History Channel
anachrohack @ anachrohack @lemmy.world Posts 1Comments 254Joined 3 mo. ago
Did you read your own link? The one you yourself even quoted? It calls itself an independent socialist magazine.
Dylan Sullivan is an Adjunct Fellow and PhD candidate in the Macquarie School of Social Sciences, Macquarie University, where he teaches politics, sociology, and anthropology.
Which is why I don't value his economics paper very highly
Richard Wolff, another economist, explains socialism in a very clear and comprehensive way. If you're not intellectually curious enough to entertain Richard Wolff, I'm done responding. On the other hand, I'm happy to engage with someone interested in learning and discussion.
No serious economist refers to themself as a Marxian. A "marxian economist" is like saying "a psychic physicist". Right off the bat, anyone who commits themselves to a pseudoscientific view should not have their scientific views taken very seriously at all.
To be frank, I don't take anything economic commentary by "An Independent Socialist Magazine" seriously lol. Socialism has been so thoroughly discredited that anybody who willingly accepts such a label is inherently not a serious person.
"The standard of living was better before antibiotics! Nobody was poor!" lol, borderline religious nonsense
I think you're mixing terms. Capitalism is the private ownership of property. Socialism is the worker's ownership of property; often managed by a state (which in theory should be run by the workers). None of the things you mentioned are examples of socialism.
The official state religion of the Soviet Union was called "Marxism-Leninism"
Wow, it's horrible that so many people live in extreme poverty. It's also fantastic that, since the 1970s, most people (92%!) on earth no longer live in extreme poverty, thanks to capitalism and free trade!
relatively rare under normal conditions
Capitalism is "normal conditions", so I'm not sure what this rag of an article considers to be "normal conditions". Is the government arresting people for running their own business or owning property "normal conditions"?
What do you think most younger people not ever being able to afford their own property?
Housing prices are extremely expensive because of government intervention in the market. Local governments have artificially restricted the supply of new housing in order to intentionally make it more expensive. Unironically: the free market would make housing less expensive, like it did when our parents' generation were buying houses.
Or the fact that grocery costs have been skyrocketing to unaffordable levels even if you make good money
Food inflation would not be solved by state intervention. I don't think there's any serious economist who will tell you that food inflation is caused by unfettered capitalism.
All while billionaires are hoarding unfathomable amounts of wealth? Extreme poverty might not be as high globally but regular poverty is gaining traction at record speeds.
Wealth inequality is gaining traction. The standard of living of the average poor American is better today than it was in the 1960s. What has changed is how we feel about it. Wealth inequality makes us mad, but it has not resulted in worse overall living standards on an absolute scale.
How do you guard against that when having vast wealth enables you to trick people into voting against their best interests?
I think we should solve specific problems. Some problems can be solved with more regulation (dismantling monopolies, safeguarding elections) and others can be solved by reducing regulation (taking away authority from local zoning boards, reducing the amount of legal hurdles for building public transportation).
But none of these problems are caused intrinsically by the existence of private property. Various European liberal democracies manage to provide high quality of life for their people without resorting to socialism
capitalism ends in the extreme poverty that you say it solves.
There is no evidence to support your claim. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that since 3rd world countries began liberalizing their markets from the 1970s/80s onward, it has resulted in huge increases in quality of life for their poorest citizens.
The same cannot be said of socialism, which experienced a worldwide delegitimization from the 70s onward as it collapsed under its own inherent contradictions and failed to provide for the people living under it.
It happened BEFORE sentencing
AI should absolutely never be allowed in court. Defense is probably stoked about this because it's obviously a mistrial. Judge should be reprimanded for allowing that shit
He's right
You're talking Cable TV? I don't have cable so I can't see it but Cable is going the way of the dinosaur
No, voltage adapters are built into basically every electronic device now so it doesn't matter which you plug into
No. Capitalism is the primary engine for human development. Thanks to capitalism, fewer people now live in extreme poverty than don't. This means that, starting in the 1970s and accelerating today, less than half the world (and the number continues to decrease) lives in extreme poverty.
10 years ago, Republicans were the party of big business and Dems stood for the little guys, but today the tables have completely turned.
Bro I mean come on, this is literally an endorsement of the republican party. I don't know how more explicit it can get. You're asking people to not believe their own eyes here. Even worse:
By working on the front lines of many policy issues, we have seen the shift between Dems and Republicans over the past decade first hand. And that's a missed opportunity for Dems, because by and large, support for cracking down on corporate monopolies is popular on both sides of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, corporate capture of Dems is real and in the end money won. It is hard to see how this changes, and Republicans are likely to lead the antitrust charge in the coming years
He decries the "corporate capture" of the Democratic party while completely failing to address to much larger and more immediate threat of an outright christo-fascist movement capturing the entire Republican party and all 3 branches of federal government. Like he thinks that "the democrats didnt move as fast on this thing as I wanted them to" somehow compares to "the president is kidnapping people with a personal army of gestapo and disappearing them to a black site in El Salvador".
And you may say "well he's not interested in immigration policy; he's interested in technology policy". If you are in the business of privacy and security, then you should not be putting yourself in the corner of a political cult with zero respect for the law, zero guiding moral principles, and which is only motivated by using any means necessary to crush their political enemies. Yen is supporting a wannabe dictator because he's willing to weaponize the federal government to destroy his competitors.
If all he said was "good pick by Trump, look forward to working with them", I'd accept it as a politically neutral statement that you often see from business leaders and even democratic politicians sometimes. But he went out of his way to demonize the democratic party and somehow hold the Republicans up as the defenders of small business
It's such an unbelievably bad take (which he dug in on like 5 times even though he could have said nothing and waited for it to blow over) and completely tone deaf as to be unbelievable. Like I literally don't believe that he doesn't know what he's saying; I think he, like many tech CEOs, is simply a conservative who's too ashamed to admit it.
Why should I care why republicans wanted to break up tech monopolies, if breaking monopolies is anyway something that I consider a positive change?
Because they're not interested in breaking up monopolies; they're interested in threatening their political enemies with breakup so they can control speech on those platforms. Mark Zuckerberg is kowtowing to Trump now to avoid being broken up.
You think the Republicans are going to break up tech and create a more diverse online publishing ecosystem that's harder for any one party to control? No, they'll crush their enemies and bolster their allies, so we'll end up with even fewer choices
Fuck communism all my homies hate communism
England perfected it
Thailand has really cool plugs. they're shaped so they can fit European or American outlets, quite often. I rarely needed an adapter when I was there
Man sometimes I see teenagers walking around with their shoes untied. I'll tell them "hey your shoes untied" and they look at me like "... yeah, and?"
Well you are paying for the hosting you're just not paying for the service
I don't subscribe to any philosophy which advocates for the murder of its enemies