|
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 04:33 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
How do you know that they're good then.
|
On April 26 2020 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote: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. How do you know that they're good then.
To take an extreme : saving the planet and biodiversity is good. To do it perfectly you wipe humanity. What it is good for always depends on the point of view.
Again, you are deflecting from what I want you to answer : your assessment that we can trust individuals to do what's good for the entity and not what's good for them individually, as these are both the same.
As long as you do not address that comment of yours (already asked several times), I'll stop answering as I hate to have discussions in bad faith.
|
On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote: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. How do you know that they're good then. To take an extreme : saving the planet and biodiversity is good. To do it perfectly you wipe humanity. What it is good for always depends on the point of view.
Yes, what is good depends on the point of view, that is my point. From this point it logically follows that it would be pretty problematic to have one specific entity with a specific point of view deciding everything for us as a form of government, and it's much better if we all make the decisions together instead.
On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:
Again, you are deflecting from what I want you to answer : your assessment that we can trust individuals to do what's good for the entity and not what's good for them individually, as these are both the same.
As long as you do not address that comment of yours (already asked several times), I'll stop answering as I hate to have discussions in bad faith.
What's good for people in a company is what's good for the company, I don't get what you don't get. I assume it's probably about distinguishing between "people" and "a specific individual". A specific individual might make more money if they organize the company differently but it's sure going to be harder for them to do that in a company where the decisions are made democratically than in a company where they make the decisions on their own, so if that is the thing that you are criticizing, it is harder for your criticism to become reality in this system than it is in the system you are defending.
|
|
|
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
Oh really? I guess that's why people never get duped by demagogues who bribe them with short-sighted social programs or things like Brexit. It's not like a democratically elected government is currently taking apart the democratic institutions of Poland. I suppose this is in the best interest of the country, because the people who voted for them voted in their best interest... ;-)
Suppose we have a car making company in which manufacturing workers comprise 80% of the workforce and engineers and managers 20%. The former democratically chose to undervalue the work of the latter and overvalue their own. As a result, the company fails to attract competent engineers and managers and goes under. Companies in socialist countries were notorious for making shoddy products.
|
On April 26 2020 05:18 maybenexttime 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 Oh really? I guess that's why people never get duped by demagogues who bribe them with short-sighted social programs or things like Brexit. It's not like a democratically elected government is currently taking apart the democratic institutions of Poland. I suppose this is in the best interest of the country, because the people who voted for them voted in their best interest... ;-) Suppose we have a car making company in which manufacturing workers comprise 80% of the workforce and engineers and managers 20%. The former democratically chose to undervalue the work of the latter and overvalue their own. As a result, the company fails to attract competent engineers and managers and goes under. Companies in socialist countries were notorious for making shoddy products.
In your example, it would have been better for the workers not to undervalue the work of the engineers, as that would have resulted in them creating a better product and their company not going under. Therefore, there was no difference between what's good for the people in the company and what's good for the company.
You changed your argument from having a different "good" to having the capacity to make mistakes.
|
On April 26 2020 04:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote: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. How do you know that they're good then. To take an extreme : saving the planet and biodiversity is good. To do it perfectly you wipe humanity. What it is good for always depends on the point of view. Yes, what is good depends on the point of view, that is my point. From this point it logically follows that it would be pretty problematic to have one specific entity with a specific point of view deciding everything for us as a form of government, and it's much better if we all make the decisions together instead. Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:
Again, you are deflecting from what I want you to answer : your assessment that we can trust individuals to do what's good for the entity and not what's good for them individually, as these are both the same.
As long as you do not address that comment of yours (already asked several times), I'll stop answering as I hate to have discussions in bad faith. What's good for people in a company is what's good for the company, I don't get what you don't get. I assume it's probably about distinguishing between "people" and "a specific individual". A specific individual might make more money if they organize the company differently but it's sure going to be harder for them to do that in a company where the decisions are made democratically than in a company where they make the decisions on their own, so if that is the thing that you are criticizing, it is harder for your criticism to become reality in this system than it is in the system you are defending.
