Quote :

"Well, no. No, it isn't. That's why you used a different word"

i didn't use that word, that's what it's called:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

10/9/2018 1:30:53 PM

Quote :

"I don't mind market socialists or people who aren't hardline Capitalists."

But I'm not a die-hard capitalist. I love worker owned businesses. They just need to buy them like anyone else. But I recognize why they choose not to: it is ill advised to tie up a large chunk of your savings in your own employer. Better to work one place and diversify elsewhere, so if your employer goes belly up, you have not lost everything.

10/10/2018 9:02:58 AM

Quote :

"I recognize why they choose not to"

no dude it's because no one has the money to do that, and most business owners are not interested in selling to their workers. how do you constantly fuck this up?

10/10/2018 10:56:34 AM

An open stock company has no choice in who buys their stock. There is no "these shares cannot under any circumstances be sold to employees." And it is odd to believe a business owner would hate money so much he'd refuse a buy-out offer, just because it was his employees. I met a dude once whose sole lot in life was starting businesses, getting them running, then getting bored and selling them to his employees. So yea, they can. They can't afford Walmart or Apple, but a huge chunk of the economy is not sexy enough or profitable enough to have such sky high valuations.

10/10/2018 1:00:44 PM

dude has never met a poor person

10/10/2018 1:10:12 PM

^ im not sure I understand the end game here. Providing corporate ownership to the workers does not eliminate poverty. Some companies succeed, others fail. A massive welfare state would still need to exist.

Unless the entire community owns all means of production and the negative impacts are offset by the good you will still have massive discrepancies in standard of living.

10/10/2018 1:22:41 PM

^^ I can only assume you're being purposefully dense. I say worker owned businesses are a thing, there could be more than there are but I see why there isn't, and you respond with an assault on my intelligence. Okay then.

^ I am curious there. Surely in a worker-owned economy firms must still be allowed to fail on their merits by some means and there must be a mechanism for creating new firms. Otherwise poorly run monopolies will inevitably result, to the detriment of society at large. Bad management and economic change is a thing society must have means of addressing.

[Edited on October 10, 2018 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/10/2018 1:24:13 PM

Quote :

"^ im not sure I understand the end game here. Providing corporate ownership to the workers does not eliminate poverty. Some companies succeed, others fail. A massive welfare state would still need to exist. Unless the entire community owns all means of production and the negative impacts are offset by the good you will still have massive discrepancies in standard of living."

This is why market socialism is a stepping stone and not true socialism. True socialism means the entire community owns the means of production and produces based on need, not profit motive.

10/10/2018 1:33:39 PM

I don’t see that happening in any meaningful capacity.

To be clear, I mean a transition from the first step to the second.

[Edited on October 10, 2018 at 1:55 PM. Reason : !]

10/10/2018 1:54:07 PM

There's an absolute shitload of theory regarding that transition, but I haven't read much of it so I can't help you there. I's a lot harder to be a socialist than a libertarian, because you're expected to know all the answers to a complicated theoretical system.

And even if we never get there, we can get as close as possible.

10/10/2018 2:37:20 PM

If it is too theoretical for its boosters to bother understanding or even knowing the talking points about, what the hell hope does society at large have of learning it well enough to live under it?

How can you be in favor of an economic system you yourself claim to have no understanding of?

[Edited on October 10, 2018 at 3:20 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/10/2018 3:19:15 PM

Quote :

"If it is too theoretical for its boosters to bother understanding or even knowing the talking points about, what the hell hope does society at large have of learning it well enough to live under it?"

The average person couldn't explain our current economy either.

Quote :

"How can you be in favor of an economic system you yourself claim to have no understanding of?"

Disingenuous representation of what I said.

10/10/2018 3:29:08 PM

Capitalism's immense appeal to dumbass conservatives is it's ability to offer "supply and demand, bro" and "economics 101, man" and "let the markets decide" as incredibly simplistic answers that are vomited out every time they are asked to confront a societal ill.

10/10/2018 7:59:40 PM

Socialism's immense appeal to dumbasses is it's ability to offer "blame the rich, bro" and "the man's keeping us down, man" and "make the rick pay for it" and "get the government to do it" as incredibly simplistic answers that are vomited out every time they are asked to confront a societal ill.

[Edited on October 12, 2018 at 11:09 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/12/2018 11:09:18 PM

What did Rick ever do to you?

10/13/2018 12:25:22 AM

He abandoned me in this statist hell of a dimension just because I'm the evil Morty.

10/13/2018 10:51:47 AM

i love it

https://www.gazettetimes.com/opinion/letters/letter-despite-loss-council-candidate-triumphed/article_7fb9c2e3-c994-52ac-9742-6789b955ab1b.html

11/15/2018 8:57:46 PM

FYI there are a shitload of Howard Zinn lectures on Spotify.

11/27/2018 5:17:07 PM

https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1085236210963021824?s=21

70% marginal tax rate on top earners is now a majority US position

[Edited on January 15, 2019 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2019 3:35:02 PM

^this is why Republicans and Democrats are terrified of her

1/15/2019 5:05:27 PM

Great essay

https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/why-i-call-myself-socialist/

2/14/2020 4:36:33 PM

https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-shows-sanderss-strength-going-head-to-head-with-rivals-181522968.html

Quote :

"The poll isn’t all good news for Sanders, however. Many progressives seem to believe the Vermont senator would be a shoo-in to defeat Donald Trump if only the Democratic establishment would get out of his way and award him the party’s presidential nomination. Yet there may be trouble ahead. Sixty-two percent of Americans — and a near-identical 61 percent of independents — say that Sanders is a “socialist.” Only a quarter of Americans (26 percent) have a favorable view of socialism, while almost half (47 percent) have an unfavorable view. Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist and frames his agenda — Medicare for All, free public college, a Green New Deal — as a continuation of FDR-style liberalism. But voters don’t necessarily grasp the distinction between socialism and democratic socialism. When asked whether the two ideologies are the same or different, 38 percent of Americans said “the same” and 38 percent said “different.” Another 24 percent said they weren’t sure. Regardless, only 35 percent of Americans said they would even consider voting in a general election for a candidate who called himself or herself a “democratic socialist.” Forty-six percent said no, while another 18 percent said they weren’t sure. Among independents, those numbers were even less favorable to Sanders: 31 percent yes, 47 percent no and 22 percent not sure. Meanwhile, most Americans (52 percent) said only “some” or “a few” of their peers would consider voting for a democratic socialist. In the poll, no other candidate characteristic seemed to have such a strong negative effect on electability. Sixty percent of Americans said they would consider voting for a gay candidate (like Buttigieg). Sixty-seven percent said they would consider voting for a billionaire (like Bloomberg and Tom Steyer and, taking him at his own word, Trump). Fifty-four percent said they would consider voting for a candidate with no prior experience in national government (like Buttigieg, Bloomberg and Steyer). Forty-seven percent said they would consider voting for a candidate over 75 years old (like Sanders, Biden and Bloomberg). Sixty-four percent said they would consider voting for a candidate under 40 years old (like Buttigieg). Eighty-three percent said they would consider voting for a woman (like Warren and Klobuchar). Eighty-four percent said they would consider voting for a Jewish candidate (like Sanders and Bloomberg). And 44 percent said they would vote for a Muslim candidate (there isn’t one this year) — nearly 10 points more than the number who said they would vote for a democratic socialist. "

Concerning.

I really hope he becomes POTUS.

2/15/2020 5:30:23 AM

Probably too late since it has been just said so much but seems like the effort could be made to "rebrand" the democratic socialism to something like being a democratic opportunist.

Our country loves a good rebrand. A democratic opportunist wants to create opportunities for future generations to ensure the American dream lives on. Providing health care and education creates opportunities for those that want to live the American Dream, some crap like that.

