• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Leftist Discussion Thread

I see how co ops work for grocery stores. I'm a member of a local one.

I don't see how it would work for say... Ford Motor Company.

Who decides how things are done? Are thre tiers to this co ownership? Does each worker have a say in what gets produced that day? I do t get how this would work.
 
If i post something controversial will i ger a response or just skipped over

I dont think im a leftist per se so screw it.
 
Who decides how things are done? Are thre tiers to this co ownership? Does each worker have a say in what gets produced that day? I do t get how this would work.

there's already multiple people involved in most companies' direction and decisions via boards of directors, it would be no different from having more people on the board (or even exactly the same, using representative democracy instead of direct). and why would what a company produces change from day to day? that doesn't make any sense.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:

pubmed entry giving the abstract
Bright minds and dark attitudes: lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact.

Abstract
Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

if i'm reading this right, its not exactly that conservatives are dumber, but that dumber people tend to be prejudiced and conservative (yes, there is a difference between the 2). this also ties into the dunning-kruger effect: "The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence".
 
tathra said:
if i'm reading this right, its not exactly that conservatives are dumber, but that dumber people tend to be prejudiced and conservative (yes, there is a difference between the 2). this also ties into the dunning-kruger effect: "The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence

Mindfulness absolutely requires the ability to perceive both the effects and consequences of your own actions in your environment and the people within that environment as well as the ability to perceive how and others will interact as a result of the actions. I think the dumbest down explanation of mindfulness is a balance between emotional awareness and reasonable logic. Without the ability or being unwilling to identify ones own faults and ineptitude, personal growth is impossible, and intelligence requires growth. I believe most arrogant people are simply incapable of perceiving their faults, thus hindering growth. Because growth is an unfamiliar concept they can't understand,they become afraid of changes or progress in society, lacking the ability to conceive the fact that others might benefit from change thus benefiting themselves.

"I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing." -Socrates

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."- William Shakespeare
 
Last edited:
there's already multiple people involved in most companies' direction and decisions via boards of directors, it would be no different from having more people on the board (or even exactly the same, using representative democracy instead of direct). and why would what a company produces change from day to day? that doesn't make any sense.


So do the decision makers get more money? Is everyone equal pay? Do they all work the same hours?

As far as production it was just an example of what there could be disagreement between the partners in this arrangement.

If one day more than half of the workers at a company want to produce one thing

but the next more than half of the workers who show up want to produce another thing?


I don't necessarily hate democracy, but don't see a true democracy as being able to get anything done. Just look at how slow our sham of a democratic system is. Do you see a true democracy being able to accomplish anything?
 
"I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing." -Socrates

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."- William Shakespeare

I think that your readiness to split people up and call one group stupid and another superior is quite telling.

I like the handle though, welcome to bluelight!

I might be considered by many here to be a conservative but I hold both of your quotes in high regard and have kept them close to my heart since I first read those words and considered the concept many moons ago.
 
Something well worth keeping in mind is that stupid people often just copy whatever their peers believe. So a stupid person in the south could well be conservative while a stupid person from a more liberal minded city environment are likely to have opposing beliefs simply because they copied their peers growing up.

I've met lots of stupid people of every political belief.

That said, it is true that smart people are more likely to he attracted to novel solutions to problems. And so probably are less inclined overall towards conservatism.

But, if somethings a good idea it's a good idea. No matter it's stereotypes political alignment. Smart people are more likely to see and follow the good ideas, no matter where they've been placed on the simplistic political spectrum.

So much of it is mindless. How different beliefs get lumped into being left wing or right wing.

I think the fact so many people just follow all the required beliefs of one side or the other simply shows that most people are idiots, conservatives and liberals alike.

I find these kinds of discussions quite strange. This notion that having some supposed proof liberals are smarter says something worth saying.

Apart from the fact that smart people still frequently make poor choices, because smart people are smart PEOPLE. I find it strange because how societies relationship with intelligence is strange.

People act like they want to be intelligent, but they don't really. They just like the idea. This notion that it's a way to be superior to others.