On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:
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
Let's say the company, to survive, needs to fire 10% of its staff, or it dies to competition. Do you believe it would be agreed democratically ? If the people working in it were owning 10% each, what happens ?
I have multiple examples in France where companies went under because syndicates vehemently refused even the slightest change in conditions, or "culling" employees. The companies went under and they were all without a job.
I assume you didn't read on the company I linked (edited the link in) on the previous page. In that company (which had a monopoly, which is even easier to survive in), the syndicate was the one collegially taking HR decisions, deciding pay level (unsurpringly, more than twice the median amount in other companies. A blue collar workers makes around 4k, which is above an IT engineer in France). They were also negotiating working time, etc (around 30h a week), departures (10 times the minimum sum specified by the law : nearly 100k if someone was fired, etc). They took decisions benefitting only themselves, not the company long-term.
It finally went under this month, after 6 safeguarding plans in 12 years, costing others close to a billion, blocking any change even transferring some workers to La Poste or SNCF with good conditions, everytime, even stealing money from the press editors that were compulsorily using their services to distribute them (and collegially owning the company). Some of those went under as a result of this seized money.
You seem to be living in a fantasy world where in collegial decisions, you are not going to have people influencing the decisions of others because they are better speakers, where you would not end up with representatives at some point. And back to square 1.
It might work for (very) small communities, but it will fail every time large-scale, due to humans. Every country where socialism or communism was tried, you ended up with an elite having all the money and taking decisions benefitting themselves and not "the people".
|
On April 26 2020 05:23 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 04:47 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote: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. How do you know that they're good then. To take an extreme : saving the planet and biodiversity is good. To do it perfectly you wipe humanity. What it is good for always depends on the point of view. Yes, what is good depends on the point of view, that is my point. From this point it logically follows that it would be pretty problematic to have one specific entity with a specific point of view deciding everything for us as a form of government, and it's much better if we all make the decisions together instead. On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:
Again, you are deflecting from what I want you to answer : your assessment that we can trust individuals to do what's good for the entity and not what's good for them individually, as these are both the same.
As long as you do not address that comment of yours (already asked several times), I'll stop answering as I hate to have discussions in bad faith. What's good for people in a company is what's good for the company, I don't get what you don't get. I assume it's probably about distinguishing between "people" and "a specific individual". A specific individual might make more money if they organize the company differently but it's sure going to be harder for them to do that in a company where the decisions are made democratically than in a company where they make the decisions on their own, so if that is the thing that you are criticizing, it is harder for your criticism to become reality in this system than it is in the system you are defending. Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:
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 Let's say the company, to survive, needs to fire 10% of its staff, or it dies to competition. Do you believe it would be agreed democratically ? If the people working in it were owning 10% each, what happens ?
Yes I think they would if that was actually true. And if they don't then they're going to go under. That's okay.
On April 26 2020 05:23 Nouar wrote:
You seem to be living in a fantasy world where in a collegial decisions, you are not going to have people influencing the decisions of others because they are better speakers, where you would not end up with representatives at some point. And back to square 1.
Fuck man, you know what, you're right, I hadn't considered that. It is true that people will be able to influence others in a system where everyone's voice matters. That's why I now support a system where their voices don't matter at all, that way it doesn't matter if they get influenced or not. That makes total sense. Thank you for helping me snap out of the fantasy with that powerful argument.
|
On April 26 2020 00:59 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +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:On April 25 2020 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your argument simply ignores the international externalities that (built and) sustain the supposedly "well regulated capitalist societies". In favor of looking at more equitable sharing of plundered resources among a more homogeneous population.
The consolidation of capital and power and exploitation of marginalized peoples under capitalism are inalienable features, not bugs. 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 cronyism seen in communist/socialist nations may have some relation to the concept of comfort being referenced by Nebuchad, but that seems like a stretch given how uncommon that kind of comfort was in those nations. You could assert that it was an "ends justify the means" approach to comfort on the part of communism/socialism that led to the drastic inefficiencies, but in doing so, you've admitted that there is an item at play besides the substance of the ideology in question. Also, it seems extraordinarily difficult to prove by any sort of acceptable margin that capitalism is in any way closer or more intimately related to "human nature" than any other competing ideology. Instead, to assert that kind of creed seems like itself a belief that is stated not because it is true, but because stating so is itself a primary component of pattern-seeking behavior on the part of humans. 9 times out of 10, people talk about human nature for purposes of comfort rather than truth, after all.
