How did you become a socialist? - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14977721
SU didnt had a problem of productivity it had other major issues which are attributed to socialism
SU was basically using its population as slaves
apartments were being given for free but only under certain conditions
cars extremely expensive and you bought one you had to wait 5-10 years to get it
no market competition meant that daily products were mediocre at best and at worst they were just BAD
this is a product of socialism
why would anyone will want to live in such a country?

I guarantee you that certain populations will have problems of productivity under socialist regime
try implementing socialism in Africa :lol:
#14977722
Zionist Nationalist wrote:SU didnt had a problem of productivity it had other major issues which are attributed to socialism
SU was basically using its population as slaves
apartments were being given for free but only under certain conditions
cars extremely expensive and you bought one you had to wait 5-10 years to get it
no market competition meant that daily products were mediocre at best and at worst they were just BAD
this is a product of socialism
why would anyone will want to live in such a country?


Sorry ZN, I never said that the SU didn't have its problems. Of course it did. It collapsed. But their problems had nothing to do with lack of productivity, your point. So a socialist state isn't full of "Lazy Bastards". The only lazy bastards are the bourgeois living of the surplus labor of the proletariat within Capitalism.
#14977725
The whole socialist revolution at its beginning was mostly supported by the uneducated masses which were lazy drunk bastards
but later on stalin have managed to educate them and turn them to productive citizens
its one of the good things he did even though he had some rough methods
#14977727
B0ycey wrote:I thought the same about the people who supported the creation of Israel. :lol:


Its a fact that the socialism revolution in Russia was supported by uneducated masses mostly from the suburbs
do a bit of resarch if you like

and Israel was created by smart people
managed to beat the shit out of the Arabs even though they had more man power and better equipment
#14977731
Zionist Nationalist wrote:Its a fact that the socialism revolution in Russia was supported by uneducated masses mostly from the suburbs
do a bit of resarch if you like


Under Tsar Russia education was poor. So what? They mIght have had a lack of education and drank, but they weren't lazy.
#14977733
many were lazy and corrupt
alot of them got high ranks in soviet army right away and they abused their power alot
in the case of Russia socialism have done many good thigs but also left alot of scars
socialism glory days are gone and anyone thinks otherwise is delusional

the economy and consumption culture as we know it cannot sustain itself in a socialist society
#14977748
@ckaihatsu, I do think that the best system is a global socialist society (that is lead by the Germans because the Germans have the best culture and the most efficient values, rather than this Americana shit). But, that doesn't need to exist in order to categorize socialist countries such as the DDR 'socialist.'

I don't want to rape my own mom while doing graffiti, again you're twisting words. You honestly think that capitalism motivates people into raping and doing graffiti?

What makes you think that my politics won't have social services for the mentally ill? What causes mental illness is abuse, so the abusers would need to get punished. Child abusers, social worker abusers, care giver abusers, and criminals cause their victims to be mentally ill, so they would get punished.

"Yes, you are." You're twisting words again.

I am not a Stalinist. I am a socialist, and yes Stalin was also a socialist. Fascists can be socialists (Nazis were not socialists). And I am against Nazism.

Technology does not have to be fully automated in order for socialism to exist.

No, all graffiti and rape should be banned.

Just because you state your opinions doesn't mean that you're correct. If technology is not fully automated, then everyone who does have the ability to work needs to work.

"but maybe only 2% of *any* population, in any industry, would need to work to produce sufficiently for everyone else." WOW GUYS DON'T DO DRUGS. This really tells me a lot about you. If 2 percent of the population works, then everyone would be super poor dumbass.

There are so many other occupations than agriculture, so that reply makes no sense.

You think that I am misguided because your politics are self destructive.

"Well, maybe you should just *ask* her first, then." What if a rapist doesn't want to ask? Or, what if a rapist asks and she says no and they still rape her?

"That's not for you to say. Besides, we're talking about *social policy* here, and not about me." That's very weak man. If that's your response then there is no way that you can get in a revolution and have bullets flying around your head.

"Keep dreaming, and keep it to yourself." Dreaming about reality? That makes no sense. You keep dreaming about positive vibes.

I am a socialist and I do support the working classes around the world (but not every single person lol).

You like crime? Why are you defending rapists so much? You're just repeating your ridiculous, idealist opinions over and over.

"And just what do you *think* any one 'social norm' would even *be*, based on my model?" Twisting words.

