|
V. Illych L. posted:there is no workforce that *shouldn't* unionise and i again have no idea where you're getting this from, it's a complete red herring V. Illych L. posted:ideally yes, but some concessions must be made to the material difficulty of organising certain sectors or businesses, where lots of businesses have marginal revenues and so unionising will drive places out of business, creating a trap which can only be fairly resolved by imposition from outside
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
Somfin posted:You have expressed this part clearly. The part that amazes all of us is that your logic goes like so: you're leaving out the consequence of non-organisation being more suffering for all! your arguments are that if only we make things immediately better for people, they will remain better. this is utopian; we must maintain and maximise working-class power or any progress we make will be undone or subverted in short order. i mean you're just restating the blairite position - we've known for ten years that that position just doesn't work
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 07:54
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You have expressed this part clearly. The part that amazes all of us is that your logic goes like so: Its this. I have been trying to articulate it for like a week now but this sums it up. V. Illych L. posted:you're leaving out the consequence of non-organisation being more suffering for all! your arguments are that if only we make things immediately better for people, they will remain better. this is utopian; we must maintain and maximise working-class power or any progress we make will be undone or subverted in short order. I dont know what to do with this level of cynicism. Whats the opposite of humanism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 07:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:You don't get to pretend you didn't say this: i'm talking about the actual motivations of individual workers, who may rationally consider the risk of unionising too great under entirely flexible conditions. in such cases, their motivation is not helped by making the difference between union and non-union conditions as great as possible, but rather in minimising it as that will increase the incentive to organise that whole paragraph is a concession to your side of the argument and it's a little perplexing that you think it's a statement against organising or are you suggesting that unionising is always a positive for the individual worker? that's a strong statement and not one i'm convinced is true (e.g. if you get murdered or sacked for being unionised, that's clearly a net negative)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 08:00
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:well there's assuming that i was referring to something other than the principle of charity when i talked about an uncharitable interpretation, for one I wasn't doing this. I ask for definitions because I find people often use words differently from me. Because I'm pretty dumb. V. Illych L. posted:also the whole faux-socratic style of tedious questioning where you impose some bizarre psychological reason for my position rather than my stated arguments, or, if you will, asserting my fundamental irrationality I also wasn't doing this. I was genuinely trying to understand phrases I found worrying to make sure you weren't sipping into accelerationism. Which you are, but I can understand why you think you aren't. I think you might want to be more charitable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 08:03
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:<idiocy> edit: V. Illych L. posted:or are you suggesting that unionising is always a positive for the individual worker? that's a strong statement and not one i'm convinced is true (e.g. if you get murdered or sacked for being unionised, that's clearly a net negative) twodot fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Jun 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 08:10
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Whats the opposite of humanism? Lmao: first google result posted:Evil is anything that creates strife and suffering. This is antagonistic to the values and definition of a humanist and therefore would be the opposite of humanism. Egoism is concern for one's own interests and welfare. This is also the opposite of humanism.Jul 12, 2015
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
Also, whipping out a Wikipedia article was not what I was looking for when I asked about charitability. I was looking for you to apply that definition to what I had been actually saying. You're a bit like a Magic the Gathering combo player who knows the combo and owns the cards but never bothered to learn how to play it, so when they're asked to play it out, all they say is "it's the [X] combo, duh" and then sit there petulantly waiting for the other person to concede. Whenever someone drops a power word in an argument, I always question how it applies here and how it means that I'm being out of line or that my response is wrong. So far I haven't been told that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 08:19
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you're leaving out the consequence of non-organisation being more suffering for all! your arguments are that if only we make things immediately better for people, they will remain better. this is utopian; we must maintain and maximise working-class power or any progress we make will be undone or subverted in short order. Okay, let's do utilitarian calculus. Let's say you have control of an old timey Inquisitor unit and you can go around torturing members of the working class. Let's say we're about 100 years from Nationwide unions. You know for sure that for every hour of torture you will speed up unionization by one day. You can also kill someone to speed it up by a month. How much torture or murder should you do to make unions happen faster?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 08:44
