|
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 April 26 2020 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:56 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:On April 25 2020 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 21:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 20:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
And that's why we should work on international regulations, why big regulators like the EU are so important and so on.
After that, the wealth of scandinavian nations is mainly built on their own ressources (oil for norway) and industries. You can certainly find shitty things that nordic corporations are doing in the world, but I don't buy that the wealth of those nations is built on the blood and sweat of some oppressed slaves somewhere.
Haven't seen Occupation. Do you recommend? I don't want to get mired in European history (at least not in the US politics thread I could be quite inquisitive elsewhere), or parse Norway, scandinavian countries, nordic, or the differences historically or otherwise (again, here I could inquire about that kind of stuff endlessly). The nature of capitalism is that the people with the capital get more capital and with more capital comes more power/influence in a capitalist system. While this isn't absolute (as in wealthy people never lose money/influence), it's ubiquity in capitalist systems is relatively uncontested. The rest got much longer than I intended but outlines (long but not comprehensively) how I see the various capitalist viewpoints, and their socialist alternatives. + Show Spoiler +(neo)Liberalism/Conservatism argues the churning of people pursuing their own rational self-interested goals results in a cream rising of the best of both those capitalist competitors and the "best" or most valued goals to serve the market/rational self-interested parties. Their argument is about the quality and legitimacy of a superimposed meritocracy. Basically Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians will argue the meritocracy is best in it's "traditional"/"most-free" form. That regulation and government intervention is merely a not-so-secret cabal of savvy capitalists seeking to futilely levy a corrupt government system to enrich themselves by way of exploiting a governments monopoly on force rather than in a market where individuals are free to choose by way of their own rational self-interest. This culminated in some ways with Ron Paul's debate moment on healthcare. + Show Spoiler +Neoliberals will argue that is fantasy/borderline psycho/sociopathy and that without strict oversight and regulation the power and influence of those with capital will quickly overrun those without undermining what they believe can/should be a valid meritocracy. Thwarted by the previously mentioned parties and "infighting" with those to their left they insist if they were only empowered (in a meritocracy they acknowledge won't empower them righteously) they would make right the meritocracy (through government regulation/intervention) and they typically endorse some bare minimum social safety nets. Social Democrats and Progressives endorse the conceptual framework of capitalism and the meritocracy virtually indistinguishable from neoliberals and differentiate themselves by advocating more comprehensive social safety nets, regulations/interventions and less hawkish foreign policy than the previous groups. The New Deal is widely seen as a historical milestone with this general sense. Similarly (although certainly things change with time) they are definitively more socially progressive than the other groups mentioned thus far (other than libertarians for different reasons). However, The New Deal and it's historical context serves as an illustration of the compromises made among lines of capital/ownership and race/civil rights that were set aside and what went from WWII into the "Cold" War This is illustrated in how MLK was painted a communist long before he had abandoned capitalism, despite capitalism indisputably abandoning of the people he spoke for. As well as the ongoing poor people's campaign that lives in the shameful legacy of the US. Democratic Socialists (in theory) are anti-capitalist and advocates of socialism, but (without delving into socialist disputes) favor a more reformist path toward socialism. But importantly the abolition of capitalism and advocacy of socialism is intrinsic to distinguishing them from social democrats and progressives. DSA and Bernie basically muddied the waters as you suggest leading to people getting the impression that Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic policy are one in the same. They clearly aren't, with the main distinction being whether they aim to preserve capitalism and make it/the meritocracy "more fair/forgiving" or aim to end it in favor of socialism (even if in a transitory nature). The blurring of this is especially bad in the US where ubiquitous developed world expectations like universal healthcare are considered unreasonable pipedreams rather than basic social democratic safety nets. ML/MLM/Revolutionary socialists look at the October Revolution, Cuba's liberation, the Haitian Revolution, etc. and while we'd be thrilled for the other parties to bring us and other marginalized peoples peacefully into a system of equity and sustainability, literally all of those capitalist groups (as represented in the US) have made it abundantly clear they'll literally watch them die by the thousands. Men, women and children alike, starved to death in Yemen, imprisoned in Gaza, enslaved in Libya, etc. and in many cases argue it necessary collateral damage for the perpetuation of an "admittedly imperfect" capitalist system that is inherently dependent on maintaining those exploitative relationships with marginalized peoples. Though the better/wealthier societies have the sense to externalize the majority of most horrific suffering needed to sustain their empires outside their own border. The last group would also argue that the inevitability of that exploitation creeping inside the borders and up the social/economic meritocracy is foreseeable (and/or transpiring as we speak in the US). + Show Spoiler +I highly enjoyed Occupation and it's a rare glimpse into Norwegian geopolitics for a westerner like myself (albeit probably wildly unrepresentative like most US fictional media, though apparently it struck a nerve with Russia (or that was publicity hype I don't remember). Well I think our views differ on three points: - I do believe in social-democracy. I really think that capitalism can be tamed and is actually a really, really good system IF supported by a very strong, democratic and independent political system able to regulate and tame the forces of the market. I think Scandinavia might be the only place where it is really achieved, although some countries (say the Netherlands) are also close. - I really don't believe in changing the world radically and making a totally new system. It's been tried times and times and times again, and usually it ends up with millions of death. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system, and we have the recipes, within the frame capitalism, to make countries million times better than the US are. - I think that seeing society as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed is part of the problem, not the solution. I believe that this is why scandinavia succeed where France fails, for example. They are highly consensual societies where people trust each other. France is a place where everyone is certain that his fellow has the intention of fucking him up, where assuming bad faith is the norm and where trusting each other is seen as being stupid. I think that the very strong marxist influence on french intellectual life is partly responsible (Marx is a great thinker, but I think his influence on the french left has been really nefarious). Will watch occupation. Actually, I have heard people here praising the show many times. I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism. Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs. But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane. This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists). The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do. Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg. To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners). I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism. Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%. But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality. The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system. On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic. I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates. But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year. Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state. There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage. The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The incentive would be that the full value of your labour would go to you as a worker instead of going to a capitalist. If you work harder and produce more value, which results in your company making more money, that'll be money in your pockets, not a new line in the stock portfolio of your boss. How exactly would you ensure that? Outside of companies where everyone does the same type of work, who would decide who gets what compensation? Some bureaucrat? Or would that be a democratic decision? How would you stop the mediocre many from exploiting the talented/hard-working few? What about investment? Would that company not invest at all? Or would people be able to opt out from investing their share while taking advantage of the investment of others? Or perhaps everyone would be forced to contribute equally and so people would, in fact, not receive the full value of their work? Not to mention the fact that this whole reasoning rests on the erroneous idea of labor theory of value. In capitalism, you can only be certain that the workers do not receive the full value of their work if you assume that capital investment gives no added value. I hope we can both agree that this is not true. The workers in the company would decide that democratically. You could also have managers and human ressources for larger companies, have the freedom to organize as you please. The important part is that the workers own the place rather than some individuals profiting off of them, any other structural question is open for me. I would personally favor a more egalitarian system but I wouldn't want to impose my views.
In other words, socialism wouldn't ensure that everyone receives the full value of their work, right? You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually.
|
On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:56 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:On April 25 2020 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2020 21:52 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] I don't want to get mired in European history (at least not in the US politics thread I could be quite inquisitive elsewhere), or parse Norway, scandinavian countries, nordic, or the differences historically or otherwise (again, here I could inquire about that kind of stuff endlessly). The nature of capitalism is that the people with the capital get more capital and with more capital comes more power/influence in a capitalist system. While this isn't absolute (as in wealthy people never lose money/influence), it's ubiquity in capitalist systems is relatively uncontested. The rest got much longer than I intended but outlines (long but not comprehensively) how I see the various capitalist viewpoints, and their socialist alternatives. + Show Spoiler +(neo)Liberalism/Conservatism argues the churning of people pursuing their own rational self-interested goals results in a cream rising of the best of both those capitalist competitors and the "best" or most valued goals to serve the market/rational self-interested parties. Their argument is about the quality and legitimacy of a superimposed meritocracy. Basically Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians will argue the meritocracy is best in it's "traditional"/"most-free" form. That regulation and government intervention is merely a not-so-secret cabal of savvy capitalists seeking to futilely levy a corrupt government system to enrich themselves by way of exploiting a governments monopoly on force rather than in a market where individuals are free to choose by way of their own rational self-interest. This culminated in some ways with Ron Paul's debate moment on healthcare. + Show Spoiler +Neoliberals will argue that is fantasy/borderline psycho/sociopathy and that without strict oversight and regulation the power and influence of those with capital will quickly overrun those without undermining what they believe can/should be a valid meritocracy. Thwarted by the previously mentioned parties and "infighting" with those to their left they insist if they were only empowered (in a meritocracy they acknowledge won't empower them righteously) they would make right the meritocracy (through government regulation/intervention) and they typically endorse some bare minimum social safety nets. Social Democrats and Progressives endorse the conceptual framework of capitalism and the meritocracy virtually indistinguishable from neoliberals and differentiate themselves by advocating more comprehensive social safety nets, regulations/interventions and less hawkish foreign policy than the previous groups. The New Deal is widely seen as a historical milestone with this general sense. Similarly (although certainly things change with time) they are definitively more socially progressive than the other groups mentioned thus far (other than libertarians for different reasons). However, The New Deal and it's historical context serves as an illustration of the compromises made among lines of capital/ownership and race/civil rights that were set aside and what went from WWII into the "Cold" War This is illustrated in how MLK was painted a communist long before he had abandoned capitalism, despite capitalism indisputably abandoning of the people he spoke for. As well as the ongoing poor people's campaign that lives in the shameful legacy of the US. Democratic Socialists (in theory) are anti-capitalist and advocates of socialism, but (without delving into socialist disputes) favor a more reformist path toward socialism. But importantly the abolition of capitalism and advocacy of socialism is intrinsic to distinguishing them from social democrats and progressives. DSA and Bernie basically muddied the waters as you suggest leading to people getting the impression that Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic policy are one in the same. They clearly aren't, with the main distinction being whether they aim to preserve capitalism and make it/the meritocracy "more fair/forgiving" or aim to end it in favor of socialism (even if in a transitory nature). The blurring of this is especially bad in the US where ubiquitous developed world expectations like universal healthcare are considered unreasonable pipedreams rather than basic social democratic safety nets. ML/MLM/Revolutionary socialists look at the October Revolution, Cuba's liberation, the Haitian Revolution, etc. and while we'd be thrilled for the other parties to bring us and other marginalized peoples peacefully into a system of equity and sustainability, literally all of those capitalist groups (as represented in the US) have made it abundantly clear they'll literally watch them die by the thousands. Men, women and children alike, starved to death in Yemen, imprisoned in Gaza, enslaved in Libya, etc. and in many cases argue it necessary collateral damage for the perpetuation of an "admittedly imperfect" capitalist system that is inherently dependent on maintaining those exploitative relationships with marginalized peoples. Though the better/wealthier societies have the sense to externalize the majority of most horrific suffering needed to sustain their empires outside their own border. The last group would also argue that the inevitability of that exploitation creeping inside the borders and up the social/economic meritocracy is foreseeable (and/or transpiring as we speak in the US). + Show Spoiler +I highly enjoyed Occupation and it's a rare glimpse into Norwegian geopolitics for a westerner like myself (albeit probably wildly unrepresentative like most US fictional media, though apparently it struck a nerve with Russia (or that was publicity hype I don't remember). Well I think our views differ on three points: - I do believe in social-democracy. I really think that capitalism can be tamed and is actually a really, really good system IF supported by a very strong, democratic and independent political system able to regulate and tame the forces of the market. I think Scandinavia might be the only place where it is really achieved, although some countries (say the Netherlands) are also close. - I really don't believe in changing the world radically and making a totally new system. It's been tried times and times and times again, and usually it ends up with millions of death. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system, and we have the recipes, within the frame capitalism, to make countries million times better than the US are. - I think that seeing society as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed is part of the problem, not the solution. I believe that this is why scandinavia succeed where France fails, for example. They are highly consensual societies where people trust each other. France is a place where everyone is certain that his fellow has the intention of fucking him up, where assuming bad faith is the norm and where trusting each other is seen as being stupid. I think that the very strong marxist influence on french intellectual life is partly responsible (Marx is a great thinker, but I think his influence on the french left has been really nefarious). Will watch occupation. Actually, I have heard people here praising the show many times. I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism. Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs. But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane. This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists). The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do. Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg. To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners). I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism. Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%. But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality. The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system. On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic. I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates. But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year. Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state. There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage. The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The incentive would be that the full value of your labour would go to you as a worker instead of going to a capitalist. If you work harder and produce more value, which results in your company making more money, that'll be money in your pockets, not a new line in the stock portfolio of your boss. How exactly would you ensure that? Outside of companies where everyone does the same type of work, who would decide who gets what compensation? Some bureaucrat? Or would that be a democratic decision? How would you stop the mediocre many from exploiting the talented/hard-working few? What about investment? Would that company not invest at all? Or would people be able to opt out from investing their share while taking advantage of the investment of others? Or perhaps everyone would be forced to contribute equally and so people would, in fact, not receive the full value of their work? Not to mention the fact that this whole reasoning rests on the erroneous idea of labor theory of value. In capitalism, you can only be certain that the workers do not receive the full value of their work if you assume that capital investment gives no added value. I hope we can both agree that this is not true. The workers in the company would decide that democratically. You could also have managers and human ressources for larger companies, have the freedom to organize as you please. The important part is that the workers own the place rather than some individuals profiting off of them, any other structural question is open for me. I would personally favor a more egalitarian system but I wouldn't want to impose my views. In other words, socialism wouldn't ensure that everyone receives the full value of their work, right? You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually.
