As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Labor and Unions]: Workers of the world, unite!

2456780

Posts

  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    edited May 14
    no true scotsman really doesn't apply to this, that's a very big stretch
    cenk uygur isn't a socialist

    He definitely is, he's not a liberal or conservative.

    i promise you he's extremely liberal

    aside from all the capitalist shit he regularly says and publishes, you can't really be a CEO of a private company and be a socialist, it is a contradiction in terms

    No Socialist can be a CEO

    But this man identifies as a socialist, and is a CEO

    But no True Socialist can be a CEO

    Lord_Asmodeus on
    Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
    Harry DresdenzepherinElvenshaeShadowhopeKayne Red Robeshryke
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No True Scottmen doesnt cover definitional distinctions. Its not a fallacy to claim no true circle is a square.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ShortyHacksawMan in the MistsShadowfireMatevCurly_BraceDavid WalgasDarkPrimusBigJoeMVegemyteButler
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    no true scotsman really doesn't apply to this, that's a very big stretch
    cenk uygur isn't a socialist

    He definitely is, he's not a liberal or conservative.

    i promise you he's extremely liberal

    aside from all the capitalist shit he regularly says and publishes, you can't really be a CEO of a private company and be a socialist, it is a contradiction in terms

    No Socialist can be a CEO

    But this man identifies as a socialist, and is a CEO

    But no True Socialist can be a CEO

    Just because someone says they believe something doesn't mean they do. Uygur's attacks on the IATSE put the lie to his claims of being a socialist.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    HacksawMan in the MistszagdrobMatevDarkPrimusRedTideVegemyte
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    no true scotsman really doesn't apply to this, that's a very big stretch
    cenk uygur isn't a socialist

    He definitely is, he's not a liberal or conservative.

    i promise you he's extremely liberal

    aside from all the capitalist shit he regularly says and publishes, you can't really be a CEO of a private company and be a socialist, it is a contradiction in terms

    No Socialist can be a CEO

    But this man identifies as a socialist, and is a CEO

    But no True Socialist can be a CEO
    Someone claiming a political / economic identity doesn't mean they are of it. This is where actions matter and are the identifier.

    Someone who truly wants to fight for socialist values cannot be a CEO, because Chief Executive Officers directly serve at the behest of investors to produce capital.

    Y'know.

    Capitalism.

    Man in the MistsCurly_BraceShadowhopeVegemyte
  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    edited May 14
    no true scotsman really doesn't apply to this, that's a very big stretch
    cenk uygur isn't a socialist

    He definitely is, he's not a liberal or conservative.

    i promise you he's extremely liberal

    aside from all the capitalist shit he regularly says and publishes, you can't really be a CEO of a private company and be a socialist, it is a contradiction in terms

    No Socialist can be a CEO

    But this man identifies as a socialist, and is a CEO

    But no True Socialist can be a CEO

    come on now

    i have declared myself to be a catholic, only i don't believe in jesus, nor do i think the pope is god's conduit to earth. you can't say i'm not a catholic or else you have Committed A Fallacy

    e: i believe that private property should be abolished and the productive means given over to workers, so i call myself a capitalist

    Typhoid Manny on
    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Just because someone says they believe something doesn't mean they do. Uygur's attacks on the IATSE put the lie to his claims of being a socialist.

    This omits that socialism is an incredibly wide ideology and the anyone who is a terrible boss can't be a socialist. Just because he didn't like the IASE didn't not make him a socialist, he's a very big cog in socialist resurgence in social media and in congress itself today. Socialism has terrible people who fail with their ideals like any other group, they're not perfect. Unionising creates rifts with bosses in an adversarial relationship, which occurs regardless of their political ideology.

    Lord_AsmodeusShadowhopeSolomaxwell6
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    wikipedia wrote:
    An appeal to purity is commonly associated with protecting a preferred group. One can imagine a matter of Scottish national pride is at stake if someone regularly considered to be Scottish commits a heinous crime. Thus, there may be an active interest in protecting members of this shared Scottish heritage from a possible accusation of guilt by association by denying that the group includes this undesirable member or action. "No true Scotsman would do something so undesirable"; i.e. the people who would do such a thing are tautologically (definitionally) excluded from being part of our group such that they cannot serve as a counter-example to the group's good nature.