But, those same people absolutely detest being in the company of someone clearly smarter than them. Because it's not about admiring intelligence. It's about wanting to be superior to others.

People want to be intelligent, as an idea. With the attached notion that they'd still believe everything they do now, still be them, only better in some intangible way. But they don't really admire intelligence itself. Cause they hate feeling like someone around them is smarter than them. They just want it as this idea of bring an intangible advantage with no downsides.

Of course in reality intelligence is as much a curse as a gift. But the grass is always greener on the other side.
 
Last edited:
I don't necessarily hate democracy, but don't see a true democracy as being able to get anything done. Just look at how slow our sham of a democratic system is. Do you see a true democracy being able to accomplish anything?

there's no doubt that a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, but i dont think any dictatorship has ever been benevolent (though if we consider corporations in capitalism as dictatorships - and i do - you do tend to see a few that are close to benevolent, but they are so few that they're merely a rounding error in the total number of corporations). democracy ofc has its flaws, and direct democracy is nothing more than mob rule, but direct democracy isnt the only kind. whats important about democracy is that it works only with the consent of the governed, the people have the right to retract that consent any time; non-democratic regimes dont have that option. democratizing corporations is the same as democratizing government, there are many different ways to do it, and each one can decide the specifics of it however they want. there is no "right" answer, but just as there should be a set of limiting rules for government and its laws (like the idea that the majority shouldnt be able to oppress minorities simply for being minorities), so to should there be a set of universal rules that should apply for democratized corporations. as for what those rules are or should be, i have no idea, i cant think of every possible situation and loophole that might occur, so those could only be found out over time, as they arise.
 
Something well worth keeping in mind is that stupid people often just copy whatever their peers believe. So a stupid person in the south could well be conservative while a stupid person from a more liberal minded city environment are likely to have opposing beliefs simply because they copied their peers growing up.

I've met lots of stupid people of every political belief.

That said, it is true that smart people are more likely to he attracted to novel solutions to problems. And so probably are less inclined overall towards conservatism.

But, if somethings a good idea it's a good idea. No matter it's stereotypes political alignment. Smart people are more likely to see and follow the good ideas, no matter where they've been placed on the simplistic political spectrum.

So much of it is mindless. How different beliefs get lumped into being left wing or right wing.

I think the fact so many people just follow all the required beliefs of one side or the other simply shows that most people are idiots, conservatives and liberals alike.

I find these kinds of discussions quite strange. This notion that having some supposed proof liberals are smarter says something worth saying.

Apart from the fact that smart people still frequently make poor choices, because smart people are smart PEOPLE. I find it strange because how societies relationship with intelligence is strange.

People act like they want to be intelligent, but they don't really. They just like the idea. This notion that it's a way to be superior to others.

But, those same people absolutely detest being in the company of someone clearly smarter than them. Because it's not about admiring intelligence. It's about wanting to be superior to others.

People want to be intelligent, as an idea. With the attached notion that they'd still believe everything they do now, still be them, only better in some intangible way. But they don't really admire intelligence itself. Cause they hate feeling like someone around them is smarter than them. They just want it as this idea of bring an intangible advantage with no downsides.

Of course in reality intelligence is as much a curse as a gift. But the grass is always greener on the other side.

strong post.
 
I think that your readiness to split people up and call one group stupid and another superior is quite telling.

I like the handle though, welcome to bluelight!

I might be considered by many here to be a conservative but I hold both of your quotes in high regard and have kept them close to my heart since I first read those words and considered the concept many moons ago.

Sometimes it takes the observations of other people to enlighten you to your faults. I see now just how biased and snobby I have come across as. I'm no better than a alt right troll feasting on a liberal forum. I obviously have some hostility.

