4 ms·

What did Churchill say about Democracy? It's the worst except all the others? Yea. I'll take all this government mismanagement and markets over Communism and So

What did Churchill say about Democracy? It's the worst except all the others? Yea. I'll take all this government mismanagement and markets over Communism and Socialism. The State is never good at managing the means of production.

immibis 1y ago
Socialism isn't when the state manages the means of production, it's when the workers do. What we have now, but without 80% of the value you create getting siphoned off to lazy bums who do nothing all day and collect a fat paycheck.
- ericmay 1y ago
  There's nothing that stops you today from creating a business with your fellow workers and doing just that. That's the great thing about Democracy. You can do things like found a socialist business model and have it compete in the market and you can respect the rights of others to not do so. If your model is better, or if it works well for you and like-minded folks, then all is well. If they're just lazy bums siphoning away their fat paycheck, surely your method will be better and you will show the other workers a better way and you can all unite and create similar collective ownership models.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > There's nothing that stops you today from creating a business with your fellow workers and doing just that. There are significant barriers to that, not least of which is access to capital. But that's also not socialism, socialism is the economic system where that is true across the whole economy. > That's the great thing about Democracy. You can do things like found a socialist business model and have it compete in the market and you can respect the rights of others to not do so. Aside from misunderstanding aocialism as a business model and not an economic system, what you describe (where you are superficially free to do this but obstructed by structural barriers and a politico-economic system geared to favor a different model) has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with capitalism, an economic system that,because political and economic power are fungible and capitalism is centered around around concentrating the latter in a narrow class, is in constant tension with and undermines political democracy.
    - ericmay 1y ago
      > There are significant barriers to that, not least of which is access to capital. That's a barrier to start any business. Life is tough. I'm not sympathetic. > But that's also not socialism, socialism is the economic system where that is true across the whole economy. > Aside from misunderstanding aocialism as a business model and not an economic system, what you describe (where you are superficially free to do this but obstructed by structural barriers and a politico-economic system geared to favor a different model) has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with capitalism, an economic system that,because political and economic power are fungible and capitalism is centered around around concentrating the latter in a narrow class, is in constant tension with and undermines political democracy. Just because it has various definitions and subcategories, can you just explain what Socialism means to you? What I'm hearing is you want to abolish capitalism and replace it with workers (not the government) owning the means of production. Is that right/fair? And then Communism we'd define as the government actually owning the means of production. Is that right/fair?
      - dragonwriter 1y ago
        > That's a barrier to start any business Its an additional barrier in a capitalist economy to starting an equal-ownership labor coop, because the people who do control capital prefer that businesses they fund be owned by the suppliers of capital. > Life is tough. And capitalism is organized around making it tougher for the vast majority so that it can be easier for an elite minority. > I'm not sympathetic. Clearly, though I’m not sure why you are so proud of that. > Just because it has various definitions and subcategories, can you just explain what Socialism means to you? Socialism means that the workers (which is equivalent to the people at large, since without private ownership of the means of production, the capitalist classes do not exist) owning the means of production and exercising control democratically. There are a large numbers of particular eays that this can be structured. > What I'm hearing is you want to abolish capitalism