We need more moderators anyway, so an election is prudent. However, given the unsatsifactory survey results (87% men and nearly 75% white) and the lack of ideological proportionality within the team, as mods, we must use our position to encourage as many non-men, racialised folks and members of anarchist tendencies as possible to be nominated.
snicker
/u/SocialismMods there's so much wrong with this poorly worded segment ("racialised folks" wtf) you should be cowering under the table
Consequently, there are quotas to fill, which means... The resignation of all current /r/socialism mods...cannot happen.
The term "non-men" actually has some nasty implications if you look into the history of the way that term is used. It doesn't just mean women, but has also been used to include any non-hetero male, no matter how masculine, as well as trans-men, who would really prefer if people would just recognize them as men. It's like a way of saying that even dweeby noodle-armed mods of lefty forums are men if they're straight, but grizzled ex-military bro-dudes who love the D are not real men. Sad.
The point of phrasing like "racialized folks" (I swear I am not making this up) is to reinforce the "race is a social construct" narrative, by painting race as something that's done to people rather than an inherent characteristic of them.
While simultaneously insisting that the mod team must have X% of people that they perceive as being of a specific race, thus perpetrating that construct by putting as much importance on it as possible.
However, given the unsatsifactory survey results (87% men and nearly 75% white) and the lack of ideological proportionality within the team, as mods, we must use our position to encourage as many non-men, racialised folks and members of anarchist tendencies as possible to be nominated.
Hahahaha holy shit, literal institutional racism and sexism, but its for a good cause so its all good. Also its hilarious that those "volunteers" are so attached to their positions, because its the only power they have in their sad, pathetic lives.
Their next election cycle should be based primarily on oppression points, the top 5 or so get to be the mods.
Wasn't a big part of the Bernie campaign letting people know that socialism wasn't communism? u/cometparty, u/kc_socialist, u/AnonSocialist, and Venezuela are ruining that. Get ready for 8 years of Trump numbnuts
Let's be honest here, there are many forms of socialism, many retarded, some saner like social democracy, but the issue with a lot of subs is that it only takes a retarded mod to completely ruin a sub and turn it into some kind of cesspit where all of the other retards like them gather.
Like with everything in life, including ideologies, consume in moderation, don't go full mongoloid like /r/fullcommunism or /r/socialism
And you know that political movements don't come from a magical dimension where personal feelings shape reality? They have well defined views that place them at certain points on the political spectrum where socdem doesn't fall under socialism but altright does fall under far right.
But I mean, you can kind of admit right there that it may not be about that. But then immediately say that "socialist" countries are authoritarian.
Socialism is an amazing idea, but even better bait for dictators to lay out in front of people in order to get them to take oppression and misery. It's more tolerable than a cult of personality, and takes out the personal responsibility for the dictatorship. It is highly worth it for people to masquerade as Marxists to get people to think they care about what marxists care about which is liberation and freedom. Instead they are just your run of the mill power seekers in Marxist garb, kind of like those moderators.
You overlook lovely things in the history of capitalism like, oh, I dunno, imperialism, two world wars, the Cold War, and all the preventable deaths from poverty that happen all the time. Perhaps you haven't heard of them.
Also, "muh capitalism lifts people out of poverty!" is such a bullshit ideological talking point. What lifts people out of poverty is their own work, and it only works where there's less than a pure free market. In other words, it happens in spite of capitalism and not because of it, and only ever precariously.
What lifts people out of poverty is their own work,
People are not motivated to work for anyone but themselves. This experiment has been tried multiple times in history. Every time people have tried something other than selfishness it results in considerably worse results than what we have under capitalism. It's human nature and you can't change it.
His comments are right though. You are just denying basic facts of life. If being logical and realistic gets me on a "anti-socialidt Bing o csrd ,then so be it.
Markets are a thing that have always existed as long as humans have been even remotely civilized. It's arguably one of the traits of civilization itself. And strong central control of economies repeatedly fails. Markets are strong and natural to humans, and resilient in a way that socialist ideals have never ever been, anywhere. Socialism is a delicate flower that can only exist in a greenhouse, while market capitalism is a robust but ugly weed that is nonetheless very successful in creating an environment where it thrives.
I didn't ask about markets per se, I asked about capitalism. Two different things.
If you honestly didn't know that socialism doesn't necessarily imply strong central control of the economy, then you fail basic research forever, and you have no business even talking about this topic.
Markets are natural to humans
Yeah man. Certainly when we encounter an uncontacted tribe in the Amazon they have a flourishing trading floor and spend most of their day engaging in financial speculation.
And all this talk about capitalism being robust and strong. Jesus, the propaganda. The truth is that its history is lurching from crisis to war to crisis, always on the point of collapse, only ever stabilised by state intervention.
Crisis and war are part of all history, at every time, including socialist states and communes. Markets and free enterprises have been the engine for growth forever.
No I'm not going to argue primitivism, what the fuck?
Oh I dunno, the ones in the 1890's, the one in 1929, the oil crisis in 1973, the one in 1987, the ones in 1998, the one in 2007-08, you know the old boom and bust cycle that just keeps recurring and gets worse the more laissez-faire the system becomes. You must've noticed unless you were born two and a half years ago.
Whataboutism. We're not talking about Venezuela, China or Russia. Although when the fuck was the last time that China or Russia were socialist countries.
My point was that someone said that markets were "natural", and something that had always existed. Uncontacted tribes in the Amazon are a bit like our hunter-gatherer ancestors, and they do not have markets, ergo, they have not always fucking existed and are not "natural", and that's an argument from nature fallacy anyway. Quid pro quo.
Markets are a thing that have always existed as long as humans have been even remotely civilized. It's arguably one of the traits of civilization itself. And strong central control of economies repeatedly fails. Markets are strong and natural to humans, and resilient in a way that socialist ideals have never ever been, anywhere.
Is what I said. Endemic to civilization if you will.
And I'm not whaddabouting, explain what makes a 'capitalist crisis' different from a 'socialist crisis'.
Aye, and there you're making an error, with this weasel word "civilized". Were we not civilized in the thousands of years we spent as hunter-gatherers? Did we need a centralized state or a priestly hierarchy to make us "civilized"? A lot of assumptions there.
What makes a capitalist crisis is that it comes about as a result of a capitalist system. I would've thought that was obvious.
So why not compare pre-capitalism with modernity then. It's pretty clear that markets and trade, along with free enterprise have created all of the benefits of our modern age. Socialism is just a plan to redistribute the things that free enterprise and markets have created.
Then why are 90%+ of people working for a business owner other than themselves or government?
The only way to work "for yourself" is to own a business.
That's what I mean. Under a different system individuals have no incentive to put their savings on the line (or to go into debt) for others and take the huge risk of opening a business. They do it for themselves because if it works they'll be rich. If the incentive of being rich wasn't there no one do this and then the economy would never grow as much as it would have under a system where the incentive exists.
Most people are content simply earning money for someone else or working not-for-profit or doing some other thing just to get by rather than maximizing their wealth. That's just self-evident when you look around.
So many people are able to earn that money by just working for someone else because there are many people who are willing to take the risk of opening a business, since the rewards can be extremely high if it works. If that small subset of people didn't exist and or if the system didn't incentive that small subset of people to exist in the first place then the vast majority that is just happy with working for someone else would have no work. Jobs don't create themselves magically.
This sentence you wrote is false. That was my main point. So then this sentence doesn't work:
If people don't work under the current system they won't get money. If they don't get money they'll starve. So they're working for themselves. Even people who work for no-profits get paid for it.
The funniest thing about this bot is that if communists ever get robots it will decades after everyone else does, they'll be piss-poor copies of what everyone else has, and they will routinely malfunction and explode.
What are you talking about. How is work the same thing as capitalism? I suppose that before capitalism existed, people did no work?
Reread what I wrote. If people have lifted themselves out of poverty, it has happened in spite of capitalism, not because of it. Capitalism, and especially laissez-faire or neoliberal capitalism, cannot claim the credit for what should be laid at the door of mixed market capitalism, with state intervention and labour unions and redistribution of wealth.
I already did explain it. It is not free market capitalism which is responsible for prosperity, but simply people's own work, most often in the context of a completely regulated capitalism. It does not follow that the selfsame prosperity, or a greater one, could not have taken place under any other system, without capitalism's notorious waste of resources and talent and its despoiling of the environment, and without the kleptocratic class relations on which the whole thing is built.
Oh don't give me that old flannel. "No, you see, guys, this isn't real capitalism, real capitalism is describes something that has never fucking existed".
You described a situation in which capitalism works intended. Only to say "this is not capitalism!" When corrected with an accurate (and true) explanation you dismiss it. You are so idealistic you have inverted your world view from reality.
Eh? I didn't say it wasn't capitalism. I said prosperity always happens under a mixed economy capitalism with a strong state intervention, and there's no reason to think prosperity wouldn't be even greater under an alternate system. Learn to read.
I said prosperity always happens under a mixed economy capitalism with a strong state intervention
[citation needed]
Because I'm 100% certain that "strong state intervention" did not create Quaker Oats, Hershey Chocolate, Swiss Miss, Coke a' Cola, etc. Instead, "strong state intervention" has set these companies up as juggernauts akin to the East India Company. "Strong Government Intervention" is why huge companies can get away with the shit they do. If they could not control the government, the market would self-regulate.
That's total bullshit fantasy land. The government regulations are the only things keeping corporations in check and preventing them from swallowing up and wasting even more of the resources and environment of the planet. The idea that you can make something less powerful by removing all checks on it is completely ass backwards illogical.
And in a way, yes, strong state intervention did create the conditions for all these companies to thrive in the first place. America has always had intervention in the economy, always, from 1776 on. Protectionism is the only reason the economy thrived in the first place, and it was at its most prosperous when it was its most interventionist, in the period 1945-1973. Since then wealth has increased exponentially, but it's all gone to the top, so the distribution of wealth is grossly disproportionate and unbalanced, thanks to neoliberalism.
The government regulations are the only things keeping corporations in check and preventing them from swallowing up and wasting even more of the resources and environment of the planet.
I lol'd you cant be real. Do you even know what cronyism is? Lobbying?
strong state intervention did create the conditions for all these companies to thrive in the first place.
Yes, strong state intervention created the conditions for these companies to to exist before such intervention existed. That was a trick question you see, I only cited companies that existed pre-1900s.
You're literally just shitting propaganda onto your keys. Good job.
in the period 1945-1973.
No surprises there, we had no competition during that period of time. Everyone was buying American goods. My goodness. Do people just completely detach from reality to debate economics? No wonder the cronies win. Holy balls you're dense.
yes, the latest in a centuries-long unbroken chain of peaceful power transfers based on the expressed wishes of the populace. sounds like a pretty good system to me.
okay? capitalist exploitation is not the fault of democracy. you're not gonna convince me that a dictatorship of the proletariat or some shit is a better alternative just because the profit motive makes people do bad things.
lmao you'd think supporting the only system of governance that has an actual track record of giving workers a say in how they're treated wouldn't make you children so mad
uh, yeah, that was the initial issue i was going to raise with your argument but i thought, too charitably i guess, that you had a basic understanding of the argument you jumped into. my issue isn't with being socialist, it's with being anti-democracy, thus my mockery of the guy suggesting democracy is a failure because a big scary republican gets to be leader for 4-8 years. a socialist-leaning democracy is just fine by me, but suggesting that unexamined "socialism" is clearly the better way to fight for the proletariat when every government that's defined itself as socialist/communist/marxist first and foremost has either ended up horribly repressive and corrupt or collapsed too fucking fast to get there is laughable.
Jesus Christ this spawned from you getting a jab at "democracy" (in air quotes) conflated with promoting "dictatorship of the proletariat" to begin with. The whole point being made was that a supposed "democracy" built on exploiting and oppressing minorities and the poor, and whose newest president-elect aims to continue doing so, isn't actually very fucking democratic.
If you don't know how to read air quotes on the internet I don't know how to begin explaining them to you.
The majority have neither been enslaved nore are they in poverty. Poverty is decreasing continuously, and the standard of living is improving likewise. I know it's inconvenient, but it's true.
Make concrete predictions of things you consider negative that you expect to happen during Trump's presidency, and I'll tell you the odds with which I will wager real money (real-world currency of your choice, current rates, net of exchange fees) against them happening.
If every time people try to achieve socialism, they fail to do so and authoritarians take power, then it looks like in most cases trying to achieve socialism will have bad results.
Ah, but in all those cases it was evil people pretending to try socialism so that they can be evil! When actual good people genuinely want to try socialism you'll be able to tell the difference, because they'll say that they're good.
What exactly is your term for the thing that happened in countries like Venezuela, Cuba etc. where "authoritarians took power", that they very obviously all have in common and that the rest of the world recognizes as "socialism is tried", if not "socialism is tried"?
There's lots of examples where that hasn't happened, but you haven't read much about this topic, or studied it, so you haven't heard of them, but you feel the need to talk about the subject like you're an expert anyway.
I'm not gonna do your research for you. You're going to have to actually read the fucking thing. A tip for you is to stop thinking in terms of "countries".
No, but you are an autist and a kid, clearly. Who has somehow got access to a computer or phone, and has had the great idea to write: "DAE socialism is bad because hooman nature LOL"
I am a proud ableist when it comes to people who spout off about shit on the internet that they know absolutely fuck all about, and refuse to do basic research.
I just think people would get more out of it if they did their own research, rather than play the childish game of gainsaying which takes place on Reddit.
You see, a successful socialist model could take place on the level of a city or a region or even a neighbourhood. Hence the tip not to concentrate on whole countries so much.
I just think people would get more out of it if they did their own research
But when people tell you they've done their own research, and come to conclusions different from your own, you refuse to accept this, and insist that they should look up something else.
Have you considered the possibility that the things you found convincing are simply not convincing to all other people?
No, no, no. This bullshit talking point that capitalism is just a synonym for trade has got to end. It is completely contrary to all the accepted definitions of capitalism, which is absolutely a specific system which emerged around the time of the Industrial Revolution.
Again, basic research. Also, there's no contradiction between the position that it should ideally be global and the idea that it can operate on a small scale.
So, it's not a question of what's "convincing" or what isn't. The contention in this thread is "socialism always becomes authoritarian whenever it's tried", This is just simply not true. It's a matter of historical facts which exist and are discoverable, and I want people to do their own research rather than just childishly gainsay whatever I say.
Of course it does. First: the systems implemented on these small scales existed millennia before Marx, even coincident with trade and barter. Gift economies existed among indigenous peoples. If pre-capitalist ideas aren't capitalist, then pre-socialist ideas aren't socialist. Second: you can't say you're meaningfully doing anything about "class warfare" in a group that was too small to have classes in the first place. (Also, since "diversity" is apparently important for modern socialists, please consider how woefully lacking it has been - necessarily, by logistical constraints - in these small-scale experiments.)
You are talking complete bollocks which is caused by you not having done basic research. If you're going to talk publicly about these topics at all, you really do have to research them a bit first.
if pre-capitalist ideas aren't capitalist, then pre-socialist ideas aren't socialist.
Argument by assertion, in the service of a double standard. You consistently shift the burden of proof, and refuse to even define your terms. I am not the bollocks-talker here.
As a fellow socialist, you're doing debate incorrectly and doing much more to damage your point by not doing everyone the favor of actually defending it.
Socialism is always 100% of the time, without fail, going to be about controlling others. People are assholes and socialism lets the biggest assholes always take over because the system is fucking stupid and anti-human nature. There is no real socialism because socialism can't fucking exist as a viable thing except on paper.
Yeah, I understand that reddit doesnt have the tools to allow for that kind of system to be implemented online, but do they really not see how so much of the problems they face have real life historical parallels? Like if you cant fix that in your little circlejerk, what makes you think your system will work out on a national or even global scale?
Yeah, I understand that reddit doesnt have the tools to allow for that kind of system to be implemented online, but do they really not see how so much of the problems they face have real life historical parallels? Like if you cant fix that in your little circlejerk, what makes you think your system will work out on a national or even global scale?
Because the world doesn't function the way reddit does. The world isn't hard-wired to have the structures it has currently, and there have been various societies that function socialistically- and some still do. The Chileans even democratically elected a socialist once, but was quickly overturned by a US-backed coup.
I agree there are a lot of instances of a socialist message getting co-opted by authoritarians- but I consider that a failure of implementation rather than ideology. It's just that the failed examples get much more time in stage than the successful instances.
Because the world doesn't function the way reddit does. The world isn't hard-wired to have the structures it has currently, and there have been various societies that function socialistically- and some still do.
No doubt, but not everyone in the world will be receptive to socialism, and socialism is not free of its problems, no matter which tiny fracture you and your friends think is the right one. As for Chile, you failed to mention that while he had good intentions, Allende and his socialist systems was disastrous for Chile's economy, just look at the living conditions of the people back then and how many of them were in poverty. You can point out exactly when Pinochet took over by looking at a map of Chile's GDP per capita. Now this does not mean that I support the coup, but Allende's socialist regime was another failure as i said before.
I agree there are a lot of instances of a socialist message getting co-opted by authoritarians
Well you say that, but /r/socialism banning people over fucking catgirls and using words like retarded or stupid is authoritarianism, and this sort of problem can and has arisen in the real world too, and in the majority of cases the leaders handled it just like the mods of /r/socialism. But Don't worry, im sure that true socialism is definitely not like this, let's just hope that when the revolution comes, this true socialism wont devolve into your typical authoritarianism as has happened so many times before.
It's just that the failed examples get much more time in stage than the successful instances.
Ok list me the places where true successful 100% socialism is implemented today, then when i point out a flaw or a deviation from socialism, proceed to explain how its not real socialism so it doesnt count.
Ehh it's the Internet. They may be calling themselves socialist but like all movements there are outliers, there's the median and that's really it. It's Reddit for fucks sake. I can say fuck niggers all night long until my asshole hurts. I mean my voice.
Socialism doesn't work because /r/socialism doesn't work.
One used to have to point to failed socialist states and argue that said collapse was still relevant to whatever brand socialists were pushing on any given day. This observation saves so much time.
This is just a demonstration of the failure of power structures to represent a group of people. The structure of reddit makes it impossible to have an actual socialist-style structure, because it mandates mods whose power is not democratically distributed. Sure, you can try to implement a democratic system in the sub, but that is damn hard and will be fighting against the inherent properties of a Reddit mod.
As the mods of /r/socialism have said themselves many times:
The OP of the petition has been banned, because he is accused of being a transphobic baby killer (not even exaggerating). God bless the mods of /r/socialism for providing excellent drama.
The only comment which potentially breaks rules is this:
Also, fuck that fake socialist sub. They care more about gender pronouns than actual worker issues.
Apparently this is transphobic, because gender pronouns are literally just as important as the rest of workers' issues. And it was posted 4 months ago in a different sub. Obviously mods are just assblasted and are looking for excuses.
/u/VoteAnimal2012 you would make an excellent informant for state security, товарищ. Tell me, did you go through 4 months of his post history or did you somehow magically remember what he wrote 4 months ago in some tiny godforsaken thread with almost no upvotes or comments?
Killed no babies, but distributed plenty food, medicine and soccer balls.
I again, hope you guys don't accuse those moderators of being socialists because they're not. The whole petition was started to stop them denigrating our name to the rest of this website. At this point we are deliberating whether they are actual CIA meant to cointelpro us, because they are doing just that.
No, the USSR was people using the color red to disguise their desire to impose a dictatorship on people.
Like, if I say I'm a horse but I am not...am I a horse? A lot of terrible people use lofty ideas for bad purposes. The same thing as these mods. This petition was to hopefully show people that real socialists are being locked out of their own community, and self admitted authoritarians have taken it over and made this reputation that you subscribe to as we speak.
This is finger-licking delicious. One day it will all dawn upon you, 25 is the usual age if you manage to read a few history books until then. Because you're not exactly the first person to sound like yourself.
Have you ever took a second and thought "man, has he really ever given this human nature thing a consideration"? It's the same tired argument. Human nature has been addressed in so much of the philosophy behind socialism that it's borderline tired.
Why do I think that is? There are a million reasons with good reading behind it, and none of which you'll ever really give credence to.
Maybe watch "A pervert's guide to ideology". That's about all I'll say about that.
Have you ever took a second and thought "man, has he really ever given this human nature thing a consideration"? It's the same tired argument. Human nature has been addressed in so much of the philosophy behind socialism that it's borderline tired.
Capitalism lines up with human nature, which is why it's shown to be the best system we've ever had.
And again, if this were the case, can you explain why literally every socialist country ends up in shambles?
Why do I think that is? There are a million reasons with good reading behind it, and none of which you'll ever really give credence to.
Because at some point you have to step back and look at reality dude.
Seriously, why do you think literally every socialist country ends up in shambles?
You wanna know what the disconnect is? That you think I've never encountered your arguments. Maybe you need to go deeper into it than a superficial understanding of both political philosophy and political economy, because if you think human nature gets anywhere involved with it I guarantee you haven't actually looked into what people smarter than you or I have to say about what human nature is.
Socialist here. I think the basic answer is that socialism has to be international. Marx got this, pretty much every socialist pre-Stalin and Trostsky, even Lenin if I remember correctly, understood this. You can't have socialism in a single state, because what happens is that the state just winds up taking on the roles of the capitalist, in order to compete with other capitalist states. Basically, since capitalism is global, it's replacement will have to be too.
So, when revolution failed to spread, specifically in Germany, any hope of successfully transitioning to communism in that moment became unlikely.
As for human nature, the answer is that it's malleable. We've lived without capitalism before. Was it human nature to live as we did in feudalism, under a king? Human beings have adapted to many other economic systems and there's no reason to think we can't adapt to something other than capitalism now.
Yeah, I'm vaguely familiar, though I'll admit game theory is an are in which I was more knowledgeable.
Anyway, there's a few reasons to think it's not impossible. First, it doesn't necessarily have to happen all at once. Just because you're against Stalin's strange kind of nationalism, and think there needs to be a global movement, doesn't mean that you need simultaneous revolution, you just need revolution to spread. This didn't happen before the extremely quick revert to state capitalism in the USSR. Second, the idea is that capitalism is prone to global crisis. Capitalism will destroy itself, globally, revolution or no. We'd better hope there's revolution when that happens, or we could wind up with an even worse system than the current one.
Just because you're against Stalin's strange kind of nationalism, and think there needs to be a global movement, doesn't mean that you need simultaneous revolution, you just need revolution to spread.
Yes, you do need simultaneous revolution, because otherwise Stalin happens in the places that are revolting.
The idea is that revolution in one area will encourage revolution in other areas, not that everyone will revolt at the same time. In the 20th century, revolution did not spread in such a way.
The idea is that revolution in one area will encourage revolution in other areas.... In the 20th century, revolution did not spread in such a way.
Okay, in the 20th century, socialists objectively did try "maybe if we have revolution in one area, it will spread to other areas". Repeatedly. Every time, the result of "having revolution in one area" was that it did not spread to other areas, and in fact "other areas" usually became safe havens while the revolutionary areas suffered untold millions of deaths.
How much more experimental evidence do you need before you conclude that "the idea" is not sound?
I'm actually not super optimistic it will happen. But, I do think it must happen, because the alternative is the continuation of capitalism, which will surely lead to crisis. If we do not succeed in moving past capitalism to a different mode of production, which I call communism, we will be fucked.
I think this because I'm fairly convinced of the truth of Marxist crisis theory. Marx argued that the rate of profit under capitalism has a tendency to fall, as production becomes more and more efficient and commodities take less and less labor to make. If Marx's value theory is correct, then this will mean less and less valuable commodities in the whole economy. This is can be seen, for example, when with a commodity like SSDs, where they are quickly falling in price. you'd argue probably, that this is counteracted by an increase in the ability of consumers to buy the product, but the problem is this happens all across the economy. We're talking the average rate, so unless it's money the consumer wouldn't have spent without the existence of the cheaper commodity, overall less profit exists in the economy.
These problems can be solved with destruction of capital, or to an extent changes in the basis of the economy, like moving towards service instead of production. This is why Marx talks about capitalisms need to constantly revolutionize itself. But, gradually the process continues, and eventually the only way to fix things is destruction of capital, which can be catastrophic.
This is leaving beside environmental problems I think would be very difficult to fix in time with our current system.
Keep in mind I'm somewhat of novice in truth, and if you want a better understanding of this with no errors, I'd recommend listening to someone who's an actual economist. Andrew Kliman is a good example. Just stay away from David Harvery and Richard Wolff.
Okay, let me just hand the mic over to Wikipedia then. You have a lot of objections to address here, not to mention what's actually been evidenced. Has the tendency predicted here, that "the rate of profit has a tendency to fall", been demonstrated in any way? Seems to me like, if something like that were actually happening, it ought to have profound effects on, say, the stock market.
you'd argue probably, that this is counteracted by an increase in the ability of consumers to buy the product
No; I'd argue that it's counteracted by, among other things, the invention of new goods (including higher-capacity SSDs). But actually I'd first pre-empt you by pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about; "commodity" and "product" don't mean the same thing, and SSDs are not an example of the former.
Keep in mind I'm somewhat of novice in truth
Yet you consider yourself qualified to say who is or isn't an "actual economist", presumably based on whether you agree with them. Convenient.
Harvey, Wolff, And Kliman are all Marxists. Wolff and Kliman are economists. I just think that Wolff is wrong and Kliman is correct. I'm not trying to judge whose actually an economists, I'm just trying to tell you which Marxists I try to understand and who I think get Marx correct. I can differ to other Marxists here, as Wolff and Harvey are frequently considered to be misreading Capital.
Socialist here. I think the basic answer is that socialism has to be international. Marx got this, pretty much every Marxist pre-Stalin and Trostsky, even Lenin if I remember correctly, understood this. You can't have socialism in a single state, because what happens is that the state just winds up taking on the roles of the capitalist, in order to compete with other capitalist states. Basically, since capitalism is global, it's replacement will have to be too.
So if this were the case, socialism is unrealistic, then. And on top of that, seems dangerous.
If your entire worldview depends on everyone else accepting it, you're going to want to force that, via military or some other form of dominance.
This is exactly how religions work.
As for human nature, the answer is that it's malleable. We've lived without capitalism before. Was it human nature to live as we did in feudalism, under a king? Human beings have adapted to many other economic systems and there's no reason to think we can't adapt to something other than capitalism now.
Considering humans are intrinsically hierarchical. Every system we've ever had has been hierarchical in some way. Even today, democracy is hierarchical, with members from every tribe defending/being loyal to whoever their "leader" is.
I've already basically answered why I don't think socialism is unrealistic in other comment, but it boils down to the fact that capitalism is very unstable, and is prone to global crisis if you buy Marxist economic ideas and crisis theory. On top of that, we've seen economic systems become global systems before, pretty quickly. Capitalism spread across the world pretty fast, actually.
Considering humans are intrinsically hierarchical. Every system we've ever had has been hierarchical in some way. Even today, democracy is hierarchical, with members from every tribe defending/being loyal to whoever their "leader" is.
I think you might have me pegged as an anarchist, which is wrong. I am a Marxist. Thus, I do not think the problem is hierarchy, fundamentally. I would not be upset if we lived in an actually meritocratic society, with a basic equality in living conditions. For example, the guy who is the best at designing computer chips should probably have more say in how they're designed than others. That's hierarchy.
For all that "deep understanding of political philosophy and political economy" the most noteworthy result your ideology has produced is an unmatched death toll in the name of progress, and lord knows capitalism has been trying to match it, but it seems profit just doesn't justify genocide as well as ideology does.
because if you think human nature gets anywhere involved with it I guarantee you haven't actually looked into what people smarter than you or I have to say about what human nature is.
You know there's a good reason why Marx isn't taken seriously in economics. That's not because he was stupid, but because his economic theories didn't survive the test of time.
That you think I've never encountered your arguments.
Then why aren't you, like, giving them a stock refutation, that makes sense to people who aren't you and actually addresses the argument, without needing to think about it?
/r/socialism does not have any economic features to be run on a socialist basis, and the same type of mods-gone-power-crazed drama erupts on other subreddits (hence why we have SRD). In the real world, for every socialist dictatorship (all of which were based on Lenin's particularly ideology) I can name you five capitalist ones. The thing they all share in common is authoritarianism.
So far only Leninism has been tried on a state-wide level and yah, I wouldn't support another go at it. However, one can easily find the accomplishments of community and worker owned organizations around the world everyday (competing in a world structured to favor capital at every occasion).
Capitalism took hundreds of years to perfect with many different stabs at it, and it still hasn't solved basic issues with poverty, inter-generational wealth inequality, racial oppression, exploitation, etc. I know, I know, try it another time, we'll get it right, finally, this time though.
However, one can easily find the accomplishments of community and worker owned organizations around the world everyday (competing in a world structured to favor capital at every occasion).
No doubt, but that's the catch isn't it. Those kinds of groups are self selecting; they attract like minded people. The devil is in finding a system that still works (well enough) when there isn't near unanimity of opinion + motivation. And so far that system is capitalism, which allows for a wide range of types, including, funnily enough, socialists who prefer to pursue a way of life that accords with their values.
Socialism on a grand scale will always be utopian and inevitably more, much more controlling and restrictive compared to capitalism. The bigger dream is dead.
The basic inputs of production are labor + capital. Capital itself is made up of natural resources (including land) + labor. It so happens that the world has a limited amount of natural resources, and the governments of the world have all already assigned them to private owners. One can't just go start a community / worker-owned organization because they want to. There's really no choice in most situations: you work for the owners of capital or you starve. Do you really think most people would answer "no" to the question "would you want to own a share of the business you work at?" Accumulation of capital in the hands of the few is further aided by government policies such as limited liability for corporations (essentially socializing private losses), inheritance, and the ability of capital-owners to influence elections.
Socially owned firms work for the same reason that privately owned firms work. The economic interests of the legal stakeholders are aligned. In socially owned firms, the workers/community members have it in the best interest to maximize their economic standing. In a privately-owned firm, the capitalist has it in his best interest to maximize his economic standing. However, the existence of the capitalist (that he owns natural resources) is an artificial construct of the government and is just not needed. The firm could easily function without the capital owner, if natural resources were assigned to productive firms instead of absentee owners. I also want to make clear that there is a difference between an entrepreneur and the absentee capitalist I am discussing here. The former is a laborer (although he or his children usually eventually become capitalists).
A capitalistic system can never be free, because the government has already chosen winners and losers by assigning ownership over natural resources.
Ok im wife and wife o r w we were eo and I eoe e I e see were eeeeeeeeeeddyidyddd I th to go Oh dry I dry out she photo dry y tree dry dry out D to D to stuff I I she FYI day she he ego d it y out d the do dry dude too to dry Ohio stuff to dry to due time guy out D she has the fi do to you why dry Ohio dry the yo it it it to go out
They act like he is some sort of monster spouting this shit 24/7, yet they had to dig deep into his post history to find a few semi-questionable comments from many months ago.
Gotta tell you, it was rough as a Navy mechanic on an aircraft carrier. They had to fly the babies on with the mail, and since they were (obviously) still alive at this point, there was a ton of security paperwork. Most babies just don't have the references necessary to get clearance. So naturally there's a baby shortage, and some of us start having to go see the Captain about being behind on our dead baby quotas, but it's like: what do you expect me to do? Provide more babies and I'll kill 'em, but I'm not in charge of security and logistics and it's not like I can swim to land to get me own babies!
Bah! Junior enlisted getting in trouble for decisions made way above their pay grade. Story of my career.
Lol, sad. I just fed babies into the sub reactor. The newer D2W S6G reactor plant cores they put in the 688 i-boats achieved a far better yield coefficient than the old S5W plants I qualified on. Eng dep life.
Yeah, our A4Ws were pretty inefficient with anything other than babies from around Fukushima or Chernobyl (because of the extra neutrons). Wasn't even worth charging them in most of the time, and they played hell with the salinity cells. We just gave them to M-Div and pumped them overboard with oily waste.
However, given the unsatsifactory survey results (87% men and nearly 75% white) and the lack of ideological proportionality within the team, as mods, we must use our position to encourage as many non-men, racialised folks and members of anarchist tendencies as possible to be nominated.
Good god, they really don't want to admit being the turds theybare and relinquish their control over that sub. They're being delusional and petty over fucking Reddit of all things. This is such a wonderful trainwreck.
This guy thinks he's hot shir for being a moderator for a forum of high functions autists.
I didn't do jack. I was busy helping write this post, talking to folks in the Discord, and doing RL shit. You are ignoring the basic fact - a leader of this brigade gave us everything they needed to be banned in one comment. He played a bad card and lost.
"We can't step down. It's not because we don't want to give up power or anything, it's because our survey results show you're a bunch of white males! and we'd hate if someone else took our place and did a good job."
We need more moderators anyway, so an election is prudent. However, given the unsatsifactory survey results (87% men and nearly 75% white)
FUCKING WHITE MALES REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
252 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-01-14
Providing a Safe Space™ from SRD since 2009!
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a -jean-paul- 2017-01-14
snicker
/u/SocialismMods there's so much wrong with this poorly worded segment ("racialised folks" wtf) you should be cowering under the table
We're all shocked. Absolutely shocked.
Keep Yourselves Safe, for our sake and yours.
n/a Hitlery_Clinton 2017-01-14
Lol at "racialized folks"
Was "colored folks" just too on-the-nose?
n/a niggerpenis 2017-01-14
I'm even a little offended. Racialized? Really?
n/a NGC_6960 2017-01-14
this post + your name lol
n/a DuckHuntHotDog 2017-01-14
Seriously. Even the term "people of color" (already a very eurocentric term) works better than that.
n/a merqury26 2017-01-14
lolwut? it's super americentric if anything
n/a DuckHuntHotDog 2017-01-14
Was using "eurocentric" as a general term for "western culture" but you are correct since it's mostly Americans I've seen using it.
n/a FreeIceCreen 2017-01-14
Doesn't it imply that white peoples don't have a race too?
n/a uhuhuhu 2017-01-14
White people are not a race.
White people are a force of nature, sweeping over innocent PoC communities.
n/a nomad1c 2017-01-14
lol shit i read that as "radicalized" and thought that was bad enough. but racialized... smh
n/a Evil-Corgi 2017-01-14
say it with me now: "Gender Equality"
n/a Hitlery_Clinton 2017-01-14
Does non-men include just women, or can it meany whiny bitch boys too?
n/a Evil-Corgi 2017-01-14
Sweet, I'm still eligible.
n/a base_model_android 2017-01-14
The term "non-men" actually has some nasty implications if you look into the history of the way that term is used. It doesn't just mean women, but has also been used to include any non-hetero male, no matter how masculine, as well as trans-men, who would really prefer if people would just recognize them as men. It's like a way of saying that even dweeby noodle-armed mods of lefty forums are men if they're straight, but grizzled ex-military bro-dudes who love the D are not real men. Sad.
n/a HINDBRAIN 2017-01-14
I think it covers ever kind of lesser human.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
non-men
I'm still trying to figure out why "people of gender" hasn't caught on.
n/a UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-01-14
Confirmed for Marxist-Leninism.
n/a LemonScore 2017-01-14
wat
n/a lifesbrink 2017-01-14
Hey u/socialismmods, I ran a train on your mothers last night. They were all dressed up as cat girls and let us do what we wanted.
n/a Nomadlads 2017-01-14
I bet you only paid their mothers 73% of what you paid their fathers to watch.
n/a lifesbrink 2017-01-14
The patriarchy wouldn't have it any other way!
n/a BurgerLaowai 2017-01-14
Only thing worse than socialists are internet socialists.
n/a Dial_A_Dragon 2017-01-14
And the only thing worse than those are rocialists.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
The point of phrasing like "racialized folks" (I swear I am not making this up) is to reinforce the "race is a social construct" narrative, by painting race as something that's done to people rather than an inherent characteristic of them.
While simultaneously insisting that the mod team must have X% of people that they perceive as being of a specific race, thus perpetrating that construct by putting as much importance on it as possible.
I know.
n/a -jean-paul- 2017-01-14
Hah, precisely the kind of self-contradiction you'd expect. But thanks for clarifying that first part, now it makes some, if only some, sense.
n/a DragonSlayerYomre 2017-01-14
Speak some American and say snigger like you're supposed to
n/a -jean-paul- 2017-01-14
Sorry. Didn't want to offend /u/niggerpenis.
n/a niggerpenis 2017-01-14
I appreciate it, man.
n/a Dial_A_Dragon 2017-01-14
Women?
Oh, ohhhhh. Made up third genders, right.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-01-14
Hahahaha holy shit, literal institutional racism and sexism, but its for a good cause so its all good. Also its hilarious that those "volunteers" are so attached to their positions, because its the only power they have in their sad, pathetic lives.
Their next election cycle should be based primarily on oppression points, the top 5 or so get to be the mods.
n/a clintonbro 2017-01-14
Wasn't a big part of the Bernie campaign letting people know that socialism wasn't communism? u/cometparty, u/kc_socialist, u/AnonSocialist, and Venezuela are ruining that. Get ready for 8 years of Trump numbnuts
n/a FTFallen 2017-01-14
/r/socialism mods:
Just like every socialist leader ever.
n/a ayy_howzit_braddah 2017-01-14
Please don't lump those guys in with real socialists. This is partly what the whole struggle was about.
n/a Alexlincoln2 2017-01-14
These are real socialists, and this is pretty much an exact microcosm of the result of socialists running things
n/a ayy_howzit_braddah 2017-01-14
I don't have the energy to give you the whole spiel with links, but socialism is not about controlling others. But if you think that, feel free.
n/a jubbergun 2017-01-14
It's funny how something that's "not about controlling others" always devolves to into iron-fisted authoritarianism.
n/a FakeAndrei 2017-01-14
Let's be honest here, there are many forms of socialism, many retarded, some saner like social democracy, but the issue with a lot of subs is that it only takes a retarded mod to completely ruin a sub and turn it into some kind of cesspit where all of the other retards like them gather.
Like with everything in life, including ideologies, consume in moderation, don't go full mongoloid like /r/fullcommunism or /r/socialism
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-01-14
Speak for yourself. I've been on a healthy diet of Hitler and Heidegger and i feel great m88
n/a merqury26 2017-01-14
social democracy isn't socialism. And not in the "not true socialism" sense, it literally isn't.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-01-14
And i keep telling people alt-right isn't far right, but they won't believe me either.
The fools will never learn!
n/a merqury26 2017-01-14
except it literally is far righ
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-01-14
no it isn't.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
And you know this from personal experience, just like you know about the various distinctions between forms of leftism from personal experience?
No?
Then why do you get to speak authoritatively about both your own movement and someone else's, and expect anyone to take you seriously?
n/a merqury26 2017-01-14
And you know that political movements don't come from a magical dimension where personal feelings shape reality? They have well defined views that place them at certain points on the political spectrum where socdem doesn't fall under socialism but altright does fall under far right.
n/a Ragecomicwhatsthat 2017-01-14
Then, in that case, except social democracy is socialism!
n/a TheJackalope231 2017-01-14
What's the distinction? I'm curious what line you draw.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-01-14
Well just head over to ironmarch and ask em what they think of the alt-right.
n/a BurgerLaowai 2017-01-14
"We do things the fair way, and if you don't like it, we kill you until the only people left think like us!" - ever socialist eventually
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
It may not be about that, but thats how every socialist country has turned out authoritarian, so...
n/a ayy_howzit_braddah 2017-01-14
But I mean, you can kind of admit right there that it may not be about that. But then immediately say that "socialist" countries are authoritarian.
Socialism is an amazing idea, but even better bait for dictators to lay out in front of people in order to get them to take oppression and misery. It's more tolerable than a cult of personality, and takes out the personal responsibility for the dictatorship. It is highly worth it for people to masquerade as Marxists to get people to think they care about what marxists care about which is liberation and freedom. Instead they are just your run of the mill power seekers in Marxist garb, kind of like those moderators.
n/a adnzzzzZ 2017-01-14
Here's something to consider: if your idea allows that to happen then maybe it's a bad idea.
n/a ayy_howzit_braddah 2017-01-14
And American "democracy" produced Trump. What's the core of that argument?
n/a adnzzzzZ 2017-01-14
I was unaware Trump literally killed millions of people. When did that happen?
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
You overlook lovely things in the history of capitalism like, oh, I dunno, imperialism, two world wars, the Cold War, and all the preventable deaths from poverty that happen all the time. Perhaps you haven't heard of them.
Also, "muh capitalism lifts people out of poverty!" is such a bullshit ideological talking point. What lifts people out of poverty is their own work, and it only works where there's less than a pure free market. In other words, it happens in spite of capitalism and not because of it, and only ever precariously.
n/a adnzzzzZ 2017-01-14
People are not motivated to work for anyone but themselves. This experiment has been tried multiple times in history. Every time people have tried something other than selfishness it results in considerably worse results than what we have under capitalism. It's human nature and you can't change it.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
Muh human nature... Muh capitalism is grate.... Muh communism killed fifty quintillion people...
Your comments are great for anti-socialist bingo.
n/a cggreene2 2017-01-14
His comments are right though. You are just denying basic facts of life. If being logical and realistic gets me on a "anti-socialidt Bing o csrd ,then so be it.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
Let me ask you this. Do you think that capitalism is a thing that has always existed? No? Then how the fuck can it be "a fact of life"?
n/a Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-01-14
Markets are a thing that have always existed as long as humans have been even remotely civilized. It's arguably one of the traits of civilization itself. And strong central control of economies repeatedly fails. Markets are strong and natural to humans, and resilient in a way that socialist ideals have never ever been, anywhere. Socialism is a delicate flower that can only exist in a greenhouse, while market capitalism is a robust but ugly weed that is nonetheless very successful in creating an environment where it thrives.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
I didn't ask about markets per se, I asked about capitalism. Two different things.
If you honestly didn't know that socialism doesn't necessarily imply strong central control of the economy, then you fail basic research forever, and you have no business even talking about this topic.
Yeah man. Certainly when we encounter an uncontacted tribe in the Amazon they have a flourishing trading floor and spend most of their day engaging in financial speculation.
And all this talk about capitalism being robust and strong. Jesus, the propaganda. The truth is that its history is lurching from crisis to war to crisis, always on the point of collapse, only ever stabilised by state intervention.
n/a Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-01-14
Crisis and war are part of all history, at every time, including socialist states and communes. Markets and free enterprises have been the engine for growth forever.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
For unsustainable growth, that is fucking up the climate of the planet.
Also, so now economic crises and wars are natural? Are the uncontacted tribes in the Amazon having capitalist crises and imperialist wars?
n/a Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-01-14
Wait, are you going to argue primitivism?
And you're trying to steal a base by saying 'capitalist crises'. Define your terms. Which crisis are we talking about?
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
No I'm not going to argue primitivism, what the fuck?
Oh I dunno, the ones in the 1890's, the one in 1929, the oil crisis in 1973, the one in 1987, the ones in 1998, the one in 2007-08, you know the old boom and bust cycle that just keeps recurring and gets worse the more laissez-faire the system becomes. You must've noticed unless you were born two and a half years ago.
n/a Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-01-14
You said
What's your point then?
And what makes a crisis capitalistic? What about Venezuela, China, and Russia for 'socialist' crises?
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
Whataboutism. We're not talking about Venezuela, China or Russia. Although when the fuck was the last time that China or Russia were socialist countries.
My point was that someone said that markets were "natural", and something that had always existed. Uncontacted tribes in the Amazon are a bit like our hunter-gatherer ancestors, and they do not have markets, ergo, they have not always fucking existed and are not "natural", and that's an argument from nature fallacy anyway. Quid pro quo.
n/a Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-01-14
Is what I said. Endemic to civilization if you will.
And I'm not whaddabouting, explain what makes a 'capitalist crisis' different from a 'socialist crisis'.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
Aye, and there you're making an error, with this weasel word "civilized". Were we not civilized in the thousands of years we spent as hunter-gatherers? Did we need a centralized state or a priestly hierarchy to make us "civilized"? A lot of assumptions there.
What makes a capitalist crisis is that it comes about as a result of a capitalist system. I would've thought that was obvious.
n/a Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-01-14
Civilization refers to living in cities, at city-scales. Refer to the etymology.
You can't use the word in the definition. That's a tautology.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
No it isn't, that's not how definitions work.
Also, why are we arguing about the definition of "civilization"? Because markets have always existed in cities? I don't know if even that's true.
Besides, it has nothing to do with capitalism, which is strictly a product of the last 200 or so years.
n/a Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-01-14
So why not compare pre-capitalism with modernity then. It's pretty clear that markets and trade, along with free enterprise have created all of the benefits of our modern age. Socialism is just a plan to redistribute the things that free enterprise and markets have created.
n/a r4ndpaulsbrilloballs 2017-01-14
Then why are 90%+ of people working for a business owner other than themselves or government?
The only way to work "for yourself" is to own a business.
n/a adnzzzzZ 2017-01-14
That's what I mean. Under a different system individuals have no incentive to put their savings on the line (or to go into debt) for others and take the huge risk of opening a business. They do it for themselves because if it works they'll be rich. If the incentive of being rich wasn't there no one do this and then the economy would never grow as much as it would have under a system where the incentive exists.
So many people are able to earn that money by just working for someone else because there are many people who are willing to take the risk of opening a business, since the rewards can be extremely high if it works. If that small subset of people didn't exist and or if the system didn't incentive that small subset of people to exist in the first place then the vast majority that is just happy with working for someone else would have no work. Jobs don't create themselves magically.
n/a r4ndpaulsbrilloballs 2017-01-14
This sentence you wrote is false. That was my main point.
In fact, that was my only point. I have no interest in discussing politics in Venezuela or Brazil.
n/a adnzzzzZ 2017-01-14
If people don't work under the current system they won't get money. If they don't get money they'll starve. So they're working for themselves. Even people who work for no-profits get paid for it.
n/a r4ndpaulsbrilloballs 2017-01-14
If you have a boss, you are literally not working for yourself. Period.
n/a adnzzzzZ 2017-01-14
OK, you win this argument. Socialism is the way forward and Capitalism will never work.
n/a r4ndpaulsbrilloballs 2017-01-14
That's not what I said. I'm no socialist. You're just putting words in my mouth.
n/a [deleted] 2017-01-14
[removed]
n/a jubbergun 2017-01-14
The funniest thing about this bot is that if communists ever get robots it will decades after everyone else does, they'll be piss-poor copies of what everyone else has, and they will routinely malfunction and explode.
n/a IamWithTheDConsNow 2017-01-14
Is this why the capitalist USA is still using Soviet rockets to go into space?
n/a TotesMessenger 2017-01-14
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
n/a Orc_ 2017-01-14
It's only their own work through capitalism, how did you miss that?
n/a iBongz420 2017-01-14
Pick one.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
What are you talking about. How is work the same thing as capitalism? I suppose that before capitalism existed, people did no work?
Reread what I wrote. If people have lifted themselves out of poverty, it has happened in spite of capitalism, not because of it. Capitalism, and especially laissez-faire or neoliberal capitalism, cannot claim the credit for what should be laid at the door of mixed market capitalism, with state intervention and labour unions and redistribution of wealth.
n/a iBongz420 2017-01-14
Please keep repeating yourself without explaining, it really tells me much.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
I already did explain it. It is not free market capitalism which is responsible for prosperity, but simply people's own work, most often in the context of a completely regulated capitalism. It does not follow that the selfsame prosperity, or a greater one, could not have taken place under any other system, without capitalism's notorious waste of resources and talent and its despoiling of the environment, and without the kleptocratic class relations on which the whole thing is built.
n/a iBongz420 2017-01-14
I think you are confusing today's Oligopoly with capitalism.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
Oh don't give me that old flannel. "No, you see, guys, this isn't real capitalism, real capitalism is describes something that has never fucking existed".
n/a iBongz420 2017-01-14
Annnnnd there we go.
You described a situation in which capitalism works intended. Only to say "this is not capitalism!" When corrected with an accurate (and true) explanation you dismiss it. You are so idealistic you have inverted your world view from reality.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
Eh? I didn't say it wasn't capitalism. I said prosperity always happens under a mixed economy capitalism with a strong state intervention, and there's no reason to think prosperity wouldn't be even greater under an alternate system. Learn to read.
n/a iBongz420 2017-01-14
[citation needed]
Because I'm 100% certain that "strong state intervention" did not create Quaker Oats, Hershey Chocolate, Swiss Miss, Coke a' Cola, etc. Instead, "strong state intervention" has set these companies up as juggernauts akin to the East India Company. "Strong Government Intervention" is why huge companies can get away with the shit they do. If they could not control the government, the market would self-regulate.
eg; "Dont like it don't buy it"
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
That's total bullshit fantasy land. The government regulations are the only things keeping corporations in check and preventing them from swallowing up and wasting even more of the resources and environment of the planet. The idea that you can make something less powerful by removing all checks on it is completely ass backwards illogical.
And in a way, yes, strong state intervention did create the conditions for all these companies to thrive in the first place. America has always had intervention in the economy, always, from 1776 on. Protectionism is the only reason the economy thrived in the first place, and it was at its most prosperous when it was its most interventionist, in the period 1945-1973. Since then wealth has increased exponentially, but it's all gone to the top, so the distribution of wealth is grossly disproportionate and unbalanced, thanks to neoliberalism.
n/a iBongz420 2017-01-14
I lol'd you cant be real. Do you even know what cronyism is? Lobbying?
Yes, strong state intervention created the conditions for these companies to to exist before such intervention existed. That was a trick question you see, I only cited companies that existed pre-1900s.
You're literally just shitting propaganda onto your keys. Good job.
No surprises there, we had no competition during that period of time. Everyone was buying American goods. My goodness. Do people just completely detach from reality to debate economics? No wonder the cronies win. Holy balls you're dense.
n/a glmox 2017-01-14
yes, the latest in a centuries-long unbroken chain of peaceful power transfers based on the expressed wishes of the populace. sounds like a pretty good system to me.
n/a ayy_howzit_braddah 2017-01-14
Way to go.
n/a glmox 2017-01-14
okay? capitalist exploitation is not the fault of democracy. you're not gonna convince me that a dictatorship of the proletariat or some shit is a better alternative just because the profit motive makes people do bad things.
n/a fenixforce 2017-01-14
*
You realize that dismantling capitalist exploitation the whole point of socialism right?
n/a glmox 2017-01-14
lmao you'd think supporting the only system of governance that has an actual track record of giving workers a say in how they're treated wouldn't make you children so mad
n/a fenixforce 2017-01-14
Democracy is not an economic policy and capitalism is not a form of government. Your ignorance is amusing though, so you may continue.
n/a glmox 2017-01-14
uh, yeah, that was the initial issue i was going to raise with your argument but i thought, too charitably i guess, that you had a basic understanding of the argument you jumped into. my issue isn't with being socialist, it's with being anti-democracy, thus my mockery of the guy suggesting democracy is a failure because a big scary republican gets to be leader for 4-8 years. a socialist-leaning democracy is just fine by me, but suggesting that unexamined "socialism" is clearly the better way to fight for the proletariat when every government that's defined itself as socialist/communist/marxist first and foremost has either ended up horribly repressive and corrupt or collapsed too fucking fast to get there is laughable.
n/a fenixforce 2017-01-14
Jesus Christ this spawned from you getting a jab at "democracy" (in air quotes) conflated with promoting "dictatorship of the proletariat" to begin with. The whole point being made was that a supposed "democracy" built on exploiting and oppressing minorities and the poor, and whose newest president-elect aims to continue doing so, isn't actually very fucking democratic.
If you don't know how to read air quotes on the internet I don't know how to begin explaining them to you.
n/a glmox 2017-01-14
"w-when he said democracy he actually meant something t-totally different!"
lol
n/a fenixforce 2017-01-14
"I-I don't have a very strong grasp on tone and the English written language!"
It's alright Hoss, we know.
n/a TheMauveHand 2017-01-14
The majority have neither been enslaved nore are they in poverty. Poverty is decreasing continuously, and the standard of living is improving likewise. I know it's inconvenient, but it's true.
n/a presidenttrump_2016 2017-01-14
And Trump is going to Make America Great Again.
Proving American democracy works!
n/a merqury26 2017-01-14
Trump hasn't killed anyone yet.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
Make concrete predictions of things you consider negative that you expect to happen during Trump's presidency, and I'll tell you the odds with which I will wager real money (real-world currency of your choice, current rates, net of exchange fees) against them happening.
n/a rammingparu3 2017-01-14
This is not a bad thing...
n/a old_grumpy_grandpa 2017-01-14
What is wrong with Trump being elected?
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
If every time socialism is tried, authoritarians take power with it, maybe it doesnt work
n/a ayy_howzit_braddah 2017-01-14
You have to pick one, and not both.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-01-14
You, much like socialism, are retarded.
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
DAE TRUE SOCIALISM NEVER BEEN TRIED
n/a ____________13 2017-01-14
Socialism.
It'll be different this timeTM
n/a HausWhip 2017-01-14
Yay, the semantics game. How about this:
If every time people try to achieve socialism, they fail to do so and authoritarians take power, then it looks like in most cases trying to achieve socialism will have bad results.
n/a zzork_ 2017-01-14
Ah, but in all those cases it was evil people pretending to try socialism so that they can be evil! When actual good people genuinely want to try socialism you'll be able to tell the difference, because they'll say that they're good.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
What exactly is your term for the thing that happened in countries like Venezuela, Cuba etc. where "authoritarians took power", that they very obviously all have in common and that the rest of the world recognizes as "socialism is tried", if not "socialism is tried"?
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
There's lots of examples where that hasn't happened, but you haven't read much about this topic, or studied it, so you haven't heard of them, but you feel the need to talk about the subject like you're an expert anyway.
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
Name one
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
Do your own research. Stop being lazy.
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
Lol, u have no argument. My research says zero.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
What did your research consist of? Cos talking to your Republican uncle at Thanksgiving doesn't count.
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
A quick google. Im not the one proving shit, so i dont need to do more. Provode an example, its not hard. Dont be lazy.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
Well here's what came up when I did "a quick Google": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism
Now was that too hard to do yourself?
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
So, which country did it in there? I look, and i see no socialist country without authoritarianism.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
I'm not gonna do your research for you. You're going to have to actually read the fucking thing. A tip for you is to stop thinking in terms of "countries".
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
That what we were talking about, in terms of countries.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
Status quo-ers lack reading comprehension and basic spelling skills confirmed.
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
(✿◕‿◕) Friendly reminder that all socialists are retards (◕‿◕✿)
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
Oh man, sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to a kindergartner. Does your mum know that you're on the computer?
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
Wow, not all autists are kids, you ableist shitlord
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
No, but you are an autist and a kid, clearly. Who has somehow got access to a computer or phone, and has had the great idea to write: "DAE socialism is bad because hooman nature LOL"
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
Lol i didnt write that, but its the truth. Only a real retard, unlike me, could believe otherwise. (Note-only am an autist)
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
I am a proud ableist when it comes to people who spout off about shit on the internet that they know absolutely fuck all about, and refuse to do basic research.
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
Wow, looks like u need to be purged by the r/soc mods
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
Already have been, I think it was in 2015.
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
Wow ur prob a brocialist
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
In what other terms would one possibly think in this context?
Have you considered making any attempt whatsoever to actually say what you mean, rather than dismissing any guesses as not it?
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
I just think people would get more out of it if they did their own research, rather than play the childish game of gainsaying which takes place on Reddit.
You see, a successful socialist model could take place on the level of a city or a region or even a neighbourhood. Hence the tip not to concentrate on whole countries so much.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
But when people tell you they've done their own research, and come to conclusions different from your own, you refuse to accept this, and insist that they should look up something else.
Have you considered the possibility that the things you found convincing are simply not convincing to all other people?
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
No, no, no. This bullshit talking point that capitalism is just a synonym for trade has got to end. It is completely contrary to all the accepted definitions of capitalism, which is absolutely a specific system which emerged around the time of the Industrial Revolution.
Again, basic research. Also, there's no contradiction between the position that it should ideally be global and the idea that it can operate on a small scale.
So, it's not a question of what's "convincing" or what isn't. The contention in this thread is "socialism always becomes authoritarian whenever it's tried", This is just simply not true. It's a matter of historical facts which exist and are discoverable, and I want people to do their own research rather than just childishly gainsay whatever I say.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
Then the small-scale experiments you're describing aren't socialism, either.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
That, sir, does not follow.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
Of course it does. First: the systems implemented on these small scales existed millennia before Marx, even coincident with trade and barter. Gift economies existed among indigenous peoples. If pre-capitalist ideas aren't capitalist, then pre-socialist ideas aren't socialist. Second: you can't say you're meaningfully doing anything about "class warfare" in a group that was too small to have classes in the first place. (Also, since "diversity" is apparently important for modern socialists, please consider how woefully lacking it has been - necessarily, by logistical constraints - in these small-scale experiments.)
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
You are talking complete bollocks which is caused by you not having done basic research. If you're going to talk publicly about these topics at all, you really do have to research them a bit first.
Like I said before, this does not follow.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
Argument by assertion, in the service of a double standard. You consistently shift the burden of proof, and refuse to even define your terms. I am not the bollocks-talker here.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
Yeah you are, because you have decided to talk authoritatively about something on which you have clearly not done iota of research.
Honest questions will get honest answers, don't waste my time with the automatic gainsaying of every statement I make.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
As of yet, I see no reason to believe this, because I have no evidence that you have ever given an honest answer to anything ever in your life.
n/a zzork_ 2017-01-14
man you're a fucking childish idiot
n/a TheJackalope231 2017-01-14
As a fellow socialist, you're doing debate incorrectly and doing much more to damage your point by not doing everyone the favor of actually defending it.
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
This is not a debate sub, and I wasn't going to sit there at 3 am and do people's basic research for them. Sorry.
n/a Bronafide 2017-01-14
Ill save you a click, he doesnt name 1
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
He tells me to edumucate myself a lot
n/a kellyanneIsFakeNews 2017-01-14
Rojava.
n/a kellyanneIsFakeNews 2017-01-14
In your flair it looks like you support a hate group so...
n/a Fiery1Phoenix 2017-01-14
Its my motto
n/a Forseti5 2017-01-14
But that's exactly what it always leads to. Every single time.
n/a Obregon 2017-01-14
How shocking that perceptions of socialism are based on how self identified socialists act.
n/a Chicup 2017-01-14
Socialism is always 100% of the time, without fail, going to be about controlling others. People are assholes and socialism lets the biggest assholes always take over because the system is fucking stupid and anti-human nature. There is no real socialism because socialism can't fucking exist as a viable thing except on paper.
n/a ting_bu_dong 2017-01-14
Ah, the "No True Socialism" gambit. Socialism totally works in my mind!
Here's how it works in the real world:
n/a Thhueros 2017-01-14
Lenin was a mistake
n/a ting_bu_dong 2017-01-14
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, and all the assorted little murderous dictators worldwide were all mistakes.
Mistakes that armchair socialists really should have to own.
n/a Thhueros 2017-01-14
Aw pol pot doesn't count. He never even read Marx. He was some weird primitivist.
n/a ting_bu_dong 2017-01-14
Eh, fair enough.
n/a TheJackalope231 2017-01-14
As the mods of /r/socialism themselves have said many times (in defense of their own lack of democratic values):
n/a DistortedLines 2017-01-14
Oh ok that totally justifies being authoritarian and retarded
n/a TheJackalope231 2017-01-14
It's really bizarre logic and it absolutely baffled me when I first heard it because of how hypocritical it was.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-01-14
Yeah, I understand that reddit doesnt have the tools to allow for that kind of system to be implemented online, but do they really not see how so much of the problems they face have real life historical parallels? Like if you cant fix that in your little circlejerk, what makes you think your system will work out on a national or even global scale?
n/a TheJackalope231 2017-01-14
Because the world doesn't function the way reddit does. The world isn't hard-wired to have the structures it has currently, and there have been various societies that function socialistically- and some still do. The Chileans even democratically elected a socialist once, but was quickly overturned by a US-backed coup.
I agree there are a lot of instances of a socialist message getting co-opted by authoritarians- but I consider that a failure of implementation rather than ideology. It's just that the failed examples get much more time in stage than the successful instances.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-01-14
No doubt, but not everyone in the world will be receptive to socialism, and socialism is not free of its problems, no matter which tiny fracture you and your friends think is the right one. As for Chile, you failed to mention that while he had good intentions, Allende and his socialist systems was disastrous for Chile's economy, just look at the living conditions of the people back then and how many of them were in poverty. You can point out exactly when Pinochet took over by looking at a map of Chile's GDP per capita. Now this does not mean that I support the coup, but Allende's socialist regime was another failure as i said before.
Well you say that, but /r/socialism banning people over fucking catgirls and using words like retarded or stupid is authoritarianism, and this sort of problem can and has arisen in the real world too, and in the majority of cases the leaders handled it just like the mods of /r/socialism. But Don't worry, im sure that true socialism is definitely not like this, let's just hope that when the revolution comes, this true socialism wont devolve into your typical authoritarianism as has happened so many times before.
Ok list me the places where true successful 100% socialism is implemented today, then when i point out a flaw or a deviation from socialism, proceed to explain how its not real socialism so it doesnt count.
n/a ting_bu_dong 2017-01-14
Socialism with Reddit characteristics.
n/a RecallRethuglicans 2017-01-14
Socialism and democracy aren't connected.
n/a kennewickman 2017-01-14
Ehh it's the Internet. They may be calling themselves socialist but like all movements there are outliers, there's the median and that's really it. It's Reddit for fucks sake. I can say fuck niggers all night long until my asshole hurts. I mean my voice.
n/a Solthercunt 2017-01-14
Please don't lump those guys in with real national socialists. This is partly what the whole struggle was about.
n/a UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-01-14
A word of warning: you're only going to receive shitposts in response to this.
n/a -jean-paul- 2017-01-14
You're fighting a losing battle here.
n/a King_Eirik_Bloodaxe 2017-01-14
No true socialist!
n/a friendlysoviet 2017-01-14
Socialists main struggle is against other socialists? What a lousy ideology.
n/a dcman00000 2017-01-14
Pinochet did nothing wrong
n/a DrunkAutopilot 2017-01-14
Socialism doesn't work because /r/socialism doesn't work.
One used to have to point to failed socialist states and argue that said collapse was still relevant to whatever brand socialists were pushing on any given day. This observation saves so much time.
Thanks Internet!
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-01-14
/r/socialism is a microcosm of all the reasons socialism has failed and will continue to fail.
n/a o11c 2017-01-14
Socialism is doomed to fail unless paired with a strong democracy.
For some reason, people in power don't like democracy.
n/a ProFalseIdol 2017-01-14
You are indeed drunk and on autopilot.
n/a TheJackalope231 2017-01-14
This is just a demonstration of the failure of power structures to represent a group of people. The structure of reddit makes it impossible to have an actual socialist-style structure, because it mandates mods whose power is not democratically distributed. Sure, you can try to implement a democratic system in the sub, but that is damn hard and will be fighting against the inherent properties of a Reddit mod.
As the mods of /r/socialism have said themselves many times:
n/a AgentGotse 2017-01-14
The OP of the petition has been banned, because he is accused of being a transphobic baby killer (not even exaggerating). God bless the mods of /r/socialism for providing excellent drama.
n/a DrunkAutopilot 2017-01-14
Worse. OP misgendered those babies right before he killed them. Truly the Donald Trump of our times.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-01-14
Lol, /u/VoteAnimal2012 even accuses him of not believing in safe spaces, as if it is a horrible crime.
Hey, this world doesn't have safe spaces. Besides a grave, of course.
n/a GrabEmByThePalossand 2017-01-14
That is the weakest reasoning for a ban wow
None of those criticisms were even accurate. This is Trump campaign level spin
It's obvious he was banned for dissenting lol
n/a AgentGotse 2017-01-14
The only comment which potentially breaks rules is this:
Apparently this is transphobic, because gender pronouns are literally just as important as the rest of workers' issues. And it was posted 4 months ago in a different sub. Obviously mods are just assblasted and are looking for excuses.
/u/VoteAnimal2012 you would make an excellent informant for state security, товарищ. Tell me, did you go through 4 months of his post history or did you somehow magically remember what he wrote 4 months ago in some tiny godforsaken thread with almost no upvotes or comments?
n/a ayy_howzit_braddah 2017-01-14
Killed no babies, but distributed plenty food, medicine and soccer balls.
I again, hope you guys don't accuse those moderators of being socialists because they're not. The whole petition was started to stop them denigrating our name to the rest of this website. At this point we are deliberating whether they are actual CIA meant to cointelpro us, because they are doing just that.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-01-14
Why do you insist that socialists can't make themselves look ridiculous? Do you think the USSR was also a CIA ruse to make socialism look bad?
n/a ayy_howzit_braddah 2017-01-14
No, the USSR was people using the color red to disguise their desire to impose a dictatorship on people.
Like, if I say I'm a horse but I am not...am I a horse? A lot of terrible people use lofty ideas for bad purposes. The same thing as these mods. This petition was to hopefully show people that real socialists are being locked out of their own community, and self admitted authoritarians have taken it over and made this reputation that you subscribe to as we speak.
n/a subpoutine 2017-01-14
Again with the trannyphobia.
n/a massenkompatibel 2017-01-14
This is finger-licking delicious. One day it will all dawn upon you, 25 is the usual age if you manage to read a few history books until then. Because you're not exactly the first person to sound like yourself.
n/a ayy_howzit_braddah 2017-01-14
Dude, I'm a veteran at the end of his twenties. Don't just think that everyone who still sees hope in the world is gonna end up losing it.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-01-14
There is hope and there is delusion.
n/a massenkompatibel 2017-01-14
Ah, that explains why you didn't get around to reading any books.
n/a IDFSHILL 2017-01-14
Buddy, there's a difference between something on paper and something in reality.
Socialism, on paper, might seem fantastic, but it doesn't account for human nature at all, and it never has.
There's a reason it's so often exploited to oppress people or take absolute power.
n/a ayy_howzit_braddah 2017-01-14
Have you ever took a second and thought "man, has he really ever given this human nature thing a consideration"? It's the same tired argument. Human nature has been addressed in so much of the philosophy behind socialism that it's borderline tired.
Why do I think that is? There are a million reasons with good reading behind it, and none of which you'll ever really give credence to.
Maybe watch "A pervert's guide to ideology". That's about all I'll say about that.
n/a IDFSHILL 2017-01-14
Capitalism lines up with human nature, which is why it's shown to be the best system we've ever had.
And again, if this were the case, can you explain why literally every socialist country ends up in shambles?
Because at some point you have to step back and look at reality dude.
Seriously, why do you think literally every socialist country ends up in shambles?
n/a ayy_howzit_braddah 2017-01-14
You wanna know what the disconnect is? That you think I've never encountered your arguments. Maybe you need to go deeper into it than a superficial understanding of both political philosophy and political economy, because if you think human nature gets anywhere involved with it I guarantee you haven't actually looked into what people smarter than you or I have to say about what human nature is.
n/a IDFSHILL 2017-01-14
This is hilarious, you aren't answering my question.
Can you explain to me why every socialist country ends up in shambles?
n/a Chickenfrend 2017-01-14
Socialist here. I think the basic answer is that socialism has to be international. Marx got this, pretty much every socialist pre-Stalin and Trostsky, even Lenin if I remember correctly, understood this. You can't have socialism in a single state, because what happens is that the state just winds up taking on the roles of the capitalist, in order to compete with other capitalist states. Basically, since capitalism is global, it's replacement will have to be too.
So, when revolution failed to spread, specifically in Germany, any hope of successfully transitioning to communism in that moment became unlikely.
As for human nature, the answer is that it's malleable. We've lived without capitalism before. Was it human nature to live as we did in feudalism, under a king? Human beings have adapted to many other economic systems and there's no reason to think we can't adapt to something other than capitalism now.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
Are you familiar with the concept of a coordination problem? This is utterly impossible to achieve.
n/a Chickenfrend 2017-01-14
Yeah, I'm vaguely familiar, though I'll admit game theory is an are in which I was more knowledgeable.
Anyway, there's a few reasons to think it's not impossible. First, it doesn't necessarily have to happen all at once. Just because you're against Stalin's strange kind of nationalism, and think there needs to be a global movement, doesn't mean that you need simultaneous revolution, you just need revolution to spread. This didn't happen before the extremely quick revert to state capitalism in the USSR. Second, the idea is that capitalism is prone to global crisis. Capitalism will destroy itself, globally, revolution or no. We'd better hope there's revolution when that happens, or we could wind up with an even worse system than the current one.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
Yes, you do need simultaneous revolution, because otherwise Stalin happens in the places that are revolting.
n/a Chickenfrend 2017-01-14
The idea is that revolution in one area will encourage revolution in other areas, not that everyone will revolt at the same time. In the 20th century, revolution did not spread in such a way.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
Okay, in the 20th century, socialists objectively did try "maybe if we have revolution in one area, it will spread to other areas". Repeatedly. Every time, the result of "having revolution in one area" was that it did not spread to other areas, and in fact "other areas" usually became safe havens while the revolutionary areas suffered untold millions of deaths.
How much more experimental evidence do you need before you conclude that "the idea" is not sound?
n/a Chickenfrend 2017-01-14
I'm actually not super optimistic it will happen. But, I do think it must happen, because the alternative is the continuation of capitalism, which will surely lead to crisis. If we do not succeed in moving past capitalism to a different mode of production, which I call communism, we will be fucked.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
In any particular, specific way?
And why have we then endured it as long as we have?
n/a Chickenfrend 2017-01-14
I think this because I'm fairly convinced of the truth of Marxist crisis theory. Marx argued that the rate of profit under capitalism has a tendency to fall, as production becomes more and more efficient and commodities take less and less labor to make. If Marx's value theory is correct, then this will mean less and less valuable commodities in the whole economy. This is can be seen, for example, when with a commodity like SSDs, where they are quickly falling in price. you'd argue probably, that this is counteracted by an increase in the ability of consumers to buy the product, but the problem is this happens all across the economy. We're talking the average rate, so unless it's money the consumer wouldn't have spent without the existence of the cheaper commodity, overall less profit exists in the economy.
These problems can be solved with destruction of capital, or to an extent changes in the basis of the economy, like moving towards service instead of production. This is why Marx talks about capitalisms need to constantly revolutionize itself. But, gradually the process continues, and eventually the only way to fix things is destruction of capital, which can be catastrophic.
This is leaving beside environmental problems I think would be very difficult to fix in time with our current system.
Keep in mind I'm somewhat of novice in truth, and if you want a better understanding of this with no errors, I'd recommend listening to someone who's an actual economist. Andrew Kliman is a good example. Just stay away from David Harvery and Richard Wolff.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
Okay, let me just hand the mic over to Wikipedia then. You have a lot of objections to address here, not to mention what's actually been evidenced. Has the tendency predicted here, that "the rate of profit has a tendency to fall", been demonstrated in any way? Seems to me like, if something like that were actually happening, it ought to have profound effects on, say, the stock market.
No; I'd argue that it's counteracted by, among other things, the invention of new goods (including higher-capacity SSDs). But actually I'd first pre-empt you by pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about; "commodity" and "product" don't mean the same thing, and SSDs are not an example of the former.
Yet you consider yourself qualified to say who is or isn't an "actual economist", presumably based on whether you agree with them. Convenient.
n/a Chickenfrend 2017-01-14
Harvey, Wolff, And Kliman are all Marxists. Wolff and Kliman are economists. I just think that Wolff is wrong and Kliman is correct. I'm not trying to judge whose actually an economists, I'm just trying to tell you which Marxists I try to understand and who I think get Marx correct. I can differ to other Marxists here, as Wolff and Harvey are frequently considered to be misreading Capital.
n/a IDFSHILL 2017-01-14
So if this were the case, socialism is unrealistic, then. And on top of that, seems dangerous.
If your entire worldview depends on everyone else accepting it, you're going to want to force that, via military or some other form of dominance.
This is exactly how religions work.
Considering humans are intrinsically hierarchical. Every system we've ever had has been hierarchical in some way. Even today, democracy is hierarchical, with members from every tribe defending/being loyal to whoever their "leader" is.
n/a Chickenfrend 2017-01-14
I've already basically answered why I don't think socialism is unrealistic in other comment, but it boils down to the fact that capitalism is very unstable, and is prone to global crisis if you buy Marxist economic ideas and crisis theory. On top of that, we've seen economic systems become global systems before, pretty quickly. Capitalism spread across the world pretty fast, actually.
I think you might have me pegged as an anarchist, which is wrong. I am a Marxist. Thus, I do not think the problem is hierarchy, fundamentally. I would not be upset if we lived in an actually meritocratic society, with a basic equality in living conditions. For example, the guy who is the best at designing computer chips should probably have more say in how they're designed than others. That's hierarchy.
n/a TheMauveHand 2017-01-14
For all that "deep understanding of political philosophy and political economy" the most noteworthy result your ideology has produced is an unmatched death toll in the name of progress, and lord knows capitalism has been trying to match it, but it seems profit just doesn't justify genocide as well as ideology does.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-01-14
You know there's a good reason why Marx isn't taken seriously in economics. That's not because he was stupid, but because his economic theories didn't survive the test of time.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
Then why aren't you, like, giving them a stock refutation, that makes sense to people who aren't you and actually addresses the argument, without needing to think about it?
n/a -jean-paul- 2017-01-14
You're fighting a losing battle here.
n/a ayy_howzit_braddah 2017-01-14
Yeah, I'm done.
n/a -jean-paul- 2017-01-14
Great, because to be clear, your interlocutors are right.
Socialism doesn't work but in theory and /r/socialism shows why. It's the same pattern every fucking time.
n/a cal_student37 2017-01-14
/r/socialism does not have any economic features to be run on a socialist basis, and the same type of mods-gone-power-crazed drama erupts on other subreddits (hence why we have SRD). In the real world, for every socialist dictatorship (all of which were based on Lenin's particularly ideology) I can name you five capitalist ones. The thing they all share in common is authoritarianism.
n/a -jean-paul- 2017-01-14
The difference being there are no dictatorship-free socialist "experiments".
I know, I know, try it another time, we'll get it right, finally, this time.
n/a cal_student37 2017-01-14
So far only Leninism has been tried on a state-wide level and yah, I wouldn't support another go at it. However, one can easily find the accomplishments of community and worker owned organizations around the world everyday (competing in a world structured to favor capital at every occasion).
Capitalism took hundreds of years to perfect with many different stabs at it, and it still hasn't solved basic issues with poverty, inter-generational wealth inequality, racial oppression, exploitation, etc. I know, I know, try it another time, we'll get it right, finally, this time though.
n/a -jean-paul- 2017-01-14
No doubt, but that's the catch isn't it. Those kinds of groups are self selecting; they attract like minded people. The devil is in finding a system that still works (well enough) when there isn't near unanimity of opinion + motivation. And so far that system is capitalism, which allows for a wide range of types, including, funnily enough, socialists who prefer to pursue a way of life that accords with their values.
Socialism on a grand scale will always be utopian and inevitably more, much more controlling and restrictive compared to capitalism. The bigger dream is dead.
n/a cal_student37 2017-01-14
The basic inputs of production are labor + capital. Capital itself is made up of natural resources (including land) + labor. It so happens that the world has a limited amount of natural resources, and the governments of the world have all already assigned them to private owners. One can't just go start a community / worker-owned organization because they want to. There's really no choice in most situations: you work for the owners of capital or you starve. Do you really think most people would answer "no" to the question "would you want to own a share of the business you work at?" Accumulation of capital in the hands of the few is further aided by government policies such as limited liability for corporations (essentially socializing private losses), inheritance, and the ability of capital-owners to influence elections.
Socially owned firms work for the same reason that privately owned firms work. The economic interests of the legal stakeholders are aligned. In socially owned firms, the workers/community members have it in the best interest to maximize their economic standing. In a privately-owned firm, the capitalist has it in his best interest to maximize his economic standing. However, the existence of the capitalist (that he owns natural resources) is an artificial construct of the government and is just not needed. The firm could easily function without the capital owner, if natural resources were assigned to productive firms instead of absentee owners. I also want to make clear that there is a difference between an entrepreneur and the absentee capitalist I am discussing here. The former is a laborer (although he or his children usually eventually become capitalists).
A capitalistic system can never be free, because the government has already chosen winners and losers by assigning ownership over natural resources.
n/a -jean-paul- 2017-01-14
I yield comrade.
n/a fraterconficiens 2017-01-14
just ask; if DPRK has democratic republic in its name, does that make north korea either a republic or a democracy
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-01-14
/r/badphilosophy is a shitsub m8
n/a fraterconficiens 2017-01-14
its one of the best subs on reddit ;)
n/a alexmikli 2017-01-14
It's elitist as fuck
n/a chaosakita 2017-01-14
Ok im wife and wife o r w we were eo and I eoe e I e see were eeeeeeeeeeddyidyddd I th to go Oh dry I dry out she photo dry y tree dry dry out D to D to stuff I I she FYI day she he ego d it y out d the do dry dude too to dry Ohio stuff to dry to due time guy out D she has the fi do to you why dry Ohio dry the yo it it it to go out
n/a base_model_android 2017-01-14
Never attribute to malice what can easily be ascribed to stupidity. R/socialism is just GamerGhazi with red flags.
n/a jubbergun 2017-01-14
Came here for Commie drama and got /r/conspiracy giggles as a bonus. Best post this week, IMO.
n/a IDFSHILL 2017-01-14
It's actually fascinating watching this unfold, it's like exactly what happens in socialist dictatorships.
That guy dared question them and they went through his post history 4 months back and banned him for a made up reason.
It's like someone decided to speak up against the Stalin government and had to be shut down.
n/a porygonzguy 2017-01-14
I mean, /u/enji-iro even bragged about finding a reason to ban him.
https://archive.is/Qisrg
n/a base_model_android 2017-01-14
They act like he is some sort of monster spouting this shit 24/7, yet they had to dig deep into his post history to find a few semi-questionable comments from many months ago.
n/a Ranilen 2017-01-14
Gotta tell you, it was rough as a Navy mechanic on an aircraft carrier. They had to fly the babies on with the mail, and since they were (obviously) still alive at this point, there was a ton of security paperwork. Most babies just don't have the references necessary to get clearance. So naturally there's a baby shortage, and some of us start having to go see the Captain about being behind on our dead baby quotas, but it's like: what do you expect me to do? Provide more babies and I'll kill 'em, but I'm not in charge of security and logistics and it's not like I can swim to land to get me own babies!
Bah! Junior enlisted getting in trouble for decisions made way above their pay grade. Story of my career.
n/a subpoutine 2017-01-14
Sure you weren't a Marine?
n/a Ranilen 2017-01-14
Pfff, I may have mispelled it, but that word has 4 syllables. Marines only go up to 2.
n/a base_model_android 2017-01-14
Lol, sad. I just fed babies into the sub reactor. The newer D2W S6G reactor plant cores they put in the 688 i-boats achieved a far better yield coefficient than the old S5W plants I qualified on. Eng dep life.
n/a Ranilen 2017-01-14
Yeah, our A4Ws were pretty inefficient with anything other than babies from around Fukushima or Chernobyl (because of the extra neutrons). Wasn't even worth charging them in most of the time, and they played hell with the salinity cells. We just gave them to M-Div and pumped them overboard with oily waste.
n/a base_model_android 2017-01-14
The worst thing is getting woken up for "clogged baby strainer" eng dep drills that the coners don't even have to participate in.
n/a Peaches_0 2017-01-14
If you didn't do anything to be sent to the gulag, I find a way a way to change the rules so you are SENT to the gulag!
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-01-14
You don't find bullshit like this in the far right i tell you hwat
n/a GrabEmByThePalossand 2017-01-14
mfw socialism kids engage in bougie democracy
Literally a bunch of Hillary Clintons over there
n/a base_model_android 2017-01-14
"Cliven Bundy or r/socialism?" would be a fun game.
n/a OnSnowWhiteWings 2017-01-14
You're basically witnessing a simulation of communism in cyberspace.
n/a subpoutine 2017-01-14
Maybe that socialist AI does work...
n/a HillaryDidNothnWrong 2017-01-14
LITERALLY STALIN
n/a Sauvignon_Arcenciel 2017-01-14
Racialized persons? For real? Dayum.
n/a WokeAsFuck 2017-01-14
They called this "transphobia"
/u/cometparty /u/kc_socialist /u/AnonSocialist /u/OKELEUK /u/MarxistJesus /u/vidurnaktis /u/agnosticnixie /u/Tiak
That's a stretch ain't it ya bunch of fairy tranny jiggaboo fruit fags.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-01-14
Seize the means of reproduction.
n/a zahlman 2017-01-14
Grab 'em by the pussy, eh?
n/a michaelnoir 2017-01-14
They still don't fucking get it.
n/a HINDBRAIN 2017-01-14
oh no their previously stellar reputation is now DESTROYED
n/a FrostBittenSalsa 2017-01-14
Good god, they really don't want to admit being the turds theybare and relinquish their control over that sub. They're being delusional and petty over fucking Reddit of all things. This is such a wonderful trainwreck.
n/a thetinguy 2017-01-14
This guy thinks he's hot shir for being a moderator for a forum of high functions autists.
n/a E-rockComment 2017-01-14
This is your moment in history /r/socialism comrades, don't let the workers down!
¡Viva la Revolución!
n/a ReBurnInator 2017-01-14
Just like real socialist organizations!
n/a TheCodexx 2017-01-14
"We can't step down. It's not because we don't want to give up power or anything, it's because our survey results show you're a bunch of white males! and we'd hate if someone else took our place and did a good job."
n/a TheTrain 2017-01-14
That subreddit works in theory.
n/a 1480649238 2017-01-14
I like this post.
n/a 2edgy4me 2017-01-14