141
‘They will vote against Harris’: Arab Americans in Michigan desert Democrats over Gaza
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
141 points (79.3% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7241 readers
68 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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. 👋
GDP is only one measure, you can also point to 90%+ government approval rates in the PRC. It isn't a "utopia," but it's making very positive moves.
Explain what's wrong here, the USSR had dramatic improvements in rate of growth over time.
Sure, but the system worked and dramatically improved conditions, reflected by productive growth.
Fair enough.
Central Planning isn't "people making decisions." When people advocate for Central Planning, they are advocating for government planning of production in the public sector, which is entirely different from Capitalism, and producing for the profit motive. Saying you don't see any difference in private Capitalists operating within the anarchy of markets for the purpose of profit and government planning from the top down for the purpose of fulfilling needs outside of markets is to say you have no clue what you're talking about. Additionally, saying they are "equally bad" only compounds the baseless absurdity of your claim.
There have been many successful Marxist revolutions, read a history book please.
How is it the same? How does central planning "limit diversity in ideas and development?" As for how we know public planning is better, you are divorced from market forces and produce based on needs, not for profits, and have far larger access to information, we know this because we observe great success in AES countries.
Socialism is more centralized than Capitalism. Capitalism isn't flawed because it is "centralized," Capitalism is flawed because it defeats itself through the anarchy of markets and the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall. It's unsustainable.
The PRC is not run by a dictator, the PRC practices whole-process people's democracy and again, has 90%+ approval rates. You can't just handwave their success away because it's inconvenient to your narrative.
You have not explained how or why central planning is bad. Additionally, trying to invent a system and force it into reality is Utopian, Marxists reject Utopianism. Read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
I wonder why. Surely it can't be because you have yet to make a single point backed by any coherent logic or data, right?
No one said we can wrest control without broad support. Secondly, Capitalism is not centrally planned, it is internally planned at a business level within the anarchy of markets, we know central planning works because of the success of AES countries, as I have established. Nice racist jab there too, you're really showing off your skills here.
You need to dig into how AES countries actually function. The previously linked article on whole process people's democracy is a good starting point. The answer is that the park is planned by the government, decided by the local government most likely. Research is decided by the government, and funded by the government. Corruption is punished and purged.
Listen, attacking me personally because you don't even understand your own ideas, let alone Marxism at an absolutely basic level, is uncalled for. I suggest going back to the basics.
I've done my research already, and Marxism-Leninism is the answer ♥️
Your response shows you may have read things but you dont understand them or systems. The fact your think PRC actually has that level approval invalidate literally anything you said. I dont bother reading the drivel you spouted after that. I may glance over it in the future.
Things you need to understand before you step on to the stage with me: metrics and measurements are only meaningful if you understand how they were measured. Which you clearly dont if you're spouting gdp and prc approval rates as a proof points.
As i said originally marx didnt understand systems or people. His conclusion that its easier to seize centralized systems is 100% correct but he also advocates for such a system to replace the system he identifies as unstable. Which is logically hilarious foolish and in no way ensures a better outcome for workers. As the chinese im sure would tell you if they were not petrified of saying anything negative about the prc.
Like i said it takes months of effort to deprogram someone like youself and frankly its not worth the effort. Carry on soldier. Ill have the bandages ready when you invariably get bloodied.
So your refusal to read or provide any evidence outweighs my ability to read and provide evidence? Absurd, and frankly racist.
Let me know what numbers you can find otherwise.
Didn't what?
Sorry hit submit prematurely;) its all there now. And i dont need to read your drivel because your premises are faulty.
I dont need to put my hand in shit to know its shit. The smell was more than enough.
Edit: also you think you need numbers oi. Fun fact once you understand how systems work you dont need the measurements to know if they'll work. The measurements are just to prove the system works as intended.
First you need to identify what your goals are for the system. The fact your spouting gdp and manipulated approval rates were sufficient indicators that you have nfc what you're talking about or your goals are not compitable with mine for society.
He advocates for public ownership and central planning, entirely different from private ownership and internal planning.
Like i said it takes months of effort to deprogram someone like youself and frankly its not worth the effort. Carry on soldier. Ill have the bandages ready when you invariably get bloodied.
Yes and central planning is inherently unstable and inefficient. So you're back to my original points that he doesn't know what hes talking about.
Again you dont understand the implications of his system because you dont even know what metrics to use to advocate for it. Personally any system that optimizes for gdp or manipulated approval ratings as a measure of a healthy and fluroishing society design has lost the thread and doesnt know how to live.
As i told you earlier you want to convince me tell what you want to accomplish with your government and then we can discuss the metrics youd use. But so far you've demonstrated either: you're absolutely clueless about how systems fail/get corrupted, what the metrics you're using actually measure, and how they translate into behavior of the people living under those systems.
Essentially you've demonstrated you want to live in an authoritarian dictatorship. Hard pass.
Throughout this entire comment chain you have never once managed to explain how central planning is "inherently unstable." Rather than Marx, it's evident you don't know what you're talking about.
AES countries don't "optimize for GDP." The USSR and PRC both doubled life expectencies, over tripled literacy rates to 99%+, dramatically expanded access to healthcare and education (being free in the USSR), saw drastic reductions in poverty, hunger, and homelessness. GDP grew alongside drastic improvements in key quality of life metrics.
Additionally, you have not proven how approval rates have been "manipulated," your reasoning just being anti-China sentiment on your part because you don't trust the "sneaky Chinese." Please cite a source or drop the implied racism.
You haven't offered any explanation for a single point.
Not at all, I want to live in a democratic state with public ownership and central planning.