On February 01 2025 06:33 HornyHerring wrote: Move to China for a bit, see socialism at its finest.
Hi, American who did this, you’re a dipshit and don’t know anything lmao
To be vaguely on topic, I don’t think China is worth looking at as a socialist country (at least in the last few decades) it’s really more of an authoritarian capitalist country with a signficantly more competent and beneficial authoritarian party than a lot of people would believe emerges from places like Russia.
Anyone who spent five seconds in Shanghai and was bombarded by the sheer brand obsessed consumerism in the culture would have a hard time appreciating China as socialist lol
China is a nice place (at least where I was) and has a great cost of living and all of the modern amenities I wanted, but the CCP does suck, even though they have done a lot of things to make China as successful a country as it is, their isolationism from the western Tech industry has created a parallel Chinese tech ecosystem that’s super fascinating and made places like Shenzhen possible.
Yes and no. A colleague of mine married a Chinese lady and they are now living there for a few months. They live in Chengdu and it is another hyperconsumerist city like Shanghai or Shenzhen. However her parents are from rural Hubei and they were there for the holidays. The money generated in places like Shanghai and Chengdu is partially being spent in places like that, on people who do not have the opportunities that exist in cities like Shanghai.
In many ways what he has shown and told reminded me very much of Brazil (pre-Bolsonaro, anyway. Not sure how it is now). A flourishing agricultural and industrial sector, mainly in the south, funded social programs that lifted much of the north out of abject poverty. The main problems are probably similar too: corruption, nepotism and insufficient redistribution maintaining a vast inequality between the richest and poorest segments of society despite their best redistribution efforts.
Which brings me to my question here: what mechanisms can you think of to prevent the corruption and nepotism sneaking in (or as was the case in Bolshevik Russia and Maoist China: built in from the very beginning)?
And I'm not claiming capitalism has an answer to that. But at least in the market-driven resource allocation you have some semblance of a solution, because corruption should be a less efficient allocation of resources, meaning a competitor can produce the same value for less. We've seen plenty of the problems with that in both Europe and the USA, that what works in theory does not translate to practice, because of human markets not actually caring about maximizing efficiency. But at least there is a theoretical solution.
On February 01 2025 06:33 HornyHerring wrote: Move to China for a bit, see socialism at its finest.
Hi, American who did this, you’re a dipshit and don’t know anything lmao
To be vaguely on topic, I don’t think China is worth looking at as a socialist country (at least in the last few decades) it’s really more of an authoritarian capitalist country with a signficantly more competent and beneficial authoritarian party than a lot of people would believe emerges from places like Russia.
Anyone who spent five seconds in Shanghai and was bombarded by the sheer brand obsessed consumerism in the culture would have a hard time appreciating China as socialist lol
China is a nice place (at least where I was) and has a great cost of living and all of the modern amenities I wanted, but the CCP does suck, even though they have done a lot of things to make China as successful a country as it is, their isolationism from the western Tech industry has created a parallel Chinese tech ecosystem that’s super fascinating and made places like Shenzhen possible.
Yes and no. A colleague of mine married a Chinese lady and they are now living there for a few months. They live in Chengdu and it is another hyperconsumerist city like Shanghai or Shenzhen. However her parents are from rural Hubei and they were there for the holidays. The money generated in places like Shanghai and Chengdu is partially being spent in places like that, on people who do not have the opportunities that exist in cities like Shanghai.
In many ways what he has shown and told reminded me very much of Brazil (pre-Bolsonaro, anyway. Not sure how it is now). A flourishing agricultural and industrial sector, mainly in the south, funded social programs that lifted much of the north out of abject poverty. The main problems are probably similar too: corruption, nepotism and insufficient redistribution maintaining a vast inequality between the richest and poorest segments of society despite their best redistribution efforts.
Which brings me to my question here: what mechanisms can you think of to prevent the corruption and nepotism sneaking in (or as was the case in Bolshevik Russia and Maoist China: built in from the very beginning)?
And I'm not claiming capitalism has an answer to that. But at least in the market-driven resource allocation you have some semblance of a solution, because corruption should be a less efficient allocation of resources, meaning a competitor can produce the same value for less. We've seen plenty of the problems with that in both Europe and the USA, that what works in theory does not translate to practice, because of human markets not actually caring about maximizing efficiency. But at least there is a theoretical solution.
This isn't a blog and isn't very healthy for a website that should be focused on gaming and adjacent interests. Please stick to the political forums and don't use TL as a way to recruit people to whatever cause you believe in. I appreciate that you have view points, but there's better dedicated places for these discussions.
I've made like hundreds of blogs that weren't about gaming and esports so I'd be remiss if I didn't re-open this blog. Initial staff discussion shows this is currently ok.
On February 02 2025 04:39 BisuDagger wrote: This isn't a blog and isn't very healthy for a website that should be focused on gaming and adjacent interests. Please stick to the political forums and don't use TL as a way to recruit people to whatever cause you believe in. I appreciate that you have view points, but there's better dedicated places for these discussions.
On February 02 2025 09:55 Acrofales wrote: I too lament the closing of GH's blog. But I'll endeavour to follow the mods' advice to discuss the topic in the politics threads, so here goes. I really liked the rephrasing and the thought provoking question.
What does China currently do about corruption? How does that compare to the Trump administration?
How should socialists in the US/those in solidarity with them expect to see corruption handled differently than both of those in your view?
At first glance, it seems the cause of corruption seeping into politics is identical on both sides of the Pacific: an elite class who is not accountable, and a political system that does not adequately give power to the people. In China by removing any semblance of a democracy: there is one party and opposition will not be tolerated, and in the US by giving an illusion of choice: you can vote for the elites' lap dog or their attack dog, but either way you are voting for their pets. In China it's by design, and in the US it's by inertia, but in both systems there is a powerful elite that keeps a tight control on the reigns and the only way to get into positions of power is by being one of them or dancing to their music. In addition, the media is firmly under their control too, allowing them to fully shape the message the population hears. Whether that is through a giant firewall and state media organisations controlling the rest, or by outright ownership of the media. They are thoroughly uncritical of their own government and elites. Examples: try finding any info in China about Tiananmen Square. And anything Musk posts on Twitter, but also Bezos instructing the WaPo not to endorse either candidate, and a cartoonist having her cartoon cut when it threatened to be slightly too critical of the boss.
However, these similarities conceal a serious difference between the two. In China, the very institutions of government are the ones that incentivise corruption. The lack of democratic oversight is intentional, and the problem is party members using their mandate to ensure friends and family get lucrative business positions outside of civil service.
Meanwhile in the US the institutions of government are meant to prevent corruption. They have been degraded and eroded to the point they don't work at all anymore. You can't be a politician without spending millions on campaigns, which obviously makes you beholden to whoever gave you those millions. Combine that with an anachronistic constitution that specifically gives disproportionate power to lower population states, allows presidents to pardon their family members, and a disproportionately huge role to unelected judges, and it's clear the system that was supposed to protect the people from abuse of power has failed. But at least it existed.
So. Where do we go from here? Clearly a socialist rebuilding of the US political system would have to build on such institutions and ensure oversight. But how does socialism ever avoid the centralisation of power? It seems built into the system. Maybe an extreme form of direct democracy would allow for decisions about how to allocate resources to be taken collectively, rather than centralized in an elite. It would be very hard and require a full reeducation of the populace to be capable of this responsibility. Those same school teachers who voted for Trump and whose funding was subsequently slashed, will need to teach Freirean critical pedagogy. It seems like a utopian dream that anything like this would work. And how else do we empower people who don't know the first thing about medicine to take informed decisions about what and where to spend money on medical research. Or innovation in farming. Or AI. Not to mention "mundane" decisions like whether we need a traffic light at the intersection of Lenin Avenue with Trotsky Street.
So yes, I look at this and think this is inevitably how socialism succumbs to totalitarianism. I can start small: the day-to-day decision-making at my work cause enough meetings to add stress and overhead to my day. I have repeatedly been offered the possibility to move into management and have turned it down, because that is just not the kind of work I enjoy. I'm perfectly happy working under a competent boss. And the company is big enough that he has a boss, and then there is 1 further layer of directors before we reach the CEO. The CEO spends his entire day hopping from meetings with those directors to meetings with investors and other stakeholders, ensuring that everybody is strategically aligned to meet our company objectives, and find ways to work around obstacles to meet them in the face of adversity. I cannot possibly imagine how this, relatively simple, business would run with more democratic decisionmaking, and my workplace is a fairly young, fairly modern and fairly transparent workplace. I'm very happy to say that most decisions are taken in committee with employees who have a stake in that decision. However, the hierarchy is necessary. And that means that some people will have more power than others.
Even my brother, who runs a regenerative farming co-op had to abandon the ideas of decision-making by committee: the day-to-day practicalities of running a farm make that far too hard. Everybody has their speciality, and owns that and the decisionmaking in that vertical. But when push comes to shove in a decision that impacts the farm as a whole, one person's voice counts more than others. And that doesn't mean they don't have meetings to discuss these things, but decisions often need to be made in a timely manner, and especially on a farm, time is in spectacularly short supply! So instead of their ideal of unanimous decisionmaking or at the very least, voting, they often end up having the decision made by a dictator. A benevolent one who has the best interests of the farm in mind. And one that they can remove and replace if trust is lost. But still, hierarchy arises naturally. And as long as people are happy to give their power to others, how do you avoid them eventually giving it to a Trump, a Maduro or a Jinping, who do everything with that newfound power to (1) keep it and (2) abuse it. You're going to need very strong institutions. But institutions are als just people. So maybe you need a mechanism that allows for human greed to be harnessed to drive a lot of decision making, but curb its excesses by coupling that market with oversight and government whose main task it is to ensure that a rising tide truly does raise all ships.
On February 02 2025 09:55 Acrofales wrote: I too lament the closing of GH's blog. But I'll endeavour to follow the mods' advice to discuss the topic in the politics threads, so here goes. I really liked the rephrasing and the thought provoking question.
What does China currently do about corruption? How does that compare to the Trump administration?
How should socialists in the US/those in solidarity with them expect to see corruption handled differently than both of those in your view?
At first glance, it seems the cause of corruption seeping into politics is identical on both sides of the Pacific: an elite class who is not accountable, and a political system that does not adequately give power to the people. In China by removing any semblance of a democracy: there is one party and opposition will not be tolerated, and in the US by giving an illusion of choice: you can vote for the elites' lap dog or their attack dog, but either way you are voting for their pets. In China it's by design, and in the US it's by inertia, but in both systems there is a powerful elite that keeps a tight control on the reigns and the only way to get into positions of power is by being one of them or dancing to their music. In addition, the media is firmly under their control too, allowing them to fully shape the message the population hears. Whether that is through a giant firewall and state media organisations controlling the rest, or by outright ownership of the media. They are thoroughly uncritical of their own government and elites. Examples: try finding any info in China about Tiananmen Square. And anything Musk posts on Twitter, but also Bezos instructing the WaPo not to endorse either candidate, and a cartoonist having her cartoon cut when it threatened to be slightly too critical of the boss.
