Why People Say Capitalism is Violent
Why People Say Capitalism is Violent
261 comments
-
-
I think there's a simpler, more personal way to make this point. Here's a few thought experiments:
Imagine you work for a company that lays you off, even while doing enough stock buybacks and executive bonuses such that they could've paid your salary for 1000 years. After you get laid off, imagine what would happen if you just ignored them and continued doing your work.
Or, your landlord doesn't renew your lease because they think you're ugly and they don't want ugly people living in their building. Imagine what happens if you just stay, even if you keep sending the landlord their monthly rent on time.
Both of these situations end with armed, taxpayer-funded agents physically removing you from the premises by any means necessary; it is only the omnipresent threat of state violence that keeps capitalist control over their private property. We don't see the violence because we've been trained from an early age not just to accept it, but to not even see it.
-
^ This is the winner, right here. The crux, as it were.
Modern society always ultimately boils down, eventually, to might makes right... just with some extra steps.
-
I agree with you. That said, as humans, we're not yet evolved past defending territory we've chosen to live on. I think we still need "might" as an option for response, until we as a creator evolve further.
I don't know if it's possible to get rid of the final might destination on the continuum of responses to issues, but I think we can agree that the "extra steps" part between "an annoyance" and "possible danger to individuals and society" is extremely lacking and narrow.
I strongly, strongly dislike what the police have become, and evolved from, in the united States. Someone does need to investigate crime and murder though, and not just a few amateur podcasters. With some careful thought, and likely messy experimentation, we can handle laws being just, fair and useful. How? That seems to be the tricky part.
-
-
Very true, although I can't think of a better solution than having the state monopolize violence and enforce things like personal property etc and that's not necessarily anything specific to capitalism either.
-
Some very smart and imaginative anarchist philosophers have been working on exactly that for a very long time, from Mikhail Bakunin 200 years ago to more modern writers like Noam Chomsky or David Graeber. I think their work is worthwhile.
-
Luckily solutions don't rely on your imagination.
If people who "can't think of a better way" would stop trying to impose their lack of imagination on the rest of us we would be able to progress.
There are smarter people than you or I in the world and they aren't the ones running things, the ones whispering, "You're nothing without me"
The first step of any abusive relationship is recognizing it's an abusive relationship. The second is to stop making excuses for your abuser and just leave, no matter what they claim the cost to be.
-
I can't think of a better solution than having the state monopolize violence and enforce things
I can't think of a worse one.
-
-
This applies in general to copyright.
It's bullshit that exists solely by the power of the state. It only exists as long as we all agree it exists, ever person on the planet. It has only existed for a few centuries but no one can imagine a world without.
Capitalism is the same except worse since no one can agree on what capitalism means. The solution is always to capitalism harder.
-
This is a great comment. Thanks for this.
-
💖
-
-
Not playing devils advocate by choice: there are systems in place (at least in more democratic countries) that force the employer and the landlord to keep you if you havent done anything wrong.
At will employment is an american joke.
Still, paying more for the shareholders and CEOs than the actual work your water, food and transportation needs is insane.
The idea that I can buy my way around laws and others rights is disgusting to the core.
-
-
This is mostly on point, but it also reproduces the 100 companies 71% line.
100 corporations are responsible for 71% of emissions related to fossil fuel and cement production, not 71% of total global emissions.
Of the total emissions attributed to fossil fuel producers, companies are responsible for around 12% of the direct emissions; the other 88% comes from the emissions released from consumption of products.
It's unfortunately not true. Just widley quoted.
-
It's reddit tier misinformation post.
-
if they didn't dig it out of the ground it couldn't be used at all. they have the responsibility
-
So individuals aren't responsible for making any inconvenient changes to their lifestyle but can still feel morally superior? Thanks bro, this is just what I needed to hear today!
-
No. It's the System that encurages them to dog it out that is to blame. A System that is build around exponancial groth. Those 117 companies wouldn't dig or pump that stuff out, consumers wouldn't live lifes that use up extraordenary amounts of energy compared to any other time in human history, goverments wouldn't make the GDP their holy grail, if not for the hyper capitalist framework that has enabled this to happen.
So, it you have to blame something, blame the bloody System.
