Leftist Discussion Thread

[JessFR]

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



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.

There's no point in going further into my explanation unless I know what you're suggesting society should do.

I'm still not sure. Sooo, are you saying that ALL companies should be owned by everyone? Is that the only difference?

Why would I think anything else would change? Cause you suggested earlier that what you wanted was communism. But what you're saying you want in further detail barely resembles communism.

Since you've repeatedly gone and said "why would you assume x" I'm not willing to further discuss the subject until I know what you actually are suggesting should change about society. There's no point my arguing with you if I don't even know what I'm arguing.

All you've said far as I can tell is you want all companies to be switched to public ownership. In which case my question is how that would look in a more practical sense. How would the people exercise that control, what benefits would this supposedly provide society.

Why should I explain my position when my position is based on assumptions I've made that are clearly wrong and you still won't explain what you actually think?

You asked how it would be a bad thing. I can't answer that or even determine if it IS a bad thing until I know more about how you're suggesting it would work. I could make more assumptions and then have you pounce on them if they're wrong. So I'd rather wait for you to actually go into detail about what you're suggesting.

But whatever it is, it's clearly not communism.

Suggesting all companies should change to being effectively coops owned by the entire society. With no specifics about how that power is exercised, how it would fit in with the existing financial money based system. No examples. Nothing more than just saying "everyone would own every company". That's not a position of sufficient sophistication to argue with. I already tried assuming the rest, and as I suspected it was a bad idea. So I'm not doing it again.

If this is it. This is all there is to your belief. Then I'd say that the problem with it is that it's not nearly fleshed out enough. It's far too vague and open to lots of different implementations.

 

[Tubbs]

What I think tath was suggesting was socialism, not communism, the difference being socialism shares the wealth among the community if you pitch in you are compensated. Communism is the state owns all and rations everything out to the people, which always results in totalitarianism.

 

[JessFR]

Perhaps. But there are many varieties of socialism. I don't see how I can evaluate what I think about his suggestion until he elaborates on what exactly it is though.

What I want to know is in detail what he'd change about society. How companies would work in his ideal society as opposed to how they work now and what he thinks it would accomplish.

Without knowing that, it's hard to know what I think. But I don't want to make assumptions since I already did that against my better judgment and it didn't work out.

 

[Tubbs]

Oh i totally agree, just figured I'd clarify the difference, for anyone interested. This is his argument not mine, so I'll leave it to him.

 

[ivio]

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.

This' trite propaganda that doesn't stand scrutiny! Capitalism is the most violent society to ever exist. It has wiped out completely two/three continents (the Americas and Australia) and utterly destroyed the entire Africa and the Indian subcontinent. And this only in about 400 years! In contrast various human settled cultures have co-existed for about 8000 - 10000 years. It invented the total war and genocides and destroyed any different/alternative culture. "Socialist" countries have never existed in reality - it was simply a state capitalism organised on the same principles as the bourgeois state (authoritarian terror by the state army and police; brainwash and instilling conformism by the educational system and the bourgeois atomic family). Any alternative society has warped and ossified under the intense pressure and violence (overt or subversive) of capitalism - witness the transformation of Soviet Russia during the 1920s culminating in the establishment of the Stalinist bureaucracy modelled exactly on the bourgeois state; witness Cuba in the 1960s/1970s; witness North Korea and Iran. Capitalism cannot survive without permanent violence, pillage, and monopolies - witness contemporary Western states.

Same goes on the level of the individual. Since capitalism is based on the most primitive urges of violence, abuse, power, and avarice/acquisitiveness it encourage baseness (to take advantage of others' fragility at all cost) and actively corrupt.

 

[zephyr]

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

Sure but I wouldn't have a clue I left or right I would vote Labor if they were not corrupt.

 

[swilow]

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.

What is so special about you? You mention this exceptional mental architecture and biology but went nowhere in explaining what it actually is. I almost dread to find out.

TBH, and I really don't want to derail this thread with more probable psychosis, I think humanity needs humble leaders and should actively fight against anyone who believes they are the sole answer. Those people are usually selfish and crazy and end up causing immense destruction and bloodshed. The thing with humans is that we all have different desires, dreams, ambitions, ideal lives and no one person can possibly provide these things. A leader who believes they are th answer must impose their will on the diverse masses, and this is what people like Stalin and Hitler believed.

A better idea is allowing the masses to express their will, and I guess this is democracy.

 

[Xorkoth]

Perhaps. But there are many varieties of socialism. I don't see how I can evaluate what I think about his suggestion until he elaborates on what exactly it is though.

What I want to know is in detail what he'd change about society. How companies would work in his ideal society as opposed to how they work now and what he thinks it would accomplish.

Without knowing that, it's hard to know what I think. But I don't want to make assumptions since I already did that against my better judgment and it didn't work out.

It seems really clear to me to be honest. He said that, rather than individuals owning companies, they would be co-owned by everyone who works there or is a part of it. He never said everyone owns everything. If everyone shared the wealth of a company, why would competition be stifled? It would still be companies competing against one another. Why would anything change except who owns the companies? It would (theoretically) prevent the situation we have now, where one or several people make almost all the money off the backs of a lot of people who do the work yet make the bare minimum the company can manage to give out. The only difference in this proposed idea is the level of participation and pay in the people involved in each company.

I worked at a co-op once in college... it was great.

But for the record, I don't think it's so simple. I mean the fact is that, in a grocery store, the inventory manager, for example, has a more important and difficult job than the bagger.

 

[etnies]

Shocking to find people here praising communism, have you ever heard of the Holodomor?

 

[Tubbs]

No one was praising communism. There is a huge difference between socialism and communism, not to mention the Soviets were truly an autocracy, not communist.

 

[etnies]

No one was praising communism. There is a huge difference between socialism and communism, not to mention the Soviets were truly an autocracy, not communist.

Oh, I must have missed the post with the hammer and sickle.

 

[JahSEEuS]

What is so special about you? You mention this exceptional mental architecture and biology but went nowhere in explaining what it actually is. I almost dread to find out.

TBH, and I really don't want to derail this thread with more probable psychosis, I think humanity needs humble leaders and should actively fight against anyone who believes they are the sole answer. Those people are usually selfish and crazy and end up causing immense destruction and bloodshed. The thing with humans is that we all have different desires, dreams, ambitions, ideal lives and no one person can possibly provide these things. A leader who believes they are th answer must impose their will on the diverse masses, and this is what people like Stalin and Hitler believed.

A better idea is allowing the masses to express their will, and I guess this is democracy.

It's the high frequency vibes, maaan

 

[JessFR]

Sound vibes or electromagnetic vibes?

 

[Xorkoth]

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.

Oh man... dude are you manic? Serious question. It would explain a lot. I believe what this post illustrates is what is known as delusions of grandeur. I've been there, man. "It doesn't have to be me, it could be one of the thousands of others like me". Thus putting yourself in the top fractions of fractions of a percent of humanity. Be careful of this line of thinking man. You're gonna end up losing it.

 

[tathra]

There's no point in going further into my explanation unless I know what you're suggesting society should do.

i don't know how to pose the question any clearer or simpler than i did right at the beginning:

how exactly would changing corporations from private ownership to co-ops be a bad thing?

its pretty clear you have no intention of answering it or even thinking about it though, all you've been doing is red herrings and straw men.

 

[swilow]

Oh man... dude are you manic? Serious question. It would explain a lot. I believe what this post illustrates is what is known as delusions of grandeur. I've been there, man. "It doesn't have to be me, it could be one of the thousands of others like me". Thus putting yourself in the top fractions of fractions of a percent of humanity. Be careful of this line of thinking man. You're gonna end up losing it.

Excellent advice Xor

 

[JessFR]

Maybe it's not a bad thing! You haven't even elaborated if you want to change ALL companies or just some of them. Let alone the specifics of exactly how it would all work.

All I want you to do is explain what you're suggesting in more detail than 14 words and a Wikipedia link. But apparently that's not gonna happen.

So, fine. You're clearly a dirty commie who hates freedom and I would clearly never indulge you in a rational conversation because I'm too busy thinking up new and clever ways to screw over the poor.

Tell you what. You win. So much would be improved if we changed an unspecified but probably very large number of private companies of unspecified size to an unspecified type of co-op so that an unspecified number of people coown it with unspecified powers.

In all seriousness my standing and final answer to you until and unless more details or previously unnoticed details show up. Is that I think this idea is of uncertain quality and I have uncertain feelings towards it.

 

[zephyr]

Govts should not privatise infrastructure and services our taxes should go to fund as when that haooens, we pay tax all the same and then huge bills. So where does the tax end up going?

 

[etnies]

So, fine. You're clearly a dirty commie who hates freedom and I would clearly never indulge you in a rational conversation

Damn, couldn't have said it better. Haha.

 

[tathra]

Maybe it's not a bad thing! You haven't even elaborated if you want to change ALL companies or just some of them. Let alone the specifics of exactly how it would all work.

All I want you to do is explain what you're suggesting in more detail than 14 words and a Wikipedia link. But apparently that's not gonna happen.

the only thing I'm suggesting is exactly what I'm asking about - changing corporations from private ownership to co-ops, that's it, full stop. how to implement it and all that aren't relevant, I'm trying to ascertain the possible downsides involved in changing corporations from economic dictatorships to democracies. how to implement it and everything else is a problem for later, once we both have a better understanding of the pros and cons of such a change (why think of how to implement something if it's not worth implementing? ascertaining that is step one). let's discuss one topic at a time.