Changing times: Socialist Kshama Sawant wins council seat in Seattle - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42897876]You call that success?[/QUOTE] In the condition of civil unrest and war, the fact that a decentralized but organized union of workers was able to democratically work out how to best prepare for war and balance with the needs is impressive. Perhaps not the most lighthearted example but it does prove the fact that a mobilized working class can organize to produce. [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=BusterBluth;42898343]Good lord it's a city council seat. All sorts of loons get elected[/QUOTE] It's actually not that uncommon for socialists to make it into politics. There's something like 2 or 3 socialists in mayoral positions at any given year, and Milwaukee has a history of electing back-to-back Socialist Party politicians as their mayor. Further, there's one self-proclaimed socialist in the Senate right now, though he's really a social democrat.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42899078']In the condition of civil unrest and war, the fact that a decentralized but organized union of workers was able to democratically work out how to best prepare for war and balance with the needs is impressive. Perhaps not the most lighthearted example but it does prove the fact that a mobilized working class can organize to produce.[/QUOTE] Yet from my reading of the war, it appeared as though the Republican forces suffered from constant supply shortages and logistics problems?

[QUOTE=Megafan;42897643]Well, regardless of what Socialism is, do you really think Capitalism is about your own individual freedom? Do you think people working under unlivable wages paycheck-to-paycheck is caring about the individual? Do you think people constantly struggling to afford college so that they might be able to get a decent middle-class job is caring about the individual? That's not caring, that's leaving people in the cold. Can you call that 'freedom'?[/QUOTE] Neither can a system that guarantees income to those people be called caring. The money is involuntarily collected through threats of violence against peaceful people and redistributed to others. Why can't we give people the option to choose to give to the lower class? Capitalism gives freedom to the individual in the sense of full responsibility for their actions. If you don't work towards getting a higher income, then nobody is going to help you, but nobody is going to stop you from putting forth the effort either. A lot of government regulations tend to make it more difficult to start small businesses, while letting the existing ones remain in power since they already have the profits to cover whatever expenses would increase. College also really isn't that necessary anymore. With resources like Kahn Academy, and MIT's free online lectures, you can get a college education for the price of your internet connection. All you lose is the piece of paper. Part of the other issue with college prices is that the government hands out loans to just about anyone who applies for them. As a result the colleges end up getting their money anyways regardless of how high they set their prices, because the government is going to pay them anyways. If the student loan system was abolished, then either colleges will lower their prices to try to attract this sudden market of poor students, or a degree would not become the norm for any job anymore, since it's no longer something anyone can get. If jobs still were to require that people have a degree before even being considered, then it's their own loss by turning an entire category of otherwise qualified people.

[QUOTE=halofreak472;42899515]Neither can a system that guarantees income to those people be called caring. The money is involuntarily collected through threats of violence against peaceful people and redistributed to others. Why can't we give people the option to choose to give to the lower class? Capitalism gives freedom to the individual in the sense of full responsibility for their actions. If you don't work towards getting a higher income, then nobody is going to help you, but nobody is going to stop you from putting forth the effort either. A lot of government regulations tend to make it more difficult to start small businesses, while letting the existing ones remain in power since they already have the profits to cover whatever expenses would increase.[/quote] Unless you honestly believe the capitalist system is a pure meritocracy where people achieve simply through effort alone, almost none of this is true. Not to mention the fact that starting up small businesses can't be the only way for someone to break out of poverty. There have to be more career options available in order for everyone to participate. [QUOTE=halofreak472;42899515]College also really isn't that necessary anymore. With resources like Kahn Academy, and MIT's free online lectures, you can get a college education for the price of your internet connection. All you lose is the piece of paper.[/quote] This is all very nice, but employers whether public or private would prefer to have some evidence of your educations rather than just take your word for it. That education may improve you as a person but it won't get you anywhere unless you're a Bill Gates or someone with a lot of time and pre-existing financial security. [QUOTE=halofreak472;42899515]Part of the other issue with college prices is that the government hands out loans to just about anyone who applies for them. As a result the colleges end up getting their money anyways regardless of how high they set their prices, because the government is going to pay them anyways. If the student loan system was abolished, then either colleges will lower their prices to try to attract this sudden market of poor students, or a degree would not become the norm for any job anymore, since it's no longer something anyone can get. If jobs still were to require that people have a degree before even being considered, then it's their own loss by turning an entire category of otherwise qualified people.[/QUOTE] Students [I]right now[/I] are quite poor. If the universities were genuinely concerned with their students' ability to afford them this would have happened already. Again, this is a great hypothetical scenario assuming the whole white-collar jobs market which now requires a college degree falls apart, but that would be disastrous for the economy in general.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42899169]Yet from my reading of the war, it appeared as though the Republican forces suffered from constant supply shortages and logistics problems?[/QUOTE] Yes, because y'know, they had supply shortages. Because they controlled like 1/3-1/2 of the country on a good day and were being blocked by France and had absolutely no international support except for the stingy Soviets with ulterior motivation. These shortages were not mismanagement of the economy by any means, but actual literal shortages that were the consequence of [I]being in the unpopular side of a war against a better supported and better prepared enemy[/I]. The communists had logistics problems, the anarchists and liberals less so.

[QUOTE=Megafan;42899619]Unless you honestly believe the capitalist system is a pure meritocracy where people achieve simply through effort alone, almost none of this is true. Not to mention the fact that starting up small businesses can't be the only way for someone to break out of poverty. There have to be more career options available in order for everyone to participate.[/quote] Starting a small business isn't the only way, but it is one of the ways. But putting more regulations on businesses won't open up the job market, because they tend to make employees a bigger hassle to maintain, be it through costs or other workplace benefits needed to provide for them. The biggest example of this being minimum wage. Making hiring more employees a less attractive option won't get you anywhere. As for effort, no, hard work alone won't help, it's working towards a skill that will allow you to create something of value. For instance, India, everyone's favorite shithole, is a source of extremely good programmers, because that skillset is their ticket out of there. [QUOTE=Megafan;42899619]This is all very nice, but employers whether public or private would prefer to have some evidence of your educations rather than just take your word for it. That education may improve you as a person but it won't get you anywhere unless you're a Bill Gates or someone with a lot of time and pre-existing financial security.[/quote] That's why you work on projects and such to show off your skills. A degree alone won't get you a job in any decently paying field, you always need something more on your resume to make you look attractive. [QUOTE=Megafan;42899619]Students [I]right now[/I] are quite poor. If the universities were genuinely concerned with their students' ability to afford them this would have happened already. Again, this is a great hypothetical scenario assuming the whole white-collar jobs market which now requires a college degree falls apart, but that would be disastrous for the economy in general.[/QUOTE] There are already universities out there that provide financial support for their students, some that have a package that even makes it free. If we assume that all universities are selfish, then they're alienating a very large group of potential customers by keeping prices incredibly high. The reason they can keep them like that is because students keep borrowing money from the government to pay it anyways.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42899620']Yes, because y'know, they had supply shortages. Because they controlled like 1/3-1/2 of the country on a good day and were being blocked by France and had absolutely no international support except for the stingy Soviets with ulterior motivation. These shortages were not mismanagement of the economy by any means, but actual literal shortages that were the consequence of [I]being in the unpopular side of a war against a better supported and better prepared enemy[/I]. The communists had logistics problems, the anarchists and liberals less so.[/QUOTE] You what? [url]http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.txt[/url] [quote]These factory closures were justified by several arguments: they were unhealthy for workers, or unhealthy for consumers, or just plain "inefficient." As Bolloten explains, "after the first few weeks of widespread and uncoordinated seizures, some of the unions began a systematic reorganization of entire trades, closing down hundreds of small plants and concentrating production in those with the best equipment."[35] It is worth noting that Spain was still in the midst of the Great Depression, with overall Spanish industrial production in 1935 about 13% below the 1929 level. Production in July of 1936 was itself about 18% below the January 1936 level, so the existence of unused capacity is no surprise.[36] What is odd is that in the midst of massive unemployment the Anarchists closed down a large percentage of the remaining firms instead of inviting unemployed workers to join them.[/quote] Basically: * Loads of factories and industries were closed down for a plethora of reasons, and industrial production fell * Unemployment was high, so it made little sense to shut them down when you had a surplus of workers lying around * Shutting down a lot of factories and moving around equipment and reorganizing everything seemed like a waste, and was counterproductive to the war effort [quote]With government recognition came government regulation, as Fraser indicates: "Works councils, elected by an assembly decision of the workers and representing all sectors of the enterprise, were to administer the collectivized factory, 'assuming the functions and responsibilities of the former board of directors.' A Generalitat representative was chosen, in agreement with the workers, to sit on each council. Collectivized enterprises (and private firms under workers' control) in each sector of industry would be represented in an Economic Federation, in turn topped by a general industrial council which would closely control the whole industry. Fifty percent of a collectivized firm's profit would go to an industrial and commercial credit fund which would have to finance all Catalan industry; 20 per cent was to be put to the collective's reserve and depreciation fund; 15 per cent to the collective's social needs, and the remaining 15 per cent to be allocated by the workers as they decided in a general assembly."[38] Bolloten reports that this measure was "sponsored by the CNT and signed by its representative in the government, Juan P. Fabregas, the councilor of the economy."[39] Thus, the principle of genuine worker control was quickly cast aside in favor of something much more similar to state-socialism; a mere 15% of the profits were, under the law, under the discretionary control of the workers.[/quote] * The workers quickly lost control as the CNT introduced control of the factories and seized profits. [quote]There was some internal opposition to these measures; Fabregas' successor de Santillan indicated hostility to some features, and did not strictly enforce the law. More importantly, there was a huge loophole - firms had to pay a percentage of their profits . To eliminate the exaction, one merely need eliminate the profits. With worker control, there is a simple way to do this: keep raising wages until the "profits" disappear. Taxes on profits - which is what the Decree amounted to - will raise revenue if the workers and the owners are different people; but with worker control such taxes are simple to evade. Witness after witness reports the abolition of piece-work, improvement of working conditions, lavish non-wage compensation, and so on. This is initially surprising; if the workers run the factory, don't they pay the price of hampering production? Not if the government taxes away most of the workers' profits. As Thomas states, "[T]he industrial syndicalism of Barcelona kept, unlike the rural anarchists, to individual wages, and did not experiment with family wages. These wages probably increased, it is true, in late 1936 by about a third over July. But the effect was ruined by the inflation, due to a fall in production, shortage of credit, as well as an influx of refugees from Castille and Aragon."[40] [/quote] * The workers responded by simply making sure the government couldn't get any profit at all, this in turn led to further supply and production problems

