The volume of anti-capitalist and pro-China rhetoric on Lemmy is disconcerting. It makes me appreciate how good other platforms are at moderating state generated garbage.
The fact that you think that there is a huge difference between capitalist and China is part of the problem. They’re closer than you think. Not going to lie though. Leninists are just as bad as capitalists on this front.
The reason China has similar policies is because socialism/communism doesn’t work without a capitalist cow to milk.
Do you understand what capitalism is relative to socialism/communism? That the entire premise is that no person owns the means of production, and therefore has zero stake in its success beyond their immediate involvement? How do you motivate people to reach for more, innovate, and strive for greatness when there is no semblance of capitalist enterprise? Nationalist pride? Do you threaten them? How many of the hundreds of examples do you need to see that this does not work?
Star Trek is a beautiful concept on paper - but that’s the problem: as soon as you add humans, it goes to shit. Just look at the Hamas/Israel nonsense. Hamas literally does not care about their lives or children’s lives… The civilians are literally putting out videos stating they will intentionally put themselves under incoming bombs “because this is how we will prove your brutality”.
There’s no chance as long as society has free will. There’s just no way for anything else to work in the long run.
Real talk. Socialism works great for much of europe. Look into england, austria, pretty much any Scandinavian country they all have programs and systems focused on supporting workers. That they would never give up.
Second are we talking Big C or little c communism. They are different things. And you are wrong immediately off the bat. Under communism which is not defined as socialism in its entirety. No single person owns the means of production. But people do own the means of production. Under big C communism, let’s call it what it is leninism. They have a warped and twisted definition of who the people are. Expanding it out to a single Nationwide party and that party’s dictatorial leader. That’s very different from communism. Under communism the workers own the means of production. Meaning that if you work in a factory. As a worker of the factory you own a piece of, and have a stake in the factory and its success.
If people require capitalism to motivate them to strive for more. How did we get where we are? Capitalism has only existed a few hundred years. Human history goes back tens of thousands of years. How does that work? Because it really seems like we don’t need capitalism for that. And there’s no evidence showing that communism hinders it either. You do realize that even under the warped leninism that the Soviets used. They industrialized, expanded, had scientific and technological progress alongside the rest of the world. That doesn’t excuse the atrocities that they committed or the capitalists have committed. But that sure doesn’t seem like it puts a damper on striving for more etc.
And if human nature is the biggest roadblock to socialism as you say it is. It’s just as big or bigger a roadblock to capitalism. Your argument against socialism is more of an argument against capitalism. Think about that. I think you mean well. But I also think you have very little idea about what you’re talking about. Which isn’t an insult. When it comes to some Western Nations and especially the united states. We are washed in propaganda and purposefully miseducated.
It’s literally the only thing you have that’s even close. But you wouldn’t give it up. It’s certainly not a capitalist system. Prove how capitalist you are though. Give it up for a system like America’s if you think it’s so adorable.
Strictly speaking universal healthcare isn’t socialist. But it is a logical outcome of socialist policy.
We basically are getting rid slowly mate. They don’t tell you how it takes weeks to see a doctor, or how waiting times for operations are sometimes years.
Weeks to see a doctor is better than not getting to see a doctor. And yes your fascist Tories are working like our fascist Republicans would to get rid of it. But only a true gormles plonker would cheer on Sunak and crew.
If you think MAGA hate immigrants now you will be amazed at how much that would multiply in a free to use health service.
Real talk though, people love the NHS but I’m not sure it’s the best system for outcomes. Nor is the insurance whackery in the US. Mixed systems tend to perform better in terms of cost and health outcomes.
Bigots will always find an excuse to be bigots. That’s not a reason to appease them.
I can absolutely agree that the NHS is not perfect. Getting rid of it would be the exact wrong thing to do however. It absolutely has some issues that need to be addressed. But switching to an insurance only model is not going to address that in any meaningful manner. And I think it’s also important to point out that the claims of waiting weeks for a simple appointment are slightly disingenuous. That’s only if the NHS is your only option. There are private insurance plans and coverage even over there. Having National Health Care does not preclude having private insurance. Nor does having a private insurance mean that you’re not going to be waiting weeks. Currently over here in the land of the free. You have to schedule appointments months out with many practitioners. Unless you’re actively bleeding out or close to death. So private insurance is definitely not some Panacea.
Actually the problems with the nhs aren’t inherent to the nhs. To problem with Healthcare and Society in general. With birth rates dropping across the globe. Far more people are retiring, dying Etc than being born. And of that reduced volume being born there’s simply not enough of them trained and qualified to be Medical Healthcare practitioners. This was something that was always coming.
Also would like to point out. In the US at least. We’ve allowed cocaine and amphetamine addicts set unrealistic standards in the medical profession that drive a lot of people away as well.
How do you motivate people to reach for more, he asks, on a platform that is literally developed for free. Have you ever thought that people do certain things because they like them ? I see not every job is likable tho. But that’s a different problem, we can try to solve by technology. I know my opinion is also biased but in the end we should try to a bit more open minded.
That is definitely not the flex you thought it was.
Yes, lots of individuals so lots of fun individual things that can be done by individuals for free - hell, you might even find enough people to do an entire open source project!
But guess what?
Those people have actual jobs. You’re pointing at hobbies that only exist because free time is afforded by decent jobs.
You’ve left an anti-China warmongering echo chamber for a place where moderation isn’t predicated on silencing dissent against the west. The people you describe as ‘pro-China’ bots have plenty of issues with Chinese policy decisions. Accepting that the USA and capitalism more generally are evil forces in world politics are not state generated.
Markets are nothing more than voluntary association. Most, if not every “obscenely rich” person got this rich because of govt interference (lobbying, govt sanctioned monopoly, corporate welfare, subsidies, etc.)
“Organic” market economy would be beneficial to everyone
That’s nice, but the claim was that a market cannot exist without a state. It clearly can. Nobody needs to outsource their security. I’m not sure what efficiency has to do with this.
An example of someone taking ownership of their own security? If so, the most basic form would be carrying a firearm for defense instead of relying on police. If you want an example with more of a link to the market, how about a illicit drug dealer who protects their person and property?
