Settler colonialism in action

[Ares Land]

There is a connection, yes, but I do feel that conservative authoritarianism is distinctly more entrenched in Israeli politics than in most other Western countries. Trump became president in 2016, but Netanyahu has been PM since 1996 (albeit not continuously).

Yes, Israel got the disease earlier and stronger than the rest of the West did. But I think the same forces were at work way earlier than Trump; you had Bush Jr., and Berlusconi, and others.

[bradrn]

It's a redressive argument, and to that degree yeah, it sounds leftist. But other than that, no: it's trying to redress a past injustice of the form "these people own this land and it has been denied them", not a present hierarchy, necessarily.

Hmm… interesting you should say that. Over here it’s a standard trope of far-left Aboriginal politics (along the lines of e.g. Lidia Thorpe).

I have heard a more lefto-as-anti-hierarchy version, though: that the jews are treated as inferior and at risk of pogroms everywhere, and therefore a country for their own is a necessary protection from that. kind of the same argument as Liberia was founded.

This is certainly the argument which resonates most with me (and which I’ve used in the past). I do not feel safe as a Jew, even in Australia, and my relatives in other countries are even more scared.

I'm not like a super expert on the history of colonialism but it seems to me exceedingly similar, especially anglosaxon colonialism, we're talking a) invading non-white peoples land and b) giving it to white people c) with military backing and d) justifying it as bringing civilization, punishing barbarians, and securing a place for the "us" to live. look at the indian wars in north america for an example and tell me the relevant differences, mutatis mutandis: the indian in manifest destiny is fulfilling kind of the same role as the palestinian in Israel: for real, is Gaza, the west bank etcetera too different from a reservation? apparently already gazan land is being sold in some us and canadian sinagogues.

This argument misses several important points:

• People call Jews ‘white’, but they’re clearly a different group from the people usually called by that term. For that matter, why is settler colonialism suddenly OK if the settlers are non-white?
• You occasionally can find the ‘bringing civilisation’ trope, but even amongst extremists it tends to be a very minor motivation. What’s more important is, as you mentioned, finding a place where we can live without persecution, on a land which is meaningful to us.
• Speaking of which, I feel that the connection between Jews and Israel fundamentally changes the dynamics. The typical settlers have no connection to the land which they’re occupying, other than ‘we want it’. But Jews have very good reasons to want to live in Israel specifically, just like Palestinians do.

There is a connection, yes, but I do feel that conservative authoritarianism is distinctly more entrenched in Israeli politics than in most other Western countries. Trump became president in 2016, but Netanyahu has been PM since 1996 (albeit not continuously).

Yes, Israel got the disease earlier and stronger than the rest of the West did. But I think the same forces were at work way earlier than Trump; you had Bush Jr., and Berlusconi, and others.

Hmm… but were they really part of the same wave which propped up Trump, Johnson, Morrison, Meloni, the current Netanyahu government, Le Pen, et al.? There may be a connection, but I’m not sure it’s quite the same thing.

[Travis B.]

You mean under capitalism. Under market socialism this would not be the case, because it would be workers who would have to vote to underpay themselves, so they have a direct incentive to not do so. The only case where I see that workers would choose to pay themselves less is if it is necessary to maintain the viability of the enterprise (in cases where in the case of capitalism they would be simply laid off), as being paid less would be preferable to them over not being paid at all.

I don't think these things happen because managers are bad people (though many clearly are) or that they don't care about employees (though many clearly don't).

The fact is, under market competition, not exploiting workers will put you out of business. This is why IIRC the Mondragon Corporation hired temp workers and mistreated them instead of giving every worker the rights of full employeehood.

As I said before, what concerns me about market socialism based on worker co-ops is that because of the profit motive, most people would only be able to find exploitative work anyway. Again, I would support a movement based on this idea despite my reservations.

In a democratic socialist society having a distinction between "employees" and "temporary employees" could be forbidden, to help avoid cases like the Mondragon Corporation's.

