Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Trump IS Unifying the Left.


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 ScottMon

ScottMon
  • Member
  • 4,545 posts
  • Location:Columbia

Posted 15 February 2017 - 01:49 AM

https://www.wired.co...h-science-data/

 

Diehard Coders Just Rescued NASA’s Earth Science Data

 

ON SATURDAY MORNING, the white stone buildings on UC Berkeley’s campus radiated with unfiltered sunshine. The sky was blue, the campanile was chiming. But instead of enjoying the beautiful day, 200 adults had willingly sardined themselves into a fluorescent-lit room in the bowels of Doe Library to rescue federal climate data.

Like similar groups across the country—in more than 20 cities—they believe that the Trump administration might want to disappear this data down a memory hole. So these hackers, scientists, and students are collecting it to save outside government servers.

But now they’re going even further. Groups like DataRefugeand the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, which organized the Berkeley hackathon to collect data from NASA’s earth sciences programs and the Department of Energy, are doing more than archiving. Diehard coders are building robust systems to monitor ongoing changes to government websites. And they’re keeping track of what’s already been removed—because yes, the pruning has already begun.

Tag It, Bag It

The data collection is methodical, mostly. About half the group immediately sets web crawlers on easily-copied government pages, sending their text to the Internet Archive, a digital library made up of hundreds of billions of snapshots of webpages. They tag more data-intensive projects—pages with lots of links, databases, and interactive graphics—for the other group. Called “baggers,” these coders write custom scripts to scrape complicated data sets from the sprawling, patched-together federal websites.

It’s not easy. “All these systems were written piecemeal over the course of 30 years. There’s no coherent philosophy to providing data on these websites,” says Daniel Roesler, chief technology officer at UtilityAPI and one of the volunteer guides for the Berkeley bagger group.

One coder who goes by Tek ran into a wall trying to download multi-satellite precipitation data from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Starting in August, access to Goddard Earth Science Data required a login. But with a bit of totally legal digging around the site (DataRefuge prohibits outright hacking), Tek found a buried link to the old FTP server. He clicked and started downloading. By the end of the day he had data for all of 2016 and some of 2015. It would take at least another 24 hours to finish.


  • 0

Signature removed as a courtesy to other posters.


#2 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 5,679 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:23 AM

No question, the Left is unified against Trump. 

 

But just as important:--  Is the Left unified on a strategy for winning elections again?   One hears views as disparate as "The Democratic Party has moved too far Left"  to its opposite "We are so far Right we are merging with the Republicans".

 

One thing is for sure:--  The Republican Party will not go beyond rhetoric to stop the impoverishment of the middle class.  Barring the the near impossible start of a major new party, the Democrats are the only hope for the restoration of a higher standard of living for the American People.

 

So it's extremely important that we start winning elections again and take back the political system.  But Democrats don't seem to be unified on how to do it.


  • 2

You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

 

 

 

 


#3 DonJoe

DonJoe
  • Member
  • 1,019 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 17 February 2017 - 11:32 AM

We won't all get everything, but I was hoping we could at least agree not to continue the pillaging of America for the benefit of the very few.

 

That means getting money out of politics. That means stopping bribery of public officials to push the agenda of the very few. That means restoring our elections systems to some sort of openness, fairness and honesty. That means justice for all. No more laws that apply to some and don't to others.

 

Restore our democratic republic, by allowing representation of the people, not just representation of the rich, and their corporations.


  • 1

#4 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 February 2017 - 07:43 PM

No question, the Left is unified against Trump. 
 
But just as important:--  Is the Left unified on a strategy for winning elections again?   One hears views as disparate as "The Democratic Party has moved too far Left"  to its opposite "We are so far Right we are merging with the Republicans".
 
One thing is for sure:--  The Republican Party will not go beyond rhetoric to stop the impoverishment of the middle class.  Barring the the near impossible start of a major new party, the Democrats are the only hope for the restoration of a higher standard of living for the American People.
 