However, these similarities conceal a serious difference between the two. In China, the very institutions of government are the ones that incentivise corruption. The lack of democratic oversight is intentional, and the problem is party members using their mandate to ensure friends and family get lucrative business positions outside of civil service.
Meanwhile in the US the institutions of government are meant to prevent corruption. They have been degraded and eroded to the point they don't work at all anymore. You can't be a politician without spending millions on campaigns, which obviously makes you beholden to whoever gave you those millions. Combine that with an anachronistic constitution that specifically gives disproportionate power to lower population states, allows presidents to pardon their family members, and a disproportionately huge role to unelected judges, and it's clear the system that was supposed to protect the people from abuse of power has failed. But at least it existed.
So. Where do we go from here? Clearly a socialist rebuilding of the US political system would have to build on such institutions and ensure oversight. But how does socialism ever avoid the centralisation of power? It seems built into the system. Maybe an extreme form of direct democracy would allow for decisions about how to allocate resources to be taken collectively, rather than centralized in an elite. It would be very hard and require a full reeducation of the populace to be capable of this responsibility. Those same school teachers who voted for Trump and whose funding was subsequently slashed, will need to teach Freirean critical pedagogy. It seems like a utopian dream that anything like this would work. And how else do we empower people who don't know the first thing about medicine to take informed decisions about what and where to spend money on medical research. Or innovation in farming. Or AI. Not to mention "mundane" decisions like whether we need a traffic light at the intersection of Lenin Avenue with Trotsky Street.
So yes, I look at this and think this is inevitably how socialism succumbs to totalitarianism. I can start small: the day-to-day decision-making at my work cause enough meetings to add stress and overhead to my day. I have repeatedly been offered the possibility to move into management and have turned it down, because that is just not the kind of work I enjoy. I'm perfectly happy working under a competent boss. And the company is big enough that he has a boss, and then there is 1 further layer of directors before we reach the CEO. The CEO spends his entire day hopping from meetings with those directors to meetings with investors and other stakeholders, ensuring that everybody is strategically aligned to meet our company objectives, and find ways to work around obstacles to meet them in the face of adversity. I cannot possibly imagine how this, relatively simple, business would run with more democratic decisionmaking, and my workplace is a fairly young, fairly modern and fairly transparent workplace. I'm very happy to say that most decisions are taken in committee with employees who have a stake in that decision. However, the hierarchy is necessary. And that means that some people will have more power than others.
Even my brother, who runs a regenerative farming co-op had to abandon the ideas of decision-making by committee: the day-to-day practicalities of running a farm make that far too hard. Everybody has their speciality, and owns that and the decisionmaking in that vertical. But when push comes to shove in a decision that impacts the farm as a whole, one person's voice counts more than others. And that doesn't mean they don't have meetings to discuss these things, but decisions often need to be made in a timely manner, and especially on a farm, time is in spectacularly short supply! So instead of their ideal of unanimous decisionmaking or at the very least, voting, they often end up having the decision made by a dictator. A benevolent one who has the best interests of the farm in mind. And one that they can remove and replace if trust is lost. But still, hierarchy arises naturally. And as long as people are happy to give their power to others, how do you avoid them eventually giving it to a Trump, a Maduro or a Jinping, who do everything with that newfound power to (1) keep it and (2) abuse it. You're going to need very strong institutions. But institutions are als just people. So
maybe you need a mechanism that allows for human greed to be harnessed to drive a lot of decision making, but curb its excesses by coupling that market with oversight and government whose main task it is to ensure that a rising tide truly does raise all ships.
There's a China politics thread where folks can discuss them more comprehensively than I think will be appropriate here any time soon.
That said, I don't think China has to be completely off-limits. I just want to keep it relevant to the task at hand, so to that end:
What does China currently do about corruption? How does that compare to the Trump administration?
How should socialists in the US/those in solidarity with them expect to see corruption handled differently than both of those in your view?
I appreciate the lengthy response, but it's not really an answer to the questions, certainly not within the given context. The last couple lines I left out of the spoiler is as close as you get, which is effectively "Maybe socialists should want oBlade's capitalism" which I know you know is a really silly place for you to conclude after those questions and that lengthy response. Neb would probably be more interested than myself in entertaining what reads as your ostensible reasoning for why none of us should bother trying to be a socialist, and instead embrace capitalism, but Neb doesn't participate in this thread.
Well, I asked the question in the first place because it's the main aspect of socialism that I always circle back to without finding an answer for myself. I don't think my solution is laissez-faire, and if I gave that idea then I clearly didn't write very well. I think we need very strong institutions that we use to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots. In the forms of very progressive taxes which fund free healthcare, free education, free housing, public independent journalism, and other things that we as a society can keep adding onto the list of things that everyone in society should have guaranteed. But other than those basics, we let free markets do the rest.
I know that you don't believe in this model, which is why I asked the question of how to avoid corruption and nepotism being institutionalised in pure socialism. You countered with an alternative question that I interpreted as "well, current government is rotten to the core already, so how would socialism ever be worse than what we have?" which I tried to respond to. It's the ".. and how do we prevent that?" part which I do not personally have an answer for and was hoping someone else does.
As for your repetition of your spoilers, just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm not mostly on your side. I can rephrase my issue fairly easily: I'm absolutely on board with socialism up until the point where you need central planning. And I don't know how you avoid central planning. Do you?
I don't think that you can really avoid corruption, that doesn't seem possible. But I don't think corruption needs to become systemic, it can be kept to the level of an individual issue. What you would need to avoid is positions that have a lot of hierarchical power on the system, because then one individual in that position being corrupt would be very problematic, and a general situation of poverty that would lead many people to decide that they would want to cheat the system.
So the way I'd go about this, in super broad strokes obviously, is federalism vs centralism, at the risk of being a little too swiss. Which is ultimately I guess my attempt at avoiding central planning.
I didn't read your posts entirely because I thought the blog was closing down so I don't know if you mentioned it, but another important difference would be all of the corruption that has been legalized in capitalism, through lobbies and dumb shit like Citizens United. These are systemic examples of things that I think we can reasonably link to corruption, that would no longer have a solid reason to exist.
About the thread in general, I'm not sure I'm using it right, I don't know I just see some stuff that I like talking about and I try and answer it. Maybe I'm not supposed to post here either.
On February 02 2025 09:55 Acrofales wrote: I too lament the closing of GH's blog. But I'll endeavour to follow the mods' advice to discuss the topic in the politics threads, so here goes. I really liked the rephrasing and the thought provoking question.
What does China currently do about corruption? How does that compare to the Trump administration?
How should socialists in the US/those in solidarity with them expect to see corruption handled differently than both of those in your view?
At first glance, it seems the cause of corruption seeping into politics is identical on both sides of the Pacific: an elite class who is not accountable, and a political system that does not adequately give power to the people. In China by removing any semblance of a democracy: there is one party and opposition will not be tolerated, and in the US by giving an illusion of choice: you can vote for the elites' lap dog or their attack dog, but either way you are voting for their pets. In China it's by design, and in the US it's by inertia, but in both systems there is a powerful elite that keeps a tight control on the reigns and the only way to get into positions of power is by being one of them or dancing to their music. In addition, the media is firmly under their control too, allowing them to fully shape the message the population hears. Whether that is through a giant firewall and state media organisations controlling the rest, or by outright ownership of the media. They are thoroughly uncritical of their own government and elites. Examples: try finding any info in China about Tiananmen Square. And anything Musk posts on Twitter, but also Bezos instructing the WaPo not to endorse either candidate, and a cartoonist having her cartoon cut when it threatened to be slightly too critical of the boss.
However, these similarities conceal a serious difference between the two. In China, the very institutions of government are the ones that incentivise corruption. The lack of democratic oversight is intentional, and the problem is party members using their mandate to ensure friends and family get lucrative business positions outside of civil service.
Meanwhile in the US the institutions of government are meant to prevent corruption. They have been degraded and eroded to the point they don't work at all anymore. You can't be a politician without spending millions on campaigns, which obviously makes you beholden to whoever gave you those millions. Combine that with an anachronistic constitution that specifically gives disproportionate power to lower population states, allows presidents to pardon their family members, and a disproportionately huge role to unelected judges, and it's clear the system that was supposed to protect the people from abuse of power has failed. But at least it existed.
So. Where do we go from here? Clearly a socialist rebuilding of the US political system would have to build on such institutions and ensure oversight. But how does socialism ever avoid the centralisation of power? It seems built into the system. Maybe an extreme form of direct democracy would allow for decisions about how to allocate resources to be taken collectively, rather than centralized in an elite. It would be very hard and require a full reeducation of the populace to be capable of this responsibility. Those same school teachers who voted for Trump and whose funding was subsequently slashed, will need to teach Freirean critical pedagogy. It seems like a utopian dream that anything like this would work. And how else do we empower people who don't know the first thing about medicine to take informed decisions about what and where to spend money on medical research. Or innovation in farming. Or AI. Not to mention "mundane" decisions like whether we need a traffic light at the intersection of Lenin Avenue with Trotsky Street.
So yes, I look at this and think this is inevitably how socialism succumbs to totalitarianism. I can start small: the day-to-day decision-making at my work cause enough meetings to add stress and overhead to my day. I have repeatedly been offered the possibility to move into management and have turned it down, because that is just not the kind of work I enjoy. I'm perfectly happy working under a competent boss. And the company is big enough that he has a boss, and then there is 1 further layer of directors before we reach the CEO. The CEO spends his entire day hopping from meetings with those directors to meetings with investors and other stakeholders, ensuring that everybody is strategically aligned to meet our company objectives, and find ways to work around obstacles to meet them in the face of adversity. I cannot possibly imagine how this, relatively simple, business would run with more democratic decisionmaking, and my workplace is a fairly young, fairly modern and fairly transparent workplace. I'm very happy to say that most decisions are taken in committee with employees who have a stake in that decision. However, the hierarchy is necessary. And that means that some people will have more power than others.
Even my brother, who runs a regenerative farming co-op had to abandon the ideas of decision-making by committee: the day-to-day practicalities of running a farm make that far too hard. Everybody has their speciality, and owns that and the decisionmaking in that vertical. But when push comes to shove in a decision that impacts the farm as a whole, one person's voice counts more than others. And that doesn't mean they don't have meetings to discuss these things, but decisions often need to be made in a timely manner, and especially on a farm, time is in spectacularly short supply! So instead of their ideal of unanimous decisionmaking or at the very least, voting, they often end up having the decision made by a dictator. A benevolent one who has the best interests of the farm in mind. And one that they can remove and replace if trust is lost. But still, hierarchy arises naturally. And as long as people are happy to give their power to others, how do you avoid them eventually giving it to a Trump, a Maduro or a Jinping, who do everything with that newfound power to (1) keep it and (2) abuse it. You're going to need very strong institutions. But institutions are als just people. So maybe you need a mechanism that allows for human greed to be harnessed to drive a lot of decision making, but curb its excesses by coupling that market with oversight and government whose main task it is to ensure that a rising tide truly does raise all ships.