Aside from that, a key factor in capitalism is that the capitalists (and for publicly-owned companies, the shareholders) are effectively skimming money off the top, and there is a strong pressure on the executives (within modern Western capitalism) to optimize immediate profit at the expense of the workers. Within market socialism, on the other hand, there would be no such pressure -- all money coming in would either go back to the workers themselves, would be reinvested in the enterprise, or would go to help maintain society as a whole (i.e. taxes), and the workers themselves would decide how money would be divided between the first two.

Indeed, a common criticism of worker cooperatives is that the workers strongly favor paying themselves more money rather than hiring more workers or reinvesting money in the enterprise. But how is that really a problem? Shouldn't workers get the full value of their labor, and who else is best to judge that than themselves?

[rotting bones]

In a democratic socialist society having a distinction between "employees" and "temporary employees" could be forbidden, to help avoid cases like the Mondragon Corporation's.

Aside from that, a key factor in capitalism is that the capitalists (and for publicly-owned companies, the shareholders) are effectively skimming money off the top, and there is a strong pressure on the executives (within modern Western capitalism) to optimize immediate profit at the expense of the workers. Within market socialism, on the other hand, there would be no such pressure -- all money coming in would either go back to the workers themselves, would be reinvested in the enterprise, or would go to help maintain society as a whole (i.e. taxes), and the workers themselves would decide how money would be divided between the first two.

Indeed, a common criticism of worker cooperatives is that the workers strongly favor paying themselves more money rather than hiring more workers or reinvesting money in the enterprise. But how is that really a problem? Shouldn't workers get the full value of their labor, and who else is best to judge that than themselves?

Then there will simply be an absence of job openings. Employees will vote not to hire.

Why is it so important for you to protect the monetary profit motive? It's just a socially unhelpful rule invented by greedy bastards, probably Calvinists, to prove they are going to heaven unlike the rest of us.

[Torco]

In a democratic socialist society having a distinction between "employees" and "temporary employees" could be forbidden, to help avoid cases like the Mondragon Corporation's.

I dunno, temp, ad-hoc and one-time work are kind of essential for a lot of different work. then again, you might as well hire a different cooperative for any work that you need enough to be essential but not enough to want to hire a dude to do it. this could foster a diverse ecosystem of small consulting firms dedicated to highly specific jobs: painter coops, harvester coops, statistical analysis coops... on second thought, yeah, abolish tem *workers*, foster temp *work*.

Indeed, a common criticism of worker cooperatives is that the workers strongly favor paying themselves more money rather than hiring more workers or reinvesting money in the enterprise. But how is that really a problem? Shouldn't workers get the full value of their labor, and who else is best to judge that than themselves?

"economics" is like 77% priests of the free market and the owner class, every bit as recalcitrant as the warhammer40k imperial cult except for worse values. "see the problem is, people wouldn't be poor" say the economist. talk about showing your true colors, huh?

This is certainly the argument which resonates most with me (and which I’ve used in the past). I do not feel safe as a Jew, even in Australia, and my relatives in other countries are even more scared.

and I can see why! I don't think this aspiration justifies the extermination or submission to apartheid of other people groups but it *is* a valid aspiration, and one I think should be fulfilled. man, I wish they'd have built Israel in someplace a lot more uninhabited. there being so much empty space, they had to build it in literally the most contested chunk of the world. still, that still entails an ethnostate, and that feels... problematic.

People call Jews ‘white’, but they’re clearly a different group from the people usually called by that term. For that matter, why is settler colonialism suddenly OK if the settlers are non-white?

this is what I mean ny mutatis mutandis: mutate 'white' for 'jew' and 'indian' for 'palestinian' and the framework works: I think people, leftos included, put too much emphasis on whiteness in our theories: sure, whites are globally hegemonic, but the chinese can and do engage in settler colonialism, as do other people groups, and it's about as bad.

[Travis B.]

Why is it so important for you to protect the monetary profit motive? It's just a socially unhelpful rule invented by greedy bastards, probably Calvinists, to prove they are going to heaven unlike the rest of us.

It is because the main alternative to the market is central planning, and central planning, for all the market's faults, has not shown itself to be a viable alternative to the market, as shown by the economies of the Eastern Bloc countries and how poorly they performed, and how poor living standards were, in comparison to Western countries at the time (and how the economy of China, and living standards in China, greatly improved after the market was phased in there).

