I think there’s a simpler, more personal way to make this point. Here’s a few thought experiments:
Imagine you work for a company that lays you off, even while doing enough stock buybacks and executive bonuses such that they could’ve paid your salary for 1000 years. After you get laid off, imagine what would happen if you just ignored them and continued doing your work.
Or, your landlord doesn’t renew your lease because they think you’re ugly and they don’t want ugly people living in their building. Imagine what happens if you just stay, even if you keep sending the landlord their monthly rent on time.
Both of these situations end with armed, taxpayer-funded agents physically removing you from the premises by any means necessary; it is only the omnipresent threat of state violence that keeps capitalist control over their private property. We don’t see the violence because we’ve been trained from an early age not just to accept it, but to not even see it.
^ This is the winner, right here. The crux, as it were.
Modern society always ultimately boils down, eventually, to might makes right… just with some extra steps.
I agree with you. That said, as humans, we’re not yet evolved past defending territory we’ve chosen to live on. I think we still need “might” as an option for response, until we as a creator evolve further.
I don’t know if it’s possible to get rid of the final might destination on the continuum of responses to issues, but I think we can agree that the “extra steps” part between “an annoyance” and “possible danger to individuals and society” is extremely lacking and narrow.
I strongly, strongly dislike what the police have become, and evolved from, in the united States. Someone does need to investigate crime and murder though, and not just a few amateur podcasters. With some careful thought, and likely messy experimentation, we can handle laws being just, fair and useful. How? That seems to be the tricky part.
“Warfare is of vital importance to the state, it is a matter of life and death.” -Sun Tzu.
A hundreds of years old warlord recognized this, it’s a thought independent of economics. As long as there’s more than one nation-state on this planet, might is always the end result, including defense from an aggressor.
The idea of inherent violence solely being a capitalist trait doesn’t tell the whole truth because the need for might exists as long as there’s power dynamic, which exists as long as there is govt.
Has anyone claimed that violence has never occurred outside a context of capitalism?
You think it’s the govt that creates the power imbalances that results in violence? This is laughable… government is a result of violence that creates the power imbalance. Your point was reasonable until you conflated the two at the end.
I strongly, strongly dislike what the police have become, and evolved from, in the united States. Someone does need to investigate crime and murder though, and not just a few amateur podcasters. With some careful thought, and likely messy experimentation, we can handle laws being just, fair and useful. How? That seems to be the tricky part.
That’s not exclusive to capitalism .
True, but as an organization, protection of property seems to be their primary focus in more capital-centric societies.
I’m speaking from an admittedly limited experience, having lived in the US most of my life, so I welcome any other perspective or ideas.
I’m also from the US, and haven’t lived abroad. It did rise to my awareness in this exchange, having recently begun trying to process Bob Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians
Private property is the cause of the greatest social disparities, and protecting it is essential for our current systems to preserve themselves.
It should be no surprise that it is implicated in much of the greatest violence in our society.
I’ve seen a few solutions to the private property idea posited. I’ll admit my biases, they made me uncomfortable, mainly because they cannot be the only piece of the machine altered.
For ex, there’s a very large company near me that allows one to purchase land to build a house on, but that land is your family’s for 99 years before ownership reverts to the corporation.
I can’t really see the upside for any family, investing a lot of money into property that simply… Vanishes after a time. But that was one of the solutions I previously reviewed, no true ownership. Most of the other ideas were tweaks on that central idea.
Within the context of criticisms of capital, private property expresses a meaning that may be unexpected based strictly on a vernacular interpretation.
Whereas personal property refers to property that is used directly and personally by its owner, private property refers to property that is used by someone else, or another group, such that the owner may profit from asserting private control over such resources despite that they are useful for society or to others.
Businesses and rented properties are private property.
A house someone owns and occupies is personal property.
I don’t know if it’s possible to get rid of the final might destination on the continuum of responses to issues
Perhaps the issues themselves are not inevitable.
Very true, although I can’t think of a better solution than having the state monopolize violence and enforce things like personal property etc and that’s not necessarily anything specific to capitalism either.
Some very smart and imaginative anarchist philosophers have been working on exactly that for a very long time, from Mikhail Bakunin 200 years ago to more modern writers like Noam Chomsky or David Graeber. I think their work is worthwhile.
I haven’t found Chomskys work to be convincing… it’s always so… extra…
I don’t think it’s extra. Quite the opposite. If anything, it could use a little extra, because it’s extremely dry and academic.
I think we used the slang version of extra differently is all.
Luckily solutions don’t rely on your imagination.
If people who “can’t think of a better way” would stop trying to impose their lack of imagination on the rest of us we would be able to progress.
There are smarter people than you or I in the world and they aren’t the ones running things, the ones whispering, “You’re nothing without me”
The first step of any abusive relationship is recognizing it’s an abusive relationship. The second is to stop making excuses for your abuser and just leave, no matter what they claim the cost to be.
Yes and there are people who can’t leave, eg have no place to go, no means of survival, otherwise. Disabled, power differentiate between men/women/children, etc.
Yep. We’re all stuck and only together can we get unstuck. Unionize. Vote. Share ideas. Help others escape the fog when they get stuck.
Unfortunately some don’t want to be help. They’ll defend their abusers with violence. They are the most dangerous. Flying monkey’s doing the bidding of the powerful.
No shame when they wake though; capitalism is a mind fuck.
Doing all of it without voting probably would be just as good.
Voting is a critical step. Without voting you’ll lose the ability to the the rest.
How is voting necessary for building unions and helping others?
This is a terrible argument.
Is not an argument.
Well that’s a problem.
Yes. For you.
I can no more save you from capitalism than I can save you from an abusive relationship.
The real tell is when I point it out and you get upset with me; classic response by the abused.
Are you intentionally trying to be off-putting?
It is a respectable argument in the way that matters, as identifying a previous, terrible argument, one that was nothing but an appeal to ignorance.
I can’t think of a better solution than having the state monopolize violence and enforce things
I can’t think of a worse one.
Sorry, it’s the internet so I can’t tell if you’re kidding or not (I’m hoping hyperbole).
Are you genuinely saying you think everyone using violence at their own discretion for example is better?
Individual descretion occurs within a context of established norms and rules, which would be very different under a society in which everyone protects one another, rather than one in which such responsibility has been forfeit to a power that controls the population.
A society of the prior kind would be safer, by not being held hostage, and by not being disempowered to control itself.
Individual descretion occurs within a context of established norms and rules, which would be very different under a society in which everyone protects one another
It’s called a gang. That’s just gangs. Or tribes. Not a thing that scales up too well. Also not known for its safety.
by not being held hostage
You could literally be held hostage, unless your gang (hope you belong to a tough one) does something about it.
We aren’t disempowered, we vote and elect representatives. We give input that takes those norms and rules and puts them into laws to eliminate that individual discretion that is most often faulty (people have emotions after all, so don’t behave fairly when it’s personal).
Basically all the safest places in the world have violence monopolized by the state to enforce laws. All the most dangerous are where that isn’t the case (gangs, warlords, cartels, corruption) with few exceptions.
A gang is a criminal organization. Its relation to surrounding society is antagonistic, and it is broadly indifferent to the harmful effects it causes to anyone outside. Gangs often enrich themselves by theft supported by violence. They generally do not produce.
A group whose members live nearby to one another and who keep each other safe is a community. Members of a community generally participate in production, as the shared source of wealth and sustenance.
A tribe is a political structure often constituted as a loose affiliation of bands. A band is a kind of community. Bands are usually relatively isolated socially and geographically from other communities.
Many other communities, as often found in modern societies, are highly integrated with other communities, and maintain favorable relationships with them, seeking a minimization of violence, and fostering shared peace and prosperity through production and trade.
Voting is not empowering.
Voting is at best a choice of whom to empower. Those who compete against one another for the votes of the public generally have more in common with each other than with the public. Most rules change very little regardless of who is elected, and most rules carry the broader effect of protecting the power of those already empowered.
Broadly, voting generally maintains and protects, not challenges, the status quo and the disempowerment of the public.
For the public to become empowered, it would need to gain some power relative to those for whom it votes.
States perpetrate violence on massive scales. They function to protect themselves, not to protect the public. For almost the entirety of human existence, people have protected each other without states.
The idea that the state, even as a principle, should protect the public, is quite recent, even relative to the duration since states have emerged, and the practical reality is quite different from the principle.
When the interests of the public come into conflict with the interests of the state, then the state inflicts violence against the public.
When the capacity of the state becomes strained, to inflict violence against the public, then the state simply exercises its power to augment its capacity to inflict violence.
This applies in general to copyright.
It’s bullshit that exists solely by the power of the state. It only exists as long as we all agree it exists, ever person on the planet. It has only existed for a few centuries but no one can imagine a world without.
Capitalism is the same except worse since no one can agree on what capitalism means. The solution is always to capitalism harder.
This is a great comment. Thanks for this.
💖
Not playing devils advocate by choice: there are systems in place (at least in more democratic countries) that force the employer and the landlord to keep you if you havent done anything wrong.
At will employment is an american joke.
Still, paying more for the shareholders and CEOs than the actual work your water, food and transportation needs is insane.
