When people think of socialism they think of central planning in an authoritarian government, this has nothing to do with economic democracy and is its opposite.
I prefer the term economic democracy for the system I advocate.
It’s not just optics. The arguments for economic democracy are based on the liberal theory of inalienable rights. These arguments demonstrate that capitalism is illiberal and violates liberal principles @memes
Socialism only means Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. This does not necessarily entail Authoritarianism or central planning, and central planning itself doesn’t even entail Authoritarianism by necessity.
An economy can be democratically run via worker councils, which would constitute both central planning and economic democracy.
Essentially, you’re just arguing off of vibes. You even said it yourself, “when people think,” implying optic reasoning.
As for the mantle of liberal, you’re using it to refer to philosophy, rather than its far more common usage as ideology. Using your own methods against your claim, when people think of liberalism, they know and understand liberalism the socioeconomic ideology surrounding Capitalism and individualism!
That’s why I perceive your verbiage as optics, rather than anything of substance. In my view, you’re a Socialist that rejects the term but accepts the model.
I know how leftists define it, but when communicating with non-leftists, it doesn’t help in understanding the economic democracy position.
Central planning with no markets whatsoever is extremely inefficient
The existing proposals for central planning are authoritarian and don’t allocate resources properly to new projects.
The strongest critique of a system is that the ideology used to justify it, after mapping out its logical implications, is actually opposed to it @memes
So it’s optics, then. I’m not sure why you’re trying to convince leftists like myself of this, if your goal is to convince right wingers to become leftists.
I want to convince leftists that there is no benefit to pro-market anti-capitalists referring to themselves as socialist. It is an unnecessary association that only comes with downsides @memes
There absolutely is benefit, though. First of all, I’m anti-market anyways, the profit motive is terrible and needs to be done away with, so that’s my internal bias.
With my bias out of the way, Market Socialists gain a lot by stating they are Socialists because that very idea seems foreign to Liberals. If they hear Socialism and think mega-communism 100 gorgonzillian dead, then hear markets attached to that, that very term challenges and destabilizes their preconceived notions.
Why is the profit motive terrible in your view? What should we replace the profit motive with?
What is the benefit to pro-market anti-capitalists to challenging that particular preconceived notion? It creates an unnecessary roadblock when pro-market anti-capitalists can just describe themselves as radically democratic liberals, who want to extend democracy into the workplace @memes
Incentivizing profit instead of outcome results in power imbalances and enshittification. What was once disruption becomes scientifically engineered to extract as much money from the users as possible.
The only way incentives based on outcome work is when people produce directly for their own use. For cases where people produce for others, the profit motive helps coordinate people to produce. Power imbalances can be avoided by collectivizing means of production across multiple coops.
Enshittification requires IP monopolies. Economic democracy shouldn’t have IP monopolies. Instead, it should secure software freedom. Digital public goods should be funded through quadratic funding @memes
When people think of socialism they think of central planning in an authoritarian government, this has nothing to do with economic democracy and is its opposite.
I prefer the term economic democracy for the system I advocate.
It’s not just optics. The arguments for economic democracy are based on the liberal theory of inalienable rights. These arguments demonstrate that capitalism is illiberal and violates liberal principles @memes
Socialism only means Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. This does not necessarily entail Authoritarianism or central planning, and central planning itself doesn’t even entail Authoritarianism by necessity.
An economy can be democratically run via worker councils, which would constitute both central planning and economic democracy.
Essentially, you’re just arguing off of vibes. You even said it yourself, “when people think,” implying optic reasoning.
As for the mantle of liberal, you’re using it to refer to philosophy, rather than its far more common usage as ideology. Using your own methods against your claim, when people think of liberalism, they know and understand liberalism the socioeconomic ideology surrounding Capitalism and individualism!
That’s why I perceive your verbiage as optics, rather than anything of substance. In my view, you’re a Socialist that rejects the term but accepts the model.
I know how leftists define it, but when communicating with non-leftists, it doesn’t help in understanding the economic democracy position.
The strongest critique of a system is that the ideology used to justify it, after mapping out its logical implications, is actually opposed to it @memes
So it’s optics, then. I’m not sure why you’re trying to convince leftists like myself of this, if your goal is to convince right wingers to become leftists.
I want to convince leftists that there is no benefit to pro-market anti-capitalists referring to themselves as socialist. It is an unnecessary association that only comes with downsides @memes
There absolutely is benefit, though. First of all, I’m anti-market anyways, the profit motive is terrible and needs to be done away with, so that’s my internal bias.
With my bias out of the way, Market Socialists gain a lot by stating they are Socialists because that very idea seems foreign to Liberals. If they hear Socialism and think mega-communism 100 gorgonzillian dead, then hear markets attached to that, that very term challenges and destabilizes their preconceived notions.
Why is the profit motive terrible in your view? What should we replace the profit motive with?
What is the benefit to pro-market anti-capitalists to challenging that particular preconceived notion? It creates an unnecessary roadblock when pro-market anti-capitalists can just describe themselves as radically democratic liberals, who want to extend democracy into the workplace @memes
Incentivizing profit instead of outcome results in power imbalances and enshittification. What was once disruption becomes scientifically engineered to extract as much money from the users as possible.
The only way incentives based on outcome work is when people produce directly for their own use. For cases where people produce for others, the profit motive helps coordinate people to produce. Power imbalances can be avoided by collectivizing means of production across multiple coops.
Enshittification requires IP monopolies. Economic democracy shouldn’t have IP monopolies. Instead, it should secure software freedom. Digital public goods should be funded through quadratic funding @memes