[Torco]

soviet union went from feudal misery hole to superpower in relatively little time, also China which is actually a planned economy (it's just markets are part of the plan) so it can't be *thaaat* dysfunctional.

[rotting bones]

so, because bad employers exist, the entire system needs to be abolished? okay, then name a system that humans haven't abused or gamed to take advantage of on some level. i don't think such a thing exists or ever existed.

Only in the sense that I oppose monarchy because bad kings exist. Like Torco says, the problem is not really that some kings and bosses are bad, is it? It is that they are incentivized to be bad. Read The Dictator's Handbook. As for bosses:

The fact is, under market competition, not exploiting workers will put you out of business. This is why IIRC the Mondragon Corporation hired temp workers and mistreated them instead of giving every worker the rights of full employeehood.

As I said before, what concerns me about market socialism based on worker co-ops is that because of the profit motive, most people would only be able to find exploitative work anyway.

even if there were no politicians, or even with direct democracy, there would still be bribes and sponsorships - be it from corporations, megafarms, etc.

I never said removing capitalism would actually solve all problems. I'm only suggesting that we solve one specific problem by implementing one specific solution:

Roughly, my proposal is that the government should create an official Patreon-like website. Creators register their projects on this website. Every citizen gets 1 infinitely divisible vote. Citizens send parts of their vote to the projects whose products they want to see more of. Creators draw a government salary in proportion to the number of votes they got.

Besides, there will always be non-systemic problems that you can't solve by changing systems.

with direct democracy, how do you stop the mob - proverbial or otherwise - from taking over? for someone who states that everyone else wants them to live in a regressive society, surely direct democracy would be the last thing you'd want.

I don't support radical democracy, only direct democracy in specific ways. Human rights should have a higher priority in the constitution than direct democracy. I once wrote a blog post about this: https://snapshotsofthelabyrinth.photo.b ... democracy/ I don't have the willpower to check if I still agree with all of it.

I don't think people are inherently regressive. Regressivism is incentivized by the current wealth distribution. Rich people fund regressive projects to protect their power: Want to eat? Worship this God who commands you to obey me.

??????

I'm honestly not sure which part of that statement is hyperbole.

What hyperbole? I have been told to move to Pakistan more times than I can count. Even atheist Indians have told me to move to Bangladesh on rationalist forums.

Currently, the major factions either say: 1. I should be free to live in an Islamic society, 2. I should be free to live in an Islamic bubble within any other society, 3. I should be forced to live in an Islamic society, and the neighborhood should be hit with a drone strike whenever it gets too uppity, or 4. I should be killed.

I hate all of these options. Every major faction opposes revolutionary change towards rationality. Even the Arab Marxist YouTuber Hakim says the main shortcoming of Marxism-Leninism was its opposition to religion. Sometimes, I find myself wishing people were dumber so they wouldn't draw connections that don't exist.

[Travis B.]

soviet union went from feudal misery hole to superpower in relatively little time, also China which is actually a planned economy (it's just markets are part of the plan) so it can't be *thaaat* dysfunctional.

The Soviet Union had to import food from private capitalist countries just to feed their own people, as their economy just couldn't do it by themselves.

[rotting bones]

It is because the main alternative to the market is central planning, and central planning, for all the market's faults, has not shown itself to be a viable alternative to the market, as shown by the economies of the Eastern Bloc countries and how poorly they performed, and how poor living standards were, in comparison to Western countries at the time (and how the economy of China, and living standards in China, greatly improved after the market was phased in there).

The Eastern bloc was trying to outdo the West in things like steel production to show that central planning is a viable model, all the while ignoring the actual demands of the people. My proposal is to measure actual demand as opposed to monetary "demand", which drops when employees are not paid enough:

Roughly, my proposal is that the government should create an official Patreon-like website. Creators register their projects on this website. Every citizen gets 1 infinitely divisible vote. Citizens send parts of their vote to the projects whose products they want to see more of. Creators draw a government salary in proportion to the number of votes they got.

[Travis B.]

Roughly, my proposal is that the government should create an official Patreon-like website. Creators register their projects on this website. Every citizen gets 1 infinitely divisible vote. Citizens send parts of their vote to the projects whose products they want to see more of. Creators draw a government salary in proportion to the number of votes they got.

