As someone that could probably best be described as center-left (guillotine oligarchs yes, UBI yes, abolition of private property and free markets no), I do dare say that not a single common person on the right likes the billionaires either. It’s just that their side of the political isle has been co-opted by the billionaires even worse than the “left” side because being anti-tax and anti-regulation is more useful to billionaires than pro-tax and pro-regulation.
Capitalists can’t be ousted by asking nicely, that happens with revolutionary pressure. Since you can’t do step 1, UBI would only come alongside austerity measures as a way to “simplify government” and erode social programs. You also can’t translate that to nationalizing key industries either, let alone worker coops. We have hundreds of years of history telling us this.
Secondly, revolution isn’t “flipping the gane board and starting again,” it’s a wresting of control from Capitalists and establishing a new state owned and run by the working class, in its interests. Industry must be preserved and carried forward, and that doesn’t include immediately siezing all industry but doing so with respect to the degree that sectors and entities have developed and established effective internal planning, making markets less efficient vectors for growth and public ownership and central planning superceding it.
You also can’t translate that to nationalizing key industries either, let alone worker coops. We have hundreds of years of history telling us this.
I don’t agree with this. Worker coops exists in many places in Europe, and in said continent, some key industries are heavily controlled by the government.
In my country, Canada, we socialized healthcare without any revolution.
Down south, they had the labour movement that gave us the 40 hour week, the weekend and labour laws all throughout unionization and putting pressure on the capitalist class without “revolutionary pressure”, unless unionization is what you mean by revolutionary pressure. If so, then I agree.
You’re ignoring that these advancements in labor movements came as concessions from the bourgeoisie in the context of trying to prevent what happened in Russia from happening in Canada and the US.
I’m saying there is no actual basis for it being possible within the system, though, unless there is revolutionary pressure, and even then this is only temporary and still requires revolution. That’s why FDR’s safety nets are vestigial at this point.
Revolution isn’t the goal, but it remains the only proven tool.
There’s a funny hodgepodge of ideology here… “Guillotine oligarchs” sounds pretty cool, invokes the French Revolution, which was radical left, at the time. But then the unwillingness to abolish private property is either an erroneous conflation of “private” and “personal” or an unwillingness to actually change the system that produces the oligarchs.
It’s like bailing out the boat but when someone says “patch the hole” your like “but we need the hole!”
No, it’s more like I know we are not ready to have the patch the hole conversation.
I rather bail out the boat and during that time, when people slowly realize that these solutions work and have merit, and when people stop being scared of the word socialism, then it would be pragmatic to talk about patching the hole.
Before that, talking about patching the hole might actually be counter productive as most people don’t have critical thinking and would be turned off by “radical” solutions.
The biggest issue with implementing socialism today imo is people not realizing the solutions can be beneficial. I rather focus on socialists solutions that are “low hanging fruit” so people warm up to the idea.
Yes you have to consider who you’re talking to but I think a lot of us are ready to talk about patching the hole.
As a radical leftist I’m certainly not against bailing the boat, I just acknowledge that this is a temporary solution. Like, minimum wage needs to be high enough that people can work a reasonable number of hours, afford rent, and still have time to read Marx.
The minimum wage hike is still important, it’s just not the end game. If you’re saying you’re not interested in patching the hole, that sounds like a problem. If you’re saying “this hole won’t be patched for a while, but some day we’ll get there. In the meantime, bail like hell.” then, we are comrades.
Private property ≠ personal property. Private property is mostly owned by businesses and corporations, not a person.
As we can see in the US, housing should never be private property, since the number of units that have sat empty for at least 12 months outnumbers our homeless population by a factor of over 70:1 counting all residential types (apartments, condos, duplexes.) If you only count single family detached homes, those still outnumber the homeless population by a factor of 30:1
Or, when someone says “abolish private property” they’re not talking about your toothbrush.
In this context, private property is the stuff you can use to generate capital. Personal property is your toothbrush, your phone, clothes, furniture, bike, car, house etc.
If you own a second house for rental income, that’s private property. The house you just live in is personal property.
Not all second homes are private property necessarily. If you work out of it then it’s personal property, like if you’re using it as a vacation rental and doing all the cleaning and maintenance yourself. If you hire someone else to do the work for you then it becomes private property. My preferred way of explaining the distinction is that private property is akin to absentee ownership, while personal property is stuff that is in active use by you personally.
if you’re using it as a vacation rental and doing all the cleaning and maintenance yourself. If you hire someone else to do the work for you then it becomes private property
Do you guys even listen to yourself? This makes zero sense.
Yes, they are. Because by destroying the market, you also destroy the toothbrush making machines, and kill the toothbrush makers. Have fun eating the rich, but don’t complain when they end up stuck between your theeth.
I commented on a politics@lemmy.world post about a bunch of CEOs of publicly traded companies endorsing Kamala Harris saying that it hurts her campaign more than it helps and I got downvoted and had people replying to me saying “um, actually most people look up to CEOs, you’re the one out of touch.” I’m feeling pretty vindicated rn.
Same goes for the Cheney support thing. Felt pretty out of touch to me and I’m not even an American so idk how I get it and the presidential candidate who 1) is American and 2) has a truckload of money being used for voter research, did not.
As someone that could probably best be described as center-left (guillotine oligarchs yes, UBI yes, abolition of private property and free markets no), I do dare say that not a single common person on the right likes the billionaires either. It’s just that their side of the political isle has been co-opted by the billionaires even worse than the “left” side because being anti-tax and anti-regulation is more useful to billionaires than pro-tax and pro-regulation.
