• Poll: Sanders support among young voters drops 'sharply'
    88 replies, posted
Well, for starters, there no NDP Prime Minister in history. Second, along you forgot that Québec only successful federal Party since the 1993, the BQ, which is still survive with 10 seats left in the House of Commons, despite their province’s politics is been change with Independence or Autonomous Québec nationalists are now two common types of Québec nationalism, since the CAQ majority win. That was the case, until the last ten years since one Ex-Liberal MP help their party to accepted. And now they are a Official Opposition Party in PEI, win a federal seat weeks ago, and their leader becoming that likable than the other federal leaders. That now according to the polls, they are slightly rising since last December. Again, if you even look your country’s polls said a different picture with some are going to NDP and Greens because of their mishandling the scandal. ... sure, you keep accidentally acting or downright sounding like a concern troll with that Smartass attitude like right now. It still get nothing across to either compromising and accepting each other’s opinion, even to claimed based on a unintentional imperfect false reality narrative.
If you're seriously trying to say that the NDP or Greens could be the right choice for voters this federal election, you must be terrible at math. Or completely out of your mind. The Liberals still have more support in the polls than the green party and NDP combined, and then some, but they're trailing the Conservatives, as expected. According to CBC's poll tracker, the Greens are projected to win fewer seats than the Bloc fucking Quebecois. Their seats could double or even triple and the party would still be virtually irrelevant on a federal level. There is no timeline or universe in which voting for the Greens would be a responsible choice under FPTP. Much may change between now and the election, but somehow I seriously doubt that will change much. And the NDP is still too far behind to pick up the slack before the election and actually have a chance at forming even a minority government. The writing is on the wall and so far there has been nothing to contradict anything I've said. Talking with you has been like banging my head against a brick wall, and it's 2 AM. I'm going to bed.
Mostly the rule I mentioned about employees themselves assuming the role and benefits of the shareholders, in an egalitarian way preferably. If you want some of the flexibility of capitalism I suppose you can use a hybrid system where outside investors are allowed but get no voting rights on the board, or don't necessarily get their dividends in direct proportion to their investment so that the workers themselves can benefit most. I'm not necessarily a die-hard fan of socialism, but I find some of its ideas interesting and relevant in this day and age where the flaws inherent to capitalism are becoming more and more glaring. I'm against dismissing those ideas outright because ~communism~ or similar guilt by association reasoning.
Again if these folk aren't fans to either Liberals or the second Conservative Parties, and unlike the US with its insane restrictions in its electoral law per constitutions, yours is parliamentary government system, where its a possible chance as a third party gain a win, either 'accidentally' or intentionally. The whole voting system's concept, is literally making a very small near two fraction pie for one of the two questionable major party's win. So how that's complex mathematic? Yea for now, but as along they need to no more creating trouble than already was, then they just be bittersweet of losing more Liberal MPs to becoming Conservative, NDP, Independent, and Green MPs before the next federal election starts? Sure, that's your and the other Canadian FPers definition of "irrelevant" federal (third/sixth (or fifth) political party, but not means becoming as a second semi-visible alternative for both the NDP and Liberals, if they did get 5-9 seats after this next federal election was over. And if the BQ did performed badly (11-6 seats) as these polls could may a bit overpeformed. "You fucken pathetic biased is showing". And it strongly depend how these people are done believing this archaic idea. A course they don't win that best if they win a few to several them, but obliviously overtime they will make both sides of the political spectrum to voting third parties instead the traditional two parties.
I guess in a way that sort of system would heavily discourage investment in the first place, so companies would be much smaller. How would these companies be structured? How would big decisions be made?
