Erik Haugen @ech@qoto.org

@RD4Anarchy @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @mmclark @pixelpusher220 @HeavenlyPossum The failures and shortcomings of capitalism are well documented, and I don't dispute them. I'm trying to learn about possible alternatives; I think the lament in this broader thread is accurate – unless people try pretty hard, they're going to only learn about a silly clown version of what Socialism is, either whatever Sweden is doing right now, or something about sharing toothbrushes. I appreciate threads like this – I learned a ton just reading the comments here, and got pointers to other materials like ABCs (I read some of that just now) etc.

So: Thanks!

I've read a bit about the righty version of anarchy – a lot of it appeals to me, but it seems ultimately unworkable or basically indistinguishable from what we have now. (They like to talk about "neighborhoods", but ultimately it seems like those are just "states", complete with coercive violence.)

@williamgunn @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space It does have quite a track record. It is interesting to explore whether we could do even better, though.

@neonsnake @RD4Anarchy @messaroundmarx @HeavenlyPossum @pixelpusher220 @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space I think ancaps do actually want to pay explicitly and directly for police protection. (e.g. "Chaos Theory" by Robert Murphy talks about everyone hiring "insurance companies", which are basically private security.) (I'm maybe not using the same definition of "ancap" as you are, though, if so beg pardon.)

The claim that security would be unaffordable is interesting, but I don't think that's the main problem with this approach.

@HeavenlyPossum @pixelpusher220 @RD4Anarchy @mmclark @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space Thanks!

Heh, I definitely think of it as mine the whole time.

I like how you put it: "pay your employer for permission to work." Most firms have infrastructure that I am paying for when I work there. If I get a job scooping ice cream, I have to pay my employer for equipment, supply chains it set up, marketing, risk of not enough customers (insurance, effectively), etc. (Of course, as we've been talking about, all of this is done, practically, in the form of (value I add) - (my wages).)

This feels reasonable; my ice cream scooping wouldn't happen without those things. (Of course, some businesses are collectively owned by the workers, which is maybe nice because then you're paying yourself rent as a worker, but I suspect that doesn't meet the bar here? – workers still need to buy in (with capital) or starve.)

I think I need to educate myself more about alternatives: without *some* ownership of those things who would make decisions about investment? A coop would mean you're stuck in the same spot if you disagree with the outcome of the vote or whatever, or you opt out and starve. The ABCs of Socialism mentioned in this thread talks about state-run banks, so anyone wanting something different there would be subject to the same kind of coercive violence we're discussing in this broader thread, or starve.

I like the ABCs of Socialism for dispelling some of the silly caricatures of Socialism, like toothbrushes and iPhones, or that it is necessarily statist.

@RD4Anarchy @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @mmclark @pixelpusher220 @HeavenlyPossum It's definitely good faith? I mean, I have a job where I get wages/salary – it doesn't feel coerced or unpaid, so I'm trying to understand that point of view. I guess yeah – theoretically/ideally some percentage of the value I add isn't paid to me in compensation, so if that's what is meant then I can see the point there.

I don't feel too bad about it, though, because I'm not taking on any of the risk, and my work is taking advantage of the infra/etc that was at the firm before I got there, and so on. (heh – I'm still weirded out by how much my CEO makes, though!)

In your virus scenario, I guess the standard retort would be that workers wouldn't work as hard and it would be unclear how means of production are allocated?

Is that what you mean by coercion – that we're coerced by need for money that makes us work? (I'm just guessing here.)

> Should I be telling you to fuck off?

Up to you, I guess; or just don't respond – I won't pester you.

@RD4Anarchy @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @mmclark @pixelpusher220 @HeavenlyPossum heh to me it seems funny to talk about any of that being coercion.

@RD4Anarchy @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @mmclark @pixelpusher220

> 3. The exploitation of wage labour, the source of profit being the unpaid labour of the producers.

Would someone please help me understand what is meant by "unpaid labour"? Is it this:

unpaid labor = (net value of labor) - wages

?

@tezoatlipoca @glennf @augieray Yeah, I appreciate the ubiquitous sanitizers thing at work.

@glennf @augieray I think air filtration/etc would be a lot more effective than masks, but yeah.

@com @augieray The quote is "in the leading causes", not "the leading cause". I guess that's true?

(Ranking causes of death and getting precise numbers like "4th" is meaningless, of course – but generally it always looks like this: ~40% CVD, ~40% cancer, then the remainder is dominated by things like accidents and respiratory illnesses (flu/cold/covid/etc) – that was the case before covid, during covid, and now)

@pixel The hilarious part to me here is that stux of all people is complaining about getting defederated or whatever: https://mstdn.social/@stux/110570709034574825 #PotMeetKettle

@freemo @mk Yeah, I always wondered why there was so much emphasis recently (like the last 15 years) on wealth disparity in the US rather than quality of life for lowest X% of wealth.

@dangillmor The quote from the guidelines is this: "Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit"

I do not like the way that is worded, but I think that basically just means it is calling for instruction like this:

(https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/national-expansion-and-reform-1815-1880/pre-civil-war-african-american-slavery/) "In Southern cities, many worked at a variety of skilled trades as well as common laborers. It was not unusual for those working in the cities to put away enough money to buy their freedom. Indeed, Southern cities, as well as many in the North, had large free black populations."

The guidelines go on to require teaching about Tulsa and Rosewood (AFAICT) so, I don't know – it sounds better than when I was in school.

@CStamp @tombarkas @StillIRise1963 @_L1vY_ Yeah, I'm wondering what teachers and textbooks will actually say because of this section of the guidelines.

The guideline section OP is about, I believe, is this: "Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit"

For example, I think teaching this factoid here with this tone seems appropriate, and would also satisfy the guideline:

(https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/national-expansion-and-reform-1815-1880/pre-civil-war-african-american-slavery/) "In Southern cities, many worked at a variety of skilled trades as well as common laborers. It was not unusual for those working in the cities to put away enough money to buy their freedom. Indeed, Southern cities, as well as many in the North, had large free black populations."

Or – do we have some reason to believe FL teachers need to dust off their 1920s textbooks that talk about how wonderful slavery was?

(I do not like how this guideline is written, however, and hope it gets redone after these hearings, at least.)

@StillIRise1963 The article quotes someone as denying that the standards teach that slavery was beneficial. Who's correct?

"Slavery is beneficial" a bizarre claim to make, and a lot of media these days is making bizarre claims like this. Is it true? Would a state or textbook actually teach this in 2023? This is 1920s stuff. It doesn't really pass the smell test, and would be *quite extraordinary* if true. It would be great if we could all be a little more discerning and skeptical about headlines, yes?

I think this is the quote from the standards that the complaints are about: "Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit" (p.6) FWIW: I join in the complaint about this line, to say the least! Some slaves were obviously experts in skilled trades, but come on. But, let's be clear: it doesn't actually say that slavery is, on net, beneficial, and the rest of the standards, I think, quite clearly make the opposite case:

The standards go on to talk about the heroes of abolition (p.7,13), the harsh conditions of slaves particularly in american British colonies (they were especially bad in the colonies compared to the conditions of slaves in the rest of the world! p.10 "overwhelming death rates" etc) How Dred Scott etc impacted free people, also illegal slave trading (p.12) etc, etc, etc.

I don't know I didn't read the whole thing it's like hundreds of pages.

But hopefully these hearings get that line on p.6 fixed.

@Mattstamatic @futurebird It's like everything they do ends up being a sad story about unintended consequences.

@Mattstamatic @futurebird I'm not sure what you're saying – do you feel like $10 for dinner parking is absurdly high? (I was thinking it's probably more than an hour, but anyway I've paid this kind of price before for dinner.)