The Political Correlation Between the US and UK...

[Ancient Citizen]

True, but the tagline of the original video is that "Dems turning to socialism." So what we've established is that Dems are turning to......the Democratic party. Who would've thunk it?

Yes, so it's basically a kick back at the Trump administration, with the hope that the democrats turn further left, and in the hope that
will somehow gain traction. Something that, IMO, would result in another defeat.

 

[aguero93:20]

Yes, so it's basically a kick back at the Trump administration, with the hope that the democrats turn further left, and in the hope that
will somehow gain traction. Something that, IMO, would result in another defeat.

Normally I'd agree, but it's not just a case of chucking a candidate like Sanders into a presidential election this time (and having the corporate side of the party vote against him), they're running some really good grassroots, crowd funded campaigns with the potential to take the small federal state, local government base away from the GOP at the same time, both in Republican seats and against establishment Democrats. It'll give them a far better base to work from than a top down approach.

 

[Bigga]

Yes, so it's basically a kick back at the Trump administration, with the hope that the democrats turn further left, and in the hope that
will somehow gain traction. Something that, IMO, would result in another defeat.

"Somehow gain traction"??

What did the midterm elections tell you??

Normally I'd agree, but it's not just a case of chucking a candidate like Sanders into a presidential election this time (and having the corporate side of the party vote against him), they're running some really good grassroots, crowd funded campaigns with the potential to take the small federal state, local government base away from the GOP at the same time, both in Republican seats and against establishment Democrats. It'll give them a far better base to work from than a top down approach.

This is the '2 masters' I referred to earlier.

Candidates that severed ties with big corporations made amazing gains and actual wins in the midterms. They got the people who wanted to be represented to donate small dollar contributions. They had a social media and door-to-door impact that big donors couldn't compete with (or surpass). It levelled the playing field which is why the Dems(ironically) ended up with 40 seats in the House.

If America got its act together, there'd be a 3rd party in which the Progressive of politics would take over.

That is, unless the Progressive wing filters enough through the current Dem party as to not need a 3 party movement(Corbyn correlation).

The current Dem correlation here being the Dems are 'New Labour', still.

They are incrementally different from the GOP, but not enough to make a difference to voters that want REAL change i.e., moving with modern thinking for the next generation.

The Dems, at this time in the US are reactive, not active. They look like they're with the people, at the moment because of the Progressive charge in political ideas.

Established Dems are afraid to go too far cos they're so deeply entrenched with big corporation ideology.

People power or Big Donor power?

The Democrats have to choose a master.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

What did the midterm elections tell you??

More or less what they do over here, whenever local elections and polls occur midterm during the governments
tenure, a usual surge against the incumbents. I don't believe that what you desire will come to fruition, but
fair play for the efforts.

 

[Bigga]

More or less what they do over here, whenever local elections and polls occur midterm during the governments
tenure, a usual surge against the incumbents. I don't believe that what you desire will come to fruition, but
fair play for the efforts.

I believe people thought the very same thing about VAR...

 

[Alex - City Matters]

Anthopologist amd archeologist have concluded that the human race began as pure socialist (egalitarian) groups that only changed awhen agricultural advancement meant larger communities, which has long been recognised that when a population grows in a group to a larger size will become.less social and more hierarchy/class based.
Once land ownership and division from a shared labour and co-operative groups to an owner/worker worker relationship happened societies changed.
Also sparta did ok and that is considered to have been a society that used an early form of socialism and egalitarianism.

A socialist state hasn't really ever existed no matter what a government calls itself, socialist communities however do exist and have thrived.

Until the human race learns to not obsess about possesing things, and having ownership over land and resources and learns to share the earth equally with itself, for the bettterment of the planet and it's inhabitants socialism won't happen,

Have you read Sapiens (I forget who the author is), but it's really good for the first half of your post.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Yes, I would agree with this, Americans are notoriously insular when anything like this is discussed.
However, socialism is what it is, a nice idea but totally unworkable, if some Americans want their problems solving,
turning to this philosophy won't solve them.

As with Cpaitalism, Socialism comes in all flavors, from sweet to sour, salty to tart. There is room for many ingredients in the manner in which one organizes and runs a country for the benefit of its citizens. So far, the capitalism experiment is working OK for many people. Others, not so much.

 

[Bigga]

Quote for the time:

"In my opinion, the young generation of White, Black, Brown, whatever race there is,
You're living at a time of extremism, a time of revolution
A time where there's got to be a change. People in power have misused it
And now there has to be a change and a better world has to be built
And the only way is going to be built is with extreme methods
And I for one will join with anyone, don't care what colour you are
As long as you want change this miserable condition that exists on this earth"

Taken from X's 1964 Oxford Union Debate and extrapolated for the discourse on today's society.

 

[malg]

Fuck me, has the 6th form Debating Society knocked off for Christmas?

 

[FlemishDuck]

I think i agree with some of Bigga's sentiments about the 2 party system in the USA, i think it's rather bad for democracy in the long run and it also narrows the political choice. Especially issue's like the level of gerrymandering and the fading boundaries between institutions like senate and Supreme court for what regards the devission of powers.

Personally i think that "Left" and "right" for a large part should unite against the growing power of the wealthy elite. In truth many of the poor people that vote for Trump for economic gain will likely prove misguided, but thats the poor on the right whereas among the left you won't find much issue with tackling the power of the wealthy elite.

Fact imho is we should all be earning much more for less hours worked simply because of the growing levels of automation within our economic system, as automation has that potential to give you more output for less manual labour. But at this moment the capitalist get all the benifits of automatisation trough holding the means of production and the impotence of states in the face of globalisatin, whereas it's still the product of society as a whole that we can have this level automation.

Our leaders are always on the lookout for scapegoats so to drive away the attention from the method in which they are constantly increasing their wealth and consequent power.

This really should be the graph that defines politics in our time. This is a trend that has continued for decades now already. It doesn't help that country's like the USA are getting more lax on campaign funding laws while taxes are continuisly lowered for them too.
Much of modern politics is a tapestry of clever semantics designed to drive attention away from this, because there is simply no good or nessecary reason for the wealth gap to be increasing like that. And let me add that this isn't a socialist position per se, one can perfectly be right wing and pro capitalism and still speak against this growing wealth devide for the same reasons.