Capitalism did something amazing. It took the old aristocracy out of the picture and made everyone equal under the law. — Tate

:rofl:

Sorry…but this is amazing.

A nice fairytale for kids.

In fact the entire advertising industry operates on the complete opposite goal: create desires for things not needed.
— Xtrix

Ah, one styles themselves the arbiter of who needs what. Spoken like a true 'collectivist'. — Tzeentch

Lol. Food, water, shelter, family, community. I view these as needs, or at least different than a new gadget every 2 years.

I guess I’m part of a communist conspiracy. Mea culpa.

A big mess of repression, surveillance, authoritarianism, genocide, etc. — Tzeentch

Yes, the United States has its problems— but we should evaluate as balanced a way as we can.

China — Tzeentch

Oh — oops. :wink:

Please don't use China as an example for successful collectivism. It's a powerful state. — Tzeentch

I understand collectivism to be a term to describe state policies — Tzeentch

I agree — I don’t think China is an example of communism at all, as I understand it. But I’m using your meaning, not mine.

Yes. But don’t expect them to read Mayer. That’ll screw up the very neat “Government is the problem” mantra.

Sure, capitalism is far from perfect, but at least a successful capitalist has to produce something others want to buy — Tzeentch

Nonsense. In fact the entire advertising industry operates on the complete opposite goal: create desires for things not needed.

which is why its many evils also went along with many goods - history's collectivist projects cannot say the same. — Tzeentch

They can’t? China seems to be doing just fine. The Soviets deceased poverty and starvation.

Sure, if we start with the assumption that “collectivism” (whatever that means) only produces evil, that’s what you’ll see. Or you’ll assign all evils to it— as many do with “governments.”

Though I understand collectivism to be a term to describe state policies (and in recent times also supranational organisations), and collectivist states to be states that act with collectivism as their goal. — Tzeentch

A strange definition of collectivism, but OK.

That despite having been tried and having produced by far the worst track record of any system in human history, — Tzeentch

No, that would be capitalism. Brutal, inhumane, and reducing everyone and every thing to capital.

If we go beyond Fox News talking points about Stalin, Mao, and Castro, the reality isn’t so simple.

The problem with collectivism is simple. It is the outright subjugation of the individual to the ideology of the state — Tzeentch

You can have a collective without a state.

Let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages, which they certainly were not. ... What was it that they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their right to keep part of the earth untouched, unused, and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal?

- Ayn Rand

Yeah, this “individualist” thinking never really appealed to me. Not in my genes. I just can’t view people as “primitive savages.” I guess it appeals to some.

Notice the argument is not that one deserves to keep the value of what one produces. That wouldn’t look too good for feudalism or capitalism — so let’s instead whine about taxes, so we can continue the attempt to undermine the one institution that’s potentially democratic.

I repeat: all of this is, at its core, a hatred of democracy, of social institutions, and of people. The world revolves around me and my self-interests, full stop.

It’s just more dressed-up Ayn Rand garbage. A sick and silly outlook indeed.

And who are against unions because they had a bad experience in one once?

Yeah, something like that.

Except they too often get elected. — Banno

It does seem to be the ruling ideology. But I think that’s changing as the people become angrier with the state of things. Most are lashing out in silly ways, to the point of electing clowns because they say they like them.

I guess it means we gotta try harder to educate people and listen to them.

Anyway, I was mostly talking about people in this forum.

Anti-social personalities generally view doing anything with others as evil, raising “individualism” to the level of fundamentalist dogma, matched only by their faith in markets. They’ll forever rail against unions and governments while keeping quiet about corporate power, for one reason: they prefer tyranny. Why? They imagine themselves as in charge.

It’s nothing other than dressed up justification for greed, the hatred of democracy and, generally, human beings. Who knows how or why they acquired this sick outlook — I suspect early experiences and heavy brainwashing.

Not worth getting too worked up about. Leave them to their pathologies.

:up:

Class war is very real and very damaging to the world. Don’t pay attention to those who pretend it doesn’t exist — they’re unwitting puppets for pure tyranny. Always have been.

Someone made this inquiry from the US and the results absolutely horrible. — ssu

One person I know of, which everyone should check out if they haven't already, is Tom Ferguson. His "investment theory of party competition" is worth the time -- the book is Golden Rule.

The bottom 80% of the country have almost no political power whatsoever. Their interests are simply ignored.

Bill McQuire’s take— worth reading:

https://apple.news/AdAE4xfbNQyiITnXxH1d0cw

Well, it has been seven months from this exchange. All only a supply chain problem, still? — ssu

I didn’t say “only,” but it’s the main driver in my view. Yes, that still holds— fairly obvious, in fact. You raise this now as if you’ve been vindicated when the money supply has decreased as the Fed has tightened policy. You’d think that would bring inflation down — but hasn’t. It will probably send us into recession— but that’s about it.

The Fed can do nothing about oil and gas supplies. Nothing. And it’s this that’s driving inflation so high.

It also does nothing about monopoly power and price gouging, which is also happening. Hence why big oil just posted record profits. Billions of dollars that go from customers being gouged to shareholders’ pockets. There’s absolutely no good reason for that whatsoever. It’s stupidity and greed.

Of course there are many reasons for the inflation, the effects of the pandemic, the war and both previous fiscal and monetary policy. But as the US is now in recession, it's interesting to see what the Fed will actually do from here onwards. — ssu

The Fed will continue lowering rates until we hit recession. They have only limited options. I imagine inflation will come down a little in the next few months, but overall what happens will largely be contingent on what Russia, China, and the corporate monopolies do.

Someone showed me a segment the comedian John Oliver did on inflation. A surprisingly good analysis, actually.

Then in terms of wages, benefits, you’ve had what others thought you deserved. — NOS4A2

Nope. But I see why those with anti-social personality disorder may think that.

Trade unions, if they get powerful in the US, won't change the system. Sorry. They aren't going to be an engine of change. — ssu

They have, and it’s very possible they will again. Your gut feelings aside.

And along with safety issues and other work related stuff, higher wages are the objectives of trade unions. — ssu

Not always. In fact, I’m not sure even most of the time. What unions fight for, if they haven’t been corrupted, is worker dignity. Sometimes that involves wages. Mostly it involves more involvement in decision making.

:up:

Labor never had the power to do that. — Tate

Read about the 30s. The Wagner Act wasn’t simply a gift from above.

the tide turned against them and they're gone now. — Tate

They’re not gone.

The government, in the USA at least, has been mostly anti-labor and pro-capitalist.
— Moliere

Since the 1980s, yes. Before that, no. — Tate

The government has never been pro-union. Never.

FDR was somewhat receptive to unions, and with the proper push was able to pass the labor relations act in ‘35. Right away there was pushback, and it was significantly weakened through Taft-Hartley in the 40s.

Unions have had higher participation rates prior to the neoliberal assault. But the government has never been anything but pro-capitalist— including FDR.

Have you ever worked for a union? — NOS4A2

Yep.

setting up a new dynamic that made the labor movement possible. — Tate

The labor movement far predates Roosevelt.

Yea, it's true. — Tate

No, it’s not close to true. Feel free to pick up literally any book about it. The labor movement far predates any “government backing,” Teddy Roosevelt, or Woodrow Wilson.

Stop talking nonsense.

One thing you do need to understand about the American labor movement is that it only existed in the first place due to federal backing — Tate

Not remotely true.

There's no way to return to the days of powerful unions. — Tate

Says who?

If unionization is one step away from communism, then that 98% of Finnish active officers belong to a trade union makes me smile. After all, it's just an army that has since it's inception fought and prepared to fight Bolshevism, the Soviet Union and Soviet infiltration until the end of the Cold War and basically has been the only institution where Finlandization didn't happen at all. You really will not find in Finnish officer ranks an officer with political ideas like Hugo Chavez. — ssu

Yeah, it's pretty silly. But again, depends on how we're defining communism and socialism. By how I think of the terms, unions are certainly communist and socialist -- but so what?

True, it's a bad as labeling yourself a satanist in this country. But that's because of propaganda. Still, not the best marketing strategy.

Far better example would be the United Kingdom and it's Labour party and politicians like Tony Blair or Gordon Brown (not just Jeremy Corbyn). — ssu

A far better example of what? Blair was a much a neoliberal as anyone.

The Myth of the Individual in the USA mitigated against the uptake of unions. A Real Man stands on his own, not needing others to help him negotiate his workplace contract.

Hence the Myth of the Individual helped ceed power to corporations, resulting in the failed democracy that is the modern USA. — Banno

Yes indeed. Reagan helped perpetuate this bullshit "cowboy"-type version of the "true" manly American as well. The neoliberal policies that followed are no surprise, using this myth as window dressing. The country, and the world, has payed the price these last 40 years.

The worst faulty idea about trade unions is that they are a socialist endeavour promoting socialism. — ssu

Depends on what we mean by socialism. According to some, unionization itself is just one step away from communism. The problem isn't whether unions are socialist, it's why socialism has gotten so demonized that it's assumed unions are "bad" by association.

Union dues was another tax. Shitty workers never got fired or reprimanded so we all just stooped to their level. — NOS4A2

It's like you're living Fox News talking points. This is what came first, which then inevitably leads to:

I always hated working for a union. — NOS4A2

Anti-social individualist-minded people who constantly feel they're oppressed, and who were heavily brainwashed with Cold War era propaganda, will predictably feel this way -- about any institution, in fact. Not a surprise.

But your feelings and anecdotes don't really say much about the labor movement. I know plenty of people who had bad union experiences who are very much in favor of union efforts -- they see their importance and stick around to make them better. Disowning and fleeing is an option, of course. Comes down mostly to temperament. As I said, anti-social personalities aren't a good fit anyway.

I'd say this isn't lost on the majority of union people. I know that my preferred way of looking at unions is as institutions for working people to obtain power over the economy -- that is, a kind of socialism — Moliere

:up:

Again, just a matter of semantics. But I tend to agree with the underlying definition of socialism you're using here (power to the people), and so unions are indeed socialist by that standard: they help working people build power.

Unions have self-inflicted wounds, certainly, some of them near fatal. But it Is also the case that unions, unionizing, union leadership, union thinking -- all of it has been subject to really sustained attacks by both corporations and government. Legal barriers have been placed in the way of union formation. Unions are restricted in their ability to support each other (no secondary boycotts, for instance). State governments have stood ready to assist in breaking strikes (like, by protecting scabs crossing picket lines). There are companies specializing in anti-union strategies. There is a strong anti-unionization bias in media. ETC. — Bitter Crank

All very important. In terms of the anti-unionization bias, you see it full blown in the UK rail strikes. Mick Lynch has been doing an excellent job in communicating, but look at the spin and slant of the questions he constantly faces. From what I see of the US, they try to ignore strikes and unionization efforts entirely. Now that large companies are being successfully unionized, there's been some renewed interest -- but the slant is still there. You can tell the ideology fairly easily.

My work history has been mostly in the non-profit sector--an area as in need of unions as any other, but is additionally hobbled by do-good thinking that discourages unions. I was a member of AFSCME while employed at the University. AFSCME didn't seem to be very effective at this location. Some groups at the U were represented by the Teamster Union, which seemed to be a better representative and organizer. — Bitter Crank

We run in similar circles. I was part of a unionization effort in a non-profit as well, in Mass. AFSCME provided some guidance.

Alot of experts still think that this will significantly cut down climate emissions so I'll take it. — Mr Bee

I see that as well...and honestly, as pathetic as this sounds, I just want to be happy about this for a couple days.

Do you have any views about what a phenomenological approach to this model might be? In the light of the process of being and becoming and how we are constantly changing and reinventing self - how does this sit alongside your more pragmatic model which seems to rest upon a realist worldview? Does this make sense? — Tom Storm

It would help by defining what you mean by phenomenology. In my view, phenomenology is the awareness of beings, particularly those which are absent. Here I'm influenced by Heidegger. I think this framework I outlined above has very little to say about any of that.

We're constantly changing, yes. I don't see any problem with this fact and what I said above. Maybe I'm missing something?

A much better synopsis, yes.

The more I look at it, the less great this bill looks for climate. I'd like to think it's still a win, but if it is it's a small one. The provisions about oil and gas leasing on public lands are just absolutely horrific and morally repugnant.

It's about the only good news I see anymore — Moliere

And barely gets reported. Very encouraging signs. A healthy labor movement, starting with strong (strike-ready) unions, is crucial to any positive change were gonna make. Historically this is true as well.

If B is sound then C validates A and advanced chess playing could not have been achieved without A. — praxis

I see what you mean now. But I know many people who desperately want to change and can’t do it, despite all kinds of plans and support. Diets are one example, addictions are another. I don’t always attribute failure as a problem with A, or B. Although I see how one could argue that.

If I’m following it right, in Xtrix’s framework A & B are validated by C. If C (practice) is ineffective then something must be amiss in A and/or B. — praxis

You could look at it as validation, I suppose. I don't say that myself, but I can see that.

Taking the time to figure out what's important to you, who you want to be, how you want to treat others, etc., is important -- but may not lead to anything in particular. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing anyway, even if you don't act on it. In fact many people don't even get that far, and that's OK. It's when people are very unhappy or depressed that it becomes especially relevant to meditate on: what, exactly, is the problem? What is the source of your anxiety or unhappiness? Etc.

So formulating goals and making plans to achieve those goals -- A and B -- are important. How often do they lead to real action -- which is what I emphasize? I'd say it depends on how hard B is. Take losing weight. Plenty of diet plans one can follow, and most will give results -- *IF* one follows them. The fact that some people don't follow the plan doesn't necessarily invalidate the plan itself, right?

My objection was an internal critique of A (goals-forming/setting). — 180 Proof

I'm still not clear as to what the objection is, to be honest. What you've been saying sounds a lot like a solution in search of a problem. People want things and make goals and plans all the time. Nothing controversial about that. Not sure what's objectionable about it.

That was an interesting post, and I didn't get a chance to finish reading it. I particularly like the example of chess. Why did you delete?

At least Germany is working hard to increase climate change in a big way. — ssu

This legitimately had me laughing. Well done. :lol:

But of course nuclear energy won't do, it's evil... — ssu

It really is ridiculous, isn't it? We need nuclear now more than ever. I understand the concerns, but they've vastly overblown. What a pity.

Actually it's more of a reversal of a reversal (since Manchin blocked his very own bill two weeks ago), but whatever, I'll take it. — Mr Bee

Yes. It's funny -- the thread was created a year ago and its title is incredibly obsolete, but it goes to show how far this has come.

To recap for those who aren't following this story: the reconciliation bill (reconciliation being the budgetary process that avoids a senate filibuster -- meaning the Democrats can pass it without any Republican support) was initially $3.5 trillion; it was whittled down to $1.1 trillion or so, then CEPP provision was removed to please Manchin, then Manchin sunk the entire bill right before Christmas of '21. There was talk about rescuing parts of it throughout 2022, and they appeared to be going well -- and then he sunk that too two weeks ago. Shouldn't have been a huge shock, given that he's a coal magnate.

But this reversal really is a shock. I was not expecting this at all. Will it pass? Depends on (a) whether it meets the requirements of reconciliation, which is determined by the senate parliamentarian, (b) if all other Democrats, especially Sinema, agree to vote for it, and (c) if the House has the votes to pass it (there could be some Democratic holdouts over state tax deduction rules).

If I were a betting man, I'd give it a 70% chance of passing. Whether in its current form, I'm not so sure.

What's sad is that you feel, despite near unanimous feedback from both other moderators and other posters, that the comment "We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed" was anything other than a non-sequitur. But you're free to play the victim and waste everyone's time. I suppose that's a sign of "character" in your view. So be it.

If you have a concern, how about throwing it to another moderator to look at? — Tate

That was done.

Don't moderate a thread you're engaged in, especially after you're getting insulting and aggressive. — Tate

If necessary, I will continue to do so. Especially when one makes off-topic remarks and continues to after being asked not to. I'd gladly hand it over to others, as is my usual protocol; none happen to be around at the time -- as was already explained to you. Also, I didn't once insult you.

Next time, don't make off-topic remarks.

You were "simply saying" it after you were told that it was off topic. Furthermore, the fact that "information about ice ages can be shocking" says nothing whatsoever about why that comment was made to begin with, and is therefore just as irrelevant and off topic as stating, out of the blue, that "we're in an ice age guys."

The issue is that you disagreed with what I said and subsequently deleted my posts. — Tate

I deleted your posts because they were irrelevant, and explained why. Nothing to do with "disagreement."

The post deleted in this feedback thread was because you posted private correspondence in public, for no good reason. I've since found out that, since I'm a moderator, this is generally OK. If you wish to post them publicly again, feel free. I personally think it's tacky, but that's your business.