You make a statement about complexity but you’re not actually saying anything. This is all wishy washy.
There is no middle between “the workers hold power” and “the bourgeoisie should hold power”. There is no middle between “private property should exist” and “private property should not exist”. There is no middle between “profit should be the driving force of development” and “the human development index should be the driving force of development”.
Your wishy washy “we need a middle” is nonsense if you can not put into words what that fundamentally means in terms of actual functioning policy and societal design. Who holds power is THE essential question here. Capitalist society functions as a dictatorship-of-the-bourgeoisie. Socialists want the opposite, a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat. Flipping the power on its head and putting the workers in charge of the outcomes instead of the bourgeoisie.
If you can not fundamentally describe in absolute terminology what you think society needs to do in order to change the current situation then all you are doing in your opposition to people who do want change is supporting keeping it the way it currently is. That puts you on the side of the climate death cult driving us towards the inevitable end.
Oh yes I’m the one who simplified a complex problem… literally said it’s more complex then that. That’s it, is it simple enough for you to understand now?mm
Dude: “tErhe aRE nO MIdDLe tHeRM”
Is the most simplistic shit ever, just quoting slogans and not actually recognizing the complexity of everything.
So wait, you said shit nothing concrete (am I wrong?)
I said wow good job trying to reduce individual problems by generalising…it’s not politics dude. You can’t use generalization with people, with societies,etc … doesn’t matter …
While you keep making general statments about a huge problem with hundreds of different issues, particular issues that can be approached differently no matter where you are.
Doesn’t matter is the difference is geographic, cultural, whatever … It’s not the same solucion for everything and everyone. Because each case deserves it’s own special individual solucion?
Hey maybe you can generalize and it works,tell me how and we can talk. But don’t say I didn’t give any details when I’m only calling you out for that exactly. What kinda of one-sided argument is that?
At no point did I generalise. Capitalist society is a bourgeoise dictatorship. In socialist terms we don’t mean an individual rules, what we mean is that it is a class dictatorship. The ruling class is the bourgeoisie. They hold all the power, by design, so that they can implement the policies that benefit their class rule. The bourgeoise-democracy provides the outcomes that the bourgeoisie want, because it was built that way from the ground up when they took power during the various revolutions that ended feudalism and brought about the beginnings of capitalism.
What socialists seek is revolutions led by the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie, installing a dictatorship of the proletariat and thus socialist society. This new proletarian led society will then provide the outcomes that are most beneficial to the proletariat instead.
These are all specific and absolute things. There is no generalisation here, I am being extremely specific, you just aren’t familiar with the terms or what they mean. If you have questions I am very willing to answer. If you need more specificity about what these classes are I recommend: https://reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/class. I wrote the first iteration of that page when I was a mod there. If you need more answers about what the institutional structure of socialism looks like I am happy to answer, you aren’t asking any questions though and you aren’t pointing out what you claim I am generalising on.
This new proletarian led society will then provide the outcomes that are most beneficial to the proletariat instead.
This is not very specific.
What does this look like? Is it 100% communist, 100% socialism or…. what? Maybe some sort of regulated market with very high tax rates like during the “golden age” of capitalism (post world war 2).
Personally, I think I’d enjoy a capitalist society with high tax rates and a strong safety net. Some sort of middle ground.
The immediate new society is political socialism as soon as you kick out the bougies and redesign the institutions to ensure proletarian outcomes. I think what you’re asking is what it would economically look like, and that is a question that would differ depending on the national conditions. What I mean by that is that ultimately what is possible is determined by many factors, assuming that much of the world remains capitalist the newly socialist country would need to integrate into the global market in some way. This would likely mean taking over strategic national industries while leaving consumer sectors to private industry. You’d have a planned economy while maintaining enough for international investors to prevent isolation (like north korea). This would look something like Vietnam, Cuba or China’s combination of private and state industry.
At a later date this would transition to something more and more socialist as and when the national conditions allow for it. Most likely as less and less of the world is capitalist.
Personally, I think I’d enjoy a capitalist society with high tax rates and a strong safety net. Some sort of middle ground.
That’s just a capitalist society ruled by the bourgeoisie, with welfare tacked on. We’re talking about what is necessary here to stop the world from boiling to death, that doesn’t achieve that.
