|
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 February 21 2023 19:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2023 12:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2023 10:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2023 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 13:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I think 1a was taken care of in an edit before your post but if it's still unclear you can let me know.
1b. Yes, the status quo is dripping with horrific atrocities (also in the edit) As to the relative good and bad aspect, I think at best it's the window dressing I described and more than likely is detrimental to a goal of reducing suffering on net for some of the reasons you mentioned like "welp we did something, don't need to worry about that now" and others.
2. Pursuing revolutionary socialism, which would include so called "zero-emission vehicles" (socialists already love bikes for example). I missed your edit; thanks for that elaboration. When you say that your ideal solution would be "Pursuing revolutionary socialism" to get to things like zero-emission vehicles, does that mean that the movement from gas-powered cars to zero-emission vehicles can be either good or bad depending on the route we take to transition from the former to the latter (i.e., probably not worth performing the transition if the strategy involves capitalism, but probably worth performing the transition if socialist principles were valued instead)? Could you also elaborate on why socialism would fix this problem? I'm wondering if it's at all possible to implement that theoretical socialist solution in a country like the United States. Is there a way to realistically sell a socialist solution to the American people without most of them freaking out that you use the taboo "s" word? And if not - if the ideal socialist approach of yours is honestly too far away from where the American people are in the year 2023 - what would be the closest we could get to something better than what we currently have, even if it's classified as capitalist or non-socialist? Is there a plausible step in your ideal direction that would be an easier sell for more people, to slowly, gradually shift the Overton window? My pleasure. Sort of. From a social organizing/city planning perspective on climate change the emphasis on electrifying cars misses the forest for the trees. Socialists tend to agree that the emphasis should be on making "walkable cities" with adequate public infrastructure to service residents while prioritizing them over cars. Certainly to the degree that cars would still serve a purpose in such a society, electrifying them is a rational pursuit. In that we see hints at the next parts of your post. Which, while sounding innocuous enough, are actually somewhat loaded. To start I'd reject the framing of "socialism would fix this problem" and replace it with "why/how would socialism handle these problems differently and what makes that way preferable to capitalism?". The answer there seems obvious to me and presumably to anyone that understands the value of things like public utilities and universal healthcare. The next part is about the people who might/probably don't recognize the value of public utilities/universal healthcare/etc and openly advocate for their privatization. To that, I would say that's part of why I advocate revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism. To the general "possibility" I'd say the capacity to reconcile the seemingly impossible into the realm of the possible and existing is one of the most terrifyingly wonderful things there is about being human. The "walkable city" approach sounds like a great way to improve urban / densely populated areas. What about suburban and rural areas? (A lot of what I just wrote out to JimmiC seems applicable here too, in that it sounds like it'd be a lot more difficult when there are already communities set up that have a lot of open land separating families, businesses, etc.) You may have preemptively answered that with the affirmation that (electrified) cars - and, still, a greater emphasis on improving public transportation connections, wherever possible - might end up being the best we could hope for with suburban and rural areas ("a rational pursuit", as you put it). When you say that you advocate for "revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism", does that mean that you think it's plausible that the United States could jump from its current capitalism-focused system all the way to a socialism-focused system that you'd be reasonably pleased with, without needing to entertain gradual intermediary steps towards the left, like first making the principles of social democracy and Democratic socialism more appealing to more Americans? To me, it sounds like a slower transition would be necessary to make some of these ideas more palatable, which would lead to more people potentially supporting political and economic reform, and I'm not sure how you can have a socialist revolution without a ton more support than what currently exists in the United States. This may be due to ignorance or poor marketing by socialists (or really good anti-marketing by capitalists and conservatives), but a very low percentage of Americans have a "very positive" view of socialism ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/ ) and it would only be a subset of those who would feel comfortable to not just support an eventual movement towards socialism, but a radical revolution. I think there's an insane learning curve to consider, and a giant taboo to overcome. It might be the case that a theoretical overnight shift to socialism would be the best solution, but I'm also wondering what would be realistic and practical given the hand we're being dealt (two-party system, Republicans are definitely not favoring socialism, most Democrats don't favor socialism, etc.). Between that and this: It sounds to me like the first step to getting more Americans on board with moving away from a car-only life would be to have so many new bus/train stations* (and running so frequently), that Americans would consider switching some of their routines to public transportation if it wouldn't end up being a huge disruption, like perhaps their daily work commute, even if they still use their car for a few minor errands later that night. I don't know how big of a financial commitment it would be for a state government to implement all this, but if that's the path that ends up being most beneficial for society, it's surely one to deeply consider.
I'd say this is a typical reformism vs revolutionary debate which I've addressed several times in multiple ways. I don't think me repeating it would be helpful and I've already demonstrated I'm familiar with the objections people have to revolutionary socialism and where I notice this typically ends up. Basically this is a project over 100 years (many including probing and exhausting various reformist rationales) in the making so it won't be "overnight" even if it happened tomorrow. On the other hand, the sudden "One day it was that way, and today it's this way" sort of aspect will probably look something like when the divine right of kings died. When it comes to the revolutionary vs reformism stuff, simply put, I think people who already believe socialism is the "lesser evil" to capitalism (that's includes you right?) are better off advocating revolutionary socialism as their "imperfectly optimal prescription that just needs modifications from within it's own parameters" instead of the capitalist status quo. That's totally fair, and I can definitely go back through the cited RvR conversations/debates you've had in the past. I didn't expect the scope to broaden this much - I was originally looking for a smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state program that would act as a potentially better step in the ideal direction than simply phasing out gas-powered cars - but I appreciate you identifying that my premise/path isn't the only starting position/strategy one could build from, and that there are other options to explore  In response to your question about the lesser of two evils, I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall (especially since most of my experiences come from watching American news and American politicians, which are more to the right than some other countries that offer more exposure to more leftist/socialist alternatives). I think I align more with Social Democrats and David Pakman (and Bernie Sanders?) than, say, true Socialism and Vaush - in that a society containing heavily regulated capitalism and an abundance of social and welfare programs seems to be more appealing to me than public ownership of the means of production. It might be the case that I primarily feel that way because that's the most progressive I think that the United States could ever truly become, and it's as far to the left as Americans seem to be willing to entertain at this point in time, but I don't know for sure. In the covid thread (specifically, this page: https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=688 ), several European TLers posted about the quality of life that their countries' systems ensure for their people, which are lightyears ahead of what the United States does. I don't know what labels Simberto's Germany, Silvanel's Poland, Acrofales's Spain, and Symplectos's Luxembourg would have in this conversation about capitalism and socialism, but the United States is definitely not where it ought to be. From my perspective "looking for smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state programs" in the context of US politics and climate change isn't "pragmatic", but simply a euphemism for sacrificing untold millions at the altar of capitalism for the sake of maintaining some relative comfort by its advocates. Yes a lifetime of capitalist and anti-communist propaganda most certainly influences your perspective. I can't express the level of yikes the idea that Vaush is who comes to mind when you think of "true socialism" gave me though. As for "heavily regulated capitalism", that's another euphemism for "bribe the domestic populace while pushing the suffering and atrocities of capitalism out of sight" from my perspective. There's no question that various social democratic European countries have much more domestically equitable loot splits though. + Show Spoiler +There's a lot of history that has to be considered when trying to understand why social democracy is so much more popular/successful in various European countries than in the US. If nothing else it's important to note that your opposition to socialism (like many in the US) is built on a foundation of ignorance of what socialism represents and capitalism entails. EDIT: I should add for context that I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall sounds as silly coming from a well educated adult to me as I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of Republicans and Democrats to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall from the same would for you. I mean, half the country is Democrats and half the country is Republicans, including neighbors and colleagues and friends, and two-party affiliations and political beliefs are what Americans are inundated with every day, so I'd expect people to be way better versed with Democrats and Republicans than with something as absent from American conversation as real socialism. On that note, who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society, and what a realistic path to socialism in America would look like? More people consider themselves not a Democrat or Republican than identify as either on its own. That aside, let me first ask who you would recommend I read or watch for a fair assessment of the pros and cons of capitalism? I have no idea. I've been very clear that I don't have a strong background in topics surrounding capitalism and (or vs.) socialism. You're clearly very passionate about promoting socialism, so I figured you'd have some suggestions: Who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society, and what a realistic path to socialism in America would look like?
I ask because I don't know what you would consider a "fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present day society" so I asked for an example for the system you support.
EDIT: As for "a realistic path to socialism in America" that depends on plenty including one's perspective on "realistic". If your understanding of "realistic" is bound to electoral politics in the US, you'll have to ask someone that thinks that's realistic (Probably find them in DSA?).
|
On February 21 2023 19:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2023 19:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2023 12:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2023 10:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2023 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 13:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I missed your edit; thanks for that elaboration. When you say that your ideal solution would be "Pursuing revolutionary socialism" to get to things like zero-emission vehicles, does that mean that the movement from gas-powered cars to zero-emission vehicles can be either good or bad depending on the route we take to transition from the former to the latter (i.e., probably not worth performing the transition if the strategy involves capitalism, but probably worth performing the transition if socialist principles were valued instead)?
