more abandon than they can anywhere else. It means they can quickly adjust to fluctuating markets (hiring people when the going's great, getting rid of some of them when the going gets tough) and thus can remain highly flexible. Of course, if you could tell the liberals that so they stop cutting the benefits in favor of corporate tax breaks and yet keep the system that allows the corporations the power to fire people more or less at will, that'd be great.
edited 22nd Apr '17 12:11:30 AM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.![]()
yes, but the key word is could. Would it start then however? Keep in mind how apocalyptic predictions ranging from Nostradamus to the Mayan Doomsday has so far not panned out and that we are working under the assumption that no one currently in power (not even Trump) wants to be known as the guy who doomed to human race and I find it very unlikely.
edited 22nd Apr '17 12:16:49 AM by MorningStar1337
What an institution says and what they do are frequently different things.
You have some oil companies say that climate change is real and say they support legislation. Now look at who they're donating to mostly; Republicans who deny climate change.
The consequences of a government that doesn't pay attention to the people. Most realize that their government is corrupt and doesn't represent their interests. They just don't agree on how to fix it. Besides racism, that was the other hook to the Tea Party. "Government is corrupt and bad so we should reduce the corrupt power of the government and let the private sector have more power."
Here are some good excerpts:
On Dems:
What do the Democrats offer these people? Essentially nothing. Democratic Leadership Council-style "centrist" Democrats were among the biggest promoters of disastrous trade deals in the 1990s that outsourced jobs abroad: NAFTA, World Trade Organization, permanent most-favored-nation status for China. At the same time, the identity politics/lifestyle wing of the Democratic Party was seen as a too illegal immigrant-friendly by downscaled and outsourced whites.
While Democrats temporized, or even dismissed the fears of the white working class as racist or nativist, Republicans went to work. To be sure, the business wing of the Republican Party consists of the most energetic outsourcers, wage cutters and hirers of sub-minimum wage immigrant labor to be found anywhere on the globe. But the faux-populist wing of the party, knowing the mental compartmentalization that occurs in most low-information voters, played on the fears of that same white working class to focus their anger on scapegoats that do no damage to corporations' bottom lines: instead of raising the minimum wage, let's build a wall on the Southern border (then hire a defense contractor to incompetently manage it). Instead of predatory bankers, it's evil Muslims. Or evil gays. Or evil abortionists.
How do they manage to do this? Because Democrats ceded the field.Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? - can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative "Obamacare" won out. Contrast that with the Republicans' Patriot Act. You're a patriot, aren't you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn't the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?
edited 22nd Apr '17 12:46:08 AM by MadSkillz
You have some oil companies say that climate change is real and say they support legislation. Now look at who they're donating to mostly; Republicans who deny climate change.
That's... really not the case here, though.
What are you even on about? Are you claiming that all rich people like each other?
I mean, there's a long and well-documented history of Trump giving wealthy new yorkers every possible reason to hate his guts on a personal level. He's an embarrassment at best in their eyes.
edited 22nd Apr '17 12:55:48 AM by Gilphon

@Ellie Yep, I've read part of Freakanomics and that part always stuck with me. In terms of economics, it's a good reason why pro-choice policies are good ideas.