-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Getting real tired of studies trying to show a tv media bias against the center by focusing on appearance statistics of members of congress by their DW-Nominate scores. Centrist politicians generally think the only good news is no news and hate having to take stances. Them not getting attention is what they want.
Critiques about tv news's centrist bias are almost always about the pundits and commentators, not the appearances of current members of congress.
Critiques about tv news's centrist bias are almost always about the pundits and commentators, not the appearances of current members of congress.
My background before I became a teacher was in government housing administration (Section 8), and the amount of jobs at my PHA that were like this (dedicated to denying and/or limiting expenditures) was astounding. I was a caseworker, but if I had gone into rent reasonableness (determining "fair market rent" aka a fraction of the average rent in a given zip code) or market analysis, I could have doubled or tripled my pay overnight. To be a number cruncher in an ostensible nonprofit that is run like a for-profit business. Just insane.
What's the best way to react to socialism sceptics saying "it won't work because greed is human nature"? Obviously capitalism is the best example of said greed, because I can't define a fraction of the population owning the vast majority of wealth any other way, but most people are so indoctrinated by the current system that they wouldn't realise the greed even if it hit them in the heads. So what are other good replies?
Agreed. If anything, saying that socialism can't work because of greed is an admission that capitalism is all about greed, which strikes me either as a self-own of pro-capitalists (why would you admit that your team is all about greed?) or as a deeply misanthrophic view of humanity. Possibly both. I mean, if these ideologies are on a spectrum, and capitalism is one or two steps removed from fascism, and fascism is a suicidal ideology, then... Yeah, makes sense.
OP
OP
I wrote a long post that covered some of my thoughts on this a while back:
Thanks everyone, but especially to you, sphagnum! Very insightful post and a treat to read.
Hi Guys, I consider myself a socialist. But Not sure what flavor of socialist. Is there a way for you guys to help me find out? What would you say the difference between Democratic Socialism vs Social Democracy? This is a path I've been exploring and people always shoot down this Philosophy because of Leninism and Maoism and some folks compare it to Cuba and their living situation and poverty. How can I dismantle that logic? Because what they mention as nix against Socialism was never true socialism.
Social Democracy is a liberal capitalist system, and as such, quite different from any of the flavors of socialism and communism.
I think Democratic Socialism is not a super well defined term that is used to describe a whole wide range of political positions, and as such , not terribly useful as a shorthand to explain to people what do you believe in.
I personally don't think it's terribly important to decide on on what ism best describe you, if it's anything left of the GOP people gonna accuse you of being Pol Pot anyway.
OP
OP
My general way of differentiating them is that while they both advocate working through electoral liberal democratic systems, socdems view the capitalist welfare state as the end goal while demsocs view it as a stepping stone towards worker control of the means if production. They're both reformists rather than revolutionaries, but socdems want reform within capitalism while demsocs want to reform their way out of capitalism.
Well, the very first thing is that Socialism isn't necessarily about the welfare state. It's pretty much in favor of promoting a welfare state 100% of the time, but that's as a consequence of the belief in human rights and a desire to shape history as much as study it. Central to socialism is the idea that owners should own the means of production-- that, in effect, nobody should be accumulating wealth for doing nothing (but that, in contradistinction, nobody should have to work to earn the necessities of life like food and shelter. Those should just be a given). This is fundamental to the distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy. Democratic socialism is fundamentally about seizing the means. Social democracy abandons that ideal while retaining a welfare state. In our eyes, the primary problem with social democracy is the issue of regulatory capture. If you leave the rich to their own devices and don't dismantle or challenge their power structures, they're just going to lobby away the welfare you make because it's a threat to their power.
Socialism comes in two fundamental flavors, really-- reformist and revolutionary. We can talk about the difference between anarchism and socialism but honestly it's mostly a spectrum until you hit purely individualist anarchists who have their own stuff going on (even though anarchists of both the red and black persuasion have a ride together/die together sort of deal). The first thing to realize is what you've already realized-- there are many socialisms. You don't have to deal with the ideas of Mao and of Lenin if you don't want to. Lenin, in particular, has a difficult claim to even being a regular Marxist socialist. He relied hard on vanguardism and his creation of the Cheka puts him in line with people like Blanqui, who predate Marx. As far back as the time of Rosa Luxemburg, people were pointing that out. Mao's got a similar deal going on, but he plays even faster and looser with the rules than Lenin did. See, Marx says you have to have a primarily industrial society before you can institute revolution. Neither of those two lads did that. Russia was primarily agrarian even though Lenin had his power base in the industrial working class. Mao, on the other hand, had to utilize the peasantry to run his revolution.
