Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Catgirl Al Capone
Dec 15, 2007

BoldFrankensteinMir posted:

This. Everybody wants to dump on Horatio Alger rags-to-riches thinking because it's unsustainable and self-destructive, which are totally valid points, but they fail to address the key benefit on the other side which is drat what a sexy premise!. Do whatever I want and get rich!?!? Yes please!!!!

There's a reason that one of the classic anti-soviet views was "their art is ugly and joyless", because a lot of it really really was. If the only art that is allowed is big inofensive concrete sculptures of fearless leader, that's not a very appealing pitch. But I agree there is an answer out there for this, and it probably involves some kind of UBI that treats avant garde artists as essentially disabled people, freeing them to do whatever crazy thing they want and not starve. And a larger society that sees the value in this and doesn't whine about the "lazy artists" getting access to medicine and such. What a lovely world that would be.

this is more based on propaganda than any basis in reality. soviet society had abundant and highly creative/innovative/beautiful art, especially music and cinema.

Catgirl Al Capone fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Nov 5, 2020

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Catgirl Al Capone
Dec 15, 2007

enki42 posted:

Even if you assume that lower-paid workers are always going to outnumber the workers who are currently highly paid (which probably makes sense for every business I can think of), couldn't demand for labour create inequalities that companies (in the worker-owned, democratic sense) are forced into?

Let's assume there's a high demand for people with specialized knowledge to create a certain type of widget. Let's also assume that learning how to make these widgets is a pretty complex process that requires a lot of training, and for whatever reason, there's a growing need for these widgets, and so there just aren't enough people to make them.

Widget makers in that scenario would have a lot of leverage when deciding which company they wanted to work for. They'd easily be able to say "I'll work for whoever wants to give me an outsized share of the profits of the company (or better wages / less hours / whatever they want). From the perspective of the company, it makes sense to do this - otherwise they can't produce widgets, and their company can't function. Given the choice between accepting inequality, or being completely unable to produce anything of value, they'll begrudgingly accept inequality.

I don't think this is a particularly wild edge case - this is probably the situation for certain fields right now - if you're a software developer in San Francisco, this basically describes reality today.

Generally under a controlled/centralized economy initiatives can be undertaken to provide education in widget creation and incentives for entering the field. "Wouldn't almost everyone want to be a widget creator then?" Yes, but socialism can accommodate that to a better degree than capitalism because the work model is different - instead of being trapped in one job working almost the entire day, people would spend comparatively tiny chunks of their time productively on a combination of projects they are assigned and do voluntarily. So in the end you would have people working together in different shifts creating widgets, a high volume of workers dedicating a tiny portion of their time each and moving on to rest or the next project when they're done.

Catgirl Al Capone fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Nov 5, 2020

Catgirl Al Capone
Dec 15, 2007

gradenko_2000 posted:

Unless I'm mistaken the most obvious example would be the Bolsheviks participating in the Provisional Government. As Lenin explained in "An Infantile Disease", even if you don't set out to actually win any legalistic victories via your participation in bourgeois democracy, at the very minimum, their sandbagging of the efforts of the communists will serve as an example to the people that the bourgeois democracy needs to be overthrown, because LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE DOING, THIS ISN'T GOING TO WORK.

IIRC Lenin was adamant though that it should be with their own party and their own platforms

Catgirl Al Capone
Dec 15, 2007

praxis is the application of theory in the material world, it's synonymous with practice but is typically used when you want to explicitly communicate that your actions stem from a theoretical basis. theory becomes praxis and the results of this praxis are analyzed and it informs more theory, repeating indefinitely as contradictions are found and resolved.

Catgirl Al Capone
Dec 15, 2007

Space Cadet Omoly posted:

Are the Amish an example of a successful anarchist or possibly communist community? I don't know enough about anarchism, communism, or the Amish to know for sure whish one it would be.

They live independently from the state, have their own set of rules that everyone in the community agrees to abide by, and have created a functioning society that has lasted hundreds of years.

I'm sorry if this is already a well known thing and I'm just showing my own ignorance here.

amish no but some quakers practice a form of loose anarcho-pacifism

Catgirl Al Capone
Dec 15, 2007

Sucrose posted:

Anarchists are against the state and any form of hierarchy though, no? Is there any form of pro-democracy, explicitly anti-authoritarian Marxism that isn't anarchist?

anarchists will almost always apply pressure to a marxist state to "keep it honest" but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be overall content to live under it, there's very varying opinions on that.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Catgirl Al Capone
Dec 15, 2007

gradenko_2000 posted:

I'm not suggesting that online political speech in China isn't heavily regulated, or isn't regulated at all, or that the firewall itself isn't used for that among other things.

I'm saying that the economic rationale for the firewall's existence is far too often unmentioned or understated.

I've heard that the "firewall" is mostly in place so that the local environment is the default and chinese apps have room to breathe there without being squashed by the western monopolies, how accurate is that?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply