r/politics • u/Dustypigjut Oregon • Nov 27 '24

Elon Musk publicized the names of government employees he wants to cut. It’s terrifying federal workers Soft Paywall

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/27/business/elon-musk-government-employees-targets/index.html

31.6k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

u/Balbuto Nov 27 '24

Revolution of the masses is the only thing they fear

45

u/kinkyaboutjewelry Nov 27 '24

They might very well cause it to eventually happen.

22

u/robocoplawyer Nov 27 '24

The threat of actual socialism was a good counterbalance to gaining concessions to the working class. Once that threat was effectively eliminated they felt emboldened to take back the things we fought for. Not saying that communism was a good thing, but workers protections and freedoms have been under relentless assault after the fall of the USSR.

43

u/ElectricalBook3 Nov 27 '24

The threat of actual socialism was a good counterbalance

Not saying that communism was a good thing

I think you don't know what either word means if you use socialism - when workers own the economy - interchangeably with communism - a moneyless, classless, stateless system which has never yet existed in history because every single place which called itself "communist" never gave up money, strengthened the state, and increased stratification based on political affiliation.

America has always been an oligarchy

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

And that's why its oligarchs responded to the 1933 New Deal with an attempted overthrow to install a "business-friendly dictatorship" and when they weren't hanged for that they spent billions over a century to indoctrinate the populace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

13

u/Musiclover4200 Nov 27 '24

I think you don't know what either word means if you use socialism - when workers own the economy - interchangeably with communism - a moneyless, classless, stateless system which has never yet existed in history

The older I get the more convinced I become that if any "perfect" system exists it's probably some blend of socialism/capitalism/communism IE:

Socialism for essentials such as housing/food/medicine

Capitalism for luxury goods and non essential industries, but still heavily regulated to prevent monopolies & cronyism

Communism on a local level as in literal communes where the goal is to be as self sufficient as possible by growing foods and crafting & generally working together to lower the environmental impact of living

Communism has never truly existed on a large scale despite all the countries that have called themselves communist, but actual self sustaining communes are probably the closest example and if we could scale them up to create more sustainable cities it would bring a lot of benefits.

It's also no coincidence that many of the EU countries with the highest standards of living have adopted a lot of socialist policies when it comes to essentials like food/housing/medicine, and inversely many of the places with the lowest QOL metrics are deregulated capitalist hellscapes that are closer to modern feudalism than anything.

7

u/Upbeat_Obligation404 Nov 27 '24

This is...exactly the same conclusion I've come to. I even sketched out how my state would look with self-sufficient communities around "hubs" that facilitated production and commerce of luxury goods.

There's two of us!

3

u/Musiclover4200 Nov 27 '24

It makes a lot of sense when you think about it, capitalism has been the norm for so long a lot of people don't seem to get that it can exist in different forms and there's middle ground between "free market capitalism" and full on socialism or communism.

We already subsidize a ton of industries anyways, there's a lot of truth to the saying "socialism for the rich capitalism for the poor" and apparently it actually has a wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_for_the_rich_and_capitalism_for_the_poor

Andrew Young has been cited for calling the United States system "socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor," and Martin Luther King Jr. frequently used this wording in his speeches.[6][7] Since at least 1969, Gore Vidal widely disseminated the expression "free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich" to describe the U.S. economic policies,[8][9] notably using it from the 1980s in his critiques of Reaganomics.[10]

Before capitalism became the norm most places existed with a mix of bartering & communism/socialism, and in a lot of ways what we have now feels more like neo feudalism where corporations have replaced kings/nobles.

Really in the ideal situation to create a utopia we'd either find an alternative for money altogether or at least put less emphasis on profits and focus on the social & environmental impacts.

3

u/ElectricalBook3 Nov 28 '24

capitalism has been the norm for so long a lot of people don't seem to get that it can exist in different forms and there's middle ground between "free market capitalism" and full on socialism or communism.

Particularly when the particular form of capitalism pushed nowadays is a very different form of "non-government-controlled economy" than has existed in the past. Adam Curtis' Century of the Self goes into detail of how it's a reactionary movement against the New Deal

The vast majority of conversation says "socialism" when they mean "command economy" and "capitalism" when they mean "laissez faire" which itself has not had a good track record in history. Every single attempt resulted in famine and recession. Which is hilarious to me as "socialism" and "command economy" are about as close to total opposites as black and white.

Alas, the Gift Economy is virtually never taught about in schools.

1

u/bigbjarne Foreign Nov 28 '24

Who would own the means of production?

4

u/ElectricalBook3 Nov 27 '24

Socialism for essentials such as housing/food/medicine

I think you mean welfare, and I think history shows that to be correct. Even Rome before the emperors had a grain dole so its poor could afford to eat and that let it become the first megacity in the Mediterranean. When the Roman Empire lost its food production in north Africa, the grain dole was slashed and the people fled, resulting in the city's population crashing. As did its production, creating a descending spiral.

The same thing happened with Constantinople, it started out as a petty fishing village before its defensive potential and central location for the eastern Roman Empire led to its build-up and despite fertile ground for cabbage crops it wasn't until a grain dole was established before it became the next mediterranean megacity with productive universities, engineering and other institutions.

When people have to do all the work of totally supporting themselves, that means they can't specialize and you have a huge population which isn't "productive" in terms of the overall whole because they're overfocused on barely scraping by. Just look at feudalism's low agricultural productivity; tied to its low trade exchange - another thing shared with protectionist capitalism.

Same as deregulation for "free market" or laissez-faire was tried multiple times. In every single experiment, famine and economic depression resulted

3

u/Musiclover4200 Nov 27 '24 edited Nov 27 '24

I think you mean welfare, and I think history shows that to be correct.

Welfare has become such a loaded term for a lot of people but instead of focusing on a UBI I think we need to start with making food/housing and medicine as universal as possible. It's not even like most people need fancy food or housing they'd be happy just being able to afford essentials and get a decent apartment without paying crazy high prices and stressing out about being able to afford rent on top of everything else.

Appreciate the added history though, the success of societies really shouldn't be measured by how much wealth it generates but by how the average quality of life is or how people at the bottom are treated.

Same as deregulation for "free market" or laissez-faire was tried multiple times. In every single experiment, famine and economic depression resulted

"Trickle down economics" in all its variations really has been a plague on society for a long time, it's crazy how effective propaganda has been to convince people that deregulation & tax cuts for the rich will fix problems that are usually the direct result of those exact things. Meanwhile the periods we've flourished have always been when the lower/middle classes get the most benefits.

When people have to do all the work of totally supporting themselves, that means they can't specialize and you have a huge population which isn't "productive" in terms of the overall whole because they're overfocused on barely scraping by. Just look at feudalism's low agricultural productivity; tied to its low trade exchange - another thing shared with protectionist capitalism.

Yeah this is what it really comes down to, it's sad to think about all the smart people out there struggling just to get by who could be going to college and finding ways to improve things or even just contributing with art/science.

1

u/ElectricalBook3 Nov 28 '24

Appreciate the added history though, the success of societies really shouldn't be measured by how much wealth it generates but by how the average quality of life is or how people at the bottom are treated.

I completely agree.

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.

-FDR

1

u/bigbjarne Foreign Nov 28 '24

How does that look like? Socialism and capitalism is about ownership of the means of production.

1

u/Musiclover4200 Nov 28 '24

How does that look like?

Plenty of thriving EU democratic countries with a healthier mix of capitalism and socialism.

For communism look at rural villages or like I said literal communes where the focus is on community & taking care of everyone instead of making money. It's definitely gotten less common but that's how a lot of the world survived (to varying degrees) pre capitalism.

1

u/bigbjarne Foreign Nov 28 '24

I'm from Finland. All European countries are capitalist with social programs. That means that the capitalist class owns the means of production but some parts of the economy is in the hand of the state, which is not in the hands of the workers. Therefore, we live in capitalism. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production.

1

u/Musiclover4200 Nov 28 '24

Sure but the point I was making is the "perfect" system is likely a blend of all 3 or something else altogether, and there's a lot of middle ground between capitalism/socialism/communism despite a lot of people viewing them as black & white with no overlap.

You can find examples of all 3 in most countries to at least some extent from the most capitalist to socialist parts of the world. But we haven't yet seen true communism on a larger scale as it's mostly been limited to literal communes or small settlements with most "communist" countries being more classic dictatorships.

1

u/bigbjarne Foreign Nov 28 '24

Yes but what does that actually mean? Does it mean that half of the means of production is owned by the workers and the other by the capitlalists?

But we haven't yet seen true communism on a larger scale as it's mostly been limited to literal communes or small settlements with most "communist" countries being more classic dictatorships.

Marx called it primitive communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#

1

u/Musiclover4200 Nov 28 '24

Yes but what does that actually mean? Does it mean that half of the means of production is owned by the workers and the other by the capitlalists?

Like I said in the OP essentials like food/housing/healthcare should be fully socialist, non essentials like luxury industries can remain capitalist but with heavy oversight/regulations to prevent monopolies or other issues. And cities/communities should adapt more "communist" policies where people work together to be as self sufficient/efficient as possible to reduce the environmental impact.

Maybe not 50/50 but I think of it like the food pyramid with socialism on the top, capitalism in the middle, and communism on the bottom at local levels.

How that would be best implemented is another discussion but some of the more social democracy EU countries seem like they're heading in the right direction while the more capitalist countries have been regressing towards neo feudalism.

1

u/bigbjarne Foreign Nov 28 '24 edited Nov 29 '24

So basically modern social democracy which is capitalism with safety nets? Except that's not how social democracies work in reality but that's essentially what you argue for?

they're heading in the right direction

What do you mean?

capitalist countries have been regressing towards neo feudalism.

What's the difference?

→ More replies

1

u/robot_invader Nov 28 '24

I love it. That's kind of where I land, too.

Capitalism and free markets are awesome at allocating scarce resources; as long as there's elasticity in supply & demand, it's running in a sandbox where there are outside rules to define desired outcomes, and rule-makers' interests are very carefully aligned with keeping the desired outcomes in sight, which means none of this revolving door between regulators and industry.

Needs a catchy name, though. I remember Basic from some SF novel. Basic food and clothing allowance, Basic housing, Basic healthcare, Basic job guarantee required to qualify without specific exemption.

2

u/Musiclover4200 Nov 28 '24

Capitalism and free markets are awesome at allocating scarce resources; as long as there's elasticity in supply & demand, it's running in a sandbox where there are outside rules to define desired outcomes, and rule-makers' interests are very carefully aligned with keeping the desired outcomes in sight, which means none of this revolving door between regulators and industry.

Well said, "free market capitalism" is very different from the de regulated BS we have now where regulatory capture is pretty much the norm across most industries. Without at least some oversight you end up with monopolies and oligarchy like we're experiencing now.

Needs a catchy name, though. I remember Basic from some SF novel. Basic food and clothing allowance, Basic housing, Basic healthcare, Basic job guarantee required to qualify without specific exemption.

Might as well play an uno reverse and call it "trickle up" economics, or if that's not catchy enough maybe base it off a popular figure IE "Berniecomonics" instead of socialism as that word has been borderline turned into a slur for many people.

2

u/robot_invader Nov 28 '24

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Socialism, communism, liberalism, welfare, aid... All sterilized.

I think Bernie is kind of sterilized as well. Here's an awesome, well intentioned guy with great ideas, but I think he has ultimately failed. It's not good or right that he did, and I don't even really know why; but despite a ton of general support and interest online in him and his ideas, there doesn't appear to be any sort of lasting structure emanating from him that can carry a movement in policy onward. At least not from my vantage point in Canada.

2

u/Musiclover4200 Nov 28 '24

I think Bernie is kind of sterilized as well. Here's an awesome, well intentioned guy with great ideas, but I think he has ultimately failed.

The biggest reason is probably that's he's been independent for so long, politics by nature requires alliances and compromise to get at least some results which is harder when you don't belong to a major party & don't have many friends in high places for support.

He seems like he's made a great senator and has at least helped to push more progressive ideas into the mainstream but in retrospect I'd wager Biden was better suited to actually getting important policies passed despite often being hamstrung by conservatives & centrists.

Bernie would probably make a better VP than president with the right pairing to someone who knows how to play the game. As frustrating as it is him being a self described "democratic socialist" automatically alienates him from a lot of people who otherwise would agree with most of his policies.

Hopefully we'll get some younger politicians with similiar beliefs who are charismatic enough to better popularize socialist/progressive policies. But in the current system until we get some truly progressive billionaires to counter all the conservative oligarchs we'll be fighting an uphill battle for progress or even just preventing regression.

