Reformism in the US: Nico's Way

[Fight!]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And how exactly do you shape the policies in the political system of the USA? or is that your plan isn't finished yet?

Simple. Gradual moderate political changes to the left. If you would like me to go into detail, then I can start a thread, but this is quite off topic.

Do so. The American political climate seems like one of the worst for gradual reform in existence. Just look at the uproar over Obama's measly healthcare bill and imagine the resistance to ACTUAL socialist policies.

Reformism has always been a patient catalyst of transformation. But, on the contrary, it is certainly true that reformism will result in needed change. In the above spoiler, I was challenged to provide how I would shape the policies of the US towards the left. It's quite simple.

My first step, and most importantly, would be vast cuts to the military. The US spends 43% of the world's military budget, which is clearly unnecessary, This would free up a good deal of funds, and allow momentum into the following measures.

My second step, would be the nationalization of hospitals. This is not as major as other steps that would incur greater hostility, and with the right speaker showing that many countries have public hospitals, it could be passed with relative ease. This nationalization of hospitals would pry the door open for future nationalization.

The third step would be to increase taxes on the top 1% of Americans. As seen by Bill Gates 600 Billion Dollar Challenge, this would be easier than the other steps, and the time spent concentrating on this bill would allow a cool down for the previous.

The fourth step would be the nationalization of the federal reserve. This could go very smoothly, or not so smoothly, depending on the speaking ability of it's supports. This would be rather enormous, but throw in some quotes from founding fathers, emphasize why having the FEDERAL reserve being PRIVATE is silly. Like the first step, this wouldn't significantly increase the strength of the proletariat, but it is necessary and would provide for momentum to go into further movements.

The fifth step would increase tax rebates for the bottom 80%, with the debt significantly eased by other steps, this wouldn't be much of a strain on the economy, and would in fact increase the circulation of money within the economy.

The sixth step would be to remove the need for business owners to pay for employee healthcare, and instead tack that up on the state. My primary beef with the somewhat recent healthcare bill, employers paying for employee healthcare only hurts small business.

The seventh step would be to lower the cost of tertiary education. May not seem that major, but funding is very difficult to acquire for those without privileged backgrounds.

By this point, I cannot get by with mere conjecture without spending quite a bit of time meditating on the situation, which I will get to sometime in the future. I would need to see the result of the past steps to decide on my next moves. Depending on the degree the steps were utilized, they would likely be strengthened by the eighth step, and following steps would depend considerably on the decision between small business, state owned business, and unionization; a decision that would depend on the state of the nation, and the people's opinion. This would thus result in one of three systems. The first would be Democratic Socialism, the second (Democratic) State Socialism, and the third being Syndacalism.

Anyways, this has been my casual answer to the quotes in the spoiler. I haven't faced this question before, and will likely write some sort of article on it in the following weeks.

[Col. Tartleton]

Communism... Reforms?

I think you mean senseless revolutionary fervor, violence, dictatorships, madness, paranoia, doom and gloom, and toilet paper lines with too many parades and never enough to eat...

But in seriousness I agree with most of that.

[C-Rob]

I absolutely hate this, "have the top 1(well, now it's 20%) pay for everyone else. It sucks. When everyone gives a bit they actually have a stake in how things are run.

got to agree with cheapening education and nationalizing the fed though.

Some of the restrictions and regulations that were lifted in the last 20 years need to be reinstated too in the financial sector.

the military needs to completely restructure. Be able to get feet on the ground to support against civil unrest and natural disasters but the need to be able to at any time blow up several industrial facilities around the world and destroy an entire small country's conventional army in a few days seems like too much. The US needs the international community's support in war and it shouldn't even be able to go it alone even if it wanted to.

Cheapening health care is needed as well.

[hellheaven1987]

Nico is simply making some rants, so don't take it too serious.

[Saturn]

Nico is simply making some rants, so don't take it too serious.

What should we take seriously on TWC?

[Fight!]

I absolutely hate this, "have the top 1(well, now it's 20%) pay for everyone else. It sucks. When everyone gives a bit they actually have a stake in how things are run.

Not everything, taxes would be raised but not in an abrupt significant manner. I am of the opinion that radical change is reckless, and gradual continuous change allows one to feel the waters.

What do you mean by 20%?

Nico is simply making some rants, so don't take it too serious.

Silence Khornate!

What should we take seriously on TWC?

Nothing.

Unless that nothing has a ban hammer

[C-Rob]

Not everything, taxes would be raised but not in an abrupt significant manner. I am of the opinion that radical change is reckless, and gradual continuous change allows one to feel the waters.

What do you mean by 20%?

Oh... well... I gave you more credit than you deserved then. I thought I had read somewhere up there that you are going to increase taxes on the top fifth or something. I don't know where it came from.

It's still wouldn't do anything- maybe send the wealthy out of the country. Tha'ts what I would do. buy my own island so I don't have to pay for hillbilly or broken grandmas.

