Predictions for 2301

[keenir]

The way I see it is that in most countries with reliable opinion polls (i.e., liberal democracies) more and more people are worried about climate change going out of hand, rather than the cost of the economic transformation.

Except when the cost of trying to stop climate change is sparking people in some nations to object to the US and Europe saying "no no no, you can't mustn;t use those tools, fuels, materials, etc to raise your peoples' living standards, because that will cause climate change"...and the people being told to stop (ie India and China) replying "you mean all the tools and things you used?"

Also, this transformation, like all major innovations, will involve a lot of investment which leads to the creation of jobs and prosperity. There is so much to do: someone has to build all those wind turbines, make and install all those solar panels, modify and rebuild all those industrial facilities that have to be modified and rebuilt, etc.

just because Putin's trying to be a Tsar, doesn't mean all authoritarian rulers want their people wallowing around in the filth they have to trudge through.

I mean, granted, I've seen probably half a dozen different reasons put forward as to why Singapore's system of heavy-handedness and ecological promotion can't be done in a larger political body...but that doesn't mean any authoritarian or authoritarian-leaning nation larger than a city-state has to be horrible to the enviroment, does it?

Also, there is a strong correlation between authoritarianism and climate change denial.

How about authoritarianism and climate change prevention/reversal ?

[rotting bones]

Regarding climate change: I don't think it's possible to enforce plans that are strict enough to deal with climate change under the global neoliberal hegemony AKA "capitalism". This entire system relies on creating artificial desperation to motivate people. We know from psychology that desperate people become less reasonable and more "conservative". A majority of the planet's population lives under low income economies or localized low income regimes, where it's impossible to motivate people to deal with climate change. (Also, the technique of artificial desperation is itself counterproductive a lot of the time: https://youtu.be/fe-SZ_FPZew)

I explained more specific, less psychological causes that lead to the same conclusion in the Capitalism thread. Basically, poor workers can't afford to bet on the possibility that the number of jobs won't shrink if business became less profitable under climate regulation. Climate industry might require more jobs, but those jobs might have to be created by the government. The global neoliberal hegemony won't stand idly by as you snatch their profits from under them.

Regarding Russia: It's practically impossible for Russia to conquer Europe without nuking it. You need a certain proportion of soldiers to hold a civilian population. I don't agree with everything in this playlist, but it lays out a number of reasons to be skeptical of Russia's footing even in Ukraine: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1 ... gweZZEqrdV

If your opinion of a thing fluctuates between hope and frustration as you express those opinions, that's suggestive of the possibility that those opinions are infused with your half-forgotten emotions towards your primary caregiver in childhood or adolescence. See Prisoners of Childhood by Alice Miller. (Don't be put off by all the pseudointellectuals bursting with narcissistic rage as they accuse everyone they disagree with of being a narcissist. The actual book is not a moralistic tale, or even anti-narcissist per se.)

[keenir]

Regarding climate change: I don't think it's possible to enforce plans that are strict enough to deal with climate change under the global neoliberal hegemony AKA "capitalism".

what?
(emphasis mine)

This entire system relies on creating artificial desperation to motivate people.

Weird - the way I learned about capitalism, some people become less well off, and thus are more inclined to engage in risky or desperate actions (be they in business (such as increasing discounts as bancrupcy(sp) looms, in the hope that an increase in customer #s can save the business), or politics)

So, wouldn't 'creating artificial desperation' be more likely in a top-down State-run economy? Wait, I don't think that would work either, because the desperation wouldn't be artificial...unless we're talking about actors, like in a Potemkin Village.

I'm confused.

We know from psychology that desperate people become less reasonable and more "conservative".

we also know from psychology that desperate people become less "conservative". Weird how both can be true - but thats humans for you.

The global neoliberal hegemony won't stand idly by as you snatch their profits from under them.

Doesn't "global" mean its all-encompassing, while "hegemony" means its signifigantly less than global? If its a hegemon, then just place our support behind the nations that aren't part of your neoliberal hegemon, and as Peg&Cat say, "Problem solved, the problem is solved."

If your opinion of a thing fluctuates between hope and frustration as you express those opinions, that's suggestive of the possibility that those opinions are infused with your half-forgotten emotions towards your primary caregiver in childhood or adolescence.

0.o
Freud called, he wants his theory back.

[bradrn]

Regarding climate change: I don't think it's possible to enforce plans that are strict enough to deal with climate change under the global neoliberal hegemony AKA "capitalism".

what?
(emphasis mine)

This entire system relies on creating artificial desperation to motivate people.

Weird - the way I learned about capitalism, some people become less well off, and thus are more inclined to engage in risky or desperate actions (be they in business (such as increasing discounts as bancrupcy(sp) looms, in the hope that an increase in customer #s can save the business), or politics)

So, wouldn't 'creating artificial desperation' be more likely in a top-down State-run economy? Wait, I don't think that would work either, because the desperation wouldn't be artificial...unless we're talking about actors, like in a Potemkin Village.

I'm confused.

rotting bones is a Marxist, and I believe this stuff is all standard Marxist theory. The ‘artificial desperation’ here would be exactly what you say — the desperation which occurs when people become less well off — the Marxist position being that this desperation wouldn’t exist in a society where everyone is equal, and hence is ‘artificial’.

(Please correct me if I’ve gotten anything wrong!)

[rotting bones]

In the past, I directed you to evidence supporting my positions (https://elemental.medium.com/what-the-h ... 8059753dae), and I've failed to make the slightest dent in your opinions. I don't know why I think things will be different this time. I know everything I say is subject to the backfire effect, so consider the following to be a hopeless labor of love.

Weird - the way I learned about capitalism, some people become less well off, and thus are more inclined to engage in risky or desperate actions (be they in business (such as increasing discounts as bancrupcy(sp) looms, in the hope that an increase in customer #s can save the business), or politics)

That's all fine and dandy, except that you can't succeed against property owners by building a better business. Study business instead of "economics". Business is boring, but force yourself to do it. Or, hell, just watch Shark Tank or something!

Even if you come up with a startling innovation, the big companies will copy you unless you patent it, and most people can't afford a patent.

Also, not everyone can become an entrepreneur and make a profit because making a profit entails someone else's loss. That is, unless the industry is decreed solvent by state command somehow. For example, by printing money and allocating it to those ventures.

Furthermore, I don't see how this is relevant to the present discussion. More on that below.*

So, wouldn't 'creating artificial desperation' be more likely in a top-down State-run economy? Wait, I don't think that would work either, because the desperation wouldn't be artificial...unless we're talking about actors, like in a Potemkin Village.

I'm confused.

The artificial desperation consists in precisely this: Even though nature keeps producing goods, pieces of these productive capacities are owned by the wealthy, and new investment is tightly controlled by an archconservative, technocratic elite. Eg. There can be housing crises while houses lie empty without occupants. This is artificial because it's man made.

Regarding existing businesses: If the scarcity of goods is lowered, then they will become cheaper, profits will fall and the economy will tank. Therefore, artificial scarcity in created in the sense that the system actively prevents us from lowering scarcity. For more information, look up the business cycle.

Regarding new investments: The technocratic elite is forced to be archconservative on pain of losing their jobs. If the business owners fail to extract a profit, then the economy will tank, and those functionaries will be fired.

How does the system currently function? By the government constantly propping up the economy through unpopular measures like bailouts to prevent the country from turning into the pre-Keynesian dystopia described by Karl Marx. These measures only go so far, and give the people a false impression that societal success follows from its innate values, the ideology of the dark ages.

As I explained in the Capitalism thread, my proposed solution is to allow the state, if required, to (a) nationalize specific resources in essential industries and/or (b) create jobs in specific industries, both by popular vote. You might call this a partial command economy, but the command comes from direct democracy. This will reassure people that they won't starve while we switch to a climate-friendly industry. If they were starving, they would nationalize the required resources in food production and create the required jobs by popular vote. It wouldn't matter whether doing that is "profitable" to the people running the businesses.

