is applejack racist?
>>27329919
Clearly
>>27329935
Uh, buhduh!
She's farmer, what did you expect?
>Applejack
>the farmer whose entire family tree consists of socialists engaged in farming coops across Equestria
nah
>>27329919
>>27329951
Nah, she'd be a scallywag. She's not a retard, so she'd be opposed to the cuckfederacy and its values.
>>27329958
How the hell are the Apples Socialist?
>>27330048
they're not, they run family businesses
>>27329919
>>27330048
They're not. They're in the petty bourgeoisie.
>>27329919
She wouldn't approve of slavery.
Though, if she was raised in Mississippi in 1848, then yeah. Slavery was seen as something normal and sensible by everybody back then, except for the slaves, of course..
>>27330048
How the fuck are they not?
They obviously aren't feudal, and I see no evidence of capitalist institutions, but the Apples literally run their own farms.
They have no overarching authority dictating them, no apparent market considerations. They just grow apples and trade them in the town square, independently.
Desicions are made by the people who work the farm, and those same people have total control over it.
This is literally a textbook example of pre-industrial agrarian socialism.
>>27330259
Agrarian socialism was Jamestown, where everyone was expected to put their produce into a common storehouse, and people could just take from there when they needed to eat. The problem was that as a result, no one did any farming because they expected everyone else to do it for them, and no one ate.
Applejack
>Owns her own land
>Farms her own land
>Sells her produce on the free market
>Is so stubbornly self-reliant that her friends had to for her to accept their help when she was in over her head with trying to run the farm all by herself
The opposite of socialism. Remember, capitalism =/= corporatism.
>>27329919
No, but her barn is.
>>27330259
>and I see no evidence of capitalist institutions
Dee-Why-Ee-Doubleyou-Tee-Ess
>>27330307
The people working the farm have control of the farm, that is literally the definition of socialist organization.
Whether or not the system they are within is capitalist is beside the point, the Apples run their farm socialistically.
>>27329919
full image.
>>27329958
>Implying socialists can't be racist
>>27330623
>that is literally the definition of socialist organization.
Sounds more like free market libertarianism to me.
Is a pony not entitled to the sweat of her brow?
>>27330703
>American capitalism
>workers have control over their production
On what planet do you live?
>>27329919
>"Was your zebra sense a-tinglin'?"
She literally asked if she was using her ooga booga negro voodoo. Yes, her being racist is canon.
>>27330832
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
The farm has been privately owned by the apple family for generations, not the state or the community. Hell, they were in danger of losing it when they competed with the Flim-Flam bros.
>>27329919
It ain't racist y'all.
You jest watch out fer them Saddle Arabians is all I'm sayin'...
Oh course not. She loves letting the donkies written for her
>>27330259
You have to prove they are. The fact they own farm is a contradiction to a major point of this political ideology.
>>27329919
oxytocin makes you rayciss
look it up
>>27330259
Can't tell if trolling or just stupid.
Pic unrelated
>>27331848
Nowadays TV and school indoctrination tells them that socialism is good and viable. That's why scientists have their rights restricted in places like Sweden or England.
>>27330637
thanks anon
>>27330165
Tell that to the 95% of whites who were too poor for that luxury. They're actually touching upon that fact finally in an upcoming film Free State of Jones, which took place in Mississippi incidentally enough.
>>27332164
You mean the movie glorifying that weird sex cult founded by a con man? This may come as a shock, but movies aren't actual history. Anyways, most poor whites saw slavery as beneficial, because
a) in the aristocratic antebellum south, it meant they had a group of people below them
b) they believed that slaves would undercut their wages, which did actually end up happening
c) they were racist
Which is why they were ultimately willing to fight a war to preserve slavery.
>>27330259
>What is the Flim Flam episode
They own their farm and sale their products for profit, not for the benefit of the state or the community out of some altruistic principle. That's at the very least a market economy.
>>27332546
What? No, it was the exact opposite. Poor whites saw black slaves as Mexicans today; stealing jobs. Why pay a white person when you could buy a slave? It was the rich Southerners who fought to keep their slaves and the poor fought to keep the invading Union troops from torching their homes.
How deep are you in that yankee history book?
>>27329919
Only against pears
>>27330910
Yeah, it's privately owned. It's not a global system, Sweet Apple Acres must still work within the Equestrian economic system.
The structure is socialist, though. Fuck the dictionary, read a single article by a socialist outside of America and you'll immediately see what socialism means to the rest of the world, ie "worker control over the means of production" such as tractors, plows, and harvesting equipment for farmers.
>>27331796
Socialist organization, though admittedly not socialism, can exist within capitalism.
It's not ideal, and it's insufficient when not coupled with communism, but that doesn't change the fact that SAA is literally a worker's co-op, the establishment of such groups being the century-and-a-half-long goal of all (coherent) socialist systems.
>>27331848
>>27331885
Why is it the humanities that people always feel like they're experts on? You don't see a 70 year old philosophy professor wandering into an engineering lecture and trying to teach a course, but in every single discussion on philosophical, political, or social theory it's like everyone is suddenly an authority on the subject.
That apparently goes even if you have no idea what the subject is about.
>>27330259
You don't have to be a convoluted mess held up by increasingly retarded money games to be capatilist.
>>27330832
I don't think you understand what capatilism is anon.
>>27332691
>Why do people talk about things outside of their expertise
I honestly hope your only pretending to be a retarded. Nothing is giving us any indication that you hold any authority over this subject over the other anons who offered fair points to you ludicrous claims.
>>27332592
In this context, we're only referring to the workplace structure implemented within socialism and how that structure exists inside of capitalism.
The workers are the ones who have authority over any other constant factor, and that authority is used first for them and second for the community (or the former through the latter a la communalism and the polis).
Like it or not, that is a form of socialist organization.
>>27332727
Owning your own farm does not make you a socialist.
>>27332727
So by your definition, owning and operating a farm, for the clear purpose of profit, is socialist? Anon that make absolutely no sense, so by this definition any business under its own management is socialist.
>>27332647
You're just factually wrong. Poor whites did see slaves as a threat to their jobs, but only if those slaves were going to be freed. Remember, slavery had been an entrenched institution for over a century, so the jobs the slaves were working had been unavailable to poor whites long enough that they didn't give a shit that slaves had them. But if those slaves were freed, then the labor pool for the jobs they did have would increase tenfold. This was also a large concern of poor whites in the north and the border states, which is why Lincoln had to wait for it to be politically opportune before he could make the goal of the war ending slavery.
'Muh states rights' is just the excuse made up by damage controlling southern historians to legitimize their treason. It succeeded for about 100 years, at which point historiographers began to question why, if the war was just about states rights, most of the secession declarations and the new cuckfederate constitution enshrined slavery.
>>27332697
You don't, but convoluted money games are capitalist.
>>27332705
Private ownership over the means of production, super duper basically.
I understand that the orchard is owned privately, but as I explained >>27332691 I think this argument misses the point of my interpretation of the farm.
>>27332719
When those points amount to "social democracy is bad", and I never mentioned any form of social democracy, I think engaging them at all as if they are my positions would make me much less credible.
>>27332736
>>27332741
It's about the relationship between the people that own the land and the people who work the land. If the owners /are/ the workers, or vice versa, that /is/ a socialist structure.
If you look at any socialist thinker you can think of, outside of America and especially before the 1940s, just about every single one is defining socialism and a socialist economic system along these lines. This isn't something I'm pulling out of my ass, this is literally what the term has meant since it was coined.
>>27332807
I'll give the benefit of the doubt that this is how socialism is defined outside of the America. That's a retarded blanket statement, by definition the employees of a private business are workers. Just because their is no executive chain there is executive chain means it's socialist? Again a family restaurant could fall under this definition, a bakery, a granary, any of these independently owned business wouldn't be capitalist? Your explanation to >>27332705 is flawed at best, being your own boss doesn't mean you're a socialist.
>>27332776
It was state's right to own slaves was the point. Slavery was just a middle finger to the Fed. It was like drawing the line in the sand. The rebel states knew if they didn't try to stop the Fed, more and more rights would be stripped, like how the Fed is threatening NC funding will be cut because of HB2.
>>27332857
It isn't. Outside of America people think about socialism without knowing how it works.
t. American living in Europe
>>27332882
Again my point still stands, just because their is no executive chain does not mean its socialist. Owning a private business, being in charge of your own labor, doesn't make it socialist
>>27332857
I'd like to make a small change to my last comment. Instead of "or" vice versa, its more appropriate to say "and" vice versa.
On top of that, I'd like to clarify that when I say "workers" I am not talking about everyone who does work, but only the people who, under capitalism, are only able to get capital by renting themselves off to others for a wage. This does not include self-employed individuals or employers.in incredibly boring, dehumanizing, and conversation killing jargon, this is the difference between the lumpenproletariat/bourgeoisie and the proletariat. I only mention it so you can check that I'm not just moving the goalposts
So, when it comes to places like a family restaurant, the power over the production must be completely under the control of /and/ equal between everyone who works into that production.
That is to say, a socialist structure has no boss (someone with disproportionate power in relation to how much work they put into producing) and influence is held equally by all the workers within the structure.
>>27332882
In the same sense Americans think about freedom without knowing how it works, yeah.
They may not be able to explain in detail the logic behind it, but the entire world outside the US has a comparatively tremendous foundation of political literacy that is completely absent from America.
>>27333126
>Americans just can't comprehend there own govement or socialism
It's socialist that a family run business wouldn't have a boss? That power would be shared equally across a family shared homestead? You know what fuck you and your elitism.
>>27331885
I almost got sucked into the dumbest debate ever. This is what happens when dumb people meet trolls. This whole thread. This is a MLP thread, let's talk about ponies, not politics.
>>27333145
What episode is that gif from?
>>27333169
Canterlot Wedding episode one, Twilight telling everyone about evil Cadence..
>>27333188
Thanks!
>>27330623
It's a family business, I doubt that Applebloom has some say about the farm.
>>27333145
I can't think of a business that would actively deny a boss that wouldn't be socialist. Family business are still usually structured with one person above another, it's a very specific situation to be called socialist.
When it comes to Americans not knowing about politics, I think that's just a sad result of a complete demoralization of the underclass that's been ongoing for decades. I'm not judging anyone for that, it's just a fact that I do my best to change by getting involved in conversations like this one.
I'm sorry if I come off as elitist. It's just hard to have a conversation unless we agree on definitions, and I have a hard time seeing things from other people's perspective on issues I think are important. It's arrogant and I'm trying to fix it.