You don't need everyone to buy in, just that middle 10% who hear socialism and just have that natural reaction and scare. Educating people on what that word means is harder than just using a different word.

2/22/2020 9:19:47 AM

an opportunist has a negative connotation as "one that takes advantage" of something.

2/22/2020 1:36:37 PM

Quote :

"Great essay"

Utter and complete bullshit. We are not sorted at birth, and what we do for a living does not define us. The author is just so full of himself as an actor as if that is the most important position in society. Crazy. People do the jobs they do because they chose to do them. That cashier could have made different choices and been somewhere else. "The Market" is not an actual thing we can point to that is forcing people to do jobs the actor author views as beneath himself and therefore beneath everyone. These people play lots of roles in their lives. They're mothers, fathers, siblings, etc. You can ask them what they care about on a daily basis, but the author would rather paint them as mindless slaves to "The Market" with no will of their own. Maybe they're supporting themselves until that call back finally makes them an actor. Until you ask, you don't know.

That the electronics factory calls for millions of workers does not mean millions of worker appear. Workers have to choose that life for themselves based upon the options available to them. The cashiers and truck drivers the author spends the article belittling made choices, choices I'm sure the author might have respected if he bothered finding out what they were. They fell in love, wanted to start a family, had to take care of their parents, hated school, hated the 9-5 grind, all preferences that kept them out of school and rules them out as becoming biologists, apparently one of the few professions the author respects. So they didn't follow that path, they followed another one, choosing family, the open road, or following their spouses work somewhere that their own work wasn't an option. These are choices free people make, not slaves to "The Market"

I guess he's a Socialist because he wants people to be forced to make choices he prefers. More actors. More Biologists. A profession will be chosen by your betters and any deviation will get you punished, severely, until you're finally made beautiful to the author's sensibilities.

2/22/2020 2:06:13 PM

You are right about choices but thats the problem. Why should anyone have to make a choice between supporting their family and furthering their education or pursuing their dreams?

2/22/2020 3:30:00 PM

Statistically speaking, across the globe, we are absolutely pre-sorted. Some “make it”. The vast majority do not and often are literally unable to.

Hell of an interpretation there

[Edited on February 22, 2020 at 4:35 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2020 4:28:57 PM

Quote :

"I am grieved to tell you that @nathanjrobinson has effectively fired me & most of the @curaffairs staff because we were trying to organize into a worker’s co-op. This isn’t a bit. I wish it was. https://t.co/0lmnJlzAEX https://t.co/5P6U88d4VR"

8/18/2021 12:26:27 PM

lol wow i knew that guy was full of shit but this is something else

8/18/2021 12:32:01 PM

Democratic socialism is dead in America. Shows how far to the right we’ve shifted over the past 10 years

10/29/2024 9:29:33 PM

anybody Dwarkesh appreciators here?

[Edited on July 23, 2025 at 11:59 AM. Reason : full episode]

7/23/2025 11:59:07 AM

I’ll give him the point that saying capitalism is even is vague and meaningless because capitalism is a spectrum

But this is the same as people who say socialism is evil because socialism is not one thing

If we have to dance on a slippery slope we should dance where most people can thrive.

Quote :

" Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people. When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan "Down With Socialism" on the banner of his "great crusade," that is really not what he means at all. What he really means is "Down with Progress--down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal," "

- Harry Truman

7/23/2025 1:42:06 PM

While I don't reject everything I said in this thread 6-7 years ago, I suppose I must reject some of it because my current political orientation is somewhere in the Democratic Socialist/Social Democrat range.

And so now we can all marvel at the spectacle of 2025 Grumpy arguing with 2018 Grumpy.

The initial historical analysis is more or less fine; the USSR didn't collapse because of outside intervention, it collapsed because of an incompetent, corrupt, geriatric leadership. As our present situation shows, that's hardly unique to socialist or communist governments.

Quote :

" I don't think labor can be trusted to control itself collectively any more than any other group. Owners are not especially evil and workers are not especially virtuous; they both operate in a range of morality which, over time, will probably tend towards self-interest."

