DocWatts

I think the challenge would be to develop a viable alternative to capitalism within a pluralistic democratic framework, while leaving room for other worldviews to co-exist without threatening the survival of the entire system. It's a challenging problem because even in an SD Green society you're still going to have some amount of Blue and Orange that are going to want (and have a right) to express themselves politically. So a relatively high degree of social solidarity around basic egalitarian values seems like a requirement, similiar to how both the Left and Right in many places agree on the basic principle of a national healthcare system.

I don't necessarily disagree, which is why a societal center of gravity at or near Green is a prerequisite for this type of system to be sustainable. Both for the reasons you mention, and because the population needs to be willing to defend it within the framework of a pluralistic democracy. I wouldn't expect someone within an Blue / Orange paradigm to have an expansive enough circle of concern to care about the well being of people in the third world. A social context where ordinary people are secure enough in their livelihoods to not be operating with a scarcity mindset would also seem to be a prerequisite as well. Not at all that surprising when we consider that people in a privileged position have more freedom to self actualize and expand their circle of concern. All this is to say that Green Social Democracy is better suited to measured implementation of aspects of Democratic Socialism than societies at earlier stages of development.

@Fleetinglife Awesome and informative write up. The idea of a revolutionary vanguard is mercifully left in the past, though it's somewhat understandable why it arose within the context it did. Not surprising at all that SD-Red / Blue ended up winning that power struggle, considering the desperation of the Survival Conditions at that time. It's an interesting counter factual to ponder how things could have turned out had Kerensky's Provisional Government been able to build enough of a basis of legitimacy to transition in to a social democracy, or had one of the other ideological wings been better at playing the political game than Lenin.

Also a system that's held afloat by suppressing a large chunk of the political spectrum is going to have substantial negative consequences and necessarily be authoritarian in nature. For Market Socialism to work the population needs to consent to its implementation and be willing to defend it within a democratic framework. Which probably necessitates a societal center of gravity at or near Green to be sustainable. But the attractors in developed countries are moving towards Green, so it's far from an unrealistic or unattainable prerequisite.

Can't see any way how that could be abused *cough* If your proposed system can't be implemented within a pluralistic democratic framework it's probably not worth advocating for.

Those are excellent case studies for the purposing of demonstrating that market socialism can work, but because the system hasn't been adopted on a country wide scale in a large developed nation like Germany or the US, there are still several unknowns and it behooves those of us who see merit in such a system to be honest about that. One can't just assume there won't be difficulties scaling this system up. That doesn't mean it's not worth advocating for, rather that we should use case studies that exist to inform how Market Socialism could be implemented in other contexts. Achieving such a system within a democratic framework is going to different than doing so within a relatively isolated nondemocratic country. Which is why I myself see gradual and measured implementation as a better path forward, most likely within the frame of a Social Democracy.

@LfcCharlie4 Noam Chomsky (a libertarian socialist) had an interesting response when confronted by a self professed Leninist during a Q &A session following one of his lectures.

Multinational corporations directly benefit from keeping the third world from developing, because it's a source of cheap and easily exploitable labor. They can also pay far less than full market share for resources that are extracted from very poor countries. They can benefit from the opening of developing countries as new markets for their goods, regardless of whether its to the detriment of the receiving country whose local industries aren't developed enough to compete with foreign imports. Institutions like the IMF and World Bank use debt as leverage to foster unequal exchange between the developing and the developed world. Multinational corporations lobby state governments to interfere with the development of poor nations, and prevent them from doing things like nationalizing natural resources, erecting protectionist trade barriers, or instituting labor laws. Naomi Klein wrote about this extensively in Shock Doctrine (which is on the book list I believe), and details how countries like Russia in the 90s were devastated by these practices. Even if Social Democracies such as Norway or Denmark don't directly participate in Imperialism, multinational corporations operating within their borders still benefit from the Imperialist practices and institutions put in to practice by countries like the United States. Consumers benefit from a flow of cheap goods made by people in countries with incredibly low wages and non-existent labor laws. In countries like the United States, this flow of cheap goods is used to 'subsidize' and let people survive to some degree on poverty wages payed by huge employers like WalkMart and McDonalds. Corporations are allowed to do this because the current way of running a large business is as a completely undemocratic and unaccountable syndicate, which uses the incentive structure of Capitalism to capture political institutions within governments to lobby for their private interests (up to and including imperialism). Generally it's a small handful of people making these decisions, and it's much harder to imagine how an organization that's run democratically and with transparency could condone half of the evil shit that many of these transnationals are up to. A socio-economic system such as Market Socialism where private industry is far more democratic and not given the opportunity to capture political systems by amassing enormous amounts of wealth and influence, would be far more limited in the ways it could motivate States to interfere in the developing world.

