|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
See, you could had wrote that, and I might have accepted that as the basis for the start of a line of reasoning, now it's up to you to complete the rest of the line of reasoning, statement by statement. For instance, a possiblity would be a continuation of how you have identified the problem of that of "shitty leaders", in respect to nebuchad's, favacola's, jimmic's and Danglar's discussion on the problem of whether or not centralized states are more vulnerable to authoritarianism, as an example.
Hope that helps?
|
On May 01 2019 06:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 05:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote:No really GH lets go word by word. Lets break down your thought process. On May 01 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think the problem is less federalism or centralism and more trying to split the baby of having a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy.
That's to say we want to have a democracy, but we don't want to do the work it takes (critical pedagogy) to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy. What is the problem? The problem people seemed to be identifying (I could be wrong) was shitty leaders. I was positing that shitty leaders emerge from shitty populaces and the only way to correct that cycle is critical pedagogy. Not trying to be vulgar just succinct. Does this mean that you see us all as your students and you as the teacher?
No.
I strongly encourage everyone read Freire and this is clear. The very root of the philosophy of critical pedagogy is that we are all students and teachers. This returns us to Nebs point about tearing down hierarchies and how the traditional educational model (Freire and others have referred to as the "banking model" or the "empty vessel") fundamentally undermines this goal and reinforces the oppressive dynamics that lead to the problems people are identifying in federalism and centralism imo.
On May 01 2019 06:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
See, you could had wrote that, and I might have accepted that as the basis for the start of a line of reasoning, now it's up to you to complete the rest of the line of reasoning, statement by statement. For instance, a possiblity would be a continuation of how you have identified the problem of that of "shitty leaders", in respect to nebuchad's, favacola's, jimmic's and Danglar's discussion on the problem of whether or not centralized states are more vulnerable to authoritarianism, as an example.
Hope that helps?
In short? No one cares much about an authoritarian that does what they want.
|
|
|
|
|
On May 01 2019 06:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 05:59 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 03:05 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 02:45 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 01:02 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 00:48 Nebuchad wrote:
GH can clarify what his argument was but if he's an accelerationist he's terrible at it. Sanders is the opposite of what you want in that ideology. This is a weird claim.
For the record I don't think accelerationism is that dumb. It's reductive to say that they just think you get progress once liberalism falls; once liberalism falls, there's a fight between the socialists and the reactionaries, and you either die or you win. Rationally it mostly works, my only issue is that we don't need to do this shit, capitalism already looks bad; we have the best hand already and we're trying to cheat, in a way that is dangerous and painful, to gain a small edge; there's a disconnect there. Other than that every argument I have against accelerationism is a moral one, they basically sound like psychopaths. I agree with you. What country currently has the system you would like to see in place? The reason I ask is the ones I most like have an aspect of capitalism, just lots of regulation and some aspects of socialism but they most definitely are democracy's. Any attempt at full socialism seems to lead too authoritarianism, which leads to all sorts of corruption. Many people blame the corruption on the socialism I blame it on the authoritarianism. Keeping in mind that I don't think the system I want really matters cause I want to work with you all to figure out what works best, my main idea right now looks something like this: - Workers own the means of production (no capitalist class and not the state, the workers). - There is a state. - Because centralized states are more vulnerable to authoritarianism, a lot of federalism. - A lot more direct democracy. - No second class citizens (including migrants). - Very little interventionism. - Might add more stuff here when I think of it What country is the closest to your ideal? Just trying to see if it works in practice. My personal experience since working in government is we lack the ability to move quickly or make process improvements. We mean well but often grow almost for the sake of growth. We have an advantage of being able to pay people more and have it cost the same because we have no need for profit. We often lose this advantage do to a lack of productivity as people seem to lose motivation when there is no reward/fear of firing. In spite of this we do a way better job of keeping costs down on necessities such as health care, education, garbage, waste water, insurance, electricity so on. Because when the private gets onto those the profit creep over paces the gains in efficiency. So my ideal system is more of a hybrid where the government controls all the "musts" (and cell phones are no falling in the category) and then the private sector controls the "wants" with government regulation to make sure the environment and so on is protected. Lots of businesses are happy with regulation when it allows them to still compete and do it well, and the regulation can keep the "bad" ones for beating them for unscrupulous reasons, creates a level playing field. In my dream scenario these regulations would be global so for example the clothing industry couldn't just move all their production to some country where they could do everything they are not allowed to and is expensive. I would outlaw planned obsolescence and single use items like coffee cups. Costs would obviously go up but so would quality and waste would go way down. In my ideal system their would still be a floor and ceiling but they would be MUCH MUCH closer than they are now. Ideally no poor class and no rich class but everyone would fall in that middle class bubble. What's the role of the capitalist class here? Motivation for the most part. The private sector seems to be much better able to innovate. One of my main thoughts is that Prohibition leads to a black market, in almost all cases it has whether booze, prostitution, pot so on. So if you are prohibiting advancement people create their own black market on that, or they find a way to feel slighted "that guy does nothing and gets the same as me so I will do nothing". I don't believe that most people are motivated by the betterment of all men. I think most need some incentive to perform. What we have now is completely out of wack, and the ceiling is way to high and floor too low.
Why would workers be less motivated if they owned the means of production of their labor?
I don't know a lot of people who get up in the morning and think "Can't wait to make my boss a ton of money today!"
|
On May 01 2019 06:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 05:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote:No really GH lets go word by word. Lets break down your thought process. On May 01 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think the problem is less federalism or centralism and more trying to split the baby of having a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy.
That's to say we want to have a democracy, but we don't want to do the work it takes (critical pedagogy) to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy. What is the problem? The problem people seemed to be identifying (I could be wrong) was shitty leaders. I was positing that shitty leaders emerge from shitty populaces and the only way to correct that cycle is critical pedagogy. Not trying to be vulgar just succinct. Does this mean that you see us all as your students and you as the teacher? No. I strongly encourage everyone read Freire and this is clear. The very root of the philosophy of critical pedagogy is that we are all students and teachers. This returns us to Nebs point about tearing down hierarchies and how the traditional educational model (Freire and others have referred to as the "banking model" or the "empty vessel") fundamentally undermines this goal and reinforces the oppressive dynamics that lead to the problems people are identifying in federalism and centralism imo. The problem here is that not everyone is going to or want to and shouldn't have too to have a reasonable conversation with you. Those that wish to engage in that way, by all means. The rest you are going to need to either have a regular straight forward conversation or stop getting so frustrated with why people don't get you.
Which is why despite generally not finding engagement with you fruitful I answered your question. It was reasonable and allowed me the opportunity to better explain the difference between my opinion and yours and how that perception can be rectified.
No one need read the book (though I think they should) to do a quick google of critical pedagogy (if they are unfamiliar with the term) or simply ask "what do you mean by critical pedagogy?"
|
On May 01 2019 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 05:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote:No really GH lets go word by word. Lets break down your thought process. On May 01 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think the problem is less federalism or centralism and more trying to split the baby of having a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy.
That's to say we want to have a democracy, but we don't want to do the work it takes (critical pedagogy) to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy. What is the problem? The problem people seemed to be identifying (I could be wrong) was shitty leaders. I was positing that shitty leaders emerge from shitty populaces and the only way to correct that cycle is critical pedagogy. Not trying to be vulgar just succinct. Does this mean that you see us all as your students and you as the teacher? No. I strongly encourage everyone read Freire and this is clear. The very root of the philosophy of critical pedagogy is that we are all students and teachers. This returns us to Nebs point about tearing down hierarchies and how the traditional educational model (Freire and others have referred to as the "banking model" or the "empty vessel") fundamentally undermines this goal and reinforces the oppressive dynamics that lead to the problems people are identifying in federalism and centralism imo. Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 06:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
See, you could had wrote that, and I might have accepted that as the basis for the start of a line of reasoning, now it's up to you to complete the rest of the line of reasoning, statement by statement. For instance, a possiblity would be a continuation of how you have identified the problem of that of "shitty leaders", in respect to nebuchad's, favacola's, jimmic's and Danglar's discussion on the problem of whether or not centralized states are more vulnerable to authoritarianism, as an example.
Hope that helps? In short? No one cares much about an authoritarian that does what they want.