So neither of them is really using Marxist ideals. And there are many more socialisms than Marx. I prefer the work of Murray Bookchin, for example-- and it's important to note that not all revolutionary socialism immediately descends into authoritarianism. The confusingly-named libertarian socialism is an umbrella that contains not just democratic socialism, but the other socialisms that believe strongly in personal liberty. This is what a lot of anarchism is actually about.
My response is usually to ask why feudalism or the divine right of kings isn't human nature. How is the accumulation of capital based on worker exploitation and rent-seeking a fundamentally human trait? It's important to remember that socialism isn't utopian: there will still be greed, dishonesty, etc. but one specific set of behaviors, the capitalist ones, will be disposed of.
Even with so-called Liberals or democrats they don't jive with Socialism of any form...
Thats a very interesting perspective!! I like that idea. People would be against worker control because they aren't investors How would we get them to see the benifit of worker control the means of production?
Your answer is phenomenal! Thank you so much! I think I'm a democratic socialist now. as for Reformist and Revolutionary, I guess a little of both. I support revolutionaries from Huey Newton to Fred Hampton, and Angela Davis. When I bring up anything worker control they talk about the Orwelian subject of the bad Socialism has.
So to play devil's advocate, new evils will arise from a socialist economy possibly authoritarianism?
Last edited:
If you get an HMO in the US you can get the NHS-esque experience. Zero out-of-network coverage that isn't the ER, so you have no "choice," but they keep premiums low and there's no deductible or coinsurance, only reasonable copays (quite reasonable in my case. I pay for in-person doctor's visits pretty much only. If it's just a phone consultation with my MD, it's free, and any tests he orders are also free, including now three MRIs I've had).
___________________________________________
My question coming here is the issue of democratic failure in a socialist model, in light of the recent elections in the UK or questions of "welfare for whites."
I guess the idea is that any political identity outside of class is manufactured by the ruling classes, and so if a properly socialist society is achieved you won't have the issue of people having "bad" self interests?
I now understand Marx-Leninism a little better, if you have the idea that there needs to be a period of "readying" the people for socialism, but we see how that ended up...
The only humane alternative seems to be electoral incrementalism, because through the incremental changes you can acclimate the people to socialism and guide their self-interest peacefully, but it's a long path fraught with steps forwards and back.
The problem there, of course, is incrementalism can be beaten back far more easily, such that we're having to claw and scrape to achieve material gains on par with the New Deal, let alone anything beyond.
There will always be authoritarians, just like there will always be jerks and assholes, but without a state and a bourgeoisie their ability to consolidate power and resources will be much, much less. Here's where vanguardists would say a class-conscious population of workers would prevent class stratification, whereas anarcho-syndicalists say the unions would prevent it. Non-hierarchical anarchists argue that non-specialized action taking place more or less spontaneously without defined leadership would be key to preventing it.
Comrades, I indulged myself in a Reddit argument to test myself, and I was wondering what you think. How did I do? There are areas I think I can improve myself (especially regarding post-socialism e.g. stateless communism and its implementation), but also areas I think I did pretty well.
By all means, I'd love to hear some feedback.
By all means, I'd love to hear some feedback.
just watched parasite, i recommend good movie, another name this movie could receive is "capitalism"
Those are pretty much all the points I bring up when explaining what Communism is and isn't.
So, cool.
I feel that the stock market is essentially a tool for value extraction from labour and speculation. Very much a tool for the bourgeois.
That said, most of my superannuation is wrapped up in the stock market. Hypocritical? Probably. But that's the thing you currently have to do in Australia if you want to retire at a reasonable age.
do what you want to win money, engels was a bourgeois during industrial revolution exploited the working class (i know his father managed etc), but he helped a lot marx and the movement with his money for example.
I'm probably gonna go see it this week. Heard a lot of good things about it.
Yeah, not super down with that analysis.
Not sure Uncut Gems got any political message, but if it does, I think it's in polar opposite to Parasite.
not saying youre wrong but it was retweeted by the Safdie bros
gave me a chuckle
If my movie was mentioned in the same sentence as Parasite I would have retweeted the shit out of it too.
We are playing the game based on the rules that are currently set. That does not mean we cannot agitate and work towards changing those rules.
