AOC: Capitalism is not a redeemable system for us (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

Ohhhhhh...I get it. 

Jeepers. Sorry, GM. I'm so used to abbreviating your name that I missed the joke. 

 

[rockaction]

It still is a radical view of America, especially since most of America's first settlers were religious socialists rather than slaveholding capitalists. The capitalism came after the colonies and their formative years and establishment, really. Each colony was radically different, and had its own religious and economic makeup. For example, Georgia was an experiment from England to remove minor transgressors from debtor prison to establish a new socialist utopia in the New World. 

 

[The Big Donkey]

don't agree with her capitalism take, but i do agree with her on the congress members trading individual stocks.   granted,  I don't know what the pre-approval process on trades is in congress.  

 

[djmich]

We both agree that our country was taken from others.  Instead of just saying "that's the way the world works" maybe try and consider the point of view of others?  

Is that asking too much?  

They’re dead, along with all the “others” that have been screwed over time, their pov is buried with them.  This includes the others before them, who they screwed over too.

We both agree that our country was largely enhanced by slavery.

This is interesting framing.

I understand your angle but is our country better than it would have been without slavery?  No civil war?  Not sure how you can demonstrate that…

 

[BladeRunner]

Agreed, but then you need to understand that black people, native Americans, Mexicans who had land stolen from them, Asians who were sold into slavery here to build railroads, etc etc etc etc are sort of forced to see it the same way you do and I think that's pretty awful.  

We both agree that our country was taken from others and largely enhanced by slavery. Instead of just saying "that's the way the world works" maybe try and consider the point of view of others?  

Is that asking too much?  

Well, if you're going to go that road then you need to understand that those Mexicans, Native Americans and black people that you talk of that had land stolen from them? They stole it from somebody else and also enslaved people themselves.  So let's not pretend they weren't any better than anybody else in the history of humankind.

Where do we stop? How far back do we have to go?

 

[ekbeats]

Fun Fact:

General Malaise does not represent the left in this forum or anywhere else.

Ok.  But GM has accumulated enough good will to know that he is the acceptor of positive  of name.

 

[The General]

don't agree with her capitalism take, but i do agree with her on the congress members trading individual stocks.   granted,  I don't know what the pre-approval process on trades is in congress.  

I believe they are just required to announce trades through some forms. If they don’t do this there are some mild penalties and of course public backlash.

I can see both sides of this issue. Making all their trades public and filed day of with real penalties if they don’t do so could be effective. Some sort of blind trust also seems like a good idea but also not perfect. 

 

[rockaction]

So to me, capitalism at its core, what we're talking about when we talk about that is the absolute pursuit of profit at all human, environmental, and social cost. That is what we're really discussing

That's pretty radical, that statement. And certainly arguable. The pursuit of profit at all human cost. The pursuit of profit at all environmental cost. The pursuit of profit at all social cost. 

I don't know that a system has ever functioned in the way she describes when it comes to capitalism. Prices and wages are too reliable an indicator of a product's or labor's worthiness to ever be able to trammel all human, environmental, and social cost. If we think of each purchase as a vote, and people see human costs or social costs that are too great, they will stop purchasing items that destroy life and the environment, because eventually they will bear the problem of purchasing things at that cost. 

Really, though, instead of the American Democratic left hitching their wagons to things hopefully misquoted, we can accurately portray and write and think about AOC as she is: A radical who is ensconced by region in a radical area of the USA, which is even radical for the Western world. 

 

[sho nuff]

Right?

How about we stop trying to redefine what somebody said and just take them at their actual, you know, words that came directly out of their mouth?

Ok…lets start with the full quote juxt posted where she gave a full answer.

 

[djmich]

a radical who is ensconced by region in a radical area of the USA, which is even radical for the Western world. 

Seems like a lot of words when could have just said she’s bat#### crazy

 

[Nugget]

Seems like a lot of words when could have just said she’s bat#### crazy

Do you really think she is bat #### crazy?

 

[Nugget]

That's pretty radical, that statement. And certainly arguable. The pursuit of profit at all human cost. The pursuit of profit at all environmental cost. The pursuit of profit at all social cost. 

