Hey faggots

But we love democracy. So much, in fact, that we think that decisions in the workplace should be decided democratically by the people actually doing the work and not some Wall Street parasite thousands of miles away

Yeah, our belief in a worker owned, democratically organized workplace is counter to democracy. You know what it is a truly democratic society? One in which a single owner or a handful of owners authoritatively control the workplace and only to their benefit while they grow fat on the labor of the workers.

Wew.

Socialism is Democratic control over the work place. If you love democracy, you love socialism. If you hate socialism, you hate democracy. The two are inseparable.

It allows you to have an equal footing with people who actually form cohesive opinions

...

user, I think you have confused economics with religion

Read a book

...

Yes, clearly we are all saying that it is the sole factor that defines socialism. Autism.

Socialism and communism are fundamentally about expanding democracy. Where you experience as "democracy" right now works like this: You spend most of your waking life working on a job where you allow someone to dictate how much of the value that you create comes back to you and how much they keep for themselves. Then you say that it's all right for them to take the value they keep for themselves and use it to fund election campaigns. And you try to tell yourself that that doesn't have unequal, undemocratic effects on how your society is run.

Socialism and communism are about expanding democratic decision-making to the workplace.

Well how about you explain that instead of blabbering babbies-first-Marxism talking points.

Why don't you take your autism meds?

How about you read a book?

Consider the following:
1. The foundational premise of Western-style democracies is the notion that freedom should be the bedrock organizing principle of society.
2. Of the many types of freedom that one could hold exists or assert as important Western-style democracies hold the freedom of the individual to be primary
3. The economic complement of such an outlook that holds one should be as free as possible to think, dress, act, and express themselves however they see fit is that individuals should have complete freedom to dispose over their labor and property in whatever they deem fit.
4. its reasonable to assume that the market is the most practical place for dealing with the economic outcomes of the whims and wishes of millions of pseudo-Galtian individuals pursuing their interests.

But the outcome of any complex system of commodity production for market-exchange *is* capitalism, if I can't be bothered with waiting tables at my restaurant I can hire someone to fulfill that task for me who either doesn't have the capital or the inclination to start their own business. If I desire to be wealthy then I look across the street to see my competitor and its reasonable to deduce that that by increasing my profits through underpaying my employers or cutting costs, or increasing the speed and volume of my sales and therefore the rate of turn-over of my capital.

My competitor might've been focused only on simple reproduction, merely staying afloat, however my subjective desire to procure more wealth acting in accordance with my self-interest has led me down a path to crush him. Now I've introduced the profit-motive as the organizing force of the market and production, now the market has turned from a place where one could conceivably maximize their freedom into a place where every business is coerced by competition to prioritize profit above all else. This supposed benevolence of peaceful competition which replaced the open oppressions of slavery and feudalism has quickly turned into an inhuman force that has ironically stripped from man all semblance of individual will and control of the economic forces around him. Competition will unerringly destroy petty capitalists and independent workman in a scenario where the market is left to itself under liberal precepts. In the real world the peasantry was expropriated from the land in the birth place of capitalism–Britain, but despite this brutal use of undemocratic force the market has had a pauperizing effect on the population whenever its been liberalized, enclosure or not.

Thus society inevitably splits between wage-earners and capitalists. Here we've gone beyond the world of "bourgeois right" where a man is free to follow his individual whims in choosing which facet of the division of labor he'd like to be enslaved to, but now he is a proletarian who not only must accede to the division of labor but also the capitalist's direction, control and imperative to make a profit.

Capital accumulates exponentially when successful and so does its mass of profits the rate of profit is excepted here and the result is the tremendous increase in inequality when capitalism is left to itself. And this has occurred rapidly despite the social democratic methods taken after WWII to help control growth and channel capital back into productive/competitive outlets. In fact, Walter Scheidel has argued that the major way inequality has declined across history is through War, Depressions, Disease/Famine and Revolution. The outcome of reformism, he admits, is exceedingly marginal in its real effect on inequality and despite the commonsense assumption that 1 person=1 vote would empower a population to deal with the inequality problem that hasn't come to pass. Nearly all the decline of inequality in the 20th century can be attributed to World Wars, Super-Depressions, Revolutions etc. In fact, he isn't alone in noting that bourgeois democracy with its assumptions that everyone is equal under the law and that the market is the most democratic method of organizing society actually make reform exceedingly difficult, sometimes more difficult then they are in monarchies or dictatorships. Because nothing can be done to stem the problem of inequality that hampers human freedom and well-being without curtailing someone's individual liberty in some respect its no wonder that it often happens that nothing is done.

As Marx said between equal rights force decides and its unsurprising then that bourgeois democracy is always dominated by the rich. A democratic method of organizing production on a different socially-defined notion of freedom is possible. But then again its not really bourgeois democracy, and being 100% honest here doesn't fit the commonsense criteria of what democracy looks like or should be.

Jefferson made sure it was neither a functioning republic nor democracy.

Damn it this is why you should start with the Greeks

Equating capitalism and democracy was and still is a deliberate propaganda campaign in the US.

...

I feel like those who call for "workplace democracy" don't get that from the starting principles of Western democracy what we have is workplace democracy.

You can choose to work wherever you want to work, the owner of said business can hire whoever he wants to hire and make the work however easy or hard as he pleases. If you don't like working for capitalists you can become a capitalist yourself or even voluntarily join a coop but you can't overcome the market as the organizing principle of society, you can't escape the principle of production for-profit etc.

Don't get me wrong tho Wolffian coop schemes are prolly better then putting your money directly in the pocket of a capitalist

GOOGLE B O O K C H I N. (And Rojava while you are at it).

why would you love democracy? that's what we have and it's mostly shit from what i can tell.

Under capitalism, democracy for the boss but not democracy for thee. Under communism, democracy for all.

Democracy is mob rule, when the mob is restrained and intelligent this is generally not a bad thing. When the mob is irrational, aggressive, selfish or easily misled its terrifying. Imagine all the dumbest normies from HS voting on what to do with you. Not a good feeling.
no

Humans are stupid and easily manipulated. Facebook could easily decide the outcome of the election if they wanted to, and they wouldn't even be breaking any laws.

Democracy is a great ideal, but it doesn't work or exist in practice.