|
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 21 2019 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The main oversight in your logic is that you assume the worker conglomerate will maintain solidarity indefinitely. Unless they are completely homogeneous in both belief and culture, divisions will arise as groups coalesce according to different values and desires (strata within the groups is guaranteed). It is natural for humans to do this. The issue isn't that it happens but that we don't have adequate defense mechanisms (from what I gather from your argument). You argued capitalism had them (at least in spirit) and they failed. I think what folks like Drone and myself are arguing is that we can develop stronger/more effective ones under a socialist system as opposed to a society oriented by a capitalism. Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 06:12 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2019 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]What do you think is more likely?
All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. Depends on how literally you mean that? "all of humanity" isn't going to do anything except maybe go extinct, A selfish/corrupt society doesn't develop an AI that isn't also "selfish" and corrupt. Banking on AI seems completely irrational from every angle to me, whereas "all of humanity stops being selfish" isn't happening under any system and capitalism has failed miserably to mitigate that selfishness as we have a handful of people with the majority of the worlds resources leading us straight into catastrophe that threatens the species (granted we're stubborn survivors) so they can be a bit wealthier tomorrow than they were today. So the objection "but there's still selfishness" doesn't make sense to me as damning. My point is that the system you come up with after your revolution is going to suffer from the same problem, that of selfish people exploiting it for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Because its going to be a system run by people and its only a matter of time until those people will be selfish and greedy ones. (and that time is likely going to be immediately). Capitalism has a lot of big flaws and I would love to change it into something better but what reason do I have to stand with you on the barricades to bring it toppling down when the replacement is going to be the same or worse?
If society is going to roll the dice I would want more assurances then a shrug that its going to do something. And in my opinion the answer to that is Artificial Intelligence, less chance of greed, selfishness and corruption (if done properly and with an advanced enough AI, which we don't have yet) That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club. That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself. Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on. On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]But that is pretty much where we are now.
And apparently things are not ok.
I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it. Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond: "often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse" For one i'm not so well off that I would lose a lot 'white club' goes away, nor do I have a problem with having less as a result of greater equality. I have a problem with ending up like the USSR, to name a 'fake communist' example, which ends up being worse for Everyone. You think things are terrible and I can understand that but take a look around and see that shit can get a LOT worse. Rather then a high risk of fucking up everything for everyone in a blind revolution I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. No one is arguing for a blind revolution? I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. Band-aids on bullet wounds. Literally leading to existential catastrophe but keeps you comfortable enough (like the parable of the frog in warming water). The incremental line worked before the scientists let the cat out of the bag that your increments are too small and going to get us killed. We're not risking a working system that could use some tweaking, we're "risking" a system that promises catastrophe on a global scale and threatens our very species (and risking your moderately comfortable position within it). Did I miss the conversation where you expanded on how your revolution would work and what systems would be put in place afterwards that lead to a better future? Entirely possible, I don't read everything. Last I saw it was still 'We need to have a revolution, we'll worry about the finer details afterwards', which is, imo, a recipe for disaster. And not just for 'white club'. I don't understand how this confuses people. Once we agree we need a revolution, you stop asking me "how does this work and how do I stay comfortable during it" and start saying "I think the revolution would be aided by" and we exchange and discuss ideas and so forth towards our common goal of liberation. It's not you agree we need a revolution and the next day we blindly rush the closest government building or something? Honestly I feel like we've pretty much reached the end of the possible discussion here. The problems within the status quo have been agreed upon. The negative peace is preferable to many than the revolutionary unknown. I agree that it's not reasonable to expect you to mastermind the revolutionary unknown and project the most likely outcome, complete with the significant policies, their implementation, and how they impact the population. At the same time it's not reasonable for others to sign up for the revolutionary unknown without any idea what it'll look like. We all agree that the default sucks. None of us know what the alternative looks like. The choice between the default and the mystery box is meaningless at this point. The fundamental difference is the acceptance of the status quo. It doesn't have to be a "mystery box", learning about socialist theory defogs some of the mystery as well as articulating your own ideas. I understand the position "it's not my problem, I'm comfortable under this exploitative system and have figured out how to suppress my emotional response to the horrific violence perpetrated to maintain my comfort". I'm saying "Here's how I'd like the revolution to look" is a better position from every angle. There's plenty to talk about if it's "how do we make this revolution work?" there's not much to discuss if the position is "revolution is stupid". But that just means we're going to disagree whenever an argument is built on the respective position.
Stop projecting. No one is anywhere close to your second paragraph of nonsense. Most are just asking for the bare minimum in regards to the start, middle, and ending of your "revolution." How does it begin? Where does it begin? Who is on board with it? How do/did you get them onboard? If successful, what is the next logical step? How do you maintain order?
We all think these are simple questions that can be answered, but you won't answer them. Most all agree that shit needs to change but we have no inkling as to how it progresses after. You seem to know, but won't share. That does not help raise discussion. You continue to give us utopian ideals, but no real sensible directions. How do you expect people to support or even consider it, when you refuse to divulge even a tiny bit? And don't tell us to go read some books or watch some videos. We want your vision. Walk us through, in general terms, your revolution, from beginning to end. We can discuss details as they manifest themselves.
|
Norway28558 Posts
On July 21 2019 05:57 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 05:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Because it's up to all the workers.. If the workers are happy with the direction the company is taking then the leaders stay in power, otherwise they don't. This is not the case in non-worker owned companies, where leaders can instead fire workers. What it boils down to is increased democratization; you give the workers the power to fire the leaders, rather than power to the leaders to fire the workers. I certainly think this is a much better organizational structure for society as a whole, and don't understand the opposition to it in a workplace environment. (I mean I obviously understand that the capitalist class opposes it as it strips them of both wealth and power, but not others. ) The main oversight in your logic is that you assume the worker conglomerate will maintain solidarity indefinitely. Unless they are completely homogeneous in both belief and culture, divisions will arise as groups coalesce according to different values and desires (strata within the groups is guaranteed). It is natural for humans to do this.
Then I think it is much preferable for the company to democratically decide on its future path, even in the event that 49.9% of them are unhappy with it, than that the decision for the future path is made by a significantly smaller group of people. I maintain that it is much more probable that the goals and desires of as many workers as possible are taken into consideration if the board is democratically elected and answers to the workers rather than if it answers to external shareholders who have profit as the ultimate goal.
I dunno if you read the thread some pages back, but worker owned enterprises aren't theory. There are many successful examples of them - perhaps not in the US, but definitely in Europe. My brother works in one, and while I'm not arguing that everything that makes their company thrive is possible to transfer to other companies, my overall impression is extremely positive - and my further impression is that many of the elements that makes his work place such a fantastic place to work is specifically related to it being a worker owned enterprise.
This doesn't mean there are no problems (there will certainly be pitfalls in trying to implement this) and I don't know how to deal with companies employing 2 million people, and I don't know if a worker owned grocery chain could compete with walmart on prices (as walmart's low prices are connected with their workers being underpaid). But it is absolutely something I think governments should incentivize. It's more fair on a fundamental level.
|
On July 21 2019 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:The main oversight in your logic is that you assume the worker conglomerate will maintain solidarity indefinitely. Unless they are completely homogeneous in both belief and culture, divisions will arise as groups coalesce according to different values and desires (strata within the groups is guaranteed). It is natural for humans to do this. The issue isn't that it happens but that we don't have adequate defense mechanisms (from what I gather from your argument). You argued capitalism had them (at least in spirit) and they failed. I think what folks like Drone and myself are arguing is that we can develop stronger/more effective ones under a socialist system as opposed to a society oriented by a capitalism. On July 21 2019 06:12 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2019 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Depends on how literally you mean that?
"all of humanity" isn't going to do anything except maybe go extinct, A selfish/corrupt society doesn't develop an AI that isn't also "selfish" and corrupt.
Banking on AI seems completely irrational from every angle to me, whereas "all of humanity stops being selfish" isn't happening under any system and capitalism has failed miserably to mitigate that selfishness as we have a handful of people with the majority of the worlds resources leading us straight into catastrophe that threatens the species (granted we're stubborn survivors) so they can be a bit wealthier tomorrow than they were today. So the objection "but there's still selfishness" doesn't make sense to me as damning.
My point is that the system you come up with after your revolution is going to suffer from the same problem, that of selfish people exploiting it for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Because its going to be a system run by people and its only a matter of time until those people will be selfish and greedy ones. (and that time is likely going to be immediately). Capitalism has a lot of big flaws and I would love to change it into something better but what reason do I have to stand with you on the barricades to bring it toppling down when the replacement is going to be the same or worse?
If society is going to roll the dice I would want more assurances then a shrug that its going to do something. And in my opinion the answer to that is Artificial Intelligence, less chance of greed, selfishness and corruption (if done properly and with an advanced enough AI, which we don't have yet) That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club. That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself. Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on. On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system.
Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it. Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond: "often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse" For one i'm not so well off that I would lose a lot 'white club' goes away, nor do I have a problem with having less as a result of greater equality. I have a problem with ending up like the USSR, to name a 'fake communist' example, which ends up being worse for Everyone. You think things are terrible and I can understand that but take a look around and see that shit can get a LOT worse. Rather then a high risk of fucking up everything for everyone in a blind revolution I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. No one is arguing for a blind revolution? I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. Band-aids on bullet wounds. Literally leading to existential catastrophe but keeps you comfortable enough (like the parable of the frog in warming water). The incremental line worked before the scientists let the cat out of the bag that your increments are too small and going to get us killed. We're not risking a working system that could use some tweaking, we're "risking" a system that promises catastrophe on a global scale and threatens our very species (and risking your moderately comfortable position within it). Did I miss the conversation where you expanded on how your revolution would work and what systems would be put in place afterwards that lead to a better future? Entirely possible, I don't read everything. Last I saw it was still 'We need to have a revolution, we'll worry about the finer details afterwards', which is, imo, a recipe for disaster. And not just for 'white club'. I don't understand how this confuses people. Once we agree we need a revolution, you stop asking me "how does this work and how do I stay comfortable during it" and start saying "I think the revolution would be aided by" and we exchange and discuss ideas and so forth towards our common goal of liberation. It's not you agree we need a revolution and the next day we blindly rush the closest government building or something? Honestly I feel like we've pretty much reached the end of the possible discussion here. The problems within the status quo have been agreed upon. The negative peace is preferable to many than the revolutionary unknown. I agree that it's not reasonable to expect you to mastermind the revolutionary unknown and project the most likely outcome, complete with the significant policies, their implementation, and how they impact the population. At the same time it's not reasonable for others to sign up for the revolutionary unknown without any idea what it'll look like. We all agree that the default sucks. None of us know what the alternative looks like. The choice between the default and the mystery box is meaningless at this point. The fundamental difference is the acceptance of the status quo. It doesn't have to be a "mystery box", learning about socialist theory defogs some of the mystery as well as articulating your own ideas. I understand the position "it's not my problem, I'm comfortable under this exploitative system and have figured out how to suppress my emotional response to the horrific violence perpetrated to maintain my comfort". I'm saying "Here's how I'd like the revolution to look" is a better position from every angle. There's plenty to talk about if it's "how do we make this revolution work?" there's not much to discuss if the position is "revolution is stupid". But that just means we're going to disagree whenever an argument is built on the respective position. But socialist theory does nothing to defog the box because there is no reason to believe the box will even be looked at, touched or opened.
This is nonsensical to me? No idea what it's supposed to mean?
Revolution leaves power vacuums, something inevitably fills that vacuum and unless carefully controlled the wrong thing fills that vacuum.
I'm interested in your ideas on how to address this (how capitalism deals with power vacuums would be one place to start)
Look at Egypt. Look what happened when well meaning people, probably not unlike yourself, seek to create a better world for themselves without a plan. The wrong people fill the vacuum and it doesn't get better, it gets worse.
Lot going on with Egypt that's more closely linked to capitalism/religion than revolution but it's not as if the people thinking about this for the last 100 or so years haven't confronted these issues. That you're unfamiliar with some of the answers they've come up with is distinctly different than them not existing.
How do you look at an America that elected Trump and feel confident that revolution leads to a more socialist society and not a Republican totalitarian state? (my apologies to Republicans, its unfair but an easy picture to paint).
It's why I keep saying how important conscientização is and why we need people like you helping design a revolution that will succeed instead of shitting on it from your place of comfort in/near the club.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 21 2019 06:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Then I think it is much preferable for the company to democratically decide on its future path, even in the event that 49.9% of them are unhappy with it, than that the decision for the future path is made by a significantly smaller group of people. I maintain that it is much more probable that the goals and desires of as many workers as possible are taken into consideration if the board is democratically elected and answers to the workers rather than if it answers to external shareholders who have profit as the ultimate goal.
I dunno if you read the thread some pages back, but worker owned enterprises aren't theory. There are many successful examples of them - perhaps not in the US, but definitely in Europe. My brother works in one, and while I'm not arguing that everything that makes their company thrive is possible to transfer to other companies, my overall impression is extremely positive - and my further impression is that many of the elements that makes his work place such a fantastic place to work is specifically related to it being a worker owned enterprise.
