Leftist Discussion Thread

[tathra]

exactly. everything has to be evaluated on a scale of risk vs reward, or cost vs benefit. at this point, the risks and costs associated with capitalism are far more than the benefits. capitalism has outlived its usefulness and needs to be retired, before it takes everyone down with it in its inevitable self-destruction.

 

[Tubbs]

I agree, it's good for developing new markets, but beyond that it just doesn't work well.

 

[JessFR]

Maybe capitalism does need drastic change.

But changing it to a socialist system is just making a bad thing a lot worse.

Personally I think it's less that capitalism needs to end and more that it needs to be rethought. It's only the finite that can't grow forever.

But nope. That fine tuning and it requires fine thought. People would rather use a sledgehammer to fix destructive problems. They're idiots like that. People forget and people can be unimaginative so they go "this bad, get rid of this, replace with anything else, that'll fix". Genius.

 

[Tubbs]

I'm not saying it's all bad, just as communism isn't all bad, they all have their merits, none are perfect. What we need is exactly what you just said, to step back and look at what can be fixed and made better.

 

[tathra]

But changing it to a socialist system is just making a bad thing a lot worse.

lets limit this to purely economical. capitalism is individuals owning corporations; socialism is essentially everyone who works for a corporation co-owns it; and communism is everyone is co-owner, employee or not. how exactly would changing corporations from private ownership to co-ops be a bad thing?

 

[zephyr]

That or something similar is in the pipeline.

That was my idea. Mine!

 

[JessFR]

lets limit this to purely economical. capitalism is individuals owning corporations; socialism is essentially everyone who works for a corporation co-owns it; and communism is everyone is co-owner, employee or not. how exactly would changing corporations from private ownership to co-ops be a bad thing?

How is such a society supposed to innovate? If everyone owns part of everything. Take climate change. People act like capitalism is the problem preventing us solving it. I see it as the reverse. Capitalism, or rather, competition, is key to devising solutions.

The problem today is with people seeing the short term and not the long term. But that problem doesn't warrant. abandoning competition entirely.

So, say everyone owns all corporations, assuming it wouldn't turn into, well, what it's turned into every other time which are arguably even worse as outcomes for the environment long term. Without a market, and without competition, where's the motivation to find better technologies to benefit man kind?

All the technology we use has progressed as fast as it has because of competition, which is what capitalist markets provide.

Even so called communist countries innovation has been driven by competition, only they're competing with us.

If the world ran as communist, I mean for real as opposed to the totalitarian dictatorships they always turn out as in reality. But in a make believe hypothetical. What reason is there to think it wouldn't drastically reduce the progression of technology?

All the great things our society has done is because of competition, and markers are how you harness that power. Our problem is not harnessing it correctly. But getting rid of it entirely is just making things far worse.

It's a retarded reaction to the problems of the present caused by an utter failure of imagination.

Course I'm assuming a lot here. I've noticed people repeatedly abuse words like communism and socialism inventing their own meanings for them so that discussing it is impossible. So I'm making assumptions about what you're suggesting.

 

[tathra]

How is such a society supposed to innovate? If everyone owns part of everything.

why wouldnt there be innovation? you dont give a reason why, you just suddenly assume there wont be.

Without a market...

what makes you think there wouldnt be a market? again, another assumption that you dont give a reason for.

dont use countries that call themselves "communist" here, go off the paramaters i laid out - the only thing that changes is who owns corporations, from private ownership to co-ops - and explain how that would be problematic.

"A cooperative (also known as co-operative, co-op, or coop) is 'an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise'" <-- this is socialism, not the authoritarian regimes that call themselves "socialist"

 

[JessFR]

On your second point, I did say I was making assumptions. Because just saying "everyone owns all the companies" is very vague.

On your first point. Why wouldn't there be innovation. There would be far less innovation because much of our real world innovation is driven by competition. How exactly is a competitive market supposed to work when everyone owns all the companies?

Your parameters are crazy simplistic and undefined. Which is why I very nearly didn't reply to your original post at all. I went back and forth in my head for a while before deciding to give it a go.

It's hard enough to evaluate without having a definition of the hypothetical society once it exists, let alone no explanation of how we supposedly get there which is the in practice problem with real attempts at communism.

 

[tathra]

On your first point. Why wouldn't there be innovation. There would be far less innovation because much of our real world innovation is driven by competition. How exactly is a competitive market supposed to work when everyone owns all the companies?

you're not explaining how ones leads to the other. it doesnt logically follow that markets wouldnt exist because employees co-own a company. people still need products both for survival and comfort/entertainment, and different people need different products, thus markets will always exist, black or otherwise, and black markets only exist if the legal markets arent providing what people want and need.

and again, see co-ops for an example of socialism in action. there's nothing unrealistic or undefined about it.

 

[e_rep]

why wouldnt there be innovation? you dont give a reason why, you just suddenly assume there wont be.

Because the drive to achieve in such regards are done personal gain, for the most part. How many people are going to put themselves though the pain of medical school and the bazillion years it takes to practice medicine if there was not a great pay off at the end of the road? That's why doctors are fleeing the more socialistic countries because they want to get paid yo, and there is nothing wrong with that. Pharmaceutical companies spend vast sums of money to come up with the next life saving drug, not because they are wonderful people, they do it for a return on investment. Again, there is nothing wrong with that.

There is no perfect system as all systems are based of people who are imperfect beings, but capitalism has proven...and I mean actually proven to the best for society as a whole, even with all it's flaws, as they all have flaws.

 

[e_rep]

dont use countries that call themselves "communist" here, go off the paramaters i laid out - the only thing that changes is who owns corporations, from private ownership to co-ops - and explain how that would be problematic.

