I wouldn’t say all problems are because of capitalism. I do believe that most of the problems I face are exacerbated by capitalism.
And most of the time you’d be right.
deleted by creator
Neither of those are what leftists say. Capitalism doesn’t work because of the structure itself, you have problems like the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, and the inherent exploitation within. You cannot have Capitalism without exploitation, and you can’t have Capitalism with democratization of production, even if you had a perfectly selfless Capitalist, it still wouldn’t be democratic and would still have the same structural issues.
Similarly, Communism isn’t “people working for the common good,” it’s people working to improve their own material conditions. Just because production is democratized doesn’t mean it depends on people working for absolutely no reason.
There are non-strawman arguments you could make, but this ain’t it.
Communism isn’t “people working for the common good,” it’s people working to improve their own material conditions.
Same goes for capitalism. Why is it called communism then, if your definition doesn’t even contain any reference to anything communal? At the very least, it would have to be “people working together to improve their own material conditions”, but that’s perfectly acceptable in capitalism as well.
Come on now, if you want to have a debate about this, at least try to make argument that doesn’t fall apart at the slightest breeze.
Does your understanding of communism stop at semantics? If you’re going to be strongly opposed to something you should at least know what it is. Otherwise your arguments are limited to being the slightest breeze.
No, I’m merely pointing out that I would be wasting my time arguing with people who do not even care enough to make a semantically coherent argument.
It would be difficult to make a semantically coherent argument for someone who doesn’t know the definitions of the words you’re saying.
You should read that other comment again. The democratization of production as opposed to private ownership is the communal part of communism you were looking for. It’s the profit goes to the workers instead of Jeff Bezos and his investors as in capitalism. If you demand that the root of the word mean something else then of course the argument makes no sense.
Okay, fair enough, I did miss that part apparently.
Is it fair to say, then, that according to your definition, communism is just capitalism but with democratized production?
… what do you think Communism is? It’s a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society achieved via abolition of Private Property. That doesn’t mean everyone suddenly becomes hippies working in communes or tribes.
Capitalism certainly can have cooperation, it just happens to encourage competition, monopoly, and exploitation of Workers for the sake of profit.
What’s your point, exactly?
If capitalism encourages or favors competition, how come there is such a thing as companies? Those generally require some level of cooperation. If everyone works against each other, they would simply fall apart.
Also, why do we often see companies getting bigger and bigger, sometimes even by means of two competitors merging together? If capitalism encourages competition, shouldn’t they both be better off staying separate?
Because the Workers aren’t competing, they don’t give a shit. The Capitalists are competing for an even larger share of the pie. Instead of everyone cooperating, you fragment everyone into companies, which are like little factions.
Some factions doing well enough to create new kings like Bezos or Musk is also not a feature, given that there’s no democratic control.
Really not sure what you’re getting at. Why are you even on a platform rejecting Capitslism, rather than Reddit, if you’re so sure that leftism is a bad thing?
Really not sure what you’re getting at. Why are you even on a platform rejecting Capitalism, rather than Reddit, if you’re so sure that leftism is a bad thing?
Does Lemmy as a whole reject capitalism, or is it just individual servers like this one? Because I really don’t get nearly as much hate on any other ones, it’s always here.
Also, I find it very interesting that if Lemmy or the Fediverse in general are leaning rather left, why did they choose to implement a federated model? This makes every server owner king of their own personal fiefdom, able to allow whatever content and apply whatever rules they please. Therefore, it is impossible by design to enforce that everyone had to reject capitalism.
Yes, there is some measure of democratic control in the defederation mechanism, which allows the community as a whole to somewhat isolate and contain those who don’t want to adhere to the common rules, but it doesn’t get rid of them entirely. And it certainly enables some amount of competition among instances getting a share of the total userbase.
A for-profit company could even take the codebase and spin off their own reddit clone absolutely for free. This has actually happened at least twice with Mastodon — both Gab and Truth Social are using it internally (of course both are defederated islands, but rather large ones compared to the average server size).
If this is real communism, then perhaps it’s accurate to say that previous attempts such as the UdSSR were all failures, and communism by dictatorship doesn’t work at all. But perhaps then that also implies that some level of internal competition is healthy and normal, and it is by no means required that EVERYONE has to be on the same page in order for it to work.
I don’t think most people are selfish to the point of it being harmful. I think the problem is that a small number of people are, and those are the people who are in charge of things, where their selfishness can do way more harm.
As others have mentioned, though, a lot of behavior is heavily influenced by the incentive structures people live within. This can apply in very obvious ways: for example, when trying to get from point A to point B, people will use the mode of transportation that makes the most sense for that trip, which is heavily dependent on the infrastructure that exists between those two places, and that’s why the Dutch will bike five miles, the Spanish will catch a train across the whole country, and people in Houston will drive across the street. It can also apply in more subtle ways, though, and that’s where capitalism comes in. To pick one example, companies that are owned by their workers are more stable and better places to work than traditional privately owned or shareholder-owned companies, but it goes far deeper and gets far more complex than that, too.
People are responsive to economic incentives. If the incentives favor doing good things, then good things happen. Otherwise, you get what we have now.
I think that’s both fairly accurate, and seems to be more or less the norm across all cultures for most of history. Regular people are mostly benign, those in power tend to get worse the more power they have.