I don't speak for Deff, but that would seem to make his statement redundant. I would agree with "capitalist broadly" as it reads, while also knowing that not all "enemies" require the same severity of confrontation.
Hell, I'll include the internalized capitalist indoctrination in oneself.
That is true. Thats a conflict I have with investing but at the same time being a socialist.
True. But I'm just a working class investing. I'm not sure how someone who invest in the stock market could tryly call themselves a socialist... or should they?
I like that thought! Its true. But what if we become a Democratic Socialist society. What then?
You can't opt out of capitalism and I wouldn't chastise anybody calling themselves a socialist for seeking to make their families lives better in the current system.
I worked with a stockbrokers and private banking so I've dabbled in the market, I don't see it as somehow making me not a socialist.
My rule of thumb is you gotta eat so do what you need to, so you can secure your families future, just try your best to not do it in a really, really shitty way. Like investing in arms manufacturers or something.
I worked with a stockbrokers and private banking so I've dabbled in the market, I don't see it as somehow making me not a socialist.
My rule of thumb is you gotta eat so do what you need to, so you can secure your families future, just try your best to not do it in a really, really shitty way. Like investing in arms manufacturers or something.
I mean, since we're talking about ethically making work under capitalism. Hi, new face here. Been socialist and left-leaning for a while but it really catalyzed for me in 2016.
It seems I may been inheriting a small business in the future (5-10 years time). The thing is: it's apartment rentals. So if I inherited it, I'd end up, you know, a landlord. Granted if I did it I'm fairly certain I'd be more ethical than most but obviously the system is structured in such a way that even if you're the most generous landlord you're still a landlord. I realize this is a pretty huge question but I guess I'm trying to figure out if it's better to be a "good" landlord that will at least be a decent option for people, better not to get involved at all and try to make a living some other way, or if there's some third option I'm not fully considering, like turning things into a rent-to-own operation.
I'd like to be able to provide for my family and obviously getting the keys to a pre-existing business is a very privileged thing to have happen to yourself, so I'm well aware that this is a bougie question I'm considering already. My wife and I both have serious medical conditions that require expensive care, so the idea of consistent income is quite appealing. But I'd also like to not betray myself and beliefs over time.
It seems I may been inheriting a small business in the future (5-10 years time). The thing is: it's apartment rentals. So if I inherited it, I'd end up, you know, a landlord. Granted if I did it I'm fairly certain I'd be more ethical than most but obviously the system is structured in such a way that even if you're the most generous landlord you're still a landlord. I realize this is a pretty huge question but I guess I'm trying to figure out if it's better to be a "good" landlord that will at least be a decent option for people, better not to get involved at all and try to make a living some other way, or if there's some third option I'm not fully considering, like turning things into a rent-to-own operation.
I'd like to be able to provide for my family and obviously getting the keys to a pre-existing business is a very privileged thing to have happen to yourself, so I'm well aware that this is a bougie question I'm considering already. My wife and I both have serious medical conditions that require expensive care, so the idea of consistent income is quite appealing. But I'd also like to not betray myself and beliefs over time.
I like that answer. What would you say to someone who bashes someone for even investing ethically? Like for instance tech companies like Apple? And the issue with their alleged child labors and cheap labor? It appears no form of investing has been clean.
It already sucks to live there, work there, travel there, and it is always at least a little bit unpleasant to talk about. You comrades promised me accelerationism, not slow-down-ism. Get on with it!
I feel like we'll stave it off until at least the 2030s when the climate refugee crisis will get really out of control. That's when "climate refugee" will enter the common parlance and we will see people just abandoning these countries in droves when the water runs out and the land is unusable for farming.
Those pictures of Australia on fire are horrifying. Literally looks straight out of Blade Runner 2049. Now imagine the global south constantly dealing with that.
...yeah, I don't have much optimism for the future.
In all reality America will be relatively safe from climate change.
It's Sub Saharan Africa, Australia and the Middle East that are gonna get fucked fast.
That's predicated on the oceanic currents of the Atlantic staying stable. Which, let's be clear, they might not. And if they *don't* stay stable, Europe becomes a steppe and the US is some exotic and unpredictable kind of fucked too, given just how much of it is bound up in wetland ecosystems.
Yeah, this'll be the decade that either the US heavily reforms, or the masses revolt. Which hopefully opens up path to socialism, though I wouldn't hold my breath. But fact of the matter is that the insane rate at which wealth inequality has risen the last decade(s) will only get worse the coming years.