There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.
this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
478 points (100.0% liked)
196
16488 readers
1883 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This sounds like you want to implement social changes within the existing system. This is the lie of progressives and radlibs. It will never work. We need to dissolve the United States of America. There is nothing here worth salvaging, save the people.
No, I want to radically change the system. Doing that of course involves using the system. We need to move from liberal democracy to social democracy. And our democracy must be fixed to have majority rule. It can work, but nothing is guaranteed. This is no different than how a revolution can succeed, but has no guaranteed outcome. As long as we have a democracy we might as well use it.
Dissolving the US will result in the death of hundreds of millions of people. People have to eat. When societies collapse, their populations tank with them, because the people lose the state centralization they are dependent on to get basic necessities.
There is no saving the people without inclusive political and economic institutions. If we value people then we must fix the systems they depend on to live.
Social democracy is a farce. That's exactly what I mean. It's a fairy tale told by progressives and radlibs
Sounds like you desperately need to read some theory. This is some liberal shit
Edit: I see in your comment history you calling yourself a "progressive." You're lying now and saying leftist. I think you're completely untrustworthy.
It's a political ideology with a set of ideas and policies. Social democracies have existed in Nordic countries for decades. How they have done is debatable, but they do exist.
I recommend Why Nations Fail. It's been really good so far, but I'm still only half way through. So far, they seem to have missed that capitalism is inherently extractive and thus always at odds with an inclusive political institution like democracy. Private corporations are inherently incentivized by profit margins to undermine democracy. To remove regulations, oversight, taxes, etc. This is the contradiction of liberal democracy that social democracy solves. By adopting socialism, so the workers own the companies they work for, workers are included in both the nation's political and economic intuitions. Since only the worker class exists, there is no one being incentivized to undermine the people's institutions.
I hope neoliberals like Biden starts saying stuff like that, that would be awesome.
This book and the things you're describing here may be left of, say, typical neoliberalism in that it entertains some thoughts about the perpetual threat of revolution, but ultimately it is yet another propaganda piece published in a desperate attempt to maintain the chains of capitalist society. Of course, some leftist theories don't even seek change through revolution, opting instead for more of a community-style approach, which is why you see groups like the Zaptistas. No leftist theory of which I'm aware seeks change (at least, not the bulk of its change) through the existing system. This would be absurd in that it is true that there will always be inequities inherent to capitalism. Take the most socially democratic state in the world, and they're still relying on wage inequities, forced labor, and worse.
Here are some personal suggestions, as a starting point:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/carlo-cafiero-karl-marx-s-capital
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
There are four I'd personally recommend.
There are non-monetized youtube channels with free audiobook versions of all of these books, if you prefer audio.
I appreciate the recommendations.
Theory is great, but we have to apply the theory to our real lives as best we can. As I said, how effective existing social democracies have been is debatable, but they are a working model of some, but not all, of the ideas and policies. Grassroot movements seek to radically change the system using the system. That's the modern progressive experiment. The only way to find out if it works is to do it. Like anything else I believe success is possible, but not guaranteed.
"working" model in that they're working as intended-- by churning profits out of an inherently inequitable system.
Sounds like you might be a neoliberal tbh
What I don't understand is your fixation with claiming that people aren't what they claim to be. I've seen it in this comment section. You did it with another anarchist. I am a social democrat. I don't know any neoliberals who would say any of the things that I believe in and tell people about.
You've said many times that you're an anarchist on lemmy. I don't see why you would lie about that. But I really don't get why you engage in this discourse this way. You are by no means the only person who does this by the way. So, it's been nagging at me. I go around telling people about my socialist political views in my day to day life when politics comes up.
You are an anarchist in real life right? You tell people something to the effect of "I'm an anarchist and I think we should live in some form of stateless society" when discussions of politics come up. Your political views as an anarchist are not some internet persona you adopt for fun right? This isn't some kind of fictional fan wiki page you like to maintain? You actually want to live in a state of anarchy IRL? I am genuinely asking, this is not a rhetorical line of reasoning.
If social democracy is to out there for you to see working in real life, I can't image you wanting to be an anarchist. We don't have a way to make a true stateless society work at the scale of 8.1 billion people. It would be cool if we did. I think it's possible. I just don't know how to make that work yet. Hopefully someone actually figures it out one day.
We have concrete ideas and policies to purse with social democracy so that is why I purse creating that system. If I had a better system to pursue I would do so. I believe social democracy is not the end all be all of political and economic inventions. Just a strict improvement over liberal democracy.
I think the worlds nations adopting social democracy is not detrimental to anarchism. If anything, I think it would broaden people's horizons to the possibility of some kind of stateless society. So I don't see why an anarchist would be against social democracy. It's probably not an anarchist's ideal society, but I don't see why it would necessarily be something to oppose. There is a progression to any technology. Political and economic ideas are no different. We have to crawl before we can walk.
Inclusive political and economic intuitions like democracy and socialism are about people deciding how to run things for themselves. We use representation in democracy to make it scale, not because we want some absolute authority to dictate to use how to live our lives. We want leaders not rulers. We want freedom so we create and maintain systems that include the people who live in them so we can all make decisions about our own lives. But the systems have to work for the hundreds of millions or even billions of people who live with those systems. The answer to our current societal problems cannot be, let almost everyone die, so the survivors can live under a more ideal system that scales to their smaller population. People matter. edit: typo
That's no anarchist
Okay, I don't follow. But please answer my question. It wasn't rhetorical. If me just asking you this bugs you so much, so you wouldn't answer the first time I asked, I don't get why it would be a go to option for you to say to other people. Is this just gatekeeping then?
No it's literally them espousing pro-state liberal propaganda while calling themselves anarchist
Thats not me gatekeeping, that's just them lying
Am I also a liar espousing state propaganda according to you? There is no possibility we could be ideologically aligned in anyway?
I thought as much at first, but I think you just need to read some theory and stop listening to liberals
That other user has an extensive comment/post history defending the establishment
I can't imagine how many mental gymnastics it would take to try to make that reconcile with anarchism
It's simular to Biden claiming not to be a fascist while doing ... what he's doing
Alright. I still think what we believe is not in conflict with each other. But I am going to agree to disagree on what we should do about the election.
That's fair. I'll probably end up voting for whatever ghoul (Biden) wins the primaries, but if I do I'm sure as hell not going to let them know that's what I'm doing. Democrats need to stop this good cop/bad cop act if they expect us to vote for them.
Biden makes Jeffrey Dahmer look like Mary Poppins by comparison
Social Democracy isn't Socialism, it's Capitalism with safety nets. Workers do not own the Means of Production in Nordic Countries.
I believe reading Leftist theory would do a lot for you.
It is is a form of socialism. The fact it has a market economy does not mean it is capitalism.
I didn't say they did. Like most countries they have a mixed economy. No one has yet abandoned capitalism entirely. The fact they haven't adopted every socialist position does not mean they aren't socialist. I am saying social democracies need to adopt that policy. Workers owning corporations as apposed to share holders is not incompatible with social democracy, but a logical inclusion.
You know this stuff isn't just theory right? It has practical applications in real life too.
Social Democracy is not Market Socialism. Social Democracy is Capitalism with expansive social safety nets, not Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. This is fundamental. Again, Social Democracy is not a transitional state towards Socialism nor Socialism itself, but welfare Capitalism.
Leftist theory does in fact have practical applications. Being confidently incorrect as you have been is impractical, hence the importance of theory.
This is a description of current working social democracies which have not fully adopted socialism and still have potential in that regard. Social democracy is a collection of ideas and policies. Workers owning companies as opposed to share holders is not incompatible with social democracy even if it's not something that's being done currently at scale. Again market economies are not inherently capitalist. Welfare is also a part of the picture, but it's not enough it's own. Welfare is covering for systemic issues that have to fundamentally fixed.
Yes, it does have practical applications. I have nothing to do with the veracity of the ideas I espouse. Theory can only take us so far. I'm not interested in being limited by our current iteration of social democracy or our current definitions of socialism or social democracy. If we go with the description of social democracy in your argument, then that will be insufficient to fix our current societal problems.
Believe me, I understand what Capitalism is and isn't, what Socialism is and isn't, and what Social Democracy is and isn't. Social Democracy isn't Socialism, and the Nordic Countries are not Socialist, nor are they moving towards Socialism.
Yes, Social Democracy is insufficient. We need both leftist theory and practice. You are attempting to reject what leftists have learned and built on to do what has already failed, a mistake no leftist should be making.
Social democracy is a form a socialism. Social democrats in Nordic Countries apparently are aligning themselves with groups on the right. I am saying we need to move to socialism.
I think we are talking past each other at this point. I'm very much saying we need workers to own corporations as part of social democracy.
Social Democracy is not a form of Worker Ownership but welfare Capitalism.
You are calling Market Socialism Social Democracy, despite Nordic Countries not being Market Socialist.
