|
Yeah dude they might have overlapping concerns, but the solutions they agitate for are very different. One set of those being left and the other right.
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
UnknownTarget posted:What's a left vs. what's a right solution for forcing the elite to be accountable for their actions? Depends mostly on how you define "accountable", "the elite" and which specific (sub)set of actions you are calling for said accountability on.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
UnknownTarget posted:What a delightful non-answer. Rather than providing definitions for any of the categories you created to subdivide the issue into meaningless hair-splitting, you deftly avoided it and tried to put it on me to provide your talking points for you. Pass. I don't have any talking points. I'm just rejecting your oversimplification. Whenever in a political discussion someone goes "this isn't a left or right issue" they are either trying to swindle you or they don't understand what is going on.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
UnknownTarget posted:Rejection without a supplemental is complaining for the sake of being heard. No, it isn't. Edit: oh wow an argument from human nature, how novel and surprising! Also the Framers of the American ConstiTution (am I doing the right number of capital letters to indicate I worship these people and their lovely documents?) didn't provide "checks and balances" (hello there thought-terminating cliche) worth a good goddamn poo poo, for evidence see US history, especially recent history. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Dec 26, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
I think he's an intelligent type of anarchist actually.asdf32 posted:One branch with no voter influence would have done that. 3 branches exist to check each other (with the market being another major check on power). Everyone here's older than 14 so we know the theory. Would you mind explaining how this naive idealism has born out quite so terribly in practice? You're not allowed to appeal to human nature. Hint: there are no checks, there are no balances, never were, it's all just a bullshit fairy tale to help you sleep at night while the elite fucks you and every other shmuck who fell for it. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Dec 26, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:This is very true: the principal qualification to be an oligarch is to have loads of money and not terrible at managing it. Once you have loads of money, you can hire people who are not terrible at managing it. There is no other qualification but money. Something about how capital is dead labour, which vampire-like just continues to suck up ever more labour to enlarge itself. It'd be harder work blowing a billion dollar fortune than to double it. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Dec 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't even think we need to get rich, I think the wealth currently in the country needs to be redistributed so that everyone can see how rich the country already is, and whose fault it really is that they spend so much of their time without access to it. This is crucial. You straight up can't tell the average Britisher or American or <insert rich western nation here> that their country as a whole is actually ludicrously rich. Like people will not believe you or take you seriously. And it's because of that oligarchs vs everyone else wealth gap. People on average are not capable of conceiving just how loving wealthy the top few bastards are. I think an important hurdle we need to clear is a revelatory one. That is, we need to make it undeniable and unignorable just how much wealth these fuckers have squirreled away for themselves. I'm speaking from experience here, I've taken shits in a bathroom where the tiles on the walls alone cost more than my parents' entire house. It's ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I sort of want to ask who's going to be keeping society going if everyone's living entirely off investment payments and not working Have you not seen Wall-E?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Einstein's not a great example. President of Marxist Boeing Corp is. You can't build a jumbo jet without a hierarchical structure of thousands of people regardless of 'mode of production'. The person leading that organization and their counterparts across the economy hold economic power basically identical to capitalists. Does your system keep their power in check or not. That's the entire trick. Ok, let's see: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/what-will-it-be-boeing-great-airplanes-that-generate-cash-flow-or-great-cash-flow-period/ quote:In the ’90s, Boeing business culture turned to employee engagement, process improvement and productivity — adopting the “quality” business culture that made Japanese manufacturers formidable competitors. quote:Success or failure of an airplane program turns on productivity. The first airplanes off the production line sell at a loss. Costs come down over time, the quicker the better. If your business model emphasizes productivity, employee engagement and process improvement, costs go down faster. This was the essence of the “quality” business model Boeing followed in the mid-’90s. The 777 had the best “learning curve” in the business. quote:This cost-cutting culture is the opposite of a culture built on productivity, innovation, safety, or quality. A high-performance work culture requires trust, coordination, strong problem-solving, open flow of information and commitment to the overall success of the program. In a high-performance culture, stakeholders may sacrifice for the good of the program, understanding that their interests are served in the long run. So it seems like Boeing used to be a company where employee engagement was paramount. Something which is entirely possible to do in a worker-managed (and worker-owned) structure as well. They could elect their own managers insofar as they actually need them, and presumably would do so in no small part based on knowledge, experience and competence at building safe airplanes. Those at the top of this hierachy would be directly accountable to their fellow workers who elected them to this position, and who could recall them when required. Instead, Boeing shifted to cost-cutting because the people at the top of the hierarchy (who are virtually unaccountable) wanted more for themselves. The result is the 737 MAX. Hundreds of people are dead due to easily preventable causes which ultimately boiled down to decisions based on greed. It is nearly impossible to imagine that the people responsible for those decisions will be held accountable commensurate to the harm they have caused. You appear to be defending this as a good thing because ???
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The CEO of Boeing just got fired. The rest sounds like it might be good business strategy for any large organization. This isn't the first and won't be the last time that good business strategy has gotten people killed in preventable ways. What does that tell you about the compatibility of business strategies that optimize for a capitalist mode of production and general human wellbeing?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:In which case, the problem you have is that you need to find a more efficient way of allocating skills to jobs than the market Why?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2019 03:47
|
|