*My formal objection is: "Desperate people undertake risky actions. Therefore, artificial desperation is more likely in a state-run economy." doesn't follow. The correct argument is: "Desperate people undertake risky actions. Therefore, artificial desperation is less likely in a state-run economy (under my proposed system)." for the following reasons: 1. You can't succeed by building a better business. 2. You can't make a profit without someone else taking a loss unless the state interferes. 3. You can't lower scarcity without tanking the economy depending on where you are in the business cycle. 4. New investments are jealously guarded by a technocratic elite who don't know the future and are terrified of being fired if they guess wrong.

we also know from psychology that desperate people become less "conservative". Weird how both can be true - but thats humans for you.

Except that we know for a fact desperate people become irrational and conservative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory

Doesn't "global" mean its all-encompassing, while "hegemony" means its signifigantly less than global? If its a hegemon, then just place our support behind the nations that aren't part of your neoliberal hegemon, and as Peg&Cat say, "Problem solved, the problem is solved."

No. Obviously, there is no semantic contradiction in the notion of an elite minority dominating the globe.

0.o
Freud called, he wants his theory back.

Except that I cited a book by Alice Miller, not Freud. Obviously that name means nothing to you, so Miller was cited, eg, by Richard O'Connor in Undoing Depression, whose 3rd expanded edition was published in 2021. This is contemporary psychology.

[rotting bones]

rotting bones is a Marxist

I guess I'm a Marxist in the sense that anyone to the left of Hitler is a "Marxist" these days. I'm more of a fan of Bertrand Russell if you ask me.

The ‘artificial desperation’ here would be exactly what you say — the desperation which occurs when people become less well off — the Marxist position being that this desperation wouldn’t exist in a society where everyone is equal, and hence is ‘artificial’.

I wouldn't say so. As a rule, Marx tries to minimize the role of psychology to the extent that many readers accuse him of turning the world of ideas into an epiphenomenon. (base and superstructure) If you want to read Marx as a psychological thinker, you best bet is his concept of "alienation": https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/alienation/ Less promising candidates include "expropriation", "extraction", etc.

For Marx, desperation comes in to play in his polemical works, where he says things like, "You have nothing to lose but your chains!"

[keenir]

. The ‘artificial desperation’ here would be exactly what you say — the desperation which occurs when people become less well off — the Marxist position being that this desperation wouldn’t exist in a society where everyone is equal, and hence is ‘artificial’.

thank you for the explanation.

In the past, I directed you to evidence supporting my positions (https://elemental.medium.com/what-the-h ... 8059753dae), and I've failed to make the slightest dent on your opinions.

on the contrary - when you explained what you meant, you did make considerably more than a dent.

it may've seemed otherwise because you explained at the end of a conversation, and I don't always manage to remember everything over longer spans of time.

Weird - the way I learned about capitalism, some people become less well off, and thus are more inclined to engage in risky or desperate actions (be they in business (such as increasing discounts as bancrupcy(sp) looms, in the hope that an increase in customer #s can save the business), or politics)

That's all fine and dandy, except that you can't succeed against property owners by building a better business.

that makes sense -- if I wanted to compete against property owners, I'd have to first become a property owner.

Also, not everyone can become an entrepreneur and make a profit because making a profit entails someone else's loss.

okay, here's my logic train...
1. to be an entrepreneur, one must have a new business idea or item to market
2. lets say my idea is to make doilies and other lace ornamentations and decorations
3. and I decide the best community to sell them to, is the Piraha
4. this way, I am in competition with no other makers or sellers of lace decorations
5. though one could argue I am in competition with Piraha tradition, but thats another conversation.

so, is my profit still entailing someone else's loss? if so, whose?

Eg. There can be housing crises while houses lie empty without occupants. This is artificial because it's man made.

ah, okay.
much better to have too many empty houses because the construction crews are kept perpetually employed and hard at work.

As I explained in the Capitalism thread, my proposed solution is to allow the state, if required, to (a) nationalize specific resources in essential industries and/or (b) create jobs in specific industries, both by popular vote. You might call this a partially command economy, but the command comes from direct democracy. This will reassure people that they won't starve if while we switch to a climate-friendly industry

but then what stops the elite from taking control of that voting?

: 1. You can't succeed by building a better business.

I want to make a joke about Atari, or at least Apple...but I think a quip will have to suffice.

Doesn't "global" mean its all-encompassing, while "hegemony" means its signifigantly less than global? If its a hegemon, then just place our support behind the nations that aren't part of your neoliberal hegemon, and as Peg&Cat say, "Problem solved, the problem is solved."