Edit: Upon reflection, it seems that the existence of any black market proves the point.
If you think the black market doesn’t have a central authority, you’re looking through rose tinted glasses. Whoever has the most money and the most guns at their disposal is the authority. The black market is actually a perfect example of where capitalist market economics lead without regulation.
Hold up, I thought we were talking about the state running things? Of course everything has a central authority; this includes unions, churches, and corporations. Though, we certainly don’t need the state for a black market to run its business. However, I guess it wouldn’t really be a black market if there wasn’t a state to declare things illegal 🤔.
I absolutely agree with your second half though. The black market is a perfect capitalist example, and I believe it is an inevitable response to state authoritarianism.
Hold up, I thought we were talking about the state running things?
Why?
Of course everything has a central authority; this includes unions, churches, and corporations.
What do you mean, “of course”?
Though, we certainly don’t need the state for a black market to run its business.
If there weren’t a state, it would just be a “market”, not a black market. And as I said, black markets are controlled by the most wealthy and powerful in that market. They are the de facto state of the black market.
However, I guess it wouldn’t really be a black market if there wasn’t a state to declare things illegal 🤔.
Exactly, yes.
I absolutely agree with your second half though. The black market is a perfect capitalist example, and I believe it is an inevitable response to state authoritarianism
If you consider regulation authoritarian, sure. Or if you’re referring to the outlawing of drugs, I somewhat agree. Weapons trading is grey at best, though.
Why are we talking about the state running things? Because your comment I originally responded to was “sorry, but the market requires a state to protect it. How else are we gonna make sure no one steals our shit?” I believe my responses have been very much on this topic.
I disagree that every market requires a state to function. Humans are social beings and will always continue to trade and barter regardless of the form of government, or lack of government. I absolutely disagree that any third-party is needed for protection of property. Now, if we consider all forms of centralized authority as defacto states, sure, I guess I can’t compete with those semantics and will have to concede that you are right. In that case, I believe any group of people can be a “state”.
Now, I’ve been conversing in good faith, stating my point of view, and even answering one-liner questions. You are clearly against capitalism, and you seem to believe that state protection is necessary for a market to function (please correct me if I’m wrong; I don’t want to put words in someone else’s mouth). Are you against the idea of markets in general? If so, what replaces the market and how would its authority be any better?
Requiring a state to protect private property isn’t “the state running things”. Even right-libertarians concede the necessity of state to uphold private property laws. “The state running shit” would be like… a planned economy.
Look friend, it should be clear that “things”, in the context of this conversation so far, is the market. Once again, just like expanding the use of “state” to include anything resembling central authority, you try twisting my words as some sort of gotcha. I’ve been clear and consistent in my beliefs regarding the market and I’m open to hearing alternative views.
What’s bonkers is that you still haven’t offered up your position so it’s difficult to deduce where you are going with this. The original claim was that personal property cannot exist without state protection. I disagree with this and think the black market is a perfect example of a capitalist market that exists outside the protection of the state (and in defiance of it). However, for the sake of constructive dialoge, I conceded that the power structure at the top of the black market could possibly be considered a quasi-state that protects their interests. Now what is your point? Wouldn’t a communist economy still have a central authority to protect the property of the people? Are you against the idea of personal property in general? Personally, I support the concepts of personal property, free markets, and increasing taxes on billionaires.
No, I’m not opposed to them… I just don’t support them. They can support themselves, and I can support myself just fine. I make more money from them than I would without them, and they make money from me they wouldn’t have otherwise had my skillset to access easily.
I’ve never been forced to take any job… I just manage my skillset in such a way that makes it both rare and valuable. I’ve worn many hats over the years, and I just play the game instead of bitching about the rules Worked out great for me and my family so far. I’ll even have some to leave my kids so they don’t have as hard of a time reaching even higher than I have. That’s the whole point, for me: make my kids’ life better than mine, and I’ve done that so far.
No, I’m not opposed to them… I just don’t support them.
It doesn’t work like that. They are in power, and by not opposing them, you consent to their continued power.
I make more money from them than I would without them,
That isn’t even close to true. Capitalist extraction of surplus value is exactly how they make their profits. If they paid you the value you made them, they wouldn’t have a profit. If they weren’t there to extract that value, you and your fellow workers would make more - it’s basic mathematics.
and they make money from me they wouldn’t have otherwise had my skillset to access easily.
This part is true, yes.
I’ve never been forced to take any job…
So, you’re saying you’re able to retire right now and never work again?
I just play the game instead of bitching about the rules
That’s a slave mindset.
That’s the whole point, for me: make my kids’ life better than mine, and I’ve done that so far.
That’s cool you can think that small and that selfishly. Others, however, realise you could be living even better, and everyone else, including those with nothing, could have that standard of living, too, if we stop being complacent with mere crumbs.
That’s what you have. Mere crumbs of luxury. It’s great that you’re not on the street, but that is an incredibly low standard to have.
Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make it any less true. How do you refute it? It’s a basic mathematical truth. It’s literally impossible for a capitalist to pay you the value you brought them, without them going broke.
It’s not that i don’t agree ona subjective level, it’s that surplus value’s axioms don’t hold true, which makes it bad at explaining economic phenomenon and even worse at making predictions. If a commodity’s value was derived from how much labour went into it, then commodities that had more imbued labour would be inherently more expensive, but this is not the case in reality. Commodities that are easily produced with very little labour per unit (for example a hand-woven basket) can sell for a very low price, whereas a commodity that doesn’t have much labour per unit at all (for example an app downloaded from an online store) can have a high price.
Similarly surplus value assumes that the difference in price between the exchange value of a commodity and the labour value of its inputs are due to exploitation, but this ignores other factors of production such as land and capital. Surplus value fails to account for the very common phenomenon of capitalists starting some venture, paying employees a salary but running into some issue or another, watching the value of their stock fall to zero and declaring bankruptcy. In such cases how could you claim there was any surplus value at all?
Right, but the owner brings something to the table: capital. That capital is then risked. Don’t you think that capital owners should be compensated for providing the resources that is used in the production of commodities?
Ordinary people who labour save their money. Are they not allowed to invest that money after they earn it? What are we supposed to do with the money that we save up that’s not used for consumption?
It’s risky to capture a slave. Are risks always entitled to rewards?
The profit generated by the workers belongs to the workers. They made it. The owner didn’t. They needed the workers to make it. The owners aren’t “providing” the resources - they’re gatekeeping them, so that usage only happens under the condition that it benefits the owner.
Also, to be quite honest, it’s even unfair to the owner. They shouldn’t have to risk it alone. It should be a joint venture from the start. These risks should be undertaken together, with all as co-owners.
People are entitled their basic needs on the basis of being human. And all should have social ownership of the economy in general, with no individual or group having sole ownership and thus being the only ones to profit from it.
It’s a double coincidence of wants. The workers aren’t able to provide any of the equipment or capital for the business. They would also rather have a steady predictable paycheque rather than jointly own a risky venture. Meanwhile the investor has capital they are willing to risk and are able to provide a steady source of income. The workers can’t make profit on their own without the capital.
Capitalism enables people to become rich yes, but many workers do quite well, amassing large retirement accounts and saving their hard-earned money until they too can invest it in a business. The most wealthy and productive societies with the highest wages all of major aspects of their economies controlled by free markets. It’s not a coincidence.
The workers do the work, yet the owner is the one who gets the money.
Why?
Of course the wealthiest countries have free markets. Why would that be a coincidence? It’s exactly the mechanism I described, but on a global stage. Wealthy people exploit the poorer to become wealthier. Wealthy countries exploit poorer countries to become even wealthier.
This is a cycle that will only end with one person becoming the owner of everything, or revolution to end it.
That’s less than the 100% they deserve for doing 100% of the work.
Please just acknowledge the fact that it’s mathematically impossible for a wage worker to actually receive what they made. The owner has to pay themselves, after all…
Well let’s say you and I start off on a new planet and we both have $10,000 to spend and the aliens of this planet will buy whatever we produce. You and I decide to compete with each other for business in the hole-digging business. You buy a new spade, and also some furnishings for your house and a new TV. I on the other hand stretch my budget and buy a backho and sacrifice some personal luxuries at home.
The going rate for a new hole is $100. We get down to business but despite you working 15 hour days, you’re only able to dig one hole but I am able to produce 4 holes in one day while only working 8 hours. This means I make $100,000 a year while you only make $25,000 a year.
In this hypothetical scenario why am I making more money than you? What is the source of the inequality?
It can’t be that i am exploiting people because we are individual workers in business for ourselves. What’s happening is that some of my profits are yes a result of my labour, but part of the profits that I receive are a return on the capital that i invested in the back-ho.
Listen, i am not trying to say the world is a fair place. There’s a whole colonial system that was set up and abused, inherited wealth and a history of real legal oppression that still persists today. I’d even say that the rich don’t pay enough in taxes and we should push up the capital gains tax rate and close loopholes. But what I won’t say is that the labour theory of value makes any sense at all. It’s pretty discredited among economists and only exists in Marxist literature (which predates the marginal revolution where a lot of our understanding about economics comes from).
Even developing countries or even communist countries need to throw out the labour theory of value in order to maximize their economic output. For example in the Solow-Swan growth model, one of the predictions is that capital is more effectively utilized with labour that doesn’t currently have a lot of capital. Think about this, all output is a mix of capital and labour. If you are a person without a shovel the small amount of money that a shovel costs would make a huge difference in your output. Think about that! Using a neoclassical model you can demonstrate value in redistribution of wealth. Why would you cling to old outdated economics models when the new ones can still prove your point?
I didn’t say anything about labour theory of value. That’s a whole other discussion. And why in that scenario did we not just work together? Why compete?
Well the labour theory of value is where ‘surplus value’ comes from and is the theoretical underpinning of a lot of your argument.
Why didn’t we work together? Maybe we were on different sides of the planet or didn’t enjoy working together for many reasons. The point wasn’t that we weren’t working together. This was a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate that in this specific scenario the excess profits were the result of deploying capital. Even in communist societies part of the output that is generated is not wholly due to labour but due to the allocation of capital by the communist regime. For example in the USSR the mechanization of labour resulted in standard of living increases because labour without capital is of very low value. Capital without labour is also of very low value. A factory without workers would not work very well at all either. It’s the combined utilization of all the factors of production (Total factor productivity) that determines how much income can be generated in the economy. The larger the TFP the higher the wages. Economies with free markets have higher total favor productivity as the individual production decisions are dispersed among many business owners and workers rather than centralized in the hands of a bureaucratic elite.
Well the labour theory of value is where ‘surplus value’ comes from and is the theoretical underpinning of a lot of your argument.
LTV attacks pricing. Surplus value attacks wages. These are different discussions, dude.
Maybe we were on different sides of the planet or didn’t enjoy working together for many reasons.
You just keep having to fudge this hypothetical to make it make sense, eh?
This was a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate that in this specific scenario the excess profits were the result of deploying capital.
Bruh. Workers working by themselves to earn money for themselves isn’t capitalist exploitation. Who is being employed, here? Wtf are you saying? This isn’t wage labour.
Even in communist societies part of the output that is generated is not wholly due to labour but due to the allocation of capital by the communist regime.
If there is capital, it isn’t communism. If there is a regime, it isn’t communism. Please learn what communism is.
For example in the USSR
This is just too perfect.
Not communism.
the mechanization of labour resulted in standard of living increases because labour without capital is of very low value.
Labour without use is of no value. Did you not know that, and yet you have been talking about the LTV?
Are you about to make a “mud pie” argument?
Capital without labour is also of very low value.
Obviously. It is labour that creates value.
A factory without workers would not work very well at all either.
It wouldn’t work whatsoever.
It’s the combined utilization of all the factors of production (Total factor productivity) that determines how much income can be generated in the economy.
Don’t move the goalposts. I thought we were discussing value, not income?
Do you not know the difference? Is that why you think LTV is relevant to wages, rather than products?
The larger the TFP the higher the wages.
This is not a 1:1 correlation. The wages are determined by the whims of the owner, market forces, and any laws regarding minimums, overtime etc, not any rational calculation.
Economies with free markets have higher total favor productivity as the individual production decisions are dispersed among many business owners and workers rather than centralized in the hands of a bureaucratic elite.
Decisions in fact are managed by a bureaucratic elite. Capitalists. And productivity is a misleading figure, as the vast majority of the wealth created by it is siphoned by those very same capitalists.
Read: “I only subscribe to the economics of the oppressor class. If they refuse to accept a basic mathematical truth that implies bad things about them, so do I!”
Fairness is subjective. To me it means: everyone is free to do what they like WITHOUT invading anybody elses freedom; if a person performs well, they should be rewarded well; everyone should have the same initial possibilities in life.
The version of capitalism I was talking about is capitalism with a regulated market. Basic needs should be covered (except if you refuse to contributr anything at all). Im pretty happy with the “social market economy” in Germany where I currently live.
everyone is free to do what they like WITHOUT invading anybody elses freedom
But how am I gonna get someone to work for me without invading their freedom to choose to do what they want?
Hell no, man. No one will work at my shop if they’re allowed to do what they want.
Basic needs should be covered (except if you refuse to contributr anything at all).
Fuck yeah man! That’s how we do it! That’s what gets people working for me - the threat that not doing so will put ‘em on the street! That’s what I’m talkin’ about!
Whats your point? I explained why I find capitalism to be a fair system and further elaborated on what I concidered “fair”. What are you trying to say or are you just trolling?
I also agree it’s fair. It fairly allows me to extract value from people as I sit back and do nothing. That’s the pursuit of happiness in action, baby!
It sounds like you basically just described retirement, and I see nothing wrong with that. I’m investing in my future so that someday my capital increases to the point that I can live off the proceeds. I absolutely don’t want to work until I die.
Lmao no. I described ownership of private property. I described being able to own something, and get paid from people using it! The best scam in the world. Did you know you can just buy homes and get money from the people that wanted to buy it, yet not have to sell it to them? It’s fucking marvellous - they live there, make it their home, and pay you for the privilege! And you get to be called a lord for doing this!
Right? There are pros and cons with every system. People disagree based on value judgements not based on misinterpretation of facts. People in their echo chambers will have you believe that everyone on the other side of the political spectrum all thinks the same way “the same people who say X also say Y!” Rarely is that the case. Most people are actually centrists who have their own independent beliefs on a wide range of topics.
Not everyone on my side of the political Spectrum thinks the same way. But if you are pro capitalist. You simply aren’t thinking. Capital, markets, and currency. All existed before capitalism. The only thing capitalism did was justify the wealth and power of the wealthy and Powerful Beyond being simply born to wealthy powerful people. Now you get to be a wealthy powerful person by having capital. Which ironically just so happens to be most common among people born too powerful people. New boss same as the old boss. Funny how that works.
Uh, no shit. Economic freedom means not being destitute. Of course that makes you happier than not. What are you trying to prove, here? Do you think economic freedom is synonymous with capitalism, or only possible through it?
There are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damned lies, and statistics. First you lose points by linking to a supposed study behind the paywall. Second you lose points by that study being conducted by The Fraser institute. A solidly right wing group. With a less than credible reputation.
I apologize for only attacking the messenger on this. Though that should be enough to dissuade anyone from trusting it. But you didn’t link to anything that actually proves your point that we could read to argue against their flawed methodology, definitions, sampling, and data Gathering strategy. I’m sure we could attack and pick apart those endlessly. But I’m not going to pay 30 bucks to do it.
This is a study by an independent researcher from the University of North Dakota. The economic freedom index is published by the Fraser institute. There is no alternative index at this time. Here is a link beyond the paywall.Here’s a few others as well:
You’re welcome to share your own studies on economic freedom and happiness btw. . I’m “not thinking” yet i am the only one sharing scientific literature.
First their SSL certificate is misconfigured second my DNS here at work is blocking access to it for now.
Second. Economics psychology Etc are not any sort of hard science. They struggle to even show correlation sometimes. Let alone causation. And statistics is certainly not a science in and of it self. Making your confident claim of scientific literature adorably naive at best or wildly spacious at worst.
Combined with the fact that I have strong doubts that this study includes actual honest studies of socialist economic structures. Typically it’s just “leninism bad hurt durr”. Which I agree with. But Leninism==socialism. Did they actually go out and survey communes? Or honestly categorize social democracies? Most of these so-called BS scientific studies don’t.
And honestly I could link you any number of studies showing the countries with strong support for labor and protections for labor have a much higher satisfaction than countries that don’t. The problem is I don’t believe you’re being honest. And that that would be a waste of time. But you are welcome to go to Google and search if you’re interested.
You seem to be really good at coming up with excuses why you can’t access the data or why the data isn’t admissible for this or that reason. And awfully good at coming up with reasons why you cannot produce any data. Too much so IMO for someone that makes the claim of others of being intellectually dishonest and that they cannot think for themselves.
But it’s okay. Why don’t we just agree to disagree? That was my original point. Some people have centrists views on the economy where they believe in socially progressive causes, free markets and strong institutions. That this view is both rational and supported by data. That disagreements are based not on misinterpretation of facts but on differences in values.
All you have to do is go find people who came from nothing and built themselves a good, comfortable life. Ask them what they did to be successful. Decide whether you’re willing to do that amount of work - then do it, or don’t.
I don’t understand why this is so complicated for people… You don’t need money to be content with your station in life. I was happy when I was young and poor, and I’m happy when I’m late 30’s and solidly upper middle class. Maybe I’ll make the millions someday with a great idea, and maybe I won’t.
I don’t care about billionaires as long as they keep signing my 6-figure paychecks. Better than the $5/day I got bailing hay as a kid on the farm where I grew up.
Define nothing. And then Define wealthy. Then we’ll talk. Bill Gates did not build from nothing. Jeff Bezos did not start from nothing. Elon Musk did not start from nothing. Harlan Crow did not start from nothing. The Koch brothers did not start from nothing. The Mercers did not start from nothing. Peter Thiel did not start from nothing. Mitt Romney did not start from nothing.
A ton of people who pretend to start from nothing. Started out with more access and resources than many people could imagine. More than many people will ever see personally in their lifetime.
No one making minimum wage in the United States can afford their rent anywhere in the United states. Millennials and younger are struggling to even buy homes or be financially secure. Most Americans are a single emergency medical or otherwise from being bankrupt. It’s the biggest indicator of your future wealth and success is who you were born to.
The reason you don’t understand why this is so complicated for people. Is because you don’t understand the basic supposition being made. Most people don’t and that’s the problem. The fact that most people use the phrase “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” out of context and unironically should be a massive indicator of how uneducated people are on the subject. But everyone is capable of understanding if they want to. Please do some reading on the subject. Even a small amount. It won’t take much to help get you up to speed.
I expected you to be a pro-capitalist shill but then you pull out this. Bravo. I misjudged you. Going back to where you said you support capitalism, I think your idea of capitalism is just outside the bullseye. Like you obviously understand a lot, I don’t need to explain much to you. I think your inaccuracy comes from linking currency with capitalism, which a lot of people do. They’re not the same thing. Keeping in mind I’m going to keep things in the most basic terms, capitalism, socialism, communism, are all different forms of distributive justice. Capitalism says, whomever contributes the most capital to an endeavor deserves the most distribution, labour is just a cost. Socialism says, whomever contributes labour deserves the most distribution, and communism says everyone deserves equal distribution regardless of labour and capital. You’re really close to the bullseye though, so close I’m not sure my comment is even worthwhile.
think your inaccuracy comes from linking currency with capitalism, which a lot of people do.
To quoth my first post in this thread.
Capital, markets, and currency. All existed before capitalism.
Also, I’m generally anticapitalist. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else? I’m of the school that thinks we should abolish the concept of unlimited private property in favor of something like personal property with much more reasonable limits. And think capitalism should only be allowed with regards to unique items that aren’t generally “necessary” for society. Paintings, tchotchkes, etc.
Also your definition of communism is a bit exclusive of actual Libertarians and anarcho-communist. Isn’t it? I think you are referencing leninist theory? Which has never held up in practice. The rest of it though generally tracks.
I just want you to know - you have Asperger’s syndrome. (entirely unrelated to your points - all of which are objectively wrong and don’t warrant a response.)
You wanted me to get up to speed - but you may not have been aware you are slow… Hope this helps.
lol objectively one of the dumbest replies I’ve ever seen. But whatever. A full on autistic person could reason circles around you let alone someone with HF-ASD. Because after all you can’t address a single point. All you got is calling names.
I hate capitalism, I just don’t know of a better alternative. Nordic socialism is just capitalism with a big government. Soviet socialism failed miserably (it turns out, it is very hard to plan an economy). I have never heard a solid plan for communism that works on a national scale, never mind a plan for transitioning to such a society.
On the other hand, capitalism works reasonably well most of the time and we can just fix issues with it when they crop up (and we have a big backlog of issues to fix).
Capitalism does not work reasonably well most the time. Unchecked it leads to countless busts and Booms that leave the average person destitute. You really should look into the history of the early 20th century. The only reason we even still have capitalism. Is because of two massive world wars. Slaughtering and grinding up many tens of millions of people. As well as passage of basic Social Security nets. We’ve largely at least abandoned the spirit of. If if not in practice as well.
Capitalism has been a failure at every level. Constantly. That isn’t a justification or Praise of leninism. There’s a lot of other ideologies on the Socialist side Beyond leninism. And they don’t require large National level government. Look into them sometime.
Is there any system that is more fair and/or gives you more freedom? I havent found any.
On a hypothetically completely free capitalist market, I can sell and buy whatever I wish and the value that I get when selling directly correlates to the value I’m bringing to the buyer. If I generated a lot of value, I have more capital so I can also buy more value using that capital. Sounds fantastic in theory.
Yeah of course thats why there are regulations in place. Nobldy would trust that milj seller again though, so for cases that are not as bad as a human life being ended, the system would still work…
Of course not! Free markets are great, they allow me to make money however I please. But if you’re gonna regulate my business, at least leave me the opportunity to exploit my workers to some extent. I won’t be made obsolete by some stoner beatniks who think they can run my business better than I can in some high-falutin’ democracy. I own this place. It’s mine. I bought it with my own bank account.
Democratic socialism, Social democracy, original libertarianism of the non Rothbard variety, even pragmatic anarchocommunism. As long as they aren’t dogmatic ideologues.
A completely free market has never, and will never exist. Further markets, and currency existed before capitalism. Capitalism didn’t make them possible. Finally capitalism demands you sell for as much as the market can bare, not what is fair for the value you added. Of which capitalists generally add none. Without labor nothing gets done.
Under capitalism people that generate most of the value get the least of the capital. It’s just a more abstract way of defining and justifying oligarchy. Other than Divine Birthright.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for rewarding people who come up with new processes and ideas to increase efficiency etc. That’s not really what capitalism does.
It’s more commonly referred to as left libertarian these days. However it far predates right wing libertarianism. And for myself at least. I personally feel that calling original libertarianism left libertarianism, and right wing libertarianism right wing libertarianism gives right wing libertarianism far too much legitimacy.
Libertarianism is and always has been a left-wing ideology. These so-called right wing Libertarians(neo-libertarians) have much more in common with liberalism than libertarianism. And equally ironic. Those that we call liberals{neo liberals) in the United States for instance. Often have more in common with actual Libertarians than “right-wing” Libertarians do in many instances. Though there’s still a good dosage of capitalist and even fascists under the moniker of the Democrats too.
The whole situation is super complex and wildly cloudy due to bottomless pockets for propagandists unfortunately.
Soviet socialism failed miserably (it turns out, it is very hard to plan an economy).