This poses an interesting question: what if this is in fact the most self-stable and therefore sustainable solution in the long term? And is it actually fair to assume that those in power benefit asymmetrically, or do they pay for it in ways that people without such means or ambition cannot even fathom?
If you live a normal, unremarkable life and generally get along with others, you probably won’t have much excess material wealth, but you will also have relatively few enemies. The more you try to compete for the position of the top dog, however, the more you have to watch your back. Is it really preferable to sleep in a palace surrounded by armed guards because you are worried about assassins, just so you can own 50 nice cars you’ll barely ever get to drive?
In other words, people who envy the rich and powerful always only ever look at the benefits, never at the price they pay for their privilege.
This poses an interesting question: what if this is in fact the most self-stable and therefore sustainable solution in the long term?
Then humanity is fucked.
Is it really preferable to sleep in a palace surrounded by armed guards because you are worried about assassins, just so you can own 50 nice cars you’ll barely ever get to drive?
Oh, boo hoo, won’t someone think of the poor rich people, having to pay extra to keep their disgusting riches safe from the people they fucked over to get them. I’m sorry, I’ve been trying not to contribute to the toxicity I see in these threads, but come the fuck on.
Besides, I don’t think people envy the rich and powerful the way you’re describing, I think people envy the idea of being able to maintain a good standard of living without having to work themselves to the bone to do it, and they begrudge rich people’s wealth and power on the grounds that they use it to influence politics and deny a decent standard of living to the working class. I don’t want a mansion and fifty nice cars, I want an apartment in the city in walking distance to transit and stuff to do, and then to also save more money at the end of the month than I did at the start. Most people are similar: their specifics might be different, but the broad strokes are the same, especially the last bit.
I don’t think people envy the rich and powerful the way you’re describing, I think people envy the idea of being able to maintain a good standard of living without having to work themselves to the bone to do it.
But do the extremely rich really get to rest and enjoy their spoils the way you think? Just look at someone like Bill Gates or Elon Musk, they just keep working even though they already have far more than they can spend. Gates is especially funny because he’s working full time on figuring out how to spend his fortune. Almost like having all that money just became another problem that now requires solving.
Yes I’m sure it helps not having to worry about the rent or the grocery bills, but everything else is likely just another unnecessary luxury that’ll quickly lose its appeal once you’ve had it.
I don’t want a mansion and fifty nice cars, I want an apartment in the city in walking distance to transit and stuff to do, and then to also save more money at the end of the month than I did at the start.
Okay, see what you just did there? You went from “being able to maintain a good standard of living without having to work themselves to the bone to do it” to having an apartment in the city in walking distance to transit, and I’m willing to bet you’re not thinking of living next to skid row either. And then you want to be able to save money on top of that, too.
Basically, you blew up your expectation of maintaining an acceptable standard of living without too much stress, which is likely more achievable than you think if you’re flexible, to something that’s far out of your reach, all by inflating the meaning of “good”.
Do you NEED that apartment before you can be satisfied with your standard of living? Or is it something that would be nice to have, but not essential?
But do the extremely rich really get to rest and enjoy their spoils the way you think? Just look at someone like Bill Gates or Elon Musk, they just keep working even though they already have far more than they can spend. Gates is especially funny because he’s working full time on figuring out how to spend his fortune. Almost like having all that money just became another problem that now requires solving.
Bro, I LITERALLY just said I don’t give a shit about rich people problems. You can fuck all the way off trying to get me to sympathize with them. “Oh but it’s hard to spend all that money!” Then don’t fuck over the working class to accumulate so much money you have to work to spend it all! Or do the ethical thing and let the working class eat you. I might keep arguing with you but this is the last this particular stupidity is going to be dignified with a response.
Okay, see what you just did there? You went from “being able to maintain a good standard of living without having to work themselves to the bone to do it” to having an apartment in the city in walking distance to transit, and I’m willing to bet you’re not thinking of living next to skid row either. And then you want to be able to save money on top of that, too.
Ah, I should have clarified. American cities are built wrong and need a redo. Please refer to this educational content. I do sometimes forget that not everyone is on board with the reality that cars and car-centric infrastructure is destroying our mental health, our finances, our cities, and our world, so that’s on me. The point is, what I described is a reality in several of the dozens of places that aren’t the USA, and the fact that it’s not a reality here is the direct result of the actions of people like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and just to throw another one in there, Charles Edwin Wilson. Look him up if you don’t know him, but he ranks just under Henry Kissinger in terms of worst people in American history. Just to reiterate, if your goal is to get me to feel sympathy for the owner class, give up now.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Please refer to this educational content.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Ah yes, I get it. You want to have a satisfactory lifestyle, but you want to stay mad at the same time.
Good luck with that LOL
Removed by mod
Well, it’s not like I haven’t tried, but the problem is that if you ask two leftists what they believe, you tend to get three different opinions, and they’re all based on theory.
Also, few of them can hold an argument, as soon as you present a criticism, they feel personally attacked and tend to become hostile.
Eh, there’s plenty of socialism in practice. But English speaking discourse is dominated by fans of dictators that actively hunted socialists in twentieth century.
I wonder if this meme still applies to those who have fled communist countries?
Its kind of ironic that Lemmy was created to take away centralized power, but the same people want to create a communistic society which will…centralize the power?
It doesn’t matter whether communism is good or bad, capitalism is still terrible.
That’s a fair criticism, we do need to find a better way
The Nords found it because they keep their capitalism restrained as it should be to serve the interests of the people in their societies instead of the reverse as it has become here.
The problem, of course, is the market crony hyper-capitalists that spawned mostly out of the US are using their power/capital to do what they did here everywhere else in it’s insatiable quest for growth/metastasis. The UK has already fallen to the faustian bargain of “YOU can live large, just sell out your fellow citizens.” Germany is getting on board, France’s people are fighting but losing. Unrestrained capitalism high on its own greed is absolutely cancerous and deadly.
Capitalism CAN when tightly, tightly straight jacketed, be used to incentivize labor as communism cannot, but it must be tempered by the heaviest of taxation for the commons. Being a doctor or a lawyer should yield better rewards than a janitor, but within fucking reason/sanity.
Should a Doctor be able to afford a bigger house and a nicer car than an average worker for their effort? Sure. Should they be able to afford 3 houses to the janitor’s studio apartment in a bad neighborhood? No, both provide essential services to society after all.
There needs to be a drain for out of control capital acquisition or that capital will eventually be used to propagate greed and capture the regulatory bodies meant to keep the sociopath that is capitalism sedated and restrained. No individual should possess enough capital to have more power over socetal structures than their single vote allows.
In exchange for not allowing greed to run absolutely rampant as it does here, they go to college based on merit, get healthcare when they need it, don’t end up homeless in hard times, don’t sweat job security, on and on…
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/happiness/
At least until the global markets find enough greed driven traitors in those societies to “turn the bull loose” there too. Because once they get a foothold, that’s the ball game until collapse. Once that happens, they start using their for profit media machines to propagandize division within the citizenry, ensuring no meaningful counter movement, they use their power over government to indoctrinate children through education to call greed “rational self-interest,” deify profiteers as “job creators,” to feel hatred rather than empathy towards those that are struggling(herp derp those evil powerless homeless people are lowering my property values! If they can’t/won’t work, why won’t they just die?), etc. That’s why the US will need to collapse under the weight of its own corruption before things can even begin to improve. We’re too far captured.
The Nords also revere a man-god named Talos whose worship has been outlawed by the Aldmeri Dominion. Coincidence? I think not.
Amazingly well put. Capitalism is necessary. Unrestrained capitalism is deadly. The unfortunate reality of capitalism is that even as it is in the process of burning everything to the ground, it looks for all the world like glorious success. And it is glorious success, if you don’t compare it to what could be in a system where it was properly restrained.
Capitalism is in no way necessary. It’s a poison, a cancer, a virus which at all given times threatens to destroy the fabric of society, all for the next quarter’s profit.
Capitalism isn’t necessary; a new economic system that takes some aspects of capitalism is necessary. If you have to strip capitalism of all of its core features to make it work, you’re no longer dealing with capitalism but rather a different economic model.
I agree. People who say, “nuhuh, capitalism works!” are 99% of the time thinking of the basic concept of markets or money. Which … Very specifically, are NOT capitalism.
They are used (and abused) by capitalists, but they are not inventions of capitalists.
Thank you!
In their pure forms, I see capitalism and communism as extremes specifically with regards to human nature.
Communism starves our human impulses to succeed and grow, but capitalism gluts and force feeds our worst impulses exclusively, selfishness, unhealthy competition, jealousy, schadenfreude, sociopathy, self-delusion, narcissism, dehumanization, on and on, which is why I see it as the greater evil of the 2 in a vacuum.
A successful communist society would be very difficult to grow, but maybe that would be a good thing on a planet of finite resources that can take finite finite pollution. That’s why the answer lies somewhere in democratic socialism, imho.
That’s all academic though. The rigged market hyper-capitalists own this fucking place and have an iron grip on it. Plus communism would have kept the population low, as it should have been. It wouldn’t be able to accommodate the needs of our ridiculously massive human population as it is. That ship has sailed unless we want billions to starve to right it and live within sustainable means in this finite habitat.
Communism starves our human impulses to succeed and grow
Nothing about communism forces human impulses to be ignored, unless you mean the impulses we already suppress as sentient beings, such as fucking everything that moves or eating until we literally die.
Sorry, but you’re highly wrong about your misconceptions of Communism. Communism in no way starves human impulses to succeed or grow any more than Capitalist success does. Communism eliminates the profit motive, yes, but that is historically a highly flawed motive in general.
Socialism/Communism/Anarchism are not fairy-tale Utopias where everyone magically gets a pony, people still work to produce goods and services. However, this production is democratized, in opposition to anti-democratic privatized systems.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
You can be some kind of dictator, but for the proletariat!
deleted by creator
I can’t tell if this is ironic sarcasm, it is right.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/KO6KHQPGju4?si=ac-Pgr8hQDMnMGXi
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
No. That’s a wrong take.
While Communism is a centralisation of power, it is also decentralisating the decision of what the power does.
Ideally, Communism is like a democratic monopoly. However, in reality, communism has been abused to create a non-democratic monopoly. This is unfortunately very much like what capitalstic non-democratic monopolies do too - albeit more slowly.
Lemmy, like other fediverse projects, is not challenging the democratic or non-democratic part of it. It’s challenging the monopoly part.
If we spread out the functional part of systems, nobody will be able to create a monopoly of power, neither through communism, capitalism nor democracy. This is because the power is not centralised at all.
It’s not anarchy or chaos though, because each party is capable of embracing or rejecting any other parties, based on their own choice of government. People who run fediverse servers can choose by votes or not which other parties to include or not. Some servers are democratic, others are not. Some might be communist, others might be fascists, but they’re not a meaningful power without users, so it’ll inevitably be up to the users to decide.
Hey you may want to learn a thing or two about communism, because you seem very ignorant about it.
Communism is, at first, Socialism. You’re confusing Communism with Monarchism, or Oligarchy, when in reality Communism and Socialism are primarily about democratization and decentralization.
Compare 2 factories.
Factory 1 is Capitalist. It is owned by a businessman, and he employs workers to use said factory to produce commodities for sale on the market. The largest forms of voice the Workers have is Unionization, or, failing that, working somewhere else, if available.
Factory 2 is Socialist. The Workers are the Owners, and as such elect a manager to represent them in worker councils.
Looking at the 2 structures, Socialism is more democratic, and more decentralized, in theory. We must take this theory and see why or why not historical examples have measured up to this, from a practical, Materialist perspective. Tools aren’t mystical, they don’t corrupt the minds of those who share ownership of them.
It’s easy to see why Lemmy, a platform based on decentralization and a rejection of the Profit Motive, has far more leftists.
Workers as the owners?
Apparently, not so in the soviet union: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union
But there is a similar (but not identical) concept currently being implemented in Germany. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
The Soviet Union was anti-trade union, and pro-Soviet, ie worker councils. The Soviet Union had numerous problems, especially with beaurocracy, but fundamentally it was a Worker state, owned and run by the Soviets, and thus can be considered Socialist (regardless of my personal issues with it).
There are several attempts at replicating some form of Worker Democracy in Capitalist countries, but ultimately short of ownership none of this functionally makes a massive difference. Definitely a step in the right direction, but without worker ownership it is more to appease workers and uphold Capitalism, than actually giving workers control.
Don’t misunderstand this comment to say that codetermination is bad, it’s good, just not as good as it could be.
I think the germans working under codetermination have it a bit better than any soviet ever did under their workers’ unions. the missing ingredient being a democratic representative government in place of an authoritarian single party system.
The Germans working under codetermination also have it far better than Germans under the Kaiser. Comparing a 21st century first world developed nation with a 20th century developing country sure is a win, I guess?
Secondly, although the beurocracy was incredibly corrupt, the Soviet Democracy by which local Soviets reported to higher Soviets that reported to higher Soviets was fundamentally democratic, even if flawed.
I don’t really think you’ve said much of anything. The Soviet form of Democracy was indeed flawed, but it was still Democratic, and I think it’s obvious to anyone that living in a modern developed country would be better than living in a developing country from last century.
I’m comparing political systems, not nations. If we’re talking about the WW1 era, then I’d say the soviets still had it worse as they went through a war, invasion, then a civil war, and famine and consequent brutal dictatorship. But the germans made it out quite well off, given they basically started the war with their unequal treaties and rapid militarization. Despite this, the treaty of Versailles was relatively lenient compared to what happened Austria-hungry.
It was not democratic. It was a single party system in which the party selected a candidate, (after some research I learned this part is false),
and the populace was forced to vote for said candidate under threat of imprisonment.If the people wanted to oust a candidate they didn’t like, they’d have to coordinate with everyone in secret to cooperatively abstain from voting for the candidate so he would lose his job and the party would select a new candidate.
As opposed to capitalism, which evenly distributes power and everyone gets a fair shot.
Well yes and no. There are communist systems that centralize power (mostly to establish a system without it) but there are a lot of different ways to do it other than that. Anarcho Communism for example is the complete opposit which does not want to go the authoritarian way even short term. Because well that did not quite work out. Authoritarian states still are authoritarian states. And i myself dont like/want those ^^
Removed by mod
Not in my opinion. I dont think forcing yourself upon others and establishing totalitarian states is a success. If you mean working as becoming the main party then sure but i think working is establishing its principles. And there are anarchistic projects that worked quite well im that sense. They never lastet but they did often change a lot. For example the spanish civil war, the paris kommune. Those are the biggest ones. But anarchistic principles were always important. Many “primitive” cultures were egalitarian ones, which they did a lot to keep it that way.
How about anarcho-syndicalism?
But the absence of classes and states surely is the same as the dictatorship of the proletariat /s
Communism is not dictatorship Capitalism is not democracy
A lot of the people exiled from communist countries were the ones doing slavery and fucking over the working class max
I was thinking more so about the ~7,000 - 8,000 doctors since 2006 that defected from Cuba as soon as they were able to.
Are you referring to the loosely defined “kulaks” (wealthy peasants) that were exiled/killed when the Soviet Union was created?
deleted by creator
Did you read that link you posted? Lmao
If you get past the first paragraph, suddenly there’s really no praising and they talk about how bad health care is in Cuba and how many try to defect as they are forced into horrible conditions.
From that article:
“He said, “We were placed in slums with a high level of violence, under constant monitoring by the Bolivarian brigades [political police], who are supposed to offer protection but also report any suspicious activities and assure that we carry out our `revolutionary’ duty, indoctrinating our patients to vote for Chávez. If we refuse to do so we are sent back to Cuba.””
deleted by creator
I wouldn’t doubt if a percentage were. But is Cuba keeping itself isolated to where people have to defect despite no active war or combat? The US has probably closer to a million doctors from outside the US. The US relies on immigration to survive with slowing population growth and an aging population.
It’s very misleading to say that “Cuba is keeping itself isolated”. Each year the UN votes to end the embargo/isolation imposed on Cuba by the US, with the vast majority of countries voting in favour of ending the blockade each time.
In the latest vote, in November, only Israel and USA voted against ending the blockade. Ukraine abstained. 187 member states voted in favour of ending the blockade
Make no mistake, the US is what has kept Cuba unjustly isolated for the past decades. Source: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/11/1143112
The US sees anything that could shake their narrative of the world as a threat, even when that ‘threat’ is unfounded, and they massively abuse their economic and military power around the globe to keep others in line.
Are you saying I said what you quoted?
Because I am implying what you are saying by asking about the Cuban embargo being imposed on Cuba.
I’m not a native English speaker, so there may be some nuance I miss out on. But as far as I can tell, the implication of what you wrote was
- “Cuba is isolated because it wants to be”
- “Doctors are fleeing Cuba in large numbers”
- “Conditions are bad in Cuba”
- “The US gets alot of doctors from abroad”
I have good knowledge on point 1, limited knowledge on points 2&4, and somewhat decent info about point 2. I’m not disputing points 2,3&4.
Everyone who upvoted the person before you, downvoted you.
Perfectly balanced
Wherever there is a need there is potential for exploitation by greed. Of course capitalists without a leash are going to wreak havoc on everything.
Capitalism by definition is about exploiting labor and extracting wealth. Commerce is the ethical application of purchasing goods and services.
Why do you say commerce is specifically ethical? I’ve always considered it more neutral and up to implementation.
Ethical as in it’s goods and services for currency. Ethical in that no one is being exploited actively. Commerce requires legislation.
So the act of commerce is ethical but the source of the commerce might not be? I feel like I’m being really obtuse here and I apologize but goods and services could be stolen or forced and rarely is legislation enough. But I can totally see two unknowing people engaging in trade at their free will for items they don’t know are stolen.
I feel so pessimistic about the world at times that I find materialism and ethics just don’t mix.
Commerce deals with the distribution of value, production with the creation of it. So let’s say there is a widget factory. If one person “owns” it and thousands work to make widgets, their production is stolen through ownership, which causes deeper issues beyond the obvious as well.
Commerce doesn’t cause problems as it’s just resolving a situation of swapping the widgets you made for carrots. Barring some market-twisting forces like the stock market for example, a simple free market where you’re happy with the amount of carrots you get for the amount of widgets you get is fine.
The evil of capitalism is not that you can trade. The evil of capitalism is that you go to work, and receive a fraction of the product of your work while someone else who does not work at all receives a lot of it.
Technically the current capitalist western system would be socialist, if employment without ownership would be outlawed, and coops were the enforced norm.
♪ We live, We work, We buy/die ♪
Removed by mod
I think you’re making a discussion into a spit fight for the sake of feeling better about yourself. I ask because I want to understand and for no other reason.
I think the ethical part may have to do with the following from Wikipedia on commerce:
The diversity in the distribution of natural resources, differences of human needs and wants, and division of labour along with comparative advantage are the principal factors that give rise to commercial exchanges.
I do not see how the commercial part is necessary for the distribution of goods though and recognize it as the main culprit in making such a system unethical. I.e., supplying needs is good and necessary, however a commercial platform is not.
Removed by mod
Capitalism acts like a car hurtling down a highway with no brakes, powered by the roaring engine of industry.
Its insatiable thirst for growth and profits accelerates industrial activity to reckless speeds, steamrolling environmental concerns in its pursuit of relentless expansion.
Industry isn’t the villain; it’s merely the engine being pushed to its limits by capitalism’s uncontrolled, destructive momentum.
Damn. What an accurate description. Nailed it.
Blaming everything on capitalism is oversimplistic and reductive, to be honest.
Climate collapse is a result of industrialization and not capitalism, to start. Unless you want to explain how Stalin and Mao were still burning coal.
Whatever social economic model which can funnel power and authority to the very top is bond to ruin us. Humans are too greedy to sit at the top of such hierarchies.
Yep, that’s why decentralization is so important, and why leftist organizational structure ie decentralization and democratization of production is going to be so critical moving forward.
If only thats what politically active leftists actually pushed for.
Many do, not all of course. Factionalism hurts everyone, at the end of the day.
Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution are inseparable from one another. The failure of 20th century Socialist states to adequately address green energy goals can be attributed to rapid industrialization to attempt to keep pace with Capitalist entities.
Going forward, the reason why Green Energy isn’t the standard in the US is due to oil companies, not efficiency. The profit motive stands in direct confrontation with the good of all.
That’s just Climate Change, too. Capitalism’s failures of hierarchical and consumerist nature will exist as long as Capitalism exists.
