上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 234

[–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 37ポイント38ポイント  (28子コメント)

You are right that Trump represents the worst of the conservative party, but I do think that it is unfair to say "most" republicans.

He is only around 25%, which is about 12% of the whole country. It shouldn't be much of a surprise that 12% of the country is as bigoted as Trump is.

The mainstream republican candidates have recognized that appealing to bigots is not the way to win the general election. So Trump stepped in and took that vote. It is similar to how Hillary knows that appealing to social democrats is not the way to win a general election so Bernie Sanders stepped in.

Once a few of the mainstream candidates drop out they will consolidate around one mainstream republican (Kasich, Bush, Fiorina, Walker or Rubio) and they will win the primary.

This is one of the problems with the US two party system. In the UK Trump would be running as the UKIP candidate and would pull in 12% of the vote without sabotaging the Conservatives, and Sander's would do the same with a more liberal party without sabotaging Hilary. But since we are forced into two parties the extremes of both sides are forced to run with the mainstream candidates.

[–]eisagi 24ポイント25ポイント  (0子コメント)

Most of the other Republicans support the same policies. They just talk more diplomatically. The right wing has been insane for years - pretty much since Reagan won the nomination in 1980.

Rubio just came out against birthright citizenship, for example.

[–]smarmodon 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

I saw a poll that had him at 40%, above Clinton's 38% and "Deez Nuts" at 9%.

[–]SisterRayVU 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

That was North Carolina.

[–]evilpenguin234 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Speaking as someone from North Carolina, those results don't surprise me at all

[–]Nurglings 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

"Deez Nuts" at 9%

what

[–]lazurz 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

A 15 year old filled out the registration paperwork as "Deez Nuts". Apparently, someone at Public Policy Polling thought his name was hilarious, so threw him into a poll as sort of a measure for how much people were basing their choices off of just the name of the candidates.

Source

[–]draw_it_now 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Just FYI, the British system isn't much better - yes, smaller parties can carve out their place in the house of commons, but it's still a first-past-the-post system. Only two monolithic parties can take centre stage at any one point.

edit: Also, UKIP is stealing votes... from Labour, the left-wing socialist party. Turns out, Working class people are left-wing economically, but right-wing culturally.

[–]beIIe-and-sebastian 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Labour are not a left wing socialist party and haven't been since the 80s. They're a centre right social Democratic Party.

The scottish social party or Green Party are left wing socialist parties.

[–]Justice_Prince 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

He might still run as a third party if he doesn't win the primary in which case he'd be taking about 6% from the Republicans (half of his 12% would stick with the party), and all but guarantee the win to the Democrat candidate.

[–]Gordyman[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (14子コメント)

IMO it's either going to be Hillary vs Trump or Hillary, another GOP candidate, and Trump running as an independent. But yea, the two party system is flawed as hell.

[–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 9ポイント10ポイント  (13子コメント)

The thing is if Trump runs as an independent then the Democrat is basically guaranteed a win because trump will likely get 5-10% of the vote (the bigots). But the same is true if Sanders ran as an independent. That is where the system is flawed. But at the same time it does rob the extremes of both sides from any real sense of organization, which can be seen as a positive or negative depending on your views.

Trump has over 50% of the Republican's who say that they don't like him so he won't win the primary. Remember in 2012 the Republican's in the lead at this time were Santorum, Huckabee and Cain. Romney didn't pull ahead until he knocked out the other moderates. It is unlikely that he will be able to get more people on his side at this point.

Trump has consolidated the bigot vote, no one has consolidated any other block of voters.

[–]smarmodon 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

Sanders said he'd step aside if Hilary won the primary too.

[–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yeah, I'm just using him as an example. A real life example would be Nader in 2000, he lost Gore the election. Or Ross Perot in 1992.

[–]SisterRayVU 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Gore lost himself the election, and he still won.

[–]smarmodon 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

NADERRRRRRR!

shakes fist

[–]sophandros 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Gore lost Gore the election by carrying neither his nor Clinton's home states. If he wins either of those, Florida is a moot point.

[–]Gordyman[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

I agree. Which is probably what's going to happen, the Republicans are going to be split and Hilary (assuming she gets nominated) is going to take it.

[–]GammaTainted 8ポイント9ポイント  (6子コメント)

I feel like this is going to go the same way 2012. An endless circus of rotating Republican front runners through the primary season will give way to the perennial second place "most tolerable" candidate, who eventually receives the nomination. It'll be Jeb Bush losing to Hillary in 2016, by like four percentage points, and it won't be interesting or surprising, but 24-hour news coverage will pretend that it is.

[–]sha742 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think Jeb Bush is going to make it. I think Marco Rubio is going to be huge force when people start settling toward center.

[–]Gordyman[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's probably how it's going to go down, but regardless of how it goes down, Hillary is going to become president. Simply because she's been promoted for years by the establishment, and that's usually how it works. But like I said before, IDGAF about this "election" and I never will. With the popularity of "Deez Nutz", I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who shares that opinion. People are disgusted with politicians at this point, and I predict a really low voter turnout.

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]AWildBugHasAppeared [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Not if they decide to use voting machines again. Then it'll be Jeb Bush winning with 46% against Clinton's 54%

      [–]oaknutjohn 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      IIRC these polls are only from likely Republican voters anyway. Most of the country is neither Republican nor likely to vote.

      [–]4dams 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Fear not. It's more like 6%, not 12%. Latest polling put GOP at around 23%-24%, Dems at 24%-25%, with Independents at close to half. Trump's got at most one quarter of one quarter of the electorate - who just want to watch the world burn ... at least for now, over a year out from any actually voting.

      Popcorn here, get her popcorn here...

      [–]jm_dubbs [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      But the polls are of likely Republican voters, not just registered Republicans.

      [–]RobertoBolano 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      25% of the Republican Party isn't 12.5% of the country. The Republican Party has only 30 million members.

      [–]werijoiwerp 16ポイント17ポイント  (64子コメント)

      Man a lot of the stuff in this thread is the weird hypothetical ideological side of /r/SRSDiscussion that I don't really fuck with

      [–]lakelly99 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

      'Destroy capitalism' is the standard SRSD answer to any problem.

      Like, OK, I consider myself a socialist and an optimist so I'd love that. But holy shit sometimes you just have to work with what you've got if 95% of the world doesn't feel the same way.

      [–]RonJenks2 13ポイント14ポイント  (61子コメント)

      I agree. The ultra-left is well represented here and I don't mind that, but it makes it pretty difficult to have a real discussion on the realities of American politics.

