|
Ruzihm posted:Indeed, except even if they don't have employees, they would still be capitalist firms if they have to pay rent, interest on a loan, or be compelled to circulate value into these things (such as taxes which circulate into paying interest on government bonds). Yes cooperative firms are the way forward. However law firms as they exist today are very inequitable and exploitative. Also participation in a capitalist system is different than actually perpetuating capitalism. Paying rent does not making you a capitalist anymore than working on a factory line does. If there is some law firm coop that has equal ownership and control and profit sharing among all employees, that doesn't make them capitalist because they pay rent for business space.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
Phi230 posted:See my edit Why do they need to be punished if their ability to act against the revolution has been removed? Why does anyone pre-revolution need to be punished in the new society? Why do people making 6 figures deserve to be fined, and how would that even make sense without a large State apparatus to collect, enforce, and redistribute the fines?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:See now this intuitively makes sense to me but I also think that prison abolition has a compelling moral and practical case, and I am unsure how to square this circle. do this
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Why do they need to be punished if their ability to act against the revolution has been removed? Why does anyone pre-revolution need to be punished in the new society? Why do people making 6 figures deserve to be fined, and how would that even make sense without a large State apparatus to collect, enforce, and redistribute the fines? 1. There is still a state in socialism. That state exists to administer resources and enforce the will of the people in a highly democratic and transparent fashion. 2. Its a matter of justice. They have done substantial harm. They live a lifestyle only possible through exploitation, injustice, and inequality. Not only is expropriating their wealth necessary for justice, but other punishments are warranted to correct those injustices. Jail for the worst, like in my example, Jeff Bezos whose business practices have literally killed people. Fines for those who have done less damage, mostly for the purposes of class based reparations (and especially slavery reparations).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I am curious what the rationale for this is? I don't necessarily disagree I just don't think I've ever seen this idea expressed before. Let me respond with an example: Suppose you labor alone making music as your "business". Nature is kind to you and provides all of your needs (including your supplies for music making) except for housing. You must pay rent to a landlord to continue living. In order to pay for the costs of reproducing your housing you need only work a certain amount- necessary labor. But in order to pay for the landlord's profit on top of it, you are compelled to extract a surplus above that amount, and that compulsion is driven by the general rate of profit, which is related to the rate of exploitation. It's this particular kind of surplus value extraction in the social relationship surrounding the music-making labor you're doing that makes it exploitative: even if you have "full direction" of your own work, you are truly only free to work at least as much as capital demands of you. Edit: to be clear, working more than you need to survive is not in itself exploitation. This exploitation comes from firms being compelled to individually maximize their ability to expand their productivity so that they can secure more (or at least the same) market share, and expanding productivity requires profit. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:This sounds like the sort of thing a "maoist third worldist" would say/do. They exist but everyone else berates them for their lovely "theory". Maoist third worldism has been very "en vogue" around here at different times, especially back in the LF era. Always somewhat "ironically" but we know what that means. Lightning Knight posted:Can Prison Abolition Ever Be Pragmatic? by Nathan Robinson is something I found really compelling on the subject. thanks, this was a neat read. I kinda hate the use of the term "prison abolition" to mean "prison reform to scandinavian standards" because I feel it propagates the "socialists are KWAAZY" framing. Phi230 posted:
I object to the concept of punitive "justice." Punishment is not justice, it is revenge. The whole concept of punishment is bankrupt. People who have done bad things need reform and treatment so that they can no longer do bad things, and the people who have been their victims need to be made whole to the fullest extent possible. But abstracted "punishment" shouldn't be part of the goal for any offender. There's no purpose to it, it's waste. Even animal trainers don't use negative reinforcement any more, only positive reinforcement training, because negative reinforcement training doesn't work that well and causes unintended problems. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:Let me respond with an example: I wish you elaborated on this earlier because I thought you were making the "BUT YOU USE AN IPHONE" argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:Let me respond with an example: I see. This makes sense to me. Thank you. Phi230 posted:1. There is still a state in socialism. That state exists to administer resources and enforce the will of the people in a highly democratic and transparent fashion. This begs the question, should justice be retributive or restorative, and is retributive justice compatible with a socialist vision of equality? I don't ask this to imply that I think you're wrong, but I do think it's a question worth asking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Your garden variety law firm is far from socialist. Law firms may be partnerships that share profits to some extent between partners, there still exists a capitalist relationship unless that firm doesn't employ paralegals, legal interns, or associates. Only partners have a say, noone else. They still exploit those below them for surplus value, creating capital. They still benefit from the labor of others (this contradiction can be most apparent at solo firms, where lawyers will work short hours but make the most money). Salaried staff attorneys and paralegals are just as alienated from their labor as any other worker. This seems like a bunch of requirements beyond "workers control their means of production." The law degree is the expensive part of becoming a lawyer. And education is very much a produced means of production. So, each lawyer has control over the capital they need to do their job, and a very-real option of going off and starting their own firm. Many of them join existing law-firms. And when they do, they're presented with a set of bylaws for how compensation works, and how firm decisions are made. Then they can join that group, or not. You and I might dislike the terms that the incumbent workers are offering to new workers. They might seem unfair. But the ability to control a thing means that ability to make bad decisions. That's no more anti-socialist than a dumb ballot initiative is anti-democratic. We could create a definition of socialism that's more restrictive than "every firm is controlled by people who work at that firm", like requiring that all workers get an equal vote, or an equal share in revenue, or be prohibited from renting office space, or whatever. But these restrictions (if passed as law) restrict workers' ability to set their own rules. And if they're part of the ideology, then it seems worth listing them out explicitly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Maoist third worldism has been very "en vogue" around here at different times, especially back in the LF era. Always somewhat "ironically" but we know what that means. Even the scandinavian system is less than ideal. More reform past that model is necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:I wish you elaborated on this earlier because I thought you were making the "BUT YOU USE AN IPHONE" argument. Sorry, and yeah I could see how that might come across 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:This seems like a bunch of requirements beyond "workers control their means of production." Using your argumentation here, somehow a general partnership is socialist because a few people make decisions to employ people (who are still exploited for surplus value extraction via wage labor). Using your argumentation here, a capitalist who opens a factory and works in it makes that factory socialist because "worker controls their means of production." A lawyer's means of production may be their law degree and bar card, but law firms are not controlled by their workers. They are controlled by their partners, who are more akin to a board of directors more often than not. You're ignoring the actual relationship to labor at play. All workers getting an equal share and/or vote is the only definition of a worker owned firm. It is not somehow a more "restrictive" one. The voting is the control, the share is the ownership.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Even the scandinavian system is less than ideal. More reform past that model is necessary. Yeah, see my edit above. I also find the article LT posted really hard to disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Maoist third worldism has been very "en vogue" around here at different times, especially back in the LF era. Always somewhat "ironically" but we know what that means. How do you make people whole in this context if you don't expropriate their oppressor's wealth? Expropriation and civil penalties for reparations are still punishment. And also, an amazon lineworker who is killed on the job or crippled can never be made whole. And the Amazon board of directors/warehouse managers are directly responsible for those when they happen. What do you do then? Phi230 fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:1. There is still a state in socialism. That state exists to administer resources and enforce the will of the people in a highly democratic and transparent fashion. This is not really answering the question, although I suppose the concern could have been clearer. Doing something like this requires a specifically large bureaucratic entity within the state and likely would require the expertise of people you intend to fine, who in turn are best equipped to capture the entity. quote:
