Capitalists accidently being based
Capitalists accidently being based
118 comments
-
-
-
lmao
-
-
Uh yes. So little self-awareness here.
-
I personally find it easier to sidestep the rights issue and just say "we CAN ensure everyone has healthcare, so we should do that". Whether people have a right or not is sort of irrelevant if you see government as having a duty to materially improve people's lives.
-
But trans people would get healthcare too and we can't have that. /s
-
A lot of people think that specifically is not the government's duty, though. You'd have to first convince them that the government's duty isn't simply to defend against invasion, or enforce the will of the people, or whatever else they believe.
-
Invasion from what? Mongols? Flu virus? Smoke?
-
-
We have the right to lofe liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Not having proper healthcare coverage is literally against that right.
-
But but but then THOSE people will have them, too, and we can't abide THOSE people having nice things.
-
-
Yes to all but a right to a job. People shouldn’t have jobs. It’s not natural.
-
I think it could be argued that you have a right to a "purpose". For some people that may be a job. And some may choose to not have a purpose. But no one should be denied a purpose if they want one - even if it involves goals they will never succeed at.
-
Humans find jobs for themselves and their community all the time, but not fucking bullshit jobs like data entry technician or call center technician.
I fucking hate cleaning, but I will happily help a friend or family member clean their house or their apartment because we thrive in a community.
Not getting the humanity squeezed out of us for a few cents more.
-
Either nothing humans do is natural, or everything is.
Democracy and human rights aren't natural. Capitalism isn't natural. Or they both are.
People do like to work, the caveat being that they generally don't want to work with virtually nothing to show for it. The modding community is massive, and they almost never get paid. People love to bake, or draw, or garden, or volunteer, all without fiduciary compensation.
But when people make it where they have to "get a job" to survive, the love of the labor disappears.
-
Costco has a low turnover rate because they’re paid a living wage. Hell, even (ugh) Chick-fil-A pays their teenage employees decently.
I agree that most people absolutely want to work; the two most important factors are choice of labor and not being treated like shit - either by compensation or other mistreatment.
-
Those are hobbies, not jobs. That’s why they recommend them to retired people.
-
-
This. As automation increases, fewer of us should have to work. A significant issue with the Soviet Union and their legendary inefficiency is that every one had the right to a job even if there were no jobs to be done. Leading to them creating unnecessary intermediary positions at every level of the system.
Basic income, sure. And people should be educated. But beyond that, encourage the people who don't need to work to pursue art or other ends. Get them involved in community activities. But work towards a society of leisure if possible.
-
They would have been far, far more efficient if they weren't so anti-computer. The first attempts at creating a computer system actually dates back to the 1930s during the Stalin era, but Stalin didn't like it and shut it down (in the West computers were just starting to be invented) and in the early 60s they could have let OGAS be aggressively developed. This would have resulted in an economic boom for the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 80s instead of a downturn. On top of that, the internet as we know it would have been a hell of a lot more different AND better developed if that was the case.
Do you remember on how Sputnik and the Soviets sending a man into space sent the US into a massive tizzy to try to outdo the Soviets in space? Can you imagine if the Soviets also made the first internet and networked computer system that actually ran well? Imagine the pace and the priority given to that instead of the bullshit that was the Vietnam war at the time.
-
The flip side of Soviet “everyone must work” inefficiency was the prediction of American economists that we’d have so little work to do thanks to automation that our biggest problem would be filling our free time.
Instead we found more and more work to do, and now work even longer hours. And it’s because people didn’t want to do the hard work of figuring out a new way to run society and just stuck with what they knew.
We see the same thing happening with remote work. It causes some problems, yes, but it’s way better for a lot of reasons. But instead of moving forward and solving those problems organizations are just insisting on doing things the traditional way.
And it’s really sad how many people in this thread can’t see that they’re doing the same thing.
-
But also distribute work as much as is reasonable so everyone contributes maybe a few hours to the necessary work and not just a few thousand randos working 140hr/week
-
the Soviet Union and their legendary inefficiency
You said it yourself: the soviet union's inefficiency is largely that, a legend. What's more efficient, to have full employment including most women, or to keep a potential third of your workerbase unemployed? This isn't to say there weren't problems in the USSR or that it was almighty, but there's no serious study or metric by which it was more inefficient than capitalist countries. In fact, the post-soviet republics, 34 years after the dismantling of the country, struggle to regain on average the GDP levels of the communist era, with some countries like Russia barely managing to equal it, and others like Ukraine not being able to recover (including pre-war).
even if there were no jobs to be done. Leading to them creating unnecessary intermediary positions at every level
Again, not historically accurate. The soviet union didn't need to make up positions, because it ran under permanent labour shortage. When labour becomes a useful resource for society, it gets optimised and used up as much as any other, and allocated according to very calculated plans, which while imperfect, for the most part didn't create jobs out of a need to create employment. There was chronical labor shortage that reached close to 10% in the 70s (one in ten positions being open for lack of workers). This has to do with leftover mindset from the Stalin years of the soviet economy in which extensive investment in order to mobilise as much of the workforce as possible, massive investment in capital created enormous economic growth, which proved to stagnate as a model after the 70s for a variety of reasons, including literally running out of people to work all the jobs you created. If you want some numeric and nuanced analysis I highly recommend "Farm to Factory" by Robert C. Allen, great book as an overview of the history of the Soviet economy.
I think we view work with disdain because we live in capitalism and 1) working in capitalism sucks 2) not working in capitalism arguably sucks harder. People should have shorter workweeks doing things that help their communities and the society as a whole with their basic needs guaranteed, I'd love to work in such a society
-
-
Neither is the Internet or the computer you are using, or the highly developed efficient language you are speaking, nor the clothes on your back, the medical care you've received, the worldwide logistics that enable you to have a nice miso soup, or maybe a slice of cheese every once in a while, or even the engineering, math, and, science that allow anything and everything to exist in our world, yet people throughout history have worked very hard to make those things for you.
If you don't want to contribute back, that's totally fine, just know that the rest of humanity is working hard to keep you alive even if you don't.
Someone has to dispose of your trash, and it doesn't seem like it's gonna be you.
-
-
Nobody asked to be born into this capitalist hellscape you cunt
-
And they’re making damn sure that keeps happening.
-
-
Its almost as if having what one needs to live is called basic nessesities for a reason, something capitalism does not provide.
-
Historically speaking the elites weren't that fucked up. In the Middle Ages and the Ancient era in many places the nobility were seen as also being stewards of the underlings and HAD to make sure they didn't completely fall into shit.
Even the original robber barons funded medical research, and built theaters and libraries and other cultural stuff for the society they lived in. Going farther back, a lot of the beautiful artwork we see made in the Renaissance period was commissioned entirely by some of the most ruthless, murderous bastards in human history.
What we are seeing now is not the greediest of bastards, but simply the most unlettered, the most uncultured, and the most barbaric of them. They live and work and think exactly like gang leaders and brigands who reached a point where they can destroy the restrains against them. They would be content to live in vulgar shit and not enjoy life despite their unimaginable wealth, as long as the rest of the world around them burns. I don't think even Hitler held the land and the earth and humanity in general with that level of contempt.
-
In the Middle Ages and the Ancient era in many places the nobility were seen as also being stewards of the underlings and HAD to make sure they didn’t completely fall into shit.
This strikes me as a touch revanchist.
Middle Ages / Ancient Era nobility operated on a patronage system for their courtiers and military officers, sure. But they obtained the surplus to satisfy the duties of the patrician class by looting and pillaging neighboring city-states or by taxing the working people inside their domain.
Even the original robber barons funded medical research, and built theaters and libraries and other cultural stuff for the society they lived in.
They bought bread and built circuses for the artisan class that they sought to cultivate in their immediate vicinity. But their largesse was very geographically limited. The farther from the center of power you got, the more you suffered and the less you benefited.
Communities on the periphery were as heavily exploited then as they are now. Only the limits of technology kept that frontier relatively close by, with innovations like Roman roadways and early Medieval shipbuilding technologies pushing those frontiers outward.
The Vikings were not funding medical research in Angland. The Romans were not building libraries in the Black Forests along the Danube. The Columbian Era Spanish were not bringing Renaissance art and culture to the Aztecs and Incas or sending over architects to build beautiful stained glass churches in what would be Texas and Florida.
I don’t think even Hitler held the land and the earth and humanity in general with that level of contempt.
The Scorched Earth tactics of the World Wars were pioneered a century earlier. General Custard and King Leopold II absolutely employed wholesale destruction of the agricultural basis of local communities as a means of enslaving or exterminating native people.
The English and Portuguese would employ opium addiction as a means of expanding their empire along the Pacific Rim. The French would make an industry of trapping and killing wild game that wiped whole species out of the New World. Their commercial farming practices in Africa and Southeast Asia would obliterate local biomes for private profit.
This is just more of the same short-term profit oriented expansionism. The machines are bigger and the damage more expansive, but the intent and the incentives are all the same.
-
I stand corrected on a lot of stuff. But I was referring to the imperial core of those people's rule. Like without the United States most billionaires would not exist, but they are doing less nothing. They are stripping everything for parts. That is what stands different. The British build Britain up (even if it was socialist leaning policies that elevated most poor out of poverty) at the expense of everyone else, they didn't simply have niche enclaves where they had everything but left the rest of the country/cities into as much shit as is happening now.
-
looting and pillaging neighboring city-states or by taxing the working people inside their domain.
It’s worse today
They bought bread and built circuses for the artisan class that they sought to cultivate in their immediate vicinity. But their largesse was very geographically limited. The farther from the center of power you got, the more you suffered and the less you benefited.
Same today
Only the limits of technology kept that frontier relatively close
Correct, that’s what made it better
The Scorched Earth tactics of the World Wars were pioneered a century earlier. General Custard and King Leopold II absolutely employed wholesale destruction of the agricultural basis of local communities as a means of enslaving or exterminating native people.
More than a century, it’s called scorched earth because you would literally light a fire. And in the same vein is salt the Earth
Brief reference
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_the_earth
The English and Portuguese would employ opium addiction as a means of expanding their empire along the Pacific Rim. The French would make an industry of trapping and killing wild game that wiped whole species out of the New World. Their commercial farming practices in Africa and Southeast Asia would obliterate local biomes for private profit.
Same thing goes on today
This is just more of the same short-term profit oriented expansionism. The machines are bigger and the damage more expansive, but the intent and the incentives are all the same.
Yes the lack of technology made it better, though you’re covering a wide time period
The biggest difference is the wealthy realized religion isn’t real (not that it ever mattered: see Catholic ban on ranged weaponry) and no one is going to remember you so bloodline/country doesn’t matter
-
-
while there's good points, the last sentence is out of place.
That guy was contempt manifest. In the end he ordered the destruction of the oh so beloved country
-
I am aware. When the Nazis were defeated Hitler basically said 'I was wrong, the Germans are not the master race and they all deserve to be exterminated'.
This is why I don't understand the love that they have for Hitler. Hitler's alleged 'love' for Germans and his people was extremely conditional. Also he believed in 'quality' of genetics over 'quantity' and while there is no end to the amount of white supremacists who whine about birth rates, Hitler believed that if his policies resulted in a population decline that would be better because the 'quality' would be superior to more dumbasses.
And also when Hitler lost the war, yes, he did have the Nero Decree. I don't understand why they think someone who was totally fine with the complete destruction of the German 'aryan' race is a good role model. If Hitler came back to life (and as he was physically in 1925) he would hold pretty much all neo-Nazis in absolute contempt and wonder why the fuck the Germans are still alive.
-
-
What we are seeing now is the rich are Noah's Arking us to climate change they have known was going to happen since the 70s, and have been preparing for it this whole time. Which is why we haven't made any real progress with climate change in the first place and has been the Republican goal this whole time - they will just kill most of the people on earth to reduce carbon emissions and then continue as they have been with a smaller pool of people but bigger pool of money.
Is this extremely stupid, cruel, and shortsighted and ignores how people work together in societies to make and build stuff?
Yes.
But look at the Titanic submarine. The rich literally believe they can bend science to their will. They literally think they can force the world to their delusions. And they will bet their lives and their kids' lives on that.
There's a reason Trump is building death camps and selling people to other countries. There's a reason Assad was saved and sent to Russia, as one of the most sophisticated death camp operators in modern times.
-
And what is fucked is that this also consistent with the actions of many elites. When the going got tough for a lot of major leaders of formerly rich and powerful nations, their course of action was to pack up their valuables and flee.
In Ancient Rome when the empire was declining, many Roman nobility just took their valuables and their slaves/servants away from the cities and started their own self-sufficient villas where they still tried to draw a salary from the empire while not giving a damn to pay taxes back. This is how the feudal system and serfdom as we know it started in some places. During the Fourth Crusade when the crusaders sacked Constantinople the emperor at the time expected his subjects to fight... but fled with his treasury behind him.
Even today with the withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan, the US-backed puppet they put in power spoke about never surrendering, but then fled to the UAE with 150 million dollars with him.
They're all like this shit. I wonder if even trying to win is even feasible at times.
Edit: The titanic submarine is the perfect example of that. These people weren't just violating the laws of physics, but they also were talking about submarine travel as if they invented it, when it has been around since the 19th century. Their arrogance is unbelievable.
-
-
At least some of those old murderous bastards patronized the arts and the sciences.
Current murderous bastards actively seek to destroy them and 'at most' they will share or create memes.
Worst elites ever.
-
The difference is that, before, decisions were made by individuals, and generally no matter how greedy, most people have at least a sense of compassion for other humans. Nowadays decisions aren't made by people, there's algorithms pushing for the infinite increase of stock value, and whoever doesn't do that is eaten alive. That's the problem: in capitalism, companies need to be vile and have absolutely no sense of morality, or they will be outcompeted.
-
-
Do they owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO.
-
If you think people have a right to live, then because to be able to live they have to work, eat, and have a roof over their heads, then yes they should have a right to all of those things.
-
You don't have to work to live. It facilitates the others, but they can be facilitated other ways.
-
-
Clean air and drinking water? Communism
-
Unpopular opinion, when you make someone else's labour a right you make that person a slave.
insofar as rights exist at all the very top of that list is the right to be left the fuck alone.
-
There is a fallacy here. You are not making a specific person's labour a right, but making a type of labour a right. That labour can be provided by many people, each of whom could theoretically have the right to refuse. That labour being a right means that there is some mechanism that ensures a person gets it. E.g., right to an attorney.
Also, many many existing rights require other people's labours. The right to a fair trial in the US would require a judge, a lawyer, and 12 members of a jury.
-
so what happens when everyone has the right to refuse you and does?
what does the right to anything mean if it can be denied?
-
-
A right isn't something others force you to do. It's something that can't be taken from you.
-
Is he actually against people having enough food ro survive?
-
Why is your wealth and power more important than everyone else’s right to simply exist with a basic level of comfort? Let’s put you on a desert island alone and see you create your empire. You can’t, because you NEEDED people and society for everything you have. You stole most of the benefit from our labor and pretend you are entitled to it. Fuck your broken system.
-
Hmm this meme makes me think. I am a socdem and was thinking of what the difference between communism and social democracy is and the answer i got to is that communism shares resources equally while socdem shares enough resources that everyone can lead a life but more resources are locked behind more work. In communism you get the best phone that everyone can get while in socdem you get a feature phone and you have to work to get a better one. I am not very qualified for deeper discussions about things like this but id like to see other peoples opinions. To me and most working class people i think this sounds like a more appealing system. I THINK(emphasis on I and think) that this leads to more innovation and a faster economy which, at the end of the day, does trickle down in a proper socdem system. Also i think european countries should have right to healtcare in the constitution and the right to food and housing is also healthcare because you need it to be healthy. Other things i think should be rights is transportation and communication for example. I guess those are similar to right to job but not the same and not mutual. Last time i tried to have a discussion it was on hexbear and everyone called me a a stupid capitalist pig but this is world so i hope someone whos even more to the left than me can add to this discussion. In the end we are more so allies than enemies.
-
Hey, fellow communist here and Hexbear enjoyer.
Communism isn't really when all workers get the same regardless of the work done, the difference with social democracy is in who owns the factories and buildings and machines and computers that we work with, who decides how and what work is done, and who decides the prices and the salaries.
In social democracy, people maintain the right to own capital (i.e. to privately invest their money in a business expecting a return, and to hire others through this ownership of capital). In communism, workers collectively (whether directly through coops or indirectly through the state) collectively own the factories and buildings and computers that are used to actually produce goods and services).
This doesn't just translate to formal ownership, but to actual decision making in the workplace and to salaries. In capitalism (social democracy is a type of capitalism), a company owner will only hire someone if they can profit from it, which means they're getting a part of the worker's production and appropriating it for themselves, which communists call by the word "exploitation". In communism, since the capital is owned collectively, so are the fruits of labor. This doesn't mean everyone earns the same, it's not the case in theory nor in practice. If workers elect a manager to direct some things at the company, the manager may make more in the form of for example increased production bonuses, or if a worker exceeds the quota, they can also very bonuses, as well as salary increases with different positions and level of training, studies and experience. As an example, a university professor in the soviet union made maybe 3 times as much as an entry level job at a supermarket. If you care about salaries per profession, Albert Szymanski's "human rights in the soviet union" does interesting analysis of the evolution of salaries by sector in th USSR over the 50s and 60s.
Regarding innovation I have to disagree. In my opinion, innovation is mainly led by the investment in innovation that you make and how you manage the investment. Most innovation in the world for example already comes from the public sector: universities, research institutes, military, space agencies... It's just that when some publicly researched concept gets profitable after all the research, a company will pick it up, make some improvements through investment, patent it, and live the good life of the monopoly. Then again I'm a communist and that's my view, but looking at things like the transistor, the internet, the space sector, medicine, biology, astrophysics, material science... Most of those are advancements and disciplines either completely or overwhelmingly public funded in their inception and still today. It's just that we experience a bias in consuming technology ultimately researched by companies because we live in a system where almost all we consume is by definition made by companies. Research and innovation can happen, in my opinion arguably better, under communism than capitalism.