To be fair it's masking it with solutions that functionally make life much better for the people living within that particular country, but it does little to address exploitation of developing countries nor the contradictions which put democracy and capitalism at cross purposes

Politically, I'm flexible enough to see Social Democracy as a huge improvement over what exists in places like the United States, while also recognizing there are some problems inherent to that system (such as unequal trade with the developing world). Market socialism is quite promising in the ways in which it proposes to fix many of the issues inherent to capitalist economies, yet at the same time I'm able to recognize that because this system hasn't really been implemented on a large scale anywhere in the world there are going to be inherent challenges that will need to be worked out for it to translate in to real world policy and economics. And if it's going to be adopted, it should be done in a gradual and measured way. Never made sense to me to overly ideological about this, healthy politics is about dialogue, consensus, and coalition building rather rigidly adhering to a single viewpoint. I was listening to a political podcast once where someone described their viewpoint as the 'non-ideological Left', and even if that's a bit self contradictory I find it to be a healthier ethos to embody.

Socialism isn't really a united movement so much as a tent of Left wing ideologies that range from Anarchist (Mikhail Bakunin) to Libertarian (Noam Chomsky) to Authoritarian (Vladimir Lenin), with infighting between the various sects. I'd argue that there's more overlap between Libertarian Socialism (Green) and Social Democracy (Orange / Green) than there is between Libertarian Socialism and Anarchist / Authoritarian Socialism (both at Red / Blue). People who outright reject political pluralism aren't worth engaging with, regardless of whether they're on the Left or Right.

For people below a certain level of sophistication (usually SD-Blue or hyper-rationalist SD-Orange) whose idea of God is Sky Daddy, I usually just answer 'no' and leave it at that. If I'm talking to someone a bit more sophisticated and open minded I might say that I'm atheistic about a supernatural god, but more agnostic about a Hegelian embodied God that's a manifestation of the universe becoming aware of itself

Here in the US, the Republican Party has been drifting towards becoming a white nationalist party over the last half century. You have to understand that self interest doesn't only mean everyone economic policy, it's also about validating one's identity. For many poor white people who voted Republican, validation of thier resentments towards an increasingly diverse society that they feel is leaving them behind is a stronger motivator than economic concerns that will actually impact thier lives in tangible ways. For young people, the LGBT community, and communities of color a much more diverse and inclusive Democratic Party is also validating. But on top of that, since this side of the political divide is at a higher developmental stage than those who vote Republican, they're more successfully able to understand the connection between politics and material conditions that impact thier own lives.

And for me this is usually the result

In the context of contemporary US politics: Conservatives - Regressive. Picks an arbitrary point in the past to romanticize, and will take steps to roll back societal progress if given the opportunity Liberals - About preserving the status quo. May make some tweaks around the edges to ensure the continued viability of current Institutions (at least in the short term), but are unwilling to seriously entertain changing existing structures and institutions in a substantiative way. Leftists - Advocates for transformative change to existing structures and institutions. This runs the spectrum from pragmatic and reasonable to instances of game denial which doesn't give enough weight to existing contexts and constraints.

Yeah worth keeping in mind that those videos are Leo's own perspective on Spiral Dynamics, and intertwined with his own worldview and spiritual practice. As for Spiral Dynamics itself, I think it has far more utility as a sociological model for examining the dialectical interplay of meta-ideologies, than it has as a personal development model (for which something like Suzanne Cook-Greuter's model or the Model of Hierarchical Complexity is a much better fit).

Jordon Peterson reminds me of Scientology in some ways. In that both dispense very basic self help advice which does actually improve people's lives to some degree, but both are motivated by problematic ideologies that they intertwine with their motivational messaging, making both seem far more reasonable than they actually are. Though of course Scientology (it being a Cult and all) is far more malignant in thier motivations than Jordy P, who's really just a well intentioned evangelist for outdated values and social norms (when applied to the entire society in places like the UK, US, and Canada; they're perfectly functional for individuals stuck at Red)

@Raptorsin7 It's not whataboutism, it's just demonstrating the actual implications of empowering private citizens to enforce the Law through the use of vigilante violence. I chose that example because the Right is making a hero of Rittenhouse, with Trump supporters shouting about it the loudest (including the person who posted this thread). However, if I attributed to you political views that you do not hold, I apologize. As to looting and the destruction of property, the only legitimate use of violence from private citizens is to defend thier lives from immediate danger. If someone breaks in to your house you have a right to shoot that person because in that situation your life is in danger. Once that person leaves your house, you do not have a right to chase them down, shoot them in the back, and reclaim whatever it was that was stolen from you. It's the role of the Police and Criminal Justice system to enforce the Law, not that of a private Citizen to take the law in to thier own hands. If the Police aren't doing thier job, then Police Institutions need to be made more accountable to the communities they serve. Which is to be done using political institutions, rather than by untrained citizens with zero vetting or oversight getting to enforce the Law in whatever manner they see as appropriate.

By that logic DC Residents would have been completely justified showing up to the Jan 6 insurrection and gunning down the MAGA insurrectionists who were breaking in to the capital building to prevent the Election from being certified. Why not? Institutional biases within the Capitol Hill Police led to them to not take violence breaking out as a serious possibility, despite numerous warnings well in advance. Politicians wouldn't send in the national guard to restore order because it would look bad, and because Trump was hoping the insurrection would succeed in preventing the election from.being certified. And all while the lives of US representatives were in danger. Are you supportive of vigilantism because the one pulling the trigger in Rittenhouse's case is on your 'Team', or are you willing to take a more consistent and principled stance on this issue?

The role of how and when public demonstrations turn violent, and how law enforcement should respond when that happens is a discussion worth having. But it's a separate discussion from whether private citizens should have the Right to use vigilante violence to enforce the law. The world we're living in isn't Watchmen, a private citizen has no business going out of his way to travel to a protest with the aim of shooting looters. And what the hell did Rittenhouse accomplish by the way? Rather than preventing violence from breaking out, his presence escalated an already tense situation so that two people were killed. Both legally and ethically individuals have a responsibility to de-escalate. Vigilantism does exactly the opposite.

Vigilantism is and should be illegal. What the hell is a 17 year old kid indoctrinated in to a white supremacist gang doing 'enforcing the law'?

If you're open carrying a rifle at an incredibly tense protest, you're looking for trouble. The people who attacked Rittenhouse had an equally legitimate claim to self defense. With mass shootings taking place in America every week it's not an unreasonable reaction when you see someone who's clearly not from the area show up to a tense public demonstration armed with a rifle. Concealed carry is plausible as far as having a weapon for self defense purposes. The only reason to open carry in public is to intimidate other people. Negligent homicide would have been the correct verdict, as Rittenhouse intentionally put himself and others in a dangerous situation which led to two deaths. Gun culture is America is dumpster fire of toxic individualism, fragile masculinity, and corporate lobbying of gun manufacturers who thrive in an environment of paranoia, fear, and suspicion. The fact that he was fraternizing with a white supremacist gang is completely relevant, as the majority of domestic terrorism committed in this country is done by far Right ethno-nationalists. The verdict in this trial will embolden others that it's okay to out themselves in intentionally dangerous situations then claim 'self defense' when people end up being killed (if you happen to be white that is, no way in a hell that shit would fly if Rittenhouse was a year old 17 black kid who showed up to a Proud Boys Rally looking for trouble).

