Dear Jeff Bezos, instead of firing me, protect your workers from coronavirus

> But thank you for regurgitating the ignorant "bread lines!" trope when there are actual, literal bread lines in the US right now!

I am aware that there are actual bread lines right now, as implied by my original statement.

Of course, the bread lines we are facing has more to do with (at present) a rapid shock in demand, rather than actual food shortages.

Whereas in actual historical socialist countries (like Soviet Russia, East Germany, etc.) did actually have shortages on a regular basis.

> the fact that socialism has never been tried in a fair way because it is an existential threat to the wealth of people like Jeff Bezos, who prefer to strangle it in the cradle instead.

There is no notion more riddled with folly and arrogance that "socialism has never properly been tried". That the USSR was defeated and China was bullied into submission by the likes of a few wealthy corporations is nonsense.

You're still being disingenuous because you aren't dealing with the point he was actually making.

His point was that capitalism's optimization function steered us in the direction whereby most of our "wealth" in this country is derived from the assumption of intact and normal flowing international supply chains to fuel the engine of consumerism instead of being based on the actual capability to produce and deliver finished product from raw material in a time of crisis or otherwise.

Globalism has spelled doom in the sense that we haven't been making sure to maintain our own industrial capability, while instead raking in as much "capital" return by exploiting the wage gap found internationally. Yet as soon as that decision bit us in the ass, our capability as a lone nation to take care of our owm has essentially been sold off to the lowest bidder elsewhere, who is now more than happy to turn around and hold said resources hostage as diplomatic leverage.

But no, please. Yet another entertaining and predictable rant about the socialist boogeyman would be great. Has the bonus of distracting from the actual problem as well, so kills two birds with one stone. /s

I'm so tired of hearing people hit stop points over capitalism vs. the merest notion that a nation should have some level of influence over the market and industrial infrastructure it maintains in the interests it's own security.

0x is absolutely fucking right. Unrestrained capitalism encourages selling the jewels right out from under the nation that is dependent and instrumental to the very jewel's existence. No goddamn pile of dollar bills or IOU's is capable of taking the place of actual, physical, manufacturing capability ready to go, unreliant on unreliable trade partners in a time of crisis. It's a case of personal safety, writ large.

The fantasy of a world pacified through economic interdependence was a bloody sham from the beginning, made even worse by the vices of the ultra-wealthy, and exacerbated even more by the aspirations of the swathes of temporarily inconvenienced billionaires that seek to figure out how to get on top of the carriage one day so maybe they get their turn at playing the part of the "Invisible Hand".

So I counter your Socialist boogeyman once again with "look at where your Global Capitalist paradise got you: Diplomatic tensions through the roof, your primary economic rival holding most of the relevant industrial cards; an isolated population, paralyzed by a virus you can do nil about because you sold/didn't build the factories, a collapsing economy, and in the same breadlines the "Socialists" you so despise are in".

So quit the bloody rhetorical posturing. It's all been said and it does nothing to help with the problems at hand. The country needs to industrially mobilize once more: without the crutch of foreign powers oh so eager to provide a workforce on the condition we show them how to build the actually challenging bits and leave all the physical assets with them, to be held hostage the first time things get tough.

I have no grudge against the Chinese or anyone else at the moment. We're all in this pandemic, so they're going to do what hi.ans do and look after themselves. If anything,I'm more pissed off that my own country which so pounds the drum of being responsible and self-sufficient has been on the global trade dole to the point it's forgotten how to pick itself up and go without squabbling over who gets the contract, and how hard can I screw my workers.

As 0x262d has pointed out to you, they are a literal Marxist[0]. You are projecting your positions (some of which I would agree, and did not argue with) onto them.

I am arguing against 0x262d's actual, explicit, literal Marxism.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22773948

> I am arguing against 0x262d's actual, explicit, literal Marxism.

0x262d's positions actually seem pretty reasonable and interesting, though we'd probably find disagreement if we got deeper into details.

I don't know much about Marxism, but I do know it's broader and more varied than some strawman desire for a Soviet Union Part Deux. I also think it will be possible to transcend capitalism without disaster, and libertarians have done a good job convincing me that's a worthy topic to think about and a worthy goal to work towards.

So you do acknowledge that, contrary to your initial claim, 0x262d was in fact arguing for central planning?

> So you do acknowledge that, contrary to your initial claim, 0x262d was in fact arguing for central planning?

No, because that wasn't my original claim. My position was that we explore how he understands the concept of "democratically planned economy" rather than jumping to Soviet conclusions. It's really all in the details.

