There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.
this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
478 points (100.0% liked)
196
16591 readers
2459 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a description of current working social democracies which have not fully adopted socialism and still have potential in that regard. Social democracy is a collection of ideas and policies. Workers owning companies as opposed to share holders is not incompatible with social democracy even if it's not something that's being done currently at scale. Again market economies are not inherently capitalist. Welfare is also a part of the picture, but it's not enough it's own. Welfare is covering for systemic issues that have to fundamentally fixed.
Yes, it does have practical applications. I have nothing to do with the veracity of the ideas I espouse. Theory can only take us so far. I'm not interested in being limited by our current iteration of social democracy or our current definitions of socialism or social democracy. If we go with the description of social democracy in your argument, then that will be insufficient to fix our current societal problems.
Believe me, I understand what Capitalism is and isn't, what Socialism is and isn't, and what Social Democracy is and isn't. Social Democracy isn't Socialism, and the Nordic Countries are not Socialist, nor are they moving towards Socialism.
Yes, Social Democracy is insufficient. We need both leftist theory and practice. You are attempting to reject what leftists have learned and built on to do what has already failed, a mistake no leftist should be making.
Social democracy is a form a socialism. Social democrats in Nordic Countries apparently are aligning themselves with groups on the right. I am saying we need to move to socialism.
I think we are talking past each other at this point. I'm very much saying we need workers to own corporations as part of social democracy.
Social Democracy is not a form of Worker Ownership but welfare Capitalism.
You are calling Market Socialism Social Democracy, despite Nordic Countries not being Market Socialist.
Again, this is a description of current social democracies. This is not what am I advocating for with social democracy.
No, I was just pointing out social democracies exist. They currently have mixed economies like most countries in the world.
You aren't advocating for Social Democracy then, but Market Socialism. Why call it something it isn't? That's like saying you want Communism with Capitalists, you're redefining established terms.
I would argue the majority of what I argue for is social democracy. The fact I'm arguing for workers owning their companies does not exclude the system I'm arguing for from being social democracy. I want a market economy, I just want the workers to own that market economy.
So you don't want Social Democracy, you want Market Socialism. Absolutely none of what you have said so far indicates Social Democracy over Market Socialism.
Again, a worker owned market, is Market Socialism, not Social Democracy.
We are discussing workers owning the companies they work for. I don't need to explain every other idea I hold because the one being discussed could fit in another box. My point is that workers owning the companies they work for fits into social democracy. Ideas do not respect your rigid categorizations. And this splitting hairs is effectively a moot point.
Also I want social democracy.
No, workers owning the companies they work for is not compatible with Social Democracy. Your point is akin to saying you want Communism with Capitalists, or a state with Anarchism.
Let me ask this: what do you believe Social Democracy is, and why are you against advocating for Market Socialism, which is exactly what you have been advocating for if we take you at your word?
Social democracy combines the inclusive economic institution of socialism with the inclusive political institution of democracy. In short people have a say in both their economy and government. Listing things off the top of my head that a social democracy should include are things like health care paid for by the government, a government run retirement program like social security, food stamps provided by the government, government housing, government maintained public drinking fountains, government provided internet access. If something is needed routinely by people in order to survive then the government should have a hand in making sure that they get that thing. Market economies by default fire the poorest customer in pursuit of profit. It isn't profitable to house everyone, so not everyone gets a roof over their head, but everyone needs shelter in order to live.
In the spirit of inclusive economic and political institution alone, I would say workers owning the companies they work for is consistent with social democracy. Corporations will still be pursing the profit motive. The difference is that the C-staff will beholden to make profit for the workers and not the share holders. The system is still reliant on a welfare state to avoid people falling through the cracks and make sure everyone gets their basic necessities. I'm sure some social democrats would say we don't have to go this far and that a mixed economy is sufficient. I have come to the opinion that we do need to go farther in this specific regard. As long as the owner class exists, even with sufficient wealth distribution, which is still needed, they will be incentivized to overthrow democracy. By having one class of people, workers, there is no class with the incentive to overturn democracy for profit. We need to have a real say in our place of work, as it has a tremendous impact on our lives and the best way to do that is for workers to own it.
So you want Democratic Socialism, not Social Democracy, got it. You even say you disagree with Social Democrats.
I believe you are confusing the goals of a system with the structure. Once you transition to Socialism, you are no longer a Social Democracy.
Not all people of any given ideology agree. I am going to focus on a distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy I believe is important, this is not the only distinction. Democratic socialism is democracy agnostic. They are fine with socialism being achieved with a democracy or with a revolution. I want democracy and socialism. And I want to achieve socialism through a political revolution. Unlike democratic socialists, this a non-negotiable point for me as a social democrat. In the event, we lose our democracy, I'm not going to obstruct somebody's revolution. Pickers can't be choosers. But as long as we have a democracy I am going to leverage that power to achieve a social democracy. Political revolution is the way I want to achieve socialism. And if I did have to hypothetically achieve socialism as part of a violent revolution, a social democracy is the kind of system I would like to create.
You're a reformist Democratic Socialist, who wishes to create Democratic Socialism.
Social Democracy is first and foremost Capitalism with Social Safety Nets. The underlying principle of Social Democracy is that Capitalism is unjust if left alone, but can be weilded in the interests of all. You clearly disagree with this notion, so why identify with it?
You do not speak for me. I am social democrat. We need the market economy of capitalism. We just don't need share holders or private business owners.
So Market Socialism.
Social democracy. Trying to tell me what I believe with an arbitrary system of rigid definitions is both ineffective and easily refuted argument.
I'm aware of what you believe, I am also aware of what the systems that describe your beliefs are referred to by everyone else.
I am not telling you what you believe, but what the label is.
I recommend a descriptive approach to definitions as opposed to a prescriptive approach. I think that would resolve a lot of the discourse we are having. I have explained what I mean in my argument. Your argument centers on this false idea that definitions can limit what a person thinks and believes. But definitions are only as useful as they help us communicate.