Asklemmy

45371 readers

734 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

144

What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 4 days ago by jsomae@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

540 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Right, but I could not get a job unless it's first been created by the government. What if the government doesn't want to create a job that's necessary? What about jobs that aren't necessary, but are still desirable? If I have artistic skill, would I get an appropriate amount of work vouchers? Would skill factor in at all, or only time spent working? What is my invcentive to be efficient if skill is not a factor? If skill is a factor, who determines what "skill" is? Do we vote to make 10 furniture maker jobs and one "expert furniture maker" job with appropriate salaries?

You don't have to answer all of those, I'm mostly just saying that this would result in a LOT of centralized control, which would have to be handled with a large amount of nuance, and that deciding these things by vote isn't likely to work (see also, the most recent election).

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

What if the government

"The government". Am I thinking of Anna L. Strong on the disconnect between people and "government" in western countries.

Ah, my point is that you seem to think yourself distant from the government. You don't take part in making decisions, some entity ("government") does.

Edit, yes I am, This Soviet World, "ON INTERPRETING A WORLD"

I note a remark about American unemployment: “If it gets any worse, they’ll have to do something.” Who is this ultimate, uncontrollable “they”? The term betrays the class society of which the speakers are unconscious; they are waiting for some boss to act. To hear a debate: “Is America going fascist?” and think how much less passively Soviet folk would word it. “Shall we go fascist? No. Then exactly how shall we prevent it?” Soviet folk say “we” of one-sixth of the earth’s surface. Uzbek cotton-pickers, toiling under the sun of Central Asia, say: “We are conquering the Arctic; we rescued the Chelyuskinites.” Ukrainian farmers who never went up in an airplane talk of “our stratosphere records” and “the loss of our Maxim Gorky airplane” as they take up collections to build ten new ones. But even Mrs. Roosevelt asks me: “Are Russian peasants getting more reconciled to accepting direction?” I feel the hopelessness of language as I answer: “No, they are learning better to organize and direct themselves.”

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

I figured using "government" would result in some disconnect, but I'm not sure what else I would call a centralized authority responsible for making and carrying out societal decisions.

Anyways, it doesn't matter if I'm part of the government. The issue remains.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Centralization is an inevitability as production becomes more complex and interconnected. Humanity will adapt and develop the necessary structures to support this, regardless of any individual's will.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

Only if there's a viable path to transition to that state, and it's a stable state. It could also only be a local minimum. The effect you're describing is real, but there's no guarantee that it will lead to your proposed societal system, and furthermore there's no guarantee that the effect is deterministic and will necessarily lead to the same solution unless it is the only solution.