|
|
|
Indeterminacy posted:There's something very interesting in question 2 here which you might not necessarily be conscious of. I don't think you're asking the question "What work needs to be done", but rather you're looking at the administrative question of "how does one assign a particular article of work to a particular person". I've seen propositions about work rotations and sharing out chores before. I think it's an interesting idea but it only works for society if everyone is more or less equally good at each task (give or take, but nobody is terrible) and if there isn't specialized work that needs doing. For example, you generally want your doctors doing doctor things unless there are so many doctors that society is covered when some of them rotate onto trash duty. And...it's still really a waste to have your doctors on trash duty and not seeing patients faster or spending more time with each patient. Underlying a lot of the discussions I've seen here about how society could be reconfigured so that people work less or don't have to work is this idea that all that excess capacity is available and that all we have to do is reorganize. I really disagree with that and I think it's where OwlFancier and I have a big difference of worldview. Delivering the standard of living we (generic we) enjoy now requires roughly the amount of work being done now given the technology availble and the stock of capital available. Raising living standards in the underdeveloped world, which global communism would have to do or else what's the point, would require more work and capital on top of that. I don't see how we get away with working much less without also enjoying much less of a standard of living. edit: To the current discussion... I think if you asked most workers (not organizers, not union managers) they'd be in favor of anything that did that, whether it came from collective bargaining or not. If people have a living wage and good benefits do they really care about smashing capitalism? wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jun 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Absolutely there are a thousand ways to do UBI terribly. A bill that says "Give everyone 1000 bucks" is trash. The amount needs to be a livable wage, needs to automatically adjust for inflation and needs to be trivially easy to receive. This would possibly be the most expensive social program ever implemented and would also face deep and entrencehd opposition at every stage of its conception and implementation. The fact you describe it as a "relatively easy to attain" policy is mindboggling. quote:And as I said starting this- UBI AND chipping away at private markets. But a good UBI bill should be a single fight. Each markets going to have to be attacked individually- look at the massive fight we've been going through in the U.S. to decommoditize healthcare. The fight to decommoditize housing isn't about to get easier. And try winning a single vote in the rust belt with the platform "get rid of the agriculture industry!" This is even more baffling. You're explicitly advocating that we should pursue piecemeal and individual reforms without linking these struggles around any kind of coherent goals or movement building? Who exactly is doing the attacking here? What's the social base for your reform program? What defends these programs from counter attack? Helsing fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Jun 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
 ok, let's take a step back assumption one: a policy ought to fit into some broader ideological scheme, to build towards some vision for society. for me, this vision is some form of socialism; i take socialism being desirable as a given. we can discuss this if it's controversial; i define socialism in a relatively broad sense, so i'm tolerant of both most conceptions of state socialism á la british Old Labour, direct worker's ownership á la the meidner plan and various strains of council communism and anarchism. assumption two: we live in a society where politics is primarily a game of power. this means that i assume a model where people usually vote and campaign for their own perceived interest, broad or narrow; taking away people's ability to act is a valid move, as seen in e.g. voter suppression efforts by the american republican party. various confounding effects like racism or consumerism can shift people's perception of their own interest into more narrow terms (e.g. "i'm fine so long as i'm better off than those people") assumption three: there is a powerful coalition whose interests runs directly contrary to socialism; this coalition will actively attempt to subvert and eliminate any progress made, and they severely limit what is practically possible in parliamentary politics from this, it follows that a policy should do several things to be good policy: firstly, it should improve the lives of those who could be moved to mobilise in favour of our goal; it should work to mobilise people in favour of socialism, and empower them to act on that mobilisation, and it should be as resistant as possible to counterattack UBI, if ideally implemented with rent controls and everything (which i don't think is politically realistic, but ymmv), meets the first criterion, fails the third and is actively detrimental to the second. this, combined with its practical lack of feasibility in terms of achievable politics --even just getting the rent controls would be a titanic struggle- makes it a bad policy in my view. re: those who say that this is a callous view, it's pretty much the official policy of (at least) the norwegian labour movement, and i believe also of its scandinavian sisters. these, with their respective parties, are the most successful parliamentary-socialist organisations in history, though they are admittedly on the wane these days due to a variety of factors. norway has no national minimum wage in order to incentivise people to unionise; some sectors have sector-wise minimum wages, but this is always done with a view towards maintaining high union membership and collective bargaining as the standard. this does explicitly mean sometimes sacrificing people to keep the system up! that is not desirable, but it is necessary, and any political decision will in real terms do the same thing and if one thinks that one's own is different, it's self-deceit; a policy like UBI would still spend a huge amount of money on trying to keep rich people onboard which is tacitly keeping it out of the hands of those who need it, healthcare institutions etc., all of which is actually going to kill people. to put it this way: policy is like a house, in a sense. we want to build our house to last, so that even if it costs us some comforts we can at least use it as a base for our future without it coming down on top of our heads. maduro attempted to impose price controls and subsidise petrol to improve the lot of his people, and he failed miserably because price controls on food turned out to be really bad policy for a number of reasons, no matter how well-intentioned the principle of making sure people can afford to eat is - that (laudable) policy objective could've been met in other, much better ways. a policy can never be considered in a vacuum; it must always be seen in a broader context. a policy that is good in one instance, like a quota for hiring certain types of minorities to certain positions, can be good (american affirmative action, scandinavian women-in-the-boardroom initiatives) or bad (assad stuffing important positions with loyal alawites or british authorities taking religious leaders as minority spokespeople) depending on the political context. the only absolutes we have are the desirable outcomes; in my view, not having a reform rolled back is worth aiming somewhat lower
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This would possibly be the most expensive social program ever implemented and would also face deep and entrencehd opposition at every stage of its conception and implementation. The fact you describe it as a "relatively easy to attain" policy is mindboggling. There is no version that would not face deep and entrenched opposition at every stage of its conception and implementation, regardless of what it cost and no matter how much balls-tongueing it was introduced nor how many appeasing elements were added to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:There is no version that would not face deep and entrenched opposition at every stage of its conception and implementation, regardless of what it cost and no matter how much balls-tongueing it was introduced nor how many appeasing elements were added to it. There is one version that would face comparatively little resistance from capital and from corporate media (provided their favored politicians were behind it): the version where it's a means tested replacement for most or all other manifestations of the government safety net. The fact that any policy that actually successful increases the economic security of workers would face a direct and sustained counter attack is why it's pointless to talk about these policies without simultaneously discussing what political or social forces are going to support and protect those policies. Without some organizational muscle to defend whatever gains are made nothing of lasting significance can be achieved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This would possibly be the most expensive social program ever implemented and would also face deep and entrencehd opposition at every stage of its conception and implementation. The fact you describe it as a "relatively easy to attain" policy is mindboggling. The reason I'm saying this is relatively easy to attain is because it's not directly confrontational to capitalism. It's something that benefits capitalists by pumping more capital their way and the working class by raising the floor. Universal health care is a direct confrontation to both the health care industry and employers who leverage health insurance against their employees. Solving housing would also be a direct confrontation against landlords, employers who use their employees need to pay rent as leverage and as a nice bonus all the people who tricked into thinking housing was a good investment. These are absolutely vital things that we need to fight for, but they're uphill struggles under a liberal government. Helsing posted:This is even more baffling. You're explicitly advocating that we should pursue piecemeal and individual reforms without linking these struggles around any kind of coherent goals or movement building? Who exactly is doing the attacking here? What's the social base for your reform program? What defends these programs from counter attack? I'm confused what you mean? Is dismantling capital establishments and returning control of production to the workers not a coherent goal? But the people sympathetic to any goal we're talking here are effectively fringe. At the end of the day, change happens when capital gets threatened. You get healthcare one of two ways- either massive organization and work stoppage or you convince capitalists to cannibalize each other by showing how this industry eats into everyone else's profits. If you use work stoppage to get everything at once... Well, okay, you've successfully organized a communist revolution. Barring that, success under liberalism requires courting capitalists as temporary allies. And they would never swallow the total agenda but you might convince them on specific parts that are beneficial to workers across the board and their specific industry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i take socialism being desirable as a given. we can discuss this if it's controversial; i define socialism in a relatively broad sense, so i'm tolerant of both most conceptions of state socialism á la british Old Labour, direct worker's ownership á la the meidner plan and various strains of council communism and anarchism. Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but if you're saying socialism is axiomatically good, I disagree. Human suffering is bad, systems which reduce human suffering are good, socialism is such a system ergo socialism is good. But socialism is not a good in and of itself. V. Illych L. posted:this does explicitly mean sometimes sacrificing people to keep the system up! that is not desirable, but it is necessary Okay, so yes or no. If you could kill 1200 people today to ensure a nationally organized labor movement tomorrow, is that morally acceptable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but if you're saying socialism is axiomatically good, I disagree. Human suffering is bad, systems which reduce human suffering are good, socialism is such a system ergo socialism is good. i don't understand what purpose you're serving with these rather sordid dillemas. there is no situation where that tradeoff is imaginable. the sort of tradeoff you seem to be objecting to happens all the time in normal politics, though, no matter what your agenda is. institute environmental protections? people will lose their jobs and years of their lives, and the state loses revenues it could use to save lives. don't institute such protections? many more people will become sick/the planet's dying, cloud. there's always someone who gets hosed, and in the end that's always a matter of life or death. however, those environmental protections aren't getting passed unless there's an active and organised environmentalist movement pushing it; or, if it's too weak, they get repealed immediately. a political movement must look to its own and its allies' strength or every good it achieves is going straight down the drain in short order. also obviously socialism isn't good a priori, but justifying socialism seemed a little beside the point and i'd rather not have to do it in order to have it as a premise. the reasons i want socialism may not be the reason someone else wants socialism and then we suddenly end up bogged down in some strange doctrinal slapfight without making any progress on the actual topic for discussion. believe me, that sort of thing happens all the time in online discussions; i once had someone argue that polls had no relation to reality, and so the opportunity for substantive discussion just sort of disappeared
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i don't understand what purpose you're serving with these rather sordid dillemas. there is no situation where that tradeoff is imaginable. the sort of tradeoff you seem to be objecting to happens all the time in normal politics, though, no matter what your agenda is. institute environmental protections? people will lose their jobs and years of their lives, and the state loses revenues it could use to save lives. don't institute such protections? many more people will become sick/the planet's dying, cloud. there's always someone who gets hosed, and in the end that's always a matter of life or death. however, those environmental protections aren't getting passed unless there's an active and organised environmentalist movement pushing it; or, if it's too weak, they get repealed immediately. a political movement must look to its own and its allies' strength or every good it achieves is going straight down the drain in short order. It's fun to see you dance around a very simple, direct question like this by spiralling wildly into all sorts of unrelated topics. E: Like, if someone asks that and your response is a flustered, whiny "WELL THAT SORT OF THING COMES UP ALL THE TIME" it sounds like you're going to eventually get around to answering yes, but then you never actually do. Somfin fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Jun 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i don't understand what purpose you're serving with these rather sordid dillemas. there is no situation where that tradeoff is imaginable. the sort of tradeoff you seem to be objecting to happens all the time in normal politics, though, no matter what your agenda is. institute environmental protections? people will lose their jobs and years of their lives, and the state loses revenues it could use to save lives. don't institute such protections? many more people will become sick/the planet's dying, cloud. there's always someone who gets hosed, and in the end that's always a matter of life or death. however, those environmental protections aren't getting passed unless there's an active and organised environmentalist movement pushing it; or, if it's too weak, they get repealed immediately. a political movement must look to its own and its allies' strength or every good it achieves is going straight down the drain in short order. Okay, no subterfuge- we both agree capitalism is killing people, right? Would you agree that A) A UBI would lower those deaths and B) UBI can be implemented sooner than systematic Marxist change that would have a similar effect? If we agree on those two points avoiding UBI to make worker organization more viable is killing people to speed up the revolution. So, back to my question. If 1200 people will die from poverty between when you shoot down UBI and some perfect mass union, is that okay? What about when we bump that number up? The number has to be less than 7 billion, but how much less? What is the precise amount of human suffering that makes these socialist goals worth it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 05:01
|
|
|
