Frank Casa @ frank @frank.casa

Just being Frank. Independent and Politically Nonbinary.

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

27

Joined

3 mo. ago

This sounds interesting.

If the Ukraine was so Nazi, why didn't Russia go to the UN and create a multi-country coalition to remove the Nazis and save the people?

And why would these Nazis elect a Jew?

We actually used to have some form of stakeholder capitalism, at least practiced at a large number of companies. This is before the greedy corporate raiders ruined it, where they made investors the priority. It only existed for a short period, between the abuses of the past, and the abuses of now. But it was long enough where some people enjoyed an entire career.

At these companies, employees used to have jobs for life, pensions, and generous benefits. But then the corporate raiders took that all away. That is also about the time that employee's wages stopped growing and started to stagnate or worse.

Was it perfect? No. But it was better than communism, and better than laissez-faire capitalism, and better than crony capitalism, which we have now.

The good news is that some people are trying to bring stakeholder capitalism back. Many states now have something called a "public benefit corporation" which is legally required to consider all of the stakeholders, not just the investors. These laws would prevent corporate raiders and investors from gutting these companies at the expense of the workers and consumers.

Plus, cooperatives and employee-owned companies have been around for a long time. Both employees and consumers are treated much better at these enterprises than they are at their investor-owned counterparts.

It is a model that works, and must be protected.

In the United States, "lack of transparency" or "not transparent" is mostly used. Although "opaque" is sometimes used in some circles of people.

There are different kinds of capitalism, just like there are different types of socialism.

Authoritarian socialism or communism is the worst, and crony capitalism is what we currently have, and is pretty bad too. But there are things like democratic socialism and stakeholder capitalism which attempt to balance competing interests.

For example, stakeholder capitalism is where all of the stakeholders benefit from their contributions, including labor. Workers get a share of the profits of the company, and are paid well as stakeholders in the company. The workers often own part or all of the company. There are also cooperatives, where the customers own the enterprise. Cooperatives work great for healthcare and necessities like groceries.

People tend to pick the worst examples of capitalism and socialism, but those are not the only flavors.

China suffers from the same problem the USSR did. When you have one party rule, it does not matter how democratic the constitution says a country is. If you can only elect people from one party, and the party determines who can run for office, voters can only select from a list of candidates that are aligned with the party and its leader. This effectively transfers power to the party leaders and away from elected officials and the people.

Says a new word. Quickly files a trademark.

The fediverse mostly has two types of people: people who don't want to be part of surveillance capitalism, and those who got banned on centralized social media for bad behavior. Unsurprisingly, the second group causes the same problems here as they did on centralized platforms.

These bullies are going to ruin the fediverse.

As long as you never say anything even remotely political or controversial, you are fine.

But that comes at a cost of self expression. Conform or be cast out (blocked).

They both use ActivityPub, so the two platforms can communicate with each other. I think it is just a matter of promoting your community.

@BrainInABox Yes they are. And those are the bad kinds we all disapprove of.

There is also a kind called stakeholder capitalism, where all of the stakeholders (employees, vendors, consumers, investors, communities, environment, etc.) are all considered. In some countries, such as the U.S., you can even form a public benefit corporation (PBC) which requires you to, by law, to consider all of the stakeholders and also support a public benefit.

There is also cooperative capitalism, where people can form private cooperatives that are owned by the consumers and/or employees, without centralized control by the government or some central corporation. Basically communism, but without the centralized planning and single party rule.

There are many flavors of capitalism. Some of them are toxic. Some of them are not.

Capitalism may not be prefect, but I don't like any of the proposed alternatives to capitalism:

Corporatism - I don't like power and money being centralized into corporations. They get wealthy and everyone else gets poor.

Communism (with centrally controlled economy) - I don't like power and money being centralized by party leaders and politicians. They have too much power, which results in abuses. Meanwhile, the elites at the top (unofficially) live rich lifestyles at the expense of the workers at the bottom.

Crony Capitalism (our current sociopolitical economic system) - I don't like the government and corporations colluding against the people. Works like corporatism except the government is helping them.

Laissez-faire Capitalism - Unregulated capitalism leads to abuse, so there needs to be some sort of regulations.

