|
Ruzihm posted:well, a really good socialist revolution would abolish money entirely. You haven't answered the question. I'm saying, to avoid being killed, am I to right now, tomorrow, quit my job, and take a salary half mine so as to not become a target? Is that the idea here?
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:And if they aren't? ...then they aren't? it's a generalization informed by dialectics, until proven otherwise
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:10
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Everything you're describing here is the exact opposite of what I've heard socialists argue: that no, there will be no bosses and that the concept of "jobs" will be eradicated. Ya, and eventually the state will wither away and we will like in a classless society. No clue what's going to happen to fundamental governmental services like healthcare and education afterwords however.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:12
|
|
|
karthun posted:Ya, and eventually the state will wither away and we will like in a classless society. No clue what's going to happen to fundamental governmental services like healthcare and education afterwords however. That'd be way past socialism and well into self-organizing anarchism or fully automated gay space communism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:You haven't answered the question. I'm saying, to avoid being killed, am I to right now, tomorrow, quit my job, and take a salary half mine so as to not become a target? Is that the idea here? Nah, you sound like a wage slave like the rest of us. start a union at your workplace. unless you're in finance I guess, then don't start a union
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:16
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:Nah, you sound like a wage slave like the rest of us. start a union at your workplace. I'm in a union, but it doesn't really address the core problem: if the radical socialists are the most likely to lead a revolution and establish new government, then why should I just dismiss them? Why should I join a group that outright wants to kill me?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:18
|
|
|
simply taking a pay cut isn't necessarily going to change your socialist cred besides deliberately immiserating yourself before the socialist transformation has actually happened - it matters what you do with it you "should" join these people, if you're willing to change your work and your life at all, because if you truly and genuinely believe that your life is in danger, then you're less likely to be killed by them than if you didn't
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:26
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:simply taking a pay cut isn't necessarily going to change your socialist cred besides deliberately immiserating yourself before the socialist transformation has actually happened - it matters what you do with it I shouldn't be killed because I earn a six figure income. I don't think I'm going to see eye to eye here so I'm going to bow out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:43
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I shouldn't be killed because I earn a six figure income. that's the sort of thing anarcho-communists organize for - reducing state power to prevent things like systematic purges. If it's truly an overwhelming concern for you - you may want to find some some and help them organize toward that political goal. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 09:46
|
|
|
Seems the answer is to push for a non-violent shift towards socialism. Because you can't really control the sort of wild purges that tend to happen when violent revolutions happen and people, sometimes justifiably, often opportunistically, take it out on people. I mean, another choice would be to oppress people more so they can't rise up but now you've given socialists a reason to purge you.  One weird trick to survive socialist purges that the commies don't want you to know!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 10:02
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I shouldn't be killed because I earn a six figure income. Jesus Christ, both you and these "socialists" you've stumbled upon are dumb as gently caress. I'm tempted to say that you're lying but there are idiots everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
karthun posted:Do you think that they were socialists or conservative capitalists using the power of the state to own and control the means of production for personal glory and profit? Do you think any senior member of these governments ever had to wait for any good they desired like the citizens who labored for them? The Soviet leadership didn't really enrich itself. Stalin's granddaughter is a Pacific Northwest, whole look at the Clinton's grandkids, or Bush's grandkids
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:...that is in no way an argument against what I've just said. I shouldn't *have* to make friends with people in order to avoid getting killed for however much money I make. unless you live off the labor of others without working yourself you'll be fine you big baby
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
ideally even the haute bourgeoisie should be integrated into the post-revolutionary society the "guillotine"/"wall" jokes are pretty much jokes
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:ideally even the haute bourgeoisie should be integrated into the post-revolutionary society Are they? The alt-right claim they're just joking when they're talking about re-enacting Pinochet but it's very clear they want to drop people out of helicopters. I too have had a real time agreeing with socialist messaging because while it sounds good for everyone, I have a feeling that my reward in the revolution would be getting lined up and shot. "Joking" about killing people doesn't come off like a joke to the people who are being "joked" about. It's why I won't ever go farther than social democracy because beyond that you get into actual violent revolution territory and my safety can't be assured against a purge in that scenario.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
