Many people do not grasp the sheer size of the disparity between the truly wealthy and everyone else.
Many don’t even do it intentionally, they just don’t grasp concepts like Historical and Dialectical Materialism, which requires reading lengthy books to fully grasp. They may be anti-Capitalist at heart, but without a solid understanding of theory they play into bourgeois hands.
There’s also the fact that the ideas held by society are a reflection of the Mode of Production.
Pretty sure they’d take everything you just wrote and say, “that sounds like critical race theory, which Jesus said was bad.”
Sure. The de-industrialization of America has been devastating for class awareness.
What de industrialization?
US is second largest industrial output and it has been rising.
Unless you mean jobs after NAFTA and code changes… Which is true but manufacturing employment is on the rise post covid reforms
The US shifted the vast majority of its production overseas, which is why it’s seen as a “service economy.”
US did offshore no doubt but it was not a vast majority. You can check the numbers, there was some decline in employment but US has high tech factories and industrial base is now growing quickly even with job growth since covid.
The reason it is largely a service economy is due to growth in service sector after industrialization. Once people got all their needs with goods met, they started buying service.
Think about all the food joints we have now for example. This is fairly recent thing. Sure food out always existed but not like this.
Also, people have god walkers, people buy insurance etc all this is kinda recent in big picture thing
I am aware of the process, the US produces the vast majority of its commodities oversees before “finishing” or “assembling” in the US. It’s Imperialism in action, where it hyper-exploits the Global South for super-profits.
Right but we started this here with claim that US de industrialized which I saying is not accurate and it is a common misconception thrown around.
It doesnt even require that much reading of such subjects. All it takes is to not be brainwashed by media and politicians.
Critical thought and self awareness is all it takes
I’m sorry, but I entirely disagree. Dialectical and Historical Materialism are incredibly far-removed from standard American discourse and takes quite a bit to understand, oversimplifying it is dangerous. If all it took to be a Marxist-Leninist was critical thought and self-awareness, the US would have had a proletarian revolution already.
- Because it’s in their personal interests to perpetuate capitalism
- Because liberal ideology is hegemonic and it is what most people have been raised to believe
- Plenty of other reasons why people hold the political beliefs they hold, surely it’s obvious that there are many ways that someone can arrive at a belief system
Your username on a post about capitalism makes me giggle
You mean our post.
Yes comrade.
Lack of successful alternatives? It’s easy to find flaws with capitalism but every other system has its share of problems too.
Socialism is the successful successor to Capitalism. Socialism isn’t an idea you implement, but a consequence of markets coalescing into monopolist syndicates that make themselves ripe for public ownership and planning.
This is the case only if you believe in Marx
What do you disagree with here? The idea that markets trend towards monopolist syndicates, naturally centralizing production? Or the idea that the Proletariat should sieze these syndicates and plan production democratically and centrally?
I’m not really disagreeing with you to be honest. I’m only saying that your views are the central idea of Marxism. Only Marxists believe in the conflict theory. I’m not a Marxist, but i do think socialism is the next most likely economic stage considering the current capitalist landscape. Whether it is the best path is what i don’t know.
I’m a Marxist-Leninist, correct, but the point of Marxism is that it doesn’t matter what individuals believe, Capitalism itself paves the way for Socialism just like Feudalism paved the way for Capitalism.
Hmm i don’t know about that. Saying that this one theory explains social change is kinda restrictive. There are other valid ideas that aren’t the conflict theory that might also result in social change. Think of idealist theories such as Hegel’s dialectical process which involves a thesis and antithesis. These theses eventually contradict each other to form a synthesis which eventually becomes its own thesis and vice versa.
I just like to keep an open mind about this stuff, as i don’t think social change boils down to just one theory.
Idealism is wrong, though, so focusing on it is useless IMO.
I find this reply very strange because it’s the core point of Marxism that it’s dialectical but materialist. It has a lot of forebears, but Hegel is the most direct and obvious of them.
This new German philosophy culminated in the Hegelian system. In this system — and herein is its great merit — for the first time the whole world, natural, historical, intellectual, is represented as a process — i.e., as in constant motion, change, transformation, development; and the attempt is made to trace out the internal connection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement and development. From this point of view, the history of mankind no longer appeared as a wild whirl of senseless deeds of violence, all equally condemnable at the judgment seat of mature philosophic reason and which are best forgotten as quickly as possible, but as the process of evolution of man himself. It was now the task of the intellect to follow the gradual march of this process through all its devious ways, and to trace out the inner law running through all its apparently accidental phenomena.
That the Hegelian system did not solve the problem it propounded is here immaterial. Its epoch-making merit was that it propounded the problem. This problem is one that no single individual will ever be able to solve. Although Hegel was — with Saint-Simon — the most encyclopaedic mind of his time, yet he was limited, first, by the necessary limited extent of his own knowledge and, second, by the limited extent and depth of the knowledge and conceptions of his age. To these limits, a third must be added; Hegel was an idealist. To him, the thoughts within his brain were not the more or less abstract pictures of actual things and processes, but, conversely, things and their evolution were only the realized pictures of the “Idea”, existing somewhere from eternity before the world was. This way of thinking turned everything upside down, and completely reversed the actual connection of things in the world. Correctly and ingeniously as many groups of facts were grasped by Hegel, yet, for the reasons just given, there is much that is botched, artificial, labored, in a word, wrong in point of detail. The Hegelian system, in itself, was a colossal miscarriage — but it was also the last of its kind.
It was suffering, in fact, from an internal and incurable contradiction. Upon the one hand, its essential proposition was the conception that human history is a process of evolution, which, by its very nature, cannot find its intellectual final term in the discovery of any so-called absolute truth. But, on the other hand, it laid claim to being the very essence of this absolute truth. A system of natural and historical knowledge, embracing everything, and final for all time, is a contradiction to the fundamental law of dialectic reasoning.
– Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
i don’t think social change boils down to just one theory.
If we believe that the universe fundamentally makes sense, then it must stem from that that it can all be explained on the same terms. Furthermore, within a domain, the extent to which a theory is unable to explain some part of that domain is the extent to which it either fails or is in-utero just a component of a larger theory whose other parts can cover those other areas. Not only can social change boil down to one theory, if you believe we live in an interconnected, logical world, it must boil down to one theory. Obviously there are many competitors for that title, and none of them are yet developed enough to properly claim it, but it is a legitimate and even a necessary title.
Edit: Sorry for piling on about the dialectics part, I see Cowbee did go over it later. fwiw I think he didn’t represent materialism fairly, but part of why I included the Engels quote is because I think he does represent Hegelian idealism and its fundamental problem (How can this dialectic of humans – material beings – take place in the world of ideas?) fairly.
Marx has the best content on the topic, shit is so good it triggers daddy owners to this day lol
I kinda like Marx sooo…
Regarding capitalism, in reality, it is the best system we’ve seen so far.
Yes, theoretically other systems could be better for the general public. But in reality, they never have been.
Bootlicker
Understood.
Please cite, with examples from reality, better systems.
1940s American socialism. Which lead to the greatest income distribution for American families
I think the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire” idea is overstated, most people I interact with have a somewhat negative outlook on the economy and their future wealth.
I think the real issue is that no viable alternative is presented to most people.
The alternatives presented are Russian-style authoritarian oligarchy, Islamofascism, or a Venezuela-style “socialism” in which the narrative only focuses on poverty.
The PRC is absolutely a viable alternative, it’s a Socialist Market Economy that has been steadily transfering Private Property into Public Property as markets coalesce into monopolist syndicates, which are then capable of central planning.
They have the most wild form of capitalism there is. And they married it with a lot of corruption and zero political freedom. This is not an alternative. Please.
Agreed. You can’t argue with how effective it’s been for the country as a whole, but I don’t think i’d rather live there as an individual.
I would not live there. I value freedom and privacy. (In a healthy European way)
What “healthy European” freedom looks like:
- West votes against democracy, human rights, cultural diversity at UN; promotes mercenaries, sanctions
- West opposes rest of world in UN votes for fairer economic system, equality, sustainable development
- China condemns ‘racist’ Western hypocrisy over Ukraine: You ignore victims in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Palestine
- Pro-Palestine activists are under attack in Europe
- Censorship in Europe: Major Palestinian news channels banned on Telegram
- Two months after elections, Macron refuses to nominate progressive prime minister
- Facebook and Instagram Restrict the Use of the Red Triangle Emoji Over Hamas Association
- The 10 European countries that restrict religious attire for Muslim women
- EU court allows conditional headscarves bans at work
- Refugees who died off Italy 10 years ago remembered as new crisis flares
- Poland: Digital investigation proves Poland violated refugees’ rights
- Poland: Abortion Witch Hunt Targets Women, Doctors
What “healthy European” privacy looks like:
- The EU Funds Surveillance Around the World: Here’s What Must be Done About it
- AI mass surveillance at Paris Olympics – a legal scholar on the security boon and privacy nightmare
- Investigation of the use of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware
- 20 biggest GDPR fines so far [2024] (the fines in question are negligible, and only serve to line the pockets of the rich)
- Female health apps aren’t doing enough to protect sensitive data, study says
“I have an uncle who smoked whole life and is 98 years old” I am sure you know what you have been doing when you presented your “evidence”. Not cool.
I’ve re-read this several times and I still don’t have the slightest clue to what you’re referring to, lib. It’s clear-as-day that you’re just another “They hate us for our freedom” folks and don’t actually care about freedom or privacy for all.
Lack of good examples of countries that are successful without being capitalist?
Pretty ubiquitously non-capitalist countries have a pretty poor track record.
I often hear the phrase, capitalism is terrible, but it’s the least bad of the terrible options.
As an aside, I’m arguing here for capitalism, not billionaires. Supporting capitalism isn’t an endorsement of a complete lack of controls and safeguards.
Lack of good examples of countries that are successful without being capitalist?
There are many. The USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, etc. Have all drastically improved on previous conditions, achieving large increases in life expectancy, democratization, literacy rates, access to healthcare, housing, education, and more. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
Pretty ubiquitously non-capitalist countries have a pretty poor track record.
This is false. What are you specifically tracking? Freedom for the bourgeoisie?
I often hear the phrase, capitalism is terrible, but it’s the least bad of the terrible options.
The phrase is typically used to describe democracy, not Capitalism.
As an aside, I’m arguing here for capitalism, not billionaires. Supporting capitalism isn’t an endorsement of a complete lack of controls and safeguards.
It doesn’t matter what you support, the Superstructure, ie laws and safeguards, comes primarily from the Base, ie the Mode of Production.
Markets move themselves regardless of people’s will towards centralized syndicates, monopolies over production. These make themselves ripe for siezure and central planning, markets themselves prepare the proletariat for running a socialized economy as they coalesce over time. This is why Marx says the bourgeoisie produces “above all else, its own gravediggers.” There is no maintaining Capitalism, it eliminates itself over time.
Because it’s easier than defending socialism or communism
That’s only because capitalists are deaf to reason and demonstrable facts.
Okay lil bro 😆
The “Capitalists are stupid and anticapitalists are smart” comments are so adorable lollll
Because communism ≠ utopia. I only hate on shitty billionaires and ones that used shady methods to amass their wealth.
Blaming individuals produced by the system and not the system itself is strange. That’s like saying the IDF isn’t the problem, the soldiers are.
That’s a fair critique. I don’t like the capitalism we currently practice. I prefer a blend of socialism and capitalism - a social democracy if you will. I don’t hate large corporations per se. I do hate those who commoditize basic necessities such as healthcare and housing. This is where i believe there should be no privatisation.
Social Democracy isn’t a blend of Capitalism and Socialism, it’s Capitalism with social safety nets.
Either way, what you describe maintains accumulation and monopolization, which results in more privitization and disparity, which we see in the Nordic Countries. There are no static systems.
So what does a blend of capitalism and socialism look like to you? I’m saying that sectors which can lead to unfair control over necessary resources should be solely controlled by the government.
And you say monopolization. Monopolization of what exactly? I don’t think you care too much for the monopolization of the gaming industry or the video streaming industry do you?
Also, you emphasize wealth concentration. What exactly do you dislike about it? Especially considering that under a social democracy wealth is only at that point luxury since there is welfare available.
So what does a blend of capitalism and socialism look like to you? I’m saying that sectors which can lead to unfair control over necessary resources should be solely controlled by the government.
There isn’t really such thing as a “blend,” systems are either controlled by the bourgeoisie or proletariat. A socialist country with a large market sector is still socialist, a Capitalist country with a large public sector is still Capitalist. I recommend reading Socialism Developed China, not Capitalism.
And you say monopolization. Monopolization of what exactly? I don’t think you care too much for the monopolization of the gaming industry or the video streaming industry do you?
Monopolization paves the way for socialization. Large, monopolist syndicates make themselves open to central planning and democratic control.
Also, you emphasize wealth concentration. What exactly do you dislike about it? Especially considering that under a social democracy wealth is only at that point luxury since there is welfare available.
Wealth concentration leads to influence, which results in further privitization and erosion of social safety nets, like we see in the declining Nordic Countries.
Interesting. I still disagree with the impossibility of “blends”, but i will take a look at that book you recommended. Thank you for the conversation.
Can you name a billionaire who doesn’t match that description?
How about celebrities and not shitty CEOs. I’m generalizing towards multimillionaires as well as there aren’t that many billionaires. Unless the hate is specifically towards billionaires which I don’t think is the case.
However, i would put money on the off chance that there is at least one billionaire who wasn’t shady about their wealth accumulation - think Steve Jobs. Unless you consider holding companies to be shady.
How about celebrities and not shitty CEOs. I’m generalizing towards multimillionaires as well as there aren’t that many billionaires. Unless the hate is specifically towards billionaires which I don’t think is the case.
I just took what you put out there. Generally, I’m skeptical that celebrities will really withstand scrutiny, since they tend to be supported by production crew and lesser-paid artists (whether in music or movies) who get regularly screwed over. Perhaps you can make an okay argument with athletes despite them also being held up by the pipeline from the notoriously exploitative college sports industry, playing in stadiums that are mostly damaging to the city, doing merchandising produced from sweatshops, etc.
But I don’t really care about those arguments. The reason I don’t care is that the conversation is based on an obscurantist metric, that being income. Any decent anti-capitalist is not mainly concerned with how much money someone gets or has, but their relationship to the means of production. That is, they are concerned with whether this person subsists by owning or subsists by working. You displayed what I would consider a good intuition by shifting from CEOs (who generally subsist by owning) to celebrities (who at least kind of subsist by working). It seems somewhat plausible to me that there would be very wealthy athletes, say, in a socialist state, because their job requires a lot of work and, at the top levels, having the talent to accomplish what they can accomplish is rare!
However, i would put money on the off chance that there is at least one billionaire who wasn’t shady about their wealth accumulation
If a machine produces a thousand cubes but also produces at least one octahedron, what would you describe the function of the machine as being?
think Steve Jobs.
When I think of Steve Jobs, I think of someone who put a lot of money and dedication into PR.
As a starting point if you believe that, here’s an article that lightly goes over some of his controversies (ignore points 4 and 10). And here’s one that I think is somewhat more interesting that incidentally demonstrates how dependent he was on exploitation of the third world.
Unless you consider holding companies to be shady.
Owning a company is just a legal status, it’s what you do with it that matters. If what you do with it just happens to be amassing more wealth than many, many people could obtain in a lifetime of labor, you probably didn’t get there with clean hands.
I want to say that i appreciate your nuance on the subject. You have raised many good points, and i will take a lot of what you have said into consideration in my future discussions on the topic.
I also want to give kudos on your shift from focus on income to more the relationship with that income which i agree can create problems especially when it comes to power imbalances. The overfocus on the income is as you put it “obscurantist”.
If a machine produces a thousand cubes but also produces at least one octahedron, what would you describe the function of the machine as being?
You raise a very good point here as well. One which makes sense with your analogy.
I’ve also gone through the articles you posted, and there’s some pretty eye-opening stuff in there.
I guess this is in some ways an admittal of defeat. I do not know whether i completely subscribe to a “communism is the next best”. I think i still need to educate myself more on this topic.
I’m happy I could be helpful!
I guess this is in some ways an admittal of defeat
There’s no need to claim defeat or victory, we’re just talking; Success in communication is determined by the extent to which we are able to understand each other, and I think we did alright.
I think i still need to educate myself more on this topic.
I can’t claim to represent any perspective but my own, but the text that really helped me to begin to see things differently was Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Feel free to DM me/necropost here if there’s anything I can help with.
Thanks man. I’ll be sure to hit you up if i need help with anything!