And if I simply take that statement as true at face value, thought it bears no relevance whatsoever to any other previous posters thoughts, how would that tie in with federalism or centralism in regards to a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy.
Why would you consider a critical pedagogy the essential the work it takes to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy. What do you mean by maintain? By "managing" a democracy, an authoritarian take on democracy if I ever heard one. Even with that why, would critical pedagogy be desirable in particular, however you define it, how do you think such a conceptual system be developed and who are "we"?
There's seven distinct concepts in your mishmash quote of words that is the blackbox that is your mind. Why can't you just explain yourself and open the box to others? Are you afraid to examine yourself and see what is in it?
|
On May 01 2019 06:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 05:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote:No really GH lets go word by word. Lets break down your thought process. On May 01 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think the problem is less federalism or centralism and more trying to split the baby of having a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy.
That's to say we want to have a democracy, but we don't want to do the work it takes (critical pedagogy) to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy. What is the problem? The problem people seemed to be identifying (I could be wrong) was shitty leaders. I was positing that shitty leaders emerge from shitty populaces and the only way to correct that cycle is critical pedagogy. Not trying to be vulgar just succinct. Does this mean that you see us all as your students and you as the teacher? No. I strongly encourage everyone read Freire and this is clear. The very root of the philosophy of critical pedagogy is that we are all students and teachers. This returns us to Nebs point about tearing down hierarchies and how the traditional educational model (Freire and others have referred to as the "banking model" or the "empty vessel") fundamentally undermines this goal and reinforces the oppressive dynamics that lead to the problems people are identifying in federalism and centralism imo. On May 01 2019 06:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
See, you could had wrote that, and I might have accepted that as the basis for the start of a line of reasoning, now it's up to you to complete the rest of the line of reasoning, statement by statement. For instance, a possiblity would be a continuation of how you have identified the problem of that of "shitty leaders", in respect to nebuchad's, favacola's, jimmic's and Danglar's discussion on the problem of whether or not centralized states are more vulnerable to authoritarianism, as an example.
Hope that helps? In short? No one cares much about an authoritarian that does what they want. And if I simply take that statement as true at face value, thought it bears no relevance whatsoever to any other previous posters thoughts, how would that tie in with federalism or centralism in regards to a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy. Why would you consider a critical pedagogy the essential the work it takes to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy. What do you mean by maintain? By "managing" a democracy, an authoritarian take on democracy if I ever heard one. Even with that why, would critical pedagogy be desirable in particular, however you define it, how do you think such a conceptual system be developed and who are "we"? There's seven distinct concepts in your mishmash quote of words that is the blackbox that is your mind. Why can't you just explain yourself and open the box to others? Are you afraid to examine yourself and see what is in it?
Are other people having these struggles? If so, I'll continue but they seem self explanatory to me and this feels like it's been bad faith engagement from DMCD from his first post but I do care if others aren't following what I meant.
|
On May 01 2019 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 06:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 01 2019 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 05:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote:No really GH lets go word by word. Lets break down your thought process. On May 01 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think the problem is less federalism or centralism and more trying to split the baby of having a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy.
That's to say we want to have a democracy, but we don't want to do the work it takes (critical pedagogy) to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy. What is the problem? The problem people seemed to be identifying (I could be wrong) was shitty leaders. I was positing that shitty leaders emerge from shitty populaces and the only way to correct that cycle is critical pedagogy. Not trying to be vulgar just succinct. Does this mean that you see us all as your students and you as the teacher? No. I strongly encourage everyone read Freire and this is clear. The very root of the philosophy of critical pedagogy is that we are all students and teachers. This returns us to Nebs point about tearing down hierarchies and how the traditional educational model (Freire and others have referred to as the "banking model" or the "empty vessel") fundamentally undermines this goal and reinforces the oppressive dynamics that lead to the problems people are identifying in federalism and centralism imo. On May 01 2019 06:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
See, you could had wrote that, and I might have accepted that as the basis for the start of a line of reasoning, now it's up to you to complete the rest of the line of reasoning, statement by statement. For instance, a possiblity would be a continuation of how you have identified the problem of that of "shitty leaders", in respect to nebuchad's, favacola's, jimmic's and Danglar's discussion on the problem of whether or not centralized states are more vulnerable to authoritarianism, as an example.
Hope that helps? In short? No one cares much about an authoritarian that does what they want. And if I simply take that statement as true at face value, thought it bears no relevance whatsoever to any other previous posters thoughts, how would that tie in with federalism or centralism in regards to a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy. Why would you consider a critical pedagogy the essential the work it takes to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy. What do you mean by maintain? By "managing" a democracy, an authoritarian take on democracy if I ever heard one. Even with that why, would critical pedagogy be desirable in particular, however you define it, how do you think such a conceptual system be developed and who are "we"? There's seven distinct concepts in your mishmash quote of words that is the blackbox that is your mind. Why can't you just explain yourself and open the box to others? Are you afraid to examine yourself and see what is in it? Are other people having these struggles? If so, I'll continue but they seem self explanatory to me and this feels like it's been bad faith engagement from DMCD from his first post but I do care if others aren't following what I meant.
It isn't bad faith to ask for a more digestible explanation when the first thing you posted isn't sufficiently clear. Simply repeating that it's clear to you doesn't help anybody, the problem is that it's not clear to the people, who are reading it, what you mean. You can be totally correct in the way you understand it, but if your explanation's not clear enough that doesn't make the others bad faith actors.
|
On May 01 2019 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 06:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 01 2019 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 05:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote:No really GH lets go word by word. Lets break down your thought process. On May 01 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think the problem is less federalism or centralism and more trying to split the baby of having a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy.
That's to say we want to have a democracy, but we don't want to do the work it takes (critical pedagogy) to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy. What is the problem? The problem people seemed to be identifying (I could be wrong) was shitty leaders. I was positing that shitty leaders emerge from shitty populaces and the only way to correct that cycle is critical pedagogy. Not trying to be vulgar just succinct. Does this mean that you see us all as your students and you as the teacher? No. I strongly encourage everyone read Freire and this is clear. The very root of the philosophy of critical pedagogy is that we are all students and teachers. This returns us to Nebs point about tearing down hierarchies and how the traditional educational model (Freire and others have referred to as the "banking model" or the "empty vessel") fundamentally undermines this goal and reinforces the oppressive dynamics that lead to the problems people are identifying in federalism and centralism imo. On May 01 2019 06:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
See, you could had wrote that, and I might have accepted that as the basis for the start of a line of reasoning, now it's up to you to complete the rest of the line of reasoning, statement by statement. For instance, a possiblity would be a continuation of how you have identified the problem of that of "shitty leaders", in respect to nebuchad's, favacola's, jimmic's and Danglar's discussion on the problem of whether or not centralized states are more vulnerable to authoritarianism, as an example.
Hope that helps? In short? No one cares much about an authoritarian that does what they want. And if I simply take that statement as true at face value, thought it bears no relevance whatsoever to any other previous posters thoughts, how would that tie in with federalism or centralism in regards to a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy. Why would you consider a critical pedagogy the essential the work it takes to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy. What do you mean by maintain? By "managing" a democracy, an authoritarian take on democracy if I ever heard one. Even with that why, would critical pedagogy be desirable in particular, however you define it, how do you think such a conceptual system be developed and who are "we"? There's seven distinct concepts in your mishmash quote of words that is the blackbox that is your mind. Why can't you just explain yourself and open the box to others? Are you afraid to examine yourself and see what is in it? Are other people having these struggles? If so, I'll continue but they seem self explanatory to me and this feels like it's been bad faith engagement from DMCD from his first post but I do care if others aren't following what I meant.
I think I mostly get what you meant. But tbh that line about federalism is one of my most surface level takes. I basically just looked at swiss federalism and went "Welp if I was a dictator it would be fucking hard to seize power from this", and since I don't want a dictator to seize power in my utopia, I just put federalism in there. I don't even have a super thorough understanding of swiss federalism. So my main course of action on this will just be to wait for farva's follow-up if it comes cause that sounds a lot more interesting.
|
|
|
On May 01 2019 06:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 06:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 01 2019 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 05:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote:No really GH lets go word by word. Lets break down your thought process. On May 01 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think the problem is less federalism or centralism and more trying to split the baby of having a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy.
That's to say we want to have a democracy, but we don't want to do the work it takes (critical pedagogy) to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy. What is the problem? The problem people seemed to be identifying (I could be wrong) was shitty leaders. I was positing that shitty leaders emerge from shitty populaces and the only way to correct that cycle is critical pedagogy. Not trying to be vulgar just succinct. Does this mean that you see us all as your students and you as the teacher? No. I strongly encourage everyone read Freire and this is clear. The very root of the philosophy of critical pedagogy is that we are all students and teachers. This returns us to Nebs point about tearing down hierarchies and how the traditional educational model (Freire and others have referred to as the "banking model" or the "empty vessel") fundamentally undermines this goal and reinforces the oppressive dynamics that lead to the problems people are identifying in federalism and centralism imo. On May 01 2019 06:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
See, you could had wrote that, and I might have accepted that as the basis for the start of a line of reasoning, now it's up to you to complete the rest of the line of reasoning, statement by statement. For instance, a possiblity would be a continuation of how you have identified the problem of that of "shitty leaders", in respect to nebuchad's, favacola's, jimmic's and Danglar's discussion on the problem of whether or not centralized states are more vulnerable to authoritarianism, as an example.
Hope that helps? In short? No one cares much about an authoritarian that does what they want. And if I simply take that statement as true at face value, thought it bears no relevance whatsoever to any other previous posters thoughts, how would that tie in with federalism or centralism in regards to a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy. Why would you consider a critical pedagogy the essential the work it takes to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy. What do you mean by maintain? By "managing" a democracy, an authoritarian take on democracy if I ever heard one. Even with that why, would critical pedagogy be desirable in particular, however you define it, how do you think such a conceptual system be developed and who are "we"? There's seven distinct concepts in your mishmash quote of words that is the blackbox that is your mind. Why can't you just explain yourself and open the box to others? Are you afraid to examine yourself and see what is in it? Are other people having these struggles? If so, I'll continue but they seem self explanatory to me and this feels like it's been bad faith engagement from DMCD from his first post but I do care if others aren't following what I meant. I think I mostly get what you meant. But tbh that line about federalism is one of my most surface level takes. I basically just looked at swiss federalism and went "Welp if I was a dictator it would be fucking hard to seize power from this", and since I don't want a dictator to seize power in my utopia, I just put federalism in there. I don't even have a super thorough understanding of swiss federalism. So my main course of action on this will just be to wait for farva's follow-up if it comes cause that sounds a lot more interesting.
I mean I think people identify that Authoritarianism has it's weaknesses (bad authorities), but agree that the problem isn't authority (save some anarchists) itself, it's the abuse of authority. So the important question shifts from which system lends itself to more problems in addition to and/or the consistent rise of bad leadership, federalism or centralism, to the more valuable imo question of how do we prevent bad leaders from rising to leadership in either system (or whatever blend of both).
For which, I answer critical pedagogy. I think, if I'm understanding correctly, those (besides yourself) are arguing that there's some blend of federalism and centralism that mitigates bad leaders and finding that is the better approach.
I'll provide another summary of Critical Pedegogy.
Critical pedagogy is a philosophy of education and social movement that has developed and applied concepts from critical theory and related traditions to the field of education and the study of culture.[1] Advocates of critical pedagogy view teaching as an inherently political act, reject the neutrality of knowledge, and insist that issues of social justice and democracy itself are not distinct from acts of teaching and learning.[2] The goal of critical pedagogy is emancipation from oppression through an awakening of the critical consciousness, based on the Portuguese term conscientização. When achieved, critical consciousness encourages individuals to effect change in their world through social critique and political action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedagogy
Several people have written entire books about it and the movement is dedicated to sharing in a learning process with those willing to engage but we can't force anyone to do it.
There's actually a thread about critical theory and critical pedagogy if people want to discuss what it is, how it works, and stuff like that.
|
|
|
On May 01 2019 06:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 06:14 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 06:06 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 05:59 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 03:05 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 02:45 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 01:02 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 00:48 Nebuchad wrote:
GH can clarify what his argument was but if he's an accelerationist he's terrible at it. Sanders is the opposite of what you want in that ideology. This is a weird claim.
