Work Reform

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (13 children)

(...) not capitalism. (...) the investment/ownership class (...) the wage slavery class. None of the world leader children actually work, yet all are millionaires. How is that capitalism?

How is it anything but capitalism? What do you call the production mode that allows one class to live off the surplus (labour) value of another?

Maybe read a book?

hideshow 13 child comments

parent

[–] pachrist@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

You can call that feudalism, among other things.

But that's because it's intentionally hard to tell if it's feudalism in a capitalist hat or capitalism in a feudalism hat. That's what oligarchy is.

Capitalism in itself is private enterprise, which is where capitalism defenders usually start trumpeting that capitalism isn't actually evil. I think you can maybe make an argument that totally unregulated capitalism isn't evil, because it's basically anarchy. But the reality of human greed hits hard and always leads to self-regulation (collusion) and external regulation (coersion), which muddy the waters and lead to oligarchy and feudalism regardless as politicians and businessmen consolidate power.

parent

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

But that’s because it’s intentionally hard to tell if it’s feudalism in a capitalist hat or capitalism in a feudalism hat. That’s what oligarchy is.

No, (modern) oligarchy is a term we may use for the political structure that is supported by capitalism, which is the mode of production. In feudal society, oligarchs were nobles with landed power. In capitalist society, they are just a small subset of the capitalists.

It is not feudalism because the economic surplus is not extracted (primarily) through land ownership and tribute, but through the property relations of wage labour.

Yes, we can see neo-feudal structures within a late stage capitalist economy.

No, that does not preclude capitalism as the mode of production enabling those structures.

parent

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Which book describes a real society that didn’t have an upper class feeding on a lower class? Like which society was that again?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

It is a classification of the mode of production. However, you are quite right in saying that property relations for the proletariat are not fundamentally different under capitalism than, say, feudal society.

One can as such absolutely draw a parallel between a serf and a wage labourer in this regard, but equivocating the two, like you do, is utter nonsense.

Similarly, using this parallel to conclude that we are not living under a predominantly capital mode of production is rubbish, justifying the recommendation of reading.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

No i was genuinely asking to point out a formation of society that reflected your stated values, and the book which i can read about it in. Im saying every society that i am aware of, no matter the title, had a ruling class leaching off the working class. We as humans have yet to develop that classless society despite 100 years of people drooling and killing over communist theory. I just thought you it was odd you said to read a book, like you've already read them all for me and still seem pretty impotent when it comes to forming that society. Maybe Marx failed to grasp the human condition idk. Seems like every attempt leaves a murderous upperclass in-charge of a lower class. I can point you to some interesting books on the topic.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

The read a book part was probably overly dismissive, but was a pointer to marxist theory that is materialist and not idealist.

Im saying every society that i am aware of, no matter the title, had a ruling class leaching off the working class.

This is why workers need their own revolution. Capitalism and most western states, particularly the US, came to be through bourgeoise revolutions. Causality wise, this followed due to technological advancements improving the productionary forces.

We as humans have yet to develop that classless society despite 100 years of people drooling and killing over communist theory.

No state has yet made it past the intermediary stage of this development. That does not mean they were not on the right track. The killing part is horrible, but follows from the armed resistance of capital. Violence is a part of every political system, it is just happening in ways not usually recognized.

parent

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago

I agree workers and labor need to take back power. Like Marx where he makes sense, like him less because his followers. There is absolutely no book to read about how humans created an idealistic society and we just kinda forgot about it. We're constantly striving and building for it. And yes! we all agree there should be a balance of power in society, labor has let itself die while being occupied by cheap tricks and novelties. Labor likes capitalism, you can see these mother fuckers killing themselves to own an F-350. That person is not going to change, nor are they going to operate well in your idealistic system. So you're playing the long game, an ideological game. It will happen when you stop telling people to read marx. As if a couple more million theory loving communists had the will to bring billions of people into their ill thought out society. Long game man its going to take generations and all you can really do is lead by example and build the steps.

parent

[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

You mostly just described serfdom.

parent

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago

I actually typed out the other comment before reading this, but it fits more than perfectly. Read it and use your little grey cells, as Poriot would say.

parent

[–] mHtt@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

yes capitalism ALSO requires oversight and competition, not just ownership of the means of production. otherwise its mob rule. We have neither, ergo it's not capitalism.

ive read plenty of books and not all are reliable.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

This is an idealist understanding of what capitalism ought to be, not what it is. This different view is the reason for the contention between us. Most leftists will see capitalism for what it is, not the pipe dream sold to the masses to justify the exploitation of them.

In marxist terms, the lack of oversight and competition is an inherent trait, a contradiction, within capitalism. The solutions anyone can present are faulty remedies that do not solve the underlying issue at play, which is the property relations with regard to labour.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] mHtt@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

What strikes me is the presence of corporate bailout and subsidies with tax dollars and the pre eminence of nepotism, while at the same time the public faces austerity. How can this be said to be Capitalism?

True Capitalism would allow these obsolete systems to fail and new ones would replace them (laissez faire). This would also include investing tax dollars into education, healthcare and infrastructure projects, including robust economic oversight (Strong and independent FBI and SEC).

I do not believe the current system is Capitalistic, not since at least 2008, sooner if you include military intervention as a form of subsidy.

i believe ours is a difference of opinion.

parent

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago*

What you refer to as true capitalism, I am arguing is an idealist view. Idealist in this sense means not part of nor representing material reality. Marxists will claim the ideal form to not only not be present right now, but impossible to achieve due to the mechanics of capitalism itself.

We look at the process of capital accumulation through extraction of surplus labour power as self reinforcing. That means also that the contradictions within the system will reinforce unil reaching a break point.

As an example one could look at how capital consolidation leads to monopolies, how workers are impoverished to the point of not being able to buy the product of their own labour, or how the development of productionary forces lead to the developers, i.e. labourers, manufacture their own replacements.

These are the internal byproducts of capitalist mode of production itself. I have not even touched on the external contradictions happening through imperialism.

To make an analogy: If anyone were to claim that a drug was not actually medicine because it had negative side effects, we might both agree they were wrong. In my view, in the case of your idealist and my materialist view of capitalism, we disagree on the cause and effect in a similar manner.