|
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 |
On May 01 2019 09:08 Introvert wrote:
Mueller also apparently admitted that nothing was inaccurate or misleading. So they are arguing over obstruction, hardly an open or shut case. At least we can put collusion to bed (again), though I appreciate how the NYT drops it out there and then says "but as far as we know the letter didn't mention it." lol. They didnt even read it. Who is summarizing it to them?
And of course as Barr pointed out, his letter was a letter of conclusions, not a summary. A conclusion he had to make because Mueller declined.
edit: reading it again is even funnier. Mueller is complaining more about media reporting and therefore asking for a speedy release. It's not even primarily about Barr.
Seriously? Of course he is complaining that the media was getting it wrong . Why would they do that? Oh I dont know, maybe because Barr's letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, or substance" of the report?
Also, I find it curious how the DoJ spokesman said Mueller said the letter was neither inaccurate nor misleading but during the quoted exchange Barr only asked if it was inaccurate. I wouldn't be surprised if thay was just the DoJs take of the convo.
Hopefully Barr doesnt back out of his hearings this week bc he will be questioned by a staff attorney.
|
On May 01 2019 09:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 08:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:44 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 08:39 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:29 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 07:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 06:14 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
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. This is why I asked what country most resembles your system. I said motivation and you said people don't get up in the morning to make their boss money. They don't they get up to make themselves money and given they are not the businesses owner the business owner pays them. Often based on the amount they produce or how valued the skill they do is seen. But if they own then they are motivated to make themselves money. But do they make more or less if they do more or less? I don't care. Let the workers decide, they know better. Some cooperatives have equal pay and some don't (with the exception of equal pay for equal work obviously). But since we're cutting the middle men who are exploiting them and in a lot of cases the middle men are making an obscene amount of money off of it, I'm going to venture a guess that they stand to make more money than they do now. So each individual business (not everything is a factory) would own and run itself then decide pay by democratic vote? Everything is democratic, not just the pay. But we're close enough, let's go with that. If the competitor is going better so the best people all go their since it pays better and their for the worse one shut down what happens to the people? In general do the workers also assume the risk?
Probably yeah, unless you have a better idea.
|
On May 01 2019 09:08 Introvert wrote:
Mueller also apparently admitted that nothing was inaccurate or misleading. So they are arguing over obstruction, hardly an open or shut case. At least we can put collusion to bed (again), though I appreciate how the NYT drops it out there and then says "but as far as we know the letter didn't mention it." lol. They didnt even read it. Who is summarizing it to them?
And of course as Barr pointed out, his letter was a letter of conclusions, not a summary. A conclusion he had to make because Mueller declined.
edit: reading it again is even funnier. Mueller is complaining more about media reporting and therefore asking for a speedy release. It's not even primarily about Barr.
Collusion was never put to bed. This is a myth that right-wing media keeps feeding stupid clowns. All that was established was that the campaign was not found to have conspired with the Russian GOVERNMENT. They very clearly conspired with Russians more broadly. In fact: "Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Read that twice, no wait, three times. Stop parroting this fucking lie about "collusion" or conspiracy or whatever you want to call it. It is very obviously not true. 140 meetings with Russians that we know of, tons of destroyed evidence, backchannels galore, and God knows how many years of shady business/bank dealings. Collusion definitely happened.
|
On May 01 2019 09:08 Introvert wrote:
Mueller also apparently admitted that nothing was inaccurate or misleading. So they are arguing over obstruction, hardly an open or shut case. At least we can put collusion to bed (again), though I appreciate how the NYT drops it out there and then says "but as far as we know the letter didn't mention it." lol. They didnt even read it. Who is summarizing it to them?
And of course as Barr pointed out, his letter was a letter of conclusions, not a summary. A conclusion he had to make because Mueller declined.
edit: reading it again is even funnier. Mueller is complaining more about media reporting and therefore asking for a speedy release. It's not even primarily about Barr.
Also, you're totally missing the point: The fact that Mueller even had to say something and memorialize it in writing because the AG is acting so fucking shady is HUGE.
|
On May 01 2019 09:29 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 09:08 Introvert wrote:
Mueller also apparently admitted that nothing was inaccurate or misleading. So they are arguing over obstruction, hardly an open or shut case. At least we can put collusion to bed (again), though I appreciate how the NYT drops it out there and then says "but as far as we know the letter didn't mention it." lol. They didnt even read it. Who is summarizing it to them?
And of course as Barr pointed out, his letter was a letter of conclusions, not a summary. A conclusion he had to make because Mueller declined.
edit: reading it again is even funnier. Mueller is complaining more about media reporting and therefore asking for a speedy release. It's not even primarily about Barr. Seriously? Of course he is complaining that the media was getting it wrong . Why would they do that? Oh I dont know, maybe because Barr's letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, or substance" of the report? Also, I find it curious how the DoJ spokesman said Mueller said the letter was neither inaccurate nor misleading but during the quoted exchange Barr only asked if it was inaccurate. I wouldn't be surprised if thay was just the DoJs take of the convo. Hopefully Barr doesn't back out of his hearings this week bc he will be questioned by a staff attorney.
Why do you think this was released tonight? It was to make sure he showed. I'm more curious about who read excerpt to these reporters and what else was in the letter. If I'm not mistaken the only person(s) quoted by name are DOJ people. The Mueller person who did this is still hiding, and it's probably the same one who was upset at the letter last time. Didn't get enough bang for his buck.
Maybe I just see this different, I knew, and said repeatedly, there would be lots of bad things in the report for Trump on this score. Barr says that evidence is laid out for and against. If Mueller is mad that Barr dismissed his weird obstruction theory then that's too bad. Maybe when you write a weaselly report someone else has to take over.
|
On May 01 2019 09:36 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 09:08 Introvert wrote:
Mueller also apparently admitted that nothing was inaccurate or misleading. So they are arguing over obstruction, hardly an open or shut case. At least we can put collusion to bed (again), though I appreciate how the NYT drops it out there and then says "but as far as we know the letter didn't mention it." lol. They didnt even read it. Who is summarizing it to them?
And of course as Barr pointed out, his letter was a letter of conclusions, not a summary. A conclusion he had to make because Mueller declined.
edit: reading it again is even funnier. Mueller is complaining more about media reporting and therefore asking for a speedy release. It's not even primarily about Barr. Collusion was never put to bed. This is a myth that right-wing media keeps feeding stupid clowns. All that was established was that the campaign was not found to have conspired with the Russian GOVERNMENT. They very clearly conspired with Russians more broadly. In fact: "Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Read that twice, no wait, three times. Stop parroting this fucking lie about "collusion" or conspiracy or whatever you want to call it. It is very obviously not true. 140 meetings with Russians that we know of, tons of destroyed evidence, backchannels galore, and God knows how many years of shady business/bank dealings. Collusion definitely happened.
That was the whole conspiracy. That's still the conspiracy if you listen certain other posters who read about polling data and then promptly close the document before reading any more.
I note for the record my opposition to goalpost adjustment #5968498.
|
|
|
Luckily they will both get to testify before Congress. And if Barr keeps stalling, Mueller will just have to go first.
He has always been a political hack that they wheeled out run pass interference for Trump now that the house can’t. And people like Graham are running around, raging at an old video of him making the democrats case for them. It’s a real clown show.
|
Mueller would be pilloried along with Barr had he written a grown-up conclusion and findings section for part 2, even including the embarrassing testimony. It would be two in the stocks instead of one. Mueller is riding with the tide, and Barr is pulling for departmental health. It’s never very fun standing against the revolutionary/resisty spirit when it’s in full swing, but afterwards you wish for the sake of trust in institutions to have stood against it.
The funny part here is DoJ surprise that Mueller did not submit a thought-out list of suggested redactions upon submission. He just submitted a few.
|
On May 01 2019 09:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 09:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I got all of that. I'm just adding my commentary to it. I think you use words in such a way that leaves room for interpretation and people do what they do. I don't think this is quite accurate, the recent example that comes to mind was people just outright turning "disproportionate representation" into "all" and then "a majority" and blamed me for their misinterpreting the literal meaning of the words I used. I think I'm being unfairly blamed for people's careless engagement.
But if it continues to happen, surely you must see that there is an underlying issue that needs to be resolved, right?
|
On May 01 2019 09:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 09:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 09:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I got all of that. I'm just adding my commentary to it. I think you use words in such a way that leaves room for interpretation and people do what they do. I don't think this is quite accurate, the recent example that comes to mind was people just outright turning "disproportionate representation" into "all" and then "a majority" and blamed me for their misinterpreting the literal meaning of the words I used. I think I'm being unfairly blamed for people's careless engagement. But if it continues to happen, surely you must see that there is an underlying issue that needs to be resolved, right?