I don't know that a system has ever functioned in the way she describes when it comes to capitalism. Prices and wages are too reliable an indicator of a product's or labor's worthiness to ever be able to trammel all human, environmental, and social cost. If we think of each purchase as a vote, and people see human costs or social costs that are too great, they will stop purchasing items that destroy life and the environment, because eventually they will bear the problem of purchasing things at that cost. 

Really, though, instead of the American Democratic left hitching their wagons to things hopefully misquoted, we can accurately portray and write and think about AOC as she is: A radical who is ensconced by region in a radical area of the USA, which is even radical for the Western world. 

I have trouble with the bolded.  I don't think people see the human or social costs.  People will buy blood diamonds, ivory, Nike shoes, and advertise in China.   As long as they don't have to think about, I think they will bear about anything.  If we have to wait until things get really bad, there will be a lot of bloodshed.  

 

[djmich]

Do you really think she is bat #### crazy?

Like certifiable?  Nah.  Imo she, like many of her kin let their emotions overwhelm their thinking when examining what has proven to work best, for the most people.

 

[djmich]

I have trouble with the bolded.  I don't think people see the human or social costs.  People will buy blood diamonds, ivory, Nike shoes, and advertise in China.   As long as they don't have to think about, I think they will bear about anything.  If we have to wait until things get really bad, there will be a lot of bloodshed.  

I personally would agree that humans in aggregate cannot be trusted, just too many bad apples.  But that’s why we have laws and regulations.

Have we confirmed socialists don’t like ivory?

 

[rockaction]

Ok…lets start with the full quote juxt posted where she gave a full answer.

We just did. I just quoted it and commented on it. 

She doesn't get to redefine what the terms are or what they mean, by the way, which she is indeed doing in that quote. 

The energy spent defending an avowed socialist is something I will never grasp. You never see guys on the right defend MTG or her ilk. Why not admit Tlaib, AOC, and Omar are bat#### crazy? Why parse and play word games with it. 

Your party almost had a socialist running for President as the main party nominee -- twice! -- and should be trying like all heck to disavow these people instead of parsing words. 

 

[rockaction]

Have we confirmed socialists don’t like ivory?

Or Nike shoes. 

 

[djmich]

We just did. I just quoted it and commented on it. 

She doesn't get to redefine what the terms are or what they mean, by the way, which she is indeed doing in that quote. 

The energy spent defending an avowed socialist is something I will never grasp. You never see guys on the right defend MTG or her ilk. Why not admit Tlaib, AOC, and Omar are bat#### crazy? Why parse and play word games with it. 

Your party almost had a socialist running for President as the main party nominee -- twice! -- and should be trying like all heck to disavow these people instead of parsing words. 

You know most of the folks defending AOC would be conservatives if it wasn’t for Trump right?  

 

[rockaction]

there will be a lot of bloodshed

Seems like every time one intervenes in the marketplace like AOC advocates, there is a lot of bloodshed. Name a socialist country that really stayed above board and where there wasn't any bloodshed but productivity as far as the eye could see. If anything, socialism and communism have been darn near hotbeds of bloodshed in the twentieth century. 

 

[rockaction]

You know most of the folks defending AOC would be conservatives if it wasn’t for Trump right?  

I've been told this. Yet these same people insist there is no such thing as a Gary Johnson voter. 

 

[Shula-holic]

I've been told this. Yet these same people insist there is no such thing as a Gary Johnson voter. 

I was told I never voted for him.  I was convinced earlier that I indeed had done so.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

That's not what she said or meant at all. She literally said capitalism is not redeemable.  Stop making excuses for her.

This is the future of your party. This contingent grows in size every election on your side.  There are plenty of us that have been beating this drum for years now, and yet you guys keep propping it up and pooh-poohing it and continue to make excuses for it like you're doing it now.   Attempting to change what she actually meant somehow make it more palatable and innocuous.

Between the growing problem in your party with the more far-left extremist growing in size and the social justice Warrior movement as the new religion, I think you're in for a rude awakening.

I agree that the Dems have a big problem with the far left wing of the party.  That wing wants complete and total decision rights, and they are willing to cancel anyone who stands in the way of their agenda.

The problem with that?  90%+ of America doesn’t share their views.  So it’s a recipe for losing every major national election going forward.

My sincere hope is that a) the Dems become more centrist and ignore AOC, b) the Repub’s move on from Trump.  Both would make me super happy.   Time will tell.  I’m not optimistic.

 

[The General]

I also think what she's saying is that our capitalism in practice is irredeemable. But she is a democratic socialist, which means she presumably agrees that all forms of capitalism are unethical and unjust. It's not too large a leap to extrapolate that from her. 

A bit more from AOC on what she is defining as capitalism: AOC and Spicey exchange

 

[ekbeats]

General Mao please. 

Disappointed that you don’t want to defend your beliefs.  Wtf?

 

[rockaction]

A bit more from AOC on what she is defining as capitalism: AOC and Spicey exchange

See, I'm not clicking that because she doesn't get to define what systems are or what words mean, really. 

 

[rockaction]

I was told I never voted for him.  I was convinced earlier that I indeed had done so.

So you were the unicorn, huh? Oh wait, I would have, too. (In 2016, I voted for neither candidate. I actually probably would have voted Clinton if I knew then what I knew now, but she carried California by a nutty amount of votes, so I don't feel too bad about it.)

 

[Nugget]

I was told I never voted for him.  I was convinced earlier that I indeed had done so.

I voted for him in 2012 and 2016. 

 

[ekbeats]

Some of it was built on slave labor. Some of it was stolen. But some of it was built on free labor, and most of the wealth is the result of the innovations of immigrants. 
This country’s history, including that of capitalism, is neither immoral nor moral. It has elements of both. There is both much great good and great evil in our past; it’s important to acknowledge all of it. 

Bull ####.  Capitalism is the best form of economic governance, bar none.  I will gladly argue this till the day I die.  I’m patiently waiting for GM to opine on this.  He obviously feel differently.  I want to hear why.

 

[TripItUp]

Yet all we here about is socialist Europe complaining that the capitliast US isn't doing enough to help defend Europe from Russia.

Oh, and pretty sure capitalism saved the world from Covid, WW2, North Korea etc. etc. etc.

Or is there some imaginary world where the world doesn't depend on the US/capitalism?

I mean, what the #### are these people smoking?

 

[timschochet]

Bull ####.  Capitalism is the best form of economic governance, bar none.  I will gladly argue this till the day I die.  I’m patiently waiting for GM to opine on this.  He obviously feel differently.  I want to hear why.

I agree that capitalism is the best. Nothing that I wrote about our history contradicts that. 
I should add that pure capitalism is an idea only. We’ve never approached it. Government has always been involved in the marketplace; it’s never been completely free. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Here’s the capitalism thread where we discussed some of its merits and drawbacks.

 

[General Malaise]

Bull ####.  Capitalism is the best form of economic governance, bar none.  I will gladly argue this till the day I die.  I’m patiently waiting for GM to opine on this.  He obviously feel differently.  I want to hear why.

What I think is what I said from the outset.  Creating a thread or (as the right was so wont to say just a few short years ago) clutching pearls over something an extemist like AOC says is just a collosal waste of everybody's time.  Much like rushing here and being aghast over something MTG or a Bobert says.  It's garbage.  It's Squis territory, rushing in here to post the latest trash puked up by inconsequential politicians.  

Capitalism is fine.  I participate in it every day.  But let's dispense with the belief that it's the greatest system of commerce or that it isn't rooted in at least a little blood.  Think we can all agree to that.  Do I want socialism or a fiefdom tomorrow morning?  No.  But some honesty in recognizing how we got here might be nice.  

Nicer would be ignoring the extremes on both ends of the barbell. Let the lunatics die on the vine. Stop giving them water, oxygen and the attention they so desperately crave.  

And did somebody really just type out that capitalism saved the world from North Korea or did I make that up in a fever dream 2 hours ago?  That's like saying The Force saved the Rebels from Greedo.  

 

[FairWarning]

She does bring up some good points about congressional members being invested in Big Pharma.  I’m sure her pockets will be lined from corporations also..