you'll forgive me for being cautious about accepting the premises of a side which has decided that i'm actually evil my point is that 'human suffering' cannot be abstracted like that and it makes no sense to think that way; there's a broken premise to the question. sure, if i had the choice to incite a riot where people would die if i thought it would genuinely change things, i would; however, you're assuming a very vulgar utilitarianism and imposing that as, to use your words, axiomatic and i'm not going to bite. i can justify my general opposition to basic utilitarianism if you'd like, but one only needs to look at steven pinker to realise the practical weaknesses as for your UBI argument, imposing a Perfect UBI would, briefly, make things somewhat better for people, but at an enormous cost - there would be a better return on investment doing almost anything else. mind you that this is accepting the basic premise that the UBI policy described is even achievable under present political circumstances, which i rather doubt the question isn't 'UBI or revolution now', that's a ridiculous dichotomy though i agree that a revolution is probably further away than an UBI under present circumstances. the question is something like 'UBI or [nationalised health care]' or some other reform; the point of having socialism as a goal is to have some overarching project and analysis to keep things moving in a direction. we have a base of power: the workers as a class. we have identified our opposition: moneyed interests and the market system. we have a model for society: that the practical politics reflects the balance of power between, roughly, these groups given this, it seems clear that the way forward needs to at least involve shifting that balance of power or we're not actually going to be able to accomplish anything! UBI proponents itt seem to be thinking politics in a vacuum, where you can just *do* a thing and have it work without anyone in your corner and without an army of lobbyists descending on your policy and without the electorate being seriously puzzled at why you're spending all this money on a lump-sum subsidy to rich people
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 09:20
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the question isn't 'UBI or revolution now', that's a ridiculous dichotomy though i agree that a revolution is probably further away than an UBI under present circumstances. the question is something like 'UBI or [nationalised health care]' or some other reform; the point of having socialism as a goal is to have some overarching project and analysis to keep things moving in a direction. we have a base of power: the workers as a class. we have identified our opposition: moneyed interests and the market system. we have a model for society: that the practical politics reflects the balance of power between, roughly, these groups Ah, more revolution theorycrafting. Wonderful. You'll obviously counter by saying that you're not actually theorycrafting a revolution, you're just explaining why one is necessary because we clearly don't get it. Here's the thing. We don't want people to get hurt. You are absolutely willing to hurt people in order to pursue your ends, and have stated so multiple times in your posts. What if your little riot, the one that you thought would bring about the change you hoped for, killed you? Would you still go through with it? Do you identify as a worker, in your little war diagrams?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:11
|
|
|
of course i mean, you are also willing to kill people - in brutal terms, that's what politics is all about, choosing who lives and who dies when we don't upgrade some road, we kill motorists. there are actual economic analyses stating how much a year of life is worth in terms of public investment, and these need to be made because in the end we are going to cause death and suffering no matter what we do hell, UBI in its ideal form would vastly accelerate personal consumption and help worsen the great ecological disasters of our time, potentially disrupting entire societies - it would make it even harder to do anything about the immense problems we're seeing with regards to market failure, beacuse you've just spent mind-boggling amounts of money to help people buy into the commoditised economy; you're sounding like neil kinnock going along with Right to Buy and condemning britain to decades of thatcherite toryism because it's nice for people to own their house
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but if you're saying socialism is axiomatically good, I disagree. This is a pattern cropping up in a number of places I've noticed recently. If "Socialism is Good" axiomatically, then the evils committed by revolutionaries are justified. If "Israel has a right to exist" axiomatically, then anything they do has to be accepted . If "I'm going to Heaven because I am a member of such and such church" then I can start being a shitbag on earth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:23
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:sure, if i had the choice to incite a riot where people would die if i thought it would genuinely change things, i would Wow. you sicken me. This is both dangerous and illegal
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:it would make it even harder to do anything about the immense problems we're seeing with regards to market failure, beacuse you've just spent mind-boggling amounts of money to help people buy into the commoditised economy Where else do I get insulin for my mum, Illych?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:25
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Wow. you sicken me. This is both dangerous and illegal it bears mentioning that any situation where this scenario is remotely credible is a situation where civil society is basically entirely broken to begin with; we're talking depression-era germany here Somfin posted:Where else do I get insulin for my mum, Illych? from the USNHS, since we're dreaming
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:from the USNHS, since we're dreaming No I mean right now How do I do that without buying in to the commoditised economy
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
disavowing political violence in principle is very easy and also a very tricky position; you're not just renouncing your vulgar terrorism, but also e.g. the right to resist a nazi regime. i do not consider political violence in the contemporary west a viable or moral strategy, to be clear