No. Obviously, there is no semantic contradiction in the notion of an elite minority dominating the globe.

ahh, I see now, i do. my misunderstanding had come from my thinking that a hegemony (which i keep spelling hedgemony for some reason) was a group of nations...i hadn't considered a hegemony to be a minority.

0.o
Freud called, he wants his theory back.

Except that I cited a book by Alice Miller, not Freud.

it was a joke; i'm sorry.

[rotting bones]

okay, here's my logic train...
1. to be an entrepreneur, one must have a new business idea or item to market
2. lets say my idea is to make doilies and other lace ornamentations and decorations
3. and I decide the best community to sell them to, is the Piraha
4. this way, I am in competition with no other makers or sellers of lace decorations
5. though one could argue I am in competition with Piraha tradition, but thats another conversation.

so, is my profit still entailing someone else's loss? if so, whose?

For any business to succeed, both its employees and customers must lose. That's what it means for you to bring in more than you gave away.

This is why unregulated capitalism inevitably leads to a depression: Workers can no longer afford to buy the goods that will make a profit for the businesses they work in.

but then what stops the elite from taking control of that voting?

Elites won't have anything important to offer people once the essential industries are no longer under their control. If they can lure in over 50% of the population by offering them chocolate, then maybe humanity deserves to be oppressed.

it was a joke; i'm sorry.

Sorry. As an apology, here's Alice Miller as a song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDfUqQBeViM

[rotting bones]

Regarding the new Thousand Year Reich: If they ban abortion and contraceptives while adopting business-friendly policies, that will increase the population of poor people. This may initially lower wages, but it will eventually increase revolutionary potential. Again, you need a certain proportion of soldiers to hold a region.

Progressives don't oppose reactionary ideologies because we hold a different set of values. Fact is, reactionary societies are inherently unstable. This is what Marx tried to capture with the idea of "dialectics".

[keenir]

okay, here's my logic train...
1. to be an entrepreneur, one must have a new business idea or item to market
2. lets say my idea is to make doilies and other lace ornamentations and decorations
3. and I decide the best community to sell them to, is the Piraha
4. this way, I am in competition with no other makers or sellers of lace decorations
5. though one could argue I am in competition with Piraha tradition, but thats another conversation.

so, is my profit still entailing someone else's loss? if so, whose?

For any business to succeed, both its employees and customers must lose.

wait... ...is this like that song New Math? surely for there to be a success, that requires you to succeed - if you don't, then you haven't had a success.

Unless...hang on, is this like those movies where someone starts a company with the intention of driving it into the ground...so they either succeed at doing miserably and driving it into the ground, or a miracle happens and somehow the company does better than anyone thought?

but then what stops the elite from taking control of that voting?

Elites won't have anything important to offer people once the essential industries are no longer under their control. If they can lure in over 50% of the population by offering them chocolate, then maybe humanity deserves to be oppressed.

The same people who somehow control the entire globe...need to offer people things?

the analogy that comes to my mind, whether apt or accurate or neither, is voting. while the % of the population who could vote has increased over time, the people who can become President has changed little -- even with the entire globe voting, they can only vote for things that either they want. (and why would workers in, say, Japan and the USA, vote for the Greater Kudu Repopulation Effort - which helps the workers who deal with Greater Kudu & with the tourists who come to see the Greater Kudu...but the only people in the USA or Japan who might benefit even remotely would be the zookeepers' bloc)

granted, nobody can vote for it if it isn't on the docket or voting sheet or however its done.

[rotting bones]

wait... ...is this like that song New Math? surely for there to be a success, that requires you to succeed - if you don't, then you haven't had a success.

Unless...hang on, is this like those movies where someone starts a company with the intention of driving it into the ground...so they either succeed at doing miserably and driving it into the ground, or a miracle happens and somehow the company does better than anyone thought?

Profit = Revenue - Expenses. You have to rake in more value than you hand out in the form of goods and salaries. That's the only way to make money!

Under a market that has been unable to expand into unseen territories fast enough, businesses succeed, plateau, then plunge into a depression until the market "corrects" itself. This leads to something called a business cycle:



IIRC this diagram is from How the World Works by Paul Cockshott.