And, btw., don't use the "the companies are responsible" line to excuse not changing how you consume and how much you personaly continue. I am not saying that you are doing so, but I've read it to many times by now.
Yes, BP pushed the carbon footprint idea. Yes, BP and any other oil company has to do chance their buisness model. That does not mean that All of us will not have to degrow the way we live. Every one of us needs to start acting in a more sustainable manor, from Individual to company to government, if we want to minimise suffering for future generations. If we don't (and honestly it doesn't look like it) their will be a systematic reduction in complexity anyway. The only question is if it will be by design or by desaster.
-
If we didn't use fossil fuels, literally billions of people would die within months.
We need to transition away, not stop cold turkey
-
-
Thank you, I was also misinformed about that number.
-
I think it's closer to 25% for fuel burning, not 12% where did you get 12?
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
-
It would seem Industrial consumption of resources would be ≥ collective individual consumption (possibly excluding ultrawealthy, depending on variables), but I’d need to at least see the abstracts of some credible studies.
Edited word
-
-
One way to save species is by not eating animals. Welcome downvoters. I know you dislike hearing the truth, because you like your taste pleasure above animal suffering.
-
You are speaking truth, going vegan has one of the highest possible personal impacts. Eating animals is one of the main reasons for the massive land use, since we need it manly to feed animals, therefore it is reducing biodiversity.
Personaly, I don't think the second part of your comment is sensible. Beeing aggressiv and making accusations (even if warented) will not change peoples minds but make them defend themself. But again, that's just my view.
(edit to reword a sentence)
-
Agreed. Agressive comments don't really change viewpoints.
-
-
Personal responsibilities and actions are important ofc but pale in comparison to systematic, structural change that is needed. E.g. a few people significantly reducing their diet of animal products or going vegan is great (hence I did it), but as long as slaughtering and abusing animals is subsidized by billions from the state level this won't have a large affect :/
BP's carbon footprint propaganda did a lit of damage.
-
Agreed, but if you use that point not to make a change yourself you are still part of the problem, not the solution. Systemic change happens because enough individuals have made the change themselves. These are two sides of the same coin. We can not expect a change to happen that we ourselves don't support.
-
-
Sustainable agriculture (small-scale, actually sustainable, not the corporate buzzword) has a huge positive impact on wildlife. Done right it can restore habitats and increase biodiversity in a matter of years. It's the factory farms that make meat production an environmental catastrophe.
-
you like your taste pleasure above animal suffering
Yes, thanks for your understanding.
Stick to the climate argument, because that argument at least makes sense.
-
Lol let's present a fact to people and then make fun of them for not agreeing. That'll make them see my point.
If your goal really is to spread a message of veganism, maybe layoff being a cunt too. That's not to say you have to be nice and shit, but idk, maybe don't be an ass?
Or do, I don't care either way, this is random unsolicited Internet advice lmao. Your point rings hollow though if you have to attack people to spread your message
-
I know you dislike hearing the truth, because you like your taste pleasure above animal suffering.
I downvoted you because of the immediate talking down to other humans. You are 100% right, but your style of presentation makes me puke.
-
Funny how the people who call billionaires 'evil' for hoarding wealth and treat landlords as Literally Satan for owning more than one house can sometimes also ignore the fact that they literally kill and eat animals for no reason other than cows being tasty.
This coming from someone who isn't even vegan btw, I just think the reactions to your post were hilarious.
-
The reactions to my post are indeed hilarious, although I also find it a bit exasperating. Especially if you take into account that normally I get downvoted to hell for mentioning animal suffering, so I thought I would pre-empt those downvoters and speak to them, but now they've found a new reason to downvote and hate the messenger instead of engage the message 🤷♂️
Indeed people are super resistant to any vegan message. Yet at the same time, the facts are simply the brutal facts. It's simply super bad for the planet and a nightmare of unimaginable scale for the animals. It'd be very nice if people would just stop, which is definitely possible in 2023, but it is indeed easier to point at the evil billionaires then change your own behavior.
-
I think it is clear that most humans value the experiences and welfare for other humans more than those for individuals of others species.
You may not be among those who share the same values, but most do, and I expect it to remain so.
More broadly, non-human animals have different, if any, social behavior, compared to humans, and therefore are never participants in human society.
As humans, we understand that we inevitably live in systems among other humans, dependent on human capacities and human tendencies, and we seek to direct such systems in support of objectives we identify as valuable.
-
-
-
Am I having a stroke or does the first sentence make no sense? Shouldn't it be more instead of less? If a company always sells for less than the cost to produce, it'll go out of business rather quickly I'd think. Obviously there are temporary strategies like this that are used to beat competitors, but that's not what this is talking about.
-
I think you just have it misunderstood. The comic assumes that you are the laborer, not the capitalist. As the image at this part of the infographic shows, from the perspective of the laborer, you are paid $5 for an item that is sold on the market for $50
-
Yes, the image is correct, but I think theUnlikely was refering to the text "Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs."
It's backwards, it should be the value you (the laborer) produce is sold for more than than your labor costs.
-
The comic assumes that you could ONLY be the laborer. It’s ignoring the fact that no one is stopping you from making/buying something and selling it for a profit.
I’m a bench jeweler and I know plenty of other craftspeople who make a whole-ass living off selling shit they made for more than labor/materials cost. The fact that an employer will take advantage of you isn’t a failing of capitalism, it’s a facet of human greed that will permeate any economic/political system.
-
So the labor costs (wages) are $5 and the value produced by the laborer is sold for $50? Yes this makes sense of course, but I can't wrap my head around why it says it's sold for less when $50 is more than $5. GPT4 can't seem to make sense of it either.
-
-
yeah wtf, the first sentence and nobody picked up on this. We‘re completely fucked
-
We’re actually “fucked” at everyone’s (my own included) inability to draw inferences from context, and! Often disingenuous character of a lot of people using this unclear manner of speaking. The cartoon isn’t presenting this ambiguous statement ini bad faith, probably just oversight or perhaps that’s not the author’s/translator’s native language.
-
-
-
Leftist memes be like
-
This is just a comic I found, if you have some good memes feel free to share
-
(1/56)
-
-
The state is violent and community is violent and privacy is violent
Can anyone come up with an ideology that is not violent and can actually be implemented in the real world with real actors that aren't smelling roses and giving out hugs?
-
Side note, any ideology that claims your neighbors are the enemy aren't worth a damn.
What is your criteria for "can actually be implemented in the real world"? This varies by the individual. I need to know what your perspective on this is. Could you explain why capitalism isn't violent?
-
Personally, I think the only reason evil exists is because the world is unfair, some are advantageous and some are not. This causes people to refuse to "play" fairly which causes bad behaviors such as deception, exploitation, murder, etc. The only way to eliminate or reduce evil is to make the world fairer. One of the ways I can think of is for the fortunate to help the unfortunate.
-
I don't believe this to be true. Fairness only matters to people who value fairness. Many people value fairness, but it is irrational to believe that everyone values fairness. Some, not most or even many, don't care about fairness fundamentally. For these people, interesting fairness does nothing for them. These are the people we need to protect others from while also providing an environment that didn't necessarily mean removing or killing them.
-
-
"Privacy" is not violent, nor implicated in the discussion. Private property of course is mentioned and is pivotal.
Private property is a social relationship, entrenched as a social construct, and protected by the capacity of the state to inflict violence.
Without violence, neither the state nor private property would continue to exist, because both represent power imbalances, which would not long be respected by the disempowered, except by the invocation of force by the powerful.
Community is not bound in violence as an indispensable feature.
Surely, violence occurs in community, generally as a consequence of conflict that had previously escalated incrementally. Within community, members generally may resolve the root cause of conflict, including by directly addressing imbalances in power. Communities are not characterized by the necessity of violence for them to preserve themselves.
Healthy communities both seek to resolve conflict before any erupts into violence, and seek to contain violence when it emerges.
Any community that is not prevented from doing so by outside powers can achieve such a level of health.
A capitalist society at large cannot prevent violence, because violence is both an inevitable consequence and an indispensable requisite for the overarching conflict within capitalist society, of the irreconcilable and conflicting interests between those who own private property, versus those who must sell their labor to survive.
-
-
OK, but qq: Who pumps out septic tanks if there is no coercion involved?
-
The dude with a passion for septic infrastructure who wants to provide a rewarding service for the community, instead of getting yelled at by customers at the convenience store he works at to make sure he can afford the microwave dinner he's eating that night.