You make a statement about complexity but you’re not actually saying anything. This is all wishy washy.
There is no middle between “the workers hold power” and “the bourgeoisie should hold power”. There is no middle between “private property should exist” and “private property should not exist”. There is no middle between “profit should be the driving force of development” and “the human development index should be the driving force of development”.
Your wishy washy “we need a middle” is nonsense if you can not put into words what that fundamentally means in terms of actual functioning policy and societal design. Who holds power is THE essential question here. Capitalist society functions as a dictatorship-of-the-bourgeoisie. Socialists want the opposite, a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat. Flipping the power on its head and putting the workers in charge of the outcomes instead of the bourgeoisie.
If you can not fundamentally describe in absolute terminology what you think society needs to do in order to change the current situation then all you are doing in your opposition to people who do want change is supporting keeping it the way it currently is. That puts you on the side of the climate death cult driving us towards the inevitable end.
Oh yes I’m the one who simplified a complex problem… literally said it’s more complex then that. That’s it, is it simple enough for you to understand now?mm
Dude: “tErhe aRE nO MIdDLe tHeRM”
Is the most simplistic shit ever, just quoting slogans and not actually recognizing the complexity of everything.
You are very smart
Are you actually going to talk concrete policy or not? This feels very evasive.
So wait, you said shit nothing concrete (am I wrong?)
I said wow good job trying to reduce individual problems by generalising…it’s not politics dude. You can’t use generalization with people, with societies,etc … doesn’t matter …
While you keep making general statments about a huge problem with hundreds of different issues, particular issues that can be approached differently no matter where you are.
Doesn’t matter is the difference is geographic, cultural, whatever … It’s not the same solucion for everything and everyone. Because each case deserves it’s own special individual solucion?
Hey maybe you can generalize and it works,tell me how and we can talk. But don’t say I didn’t give any details when I’m only calling you out for that exactly. What kinda of one-sided argument is that?
At no point did I generalise. Capitalist society is a bourgeoise dictatorship. In socialist terms we don’t mean an individual rules, what we mean is that it is a class dictatorship. The ruling class is the bourgeoisie. They hold all the power, by design, so that they can implement the policies that benefit their class rule. The bourgeoise-democracy provides the outcomes that the bourgeoisie want, because it was built that way from the ground up when they took power during the various revolutions that ended feudalism and brought about the beginnings of capitalism.
What socialists seek is revolutions led by the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie, installing a dictatorship of the proletariat and thus socialist society. This new proletarian led society will then provide the outcomes that are most beneficial to the proletariat instead.
These are all specific and absolute things. There is no generalisation here, I am being extremely specific, you just aren’t familiar with the terms or what they mean. If you have questions I am very willing to answer. If you need more specificity about what these classes are I recommend: https://reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/class. I wrote the first iteration of that page when I was a mod there. If you need more answers about what the institutional structure of socialism looks like I am happy to answer, you aren’t asking any questions though and you aren’t pointing out what you claim I am generalising on.
This is not very specific.
What does this look like? Is it 100% communist, 100% socialism or…. what? Maybe some sort of regulated market with very high tax rates like during the “golden age” of capitalism (post world war 2).
Personally, I think I’d enjoy a capitalist society with high tax rates and a strong safety net. Some sort of middle ground.
The immediate new society is political socialism as soon as you kick out the bougies and redesign the institutions to ensure proletarian outcomes. I think what you’re asking is what it would economically look like, and that is a question that would differ depending on the national conditions. What I mean by that is that ultimately what is possible is determined by many factors, assuming that much of the world remains capitalist the newly socialist country would need to integrate into the global market in some way. This would likely mean taking over strategic national industries while leaving consumer sectors to private industry. You’d have a planned economy while maintaining enough for international investors to prevent isolation (like north korea). This would look something like Vietnam, Cuba or China’s combination of private and state industry.
At a later date this would transition to something more and more socialist as and when the national conditions allow for it. Most likely as less and less of the world is capitalist.
That’s just a capitalist society ruled by the bourgeoisie, with welfare tacked on. We’re talking about what is necessary here to stop the world from boiling to death, that doesn’t achieve that.