Thanks for at least entertaining the discussion for a few posts.
>>27329919
Who could an Earth Pony even be racist against?
I mean sure they're good for apple bucking and cotton picking and what not; but lets be honest where would they be without Unicorns and Pegasi to look out for them?
I'll tell you where, eating grass out of a field like animals.
>>27333223
She's also not a full-time worker.
>>27333229
I still don't agree with you, but at least you've acknowledge blanket statements like the complete american political illiteracy could come off as arrogant.
>>27333126
>but the entire world outside the US has a comparatively tremendous foundation of political literacy that is completely absent from America.
Dude, you've got no clue what you're talking about.
Political science and political philosophy were my main fields of study and I hate to break it to you sunshine; but ignorance of government policy, blind nationalism, and an unfounded belief that "My government is better than those ignorant foreigners" is pretty much global and has been throughout history. In modern Europe their governments frequently rally their people to support the system by mocking Americans since they are the only foreigners that they may mock in a politically correct manner that won't offend the immigrant voting block. Thus the English conclude that America is a backwards violent hellhole despite the fact that its violent crime rate is 20% lower than theirs because their media told them it was and no one can resist the temptation to feel smug and superior to foreign devils.
I would say at best maybe 5% of the population in the western world (US and Europe) has a good understanding of the political system and the total is even lower in the rest of the world.
>>27333229
They do what Granny says and taught them. They share chores around the house and around the farm, I don't think Granny Smith pays them a loan, they just share the money they earned by being a goddamn family. 2 parents aren't a social community because they share a house they live in.
>>27333259
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think Americans are completely illiterate.
I'm American, most of my political friends are American. It's not just a pointless and negative judgement, it's not about making Americans look stupid. It's about the fact that the establishment of America has a unique and historically verifiable tradition of desensitizing the public understanding of politics that we've been seeing the fruit of since the 70s.
>>27333126
>So, when it comes to places like a family restaurant, the power over the production must be completely under the control of /and/ equal between everyone who works into that production.
Alright lets just deconstruct your absurd little concept right here by demonstrating that even on the micro level of a single restaurant its doomed to failure; much less on the macro level of a nation state's economy.
Who decides what the restaurants menu is?
Who decides what ingredients and supplies they need?
Who decides what percentage of the profits go to employees and what percentage is invested back into the business?
If everyone decides communally then what makes you think that a chef is qualified to make managerial or bookkeeping decisions or that the waiters are qualified to decide what supplies the chef needs for his kitchen?
Does everyone get paid the same?
If so, why should the head chef put in the effort to learn his craft when he will paid the same as his sous chefs, waiters and dishwashers?
Even something as simple as a restaurant requires a system of authority and specialization to run smoothly or frankly at all.
>>27333295
Political discussions are always fucked up, it's impossible to know every single -ism, see every connection and outcome and back it with history.
But yea, every human has a right to water (with no further explanation), but fighting a dictatorship using military to kill innocents is absolutely immoral and wrong.
>>27333295
I'm talking about the comparative wideness of the Overton window more than anything.
>>27333305
And you've just pinpointed the communism of everyday life.
"to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" is not just a political slogan, it's a description of the sort of cooperative social action everyone is involved with all the time.
Granny doesn't pay them a loan, that's the point. That's a radical work environment, a complete break from the dependency on wage-slavery that's hurting so many people today.
That's the /essence/ of communist ethics, and its right under our noses constantly.
>>27333450
> And you've just pinpointed the communism of everyday life.
that's just teamwork. It's not communism to help your parents cleaning dishes. Don't butcher that definition for your frankenstein communism
>>27329919
Naw. Just insular as all hell and really plainspoken with minimal filters. I don't see her as hating anyone or seeing anyone as inferior, since at least some pegasi and unicorns probably look down on earth pones and she'd be reluctant to make other folks feel the same way.
At the risk of raising a shitstorm, spoilered if you don't want to read about hick pone politics:on other social issues she'd probably be mixed. She'd probably be leery about "soshulizm" but wouldn't be too upset about folks in need getting help provided they're actively looking for work or working now--she'd be death on folks she thought were "lazy" though; she works hard, she thinks everyone else ought to be. Universal healthcare likewise, but wouldn't object to unfortunates who needed it and couldn't afford it getting at least basic care. She'd probably support less regulation of business, at least in cases where it seems like it isn't going to do harm, and private property rights over the state. On privacy she'd favor keeping one's nose out of other folks' business. provided they're not doing her or anyone else any harm, so long as they do her likewise--what they like to do in the privacy of their own bedroom is no one's business but theirs. Religion and politics would be topics she probably wouldn't bring up in casual conversation unless asked first. She'll leave the debating to those who are better at it and enjoy it more, like Twilight Spergle.
>>27333385
The worker's decide policy democratically, including payment.
I would appreciate some clarification on what you mean with the "What if X did Y?" scenarios.
All decisions are made as a body, it's not like there's a random selection of people doing different work.
Why would a group, including the chef themselves, want to put a cook in charge of paperwork?
I feel like I'm missing the point of this, do you mind clarifying what you mean?
When it comes to incentive, I, again, am having trouble understanding what you mean.
It seems pretty nonsensical to me to assume that people won't work if other people are getting paid the same. I don't see how that would affect much at all.