That would be the same thing
|
On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:56 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:On April 25 2020 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Well I think our views differ on three points:
- I do believe in social-democracy. I really think that capitalism can be tamed and is actually a really, really good system IF supported by a very strong, democratic and independent political system able to regulate and tame the forces of the market. I think Scandinavia might be the only place where it is really achieved, although some countries (say the Netherlands) are also close.
- I really don't believe in changing the world radically and making a totally new system. It's been tried times and times and times again, and usually it ends up with millions of death. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system, and we have the recipes, within the frame capitalism, to make countries million times better than the US are.
- I think that seeing society as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed is part of the problem, not the solution. I believe that this is why scandinavia succeed where France fails, for example. They are highly consensual societies where people trust each other. France is a place where everyone is certain that his fellow has the intention of fucking him up, where assuming bad faith is the norm and where trusting each other is seen as being stupid. I think that the very strong marxist influence on french intellectual life is partly responsible (Marx is a great thinker, but I think his influence on the french left has been really nefarious).
Will watch occupation. Actually, I have heard people here praising the show many times. I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism. Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs. But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane. This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists). The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do. Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg. To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners). I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism. Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%. But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality. The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system. On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic. I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates. But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year. Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state. There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage. The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The incentive would be that the full value of your labour would go to you as a worker instead of going to a capitalist. If you work harder and produce more value, which results in your company making more money, that'll be money in your pockets, not a new line in the stock portfolio of your boss. How exactly would you ensure that? Outside of companies where everyone does the same type of work, who would decide who gets what compensation? Some bureaucrat? Or would that be a democratic decision? How would you stop the mediocre many from exploiting the talented/hard-working few? What about investment? Would that company not invest at all? Or would people be able to opt out from investing their share while taking advantage of the investment of others? Or perhaps everyone would be forced to contribute equally and so people would, in fact, not receive the full value of their work? Not to mention the fact that this whole reasoning rests on the erroneous idea of labor theory of value. In capitalism, you can only be certain that the workers do not receive the full value of their work if you assume that capital investment gives no added value. I hope we can both agree that this is not true. The workers in the company would decide that democratically. You could also have managers and human ressources for larger companies, have the freedom to organize as you please. The important part is that the workers own the place rather than some individuals profiting off of them, any other structural question is open for me. I would personally favor a more egalitarian system but I wouldn't want to impose my views. In other words, socialism wouldn't ensure that everyone receives the full value of their work, right? You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually. That would be the same thing
How would that be the same thing? If what's best for the person is to have the most profit short term instead of long term the company will die without any investments. If the company needs to scale back to remain a viable business how are the workers suppose to figure out whos not a worker anymore? How does a democratic system of management adjust in any way to the changing economy?
|
|
|
On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:56 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:On April 25 2020 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2020 22:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Well I think our views differ on three points:
- I do believe in social-democracy. I really think that capitalism can be tamed and is actually a really, really good system IF supported by a very strong, democratic and independent political system able to regulate and tame the forces of the market. I think Scandinavia might be the only place where it is really achieved, although some countries (say the Netherlands) are also close.
- I really don't believe in changing the world radically and making a totally new system. It's been tried times and times and times again, and usually it ends up with millions of death. I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system, and we have the recipes, within the frame capitalism, to make countries million times better than the US are.
- I think that seeing society as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed is part of the problem, not the solution. I believe that this is why scandinavia succeed where France fails, for example. They are highly consensual societies where people trust each other. France is a place where everyone is certain that his fellow has the intention of fucking him up, where assuming bad faith is the norm and where trusting each other is seen as being stupid. I think that the very strong marxist influence on french intellectual life is partly responsible (Marx is a great thinker, but I think his influence on the french left has been really nefarious).
Will watch occupation. Actually, I have heard people here praising the show many times. I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism. Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs. But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane. This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists). The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do. Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg. To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners). I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism. Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%. But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality. The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system. On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic. I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates. But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year. Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state. There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage. The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The incentive would be that the full value of your labour would go to you as a worker instead of going to a capitalist. If you work harder and produce more value, which results in your company making more money, that'll be money in your pockets, not a new line in the stock portfolio of your boss. How exactly would you ensure that? Outside of companies where everyone does the same type of work, who would decide who gets what compensation? Some bureaucrat? Or would that be a democratic decision? How would you stop the mediocre many from exploiting the talented/hard-working few? What about investment? Would that company not invest at all? Or would people be able to opt out from investing their share while taking advantage of the investment of others? Or perhaps everyone would be forced to contribute equally and so people would, in fact, not receive the full value of their work? Not to mention the fact that this whole reasoning rests on the erroneous idea of labor theory of value. In capitalism, you can only be certain that the workers do not receive the full value of their work if you assume that capital investment gives no added value. I hope we can both agree that this is not true. The workers in the company would decide that democratically. You could also have managers and human ressources for larger companies, have the freedom to organize as you please. The important part is that the workers own the place rather than some individuals profiting off of them, any other structural question is open for me. I would personally favor a more egalitarian system but I wouldn't want to impose my views. In other words, socialism wouldn't ensure that everyone receives the full value of their work, right? You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually. That would be the same thing
It is not. People judging other people's work/value is never perfectly fair or balanced. Either it comes from a private entity where it is decided by the boss, who is directly impacted, either it is decided by a collective and it ends up being egalitarian to keep the peace, meaning hard work achieves nothing more than laziness. I see that every day at work.
