Comments by "" (@josephcoon5809) on "What Is Marxism?" video.

@ryebread3417 “…you need to substantiate that somehow.” What does a dictatorship do if not exert authority over individuals? Are you saying that a dictatorship has no authority over citizens? How does one acquire the classification of “proletariat,” and what does one do if they do not wish to be classified as such?
4
@raymondhartmeijer9300 So, you are saying that you need to impose polices on people to address something that isn’t settled science because people don’t know how to read academic papers? You do realize that the papers parrots refer to make heavy use of words like “suggests” because the researchers doing these papers hedge their bets on science that is far from settled. That’s JUST the research into a manufactured problem. We can also discuss the obvious design obsolescence in solar panels that necessitate constant manufacture, strip mining, and disposal into land fills even though passive optics would all but eliminate those issues. However, you can’t make a lot of money if you don’t justify government buying the solution form the people who manufactured the problem in the first place. Which brings me to my next point of confusion: what is preventing ALL the Marxists from congregating in the US; pooling their resources; and purchasing all the “means of production” they require to manufacture goods based on their philosophy. The whole point of a free market is to allow EVERYBODY to utilize whatever processes they wish to provide goods for sale. This can be private ownership by a few individuals OR collective ownership by an entire community. The problem that I have with Marxism is all the talking without any doing. It’s the same problem that I have with “global warming.” Scientists are so brilliant to have figured out such a complex system as our atmosphere based on data from a percent of percent of a percent of the time that Earth has had an atmosphere, but they can’t design a commercially viable solution that doesn’t require government subsidy to purchase the solution from the large industries you have a problem with. Your words will convince very few people. Do you know what would convince them? An actually example built with your own two hands so that you can’t write off any failure as, “well, THEY didn’t do it right.” So, so it right, and shut all the naysayers up about it.
3
0:01 “What is Marxism?” A philosophy built on emotional rhetoric making it irrational at best and tyrannical at worst.
2
@ryebread3417 “A class of people does not preclude individuality in any way.” Never said it did. However, when one class codifies their belief systems into law, the individual has to relinquish parts of who they are if those part conflict with the law, lest they be punished.
2
@ryebread3417 If the “proletariat” decided that no individual can own a car, but one individual decides to own a car, does he not have to give up that bit of individual desire to be part of the collective? There is no room for individualism outside of the law, and as more laws are applied, the variety of individual possible necessarily decreases. With no laws, every individual is truly individual.
2
@ryebread3417 “Proletariat” is a concept that doesn’t exist materially like “society.” They are constructions used to obscure the individual. A person is not a concept, so applying rules to a concept means individuality loses meaning. When an individual wishes to express anything outside the constraints of the “proletariat” causing them to be ‘othered’ and punished. On a small scale, this is fine, and actually preferable. On a large scale, an individual has only one recourse for expressing their individuality: leaving the country. It’s just most states that get to that point don’t allow emigration. I haven’t really considered why, but my first guess would be to prevent the spread of a negative image. Considering asking most Cubans that LIVE in Cuba how they feel about Cuba, you don’t find many dissenting opinions. However, Cubans floating over to Florida on pieces of wood or any other floating material they can find speaks volumes. There’s a lot to be said about establishing rules about how to be and slowly evolving those rules over time so that the first generation of “proletariat” would not recognize proletariats five generations later and vice versa. That process of indoctrination is what precludes the diversity of thought requires to drive industry and innovation. That is why evolution is a decentralized parallel process instead of a centralized serial process.
2
@ryebread3417 So a rotary motor is capital of somebody owns it, but it’s a means of production if nobody owns it? If nobody owns it, then it can’t be stolen. What prevents somebody from just taking a “means of production”?