    Socialism has a definition! You can’t say it’s a no true Scotsman when the issue at hand is a self proclaimed socialist pursuing literally anti socialist policy with respect to labor!

    Again, a King cannot be a lower case R republican. They are antithesis to each other.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Typhoid MannyShortyMan in the MistsMatevDavid WalgasBigJoeM
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    Tef wrote: »
    There is a generous reading where a capitalist understands the union as a necessary evil. They understand that the owner and worker relationship is inherently adversarial and for workers to receive enough to get by on, the workers need to collectively bargain. This would be in service of, consciously or not, delaying (ideally for the owners, preventing) the realisation of one of the inherent contradictions of capitalism.

    I think even when this generous reading, there is a meaningful separation between that thinking and ‘believing in’ worker unions.

    Or one can be a capitalist who genuinely believes (correctly) that most unions ultimately create a more efficient and more profitable environment, and increase the quality and retention of their employees, which also increases profitability long term. There are different shades and flavor of different beliefs and ideologies, and not all capitalists are or will inevitably become short term benefit only vulture capitalist ghouls.

    And I'm not saying that as someone who would self-describe as a capitalist. I can disagree with someone who holds a more capitalistic view on markets and economics than myself and also acknowledge that some, though not most, come to similar conclusions to myself on a variety of subjects, if often for different reasons.

    And people can also think and act in contradictory ways. Someone can be a socialist, think in socialist terms, and still make shitty kneejerk decisions to maximize their own benefit without making them "not a real socialist." I mean it probably makes them a hypocrite, but hypocrisy does not instantly in of itself divest one of the whole of their ideological framework.

    I was intending to illustrate that in fact some capitalists would be long term thinkers.

    From a structuralist perspective, capitalism inherently pushes people away from unionism. It’s an example of productive forces as defined by historical materialism.

    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
    Typhoid Mannyzepherin
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Just because someone says they believe something doesn't mean they do. Uygur's attacks on the IATSE put the lie to his claims of being a socialist.

    This omits that socialism is an incredibly wide ideology and the anyone who is a terrible boss can't be a socialist. Just because he didn't like the IASE didn't not make him a socialist, he's a very big cog in socialist resurgence in social media and in congress itself today. Socialism has terrible people who fail with their ideals like any other group, they're not perfect. Unionising creates rifts with bosses in an adversarial relationship, which occurs regardless of their political ideology.

    Sorry, but his rejection of the IATSE and his employees choosing to organize does, in fact, mean that he's not a socialist. Uygur can claim that he's a socialist all he wants - the simple reality is that when he was given a test of his avowed ideology, he failed it miserably. And the fact that he's been allowed to remain such a big cog instead of being held accountable for his own actions illustrates some of the problems with Rose Twitter.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    HacksawMan in the MistsMillMatevDarkPrimusVegemyte
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    Just because someone says they believe something doesn't mean they do. Uygur's attacks on the IATSE put the lie to his claims of being a socialist.

    This omits that socialism is an incredibly wide ideology and the anyone who is a terrible boss can't be a socialist. Just because he didn't like the IASE didn't not make him a socialist, he's a very big cog in socialist resurgence in social media and in congress itself today. Socialism has terrible people who fail with their ideals like any other group, they're not perfect. Unionising creates rifts with bosses in an adversarial relationship, which occurs regardless of their political ideology.

    Socialism is the belief that workers should own the means of production. Uygur can be left of centre, politically, without being a socialist.

    Socialism is not a catch-all term for anyone left of a US Neoliberal or other centrist

    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
    tynicTyphoid MannyHacksawStyrofoam SammichMan in the MistsCaedwyrMatevDarkPrimusBigJoeMRedTideVegemyteqwer12
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Meanwhile

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/442575/nurses-vote-to-strike-for-8-hours-over-breakdown-in-pay-negotiations

    NZ Nurses are striking for a total of 8 hours in a month (9 June, actually). There are mediation meetings schedule soon.