I'm not sure what cronyism has to do with what was said. I simply pointed out that the supposed problem with capitalism applies to socialism as well.
As for human nature, it is a well established fact that humans (and other social animals) act in their self-interest and that of their in-groups. As Adam Smith put it, a baker provides you with nourishing bread not out of altruism, but for his own benefit. Marx wanted to replace that with people having their basic needs met and working for the good of the society. This experiment failed every time.
On April 26 2020 05:21 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 05:18 maybenexttime 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 Oh really? I guess that's why people never get duped by demagogues who bribe them with short-sighted social programs or things like Brexit. It's not like a democratically elected government is currently taking apart the democratic institutions of Poland. I suppose this is in the best interest of the country, because the people who voted for them voted in their best interest... ;-) Suppose we have a car making company in which manufacturing workers comprise 80% of the workforce and engineers and managers 20%. The former democratically chose to undervalue the work of the latter and overvalue their own. As a result, the company fails to attract competent engineers and managers and goes under. Companies in socialist countries were notorious for making shoddy products. In your example, it would have been better for the workers not to undervalue the work of the engineers, as that would have resulted in them creating a better product and their company not going under. Therefore, there was no difference between what's good for the people in the company and what's good for the company. You changed your argument from having a different "good" to having the capacity to make mistakes.
I didn't change anything. Somehow everyone except you understood my point.
How would an average manufacturing worker even be able to tell that he or she is undervaluing the work of the engineers? Ignorant people making ignorant, short-sighted decisions is a systemic problem of any democratic system. The problem is that humans seem to have a tendency to make those short-sighted decisions based on short-term benefit.
You claimed that once you get rid of the capitalist class, people will receive the full value of their work. You did not address the issue of investment I raised nor the fact that democratically determined salaries can undervalue people's work just as easily.
|
On April 26 2020 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 05:23 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 04:47 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote: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. How do you know that they're good then. To take an extreme : saving the planet and biodiversity is good. To do it perfectly you wipe humanity. What it is good for always depends on the point of view. Yes, what is good depends on the point of view, that is my point. From this point it logically follows that it would be pretty problematic to have one specific entity with a specific point of view deciding everything for us as a form of government, and it's much better if we all make the decisions together instead. On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:
Again, you are deflecting from what I want you to answer : your assessment that we can trust individuals to do what's good for the entity and not what's good for them individually, as these are both the same.
As long as you do not address that comment of yours (already asked several times), I'll stop answering as I hate to have discussions in bad faith. What's good for people in a company is what's good for the company, I don't get what you don't get. I assume it's probably about distinguishing between "people" and "a specific individual". A specific individual might make more money if they organize the company differently but it's sure going to be harder for them to do that in a company where the decisions are made democratically than in a company where they make the decisions on their own, so if that is the thing that you are criticizing, it is harder for your criticism to become reality in this system than it is in the system you are defending. On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:
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 Let's say the company, to survive, needs to fire 10% of its staff, or it dies to competition. Do you believe it would be agreed democratically ? If the people working in it were owning 10% each, what happens ? Yes I think they would if that was actually true. And if they don't then they're going to go under. That's okay. Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 05:23 Nouar wrote:
You seem to be living in a fantasy world where in a collegial decisions, you are not going to have people influencing the decisions of others because they are better speakers, where you would not end up with representatives at some point. And back to square 1.
Fuck man, you know what, you're right, I hadn't considered that. It is true that people will be able to influence others in a system where everyone's voice matters. That's why I now support a system where their voices don't matter at all, that way it doesn't matter if they get influenced or not. That makes total sense. Thank you for helping me snap out of the fantasy with that powerful argument.
I might be getting tired then, there must be something simple I am missing : if everyone has a voice to take part in decisions, how can voices "not matter" ?
I probably missed the important bit a few pages ago. What system is that ? Not the state owning everything I hope, that failed everytime.
|
On April 26 2020 05:34 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 05:23 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 04:47 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote: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. How do you know that they're good then. To take an extreme : saving the planet and biodiversity is good. To do it perfectly you wipe humanity. What it is good for always depends on the point of view. Yes, what is good depends on the point of view, that is my point. From this point it logically follows that it would be pretty problematic to have one specific entity with a specific point of view deciding everything for us as a form of government, and it's much better if we all make the decisions together instead. On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:
Again, you are deflecting from what I want you to answer : your assessment that we can trust individuals to do what's good for the entity and not what's good for them individually, as these are both the same.
As long as you do not address that comment of yours (already asked several times), I'll stop answering as I hate to have discussions in bad faith. What's good for people in a company is what's good for the company, I don't get what you don't get. I assume it's probably about distinguishing between "people" and "a specific individual". A specific individual might make more money if they organize the company differently but it's sure going to be harder for them to do that in a company where the decisions are made democratically than in a company where they make the decisions on their own, so if that is the thing that you are criticizing, it is harder for your criticism to become reality in this system than it is in the system you are defending. On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:
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 Let's say the company, to survive, needs to fire 10% of its staff, or it dies to competition. Do you believe it would be agreed democratically ? If the people working in it were owning 10% each, what happens ? Yes I think they would if that was actually true. And if they don't then they're going to go under. That's okay. On April 26 2020 05:23 Nouar wrote:
You seem to be living in a fantasy world where in a collegial decisions, you are not going to have people influencing the decisions of others because they are better speakers, where you would not end up with representatives at some point. And back to square 1.
Fuck man, you know what, you're right, I hadn't considered that. It is true that people will be able to influence others in a system where everyone's voice matters. That's why I now support a system where their voices don't matter at all, that way it doesn't matter if they get influenced or not. That makes total sense. Thank you for helping me snap out of the fantasy with that powerful argument. I might be getting tired then, there must be something simple I am missing : if everyone has a voice to take part in decisions, how can it "not matter" if someone influences other people's voices to maybe take the wrong decision ?
Because the alternative is obviously worse. The bolded part is where I am sarcastically representing your argument. You should probably get some sleep.
In order to think that a system where their voice doesn't matter is superior to a system where their voice matters but is susceptible to influence, you have to already believe that their voice shouldn't matter.
|
On April 26 2020 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:
I didn't change anything. Somehow everyone except you understood my point.
How would an average manufacturing worker even be able to tell that he or she is undervaluing the work of the engineers? Ignorant people making ignorant, short-sighted decisions is a systemic problem of any democratic system. The problem is that humans seem to have a tendency to make those short-sighted decisions based on short-term benefit.
You claimed that once you get rid of the capitalist class, people will receive the full value of their work. You did not address the issue of investment I raised nor the fact that democratically determined salaries can undervalue people's work just as easily.
You told me that "You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually." In your example, what benefits them most is the company not going under. So they wouldn't be choosing what benefits them most. Simple.
I don't think your average worker should be ignorant about their company and I don't think your average voter should be ignorant about their country. Education is good, so is knowledge. It should be encouraged. And if they make the wrong decisions in terms of what's best for the company, then their company is probably going to go under. That's okay.
|
On April 26 2020 05:39 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 05:34 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 05:23 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 04:47 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote: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. How do you know that they're good then. To take an extreme : saving the planet and biodiversity is good. To do it perfectly you wipe humanity. What it is good for always depends on the point of view. Yes, what is good depends on the point of view, that is my point. From this point it logically follows that it would be pretty problematic to have one specific entity with a specific point of view deciding everything for us as a form of government, and it's much better if we all make the decisions together instead. On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:
Again, you are deflecting from what I want you to answer : your assessment that we can trust individuals to do what's good for the entity and not what's good for them individually, as these are both the same.
As long as you do not address that comment of yours (already asked several times), I'll stop answering as I hate to have discussions in bad faith. What's good for people in a company is what's good for the company, I don't get what you don't get. I assume it's probably about distinguishing between "people" and "a specific individual". A specific individual might make more money if they organize the company differently but it's sure going to be harder for them to do that in a company where the decisions are made democratically than in a company where they make the decisions on their own, so if that is the thing that you are criticizing, it is harder for your criticism to become reality in this system than it is in the system you are defending. On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:
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 Let's say the company, to survive, needs to fire 10% of its staff, or it dies to competition. Do you believe it would be agreed democratically ? If the people working in it were owning 10% each, what happens ? Yes I think they would if that was actually true. And if they don't then they're going to go under. That's okay. On April 26 2020 05:23 Nouar wrote:
You seem to be living in a fantasy world where in a collegial decisions, you are not going to have people influencing the decisions of others because they are better speakers, where you would not end up with representatives at some point. And back to square 1.
Fuck man, you know what, you're right, I hadn't considered that. It is true that people will be able to influence others in a system where everyone's voice matters. That's why I now support a system where their voices don't matter at all, that way it doesn't matter if they get influenced or not. That makes total sense. Thank you for helping me snap out of the fantasy with that powerful argument. I might be getting tired then, there must be something simple I am missing : if everyone has a voice to take part in decisions, how can it "not matter" if someone influences other people's voices to maybe take the wrong decision ? Because the alternative is obviously worse. The bolded part is where I am sarcastically representing your argument. You should probably get some sleep. In order to think that a system where their voice doesn't matter is superior to a system where their voice matters but is susceptible to influence, you have to already believe that their voice shouldn't matter.
Or that a well-regulated system where someone more competent makes the decisions while the regulations ensure that exploitation is minimized will produce better results than giving clueless, short-sighted and selfish people a voice.
Historically, socialist countries were both inefficient and inhumane. Capitalist countries have a tendency to be just inhumane. I'd argue that making a capitalist society humane is quite achievable, whereas making a socialist economy efficient is a pipe dream.
On April 26 2020 05:56 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:
I didn't change anything. Somehow everyone except you understood my point.
How would an average manufacturing worker even be able to tell that he or she is undervaluing the work of the engineers? Ignorant people making ignorant, short-sighted decisions is a systemic problem of any democratic system. The problem is that humans seem to have a tendency to make those short-sighted decisions based on short-term benefit.
You claimed that once you get rid of the capitalist class, people will receive the full value of their work. You did not address the issue of investment I raised nor the fact that democratically determined salaries can undervalue people's work just as easily. You told me that "You'd have to trust that people democratically choose what is best for the company and not what benefits them most, individually." In your example, what benefits them most is the company not going under. So they wouldn't be choosing what benefits them most. Simple. I don't think your average worker should be ignorant about their company and I don't think your average voter should be ignorant about their country. Education is good, so is knowledge. It should be encouraged. And if they make the wrong decisions in terms of what's best for the company, then their company is probably going to go under. That's okay.
You're arguing fucking semantics. Address the actual point.
You're advocating for a system proven to be inefficient because you think it will make the same mistakes in a more moral way. You can't even justify how it'll prevent people from being exploited.
|
Why and how would they democratically decide who gets fired and who doesnt? What's best for the workers is to stay employed and not lose their investment into the company. Why would the majority of the voting base value the minority of the coop when it comes to the intracacies of who to hire or how much to pay people?
And I'd really like an answer on my sexism and racism question to you. Outside of any morality why would you hire workers from another racial gender or sexual orientation group?
|
On April 26 2020 06:05 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 05:39 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 05:34 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 05:23 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 04:47 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote: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. How do you know that they're good then. To take an extreme : saving the planet and biodiversity is good. To do it perfectly you wipe humanity. What it is good for always depends on the point of view. Yes, what is good depends on the point of view, that is my point. From this point it logically follows that it would be pretty problematic to have one specific entity with a specific point of view deciding everything for us as a form of government, and it's much better if we all make the decisions together instead. On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:
Again, you are deflecting from what I want you to answer : your assessment that we can trust individuals to do what's good for the entity and not what's good for them individually, as these are both the same.
As long as you do not address that comment of yours (already asked several times), I'll stop answering as I hate to have discussions in bad faith. What's good for people in a company is what's good for the company, I don't get what you don't get. I assume it's probably about distinguishing between "people" and "a specific individual". A specific individual might make more money if they organize the company differently but it's sure going to be harder for them to do that in a company where the decisions are made democratically than in a company where they make the decisions on their own, so if that is the thing that you are criticizing, it is harder for your criticism to become reality in this system than it is in the system you are defending. On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:
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 Let's say the company, to survive, needs to fire 10% of its staff, or it dies to competition. Do you believe it would be agreed democratically ? If the people working in it were owning 10% each, what happens ? Yes I think they would if that was actually true. And if they don't then they're going to go under. That's okay. On April 26 2020 05:23 Nouar wrote:
You seem to be living in a fantasy world where in a collegial decisions, you are not going to have people influencing the decisions of others because they are better speakers, where you would not end up with representatives at some point. And back to square 1.
Fuck man, you know what, you're right, I hadn't considered that. It is true that people will be able to influence others in a system where everyone's voice matters. That's why I now support a system where their voices don't matter at all, that way it doesn't matter if they get influenced or not. That makes total sense. Thank you for helping me snap out of the fantasy with that powerful argument. I might be getting tired then, there must be something simple I am missing : if everyone has a voice to take part in decisions, how can it "not matter" if someone influences other people's voices to maybe take the wrong decision ? Because the alternative is obviously worse. The bolded part is where I am sarcastically representing your argument. You should probably get some sleep. In order to think that a system where their voice doesn't matter is superior to a system where their voice matters but is susceptible to influence, you have to already believe that their voice shouldn't matter. Or that a well-regulated system where someone more competent makes the decisions while the regulations ensure that exploitation is minimized will produce better results than giving clueless, short-sighted and selfish people a voice. Historically, socialist countries were both inefficient and inhumane. Capitalist countries have a tendency to be just inhumane. I'd argue that making a capitalist society humane is quite achievable, whereas making a socialist economy efficient is a pipe dream.
In large companies the workers can also elect a manager to represent them. Representative democracy is still democracy.
If that's not enough for you and you insist on owners, then unfortunately those competent people now have more influence and power than the rest of society, and their incentive being to maximize their profit (based on the system, not on human nature), they will realize that those regulations are in their way and will work to erode them. And in about eighty years, we're back to neoliberalism. When history repeats, do you notice?
I'll choose democracy over putting my trust in a good guy leader every single time. But here we're talking about multiple good guy leaders, as many as there are companies. And supposedly we're the ones who live in fantasy worlds. Okay.
On April 26 2020 06:05 maybenexttime wrote:
You can't even justify how it'll prevent people from being exploited.
When the company makes profit, the profits will go to them, not to some asshole who owns the company. That's how it'll prevent people from being exploited.
|
On April 26 2020 06:08 Sermokala wrote:
Why and how would they democratically decide who gets fired and who doesnt? What's best for the workers is to stay employed and not lose their investment into the company. Why would the majority of the voting base value the minority of the coop when it comes to the intracacies of who to hire or how much to pay people?
Don't know, don't care. That's on them. Not gonna tell them how to run their business.
On April 26 2020 06:08 Sermokala wrote:
And I'd really like an answer on my sexism and racism question to you. Outside of any morality why would you hire workers from another racial gender or sexual orientation group?
Because there is no rational reason not to hire someone from another racial gender or sexual orientation group?
|
On April 26 2020 06:13 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 06:05 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 05:39 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 05:34 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 05:23 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 04:47 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:On April 26 2020 04:34 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote:
[quote]
Which is why I pointed out that "good" solutions might end up inhuman or amoral.
How do you know that they're good then. To take an extreme : saving the planet and biodiversity is good. To do it perfectly you wipe humanity. What it is good for always depends on the point of view. Yes, what is good depends on the point of view, that is my point. From this point it logically follows that it would be pretty problematic to have one specific entity with a specific point of view deciding everything for us as a form of government, and it's much better if we all make the decisions together instead. On April 26 2020 04:39 Nouar wrote:
Again, you are deflecting from what I want you to answer : your assessment that we can trust individuals to do what's good for the entity and not what's good for them individually, as these are both the same.
As long as you do not address that comment of yours (already asked several times), I'll stop answering as I hate to have discussions in bad faith. What's good for people in a company is what's good for the company, I don't get what you don't get. I assume it's probably about distinguishing between "people" and "a specific individual". A specific individual might make more money if they organize the company differently but it's sure going to be harder for them to do that in a company where the decisions are made democratically than in a company where they make the decisions on their own, so if that is the thing that you are criticizing, it is harder for your criticism to become reality in this system than it is in the system you are defending. On April 26 2020 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On April 26 2020 03:31 maybenexttime wrote:
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 Let's say the company, to survive, needs to fire 10% of its staff, or it dies to competition. Do you believe it would be agreed democratically ? If the people working in it were owning 10% each, what happens ? Yes I think they would if that was actually true. And if they don't then they're going to go under. That's okay. On April 26 2020 05:23 Nouar wrote:
You seem to be living in a fantasy world where in a collegial decisions, you are not going to have people influencing the decisions of others because they are better speakers, where you would not end up with representatives at some point. And back to square 1.
Fuck man, you know what, you're right, I hadn't considered that. It is true that people will be able to influence others in a system where everyone's voice matters. That's why I now support a system where their voices don't matter at all, that way it doesn't matter if they get influenced or not. That makes total sense. Thank you for helping me snap out of the fantasy with that powerful argument. I might be getting tired then, there must be something simple I am missing : if everyone has a voice to take part in decisions, how can it "not matter" if someone influences other people's voices to maybe take the wrong decision ? Because the alternative is obviously worse. The bolded part is where I am sarcastically representing your argument. You should probably get some sleep. In order to think that a system where their voice doesn't matter is superior to a system where their voice matters but is susceptible to influence, you have to already believe that their voice shouldn't matter. Or that a well-regulated system where someone more competent makes the decisions while the regulations ensure that exploitation is minimized will produce better results than giving clueless, short-sighted and selfish people a voice. Historically, socialist countries were both inefficient and inhumane. Capitalist countries have a tendency to be just inhumane. I'd argue that making a capitalist society humane is quite achievable, whereas making a socialist economy efficient is a pipe dream. In large companies the workers can also elect a manager to represent them. Representative democracy is still democracy. If that's not enough for you and you insist on owners, then unfortunately those competent people now have more influence and power than the rest of society, and their incentive being to maximize their profit (based on the system, not on human nature), they will realize that those regulations are in their way and will work to erode them. And in about eighty years, we're back to neoliberalism. When history repeats, do you notice? I'll choose democracy over putting my trust in a good guy leader every single time. But here we're talking about multiple good guy leaders, as many as there are companies. And supposedly we're the ones who live in fantasy worlds. Okay.
More like, multiple companies failing and society going multiple centuries backwards. Again, have a look at the company I posted about earlier for the closest exemple I could find.
In large companies the workers can also elect a manager to represent them. Representative democracy is still democracy.
And that representative is going to represent/defend people differently according to his affinities. It still brings power to a small amount of people, who are going to find ways to distort it.
|
On April 26 2020 06:13 Nebuchad wrote:In large companies the workers can also elect a manager to represent them. Representative democracy is still democracy.
If that's not enough for you and you insist on owners, then unfortunately those competent people now have more influence and power than the rest of society, and their incentive being to maximize their profit (based on the system, not on human nature), they will realize that those regulations are in their way and will work to erode them. And in about eighty years, we're back to neoliberalism. When history repeats, do you notice?
I'll choose democracy over putting my trust in a good guy leader every single time. But here we're talking about multiple good guy leaders, as many as there are companies. And supposedly we're the ones who live in fantasy worlds. Okay.
So they relegate decision-making to a manager. And how would that manager solve that problem? You either force people to contribute to investment and hence they don't receive the full value of their work or you allow them to opt out and exploit others or you don't invest at all. Great.
I'd still take neoliberalism over your socialist utopia that is likely to be even worse in terms of poverty and inequality. Conveniently you ignore the fact that people in power have corrupted the system in socialist countries every single time.
It's not a fantasy. Regulated capitalist countries thrive. You don't need a good guy leader. Simply create incentives that tie the leader's best interest with the company's best interest and add regulations that make the system humane. It's a proven concept that has produced great results in many countries. Give me an example of a working socialist country.
When the company makes profit, the profits will go to them, not to some asshole who owns the company. That's how it'll prevent people from being exploited.
An asshole who often works his/her ass off and takes a tremendous risk to build a company, giving people jobs.
You still haven't proven how removing the capitalist class from the equation is sufficient to ensure that people receive the full value of their work. Democratic decisions undervaluing people's work is still a potential problem. So is investment and opting out from investment while benefiting from it. You call that "mistakes", I call that parasitism. :-)
|
On April 26 2020 06:31 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2020 06:13 Nebuchad wrote:In large companies the workers can also elect a manager to represent them. Representative democracy is still democracy.
If that's not enough for you and you insist on owners, then unfortunately those competent people now have more influence and power than the rest of society, and their incentive being to maximize their profit (based on the system, not on human nature), they will realize that those regulations are in their way and will work to erode them. And in about eighty years, we're back to neoliberalism. When history repeats, do you notice?
I'll choose democracy over putting my trust in a good guy leader every single time. But here we're talking about multiple good guy leaders, as many as there are companies. And supposedly we're the ones who live in fantasy worlds. Okay. So they relegate decision-making to a manager. I'd still take neoliberalism over your socialist utopia that is likely to be even worse in terms of poverty and inequality. Conveniently you ignore the fact that people in power have corrupted the system in socialist countries every single time. It's not a fantasy. Regulated capitalist countries thrive. You don't need a good guy leader. Simply create incentives that tie the leader's best interest with the company's best interest and add regulations that make the system humane. It's a proven concept that has produced great results in many countries. Give me an example of a working socialist country. Show nested quote +When the company makes profit, the profits will go to them, not to some asshole who owns the company. That's how it'll prevent people from being exploited. An asshole who often works his/her ass off and takes a tremendous risk to build a company, giving people jobs. You still haven't proven how removing the capitalist class from the equation is sufficient to ensure that people receive the full value of their work. Democratic decisions undervaluing people's work is still a potential problem. So is investment and opting out from investment while benefiting from it. You call that "mistakes", I call that parasitism. :-)
It's going to be worse than neoliberalism in terms of inequality? Do you even listen to yourself my dude.
I'm not changing the political system so not sure why I'd have to address people in power corrupting the system. The state doesn't have more power than under a social democracy, which I think you've been advocating for.
The fantasy is that your leaders won't work to erode those incentives and get you back to neoliberalism provided a sufficiently long timespan. We had social democracies in the US and in Europe, we know that they were better for humans than neoliberalism, it's not sophisticated. The hard part is ensuring that the harmful forces that we have voluntarily promoted in our society because of how social democracy is built don't grow more influence from the influence that we have unnecessarily given them.
If the owner works his ass off then his labor should be compensated. That's cool. I like workers.
|
The definition being used for socialism in this recent conversation is far different from the one I learned in ... name any political science or history class. Maybe it's a US thing?
The basic idea was : Communism = state owns all means of production. Socialism = State owns some ("important") means of production (utilities was the classic example). Capitalism = State owns no means of production.
Of course, defining what is important/essential means of production is its own area of debate, but I've never considered the West to be anything but a socialized group of countries that occasionally makes claims as to otherwise..
There is a very basic critique of regulated capitalism that's being ignored - generally, it is far cheaper and more profitable to roll back any regulations than it is to make a better product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
