So how screwed are we?

In the real world
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Re: So how screwed are we?

Post by Tsukiyumi »

sunnyside wrote:They just want less government, particularly at the federal level, control over their lives, the economy, and their money...
You have the last two right; these are the same people who rail against gay marriage and against pot smoking, right?

Can't have it both ways. Should leave everyone alone in their private lives, not cry discrimination while discriminating against people whose personal lives they don't approve of.

That's why I am a Libertarian Socialist: leave people's private business almost entirely to them, while we all work toward building a better country (world). No slackers, no welfare (job training and placement instead), cut waste, cut fraud, no whining from the rich because they can't afford a second tennis court or another house in the Hamptons. We all chip in, get these "lower-class" people educated as much as they can be, and get some new high-tech manufacturing going here in America. Fix our damn roads and bridges. Single payer healthcare (with the same private option for people who don't like having to wait a bit for frivolous bullshit issues). Immigration reform. Massive automation projects. Solar, fast breeder reactors and fusion for power. Thorium-powered cars? Let's work on that.

What's stopping us? Greed. If a tiny percentage of the population controls most of the capital, there isn't enough left to go around for everyone else. Capital represents a finite amount of "stuff", and splitting the currency into smaller portions doesn't change that. Innovation is stifled by oligarchies, and that is exactly where we are at. The second we put the good of the citizenry and the country ahead of obscene profits for a select few, we will change the world.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Re: So how screwed are we?

Post by sunnyside »

Tsukiyumi wrote:
sunnyside wrote:They just want less government, particularly at the federal level, control over their lives, the economy, and their money...
You have the last two right; these are the same people who rail against gay marriage and against pot smoking, right?
No, I had it right. I wrote that they want less government control over their lives.
Can't have it both ways.
The social platforms of both Democrats and Republicans essentially boil down to wanting the government to stop meddling with their affairs and spend more time meddling with the other sides affairs. They don't look at it as having it "both ways". Rather they'll use terms like, "right," "values," "common sense," "Justice," and so on.


Should leave everyone alone in their private lives, not cry discrimination while discriminating against people whose personal lives they don't approve of.
What's stopping us? Greed.
I see variants on that a lot after someone espouses their political beliefs. Granted it probably always somewhat true. However in the US Libertarian Socialists are so rare that few people would even know roughly what that means, and largely wouldn't agree with you if you explained it to them. Actually you'd probably just get weird looks because "libertarians" as Americans are used to term are extremely opposed to Socialism.
Capital represents a finite amount of "stuff"
That hasn't been true for a long time if it ever was. In the digital age it isn't even close to true.
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Re: So how screwed are we?

Post by Tsukiyumi »

sunnyside wrote:In the digital age it isn't even close to true.
It just means "debt" now. Much better.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Re: So how screwed are we?

Post by sunnyside »

Tsukiyumi wrote:
sunnyside wrote:In the digital age it isn't even close to true.
It just means "debt" now. Much better.
These days I'd take "capitol" to refer to financial capitol, human capitol, and the "means of production" which these days would have to be expanded to include intellectual property or IP would need a new category. Some people are also big on throwing "social capital" in there in either a branding or triple bottom line sense.

In any case none of those are finite. Especially these days when the "means of production" I have at work is probably worse than the office and computer I have at home.

EDIT: They're finite in the mathematical sense in that they can be represented at a given point in time as a real number. I'm presuming we're talking about them in the "finite resources" sense of not being expandable.
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Re: So how screwed are we?

Post by Tsukiyumi »

Of course they're expandable. They just represent what's available at a given time. And the fact remains that with some tiny percentage controlling the vast majority of the available money, there is less available for the rest of us to split.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Re: So how screwed are we?

Post by sunnyside »

Tsukiyumi wrote:
That's why I am a Libertarian Socialist:
Actually I've grown curious. How do you imagine that actually working? As I said Libertarian Socialists are rare in the US. Those I've met couldn't explain how their ideas might conceivably work, only that it would be cool if they did.

State Socialism is pretty straightforward in that polices are enacted at gunpoint and you set up re-education camps and whatnot. And then the Party starts setting up their planned economy and a few "disappearances". Not such a good idea in my opinion, but you can see how it works.

But how does Libertarian Socialism even get off the ground? I don't think it is supposed to approve of the Leninist way where you have to have a "vanguard party" with all the power that is then supposed to set up the "higher phase". Even if you do bootstrap it, how do you keep it going in the event groups of people wish to engage in capitalistic activities? How do you start new enterprises?
GrahamKennedy wrote:
Yet it's already the case that many of the states which suckle most on the government teat are solidly Republican.
I've heard that before and I'd believe it. But that doesn't mean the majority of people in those states want those government programs. Rather, they want those on those government programs to move out and head to some blue state for the welfare they could get there.
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Re: So how screwed are we?

Post by Tsukiyumi »

I think I actually explained it pretty well up there; the word "socialist" doesn't equate to "no money" or even "no capitalism". Just heavily regulated capitalism, higher corporate taxes, with a solid, graduated tax scale; people argue this would hurt business, and I disagree. It would hurt giant mega-corporations, and encourage smaller businesses in their place.

The real kick is automation. We are certainly at a point now where a good amount of jobs exist just so that people can have jobs. Education+automation+basic survival needs met = a society of artisans, scientists and engineers, not "everyone would just quit working". Seriously, no one wants to just live at basic survival level. Trust me on that one. But, if everyone was guaranteed education, simple nutritious food and a roof over their heads, the lower class would rapidly shrink, and the middle expand. A truly functional society is all about the Proletariat, or middle class as we like to call it.

The "Libertarian" part of my classification comes from "stay the fuck out of people's personal business." Such as sexual orientation, preferences, religion, emails... not this "no taxes for anyone!" or "make the poor pay more while we cut all social services!" BS that comes from Economic Libertarians.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Re: So how screwed are we?

Post by sunnyside »

Tsukiyumi wrote:I think I actually explained it pretty well up there; the word "socialist" doesn't equate to "no money" or even "no capitalism". Just heavily regulated capitalism, higher corporate taxes, with a solid, graduated tax scale; people argue this would hurt business, and I disagree. It would hurt giant mega-corporations, and encourage smaller businesses in their place.
Um, I think that means you aren't a Libertarian Socialist after all. Granted people in the Tea Party would call you a socialist, but they call Democrats and other non-socialists that. I'm a bit unsure the extent to which there is confusion in the terms vs an accusation that the person really wants full on socialism.
Seriously, no one wants to just live at basic survival level. Trust me on that one.
Ok. But even in the US you get a LOT more than that, at least so long as you have a hostage dependent child.
But, if everyone was guaranteed education, simple nutritious food and a roof over their heads, the lower class would rapidly shrink, and the middle expand.
Isn't that already the case in the UK and nearly the case in the US? Not entirely arguing with the point in isolation, however we're already in a case where you gain very little additional disposable income (or in some cases you actually end up with LESS) as you go up in earnings. I think you have to have the reason to excel. Now some people will anyway, but you'll also have many who will not.
A truly functional society is all about the Proletariat, or middle class as we like to call it.
The Marxist term applies better to, and is generally associated with, the working class. The middle class, especially in this age of contractors and stock investments the middle class aligns more with Marx's "petite bourgeoisie". Though many Americans do cast a wide net with the term "middle class".
The "Libertarian" part of my classification comes from "stay the fuck out of people's personal business." Such as sexual orientation, preferences, religion, emails... not this "no taxes for anyone!" or "make the poor pay more while we cut all social services!" BS that comes from Economic Libertarians.
Hmmm. How would you differentiate yourself from a Democrat that supports extremely loose gun laws, gay-to-straight conversion therapy, and Big Gulps? You get that sort in office in some states.
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Re: So how screwed are we?

Post by Tsukiyumi »

sunnyside wrote:Um, I think that means you aren't a Libertarian Socialist after all.
I think it's exactly what I mean. Libertarian Socialism.

There have to be a number of transitional phases (as Trotsky knew and advocated) before you can reach the end goal of a real Socialist state; you can't just dump out all the rich people's pockets and try to use what you stole to build it. A gradual phasing in of more regulations on corporations, and increasing control by the people of both the state and corporations, corresponding with increased education and increasing living standards, could allow this type of structure to come into play after two or three generations. Add in a meritocracy for reasonably increased benefits, and people will play ball just fine. The argument that no one will innovate or excel if they can't have a 300-room mansion full of indentured servants just isn't realistic.

And if it is, that mentality will phase out along with the rest of the changes. I hear all the time, "I just want a comfortable life for my family, and not have to worry about bills." Now, the definition of "comfortable" will vary, but I'm sure most people would be quite happy to work reasonably hard for a modern 3,000 sq. ft. home for their family, and not really desire a personal airship, or six tennis courts.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Re: So how screwed are we?

Post by sunnyside »

Tsukiyumi wrote:I think it's exactly what I mean. Libertarian Socialism.
I do not see how
Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism[1][2] or left-libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production.
is compatable with:
I think I actually explained it pretty well up there; the word "socialist" doesn't equate to "no money" or even "no capitalism". Just heavily regulated capitalism, higher corporate taxes, with a solid, graduated tax scale; people argue this would hurt business, and I disagree. It would hurt giant mega-corporations, and encourage smaller businesses in their place.
Not only does capitalism by definition require some private ownership of the "means of production," but large regulatory bodies and taxation based governance goes up against the "non-hierachical, non-bureaucratic" part.

Or did you acutally just mean that bit as a transition thing? If so what sort of "end state" do you envision? Heh, or should I say "end no-state" for a Libertarian :P
There have to be a number of transitional phases (as Trotsky knew and advocated) before you can reach the end goal of a real Socialist state; you can't just dump out all the rich people's pockets and try to use what you stole to build it. A gradual phasing in of more regulations on corporations, and increasing control by the people of both the state and corporations, corresponding with increased education and increasing living standards, could allow this type of structure to come into play after two or three generations. Add in a meritocracy for reasonably increased benefits, and people will play ball just fine. The argument that no one will innovate or excel if they can't have a 300-room mansion full of indentured servants just isn't realistic.
I think maybe some perspective is in order. The whole Marxist thing is that businesses generate a profit which is given to the owners, therefore the wage earners are not paid the full value of their labor. He then calls the transfer of this "labor surplus" from wage earner to owner exploitation.

How much is that? Well, off the top of my head I recal that when the US government is involved with these things a 10% profit is considered "normal and fair" or somesuch. That is going to be taxed by the government at multiple levels and in multiple ways though, and by my back of the envelope math should correspond to roughly a 3% transfer into the capitalist's pockets.

Granted a 3% transfer from hundreds of thousands of people to one person means they can have mansions and mega-yachts. But 3% isn't really that much of a raise.

And not only do you lose the incentives of capitalism if you throw it out, but you also loose the mechanisms. In state socialism you have to go through the government beurocracy to try and start a new business or product, which works I guess but doens't exactly result in being swift or innovative. I don't even know how how a Libertarian Socialist society would manage that (and I'm curious how you think it would go).

Also again, the middle class is more aligned with the petit bourgeois. For one thing in a knowledge economy those with the skills already control their means of production. But more than that the middle class owns stock. We have 401Ks and probably some other more liquid investments. That means at some point those in the middle class can't be said to be "exploited" because they gain more "surplus labor" through their stocks than the ~3% they "lose" to their company.

On that note the people living in wealthier countries are able to gain significant "surplus labor" from owning stock in companies abroad. If you whack the capitalistic engine than presumably you're destroying that transfer of wealth into our nations.

Of course while 3% isn't much you still have poor burger flippers out there. But that's because of the inequalities in the value of the labor from a part time stoned burger flipper and a star engineer that puts in 70 hour weeks. Doing the USSR redistribution thing to these groups can be more meaningful, but probably even more catastrophic than going after stock ownership or the very rich. Because you are no longer going after airships and tennis courts and are instead punishing the harder working, smarter, etc members of the "proletariat."
Post Reply