#41
Post rating: ~

TG posted:

but how many of those people in prison received prison sentences because they had a criminal history filled with drug possession charges? a sentence is not based solely on the charge in question, judges/prosecutors take all sorts of things into consideration when they come up with them

also, probation/parole violations

#42
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: +

Themselves posted:

i mean is it really time to look back and make a retrospective on what Obamacare has done to revolutionary/reformist aims

it could easily be argued its reformist, but even on just a discourse level, talking about healthcare as a right seems to undermine structural language barriers towards new policy aims



spending years endlessly debating whether the far-right corporate handout healthcare alternative think tanked up by the Heritage Foundation almost two decades ago is Full Communism or just Full Socialism is clearly a step in the right direction. chalk up another win for The Good Guys

#43
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: +
The Democratic Party
"Hey, at least we're talkin'!"
#44
Post rating: ~

Superabound posted:

Themselves posted:

i mean is it really time to look back and make a retrospective on what Obamacare has done to revolutionary/reformist aims

it could easily be argued its reformist, but even on just a discourse level, talking about healthcare as a right seems to undermine structural language barriers towards new policy aims

spending years endlessly debating whether the far-right corporate handout healthcare alternative think tanked up by the Heritage Foundation almost two decades ago is Full Communism or just Full Socialism is clearly a step in the right direction. chalk up another win for The Good Guys



I don't think you really read the Zizek passage did you?

you wouldn't make such a boring argument if you did

#45
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: +
if i read a Zizek passage my argument would have been at least twice as boring, i promise you
#46
Post rating: +++++
Haha yeaaa lets see this is year 2009 so im reading a shitload of zizek and thnk hes smart and not yakov smirnov with worse english haha
#47
political car tune
Post rating: ~

Keven posted:

Haha yeaaa lets see this is year 2009 so im reading a shitload of zizek and thnk hes smart and not yakov smirnov with worse english haha

first lf gets burned by bro_aziz pantsgate and now this?!

#48
Post rating: ~

spending years endlessly debating whether the far-right corporate handout healthcare alternative think tanked up by the Heritage Foundation almost two decades ago is Full Communism or just Full Socialism is clearly a step in the right direction. chalk up another win for The Good Guys


these kind of childish responses should have to be defended, sorry - you're not coming across as well read, intelligent, or sincere with your writings

it does come across as reductionist and almost like a certain kind of accelerationism


#49
Post rating: ~
Obamacare is neofeudalism and i don't see how anyone can think it's a step towards universal healthcare.
#50
Post rating: +
Weed should be nationalized and given to recovering drug addicts and alcoholics for free.
#51
Post rating: ~

NoFreeWill posted:

Obamacare is neofeudalism and i don't see how anyone can think it's a step towards universal healthcare.


capitalism is neofeudalism and obamacare might not be a policy step towards it, but where does Lakoff and the politics of discourse just get wiped away?

We are talking about the nature of the state as inherently nurturing with Obamacare, something you normally have the opposite.

As leftists, we are quick to moralize, but why do we just wipe away the power of discourse when its possible that this may be the ONLY avenue of power we can access right now?

Its easy to say that Occupy was a *bad thing* because of X or Y or the message was "incorporated into the superstructure", but on a very basic level, was talking about the simple picture of 99% to 1% helpful? On this, I think we know the answer isn't clear-cut.

Why would it be with Obamacare? Its just more policy, and more discourse. I'm no discourse theorist, but why do we just forget that it exists? Or do we just presume that we lose the discourse battle from the start because of hegemonic power relations etc?

This is where I think the real dynamics lie - and we all do ourselves a disservice with this easy moralizing.

The issues really are more problematic than just a simple solution - they way in which we understand the problem is potentially the biggest hazard.

#52
Post rating: ~
.

