Changing times: Socialist Kshama Sawant wins council seat in Seattle - Polidicks

This is amazing. The United States needs an actual left wing voice. The ideal would be having two parties or more having different ideologies, instead of two liberal capitalist parties sharing power. I wish for her success in this early stage of the resurrection of the American left.

[QUOTE=person11;42895943]This is amazing. The United States needs an actual left wing voice. The ideal would be having two parties or more having different ideologies, instead of two liberal capitalist parties sharing power.[/QUOTE] That's because for the most part, the two parties represent the majority of American positions. A sign of a stable and prosperous country tends to be one where the biggest and main parties all sit near the middle and try to appeal to as many peoples voices as possible.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42896038]That's because for the most part, the two parties represent the majority of American positions. A sign of a stable and prosperous country tends to be one where the biggest and main parties all sit near the middle and try to appeal to as many peoples voices as possible.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily, since plenty of functioning countries with far better political machinery than ours today have multiple parties representing a spectrum of views proportional to their support in the public. Instead we have 2 basically-the-same parties representing the same interests with only minor policy differences that can not function together and are forced to misrepresent large swaths of their voting public because they're the only two options and when it comes down to choosing which of the 10 ideologies they each cater to during elections, they're going to choose the ones that give them money.

The people kind of hate both parties at the moment, but vote for them because of a lack of alternatives popular enough to get out of the "one vote for Gary may as well be a vote for Mitt since it will count against Barack" trap. If the Socialists or Libertarians or whatever somehow get enough support they could easily take a lot of power away from Democrats and Republicans.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42896038]That's because for the most part, the two parties represent the majority of American positions. A sign of a stable and prosperous country tends to be one where the biggest and main parties all sit near the middle and try to appeal to as many peoples voices as possible.[/QUOTE] How can Americans start to hold and explore different positions and political ideologies if they are locked into picking between two right-wing parties? And the Democrats and Republicans are far from being in the middle and "appealing to everyone" [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] And if "appealing to everyone" means we use bullshit and ineffective policies and live in a society like the way we do now, then I say fuck everyone and do something that actually has a good chance at improving people's livelihoods.

It'll be fascinating to see how a socialist would deal with things in the US and more importantly, how people will react to her policy, with it more or less being a European ideology the interesting factor about this candidate is how socialism translates into America. It would be cool to see third parties making a more noticable difference in US politics rather than, at best, denting election statistics. With socialism being more a swear than ideology in the world of American politics it will be funny to see how other politicians will percept Kshama - America in general needs a slight shift to left from where it is now, the fact a country is so split on abortion is worrying and the fact even a safety net such as maternity leave isn't existant even more. If more people like Knshama Sawant come into positions of power it will give the old fools in congress something to seriously consider when it comes to policy making and how they respond to the left of politics.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42896038]That's because for the most part, the two parties represent the majority of American positions. A sign of a stable and prosperous country tends to be one where the biggest and main parties all sit near the middle and try to appeal to as many peoples voices as possible.[/QUOTE] Well this alone is somewhat fallacious because 'the middle' is a relative idea. What may be your 'middle' is not everyone else's 'middle', and even so the position that middle occupies may not be a sound one. If there is a socially conservative party, and a socially liberal party, of which the former advocates a ban on same-sex marriage and the latter advocates legalisation, is the answer in the middle? No, it's on the side of legalisation. Not all issues (and I would venture to say not even most issues) have an ideally Centrist solution. [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Nightsure;42896503]It'll be fascinating to see how a socialist would deal with things in the US and more importantly, how people will react to her policy, with it more or less being a European ideology the interesting factor about this candidate is how socialism translates into America. It would be cool to see third parties making a more noticable difference in US politics rather than, at best, denting election statistics. With socialism being more a swear than ideology in the world of American politics it will be funny to see how other politicians will percept Kshama - America in general needs a slight shift to left from where it is now, the fact a country is so split on abortion is worrying and the fact even a safety net such as maternity leave isn't existant even more. If more people like Knshama Sawant come into positions of power it will give the old fools in congress something to seriously consider when it comes to policy making and how they respond to the left of politics.[/QUOTE] It's not the first time more parties garnered some votes: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912[/url]