So we're not talking about the risk of an elite group of people forming and taking control anymore, I suppose? I'm aware of the practical issues that may arise. Hence why I evoked ideas of compromise that would allow for economic flexibility without giving out on the aspects that would give more control and economic power to the people who actually contribute to growth. How is a company structured under capitalism? Shareholders have power over who directs it, and they can have an influence over its course. Under market socialism, the workers are the shareholders, so they get to enjoy the same power. So basically, a form of democracy, except for private entities. If you want some of the perks of a more liberal system, you could allow for outside investment under the condition that they get a limited say and share of the dividends. Yes, it would discourage investment compared to our ultraliberal system. But the exact same argument could be made -and keeps being made by those that would stand to lose the most from it- against corporate taxation of any kind. And the exact same retort could be made: Even nations that don't have the most lenient taxes still receive investments, because there's money to be made either way. Do those countries receive less investment than their more libertarian neighbors? Perhaps, but to conclude from that that we should have to lower taxes is to give in to a race to the bottom where nobody but the richest wins. It's true for taxes, and it's true for the prospect of introducing more power for the common folk in private institutions, the currently autocratic rule of which is seeping into every pore of our public institutions, lending the keys to both government and corporations to a few, who make them feed one another through corruption and anti-competitive regulation. You argued that they should be made to oppose one another in the first place, capitalism seems to be an opposing force to that goal. Don't forget that, in seizing such power, workers will gain access to capital that would have otherwise been exclusive to investors. Additional revenue they may want to fructify and diversify by investing in other companies, even at a reduced rate, to stabilize their holdings and ensure financial safety. That's additional investment, which may compensate the loss of traditional outside investors to a degree. Workers who hold total power over management are also unlikely to lower their wages to abusive levels unless the survival of the company requires it: This means more buying power for the middle class, which is beneficial to the economy, and a juicier market that may attract outside investors despite the proportionally lower dividends. So, there's seemingly no fundamental flaw that would prevent at least a hybrid system from working out. The question of what level of compromise would be best remains, but whatever the answer is, it will lead to more power for citizens over the hand that feeds them, which is currently hijacking the only entity citizens currently have some power over. Such a change can only be a good thing.
See, hybrid systems are fine. As I'd said earlier, some marriage of the private and public sectors is okay so that neither holds absolute power or too much power. Because when that happens, well, you get today's USA or the Soviet Union of old.
Except we're not talking about the opposition between the public and private sector here. As I've pointed out, under a capitalistic system, the two inexorably end up working together as power concentrates more and more into the hands of a few elites. That goes for social democracy as well, which retains capitalism as its economic system. It sets out to address its most glaring flaws but doesn't change the power dynamic inherent to it: Those who own call the shots in private institutions, and those who work don't get a say. And so the people have to rely exclusively on the government to maintain a check on the rich's agenda, which means they're only a couple of right-wing governments away from rolling back to a neoliberal system, as we're seeing in lots of countries right now. It wouldn't be as easy in a market socialism system, because those who seek such a rollback wouldn't be the kings of their own turf anymore: CEOs would be directly accountable to the workers, and those who work against their interests wouldn't remain for long. It would be much more difficult for lobbying efforts to coordinate when vastly different companies aren't controlled by the same people. I'm not saying that socialistic companies would assume the roles of the public sector, those are two very different things. After all, giving power to the workers wouldn't change much for the unemployed, for instance, which is why you still need a solid and caring government. What I'm saying is that the dichotomy you bring up between public and private is reductive, and ignores the bigger picture. Just saying "a bit of both is good" without calling capitalism itself into question and assuming that's the best we can come up with like some kind of centrist doesn't sound like in-depth reflection to me.
You are though. I'll give you credit for looking at coops as an alternative to state run industry, I'm a fan of the idea, but the idea this means mass proliferation of cooperatives a la market socialism wouldn't inflate the public sector isn't really true. It would necessarily do so because it's a form of mass organization of the people that would be dependent on government. Archangel is also right to suggest that this would create another powerful economic interest group separate from the people at large, meaning it's another distortion of democracy. I also don't understand where you are getting the idea that cooperatives call capitalism itself into question or act as a check on the power of the rich. Cooperatives are not that transformative, they can't do anything more than locally restore a sense of self-ownership that has eroded since industrialization, they are as petty-bourgeois as you can get in terms of socialism. They don't alter any inequality between labor and capital if that's your thing, there's not much reason to believe they can be (spontaneously and independently) exported and scaled to the level of today's economic system (especially now that it's globalizing), and if they aren't coupled with political decentralization it will probably increase social tensions in a way similar to Yugoslavia because that kind of mass participation is complicated by regional inequalities, which usually line up with historical and therefore cultural ones. This would be despite the fact they all fall under one government, whose political divisions would be primarily based on anything but class. Long but decent article on this https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/03/workers-control-coops-wright-wolff-alperovitz/