And what is best for a company sometimes is an antithesis to what is best for them as individuals (please have a close look at NMPP/Presstalis company history and controversies, where a collective of workers had the power to decide who to hire, at what salary, and their work conditions. It did NOT go well, even when the company had a near-monopoly.)
As long as you have humans involved, imo, pure socialism is doomed to fail. Humans will always find a way to go through a loophole as soon as they are put in a position of power. Not all of them, but a sufficient number to throw a wrench in any system.
|
On April 26 2020 03:57 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:56 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:On April 25 2020 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism.
Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs.
But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane.
This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists).
The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do.
Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg.
To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners). I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism. Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%. But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality. The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system. On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic. I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates. But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year. Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state. There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage. The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The incentive would be that the full value of your labour would go to you as a worker instead of going to a capitalist. If you work harder and produce more value, which results in your company making more money, that'll be money in your pockets, not a new line in the stock portfolio of your boss. How exactly would you ensure that? Outside of companies where everyone does the same type of work, who would decide who gets what compensation? Some bureaucrat? Or would that be a democratic decision? How would you stop the mediocre many from exploiting the talented/hard-working few? What about investment? Would that company not invest at all? Or would people be able to opt out from investing their share while taking advantage of the investment of others? Or perhaps everyone would be forced to contribute equally and so people would, in fact, not receive the full value of their work? Not to mention the fact that this whole reasoning rests on the erroneous idea of labor theory of value. In capitalism, you can only be certain that the workers do not receive the full value of their work if you assume that capital investment gives no added value. I hope we can both agree that this is not true. The workers in the company would decide that democratically. You could also have managers and human ressources for larger companies, have the freedom to organize as you please. The important part is that the workers own the place rather than some individuals profiting off of them, any other structural question is open for me. I would personally favor a more egalitarian system but I wouldn't want to impose my views. In other words, socialism wouldn't ensure that everyone receives the full value of their work, right? You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually. That would be the same thing How would that be the same thing? If what's best for the person is to have the most profit short term instead of long term the company will die without any investments. If the company needs to scale back to remain a viable business how are the workers suppose to figure out whos not a worker anymore? How does a democratic system of management adjust in any way to the changing economy?
Then having the most profit short term instead of long term would not be the best for the company nor would it be the best for the worker, making what benefits them most the same thing. I don't have answers for your other questions, that's on them.
|
I mean it makes a lot of things thats wrong with capitalism and ratchets it up a ton. Why should men allow women into their coops when they might have babies and take a toll on the productivity of the company or through sexual harassment risks. Why should white people allow non-white people into their coop when the risk of racism or systemic racism through socio-economic issues. You then tell these groups to allow women in and minorities into their coops and then suddenly you have state influence into the minute details of the economy.
|
On April 26 2020 04:01 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:56 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:
[quote]
I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism.
Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%.
But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality.
The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system.
On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic.
I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates.
But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year. Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state. There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage. The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The incentive would be that the full value of your labour would go to you as a worker instead of going to a capitalist. If you work harder and produce more value, which results in your company making more money, that'll be money in your pockets, not a new line in the stock portfolio of your boss. How exactly would you ensure that? Outside of companies where everyone does the same type of work, who would decide who gets what compensation? Some bureaucrat? Or would that be a democratic decision? How would you stop the mediocre many from exploiting the talented/hard-working few? What about investment? Would that company not invest at all? Or would people be able to opt out from investing their share while taking advantage of the investment of others? Or perhaps everyone would be forced to contribute equally and so people would, in fact, not receive the full value of their work? Not to mention the fact that this whole reasoning rests on the erroneous idea of labor theory of value. In capitalism, you can only be certain that the workers do not receive the full value of their work if you assume that capital investment gives no added value. I hope we can both agree that this is not true. The workers in the company would decide that democratically. You could also have managers and human ressources for larger companies, have the freedom to organize as you please. The important part is that the workers own the place rather than some individuals profiting off of them, any other structural question is open for me. I would personally favor a more egalitarian system but I wouldn't want to impose my views. In other words, socialism wouldn't ensure that everyone receives the full value of their work, right? You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually. That would be the same thing How would that be the same thing? If what's best for the person is to have the most profit short term instead of long term the company will die without any investments. If the company needs to scale back to remain a viable business how are the workers suppose to figure out whos not a worker anymore? How does a democratic system of management adjust in any way to the changing economy? Then having the most profit short term instead of long term would not be the best for the company nor would it be the best for the worker, making what benefits them most the same thing. I don't have answers for your other questions, that's on them.
I didn't provide other questions I provided one argument with supporting points.
|
On April 26 2020 04:00 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:56 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:On April 25 2020 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I agree with what Neb said. Important to note, social democracy is a a political system superimposed on top of capitalism to inhibit capitalism's functions as you note by the need to regulate and tame capitalism.
Socialism, like capitalism is an economic system. Historically speaking, the political parties and structures (contaminated in many ways) that form around socialism have often turned nations away from socialism/communism and toward capitalism/oligarchy. The backsliding Neb talks about, or rather the effort to prevent it is where some of the support for more permanent measures springs.
But it's important to note that socialist systems turning capitalist is something capitalists killed millions, deposed democratically elected leaders, and to this day is cited as motivation for horrific unilateral sanctions by the premier capitalist nation the rest of the world recognizes as simply inhumane.
This is important because simply put the failures of capitalism are capitalism working as intended (as an economic system) whereas 'failures' of socialism (as an economic system) are typically exemplified by allegations of malicious actors flouting the principles of a socialist economy (usually in a notoriously capitalist fashion, and/or at the behest of more powerful capitalists).
