I have. They have quiet a few including one demolishing sanctions.
Pushing out Evo in Bolivia was a coup. Not debatable. Now, badempanada reveals just how much of the talking points were flat out lies. Right wing fascist lies. Lies liberals were all too enthusiastic to parrot. A big one being "Evo Morales stacked the court in his favor and to have more power. pOPulISt stROngMaN"
Also, it cannot be overstated how much the OAS is a fucking clown shoes organization.
Also, it cannot be overstated how much the OAS is a fucking clown shoes organization.
OP
OP
The Trump admin had the weird benefit of being so stupid that they couldn't coup properly or exert much influence, so I do anticipate we will be going back to more effective meddling south of the border, unfortunately.
God damn it. I felt this would happen, but I hoped not. LatAm is perpetually fucked as America's backyard.
I've been perpetually terrified at how efficient the CIA could be again under Biden.
Question for all...
How do I describe neoliberalism to my completely politically lay sister?
I said "It's kind of like the 1970s to the contemporary justification of capitalism by major western governments"
How do I describe neoliberalism to my completely politically lay sister?
I said "It's kind of like the 1970s to the contemporary justification of capitalism by major western governments"
You know your sister the best in terms of vocabulary - i'd suggest that you listen to Harvey's 6min explanation of neoliberalism as political project + ideology and pick out the words that make sense to your sister - the video itself is very clear and with examples - but you might want to replace some:
Just spending a typical Saturday reading Teen Vogue.
www.teenvogue.com
The Battle of Blair Mountain Was the Largest Labor Uprising in U.S. History
An interracial coalition of miners led the rebellion.
I saw this being tooted around today.
A scientific study of direct action:
The research illuminates the necessity of direct action. The findings suggest that the most important factor in the success of direct action is its energy, not its branding or means of performance.
A scientific study of direct action:
The research illuminates the necessity of direct action. The findings suggest that the most important factor in the success of direct action is its energy, not its branding or means of performance.
I'm trying to understand more about democratic socialism. Are there any good reading materials / videos on how small business would be handled?
So let's say I open up a coffee shop in a democratic socialist nation. How does labor/capital work in this instance? Let's say I need 2 employees to help with the shop. Would those employees have a direct say on how that business is run? How does payment work as well? I'm fascinated but have so many questions lol.
Hell, does the concept of "small business" even apply at this point?
So let's say I open up a coffee shop in a democratic socialist nation. How does labor/capital work in this instance? Let's say I need 2 employees to help with the shop. Would those employees have a direct say on how that business is run? How does payment work as well? I'm fascinated but have so many questions lol.
Hell, does the concept of "small business" even apply at this point?
Last edited:
Need some David Harvey fancams, his uploaded lectures on reading through marx make reading Capital a joy
I'm not an expert on co-op structure but I'll try to give a brief overview.
Yes. All your "employees" would have a voice in deciding business operations though it's possible for co-ops to elect managers to make decisions faster and more efficiently. They're less employees and more partners. There are also models where different partners have differently weighted voting power like an entry level partner has 1 vote and a senior partner has 3, it can get pretty complicated but it's easier to think of it as no different than an electoral government.
Profits are shared among workers with compensation decided upon democratically, so you can propose that the CEO should have 3x the compensation of a low level partner, and other partners can support that proposal or reject it.
Yes, of course. Socialism doesn't mean the end of businesses. It just means the end of all powerful bosses/owners. Currently, if you live in an at-will state, your boss can terminate your employment at any time. Under idealized socialism, you would be able to override their termination order with enough support from your coworkers.
The Worker-Owned Model - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
By Dave Anderson Faced with mounting economic and environmental crises driven by unrestrained capitalism, many people around the world are turning to cooperative enterprise as an answer to social ills. In America, 130 million are members of some kind of cooperative and 13 million work in an...
www.dsausa.org
Adding to Samoyed's post, pls look at this article which goes to some depth imagining such: https://jacobinmag.com/2019/03/sam-gindin-socialist-planning-models
I'm not an expert on co-op structure but I'll try to give a brief overview.
Yes. All your "employees" would have a voice in deciding business operations though it's possible for co-ops to elect managers to make decisions faster and more efficiently. They're less employees and more partners. There are also models where different partners have differently weighted voting power like an entry level partner has 1 vote and a senior partner has 3, it can get pretty complicated but it's easier to think of it as no different than an electoral government.
Profits are shared among workers with compensation decided upon democratically, so you can propose that the CEO should have 3x the compensation of a low level partner, and other partners can support that proposal or reject it.
Yes, of course. Socialism doesn't mean the end of businesses. It just means the end of all powerful bosses/owners. Currently, if you live in an at-will state, your boss can terminate your employment at any time. Under idealized socialism, you would be able to override their termination order with enough support from your coworkers.
I have never read this and can't vouch for it but here you go.The Worker-Owned Model - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
By Dave Anderson Faced with mounting economic and environmental crises driven by unrestrained capitalism, many people around the world are turning to cooperative enterprise as an answer to social ills. In America, 130 million are members of some kind of cooperative and 13 million work in an...
Excellent, thanks for all the info! I will definitely be checking out those articles.
I'm so disgusted by the abuse of labor in our current American society, but I want to make sure I understand what the shift to socialism would entail and how it would work.
One thing with your question - you say democratic socialism, not socialism - are you here imagining that there would be workers owning but the context is still markets and competition?
That's exactly the key point I'm trying to digest and understand. I'm so used to markets and capital that I can't really comprehend a workplace without it. It's just trying to understand how that transition would work, and how it would look for a "traditional" business. I mentioned democratic socialism specifically as I know this tends to be the first full step into the world of socialism, and out of capitalism (I would say I currently identify as a social democrat).
Baby socialist coming in, so feel free to correct any dumb stuff, lol.
Always digged this pic
It's how I contextualize what socialism tries to achieve when it comes to managing businesses in a socialist state. Less the boss sitting on capital as the peons pull it, and more like a co-op where you have leaders and such, but everyone is involved with pushing and receiving said capital.
So an example is that Bezos wouldn't exist. He'd instead be just another leader in some division of an Amazon business that would looooong be divided up into parts; where its entire power structure in every division is disseminated among the workers. Same script applies for all the different parts of the business: you have leaders on the same plane as the other workers, and capital is more equitably shared.
None of this bullshit anymore:
Always digged this pic
It's how I contextualize what socialism tries to achieve when it comes to managing businesses in a socialist state. Less the boss sitting on capital as the peons pull it, and more like a co-op where you have leaders and such, but everyone is involved with pushing and receiving said capital.
So an example is that Bezos wouldn't exist. He'd instead be just another leader in some division of an Amazon business that would looooong be divided up into parts; where its entire power structure in every division is disseminated among the workers. Same script applies for all the different parts of the business: you have leaders on the same plane as the other workers, and capital is more equitably shared.
None of this bullshit anymore:
The model where business competition sticks around but private ownership (employer-employee model) is ended is usually called "market socialism". The variant where a single party state assumes control of the economy (like the USSR) is vanguardism or Marxism-Leninism, also called command economy. Note, this is a simplification of USSR history. In practice, it was a mixed economy with some private ownership supplementing public ownership. There are disagreements inside the left between the vanguardists and the market socialists. Most of the left does not have a rosy impression of markets. I would say most democratic socialists are market socialists but they do not consider themselves as such, market socialism is not that popular or "mainstream" in leftism for the reasons I alluded to above.
Given the power of convention for shaping society, I would say most people are like you HououinKyouma, and would prefer market socialism as a transitional phase, over vanguardism, because they're used to markets and people like things to be familiar. That said, my personal preference is a hybrid vanguard/market model.
Given the power of convention for shaping society, I would say most people are like you HououinKyouma, and would prefer market socialism as a transitional phase, over vanguardism, because they're used to markets and people like things to be familiar. That said, my personal preference is a hybrid vanguard/market model.
Last edited:
Have any of you seen the documentaries The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant or American Factory?
The first film is about the closing of the GM plant in Moraine, Ohio in 2008 and focuses on the plant workers there over the last few days before they lose their jobs. I used to work in factories, and man I really felt the subject interviews. The workers express their closeness to each other and devotion to their work, along with a lot of frustration and despair.
American Factory (produced by the Obamas!) picks up a couple years later when Chinese corporations increased investment in US manufacturing post-recession and up to 2016-7 as the Fuyao Group reopened the plant. Some of the same workers talk about the intervening years and what the experience is at the new plant, and workers from China talk about their impressions as well. There is an accidentally hilarious sequence of a bunch of Ohioan dudes getting hammered and emotional at a New Years festival in China. There is a great scene from Ohio representative Fred Strahorn. Also an executive (and super likely Trump lover) gets mad when Sherrod Brown encourages the workers to unionize--but later approves of them after being sacked.