Where does a dysfunctional culture come from? Is it just an inherent quality, because people have genetic predispositions towards different types of behavior? Or does it develop in response to social conditions? If it develops in response to social conditions, is it at all plausible that oppressive social conditions have something to do with that dysfunction?

Yes both are necessary, but personal responsibility and access to social and financial capital are required for success. We happen to live in a society where predatory institutions will ruthlessly exploit disempowered and marginalized people. Hence why someone can be working three jobs in America and still be on living on the edge of poverty, and one missed paycheck or medical bill away from financial destitution. The biggest issue is systemic economic inequality stemming from generations of housing and employment discrimination whose effects are still with us today. Practices such as Red Lining, where people of color were prevented from living in areas where economic opportunity was readily available, led to the ghettoization of communities of color throughout the country. Black communities and households were systematically denied opportunities to build wealth and pass that on to their children for the majority of the history of this country, and it was only recently (within about half a century) that legal housing and employment discrimination was finally outlawed. That's within in living memory of many people alive today, just to put that in perspective. Just outlawing discrimination without actually working to rectify the harm such practices caused to those communities has resulted in an enormous wealth and opportunity gap between white and black households. White households have on average ten to twenty times the amount of wealth of black households as a legacy of these practices. Why does this matter? Well, just stop and think about it for a second. Public education, something that's supposed to in theory facilitate class mobility, perpetuates this inequality because they're funded by local property taxes. How good of an education you receive is determined by one's zip code. If you are born in an affluent neighborhood you likely have access to very good schools, and if you're born in a poor area your schools are going to be really bad, harming your chances on actually making it to college and transitioning in to a career. This sort of thing is what is meant when I've refer to Social Capital. Is it a good thing that some exceptional individuals have been able to navigate past these obstacles and better their circumstances? Of course. But it's not a reasonable expectation for someone to have to be exceptional to have a chance at a decent life. And a small handful of people escaping this cycle does not change the fact that this is a systemic societal failure. And all of that's leaving aside the issue of systemic racism within the criminal justice system that extends beyond just the police, which is a side effect of and re-enforced by the socio-economic disparities I outlined. What would I do to address these issues? That's a large and complicated discussion because this is a widespread and systemic problem, but the Root issue that needs to be addressed is raising the socio-economic floor for everyone within the society, to be funded by reallocating how our tax money is collected and spent. For starters, we need a much more robust social safety net so that no one who works a full time job is one medical bill or missed paycheck away from financial destitution and homelessness. Things like Healthcare and high quality Public Education need to be treated as basic rights. Public schools should be federally funded, with a set amount of funding per pupil (rather than the quality of school varying massively depending on zip code). Teachers need to be paid more much more generously than they are currently, and much better supported. We should be spending much more than we currently are for pro-social investment in to economically marginalized communities. Much more federal and state funding should go to funding infrastructure and basic services in these areas. After school programs and mental health services need to be much better funded than they are now. Incentives should be made for businesses to set up shop in these areas. We pay for all of this with a wealth tax on billionaires, a VAT tax for corporations that can't be avoided by shifting assets overseas, and a %0.1 tax on financial transactions in speculative markets. End the failed War on Drugs, stop wasting money on a bloated and ineffectual revolving door prison system, and Institute a %15 tax on legalized maraujana. Reallocate of funds away from our bloated military budget, the bloated budgets of militarized police departments, and useless subsidies to mature industries such as Fossil Fuel companies and weapons manufacturers. This wouldn't just help Black America, it would lead to a much better society overall.