For the record I don't think accelerationism is that dumb. It's reductive to say that they just think you get progress once liberalism falls; once liberalism falls, there's a fight between the socialists and the reactionaries, and you either die or you win. Rationally it mostly works, my only issue is that we don't need to do this shit, capitalism already looks bad; we have the best hand already and we're trying to cheat, in a way that is dangerous and painful, to gain a small edge; there's a disconnect there. Other than that every argument I have against accelerationism is a moral one, they basically sound like psychopaths. I agree with you. What country currently has the system you would like to see in place? The reason I ask is the ones I most like have an aspect of capitalism, just lots of regulation and some aspects of socialism but they most definitely are democracy's. Any attempt at full socialism seems to lead too authoritarianism, which leads to all sorts of corruption. Many people blame the corruption on the socialism I blame it on the authoritarianism. Keeping in mind that I don't think the system I want really matters cause I want to work with you all to figure out what works best, my main idea right now looks something like this: - Workers own the means of production (no capitalist class and not the state, the workers). - There is a state. - Because centralized states are more vulnerable to authoritarianism, a lot of federalism. - A lot more direct democracy. - No second class citizens (including migrants). - Very little interventionism. - Might add more stuff here when I think of it What country is the closest to your ideal? Just trying to see if it works in practice. My personal experience since working in government is we lack the ability to move quickly or make process improvements. We mean well but often grow almost for the sake of growth. We have an advantage of being able to pay people more and have it cost the same because we have no need for profit. We often lose this advantage do to a lack of productivity as people seem to lose motivation when there is no reward/fear of firing. In spite of this we do a way better job of keeping costs down on necessities such as health care, education, garbage, waste water, insurance, electricity so on. Because when the private gets onto those the profit creep over paces the gains in efficiency. So my ideal system is more of a hybrid where the government controls all the "musts" (and cell phones are no falling in the category) and then the private sector controls the "wants" with government regulation to make sure the environment and so on is protected. Lots of businesses are happy with regulation when it allows them to still compete and do it well, and the regulation can keep the "bad" ones for beating them for unscrupulous reasons, creates a level playing field. In my dream scenario these regulations would be global so for example the clothing industry couldn't just move all their production to some country where they could do everything they are not allowed to and is expensive. I would outlaw planned obsolescence and single use items like coffee cups. Costs would obviously go up but so would quality and waste would go way down. In my ideal system their would still be a floor and ceiling but they would be MUCH MUCH closer than they are now. Ideally no poor class and no rich class but everyone would fall in that middle class bubble. What's the role of the capitalist class here? Motivation for the most part. The private sector seems to be much better able to innovate. One of my main thoughts is that Prohibition leads to a black market, in almost all cases it has whether booze, prostitution, pot so on. So if you are prohibiting advancement people create their own black market on that, or they find a way to feel slighted "that guy does nothing and gets the same as me so I will do nothing". I don't believe that most people are motivated by the betterment of all men. I think most need some incentive to perform. What we have now is completely out of wack, and the ceiling is way to high and floor too low. Why would workers be less motivated if they owned the means of production of their labor? I don't know a lot of people who get up in the morning and think "Can't wait to make my boss a ton of money today!" So in your system do the workers get the profits from just where they work or is all the money pooled from all the factories and given to run society as a whole?
The first one, as specified in my first post
|
|
|
On May 01 2019 07:35 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 06:14 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 06:06 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 05:59 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 03:05 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 02:45 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 01:02 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 00:48 Nebuchad wrote:
GH can clarify what his argument was but if he's an accelerationist he's terrible at it. Sanders is the opposite of what you want in that ideology. This is a weird claim.