I think the way the film depicts labor in China and America needs to be sifted through though. The same anti-unionism it presents of the Chinese executives is shared by the American executives and their "union avoidance consultant." In both cases, the workers bear the burden of corporate profit margins. I couldn't find American Factory online to give a link, but it's on Netflix if you have that.
They're made by the same filmmakers so they kind of work as a pair, and it's really insightful to view the community in 2008-9 and then again in 2016-7. A lot of little things arise in The Last Truck, like anti-union sentiments, labor and alienation, annoyance with administrative and corporate classes, automation, and education, and they come up again in new ways in American Factory. Between the lines, the films present a pretty vivid image of the uniformity of global capitalism, though I'm not sure that was their full intention. I found there to be a really intricate interaction between the meanings of capitalism and industry. Together, the two films have a fascinating fit within the contexts of the last ten years in American politics and public sentiments toward China. One of the Chinese workers quotes "One mountain cannot hold two tigers" when describing the corporate versus the union organizers. It wasn't attributed, so I looked it up and it was apparently said by Chairman Deng.
The first film is about the closing of the GM plant in Moraine, Ohio in 2008 and focuses on the plant workers there over the last few days before they lose their jobs. I used to work in factories, and man I really felt the subject interviews. The workers express their closeness to each other and devotion to their work, along with a lot of frustration and despair.
American Factory (produced by the Obamas!) picks up a couple years later when Chinese corporations increased investment in US manufacturing post-recession and up to 2016-7 as the Fuyao Group reopened the plant. Some of the same workers talk about the intervening years and what the experience is at the new plant, and workers from China talk about their impressions as well. There is an accidentally hilarious sequence of a bunch of Ohioan dudes getting hammered and emotional at a New Years festival in China. There is a great scene from Ohio representative Fred Strahorn. Also an executive (and super likely Trump lover) gets mad when Sherrod Brown encourages the workers to unionize--but later approves of them after being sacked.
I think the way the film depicts labor in China and America needs to be sifted through though. The same anti-unionism it presents of the Chinese executives is shared by the American executives and their "union avoidance consultant." In both cases, the workers bear the burden of corporate profit margins. I couldn't find American Factory online to give a link, but it's on Netflix if you have that.
They're made by the same filmmakers so they kind of work as a pair, and it's really insightful to view the community in 2008-9 and then again in 2016-7. A lot of little things arise in The Last Truck, like anti-union sentiments, labor and alienation, annoyance with administrative and corporate classes, automation, and education, and they come up again in new ways in American Factory. Between the lines, the films present a pretty vivid image of the uniformity of global capitalism, though I'm not sure that was their full intention. I found there to be a really intricate interaction between the meanings of capitalism and industry. Together, the two films have a fascinating fit within the contexts of the last ten years in American politics and public sentiments toward China. One of the Chinese workers quotes "One mountain cannot hold two tigers" when describing the corporate versus the union organizers. It wasn't attributed, so I looked it up and it was apparently said by Chairman Deng.
Oh cool, a topic around socialism that I spent a fair amount of my reading time on!
But let's assume that issue is settled and it's a variation of market socialism, solely for the sake of simplicity in answering your questions, even though I find issues with pure market socialism personally and agree that a hybrid between market socialism and planned economy socialism is necessary. I'm going to borrow some of samoyed's words so I'm not duplicating any work.
So this is 2 differing methods of structure he's discussing here.
In a model where all employees get to decide all manner of business operations from the top down, you'd be looking at a direct-democracy model, where business decisions are decided by majority of all labourers within it. This is particularly favoured by anarchists who abhor hierarchies, but I can still understand the appeal.
Elected managers brings things closer to the co-operative model, where there is a decision hierarchy in play, but instead of outside investors or stakeholders having a say of who sits at the top of the food chain, the labour force determines who makes top-end decisions, so those at the top are incentivized to listen to the labour force with regard to how the business is operated and place value on insight. Your labour essentially becomes your buy-in to becoming a stakeholder, thereby incentivizing good labour through a sense of pride and your financial capacity either improved or diminished through one's own efforts.
Additionally, because market socialism is a more collaborative means for how the economy is run, the concept of the "small business" would still exist, but other coffee shops aren't necessarily your direct competition, so you may be more interested in forming a larger co-operative with like-minded businesses. By joining with them to form larger co-operatives, you have a larger wealth of business acumen and labour experience to draw from, which can only improve your business, your efficiency and your negotiating power with other co-operatives if they operate a function you need to operate that your own co-operative has not yet added to its repertoire.
At the same time, top-down hegemony or uniformity in offerings (as we see in the corporate market economy, where every store has the exact same product offerings prepared uniformly) can be partly or completely abandoned if it does not serve the community you're operating in. If you're not selling a product in the area you operate, it's simply not sensible to keep offering it in lieu of changing it out for something that does, and a co-operative business model would appreciate you doing so, because it improves the service to the community and thus improves earnings and efficiency.
This is one of many renumeration options for the socialist labour force. Somewhat analogous to current methods, essentially all the earnings in a solitary business or co-operative after expenses and costs of any plans for expansion are paid as dividends to every labourer within the business/co-op, with percentages to each contributor being determined collectively (though the popular method is equitable distribution to all parties).
Another method is that of the "social dividend", where all individuals in society take net earnings from all businesses and distribute them evenly across the nation/state/whatever.
And then there's central dividend planning or whatever the real name for it is (I honestly forget, it's been so long), where in lieu of taxation, labourers are renumerated to a set guaranteed income amount and all excess is all funnelled into the public purse to pay for essential social services, infrastructure needs, etc. Any excess accrued by the public purse can then be distributed as it would for the social dividend or held as surplus for emergency spending.
And there's a lot of bits in between that borrow traits from each other and are applicable with or without market socialism. I know, like samoyed, I advocate for a hybrid that can be summed up in 6 words: Regulated publicly, administered privately, owned collectively.
And yes, capitalism is a hard thing to see past, because it's such a part of every single part of our lives, whether or not we want it there. A lot of that was tackled in this book, which I recommend reading if you're having trouble getting un-stuck from capitalism:
en.wikipedia.org
From the Wikipedia page, bolded for emphasis:
Overall, it's a good read and helps understand the challenges you're having for what they are. There are similar reads that do that (one of my favourites is Weber) but this book is a MUCH more accessible read.
EDIT: Just as an addition, the book also prompts a reckoning with the greatest contradiction of liberalism: that it can both extol the virtues of humanitarian actions on the one hand with things like the promotion of social equity for all people, while also suggesting that human nature has an inherent individualist bias that can only be satisfied with a capitalist economy. It's having one's cake and eating it. Are we self-interested individualists or do we care about others? The argument that caring for others can itself be an act of self-interest is a frequently provided answer that's not terribly compelling, as the history of inequality in capitalism makes plainly clear.
So I'm going to say, first of all, that whether or not you open that coffee shop at all and where you do so depends entirely on the economic model that exists in such a nation, of which there's not consensus yet and likely won't be until we approach a likelihood of such a system materializing.
But let's assume that issue is settled and it's a variation of market socialism, solely for the sake of simplicity in answering your questions, even though I find issues with pure market socialism personally and agree that a hybrid between market socialism and planned economy socialism is necessary. I'm going to borrow some of samoyed's words so I'm not duplicating any work.
So this is 2 differing methods of structure he's discussing here.
In a model where all employees get to decide all manner of business operations from the top down, you'd be looking at a direct-democracy model, where business decisions are decided by majority of all labourers within it. This is particularly favoured by anarchists who abhor hierarchies, but I can still understand the appeal.
Elected managers brings things closer to the co-operative model, where there is a decision hierarchy in play, but instead of outside investors or stakeholders having a say of who sits at the top of the food chain, the labour force determines who makes top-end decisions, so those at the top are incentivized to listen to the labour force with regard to how the business is operated and place value on insight. Your labour essentially becomes your buy-in to becoming a stakeholder, thereby incentivizing good labour through a sense of pride and your financial capacity either improved or diminished through one's own efforts.
Additionally, because market socialism is a more collaborative means for how the economy is run, the concept of the "small business" would still exist, but other coffee shops aren't necessarily your direct competition, so you may be more interested in forming a larger co-operative with like-minded businesses. By joining with them to form larger co-operatives, you have a larger wealth of business acumen and labour experience to draw from, which can only improve your business, your efficiency and your negotiating power with other co-operatives if they operate a function you need to operate that your own co-operative has not yet added to its repertoire.
At the same time, top-down hegemony or uniformity in offerings (as we see in the corporate market economy, where every store has the exact same product offerings prepared uniformly) can be partly or completely abandoned if it does not serve the community you're operating in. If you're not selling a product in the area you operate, it's simply not sensible to keep offering it in lieu of changing it out for something that does, and a co-operative business model would appreciate you doing so, because it improves the service to the community and thus improves earnings and efficiency.
This is one of many renumeration options for the socialist labour force. Somewhat analogous to current methods, essentially all the earnings in a solitary business or co-operative after expenses and costs of any plans for expansion are paid as dividends to every labourer within the business/co-op, with percentages to each contributor being determined collectively (though the popular method is equitable distribution to all parties).
