1239
Something something far-left
(feddit.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
1239 points (99.4% liked)
Work Reform
12586 readers
169 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm chill with safety nets for poor people and regulations on large companies
what I consider far left is when people start saying that the govt should own everything and there shouldn't be private property. that's an extreme and I am against that.
The rational left (i.e. not the authoritarians) only want the "government" to own everything insomuch as the "government" is a profoundly democratic representative body, in an administrative capacity.
Don't confuse "private property" (industrial machines and other means of production held privately by an investor class in order to extract profit via the arbitrage between the productive value of employees and their flat wages) with "personal property" (your house, car, clothes, dishes, toothbrush, etc.). There aren't many leftists who think there shouldn't be personal property.
Private property that isn't personal is someone elses property, and if I want to have my own property it makes sense for others to also have it
I don't want the govt owning my home, or having to rent from a govt, and I dont want to drink water from govt owned companies because at that point it truly is authoritarian simply because the govt has way too much power over your life
I've been on .ml before and theres more than a few people than think NK and Stalin are/were good, and are anti-private property
edit: I honestly kinda think some of you are downvoting this because other people have downvoted this. these aren't unpopular or insane ideas, and anyway I only used water as an example of govt ownership because that's the first thing that came to my mind. a better example would be that I wouldn't want my food to be grown by the govt
Been drinking tap water straight from government-owned companies for decades. Taste is okay (a bit hard for geological reasons), but it couldn't be healthier.
Still, though, you're right that the question of the state not owning everything is a very serious one that needs to be addressed.
What are your thoughts on cooperatives, libertarian socialism, or anarchist communism?
My government owned power utility is selling me the cheapest electricity of all the OECD, and still turning a profit that's returned in the government's coffers to invest in research and social services. It's awful!
What I don't like isn't the fact that the profits of the service aren't going to shareholders, but because it gives the govt more power over you. This is fine if you trust the govt, but at some point there is an extreme of trusting the govt with too much. like I wouldn't want the chinese govt controlling my finances
edit: why tf am I being downvoted? if you disagree with me then reply.
Yeah you're right, the shareholders really have my best interests at heart!
Thankfully in this case I AM THE SHAREHOLDER.
no ur not 🤦
your government is
how about you tell me right now what a shareholder is because it really seems like you don't know
the shareholders only care about themselves, but the system that they collectively create through mutual competition and distrust for each other provides (ideally) cheap and (ideally) high quality products for the costumer. Why isn't this the case irl? Not enough competition, which the govt can safely encourage with antitrust laws.
Price - Cost = Profit
Shareholders take their cut from the Profit side. Under the capitalistic owner-worker relationship, workers take their cut from the Cost portion. Customers want to minimize the price.
The shareholders and the workers are directly in conflict, and the shareholders are the only ones who get to appoint the board of directors. Shareholders want to maximize Profit, which means they want Price to be as high as the market can bear, and Cost (including workers wages) to be as low as the market can bear.
This directly, mathematically, incentivizes shareholders make things worse for workers and customers, and then roll those profits into the next business venture. Clever lawyers can justify their Cost by saving bigger Costs, as can lobbyists. Heck, if you're clever enough you can get legislation drafted to specifically target your competitors. Every antitrust law just invents a new fun little puzzle for clever lawyers.
The difference between a government and a company, is that I can vote out the greedy people in my government. I can't vote out greedy shareholders. Both will eventually become corrupt, but only one is built with countermeasures.
I think a major problem with decentralizing too much is that basic goods that the modern world needs, like artificial fertilizers and computer chips cant be produced or if they can be produced they cant be made in large quantities. What I understand anarchist communism to be is many small communities of people that collectively grow their own food and make their own medicines, without much large scale trade. With libertarian socialism and cooperatives there's still the issues that if the workers own the factories they aren't going to be incentivized to take risks with the company, the average worker has no idea about macro-economics and how to run the business, and they also wont want to lower their wages if its necessary (like if the company is doing poorly or if there needs to be additional financial motivation for low preforming workers - obviously that can get out of hand but some of it makes sense). To somewhat even out the wealth gap I think higher taxes on the wealthy and more rights for unions is pretty much all that is needed.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Everyone is entitled to personal property, the things they have for personal use (e.g. your house or toothbrush). Private property is not someone else's personal property, it's the things for group use which generate value to the group (e.g. the industrial equipment necessary to create your house or toothbrush) which under capitalism are owned and controlled by investors.
