Cowbee

joined 1 year ago
[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Political systems don't determine quality of life nearly as much as development.

Your second point isn't correct, anyone could be voted on. They couldn't vote on the next level, only their representative could. I'm not sure where you get this new idea from.

If you're talking about the Politburo, yes, and that's part of my problem with it. But, at the local level, you voted on whoever you wanted, then your rep votes on who they want, and so forth. There were lots of shady deals that solidified power higher up, yes, but the process was Democratic in nature, even if highly flawed.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Fallout 4 was even worse, that's kind of a point I raise, that Bethesda has been riding the coattails of better lore. There are dumb fetch quests in every Bethesda game.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

... what do you think Communism is? It's a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society achieved via abolition of Private Property. That doesn't mean everyone suddenly becomes hippies working in communes or tribes.

Capitalism certainly can have cooperation, it just happens to encourage competition, monopoly, and exploitation of Workers for the sake of profit.

What's your point, exactly?

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

The Germans working under codetermination also have it far better than Germans under the Kaiser. Comparing a 21st century first world developed nation with a 20th century developing country sure is a win, I guess?

Secondly, although the beurocracy was incredibly corrupt, the Soviet Democracy by which local Soviets reported to higher Soviets that reported to higher Soviets was fundamentally democratic, even if flawed.

I don't really think you've said much of anything. The Soviet form of Democracy was indeed flawed, but it was still Democratic, and I think it's obvious to anyone that living in a modern developed country would be better than living in a developing country from last century.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago
  1. Kind of. The market can have Capitalist entities and Socialist entities, but the market itself isn't Capitalist.

  2. Not necessarily. Co-operatives are more difficult to start in a predominantly Capitalist system, and Capitalist entities usually can exploit their workers more in order to gain temporary competitive advantage. I don't believe this is sufficient reasoning to value Capitalism over Socialist entities.

I'm not a Market Socialist, for clarification, as I do think there are issues. However, Capitalism isn't markets.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

The Soviet Union was anti-trade union, and pro-Soviet, ie worker councils. The Soviet Union had numerous problems, especially with beaurocracy, but fundamentally it was a Worker state, owned and run by the Soviets, and thus can be considered Socialist (regardless of my personal issues with it).

There are several attempts at replicating some form of Worker Democracy in Capitalist countries, but ultimately short of ownership none of this functionally makes a massive difference. Definitely a step in the right direction, but without worker ownership it is more to appease workers and uphold Capitalism, than actually giving workers control.

Don't misunderstand this comment to say that codetermination is bad, it's good, just not as good as it could be.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ownership of Capital. Capitalism has markets, but not all market systems are Capitalist.

Market Socialism, for example, has competing worker-owned entities like Co-operatives in a market system, with no Capitalists.

Capitalism is a relatively new phenomena in the grand scheme of things.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

For one, I wouldn't recommend a clown that supports removing the minimum wage, or argues that colonization was a good thing. Recommending a far-right Chicago economist, who is far-right even by Chicago school standards, is laughably absurd.

I have many positions of my own. Decentralization is key, as is democratization, and this extends to production. I think protecting worker power is key, and I think Imperialism and colonization are terrible. As such, I can't agree with recommending Sowell.

All of those are reasons why I'm a leftist and am on Lemmy, rather than a Capitalist site like Reddit.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yep, that's why decentralization is so important, and why leftist organizational structure ie decentralization and democratization of production is going to be so critical moving forward.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Oof, unironically suggesting Sowell? Might as well toss in Prager-U, or DailyWire.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I literally gave the KCIA as an example, the ROK itself is designed by the US.

You're clearly not interested in answering honestly or directly, just dodging and justifying Imperialism, rather than sovereignty.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The ROK was built by the US, and modeled as they saw fit. You're making the same argument that the US constitution doesn't impact modern American life, because George Washington is dead. That's a fallacy, it hasn't been restructured in any meaningful capacity.

Yes, the ROK has peacetime control. They don't have wartime control, despite posturing. The US still keeps the ROK on a leash, and is waiting for the time when they don't even need to directly control the ROK as they will be subservient regardless.

You really love Imperialism, I guess.

view more: ‹ prev next ›