I break my vow

You have a knack for discussing these things with a reasonable tone. Meaning, making points like that to the Other Side.

Not sure I do, personally (ie. have a good style for that). So I envy that.

Zooey wrote:

Yeah, thanks, but I think you are generous to call it a “knack for discussing.” That wasn’t a “discussion.” It was me doing my Filet thing, whatever the hell THAT is.

Okay, then…you have a knack for explaining things to the Other Side. Even-keeled, clear, patient. Not everyone does have that knack.

Of course, there are “socialist” ideas and programs that have been implemented in pretty much all “liberal democracies,” as Zooey mentions above. But because capitalism is still the economic engine, the furthest those programs take us on the political spectrum is to “social democracy.”

Ironically, righties who scream against “socialism,” because they see it as “government control of everything,” would actually favor “socialism” over “social democracy” if they really understood the differences. They’d still hate both of them, of course. But “socialism” isn’t “state control.” It’s not “nationalizing” industries. It “socializes” them instead, which means “the state” is bypassed for direct ownership at the community level and the shop room floor.

Doubly ironical, actual socialism makes “small government” possible. In fact, it makes centralized government close to irrelevant. Their own beloved capitalism actually makes Big Gubmint a permanent necessity, forever and ever, world without end. Take Big Gubmint out of the picture, and capitalism dies in seconds, and it never would have gone global without “the state” in the first place, primarily through obscenely brutal and bloody military conquest.

In short and in general, I find media coverage of the topic, and our so-called “national” debates, absurdly ignorant, slanted and grotesquely limited in scope.

Zooey wrote:

I forgot to mention the socialist firefighters who stopped the Camp Fire 1/4 mile from his house 6 months ago after it destroyed the entire town of Paradise.

Public sector fire and rescue is a great example. Not only is it far more efficient to pool our resources and act for the common good, it’s always going to be far less expensive. And if you go by who pays, fires would end up consuming everyone anyway . . . the paid up and those who haven’t. Fire isn’t gonna follow propertarian rules.

Pretty much all goods and services would be far more efficient if we used that model. Nearly everything we use, we use infrequently. Sharing these items, and the cost, would radically increase our standard of living and lower our cost of living.

And the few things we don’t want to share — like clothes, individual food and fluid servings — would still be less costly if we produced them as communities in the non-profit mode. There is literally nothing that can’t be done, using a non-capitalist production mode, for less, and with less waste.

Zooey wrote:

Right. To say nothing of the deleterious effects of capitalism. Not only homelessness, wage slavery, and so on, but lying to the public about side effects of this and that, and the promotion of greed as a higher value than compassion, and etc. etc.

Agreed. I mentioned it elsewhere, but Martin Hagglund’s new book, This Life, seriously expanded my thinking on the subject. I was already firmly in the anticapitalist camp, but he gave me new directions to pursue.

A key one for me is this: We don’t even seem to question why we produce what we produce. It doesn’t seem to register with people that production for profit is sheer madness. Those aren’t Hagglund’s words. He’s far more “measured” than I am. But it’s a good deduction from the book . . .

How does it make any sense whatsoever that we accept personal profit, personal wealth creation — which will always be limited to the few — as the rationale for the entire economy? Why not produce for need, for the common good, to solve actual problems, and to free up time for all of us instead?

Why is it not so abundantly clear and obvious that producing things to get rich is sheer lunacy for a society? What a moronic bases for an economy! It guarantees class divisions, conflicts and suffering for the masses, and can’t help by harm the planet. If the goal is more and more money for a tiny sliver of society, the rest of society necessarily loses out, as does our supply of natural resources.

Again, I just don’t get how anyone but the rich can support it. It baffles me.

Billy_T wrote:

< We don’t even seem to question why we produce what we produce. It doesn’t seem to register with people….

———————-

Well this is the evil beauty of the system. Things ‘dont register’ with the public.

Its not an accident that some things ‘register’ and some things ‘dont register’.

Do we even NEED a CIA? The question ‘doesnt register’. Does the US interfere in ‘elections’ all over the globe? The question Doesn’t ‘register’. Are the Dems and Reps essentially the same on power issues? Doesnt register. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

The big issues ‘dont register.’

What ‘does’ register? Sports, Malls, Gadgets, Fashion, Entertainment, Dem-Rep issues, The National Anthem, Prayer in Schools, Demons-of-the-Month (Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Muslims, Commies), etc, etc, etc.

Its a madhouse.

There’s obviously resistance. Mainly misguided resistance. But also some ‘informed resistance’. Such as the folks on this board. But….aint nearly enuff ‘informed resistance.’

Ah well.

What would be better…a planet with humans or a planet without humans?

w
v

Zooey wrote:

My daughter, on the way to school this morning, told me that she doesn’t expect to live past 30. That’s when the shit is hitting the fan, she said.

I said, no, that that’s the point at which the damage is inevitably going to create mass migration, unlivable hot spots on the planet, drought, famine, and so on. But that the planet wasn’t going to completely DIE in 12-15 years.

She’s pretty sure she’s dead.

Those are the conversations my kids and I have.

Risking a major understatement, that must have broken your heart to hear that. Unless it’s not the first time. If it’s an ongoing discussion, I guess you’re kinda prepared. But . . . I imagine the first time you heard her say that . . . oh, man.

Mother Nature is completely indifferent as to our or anything else’s existence. We will eventually destroy ourselves and take half the life on earth with us but Mother Nature will just keep chugging along, and in a couple million years the earth will be repopulated with new life and all traces of our having existed will be gone save a few fossils.

I heard someone on NPR say he thinks there’s a good chance we’ll take military action against Iran. To be fair, we are currently fighting in 7 other Muslim countries, so it would be bad form not to bomb Iran also. This is not a time to stifle the momentum of ‘Inclusivity’ that has a tenuous hold on the public’s consciousness.

Zooey wrote:

My daughter, on the way to school this morning, told me that she doesn’t expect to live past 30. That’s when the shit is hitting the fan, she said.
.

================

Well I hope you told her, she just needs to get a job.

w
v

wv wrote:

Well. Another walking-on-sunshine post from Cappy.

I talked to Mother Nature just last week, btw, and She said she cares deeply about dung beetles.

w
v

It’s not nice to lie about Mother Nature.

You know how angry she can get.

New Mother Nature