|
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 July 02 2019 08:58 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 08:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I did answer. "Because humans are want towards accumulation and corruption of said means of production. If they can find a way to increase output while decreasing input, (more profit/sales to less people/payment), even if they are worker owned, means they will. If you have one person who shifts strategy for the entire group of workers and they see better wages, then that person will inevitably desire more compensation for his idea. Then so on and so forth. Think of worker ownership as workplace democracy, because that's basically what it is. I don't see how the flaw that you describe makes that system impossible. Can you get into that a little bit?
Sure. I've got time.
Basically, we're a democratic worker owned company. I invent a system that increases output of resources. At our next meeting, I ask that we increase my piece because I've made us all more money. We all get a cut, but I say I deserve a bigger cut. We vote and either I'm granted it or not. If I am, then life goes on until the next innovation (assuming we've collapsed because we're still recovering from GH's revolution). If I'm not granted that, then I start scraping what I think I deserve off the top before anyone else notices. Or I black market sell our wares. I believe I'm owed more compensation for what I contributed. So it is just. If I'm caught and punished, then the next person will attempt it because they saw that the life I was living was marginally better than everyone else's.
Human nature is greed based and insofar as we would ultimately like to live and care for one another, we want more than the next to make sure we live longer and better. Just because reasons. A communistic society will inevitably collapse because greed will win over. So we will then need someone to sit at the top and dictate what is what and then they'll slowly but surely change the rules which we all agreed upon to favor them and a select few. So on and so forth.
|
The scenario that you describe is very likely to happen, yeah. However I don't see how it makes workplace democracy impossible or undesirable.
|
On July 02 2019 09:07 Nebuchad wrote:
The scenario that you describe is very likely to happen, yeah. However I don't see how it makes workplace democracy impossible or undesirable.
Then this conversation has ended and there is nothing further that I can say to paint the picture for you. By your own admission, it is impossible because of human greed.
EDIT: Can you explain to me, quickly, how come every instance where communism was tried, has failed?
|
On July 02 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:07 Nebuchad wrote:
The scenario that you describe is very likely to happen, yeah. However I don't see how it makes workplace democracy impossible or undesirable. Then this conversation has ended and there is nothing further that I can say to paint the picture for you. By your own admission, it is impossible because of human greed.
Under the logic of this argument democracy at the state level is impossible because humans are greedy and would try to influence the result of elections for their own benefit. Yeah, people do do that, it is a thing that happens. It doesn't make democracy at the state level impossible.
On July 02 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
EDIT: Can you explain to me, quickly, how come every instance where communism was tried, has failed?
A combination of capitalism supporting fascists or conservatives in their effort to kill a bunch of leftists whenever they get power in some cases, and communists choosing the wrong way to implement socialism, through authoritarian control instead of through social democracy, in other cases.
|
On July 02 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:07 Nebuchad wrote:
The scenario that you describe is very likely to happen, yeah. However I don't see how it makes workplace democracy impossible or undesirable. Then this conversation has ended and there is nothing further that I can say to paint the picture for you. By your own admission, it is impossible because of human greed.
That doesn't make it "impossible" unless you'd say the same of capitalism/democracy? Because literally the same scenario applies except the workers don't get a share usually or you for coming up with the innovation.
|
So by that logic, what is the purpose for advocating communism when the end result is the same? And someone always profits. Always. Without fail. And those people are (in a perfect world) held accountable for fucking over the rest.
|
Ya you totally can say that Neb, As i said, its totally crazy, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. When that opinion turn's into to physically assaulting people I tend to draw the line. I'm curious what other reason there could be for this to be justified, I mean did he physically attack them first or what?
GH: Pretty greasy edit buddy glad I caught that, but then even if he was a nazi propagandist - defeat his idea's with better idea's not with milkshakes and punches.
|
On July 02 2019 09:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So by that logic, what is the purpose for advocating communism when the end result is the same? And someone always profits. Always. Without fail. And those people are (in a perfect world) held accountable for fucking over the rest.
I'm advocating democratic socialism, for the record. I don't think I'm a communist. At least not yet.
The advantages are that we create better conditions for workers, remove the major social hierarchy that exists and in the process reduce economic inequality, and create a motive for business that isn't purely reduced to "profit" which allows us to face an overwhelming danger like climate change much more effectively.
|
On July 02 2019 09:18 Taelshin wrote:
Ya you totally can say that Neb, As i said, its totally crazy, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. When that opinion turn's into to physically assaulting people I tend to draw the line. I'm curious what other reason there could be for this to be justified, I mean did he physically attack them first or what?
No, it's just that I think violence against fascists is morally fine.
It's interesting that you draw the line at physically assaulting people, are you against nazi free speech then? Or do you think there is such a thing as a peaceful nazi?
|
On July 02 2019 09:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So by that logic, what is the purpose for advocating communism when the end result is the same? And someone always profits. Always. Without fail. And those people are (in a perfect world) held accountable for fucking over the rest. I'm advocating democratic socialism, for the record. I don't think I'm a communist. At least not yet. The advantages are that we create better conditions for workers, remove the major social hierarchy that exists and in the process reduce economic inequality, and create a motive for business that isn't purely reduced to "profit" which allows us to face an overwhelming danger like climate change much more effectively.
So basically what I said 2 pages ago when you asked for my "solutions"?
|
On July 02 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So by that logic, what is the purpose for advocating communism when the end result is the same? And someone always profits. Always. Without fail. And those people are (in a perfect world) held accountable for fucking over the rest. I'm advocating democratic socialism, for the record. I don't think I'm a communist. At least not yet. The advantages are that we create better conditions for workers, remove the major social hierarchy that exists and in the process reduce economic inequality, and create a motive for business that isn't purely reduced to "profit" which allows us to face an overwhelming danger like climate change much more effectively. So basically what I said 2 pages ago when you asked for my "solutions"?
You said some decent stuff, yeah. But you clearly didn't say "workplace democracy" or anything anticapitalist so clearly this isn't "basically what you said".
|
On July 02 2019 09:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So by that logic, what is the purpose for advocating communism when the end result is the same? And someone always profits. Always. Without fail. And those people are (in a perfect world) held accountable for fucking over the rest. I'm advocating democratic socialism, for the record. I don't think I'm a communist. At least not yet. The advantages are that we create better conditions for workers, remove the major social hierarchy that exists and in the process reduce economic inequality, and create a motive for business that isn't purely reduced to "profit" which allows us to face an overwhelming danger like climate change much more effectively. So basically what I said 2 pages ago when you asked for my "solutions"? You said some decent stuff, yeah. But you clearly didn't say "workplace democracy" or anything anticapitalist so clearly this isn't "basically what you said".
Gotcha. Semantics. Well, glad we had this talk. We should do it again sometime.
|
On July 02 2019 09:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So by that logic, what is the purpose for advocating communism when the end result is the same? And someone always profits. Always. Without fail. And those people are (in a perfect world) held accountable for fucking over the rest. I'm advocating democratic socialism, for the record. I don't think I'm a communist. At least not yet. The advantages are that we create better conditions for workers, remove the major social hierarchy that exists and in the process reduce economic inequality, and create a motive for business that isn't purely reduced to "profit" which allows us to face an overwhelming danger like climate change much more effectively. So basically what I said 2 pages ago when you asked for my "solutions"? You said some decent stuff, yeah. But you clearly didn't say "workplace democracy" or anything anticapitalist so clearly this isn't "basically what you said". Gotcha. Semantics. Well, glad we had this talk. We should do it again sometime.
Capitalism vs anticapitalism is semantics to you?
What the hell man...
|
On July 02 2019 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So by that logic, what is the purpose for advocating communism when the end result is the same? And someone always profits. Always. Without fail. And those people are (in a perfect world) held accountable for fucking over the rest. I'm advocating democratic socialism, for the record. I don't think I'm a communist. At least not yet. The advantages are that we create better conditions for workers, remove the major social hierarchy that exists and in the process reduce economic inequality, and create a motive for business that isn't purely reduced to "profit" which allows us to face an overwhelming danger like climate change much more effectively. So basically what I said 2 pages ago when you asked for my "solutions"? You said some decent stuff, yeah. But you clearly didn't say "workplace democracy" or anything anticapitalist so clearly this isn't "basically what you said". Gotcha. Semantics. Well, glad we had this talk. We should do it again sometime. Capitalism vs anticapitalism is semantics to you? What the hell man...
If that is your takeaway, then I got nothing.
|
On July 02 2019 09:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So by that logic, what is the purpose for advocating communism when the end result is the same? And someone always profits. Always. Without fail. And those people are (in a perfect world) held accountable for fucking over the rest. I'm advocating democratic socialism, for the record. I don't think I'm a communist. At least not yet. The advantages are that we create better conditions for workers, remove the major social hierarchy that exists and in the process reduce economic inequality, and create a motive for business that isn't purely reduced to "profit" which allows us to face an overwhelming danger like climate change much more effectively. So basically what I said 2 pages ago when you asked for my "solutions"? You said some decent stuff, yeah. But you clearly didn't say "workplace democracy" or anything anticapitalist so clearly this isn't "basically what you said". Gotcha. Semantics. Well, glad we had this talk. We should do it again sometime. Capitalism vs anticapitalism is semantics to you? What the hell man... If that is your takeaway, then I got nothing.