Could you also elaborate on why socialism would fix this problem?
I'm wondering if it's at all possible to implement that theoretical socialist solution in a country like the United States. Is there a way to realistically sell a socialist solution to the American people without most of them freaking out that you use the taboo "s" word? And if not - if the ideal socialist approach of yours is honestly too far away from where the American people are in the year 2023 - what would be the closest we could get to something better than what we currently have, even if it's classified as capitalist or non-socialist? Is there a plausible step in your ideal direction that would be an easier sell for more people, to slowly, gradually shift the Overton window? My pleasure. Sort of. From a social organizing/city planning perspective on climate change the emphasis on electrifying cars misses the forest for the trees. Socialists tend to agree that the emphasis should be on making "walkable cities" with adequate public infrastructure to service residents while prioritizing them over cars. Certainly to the degree that cars would still serve a purpose in such a society, electrifying them is a rational pursuit. In that we see hints at the next parts of your post. Which, while sounding innocuous enough, are actually somewhat loaded. To start I'd reject the framing of "socialism would fix this problem" and replace it with "why/how would socialism handle these problems differently and what makes that way preferable to capitalism?". The answer there seems obvious to me and presumably to anyone that understands the value of things like public utilities and universal healthcare. The next part is about the people who might/probably don't recognize the value of public utilities/universal healthcare/etc and openly advocate for their privatization. To that, I would say that's part of why I advocate revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism. To the general "possibility" I'd say the capacity to reconcile the seemingly impossible into the realm of the possible and existing is one of the most terrifyingly wonderful things there is about being human. The "walkable city" approach sounds like a great way to improve urban / densely populated areas. What about suburban and rural areas? (A lot of what I just wrote out to JimmiC seems applicable here too, in that it sounds like it'd be a lot more difficult when there are already communities set up that have a lot of open land separating families, businesses, etc.) You may have preemptively answered that with the affirmation that (electrified) cars - and, still, a greater emphasis on improving public transportation connections, wherever possible - might end up being the best we could hope for with suburban and rural areas ("a rational pursuit", as you put it). When you say that you advocate for "revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism", does that mean that you think it's plausible that the United States could jump from its current capitalism-focused system all the way to a socialism-focused system that you'd be reasonably pleased with, without needing to entertain gradual intermediary steps towards the left, like first making the principles of social democracy and Democratic socialism more appealing to more Americans? To me, it sounds like a slower transition would be necessary to make some of these ideas more palatable, which would lead to more people potentially supporting political and economic reform, and I'm not sure how you can have a socialist revolution without a ton more support than what currently exists in the United States. This may be due to ignorance or poor marketing by socialists (or really good anti-marketing by capitalists and conservatives), but a very low percentage of Americans have a "very positive" view of socialism ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/ ) and it would only be a subset of those who would feel comfortable to not just support an eventual movement towards socialism, but a radical revolution. I think there's an insane learning curve to consider, and a giant taboo to overcome. It might be the case that a theoretical overnight shift to socialism would be the best solution, but I'm also wondering what would be realistic and practical given the hand we're being dealt (two-party system, Republicans are definitely not favoring socialism, most Democrats don't favor socialism, etc.). Between that and this: It sounds to me like the first step to getting more Americans on board with moving away from a car-only life would be to have so many new bus/train stations* (and running so frequently), that Americans would consider switching some of their routines to public transportation if it wouldn't end up being a huge disruption, like perhaps their daily work commute, even if they still use their car for a few minor errands later that night. I don't know how big of a financial commitment it would be for a state government to implement all this, but if that's the path that ends up being most beneficial for society, it's surely one to deeply consider.
I'd say this is a typical reformism vs revolutionary debate which I've addressed several times in multiple ways. I don't think me repeating it would be helpful and I've already demonstrated I'm familiar with the objections people have to revolutionary socialism and where I notice this typically ends up. Basically this is a project over 100 years (many including probing and exhausting various reformist rationales) in the making so it won't be "overnight" even if it happened tomorrow. On the other hand, the sudden "One day it was that way, and today it's this way" sort of aspect will probably look something like when the divine right of kings died. When it comes to the revolutionary vs reformism stuff, simply put, I think people who already believe socialism is the "lesser evil" to capitalism (that's includes you right?) are better off advocating revolutionary socialism as their "imperfectly optimal prescription that just needs modifications from within it's own parameters" instead of the capitalist status quo. That's totally fair, and I can definitely go back through the cited RvR conversations/debates you've had in the past. I didn't expect the scope to broaden this much - I was originally looking for a smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state program that would act as a potentially better step in the ideal direction than simply phasing out gas-powered cars - but I appreciate you identifying that my premise/path isn't the only starting position/strategy one could build from, and that there are other options to explore In response to your question about the lesser of two evils, I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall (especially since most of my experiences come from watching American news and American politicians, which are more to the right than some other countries that offer more exposure to more leftist/socialist alternatives). I think I align more with Social Democrats and David Pakman (and Bernie Sanders?) than, say, true Socialism and Vaush - in that a society containing heavily regulated capitalism and an abundance of social and welfare programs seems to be more appealing to me than public ownership of the means of production. It might be the case that I primarily feel that way because that's the most progressive I think that the United States could ever truly become, and it's as far to the left as Americans seem to be willing to entertain at this point in time, but I don't know for sure. In the covid thread (specifically, this page: https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=688 ), several European TLers posted about the quality of life that their countries' systems ensure for their people, which are lightyears ahead of what the United States does. I don't know what labels Simberto's Germany, Silvanel's Poland, Acrofales's Spain, and Symplectos's Luxembourg would have in this conversation about capitalism and socialism, but the United States is definitely not where it ought to be. From my perspective "looking for smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state programs" in the context of US politics and climate change isn't "pragmatic", but simply a euphemism for sacrificing untold millions at the altar of capitalism for the sake of maintaining some relative comfort by its advocates. Yes a lifetime of capitalist and anti-communist propaganda most certainly influences your perspective. I can't express the level of yikes the idea that Vaush is who comes to mind when you think of "true socialism" gave me though. As for "heavily regulated capitalism", that's another euphemism for "bribe the domestic populace while pushing the suffering and atrocities of capitalism out of sight" from my perspective. There's no question that various social democratic European countries have much more domestically equitable loot splits though. + Show Spoiler +There's a lot of history that has to be considered when trying to understand why social democracy is so much more popular/successful in various European countries than in the US. If nothing else it's important to note that your opposition to socialism (like many in the US) is built on a foundation of ignorance of what socialism represents and capitalism entails. EDIT: I should add for context that I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall sounds as silly coming from a well educated adult to me as I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of Republicans and Democrats to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall from the same would for you. I mean, half the country is Democrats and half the country is Republicans, including neighbors and colleagues and friends, and two-party affiliations and political beliefs are what Americans are inundated with every day, so I'd expect people to be way better versed with Democrats and Republicans than with something as absent from American conversation as real socialism. On that note, who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society, and what a realistic path to socialism in America would look like? More people consider themselves not a Democrat or Republican than identify as either on its own. That aside, let me first ask who you would recommend I read or watch for a fair assessment of the pros and cons of capitalism? I have no idea. I've been very clear that I don't have a strong background in topics surrounding capitalism and (or vs.) socialism. You're clearly very passionate about promoting socialism, so I figured you'd have some suggestions: Who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society, and what a realistic path to socialism in America would look like? I ask because I don't know what you would consider a "fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present day society" so I asked for an example for the system you support.
I don't have a point of reference here, so I'm happy to take your word for socialist recommendations. I'm not sure why you wouldn't jump at the opportunity to share suggestions; I'm not going to respond with any sort of gotcha. Do you have any resources you'd recommend? If not, that's fine.
|
On February 21 2023 19:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2023 19:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2023 19:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2023 12:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2023 10:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2023 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 13:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
My pleasure. Sort of. From a social organizing/city planning perspective on climate change the emphasis on electrifying cars misses the forest for the trees. Socialists tend to agree that the emphasis should be on making "walkable cities" with adequate public infrastructure to service residents while prioritizing them over cars. Certainly to the degree that cars would still serve a purpose in such a society, electrifying them is a rational pursuit.
In that we see hints at the next parts of your post. Which, while sounding innocuous enough, are actually somewhat loaded.
To start I'd reject the framing of "socialism would fix this problem" and replace it with "why/how would socialism handle these problems differently and what makes that way preferable to capitalism?". The answer there seems obvious to me and presumably to anyone that understands the value of things like public utilities and universal healthcare.
The next part is about the people who might/probably don't recognize the value of public utilities/universal healthcare/etc and openly advocate for their privatization. To that, I would say that's part of why I advocate revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism.