I'm largely in favor of stakeholder theory: shareholder theory is too financially myopic and incentivizes leadership to make selfish decisions to the long-term detriment of its employees and the company's sustainability. Yet I'm skeptical that worker-owned enterprises will not fall to balkanization over time without extremely strict conditions to act as a countervailing force.
We have quite a few in the U.S.!
On July 21 2019 06:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
This doesn't mean there are no problems (there will certainly be pitfalls in trying to implement this) and I don't know how to deal with companies employing 2 million people, and I don't know if a worker owned grocery chain could compete with walmart on prices (as walmart's low prices are connected with their workers being underpaid). But it is absolutely something I think governments should incentivize. It's more fair on a fundamental level.
Solidarity within the group will be difficult to maintain as the employee pool expands. It's probably putting the cart before the horse to ponder how an ownership strategy will compete with the dominant retail corporation. Companies have to deal with issues of scale as they expand on a case-by-case basis.
On July 21 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
"naturally" is a bit of a loaded term we should probably look closer at.
Human beings are social animals. It's wired into our psyches to identify and band with others into communities, preferably ones that share common goals and perspective. How we ought to conceptualize those distinctions, prioritize them and define responsibilities to the group(s) is one of the most fraught questions underlying political/social theory in general.
My objection is as time progresses, the previously harmonious group of workers will eventually transform into "worker + x" as the pure democratic method proves insufficient to address all their values and needs. The label of "worker with ownership stake" is interconnected with friends within the company, family, local community, ideological allies, etc. To combat this, you need everyone to buy into a certain set of norms or have a grandiose identity to define themselves against (i.e. the elite, the patriarchy, whatever). One of the primary reasons socialist policies have succeeded in Europe so far is the countries have millennia of tradition and national identity uniting their citizens.
On July 21 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
What we mean when we say "baseline socialism" matters as well. For me my baseline is (North, Central ,& South) American-based Black and Brown theories and a handful of guys like Freire. But I think there's definitely a line of theory that leads to the kind of stuff you're talking about I described as being captured in essence by the "stupidpol" brand of socialism.
The notion multiple institutions work in concert to keep the oppressed down, and therefore must be neutralized or eliminated, pervades the history of socialism. For example, Marx championed the eradication of the nuclear family: he saw it as an institution that preempted revolution via passing down generational wealth, conspicuous consumption, and inculcating capitalist dogma. Engels subsequently identified the nuclear family as the byproduct of industrial capitalism in the 18th century (not exactly true upon centuries of additional investigation). Subsequent critics point out that capitalism's mere existence distorts the social and cultural milieu it accompanies, creating new institutions. Identity politics has another set of oppressive institutions in mind merely due to a different focus.
What I'm describing for Drone's scenario is mundane. Worker X is distraught that his opinion is a blip of data in the great sea. Worker Y becomes the head of a group of guys that all hang out together; eventually they subconsciously band together as an interest group. Worker Z fumes over what he perceives to be ramshackle group-think in the majority vote - he allies with others who share his disgruntlement.
On July 21 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
If I'm seeking a scientific socialism as a goal, how would you describe the argument you're making regarding society's future?
Well, which one? I've mostly offered minor assessments on other people's arguments.
|
On July 21 2019 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:The main oversight in your logic is that you assume the worker conglomerate will maintain solidarity indefinitely. Unless they are completely homogeneous in both belief and culture, divisions will arise as groups coalesce according to different values and desires (strata within the groups is guaranteed). It is natural for humans to do this. The issue isn't that it happens but that we don't have adequate defense mechanisms (from what I gather from your argument). You argued capitalism had them (at least in spirit) and they failed. I think what folks like Drone and myself are arguing is that we can develop stronger/more effective ones under a socialist system as opposed to a society oriented by a capitalism. On July 21 2019 06:12 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2019 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]My point is that the system you come up with after your revolution is going to suffer from the same problem, that of selfish people exploiting it for themselves at the cost of everyone else.
Because its going to be a system run by people and its only a matter of time until those people will be selfish and greedy ones. (and that time is likely going to be immediately).
Capitalism has a lot of big flaws and I would love to change it into something better but what reason do I have to stand with you on the barricades to bring it toppling down when the replacement is going to be the same or worse?
If society is going to roll the dice I would want more assurances then a shrug that its going to do something.