On February 02 2025 09:55 Acrofales wrote: I too lament the closing of GH's blog. But I'll endeavour to follow the mods' advice to discuss the topic in the politics threads, so here goes. I really liked the rephrasing and the thought provoking question.
What does China currently do about corruption? How does that compare to the Trump administration?
How should socialists in the US/those in solidarity with them expect to see corruption handled differently than both of those in your view?
At first glance, it seems the cause of corruption seeping into politics is identical on both sides of the Pacific: an elite class who is not accountable, and a political system that does not adequately give power to the people. In China by removing any semblance of a democracy: there is one party and opposition will not be tolerated, and in the US by giving an illusion of choice: you can vote for the elites' lap dog or their attack dog, but either way you are voting for their pets. In China it's by design, and in the US it's by inertia, but in both systems there is a powerful elite that keeps a tight control on the reigns and the only way to get into positions of power is by being one of them or dancing to their music. In addition, the media is firmly under their control too, allowing them to fully shape the message the population hears. Whether that is through a giant firewall and state media organisations controlling the rest, or by outright ownership of the media. They are thoroughly uncritical of their own government and elites. Examples: try finding any info in China about Tiananmen Square. And anything Musk posts on Twitter, but also Bezos instructing the WaPo not to endorse either candidate, and a cartoonist having her cartoon cut when it threatened to be slightly too critical of the boss.
However, these similarities conceal a serious difference between the two. In China, the very institutions of government are the ones that incentivise corruption. The lack of democratic oversight is intentional, and the problem is party members using their mandate to ensure friends and family get lucrative business positions outside of civil service.
Meanwhile in the US the institutions of government are meant to prevent corruption. They have been degraded and eroded to the point they don't work at all anymore. You can't be a politician without spending millions on campaigns, which obviously makes you beholden to whoever gave you those millions. Combine that with an anachronistic constitution that specifically gives disproportionate power to lower population states, allows presidents to pardon their family members, and a disproportionately huge role to unelected judges, and it's clear the system that was supposed to protect the people from abuse of power has failed. But at least it existed.
So. Where do we go from here? Clearly a socialist rebuilding of the US political system would have to build on such institutions and ensure oversight. But how does socialism ever avoid the centralisation of power? It seems built into the system. Maybe an extreme form of direct democracy would allow for decisions about how to allocate resources to be taken collectively, rather than centralized in an elite. It would be very hard and require a full reeducation of the populace to be capable of this responsibility. Those same school teachers who voted for Trump and whose funding was subsequently slashed, will need to teach Freirean critical pedagogy. It seems like a utopian dream that anything like this would work. And how else do we empower people who don't know the first thing about medicine to take informed decisions about what and where to spend money on medical research. Or innovation in farming. Or AI. Not to mention "mundane" decisions like whether we need a traffic light at the intersection of Lenin Avenue with Trotsky Street.
So yes, I look at this and think this is inevitably how socialism succumbs to totalitarianism. I can start small: the day-to-day decision-making at my work cause enough meetings to add stress and overhead to my day. I have repeatedly been offered the possibility to move into management and have turned it down, because that is just not the kind of work I enjoy. I'm perfectly happy working under a competent boss. And the company is big enough that he has a boss, and then there is 1 further layer of directors before we reach the CEO. The CEO spends his entire day hopping from meetings with those directors to meetings with investors and other stakeholders, ensuring that everybody is strategically aligned to meet our company objectives, and find ways to work around obstacles to meet them in the face of adversity. I cannot possibly imagine how this, relatively simple, business would run with more democratic decisionmaking, and my workplace is a fairly young, fairly modern and fairly transparent workplace. I'm very happy to say that most decisions are taken in committee with employees who have a stake in that decision. However, the hierarchy is necessary. And that means that some people will have more power than others.
Even my brother, who runs a regenerative farming co-op had to abandon the ideas of decision-making by committee: the day-to-day practicalities of running a farm make that far too hard. Everybody has their speciality, and owns that and the decisionmaking in that vertical. But when push comes to shove in a decision that impacts the farm as a whole, one person's voice counts more than others. And that doesn't mean they don't have meetings to discuss these things, but decisions often need to be made in a timely manner, and especially on a farm, time is in spectacularly short supply! So instead of their ideal of unanimous decisionmaking or at the very least, voting, they often end up having the decision made by a dictator. A benevolent one who has the best interests of the farm in mind. And one that they can remove and replace if trust is lost. But still, hierarchy arises naturally. And as long as people are happy to give their power to others, how do you avoid them eventually giving it to a Trump, a Maduro or a Jinping, who do everything with that newfound power to (1) keep it and (2) abuse it. You're going to need very strong institutions. But institutions are als just people. So
maybe you need a mechanism that allows for human greed to be harnessed to drive a lot of decision making, but curb its excesses by coupling that market with oversight and government whose main task it is to ensure that a rising tide truly does raise all ships.
There's a China politics thread where folks can discuss them more comprehensively than I think will be appropriate here any time soon.
That said, I don't think China has to be completely off-limits. I just want to keep it relevant to the task at hand, so to that end:
What does China currently do about corruption? How does that compare to the Trump administration?
How should socialists in the US/those in solidarity with them expect to see corruption handled differently than both of those in your view?
I appreciate the lengthy response, but it's not really an answer to the questions, certainly not within the given context. The last couple lines I left out of the spoiler is as close as you get, which is effectively "Maybe socialists should want oBlade's capitalism" which I know you know is a really silly place for you to conclude after those questions and that lengthy response. Neb would probably be more interested than myself in entertaining what reads as your ostensible reasoning for why none of us should bother trying to be a socialist, and instead embrace capitalism, but Neb doesn't participate in this thread.
