Message from @ManAnimal
Discord ID: 600525089922088982
@Scale_e Think of it as a scale. On one end you have NeoCon and on the other end you have Alt Right, then between Alt Right and NeoCon is Alt Lite. Its pretty simple to understand.
Alt Lite is a term to describe people who fit where I just explained they fit.
My issue with communism is that people never scale it up incrementally, and implementation at a large scale always seems to come with massive human rights abuses.
@Arthur Grayborn these communes you describe... aren’t communist. They are cooperatives existing within a capitalist country. They work because they can still engage in the capitalism that exists around them.
it cannot be scaled incrementallly
National Socialism, isnt socialism (as in Stalin/Lenin socialism) change my mind
@Scale_e - Cooperatives dominating an economic system, with more central management, would effectively turn the system into a "socialist" economic system.
because those providing the inpute will always divert that input
Yeah you could say its like Nordic country socialism, or even some DNC members
bill gates or steve jobs wouldn't have invented computers without individual incentives
But I mean like stalin socialism
@Vir It is a form of Socialism, but its non-Marxist socialism. Socialism doesn't have to be a bad word, its not Communism.
inevitaby people just do the min they can and get by
you can't force a person to create or improve if they don't beleive in the fairy tale
My point is that there are examples of syndicalism, communism, and socialism that nobody minds. Few people have an issue with it.
It's more when people try to scale it up, they usually do a shit job of it.
For every functional state owned utility, there are two more than are run like shit because political pandering becomes more critical to job promotion than qualification or capability.
but you can incentivize them based on what they want themselves which they can purchae with capital
i see where you are going but those are not the same
they aren't systems of economics
they are systems of cooperation
Socialism = State owns the means of production.
Communism = Socialism, but with less central control and less inequality (IE - Your manager's apartment is no bigger than yours)
it's more than that
it's about the DECISION of allocation
what type of factory to build and when?
what to make?
@Ϻ14ᛟ But what does that scale represent? The positions you describe are completely different ideologies. It’s not a sliding scale of “less conservative” to “more conservative”.
The only possible rational behind that scale could be “The SJW types hate one end a little bit more than the other end.”
where to build it?
The state is just a means of social organization.
No different than a corporation, except in the scope it's allowed to operate. The state prevents others from hijacking certain state roles by means of socially sanctioned violence.
each decisions is a risk with a cost
the ownere absorbs the risk that the worker does not
Some states are family owned (monarchy), others by everyone (democracy), others by an elite few (oligarchy)
the 'means of production' don't make productivity
only the APPLICATION Of those means to the CORRECT activity makes productivity
The state is different to a corporation. The state should represent an ideology. A core set of values. It should give its citizens part of their identity. It is not merely a business with special privileges and responsibilities.
the market aggregates these factors and gives a moment to moment feel for what the best allocation of those means are
I'm just saying there are pragmatic reasons to oppose communism and socialism, and those pragmatic reasons should be a bigger factor than any theoretical opposition. In applied theory, we could label the military a socialist enterprise (state owned), while true capitalism would mandate the privatization of the military and a reliance on mercenary companies.
We should focus less on the theoretical foundations, and more on pragmatic concerns.
planned economies cant' match this
agrreed
but your arguements are all theoretical
I want a republican ethnonationalist nazbol/ancap Norse Matriarchy
they don't address the real world need to allocate those means of production
regardless of who controls it