 

[ekbeats]

What I think is what I said from the outset.  Creating a thread or (as the right was so wont to say just a few short years ago) clutching pearls over something an extemist like AOC says is just a collosal waste of everybody's time.  Much like rushing here and being aghast over something MTG or a Bobert says.  It's garbage.  It's Squis territory, rushing in here to post the latest trash puked up by inconsequential politicians.  

Capitalism is fine.  I participate in it every day.  But let's dispense with the belief that it's the greatest system of commerce or that it isn't rooted in at least a little blood.  Think we can all agree to that.  Do I want socialism or a fiefdom tomorrow morning?  No.  But some honesty in recognizing how we got here might be nice.  

Nicer would be ignoring the extremes on both ends of the barbell. Let the lunatics die on the vine. Stop giving them water, oxygen and the attention they so desperately crave.  

And did somebody really just type out that capitalism saved the world from North Korea or did I make that up in a fever dream 2 hours ago?  That's like saying The Force saved the Rebels from Greedo.  

You guys love to marginalize AOC but she still has more Twitter followers than anyone else in the Democratic Party.

 

[Sinn Fein]

AOC: "So to me, capitalism at its core, what we're talking about when we talk about that is the absolute pursuit of profit at all human, environmental, and social cost. That is what we're really discussing."

Sorry folks, but she is not wrong.

 

[rockaction]

Sorry folks, but she is not wrong.

Oh, you and her are a million times wrong. 

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Oh, you and her are a million times wrong. 

Can you be more specific?

 

[GoBirds]

Fun Fact:

General Malaise does not represent the left in this forum or anywhere else.

Sure thing, you neither right? 

 

[Sinn Fein]

Oh, you and her are a million times wrong. 

That is probably true.  But not on this.

If we, as a society, are engaged in the absolute pursuit of profit at all human, environmental, and social cost - then we have failed as a society.

I don't think we are there yet - but, if left unchecked, there are many who would prefer to take us in that direction.

 

[Sinn Fein]

You guys love to marginalize AOC but she still has more Twitter followers than anyone else in the Democratic Party.

I missed this - but I suppose it means that Trump has no influence on the GOP, since he has no Twitter followers.

But, on a serious point, AOC and Trump are similar in that they have tapped into the thoughts and feelings of many.  Neither created their followers - they simply adopted their followers needs/wants.  People did not wake up one day and think "I really like what AOC/Trump stand for!"  Those people already held those opinions/positions, and AOC/Trump gave them a voice.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If we, as a society, are engaged in the absolute pursuit of profit at all human, environmental, and social cost - then we have failed as a society.

For example, a social media company might benefit financially from deplatforming somebody with a popular podcast.  But that would be bad for society, and we should push back against that action.

That's what you guys are talking about, right?

 

[Cjw_55106]

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I believe that in a broad sense-- because when we toss out these big words, capitalism, socialism, they get sensationalized. And people translate them into meaning things that perhaps they don't mean. So to me, capitalism at its core, what we're talking about when we talk about that is the absolute pursuit of profit at all human, environmental, and social cost. That is what we're really discussing.

Interesting to put those sentences back to back. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

For example, a social media company might benefit financially from deplatforming somebody with a popular podcast.  But that would be bad for society, and we should push back against that action.

That's what you guys are talking about, right?

Why is deplatforming someone necessarily bad for society? 

Imagine if Hitler had been deplatformed - society would have been better, right?

You can't simply look at an action and say: "this is 100% good or bad". Its a balancing act.  And, I am sure you would agree that a private company enforcing its rules and regulations for the betterment of its users can be good for society.  You don't want governments telling companies what they can, or cannot say - right?

 

[rockaction]

If we, as a society, are engaged in the absolute pursuit of profit at all human, environmental, and social cost - then we have failed as a society.

That's not what she's saying. She's not saying "if." She's saying that, at its core, capitalism is absolute pursuit of profit at all human, environmental, and social cost. It's right in her quote. 

There's really no dancing around the subject. 

She says capitalism is that at its core, leaving the evidence of the twentieth and twenty-first century unaccounted for. 