Well, I asked the question in the first place because it's the main aspect of socialism that I always circle back to without finding an answer for myself. I don't think my solution is laissez-faire, and if I gave that idea then I clearly didn't write very well. I think we need very strong institutions that we use to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots. In the forms of very progressive taxes which fund free healthcare, free education, free housing, public independent journalism, and other things that we as a society can keep adding onto the list of things that everyone in society should have guaranteed. But other than those basics, we let free markets do the rest.
I know that you don't believe in this model, which is why I asked the question of how to avoid corruption and nepotism being institutionalised in pure socialism. You countered with an alternative question that I interpreted as "well, current government is rotten to the core already, so how would socialism ever be worse than what we have?" which I tried to respond to. It's the ".. and how do we prevent that?" part which I do not personally have an answer for and was hoping someone else does.
As for your repetition of your spoilers, just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm not mostly on your side. I can rephrase my issue fairly easily:
I'm absolutely on board with socialism up until the point where you need central planning. And I don't know how you avoid central planning. Do you?
I was actually asking you to compare and contrast how China deals with corruption with how the US/Trump administration does. As in, investigations, prosecutions, conviction rates, sentences, etc. for corruption (as well as the general system to deal with it).
What you're doing is trying to rationalize why you don't want to identify/participate as a socialist (that's your choice, just not what this space is for).
I think we need very strong institutions that we use to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots. In the forms of very progressive taxes which fund free healthcare, free education, free housing, public independent journalism, and other things that we as a society can keep adding onto the list of things that everyone in society should have guaranteed. But other than those basics, we let free markets do the rest.
That's what capitalism with "democracy" sells itself as. People also call it stuff like "compassionate capitalism" Biden called it "competitive capitalism". You're advocating capitalism.
The basic problem is that inevitably the capitalists establish regulatory capture and chip away at "the forms of very progressive taxes which fund free healthcare, free education, free housing, public independent journalism, and other things" stuff. We know this in the US as the refrain about cutting taxes and privatization.
I don't think that you can really avoid corruption, that doesn't seem possible. But I don't think corruption needs to become systemic, it can be kept to the level of an individual issue. What you would need to avoid is positions that have a lot of hierarchical power on the system, because then one individual in that position being corrupt would be very problematic, and a general situation of poverty that would lead many people to decide that they would want to cheat the system.
So the way I'd go about this, in super broad strokes obviously, is federalism vs centralism, at the risk of being a little too swiss. Which is ultimately I guess my attempt at avoiding central planning.
I didn't read your posts entirely because I thought the blog was closing down so I don't know if you mentioned it, but another important difference would be all of the corruption that has been legalized in capitalism, through lobbies and dumb shit like Citizens United. These are systemic examples of things that I think we can reasonably link to corruption, that would no longer have a solid reason to exist.
About the thread in general, I'm not sure I'm using it right, I don't know I just see some stuff that I like talking about and I try and answer it. Maybe I'm not supposed to post here either.
I mean the blog is for socialists discussing socialism in the US context, it's not for entertaining every capitalism advocate's problem with their (typically terribly mis/uninformed and bad faith) perceptions of socialism.
That being said, I recognize the early stages will be less rigidly enforced to allow space for all of us to adjust and learn how we can best do that.
So far I'm immensely thankful for your contributions already. Just try to keep it like socialists of differing preferences discussing the merits of their competing socialist ideas and you should be doing fine
Is there a minimum level of reading necessary for the believability of the socialist portrayal you’re looking for here? Or can we really just be whatever we think a socialist is, as long as whatever it is is something we’re embracing in good faith as the solution to many (all?) societal problems?
On February 03 2025 00:55 Ryzel wrote: Is there a minimum level of reading necessary for the believability of the socialist portrayal you’re looking for here? Or can we really just be whatever we think a socialist is, as long as whatever it is is something we’re embracing in good faith as the solution to many (all?) societal problems?
Do you think "be whatever we think a socialist is, as long as whatever it is is something we’re embracing in good faith as the solution to many (all?) societal problems?" qualifies? Because I immediately see an overlap with Acro's advocacy of "compassionate capitalism" fitting within your restrictions. Do you see that?
I'd also note that your framing of "solutions to many (all?) societal problems" is already indicative of not getting a basic understanding of what socialism is. In recognition of that, I'm going to try to add some basic resources in the OP about socialism.
I'll go ahead and gather some on my own, but I would encourage Neb and any other socialists that may be lurking to go ahead and submit their own preferred "intro to doing socialism 101" sort of media to potentially be added and/or discussed.
EDIT: Have to rewatch it but I think this is a reasonable place for most people to start:
On February 03 2025 00:55 Ryzel wrote: Is there a minimum level of reading necessary for the believability of the socialist portrayal you’re looking for here? Or can we really just be whatever we think a socialist is, as long as whatever it is is something we’re embracing in good faith as the solution to many (all?) societal problems?
Do you think "be whatever we think a socialist is, as long as whatever it is is something we’re embracing in good faith as the solution to many (all?) societal problems?" qualifies? Because I immediately see an overlap with Acro's advocacy of "compassionate capitalism" fitting within your restrictions. Do you see that?
I'd also note that your framing of "solutions to many (all?) societal problems" is already indicative of not getting a basic understanding of what socialism is. In recognition of that, I'm going to try to add some basic resources in the OP about socialism.
I'll go ahead and gather some on my own, but I would encourage Neb and any other socialists that may be lurking to go ahead and submit their own preferred "intro to doing socialism 101" sort of media to potentially be added and/or discussed.
Thanks, I appreciate this. I watched the video in the OP as well, and dipped my toes into the Pedagogy Of The Oppressed by Freire when it was brought up ages ago. The reason I asked those questions is because I wanted to clarify the engagement you’re looking for here; originally I would have thought questions like micronesia and Acro asked were fair game, but based off your responses it seems like you’re characterizing their approaches as “I’d LIKE to be socialist, but what about X?”, and that you’re not looking to entertain that kind of discussion. That gives me the vibe you’re looking for something like “Regardless of any misgivings (if any) I have about socialism, I’m going to be a socialist in this thread and discuss topics with others (specifically regarding praxis) who are making the same commitment.”
If you could correct anything wrong about that assumption, I’d appreciate it!
On February 03 2025 00:55 Ryzel wrote: Is there a minimum level of reading necessary for the believability of the socialist portrayal you’re looking for here? Or can we really just be whatever we think a socialist is, as long as whatever it is is something we’re embracing in good faith as the solution to many (all?) societal problems?
Do you think "be whatever we think a socialist is, as long as whatever it is is something we’re embracing in good faith as the solution to many (all?) societal problems?" qualifies? Because I immediately see an overlap with Acro's advocacy of "compassionate capitalism" fitting within your restrictions. Do you see that?
I'd also note that your framing of "solutions to many (all?) societal problems" is already indicative of not getting a basic understanding of what socialism is. In recognition of that, I'm going to try to add some basic resources in the OP about socialism.
I'll go ahead and gather some on my own, but I would encourage Neb and any other socialists that may be lurking to go ahead and submit their own preferred "intro to doing socialism 101" sort of media to potentially be added and/or discussed.
Thanks, I appreciate this. I watched the video in the OP as well, and dipped my toes into the Pedagogy Of The Oppressed by Freire when it was brought up ages ago. The reason I asked those questions is because I wanted to clarify the engagement you’re looking for here; originally I would have thought questions like micronesia and Acro asked were fair game, but based off your responses it seems like you’re characterizing their approaches as “I’d LIKE to be socialist, but what about X?”, and that you’re not looking to entertain that kind of discussion. That gives me the vibe you’re looking for something like “Regardless of any misgivings (if any) I have about socialism, I’m going to be a socialist in this thread and discuss topics with others (specifically regarding praxis) who are making the same commitment.”
If you could correct anything wrong about that assumption, I’d appreciate it!
To be clear the video I just posted is distinct from the one in the OP (though they'll both be there when you read this).
I'd say “Regardless of any misgivings (if any) I have about socialism, I’m going to be a socialist in this thread and discuss topics with others (specifically regarding praxis) who are making the same commitment.” is definitely an improvement from your first articulation.
Would you object to shortening/adjusting it to "I’m going to be a socialist in this thread and discuss topics with others (specifically regarding praxis, theory, and related topics) who are making the same commitment.”?
It's your thread so whatev' but I question the necessity of being so specific, someone like Zambrah who is only ready to say "anticapitalist" I would definitely consider on our side.
On February 03 2025 03:19 Nebuchad wrote: It's your thread so whatev' but I question the necessity of being so specific, someone like Zambrah who is only ready to say "anticapitalist" I would definitely consider on our side.
Logistically it's "mine" (it ultimately being TLs notwithstanding), but practically I see myself more as its facilitator.
Not very hard for an anticapitalist or even progressive libs to pass for a socialist if they try, I'm just asking that they try. In exchange I'll be helping facilitate us all developing a deeper understanding of socialism and how we can apply it to our lives/political futures.
I think socialist-curious people are getting a helluva deal.
It's not like I'm their parole officer demanding people show me their sign-off sheet for volunteer/meeting hours to participate, or that I will lock em up if they express lib/Dem views in some other political venue.
On February 03 2025 22:56 Navane wrote: In the USA, EU and China, societies have both capitalist and socialist traits. What dogshit are you trying to peddle in this thread.
Any society that even tries to be 100% purebread becomes an instant caricature. USA highways are socialist. China's street markets are kapitalist.
Your abstractions do not serve you.
Its a primary flaw in Socialism in the United States, the understanding of socialism in the coasts vs the understanding of socialism in the midwest is worlds apart, and both sides hate each other.
The Midwest has a legitimate history of socialism and doing it right. Minnesota didn't become one of the most highly economically developed regions of the world because of oil or gold or a head start on everyone else. It got there because of the Scandinavian socialists that embraced real practical socialist policy like healthcare schools and unions. It got there because we have an unelected cabal of technocratic appointees that have taxing authority and legal authority to bend the development of our state to a long-term vision of prosperity.
Going in circles with your own tail on what the exact philosophical tenets and doctrine of socialism is meaningless if you fail to apply it in any real measure. Having a local community of socialists means nothing if you fail to get elected and implement your policy to help people. Sewer socialists did more for their community than any communist ever has.
On February 03 2025 22:56 Navane wrote: In the USA, EU and China, societies have both capitalist and socialist traits. What dogshit are you trying to peddle in this thread.
Any society that even tries to be 100% purebread becomes an instant caricature. USA highways are socialist. China's street markets are kapitalist.
Your abstractions do not serve you.
Its a primary flaw in Socialism in the United States, the understanding of socialism in the coasts vs the understanding of socialism in the midwest is worlds apart, and both sides hate each other.
The Midwest has a legitimate history of socialism and doing it right. Minnesota didn't become one of the most highly economically developed regions of the world because of oil or gold or a head start on everyone else. It got there because of the Scandinavian socialists that embraced real practical socialist policy like healthcare schools and unions. It got there because we have an unelected cabal of technocratic appointees that have taxing authority and legal authority to bend the development of our state to a long-term vision of prosperity.
