ILovePhilosophy.com

Would I be correct in thinking that everyone so far is not in favour of Progressivism?

Would then the primary point of dispute be over whether Social Reform is part of Socialism? The OP clearly states they do not think this is the case.

The other half of the OP is in favour of economic reform as distinct from social reform.

Assuming I am correct in thinking that nobody is in favour of social reform, there seems little point in arguing over it. Instead, what do you guys think about economic reform? Is it needed? If it is, when what kind?

promethean75 wrote:Sounds more like the synopsis of a dystopian horror movie than a good critique of socialism.

I think it's time for you to ask a Rosa, 524.

That being said, I don't support this Rosa Lichtenstein, this has nothing to do with me.

She's anti-free speech and a thug.

Ecmandu wrote:For me, it's very basic, and I know people don't like to hear this:

The will of the people is being suppressed by the elites.

The republic is a failed experiment.

I'll make my presidential campaign speech very simple:

I want to be the last president and turn this over to direct democracy.

It's better to go out the most beautiful flower the world has ever seen, and make all of our conquerors envy us for all time, than to be a putrid bloom... and who knows, we may actually make it!!

I'd like to see a synthesis of rep and direct internet democracy, where the legislative, judicial and executive branches still existed and could propose bills, but they'd still have to pass through all three branches of government and could be vetoed by the people, likewise the people could propose bills with sufficient backing by the people (like say 10000 supporters), but they'd have to pass through all three branches of government and could be vetoed by the people.
Of course internet democracy is dangerous because there's no paper trail.
I think we should still elect representatives, including those who administer the internet democracy by paper, while voting for bills online.

She's anti-free speech and a thug.

well i don't know about that, but she is straight thuggin'.

if you ever change your mind, marx, rosa and i will be right here waiting for you....

Gloominary wrote:

Ecmandu wrote:For me, it's very basic, and I know people don't like to hear this:

The will of the people is being suppressed by the elites.

The republic is a failed experiment.

I'll make my presidential campaign speech very simple:

I want to be the last president and turn this over to direct democracy.

It's better to go out the most beautiful flower the world has ever seen, and make all of our conquerors envy us for all time, than to be a putrid bloom... and who knows, we may actually make it!!

I'd like to see a synthesis of rep and direct internet democracy, where the legislative, judicial and executive branches still existed and could propose bills, but they'd still have to pass through all three branches of government and could be vetoed by the people, likewise the people could propose bills with sufficient backing by the people (like say 10000 supporters), but they'd have to pass through all three branches of government and could be vetoed by the people.
Of course internet democracy is dangerous because there's no paper trail.
I think we should still elect representatives, including those who administer the internet democracy by paper, while voting for bills online.

Actually, internet democracy is pretty solid. You just have to make the source code public domain so people can see if it's been altered. When a person shows their physical registration at a voting center, they walk in and receive a random serial number for that vote, which they can always check.

The problem of anonymous and transparent
voting through internet has been solved

We have the tools to do this

In socialism, there is no democracy.

obsrvr524 wrote:In socialism, there is no democracy.

Last I checked, they had democracy in Fennoscandia, which's again not to say I like everything about it.
I think about society, government and economics 3 dimensionally.
I'm a nationalist, anti-immigration and a libertarian on social issues.
These positions also factor into who and what I'll support.

Furthermore, the Nordic model is too corporatist for my liking.
From my understanding, it's difficult to move up or down the economic ladder in Fennoscandia.
I want to make it easier for the poorest 99% to climb the ladder and the richest 0.1% to fall by eliminating taxes on the 99% and small businesses while increasing taxes on the 0.1% and big business (but of course not beyond what would render them unprofitable) while redistributing the wealth in the form of universal supplementary income (everyone with a legitimate source of income (an aboveboard job or income assistance) will be given an additional 10 grand by government or whatever we can afford).
Minimally regulate small businesses while maximally regulating big.
Increase corporate welfare for small businesses while eliminating it for big.

What I'm proposing is, as far as I know, historically unprecedented.
It would mean a gradual transfer of ownership and management of the economy from the top 0.1% to the bottom 99%.
Of course an overnight transfer would result in economic ruin.

either all that or partly nationalize and unionize or cooperativize all megacorps and run them in the interests of workers and consumers.
I say partly, because of course government and unions or workers won't be able to run them by themselves, at least not initially.

Ecmandu wrote:

Gloominary wrote:

Ecmandu wrote:For me, it's very basic, and I know people don't like to hear this:

The will of the people is being suppressed by the elites.

The republic is a failed experiment.

I'll make my presidential campaign speech very simple:

I want to be the last president and turn this over to direct democracy.

It's better to go out the most beautiful flower the world has ever seen, and make all of our conquerors envy us for all time, than to be a putrid bloom... and who knows, we may actually make it!!

I'd like to see a synthesis of rep and direct internet democracy, where the legislative, judicial and executive branches still existed and could propose bills, but they'd still have to pass through all three branches of government and could be vetoed by the people, likewise the people could propose bills with sufficient backing by the people (like say 10000 supporters), but they'd have to pass through all three branches of government and could be vetoed by the people.
Of course internet democracy is dangerous because there's no paper trail.
I think we should still elect representatives, including those who administer the internet democracy by paper, while voting for bills online.

Actually, internet democracy is pretty solid. You just have to make the source code public domain so people can see if it's been altered. When a person shows their physical registration at a voting center, they walk in and receive a random serial number for that vote, which they can always check.

The problem of anonymous and transparent
voting through internet has been solved

We have the tools to do this

Really?
I'll have to look into that.

I'd want a mix of direct and indirect democracy, at least for a while, until the people became more educated about governance.

essentially the Fennoscandinavian model is democratic social corporatism, whereas mine is either proper social democracy or democratic socialism.

Silhouette wrote:Would I be correct in thinking that everyone so far is not in favour of Progressivism?

Would then the primary point of dispute be over whether Social Reform is part of Socialism? The OP clearly states they do not think this is the case.

The other half of the OP is in favour of economic reform as distinct from social

From my experience, most people here are lukewarm about or opposed to progressivism.
However, they're split down the middle about socialism.

In general I think social democrats and democratic socialists could broaden their appeal if they ditched progressivism.
Most white and even some black and brown people don't like hearing about how whites are bad, we're not and we don't owe anyone anything, and we still make up the majority of the Anglosphere, including the majority of voters.
Whatever success the left has had in recent years, it's been in spite of progressivism, not because of it.

I think it's by design, the deep state keeps the races, religions and sexes squabbling over scraps to distract us from itself.
They keep the working and middle classes fighting over taxes and wages.
They don't want us to know it's possible for government to help both classes simultaneously by going directly after the elite full tilt.

Assuming I am correct in thinking that nobody is in favour of social reform, there seems little point in arguing over it. Instead, what do you guys think about economic reform? Is it needed? If it is, when what kind?

Here's something like what I think should be done to help the economy:

eliminate immigration, so the working class doesn't have to compete with immigrants for housing, jobs and social services.
In the 21st century, we no longer need economic or population growth, we need economic justice and sustainability.
While the offspring of skilled immigrants might, immigrants themselves don't create housing, jobs and social services, they just compete for them.

eliminate offshoring.

Nationalize the central banks.

eliminate corporate welfare.

eliminate the war on drugs, the war on terror and bring all our troops home.

eliminate foreign aid.

Maximally deregulate small businesses while maximally regulating big business.

eliminate the carbon, sales and all taxes except the income tax and the unnecessary bureaucracy that goes along with them, eliminate the income tax on the poorest 99% and maximally increase the income tax on the richest 0.1%.

Nationalize postsecondary education and improve healthcare and public transportation.

