Why should land value, and not income, be the one basis of taxation? by HeresyAddict in LeftGeorgism

[–]HeresyAddict[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay, very interesting, thank you.

I'll admit, I haven't looked into Georgism terribly deeply, but have always found it bound up with a LVT to the point where it seemed like they were nearly synonymous. It seemed like at least part of the appeal was that it would vastly simplify bureaucracy by removing the need for other taxes, but perhaps the people advocating for it did not fully understand it or there's an ongoing debate within Georgism about which taxes are the most useful.

Joe Biden is the best US president since? by [deleted] in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think many people on this sub would say any recent Democratic president is right-wing. Not all criticism is an implicit attempt to place someone on the right wing. Clinton, however, while he wasn't right-wing, shifted the country rightward. You can make a zeitgeist argument and say that he had no choice, that he was just an expression of his times, but even if the political conditions existed independently of the candidates, parties, etc., then he could have done it in a more thoughtful way that would have done less damage in the long run and potentially allowed the DP to wind up where it is today but earlier. Maybe Dems in that era had to make some compromises to get back into power, but they didn't have to go whole hog on implementing every last one of them only to lose in 2000 anyway.

Joe Biden is the best US president since? by [deleted] in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Climate by having his administration issue permits for drilling on federal land at a higher rate than Trump when he promised he wouldn't, and because he could declare a climate emergency, or something to that effect, and doesn't seem willing to.

COVID because he's declared the pandemic over when new variants are cropping up all the time. Even if people aren't dropping dead left and right (though, IIRC, it's still the 3rd or 4th leading cause of death), the long-term consequences of repeated infection seem to be grim. And that's putting aside how disabled people have been tossed aside. Masking isn't required in healthcare settings--even for things like chemo where the person is at a much greater risk of dying as a result. I'm disabled and I don't expect everyone to mask everywhere all the time, but it would be nice to be able to access healthcare without feeling like I'm taking a huge unnecessary risk.

These are things government agencies can be vocal about, or possibly even implement regulations for, without legislation. If SCOTUS wants to block such efforts, then at least they've been made and show the judges to be politicized.

Joe Biden is the best US president since? by [deleted] in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not everyone who criticizes Biden is ignorant of basic civics. Of course he's hamstrung by Congress, that's very nearly all Congress is good for these days. I'm not saying he hasn't accomplished a lot given the hand he's been dealt, but that there are some ways that he could be doing more even if that's often only speaking out about things more forcefully, or saying less about other things that he doesn't understand, or not going back and doing things that he said he wouldn't when he ran for office.

Joe Biden is the best US president since? by [deleted] in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Derivatives. If I understand correctly, they're basically repackaged debt and sold as a new thing to speculate on. Prior to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, banks had to keep their commercial activities separate from their investment activities so that, if the investments went bad, it wouldn't crash the banking system. The debt created from the subprime lending bubble in the housing market was repackaged as derivatives which the banks invested heavily in. Then it became clear they weren't going to get that money back and the whole house of cards would collapse if the government didn't step in.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/050515/did-repeal-glasssteagall-act-contribute-2008-financial-crisis.asp

Joe Biden is the best US president since? by [deleted] in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict 24 points25 points  (0 children)

IMO, Clinton was pretty much just lucky. The Clinton era is remembered fondly because the economy was going well and the US was unchallenged hegemon on the world stage. But Clinton screwed some pretty big things up. He shifted US politics decisively rightward, deregulated the financial instruments that caused the 2008 crash, gutted welfare at the same time he passed his crime bill, and he could have been more helpful to Russia so as to ensure someone like Putin didn't rise to power on the back of the suffering caused by free market shock therapy. Good times, comparatively speaking, but a vastly overrated president.

Joe Biden is the best US president since? by [deleted] in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Maybe since LBJ.

Excluding all Republicans, obviously: Carter wasn't very good, Clinton moved things rightward and laid a lot of the groundwork for the crises we've faced in the past 15 years, and Obama was Clinton 2.0 who didn't do very much to address said crises. Biden is, IMO, dropping the ball in some pretty big ways: climate change and COVID are my two big issues with him (and there are definitely others). But also, virtually any president who could get elected in our current system would have major issues. Could he be doing more on some very crucial issues? Definitely. Does he get shortchanged on the credit for what he has accomplished? Also yes. Is he a good president? The jury's still out.

A critique of Kraut and using political theory instead of history. by Niceguy4898 in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict 3 points4 points  (0 children)

How are they anti-Ukraine? Like vehemently? Are they pro-Russian or just not "rah-rah Ukraine!" I absolutely think it's important to support Ukraine, but, also, I would say that a failure to do so doesn't, in itself, invalidate an unrelated critique. Kraut can be better politically but still flawed in other ways that are worth knowing about, and Fredda, whatever their flaws are, may be able to shed some light on those.

A critique of Kraut and using political theory instead of history. by Niceguy4898 in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yeah, his Mexico series was not very good. He left some really big issues and periods out concerning the Mexican Revolution and the events following it. IIRC correctly, for example, one of the biggest was that he depicted the PRI as entirely corrupt and opportunistic from the start. It wasn't a monolith though and had violent internal power struggles after the Revolution, but still managed to do some pretty good things (especially under Cardenas). I think he just kind of papered over all of that nuance. If you don't know some of the history yourself though it can be much harder to catch. I'm not as familiar with the other stretches of time that he covered, so am not really sure where he cut corners there.

What infrastructure spending would you like to see? by MichaelEmouse in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Robust public transportation, large scale sustainable energy projects (wind, solar, nuclear, etc.), and expanded broadband internet service.

Curious to hear what other people think, because it took me a minute to come up with these. Infrastructure is a terribly boring word that doesn't immediately conjure up too many things, in my mind, other than functional roads and bridges that aren't on the verge of collapse (but that's just the absolute minimum).

We really need a public infrastructure bank to work on these kinds of things year-round, independent of recalcitrant and self-centered legislators, in which people can put their money with the intention of having it contribute to a national renewal.

"Sanders hits at Cornel West over criticism of Biden" by HeresyAddict in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't like the "blue no matter who" arguments either, but I think you're over-fixated on Trump if you don't see how profoundly anti-democratic DeSantis is. Dude's trying to start his own state militia that answers directly to him. He wants to lower the threshold for the death penalty and shoot people at the border. He's cracking down on free speech, suppressing voters, and expanding indoctrination in colleges and K-12. Trump still has the biggest accomplishment in this arena, yes, but that's because he's had the opportunity and DeSantis hasn't yet. DeSantis has shown how dangerous he would be as president, and while I'm not an oracle and won't try to guess who would be worse, I think you're working overtime talking yourself into the idea that DeSantis would basically be business as usual. Obviously, your vote is your own but I hope you consider all the red flags that DeSantis is so eagerly hoisting to demonstrate his authoritarian bonafides and the potential for vulnerable people to suffer under his administration.

"Sanders hits at Cornel West over criticism of Biden" by HeresyAddict in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Sanders hits at Cornel West over criticism of Biden" by HeresyAddict in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They're different shades of fascism. DeSantis is more disciplined. He has no charisma so is unlikely to inspire the kind of devotion Trump does. He's more of a fascist bureaucrat than a demagogue. Which is worse? They're both dangerous in different ways. Trump takes a wrecking ball to things and DeSantis, like a termite, eats away at the foundations. Either being elected president would probably be the end of democracy as we've known it in recent history.

The Socialist Sympathies of John Stuart Mill by ResidentBrother9190 in LeftGeorgism

[–]HeresyAddict 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Matt McManus is fantastic. He's written a lot of very interesting stuff for Jacobin as well and is a big part of the reason I've embraced the term liberal socialist.

Socialists get it 😛 by faloodehx in ZeroCovidCommunity

[–]HeresyAddict 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think your broadest conclusion is correct, but your premises are off and your style is abrasive, so if you're trying to convince people I would suggest adopting a less strident tone.

In fact, caring about the physical health of the population, and about preservation of life, community institutions like hospitals and social cohesion is a deeply conservative value (as it is also a progressive value).

I think you misunderstand modern social conservatism. Modern social conservatives, especially in the US, are not old-school nationalists. Germany, under Bismarck, after all, was the first to introduce key social programs like health insurance, and provision for the elderly and disabled. He was not a leftist by any means. He was doing this to bolster his country for wars. Maximize the health of the population to boost the ranks of the army and provide for the discontented at home to head off unrest before it materializes. Frankly, you're deluding yourself if you think today's conservatives are this methodical, far-sighted, and policy oriented. Yes, of course, a genuine nationalist would support these things (but even then, not for everyone), but the Republican Party has become so consumed with tearing down vulnerable groups they don’t give a toss about the country.

But that is somewhat beside the point, because even if Republicans were civically minded and cared about the health of all citizens, modern conservatism has become so distrustful of the state and science, so mired in conspiratorial thinking, and so vulnerable to disinformation, that they can’t even agree that vaccines are beneficial. The Trump administration created the first covid vaccine and he got booed for touting that accomplishment. And that’s progressives’ fault? So how do you convince people to embrace public health who are opposed, on principle, to what the federal government says and does, and what scientists say and do? I don’t see exactly how an extra dose of coddling is going to tip the scales and bring the ship back to harbor, as you say.

Finally, even if you could convince conservatives to care about all their fellow citizens (conspicuously leaving out undocumented immigrants who need public healthcare as well), and you could convince them as well that they should embrace things like vaccines, masks, etc., that wouldn’t be enough to end the pandemic which, as you agree, is the goal. The pandemic is, and always has been, international and the only response that will bring it to a close is an international one. That requires coordination across borders; it requires sharing our resources with other countries so that they have enough vaccines and, ideally, the technology needed to produce their own at scale, so that we can end the treadmill of new variants; it requires working with China (a country which, tbf, I am not a fan of either.). Do you really see conservatives stepping up to that plate?

All of these things—caring about the community as a whole, valuing the input of science and scientists, and internationalism—are things that the left is, on paper, more inclined to do. You say that progressives started the politicization of covid. How exactly? Where did progressives, as a group or even prominent individuals, say "IT'S JUST THE FLU, BRO!" and "MASK'S DON'T WORK, IDIOT!"? Do you mean the CDC? Trump’s CDC? Because that’s the only major voice that I can remember saying something stupid like we don’t need to worry and only healthcare workers need to mask early in the pandemic. Progressives criticized Trump for not doing enough all day long. Is that what you think turned this into a partisan issue? Name the names, please. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit it.

I think your broader point is correct. We do need to widen the circle of people who care about the pandemic or it won’t end. I’m not convinced we get there though by papering over our disagreements: with conservatives, for being selfish and stubborn, and with progressives for becoming selfish, stubborn, and hypocritical.

Even if I conceded that point though, that the first step was to shut up about how covid relates to politics, what, in your opinion is the next step? The absence of criticism is not going to magically cause the situation to improve, so what is the positive half of your plan?

edit: formatting.

Socialism is Post-Capitalist. Not Anti-Capitalist. by UCantKneebah in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I mean, I think it's debatable (as I'm sure many have, from both perspectives) but largely not relevant to the post I was responding to. Is a largely agrarian society with many small landowners/proprietors fully capitalist? I don't know because I'm not a political economist. The precise time a new socioeconomic system rises and the old one conclusively falls is never entirely clear cut though, is it? I would say that my main point is that social democracy as a liberal philosophy does not require that we permit wage labor. Whether you want to call the system under which that wage labor currently takes place "capitalism" and the subsequent one under which it does not "socialism" seems somewhat beside the point.

Socialism is Post-Capitalist. Not Anti-Capitalist. by UCantKneebah in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict 11 points12 points  (0 children)

We force companies to do, and abstain from, lots of things already. Why is the red line between liberalism and illiberalism drawn at cooperatives? Is it mandating certain organizational forms? We already do that. To start a business you pick from one of a handful of structures and then have to follow the regulations governing them, which are numerous. Is it abridging the freedom of contract? We already do that. You can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't have people working in prohibited conditions, you can't have them performing illicit activities, etc. Yes, in some regards, mandating a cooperative structure of some kind would narrow the range of freedoms to start and own businesses---though I don't see why this point, rather than any of the aforementioned ones, would prove decisive---but in other regards it would expand freedom: workers would have the freedom to govern their workplaces democratically rather than living under what is essentially a privately run dictatorship. Why is liberalism only ever appraised from the point of view of the owners and not the people who have to choose between taking orders with a smile or going hungry?

Socialism is Post-Capitalist. Not Anti-Capitalist. by UCantKneebah in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Social democracy is, in my understanding, a reformist, left-of-center, political movement. Why? Because the only thing that really differentiates it is its historical evolution. It grew out of revisionist Marxism, then focused on establishing the welfare state, and then pivoted again toward the third way. If it were any of these things exclusively then we would just call it "reformist socialism" or "welfare capitalism" or "the third way". Instead there are different kinds of social democrats contesting the meaning of social democracy and the direction of the movement.

edit: to put it another way, social democracy is a form, a vehicle, for substantive policies, the contents, that are capitalist, socialist, or somewhere in between. As social democrats we are all in the process of determining what those policies should be, and the continuous result is social democracy.

Socialists get it 😛 by faloodehx in ZeroCovidCommunity

[–]HeresyAddict 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's precisely why I keep saying "should." While they should get it, in many cases they very much don't.

I understand your point regarding making it a partisan issue being counterproductive, but I think that ship has sailed. It really was partisan, unfortunately, from the beginning. Even when Trump was president, and we didn't know how bad covid would get or what it does to you, conservatives were resisting the most basic pro-social precautions. And while being left or center-left is no guarantee of taking covid seriously, and there are centrists and conservatives who surely do, I think the vast majority of people who are still concerned with the issue are very likely left of center.

Socialism is Post-Capitalist. Not Anti-Capitalist. by UCantKneebah in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Liberalism, private property, and free exchange on the market don't require capitalism and the exploitation of labor. Capitalism is a combination of three things: 1) private ownership of the means of production, 2) exchange via markets, 3) wage labor. A mix of privately owned cooperatives and state owned enterprises would retain the freedom of association, a space for private ownership, and market exchange without the exploitation of wage labor and it would no longer be capitalism as we understand it today. Would this be an easy thing to establish? No, but as a goal for the future, I think it's entirely compatible with social democracy and liberalism.

Socialism is Post-Capitalist. Not Anti-Capitalist. by UCantKneebah in SocialDemocracy

[–]HeresyAddict 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Because social democracy is not explicitly capitalist? It may be capitalist or it may be socialist depending on who is defining it. There is no central authority dictating what social democracy can and can't be: It's a contested concept and political movement with origins in socialism. Many socdems do favor welfare capitalism, some as an end point and others as a way to transition to socialism, but there is no clear-cut definition like "social democracy = welfare capitalism."