It's literally what you said?
|
Neb - Not quite sure what you mean, but in my previous post I stated "but then even if he was a nazi propagandist - defeat his idea's with better idea's not with milkshakes and punches." I think that answers your question. I wonder who get's to decide who the fascists are and are not.
|
On July 02 2019 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So by that logic, what is the purpose for advocating communism when the end result is the same? And someone always profits. Always. Without fail. And those people are (in a perfect world) held accountable for fucking over the rest. I'm advocating democratic socialism, for the record. I don't think I'm a communist. At least not yet. The advantages are that we create better conditions for workers, remove the major social hierarchy that exists and in the process reduce economic inequality, and create a motive for business that isn't purely reduced to "profit" which allows us to face an overwhelming danger like climate change much more effectively. So basically what I said 2 pages ago when you asked for my "solutions"? You said some decent stuff, yeah. But you clearly didn't say "workplace democracy" or anything anticapitalist so clearly this isn't "basically what you said". Gotcha. Semantics. Well, glad we had this talk. We should do it again sometime. Capitalism vs anticapitalism is semantics to you? What the hell man... If that is your takeaway, then I got nothing. It's literally what you said?
You're still here. Thought you left. I meant his use of the word "clearly" to suggest that everything said which did not include those specific catchphrases were now null and void.
|
On July 02 2019 09:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 09:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So by that logic, what is the purpose for advocating communism when the end result is the same? And someone always profits. Always. Without fail. And those people are (in a perfect world) held accountable for fucking over the rest. I'm advocating democratic socialism, for the record. I don't think I'm a communist. At least not yet. The advantages are that we create better conditions for workers, remove the major social hierarchy that exists and in the process reduce economic inequality, and create a motive for business that isn't purely reduced to "profit" which allows us to face an overwhelming danger like climate change much more effectively. So basically what I said 2 pages ago when you asked for my "solutions"? You said some decent stuff, yeah. But you clearly didn't say "workplace democracy" or anything anticapitalist so clearly this isn't "basically what you said". Gotcha. Semantics. Well, glad we had this talk. We should do it again sometime. Capitalism vs anticapitalism is semantics to you? What the hell man... If that is your takeaway, then I got nothing. It's literally what you said? You're still here. Thought you left. I meant his use of the word "clearly" to suggest that everything said which did not include those specific catchphrases were now null and void.
Capitalism and anti-capitalism isn't a "catchphrase" simply because you're not familiar with the difference.
It basically boils down to what is supposed to be a distinction between Social Democrats (basically what you're thinking) and Democratic Socialists (what Neb is advocating).
|
On July 02 2019 09:35 Taelshin wrote:
Neb - Not quite sure what you mean, but in my previous post I stated "but then even if he was a nazi propagandist - defeat his idea's with better idea's not with milkshakes and punches." I think that answers your question. I wonder who get's to decide who the fascists are and are not.
It is impossible to "defeat their ideas" as fascists aren't rational. In order for the marketplace of ideas to function your opponent has to believe that rationality matters when it comes to politics, and fascists do not (no far right ideology does). You could throw the entirety of human knowledge at them and it wouldn't change what they think. Nobody ever stopped being a fascist because someone carefully explained to them that fascism is incorrect. Your strategy will not work.
|
On July 02 2019 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 09:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2019 09:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 02 2019 09:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2019 09:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So by that logic, what is the purpose for advocating communism when the end result is the same? And someone always profits. Always. Without fail. And those people are (in a perfect world) held accountable for fucking over the rest. I'm advocating democratic socialism, for the record. I don't think I'm a communist. At least not yet. The advantages are that we create better conditions for workers, remove the major social hierarchy that exists and in the process reduce economic inequality, and create a motive for business that isn't purely reduced to "profit" which allows us to face an overwhelming danger like climate change much more effectively. So basically what I said 2 pages ago when you asked for my "solutions"? You said some decent stuff, yeah. But you clearly didn't say "workplace democracy" or anything anticapitalist so clearly this isn't "basically what you said". Gotcha. Semantics. Well, glad we had this talk. We should do it again sometime. Capitalism vs anticapitalism is semantics to you? What the hell man... If that is your takeaway, then I got nothing. It's literally what you said? You're still here. Thought you left. I meant his use of the word "clearly" to suggest that everything said which did not include those specific catchphrases were now null and void. Capitalism and anti-capitalism isn't a "catchphrase" simply because you're not familiar with the difference. It basically boils down to what is supposed to be a distinction between Social Democrats (basically what you're thinking) and Democratic Socialists (what Neb is advocating).
Reading Comprehension 101. I was referring to "workplace democracy" and "anticapitalism" having to be spelled out, which in Neb's mind, voided everything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
