This is why I hope Dems win the house and needs DSA members vote for speaker. I think there is a good chance that DSA says absolutely not.

MAGA in 2019 was very different to what it is now

Most co-op bylaws require a 2/3rds or 3/4ths supermajority for major changes. One loud-mouthed Karen cannot rally 51% of the staff to do something reckless. Instead, you have to get a large majority of people to agree with you.

In traditional corporate models, a Karen thrives by sucking up to the boss while bullying peers. The minority runs the vast majority, and in some cases family connections can override business priorities. So in fact, worker-coops are less susceptible to Karens.

If your business has 66%-75% or more that fundamentally disagree with you, you might be in the wrong workplace.

For more crucial high-level stuff, there is a board of directors, BUT they are elected. If an individual on the board breaks their duty, they can be recalled by a vote of the members or sued for "breach of fiduciary duty".

I don't get the hate for Adam Smith though. He was all about worker protections, unions, and keeping the influence of money out of politics.

Yeah let the clicks of Karens come together and rule the office.

I mean there's literature on all kinds of different philosophies but that doesn't validate their strength as a philosophy.

I always thought the original sin was defining property as "ownership" and not possession as "stewardship". If laws were based around stewardship instead of ownership, then personal possession of collective resources would be explicit in every transaction.

fuck yeah we need to ABOLISH these systems, not reform them!

there’s actual literature on that, sadly. I also don’t like it, and you’re right to think it feels contradictory and also sort of a mental manouver.

Had to read some of those stuff for UNI back in the day, and they were my first 3 book on political philosophy. You can DM me of you want the titles or the pdf, so you can read them for yourself.

Do you know the difference between positive and normative economics?

He didn't say "cut their heads off," or "never listen to them," and just said, "your interests are necessarily juxtaposed at times."

Let's actually look at the fifth book, Chapter 1, Conclusion:

The expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society; all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities.

The expense of the administration of justice, too, may no doubt be considered as laid out for the benefit of the whole society. There is no impropriety, therefore, in its being defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society. The persons, however, who give occasion to this expense, are those who, by their injustice in one way or another, make it necessary to seek redress or protection from the courts of justice. The persons, again, most immediately benefited by this expense, are those whom the courts of justice either restore to their rights, or maintain in their rights. The expense of the administration of justice, therefore, may very properly be defrayed by the particular contribution of one or other, or both, of those two different sets of persons, according as different occasions may require, that is, by the fees of court. It cannot be necessary to have recourse to the general contribution of the whole society, except for the conviction of those criminals who have not themselves any estate or fund sufficient for paying those fees.

Those local or provincial expenses, of which the benefit is local or provincial (what is laid out, for example, upon the police of a particular town or district), ought to be defrayed by a local or provincial revenue, and ought to be no burden upon the general revenue of the society. It is unjust that the whole society should contribute towards an expense, of which the benefit is confined to a part of the society.

The expense of maintaining good roads and communications is, no doubt, beneficial to the whole society, and may, therefore, without any injustice, be defrayed by the general contributions of the whole society. This expense, however, is most immediately and directly beneficial to those who travel or carry goods from one place to another, and to those who consume such goods. The turnpike tolls in England, and the duties called peages in other countries, lay it altogether upon those two different sets of people, and thereby discharge the general revenue of the society from a very considerable burden.

The expense of the institutions for education and religious instruction, is likewise, no doubt, beneficial to the whole society, and may, therefore, without injustice, be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society. This expense, however, might, perhaps, with equal propriety, and even with some advantage, be defrayed altogether by those who receive the immediate benefit of such education and instruction, or by the voluntary contribution of those who think they have occasion for either the one or the other.

When the institutions, or public works, which are beneficial to the whole society, either cannot be maintained altogether, or are not maintained altogether, by the contribution of such particular members of the society as are most immediately benefited by them; the deficiency must, in most cases, be made up by the general contribution of the whole society. The general revenue of the society, over and above defraying the expense of defending the society, and of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, must make up for the deficiency of many particular branches of revenue. The sources of this general or public revenue, I shall endeavour to explain in the following chapter.

Now, it is tempting to say that, "Well, Joe will get paid more as a welder than a dishwasher," and so clearly he should pay some tuition. And Susan is going to make even more as a chemical engineer than some welder or nurse, so she should pay some tuition.

And surely we see that you learning guitar to get laid justifies a private market of music teachers.

But who actually benefits the most from the investment in a welding school and small scale chemistry plant for training?

Because the guy making trillions, billions, or millions, while their employees, contractors, or suppliers struggle all the way down to the base of labor (stay at home parents) to make ends meet sure seems to be getting a very massive benefit from externalizing the cost of training employees.