Thank you for opening my eyes
 
there's no doubt that a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, but i dont think any dictatorship has ever been benevolent (though if we consider corporations in capitalism as dictatorships - and i do - you do tend to see a few that are close to benevolent, but they are so few that they're merely a rounding error in the total number of corporations). democracy ofc has its flaws, and direct democracy is nothing more than mob rule, but direct democracy isnt the only kind. whats important about democracy is that it works only with the consent of the governed, the people have the right to retract that consent any time; non-democratic regimes dont have that option. democratizing corporations is the same as democratizing government, there are many different ways to do it, and each one can decide the specifics of it however they want. there is no "right" answer, but just as there should be a set of limiting rules for government and its laws (like the idea that the majority shouldnt be able to oppress minorities simply for being minorities), so to should there be a set of universal rules that should apply for democratized corporations. as for what those rules are or should be, i have no idea, i cant think of every possible situation and loophole that might occur, so those could only be found out over time, as they arise.

yes, so back to how the co op works.

Does management get more money? Are there still hierarchical differences in employment? Differences in pay? Explain to me how you see this working.

I admittedly didn't read everything in the past few pages so I'm just kind of coming in the middle.

Do you want every one of the employees to own the company? Do they each have the same stake/shares? Would they still be paid by position or do they all pay the same? Who makes the decisions?

It might work well in a small business with 10 employees. But then, shouldn't the one who came up with the idea for the business be rewarded for their ingenuity, hard work, and perseverance? Should some shlub you hire for data entry reap the benefits of your idea?

I don't see any scenario in which this could work. Could you show me an example of how this would work?

Sometimes it takes the observations of other people to enlighten you to your faults. I see now just how biased and snobby I have come across as. I'm no better than a alt right troll feasting on a liberal forum. I obviously have some hostility.

Thank you for opening my eyes

Can't tell if troll or not but if not,

Hey, no worries. It takes a big person to admit when they might be in the wrong or biased or snobby, etc. It's refreshing to see someone willing to acknowledge that around here.

What age range are you in if I might ask? I only ask because I remember having a similar hostility in my younger years.
 
Last edited:
This is the work of one of my very best, oldest, friends.

Check it out. I think he'd fit in quite well here, but until he comes to join the discussion check out this video.

 
I say this as a leftie of sorts myself, but many I know irl can be quite self-righteous and sanctimonious - as if their argument is a matter of fact and not open to subjectivity like any other. That seems to induce an attitude that often takes the form of belligerence or hostility.

Regarding cooperatives, this wiki definition pretty much covers what they are:

Cooperatives as legal entities

A cooperative is a legal entity owned and democratically controlled by its members. Members often have a close association with the enterprise as producers or consumers of its products or services, or as its employees.

There are specific forms of incorporation for cooperatives in some countries, e.g. Finland and Australia. Cooperatives may take the form of companies limited by shares or by guarantee, partnerships or unincorporated associations. In the UK they may also use the industrial and provident society structure. In the US, cooperatives are often organized as non-capital stock corporations under state-specific cooperative laws. However, they may also be unincorporated associations or business corporations such as limited liability companies or partnerships; such forms are useful when the members want to allow:

some members to have a greater share of the control, or
some investors to have a return on their capital that exceeds fixed interest,

neither of which may be allowed under local laws for cooperatives. Cooperatives often share their earnings with the membership as dividends, which are divided among the members according to their participation in the enterprise, such as patronage, instead of according to the value of their capital shareholdings (as is done by a joint stock company).



Jah said:
shouldn't the one who came up with the idea for the business be rewarded for their ingenuity, hard work, and perseverance? Should some shlub you hire for data entry reap the benefits of your idea?

They are rarely the ones implementing this new idea of theirs. Shouldn't the ones doing the actual work of implementing it also be rewarded for their hard work of actually producing the output? One doesn't work without the other. Both need recognition, rather than the ridiculous kind of skew that sees a handful of CEOs earn as much as their entire workforce of thousands.
 
Something well worth keeping in mind is that stupid people often just copy whatever their peers believe. So a stupid person in the south could well be conservative while a stupid person from a more liberal minded city environment are likely to have opposing beliefs simply because they copied their peers growing up.

I've met lots of stupid people of every political belief.

That said, it is true that smart people are more likely to he attracted to novel solutions to problems. And so probably are less inclined overall towards conservatism.

But, if somethings a good idea it's a good idea. No matter it's stereotypes political alignment. Smart people are more likely to see and follow the good ideas, no matter where they've been placed on the simplistic political spectrum.