To the general "possibility" I'd say the capacity to reconcile the seemingly impossible into the realm of the possible and existing is one of the most terrifyingly wonderful things there is about being human. The "walkable city" approach sounds like a great way to improve urban / densely populated areas. What about suburban and rural areas? (A lot of what I just wrote out to JimmiC seems applicable here too, in that it sounds like it'd be a lot more difficult when there are already communities set up that have a lot of open land separating families, businesses, etc.) You may have preemptively answered that with the affirmation that (electrified) cars - and, still, a greater emphasis on improving public transportation connections, wherever possible - might end up being the best we could hope for with suburban and rural areas ("a rational pursuit", as you put it). When you say that you advocate for "revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism", does that mean that you think it's plausible that the United States could jump from its current capitalism-focused system all the way to a socialism-focused system that you'd be reasonably pleased with, without needing to entertain gradual intermediary steps towards the left, like first making the principles of social democracy and Democratic socialism more appealing to more Americans? To me, it sounds like a slower transition would be necessary to make some of these ideas more palatable, which would lead to more people potentially supporting political and economic reform, and I'm not sure how you can have a socialist revolution without a ton more support than what currently exists in the United States. This may be due to ignorance or poor marketing by socialists (or really good anti-marketing by capitalists and conservatives), but a very low percentage of Americans have a "very positive" view of socialism ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/ ) and it would only be a subset of those who would feel comfortable to not just support an eventual movement towards socialism, but a radical revolution. I think there's an insane learning curve to consider, and a giant taboo to overcome. It might be the case that a theoretical overnight shift to socialism would be the best solution, but I'm also wondering what would be realistic and practical given the hand we're being dealt (two-party system, Republicans are definitely not favoring socialism, most Democrats don't favor socialism, etc.). Between that and this: It sounds to me like the first step to getting more Americans on board with moving away from a car-only life would be to have so many new bus/train stations* (and running so frequently), that Americans would consider switching some of their routines to public transportation if it wouldn't end up being a huge disruption, like perhaps their daily work commute, even if they still use their car for a few minor errands later that night. I don't know how big of a financial commitment it would be for a state government to implement all this, but if that's the path that ends up being most beneficial for society, it's surely one to deeply consider.
I'd say this is a typical reformism vs revolutionary debate which I've addressed several times in multiple ways. I don't think me repeating it would be helpful and I've already demonstrated I'm familiar with the objections people have to revolutionary socialism and where I notice this typically ends up. Basically this is a project over 100 years (many including probing and exhausting various reformist rationales) in the making so it won't be "overnight" even if it happened tomorrow. On the other hand, the sudden "One day it was that way, and today it's this way" sort of aspect will probably look something like when the divine right of kings died. When it comes to the revolutionary vs reformism stuff, simply put, I think people who already believe socialism is the "lesser evil" to capitalism (that's includes you right?) are better off advocating revolutionary socialism as their "imperfectly optimal prescription that just needs modifications from within it's own parameters" instead of the capitalist status quo. That's totally fair, and I can definitely go back through the cited RvR conversations/debates you've had in the past. I didn't expect the scope to broaden this much - I was originally looking for a smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state program that would act as a potentially better step in the ideal direction than simply phasing out gas-powered cars - but I appreciate you identifying that my premise/path isn't the only starting position/strategy one could build from, and that there are other options to explore In response to your question about the lesser of two evils, I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall (especially since most of my experiences come from watching American news and American politicians, which are more to the right than some other countries that offer more exposure to more leftist/socialist alternatives). I think I align more with Social Democrats and David Pakman (and Bernie Sanders?) than, say, true Socialism and Vaush - in that a society containing heavily regulated capitalism and an abundance of social and welfare programs seems to be more appealing to me than public ownership of the means of production. It might be the case that I primarily feel that way because that's the most progressive I think that the United States could ever truly become, and it's as far to the left as Americans seem to be willing to entertain at this point in time, but I don't know for sure. In the covid thread (specifically, this page: https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=688 ), several European TLers posted about the quality of life that their countries' systems ensure for their people, which are lightyears ahead of what the United States does. I don't know what labels Simberto's Germany, Silvanel's Poland, Acrofales's Spain, and Symplectos's Luxembourg would have in this conversation about capitalism and socialism, but the United States is definitely not where it ought to be. From my perspective "looking for smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state programs" in the context of US politics and climate change isn't "pragmatic", but simply a euphemism for sacrificing untold millions at the altar of capitalism for the sake of maintaining some relative comfort by its advocates. Yes a lifetime of capitalist and anti-communist propaganda most certainly influences your perspective. I can't express the level of yikes the idea that Vaush is who comes to mind when you think of "true socialism" gave me though. As for "heavily regulated capitalism", that's another euphemism for "bribe the domestic populace while pushing the suffering and atrocities of capitalism out of sight" from my perspective. There's no question that various social democratic European countries have much more domestically equitable loot splits though. + Show Spoiler +There's a lot of history that has to be considered when trying to understand why social democracy is so much more popular/successful in various European countries than in the US. If nothing else it's important to note that your opposition to socialism (like many in the US) is built on a foundation of ignorance of what socialism represents and capitalism entails. EDIT: I should add for context that I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall sounds as silly coming from a well educated adult to me as I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of Republicans and Democrats to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall from the same would for you. I mean, half the country is Democrats and half the country is Republicans, including neighbors and colleagues and friends, and two-party affiliations and political beliefs are what Americans are inundated with every day, so I'd expect people to be way better versed with Democrats and Republicans than with something as absent from American conversation as real socialism. On that note, who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society, and what a realistic path to socialism in America would look like? More people consider themselves not a Democrat or Republican than identify as either on its own. That aside, let me first ask who you would recommend I read or watch for a fair assessment of the pros and cons of capitalism? I have no idea. I've been very clear that I don't have a strong background in topics surrounding capitalism and (or vs.) socialism. You're clearly very passionate about promoting socialism, so I figured you'd have some suggestions: Who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society, and what a realistic path to socialism in America would look like? I ask because I don't know what you would consider a "fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present day society" so I asked for an example for the system you support. I don't have a point of reference here, so I'm happy to take your word for socialist recommendations. I'm not sure why you wouldn't jump at the opportunity to share suggestions; I'm not going to respond with any sort of gotcha. Do you have any resources you'd recommend? If not, that's fine. I don't know what you want (or to what end) and I'm not sure you do either. Maybe you could point me to who you would recommend I read or watch for a fair assessment of the pros and cons for democracy in present-day society, since you're clearly very passionate about it?
|
Seeing as DPB is a teacher, I'd think Paulo Freire would be a natural fit? It's not really about socialism, but I believe it does describe a route to get there, although changing structures and teaching the next generation to be more capable of standing up to injustice is obviously far too slow to deal with climate change, biodiversity and other aspects of today's unsustainable society. And even if it doesn't resonate in that way with DPB, he might at least pick up ideas to incorporate in his own classroom?
E: I can't believe I'm the one to suggest Freire here, rather than GH...
|
On February 21 2023 20:11 Acrofales wrote:
Seeing as DPB is a teacher, I'd think Paulo Freire would be a natural fit? It's not really about socialism, but I believe it does describe a route to get there, although changing structures and teaching the next generation to be more capable of standing up to injustice is obviously far too slow to deal with climate change, biodiversity and other aspects of today's unsustainable society. And even if it doesn't resonate in that way with DPB, he might at least pick up ideas to incorporate in his own classroom?
E: I can't believe I'm the one to suggest Freire here, rather than GH...
Thank you for the recommendation
|
On February 21 2023 20:11 Acrofales wrote:
Seeing as DPB is a teacher, I'd think Paulo Freire would be a natural fit? It's not really about socialism, but I believe it does describe a route to get there, although changing structures and teaching the next generation to be more capable of standing up to injustice is obviously far too slow to deal with climate change, biodiversity and other aspects of today's unsustainable society.
E: I can't believe I'm the one to suggest Freire here, rather than GH...
As far as learning about socialism I think it's an excellent place to start. At least a little Marx early is helpful because lots of socialists/communists write/speak as if the audience has at least some familiarity already. Just about any socialist/communist that can make one want to know more is good enough for a start imo. From there one wants to look at who (not just the white people please) dis/agreed over what, when, and why to get a better understanding of the history/meaning of socialism (and capitalism) and start to recognize what "flavor" you're resonating with . That's basically what we all (should) do and it's a perpetual process.
But there's a couple catches. DPB was specifically asking for "Who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society".
Wrapped in that is the rejection of socialism as a "lesser evil" to capitalism admittedly built on a foundation of ignorance of both (particularly the 'cons' of capitalism and 'pros' of socialism I gather). My personal perspective is that it's more practical to start there, and differently than either seeking out a pro-con presentation or even Freire as much as I love him and he potentially fits for DPB (who I'm pretty sure I've recommended him to before?).
If it was a request for a reading list on socialism generally, I don't mind giving some suggestions with some idea what else might be fitting in ways like we'd imagine Freire would be.
|
On February 21 2023 20:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2023 20:11 Acrofales wrote:
Seeing as DPB is a teacher, I'd think Paulo Freire would be a natural fit? It's not really about socialism, but I believe it does describe a route to get there, although changing structures and teaching the next generation to be more capable of standing up to injustice is obviously far too slow to deal with climate change, biodiversity and other aspects of today's unsustainable society.