PS
There are thousands of cooperative business around the world, hundreds of them being fully-functioning restaurants. Just look at what Argentinian workers did after their financial crash a few years back. Mass cooperative movements that were and are successful completely turned their economy around, and that's just one example. There is nothing inherently unsustainable about them.
>>27333518
It is though.
"Give people what they need, contribute as much as you're able"
Using the farm profits to keep the group housed and fed is the satisfaction of needs.
Helping to do the dishes is the contribution of ability.
This is a universal principle we practice in all our social relationships, because it just fucking works. It also just so happens that it is the core ethic of communism.
I mean, if it isn't communist then what is it?
When someone asks you to pass the gravy, it's not like you ask "well, what do I get from this action?". There is no capital incentive for this, we do them and help each other because we recognize that the person we're helping has a need we can fill.
Capitalism is just a really bad way of organizing communism, and I don't think you're going to find an example that helps you here.
>>27333726
I helped cleaning the garden, I got some pocket money. I have an incentive to help my family, but my mother can be a bitch, so I demanded something in return quite often.
I don't care as much about other people as about myself, I will sometimes be late, because I value my time over theirs and aslong as I can come up with a decent apology, I don't have to fear getting shamed.
>>27333822
So?
I'm a racist dude from Appalachia and I like to think so
>>27333853
Please link me the definition of communism, because if passing the butter to my kid makes me a communist, the word loses its meaning. People help each other, but everyone expects something in return after a certain limit, People that only give are being abused and called doormats.
>>27329958
Why would having a worker co-op mean that she isn't racist?
Is this some stupid American right/left wing bullshit?
Do we know who owns the farm?
>>27333126
>a socialist structure has no boss
If it's publically owned, there could be a particular official that effectively runs a farm.
>>27333955
I never said that you're a communist for doing that sort of thing, my point is that everybody always already accepts and embraces the principles and logic of communism on a day to day basis.
Communism is a system built around the principle I've repeated at least twice already. I just think its important and worth noting in conversations about communism that the principle that is at the core of the system is continuously present and expressed within capitalistic society.
You may not be a communist when you pass that butter, but in that moment you're embracing the idea of communism whether you're aware of it or not.
It's a rupture in the capitalist norm that represents the possibility of change.
I don't know why we flew down this segway, the only reason I mentioned it was because I felt it was worth pointing out that you were using a communist ideal to argue against a socialist interpretation of the Apples.
I'm down to focus on this discussion if you want, but if you're just going to keep throwing out examples and saying "this isn't communism", and then I just say "right, but it's communistic", I don't really see the point.
>>27334012
Well, I think if you got rid of capitalism racism would either immediately precede it or begin to faze out quickly. I was just sort of tunnel-visioned on the farm, because I had been thinking about it yesterday.
Two posts into this discussion and I realized that there's no way Equestria was socialist, even if the Apples are.
I would delete it if I could.
>>27334099
If it's publicly owned it isn't socialist, that's just social democrat nonsense that amounts to pic related.
Fuk em, m8y.
>>27334375
The make or break of communism is the collective ownership and prioritizing the community's interest over the interest of individuals. It's in my interest to have a nice breakfast with my family, to be social, helping others doesn't mean I put their interest above mine. I have an end goal. I want to act in my set of morals. Helping others or even charity has nothing to do with communism. There are thousands of charities for different causes and people donate to whatever they feel like. Also: relying on others is what makes capitalism work. I can't eat my computer, I need some society that buys my stuff and sells me food.
Capitalism is in fact the best weapon against racism. If I don't hire black people, other people will hire the good black people and drive me out of competition, if I don't sell to black people, I don't make money I otherwise could've made. It literally rewards smart moves and punishes bad moves. If you want to prove women are just as capable as men, hire them. Put your money where your mouth is.
>>27329919
She just hates ziggers and unicorns
>>27334375
The term socialism is ambiguous.
Some people think state ownership is socialism.
Some people think cooperative ownership is socialism.
People are using the different definitions in this thread, causing wacky shenanigans.
We should scrap English and go with Esperanto instead.
I think calling Sweet Apple Acres socialist either way is stretching the definition.
>if you got rid of capitalism racism would either immediately precede it or begin to faze out quickly
What?
>>27334435
Have you seen the thread faggot.
>>27332691
>>27332727
This is an American site. You will be mocked for not using American definitions. You don't get to decide what words mean. And you are wrong even with your twisted definition because there is no evidence the workers on the Apple Farm control shit in the sense of ownership. Everything could be owned by Granny Smith.
> everyone is an expert on philosophical, political, and social theory
That's because:
1) No one is an expert. It's unverifiable nonsense.
2) Political and Social Theorists are always making claims about how other people should live. Of course everyone thinks they know how to live.
>>27334839
Who are the workers? It's probably just AJ and Big Guy, with Applebloom working part time. Granny Smith just does the Zap Apple jam.
>>27334810
>people know what they're talking about
>they also hate TV and state-governed schooling
>they must be /pol/
everyone who has an informed opinion or actual studied knowledge is /pol/ to the demoralized
>>27334839
>American definitions
Leaving out the "modernized" definitions and their holders, the PolitCorrect crowd, we may even postulate that American scientific definitions are the world's standard. Europoors show us what happens if relativism is getting out of hand, as their PolitCorrect crowd is magnitudes more common than in the US.
>>27329919
>is applejack racist?