      Also a pretty surprising amount of centrist posters. Which is pretty odd... Someone was saying they'd probably vote for a democrat over any of the republican candidates. Like, do you know where you are???

      edit and op is throwing the word "liberal" around like a pejorative. This thread is bizarre.

      [–]werijoiwerp 14ポイント15ポイント  (39子コメント)

      /r/SRSDiscussion debates devolve into this kind of thing pretty often for whatever reason. A while ago I read a discussion that somehow got completely focused around capitalism and African farming when that's not even what the thread was supposed to be about. And the Ferguson/Baltimore threads about what protestors should or should not be doing were very similar.

      Honestly, and it sounds a bit rude to put it this way, people just come off as being very far up their own ass when they act like their pet ideology is somehow relevant to the real life consequences of things like who ends up being president.

      [–][削除されました]  (37子コメント)

      [deleted]

        [–]werijoiwerp 12ポイント13ポイント  (34子コメント)

        "I'm a suburban white kid and let me tell you how to destroy capitalism so we can end racism"

        [–]ModestMaoist [スコア非表示]  (33子コメント)

        This tends to be the characterisation that middle-class liberals on SRS give of communists, and I'm not entirely sure why it's the case considering the fact that the large majority of communist uprisings throughout history were not led by white people and were certainly not suburban in character. Let's look at what a few prominent American PoC leaders have said on the issue.

        We're going to fight racism not with racism, but we're going to fight with solidarity. We say we're not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we're going to fight it with socialism.

        -Fred Hampton

        The only path of liberation for black people is that which leads toward complete and radical overthrow of the capitalist class.

        -Angela Davis

        We have two evils to fight, capitalism and racism. We must destroy both racism and capitalism.

        -Huey Newton

        This is the era of Mao Tse-Tung, the era of world revolution and the Afro-American's struggle for liberation is a part of an invincible world-wide movement. Chairman Mao was the first world leader to elevate our people's struggle to the fold of the world revolution.

        -Robert F. Williams

        Here, I am not a Negro but a human being for the first time in my life ... I walk in full human dignity.

        -Paul Robeson [on visiting the USSR]

        I am not a communist ... On the other hand, I ... believe ... that Karl Marx ... put his finger squarely upon our difficulties ...

        -W.E.B. DuBois (he later joined the communist party at age 93)

        You can’t have capitalism without racism

        -Malcolm X

        These are just a few quotes from American Civil Rights figures, I could probably find some good ones from other PoC leaders that are even more forceful... here's one from Mao.

        The speedy development of the struggle of the American Negroes is a manifestation of sharpening class struggle and sharpening national struggle within the United States; it has been causing increasing anxiety among U.S. ruling circles. The Kennedy Administration is insidiously using dual tactics. On the one hand, it continues to connive at and take part in discrimination against Negroes and their persecution, and it even sends troops to suppress them. On the other hand, in the attempt to numb the fighting will of the Negro people and deceive the masses of the country, the Kennedy Administration is parading as an advocate of “the defence of human rights” and “the protection of the civil rights of Negroes,” calling upon the Negro people to exercise “restraint” and proposing the “civil rights legislation” to Congress. But more and more Negroes are seeing through these tactics of the Kennedy Administration. The fascist atrocities of the U.S. imperialists against the Negro people have exposed the true nature of so-called American democracy and freedom and revealed the inner link between the reactionary policies pursued by the U.S. Government at home and its policies of aggression abroad.

        I call on the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, enlightened elements of the bourgeoisie and other enlightened persons of all colours in the world, whether white, black, yellow or brown, to unite to oppose the racial discrimination practised by U.S. imperialism and support the American Negroes in their struggle against racial discrimination. In the final analysis, national struggle is a matter of class struggle. Among the whites in the United States, it is only the reactionary ruling circles who oppress the Negro people. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people. At present, it is the handful of imperialists headed by the United Slates, and their supporters, the reactionaries in different countries, who are oppressing, committing aggression against and menacing the overwhelming majority of the nations and peoples of the world. We are in the majority and they are in the minority. At most, they make up less than 10 per cent of the 3,000 million population of the world. I am firmly convinced that, with the support of more than 90 per cent of the people of the world, the American Negroes will be victorious in their just struggle. The evil system of colonialism and imperialism arose and throve with the enslavement of Negroes and the trade in Negroes, and it will surely come to its end with the complete emancipation of the black people.

        I don't expect you to necessarily agree with these statements, I've provided them to show you that anti-capitalist PoC exist, despite liberal attempts to erase or marginalise their opinions (and in the case of some like Fred Hampton, outright assassinations because of their views).

        [–]werijoiwerp [スコア非表示]  (15子コメント)

        I am fully aware of that - i'm not a white suburban kid and i think capitalism is bad too. My point is the context in which it is brought up on SRSDiscussion smells of white liberalism.

        [–]ModestMaoist [スコア非表示]  (14子コメント)

        I am fully aware of that - i'm not a white suburban kid and i think capitalism is bad too. My point is the context in which it is brought up on SRSDiscussion smells of white liberalism.

        Not really, it usually appears more like young comrades of many races. Again, I'm not entirely sure why SRSers here are so determined to erase communist and socialist PoC. If you think that someone's argument smells of white liberalism, perhaps you could confront them with that fact.

        [–]werijoiwerp [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

        I'm a socialist PoC so IDK how I'm erasing them. I think you've missed my point.

        [–]ModestMaoist [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

        If you think I've missed your point you can simply restate it in terms which are more coherent.

        [–]AWildBugHasAppeared [スコア非表示]  (16子コメント)

        This tends to be the characterisation that middle-class liberals on SRS give of communists, and I'm not entirely sure why it's the case considering the fact that the large majority of communist uprisings throughout history were not led by white people and were certainly not suburban in character.

        Because those communists talked with their hands instead of with their mouths. The academic and internet communist culture, at least in the west, is dominated mainly by people who have no clue of the gritty reality behind running a revolution or basically any kind of social change. Not to mention that most of the people you quoted realized that you can't call for a global communist uprising and be taken seriously in this day and age and so they, unlike the digital sickle wielders we see time and again, focussed on smaller goals instead.

        [–]asublimeduet [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

        This is a vast oversimplification of revolutionary efforts both outside of and inside of the west. The abolition of the US empire is certainly necessary to establish a fully communist world, but the practice of existing communists has primarily been focused on strengthening a transitioning socialist state and supporting other states in their transition to communism.

        What is with this one-sided characterisation of communists on the Internet as armchair activists? I know many who are actively involved in local organisation as well as using the Internet to raise consciousness. My local organisation uses the Internet heavily to centralise information and distribute it. Do you deride the efforts of liberals who take to the Internet to aid their political causes as armchair activists? What do you think SRSD is?