    I think, from memory, the last time there was a Nurses Strike (i think 2 years ago?) the Junior Doctor's union members stepped in and took shifts. Then when the Junior Doctor's went on strike shortly after, the Senior Doctor's Union covered their shifts.

    HacksawzepherinPolaritieMan in the MistsDee KaeShadowfireMatevElvenshaeCalicaDavid WalgasBandableGnome-InterruptusFencingsax
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    A CEO CAN in fact be a socialist, but the requirements for it to happen are such that I doubt it has ever happened, and probably won't in any modern capitalist country. Said company would also have to be essentially a coop anyway.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Just because someone says they believe something doesn't mean they do. Uygur's attacks on the IATSE put the lie to his claims of being a socialist.

    This omits that socialism is an incredibly wide ideology and the anyone who is a terrible boss can't be a socialist. Just because he didn't like the IASE didn't not make him a socialist, he's a very big cog in socialist resurgence in social media and in congress itself today. Socialism has terrible people who fail with their ideals like any other group, they're not perfect. Unionising creates rifts with bosses in an adversarial relationship, which occurs regardless of their political ideology.

    Sorry, but his rejection of the IATSE and his employees choosing to organize does, in fact, mean that he's not a socialist. Uygur can claim that he's a socialist all he wants - the simple reality is that when he was given a test of his avowed ideology, he failed it miserably. And the fact that he's been allowed to remain such a big cog instead of being held accountable for his own actions illustrates some of the problems with Rose Twitter.

    Im not sure how youd even measure this.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited May 14
    I'm going to start by saying I'm pro union. Been in several, had problems and still think they're a net positive in the workplace.

    I can see how if you had a business and wanted to be reasonable and negotiate directly with your collective staff you'd be scared of SEIU or someone coming in and really shitting up your business.

    Not all unions are good, many don't represent the labor they draw dues from and are in fact destructive entities.

    I'd really like if there was a sort of government arbitration office that would oversee contracts between workgroups and employers without necessarily requiring they join a national union that may or may not give a shit about them or the health of the business.

    There are countries with national unions involved in government oversight of working conditions. We need that. Because frankly fuck SEIU.

    Big fish eats little fish isn't how you organize, it's how you destroy.

    dispatch.o on
    zepherin
  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    edited May 14
    no true scotsman really doesn't apply to this, that's a very big stretch
    cenk uygur isn't a socialist

    He definitely is, he's not a liberal or conservative.

    i promise you he's extremely liberal

    aside from all the capitalist shit he regularly says and publishes, you can't really be a CEO of a private company and be a socialist, it is a contradiction in terms

    No Socialist can be a CEO

    But this man identifies as a socialist, and is a CEO

    But no True Socialist can be a CEO

    Just because someone says they believe something doesn't mean they do. Uygur's attacks on the IATSE put the lie to his claims of being a socialist.

    People are not perfect actualizers of their beliefs or ideologies, and one can in fact act hypocritically and still remain a part of an ideological group. Like say, doing something anti-labor and still self-describing as a socialist.

    People can also disagree on what exactly it means to be something like a socialist. Putting Cenk specifically aside, I being no more a psychic than you and unable to see deep into his heart of hearts, Typhoid Manny stated that "you can't really be a CEO of a private company and be a socialist" which is not some universally held position, or nearly as inherently un-socialist as being a vegan and eating meat.

    And indeed, someone can be a vegan and eat meat, they're just being a bad vegan. If someone fucks up, and does something opposed to their ideological beliefs, again, that does not make them no longer hold those beliefs or prevent them from acting on those beliefs again in the future.

    Not everyone agrees on exactly what it means to be a socialist. You can say 'socialism has a definition' but unlike Veganism, what socialism looks like in practice is not so clear cut and people have, can, and will disagree on what exactly that definition is or how to meet it. By definitionally cutting out people who act or have positions you disagree with from being part of the same ideology as you despite their own stated positions and any other actions they might take, you are asserting only your definition is accurate, and that anyone who falls outside of it, or fails some arbitrarily chosen test of ideological purity, is not a member of that group.

    Which again is essentially definitional of a No True Scotsman argument.

    1: No one who does X is a Y
    2: Z does X, and is a Y
    1: But no TRUE Y would do X

    It isn't an argument, it's a binary statement. In asmuch as you can prove someone is not a member of an ideological group, it takes more than any one statement or claim to make any real case in that direction. "all the capitalist shit he regularly says and publishes" if demonstrated to form a pattern of anti-socialist behavior and rhetoric would be a much better argument that Cenk Uygur is not a socialist than him being the CEO of a private company. "Here is a bunch of the things this person has said and done, and reasons I believe they are acting against the interests of socialists and socialism" isn't going to be a perfect argument or necessarily go without challenge, but it is a argument, whereas pointing at any one of those things and making the broad blanket statement 'no one who does X is a socialist' is not an argument. It's purity testing and it is inherently fallacious.

    Lord_Asmodeus on
    Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
    Typhoid MannyzepherinHarry DresdenElvenshaeShadowhopeshryke
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Not sure how you can say you're pro union and oppose the second largest union in the country.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    HacksawMatevCurly_BraceDarkPrimusVegemyte
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    That's a lot of text to defend liars exploiting the labor movement to be able to call themselves whatever they want when their actions are still the primary identifier on this topic.

    Typhoid MannyTefAngelHedgieIncenjucarHydropoloHacksawMan in the MistsDee KaeShortyCaptain InertiaMatevCurly_BraceDavid WalgasDarkPrimusBigJoeMVegemyteqwer12
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited May 14
    Not sure how you can say you're pro union and oppose the second largest union in the country.

    I watched the second largest union in the country go fucking stupid and dissolve the partnership with over 40 other unions mid negotiation with Kaiser Permanente because they wanted to speak for people they don't represent and throw their dicks around the room. Fuck SEIU.

    I watched SEIU local 250 try and do the same on a local scale and get voted out as our representative union. The stewards and contract specialists started harassing us.

    SEIU is what failed unions look like.

    Edit: You know what. I'll say I bet there are great locals in SEIU and probably some very passionate advocates for labor. I just haven't met them at a national level, or in the 3 locals I've interacted with.

    dispatch.o on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    On average, most self-described socialists would consider the label to not apply to a CEO of a private company who has not shared their power with the workers of that company.

    Whether not that makes the label not actually apply is not especially important outside of rhetoric.

    HappylilElf
  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    On average, most self-described socialists would consider the label to not apply to a CEO of a private company who has not shared their power with the workers of that company.

    Whether not that makes the label not actually apply is not especially important outside of rhetoric.

    if we care about the definitions of words and being able to use them to clearly relate ideas to one another i'd say it matters quite a bit

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
    HacksawTefButler
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    On average, most self-described socialists would consider the label to not apply to a CEO of a private company who has not shared their power with the workers of that company.

    Whether not that makes the label not actually apply is not especially important outside of rhetoric.

    if we care about the definitions of words and being able to use them to clearly relate ideas to one another i'd say it matters quite a bit

    Whether or not a label applies is a debate that has no end.

    HappylilElfForarHarry DresdenGnome-InterruptusTofystedeth
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    The whole no true scotsman thing doesn't apply here, because it's a very clear definition. Philosophical tenets are well categorized in a way ethnic identity is not.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    Styrofoam SammichAngelHedgieHacksawCaptain InertiaDarkPrimusBandableVegemyte
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    On average, most self-described socialists would consider the label to not apply to a CEO of a private company who has not shared their power with the workers of that company.

    Whether not that makes the label not actually apply is not especially important outside of rhetoric.

    if we care about the definitions of words and being able to use them to clearly relate ideas to one another i'd say it matters quite a bit

    Whether or not a label applies is a debate that has no end.

    Arguably that is the nature of disagreement period between differing factions.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Incenjucar
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    On average, most self-described socialists would consider the label to not apply to a CEO of a private company who has not shared their power with the workers of that company.

    Whether not that makes the label not actually apply is not especially important outside of rhetoric.

    if we care about the definitions of words and being able to use them to clearly relate ideas to one another i'd say it matters quite a bit

    Whether or not a label applies is a debate that has no end.

    Arguably that is the nature of disagreement period between differing factions.

    Honestly a lot of this stuff is why I refuse to join parties or organizations. These labels mean different things to different people and it's a goddamn mess.

    My personal concern is that people should have power in their workplace instead of the heads of companies having all the power, with the current best method appearing to be unified groups of workers who can elect representatives to negotiate on their behalf. I am much less concerned about the names attached to any of it.

  • TefTef Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    On average, most self-described socialists would consider the label to not apply to a CEO of a private company who has not shared their power with the workers of that company.

    Whether not that makes the label not actually apply is not especially important outside of rhetoric.

    if we care about the definitions of words and being able to use them to clearly relate ideas to one another i'd say it matters quite a bit

    Whether or not a label applies is a debate that has no end.

    Arguably that is the nature of disagreement period between differing factions.

    Honestly a lot of this stuff is why I refuse to join parties or organizations. These labels mean different things to different people and it's a goddamn mess.

    My personal concern is that people should have power in their workplace instead of the heads of companies having all the power, with the current best method appearing to be unified groups of workers who can elect representatives to negotiate on their behalf. I am much less concerned about the names attached to any of it.

    The best method is anarcho-syndicalism

    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
    Curly_BraceElvenshaeRear Admiral Choco
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited May 14
    no true scotsman really doesn't apply to this, that's a very big stretch
    cenk uygur isn't a socialist

    He definitely is, he's not a liberal or conservative.

    i promise you he's extremely liberal

    aside from all the capitalist shit he regularly says and publishes, you can't really be a CEO of a private company and be a socialist, it is a contradiction in terms

    No Socialist can be a CEO

    But this man identifies as a socialist, and is a CEO

    But no True Socialist can be a CEO

    Just because someone says they believe something doesn't mean they do. Uygur's attacks on the IATSE put the lie to his claims of being a socialist.

    People are not perfect actualizers of their beliefs or ideologies, and one can in fact act hypocritically and still remain a part of an ideological group. Like say, doing something anti-labor and still self-describing as a socialist.

    People can also disagree on what exactly it means to be something like a socialist. Putting Cenk specifically aside, I being no more a psychic than you and unable to see deep into his heart of hearts, Typhoid Manny stated that "you can't really be a CEO of a private company and be a socialist" which is not some universally held position, or nearly as inherently un-socialist as being a vegan and eating meat.

    And indeed, someone can be a vegan and eat meat, they're just being a bad vegan. If someone fucks up, and does something opposed to their ideological beliefs, again, that does not make them no longer hold those beliefs or prevent them from acting on those beliefs again in the future.

    Not everyone agrees on exactly what it means to be a socialist. You can say 'socialism has a definition' but unlike Veganism, what socialism looks like in practice is not so clear cut and people have, can, and will disagree on what exactly that definition is or how to meet it. By definitionally cutting out people who act or have positions you disagree with from being part of the same ideology as you despite their own stated positions and any other actions they might take, you are asserting only your definition is accurate, and that anyone who falls outside of it, or fails some arbitrarily chosen test of ideological purity, is not a member of that group.

    Which again is essentially definitional of a No True Scotsman argument.

    1: No one who does X is a Y
    2: Z does X, and is a Y
    1: But no TRUE Y would do X

    It isn't an argument, it's a binary statement. In asmuch as you can prove someone is not a member of an ideological group, it takes more than any one statement or claim to make any real case in that direction. "all the capitalist shit he regularly says and publishes" if demonstrated to form a pattern of anti-socialist behavior and rhetoric would be a much better argument that Cenk Uygur is not a socialist than him being the CEO of a private company. "Here is a bunch of the things this person has said and done, and reasons I believe they are acting against the interests of socialists and socialism" isn't going to be a perfect argument or necessarily go without challenge, but it is a argument, whereas pointing at any one of those things and making the broad blanket statement 'no one who does X is a socialist' is not an argument. It's purity testing and it is inherently fallacious.

    Ideological groups that refuse to enforce their tenets soon become ill-defined and vulnerable to exploitation. One of the core tenets of socialism is of labor organizing for their own interests. Uygur, when presented with his employees engaging in that, rejected their doing so.

    There are some tenets that when you violate them call into question your actual belief in an ideology.

    Edit: Or to put it more succinct - it is not purity testing to say that someone who refuses to put one of socalism's core tenets in action isn't a socialist - it's making sure that socialism actually means something.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    IncenjucarMan in the MiststynicHacksawMatevDarkPrimusKetarqwer12
  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    The root of this argument is that no one can agree on what socialism actually is because capital has been trying to muddy that shit for going on two hundred years now. Socialism is worker control of capital, that is what the word means. If someone doesn't believe that is a better way of allocating resources than how we do it now, they are not a socialist. If someone owns productive means that they use to extract profit from workers, they are not a socialist. This is conservative word game shit that was specifically invented to make it difficult to talk about this exact subject and it's a terrible shame it's still so effective

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
    TefIncenjucarHacksawHenroidDavid WalgasDarkPrimus
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    The root of this argument is that no one can agree on what socialism actually is because capital has been trying to muddy that shit for going on two hundred years now. Socialism is worker control of capital, that is what the word means. If someone doesn't believe that is a better way of allocating resources than how we do it now, they are not a socialist. If someone owns productive means that they use to extract profit from workers, they are not a socialist. This is conservative word game shit that was specifically invented to make it difficult to talk about this exact subject and it's a terrible shame it's still so effective

    It's also possible some people disagree with your applications of the definition that haven't been brainwashed by those dirty capitalists

    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
    adytumHarry DresdenShadowhopeGnome-InterruptusLord_Asmodeusshryke
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    I dont get what the point here is supposed to be. Some people call themselves socialists and want to own all the means of production for themselves. They're morons.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ShortyHacksawDee KaeCaptain InertiaMatevCurly_BraceDarkPrimusShadowfireVegemyteqwer12
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    The root of this argument is that no one can agree on what socialism actually is because capital has been trying to muddy that shit for going on two hundred years now. Socialism is worker control of capital, that is what the word means. If someone doesn't believe that is a better way of allocating resources than how we do it now, they are not a socialist. If someone owns productive means that they use to extract profit from workers, they are not a socialist. This is conservative word game shit that was specifically invented to make it difficult to talk about this exact subject and it's a terrible shame it's still so effective

    It's also possible some people disagree with your applications of the definition that haven't been brainwashed by those dirty capitalists

    You don’t need to be patronising. Please explain how socialism as defined above applies to Uygur, if this is your argument

    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    The root of this argument is that no one can agree on what socialism actually is because capital has been trying to muddy that shit for going on two hundred years now. Socialism is worker control of capital, that is what the word means. If someone doesn't believe that is a better way of allocating resources than how we do it now, they are not a socialist. If someone owns productive means that they use to extract profit from workers, they are not a socialist. This is conservative word game shit that was specifically invented to make it difficult to talk about this exact subject and it's a terrible shame it's still so effective

    It's also possible some people disagree with your applications of the definition that haven't been brainwashed by those dirty capitalists

    This can be true but it's still much better to stick with a common definition that isn't an outlier and just recognize that there are outliers in word usage than to treat every possible definition as possibly true.

  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    The root of this argument is that no one can agree on what socialism actually is because capital has been trying to muddy that shit for going on two hundred years now. Socialism is worker control of capital, that is what the word means. If someone doesn't believe that is a better way of allocating resources than how we do it now, they are not a socialist. If someone owns productive means that they use to extract profit from workers, they are not a socialist. This is conservative word game shit that was specifically invented to make it difficult to talk about this exact subject and it's a terrible shame it's still so effective

    It's also possible some people disagree with your applications of the definition that haven't been brainwashed by those dirty capitalists

    If you think that socialism means anything but worker control of capital you are incorrect, there's no two ways about this. Also I didn't say anything about brainwashing, that was a weird thing to try and inject into what I actually did say

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    The root of this argument is that no one can agree on what socialism actually is because capital has been trying to muddy that shit for going on two hundred years now. Socialism is worker control of capital, that is what the word means. If someone doesn't believe that is a better way of allocating resources than how we do it now, they are not a socialist. If someone owns productive means that they use to extract profit from workers, they are not a socialist. This is conservative word game shit that was specifically invented to make it difficult to talk about this exact subject and it's a terrible shame it's still so effective

    It's also possible some people disagree with your applications of the definition that haven't been brainwashed by those dirty capitalists

    But the problem is the argument they’re making makes no philosophical sense. It’s the equivalent of arguing republican democracy allows for monarchist rule.

    You’re either a republic or you’re a monarchy. You can’t actually be both, functionally speaking. Either the people have the power of self rule or they are ruled by a monarch and their subservient lords. The same with socialism and capitalism; they are diametrically opposed philosophies regarding the ownership of the means of production.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Typhoid Manny
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    I can at least imagine a person who earnestly believes living socialist ideals at this moment in time does less for those ideals than they believe they can achieve in the long term by holding onto capitalist power in the short term.

    Of course, this is a hypothetical person, I don't know shit about Uygur.

    IncenjucarkimeLord_AsmodeusElvenshaeShadowhope
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    You could hypothetically say that socialism is a form of capitalism but with the workers collectively acting as the owners but the standard usage is asymmetrical power so it's not helpful to mix the terms.

  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    edited May 14
    Kamar wrote: »
    I can at least imagine a person who earnestly believes living socialist ideals at this moment in time does less for those ideals than they believe they can achieve in the long term by holding onto capitalist power in the short term.

    Of course, this is a hypothetical person, I don't know shit about Uygur.

    That's basically the route PRC has been going down since Deng did his reforms after mao died, it is troublesome in a lot of different ways

    Typhoid Manny on
    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
    IncenjucarH3Knuckles
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Kamar wrote: »
    I can at least imagine a person who earnestly believes living socialist ideals at this moment in time does less for those ideals than they believe they can achieve in the long term by holding onto capitalist power in the short term.

    Of course, this is a hypothetical person, I don't know shit about Uygur.

    Of course, historically, these interim stages persist until the state collapses or gets couped. :p

    tynicHacksawElvenshaeH3Knuckles
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    You could hypothetically say that socialism is a form of capitalism but with the workers collectively acting as the owners but the standard usage is asymmetrical power so it's not helpful to mix the terms.

    You could say that, hypothetically, but it would make no sense, at that point.

    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
    IncenjucarCurly_BraceVegemyte
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    The root of this argument is that no one can agree on what socialism actually is because capital has been trying to muddy that shit for going on two hundred years now. Socialism is worker control of capital, that is what the word means. If someone doesn't believe that is a better way of allocating resources than how we do it now, they are not a socialist. If someone owns productive means that they use to extract profit from workers, they are not a socialist. This is conservative word game shit that was specifically invented to make it difficult to talk about this exact subject and it's a terrible shame it's still so effective

    It's also possible some people disagree with your applications of the definition that haven't been brainwashed by those dirty capitalists
    We're dealing in some pretty hard academic definitions here kime.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Tef wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    You could hypothetically say that socialism is a form of capitalism but with the workers collectively acting as the owners but the standard usage is asymmetrical power so it's not helpful to mix the terms.

    You could say that, hypothetically, but it would make no sense, at that point.

    Right. There are much more useful ways to build a Venn diagram of "capital is not owned by the government" that would encapsulate both Socialism and Capitalism and I guess also stateless systems.

Sign In or Register to comment.