You must log in or register to comment.
The ‘Libertarianism is better than whatever this shit is supposed to be’ leftist.
“The kind with trigger discipline…”
You know those means of production?
Well I have an idea…
“You leftists sure are a contentious people”
A libertarian myself thanks for asking.
I wish there was a test.
Not a bullshit CosmoBuzzfeed quiz, but an actual “if you answered A on these three questions, you tend towards MarxoCapitalist. Here’s a community full of people who mostly agree with you about political stuff.”
We’d still have Home and Local and All, but it’d be nice to know who my people are instead of needing a college degree to navigate the bullshit everyone says about everyone else.
I don’t think anyone knows what socialism is.
I’m glad there isn’t, sounds divisive
- Hot Dog or Hamburger?
- Pepsi or Coca-Cola?
- 2 wipes or 3 wipes?
I don’t subscribe to an ideology per se, but I believe we should give everybody everything, and that the government should take care of every one of our needs, every last one.
Even social needs?
Idk. The kind where I believe that every adult over 18 should be given 80m2 by the government. Apartment, office space, storage space, workshop, lab, whatever.
I believe that you shouldn’t need to worry about a place to live at the bare minimum, and I believe that not having space for people to use and experiment with is one of the main hindrances of economic development (development, not “growth”)
It took me too long to figure out that you’re the ubi-style left, and not the pew-pew style and I didn’t know what type of gun an 80M2 was. 80M^2 or 80 square meters is super different from what I was picturing.
They can keep all the other stuff if they are giving me 6,400 million dollars
I don’t like other leftists. What am I?
Leftist. 🙂
As far as I can tell I’m an anarchist collectivist. But I don’t really read much theory (because of a memory retention disorder) or try very hard to categorize myself.
But I don’t really read much theory (because of a memory retention disorder)
I’m in a similar boat for the most part. I can handle news stories and short articles. But if I’m reading a book, it’s gotta be science fiction or else I get bored as fuck with it.
And the overlap between theory and science fiction isn’t as big as I’d like it.
What kind am I?
Not a neo liberal or a Tankie.
I’m in-between. I’m caring enough to not agree with Conservatives and want a change to the status quo. I’m educated enough to know how the world actually works and that things can’t be free and other people won’t do stuff for free. Capitalism has its place, but needs to be highly regulated.
The “socialists expect people to do stuff for free” trope only exists in capitalist strawman rhetoric.
I am not going to prod you the minutia with questions and then try to guess precisely what ideological camp you might fall into, but from what I can gather from your comment, you could either be a social liberal or social democrat. But practically speaking, there is hardly any difference between the two.
You can be anti-capitalist without being a “tankie.” It seems like your position is driven by your aversion to those you perceive as being to your right and to your left rather than on a consistent ideological framework.
I’m educated enough to know how the world actually works and that things can’t be free and other people won’t do stuff for free.
This is capitalist realism. Your education has not made you smart enough to see that capitalism is reality, it has made you so set in your constrained worldview that you’ve become incapable of imagining anything outside of the framework of capitalism. For the majority of time that humans have existed on earth they have organized themselves in a myriad of different ways without the need for private property and exploitation of others. I recommend reading some anthropology, I personally prefer David Graeber.
Hey tankie, I’ve had conversations with other tankies that believe no business should be making a profit and there is no such thing as a good company. They think a business should provide services for free, while they sit on their ass and collect UBI. UBI is something I support, but if I create a business that aims to help people one way or another with a product or service, I’m not doing it for free.
There are other forms of societal framework and I’m sorry, but Marxist Lenonist communism isn’t it. There’s a reason communism always devolves into authoritarianism. And we don’t need to go back to feudalism, which is primarily what has been throughout history, which you ignore.
Don’t you find it interesting that I only said I was anti-capitalist and you immediately assumed a ton of things about what I believe without bothering to ask? I find it interesting, it reveals a lot about your mindset. Even though you’ve decided to be overtly hostile towards me for no reason I’ll take the time to respond, because I believe you think you’re being reasonable.