Implement what I call universal supplementary income (USI, similar to but not the same as UBI): government gives at least 10 grand annually (or whatever we can afford) to everyone with a legitimate source of income (everyone with an aboveboard job or on income assistance).

so far the plans look good, but when you get into office be prepared to be heckled by economists who are going to worry you to death with their spreadsheets and market predictions and budget analyses and all that shit. that's the real bitch about governance; a plan looks good... but how well can it predict what will happen when policy x, y, and z are affected.

'The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.' - hayek

promethean75 wrote:so far the plans look good, but when you get into office be prepared to be heckled by economists who are going to worry you to death with their spreadsheets and market predictions and budget analyses and all that shit. that's the real bitch about governance; a plan looks good... but how well can it predict what will happen when policy x, y, and z are affected.

'The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.' - hayek

I'm a big picture guy, I'll leave the detail and grunt work to my underlings.
But if I like start getting the feeling they're just trying to protect the elite's interests, I'll take a little more than they say I can take and see what happens.
If it works out, I'll replace them with new underlings, but if it doesn't, I'll pull back a bit, and think of other ways to redistribute more.

holy shit... you're like the platonic guardians, dude. that's so radical. its like the republic 2.0 version. you're like an auxiliary; you rule but you let those below you do the ruling until they fuck up and then you put some rule on they ass. but look, you have to also live in a near state of poverty so you won't ever be tempted to establish legislation that is bias toward keeping your wealth. if you're broke, then you can't stack the deck in your favor, see.

okay so here's a typical problem that will arise in the proceedings of the democratic bodies that determine the value of the labor of the workers who are part of the government. in the absence of natural free market value adjusting (commodities that are popular are more valued), worker syndicates have to agree on the wages allotted for x type of work, since that wage won't be adjusted and determined by a private owner participating in a free market. now if that's the case, what's to stop one or more of these delegates from deciding their job is worth more than the other guy's job? some pretty serious artificial price fixing might go down, dude. how do you propose this can be prevented?

*holds microphone forward*

promethean75 wrote:holy shit... you're like the platonic guardians, dude. that's so radical. its like the republic 2.0 version. you're like an auxiliary; you rule but you let those below you do the ruling until they fuck up and then you put some rule on they ass. but look, you have to also live in a near state of poverty so you won't ever be tempted to establish legislation that is bias toward keeping your wealth. if you're broke, then you can't stack the deck in your favor, see.

Naw dude, I'm a Platonic form, I can't be corrupted.

But just in case, I'll pass some legislation immediately upon taking office barring multimillionaires from running for office, or becoming multimillionaires during or after leaving office.

promethean75 wrote:okay so here's a typical problem that will arise in the proceedings of the democratic bodies that determine the value of the labor of the workers who are part of the government. in the absence of natural free market value adjusting (commodities that are popular are more valued), worker syndicates have to agree on the wages allotted for x type of work, since that wage won't be adjusted and determined by a private owner participating in a free market. now if that's the case, what's to stop one or more of these delegates from deciding their job is worth more than the other guy's job? some pretty serious artificial price fixing might go down, dude. how do you propose this can be prevented?

*holds microphone forward*

1stly, social democracy (moderate: big business mostly in private hands, but mostly used for the public good) is my plan A, democratic socialism (radical: the nationalization and syndication or cooperativization of big business) is my plan B if plan A fails.

2ndly, if plan A fails, my job would just be to nationalize and syndicate or cooperativize all megacorps, not decide what each and every employee gets paid in each and every megacorp, that's up to workers and their representatives to decide.
The main thing is workers and their reps would be deciding it, not capitalists and theirs.

However, capitalism and its chain of command may not be something we can get rid of overnight.
It may have to be phased out over the course of years or decades, as workers and their reps gradually figure out how to manage things themselves.
I would also work with state reps to make sure consumers weren't being overcharged.

I mean even in plan B we'd still have an essentially free market, the head of state wouldn't determine what each megacorp produces and pays its employees at gunpoint and in a vacuum.
That's a communist or totalitarian dictatorship...not what we want at all.
Workers and their reps would determine what to pay each (class of) worker and rep based on the megacorps net income and what they figure each (class of) worker and rep contributed.
Some employees will still make more than others, but it'd be democratically determined, not capitalistically, and so their earnings won't be as wildly disparate as they are now, with capitalists and ceos making a killing and workers peanuts.

What we have here is 4 entities: workers, their elected managers and reps, the head of state and his or her elected reps.
Neither of these 4 entities should have power over the other, they should have to agree on everything.
If they can't agree on anything then either nothing gets done, or...you draw straws, but you don't just start telling people what to do at gunpoint, that's a recipe for disaster, it's failed time and time again wherever it was tried.
For the most part corporations can democratically governmen themselves, with the state only intervening sporadically.

I would like to see an organic economy and society, with consumers, workers, their reps and the 3 branches of government collaborating with one another, not the executive branch ruling from its fortress with an iron fist and jackboot, nor several dozen multinationals manipulating everything.

Something like Fennoscandia, but less corporatism, progressivism and globalism and more socialism, libertarianism and nationalism.

So it's a partial nationalization and a gradual democratization of big business, not a full.

Gloominary wrote:

obsrvr524 wrote:In socialism, there is no democracy.

Last I checked, they had democracy in Fennoscandia, which's again not to say I like everything about it.

Voting is not the same as democracy. Democracy requires the distribution of authority. Socialism requires the centralization of authority. They cannot co-exist.

You are probably unaware of how socialist governments control their media and thus predetermine who gets to run for office and who will win any given election. The Soviet Union espoused democratic elections, yet was known to control the entire voting procedure, just as the US socialists and Democrats attempt today. Elections, even in the US, get rigged.

Gloominary wrote:I'm a nationalist, anti-immigration and a libertarian on social issues.
These positions also factor into who and what I'll support.

If you are both a nationalist and a socialist, that makes you a "neo-nazi". That is what the word means - "new national socialist".

Gloominary wrote:Minimally regulate small businesses while maximally regulating big.

That is all you need to do. The mega corporations of today would have been considered illegal monopolies in the US many years ago. What is driving the world today is globalist incentives toward globalist socialism vs globalist communism. A great deal of deception is used to keep the movements going, and against capitalistic methods for raising the poor up from their enslavement.

But you seem to be leaving out the fact that wealthier people have to have a reason and incentive to create jobs. If you take away their ability to take risks with their money, they cannot risk trying to develop new labor intensive projects.

Your proposals so far sound like merely chopping off the heads of the royalty and thus changing who it is that is oppressing the poor. The poor remain the poor. merely under a new regime. It is the same "Robbin Hood" narrative used to instigate socialist rebellions for generations.

First, let's get something out of the way.
I'm a social democrat/social capitalist, democratic socialism is just something I'm toying around with.
What this means is, I want to keep most businesses private, with the exception of education, healthcare and a few others, but I want to use some of their revenue for the public good.

Western countries are already mixed economies.
Businesses are already taxed and regulated, in fact they were far more taxed and regulated in the mid 20th century when times were good or better in Canada, the US and UK before the neoliberal Mulroney, Reagan and Thatcher era.

What I want to see is politicians come to power who'll pass legislation to eliminate or reduce taxes on the poorest 99%, increase taxes on the richest 0.1%, redistribute the wealth in the form of USI (universal supplementary income), and a few other things which I've already gone into several times in this thread.
These policy changes can be achieved if the people changed some of their opinions about society, government and economics, got organized, formed, joined and voted for the right sort of parties, you wouldn't have to, stage a coup to achieve them.

obsrvr524 wrote:Voting is not the same as democracy. Democracy requires the distribution of authority. Socialism requires the centralization of authority. They cannot co-exist.

Voting is an important part of democracy.
Having a bill of negative and positive rights, a proper constitution, division of powers, rule of law and an armed and informed public are important parts too.

We already have some social corporatism, or state centralization of authority.
And capitalism can, and has lead to some private centralization of authority.

Again, I'm a social democrat or social capitalist first, but could we pass legislation through all 3 branches of government to gradually nationalize (state owned and run) and/or cooperativize (worker owned and run) all megacorps, or corporations with massive amounts of revenue and employees, without devolving into a totalitarian dictatorship, where the executive branch was able to disregard the other branches and the bill of rights, constitution, rule of law and hold mock elections in Canada, the US and UK?

I don't see why it's impossible.
In Scandinavia and Finland, a lot of large corporations are divided sort of the way government is, where capitalists, the state and workers share power, rather than the way it works in the Anglosphere.

You are probably unaware of how socialist governments control their media and thus predetermine who gets to run for office and who will win any given election. The Soviet Union espoused democratic elections, yet was known to control the entire voting procedure, just as the US socialists and Democrats attempt today. Elections, even in the US, get rigged.

Actually I'm already aware of that.
You don't live in Russia or China do you?
We're already democracies, and unless some natural or manmade calamity were to befall us, we'll remain democracies albeit with a lot of corruption.
I'm talking about trying to pass new legislation within democracies that already exist, not violent revolution.

If you are both a nationalist and a socialist, that makes you a "neo-nazi". That is what the word means - "new national socialist".

I'm a national social capitalist and libertarian, altho nationalizing and/or cooperativizing megacorps is an idea I sometimes toy with.

That is all you need to do. The mega corporations of today would have been considered illegal monopolies in the US many years ago. What is driving the world today is globalist incentives toward globalist socialism vs globalist communism. A great deal of deception is used to keep the movements going, and against capitalistic methods for raising the poor up from their enslavement.

Social democracy and capitalism are two sides of the same coin.
One promotes positive rights, the other negative.
I don't see them in opposition.
The trouble is that megacorps have been declared legal persons with positive and negative rights.
The trouble is the elite are circumventing old and passing new legislation to multiply their positive and negative rights at the expense of ours.

But you seem to be leaving out the fact that wealthier people have to have a reason and incentive to create jobs. If you take away their ability to take risks with their money, they cannot risk trying to develop new labor intensive projects.

No, I'm not.
You could still get rich in both social democracy and even democratic socialism in the way I've conceived them, because the former and even the latter would still contain a lot of capitalism, just not as rich.

Workers need to be incentivized too, or they'll start cheating the system, doing a lousy job, stealing from the workplace, not paying their taxes if they can help it, protesting, rioting, looting, voting for alt parties and independents and if the economy starts collapsing, revolting.
Whatever system you have in place, if the workers are barely scraping by, they're not going to be loyal to it.

"I'm a conservative liberal right-wing leftist atheistic christian."

You seem to be just throwing words together because there is something you like about each idea.

Would it be fair to say that if you could do something that helped the poor be less poor without pulling the Robin Hood scam to steal from the rich, you would be in favor of that?

Or do you just hate the wealthy and want to steal whatever they have?

We all know this, but it's worth mentioning...

The rich steal from the poor through governmental corporate welfare.

Yeah, that just needs to stop. Like, right now.

obsrvr524 wrote:Voting is not the same as democracy. Democracy requires the distribution of authority. Socialism requires the centralization of authority. They cannot co-exist.

It may be the case that neither Socialism nor Capitalism are compatible with the distribution of authority - just by different means.

Capitalism tends there as more capital makes gaining more capital easier - authority centralises into the hands of those with more and more of it. It should be quite apparent that with one unit of currency amounting to one vote, more money is more votes: by contrast to democratic elections where everyone gets only one vote regardless of how much money they have. In reality, not even these democratic elections amount to one vote each because e.g. campaigns can be funded, and amongst other things - the winning party is going to be the one that attracts sufficient funding from those with enough money to get enough reach, and the best targeting and message etc. which you get by appealing to those with the most money. Various schools of Socialism try to counter this, but those that require controls over Capitalism require a body or bodies that are more powerful than the body or bodies that come to power under Capitalism. The same problem presents itself, but in a different form.