So it's extremely important that we start winning elections again and take back the political system.  But Democrats don't seem to be unified on how to do it.

Problem is: most of the Dems are bought and paid for just like the Pubs. Hillary, et al, are the perfect example, though, on paper, her policies would've been far better than Drumpf's--if enacted. But they are all in the same big Club, and the rest of America isn't invited. As long as Pelosi and Shumer are at the helm, and others like them, the Party won't change much and may not win much. And rolling out guys like Keith Ellison, though he may be a good guy, well, he's a Muslim, and you think white working class Murica would vote for a lefty Muslim? Of course not.

Bernie is good, but he's Jewish and can be easily labeled a "commie Jew" by the right. Again, not good.

A guy like Tim Ryan is more like what the Party needs leading things. But, as Michael Moore noted, the Dems might as well do what really sells in America: a celebrity, like, say, Tom Hanks. There's a home run on all fronts. Sad but true, America loves themselves a celebrity and will vote one in over any more qualified politician.
  • 0

#5 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 5,679 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 17 February 2017 - 08:41 PM

I supported Bernie because I was fed up with corporate Democrats, on the take, who were (and are) pushing progressive social legislation but have, essentially, joined the Republicans on economic issues.  I believe Bernie's clear, skillful public expression on the issues would have overcome bias of his heritage ...   Just like JFK, who many thought, being Catholic, could never attain the highest office ...  Until he did.

 

But Bernie is now 75 and IMO, his time has passed and he needs to pass the baton.  A  glamorous, celebrity Democrat would have a better chance of winning because too many voters cast their ballots heavily influenced by superficial attributes.  Celebrity or not, it will be extremely hard to find someone to fill Bernie's shoes.  But we need a candidate of integrity, with far fewer corporate ties than Hillary.

 

Ultimately, there is really only one way to clean up the Washington culture of corruption and that is to get money out of politics by campaign finance reform ...  Publicly financed elections.  Repealing Citizens United would be just the start. 

 

Equally as important is to severely curb lobbying in Congress.  Corporate lobbyists should not be able buy tailored legislation for the rich and powerful.  We have only our votes.  Even if ordinary people could gain access to the halls of Congress, the money they could afford, in return for legislation would be considered a joke.

 

In the end, the near impossibility of starting a major new progressive party, means we need to reform in the party we have. 


  • 1

You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

 

 

 

 


#6 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 February 2017 - 01:01 AM

I supported Bernie because I was fed up with corporate Democrats, on the take, who were (and are) pushing progressive social legislation but have, essentially, joined the Republicans on economic issues.  I believe Bernie's clear, skillful public expression on the issues would have overcome bias of his heritage ...   Just like JFK, who many thought, being Catholic, could never attain the highest office ...  Until he did.
 
But Bernie is now 75 and IMO, his time has passed and he needs to pass the baton.  A  glamorous, celebrity Democrat would have a better chance of winning because too many voters cast their ballots heavily influenced by superficial attributes.  Celebrity or not, it will be extremely hard to find someone to fill Bernie's shoes.  But we need a candidate of integrity, with far fewer corporate ties than Hillary.
 
Ultimately, there is really only one way to clean up the Washington culture of corruption and that is to get money out of politics by campaign finance reform ...  Publicly financed elections.  Repealing Citizens United would be just the start. 
 
Equally as important is to severely curb lobbying in Congress.  Corporate lobbyists should not be able buy tailored legislation for the rich and powerful.  We have only our votes.  Even if ordinary people could gain access to the halls of Congress, the money they could afford, in return for legislation would be considered a joke.
 
In the end, the near impossibility of starting a major new progressive party, means we need to reform in the party we have. 

Yes re Bernie, he was my pick. But, as the right wing continues to resemble the Nazi Party WWII, well, the anti-Jew-commie thing is straight outta the Nazi playbook and believe me, they would work that thing to death, blaming "Jew Commies" for everything under the sun, including killing Christ.