The leftist position is that those "means of production" being owned and controlled by investors leads to the investors paying their staff as little as possible while charging as much as possible, so that they can thrive on the difference between prices and wages.
The leftist solution is for those "means of production" to be owned collectively by the people who actually use them to produce things. There's a whole spectrum of exactly what that looks like.
On one side are those who think the government should own everything. The argument being that, assuming you can trust the administrators to not be corrupt, that is the best way to coordinate resources. This is logically sound, since the resources which would be wasted on marketing, and redundant R&D in competing companies, and other capitalist inefficiencies, could be directed productively. The flaw is in the "assuming you can trust the administrators to not be corrupt" part. That's a big reason why the USSR failed.
On the other side, there are those who think that the basic concepts of market economics are sound, the problem is simply the capitalist-worker relationship. The argument being, capitalism can be subverted while retaining the benefits of market economies through co-ops: instead of revenue being paid in part to wages with the remaining profit being divided along shareholders, the revenue after costs is divided totally among the employees, who are themselves the only shareholders. This preserves the competitive innovation of the market, while excising the parasitic capital class.
Only the most extreme zealots in the Soviet camp ever push for abolishing personal property. That's a fringe position even for the left.
after you say this
you say they are this
that stuff is the investors personal property (or the corporations but that is a technicality) and them selling it to me is fine as long as there is meaningful competition and no monopolies and govt regulations stopping them from putting toxins in it or something. I dont think the best solution to high prices and wealth inequality is taking the personal property away from these investors and handing it to their employees (who lets be honest probably don't know much about economics) who aren't motivated to take risks with the company and aren't motivated to lower their wages when the company needs to save money or isn't production much money. This lowers the competitiveness of the company, but having a CEO to manage all this while being kept in check with a union is a fine solution to this.
If there is a wealth gap higher taxes on the wealthy is all that is really needed to even it out
Without capital new factories wont be built btw, unless you have a bank or investor financing them. And I don't think bank tellers should get a say in what the bank invests in (if its run by the workers this would happen, as the bank teller is a worker at the bank), because they very probably don't know about the finances and economics of the industry the bank is investing in and wouldn't have an educated opinion on the matter. I would rather have investors (who may have more money than others, but if its too much taxes can fix that, not funky ownership stuff needed) picking small companies, giving them money and later getting back their money as the small companies grow.
I'm pretty sure private for-profit water is absolutely worse than government run water. Everyone can at least nominally vote to change the government. A private org is beholden to no one except shareholders (if they have any), and maybe laws (if they exist, are relevant, and are enforced).
We already had a gilded age where we learned how low for-profit entities will go. We had saw dust in bread, chalk in milk, and worse.
For profit food production is giving us price gouging and a water crisis. Would government do better? Well, given the current administration maybe not.
.ml folks aren't far left, they're full on authoritarian dictatorship apologists. They're no more leftist than China is communist
I think that depends on what you call far left. If you ask me thats exactly what it is, other than the exception of more libertarian- or even (another exreme) anarchic- communism
I guess I wouldn't call them right wing either. The authoritarian side of the political compass kinda looks the same on every side, when it boils down to the actual policies they want
You're a liberal then, pro-market with regulation, maybe a social democrat using Nordic countries as an example? With the overton window changing so much you're not really a leftist anymore
I kinda dislike all these terms like left, socalist, communism, ect because everyone has different understandings of them.
If you ask a right-leaning libertarian about the differences between socialism and communism, I imagine that they would say that their the same thing, and point to China or the USSR calling themselves socialist, while being communist (china not so much nowadays though)
I try not to categorize myself too much because of that
Communists ain't taking away my beaten up electric bass and my microwave oven
One of my friends described it as there's difference between private property and personal property. Your toothbrush is personal property. No one cares about that. Your factory where you assemble widgets is private property, where you're paying people to convert labor into stuff you can sell.
I should read more left-wing theory. It made sense when he explained it.
Modern leftists (i.e. anarchists) are against the government at all.
that's only the case if you exclude authoritarian communists and other similar systems that want a govt from your definition of 'leftists'