|
gradenko_2000 posted:That's really more a problem with the continuation of the existence of markets, which promote this behavior of externalizing as many factors as possible in order to maximize profits, as well as trying to pull off worker co-ops in a capitalist framework: if your factory is democratically run, and the other two factories are owned by capitalists, then they're going to out-compete you because they can engage in exploitative behavior, and you either can't, or you'll simply democratically convince your workers that they need to debase themselves in the same way anyway. Ruzihm posted:There is an argument to be made that cooperatives are not socialist because they too must maximize the extraction of surplus value in order to continue producing. Coops are even more efficient at concentrating capital, because more revenue can be reinvested directly into exclusively expanding a firm's productivity instead of being paid out as "wages" to unproductive elements such as CEOs, shareholders, etc. Cicero fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Nov 29, 2018 |
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
Cicero posted:Right, but if you have a worker-owned co-op sans markets, it seems tricky to me how they would meaningfully own and control their means of production. With a market, there's an incentive to do a good enough job to sell your poo poo and profit. And with full state control, you just have the state directing everything to at least try and improve production of whatever good it is you're making. But let's say you're a factory making widgets without a market. What incentive is there for the workers or managers to do a good job, or a better job? Directives from 'above'? Then you're essentially back to state control. You can allocate remuneration without a market. The key is to disconnect the labor contributions of workers (accounting for quality & speed is important, so merely measuring hours is inadequate here) from the individual productivity of the firm being they use to produce. Requiring the compulsive development of the latter is a key component of capitalism, and is central to its many contradictions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Right, but if you have a worker-owned co-op sans markets, it seems tricky to me how they would meaningfully own and control their means of production. With a market, there's an incentive to do a good enough job to sell your poo poo and profit. And with full state control, you just have the state directing everyone to at least try and improve production of whatever good it is you're making. But let's say you're a factory making widgets without a market. What incentive is there for the workers or managers to do a good job, or a better job? Directives from 'above'? Then you're essentially back to state control. I think that really more comes down to the lens by which we see the phrase "state control" as this, top-down, bureaucrat-heavy structure that's disconnected from the concerns of the people (which, to be fair, tends to be how we view the USSR). if The State is telling you "produce this many widgets" as a calculation of that many widgets being needed by The State, but the representative of the state that makes that decision is a person that was elected by a body of 2,000 people from your locality, and indeed might even be from your union (or as in syndicalism, your union IS your unit of political organization), then there is no great "distance" between the proletariat and the state
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:You can allocate remuneration without a market. quote:The key is to disconnect the labor contributions of workers (accounting for quality & speed is important, so merely measuring hours is inadequate here) from the individual productivity of the firm being they use to produce. 1. In many cases this may be near-impossible. Let's say you have some startup-equivalent software type firm. Measuring the contributions of an individual programmer separate from the productivity of their startup team as a whole is essentially impossible to do from the outside. You can rely on manager and peer reviews similarly to how things already work in capitalist economies, but then you run into another issue: if reviews and remuneration are disconnected from the objective performance of the firm as a whole, then everyone in the startup is incentivized to just dishonestly praise each other to the high heavens, essentially "you scratch my back, I scratch yours". (The reason this wouldn't happen as much in a capitalist context is that how much money the startup has is intrinsically tied to how well its performing as a whole, not what it says about itself; going from honestly critical reviews of one's peers to dishonestly pie-in-the-sky ones won't result in the team as a whole getting any more money) 2. Who's managing this process? It sounds like some entity outside and 'above' the firm would have to, and at that point aren't you just back to the state controlling things rather than the workers? edit: actually a third issue may be that measuring performance in general becomes harder without profit or money changing hands as much Cicero fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Nov 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:There is an argument to be made that cooperatives are not socialist because they too must maximize the extraction of surplus value in order to continue producing. Coops are even more efficient at concentrating capital, because more revenue can be reinvested directly into exclusively expanding a firm's productivity instead of being paid out as "wages" to unproductive elements such as CEOs, shareholders, etc. I don't think you can claim that shareholders are inherently "unproductive" that simply as they provide capital which is used in the production process. Unless you mean unproductive in the sense of they aren't providing labor to produce the good/service something makes in which case I agree. I don't think any system where markets are banned can function properly because resource allocation is going to be skewed. Worker co-ops are probably the closest you can get to the Marxist ideal and still function well in reality. If you remove profit then you lack incentive to improve things or to respond to consumer demand. Edit: Basically market systems and non-market systems suck at effective resource allocation but it appears that non-market ones suck worse since there are ways to fix the worst excesses of market systems (e.g. worker co-ops) while the ways to fix the non-market ones pretty much are just violence against people. axeil fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Nov 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
axeil posted:I don't think any system where markets are banned can function properly because resource allocation is going to be skewed. If there were no external effects on a market, if all markets were competitive, and if all markets are in equilibrium, then you might get to a point where a market economy would produce optimal/efficient resource allocations, but since those conditions don't exist, markets cause skewed resource allocations anyway. And to say nothing of how markets cause inequity, and how markets are anti-democratic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Wouldn't that almost inevitably be market-like? Cicero posted:I see two issues here: Yes, they would be, but if group of producers A are equipped to do the same output as group of producers B (which may be a historical group of producers or a contemporary one) with 50% of the labor, and group A claims to be doing the same amounts of the same varieties of labor as group B, but they are producing statistically significantly less than twice the output of firm B, it's pretty clear that the attested amount of labor is wrong. The only way around that is to have an entire (likely, global) industry secretly colluding in attesting how much work they are doing after an underestimated boost of productivity. Cicero posted:2. Who's managing this process? It sounds like some entity outside and 'above' the firm would have to, and at that point aren't you just back to the state controlling things rather than the workers? Yes, there would need to be at least one body for coordination & investigation. I don't know if "state" is appropriate, since it would not be an instrument of class dictatorship. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Nov 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
axeil posted:Edit: Basically market systems and non-market systems suck at effective resource allocation but it appears that non-market ones suck worse since there are ways to fix the worst excesses of market systems (e.g. worker co-ops) while the ways to fix the non-market ones pretty much are just violence against people. Markets (as well as any critical element of a mode of production) also require the threat of violence to be upheld. If you try to freely distribute an over-produced commodity that someone else could not not sell after being produced, people in blue uniforms will find you and kick your teeth in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:Yes, they would be, but if group of producers A are equipped to do the same output as group of producers B (which may be a historical group of producers or a contemporary one) with 50% of the labor, and group A claims to be doing the same amounts of the same varieties of labor as group B, but they are producing statistically significantly less than twice the output of firm B, it's pretty clear that the attested amount of labor is wrong. quote:The only way around that is to have an entire (likely, global) industry secretly colluding in attesting how much work they are doing after an underestimated boost of productivity. quote:Yes, there would need to be at least one body for coordination & investigation. I don't know if "state" is appropriate, since it would not be an instrument of class dictatorship. gradenko_2000 posted:I think that really more comes down to the lens by which we see the phrase "state control" as this, top-down, bureaucrat-heavy structure that's disconnected from the concerns of the people (which, to be fair, tends to be how we view the USSR). To me it seems like if you don't have markets, the further away the controlling entity is, the less the workers meaningfully control the means of production, but the closer it is, the more workers have no reason to do a good or better job. I guess you could split the difference there and maybe it'd work? Cicero fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Nov 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
Currently startup remuneration is based on how many execs you can dupe with your juicero idea. I think we could deliberate and come up with something better than that
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
I thought you'd have something better than a deflection of "lol startups am I rite guys". Your deflection doesn't even make any sense, we're talking about measuring the internal outputs of individual knowledge workers, you have the same issue regardless of how useful or stupid the final product is. Cicero fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Nov 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I mean, if they're from your own union, you may be back to the regulatory capture state of "let's just set it low so we don't have to work too hard". well ... yeah. Swathes of socialist thought are of the view that we'd all be working a hell of a lot less if we had the structures to support it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:The key is to disconnect the labor contributions of workers (accounting for quality & speed is important, so merely measuring hours is inadequate here) from the individual productivity of the firm being they use to produce. I would argue that this is fundamentally impossible in many cases, and any system that relies on being able to quantify performance to derive compensation is going to end up with an boss/employee dynamic between worker and "wage decider". It might be more fair, but it's still gonna lead to some lovely dynamics and feels like a half measure. I would offer an example of schools for how this dynamic would play out even in a completely non-profit environment. Quantifying teacher performance to determine fair compensation is the white whale of right wing anti-union bullshit. If it's by standardized tests, teachers will just teach to the tests. If it's by peer review, you're just encouraging workers to be lovely to each other or game the system, if there's some "wage board" or "supervisor" review (even if elected), how can that person or group meaningfully evaluate the teacher when at most they can occasionally drop in. If you're relying on parent review, just el oh loving el. This is why pretty much every teacher contract ties compensation down to years of service, classes taught and school activities supervised, and education level. That's all objectively measurable, and while it's not great, it's far better than the alternatives. A key piece, as well, is that compensation be public and voted on by the workers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:This is why pretty much every teacher contract ties compensation down to years of service, classes taught and school activities supervised, and education level. That's all objectively measurable, and while it's not great, it's far better than the alternatives. I think this is an acceptable as a means of measuring contribution in the case of teachers. And I agree that it's not a perfect measurement (and I doubt that there is such a thing) but it is manageable! My argument is that other tasks that don't produce immediately quantifiable & interchangeable commodities (such as a worker at a "startup" ) can be treated using similar principles, but the exact nature of that treatment must require deliberation on a case by case basis. When a socialist says "under socialism, decisions can be made about how to organize production without having to maximize the expansion of capital", we obviously still have to do the "decisions". That's what the deliberation is about. Cicero posted:I thought you'd have something better than a deflection of "lol startups am I rite guys". I thought the question was about how to keep groups of producers cooperating on the same line of production collectively honest. I suggested that a group of producers working on the same production line could be remunerated collectively by how much labor they contribute to production accounting for quality, speed,etc. You said that they would need to be kept collectively honest. I responded that it could be required to be consistent with productivity levels across the same industry, and you asked "how do you measure that", and I responded "It requires deliberation but we can probably do better than what we already do, having startups maximizing the number of duped executives." As far as how to determine how to split contributions among workers whose individual contribution is ambiguous, I'm fine with them deciding among themselves how much they comparatively contribute, and am also open to alternatives as well. I think it's an open question. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Nov 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
It's telling that those most critical of the idea of Socialism harp on "everyone will slack off and screw everyone else over". The lens of capitalism has warped people's views on humanity to an alarming degree. Slacking off is a goal of Socialism in my mind. When we use our labor and resources to produce enough for all but no more, we'll all get to slack off. That's the point. The waste of competitive duplication, false "innovation", and all the efforts in the marketing of Laundry Detergent A being better than the 27 other ones out there; the endless harping of our consumer culture for MORE so a small number of people can get insanely richer slightly faster. When that goes away, drat right we'll slack off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Yeah, that argument has always been dumb to me. If the argument is about slacking off at a job, the worker dynamics get real different real fast when you're accountable to your coworkers, all of whom have a real stake in the company, instead of your boss, where your only incentive is to work hard enough to not get fired. Like, do they think that they'll just be able to show up at work and nap in the warehouse or something? Like somehow not having a boss means that you can't ever be kicked out and that your coworkers will just look on impotently as you leech off their hard work? If it's "no one will work if their basic needs are met" then do they not think that people who do work won't get compensation for it? Like, if I don't work, I won't end up homeless or starve or freeze to death, but if I go out and do productive things, I'm gonna be able to get a nicer place, take vacations, buy nicer things, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Yeah, any sensible way to organize production will let people who don't (won't or can't) work live a dignified life to the best of the ability of the working population. "To each according to their contribution" need not scale down to zero for those who don't measurably contribute to production. Marx favored deducting "poor relief" as well as welfare from the total social product before calculating labor remuneration. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm posted:What is "a fair distribution"? The idea is that the deduction for the "common satisfaction of needs" grows as productivity increases so that a given amount of labor can produce more surplus (beyond what the laborers need). And the more the deduction grows relative to the total consumption of the population, the less people will need to labor specifically to receive their needs from the total social product. The aim here is to gradually replace social labor done for the need of receiving remuneration with social labor done for recreation's sake. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Nov 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Well and that way "displaced workers" who are no longer needed in a given activity find something else productive to do instead of losing their homes and dying in the streets. It straight up boggles my mind that "robots are gonna do all our work for us" is being talked about as an apocalypse instead of a paradise because our economic/political systems are so amazingly bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:I thought the question was about how to keep groups of producers cooperating on the same line of production collectively honest. quote:I suggested that a group of producers working on the same production line could be remunerated collectively by how much labor they contribute to production accounting for quality, speed,etc. You said that they would need to be kept collectively honest. I responded that it could be required to be consistent with productivity levels across the same industry, and you asked "how do you measure that", and I responded "It requires deliberation but we can probably do better than what we already do, having startups maximizing the number of duped executives." quote:As far as how to determine how to split contributions among workers whose individual contribution is ambiguous, I'm fine with them deciding among themselves how much they comparatively contribute, and am also open to alternatives as well. I think it's an open question. Azathoth posted:If the argument is about slacking off at a job, the worker dynamics get real different real fast when you're accountable to your coworkers, all of whom have a real stake in the company, instead of your boss, where your only incentive is to work hard enough to not get fired. quote:The key is to disconnect the labor contributions of workers (accounting for quality & speed is important, so merely measuring hours is inadequate here) from the individual productivity of the firm being they use to produce. quote:Like, do they think that they'll just be able to show up at work and nap in the warehouse or something? Like somehow not having a boss means that you can't ever be kicked out and that your coworkers will just look on impotently as you leech off their hard work? To be clear, what we were discussing is: how do you handle individual and collective (team/company) accountability and incentives in a system where a) there aren't markets and b) workers meaningfully own/control the means of production, and then Ruzihm added the additional stricture that individual worker performance evaluations should not be tied to performance of the company as a whole (and possibly their team as a whole?). Cicero fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Nov 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
For production lines that do involve quantifiable, interchangeable & identical outputs, factoring in the quality of the workplace seems a pretty simple way of calculating contributed aggregate team labor if you know the aggregate team product. Suppose team A makes 50 widgets per hour on line A, and team B makes 100/hr on line B. Given the qualities of line A and line B, a hypothetical team C is estimated to also make 50/hr at A and 100/hr at B. Therefore, the teams A and B are determined to have contributed the same amount of labor and should be entitled to the same sized share of the social product remaining for remuneration even though they have produced different numbers of widgets. I'm suggesting that each team can then divide their equal share among themselves, but am open to alternatives. This separation of remuneration from the advancement of the working environment is important to the disincentivization of concentration of productivity. It serves to incentivize "catching up" underdeveloped workplaces (or replacing them with lines that are more suited for the ecology, if that's a cause for the decreased productivity) before spending resources on the diminishing returns of already-advanced workplaces. How the remuneration of one team's tasks compares to that of other tasks & industries is another open question. I think danger of the task should play a role. Also, tasks that are underfulfilled should maybe have an increased compensation, which would probably lead to greater compensation for some higher-educated tasks but not necessarily permanently so. Otherwise, I think there might be something to equating what average teams in each industry produce with average effort. For products that aren't quantifiable, another way of determining contribution would be needed, yes. What is important is that there ought not be remuneration for simply for existing where the comparatively good workplaces are (which incentivizes the concentration of productivity), and that remuneration reflects contribution (controlling for the context that the task must be done in) in a meaningful way that makes laboring tougher but necessary work appropriately more rewarding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Crossposting: Responding to "The Left Case Against Open Borders" (by Angela Nagle) by Brianna Rennix and Nathan Robinson for Current Affairs. quote:The fact that a self-described leftist like Nagle would openly support E-Verify shows that she is, at best, so grossly uninformed about immigration policy that it was irresponsible for her to commentate on it. At worst, it might be that she genuinely does not give a poo poo about the suffering of immigrants and is perfectly happy to sacrifice them to political expediency. Either way, she is not a credible exponent of what “the left” ought to think about anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
I think the problem with socialism.is that humans will always find a driving force to call currency. Whether its a favor for a favor or corn for beef. We will find a way to utilize an object as a currency. Someone will control a majority of that object through progressive time. In the ussr there was a gigantic barter economy that existed as currency had little value. But some had more and others had less. Even at peak socialism
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 07:54
|
|
|
Barter economy is a myth actually, it arose AFTER currency primarily in places that once had access to currency but no longer did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
how about, get this: units of labor as currency
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 08:06
|
|
|
I realise this current conversation is more focused on labor and economics, which I'm eager to participate in, but as a social democrat I just want to say this: I would be a lot more open to the ideas of socialism if members wouldn't continue to tell me that me and my family deserve to die. I have been told this several times by socialists in radical student organisations - easy to dismiss - and members of an official socialist political party in Australia - not so easy. The response I always hear from reasonable socialists is, "oh, that's just the radicals, ignore them". And yet I can point to several socialist revolutions where people like me - in the $100k-$150k per year range - are put to death. It seems to me that socialist revolutions are always going to be radical and led by the most radical, so why should I take comfort in the idea that those who want to kill me or put me in a labor camp are "just radicals?" CelestialScribe fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 08:19
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Like, do they think that they'll just be able to show up at work and nap in the warehouse or something? Like somehow not having a boss means that you can't ever be kicked out and that your coworkers will just look on impotently as you leech off their hard work? It's not that there won't be "bosses" under a socialist system, it's that the workers will have a say in who the "bosses" are. If the bosses make the job suck, they're out. If they kick out the slackers, they're making everyone else's job a little easier. Add in a healthy social safety net, and a bad boss will see workers just walk off the job and go somewhere else without the fear that they'll go hungry or get evicted before they land another job. I don't see how anyone who works for a living is against socialism. We have one hell of a propaganda hill to climb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 08:43
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I realise this current conversation is more focused on labor and economics, which I'm eager to participate in, but as a social democrat I just want to say this: I would be a lot more open to the ideas of socialism if members wouldn't continue to tell me that me and my family deserve to die. Almost always people like this want to be the bosses after the revolution and if you make too much money that means they get to keep less. They aren't Socialists or Social Democrats, just another conservative capitalist shrouding themselves in a rose to deflect from the empty pit in their lives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 08:45
|
|
|
karthun posted:Almost always people like this want to be the bosses after the revolution and if you make too much money that means they get to keep less. They aren't Socialists or Social Democrats, just another conservative capitalist shrouding themselves in a rose to deflect from the empty pit in their lives. I think that's a pretty thin argument. Plenty of socialists committed terror in Russia, China, Cuba, etc. Are they to be called capitalists? And in any case, my point still holds: that they are the ones who eventually do end up controlling the system. CelestialScribe fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 08:56
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:It's not that there won't be "bosses" under a socialist system, it's that the workers will have a say in who the "bosses" are. If the bosses make the job suck, they're out. If they kick out the slackers, they're making everyone else's job a little easier. Add in a healthy social safety net, and a bad boss will see workers just walk off the job and go somewhere else without the fear that they'll go hungry or get evicted before they land another job. Everything you're describing here is the exact opposite of what I've heard socialists argue: that no, there will be no bosses and that the concept of "jobs" will be eradicated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 08:58