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:disavowing political violence in principle is very easy and also a very tricky position; you're not just renouncing your vulgar terrorism, but also e.g. the right to resist a nazi regime. Answer the loving question. How do I get my mum's insulin without buying into the commoditised economy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
Somfin posted:No I mean right now i'm making an ought statement, not an is statement- we ought to be moving away from that way of distributing insulin, not simply subsidising people's participation in it. obviously you're going to buy necessary items while that's how they're distributed, i'm not going to smarm at G7 protesters for having iPhones or whatever
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i'm making an ought statement, not an is statement- we ought to be moving away from that way of distributing insulin, not simply subsidising people's participation in it. obviously you're going to buy necessary items while that's how they're distributed, i'm not going to smarm at G7 protesters for having iPhones or whatever How do I get my mum's insulin without buying into the commoditised economy? Could you give a direct answer that doesn't include any defensive posturing? This post was approximately half an answer combined with four separate defensive justifications.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:36
|
|
|
honestly i wouldn't even be opposed to a medicine subsidy, though it's not great policy i can see it being politically stable and potentiall actually helping a bit if it were properly implemented as i understand it there's a campaign for a larger-scale healthcare reform which is actually looking feasible going on in america atm, however, so i'd much rather support that
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:honestly i wouldn't even be opposed to a medicine subsidy, though it's not great policy i can see it being politically stable and potentiall actually helping a bit if it were properly implemented Christ. How do I get my mum's insulin without buying into the commoditised economy? If the answer is "You can't," just say that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:disavowing political violence in principle is very easy and also a very tricky position; you're not just renouncing your vulgar terrorism, but also e.g. the right to resist a nazi regime. It's...possible to renounce vulgar terrorism without renouncing the right to resist a nazi regime. Your principles can include a "no nazis" clause and no one is going to object but the nazis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
Somfin posted:How do I get my mum's insulin without buying into the commoditised economy? i don't understand what point you're trying to make here or what you're trying to address. when making policy, we should try as far as possible to move away from e.g. healthcare as a commodity. while it is a commodity, it's obviously going to have to be acquired as one. this is a bad thing, in my opinion, because i think it ought not to be a commodity
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i don't understand what point you're trying to make here or what you're trying to address. when making policy, we should try as far as possible to move away from e.g. healthcare as a commodity. while it is a commodity, it's obviously going to have to be acquired as one. this is a bad thing, in my opinion, because i think it ought not to be a commodity Perhaps you could treat my question charitably, as the direct question that it is, and not as some sort of trap you need to dodge around? Perhaps treat me as if I'm trying to figure out a position and not as an enemy that is trying to hurt you rhetorically? I can share a link with a principle that you could be following here. How do I get my mum's insulin without buying into the commoditised economy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's...possible to renounce vulgar terrorism without renouncing the right to resist a nazi regime. Your principles can include a "no nazis" clause and no one is going to object but the nazis. yeah but renouncing political violence per se, while convenient, means also renouncing resistance to the nazis. the minute you start adding exceptions you weaken the position dramatically and you have to start thinking about exactly which criteria legitimise political violence; in practice, i am categorically opposed to most political violence in most of the world, but i couldn't condemn e.g. insurgents in north korea or syria
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Perhaps you could treat my question charitably, as the direct question that it is, and not as some sort of trap you need to dodge around? Perhaps treat me as if I'm trying to figure out a position and not as an enemy that is trying to hurt you rhetorically? I can share a link with a principle that you could be following here. if by 'buying into' you mean 'participating in', you presumably cannot. this is the answer you wanted, yes? i still don't understand why that's so important to you
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
What does a non-commodity economy look like for healthcare, anyway? For the patients it could be not having to worry about the economics of their care, whcih seems right and good. The providers have to source all their drugs, supplies, and machinery from somewhere. The providers of THOSE things have to source the intermediate products to make those things. And so on. Each level of production needs some resources that cost something and those costs have to be compensated somehow (think "gas needs to be put in the tank or the car won't go" more than "people need to make money"). Without markets and commodification the coordination problems are really loving complicated and probably intractable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
yousay capitalism is bad. but i would be dead without the grocery store.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 14:50
|
|