|
this is a thread full of good advice when it comes to vetting potential members to keep cops, chuds, and other reactionaries out of whatever of whatever org you're trying to build https://twitter.com/FullCommie/status/1319150878486450176
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
am i too late to say libcop.gov
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 10:41
|
|
|
Gene Hackman Fan posted:this is a thread full of good advice when it comes to vetting potential members to keep cops, chuds, and other reactionaries out of whatever of whatever org you're trying to build lol this tweet thread seems like a really overly long explanation of just the most basic conversation you should have with anyone like "so what do you do for a living, im a nurse?" or "so you from this town originally or move here for school or work?" but made to sound really serious and like youre doing some heavy duty spy poo poo. like basically just be a loving human being lol. and also dont base your organization around guns like this person seems to indicate they do. they also seem really into guns which is actually a good sign of someone to not let into your communist club 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 12:49
|
|
|
my stupid loving brother is taking poli-sci graduate classes and it's totally melted whatever was left of his useless, vestigial, succ-decorum brain. he's pivoted from just retweeting Matthew Yglesias and jerking himself off over Locke/Montesquieu to this bizarre thing where he thinks the "best option" for political change is "public goods capitalism" using the new deal as an analogy. he's been telling me for years that we share political goals and we both want to accomplish the same thing, but his pivot into apologizing for actually-existing-capitalism because he's too myopic to even attempt to imagine an alternative was just too loving much for me. what really gets me is his whole justification, which is that any non-capitalist system would be "v difficult" to administer, both technologically and otherwise, which is stupid on it's face in the sense that technology has reached a point where the viability of increased elements of central planning is an unambiguous reality, and that the difficulty inherent to building socialism emanates from a context of capitalist hegemony, not any actual inherent difficulty in administering socialist policies - which is, I think, what makes me so loving mad. when liberals like my brother immerse themselves in a culture of centrist expertise fetishizing technocracy and start to build an elitist worldview that constantly asserts that the goals of socialism are laudable but can't be accomplished, it's just that hot dog guy.jpg - the reason it's difficult to build socialist organizations and spread solidarity is precisely because every self-appointed political gatekeeper and pundit and politician endlessly reifies the notion that socialism can't be built in the west. like, rereading capitalist realism, it's a reminder that one of the most important struggles is just about imagination, about ensuring that braindead parochial acolytes of the status quo can't entirely monopolize the discourse and thus limit our collective capacity to envision a different, better future. I just don't understand why this basic premise, that a positive moral vision is the prerequisite for understanding and creating a better political system, is so hard for people like my brother to grasp. we both have master's in history and he's just gone so far up his own rear end over the last few years that i just can't understand how we have a similar background at all or how he can continue to assert that we share political goals because he wants a wealth tax and thinks FDR is the outside boundary of political possibilities in both the past and future, and I actually think something different is possible. i know this is more personal than the theory thread usually entertains but it's very frustrating. i've lost all respect for my brother over the last few years as his odious "progressive democrat" belief system has become more and more central to his identity and he's become more and more invested in Liberal philosophy. it just loving sucks to see people that should know better, and should have the capacity to reason through fundamental questions about the way we view change and human possibility, fall into this black hole of status-quo endorsing smugness that almost always seems to come with a sense that because they're unable to conceive of anything other than slight tweaks to the existing system, they're the adult in any given room
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 13:28
|
|
|
if he thinks centrally planned economies are too difficult to administer how does he think walmart or amazon operate
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 14:01
|
|
|
this is why “we want the same thing!” or even broader “socialism is really about love and fellow-feeling!” type positions don’t move me when it comes to politics because at the heart i’m sure your brother isn’t lying - i’m sure even liberals WANT a post-scarcity utopia free of coercion in which everyone does as they please thanks to a combination of eusocial enculturation and technological advancement. the theory and history really are decisive here because the question is HOW to end injustice not WHETHER to end injustice
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 14:04
|
|
|
THS posted:if he thinks centrally planned economies are too difficult to administer how does he think walmart or amazon operate i think his assumption is that because, at this exact moment, neither the political will nor governmental infrastructure exist to facilitate the immediate implementation of a planned economy, it isn't even an idea worth entertaining. my brother is a very smart, educated guy whose entire worldview seems to be predicated entirely on eternalizing the shortcomings of the present moment. like, if you ask him about a planned economy, he would probably abstractly acknowledge it's viability but use the existence of republicans or the lack of unionization as an excuse to imply FDR represents the furthest frontier of reform possible and then imply that anyone who thinks we can transcend the limits of the existing system is a starry-eyed optimist defined exclusively by naivete what really bothers me is the lack of first principles. politics and governing philosophies should emanate from a morally positive position from which all else flows, but if you start out with a "practical" assessment of the world as it is and assume that constitutes the only meaningful basis for an agenda, you end up in this mire of technocratic apologetics and intense, all-consuming love for a certain kind of expertise which somehow always aligns with their existing desire to project the status quo with slight improvements forward into eternity. it's just this tremendous paucity of imagination exacerbated by internal amorality. Ferrinus posted:this is why “we want the same thing!” or even broader “socialism is really about love and fellow-feeling!” type positions don’t move me when it comes to politics because at the heart i’m sure your brother isn’t lying - i’m sure even liberals WANT a post-scarcity utopia free of coercion in which everyone does as they please thanks to a combination of eusocial enculturation and technological advancement. the theory and history really are decisive here because the question is HOW to end injustice not WHETHER to end injustice yeah, you're right - I don't think he's lying and I think he genuinely does share the same long-term vision of what society could be, but frames it entirely as a fantasy worth indulging rather than an actual goal to aspire to. i think the general idea that sentiments like the "love and fellow feeling" thing you mention are important, but when they're framed entirely by the limited manifestations of that solidarity in currently-existing capitalism, then it's just useless - the more time I spend on this stuff, the more I think that the recipe for meaningful political changes starts with inculcating people like my idiot brother with an actual capacity to imagine an improved world, rather than the endless pessimistic eternalization of the present Frog Act fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Oct 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 14:08
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:i think his assumption is that because, at this exact moment, neither the political will nor governmental infrastructure exist to facilitate the immediate implementation of a planned economy, it isn't even an idea worth entertaining. my brother is a very smart, educated guy whose entire worldview seems to be predicated entirely on eternalizing the shortcomings of the present moment. in cases like these i like to switch it on 'em and point out that it's actually the liberal who is engaging in utopic flights of fancy unmoored from practical considerations. how could a sober look at history even in the short term - even of a single, limited event like the covid pandemic - convince someone that the existing free market system is able to handle the crises of modernity at all, let alone with any kind of enduring stability? it's like watching wile e. coyote stand under a bunch of falling rocks while holding up a tiny umbrella instead of just taking a few steps to the side in my experience though those discussions go immediately to questions of the successes and failures of past communist regimes. like i'll get "well socialism has never worked" sight unseen from people if i just criticize police brutality or something like that, they know what the real stakes of the conversation are better than i often realize
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 14:19
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:in cases like these i like to switch it on 'em and point out that it's actually the liberal who is engaging in utopic flights of fancy unmoored from practical considerations. how could a sober look at history even in the short term - even of a single, limited event like the covid pandemic - convince someone that the existing free market system is able to handle the crises of modernity at all, let alone with any kind of enduring stability? it's like watching wile e. coyote stand under a bunch of falling rocks while holding up a tiny umbrella instead of just taking a few steps to the side honestly, the worst part is that we've been through this, and he continually asserts that the theoretical questions of capitalist resiliency don't matter because the alternative is inconceivable. it always degenerates into "oh you think there's going to be a communist revolution tomorrow??" and, since that's obviously not going to happen, the only option is to try to adjust the particular characteristics of capitalism's response to the crises it creates. i'm at a complete loss as to how to approach this because he's deeply familiar with liberal/socialist theory and history and just seems to have drawn all the wrong conclusions. i think, honestly, it's a personal thing - he's spent a ton of time and energy, like enough that it's disrupted parts of his life, campaigning for democrats. it's a hugely important thing to him and he can't face the idea that it's all been a fruitless exercise in perpetuating inequality and reducing the likelihood of meaningful change, so it has to be the best way to accomplish our so-called "shared goals" you're absolutely right, though - the notion that our existing systems of exchange, wealth accumulation, and international (or national, for that matter) governance are equipped to handle the imminent catastrophes of global warming is just transparently absurd. i don't know how that particular irrational position has somehow become fundamentally associated with pragmatism, at least for people who should know better - in general, of course, discursively associating non-solutions that don't threaten capitalism with moderation and intelligence is explicitly designed to serve wealthy and expert interests who are invested in the maintenance of our current systems - but it's flabbergasting to me that any actual educated, interested person can look at that particular set of dangerous truisms and go "yep, that makes sense"
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 14:32
|
|
|
having a degree in political science is basically that one guy in kung pow where they introduce him and say they trained him wrong on purpose as a joke
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 14:34
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:honestly, the worst part is that we've been through this, and he continually asserts that the theoretical questions of capitalist resiliency don't matter because the alternative is inconceivable. it always degenerates into "oh you think there's going to be a communist revolution tomorrow??" and, since that's obviously not going to happen, the only option is to try to adjust the particular characteristics of capitalism's response to the crises it creates. i'm at a complete loss as to how to approach this because he's deeply familiar with liberal/socialist theory and history and just seems to have drawn all the wrong conclusions. i mean surely he realizes that tacking the word "tomorrow" onto the end there is disingenuous. if you suggest someone start on an exercise program in order to reduce the risk of health complications and they came back at you with "oh you think i'm going to be doing triathalons tomorrow???" it's clearly not olympic medals they're concerned with
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 14:49
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i mean surely he realizes that tacking the word "tomorrow" onto the end there is disingenuous. if you suggest someone start on an exercise program in order to reduce the risk of health complications and they came back at you with "oh you think i'm going to be doing triathalons tomorrow???" it's clearly not olympic medals they're concerned with yeah, he'd never admit it but i think, deep down, he's mostly concerned with asserting his own expertise and ensuring he can retain whatever status he thinks he's accumulated by dint of having multiple degrees and participating in the political process. actual change or humanitarianism is tangential to making sure things operate according to the principled Liberalism he identifies as the source of his elite status and everything flows from there. i think this is the case for huge numbers of liberals, honestly, for whom the idea that their relative success or social status emanating from being well-credentialed would be threatened by an actual egalitarian political movement so they have to do everything they can to sustain hierarchies while maintaining an illusion of moral substance
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 14:52
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:yeah, he'd never admit it but i think, deep down, he's mostly concerned with asserting his own expertise and ensuring he can retain whatever status he thinks he's accumulated by dint of having multiple degrees and participating in the political process. actual change or humanitarianism is tangential to making sure things operate according to the principled Liberalism he identifies as the source of his elite status and everything flows from there. Ask him to explain Worker Exploitation or Class Struggle to you. Surely with such a fancy diploma he must understand such basic socialist theories, no?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Ask him to explain Worker Exploitation or Class Struggle to you. Surely with such a fancy diploma he must understand such basic socialist theories, no? he absolutely does. we both studied history under the same professors and got our MAs at the same school, and he's better read in terms of general political theory than i am. that's what makes it so frustrating: he knows, he just thinks because it isn't popular, it isn't viable, and instead of drawing the obvious conclusion - which is that spreading class consciousness as a prerequisite for meaningful change should be the primary mission of anyone interested in alleviating human suffering - he just chucks all of it out entirely. it drives me absolutely bonkers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 15:21
|
|
|
op, what is your brother's salary and net worth i think we can suss out the answer from that
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:he absolutely does. we both studied history under the same professors and got our MAs at the same school, and he's better read in terms of general political theory than i am. that's what makes it so frustrating: he knows, he just thinks because it isn't popular, it isn't viable, and instead of drawing the obvious conclusion - which is that spreading class consciousness as a prerequisite for meaningful change should be the primary mission of anyone interested in alleviating human suffering - he just chucks all of it out entirely. it drives me absolutely bonkers. He thinks nothing of the sort. He's a liberal, op.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