And in my opinion the answer to that is Artificial Intelligence, less chance of greed, selfishness and corruption (if done properly and with an advanced enough AI, which we don't have yet) That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club. That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself. Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on. On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it. Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond: "often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse" For one i'm not so well off that I would lose a lot 'white club' goes away, nor do I have a problem with having less as a result of greater equality. I have a problem with ending up like the USSR, to name a 'fake communist' example, which ends up being worse for Everyone. You think things are terrible and I can understand that but take a look around and see that shit can get a LOT worse. Rather then a high risk of fucking up everything for everyone in a blind revolution I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. No one is arguing for a blind revolution? I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. Band-aids on bullet wounds. Literally leading to existential catastrophe but keeps you comfortable enough (like the parable of the frog in warming water). The incremental line worked before the scientists let the cat out of the bag that your increments are too small and going to get us killed. We're not risking a working system that could use some tweaking, we're "risking" a system that promises catastrophe on a global scale and threatens our very species (and risking your moderately comfortable position within it). Did I miss the conversation where you expanded on how your revolution would work and what systems would be put in place afterwards that lead to a better future? Entirely possible, I don't read everything. Last I saw it was still 'We need to have a revolution, we'll worry about the finer details afterwards', which is, imo, a recipe for disaster. And not just for 'white club'. I don't understand how this confuses people. Once we agree we need a revolution, you stop asking me "how does this work and how do I stay comfortable during it" and start saying "I think the revolution would be aided by" and we exchange and discuss ideas and so forth towards our common goal of liberation. It's not you agree we need a revolution and the next day we blindly rush the closest government building or something? Honestly I feel like we've pretty much reached the end of the possible discussion here. The problems within the status quo have been agreed upon. The negative peace is preferable to many than the revolutionary unknown. I agree that it's not reasonable to expect you to mastermind the revolutionary unknown and project the most likely outcome, complete with the significant policies, their implementation, and how they impact the population. At the same time it's not reasonable for others to sign up for the revolutionary unknown without any idea what it'll look like. We all agree that the default sucks. None of us know what the alternative looks like. The choice between the default and the mystery box is meaningless at this point. The fundamental difference is the acceptance of the status quo. It doesn't have to be a "mystery box", learning about socialist theory defogs some of the mystery as well as articulating your own ideas. I understand the position "it's not my problem, I'm comfortable under this exploitative system and have figured out how to suppress my emotional response to the horrific violence perpetrated to maintain my comfort". I'm saying "Here's how I'd like the revolution to look" is a better position from every angle. There's plenty to talk about if it's "how do we make this revolution work?" there's not much to discuss if the position is "revolution is stupid". But that just means we're going to disagree whenever an argument is built on the respective position. But socialist theory does nothing to defog the box because there is no reason to believe the box will even be looked at, touched or opened. This is nonsensical to me? No idea what it's supposed to mean? Show nested quote +Revolution leaves power vacuums, something inevitably fills that vacuum and unless carefully controlled the wrong thing fills that vacuum. I'm interested in your ideas on how to address this (how capitalism deals with power vacuums would be one place to start) Show nested quote +Look at Egypt. Look what happened when well meaning people, probably not unlike yourself, seek to create a better world for themselves without a plan. The wrong people fill the vacuum and it doesn't get better, it gets worse. Lot going on with Egypt that's more closely linked to capitalism/religion than revolution but it's not as if the people thinking about this for the last 100 or so years haven't confronted these issues. That you're unfamiliar with some of the answers they've come up with is distinctly different than them not existing. Show nested quote +How do you look at an America that elected Trump and feel confident that revolution leads to a more socialist society and not a Republican totalitarian state? (my apologies to Republicans, its unfair but an easy picture to paint). It's why I keep saying how important conscientização is and why we need people like you helping design a revolution that will succeed instead of shitting on it from your place of comfort in/near the club. I see lots of words and 0 substance.
A lot of "why don't you solve my problem" tho.
I'm done until you start contributing to your own idea.
|
On July 21 2019 05:57 CosmicSpiral wrote:
2) The idea individuals or corporations ought to maximize profit as the foremost goal within a capitalist system became the norm recently. Unsurprisingly both were justified by the first wave of neoliberal theorists. Homo economicus as the darling of rational choice theory gained steam in the late 40's while shareholder theory was pushed by Friedman starting in 1970.
I don't know if I'm buying this. It was always about profits, you're objecting to the "maximization" part... But a capitalist who maximizes profits always got superior results under capitalism to a capitalist who doesn't, so the incentive was always present regardless of what the theory said or didn't say. Like, even today with predominently neoliberal theories, you will still find bosses who care about suboptimal ideas like "the wellbeing of their workers", that hasn't disappeared.
On July 21 2019 05:57 CosmicSpiral wrote:
My point was the distinction between logical and inevitable.
I think I'm fine with that. My first post talked about "logical consequence". It would be hard to demonstrate that it's "inevitable", we'd have to run world history simulations ^^'
If at some point you feel comfortable giving your own vision I'd unironically love to read that btw
|
On July 21 2019 06:41 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
The issue isn't that it happens but that we don't have adequate defense mechanisms (from what I gather from your argument). You argued capitalism had them (at least in spirit) and they failed. I think what folks like Drone and myself are arguing is that we can develop stronger/more effective ones under a socialist system as opposed to a society oriented by a capitalism. My issue is two-fold: both that it happens naturally and Drone's premise unintentionally states the basic conflict between liberalism and democracy, which baseline socialism doesn't address. Traditionally the presented solution has been enforced homogeneity of social norms/culture or their complete dissolution with the addition of biological/psychological imperatives. It's one reason I could never take Marx's fantasy of utopia seriously.
"naturally" is a bit of a loaded term we should probably look closer at.
What we mean when we say "baseline socialism" matters as well. For me my baseline is (N,C,&S) American based Black and Brown theories and a handful of guys like Freire. But I think there's definitely a line of theory that leads to the kind of stuff you're talking about I described as being captured in essence by the "stupidpol" brand of socialism.
If I'm seeking a scientific socialism as a goal, how would you describe the argument you're making regarding society's future?
|
On July 21 2019 06:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:The main oversight in your logic is that you assume the worker conglomerate will maintain solidarity indefinitely. Unless they are completely homogeneous in both belief and culture, divisions will arise as groups coalesce according to different values and desires (strata within the groups is guaranteed). It is natural for humans to do this. The issue isn't that it happens but that we don't have adequate defense mechanisms (from what I gather from your argument). You argued capitalism had them (at least in spirit) and they failed. I think what folks like Drone and myself are arguing is that we can develop stronger/more effective ones under a socialist system as opposed to a society oriented by a capitalism. On July 21 2019 06:12 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2019 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club.
That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself.
Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on.
[quote]
For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it.
Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond:
"often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse" For one i'm not so well off that I would lose a lot 'white club' goes away, nor do I have a problem with having less as a result of greater equality. I have a problem with ending up like the USSR, to name a 'fake communist' example, which ends up being worse for Everyone. You think things are terrible and I can understand that but take a look around and see that shit can get a LOT worse. Rather then a high risk of fucking up everything for everyone in a blind revolution I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. No one is arguing for a blind revolution? I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. Band-aids on bullet wounds. Literally leading to existential catastrophe but keeps you comfortable enough (like the parable of the frog in warming water). The incremental line worked before the scientists let the cat out of the bag that your increments are too small and going to get us killed. We're not risking a working system that could use some tweaking, we're "risking" a system that promises catastrophe on a global scale and threatens our very species (and risking your moderately comfortable position within it). Did I miss the conversation where you expanded on how your revolution would work and what systems would be put in place afterwards that lead to a better future? Entirely possible, I don't read everything. Last I saw it was still 'We need to have a revolution, we'll worry about the finer details afterwards', which is, imo, a recipe for disaster. And not just for 'white club'. I don't understand how this confuses people. Once we agree we need a revolution, you stop asking me "how does this work and how do I stay comfortable during it" and start saying "I think the revolution would be aided by" and we exchange and discuss ideas and so forth towards our common goal of liberation. It's not you agree we need a revolution and the next day we blindly rush the closest government building or something? Honestly I feel like we've pretty much reached the end of the possible discussion here. The problems within the status quo have been agreed upon. The negative peace is preferable to many than the revolutionary unknown. I agree that it's not reasonable to expect you to mastermind the revolutionary unknown and project the most likely outcome, complete with the significant policies, their implementation, and how they impact the population. At the same time it's not reasonable for others to sign up for the revolutionary unknown without any idea what it'll look like. We all agree that the default sucks. None of us know what the alternative looks like. The choice between the default and the mystery box is meaningless at this point. The fundamental difference is the acceptance of the status quo. It doesn't have to be a "mystery box", learning about socialist theory defogs some of the mystery as well as articulating your own ideas. I understand the position "it's not my problem, I'm comfortable under this exploitative system and have figured out how to suppress my emotional response to the horrific violence perpetrated to maintain my comfort". I'm saying "Here's how I'd like the revolution to look" is a better position from every angle. There's plenty to talk about if it's "how do we make this revolution work?" there's not much to discuss if the position is "revolution is stupid". But that just means we're going to disagree whenever an argument is built on the respective position. But socialist theory does nothing to defog the box because there is no reason to believe the box will even be looked at, touched or opened. This is nonsensical to me? No idea what it's supposed to mean? Revolution leaves power vacuums, something inevitably fills that vacuum and unless carefully controlled the wrong thing fills that vacuum. I'm interested in your ideas on how to address this (how capitalism deals with power vacuums would be one place to start) Look at Egypt. Look what happened when well meaning people, probably not unlike yourself, seek to create a better world for themselves without a plan. The wrong people fill the vacuum and it doesn't get better, it gets worse. Lot going on with Egypt that's more closely linked to capitalism/religion than revolution but it's not as if the people thinking about this for the last 100 or so years haven't confronted these issues. That you're unfamiliar with some of the answers they've come up with is distinctly different than them not existing. How do you look at an America that elected Trump and feel confident that revolution leads to a more socialist society and not a Republican totalitarian state? (my apologies to Republicans, its unfair but an easy picture to paint). It's why I keep saying how important conscientização is and why we need people like you helping design a revolution that will succeed instead of shitting on it from your place of comfort in/near the club. I see lots of words and 0 substance. A lot of "why don't you solve my problem" tho. I'm done until you start contributing to your own idea.
I see few words and 0 substance.
A lot of "why don't you solve my problem" tho.
I'm done with you until you start contributing.
|
Norway28558 Posts
On July 21 2019 06:33 JimmiC wrote:
GH you keep lumping Drone and Neb in with you. By to my reading neither of them are interested in a bloody revolution (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Their version of the socialist revolution is more gradual and far less violent. And if anything agrees more with everyone who argues with you. Just they choose to ignore the bloody revolution part of your agenda. I find it impossible to get past because:
A. Its the first step.
B. What you mean by it and what you will do with the people at the end who don't agree but survive, is kinda a big deal.
And that is all before we get to reforming the entire world order.
I think part of the differences in attitude between me and GH is that he is completely disillusioned with the political system as a method of achieving betterment. I think that this difference in opinion - even if we both agree on the ideal societal end product - is a product of our respective backgrounds. I live in a country where politics works. The current government in Norway is comprised of the parties I am most in disagreement with, but even then, I still think most of the politicians in said government are genuinely idealistic people. They have different opinions on how to deal with society's problems and the direction forward - but even our right wing government cites climate change as perhaps the biggest challenge we face, whereas the current american government rejects there's a problem.
But you are indeed way too hung up on the bloody revolution part. When i read GH's posts and I see Freire mentioned, I see that he wants a revolution from the bottom down where education is a key element. And this is also how I want to go about creating societal change; remove hierarchical structures (to the degree it's possible) from a young age, include elements of real democracy (to the degree it is possible) from a young age, install a mindset of not accepting exploitation, your own or of others, later on. Obviously this takes time, but for me, I would have a hard time ever accepting political change that isn't supported by the population at large. And here comes the point where I think me and GH are most in disagreement - not that he wants a revolution not supported by the population - but that I live in a country where I believe that a majority of the population supporting the socialist left party would actually lead to the socialist left party ruling. And I think GH thinks that in the US, there are far too many powerful forces that would hinder such a political development from occurring peacefully; and that is where the need for violence arises.
|
I guess this is something to spark a bit of discussion. Biden decides to release his plan for healthcare over the weekend. So far he's doing ACA but more ambitious and taking a lot of the talk around the democratic circles and implementing them. I think the biggest obstacle is speed of implementation and funding. But it is worth a read.
The headlines about presidential candidate Joe Biden's new health care plan called it "a nod to the past" and "Affordable Care Act 2.0." That mostly refers to the fact that the former vice president has specifically repudiated many of his Democratic rivals' calls for a "Medicare for All" system, and instead sought to build his plan on the ACA's framework.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, one of Biden's opponents in the primary race and the key proponent of the Medicare for All option, has criticized Biden's proposal, complaining that it is just "tinkering around the edges" of a broken health care system.
Still, the proposal put forward by Biden earlier this week is much more ambitious than Obamacare – and despite its incremental label, would make some very controversial changes.
Formatting courtesy of NPR.
Forgot to add source.
|
|
|
On July 21 2019 07:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 06:33 JimmiC wrote:
GH you keep lumping Drone and Neb in with you. By to my reading neither of them are interested in a bloody revolution (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Their version of the socialist revolution is more gradual and far less violent. And if anything agrees more with everyone who argues with you. Just they choose to ignore the bloody revolution part of your agenda. I find it impossible to get past because:
A. Its the first step.
B. What you mean by it and what you will do with the people at the end who don't agree but survive, is kinda a big deal.
And that is all before we get to reforming the entire world order. I think part of the differences in attitude between me and GH is that he is completely disillusioned with the political system as a method of achieving betterment. I think that this difference in opinion - even if we both agree on the ideal societal end product - is a product of our respective backgrounds. I live in a country where politics works. The current government in Norway is comprised of the parties I am most in disagreement with, but even then, I still think most of the politicians in said government are genuinely idealistic people. They have different opinions on how to deal with society's problems and the direction forward - but even our right wing government cites climate change as perhaps the biggest challenge we face, whereas the current american government rejects there's a problem. But you are indeed way too hung up on the bloody revolution part. When i read GH's posts and I see Freire mentioned, I see that he wants a revolution from the bottom down where education is a key element. And this is also how I want to go about creating societal change; remove hierarchical structures (to the degree it's possible) from a young age, include elements of real democracy (to the degree it is possible) from a young age, install a mindset of not accepting exploitation, your own or of others, later on. Obviously this takes time, but for me, I would have a hard time ever accepting political change that isn't supported by the population at large. And here comes the point where I think me and GH are most in disagreement - not that he wants a revolution not supported by the population - but that I live in a country where I believe that a majority of the population supporting the socialist left party would actually lead to the socialist left party ruling. And I think GH thinks that in the US, there are far too many powerful forces that would hinder such a political development from occurring peacefully; and that is where the need for violence arises.
Yeah, I'm totally on board with oligarchs giving up their power willingly and peacefully, but you're right that being moderately marginalized in the US certainly colors my view on the likelihood the military industrial complex, political class, and billionaires give up their power and wealth without a fight.
Like I said, they beat and killed workers for wanting weekends.
|
United States41988 Posts
They dropped poison gas bombs on striking coal miners.
|
On July 21 2019 07:20 KwarK wrote:
They dropped poison gas bombs on striking coal miners.
To your point from what seems like forever ago already, it's not like the oligarchs leave their penthouses to drop em either, they hire the skeptics of liberation, promising them a marginally more comfortable life once they've sacrificed strikers/resisters/etc... to Mammon or Plutus, or whatever.
All the while using the specter of social collapse as the alternative they face to convince them.
|
|
|
If you remove the word socialism, which softens his stance to all of that agree with that, you realize he is actually closer to super villain than savior.
Start bloody revolution, kill everyone who disagrees, utopia follows.
How is that plan different than Stallin or the many Right wing dictators. The only difference is his scapegoats are not the jews (at least I don't think so) they are the "capitalists" and basically there is no problem that isn't their fault and killing them all will solve everything.
I can't engage with this poster directly (without it spiraling into something no one enjoys, this has been demonstrated several times), but holy crap this is ridiculous. + Show Spoiler +*he said while menacingly stroking his cat and laughing maniacally*
|
On July 21 2019 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +If you remove the word socialism, which softens his stance to all of that agree with that, you realize he is actually closer to super villain than savior.
Start bloody revolution, kill everyone who disagrees, utopia follows.
How is that plan different than Stallin or the many Right wing dictators. The only difference is his scapegoats are not the jews (at least I don't think so) they are the "capitalists" and basically there is no problem that isn't their fault and killing them all will solve everything. I can't engage with this poster directly, but holy crap this is ridiculous. + Show Spoiler +*he said while menacingly stroking his cat and laughing maniacally*
Then how about answering Gorsameth or my questions? Are you not engaging with anyone who challenges you?
|
On July 21 2019 07:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:If you remove the word socialism, which softens his stance to all of that agree with that, you realize he is actually closer to super villain than savior.
Start bloody revolution, kill everyone who disagrees, utopia follows.
How is that plan different than Stallin or the many Right wing dictators. The only difference is his scapegoats are not the jews (at least I don't think so) they are the "capitalists" and basically there is no problem that isn't their fault and killing them all will solve everything. I can't engage with this poster directly, but holy crap this is ridiculous. + Show Spoiler +*he said while menacingly stroking his cat and laughing maniacally* Then how about answering Gorsameth or my questions? Are you not engaging with anyone who challenges you?
Cosmic is challenging me and I'm engaging fine with him, Neb and Drone as well (to a lesser degree). Kwark and Igne too (IgnE might object to this).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
