- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
We know.
What a poorly written article. Why make the reader go over the author’s grandstanding on his Marx knowledge in paragraph 1 only to have paragraph 2 point out his article is actually just a book review.
You don’t like books?
I like books. I actually like Nancy Fraser, I’ve taken 2 classes from her in the past on Marx and Habermas. But I don’t understand why this is in the politics sub, and why the “article” doesn’t accurately position itself as a book review:
Rule 2: Must be articles relevant to US political news. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed.
Your argument is valid. But consider that many readers of this community don’t have the foundation and knowledge of critical theory that you do. This might be the only exposure they get. It is difficult to find timely political articles critical of capitalism, so I work with what I find. Sometimes what I find is less than ideal. Feel free to downvote or report it if you believe it’s needed. Edit: Do you know of a good critical theory or philosophy community on Lemmy?
No. Like critical theory, but on lemmy I’ve been annoyed that POV kind of co ops other threads. I have little interest in moderating, but toyed around with the idea of starting a community for humanities. Kind of like aldaily.com that once a day posts an essay, article, and book review. But basically a place for long form articles that aren’t click baity for folks that care about nuance and depth, but not tech or explicitly current events focused.
My fear is that it’s become a Jacobin self promotion community (I don’t mind some Jacobin, but want more plurality). Also the content fit for that may require subs like the Atlantic, nytimes, etc. I don’t mind paying for good journalism, but lemmy verse seems to be morally opposed to subscriptios for good content, as opposed to just inconvenienced by it. Advertising killed print media, god forbid we pay for it.
If you do start a community, I’d subscribe. I’m a newbie and only have a cursory knowledge of philosophy. Does it bother you when it’s used in communities because you have to see how little people know about it? Or because you don’t think it applies? I’m fascinated by the intersection of philosophy and politics, and think it’s helpful to understand what’s happening with current events.
Downvotes and yet no comments with criticisms of the link’s arguments.
This relationship between employers and workers (the bourgeoisie and the working class when writ large) is one of the essential elements of capitalism. – article
Capitalism requires the bourgeosie to exist, since it requires private ownership. But the relationship between them and workers is absolutely fundamentally irrelevant to capitalism, which I suspect the author knows.
It’s a book review not an article with an argument to make. The concluding paragraph makes no claims:
“This book isn’t a book of answers; it is a book of questions and discussion resulting from those questions. The only certainty one might derive when they have finished reading it is that the only chance we have in defeating the ongoing march towards greater catastrophe wrought by human subjugation to capital is to be found in the struggle against capitalism and in organizing that struggle.”
I’m so sick of this nonsense.
Capitalism is the greatest generator of wealth ever created. The problem isn’t the system generating the wealth. The problem is how we DISTRIBUTE the wealth that has been generated.
Any solution that doesn’t recognize that is just ignoring the very clear history of economic systems.
Capitalism sucks, but it’s better than every other economic system ever attempted.
Let’s fix it with Democratic socialism, not burn it down and become the next USSR.
Capitalism is the greatest generator of wealth ever created
I feel like when making that “calculation”, you’ve forgotten to figure in the complete and utter destruction of the biosphere, the impending losses due to climate change, the cost in human lives and well-being and dignity of enslavement, exploitation, and so on.
I’m not, though.
Your conflating an economic system with a lack of regulation. There’s no reason capitalism can’t be regulated properly. The New Deal showed us that it has been in the past.
Capitalism sucks, but it’s better than every other economic system ever attempted.
this is my favorite argument against thinking about alternatives because it’s so common and is complete nonsense. there’s plenty of room for improvement, and it isn’t as though “the ussr” is the only alternative.
The best capitalist society still imposes a class division between owners and workers. Owners want to maximize profit by paying as little as possible for labor. Workers want to get paid as much as possible for doing the least work.
I am looking for a system where workers gets to keep the value of their labor. Owners lack a place in such a system.
I am looking for a system where workers gets to keep the value of their labor. Owners lack a place in such a system.
Why? You can have both owners and profit sharing
Owners, workers and profit sharing exist under capitalism. Profit sharing is not the same as being an owner due to decision making power and ownership of capital i.e. private property. Workers can benefit from profit sharing, but are excluded from the owners black box for determining profits. The worker keeps their job by producing more value than their labor cost.
I am looking for a system where workers get to make decisions regarding their labor and own the tools by which their labor produces value.
That’s just simply not true. You can go buy some shares of Disney right now, and you’ll see that you get the benefits of being an owner.
It’s a spectrum of how much you own vs how much you contact to do labor.
Owning stock in Disney would give me a share in the profits. I could also possibly vote when Disney lets shareholders do so. As a worker for Disney, I could receive money for selling my time and a portion of the profits via shares. I would thereby be a worker/owner. I would reduce that to worker, but lets entertain worker/owner as a class.
However as a worker/owner, I would not be able to make decisions that change cost. I would not own anything other than the share which is placing faith in the company. I would still try to do as little work as possible for as much compensation as possible since I am still primarily a worker.
Maybe my passive income stream will someday overcome the cost associated with meeting my material needs. I could then graduate from worker/owner to owner.
Or, at any time you could start your own business online and sell your labor as a freelancer or consultant.
Lemmy.world trying to think of hot takes
Fuck your capitalism and its destructive “creation” of wealth
You do realize Democratic Socialism would eliminate capitalism? Or do you mean market socialism? Or Social Democracy?
Social democracies actually do have capitalism. Sweden for instance has many corporations that exist and are highly successful, while the rest of the economic system has some socialist attributes.
Is that what you’re advocating for?
Sure why not, it’s got to be better than what I’m living under right now.
America is a mixed economy. We have social security, Medicare, etc. it’s already a social democracy. So you just want more of it. The problem is capitalism always corrupts it because the for profit model makes greed the priority. That’s why some want to get rid of that impetus. They want a planned economy that doesn’t operate on scarcity.
That’s absolutely what I’m advocating for.
Keep capitalism. Allow people to become rich. Use the promise of money to fuel innovation and labor.
… but, after the wealth is generated, we use an extremely aggressive, progressive tax system to functionally call wealth at some level that fuels ambition, but recognized that the majority of that vast wealth was generated by the workers.
For example, Bill Gates at one point was with 80 BILLION dollars. Can anyone say with a straight face that back when he was working out of a garage, he would have been any less motivated if he knew he could get (only?!) 50 million dollars?
Of course not. That’s a fortune… That’s all your material needs met for your whole life, and a great inheritance to leave for your family. So why not ramp up all taxes, exponentially, forn income and wealth beyond $50m?
The innovations would be the same, the companies would be the same, but either by taxes or by salaries or stock options, the WORKERS would have shared in that 80 BILLION that Gates hoarded.
So, like the New Deal with progressive tax rates to 90%?
Yes. Higher, even as you get close to 50m.
Current wealth distribution in the US is INSANELY skewed… Corrections will have to be extremely drastic.
You don’t want to do this?
In 2018, U.S. households held over $113 trillion in assets. For context, that is over five times as much as all the goods and services produced in the U.S. economy in a single year. If that amount were divided evenly across the U.S. population of 329 million, it would result in over $343,000 for each person. For a family of three, that’s over a million dollars in assets.
Does wealth really fuel ambition? Id feel like eventually it would just become a growing number in an account. I think a lot of people on top want power but I believe the innovators are fueled by creativity and curiosity. Maybe some jobs are useless. Do we need 10000 fast food choices? Do we need 10000 different stupid apps? Do we need to constantly grow like a virus, destroying the planet and anything that stops our growth? Enslaving people in meaningless jobs to keep the machine growing.
The ability to get acquire wealth ABSOLUTELY fuels ambition. The concept that working harder and smarter will yield financial rewards? It’s driven more innovation than anything else in history.
Creativity, discovery, and problem solving are fun… but taking an new idea and turning into something useful… That’s MOSTLY drudgery, and very expensive in both time and money. The financial rewards at the end of the journey are what fuel people and institutions.
Sure not starving to death and living a comfortable life, but I’d say there’s a limit to most. What is it for you? The number in the account, all the useless materialism, or the power of being in charge of everything and everyone you own? I don’t think any of the reasons is a good way to live, and I doubt most even want to live that way. We don’t need to be mindless hoarders.
I have know and worked with people who have made a lot of money. Not billions, but millions. The ones who actually do the innovating don’t do it for the money. And most of the ones not innovating actually are doing it because they are competitive. They want to be the best. Money is part of that, but only in the relative to others sense.
Now here’s the rub. The innovators can’t innovate without someone paying the bill. And the competitors aren’t just competing with people in their own country.
So any solution needs to deal with those complexities.
I would build software even if I was not being paid for doing the work. I am lucky to trade my time for money in something I would be doing anyway. I have less say over my projects than I would like, but at least I get to make projects that make me happy.
I seem to be bad at making money when owners make my yearly salary per hour.
Government grants… Democratic influence over where research is directed.
Publicly owned venture capital firms.
Non-profit grants
We have government grants. But it is impossible to find a body to decide who gets them that isn’t biased and/or corrupt.
We also have publicly owned venture capital firms
Not sure what the last one is exactly… but pretty sure we have that too.
Capitalism is defined in terms of how it distributes wealth.
No. Capitalism is merely a system of trade and and industry being controlled by private ownership. We’ve had much better wealth distribution in the past under capitalism.
Yep. Social democracy for the win.
Capitalism should be allowed to exist within the narrow confines of a sandbox. Its products should be equally distributed and it should be heavily regulated to prevent the creation of the Uber wealthy and extreme income inequity.
That’s just my opinion for whatever the fuck that’s worth.
Removed by mod
-
The people decide. Through there elective representatives.
-
This whole post is about an awareness that the “person” generating the wealth is actually hundreds of thousands of people generating the wealth.
Bill Gates didn’t generate 80 billion dollars. He just positioned himself in manner to that allowed him to hoard 80 billion dollars in wealth generated by countless software engineers and other workers.
- I don’t understand being squeamish about ANYONE trying to redistribute wealth. Right now there’s like 3 people who have as much wealth as the bottom HALF of Americans (~150,000,000 people). The situation is beyond ridiculous.
Removed by mod
I think getting money completely out of politics would have to come with any democratic solution
Removed by mod
It doesn’t have to be. We can have fair elections where every candidate gets the same exposure via a public fund specifically for elections. Outlaw lobbying and pacs and have every candidate just debate/speak on stream
Removed by mod
-
You’re perfectly fitting the stereotype of the ‘temporarily embarrassed billionaire’.