Again, this is a description of current social democracies. This is not what am I advocating for with social democracy.
No, I was just pointing out social democracies exist. They currently have mixed economies like most countries in the world.
You aren't advocating for Social Democracy then, but Market Socialism. Why call it something it isn't? That's like saying you want Communism with Capitalists, you're redefining established terms.
I would argue the majority of what I argue for is social democracy. The fact I'm arguing for workers owning their companies does not exclude the system I'm arguing for from being social democracy. I want a market economy, I just want the workers to own that market economy.
So you don't want Social Democracy, you want Market Socialism. Absolutely none of what you have said so far indicates Social Democracy over Market Socialism.
Again, a worker owned market, is Market Socialism, not Social Democracy.
We are discussing workers owning the companies they work for. I don't need to explain every other idea I hold because the one being discussed could fit in another box. My point is that workers owning the companies they work for fits into social democracy. Ideas do not respect your rigid categorizations. And this splitting hairs is effectively a moot point.
Also I want social democracy.
No, workers owning the companies they work for is not compatible with Social Democracy. Your point is akin to saying you want Communism with Capitalists, or a state with Anarchism.
Let me ask this: what do you believe Social Democracy is, and why are you against advocating for Market Socialism, which is exactly what you have been advocating for if we take you at your word?
Social democracy combines the inclusive economic institution of socialism with the inclusive political institution of democracy. In short people have a say in both their economy and government. Listing things off the top of my head that a social democracy should include are things like health care paid for by the government, a government run retirement program like social security, food stamps provided by the government, government housing, government maintained public drinking fountains, government provided internet access. If something is needed routinely by people in order to survive then the government should have a hand in making sure that they get that thing. Market economies by default fire the poorest customer in pursuit of profit. It isn't profitable to house everyone, so not everyone gets a roof over their head, but everyone needs shelter in order to live.
In the spirit of inclusive economic and political institution alone, I would say workers owning the companies they work for is consistent with social democracy. Corporations will still be pursing the profit motive. The difference is that the C-staff will beholden to make profit for the workers and not the share holders. The system is still reliant on a welfare state to avoid people falling through the cracks and make sure everyone gets their basic necessities. I'm sure some social democrats would say we don't have to go this far and that a mixed economy is sufficient. I have come to the opinion that we do need to go farther in this specific regard. As long as the owner class exists, even with sufficient wealth distribution, which is still needed, they will be incentivized to overthrow democracy. By having one class of people, workers, there is no class with the incentive to overturn democracy for profit. We need to have a real say in our place of work, as it has a tremendous impact on our lives and the best way to do that is for workers to own it.
So you want Democratic Socialism, not Social Democracy, got it. You even say you disagree with Social Democrats.
I believe you are confusing the goals of a system with the structure. Once you transition to Socialism, you are no longer a Social Democracy.
Not all people of any given ideology agree. I am going to focus on a distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy I believe is important, this is not the only distinction. Democratic socialism is democracy agnostic. They are fine with socialism being achieved with a democracy or with a revolution. I want democracy and socialism. And I want to achieve socialism through a political revolution. Unlike democratic socialists, this a non-negotiable point for me as a social democrat. In the event, we lose our democracy, I'm not going to obstruct somebody's revolution. Pickers can't be choosers. But as long as we have a democracy I am going to leverage that power to achieve a social democracy. Political revolution is the way I want to achieve socialism. And if I did have to hypothetically achieve socialism as part of a violent revolution, a social democracy is the kind of system I would like to create.
You're a reformist Democratic Socialist, who wishes to create Democratic Socialism.
Social Democracy is first and foremost Capitalism with Social Safety Nets. The underlying principle of Social Democracy is that Capitalism is unjust if left alone, but can be weilded in the interests of all. You clearly disagree with this notion, so why identify with it?
You do not speak for me. I am social democrat. We need the market economy of capitalism. We just don't need share holders or private business owners.
So Market Socialism.
Social democracy. Trying to tell me what I believe with an arbitrary system of rigid definitions is both ineffective and easily refuted argument.
I'm aware of what you believe, I am also aware of what the systems that describe your beliefs are referred to by everyone else.
I am not telling you what you believe, but what the label is.
I recommend a descriptive approach to definitions as opposed to a prescriptive approach. I think that would resolve a lot of the discourse we are having. I have explained what I mean in my argument. Your argument centers on this false idea that definitions can limit what a person thinks and believes. But definitions are only as useful as they help us communicate.