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42896359]How can Americans start to hold and explore different positions and political ideologies if they are locked into picking between two right-wing parties? And the Democrats and Republicans are far from being in the middle and "appealing to everyone"[/quote] Then vote for different people. Americans have been doing this for a long time. [quote]And if "appealing to everyone" means we use bullshit and ineffective policies and live in a society like the way we do now, then I say fuck everyone and do something that actually has a good chance at improving people's livelihoods.[/QUOTE] Democracies usually reflect what the people want, even if some policies are terrible. This is inevitable in a vast country with multiple different ethnic, wealth-based, and religious groups with competing interests. [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafan;42896729]Well this alone is somewhat fallacious because 'the middle' is a relative idea. What may be your 'middle' is not everyone else's 'middle', and even so the position that middle occupies may not be a sound one. If there is a socially conservative party, and a socially liberal party, of which the former advocates a ban on same-sex marriage and the latter advocates legalisation, is the answer in the middle? No, it's on the side of legalisation. Not all issues (and I would venture to say not even most issues) have an ideally Centrist solution.[/QUOTE] The center shifts over time. In the case of gay marriage, you would see politicians giving ambiguous and vague responses, and if people opinion was gradually shifting in one direction, they would respond by giving gradually more clear views and saying they will legalize/not legalize X policy.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42896038]That's because for the most part, the two parties represent the majority of American positions. A sign of a stable and prosperous country tends to be one where the biggest and main parties all sit near the middle and try to appeal to as many peoples voices as possible.[/QUOTE] the us is not stable and is not prosperous.

[QUOTE=Nightsure;42896503]It'll be fascinating to see how a socialist would deal with things in the US and more importantly, how people will react to her policy, with it more or less being a European ideology the interesting factor about this candidate is how socialism translates into America. It would be cool to see third parties making a more noticable difference in US politics rather than, at best, denting election statistics. With socialism being more a swear than ideology in the world of American politics it will be funny to see how other politicians will percept Kshama - America in general needs a slight shift to left from where it is now, the fact a country is so split on abortion is worrying and the fact even a safety net such as maternity leave isn't existant even more. If more people like Knshama Sawant come into positions of power it will give the old fools in congress something to seriously consider when it comes to policy making and how they respond to the left of politics.[/QUOTE] If a Socialist became president, most of their attempts at policy would be lost in the civil service and the machinations of government and they would only get so much done. If Ron Paul got into power, the same thing would happen. [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42896836]the us is not stable and is not prosperous.[/QUOTE] Compare it to a country such as Venezuela or Russia. [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Democracy_Index.png[/img_thumb] (map is slightly old) Blue (and to an extent Green) countries tend to be miles better off and tend to correlate with well developed economies and political stability. Pretty much all of the red countries on the map are shitholes unless you happen to be wealthy or well connected.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42896841]If a Socialist became president, most of their attempts at policy would be lost in the civil service and the machinations of government and they would only get so much done. If Ron Paul got into power, the same thing would happen. [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] Compare it to a country such as Venezuela or Russia. [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Democracy_Index.png[/img_thumb] (map is slightly old) Blue (and to an extent Green) countries tend to be miles better off and tend to correlate with well developed economies and political stability. Pretty much all of the red countries on the map are shitholes unless you happen to be wealthy or well connected.[/QUOTE] yea but the usa is probably the least "stable" and "prosperous" with regards to those blue nations. the usa is also one of the few countries colored in blue with a 2-party system that tends towards the center.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42896991]yea but the usa is probably the least "stable" and "prosperous" with regards to those blue nations. the usa is also one of the few countries colored in blue with a 2-party system that tends towards the center.[/QUOTE] What about the PIIGS? Greece especially has gotten worse ever since the Nazis and Commies got popular.

Most numbers do not matter if you do not factor in things that measure inequality like the GINI coefficient or race, sex, religion, orientation based inequality as well...

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42897044]What about the PIIGS? Greece especially has gotten worse ever since the Nazis and Commies got popular.[/QUOTE] not really. commies and nazis got popular because greece got worse.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42897044]What about the PIIGS? Greece especially has gotten worse ever since the Nazis and Commies got popular.[/QUOTE] symptoms, not causes

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42897044]What about the PIIGS? Greece especially has gotten worse ever since the Nazis and Commies got popular.[/QUOTE] I think his point is more that, among the developed countries, the US is the only major one with a purely two-party system. Even the ones you might say are the closest in politics, Canada and the UK, have major third parties and minor fourth parties with seats at a national level. The US has a worse Gini Coefficient than the Congo, Russia, Iran, the Ivory Coast, and Iraq (among many others).

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;42894071]Raising minimum wage to $15/hr puts you on the same level as a starting out welder, and that's fucking stupid. Put minimum wage at $12/hr to $13/hr and the price will fluctuate by the need for extra labor. What every state needs is a state bank. Look at the [URL="http://banknd.nd.gov/"]Bank of North Dakota[/URL]. Even for a Republican State, North Dakota is the only state with a "socialist" banking system, and its effects are graceful. The national average for unemployment? 7.7%. North Dakota unemployment? 3.3%. Capitalism on it's own requires a spice of socialism in order to ensure a healthy consumer. As a capitalist, I can't make money off someone who is dead, sick, or broke. In order to ensure that my consumers are healthy, I'd support programs to nationalize healthcare, create organized living wage, and job programs which would transfer low-income workers across the country to get better wages. One of the reasons I don't like the American Socialist Party is because they fail to understand this, and are all about "wahhwah capitalism". If they stopped with all this Marx shit, they would make greater strides with bringing socialist concepts into the United States. TL;DR: Capitalism requires Socialist concepts to ensure that a consumer exists to buy products. The current mockup of the Socialist party is on-par with "Obama is a kenyan muslim and non-american" by Tea Baggers, and it's going to harm any platform they try to create. Another note: In North Dakota, the minimum wage is $7.25, most McDonald workers make about $13 to $15/hr with benefits around here[Mandan, North Dakota].[/QUOTE] The boom in North Dakota is because of the booming gas and oil industry, not some state bank. Just to be clear: I think the states should be able to do whatever the hell they want, as long as it doesn't directly go against the constitution, but to say North Dakota's recent success can be attributed to the state bank is plain ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42896810]Then vote for different people. Americans have been doing this for a long time. Democracies usually reflect what the people want, even if some policies are terrible. This is inevitable in a vast country with multiple different ethnic, wealth-based, and religious groups with competing interests.[/QUOTE] the "first past the post" voting system and the generally inefficient electoral college system means there is always going to be two parties. this is not a problem fixed with "just vote for someone else LOL" because the voting system is inherently broken. if the people want slavery, should we give it to them?

OH MY GOD It's just so fucking awful to see people talking about socialism without knowing what it is, what its objectives are, what its philosophy is. I just I just want to die. I can't live in this world anymore.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897480]OH MY GOD It's just so fucking awful to see people talking about socialism without knowing what it is, what its objectives are, what its philosophy is. I just I just want to die. I can't live in this world anymore.[/QUOTE] would you like to share something with the class?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42897497]would you like to share something with the class?[/QUOTE] The fact that people mix statism with socialism. The fact that socialism doesn't give a fuck about invidividuals. The fact that socialism comes from a very, very fucked up philosophy, full of holes akin to the ones found in Catholicism and many religions. I won't start writing about how marx conceived the world and its relation with man. About many pre made assumptions without a solid base. Hey, look, the world is purely subjective, yet....objects have an intrinsic value? They criticize Feuerbach for saying that there is a human "essence" from which he is alienated by religion, yet they also asign an essence to man by saying he is alienated from work by the ownership of the means of production... People believing that "improving workers standards" is socialism. When in fact, socialism is not about improving workers standards, is about turning things upside down and making the means of production be in the hands of the working class. People believing that socialism holds a moral value or that moral judgements can be made from socialism, like saying "it violates human [B][I]rights[/I][/B]". Fuck no son, those things are made by the dominant classes in order to stay in power, otherwise you're just contradicting the core philosophy from which socialism comes. Im out bro.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897480]OH MY GOD It's just so fucking awful to see people talking about socialism without knowing what it is, what its objectives are, what its philosophy is. I just I just want to die. I can't live in this world anymore.[/QUOTE] I think a few of us have a pretty good idea of what it's about, but if you have some special information, by all means tell us.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;42894071] Capitalism on it's own requires a spice of socialism in order to ensure a healthy consumer. [/QUOTE] this is gibberish

