Imagine taking a day off from work in a future without capitalism.
It might not feel as badly needed as it does now. You enjoy your work; it’s interesting to you, and you’re well trained for it. You work as much as you are able and no more than needed, and you would control your own labor and see it going to good use. It’s not just a job to pay the bills.
Speaking of bills: you don’t really have them anymore.
You have no debt. You don’t need health insurance. You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right. Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren’t for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities.
OK, enough about bills. What do you do on your day off? Maybe in the morning, you walk your kids to school, run errands, or go to a doctor’s appointment. In the afternoon, you might play a sport, practice a new skill, read, plan a trip. In the evening, you could meet up with friends or family and eat together, maybe go to the movies or down to the park.
Among the items on the DSA platform she is happy to defend: “Abolish the Senate,” “Replace the presidency and Supreme Court,” “Abolish ICE,” “Abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone currently in the U.S. illegally,” “Defund the Pentagon,” “Abolish prisons,” “Government or public ownership of most large corporations.”
Watch this video to hear her say it with enthusiasm:
Fox: "Abolish the Senate?"
DSA Chair: "True"
Fox: "Abolish ICE?"
DSA Chair: "Absolutely"
Fox: "Abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone in the US illegally?"
This is mind bogglingly delusional and/or a deliberate set of lies.
While I can see this set of visions could be appealing to some people, I don’t think enough people will believe these same lies that have been told for 100+ years is going to gain traction in the age of the Internet. People know what happened in Venezuela. People know what happened in Cuba and East Europe. Just spend a day in the U.S., Germany, Denmark, Singapore, Hong Kong, or even France or England. Compare that to a day in Vietnam, Poland or Czechia. I have visited all those countries. And even though Poland and Czechia have been released from the bonds of heavy socialism for 30 years, you can easily still see the price they paid before rejecting socialism and accepting something approximating a free market. Vietnam is far worse off than any of those countries. Did they find their workers’ paradise by going full socialist fifty years ago? No. Not even close.
The socialist never stop lying, but maybe this surge in popularity will see their lies rejected before 100s of millions more people have to pay the price.
From the Greg Price thread on X:
THIS SHOULD BE IN AN AD FOR EVERY R running for Congress in Nov.
This is the new Democrat Party platform and Rs need to shout it from the fucking rooftops.
These people are insane. Show the world how insane they really are.
I hate my job. Well, not exactly. I don’t enjoy it very much. I would like to receive more money in exchange for less work. I would like to be able to get paid to do things that I enjoy more. It’s not going to happen. That isn’t capitalism’s fault. To some degree it is the system’s fault, in the sense that the system shapes the nature of opportunities that become available. To some degree it’s my fault for thinking I knew who I was & what I wanted & getting it wrong.
But I’m also smart enough to know tgat all that stuff sounds good but (a) it almost definitely isn’t going to happen and (b) to the extent it does, it’s going to be the world’s crappiest one-size-fits-none imitation and (c) all of those “benefits” come with some serious strings attached, which they don’t tell you about until it’s too late. Whatever it is, freedom it ain’t and you are always better off saying “no thanks” and taking care of yourself as best you can.
Loading...
You can vote your way in. You have to shoot your way out.
Loading...
Most of the recent cases of escape from socialism didn’t involve either voting or shooting. Rather, it was the collapse of the coercive elements of the state due to their internal contradictions. This was the case with the Soviet bloc and the Soviet Union itself. One can argue that Chile did involve shooting and Argentina did involve voting. It will be interesting to see what happens to the EU/UK and Cuba.
Loading...
But here’s your opportunity to change minds: rather than call them “idiots” and “liars,” say “Y’know, that does all sound nice. I might enjoy that too. But though it might be desirable as an outcome, it’s not really possible without doing a bunch of bad stuff, for example…”
And then you get into history and human nature and have a productive discussion about how we can work together for a better future, and avoid the pitfalls of utopian visions untethered from reality. Avoiding No True Scotsman fallacies is hard, but it’s doable.
Because by rejecting their vision outright you’re implicitly saying “No, I think your vision is stupid, I’d much rather work as hard as possible for as little as possible and suffer while others reap the rewards” and that sounds equally stupid.
We’d all like a better world. The debate is over how, and these discussions would be a lot more productive if we could stop calling each other names and instead focus on common goals. Because those common goals do exist, they’re just hidden by the yelling.
Loading...
That sounds reasonable. How has it worked out for you when you have tried it?
Loading...
It’s exhausting, and frustrating, and takes a long time. But it works with most folks. Requires patience, though, and empathy, and a willingness to not beat them upside the head with a history book but instead gradually show them the pages.
It also requires a willingness to listen, and to be open to changing your own mind when new ideas present themselves. You can’t demand others be open to changing their minds if you’re not willing to return the favor.
And you have to be satisfied with directional changes vs. complete conversion. Reminds me of the saying about votes for politicians (and in particularly the purity tests so many try to hold them to): you’re not declaring your love for them, you’re making a chess move that you think will push things in the right direction.
Loading...
Thanks for the guidance.
Loading...
To be clear, some folks are a lost cause. I’m guessing people at the very top of orgs like the DSA are probably in that group. Kshama Sawant is definitely in that group. There are folks on FB I’ve had to hide because they were clearly not willing to be rational no matter what I said. So you do have to pick targets that aren’t completely nuts. But the number of people who are fully committed to their ideas no matter what happens is, in my experience, fairly low, because most folks aren’t ideologues, they’re just trying to live and will follow whichever path seems like it will result in the least pain.
Loading...
To be clear, some folks are a lost cause. I’m guessing people at the very top of orgs like the DSA are probably in that group. Kshama Sawant is definitely in that group. There are folks on FB I’ve had to hide because they were clearly not willing to be rational no matter what I said. So you do have to pick targets that aren’t completely nuts.
Charming. So, this is why we have people advocating for “free helicopter rides” for communists and the other side advocating for gulags and large ditches.
It is irrational to expect people to be rational.
Loading...
I actually have someone at work I have these sorts of conversations with. He describes himself as a “libertarian socialist.” He quickly follows up with “I can explain that. It does make sense.” He will give me all the one-liner socialist bait like, “Wouldn’t it be nice to work because you want to instead of because you have to?” and “No one should ever be a billionaire, let alone a trillionaire.” I have my one-liners to counter with and then we have a nice discussion. He mostly concedes with, “That’s true but… [some variation of ‘that isn’t working out like I want it to.’].”
It hasn’t been frustrating for me. I’ve been having fun with it. He says he really enjoys our conversations. So, all is good.
Loading...
And neither of you is probably going to “convince” the other of anything, but in the process of talking you may find common ground where you can live together. I don’t expect my participation in this forum, for example, is convincing folks I’m right (I don’t even know that I’d claim to be right in any large sense), but I find it worthwhile to engage with folks I disagree with because long term I think it’s the only way we can all live together. And like it or not, we’re gonna have to live together. There isn’t enough land available for everyone to live in their own bunker….
Loading...
“But here’s your opportunity to change minds: rather than call them “idiots” and “liars,” say “Y’know, that does all sound nice. I might enjoy that too. But though it might be desirable as an outcome, it’s not really possible without doing a bunch of bad stuff, for example…””
I think I’ve mentioned this before around here, but I’ve said for decades now, if you’re not tempted by the promises of socialism, you don’t understand them.
The problem, though is that they ARE liars. They promise stuff that simply will not and OBVIOUSLY will not be delivered.
So yeah, they have promised all the good things people like… and those promises are just plain lies. Ignoring that they are lies seems… unhelpful.
Acknowledging that the things they are promising would in fact be nice is a freebie, and I certainly do that all the the time (as mentioned), but leaving out that they are lies seems UNhelpful.
Loading...
“Hey, great idea, Mr. Socialist. I’d love to tell you where to live. And you look a bit overweight, so I’ll drop by later and redistribute your extra food to the needy. And I’ll be sure to assign you a doctor from one of those Indian diploma mills, to ensure you get the best medical care. What, you don’t want me to do that to you? Then why do you think I’d like you doing that to me?” They all want to be the chief, never the servant doing the work.