croup coughfield posted:op, what is your brother's salary and net worth he's a loving high school teacher  but it's a very nice high school for high-performing, generally wealthy, and disproportionately (to the area) white students and is deeply mired in a culture of elitism and expertise. i once watched a team of kids in the constitutional interpretation competition argue for voting tests, among other odious right-wing ideas masquerading as Liberal technocracy SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:He thinks nothing of the sort. He's a liberal, op. the problem lies, i think, in the internal delusion that libs like him share our beliefs but simply don't believe they can be practically accomplished and thus must be set aside for things that just happen to align more neatly with their vision of themselves, the world around them, and their general conception of worthiness. he thinks he believes in those things but can't bring himself to make even the most basic concession to accomplishing them because it would devalue all of the systems that he has deeply invested himself in and the idea that those systems are functional enough to sustain us and accomplish those goals. it creates an endless cycle of reifying the status quo under the guise of pragmatism and pretending piecemeal reforms designed to sustain capitalism are actually the solution to the problems caused by capitalism. Frog Act fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Oct 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 15:29
|
|
|
in my experience, the question that actually breaks liberal theory in half and forces an inescapable choice between historical materialism and fascism is the question of race. however, you may not enjoy listening to your brother go full rudatron so think well before walking this road
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 15:30
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:in my experience, the question that actually breaks liberal theory in half and forces an inescapable choice between historical materialism and fascism is the question of race. however, you may not enjoy listening to your brother go full rudatron so think well before walking this road the workaround for this tends to be cowardly deference to representational epistemology with a little bit of “white fragility” type of liberalism thrown in. I once saw him defend the 1994 crime bills because they polled well among Black Americans at the time, an attempt to short circuit the conversation by implying anyone who believes racist laws have a racist impact is also denying the agency of minorities I told him we couldn’t talk on Twitter because I wanted to have a brotherly relationship and his scorchingly awful takes were ruining it and he got all baffled about how he doesn’t think our disagreements are vehement so I refollowed him out of politeness and kept seeing poo poo like the stuff that made me make my initial post I’m just completely out of ways to convince him that familiarity with systems and their animating philosophies is an insufficient replacement for an actual capacity to imagine a morally substantial way of governing and distributing resources. it’s hard to articulate how deeply this frustrates and disappoints me, because he helped me a lot when I was first learning about politics and philosophy
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:in my experience, the question that actually breaks liberal theory in half and forces an inescapable choice between historical materialism and fascism is the question of race. e.g., ask any libertarian whether businesses should be allowed to racially discriminate. The ones who just got suckered into the "legal weed, who cares if gays marry, less taxes for me" poo poo without really thinking about it will be very uncomfortable with their begrudging concession that the Freedom Rules imply this. They might be on the road to redemption. If otoh they're really blase, or even a bit enthusiastic, about it, then you know discrimination was always the draw for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:e.g., ask any libertarian whether businesses should be allowed to racially discriminate. The ones who just got suckered into the "legal weed, who cares if gays marry, less taxes for me" poo poo without really thinking about it will be very uncomfortable with their begrudging concession that the Freedom Rules imply this. They might be on the road to redemption. If otoh they're really blase, or even a bit enthusiastic, about it, then you know discrimination was always the draw for them. this kind of aptly illustrates why depoliticized libertarians are easier to propagandize than actual committed, "politically literate" liberals and/or socdems - they've never taken the time to reason themselves into a deeply convoluted and dangerous set of ideological assumptions, they just adopted things that seemed relevant to their own standard of living, comfort, and personal proclivities. i'm not sure i think that conservatives in general are easier to convert than Democratic partisans like some leftists assert but I sometimes wonder
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 15:44
|
|
|
Teachers are the Liberal priest class: True believers who will gladly spread the word for minimal compensation. Your brother is lost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 15:54
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:the workaround for this tends to be cowardly deference to representational epistemology with a little bit of “white fragility” type of liberalism thrown in. I once saw him defend the 1994 crime bills because they polled well among Black Americans at the time, an attempt to short circuit the conversation by implying anyone who believes racist laws have a racist impact is also denying the agency of minorities oh i mean full on test scores and crime stats poo poo, the kind of thing fascists pull out specifically to fluster liberals if they think they're in a social context that will allow them to get away with it. liberalism has clearly gone as far as it has to alleviate the effects of individual racism. why isn't it working? why do, for instance, blacks in america consistently come out worse on metrics relating to health, achievement etc even if you try to hold purely economic factors equal? why do the police keep jailing and murdering them in vast disproportion to their demographic share of the population? hell, why, in history, did europe pillage africa and not the other way around? these things ultimately arise from either the prevailing mode of production or from haplogroups, and the more vigorously a liberal struggles against the former explanation the more cozy they'll get with the latter, whether or not they realize it
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:having a degree in political science is basically that one guy in kung pow where they introduce him and say they trained him wrong on purpose as a joke
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:the workaround for this tends to be cowardly deference to representational epistemology with a little bit of “white fragility” type of liberalism thrown in. I once saw him defend the 1994 crime bills because they polled well among Black Americans at the time, an attempt to short circuit the conversation by implying anyone who believes racist laws have a racist impact is also denying the agency of minorities lol this academic trick is so insidious and devious that they use if loving everywhere. I've seen it used to imply that the Pinochet regime should not just be written off as some pro-US coup because this denies the ~agency~ of right wing Chileans deeply concerned about inflation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 15:59
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:oh i mean full on test scores and crime stats poo poo, the kind of thing fascists pull out specifically to fluster liberals if they think they're in a social context that will allow them to get away with it. liberalism has clearly gone as far as it has to alleviate the effects of individual racism. why isn't it working? why do, for instance, blacks in america consistently come out worse on metrics relating to health, achievement etc even if you try to hold purely economic factors equal? why do the police keep jailing and murdering them in vast disproportion to their demographic share of the population? hell, why, in history, did europe pillage africa and not the other way around? while I completely agree with this, the part about not realizing it is key - these kinds of people genuinely believe that "public goods" capitalism and New Dealism is sufficient to diminish these, despite all the historical evidence pointing to past instances of socially democratic policy not only failing to do so, but creating the illusion that it is possible and thus bringing more previously-excluded (and thus potentially antagonistic to) groups into the existing system timothy luke's idea of artificial negativity is actually a really useful articulation of this and i'd love to see it acquire wider traction
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
*Chernobyl comes out* haha those stupid Russians! *covid hits the US* man, I wish we were as together as those Russians at Chernobyl.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:while I completely agree with this, the part about not realizing it is key - these kinds of people genuinely believe that "public goods" capitalism and New Dealism is sufficient to diminish these, despite all the historical evidence pointing to past instances of socially democratic policy not only failing to do so, but creating the illusion that it is possible and thus bringing more previously-excluded (and thus potentially antagonistic to) groups into the existing system it's the "despite historical evidence" that i think you have to fall back on here. yes liberal solutions are SUPPOSED to do that. but they don't! so why do we keep doing things that don't work? well, maybe they do work, just not at the thing they claim to work at
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
THS posted:if he thinks centrally planned economies are too difficult to administer how does he think walmart or amazon operate i dont understand this argument (i never read that people's republic of walmart book). i don't think capitalists deny that sub-units (firms) may form that are internally unified, non-anarchic, with planned goals and inputs/outputs, their argument is that the optimum arrangements is that these firms have to compete with each other on a marketplace so the best ones can supply consumers efficiently. a sub-unit of a system acting in a certain way doesn't mean the system itself should be organized the same way
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:i dont understand this argument (i never read that people's republic of walmart book). i don't think capitalists deny that sub-units (firms) may form that are internally unified, non-anarchic, with planned goals and inputs/outputs, their argument is that the optimum arrangements is that these firms have to compete with each other on a marketplace so the best ones can supply consumers efficiently. a sub-unit of a system acting in a certain way doesn't mean the system itself should be organized the same way The argument about Wal-mart and firms in general isn't that they are incompatible with capitalism, or that their existence means that the market system should be structured differently. It's an argument against the idea that centrally planned economies are impossible to coordinate at large scales, and that political systems without markets to set prices will be incredibly inefficient or even impossible to run. The argument goes: Wal-mart doesn't have an internal market to set prices, stores #9237 and #526 don't bid on internal auctions for toilet paper, but they both have food on the shelves. Large, undemocratic, centrally planned economies are possible and can operate quite efficiently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