Basically what tempcon said in the post above mine. To add to that... There is no possibility of a system of government on earth, at least one run by humans, that is incorruptible. Eventually, all systems will fall prey to corruption. That's why the USA is a libertarian dystopia right now despite the fact its laws limiting the freedom of corporations to engage in anti-competitive practises were so reasonable once upon a time. However. Cases in which there is no balance of power to begin with? Where the public sector gets inordinately powerful? Corruption can take hold in just a few years, as opposed to decades or centuries. The reason I was asking so many questions earlier is because I wanted you to detail the way these co-ops and the government would be structured, and I intended to point out how these various companies, even owned by the workers, would need to be part of some larger organized body that would advocate on their behalf, ensuring that conditions remained favorable for such co-ops and worker owned groups in general. In a country the size of the US, by necessity each company would have to elect a representative authorized to make decisions on their behalf, and then groups representing a particular industry (since their interests would align) would have to organize and elect further representatives. Fail to streamline things in this way, and everything gets too bogged down in bureaucracy to function at even a basic level. It's fair to say this big group of industry representatives, each championing the interests of tens or hundreds of companies, would have a lot of political clout. After all, in a socialist system the government is beholden to the will of the workers, and these representatives have been chosen and given power by the workers to speak for them. In this way you have a Congress of sorts. Eventually, the message will go up the chain of command and back to each individual company that the rules need to be changed in the interests of efficiency. It's bad enough that so many different industries have to compete and balance their interests without representatives of those industries having to report back for every little thing and ask permission to make decisions. With more autonomy, greater power will be consolidated within this congress of elites. They could maintain superficial appearances of working in the interests of the people they represent, and since the details would not be widely known, there'd be little resistance. With no competing body of power to keep them in check, corruption would spread as slowly, insidiously and invisibly as a cancer. Laws or regulations that threatened the autonomy of the Party (because let's face it, that's what they are now) would be changed or removed, all in the name of efficiency and removing obstacles to the prosperity of the workers. There'd be nobody left with the political clout to tell them no. How long do you realistically think it'd be until these groups of elites started serving primarily their own interests and those of the few people most necessary to keep them in power? How long until dissidents were repressed for wanting to return to a more equal system, with the excuse that said dissidents wanted to return to a time of corporatist elites? You've seen very well how effective rhetoric and propaganda can be, since Trump was elected and still has so much support. You've seen the decidedly limited intelligence and capacity for critical thought of the average voter. And while the conclusion I've drawn may seem a stretch, if you go back to each step in the process you can see that it's a perfectly logical, pragmatic progression. If you want to make government immune to corruption, have the stitches governed by a sophisticated computer program or AI. And that's only if corruption isn't quietly snuck into its programming.
You mean just like government structures and contract laws allow private institutions to operate? I don't see where you're getting at here. Companies, whether their shareholders are outsiders or the company's workers, rely on the government's backing to enforce contract and corporate law. That doesn't make it more about the public sector at all, unless you're comparing it to an ancap system or something equally asinine. So creating a "powerful economic interest group" that consists in all of the workers aka the majority of your population is not hugely preferable to having powerful interest groups consisting in a tiny minority of very wealthy people? I fail to see the issue here. No idea how you can argue that they don't "alter any inequality between labor and capital" when they literally directly give capital to laborers. The rest of your arguments are about how coops operate within a capitalist environment, which is completely irrelevant to a discussion about market socialism, where cooperative structures are enforced as the norm and don't have to compete domestically with classic capitalistic structures. Not the slightest idea what your point is there, and O don't think I'm alone in that. You'll have to be less nebulous (if it's not another argument about coops within capitalism that is).
My point with the AI thing is that people suck and you can only trust a program not to screw you, provided it's written well enough. More on topic, Tempcon's absolutely right. Just as I pointed out, even with workers being the shareholders, you still need an executive board, you still need CEOs. You can't run a company efficiently with a structure where every single person is consulted on every decision, especially when they lack the qualifications or educational background to know the best course of action. You'd have general votes on big, sweeping changes, but that's all that'd realistically work. As for the need for advocate representatives - We have them under the current system, too. Best case scenario under your system, they're lobbyists just like big corporations have today. The reason I assert they'd represent big industries rather than individual companies is because under a faux socialist system like the one you're describing, it'd be virtually impossible for any one company to reach the size, power or influence of the companies under the US's libertarian system. You wouldn't *have* big individual investors because no individual would be allowed to hoard wealth to that degree unless they were a foreign national, and the growth potential of companies would be limited. Furthermore, the fact that returns on investments would be limited for any investor who wasn't a worker would make it virtually pointless to invest in the first place. Furthermore, even assuming the companies weren't all state-owned, as in your example, the enforcement of competition regulations, which is one of the most basic tenets of a planned economy, would prevent huge mergers of the sort that happen all the time in our system. So the most logical thing these companies could do to make their voices heard on a federal level would be to band together and organize under the banner of their industry, leading to the state of affairs I described in my hypothetical example. Even if they're mere lobbyists, I think these industry representatives would still count as exactly the sort of economic interest group that Tempcon described in his response to you. He saw where I was going with it before I even made my post. I think it's more likely that these groups would eventually have a hand in actual legislation, though. See, in a free market democracy, the government is ostensibly beholden to the people. They can't overtly say they serve the interests of private corporations. That's because these corporations represent only a tiny group of wealthy elites. The way they got around that in the United States was by getting the Supreme Court to rule that corporations were people, in a positively Olympian show of mental gymnastics. In your hypothetical market socialist system, where every company, large and small, would be owned by all of its workers, the government wouldn't need to shy away from directly and openly representing the needs of these industries, as they could just consider them another way to sort their constituents into blocs - based on occupation. It would make good sense, actually - It'd neatly divide the economic needs of many people into categories. You could have a proper congress of unaffiliated elected representatives, but these industry representatives would probably make up a branch of that congress - after all, they'd be elected to represent the workers of those industries. You still get your cadre of elites, you still get the same corruption as under a libertarian system. You've thought about things on a level of individual companies, but haven't given enough thought to how these changes would affect the structure of government on a macro level. Human beings naturally try to consolidate power, and on a national scale, you cannot have direct democracy if you want anything at all to get done - that's why representative democracy exists. These representatives are the aforementioned elites, in every system. And they do all they can to strengthen their own positions. Is the outcome I predict guaranteed? Of course not. Could it happen easily? Absolutely. And when there is an opening for corruption, it's not a matter of if, but when.
More and more studies routinely come out about AI and programs assimilating human bias, even if unintended by the programmers. That's even more true for machine learning algorithms which use lots of human-curated, and thus biased, data. Taking the bias out of an AI is just as hard as removing it from human decisions, if not more. AIs are only impartial and objective in sci-fi movies. Regardless of how dumb completely removing the human factor from the way we govern ourselves is on its own, it doesn't even have the perks you believe it to have. Stop right there. Point out where I said this is how such a structure would work? How could you possibly miss this: Or, you know, the multiple times I said it would simply amount to making workers the shareholders? Do you see every single shareholder being consulted on every decision? No? Then why the fuck would the workers be? Either you have incredibly poor reading comprehension skills or you're just playing dumb and arguing in bad faith. Either way, I don't see the point in taking the time to address the rest of your post if you're not going to make any effort to at least understand the basics before going on such tangents. Especially considering you first claimed you'd ask questions first, which you seemingly very quickly gave up on. Your point is a confused mess. Lots of baseless assumptions, confusion between very basic economic concepts, like profits and dividends, incomprehension as to how a company's board actually works, it's all over the place. And for the record, no, tempcon is not "absolutely right". I can only assume that you read his post very broadly and got the gist that he was agreeing with you without really understanding the specifics of his arguments (no one really does, to be honest, his posts are all pompous, convoluted, yet devoid of substance). What's more, he has the gall to bring up market socialism "not being socialist enough" when he's repeatedly made incoherent rants about France being a failed, leftist state out of the blue whenever I'm in a thread and he feels like it's tangentially relevant. He's just concern trolling here.
Axel, I have remained civil with you, but you're getting extremely emotional about this. The AI thing was a throwaway comment, try not to get stuck on it. There's admittedly a lot of problems that would need to be solved before something like that would even begin to enter the realm of viability, and the technology isn't quite there yet. I'd also like to point out that the shares of a company owned by all its workers would not likely pay out dividends, especially if it was structured like a co-op. They are meant as an incentive to encourage outside investment, and as dividends are usually drawn from a company's profits, which we have assumed would be shared among its workers, that would require those workers to voluntary contribute a portion of their take. If it was not voluntary, or if the workers were not entitled to a fair share of profits, then you're defining a co-op very differently from the standard. In a co-op, workers who are also owners are all entitled to a share of the profits, and I'm assuming that there would not be very many workers who would not own any part of the company they worked for, or it would defeat the whole purpose. Co-ops only pay dividends to outside investors drawn from reserves. These reserves are created from the share of profits generated by workers who are *not* owners. You begin to see the problem here. You misunderstand what I'm saying with regards to tempcon being right. I'm referring to his statement about the eventual establishment of groups of elites - economic interest groups - with a cartel-like structure. I detailed, step by step, how these groups might come about, and even explained my reasoning for why the establishment of such groups would make good sense from the perspective of interfacing with a national government, especially in an economy in which no individual company has the clout to effectively lobby the government on its own. You have yet to submit a single direct refutation to this point, beyond wide, sweeping generalizations about how it's 'incomprehension' or 'baseless speculation'. If you like, we can simply agree to disagree. If you'd rather not leave it here, then I suggest taking a few moments to compose a more logical, less emotional response. Nowhere in tempcon's argument was France mentioned even once, and your history with him isn't really relevant to this discussion.
Sorry, I don't see the point in being civil to intellectually dishonest people when I'm calling them out on their bullshit. Bullshit such as claiming that "I have yet to submit a single refutation" to your point, when anybody who doesn't have shit for eyes can see that I did that in my very previous post, by pointing out that you were wrongly assuming that a socialist company would function through direct democracy. A baseless assumption and solid evidence that you didn't really care about understanding my point despite being apparently adamant to it - yet more evidence of intellectual dishonesty on your part-. If the very first step of your step by step reasoning is wildly erroneous, what do you think this implies about the rest of it? I'd have been interested in discussing this with someone who's genuinely interested in listening to people other than themselves. But someone who only pretends to be interested and barely keeps up the act, doesn't even ensure he's getting the basics right before shoehorning his conclusion in, and then goes on to claim his logic is flawless and that I haven't refuted any of his point despite evidence to the contrary being right in front of his face? Who's fine with using some wannabe-Tudd's concern trolling as backup but doesn't bother addressing my refutation of it? I'd rather waste my time talking to a brick wall.
I honestly think there's something wrong with you. I've never seen someone so aggressively ignorant and willing to misrepresent like you do. I've literally never described France as a failed leftist state nor have I brought up France out of the blue. The argument abou power issues and cartelization that you can find within socialists themselves is more than appropriate here. I already mentioned where my sympathies lied, it was more with coops here. I just thought you are being dishonest when trying to claim scaling cooperatives to a historically unprecedented level would not inflate the public sector, and especially when trying to equivocate this with laws that support a market like IP.
It seems I don't have as ridiculously short a memory as you do, then. Stop playing dumb. It's pretty clear what your position on the matter is. You're concern trolling. I'm only aggressive to those who waste people's time by arguing in bad faith, especially when they then try to characterise their opposition as ignorant despite standing in denial of reality themselves and pretending whatever their opponents point out didn't actually happen. You're not fooling anyone here, except maybe Archangel125 who seems more interested in having people support his arguments than in their quality. Distributing shares from the hands of a few to those who contribute to the economy has nothing to do with strengthening the public sector. Workers are still private citizens, not government workers. Feel free to actually address my rebuttals to your posts.
Good lord, the butthurt here. Very well, be that way. You disappoint me, Axel. And it doesn't escape me that you're deliberately lingering on details that aren't even slightly relevant to the part about cartels, which are basically the main point both me and tempcon are making. And you call us intellectually dishonest? Christ. Then again, perhaps that's all you're capable of. I'd hoped you'd be able to defend your stance, but now I see you're the type of ideologue who loses all reason when cornered.
Nothing here supports the claim that I said France was a leftist or socialist failed state. I specifically use careful wording that France had a historically radical take on liberalism that informs its differences with the Anglosphere. That's not even controversial, you're just too reflexively ignorant to accept anything I say. Also, the explanation for your aggressiveness makes no sense. You've been vitriolic towards me from the start. You just have an attitude problem. It inherently does. Your goal is to create a counterweight to class inequality by reorganizing company ownership. This isn't done through nationalization, which I've already given you credit for since I was already a fan of coops, but legislation mandating a certain kind of structure for companies and (I presume, since it's part of your counterweight) programs coordinating the movement of the working class into these companies. This large scale organization of the populace and greater cooperation between businesses and the state qualifies as expansion of the public sector. You do not need to have everyone become a government worker to do this. That's why I felt the need to correct you as you were debating Archangel. The point him and I are making is that the large scale reorganization of the economy to be constituted by cooperatives for the sake of a counterweight is essentially a mild form of corporatism. This has always been the norm for non-Marxist varieties of socialism, from social-democracy to syndicalism to market socialism. That's why I mentioned Marxist and anarchist views of it while linking the Jacobin magazine article. And yes, those varieties have issues with cartelization of the economy and state capitalism. How you handled Archangel's concerns about issues of power has been deplorable, you essentially have been trying to bully him into ditching those concerns.