Again, why punish? How is justice served by putting someone in a timeout box if they are no longer able to act against society? Why should I care that Bezos or Oprah aren't put in cages post revolution? Zachack fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:How do you make people whole in this context if you don't expropriate their oppressor's wealth? Yeah, expropriation of wealth in those contexts is not punishment though, it's restoration. You had suggested prison time for such things and prison time serves no purpose unless it is, like, mandated therapeutic treatment or something. If bezos becomes suicidal after we take his money, commit him for treatment. Mere imprisonment is purposeless vengeance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:How do you make people whole in this context if you don't expropriate their oppressor's wealth? Expropriation and civil penalties are punishment but they also serve a restorative purpose of helping resolve the ongoing problems in society. Putting the wealthy in prison after you've taken their money/property/etc. does not, unless you believe there is moral value to punishment. Putting Jeff Bezos in prison won't bring the workers back to life. But that doesn't mean Jeff Bezos shouldn't be shamed or shunned by society for his actions, either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
And I would argue that imprisonment is the ultimate form of social shaming and shunning. Imprisonment sends a clear and strong message that that behavior is no longer tolerable. How else do you shun and shame? Corporal punishment? Should we re-educate Bezos instead like Puyi? Have his victims come to him every day and tell him how much of a piece of poo poo he was?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
You shun via collective action, ie, nobody invites him to parties any more. Prison isn't shunning and prisoners do not need further stigmatization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Expropriation and civil penalties are punishment but they also serve a restorative purpose of helping resolve the ongoing problems in society. Putting the wealthy in prison after you've taken their money/property/etc. does not, unless you believe there is moral value to punishment. Why should he be shamed or shunned? To be clear, every time you waffle on these questions you implicitly underscore a desire for retributive bloodlust which inherently condemns and damns a revolution. Why would anyone trust the vanguard to willingly give up their violently-gained power post revolution when they seem so eager to use violence in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:You shun via collective action, ie, nobody invites him to parties any more. Only a minority of Americans think what Jeff Bezos does is wrong. How do you have collective action to shun when most Americans think Jeff Bezos is something to aspire to?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:? Actually yeah community service doing personal care aide work for those given crippling injuries in his warehouses would be great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:And I would argue that imprisonment is the ultimate form of social shaming and shunning. Imprisonment sends a clear and strong message that that behavior is no longer tolerable. How else do you shun and shame? Corporal punishment? Prison is social shaming enforced by the state, however. I think whether or not re-education is a good idea depends on what that means to you. There are whole models built around rehabilitation and restorative justice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:And I would argue that imprisonment is the ultimate form of social shaming and shunning. Imprisonment sends a clear and strong message that that behavior is no longer tolerable. How else do you shun and shame? Corporal punishment? If the behavior is no longer possible then why does it need to be shown that it is intolerable?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Why should he be shamed or shunned? To be clear, every time you waffle on these questions you implicitly underscore a desire for retributive bloodlust which inherently condemns and damns a revolution. Why would anyone trust the vanguard to willingly give up their violently-gained power post revolution when they seem so eager to use violence in the first place? I mean, if it is publicly known that Jeff Bezos is an rear end in a top hat who treated people terribly, I don't see why people should be expected to want anything to do with him. You don't have to be friends with Jeff Bezos or like Jeff Bezos and I don't think it's endorsing violence to say that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Only a minority of Americans think what Jeff Bezos does is wrong. How do you have collective action to shun when most Americans think Jeff Bezos is something to aspire to? We're talking about a post revolutionary world where Bezos has been stripped of his wealth. If most Americans don't think what he's doing is wrong, then the revolution hasn't happened yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, if it is publicly known that Jeff Bezos is an rear end in a top hat who treated people terribly, I don't see why people should be expected to want anything to do with him. You don't have to be friends with Jeff Bezos or like Jeff Bezos and I don't think it's endorsing violence to say that. Have you considered that a neutral state exists where people just don't give a poo poo about Bezos and treat him like anyone else? What value is gained by branding Bezos or Oprah or any professional athlete after they've been reduced to Citizen 446-BXR?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Have you considered that a neutral state exists where people just don't give a poo poo about Bezos and treat him like anyone else? What value is gained by branding Bezos or Oprah or any professional athlete after they've been reduced to Citizen 446-BXR? I mean, sure, but socialism shouldn't be about taking away people's individuality or choice on who they want to associate with. It's ok for there to be social consequences for anti-social behavior, even if those consequences are merely "nobody likes you now because you treated other human beings badly."
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Capitalism Can’t Give Us Affordable Housing argues Robbie Nelson for Jacobin magazine.quote:Socialists have to make the case, loudly, publicly, and globally: capitalism can never meet our needs for high-quality, affordable housing. The reason is straightforward: the profit motive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, sure, but socialism shouldn't be about taking away people's individuality or choice on who they want to associate with. It's ok for there to be social consequences for anti-social behavior, even if those consequences are merely "nobody likes you now because you treated other human beings badly." Inherent to your argument is that someone who associates with Oprah post-revolution should also receive social consequences, and that a state entity needs to exist to ensure those consequences are either meted out or documented for the purpose of individual meting out. Zachack fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:1. There is still a state in socialism. That state exists to administer resources and enforce the will of the people in a highly democratic and transparent fashion. Can you explain what harm I've done by joining a union and earning a good salary?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Inherent to your argument is that someone who associates with Oprah post-revolution should also receive social consequences, and that a state entity needs to exist to ensure those consequences are either meted out or documented for the purpose of individual meting out. I do not see why the state has to manage who is given dirty looks and snide remarks or not invited to parties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Inherent to your argument is that someone who associates with Oprah post-revolution should also receive social consequences, and that a state entity needs to exist to ensure those consequences are either meted out documented for the purpose of individual meting out. Who is arguing against a state? You seem to have this crazy idea that the new state will just be made up of the same people. The new state will not be as susceptible to individual influence as it divests power democratically, in as a decentralized fashion as possible to ensure local representation. That elite bureaucracy that you say has the skills to capture the system won't be apart of that system. What is the point of any revolution if you don't change who is in charge. There must new institutions with new faces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Inherent to your argument is that someone who associates with Oprah post-revolution should also receive social consequences, and that a state entity needs to exist to ensure those consequences are either meted out or documented for the purpose of individual meting out. eh, we dont need a state entity necessarily for either of those things, as Twitter followers and unfollows and blocks demonstrate. I mean a state of some kind almost certainly is necessary for any stable form of government, I'm no ancap, but I don't see why a state is needed for shunning to happen, shunning happens on high school playgrounds and on social media, it's a natural human behavior that doesn't really need a state as such to function at all. Shunning occurs regardless of the state. If anything we need a State in part to stop unjustified shunning (for example, racism).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Can you explain what harm I've done by joining a union and earning a good salary? Joining a union doesn't mean you're a good person/if you live the suburban lifestyle your lifestyle is built off the exploitation of others so I guess enjoy it while it lasts? Our job isn't to convince you, its to convince everyone else, since most people don't make 6 figures off other peoples' backs. Phi230 fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:And if they aren't? When the time comes you're gonna go nazi to protect your comfortable and decadent lifestyle so we shouldn't waste our time trying to convince you is what that means
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:since most people don't make 6 figures off other peoples' backs. Most people aren't in good unions. Which again, is a thing you should be holding as a success story of how worker collective action can claw back some real meaningful things. Instead of just being pissy someone has slightly but not very much more money than you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Instead of just being pissy someone has slightly but not very much more money than you. Nice projection lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Joining a union doesn't mean you're a good person/if you live the suburban lifestyle your lifestyle is built off the exploitation of others so I guess enjoy it while it lasts? Our job isn't to convince you, its to convince everyone else, since most people don't make 6 figures off other peoples' backs. Whose backs am I earning this salary off of?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I do not see why the state has to manage who is given dirty looks and snide remarks or not invited to parties. Then you aren't going to shame and shun Bezos or any other CEO because most of them are not visible celebrities to the vast majority of people, and only a tiny few are "name-brand" like Bezos or Oprah, with Bezos being extremely low on the scale of name recognition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 21:24
|
|