yeah its proof that central planning on a massive scale is possible. arguments about efficiency would be different, and i would argue that socialist distribution very well might not be as efficient without the pressures of market competition, because those pressures make the working conditions at walmart incredibly lovely and constantly strained
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
also "efficient" is a highly misleading and ideological word to bandy about. efficient for whom, and to what end? if the prices consumers pay for goods are higher, but the wages workers receive are higher, that's not really more or less "efficient" than workers receiving lower wages so that consumers can pay lower prices, it's just moving resources from one bucket to another
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 17:13
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:also "efficient" is a highly misleading and ideological word to bandy about. efficient for whom, and to what end? if the prices consumers pay for goods are higher, but the wages workers receive are higher, that's not really more or less "efficient" than workers receiving lower wages so that consumers can pay lower prices, it's just moving resources from one bucket to another This is one of the sections of Blackshirts & Reds that really put me off. Parenti goes all in on the so-called inefficiency of the Soviets economy and I couldn't give a flying gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
by nationalizing their country's resources MAS is doing state capitalism, which is very problematic
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:having a degree in political science is basically that one guy in kung pow where they introduce him and say they trained him wrong on purpose as a joke
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:also "efficient" is a highly misleading and ideological word to bandy about. efficient for whom, and to what end? if the prices consumers pay for goods are higher, but the wages workers receive are higher, that's not really more or less "efficient" than workers receiving lower wages so that consumers can pay lower prices, it's just moving resources from one bucket to another yeah good point. i have a similar critique of the concept of “de-growth” because i think it’s not a good term to describe what amounts to a shift of new values beyond capitalist GDP number go up. if we’re growing sustainable infrastructure, improving health and happiness, improving ecology, then i don’t think it makes sense to frame it in terms of losing growth, but rather we should frame it as a gain at the end of the day, though, goods need to move according to accurate schedules, mouths need to be fed, the economy has to function. correcting failures of logistics is a very important priority to legitimize socialism it can work fine, though, without a grueling pace of work - because a rationalized system without the need for bullshit consumerist culture or fake jobs like marketing means it’s fine to train the former advertising copy employee to drive a forklift 4 hours a day 4 days a week, after re-education. it can work without crushing people under the boot of strict oversight, no bathroom breaks, long hours, and no say in how the work is performed the point is these are all just solvable challenges, and not fundamental flaws inherent in human society which can only be solved through private ownership. the “true believer” neoliberal really seeks to think that without a market economy we will all starve
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
THS posted:it can work fine, though, without a grueling pace of work - because a rationalized system without the need for bullshit consumerist culture or fake jobs like marketing means it’s fine to train the former advertising copy employee to drive a forklift 4 hours a day 4 days a week, after re-education. it can work without crushing people under the boot of strict oversight, no bathroom breaks, long hours, and no say in how the work is performed this is what kills me about the 'rat race' of living under capital to make wealthy people wealthier, because production has OBVIOUSLY gotten so loving efficient that most of the "jobs" people do are completely unnecessary. if you sat down and eliminated every loving job that existed to protect/enhance/grow/store capital from exploited workers, from cashiers to executive accountants to marketing firms to etc, the average person would probably only have to labor a quarter as much as they do now or less to maintain a first world level of living, you'd spend like 4 months of the year being a waiter or a chef or driving a truck or something and then just get to loving chill and live a real life most of the time lmfao
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
THS posted:yeah good point. i have a similar critique of the concept of “de-growth” because i think it’s not a good term to describe what amounts to a shift of new values beyond capitalist GDP number go up. if we’re growing sustainable infrastructure, improving health and happiness, improving ecology, then i don’t think it makes sense to frame it in terms of losing growth, but rather we should frame it as a gain it's some sort of mental disease amongst leftists where everything is framed in a negative light, even the objectively positive things they're trying to do. I'd imagine it's caused by their relative place in the hierarchy of power, or maybe because there are so many academics in leftist circles, but it drove me away from working in DSA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is one of the sections of Blackshirts & Reds that really put me off. Parenti goes all in on the so-called inefficiency of the Soviets economy and I couldn't give a flying gently caress. as in, all-in on CLAIMS that it was inefficient or does he buy into those claims somehow (with what i assume is a "yes, okay, but..." framing)? i haven't read it
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 18:48
|
|