mozz

I wrote about Biden, and you started debating me. Is it fair for me to ask you to read a few thousand words about what Biden's done, if you wish to debate me about his record? I can find some extensive summary and send it to you. That's way less than you're asking me to read before I debate you about communism.

Care to share the examples

Sure, USSR and China are the big countries which converted to communism, and then in both cases millions of people starved. You said famines were common even in the feudal system in Russia, I think, but that's not fully accurate -- I mean, they happened, but not with anything like the same frequency, under the same technological-efficiency backdrop, or for simple reasons of management (there was generally some external reason like a drought). And the USSR had trouble providing basic necessities to its people for all its existence, even worse than the failures the US has to provide basic necessities. And they both have much more barbaric prison systems even than the US's fairly barbaric prison system.

China's different because at this point it's working "well" economically, but at the cost of personal individual freedom and working conditions -- I mean, the exploitation that the US is doing of global work force (which is very real) is often happening to workers inside China, so you can't really say that enacting China's system here would be a solution to the problems of the US. All it would do is import the exploitation of Chinese workers to happen to American workers too (i.e. much worse than their already pretty significant level of exploitation.)

(I realize all that is huge oversimplification, and those might not be the models you would choose, which I why I keep asking over and over again for details of the model you would choose.)

Good standard of living, press freedom, and basic necessities met" hasn't been achieved anywhere IMO, especially if you consider the global context

Agreed. I think the closest that's been achieved was probably the New Deal-era American economy (such as it was available to white people) up until around the 1960s. Basically, a strong organized working class backed by unions, exerting control over a democratic government to push back against the control that capital wants to exert over the levers of power.

Basically what I would think is the next step would be to extend that to all races, get back to unions as a unit of political power instead of political parties and a whole specialized class of lobbyists and consultants that work in Washington providing change "from above," reform some of the worst evils of money in politics and barbaric foreign policy, and see where that gets us. Because even that is far far away from where it should be. But that to me seems like a more sensible step than trying to make a more centralized economic structure, and assuming that the issues of who winds up in charge of the central planning will take care of themselves.

(Not that I'm saying that that last is what you're advocating -- just talking about my sort of stereotype view of what "getting rid of capitalism" as a solution might look like.)

I mean I think you probably see what I'm getting at -- I'm suspicious of how this will work out in practice. In particular, I'm suspicious of the idea of shutting down private property, or centrally managing the economy; it sounds like a solution for the ills of capitalism but I'm aware of a couple of big examples where the way it's been implemented has turned into a living nightmare, and not produced the economic happiness it was supposed to produce.

Surely it's fair to ask how it's worked out in practice? You know, the metric being good standard of living, happy people, press freedom, basic necessities being met, that kind of thing. I'm not saying you have to copy another country exactly but surely it's relevant to look at examples. No?

Not saying you have to copy another country but also, like, if we were going to replace all the cars in a country with some other mode of transportation, it's fair to ask, okay where do they use that and how does it work? If it works well then cool, that's an indication of good things, and if not then maybe some lessons we can learn about how to implement it better here. Doesn't that seem fair?

I was setting out to talk about the election, nothing about capitalism. You brought capitalism into it, I think. I actually think capitalism constrained by a very strong democratic government is the best system (historically) in terms of good quality of life and free environment for people inside and outside the country, that I'm aware of, but I don't really know.

I don't think it's fair to ask me to read a bunch of leftist theory before I have an opinion either on the election or on economics. I have my opinion on it and maybe it comes across as lecturing sometimes, but genuinely I'm just saying what I think.

I think I've been asking a bunch of questions, in general, trying to understand. No?

1. Congress and the Electoral College would likely be replaced by worker councils, with democratic representatives.
2. Private Property would eventually be removed, personal property would remain.
3. Some level of central planning would almost certainly be employed.

Got it. Do you have examples of places this approach has been employed and worked well during the 150 years or so of socialism/communism being around?

Ha, fair enough. So let me rephrase: I am not "reaching out to disaffected leftists." I'm just saying how I see it and why. If someone's triggered by seeing a comment saying some good things Biden has done and starts literally shaking and crying and decides I am wrong about everything, then it is a shame but I don't think it needs to be my responsibility to prevent that. I think that person needs to become capable over time of seeing things they disagree with without freaking out about it. It'll be good for them.

Maybe that is a majority of Lemmy, IDK (and certainly lemmy.ml seems like it's like that), so that a "kid gloves" gradual transition to the truth approach would be better, but in my experience people generally like the "here are facts and citations" stuff well enough, and saying I should stay away from it until this one category of people decides it would be acceptable to them, seems like it might do more harm than good to the messaging overall. And anyway, it's honestly just not what I want to do -- like I say I'm not here to "reach out" with my message. I just like talking about this stuff.

That’s just lies made up by Big Copper

I don’t think it’s a good idea to withhold pretty straightforward relevant information until my imagined picture of the person reading it reaches a point where they’re ready for it.

Honestly, I have no idea what the average Lemmy reader is or isn’t ready for or accepting of. Why do you assume that all or even most of the people reading my message aren’t at a point where this pretty bland information would be useful to them?

Yeah. There are people who are just straight-up evil and trying to hurt people on purpose (Trump is one), but it's actually very rare, I think, even in political leaders. Mostly I think the destructive stuff in the world comes from people who have a weird reality built up in their head where what they're doing makes sense.

I see this even in internet arguments. It's very common that two people will both be saying things that makes sense, but because they both have this caricature built up of the other person and the other viewpoint in their head, they can't even understand each other and keep talking at cross purposes.

Person A says "How DARE you say that genocide is okay, genocide is NEVER okay"

Then person B says "How DARE you say Biden and Trump are the same, Trump is obviously way worse and we need to vote for Biden"

"How DARE you vote for genocide"

"How DARE you refuse to vote against Trump's genocide"

And so on. I mean, neither one is really wrong, and yet they're all angry at each other and each seem genuinely convinced that the person they're talking to carries cartoonishly wrong views like "genocide is okay as long as it comes from my political allies," and then they get all bent out of shape arguing against those imaginary views that almost no one really actually holds. And they can't even listen to the other person for long enough to understand what they're saying, because I can't possibly sit here and listen to a pro-genocide person, when I am ANTI genocide, and I just need to fight against this pro genocide person right now.

I'm not trying to engineer any particular results. Notwithstanding the people who accuse me of running around supporting Biden just because I like Biden, I'm honestly just trying to talk about how I see the world and share my viewpoint and see what other people think in return. It's part of why I am comfortable saying yes, Biden's support for Israel's genocide in Gaza is monstrous, and his little bullshit opposition to it is not nearly enough to excuse the majority of what he's doing, which is supporting it. Overall, I'm just trying to say how I see it. I'm not trying to, like, convince people to see it my way or support who I've decided I want them to support.

I mean yes I sort of hope that people will read my comments and decide to vote for Biden and help not end the world like if Trump gets elected. But also, I think more people will be convinced by simple facts and good reasoning, than will be convinced by something that happens to align with how they want the information to be presented and is triangulated to what's in their head currently and trying to push it around into the way I want it to be. That's a dangerous path to go down. Like what about lying, if that was more effective? Or what about setting up a little bot to post my propaganda, what if that was more effective? I just don't want to do it. Here's what I think, here are sources, do what you like with that and if you get super offended instead, then I feel blameless with that outcome because I tried to be straight about how I think because I think it makes sense.

Does that answer your question?

Not completely, no. The more fundamental question I am trying to ask is this: It sounds like you're saying Biden is bad because we need to convert to communism and he's capitalist and so you can't support him regardless. Right? Or no?

And so I'm saying, if you're saying capitalism is so bad we need to replace it, then what are you wanting to replace it with, that any leader who doesn't want to replace it with is unworthy of any support? I realize that's a very very broad question which may not even have a single specific-at-the-outset answer, but I tried to narrow it down by asking, like what country would be the model? Or would we be doing something that was never done before?

It sounds like maybe the answer was the second one, right? Or no? I'm just trying to understand what it is that you're saying, in concrete terms, at this point. Like would we still have congress, or the electoral college? Would we be able to own private property? Would the economy be centrally managed by the government as in USSR and China? That kind of thing.

I do employ the tactic of cutting the fat and staying on topic. We both have lots of comments and I’ve seen and read many of yours. Often you will ask a bunch of questions or bring up a bunch of points and the only way to keep someone who has a style like that on topic is to go back to five paragraphs and restate the topic. I’m not criticizing or making fun of the way you write, just explaining why I tend to bring it back to the points I’m trying to make.

Honestly, I don't even know why I'm in this conversation anymore. I'm not trying to be discouraging to you by saying this, but it seems like I keep saying things or asking questions and what comes back is not productive. Sorry.

I understand your viewpoint, I think. You don't have to go back and "bring it back" to the points you're trying to make. I am asking specific questions because to me that's a relevant way to engage in the debate -- you can sort of poke holes in the other person's viewpoint, or else learn more about it and so there are parts that will make sense or parts that don't make sense.

I'll make it simple, and just ask some questions. You can assume that I already understand your main viewpoint, and you don't need to restate it or "stay on topic," and just answer the questions. I'm not trying to be overwhelming or anything or pin you down or "debatebro" or whatever, but to me this is part of the dialogue. If you want to engage, cool, I'm curious to know what you think about these things. If not, then cheers. To me it's super dispiriting for someone to say e.g. Biden is censoring all the non establishment media but also refuse to identify what other media Biden is censoring, just sort of vaguely say all of it that's anti establishment. Maybe that is reasonable in your debate-world but in my world it is a weird and evasive way for you to behave.

important to examine it due to the circumstances illustrating how the administration deals with labor power

Do you think it's important to examine how the administration dealt with the UAW election or regulations on strikes / bargaining and union election guidelines in general? Or the writer's strike or the Starbucks or Amazon unionization drives?

it shows explicitly what will happen when you take effective strike action in Bidens America.

Same question

The examples you gave of media in opposition to the administration that are unbanned are either small, shrinking, controllable or represent the opposition platform under the two party system.

What are establishment unfriendly media that are being banned? Besides Tiktok? I keep asking this question. You said, more or less, all of them. That's not an answer. Which ones? What's all of them?

What do you think Romney meant by that?

(Answering this one, as it's surely a fair question to ask me)

I think he meant that the coverage on TikTok is slanted, as a way of amplifying Blinken's point that the entire format makes it basically impossible for TikTok to function as an informative type of news, and he brought up coverage of the Palestinians as an example.

I do agree with what Blinken said (basically, that is also my view on TikTok, in addition to the problem that it's controlled by the Chinese government). I don't agree with Romney's viewpoint -- I think it's fine if any social media wants to weight its coverage however the people who operate it and the people who have accounts there want to do it, and in particular I definitely don't think there's anything wrong with emphasizing the suffering of the Gazans in a way that's probably offensive to the people who are sending the IDF the weapons they're using to inflict that suffering.