3 ms·

> Against a bounding rise in prices, [...], one can fight only under the slogan of a sliding scale of wages. This means that collective agreements should assure

> Against a bounding rise in prices, [...], one can fight only under the slogan of a sliding scale of wages. This means that collective agreements should assure an automatic rise in wages in relation to the increase in price of consumer goods. Leon Trotsky, 1938. [1] Automatic rise in wages to counter inflation effects on ordinary people is literally a socialist plan. What they're asking for is socialism. Right-wing Americans (supposedly) hate socialism, at least when it benefits people other than themselves. --- [1] - https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#ss https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm...

holbrad 2y ago
Do we not see the obvious cyclical death spiral such a policy could cause ?
- dlisboa 2y ago
  That is definitely the opposing argument. Trotsky certainly realizes that it would mean the death of capitalism, which is the whole point of his socialist revolution. He's not really looking to maintain the status quo. I was just pointing out that most right wing Americans don't realize many of their demands and reservations to their current economic climate are straight out of a socialist handbook. Political education is at an all-time low worldwide.
  - achierius 2y ago
    There are people who would argue that your opposition to such policies (simply because they are part of the socialist playbook) is itself an uneducated position. It's certainly possible to go round and round calling each other uneducated because of diverging opinions on various labels, but I don't think it's a very helpful approach to take.
    - dlisboa 2y ago
      I’m not arguing for or against those policies. My comment is about how most anti-socialists don’t know what socialism is or what their policies entail. If shown many socialist ideas without saying where they’re from they’d support them and would not connect them to socialism at all. That is indeed a symptom of lack of political education. You see it everywhere, it’s not a uniquely American issue.
- fuzzfactor 2y ago
  >Do we not see the obvious cyclical death spiral such a policy could cause ? Naturally, as the prices of consumer items spirals downward, followed proportionally by decline in equivalent buying power of the wages, non-consumables like cars and homes remain within reach for fewer of the accomplished workers, and primarily only those who could be considered affluent beforehand. Leaving everyone who is non-affluent further from prosperity even though they can still afford almost the same amount of cheap consumer items after all. Almost. This is by design. The 1938 guideline was a good starting point for those who want to calculate the tolerance for the differential that could be extracted, and whether or not it would be expected to lead to revolution or something. >straight out of a socialist handbook. And then there's the worst-case scenario :\
- plumarr 2y ago
  For information, it's done in Belgium and there is no spiral of death : https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/inflation-of-consumer-prices?tab=chart&time=2000..latest&country=SWE~DEU~GBR~USA~BEL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/inflation-of-consumer-pri...

holbrad 2y ago

Do we not see the obvious cyclical death spiral such a policy could cause ?

dlisboa 2y ago
That is definitely the opposing argument. Trotsky certainly realizes that it would mean the death of capitalism, which is the whole point of his socialist revolution. He's not really looking to maintain the status quo. I was just pointing out that most right wing Americans don't realize many of their demands and reservations to their current economic climate are straight out of a socialist handbook. Political education is at an all-time low worldwide.
- achierius 2y ago
  There are people who would argue that your opposition to such policies (simply because they are part of the socialist playbook) is itself an uneducated position. It's certainly possible to go round and round calling each other uneducated because of diverging opinions on various labels, but I don't think it's a very helpful approach to take.
  - dlisboa 2y ago
    I’m not arguing for or against those policies. My comment is about how most anti-socialists don’t know what socialism is or what their policies entail. If shown many socialist ideas without saying where they’re from they’d support them and would not connect them to socialism at all. That is indeed a symptom of lack of political education. You see it everywhere, it’s not a uniquely American issue.
fuzzfactor 2y ago
>Do we not see the obvious cyclical death spiral such a policy could cause ? Naturally, as the prices of consumer items spirals downward, followed proportionally by decline in equivalent buying power of the wages, non-consumables like cars and homes remain within reach for fewer of the accomplished workers, and primarily only those who could be considered affluent beforehand. Leaving everyone who is non-affluent further from prosperity even though they can still afford almost the same amount of cheap consumer items after all. Almost. This is by design. The 1938 guideline was a good starting point for those who want to calculate the tolerance for the differential that could be extracted, and whether or not it would be expected to lead to revolution or something. >straight out of a socialist handbook. And then there's the worst-case scenario :\
plumarr 2y ago
For information, it's done in Belgium and there is no spiral of death : https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/inflation-of-consumer-prices?tab=chart&time=2000..latest&country=SWE~DEU~GBR~USA~BEL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/inflation-of-consumer-pri...