what happened to diem25

@Gerry aight ill give it a crack

democratic socialism is non-revolutionary in nature

but you have the entire history of the media and almost all public and private institutions against socialism

which means most of the population is brainwashed into thinking socialism is evil/bad/doesnt work

so if everyone is brainwashed to think its bad and the institutions in place keep it that way, but DemSoc is non-revolutionary in nature, how will it ever be elected into majority power?

(i dont think it can be)

so if you want a DemSoc economy, you'll need to have a revolution

which is fundamentally not democratic socialism

does this mean Marxism is the way to go?

of course not

the endgoal of most Marxisms is communism

and i dont think you need to really be convinced of why that is a bad idea

okay you dont understand democratic socialism then

thats pretty simple

do you think the USSR was democratic?

do you think the USSR was market socialism?

why would you consider a single election over 80 years democratic

yea how is that democratic

every other ideology is outlawed

but thats not even the main point

you think socialism is evil because of its economic failure

thats *planned economies*

i agree, totally spastic idea

idk what possessed the "communists" to try it

the socialism advocated for today is market socialism

ie we dont abolish the markets that exist in capitalism

theyre good and useful

we just have extremely heavy restrictions on ownership

ie if a company gets above $x marketcap, its either nationalised or mutualised

see thats where youre wrong

point to a single example where thats been true

(i can point to a million examples of private ownership going wrong)

well i personally advocate for discretion

rather than particular number

BUT

i know

so if we did have to use a number

we dont have to mandate nationalisation

it can be mutualisation

ie the workers all get a slice of the revenues

but you know what we can do to keep the incentives in place?

we allow the original owner to have the same piece he had before

so there is still inequality generated by successful entrepreneurship

but its capped

yea so then debunk it bud

no omfg

okay let me make it clearer

say you hold 100 shares

and your net revenues are say $100

each share is worth about $1 in net revenue

if $100 was the mutualisation or nationalisation mark

we hand everyone in the company 1 share each, but each share is divided amongst the net profits *above the $100 in net revenue*

so the owner's shares are fundamentally worth a different amount to the newly issued shares

and they are left untouched

you know how in capitalism we have different classes of shares?

preference shares

class A shares

class B shares

similar concept

no they do

the owner still gets 1 share of the new class

so he still gets a piece of all future profits

but regardless, the point is that beyond a certain business value, the business itself is more than just 1 person providing the bulk of the value

its about the workers to a larger degree

yes

so?

no dude

when the shares are issued to the workers, they will get voting rights. now they can vote to keep the original owner in charge if theyre happy with his management

if theyre not happy

then fuck the cunt

no it doesnt

what leads to poor economics is when you constrict demand by ensuring wages dont go up

bro you still have management

omfg

no dude the workers vote for management and you can have *policy for retrenchments*

If people dont like the retrenchments, bad luck

next AGM they can vote on it

if they run the business into the ground, *they lose their job*

actually lets think about like this bro

say you have 1000 workers

and you have $10000 in profit

each worker gets $10

if you fire 100 people

theres 900 people sharing $10000

guess what

*theyve increased their wages*

yes it fucking does

so the argument goes both ways

yes so they cant fire everyone

theyre incentivised to fire the optimal amount

if they fire too many, they lose wages

if they keep too many, they lose wages

except in this system, the workers have it better

YES

so stop arguing against it

no but dude, in the modern system, a higher share of the profits goes to the shareholders who dont work

if you dont have to ship off billions to shareholders, you get more for the workers

yep and if you change the nature of investment from favouring couch potato old fucks, to giving the workers the capital, you get a *better and happier workforce*

thats my fucking point