449
Why are folks so anti-capitalist?
(programming.dev)
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 20 Jul 2023
449 points (75.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43859 readers
1475 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Capitalism has given a lot of people out there a raw deal: low wages, increasing gap between the rich and the poor, home ownership is out of reach to many, healthcare is unaffordable to many, having a family is prohibitively expensive, we own almost nothing and rent almost everything, even basic necessities like food, water and clothing are painfully expensive. What's more, when you look at the systems in place today, it appears that these aren't bugs, but features.
I'm a socialist because I believe that society ought to use its collective power and money to guarantee all of its people a minimum of the basic, essential things that they need to live, by subsidizing food, water, shelter, clothing, heat, electricity, data, education and healthcare.
Outside of those crucial things, capitalism is just fine, as long as people are being paid fairly for their time. And, as we've all seen, capitalism needs strict rules and guard rails to make sure that workers aren't being constantly exploited. If capitalism was working well for everyone, we were all getting paid fairly for our time, and people could take care of their needs (not to mention their wants), then nobody would have any reason to care or complain about capitalism. But sadly, as it is today, capitalism is just not working for a lot of people, and many people out there are not even having their basic needs met (even despite getting an education, taking out loans, getting a job, getting a second job, working hard, etc.).
To me, creating a prosperous and happy society is much more complex than picking capitalism or socialism, and some mix of both is probably the best of both worlds.
There is actually not much separating capitalism and socialism other than workers being in control of the means of production.
Socialism doesn't have anything against markets. Socialism doesn't have anything against organizational structures. What it does have issue with is workers not having any democratic say in how their workplaces operate and who they choose to do business with.
That's the thing, not a lot would have to change, other than putting legal protections and norms in place for workplace elections and so on.
I definitely don't identify as a Socialist but even still, I would have added, "tax the fuck out of the rich". Income inequality is the root evil for most people today.
If workers own the means of production, wouldn't the rich fat cats cease to exist as they've functionally been replaced?
I'm not against a fair taxation system, but the obscene wealth of CEOs is literally one of the many things that socialism addresses because you can vote on executive compensation as well as worker compensation. The people at the bottom have unique access via their voting power to prevent those at the top from achieving obscene wealth at the expense of the average worker (see: Bob Iger, who makes 400x his average employee).
Yes, a better taxation rate is needed for the wealthy, but a lot of that wealth would get punched in the dick and be out of a job when voted out by their workers. They ain't gonna be John Galting it and build a gleaming city on the hill because none of those rich twerps know how to do actual labor, so they would be out of work.
Like seriously I can't imagine someone like Elon Musk or Steve Huffman surviving a workers vote on the boss. If they can't legally put their finger on the scale by using their wealth as a cudgel, fuck nobody would vote for these fuckers to be in charge.
Perhaps a I misinterpreted you when you stated "not a lot would have to change". Those sound like some pretty extreme changes from the status quo, actually.
Perhaps a I misinterpreted you when you stated "not a lot would have to change". Those sound like some pretty extreme changes from the status quo, actually.
To me, this is obvious. Most people agree some form of democratic control is good as far as the government goes. They don't see the logical extension that it should apply to the workplace if it's good as well. They haven't seen that as an option. They're told there's one hierarchy businesses can have and don't question it.
I always tell people when they step out on the streets, they walk in a democracy. Yet when they step into the office, they walk into a dictatorship.
Are you contending that if people knew it was an option they would form worker collectives?
There is nothing preventing anyone from starting a worker-owned collective. The fact that they don’t, while having the freedom to do so, indicates that the typical arrangement of wage labor is consensual. It’s what people choose.
If socialism requires an arrangement other than the one they would freely choose, then socialism requires a non-free market where people are forced into economic arrangements they wouldn’t freely choose.
So socialist may not in principle have anything against markets, but the fact that the implementation of socialism requires curtailing markets means it does have something against markets in practice.
It's actually that most people simply don't have the capital to do so while entrenched capitalist interests do. But I guess maybe you're conveniently ignoring that wildly imbalanced scale to be able to say it's consenual. Most people are only born with their labor to sell while the capitalist class hands off their wealth to their progeny, who can live without labor, and thus do things like start a business without fear of failure. More than half of new businesses fail within 10 years. For someone without oodles of capital to fall back on, that kind of failure can be financially devastating, which makes them less likely to choose to run their own business, because the risk is far higher. The risk to the nepo-baby is negligible, because they have capital to fall back on, so they are more likely to start their own business. This is obviously an unbalanced situation so calling it "consensual" is frankly bullshit. Also it ignores the coercive nature of the risk of homelessness if your business fails badly, once again something the capital-having nepo-baby doesn't have to fear or risk.
Like, it's generally considered at this point that Monica Lewinsky didn't have consensual sex with Bill Clinton simply because the power relations were wildly off. He was the President of the United States of America at it's absolute zenith in history, while she was a random 20-something intern with no connections or power in the situation.
Nice try, tho.
That's a bad example. As far as I know, Clinton is not of the “do me or you're fired” persuasion, nor did Lewinsky ever say anything to that effect in the multiple decades since.
Monica Lewinsky in 2018:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/monica-lewinsky-in-the-age-of-metoo
It's not about whether or not he's a "do me or you're fired" type. To quote Dennis Reynolds, it's about "the implication" about the mans power in the situation.
So, the truth of the matter is that she was young and naïve and he arguably took advantage and it's complicated? Okay, that's somewhat worse than I thought, but it's still a bad example. You were talking about coercion, and that isn't coercion. What Harvey Weinstein did is coercion.
It's really not that hard to start a small business. There's no grand shadowy conspiracy against your idea. If it was a superior method, it would see more widespread success. Bluntly forcing one business structure and removing freedoms when there are far less drastic tools is a big ask.
How do you get a loan to start a business if you don’t have enough capital to begin with? It’s not that simple, it’s not on the interest of banks to invest on small businesses, because it’s comparable higher risk and they are profit driven.
As someone who started and still works in a co-op, it's because it's hard. Banks don't understand worker coops and won't lend money to you without a real person to attach the risk to, which means founders have to take an enormous risk which it can be hard to compensate them for. The legal structure isn't common so you are limited in the lawyers who can set one up for you. Others have mentioned the cost problems - I started a software dev coop so we didn't have a large capital outlay but it did cost nearly 10k just in setup costs.
It took a lot of work to get to where we are, with little supporting resources. In contrast, I started an LLC in half an hour and $150 registration fee to the government. So no, it not just "what people choose".