|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
and like I know this is all about capitalism in the "private ownership of capital" sense because the questioner is a socialist given that he joined/was recruited by DSA after the fact which calls for ending private ownership of capital
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:and like I know this is all about capitalism in the "private ownership of capital" sense because the questioner is a socialist given that he joined/was recruited by DSA after the fact which calls for ending private ownership of capital Again, the fact that Pelosi does not agree with the DSA's goal of ending private ownership of capital is not why most people are criticizing Pelosi.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:and like I know this is all about capitalism in the "private ownership of capital" sense because the questioner is a socialist given that he joined/was recruited by DSA after the fact which calls for ending private ownership of capital How exactly do you think the DSA goes around "recruiting" people?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
I don't really understand why people feel that any criticism of capitalism has to automatically be taken as implicit support for a socialist revolution. Capitalism is a deeply flawed system that has resulted in incredible amounts of exploitation, suffering, and death. I can say that without advocating for any specific replacement. Capitalism is probably salvageable, but you kind of need to acknowledge how bad it is right now if you want to even begin that discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:and like I know this is all about capitalism in the "private ownership of capital" sense because the questioner is a socialist given that he joined/was recruited by DSA after the fact which calls for ending private ownership of capital There is no call for ending private ownership of capital anywhere on the page you linked, because that is not what the DSA believes in or advocates for. Did you read your source?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I don't really understand why people feel that any criticism of capitalism has to automatically be taken as implicit support for a socialist revolution. Capitalism is a deeply flawed system that has resulted in incredible amounts of exploitation, suffering, and death. I can say that without advocating for any specific replacement. Capitalism is probably salvageable, but you kind of need to acknowledge how bad it is right now if you want to even begin that discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Capitalism is probably salvageable, but you kind of need to acknowledge how bad it is right now if you want to even begin that discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Actually that's horsehsit. The best way for a poor country to advance is to engage in central planning and industrialize from there. Certainly helped ROK. Trade helped ROK. Paradoxish posted:I don't really understand why people feel that any criticism of capitalism has to automatically be taken as implicit support for a socialist revolution. Capitalism is a deeply flawed system that has resulted in incredible amounts of exploitation, suffering, and death. I can say that without advocating for any specific replacement. Capitalism is probably salvageable, but you kind of need to acknowledge how bad it is right now if you want to even begin that discussion. Bad compared to what?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:
Compared with what it theoretically pertains to offer people living under it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why do new democrats think exploiting the third world is charity now? multinationals that use sweatshops aren't uplifting poo poo. in fact, they and their sympathizers frequently act to keep workers from advancing their labor rights. Friendly reminder;. Hillary supports micro lending, which only serves to cement the poor's positions of debt and enrich whites.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Friendly reminder;. Hillary supports micro lending, which only serves to cement the poor's positions of debt and enrich whites. And there's billboards for these loans all over places like Accra, Ghana - creating an entire market of sellers with nobody to buy, keeping people in perpetual debt. It's an absolute shitshow.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Wrt to ownership of capital I like Norway's and Singapore's system of government sovereign wealth funds that own a significant portion of their respective economies and distribute the wealth back to the people rather than the 1 percent who own most of the capital. It does away with the problem of soviet style command and control style economies that doesnt have a price signal to help allocate resources and does away with the capitalist problem of enriching only an elite few. Also worker owned coops are cool and good as well.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:There is no call for ending private ownership of capital anywhere on the page you linked, because that is not what the DSA believes in or advocates for. Did you read your source? Right there in the first question, dude. quote:Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. That's talking about workers controlling the means of production. Just because it's not centrally planned doesn't mean it's not ending private ownership of capital.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Trade helped ROK.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:And there's billboards for these loans all over places like Accra, Ghana - creating an entire market of sellers with nobody to buy, keeping people in perpetual debt. It's an absolute shitshow. Saw this book at my local Goodwill and felt sick: https://www.amazon.com/Billion-Bootstraps-Microcredit-Barefoot-Business/dp/0071489975
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Bad compared to what? "Bad" meaning that it has produced socially undesirable outcomes including growing wealth and income inequality, ongoing exploitation of the developing world, and market failures which have led to environmental catastrophe. There doesn't need to be some ideal economic system to compare capitalism to in order to say that these are all terrible outcomes. That was kind of my point.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:How exactly do you think the DSA goes around "recruiting" people? They specifically reached out to him to get him to sign up?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:"Bad" meaning that it has produced socially undesirable outcomes including growing wealth and income inequality, ongoing exploitation of the developing world, and market failures which have led to environmental catastrophe. There doesn't need to be some ideal economic system to compare capitalism to in order to say that these are all terrible outcomes. That was kind of my point. I think there does because as far as I'm aware every type of human society for all of history has had heavy doses of despair, misery and destruction (plenty of environmental degradation too) and it seems like a disease of the modern era to lose resolution and actionable information by shading everything "bad". Trump was brought to us by "it can't get worse". But it can get far far far worse than modern liberal capitalist democracy.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Well regulated industry and human rights don't just magic into existence. they result from decades of labor struggle. Yep, things like the 8 hour workday were fought for. But I completely agree that we should be helping labor movements around the world, I wish America would do good things like that again. A Buttery Pastry posted:Capitalism is not salvageable, it must by its very nature corrupt and undermine any system which seeks to tame it. The only way I can see capitalism working, in theory, is to be heavily, heavily regulated. But that requires a government to permanently keep those regulations in place. I'd rather move away from capitalism into a different economic model, however the difficulty is getting from capitalism -> whatever. I know those of us who hate capitalism scoff at incrementalism, but I'm not sure I'm convinced of a one way capitalism->socialism->communism. There are many different paths to a more just society. EDIT: VVVV Well said. Confounding Factor fucked around with this message at 22:00 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I think there does because as far as I'm aware every type of human society for all of history has had heavy doses of despair, misery and destruction (plenty of environmental degradation too) and it seems like a disease of the modern era to lose resolution and actionable information by shading everything "bad". Trump was brought to us by "it can't get worse". But it can get far far far worse than modern liberal capitalist democracy. Nowhere in either of my posts did I suggest that things couldn't be worse or that capitalism hasn't produced any benefits. I'm not suggesting a return to feudalism or a transition into a corporate dystopia because gently caress it, it can't get any worse, right? Our economic system as it stands today produces outcomes which do not in any way align with our social ideals of equality and fairness. It comes off as incredibly disingenuous when people who benefit from the status quo seemingly ignore that dissonance at the expense of those who are hurt by it, which is why so many people react badly to statements like ""We're capitalists and that's just the way it is."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Trump was brought to us by "it can't get worse". It's a shame the Democrats didn't respond with "Here's how we're going to make it better," and instead went with "Hey, everything's great as it is! No change needed."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's a shame the Democrats didn't respond with "Here's how we're going to make it better," and instead went with "Hey, everything's great as it is! No change needed." Definitely killed enthusiasm with the, "my teeth hurt," demographic.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I don't really understand why people feel that any criticism of capitalism has to automatically be taken as implicit support for a socialist revolution. Capitalism is a deeply flawed system that has resulted in incredible amounts of exploitation, suffering, and death. I can say that without advocating for any specific replacement. Capitalism is probably salvageable, but you kind of need to acknowledge how bad it is right now if you want to even begin that discussion. This is because socialism is the social and economic system that emerges from the collapse of a capitalist society. It's not like when feudal society transitioned to bourgeois capitalism there was much of a choice to come up with an entirely new and different system instead. The seeds of the succeeding system are already present in the previous one: in the mechanisms that govern is evolution, in its contradictions and limits. Nobody ever gets to be in a situation where they go "OK I've figured out what the new system is going to be, let's all just follow these new rules now" and then it happens. Revolutions in the fundamental ways of organizing society don't happen because everyone suddenly agrees to do things in a different way. As capitalism continue to develop and inequality increases, more and more people are left with zero private property and with nothing to sell but their own ability to work; with nothing to lose. At the same time, these people are still the ones who, through their labor (paid or unpaid) produce all capitalist profit: their work is what is at the root of all political and economic power in this system, and this is what makes them, as a class, the only people who are both *capable* of abolishing private property, but would also benefit from such a change. As international capitalism tries to resolve its crises by diminishing wages and evening out all conditions all over the globe (to third world conditions of debt slavery for most people), the point at which revolt is preferable to playing along with the system for a critical mass of workers eventually will be reached, and this is how capitalism dies. The alternative is a violent, desperate, and reactionary clinging to a dying society by the ruling class, using stronger forms of control and repression to protect its position and prevent workers from expressing any power themselves. The fascist path where democracy is suppressed, and where police militarization, war, and total surveillance all increase. This is what the capitalist class is pushing for. I think people who defend capitalism know implicitly that it's against socialism that they're defending it. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 22:18 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:This is because socialism is the social and economic system that emerges from the collapse of a capitalist society. Sadly no. Capitalism may lead to socialism if it doesn't collapse. If it does collapse it's going to be caused by and lead to deadly fascist nationalism.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Friendly reminder;. Hillary supports micro lending, which only serves to cement the poor's positions of debt and enrich whites. tbh, hillary and bill both seem to get off on exploiting the poor. i mean, i guess that's to be expected since their romantic first date was spent scabbing, but you'd think they'd try to hide their naked contempt for the poor a bit better: quote:Yet a lot of high-powered people with a stake in Haitian affairs think jobs like David’s represent the answer to Haiti’s problems. The U.S. State Department, the Inter-American Development Bank and the government of Haitian President Michel Martelly recently pulled together more than $300 million in post-earthquake subsidies to create another industrial park just like this one but in northeast Haiti, with Korean textile manufacturer Sae-A as its anchor tenant. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton both spoke at the park’s opening ceremony, hailing it as the centerpiece of U.S. efforts to help Haiti recover from the devastating 2010 quake. Secretary Clinton echoed President Martelly’s mantra that Haiti “is open for business." i guess it makes sense that broke brained new democrats think sweatshops are charity since their queen sells them as such. Condiv fucked around with this message at 22:59 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Coincidentally, Martelly had ties to both coups against Aristide (the first one was opposed en bloc by the CBC too).
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:This is because socialism is the social and economic system that emerges from the collapse of a capitalist society. It's not like when feudal society transitioned to bourgeois capitalism there was much of a choice to come up with an entirely new and different system instead. The seeds of the succeeding system are already present in the previous one: in the mechanisms that govern is evolution, in its contradictions and limits. What if I don't agree with your idea of abolishing private property, indeed suppose I quite like mine? That's quite a quagmire that has to be solved with bullets. There is no way other than totalitarianist terror to keep any kind of society together after eliminating all that pesky property and these who had it, or were fighting to have it. Not only have "brilliant" ideas such as this caused and will inevitably cause massive civil wars with millions of deaths, but even the most wretched homeless of today's capitalist America are living a life preferable to the misery, poverty, and terror that follows. The situation in America is still very very far from revolutionary, and even the poorest have better opportunities and are living great lives compared to the majority of the planet. It can be so, so, so much worse. pigdog fucked around with this message at 23:14 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
pigdog posted:What if I don't agree with your idea of abolishing private property, indeed suppose I quite like mine? So how many factories do you own?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
pigdog posted:What if I don't agree with your idea of abolishing private property, indeed suppose I quite like mine? Private property in this case doesn't refer to personal property, which is a pretty important distinction. Marxism doesn't say anything about ownership of stuff by people.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
pigdog posted:What if I don't agree with your idea of abolishing private property, indeed suppose I quite like mine? That's quite a quagmire that has to be solved with bullets. There is no way other than totalitarianist terror to keep any kind of society together after eliminating all that pesky property and these who had it, or were fighting to have it. Not only have "brilliant" ideas such as this caused and will inevitably cause massive civil wars with millions of deaths, but even the most wretched homeless of today's capitalist America are living a life preferable to the misery, poverty, and terror that follows. The situation in America is still very very far from revolutionary, and even the poorest have better opportunities and are living great lives compared to the majority of the planet. I think you are right about a few things: -The situation in North America is still far from being a bad enough crisis to lead to revolution. However, things are getting worse at a increasing rate. One thing that can slow things down and reinvigorate the dying middle class, that can "make america great again", is if America manages to maintain its imperial domination and can go on to wage more wars of conquest, as well as intensify the exploitation of its underclass. If there's more resources to pillage and people to enslave, a base of first-world consumers can still be maintained. -Revolution is necessarily violent. You might not wish to abolish private property today. However, one day, as inequality keeps increasing and more people are dispossed, you and your descendants will likely be experiencing a much different life than the one you do now. A life of precarity where you have no hope of ever owning anything, and an existence where experiencing violence is the norm (as many of the poorest already experience today). In that situation you would see private property very differently than you do today. There's also possibility that you'll end up being part of the super elite that own everything (in a sense this is the bet that right-wingers are making). Congratulations if that's the case, but then the question becomes: how far are you willing to go to defend this against the angry masses who have nothing to lose? How much violence done in the name of defending private property is acceptable? Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 23:30 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:That's talking about workers controlling the means of production. Just because it's not centrally planned doesn't mean it's not ending private ownership of capital. Socialized, cooperative private corporations are still private corporations. Nowhere does that paragraph call for ending private ownership of capital. It explicitly argues in favor of a private market for consumer goods.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Swiggity swoothbrush Comin for that toothbrush
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Socialized, cooperative private corporations are still private corporations. Nowhere does that paragraph call for ending private ownership of capital. It explicitly argues in favor of a private market for consumer goods. The DSA explicitly calls for social ownership of economic organizations, with a mix of state-owned and administered industries and workers' coops - the latter being geared toward the consumer goods market. In the context of the current system, I'd say that qualifies as "ending private ownership." If that doesn't fit your definition of market socialism, how would you define it?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Private property in this case doesn't refer to personal property, which is a pretty important distinction. Marxism doesn't say anything about ownership of stuff by people. How much land is a person allowed to own?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:How much land is a person allowed to own? Why is land ownership a plank you're ready to die on? Do you even own more than half an acre of brush?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Revolution is necessarily violent. Besides that, if you are destroying an establishment, you better be sure that the new establishment is actually any better than the first one (see: people who voted for Trump because they were tired of Hillary's democrats). quote:A life of precarity where you have no hope of ever owning anything, and an existence where violence is the norm (as many of the poorest already experience today). In that situation you would see private property very differently than you do today. There's also possibility that you'll end up being part of the super elite that own everything. Congratulations if that's the case, but then the question becomes: how far are you willing to go to defend this against the angry masses who have nothing to lose? How much violence done in the name of defending private property is acceptable? Look, I don't have the time to argue for too long, so I make my point short. Capitalism works, it's a working system that aligns with people's individual desires, it's an effective generator of prosperity, aligns with freedoms better than other systems, and frankly it's the reason we're able to post messages to something awful dot com using our own affordable computing devices. It's an engine of prosperity that any first- or second world country can't do without. There are no better alternatives, and attempts to replace it with theocracy or communism have all been awful. That some people are richer and more powerful is utterly inevitable. The solution is in harnessing capitalism better, not allowing the oligarchs too much power, and limiting it with effective and non-corrupt government oversight, so the invisible hand can work its magic within limits that are socially and environmentally acceptable. I.e. social democracy, or "socialism" as far as US is concerned.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:How much land is a person allowed to own? Ideally none. Long-term or even lifetime leases are cool and good though. pigdog posted:Look, I don't have the time to argue for too long, so I make my point short. Capitalism works, it's a working system that aligns with people's individual desires, it's an effective generator of prosperity, aligns with freedoms better than other systems, and frankly it's the reason we're able to post messages to something awful dot com using our own affordable computing devices. No, that would be that the government and public universities spent a lot of time and effort developing the Internet and computer science. pigdog posted:It's an engine of prosperity that any first- or second world country can't do without. There are no better alternatives, and attempts to replace it with theocracy or communism have all been awful. That some people are richer and more powerful is utterly inevitable. fukken lol if you actually believe this.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
No, but see, exporting the breadlines to Africa and South Asia is cool and good and shows capitalism works if you don't understand the world is one large system.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
pigdog posted:The solution is in harnessing capitalism better, not allowing the oligarchs too much power, and limiting it with effective and non-corrupt government oversight, so the invisible hand can work its magic within limits that are socially and environmentally acceptable. I.e. social democracy, or "socialism" as far as US is concerned. This is only possible if infinite growth can be maintained. Capitalists "create jobs" by investing their capital into productive ventures, only because they expect to get a profit out of it, that they can then re-invest in new profit sources, etc. You can tax that private profit to fund social programs, welfare, free healthcare, etc; but that profit still needs to be made somewhere. In order to keep going, capitalism needs to expand, you need to find a way make more revenue than you give to the people doing the work. In the past, there's been a few ways it's done that: colonialism, non-sustainable depletion of natural resources, consumer debt, etc. All of these solutions have limits, and they will eventually be reached. When growth slows down, capitalism enters crisis, and cutting down on the share of profits that was spent to social programs and welfare, then privatizing them, becomes the best bet to keep profit rates going. This is how you get neoliberal austerity policies. Social democracy worked historically as a compromise that capital-holders were willing to make because they knew they it would keep first-worlders docile and profits elsewhere would compensate for it. Today the conditions aren't there for such a compromise to be possible anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Why is land ownership a plank you're ready to die on? Do you even own more than half an acre of brush? Many of my family are farmers.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 00:19
|
|