2
@clem.3894 No. What I describe is NOT democratic at all. Neurons in one cortex do not impose their existence upon the neurons in other cortices through the prefrontal cortex. Each cortex is a distinct, ideologically segregated entity that is highly integrated with all other cortices. What I described is a confederation of distinct local communities that cooperate on issues they agree upon while going their separate ways on issues they do not agree upon. There is VERY little democracy, if any, involved as democracy is predicated on the tyranny of forcing ideas from the majority on to the minority. The fundamental issue with human society is the lack of communal coherence. BECAUSE people do NOT live with the people they MOST agree with, they rely on forcing their ideals upon each other through government. A human society that more resembles a neuronal society would be ideologically segregated and organized in the same way. For example, everybody who believes in 90% income taxes should live together. This would eradicate that tax. Taxes are an imposition upon those that disagree with them, so if people made the RATIONAL choice of living with the people they agree with, those “taxes” become VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS. Refusing to live with the people you are with the most = tyranny. Living with the people you agree with the most = liberty Marxist-Leninist theory is predicated on the ideal that INDIVIDUAL PERSON collectivism be forced upon everyone through the state (federal government). The rational and NATURAL option is ideological segregation such that all the Marxist-Leninists live together, the libertarians live together, the conservatives live together, the Christians live together, the Muslims live together, the White supremacists live together, the Black supremacists live together, etcetera, etcetera. You don’t force laws and taxes upon those who AGREE with you. Ultimately, it does NOT matter how well I understand Marxist-Leninist ideals, or any other ideal you can think of. The WHOLE POINT of SELF-governance is that everybody who agrees with any particular ideal LIVES together and manifests their shared ideal collectively. Furthermore, building your ideal society with the people you agree with will accelerate the manifestation of your ideal which will serve as the example that proves or disproves your ideals. Very few are convinced with words these days, leaving tangible examples as the only means by which convincing anybody is possible. If you have to force your ideas on others, they probably aren’t that good to begin with.
2
@fredwelf8650 “a middle class has formed…” because competition gives people MORE choice. As markets grow, they begin to overlap so that businesses will have to compete for a scarcity of labor. When there’s a scarcity of jobs, wages swing the other way. That is the fundamentals of economics that have been around for billions of years. The first organisms were cyanobacteria that utilized solar energy to process CO2 and water to extract energy. As more and more of those transactions occurred CO2 became more scarce as O2 began replacing it. When O2 became a surplus, another organism arose to fill the niche of processing O2. Eventually an equilibrium was reached so that levels of O2 and CO2 would remain static as any surplus of one organism or the other would self-correct based on the population verses the resources they required. As a population increased, it’s resources decreased which could not support the larger population which would result in a decrease of that population until a surplus of their resources occurred and so on. The value of those resources ebbed and flowed in relation to the relative amounts of supply and demand. The exact same thing applies for labor. More jobs, less workers puts employers into competition forcing wages up to attract the best workers for the job. More workers, less jobs put workers into competition forcing them to take less wages to land the best jobs. Attempting to govern those natural forces only leads to strain that cause catastrophic collapses resulting in a new system to be built on the ashes of the old one. The more centralized a system is, the less stable it becomes and the more susceptible to corruption it is. That is why the most stable and efficient systems are decentralized. Marx seems to have considered ONLY human systems which comprises a very tiny percent of all systems in existence; both natural and man-made. Only one system evolves towards centralization, and it is the least stable and most inefficient system: centralized human governments.
2
There is a certain level of irony being a “materialist” while discussing something immaterial like “concepts.”
1
@raymondhartmeijer9300 Even though concepts themselves are immaterial? Concepts like value?
1
@raymondhartmeijer9300 Then, what exactly is materialism?
1
@raymondhartmeijer9300 How does influence work?
1
@raymondhartmeijer9300 What aspects of the environment? Are you referring to direct pollution of unnatural chemicals, or the indirect pollution of CO2 emissions purported to drive global warming and now called climate change? The former I understand, and the response to the latter is a consequence of what you claim is capitalism.