"A cooperative (also known as co-operative, co-op, or coop) is 'an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise'" <-- this is socialism, not the authoritarian regimes that call themselves "socialist"

First of all, of course we are going to use the authoritarian regimes that are socialist/communist, why wouldn't we use such as obvious a proof as history? Socialism doesn't mean "co-op", no one owns anything, the state owns all of it. Why strive to achieve if you don't own the fruit of your labor, for the benefit of humanity? Hell no, for dolla dolla bills yall!

All those drugs that have enhanced your life and gave you such rich and beautiful spiritual experiences, you think the manufacturers took the risk of life imprisonment so you can dance all night in an E induced haze and give hugs with glitter on your face? Helllllll no. Again, dolla dolla bills yall! (that's a wu tang reference if you didn't know...son).

 

[JessFR]

you're not explaining how ones leads to the other. it doesnt logically follow that markets wouldnt exist because employees co-own a company. people still need products both for survival and comfort/entertainment, and different people need different products, thus markets will always exist, black or otherwise, and black markets only exist if the legal markets arent providing what people want and need.

and again, see co-ops for an example of socialism in action. there's nothing unrealistic or undefined about it.

Sooo, what, everyone owns multiple companies doing the same thing competing with each other even though it all works out the same financially for everyone anyway? Is there even money in this hypothetical system? How about you explain your system in more detail then we can discuss its merits.

 

[tathra]

First of all, of course we are going to use the authoritarian regimes that are socialist/communist, why wouldn't we use such as obvious a proof as history?

because this is a discussion about economics:

lets limit this to purely economical.

anything outside of economics is a red herring to this discussion.

How is such a society supposed to innovate?

why wouldn't they? i keep asking you to explain your basis for all these assumptions but you still haven't explained a single one. and i keep emphasizing that we're taking about socialism. stop with the straw mans about communism.

and just to make sure you can't claim to not see the link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative <-- socialism in action

 

[JessFR]

I nearly didnt reply to you to start with cause I thought your original premise was very vague. At this point I wish I hadn't. I'm willing to discuss it further but not until you explain in more detail exactly what kind of an economic system you are proposing. At this point I can't even be sure I'd disagree with it because it's too undefined.

It some seem like a good time to mention this though, I think the problem a lot of left leaning people have comes down to branding. I think they'd get a lot further if they'd ditch the socialism and communism brands entirely and call whatever they're arguing for something else. The names are too tarnished.

Don't discount branding. It might be playing with words in a not entirely honest way, but it can be very effective.

 

[swilow]

That was my idea. Mine!

And it's a good un too Let me know if you wanna participate. . .

 

[tathra]

not until you explain in more detail exactly what kind of an economic system you are proposing.

this is like the 5th time i've posted it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

 

[JessFR]

Which says very little about how you'd structure an entire economy around it.

 

[tathra]

what do you mean? the only thing that would change is who owns corporations, like i initially said:

lets limit this to purely economical. capitalism is individuals owning corporations; socialism is essentially everyone who works for a corporation co-owns it; and communism is everyone is co-owner, employee or not. how exactly would changing corporations from private ownership to co-ops be a bad thing?

thats it. changing corporate ownership. why do you think anything else would change? you still havent explained a single one of your assumptions or their basis.

 

[LandsUnknown]

If I am being honest about my personal beliefs on politics, they are quite simple, though they do not fall in line with any political "party" per say. While LandsUnknown would be a great pick for president and yes I can confidently say that I would be a better president than any other one and would likely be perfectly capable of managing the politics of the entire world without the need for anyone else weighing in, I would venture to guess that there are thousands of people all over the world who could do the same thing. Since I am a person who is on a "high frequency" of sorts as some may refer to it, I feel that myself and other people who also have a "high frequency" headspace would be more than capable of the job. With someone like me, all this political debacle would be useless as due to my unique biology and mental architecture I would be capable of serving as the sole leader of humanity and creating a world that is truly beautiful and far better than it has been at any time in human history as people have shied away from LandsUnknown and LandsUnknown like people. I'm not going into another LandsUnknown for president rant or anything because it's not about me as I don't care about power or anything like that, so it would be fine if it was one of the people who have this biology and basic mental architecture other than myself as there are thousands of people who share it. Honestly, if a "high frequency" presidency were to occur, I feel that there would be no need for congress or any "checks and balances". The leader could simply clone themselves and the clones could serve as the successor for all of human history, and humanity would be able to attain a state of perfect balance. Again, while I'm saying that I would be capable of this and could certainly be the one to do this, it could be many other people, thousands or even millions of them. The problem is that instead of electing people with a naturally high "frequency" so to speak, they elect ones who are simply narcissistic and arrogant and have a thirst for power.

The problem is that my chances of being elected are slim to none, but hopefully a LandsUnknown-like candidate with more means to get elected will run, because the world needs someone like myself. I generally do not share this which is my true political views, because I feel that people would come to the inaccurate conclusion that I am either delusional or an extreme narcissist. However, I'm not. As frankly like I said, I don't care if it weren't me but merely that I feel that the world would be best with someone who is similar to myself and shares a similar mentality and worldview.

However, since few people would understand this, I don't really tell people about this for fear that they would either believe I am extremely narcissistic or delusional. However, I am neither. Just a rational person with an understanding of the world that most people likely wouldn't agree with. That's my true political stance. But yeah, I am politically active and generally agree with liberals on political issues. And conservatives generally seem narcissistic and generally asinine, so I don't really care for them much. As a result, I vote for democrats, yet deep down I know that my name would be better on the ballot than anybody else whose running. It's just how I feel, and I really don't care if people agree with it or not, just stating my opinion.