The problem I foresee with this model is that a popular vote on each product to make does not accurately measure the need for them. Take the Linux kernel for instance -- it is a critical element of the modern-day computing infrastructure (just about every server, every Android phone, and every Chromebook out there runs it) -- but does the everyday person really know what it is and why it is so important? No. If you gave everyone a vote on what to produce, they would probably vote the Linux kernel out of existence, because only people like you and me would know how much it matters, while the vast majority of people would not give a crap about it.

[rotting bones]

The problem I foresee with this model is that a popular vote on each product to make does not accurately measure the need for them. Take the Linux kernel for instance -- it is a critical element of the modern-day computing infrastructure (just about every server, every Android phone, and every Chromebook out there runs it) -- but does the everyday person really know what it is and why it is so important? No. If you gave everyone a vote on what to produce, they would probably vote the Linux kernel out of existence, because only people like you and me would know how much it matters, while the vast majority of people would not give a crap about it.

Regarding this specific example, this proposal is intended to apply mainly to essential goods, giving people more free time. The Linux kernel is not developed by market forces:

I can understand the misunderstanding of my proposal as central planning, but ZeptoForth is not even your job. The whole point of my proposal is to give everyone more free time. Increasing the production of desired goods lowers their scarcity.

In the general case, there would be mechanisms by which multiple projects coordinate the production of intermediate products. For example, all the construction projects that require steel bars could pool resources to support a project that only produces high quality steel bars and delivers them to its supporters. This would make all their work easier.

Crucially, every step in the pipeline is still beholden to popular demand.

[keenir]

The problem I foresee with this model is that a popular vote on each product to make does not accurately measure the need for them. Take the Linux kernel for instance -- it is a critical element of the modern-day computing infrastructure (just about every server, every Android phone, and every Chromebook out there runs it) -- but does the everyday person really know what it is and why it is so important? No. If you gave everyone a vote on what to produce, they would probably vote the Linux kernel out of existence, because only people like you and me would know how much it matters, while the vast majority of people would not give a crap about it.

Regarding this specific example, this proposal is intended to apply mainly to essential goods, giving people more free time. The Linux kernel is not developed by market forces:

it wasn't invented or improved by that, no...but if the market votes say nah, work on something else, its one of the quieter examples of the Leopards Ate My Face trope, when those voters later go "where is all my stuff?" as said stuff depends on kernels.

so, because bad employers exist, the entire system needs to be abolished? okay, then name a system that humans haven't abused or gamed to take advantage of on some level. i don't think such a thing exists or ever existed.

Only in the sense that I oppose monarchy because bad kings exist.

Cool, that makes sense. So I can oppose socialism because of bad premieres(sp) and bad ...my mind just blanked on the name of those worker cooperatives/farms in early modern Israel.

Like Torco says, the problem is not really that some kings and bosses are bad, is it? It is that they are incentivized to be bad. Read The Dictator's Handbook. As for bosses:

While I infinitely prefer The Evil Overlord's rulebook, I do see the value of this: https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?si=p0rP0IA0hdOYHrXB

Besides, there will always be non-systemic problems that you can't solve by changing systems.

the biggest problem is probably systemic: humans will always be humans.

??????
I'm honestly not sure which part of that statement is hyperbole.

What hyperbole? I have been told to move to Pakistan more times than I can count. Even atheist Indians have told me to move to Bangladesh on rationalist forums.

I believe the expression is "well theres your problem."

seriously, did you expect...oh, nevermind, I thought you'd typed nationalist forums. my bad.

(though, perhaps there are lots of nationalists on those forums? or a lot of FoxNews fans)

[rotting bones]

it wasn't invented or improved by that, no...but if the market votes say nah, work on something else, its one of the quieter examples of the Leopards Ate My Face trope, when those voters later go "where is all my stuff?" as said stuff depends on kernels.

Free time. The Linux kernel is developed on people's free time.

Cool, that makes sense. So I can oppose socialism because of bad premieres(sp) and bad ...my mind just blanked on the name of those worker cooperatives/farms in early modern Israel.