I don't know. I mean, I guess but given that equestria has an ecosystem that's entirely reliant on all of the races living with in it acting in accordance with each other I wouldn't be able to tell.
>>27330259
>socialist
>clearly sell apples to keep their farm paid for
fucking commy scum, crawl back to your equality dirt pit.
>>27334585
My two and a half days of insomnia passed right after you posted this, sorry for the late reply.
I referenced this idea about individuality with >>27332727, but I think it's worth pointing you directly to Bookchin here (him being the one who contextualized the idea into modernity).
This is an excerpt from one of his books, I think the paragraph that begins with "The Greek citizen ideal, however, differed very profoundly from the modern." sums up the communist position on "individualism vs collectivism" better than I could:
http://www.respublica.gr/2015/06/column/murray-bookchin-the-idea-of-citizenship-excerpt/
For anyone who can't be bothered, a shitty paraphrase is that the individual is not something at odds with the community, but that the best way an individual /can/ find their individuality is through an affirmation of community.
When it comes to charity, I'll point you towards Oscar Wilde's essay "The Soul of Man under Socialism" here:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/
The first few paragraphs talk about charity as being a, well intentioned but ineffectual, hot fix for a system that needs fundamental reconstruction.
The rest of the essay is also topical to our discussion in general, the part after his criticism of charity being another explanation of socialist individualism among other things.Two things to keep in mind: First, he uses the capitalized word "Socialism" to mean "a society based in socialism" which is what most socialists mean when they say "communism". Second, even though it is hosted on a Marxist website, the essay is not Marxist.
>>27334585
>>27338424
On the relationship between capitalism and racism, I understand in principle how a completely utilitarian market system would be indifferent to race, but I disagree in a few ways. I'll only focus on the most substantial one for now, until its refuted, in the interest of time.
People are not completely utilitarian machines divorced of culture. People have values apart from objective self-interest. Racial prejudice, specifically, is an inherently irrational belief, racists /will/ and /do/ put these beliefs in front of their own self-interests. They may see their racism as being in their own self-interest, but that has no basis in reality.
For a clear example of this, look at the union movements of the late 19th and early 20th century. Unions would exclude people of color with references to the "respectability of the organization", and then act surprised and outraged when those same excluded people, whose membership would have doubled the size of the union, became "scabs" and crossed picket lines to work because they didn't have union support in living without their wage.
In the same vein, white business owners never benefited from Jim Crow-era segregation that, in objective terms, kept huge numbers of people out of their consumer base. Individual employers realized this, but only when their business was sinking and they were forced to admit that half of their potential customers weren't allowed on their property. Many times not even then.
I doubt there was any noteworthy number of whites fighting for civil rights only, or even at all, in the interest of profit.
Same logic applies to any other capitalist relationship between the marginalized and privileged.That last sentence in your second paragraph is just an argument for society in general. I don't see how that fits into a debate between the merits of two different forms of society.
HORSE BUTT THREAD
>>27334764
Sure, I mean different words mean different things to different people.
If I was talking to an American about the merits of social democracy, I would probably just use the word "socialist" because that's what would be best to facilitate the discussion.
Since we aren't talking about social democracy, the discussion being about the merits of worker control of the workplace, it's worth getting into the definition.
Using American political vocabulary, this conversation would look like complete nonsense. The only other option besides explaining the words would be to explain the ideas themselves, from scratch, while specifically excluding all words that are used differently by the rest of the world, which just so happen to be the only words used by socialist thinkers.I don't see how Esperanto would fix problems of dialect
>What?
Better phrasing would be "racism would fall either just before, just after, or alongside the fall of capitalism". Whether it's before, after, or concurrently depends on what school you follow about it. Sorry for the confusion, I was out of it.
>>27337045
>"modernized"
>scientific definitions
How was your definition of modernized defined by the scientific method?
>>27337840
see the first paragraph of the fourth response here:
>>27332807
>>27338513
It's very hard to derail /mlpol/, since /mlpol/ itself has already derailed the train. I hope it works, though.
>>27334839
With the word stuff, see above. It's just the only reasonable way to have this conversation.
On ownership, the farm could totally be owned by Granny, I just see no reason to believe that it is. The entire discussion is built on inferences, my argument is that all the stuff we know points to the reasonable inference that control over the farm is held only and proportionally (a la >>27334861) by the workers of the farm.
On the first theory thing, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not an epistemologist or a logician.
I have a basic understanding of social and political philosophy and general philosophical theory, but that's where my engagement stops. If you want to have a conversation about the fundamental assumptions of thought and the merits of positivism, I am not the person and this is not the place.
For how this issue relates to sociopolitical discussion, I'd say that we should privilege logical conclusions over logically inconsistent ones, and that "experts" are people who know enough about their own conclusions and that of others to make logical arguments about them. I think that includes most people, but that expertise should be graded depending on how many conclusions they're able to logically argue about, which is then dependent on how many conclusions they know about.
A professor is more of an expert than their students, but a student is more of an expert than a layperson, who is more of an expert than a person unable to consciously comprehend or interact with conclusions or logic.
On the second thing, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that we should at least /assume/ that there is a way people should live. That's kind of, y'know, inherent to a normative discussion.
>>27333531
you're good
Christ on the throne.
I'm not going to bother refuting you because I'd mostly just be repeating what was already said earlier, but for the love of all things holy, please please please realize that whatever courses you've taken, degrees you've earned or books you've read do not make you any more right or informed on actual, real-world socioeconomics than your fellow posters. People's day-to-day approaches to their work and life are far more nuanced and effective than any philosophy, capitalist or anti-capitalist, that could be boiled down into a few phrases or sentences, or expounded upon in an essay. And to hit on the original point, if as you say people will prioritize racial bias over their own self interest, then how in the hell do you think socialism/communism/Marxism/whateverthefuckyouwanttocallit is ever going to be implemented in spite of those hatreds?
tl;dr 11/10, triggered. Pic unrelated.
>>27341271
I literally cannot parse your first two sentences. I've written four different responses to them over the course of four and a half hours, and every time I deleted one I saw a clearer and clearer picture of the problem.
As you've presented it, your first argument is completely illogical and baseless.
I see absolutely no reason that experience should always overrule learned knowledge, and it inherently contradicts with every other position you've put forward.
I'm willing to accept that theory is meaningless.
I'm willing to accept that we can have a meaningful conversation about the practical applications and merits of differing sociopolictical theories.
But, it is logically impossible to have a meaningful conversation about theory if theory is pointless.
If you want to even bother to, I want you to tell me clearly which of these two positions you are taking.
If you want to take the position of learned knowledge being meaningless in comparison to personal experience, okay.
It is not a position that I am interested in or knowledgeable enough to talk about. I am only arguing about sociopolitical theory and its application to the real world, if you think that's pointless then the conversation is pointless.
It is a legitimate position, but it isn't relevant to the sort of discussion I'm trying to have. If that is what you want to tie yourself to, I'll respect that, we can leave the the discussion there.
If you want to take the position that theory matters, I'd be glad to respond to the issue of racial discrimination under communism. But I'm not going to spend time writing out a serious and thorough response just to find out after the fact that you take the first position and think that the frameworks I use and conclusion I draw are inherently baseless.
Or just don't respond, that's fine too.
>>27339227
>The only other option besides explaining the words would be to explain the ideas themselves, from scratch
Instead of saying the Apples are socialists, say that Sweet Apple Acres is run as a worker co-op should be clearer.
>>27339227
The Esperanto thing was just a joke.
>>27336352
I wasn't aiming this at you in particular, but the whole thread. I'm not particularly fond of TV (I don't watch it) or most state education either.
>>27343471
When I made the post, I was only thinking about the Apples. I just assumed they represented the standard and that the industry of Equestria was based on worker's co-ops.
One of the first things people said was pointing out that the Equestrian economy obviously wasn't socialist, and they're right.
If I had bothered to think about it for a fraction of the time I've spent writing about it since I wouldn't have even posted it. I would delete it now if I could.
I did and I can't, so I'm just going with the flow.
>>27343485
Don't you know jokes are dangerous, anon? People in the middle of srz political discourse are 200% more likely to take a joke seriously and feel embarrassed about it later. You can't know who you're targeting, the risk isn't worth it.
Don't joke me, bro.
>>27330623
>All family owned and run businesses are socialist
Here's your (You), stay in school
>>27330031
>wanted to dissociate democratically
>misuses the word cuckold
>having racial pride is racist
>>27343784
see
>>27333229
I don't understand this. I get why somebody would skip to the end of a general or something, the content will be the same no matter what order you see it in and you probably care more about the latest stuff, but a conversation is a growing chain. The order matters.
You can't just read the first chapter of a book, skip to the end, and act like the book is written badly because the conclusion doesn't make sense to you.
The Flim Flam Brothers is a socialist company.
>>27344345
Prove it.
SOCIALISTS LEAVE REEEEEEE
>>27332164
>>27332546
>North Alabamians hated rich plantation owners in South Alabama
>joined the North as the First Alabama Calvary
>was Sherman's Vanguard when he burned down Georgia
Jacksonian Alabamians didn't take kindly to treason.
>>27330832
>family-owned farm
>only family members work on the farm
>hurr socialist
Except the fact that they own the farm precludes the Apples being socialist. Socialists do not agree with private ownership as a principle, especially not property. Fuck off.
>>27345986
As I've said at least three times already, all signs point to the Apples being a worker's co-op.
It is not a universal system, Equestria as a whole obviously isn't socialistic, but that structure of the worker's being the ones in control /is/ socialistic.
Also, you're wrong about the ownership thing. Socialist theory legitimizes personal property, non-private and non-collective.
>>27329919
are you a foreigner?
>Europeans actually believe that sharing resources of any kind and for any reason, big or small, is communism/socialism
Thanks anon for reminding me that all yurocucks are mentally ill and I should be glad I was born in America where it's not too late.
>>27349932
communistic*
>>27349976
Alright faggot explain Applejack's actions in The Best Night Ever.
Applejack goes to the Gala for the express purpose of selling her goods to the rich patrons of the party. She wanted to make a pretty profit by peddling to a larger market. How does that align with a 'worker's co-op' when she's literally being an entrepreneur?
>>27350061
A co-op is a form of workplace organization, selling goods for profit is a way the products of that organization can be distributed.
The organization, how the farm is structured, is socialistic. What they do with it is not.
>>27329919
>is applejack racist?
Puncess Carlostia: 'No.She'll run against any pony, and not just Rainbow Dash'How can Applejack be race-ist, when she admires athletes such as Usain Bolt, and Mo Farah?
