General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 62

Lol ok brrrroooooo

 

this is the general politics thread...we are capable of nothing.

 

Well you have a computer right? why do you have that? do you want it? is it a shitty thing? I would suggest donating all of your possessions and go to those countries and help them out. If you don't need things.. live with no things.

 

I guess I don't know what to call someone when they're actually completely devoid of understanding simple concepts. Idiot isn't acceptable. Ignorant maybe. That's okay, I guess. Maybe obtuse or vapid. Yeah, I like those.

 

If I lived under a more socialist government id probably have better access to the things I need/want.

 

I get it dude chill. I have learned socialism from you all. I like my things and that is my right as a free person. Now kindly turn in your computer and get off this site. They were made by evil capitalists.

 

Except in the places where you don't, right? If you're born in places where we exploit your land, workers, and culture, then fuck your freedoms. Freedom/opportunity/fair wages/etc. are for those born in the countries that do the exploiting. I don't think anyone in here has said "let's let the government make all of these decisions for workers!" because most of us recognize that governments are typically oppressive forces (specifically due to the influence of capital). Stop exploiting workers in the U.S., stop exploiting them around the world, give them actual control of their working conditions and productivity, and then we can feel good about freedom and opportunity and whatever else. Until then, this "America is the most powerful nation ever" shit can fuck itself because it has been achieved through murder, oppression, and corruption. Perhaps you feel O.K. with that.

 

Dom already said people shouldn't want things keep up.

 

End Private Property, Not Kenny Loggins | Jacobin

It's a very simple read, my friend.

 

Uh huh

 

This guy.

 

What I meant was that he seems to be talking in the manner suggestive of someone who isn't even aware of what socialism is as a proper concept. He even referred to democratic socialism as some kind of hybrid between socialism and capitalism, and said the phrase "full socialism." So arguing the merits or demerits of each system seems bound to fail since y'all are kind of two steps ahead of him

 

I get it, people own the company and want no profit. The problem is then you can never produce things people don't need, because if it turns out they don't want it, that company can't pay you anything... unless the government supplies you with the resources to continue. If they do that, your company is owned by the government, not you. So most likely no one would make the Kenny Loggins record. All businesses would be funded by the government in the end.

 

I wasn't aware of what democratic socialism was, you are right. I was referring to social democracy, but you can see why I was confused since Bernie uses it wrong.

 

Where do you keep getting these ideas that nobody can have "stuff" and the government will filter media to keep skilled workers here and choose our t-shirts?

It just seems to me like it's all being pulled out of your ass, and when someone says "I'm not advocating that" you just go "you have an iPod!!!" But like, what are you actually trying to say?

 

I have fabulous taste. I should be in whatever government position that chooses how people dress.

I will make Kanye's vision come true. Everyone will have dope shit.

 

Dom told me know one should own stuff they don't need.

 

I only ask because Dom's posts have been informative and helpful for someone like me who isn't as educated as he is on the effects of capitalism and/or what implementing socialism would entail.

Yours haven't really given me any idea what your perspective is except that you think America is great, which is only true for a certain type of person here

 

Did he though?

Also idk if that answered my question but okay. I'm not trying to pile onto you, I just don't understand your position. it seems like you aren't even reading people's posts, like you're just looking for a small insignificant things to latch onto and creating a narrative around them that somehow involves the government choosing my shirts

 

Also why is choosing your t-shirt and having your things more important to you than the lives of the people capitalism harms abroad?

The more I think about (what I can gather of) your position the more I dislike it

 

All of the things necessary to create the LPs would still exist -- the people who know how and enjoy making it, as well as the people who currently make up the "market" for them would still exist. All that would be missing is the middle-man who says "you can't use that equipment unless you give up a certain percentage of your time and labor in producing it to me," which invariably means the profits of your labor.

Actually, this brings us to an interesting point: Do you think it is fair or unfair when the future of a product--how it is made, who it is sold to and for how much, what happens with the profits, etc.--is out of the hands of the workers? Do you think it would be more fair or less fair to let the workers make these decisions?

 

I have given my points many times.. but they always come down to.. well other countries will be poorer if yours is richer. Everything costs money and resources. Countries do not have an unlimited amount. If they run out of a resource that say, makes a medicine, they will need to see if other countries have them. If they won't give it to you for free, and they want to actually make their county richer because it now has a lot of value, your country will get poorer. That is why I say all governments would need to buy into sharing resources, otherwise some countries will exploit the others. If you can't come to a deal with another country or refuse to work with them, then your people will go without it. A socialist country that doesn't engage in some sort of capitalism will fail, unless you are ok with your life being in the hands of the productivity of your country.

 

The resources would still exist, but your government would need to provide them for you. Remember, you have no control on how much capital your company has to operate. The government gives you x amount of resources, and you make as much as they will allow you. If no one is interested in what you make, or the gov is low on that resource, they can shut you down.

 

The problem isn't the computer. It is how it is produced. Like it or not, I exist within this system and I need to work or starve, so I have to have the things that allow me to do the things I do. I could, as an individual, give up all the things related to oppression, but that is just a politics of lifestyle. It is like recycling in that it might make one feel good, but is ultimately meaningless, so I choose to focus on building collective social change, which is what is necessary to address the scope of the problems in this world. I expect you won't understand the distinction I am making here.

 

"The government" is a nonentity here, you just keep bringing them up. The resources exist, and you continue to short-sell workers' abilities to obtain them on their own without a guiding force like the government. Furthermore, I'm scratching my head trying to think of something that people sink their time and energy into making even though no one wants it. I mean, as a capitalist, isn't your party-line that if there is no market or demand, it can't exist? So I don't see why you view this as a problem for socialists to fix. It seems to me that, almost naturally, energy spent making something is proportionate to the need or desire for it. So that isn't the problem here. The problem here is that you have people who take an exorbitant amount of the profits because they own the equipment and facilities you need to produce things and leave you, as a worker, only a small percentage to take home to your family and to your personal life, making the Kenny Loggins LPs and other things you do and use in your leisure time harder for you to afford.

I also don't see why you think that the government would have control over how much capital a company would get to operate. "The government", as far as I'm concerned, might as well not exist. The decisions about your business are made by you and your fellow workers. Statements like that are why I, and I assume others here, think you have a flawed conception of what socialism is and demonstrate an unwillingness to engage with the correct definition.