Edited by wasted ()

#53
hi
Post rating: ~

Superabound posted:

spending years endlessly debating whether the far-right corporate handout healthcare alternative think tanked up by the Heritage Foundation almost two decades ago is Full Communism or just Full Socialism is clearly a step in the right direction. chalk up another win for The Good Guys



http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-affordable-care-act-is-not-remotely-similar-to-the-heritage-plan
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-aca-v-the-heritage-plan-a-comparison-in-chart-form


plus there's the whole medicaid expansion thing.

#54
Post rating: ~
lawyersgunsmoneyblog
#55
Post rating: ~
i know youre henrykrinkle but even you must've been self-conscious pasting those links
#56
hi
Post rating: ~
Obamacare is obviously incredibly flawed but it's rather different from what the Heritage Foundation originally proposed and it has some genuinely good parts like the Medicaid expansion.

i know it sucks that private insurance companies will make a lot of money (as they have before anyways) but i don't understand how one can just dismiss any possible benefits it may have.
#57
Kurdt
Post rating: +
the politics of discourse lmbo
#58
hi
Post rating: +++++
#59
Post rating: ~
actually Occupy was a good thing even if it didn't do much, whereas Obamacare is entrenching the existence of the insurance companies and making it harder to move towards single-payer, even if it did expand medicaid.
#60
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
2003
#61
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~

NoFreeWill posted:

Obamacare is neofeudalism



how

#62
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: +

Themselves posted:

capitalism is neofeudalism



how

#63
Post rating: -

NoFreeWill posted:

entrenching the existence of the insurance companies

Is there really some kind of chance that the insurance companies dissolve in the status quo? How does the status quo outweigh more people getting insurance, even if it is through the shitty market?

and making it harder to move towards single-payer

How? (You're blindly asserting this) You're still unresponsive to the left's own argument's about frame-setting.


daddyholes posted:

How? (is capitalism neo feudalism)



The widening of the wealth gap, as poor and marginalized people are excluded from the state's provision of security, can result in neofeudalism, argues Marina Caparini, who says this has already happened in South Africa.

Neofeudalism is made possible by the commodification of policing, and signifies the end of shared citizenship, says Ian Loader.

A primary characteristic of neofeudalism is that individuals' public lives are increasingly governed by business corporations, as Martha K. Huggins finds.

Just some liberal's perspective on it, but if you really are curious, you might read this guy called "Marks"


"They mask their lack of ideas with easy moralism" - Papa Z

Edited by Themselves ()

#64
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~

HenryKrinkle posted:

plus there's the whole medicaid expansion thing.



i live in mississippi, so please put a trigger warning on that

#65
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: +

Themselves posted:

daddyholes posted:

How? (is capitalism neo feudalism)



The widening of the wealth gap, as poor and marginalized people are excluded from the state's provision of security, can result in neofeudalism,



oh like for example, the ACA allowing the Republican governors of impoverished red states to simply reject federal funds for the Medicaid expansion, denying health care to millions of poor people, keeping the poorest most exploited and significantly black red state populations sick and desperate, while giving the more well-off blue state populations a hand and a leg up, further entrenching and expanding not only the current geographic wealth gaps, but allowing both the GOP and DNC to throw red meat to their bases, further entrenching and expanding our cultural polarization and their own geographic political hegemonies?

A primary characteristic of neofeudalism is that individuals' public lives are increasingly governed by business corporations, as Martha K. Huggins finds.



#66
Post rating: -

oh like for example, the ACA allowing the Republican governors of impoverished red states to simply reject federal funds for the Medicaid expansion, denying health care to millions of poor people, keeping the poorest most exploited and significantly black red state populations sick and desperate, while giving the more well-off blue state populations a hand and a leg up, further entrenching and expanding not only the current geographic wealth gaps, but allowing both the GOP and DNC to throw red meat to their bases, further entrenching and expanding our cultural polarization and their own geographic political hegemonies?



You're trying to articulate an idea related to discourse which is your politics argument (right wingers red meat), but its so tied up in your conflating the policy and the Lakoff stuff with the superstructure it exists inside; I don't think you've really weighed the positives and negatives of the discourse impacts.

