Freedom
(midwest.social)
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
SocialismAlso, all those brands of shampoo are owned by one or two firms.
Freedom is when toothbrush.
If it would have stopped at "quit a job you hate" the example wouldn't have been USian-only and I could relate, while also setting a much better standard for freedom.
"Ha nice try! That is not real capitalism! You think workplaces would just give workers health insurance under a free market? They would just tell sick workers to figure it out themselves and replace them with healthy ones if needed!"
"Some of the first evidence of compulsory health insurance in the United States was in 1915, through the progressive reform protecting workers against medical costs and sicknesses in industrial America. Prior to this, within the Socialist and Progressive parties, health insurance and coverage was framed as not only an economic right for workers' health, but also as an employer's responsibility and liability—healthcare was in this context centered on working-class Americans and labor unions." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#The_rise_of_employer-sponsored_coverage)
Also "free speech" that doesn't apply to corporate platforms. Which is, you know, all of them. Love when a liberal says "that doesn't count, they're a private business" whenever you point out the blatant censorship in the West.
Whole fuckin country is a private business
Well private entities should always allowed to choose what content they want to platform. It's only a problem if we used these privately owned platform as an official communications channel (like government relying on X to announce stuffs).
and this logic applies even within bourgeoisie political parties https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
Valid criticism, but let's not pretend socialism leads to better outcomes for freedom of speech or press either.
Newspapers in the USSR had the legal obligation of responding to letters from readers in the span of 2 weeks. Every workplace had its own announcement board and journal/newspaper written by workers in the worker's union. Imagine being able to publish an article to all your coworkers criticising the administration of the company and not getting fired for it.
There was freedom of press to a larger degree than in any western society because people literally made and consumed their own press.
Didn't they ban factions (perhaps this was Stalin's time)?
We can move the conversation there if you want, but I don't see how that's related to worker-owned press
It's related to the subject of fascism and censorship
Censorship, we can argue about it. Fascism, no.
The USSR had free universal healthcare, free education to the highest level, equality under the law for everyone, respect for ethnic minorities and promotion of their languages and their representation in society, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed housing at 3% of the monthly salary on average, heavy subsidization of basics like foodstuffs, affordable and high quality public transit, guaranteed pension plans, abolition of private companies and landlordism, and the highest rates of unionization in the world at the time.
I happen to be a Spaniard, and my ancestors had to endure fascism for 40 years. There was no universal free education, no universal healthcare, no guaranteed jobs, no guaranteed housing, no right to unionization, militarized police defending landlords and private companies, extreme racism and ethno-nationalist-catholic propaganda, colonialism in Morocco, repression of minority languages and ethnicities without a right to an education in them (see Basque and Catalan, compare them to Kazakh or Uzbek), no guaranteed pensions...
The two systems were the polar opposite, it's the reason why the first thing fascists will do is executing every communist.
Ok so the points coming to mind areas follows: The censorship in the USSR.
This doesn't seem to align with my understanding of the USSR. Didn't the USSR fail horribly, leading to its collapse? Bureaucratic corruption, inefficiency, not being able to compete internationally, and the oppression of marginalized populations (such as queer people ) had been my impression of the USSR's legacy.
As for the last point, that comes off as hypocritical since communist countries do the same thing. North Korea has executions and Cuba throws journalists in jail.
Freedom of press only applies to the wealthy, how do I benefit from it as a worker when all media in my country perpetuates comprador propaganda and I'm too poor to make my own press?
For sure— I'm not saying freedom of press actually exists under capitalism.
My point is that socialism doesn't have freedom of press either. Censorship and surveillance by the vanguard state (see China, Cuba, historical USSR) is routine.
"Dictatorship of the proletariat". Unfortunately, dictatorships do not have a tendency to allow for freedom of press.
The proletariat is the majority in most if not all societies, arguing the dictatorship of the proletariat is undemocratic merely because the word "dictatorship" doesn't make sense. Democracy is [ideally, not what it is in practice] is a dictatorship of the majority, and the proletariat are the majority, surely you see how saying democracy is undemocratic makes no sense.
States are instruments of oppression weilded by classes, they are all "dictatorships" in the sense that a class oppresses the other; the question in state is, is it the capitalists oppressing the working class, or the other way around
Except in practice it's not proletarians doing these things, it's bureaucrats who end up forming their own class and class interests in the name of the proletariat. The average proletariat isn't actually the one who makes these rules or checks or applies censorships. See China, USSR, Cuba.
There shouldn't be classes to begin with. Eliminating hierarchies in lieu of anarchism deals with the issue without it being "another dictatorship"
forming their own class and class interests in the name of the proletariat.
That's not how class works, it's not like starting a new club. Class is defined by your relationship to production, not some nebulous title like "beauraucrats"
There shouldn’t be classes to begin with.
Genuinely, what is your suggested approach to rectifying this and what real world data is it based on? How do you expect to abolish class without a clear understanding of what creates it? How would a scientist expect to cure a disease without understanding what it is?
That's the socialist definition of class, that is not how I understand class.
I didn't say it's like "starting a new club".
Calling bureaucracy "nebulous" doesn't invalidate any of the reasoning I provided.
Suggested approach: anarchism.
I didn't disregard the importance of understanding class, merely that I disagreed with the reductive socialist definition of class.
Dictatorship of the proletariat means democracy for the proletariat, dictatorship against capitalists.
Those words don't mean anything when they are used to censor. The introduction of censorship allows censors to censor anything, regardless of whether or not it is "capitalist" or not.
There is no way of knowing whether only "capitalist" content is censored or if criticisms that are staunchly and directly against the state (which absolutely deserves its place in any state that doesn't want to be an echo chamber) are also being censored under the veneer of "capitalism".
Every government and even every culture practices some degree of control over how we speak and how we exist. Language itself has an impact on this. Despite this fact, it's possible to recognize proletarian control vs capitalist control.
"Everyone does it!" is literally a logical fallacy.
It's not even just "some", you're minimizing the extent of control here. You cannot have a state held accountable if it systematically suppresses criticism against it.
Socialism changes which class controls the speech from the capitalist class to the working classes.
This is not the case in any of the AES countries.
China, Cuba, Historical USSR. No such thing what you described. It's state-controlled. In china, it's bureaucratic class that controls the media, not average workers by any means.
The state is governed by the working classes in China, Cuba, USSR, etc. Administration is not a class, it's a subset of a broader class, ie the proletariat. Classes are relations to ownership of production and distribution, not simply job categories.
The bureaucracy is still a class category that is distinct from workers in general with its own class interests.
States such as China aren't really governed by the working classes.
No, this is not how class or the state works. Administration is a subset of a class, just like teachers and doctors are not classes.
Teachers and doctors don't get to make laws to further their own interests, make it easier for others they know to do the same, amongst the countless other power moves bureaucrats are able to pull off. This power concentrates and develops them into their own class with their own interests because they are so largely cut off and distinguished from the rest of the working population.
Teachers and doctors are nothing like bureaucrats, that's a fallacious analogy.
Not “somehow”. Quite easily. Advertising works. People are easily influenced. It wasn’t sudden; it happened little by little over a long time.
