Cowbee

@Cowbee@lemm.ee

This town, in fact, has more than enough room for the two of us

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Cowbee,

Private Property cannot exist without a state. That which gives private property legitimacy is a monopoly of violence, otherwise you have a winner-takes-all might makes right system.

Collective ownership of property can be enforced via the collective itself, without a need for a governing body.

Anarchism is certainly idealistic, but Anarcho-Capitalism is pure fantasy.

Cowbee,

Nah, might makes right for them, lol

Cowbee,

This person had no moral guide. Past-tense!

Cowbee,

Why does the market reward anti-consumer companies like Apppe, that use their dominant market share to intentionally sabotage their own products to make people buy more?

For example, why does Apple fight against Right to Repair? Is it for the consumer, or is it for profit?

The market isn’t supposed to select for the best products for consumers, but the most profit, period. That’s why medicine is marked up skyward, because customers cannot not buy medicine.

Cowbee,

Capitalism.

Cowbee,

You followed an arbitrary logical chain to depict one form of Socialism, yes.

In Capitalism, the market is controlled by Capitalists, who represent a minor fraction of the population. In Socialism, the economy is controlled by everyone.

Cowbee,

I wasn’t referring to 30s and 70s as time periods, but the actual life expectancies. LE dropped sharply during the formation of the USSR due to civil war and WWI, and during the 30s due to famine from collectivization. After collectivization and WWII, the USSR was food secure and LE jumped sharply, combined with free Healthcare and mass housing initiatives.

Again, pre-USSR LE was far lower, and post-USSR there was another drop in LE until the last decade or so.

The US has insane growth because it managed to dodge all of the damage of WWII and export Imperialism and control over the global economy as it solidified itself as the reigning superpower. The USSR was a developing country, nowhere near as developed, and had a far more active role in WWII. Not a fair comparison, IMO.

The US has far worse housing problems even today than the USSR had. The USSR attempted to solve this problem, the US has not.

People in the USSR had far more than they had under the Tsars, and the idea that those at the top were cartoonishly wealthy is false. They didn’t have luxury goods, but they had little issues with necessities.

Holding ownership in common is the only way to have a Stateless society, Private Property Rights require a state while public property does not, as the community itself enforces this.

All in all, I am not pro-USSR. I think the process of Democratic Centralism is highly flawed and not accountable to the Workers, as the Politburo sustained itself. I also think Stalin was a horrible thug, and tragedies like the Katyn Massacre should be learned from so as to never repeat them. However, it’s also important to acknowledge that many parts of the USSR did work, and as such we should equally learn from where they did succeed.

My opinion is that decentralization is a fantastic thing, and is an excellent way to combat central control. However, this cannot be meaningfully achieved in a top-down system like Capitalism.

Cowbee,

What, genuinely, is unpleasant to imagine about a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society? I’ve only ever heard people say that Communism sounds great in theory but for some reason or another can’t work in practice, or support for both. I’ve never once heard that Communism itself is unpleasant in theory.

Cowbee,

Not just great, but eventually necessary. Capitalism can’t outlast automation, increasingly automated production will eventually result in mass job loss and stagnation unless directed by society as a whole. It’s important to ensure this transition goes well and we learn from transitions of the past to not repeat their mistakes.

Cowbee,

Pretty much, though Star Trek may look wildly different. There are many “good” outcomes, but none of them will be a continuation of Capitalism.

Cowbee,

That’s not the theory, though. The initial claim was that it’s unpleasant to think about. Regardless of your claim that it “invariably leads to shit,” that doesn’t answer the initial question.

If the claim should truly have been that existing attempts at Communism are unpleasant to think about, rather than “Communism itself is unpleasant to think about,” then it’s just an issue with wording.

Cowbee,

Capitalism is undeniably declining, though. Production is through the roof, but wages have stagnated with respect to that. Factorization in the sense of industrialization was never seen to go against Capitalism, rather, with the rise of factories came the rise in Capitalism.

Unless I’m misunderstanding your point, of course.

Additionally, the fact that one prediction was wrong does not necessitate that all predictions are wrong.

Cowbee,

So then it’s a wording issue, though it’s more accurate to say that revolution itself invariably turns to shit.

Cowbee,

It’s also the worst. It was the backbone of both Nazi Germany, and modern Social Democracies. Capitalism is incredibly broad, both the most evil and most benign states in history have relied on Capitalism.

Socialism similarly is broad, and isn’t at all synonymous with Stalinism or Maoism.

Cowbee,

To be fair, the political compass is a vast oversimplification itself. For example, there cannot be an Anarchist Capitalism in any fashion, as Capitalism definitionally has a requirement for hierarchy to exist.

It’s better to understand values and positions than try to place people on an imaginary grid.

Cowbee,

Theory is a plan for reality. If you can prove that tools have a mystical property that causes people to turn evil if they share them, be my guest. You can’t actually tie that absurd claim to reality though, so you won’t.

Personally, I love the idea of decentralization, collaboration, and democratization, which is why I love FOSS and am on Lemmy rather than Reddit.

Cowbee,

You’re continuing to compare a fully developed superpower that never had skin in WWII with a developing country the rest of the world tried to oppose at every step, that’s still completely disingenuous. The graph was volatile because the USSR was founded in Civil War, had a famine in the 30s during the horribly botched collectivization of agriculture, then had their bread basket invaded during WWII while they took on the majority of combat against the Nazis. After that, steady!

Decentralization is firmly a Socialist ideal, and is incompatible with Capitalism. Capitalism requires that workers have no power, otherwise it wouldn’t exist.

You then go on to completely butcher the definitions of Socialism by assuming it means state control, rather than collective control, of the means of production. State control is merely one path of Socialism.

Private Property requires a monopoly of violence to enforce, ie a state. You cannot have private property without threat of violence via a state, even your example proves this.

All in all, you’re frustratingly bad at arguing anything coherent, and it’s clear you don’t actually care about proper definitions.

Cowbee,

Development did, not Capitalism. The countries that developed the most in the 1900s were the ones rejecting Capitalism in favor of some form of Socialism.

Do you think that people get richer when a group of people decide they have no rights of ownership and one person owns everything, or do you acknowledge that democracy and decentralization are good?

Cowbee,

They are.

To argue for Capitalism over Socialism, you must reject the idea of democratizing control of productuon in favor of dictatorial control. You can whitewash it into “meritocracy,” and pretend that ownership is a mystical concept that chooses those with the highest competency, but ultimately Capitalism is a rejection of Worker Control, and thus an affirmation of control in the hands of the few.

Similarly, to believe that this dictatorial control is worth it, you typically must also believe that growth is either non-existant if the Workers direct it, or pales in comparison to when Capitalists control production.

Therefore, you are rejecting the concepts of decentralization and democratization of production in favor of the “good men” theory, putting all your chips on Capitalists either being good people or being replaced by better Capitalists without input from the Workers.

Did I deliberately highlight the flaws of your thinking without putting the kid gloves on? Yes, and I won’t apologize for it, as the claims are logically a necessity to hold your beliefs.

Cowbee,

Abolishing money is a very gradual process, not an immediate one. In lower stages, Labor Vouchers would be paid, and these represent an hour of labor. The difference is that labor Vouchers are destroyed upon first use.

Secondly, difficult, unpleasant, or otherwise undesirable labor would either be paid at a higher ratio, or require less labor per week to make the same amount of labor Vouchers. Alternatively, these dirty jobs may require rotation, so nobody is stuck working them. There are many ways of handling this, with more proposals than you would expect.

Cowbee,

Neither. It’s a replacement for money, based on hours worked. The difference between money and LVs are that LVs are destroyed upon first use, ie you create 4 hours of Value, then trade that for 4 different hours of Value.

Cowbee,

People don’t get everything for free until productivity is so high that it’s practical, which comes from development. The distribution is handled by the Socialist State, typically, until it becomes vestigial and no longer necessary.

Cowbee,

Nope, just like it doesn’t require unlimited resources and automation to get you to do your chores. However, at a societal scale, its definitely a futuristic goal, which is why Communism is only achievable after Socialism, which is similar to modern society except industry is collectively, rather than individually owned.

Cowbee,

It can only happen at a global scale. There are numerous answers to your question, but again, it isn’t as simple as removing all incentives. Read theory, Marx never pretends to know what Communism must look like, which is why Communists focus on achieving Socialism first, as we can very well transition to that now.

Cowbee,

Decentralization is an extremist position, to be fair.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #