Authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism: do they exist?

[zompist]

The thing is, if you bracket off a class of jobs as shitty, only for young people who won't be in it for long, you pretty much remove any motivation to upgrade it, automate it, or even take it seriously. They won't be done well and yet they'll be done the same way forever. Who's going to design a sewer maintenance machine if there is a new class of noobs assigned to do it every year?

I don't think the perpetual noobness of the workers matters. The American South resisted mechanization for years because they had slaves, who weren't going anywhere, after all.

The problem is with the categorization of jobs into "shitty" and "good". The idea of some jobs being undeserving of respect (AKA "shitty") creates it's own incentive to just dehumanize the people that do work those jobs, as a way to retroactively justify why they're treated so poorly. This manifests in many forms, such as: "They live with their parents, so they don't need that much money, so it's alright for me to underpay them." or "They are genetically inferior subhumans, so it's alright for me to enslave them." or "This job doesn't even require a college degree, so it can't be that important, so it's alright for me to underpay them.".

I agree with that, though I don't think it contradicts my point. Classifying jobs as shitty goes along with figuring out ways to staff them with people who don't have other good choices.

[Raphael]

The problem is with the categorization of jobs into "shitty" and "good". The idea of some jobs being undeserving of respect (AKA "shitty")

Why does everyone here assume that when I described jobs as "shitty", I meant "undeserving of respect"? Is that some kind of weird American thing? It seems pretty clear to me that if your job needs to be done, you should get the more respect for doing it, the shittier it is.

[Raphael]

Can retail and supermarket chains afford to be greedy? Maybe if they're the only place to buy food within a reasonable range for their customer base, but 80% of Americans live in urban areas. If Safeway charges too much for rice, I can go to Giant, or to the Chinese supermarket, or the Korean one, or the Indian one.

That logic only works as long as different businesses are run in different ways. If you get a situation where all the businesses supplying a specific service are run by the same kind of people pulling the same kind of shit, customers who want or need that product don't have the option of switching to a business that doesn't pull that kind of shit.

In the US grocery market, different businesses are run in different ways. E.g., in my area:

Jewel (owned by Albertsons) - the baseline supermarket
Trader Joe's (owned by Aldi Nord) - saves costs by being almost all house brand
Whole Foods (owned by Amazon) - upscale
Pete's - independent Chicago area place, so far as I know
Costco - wholesale prices, mostly because you buy stuff in bulk
Wal-Mart, Target - sell groceries alongside everything else
Sugar Beet - local health-food-oriented co-op
Fresh Thyme - health-food-oriented chain
88 Marketplace - Asian supermarket

These are different strategies: e.g. Jewel focuses on groceries; Wal-Mart can sell groceries as a loss leader to get people in the stores; some sell higher-end products; some emphasize health food.

The thing is, the base cost of entry into the industry isn't that large. If the market leaders (Kroger and Albertsons) twirled their moustaches and raised prices for no reason, it's just not that hard for a new place to gain traction. A few years ago our other major chain closed and most of its locations were bought up— e.g. our local store became a Pete's.

How they all make money, I have no idea. Albertsons seems to grow mostly by mergers and adding stores— it has 2,250 nationwide. Maybe the basic fact is that people need grocery stores, so if Albertsons sold all its stores and went into blockchain instead, someone would buy and operate those stores. There's money to be made, just not huge profits.

Thank you, interesting information! I think what I was talking about might still apply in some other businesses, though, like many tech-related businesses.

[rotting bones]

The purpose of this proposal is to free the poor from dependence on the capitalists in various ways: capitalists can't stop creating jobs because line not go up, capitalists can't stop selling essential goods because line not go up, capitalists can't move capital abroad because line not go up, etc.

We could quibble all day long on the specifics, but I think we basically agree.

I don't know what to tell you if you haven't noticed yet that the people hate living in an economy which the left-liberals think is good. After you raise taxes, they are just going to vote for the fascists again. You might enjoy living under the kind of economy that the left-liberals want, but the voters genuinely do not. They hate it so much that they fall prey to all kinds of demagogues who tell them getting rid of the <designated parasites> will make <imaginary entity> great again.

[Raphael]

I don't know what to tell you if you haven't noticed yet that the people hate living in an economy which the left-liberals think is good. After you raise taxes, they are just going to vote for the fascists again. You might enjoy living under the kind of economy that the left-liberals want, but the voters genuinely do not. They hate it so much that they fall prey to all kinds of demagogues who tell them getting rid of the <designated parasites> will make <imaginary entity> great again.

You're right on that. But the problem with the specific proposal of yours that Ares Land was criticizing is, as far as I can see, that any economic system, no matter how capitalist or anti-capitalist or whatever it may be, has to make sure of various things, including that the total amount of stuff people consume isn't bigger than the total amount of stuff the economy produces. If I understand your system correctly, you want to simply decree both salaries and prices. I suspect that once you do that, you might end up with a combination of decreed incomes and decreed prices which means that the total amount of stuff all people combined could theoretically buy with their incomes is more, perhaps much more, than the total amount of stuff which the economy is physically capable of producing. And once you have that situation, you're guaranteed to run into all sorts of problems, starting with the fact that soon, what people actually have to pay for stuff will be simply a lot more than what you've decreed, no matter how much you campaign against price hikes.

[malloc]

I don't know what to tell you if you haven't noticed yet that the people hate living in an economy which the left-liberals think is good. After you raise taxes, they are just going to vote for the fascists again. You might enjoy living under the kind of economy that the left-liberals want, but the voters genuinely do not. They hate it so much that they fall prey to all kinds of demagogues who tell them getting rid of the <designated parasites> will make <imaginary entity> great again.

Quite. That is precisely the point I've been trying to make in this thread, that humans gravitate toward tyranny and tribalism. It seems to require certain conditions to produce people who successfully resist those impulses. Hence my emphasis on educating and urbanizing the populace.

[rotting bones]

You're right on that. But the problem with the specific proposal of yours that Ares Land was criticizing is, as far as I can see, that any economic system, no matter how capitalist or anti-capitalist or whatever it may be, has to make sure of various things, including that the total amount of stuff people consume isn't bigger than the total amount of stuff the economy produces. If I understand your system correctly, you want to simply decree both salaries and prices. I suspect that once you do that, you might end up with a combination of decreed incomes and decreed prices which means that the total amount of stuff all people combined could theoretically buy with their incomes is more, perhaps much more, than the total amount of stuff which the economy is physically capable of producing. And once you have that situation, you're guaranteed to run into all sorts of problems, starting with the fact that soon, what people actually have to pay for stuff will be simply a lot more than what you've decreed, no matter how much you campaign against price hikes.

I am not decreeing either salaries or prices. Nowhere do the terms "salary" and "price" occur in my proposal. I am decreeing increased production and sales of goods that the voters say they want more of. If a greater supply is available, the price will naturally fall. This is different from the normal practice under capitalism, which is to stop producing and, depending on whether the capitalist needs to liquidate assets quickly, stop selling goods when the prices fall too far. This possibility is barred under my proposal. No matter how far prices fall, the economy is going to keep producing more until the price of money rockets sky high. When the price of money is high, and the government hands it out by decree, salaries are high. Goods are cheap regardless of the actual denomination of notes being handed out.

"Salary" and "price" are NOT real things. They are second order effects of resources, production, distribution, supply, demand, buying, selling, and similar lower order economic facts. You will not be able to follow what my proposal says if you think in terms of realities that consumers face, which is only the tip of Cthulhu's tentacle.

[rotting bones]

Quite. That is precisely the point I've been trying to make in this thread, that humans gravitate toward tyranny and tribalism. It seems to require certain conditions to produce people who successfully resist those impulses. Hence my emphasis on educating and urbanizing the populace.

Peasants who don't have country estates for whatever reason crowded into the cities to find jobs. This is why urban populations are "progressive".

[malloc]

Peasants who don't have country estates for whatever reason crowded into the cities to find jobs. This is why urban populations are "progressive".

Partly but also cities are generally more diverse owing to their higher population and density. You can find everything from gay bars to vegan restaurants to Mexican grocery stores on one street. The greater exposure to different ways of life and demographics builds open-mindedness. It's much harder to get that kind of exposure in rural areas.

[Raphael]

rb: OK, but you still have to find some way to keep all people combined from consuming more than they produce.

Peasants who don't have country estates for whatever reason crowded into the cities to find jobs. This is why urban populations are "progressive".

Partly but also cities are generally more diverse owing to their higher population and density. You can find everything from gay bars to vegan restaurants to Mexican grocery stores on one street. The greater exposure to different ways of life and demographics builds open-mindedness. It's much harder to get that kind of exposure in rural areas.

On this, I agree with malloc and only partly agree with rotting bones.

[rotting bones]

rb: OK, but you still have to find some way to keep all people combined from consuming more than they produce.

It is physically impossible to consume more than what is produced. If consumption increases, the price of goods will rise again.

[rotting bones]

Partly but also cities are generally more diverse owing to their higher population and density. You can find everything from gay bars to vegan restaurants to Mexican grocery stores on one street. The greater exposure to different ways of life and demographics builds open-mindedness. It's much harder to get that kind of exposure in rural areas.

Putting multiple tribes in the same location can sow ethnic division if they don't have some reason to cooperate.

[Raphael]

Putting multiple tribes in the same location can sow ethnic division if they don't have some reason to cooperate.

There's some logic behind that. Sometimes, familiarity can breed contempt. But by now, in large parts of the Western World, xenophobic politicians and parties seem to do best in places with the fewest people from ethnic/cultural minorities.

[rotting bones]

Putting multiple tribes in the same location can sow ethnic division if they don't have some reason to cooperate.

There's some logic behind that. Sometimes, familiarity can breed contempt. But by now, in large parts of the Western World, xenophobic politicians and parties seem to do best in places with the fewest people from ethnic/cultural minorities.

Those people are regressive to begin with for economic reasons. Rural areas in Northeast India and Bangladesh with the highest number of tribes have the most ethnic division.

[rotting bones]

From what I understand, the response of mainstream economists to my proposal will be disbelief that there is demand for goods that it is unprofitable to produce. This is the blind spot of mainstream economics: Since demand is measured by the amount of money spent, people without buying power implicitly fall through the cracks as entities incapable of expressing economic demand. This is the skewed perspective that replacing money with votes is intended to fix.

If you have extended discussions with adherents of mainstream economics on this topic, you will realize they are living in cloud cuckoo land. If you say you don't have money for essentials, they will tell you to take a loan. If you say the banks aren't loaning you money because you don't have securities, they will say that if you have future earning potential, an efficient market will find a way to get capital into your hands at a rate of interest commensurate with the risk of non-payment.

The Soviet Union was right to think these people need psychiatric treatment. Every word they say alienates the voters. Not only do the words they say not match our experiences, anyone with common sense would say these people are our enemies. No poor person wants to live in the kind of environment these people are creating.

And then the right wants us to have children. What kind of an imbecile brings kids into this war zone?

[Travis B.]

The Soviet Union was right to think these people need psychiatric treatment. Every word they say alienates the voters. Not only do the words they say not match our experiences, anyone with common sense would say these people are our enemies. No poor person wants to live in the kind of environment these people are creating.

Of course, the Soviet Union saw anyone opposed to the absolute power of the Party, and within the Party anyone disagreeing with the General Secretary, as an enemy to be suppressed. It didn't matter if you yourself were a socialist ─ some of the earliest opponents of the Party, before the Soviet Union as we know it even properly existed, were other socialists (and especially anarchists), and the Party dealt with these people ruthlessly. The people behind the Hungarian Revolution, for instance, were not friends of capitalism but rather were libertarian socialists, and we know how the Soviet Union crushed it beneath the treads of their tanks.

[rotting bones]

The Soviet Union was right to think these people need psychiatric treatment. Every word they say alienates the voters. Not only do the words they say not match our experiences, anyone with common sense would say these people are our enemies. No poor person wants to live in the kind of environment these people are creating.

Of course, the Soviet Union saw anyone opposed to the absolute power of the Party, and within the Party anyone disagreeing with the General Secretary, as an enemy to be suppressed. It didn't matter if you yourself were a socialist ─ some of the earliest opponents of the Party, before the Soviet Union as we know it even properly existed, were other socialists (and especially anarchists), and the Party dealt with these people ruthlessly. The people behind the Hungarian Revolution, for instance, were not friends of capitalism but rather were libertarian socialists, and we know how the Soviet Union crushed it beneath the treads of their tanks.

The French revolution was a liberal revolution that supported capitalism. It turned on itself and gave rise to Napoleon. This is partly why I don't support actual violations of human rights. I'm only saying humans are stupid and crazy. What's aggravating is when insanity is celebrated as intelligence.

[Travis B.]

The Soviet Union was right to think these people need psychiatric treatment. Every word they say alienates the voters. Not only do the words they say not match our experiences, anyone with common sense would say these people are our enemies. No poor person wants to live in the kind of environment these people are creating.

Of course, the Soviet Union saw anyone opposed to the absolute power of the Party, and within the Party anyone disagreeing with the General Secretary, as an enemy to be suppressed. It didn't matter if you yourself were a socialist ─ some of the earliest opponents of the Party, before the Soviet Union as we know it even properly existed, were other socialists (and especially anarchists), and the Party dealt with these people ruthlessly. The people behind the Hungarian Revolution, for instance, were not friends of capitalism but rather were libertarian socialists, and we know how the Soviet Union crushed it beneath the treads of their tanks.

The French revolution was a liberal revolution that supported capitalism. It turned on itself and gave rise to Napoleon. This is partly why I don't support actual violations of human rights. I'm only saying humans are stupid and crazy. What's aggravating is when insanity is celebrated as intelligence.

Locking political opponents up in "psychiatric hospitals" (read: prisons) simply for disagreeing with the Party definitely counts as actual violations of their human rights.

[rotting bones]

Of course, the Soviet Union saw anyone opposed to the absolute power of the Party, and within the Party anyone disagreeing with the General Secretary, as an enemy to be suppressed. It didn't matter if you yourself were a socialist ─ some of the earliest opponents of the Party, before the Soviet Union as we know it even properly existed, were other socialists (and especially anarchists), and the Party dealt with these people ruthlessly. The people behind the Hungarian Revolution, for instance, were not friends of capitalism but rather were libertarian socialists, and we know how the Soviet Union crushed it beneath the treads of their tanks.

The French revolution was a liberal revolution that supported capitalism. It turned on itself and gave rise to Napoleon. This is partly why I don't support actual violations of human rights. I'm only saying humans are stupid and crazy. What's aggravating is when insanity is celebrated as intelligence.

Locking political opponents up in "psychiatric hospitals" (read: prisons) simply for disagreeing with the Party definitely counts as actual violations of their human rights.

That is why I don't support it.

[Travis B.]

The French revolution was a liberal revolution that supported capitalism. It turned on itself and gave rise to Napoleon. This is partly why I don't support actual violations of human rights. I'm only saying humans are stupid and crazy. What's aggravating is when insanity is celebrated as intelligence.

Locking political opponents up in "psychiatric hospitals" (read: prisons) simply for disagreeing with the Party definitely counts as actual violations of their human rights.

That is why I don't support it.

But you yourself expressed support for the Soviet Union forcing "psychiatric treatment" on their opponents on the basis that their opponents were "insane". Yes, many of their opponents were pro-capitalist, but certainly not all of them were (and the fact that many opponents of the Soviet Union were leftist is something that Western propaganda has tried hard to hide), and even in the case of pro-capitalist individuals I would say it would be wrong to force "psychiatric treatment" upon them.