That’s called center left now? I thought that was far left.
Center left is what we used to have after WWII.
Far left is what we worked for during the labour movement. Or so I thought.
If you aren’t working towards the establishment of Socialism, you can hardly be called “far left.”
Getting rid of the oligarchs and implementing UBI would be the first step before you nationalize key industries and introduce worker co-ops.
Imo both above is what I call far left without the whole flip the game board and starting again, in my experience saying that really scares people.
Capitalists can’t be ousted by asking nicely, that happens with revolutionary pressure. Since you can’t do step 1, UBI would only come alongside austerity measures as a way to “simplify government” and erode social programs. You also can’t translate that to nationalizing key industries either, let alone worker coops. We have hundreds of years of history telling us this.
Secondly, revolution isn’t “flipping the gane board and starting again,” it’s a wresting of control from Capitalists and establishing a new state owned and run by the working class, in its interests. Industry must be preserved and carried forward, and that doesn’t include immediately siezing all industry but doing so with respect to the degree that sectors and entities have developed and established effective internal planning, making markets less efficient vectors for growth and public ownership and central planning superceding it.
I don’t agree with this. Worker coops exists in many places in Europe, and in said continent, some key industries are heavily controlled by the government.
In my country, Canada, we socialized healthcare without any revolution.
Down south, they had the labour movement that gave us the 40 hour week, the weekend and labour laws all throughout unionization and putting pressure on the capitalist class without “revolutionary pressure”, unless unionization is what you mean by revolutionary pressure. If so, then I agree.
You’re ignoring that these advancements in labor movements came as concessions from the bourgeoisie in the context of trying to prevent what happened in Russia from happening in Canada and the US.
I think we are splitting hairs.
I’m saying it’s possible within the confines of the system. In the US and Canada it was done by the confides of the system.
I’m good with having a revolution as the last resort, just not the first resort.
I’m saying there is no actual basis for it being possible within the system, though, unless there is revolutionary pressure, and even then this is only temporary and still requires revolution. That’s why FDR’s safety nets are vestigial at this point.
Revolution isn’t the goal, but it remains the only proven tool.
You’re thinking eu not us. Overton window shifts in the us
There’s a funny hodgepodge of ideology here… “Guillotine oligarchs” sounds pretty cool, invokes the French Revolution, which was radical left, at the time. But then the unwillingness to abolish private property is either an erroneous conflation of “private” and “personal” or an unwillingness to actually change the system that produces the oligarchs.
It’s like bailing out the boat but when someone says “patch the hole” your like “but we need the hole!”
No, it’s more like I know we are not ready to have the patch the hole conversation.
I rather bail out the boat and during that time, when people slowly realize that these solutions work and have merit, and when people stop being scared of the word socialism, then it would be pragmatic to talk about patching the hole.
Before that, talking about patching the hole might actually be counter productive as most people don’t have critical thinking and would be turned off by “radical” solutions.
The biggest issue with implementing socialism today imo is people not realizing the solutions can be beneficial. I rather focus on socialists solutions that are “low hanging fruit” so people warm up to the idea.
Yes you have to consider who you’re talking to but I think a lot of us are ready to talk about patching the hole.
As a radical leftist I’m certainly not against bailing the boat, I just acknowledge that this is a temporary solution. Like, minimum wage needs to be high enough that people can work a reasonable number of hours, afford rent, and still have time to read Marx.
The minimum wage hike is still important, it’s just not the end game. If you’re saying you’re not interested in patching the hole, that sounds like a problem. If you’re saying “this hole won’t be patched for a while, but some day we’ll get there. In the meantime, bail like hell.” then, we are comrades.
Private property ≠ personal property. Private property is mostly owned by businesses and corporations, not a person.
As we can see in the US, housing should never be private property, since the number of units that have sat empty for at least 12 months outnumbers our homeless population by a factor of over 70:1 counting all residential types (apartments, condos, duplexes.) If you only count single family detached homes, those still outnumber the homeless population by a factor of 30:1
The left is not pro “all private property abolished”. Only " all private property of the means of production "
Or, when someone says “abolish private property” they’re not talking about your toothbrush.
In this context, private property is the stuff you can use to generate capital. Personal property is your toothbrush, your phone, clothes, furniture, bike, car, house etc.
If you own a second house for rental income, that’s private property. The house you just live in is personal property.
Not all second homes are private property necessarily. If you work out of it then it’s personal property, like if you’re using it as a vacation rental and doing all the cleaning and maintenance yourself. If you hire someone else to do the work for you then it becomes private property. My preferred way of explaining the distinction is that private property is akin to absentee ownership, while personal property is stuff that is in active use by you personally.
Do you guys even listen to yourself? This makes zero sense.
How can I better explain it to you in a way you will understand?
Yes, they are. Because by destroying the market, you also destroy the toothbrush making machines, and kill the toothbrush makers. Have fun eating the rich, but don’t complain when they end up stuck between your theeth.
When you have no idea what you’re talking about, you should simply say nothing.
I commented on a politics@lemmy.world post about a bunch of CEOs of publicly traded companies endorsing Kamala Harris saying that it hurts her campaign more than it helps and I got downvoted and had people replying to me saying “um, actually most people look up to CEOs, you’re the one out of touch.” I’m feeling pretty vindicated rn.
Yeah, I’m inclined to agree with you.
Same goes for the Cheney support thing. Felt pretty out of touch to me and I’m not even an American so idk how I get it and the presidential candidate who 1) is American and 2) has a truckload of money being used for voter research, did not.