We [cryptagion, infinitesunrise, for_some_delta, me, etc.] are talking about 1) political power, 2) over the society as a whole, that is 3) effectively unchecked, since the only so-called “check” (voting) is a circus.
In the meantime, your example is about 1) decision making, 2) in a very restrict scope, in a way that 3) can easily have internal counters and checks (i.e. if the head surgeon is doing some dumb shit, other surgeons should be able to remove them).
In other words your whole comment boils down to three paragraphs of “ackshyually, no practical difference between apples and oranges”. It’s so fucking bad that, to be blunt, I’m not wasting further time with it.
I think they’re more suggesting that breaking the system will fundamentally and necessarily break some of the public services that thousands of people depend on, and if you’re serious about breaking/changing the system, answering the fundamental questions of “how do we prevent as many needless deaths due to service interruptions” is important.
Nah, their argument is clearly an analogy between both situations, to “prove” both things are the same.
That said your concern is reasonable. It’s about transition; something the left has been discussing since at least the Second International. Individual takes go from “you won’t make an omelette if you don’t break some eggs” to “minimise harm as much as possible”. I lean towards the later - seize, put it under the control of the workers and/or general population, let them gradually restructure it, repeat as needed.
We [cryptagion, infinitesunrise, for_some_delta, me, etc.] are talking about 1) political power, 2) over the society as a whole, that is 3) effectively unchecked, since the only so-called “check” (voting) is a circus.
In the meantime, your example is about 1) decision making, 2) in a very restrict scope, in a way that 3) can easily have internal counters and checks (i.e. if the head surgeon is doing some dumb shit, other surgeons should be able to remove them).
In other words your whole comment boils down to three paragraphs of “ackshyually, no practical difference between apples and oranges”. It’s so fucking bad that, to be blunt, I’m not wasting further time with it.
I think they’re more suggesting that breaking the system will fundamentally and necessarily break some of the public services that thousands of people depend on, and if you’re serious about breaking/changing the system, answering the fundamental questions of “how do we prevent as many needless deaths due to service interruptions” is important.
Nah, their argument is clearly an analogy between both situations, to “prove” both things are the same.
That said your concern is reasonable. It’s about transition; something the left has been discussing since at least the Second International. Individual takes go from “you won’t make an omelette if you don’t break some eggs” to “minimise harm as much as possible”. I lean towards the later - seize, put it under the control of the workers and/or general population, let them gradually restructure it, repeat as needed.