Seedle - Today at 06:23
Why aren't ya'll communists yet?
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 08:56
I think not having capitalism goes against an aspect of human nature. We should have a mixed economy because humans are a mixture of many things, including both greed and altruism. Trying to prevent one or another aspect will not work out.
DensD6390 - Today at 09:06
^
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:10
That being said, most of us in here do believe in more aspects of the economy under government control and stronger regulations on business.
Seedle - Today at 09:10
Capitalism is against human nature though.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:10
it's not
the profit motive is a natural one
it's just not the only one
Seedle - Today at 09:12
Money is a very recent thing in terms of humanity. And to hammer in my point, in no other animal species can we observe bouts of massive stress and suicide from productive labor than in humans.
To further hammer it in, is it truly human nature if we are routinely disconnected from our emotional, political, artistic etc needs in these sorts of systems? I mean we're taught to think it's natural or okay, but is it?
The alienation caused in capitalism can't simply be the nature of humans if it is so inhumane to a majority of us.
That's my view and the view of many others, and I'm willing to discuss any disagreements on the harm of capitalism.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:18
Money is recent but greed is intrinsic.
With regards to stress and suicide... everyone in here wants the social safety net to be stronger
I personally favour a universal basic income
which would also do a lot to alleviate problems of stress
and gives people the freedom to connect to their emotional political artistic sides etc
just b/c we believe in capitalism doesn't mean we believe that people should overwork
UBI and shorter working weeks are the start imo
Seedle - Today at 09:20
But if you realize those points of capitalism then how can you say it's human nature?
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:20
they're not points of capitalism, they're points of our current system
we live in mixed economies as it stands
if you descrease the role of the state further those problems are exascerbated yet
Seedle - Today at 09:21
And we live in capitalism, and the things you're asking for are currently being resisted by big business and bankers (capitalists)
How do you answer to that?
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:21
but that doesn't mean you need 100% state control to remove those problems
Seedle - Today at 09:21
I don't believe in state control.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:21
well the answer is easy, don't give them any more political power than any other individual
Seedle - Today at 09:21
I believe the working-class should own the economy and the political systems.
But, this is a very important question
"And we live in capitalism, and the things you're asking for are currently being resisted by big business and bankers (capitalists)"

How can this be considered our nature when right here and right now me and you both are opposing the things it wants to do to us?
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:22
I don't think everyone is or should be equal, but the people who end up at the bottom economic rung should be cared for and have the same basic rights and priviledges and a good quality of life
because we're not living in just capitalism
Seedle - Today at 09:23
I think people should own the entire fruits of their labor.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:23
I don't
Seedle - Today at 09:23
I work an hour for 7 dollars but I make 20 dollars in that hour. Why do you support that?
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:23
I don't think it's wrong if they do but i also don't think it's wrong if people are just paid for their labour instead and you still have management at the top of a company
I didn't say I don't support fair pay
but I don't see things as being so wrong w the current structure that communism is the route to fixing it
honestly I think w/ a universal basic income we could exploit the advantages of capitalism further w/o causing harm
and I think it's a key part to saving capitalism and I think it is something worth saving
Seedle - Today at 09:25
But that's really what this is about too. It's inherent to the wage system in capitalism that people aren't given the full value of what they produce for a firm, and that's how we get things like 5 people owning more than billions of people, despite those people being working-class.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:25
you can regulate things to reduce that though
e.g. making sure the people at the top make no more than 10x the people at the bottom
that's a reform that works within capitalism
Seedle - Today at 09:25
Implying you get into government and can enact those reforms.
Do you know what happened in the 80s?
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:26
>implying you can get into government and enact communism :thinking:
Seedle - Today at 09:26
After we had FDR's social democratic policies through the 50s and 60s?
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:26
we're not here to talk the political feasibility of either
Seedle - Today at 09:26
I'm just asking you, do you know what happened?
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:26
that's a different question as to whether the systems will actually work
im aware of reagan and i'm aware of thatcher in the uk where i'm from
we had the birth of the neoliberal vision of an economy based on smaller government
after keynesian failed to control inflation
and for that matter keynesian is terrible for the environment which is another reason why we can't just propose it as a solution to the current system now
Seedle - Today at 09:28
Mass privatization. Any social democratic reform was swiped away and we were in a new era of prosperity for the elite. And that is precisely why change from the top down will be swiftly defeated, and why it's important to make sure the vestiges of power are firmly within the hands of the working-class.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:28
well if we get money out of politics
there's no reason that the rich would take back control
:shrug:
and who's to say what the rich would do if you implement communism anyway
but yea really i don't care too much about worker's rights. If you've got food, water, shelther, healthcare, and  a couple days of free time to focus on your family and whatever else you want, that's good enough for me.
i'm driven more by the environment
how does communism affect the environment
Seedle - Today at 09:30
These are a lot of political objectives which are good, and I don't disagree with them, but they ignore what you need for them to be achievable. The physical and mental needs - which are an organized working-class who will fight for their interests, and an analysis of how the greater socioeconomic system will react.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:30
b/c I think a universal basic income steady state economy w/ strong regulations is the ideal solution rn
I also don't think building the economy around the worker is a smart idea
when so many jobs will be lost to automation
I want to share the fruits of that with everyone
hence UBI
Seedle - Today at 09:31
Are you working-class?
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:31
also why do you view it through a class lens
no
i'm middle class
Seedle - Today at 09:31
As in work for a wage and such?
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:31
right now i'm a student
Seedle - Today at 09:31
That's still working-class, you're just richer.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:31
i view myself as middle class
Seedle - Today at 09:31
I'm substituting "proletariat" for working-class here.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:32
my granddad was a banker (albeit in the times when it wasn't as ludicrously profitable as it is now)
but yea i hate seeing things through the class lens
I think it'll turn off people who otherwise might be sympathetic to your (broadly using your to mean both of us and others in this chat) ideas
Seedle - Today at 09:33
https://i.imgur.com/Gf9OkxK.png
This picture describes my views pretty perfectly.
An economy controlled by the workers would mean things like poverty, outsourcing, etc could be addressed.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:34
you can also address those w/UBI
plus
Seedle - Today at 09:34
Automation will eventually mean layoffs, and then perhaps a UBI when the underclass of unemployed grow. But now you have a problem.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:34
people don't want endless vacations
people do want the dignity of work and if we reach a point where
there is no need for 99% of people to work in factories
Seedle - Today at 09:34
There is a class who owns the means of production, who do not need workers, and you have former workers who's lives are now dictated by an income from the state.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:34
then you will have more people who would want to work in the arts and so on
and a UBI frees people up to work in the arts
much more so than communism does
Seedle - Today at 09:35
A UBI is not a panacea.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:35
it's not but it's a better starting point than communism
Seedle - Today at 09:35
I've heard proposals for the UBI.
They say 10 thousand a year.
or 20 thousand a year.
That's not a wage for someone to sustain and go into the arts with.
That's subsistence.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:36
subsistence is all you need to be able to take a risk
plus you could work like 2 days a week for some extra money and use that to pay for equipment
people with a passion could make things work
Seedle - Today at 09:37
So you're saying we should lay them off and just have the ones who are laid off from their low-end jobs just subsist while socialism offers them a way to live more freely? By being involved in economic and political decisions? A basic standard of living? Etc.
We're getting ahead of ourselves.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:38
yea i believe in a basic standard of living
and that's what ubi achieves
Seedle - Today at 09:38
But for some reason you don't think people should be involved in economic and political decisions?
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:38
economic decisions? I'm not sure exactly what you mean
but one person one vote
Seedle - Today at 09:38
As in their workplace.
The goods produced.
The economic life of their community.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:38
i don't believe that then no
Seedle - Today at 09:39
Then that's against human nature.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:39
i don't think it's necessarily bad if they do have that but I don't think the government should enforce the workers owning the means of production
there are businesses of that sort popping up though but I have to say
personally I would hate
owning the means of production
wherever i work
it wouldn't suit how i would want to work
Seedle - Today at 09:39
So you don't think you should have a choice?
You're free not to take part.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:40
i think there already is a choice
there's already some businesses that operate like that
but i don't think the government should mandate it
Seedle - Today at 09:40
The majority of businesses don't.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:40
yes the majority don't but some do already
i think there should be some that don't
the ones that don't are exactly the sort of places i'd rather work probably
Seedle - Today at 09:40
How come the bankers at Wells Fargo, or at Equifax aren't being charged right now for legitimate and harmful crimes?
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:41
because of corruption in the system
Seedle - Today at 09:41
Yes, and the most left-wing senators in congress, do you know what their response is?
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:41
it's a separate issue to who owns the means of production
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/03/investing/wells-fargo-hearing-ceo/index.html guess that's the answer
CNNMoney
Elizabeth Warren to Wells Fargo CEO: 'You should be fired'
Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan told Congress on Tuesday that management failed to take decisive action to head off the scandal that has rocked the bank for the past year.

Seedle - Today at 09:41
It's entirely involved with that question, because the people who own the means of production in capitalism are also the dominant class.
"you should be fired"
lol
For ruining people's lives
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:42
she gave him a right earful lol
Seedle - Today at 09:42
"you should be fired"
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:42
deservedly
Seedle - Today at 09:42
Not "you should be in prison"
This is what I mean when I say workers are not attached to their political systems.
Also
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:42
idk what I think should happen to him but
we should have much stronger bank regulation
reinstate glass-steagall for a start
Seedle - Today at 09:43
Lobbyists.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:43
i think if u take the money out of the political system
then u can actually
regulate the banks properly
Seedle - Today at 09:43
This is completely separated from reality.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:43
if we get private money out of the system
then we have one person one vote
we don't have that now so it's ludicrous to look at problems that emanate from that system and use it to push another solution when the solution is to eliminate the corruption. If we still have problems at that point then that would be the point to suggest something else
Seedle - Today at 09:44
You don't know what should happen to people who've destroyed the lives of thousands, perhaps?
Who has lied countless times to the public?
Why are you averse to justice?
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:45
tbh most politicians have done most of that and we don't jail them
Seedle - Today at 09:45
"Something terrible has happened in x place and we didn't do anything so why now?"
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:45
and i'm kind of averse to doing that outside of the extreme cases (let's prosecute blair cheney and bush but probably stop there)
Seedle - Today at 09:45
I think you're forgetting the scope of what I'm arguing for here.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:46
i mean
banking worked before we deregulated it
so
why not just
fix the political system
and re-regulate
!!!
:thinking:
Seedle - Today at 09:46
Banking didn't work though.
Bankers are still terrible people.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:46
no crashes until deregulation happened
I don't think bankers are terrible people
if we had stronger regulation i would become a banker
am I terrible?
Seedle - Today at 09:47
They regulated capitalism until it could quite literally accomodate for everyone, and that was in massive part due to the organizing communists had done in the 20s and 30s.
No, I think you've just been taught to think this way.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:48
well that's what i want to do, regulate capitalism
Seedle - Today at 09:48
I think we've all been taught to think a certain way, and to defend our overall system, and it's led an impact on all of us.
Especially in our morals.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:48
although it might be fun for you to chat w/ @doofface99 here who is a strong believer in free markets
I recognise certain things need to change but I only want change when I recognise it as necessary
Seedle - Today at 09:49
I'm not interested in arguing in bad faith. I want people who I know will stand up.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:49
capitalism is broke but it can be fixed
imo.
Seedle - Today at 09:49
It's been "fixed" before and all those systems failed.
Even in scandinavia, they really weren't fixing capitalism
https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/08/21/tackling-wealth-inequality-like-a-swede/
People's Policy Project
Peter Gowan and Mio Tastas Viktorsson
Tackling Wealth Inequality Like A Swede
Rudolf Meidner's plan to socialize Swedish industry is still relevant today.

(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:49
no they weren't properly fixed cos they relied on growth
Seedle - Today at 09:50
The people who made the social democratic reforms even acknowledged it.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:50
i think the scandinavian models rn are really good though
Seedle - Today at 09:50
Read that article.
(((Big Seltzer))) - Today at 09:50
none of the scandinavian countries are perfect but I think they're where I'd support as a starting point