E: I can't believe I'm the one to suggest Freire here, rather than GH... As far as learning about socialism I think it's an excellent place to start. At least a little Marx early is helpful because lots of socialists/communists write/speak as if the audience has at least some familiarity already. Just about any socialist/communist that can make one want to know more is good enough for a start imo. From there one wants to look at who (not just the white people please) dis/agreed over what, when, and why to get a better understanding of the history/meaning of socialism (and capitalism) and start to recognize what "flavor" you're resonating with . That's basically what we all (should) do and it's a perpetual process. But there's a couple catches. DPB was specifically asking for "Who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society". Wrapped in that is the rejection of socialism as a "lesser evil" to capitalism admittedly built on a foundation of ignorance of both (particularly the 'cons' of capitalism and 'pros' of socialism I gather). My personal perspective is that it's more practical to start there, and differently than either seeking out a pro-con presentation or even Freire as much as I love him and he potentially fits for DPB (who I'm pretty sure I've recommended him to before?). If it was a request for a reading list on socialism generally, I don't mind giving some suggestions with some idea what else might be fitting in ways like we'd imagine Freire would be.
I appreciate the elaboration. I asked about how it would realistically work (or how we could eventually get there) in present-day society because you're advocating for a socialist revolution in the year 2023, in the United States, as opposed to a different era or different country. If it's not a feasible solution - if you're just speaking in purely theoretical terms - then it doesn't sound like it'd be a very good alternative to what the states are currently doing or what else they could be doing in practice.
I asked for a fair assessment of the pros and cons to having socialism in America because I didn't want to assume that there were no pros or no cons. I imagine you probably know some anti-socialist people who wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the cons, being too biased against socialism), and you probably know some pro-socialist people who also wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the pros, being too biased in favor of socialism). I was hoping for a recommendation of someone who you consider to be a fair judge of socialism (regardless of whether or not they identify as socialist). That doesn't mean they need to have the same number of pros and cons when they assess socialism, or think it's equally as good or bad as capitalism.
|
On February 22 2023 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2023 20:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2023 20:11 Acrofales wrote:
Seeing as DPB is a teacher, I'd think Paulo Freire would be a natural fit? It's not really about socialism, but I believe it does describe a route to get there, although changing structures and teaching the next generation to be more capable of standing up to injustice is obviously far too slow to deal with climate change, biodiversity and other aspects of today's unsustainable society.
E: I can't believe I'm the one to suggest Freire here, rather than GH... As far as learning about socialism I think it's an excellent place to start. At least a little Marx early is helpful because lots of socialists/communists write/speak as if the audience has at least some familiarity already. Just about any socialist/communist that can make one want to know more is good enough for a start imo. From there one wants to look at who (not just the white people please) dis/agreed over what, when, and why to get a better understanding of the history/meaning of socialism (and capitalism) and start to recognize what "flavor" you're resonating with . That's basically what we all (should) do and it's a perpetual process. But there's a couple catches. DPB was specifically asking for "Who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society". Wrapped in that is the rejection of socialism as a "lesser evil" to capitalism admittedly built on a foundation of ignorance of both (particularly the 'cons' of capitalism and 'pros' of socialism I gather). My personal perspective is that it's more practical to start there, and differently than either seeking out a pro-con presentation or even Freire as much as I love him and he potentially fits for DPB (who I'm pretty sure I've recommended him to before?). If it was a request for a reading list on socialism generally, I don't mind giving some suggestions with some idea what else might be fitting in ways like we'd imagine Freire would be. I appreciate the elaboration. I asked about how it would realistically work (or how we could eventually get there) in present-day society because you're advocating for a socialist revolution in the year 2023, in the United States, as opposed to a different era or different country. If it's not a feasible solution - if you're just speaking in purely theoretical terms - then it doesn't sound like it'd be a very good alternative to what the states are currently doing or what else they could be doing in practice. I asked for a fair assessment of the pros and cons to having socialism in America because I didn't want to assume that there were no pros or no cons. I imagine you probably know some anti-socialist people who wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the cons, being too biased against socialism), and you probably know some pro-socialist people who also wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the pros, being too biased in favor of socialism). I was hoping for a recommendation of someone who you consider to be a fair judge of socialism (regardless of whether or not they identify as socialist). That doesn't mean they need to have the same number of pros and cons when they assess socialism, or think it's equally as good or bad as capitalism.
That's basically what I presumed. That's part of why I asked for an example of what you're looking for with something you're passionate about, democracy. Another being that I don't think it's a practical way to move forward, particularly if the intent is to better understand socialism (and/or figure out if it's the "lesser evil"). That doesn't seem to be your aim.
It appears you're looking for me to help provide you with 'cons' of socialism to rationalize your ignorant (in the descriptive, not pejorative sense) position that it isn't a "feasible" or a "very good alternative" solution+ Show Spoiler + feasible has slightly different connotations than "realistic" "Realistic" we can at least work with, "feasible" in the "possible to do easily or conveniently" sense, not so much, if for no other reason than capitalists will certainly resist and they are powerful.
Just to clarify, advocating for revolutionary socialism is part of a "socialist revolution" and that part of it starts well before the actual "changing of the guard" to socialists so to speak. So practically speaking I'm not really saying the US is even ready for the latter, but rather that we get there in part through the former. I don't expect people (particularly relatively comfortable white people, speaking generally) to jump straight into revolutionary socialism though. I think it's more practical to focus on establishing that socialism is the "lesser evil" compared to capitalism and to build from there.
|
|
|
On February 22 2023 01:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 22 2023 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2023 20:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2023 20:11 Acrofales wrote:
Seeing as DPB is a teacher, I'd think Paulo Freire would be a natural fit? It's not really about socialism, but I believe it does describe a route to get there, although changing structures and teaching the next generation to be more capable of standing up to injustice is obviously far too slow to deal with climate change, biodiversity and other aspects of today's unsustainable society.
E: I can't believe I'm the one to suggest Freire here, rather than GH... As far as learning about socialism I think it's an excellent place to start. At least a little Marx early is helpful because lots of socialists/communists write/speak as if the audience has at least some familiarity already. Just about any socialist/communist that can make one want to know more is good enough for a start imo. From there one wants to look at who (not just the white people please) dis/agreed over what, when, and why to get a better understanding of the history/meaning of socialism (and capitalism) and start to recognize what "flavor" you're resonating with . That's basically what we all (should) do and it's a perpetual process. But there's a couple catches. DPB was specifically asking for "Who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society". Wrapped in that is the rejection of socialism as a "lesser evil" to capitalism admittedly built on a foundation of ignorance of both (particularly the 'cons' of capitalism and 'pros' of socialism I gather). My personal perspective is that it's more practical to start there, and differently than either seeking out a pro-con presentation or even Freire as much as I love him and he potentially fits for DPB (who I'm pretty sure I've recommended him to before?). If it was a request for a reading list on socialism generally, I don't mind giving some suggestions with some idea what else might be fitting in ways like we'd imagine Freire would be. I appreciate the elaboration. I asked about how it would realistically work (or how we could eventually get there) in present-day society because you're advocating for a socialist revolution in the year 2023, in the United States, as opposed to a different era or different country. If it's not a feasible solution - if you're just speaking in purely theoretical terms - then it doesn't sound like it'd be a very good alternative to what the states are currently doing or what else they could be doing in practice. I asked for a fair assessment of the pros and cons to having socialism in America because I didn't want to assume that there were no pros or no cons. I imagine you probably know some anti-socialist people who wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the cons, being too biased against socialism), and you probably know some pro-socialist people who also wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the pros, being too biased in favor of socialism). I was hoping for a recommendation of someone who you consider to be a fair judge of socialism (regardless of whether or not they identify as socialist). That doesn't mean they need to have the same number of pros and cons when they assess socialism, or think it's equally as good or bad as capitalism. That's basically what I presumed. That's part of why I asked for an example of what you're looking for with something you're passionate about, democracy. Another being that I don't think it's a practical way to move forward, particularly if the intent is to better understand socialism (and/or figure out if it's the "lesser evil"). That doesn't seem to be your aim. It appears you're looking for me to help provide you with 'cons' of socialism to rationalize your ignorant (in the descriptive, not pejorative sense) position that it isn't a "feasible" or a "very good alternative" (feasible has slightly different connotations than "realistic") solution. "Realistic" we can at least work with, "feasible" in the "possible to do easily or conveniently" sense, not so much, if for no other reason than capitalists will certainly resist and they are powerful. Just to clarify, advocating for revolutionary socialism is part of a "socialist revolution" and that part of it starts well before the actual "changing of the guard" to socialists so to speak. So practically speaking I'm not really saying the US is even ready for the latter, but rather that we get there in part through the former. I don't expect people (particularly relatively comfortable white people, speaking generally) to jump straight into revolutionary socialism though. I think it's more practical to focus on establishing that socialism is the "lesser evil" compared to capitalism and to build from there. Wow talk about a non charitble interpretation. You finally hsve some asking you how to go beyond your constant repeating of socialism is good, capitalism is bad and revolution is the only option. Do you go this route because you have nothing other than that? If so I guess I get it. But if you do please take a more charitable read of his request and maybe he does not get it, maybe I do not get it, but eho knows what other posters and lurkers you can convince. And honestly of you can not just stop with the schtick, we get it, its pretty boring at this point to be so surface. Everyone posting in the last pages has like 20k plus posts or the "rookies" have like 4 and 8k. Get beyond the surface shit, we are all interested for you to give us the meat, or just stop.
This is actually a really big problem many leftists have when engaging people who are genuinely interested in learning more about socialism, communism, etc. and as a leftist it frustrates me to no end. Someone is genuinely asking to learn more about leftist ideology and instead of engaging with that person and being an enthusiastic messenger for the cause, we see shit like this. You can't hope to have your "socialist revolution" when you treat people who are asking you for more info on the subject like this. After an interaction like this, most will probably 1) not get the info from a source that will fairly represent leftist ideology and 2) be less likely to engage with leftists in the future.
|
|
|
United States42262 Posts
I’d guess common ownership of natural resources is the simplest way to get people on board with socialism 101.
Someone strikes oil out in one of the Dakotas. Does it belong to
1. The great great grandson of the asshole who genocided a bunch of Indians living there in 1850. He probably deserves a super yacht.
2. The descendants of that tribe collectively. They don’t have the land anymore and it’s been hundreds of years but that’s fair and 1 is an asshole.
3. The tribe who were living there before the first tribe got forcibly migrated onto that land in 1800 and got displaced. That’s even fairer because if 2 trumps 1 then surely 3 trumps 2.
4. Fuck it, just divide the profits up equally between everyone idc.
Most people would probably go with 4 because they get a slice and picking winners and losers based on history and a birth lottery doesn’t appeal to anyone (except those who already won the birth lottery).
Once you’re in with communal resources should be used for the benefit of the community you can just slowly expand the definition of resources. Internet fiber is a natural monopoly but is the internet really a resource? I’d argue yes. The alternative is that a bunch of shareholders who tricked the government into paying for them to lay cable get to suck you dry selling access for shit you need. From there you start forcing companies to engage in profit sharing, worker representation on the board, and so forth because who does the company serve if not the community it operates in.
Gotta back door it over a period of years, just like Fox has with their agenda.
|
On February 22 2023 01:53 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 01:33 StasisField wrote:On February 22 2023 01:12 JimmiC wrote:On February 22 2023 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 22 2023 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2023 20:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2023 20:11 Acrofales wrote:
Seeing as DPB is a teacher, I'd think Paulo Freire would be a natural fit? It's not really about socialism, but I believe it does describe a route to get there, although changing structures and teaching the next generation to be more capable of standing up to injustice is obviously far too slow to deal with climate change, biodiversity and other aspects of today's unsustainable society.
E: I can't believe I'm the one to suggest Freire here, rather than GH... As far as learning about socialism I think it's an excellent place to start. At least a little Marx early is helpful because lots of socialists/communists write/speak as if the audience has at least some familiarity already. Just about any socialist/communist that can make one want to know more is good enough for a start imo. From there one wants to look at who (not just the white people please) dis/agreed over what, when, and why to get a better understanding of the history/meaning of socialism (and capitalism) and start to recognize what "flavor" you're resonating with . That's basically what we all (should) do and it's a perpetual process. But there's a couple catches. DPB was specifically asking for "Who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society". Wrapped in that is the rejection of socialism as a "lesser evil" to capitalism admittedly built on a foundation of ignorance of both (particularly the 'cons' of capitalism and 'pros' of socialism I gather). My personal perspective is that it's more practical to start there, and differently than either seeking out a pro-con presentation or even Freire as much as I love him and he potentially fits for DPB (who I'm pretty sure I've recommended him to before?). If it was a request for a reading list on socialism generally, I don't mind giving some suggestions with some idea what else might be fitting in ways like we'd imagine Freire would be. I appreciate the elaboration. I asked about how it would realistically work (or how we could eventually get there) in present-day society because you're advocating for a socialist revolution in the year 2023, in the United States, as opposed to a different era or different country. If it's not a feasible solution - if you're just speaking in purely theoretical terms - then it doesn't sound like it'd be a very good alternative to what the states are currently doing or what else they could be doing in practice. I asked for a fair assessment of the pros and cons to having socialism in America because I didn't want to assume that there were no pros or no cons. I imagine you probably know some anti-socialist people who wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the cons, being too biased against socialism), and you probably know some pro-socialist people who also wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the pros, being too biased in favor of socialism). I was hoping for a recommendation of someone who you consider to be a fair judge of socialism (regardless of whether or not they identify as socialist). That doesn't mean they need to have the same number of pros and cons when they assess socialism, or think it's equally as good or bad as capitalism. That's basically what I presumed. That's part of why I asked for an example of what you're looking for with something you're passionate about, democracy. Another being that I don't think it's a practical way to move forward, particularly if the intent is to better understand socialism (and/or figure out if it's the "lesser evil"). That doesn't seem to be your aim. It appears you're looking for me to help provide you with 'cons' of socialism to rationalize your ignorant (in the descriptive, not pejorative sense) position that it isn't a "feasible" or a "very good alternative" (feasible has slightly different connotations than "realistic") solution. "Realistic" we can at least work with, "feasible" in the "possible to do easily or conveniently" sense, not so much, if for no other reason than capitalists will certainly resist and they are powerful. Just to clarify, advocating for revolutionary socialism is part of a "socialist revolution" and that part of it starts well before the actual "changing of the guard" to socialists so to speak. So practically speaking I'm not really saying the US is even ready for the latter, but rather that we get there in part through the former. I don't expect people (particularly relatively comfortable white people, speaking generally) to jump straight into revolutionary socialism though. I think it's more practical to focus on establishing that socialism is the "lesser evil" compared to capitalism and to build from there. Wow talk about a non charitble interpretation. You finally hsve some asking you how to go beyond your constant repeating of socialism is good, capitalism is bad and revolution is the only option. Do you go this route because you have nothing other than that? If so I guess I get it. But if you do please take a more charitable read of his request and maybe he does not get it, maybe I do not get it, but eho knows what other posters and lurkers you can convince. And honestly of you can not just stop with the schtick, we get it, its pretty boring at this point to be so surface. Everyone posting in the last pages has like 20k plus posts or the "rookies" have like 4 and 8k. Get beyond the surface shit, we are all interested for you to give us the meat, or just stop. This is actually a really big problem many leftists have when engaging people who are genuinely interested in learning more about socialism, communism, etc. and as a leftist it frustrates me to no end. Someone is genuinely asking to learn more about leftist ideology and instead of engaging with that person and being an enthusiastic messenger for the cause, we see shit like this. You can't hope to have your "socialist revolution" when you treat people who are asking you for more info on the subject like this. After an interaction like this, most will probably 1) not get the info from a source that will fairly represent leftist ideology and 2) be less likely to engage with leftists in the future. I do not understand it at all. If you really wanted the revolution you would need to engage with everyone (even those you thought you had a 1% chance with), in hopes of convincing anyone. It is a numbers game, I'd presume you would want to play to win not to lose. Otherwise you're treating it like the special kids club that only "true believers" can get into, which can make one feel special about themselves but is clearly a terrible plan for moving towards a revolution let alone getting people a little interested.
Yeah I fucking hate lunch table politics. It does nothing to help spread leftist ideals which is the only way to actually facilitate the kind of change people are looking for. A successful socialist movement, however that looks to each person, will require a very large tent, and purity testing and hostility towards those curious to learn more is counter-productive.
|
On February 22 2023 01:33 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 01:12 JimmiC wrote:On February 22 2023 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 22 2023 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2023 20:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2023 20:11 Acrofales wrote:
Seeing as DPB is a teacher, I'd think Paulo Freire would be a natural fit? It's not really about socialism, but I believe it does describe a route to get there, although changing structures and teaching the next generation to be more capable of standing up to injustice is obviously far too slow to deal with climate change, biodiversity and other aspects of today's unsustainable society.
E: I can't believe I'm the one to suggest Freire here, rather than GH... As far as learning about socialism I think it's an excellent place to start. At least a little Marx early is helpful because lots of socialists/communists write/speak as if the audience has at least some familiarity already. Just about any socialist/communist that can make one want to know more is good enough for a start imo. From there one wants to look at who (not just the white people please) dis/agreed over what, when, and why to get a better understanding of the history/meaning of socialism (and capitalism) and start to recognize what "flavor" you're resonating with . That's basically what we all (should) do and it's a perpetual process. But there's a couple catches. DPB was specifically asking for "Who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society". Wrapped in that is the rejection of socialism as a "lesser evil" to capitalism admittedly built on a foundation of ignorance of both (particularly the 'cons' of capitalism and 'pros' of socialism I gather). My personal perspective is that it's more practical to start there, and differently than either seeking out a pro-con presentation or even Freire as much as I love him and he potentially fits for DPB (who I'm pretty sure I've recommended him to before?). If it was a request for a reading list on socialism generally, I don't mind giving some suggestions with some idea what else might be fitting in ways like we'd imagine Freire would be. I appreciate the elaboration. I asked about how it would realistically work (or how we could eventually get there) in present-day society because you're advocating for a socialist revolution in the year 2023, in the United States, as opposed to a different era or different country. If it's not a feasible solution - if you're just speaking in purely theoretical terms - then it doesn't sound like it'd be a very good alternative to what the states are currently doing or what else they could be doing in practice. I asked for a fair assessment of the pros and cons to having socialism in America because I didn't want to assume that there were no pros or no cons. I imagine you probably know some anti-socialist people who wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the cons, being too biased against socialism), and you probably know some pro-socialist people who also wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the pros, being too biased in favor of socialism). I was hoping for a recommendation of someone who you consider to be a fair judge of socialism (regardless of whether or not they identify as socialist). That doesn't mean they need to have the same number of pros and cons when they assess socialism, or think it's equally as good or bad as capitalism. That's basically what I presumed. That's part of why I asked for an example of what you're looking for with something you're passionate about, democracy. Another being that I don't think it's a practical way to move forward, particularly if the intent is to better understand socialism (and/or figure out if it's the "lesser evil"). That doesn't seem to be your aim. It appears you're looking for me to help provide you with 'cons' of socialism to rationalize your ignorant (in the descriptive, not pejorative sense) position that it isn't a "feasible" or a "very good alternative" (feasible has slightly different connotations than "realistic") solution. "Realistic" we can at least work with, "feasible" in the "possible to do easily or conveniently" sense, not so much, if for no other reason than capitalists will certainly resist and they are powerful. Just to clarify, advocating for revolutionary socialism is part of a "socialist revolution" and that part of it starts well before the actual "changing of the guard" to socialists so to speak. So practically speaking I'm not really saying the US is even ready for the latter, but rather that we get there in part through the former. I don't expect people (particularly relatively comfortable white people, speaking generally) to jump straight into revolutionary socialism though. I think it's more practical to focus on establishing that socialism is the "lesser evil" compared to capitalism and to build from there. Wow talk about a non charitble interpretation. You finally hsve some asking you how to go beyond your constant repeating of socialism is good, capitalism is bad and revolution is the only option. Do you go this route because you have nothing other than that? If so I guess I get it. But if you do please take a more charitable read of his request and maybe he does not get it, maybe I do not get it, but eho knows what other posters and lurkers you can convince. And honestly of you can not just stop with the schtick, we get it, its pretty boring at this point to be so surface. Everyone posting in the last pages has like 20k plus posts or the "rookies" have like 4 and 8k. Get beyond the surface shit, we are all interested for you to give us the meat, or just stop. This is actually a really big problem many leftists have when engaging people who are genuinely interested in learning more about socialism, communism, etc. and as a leftist it frustrates me to no end. Someone is genuinely asking to learn more about leftist ideology and instead of engaging with that person and being an enthusiastic messenger for the cause, we see shit like this. You can't hope to have your "socialist revolution" when you treat people who are asking you for more info on the subject like this. After an interaction like this, most will probably 1) not get the info from a source that will fairly represent leftist ideology and 2) be less likely to engage with leftists in the future.
I already said (and already have multiple times including agreeing with the Freire recommendation) that I'd happily provide a reading/watch list or whatever for learning more about socialism, but DPB has reiterated multiple times that the ask was for something more specific.+ Show Spoiler +a fair assessment of the pros and cons to having socialism in America
There's also twoish things being conflated that's important to work through.
1. Whether socialism is the "lesser evil" compared to capitalism
2a. If it is, how do we get there from here.
2b. Is revolutionary socialism the "lesser evil" compared to other interpretations of socialism/ways to get there.
DPB and many people that oppose revolutionary socialism (including myself for most of my life) upon a bit of poking turns out also flat oppose socialism and frequently that opposition is also built on a foundation of ignorance of both socialism, capitalism (also me for most of my life). The question about how we get there is also common among socialists and people that oppose socialism/want capitalism to persist.
DPB also made clear that currently social democracy (perpetual capitalism) is home. As someone that was there not that long ago and having had these conversations...shit probably hundreds of times now over the years (mostly outside of this forum) I've noticed that for me personally it's simply more practical to agree with someone on 1 and then we can move toward a dialectic about the rest.
If DPB is open to being persuaded on 1 (and DPB seemingly was) then I'd happily explore that too. If that's the case then I'd like to start with first establishing a clear and mutual understanding (doesn't mean agreement) of what we're going to be comparing socialism (or some other system anyone wants to pitch) to. Meaning, before we know whether socialism is the "lesser evil" we have to at least reach a mutual understanding of where we're putting capitalism (the system DPB and anyone else of similar positions supports) on the scale.
|
On February 22 2023 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 01:33 StasisField wrote:On February 22 2023 01:12 JimmiC wrote:On February 22 2023 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 22 2023 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2023 20:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2023 20:11 Acrofales wrote:
Seeing as DPB is a teacher, I'd think Paulo Freire would be a natural fit? It's not really about socialism, but I believe it does describe a route to get there, although changing structures and teaching the next generation to be more capable of standing up to injustice is obviously far too slow to deal with climate change, biodiversity and other aspects of today's unsustainable society.
E: I can't believe I'm the one to suggest Freire here, rather than GH... As far as learning about socialism I think it's an excellent place to start. At least a little Marx early is helpful because lots of socialists/communists write/speak as if the audience has at least some familiarity already. Just about any socialist/communist that can make one want to know more is good enough for a start imo. From there one wants to look at who (not just the white people please) dis/agreed over what, when, and why to get a better understanding of the history/meaning of socialism (and capitalism) and start to recognize what "flavor" you're resonating with . That's basically what we all (should) do and it's a perpetual process. But there's a couple catches. DPB was specifically asking for "Who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society". Wrapped in that is the rejection of socialism as a "lesser evil" to capitalism admittedly built on a foundation of ignorance of both (particularly the 'cons' of capitalism and 'pros' of socialism I gather). My personal perspective is that it's more practical to start there, and differently than either seeking out a pro-con presentation or even Freire as much as I love him and he potentially fits for DPB (who I'm pretty sure I've recommended him to before?). If it was a request for a reading list on socialism generally, I don't mind giving some suggestions with some idea what else might be fitting in ways like we'd imagine Freire would be. I appreciate the elaboration. I asked about how it would realistically work (or how we could eventually get there) in present-day society because you're advocating for a socialist revolution in the year 2023, in the United States, as opposed to a different era or different country. If it's not a feasible solution - if you're just speaking in purely theoretical terms - then it doesn't sound like it'd be a very good alternative to what the states are currently doing or what else they could be doing in practice. I asked for a fair assessment of the pros and cons to having socialism in America because I didn't want to assume that there were no pros or no cons. I imagine you probably know some anti-socialist people who wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the cons, being too biased against socialism), and you probably know some pro-socialist people who also wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the pros, being too biased in favor of socialism). I was hoping for a recommendation of someone who you consider to be a fair judge of socialism (regardless of whether or not they identify as socialist). That doesn't mean they need to have the same number of pros and cons when they assess socialism, or think it's equally as good or bad as capitalism. That's basically what I presumed. That's part of why I asked for an example of what you're looking for with something you're passionate about, democracy. Another being that I don't think it's a practical way to move forward, particularly if the intent is to better understand socialism (and/or figure out if it's the "lesser evil"). That doesn't seem to be your aim. It appears you're looking for me to help provide you with 'cons' of socialism to rationalize your ignorant (in the descriptive, not pejorative sense) position that it isn't a "feasible" or a "very good alternative" (feasible has slightly different connotations than "realistic") solution. "Realistic" we can at least work with, "feasible" in the "possible to do easily or conveniently" sense, not so much, if for no other reason than capitalists will certainly resist and they are powerful. Just to clarify, advocating for revolutionary socialism is part of a "socialist revolution" and that part of it starts well before the actual "changing of the guard" to socialists so to speak. So practically speaking I'm not really saying the US is even ready for the latter, but rather that we get there in part through the former. I don't expect people (particularly relatively comfortable white people, speaking generally) to jump straight into revolutionary socialism though. I think it's more practical to focus on establishing that socialism is the "lesser evil" compared to capitalism and to build from there. Wow talk about a non charitble interpretation. You finally hsve some asking you how to go beyond your constant repeating of socialism is good, capitalism is bad and revolution is the only option. Do you go this route because you have nothing other than that? If so I guess I get it. But if you do please take a more charitable read of his request and maybe he does not get it, maybe I do not get it, but eho knows what other posters and lurkers you can convince. And honestly of you can not just stop with the schtick, we get it, its pretty boring at this point to be so surface. Everyone posting in the last pages has like 20k plus posts or the "rookies" have like 4 and 8k. Get beyond the surface shit, we are all interested for you to give us the meat, or just stop. This is actually a really big problem many leftists have when engaging people who are genuinely interested in learning more about socialism, communism, etc. and as a leftist it frustrates me to no end. Someone is genuinely asking to learn more about leftist ideology and instead of engaging with that person and being an enthusiastic messenger for the cause, we see shit like this. You can't hope to have your "socialist revolution" when you treat people who are asking you for more info on the subject like this. After an interaction like this, most will probably 1) not get the info from a source that will fairly represent leftist ideology and 2) be less likely to engage with leftists in the future. I already said (and already have multiple times including agreeing with the Freire recommendation) that I'd happily provide a reading/watch list or whatever for learning more about socialism, but DPB has reiterated multiple times that the ask was for something more specific. + Show Spoiler +a fair assessment of the pros and cons to having socialism in America . If anyone thinks they have something for that more specific ask, I welcome/implore them to bring it forth for all our benefit. There's also twoish things being conflated that's important to work through. 1. Whether socialism is the "lesser evil" compared to capitalism 2a. If it is, how do we get there from here. 2b. Is revolutionary socialism the "lesser evil" compared to other interpretations of socialism/ways to get there. DPB and many people that oppose revolutionary socialism (including myself for most of my life) upon a bit of poking turns out also flat oppose socialism and frequently that opposition is also built on a foundation of ignorance of both socialism, capitalism (also me for most of my life). The question about how we get there is also common among socialists and people that oppose socialism/want capitalism to persist. DPB also made clear that currently social democracy (perpetual capitalism) is home. As someone that was there not that long ago and having had these conversations...shit probably hundreds of times now over the years (mostly outside of this forum) I've noticed that for me personally it's simply more practical to agree with someone on 1 and then we can move toward a dialectic about the rest. If DPB is open to being persuaded on 1 (and DPB seemingly was) then I'd happily explore that too. If that's the case then I'd like to start with first establishing a clear and mutual understanding (doesn't mean agreement) of what we're going to be comparing socialism (or some other system anyone wants to pitch) to. Meaning, before we know whether socialism is the "lesser evil" we have to at least reach a mutual understanding of where we're putting capitalism (the system DPB and anyone else of similar positions supports) on the scale.