Absolutely. I've just been demonstrating that it's not something wrong with me or my arguments.
|
|
|
On May 01 2019 10:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 09:21 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 08:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:44 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 08:39 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:29 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 07:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
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. This is why I asked what country most resembles your system. I said motivation and you said people don't get up in the morning to make their boss money. They don't they get up to make themselves money and given they are not the businesses owner the business owner pays them. Often based on the amount they produce or how valued the skill they do is seen. But if they own then they are motivated to make themselves money. But do they make more or less if they do more or less? I don't care. Let the workers decide, they know better. Some cooperatives have equal pay and some don't (with the exception of equal pay for equal work obviously). But since we're cutting the middle men who are exploiting them and in a lot of cases the middle men are making an obscene amount of money off of it, I'm going to venture a guess that they stand to make more money than they do now. So each individual business (not everything is a factory) would own and run itself then decide pay by democratic vote? Everything is democratic, not just the pay. But we're close enough, let's go with that. If the competitor is going better so the best people all go their since it pays better and their for the worse one shut down what happens to the people? In general do the workers also assume the risk? Probably yeah, unless you have a better idea. I don't for your system. I think it could be awesome if everything was worked out, but if it was not it could end up like the USSR. This is why I am more in favor of taking the best current system and than improving it rather than coming up with a new system which will have a whole new set of problems. I think the biggest problem is that it isn't global. Like if the Norway system was global so people couldn't just move money to other countries, or production to other countries to avoid regulation and so on.
I can't speak for Neb but the root of my revolution (which I believe necessary to implement Nebs ideas+) argument is that your argument was sufficient in the 60's and 70's but now we know what the O&G guys knew then that this reformism is insufficient to deal with the impending climate crisis.
So it's not risk the USSR vs unfortunate status quo, it's risking USSR (not really a very historically based argument) vs essentially human extinction.
10 more years of "fixing" capitalism means certain doom for countless people.
|
|
|
On May 01 2019 10:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 10:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2019 10:08 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 09:21 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 08:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:44 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 08:39 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:29 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
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. This is why I asked what country most resembles your system. I said motivation and you said people don't get up in the morning to make their boss money. They don't they get up to make themselves money and given they are not the businesses owner the business owner pays them. Often based on the amount they produce or how valued the skill they do is seen. But if they own then they are motivated to make themselves money. But do they make more or less if they do more or less? I don't care. Let the workers decide, they know better. Some cooperatives have equal pay and some don't (with the exception of equal pay for equal work obviously). But since we're cutting the middle men who are exploiting them and in a lot of cases the middle men are making an obscene amount of money off of it, I'm going to venture a guess that they stand to make more money than they do now. So each individual business (not everything is a factory) would own and run itself then decide pay by democratic vote? Everything is democratic, not just the pay. But we're close enough, let's go with that. If the competitor is going better so the best people all go their since it pays better and their for the worse one shut down what happens to the people? In general do the workers also assume the risk? Probably yeah, unless you have a better idea. I don't for your system. I think it could be awesome if everything was worked out, but if it was not it could end up like the USSR. This is why I am more in favor of taking the best current system and than improving it rather than coming up with a new system which will have a whole new set of problems. I think the biggest problem is that it isn't global. Like if the Norway system was global so people couldn't just move money to other countries, or production to other countries to avoid regulation and so on. I can't speak for Neb but the root of my revolution (which I believe necessary to implement Nebs ideas+) argument is that your argument was sufficient in the 60's and 70's but now we know what the O&G guys knew then that this reformism is insufficient to deal with the impending climate crisis. So it's not risk the USSR vs unfortunate status quo, it's risking USSR (not really a very historically based argument) vs essentially human extinction. 10 more years of "fixing" capitalism means certain doom for countless people. I'm well aware of climate change, and I'm doing my part in actively working to combat it, both personally and with my work. And if the world fell under northern European environmental regulation we would be better off by 10 fold and perhaps at the level that would do enough to do real change. The nations you support more than the US are actually even worse than the US, and the US is not good. By your definition there is no point trying. Because there is 0 chance of a world wide revolution that brings it all under whatever system it is that you have yet to figure out the details. The world wide revolution alone would cause irreversible damage.
What are you talking about with
The nations you support more than the US are actually even worse than the US, and the US is not good .
?
By your definition there is no point trying. Because there is 0 chance of a world wide revolution that brings it all under whatever system it is that you have yet to figure out the details.
That's actually Kwark's position for which he advises that you secure what you can and plan for climate collapse.
On April 25 2019 10:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 10:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So what now Kwark? How are the lower classes supposed to get the wealth of the upper classes? If virtue isn't enough because it is tainted by the means, then what is the solution? I have no solutions. Get as much as you can as quickly as possible because the crisis GH warns us of is coming and you don’t want to be the first ones fucked.
I'm agreeing with Neb other than he's just not in the revolutionary camp... yet 
Those are pretty much the only two sides as they stand, there is no neutral position of moderate reform that so many people have become accustomed to.
Basically anything that could get past the senate (even under the most optimistic electoral scenarios) will result in millions dead, billions displaced, and quite probably the systemic collapse of the global economy, food supply, and so on.
That's presuming somehow we could get back to the Paris accords and then actually have countries meet their pledges (which they aren't).
|
On May 01 2019 10:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 09:21 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 08:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:44 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 08:39 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:29 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 07:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
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. This is why I asked what country most resembles your system. I said motivation and you said people don't get up in the morning to make their boss money. They don't they get up to make themselves money and given they are not the businesses owner the business owner pays them. Often based on the amount they produce or how valued the skill they do is seen. But if they own then they are motivated to make themselves money. But do they make more or less if they do more or less? I don't care. Let the workers decide, they know better. Some cooperatives have equal pay and some don't (with the exception of equal pay for equal work obviously). But since we're cutting the middle men who are exploiting them and in a lot of cases the middle men are making an obscene amount of money off of it, I'm going to venture a guess that they stand to make more money than they do now. So each individual business (not everything is a factory) would own and run itself then decide pay by democratic vote? Everything is democratic, not just the pay. But we're close enough, let's go with that. If the competitor is going better so the best people all go their since it pays better and their for the worse one shut down what happens to the people? In general do the workers also assume the risk? Probably yeah, unless you have a better idea. I don't for your system. I think it could be awesome if everything was worked out, but if it was not it could end up like the USSR. This is why I am more in favor of taking the best current system and than improving it rather than coming up with a new system which will have a whole new set of problems. I think the biggest problem is that it isn't global. Like if the Norway system was global so people couldn't just move money to other countries, or production to other countries to avoid regulation and so on.
The most important thing to keep in mind: my system isn't my system. I want you guys to come with me and improve it, I don't want to design the rules alone, that's the core point at the center of my anticapitalism. As far as I can tell your questioning hasn't poked any holes in what I offered here but if it had, it would be essentially irrelevant. I'm not leading this thing and I don't claim to, nor want to, lead this thing.
Nothing in your line of questioning demonstrates that my system is likely to end up like the USSR. There is no increase in state ownership, and more direct democracy. There is virtually nothing about your system that makes it less likely to end up like the USSR compared to mine.
On May 01 2019 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:I'm agreeing with Neb other than he's just not in the revolutionary camp... yet
I'm also fine with a revolution. Whatever works, scored 50/50 on Politiscales. Going with Sanders/Corbyn 2021 because that sounds like the most realistic way of having a chance, but realistically I'm just going to die fighting fascism somewhere in the near future; which is fine, at least I go out in style.
|
|
|
On May 01 2019 10:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 10:08 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 09:21 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 08:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:44 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 08:39 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:29 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
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. This is why I asked what country most resembles your system. I said motivation and you said people don't get up in the morning to make their boss money. They don't they get up to make themselves money and given they are not the businesses owner the business owner pays them. Often based on the amount they produce or how valued the skill they do is seen. But if they own then they are motivated to make themselves money. But do they make more or less if they do more or less? I don't care. Let the workers decide, they know better. Some cooperatives have equal pay and some don't (with the exception of equal pay for equal work obviously). But since we're cutting the middle men who are exploiting them and in a lot of cases the middle men are making an obscene amount of money off of it, I'm going to venture a guess that they stand to make more money than they do now. So each individual business (not everything is a factory) would own and run itself then decide pay by democratic vote? Everything is democratic, not just the pay. But we're close enough, let's go with that. If the competitor is going better so the best people all go their since it pays better and their for the worse one shut down what happens to the people? In general do the workers also assume the risk? Probably yeah, unless you have a better idea. I don't for your system. I think it could be awesome if everything was worked out, but if it was not it could end up like the USSR. This is why I am more in favor of taking the best current system and than improving it rather than coming up with a new system which will have a whole new set of problems. I think the biggest problem is that it isn't global. Like if the Norway system was global so people couldn't just move money to other countries, or production to other countries to avoid regulation and so on. The most important thing to keep in mind: my system isn't my system. I want you guys to come with me and improve it, I don't want to design the rules alone, that's the core point at the center of my anticapitalism. As far as I can tell your questioning hasn't poked any holes in what I offered here but if it had, it would be essentially irrelevant. I'm not leading this thing and I don't claim to, nor want to, lead this thing. Nothing in your line of questioning demonstrates that my system is likely to end up like the USSR. There is no increase in state ownership, and more direct democracy. There is virtually nothing about your system that makes it less likely to end up like the USSR compared to mine. Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:I'm agreeing with Neb other than he's just not in the revolutionary camp... yet I'm also fine with a revolution. Whatever works, scored 50/50 on Politiscales. Going with Sanders/Corbyn 2021 because that sounds like the most realistic way of having a chance, but realistically I'm just going to die fighting fascism somewhere in the near future; which is fine, at least I go out in style.
