Thanks again.

they put absolutely minimal work into it

I don’t believe this. The small shareholders do, but not the ones who choose the board.

The Waltons have to stay up to date unless they accept that Amazon takes over. Likewise, Bezos will work to keep his company in the lead.

Bezos bought a big house in Washington, not Florida. He will be busy all day most of the days.

JD?

Thanks for the insights. I thought it was only Stalin who decided to collectivice the farming.

With stocks for instance the owners typically arent involved in the operation

Those are not the real owners but people who rent money.

There are always shareholders who control the board and who make the ultimate decisions. They decide when they want to meet but nevertheless I don’t think that they do much more than managing their companies which includes networking. So even when they don’t work, they will be ‘on’. No pity, they are rewarded more than enough.

I should have looked it up before. I don’t remember my original source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War

The red army had 6 million out of 280 million citizens of the USSR. So it’s a bit more.

and often the company does worse when the owners get involved

How long do those companies exist? If owners just skim, I would expect most companies to dissolve sooner than later.

My point is that the Capitalists manage the rate at which workers learn about the left point of view so that the chance of them reaching a ctitical mass for change is very low.

It’s definitely not a deliberate misunderstanding.

consumerism is driven by a necessity for Capitalists to sell more commodities. It isn’t the choice of individuals, but the underlying Capitalist system

Yes. By the same logic, Capitalists need consumers to stay calm and to not change the system.

How can the Capitalist system be changed if people don’t act on individual choices?

Finally, Leftists do reach people, with action. It isn’t a “trap.”

They reach some. Do they reach enough?

Which all go back to the white army losing.

Yes, I mean the Tsarist army. But you are right, my knowledge of history is limited.

Workers are consumers, they get their means to live through being paid wages.

That’s not what I mean with consumers. Consumers spend their money against their interest, to fulfill emotional needs that were highlighted by advertising. I don’t think that I have mentioned advertising before, but I actually think that this type of advertising won’t happen in a socialist country.

When I say your point on TikTok is Idealist, I mean it in the philosophical way, in opposition to Materialism. Idealism is wrong, it’s the concept of thoughts and ideas being the primary mover, not material reality.

I think that’s also how I understood it.

My point is that the mindset of people have changed and thoughts have become the primary movers.

The reason I say yours is idealist is because you’ve invented a problem that doesn’t exist, tik tok does not change the material base, being workers who spend their wages on goods.

Workers are not workers who rationally spend their money on products that have the most benefit to them. Those people are now consumers. They spend their money on stuff that is supposed to make them happy which induces the need to accept the current system. A revolution becomes a threat.

The answers of the “bros” like government supplied girlfriends are not worth considering.

But the motivations are. What do those people want and why do they prefer it over the offer from the left.

but that screams that you haven’t ever engaged with Leftist theory. Knowing leftist theory leads to action, not inaction.

Action means nothing if it doesn’t reach people. As I said, truth becomes a trap if it leads to ineffective action.

Overall I agree with two exceptions.

The Russian civil war was fought with 1% or 2% of the population. It’s not the majority that fights to own things.

Owning means to constantly think for the company and constantly try to optimize it. There is no time off. It’s a job on its own that is more than just skimming the profits.

I would argue that people in general don’t want ownership or we would have many more cooperatives.

The White Army was specific to Russia, not all Socialist states like China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

If I remember correctly, Mao was supported by Stalin. I assume something similar for any other revolution. Outside support is needed.

Look at Syria. Assad was in control and it took massive outside support to let the opposition win. Who is going to support a socialist revolution today?

Workers were always consumers.

Not like today, where brains are addicted to TikTok and shopping. Workers could work less but they shop more. That’s not considered in the original theory.

As Capitalism decays, proletarianization increases even in the Imperialist countries, and thus reception to Socialism increases.

Will it reach critical mass?

There is no “mental problem that cannot be solved,” this is quite literally inventing a problem that exists purely in your head. Idealism to a T.

Exactly. Consumers are trapped there. The left cannot handle this because it absolutely contradicts their mindset. This alone will prevent any further progress towards socialism.

Broism is a reaction to proletarianization, combined with patriarchial culture. It ignores analysis and goes for vibes-based solutions, which is why all bro-culture is incoherent and contradictory.

Correct. ‘Ignoring the material ones’ means ignoring analysis while vibe-based solution corresponds with ‘mental issues’. My point is that Broism looks at aspects of the current situation to which the left analysis is blind. Calling it a reaction already frames it as not worth considering.

The left analysis in itself is correct. That doesn’t change anything if the consumers are not listening. Knowing the truth is a mental trap if it leads to ineffective action.

Ok, that’s clearer and more to the functional point than unity.

My perspective is that people are driven by emotions. Is ownership something in itself that people want? I would say that it is just a tool.

None. I rather change myself than wasting time on changing something that won’t last forever anyway.

Not now but soon: lemmy.

Make the logout random. This creates addiction which will turn lemmy into mindcrack.

I agree. My point is that the right-wing workers also don’t want a fascist state. Thus there is common ground to prevent it together.

A repressive small state is a strawman. Done right a small state is not repressive.

Socialist revolution has already happened in many areas.

Which all go back to the white army losing. Some say it was intentionally. Can that be recreated?

Socialism locks in the current situation.

The early industrial society doesn’t exist anymore. Capitalists have adapted and turned workers into consumers. The old paths are gone.

“Socialism has ro for improvement

Consumers don’t want to endure hardship or analysis. They can’t stand seeing the problem, how can they be receptive to a solution?

The material situation is the same but there is now a mental problem that hasn’t been solved.

To fish for downvotes, let me add that the bro lifestyle is an attempt by the right to solve the mental issues while ignoring the material ones.

Xi Jinping is the son of a high ranking politician. How is that not some form of class dynamics?

Socialism does work

USSR failed by having to import grain, while having black earth.

But I am not opposing Socialism.

My point is that right-wing people shouldn’t be ignored, especially not to the point of seeing them as enemies.

The upper class is using the split to reign. Insisting on a solution that has room for improvement locks in the current situation.

the bourgeoisie has been suppressed by Proletarian States, your hypothesis isn’t accurate

But there are priviliged positions of power within those states. It’s just another form to organize power. Those positions will not be available to everybody.

The idea of trying to synthesize a new ideology of left combined with right historically is Social Democracy,

That can’t be all.

As you write, it doesn’t work so something else should be tried.

Leftist analysis, which is correct.

Leftist analysis is not correct if the proletariat is stuck where it is.

Not all desires are valid

I would say, not all enactments of desires are acceptable, but invalidating desires by themselves sounds wrong to me. Who decides which desires are valid?

blaming government as the issue when really it’s the fault of Capitalism

Having a strong government to oppose Capitalism doesn’t help either. Capitalism is just one form of maintaining power. The people with capital will become the people at the top of the government if Capitalism is abolished by government.

Why not go full Hegel, treat left and right as thesis and antithesis and come up with something new?

From the point of view of the right, the left government is maintaining overbearing zoning laws and medical regulations. These left politics retain the profits for the upper class in the current Capitalist system.

It’s the separation of the proletariat that uphelds Capitalism, not one side alone.

A unified proletariat doesn’t have to be left. Restricting analysis to dialectical materialism misses that people also care about other things. The left would already have convinced the entire proletariat if it’s only materialism.

It’s the arrogance of already knowing how to resolve social issues that keeps the left stuck in the past. The left is all about respecting people and their emotions and desires, but when they are expressed in the form of right-wing support, they are called reactionary and ignored.