Did you actually check? Because based on a bunch of metrics I saw the USSR did pretty well compared to the feudalism that came before it and the capitalist “democracy” that came after its illegal and undemocratic dissolution.
I know (and have discussed it with) plenty of people who lived in the former USSR. Everyone I spoke to agreed that it was a mess.
Of course, there is clear selection bias in who I spoke to (they are people I am friendly with and most of them reside outside of Eastern Europe) and all of them only experienced the Soviet system after it had gone through Stalin.
Here is an illustrative anecdote since we are trading those:
I miss free housing, social justice, positive constrictive ideology, bearable work relations (or would it be more proper to say conditions?).
Age is…far above 30.
I admit, I haven’t encountered social justice or ideology in my very early ages, but I had opportunity to feel benefits of free housing (since my family got a nice 3bd-room flat in their possession), and…my parents worked much less than I do, and never worked at home.
Note that the people who were adults before its collapse overwhelmingly want it back, and that Russians only supported its continuation back in the 90s referendum at 55ish percent compared to much higher percentages in the non-Russian SSRs.
Grew up on a farm, had no help, just decided to go get what I wanted like literally any and all Americans can. Like I said, first kid was born on Medicaid, we were on welfare for a couple years… Got a full time job at best buy… worked through community college, got off welfare… Took me about 11 years to get that first nice paycheck job where it takes others 4…but, that’s ok. Can’t control everything in life, live and learn.
Just use the available programs, and get off of them as soon as possible so you can start contributing more than you took from them. It’s pretty easy if you just do it as a matter of principle. I received, now I give back. Once I’ve returned some orders of magnitude of what supported me, I can focus on what I leave behind.
The fact that it was harder for me than it is for others doesn’t make me bitter or anything… I’ll just make it easier for my kids on the next go-round. It’s all good.
I think you took a statement about your class position as an insult. But I want to clarify, if you stopped working tomorrow would you have enough income for the rest of your life? If not, youre a member of the proletariat. If you could, youre petite bourgeoisie. You operate under capitalist logic but don’t have enough power to actually exercise control over the wider context your business exists in. You would be a small fish at the mercy of being eaten by larger fish. Better to not live in a system where anyone is a fish.
How is that an attack? The petite bourgeoisie generally have more to gain from joining the proletariat in the class struggle, and almost none of them have caused suffering at a scale that justifies the same attitude had towards the haut bourgeoisie. (Now people who own multiple car dealerships on the other hand)
It is only an attack if you think being a massive leech on society like Musk or Bezos is a good thing.
You also have less influence on the world around you than your farts. You have crumbs and you think you’re in charge because the people below you are worse off. You’re not going to have control until you organize together with the people on your side of the class conflict.
Do you own the means of production and employ people to operate it, paying them a fraction of the value their labor produces?
Are you able to live comfortably without working for the foreseeable future? Do you exert outsized control over municipal, regional and state government far beyond your “vote” if you live in a place that claims to be a democracy? Does that control come from your power over the means of production that you control?
Supporting a society controlled by the people described above does not make you a capitalist, being one of the people described above does.
Are you able to live comfortably without working for the foreseeable future?
I’m pretty sure that’s just a strawman version of capitalism. Plenty of capitalists who had their life’s work taken during a communist revolution and were at best told they could come back as a manager worked plenty hard. Didn’t save them.
No, capitalism is the system that creates this. Capitalists are the ones living comfortably at the top of their piles of money while we work to make them that money.
And yes being a capitalist didn’t save them from having to work like everyone else, boohoo evil commulism.
The dictionaries say otherwise. But sure, if “capitalist” just means a person thats very succesful and uses their power for the bad, then they are obviously not good to society but that doesnt make the system of capitalism any worse…
I don’t think you’re being disingenuous here and English is a crazy language, so here’s the definition google came up with:
noun: capitalist; plural noun: capitalists a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.
In the sentence
I’m a capitalist who doesn’t defend billionaires and also doesn’t feel left out…
The word capitalist is a noun.
But even if you were to pull up a dictionary definition of the word that says otherwise, in the context of the economic and political system of capitalism there’s three hundred years of writing that define capitalists under capitalism as various groups of bourgeoisie.
I think we can dispense with petty arguments over the dictionary definitions of words given what we’re discussing. If it will make you feel better I can refer to capitalists as flying purple people eaters.
Alright, Im fine with that definition, thanks for clarifying that.
However, if I invest part of my money (eg. into stocks or ETFs) as you do if you want to start saving money, that would make me a capitalist, wouldnt it? Your previous comment kind of made it seem like all capitalists are evil and rich af…
I think if we just go by that dictionary definition, you being a wealthy person who invests in trade and industry to make a profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism would by definition make you “rich af” and would align your interests against those of the people whose labor allows trade and industrial production.
The people whose labor allows trade and industrial production want to get the highest pay and best living conditions possible, you, as a wealthy investor in the concerns that employ and pay them want the most profit possible. The raw materials of trade and production are fixed quantities so any profit must come from paying the worker less than their labor produces.
Does that make you evil? I don’t know.
You used the example of an etf and I wanna talk about stock and securities trading briefly. A person with enough money can invest it in the market in such a way that it causes huge changes and can basically write their own ticket. Small time (retail, if you’re familiar with the lingo) investors take on quite a bit more risk and while they might hope their bag goes up or down they don’t generally have any control or say over what happens to laborers or industries and certainly not any power to control markets.
There’s an argument to be made that the move to replace pensions with invested retirement funds was explicitly intended to align retail investors and working people with the interests of the very capitalists who needed them to accept lower wages and reduced benefits, but this tea…
I do take issue with using dictionary definitions though, because they tend to be truncated and devoid of the background and context that allow for understanding and use of words in conversation or correspondence. This one, for example doesn’t explain what the principles of capitalism are, only that they must exist because capitalists are people who invest according to them. This definition doesn’t even describe capitalists as a class, which is fundamental to understanding the overwhelming majority of ink spilled in the last few centuries about them and the system they are in control of!
Im not wealthy by any means, though the wealth cant be the deciding factor, can it?
If Im a student with a savings plan (one where you put aside money every month and invest it [not sure if thats the correct Engkish term]) so it grows over time, am I a capitalist in your opinion?
The raw materials of trade and production are fixed quantities so any profit must come from paying the worker less than their labor produces.
The finished product is worth more than what their labour produces, otherwise they could just sell the product themselves. Because the organization, strategy, marketing and the needed capital for all of that are values in itself.
A quick question about that trading example, as far as I know market manipulation is illegal so using that to your advantage wouldnt worky right?
According to the goofy dictionary definition were working with, wealth is a requirement.
That definition doesn’t talk about the relationship between wealth and extracted profits because getting to the bottom of that relationship ultimately ties the two together. There’s no space to explain that if you own productive capital, you’re by definition wealthy.
If we wanted to examine your retail investment portfolio under a broader definition, you could possibly be considered the most petit-ist of bourgeoise under some circumstances, but generally if you have to work for a wage or are expecting to have to work for a wage once your education is over then you’re not a capitalist. Participating in the securities market doesn’t change your relationship to the means of production.
If you made your living as a securities trader, that might be a different story.
I’m not sure what you’re saying about the labor and selling it themselves, but the organization, strategy and marketing are all labor that went into the production of the goods. The capital in the form of facilities and equipment are fixed costs like the raw materials used in production, so any profit from the sale is necessarily coming out of the value of the labor.
Good to know that market manipulation is illegal, surely there’s no examples of markets being manipulated in our recent memory!
you forgot to show the adjective definition, which is what he is using in his sentence. and you are the one dispensing in petty arguments by continueing the arguement unti you get final say.
Capitalism is what allows billionaires to exist. If you are pro-capitalism, you are pro-billionaires. They are the real capitalists because the are the ones with real capital (and capital = power).
Even if you support better worker pay, trans rights, healthcare or what have you, you are just asking big money for it, not actually taking it. They are the ones deciding in the end.
That’s like saying driving a sports car is more dangerous than a regular car. In some sense, yes it is, but at the same time it’s not the cars fault that the driver irresponsible.
No, it’s like saying garbage trucks haul more garbage than normal vehicles. Because while people may transport trash in their vehicles, dump trucks were created for the specific purpose of hauling trash.
No they aren’t. They’re only a problem when not raised right. They DO need a firmer hand in training like literally every strong breed, which not all owners realise and take into account, but neglecting that isn’t their fault, it’s on the bad owners.
You pointed out the solution: nobody should be allowed to keeep a dog unless they can prove they know how to correctly train and keep a dog. If the owners are the problem, the owners should be held accountable.
Well, as long as we cannot be sure whether a dog owner has done their duty and properly trained the dog, we can never be sure whether a stranger’s dog is well trained or a purpously-trained killing machine. Or anything in between.
Come to think about that: to operate a car, motorcycle, boat or aeroplane you need to get a license, proving that you know what you are doing. Depending on vehicle and jurisdiction, you might even need to re-take tests frequently. All of these vehicles (in most jurisdictions) require frequent inspections and if they fail these inspections, you are no longer allowed to operate them.
Also, there are very stringent laws on how you are allowed to operate these vehicles, with really harsh fines for violations of these laws.
Looks like your stance on dog ownership is much more hardcore than mine, but I could get behind that.
Were you personally attacked by a pit bull, or was someone who’s close to you attacked? Your stance comes across as really paranoid, like you have a reason to fear dogs.
I was attacked multiple times by dogs and I don’t care what race they are. All dogs in public should be on a leash and muzzled.
And every time I was attacked I was just walking down the road and some random dog without leash or muzzle just attacked and bit me. And every time the owner was like “The dog has never done anything like that”. That totally makes everything better. I always felt so honored that I was the first one that dog hurt. I still got scars on my shoulder from that one time and that was almost 20 years ago.
I don’t think breed-based laws are a good idea, because they make it look like every other breed is not dangerous.
I think, all dogs should be leashed and muzzled in public and all owners should have to get a license that includes a test and yearly inspections first.
That’s extremely unfortunate. Of the many many dogs I’ve come across, big & small, including a few strays that I was unwise to approach so casually, I’ve never been bitten or attacked. Perhaps I was merely fortunate. Knowing what you’ve gone through, your stance is understandable, although I don’t entirely agree with it. Yes, all dogs in public should be leashed, although I find it unnecessary to put a muzzle on all but the largest dogs who have the actual strength to cause serious harm. I definitely don’t agree with any sort of licensing or routine inspection for dog owners, but I get why you would think this is necessary… perhaps its best if we simply agree to disagree.
The issue is that for every good dog owner who trains their dog, puts it on a leash in public, picks up the dog shit and makes sure their dog can’t cause trouble, there is also some idiot who got a dog on a whim, mistreats it and doesn’t train it at all.
And most often the people who don’t care for training their dog are also the people who don’t care to secure the dog in public places.
I know that’s a generalisation and there probably are some counter examples. But a “don’t care” attitude generally runs through everything a person does.
And having a dog is a multiplier of what trouble that “don’t care” attitude can cause.
That’s why I am for licensing/inspections. For someone who does care it probably won’t change much. They already go to a training course with their dog. Just give them a license for completing the training/make that training mandatory if you don’t want to call it a license.
Any reasonable dog owner will be at vet in regular intervals anyway. Just let the vet not only check whether the dog is physically fit, but also if it obeys it’s owner and if it shows signs of abuse. And make that checkup mandatory. It’s better for the dogs anyway if they get their health checked regularly.
I see why you think it’s not necessary, because you might be the kind of dog owner who cares and then it’s just additional hassle. But, as I said, there are many who don’t care, even if in your bubble (and I don’t mean this word negatively) everyone cares for their dogs.
Man, I have to wonder, what are your thoughts on gun control? I mean the yearly dog inspector is great but like, what about social services? You think there is room in the budget to provide care for the less fortunate?
Social services don’t pay for your dog’s vet. Why should it pay for other dog expenses?
Regarding gun control, I luckily live in a country with decent gun control laws. So our death rate due to gun violence in peace time doesn’t resemble the civilian casulty rate in some war zones.
You can have a department for something like that. But it doesn’t have to be funded by the tax payer. That’s what license fees are there for. Works great for cars already (at least where I am from).
But seriosly, “but regulation costs money” is a pretty weak argument, because everything costs money.
Don’t get me wrong. You put in a dog licensing facility I am all for it. I just think, and please correct me, the amount of political capital people would have to invest could be spent elsewhere and provide much greater returns.
That makes sense what you are saying. The real question is how the majority of the population sees the issue.
Take for example smoking bans in restaurants and public buildings. In my county this was something the politicians didn’t want to do for a very long time because they feared the backlash of the smokers. But after a very successful public petition for enacting a smoking ban they did some surveys and found out that almost 70% of the population was for such a ban.
They then enacted the ban and all the smokers where like “The restaurants are all going to die”. Then the ban came and it was just business as usual. Nothing bad happened and actually, revenue increased because more non-smokers came to the restaurants.
I don’t have statistics on how many people would want stronger regulation of dogs, and that value might vary a lot between places. Depending on the circumstances (e.g. if it happens after a particularly gruesome dog attack) stuff like that might not even need too much political capital.
For example, after a pitbull killed a toddler who was just walking down the road, the city where I live enacted compulsory leashes in all public places. There was no shitstorm against it.
You mean those weird ass stats where they even agree that evidence is based off of looking at a picture where they admit they barely know it half the time?
Could you please provide those stats? Skimming thru the Wikipedia article on pit bulls, it seems there’s no clear evidence that pit bulls are significantly more dangerous that other dog breeds of similar size.
You mean these stats from a 32 your study of US and Canada from 1982 to 2009 that shows over 60% of dog attacks from from pitbulls? Here’s a collections of yearly reported dog attacks.
Training and keeping control of their dogs. Like any breed, pit bulls have needs in order to be happy and well-adjusted dogs. Relevant here is that, just like any strong dog with the possible exception of some of the gentle giants, they need extra discipline and a firmer touch in training.
A properly trained and socialised pit bull that’s treated well will not attack people or other dogs, whereas untrained and/or not properly socialised dogs of ANY breed are likely to develop problem behaviour, which can include aggression.
Any big & powerful dog with a strong bite like the pit bull has the capacity to seriously harm & potentially kill a person, and since you can’t count on every pit bull owner to responsibly train their pets, they do become a liability when in public. Pit bulls are also a popular breed in the illegal dogfighting scene, so violently dangerous dogs that have been bred to be violently dangerous are guaranteed to exist.
Even so, it’s rather unfair to treat every single pit bull like a menace when non-aggressive pit bulls that are affectionate towards strangers are not uncommon. Laws requiring big dogs to be muzzled should suffice; banning the entire breed from public (or, in some places, from even existing) seems excessive to me.
Edit: …well, at least in this comment, most of my points still stand. I should add that pit bulls are not only popular for dogfighting, but also a favorite of criminals in general, so much so that their demand is actively driving the breed to be even more violently dangerous than ever before. This has become such a serious problem that unaggressive pit bulls are nowadays unlikely to be purebred.
I guess it’s still unfair to treat every single pit bull (or, rather, every dog that resembles a pit bull) like a menace, but it’d also be unfair to blame anyone for treating them as such, so long as breeders continue to select for stronger, more aggressive, more dangerous traits.
If a big dog is calmly walking beside its owner on a leash & is well-behaved, why treat it like a menace, especially if it’s also wearing a muzzle? Otherwise, I’d agree that we all should be wary around any dog, regardless of size, that’s wandering on its own or acting strangely.
My friend’s pit bull got attacked by a Chihuahua and had no idea what to do about it except sulk all day after it was over. To me, blaming pit bulls for violence is like blaming BMWs for not using turn signals
Exactly! Labradors and German shepherds, along with pit bulls, were responsible for more severe dog bites than other breeds, yet I don’t see anyone demonizing labs & sheps like they do the pit bull. Its reputation is really undeserved.
I don’t think its undeserved at all. When it comes to fatal dog attacks, pit bulls are responsible for more than all the other breeds combined by a substantial margin. forbes.com/…/americas-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-i…
I’ve never known a pit bull that wasn’t sweet but that doesn’t dismiss the fact that a breed that was bred for violence can be dangerous. Many dogs may bite when upset or feel threatened. Pit bulls are known for continuing the attack in a frenzy and thus have a disproportionate number of deaths associated with them.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, there is no shortage of data which refutes this, and that’s not even mentioning the methodological errors that studies which both support & refute the perceived dangers of pit bulls tend to have.
As someone else mentioned, fatal dog attacks overall are rare, accounting for 30 to 50 deaths per year in the US. For comparison, lightning kills on average 28 people per year in the US. Even when making the contentious assumption that pit bulls are responsible for most fatal dog attacks, such fatal attacks are still unlikely to happen.
Please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. Pit bulls can certainly be dangerous as a breed, but when compared to other dog breeds of comparable size, strength, & temperament, their reputation for being exceptionally violent & attacking “in a frenzy” is not only undeserved, it obscures the real danger of a trait that is (afaik) unique to most (but not all) pit bulls: they don’t make overtly threatening gestures before attacking like other dogs do, and the subtle cues they do show are often missed, giving the impression that the ensuing attack is sudden & impulsive. While this trait alone does make the breed more dangerous & requires special consideration from owners, all the ignorance & fearmongering about pit bulls only serves to needlessly multiply this danger more and further polarlizes the issue.
I’d say the continuing existence & tolerance (and, in some places, full legality & acceptance) of dogfighting is the real issue, as the people involved are the ones who train/torture dogs until they become the vicious monsters that make headlines. Sadly, it is far easier to blame & persecute all the dogs from a few irreputable breeds than it is to uproot the entrenched criminal & inhumane activity that actively strives to make those breeds as dangerous as they’re reputed to be.
Ah yes. How fitting for a young new person in the world. A reminder that 2°C of warming above the pre-industrial mean would be catastrophic, but also is a good lower-limit of what to expect based on current intentions.
memes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.