DocWatts

That's just factually incorrect on Don Beck's part (Beck's a analysis of Gorbachev, not the quote). By the end of his Presidency in 1991 he was pretty clearly a Social Democrat who was pushing market reforms and trying to establish more of a mixed system in Russia, similar to the Social Democracies of Western Europe. As to Don Beck, he was clearly a Conservative guy in some respects, and his analysis was likely due to personal biases on his part. Also Beck is apparently a Trump supporter now, so let's not put him on a pedestal...

I'll also point out that he deserves more credit than any other Individual for ending the Cold War, which was a great accomplishment for the entire world. He was well and truly deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded in 1990, and more than anything else this should be looked at as his crowning achievement.

Coincidentally I just finished reading an excellent Pulitzer Prize winning biography on Gorbachev, which I'd highly recommend to anyone who wants an in depth examination of one of the most important world figures of the last fifty years. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38212114-gorbachev I would agree with the assessment of him at Orange/Green, with the Biden comparison being an apt one. By the end of his presidency in 1991 he was clearly a Social Democrat; anyone who places him at Blue clearly doesn't understand him very well, and what made him so different from the mostly Red/Blue leaders in Russia who came before him. I would also think this comes as a result of being unable to distinguish Gorbachev as an individual from the larger Soviet system that he emerged from. Yes, the Soviet Union was at roughly SD-Stage Blue when Gorbachev came to power, but that doesn't mean that all individuals who emerged from that system were Blue themselves. Also keep in mind that Gorbachev was far from a static figure, his thinking evolved and changed throughout his public life. One thing that I've consistently come across in everything I've read and learned about the man is that he was a decent person who just happened to be living under an incredibly dysfunctional political system. He was also highly curious about other cultures and was willing to learn from them, which is a trait that emerges in Orange/Green (rather than Blue). I'll also cite his unwillingness to use force as a means to preserve the crumbling Soviet Union, which had begun falling apart partly as a consequence of the democratization he introduced during his six years of leadership. Of course he had his faults just like everyone else, not the least of which were his sense of pride and his tendency to butt heads with other political figures in Russia who would go on to become lifelong enemies, with Boris Yelstin being the most important of these. He was also much better at maneuvering within the old Soviet bureaucracy than he would be at playing the game of parliamentary politics that he fought so hard to introduce to Russia (when he decided to run again for President in 1996, he only managed to win about %0.5 of the Vote, and would end up in Pizza Hut commercials to fund his post presidential work). He also failed to anticipate how democratization would ignite nationalistic fervor in the other Soviet Republics, leading them to want to break away from the Soviet Union. The economic reforms he introduced into the Soviet Union, though well intentioned, sadly weren't enough to revitalize the Soviet economy and reverse it's longstanding trend of stagnation, and also weren't enough to fight the systemic inefficiency and corruption within that system. The chaos that the country was thrown into in the nineties made things worse in many ways for ordinary people (though how much of this is Gorbachev's fault as opposed to Yeltsin's is debatable).

Thanks again for the recommendation. One of the most impressive things about the book so far is how its tone of sincere irony is so effective at conveying profound ideas in such an engaging (and self demonstrating) way. Or the way it uses this to convey important ideas in a way that undercuts it's own self importance. Brilliant. Humour is such a good way of creating emotional engagement with ideas, it's a pleasant reprieve from the dry academic tone that I've come to take for granted in philosophical works. Also brings to mind some of my favorite works of fiction that make use of sincere irony to leave a lasting impact (the Good Place comes to mind...).

Something in between a fictional novel and a philosophical treatise (the book is a Socratic dialogue between a man and a gorilla, and is an examination of human culture through an ecological and mythological lens), I read this back in my early twenties, and credit it in large part for helping me to move from SD Stage Orange to Green.

Another excellent discussion between from Vaush with Denims on the relative merits of Socialism vs Social Democracy. I'd really like to give kudos to Vaush for how respectful and productive his discussions tend to be with people who represent different socio-political belief systems from his own. Granted Socialism and Social Democracy aren't that far apart politically, but I've also seen him have perfectly amiable and respectful discussions with Libertarians and young Conservatives. I consider him to be one of the best personalities on Youtube when it comes to discussing politics (granted I'll fully own that there's a lot of overlap between Vaush and my own socio-political worldview). That said, while Vaush makes a number of excellent points in this video, I do think that Social Democracy is preferable as a matter of pragmatism. I could see the United States transitioning to a Social Democracy within my lifetime; market Socialism on the other hand, even if preferable in many ways, still seems like a long way off, if it ever happens. Don't let the Perfect become the enemy of the Good, and all that.

Couldn't institutions like banks (whether worker co-cops or credit unions) provide many of the functions of Venture Capitalists? Is there any reason why investment in a company has to come from individuals with hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than through publicly owned or worker run institutions? Couldn't public grants and low interest loans for pro-social business also cover a portion of that as well? Is the idea of a worker owned business whose model is to invest in other businesses that wildly unrealistic? As to the stock market, while it does serve an important function under our current system, the resulting legal requirement to prioritize maximizing profit over any other consideration has led to a host of societal problems, of which I'm sure you're well aware. I would propose that the stock market would still exist, but rather than investors getting to dictate how a company is run when it goes public, they would gain some form of Representation in the decision making process of the company. Perhaps boards of directors might be made up of something like %40 representing the interests of Investors, and %60 representing the workers. Under many Social Democracies, companies have a legal requirement to include worker representation on thier boards of directors. What I propose would simply be an expansion of this. Obviously this would only apply to co-ops that decide to go public under this sytem. If either of these two ideas are unworkable in your view, I'd be interested to hear why that's the case. And again I would argue that the system as a whole is an evolution of Capitalism and Social Democracy, rather than a complete restructuring of society. Or you could perhaps think of it as a democratization of the current system.

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.