6 ms·

I currently support Labour because Conservatives have a thing for capitalism, Lib Dems are pushing social democracy as a solution and centrists don't care about

by ue_ 10y ago

I currently support Labour because Conservatives have a thing for capitalism, Lib Dems are pushing social democracy as a solution and centrists don't care about it :)

beaconstudios 10y ago
What's wrong with social democracy? Socialism is basically confirmed to be invalid now.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >Socialism is basically confirmed to be invalid now. I don't think that's true, I still think Socialism is a solution to the problems of society structured with class (capitalism, feudalism, slavery etc.)
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    I guess everyone is equal when we're all queuing for miles for bread.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      Like people were doing during the great depression? Or England before social democracy? Class is not about equality, it is about removing a power relationship. In the same way that the abolitionist movement removed the property relationship between master and slave, the Socialist movement seeks to remove the private property power relationship between bourgeois and proletariat in general.
      - beaconstudios 10y ago
        Socialism has been attempted many many times and never succeeded in peace time without degrading into a hellish dystopia - it also almost always seems to be pushed by middle class people rather than the working class, who are generally somewhere between social democrat and nationalist. The idea that inequality can be solved by handing all property to the government, the single biggest source of corruption in existence, is ludicrous and the sooner the ideas of socialism and communism die out the closer we'll be to an actual approach to raising up the working poor.
        youngtaff 10y ago
        But capitalism (or rather corporatism) doesn't seem to be doing much better for many people
        beaconstudios 10y ago
        but it's close enough that we can tweak the existing system through optimised taxes and regulations. It's like the political equivalent of saying "oh shit our web app is running a bit slow, best throw it all out and rebuild the whole thing in <insert hip framework here>". Except the hip framework almost always results in your co-workers getting genocided or dying in a famine.
        ue_ 10y ago
        >but it's close enough that we can tweak the existing system through optimised taxes and regulations Optimised taxes and regulations do not stop exploitation[0]. >"oh shit our web app is running a bit slow, best throw it all out and rebuild the whole thing in <insert hip framework here>" This is such a false analogy; there are problems inherent with capitalism, which is what the Socialists oppose - namely, the structure of unjustified authority of the State, the exploitation of labour, the class system, the internal contradictions and crises of capitalism, and being forced by threat of starvation to sell labour-power to the class of property owners. A better analogy would be if your web app is only serving 5% or less of customers, and the rest get an extremely slow connection, which they complain about to the web app owner, and you respond "We just need to make the website a few kB/s slower for the 5% and give that speed to you!" [0] https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/sakisaka/exploitation.htm https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/sakisaka/exploitation...
        beaconstudios 10y ago
        OK, I'll bite: > the structure of unjustified authority of the State Socialism in all real world implementations has been in the form of an all-encompassing state. The idea that socialism can exist as a form of anarchy seems to be busted - the Soviets (as in the unions that initially formed during the Russian revolution) quickly formed into a hierarchal structure of abstract Soviets that looked just like government departments. I don't agree with the extent that the State has power either, but fundamentally it can provide security from criminal behaviour via the police, protection from outside groups via the military, and welfare via taxation. Those are all positives, imo. > the exploitation of labour "Ownership of the means of production" has less and less meaning every year. Everyone can start a business from a laptop, this isn't the Victorian era where most working class are forced to work in factories to escape the poor-house. It would seem that business people do provide real value after all - managing people and structuring organised work between individuals with separate skills is an incredible value-add to a workforce. Plus, the idea of the 1% owning the vast majority of the wealth in society can in large part be attributed to their owning a large share of their own businesses, which are built with their own work and hiring people at mutually-agreed-upon wages. > the class system The class system is becoming less and less relevant. I don't have to toil away as a serf on some rich noble's land any more. I started out very much lower-middle to working class, and now I live a very comfortable life. Economic mobility is pretty good these days, we don't live in Marx's time any more. > the internal contradictions and crises of capitalism ... can be well-managed by a more competent state. Tragedy of the commons, neocolonialism, and such could be drastically reduced by improvements to the state. We know this because countries like Norway have good social standards and are military non-interventionist, and the USA is pretty much the only Western country that invades others any more. > being forced by threat of starvation to sell labour-power to the class of property owners You mean being forced to be a productive member of society? Work still needs to keep the world going, and if sitting at home consuming goods and providing absolutely no value were a viable option everyone would do it and society would collapse. For those who can't due to disability or unemployability we have welfare benefits to allow them to do exactly that. Consider this - if people don't have to sell labour-power to earn money to buy things, but can still consume the fruits of others' labour, are they not being exploitative themselves? > A better analogy would be if your web app is only serving 5% or less of customers, and the rest get an extremely slow connection, which they complain about to the web app owner, and you respond "We just need to make the website a few kB/s slower for the 5% and give that speed to you!" You, like every other socialist I've spoken to, seem far more preoccupied with punishing the wealthy than actually helping the poor. If we can establish a dignified baseline for all people to live off of, what's wrong with those who are willing to work hard and sacrifice to provide better services to their customers being able to earn more? Without incentives we wouldn't have any innovation because people don't make sacrifices without incentives. Most innovation is born of personal sacrifices.