I stand pleasantly corrected. Yeah, I think we're destined to win, my concern is that there might not be much left at our current rate.
On May 01 2019 11:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 10:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 10:08 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 09:21 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 08:49 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:44 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 08:39 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2019 08:29 JimmiC wrote:On May 01 2019 07:46 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
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. This is why I asked what country most resembles your system. I said motivation and you said people don't get up in the morning to make their boss money. They don't they get up to make themselves money and given they are not the businesses owner the business owner pays them. Often based on the amount they produce or how valued the skill they do is seen. But if they own then they are motivated to make themselves money. But do they make more or less if they do more or less? I don't care. Let the workers decide, they know better. Some cooperatives have equal pay and some don't (with the exception of equal pay for equal work obviously). But since we're cutting the middle men who are exploiting them and in a lot of cases the middle men are making an obscene amount of money off of it, I'm going to venture a guess that they stand to make more money than they do now. So each individual business (not everything is a factory) would own and run itself then decide pay by democratic vote? Everything is democratic, not just the pay. But we're close enough, let's go with that. If the competitor is going better so the best people all go their since it pays better and their for the worse one shut down what happens to the people? In general do the workers also assume the risk? Probably yeah, unless you have a better idea. I don't for your system. I think it could be awesome if everything was worked out, but if it was not it could end up like the USSR. This is why I am more in favor of taking the best current system and than improving it rather than coming up with a new system which will have a whole new set of problems. I think the biggest problem is that it isn't global. Like if the Norway system was global so people couldn't just move money to other countries, or production to other countries to avoid regulation and so on. The most important thing to keep in mind: my system isn't my system. I want you guys to come with me and improve it, I don't want to design the rules alone, that's the core point at the center of my anticapitalism. As far as I can tell your questioning hasn't poked any holes in what I offered here but if it had, it would be essentially irrelevant. I'm not leading this thing and I don't claim to, nor want to, lead this thing. Nothing in your line of questioning demonstrates that my system is likely to end up like the USSR. There is no increase in state ownership, and more direct democracy. There is virtually nothing about your system that makes it less likely to end up like the USSR compared to mine. On May 01 2019 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:I'm agreeing with Neb other than he's just not in the revolutionary camp... yet I'm also fine with a revolution. Whatever works, scored 50/50 on Politiscales. Going with Sanders/Corbyn 2021 because that sounds like the most realistic way of having a chance, but realistically I'm just going to die fighting fascism somewhere in the near future; which is fine, at least I go out in style. There is lots about mine, mainly that it is working
I don't understand how you reconcile this and the impending climate catastrophe it created and prevents us from preparing for?
What do you mean "it's working"? It threatens the very existence of our species.
|
|
|
On May 01 2019 13:30 JimmiC wrote:
GH it is hard for me to answer you when you take a point out of context. It also makes it hard for me to think that you are trying to engage me in a good faith discussion and not going to just attack whatever I say and say nothing yourself. But I guess I'll try.
The regulation Im speaking about including the EPR(enhanced producer resposibility) are greatly reducing waste, pollution and so on.
The unregulated countries or the super corrupt ones run by authoratarians are doing awful, for every solar farm (which have huge environnemental issues themselves) there is giant dead zoned due to burning plastic and so on.
I understand that somehow that is still the US's fault.
But if you bring down the US how does it solve the climate problem? What is your solution, the more detailed the better.
My understanding from this post is that you don't reconcile them. I'm not being specific to the US, "un/regulated countries", or your EPR's we're talking about capitalism and you seem to be talking about something else as "your system" that "is working".
Nothing about the rest of your post provides any useful context for the point I'm raising.
+ Show Spoiler +Im not looking to poke holes, i was curious if you thought it through at all including issues. This is how when we look to changing a process that is what we go through.
But if you dont have a frame work or want to think about its issues and workings to sort of try to work it out Im not sure how to do it.
Good luck though it sounds interesting.
But if you bring down the US how does it solve the climate problem?
what are you talking about "bring down the US"?
What is your solution, the more detailed the better.
I thought I was clear that I agreed with Neb that it's not "my solution"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
