u/kubissx

I've been rewatching this certified Vaush classic:

https://youtu.be/wo-LW2XvW\_U

Before continuing to read, listen to the argument starting at around 17:16, about how the state is essentially like a corporation that got really big. It's a wild idea on the surface, but if you think about it deeply enough, it has some profound implications.

For several years now, I have been identifying as a market socialist. Unlike Vaush, who thinks of market socialism as just an initial improvement upon capitalism, I would be quite satisfied with it as an end goal. It is too difficult for me to conceptualise a revolutionary transition to socialism and I firmly reject the authoritarian socialist systems of the 20th century.

In fact, fundamentally, I am a liberal in the strictest sense of the word. I believe in a liberal democratic form of government, a strong constitution that protects individuals' civil rights and limits the power of the state, all that good stuff. I see my perspective as capitalism + worker ownership, rather than socialism + markets. This is concrete enough to inspire a clear, achievable political programme within a functioning liberal democracy. Of course, I expect that we would build on this "democratic capitalism" in the future. However, that development can only exist as a response to that future system, which we won't be able to conceptualise until the system is in place and its contradictions become apparent.

When we analyse the state-as-a-corporation through this lens, we can make some fascinating observations.

Firstly, the rise of the state perfectly maps onto the tendency of capital to accumulate at the top under a capitalist system.

Secondly, we can view the rise of representative democracy, where we elect representatives to manage the state, as essentially a process of socialising this corporation. "One man one vote" is essentially just expressing the fact that we each owe exactly one share, and we elect executives to manage the corporation for our benefit. This beautifully explains why taxation isn't theft: it's not because the state issues currency, as Vaush argues in that video (I think that's a weak argument for several reasons I won't go into), but because we are bound to the state as its actual, material owners. Claiming that taxation is theft would be like owning shares of Apple and complaining that the corporation funding the production of new products is theft.

It has been said by many people that market socialism is all about extending democracy from the government to the workplace. I think that's a lovely way to think about it! Now, anyone arguing against workplace democracy has to reconcile their arguments with their support of democracy in government. But if we really want to take the red pill, we have to own the converse: extending some form of "socialised corporatism" to government.

The government as it exists today is horrifically inefficient. To accomplish anything, one has to navigate a daunting web of bureaucracy. Indeed, executive efficiency is one of the advantages of dictatorship; China can act quickly because it doesn't have to contend with opposition. And certainly, we wouldn't wish to extend this kind of inefficiency to every company. When we talk about workplace democracy, we generally mean that worker-owners should have the right to elect executives, who would be accountable to the worker-owners. We don't want to hinder a company's efficiency, so we don't make these executives jump through a bunch of hoops to get anything done. What matters is that they are held accountable for their decisions and that they can be fired by the workers if they do a bad job.

If we accept that the state is merely a large, collectively-owned corporation, then shouldn't we extend these cooperative principles to how the state is managed? Instead of electing nameless representatives who form a cabinet (like in the UK) or a President who brings in their own guys (like in the US), shouldn't we be able to directly elect ministers? Shouldn't these elected ministers have direct power to legislate, instead of being paralysed by a tedious legislative process? Couldn't their power be limited directly by the will of the people, not by arcane checks and balances?

Just some food for thought! 🤠

I started thinking about this while watching Vaush's video about the May heatwave in the UK (while suffering from said heatwave). In particular, there was a message from a chatter who said they started a climate science degree and got so depressed they had to drop out.

Imagine an obese guy who sets a goal to lose weight by summer. You see, his favourite Hawaiian shirt is a few sizes too small and he really wants to wear it on the beach. But every time he tries to start, he fails. He keeps telling himself, "It's fine, if I just start tomorrow and get really disciplined with my diet, and find the time to work out 5 times a week, I can still lose enough weight before I go on holiday."

And like, he's technically right. It's physically possible for him to do that. But is he actually going to do it? Probably not. Each time he procrastinates, the process gets even harder. These thoughts he's having aren't serious plans for self-improvement, he's just trying to rationalise his inaction to make himself feel better. He's too far in denial to even consider buying a larger shirt. Unless he accepts the reality of the situation, he'll end up sitting on the beach shirtless.

It seems to me that people talk about addressing climate change in much the same way. To limit global warming to some manageable level, the world needs to hit net zero by, what, 2040? That's 14 years away. That's slightly less than 3 UK governments, and slightly more than 3 presidential terms in the US. This is technically possible. We have the technology to replace fossil fuels. We have international bodies, like the UN, that could distribute these technologies around the world. Net zero is physically achievable.

But is it politically achievable? Have we made any real progress? The world is using more fossil fuels now than ever before in human history. Look it up: each year, we set a new record. We have smashed through every single "tipping point" that scientists have warned us about so far and it doesn't look like this is going to change.

Also, remember that this is a global problem. Even if we somehow manage to get liberal European democracies to go net zero *very soon* (which already seems quite hard, with 'net zero' being a popular scapegoat on the populist right), how realistic is it to get America on board? What about India? What about even poorer developing countries?

At what point do we cut our losses and accept that maybe this problem is just too big for humans to solve? Our streak of fixing things has to end eventually, right? Unlike with previous political issues, where progressive ideas tend to win over time, we are working with a very strict time limit.

The sooner we accept defeat, the better we can prepare for the shitstorm. We need to figure out how to keep people warm during harsh winters and cool during summer heat waves. We need to build massive amounts of housing for the inevitable refugee crisis. We need to set up the infrastructure for vertical farming and find sources of water.

All of this will cost a lot of money. But if we can free ourselves from the constraints of net zero, we can do a lot of crazy shit. We can make building cheaper by scrapping all the environmental regulations. We can also make energy cheaper by digging up all the fossil fuels we can and eliminating green taxes.

But most importantly, once the hard work is done, we can put oil executives and the leaders of all their propaganda outlets on trial for crimes against humanity.

=========

EDIT: A few of the replies have mentioned that I'm engaging in binary thinking. This is true, and I take that criticism on board. Certainly, any amount of work we can do to mitigate the effects of climate change will help and I should have acknowledged this. However, there are two reasons why I stand by this post.

Firstly, we have to actually accept and reckon with the reality that we can't avoid devastating climate change before we start taking preparations for it seriously. We are focusing all of our political capital on prevention and almost none on mitigating the future consequences we already know are coming.

Secondly, there is actually a tipping point that, once crossed, will make things a lot worse. Currently, absolutely loads of CO_2 is dissolved in ocean water. As the planet heats up, that CO_2 will be released into the atmosphere. Once that happens, we enter a doom loop where the CO_2 causes more warming, which causes more CO_2 to be released, regardless of anything we can do.

If you're like me and you only played the base game after it came on PS+, now is a great opportunity to buy the expansion.

I really don't know what I'm doing wrong. It's remarkable how consistently I manage to finish in 15th place. If I have a big advantage at the start, I end up losing it. If I'm far behind, I can catch up, but only up to the middle of the pack.

Based on this, we should reasonably conclude that I'm just an average player. But I think I'm actually pretty good! I'm playing through all the playlists at 5/5 difficulty, generally finishing around top 5% on the leaderboards for those races. I have been ranked comfortably platinum in the Summit Contest from day one, sitting at around 5000th on the leaderboard this week.

So what gives? I'm still new to this game, so I assume there's something about the Grand Race I just don't understand. Can anyone help me explain why my performance is so mid, and what I can do to improve it?

The title, basically. I normally play on difficulty 4/5 and I found all the other event races easy to complete, but with this one, I'm really struggling to beat the AI on even 3/5 difficulty. It seems the AI is allowed to boost even though I'm not, and its car is faster than mine. I came close a couple of times, but I'm about 15 attempts in and I still haven't managed to beat it at 3/5 difficulty. Any advice?

I admit, I'm totally new to this game, so maybe there's just something I don't understand about the mechanics.