Biden is no socialist

Although the sources of information that show tar sands oil is far more polluting than conventional oil are numerous, I did not state that my alternative is importing additional Nigerian crude. I wrote, "...given that the plutocracy dutifully lacks the will to embark upon a Manhattan Project-like effort to supplant 'our' carbon-based economy, we would have to import more oil, [including Nigerian crude]."



Too, irrespective of its accuracy, your assertion that tar sands oil is "only slightly more" polluting than traditional oil is not comforting and changes nothing. Even (if) it was less polluting, we would still need to keep it in the ground if no other reason than its being a centralized energy source. As threatening to oil capitalists as a non-carbon-based economy would be, renewable energy sources are vastly superior to the likes of oil. Anecdotally speaking, my wife and I own two fully electric vehicles, which we predominately charge via our 10-kilowatt rooftop solar system. As such, we haven't purchased gasoline since 2016. That is why oil capitalists and their plutocratic politicians thwart the development of renewable energy sources. That is why capitalist media outlets continue to condition workers into accepting the idiotic notion that "alternative energy sources are not feasible. Not feasible. Not Feasible. Not Feasible..." And that is why as long as the now thoroughly antisocial capitalist system exists, never will we displace "our" carbon-based economy with a non-carbon-based economy.

"Mining Tar Sands Produces Much More Air Pollution Than We ..."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/...

What of it? Again, (both) pipelines and tankers need to be eliminated.

"...to any significant degree." There it is again. And again, I will say that such arguments alter nothing. Whether or not tar sands oil production is more or less carbon-intensive, you effectively stated that it is slightly more so; it isn't necessary for any other purpose than keeping oil capitalists in business.

With all respect due you personally, Giftedone, that isn't true, and I just outlined an argument that counters your position rather well.

I see. So you are perhaps employed by an oil-service industry, Giftedone?



*****



"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." --Upton Sinclair



******



Guy Marsh
Member (since 1990):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
http://www.slp.org/

http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
https://freespeech.org

Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
http://www.pacifica.org/

 

Good thing you do, because socialism is evil.

Joe is a good guy. He sure is a pro-capitalist and neo-Liberal, but he isn't a racist or warmonger. A racist would have never nominated a black woman as vice president.

 

What a load of boiling hogwash

Ad hom fallacy is not an argument for much - the fact - is that I know what I am talking about and you do not - nor have you countered any of my points with anything other than avoidance.

What sources .. and quantify your claim .. "How much more polluting" - and how does this stack up against buying oil from Nigeria - or other third world nation...

How does this extra pollution from the oilsands stack up against the extra pollution by industrialization ?

You have not addressed the other side of the scale - which is myopic and non objective - a problem that is responsible for the sorry state of our environment .. which I have dedicated a large portion of my life trying to clean up ... but somehow .. in your twisted far left logic - this makes me biased towards big oil.

are you listening to yourself ?

This sums up your complete lack of understanding of the issue and ability to form a coherent argument.

What part of - we will use 20 million barrels of crude every day next year - do you not understand ? .. and wishing this away will not change this fact.

We then have 2 options - "Not buying Crude" not being one of them - as you are trying to suggest - which is preposterous nonsense on steroids.

We can get it from Pipeline - domestic production - or we can get it externally. Somehow this simple fact - is too complicated for the extreme left brain to understand.

But that is not you - you understand right ?



















Guy Marsh

 

If you, Giftedone, would care to begin conducting yourself respectfully and therefore productively, I would be delighted to continue this discussion. Otherwise, I will move on. Although not employed in an oil-related industry, I am exceedingly well-educated and roundly so. Ergo, I am quite adept at grasping complicated subjects that exist outside of my field of endeavor and have proven so relative to our discussion. I have submitted several persuasive arguments that you have ignored, and your disordered hubris does not change that.

Do you wish to continue?

 

Socialism is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve a more egalitarian economic order. If the government owns the means of production, those who control the government can easily decree high incomes for themselves, while most of the population remains poor. It is best to concentrate of establishing strong labor unions, a high minimum wage, and a well financed public sector of the economy paid for by high taxes on rich people. Government financing of political campaigns deprives the rich of the ability to influence elected officials.

 

Biden isn’t much of anything except a place holder for the real unelected power in DC.

 

Joe Biden is an establishment neocon and tool of the plutocrats and kelptocrats. He has always been a racists, always been anti-human and civil rights, and never been a leader of anything while a Senator other than being the lobbyist for the credit card companies.

