That only introduces new problems. Your advocating essentially for socialism as a replacement for capitalism.
…and socialism will never work without a central authority overseeing it.
…so you’ll need a revolutionary war in order to wrestle control from the bourgeoisie…
…which will lead to massive bloodshed and economic turmoil.
I think a more realistic approach would be to instill socialist ideals on our current capitalist system, such as salary caps, wealth taxes, inheretence tax tiers, UBI, socialized safety nets, etc. Rather than trying to redo our entire economic and governmental system.
You’re getting downvoted a bit here since these are very… done-to-death considerations in leftist circles, but for what it’s worth, I think your heart is in the right place. The big points of contention here, I think, would be:
Socialism is a very broad term, and many forms of socialism do not require a central authority, at least no more than capitalism does. I suppose I should take a moment to shill for market socialism - the economy does not fundamentally change in its basic functionality under market socialism - it’s just instead of investors getting voting shares and running companies, employees, instead, exclusively receive voting shares and run the companies. As a barebones explanation, of course.
Syndicalism is actually meant to circumvent the issue of a revolutionary war, if not in preparation, at least in execution. While syndicalists historically have been big on “Si vis pacem, para bellum”, being prepared for self-defense action against the entrenched power, the most essential piece of syndicalism is that the means of production will already be seized by trade unions before the final blow to capitalism is struck, as what is lacking currently is solidarity for workers to shut down all production until their demands are met (a general strike), not capacity. The workers already hold the power in our society, they only need to realize it, sort of thing.
Not to be blasé about the possibility, as there would undoubtedly be turmoil and a non-zero chance of serious bloodshed, but some risks must be accepted to drive society forward. If the American revolutionaries had sat on their hands and said “Taxation without representation is bad, but war would be worse”, that would not have created a better world going forward. Likewise, though war and bloodshed should be avoided if possible, they should not be avoided at all costs. Change is worth turmoil, ultimately; as the alternative is eternal injustice of the current variety - or more likely, said turmoil simply being put off until the next crisis moment, in which case no net lives have actually been saved, but an extra generation has been condemned to the current state of injustices.
Those ideas are all very good, but generally associated with social democracy/welfare capitalism, not socialism.
That only introduces new problems. Your advocating essentially for socialism as a replacement for capitalism.
…and socialism will never work without a central authority overseeing it.
…so you’ll need a revolutionary war in order to wrestle control from the bourgeoisie…
…which will lead to massive bloodshed and economic turmoil.
I think a more realistic approach would be to instill socialist ideals on our current capitalist system, such as salary caps, wealth taxes, inheretence tax tiers, UBI, socialized safety nets, etc. Rather than trying to redo our entire economic and governmental system.
You’re getting downvoted a bit here since these are very… done-to-death considerations in leftist circles, but for what it’s worth, I think your heart is in the right place. The big points of contention here, I think, would be:
Socialism is a very broad term, and many forms of socialism do not require a central authority, at least no more than capitalism does. I suppose I should take a moment to shill for market socialism - the economy does not fundamentally change in its basic functionality under market socialism - it’s just instead of investors getting voting shares and running companies, employees, instead, exclusively receive voting shares and run the companies. As a barebones explanation, of course.
Syndicalism is actually meant to circumvent the issue of a revolutionary war, if not in preparation, at least in execution. While syndicalists historically have been big on “Si vis pacem, para bellum”, being prepared for self-defense action against the entrenched power, the most essential piece of syndicalism is that the means of production will already be seized by trade unions before the final blow to capitalism is struck, as what is lacking currently is solidarity for workers to shut down all production until their demands are met (a general strike), not capacity. The workers already hold the power in our society, they only need to realize it, sort of thing.
Not to be blasé about the possibility, as there would undoubtedly be turmoil and a non-zero chance of serious bloodshed, but some risks must be accepted to drive society forward. If the American revolutionaries had sat on their hands and said “Taxation without representation is bad, but war would be worse”, that would not have created a better world going forward. Likewise, though war and bloodshed should be avoided if possible, they should not be avoided at all costs. Change is worth turmoil, ultimately; as the alternative is eternal injustice of the current variety - or more likely, said turmoil simply being put off until the next crisis moment, in which case no net lives have actually been saved, but an extra generation has been condemned to the current state of injustices.
Those ideas are all very good, but generally associated with social democracy/welfare capitalism, not socialism.
Amarican propaganda is super effective
Reasonable comments are bad when they’re not fanatical enough
aw dang man why didn’t you tell anarchists this 100 years ago we’d have saved so much time