I think an Indy 3rd Party is much more viable now. Many of the Drumpsters and Bernie-ites were simply looking for an Independent.

As to the Dems, if Tim Ryan took up Bernie's mantle, I think he's the guy that can cross over to the white working class voter.
  • 0

#7 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 5,679 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 18 February 2017 - 09:42 AM

Yes re Bernie, he was my pick. But, as the right wing continues to resemble the Nazi Party WWII, well, the anti-Jew-commie thing is straight outta the Nazi playbook and believe me, they would work that thing to death, blaming "Jew Commies" for everything under the sun, including killing Christ.

 

The Far Right, which will be louder in the Trump era, is still a small minority.  "Anti-Jew-commie" was rarely to be heard when Bernie was opposing Hillary in the primary.   That is the evidence we actually have as opposed to fear of an imagined unknown.

 

 

I think an Indy 3rd Party is much more viable now. Many of the Drumpsters and Bernie-ites were simply looking for an Independent.

 

Led by Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka?  American history is filled with failed third parties which mostly succeeded only in sabotaging mainstream efforts.  Teddy Roosevelt's failed effort came closest.   I'd be for a third party if I didn't think it was a self-defeating effort.

 

As to the Dems, if Tim Ryan took up Bernie's mantle, I think he's the guy that can cross over to the white working class voter.

 

It's early.  We'll see.


  • 0

You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

 

 

 

 


#8 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 February 2017 - 09:59 AM

 
The Far Right, which will be louder in the Trump era, is still a small minority.  "Anti-Jew-commie" was rarely to be heard when Bernie was opposing Hillary in the primary.   That is the evidence we actually have as opposed to fear of an imagined unknown.
 
 
 
Led by Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka?  American history is filled with failed third parties which mostly succeeded only in sabotaging mainstream efforts.  Teddy Roosevelt's failed effort came closest.   I'd be for a third party if I didn't think it was a self-defeating effort.
 
 
It's early.  We'll see.

The Right did have "underground" "Commie-Jew" propaganda @ Bernie during the primaries in their various journals. Had he won the nomination, that would have surfaced big time, believe me. And don't fool yourself that the far right is still "fringe". Nossir, they have numbers and they are organized, going back decades, post WWII. All your "Liberty", "Freedom", "Front", and "Confederate" groups are all white nationalists groups. And don't forget the American Libertarians--same deal. There numbers are growing w Drumpf, who is specifically connected to some of these groups.

Nadar, back in the 60s/70s was really getting some things done, way ahead of Bernie in many respects: see, recent interview of Nadar by Chris Hedges on Youtube. 3rd party could work. It's a numbers game and those numbers are growing, peeps just gotta pull the trigger. I'm pretty much done w the Dem Party. The only time I vote for them is last resort, like this time, had to vote Hillary in a purely defensive way--to keep the fascist Ape outta there. To no avail, the Ape prevailed. :(
  • 0

#9 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 5,679 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 18 February 2017 - 10:22 AM

The fact that the Far Right had "underground Commie-Jew" propaganda on Bernie during the primary, shows how impotent it was.  It took the DNC to bring Bernie down.

 

I too voted for Hillary purely to deny Mein Trumpf.  But really, the time has not come yet when we have to kowtow to the prejudices of Nazis.  I'm very skeptical of third parties.  The numbers argument is always the same ...  And has always failed.  I would love to see a progressive third party succeed.   But my fear is that it will perform like all previous third parties by sabotaging the chances of the Democrats, as imperfect as they are.


  • 0

You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

 

 

 

 


#10 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 February 2017 - 12:08 PM

The fact that the Far Right had "underground Commie-Jew" propaganda on Bernie during the primary, shows how impotent it was.  It took the DNC to bring Bernie down.
 
I too voted for Hillary purely to deny Mein Trumpf.  But really, the time has not come yet when we have to kowtow to the prejudices of Nazis.  I'm very skeptical of third parties.  The numbers argument is always the same ...  And has always failed.  I would love to see a progressive third party succeed.   But my fear is that it will perform like all previous third parties by sabotaging the chances of the Democrats, as imperfect as they are.

Yeah, the DNC brought Bernie down, but had he won the nomination, the "underground" fascists and the Repub fascists--who are related--would've brought him down w the "Commie Jew" thing, there's no question about it. Again, you underestimate the numbers and power of the far right white nationalists in the population and Pub Party. With Drumpf they have essentially taken over, in Nazi coup like fashion, so there's your evidence. (For THE source of all things fascist/Nazi in the US and beyond I strongly refer you to Dave Emory, spitfirelist.org.)

A 3rd party is poised for a competitive surge at the present, so those inclined should just get behind it. As long as the likes of Pelosi and Schumer and Feinstein, etc, are calling the shots in the Dem Party, they will not change much--they are corporate/Wall St. Dems.
  • 0

#11 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 5,679 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 18 February 2017 - 12:47 PM

I'm against the economic tyranny imposed by unregulated corporations and their $$Democratic allies$$ in congress or the presidency.   But  1 -  Because of progressive social legislation, they are infinitely better than the Republicans or Trump and  2 -  They CAN be supplanted by more progressive Dems.   Third parties in the US have always been political suicide ...  That road leads to another crushing defeat.  We can't afford back-to-back losses at this time in history. 

 

Trump is extremely troubling and anti-American, but the phenomenon cannot be judged as a Nazi/Fascist takeover yet.  It is definitely a corporate takeover.  One difference beingA Nazi/Fascist takeover is harder to reverse.

 

BTW:  It's spitfirelist.com


  • 1

You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

 

 

 

 


#12 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 February 2017 - 01:19 PM

I'm against the economic tyranny imposed by unregulated corporations and their $$Democratic allies$$ in congress or the presidency.   But  1 -  Because of progressive social legislation, they are infinitely better than the Republicans or Trump and  2 -  They CAN be supplanted by more progressive Dems.   Third parties in the US have always been political suicide ...  That road leads to another crushing defeat.  We can't afford back-to-back losses at this time in history. 
 
Trump is extremely troubling and anti-American, but the phenomenon cannot be judged as a Nazi/Fascist takeover yet.  It is definitely a corporate takeover.  One difference beingA Nazi/Fascist takeover is harder to reverse.
 
BTW:  It's spitfirelist.com

I view it as a Nazi style coup--he's already floated the Muslim ban causing all kinda grief and chaos and he's gonna try and roll the judiciary to push that through. He's got his Brown Shirt Deportation Force up and running. And this is month 1. Emory delineates all his fascist networks in his "Trumpenkampfverbande" podcasts.

No, the Dems have NOT had "infinitely" better policy. They protect the basic social services and that's about it. Public schools are fading and the workers themselves gotta go out in the streets to get any movment in the min. wage, which is still bad. Unions in the private sector are near gone thru decades of right wing attack and the Dems doing nothing.

Pensions, benes gone for most workers. And on the ground, the working class and poor are ruthlessly extorted financially by all the crappy traffic fines, etc. Meanwhile, the Dems live like royalty just like the Pubs. So, no, I am not much of a fan, well, I'm a socialist, I don't expect much from "bourgeoisie" politicians. The working class are the only people that can gain anything for themselves in the system, always been that way, thru protracted struggle.
  • 0

#13 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 5,679 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 18 February 2017 - 03:21 PM

I'm far from happy with Neo Liberal politics.  Public schools and especially, private sector unions, are fading fast. I'll give you that. Public sector unions can't be far behind now that government is completely Republican dominated.  Crucially, $$Neo Liberal$$ policy has enabled an increasing wealth gap;  The concentration of wealth at the top;  And a disappearing Middle Class.  True, it is inexcusable.

 

But here's where even Neo Liberal politicians are FAR better than Trump and total Republican domination of governmentUnder Neo Liberalism, LGBT, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Muslim and other minority rights are protected.  As are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps and other services.  Up to now, women's rights made progress.  And elitist Democrat policy gave the world a decent chance to be free of all-out war and nuclear war ...  Now, if Trump isn't impeached, it is a near inevitability.  So I call the pre-election Democrats INFINITELY better.

 

I'm a Social Democrat, as practiced in countries like the Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden ...  And originated here, under the FDR administration.   That's why I supported Bernie, running as a Democrat.  The reason Bernie did not run on a third party ticket is that he saw that it was surefire political suicide.  As it is, he had a good run and popularized the idea of Social Democracy to the degree that many young Berniecrats will be running in future elections.  And they can supplant the, aging generation currently dominating the Democratic Party.


  • 1

You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

 

 

 

 


#14 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 5,679 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 18 February 2017 - 03:42 PM

To add:  Despite taking corporate money: Pre-election Democrats protected the Nation from contaminated and poisonous foods.  They protected our land, water and air from pollution which is now scheduled to commence on a horrendous scale.


  • 1

You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

 

 

 

 


#15 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 February 2017 - 04:03 PM

I'm far from happy with Neo Liberal politics.  Public schools and especially, private sector unions, are fading fast. I'll give you that. Public sector unions can't be far behind now that government is completely Republican dominated.  Crucially, $$Neo Liberal$$ policy has enabled an increasing wealth gap;  The concentration of wealth at the top;  And a disappearing Middle Class.  True, it is inexcusable.
 
But here's where even Neo Liberal politicians are FAR better than Trump and total Republican domination of governmentUnder Neo Liberalism, LGBT, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Muslim and other minority rights are protected.  As are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps and other services.  Up to now, women's rights made progress.  And elitist Democrat policy gave the world a decent chance to be free of all-out war and nuclear war ...  Now, if Trump isn't impeached, it is a near inevitability.  So I call the pre-election Democrats INFINITELY better.
 
I'm a Social Democrat, as practiced in countries like the Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden ...  And originated here, under the FDR administration.   That's why I supported Bernie, running as a Democrat.  The reason Bernie did not run on a third party ticket is that he saw that it was surefire political suicide.  As it is, he had a good run and popularized the idea of Social Democracy to the degree that many young Berniecrats will be running in future elections.  And they can supplant the, aging generation currently dominating the Democratic Party.

Neo-liberalism refers to right wing ECONOMICS where they bascially want to break down all barriers/gov't regulations to so-called "free markets". It has nothing to do with all that identity politics stuff. I already conceded that the Dems have, if you are in a Bluie state especially, protected social safety nets--just barely. And that's about it. If somehow preventing nuclear holocaust makes them "infinitely" better, as we are all still alive rather than dead, ok, wtev.

Dem/soc is far better than the shit we have now, of course, but it is still rather tame and doesn't do much to alleviate the massive income gaps here, or in Europe. Have the dem-socs proposed land reform, for e.g.? That's like socialism 101. How about pulling in the reigns on landlordism--i.e., rent? Again, soc 101.

So, dem soc is an improvement, but it still supports the capitalist class primarily and doesn't go near far enough for my tastes. But hey, I'm "rad"? That is, I'm interested in equality.

Middle/upper middle liberals love themselves some dem-soc because it ensures, with even more benes, their relatively cushy place in the social order. The working class still has to do all the heavy lifting dirty work and still on the low end of the totem pole.
  • 0

#16 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 February 2017 - 04:09 PM

To add:  Despite taking corporate money: Pre-election Democrats protected the Nation from contaminated and poisonous foods.  They protected our land, water and air from pollution which is now scheduled to commence on a horrendous scale.

Flint, MI disagrees re the H2O. The EPA is a good thing, I agree, when they are functional.

The Dems couldn't even get passed, a year ago, honest labeling on our food pckging. They barely get anything done considering all their bluster and high salaries. Sheila Jackson, I swear, spends more time shopping for her elaborate wardrobe(costumes) that doing her job. And she's not the only one.
  • 0

#17 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 5,679 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 18 February 2017 - 04:16 PM

Flint, MI disagrees re the H2O. The EPA is a good thing, I agree, when they are functional.

The Dems couldn't even get passed, a year ago, honest labeling on our food pckging. They barely get anything done considering all their bluster and high salaries. Sheila Jackson, I swear, spends more time shopping for her elaborate wardrobe(costumes) that doing her job. And she's not the only one.

 

Conceded.  To add:  That's bad and the Dems own it.  But compared to what's coming?   You ain't seen nothing yet.

 

Like I said.  I'm a Democratic Socialist.  Which means I'm for equality.  But I'm looking for realistic ways to achieve it.  Which means it will not happen right away.


  • 1

You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

 

 

 

 


#18 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 February 2017 - 05:00 PM

 
Conceded.  To add:  That's bad and the Dems own it.  But compared to what's coming?   You ain't seen nothing yet.
 
Like I said.  I'm a Democratic Socialist.  Which means I'm for equality.  But I'm looking for realistic ways to achieve it.  Which means it will not happen right away.

Dude, I know we in for a Grade A shitstorm under the Drumpf Nazi Party. I got some peeps offer me a free plane ticket to Costa Rica, where they like socialsim--I may take it.

But no, dem-soc is REFORMIST capitalism, like putting a bunch more lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. As long as there is fundamentally capitalism, there can be no equality--that dog don't hunt. You still have owners and wage workers. It's just factual, material reality.
  • 0

#19 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 5,679 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 18 February 2017 - 05:28 PM

The Democratic Socialist countries keep Capitalism and, at the same time maintain high standards of living for their ordinary people.  They do it with free trade and highly progressive tax codes.  Health care is free and there are generous social programs, cradle to grave.  Studies have show these to be some of the happiest people on Earth.

 

If I were younger, I would seriously think about moving to New Zealand.  As it is, I'm here for the duration.


  • 1

You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

 

 

 

 


#20 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 February 2017 - 06:01 PM

The Democratic Socialist countries keep Capitalism and, at the same time maintain high standards of living for their ordinary people.  They do it with free trade and highly progressive tax codes.  Health care is free and there are generous social programs, cradle to grave.  Studies have show these to be some of the happiest people on Earth.
 
If I were younger, I would seriously think about moving to New Zealand.  As it is, I'm here for the duration.

Ok, just ask Africa how they feel about European living large in dem-soc. Europe was built and currently exists off the extreme theft and raping of Africa. The resources and slave labor gotta come from somewhere. But since YOU nor the Europeans are not the brutalized slaves of Africa, getting all their resources stolen, it's "outta sight, outta mind".

How about American Blacks? Oh, they've been treated so well under US democratic capitalism. Ask Most black people anywhere on the planet how they feel about things?

OR, Mexico, Central and S America, same deal, somebodies gotta get raped and enslaved for others to live large. Take one small thing, say, diamonds for your "honey". THEN, Google Sierra Leone diamond workers, many are children who get their hands cut off if they complain a bit. Bowl of rice at the end of the 14 hour day. Poorest country on the planet, but I "got my honey!"

That's just one tiny example. You can extrapolate to all the material things around you, it's immense and most of the people on the planet live in dire poverty because capitalism, which includes dem soc capitalism.

Those who are not the wage workers or slaves obviously like capitalism.

Socialism is deep, it is an analysis of the actual material relationships of human beings and a means to change them. It is a differnt mindset: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", is paraphrased from and exemplifies the best of Christian, or humanN ethics. We are FAR from that. The capitalists sustain their power and wealth thru brutal violence and that is the same, even more insidious, under dem-soc.

Well, I could go on...
  • 0

#21 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 5,679 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 18 February 2017 - 06:04 PM

Wait a minute.  Sweden, The Netherlands, New Zealand ...  They are Democratic Socialist nations which never had colonies in Africa.


  • 1

You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

 

 

 

 


#22 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 February 2017 - 06:41 PM

Wait a minute.  Sweden, The Netherlands, New Zealand ...  They are Democratic Socialist nations which never had colonies in Africa.

Not sure about that, you may be right. Well, who do they trade with? That's right, countries that control Africa or S America, or Indonesia, etc. Finland was big into Indonesia, me thinks. Point being, none of those 3 countries are anywhere self sufficient in terms of resources.
  • 0

#23 TheOldBarn

TheOldBarn
  • Member
  • 2,426 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:US

Posted 18 February 2017 - 07:50 PM

Ok, just ask Africa how they feel about European living large in dem-soc. Europe was built and currently exists off the extreme theft and raping of Africa. The resources and slave labor gotta come from somewhere. But since YOU nor the Europeans are not the brutalized slaves of Africa, getting all their resources stolen, it's "outta sight, outta mind".

How about American Blacks? Oh, they've been treated so well under US democratic capitalism. Ask Most black people anywhere on the planet how they feel about things?

OR, Mexico, Central and S America, same deal, somebodies gotta get raped and enslaved for others to live large. Take one small thing, say, diamonds for your "honey". THEN, Google Sierra Leone diamond workers, many are children who get their hands cut off if they complain a bit. Bowl of rice at the end of the 14 hour day. Poorest country on the planet, but I "got my honey!"

That's just one tiny example. You can extrapolate to all the material things around you, it's immense and most of the people on the planet live in dire poverty because capitalism, which includes dem soc capitalism.

Those who are not the wage workers or slaves obviously like capitalism.

Socialism is deep, it is an analysis of the actual material relationships of human beings and a means to change them. It is a differnt mindset: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", is paraphrased from and exemplifies the best of Christian, or humanN ethics. We are FAR from that. The capitalists sustain their power and wealth thru brutal violence and that is the same, even more insidious, under dem-soc.

Well, I could go on...

important points that too many people miss and that is a problem. A lot of folks still believe the U.S. gives too much in foreign aid.

http://www.npr.org/s...aid-guess-again

 

many of our corporations have actually abused third world nations around the globe - assisted by U.S. policy. We have intervened in the democracy of sovereign nations around the world in harmful ways as well. In places like Iran, Chili and Haiti to name but a few. 

 

And it is long overdue that the left should unify on a whole host of issues. Truthful discussions regarding racial injustice and inequality are long overdue. We need to continue to stay active and fight hard to take back the congress in 2018 - and not stop there. We have a long way to go on a lot of policy issues. Just getting Democrats back into power is not going to fix things. We need to take the money out of politics and fight for policies that support the environment and all people first. 

 

Peace


  • 0

#24 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 5,679 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 18 February 2017 - 07:51 PM

Ok, just ask Africa how they feel about European living large in dem-soc. Europe was built and currently exists off the extreme theft and raping of Africa. The resources and slave labor gotta come from somewhere.

 

As a matter of fact, Norway,  Finland and New Zealand are examples of Democratic Socialist countries that never benefited from colonial holdings at any time.  Showing that Democratic Socialism can take root and thrive without victimizing other peoples.


  • 1

You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

 

 

 

 


#25 TheOldBarn

TheOldBarn
  • Member
  • 2,426 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:US

Posted 18 February 2017 - 08:12 PM

 

As a matter of fact, Norway,  Finland and New Zealand are examples of Democratic Socialist countries that never benefited from colonial holdings at any time.  Showing that Democratic Socialism can take root and thrive without victimizing other peoples.

I agree, there's no question that democratic socialism can take root without victimizing other countries, zero!

 

Peace!


  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users