        Any Marxist ideology rejects the utopian ideal of a revolution which spontaneously forms out of nothing and a communist future which can be portrayed in pure detail. Marxists build revolution as much as they enact it. A Marxist raises consciousness and educates and participates in discourse as they collectivise and unionise and work towards a revolution of the people. Furthermore, much Marxist theory, particularly of Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and derivatives, is dedicated towards revolutionary strategy and has been seen in action.

        Finally, as /u/ModestMaoist rightfully called you out for your insistence on ignoring the importance of communism in the Global South and to indigenous peoples, and the fact that it is active there in a revolutionary manner, your characterisation of the revolutionaries /u/ModestMaoist cited is frankly offensive. Many of them were assassinated or died as dedicated communists.

        [–]AWildBugHasAppeared [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

        #NotAllCommunists...

        If I'm not complaining about you then don't fucking act as if I'm doing and attack me. I'm complaining about a well-defined, small but vocal section of armchair communists and you're blowing my cirtique way out of proportion.

        [–]asublimeduet [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        You literally did complain at me in another comment and compare me to MRAs and TERFs. Now you are rhetorically attacking me again via the comparison to notallmen, lol.

        You defended the SRSD characterisation of communists, that was the entire purpose of your comment. You were disgustingly revisionist about black revolutionary leaders, and specifically attacked this group you call small and well-defined as 'dominating' Internet culture and academia in the west, the characterisation of this group which I objected to the general application of against Marxist academics and also Internet activism (as I think likely many of the people you call armchair, and this sub considers armchair, are performing useful work online and offline, as much as any internet based liberal feminist and probably more), so I fail to see how I took your comment out of proportion.

        [–]ModestMaoist [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

        at least in the west

        Hahah still with this Eurocentric focus. Weird that people on SRS are so comfortable erasing PoC socialists when it suits their purposes.

        [–]AWildBugHasAppeared [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

        We were critiquing the discourse on this very sub. For the discussion we're having it's largely irrelevant what the Tamil think if none of them frequent this sub.

        Not to mention that this sub will gladly erase Europeans as well when their realities don't match up with the current flavor of middle-class american feminism, but I digress.

        Edit: I also just realized that my ire is mainly with those communists who seek theoretical purity over practical sollutions. The people you quted offered more answers to real-life problems than "dismantle capitalism" because they realized that the time was not ripe yet for that. My problem with some communist internet warriors is that they want to rush to the fireworks, because a communist uprising is cool and exciting and it'll solve their problems in a quick, bloody instant, but they don't realize that the foundations aren't there yet in many cases.

        [–]ModestMaoist [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

        It's a cycle. Communist PoC are chased out of SRS, then those who are remaining are criticised for being too white. It's a joke.

        [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

        [deleted]

          [–]minimuminim[M] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          Folks, if you want to talk about the posters in SRSDiscussion, please take it somewhere else, because it's a pretty massive derail. It belongs on a meta subreddit.

          [–]RonJenks2 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Yep. I don't have a problem with the ultra-left. But when your biggest contribution to the debate is to try to apply anarcho-communism, marxism, or some other extreme left politically impossible principles to a country like the United States, and asserting that those who disagree with you might as well be republicans, well now you're just turning a discussion about the reality of American politics into a theoretical circle jerk and it's definitely annoying as fuck.

          At any rate I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed.

          [–]sha742 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Lol never mind I scrolled down what the actual fuck

          [–]sha742 2ポイント3ポイント  (17子コメント)

          I'm sort of surprised the lack of Sanders support I've seen in this thread, honestly. I back Hill-dog as a matter of being a WTO shill, but again I'm surprised at the spectrum of ideology.

          I dig it, honestly. It's not divisive and it's not an echo chamber. It's like a rational quorum where the only shared belief is that people are and have systematically been dicks before.

          [–]RonJenks2 6ポイント7ポイント  (12子コメント)

          I don't know. I get the feeling a few of these communist posters don't really respect anyone who might fall to the right of their political ideology. I don't really care on a personal level but I'd say that's divisive.

          Though the points of view are diverse, I'll give you that. I've definitely learned something reading through these communist vs. capitalist debates even if they are irrelevant to the OP.

          And for the record I'm undecided between Sanders and Chillary, though I'm leaning towards Bernie. One way or another I think the GOP's current disarray is a win for the country.

          [–]sha742 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          No I agree, I went further down into the comments and for whatever reason posted.

          [–]Engelgrinder -2ポイント-1ポイント  (10子コメント)

          I get the feeling a few of these communist posters don't really respect anyone who might fall to the right of their political ideology.

          We don't respect those who "fall to the right" in the same way that feminists don't respect MRAs.

          [–]RonJenks2 8ポイント9ポイント  (9子コメント)

          Yeah. I get it. I'm not so far left as to be politically irrelevant in my country. And I don't equate capitalism with all of the social and economic injustices the planet endures. Which of course means I might as well be a racist, pro-life, xenophobic, reactionary men's rights activist who personally mugs homeless people in my free time.

          I don't really care if you like me. I just find it hard to talk to someone with such a poor grasp of nuance.

          [–]Engelgrinder -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

          Which of course means I might as well be a racist

          Yes. It's no coincidence that the history of capitalism is also a history of slavery, imperialism and colonialism which preys on the lives of PoC.

          As was stated earlier, all of the countries that are emerging today from under the shackles of colonialism are turning toward socialism. I don’t think it’s an accident. Most of the countries that were colonial powers were capitalist countries and the last bulwark of capitalism today is America and it’s impossible for a white person today to believe in capitalism and not believe in racism. You can’t have capitalism without racism. And if you find a person without racism and you happen to get that person into conversation and they have a philosophy that makes you sure they don’t have this racism in their outlook, usually they’re socialists or their political Philosophy is socialism.

          -Malcolm X, presumably a man with a good grasp of "nuance"

          [–]RonJenks2 6ポイント7ポイント  (7子コメント)

          That's a nice Malcolm quote. I'm glad I'm a socialist otherwise I'd be afraid you were calling me a racist for not agreeing with you.

          [–]Engelgrinder -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

          And I don't equate capitalism with all of the social and economic injustices the planet endures.

          [...]

          I'm glad I'm a socialist

          Glad we sorted that out so quickly. Welcome to the fold comrade!

          [–]RonJenks2 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

          You see the difference between me and you is I'm a pragmatist first and foremost. I don't find value in disqualifying potential allies for not aligning exactly with my political philosophy.

          I believe in coalition building, consensus finding, and yes, actually getting shit done. It's great fun to have theoretical debates on the internet all day, but when it comes time to actually make changes in the way my country functions, I don't live in a naive fantasy bubble where my angst and sheer power of will might accidentally get republicans to stop hating poor people.