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42897750]private property violates the ideals of both collectivism and individualism(as i endorse them) and it cannot exist in any system that views these things as necessary.[/QUOTE] what would it even mean for a society to not have private property? I can't imagine that

[QUOTE=Antlerp;42892268]It's the beginning of new era at the very least for Seattle, as the failure of the current American system to represent the people has become apparent.[/QUOTE] uhhhhhh the fact that they were electing is showing that our system is working what are you saying

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42897613']Also I don't think, as a socialist, that it doesn't give a fuck about the individual. Any socialist will tell you, short of Stalinists perhaps, that the individual flourishing is the ideological end goal of socialism, but socialists believe that we can only reach that point through collectivist social organizing. To free the individual, we must free them from burden and establish a social order in which the fullest potential of each individual, free from coercion, can occur.[/QUOTE] You can't have "collectivist social organizing" without coercion unless it isn't forced... which means EVERYONE has to already agree that it's the right course of action before actually doing anything. That literally never happens in the real world. On a national scale socialism, realistically, depends on coercion because you will never get everyone to agree to participate in anything.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42900200]You can't have "collectivist social organizing" without coercion unless it isn't forced... which means EVERYONE has to already agree that it's the right course of action before actually doing anything. That literally never happens in the real world. On a national scale socialism, realistically, depends on coercion because you will never get everyone to agree to participate in anything.[/QUOTE] so if one or two people in a community don't consent then the community will collapse?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42900403]so if one or two people in a community don't consent then the community will collapse?[/QUOTE] All they have to do is find one single thing they can produce more efficiently than the community at large and the whole thing collapses.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42900582]All they have to do is find one single thing they can produce more efficiently than the community at large and the whole thing collapses.[/QUOTE] why?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42900596]why?[/QUOTE] Before I answer that, are we under the assumption that people are self-interested when making economic decisions? (aka. they want the best possible outcome for themselves and their families when making personal economic decisions)

[QUOTE=sgman91;42900635]Before I answer that, are we under the assumption that people are self-interested when making economic decisions? (aka. they want the best possible outcome for themselves and their families when making personal economic decisions)[/QUOTE] not exactly. it's a bit more complicated then that actually. looking at it as a matter of self-interest or "altruism" is simplistic.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42900696]not exactly. it's a bit more complicated then that actually. looking at it as a matter of self-interest or "altruism" is simplistic.[/QUOTE] My point is this: I assume your socialist system will still have some sort of currency for easy exchange? If so, will a person get a product for the least amount of currency that they possibly can? (that's what I mean by self-interested)

[QUOTE=sgman91;42900713]My point is this: I assume your socialist system will still have some sort of currency for easy exchange? If so, will a person get a product for the least amount of currency that they possibly can? (that's what I mean by self-interested)[/QUOTE] "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" i'm a communist. i don't agree with forms of socialism that involve currency.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42900725]"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" i'm a communist. i don't agree with forms of socialism that involve currency.[/QUOTE] Wait, so you believe that a centralized body can actually know everyone's ability and need/desires?

[QUOTE=sgman91;42900732]Wait, so you believe that a centralized body can actually know everyone's ability and need?[/QUOTE] nope

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42900733]nope[/QUOTE] So who's deciding the ability and need? Also, we obviously aren't talking about living on the edge of starvation. So by need you actually mean desire.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42900739]So who's deciding the ability and need? Also, we obviously aren't talking about living on the edge of starvation. So by need you actually mean desire.[/QUOTE] people who want stuff and people who make stuff making agreements with each other in a decentralized system.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42900745]people who want stuff and people who make stuff making agreements with each other in a decentralized system.[/QUOTE] Without private property, correct?

[QUOTE=sgman91;42900749]Without private property, correct?[/QUOTE] none whatsoever.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42900752]none whatsoever.[/QUOTE] So what's stopping me from making a TON of things that no one wants and in the process taking the raw materials from other people who actually want to make things that people want? Also, what kind of agreement are we talking here? Can you give a simple example of what two people might agree on?

[QUOTE=sgman91;42900758]So what's stopping me from making a TON of things that no one wants and in the process taking the raw materials from other people who actually want to make things that people want?[/QUOTE] nothing i guess. why would you want to make something no one wants? do you really want to waste your day working but produce nothing useful or desirable? wouldn't it seem like a better usage of your time to produce things that your community or another community would find desirable? [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] i mean if you're not gonna produce something desirable you might as well stay home and not work at all lol i wouldn't waste my time doing shit no one wanted me to do. [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;42900758] Also, what kind of agreement are we talking here? Can you give a simple example of what two people might agree on?[/QUOTE] community A wants more bicycles because there are some people without bicycles who want bicycles so the community petitions a bicycle factory asking for any extra surplus of bicycles they make so that they can fulfill their need. the factory looks at whether they have the capacity to make as many bicycles as needed and will agree to supply the full amount of bicycles, part of the amount, or decline to produce any bicycles for that community.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42900769]nothing i guess. why would you want to make something no one wants? do you really want to waste your day working but produce nothing useful or desirable? wouldn't it seem like a better usage of your time to produce things that your community or another community would find desirable? [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] i mean if you're not gonna produce something desirable you might as well stay home and not work at all lol i wouldn't waste my time doing shit no one wanted me to do.[/QUOTE] Hobbies? Let's say I like working with bronze. So every day I go out and make bronze statues. I think they look great, but no one else likes them. [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42900769]community A wants more bicycles because there are some people without bicycles who want bicycles so the community petitions a bicycle factory asking for any extra surplus of bicycles they make so that they can fulfill their need. the factory looks at whether they have the capacity to make as many bicycles as needed and will agree to supply the full amount of bicycles, part of the amount, or decline to produce any bicycles for that community.[/QUOTE] Why would the people working in the factory work harder to make more bicycles when there's literally zero incentive? It seems like you expect complete altruism, in every sense of the word. In fact, why are they working in the factory at all?

