this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
269 points (93.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43606 readers
1079 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
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
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because communism β 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.
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.
Monopolization paves the way for socialization. Large, monopolist syndicates make themselves open to central planning and democratic control.
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.
No problem! Let me know if you have any questions.
I don't know if billionaires are the product of capitalism per se. Billionaires are people who have found out how to exploit the current system the best. In a socialistic society there are plenty of opportunities for corruption and exploitation of the working class. The rules are just a bit different. Billionaires definitely will defend capitalism since it's how they're currently winning the game, but they'll adapt as soon as they need to as well. That or the winners will be a different group of people. Either way, the most powerful will always look for ways to consolidate even more power.
I suggest you read Marx, I can make some recommendations if you like.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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".
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!
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 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!