>>27350141
Even then the farm has on numerous occasions hired outside workers, such as the mane 6. The Pie family were also confirmed to have hired Trixie. Additionally, not everyone in the business has a say on how it's run, Applebloom obviously has no say and Granny Smith has the ultimate authority. There is no proof that Applejack or Big Macintosh even own the property legally. It's Granny's Smith land, not Applejacks parents, and usually how family business work is that the patriarch owns it wholely and only passes ownership once he dies.
There is no proof that the farm is run like a co-op, and more seems to point to the contrary.
Japan seems to think so.
>Translation: "We should bring them over and use them as slaves."
>>27350653
>>27350254
I disagree.
While Applebloom may not have an equal say in how the business is run, it's not like that say isn't proportionate to how much work she puts in.
She's out at school, playing with friends all the time. She works a fraction of the time that Applejack or Big Mac do, and she appropriately has /some/ say in how the farm is run, but is overruled by the other workers who do more work.
And while Granny /is/ in a position of authority, the spot she occupies is barely analogous to a capitalist boss. Everyone involved allows Granny to organize things because everyone involved has agreed that that's the best way to run the farm.
The important thing, for this discussion, is that it's democratic. She isn't the boss, she does not have "ultimate authority". She is a worker who has been given authority, that authority is directly and immediately accountable to all the other workers.
Do you honestly think she would hesitate in handing the position over to Big Mac or Applejack if that's what was best for the farm?
Even more than that, think about how the money is managed.
Here's a quick and dirty definition of the capitalist system: the workplace is privately held by the boss, the workers work under the boss for an agreed upon wage, and the net profit of production goes to the boss.
That boss may decided to distribute that flow around a centralized institution like a corporation, but the current will always go /up/, away from the workers.
Socialism is when the workers have direct access and control over where that money goes, a collective ownership of their own productive value.
Co-ops are a compromise that maximize collective control as far as the profit-motive of an economy of capitalism will allow.
As I've argued throughout the thread, I think SAA is most like the third.
When it comes to who legally owns the land of the farm, I'm pretty sure that neither of us have proof about that. For all we know, it may be owned by Apples as a whole.
>>27350653
Well no wonder they like her so much over there. She's as racist as they are.
>>27350254
>>27350690
If the Sweet Apple Acres hires additional workers then it's mostly a co-op, but slightly not.
>>27351353
I did forget to address that.
When did they hire workers?
>>27349932
>>27350061
The fact that the farm is run as a worker's co-op means that it is technically a socialist company. It doesn't mean the Apples are political socialists. Pirates and the Flim Flam Brothers also count as socialists in this particular meaning of the term.
>>27351375
The other post says the Mane 6. I don't think they were hired though; it was a favour.
>>27345914
Their company is equally controlled by both of its workers.
>>27329919
Her uniform reminds me of the Masked man's uniform from Mother 3
>>27351459
Bane?
>>27329919
She uses a lot of racial slurs and derogatory terms but she doesn't really believe in them and is happy to get along with them, just try to grow a thicker skin if she calls you a 'dirt poor Spic' if you can't pay for something or 'half a Jew' if you jump at a chance for quick cash.
>>27351390
>>27351421
I don't think Flim and Flam really count as workers, in socialist terms. That's usually limited to people who are directly involved .
We've only ever seen them unemployed (not producing), working at a circus (not producing), and being in charge of some massive industrial agriculture project as bosses.
Like, they call themselves a company but they don't really do anything themselves.
>>27351410
Yeah, that doesn't count.
To me it's seem that socialism or communism has so broadly defined itself that any interaction not directly capitalist like a corporation is therefore by default socialist.
It's like Islam really,being a Muslim simply means doing gods "will". Since God is omipatant and created and planned everything,everything is doing gods will. Every atom ,every planet every dust speck,every animal,every person,atheist ,Christian,white,black, are all Muslims becuse no matter what they do or are....with their very existance they are doing gods will...there no escape ping being a Muslim by a Muslims defination.
That why socialism terminology bugs me. it defines itself so broadly so they can claim that every time people work (like the apples) with what they make their really using socialist organization. You can't escape it, your rigth because the goalpost encompasses the entire left field.
>>27351884
Flim and Flam directly control the machines they use (they supply the magic), work at the counter selling medicine, and perform. They worked with Silver Shill, but this was a temporary arrangement and probably involved him receiving a share of the profits (that's how they dealt with the Apples).
>>27352107
Not many people are 100% capitalist or communist. Almost everyone would be willing to pay taxes for a some sort of military, police force, welfare, and environmental management. Not many people want the state to own everything.
Most capitalists are against lots of state ownership; it would be rare to find capitalists who oppose workers co-ops.
>>27352107I revised my last post two times away from what this one basically turned out to be, fuck me.
Socialism = common ownership over the workplace
Communism = sociopolitical system based on common ownership over the workplace
There are four classes within socialist theory:
1. The high bourgeoisie
2. The small bourgeoisie
3. The proletariat
5. The lumpenproletariat
They are defined by their economic relations, which are:
All bourgeoisie employ proles, but the small bourgeoisie are also employed by people above them.
The proles are employed by the bourgeoisie because the only way they're able to eat is by selling their labor.
The lumpen are not employed and do not employ others. They're performers, criminals, prostitutes, NEETs, etc.
