I never thought I would see the day that people WANTED algorithms. Jesus. Get of my lawn, kids.
- Posts
- 9
- Comments
- 332
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 9
- Comments
- 332
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
My Mastodon feed is kinda sad and boring
Either you’re following the wrong people or this says more about you than it does about mastodon
if I’m not on top of it I’ll just miss interesting posts that happened in the days I didn’t open the app.
Oh no!! Heaven forbid you miss a social media post!! Whatever will you do?!??
So stupid. Just use Mastodon. No algorithms. No billionaires. No monetization. No bullshit. And some really great folks, too.
Hey there! I read through Worker's Paradise and have some thoughts I'd like to discuss if you have the time:
It is not merely voting that is necessary for workers to truly be in charge in production. It does not matter how many votes are cast if the infrastructure simply does not exist to transform those inputs into outputs. If there is no infrastructure for actually developing the economy, all these votes will never lead to the democratic will of the voter actually being expressed.
Utopians believe that the problem is always lack of direct democracy. More and more direct democracy is always their solution. More and more voting. Voting is insufficient here. Without the tools to actually carry out economic plans, these votes will be for naught. The economy will never reflect the will of the workers.
The author does not elaborate on the reasoning for their assertion that voting will never bring into manifestation the will of the workers, except to say:
It had grown to the largest economy in the world while still largely planning everything by hand, and the planning technology and infrastructure was lagging far behind.
You can’t solve this problem by just having “more democracy”. It’s a problem of information. The economy was too enormous and complex to actually gather all that information and then respond to consumer demand. The USSR had tons of places for workers to have democratic input, but it did not matter. As its clunky system aged, it continually lacked the ability to efficiently transform any sort of democratic input into economic output.
The Soviet Union lacked the communication infrastructure to be able to allow democracy to actually be able to control the entirety of the huge system. Which is true, for the Soviet Union. At that time.
We have the technology today. We have the computers. We have the AI which can quickly and easily determine the most efficient options for our democratic processes to choose from.
Lenin instead encouraged encouraging market development in order to lay the foundations for socialized production.
socialism requires economic planning, economic planning requires big industry, and big industry can only be developed through market competition.
Why do they think big industry can ONLY be developed through market competition? What is the reasoning behind that? (Aside from what they have seen happen in the past, for older generations of people with very different material conditions to our own today?)
The transformation of capitalism into socialism must necessarily be a gradual process inline with gradual economic development, and complete abolition of private property would only be possible with incredibly, incredibly high levels of economic development.
This is true. So why are you all so against voting in the United States' two-party system, when that very voting will continue to allow incredibly high levels of economic development and the GRADUAL socialization of industry and society?
Economic democracy implies that the will of the workers is directing, planning, the economy. Economic planning inherently requires large-scale infrastructure. Large-scale infrastructure cannot be decreed into existence, but can only come into existence efficiently through market mechanisms.
The market has created that large-scale infrastructure. Let's use it to make the world better.
Marxists should drop the obsession of implementing some “workers’ utopia”.
Then what is it all for? Why do anything if it doesn't lead to an eventual utopia where everyone has their needs met and we can just hang out in parks and play games all day? Isn't that what the whole point of this thing is?? Is that NOT what we are striving for?
people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity.
Marx himself wanted that utopia. We have the means of achieving it today, because, as the author says, we allowed the market to create that large-scale infrastructure. The process worked. We're here now, and now we inherently deserve to be able to have a say in what we do with it. Because we're sentient beings. We deserve to have control over our own lives.
This article is merely a defense of capitalism (and the way that China has structured itself in particular). There's logic behind it, of course, and that's clearly laid out. But it's based on presuppositions. It's based on the idea that this is the ONLY way to achieve that utopia.
In fact, the article itself basically says "resign yourself to the idea of never having control over your life, because you're never going to create a utopia, so you might as well just be content being a cog in the wheel of the system and be thankful that we who are in control continue to allow you to live" which is no better than the slavery system that (I thought) we (and marx) are trying to get society away from!
Same.
I once had this happen to me. When I reached their window, they threw a half-full beer at me. I was 14. I came home smelling like beer. My parents knew I wasn't cool enough to be drinking beer at 14, so I didn't get in trouble at all.
Matrix is the only discord clone I know about. Does it have massive problems?
Appreciate the response. I don't have time right now to read through it fully, but I will soon. And I will check out the references you mention as well. Thanks again for being a nice person.
Oh, you're oh so clever.
I am against genocide, and I am acting accordingly. I am voting for the candidate that will cause less genocide, not more.
Thanks for the reply. Honestly, it's refreshing being able to actually discuss this with someone and not just be dismissed/blocked/banned "for being a shitlib"... Anyway, I appreciate you. I'm listening to your points and considering them before replying myself. I hope that you have the patience to hear me out as well. Feel free to reply to any part of the response below. Curious to hear your thoughts.
Bernie has been entirely cast aside by the DNC proper, though.
He was dismissed by the DNC proper before he even declared his candidacy. The fact that they allowed him to A) Run as a Democrat, and B) Stand on the debate stage, means that something big is happening and they saw that if they didn't, they would have an internal revolt on their hands.
The people love him for being a Social Democrat, not even a Socialist, and yet he has no power over policy.
He actually has a tremendous amount of influence now relative to the rank-and-file Democrats. He chairs the Senate Budget Committee, which is actually a huge deal in our system. It's astonishing, really, that they would allow a SocDem to control that committee. It shows they know the writing is on the wall and that they know Capitalism is in decay, and that they have to make capitulations otherwise they are doomed.
He has inspired an entire generation (my generation) to get into politics to try to change it from inside. AOC and "The Squad" are a perfect example. Prior to Bernie's rise in popularity, it would have been UNTHINKABLE that people like them could not only run as Democrats and be supported by the party apparatus, but also win and become influential members of the establishment of the party.
They are the future of the party. It's no longer the Clinton/Blue Dog/Third Way that are the future of the party. It's The Squad and SocDems and eventually full-throated Socialists. Because the culture is changing in America. Step by step.
As Capitalism decays, leftism rises in popularity.
I've always contended that Capitalism isn't exactly in decay, but rather just reverting back to the Feudalism from which it stemmed, which was the plan all along. When Feudalism was "in decay" in the early 1800's, both Socialism and Capitalism rose in popularity. Capitalism won out because of a number of factors, but it is my contention that a few of the major factors included:
- The concept of true democracy was completely foreign to those generations. Humanity hadn't had actual democracy since the Greeks (and even then, only marginally). We'd lived under Feudalism for centuries until the revolutions of the 1700's/1800's. People weren't used to not having a hierarchy. It was a foreign concept to be able to have an equal say in how the world was organized and run. Unthinkable, for those generations.
- The socialists and anarchists used terrorism and violence to try to influence the masses, which always has the opposite of the desired effect. Nobody likes a bully (unless it's "their" bully). Rule by fear does not work, long-term.
- The Capitalists, on the other hand, offered the illusion of self-determination, the illusion of freedom of choice. Capitalists didn't have to bomb people to get them to join their cause. They just had to pay them. They did have the challenge, however, to organize the new system so that the serfs (workers) could only survive by working for the lords (the capitalists), just as they did under feudalism. Give the serfs the illusion of freedom by allowing them the "freedom" to choose a different master who may afford them some marginally better conditions, or the "opportunity" to become a master themselves by going into debt to the king (the rich capitalists/banking institutions), and feed them the hope that eventually they could pay off that debt if they were "successful" at exploiting other serfs and earning a profit off their "cheap" labor.
Obviously, the Feudal Aristocracy saw that the Capitalists were "their kind of people" and therefore the money and the power won out for Capitalism. Socialists could have used that same playbook, but we were blinded by our own passion and compassion for our fellow human beings.
I firmly believe that had humanity not been so resigned to hierarchy in the first place, more and longer lasting revolutions and democracies would have sprung up even in the face of that power.
The failure of the AES experiments, in my opinion, is that they have emulated the tactics of the feudalists, using violence and establishing their own authoritarian hierarchy, in order to give the people, who weren't used to democracy in the first place, something familiar. The contradiction between our socialist ideals and the establishment of a hierarchy used to force those ideals down the throats of people who aren't culturally prepared for the changes (and therefore who are antagonistic to the changes, as all humans are to all changes), irreparably cracks and weakens the system, necessitating more and more force to maintain itself. Add to that the outside influences working at every moment to thwart the socialist efforts, and the internal mismanagement and cults-of-personality that lead to policies that created famines, and you can see why it all failed. Violence is never a long-term solution.
Now that we have had a century or so of cultural changes such that democracy is the expected "norm" I believe that a move further to the left is not only inevitable, but achievable through nonviolent means. Through further cultural shifts, we could change the system over time. This generation is ready. The boomers were not. Gen-X was open to the idea. Millennials are socialists, by and large. Gen-Z are fucking communists and ready to fucking go.
But that will take some leadership and guidance and yes, some "force" from the existing hierarchy in the form of laws that encourage leftward movement and respect for our fellow human beings.
And it will take time. A lot of leftists are passionate (admirably so, of course), and impatient, and want change immediately, and are willing to kill to get it.
My opinion is that violent revolutions are short-lived and generally have resulted in much worse outcomes than the conditions they were initially revolting from. For instance, look at the French Revolutions, or the American Revolution. The Russian revolutions are another example. The Korean, Vietnamese, and Cuban revolutions were all thwarted by the forces that arose from the previously mentioned violent revolutions.
If we truly believe in the general purposes of our cause (to make life better for everyone), then we have to look for a solution that will last millennia. That will only come from cultural change, and lasting cultural change is one in which the majority of the people are culturally inclined to not be fucking dicks to each other, and that comes from a lack of scarcity. Capitalism has given us that lack of scarcity. And now it's time to use it to our social advantage.
Fascists win when liberals side with them over leftists. Read the first chapter of Blackshirts and Reds.
The left needs to stop living in the past. Yes, learn some lessons from those dead men, but take a look at the current generations and plan for the future. We're not going back to the glory days of socialist uprisings and guillotines. We just aren't. Face that reality. Embrace the hope for the future.
Why would I risk the actual neo Nazis gaining power?
The people have more power than you think. It was UNTHINKABLE for 70 years that a major party would even entertain someone who is sympathetic to socialism like Bernie Sanders. Yet they allowed him a national stage in the past two elections. That’s actual cultural and institutional change that is happening quite rapidly actually.
Your expectations and aspirations need to be adjusted to the reality of what levels of change humans are capable of accepting over time.
You saw how the country (and the world) reacted to the election of the first (half) black president, right?
The entirety of this surge of right wing neo-Nazi fervor we are seeing across the world over the past 16 years is a direct result of the deep-seated racism of the people who vote.
The people who don’t vote (and those who vote for a losing but admirable third party) have had no say in the matter. You are respectfully abstaining, and allowing the fascists to dominate.
I contend that those third party voters and nonvoters could have stemmed the tide of fascism we are seeing today. Without you, we are weaker than the fascists. And the fascists will keep on winning.
Absolutely. But the party itself is made up of regular people who got involved on the local level first, in their local parties.
Don’t you want to change the party? Or are you content to sit back and do nothing except help the actual, unapologetic nazis gain power?
You don’t think that the parties are formed by the voters and participants in the process?
That’s been happening for decades. Libertarians have only ever existed because the Republicans used to be tacitly against racism.
It literally just a DuckDuckGo search away, my friend, if you really want details.
But here’s the first article that I found for you and some highlights: https://www.politico.eu/article/united-states-divide-foreign-policy-democrats-republicans/
Actual survey noted in the article: https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/americans-goals-us-foreign-policy
just one-in-five (20%) Republicans that took part in our survey think it’s very important to protect weaker nations against aggression, or promote and defend human rights in another country. And only one-in-seven (14%) think it’s very important to limit climate change.
By comparison, 44% of participating Democrats believe it’s very important to protect weaker nations, 47% percent support promoting human rights, 57% percent think strengthening the U.N. is very important and 74% see limiting climate change as a very important goal.
Alright, man. Whatever you say.
No, we just want your vote to counter the literal fascists who are poised to take over the United States and have an exact plan this time. (Project 2025).
Yeah, I guess I do that sometimes. Sorry.