2

u/robot_invader Nov 28 '24

I think the progressive approach to fundraising should be to form very strong ties with organizations that have a wide membership and concurrent interests. Which sucks, because going to one sugar daddy is a lot easier.

I'm thinking unions, of course, but I think that there are probably more that exist that could be used. Progressive churches, for example. I also think that there is scope to build out a grassroots of organizations. Add an example: maybe a Progressive Business Council can be formed, on the lines of the Chambers of Commerce. I'm in a very conservative area, and I've heard people in the community talk about businesses failing because the owner votes the wrong way.

Regarding unions: 50 years of general demonization of unions, plus a bit of a retreat of the left into academia, has let the right co-opt a lot of the working class. I think a successful progressive movement needs to be unabashedly pro-labor, pro-union, pro-taking union donations, and pro-schemes to take more union money via PACs, etc.

Policy wise: I could see success with a policy to make Union dues directly refundable from taxes, so the government effectively pays those dues, undercutting one of the main objections. Position it as an alternative to brute-forcing minimum wage & benefits by allowing workers to compete fairly in the labor marketplace, compare it to tax cuts for business, hammer on outsize corporate profits, maintain that big business is what destroys small business, and point out that starting a small business takes savings.

6

u/robocoplawyer Nov 27 '24

Yes I read Marx when I studied political philosophy in college, I was paraphrasing. While it’s true that no ruling communist party implemented communism per definition, they did implement socialist economics on a global scale, allegedly in furtherance of moving towards a communist state even though they never reached it or abandoned the idea altogether.

7

u/ElectricalBook3 Nov 27 '24

they did implement socialist economics on a global scale

Did they? Or did they implement centralized control and starve their own populace?

https://www.thoughtco.com/command-economy-definition-4586459

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

The examples of the Soviet Union and China are ones which do not exemplify socialism but ultranationalism.

1

u/bigbjarne Foreign Nov 27 '24

Why didn’t the famine continue if the reason was the centralized economy?

5

u/ElectricalBook3 Nov 27 '24

That's explained in the article. The famine targeted Ukrainians because of the existence of kulaks resisting "collectivization" (state theft of private cooperatively-owned farms) and their solidarity broke and they gave in and handed over their ownership of their farms to the state. Maintaining an engineered famine is difficult and so once the state gained the power they wanted they took what gains they made and moved on.

1

u/bigbjarne Foreign Nov 27 '24 edited Nov 27 '24

Why didn’t the famine continue if the reason was centralized economy? Does the article mention how the kulaks who resisted collectivization by slaughtering their animals and burning their crops? Why did so many Kazakh people die in this targeted famine against Ukrainians?

1

u/ElectricalBook3 Nov 27 '24

Because centralized economy is not a magic spell which makes food disappear. As is explained in the Holodomor article I already linked, it allows food and tools to be seized and that is what allows famine. Same general thing caused hunger when English and Irish property owners seized crops as "tenet agreements". Centralized economy is a feature of Totalitarianism because it gives the head honcho control, and as soon as the dumbass at the top decides he dislikes someone every tool available is deployed against those people he dislikes.

Why did so many Kazakh people die

If you bothered to open the article on the kazakh famine or dekulakization you'd see the exact same explanation. Totalitarianism.

1

u/bigbjarne Foreign Nov 27 '24 edited Nov 27 '24

Because centralized economy is not a magic spell which makes food disappear.

I thought this was the basis of your argument and it usually is.

Same general thing caused hunger when English and Irish property owners seized crops as "tenet agreements". Centralized economy is a feature of Totalitarianism

Was the British economy during this time an centralized economy?

If you bothered to open the article on the kazakh famine or dekulakization you'd see the exact same explanation. Totalitarianism.

But the famine targetted Ukrainians.

Does the article mention how the kulaks who resisted collectivization by slaughtering their animals and burning their crops?

1

u/ElectricalBook3 Nov 28 '24

You're repeating yourself as if you have trouble reading the words I said.

Can you define "Totalitarianism"?

0

u/bigbjarne Foreign Nov 28 '24

You're repeating yourself as if you have trouble reading the words I said.

No, I'm repeating myself because you aren't answering my questions.

Does the article mention how the kulaks who resisted collectivization by slaughtering their animals and burning their crops?

Was the British economy during this time an centralized economy?

Can you define "Totalitarianism"?

No.

→ More replies