• Serinus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    135
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    You think we’re gonna fight corporations as individuals if we strangle government?

    No. Government is our protection from those who would want to consolidate power, especially corporations. I understand that the government often fails at that protection, but it’s still a hell of a lot better than being completely defenseless.

    The whole point of the founding fathers was to spread power and attempt to keep it spread. They wanted to avoid both the abuses of monarchy and the eventual decapitation of leadership (seeing as how that’d be their heads).

    • makyo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      8 months ago

      It ain’t going well for the little guy lately - the thread in my Lemmy right below this one is “Amazon, SpaceX and other companies are arguing the government agency that has protected labor rights since 1935 is actually unconstitutional”.

      The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the working man that labor unions were gasp COMMUNIST

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Wouldn’t it be an interesting few years if governments banned companies from owning companies (maybe with carve outs for pension funds)

    • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Government is our megazord. Got it.

      megazord transforming

      Edit: added wiki link for the curious. In short, episodes of the Power Rangers often end with the rangers battling a monster that inevitably revives as a much larger, Godzilla-scale version.

      As the rangers are suddenly too small to fight the larger foe that towers above them, they must instead organize their individual vehicles into one giant “megazord” — a large mech, like a gundam crossed with a transformer — in order to defeat the enemy.

    • Cowbee [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      That only works if it can be meaningfully said that the working class directs the state, rather than the owner class. In America, the Owner Class dominates the state via lobbying and being able to contribute to election campaigns.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        The working class directs the state. The owning class directs the working class. The owning class doesn’t give two shits about abortion beyond how they can use it to get the people they want elected.

        It’s why they bother with Fox News and all this propaganda. At the end of the day they still need votes.

        • Cowbee [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          The Working Class does not direct the state, because they must pick between candidates chosen by the Owner Class. The system itself is designed to protect the Owner Class, and it does so through picking representatives to prevent truly democratic processes.

          Fox, CNN, NYT, all of the major media outlets owned by the same group of companies serve as the bread and circuses to distract the Workers.

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Yes, the owning class are the ones who picked George Santos. Not just anyone can run. He was the chosen one.

            Things are difficult, yes. They’re not completely hopeless.

            • Cowbee [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              George Santos never rocked the boat and was never a threat.

              Reform into a worker-controlled system is largely impossible, but that doesn’t mean the situation is hopeless. The system needs to be replaced.

              The Founding Fathers built the state to support the interests of the Owner Class, because they were Owners.

    • Altomes@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      One might argue that the government is there to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. James Madison certainly did

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Thus the beheading part. Spreading power was good for everyone.

        I’d rather have a billion USD as an American citizen than have 10 billion USD as a Russian oligarch. For some reason the GOP doesn’t seem to understand why.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yes. The point of government is to fight things too big for us to fight ourselves. That is the only reason government has to exist. All the other things are nice to have features, but a government is a fighting force.

      That doesn’t mean we give up our own weapons though. We need an army to fight the other armies, law to fight the power of money, and government for those. But we also need weapons of our own to prevent the government from physically fighting us.

      Our weapons keep the government polite. The government keeps other governments and other large organizations polite.

      It’s the minimum structure necessary for a society where respectful interaction is the norm.

      All these weapons and power structuring aren’t about dominating. They’re about maintaining a power balance to prevent domination … and make space for respect and trade.

      Government therefore exists in order to:

      • Prevent any individual from dominating any other individual, creating guaranteed space for respectful trade
      • Ensure the first item by having enough physical power (army) to control any individual including removing them
      • Also configure that army to oppose other armies so that they can’t come dominate the local individuals
      • Be unable to dominate the whole polity if it fights together (government carries a sword but each individual carries a small knife; only large groups of individuals can oppose the sword)

      It all starts from needing a way to enforce nobody is dominating anyone else.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        8 months ago

        But we also need weapons of our own to prevent the government from physically fighting us.

        And the most important and effective weapon is collective action. The reason people look weird at Americans about gun culture is because alone, you can have as many guns as you want, the police will bash your head in either way. Together, you don’t even need guns, you can cripple the government in a week by just not going to work.

        And that ability is incredibly heavily regulated in the US. From our perspective, the US is the country where people don’t have the ability to fight the government.

        That said, guns can be good against nazis at your door, but at that point, the government has long failed at taking out the trash.

      • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        What i take away from this is that when an individual becomes too powerful (e.g. rich) it becomes a threat for the government and the government should consider it a threat and intervene. Yes, I’m talking about the billionaires.

        • Cowbee [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s why it’s important to study the mechanisms of the state to see who actually controls it.

  • meep_launcher@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    As someone who’s self employed, I feel like self employment is a form of rebellion against this system.

    My dad teases me that his socialist son is now a capitalist because I give music lessons and host events. I’m pretty sure I’m not because I don’t profit from the labor of someone else, I do all the work and anyone who helps me isn’t existentially tied to me.

      • meep_launcher@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yup. The good part about it is that if I know the trip wire words to avoid, I can get him to agree on some really progressive things.

        Like I got him to agree that history is uncomfortable and that victors tend to write history, so we should be critical in how we learn it and teach it. We should consider the perspectives of who “the losers” are to get a true grasp of what actually happened, and that the society you grow up in will shape your world view. Our history classes should confront these issues and teach events with consideration of different groups of people and how they were affected, even if it may make us uncomfortable.

        Hmmm what does that sound like?

      • BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        So many people and absolutely incapable of defining socialism or capitalism.

        Every damn one of them has an opinion on both.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          We want them both at the same time. We want to be winners, but we imagine that if we were, we would be fair, thereby creating a utopia.

          People associate those words with their fantasies, not with the ideological tenets that actually define them.

          • maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            The way should be socialism and collective help for the poor, free market capitalism and taking risks for the rich. The point is, the more you have, the less the system should help you. In many places, it’s the other way around.

            • Cowbee [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Socialism isn’t public safety nets. You’re referring to Social Democracy, ie Capitalism with strong safety nets, not collective ownership of the Means of Production.

      • Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Socialism=communism. Communism=red. Red looks like blood. Blood means someone might die. Socialism bad cuz it means dead people.

        That’s usually how conservatives who I have talked to look at it. 💀

        So many lost causes…

    • CableMonster
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      There is no badge for not hiring people. Its better to hire someone and treat them better than another employer than pretend like you are virtuous and not “profiting from their labor”.

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        An interesting thought. A kind of harm reduction. Alternately (or perhaps coinciding) I’m very interested in workers co-ops where the distinction between employee/er kinda goes away. You can still have managers and people setting the quarterly goals or whatever, but they aren’t “above” you, except maybe in their skill at managing people.

          • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Wow when the billionaires are worried about income inequality you know the shit has gone too far. It’s like it’s not even fun for them anymore.

            Thought provoking article. Thank you got sharing. I certainly don’t agree with everything said, but it’s interesting to hear a different view.

            • Demosthememes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              I remembered that Cuban was on record for saying & doing this & that link was the easiest to source from because so many people know who he is. I wanted to highlight the deed itself. More recently, was the open letter written by over 250 billionaires & multi-millionaires pleading to be taxed more than they currently are.
              As you say, you know it’s almost pitchfork levels when the letter, which was read at WEF in Davos, says

              “Our request is simple: we ask you to tax us, the very richest in society. This will not fundamentally alter our standard of living, nor deprive our children, nor harm our nations’ economic growth. But it will turn extreme and unproductive private wealth into an investment for our common democratic future.”

              According to the article, “Imposing a 2% tax on the world’s billionaires alone would raise almost $250 billion annually”
              Question is, why are governments so reluctant to grant them this?

        • CableMonster
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I am all in favor of any work relationship that is consensual. I just dont like it when people keep wanting to make laws that “protect employees” when they are actually harming everyone instead.

      • Cowbee [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s better entirely to set up a worker co-operative and cease exploitation.

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m pretty sure I’m not because I don’t profit from the labor of someone else, I do all the work and anyone who helps me isn’t existentially tied to me.

      Idk, I’m in a similar boat. I work at a state-run hospital, but I also own a company with my wife and friend and we do all the labour together. I think sometimes to deal with the work load I have a “home me” and a “work me”.

      Home me is chill, just wants to relax and have a good time.

      Work me… He’s a scoundrel who doesn’t work nearly hard enough to afford “home me” more leisure time. You can’t trust him, gotta watch him like a hawk. I’m going to wring that guy dry until I can retire off his sweat.

      So it makes an odd amount of sense to me, but I’ve constructed an odd coping mechanism i think.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Self-employment is detrimental to people. Because it has the workers support all the risks. It’s not the solution.

  • hibsen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    8 months ago

    Am I remembering wrong or is this the first NSF “terrorist” leader’s monologue in Deus Ex?

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah, it’s correct if by “self employed” you mean “subsistence farmer”. The US was basically a third world country in 1900. We only won the Spanish American War in 1898 because Spain was a dying empire.

    • Pumpkin Escobar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      8 months ago

      50% according to this article. They mention 80% in 1860.

      I’m not 100% sure of the source there but I have heard similar numbers around 50%. Think of all the self-employed people doing jobs that just don’t exist today in the US - delivering milk, fruit, fish, newspapers, door-to-door salesmen, and that’s on top of jobs that still exist today with a lot of self-employed people like AC repair, plumbing, etc…

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      From 1860 to 1900 the average size of American farms had declined from 199 acres to 147 acres and the percentage of farmers in the labor force declined from 58 to 38 percent.

      No, doesn’t seem right.

  • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    8 months ago

    Even today, Deus Ex proves to be relevant and provokes discussion. True art.

    Who’s reinstalling it right now?