Hey tankie, I’ve had conversations with other tankies that believe no business should be making a profit and there is no such thing as a good company.
Profit is just the excess labor value that your employer withholds from you. The problem is not that businesses make money, the problem is that the people who produce the value do not get to decide what to do with it. Instead, the capital owner has the ultimate authority and is able to use it to enrich themselves at the expense of those who did the actual work, with no way to hold them accountable. It doesn’t matter if the boss is a “good person” or not because the employer-employee relationship is inherently unequal.
They think a business should provide services for free, while they sit on their ass and collect UBI. UBI is something I support, but if I create a business that aims to help people one way or another with a product or service, I’m not doing it for free.
This is a gross misrepresentation of what socialists believe. Socialists believe that workers should have control over their company. I don’t think workers should provide services for free, I think they should be paid their worth and have the freedom to decide what to do with the excess rather than having it taken from them by capital owners. In the current system it is actually the capital owners who sit on their ass and collect welfare in the form of profits.
The reason socialists also advocate for welfare such as UBI is because we believe that the excess labor value should be reinvested into the community to improve everyone’s standard of living rather than paying for the boss’ 3rd yacht and 5th vacation home.
There are other forms of societal framework and I’m sorry, but Marxist Lenonist communism isn’t it. There’s a reason communism always devolves into authoritarianism.
I’m not a marxist-leninist, I lean more towards libertarian socialism / anarchism. I do wish you would have made an attempt to find out where I stand on things before starting with the name-calling. I agree that marxist-leninists have authoritarian tendencies, but I believe that results from their belief that power should be centralized under the state to establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” not from their socialist economics. It is possible (I would actually argue that it’s necessary) for power to be decentralized under federated collectives that practice socialist economics. This is sometimes called anarcho-syndicalism, but I believe there’s more to it than that.
And we don’t need to go back to feudalism, which is primarily what has been throughout history, which you ignore.
The political and economic systems that existed prior to capitalism were far more complex than you’re giving them credit for. Feudalism was actually the precursor to capitalism, and was not the dominant political system for most of human history. Before land was stolen by feudal lords, most of it was managed and held in common by small communities. The process by which landlords stole land and began rent-seeking is called the enclosure of the commons.
Again, I cannot recommend enough that you do some reading on anthropology. I’m not asking you to read political theory, but if you don’t have an understanding of the many different ways that humans organized themselves in the past it limits your ability to imagine ways that we could organize ourselves in the future.
I’m not being hostile. You are reading that, based on nothing more than your interpretation.
This is a gross misrepresentation of what socialists believe.
I never said this is what socialist believe. Now you are reading into something I never said. I simply said I’ve actually had a conversation with more than one tankie that has used those EXACT words. I also never name called, unless you find Tankie offensive. Which I only called you that, because you are using the exact same arguments that tankies do. I also don’t need a history lesson on hopes, dreams, and ideal situations that never happened. You should really count the amount of times you said “belief”, “believe”, or “possible.”
I agree that marxist-leninists have authoritarian tendencies, but I believe that results from their belief that power should be centralized under the state to establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” not from their socialist economics.
This is nothing more than a belief that never happens and history has shown that.
You’re recommending things that you don’t even understand and likely never read yourself.
Even Adam Smith was pretty clear what happens when capitalism is unregulated:
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of…
The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition that they are going fast backwards.
Ye, if you don’t manage capitalism, the demon capital manages you.
I would like us to seriously try alternatives, but failing that, at least put the mad dog on a leash.
flexible on range of solutions for dealing with the billionaire problem
“Ally? That’s a funny way to spell FASCIST!”
-the American left during the 24’ election
Your parties are seriously a mess, though. Sorry to say. Yes, come the vote under a FPTP duopoly I agree maximum impact is to vote for the lesser of the two, but I honestly don’t think much is going to change for you guys if all you do is vote.
I honestly don’t think much is going to change for you guys if all you do is vote.
As an American, I agree. That said, I find it hard to do more due to my situation.
But, voting is the beginning of political engagement, not the end. It’s probably time for a general strike, but even failing that, finding primary challengers (or being one), drafting voter initiatives and gathering signatures for all of the above, communicating with your representatives, legal protest. It’s also possible to work outside or even against the system, founding or being active in non-governmental community organizations, illegal protest, sabotage.
Even if we had a “perfect” voting system (Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem aside), there are going to be times when the majority compromise is just wrong, and “getting political” is how you change/survive that.
(I’m all for voting system improvements. I’m a big fan of Condorcet methods, and I’d like to see more direct democracy. We could even adapt a system like Debian’s “default option” of “more discussion” so that issues could remain open while a quorum was gathered / the voters suitably engaged to decide one way or another.)
That was a great breakdown of a continuum of ways to be politically active all the way from voting to increasingly pointed forms of direct action.
It would make a great post. Maybe even an infographic.
*Doesn’t vote to enable fascism.
I just want people to have food, shelter and healthcare at an affordable price.
Some call this “Leftist extremism”. =/
Ugh George Soros poisoned Progressivism!
By “affordable” I’m assuming you mean free. Always wanting a handout, of course.
I just want untaxed inheritance, corporate welfare on top of more tax breaks for me and all my friends, unregulated surveillance and data collection of the plebs so I can continue to make even more money (untaxed obvs), exclusive and elite private universities, and a justice system where I can live free of consequence and purchase a judge at a reasonable price because I believe in being fiscally conservative.
Food, shelter, and healthcare are things I’ve just never had to think about really. Although, I would also prefer that if too many people are worrying about those things in my immediate vicinity, they be shuffled around or forcibly moved to a different vicinity.
That way I don’t have to start thinking too much. It’s really unfair when that happens, because it starts to make me feel all kinds of uncomfortable. Uncomfortable is not something I’m used to feeling, and since I don’t like to think about things, I never stop and think about why somebody else being uncomfortable would also make me feel so uncomfortable.
Logically, the solution is to just put those people somewhere not visible to me, and then complain about what society is “turning into these days” when they slip through the privilege perimeter.
Due to Poe’s Law, I think you really need one of these: /s
TERRORIST.
Like … all people?
Every single one
What about people we don’t like?
Why don’t we like them? Is it because they are anti-social? That’s why we have laws. Is it because they are different? Then don’t be anti-social and learn to understand them.
So you want billionaires hoisted up by their figgins as a warning to the rest of the bourgeoisie?? That’s what I’m hearing here.
I think we should have a maximum wealth cap. Set it as an even 1000x the median annual household income. That is the type of money that even the most highly paid wage earners - like anesthesiologists, would struggle to amass if they worked overtime their whole careers, lived like paupers, and invested every penny they made. That would be about $80 million today. Anything above that would be taxed at 100%. And no, I don’t give a shit about your $80 million “family farm.”
But truly obscene levels of wealth? Like 10,000x median household income and above? If we had a wealth cap, and you evaded it, and secretly collected a fortune 10x the cap? A felony whose penalty is 20 to life.
We don’t let people own atomic bombs. We don’t require you to have an atomic bomb license, or only let really nice moral people own nuclear weapons. We simply don’t let individuals own nuclear weapons, as the risk of such power in a single hand is simply too great.
And yet, we let people amass fortunes that they can use to do far more damage than any nuclear weapon. Someone like Musk or Bezos, completely on their own, can absolutely cause suffering and destruction on the level of a nuclear bomb.
No one should have that type of power. Period. That power should only be obtainable through free and fair elections. We need a maximum wealth cap. 1000x median household income. Having a billion dollars should be absurd as owning your own nuclear bomb.
We don’t let people own atomic bombs […] and yet, we let people amass fortunes that they can use to do far more damage than any nuclear weapon.
Damn that is very well put. I thought I knew where you were going with that analogy – like that there are just some things we don’t allow people to have. But the comparison of the power of a nuclear bomb and 11 digit wealth is really really good.
No matter what you do with that kind of wealth, it is a level of force that should not be wielded without the consent of the people it will affect.
Seems reasonable.
