144
‘They will vote against Harris’: Arab Americans in Michigan desert Democrats over Gaza
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
144 points (80.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7167 readers
756 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
She isn't doing destruction for destruction's sake.
You have yet to explain any of this.
absolutely is unless there is a plan to replace the system. hence all of my original points around her lack of coherent plans that address actual needs of the people. breaking the current system without sound ideas on how the new system will operate is destruction for destruction sake. You don't tear your house down without a alternative place to shelter. but keep waving your flag on the hill, I'lll bring you a picnic basket and chill with you. =)
I dont need to, those are my opinions you can take or leave them as you will. or just watch the election play out and get your answer. =)
You read the party platform of PSL. PSL has coherent plans.
That isn't what's happening.
You keep arguing against strawmen.
That's fine, you just have no coherent plans for establishing Socialism.
you're welcome to link to resources. I checked out her campaign site it wasn't interesting and i explained why each point will fail. I dont particularly care to spend my time beyond that digging to decide if she was is worth my time, determined she isn't. The campaign site is incoherent as far as plans go. if you want to goal post shift to PSL in general feel free to do so and i'll tell you what i think but otherwise. 🤷 if you want support you need to do the effort to earn it. ;)
PSL is DemCent, the party platform is her platform.
quick scan looks like a non-starter for me but good luck! anything where economy is centrally managed is a horrible idea, and something marx got very wrong its essentially what we have now just with a different person in charge. 🤷
What a fantastic way to say you have no idea what Marxism is, nor how Socialism is different from Capitalism. Consider reading Why Public Property?
Central Planning is the only way forward.
because I dont give a shit about marxist. its mostly nonsense. he identified the root problem but failed to understand human nature or how to build robust economies/systems. just because you're blinded doesn't mean every socialist is as foolish. centralized planning is what we have today in late stage capitalism, and its what caused communist societies to collapse under the corruption they foster. like i said good luck in your idealistic vision it'll never work because its inflexible and misses the point.
edit: now i was a little terse there sorry. anyways I dont need you to give me an expose on marxism. its strictly unnecessary.
is where the PSL is claiming to require a planned economy. which is a bad idea and thats what I was reacting to; its what we have today and its ripe for corruption. any socialist movement is going to have to learn to reject centralized structures beyond a certain size.
if the goal is to prevent wealth accumulation/ensure the needs of the workers are met, there are other methods to do so that dont require a planned economy.
now I suggest you go spend your efforts on another individual, theres no more play here for you. but again I recommend PSL spend its effort on state level efforts and show their model can work. there is some okayish ideas there they just need to prove them first but there is also a lot of things we already have available.
I can gather.
Not at all, it's entirely relevant and correct.
Can you elaborate? What did Marx fail to understand about Human Nature? What about Marxism goes against robust economies and systems? The largest economy in the world is run by Marxists today.
Weird personal attack, you have yet to make a concrete point, just wildly gesture.
Funny, you are almost correct. The fact that markets trend towards consolidation and monopolization makes themselves ripe for public ownership and central planning. This is exactly why Marx said Socialism succeeds Capitalism, the older the Capitalist system gets, and the more it consolidates itself, the more effective public siezure and central planning will be. The issue is that late stage Capitalism isn't yet Central Planning because it's still privately owned and operated for profit. This is something the article I linked you explains in detail, if you wish to learn more.
Additionally, your point on central planning collapsing AES is false. Many AES states still exist, in fact Central Planning is what caused the PRC to skyrocket in growth. It was also extremely effective in the USSR until later in its existence, where it struggled due to establishing planning by hand, and failing to transition to computerized planning adequately as the economy got increasingly complex, resulting in liberalization that further went against the efficiency of central planning. Despite this, the economy had great growth over its existence and dramatically lowered wealth inequality:
I'm not sure what you mean by Marxism being "idealistic," "inflexible," or how it "misses the point." What do you mean by any of that?
You have explained none of this, we do not have a planned economy now nor is it correct to reject central planning.
Sigh. if you're going to be so insistent. first lets start with tossing out GDP as a metric its useless. it measures production not happiness/societal fullfillment. those two things are very different. If you want to use china as a pillar of socialist utopia... well, sorry thats not going to fly.
secondly: at least use comparable countries. comparing the USSR to the UK and on top of it using percentages. my god. did anyone teach you anything about maths?
(the problem is in what 0% represents as a baseline the higher the baseline is the less room it has to grow, and the USSR and the UK didn't start out at the same baseline)
third: cite your sources if you want to play the numbers game.
fourth: you and I clearly have different definitions of central planning, you have a particular definition and mine is a general 'small number of people making the calls' both late stage capitalism and what you're article you linked to are the same thing in all but how those individuals are selected. to me there is no difference there. they're both equally bad ideas.
You're foolish because you think marx had the answers to the problem of the class war. he didn't.. You're never going to convenience people to risk dramatic upheaval. Most people are not wired that way. hence marxist ideas and in particular the revolutionary followers such as yourself dont understand human nature. The US is not at that point yet, it has to get significantly worse for such triggers to be effective.
re central planning: late stage capitalism and you're marxist idea of public property are the same levels of centralized planning. the fact you don't realize that is.... sad. again you also don't need such a system. it limits diversity in ideas and development. even if you take over the means of production in a capitalist economy, who says you're going to do any better than the current crop of oligarchs? fundamentally I don't believe you will.
also the very same weakness of capitalism you hope to exploit are the same weakness your society will have because its just as centralized. I really hope you realize this.
As for the PRC.... its not even 100 years old yet; and has a fair amount of problems; primarily the fact its run by a dictator. the USSR didn't last a 100 years. so lets just say if those are your examples for thriving socialist countries I'll pass on your vision.
Essentially my fundamental point is you need to figure out how to build the system without centralized planning and organization and a robust immune system to bad actors; and marxist from everything i've seen/been shown isnt that.
how to clarify the two adjectives I used for marxism and yourself mmmm... I'll try but these are things I usually spend months on deprogramming people like yourself.
idealistic: thinking you can just wrest away control from capitalists without broad support, which you certainly don't have, and the naive assumption your central planners will be better than the current catch we already have. No thanks winni I'll pass.
inflexible: soon as your centralize anything in a system you make it harder to experiment or course correct. why? because everything that depends on that centralize system needs to be changed in order to support the changes. lets take something as simple as deciding to build a park. if public spaces are centrally planned then who decides what kind of park it is? me? my neighbor? my town? my state? what about what gets researched? who gets the supplies to do their research? what if the individual doing the resource allocation is corrupt or doesn't understand the new ideas? what if they find a particular approach like fetal stem cells objectionable?
and the personal attack is because you're as inflexible as marx was in his thinking you think he had the answers and you rely on him as an authority and puritan authority. sorry but appeals to authority don't matter to me. You shouldn't need to appeal to marxism to demonstrate the validity of your ideas. tell me what particular bits you plan on changing and how. the good thing about living in a democracy is you can effect these things at a local level. the PSL is doomed from the start because it doesn't understand the problems or the people its trying to convince and as a result it doesn't understand how to manipulate systems and there isn't wide spread repression (yet) to get people angry enough to be supportive.
Now I've spent enough time corresponding with you and I'm going back to fiddling with my mushrooms they're far more interesting than talking to a soldier tripping over their own firearm in their enthusiasm. but I suggest you research into using random processes and their effects on creating robust systems, there are examples in compute science, biology, law, governance, maybe it'll enlighten you the the power of distributed systems over centralized. 👋