For the record I don't think accelerationism is that dumb. It's reductive to say that they just think you get progress once liberalism falls; once liberalism falls, there's a fight between the socialists and the reactionaries, and you either die or you win. Rationally it mostly works, my only issue is that we don't need to do this shit, capitalism already looks bad; we have the best hand already and we're trying to cheat, in a way that is dangerous and painful, to gain a small edge; there's a disconnect there. Other than that every argument I have against accelerationism is a moral one, they basically sound like psychopaths. I agree with you. What country currently has the system you would like to see in place? The reason I ask is the ones I most like have an aspect of capitalism, just lots of regulation and some aspects of socialism but they most definitely are democracy's. Any attempt at full socialism seems to lead too authoritarianism, which leads to all sorts of corruption. Many people blame the corruption on the socialism I blame it on the authoritarianism. Keeping in mind that I don't think the system I want really matters cause I want to work with you all to figure out what works best, my main idea right now looks something like this: - Workers own the means of production (no capitalist class and not the state, the workers). - There is a state. - Because centralized states are more vulnerable to authoritarianism, a lot of federalism. - A lot more direct democracy. - No second class citizens (including migrants). - Very little interventionism. - Might add more stuff here when I think of it What country is the closest to your ideal? Just trying to see if it works in practice. My personal experience since working in government is we lack the ability to move quickly or make process improvements. We mean well but often grow almost for the sake of growth. We have an advantage of being able to pay people more and have it cost the same because we have no need for profit. We often lose this advantage do to a lack of productivity as people seem to lose motivation when there is no reward/fear of firing. In spite of this we do a way better job of keeping costs down on necessities such as health care, education, garbage, waste water, insurance, electricity so on. Because when the private gets onto those the profit creep over paces the gains in efficiency. So my ideal system is more of a hybrid where the government controls all the "musts" (and cell phones are no falling in the category) and then the private sector controls the "wants" with government regulation to make sure the environment and so on is protected. Lots of businesses are happy with regulation when it allows them to still compete and do it well, and the regulation can keep the "bad" ones for beating them for unscrupulous reasons, creates a level playing field. In my dream scenario these regulations would be global so for example the clothing industry couldn't just move all their production to some country where they could do everything they are not allowed to and is expensive. I would outlaw planned obsolescence and single use items like coffee cups. Costs would obviously go up but so would quality and waste would go way down. In my ideal system their would still be a floor and ceiling but they would be MUCH MUCH closer than they are now. Ideally no poor class and no rich class but everyone would fall in that middle class bubble. What's the role of the capitalist class here? Motivation for the most part. The private sector seems to be much better able to innovate. One of my main thoughts is that Prohibition leads to a black market, in almost all cases it has whether booze, prostitution, pot so on. So if you are prohibiting advancement people create their own black market on that, or they find a way to feel slighted "that guy does nothing and gets the same as me so I will do nothing". I don't believe that most people are motivated by the betterment of all men. I think most need some incentive to perform. What we have now is completely out of wack, and the ceiling is way to high and floor too low. Why would workers be less motivated if they owned the means of production of their labor? I don't know a lot of people who get up in the morning and think "Can't wait to make my boss a ton of money today!" So in your system do the workers get the profits from just where they work or is all the money pooled from all the factories and given to run society as a whole? The first one, as specified in my first post So when " - Workers own the means of production (no capitalist class and not the state, the workers)." That means that for example all google employees own an equal share of google and the profits? And if you work in a road construction crew same thing? So if you wish to get ahead you pick the best companies to work for because they make the most money? How does the taxation work? And how do all the jobs that don't turn profits but are needed funded? And to what level are those people paid? Like Doctors compared to teachers compared to garbage men? And Are doctors nurses and caretakers all equally compensated? Is it per hour or if for example the doctor has to work longer hours because of emergency is he compensated more for the extra hours? Straight scale or paid more for overtime? Who decides who gets how much overtime? Edit: I'm not trying to be a dick, the devil is just in the details, "workers controlling the means of production sounds great but what exactly does it mean"
The devil isn't actually in the details at all cause most of the details are decided through direct democracy, and people aren't the devil. As far as I can tell almost none of the questions you asked are related to who owns the means of production, so, I don't care? I find it almost intensely uninteresting.
|
Can someone summarize the last 5 pages? I can't follow the conversation. Just two or three highlights will suffice.
|
|
|
On May 01 2019 08:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Can someone summarize the last 5 pages? I can't follow the conversation. Just two or three highlights will suffice.
GH's usual response to any issue is to make it a thousand times worse on purpose in order to somehow get to a place where its better than where we are now. Accelerants are an ideology, apparently, hardcore communists who believe the best path to communism in America is to vote Republican. The rest was predictable response and counter-response to this.
Muhamad noor was convicted of second degree murder and third degree manslaughter, The first police officer to be convicted of murder in Minnesota.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