More easy moralizing it seems, unfortunately.

#67
Post rating: ~

daddyholes posted:

.custom205293{}NoFreeWill posted:Obamacare is neofeudalism

how


the whole forcing people to buy a thing thing, despite being a ridiculous right wing talking point, is neofeudalism at its finest. the market capture of thousands of people by the government is pretty cool.

also Themselves it sounds like your a liberal and should join the liberals crew. the status quo lmao

#68
Post rating: ~
who honestly gives a fuck about discourse or whatever bullshit theory is concerned with it? or thinks we have things like a public or communities or whatever in this gay and age.

if only we can nudge the overton window to the left by completely capitulating !!! in the future surely we will succeed because discourse
#69
Post rating: ~
I'm torn between wanting revolution and knowing that when somebody comes up and says "heres a policy that improves stuff but might not do enough" that we sound pretty lame as radicals trying to parse why we need to suffer more in order to have progress or whatever.

I'm just warning the dangers of that accelerationist logic, the "objective history" that outweighs the proletariat now.

I'm as radical as they come, but isn't the answer to do both? Not just simply reject? Do the action, and also radicalize? The real problem is explaining why even participating is worse than any possible positive impacts of a policy, given that the policy is good.

Take universal healthcare as such - it is still a valid Marxian claim (in my understanding) to say that such a thing is just capitalism with a human face and only prolonging the Bad System. Why do we shit our pants when there's a market mechanism? Are we all market abolitionists now? I am, but not all leftists are.

#70
Post rating: -

NoFreeWill posted:

who honestly gives a fuck about discourse or whatever bullshit theory is concerned with it? or thinks we have things like a public or communities or whatever in this gay and age.

if only we can nudge the overton window to the left by completely capitulating !!! in the future surely we will succeed because discourse



I mean its pretty offensive that you are supposedly positioning yourself as intelligent but doing such a disservice to the idea you're arguing against (straw personing) that it reflects really badly on your argumentation/research/work ethic.

#71
Post rating: +
this is boring

can we have a weed thread
#72
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: +

Themselves posted:

You're trying to articulate an idea related to discourse which is your politics argument (right wingers red meat), but its so tied up in your conflating the policy and the Lakoff stuff with the superstructure it exists inside; I don't think you've really weighed the positives and negatives of the discourse impacts.

More easy moralizing it seems, unfortunately.



hrm. indubitably

#73
Post rating: ~
what thread should i post in on drugs that isn't this entire forum
#74
Post rating: ~

Edited by wasted ()

#75
Post rating: +

Themselves posted:

I'm as radical as they come

#76
[account deactivated]
#77
Post rating: +
apparently the weed haze cleared and we found ourselves in the Daily Kos comments section
#78
Post rating: +
im real close to running out of weed for the first time in like years, really dont feel good about that. if i have to face xmas without weed i will probably drink myself to death with peppermint schnapps
#79
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +

Themselves posted:

I'm torn between wanting revolution and knowing that when somebody comes up and says "heres a policy that improves stuff but might not do enough" that we sound pretty lame as radicals trying to parse why we need to suffer more in order to have progress or whatever.

I'm just warning the dangers of that accelerationist logic, the "objective history" that outweighs the proletariat now.

I'm as radical as they come, but isn't the answer to do both? Not just simply reject? Do the action, and also radicalize? The real problem is explaining why even participating is worse than any possible positive impacts of a policy, given that the policy is good.

Take universal healthcare as such - it is still a valid Marxian claim (in my understanding) to say that such a thing is just capitalism with a human face and only prolonging the Bad System. Why do we shit our pants when there's a market mechanism? Are we all market abolitionists now? I am, but not all leftists are.

#80
political car tune
Post rating: ~

tsinava posted:

Weed should be nationalized and given to recovering drug addicts and alcoholics for free.