Going in circles with your own tail on what the exact philosophical tenets and doctrine of socialism is meaningless if you fail to apply it in any real measure. Having a local community of socialists means nothing if you fail to get elected and implement your policy to help people. Sewer socialists did more for their community than any communist ever has.
Who are some of the representatives of this Midwest socialism nowadays? Klobuchar?
I saw this bit from the Sewer socialists that certainly sounds prescient and familiar.
Socialist Assemblyman George L. Tews, during a 1932 debate on unemployment compensation and how to fund it, argued for the Socialist bill and against the Progressive substitute, stating that a Progressive was "a Socialist with the brains knocked out"
On February 03 2025 22:56 Navane wrote: In the USA, EU and China, societies have both capitalist and socialist traits. What dogshit are you trying to peddle in this thread.
Any society that even tries to be 100% purebread becomes an instant caricature. USA highways are socialist. China's street markets are kapitalist.
Your abstractions do not serve you.
Its a primary flaw in Socialism in the United States, the understanding of socialism in the coasts vs the understanding of socialism in the midwest is worlds apart, and both sides hate each other.
The Midwest has a legitimate history of socialism and doing it right. Minnesota didn't become one of the most highly economically developed regions of the world because of oil or gold or a head start on everyone else. It got there because of the Scandinavian socialists that embraced real practical socialist policy like healthcare schools and unions. It got there because we have an unelected cabal of technocratic appointees that have taxing authority and legal authority to bend the development of our state to a long-term vision of prosperity.
Going in circles with your own tail on what the exact philosophical tenets and doctrine of socialism is meaningless if you fail to apply it in any real measure. Having a local community of socialists means nothing if you fail to get elected and implement your policy to help people. Sewer socialists did more for their community than any communist ever has.
Who are some of the representatives of this Midwest socialism nowadays? Klobuchar?
I saw this bit from the Sewer socialists that certainly sounds prescient and familiar.
Socialist Assemblyman George L. Tews, during a 1932 debate on unemployment compensation and how to fund it, argued for the Socialist bill and against the Progressive substitute, stating that a Progressive was "a Socialist with the brains knocked out"
Ilhan Omar? Walz? Paul Wellstone is the current godfather of the movement and he died in a plane crash a while back "We all do better when we all do better". They call the training camp for new politicians for the DFL "camp wellstone" If you want a functionary then Charles A. Zelle is probably the most effective one of the lot. The Modern MSP buildout was a hallmark of an extremely efficient and well-designed public infrastructure. Integrating rideshare, parking, dropoff/pickup, shuttle bus's, public transport, TSA all in an extremely cost-effective frame. Recently they've moved into park and ride because large-scale electric bus's on dedicated stop buildout are the new hotness. the guy was a CEO for a bus transport company that's still kicking
Free healthcare for the poor and free CC and technical education are the golden ticket to bring people up. Giving them cheap and available public transport so they can go to these schools is what will give opportunity and lower disparities.
On February 03 2025 22:56 Navane wrote: In the USA, EU and China, societies have both capitalist and socialist traits. What dogshit are you trying to peddle in this thread.
Any society that even tries to be 100% purebread becomes an instant caricature. USA highways are socialist. China's street markets are kapitalist.
Your abstractions do not serve you.
Its a primary flaw in Socialism in the United States, the understanding of socialism in the coasts vs the understanding of socialism in the midwest is worlds apart, and both sides hate each other.
The Midwest has a legitimate history of socialism and doing it right. Minnesota didn't become one of the most highly economically developed regions of the world because of oil or gold or a head start on everyone else. It got there because of the Scandinavian socialists that embraced real practical socialist policy like healthcare schools and unions. It got there because we have an unelected cabal of technocratic appointees that have taxing authority and legal authority to bend the development of our state to a long-term vision of prosperity.
Going in circles with your own tail on what the exact philosophical tenets and doctrine of socialism is meaningless if you fail to apply it in any real measure. Having a local community of socialists means nothing if you fail to get elected and implement your policy to help people. Sewer socialists did more for their community than any communist ever has.
Who are some of the representatives of this Midwest socialism nowadays? Klobuchar?
I saw this bit from the Sewer socialists that certainly sounds prescient and familiar.
Socialist Assemblyman George L. Tews, during a 1932 debate on unemployment compensation and how to fund it, argued for the Socialist bill and against the Progressive substitute, stating that a Progressive was "a Socialist with the brains knocked out"
Ilhan Omar? Walz? Paul Wellstone is the current godfather of the movement and he died in a plane crash a while back "We all do better when we all do better". They call the training camp for new politicians for the DFL "camp wellstone" If you want a functionary then Charles A. Zelle is probably the most effective one of the lot. The Modern MSP buildout was a hallmark of an extremely efficient and well-designed public infrastructure. Integrating rideshare, parking, dropoff/pickup, shuttle bus's, public transport, TSA all in an extremely cost-effective frame. Recently they've moved into park and ride because large-scale electric bus's on dedicated stop buildout are the new hotness. the guy was a CEO for a bus transport company that's still kicking
Free healthcare for the poor and free CC and technical education are the golden ticket to bring people up. Giving them cheap and available public transport so they can go to these schools is what will give opportunity and lower disparities.
I dunno, I'm probably too biased to give this fair consideration in the moment, I'd like to hear Neb's thoughts.
One thing that comes to my mind is how Walz's "midwest socialism" (I think Europe just calls this social democracy?) as you call it and ability to go after Republicans as "weird" really did resonate with a lot of people, only for him to basically be shut up and shelved to bring Cheney to some campaign events.
EPT