axeil posted:I too have had a real time agreeing with socialist messaging because while it sounds good for everyone, I have a feeling that my reward in the revolution would be getting lined up and shot. there’s a difference between that guy making six figures in dollary-doos and being a lapdog of capital
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:As far as how to determine how to split contributions among workers whose individual contribution is ambiguous, I'm fine with them deciding among themselves how much they comparatively contribute, and am also open to alternatives as well. I think it's an open question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
sure there's a level of hyperirony and legitimisation of violence in those jokes, but hardly anyone (even the authoritarian socialists of yesteryear) actually thinks that earning a high salary under the old regime warrants a death penalty except for pol pot, but he was loving bonkers the point is, salary earners aren't realistically in any particular danger from a revolution, though obviously any armed uprising is a traumatic, bloody affair
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
tbh i think modern socialism is going to have to take a very hard look at what is good in life at some point and just accept that maximising marginal productivity isn't going to be this political organisation's forte it's not as though our level of resource consumption is anywhere near sustainable, so there's either a big cultural change or a massive disaster incoming on that front anyway
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:sure there's a level of hyperirony and legitimisation of violence in those jokes, but hardly anyone (even the authoritarian socialists of yesteryear) actually thinks that earning a high salary under the old regime warrants a death penalty
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:...that is in no way an argument against what I've just said. I shouldn't *have* to make friends with people in order to avoid getting killed for however much money I make. I think it's mostly that the sort of person who makes that kind of money and whines about a minority* of poorer socialists saying stuff like that is invariably kinda a piece of poo poo. It's the same logic as "white people who whine when black people say 'gently caress white people' are usually pretty garbage people themselves." That's actually probably the best way to describe why attitudes like yours don't reflect well on you; it's basically just like the concept of "white fragility," only applied to class. There is no realistic risk to the poor, oppressed upper-middle class, so the whole concern is kind of laughable on its face. Also, in a more reasonable society, it is true that you would not be as well off relative to other people. It doesn't make sense to reference specific salary figures when talking about a change to the economy on that scale, but you would no longer be in the top ~10% or whatever, because you current salary was achieved in a fundamentally unjust/unfair society/environment. * most people on the left don't say this about people making low six figures, so this really speaks more to your own insecurity than anything else
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I mean Mao did something fairly similar with educated types, didn't he? Although I think this is less a problem with socialists in particular, and more a problem with "revolutionaries" who are much more concerned with purity than pragmatism, although there's obviously some overlap there. the cultural revolution was a bit more complicated than that, it was pretty much a purge which got really badly out of hand/a project of ideological renewal purity or no, it makes no sense to kill people with valuable skills for having valuable skills rather than for political opposition or what have you - even the GULAG was more lenient on your technical experts and so on there will still be a need for insurance under socialism
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
its been a while since i read on the cultural revolution but wasn't the triggering event someone giving a negative review to a play written by a friend of mao's wife
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Personally, I am against the death penalty and I support prison abolition, so in general I think that if it came to such a scenario, I don't really actually want to kill or imprison rich people. Take their poo poo, sure, but I don't think we need to kill them. I understand why many leftists would disagree with me and I think it's as much a matter of ethics as it is ideology. ^ that is remarkably petty if true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Personally, I am against the death penalty and I support prison abolition, so in general I think that if it came to such a scenario, I don't really actually want to kill or imprison rich people. Take their poo poo, sure, but I don't think we need to kill them. 100% same
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Personally, I am against the death penalty and I support prison abolition, so in general I think that if it came to such a scenario, I don't really actually want to kill or imprison rich people. Take their poo poo, sure, but I don't think we need to kill them. I generally agree that we should merely punish rich people by confiscating excess wealth. I suspect many of the very wealthiest would commit suicide if their status was lost, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Personally, I am against the death penalty and I support prison abolition, so in general I think that if it came to such a scenario, I don't really actually want to kill or imprison rich people. Take their poo poo, sure, but I don't think we need to kill them. Mao's arguably a more horrible human than Stalin was so I'm not surprised he started murdering anyone with more than 2 brain cells because he was a petty jackass. He was a complete idiot who didn't understand how economies or industry worked. Stalin at least seemed to understand how economies were organized and operated even if he did horrible things. Mao was both dumb and murderous. Ytlaya posted:I think it's mostly that the sort of person who makes that kind of money and whines about a minority* of poorer socialists saying stuff like that is invariably kinda a piece of poo poo. It's the same logic as "white people who whine when black people say 'gently caress white people' are usually pretty garbage people themselves." Why should people be fine with "it's just jokes/radicals" when people are very not okay with the alt-right joking about murdering their political opponents? I don't think people can credibly say there's no threat to the typical upper middle class person since there are 2 very prominent examples (Mao and Pol Pot) of them getting killed post-revolution. axeil fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
axeil posted:
Also the French Terror. Post-revolutionary genocide of the middle and upper middle classes is one of the main arguments for democratic socialism. It can be claimed those fears are not realistic but historically speaking once things go off the rails such things occur. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think it's mostly that the sort of person who makes that kind of money and whines about a minority* of poorer socialists saying stuff like that is invariably kinda a piece of poo poo. It's the same logic as "white people who whine when black people say 'gently caress white people' are usually pretty garbage people themselves." A guy that joins a union, a collective labor organization, and gets good pay and benefit because of it then gets death threats for it from the "left" is rightfully angry. He's the success story, it's the whole loving point of leftward economic politics. Having more of that guy. It's not like white fragility, it's like being anti-racist but only to the point any particular black people actually win any success in equality then going "woah woah woah, I didn't mean for you to actually get any of that stuff I said, if you actually succeed at any of that stuff, even a tiny bit I'm gonna start making lynching jokes". What is the point of being pro worker then getting so mad about unions raising pay and benefits that you threaten death, even as a joke, at people that benefit from unions and how super good they are at getting you raised pay and benefits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:A guy that joins a union, a collective labor organization, and gets good pay and benefit because of it then gets death threats for it from the "left" This sounds like the sort of thing a "maoist third worldist" would say/do. They exist but everyone else berates them for their lovely "theory". Even Marx was like "when workers fight for greater wages, it's not going to be communism but it's still a worthwhile thing to fight for". Uneducated political activists are pretty lovely when they take power--The left doesn't have a monopolization on that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Personally, I am against the death penalty and I support prison abolition, so in general I think that if it came to such a scenario, I don't really actually want to kill or imprison rich people. Take their poo poo, sure, but I don't think we need to kill them. I would argue for severe criminal and civil penalties proportionate their impact. A six-figure, suburban lifestyle? Get fined. If you have a McMansion you lose it. Jeff Bezos? Jail time. Prison abolition doesn't mean no rule of law. It should be a crime to exploit people, especially to the extent that capitalists/landlords do today. What prison abolition means is that they shouldn't be treated like poo poo when they are in prison. Rehabilitate lesser offenders but your robber baron 2.0 types need strict sentencing. Phi230 fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:I would argue for severe criminal and civil penalties proportionate their impact. See now this intuitively makes sense to me but I also think that prison abolition has a compelling moral and practical case, and I am unsure how to square this circle. A compromise, perhaps, is that "jail" looks like Swedish jail and not American or Chinese jail. To be clear I'm not opposed to civil penalties or public shaming/shunning proportional to their actions against other people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:See now this intuitively makes sense to me but I also think that prison abolition has a compelling moral and practical case, and I am unsure how to square this circle. See my edit Prison abolition also involves changing the relation that the police have to the community. The police should serve the community, not capital, and should value life over property. In order to serve those ends, people who valued property over life in the way that your modern robber barons do need to be punished. That punishment doesn't mean prison conditions as they exist today. Rehabilitation for those who can be, and prison time for those who did too much damage. Phi230 fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
I like Law Firms as a test-case. The US has a rule that law firms need to be owned by lawyers. In practice, this means that all the owners are partners who actually work for the firm. And the relevant capital is all created during the lawyer's education. So, law firms seem like a pretty central case of workers owning their (personal) means of production, and having a direct stake in the conditions of their personal work. If that's the definition of 'socialist' then the legal industry is socialist. Interestingly, lawyers don't do a great job of getting themselves good working conditions or sane hours. The law firms -- which are locally controlled -- don't have any special way of solving coordination problems. If one firm demanded better wages, there's going to be some other firm that will consider bidding for the client. The legal industry can't even stop law schools from flooding their industry with new grads, even though that would benefit all the current workers. One option is to say that Socialism can produce bad outcomes. The same is true of democracy; if 70% of people vote for some dumb law, then the law is perfectly democratic, even if it's stupid. Another option is to say that Socialism requires control by "workers" in a broader sense of "workers." The trouble is that a 5-person boutique law firm is 5 people who own their means of production and vote among themselves to set business hours, dress code, and every other professional requirements. If we change the rules so that decisions are made on an industry-wide basis, then we're taking power away from those 5 workers, and assigning it to some other body. That will necessarily reduce each worker's ability to control their personal environment. That seems to be the basic tension in socialism debate. If "workers control the means of production" means "individual workers should control the capital that they personally use, and have a real ability to influence their actual day-to-day conditions" then you don't solve coordination problems. If it means "workers, as a class, should vote on stuff" then you can solve coordination problems, but people have no more practical influence than they do under a democratic legal system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:See my edit Yeah I did. I think that's fair, but I actually do think there's a compelling moral case to not have prisons whatsoever, and that not having prisons doesn't mean we don't have rule of law or can't deal with anti-social behavior. Can Prison Abolition Ever Be Pragmatic? by Nathan Robinson is something I found really compelling on the subject. quote:There are a couple of reasons why I love Eugene Debs’s “I am not free” quote, spoken upon his conviction for violating the Sedition Act in 1918. To begin with, it’s a good first principle for leftism: so long as there is injustice and suffering in the world, you should feel deeply troubled by it. It also does something extremely difficult: it empathizes with the despised, encouraging us to care about all of humanity, even those who have done horrendous and cruel things. It’s an exhortation to universal compassion: you have to care about everybody, without exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:I like Law Firms as a test-case. Your garden variety law firm is far from socialist. Law firms may be partnerships that share profits to some extent between partners, there still exists a capitalist relationship unless that firm doesn't employ paralegals, legal interns, or associates. Only partners have a say, noone else. They still exploit those below them for surplus value, creating capital. They still benefit from the labor of others (this contradiction can be most apparent at solo firms, where lawyers will work short hours but make the most money). Salaried staff attorneys and paralegals are just as alienated from their labor as any other worker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Prison abolition also involves changing the relation that the police have to the community. The police should serve the community, not capital, and should value life over property. In order to serve those ends, people who valued property over life in the way that your modern robber barons do need to be punished. That punishment doesn't mean prison conditions as they exist today. Rehabilitation for those who can be, and prison time for those who did too much damage. Like I said, I intuitively agree with you. I definitely agree that the behavior of the rich and powerful needs to be addressed, and modern policing as we understand needs to be torn down and replaced. There's just something that leaves me morally uneasy with the existence of prison. That is, of course, not a great argument though and I concede that what you say makes perfect rational sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Like I said, I intuitively agree with you. I definitely agree that the behavior of the rich and powerful needs to be addressed, and modern policing as we understand needs to be torn down and replaced. There's just something that leaves me morally uneasy with the existence of prison. That is, of course, not a great argument though and I concede that what you say makes perfect rational sense. Yes in an ideal society there should not be prison, but ultimately in any society there will be deviation (crime) and there needs to be a way to deal with people who do crime. That doesn't mean they should be treated barbarically or as slaves, as is done today. A complete transition to community policing and rehabilitative justice is that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Your garden variety law firm is far from socialist. Law firms may be partnerships that share profits to some extent between partners, there still exists a capitalist relationship unless that firm doesn't employ paralegals, legal interns, or associates. Only partners have a say, noone else. They still exploit those below them for surplus value, creating capital. They still benefit from the labor of others (this contradiction can be most apparent at solo firms, where lawyers will work short hours but make the most money). Salaried staff attorneys and paralegals are just as alienated from their labor as any other worker. Indeed, except even if they don't have employees, they would still be capitalist firms if they have to pay rent, interest on a loan, or be compelled to circulate value into these things (such as taxes which circulate into paying interest on government bonds). This is the sort of thing that makes socialism in one country (or even in one factory) essentially impossible. Even if it's a capitalist firm, it can be more equitable. It's worthwhile to fight for higher aggregate wages, and cooperative firms help toward that (in the short-medium term, anyway). Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Nov 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
Phi230 posted:Yes in an ideal society there should not be prison, but ultimately in any society there will be deviation (crime) and there needs to be a way to deal with people who do crime. That doesn't mean they should be treated barbarically or as slaves, as is done today. A complete transition to community policing and rehabilitative justice is that way. I question the idea that deviation is inherent to the system. Well, no, of course people will deviate from cultural norms, but I question the idea that socially harmful deviation is inevitable. Of course this is getting a little bit into the weeds of nature versus nurture, but if the goal is a classless, stateless society I think at some point prisons are incompatible with that goal and we have to ask if there's something we can do about people performing anti-social behavior to begin with? Ruzihm posted:they would still be capitalist firms if they have to pay rent, interest on a loan, or be compelled to circulate value into these things (such as taxes which circulate into paying interest on government bonds). I am curious what the rationale for this is? I don't necessarily disagree I just don't think I've ever seen this idea expressed before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:59
|
|