Pie in the sky scenario/sarcasm aside, criticism of capitalism doesn't mean pure anarchy. It means looking at what works and what doesn't work towards making sure people have what they need. Money is much easier to trade people to do a service than trading a goat for 2 sheep, but that doesn't mean that some landlord deserves 1 of the sheep and half the goat for "allowing" you to raise them under threat of starvation and homelessness.
-
I love the enthusiasm, but see my reply to the comment above yours. Basically: do you believe that no one should work for anyone else for money? Should every single professional be their own sole proprietorship? Who runs the marketing, bookkeeping, land management, etc for all of these people doing their work? You could have a person who specializes in doing these things professionally for other professionals, but the farther you take that idea, the more you're just recreating the idea of employment piece by piece. Am I missing something? Honest question.
I love the idea, but I've always been a bit confused about the end game goal for this line of thinking. I agree with the idea that landlords are trash, but everybody still needs the ability to purchase food and pleasure goods and such, and as long as the idea of money exists, the need to work for it does also.
-
-
Based on the above image, I'd say its the guy who sees a demand for septic tank maintenance and is willing to do that work for pay. The first issue is the disparity between the workers and the business owner. but if they're the same, you don't have that issue.
-
All the nitpicking aside, this is the 'somebody's gotta scrub the toilets' argument right?
The simplest answer to this I can think of is, who scrubs the toilets in your home? It's you right?
Do you do it because you own the toilet? Not necessarily because people who live in rented accommodation still scrub the toilet. So why? It's because you have an interest in not living in a place with a filthy toilet. Now suppose you actually had a local community, you'd have an interest in making sure nobody was living with a filthy toilet they couldn't clean because then they might get sick and you don't want that because you're a nice person and you don't like seeing your friends hurt. So you'd probably set up a communal rota, which is basically what people here in the UK already do because elder care on the NHS doesn't exist in practice.
-
Septic tanks only require pumping when something goes wrong with them. I've grown up and lived on properties with septic tanks. As long as the microbiome is in check and the tank doesn't get filled too quickly, it will never need pumping.
-
-
-
I'm a mid-20s red blooded American, thank you very much. Socialism is American as fuck. If you don't think so, then you need to read about the history of labor in this country.
-
-
You’ll never be the one holding the leash.
Just remember that.
Defending the current system only hurts you.
-
-
-
Interesting design choice for the capitalist to have a hitler mustache.
-
Not really, private companies thrived under the Third Reich. Fascism is a capitalist ideology through and through
-
-
why is there a hitler moustache there?
you aren't seriously comparing capitalism and personal greed with the industrial genocide of millions of jews and romas, are you?
-
I am going to spare you the rant you so properly deserve...I guess it's still a rant, but it's a smaller one.
Behind The Bastards did this rant for me, and I expect you'll prefer their version, in the two-parter on Reinhard Heydrich, the architect of the genocide machine of the German Reich. (On YouTube: Part One and Part Two )
Some things you might learn:
- The holocaust during the German Reich ended with immense concentration camp complex and extermination engine. It didn't start that way. The turning point was the Wannsee Conference in 1942 in which Heydrich and Eichmann negotiated with German officials to resort to the final solution to the Jewish question, which was to shift from a policy of deportation and maintaining ghettos to a policy of extermination. (If we go by the movie Conspiracy it took them an hour just to clarify they were talking about extermination without saying words meaning extermination)
- The Holocaust didn't start that way. In 1936 the Sicherheitsdienst (SD) run by Heydrich gathered up select undesirables and packed them into an unused munitions warehouse which became the first concentration camp. As the population outnumbered the capacity of current detention centers, more were created.
- Even though the Nuremberg Laws only specified the detention and containment of a narrow field of undesirables (e.g. Jews with known criminal records) the SD rounded them up liberally, taking anyone who couldn't immediately defend why they shouldn't be arrested. Compare ICE in 2016-present rounding up any undocumented immigrants they can track for deportation, despite that they are supposed to only arrest those who are violent felons. (Being undocumented is a misdemeanor.). Meanwhile compare the SS (which is loyal to the Führer rather than to the German state) to the Department of Homeland Security which is loyal to the Presidency, and not the Constitution of the United States and the US State.
- The mass annihilation of Jews and other undesirables started long before the Auschwitz (the prototype for the death camps) and the Wannsee Conference. During Operation Barbarossa (the war in the east) and the occupation of Poland (and the other annexed Baltic / Slavic regions) the Einsatzgruppen (SS Death Squads) would massacre villages that were either disobedient, or from which traitors came. Sometimes just gunning them down in front of a mass grave, or gassing them in death wagons (trucks with a sealed chamber into which the motor exhaust was piped). These proved too slow, but also was too hard on the execution troopers. Due to the high turnover rate and the frequency of PTSD symptoms, the Auschwitz camp was engineered so that no crewperson had to witness and process what was going on. Those who loaded the trains and packed the gassing chambers were a separate shift than those who picked up the bodies and transferred them to the ovens. The one who pushed the button was two steps removed from the one who had the authority to sign off on the executions, and neither of them had to see the victims or the processing zones.
\ \
Fascism is the final defense of authorities who have run out of justifications for their power. And yes, many people would rather believe their woes come from the oddballs in the society they don't like rather than the fundamental structure of the system. It's a lie that people want to believe, rather than face the truth of the matter. And because we're so eager, it might kill us all.
It also tells us our plutocratic masters would rather drive the human species to extinction rather than give up their power for a better society. We've evolved to be social, but we aren't really all that great at the society-of-millions thing.
-
Please. The goal was always to kill them.
They started exterminating "unfavorable" people even before they started "detaining" jews and roma.
It actually started with mentally and bodily disabled.
If you think that the genocide of these people wasn't the plan from the get-go, you are heavily mistaken. They just needed to rile up the public against these minorities before doing anything.
I know german history. I am germanswiss. And i find it frankly disrespectfuly that a Ausländer tries to explain me our history.
And the most important for the last part: Your point nr. 3, comparing what happened in Nazi-Germany to the US today, is fucking disgusting. It is relativation of Nazism and the Holocaust. I invite you to come over here to germany and say that here, because it could land you a nice prison sentence up to 5 years.
§130 StGB Abs. 3, look it up.
Fascism and Nazism didn't come from a few oddballs, but from a society, systematically humiliated by the victors of ww1 at the end of it and humiliated by the economic crisis, that turned to extremism.
Nobody fucking belives that it came from a few oddballs.
WW2 and its causes are some of the most well-known and well-discussed topics in the world. I honestly don't know how you can be so disinformed and even ignorant about this topic as to make such statements.
Please go and read the report of Richard Dimbleby. Maybe then you'll truly understand the true nature of national socialism and its crimes
-
No, dummy. It's a small mustache. Get some glasses, you don't need to agree with everything in this comic, but focus on its real problems, not fake nonsense.
-
-
The initial point is begging the question. The value of labor is that point at which the seller of that labor and the buyer of that labor agree is fair. This is done, principally, in the way of a wage or salary, among other various methods of compensation.
The rest of the post relies on the first sentence. Thus the entire post is fallacious.
-
Your post assumes workers and owners of the means of production are on equal footing which is laughable on it's face.
Oh yeah people working in sweatshops make a fair wage. Just complete nonsense if you analyze it for more than 1 second.
-
-
I appreciate a good usage of horror movie font
-
I officially give this the moderator stamp of this being a Good post.
-
-
How can this avoid abuse by bad actors?
-
It can't which is why this always collapses. You have to force compliance. You can already see why you cannot attain this system in any way. It only takes 1.
-
-
Indiegogo
Guaranteed scam.
-
261 comments
The argument presented here is based on complete ignorance of the history of the human race.
Reason #1
The concept of property ownership is not a product of capitalism. This idea is literally as old as the oldest known civilization to keep written records, Mesopotamia.
In Mesopotamian culture, property was owned by the state, by the temple, and by private families. Records show a distinction between movable property (material goods) and immovable property (land), and the selling, trading, repossessing, inheriting and transfer of all types of property.
Here is an example of a cuneiform tablet recording an agreement about the division of property.
There is even an equivalent of eminent domain:
Hammurabi was not a capitalist. Babylon was not a capitalist nation.
Capitalism did not "invent legal privileges around property".
Reason #2
Conquest of territory happened long before capitalism ever existed. Colonialism was hardly a new concept.