Haha, mwawmahahaha you support the antifa! lol. Anyways, yes the Antifa would go against me because I am a socialists, and the Antifa would rebel against socialism. The antifa would rebel against the Soviet Union or the DDR.

"Oh, well, tough shit. Go back inside your head, into your political fantasy-land of your own facile opinions." See you are an anarchist because that's how a typical anarchist would reply.

"And you don't support them, so that's that." No I don't support the Antifa, BUT YOU DO Haha.

"Whatever. You're played-out because your politics aren't internally consistent, and you'd rather just spout facile opinions that I'm not interested in. Don't repeat yourself from here-on-out." Awwww, you don't want me to repeat myself lol.
#14977768
ckaihatsu wrote:Your meaning is unclear -- are you saying that a patchwork of nation-states should interoperate using capitalism's market mechanism?

If so, then the problem is that it's not full socialism -- it's a patchwork of state-capitalism. Rank-and-file workers can certainly handle co-administrative tasks as an additional component to their liberated labor that provides for socially-necessary needs, so that would be *international* labor determinism, with *zero* reliance on any market mechanism.


I'm just saying, the best we can practically do today is to have socialism, or socialistic nations, that still compete/cooperate with each other on trade. Effectively capitalism between nation states. I don't really care about full socialism or full capitalism or whatever. It's what might practically work that matters to me.

ckaihatsu wrote:That's beside the point -- this isn't *populism*, to be catered to by a quasi-socialist politics. Either the international workers are *in control* of production, or they're not.


I guess I don't' care if they are in control or not, so long as they are treated well and allowed to prosper.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, I was implying that because the markets certainly can't operate *without* a state. Consider the market crash of 2008-2009, when the U.S. government stepped in to bail out the bad debt. If it *hadn't* done that the markets would have remained unperforming, and capitalism would have mired deeper into a fatal crisis. (Not to mention militaristic imperialism for the geopolitical global order, etc.)


Are you saying what we have today is full capitalism? Obviously it's not. Just as we haven't seen pure/true communism, we haven't see true/pure capitalism. Frankly, I don't care.

My overall stance is that some sort of mixed system would be best.
#14977769
Victoribus Spolia wrote:

This is true. Which is why most Ancaps and Libertarians support absolute free-trade and open-borders (in their opposition of government).


What you choose to buy and whom you choose to invite over are solely your prerogative as a property owner on the open market.


hummmm, I'm starting to believe your point that the idea that the only true Anarchism is in fact Anarcho Capitalism. :lol:

That's not to say that I'm an AnCap.
#14977804
One Degree wrote:Capitalism has actually reduced social class distinction even though it is currently increasing wealth disparity.


And how should this 'increasing wealth disparity' be accounted for...? Doesn't this point out the fact that the 'social class distinction' has in fact 'sharpened' rather than being reduced; beneath the obscuring social and economic relations inherent in Capitalism?

One Degree wrote:You can no longer find the answers in social classes that no longer exist and must be invented by arbitrary decisions on whether their wealth was earned. The doctor in my example earned the money he invested. It is only the interest on that money that is unearned and it would not exist without his earned income.


Where does the 'interest' come from? This is the question we need to find answer for. Surely, you don't think that it was created by some sort of magic; with no real / materialistic basis...

One Degree wrote:Abandon these outdated ideas of landowners and embrace the community aspect. a. It doesn’t matter where the wealth comes from b. if it benefits the community.


a. Yes it does, that's the main point. It can only not matter to those who decidedly - either due to their own personal / class interests, or out of their weakness - do not want to see.

b. Which 'community' are we talking about? The community of the wealthy, or the poor? The workers, or the capitalists? The deprived, or those who deprive; and those whose wealth and material possessions come from the deprivation of those of the others...?
Last edited by Stardust on 06 Jan 2019 20:48, edited 1 time in total.
#14977810
And how should this 'increasing wealth disparity' be accounted for...? Doesn't this point out the fact that the 'social class distinction' has in fact 'sharpened' rather than being reduced; beneath the obscuring social and economical relations inherent in Capitalism?

Do you honestly believe social class is still as important under capitalism as under feudalism? That is too bizarre to bother refuting.


Where does the 'interest' come from? This is the question we need to find answer for. Surely, you don't think that it was created by some sort of magic; with no real / materialistic basis...

