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

[QUOTE]I think that in a truly democratic society, some form of capitalism will always be wanted by people. They keep voting for it. [/QUOTE] INSTITUTIONAL VIOLENCE. Fuck the majority, there IS a RIGHT decision.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;42903916]This is totally not true, seeing as how all of the largest employers of employees at minimum wage are huge corporations. Wal-Mart is the single largest employer in the US. Generally the small businesses which haven't been killed off by big chains like Wal-Mart and Lowes and McDonalds have survived by offering better service than those chains, which means they're generally paying more than minimum wage anyway. These big chains absolutely can afford to pay their workers better (though they might use the threat of layoffs as a political tactic) while market competition will keep goods prices low, seeing as how farm subsidies and overseas sweatshop labor have driven the costs of production ever downward. Paid shills on cable news outlets love to claim that anything which will threaten the pay checks of CEOs is actually something which "will hurt small businesses" and it is so, utterly transparent but it apparently manages to trick people since I hear people who are making minimum wage oppose raising the minimum wage all the time. It's realy really tragic[/QUOTE] I never said businesses [I]couldn't[/I] afford this. Be realistic, they'll raise prices anyway so there's no shrink in their profits by their expenses. I'm sure big chains can afford a wage increase but if it's forced on them, I have no doubt they'll raise prices anyway. Also, I'd like a citation on that "small businesses pay better wages" remark.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42905783]I never said businesses [I]couldn't[/I] afford this. Be realistic, they'll raise prices anyway so there's no shrink in their profits.[/QUOTE] they can't in a competitive market. [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] and price increase would be minimal anyways because labor is not the biggest cost of goods.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42904227]False consciousness is an unfalsifiable concept. "The reason we don't have X is because the poor can't vote" (Voting reforms) "The reason we don't have X is because the poor are voting for the wrong people" I think that in a truly democratic society, some form of capitalism will always be wanted by people. They keep voting for it.[/QUOTE] Well this seems kind of fallacious to say. I mean, there may well be other reasons for why you don't get X that did not exist (or did not have a measurable effect) prior to the voting reforms. If for example media lacks sociological context in stories about poverty or focus on some issues such as national security or crime, which makes them seem more frequent, then more people may focus on parties who also focus on security and crime, even if their primary dilemma should be poverty or income inequality. Now you couldn't have determined the effect of this prior to the voting reform because the poor were unable to vote in the first place, and you'd be justified in saying it was another obstacle after the reform. And people may 'vote in capitalism' now, but it is not as if they have a ready choice either.

i just have to ask do any of you have any degree in economics other than that, that north dakota bank sounds rad, whats the downside

[QUOTE=Megafan;42909010]Well this seems kind of fallacious to say. I mean, there may well be other reasons for why you don't get X that did not exist (or did not have a measurable effect) prior to the voting reforms. If for example media lacks sociological context in stories about poverty or focus on some issues such as national security or crime, which makes them seem more frequent, then more people may focus on parties who also focus on security and crime, even if their primary dilemma should be poverty or income inequality. Now you couldn't have determined the effect of this prior to the voting reform because the poor were unable to vote in the first place, and you'd be justified in saying it was another obstacle after the reform. And people may 'vote in capitalism' now, but it is not as if they have a ready choice either.[/QUOTE] A lot of Western democracies have had some form of voting system in the past 150 years, and while various political parties have come about and have been voted for, Communists have historically done really poor electorally. Because of this, they use the "false consciousness" fallacy to explain why people didn't vote for Communist parties so as to get rid of capitalism. Some people do vote for them when they present revised reforms they actually like, but never to do go the whole way. Idk, I just really hate the concept of "False consciousness" because it seems to say "If there is something about humans that negates communism, then it's a boorhoozis lie".

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42909356]A lot of Western democracies have had some form of voting system in the past 150 years, and while various political parties have come about and have been voted for, Communists have historically done really poor electorally. Because of this, they use the "false consciousness" fallacy to explain why people didn't vote for Communist parties so as to get rid of capitalism. Some people do vote for them when they present revised reforms they actually like, but never to do go the whole way. Idk, I just really hate the concept of "False consciousness" because it seems to say "If there is something about humans that negates communism, then it's a boorhoozis lie".[/QUOTE] Well, is it really fair to say Leftist groups 'failed'? Especially in America where, in the 1920s, elected Socialist legislators were actually ejected from a state legislature because they got shouted down by members from the other parties: [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Five_Socialist_Assemblymen.jpg[/t] And not long after that in the 50s was the Second Red Scare. Whether or not you think socialism has merits, don't pretend the ideologies have been on an even playing field in front of the electorate. [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] Admittedly not everyone in the government (as in those outside of the Socialist groups) agreed with these things, but you can't deny there were a great many obstacles to even receiving a fair shot against a candidate from a moderate party.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42909356]A lot of Western democracies have had some form of voting system in the past 150 years, and while various political parties have come about and have been voted for, Communists have historically done really poor electorally. Because of this, they use the "false consciousness" fallacy to explain why people didn't vote for Communist parties so as to get rid of capitalism. Some people do vote for them when they present revised reforms they actually like, but never to do go the whole way. Idk, I just really hate the concept of "False consciousness" because it seems to say "If there is something about humans that negates communism, then it's a boorhoozis lie".[/QUOTE] communists have not historically done really poor? they are actually fairly popular in several countries(like france).

[QUOTE=Megafan;42909427]Well, is it really fair to say Leftist groups 'failed'? Especially in America where, in the 1920s, elected Socialist legislators were actually ejected from a state legislature because they got shouted down by members from the other parties: [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Five_Socialist_Assemblymen.jpg[/t] And not long after that in the 50s was the Second Red Scare. Whether or not you think socialism has merits, don't pretend the ideologies have been on an even playing field in front of the electorate. [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] Admittedly not everyone in the government (as in those outside of the Socialist groups) agreed with these things, but you can't deny there were a great many obstacles to even receiving a fair shot against a candidate from a moderate party.[/QUOTE] Well yeah socialism has done poorly in America, although even if these barriers were gone I couldn't see anybody willingly voting for the end of capitalism there. In the rest of the western world, I don't think any country (save for one previously under a Communist government imposed by a foreign power) has willingly elected Communists into power or allowed them to stay in power for very long. [editline]19th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42909494]communists have not historically done really poor? they are actually fairly popular in several countries(like france).[/QUOTE] The Communist party in France is hardly powerful at all. It has a smattering of a few seats.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42909531]Well yeah socialism has done poorly in America, although even if these barriers were gone I couldn't see anybody willingly voting for the end of capitalism there. In the rest of the western world, I don't think any country (save for one previously under a Communist government imposed by a foreign power) has willingly elected Communists into power or allowed them to stay in power for very long.[/QUOTE] the russian communists would have had a ton of electoral success if there didn't need to be a revolution. the russian social democratic labour party was fairly successful until it split i think, despite being completely illegal.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42897497]would you like to share something with the class?[/QUOTE] says the guy who believes in a oxymoron.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42909531] The Communist party in France is hardly powerful at all. It has a smattering of a few seats.[/QUOTE] historically it has had success. [editline]19th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SexualShark;42909581]says the guy who believes in a oxymoron.[/QUOTE] i'm not a free market libertarian though?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42909565]the russian communists would have had a ton of electoral success if there didn't need to be a revolution. the russian social democratic labour party was fairly successful until it split i think, despite being completely illegal.[/QUOTE] They were always outperformed by the parties representing the peasantry. Plus even the Mensheviks had more support. Back then, people saw the Bolsheviks as a fringe party up until the Revolution happened. Of course when the 1918 assembly was formed and more than half of the assembly was composed of non-communists it was shut down.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42909594]They were always outperformed by the parties representing the peasantry. Plus even the Mensheviks had more support. Back then, people saw the Bolsheviks as a fringe party up until the Revolution happened. Of course when the 1918 assembly was formed and more than half of the assembly was composed of non-communists it was shut down.[/QUOTE] that doesn't imply lack of electoral success?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42909613]that doesn't imply lack of electoral success?[/QUOTE] [quote]The bottom line was that the Bolsheviks received between 22% and 25%[10] of the vote, albeit as clear winners in Russia's urban centers and among soldiers on the "Western Front" (two-thirds of those soldiers' votes). In the city of Moscow, for example, the Bolsheviks won 47.9% of the votes, the Constitutional Democrats (Kadets) 35.7% and the SRs 8.1 percent.[11] While losing the urban vote, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party received around 57-58% (62% with their social democratic allies), having won the massive support of the country's rural peasantry who constituted 80% of the Russian population. However, this is a half truth because the Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionaries did not attend the Constituent Assembly when it convened. Another major factor is the split within the Socialist Revolutionaries which led to support for the Bolsheviks by the leftist SR faction.[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly[/url] They were red islands in a sea of peasants.

so what about the mensheviks?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42909654]so what about the mensheviks?[/QUOTE] They did poorly in that election. [quote]This split in the party crippled the Mensheviks' popularity, and they received 3.2% of the vote during the Russian Constituent Assembly election in November 1917 compared to the Bolsheviks' 25 percent and the Socialist Revolutionaries' 57 percent. [/quote]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42909679]They did poorly in that election.[/QUOTE] so the bolsheviks weren't a fringe then? [editline]19th November 2013[/editline] idk wtf you are trying to say? 1/4 of people voted for the bolsheviks, that's electoral success by any means except in a two-party system. [editline]19th November 2013[/editline] it would be a shitty turnout if it was like 75% democrat/25% republican but it's not bad for an election involving 5 parties.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42909685]so the bolsheviks weren't a fringe then?[/QUOTE] The Bolsheviks were a fringe party up until they seized power in a coup from the Provisional government. Even after they seized power, they had barely any power or support in the countryside. [QUOTE=yawmwen;42909685]idk wtf you are trying to say? 1/4 of people voted for the bolsheviks, that's electoral success by any means except in a two-party system. [editline]19th November 2013[/editline] it would be a shitty turnout if it was like 75% democrat/25% republican but it's not bad for an election involving 5 parties.[/QUOTE] This is mostly because they were already in power and there was a split in the SRs which meant a lot of them supported the Bolsheviks.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42909713]This is mostly because they were already in power and there was a split in the SRs which meant a lot of them supported the Bolsheviks.[/QUOTE] ok? so communists never have electoral success...except the times they did? [editline]19th November 2013[/editline] you gotta know your claims are ridiculous when they force an anarchist to start sounding like he endorses the authoritarians...

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42909732]ok? so communists never have electoral success...except the times they did?[/QUOTE] A single election in a country where they had already taken control? Even if they won 0.00001% of the vote the Bolsheviks would have still happily gone along with their earlier plans.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42909751]A single election in a country where they had already taken control? Even if they won 0.00001% of the vote the Bolsheviks would have still happily gone along with their earlier plans.[/QUOTE] yea because the bolsheviks were lead by an authoritarian asshole.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42909757]yea because the bolsheviks were lead by an authoritarian asshole.[/QUOTE] Well I can agree on this. The greatest shame is probably the fact that the 1860s liberal reforms never really got anywhere, and then after the revolution (when things began to recover), the Bolsheviks ended successful economic policies like the NEP and tried to wipe out the peasantry.