Another method is that of the "social dividend", where all individuals in society take net earnings from all businesses and distribute them evenly across the nation/state/whatever.
And then there's central dividend planning or whatever the real name for it is (I honestly forget, it's been so long), where in lieu of taxation, labourers are renumerated to a set guaranteed income amount and all excess is all funnelled into the public purse to pay for essential social services, infrastructure needs, etc. Any excess accrued by the public purse can then be distributed as it would for the social dividend or held as surplus for emergency spending.
And there's a lot of bits in between that borrow traits from each other and are applicable with or without market socialism. I know, like samoyed, I advocate for a hybrid that can be summed up in 6 words: Regulated publicly, administered privately, owned collectively.
The primary shift, as I suggested, is a transition to collective rather than competitive economics, at least moreso than what we see now. People believe competition generates positive results, but it's shown to me that it leads to cutting costs/corners, undervaluing labour and hoarding knowledge and resources that outweigh those suggested positives and discounts that those positive results aren't only possible with competition. Because it's hard to not just be in it for yourself in a competitive market, where compassion and impact on others and the world costs you an edge over your competitors.
Democratic socialism is primarily just socialism with a booster shot of only the positive elements of liberalism (most specifically "the consent of the governed", but also the enshrined principles of individual equity and liberty, but maybe not liberty as liberalism typically defines it), an idea that was conceived as a near-direct counterpoint to Leninist and Stalinist socialism. Nowadays, it's mostly just a catch-all term for anyone who believes in the idea that society and all those in it are a full and collective responsibility that is constantly undermined by capitalist economics and the current form of democracy, both of which need some form of major reform or abolition.
And yes, capitalism is a hard thing to see past, because it's such a part of every single part of our lives, whether or not we want it there. A lot of that was tackled in this book, which I recommend reading if you're having trouble getting un-stuck from capitalism:
Capitalist Realism - Wikipedia
From the Wikipedia page, bolded for emphasis:
Overall, it's a good read and helps understand the challenges you're having for what they are. There are similar reads that do that (one of my favourites is Weber) but this book is a MUCH more accessible read.
EDIT: Just as an addition, the book also prompts a reckoning with the greatest contradiction of liberalism: that it can both extol the virtues of humanitarian actions on the one hand with things like the promotion of social equity for all people, while also suggesting that human nature has an inherent individualist bias that can only be satisfied with a capitalist economy. It's having one's cake and eating it. Are we self-interested individualists or do we care about others? The argument that caring for others can itself be an act of self-interest is a frequently provided answer that's not terribly compelling, as the history of inequality in capitalism makes plainly clear.
Last edited:
It's pretty funny looking back at these attempts to ape stuff that came naturally out of capitalism. It looks more like movies about the products than attempts to drive demand lol.
Some other late soviet goodness
Great stuff here, this helps clarify a ton.Oh cool, a topic around socialism that I spent a fair amount of my reading time on!
So I'm going to say, first of all, that whether or not you open that coffee shop at all and where you do so depends entirely on the economic model that exists in such a nation, of which there's not consensus yet and likely won't be until we approach a likelihood of such a system materializing.
But let's assume that issue is settled and it's a variation of market socialism, solely for the sake of simplicity in answering your questions, even though I find issues with pure market socialism personally and agree that a hybrid between market socialism and planned economy socialism is necessary. I'm going to borrow some of samoyed's words so I'm not duplicating any work.
So this is 2 differing methods of structure he's discussing here.
In a model where all employees get to decide all manner of business operations from the top down, you'd be looking at a direct-democracy model, where business decisions are decided by majority of all labourers within it. This is particularly favoured by anarchists who abhor hierarchies, but I can still understand the appeal.
Elected managers brings things closer to the co-operative model, where there is a decision hierarchy in play, but instead of outside investors or stakeholders having a say of who sits at the top of the food chain, the labour force determines who makes top-end decisions, so those at the top are incentivized to listen to the labour force with regard to how the business is operated and place value on insight. Your labour essentially becomes your buy-in to becoming a stakeholder, thereby incentivizing good labour through a sense of pride and your financial capacity either improved or diminished through one's own efforts.
Additionally, because market socialism is a more collaborative means for how the economy is run, the concept of the "small business" would still exist, but other coffee shops aren't necessarily your direct competition, so you may be more interested in forming a larger co-operative with like-minded businesses. By joining with them to form larger co-operatives, you have a larger wealth of business acumen and labour experience to draw from, which can only improve your business, your efficiency and your negotiating power with other co-operatives if they operate a function you need to operate that your own co-operative has not yet added to its repertoire.
At the same time, top-down hegemony or uniformity in offerings (as we see in the corporate market economy, where every store has the exact same product offerings prepared uniformly) can be partly or completely abandoned if it does not serve the community you're operating in. If you're not selling a product in the area you operate, it's simply not sensible to keep offering it in lieu of changing it out for something that does, and a co-operative business model would appreciate you doing so, because it improves the service to the community and thus improves earnings and efficiency.
This is one of many renumeration options for the socialist labour force. Somewhat analogous to current methods, essentially all the earnings in a solitary business or co-operative after expenses and costs of any plans for expansion are paid as dividends to every labourer within the business/co-op, with percentages to each contributor being determined collectively (though the popular method is equitable distribution to all parties).
Another method is that of the "social dividend", where all individuals in society take net earnings from all businesses and distribute them evenly across the nation/state/whatever.
And then there's central dividend planning or whatever the real name for it is (I honestly forget, it's been so long), where in lieu of taxation, labourers are renumerated to a set guaranteed income amount and all excess is all funnelled into the public purse to pay for essential social services, infrastructure needs, etc. Any excess accrued by the public purse can then be distributed as it would for the social dividend or held as surplus for emergency spending.
And there's a lot of bits in between that borrow traits from each other and are applicable with or without market socialism. I know, like samoyed, I advocate for a hybrid that can be summed up in 6 words: Regulated publicly, administered privately, owned collectively.
The primary shift, as I suggested, is a transition to collective rather than competitive economics, at least moreso than what we see now. People believe competition generates positive results, but it's shown to me that it leads to cutting costs/corners, undervaluing labour and hoarding knowledge and resources that outweigh those suggested positives and discounts that those positive results are only possible with competition. Because it's hard to not just be in it for yourself in a competitive market, where compassion and impact on others and the world costs you an edge over your competitors.
Democratic socialism is primarily just socialism with a booster shot of only the positive elements of liberalism (most specifically "the consent of the governed", but also the enshrined principles of individual equity and liberty, but maybe not liberty as liberalism typically defines it), an idea that was conceived as a near-direct counterpoint to Leninist and Stalinist socialism. Nowadays, it's mostly just a catch-all term for anyone who believes in the idea that society and all those in it are a full and collective responsibility that is constantly undermined by capitalist economics and the current form of democracy, both of which need some form of major reform or abolition.
And yes, capitalism is a hard thing to see past, because it's such a part of every single part of our lives, whether or not we want it there. A lot of that was tackled in this book, which I recommend reading if you're having trouble getting un-stuck from capitalism:
Capitalist Realism - Wikipedia
From the Wikipedia page, bolded for emphasis:
Overall, it's a good read and helps understand the challenges you're having for what they are. There are similar reads that do that (one of my favourites is Weber) but this book is a MUCH more accessible read.
EDIT: Just as an addition, the book also prompts a reckoning with the greatest contradiction of liberalism: that it can both extol the virtues of humanitarian actions on the one hand with things like the promotion of social equity for all people, while also suggesting that human nature has an inherent individualist bias that can only be satisfied with a capitalist economy. It's having one's cake and eating it. Are we self-interested individualists or do we care about others? The argument that caring for others can itself be an act of self-interest is not a frequently provided answer that's not terribly compelling, as the history of inequality in capitalism makes plainly clear.
It's been a while since I played Final Fantasy Tactics, is that directly from the game?
A scathing critique of our entire justice system in 18 words.
Good, I'm very glad it could help and I hope it gets you past those roadblocks you were having with conceiving of a post-capitalist world. But perhaps a good question to ask is whether or not you come away from it with a positive impression?
Also, when you're prepared to dig a bit deeper in, we are usually pretty eager to help out and there's no such thing as a stupid question, so long as it's asked in good faith. We've all been where you are at some point, socialism is a broad topic that is a challenge to wrap one's head around at first. It's why I have often said that socialism best appeals to people with a high intellectual curiosity about how the world operates and how it could operate better.
And I usually prefer to have such conversations out in the open so people can call me out if I'm talking out of my ass, but you can DM me with more questions if you like, as well. Not the fastest responder, but I'd always get back to you.
Folks, I'm going to bow out from this forum not through a wall of text but on a shorter note: I think era has run its course as an experiment of identity politics as praxis - and the results ain't pretty, ain't gona rehash what everybody knows: the dice are loaded, the boat is not only leaking - but hemorrhaging various intersectional positions - [muslims, asians, lgbtq, many myself included (as intersex) who intersect with radical left politics], and the mod captains lied through their teeth. I knew this day was coming ever since the Begum thread and the disgraceful coverup and handling thereof. I haven't played videogames in decades, and outside of this thread, well perhaps this included at times - it's not a great place to be - Cheeto's presidency really broke a lot of people here, beyond repair - to the extent that we probably will see increasingly conservative (the exoneration of Reaganites will not stop with Biden's win), islamophobic, sinophobic, and imperialist talking-points become absolutely cemented in liberal discourse on here and thus also nodal points towards which we are governed. I am not impervious to the phobias that increasingly seep through and are normalized here - so the best I can do is to break clean. Thus I'm gonna request account closure now - I'll be on the discord with the books and the roses. Peace my friends, love you all - keep up the good work.
Good bye comrade. Enjoyed reading your exchanges in this thread and learned a lot from your posts.
OP
OP
See you on the discord comrade. The board is losing one of its best. Thanks for all the knowledge you've provided.
I'm really sad to see you go, Rupetta. You're one of my absolute faves on here. I wish you the best.
Damn this sites determination to not only dismiss leftists, but to decry, mock, and then even deny their minority/lgbt status because we're on the left. Fuck this site so much. This site has got me to attempt suicide three times this year and they still prefer to ban the victims over the bullies. I just keep learning that I not only don't matter, I don't even deserve to live because I'm on the left so I'm obviously a white Nazi.
Always enjoyed your posts and I don't blame you whatsoever. Glad you're still with us in the Discord, comrade.
This website is not worth nearly as much as you. The internet can be like sitting on a bus or standing on a street corner and hearing everyone's thoughts at once. Many are disagreeable, but they don't deserve your energy. Others are great--and there are good folks here, especially in this thread, where good energy is returned in kind. But it's important to look out for your own well-being, and part of that is in declining to engage with those who spoil it.
Oh, absolutely. It really started with knowing that capitalism, especially wild, unrestrained capitalism, does not work in any shape or form. But this has helped me to understand that socialism is actually a viable alternative, not some pipe dream utopia I once thought it to be.
Appreciate you and the others willingness to help out! Hopefully we can all make an impact.
Really appreciate your posts in this thread as well as your response to my own question above.
Completely understandable given how hostile this forum has become to leftists. Always loved your posts. Best wishes <3
I'm so sorry to hear you've been pushed to that point repeatedly. If you're a leftist then you're my comrade and you certainly matter to me, and to everyone else (in this topic at least) I'm sure. I'm glad you're still around, and no matter how terrible this place can be sometimes I hope you can remember that you're not alone. We're here for you!
Keep it real, Rupetta. I know where you're coming from, and will be seeing you around. Thanks again for all the insight and reference links and good discussions. Solidarity, comrade.
On another note, not bad from Gravel Institute:
Some day better things will be possible. Just gotta overthrow capitalism and dethrone and attack God. Easy.
On another note, not bad from Gravel Institute:
Some day better things will be possible. Just gotta overthrow capitalism and dethrone and attack God. Easy.
Other people do not get to decide whether or not you matter, whether or not you have value or get to dictate what you believe in, they're only allowed to be wrong if they believe you don't or that they think they can dictate anything to you.
The first few years of my 20s were an awful time for similar reasons (for thinking I didn't fit or don't matter), complete with a few suicide attempts that I bailed on at the VERY last minute (and thus don't talk about much), then dialled back that impulse and channeled it into self-destructive behaviours like a few years of hard drug use, borderline alcoholism for around 15 years and now almost 2 decades of nicotine addiction.
What started to get me out of it was Albert Camus and his book The Myth of Sisyphus. I read it until I broke the spine on my copy, kept reading it every time I felt I needed to, take away more every time I read it. While I do not believe it is useful to everyone, I found that it provided me some peace (more with each read-through) in a universe that Camus describes as indifferent to a person's wants, expectations, goals or needs. Despite what is considered a highly uncharitable critique of Marxism in his follow-up book The Rebel making the work of Camus perhaps an odd recommendation for this thread, I think that his work in The Myth of Sisyphus would resonate especially well to people on the far left who are struggling with depression (clinical or otherwise) that is amplified by harsh externalities, because his depiction of an indifferent world probably hits a bit close to home for people in that situation. It got me to a point where I am now, where what gets me out of bed a fair amount of times is a profound desire to spite anyone who either wishes I didn't/thinks I shouldn't exist or is indifferent to my part to play in the world around me, coupled with the bizarre sense of satisfaction that feeling gives me. But over time, I had more reasons than just that.
But anyways, I'm certain that if that's specifically not the answer or isn't helpful for you that if you give yourself the time, you'll most assuredly find something that is. I hope that you already have or that you will if you haven't.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Old and young, Chinese vent anger at move to raise retirement age
China’s retirement age has remained unchanged for four decades at 60 for men and 55 for women white-collar workers.
Two takeaways:
1. Not very socialist! China is still forced to deal with the same kind of problems that other countries with market-based economies face.
2. Evidence that the Chinese government does respond to popular pressure to some extent.
Old and young, Chinese vent anger at move to raise retirement age
China’s retirement age has remained unchanged for four decades at 60 for men and 55 for women white-collar workers.www.aljazeera.com
Two takeaways:
1. Not very socialist! China is still forced to deal with the same kind of problems that other countries with market-based economies face.
2. Evidence that the Chinese government does respond to popular pressure to some extent.
Yeah, take for example the bottom 50% income share charts
(to be fair, China has significantly boosted their bottom 50 far more than the USA has over the same time, just that most of the pot is still shared by the rich, just like in late stage capitalist USA.
And pragmatically raising the retirement age over time probably won't work either to reduce tensions. Not with inequality still such a big issue. Govts can't just raise the retirement age on the plebs and force them to undergo rugged capitalism even longer all while the fat cats get to soak up all that government socialism.
Yeah, there are some things the Chinese government puts its foot down on for sure (and grinds its heel into), but on other things, it will bow to public opinion, especially if there's something in it for the party.Old and young, Chinese vent anger at move to raise retirement age
China’s retirement age has remained unchanged for four decades at 60 for men and 55 for women white-collar workers.
Two takeaways:
1. Not very socialist! China is still forced to deal with the same kind of problems that other countries with market-based economies face.
2. Evidence that the Chinese government does respond to popular pressure to some extent.
This could be evidenced in their discussions around protections based on sexual orientation and discussing the permission of same-sex marriage earlier this year (I didn't look into how that's panned out yet, probably got stalled by COVID). That massive whiplash-inducing change was most assuredly motivated by a bunch of factors, such as Taiwan getting to same-sex marriage first and making them look bad, decreasing the amount of young LGBTQ citizens immigrating to places that have such freedoms (like Taiwan!) and because Xi Jinping is a bit on the paranoid side. If LGBTQ people are driven into the shadows and away from prying eyes by prejudice and ignorance of their plight, is it just advocacy for their rights that they're discussing there? Mobilizing against the government in private makes Xi Jinping nervous and he'd rather stop LGBTQ from organizing (read: "conspiring") in private with a relatively easily-met demand to disperse them peacefully. All that, plus the positive PR for their government.
In that specific sense, making positive moves and policy changes due to hidden agendas that benefit the party in power or to save face makes China indistinct from most other governments.
Another great vid by Emerican. Very interesting stuff (in particular for me) on the Zapatistas. The EZLN seems to have much more advanced thought and formation than the left in the north recognizes or gives them credit for.
Woah, baby!
A Zapatista Response to “The EZLN Is NOT Anarchist”
Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional A Zapatista Response to “The EZLN Is NOT Anarchist” 2002 A look at why the Zapatistas do not subscribe to a...
theanarchistlibrary.org
Let's go through some of these Bidenbro picks
Hmm, as we can see here the CIA is not only evil, but really dumb too. There's no defending the CIA. Next...
This is a thread highly worth reading about Neera and illustrates to me how people underestimate how vile she is.
This in particular
Remember kids: Anti-communism is a high order fascist directive. The Nazis, LatAm fascists, every instance. They come after commies first. And when they come there's no cutesy games or confusion from liberals about who the real leftists are and who qualifies. lol Who is raising hell against Modi? Who helped him? And to tie back to Neera, who is doing anti communist/leftist propaganda and strategizing here?
Hmm, as we can see here the CIA is not only evil, but really dumb too. There's no defending the CIA. Next...
This is a thread highly worth reading about Neera and illustrates to me how people underestimate how vile she is.
This in particular
Remember kids: Anti-communism is a high order fascist directive. The Nazis, LatAm fascists, every instance. They come after commies first. And when they come there's no cutesy games or confusion from liberals about who the real leftists are and who qualifies. lol Who is raising hell against Modi? Who helped him? And to tie back to Neera, who is doing anti communist/leftist propaganda and strategizing here?