You might more accurately say that under certain schools of Capitalism, distribution of authority ought to be possible, and you might say that under certain schools of Socialism, distribution of authority ought to be possible.
You might then say that Capitalism is has a better track record, but does that mean that it cannot be beaten?

There's two conflicting problems with laissez faire approaches versus interventionalist approaches:
The former has the benefit of less conspicuously amounting to centralisation, but at the cost of accountability since the mechanisms are more complex and it's harder to tell exactly where the power resides.
The latter attracts more hostility because the centralised bodies are intentionally conspicuous, allowing direct accountability since the centralisation is much more simple and everyone knows where the power resides.

It seems to be a common approach to this topic to throw out simple blanket statements that neatly put you in one side rather than another, instead of sufficiently and objectively analysing all sides and underlying variables and causes that make the situation much more complex.
Popularly these topics take the form of a sports match where everyone is split down the middle about which team they support as clearly and absolutely far better than the other, and you just have to fight your respective corner as hard as you can to prove it. It seems vulgar to devolve the discussion to that level if you ever catch yourself doing it.

obsrvr524 wrote:That is all you need to do. The mega corporations of today would have been considered illegal monopolies in the US many years ago. What is driving the world today is globalist incentives toward globalist socialism vs globalist communism. A great deal of deception is used to keep the movements going, and against capitalistic methods for raising the poor up from their enslavement.

But you seem to be leaving out the fact that wealthier people have to have a reason and incentive to create jobs. If you take away their ability to take risks with their money, they cannot risk trying to develop new labor intensive projects.

Your proposals so far sound like merely chopping off the heads of the royalty and thus changing who it is that is oppressing the poor. The poor remain the poor. merely under a new regime. It is the same "Robbin Hood" narrative used to instigate socialist rebellions for generations.

Yes you would hope that anti-trust laws would prevent huge corporations from attaining the monopolies and oligopolies that reign supreme today.

Gloominary references the deep state and you reference globalist deception by the DNC and what-have-you, but I think it's more interesting than that.

For example the economic concept of Opportunity Cost is minimised by global trade, two-party election races are the Nash Equilibrium of First Past The Post voting systems, centralisation puts decisions and resources into the hands of the more qualified and results in more clear and efficient outcomes pragmatically, richness beyond a certain point is largely Zahavian Signalling and no longer correlates with quality of life...
All the evils and goods have other sides to them, and every decision one way or another is a trade-off, and more often than not - the biggest problems are little more than the result of these trade-offs in picking the most prized cornerstones of our civilisations, such as voluntary trade and technological superiority.

The greater mystery is how it's possible to make things better or worse at all.

Silhouette wrote:

obsrvr524 wrote:Voting is not the same as democracy. Democracy requires the distribution of authority. Socialism requires the centralization of authority. They cannot co-exist.

It may be the case that neither Socialism nor Capitalism are compatible with the distribution of authority - just by different means.

Capitalism can easily function under limits that prevent monopolies and thus is very compatible with (almost requiring) the distribution of authority. Socialism IS a monopoly, forbidding distribution of authority.

Socialism is just the ultimate goal of pure, unlimited capitalism. Capitalism must be limited, constrained at an appropriate level, else is becomes socialism in disguise (that was the Marxist theory).

Silhouette wrote:you would hope that anti-trust laws would prevent huge corporations from attaining the monopolies and oligopolies that reign supreme today.

If you can't regulate even that, you certainly cannot prevent a socialist regime from becoming corrupt.

Silhouette wrote:The greater mystery is how it's possible to make things better or worse at all.

That is not as hard as you might think. The first step is easy. You start small and stop trying to tell the whole world what to do.