Labor is exerted through objects that produce shit. Those objects are called the means of production. They are the means by which production takes place. The computer is a means to an excel chart, the factory is a means to a car, the farm is a means to food.
In a capitalist workplace, a member/members of the bourgeoisie privately own the means of production. They allow the proles to work those means, and extract the net profit.
In a socialist workplace, the proletarian collectively own the means of production and control where its value goes themselves, democratically.
A co-op is a workplace organized in a socialist manner, ie workers have democratic control over the means of production, that is within a capitalist mode of production, a capitalist economic system.
A real socialist workplace can only exist under a fully socialist mode of production.
First episode, Flim and Flam are bourgeoisie without workers.
In the second, they're lumpen working a job that produces nothing.
In the S5 finale, they did the first thing right and became bourgeoisie.
Our terminology is not broad, it just so happens that nobody bothers to learn it. Everyone talks about what they think it is anyway, huge misunderstandings happen.
So what your saying is that the apple family from what can be gathered from the show generally perform their farm business in a manner more or less equivalent to Co-op.
While the apples themselves might not consider themselves socialist and equestrias economy is not socialist, nevertheless an argument can be made that the apples farm work organazation resembles far more a socialist based co-op than a capitalist based business model.
Am I going somewhere with this?
>>27352187
Read this:
>>27352267
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ
If you have time for a longer video, then watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysZC0JOYYWw
Finish that lecture, keep watching Chomsky, or you could even just read the wikipedia article on socialism.
Now you have homework.
Serious politics/economics 101, all of these statements are true:
Socialists are not liberals.
Democratic socialism is not socialist.
Social democrats are capitalists.
The state-capitalist regimes of the 20th century were not socialist
Communism, by definition, rejects a state system
Almost all socialists are communists
Not all Marxists are socialists
Not all communists are Marxists
Write them down, check them off when you understand why they are true. You won't check them all off today, but within an hour you'll understand it enough to be more credible than Stalin, so you've got that.
These are not ideological statements, this isn't propaganda. These are facts about the theory of socialism and communism that are equally as true as the statement "classical liberalism is based on the ideas of The Enlightenment". These are statements accepted by every single academic field that has anything to do with history, economics, sociology, and anthropology. I urge you, please, to find a single peer-reviewed academic paper that contradicts anything I've said here.
I don't care if you stay a capitalist or become a socialist, but I do care that I've had this conversation three times, with at least four people, over the course of three days, in this thread.
If you're going to disagree, you would not only be making yourself feel more confident and secure about your own position, but you'd be giving a breath of fresh air to whoever you're talking to.now I gotta go drink some bleach or something, I haven't eaten in like 12 hours.
>>27352351
oh jesus fuck you're my hero
>>27352267
>All bourgeoisie employ proles
contradicts
>Flim and Flam are bourgeoisie without workers
>A real socialist workplace can only exist under a fully socialist mode of production.
You can't say a workplace organized in a socialist manner is not socialist. That's stretching the definition of the word.
>>27352447
>Democratic socialism is not socialism
This says they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
>Social democrats are capitalists.
Fuck. Who comes up with these terms?
>The state-capitalist regimes of the 20th century were not socialist
The state controls the means of production. This is a type of social ownership (socialism).
>Socialists are not liberals.
>Communism, by definition, rejects a state system
>Not all communists are Marxists
Fair enough.
>Not all Marxists are socialists
Is this common? Didn't Marx advocate for socialism?
>>27352800
Yeah, that's a fair argument with the FF thing. I was thinking in terms of "they still have private ownership over a means of production", but it's much more their relationship with other subjects.
In that situation, they'd really been lumpen more than anything.
I disagree on the other thing, though.
The mode of production is the overarching economic order. IRL, that's capitalism.
A co-op can only ever be socialistic, not socialist. It's not totally owned by the workers.
There are multiples layers of state and capitalist limits put onto all businesses, these leech the power out of the co-op, the workers do not have total control.
On top of that, the land the co-op is based on has to be owned as private property, and the organization must direct itself in line with market forces to get a profit, which they need to stay afloat.
It's inherently different than a socialist workplace under a social mode of production, which would have no obstacles for the workers when it came to control of their workplace.
>>27352883
OK. Fair enough. I suppose the word socialist is better used when talking about a larger economic system anyway.
I still think saying there's a difference between a socialistic and socialist company is unnecessary, but if I'm in a situation where it's ambiguous, I'll just clarify by saying "it's a worker's co-op".
>>27352447
I think I confused communism with state socialism.
>>27352879
In American discourse "democratic socialists" are usually equated with social democrats. Bernie, for instance, uses both interchangably.
They are different, I just didn't think it was worth mentioning.
Social democrats are the Marxist capitalists, btw. At least in that much of their logic stems from Marxist theory, which was the basis of their original organizations like a hundred years ago. Their idea was to reform capitalism into socialism, instead of having a revolution.
Nowadays, democratic socialists are the modernized version of those original beliefs, and social democrats just sort of dropped socialism.
Shit like that is all over the place, the modern vocabulary of politics in English is a clusterfuck.
>>27352931
Socialist democrat and democratic socialist being synonyms make sense. They're pretty similar terms.
>>27352952
Oh yeah totally, it's just annoying.
>>27329919
You say that as if it was a bad thing, anon
