You say your desire for balkanization is not a product of capitalism, but to the contrary, it is impossible not to have the ways we think be shaped by the ways we live and the conditions of our lives. We make history, but do not choose the conditions for our existence coming into it, we must confront the past. It’s entirely in line with existing socialism for various localities to have their own laws and unique differences, from culture to governance, while also being a part of the same unified whole.
You’re continuing to look at centralization/decentralization as a gradiant, but this isn’t how it actually functions. Systems can be layered, making room for each. Independence can only be achieved through meeting the needs of everyone. In a cooperitarian system like you describe, you are creating a destruction of independence and instead the subservience of worker-owners to those in more powerful firms.
As for China, it sounds like you just want ranked choice voting with a lottery option. This is placing too much of an emphasis on the form of democracy, and not the essence. The people of China created the democratic system they want, which features recall elections, rungs, and mass consensus building. Policy comes from the people first, is interpreted by the CPC, and then is enacted from the top, with regular consensus being gathered. This is outside the limits of standard electoral democracy, and instead is a whole-process democracy.
I’m not dismissing your views as irrelevant, I am stating that, whether we intend it or not, all of our ideas come from our material conditions. The way we live does shape the way we think, even if we are aware of it. It is impossible to separate the two. As for only being able to think of solutions for the ideology I support, that’s a bit backwards. I support socialism because it answers the problems of systems that depend on markets.
As for your point on democracy, you are focusing on form without acknowledging the class structure of society. Measures you describe are good or bad depending on what class controls the state, without looking at that your measures fall flat, as you see with the US. You cannot draw a line between politics and economics. When I say you focus on form over essence, I mean your focus on secondary policy over the primary aspect, the class nature of society, causes you to miss the core. Implementing your measures in the US would not save it, but implementing them in Cuba, for example, would likely be fine (even if their form of democracy is better in my opinion).
You’re not a fool, never insinuated that. However, I do think that you could stand to be more scientific with your approach to political economy. You cannot slice up parts of a system and treat them as disconnected from the rest.
The mode of production determines the class structure, not laws. Laws are a component of the superstructure of society, not the base. The base and superstructure mutually reinforce each other, with the base being primary.
In other words, the ones who control the commanding aspects of the economy control the state, and as such taking a legalistic approach to undermining that is a political dead end. I gave ample examples of this earlier, and you just ignored those points. The consequences of this structure are as follows:
All laws passed in capitalism come directly with the consent of capitalists.
All laws that stand to change society in a fundamental way will be revised, de-fanged, and stripped of power before passing
This is why the measures you propose are incomplete. We cannot simply pass what you want, and even if we could, they would be de-fanged. Socialism is a prerequisite for democracy. Revolution is the only way to actually change the mode of production.
Science isn’t only related to biology, physics, chemistry, etc. Science also applies to human development and socioeconomics. Marxism created historical materialism, which helps us analyze human development scientifically and avoid the pitfalls of idealism and metaphysics.
deleted by creator
You say your desire for balkanization is not a product of capitalism, but to the contrary, it is impossible not to have the ways we think be shaped by the ways we live and the conditions of our lives. We make history, but do not choose the conditions for our existence coming into it, we must confront the past. It’s entirely in line with existing socialism for various localities to have their own laws and unique differences, from culture to governance, while also being a part of the same unified whole.
You’re continuing to look at centralization/decentralization as a gradiant, but this isn’t how it actually functions. Systems can be layered, making room for each. Independence can only be achieved through meeting the needs of everyone. In a cooperitarian system like you describe, you are creating a destruction of independence and instead the subservience of worker-owners to those in more powerful firms.
As for China, it sounds like you just want ranked choice voting with a lottery option. This is placing too much of an emphasis on the form of democracy, and not the essence. The people of China created the democratic system they want, which features recall elections, rungs, and mass consensus building. Policy comes from the people first, is interpreted by the CPC, and then is enacted from the top, with regular consensus being gathered. This is outside the limits of standard electoral democracy, and instead is a whole-process democracy.
deleted by creator
I’m not dismissing your views as irrelevant, I am stating that, whether we intend it or not, all of our ideas come from our material conditions. The way we live does shape the way we think, even if we are aware of it. It is impossible to separate the two. As for only being able to think of solutions for the ideology I support, that’s a bit backwards. I support socialism because it answers the problems of systems that depend on markets.
As for your point on democracy, you are focusing on form without acknowledging the class structure of society. Measures you describe are good or bad depending on what class controls the state, without looking at that your measures fall flat, as you see with the US. You cannot draw a line between politics and economics. When I say you focus on form over essence, I mean your focus on secondary policy over the primary aspect, the class nature of society, causes you to miss the core. Implementing your measures in the US would not save it, but implementing them in Cuba, for example, would likely be fine (even if their form of democracy is better in my opinion).
You’re not a fool, never insinuated that. However, I do think that you could stand to be more scientific with your approach to political economy. You cannot slice up parts of a system and treat them as disconnected from the rest.
deleted by creator
The mode of production determines the class structure, not laws. Laws are a component of the superstructure of society, not the base. The base and superstructure mutually reinforce each other, with the base being primary.
In other words, the ones who control the commanding aspects of the economy control the state, and as such taking a legalistic approach to undermining that is a political dead end. I gave ample examples of this earlier, and you just ignored those points. The consequences of this structure are as follows:
All laws passed in capitalism come directly with the consent of capitalists.
All laws that stand to change society in a fundamental way will be revised, de-fanged, and stripped of power before passing
This is why the measures you propose are incomplete. We cannot simply pass what you want, and even if we could, they would be de-fanged. Socialism is a prerequisite for democracy. Revolution is the only way to actually change the mode of production.
Science isn’t only related to biology, physics, chemistry, etc. Science also applies to human development and socioeconomics. Marxism created historical materialism, which helps us analyze human development scientifically and avoid the pitfalls of idealism and metaphysics.