The same people who somehow control the entire globe...need to offer people things?

Yes, because they are not up for election. Policies are.

the analogy that comes to my mind, whether apt or accurate or neither, is voting. while the % of the population who could vote has increased over time, the people who can become President has changed little -- even with the entire globe voting, they can only vote for things that either they want. (and why would workers in, say, Japan and the USA, vote for the Greater Kudu Repopulation Effort - which helps the workers who deal with Greater Kudu & with the tourists who come to see the Greater Kudu...but the only people in the USA or Japan who might benefit even remotely would be the zookeepers' bloc)

granted, nobody can vote for it if it isn't on the docket or voting sheet or however its done.

This is a different problem. Perverse incentives on the leader are excised by moving from representative democracy to something like a plebiscite. For more, read Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and IIRC, the Capitalism thread on money in politics.

[Ares Land]

Not really a prediction, but I wonder to what extent despair is part of the plan.

I noticed this with climate change. The message is, often enough, that the climate is already fucked -- to be more specific, the idea is that there's three years left to act. But given that not much is going to happen, realistically, in three years, the message is the same.

Whose plan though? In this particular case, the left chose its own messaging, and chose badly.

Granted, the left generally sucks at spreading its messages, and there are a lot of messed-up takes on the left. However, it seems to me that doomsaying got a lot of coverage in these past few years; there was little mention of reasonable takes on what should be done (for instance, improving or building rail systems, building the necessary infrastructure for electric cars and making sure these can be built cheaply, seriously implementing a carbon tax.)

In part this is the left's fault, of course, but I mean, there are lobbies, the media have owners... A lot of people have both influence on what narrative gets spread, and a strong interest in keeping taxes and public spending low.
A bunch of people worrying themselves sick won't hurt the 1%'s interests much or at all (Plus, given the media addiction to doomsaying and sensationalism, general anxiety is good for business!)

I mean, granted, I've seen probably half a dozen different reasons put forward as to why Singapore's system of heavy-handedness and ecological promotion can't be done in a larger political body...but that doesn't mean any authoritarian or authoritarian-leaning nation larger than a city-state has to be horrible to the enviroment, does it?

(...)

How about authoritarianism and climate change prevention/reversal ?

Still, most authoritarian regimes have a pretty bad record on that department. And our homegrown authoritarians in Europe or the US are in complete denial.
Singapore is an exception, but mostly the correlation is pretty strong.
(Singapore's a city-state too... Lowering the carbon footprint is a lot easier in big cities.)

Regarding climate change: I don't think it's possible to enforce plans that are strict enough to deal with climate change under the global neoliberal hegemony AKA "capitalism".

Dealing climate change will require interventionism, public spending and possibly quite a bit of socialism. I agree with you on that.
We also won't get rid of capitalism within our lifetimes (provided getting rid of capitalism entirely is even a good idea), so we will have to work with it somehow. (That's entirely possible; it has been done before.)

[keenir]

wait... ...is this like that song New Math? surely for there to be a success, that requires you to succeed - if you don't, then you haven't had a success.

Unless...hang on, is this like those movies where someone starts a company with the intention of driving it into the ground...so they either succeed at doing miserably and driving it into the ground, or a miracle happens and somehow the company does better than anyone thought?

Profit = Revenue - Expenses. You have to rake in more value than you hand out in the form of goods and salaries. That's the only way to make money!

but thats not failing...thats succeeding.

The same people who somehow control the entire globe...need to offer people things?

Yes, because they are not up for election. Policies are.

So...instead of voting for Donald Trump or Steve Jobs, we're voting for what Trump promises vs what Jobs promises?

That...seems to be splitting hairs.

granted, nobody can vote for it if it isn't on the docket or voting sheet or however its done.

This is a different problem. Perverse incentives on the leader are excised by moving from representative democracy to something like a plebiscite.

hang on...*goes to Google*

the direct vote of all the members of an electorate on an important public question such as a change in the constitution.

So, you're suggesting replacing representative democracy with pure democracy for every single citizen. I'd love to know how you plan to get everyone to vote; so far as I know, no modern nation has 100% voter turnout.

Though changing the voting system doesn't suddenly mean everything gets advanced for a vote - who decides what things get voted on?

if there is a set of gatekeepers that filter the great many submissions, reducing the number to a manageable number of things to vote on, what keeps the "archconservative elite" you mentioned from taking this role?

vs

if anyone can say "lets vote on this", bear in mind how much spam is going to be flooding everyones' voting inboxes, as well as "i am seven years old and want to stay up til mightnight, but my parents say no - which of us is right?" (and it doesn't matter if the plebiscite can mandate changes in individual families - if anyone can submit something to the voters, that'll still show up)

[rotting bones]

Dealing climate change will require interventionism, public spending and possibly quite a bit of socialism. I agree with you on that.

I'm not sure the current system will allow measures that are as strict as necessary to make a real difference. You will make inveterate enemies of the smaller businesses that are fighting tooth and nail for a piece of the pie. They're the ones most likely to go broke. Under the current system, climate regulation can ruin these people's lives along with their credit scores. Under my proposal, going broke has no life-threatening consequences. You can always find a part time job in a government farm where you can work the hours you need to get by while you rebuild your business.

Ordinary workers won't be your friends either if your plan threatens to cause a major disruption in the jobs industry.

We also won't get rid of capitalism within our lifetimes (provided getting rid of capitalism entirely is even a good idea), so we will have to work with it somehow. (That's entirely possible; it has been done before.)

Note that by capitalism, I only mean a strict ownership regime, eg. that doesn't allow resources for essential industries to be nationalized by popular vote, etc. Under my proposal, there are still markets and For Profit businesses, especially in luxury industries. I prefer worker co-ops, but I'd allow business leaders as long as workers are always free to quit and work for the government.

[rotting bones]

but thats not failing...thats succeeding.

Very roughly: Under capitalism, selecting businesses that are efficient at extracting profit turns the social pie into something approximating a zero sum game. Whether the actual amount of useful products increase or decrease, all changes in the total valuation are rapidly divided amongst the most profitable ventures. Let's call this total $100. Let's say the property owners initially control $50, and the workers $50. Only the businesses that succeed in extracting value from workers survive. Let's say that when the balance becomes something like $90 for owners and $10 for workers, it becomes very hard for owners to convince the workers to buy more of their commodities. When people aren't buying, owners stop investing in production since there won't be a profit. At this point, business has become unprofitable and the economy slips into a depression.

Marx calls this the immanent "contradiction" of capitalism: Success breeds failure, and failure breeds success. (See the graphs.)

So...instead of voting for Donald Trump or Steve Jobs, we're voting for what Trump promises vs what Jobs promises?

That...seems to be splitting hairs.

Under representative democracy, all politicians have to sell out to lobbyists in order to stand a chance of being elected. All politicians nowadays come in with highly unpopular policies on their agenda.

hang on...*goes to Google*

the direct vote of all the members of an electorate on an important public question such as a change in the constitution.

So, you're suggesting replacing representative democracy with pure democracy for every single citizen. I'd love to know how you plan to get everyone to vote; so far as I know, no modern nation has 100% voter turnout.

See my description in the Capitalism thread. For creating jobs, I envision a system like Patreon, except that instead of money, everyone spends a fixed number of votes every month on goods and services that they want to see more of in the coming month. The allocation is done algorithmically, and enforced by the executive branch.

The question of nationalizing a piece of property is raised if, eg, the allocation chosen by the voters won't work with the government's existing resources.

if anyone can say "lets vote on this", bear in mind how much spam is going to be flooding everyones' voting inboxes, as well as "i am seven years old and want to stay up til mightnight, but my parents say no - which of us is right?" (and it doesn't matter if the plebiscite can mandate changes in individual families - if anyone can submit something to the voters, that'll still show up)

I'm not suggesting that everything can be decided by vote; only the specific things I mentioned. In this case, nationalizing essential resources and creating jobs. If you look at my full proposal in the Capitalism thread, I repeatedly mention a constitution that guarantees fundamental human rights. That can't be changed by popular vote, for example.

I'm agnostic about how other decisions are made. At this point, I'd suggest that a question can be kicked up to the national level if enough town halls decide that a national vote is worth it.

[Travis B.]

The whole thing about profit versus wages can easily be dealt with with worker cooperatives, as really profits then are simply how much money the workers collectively decide to reinvest in the firm rather than pay themselves. No exploitation would take place by its very nature, as no one's skimming money off the top. Furthermore, more stability would be involved than in capitalist businesses from the workers' perspective because the workers could collectively decide to reinvest less money in the business and/or pay themselves less rather than just lay people off as capitalists would (because they would have to vote to lay themselves off, and who would willingly vote themselves out of a job?) when the market weakens.

About fundamental human rights, though, I am for not only writing them into the constitution, but making it illegal to even try to rescind them by any means, even constitutional amendment. People who vote for any piece of legislation that attempts to overturn them should be banned from politics for life.

[Moose-tache]

The whole thing about profit versus wages can easily be dealt with with worker cooperatives, as really profits then are simply how much money the workers collectively decide to reinvest in the firm rather than pay themselves. No exploitation would take place by its very nature, as no one's skimming money off the top.

Oh, sweet summer child. You think the people skimming off the top are foremen and managers? A worker coop will still have investors, people who are entitled to a percentage by dint of already owning capital. Unless your worker coop is also forbidden from taking out loans? I hope your factory workers and janitors are flush with investment capital, in that case. Having no access to capital would make most businesses fail to reach ordinary operations budgets, let alone expand or weather a crisis.

Worker coops are a neat idea, and If your idea of inequality is that upper middle class people have better sandwiches than lower middle class people, then by all means, fill up the planet with Mondragons. But they do not lay hands on the basic flaws of Capitalism, private ownership of the means of production, the capital class and the non-capital class, and the r/g relationship. They just don't.

[Travis B.]

The whole thing about profit versus wages can easily be dealt with with worker cooperatives, as really profits then are simply how much money the workers collectively decide to reinvest in the firm rather than pay themselves. No exploitation would take place by its very nature, as no one's skimming money off the top.

Oh, sweet summer child. You think the people skimming off the top are foremen and managers? A worker coop will still have investors, people who are entitled to a percentage by dint of already owning capital. Unless your worker coop is also forbidden from taking out loans? I hope your factory workers and janitors are flush with investment capital, in that case. Having no access to capital would make most businesses fail to reach ordinary operations budgets, let alone expand or weather a crisis.

Worker coops are a neat idea, and If your idea of inequality is that upper middle class people have better sandwiches than lower middle class people, then by all means, fill up the planet with Mondragons. But they do not lay hands on the basic flaws of Capitalism, private ownership of the means of production, the capital class and the non-capital class, and the r/g relationship. They just don't.

Umm in a socialist society, which a society based on worker cooperatives (i.e. worker self-ownership and management of capital) would be, you would not have private investment in its current form in the first place. What you speak of would not be worker cooperatives in the first place, as investor ownership of capital is not worker self-ownership and management of capital. Rather, one would probably see socialized funding of activities seen as beneficial to society which could benefit from funding, with there being no private investor class.

[Raphael]

Oh, sweet summer child. You think the people skimming off the top are foremen and managers? A worker coop will still have investors, people who are entitled to a percentage by dint of already owning capital. Unless your worker coop is also forbidden from taking out loans? I hope your factory workers and janitors are flush with investment capital, in that case. Having no access to capital would make most businesses fail to reach ordinary operations budgets, let alone expand or weather a crisis.

Worker coops are a neat idea, and If your idea of inequality is that upper middle class people have better sandwiches than lower middle class people, then by all means, fill up the planet with Mondragons. But they do not lay hands on the basic flaws of Capitalism, private ownership of the means of production, the capital class and the non-capital class, and the r/g relationship. They just don't.

Your points about the capital class and the non-capital class and r/g are well taken, but I've kind of got the impression that your idea of what "socialism" is is based on the caricatures about it inside the minds of US right-wingers. When the word first appeared, it referred to workers' control of the means of production, which might, but didn't have to, involve a worker-run state. Even Marxist Communists, before they first took power in some places, predicted that under their rule the state would gradually wither away. The idea that "socialism" means "state control of everything" seems to be mostly an invention of anti-socialist USAnians.