So close, 2018 Grumpy, but still so far. No, Labor isn't inherently virtuous, and neither is Capital. So why, then, are you OK with capital having all the power? Labor in this country has been defanged and beaten down by 40+ years of right-wing policy and propaganda, to the point where even you, a reasonably intelligent young man, have no concept of how organized labor is supposed to work.

The country is a shambles in large part because of the unchecked power of capital and its total control of the system. This is what you will come to mean by "capitalism" - a system in which capital has a controlling interest in government, in large part because that government was designed from the beginning to favor capital. Neither party is really trying to change that, although the Republicans vocally support it and occasionally a Democrat at least nods in the direction of progress, and by 2025 it is increasingly infiltrated by other democratic socialists, and so there's hope. But for now, oligarchic domination of society has created a vast array of social ills, not least the fact that a cabal of tech weirdos seems to be openly hostile to the concept of democracy and possibly the human race itself.

Now this is not to say that 2025 Grumpy has drank up all the red kool-aid. I'm not convinced you can abolish capital and hand the means of production entirely over to labor; or perhaps more accurately, if it is possible, it's not going to be achieved in my lifetime and so I'm not really concerned with pushing it as an outcome. However, capital must be counterbalanced by an empowered labor. Workers must have a hand on the wheel to match that of the owner. Capital will resist that; they must be forced to accept it. That force can come from direct action by labor, or it can come from government action. Both require organizing workers, which is something that very few people are competent at doing. So it is not a particularly easy path, but it is one I think must be taken if the country is not going to degenerate into permanent semi-autocratic kleptocracy. It's also something that I think can be achieved in the not-so-distant future, in part thanks to Trump.

One of the few advantages of the Trump regime is its accelerationist effects, at least politically; he's probably created more socialists in this country than anybody since Eugene V. Debs, and even the ones who don't go that far at least vote against him, inching the country towards a democratic party that might one day acquire a pinkish hue in spite of itself.

Quote :

"We work hard at our jobs for the benefit of the company. In a large sense, this is because the company has to stay afloat to keep paying us. In a narrow sense, it's because we hope that our efforts will be rewarded with raises or promotions or casual Fridays or whatever."

Wrong. If you are "working hard," in the sense of going above and beyond, you are handing your employer free money. Your efforts will not be rewarded. Your employer is not going to give you any more than what they see as the bare minimum to keep productivity where they want it. If that means keeping you working, they will pay you just enough to keep you from going elsewhere. If they can achieve the same goal for less money - through automation or hiring Guatemalans - they will fire you and do that instead.

You do not know this in 2018 because you have had a real job for about fifteen minutes. You will learn. Even though keep working at the same job right up until today, and even though that job had appeared to be divorced from market incentives, you will see the reality laid bare.

But don't take this for mere bitterness. I don't think the employers are evil for doing this. It is, after all, their self interest - exactly what you said everyone pursues, and in that, you were pretty much right. The owner will seek to maximize their benefit, and since their largest cost is almost always labor, that's what they'll focus on cutting. Labor's interest is to prevent being cut, and in fact to increase their cost to the employer (as well they might, since the employer grows fat on their work). Give total control to either and they'll eradicate the other. I could live with eradicating capital, but since that appears unlikely (and bloodier than is ideal), I'll settle for trying to balance the power.

7/30/2025 4:23:56 PM

Quote :

"And so now we can all marvel at the spectacle of 2025 Grumpy arguing with 2018 Grumpy."

regardless of what I might think of any of your particular current conclusions, i applaud your self-reflection and willingness to change your mind and to do so publicly.

when I have important internal deliberations sometimes i convene the council of 5, 17, 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 70 year old qntmfred to get a range of points of view

[Edited on July 30, 2025 at 4:36 PM. Reason : highly recommended]

7/30/2025 4:32:40 PM

That sounds suspiciously like a Dune reference.

7/31/2025 7:57:57 AM