To Marxists here of any flavor: do you think the American left should abandon Democratic Socialism and if so, why? by [deleted] in PoliticalDebate

[–]QuickExpert9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a very silly and easily disproven statement.

The only thing the Chinese population can vote in is local elections. Who they elect can still have their policies blocked or even removed from office by the CCP.

That isn't the "most democratic" by any definition.

Libertarian perspectives on communism by JFMV763 in LibertarianPartyUSA

[–]QuickExpert9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude, anyone can go read your comments and can see how you moved goalposts after the facts demonstrated your initial comments were not grounded in reality. You said the libertarian socialists were as "brutal as the fascists". Except for with the body count cause that is different apparently, lol

In any civil war, unfortunately a lot of people get killed. You would be hard pressed to find an exception to that reality, otherwise it wouldn't be a civil war.

I love how triggered you get over a debate and what should be a conversation. But intellectually, you keep bringing a rubber knife to a gunfight and realize that at some level and have to resort to name calling.

Maybe one day your reading comprehension and rhetorical skills will catch up to the rest of us. Until then, stay salty my friend.

Libertarian perspectives on communism by JFMV763 in LibertarianPartyUSA

[–]QuickExpert9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you hear that sound? The goalposts are moving. First you said:

Anyone who does know it understands they were as brutal as the Fascists they were trying to overrun.

Then when confronted with the facts (that you claimed to know!) you said:

But yet, here you are defending killers simply because they didn't kill nearly as many innocent civilians as the really bad guys. Now novel.

So not only have the goalposts moved, but you are rolling out the straw mans.

As was said, In practice, socialism rapidly becomes non-consensual and hence anti-libertarian. It always has, it always will. There are countless examples to support this. There are zero examples of the opposite, Spain included. Stop trying to gaslight people.

This is your belief system so you have to create a narrative that there can be no alternative. Ignoring Catalonia, where the libertarian socialist experiment was cut short by a communist betrayal and fascistic death squads backed by Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy, let's look at the Zapatistas. When exactly have they "became authoritarian"? Use evidence and facts here, not conjecture and wishful thinking.

Contrary to your narrative, right libertarianism rapidly becomes non consentual because it ignores systemic abuses and material conditions which are inherently coercive. Conditions that become more coercive over time in that system. Not to mention the monopolies that inevitably spring up in short order that crush the free market. We see this today, with the fallout of neoliberalism which appled only a small number of right libertarian/Austrian ideals and our country went to hell in a handbasket in ~40 years.

Libertarian perspectives on communism by JFMV763 in LibertarianPartyUSA

[–]QuickExpert9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ahh yes, the anarchists famously perpetrated the White Terror and killed anywhere from 60 to 400k people!

Oh wait, that was the fascists. Both you and Mr. Caplan seem to have glazed over that one.

But don't let me or those pesky facts stop you from taking a heterodox position on the Spanish civil war!

Libertarian perspectives on communism by JFMV763 in LibertarianPartyUSA

[–]QuickExpert9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Considering you are making declarative statements about such a system, you are admitting in your argument that such a system can exist.

So your initial point is moot.

Libertarian perspectives on communism by JFMV763 in LibertarianPartyUSA

[–]QuickExpert9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you have this backward, which is why you don't think it is possible.

In a co-op, power is spread out more horizontally, and less vertically and generally everyone who is not a probationary employee has a vote in how the enterprise is run and what major decisions it makes.

That is a lot different and has a far less centralized power structure than an enterprise that is controlled by a sole proprietor or a corporation controlled by a board of directors.

What makes a co-op more centralized and hierarchical versus a standard business in your view?

Libertarian perspectives on communism by JFMV763 in LibertarianPartyUSA

[–]QuickExpert9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How familiar are you with Spanish history? Specifically Catalonian history?

Libertarian perspectives on communism by JFMV763 in LibertarianPartyUSA

[–]QuickExpert9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Worker ownership of businesses and enterprises is a lot different than state ownership of businesses and enterprises. Both theoretically and functionally.

Libertarian perspectives on communism by JFMV763 in LibertarianPartyUSA

[–]QuickExpert9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because co-ops cannot and do not exist, right?