Looks like another "Socialism > everything" thread, boys. Get your fedoras out. Pure Capitalism is horrible in practice just like Pure Socialism is horrible in practice. Instead of being concerned whether this woman's socialist or not, be concerned on what she'll do for everyone's benefits, not just to make a political statement.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42900783]Hobbies? Let's say I like working with bronze. So every day I go out and make bronze statues. I think they look great, but no one else likes them.[/QUOTE] again, why would you make something that no one finds desirable? even with a hobby you are producing something, not only for yourself, but generally for other people. i mean i take pride in playing guitar for other people and showing off my songs to my friends and family. if everyone else hated the way i played guitar i would probably just stop doing it. i take pride in writing and like showing my writing to other people if other people didn't like my writing i would probably not ever do it. i mean yea it's great to please yourself with your own work, but there is something incredibly satisfying about creating something that enriches the lives of other people and that's generally one of the main draws to working or any sort of hobby. [quote]Why would the people working in the factory work harder to make more bicycles when there's literally zero incentive? It seems like you expect complete altruism, in every sense of the word.[/quote] they wouldn't necessarily "work harder". the factory would probably have an estimate of how many bikes they could produce on any given day and be willing to supply bikes until they meet that "quota". [quote]In fact, why are they working in the factory at all?[/quote] because i understand that other people need bicycles, i understand how to put the parts together to arrange a bicycle, and i feel a sense of empowerment creating something that benefits other people in some way.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42900810]again, why would you make something that no one finds desirable? even with a hobby you are producing something, not only for yourself, but generally for other people. i mean i take pride in playing guitar for other people and showing off my songs to my friends and family. if everyone else hated the way i played guitar i would probably just stop doing it. i take pride in writing and like showing my writing to other people if other people didn't like my writing i would probably not ever do it. i mean yea it's great to please yourself with your own work, but there is something incredibly satisfying about creating something that enriches the lives of other people and that's generally one of the main draws to working or any sort of hobby. they wouldn't necessarily "work harder". the factory would probably have an estimate of how many bikes they could produce on any given day and be willing to supply bikes until they meet that "quota". because i understand that other people need bicycles, i understand how to put the parts together to arrange a bicycle, and i feel a sense of empowerment creating something that benefits other people in some way.[/QUOTE] In the end it comes down to you believing that people are inherently good and will work hard without outside incentive and me believing the opposite, namely, that without incentive the vast majority of people simply won't put in much effort.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42900830]In the end it comes down to you believing that people are inherently good and will work hard without outside incentive and me believing the opposite, namely, that without incentive the vast majority of people simply won't put in much effort.[/QUOTE] the incentive is that you want to live in a world where people have bikes. the incentive is that you don't want to be the guy who sits around all day doing nothing productive; such a life is devoid of meaning. as someone who is constantly unemployed due the industries i work in, i would know. when you know that your community is able and willing to provide for your needs and desires, you feel a natural urge to take part to make that community even greater. it's not perfect, but people are, in general, collectivist creatures. we want to be part of a group. we want to contribute to that group. we want to reap the benefits that come from working together on projects and dividing our labor to produce things that we couldn't produce on our own.