1
@raymondhartmeijer9300 and before you go off on some “science denier” screed… I’m skeptical both ways. Humans have neither the full understanding of every system that contributes to the state of the climate NOR the computing power to model it to any degree of accuracy that would justify tyranny to make some large corporations richer. Humans cannot say if we are or are not critically damaging the atmosphere, but there IS a problem: complacency driven CORPORATISM. All of that is irrelevant to me, because I understand why a billions of dollars marketing campaign was conducted which promoted a problem but no inspiration for “The People” to solve it. People who argue every four years over people they’ll never meet who sign thousand page bills they’ll never read drafted by corporate lobbyists they’ll never see are the perfect useful idiots to open pipelines from middle class wealth to large corporations. Because I understand that, I see a lot of value in developing actual solutions WITHOUT design obsolescence because it would be an economically viable FREE MARKET solution that people would buy into WILLINGLY. I get rich. People get a little of their freedom back. The people who sold the problem take a loss as I yank the market THEY created out from under them. And society has one less useless argument to distract them from what’s really happening.
1
“Credibility” is a logical fallacy trap. You don’t accept ideas because the source is “credible.” You accept ideas because they are right.
1
@ryebread3417 I’ll take this a bite at a time. How does “historical materialism” define “value” in materialist terms?
1
@ryebread3417 “how can their be a class of proletariat class at the top.” The class of proletariat IS the top. The individual is the bottom. That is the whole point of communism: to eradicate individualism for the sake of the collective class known as “the proletariat.”
1
@ryebread3417 The “proletariat” is a concept that represents a group of people. Each person is exists materially, but the concept of a proletariat does not. However, that immaterial concept is what Marx put above the material individual.
1
@ryebread3417 “historical materialism doesn’t define value. But Marx saw value as being equivalent to the social average…” So, Marx was not a materialist?
1
@ryebread3417 You don’t build a complex system by defining every element at the top (inverted pyramid). You build a complex system by defining everything at the bottom (pyramid).
1
@ryebread3417 “means of production” glad you brought that up. What determines if something is “capital” or “means of production”?
1
@hairymcnipples “dictatorship of the proletariat just means that the workers are in charge…” You’ve never thought about how that would work at the national scale, did you? Imagine ten parents had 1,000 children. Then imagine that once all those children were ten years old, the parents left, and the children took over the house. How well do you think that would go? The proletariat, who have no idea how anything works outside of the job they were hired to do now handling all the daily operations required to run a business. How effective and efficient would it be for all the workers to learn administrative tasks ON TOP of their job skills. Now extrapolate that to 100,000,000 citizens all voting on every law that is passed and every budget that is proposed.
1
@clem.3894 “There ARE in fact de-centralized models for socialism, which aim to distribute power, wealth and decision making authority away from centralized institutions and towards communities and workers.” Yes. You just described a multi-tiered republic…which I’m going to assume I already described as the structure of the human brain. “…and production is controlled democratically by workers themselves on smaller scales…” Like a co-op? You do know that those structures are 100% possible within a free-market? “…centralized systems of both capitalism and state socialism…” Nothing about capitalism is inherently centralized. What are you even talking about? Are you referring to the state sanctioned monopolies that manifest when citizens are too inept to pay attention to police because they vote for “representatives” who hardly ever represent the thousands of viewpoints that built a coalition to get that “representative” elected? That isn’t “capitalism.” That is CORPORATISM.
1
@clem.3894 “There is no version of capitalism that respects competition.” Well, at least it’s safe to say you don’t have a firm understanding of evolution or neuroscience. “Capitalism will always devolve into corporatism…” Agreed…WHEN citizens foolishly vote for abject strangers to “represent” them in government. You should seriously diagram any large complex system with millions of individuals constituents: the internet, an army, a large corporation, the brain. There’s a reason why those incorporations are efficient, stable, and resistant to corruption while human societies are not: a fractally growing hierarchy of organized constituencies into larger and larger groups. A quick breakdown of the organization of the 100 billion neurons in your brain… 1,000-10,000 lower order neurons report to single higher order neuron. This pattern repeats multiple times such that 1,000 1st order neurons report to a 2nd order neuron. 1,000 2nd order neurons report to a 3rd order neuron. 1,000 3rd order neurons report to a 4th order neuron. And so on. This results in: A 2nd order neuron representing 1,000 1st order neurons. A 3rd order neuron representing 1,000,000 1st order neurons. A 4th order neuron representing 1,000,000,000 1st order neurons. And this exponential pattern continues all the way up to the prefrontal cortex which acts as the executive center of the brain which would be synonymous to the federal government of a republic. In this arrangement, EVERY constituent has a direct and meaningful connection to its representative as opposed to the million+ to one ratio found in modern republics where it is impossible for a single “representative” to adequately represent a million+ constituents. Your mention of local groups forming still leaves out all the necessary levels of representation required for a true republic to form. Individuals should form families; families into blocks; blocks into neighborhoods; neighborhoods into towns; towns into cities; cities into counties; counties into states, and states into a single nation. EACH scale of entity uses a direct and meaningful representation no greater than a 20:1 ratio between a lower order group to a higher order group. The reason why corporations derive so much power in a free market is because citizens don’t incorporate the same way corporations do. Incorporating manifests greater power through the specialization through delegation as well as the efficiency derived through collective ownership of resources. People don’t live collectively while demanding that the country be treated as a collective only to foolishly relinquish government power to a centralized entity that non of the hundreds of millions of individuals have the time or resources to oversee. Summary: the sociologists that you rely on to do your thinking for you, ironically have absolutely no understanding of how the most complete society is organized which allows them to think their silly thoughts in the first place. Billions of people on this planet have the blueprints for the most efficient, stable, and corruption-resistant society ever known to humans, and most of them are convinced that a completely different organization is better. Nature has proven these large complexity societies work the best billions of times over millions of years while humans constantly fail at centralized systems century after century. The answers are LITERALLY within you, and you allow “intellectuals” to flood your mind with flawed ideas. The irony would be readily apparent to you if you studied just ONE type of large complex system that has proven which organization works the best, but you’d rather remain willfully ignorant just to be “right” in your own mind.
1
@clem.3894 Come on. Stop thinking like everyone else and actually diagram what I’m explaining on a piece of paper since you can’t visualize what I’m talking about. Self-governance is NOT anarchism. I really recommend that you look into neuroscience instead of trying to summarize what I’ve been explaining within the constraints of “intellectual” thought. How is a multi-tiered, ideologically segregated society in ANY way “anarchism”? Use a Venn diagram or a mind map to organize people by their ideological beliefs using each individual’s hierarchy of beliefs. I’m basing my conclusions on natural and man-made systems; not any philosophy from an “intellectual” who has studied nothing outside of socio-economic theories.
1
@clem.3894 “You’re not better than anyone else…” CORRECT!! Which is why I don’t believe in FORCING my ideas on anybody else through a farcical democratic process. “You’re not more inventive…” CORRECT again!! I didn’t invent the social structure that neurons organize into. Wow. You’re doing great!!! “The theories you’re posing? All of them have roots in the musings of some socio-economic theorist…” SUPPOSE that that is true, then that would mean that they inadvertently described the social structure of neurons because, as far as I know, NONE of them studied neuroscience. “Everything that your posting now has some strain of “intellectual”…” Maybe, but only if, as I stated previously, some prior “intellectual” inadvertently stumbled upon the social organization found in the neurons in your brain. I’m gonna skip a bit of your enraged rantings… “Also, on the topic of homogeny, when communities are separated based on ideology in general, it’s going to lead to a state where people aren’t as exposed to the diversity of ideas…” Source? Examples? Because I can easily provide examples of the opposite: the BRAIN. Seriously. You are speaking completely out of your ass at this point because you are basing your responses upon the musings of socio-economic “intellectuals” who have NOT studied large complex systems. Do you truly believe that the ideologically segregated communities of neurons in your brain lack the INTEGRATION of which you speak? You obviously don’t understand what the theta waves are for and how trance-like states of mind accomplishes EXACTLY the process you erroneously believe the NATURAL organization of a large complex system is unable to achieve. Besides, ASIDE from the fact that SEGREGATION does NOT mean ISOLATION (you should brush up on your vocabulary), what makes you think that people segregated from one another in houses achieve absolutely NO INTERACTIONS? What are you smoking? Not only can ideas be shared face to face…we have the damn internet. We obviously don’t have the same level of understanding about existence as each other resulting in vastly different opinions on how human society should be, but, SOMEHOW, we are able to exchange ideas. There’s this neat new invention that came out a couple decades ago. It’s called “the internet.” It’s an Al Gore invention that you should check out sometime. “It will literally divide us as a species…” <face desk> we are ALREADY divided, genius. I know I’m going to regret this, but…what is easier to treat: a SINGLE large cancerous tumor, or the same number of cells dispersed throughout your body? What do you think PRISONS are for? 😂 When LAWS are established to DICTATE what ideologies are “acceptable” or not, what happens when you have individuals…MINORITIES…who disagree with those laws? YOU IDEOLOGICALLY SEGREGATE the dissidents from the rest of society who IDEOLOGICALLY agreed with or tolerated those laws. YOUR perspective is what caused the mass incarceration of Blacks in America, so when you mention FASCISM, you better damn well acknowledge the FASCISM that you support that leads to the mass incarceration of NON-VIOLENT Black “offenders.” Nearly 50% of the prison population has had their freedoms stripped because of drug offenses that NOT EVERYONE believes should be illegal…. So, imagine, if you will, two towns: one that believes smoking weed is bad, and one that does not…IDEOLOGICALLY SEGREGATED on the issue of smoking weed… In YOUR system, the system that WE have, somebody caught smoking in either town is incarcerated which strips the “offender” of most of their liberties; that society loses a productive member of society;breaks up his family; puts a drain on society’s resources to fund the legal system and the Prison Industrial Complex; and enriches those who run society from the top-down. NOW…in the RATIONAL and more NATURAL society, the “offender” in the first town is EXILED FROM THAT TOWN. The result: the “offender” loses FAR FAR less of his liberties; one community loses a productive member as another gains one; his family need not be broken up; the first community doesn’t waste resources though repeated criminal processing and constant incarceration; and (the ONLY downside) the Prison Industrial Complex does not constantly enrich those who fool the public into believing forced ideological inclusion is the best way to organize society. Hell, if the cells in your body followed your ideas on how to organize society, not only would your gut micro biome infect every system in your body wreaking havoc everywhere; you wouldn’t even have SYSTEMS to have havoc wrought upon them. All your cells would be in one big jumbled and chaotic mass which wouldn’t last for more than a few seconds. Your BRAIN wouldn’t even function if your neurons followed your ideals for a disheveled population of nearly no order save for the imposed order of a centralized system if government which heavily restricts the diversity of ideas that you think you are championing. YOUR idea actually results in LESS diversity as you force MORE AND MORE citizens to be LESS and LESS diverse in thought as you FORCE them to CONFORM to a LARGER AND LARGER set of ideological restrictions. You seemingly decry fascism while, simultaneously, defending the process by which it manifests, takes roots, and flourishes. So, I suggest you study ANY OTHER large complex system before making such erroneous and unsubstantiated claims based on the musings of flawed “intellectuals” who have ignored billions of years of natural evolution and thousands of years of human innovation. “Like at this point you just sound like one of those extremely racist separatists I encountered years back.” Fancy that…we are discussing IDEOLOGICAL segregation, and you attempt to devolve the discussion into one of BIOLOGICAL segregation. Besides…I AM NOT the one championing the mass incarceration of racial minorities predicated on forced ideological inclusion within society leading to forced ideological segregation via the Prison Industrial Complex. How often does your race baiting back-fire on you like that, son?
1
@clem.3894 As for your misconceptions about being able to cooperate on certain issues while going separate directions on others… Suppose you have ten communities that agree on most things, such as public transportation within their shared areas so that they all contribute toward paving roadways. HOWEVER, they have a 50/50 disagreement on how resources should be spent regarding security and defense. Let’s say half believe in putting up a fence around the entire community and the other half believe in acquiring firearms and training with them. INSTEAD of them FORCING (it takes more resources to force others into compliance) they go their separate ways on THAT issue. Half of the communities invest in a semi-permeable membrane around the entire community, while the other half get to work in acquiring/manufacturing weapons and training with them… Coincidentally, THESE communities accept the rationale behind the Second Amendment which would place them in a State that is friendly to such ideals, while those who are irrational about the Second Amendment live in ANOTHER state…IDEOLOGICAL segregation. You see, I can actually agree to disagree with irrational people WITHOUT FORCING them to agree through democracy. …so, not only will less resources be used on forcing people in disagreement into compliance, natural delegation into specializations will occur. Those who believe in the semi-permeable membrane approach will work diligently to ensure that their idea proves to be as valuable as they argue it is just as those who disagreed with them do so for their ideas. HOWEVER, if you allow people into those communities who disagree with semi-permeable membranes for the collective communities and/or utilizing the Second Amendment as intended, then those people will be forced to participate through taxes imposed upon them for ideas they do not agree with OR they infect those communities with enough of their irrational ideas that neither ideal is realized.
1
@clem.3894 As a side note: IF you chose neuroscience as your large complex system to study, you may also learn how to manage your emotions so you don’t feel inferior about your lack of knowledge. Knowing and understanding more than you doesn’t make me more superior to you, but you being upset about it will prevent you from rectifying that disparity. Being wrong is ok as long as you can acknowledge it; accept it; and do something about it, but you’ll never evolve as a person by holding onto fallacious ideas with no basis in reality. If I thought you were inferior, I wouldn’t be wasting my time sharing what I’ve learned. Unfortunately, your more concerned with being “right” than solving actual problems, that you, ironically, zealously advocate for the very same fascism you thought you were decrying which leads to all the problems that we see in society. I understand the flaws in your arguments because I THOUGHT like you did when I was younger. I also appealed to authority, as you do now. I’ve just grown out of that and learned to think for myself by studying other subjects and drawing conclusions from a broader perspective than you or your “intellectuals” do. Learn to manage your emotions. Learn some Stoicism to understand the importance of mastering your emotions, and learn some neuroscience to understand how to master those emotions.
1
@clem.3894 Checked out your video regarding “capitalism versus corporatism.” What a SHIT SHOW. 😂 Here’s my comments on the first quarter of the video that I watched… “1:15 Now look up “Chart of the Century” and see if you can figure out the difference between the economic sectors in RED versus those in BLUE. Hint: one is heavily regulated/subsidized by the central government and the other operates within a more free market. 1:50 You think “capitalism” is a messed up idea at its core while, ironically, not understanding that the neurons in your brain operate within a free market capitalist framework. 2:00 Then you move on to a pure straw man to describe what YOUR understanding of capitalism is which does not take into account the multitude of definitions for “capital” strewn throughout college textbooks. Good job… 2:20 “Profit.” Let me clue you in on your use of emotionally charged words that taint your rational processing of extremely simple concepts. “Capital” (individualist connotation) and “means of production” (collectivist connotation) are the EXACT SAME THING. Connotation is just added to give the impression that individuals are less virtuous than the state. “Profit” (individualist connotation) and “surplus”(collectivist connotation) are the exact same thing. Again, excess resources when an individual achieves it (“profit”) is less virtuous than when the state does it (“surplus”). You should refrain from engaging in emotional rhetoric if you truly want to have a rational discussion. Using emotions to convince people is childish and dangerous when you also give people power over others though a democracy. Ask Socrates, tyrant. 2:30 You aren’t keen on starving, so you trust the state to grow your food for you because enterprising free citizens are “evil” in your eyes? Ask the Russians how well that works out… Leadership isn’t about lording power over others. It’s about understanding the broader picture and being able to make rational decisions about the future based upon that understanding. Private citizens that generate an EXCESS of resources (profit/surplus depending on the connection you wish to use) is good for EVERYONE. It is far better than a state that runs at a SCARCITY of resources. 2:45 Elon’s decisions matter more because it is HIS wealth that HE is risking. If you feel you can do better, feel free. Some “intellectual” who has built nothing is far from qualified to explain what does or does not work. Your words will never prove the veracity of your claims. Only the examples that YOU BUILD will do that. 2:50 “I think democracy should apply to the economy.” You are more than welcome to build a company based on that precept. Once you have successfully build one such company, build some more. Once you’ve amassed the requisite wealth to do so, build an entire community that uses your ideas about democracy within your community’s internal economy. Should you prove to be successful in THAT endeavor, keep growing and expanding. This process requires absolutely no STATE interference whatsoever. ALL that it requires is the strength of your convictions; the power of your imagination; and the tenacity of your physical effort to manifest your ideas. Failing to build it yourself, you lack any valid argument for your ideals. 3:00 “Natural consequence…” You probably shouldn’t use words like “natural” when you have failed to provide ONE actual example produced in the past couple billions of years that NATURE actually evolved through. I can provide more examples of successful outcomes of a free market capitalist system in Nature than you can of a tyrannical system in the past couple thousand years of humans constantly failing at them. 3:15 “When competition is ruined, not bet something that the state necessarily did…” Then you proceed to show Amazon which more than doubled in size during a SINGLE YEAR when government forced economic shutdowns which killed THOUSANDS of competing small businesses. Good job killing your own case. 3:20 “Whether they got that monopoly on their own or through the state, it doesn’t matter.” WHAT?!? You’re arguing for a state run economy while arguing that a state derived monopoly doesn’t matter regarding your arguments against “capitalism” derived monopolies? Christ…I haven’t made it 25% of the way through your video yet…”
1
@fredwelf8650 What options does an individual have if they do not wish to participate in the socialism?
1
@fredwelf8650 “I think unions are good.” Do you know how to figure it out? Create a society with Unions and one without. See which one does better.
1
@fredwelf8650 Democracy executed Socrates. Plato created “Republic” because of it. America is a direct descendant of those events. Democracy is tyranny with lipstick.
1
@fredwelf8650 Really? It wasn’t a democratic vote of 500 citizens that judged him guilty and deserving of execution? The problem with your conflation of democracy executed at the national level and all the other ones you listed is this: what is the individual’s resource if they disagree with the democratic decision made? Furthermore, what determines what an individual votes for?
1
@fredwelf8650 What does this “discussion” before a vote provide?
1
@fredwelf8650 Where did I say “Plato was Socrates”?
1
@fredwelf8650 “The main issue that you seem unaware of is that in a democratic, at all levels, the individual may vote, and say ‘no’ to the decisions arrived.” Ok. I appreciate you answering something that I did not ask. So I’ll ask again. In a democracy, AFTER A VOTE HAS BEEN CAST, what is an individual’s resource for disagreement with the vote? I’ll answer it for you, this time. In a nation: punishment. Outside of punishment, there’s escape from the nation: emigration. In a company run by a board, the individual is fired or quits. So, when a majority votes to have you killed or your possessions taken or for your silence, what is your recourse for refusing to comply?
1
@fredwelf8650 information: what determines the veracity or relevance of the information? Position-taking: regarding what? What the issues are: how does discussion and voting affect these issues? The character of the candidate: what relevance does this have? Effects of voting one way or the other: what guarantees the accuracy of these predictions?
1
@fredwelf8650 So, California is a totalitarian government? They have plenty of people imprisoned. They use some of them to put out forest fires for $2/hr. However, those laws were installed by a democratic vote to determine who the law makers should be. It sounds like democracy leads straight to totalitarianism based on your arguments.
1