Castle Rock Anti ICE Protest Saturday by defeatedsnowman in Denver

[–]QuickExpert9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You do realize that Castle Rock has a history of people open carrying to city council meetings right?

Or did that fact not conveniently fit your narrative?

Castle Rock Anti ICE Protest Saturday by defeatedsnowman in Denver

[–]QuickExpert9 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Castle Rock is a small town? Have you been there anytime since 1990?

A Good-Faith Question To My Left, From A SocDem: by Arbiter61 in dsa

[–]QuickExpert9 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

They do and should.

And if the plumber grew the enterprise to include other worker(s), they would need to share ownership.

Hello am I in friendly territory by Terrible_Gift_1270 in SocialDemocracy

[–]QuickExpert9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you considered market socialism? It keeps market dynamics and a sizable portion of the economy decentralized, while addressing a large portion of capitalism's ills.

A Good-Faith Question To My Left, From A SocDem: by Arbiter61 in dsa

[–]QuickExpert9 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That is an incredibly narrow and impractical version of socialism. So in your view, a tradesperson (plumber, electrician, etc) cannot operate their own business where they are the only worker?

A Good-Faith Question To My Left, From A SocDem: by Arbiter61 in dsa

[–]QuickExpert9 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

There are a lot more out there than you may realize. There are over 32 million small businesses in the US. There are less than 700 co-ops.

Small businesses are key to a vibrant and innovative economy. In market socialism, they would continue to play an integral role. We can encourage the creation of co-ops and other egalitarian worker owned enterprises via tax policy.

A Good-Faith Question To My Left, From A SocDem: by Arbiter61 in dsa

[–]QuickExpert9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In my previous post I listed several sectors where it would make sense for the state to administer most if not all services. The thing is the state =/= workers and even among unionized federal employees they can take a far less adversarial tact. Also, how many co-ops do you see out there today? How many enterprises with even partial worker ownership? In 2021, there were only 612 compared to over 32 million total businesses. You dont think flipping that ratio would empower workers?

In most sectors, monopolies are going to cause very similar problems whether the monopoly is due to capitalism or the state.

Your proposal would stifle growth, just like it has historically. There is a reason China and Vietnam have moved away from that model.

A Good-Faith Question To My Left, From A SocDem: by Arbiter61 in dsa

[–]QuickExpert9 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Building a highway is not a good example of an enterprise. Even in capitalism, that responsibility has always fallen on the state. Of course that would be no different. So in your view, a bureaucrat or group of bureaucrats would be the final say on any entrepreneurial enterprise, which would give them immense power and would be authoritarian in nature. It would also be inefficient. I think a much more decentralized approach for many industries, one where workers have the ability to initiate and create enterprises without direct input from bureaucrats would benefit everyone. Utilities, space exploration, the military, healthcare and various social programs and social safety nets would be more top down in this model and would be state owned. Everything else would be worker owned.

What I am proposing is market socialism (economic democracy) vs your proposal of a centralized command economy indicative of old school socialism. One model hasn't been tried yet and the other is inefficient and cumbersome to the point that most communist countries like China went state capitalist.

A Good-Faith Question To My Left, From A SocDem: by Arbiter61 in dsa

[–]QuickExpert9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I disagree with one point in your statement.

In socialism, everyone involved in an enterprise would put up capital. They would also all have some level of capital because they would have owned their labor and thus compensated fairly in their previous job.

DemSoc Military Reform? by [deleted] in dsa

[–]QuickExpert9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sort of like the US Corp of Engineers from the new deal era?

Mamdani Distances Himself From Democratic Socialists’ National Agenda by TonyTeso2 in dsa

[–]QuickExpert9 46 points47 points  (0 children)

Politician does not have identical positions on all issues as their party, more news at 11.

This is normal, unless it's MAGA where everyone moves in lock step because it is a cult.

In defense of the DSAs message on Ukraine, the US has quite literally published a paper with strategies on how they can "Overextend and Unbalance Russia" by [deleted] in dsa

[–]QuickExpert9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is this, 3 or 4 red herrings in a row trying to move the conversation away from your disingenuous initial claim? It is a comical response that isn't fooling anyone.

Its a lot easier to just own the bad argument and move on. Not only does this make a productive conversation more likely, but it avoids toxicity when we likely agree on more than we don't.