Regarding the basic material needs as you mentioned: healthcare, housing, nutrition, even energy for heating and cooking, mobility with public transit, fuck, the right to work! All of those should in my humble opinion be guaranteed for everyone. Again, I could point to historical examples like the Soviet Union: housing costed 3% of the average household income on average and homelessness was entirely abolished, healthcare and education were completely free to the highest level and of excellent quality, especially for the level of development; public transit never changed prices from the 40s to the 70s, basic foods were heavily subsidised and very affordable, entertainment and sports were widely available through unions, everyone had paid vacation, the retirement age was 60 for men and 55 for women... My point with this isn't "all hail Stalin". My point is, if a socialist system born from the violence of tsarism and World War 2 such as the soviet union achieved all of that by 1970, what the fuck are we doing?
I could go on to talk about the problems with social democracy and imperialism in the third world, but I think this is a long enough comment. Please let me know it you find it interesting or wanna discuss anything inside
-
Most of those are advancements and disciplines either completely or overwhelmingly public funded in their inception and still today.
For a more modern example: all those chatbot we are hyping nowadays are based on many decades of publicly funded research. They literally did maybe the last 0.01% of the research and are cashing out big now.
But I always thought that is one of the problems of communism. The final step of getting to a desired consumer good is a thing that capitalism really excells at and communism struggles with. The DDR really struggled with that and it could be argued partially destroyed their industrial system with it. Communism excelled at optimizing products, because they didn't need to think about "the next sell", so stuff like almost unbrekable glasses became a thing in the DDR.
-
-
Not an expert by any means, but communism/socialism are inherently anti-capitalist, while a social democracy exists within the framework of capitalism.
In a socialist society, everyone will have their basic needs met. Basic needs are however different for everyone. To stick to the example of phones: not everyone will have the same phone, but you'd likely have a limited variety of phones to choose from. Big and small, maybe a feature phone for grandma and a special kind of device for the blind/hearing impaired etc.
In a capitalist society, you are forced to get a job and earn some money to survive. Since everything evolves around money, companies will compete for whatever amount of money you have left at the end of the month and will try to get you to buy their products. That's how you end up with a dozen big smartphone manufacturers, each of which release multiple models of phones every year, claiming to have built their "best iPhone yet".
Whether this leads to "innovation" is probably up for debate. The differences between the last couple years' flagships of Samsung, Google and Xiaomi are marginal and, if I may dare to say it, nobody truly needs five different cameras on their phone anyway. I'd go as far and make the opposite claim: things like patents and trade secrets are actively holding back humanity and cost lots of lives. Studies on climate change done by the oil industry got actively buried and patents on the Covid vaccines held back vaccination efforts in poorer parts of the world, only for Biontech shareholders to make bank. I'd also bet that there is tons of research hidden in the drawers of big companies, that never got published because it might give an edge to a competitor. Science thrives out in the open, when knowledge is being shared, not when its done in secret.
As for social democracies: It's capitalism with guide rails. It will try and make sure you do not starve and start revolting, but it will always make sure you are never doing well enough to stop going to work. The inherent issue is, that it is still based on capitalism. Profits are still going to the guy that owns the company, and wealth will always start accumulating. You can try and keep wealth accumulation in check by implementing high taxes, but at some point, someone will get wealthy enough to start lobbying politicians. Said politicians will start removing some of the guiderails, accelerating the accumulation of wealth and the whole system comes crashing down.
I want to say that this is basically what's been happening around the western world for the last couple decades. It started out as a somewhat well working system. Workers where unionized and fought for their rights, wealth taxes existed, people could afford food and housing. The economy grew, the rich got richer and started lobbying. Then wealth taxes disappeared, public utilites and housing got pawned off to the highest bidder, productivity exploded, wages stagnated, minimum wage didn't get raised. Then a pandemic, a war in Europe and inflation. Now people can't afford to live anymore and start turning to facism.
Long story short: a social democracy sounds better than an anarcho-capitalist hellscape, but it will sooner or later turn into one, because capitalism is the inherent evil.
-
-
Its his download a car moment.
-
Selfawarewolf big time.
118 comments
Yeah dude that's basically the idea
I have no idea who this is, and thought It was just some dude saying some based shit... Then I read the blurb at the bottom...
I'm guessing he meant this ironically?
This was a capitalist whining about how ridiculous the idea sounds. But little does he know that he’s in the minority…
He is a former republican congressman. He's not maga, so I give him that. I think he has a podcast too. His name escapes me at the moment.