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I realise this current conversation is more focused on labor and economics, which I'm eager to participate in, but as a social democrat I just want to say this: I would be a lot more open to the ideas of socialism if members wouldn't continue to tell me that me and my family deserve to die. if you make friends with organized labor people, help them out from time to time, and stick with them if you think things are about to go down, you shouldn't worry too much about radical socialists. (this is a good way to get killed by capital owners in the event of a violent revolution so ymmv)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 08:59
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:if you make friends with organized labor people, help them out from time to time, and stick with them if you think things are about to go down, you shouldn't worry too much about radical socialists. ...that is in no way an argument against what I've just said. I shouldn't *have* to make friends with people in order to avoid getting killed for however much money I make. Isn't being a human being enough?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:01
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Everything you're describing here is the exact opposite of what I've heard socialists argue: that no, there will be no bosses and that the concept of "jobs" will be eradicated. democratic control of the workplace does not mean the complete absence of leaders in the workplace, but rather that these leaders are democratically selected from among, and by, the workers, and are accountable to them
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:02
|
|
|
Very excited for this thread. Why capitalism won’t survive without socialism https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/25/15998002/eric-weinstein-capitalism-socialism-revolution quote:“We think of capitalism as being locked in an ideological battle with socialism, but we never really saw that capitalism might be defeated by its own child — technology.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:03
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:...that is in no way an argument against what I've just said. I shouldn't *have* to make friends with people in order to avoid getting killed for however much money I make. It is for me, but like you said, some people get carried away, especially in something so tumultuous. This sort of thing happened in the french revolution - a revolution that established capitalism. It's not unique to a communist revolution. Interestingly, it didn't really happen in the paris commune as far as I have found. So, it's not *always* a feature of communist revolutions. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:05
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I think that's a pretty thin argument. Plenty of socialists committed terror in Russia, China, Cuba, etc. Do you think that they were socialists or conservative capitalists using the power of the state to own and control the means of production for personal glory and profit? Do you think any senior member of these governments ever had to wait for any good they desired like the citizens who labored for them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:democratic control of the workplace does not mean the complete absence of leaders in the workplace, but rather that these leaders are democratically selected from among, and by, the workers, and are accountable to them All well and good, but there are plenty of socialists who believe otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:05
|
|
|
karthun posted:Do you think that they were socialists or conservative capitalists using the power of the state to own and control the means of production for personal glory and profit? Do you think any senior member of these governments ever had to wait for any good they desired like the citizens who labored for them? First time I've ever heard Lenin, Mao, Castro and the Spanish socialist revolutionaries called conservative capitalists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:06
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I realise this current conversation is more focused on labor and economics, which I'm eager to participate in, but as a social democrat I just want to say this: I would be a lot more open to the ideas of socialism if members wouldn't continue to tell me that me and my family deserve to die. this strikes me as a variation of the parable of the rich man passing through the eye of the needle: a materialist perspective would consider people in your socioeconomic bracket to turn reactionary, if you aren't already, as socialist pressure is applied to the economy and to politics
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:07
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:this strikes me as a variation of the parable of the rich man passing through the eye of the needle: a materialist perspective would consider people in your socioeconomic bracket to turn reactionary, if you aren't already, as socialist pressure is applied to the economy and to politics And if they aren't? Like, what does this even mean? That I'm supposed to quit my job and take a salary half of mine just to "fit in" with a socialist revolution?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:And if they aren't? well, a really good socialist revolution would abolish money entirely, so
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:10
|
|