[QUOTE]I think a few of us have a pretty good idea of what it's about, but if you have some special information, by all means tell us. [/QUOTE] [B][I][U]A few of us. [/U][/I][/B] There you have the problem.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897569] The fact that socialism doesn't give a fuck about invidividuals.[/quote] i'm a "socialist" and i'm an individualist and a collectivist.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897569]The fact that people mix statism with socialism. The fact that socialism doesn't give a fuck about invidividuals. The fact that socialism comes from a very, very fucked up philosophy, full of holes akin to the ones found in Catholicism and many religions. I won't start writing about how marx conceived the world and its relation with man. About many pre made assumptions without a solid base. Hey, look, the world is purely subjective, yet....objects have an intrinsic value? They criticize Feuerbach for saying that there is a human "essence" from which he is alienated by religion, yet they also asign an essence to man by saying he is alienated from work by the ownership of the means of production... People believing that "improving workers standards" is socialism. When in fact, socialism is not about improving workers standards, is about turning things upside down and making the means of production be in the hands of the working class. People believing that socialism holds a moral value or that moral judgements can be made from socialism, like saying "it violates human [B][I]rights[/I][/B]". Fuck no son, those things are made by the dominant classes in order to stay in power, otherwise you're just contradicting the core philosophy from which socialism comes. Im out bro.[/QUOTE] Well you're right on what socialism is, but I disagree with you that it's wrong and that the philosophy is fucked up. Also I don't think, as a socialist, that it doesn't give a fuck about the individual. Any socialist will tell you, short of Stalinists perhaps, that the individual flourishing is the ideological end goal of socialism, but socialists believe that we can only reach that point through collectivist social organizing. To free the individual, we must free them from burden and establish a social order in which the fullest potential of each individual, free from coercion, can occur.

[QUOTE]i'm a "socialist" and i'm an individualist and a collectivist. [/QUOTE] A contradiction of terms You can't be a catholic and a socialist at the same time. Hey, maybe I read too much marx and I might have missed some other cool bros which make new turns and stuff. I wonder how you can reconcile individualism with collectivism. [QUOTE]but I disagree with you that it's wrong and that the philosophy is fucked up[/QUOTE] So, saying that you can't ask how the world and men came to exis tbecause you would be abstracting yourself and then ceasing to exist, is not fucked up? Or claiming that the world is created by man because the first action/praxis is to know it?

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897620]A contradiction of terms You can't be a catholic and a socialist at the same time. Hey, maybe I read too much marx and I might have missed some other cool bros which make new turns and stuff. I wonder how you can reconcile individualism with collectivism.[/QUOTE] i doubt youve read any marx even if you did you are 200 years behind on socialist thought

[QUOTE=thisispain;42897635]i doubt youve read any marx even if you did you are 200 years behind on socialist thought[/QUOTE] I doubt any socialist has read Marx. EDIT: Most socialists.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897620]A contradiction of terms You can't be a catholic and a socialist at the same time. Hey, maybe I read too much marx and I might have missed some other cool bros which make new turns and stuff. I wonder how you can reconcile individualism with collectivism.[/QUOTE] Well, regardless of what Socialism is, do you really think Capitalism is about your own individual freedom? Do you think people working under unlivable wages paycheck-to-paycheck is caring about the individual? Do you think people constantly struggling to afford college so that they might be able to get a decent middle-class job is caring about the individual? That's not caring, that's leaving people in the cold. Can you call that 'freedom'?