|
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 January 07 2020 16:12 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 10:22 Sermokala wrote:
The problem is that I have no idea what he actually is,If he was a tankie that would be a thing. If he was a democratic socialist that would be a thing. If he was for any of those ideologies that nailed down even a shred of what he's actually trying to get at those would be real things to discuss. But instead, we never get past "socialism" or the great revolution that he has planned to totally work that isn't trying to be violent but will be violent because the people he's revolting against will use violence so he needs everyone to be on board to use violence from the start to defend the revolution.
Its like the entire saga around "abolish the police" where he shouted at anyone defending even the most basic premise of what the police did and called them nothing more than an ocupying force. Then once we finally got him to crack that shell he revealed that his entire plan was to replace one police organization with dozens if not more organizations doing the exact same thing as the police. We all had a laugh at this and how insane it was but it took weeks and weeks of intense drilling down to get there.
I don't agree with the people in the thread more often than not. But everyone else is under the pretense that you have to provide arguments for your points and to explain your opinion when someone questions it. GH is not under this pretense and refuses to provide the most basic explanations or arguments for what he advocates for most if not all the time.
So yeah I'll admit it would be nice to attack what he advocates for. Its what everyone else does. Do you not believe that "This is bad, I'd like something else, but I don't want to build something else alone, I'd like us to create the specificities of the something else together among the people who agree that this is bad" is a valid position? I find that to be a much better starting point for honest discussion than imposing any specific version of change as the basis for the conversation. What if I'm talking with someone who likes socialism as an idea but also strongly wants less government? If I shut down libertarian socialism and anarchism from the discussion, then I shut them down, and they're someone who would have been strong allies in what we're trying to achieve. You say defending their ideal practical vision is what everyone else does but I seriously don't think that's true at all. For most of the posters of this forum I have a very vague idea of what they're for and a very clear idea of what they're against. I know much more about GH wants than I do about what you want. And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I think the bolded is untrue and indicates that the viewpoints you engage in are limited. There are many defenders of capitalism on it's own merits even on a medium such as the internet which is overwhelmingly left wing. There are plenty on this forum as well (me included).
Ok, let's do it, let's defend capitalism without talking about how other systems are bad. Do you want to start or do you want me to provide an attack?
I'm going to answer more posts but overall I really recommend reading Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher.
|
On January 07 2020 22:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 22:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried. The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't. One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point. That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly. But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage. I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral because it prioritizes profit above everything else and exists in a society that's had a couple hundred years of being indoctrinated with the idea that's the best we can do. As we said, it's not "accept ecological damage or don't" it's prioritizing profit over a sustainable and just system. There's no assumption of perfect actors. As I've said, it starts with raising class consciousness and spreading critical pedagogy. At the crux of this is recognizing that capitalism is designed to be exploitative and that exploitation is capitalism working as designed. The laws designed to correct that issue are in opposition to capitalism or designed to legalize the cruelty. Socialism is designed to not be exploitative and exploiting the masses is socialism NOT working (or not socialism). The laws to make socialism sustainable and just are based in socialist ideals as opposed to in contradiction with them as capitalists will always tell you about laws reigning in capitalism. That capitalism is leading us off an ecological cliff while child slaves mine raw earth minerals with their bare hands without enough compensation to live isn't capitalism failing. That same scenario is unquestionably in conflict with socialism. EDIT: A very simple example of this is how companies argue if they didn't exploit people they would put themselves at legal risk from their shareholders for not maximising profit. Hiding behind things like shareholders is just a convenient argument. I don't buy the idea that without them we wouldn't have things like sweatshops. Still don't see anything about how your changing human nature other then 'because'. There has been no successful socialist system, your going to have to come up with more then "it will just work" and until you do I don't see much point in discussing that socialism will fix everything through magic. Because we aren't changing "human nature". We're changing a system that rewards the worst parts of the society with concentrating wealth into one's own hands as THE point. No one is talking about magic or saying "it will just work"? No, you were talking about climate change. Not wealth inequality.it's literally leading us to probable extinction
And if you want to talk about wealth inequality then yes socialism is supposed to stop that. Except that every attempt at it has failed and that is something you need to address if you want to convince people to move to a socialist economy.
|
On January 07 2020 23:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 22:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 22:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried. The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't. One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point. That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly. But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage. I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral because it prioritizes profit above everything else and exists in a society that's had a couple hundred years of being indoctrinated with the idea that's the best we can do. As we said, it's not "accept ecological damage or don't" it's prioritizing profit over a sustainable and just system. There's no assumption of perfect actors. As I've said, it starts with raising class consciousness and spreading critical pedagogy. At the crux of this is recognizing that capitalism is designed to be exploitative and that exploitation is capitalism working as designed. The laws designed to correct that issue are in opposition to capitalism or designed to legalize the cruelty. Socialism is designed to not be exploitative and exploiting the masses is socialism NOT working (or not socialism). The laws to make socialism sustainable and just are based in socialist ideals as opposed to in contradiction with them as capitalists will always tell you about laws reigning in capitalism. That capitalism is leading us off an ecological cliff while child slaves mine raw earth minerals with their bare hands without enough compensation to live isn't capitalism failing. That same scenario is unquestionably in conflict with socialism. EDIT: A very simple example of this is how companies argue if they didn't exploit people they would put themselves at legal risk from their shareholders for not maximising profit. Hiding behind things like shareholders is just a convenient argument. I don't buy the idea that without them we wouldn't have things like sweatshops. Still don't see anything about how your changing human nature other then 'because'. There has been no successful socialist system, your going to have to come up with more then "it will just work" and until you do I don't see much point in discussing that socialism will fix everything through magic. Because we aren't changing "human nature". We're changing a system that rewards the worst parts of the society with concentrating wealth into one's own hands as THE point. No one is talking about magic or saying "it will just work"? No, you were talking about climate change. Not wealth inequality. And if you want to talk about wealth inequality then yes socialism is supposed to stop that. Except that every attempt at it has failed and that is something you need to address if you want to convince people to move to a socialist economy.
The Scandinavian model seems to work out alright though, that's a great first step as we attempt to go further and explore more and better ways not to globally fuck ourselves and others.
|
On January 07 2020 18:08 Velr wrote:
Young people tend to be more social progressive/liberal but god damn are they capitalistic and often also very conservative when it comes to everything that has to do with money. Atleast the ones i "deal" with that didn't go to University. They couldn't care less about Greta, overcoming capitalism or "fixing" the system. Most just want to be on the winning side or in other words: Make decent cash so they can do fun stuff.
I doubt "Gamergate" had much of an impact and if it had one, then probably mostly in the US. The way "the left" handled that was laughable anyway… It would probably help if online leftist would not be such holier than thou asshats with often 0 real life job experience (no, student jobs/part time while studying doesn't count). People tend to have more immediate and direct problems than overcoming capitalism and no, capitalism itself is not the root of these problems.
Those people that you're talking about are going to grow up to be the next conservatives that we have to "wait until they die" if we don't do more leftwing activism, so thanks for highlighting the point of what I'm saying.
Switzerland is not the place to start the revolution though. It would get crushed by the big powers if it ever tried, and on top of that it has something to lose: the overall level of democracy is much larger than average. Of course a lot of what's good about being here has to do with exploitation but that's true everywhere so I don't think it matters for this particular discussion. If we tried to start the revolution here, it is both likely that we would fail, and likely that we would end up in a worse system than we are now. Not a huge fan of that picture.
Gamergate didn't have an influence in the US or in Switzerland, it had an influence on the terminally online, which are everywhere. It propped up a specific group of Youtubers, Anti-SJWs, a community that is a lot less prevalent now thankfully. A lot of Anti-SJWs had conservative leanings or were straight up conservative, if not worse, because that's typically what happens when you complain about people talking about social justice too much, or too loud. It had no influence? I don't know, I can't quantify that. Sargon of Akkad and a lot of people like him got millions of subscribers out of it, then they used that platform to shift the discourse rightwing, and now the good people on the Youtube left receive mail daily from people thanking them because they were going down a rabbit hole of rightwing views and one video or another helped them get out. Is that enough to be considered influential? I don't know that for a fact. It sure feels like it when you spend a lot of time there, and when I look at the amount of people who do that it certainly seems enough.
|
On January 07 2020 23:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 22:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 22:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried. The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't. One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point. That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly. But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage. I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral because it prioritizes profit above everything else and exists in a society that's had a couple hundred years of being indoctrinated with the idea that's the best we can do. As we said, it's not "accept ecological damage or don't" it's prioritizing profit over a sustainable and just system. There's no assumption of perfect actors. As I've said, it starts with raising class consciousness and spreading critical pedagogy. At the crux of this is recognizing that capitalism is designed to be exploitative and that exploitation is capitalism working as designed. The laws designed to correct that issue are in opposition to capitalism or designed to legalize the cruelty. Socialism is designed to not be exploitative and exploiting the masses is socialism NOT working (or not socialism). The laws to make socialism sustainable and just are based in socialist ideals as opposed to in contradiction with them as capitalists will always tell you about laws reigning in capitalism. That capitalism is leading us off an ecological cliff while child slaves mine raw earth minerals with their bare hands without enough compensation to live isn't capitalism failing. That same scenario is unquestionably in conflict with socialism. EDIT: A very simple example of this is how companies argue if they didn't exploit people they would put themselves at legal risk from their shareholders for not maximising profit. Hiding behind things like shareholders is just a convenient argument. I don't buy the idea that without them we wouldn't have things like sweatshops. Still don't see anything about how your changing human nature other then 'because'. There has been no successful socialist system, your going to have to come up with more then "it will just work" and until you do I don't see much point in discussing that socialism will fix everything through magic. Because we aren't changing "human nature". We're changing a system that rewards the worst parts of the society with concentrating wealth into one's own hands as THE point. No one is talking about magic or saying "it will just work"? No, you were talking about climate change. Not wealth inequality. And if you want to talk about wealth inequality then yes socialism is supposed to stop that. Except that every attempt at it has failed and that is something you need to address if you want to convince people to move to a socialist economy.
They are interconnected. A main driver of climate change is the insatiable desire for more wealth to hoard which is in turn driven by capitalism. You're right that capitalism didn't create it, it simply rewards it and organizes society around it's perpetuation. It wasn't really even intended to be much more than feudalism with a meritocracy slapped on top of it.
Poverty, exploitation, oppression, etc... provided the fuel for revolutions leading out of feudalism, but the simple thing that united varied people around the world against it were the simple contradictions of the divinity of kings and the alienation from ones labor.
Capitalism was an attempt to rectify those contradictions through a meritocracy. Problem was the meritocracy was, is, and always will be beholden to nature of capital accumulation under capitalism. The inherent contradiction is captured rather succinctly in a monopoly.
You have to write a law criminalizing the designed intention of successful businesses.
Pointing at socialist endeavors that failed to seize and maintain global control as capitalism has, is as about as insightful as those that pointed to failed attempts at flying as proof the Wright brothers were wasting their lives. Not only had countless people failed (and died doing it), the Wright brothers themselves failed many times and endured much ridicule before they ripped human flight kicking and screaming from realm of the impossible into reality.
A truly magnificent capability of humans. One I, Neb and others argue should be employed here and joined in by any and everyone of good conscience
|
On January 07 2020 23:19 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 23:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 22:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 22:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried.
The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't.
One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point. That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly. But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage. I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral because it prioritizes profit above everything else and exists in a society that's had a couple hundred years of being indoctrinated with the idea that's the best we can do. As we said, it's not "accept ecological damage or don't" it's prioritizing profit over a sustainable and just system. There's no assumption of perfect actors. As I've said, it starts with raising class consciousness and spreading critical pedagogy. At the crux of this is recognizing that capitalism is designed to be exploitative and that exploitation is capitalism working as designed. The laws designed to correct that issue are in opposition to capitalism or designed to legalize the cruelty. Socialism is designed to not be exploitative and exploiting the masses is socialism NOT working (or not socialism). The laws to make socialism sustainable and just are based in socialist ideals as opposed to in contradiction with them as capitalists will always tell you about laws reigning in capitalism. That capitalism is leading us off an ecological cliff while child slaves mine raw earth minerals with their bare hands without enough compensation to live isn't capitalism failing. That same scenario is unquestionably in conflict with socialism. EDIT: A very simple example of this is how companies argue if they didn't exploit people they would put themselves at legal risk from their shareholders for not maximising profit. Hiding behind things like shareholders is just a convenient argument. I don't buy the idea that without them we wouldn't have things like sweatshops. Still don't see anything about how your changing human nature other then 'because'. There has been no successful socialist system, your going to have to come up with more then "it will just work" and until you do I don't see much point in discussing that socialism will fix everything through magic. Because we aren't changing "human nature". We're changing a system that rewards the worst parts of the society with concentrating wealth into one's own hands as THE point. No one is talking about magic or saying "it will just work"? No, you were talking about climate change. Not wealth inequality. it's literally leading us to probable extinction And if you want to talk about wealth inequality then yes socialism is supposed to stop that. Except that every attempt at it has failed and that is something you need to address if you want to convince people to move to a socialist economy. The Scandinavian model seems to work out alright though, that's a great first step as we attempt to go further and explore more and better ways not to globally fuck ourselves and others. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that capitalism with government control(which I am advocating) and not a socialist publicly owned economy not operating for profit? (that GH advocates (I assume since I don't remember him actually going into specifics))
|
On January 07 2020 23:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 22:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 22:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 10:37 Nebuchad wrote:And in discourse overall, not just this forum, the most common defenses of capitalism rely on pointing the finger to the other systems and arguing against them, rather than arguing for capitalism. I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried. The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't. One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point. That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly. But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage. I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral because it prioritizes profit above everything else and exists in a society that's had a couple hundred years of being indoctrinated with the idea that's the best we can do. As we said, it's not "accept ecological damage or don't" it's prioritizing profit over a sustainable and just system. There's no assumption of perfect actors. As I've said, it starts with raising class consciousness and spreading critical pedagogy. At the crux of this is recognizing that capitalism is designed to be exploitative and that exploitation is capitalism working as designed. The laws designed to correct that issue are in opposition to capitalism or designed to legalize the cruelty. Socialism is designed to not be exploitative and exploiting the masses is socialism NOT working (or not socialism). The laws to make socialism sustainable and just are based in socialist ideals as opposed to in contradiction with them as capitalists will always tell you about laws reigning in capitalism. That capitalism is leading us off an ecological cliff while child slaves mine raw earth minerals with their bare hands without enough compensation to live isn't capitalism failing. That same scenario is unquestionably in conflict with socialism. EDIT: A very simple example of this is how companies argue if they didn't exploit people they would put themselves at legal risk from their shareholders for not maximising profit. Hiding behind things like shareholders is just a convenient argument. I don't buy the idea that without them we wouldn't have things like sweatshops. Still don't see anything about how your changing human nature other then 'because'. There has been no successful socialist system, your going to have to come up with more then "it will just work" and until you do I don't see much point in discussing that socialism will fix everything through magic. Because we aren't changing "human nature". We're changing a system that rewards the worst parts of the society with concentrating wealth into one's own hands as THE point. No one is talking about magic or saying "it will just work"? No, you were talking about climate change. Not wealth inequality. And if you want to talk about wealth inequality then yes socialism is supposed to stop that. Except that every attempt at it has failed and that is something you need to address if you want to convince people to move to a socialist economy.
This is where you come in and help us, possibly?
But as you know since you've been in the forum before, we don't have no answer for this and we do address it. GH's main answer is critical pedagogy. Mine is to acknowledge that the versions of socialism that include giving more power to the state so that it implements socialism are very vulnerable to turning authoritarian, and therefore I prefer a version that centers democracy, not just in the government but also in the workplace. Some of Bernie's platform goes in that direction with incentives for cooperatives. Once we're there, increase the incentives, increase the disincentives for being an owner. Tax the fuck out of them too. Make their life substantially worse.
This is the part that's oriented on solutions but it's also worth saying that "every attempt has failed" talk is also a bit reductive in that it ignores why a lot of them failed. A lot of their failures included the US cracking down on them very directly. That tends to limit your chances at success. We're preventing that by starting our experiment in the US, a major superpower, instead of starting it in Honduras or wherever. Others also failed in that they did a lot of good things for their country for a long time and then were put aside in a coup or assassinated. Doesn't sound like the worst failure.
On top of that, some of the successes of socialism are stuff that we have today in our capitalist society because socialism fought for it. Socialists fought for our worker's rights, they fought for child labor laws, they fought for healthcare systems, they fought for civil rights (not alone on this one but they did). In a lot of places they straight up fought for democracy (cause it's not necessarily intuitive for the owner class that everyone should vote).
|
On January 07 2020 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 23:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 22:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 22:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried.
The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't.
One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point. That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly. But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage. I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral because it prioritizes profit above everything else and exists in a society that's had a couple hundred years of being indoctrinated with the idea that's the best we can do. As we said, it's not "accept ecological damage or don't" it's prioritizing profit over a sustainable and just system. There's no assumption of perfect actors. As I've said, it starts with raising class consciousness and spreading critical pedagogy. At the crux of this is recognizing that capitalism is designed to be exploitative and that exploitation is capitalism working as designed. The laws designed to correct that issue are in opposition to capitalism or designed to legalize the cruelty. Socialism is designed to not be exploitative and exploiting the masses is socialism NOT working (or not socialism). The laws to make socialism sustainable and just are based in socialist ideals as opposed to in contradiction with them as capitalists will always tell you about laws reigning in capitalism. That capitalism is leading us off an ecological cliff while child slaves mine raw earth minerals with their bare hands without enough compensation to live isn't capitalism failing. That same scenario is unquestionably in conflict with socialism. EDIT: A very simple example of this is how companies argue if they didn't exploit people they would put themselves at legal risk from their shareholders for not maximising profit. Hiding behind things like shareholders is just a convenient argument. I don't buy the idea that without them we wouldn't have things like sweatshops. Still don't see anything about how your changing human nature other then 'because'. There has been no successful socialist system, your going to have to come up with more then "it will just work" and until you do I don't see much point in discussing that socialism will fix everything through magic. Because we aren't changing "human nature". We're changing a system that rewards the worst parts of the society with concentrating wealth into one's own hands as THE point. No one is talking about magic or saying "it will just work"? No, you were talking about climate change. Not wealth inequality. it's literally leading us to probable extinction And if you want to talk about wealth inequality then yes socialism is supposed to stop that. Except that every attempt at it has failed and that is something you need to address if you want to convince people to move to a socialist economy. They are interconnected. A main driver of climate change is the insatiable desire for more wealth to hoard which is in turn driven by capitalism. You're right that capitalism didn't create it, it simply rewards it and organizes society around it's perpetuation. It wasn't really even intended to be much more than feudalism with a meritocracy slapped on top of it. Poverty, exploitation, oppression, etc... provided the fuel for revolutions leading out of feudalism, but the simple thing that united varied people around the world against it were the simple contradictions of the divinity of kings and the alienation from ones labor. Capitalism was an attempt to rectify those contradictions through a meritocracy. Problem was the meritocracy was, is, and always will be beholden to nature of capital accumulation under capitalism. The inherent contradiction is captured rather succinctly in a monopoly. You have to write a law criminalizing the designed intention of successful businesses. Pointing at socialist endeavors that failed to seize and maintain global control as capitalism has, is as about as insightful as those that pointed to failed attempts at flying as proof the Wright brothers were wasting their lives. Not only had countless people failed (and died doing it), the Wright brothers themselves failed many times and endured much ridicule before they ripped human flight kicking and screaming from realm of the impossible into reality. A truly magnificent capability of humans. One I, Neb and others argue should be employed here and joined in by any and person of good conscience The difference between the Wrights and a bunch of lunatics that are a dime a dozen is that they did it and proved the world wrong.
The problem is that your not proving the world wrong, your telling the world to accept that you might possible be right with no evidence to support it and wondering why we're not jumping on board.
Reminds me of that 'scientist' that supposedly discovered Cold Fusion a bunch of years ago but wouldn't let anyone see how it actually worked. Surprisingly no one believed him...
|
On January 07 2020 23:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 23:19 Zambrah wrote:On January 07 2020 23:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 22:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 22:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point.
That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly. But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage. I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral because it prioritizes profit above everything else and exists in a society that's had a couple hundred years of being indoctrinated with the idea that's the best we can do. As we said, it's not "accept ecological damage or don't" it's prioritizing profit over a sustainable and just system. There's no assumption of perfect actors. As I've said, it starts with raising class consciousness and spreading critical pedagogy. At the crux of this is recognizing that capitalism is designed to be exploitative and that exploitation is capitalism working as designed. The laws designed to correct that issue are in opposition to capitalism or designed to legalize the cruelty. Socialism is designed to not be exploitative and exploiting the masses is socialism NOT working (or not socialism). The laws to make socialism sustainable and just are based in socialist ideals as opposed to in contradiction with them as capitalists will always tell you about laws reigning in capitalism. That capitalism is leading us off an ecological cliff while child slaves mine raw earth minerals with their bare hands without enough compensation to live isn't capitalism failing. That same scenario is unquestionably in conflict with socialism. EDIT: A very simple example of this is how companies argue if they didn't exploit people they would put themselves at legal risk from their shareholders for not maximising profit. Hiding behind things like shareholders is just a convenient argument. I don't buy the idea that without them we wouldn't have things like sweatshops. Still don't see anything about how your changing human nature other then 'because'. There has been no successful socialist system, your going to have to come up with more then "it will just work" and until you do I don't see much point in discussing that socialism will fix everything through magic. Because we aren't changing "human nature". We're changing a system that rewards the worst parts of the society with concentrating wealth into one's own hands as THE point. No one is talking about magic or saying "it will just work"? No, you were talking about climate change. Not wealth inequality. it's literally leading us to probable extinction And if you want to talk about wealth inequality then yes socialism is supposed to stop that. Except that every attempt at it has failed and that is something you need to address if you want to convince people to move to a socialist economy. The Scandinavian model seems to work out alright though, that's a great first step as we attempt to go further and explore more and better ways not to globally fuck ourselves and others. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that capitalism with government control(which I am advocating) and not a socialist publicly owned economy not operating for profit? (that GH advocates (I assume since I don't remember him actually going into specifics))
It's a good first step, China does the government controlled capitalism too, which obviously has turned out shitty so it's not like we can just implement the system and have it automatically work out, but it's a solid initial roadmap and given the right leadership and focus I think it's possible to go the Scandinavian route over th Chinese route, but I'll admit it's not fool proof, especially given the Fuck Everyone Else mentality a lot of Americans have.
But hey, first steps and all, if we get to the Scandinavian place we can explore further radical changes and I feel as though if we get to the Scandinavian system change can come significantly more readily.
|
On January 07 2020 23:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 23:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 22:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 22:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 19:51 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]I think a large part of this is that many recognise that Capitalism has many flaws but that it just happens to be better then everything else humanity has tried.
The basic principles of competition and consumer choice driving innovation are fine, but it requires someone to control the excesses and step in where consumers can't.
One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point. That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly. But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage. I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral because it prioritizes profit above everything else and exists in a society that's had a couple hundred years of being indoctrinated with the idea that's the best we can do. As we said, it's not "accept ecological damage or don't" it's prioritizing profit over a sustainable and just system. There's no assumption of perfect actors. As I've said, it starts with raising class consciousness and spreading critical pedagogy. At the crux of this is recognizing that capitalism is designed to be exploitative and that exploitation is capitalism working as designed. The laws designed to correct that issue are in opposition to capitalism or designed to legalize the cruelty. Socialism is designed to not be exploitative and exploiting the masses is socialism NOT working (or not socialism). The laws to make socialism sustainable and just are based in socialist ideals as opposed to in contradiction with them as capitalists will always tell you about laws reigning in capitalism. That capitalism is leading us off an ecological cliff while child slaves mine raw earth minerals with their bare hands without enough compensation to live isn't capitalism failing. That same scenario is unquestionably in conflict with socialism. EDIT: A very simple example of this is how companies argue if they didn't exploit people they would put themselves at legal risk from their shareholders for not maximising profit. Hiding behind things like shareholders is just a convenient argument. I don't buy the idea that without them we wouldn't have things like sweatshops. Still don't see anything about how your changing human nature other then 'because'. There has been no successful socialist system, your going to have to come up with more then "it will just work" and until you do I don't see much point in discussing that socialism will fix everything through magic. Because we aren't changing "human nature". We're changing a system that rewards the worst parts of the society with concentrating wealth into one's own hands as THE point. No one is talking about magic or saying "it will just work"? No, you were talking about climate change. Not wealth inequality. it's literally leading us to probable extinction And if you want to talk about wealth inequality then yes socialism is supposed to stop that. Except that every attempt at it has failed and that is something you need to address if you want to convince people to move to a socialist economy. This is where you come in and help us, possibly? But as you know since you've been in the forum before, we don't have no answer for this and we do address it. GH's main answer is critical pedagogy. Mine is to acknowledge that the versions of socialism that include giving more power to the state so that it implements socialism are very vulnerable to turning authoritarian, and therefore I prefer a version that centers democracy, not just in the government but also in the workplace. Some of Bernie's platform goes in that direction with incentives for cooperatives. Once we're there, increase the incentives, increase the disincentives for being an owner. Tax the fuck out of them too. Make their life substantially worse. I have no problem with cooperatives and taxing the fuck out of the rich, but that is just as possible under capitalism.
|
On January 07 2020 23:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 23:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 22:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 22:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point.
That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly. But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage. I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral because it prioritizes profit above everything else and exists in a society that's had a couple hundred years of being indoctrinated with the idea that's the best we can do. As we said, it's not "accept ecological damage or don't" it's prioritizing profit over a sustainable and just system. There's no assumption of perfect actors. As I've said, it starts with raising class consciousness and spreading critical pedagogy. At the crux of this is recognizing that capitalism is designed to be exploitative and that exploitation is capitalism working as designed. The laws designed to correct that issue are in opposition to capitalism or designed to legalize the cruelty. Socialism is designed to not be exploitative and exploiting the masses is socialism NOT working (or not socialism). The laws to make socialism sustainable and just are based in socialist ideals as opposed to in contradiction with them as capitalists will always tell you about laws reigning in capitalism. That capitalism is leading us off an ecological cliff while child slaves mine raw earth minerals with their bare hands without enough compensation to live isn't capitalism failing. That same scenario is unquestionably in conflict with socialism. EDIT: A very simple example of this is how companies argue if they didn't exploit people they would put themselves at legal risk from their shareholders for not maximising profit. Hiding behind things like shareholders is just a convenient argument. I don't buy the idea that without them we wouldn't have things like sweatshops. Still don't see anything about how your changing human nature other then 'because'. There has been no successful socialist system, your going to have to come up with more then "it will just work" and until you do I don't see much point in discussing that socialism will fix everything through magic. Because we aren't changing "human nature". We're changing a system that rewards the worst parts of the society with concentrating wealth into one's own hands as THE point. No one is talking about magic or saying "it will just work"? No, you were talking about climate change. Not wealth inequality. it's literally leading us to probable extinction And if you want to talk about wealth inequality then yes socialism is supposed to stop that. Except that every attempt at it has failed and that is something you need to address if you want to convince people to move to a socialist economy. They are interconnected. A main driver of climate change is the insatiable desire for more wealth to hoard which is in turn driven by capitalism. You're right that capitalism didn't create it, it simply rewards it and organizes society around it's perpetuation. It wasn't really even intended to be much more than feudalism with a meritocracy slapped on top of it. Poverty, exploitation, oppression, etc... provided the fuel for revolutions leading out of feudalism, but the simple thing that united varied people around the world against it were the simple contradictions of the divinity of kings and the alienation from ones labor. Capitalism was an attempt to rectify those contradictions through a meritocracy. Problem was the meritocracy was, is, and always will be beholden to nature of capital accumulation under capitalism. The inherent contradiction is captured rather succinctly in a monopoly. You have to write a law criminalizing the designed intention of successful businesses. Pointing at socialist endeavors that failed to seize and maintain global control as capitalism has, is as about as insightful as those that pointed to failed attempts at flying as proof the Wright brothers were wasting their lives. Not only had countless people failed (and died doing it), the Wright brothers themselves failed many times and endured much ridicule before they ripped human flight kicking and screaming from realm of the impossible into reality. A truly magnificent capability of humans. One I, Neb and others argue should be employed here and joined in by any and person of good conscience The difference between the Wrights and a bunch of lunatics that are a dime a dozen is that they did it and proved the world wrong. The problem is that your not proving the world wrong, your telling the world to accept that you might possible be right with no evidence to support it and wondering why we're not jumping on board. Reminds me of that 'scientist' that supposedly discovered Cold Fusion a bunch of years ago but wouldn't let anyone see how it actually worked. Surprisingly no one believed him...
Evidence of what? Socialist endeavors? I mean most of the best parts of our societies are based in socialist ideals, were fought vociferously by capitalists, and eventually accepted as necessary concessions to perpetuate capitalism.
This is more like convincing people to shift from mode 2 to mode 3 tool making. They have evidence of it's superiority all around them but they are still surrounded by a society that's convinced the way they are doing things are as good as it gets.
I don't wonder why people don't jump on board. They disagree with my conclusions.
|
On January 07 2020 23:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 23:26 Nebuchad wrote:On January 07 2020 23:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 22:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 22:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2020 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2020 20:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
One of the fundamental issues is that capitalism can't reign in it's excess, it's literally leading us to probable extinction. That's one reason why I think it being unsustainable and the violence it inflicts being unacceptable is a critical point.
That capitalists can see facing near certain doom as a direct result of capitalism disregard for anything but profit as "better than everything else" is basically contingent on whether it could survive capitalism's relentless attacks in a society it dominates and promises the destruction of. always wanting more with not enough regard for the consequences has been a thing long before capitalism. Changing economic models isn't going to change humanity into peace loving hippies in tune with nature. It does change our incentives and priorities though. Wanting more without regard for consequences is more profitable (rewarded) under capitalism. Wanting more without regard for consequences is in conflict with everything about socialism. So capitalists can destroy our ecology, enslave children, kill millions, etc.. and none of that is in conflict with capitalism. Sigh, your still ignoring the actual people in your system and just assuming they will act perfectly. But sure, explain to me how your system would stop a person from accepting ecological damage. I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral because it prioritizes profit above everything else and exists in a society that's had a couple hundred years of being indoctrinated with the idea that's the best we can do. As we said, it's not "accept ecological damage or don't" it's prioritizing profit over a sustainable and just system. There's no assumption of perfect actors. As I've said, it starts with raising class consciousness and spreading critical pedagogy. At the crux of this is recognizing that capitalism is designed to be exploitative and that exploitation is capitalism working as designed. The laws designed to correct that issue are in opposition to capitalism or designed to legalize the cruelty. Socialism is designed to not be exploitative and exploiting the masses is socialism NOT working (or not socialism). The laws to make socialism sustainable and just are based in socialist ideals as opposed to in contradiction with them as capitalists will always tell you about laws reigning in capitalism. That capitalism is leading us off an ecological cliff while child slaves mine raw earth minerals with their bare hands without enough compensation to live isn't capitalism failing. That same scenario is unquestionably in conflict with socialism. EDIT: A very simple example of this is how companies argue if they didn't exploit people they would put themselves at legal risk from their shareholders for not maximising profit. Hiding behind things like shareholders is just a convenient argument. I don't buy the idea that without them we wouldn't have things like sweatshops. Still don't see anything about how your changing human nature other then 'because'. There has been no successful socialist system, your going to have to come up with more then "it will just work" and until you do I don't see much point in discussing that socialism will fix everything through magic. Because we aren't changing "human nature". We're changing a system that rewards the worst parts of the society with concentrating wealth into one's own hands as THE point. No one is talking about magic or saying "it will just work"? No, you were talking about climate change. Not wealth inequality. it's literally leading us to probable extinction And if you want to talk about wealth inequality then yes socialism is supposed to stop that. Except that every attempt at it has failed and that is something you need to address if you want to convince people to move to a socialist economy. This is where you come in and help us, possibly? But as you know since you've been in the forum before, we don't have no answer for this and we do address it. GH's main answer is critical pedagogy. Mine is to acknowledge that the versions of socialism that include giving more power to the state so that it implements socialism are very vulnerable to turning authoritarian, and therefore I prefer a version that centers democracy, not just in the government but also in the workplace. Some of Bernie's platform goes in that direction with incentives for cooperatives. Once we're there, increase the incentives, increase the disincentives for being an owner. Tax the fuck out of them too. Make their life substantially worse. I have no problem with cooperatives and taxing the fuck out of the rich, but that is just as possible under capitalism.
I edited the post with some other stuff that I wish I had said.
I'm aware that social democracy is capitalist, thanks. The issue with social democracy is that it only limits the power of the enemy instead of eliminating it. We all agree that it's the first step, it's just that if we stop there, the system will be progressively undermined and it will progressively drift right again, as is the inherent logic of capitalism, and in 90 years we'll be back at the same point with people saying that we need to go back to social democracy again (unless we're all busy trying to survive ecofascism in the case of these specific 90 years, of course).
|
On January 07 2020 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
Pointing at socialist endeavors that failed to seize and maintain global control as capitalism has, is as about as insightful as those that pointed to failed attempts at flying as proof the Wright brothers were wasting their lives. Not only had countless people failed (and died doing it), the Wright brothers themselves failed many times and endured much ridicule before they ripped human flight kicking and screaming from realm of the impossible into reality.
Wow, that's some alternative history going on there. There was a lot research at the time in heavier than air flight. people beleived it was entirely possible to the point that it was beleivied to be destined to happen. The Wright brothers were invited to and made speeches and associated with various engineering and research societies at the time. Controlled human flight by way of lighter than air had been going on for several years at that point.
|
To be honest, I don't think any sort of a radical change to the economy model will take place until everything starts really falling apart due to climate apocalypse and people realise they're fucked, and by then it'll be too late for any changes to matter in the grand scheme of things.
|
On January 08 2020 00:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2020 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
Pointing at socialist endeavors that failed to seize and maintain global control as capitalism has, is as about as insightful as those that pointed to failed attempts at flying as proof the Wright brothers were wasting their lives. Not only had countless people failed (and died doing it), the Wright brothers themselves failed many times and endured much ridicule before they ripped human flight kicking and screaming from realm of the impossible into reality. Wow, that's some alternative history going on there. There was a lot research at the time in heavier than air flight. people beleived it was entirely possible to the point that it was beleivied to be destined to happen. The Wright brothers were invited to and made speeches and associated with various engineering and research societies at the time. Controlled human flight by way of lighter than air had been going on for several years at that point.
Obviously history lumps shit together for narrative purposes. Capital wasn't written from scratch lol. I'll take the criticism about the artistic license used there, but my point remains.
|
On January 08 2020 00:07 PoulsenB wrote:
To be honest, I don't think any sort of a radical change to the economy model will take place until everything starts really falling apart due to climate apocalypse and people realise they're fucked, and by then it'll be too late for any changes to matter in the grand scheme of things.
This is likely true but let's have a fight anyway, what are we, french or something?
|
I'll defend capitalism.
Let's start with a true story. Many years ago, my father ran the IT department for a company. After the fall of the USSR, the company brought in some Russian immigrants to work in his IT department. My father found out they were stealing from the company and wanted to fire them. His boss, the owner (and founder) of the company instead said something like, "They're not bad, they're ignorant. They grew up in socialism and the only way to get ahead in socialism is to steal. We'll work with them." The owner, a true self-made billionaire with Russian ancestry, felt pity for them and wanted to help them. He recognized that the methods of getting ahead in socialism are corruption and theft. If you can re-educate people to teach them that in capitalism you can get ahead through hard work, then you can end up with some good employees and those employees can end up with a better life than they'd ever have under socialism.
People want to get ahead. I'm going to take that as a self-evident truth. In socialism, the outlet for that desire is loyalty to the system (like KGB members getting ahead, hello Mr. Putin) or to outright steal. Ethics and morals be damned. Capitalism directs that desire into something much healthier. It directs it into innovation and hard work. Yes, theft can get you ahead in capitalism too, but at least there it's not the only way.
Capitalism is essentially a force of nature. If you can accept that people can own things (which is not unique to capitalism), then capitalism is a natural extension of that ownership: you can use what you own to make money. You can use your own labor to make money. You can use the piece of land you own to make money. You can use the factory on the land to make money. You can use the money to make money.
Anything else is either saying that people can't own things or is trying to cut people off from the nature of ownership.
Having said that, unrestrained capitalism is not good. The government is supposed to be the check on capitalism to keep its excesses in check. The government is the part where society gets to vote and say, "hey, you have too much". Unfortunately, some of the people who should be educating society on a better form of capitalism have instead decided that the bankruptcy of socialism is better. We've seen socialism, it isn't a new idea, every implementation the world has seen stinks.
If instead, you worked to curb the excesses of capitalism through educating the population, then you'd have more success and end up with a better system. For starters, teach people that taxes aren't all bad. The inheritance tax should be high. If it's a 90% tax over 100 million (or pick your number), then you can prevent infinite generational wealth while still allowing a parent to set up their children for life. You also de-incentivize excess wealth because you'll never get to use it (currently true) and 90% of it will go back to the government anyways (not currently true). Right now, a large portion of people who will never be effected by the inheritance tax voted to get rid of it (part of the Republican platform).
If you also used the government to force people to pay for their ecological destruction, then you'd get different calculus on various capitalistic endeavors. Things like a carbon tax could greatly change society for the better by making some activities unprofitable. However, again, we've been conditioned to think taxes = bad. Fight that fight and the environment has a chance. Pretending that socialism has answers when it has never had any answer for the environment before seems quite dubious.
Finally, there are some areas where socialism can be used in a capitalistic society. I look to socialism to set a floor. Everyone deserves the law, so police and the courts should be socialized (they already are, socialists love the socialized police force /s). Everyone deserves basic health protection so the fire departments and healthcare should be socialized (fire usually is, healthcare not really... an area where I'd love to see universal healthcare). Everyone deserves a basic education so we have public schools and libraries (although I'm not a fan of free college, I think that's past the limit of basic education).
In my ideal society, government sets the floor through socialism and curbs the excess through taxes (which also pay for the socialism); however, we allows capitalism to work in the middle. Many European countries are headed in that direction. The US has a reasonable structure to move in that direction, but it takes people pushing for it, rather than trying to throw the whole thing out and implement something that has never worked before in some magical undefined new way.
|
On January 08 2020 00:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2020 00:07 PoulsenB wrote:
To be honest, I don't think any sort of a radical change to the economy model will take place until everything starts really falling apart due to climate apocalypse and people realise they're fucked, and by then it'll be too late for any changes to matter in the grand scheme of things. This is likely true but let's have a fight anyway, what are we, french or something?
Not French, just scared and depressed, at least when I think about the direction humanity is going at the moment.
|
|
|
JimmiC you can't have equality of opportunity and millionaires (unless we're talking about Venezuelan millionaires).
Edit: Pressed "Post" too early. Guess I'll have to stop at this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