You can oppose authoritarian socialism because we have theoretical justifications to draw that particular conclusion, yes.

While I infinitely prefer The Evil Overlord's rulebook, I do see the value of this: https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?si=p0rP0IA0hdOYHrXB

The actual book uses CEOs as examples: https://www.burmalibrary.org/docs13/The ... ndbook.pdf

the biggest problem is probably systemic: humans will always be humans.

Humans are not the last men yet. They are but a transitory step on the path to Superman. :p

Seriously though, the specific problem I'm complaining about was created by humans in the last few centuries. The people responsible were probably Calvinist-adjacent Christians. The fanatical factions of these groups are no longer a viable political force. We're coasting on the inertia from their original idiocy because the USSR bungled their jobs by being authoritarian dickheads.

I believe the expression is "well theres your problem."

seriously, did you expect...oh, nevermind, I thought you'd typed nationalist forums. my bad.

(though, perhaps there are lots of nationalists on those forums? or a lot of FoxNews fans)

Are you aware that the Hindutva leader Modi is currently the most popular elected leader in the world?

Besides, even the "progressive" movements are obsessed with preserving my "culture". IIRC, many of today's "leftist" groups were funded by the CIA to undermine the USSR. The CIA supported Islamists every chance they got. They supported Pakistan's genocide of Bengalis during the independence of Bangladesh. It's almost like "culture" is a lure dangled for stupid people to make them be okay with megacorps.

[rotting bones]

then again... did you move to Dubai or sth? the islamism stuff i mean

Nope, just the regular experience of Muslim Indians these days.

[Travis B.]

it wasn't invented or improved by that, no...but if the market votes say nah, work on something else, its one of the quieter examples of the Leopards Ate My Face trope, when those voters later go "where is all my stuff?" as said stuff depends on kernels.

Free time. The Linux kernel is developed on people's free time.

Actually, no, these days. Most people these days who work on the Linux kernel are paid to do it (unlike my work on zeptoforth).

[rotting bones]

Actually, no, these days. Most people these days who work on the Linux kernel are paid to do it (unlike my work on zeptoforth).

I didn't know that. Do you have more information about this? This might be a dream job for me.

If these developers are paid through donations, the Linux Kernel should have its own Patreon project. If they are paid by corporations whose products depend on the Linux kernel, other projects could dedicate staff to developing it under my proposal. Other projects could even designate the Linux Kernel as an intermediate product and develop it collectively.

The structure of the economy is very similar. The only difference is that the profit motive is replaced by popular vote.

[Travis B.]

Actually, no, these days. Most people these days who work on the Linux kernel are paid to do it (unlike my work on zeptoforth).

I didn't know that. Do you have more information about this? This might be a dream job for me.

If these developers are paid through donations, the Linux Kernel should have its own Patreon project. If they are paid by corporations whose products depend on the Linux kernel, other projects could dedicate staff to developing it under my proposal. Other projects could even designate the Linux Kernel as an intermediate product and develop it collectively.

The structure of the economy is very similar. The only difference is that the profit motive is replaced by popular vote.

Most people who work on the Linux kernel these days are paid by corporations whose products depend on the Linux kernel (including Linus Torvalds himself, even though he is not directly employed by these corporations).

[rotting bones]

Most people who work on the Linux kernel these days are paid by corporations whose products depend on the Linux kernel (including Linus Torvalds himself, even though he is not directly employed by these corporations).

Then its development being abandoned would be the equivalent of everyone moving on from it under the market system.

Although this is not one of them, there are serious problems with my proposal, which I discussed exhaustively in the Capitalism thread.

[zompist]

I'm not like a super expert on the history of colonialism but it seems to me exceedingly similar, especially anglosaxon colonialism, we're talking a) invading non-white peoples land and b) giving it to white people c) with military backing and d) justifying it as bringing civilization, punishing barbarians, and securing a place for the "us" to live. look at the indian wars in north america for an example

Why "especially anglosaxon colonialism"? Do you think Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian, and French colonialism was different– nicer, more uplifting? Do you think the Indian wars in South America were nice and freindly compared to the British?

To be clear, I think they were all awful; I just find singling out the UK/US baffling.