The science says the world (especially leading economies like the US) has to change radically or we ensure a catastrophic ecological disaster we struggle to even imagine the scale of. You can deny the science if you wish, I've learned better than to argue with those that do.
Your fear of massive death requires you to ignore the millions that die in service of the status quo, the US's "sacrifice grandpa for the economy" campaign on Fox is sorta emblematic of that but really just the tip of an iceberg.
To your last point, your framing of a highly consensual society built in trust simply doesn't match my own lived experience or my understanding of the history of the US (for people that weren't identified as cis-white male land owners). I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism. Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%. But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality. The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system. On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic. I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates. But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year. Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state. There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage. The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The incentive would be that the full value of your labour would go to you as a worker instead of going to a capitalist. If you work harder and produce more value, which results in your company making more money, that'll be money in your pockets, not a new line in the stock portfolio of your boss. How exactly would you ensure that? Outside of companies where everyone does the same type of work, who would decide who gets what compensation? Some bureaucrat? Or would that be a democratic decision? How would you stop the mediocre many from exploiting the talented/hard-working few? What about investment? Would that company not invest at all? Or would people be able to opt out from investing their share while taking advantage of the investment of others? Or perhaps everyone would be forced to contribute equally and so people would, in fact, not receive the full value of their work? Not to mention the fact that this whole reasoning rests on the erroneous idea of labor theory of value. In capitalism, you can only be certain that the workers do not receive the full value of their work if you assume that capital investment gives no added value. I hope we can both agree that this is not true. The workers in the company would decide that democratically. You could also have managers and human ressources for larger companies, have the freedom to organize as you please. The important part is that the workers own the place rather than some individuals profiting off of them, any other structural question is open for me. I would personally favor a more egalitarian system but I wouldn't want to impose my views. In other words, socialism wouldn't ensure that everyone receives the full value of their work, right? You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually. That would be the same thing It is not. People judging other people's work/value is never perfectly fair or balanced. Either it comes from a private entity where it is decided by the boss, who is directly impacted, either it is decided by a collective and it ends up being egalitarian to keep the peace, meaning hard work achieves nothing more than laziness. I see that every day at work. And what is best for a company sometimes is an antithesis to what is best for them as individuals (please have a close look at NMPP/Presstalis company history and controversies, where a collective of workers had the power to decide who to hire, at what salary, and their work conditions. It did NOT go well, even when the company had a near-monopoly.) As long as you have humans involved, imo, pure socialism is doomed to fail. Humans will always find a way to go through a loophole as soon as they are put in a position of power. Not all of them, but a sufficient number to throw a wrench in any system.
Do you similarly think that democracy doesn't work because there are humans involved, and would you therefore prefer a more authoritarian system for your state?
I fail to see how issues with individuals attempting to game the system are supposed to make me in favor of a system where those individuals are already winning and their attempts have been normalized. The logic is the same as going "Oh, it's fucked up that people voted for Brexit, that's a bad decision. This shows me that the right to vote is a bad idea..."
It doesn't.
|
On April 26 2020 04:06 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 04:01 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:56 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state.
There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage.
The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The incentive would be that the full value of your labour would go to you as a worker instead of going to a capitalist. If you work harder and produce more value, which results in your company making more money, that'll be money in your pockets, not a new line in the stock portfolio of your boss. How exactly would you ensure that? Outside of companies where everyone does the same type of work, who would decide who gets what compensation? Some bureaucrat? Or would that be a democratic decision? How would you stop the mediocre many from exploiting the talented/hard-working few? What about investment? Would that company not invest at all? Or would people be able to opt out from investing their share while taking advantage of the investment of others? Or perhaps everyone would be forced to contribute equally and so people would, in fact, not receive the full value of their work? Not to mention the fact that this whole reasoning rests on the erroneous idea of labor theory of value. In capitalism, you can only be certain that the workers do not receive the full value of their work if you assume that capital investment gives no added value. I hope we can both agree that this is not true. The workers in the company would decide that democratically. You could also have managers and human ressources for larger companies, have the freedom to organize as you please. The important part is that the workers own the place rather than some individuals profiting off of them, any other structural question is open for me. I would personally favor a more egalitarian system but I wouldn't want to impose my views. In other words, socialism wouldn't ensure that everyone receives the full value of their work, right? You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually. That would be the same thing How would that be the same thing? If what's best for the person is to have the most profit short term instead of long term the company will die without any investments. If the company needs to scale back to remain a viable business how are the workers suppose to figure out whos not a worker anymore? How does a democratic system of management adjust in any way to the changing economy? Then having the most profit short term instead of long term would not be the best for the company nor would it be the best for the worker, making what benefits them most the same thing. I don't have answers for your other questions, that's on them. I didn't provide other questions I provided one argument with supporting points.
There are three question marks in your post.
|
Maybe we should make a communism / utopia thread. I don't think any if that has much to do with the US or even with actual politics.
|
On April 26 2020 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 04:06 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2020 04:01 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:57 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:56 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The incentive would be that the full value of your labour would go to you as a worker instead of going to a capitalist. If you work harder and produce more value, which results in your company making more money, that'll be money in your pockets, not a new line in the stock portfolio of your boss. How exactly would you ensure that? Outside of companies where everyone does the same type of work, who would decide who gets what compensation? Some bureaucrat? Or would that be a democratic decision? How would you stop the mediocre many from exploiting the talented/hard-working few? What about investment? Would that company not invest at all? Or would people be able to opt out from investing their share while taking advantage of the investment of others? Or perhaps everyone would be forced to contribute equally and so people would, in fact, not receive the full value of their work? Not to mention the fact that this whole reasoning rests on the erroneous idea of labor theory of value. In capitalism, you can only be certain that the workers do not receive the full value of their work if you assume that capital investment gives no added value. I hope we can both agree that this is not true. The workers in the company would decide that democratically. You could also have managers and human ressources for larger companies, have the freedom to organize as you please. The important part is that the workers own the place rather than some individuals profiting off of them, any other structural question is open for me. I would personally favor a more egalitarian system but I wouldn't want to impose my views. In other words, socialism wouldn't ensure that everyone receives the full value of their work, right? You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually. That would be the same thing How would that be the same thing? If what's best for the person is to have the most profit short term instead of long term the company will die without any investments. If the company needs to scale back to remain a viable business how are the workers suppose to figure out whos not a worker anymore? How does a democratic system of management adjust in any way to the changing economy? Then having the most profit short term instead of long term would not be the best for the company nor would it be the best for the worker, making what benefits them most the same thing. I don't have answers for your other questions, that's on them. I didn't provide other questions I provided one argument with supporting points. There are three question marks in your post.
