Ficus-lovin\x27 Capybara N\x27 pals • 🌟 • 25 yrs ago
Hakim
comments
Comments by "Ficus-lovin\x27 Capybara N\x27 pals • 🌟 • 25 yrs ago" (@YourCapybaraAmigo_17yrsago) on "Everything You Own Is Made By One Single Company" video.
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Smart-keem,
Your eminent cogitations on the following: (a bit of a copy pasta to another online amigo-rade if you don't mind. It's US-based as that's where I live.)
"I don't think the answer is to have a State do everything. I think we have to find a way to better manage and regulate the private market in the interests of workers, communities, and the natural environment. I think most people on the Left are bright, and may think having a smart State micromanage is the answer, but it's not. I don't think we really want a State to manage everything, instead let's have a combination.
It's certainly possible.
Think of a nice small town. The small town city council doesn't manage everything, they probably don't do very much at all. Let's assume there are very little to any corporate interests in this community ergo most people's businesses are of a modest size or less. I'm not even against a bigger businesses but I do feel there should be a hard limit at some point. But for sake of discussion let's say in this small community of 20,000 persons there are only local businesses of medium size or less. Provided the standing Labor laws explicitly protects the rights of Labor and all workers, wages are set at a high enough level that anyone can support themselves working full-time even if they are unskilled, and no local business is intentionally polluting the environment, then for the most part, all is well. Businesses and services will run smoothly and customers will feel that they've paid a fair price for what they received. When it makes sense, ongoing price controls and rent controls can be implemented. This way, all non-luxury goods are affordable and rent is never more than someone can afford because it is based on a function of their income not some flat rate that everyone just has to arbitrarily meet. All the excess can be collected after a certain selling cycle, and instead of being simply dumped in the landfill to collect as waste year after year, they can be first sent to a local warehouse, where they can then be redistributed to discount shops and community donations as needed.
This is the ideal situation that we want. A State should certainly set better ground rules for private business, but as far as running them directly I think that's too cumbersome. I just don't think that would work. Enterprises can function well if they are managed by ethical people and if they're forced to comply with proper regulation.
Businesses should be free to manage themselves in the way they see fit provided they abide by these nonnegotiable ground rules. We can adapt regulations appropriately for smaller businesses as well, so that they're not harmed by being forced to comply with a standard that is too restrictive for them due to their overall income and lower profit margin.
We don't have any kinds of enforced proper regulations on the private sector right now and we do have a corporatocracy which does allow for unlimited accumulation and growth, and I don't agree with that at all. We do need rent controls and guarantees through the government that provide all basic tangible needs freely given for any member of society who needs them (not means tested per se but phased out based on household income with small co-pays only if necessary), so that no one has to worry about going bankrupt if anything in their life doesn't go perfectly. I think all of this is easily achieved, but not under a corporatography and certainly not with a corrupt super elite running everything. But I do think it's more or less easily achieved. We can nationalize certain industries, or parts of certain industries if that makes sense. We can put the individual citizen and the worker FIRST and that's what I want to see. That is certainly not the paradigm that those in our government operate from currently, absolutely not. So it's true we do need a major change but it's too cumbersome to expect a small central government to somehow manage all these different businesses and services, but that doesn't mean we can't settle on a degree of central planning that makes sense.
Market socialism is definitely the answer. All taxes can be placed on large businesses, individual households can be encouraged to contribute as they see fit but I certainly would not make the mandatory. If the central government already issues currency it could keep doing that, and print and mint whatever it needs. I believe government inflation doesn't exis- that it's a boogeyman. I believe a sovereign currency issuing Nation can print any amount of currency it wants or needs. So as for how to pay for all of these comprehensive social services to me that's a BS question because I think the answer should be obvious, and as stated.
We can provide responsible and accountable public safety without turning into an egregious and vicious Police State like the US right is right now. All these things are possible and easy, but NOT under a predatory corporatocracy. Not under a State which enjoys incarceration as its number one GROWTH industries. Not when corrupt and hateful sots make all the decisions on social and economic policy.
So yeah it's entirely possible, we can have direct democracy where all public policy is passed through public referenda which is how it should be and politicians, if they even exist anymore play only a minor role mostly figural and advisory. All these things are possible, I just don't know exactly how we're going to get there. Organizing into a viable Left third party is the first step. We can always try to get more Leftists into state by state legislatures to start making these changes at the state level. I don't know if it's going to happen in our lifetime but that's how we need to go if we want to try to force these changes through. We can have rent control and all other public guarantee tangibles that guarantee everyone a baseline of a dignified existence before they even step foot in the workplace, but only if Leftists are able to take over the government. And that's kind of a big challenge in the US but I won't go so far to say it's impossible. How can we force an elected Leftist takeover of our current government?
Only by getting millions more people to vote who typically don't vote, and that's most easily achieved by media presence, of which there is no mainstream Leftist media presence currently. I don't know how to suddenly motivate 30 million more people Nationwide to vote for a currently as yet non-viable Leftist political party but that would seem to be the only way to start electing a bunch of Leftists who will put better policies in place. I mean that's the electoral method. As far as doing some kind of armed revolution that just can't happen in the modern world. Not in this country. That's just not feasible. We don't have a secret army and between State Police and national guard it just wouldn't work. It would be over before it started.
It looks like we got a long road ahead of us if we want to try to do this the electoral route but I think it's very doable. I think if millions of people had a genuinely sincere and ethical party to vote for, then they would. So the first step is then, form a viable Left movement and translate that into a Left Unity party that can fight back against the current duopoly machine and then find a way to get our word out. Find a way to counter the massive corporate MSM with media blaring a leftist message 24/7.
If we can do that, then we got a chance. It's going to take legal battles too because the duopoly scumbags love to prevent third party challengers from even getting on the ballot. Every plan can be strategized and so long as it's well planned out, has an even chance of success."
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RHH, yeah I don't think the answer is to have a State do everything. I think we have to find a way to better manage and regulate the private market in the interests of workers, communities, and the natural environment. I think most people on the Left are bright, and may think having a smart State micromanage is the answer, but it's not. I don't think we really want a State to manage everything, instead let's have a combination.
It's certainly possible.
Think of a nice small town. The small town city council doesn't manage everything, they probably don't do very much at all. Let's assume there are very little to any corporate interests in this community ergo most people's businesses are of a modest size or less. I'm not even against a bigger businesses but I do feel there should be a hard limit at some point. But for sake of discussion let's say in this small community of 20,000 persons there are only local businesses of medium size or less. Provided the standing Labor laws explicitly protects the rights of Labor and all workers, wages are set at a high enough level that anyone can support themselves working full-time even if they are unskilled, and no local business is intentionally polluting the environment, then for the most part, all is well. Businesses and services will run smoothly and customers will feel that they've paid a fair price for what they received. When it makes sense, ongoing price controls and rent controls can be implemented. This way, all non-luxury goods are affordable and rent is never more than someone can afford because it is based on a function of their income not some flat rate that everyone just has to arbitrarily meet. All the excess can be collected after a certain selling cycle, and instead of being simply dumped in the landfill to collect as waste year after year, they can be first sent to a local warehouse, where they can then be redistributed to discount shops and community donations as needed.
This is the ideal situation that we want. A State should certainly set better ground rules for private business, but as far as running them directly I think that's too cumbersome. I just don't think that would work. Enterprises can function well if they are managed by ethical people and if they're forced to comply with proper regulation.
Businesses should be free to manage themselves in the way they see fit provided they abide by these nonnegotiable ground rules. We can adapt regulations appropriately for smaller businesses as well, so that they're not harmed by being forced to comply with a standard that is too restrictive for them due to their overall income and lower profit margin.
We don't have any kinds of enforced proper regulations on the private sector right now and we do have a corporatocracy which does allow for unlimited accumulation and growth, and I don't agree with that at all. We do need rent controls and guarantees through the government that provide all basic tangible needs freely given for any member of society who needs them (not means tested per se but phased out based on household income with small co-pays only if necessary), so that no one has to worry about going bankrupt if anything in their life doesn't go perfectly. I think all of this is easily achieved, but not under a corporatography and certainly not with a corrupt super elite running everything. But I do think it's more or less easily achieved. We can nationalize certain industries, or parts of certain industries if that makes sense. We can put the individual citizen and the worker FIRST and that's what I want to see. That is certainly not the paradigm that those in our government operate from currently, absolutely not. So it's true we do need a major change but it's too cumbersome to expect a small central government to somehow manage all these different businesses and services, but that doesn't mean we can't settle on a degree of central planning that makes sense.
Market socialism is definitely the answer. All taxes can be placed on large businesses, individual households can be encouraged to contribute as they see fit but I certainly would not make the mandatory. If the central government already issues currency it could keep doing that, and print and mint whatever it needs. I believe government inflation doesn't exis- that it's a boogeyman. I believe a sovereign currency issuing Nation can print any amount of currency it wants or needs. So as for how to pay for all of these comprehensive social services to me that's a BS question because I think the answer should be obvious, and as stated.
We can provide responsible and accountable public safety without turning into an egregious and vicious Police State like the US right is right now. All these things are possible and easy, but NOT under a predatory corporatocracy. Not under a State which enjoys incarceration as its number one GROWTH industries. Not when corrupt and hateful sots make all the decisions on social and economic policy.
So yeah it's entirely possible, we can have direct democracy where all public policy is passed through public referenda which is how it should be and politicians, if they even exist anymore play only a minor role mostly figural and advisory. All these things are possible, I just don't know exactly how we're going to get there. Organizing into a viable Left third party is the first step. We can always try to get more Leftists into state by state legislatures to start making these changes at the state level. I don't know if it's going to happen in our lifetime but that's how we need to go if we want to try to force these changes through. We can have rent control and all other public guarantee tangibles that guarantee everyone a baseline of a dignified existence before they even step foot in the workplace, but only if Leftists are able to take over the government. And that's kind of a big challenge in the US but I won't go so far to say it's impossible. How can we force an elected Leftist takeover of our current government?
Only by getting millions more people to vote who typically don't vote, and that's most easily achieved by media presence, of which there is no mainstream Leftist media presence currently. I don't know how to suddenly motivate 30 million more people Nationwide to vote for a currently as yet non-viable Leftist political party but that would seem to be the only way to start electing a bunch of Leftists who will put better policies in place. I mean that's the electoral method. As far as doing some kind of armed revolution that just can't happen in the modern world. Not in this country. That's just not feasible. We don't have a secret army and between State Police and national guard it just wouldn't work. It would be over before it started.
It looks like we got a long road ahead of us if we want to try to do this the electoral route but I think it's very doable. I think if millions of people had a genuinely sincere and ethical party to vote for, then they would. So the first step is then, form a viable Left movement and translate that into a Left Unity party that can fight back against the current duopoly machine and then find a way to get our word out. Find a way to counter the massive corporate MSM with media blaring a leftist message 24/7.
If we can do that, then we got a chance. It's going to take legal battles too because the duopoly scumbags love to prevent third party challengers from even getting on the ballot. Every plan can be strategized and so long as it's well planned out, has an even chance of success.
1
@sarahjames5176 I'm sure I support that, as I support all workers getting their fair share of the profits they help create, and I certainly support all collective bargaining for Labor and their representatives and that they should receive a say in the decisions regarding their particular company. This can be accomplished various ways, one of them being requiring that one or more worker representatives are always present in the boardroom with fill participatory say, and so on. So I think you and I are more or less on the same page in that regard.
Can you be more specific on how exactly how this collective ownership would be administered and look like? Is it the same as I've stated here or is there something else? Also can you be more specific on how we would get there and what laws would need to be passed in order to enumerate and protect that model?
I just get a little tired of all the constant generalities. If you can't provide a step-by-step distinct and well thought-out mature plan to achieve what you say you want, then all you're really doing is navel gazing. I'm pretty Left, and I'm pretty sure we want more or less the same things, but all I hear from most people on the online Left is vague terms, lots of complaining, and key words and tricky phrases. Ok fine- I feel the same way, but how is that a PLAN???
To force real change in the real world, an actionable plan will require concrete and mature thinking. If you haven't been willing to think anything through yet, you should ask yourself why? Are you just here to talk, to feel woke, or do you have an actual goal?? And if it's not to gain office with a viable Left third party then it seems to me you're living in la-la land. Armed takeover doesn't happen in the West and it's a pipe dream. So that only leaves politics.
If you disagree with anything I stayed in my post by all means tell me so and explain why your view differs.
1
1
1
1
1
@sarahjames5176 I don't necessarily disagree with that, and you might be right, but I still maintain that just because something failed in the past doesn't mean the time won't be right for it to succeed in the future under different conditions. Attitudes change, technology changes, new factors come into play. There is always a first time for everything, etc.
Can you give me a small summary of your ideal view of a future society then, with as many specifics as possible, and how you think we can get there by 2200 with or without winning public office? Do you understand that in our lifetime in the US little will change, but that doesn't mean nothing will change, but our goals must be grounded in reality? We should shoot for the moon but let's understand that we may not get there in the next 50 years. I don't want a slow rate of change, but it may happen despite our best efforts.
Have you read my whole above post where I state specific details of the milestones I wish to see? Do you differ with those in whole or in part and if so, how?
In other words - what is your SPECIFIC end goal for the US and the world, and what is your specific plan to get closer to that, in whatever degree possible, by 2070?
1