I feel like pretty much everyone in the entire world who isn't actually invested in the idea of socialism as a concept is incredibly confused about how it actually works so here's a diagram I made and I didn't even bother to try to directly incorporate "communism" but if I did it would go roughly under Marxism.
For what it's worth I'm a big fan of democracy and hate totalitarianism and feel like "communism" in practice means totalitarian Marxism. So I'd contrast that to more democracy-oriented ideas like coops that are in fact independent from governments and can act as a check on totalitarian rule.
"Socialism" is used as a boogeyman by people who don't want clarity.
I've always imagined a cartoon of someone at an eye exam. The eye doctor asks "Tell me when you see 'socialism'"
The eye chart reads:
Public Roads
Public Bridges
Public Parks
Public Libraries
Public Police
Public Schools
Public Transport
Public Water
Public Electricity
Public Housing
Public Healthcare
Public Groceries
Public ownership of some companies
Public ownership of all companies
@TCatInReality it seems obvious to me that electricity should come from coops and/or the state as opposed to investor-owned utilities but maybe that was made painfully clear because I lived in California for awhile and had an empirical experience with our local investor-owned utility named PG&E whose executives pocketed and ran away with taxpayer money earmarked for fire prevention, and gave themselves golden parachutes, then their deferred maintenance caused Camp Fire, which literally caused the sky to turn orange and whose toxic fumes have probably taken a year or two off of my life
When this sort of thing comes up the question always is, Do you want Trump in charge of it?
Because when you put the state in charge of a service, there's a human behind it, and at some point that human is going to be someone like Trump.
Sometimes we're looking at a "the worse alternative except for all the rest" type situation.
Again, though, that democratic process puts control of the essential service under the account of the voters who thought electing Trump would be a good idea.
The same voters who hold management of ICE accountable for being "too lenient" will next hold management of the essential service for doing what they want with that.
In short, what when the democratic process demands withholding of the essential service?
I get what you're saying. But the democratic process is the way to fix that (imperfect, slow, yes)
I don't get what you're advocating for.
I don't have the faith you do in our fellow man.
After centuries of watching societies muck things up, why think that there's some awakening around the corner? Or, if it's just THAT slow, down the road?
And what of the suffering that happens while we slowly get to the fix that you see coming someday?
I'm advocating for avoiding rose colored glasses to recognize that the fix hasn't shown up in generations of waiting, and the democratic process today has provided us with a historically broken political situation.
With that reality in mind, handing even more to the democratic system doesn't make for a strong case.
Again, I asked "what are you advocating for?"
I didn't ask for a diatribe. And, no, a version of "I'm advocating not for this" is not a good faith answer.
TLDR: I'm advocating for a more realistic approach than you're presenting, one recognizing the long history of failure of democracy as a solution.
Again, advocating for "not" something is telling me what you are for.
If you're so cynical about human nature that you don't support an increase in democratic process (my read of your replies), tell me what system you do support.
Or, feel free to drop it and have a good day.
I'm happy to clarify: if you go back and read what I said, I was emphatically advocating *for* realistic analysis.
If you look at the facts and still decide that's the way you want to go, great! So I'm advocating *for* an approach to making those decisions that's more factual, less idealistic.
So let's look at the analysis that I'm advocating for, and then whatever you judge, at least it will be informed.
"Evidence based" is the barest outline of an alternative process.
Sorry, but I feel we're gone around and around on this. I've lost interest. Have a good day.
Agreed that evidence based is the barest outline of an alternative process, so what I'm advocating for isn't exactly asking for much.
But that's why it's worth delving into. It shouldn't take much to involve these aspects of realism in your call for action, right?