Not every problem is because of Capitalism, but many are, and at the end of the day this is just a meme.
Besides what another commenter noted about indistrialization being product of capitalism and then fierce competition, here’s one more thing:
Do you see all those green activists buying reusable bags? Taking their bottles, recycling everything? Well, this has already been there in the past, and most notably - in socialist countries. Pretty much till its death USSR, for example, heavily favored reusable things, there just weren’t plastic bags and plastic bottles and all that waste, and recycling, especially of glass and metal and paper, was a super normal thing and people got money/trade-in for that.
Removed by mod
Uhm, USSR was very much socialist. It officially strived to reach communism, but the actual economic system was socialist. It’s often called communist due to the ideology claiming communism to be the perfect and inevitable endgame for the country, which is a big disambiguation. Suffice it to say, communism was never reached.
China, on the other hand, is capitalist, despite being ruled by a communist party. It has a private property on means of production, which defines a capitalist country as opposed to socialist or communist one (source: Wikipedia)
What kind of f*cked up argument is that? I don’t think the climate models were quite as advanced back then.
They had no idea that influencing the global climate was even a possibility, so you can hardly judge the morality of their decision-making by how much CO2 they produced. Or do you want to blame them for not building enough solar panels as well?
The problem with capitalism in this regard is not that it produced a lot of CO2 back in the days, but that it won’t stop even after learning about the destructive effects.
The USSR totally knew about climate change being a thing. Climate change is not a “new thing”. Oil companies have known about it for almost a century now, they built their oil rigs to withstand rising sea levels for example.
The USSR did know about it as well, at least since the sixties: https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_329370_smxx.pdf
Fedorov’s article appears to be one of the earliest direct engagements with the problems associated with climate change and, more specifically, anthropogenic climate change in the Soviet Union. However, this theme received more concerted discussion and debate from the early 1960s. Two meetings of particular note took place in Leningrad in April 1961 and June 1962, both of which were organised by the Main Geophysical Observatory in tandem with the Institute of Applied Geophysics and the Institute of Geography and brought together a range of Soviet scientists, including geographers, in order to discuss the ‘problem of the transformation of the climate’ (see Gal’tsov, 1961; Gal’tsov and Cheplygina, 1962).
Notice how you are getting downvoted but no one is providing an argument against this. Even in the most directive form (fascist) of socialism, they still choose not to go with the better option for the world.
whines about reductionist rhetoric, uses insanely reductionist example
Removed by mod
Capitalism provides incentives to externalize as many costs as possible (such as pollution), and incentivizes and cannot even function without growth (which leads to more resource usage and pollution). Just because the forms of government/society under Stalin and Mao were also bad for people, doesn’t mean capitalism is not also bad for people.
So your only response is to get defensive when called out on the matter instead of focusing on stopping climate change which is what ultimately is the only thing that matters right now?
Yeah, humanity is fucked
??? I did not get defensive. I was explaining why capitalism incentives pollution. Climate change is not the only thing that matters right now. Other things that matter are global nuclear war, genocide, fascism, authoritarianism, mass surveillance, etc. If governments were not mostly captured by money/capitalists, one solution could be the government forcing the internalization of pollution costs (carbon credits, fines, or taxation). Free markets will not do anything about climate change, it is a well-known and well-studied example of a market failure.
Funnily enough, capitalist do the same thing. See a problem? Apply capitalism
I disagree and I’ll explain why for $20
$20? That’s amateur stuff. Buy my $999 course and you’ll learn from a master how to apply capitalism to problems!*
*For legal reasons, note that I did not say “how to apply capitalism to solve problems”
For profit reasons, neither did the capitalist
True. A distressing amount of the time, you can make far more money from a problem existing than from solving it.
Do you acceot Monero?
Removed by mod
Most times is Ronald Reagan, but yeah, capitalism in it’s most exalted forms of exploitation is the reason.
The greatest crimes are caused by excess and not by necessity.
Well, you’re usually in the general vicinity of the root cause of any problem by that assumption.
It’s funny cause it’s true.
It’s funny because it’s the dominant system and any other proposed system would handle the respective situation worse on average but is highly situational. You get into arguments that devolved into, “well, there’s massive starvation and war but at least we are all equal”
You’re expressing the notion of “capitalist realism” which is argued to be an effect of neoliberal ideaology. The idea that not only is capitalism the only viable solution, but you can’t even imagine a viable alternative. There’s a book of the same title that you’d probably get a lot out of since it might make you more critical of ideas you may have taken for granted, which is my personal favorite kind of book.
I can imagine plenty of viable alternatives. There’s plenty of arguments to be made that the USSR was just as productive as the US on a per capita basis. They addressed the productivity issues of decentralized socialism through centralization.
The issue comes down to the lack of dissent within the system. Private ownership provides a natural counterbalance to the power of the state. Even in the most ideal of democratic socialist systems, there is no functional check on the power of the majority to vote in their own benefit over minorities. Every government system regardless of its economic base has resulted in rapid expansion without a check on power, internally or externally.
You are right that I cannot imagine a viable alternative. Neither can you. You just think you have but have not addressed the core power problem. Mark Fisher is great at framing away this issue but it still exists and is the core issue with true leftist ideologies.
Actually the reason USSR failed was the state itself not being very agile. Different state entities would impede each other while fighting for funds, for their project to become standard (the competing projects would become standards as well, there’d be plenty of incompatible standards), for them to be more politically important (Politburo wasn’t a dictatorial institution).
Naturally in such a climate any cooperation between state entities would involve more complex and obscure diplomacy and deals than how it happens between companies in typical market economies.
So this:
They addressed the productivity issues of decentralized socialism through centralization.
is the opposite of reality. Productivity was USSR’s weakest side. It really honestly succeeded in some unexpected aspects, but efficiency is not one of them.
So, I agree. Decentralization of the Soviets was immensely worse early after the revolution though so they centralized early. The CCP early in its creation had the same criticisms of the USSR resulting in a much longer attempt at decentralization and actual famine.
Decentralization of the Soviets was immensely worse early after the revolution though
If NEP is what you mean by “decentralization” (because nothing else makes sense even remotely, Soviets by definition are a vertical structure, like a tree with its root being the center), then it’s generally accepted that NEP was the thing which allowed to restore Soviet Russia from a famished wasteland after the Civil War.
so they centralized early
They had almost a decade of slowly pushing out communist dissenters out of the political field (all non-communist leftists were already banned closer to the end of the Civil War, and the rest - hahaha), which may give you the wrong impression. However, they were heavily centralized from day one. That was part of the ideology. It’s not some European leftists we are talking about.
For these people political competitiveness or pluralism or due process in courts or human rights were not high on the list of priorities. Building industries to arm heavily and “spread the revolution” was.
Their ideal was some sort of a communist version of the German Empire.
I can imagine plenty of viable alternatives.
You are right that I cannot imagine a viable alternative.
Otherwise pretty basic points that any decent book on socialism or alternatives to capitalism basically addresses in the first chapter.
Basic points that I have never seen in any book on socialism and you are yet to provide. Maybe you should be the one reading more instead of vaguely suggesting that I do. Maybe then you could provide them.
I mean the most introductory book Blackcoats and Reds deals a lot with this and there’s a whole chapter on the weaknesses of stable socialist/ML states. Whatever you think is stable or good under a capitalist government is merely because the negatives you associate specifically with socialism are exported, but are actually far more severe.
I’m going through this one now, it’s framed as a thought experiment for a bottom up society: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/p-m-bolo-bolo
This thought experiment is based on an unrealistic view not only of natural history but also of the human condition and modern economics. It is based on a view of how easy the perceived human condition was before the existence of larger society.
“In prehistoric times our deal seems to have been not so bad. During the Old Stone Age (50,000 years ago) we were only few, food (game and plants) was abundant, and survival required only little working time and moderate efforts.”
This period of hunter-gatherers was largely the experience of 90% of the time looking for food. It was only the emergence of sustained and coordinated agriculture requiring public works that this started to change. Modern industrialized agriculture has enabled populations not sustainable in that text and requires a larger coordination of people than a small commune can support. That text does not cover larger governance and relies on high-output lands to sustain itself, let alone others. If you cannot enable specialization, you cannot scale nor can you provide the lifestyle people are accustomed to enjoying post-WWII.
There are already communes like this everywhere and nobody is saying that you cannot start one. The only issue is people trying to force others into this system. It starts based on oppression regardless of feasibility.
On what grounds do you think that it’s worse for Workers to democratically control production, rather than a class of owners?
Do you think crops care about who shares ownership of them, and kill themselves if they are shared, rather than owned by 1 dude that employs other people to harvest it?
This doesn’t really address what he said.
Workers don’t vote themselves more work for the money. Less work equals less crops. Crops don’t care. This is why socialism as an economic base always devolves into directive work (which I would argue is actual state slavery)
There are other various options for socialism and anarchism of course. Unless you line out specifically which flawed system you propose we cannot address it. Anything that still has private ownership at it’s base is still capitalist though so most Western models such as the Nordics don’t count.
Also, corporations are not owned by one dude. This is the benefit of the corporate model over sole proprietorships at a societal level but whatever is most efficient in the end.
It’s true that people would be paid more for their labor, it’s false to equate that to underproducing food. You’re attaching mysticism to your claim, as though it’s inevitable that starvation would happen unless you have a Capitalist brutally exploiting workers and still having starvation despite food being literally thrown away. Co-operative farming exists and has existed in stable manners for the vast majority of human existence, and this is even easier as industrialization improves.
There are no “other options” for Socialism beyond Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. That is Socialism. If you mean there are other models than Marxism-Leninism, then of course, I’m not an ML myself. I’m anti-tendency and think each country has unique circumstances that will result in different paths to worker ownership, perhaps Syndicalism, or Market Socialism, or Council Communism, etc.
Whether the corporation is owned by a single Capitalist or several, the fact that the Workers have exactly no say and the Capitalists have all of the say remains the problem.
It is inevitable that starvation would happen because all of the systems you mention are inflexible to shocks and periods of instability and we do see this through history in socialist areas. That’s not even to mention the potential for genocide with all economic production in the control of the majority(in the most ideal circumstance)
The issue with claiming for those three systems is that it’s exactly what was attempted to set up in the USSR and under the CCP. Decentralization very quickly led to av massive collapse in production. It was swept under the rug and you don’t learn about it. Then the power consolidation started.
Even the most studied folks in the left will not make the claim that Marx was anything but a guide or an intent so don’t expect me to argue against it directly. I regret to the systems that actually developed and evolved and any recommended system should address their faults. Your three do not and I’ve not heard any that have.
Why is co-operative farming inflexible to shocks and instability? Wouldn’t it be more stable if the group can react democratically, rather than depend on several competing mini-dictators to not price-gouge and take advantage of instability for profit? I’m not just talking off of vibes, here, Worker Co-operatives, ie collective ownership of business, are shown to be far more resistant to economic shocks and more adaptable than Capitalist entities: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/building-and-sustaining-worker-cooperatives-in-the-us/
The USSR and Maoist China were developing countries just coming out of revolution, and both the Russian Federation and modern PRC remain developing countries. France was also highly unstable following the French Revolution, and became headed by Napolean, one of history’s most famous dictators. Pretending decentralization is purely to blame, rather than instability leading to centralization, is a weak point to make.
Why do you believe that no Leftist has attempted to learn from the mistakes of previous Socialist systems? That’s incredibly wrong, modern leftist discourse is oriented around how to achieve Worker Ownership in modern society, and avoid the problems that have plagued previous Socialist systems.
All in all, why are you on a leftist, decentralized site like Lemmy, if you hate Socialism so much? It’s interesting to see such cognitive dissonance, if you like Capitalism, then there’s Reddit.
Coops are perfectly allowed and acceptable in the current system. Literally no one is telling you that you cannot do this and there are many quiet communities doing it already. You simply are not going to be resourced for it unless it will provide something for the state. Neither would any corporation or sole proprietorship.
All of what you said is true but the collapse was so immediate that there was only cause. Additionally, the collapse immediately went away through collectivization. You can argue with myself and the socialist governments at the time but you are making excuses for them unasked.
I never claimed that modern leftists have not attempted to learn. The entire so called American left is a product of 60s radicals slowly realizing that the way to greater equity is through reform. It simply has capitalism at its base instead of group ownership.
Why are you on a nonprofit run economic alternative to Reddit if you don’t believe that the ultimate power in any market is consumer choice?
Because capitalism has famously prevented mass starvation and warfare.
Edit: Also communism has nothing to do with a vague notion of equality.
99% of Lemmy, but unironically.
deleted by creator
Many people have problems related to income inequality. We went to college, got good jobs, and we still don’t have enough money to maintain the lifestyle we were promised. We don’t live in a socialist country, we live in a capitalist country.
deleted by creator
So 30% of people can’t afford their own house and that doesn’t seem like inequality to you?
Here’s the wiki page on global income equality, to address your claim that Europe is worse than the US:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
deleted by creator
some of those 30% choose to not own a house
[citation needed]
And even if true, what do you think is driving that decision? Decisions aren’t made in a vacuum. I posit - it’s the financial burden.
deleted by creator
there’s always a significant additional bureaucratic cost when selling a house and buying another one.
This really only affects landlords and estate agents. Most people looking for a home are looking for a place to stay for life, and any “bureaucratic cost”, if you’re purely talking about red tape, form-filling, phone calls etc, is more than worth it for a lifetime home. Again, citation needed. If you’re talking about a literal monetary cost… whoa, look at that - capitalism!
renting has at least a single clear benefit beyond just being able to afford it: greater flexibility
“Flexibility” is a daft measure, only useful for people who plan to move often, which, again, is not common, except in the case of people needing to move often for work, which - hey, it’s capitalism again!
Also, the financial risk is almost zero when you rent.
“Almost” is doing a lot of work in this sentence. The risk of being made homeless by your landlord for petty reasons is a pretty clear risk. Having your rent hiked is a financial risk. Having to bite the bullet and choose an expensive place to rent because it’s the only one reasonably close to work is a financial risk. Being under someone’s thumb to provide them income is itself an inherent financial risk.
And by the way - what do you think causes the financial risk of home ownership, since you’re so intent on proving my point for me?
It’s also clear that people who deny the extent to which capitalism actually makes the world worse either a) don’t know what capitalism is, or b) are rent seekers
deleted by creator
What history? What economics? Vague gesturing and feigning superiority without actually saying anything is peak.
Edit: turns out the economics was just Sowell all along, lol. Guess we have an AnCap over here.
deleted by creator
You weren’t replying to the meme, you were replying to someone else in the origin of this fork of the comment chain. I’m implying that you in particular have no nuance.
deleted by creator
Fair enough, but again, you somehow had even less nuance and pulled the classic bit of feigning superiority.
Edit: oof, you unironically suggest Sowell in another comment as a good resource. Looks like I’m correct, the superiority was indeed completely unfounded.
Or not. Adam Smith - the father of Capitalism recognised the problem of Rent Seeking behaviour.
deleted by creator
No. Of course not. But my point was that we understood rent-seeking as a negative in Capitalism FROM THE OUTSET. You can’t criticise people today who point out that flaw in Capitalism on the basis of not “know[ing] history and economics”
deleted by creator
Whatever. I don’t agree with you but that’s not the point. My point was that you can’t dismiss people making criticism about rent seeking as if they’re naive, as you did
