|
gradenko_2000 posted:again, not all ideologies are the same and shouldn't be treated as such And let me guess, with you as the perfect neutral observer it turns out that the ideologies you like are good and the ones that oppose you are the dangerous heresy, but that is just a coincidence.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
My totalitarianism is the only moral totalitarianism It's also more moral than a free society lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And let me guess, with you as the perfect neutral observer it turns out that the ideologies you like are good and the ones that oppose you are the dangerous heresy, but that is just a coincidence. who's claiming neutrality, OOCC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:it's going to be the same maths as predator prey relationships. no it won't
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:My totalitarianism is the only moral totalitarianism sometimes you just gotta murder a bunch of black activists. in defense of your society. which is free.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And let me guess, with you as the perfect neutral observer it turns out that the ideologies you like are good and the ones that oppose you are the dangerous heresy, but that is just a coincidence. I just said they shouldn't be treated the same, why would I be neutral come on dude
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
I mean it's not like we don't have an entire dialectic by which to consider these things but you people keep hauling out "you random internet user will be the sole arbiter of  wrong think " like its some totally sick burn
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Yeah, you guys almost certainly won't get to lead the purges, you'll much sooner be on the receiving end of the internal ones 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I mean it's not like we don't have an entire dialectic by which to consider these things but you people keep hauling out "you random internet user will be the sole arbiter of the liberal fetishization of inaction is beautiful to see in operation. oh no, you're suggesting that in this new system of government, someone will have to make decisions, as a result of which people will suffer. much better to stick with the current one. which doesn't do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Hell I'm not going far enough. It's the nessisary tool, for doing it. It's also a way to model economies and businesses. also, the abolition of businesses is a core component of socialism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:Yeah, you guys almost certainly won't get to lead the purges, you'll much sooner be on the receiving end of the internal ones you say this as if I don't already live in a society where my well being is completely insecure
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:Yeah, you guys almost certainly won't get to lead the purges, you'll much sooner be on the receiving end of the internal ones Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:there is something so charmingly squeamish about it. they're normally so good at brushing the interplay of ideology and governance under an "it's complicated" and "sometimes you have to make hard choices" that when you actually put the core mechanics of governance in front of them they recoil in horror.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
Thought experiment for everyone in this thread. I posted above about partial market reforms that Cuba started in the 2000s. For a limited set of industries, there is a small amount of private enterprise allowed. Cuban citizens can own small restaurants and bed and breakfasts (limited by rooms / number of tables), charge money for them, employ other citizens, and profit and reinvest in their business. This is all in the context of an overall socialist economy. Is this an acceptable experiment to conduct in your conception of socialism? If it isn't, should even proposing it be permitted? Based on previous responses in this thread, even the suggestion of highly-regulated limited private enterprise like that described above should be suppressed by the government. Do you agree with this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the liberal fetishization of inaction is beautiful to see in operation. oh no, you're suggesting that in this new system of government, someone will have to make decisions, as a result of which people will suffer. This is only coherent if the only possible alternative to the exact model of the United States is full space communism now. There are a huge amount of ways to reform, change and improve the system without a full socialist revolution. Every economy in the world is a mixed economy to some degree. We can use socialism as a tool where it's useful, and regulate capitalism where it's useful. The most egalitarian, free, and prosperous countries in the world follow this model. EDIT: And besides which, I don't think most of the issue people are having in this thread are about socialism as an economic system specifically. When there's discussion of socialism as an economic system, the conversation is generally productive and there's not really all that much contention. Some of us might consider ourselves more social democrats than full-blooded socialists, but overall no one has taken the position that 100% of an economy must be fully private. The problem people are having is the idea that socialism necessarily means that any advocacy of alternate ideologies must be suppressed, by force if need be. I disagree strongly with that and don't think it's a necessary part of socialism. enki42 fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Dec 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:no it won't No, trust me, if i write pages and pages about wolf populations, I must be a genius at understanding governments and society too!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