          [–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          The thing is SRSD is mixed with liberal's and communists. Liberals don't support Sanders because of how anti trade he is. Communists don't like him because he isn't a communist, and he's advocated for war on multiple occasions.

          Sanders supporters (on reddit) tend to be the same people who supported Ron Paul and just want someone different.

          [–]mrtacoswildride 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

          I'm against Hillary because she's a-ok with the current security state, and am crossing my fingers for Sanders (who I disagree with economically) because he's against it. Presidents can't shift economic policy much except on the margin, but they can absolutely smash the security state.

          I know he's got a snowball's chance in hell, but maybe we'll all get lucky and 2017 will be a good year.

          [–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          What do you mean by security state? If your talking foreign policy Sanders has been pretty hawkish.

          [–]sha742 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          That's a good point. Honestly I don't know where I stand on the security and data issues. I honestly like the idea of a court being able to find deleted text messages/pictures if it's case-pertinent. I like the idea of drones patrolling instead of cops. The former's typically unarmed.

          [–]m120j [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          I actually wouldn't find it surprising to find centrist people here. At least as someone not incredibly familiar with the community here (I mean, I know a lot of SRSers are pretty far left, but if anything that surprises me) and just by using logic. I mean, SRS Prime is mainly an outlet for people voicing their anger regarding bigotry, racism, homophobia, sexism, and just general reddit grossness. That premise isn't directly related to destruction of capitalism/support of socialism, or anything political in general. I feel like if you were to walk up to a rando on the street and show them an average post that was posted on SRS prime they'd find it offensive. So I don't really understand how the whole SRS = far leftist thing came about.

          [–]Engelgrinder 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Similarly, liberalism is well represented here, and I don't mind that, but it makes it pretty difficult to have a real discussion on the realities of world politics.

          [–]ModestMaoist -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          The "weird hypothetical ideological" stuff is what underlies entire political systems and thought, including your own - I think there's good reason to engage with it.

          [–]Othello 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

          Trump isn't dangerous; if anything he's a boon to the country. When you have 12% of the US following along with his hatred it makes everyone realize that these people still exist. A lot of people have been growing complacent, there are people who genuinely think racism isn't really a thing anymore for example. Well, Trump has shown that this stuff really is a big deal still.

          [–]sha742 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Wasn't this the argument of preserving Coontown though? That it makes them visible and underlines some perverse micro-population?

          No-- when you have a hateful icon for people to congregate under, they feel more comfortable evangelizing those ideas and the cancer spreads.

          [–]Gordyman[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

          He appeals to those people, he represents them.

          [–]werijoiwerp 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

          He appeals to those people, he represents them.

          People seem to like him because he's confident and he doesn't filter himself ("anti-PC"). His views are completely ridiculous, but none of the other candidates are nearly as appealing as characters, which is what a lot of people are looking for. It's a bit depressing IMO

          [–]Gordyman[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

          He's not politically correct to the extent that he says what his power base wants to hear. Though I agree with everything else.

          [–]Edgy_Atheist 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          he represents them

          Not necessarily. Check out this article on the New York Times (or New York Time for Hillary as I call it sometimes), the article mentions

          "In poll after poll of Republicans, Mr. Trump leads among women, despite having used terms like “fat pigs” and “disgusting animals” to denigrate some of them. He leads among evangelical Christians, despite saying he had never had a reason to ask God for forgiveness. He leads among moderates and college-educated voters, despite a populist and anti-immigrant message thought to resonate most with conservatives and less-affluent voters. He leads among the most frequent, likely voters, even though his appeal is greatest among those with little history of voting."

          Did you catch that? "In poll after poll of Republicans, Mr. Trump leads among women". If you're like me, your first thought should be "What the fuck". But we need to stop pretending that Trump is some ultra-right winger. Because he isn't. While he 's indicative of some of the ugly bigotry in the GOP, to focus on that is to miss the point.

          He doesn't represent the eventual culmination of conservatism, he represents the mad as hell vote within conservatives and moderates. So many people like to call him the "Frankenstein" of the GOP, as if the GOP alone created such a ghastly man through endless racist and sexist rhetoric. But that's not the case here. He represents people who have had it with politicians in general and don't wince at blaming Mexicans too. He is the GOP mirror of Bernie Sanders. And because progressive liberalism is smaller than conservatism in America, guess which guy has more traction?

          The fact is, the women clearly voting for Trump don't like him because of his statements about women, they like him because he can make those statements about women. They like that he isn't bought out by anyone but himself. And they know for a fact that Trump isn't obeying any PAC or rich Koch brothers in the background because any self-respecting investor would have told Trump to stop by now.

          Trump is everything ugly about America, but making him some Republican monster misses the point. We know from his past that he has supported both parties and policies all over the left and right. Only now has he rebranded himself for this clusterfuck that is the 2016 elections. American people have watched their wages stagnate for a generation while Capital Hill squabbles and the Middle East heats up even more. Trump and Sanders are the answers, one which I think we can all agree is a far more reasonable and practical answer at that.

          [–]8125 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

          As a non-American, is there really any chance he gets elected? I always had impression that he is just a rich bigot who nobody takes seriously.

          [–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

          The problem is the American political system. In the UK he'd be in UKIP, but there can't be a US equivalent. He is getting attention because he has 12% of the country behind him (the bigot vote).

          But he won't get more. But at the same time 12% is still higher than any other conservative this early in the election.

          [–]rstcp 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

          I don't know where you are getting the 12% from. He's only 6% behind Clinton in head to head match ups: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/2016-poll-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-bernie-sanders/

          [–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

          12% meaning that 12% actively want him as president (25% of the republicans).

          Many will vote for him over voting for Clinton. This is also why I think Biden is a better candidate as he has more experience and a much lower unfavorable rating, and he seems to have the right personality for this election. But a huge amount of Republicans won't show up in a Trump vs. Clinton election because they consider it two bad options.

          For the same kind of thing will happen with Sanders. Personally I strongly dislike Sanders but I think he is likely better than a Republican and would probably vote for him. But I would not be motivated to actually vote because I dislike all the Republican candidates and Sanders.

          [–]lecih 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

          There are people who take him seriously. I know this because people in my family have expressed support for him and they get along with their coworkers so I'm sure there are many other people who share their support for him.

          [–]8125 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          That's sad. Even Russian media goes on about how shitty he is.

          [–]Gordyman[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Most people see him as a joke but a lot of people still follow him. He has the highest approval rating of all of the GOP candidates.

          [–]foxh8er 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

          I really don't think hes dangerous. His supporters are though.

          He is not going to get close to winning the primary, on the off chance he does it'll be excellent for the progressive candidate. I'm just along for the sideshow.

          I'm actually legitimately afraid of walker.

          [–]Gordyman[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

          What he represents is very dangerous, however.

          [–]foxh8er 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Xenophobia and nationalism? I guess. I'd still wager his so-called "silent majority" is more dangerous than he is though.

          With that being said I would love him to get the nomination.

          [–]Cilpot 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Watching this from Europe it seems like Trump is the first real taste americans get of the "wacky" far right. Many countries here have these parties of ultra reactionary right wingers, and the american two-party system seems to have prevented them having influence over there.

          [–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          That's exactly it. The two party system robs the extremes of both parties from getting a voice or organization. This can be a good thing because it doesn't allow these opinions to be normalized.

          [–]xXxLinkinPark420xXx 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

          In all honestly, I'm more terrified of Rubio, Cruz, Walker, and Huckabee. Trump will hurt America and minorities; the others will wipe out America and minorities.

          [–]Dan-Morris 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

          How would the others be worse than Trump? What do they want to do that he doesn't?

          [–]sha742 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Rubio ain't nearly as bad as the open gay-bashers.

          [–]Gordyman[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Yea, how are they any worse?

          [–]ghriari 3ポイント4ポイント  (16子コメント)

          I'm more scared of the rest of the Republican Party and Bernie Sanders than Trump. Trump's talking points are racist and xenophobic. But the others have done more to actively support racist policies.

          (Also, I mean it about Bernie Sanders. His policies on legal immigration and free trade would increase global poverty and make America more homogeneous. I know he wants America to be like Scandinavia, but can we get rid of the xenophobia?)

          [–]Gordyman[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Though I don't like social democracy, I think Bernie Sanders is the closest thing the Democrats have to a true progressive. If I actually voted, I would probably vote for him.

          [–]ghriari 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I'm the son of Indian immigrants who came over on a work visa, so his immigration policies and race-blindness terrify me personally.

          http://www.vox.com/2015/7/29/9048401/bernie-sanders-open-borders

          http://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/8671135/bernie-sanders-race

          [–]scarymonsters85 0ポイント1ポイント  (13子コメント)

          I believe all of the candidates beliefs on free trade will increase global poverty. Wrt Sanders on immigration, I've only heard him be against certain work visas because of how employers are able to hold those workers hostage bc the workers want to be in this country and the employers use that as leverage to overwork them and treat them as slaves.

          [–]sha742 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

          How do you figure? Most economists agree that free trade reduces global poverty. It's hard to find opposing literature.

          [–]weedpot42069 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          [–]sha742 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          Alright, it's not that hard to find opposing literature.

          In a world of stable governments, trade can do wonders. The problem is that impoverished nations are often unstable, so globalization isn't going to be the magic bullet for them.

          Now, how do we create nationwide stability? Frankly, I went into economics so I could avoid the hard questions.

          [–]ghriari 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

          That's still preferable for the workers to not having the opportunity to be here at all. I have a relative who is here on a guest worker visa, and he gets paid less than his citizen coworkers for a job that requires a PhD. But it's still a life that is orders of magnitude better than what he would have in his country of birth, and once he's eligible to become a citizen, he has the potential to make more money. Why should your life be determined in full by the circumstances of your birth?

          The 1990s were the decade of free trade, and the growth experienced by countries around the world shows that opening our economy and immigration up to poorer nations is one of the best ways to bring the global poor out of poverty.

          [–]scarymonsters85 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

          I appreciate that in your family's circumstance it has worked out. Unfortunately, other folks haven't been so successful. Exploitation is still prevalent despite if you're paid more than you would in your home country. These visas are rarely paths toward citizenship, it's indentured servitude and businesses have no issue exploiting this. For the same reason we don't allow a market for organs, we mustn't allow unabated temp work visas without a framework in place to address these inequalities.

          [–]ghriari 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Even the poor in America have it better than the rich in the countries these people are coming from.

          http://b-i.forbesimg.com/timworstall/files/2013/06/inequality.png

          And if you stay in America long enough on a legal visa, a path to citizenship opens up, which also opens up other opportunities with regard to employment.

          [–]scarymonsters85 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

          One last point I forgot to make (I'm sorry for not being as concise as id like to). You mentioned your relative making less than his equally credentialed peers. Open borders and/or no restrictions on work visas will have the effect of bringing down wages for everyone. The end result is having a modern slave economy (workers on visas are less likely to call out problems with supervisors, etc). I can understand how having more stringent qualifications on work visas and immigration may impact impoverished people from other countries those immigrants are not voters and they are ignoring their own structural problems in their home countries. Without a strong safety net to help those soon-to-be low income/poverty stricken folks in America, then this does nothing to solve the problems we face today.

          [–]ghriari 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Poor people in America still have it better than relatively wealthy people in the countries these people are coming from.

          http://b-i.forbesimg.com/timworstall/files/2013/06/inequality.png

          Throughout my life, I've been to countries that are or were much poorer than the United States. Many of the people who live in these countries that are plagued by poor infrastructure and violence would really be able to use the chance to be poor in America as an opportunity. There's a difference between being extremely in debt because of health insurance costs and literally dying of cholera because restaurants aren't boiling the tapwater they use for cooking.

          One thing that really bothers me about arguments about immigration on reddit are when people say that people who live in third world countries should fix the problems in their countries first. In many of these places, people who even try to do this are killed (look at the teaching college students in Mexico, dissidents in Russia, people like Malala Yousafzai in Pakistan). These countries aren't even places where emigrants would qualify for refugee status, but the burden of fixing them cannot be placed on individual citizens the way redditors want it to be. If trying to fix your country's structural problems could get you and your family killed, would you honestly try that over emigrating?

          Another point is that 40% of companies in Silicon Valley are established by immigrants in America on guest worker visas. They are actively creating jobs that would not otherwise exist, and are not taking jobs from equally qualified citizens who had the blind luck to be born in America.

          [–]scarymonsters85 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Furthermore, Clinton's track record on civil rights and race is much further to the right than Sanders'. Sanders has atleast addressed those criticisms and made adjustments to his platform. That free trade is good and caused global prosperity in 90's needs a citation. Many believe that NAFTA has increased global inequality and severely harmed Latin American countries.

          [–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Many might believe that but that doesn't make it true. Free trade is undeniably good, especially for the poor of the weaker country. They are able to get more complex goods that they couldn't produce themselves, while creating simple goods to sell to the rich country. This increases employment and wealth of the poorer country.

