Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gentlefish]

Funnily enough, an anarcho-syndicalist takeover doesn't happen through (conventional) policy.

It'll happen with the strengthening of unions and the rise of worker co-ops in a free market system (i.e the one we have now). The only difference between a social free market and a capitalist free market is that there would be no wallstreet stock exchange, as businesses are all owned internally, through the workers. CEOs and other higher positions are then beholden to the workers and not some outside influence, pushing away from short-term profits to long-term growth as stockholder preferences.

Interestingly enough, that would mean a more stable economy, not only because of less exploitation of rules for a quick buck, but also because profit would be divested into the workers instead of hoarded at the top.

[balrogkernel]

when do you all think all information and actions that we take are going to be referenced and cataloged?  i'm guessing by 2080?  anybody else think that this is the primary motivator and the 'emerging market' buzzword that i keep hearing about and is never explained?

[sluissa]

Funnily enough, an anarcho-syndicalist takeover doesn't happen through (conventional) policy.

It'll happen with the strengthening of unions and the rise of worker co-ops in a free market system (i.e the one we have now). The only difference between a social free market and a capitalist free market is that there would be no wallstreet stock exchange, as businesses are all owned internally, through the workers. CEOs and other higher positions are then beholden to the workers and not some outside influence, pushing away from short-term profits to long-term growth as stockholder preferences.

Interestingly enough, that would mean a more stable economy, not only because of less exploitation of rules for a quick buck, but also because profit would be divested into the workers instead of hoarded at the top.

What's to stop workers from seeking short term profits over long term stability if they're directly benefiting? You already see evidence of this happening. For a quick example, truck drivers keeping two log books, one for the law, and one to get paid by. If they're caught, that's the long term stability out the door. They're prioritizing short term profits. And that happens even without a company breathing down their necks... although the ones that are beholden to companies often are pushed to do that as well.

I'm not saying it would make things worse, but don't oversell it. Overselling it is the first step in making someone mad at the system when it doesn't work exactly as you say.

[smjjames]

And yet, nobody hesitates to call themselves "capitalists" despite the monstrous things done by capitalist countries and organizations. I'm tired of the semantic treadmill. Socialism is socialism, and if someone is so ignorant as to not know what it means, they aren't really worth debating.

The problem is that the word Socialism is ambiguous as it refers to a fairly diverse range of social and economic models and activities. Ambiguity in communication is bad as it proliferates misunderstandings. There's nothing wrong with using the term amongst people with a common understanding of it, but once you're communicating to a wider audience you need to consider whether it is the most effective means of getting your point across. Sometimes it will be, usually it won't. But if you don't actually care about changing the world and are just interested in virtue signalling, the word is extremely effective.

Exactly, it just seems like there are 300 million definitions of ‘socialism’ because it keeps getting used for things that obviously clearly aren’t socialism or just get used in the ‘Red Scare’ sense.

@thompsons later post: Talking about political systems is certainly relevant in this thread, especially given how conservatives are treating it and the fact that both sides are running in the opposite direction from each other. It’s a subject in national conversation, especially as the Democrats find their path forward, so, why not discuss it here.

[SalmonGod]

Those are reasonable definitions of what Socialism and Communism are trying to achieve, but we're still talking about ideologies here. What society needs to be talking about is policy.

I'm not so confident about this...... I think much of the conflict between the right and the left has to do with what they fundamentally want society to offer to its people.  Everyone will almost universally acquiesce to vague notions about needing to find the solutions that produce the best results for everyone, but many aren't being genuine when they do so.  They're going along with it to not get thrown out of the conversation, so they can continue to poison it.

With this in mind, talking ideology is important.  Agreement on policy is suspect between two people who want fundamentally different outcomes.  And if you don't even know that disagreement is there, you're likely the one getting played.

Alt-Right Playbook: Always a Bigger Fish

[smjjames]

Is there even agreement on the right on what the definition of 'Socialism' and 'Communism' other than 'Communism/Socialism is bad' and 'KILL IT WITH FIRE!'? It's often thrown in when talking about policy when they don't want or maybe can't discuss the nuances and, for example why they think the right for everybody to have healthcare is socialism and bad.

That said though, the left often has the same problem with not explaining the nuances in order to distingush from what the Republicans/Conservatives are throwing out.

[Lord Shonus]

I'm not so confident about this...... I think much of the conflict between the right and the left has to do with what they fundamentally want society to offer to its people.

Not always. In many, many cases, both the left and the right are in solid agreement about what the problem is, but disagree heavily on how to solve it.

Health care is a good example. You will find very few people that claim the current healthcare system in the US is as good as it can be. Both sides of the aisle agree that reform is needed. The great argument is how to accomplish that reform. The right believes that health care reform will be best accomplished by increasing market pressures, and bringing the government into it will just fuck things up even worse. The left believes that trying to solve it with a market solution will just fuck things up even worse, and the best solution is heavy government influence.

[smjjames]

*has a wild idea*

Maybe both at the same time, just on different aspects? No clue how that’d work though. Maybe allow the private ones to exist at the same time as the single payer (or whichever the heavy government influence one is called) version? Australia does something like that I think.

[SalmonGod]

I'm not so confident about this...... I think much of the conflict between the right and the left has to do with what they fundamentally want society to offer to its people.

Not always. In many, many cases, both the left and the right are in solid agreement about what the problem is, but disagree heavily on how to solve it.

Health care is a good example. You will find very few people that claim the current healthcare system in the US is as good as it can be. Both sides of the aisle agree that reform is needed. The great argument is how to accomplish that reform. The right believes that health care reform will be best accomplished by increasing market pressures, and bringing the government into it will just fuck things up even worse. The left believes that trying to solve it with a market solution will just fuck things up even worse, and the best solution is heavy government influence.

This is often true, yes...

I've been in plenty of discussions with more conservative folks who just have different ideas about what the outcomes of a policy will be.

But... plenty will also involve themselves in that same conversation, cloaked in the presumption that they're just another case of this.  But really they actually want bad things to happen to people or believe that a class of poor dying preventably fits with their concept of natural order.  That person can easily blend in with the crowd who earnestly doesn't believe a policy will work, while injecting bad information and junk into the conversation to maintain that disagreement indefinitely.

[Teneb]

*has a wild idea*

Maybe both at the same time, just on different aspects? No clue how that’d work though. Maybe allow the private ones to exist at the same time as the single payer (or whichever the heavy government influence one is called) version? Australia does something like that I think.

Problem is that this inevitable results in lobbyists who seek to undermine public healthcare to maximize private healthcare profits.

[Frumple]

*has a wild idea*

Maybe both at the same time, just on different aspects? No clue how that’d work though. Maybe allow the private ones to exist at the same time as the single payer (or whichever the heavy government influence one is called) version? Australia does something like that I think.

Most sane healthcare systems allow for some form of private insurance to continue to exist, yes. Your idea isn't wild, it's standard operating procedure.

For all parts of the issue are complicated, some of the shit is real simple. Healthcare requiring heavy non-profit-focused controls to not function like a goddamn nightmare is one of them.

[smjjames]

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/438354-mcconnell-dismisses-medicare-for-all-not-while-gop-controls-senate

*sigh* McConnell, just WHAT is wrong with having medicare available for everybody? What is socialist about medicare? What is socialist about the right to healthcare? THIS kind of throwing around the word 'socialism' is what frustrates me so much about the current political climate. Not medicare specifically, it's just the current example of it being thrown around meaninglessly.

[Trekkin]

"It ought to be Medicare for none" will play interestingly in the election with the "keep ya damn gubmit hands offa mah Meddycayre" crowd, to be sure.

[Frumple]

... like, amusingly enough but a government controlled insurance provider (medicaid/medicare, loosely speaking) actually is kinda' socialist?

It's just that's a good thing because capitalism is structurally incapable of doing pretty much anything except fucking up healthcare.

As for what's "wrong" with it, well. It's the goddamn GOP. It (maybe) means healthcare for the poor, the brown, and women. Can't fucking have that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You should listen to Mitch, he shows how it absolutely is socialist. Ultimately, any element of society that does not maximize capital growth must be consumed by it for that purpose, and in increasingly shorter cycles. You can talk about enlightened self-interest among capitalists and that does exist, but it's inherently weak and useless much like the Democratic Party when compared to the reaver mindset of the GOP.

If you want anything but to be consumed, you have to attack capitalism head on to get it. The rich understand this perfectly, and it's long past time the rest of us do as well.