Genghis Khan was not a capitalist. Alexander the Great was not a capitalist. Julius Caesar was not a capitalist. Napoleon Bonaparte was not a capitalist.
If you require citations for this part of my argument, I suggest you find a basic text on world history at your local library.
Conclusion
I'm not going to address the other "reasons" as they are faulty conclusions drawn from the previously addressed faulty premises.
I am not arguing that these things are right and good. I am arguing that linking them specifically to capitalism represents a desperately uneducated understanding of human society and history. This is such a bad take, it reeks of teenage anarchist and "money is the root of all evil" oversimplification.
Comparing property law under hammurabi with property law as it presently exists is absolutely laughably ridiculous and you know it is. You should take your capitalist apologia elsewhere.
I have made no apology for capitalism. If this is what you got from what I wrote, then you have trouble with reading comprehension.
I did not make a comparison between Mesopotamian property law and present property law. My point was that private ownership of property is a function of human society literally as old as recorded history, as well as the idea of legal privileges around property ownership.
Because the cartoon is based on the premise that these ideas come from capitalism, the entire argument is faulty.
I'll quote from my original post:
You seem to be arguing words and not ideas.
You, "Bingo bango! You made a statement that can be technically untrue, therefore you are entirely incorrect!"Debunking someone's point first requires engaging with it and you never even came close. So what about Mesopotamia? Let's take your word on that, does it change the core point? Nope.
You, "Shazam! People were stabbing before capitalism, therefore when someone gets stabbed under capitalism, it's fine! Shazam!"Then you go on to say that because a certain type of violence happened before capitalism, it's cool that it exists.
You, "Kersplat! You are icky, and I will stop there, the rest of your post is probably stupid anyway!"Do you have brain damage my dude?
As I understand it, the comic states :
1. Create penalties for not being a property/capital-owner.
2. Acquire property/capital through violence
3. With violently acquired capital-backing, use step #1 to exert control
4. Population attacks itself to avoid rule #1, clawing to attain property/capital
5. The system promotes population infighting, allowing the power-holders to exist un-noticed.
Who gives a shit about who invented the baton when you're getting hit in the face. Well, I expect that you do.
Capitalism is not violent and greedy. Humans are violent and greedy.
Economic systems and sociocultural organization principles are irrelevant and attributing historical human violence to them is fallacious.
No, I specifically did not make any such argument, and made a statement about this in my conclusion because I anticipated that someone would attempt to dismiss what I said by deliberately misinterpreting it and then putting words in my mouth. Did you even read my entire post?
The person that made this cartoon cares, and clearly so do you, as you both want to pin it on a particular source for purely emotional reasons, which is evidenced by the fact that you have made no rational argument based on fact and instead have attempted to dismiss what I wrote while presenting zero evidence for your own point of view.
I am not sure how you reached this conclusion. Yes, capitalism is new in comparison to Mesopotamian culture, and therefore the idea of property ownership. No, it's not new in comparison to European colonialism.
I have never heard or read any theories that try to make an argument like this. I would be very interested if you had some that you could point me to, but offhand this seems like it would require major stretching of the definition of capitalism in order to make recorded events fit into it. I think it would mostly be an exercise in confirmation bias.
Accumulation of wealth is not inherently capitalism, nor is simply profiting from another's labor. This definition is so broad that it would make anyone in history who ever acquired anything that they did not previously own into a capitalist.
Which other arguments am I unwilling to entertain, and which goalposts am I moving?
My argument is, as from the beginning, that the concept of private ownership of property and legal rights attached to such is not born of capitalism but is in fact as old as recorded history. Because the conclusions in the cartoon depend on this initial faulty idea, the whole thing is nonsense.
This is such a weird take... how far removed from reality are you to actually believe that authoritarian feudalism is a form of capitalism?
Wealth accumulation is not capitalism. Capitalism enables wealth accumulation, but the opposite isn't true in the slightest.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
I'd love to see your citations and reasoning on this, assuming it doesn't fall into "capitalism is when anyone owns anything or sells anything"
Because this
Is ridiculous.
capitalism isn't owning land. it's a mode of production I'm which the proletariat are robbed of the product of their labor by the capitalist class using the institution of private property and it's violent enforcement to extract that wealth.
Where was it suggested that property and conquest are unique to capitalism?