          You have to ask yourself, why is it that the far right is against free trade as well? The reason is because it is a populist issue. The slogan of "They took our jobs" is an easy to digest one, and everyone knows somebody who lost a job due to outsourcing. But it is still a false ideology. Because far more people gained jobs due to free trade.

          [–]weedpot42069 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          Free trade is undeniably good

          For whom?

          why is it that the far right is against free trade as well?

          The far right? like libertarians? they love free trade. if you're taking about the more moderate wing of the GOP, like your Rubios and your Romneys, they love free trade.

          [–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          Far right as in Trump and the tea party candidates.

          [–]Sir_Marcus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I don't think Trump is dangerous in the sense that there is any danger of him becoming president. He is all but unelectable. Every liberal in America thinks he's a joke. Moderate conservatives are terrified of him because he represents the influence of hardline ultra-conservatives in their party that has been slowly growing for the past 35 years.

          I think he is dangerous more in the sense that he has given a very loud voice to most bigoted people in this country. He's galvanized the worst elements of society and the effects that might have on American political discourse could be catastrophic.

          [–]barbadosslim -3ポイント-2ポイント  (102子コメント)

          It seems like the difference between him and Clinton is rhetoric.

          [–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 28ポイント29ポイント  (101子コメント)

          Don't be silly.

          I see this kind of thing all the time on Reddit and it is just such a stupid opinion.

          On Social Issues Trump wants to deport all illegal Mexicans and put in place idiotic sanctions on Mexico. Trump has stated that he is pro life and would support anti abortion laws. He wants to get rid of the Common Core and cut education funding significantly. And he considers Climate change a joke. He is also against gun control

          Clinton has stated that she would support a pathway to citizenship for illegals. She is pro choice and would fund Planned Parenthood and punish state anti abortion laws. She has raised education funding and supported Common Core. She also considers Climate change to be a serious issue. She has supported as much Gun control that has a chance of making it through congress.

          On the Economy Trump has said that he wants the corporation tax a 0%. He is anti free trade and wants to impose tarriffs and other protectionist policies. He also focuses on National Debt which is not really an issue but more of a fear tactic.

          Clinton likely will support corporate tax reform to raise the real corporate tax while lowering the stated corporate tax (simplify it and get rid of loopholes). She is very pro free trade, while saying we need to compensate for the loss of jobs.

          [–]Gordyman[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (87子コメント)

          Both Hillary and Trump are elitist, corporate shills. Though they have slight differences in their views, they both support the expansion of the state and capitalism.

          [–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 18ポイント19ポイント  (68子コメント)

          Jesus, when did this thread turn into /r/conspiracy?

          Yes, they are both capitalists, if they weren't then they wouldn't be representing the vast majority of Americans. Trump doesn't actually take much money from corporations and is self funding his campaign.

          I just explained how their views are extremely divergent, at least on almost everything that Americans are divergent about. Just because they don't agree with your extremist views doesn't make them the same. And your views are extremist. We live in a democracy where the majority view will be the one the government takes on. The areas were we debate is where the vast majority do not agree.

          You sound like the people who claim that all the candidates are the same because they don't think 9/11 was an inside job.

          [–]Gordyman[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (66子コメント)

          Yes, they are both capitalists, if they weren't then they wouldn't be representing the vast majority of Americans.

          Capitalism is America's religion so of course a majority of Americans who don't know any better support it.

          Trump doesn't actually take much money from corporations and is self funding his campaign.

          Lol, a billionaire tycoon isn't going to be in cahoots with other billionaire tycoons at all ok lol.

          I just explained how their views are extremely divergent, at least on almost everything that Americans are divergent about. Just because they don't agree with your extremist views doesn't make them the same. And your views are extremist. We live in a democracy where the majority view will be the one the government takes on. The areas were we debate is where the vast majority do not agree. You sound like the people who claim that all the candidates are the same because they don't think 9/11 was an inside job.

          This has to be one of the most liberal posts I've ever read lol.

          [–]r-ill 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

          Capitalism is America's religion so of course a majority of Americans who don't know any better support it.

          That's a pretty elitist thing to say

          [–]mrasarescumbags 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Not really. Decades of propaganda and the most powerful people having a vested interest in capitalism have made it pretty difficult to actually learn about alternatives.

          [–]r-ill 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

          I agree with that to an extent, but the way that the other comment made it sound was that once people begin to "know better" they'll suddenly levitate towards the left. As if every other economic approach is below OP. I don't know how to feel about that lumpen approach as I feel it removes agency from a large portion of people.

          [–]Gordyman[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Sorry to come back to this. There are many alternatives to capitalism, other than feudalism and Marxism, that have been theorized, but never attempted because of the way capitalism has been beat into us from birth. Americans, hell I'll take it even further and say humans, really don't know any better. That's just me being realistic.

          [–]r-ill 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Discussion is always nice especially on this sub!

          I do think that in the United States capitalism is engrained in the culture and it can't really change for a while. Capitalism goes hand in hand with "Americanism" and other economic ideologies are seen as foreign/deviant. However to say that people don't know any better is a huge assumption and pretty problematic. Especially rolling all humans into that since communism/socialism is pretty popular elsewhere. I guess that's just what I take issue with.

          [–]Cipahshipac 1ポイント2ポイント  (60子コメント)

          Capitalism is America's religion so of course a majority of Americans who don't know any better support it.

          And those who have studied economics or studied history.

          You know it being the most powerful force for pulling people out of poverty and providing opportunity. I wonder what the top ten countries to live in practice.

          Lol, a billionaire tycoon isn't going to be in cahoots with other billionaire tycoons at all ok lol.

          At least he's honest about it, he goes on and on about buying congressmen and senators.

          [–]narrenburg 4ポイント5ポイント  (25子コメント)

          And those who have studied economics or studied history.

          You have a lot to read.

          Indeed. A lot.

          most powerful force for pulling people out of poverty and providing opportunity.

          (Post-)Columbian slavery arguably pulled people out of “poverty”. Doesn't justify the exploitation of slavery.

          [–]HelperBot_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Marxist_historians_by_nationality


          HelperBot_™ v1.0 I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 9810

          [–]Cipahshipac 5ポイント6ポイント  (23子コメント)

          Economics courses go over communist ideas. In graduate school you still go over command economy ideas, for example every command economy in the past hundred years has run into the same issues. During a reconstruct or industrialization there areopportunities for extensive economic growth—attainable through a communist regimes' ability to marshall idle resources and labor and to impose a low rate of consumption. This general pattern of initially high growth resulting in a high rate of capital formation is mirrored in most communist styled economies. The problem is as reconstruction or industrialization work is completed and idle capacity begins to diminish, the economy has to shift from the extensive to the intensive stage, where the simple communist discipline of marshaling underutilized resources became less effective. In the new stage, inefficiency arising from emerging bottlenecks leads to diminishing returns. This becomes even worse due to a lack of price signaling and decentralized knowledge which ends up stagnating economic growth.

          If you notice the places with the highest standards of living are capitalist societies, the places with the most upward mobility are capitalist so societies, the places with the best everything are capitalist societies. A communist styled commune csn spring up in a capitalist society, hell we still have them in the United States, but a communist state cannot allow the existence within itself of people who choose to be capitalists.

          [–]12hatch 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

          If you notice the places with the highest standards of living are capitalist societies,

          Which is to say western nations which attained their wealth through brutal colonisation and exploitation of poorer countries, a cycle that continues to this day.

          the places with the most upward mobility are capitalist so societies

          Broadly speaking true, but more capitalist societies such as the US actually have less upward mobility than countries with solid social democratic policies and "reigned in" capitalism.

          the places with the best everything are capitalist societies

          Yes, for some people in those societies, on the back of exploited workers elsewhere in the world.

          This sub really has gone to shit, liberal apologism and US-centrism everywhere. Jesus. Colonialism is really basic stuff. I'm amazed by /u/narrenburg's patience.

          [–]sha742 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

          I'm an economist. I'm not going to argue that capitalism is the best system because there aren't any objective units of measurement.

          Happiness? Sociologists have written extensively that once basic needs are met, money and satisfaction lose correlation. So then do we measure an economy on the basis of being able to provide those basic needs? Obviously communism is the correct answer. If that threatens human autonomy in practice, then classical socialism is correct.

          But they're never going to be implemented. I like reading fiction occasionally but it's silly to write off methods of working through existing structures. Honestly, like any inaction it reeks of privilege and I suppose that's my biggest gripe with the alternative theorists.

          [–]Cipahshipac [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          exploited poorer countries.

          Okay just tell the poor in china that all the foriegn funded factories are going to be shut down and they can return to a pre-agrarian society.

          If we did a head count on people around the world raised out of poverty due to globalization and market policies versus communism i'm going to bet my money on capitalism.

          [–]Engelgrinder 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Capitalism, imperialism and colonialism continue to be openly cheered for on SRS. It's actually very instructive to see so-called "anti-racist" and "anti-sexist" liberals argue against the liberation of third-world women and PoC.

          [–]narrenburg 0ポイント1ポイント  (17子コメント)

          None of this justifies the exploitation characteristic of capitalism.

          [–]Cipahshipac 7ポイント8ポイント  (16子コメント)

          Communism in practice has been for worse at exploiting the working class.

          Compare the life of a heavy industry factory worker 1970's America to that of one in the Soviet Union.

          Also I just showed my academic understanding of communist styled economic platforms, I'm pretty well educated about Marxist philosophical ideas, Maoist, hell even "Juche". They sound pretty but command economies all fail or can't out compete capitalist ones due to a lack of price signals and decentralized knowledge.

          [–]xXxLinkinPark420xXx -5ポイント-4ポイント  (33子コメント)

          And those who have studied economics or studied history.

          Yes, the freer market sure helped America in the not-even-long run!

          You know it being the most powerful force for pulling people out of poverty and providing opportunity.

          I had no idea that China, East Germany, Iran, and the USSR were poverty-stricken.

          I wonder what the top ten countries to live in practice.

          Let's ask the residents of the poorer sections of New York, London, etc. what they think.

          [–]Cipahshipac 6ポイント7ポイント  (9子コメント)

          In America we have the most powerful economy in the world, with the largest firms of every sector, energy, defense, technology, financial services, chemical, space, mineral etcetera. The only comparable firms are European, Japanese, Australian, Canadian, South Korean, IE capitalist countries.

          How about we compare the poor of new York and London to the poor within States that practiced communism? I'm taking a guess that the former have better standards of living.

          East Germany 1980 compared to Western Germany 1980, China pre trade relations to the west and economic liberalization to now?

          [–]zumgoldenenSchwarm 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

          How about we compare the poor of new York and London to the poor within States that practiced communism? I'm taking a guess that the former have better standards of living.

          That's a pretty pretty baseless assumption that makes me think you've never experienced extreme urban poverty in the United States. That's not to say that living in Belarus or Romania is clearly better or worse, but the fact that you immediately assume that poverty exists at a higher standard of living in the United States suggests you don't really know what you're talking about.

          [–]Cipahshipac [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

          Just looking at the poor in the united states in the urban sprawl it's obvious their standard of living is superior than those poor in the former soviet bloc.

          [–]Gintoh 2ポイント3ポイント  (17子コメント)

          Howabout you ask the poorest citizens of Sweden weather they'd rather live in the welfare capitalist state they live in or Iran/USSR

          [–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

          Sweden is a capitalist country. A welfare state is not anti capitalism. The market has it's short comings, especially in it's inability to feed the poorest of the poor. You need a government to set up a safety net. If you let the poor starve to death then you are losing an absolutely massive resource and it is obviously inhumane.

          The government is also necessary to educate, regulate pollution, protect and deal with externalities.

          [–]Gintoh 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Yeah that's exactly my point. The other person was saying that the poorest people in a capitalist country would rather in live in a non-capitalist country (using the USSR as an example) and I pointed out that the poor seem (to me at least) to be much better off in a welfare-capitalist country like Sweden.

          [–]Toparov [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

          While Sweden, Norway etc. are certainly not communist or socialist it's pretty laughable to claim them as victories of the capitalist system, Norway retains the highest GDP per person on Earth and the highest quality of life, about half of it's economy is nationalized.

          Calling it capitalist is stupid.

          [–]mrasarescumbags -1ポイント0ポイント  (10子コメント)

          How about you ask the poorest citizens of Latin America, Africa, and Asia if our relatively decent standards of living are worth their suffering and exploitation?

          [–]Gintoh 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

          While the magnitude to which it helps is under debate, the evidence seems to show that globalized capitalism helps the poor, and in fact a majority of the evidence seems to show that it helps them a good deal.

          “To the extent that we find a statistically significant relationship between trade liberalization and poverty reduction, the evidence points to faster poverty reduction in states and regions experiencing greater increases in exposure to trade.” (Clain and Mitra 2007)

          “The principal empirical results that emerge from this exercise indicate that important indicators of economic freedom such as openness to trade ... are robustly associated with poverty reduction.” Quibria et al. 2003

          “…less trade restrictions and larger information flows are robustly associated with lower poverty levels. A likely explanation for the importance of trade restrictions is that these matter for import prices.” Bergh 2014

          “Our empirical investigation of the impact of economic reforms, mainly trade reforms but also industrial delicensing, shows that there is a fair amount of evidence in support of the poverty reducing effects of these reforms.” Trade Liberalization, Labor-Market Institutions, and Poverty Reduction: Evidence from Indian States (Ural and Mitra 2006)

          Review of the evidence: “We briefly review the recent literature on globalization, and present empirical evidence showing that economic globalization has been correlated with higher economic growth and lower poverty rates.” Spier 2010

          “This paper discusses the possible causal relationships and empirical associations between globalization and growth, growth and poverty reduction, and, finally, globalization and poverty reduction. We argue that globalization can contribute much to poverty reduction both directly and by accelerating growth.” Wallack 2004

          Review of the evidence: 1. Poverty reduction is mainly driven by growth in per capita income. 2. Trade openness is an important determinant of economic growth. 3. The economic growth associated with trade liberalization is as pro-poor as economic growth in general (meaning that it isn’t economic growth which simply benefits a privileged few). Berg and Krueger (2003)

          Review of the evidence:“We argue that there is no simple generalizable conclusion about the relationship between trade liberalization and poverty, and the picture is much less negative than is often suggested. In the long run and on average, trade liberalization is likely to be strongly poverty alleviating, and there is no convincing evidence that it will generally increase overall poverty or vulnerability.” (Winters 2004)

          Review of the evidence: “Despite the impossibility to rigorously and unambiguously assert that trade openness is conducive to growth and poverty reduction, the preponderance of evidence supports this conclusion. However, the majority of empirical macro studies also show that the impact of trade on growth and poverty is also generally small and that the causes of indigence are to be found elsewhere. But it is in fact extremely arduous to find evidence that supports the notion that trade protection is good for the poor.” (Li 2012)

          “The evidence from individual cases and cross-country analysis supports the view that globalisation leads to faster growth and poverty reduction in poor countries.” Aart and Kraay 2004

          [–]Firstasatragedy 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

          Central planning has been shown to be less effective than the market.

          [–]Toparov [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          LOL

          Most of the world's population would beg to differ.

          [–]Toparov [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          LOL

          Most of the world's population would beg to differ.

          [–]Toparov [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          LOL

          Most of the world's population would beg to differ.

          [–]Toparov [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          LOL

          Most of the world's population would beg to differ.

          [–]sha742 1ポイント2ポイント  (14子コメント)

          Capitalism is such a strange term to hear discussed on the Internet. In a growingly global and decentralizing economy, the academic definition almost fades away entirely.

          Is capitalism a market-based economy with minimal controls and then a socialist economy is market-based but with more controls at the national level?

          The anti-capitalism crowd seems to have the same validity but even less voice than the anti-gmo and anti-vaxxers, so I'm always curious what the independent opinion is.

          [–]Engelgrinder 0ポイント1ポイント  (13子コメント)

          Is capitalism a market-based economy with minimal controls and then a socialist economy is market-based but with more controls at the national level?

          Hahaha, what in the world are they teaching in schools these days?

          If you're serious start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM&index=1&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7

          [–]sha742 3ポイント4ポイント  (12子コメント)

          Nah, you can explain your argument yourself. I believe in you.

          [–]Engelgrinder -2ポイント-1ポイント  (11子コメント)

          This is a complex issue, there's no reason for me to re-write anti-capitalist arguments which have already been stated more eloquently elsewhere. If you're "curious" then you should not be afraid of watching some youtube videos. If you have any questions about the youtube playlist I linked, feel free to ask me.

          [–]sha742 3ポイント4ポイント  (10子コメント)

          I'm curious what the laymen's definition of capitalism and socialism is. That's why I'm asking for your opinion, which doesn't seem to be tainted by academia or critical thought.

          [–]nuclearseraph 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

          The fundamental principles of capitalism and socialism are not about markets or state regulation.

          Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned by the workers or the communities that do the labor.

          It's possible for a capitalist economy to operate within a welfare state that provides safety nets for the working class, or to have subsidies to ensure stability in the production of essential goods and services. On the flip side, it's possible for a socialist economy to have markets or decentralized planning. The foundations of these systems are primarily about the relations of production, not the allocation of resources.

          If you asked laypeople to define capitalism and socialism you probably wouldn't find much of a consensus at all because both terms have been greatly distorted for ideologically motivated political gains.

          [–]sha742 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          The question I always seem to have is how can we define any country as 'socialist' in a global economy? Offering the means of production to the worker is perhaps 'more fair' but not globally competitive.

          Does a socialist state ban imports? Is it doomed to a hybrid fate where only the service-side is socialistic?

          [–]Engelgrinder -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

          It's roughly the same as is expressed in that video - which is why I'm asking that you watch it.

          which doesn't seem to be tainted by academia or critical thought.

          Are you implying that Marxism, and anti-capitalism more broadly, are not critical? That these strains of theory are not at all represented in academia?

          [–][削除されました]  (5子コメント)

          [deleted]

            [–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

            [deleted]

              [–]mrasarescumbags 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

              in the developed world

              Hmmm...

              [–]Gordyman[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              This is getting off topic, so I leave you with the last word. Sorry I even made that statement.

              [–]mrtacoswildride 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

              From an economic perspective, 0% corporate tax or income tax (or even both) are a good idea, but should be paired with high sales and property taxes. Encourages earning and investment, discourages consumption. A wealth tax and inheritance tax would also figure in.

              Of course all of that is politically impossible.

              [–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

              I wouldn't do 0% corporate tax, but 25% and get rid of all the subsidies and loopholes.

              And I don't think it would be impossible with a democratic president that pushes for it, because republicans probably would accept it and enough dems will follow their president.

              [–]barbadosslim -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

              I don't understand your free trade point, but in any case all of those issues take a back seat to our killing of people abroad. Clinton has supported killing hundreds of thousands of people in the past, and I don't believe she has changed.

              [–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

              So you don't agree with them on that singular point. That still doesn't make them the same. If that is all you care about than vote for Rand Paul. Sander's has been hawkish as well.

              What you have to understand is that most Americans are hawkish in their views. So most of the candidates will be as well.

              Most candidates are also against communism in the US, that doesn't make them the same.

              And my point on free trade is that they are very different. Trump is very anti Free Trade while Hillary is very pro free trade. You said they were the same and I was demonstrating they are not.

              [–]barbadosslim -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

              It can make them the same, if an issue outweighs all others.

              [–]CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

              No. That is stupid. Just because something matters the most to you doesn't mean they are the same.

              [–]SisterRayVU -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

              They're both pretty scummy capitalists, dude.