 

[rockaction]

Developing, democratic and stable countries with reasonable standards of living are almost all capitalist. If we were pursuing the obliteration of everything else at the pursuit of profit, you'd think the past one hundred and twenty years would have told us something, or there would be proof in the pudding that capitalist systems were wretched. Instead, we get mountains of evidence to the contrary. 

One cannot seriously believe what she says without an ideologue's mind in tow, one closed off to all evidence. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why is deplatforming someone necessarily bad for society? 

Imagine if Hitler had been deplatformed - society would have been better, right?

You can't simply look at an action and say: "this is 100% good or bad". Its a balancing act.  And, I am sure you would agree that a private company enforcing its rules and regulations for the betterment of its users can be good for society.  You don't want governments telling companies what they can, or cannot say - right?

Well well well.  Look who's all in favor of capitalism.

 

[Juxtatarot]

That's pretty radical, that statement. And certainly arguable. The pursuit of profit at all human cost. The pursuit of profit at all environmental cost. The pursuit of profit at all social cost. 

I don't know that a system has ever functioned in the way she describes when it comes to capitalism. Prices and wages are too reliable an indicator of a product's or labor's worthiness to ever be able to trammel all human, environmental, and social cost. If we think of each purchase as a vote, and people see human costs or social costs that are too great, they will stop purchasing items that destroy life and the environment, because eventually they will bear the problem of purchasing things at that cost. 

Really, though, instead of the American Democratic left hitching their wagons to things hopefully misquoted, we can accurately portray and write and think about AOC as she is: A radical who is ensconced by region in a radical area of the USA, which is even radical for the Western world. 

She’s defining capitalism’s “core” in a limited way by its worst unchecked tendencies. It’s probably what we should expect her to do considering her politics. She wants to give more power to the people.

I have a question for you. It’s a question that I’m currently thinking through. Is it any worse to only focus on the bad of capitalism than to only focus on the good? 

 

[GoBirds]

Well well well.  Look who's all in favor of capitalism.

Only when it’s convenient to them of course. 

 

[sho nuff]

We just did. I just quoted it and commented on it. 

She doesn't get to redefine what the terms are or what they mean, by the way, which she is indeed doing in that quote. 

The energy spent defending an avowed socialist is something I will never grasp. You never see guys on the right defend MTG or her ilk. Why not admit Tlaib, AOC, and Omar are bat#### crazy? Why parse and play word games with it. 

Your party almost had a socialist running for President as the main party nominee -- twice! -- and should be trying like all heck to disavow these people instead of parsing words. 

Yes...its everyone else parsing words claiming...nope, she just said capitalism is not redeemable...thats all she said.  You may be the first one who actually talked about the full quote.  I had not gotten to that when I posted...but yeah, I disagree with part of your premise on that too.

Come on.  Its not even energy defending her...I don't think she is a great thing for the country at all, probably not a good thing.  Im defending the overall statement from pretty bad mischaracterization from some who didn't get past the title of the thread and just ran with it.  The squad are crazy...Im not defending their overall anything.  But just to claim all she said was capitalism is not redeemable is a disingenuous take.

And no...disavowing Bernie...why, he brings a lot to the table...I may not like all of his ideas, but Id take a bunch more Bernies to the squad types, MTGs, and both of my TN Senators that basically ran on "I will support Trump" and offer very little else.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Well well well.  Look who's all in favor of capitalism.

Sure. But that not what AOC was talking about. I’m sure you took the time to read about it before determining she was wrong. So that makes your argument here, well, a little awkward. 

 

[rockaction]

Is it any worse to only focus on the bad of capitalism than to only focus on the good? 

I started to type an answer, but I'm not totally sure what you mean. 

There are a million different ways to answer this, but I'm not sure what you mean by the "bad of capitalism" vs. the "good" elements of it. I think if you clarified what you meant then we could get into whether I even agreed with your premises, but written as such, I'm genuinely not sure what you mean. 

If you mean that all systems deserve a healthy skepticism, then I'm with you. I think apologists for capitalism bend over backwards to criticize it as a system, more often than not. You rarely hear "greed is good" unless it's a cartoonish Oliver Stone character saying it.