And it shouldn't take an accounting degree to understand that the income tax on the labor's rates will credit the expense of their portion of public schools overtime.

The dude was a monarchist who really wanted to tax rich people so that society functioned in an economic fashion instead on the whim and fancy of some assholes who could hop on a boat to a private colony of slaves.

However dumb people and psychopathic people also exist and those could simply naturally incline towards behaviour that goes completely against socialist cause.

The problem with using terms like this is that they're kind of... abelist, and dehumanizing as well as outdated.

And I need clarification on what you mean by 'psychopath'. Is it Antisocial Personality Disorder? If so, how would they be against the 'socialist cause'? I don't see how lacking empathy makes somebody against socialism.

Also 'dumb' is subjective by nature.

True. Though, I’ve read all of the mentioned authors for myself, so I might be either remembering it wrong or really bad in this compass thing, but most definitely I’m to blame. There’s a long time I gave up on political philosophy to study physics.
I do remember him being quite progressive for some things,
but much of a prick for others. Now please, if you don’t mind educating me, where would you put him?

Decentralised means more democracy. We each have a say. Democratise the work place.

If you wanted a collectivist subsidised program, you'd include things like healthcare, public transit, education, and food programs for the poor.

In contrast, a hierarchical subsidising program would be a specific corporation with a for-profit motive with little to no return for the every-man. These generally lead to furthering wealth disparity.

That's a prime example of an authoritarian right ideal. You see, the right stands for hierarchies and select treatment.

The nazis did this with Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz. The nazis government selected specific companies that served its interest best.

The same can be said about space-ex and tesla. They are hand-picked by the government and given a leg-up on the competition.

bottom right is the correct place in the end when you stay consistent in your respect for others individuality

Yes thats basically me, I find it most naturally for me to act in my self inrerested and rationally that means acting in a non-selfish way. However dumb people and psychopathic people also exist and those could simply naturally incline towards behaviour that goes completely against socialist cause. And I fear that under certain socialist systems such people can actually take advantage of the whole thing.

same

Welcome

You can’t blame him when Thatcher the Milk Snatcher waved the books around like a Bible.

A Nazi comparison doesn't have to be to 1944 Nazis. It can be to the earlier years dismantling of the guardrails of democracy and the normalization of certain more extreme views and calls to the (presumed) inevitable outcome of that combination of facts. The point of such a comparison is, of course, to warn people early enough in the process that it doesn't get to complete not to wait for it to fully already happen.

But either way, I think there is also a sense that Trump has normalized stuff that 10 years ago would be thought of as insane and unacceptable and so people feel a need to use hyperbole to remind ourself how far along things are. Imagine if 10 years ago, you were told that a former Fox and Friends host is heading the Department of War and kidnapped the president of Venezuela while threatening to seize Greenland and put a toll of the Straight of Hormuz. That the president was praising the DoJ for lying to a judge to ensure an innocent person who did not receive due process was sent indefinitely to a foreign prison. That the president now has criminal immunity and even evidence of crimes generated during the presidency are not admissible in court. That the president has used billions of dollars in economic leverage via the FCC to threaten multiple comedians' jobs for criticizing him, force major news networks to settle SLAPP suits personally with him and cut/alter news programs to be more favorable to him. That the president gave a blanket pardon for people who stormed the capitol to prevent him from losing power including those who attacked police officers. The list obviously goes on and on but I think sometimes we forget just how insane the authoritarian slide has been in such a short time and people use hyperbole to try to remind everybody that we're nowhere near "the beginning". We're deep in whatever this journey is. Again, just 10 years ago if you said any of those sentences to a random person in the US they would likely not believe you.

Yeah, he was a (the) classical liberal and is misrepresented on the political compass OP posted.

It's really not. It's like saying you're a democratic autocracy. An oxymoron.

I was left-libertarian until Covid, which pushed me towards neo-lib. I was shocked that humans aren't actually as naturally cooperative as I had assumed. I'm naturally cooperative, and that clouded my theory-of-mind of the typical human.

The Ukraine war was my next wakeup call, as I realized half my information sources pushing isolationism were straight Russian propaganda. Shook me to the core. That made me much less isolationist, and cemented my political shift to neo-lib.

Trump winning 2024 was another fundamental deconstruction of my theory-of-mind. I really thought we were past....well....everything he's about. I've never had a lower opinion about the true nature of my fellow citizens.

I'll continue to be libertarian as a personal philosophy, but the real world requires an active defense of our institutions and the excesses of capitalism. If we don't actively push for the "least evil" government, then we'll just end up singing about the non-aggression principal in the gulag.

Agreed, though I'm guessing he meant MAGA in 2019, which was way less authoritarian than now. Or at least voters perceived it as less authoritarian at that time.