[Saturn]

Nothing.

Unless that nothing has a ban hammer

The only hammer I fear is Mjöllnir.

[mrtonberry]

Reform and US? Don't kid yourself.

[Denny Crane!]

Ahh Nico how disappointing. You want to increase freedom through the state and nationalisations. It ends badly, we've seen this scenario, and the USA is more liable to corruption and nepotism than any other western nation I can think of (and I tend not to think of Italy as being Western now so much as one giant porn movie that also happens to be a country).

Reformism has always been a patient catalyst of transformation. But, on the contrary, it is certainly true that reformism will result in needed change. In the above spoiler, I was challenged to provide how I would shape the policies of the US towards the left. It's quite simple.

My first step, and most importantly, would be vast cuts to the military. The US spends 43% of the world's military budget, which is clearly unnecessary, This would free up a good deal of funds, and allow momentum into the following measures.

This I fundamentally agree with yet entrenched interests and cold war attitudes won't allow for it. They need at bare minimum a 30% cut over 5 years with a 15-25 year plan to cut it a further 30% the timeline is merely to spread the hurt out in terms of employment and culture shock. This categorically won't ever happen if I know anything about the USA then that is one of the things I think I can be certain of.

My second step, would be the nationalization of hospitals. This is not as major as other steps that would incur greater hostility, and with the right speaker showing that many countries have public hospitals, it could be passed with relative ease. This nationalization of hospitals would pry the door open for future nationalization.

It is an expensive step and they have no money. Obamas plan was something ridiculous like 950bn? They don't have it and any move towards something like a universal healthcare is riddled by corruption, nepotism and special interests.

So you can't fix healthcare adequately until you fix the influences that riddle the broken US system. You need to get money and business out of politics. This too I believe is impossible.

The third step would be to increase taxes on the top 1% of Americans. As seen by Bill Gates 600 Billion Dollar Challenge, this would be easier than the other steps, and the time spent concentrating on this bill would allow a cool down for the previous.

Tax on billionaires don't work, they can avoid them quite easily or offset them. And why would you need to tax them, in fact how are you going to tax them when all of that money is being given away.

Logic Fail on this one I must say.

The fourth step would be the nationalization of the federal reserve. This could go very smoothly, or not so smoothly, depending on the speaking ability of it's supports. This would be rather enormous, but throw in some quotes from founding fathers, emphasize why having the FEDERAL reserve being PRIVATE is silly. Like the first step, this wouldn't significantly increase the strength of the proletariat, but it is necessary and would provide for momentum to go into further movements.

Never going to happen and see two points up, fix the system before you fix anything else. Ron Paul ironically came halfway in demanding that it be audited.

The fifth step would increase tax rebates for the bottom 80%, with the debt significantly eased by other steps, this wouldn't be much of a strain on the economy, and would in fact increase the circulation of money within the economy.

The sixth step would be to remove the need for business owners to pay for employee healthcare, and instead tack that up on the state. My primary beef with the somewhat recent healthcare bill, employers paying for employee healthcare only hurts small business.

The seventh step would be to lower the cost of tertiary education. May not seem that major, but funding is very difficult to acquire for those without privileged backgrounds.

By this point, I cannot get by with mere conjecture without spending quite a bit of time meditating on the situation, which I will get to sometime in the future. I would need to see the result of the past steps to decide on my next moves. Depending on the degree the steps were utilized, they would likely be strengthened by the eighth step, and following steps would depend considerably on the decision between small business, state owned business, and unionization; a decision that would depend on the state of the nation, and the people's opinion. This would thus result in one of three systems. The first would be Democratic Socialism, the second (Democratic) State Socialism, and the third being Syndacalism.

Anyways, this has been my casual answer to the quotes in the spoiler. I haven't faced this question before, and will likely write some sort of article on it in the following weeks.

I think I've said enough without a quotathon of every post

[Jingles]

We say that it may be possible in the U.S. to bring socialism through peaceful means. Perhaps through the ballot box. One thing is clear: there won't be socialism in the U.S. until the majority of the American people want it.

I like to say that when workers enter the corporate boardrooms to take over and the ruling class says something like: "Okay, you're right, we made a mess of things and now you should run it all." Well, then there won't be any trouble.

But if the ruling class says: "Forget it!" and calls out the army, the police and the National Guard, that is how revolutions become violent. It starts with the ruling class. Workers and their allies have to defend themselves to fight for what is rightfully theirs.

tl;dr - reformism doesn't work.

[Rolling Thunder]

tl;dr - reformism doesn't work.

Let's see, successful reformist societies including all of the First World.

Post-revolutionary societies form the majority of the Third.

Yeah, reform doesn't work, save revolution tends to fail in epic style.

[Jingles]

If you want an end to capitalism, reformism is not a viable route. Especially not in the US of all places.

[Rolling Thunder]

If you want an end to capitalism, reformism is not a viable route. Especially not in the US of all places.

And if you want to actually have something to eat throughout the winter months, I'd advise not ending capitalism. And I'd advise you not to try it in the US of all places, lest, to quote the West Wing you get "blown off the face of the earth with God's own thunder".

[Denny Crane!]

And if you want to actually have something to eat throughout the winter months, I'd advise not ending capitalism. And I'd advise you not to try it in the US of all places, lest, to quote the West Wing you get "blown off the face of the earth with God's own thunder".

How dare you. 40m people dead is a small price to pay.

[Rolling Thunder]

How dare you. 40m people dead is a small price to pay.

Only forty million? Comrade Crane, Comrade Stalin disapproves of you're small-time attitude! Four hundred million, and not a mass grave less!

[Denny Crane!]

Only forty million? Comrade Crane, Comrade Stalin disapproves of you're small-time attitude! Four hundred million, and not a mass grave less!

Comrade Mao thought 40 million was enough, but he was not a true communist! In communist Russia, the Ukranians, they starve themselves!

[Fight!]

Ahh Nico how disappointing. You want to increase freedom through the state and nationalisations. It ends badly, we've seen this scenario, and the USA is more liable to corruption and nepotism than any other western nation I can think of (and I tend not to think of Italy as being Western now so much as one giant porn movie that also happens to be a country).

Not necessarily, I approve of any methods which flatten the pyramid. It's just hospitals and the federal reserve that I'm insistent on being nationalized. Hospitals admittedly possibly due to bias, and the Federal Reserve because the entire concept of the Federal Reserve being private is silly.

This I fundamentally agree with yet entrenched interests and cold war attitudes won't allow for it. They need at bare minimum a 30% cut over 5 years with a 15-25 year plan to cut it a further 30% the timeline is merely to spread the hurt out in terms of employment and culture shock. This categorically won't ever happen if I know anything about the USA then that is one of the things I think I can be certain of.

I was thinking something it would need to a gradual change for this reason actually. I believe that, with the right PR and a powerful speaker it should be possible to push through. Once you point out to someone the US spends 43% of the worlds military budget they are almost always shocked.

It is an expensive step and they have no money. Obamas plan was something ridiculous like 950bn? They don't have it and any move towards something like a universal healthcare is riddled by corruption, nepotism and special interests.

So you can't fix healthcare adequately until you fix the influences that riddle the broken US system. You need to get money and business out of politics. This too I believe is impossible.

Meh, you have a point here. I might be a bit biased, seeing as I have a bunch of things I need checked out, and a cyst I need operated on, but I think it can be considered sometime after the first step has taken effect.

Tax on billionaires don't work, they can avoid them quite easily or offset them. And why would you need to tax them, in fact how are you going to tax them when all of that money is being given away.

Logic Fail on this one I must say.

The money giveaway just shows that they have no qualms with getting rid of their wealth, which is why they were chosen. They are the least likely to oppose increased income taxes, by a vast margin.

Not exactly sure what you mean with taxes and them giving away their money, but from what it sounds like I will say that their income is being taxed, and unless the donated funds put them in dire straits, it won't be a problem to tax them.

Never going to happen and see two points up, fix the system before you fix anything else. Ron Paul ironically came halfway in demanding that it be audited.

Never say never

It's certainly the most difficult on the list, but I believe it's possible over time. Once again with good PR and speaker, but possible.

Oh... well... I gave you more credit than you deserved then. I thought I had read somewhere up there that you are going to increase taxes on the top fifth or something. I don't know where it came from.

It's still wouldn't do anything- maybe send the wealthy out of the country. Tha'ts what I would do. buy my own island so I don't have to pay for hillbilly or broken grandmas.

Bill Gates 600 billion dollar challenge, shows that they're certainly not opposed to emptying their wallets, so to speak, so they certainly wouldn't do that.

tl;dr - reformism doesn't work.

If you want an end to capitalism, reformism is not a viable route. Especially not in the US of all places.

Now now, you should know that Bare Assertions get you nowhere

[Enemy of the State]

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

Reformism is naive. Democracy is meant as a diversion. We focus our efforts on changing the system from within the system, but it's impossible. But they give us the illusion that we can change.

[Rolling Thunder]

Reformism is naive. Democracy is meant as a diversion. We focus our efforts on changing the system from within the system, but it's impossible. But they give us the illusion that we can change.

And yet the system changes. It takes a long time, it's measured, moderate, incremental and often painfully slow, but if you don't notice it it's because you're not paying attention, and that's no-one's fault but your own. Everyone over 18 has suffrage. Men and women. People can drink, can smoke, and in some countries use illegal drugs. People are free to sue the government for it's failings and for it's incompetence. We no longer beat ethnic minorities with sticks and set their homes on fire. A lot has changed even in the last decade, and some of it was because a band of people went up to the government and made their demands really, really loudly.