 

You are the one who has been ignoring reality - and now projecting your failings onto me. You have not yet made an argument - never mind a persuasive ones .. and the above post certainly does not contain any -and avoids responding to the simple questions put to you.

You claim to be well educated - good - then you should be able to figure out the simple question posted by myself - a subject matter expert in this area.

While you may be educated in some areas - the above comment shows that you do not understand this particular issue.

 

How has Joe Biden been a racist? How has he opposed civil rights?

 

Socialism everywhere but English speaking countries is simply always Democratic Fair capitalism with a good safety net. Here in the United States and in the UK, Savage capitalists and conservatives just love conflating communism and socialism. In France Spain Italy the Netherlands Scandinavia Germany Russia they have had socialist and communist parties at the same time so they know what the difference is. Democracy of course Biden is actually a socialist in the modern sense in all those countries. He is in favor of healthcare for all a living wage of $15, paid parental leave daycare great infrastructure and vacations and ID card to end illegal immigration and mainly taxing the ridiculously rich their fair share or more like it. Canada is socialist and it is not that scary. So is Australia New Zealand and even the UK thanks to the labor party in the late 40s. You sound like a communist to me LOL. They love conflating the two terms also along with the Nazis.....

 

He first campaigned against racial integration of schools, declaring white and black children should not be together in schools or they would be racial jungles - how he started. He never stopped making racist and bigoted statements thru this campaign season.
Even Kamala Harris says he is a racist.

You may not like the source, but is there any fact claim in this article that is false?
Proof Joe Biden Is A Racist - American Conservative Media

 

That's not socialism, it is welfare capitalism, with a high tax rate. Government takes and spends your money for you on things you may not want or need.

 

Well said. Yes, silly putty.

 

Of course not. He is a centrist/£corporatist, like Obama. The true left of this country -- which still remains to the right of socialism, economically -- hasn't had strong political representation since the 60s.

 

School integration has been a social experiment that has not worked. Even white liberal parents avoid sending their children to public schools with lots of blacks in the student body. Schools are nearly as segregated now as before the Brown vs Board of Education Supreme Court Decision of 1954. That is not an accident. It is because of actions taken by white parents who want their children to receive good educations in safe environments.

 

I agree - There is such a thing as a good left - closer to socialism but still very capitalist.

Our situation is one of black vs white Platitudinal extremes on the outside - keeping the voter in complete disarray - while maintaining the Establishment Status quo on the inside.

On the far ends of the spectrum - Extreme Socialism ( Stalin's communism - Mao's China) - and Extreme Capitalism (Feudal System - Monopolies)

Here these two meet - as in both cases you have a few elite owing most all of the wealth and means of production.

Our system I call the Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster . a system which has managed to combine some of the worst elements of both extremes into one ugly beast.

 

In reaction to my writing, 'So you are perhaps employed by an oil-service industry, Giftedone?,' Giftedone wrote:

I respectfully asked a simple question. I did not present an ad hominem fallacy. Therefore, given his avoidance, the readership can safely assume that Giftedone does indeed work within an oil-related industry.



"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." --Upton Sinclair



In reaction to my comment, "Although the sources of information that show tar sands oil is far more polluting than conventional oil are numerous, I did not state that my alternative is importing additional Nigerian Crude," Giftedone wrote:

If one were to conduct an internet search using the words "tar sands oil more polluting," one would discover a seemingly endless list of related URLs.

Per the Smithsonian Magazine, "[The mining and processing of tar sands oil] uses up an enormous amount of water, distributes toxic metals into the surrounding watershed <b>and perhaps most important leads to an estimated 14% higher level of greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil,</b> because some natural gas must be burned to convert the bitumen into a useable form." (Emphasis not in the original.)



(According to the Yale School of the Environment, "To produce a barrel of oil from tar sands, the industry says it typically needs between 0.4 and 3.1 barrels of fresh water. In 2008, tar sands produced 1.31 million barrels of oil per day." (Excerpted from the article "With Tar Sands Development, Growing Concern on Water Use .)



As for Giftedone's "...how does this stack up against buying oil from Nigeria or other Third World nations?" the answer is quite simple, oil from Nigeria is, as we have just seen, less polluting than tar sands oil.

Now, of course, that still leaves us with the enormous problem of oil tanker-related water pollution, as pointed out by Giftedone. As I have stated in other posts, Nigerian crude nor oil from any other country is not my preferred alternative to tar sands oil.

Again, this society, not to mention all other societies, must soon abandon its carbon-based economy in favor of a non-carbon-based economy. My wife and I and many other people have not purchased gasoline since 2015, and with a serious governmental effort, so too could all Americans not buy gasoline.

Therefore, my stance that the importation of additional Nigerian oil or Saudi oil is preferable to the continued development of tar sands oil is based on risk mitigation and <b>only</b> on risk mitigation.

And yet, I have addressed the other side of the scale.

Too, Giftedone, have you "dedicated a large portion of [your] life trying to clean up" the environment voluntarily, or have you been paid to do so?

Thank you, sir.

With the insulting tone of the question notwithstanding, I do, of course, understand that the US uses a little more than 20 million barrels of oil each day. And I wish away precisely nothing. To reiterate, the US needs to undertake a Manhattan Project-like endeavor to abandon its carbon-based economy. In the interim, however, I understand that the continued use of fossil fuels will be necessary. Accordingly, carrying on with the production of tar sands oil, which is more of a threat to our life-support system/environment, is illogical and unnecessary.

Exactly where have I stated that not buying additional Crude is an option, Giftedone? (Please be specific by citing the precise threads.)

Thank you, sir.

If the alternative is tar sands oil, an external source would be preferable. After all, to purchase oil from Nigeria, if that is desirable, is not to deal with the Nigerian government per se. To buy "Nigerian oil" is to deal with Royal Dutch Shell, which practically owns Nigeria. (Rest in peace, Ken Saro-Wiwa.)



Come solar!



*****





Guy Marsh

Member (since 1990):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
http://www.slp.org/

What is socialism?
http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm


Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
https://freespeech.org

Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
http://www.pacifica.org/

 

I see. Would you please expand upon your point, pitbull?

I will submit that the former and typically vicious prosecutor is nothing more than window dressing. So, too, will I say that Biden's positions relative to forced school busing, the prison industrial complex, the Glass-Steagall Act, the Obama administration's predator drone and its mass deportation policy show him to be not only a racist but an institutional racist.

 

If we accept the notion that government services provided within the context of privately-held means of production constitute socialist societies, then, yes, socialism is "fair capitalism with a good safety net." But government services such as Social Security, Medicare, and, say, fire departments are not representative of socialism - of socialist thought.

SOCIALism is the philosophy - the social science that informs that which would constitute embody a socialist society. And a socialist society, which has yet to exist, would be delineated by the social ownership and democratic administration of the means of industrial/wealth production ( www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf ). It would mean the end of privately owned means of production and the beginning of industrial output geared toward human needs. And, among other such things, it would mean the abolition of the capitalist class and thus the assimilation of its members into the ranks of the working class.

Well, yes, given their vested interest to do so, capitalists, their media outlets, and capitalist culture, in general, misrepresent socialist thought. But so, too, did Marx and Engles conflate, if you will, socialism and communism in that they used those two terms interchangeably. Moreover, since communist society would be a later and more advanced form of socialist society, socialism and communism are intertwined.

As for the contention that many European countries have sported socialist governments over the decades, not one of those "socialist" governments have proposed the social ownership of their respective means of production. Consequently, such governments are social democratic parties that have masqueraded as socialist governments.

Very well. But this "modern 'socialism'" is, to restate, nothing more than social democracy or, perhaps more to the point here in the US, run-of-the-mill liberalism. However, as I will demonstrate, Biden is a neoliberal, a far cry from even traditional liberals.

No, he does not favor healthcare for all or Medicare For All. He deems it too expensive, although he knows it would be less costly and far more effective than our current for-profit "healthcare" system. And I don't know about ID cards, but Biden (is) supportive of a Bracero Program-like immigration policy which would be decidedly racist and anti-immigrant. Those two issues are parts of what reveals Biden to be the neoliberal that he is.

Per a $15 federal minimum wage, he claimed to support such an increase as a presidential candidate; but he will forget all about it once he is inaugurated.

No, those countries are not socialist societies, for the vast majority of their respective means of production are privately owned. Therefore, they are capitalist nations.

To "bother" oneself with an independent and in-depth study of (original) sources of Marxist literature is to know, and to repeat, that Dr. Marx and Frederick Engels used the terms interchangeably. There is no conflation in that respect.


Guy Marsh
Member (since 1990):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
http://www.slp.org/

What is socialism?
http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

 

Given that the following chart approximates what a socialist society would look like, what exactly do you mean by socialist society is "a choice now"? ( www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf .)

Too, how is it that we socialists could take "that [socialist] option"?

Thank you, crank

******

Guy Marsh

Member (since 1990):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
http://www.slp.org/

What is socialism?
http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm


Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
https://freespeech.org

Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
http://www.pacifica.org/

 

As a small 'L' libertarian, I suspect you and I will agree on very little. That said, I appreciate your post and respect your viewpoint. I think you have done an excellent job of presenting the real Joe Biden: life-long power hungry statist and crony capitalist who will grease any palm he views as useful. And by all means, correct the right-wingers when they misspeak, but I hope you don't forget the left-wingers who cheered in the streets from Manhattan to West LA and who mistakenly believe Biden and his token negro will be anything but the typical pathological liars who ascend to high office while pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Also, very interesting political trajectory you have laid out there... would be interesting to hear more about that journey.

Welcome to Political Forum.

 

Honestly, trading Trump for Biden is like trading fried sh*t for sauteéd sh*t.

 

Beijing

 

So you then repeat your Ad Hom fallacy -while claiming not to engage in it - kind of priceless really given you claim high education.

And yes - we can safely assume that 90% of the population works within an "oil related" industry - but this does not make information presented by these folks false on that basis - which is the crux of your fallacy now explained to you - the second time. Please let us not do this a third time.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." --Upton Sinclair

You have provided no backup for your claim - never mind sources that back up your claim - never mind credible sources.

The fact that you do not realize importing Nigerian crude is the choice you have chosen - is problematic .. but then you go on to defend this so no point in explaining basic logic of your decision - which was trotted out to you in specific detail so as to be easily understood .. but alas - perhaps your failure as a student - is my failure as a teacher. I will endeavor to do better.

Yes - and an endless list of folks who believe a global flood happened around 2100-2300 BC wiping out all land creatures.

thank you - finally some data - some support for claim Kudo's for this Oil sands uses huge amounts of water - 14% higher than conventional than conventional is a reasonable number - although one highly debated - but this matters not as 14% does not even come close to getting enough weight on your scale to even be measurable .. a fraction of a rounding error - w/r to my end of the scale.

What part of "Subject Matter Expert" - did you not understand - that you walk around with such arrogance .. as if what you have just stated is not propaganda narrative - and understood as such by any with a medium level of academic understanding the of this issue - including those from Yale or Smithmag - who use statistics badly - and the list is long .. Propaganda being a multi multi Billion dollar industry in this nation and around the globe.

First fun fact - The percent of emissions from production of oil - be it conventional or tar sand - as a small fraction of the total emission from that oil - the majority being out the tailpipe or smoke stack. Which is obvious - as refining -transporting the oil - are a much bigger part of the total - and of course burning it in your car being the majority of the carbon that will hit the atmosphere from that oil

So we are talking 14% of a small fraction of the total - "insignificant" according to the study Obama commissioned to in an effort to stop the pipeline on this basis .. studying something for years - that can be simply done on the back of a napkin if one has a few key pieces of information.

but yes .. you have a tiny fraction of a rounding error increase in the cost of production from a CO2 perspective.

but - you have not factored in a single increase to the CO2 equation due to industrialization - you have not even factored in the CO2 input from transportation - on the other side of the equation .. in fact you have not even considered these things.

What pomposity for someone who has not even considered the question from an academic perspective - who claims to be an academic.

And last of all - you gave ZERO consideration to the environmental factors other than CO2.

Your claim is false - Industrialization of the worlds population is the biggest contributor to global warming increase. Would you like to look at some numbers on China just to get a feel for how significant this problem is .. Yet you attribute a total of ZERO -weight to this.

Good thing you are not in charge mate - Zero attention to the number one cause of global CO2 increase in your calculations - and Zero attention to Ocean and Air Pollution - deforestation and so on.

Not sure how many studies you have read on the issue - but - one I read more than a decade ago now - said that if China was to reach first world levels of consumption - world resource production would have to double - and with it of course the biproducts of that consumption.

So please compare and contrast the addition to CO2 due to oilsands - relative to the increase due to industrialization - and do factor in transportation somewhere in your calculations.

Then - once you have quantified how insignificant the contribution is - and how this tiny amount is dwarfed by the alternative - which is increased industrialization and transportation ..

Then - detail how this insignificant rounding error difference - which ends up being the lower Carbon solution when industrialization is factored in - is worth the massive environmental cost .. w/r to Ocean Pollution and air pollution.

 

Sorry, but you are so wrong. Climate change policy is front and center with Biden, issues of the widened gap between rich and poor are front and center. Biden won't be listening to morons like Flynn and Sidney Powell. Biden will not make epic stupid statements like 'injecting disinfectants' ( ad nauseum ). Sure, Biden gaffs, but no one compares to Trump for all around stupidity.

No, we are definitely in a better place with Biden. Way better, at least Biden is acting like a real president. Trump has no clue about what the office of the president is all about.