The idea that I can buy my way around laws and others rights is disgusting to the core.
This is mostly on point, but it also reproduces the 100 companies 71% line.
100 corporations are responsible for 71% of emissions related to fossil fuel and cement production, not 71% of total global emissions.
Of the total emissions attributed to fossil fuel producers, companies are responsible for around 12% of the direct emissions; the other 88% comes from the emissions released from consumption of products.
It’s unfortunately not true. Just widley quoted.
I think it’s closer to 25% for fuel burning, not 12% where did you get 12?
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
It would seem Industrial consumption of resources would be ≥ *collective individual consumption (possibly excluding ultrawealthy, depending on variables), but I’d need to at least see the abstracts of some credible studies.
Edited word
It’s reddit tier misinformation post.
The argument presented here is based on complete ignorance of the history of the human race.
Reason #1
The concept of property ownership is not a product of capitalism. This idea is literally as old as the oldest known civilization to keep written records, Mesopotamia.
Concern with property, its preservation, and its use shaped not only the Mesopotamian legal tradition but also economic and social practice, notably the ability to sell and to buy land and to transfer property through marriage and inheritance.
In Mesopotamian culture, property was owned by the state, by the temple, and by private families. Records show a distinction between movable property (material goods) and immovable property (land), and the selling, trading, repossessing, inheriting and transfer of all types of property.
Here is an example of a cuneiform tablet recording an agreement about the division of property.
There is even an equivalent of eminent domain:
When Hammurabi asked, “When is a permanent property ever taken away?” he was referring to the established customary legal principle that land was the permanent property of a family.
Hammurabi was not a capitalist. Babylon was not a capitalist nation.
Capitalism did not “invent legal privileges around property”.
Reason #2
Conquest of territory happened long before capitalism ever existed. Colonialism was hardly a new concept.
Genghis Khan was not a capitalist. Alexander the Great was not a capitalist. Julius Caesar was not a capitalist. Napoleon Bonaparte was not a capitalist.
If you require citations for this part of my argument, I suggest you find a basic text on world history at your local library.
Conclusion
I’m not going to address the other “reasons” as they are faulty conclusions drawn from the previously addressed faulty premises.
I am not arguing that these things are right and good. I am arguing that linking them specifically to capitalism represents a desperately uneducated understanding of human society and history. This is such a bad take, it reeks of teenage anarchist and “money is the root of all evil” oversimplification.
Comparing property law under hammurabi with property law as it presently exists is absolutely laughably ridiculous and you know it is. You should take your capitalist apologia elsewhere.
I have made no apology for capitalism. If this is what you got from what I wrote, then you have trouble with reading comprehension.
I did not make a comparison between Mesopotamian property law and present property law. My point was that private ownership of property is a function of human society literally as old as recorded history, as well as the idea of legal privileges around property ownership.
Because the cartoon is based on the premise that these ideas come from capitalism, the entire argument is faulty.
I’ll quote from my original post:
I am not arguing that these things are right and good. I am arguing that linking them specifically to capitalism represents a desperately uneducated understanding of human society and history.
deleted by creator
It’s a bit disingenuous arguing that capitalism is somehow a new concept, and colonialism isn’t.
I mean the terms capitalism and colonialism are both coined way after the practice of those systems. I think you could argue that capitalism even entered the human world before even currency was a thing.
Colonialism is the same, as you seem to intuit, considering other people and subduing them didn’t need a philosophical framework in order for it to be enacted.
In most civilizations wealth tends to accumulate at the top of the societal pyramid, which is capitalism. The pharaohs and sumerian kings alike are capitalists. They profit of the labour of others.
There’s a reason you’re unwilling to entertain other arguments, because you’re moving the goalposts and are afraid they will fall off the field.
This is such a weird take… how far removed from reality are you to actually believe that authoritarian feudalism is a form of capitalism?
Wealth accumulation is not capitalism. Capitalism enables wealth accumulation, but the opposite isn’t true in the slightest.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
arguing that capitalism is somehow a new concept, and colonialism isn’t.
I am not sure how you reached this conclusion. Yes, capitalism is new in comparison to Mesopotamian culture, and therefore the idea of property ownership. No, it’s not new in comparison to European colonialism.
I think you could argue that capitalism even entered the human world before even currency was a thing.
I have never heard or read any theories that try to make an argument like this. I would be very interested if you had some that you could point me to, but offhand this seems like it would require major stretching of the definition of capitalism in order to make recorded events fit into it. I think it would mostly be an exercise in confirmation bias.
Accumulation of wealth is not inherently capitalism, nor is simply profiting from another’s labor. This definition is so broad that it would make anyone in history who ever acquired anything that they did not previously own into a capitalist.
There’s a reason you’re unwilling to entertain other arguments, because you’re moving the goalposts and are afraid they will fall off the field.
Which other arguments am I unwilling to entertain, and which goalposts am I moving?
My argument is, as from the beginning, that the concept of private ownership of property and legal rights attached to such is not born of capitalism but is in fact as old as recorded history. Because the conclusions in the cartoon depend on this initial faulty idea, the whole thing is nonsense.
The ownership of the means of production and power aren’t inherently new either. As private property is as old as civilization, the appropriation of capital is too.
Be that in the country of the ruler (the state didn’t own marble quarries in Egypt, the pharao did) out abroad (gold mines in what we would call Ethiopia), which could be called colonialist.
To name something colonialist before the Greek policy of colonies in the Mediterranean, is as debatable as calling an ancient economy capitalist.
However, capitalism is very pervasive. Levi Strauss showed in Tristes Tropiques that if there are isolated civilizations without a system of ownership and wealth accumulation, any contact will destroy that state.
I jive with most of what you write… but you have weird things sprinkled throughout…
Like, differentiating between the pharaoh and the state… the pharaoh was the state. I mean, there was more of a state than just the pharaoh… but practically the pharaoh was the state.
It’s like saying that there is a difference between the Russian state and Putin… technically yes, but practically no. Putin is the Russian state. Obviously there is bureaucracy as well, but is just a weird separation.
The big thing imho is that for the prolitariat it is the same. As long as there is an oppressive regime plucking the fruits of the labour, there is exploitation.
Feudalism was the main capitalist system Marx argued against.
That feudalist system is very old and embedded in our history.
Obviously we have different definitions of capitalism… which makes the rest of the discussion difficult.
Fundamentally, serfs in a feudal society did not own the right to their own labor for the portion of their labor assigned to their lord.
Fundamentally, people in modern capitalist societies do own the rights to their own labor.
Practically, the ability to exercise those rights is severely limited (which is what the meme is trying to point out). There are reasonable arguments that the poor in modern capitalism have less freedom than serfs of feudal societies… but that doesn’t make them equivalent.
And, for what it’s worth, Marx wasn’t arguing about 12th century feudalism… that was some 700 years before the form of capitalism that was present in his time.
I think that the main factor is that I am off opinion that capitalist structures are present before the industrial period. But that the exploitation mechanism is different. I thought too have read something of the kind in Marx, but I stand corrected.
However the hooks of the mechanism were always present. I think that to say that capitalism was absent in history, while capital (in form of possession of wealth, production or time) was present is a bit myopic.
Marx identified feudalism as a system distinct from capitalism, separated historically by a transitory system called mercantilism.
Mercantilism may be considered as a kind of proto-capitalism, because it entails the employer-employee relationship, but lacks the systemic consequences of capital accumulation, which depends on continuous growth enabled by the changes in production following the industrial revolution.
Marx identified feudal and capitalist societies both as characterized by “class struggles”, that is, having multiple classes with mutually antagonistic interests, as had “all hitherto existing society”.
I think you could argue that capitalism even entered the human world before even currency was a thing.
I’d love to see your citations and reasoning on this, assuming it doesn’t fall into “capitalism is when anyone owns anything or sells anything”
Because this
In most civilizations wealth tends to accumulate at the top of the societal pyramid, which is capitalism. The pharaohs and sumerian kings alike are capitalists
Is ridiculous.
Where was it suggested that property and conquest are unique to capitalism?
You seem to be arguing words and not ideas.
You, "Bingo bango! You made a statement that can be technically untrue, therefore you are entirely incorrect!"Debunking someone’s point first requires engaging with it and you never even came close. So what about Mesopotamia? Let’s take your word on that, does it change the core point? Nope.
You, "Shazam! People were stabbing before capitalism, therefore when someone gets stabbed under capitalism, it's fine! Shazam!"Then you go on to say that because a certain type of violence happened before capitalism, it’s cool that it exists.
You, "Kersplat! You are icky, and I will stop there, the rest of your post is probably stupid anyway!"Do you have brain damage my dude?
As I understand it, the comic states :
1. Create penalties for not being a property/capital-owner.
2. Acquire property/capital through violence
3. With violently acquired capital-backing, use step #1 to exert control
4. Population attacks itself to avoid rule #1, clawing to attain property/capital
5. The system promotes population infighting, allowing the power-holders to exist un-noticed.Who gives a shit about who invented the baton when you’re getting hit in the face. Well, I expect that you do.
Capitalism is not violent and greedy. Humans are violent and greedy.
Economic systems and sociocultural organization principles are irrelevant and attributing historical human violence to them is fallacious.
you go on to say that because a certain type of violence happened before capitalism, it’s cool that it exists.
No, I specifically did not make any such argument, and made a statement about this in my conclusion because I anticipated that someone would attempt to dismiss what I said by deliberately misinterpreting it and then putting words in my mouth. Did you even read my entire post?
Who gives a shit about who invented the baton when you’re getting hit in the face.
The person that made this cartoon cares, and clearly so do you, as you both want to pin it on a particular source for purely emotional reasons, which is evidenced by the fact that you have made no rational argument based on fact and instead have attempted to dismiss what I wrote while presenting zero evidence for your own point of view.
Removed by mod
This is the most persuasive argument in this thread so far… but I’m not sure it’s valid (which is disconcerting because I do think the guns argument is valid but like you said it’s the same it very similar argument)…
I think the part that is different is the scale of scope. For violence, modern firearms immediately peg the board in the red. I’m not sure that capitalism does that.
Capitaliam is an abstract concept, an umbrella term used to encapsulate a somewhat loose grouping of economic behaviors and theories. Humans might use capitalist ideas to justify greedy or violent actions, but they don’t “use capitalism to be greedy and violent”.
The distinction matters because my point is that capitalism is not the source or instrument of violence, but rather a description of and rationalization for human behavior. The violence happens whether or not you conflate the behaviors of the people committing violence with capitalism.
Ultimately I think it would be more accurate to conclude capitalism because violence and greed, not violence and greed because capitalism.
Capitalism is not an abstract concept at all: private ownership of the means of production. Sure, there are many economic theories to go on from there, but how does it change anything to the criticism of this very core idea?
Without additional qualifications on the term capitalism, that is a terrible definition of capitalism.
Feel free to come up with a better definition. It’s the one you’ll find in most dictionaries and textbooks. Of course there are more elements to it depending on the exact philosophy (more or less free market et al), but in the end, it all boils down to exactly that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Capitalism is not violent and greedy. Humans are violent and greedy.
Economic systems and sociocultural organization principles are irrelevant and attributing historical human violence to them is fallacious.
I think you have not actually made a case for this claim, and it isn’t obviously true. To me it seems obviously untrue. The organizational structure of human society is very often a driving force for harm, because harm is simply what happens when we fail to solve the nontrivial problem of human cooperation. People with good intentions can be a part of a larger dynamic in which they are overwhelmingly incentivized to be a part of that harm, and may even be absolutely prevented from not being a part of it. Hateful people with bad intentions can be themselves a product of these failures. You can’t reduce this to the moral choices of individuals because individuals may have no knowledge or agency over the systems that shape their world and force their hands.
I think “violence” might not be the best word for this, but it isn’t “fallacious”.
I think changing the wording from “capitalism is violence” (or harm). “To capitalism enables violence” resolves the wiggle room in the argument.
Probably, but personally I think the violence/harm would happen (and does happen) regardless of capitalism/communism/feudalism/Marxism/anarchy/barter economy/etc.
Saying that the violence/harm happens because of capitalism is like saying that rain happens because there are clouds in the sky. There’s concurrence, but neither is the cause of the other, they are both the products of underlying meteorological conditions.
You are attacking a strawman.
Some societies are violent more so than others.
A social system is not simplistically the cause of all violence, and neither is any violence due to causes simplistically detached from the social system in which it occurs.
Violence is latent in capitalism.
It produces massive disparities in wealth and privilege that could not for very long be sustained except by the constant threat of force against those who are deprived, marginalized, and otherwise disadvantaged.
Am I having a stroke or does the first sentence make no sense? Shouldn’t it be more instead of less? If a company always sells for less than the cost to produce, it’ll go out of business rather quickly I’d think. Obviously there are temporary strategies like this that are used to beat competitors, but that’s not what this is talking about.
I think you just have it misunderstood. The comic assumes that you are the laborer, not the capitalist. As the image at this part of the infographic shows, from the perspective of the laborer, you are paid $5 for an item that is sold on the market for $50
Yes, the image is correct, but I think theUnlikely was refering to the text “Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs.”
It’s backwards, it should be the value you (the laborer) produce is sold for more than than your labor costs.
ok, yea now I can understand how that sentence could be confusing. It’s technically correct, but written kinda backwards as people would normally understand it
No, it’s not correct in any way:
“Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs.”
- you produce the value
- capitalism pays your labor costs for the value
- capitalism sells the value for… more, never less
Thanks, I thought I was losing my mind. I spent way too long rereading that sentence and wondering why no one had commented on it yet.
Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs ==> Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs [the capitalist/employer].
It’s technically correct, but unclear.
Can you give an example with some numbers? I’m still not seeing it.
Say you produce a $thousand fmv worth of x. Your capitalist employer sells x for $2000. They sold x for less than what they pay you, $500 worth of x.
ok, can you explain the contradiction? I don’t see it, at all.
If the sentence were correct, your employer would sell whatever you produce for less than what they are paying you for it. E.g. they pay you 20 for one hour of work, in which you produce one product, which they then sell for 15. Obviously they would be making a loss in that situation on every single product sold, so no business would ever do that (except in special cases like loss leaders or limited promotions, of course, but we’re talking about the general case here)
Just explained it, step by step.
If you still don’t see it, then no offense, but we’re coming into “what weights more, a pound of rocks or a pound of feathers” territory, which I don’t think I can explain through here.
So the labor costs (wages) are $5 and the value produced by the laborer is sold for $50? Yes this makes sense of course, but I can’t wrap my head around why it says it’s sold for less when $50 is more than $5. GPT4 can’t seem to make sense of it either.
The comic assumes that you could ONLY be the laborer. It’s ignoring the fact that no one is stopping you from making/buying something and selling it for a profit.
I’m a bench jeweler and I know plenty of other craftspeople who make a whole-ass living off selling shit they made for more than labor/materials cost. The fact that an employer will take advantage of you isn’t a failing of capitalism, it’s a facet of human greed that will permeate any economic/political system.
Making things or selling things is not capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production; things like factories, tools, intellectual property, etc.
On the point of greed, I disagree that it’s just simply “human nature”. However, even if it was, why should we have an economic system that prioritizes greed?
Capitalism is the ideology that defends capital as the main desirable quality in society.
Greed is a consequence of the desire for ownership, which is part of human nature.
Capitalism is the exaltation of that greed… and no, we should not have any system that blindly defends a single aspect of life.
Life is full of nuance, no single aspect should rule it all; sometimes ownership is good (like my pants), sometimes sharing is good (like riding on a bus), sometimes defending a life is good (like preventing a murder), sometimes ending a life is good (like euthanasia)… and so on.
Just a bit of pendantry as a treat, I think that greed is a consequence of people seeking to meet their needs. In a system that requires obtaining money to obtain needs that are not simply provided, it causes precarity. This precarious position is a threat to existence. Our instincts fear of this precarity, and this instinctual fear manifests as greed to make sure our needs will always be met. This isn’t to say that greed is imaginary or a product of capitalism, it is human nature. But I think that nature is influenced by nurture, and vice versa.
Agreed. I’d only add that until we switch to a full post-scarcity world, a system that does the opposite, that tries to eliminate all private ownership, also causes that same fear of precarity, which also leads to greed.
As long as scarcity exists, a system trying to minimize greed requires a tough balance between providing enough to meet basic needs, but at the same time not stifling people’s sense of safety derived from ownership.
sometimes ownership is good (like my pants)
Anticapitalist critique of private ownership isn’t about private ownership of pants it’s about private/centralized ownership of the means of production. This is a critical distinction, as many models still want a free market which doesn’t work without private property.
yeah wtf, the first sentence and nobody picked up on this. We‘re completely fucked
We’re actually “fucked” at everyone’s (my own included) inability to draw inferences from context, and! Often disingenuous character of a lot of people using this unclear manner of speaking. The cartoon isn’t presenting this ambiguous statement ini bad faith, probably just oversight or perhaps that’s not the author’s/translator’s native language.
The state is violent and community is violent and privacy is violent
Can anyone come up with an ideology that is not violent and can actually be implemented in the real world with real actors that aren’t smelling roses and giving out hugs?
Side note, any ideology that claims your neighbors are the enemy aren’t worth a damn.
What is your criteria for “can actually be implemented in the real world”? This varies by the individual. I need to know what your perspective on this is. Could you explain why capitalism isn’t violent?
I think it’s important to note that your neighbors might be the enemy… most people are great, some are not.
There will always be antisocial behavior (the basis for what we call crimes), yes. However, that doesn’t mean your neighbor is the enemy because they might be one of the few people that do antisocial things.
I disagree. A person who would intentionally cause me or my family harm despite having their needs met is both my enemy and the enemy of a reasonable society.
I understand where you’re coming from. But it seems like you’re assuming that anyone capable of causing you or your family harm is a threat. What I’m saying is that no one is a threat until proven otherwise.
You misunderstand the hypothetical. All, or nearly all, people are capable but only a few would. My point is that evil exists and to ignore it is a problem. Several people in this discussion have attempted to say that capitalism is the cause of evil. This is obviously untrue. Capitalism can enable evil, but to claim that a different economic system would eliminate evil is ridiculous.
Capitalism exacerbates many things, including crime, violence, and instability. From a leftist perspective, private property is given rights, which artificially increases the amount of crime statistics. If private property were abolished, the only crimes that would occur are between people. It will still happen. But most crime is committed out of desperation to meet their needs.
This is due to artificial scarcity. The world is abundant in resources. In an equitable society, people may steal, but when everyone has their needs met, anything else is extra, and surprisingly many may be happy with “enough” or “enough plus a little with storable necessities belonging to everyone.”
This is simply incorrect on so many levels. There are people who will simply not abide by the social structures you are talking about. You are assuming an idolized group of people where there is no evil. Evil doesn’t magically disappear without capitalism…
That’s a very disingenuous assertion. I quantified my statement, you are the one assigning absolutes, and unfortunately, absolutes are idolized and probably not realistic any exact sense. Variables exist but not equally, everywhere, always (unless we’re talking about carefully controlled labs, and human error and unforeseen events still happen that may not be immediately apparent.
Wtf seriously?
No I wasted my time to come up with a simple way to describe complex nuances and typed it up on my device for lulz. :-|
Personally, I think the only reason evil exists is because the world is unfair, some are advantageous and some are not. This causes people to refuse to “play” fairly which causes bad behaviors such as deception, exploitation, murder, etc. The only way to eliminate or reduce evil is to make the world fairer. One of the ways I can think of is for the fortunate to help the unfortunate.
I don’t believe this to be true. Fairness only matters to people who value fairness. Many people value fairness, but it is irrational to believe that everyone values fairness. Some, not most or even many, don’t care about fairness fundamentally. For these people, interesting fairness does nothing for them. These are the people we need to protect others from while also providing an environment that didn’t necessarily mean removing or killing them.
But what causes people to value fairness so little or so much? When I support equality, I don’t just mean wealth or resources, but everything, and in this case it’s intellect or knowledge. When people have different intellect or knowledge, there is bound to be misunderstanding or miscommunication or other issues. People who have low empathy or are ignorant or dumb to realize how fairness affects people can make things worse. I guess in this case we can make everyone equally smart so no one can deceive and no more misunderstanding. Can’t make smart people dumber so I suggest making dumb people smarter which is to give education to those who need it.
You answered it yourself, but I will elaborate.
Humans are different between individuals. Some people are dumb. Some people are mean. Some people are evil. Fundamentally the paradox of tolerance applies to fairness as well.
Well you wouldn’t like this answer probably. I suggest to eliminate the differences but i think it’s impossible. As long as there is positive, there is negative. To eliminate the negative is to eliminate the positive too, which is neutral and can make life very dull. So my other suggestion is quite radical which is to eliminate life itself. Or just make life or the world as fair as possible even if it’s impossible.
Ah, good old fashioned Nihilism. Another thing that I think is silly.
It is irrelevant what you think personally. Other people don’t necessarily think those things and assuming that they will or do abide by your positions without an incentive is folly.
I’m simply just providing my solutions or opinions. Better than nothing i guess, unless you have a better plan.
Of course, it’s impossible to please everyone. Can’t take some without losing some. So maybe just brute force it? Idk.
Except for those deformed by conditioning into abject servility, everyone values fairness at the moment of being unfairly deprived of the means of one’s own survival.
Valuation of fairness is a rather robust human trait. In some individuals it may be less pronounced, but as a tendency it is robust, not only among humans, but also among various non-human species.
Members of societies with low levels of inequality generally have more favorable subjective experiences, even those within the cohorts with greater privilege.
Nurturing the vitality of society as a whole, and the health of relations in community, has been a facet of human behavior indispensable for our survival.
Capitalism, in theory and in practice, guides behavior be providing incentives for producing value.
However, REGULATION is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to remove incentives from antisocial things, and incentivize pro social behavior that isn’t profitable.
People keep fucking up that second part, and then wonder why corruption is so widespread. Corruption is perfectly predictable. We need to build incentives to reward and promote good behavior.
Edit: corruption exists in every system and it’s why things like pure communism and socialism don’t work.
I’d actually love to hear more about your perspective. I totally agree with the idea that regulation is required to disincentivize antisocial behavior, but how does that relate to “pure” socialism? What do you mean by that phrase?
It’s just the “trust me bro” thing.
In capitalism the system is supposed to work like:
-private ownership of value producing assets -individuals seek profit -legal system/government force protects the individuals -competing for market share protects the consumers -market forces regulate prices and spending -logistics become the responsibility of the businesses, incentivized by profit - ie don’t let people starve because you make money by selling food.
Under socialism and communism, the people or the state own the value producing assets…
-now the state is supposed to pursue profit, instead of the individuals. -now protecting the people is against the interests of the state -there is no competition against the state because it’s all state-owned monopoly -there are no market forces regulating prices and spending, it’s just committees or something? And it’s an impossible problem -because black markets form for valuable things that aren’t available -etc etc etc
We just have too many examples of systems that promise the population that they will be rewarded for “trusting the party” and “working hard for your neighbors” but in the end it’s state propaganda, policing our neighbors, starving by the millions, etc.
Capitalism can be shit too, because there are problems that are profitable to ignore. Like the housing crisis.
-houses and rent extremely profitable -buy more properties and rent them for profit -as population grows and density increases, value increases -market says just raise rents
In this situation:
-I don’t want traffic to improve. Because I don’t want people to be able to move further from the city center where my over valued properties are. -i don’t want people to be able to work from home -i don’t want more houses built, because I don’t want to dilute the market and reduce my value -the only incentive for developers to come in and build more homes is … The price they can sell the homes for. So the system keeps the problem in place.
Consumers want to buy homes. The government wants votes. So we get policies like George Bush letting families but homes with no down payment, which just raises prices because now there are more shoppers but not more product.
There are many solutions to the housing crisis, but all of them require owners and landlords to take a haircut. I’m probably a fan of decentralizing cities and shifting to increased work from home with zoning improvements for mixed commercial/residential in suburban environments. That shifts the market away from the dense areas it’s currently focused. That could (hopefully) interest developers to build commercial/residential properties in these areas, so everyone wins in the long run.
The other issue is this development needs to be fast. The push for green buildings with fully sealed envelopes and intense insulation, etc, makes it harder for Joe schmo to get into the homebuilding business, or just build his own home. We need grants and other incentives to promote that kind of behavior, too.
Etc etc.
Michael Parenti has written several books and given a lot of speeches on how neoliberal countries in the imperial core use imperialism to force countries in the global south to accept unequal exchange. I highly recommend him as a source. I posted a few of his speeches here about a month ago if you want to watch them
There is no particular way that capitalism is “supposed to work”.
It is a system occurring in a particular historic period, having emerged from particular historic antecedents.
You seem to be characterizing capitalism as though it has some kind of character that is natural, metaphysical, or even teleological.
Anyone extolling capitalism as essentially benevolent, as framed around some set of pure ideals, is engaged in apologetics.
As for your characterizations of socialism, I think you are emphasizing specific historic developments more than the broader history and objectives of the movement.
It might be helpful for you to investigate the differences between statist and anti-statist tendencies within socialism.
There is no particular way that capitalism is “supposed to work”.
Can you define capitalism, real quick?
Capitalism is the societal system that began to take form within the historic period following the gradual collapse of the feudal order in Europe, but that became truly well formed in the wake of the industrial revolution.
Capitalism is characterized by the unbounded accumulation of private wealth by a small cohort of society, by asserting exclusive control over the means by which wealth is generated, and by claiming as profit a share of the value generated by the labor of the rest of society, depriving them from realizing the full value of their labor.
Alright so we’re talking about different things.
Capitalism is private ownership of capital.
Capital is a revenue producing asset.
You’re describing the social systems that form around capital and capitalism, which I agree are largely both presently and historically bad.
“Should” statements are moral statements. When it say capitalism should work a certain way, I mean that it must work a certain way in order to be moral.
What we have doesn’t work that way.
Socialism and communism treat capital differently. As far as I understand the definitions:
Socialism refers to social/government ownership of capital, which is then supposed to benefit all members of the society.
Communism refers to no ownership of capital, or community ownership of capital the the broadest sense. All revenue produced is distributed to the people based on their needs.
I use these definitions outside of structure or information or morality, because we can talk about those once we agree on what we’re talking about.
“Privacy” is not violent, nor implicated in the discussion. Private property of course is mentioned and is pivotal.
Private property is a social relationship, entrenched as a social construct, and protected by the capacity of the state to inflict violence.
Without violence, neither the state nor private property would continue to exist, because both represent power imbalances, which would not long be respected by the disempowered, except by the invocation of force by the powerful.
Community is not bound in violence as an indispensable feature.
Surely, violence occurs in community, generally as a consequence of conflict that had previously escalated incrementally. Within community, members generally may resolve the root cause of conflict, including by directly addressing imbalances in power. Communities are not characterized by the necessity of violence for them to preserve themselves.
Healthy communities both seek to resolve conflict before any erupts into violence, and seek to contain violence when it emerges.
Any community that is not prevented from doing so by outside powers can achieve such a level of health.
A capitalist society at large cannot prevent violence, because violence is both an inevitable consequence and an indispensable requisite for the overarching conflict within capitalist society, of the irreconcilable and conflicting interests between those who own private property, versus those who must sell their labor to survive.
Ok I’ll bite. God help me.
My employer bills me out for $400/hr and I make about $100/hr. I wouldn’t be able to make that much on my own because I don’t have the resources and infrastructure my employer has: admin, IT, expertise, manpower, marketing, legal, and so on. I have zero interest in being self employed. So this is a good arrangement for me.
My clients are happy paying those prices because we provide good service at competitive rates.
My employer is happy because they usually net about 30% profit margin so the partners walk away with $120/hr after paying me and other overhead.
It’s the very definition of capitalism doing exactly what it is supposed to do: providing valuable goods and services to people who want to buy it from people who want to sell it, and everyone walks away happy from the transaction.
I fail to see how this is a violent and exploitative war on civilization itself. Fuck everything about this comic. Why is it even on my feed? Gah.
Upvoting for good faith engagement, even if a little frustrated. I encourage other leftists here to do the same.
The situation you describe is capitalism working smoothly. Marx himself spoke highly of aspects of capitalism many times. The problem comes when your company’s owner, who has the power to abuse that ownership, does.
By analogy, monarchies are bad, even if your king is good. You can have a fair, just, wise philosopher king. It sounds like you’re lucky in having a good job with a reasonable owner, but your owner could sell to a private equity company tomorrow, who will lay you off, outsource your job to lower costs, bill out the same rate even when lowering the quality, and pocket the difference. They’ll do this for a few years until the brand’s value has been mined, then they’ll scrap your company and sell it for parts.
Socialists like myself argue that because the system can be abused, it inevitably wil be abused. It’s a structural argument, not an argument about each specific case. We argue that democratic control of our jobs is a good thing, in the same way that we got rid of kings to replace them with democratic control is a good thing, because we think that system is more just and fair.
Socialists like myself argue that because the system can be abused, it inevitably wil be abused
Does this imply that you have a system that can’t be abused? Or more probably the level of possible abuse is “less” in some way?
I agree that while well informed democratic control is great, there still needs to be elected representatives in some capacity just for practicality’s sake (not everyone has the time or energy to research and make decisions for every topic and problem) and then we’re right back at the abuse problem. The idea of assigning some people’s votes as having more weight can be necessary to avoid a tyranny of the majority deciding things outside of their knowledge set too…
If there was a way of guaranteeing fair, just, wise, philosopher Kings then wouldn’t that system be the best one? Like an AI would find the perfect leader through mass surveillance and that would be who would rule.
Does this imply that you have a system that can’t be abused?
Obviously not.
Or more probably the level of possible abuse is “less” in some way?
I make no claim about the level of abuse. Society will always have problems. The question is how we solve them. I think that political and economic democracy are necessary to give people a fair say, in many ways. Without economic democracy, we have the situation we have now: A democracy in name only. Economic power is too easily converted into political power.
What kind of democracy has people spend most of their life working for undemocratic institutions, which they depend on for food, clothing, house, etc.? Is it really a democracy if say you’re in west Virginia and your only opportunity to earn a living is to work in a coal mine? Your material reality necessitates voting in the interest of your employer, and against your own. How free is that voter to really, meaningfully participate in democracy, as we understand it?
I’d also argue that economic democracy is even necessary for a well informed public. Poor people send their kids to shitty schools. It won’t be until there isn’t generational poverty that we’ll fix that.
What would “economic democracy” look like, and how would we facilitate a change like that?
It looks something like “from each according to their ability, and to each according to their needs.”
As to how we get there, and what the specifics of it look like, the short, honest answer is no one person knows, and that’s okay. Much like a medieval peasant would’ve struggled to imagine modern elections, electric tea kettles, or the welfare state, it’s really hard to live in the present and imagine a radically different future. The thing is that a radically different future is coming for us, whether we like it or not. Our current lives are not ecologically sustainable. That is going to force change upon us, probably the hard way, and it’s going to hurt.
That said, this is a very active area of scholarship and (mostly) healthy debate. There is a wonderful and expansive socialist scholarly tradition, going back centuries, all trying to answer what you asked me. Economists, philosophers, computer scientists, political scientists, and so on have put a lot of really good work into imagining such a future. Some, like Stafford Beer, or Paul Cockshott, have written a lot about how modern digital technologies could enable such a transformation on the large scale. Others, like David Graeber or Rebecca Solnit, have thought deeply about what a human society even is and what we want from it. Still others, notably Mark Fisher, have written about why capitalism feels so inevitable to so many who live in it.
There’s one thing we do know: The first step is enough of us agreeing that we want a more just, fair, and equitable future. Many people, especially but not exclusively those with so much of the wealth, don’t want that at all.
The difficult step is getting around or past the concept of private property.
Except for altruism, how do we effectively remove “property” from people who create it but don’t need it. Most arguments I have seen or read end up back at basic capitalism.
The ideal that everyone would be altruistic and give up all superfluous labor seems far fetched.
Most leftists distinguish between personal property and private property. You get to own your favorite mug, your toothbrush, and even your house, but not a company that controls the labor of others, or someone else’s house. I don’t know where you’ve come across these arguments you’ve read, but, again, there are literally centuries of socialist scholarship, none of which is just advocating for capitalism with some window dressing. There are many “socialism 101” lists out there of how you can get started. I seriously recommend that you give it a shot. It’s actually really fun to read smart and imaginative people trying to make an outline for a new, better world.
I love how knowledgeable you are on these topics! Please, I very much invite you to make a post about this analysis. I became a mod of this community specifically for dialogue like this
Aw thanks! I’m trying to spend less time writing on social media, not more! If I may be so bold, if you like reading what I have to say, may I suggest The Luddite? It’s me, and a few others, writing about tech from a leftist perspective.
Like an AI would find the perfect leader through mass surveillance and that would be who would rule.
Fair
Surveillance
Pick oneIf everyone is under surveillance, that’s fair is it not? It’s plenty of other things too, but not unfair.
No, it is not. It’s equal, but no where near in a good way. Everyone dies. That’s “fair” in that the universe doesn’t allow
certain people to live longer than otherssome humans to live forever. That’s genes, environment, lifestyle and a host of variables those things cover. “Fair” need not mean “just,” but in this context it should.Edit: sorry, that was brain dead phrasing
The idea of assigning some people’s votes as having more weight can be necessary to avoid a tyranny of the majority deciding things outside of their knowledge set too…
How’s that work with the EC and people like say, tfg?
This might be the first discussion I’ve had on Lenny in good faith as you say, so thank you for that.
My position summarized is that we definitely have massive issues with inequality, injustice, lack of rights, etc. But these are issues of legislation, corrupt government and leadership, enforcement, corporate governance, media disinformation, and so on. As you said any system can and will be abused. Swapping capitalism for any other -ism won’t change anything. (What would that even look like?)
Some of my meandering thoughts for potential solutions include controlling media disinformation, campaign finance reform, term/age limits, and ranked voting. It would be great to somehow change corporate governance to require leadership to prioritize stakeholders and not just shareholders, but I don’t really know how to do this. Maybe a requirement that all public companies be owned at least maybe 10% by non-officer employees, enough to get a seat on the board of directors.
It’s extremely complicated and there’s no clear solution. I’m not saying capitalism is perfect, I’m saying it’s overall ok and it’s very childishly naive to make a shitty comic about swapping it for another -ism to solve all of our problems. I really don’t want to argue about it though or get into a flame war, I just can’t handle the vitriol on this forum.
That’s a very shallow analysis, parts of which socialists have already responded to since Marx himself. First, it’s a little silly to just wave away changing the -isms, as you put it. It would change things a whole lot if we changed from capitalism to feudalism. Likewise, I suspect you do not actually understand how radical a change many socialists actually want, otherwise I don’t see how you can possibly think this.
Second, your implied distinction between politics and the economy is one that we on the left generally reject, and have for centuries. Marx wrote about the “political economy,” recognizing that the two are actually inseparable, despite the neoliberal proclivity to pretend that they are. Put another way, many of the policy suggestions you list are actually very popular, and yet they don’t happen. Researchers have measured this phenomenon.. The policies that wealthy people want correlate with what actually happens, whereas those that are popular have no correlation. Quote from that study:
Economic elites and organized interest groups play a substantial part in affecting public policy, but the general public has little or no independent influence.
Your suggestions will not happen so long as there is a class of people who own most of the things. That is the realistic analysis of our political economy. That’s the analysis we on the left bring that you’re missing – an explanation for why, in our supposed democracy, we have decidedly undemocratic outcomes. We will never legislate away the problems of capitalism because the capitalists have more power than we do.
Finally, you have this baseline assumption throughout your comment that things just fundamentally are what they are, and slapping a few labels won’t realistically change them. We have a term for this too! The late great Mark Fisher used the term “capitalist realism” to describe your attitude, famously saying that “it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.” That’s what you’re doing. Even when talking to people who are explicitly proposing an alternative to capitalism, you are just… dismissing it? Waving it away? You’re definitely not engaging with it.
I hope that learning that Fisher wrote a whole book about what you’re doing, or learning that you’re making arguments writers from the 1800s were already critiquing, or even that I took the time to write this whole thing out to you, piques your interest in actually looking into what leftists have to say. Like actually, meaningfully engaging with it, not making a comment that is obviously the beginning of an argument, only to end the comment metaphorically throwing your hands up, which you’ve now done twice. We write about, think about, and try to organize around these ideas because we want the world to be better. It’s something I personally take seriously. I encourage you to take it seriously too, even if you don’t agree.
Thanks for the reasonable response. I’ll admit part of my attitude displayed is because i feel so beaten down here on lemmy from so many interactions with people at a level of toxicity strong enough to kill a bull. I’m surprised at how many downright reasonable comments there are in this thread for the most part. I’ll read more in depth and respond another time.
Now do someone making $7.25 an hour.
Ok, I make 7.25 an hour and my employer bill me out at $25/hr. My employer walks away with 30% or about $7.50, etc etc. The sample numbers are meaningless.
The material realities of someone making 7.25 (which I will concede is a little bit of a strawman, most people make more but not much) is very different than someone making 100/hr. The petit bourgeois exist for a reason. They’re still exploited but only to a point. They’re “commoners” that benefit from the status quo and wish to uphold it. They have it good enough and can relate to the disadvantaged people’s plight insofar as it allows them to dismiss their criticisms as being lazy, not working hard enough, bootstraps, yada yada. They’re a foil and a buffer between the proletariat and the bourgeoise. You can point to them to say the exact things you’re saying right now
I’m confused. I don’t see a rebutal to the actual argument here.
So raise minimum wage to $20-30/hr. You don’t need to toss capitalism out the window to do that. It’s overly simplistic to blame these problems on one ism and naive at best to think these problems will go away for swapping it with another ism.
The case for abolition of capitalism is a lot more involved than raising wages. And simply raising wages alone would not come close to a holistic, equitable solution to wealth inequality and systemic oppression.
I dont have the time or desire to get into the minutae of socialist critiques of capitalism but marx is a great place to start. Marxism Today has a playlist breaking down Marxism-Lininism-Maoism. Skip to the bottom bit for pure economic analysis of capitalism and it’s flaws.
I’m an anarchist personally and I only really value their critique as far as it applies to anti-capitalism. But they make a good case for their ideology and it would at least expose.you to general underpinnings of socialist thought. If you’re interested in actually learning about the thing you’re seemingly against, I’d be happy to provide more resources in whichever format you prefer. They will have a far more libertarian socialist slant to them than the link I provided above though, so fair warning
So are your bullshit numbers
I’m done with you. Come back if you have something constructive to add to the conversation.
I bet you are lol
Three comments in and we’ve already hit the bottom of your sad view of the world
Back when I did service work I made about $30/hr and was billed out at $60/hr. Seems outrageous right? Until you factor in worker’s comp, other insurance, admin, etc. They needed to bill at $45/hr to just break even, and you need to charge more than that to cover other unexpected costs, downtime, buy new equipment, building maintenance, etc.
The idea that capitalism “steals” the surplus value of labour can be true sure, but it’s often simplified and exaggerated so much like in this meme that it’s hard to take seriously. It’s probably hard to quantify depending on the industry too as there are different expenses and added value by the employer (I bet Wal-Mart is an order of magnitude worse than your local plumbing company for e.g.) If I were to just hire myself out at the exact same rate my employer did but covered all the additional costs and value they added I wouldn’t actually be ahead anything at all, and I’d have to work even more just to end up in the same place in the end, so at least in that case the system benefited us both.
Yes, precisely this.
Workers are absolutely exploited by plenty of shitty companies. But that’s not caused by capitalism, nor is it solved by any other -ism. The causes are complex and the solutions are even moreso, if there even are solutions at all. To sit here removed about it in the form of a stupid anti capitalism comic is just childishly naive.
I’m happy for you, I really am! It sounds like you have a very good situation, but it’s important to remember that if the company is making profit, they are still taking value of your labor without doing the bulk of the work. Capitalism is designed to do exactly one thing, and that is to maintain the power of the wealthy elite. Any benefits are coincidental.
My example shows all three parties benefitting from the arrangement. Everyone would lose if I, the worker, quit. It’s not exploitation at all. I willingly enter into this agreement because I literally can’t do this on my own. So I benefit from company resources. My clients can’t be serviced by a small one man show so they choose a bigger company too. The firm owners make the most because it’s their company and none of this would be happening without them. It’s not exploitation and it’s not parasitic, it’s symbiotic. We’ve got loads of issues with legislation and enforcement, minimum wage should be like $20-30, corporate governance needs to address all stakeholders and not just shareholders, and so on. But that won’t be resolved by swapping capitalism for any other -ism. It’s overly simplistic to think one ism is the only problem and another ism is the only solution.
I agree that it sounds like you have a mutually beneficial relationship with your company. I’m curious, do you have a union in your workplace? I do have a point to this question, I swear.
Don’t believe that the company will struggle without you. In capitalism, you are replaceable. For the record I don’t believe that, I think you have extremely valuable skills that would be desirable in any society or economic system. I don’t need to know anything about you for me to say that, because everyone is inherently valuable to society. What is the difference between you quitting and you being fired, to the company? Effectively none, because capitalism requires a pool of labor that they can pull from as a threat to keep people in line instead of questioning the status quo. Why else would you think companies fire union organizers?
You, personally, are in a good situation. There are multiple engineers that are not, and will jump on the opportunity to take your job because people in the labor pool are second class citizens with no assurances of their basic needs. This precarious position is a threat to every single person in the working class. You are only a few paychecks away from homelessness.
Socialism, by comparison, ensures everyone’s basic needs are met. They are guaranteed the right to healthcare, housing, education, food, and access to a job. Companies can still exist in socialist societies, however they are not owned privately by any individual. Instead, they are owned by the workers. There are a lot of different socialist experiments that have done this in different ways, I highly recommend you do some research about this; it’s actually pretty fascinating if you like reading about politics. One very American example of worker ownership are worker cooperatives.
Reasons 1-4
OK, but qq: Who pumps out septic tanks if there is no coercion involved?
The dude with a passion for septic infrastructure who wants to provide a rewarding service for the community, instead of getting yelled at by customers at the convenience store he works at to make sure he can afford the microwave dinner he’s eating that night.
Pie in the sky scenario/sarcasm aside, criticism of capitalism doesn’t mean pure anarchy. It means looking at what works and what doesn’t work towards making sure people have what they need. Money is much easier to trade people to do a service than trading a goat for 2 sheep, but that doesn’t mean that some landlord deserves 1 of the sheep and half the goat for “allowing” you to raise them under threat of starvation and homelessness.
I love the enthusiasm, but see my reply to the comment above yours. Basically: do you believe that no one should work for anyone else for money? Should every single professional be their own sole proprietorship? Who runs the marketing, bookkeeping, land management, etc for all of these people doing their work? You could have a person who specializes in doing these things professionally for other professionals, but the farther you take that idea, the more you’re just recreating the idea of employment piece by piece. Am I missing something? Honest question.
I love the idea, but I’ve always been a bit confused about the end game goal for this line of thinking. I agree with the idea that landlords are trash, but everybody still needs the ability to purchase food and pleasure goods and such, and as long as the idea of money exists, the need to work for it does also.
Companies can still exist under socialism. They can exist in very similar forms to what we have at the minute. The difference is the ownership.
I suppose the question I’d put back to you is “Do you think there is an intrinsic benefit in someone (who doesn’t do the work) owning a company vs each of the workers having an ownership stake in the business?”.
Why should somebody who has worked somewhere for 10 minutes get an equal slice of the pie as the person who built the company up with all the risk involved?
Firstly, if that is your biggest concern, then we agree far more than we disagree and we’re quibbling over details (which I’m happy to do).
Secondly, who said they do?
It of course depends on what you mean exactly by a"slice of the pie" but there’s lots of ownership models to choose from. Direct ownership is one. An employee owned trust is another. These are to a large extent solved problems - mutuals and co-operatives walk among us now, after all.
Thirdly, you mention the risk of setting up a company. If you’re not rich, why do you have to gamble your dignity and livelihood to participate in innovation? Would the world not be a better place if you could invent and create and innovate and fall back on a basic income if it falls on its face?
Finally, even if we accidentally make things a bit too equal by giving Jim the new starter the same voting rights as Bob the grizzled veteran - is that not better than the system we have at the moment where incomprehensible hoarded wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few?
The fact that mutuals and co-operatives do walk among us but aren’t ubiquitous tells me a lot about how effective they are.
Why should I gamble my livelihood to participate in innovation? Well in a collective society you would be gambling the common labour and stock instead indefinitely which is also non ideal. It acts as a filter so that people are only expending time and resources on ideas that will likely take hold and provide value to society.
It acts as a filter so that people are only expending time and resources on ideas that will likely take hold and provide value to society.
Do you actually believe that this filter is working as intended? Or do you think it ought to work like that?
In a spherical society with no air resistance I can agree with you but it feels like it would be condescending for me to point out how this system that supposedly maximises value to society is in all likelihood going to kill your children’s children.
You constructed a false dichotomy, between one case of labor being organized such workers that are subordinate to an employer, versus the other of everyone working individually.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that I don’t have a problem with capitalism, I have a problem with the consequences of modern-day unregulated capitalism. To me, capitalism is a system of abstraction that allows us to simplify the bartering of old with money. Money is a very useful metaphor for the value of goods and time spent working, but the nature of businesses is to maximize profits, and given the chance, they will do so at the expense of their employees (more so large corporations, but small businesses can be just as guilty). Modern corporate hierarchy is basically just feudalism with extra steps.
People like to work. People like to feel like they’re contributing to their community/society. What people don’t like is not getting paid a fair amount for their labor doing something that doesn’t feel meaningful or fulfilling. Doing a job you don’t like just to put food on the table often falls under this category. It’s “do a job for the sake of doing a job, or die.” Regardless of whatever job you’re thinking of, there’s people out there who will willingly do it, so long as they feel rewarded adequately for their effort. There are people who do actually enjoy being garbagemen or whatever, because they dont mind the work and feel good providing an important service for their community. This is why socialism/socialist systems are so important. Because capitalism is a system that can easily be abused if it isn’t regulated and kept in check, and socialism and capitalism can easily coexist.
There was a study done in Canada about 5-10 years back (which the conservative party stopped and tried to destroy the results of when they got elected into power) where they gave everybody of working age (something like 16 and older) $1,000 a month. What they found was that the vast majority of people continued to work, except for 2 segments of the population: pregnant women and high-school aged kids. This coincided with a general increase in the grades of students and the number of kids who went to college after they graduated. The theory was that because kids from poor families didn’t have to work jobs after school to help their parents pay for bills, they were able to focus more on their education and more could afford to go to college afterwards. And that $1,000 per person ended up back in the economy, stimulating economic growth in all corners of the town.
What we need isn’t to destroy the concept of money and manufacturing. We need to protect workers and provide the support systems that will improve the lives of the general populace, not ensure the growth of the wealthy’s stock portfolios at the expense of everything else.
The weekend was a right given to us by socialists who fought and died for the idea of being able to work a 5 day week instead of working 7 days a week. We don’t need company towns where people use company funny money to buy food from the company store, sleeping in company beds with 2 other people in 8 hour shifts for 100% occupancy in company bunkhouses - like it was in the US around the early 1900s. We need longer weekends.
Money and trade are older than capitalism.
Capitalism emerged from the industrial revolution, as the system of unbounded accumulation of private wealth by a small cohort of society, who contribute no labor, by claiming as profit a share of wealth generated by labor of the rest of society, depriving them from realizing the full value of their own labor.
Based on the above image, I’d say its the guy who sees a demand for septic tank maintenance and is willing to do that work for pay. The first issue is the disparity between the workers and the business owner. but if they’re the same, you don’t have that issue.
Who does the marketing and bookkeeping for that one guy? Are you saying that every single professional should be their own sole proprietorship?
Holy shit you guys are not joking about not knowing cooperative of workers?
Idk, maybe sole proprietor works. Keep the communities relatively, everyone picks up an array of skills, you don’t need marketing to know jimbob and Lisa are the only people skilled w plumbing stuff in the community. And I think it’s pretty common for soleprop to do their own bookkeeping, if it’s really done at all.
How does society build spacecraft, or do high energy physics research in this scenario? Sounds like paradise if you’re willing to stay in an agrarian society, but you have to be comfortable with life expectancy dropping like a rock from its current levels, because there would be no MRI machines, or gene therapy. These things are not the work of individuals, or even small groups working on handshake agreements. Contrary to how it might sound, I’m really not attacking the premise, I just want to make sure everyone understands what their advocating when they imply that this is how society should be.
Yeah, it was really feeling like you were just being contrarian. Which led me to not really try at all to engage with you further. But since it now seems you’re coming at this in good faith….
I’m 100% on the same page with you about advanced technologies and science, though I do wonder if our individual happiness wouldn’t be greater with a bit less technology. The harnessing of tech/science to extract value out of people at the expense of mental health (corporate social media for example) is a cost that is hard to weigh against the advantages of modern health sciences.
It’d be nice if we could find a way to achieve those things without the need for obscene concentration of wealth and this global tragedy of the commons perpetuated by companies and individuals that are so far removed from the impacts of their actions.
There must be a letter way, and I have no clue how to figure it out or how we’d implement it… but the way things are now just… doesn’t feel good.
Why do people want to become doctors, astronauts, invent medical devices, invent new technology, etc
When you give people the choice to actually contribute to society with the things they enjoy doing then they will
And menial tasks such as emptying a septic tank can be automated
Right now the only way people can contribute to society in a way they enjoy is if they have enough money to do so, if not they are forced into doing jobs that they don’t enjoy and drain them
When you give people the chance to contribute to society with the things they enjoy millions of talentless people are going to become video game streamers or rock stars.
There are always some that will “do nothing” if given the freedom to live as they want. Most won’t. What exactly will take the place of a 9 to 5 in a post Capitalist world? No idea. I’m not that smart. Humans do need more than simple pixie dust and altruistic motivations to do more than the most bare bones of things. That said, whatever the next system may be, it need not threaten peoples security (housing, food, and medical care) to be functional.
I can think of a worse future than one where our rapid advances in technology and productivity afford us the ability to create more art and beauty without fear of destitution.
Right now you can contribute to society by doing work that matters which does not always require individual expenses.
For example bar none the single most important job in any developed society is water purification. Working at the water utility is something you can do that benefits everyone and has no cost to yourself.
The second most critical task is waste management which requires no money from the worker either.
Im not being pedantic here. The claim you have to be wealthy to contribute is false
Did you read my comment properly
Some people may enjoy waste management or water purification but not all people do
People also have to lay for the cost of transport, bills, taxes, food, shelter, etc
People want to contribute to society in ways which they enjoy and tasks like water purification and waste management can be largely automated with notifications sent out to people overseeing the automation if there’s an issue
All the nitpicking aside, this is the ‘somebody’s gotta scrub the toilets’ argument right?
The simplest answer to this I can think of is, who scrubs the toilets in your home? It’s you right?
Do you do it because you own the toilet? Not necessarily because people who live in rented accommodation still scrub the toilet. So why? It’s because you have an interest in not living in a place with a filthy toilet. Now suppose you actually had a local community, you’d have an interest in making sure nobody was living with a filthy toilet they couldn’t clean because then they might get sick and you don’t want that because you’re a nice person and you don’t like seeing your friends hurt. So you’d probably set up a communal rota, which is basically what people here in the UK already do because elder care on the NHS doesn’t exist in practice.
The reality is that most people are self-interested and not at all ulturistic about things. They’ll begrudgingly clean their own toilet for their own sanitary sake but that line of thinking doesn’t do so well with public places.
Go into a public bathroom at a truck station or anywhere else that doesn’t have a paid worker to clean up the mess and you’ll see just how much people cooperate to keep it clean. Spoilers: they dont, because almost nobody wants to clean up after themselves let alone others germ filled shit stains, clogged toilets, dirty water splashed+litter everywhere on the ground, and used needles.
Maybe theres some magical unicorn ulturistic people that would haul ass to clean up the place out of kindness of their heart/for the good of community. Good for them, the next dozen people would trash it up again and undo all their hard work out of pure apathy.
Some people are great and upstanding members of society that go out of their way to improve things, most are stupid, lazy, self-interested animals who couldn’t care less about their actions inconveniencing others and making environments worse than when they enter.
Lots of jobs important to keeping places running and clean are shitty, hard work and usually in nasty environments. Getting a gold star on their upstanding citizen sheet isn’t enough incentive.
Now I can totally see a UBI system where people who do voulenteer for these kinds of things get paid more/ gets exclusive societal perks over someone who doesn’t. But now were back to where we started, people getting paid more to do work that very few wants to do or has the skills to do.
From reading your comments, I am developing a sense that you are unaware of living within a particular historic period characterized by particular attitudes, values, and customs.
In particular, you seem to be unaware that societies have existed, and some currently exist, under which the organization of labor is not through wage remuneration.
It might be helpful for you to learn about a variety of different kinds of social organization, in order to gain broader insight.
There’s a bit more to it than just being g nice and not seeing being hurt. It’s just as much self interest in making sure their able to work, and do their part in society/community or what ever group their part of and keep it running
Sure but this was meant to be a simplistic explanation, so I simplified.
Septic tanks only require pumping when something goes wrong with them. I’ve grown up and lived on properties with septic tanks. As long as the microbiome is in check and the tank doesn’t get filled too quickly, it will never need pumping.
First of all: that’s not true. As have/do I, and it’s not a monthly requirement or anything, but it’s an important maintenance item for the longevity of the tank. Not 100% of everything that goes down there is metabolizable. Second of all: what happens when they do?
I’m more of the homesteader mindset, I think that people living out in the country within a socialist society should have the knowledge to do it themselves, and can get the tools from a library (I’m assuming a library economy here). However, socialism is not “everyone is paid the same”. Assuming that there is a state, sanitation workers could be well compensated for their valuable labor.
Edit: Continuing the side note on septic tanks, my dad’s house growing up is over 100 years old and has been in the family since my grandpa bought it before the Korean war. My grandparents put in a modern septic tank some time in the 70s/80s. While I’ve been alive, the septic tank has needed to be pumped maybe once a decade. It does need to happen, but not very often. The real trick is making sure kids don’t flush their legos
Leftist memes be like
This is just a comic I found, if you have some good memes feel free to share
(1/56)
You are the one that wants to be steped by castanza m8, and that its not very trad in my opinion
One way to save species is by not eating animals. Welcome downvoters. I know you dislike hearing the truth, because you like your taste pleasure above animal suffering.
You are speaking truth, going vegan has one of the highest possible personal impacts. Eating animals is one of the main reasons for the massive land use, since we need it manly to feed animals, therefore it is reducing biodiversity.
Personaly, I don’t think the second part of your comment is sensible. Beeing aggressiv and making accusations (even if warented) will not change peoples minds but make them defend themself. But again, that’s just my view.
(edit to reword a sentence)
Agreed. Agressive comments don’t really change viewpoints.
Personal responsibilities and actions are important ofc but pale in comparison to systematic, structural change that is needed. E.g. a few people significantly reducing their diet of animal products or going vegan is great (hence I did it), but as long as slaughtering and abusing animals is subsidized by billions from the state level this won’t have a large affect :/
BP’s carbon footprint propaganda did a lit of damage.
Agreed, but if you use that point not to make a change yourself you are still part of the problem, not the solution. Systemic change happens because enough individuals have made the change themselves. These are two sides of the same coin. We can not expect a change to happen that we ourselves don’t support.
You’re right, I agree and should have pointed that out myself. I’m constantly seeing both parts being used as an excuse not to change by either side respectively and it angers me. If one side starts, then at least the other can’t use them as an excuse anymore.
Thanks again for your comment :p
I know you dislike hearing the truth, because you like your taste pleasure above animal suffering.
I downvoted you because of the immediate talking down to other humans. You are 100% right, but your style of presentation makes me puke.
“You’re not wrong, Walter, you’re just an asshole”
Thanks for letting me know. I hope you puke just as much as you see people get downvoted for trying to get others to take animal suffering seriously.
No, i know i am doing good and that is enough for me. i don’t have an interest in being hostile to human beings for not immediately changing something they’ve done for more than 20 years just because i did it and now everyone else has to too.
Do you also talk to people who smoke, drink or smoke weed as if they are subhuman?
Must be a happy life you live… How long have you been vegan?
20 Years? more?You want honest answers and an open discussion or are you only interested in hating on me?
An open discussion about what? About you speaking down to people that don’t follow our food restrictions?
Never mind. Bye bye
Lol let’s present a fact to people and then make fun of them for not agreeing. That’ll make them see my point.
If your goal really is to spread a message of veganism, maybe layoff being a cunt too. That’s not to say you have to be nice and shit, but idk, maybe don’t be an ass?
Or do, I don’t care either way, this is random unsolicited Internet advice lmao. Your point rings hollow though if you have to attack people to spread your message
As if people are not an absolute ass to the person who says anything about veganism. As if this comment of mine came out of nowhere.
If it smells like shit everywhere you go, check your shoe. Stop perpetuating anger and abrasiveness. Nobody will listen to you if you just tell them they’re stupid. Figure out how to communicate if you actually want to spread a message.
Edit
As an aside, you’re entitled to exactly no one’s time. Feel free to try to spread your message. Accept that people may not want to hear it. It doesn’t give you a right to be a dick.
Sustainable agriculture (small-scale, actually sustainable, not the corporate buzzword) has a huge positive impact on wildlife. Done right it can restore habitats and increase biodiversity in a matter of years. It’s the factory farms that make meat production an environmental catastrophe.
you like your taste pleasure above animal suffering
Yes, thanks for your understanding.
Stick to the climate argument, because that argument at least makes sense.
I officially give this the moderator stamp of this being a Good post.
I appreciate a good usage of horror movie font
Interesting design choice for the capitalist to have a hitler mustache.
Not really, private companies thrived under the Third Reich. Fascism is a capitalist ideology through and through
can’t think of a more unbiased source than jacobin
All journalism is biased. Why not judge the article on the merits of its contents rather than it’s source? Here’s a brief PDF from a book written in the 40s describing the Nazi economic system as “not quite capitalist” because they had elements of a planned economy. Even though we’re well aware that capitalism uses economic planning all the time. Here’s a breakdown (from a socialist source, deepest apologies for my bias) using Walmart as an example. Here’s an article from the Washington post saying essentially the same thing as the Jacobin article. Here’s literal neo-nazis discussing what national socialism and fascist economics entail. They’re very confused on the distinctions between socialism and capitalism. But you can see them advocating for private property, the success of private enterprises and pseudo state capitalism. If you have even a modicum of economic literacy you can see that they clearly want a certain flavor of capitalism that they somehow managed to think was socialist.
Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Magazine
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Removed by mod
How can this avoid abuse by bad actors?
It can’t which is why this always collapses. You have to force compliance. You can already see why you cannot attain this system in any way. It only takes 1.
Indiegogo
Guaranteed scam.
Okay, we need to have a talk about this.
Civilization has never been about cooperation and has always, since the rise of agriculture, been about the most domineering exploiting the most vulnerable. This is true regardless of what kind of an economy they were running.
It was true back in ancient times where economies were command ones dominated by a king. What the hell did you think the king did? Say please?
So abolish all rulers?
I accept your terms
Go for it. See what happens.
Aboriginal tribes seem to have a sort-of collectivism. Not exactly sure I could say socialism, but no one owned necessary resources, and with various exceptions, seemed to make sure those who hadn’t committed some egregious wrong to others in their immediate society (that was known). Exploitation still happened and I’m not sure whether the lesser amount of exploration was due to scale, solely, but I’d wager it’s not
Tons of indigenous societies had straight up slaves dude. Painting indigenous societies with a broad brush is not a good idea. They’re as different as modern societies.
I never said they didn’t. I never addressed that at all. I addressed collectivism.
Removing property rights is not a world I’d want to live in. This is the kind of stuff you believe before you develop a mature and nuanced understanding of society.
You do understand that doesn’t mean you’d lose your house and toothbrush correct?
I literally work in intellectual property. You must think I’m actually Satan incarnate.
Do you think what is essentially “Oooh, I bet that upsets you” is conducive to good faith conversation? Or even just general pleasantness?
If I asked you “Are you lashing out from fear that you won’t survive the revolution?”, that would be unkind. It would come across as hostile, confrontational and I would be presupposing your own thoughts on society and your relation to it.
Instead, I’ll engage with you as close to your own terms as I’m able: Do you think your country’s intellectual property laws are fit for purpose?
Far more fit for purpose than scrapping the concept altogether as this graphic suggests.
You see laws evolve when they are deemed to no longer be fit for purpose, IP laws are constantly reviewed through case law.
Far more fit for purpose than scrapping the concept altogether as this graphic suggests.
But they are broken though, aren’t they? Like there aren’t any authors going “Oh gee, if I couldn’t guarantee the rights to my works for over half a century after I dead then I’d pack in this writing lark and go and work at the widget factory”.
You see laws evolve when they are deemed to no longer be fit for purpose, IP laws are constantly reviewed through case law.
We’re talking about revolution, not evolution. Legislation, not interpretation. I’m asking if you were told to rip out the laws and start again, what would you do? Is that not a more interesting conversation than explaining to me how case law works?
I mean if you want to play “I work in IP LOL Lefty snowflake tears” then sure. Do that. Hope you have a nice time with it. Seems boring though.
There is more to IP than just copyright. There are many inventors who would pack it in if they couldn’t guarantee patents for their products. I do lots of work for individuals and small and medium enterprises. Patents protect them from being infringed by large corporations. Sounds like you’re trying to school a highly qualified professional in something that you’ve only just googled 5 minutes ago. I see Lemmy is just like Reddit in that way.
It’s not a far more interesting question to me because ultimately it’s not going to happen. When you spend too long theorycrafting instead of just trying to think about sensible policy that’s workable in reality you end up in bubbles like this agreeing with memes written by 14 year olds who have just discovered Marx.
Sounds like you’re trying to school a highly qualified professional in something that you’ve only just googled 5 minutes ago. I see Lemmy is just like Reddit in that way.
Nobody is “schooling” anyone, friend. You brought up IP, I attempted to engage with you because I thought you wanted to talk about it. And now you’re crying about nobody can disagree with a “highly qualified professional” and have turned a request for you to share your thoughts and experience into a confrontation.
just trying to think about sensible policy that’s workable in reality
That’s literally what I’ve been trying to do. To get you to tell me what you think sensible policy is.
I think I’m upsetting you, so I’m going to disengage now. Hope your day gets better, mate.
deleted by creator
Many theories propose making a distiction between private and personal ownership. You own your house and your toothbrush, but you can’t solely own the company that extracts value from the labor of other people.