Yes because the most effective way to express tone in text is through punctuation marks.
|
On April 26 2020 04:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Maybe we should make a communism / utopia thread. I don't think any if that has much to do with the US or even with actual politics.
It's like the 6th time I make the case for worker coops in the thread and you had never noticed that I was an anticapitalist, I think the thread is going to be fine.
|
On April 26 2020 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 04:00 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:56 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:
[quote]
I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism.
Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%.
But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality.
The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system.
On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic.
I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates.
But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year. Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state. There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage. The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The incentive would be that the full value of your labour would go to you as a worker instead of going to a capitalist. If you work harder and produce more value, which results in your company making more money, that'll be money in your pockets, not a new line in the stock portfolio of your boss. How exactly would you ensure that? Outside of companies where everyone does the same type of work, who would decide who gets what compensation? Some bureaucrat? Or would that be a democratic decision? How would you stop the mediocre many from exploiting the talented/hard-working few? What about investment? Would that company not invest at all? Or would people be able to opt out from investing their share while taking advantage of the investment of others? Or perhaps everyone would be forced to contribute equally and so people would, in fact, not receive the full value of their work? Not to mention the fact that this whole reasoning rests on the erroneous idea of labor theory of value. In capitalism, you can only be certain that the workers do not receive the full value of their work if you assume that capital investment gives no added value. I hope we can both agree that this is not true. The workers in the company would decide that democratically. You could also have managers and human ressources for larger companies, have the freedom to organize as you please. The important part is that the workers own the place rather than some individuals profiting off of them, any other structural question is open for me. I would personally favor a more egalitarian system but I wouldn't want to impose my views. In other words, socialism wouldn't ensure that everyone receives the full value of their work, right? You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually. That would be the same thing It is not. People judging other people's work/value is never perfectly fair or balanced. Either it comes from a private entity where it is decided by the boss, who is directly impacted, either it is decided by a collective and it ends up being egalitarian to keep the peace, meaning hard work achieves nothing more than laziness. I see that every day at work. And what is best for a company sometimes is an antithesis to what is best for them as individuals (please have a close look at NMPP/Presstalis company history and controversies, where a collective of workers had the power to decide who to hire, at what salary, and their work conditions. It did NOT go well, even when the company had a near-monopoly.) As long as you have humans involved, imo, pure socialism is doomed to fail. Humans will always find a way to go through a loophole as soon as they are put in a position of power. Not all of them, but a sufficient number to throw a wrench in any system. Do you similarly think that democracy doesn't work because there are humans involved, and would you therefore prefer a more authoritarian system for your state? I fail to see how issues with individuals attempting to game the system are supposed to make me in favor of a system where those individuals are already winning and their attempts have been normalized. The logic is the same as going "Oh, it's fucked up that people voted for Brexit, that's a bad decision. This shows me that the right to vote is a bad idea..." It doesn't.
This is the argument everyone agrees with and makes about democracy. Everyone would be better off with a more authoritarian form of government. But its worse to get good leaders through violence then it is to get bad leaders through voting.
On April 26 2020 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 04:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Maybe we should make a communism / utopia thread. I don't think any if that has much to do with the US or even with actual politics. It's like the 6th time I make the case for worker coops in the thread and you had never noticed that I was an anticapitalist, I think the thread is going to be fine.
The problem is that you're not an anticaptalist you just want different people to blame its issues on.
|
On April 26 2020 04:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:00 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:56 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state.
There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage.
The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The incentive would be that the full value of your labour would go to you as a worker instead of going to a capitalist. If you work harder and produce more value, which results in your company making more money, that'll be money in your pockets, not a new line in the stock portfolio of your boss. How exactly would you ensure that? Outside of companies where everyone does the same type of work, who would decide who gets what compensation? Some bureaucrat? Or would that be a democratic decision? How would you stop the mediocre many from exploiting the talented/hard-working few? What about investment? Would that company not invest at all? Or would people be able to opt out from investing their share while taking advantage of the investment of others? Or perhaps everyone would be forced to contribute equally and so people would, in fact, not receive the full value of their work? Not to mention the fact that this whole reasoning rests on the erroneous idea of labor theory of value. In capitalism, you can only be certain that the workers do not receive the full value of their work if you assume that capital investment gives no added value. I hope we can both agree that this is not true. The workers in the company would decide that democratically. You could also have managers and human ressources for larger companies, have the freedom to organize as you please. The important part is that the workers own the place rather than some individuals profiting off of them, any other structural question is open for me. I would personally favor a more egalitarian system but I wouldn't want to impose my views. In other words, socialism wouldn't ensure that everyone receives the full value of their work, right? You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually. That would be the same thing It is not. People judging other people's work/value is never perfectly fair or balanced. Either it comes from a private entity where it is decided by the boss, who is directly impacted, either it is decided by a collective and it ends up being egalitarian to keep the peace, meaning hard work achieves nothing more than laziness. I see that every day at work. And what is best for a company sometimes is an antithesis to what is best for them as individuals (please have a close look at NMPP/Presstalis company history and controversies, where a collective of workers had the power to decide who to hire, at what salary, and their work conditions. It did NOT go well, even when the company had a near-monopoly.) As long as you have humans involved, imo, pure socialism is doomed to fail. Humans will always find a way to go through a loophole as soon as they are put in a position of power. Not all of them, but a sufficient number to throw a wrench in any system. Do you similarly think that democracy doesn't work because there are humans involved, and would you therefore prefer a more authoritarian system for your state? I fail to see how issues with individuals attempting to game the system are supposed to make me in favor of a system where those individuals are already winning and their attempts have been normalized. The logic is the same as going "Oh, it's fucked up that people voted for Brexit, that's a bad decision. This shows me that the right to vote is a bad idea..." It doesn't. This is the argument everyone agrees with and makes about democracy. Everyone would be better off with a more authoritarian form of government. But its worse to get good leaders through violence then it is to get bad leaders through voting.