and replace it with workers (not the government) owning the means of production. Is that right/fair? The government is a means by which the workers can exercise some part of their control of the means of production, and in any practical socialist system a robustly democratic government will play some role (possibly not much more or much different in broad shape, outside of specifically rules on ownership of particular assets, than in the modern mixed economies that have replaced capitalism in the strict sense in most of the developed world since the mid-20th century, but also possibly significantly more in some areas.) But I’m personally an incrementalist and not a radical revolutionary, so while “abolish capitalism” is in a sense technically correct, what I’d mostly prefer is continued incremental steps to reduce the structural favoritism granted to the capitalist class and to distribute increasing power to the working class (either directly as such or by democratically empowering the people without regard to class). > And then Communism we'd define as the government actually owning the means of production. Is that right/fair? “Communism” is a proposed utopian end state beyond socialism that some socialists (who are also known as “Communists” for this reason) believe is the ultimate goal, and also a name for the set of socialists who believe in one of the various schools of thought that have that as their end goal. What you are describing as “Communism” is, ideally, state socialism, wherein the people at large control the means of production through robustly democratic state institutions. In practice, though, attempts to implement an economic system around it have actually ended up being, and mostly getting stuck in state capitalism [0], wherein a narrow and self-perpetuating elite controls both the state and, through the state, the means of production and society more generally. The extent to which this is an inherent failure of state socialism versus a failure of the particular adaptations of Marxism made in Leninism to bypass (private) capitalism and the frequently associated development of democratic norms to attempt to implement state socialism in environments that are pre- or early-capitalist is a matter of some debate among the socialists outside of the schools that are willfully blind to the problem. It is popularly associated with “Communism” because movements that have been successulf in taking control of regimes and which call themselves Communist have invariably been from Leninism or one of its derivatives which favor this model, but it isn't centrally what distinguished Communist schools of thought from other socialist ones, nor is it inherent in Communism at all; the relationship is incidental. [0] there are some cases, like the PRC, that have “escaped” simple state capitalism for something more like fascist corporatism, but whether that's an improvement over being stuck in state capitalism is debatable. It is certainly better from the point of view of private capitalists, but...
_DeadFred_ 1y ago
Churchill's democracy in Britain has social housing and social healthcare. Glad to know you'll take it though, because it looks like lot's of Americans are 'taking it', in a pretty brutal and ugly way. FYI American police kill more people than any other country at 1100 people a year. Guess that's also 'democracy' and not, you know, just America: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/
- ericmay 1y ago
  Yea still better than Communism or Socialism. I don't care about criticisms about America. They're not interesting or relevant. Democracy and markets are superior to state owned means of production. > Churchill's democracy in Britain has social housing and social healthcare. Well it had those but in the case of housing it was primarily private (as it should be) and in the case of healthcare running a healthcare system is not Communism or Socialism any more than roads are.
  - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
    "better than state owned" "state owned is not communism or socialism" Ok then.
    - ericmay 1y ago
      Are you really going to sit here arguing that the United Kingdom is a Communist country because they build a few houses and have a taxpayer funded healthcare program?
      - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
        Are you really doing to pretend you didn't say socialism in the upstream comment? This is you " I'll take all this government mismanagement and markets over Communism and Socialism."

immibis 1y ago

Socialism isn't when the state manages the means of production, it's when the workers do. What we have now, but without 80% of the value you create getting siphoned off to lazy bums who do nothing all day and collect a fat paycheck.

ericmay 1y ago
There's nothing that stops you today from creating a business with your fellow workers and doing just that. That's the great thing about Democracy. You can do things like found a socialist business model and have it compete in the market and you can respect the rights of others to not do so. If your model is better, or if it works well for you and like-minded folks, then all is well. If they're just lazy bums siphoning away their fat paycheck, surely your method will be better and you will show the other workers a better way and you can all unite and create similar collective ownership models.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > There's nothing that stops you today from creating a business with your fellow workers and doing just that. There are significant barriers to that, not least of which is access to capital. But that's also not socialism, socialism is the economic system where that is true across the whole economy. > That's the great thing about Democracy. You can do things like found a socialist business model and have it compete in the market and you can respect the rights of others to not do so. Aside from misunderstanding aocialism as a business model and not an economic system, what you describe (where you are superficially free to do this but obstructed by structural barriers and a politico-economic system geared to favor a different model) has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with capitalism, an economic system that,because political and economic power are fungible and capitalism is centered around around concentrating the latter in a narrow class, is in constant tension with and undermines political democracy.
  - ericmay 1y ago
    > There are significant barriers to that, not least of which is access to capital. That's a barrier to start any business. Life is tough. I'm not sympathetic. > But that's also not socialism, socialism is the economic system where that is true across the whole economy. > Aside from misunderstanding aocialism as a business model and not an economic system, what you describe (where you are superficially free to do this but obstructed by structural barriers and a politico-economic system geared to favor a different model) has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with capitalism, an economic system that,because political and economic power are fungible and capitalism is centered around around concentrating the latter in a narrow class, is in constant tension with and undermines political democracy. Just because it has various definitions and subcategories, can you just explain what Socialism means to you? What I'm hearing is you want to abolish capitalism and replace it with workers (not the government) owning the means of production. Is that right/fair? And then Communism we'd define as the government actually owning the means of production. Is that right/fair?
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > That's a barrier to start any business Its an additional barrier in a capitalist economy to starting an equal-ownership labor coop, because the people who do control capital prefer that businesses they fund be owned by the suppliers of capital. > Life is tough. And capitalism is organized around making it tougher for the vast majority so that it can be easier for an elite minority. > I'm not sympathetic. Clearly, though I’m not sure why you are so proud of that. > Just because it has various definitions and subcategories, can you just explain what Socialism means to you? Socialism means that the workers (which is equivalent to the people at large, since without private ownership of the means of production, the capitalist classes do not exist) owning the means of production and exercising control democratically. There are a large numbers of particular eays that this can be structured. > What I'm hearing is you want to abolish capitalism and replace it with workers (not the government) owning the means of production. Is that right/fair? The government is a means by which the workers can exercise some part of their control of the means of production, and in any practical socialist system a robustly democratic government will play some role (possibly not much more or much different in broad shape, outside of specifically rules on ownership of particular assets, than in the modern mixed economies that have replaced capitalism in the strict sense in most of the developed world since the mid-20th century, but also possibly significantly more in some areas.) But I’m personally an incrementalist and not a radical revolutionary, so while “abolish capitalism” is in a sense technically correct, what I’d mostly prefer is continued incremental steps to reduce the structural favoritism granted to the capitalist class and to distribute increasing power to the working class (either directly as such or by democratically empowering the people without regard to class). > And then Communism we'd define as the government actually owning the means of production. Is that right/fair? “Communism” is a proposed utopian end state beyond socialism that some socialists (who are also known as “Communists” for this reason) believe is the ultimate goal, and also a name for the set of socialists who believe in one of the various schools of thought that have that as their end goal. What you are describing as “Communism” is, ideally, state socialism, wherein the people at large control the means of production through robustly democratic state institutions. In practice, though, attempts to implement an economic system around it have actually ended up being, and mostly getting stuck in state capitalism [0], wherein a narrow and self-perpetuating elite controls both the state and, through the state, the means of production and society more generally. The extent to which this is an inherent failure of state socialism versus a failure of the particular adaptations of Marxism made in Leninism to bypass (private) capitalism and the frequently associated development of democratic norms to attempt to implement state socialism in environments that are pre- or early-capitalist is a matter of some debate among the socialists outside of the schools that are willfully blind to the problem. It is popularly associated with “Communism” because movements that have been successulf in taking control of regimes and which call themselves Communist have invariably been from Leninism or one of its derivatives which favor this model, but it isn't centrally what distinguished Communist schools of thought from other socialist ones, nor is it inherent in Communism at all; the relationship is incidental. [0] there are some cases, like the PRC, that have “escaped” simple state capitalism for something more like fascist corporatism, but whether that's an improvement over being stuck in state capitalism is debatable. It is certainly better from the point of view of private capitalists, but...

_DeadFred_ 1y ago

Churchill's democracy in Britain has social housing and social healthcare. Glad to know you'll take it though, because it looks like lot's of Americans are 'taking it', in a pretty brutal and ugly way. FYI American police kill more people than any other country at 1100 people a year. Guess that's also 'democracy' and not, you know, just America: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/

ericmay 1y ago
Yea still better than Communism or Socialism. I don't care about criticisms about America. They're not interesting or relevant. Democracy and markets are superior to state owned means of production. > Churchill's democracy in Britain has social housing and social healthcare. Well it had those but in the case of housing it was primarily private (as it should be) and in the case of healthcare running a healthcare system is not Communism or Socialism any more than roads are.
- _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  "better than state owned" "state owned is not communism or socialism" Ok then.
  - ericmay 1y ago
    Are you really going to sit here arguing that the United Kingdom is a Communist country because they build a few houses and have a taxpayer funded healthcare program?
    - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
      Are you really doing to pretend you didn't say socialism in the upstream comment? This is you " I'll take all this government mismanagement and markets over Communism and Socialism."