galloog1 @ galloog1 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

474

Joined

2 yr. ago

Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

-Dylan Thomas

The engagement is fleeting but the spoiling of the narrative is forever.

A robust and non-ideological non-profit sector is key to any form of healthy capitalist system. That should be an agreeable statement to anyone regardless of if they like or hate capitalism.

Develop, yes. Consider right now, absolutely not. Words matter.

I addressed your core points directly. Your attacks are rapidly devolving. Capitalism is not flawless which is why I mentioned the term externalities that you conveniently ignored. It means I am trying to get you to actually address problems instead of using intentionally vague but radical language. Does this normally work for you with anyone that doesn't already agree with you?

You mentioned an order of events, I followed it. The damage was done and then priced in. They have been attempting to do damage control to limit its scope and investors are betting on the likelihood of a cascade.

Now who's jumping to conclusions? Personal attacks are a logical fallacy but thanks for making your own bad faith approach blatantly obvious.

There are as many different definitions of neoliberalism as there are people that know the term. Your argument is a populist one.

The moon is a fulcrum.

I'm not so sure that it will have negative long term impacts. The damage has been done. They don't see reversing it as improving their chances to turn things around. In terms of investors, if they are willing to shell out cash for Reddit right now, maybe they deserve their fate.

I'm terms of your political opinion, the only thing I know is you don't like capitalism. You either don't understand the definition of it, subscribe to what I addressed broadly, or believe in a former dead form of economic system. Really, it's on you to be specific.

If the ownership of the means of production is still held privately, it is still capitalism. That's the base definition. I'm sorry but you just don't understand basic definitions.

It's a very loose term to begin with but that's it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+capitalism

Which is why their valuation had already halved. Do you guys consider your arguments even beyond the surface level? A company doing dumb things and then tanking because of it is not an argument against capitalism. If it were the only local option run by the community (as would be in the most unrealistic and ideal anarchist worldview), you'd be here same as it is currently but your local community production would still be supporting that option. Bad leadership and dumb incentives are not the sole domain of corporate structures.

Sure but it does not change the system from a capitalist one so it is still capitalism regulated by market forces.

Regulation is still capitalism. People in the western left and right seem to have forgotten this. The means of production are owned by private individuals. That's just laws. It's an equal playing field. Government programs are where it starts to get muddied.

Sure but in terms of a general strike, you will know the labor that really matters and what doesn't. Critical labor in the West is compensated accordingly by the market, even by Western standards.

Just change all the /r/ to /c/

Start changing all the /r/ subreddit advertisements to /c/. That's the most strategic way to send the message.

How would that system work and how would it account for minorities? Should people be allowed to do as they see fit even if the majority determines it to be a waste of time or resources? The second you start getting into areas of central planning is when the oppression starts. If your proposed system is more smaller communities, that is when the famine starts.

I know it seems old to say that this has all been tried before but it really has. The USSR started as a unity of small communities (soviets) and they found that they could not run a society that way so they centralized planning. Racism played a part with the Holodomor, literally taking food from the most fertile region in the USSR and ensuring that Russians had enough. Anyone who was not Russian was worse off under the USSR which is why you see the eastern European former Soviet block countries be so anti-communist and so anti-Russia. It is also why you see the Russians remembering it fondly. They were the benefactors as the majority in the system. They also left the USSR rather than be in a majority Muslim USSR as Eastern European countries split off.

So, that's all fine and well you might say but that's not true Marxism because they centralized planning. The Chinese agreed with you which is why they refused to centralize for decades causing huge famines. They too eventually centralized planning. They too have used this economic power to oppress minorities.

You can argue that Marxism is more of an ideal that you are striving towards (and Marx himself did argue that) and that is the current CCP argument. They have a mixed economy like any other but they do not allow any party other than themselves which provides no check on power at all. It begrudgingly allows businesses but has no checks on their power until it endangers the efforts of the state. As long as the state, people, and businesses align in efforts, they are more efficient...and we're unironically at the definition of National Socialism.

I think these conversations died a long time ago so people forgot how to have them and relate to them in a way that they can understand. I also think that way too many people view socialism as a catchall for forcing through the changes they would rather see in society instead of doing the groundwork to actually change society. Giving more economic power to the majority won't make it less racist, you just gave the racists more power.

How would giving complete economic power to the government eliminate special interests? Sure, it lowers their economic power in dollar terms but it does not lower their influence or incentives.

I would reply asking if the people that are making these claims are actually the labor. Are service workers actually the ones producing anything? Western labor is compensated quite well relative to the rest of society which is why these ideas never go anywhere in the West. If you are not an actual laborer, why are you so pro-labor power?

Fascism as a system is defined as purity of effort. It comes from the literal Italian word for a bundle of sticks. Alone they are weak. Together and united they are strong.

The cultural element is that it favors uniformity as an element of unity. This is where the militarism comes in but it is not entirely defined by it. It also manifests itself in civic works and progress. It seeks to unify those that are similar. Here one of the key points though. Fascism is okay with the existence of other groups, just that they are not a participant in their system and seeks to bring those that are into the system.

It aligns efforts and systems regardless of their origin towards the goals of the state. This includes corporations and state organizations. It will nationalize organizations that work against the state and ostracize groups that are not aligned with the majority. It roots out internal dissent within government as an inefficiency.

A socialist form of system absolutely can be fascist. A fascist government does not inherently need a dictator but it is inherently authoritarian. It does not matter if the means of production are corporate, individual, or government as it is about unity of effort and uniformity as a force for progress.

These are clearly defined parameters.

You only see fascism come in when citizens see a lack of progress as a result of social issues. It's not left politics that it is reacting to, it is the violence and chaos on the streets that inspires a strong reaction. People perceive the distribution as the cause of the problems that actually impact them. They literally see the destruction of their property and their neighborhoods being caused by these radicals. They see the inability of the liberal state to stop it because it allows for that dissent and disunity. Voters remember a time when people were united. Then they see these groups coming in and fighting back. They are literally cleaning up the streets and defending their neighborhoods at a ground level. They look and act like them so they trust them. They see that snowball into progress at a larger level and start to increasingly trust the approach and who they are told is causing the issues in society. They saw it for themselves and so they trust that it's the truth that they cannot see now.

When an outside group refuses to confirm or leave, that's when you start getting increasingly strong forms of solutions to the perceived problem. This is where you see language around a final solution come from. You can disband organizations but people must be removed.

It does not need to be the left. It actually could be the right. National Socialism was called what it was for a reason. It was reacting to the right in society. It started out as being for the nationalization of resources within Germany. As it gained power, it was okay with corporations as long as it worked on behalf of the state. Fascism is agnostic to socialism vs capitalism until it is working against them. Nazis are not socialists, except they are when the corporations are perceived to be working against the efforts of the majority.

Unity of effort is a powerful and efficient thing. It does not take into account the benefits of diversity or the social benefits of dissent as a force for moderation. When you put fascism against a liberal society, the united liberal society is typically able to innovate around a united but uniform approach against them given enough time. It also wins more allies on average. Unity is typically the challenge as diverse societies have a lot of differences.

So, why is Russia fascist now? The Russian citizens went through an extended period of change that worsened the average Russian's life. Most remember a time when they were more united or at least felt that way. There's outside corporations and organizations perceived to be degrading Russian life. There's chaos on the streets and separatists everywhere and the new modern liberal society is unable to stop it. You have someone come into power that has cleaned up the streets and focused on progress. They've focused on defending the average Russian from these inside threats that are rotting Russia from the inside. They are saying that life was better when Russians were united. They want to get back to the way it was and bring Russians back in to the fold. There's a focus on unity of government, corporation, and culture. There's a systemic stamping out of dissent regardless of the source.

Russia probably would be faring a lot better if they hadn't been a huge gainer from the smaller states in the USSR. Only Russians were better under the USSR, not the smaller states. This is why the Holodomor is so significant. Ukrainians were less important for food than the Russians because they dissented. I would argue that the USSR was also a fascist state but it gets a lot muddier in that discussion to the point where it almost doesn't matter.

This is an ethnic argument, further pointing to the idea that you are making distinctly fascist points in this thread.