I don’t care,because it is something many workets have today and it does not make them owners. The definition used is outdated. The doctor in my example has more in common with me than he does Bill Gates.


a. Yes it does, that's the main point. It can only not matter to those who decidedly - either due to their own personal / class interests, or out of their weakness - do not want to see.

We all have different perceptions. I don’t see the worker/owner divide, as defined, having any significance to modern society.

b. Which 'community' are we talking about? The community of the wealthy, or the poor? The workers, or the capitalists? The deprived, or those who deprive; and those whose wealth and material possessions come from the deprivation of those of the others...?

Geographic community. Any small town person will tell you the social divisions are almost nonexistent when the community is the primary point of reference. The unemployed, the laborer, the banker, and the landlord all socialize at the same bar, restaurant, football game etc. It is emphasis on community that destroys social class, not an obsolete workers versus landowners.
#14977899
One Degree wrote:
We are both discussing changes to the way the world operates. My version also has been an accepted socialist model. If you have local autonomy (community ownership), you can enforce any rule you want. If you want to end the worst of capitalism, then end outside ownership. Outside ownership (control) is just as damaging under socialism as it is capitalism. The people must accept a way of thinking and then they can achieve socialism in many varieties. It, like all ideologies, relies on individuals thoughts, not the logic.



Would this [1] be *moneyless*?

If not, then capital would continue to behave as capital does, and would be 'inter-communal', seeking the lowest prices wherever and the highest returns, wherever. Such arbitrage-type functioning would *not* be socialism.

If it *is* moneyless, then *how* would these various communes conduct inter-communal trade? Without money, things could simply be *bartered*, which is *implicitly* using exchange-values, almost the same as if money *did* exist, because one commune could play-the-market and hold off on making a deal with other communes, to wait for a higher 'price' (larger basket of goods in trade) to be paid by some other commune.

Would 'inside ownership' [2] be based on real estate? If so then you have the dynamic of *financial speculation*, which is also not-socialist.


One Degree wrote:
Maybe I can demonstrate my view this way. You may have an architect (Idealist)draw up the plans for your house, but it is the carpenter (realist) who points out what won’t work or what will work better. To insist an ideology be accepted as reality internationally, without input from on the ground local practical application is foolish. The international should evolve from the local, or not, depending upon the local experiments.



Well, I do agree with this principle, and I've said as much to SSDR, often.

If the 'blueprint' is the 'ideology', and the 'carpenter' is the 'laborer', then it follows that *all* carpenters / workers should be the ultimate determiners of how the 'blueprint' / 'ideology' is to be interpreted and implemented, worldwide, which *is* socialism.

(On a side note, I'll point out that my own 'labor credits' framework model is *not* a 'blueprint', because it's a *framework*, of *components*, and is *not* set-in-stone with any specifics, since that's impossible in advance of actual real-world social conditions. The workers at the time of upheaval would be the ones to nail-down specifics, into something more like a 'blueprint'.)


Zionist Nationalist wrote:
the economy and consumption culture as we know it cannot sustain itself in a socialist society



Actually I think that this is a widespread common *misconception* -- people usually forget (and are not reminded by the corporate media) that modern society uses *machinery* to achieve very high levels of *leveraged* human labor efforts.

Here's a quick outline from my favorite essay:



Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community. All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery. Machinery must work for us in coal mines, and do all sanitary services, and be the stoker of steamers, and clean the streets, and run messages on wet days, and do anything that is tedious or distressing. At present machinery competes against man. Under proper conditions machinery will serve man. There is no doubt at all that this is the future of machinery, and just as trees grow while the country gentleman is asleep, so while Humanity will be amusing itself, or enjoying cultivated leisure – which, and not labour, is the aim of man – or making beautiful things, or reading beautiful things, or simply contemplating the world with admiration and delight, machinery will be doing all the necessary and unpleasant work. The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralising. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends.



https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/



So my point with all of this is that capitalism's 'consumer culture' should serve as a *minimum benchmark* for future socialist- and communist-type social organization of socially necessary production. A proletarian revolution should be able to *out-organize* capitalism's woeful anarchy over social production, and then also make technological *improvements* to how social production is done, fitting it to the nascent *collectivized* organization by the workers of the world, ultimately for *full automation* so that collectivized machinery fully benefits everyone, with *zero* further human-labor inputs, like that for a 3D printer or driverless car today.

