The shifting politics of inequality and the class ceiling

[TristanLuigi]

i think his point is that even with regulations, workers are still fundamentally in a submissive position compared to their employers
no amount of regulation will fix that

[Ad Bot]

[Johnimiester]

What I am explicitly referring to is the fact that workplace democracy does not exist under Capitalism. Workplace regulations historically have never implemented this and will not since doing so would be the antithesis of Bourgeois control over production.

[Foxscotch]

yeah imagine that

look first of all im biting his ass and secondly i actually bought this key like a long time before I got banned, during one of those $5 sales I bought two keys to hold onto until I found someone to give them to but then i wound up getting banned and used one for this so here we are

What I am explicitly referring to is the fact that workplace democracy does not exist under Capitalism. Workplace regulations historically have never implemented this and will not since doing so would be the antithesis of Bourgeois control over production.

i thouhgt you were like 12 years old, dude, the forget

[Red Spy]

Bourgeois

he's infected boys

[PhantOS]

i think his point is that even with regulations, workers are still fundamentally in a submissive position compared to their employers
no amount of regulation will fix that

of course, that's the natural order of things. you're providing your service in exchange for money, and you are at the will of whoever is providing that money. It's the same thing with communism, except doing service and expecting one centralized entity to return the money, while in capitalism you have a thousand different entities which you can offer your services to

in the end, more checks and balances over business and smaller sections of the government dealing with them is what holds everything together. businesses by themselves don't have the foresight or judgement to understand the weight of their exploitation of work, and how it destroys the source of labor and results in civil unrest. governments that regulate themselves and others understand the weight of security and regulations and how it holds society together

[Tayasaurus]

The ONLY way you can get any idea or system of communism to work is if you can magically change human nature. Until you can find a way of doing that, everything will fall short of what the idea actually wants. Dictators are merely the result of our nature getting the better of us as is proven over and over again throughout history. Being a communist is like thinking the earth is flat.

[Johnimiester]

of course, that's the natural order of things. you're providing your service in exchange for money, and you are at the will of whoever is providing that money. It's the same thing with communism, except doing service and expecting one centralized entity to return the money, while in capitalism you have a thousand different entities which you can offer your services to

There are multitudes of ideologies that advocate a decentralized communism.

It should also be said that by nature theft and bearing of one's power upon another in a setting in which it is decidedly clear who has most of the ability to do so is still such and is in itself a form of violence against the individual who can't fight for themselves. Even if there is a million unique opportunities for employment, most of them would still not involve any kind of real, inclusive workplace democracy or ownership of the workplace (a definitive goal and maxim of socialist ideologies), just as with the Soviet Union.

[Karl Marx]

Since this is relevant again:

Human nature is a weak argument. Humans are socialized by their environment, and a capitalist environment breeds capitalist morals.

On top of that, the praxis of the Societ Union, for example, involves the complete centralization of power (theoretically temporarily). There are a multitude of different methods that have, essentially, not been attempted.

[Cappytaino]

You seem to be confusing economic equality for prosperity. Take for example a country like Somalia. Most people are equal  in the economic sense but that isn't indicative of prosperity.

Economic inequality doesn't mean something is inherently unfair. Correct me if I'm mistaken but you seem to be insinuating that equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity; that is to say, if I go to medical school and you flip burgers, it is inherently unfair that I make more money than you do despite spending many more years on my education and training?

[Juncoph]

this is kind of a misconception about communism
it's never been "your computer and your granola bars belong to the state," it's "industry and land belongs to society" (which can mean the state, but a lot of communists are anarchists)

the only realistic way to enforce societal ownership is through the state

that's why government property is "publicly owned", and not "privately owned"

Since this is relevant again:
On top of that, the praxis of the Societ Union, for example, involves the complete centralization of power (theoretically temporarily). There are a multitude of different methods that have, essentially, not been attempted.

name 1 that doesn't rely on the good faith of a dictator or the good faith of everyone to just not commit crime without a state to stop them

[Karl Marx]

You seem to be confusing economic equality for prosperity. Take for example a country like Somalia. Most people are equal  in the economic sense but that isn't indicative of prosperity.

Economic inequality doesn't mean something is inherently unfair. Correct me if I'm mistaken but you seem to be insinuating that equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity; that is to say, if I go to medical school and you flip burgers, it is inherently unfair that I make more money than you do despite spending many more years on my education and training?

National prosperity does not guarantee equal prosperity either. The country's richest people could be so wealthy that the GDP per capita could look incredible, but that means nothing to the impoverished who gain no share of this prosperity.

You, as many others tend to, seem to believe that communism somehow damages the doctors and highly skilled laborers for the gain of the working class. You forget that these doctors and laborers are not the face of the super elite, the ultra wealthy enemy of the people. The business CEOs, the Bill Gates and the Warren Buffets, the individuals who wrest the equity of wealth distribution from the hands of the people. The people who exclusively reap the benefits of the value created by their laborers, guaranteeing only the prosperity of the elites even in the face of a slowly decaying working class. They are the enemies of equality.

name 1 that doesn't rely on the good faith of a dictator or the good faith of everyone to just not commit crime without a state to stop them

Alright. Try De Leonism.

To my understanding, it involves the replacement of political parties with unions, in effect replacing the democracy of the elites with a democracy of the people. A decentralized government that democratically decides what laws to pass based on the consensus of a coalition of the working people.

[Maxwell.]

To my understanding, it involves the replacement of political parties with unions, in effect replacing the democracy of the elites with a democracy of the people. A decentralized government that democratically decides what laws to pass based on the consensus of a coalition of the working people.

how long do you think it'll take until that system breaks down, though? I see no feasible way for people to stay equal when there's no one in power to hold that equilibrium

[Karl Marx]

how long do you think it'll take until that system breaks down, though? I see no feasible way for people to stay equal when there's no one in power to hold that equilibrium

You seem to be under the impression that an authoritarian government is necessary to enforce equality. When has that ever been the case?

[Maxwell.]

You seem to be under the impression that an authoritarian government is necessary to enforce equality. When has that ever been the case?

when have we ever reached anywhere near equality without it? when was the last time there was no government in power yet law and order still somehow held up?

[Cappytaino]

You seem to be under the impression that an authoritarian government is necessary to enforce equality. When has that ever been the case?

"capitalism doesn't work because people act in self-interest but communism will work because people won't act in self-interest"

How do you expect to enforce any laws without a government?