Okay then maybe we should segue into that because I assure you not everyone agrees with it.
Edit: segway is not a word? Wth? What word was I thinking of? ^^' (ty farv)
On April 26 2020 04:14 Sermokala wrote:
The problem is that you're not an anticaptalist you just want different people to blame its issues on.
So I want to put the blame on the capitalist class, replace the capitalist class with another system where there is no capitalist class, but the wool has been pulled over my eyes somehow and it turns out I'm actually not an anticapitalist, interesting.
|
It’s one of those tricks, the word is spelled segue
|
On April 26 2020 04:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2020 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:00 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:56 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The incentive would be that the full value of your labour would go to you as a worker instead of going to a capitalist. If you work harder and produce more value, which results in your company making more money, that'll be money in your pockets, not a new line in the stock portfolio of your boss. How exactly would you ensure that? Outside of companies where everyone does the same type of work, who would decide who gets what compensation? Some bureaucrat? Or would that be a democratic decision? How would you stop the mediocre many from exploiting the talented/hard-working few? What about investment? Would that company not invest at all? Or would people be able to opt out from investing their share while taking advantage of the investment of others? Or perhaps everyone would be forced to contribute equally and so people would, in fact, not receive the full value of their work? Not to mention the fact that this whole reasoning rests on the erroneous idea of labor theory of value. In capitalism, you can only be certain that the workers do not receive the full value of their work if you assume that capital investment gives no added value. I hope we can both agree that this is not true. The workers in the company would decide that democratically. You could also have managers and human ressources for larger companies, have the freedom to organize as you please. The important part is that the workers own the place rather than some individuals profiting off of them, any other structural question is open for me. I would personally favor a more egalitarian system but I wouldn't want to impose my views. In other words, socialism wouldn't ensure that everyone receives the full value of their work, right? You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually. That would be the same thing It is not. People judging other people's work/value is never perfectly fair or balanced. Either it comes from a private entity where it is decided by the boss, who is directly impacted, either it is decided by a collective and it ends up being egalitarian to keep the peace, meaning hard work achieves nothing more than laziness. I see that every day at work. And what is best for a company sometimes is an antithesis to what is best for them as individuals (please have a close look at NMPP/Presstalis company history and controversies, where a collective of workers had the power to decide who to hire, at what salary, and their work conditions. It did NOT go well, even when the company had a near-monopoly.) As long as you have humans involved, imo, pure socialism is doomed to fail. Humans will always find a way to go through a loophole as soon as they are put in a position of power. Not all of them, but a sufficient number to throw a wrench in any system. Do you similarly think that democracy doesn't work because there are humans involved, and would you therefore prefer a more authoritarian system for your state? I fail to see how issues with individuals attempting to game the system are supposed to make me in favor of a system where those individuals are already winning and their attempts have been normalized. The logic is the same as going "Oh, it's fucked up that people voted for Brexit, that's a bad decision. This shows me that the right to vote is a bad idea..." It doesn't. This is the argument everyone agrees with and makes about democracy. Everyone would be better off with a more authoritarian form of government. But its worse to get good leaders through violence then it is to get bad leaders through voting. Okay then maybe we should segway into that because I assure you not everyone agrees with it. Edit: segway is not a word? Wth? What word was I thinking of? ^^' Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 04:14 Sermokala wrote:
The problem is that you're not an anticaptalist you just want different people to blame its issues on. So I want to put the blame on the capitalist class, replace the capitalist class with another system where there is no capitalist class, but the wool has been pulled over my eyes somehow and it turns out I'm actually not an anticapitalist, interesting.
Who doesn't agree that democracy is terrible but is the best form of government that we have so far?
You want to take the blame from the "capitalist class" aka the people who know how to run businesses and own any sort of wealth and instead shift that blame onto poor people who think short term even more who have no idea how to run businesses. You still want capitalism you just want the masses to be able to blame each other for being poor instead of rich people.
|
On April 26 2020 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 04:00 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:56 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 00:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 00:05 iamthedave wrote:
[quote]
I'm the last one to stand as defender of Capitalism, but you must surely recognise that socialism leans into those fault-lines because of structural flaws in Socialism.
Capitalism is built on exploitation, 100%.
But Socialism is built on trust... which is a very exploitable quality.
The problem with Socialism - assuming you take it to the extreme of a Socialist state - is that a bad actor at the top can take advantage of the system to consolidate power without any real system to prevent them doing so. By the nature of Socialism, there will always be a 'governing party', a group whose job is to handle the political aspects of running the country. In theory that group will be honest, hard-working Socialists who will self-select for quality of person. In reality, a charismatic fuckhead takes over and the group becomes a crony cult that eventually corrupts the entire system.
On top of which, socialism is built on social contact. Close, cooperative groups working together for the betterment of all. I'm not at all sure a Socialist state would be in good shape to handle this pandemic.
I don't think anyone - well, not many anyway - in this thread genuinely thinks Capitalism is great. It's just the best we have as a root model. Most people, when you get down to it, believe some variety of socialised Capitalism is the right way to go. The only real Capitalists are the ones at the top, which is how the system operates.
But the theory in Capitalism is not 'everyone should be equal' it's that there'll be enough wealth that everyone can get by comfortably and a few people are both extravagantly wealthy and drive the creation of more wealth in the system. The problem - especially in America - is that the country seems to be heading towards a wealth singularity due to a hefty attempt to eradicate the Socialised aspects from it to leave pure unfettered Capitalism. It's not succeeded, the US does have a high corporate tax rate, Medicare exists etc, but you have a political party that seems to staunchly believe in it and has the power to make it more and more real year on year. Well let's not take it to that extreme then. Let's just get a social democracy and keep moving left, and when we're at this point, let's abolish the capitalist class instead of limiting its influence. A political system similar to that which we have today paired with worker coops instead of a capitalist economic system would still be socialist, and it doesn't have the issues that you (rightly) see in a socialist state. There is no evidence that capitalism is the best we have as a root model, it's basically just a religious saying. We have plenty of evidence that it's not: the very fact that the only way we can ensure we aren't overwhelmed by capitalism is a strong state regulating the capitalists and making sure they don't fuck us over illustrates that capitalism is an obstacle, not an advantage. The theory of capitalism doesn't state that everyone can get by comfortably, or even should. Poverty is an incentive for you to go produce value for capitalists. If all of us were comfortable, why would you go do hard labor so that I get richer? Of course the soc dem versions make sure that you can still get by if you're poor and you don't have to die in the street, but you should still be poor, there should be an economic pressure on you. In capitalist theory this is fine because there is a meritocracy: the people who are at the bottom of society are simply worse examples of human beings than the people at the top, less intelligent and less capable, and as such they are where they belong. If you are capable and intelligent, there are paths for you to get to the top of society, which is why it's very different from feudalism, where people were at the top because they were born there, no matter how intelligent or skillful they were. And what incentive would you have in a socialist society if everybody were comfortable? Not doing one's job diligently was endemic in socialist countries. Marxism is built on rejection of human nature. Thinking you can refashion how humans behave by means of social engineering is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The incentive would be that the full value of your labour would go to you as a worker instead of going to a capitalist. If you work harder and produce more value, which results in your company making more money, that'll be money in your pockets, not a new line in the stock portfolio of your boss. How exactly would you ensure that? Outside of companies where everyone does the same type of work, who would decide who gets what compensation? Some bureaucrat? Or would that be a democratic decision? How would you stop the mediocre many from exploiting the talented/hard-working few? What about investment? Would that company not invest at all? Or would people be able to opt out from investing their share while taking advantage of the investment of others? Or perhaps everyone would be forced to contribute equally and so people would, in fact, not receive the full value of their work? Not to mention the fact that this whole reasoning rests on the erroneous idea of labor theory of value. In capitalism, you can only be certain that the workers do not receive the full value of their work if you assume that capital investment gives no added value. I hope we can both agree that this is not true. The workers in the company would decide that democratically. You could also have managers and human ressources for larger companies, have the freedom to organize as you please. The important part is that the workers own the place rather than some individuals profiting off of them, any other structural question is open for me. I would personally favor a more egalitarian system but I wouldn't want to impose my views. In other words, socialism wouldn't ensure that everyone receives the full value of their work, right? You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually. That would be the same thing It is not. People judging other people's work/value is never perfectly fair or balanced. Either it comes from a private entity where it is decided by the boss, who is directly impacted, either it is decided by a collective and it ends up being egalitarian to keep the peace, meaning hard work achieves nothing more than laziness. I see that every day at work. And what is best for a company sometimes is an antithesis to what is best for them as individuals (please have a close look at NMPP/Presstalis company history and controversies, where a collective of workers had the power to decide who to hire, at what salary, and their work conditions. It did NOT go well, even when the company had a near-monopoly.) As long as you have humans involved, imo, pure socialism is doomed to fail. Humans will always find a way to go through a loophole as soon as they are put in a position of power. Not all of them, but a sufficient number to throw a wrench in any system. Do you similarly think that democracy doesn't work because there are humans involved, and would you therefore prefer a more authoritarian system for your state? I fail to see how issues with individuals attempting to game the system are supposed to make me in favor of a system where those individuals are already winning and their attempts have been normalized. The logic is the same as going "Oh, it's fucked up that people voted for Brexit, that's a bad decision. This shows me that the right to vote is a bad idea..." It doesn't.
Democracies obviously have flaws and sometimes fail horribly, look at Trump and the fact that he is not immediately disqualified by some of the comments he makes, like yesterday.
Hungary is a democracy, Turkey is a democracy, Russia is a democracy, Brazil, Venezuela are democracies. France changed its constitution several times to fix its problems and there might be a 6th one soon.
Voting has flaws because all the population isn't educated at the best level, and everyone does not have the capacity to take decisions that are in everyone's best interest, exactly like it would be in a company. And if you select who gets the right to vote, like Athens for the first example, it is also giving power to the few, back to square one.
(I didn't say that I didn't want people to vote... don't put words in my mouth)
Authoritarian governments also have grave flaws, no need to mention.
I do believe that an authoritarian government with a hypothetical perfect human that would only take good decisions for the whole country long term would be best, but as there is a human involved, it's impossible. Also, the best decisions long term might be inhuman short term.
There's no perfect system of government, moreover as we are talking about humans. I believe what you advocate for might work for small communities, but there is then a critical size where it doesn't work anymore. And even those small communities (mormons for example ?) often fail, and are not adapted to a high-tech world and trade. Same for community-owned factories or companies, it's not fit for research and technological advances, or competition. I don't want to go back to the middle-ages.
Btw the topic I answered to was your "What's best for the workers is what's best for the company long term". Everybody went against that assessment, you never answered back, only deflected to other topics.
Btw my current answer to avoid that capitalist class would just be to tax them a hell of a lot more, as it was done before and for a long time. Issue : the political class (even though it's a democracy, yay), is completely sold to capitalists to be (re)elected.
![[image loading]](https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/LibRepository/c8b3faa8-f597-4209-8a37-786c900cdf09.JPG)
|
Okay we're going to have to start by reminding you that there are competing moralities in this world, therefore it's conceptually impossible for any entity (human or otherwise) to make "only good decisions". This assumes the morality of the person who judges the decisions that are being made. Most political decisions include moral questions, not just rational ones (and the idea that following rationality is good is also, in itself, a moral idea. You can't rationally prove that it's better to be rational than to be irrational).
"Btw the topic I answered to was your "What's best for the workers is what's best for the company long term". Everybody went against that assessment, you never answered back, only deflected to other topics."
I answered the only argument I saw against the idea, presented by Sermokala. I found it to be inconvincing.
|
On April 26 2020 04:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Okay we're going to have to start by reminding you that there are competing moralities in this world, therefore it's conceptually impossible for any entity (human or otherwise) to make "only good decisions". This assumes the morality of the person who judges the decisions that are being made. Most political decisions include moral questions, not just rational ones (and the idea that following rationality is good is also, in itself, a moral idea. You can't rationally prove that it's better to be rational than to be irrational).
Which is why I pointed out that "good" solutions might end up inhuman or amoral.
And which is also why good decisions for a company might be bad ones for the people working in it, individually. Which you said were equally good for both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