This trajectory is in stark contrast to your own proposed *austerity* mindset, which would erroneously use the backward technological state of Russia from 100 years ago as the template for our socialist-revolutionary politics and future-vision of today. *Of course* a socialist-collectivist organization of social production would inherently have *greater material productivity* than capitalism does today, using wage-slavery, per capita. *Of course* it could provide a greater standard of living for all, ultimately, through much greater efficiencies of production, and collectivist-type planning, in advance, with zero speculative-based waste.


SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, I do think that the best system is a global socialist society (that is lead by the Germans because the Germans have the best culture and the most efficient values, rather than this Americana shit). But, that doesn't need to exist in order to categorize socialist countries such as the DDR 'socialist.'

I don't want to rape my own mom while doing graffiti, again you're twisting words. You honestly think that capitalism motivates people into raping and doing graffiti?



SSDR, I'm no longer interested in your redundant statements of political *opinion* -- you sound increasingly *desperate*, when I've already thoroughly *responded* to your various misconceptions and misconceptualizations, and pettiness / pseudo-individualization.


SSDR wrote:
What makes you think that my politics won't have social services for the mentally ill? What causes mental illness is abuse, so the abusers would need to get punished. Child abusers, social worker abusers, care giver abusers, and criminals cause their victims to be mentally ill, so they would get punished.



This should have been your political position *upfront*, initially.


SSDR wrote:
"Yes, you are." You're twisting words again.

I am not a Stalinist. I am a socialist, and yes Stalin was also a socialist. Fascists can be socialists (Nazis were not socialists). And I am against Nazism.



No, Stalinism is not socialism, fascists are not socialists, and neither are Nazis.


SSDR wrote:
Technology does not have to be fully automated in order for socialism to exist.



But full-automation is the ultimate *goal* of a workers-collectivized, socialist- / communist-type society, since that would mean no further liberated-work inputs would be required for the common receipt of the fruits of fully-automated production, for human / humane need (and wants).


SSDR wrote:
No, all graffiti and rape should be banned.

Just because you state your opinions doesn't mean that you're correct. If technology is not fully automated, then everyone who does have the ability to work needs to work.



This is *idealism*, since you're presumptuous enough to prescribe social policy in advance of actual real-world social conditions for the same.

Perhaps an international show of solidarity from the world's workers happens to be enough for the capitalist ruling class to back-down and surrender immediately -- a 'best-case' scenario. In *that* case, there would be no need for military labor, for physical battles against armed supporters of the bourgeoisie, and any conceivable workers-state 'all-must-work' policy would then be *moralistic*, idealist, and overly prescriptive in the context of highly proletarian-favorable class-struggle conditions. So any work policy would be *very* dependent on actual prevailing real-world conditions of class struggle.


SSDR wrote:
"but maybe only 2% of *any* population, in any industry, would need to work to produce sufficiently for everyone else." WOW GUYS DON'T DO DRUGS. This really tells me a lot about you. If 2 percent of the population works, then everyone would be super poor dumbass.

There are so many other occupations than agriculture, so that reply makes no sense.



Keep in mind that with theoretically-eventual *full automated production*, the percentage of liberated-workers necessary for sufficient socially-necessary production would be *zero* percent, for *any* industry.


SSDR wrote:
You think that I am misguided because your politics are self destructive.

"Well, maybe you should just *ask* her first, then." What if a rapist doesn't want to ask? Or, what if a rapist asks and she says no and they still rape her?



You're too provocative and you're idealizing presumed conditions of crime, post-capitalism, without describing a sufficient social basis for such. That's why I call you an 'alarmist'.


SSDR wrote:
"That's not for you to say. Besides, we're talking about *social policy* here, and not about me." That's very weak man. If that's your response then there is no way that you can get in a revolution and have bullets flying around your head.



You're not-understanding that I'm *not trying* to impress you. We have glaring discrepancies in our respective understandings of 'socialism', and I *disagree* with you on many definitions and premises for such.


SSDR wrote:
"Keep dreaming, and keep it to yourself." Dreaming about reality? That makes no sense. You keep dreaming about positive vibes.


SSDR wrote:
I am a socialist and I do support the working classes around the world (but not every single person lol).



No, you're not because up until this statement you've been touting state-collectivist / Stalinistic politics as being 'socialism', when it's *not*.


SSDR wrote:
You like crime? Why are you defending rapists so much? You're just repeating your ridiculous, idealist opinions over and over.



*You're* the one obsessed with crime and criminalization.


SSDR wrote:
"And just what do you *think* any one 'social norm' would even *be*, based on my model?" Twisting words.


SSDR wrote:
Haha, mwawmahahaha you support the antifa! lol. Anyways, yes the Antifa would go against me because I am a socialists, and the Antifa would rebel against socialism. The antifa would rebel against the Soviet Union or the DDR.



You're forgetting that the *actual* real-world context for Antifa actions has been against fascists.


SSDR wrote:
"Oh, well, tough shit. Go back inside your head, into your political fantasy-land of your own facile opinions." See you are an anarchist because that's how a typical anarchist would reply.



Nope.


SSDR wrote:
"And you don't support them, so that's that." No I don't support the Antifa, BUT YOU DO Haha.



*Of course* I support anti-fascist efforts, as from Antifa.


SSDR wrote:
"Whatever. You're played-out because your politics aren't internally consistent, and you'd rather just spout facile opinions that I'm not interested in. Don't repeat yourself from here-on-out." Awwww, you don't want me to repeat myself lol.



Rancid wrote:
I'm just saying, the best we can practically do today is to have socialism, or socialistic nations, that still compete/cooperate with each other on trade. Effectively capitalism between nation states. I don't really care about full socialism or full capitalism or whatever. It's what might practically work that matters to me.



What's your underlying *basis* for this assumption? You, like SSDR, are willing to *stop* revolutionary politics at the international level, and all based on what calculation / premise, exactly?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That's beside the point -- this isn't *populism*, to be catered to by a quasi-socialist politics. Either the international workers are *in control* of production, or they're not.



Rancid wrote:
I guess I don't' care if they are in control or not, so long as they are treated well and allowed to prosper.



This is unclear -- 'treated well' by *whom*?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, I was implying that because the markets certainly can't operate *without* a state. Consider the market crash of 2008-2009, when the U.S. government stepped in to bail out the bad debt. If it *hadn't* done that the markets would have remained unperforming, and capitalism would have mired deeper into a fatal crisis. (Not to mention militaristic imperialism for the geopolitical global order, etc.)



Rancid wrote:
Are you saying what we have today is full capitalism? Obviously it's not. Just as we haven't seen pure/true communism, we haven't see true/pure capitalism. Frankly, I don't care.

My overall stance is that some sort of mixed system would be best.



And what is this *based* on? What would be better about a 'mixed system', and how would it theoretically operate, according to you?


One Degree wrote:
Geographic community. Any small town person will tell you the social divisions are almost nonexistent when the community is the primary point of reference. The unemployed, the laborer, the banker, and the landlord all socialize at the same bar, restaurant, football game etc. It is emphasis on community that destroys social class, not an obsolete workers versus landowners.



So your politics and vision is all for the sake of various types of people being able to *mingle* at a bar?

You need to realize that there's an entire *material world* (production, distribution) out there that you're apparently unable to address with your particular formulation of political economy.
#14977907
So your politics and vision is all for the sake of various types of people being able to *mingle* at a bar?

You need to realize that there's an entire *material world* (production, distribution) out there that you're apparently unable to address with your particular formulation of political economy.


@ckaihatsu , I believe universalists have it wrong. If you think of your community as all you need, then you have the versatility to adapt to any world conditions. If you think the world must be organized to your liking, then you will fail because all the communities will not agree with you.
This flaw in thinking comes from us wanting to travel where we want and have every place comply with our beliefs and welcome us. This is an unrealistic goal that can only be realized through authoritarianism eliminating any possibility of socialism.
Socialism is based upon a belief of a ‘natural man’ who is egalitarian that either does not exist or can only be realized through the completion of the evolutionary process of all our various cultures. You can not speed up evolution through forced uniformity. Each culture must get there on their own. Only by eliminating our ‘world view’ and being content with improving our own community can we create a future better world. The solution is found in the parts, not the whole. You can’t make a great omelette with defective eggs.
#14977912
One Degree wrote:
@ckaihatsu , I believe universalists have it wrong. If you think of your community as all you need, then you have the versatility to adapt to any world conditions. If you think the world must be organized to your liking, then you will fail because all the communities will not agree with you.



Hmmmm, this sounds like *postmodernism* -- you seem to think that political relations themselves should somehow be customized in policy to the individual, which is impossible, of course.

Politics and political economy is for the sake of *generalizing* based on our individual *commonalities*, such as for the procurement of the necessities of life and living -- biological and social needs and wants, basically.

It makes no sense to think of these universal requirements as somehow being reducible to individual custom requirements. Sure, there can be *variations*, but such products, whether commodified or post-commodity, will still have widespread common application, such as for meat, dairy, fruits and vegetables, grains, etc.

The reason for a proletarian revolution is so that the workers of the world can produce these common, critically-needed goods and services directly for humane needs and wants, instead of for the increased valuations of private property under capitalism, through profit-making.

Nothing would make one "community's" requirements that much different from the next community's, aside from details of quantities and quality. In this way human need can be addressed across-the-board, rather than demeaning the individual in a hyper-individuated way and compelling them to 'have the versatility to adapt to any world conditions', a political position that sounds very much like ready acceptance of potentially *barbaric* social conditions instead of just leveraging existing machinery and industrial processes for the sake of fulfilling universal common needs in a *mass* way, with proletarian-*revolutionary* politics.


One Degree wrote:
This flaw in thinking comes from us wanting to travel where we want and have every place comply with our beliefs and welcome us.



This is a *consumeristic* / cultural issue, and does not necessarily relate to any matter of *politics*.

(I do agree with its content, though, if you've meant it as a critique of cultural imperialism.)


One Degree wrote:
This is an unrealistic goal that can only be realized through authoritarianism eliminating any possibility of socialism.
Socialism is based upon a belief of a ‘natural man’ who is egalitarian that either does not exist or can only be realized through the completion of the evolutionary process of all our various cultures. You can not speed up evolution through forced uniformity. Each culture must get there on their own. Only by eliminating our ‘world view’ and being content with improving our own community can we create a future better world. The solution is found in the parts, not the whole. You can’t make a great omelette with defective eggs.



*Or* -- let's retool the world so that we provide only *good* eggs, for whatever people's purposes are for them.

I *don't* agree with your 'go-slow' 'evolutionary' approach to politics, because people are currently dying by the minute in today's world, which is certainly a *socially preventable* ongoing tragedy.
#14977923
@ckaihatsu , ‘hurrying the process’ has failed in every previous attempt. Global liberalism is the most successful attempt and we are seeing the beginnings of it’s end now. It is a cyclical mistake that we don’t learn from imo.
I am sure we won’t agree, but I enjoyed the exchange.
#14977930
Red_Army wrote:I'm with @Rancid and @Victoribus Spolia. If I want to sell my goddamn children I should be able to!


I know you're fucking around, but seriously. I'm all for socialistic stuff like socialized healthcare. :hmm:

My point is, I don't buy that some sort of international workers socialism will work.
#14977932
ckaihatsu wrote:What's your underlying *basis* for this assumption? You, like SSDR, are willing to *stop* revolutionary politics at the international level, and all based on what calculation / premise, exactly?


When did I say I was willing or wanted to stop revolutionary politics at the international level? Why are you making shit up?

Anyway, the "calculation/premise" is that people across cultures will simply not want to cooperate at this international level. People naturally think their culture/religion/etc is superior. They are completely willing to have their culture prevail at the expense of cooperation. For example, China will not be willing to put aside it's current global super power ambitions to help some poor worker in America, Africa, Latin America, etc. etc. No, they're after what they think is theirs. They're out to spread a hegemony that is favorable to them alone (much like the west has done post WWII). I'm picking China as an example because it's easiest to understand, but this will be true of just about any culture with influence on the planet.


ckaihatsu wrote:And what is this *based* on? What would be better about a 'mixed system', and how would it theoretically operate, according to you?


Something that would take into account cultural differences and the natural inclination for different cultures to complete for starters. Hence, local socialism within a culture, and cross culture capitalism could possibly be a mix that might work in the near term. Ultimately, it's not clear what would really work. Hell humanity can't even agree on what metrics defines if a system "works."

My original point is that the level of international cooperation you are looking for just simply isn't practical in the current global culture. Humans are just too different and too self-interested.

Ultimately, to get what you're after is going to require MASSIVE cultural change. We would need a global mono-culture. This means most cultures on the planet will need to get wiped out. I don't think you can get people to just change their cultural norms/values/traditions in the name of international workers cooperation.

Forget about abolishing nation-states, you would need to abolish cultures.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 14

The virus is everywhere. A quarantine is as usefu[…]

Dr Fauci is now saying that we could see 100,000 […]

The right finally has made this country Socialist[…]

My reflections on 2020 AD

^ @annatar1914 You nailed it.