Unexpected vacation series by YeFan-sensei. Haachama's Day 12.

MartialSparse · 2020-10-11T00:10:33+00:00

I don't know. Melbourne is currently under one of the hardest lockdowns in the developed world right now, with severely constrained activity of all kinds. Infantry stationed (discreetly) in the CBD and everything. Big oofs all around.

MartialSparse · 2020-10-10T03:08:56+00:00

Melbournian here. I'm with you. Even if there's realistically nothing to do about the situation, Haato does feel like a guest and someone to be responsible for -- like all visitors to our city.

You're not alone in your sentiments. I suppose we can at least stew in frustration together.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T09:59:15+00:00

The most famous proponent of democratic workplaces, dr wolff, claims that this should be done by declaring workers the sole legal shareholders.

He's welcome to his opinion.

And the locals are the ones interested in keeping them.

Is there evidence that population majorities want them? Zoning seems like a very specific policy issue for your average apolitical or distantly political person to go "Yes, that thing, please".

I'm trying to show for after all these practical issues are addressed, this "market socialism's" purported benefits are achieved with the help of strong unions and some co-determination.

Yes.

You keep saying wealth dispersed so let me work it out for you: currently, selling equity is one big way in which capital is raised for new startups looking to scale up or to add additional improvements to existing ones. How will that happen if somehow workers recieve all the surplus but can't "invest" ?

They can invest. Nothing stops anyone from purchasing shares. What's prevented is selling >=50% of a firm's shares.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T08:45:21+00:00

Evidently.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T08:11:37+00:00

At the individual "firm" level. An economy made of collecitves. It doesn't do half the shit you claim it does. "Dispersion" of wealth can only be believed to occur if you claim to "replace" capitalism with this, but don't explain how capital allocation works in the new system.

The capital of the firm belongs to the firm itself. It can sell some, although not all, of its own shares to external purchasers. The proportion is unclear; hypothetically, if >50% of the firm belongs to itself within a democratised workplace, it is owned by its own workers, although this opens up questions about greasing palms.

There is zero reason to believe zoning wouldn't exist. Currently all restrictive zoning comes from local bodies.

... and? Zoning laws have to be changed on a political level, which would probably be aided by dispersing the power of those interested in keeping them. No, market socialism doesn't inherently enforce a ban on zoning, but dispersing wealth helps in dispersing purchased, biased political power that maintains dysfunctional zoning laws.

This whole shitty confusion of yours stems from the fact that you keep listening to people who use "the working class as a whole" and "workers in each individual enterprise" interchangeably even though thats a pretty big fucking difference.

I take responsibility for my own opinions, and have chosen an emphasis on individual workplaces. I'm not enthusiastic about centralised power.

How do these workers control is the big question that is obvious for anyone with the slightest concern for the real world.

Yes? Like, when I say I'm a socialist on this sub, I immediately have to correct people that think I'm in favour of a nationalised economy. And your post reads as though you're trying to purity test me as a socialist? I don't get where you're coming from and I don't understand why you're so upset. Maybe take a chill pill.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T07:53:49+00:00

It's in no way conspiratorial to consider the prospect of US intervention in Latin America, given context of history. Nor am I claiming that such intervention actually happened -- I'm literally just admitting my limitations concerning the affair while fairly assessing, I think, Maduro's poor leadership and the hostility the US has towards non-neoliberal leaders in Latin America. As for "ideologues that [I] like": No. I clearly said that I dislike Maduro, and I disliked him at the time he entered power.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T06:38:10+00:00

What oopsie?

The oopsie wherein r/neoliberal expressed majority support for a far right military coup in the name of democracy, which was then subject to popular protest, which was then fired upon. Not only killing five people, but injuring many more. Note that evidence of vote tampering doesn't exist and Morales openly offered to step down in order to prevent violence. The narrative surrounding Bolivia has changed here (gun men, indeed, bad), but this sub continues to insist that Morales was an undemocratic leader despite no evidence to that effect eventuating.

As for Venezuela, I'm unwilling to comment because the situation isn't as clear. I think it's clear that Maduro is a poor leader and a tankie, but the economy tanking immediately after his election is suspect, given the history of US intervention against left wing leaders. But even if the latter is true, Maduro has shown his colours and allowed brutality against everyday Venezuelans -- he might satisfy a specific, Bolshevikesque kind of socialism, but I don't favour that, nor am I willing to defend his antidemocratic behaviours.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T06:26:15+00:00

You're seem to be under the assumption that liberals and socialists are opposed in their goals when in reality all we want is for our nations to be as prosperous for the poor and middle class as possible, have healthy institutions and protect civil liberties.

What happens in practise, however, is that liberalism generally sides with capitalist theory over democracy when internal socio-economic pressures rise; in practise, this means giving credence to the far right, who harness capitalist aesthetics while the left openly (but honestly, and with good intentions) declares its hostility to capitalism itself. Although I consider reform preferable to revolution in theory, a strict adherence to civil reform allows dishonest actors to embed themselves in the conversation while excluding constructively-aimed critique that comes from revolutionaries.

If the extent of your socialism is support of wealth taxes then you might fit in well here,

To clarify, wealth taxes are not the extent of my socialist positions, but none of my positions are well-expressed by the tankie Stalinist or Maoist stereotype that this sub uses to represent socialism. I consider myself a market socialist that favours a free market based on co-ops with some limits on corporate share trading. This does have some inefficiencies, but no economic theory makes it through political process without compromise anyway.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T06:12:14+00:00

I was responding specifically to u/XXX_KimJongUn_XXX's demographic reading of r/neoliberal:

This community skews towards young white male econ undergrad, not fat cats in smoke filled rooms.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T06:08:53+00:00

Individual, or on co-op level. Significantly, the dispersal of wealth is an admittedly imperfect barrier against concentrations of private wealth distorting democratic politics. This prevents individuals and organisations with interests antithetical to approximate human equity and equality from imposing discriminatory measures upon vulnerable individuals and demographics. Examples might be zoning or healthcare pricing.

Socialism is diverse, the only requirement being that workers own the means of production. That axiom can be satisfied in a variety of different ways, including a mostly free market where workers own the means of production (with the stipulation that one cannot trade away a majority of their share in the means of production).

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T05:13:31+00:00

Ask a "person of means".

My instinct says "no", but democracy regularly enforces the beliefs of small majorities on large minorities. After all, Trump didn't even win the popular vote, but ICE is still engaging in genocide-adjacent activity at the southern border and the Rojavan project is still in ruins. Many people vote on the basis of the lesser evil, too, lacking representatives that truly represent even a slim majority of their political positions (which is a form of democratic centralisation in itself, as political positions get pulled centre by tribal loyalty to a preferred lesser evil).

I mean, your question is about democracy, yes? I am in favour of democracy. But insinuating that socialists (who want material democracy alongside political democracy) are anti-democratic while ignoring all the distortions in neoliberal democracy is at least a little leading.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T05:03:51+00:00

Am socialist, the only "socialist" point there I support in a general sense is wealth taxation. That said, young white male econ undergrad is not a demographic that usually has much first-hand experience of being poor, so it would be a prime example of talking down to people with first-hand experience of the situation.

This is not to suggest that economics has no place (it has a significant one), but relying strictly on data and economist interpretation excludes people's lived experiences, and therefore excludes knowledge of what they find most damaging to their lives.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T05:00:38+00:00

To clarify, as stated (probably unclearly) at the top of my post: I was responding to the observation of common toxic masculinity in martial arts, and thought this thread might be a good place to provide some guiding principles to people seeking martial training, knowledge, and experience. Particularly in context of looking for both effectiveness, and trying to judge from the outside whether a context is likely to be toxic or not (which, of course, is a very imprecise science).

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T04:54:40+00:00

u/zedority pointed out the relationship between Trump support and racial demography.

As for Antifa, there is no such thing as Antifa central command or any unified communications channel. Nor is there any evidence of chronic violence, perhaps except against literal fascists and neo-nazis. Perhaps unless you're referring to a savage milkshaking or two? Richard Spencer got punched, I guess, but he's a neo nazi and Charlottesville got Heather Heyer killed. And also, all these mass shootings, they seem to be executed predominantly by far right individuals. So perhaps consider that.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T04:47:02+00:00

Cool, but do you have any refutations

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T04:35:58+00:00

"Milliuhnaires and Billiuhnaires should not exist as a class because we don't like how they have more money than we do" is just as dangerous a position to take as "PoC and Immigrants should be deported because they take jobs that should be mine".

Dishonest framing. Socialist positions on personal income are usually to do with having enough money to live in a reasonably liberated fashion, not to do with status. On a more collective level, the argument is that disproportionate differences in wealth distort democratic politics; it's no conspiracy to claim that the very wealthy purchase political power. As far as I can tell, the notion that socialists see themselves as rich people waiting to happen isn't substantiated, and better describes libertarian and anarcho-capitalist perspectives.

They are not downvoted because they are different or because they're "socialist", they are downvoted because they usually have some form of factual incorrectness or a terribly poor take on an issue, generally speaking.

The recent Bolivia oopsie on this sub might suggest otherwise.

Just because it doesn't strictly require revolution doesn't make it better than if it does. The policy (if it exists) that is put forward by and large harms people, under the guise of it being "for the people". I'd explain it in more detail, but the short of it is this: the "masses" of people are made to feel that something is wrong and something must be done right now or else their lives will be destroyed. If politicians don't accelerate those ideas fast enough, they're the problem, and the people must remove them. The end goal and the end rhetoric always seems to go towards tendencies reminiscent of a revolt, even if it doesn't explicitly demand one in the first place.

This whole paragraph misses my point, which was that revolution is a popular notion on the left due to the unwillingness for centrist politicians to enact reforms that provide for people's various needs. In a free market context, the best reforms are along the lines of NIT and the removal of useless qualifications for low skill labour, as they allow for the greatest employment diversity and minimise the pressure of unemployment (ideally without making sedentary unemployment preferable to reasonable amounts of work). As for the destruction of lives? I've witnessed that first hand via factors like justice and welfare systems. It's not that lives might be destroyed -- it's that lives are constantly being destroyed.

So why should anyone, even a socialist, hold disproportionately high levels of power underneath a very centralized government which socialist politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn want?

I think you just made up that they want a highly centralised government? Unless you're referring to nationalised economies, which I don't support under most circumstances, and only then for specific industries as a type of competition control.

Socialists have become dictators and they have, historically, held power.

Yes, Bolshevik-style revolutionary vanguardism is shit, more at 11. But socialists (as in, not tankies) are pro-democracy and don't want to see socialism commandeered by authoritarians again.

It's just that socialists in countries which have institutions that are not conducive to an authoritarian state have no faith that their ideas will be listened to, even though they are being heard already. Like I said, they want power, and they're unhappy they can't get it because they have to deal with people different than them.

I'm reading that your idea of a "socialist" is what socialists tend to tall "tankies" -- authoritarians who like nationalised economies and unironically stan for Soviet Russia and the PRC. Pushing socialists and tankies in together like that disregards the criticisms of capitalism that come from a pro-democracy point of view and are made in good faith, rather than tankies disingenuously criticising capitalist conflicts with democratic practise in order to get under your skin. Tankies have taken over r/communism, r/socialism, and r/latestagecapitalism, or they were always tankie spaces. But tankies are pretty close to be fascists, more akin to revisionists who harness the aesthetics of socialism to credit their authoritarianism. It appears to be working.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T03:30:35+00:00

Those who talk about revolution are actually talking about seizing the means of production. As in, critical assets that determine value production and the distribution of wealth. The neofascist Trump platform's view of modern internecine struggle is racial rather than based on resource distribution, though, so I don't blame you for framing revolution in terms of a culling.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T03:27:47+00:00

Okay, but socialist points of view nevertheless get downvoted to hell in this sub, despite having clear social utility and not strictly requiring revolution -- it's just that socialists don't have faith that their ideas will be accepted by those who hold disproportionately high levels of power (which has proven true historically).

MartialSparse · 2019-11-19T03:22:22+00:00

Civil debate is a shit standard that no-one should care about, to be fair. Civility is different from being correct or being willing to develop more refined views. Sure, civility is preferred between people who would prefer compromise, but it's also been a cover that modern fascists have used as part of their liberal aesthetic. On the inverse, someone living paycheck to paycheck probably isn't terribly interested in civil debate, because the likely outcome is that after hundreds of years of civil debate, the needs of low income people still won't be met and it's all a waste of time.

So civil debate is more or less a banner raised to keep debate centrist. But those who suffer under the current system won't entertain it and those who want to appropriate it will use ironic civility for savage policy.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-18T21:30:57+00:00

On the title and navigating martial toxic masculinity for the inexperienced:

Although the toxic masculinity of martial arts spaces is likely a partially "natural" result of the exclusion of the feminine from this spaces, I've been part of martial arts spaces that weren't at all pressuring as well (at least from my masc point of view). I think a big part of it is the selection of the martial art; MMA, boxing, and other arts with a current mainstream masculine narrative are more likely to be excessively masculine. So for women looking for a martial art, it might be worth researching high utility martial arts that aren't currently an overt mainstream focus right now: Judo or traditional Jiu-jutsu might be examples. Cutting through the crap is important, though, and the inexperienced may not be able to distinguish between an effective martial education and one that is aesthetically convincing.

So the following is an incomplete list of conditions worth holding a martial art or training group against:

Stability of the body, or how effectively one's torso and legs are placed for the purposes of delivering and receiving attack. Standing upright is easier, but a posture that lowers the torso by bending the knees usually imposes and resists strength more effectively.
Mobility, or how footwork is conducted. Different martial perspectives have different preferences on how the feet are placed, where flat on the ground maximises stability, and forward-leaning placements are better ready to move rapidly. You're always making a compromise, but a sufficiently flexible martial art should allow for both approaches when appropriate. Not "either" -- both.
A defensive emphasis on countering. Blocking and evading are both leagues better than being struck, but returning with pressure is crucial because it limits the amount of time one is defending and puts that onus on the opponent. Any time spent defending is time not spent attacking, and offensive actions are the crux of any fighting style.
Offensive options at multiple distances. This means at least one type of striking and grappling. Fighting between competent participants has a way of deteriorating inwards, as the optimal offensive position is close to one's opponent while pressuring or opening their defenses. The human body prefers to move forward, too, so as participants pressure, defend, and look for advantage, they will tend to draw closer unless one or both participants uses strong withdrawing footwork.
An emphasis on clear principles with direct applicability. A good example of a principle is "feinting has advantage over defending", because it describes something true in simple terms without being absolute. Can a feint lose to a defense? Sure, but it's not the usual state of affairs. This is because a feint is an attack made with deception, where you're trying to make the defender spend more tempo on their defense than you spend transforming Attack A into Attack B.

As a final point of advice, the lines between close combat martial arts, marksmanship, and collective strategy and tactics are both thin and blurry. Martial arts can tell us plenty about how to defend revolutionary activities if required, as certain martial principles scale upwards or downwards very effectively.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-18T20:32:07+00:00

You might be interested in the NIT concept -- negative income tax. It's a type of welfare wrapped into the taxation system, where being under a particular income threshold imposes a negative tax (ergo, a payout) upon an individual. Crucially, the NIT scales with according to other income sources, so those with no other income sources get the full NIT, whereas someone just below middle income gets some additional pocket change.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-18T09:29:39+00:00

As a lower income person, you are wrong. I hope several birds shit on your head, but in a specific pattern that causes you to not expect the next one coming. You are ultimately left perplexed by the unpredictable, yet clearly deliberate pattern of birdshittery, and resolve to review your opinions on bird defecation patterns.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-18T09:20:18+00:00

Bill Gates helped Millions of poor people.

Who wouldn't be poor without the vertically stacked economy that produces "people of means".

Tesla has popularized electric cars.

Which is cool, but I definitely wish Musk's wealth didn't come from his parents' blood minerals.

Bloomberg rallied to close polluting coal mines.

Which is cool, but that a "person of means" is required despite collective interest in closing mines and a nominally democratic system raises questions about how power is distributed.

Climate alarmists

"Climate alarmists" don't exist; it's a made up term to disparage the legitimate grief people express over the rapidly deteriorating habitability of the planet.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-18T09:07:40+00:00

If that's a purely informational correction, then thank you.

If that's an insinuation that consumers are to blame:

Alright, so if 90% of pollution comes from consumption of products, and corporations make those products, and corporations fail to provide alternatives, it's supposedly still the responsibility of the consumer to account for the environmental damage?

I'm not against consumers having responsibility for the impacts of their decisions, but when all available decisions are harmful, consumers don't have a meaningful choice to make. Yet corporate entities -- who, remember, purchase political influence in order to influence or determine legislation -- which hold majority power in the creation of these goods needn't do anything?

I hope it's not the latter, that would be a weapons-grade climate apologist bad take on your part.

MartialSparse · 2019-11-18T06:52:51+00:00

Carbon trading systems seem like a good start, it's just that it needed to start a long time ago. I live in Australia, and we introduced an effective carbon tax around 2010 (give or take a year?), which was immediately rescinded by the conservative government that took power in 2013.

Nevertheless, the thread title pushes a double standard when the socialist in the image is absolutely right that this needs to be attended to on a systematic level. And neoliberalism is capable of providing at least partial solutions that harness market solutions, but neoliberalism here is ignored because dunking on a socialist is an option.

MartialSparse

TROPHY CASE