(that’s why Christian nations are so much more attractive to everyone else in the world, because a servant’s heart produces far more material and social wealth that self-centered and materialistic cultures do; doing things because it’s the right thing to do rather than just “I get paid for it” is a much nicer place to be.)
Loading...
If it has occurred to the DSA that most immigrants want to leave socialist countries and come to the (somewhat) capitalistic USA, they haven’t mentioned it.
Loading...
One of the things being up close and personal with Seattle politics has taught me is that in many cases the leadership of these orgs are just the loudest, most ideologically driven people, not the smartest ones. And oftentimes the ones who yell the loudest are actually the least intelligent, hence the yelling.
Loading...
Yes. Volume does not increase the truth of one’s argument.
Nor does rote repetition. I don’t know what the Latin expression of those are, and I can’t recall if those were ever deemed part of the list of classic logical fallacies.
Loading...
I call it “Proof by vigorous assertion.” Which is a variation of “Proof by assertion” and “Proof by vehement assertion.”
It is not as blunt as labeling it logical fallacy and tends to go over better. But it is plain enough that almost everyone gets the point.
Loading...
Proof by volume?
Proof by Stentorian asserton?
Loading...
“If it has occurred to the DSA that most immigrants want to leave socialist countries and come to the (somewhat) capitalistic USA, they haven’t mentioned it.”
Yet most immigrants (first and second generation) tend to vote more for the more socialistic of America’s two main political parties.
Loading...
These people noticed that the Soviet Union lasted for so long that an open loop economic system must be viable. So far, they havn’t noticed the end result, and most of them havn’t visited Cuba.
Loading...
I thought any company not privately held was publicly owned. Anyone with a 401(k), 457(b), or pension owns shares in all sorts of companies. Some companies, even large ones are employee owned. Publix supermarkets is one example.
Loading...
This is true. I own tiny stakes in a whole bunch of publicly owned and traded companies via my retirement funds. But the unspoken truth is always key with socialists/communists, and the reason why they think this is unacceptable…the truth…is that they want the GOVERNMENT to own everything. THEIR government. And their government will do whatever it wants with those things and decide whether or not you deserve to enjoy the fruits of any of it. (Spoiler alert: you don’t. And so it goes with every fancy-sounding thing they say they want us to enjoy.)
Loading...
“You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right.”
Loading...
But see, right there you’re mixing goals with methods. And this is why everybody talks past each other. The communist method? Not good. Does that mean there are zero methods possible for making comfortable housing available to everyone? Are you sure, have you explored every one of them in detail and can prove that?
I don’t believe, for example, that you or anybody else *wants* to spend a large portion of their life laboring to keep a roof over their heads. But you do, because that’s the system we have. Maybe other systems are possible, maybe not. But starting your engagement with other people by condemning perfectly reasonable goals (comfortable housing for everyone) with crappy methods (communism) shuts down any further rational discussion and continues the political struggle we have now where it’s just winner take all every election, and the pendulum swings back and forth because nobody can compromise on anything.
To paraphrase Joe in an earlier comment, “it’s not rational.”
Loading...
He’s showing evidence that the method cannot achieve the goal. The communists are either deluded or lying (usually some combination of both), and the ones who do know how badly it has always failed in the past are hoping nobody will notice
Compromise is not an acceptable goal. An acceptable result if you can’t win, but it can’t be the goal. That’s just a slower ride to the baked-in failure of socialism (ride we’ve been on for quite some time now). I’m talking big picture here, not the way you’d interact specifically with your friendly neighbor who believes the DSA. There, it’s all small steps and compromise; many people can change their minds (I did; in my 20s and early 30s I voted for Democrats and would’ve been ripe pickings for the socialists), but it requires time and patience.
Loading...
The family model seems to have worked much better than the others, but that does not scale up much beyond the family itself. Maybe up to cousins and such. Even that level did not assure widespread peace and prosperity, but continual clan feuds. It took centuries for England to subdue Scotland, and then it was only partially successful.
Loading...
DSA is telling the truth about their plans. It is the Democrat Establishment that is lying.
Loading...
The “Democratic establishment” is just the Republican party in drag.
Loading...
Two wings, one bird.
From the other side, we call them RINOs, or Republican In Name Only.
Loading...
“Plans,” especially the DSA plans, are much different from outcomes.
Loading...
You are confusing the outcomes of socialism which are universally bad with lying about intent. Spamberger and her “moderates” have got the same destination but they lie about it. DSA lets it all hang out. While outcomes are always different than plans for everybody, DSA’s plans are ghastly enough.
Loading...
If one were to write a prescription to order an intense, bloody and all-destroying, scorched earth armed revolution, this would be it.
Unfortunately, there is no shortage of well-minding people who, not only do not see the oncoming train, but are completely unaware that trains exist, will support, and vote for, the prescription.
Loading...
They have concluded that conservatives are a paper tiger. In truth, conservatives do make ineffective revolutionaries. Franco was probably the best but Spain is socialist now. I was in Spain back when Franco was still alive and already the regime was losing control. The communists definitely weren’t afraid any more.
Loading...
At least the ‘right people’ will be in charge this time! /sarc
While it would be nice to find a way to reason with them, I fear it will be a bit like trying to teach calculus to a monkey.
I think the best bet is: stand back and give them the rope to hang themselves with. Let them collapse the economies of NY, SF, DC, Chicago, Seattle and stoutly refuse to bail those cities out when they do.
PS: I too have visited Czechia a number of times since the late ‘80s, the transformation has been remarkable. If the Germans don’t get their sh!t together soon, they’ll be left in the dust.
I hate my job. Well, not exactly. I don’t enjoy it very much. I would like to receive more money in exchange for less work. I would like to be able to get paid to do things that I enjoy more. It’s not going to happen. That isn’t capitalism’s fault. To some degree it is the system’s fault, in the sense that the system shapes the nature of opportunities that become available. To some degree it’s my fault for thinking I knew who I was & what I wanted & getting it wrong.
But I’m also smart enough to know tgat all that stuff sounds good but (a) it almost definitely isn’t going to happen and (b) to the extent it does, it’s going to be the world’s crappiest one-size-fits-none imitation and (c) all of those “benefits” come with some serious strings attached, which they don’t tell you about until it’s too late. Whatever it is, freedom it ain’t and you are always better off saying “no thanks” and taking care of yourself as best you can.
You can vote your way in. You have to shoot your way out.
Most of the recent cases of escape from socialism didn’t involve either voting or shooting. Rather, it was the collapse of the coercive elements of the state due to their internal contradictions. This was the case with the Soviet bloc and the Soviet Union itself. One can argue that Chile did involve shooting and Argentina did involve voting. It will be interesting to see what happens to the EU/UK and Cuba.
But here’s your opportunity to change minds: rather than call them “idiots” and “liars,” say “Y’know, that does all sound nice. I might enjoy that too. But though it might be desirable as an outcome, it’s not really possible without doing a bunch of bad stuff, for example…”
And then you get into history and human nature and have a productive discussion about how we can work together for a better future, and avoid the pitfalls of utopian visions untethered from reality. Avoiding No True Scotsman fallacies is hard, but it’s doable.
Because by rejecting their vision outright you’re implicitly saying “No, I think your vision is stupid, I’d much rather work as hard as possible for as little as possible and suffer while others reap the rewards” and that sounds equally stupid.
We’d all like a better world. The debate is over how, and these discussions would be a lot more productive if we could stop calling each other names and instead focus on common goals. Because those common goals do exist, they’re just hidden by the yelling.
That sounds reasonable. How has it worked out for you when you have tried it?
It’s exhausting, and frustrating, and takes a long time. But it works with most folks. Requires patience, though, and empathy, and a willingness to not beat them upside the head with a history book but instead gradually show them the pages.
It also requires a willingness to listen, and to be open to changing your own mind when new ideas present themselves. You can’t demand others be open to changing their minds if you’re not willing to return the favor.
And you have to be satisfied with directional changes vs. complete conversion. Reminds me of the saying about votes for politicians (and in particularly the purity tests so many try to hold them to): you’re not declaring your love for them, you’re making a chess move that you think will push things in the right direction.
Thanks for the guidance.
To be clear, some folks are a lost cause. I’m guessing people at the very top of orgs like the DSA are probably in that group. Kshama Sawant is definitely in that group. There are folks on FB I’ve had to hide because they were clearly not willing to be rational no matter what I said. So you do have to pick targets that aren’t completely nuts. But the number of people who are fully committed to their ideas no matter what happens is, in my experience, fairly low, because most folks aren’t ideologues, they’re just trying to live and will follow whichever path seems like it will result in the least pain.
Charming. So, this is why we have people advocating for “free helicopter rides” for communists and the other side advocating for gulags and large ditches.
It is irrational to expect people to be rational.
I actually have someone at work I have these sorts of conversations with. He describes himself as a “libertarian socialist.” He quickly follows up with “I can explain that. It does make sense.” He will give me all the one-liner socialist bait like, “Wouldn’t it be nice to work because you want to instead of because you have to?” and “No one should ever be a billionaire, let alone a trillionaire.” I have my one-liners to counter with and then we have a nice discussion. He mostly concedes with, “That’s true but… [some variation of ‘that isn’t working out like I want it to.’].”
It hasn’t been frustrating for me. I’ve been having fun with it. He says he really enjoys our conversations. So, all is good.
And neither of you is probably going to “convince” the other of anything, but in the process of talking you may find common ground where you can live together. I don’t expect my participation in this forum, for example, is convincing folks I’m right (I don’t even know that I’d claim to be right in any large sense), but I find it worthwhile to engage with folks I disagree with because long term I think it’s the only way we can all live together. And like it or not, we’re gonna have to live together. There isn’t enough land available for everyone to live in their own bunker….
“But here’s your opportunity to change minds: rather than call them “idiots” and “liars,” say “Y’know, that does all sound nice. I might enjoy that too. But though it might be desirable as an outcome, it’s not really possible without doing a bunch of bad stuff, for example…””
I think I’ve mentioned this before around here, but I’ve said for decades now, if you’re not tempted by the promises of socialism, you don’t understand them.
The problem, though is that they ARE liars. They promise stuff that simply will not and OBVIOUSLY will not be delivered.
So yeah, they have promised all the good things people like… and those promises are just plain lies. Ignoring that they are lies seems… unhelpful.
Acknowledging that the things they are promising would in fact be nice is a freebie, and I certainly do that all the the time (as mentioned), but leaving out that they are lies seems UNhelpful.
“Hey, great idea, Mr. Socialist. I’d love to tell you where to live. And you look a bit overweight, so I’ll drop by later and redistribute your extra food to the needy. And I’ll be sure to assign you a doctor from one of those Indian diploma mills, to ensure you get the best medical care. What, you don’t want me to do that to you? Then why do you think I’d like you doing that to me?” They all want to be the chief, never the servant doing the work.
(that’s why Christian nations are so much more attractive to everyone else in the world, because a servant’s heart produces far more material and social wealth that self-centered and materialistic cultures do; doing things because it’s the right thing to do rather than just “I get paid for it” is a much nicer place to be.)
If it has occurred to the DSA that most immigrants want to leave socialist countries and come to the (somewhat) capitalistic USA, they haven’t mentioned it.
One of the things being up close and personal with Seattle politics has taught me is that in many cases the leadership of these orgs are just the loudest, most ideologically driven people, not the smartest ones. And oftentimes the ones who yell the loudest are actually the least intelligent, hence the yelling.
Yes. Volume does not increase the truth of one’s argument.
Nor does rote repetition. I don’t know what the Latin expression of those are, and I can’t recall if those were ever deemed part of the list of classic logical fallacies.
I call it “Proof by vigorous assertion.” Which is a variation of “Proof by assertion” and “Proof by vehement assertion.”
It is not as blunt as labeling it logical fallacy and tends to go over better. But it is plain enough that almost everyone gets the point.
Proof by volume?
Proof by Stentorian asserton?
“If it has occurred to the DSA that most immigrants want to leave socialist countries and come to the (somewhat) capitalistic USA, they haven’t mentioned it.”
Yet most immigrants (first and second generation) tend to vote more for the more socialistic of America’s two main political parties.
These people noticed that the Soviet Union lasted for so long that an open loop economic system must be viable. So far, they havn’t noticed the end result, and most of them havn’t visited Cuba.
I thought any company not privately held was publicly owned. Anyone with a 401(k), 457(b), or pension owns shares in all sorts of companies. Some companies, even large ones are employee owned. Publix supermarkets is one example.
This is true. I own tiny stakes in a whole bunch of publicly owned and traded companies via my retirement funds. But the unspoken truth is always key with socialists/communists, and the reason why they think this is unacceptable…the truth…is that they want the GOVERNMENT to own everything. THEIR government. And their government will do whatever it wants with those things and decide whether or not you deserve to enjoy the fruits of any of it. (Spoiler alert: you don’t. And so it goes with every fancy-sounding thing they say they want us to enjoy.)
“You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right.”
But see, right there you’re mixing goals with methods. And this is why everybody talks past each other. The communist method? Not good. Does that mean there are zero methods possible for making comfortable housing available to everyone? Are you sure, have you explored every one of them in detail and can prove that?
I don’t believe, for example, that you or anybody else *wants* to spend a large portion of their life laboring to keep a roof over their heads. But you do, because that’s the system we have. Maybe other systems are possible, maybe not. But starting your engagement with other people by condemning perfectly reasonable goals (comfortable housing for everyone) with crappy methods (communism) shuts down any further rational discussion and continues the political struggle we have now where it’s just winner take all every election, and the pendulum swings back and forth because nobody can compromise on anything.
To paraphrase Joe in an earlier comment, “it’s not rational.”
He’s showing evidence that the method cannot achieve the goal. The communists are either deluded or lying (usually some combination of both), and the ones who do know how badly it has always failed in the past are hoping nobody will notice
Compromise is not an acceptable goal. An acceptable result if you can’t win, but it can’t be the goal. That’s just a slower ride to the baked-in failure of socialism (ride we’ve been on for quite some time now). I’m talking big picture here, not the way you’d interact specifically with your friendly neighbor who believes the DSA. There, it’s all small steps and compromise; many people can change their minds (I did; in my 20s and early 30s I voted for Democrats and would’ve been ripe pickings for the socialists), but it requires time and patience.
The family model seems to have worked much better than the others, but that does not scale up much beyond the family itself. Maybe up to cousins and such. Even that level did not assure widespread peace and prosperity, but continual clan feuds. It took centuries for England to subdue Scotland, and then it was only partially successful.
DSA is telling the truth about their plans. It is the Democrat Establishment that is lying.
The “Democratic establishment” is just the Republican party in drag.
Two wings, one bird.
From the other side, we call them RINOs, or Republican In Name Only.
“Plans,” especially the DSA plans, are much different from outcomes.
You are confusing the outcomes of socialism which are universally bad with lying about intent. Spamberger and her “moderates” have got the same destination but they lie about it. DSA lets it all hang out. While outcomes are always different than plans for everybody, DSA’s plans are ghastly enough.
If one were to write a prescription to order an intense, bloody and all-destroying, scorched earth armed revolution, this would be it.
Unfortunately, there is no shortage of well-minding people who, not only do not see the oncoming train, but are completely unaware that trains exist, will support, and vote for, the prescription.
They have concluded that conservatives are a paper tiger. In truth, conservatives do make ineffective revolutionaries. Franco was probably the best but Spain is socialist now. I was in Spain back when Franco was still alive and already the regime was losing control. The communists definitely weren’t afraid any more.
At least the ‘right people’ will be in charge this time! /sarc
While it would be nice to find a way to reason with them, I fear it will be a bit like trying to teach calculus to a monkey.
I think the best bet is: stand back and give them the rope to hang themselves with. Let them collapse the economies of NY, SF, DC, Chicago, Seattle and stoutly refuse to bail those cities out when they do.
PS: I too have visited Czechia a number of times since the late ‘80s, the transformation has been remarkable. If the Germans don’t get their sh!t together soon, they’ll be left in the dust.