To the first paragraph, you can always say you don't think you have a resource that matches what they're asking for. Instead, you danced around and avoided providing anything substantive. You also stated you thought DPB was looking for you to provide them a list of cons for socialism so they could rationalize their position that socialism isn't feasible/realistic. I don't see how you could have come to such a noncharitable conclusion without assuming some amount of dishonesty in DPB's posts. I would understand coming to this conclusion for certain users, but DPB has never come across as dishonest to me. I don't think you are as open to a discussion as you say you are.
|
|
|
@GH: My biggest question about what a post-revolution socialist society: to what degree is it democratic? I think you’d say, for instance, that our current government is nominally democratic, but the levers of power are sufficiently removed that it’s impossible to enact a version socialism you’d accept by democratic means. Even if it’s popular, even if it stays popular for a long period, even if it’s a high priority issue for lots of voters, the machinery of government is (maybe intentionally) incapable of making the change.
But like, we’re talking about making less car-dependent cities. I don’t doubt socialists love bikes, but to actually get there we’re talking about a lot of local government issues (zoning laws! public works funding! housing!), and on that scale, democratic government fails on these issues often because of things like NIMBYism rather than some nefarious corporate lobbyist. If we’re still democratic, how will we address those issues in the new system?
Alternatively, a place like the USSR generally addressed these issues with some form of central planning. I’m not well-studied in the history here, but my impression is that central planning combined with unelected public officials was a recipe for a lot of petty tyrants, who had a lot of power on the local level and basically no accountability. If we’re not democratic in the post-revolution, how would we avoid these petty tyrants?
|
On February 22 2023 05:57 ChristianS wrote:
@GH: My biggest question about what a post-revolution socialist society: to what degree is it democratic? I think you’d say, for instance, that our current government is nominally democratic, but the levers of power are sufficiently removed that it’s impossible to enact a version socialism you’d accept by democratic means. Even if it’s popular, even if it stays popular for a long period, even if it’s a high priority issue for lots of voters, the machinery of government is (maybe intentionally) incapable of making the change.
But like, we’re talking about making less car-dependent cities. I don’t doubt socialists love bikes, but to actually get there we’re talking about a lot of local government issues (zoning laws! public works funding! housing!), and on that scale, democratic government fails on these issues often because of things like NIMBYism rather than some nefarious corporate lobbyist. If we’re still democratic, how will we address those issues in the new system?
Alternatively, a place like the USSR generally addressed these issues with some form of central planning. I’m not well-studied in the history here, but my impression is that central planning combined with unelected public officials was a recipe for a lot of petty tyrants, who had a lot of power on the local level and basically no accountability. If we’re not democratic in the post-revolution, how would we avoid these petty tyrants?
First I'd ask where we're at? As in, do you see socialism as a "lesser evil" to capitalism?
|
On February 22 2023 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 05:57 ChristianS wrote:
@GH: My biggest question about what a post-revolution socialist society: to what degree is it democratic? I think you’d say, for instance, that our current government is nominally democratic, but the levers of power are sufficiently removed that it’s impossible to enact a version socialism you’d accept by democratic means. Even if it’s popular, even if it stays popular for a long period, even if it’s a high priority issue for lots of voters, the machinery of government is (maybe intentionally) incapable of making the change.
But like, we’re talking about making less car-dependent cities. I don’t doubt socialists love bikes, but to actually get there we’re talking about a lot of local government issues (zoning laws! public works funding! housing!), and on that scale, democratic government fails on these issues often because of things like NIMBYism rather than some nefarious corporate lobbyist. If we’re still democratic, how will we address those issues in the new system?
Alternatively, a place like the USSR generally addressed these issues with some form of central planning. I’m not well-studied in the history here, but my impression is that central planning combined with unelected public officials was a recipe for a lot of petty tyrants, who had a lot of power on the local level and basically no accountability. If we’re not democratic in the post-revolution, how would we avoid these petty tyrants? First I'd ask where we're at? As in, do you see socialism as "the lesser evil" to capitalism?
I usually don’t know what it means. I think most of the things I’d like to see in the world are policies that, say, my grandparents would call “socialist.” I’m not sure what it would look like to seize the means of production, but I certainly think the current owners are poor stewards. On the other hand most people I see calling themselves socialist on Twitter seem mostly interested in yelling about problems. They might tell me NIMBYism is problematic but I don’t think they actually have ideas about how to structure local government to avoid it.
I mean I think the short answer might be “yes” but I’m asking partly to find out more about what this “lesser evil to capitalism” might look like.
|
On February 22 2023 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2023 20:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2023 20:11 Acrofales wrote:
Seeing as DPB is a teacher, I'd think Paulo Freire would be a natural fit? It's not really about socialism, but I believe it does describe a route to get there, although changing structures and teaching the next generation to be more capable of standing up to injustice is obviously far too slow to deal with climate change, biodiversity and other aspects of today's unsustainable society.
E: I can't believe I'm the one to suggest Freire here, rather than GH... As far as learning about socialism I think it's an excellent place to start. At least a little Marx early is helpful because lots of socialists/communists write/speak as if the audience has at least some familiarity already. Just about any socialist/communist that can make one want to know more is good enough for a start imo. From there one wants to look at who (not just the white people please) dis/agreed over what, when, and why to get a better understanding of the history/meaning of socialism (and capitalism) and start to recognize what "flavor" you're resonating with . That's basically what we all (should) do and it's a perpetual process. But there's a couple catches. DPB was specifically asking for "Who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society". Wrapped in that is the rejection of socialism as a "lesser evil" to capitalism admittedly built on a foundation of ignorance of both (particularly the 'cons' of capitalism and 'pros' of socialism I gather). My personal perspective is that it's more practical to start there, and differently than either seeking out a pro-con presentation or even Freire as much as I love him and he potentially fits for DPB (who I'm pretty sure I've recommended him to before?). If it was a request for a reading list on socialism generally, I don't mind giving some suggestions with some idea what else might be fitting in ways like we'd imagine Freire would be. I appreciate the elaboration. I asked about how it would realistically work (or how we could eventually get there) in present-day society because you're advocating for a socialist revolution in the year 2023, in the United States, as opposed to a different era or different country. If it's not a feasible solution - if you're just speaking in purely theoretical terms - then it doesn't sound like it'd be a very good alternative to what the states are currently doing or what else they could be doing in practice. I asked for a fair assessment of the pros and cons to having socialism in America because I didn't want to assume that there were no pros or no cons. I imagine you probably know some anti-socialist people who wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the cons, being too biased against socialism), and you probably know some pro-socialist people who also wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the pros, being too biased in favor of socialism). I was hoping for a recommendation of someone who you consider to be a fair judge of socialism (regardless of whether or not they identify as socialist). That doesn't mean they need to have the same number of pros and cons when they assess socialism, or think it's equally as good or bad as capitalism. That's basically what I presumed. That's part of why I asked for an example of what you're looking for with something you're passionate about, democracy. Another being that I don't think it's a practical way to move forward, particularly if the intent is to better understand socialism (and/or figure out if it's the "lesser evil"). That doesn't seem to be your aim. It appears you're looking for me to help provide you with 'cons' of socialism to rationalize your ignorant (in the descriptive, not pejorative sense) position that it isn't a "feasible" or a "very good alternative" solution+ Show Spoiler + feasible has slightly different connotations than "realistic" "Realistic" we can at least work with, "feasible" in the "possible to do easily or conveniently" sense, not so much, if for no other reason than capitalists will certainly resist and they are powerful.
Just to clarify, advocating for revolutionary socialism is part of a "socialist revolution" and that part of it starts well before the actual "changing of the guard" to socialists so to speak. So practically speaking I'm not really saying the US is even ready for the latter, but rather that we get there in part through the former. I don't expect people (particularly relatively comfortable white people, speaking generally) to jump straight into revolutionary socialism though. I think it's more practical to focus on establishing that socialism is the "lesser evil" compared to capitalism and to build from there.
I'm not sure what I've said that makes you think that I'm asking you for cons just so I can dismiss socialism with a cavalier "see? even you admit that it's not perfect!" attitude. I'm asking for both pros and cons because I think it's generally a reasonable premise that something as complex as political and economic theories can have both benefits and drawbacks attached to them. If that assumption of mine is incorrect - if you believe that socialism (when done ideally / correctly / perfectly by your standards / whatever you want) has no disadvantages at all - then by all means, tell me so (along with what the advantages are).
On February 22 2023 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 01:33 StasisField wrote:On February 22 2023 01:12 JimmiC wrote:On February 22 2023 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 22 2023 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2023 20:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2023 20:11 Acrofales wrote:
Seeing as DPB is a teacher, I'd think Paulo Freire would be a natural fit? It's not really about socialism, but I believe it does describe a route to get there, although changing structures and teaching the next generation to be more capable of standing up to injustice is obviously far too slow to deal with climate change, biodiversity and other aspects of today's unsustainable society.
E: I can't believe I'm the one to suggest Freire here, rather than GH... As far as learning about socialism I think it's an excellent place to start. At least a little Marx early is helpful because lots of socialists/communists write/speak as if the audience has at least some familiarity already. Just about any socialist/communist that can make one want to know more is good enough for a start imo. From there one wants to look at who (not just the white people please) dis/agreed over what, when, and why to get a better understanding of the history/meaning of socialism (and capitalism) and start to recognize what "flavor" you're resonating with . That's basically what we all (should) do and it's a perpetual process. But there's a couple catches. DPB was specifically asking for "Who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society". Wrapped in that is the rejection of socialism as a "lesser evil" to capitalism admittedly built on a foundation of ignorance of both (particularly the 'cons' of capitalism and 'pros' of socialism I gather). My personal perspective is that it's more practical to start there, and differently than either seeking out a pro-con presentation or even Freire as much as I love him and he potentially fits for DPB (who I'm pretty sure I've recommended him to before?). If it was a request for a reading list on socialism generally, I don't mind giving some suggestions with some idea what else might be fitting in ways like we'd imagine Freire would be. I appreciate the elaboration. I asked about how it would realistically work (or how we could eventually get there) in present-day society because you're advocating for a socialist revolution in the year 2023, in the United States, as opposed to a different era or different country. If it's not a feasible solution - if you're just speaking in purely theoretical terms - then it doesn't sound like it'd be a very good alternative to what the states are currently doing or what else they could be doing in practice. I asked for a fair assessment of the pros and cons to having socialism in America because I didn't want to assume that there were no pros or no cons. I imagine you probably know some anti-socialist people who wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the cons, being too biased against socialism), and you probably know some pro-socialist people who also wouldn't give a fair evaluation of socialism (perhaps they focus only on the pros, being too biased in favor of socialism). I was hoping for a recommendation of someone who you consider to be a fair judge of socialism (regardless of whether or not they identify as socialist). That doesn't mean they need to have the same number of pros and cons when they assess socialism, or think it's equally as good or bad as capitalism. That's basically what I presumed. That's part of why I asked for an example of what you're looking for with something you're passionate about, democracy. Another being that I don't think it's a practical way to move forward, particularly if the intent is to better understand socialism (and/or figure out if it's the "lesser evil"). That doesn't seem to be your aim. It appears you're looking for me to help provide you with 'cons' of socialism to rationalize your ignorant (in the descriptive, not pejorative sense) position that it isn't a "feasible" or a "very good alternative" (feasible has slightly different connotations than "realistic") solution. "Realistic" we can at least work with, "feasible" in the "possible to do easily or conveniently" sense, not so much, if for no other reason than capitalists will certainly resist and they are powerful. Just to clarify, advocating for revolutionary socialism is part of a "socialist revolution" and that part of it starts well before the actual "changing of the guard" to socialists so to speak. So practically speaking I'm not really saying the US is even ready for the latter, but rather that we get there in part through the former. I don't expect people (particularly relatively comfortable white people, speaking generally) to jump straight into revolutionary socialism though. I think it's more practical to focus on establishing that socialism is the "lesser evil" compared to capitalism and to build from there. Wow talk about a non charitble interpretation. You finally hsve some asking you how to go beyond your constant repeating of socialism is good, capitalism is bad and revolution is the only option. Do you go this route because you have nothing other than that? If so I guess I get it. But if you do please take a more charitable read of his request and maybe he does not get it, maybe I do not get it, but eho knows what other posters and lurkers you can convince. And honestly of you can not just stop with the schtick, we get it, its pretty boring at this point to be so surface. Everyone posting in the last pages has like 20k plus posts or the "rookies" have like 4 and 8k. Get beyond the surface shit, we are all interested for you to give us the meat, or just stop. This is actually a really big problem many leftists have when engaging people who are genuinely interested in learning more about socialism, communism, etc. and as a leftist it frustrates me to no end. Someone is genuinely asking to learn more about leftist ideology and instead of engaging with that person and being an enthusiastic messenger for the cause, we see shit like this. You can't hope to have your "socialist revolution" when you treat people who are asking you for more info on the subject like this. After an interaction like this, most will probably 1) not get the info from a source that will fairly represent leftist ideology and 2) be less likely to engage with leftists in the future. I already said (and already have multiple times including agreeing with the Freire recommendation) that I'd happily provide a reading/watch list or whatever for learning more about socialism, but DPB has reiterated multiple times that the ask was for something more specific. + Show Spoiler +a fair assessment of the pros and cons to having socialism in America . If anyone thinks they have something for that more specific ask, I welcome/implore them to bring it forth for all our benefit. There's also twoish things being conflated that's important to work through. 1. Whether socialism is the "lesser evil" compared to capitalism
2a. If it is, how do we get there from here.
2b. Is revolutionary socialism the "lesser evil" compared to other interpretations of socialism/ways to get there. DPB and many people that oppose revolutionary socialism (including myself for most of my life) upon a bit of poking turns out also flat oppose socialism and frequently that opposition is also built on a foundation of ignorance of both socialism, capitalism (also me for most of my life). The question about how we get there is also common among socialists and people that oppose socialism/want capitalism to persist. DPB also made clear that currently social democracy (perpetual capitalism) is home. As someone that was there not that long ago and having had these conversations...shit probably hundreds of times now over the years (mostly outside of this forum) I've noticed that for me personally it's simply more practical to agree with someone on 1 and then we can move toward a dialectic about the rest. If DPB is open to being persuaded on 1 (and DPB seemingly was) then I'd happily explore that too. If that's the case then I'd like to start with first establishing a clear and mutual understanding (doesn't mean agreement) of what we're going to be comparing socialism (or some other system anyone wants to pitch) to. Meaning, before we know whether socialism is the "lesser evil" we have to at least reach a mutual understanding of where we're putting capitalism (the system DPB and anyone else of similar positions supports) on the scale.
1, 2a, and 2b are all interesting questions to me. Again, as someone who's essentially a blank state in regards to socialism, I don't even know what interesting questions there are to ask, let alone what their answers are.
I believe that you asking me the mirrored questions of "what would be a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism capitalism and/or democracy" were made in good faith, and while I don't feel well-read enough on either of those topics to provide an adequate response (certainly not to the level that you could do with socialism, and I'm not actually looking for a debate over these topics anyway - just to learn), let me give you a blank that I feel more comfortable filling:
"What would be a fair assessment of the pros and cons of charter schools in America" is a topic where I think I could do a reasonable job of representing both sides (although I'm not interested in having that discussion right now, and, of course, I could be wrong about my own ability to represent both sides lol), even though my personal position is more Against charter schools than it is For charter schools (based on how I subjectively weigh each of the pros and cons). As a parallel, I would imagine that you could probably do a good job of steelmanning both the For and Against sides of socialism (or pointing to another socialist who could do that), despite the fact that your (or their) personal position is more For than Against. That's why I asked you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