by ue_ 10y ago

I currently support Labour because Conservatives have a thing for capitalism, Lib Dems are pushing social democracy as a solution and centrists don't care about it :)

beaconstudios 10y ago

What's wrong with social democracy? Socialism is basically confirmed to be invalid now.

ue_ 10y ago
>Socialism is basically confirmed to be invalid now. I don't think that's true, I still think Socialism is a solution to the problems of society structured with class (capitalism, feudalism, slavery etc.)
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  I guess everyone is equal when we're all queuing for miles for bread.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    Like people were doing during the great depression? Or England before social democracy? Class is not about equality, it is about removing a power relationship. In the same way that the abolitionist movement removed the property relationship between master and slave, the Socialist movement seeks to remove the private property power relationship between bourgeois and proletariat in general.
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      Socialism has been attempted many many times and never succeeded in peace time without degrading into a hellish dystopia - it also almost always seems to be pushed by middle class people rather than the working class, who are generally somewhere between social democrat and nationalist. The idea that inequality can be solved by handing all property to the government, the single biggest source of corruption in existence, is ludicrous and the sooner the ideas of socialism and communism die out the closer we'll be to an actual approach to raising up the working poor.
      - youngtaff 10y ago
        But capitalism (or rather corporatism) doesn't seem to be doing much better for many people
        beaconstudios 10y ago
        but it's close enough that we can tweak the existing system through optimised taxes and regulations. It's like the political equivalent of saying "oh shit our web app is running a bit slow, best throw it all out and rebuild the whole thing in <insert hip framework here>". Except the hip framework almost always results in your co-workers getting genocided or dying in a famine.
        ue_ 10y ago
        >but it's close enough that we can tweak the existing system through optimised taxes and regulations Optimised taxes and regulations do not stop exploitation[0]. >"oh shit our web app is running a bit slow, best throw it all out and rebuild the whole thing in <insert hip framework here>" This is such a false analogy; there are problems inherent with capitalism, which is what the Socialists oppose - namely, the structure of unjustified authority of the State, the exploitation of labour, the class system, the internal contradictions and crises of capitalism, and being forced by threat of starvation to sell labour-power to the class of property owners. A better analogy would be if your web app is only serving 5% or less of customers, and the rest get an extremely slow connection, which they complain about to the web app owner, and you respond "We just need to make the website a few kB/s slower for the 5% and give that speed to you!" [0] https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/sakisaka/exploitation.htm https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/sakisaka/exploitation...
        beaconstudios 10y ago
        OK, I'll bite: > the structure of unjustified authority of the State Socialism in all real world implementations has been in the form of an all-encompassing state. The idea that socialism can exist as a form of anarchy seems to be busted - the Soviets (as in the unions that initially formed during the Russian revolution) quickly formed into a hierarchal structure of abstract Soviets that looked just like government departments. I don't agree with the extent that the State has power either, but fundamentally it can provide security from criminal behaviour via the police, protection from outside groups via the military, and welfare via taxation. Those are all positives, imo. > the exploitation of labour "Ownership of the means of production" has less and less meaning every year. Everyone can start a business from a laptop, this isn't the Victorian era where most working class are forced to work in factories to escape the poor-house. It would seem that business people do provide real value after all - managing people and structuring organised work between individuals with separate skills is an incredible value-add to a workforce. Plus, the idea of the 1% owning the vast majority of the wealth in society can in large part be attributed to their owning a large share of their own businesses, which are built with their own work and hiring people at mutually-agreed-upon wages. > the class system The class system is becoming less and less relevant. I don't have to toil away as a serf on some rich noble's land any more. I started out very much lower-middle to working class, and now I live a very comfortable life. Economic mobility is pretty good these days, we don't live in Marx's time any more. > the internal contradictions and crises of capitalism ... can be well-managed by a more competent state. Tragedy of the commons, neocolonialism, and such could be drastically reduced by improvements to the state. We know this because countries like Norway have good social standards and are military non-interventionist, and the USA is pretty much the only Western country that invades others any more. > being forced by threat of starvation to sell labour-power to the class of property owners You mean being forced to be a productive member of society? Work still needs to keep the world going, and if sitting at home consuming goods and providing absolutely no value were a viable option everyone would do it and society would collapse. For those who can't due to disability or unemployability we have welfare benefits to allow them to do exactly that. Consider this - if people don't have to sell labour-power to earn money to buy things, but can still consume the fruits of others' labour, are they not being exploitative themselves? > A better analogy would be if your web app is only serving 5% or less of customers, and the rest get an extremely slow connection, which they complain about to the web app owner, and you respond "We just need to make the website a few kB/s slower for the 5% and give that speed to you!" You, like every other socialist I've spoken to, seem far more preoccupied with punishing the wealthy than actually helping the poor. If we can establish a dignified baseline for all people to live off of, what's wrong with those who are willing to work hard and sacrifice to provide better services to their customers being able to earn more? Without incentives we wouldn't have any innovation because people don't make sacrifices without incentives. Most innovation is born of personal sacrifices.