I find it ironic that you talk about being disappointed by me and my "deliberate lingering" when a post ago you were bragging about having a flawless reasoning and my apparently not refuting a single point, despite evidence to the contrary being in the very post you were quoting, and you still haven't acknowledged that. Kind of rich for someone who accuses me of being an irrational ideologue. Now you've moved the goalposts to "the rest of my point was unrelated anyway!", and I don't feel like going through the effort of making you smell your shit from up close once again and forcing you to recognise that it isn't the case. I signed up for a reasoned discussion, not an argument where the opposite side completely ignores my points because they'd rather listen to themselves.
Okay, I'll humor you. I missed your line about there being an executive board accountable to voters, and as such I assumed your companies would be run by direct vote. The reason I brought up my point about the need for representative vs direct democracy at all was because you said: So creating a "powerful economic interest group" that consists in all of the workers aka the majority of your population is not hugely preferable to having powerful interest groups consisting in a tiny minority of very wealthy people? I fail to see the issue here In so saying, you proved you'd missed his point by miles, as well as mine. I then proceeded to meticulously lay out, step by step, the way in which those special interest groups would by necessity arise in the form of industry cartels. A point I can't help but notice you're still desperately dodging, because you haven't come up with a counterargument yet. After all, it's not like the central premise of both my argument and his was that these groups of elites would end up so far removed from the individual workers by layers of separation that there would be very little accountability in proportion to their power and influence, practically inviting corruption. No, of course not. Then you started to get emotional and dismissed entire arguments as 'baseless speculation' without actually addressing them, started picking on such trivialities as those I'm finally addressing in this post, and have now gone full retard, all without raising a single legitimate point to dispute the possibility for abuse in the system you wanted, in all the ways myself and tempcon have tried to make you see. I only regret the many hours I spent carefully composing responses to you, in the hopes you'd show some intellectual honesty and we'd have a stimulating discussion. Those are hours of my life I'm never going to get back.
The state enacting change in how companies and the economy functions does not automatically equate to strengthening the public sector. By that logic the government privatising national industry would be considered strengthening the public sector, which is absurd. The state mandating certain rules over how companies function does not equate to strengthening the public sector either. If that were the case, then contract law, which is a basic requirement for companies to be able to do business, would be considered to be strengthening the public sector. To the contrary, by punishing those who violate contracts, the government is lending private enterprises legal backup so that they can do business in a reliable manner. That's strengthening the private sector. I've already made that rebuttal, and I expect that you know this if you actually made the effort of reading my posts. Thanks for making me repeat myself once again. What I need is to take a break from morons, which is exactly what I'm doing.
All parties involved are just talking past each other. None of you haven’t done that.
Not going to justify your name-calling with a response, but you're using a massive false equivalency here. You're equating a law that says that "People must keep their agreements with each other" to one that forces companies to structure themselves in a certain way and share ownership in a certain way. You know what? Forget it. I'm wasting my breath.
Probably should just put it to rest at this point, it was still an okay discussion. Not something usually covered here.
I see, you missed my... Wait, my two... No, my three... Okay, the four lines where I pointed this out to you, and then you still went: Are you going to pretend that this wouldn't piss you off as much as it does me? Does it look like you're arguing in good faith to you?
I don't think it's quite possible at this stage of the political discourse to even really discuss the nuanced differences between social liberalism, democratic socialism and market socialism when most of us are still stuck on the 'socialism=communism' and 'anarcho-capitalism vs basic welfare' side of things. When we're still debating whether or not the public should be allowed to have universal healthcare or whether or not trickle-down economics is a thing, it's kind of putting the cart before the horse here. For it's own sake, I don't think people here necessarily understand what market socialism actually is or what is proposing to be. It isn't, for example, opening a third branch or extra institution from the public and private sectors. It's also not about empowering the public sector or centralizing power within governments. But when we're at such an early stage at defining things in the public discourse, where most people associate the term of socialism only with centralizing government power and everything still exists on a simplistic left-right/liberal-conservative spectrum, it isn't really possible to get into greater nuances without a lot of extra context and not be talking past each other.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.