DocWatts

Or sanitizing racism to make it palatable for a wider audience, as another way of putting it.

Part of the what makes Market Socialism more workable than some of its proposed alternatives is that it shares much of the framework of the capitalist system. With the exception of Essentials such as Health Care and Education, it still uses a Capitalist market framework to produce and distribute most goods and services. The key difference is that democracy would be expanded to the workplace (you know, the places we spend half of our waking lives), rather than workplaces being run as an autocracy where workers have little to no say in how their business is run. There's no reason why this couldn't be gradually implemented under a Social Democracy through legislative means, including incentives for worker owned businesses, and labor laws granting workers increased representation in their places of employment. As to de-commodification, there is some debate as to what is considered an Essential (transportation? housing? utilities?), but even in its more extensive versions, there's a general understanding that de-commodification should be reserved for things that the market does a poor job of supplying, whether due to market failures or monopolistic business tactics (as anyone stuck forking money over to Comcast can attest to). If Social Democracy is a humanized version of Capitalism, Market Socialism seems like an eventual extension of Social Democracy (though of course not the only one possible).

Also keep in mind that in America around half of the population is either working class or poor... Including many rural communities. 74 million people voted for Trump, there's no way the majority of them could have been upper middle class. Also factor in that Republican states and rural areas tend to be poorer on average than the rest of the country. While the most prominent figures of the alt right may come from a relatively privileged background, they absolutely draw upon poor and working class whites for thier base of popular support as a matter of necessity.

That's fair. And for what it's worth I'm an advocate for Social Democracy, but at the same time I don't see why that can't also be a springboard to explore other forward thinking socio-economic ideas within that framework. I could point to examples of successful worker co-ops, such as The Mondragon Corporation in Spain (the largest worker cooperative in the world), as evidence for aspects of market socialism that have been successful. Gradualism and experimentation seem the way to go; afterall Social Democracy, while a huge improvement over what we have now, of course isn't perfect and can be improved upon.

China, Russia, and North Korea were all Command Economies with Central Planning, which I'll concede is completely untenable. Would you extend that critique to market socialism as well (where workers own and control their workplaces democratically but still use a market based system to produce and distribute goods)? It seems like Market Socialism could offers a potential avenue to a workable system that blends positive aspects of both socialism and capitalism.

The three general schools of thought on ethics are deontology (strict codes of conduct based on Universal moral principles), Consequentialism (actions should be judged based on their consequences, of which Utilitarianism is an offshoot), and Virtue Ethics (in which moral behavior is an intuitive response that comes about through the cultivation of a virtuous character). In my own view, any one of these on their own constitutes a partial and limited, albeit potentially useful, view of morality. My intuitive sense is that because Morality is always going to be contextual to some degree, it would perhaps make more sense to view each one of these as being more or less useful in certain scenarios. And that a more holistic view would include these as aspects into a larger meta-ethics that would find a way to integrate universal moral principles with moral relativism.

From my own perspective, the discernment that manifests as this is Stage is through that curiosity being directed as to why people hold problematic worldviews. At lower stages this would manifest as simply judging and demonizing , but by Yellow this is supplanted by the desire to contextualize (rather than just judge) other perspectives.

Between that and the long history of the CIA launching coups against countries experimenting with Socialism, it might at least be fair to say that Socialism hasn't exactly given a fair chance to compete. Allowing countries and political parties to experiment with (non authoritarian) socialism will at least give us case studies to consider, but that will never happen if every experiment is strangled in the cradle by outside parties.

For sure. I'd also contend that in order to put in the work to make a better world, you first have to believe that a better world is possible; which is what idealism excels at. I would also contend that in addition it provides moral grounding to more pragmatic political aims, and leaves open to possibility of further progress. Also as far as socialism not having a workable implementation so far (which is also my main critique of it), isn't it true that some nation would have to be the first to implement it successfully, without a template to work from? Just like there would have to be a first for representative democracy, a first for capitalism, for universal suffrage, etc, etc.

Isn't a certain amount of Idealism healthy for a society though? A lot of the progress we take for granted today would have certainly been deemed naïve idealism in the past.

Agreed %100.

I think what irks people is when you proselytize your beliefs, whatever they may be (spirituality, veganism, political beliefs, etc). A conversational back and forth if and when someone shows interest on thier end seems like a more mature approach, where it's less about vocalizing your ideas, and more of a back and forth where both people are contributing and asking questions. I know in my case I have to be mindful of the tendency I would otherwise have to talk people's ears off about metaphysics and ethical philosophy...

If I could upvote this I would

OP is just parroting right wing Conspiracy theories that I've been seeing on social media since Trump's failed insurrection attempt. Predicting this thread being locked in 3.. 2.. 1...

Very true; UBI would have to implemented alongside price controls for essentials such as Housing, that would put some sort of limit on how much the cost of things like Housing could be raised within a given year (perhaps tied to the Inflation index).

While the extent of how bloated and inefficient the Welfare State is is overstated by Libertarians and Conservatives, using the simplicity of UBI as a starting point for compromise that can be used to build broad base of the political support needed for its implementation makes a lot of sense in my view.

I definitely find myself reflexively taking a step back and putting arguments from ideologies into a larger context, and consequently find myself both more detached and more engaged at the same time. That said, I'm still not above getting triggered by toxic aspects of Blue, Orange, and sometimes Green; though I've become much more tolerant and understanding of these in thier more Healthy and reasonable forms.

Good way of putting it.

Axiomatic to the SD Model is the idea that the stage someone is at is in large part a Survival strategy in response to life conditions and environment. So while it's relatively easy to reach the SD-Stage that's the Center of Gravity in one's Culture/Sub-culture, going beyond that is going to be more difficult. As far as Yellow goes, I do think there are some prerequisites that would make this very difficult to achieve without some level of freedom in one's life and circumstances. Not the least of which are Education, access to ideas from other Cultures, time and energy for reading, contemplating, etc. All of which are going to be the consequence of at least some degree of privilege, something the Yellow individual would be cognizant of due to their experience of Green.

It's one thing to resonate with the ethos of an SD-stage, and quite another to embody its values in your day to day life. I would imagine that far more of us are in a transitionary stage between Green and Yellow (myself included).

Every time even modest gun control legislation is considered, Bad Faith actors intentionally use just these sorts of tactics to tap into the fear and Conspiracism of Conservatives. This benefits both Gun Manufacturers as well as the Republican Party, who are ruthlessly able to exploit Single Issue Voters to stay in power while not actually helping the people who vote for them. Are we going to hold an entire nation's policy hostage to a privileged minority? Because that's been the Republican Party's entire shtick.

Teddy Roosevelt was one of the most interesting people to ever end up in the Oval Office, but make no mistake he was also an unabashed Imperialist, and romanticized War as a noble endeavour. He has elements of both Blue and Orange.

Yeah, Libertarian support of UBI typically comes with the aspiration that it will come about in exchange for dismantling of the Welfare State, which is why they support it. And to be fair there probably are some aspects of the Social Welfare State (such as unemployment insurance) that it might make sense to replace with UBI. But you're absolutely right that UBI would be an obvious target for austerity measures, so perhaps a gradual implementation would make sense; let people get used to it, and let the program make a positive case for how it can makes people's lives better. I would also be very surprised if a UBI program isn't incredibly popular once implemented, so it's not hard to imagine it becoming as ingrained as Social Security once a Generation grows up with it, and it ceases to feel new or experimental.

Gonna disagree with you hard on your assessment of Trump as Orange. Try to imagine an actual Orange individual such as Jeff Bazos becoming President in 2016, and ask yourself if most Orange individuals would have done the things Trump has done, including inciting an Insurrectionist mob to storm the Capitol to overturn the results of an election he lost. Hell, someone equally as morally bankrupt as Trump who'd managed to reach Orange would have at least been smarter about it, and not openly align himself with White Supremacists, and would have been capable of more long term thinking. Cults of Personality are much more likely to develop at at Red than they are at Orange (though not impossible, i'll concede). If Trump proves anything, it's that Capitalist systems are vulnerable to manipulation by Red individuals, not that Trump himself is Orange.

Thought this might fit in here nicely...