So much of it is mindless. How different beliefs get lumped into being left wing or right wing.

I think the fact so many people just follow all the required beliefs of one side or the other simply shows that most people are idiots, conservatives and liberals alike.

I find these kinds of discussions quite strange. This notion that having some supposed proof liberals are smarter says something worth saying.

Apart from the fact that smart people still frequently make poor choices, because smart people are smart PEOPLE. I find it strange because how societies relationship with intelligence is strange.

People act like they want to be intelligent, but they don't really. They just like the idea. This notion that it's a way to be superior to others.

But, those same people absolutely detest being in the company of someone clearly smarter than them. Because it's not about admiring intelligence. It's about wanting to be superior to others.

People want to be intelligent, as an idea. With the attached notion that they'd still believe everything they do now, still be them, only better in some intangible way. But they don't really admire intelligence itself. Cause they hate feeling like someone around them is smarter than them. They just want it as this idea of bring an intangible advantage with no downsides.

Of course in reality intelligence is as much a curse as a gift. But the grass is always greener on the other side.

As I mentioned a minute ago, I realize how insufferable I have portrayed myself as though intelligence is a measurable quality and that personal belief dictates how much intelligence you possess. By implying so I have made myself no better than a bigoted conservative proclaiming that all homosexuals will be damned to hell. As I said an outsiders perspective can be quite enlightening.


I obviously harbor some resentment towards the right side of the spectrum for personal reasons. My resentment has manifested in the form of hate.
 
They are rarely the ones implementing this new idea of theirs. Shouldn't the ones doing the actual work of implementing it also be rewarded for their hard work of actually producing the output? One doesn't work without the other. Both need recognition, rather than the ridiculous kind of skew that sees a handful of CEOs earn as much as their entire workforce of thousands.

I was talking about small business - usually sees the owner working hand in hand with employees. Usually the employees are compensated fairly and the owner gets more.

I agree that there is a disconnect between large corporations, CEO's and workers. I also acknowledge that the wage gap between these employees and their overlords is shit.
 
I was talking about small business - usually sees the owner working hand in hand with employees. Usually the employees are compensated fairly and the owner gets more.

I agree that there is a disconnect between large corporations, CEO's and workers. I also acknowledge that the wage gap between these employees and their overlords is shit.

Even in a small business, how many times more valuable is the owner than one of his employees? 25%? 100%? 200%? Maybe. Not 1000% though. Without his tea-lady and her trolley of cakes, he'd be so miserable and overstressed that he'd be 61.749% less productive. Shouldn't his tea lady therefore claim some of the benefits her extra productivity brings? Isn't she the one with real added-value here?

We don't value things according to their true contribution (we don't even apply the negative value of pollution, for example), which is why owners of capital are almost always overcompensated. Which leads to unhealthy capital accumulation at one end of the spectrum, leading to economic inefficiencies, capital bottlenecks and problems with liquidity.
 
yes, so back to how the co op works.

Does management get more money? Are there still hierarchical differences in employment? Differences in pay? Explain to me how you see this working.

I admittedly didn't read everything in the past few pages so I'm just kind of coming in the middle.

Do you want every one of the employees to own the company? Do they each have the same stake/shares? Would they still be paid by position or do they all pay the same? Who makes the decisions?

It might work well in a small business with 10 employees. But then, shouldn't the one who came up with the idea for the business be rewarded for their ingenuity, hard work, and perseverance? Should some shlub you hire for data entry reap the benefits of your idea?

I don't see any scenario in which this could work. Could you show me an example of how this would work?



Can't tell if troll or not but if not,

Hey, no worries. It takes a big person to admit when they might be in the wrong or biased or snobby, etc. It's refreshing to see someone willing to acknowledge that around here.

What age range are you in if I might ask? I only ask because I remember having a similar hostility in my younger years.

I promise I'm not a troll lol and it sucks if I came across as one

I will be 31 on Monday actually. The hostility comes from being raised in an authoritative politically active Republican home. My frustrations should be channeled elsewhere.
 
Top