Anarchy - I don't like the strong ruling over the weak. It results in abuses and arrogance.

Dictator, King, Emperor, Single Party Rule, etc. - I don't like any system that gives a single person or group of people nearly unlimited power over everyone else. Any political minority gets stepped on. It also means that you may have a benevolent ruler now, but the next ruler may be malicious.

I'd rather see the break up of big business AND big government, and I would love to see more small private voluntary cooperatives and small businesses and small non-profits. Give the power back to the people, not to big business and big government. People should have choices.

I am not sure if there is a name for that.

No, instead of putting them to death, they worked them to death. If they survived, they might get their freedom... and be watched by the KGB for the rest of their lives.

Also, to be fair, you have to look at specific time periods in Soviet and Russian history. Under some leaders, it was a very harsh prison sentence. Under other leaders, it was much worse.

That's the problem with labels. They often mean different things to different people.

@mortemtyrannis It is pretty simple, really. Don't screw over other people.

So that means I am against big business, monopolies, unfair trade practices, surveillance capitalism, hoarding wealth, etc.

I am also against big government, corrupt officials, police brutality, law enforcement overreach, government surveillance, tyranny, and dictators.

I think we should have free speech, but at the same time, I don't think we should allow harassment, doxing, slander, libel, or intimidation.

I think that people should get paid fairly based on what they contribute. Contribute more, get paid more. I also think that there should be a safety net for people who are struggling.

I think that we should have health care reform, but I don't like the choices that are being presented. Option 1: big business and big health care. Option 2: a government monopoly on health care. There is a middle route where you get rid of both big government and big business in health care. It would require some fundamental changes on how we handle health care, however.

I think we need less big business and less big government, and more small cooperatives, small businesses, and small non-profits. Smaller entities means it is closer to the people and they can chose who they want to deal with. Regardless of whether it is private, non-profit, or government-run, if you only have 5 choices or less, you really don't have much of a choice at all. Because if you have less than 5 major players, they all start to collude to keep policies and practices in place that benefit them and not the consumers or taxpayers.

I can go on. I may be an independent and politically non-binary, but I do have principles.

I said moderates. This includes left-leaning centrists.

You probably have not talked to moderates much. They don't like talking about politics because they get attacked by both the left and the right. But they are the swing voters, and they oppose the hate they hear everyday.

@emeralddawn45 It depends on whether we are talking about the hateful far right or conservatives.

Some things frequently talked about by conservatives, classic liberals, and centrists include:

1. Limitations on government power, including how to prevent a politician from becoming a dictator. This includes checks and balances on power, separation of power, and the dynamic between the states and the federal government.
2. Protecting peoples civil rights, including the rights of minorities. Opposing police brutality, protecting free speech, protecting the right of association, protections against illegal search and seizures, etc.
3. The right of people to own firearms, as allowed by the second amendment. This includes minorities and black people, who have the same rights under the Constitution as everyone else.
4. Health care reform. They want health care reform as much as the left does, but they usually disagree on how to reform the health care system. For example, the left usually wants to create a government monopoly, while the right usually wants to break up monopolies and distrusts the government.
5. How to give the power back to the people, since corporations and the elite seem to have taken over this country. Like #4, they agree that things need to change, but often have different ideas on how to change it.

I could go on.

Don't confuse the hateful right with the moderate centrists and right-leaning voters. Most people have the same concerns the left does, but have a different perspective on it. And most people aren't hateful. Maybe misinformed, but not hateful.

I find it interesting that some people are saying "the right is this" and "conservatives are that" and then saying horrible things most people would be opposed to. How would you know if you never talk to them and just assume what they think?

I think most people assume the extreme right is the entire right, just like most people assume the extreme left is the entire left. It's actually a spectrum. Or more accurately, a Nolan chart.

Most people I know are in the center, and they oppose racial segregation, oppose racism, oppose oppression, oppose monopolies, and oppose corrupt officials. But since they are not communists or socialists, some people on the left lump them in with the far right, which the center doesn't like either.

And if you attack the people in the center by falsely accusing them of being the right, all you are doing is alienating people who might agree with you on a lot of things.