> No, because that wasn't my original claim.

I said:

> The OP was literally advocating for a centrally ("democratically") planned economy. Having production dictated by the political process as the default is the extreme position.

And you said: "No".

Either you were saying "no" to my assertion that the OP was advocating for central planning by default, or you were saying "no" to my assertion that such a position is extreme. Please clarify.

> My position was that we explore how he understands the concept of "democratically planned economy" rather than jumping to Soviet conclusions.

OP is a self-professed literal Trotskyist. Trotskyists were (among) the original Soviets. I'm not jumping to any conclusions. It is quite plainly implied by the label.

Thank you for taking things at face value instead of hysterically posting that I am a Trotskyist, I appreciate it! I have one comment here which is that soviet is just the Russian word for council and originally meant bottom-up, democratic structures of workers and soldiers that eventually took power because they and only they were willing to end WWI, give land to the peasants, and break the power of the capitalist class. Then, due mostly to Russia's extreme backwardness as well as attack by literally 28 capitalist countries including all the previous belligerents of WW1, the USSR degenerated into a bureaucratic monstrosity that fetishized the word "soviet".

The original Bolsheviks predicted this and had no hope of success without socialism being achieved in a rich country and coming to their aid; Russia did not have the economic basis for socialism. As Trotsky put it, "When there is little bread, the purchasers are compelled to stand in line. When the lines are very long, it is necessary to appoint a policeman to keep order. Such is the starting point of the power of the Soviet bureaucracy."

Capitalism is hurtling towards revolutionary crisis and stopping it is impossible, but if we achieve socialism on a better basis than Russia did, I'm optimistic we can overcome their specific problems. This has to be dramatically more democratic than Russia but the comparison point is, right now, nurses are fired if they wear masks in many hospitals (https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/kaiser-permanente-nurses...). We have the economic basis to transcend this, we just have to do it.

> Thank you for taking things at face value instead of hysterically posting that I am a Trotskyist, I appreciate it!

I'm just quoting your own words[0].

I get the impression that many people are used to seeing more moderate, mainstream progressive positions slurred with the label "Communist" (with a capital C), and sought to cast your position in a more moderate light. I don't see anything inaccurate in characterize you as a Communist (of which Trotskyists are a flavor). You're certainly welcome to own and defend that position, but it is undeniably an extreme position (even on the Internet).

I can also understand if some want to distinguish socialism (or their own variant of it) from the strain(s) that produced the USSR, perhaps in order to avoid the stigma, no such distinction is possible in your case. Any such association is something you have to deal with directly.

> I have one comment here which is that soviet is just the Russian word for council and originally meant bottom-up, democratic structures of workers and soldiers that eventually took power because they and only they were willing to end WWI, give land to the peasants, and break the power of the capitalist class.

There are other interpretations that paint the revolution in a somewhat dimmer light[1].

> Then, due mostly to Russia's extreme backwardness as well as attack by literally 28 capitalist countries including all the previous belligerents of WW1, the USSR degenerated into a bureaucratic monstrosity that fetishized the word "soviet".

> The original Bolsheviks predicted this and had no hope of success without socialism being achieved in a rich country and coming to their aid; Russia did not have the economic basis for socialism. As Trotsky put it, "When there is little bread, the purchasers are compelled to stand in line. When the lines are very long, it is necessary to appoint a policeman to keep order. Such is the starting point of the power of the Soviet bureaucracy."

"I was brutal to my own people because my enemies were mean" is a terrible justification the atrocities committed by the USSR, both at the beginning and throughout the decades of it's reign of terror.

> Capitalism is hurtling towards revolutionary crisis and stopping it is impossible, but if we achieve socialism on a better basis than Russia did, I'm optimistic we can overcome their specific problems.

In principle I think it's reasonable to discuss why the Russian revolution failed to achieve it's objectives, and whether we could achieve them ourselves. Whitewashing the crimes does not lead me to think it will be a fruitful discussion in this context.

> This has to be dramatically more democratic than Russia but the comparison point is, right now, nurses are fired if they wear masks in many hospitals (https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/kaiser-permanente-nurses...).

Saying that (the lack of) democratic planning of the economy or the healthcare system has anything to do with nurses being fired for wearing masks (which is truly a terrible tragedy) is illogical. All it takes to deal with that problem is the willingness to put the truth above controlling public perception, something which the USSR[2] and it's Western[3] sympathizers were not especially good at.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22698823 [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty