Comment on Google Calendar removes Pride Month and Black History Month
kava@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoYou said you’re not pushing socialism, but you didn’t offer what you do support, so I’ll speak broadly.
I’m a big of a nihilist here. I think free market capitalism is a terrible system that will inevitably crash and fail. It is also the best thing we have come up with so far. Essentially Churchill’s quote. I only hope that after our next foray into fascism we will come out the other side with a new 21st century ideology that is somehow able to fix the fundamental contradictions.
I really support Liberalism (and I mean you know, freedom of speech, free market, pursuit of happiness, etc). I would always prefer to live in a society that gives me the freedom to live life on my terms. In theory, we could have a socialist version of this, but I think like we discussed it falls victim to precisely the same fate. When the Soviets initially took power, they were genuine in their desire for revolution. They did many great things- they created written languages for all of the local ethnicities that didn’t have them. They put local leaders in positions of power. They increased literacy and invested in education strictly for altruism.
That only lasted a couple short decades, however, because the wheels of power inevitably turn.
Here’s the thing, I think you make great points. And the solutions you propose would benefit the system both in the short and long term. But I think collapse is inevitable anyway, and specifically collapse into fascism. Perhaps in a system where the institutions are strong and we have policies in the line of what you’re suggesting (campaign finance reform, proportional representation, etc. I’d even say higher salaries for politicians counter intuitively) will last a long time.
But ultimately, it’s the classic criminal versus police officer. You can put up a border wall to stop drugs coming in, they’ll go under the ground. You put ground penetrating radar sensors, they build DIY-submarines. You invest in a coast guard, they build drones. Etc Etc
It’s a constant battle that requires constant vigilance. However, here’s the kicker. Here’s the reason why it will always inevitably fail.
The people with significant wealth and by extension power- they will always have incentive to change the system to their advance and they will always have the ability to influence it. They will never stop trying to come up with new ways to either exploit current laws or create new ones.
The average people, the consumers and voters, they will sometimes have the incentive to change the system and they will sometimes have the ability to influence it. In times of trouble, people get upset and they start protesting. They start voting for new measures, different policies get enacted. Like you mentioned, we broke up Standard Oil. Or when we broke up the Bell Telephone Company.
During that time people were both discontent, which means they had the incentive to change the system and coincidentally that also gives them the ability to influence the system- politicians are only scared into making positive change for the average person when there is large scale dissent.
But what happened to both of those examples (and virtually every other anti-trust regulation we’ve ever tried to implement)?
Today, Bell Telephone’s descendant is AT&T- a behemoth of a megacorp that participates in an oligopoly over the telecommunications market. Today, Standard Oil’s descendant is Exxon Mobil and remains the largest oil and gas company in the US.
What happened here? Well, the public interest eventually fades. Some other crisis shows up on the news channels and people become content with their lives. If the economy is doing well, people are paying their bills, etc, they don’t care. If they economy isn’t, the politicians have become exceedingly proficient at redirecting that discontent towards scapegoats (today it’s immigrants for example).
So, it’s a simple math equation. Let’s say the corporations win 51% of the coin flips and the free market / law abiding public wins 49% of the time. For a very long time, it can stay more or less even. Cops versus robbers- the equilibrium stays intact.
But imagine a limit that goes to infinity. What happens? Eventually the interest of wealth wins. Now, different societies can have different coin flip ratios.
I think our society is nowhere near 51% / 49%. I think your solutions would bring us closer to that 50 / 50 but due to again, the very nature of the capitalist system- the law will never be in the driving seat.
Two very simple axioms determine that, which we have discussed above
-
wealth tends to accumulate due to economies of scale
-
wealth leads to power and power self-perpetuates
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Yeah, the most likely formulation is free market socialism, as in, lots of worker-owned co-ops, but goods are traded in a free market. Those co-ops need to be relatively small, to avoid any one org from having too much control.
Agreed. And cops. You tend to get what you pay for.
Sure, and the way to stop drugs from coming in is to make that trade unprofitable. Legalize drugs, and provide safe ways to use even the hardest drugs. If you do that, the few people who want it can get it in a safe way (i.e. trip out at your local pharmacy), and you don’t get all of the violence that comes with black market trade.
But no, “drugs bad,” and the public wants to control “bad” things. The government shouldn’t be deciding what is “good” or “bad,” but how to provide a desired service in a way that doesn’t hurt others. Ideally, we end up with open borders because criminals no longer have an incentive to relocate (at least more-so than regular immigrants).
True, and that’s going to be the case regardless of the system you choose. The bigger the potential profit, the more care needs to be taken in crafting and enforcing laws.
They don’t also own the railroads and whatnot. The issue w/ Standard Oil was the sheer amount of infrastructure they controlled, not that they were the biggest player in their market. As long as the profit motive is to produce goods at competitive rates, it’s not a problem that they’re raking in crazy profits. But once they get a monopoly, the incentive changes to killing competition so they can raise prices, which also gives them massive leverage against government (no more oil unless I get <concession>).
The way it seems to work like the typical boom/bust business cycle. In the stock market, we tend to get 7-10 years of boom, followed by 1-2 years of bust, and the cycle repeats. Likewise, we get a build-up of problems, and then we pass some key legislation or do a high-profile anti-trust breakup, and the system kind of resets.
The issue we’re left with is whether these corrections are sufficient, or if, like stock valuations, there’s an upward trend of giving corporations too much power. I worry there is, because we don’t seem willing to make the painful changes we need to get a deep enough correction (e.g. we should’ve let more banks fail in 2008, fix election process, etc).
I guess the main difference is that I think things are salvageable. However, we need to rethink the interaction between government and the market, and stop expecting government to solve all our problems. Government is a pretty big hammer, and we need to be very careful breaking it out since it can cause a lot of problems in a hurry.
kava@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
To be honest, I think we are very ideologically aligned. I agree that government power is something that should be used with very precise care. Look at what happens for example when we introduce Pell Grants, giving lower income kids the opportunity to go to college.
That sounds great, right? Who doesn’t support that? Well, I sure want poor kids to be afforded the opportunity to go to school.
But look at what actually happens. Now you have a whole new class of people with a sizable chunk of government money. The demand for college goes up. Tuition rates skyrocket. The few thousand you get from the Pell Grant is now meaningless and it counter intuitively costs you more even with the grant.
Kamala was campaigning “taxes incentives for first time homeowners!” Great. Who is going to say to no to that, right? Support young families. Sure.
What would inevitably happen? Large increase in spending => large increase in price. So if they get a $10,000 tax credit but the houses are $15,000 more expensive- what’s the difference? These are arbitrary numbers, obviously, and not borne out of some analysis.
But yes, I agree 100%. I rather like Chomsky’s take on this. Every single use of government power should be consistently and continually challenged. Every single time the government spends a dollar, it needs to be transparent and justified and there needs to be a way to challenge it.
The thing is, government spending is not inherently a bad thing. Government action sometimes is exactly what is needed. For example in an economic crisis, government stimulus can be enough to turn things around or at least ameliorate the situation for the working class.
But and the big but - and the but that basically had made me lose all faith in democracy over the last 10 years or so is the way you put it
Politicians do not do what is rational. They do what is popular. These are two separate things entirely. And even worse, they can modify what is popular with a variety of mechanisms. For a simple example- look at the death tax. You ask average Americans whether they support a death tax, they will say of course not. It sounds absurd, right?
If you call it an inheritance tax, all of a sudden majority of people support it.
So yeah, I think you’re right in that we more or less align on what the ideal system should be but you still believe in the ideals of the Enlightenment and believe that egalitarianism and liberty is possible.
I think humanity is brutal and stupid by nature and we are bound to be ruled by people with strength. I think all government systems eventually deteriorate into fancy feudalism.
For a bit of an absurd statement- I think what we need to do is create a constitution that is very explicit. And then what we need to do is let an AI enforce it. Assuming the AI is objective and not able to be influenced, I think then and only then would we have a free society.