enki42 posted:This is only coherent if the only possible alternative to the exact model of the United States is full space communism now. you are correct. the suggestion that a socialist society would be bad, because in a socialist society, someone fallible would apply state violence to those viewed as ideological threats, is -utterly- incoherent. given that is the express purpose of government, in all incarnations. it turns out that the most egalitarian, free, and prosperous countries in the world also have that pesky "built on slave labor, and the continued application of violence to the underclass in order to perpetuate that prosperity to greater or lesser degree" issue to deal with. even the ideal scandiwegian Tech Economy utopia is reliant on slave-mined coltan to keep electronic widgets nice and ubiquitous. we hold that slaves are bad, even if they make us a lot of money. what's your take.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Thought experiment for everyone in this thread. its state capital trying to increase its productivity in order to continue participating in global exchange. It's probably not going to work because it's going to result in wasting resources on duplicate efforts that could have otherwise been used on increasing productivity in more effective ways. It's capitalism, and its not a very good attempt at it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No, trust me, if i write pages and pages about wolf populations, I must be a genius at understanding governments and society too! if the bourgeoisie die, obviously the working population will expand until it consumes everything. (note: it's competition over market share that is the threat of consuming our remaining co2 allowance)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:its state capital trying to increase its productivity in order to continue participating in global exchange. It's probably not going to work because it's going to result in wasting resources on duplicate efforts that could have otherwise been used on increasing productivity in more effective ways. My question was less about whether you think it's going to be successful, or useful, but whether Cuba was wrong to experiment with it in the first place, or indeed allow people to even advocate for experimenting with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
enki42 posted:My question was less about whether you think it's going to be successful, or useful, but whether Cuba was wrong to experiment with it in the first place, or indeed allow people to even advocate for experimenting with it. What do you even mean by "wrong"? Socialism as a movement isn't a matter of ethics. It's a material outcome from the contradictions of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I just said they shouldn't be treated the same, why would I be neutral come on dude Like, you are deciding that everyone who would vote against you shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. Do you not think that the guy on the other side of the vote would say the same? Do you not see that the claims you make of your moral superiority would be things matched by his? Like I mean, you can make your specific case why your thing is right, and I'll probably personally agree with a lot of it, but if the case is so compelling why is there a concern it'll lose elections without suppression?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:we hold that slaves are bad, even if they make us a lot of money. what's your take. I'm against slavery. I don't think it's an essential element of a functioning market. Maybe we can control it by passing laws saying you're not allowed to have slaves. (and for what it's worth, I could not be more in support of shutting down trade with industries that do not respect human rights)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
enki42 posted:I'm against slavery. I don't think it's an essential element of a functioning market. Maybe we can control it by passing laws saying you're not allowed to have slaves. (and for what it's worth, I could not be more in support of shutting down trade with industries that do not respect human rights) looks like democratic capitalism disagrees with you on that point, friend. its arguments against you take the form of dogs, and batons, and guns, and bombs. got any plans for reconciling that disagreement?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:What do you even mean by "wrong"? Socialism as a movement isn't a matter of ethics. It's a material outcome from the contradictions of capitalism. Socialism itself may not be, but what's being proposed is to have controls in place to actively prevent competing ideologies from gaining traction. That doesn't sound to me like socialism just being an inevitable consequence, that sounds like deliberate action to maintain an economic system, which I think is perfectly valid to analyze ethically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:looks like democratic capitalism disagrees with you on that point, friend. its arguments against you take the form of dogs, and batons, and guns, and bombs. got any plans for reconciling that disagreement? in your the socialist utopia where conservatives are banned from voting what happens if you are conservative and vote anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:looks like democratic capitalism disagrees with you on that point, friend. its arguments against you take the form of dogs, and batons, and guns, and bombs. got any plans for reconciling that disagreement? The same way that slavery was made illegal in most places. Political advocacy and pressure, and swaying the will of the people to support what's right. Which really gets to the heart of the discussion here. What we're really arguing about if you ask me is democracy. Some people in this thread want to outlaw certain ideologies and ways of thinking even if people want those things. I'm behind the concept of socialism, at the very least for some portions of the economy, but I fundamentally disagree with the notion that it should be forced on people against their will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like, you are deciding that everyone who would vote against you shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. Do you not think that the guy on the other side of the vote would say the same? Do you not see that the claims you make of your moral superiority would be things matched by his? the reasons for which people would vote against socialism, and the things they would do with that power were they to win, are not equivalent nor comparable quote:Like I mean, you can make your specific case why your thing is right, and I'll probably personally agree with a lot of it, but if the case is so compelling why is there a concern it'll lose elections without suppression? because people can lie. Because elections aren't won purely on the merits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:What do you even mean by "wrong"? Socialism as a movement isn't a matter of ethics. It's a material outcome from the contradictions of capitalism. I’m not sure I agree with this at all, socialism seems to have quite a bit to do with ethics as well as material reality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:in your the socialist utopia where conservatives are banned from voting what happens if you are conservative and vote anyway? what happens in your democratic capitalist utopia, when someone who has commited a crime depriving them of voting rights votes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I’m not sure I agree with this at all, socialism seems to have quite a bit to do with ethics as well as material reality. Even if our codes of ethics were to change dramatically, the real movement of socialism would still occur simply because capitalism is materially incapable of perpetually reproducing itself. As often as ethics enter into the picture, they are not a cause of socialism. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Dec 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No, trust me, if i write pages and pages about wolf populations, I must be a genius at understanding governments and society too! You should read the marxist economist Willie links to in this post: Willie Tomg posted:I've noticed that the google algorithm has been degeneratively useless in the last year. There's lots of things that with savvy boolean work could be dug up, but now they're just Memory HoledTM And this is my response BrandorKP posted:Systems, Business, Trade, Kanban, and Political Economy
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I’m not sure I agree with this at all, socialism seems to have quite a bit to do with ethics as well as material reality. When you say ethics are you thinking of things like equality and fairness? Because socialism as a movement really doesn't have anything to do with those.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:what happens in your democratic capitalist utopia, when someone who has commited a crime depriving them of voting rights votes? is the answer "stuff that is very good and the only problem is they apply it to the wrong people"? because the answer seems like "voter suppression is bad and disenfranchisement should be virtually nonexistent" not some weird "we should have more of it but against my opponents"
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:is the answer "stuff that is very good and the only problem is they apply it to the wrong people"? because the answer seems like "voter suppression is bad and disenfranchisement should be virtually nonexistent" not some weird "we should have more of it but against my opponents" it seems democratic capitalism disagrees with you, on the subject of disenfranchisement being bad, OOCC. evidently there are offenses that are worth depriving a person of the franchise. given the choice between depriving people of the vote for smoking marijuana, or depriving people of the vote for advocating for a white ethnostate, i find option B more palatable! you may disagree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:You should read the marxist economist Willie links to in this post: Two paragraphs into Willie and he's already wrong. Communism is about the abolition of capital (and therefore its accumulation) entirely. He may be right that china is better at capitalism than the US, though! Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Dec 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Infernot posted:When you say ethics are you thinking of things like equality and fairness? Because socialism as a movement really doesn't have anything to do with those. I guess I just find this really strange because to me socialism is good because it will result in more equality and fairness (and also because capitalism cannot deal with global warming but that’s besides the point). I suppose I just don’t entirely understand where you’re coming from.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:it seems democratic capitalism disagrees with you, on the subject of disenfranchisement being bad, OOCC. evidently there are offenses that are worth depriving a person of the franchise. What are you even talking about? Most US states don't even ban felons from voting, many countries and some states don't ban you from voting from prison. disenfranchising criminals is not some steady truth that has to exist so much that you can't get rid of it in your socialist authoritarian nightmare if it's not even a universal truth right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I guess I just find this really strange because to me socialism is good because it will result in more equality and fairness (and also because capitalism cannot deal with global warming but that’s besides the point). I suppose I just don’t entirely understand where you’re coming from. for the older-school guys it's more about historical inevitability; the only ways for capitalism to reconcile its contradictions are socialism or barbarism, and the question is how best to ease that transition. morality does not enter into it for them. they're rare these days, but think of the kind of libertarian who keeps on telling you to read Mises because this guy mathematically figured out how everything works. like that, only significantly less "...and therefore I should be able to gently caress children."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:for the older-school guys it's more about historical inevitability; the only ways for capitalism to reconcile its contradictions are socialism or barbarism, and the question is how best to ease that transition. morality does not enter into it for them. I guess that makes sense? I dunno I don’t find that compelling. It seems obvious to me that there are strong moral and ethical arguments for socialism and I don’t see what’s wrong with making them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I guess I just find this really strange because to me socialism is good because it will result in more equality and fairness (and also because capitalism cannot deal with global warming but that’s besides the point). I suppose I just don’t entirely understand where you’re coming from. I mean anyone today can argue that we live in a fair society, or that what you get paid at work is fair, or that X Y and Z are fair. To say that socialism will be more fair is a pretty empty term, but not only that I think the goal of trying to make stuff fair or equal misses the whole point of why capitalism is poo poo. Capitalists don't accrue vast amounts of wealth because of them being unfair, but because capitalism naturally tends towards monopolies and bigger capitalists running smaller ones out of business. To have your goal be to make something fair in this regard, which some might say redistributing the wealth or thinking of socialism as capitalism but more fair, your end goal seeks to fix the problems of capitalism but not end it. Abolition the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as a class does have something to do with equality, but only in the fact that there's no class distinction. People will still be unequal in ability and possessions, and this isn't a right-wing talking point but something Marx talked about. I just think making ethics a core part of your idea of socialism turns into just moralizing to people and I don't know if you've ever tried to change someone's mind by making a moral argument but it almost never works in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:17
|
|