Quote:
Originally Posted by stepover
Please begin by proving what I said was wrong.
|
What you wrote isn't necesarily factually incorrect as much as hyperbolic in its assumptions and conclusions. Here's the text of your initial post to me:
"Yeah, you're right, no effort to push socialism/communism in the country at all! Except, DSA's growing power in elections with over over 200 elected to offices across the country, including straight-up socialist Zohran Mamdani as NYC mayor and Katie Wilson in Seattle. These wins are helping push more socialist candidates in 2026 races and steering policy toward bigger government control. (multi-millionaire) Bernie Sanders keeps pushing a 5% annual federal wealth tax on billionaires, plus he's backed California's 2026 ballot push for a 5% tax on billionaire assets to redistribute the money. That's confiscation of property. Mamdani and DSA are normalizing these wealth seizure ideas through elected power, turning "tax the rich" into government taking private assets for their programs. Marxist billionaire Neville Singham funds Code Pink and other radical left groups, pumping cash into activism that helps elect these socialists and chips away at basic property rights. Elected socialists are actually winning offices, ramming through redistribution policies, and building real momentum for communist style economic controls. It's not some imaginary threat."
These are the reasons I find such a post hyperbolic...
First, my response claimed there is no national organized movement that is foisting communism upon us. You responded to this claim by criticizing democratic socialism and then quickly equating it with communism. They're different. To varying degrees, European nations have robust political and social movements in support of socialist policies and programs akin to those espoused by the Democratic Socialist Party here in the US, but communism is not a powerful political or economic force in those countries. Socialism isn't nearly as strong here in the US-- we've championed free-market competition and limited governmental oversight (a position you seem to support) as an alternative ever since the 1930s. By conflating sociaism and communism and then by launching broadside critiques of socialism, you failed to actually address my first point.
Second, those broadside critiques of an ascendant socialism running amok were challenged by tdawg when they offered specific examples of government investment by the current administration in private tech companies. Rather than pointing out the fallacy of tdawg's assumptions underlying such examples, you simply asked them to "prove you wrong." I'll let tdawg decide if they want to do that. For my part, I concur with them that such actions are unprecedented and dangerous. You obviously have every right to disagree; simply ignoring specific and concrete examples isn't a very effective way to convince others, however.
Third, while you ignored my original claim that communism was a small, poorly-organized, and ineffectie movement by immediately shifting to socialism, you did note that the citizens of NYC and Seattle have elected Democratic Socialists as mayor. You seem to assume, however, that such elections marks the demise (or at least is an existential threat) to global capitalism. If that is your assumption, I find it quite odd. NYC is a global anchor for essential institutions that power capitalist systems. Mamdani's election has not dismantled those institutions and he has not claimed any effort to try to dismantle them. You also invoke Bernie Sanders, though you seem to undercut your own argument by labeling him as both a danger and a hypocrite by defining him as a multi-millionaire. Your evidence of his danger is his advocacy of a 5% wealth tax on billionaires. I, for one, thinks that's a perfectly fine idea since the average tax rates on employment income for highest earners in the
US is lower than that of the UK or the average across the EU nations. To my mind, Bernie Sanders doesn't have to exhaust his own wealth to advocate for such a policy. Your other example was Neville Singham, someone I had to Google to know anything about. He certainly seems to court controversy and has plenty of ideological critics and colleagues. Naming him as an example of the danger facing us in this moment doesn't sway my own position.
To summarize an overly-long post, I found your initial response unpersuasive because: 1) you ignored my initial claim regarding communism and offered general criticisms of socialism, 2) you made assumptive leaps between the reality that Democratic Socialists do indeed exist and your effort to paint them as a clear and present danger without offering persuasive examples, and 3) you failed to engage the substance of tdawg's reply but simply offered a "prove me wrong" response. Your response is not false but it fails to persuade me. Like tdawg, I find the far greater danger facing our country in 2026 comes from unchecked over-reaches by the current administration and longer-term policies that are exacerbating deeply-entrenched economic disparities that are creating stressors in the daily lives of many Americans in the short team and leading to longer-term, systemic problems that I fear our already tattered social fabric may be unable to bear. I would prefer some checks on global capitalism in 2026 (even ones that come from Social Democrats) instead of revolution in 2036. In fact, I believe such checks are sorely needed. I imagine that nothing I've written here is in any way convincing to you. I would suggest we let this site return to discussion on real-estate development in metro Atlanta.
Prev
Linear Mode
