agamemnonymous comments on 8 billion people vs. 3000 billionaires: Who would win?

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

We have to agree "money bad" before making a plan to move beyond it.

Yes, but that's not the thing you said that I disagree with:

humanity absolutely has the ability to coordinate action without money at least as well (if not better) than how it is now

Replace "ability" with "potential" and I agree with you, but as written this is misleading. It assumes the planning has concluded, and a new system is ready to be implemented. This is not the case.

there is a plan that I did mention, socialism

Either "socialism" refers specifically to the USSR's plan, in which case we've seen that fall to corruption, or it refers to a more general concept, in which case that's more of an ideology than a plan. At best it's a general roadmap, but it's not policy by a mile.

Socialism is not immune to corruption. No matter what system you use, people will find the loopholes and vulnerabilities and blind spots. You're just trading billionaires for bureaucrats. Even in a direct democracy, they'll start podcasts to sway public opinion. They'll steal from library economies, they'll loaf in spontaneous mutualism.

You cannot eliminate this element, you can only change its form.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

If you're asking what I think the best way forward is, please just ask that from the beginning. My answer might've been that I've been working with the PSL and think they have a pretty good idea of a socialist America. Instead we're bickering over the definition of "ability".

Otherwise, you're just arguing for the status quo that everyone hates.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

I find it extremely ironic that you worry about scaring people off with practical details, but see no conflict in promoting a party which liberally uses poisoned leftist language. McCarthyism happened, the Cold War happened. Accurate terminology has been turned into boogeyman words.

The average American hears "socialism", and they think of gulags and breadlines and authoritarianism. I'm not saying that's an accurate conception, I'm just saying that's the consequence of a century of anti-left propaganda.

If you're worried about alienating people, start with your messaging. I fully believe that a socialist party will be substantially more successful if they embrace patriotic, market based, Christian language.

It's not socialism in the workplace, it's making every worker a stakeholder. It's not UBI, it's an investment in Americans. We're not sissy bleeding heart libcucks obsessed with handouts, we're spreading Jesus' message of feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and embracing immigrants as we were immigrants in Egypt.

If you care about the persuasive content of the message, then care about it. Don't clutch your pearls when people want their plans to be actual plans because that might scare people off, then push a party using poisoned language.

I don't oppose the stated goals of the PSL, but you have to realize that, in America at least, socialist vocabulary is more divisive and alienating than sober, pragmatic tactics.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I find it extremely ironic that someone who seems to have such strong opinions on communication is so bad at. You bring up not awful and not unheard of points about using conservative language to draw people to the left. That could've been a much more productive discussion.

The biggest reason I never told you what my plan was is because you never asked for it. The initial point I was making was about how money is bad and we don't need it. Then you attacked my phrasing. You could've even briefly corrected my phrasing and then gone on to talk or ask about what the path to get there is. Instead you ranted about what tense I was using and how other economic systems don't work.

The way you've communicated with me makes it seem like your goal is alienating people.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I didn't know how many more ways I can say the same thing Even the PSL website outlines solutions which still involve money.

Don't say things that may lead to swaths of people jumping off metaphorical roofs. Take responsibility for your message, and refine it when problematic. Be precise.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

And above all jump down the throat of anyone who doesn't enunciate a point perfectly, it should be our goal to discourage engagement as much as possible /s

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

More like correct those who enunciate point so imperfectly that it becomes a different, harmful point.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

That's a big stretch for a fucking tense. And when correcting is necessary, it should be done in such a way that actually strengthens the foundation of the point, assuming you agree with the goal. Otherwise what you're trying to build will never come to fruition.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

correcting is necessary, it should be done in such a way that actually strengthens the foundation of the point

Which is what I did when I suggested replacing "ability" with "potential".

And frankly, I don't think that point needs to be strengthened right now. I don't think abandoning money is a valuable goal at this point in time. Once again, money is not the problem, greed and corruption are the problem. Getting rid of money doesn't solve the problem, it just shuffles and transforms it.

Abandoning money is a goal for the road from socialism to communism, not the road from fascism to socialism. Flooding the dialogue with ill-timed calls to action is more dilutive to building change than critical analysis.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago

Your verbose tear down of my use of "ability" seemed like an attack on the concept itself, especially when you combined it with attacking the concept itself. That's also not where you started.

I do think money is the problem. Maybe love of money is more pressing at this time, but if we don't keep the goal of eliminating money in mind, I don't think we'll get anywhere substantially different from where we're at. But I'm willing to agree to disagree on that point for the time being.

I did not flood the dialog, I made no call to action, and I would've preferred critical analysis of the problems of money over talking about tense. If you want to have debates instead of arguments, I suggest examining your approach.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent