Why cant you just call it what it precisely is, socialism?

Why are you bringing in banana cake?

This is such a weird conversation.

If I called it precisely socialism would you be cool with the new system?

Not sure, need more details, potentially yes.

If a new restaurant opens, I'm not expecting to see restaurant staff get a raise or a decline in restaurant prices.... even though the GDP increased.

Ok cool story.

However we are discussing that wages did in fact go up with gdp increases as expressed by productivity until 1973 at which point productivity kept increasing but wages relatively stagnated ( in relation to productivity.)

Correct.

Prior to that period US minimum wage was always raised to track overall productivity gains that tracked GDP growth and inflation. Whether it was GOP or Dem gov't there was no expectations they would not raise the minimum wage in a 'rising tides lift ALL ships' view. it was KNOWN that building the MC that way was contributing greatly to the 'rising tides' which the companies then enjoyed.

It was a huge corporate gift to decouple that and to allow corporate profits and GDP to soar while individuals increasingly were left behind/ A kind of pyric win though as it gives a short term (many decade) gift to corporations but eventually the citizens falling behind, hurts overall growth and harms them more, which is where things are, in part, at now.

Sure, and I'm not a Marxist. But the question I was responding to was "does anyone else define 'the right' the way you do?".

OK. I didn't delete anything but this "you said...no I didn't...etc, etc" sequence is a great example of how dredging stuff up from the past, and playing gotcha derails otherwise good discussions involving multiple posters . It takes that flowing discussion and clogs it up by shifting the focus from a discussion of what the various political terms mean, where they fall on the political spectrum and how those terms apply to our current parties to a focus on whether a poster said he was one thing in the past and is changing his description today. And that discussion only involves 1-3 posters and blots everyone else out.

We've talked about these types of derails a lot in the mod thread. But now that I've seen one develop in real time, I'm going to modify my approach. I am primarily going to treat these as off topic derails. All those posts about whether someone called themselves this or that in the past just interfered with the actual current discussion going on. They focus on individual posters rather than the discussion topic. Rather than delete them, I will move them to the hi-lo content thread, and if the posters involved wish to continue this one on one or two on one effort to confirm or deny what someone said in the past vs today, go at it. Just remain civil and nice. If it turns rude or insulting I will delete posts per that policy. This will free up the thread for a focus on the actual political discussion topic which anyone can participate in.

So while I will give those personal derails a place to be hashed out, I would ask you to consider to what end you are pursuing this. What value does it add to the discussion today? Very little to none as far as I've seen. So consider if the derail is really worth the effort. Consider the perspective of others in the thread and those visitors following it.

I'm not going to move the derail posts itt as of now. But if the derail continues I will.

If anyone wants to discuss this further make a post in the mod thread. Do not respond to this post in this thread. They will be deleted.

it absolutely is intrinsically revolutionary. in the sense that leftists support a radical restructuring of society.

People want to believe that they're leftists and still able to support democrats

this is a Marxist view. and the idea is that Capitalism has outlived its usefulness and is now causing far more harm that good. it was a necessity in the progression from Antiquity, Feudalism, Monarchy to a highly developed world. but now it should be replaced before it is too late.

this sums it up. and it really gets those people really mad. in fact I know of a forum that will permaban such viewpoints.

If you support democrats you’re a warmonger who doesn’t give a **** about human rights. Hardly a leftist

So do you agree then your definition is pretty much yours alone as even Marxist in practice, as Rococo points out, do not define it as you do?

Would you further agree that a definition only held by 'one' is not much of a definition or a counter point?

No. Marxists define the right the same way that I do. What Rococo points out is that Marxists can have an authoritarian bent that I don't posses, although I still wouldn't consider the Maduro regime for example the right.

You would need to create a system that continues to encourage advancements in products and services for it to work because syphoning off of what capitalism created could make everyone happier but it would be overwhelmingly likely to be less sustainable and shorter lived than what we have now. Then it's back to colonialism again.

Even if you could make it work to where the workers could self-manage the labor market, you would still need a reason for folks to participate in it - at best you get a wage, at worst it's slave labor. We've seen both.

What Rococo points out that opposed to 'theoretical Marxist who in practice do not really exist, the ones who do exist do not agree with or fit your definition'.

So again you seem to be agreeing with no one. or if you are which Marxist are you referring to that Rococo is not considering?

FWIW I am not against you holding to some theoretical definition no one uses or practices. I am just saying if you are applying as a defense of who agrees with your definition or position then you are in a world of '1'.

Again not that useful to any debate or position. that does not mean you are not entitled to your singular view, it is just not useful to others or debate.

No. What Rococo pointed out is that Marxists can be authoritarian and that I'm not authoritarian. On this I don't agree with those Marxists.

On how to define the right, I am agreement with them.

So you suggested Marxist agree with your definition of 'right' v 'left' and that Rococo actually agreed with you that those who identify as Marxist throughout history would use your definition of Left v Right in how they behave in practice as avowed Marxists?


Rococo is that your view?

Marxists disagree with this. The main idea is that humans are ambitious and adaptive. They are motivated by factors other than greed. Incentives for advancement exist other than wealth accumulation.

Capitalism is wasteful bc it siphons excess value into the hands of very few. This causes a tremendous waste of resources.

And other issues but that is outside the scope of this convo.

You should read Marxist writing if you haven't already. Much of it is meant to address this very point. Certainly far better than I could.

That doesn't make it intrinsically revolutionary. An intrinsically revolutionary ideology would be dedicated to perpetual revolution. I'm sure that you can imagine some sort of leftist social structure that you would not want to destroy via revolution.

Theoretical or academic Marxists might be opposed to the state in a way that would satisfy Luckbox. But in practice, Marxism tends to produce leaders who are least as attached to the state apparatus as their Western European and U.S. counterparts.

That was my point.

That could be true and it would be awesome if it was so, but I'd imagine that we'd have to make sure that we are at least a smidgen confident in it before completely break down and reset things - because you've got some serious downside if this socialist utopia doesn't pan out.

Imho the USA is no reference at all as being true leftish , socialist or progressive…
They can use those word but in the real world including the entire world of where left and right is ,
it would be reasonable to say a progressive democrat would be at best a Center viewed policies in the « real world » .
That is how right the US are ….

And when I hear some crazy trumpist called democrats communist 0o …
Pretty explain why u got crazy nut head being elected like MGT , gaez and the like .

Pretty much why it stems from the dissociation of currency with gold .
Gold always kept its value vs other commodities .
The majority of people are consuming in general commodities , not financial assets .
Wages are based in currency .
And when U make stuff (productivity) , u uses commodities .
Hence if your wages are link with commodities u should keep your share of profits from productivity.