Because even the people who are the most negatively affected by wealth centralization will defend the billionaires that provide them with stuff they like, we'll never escape that system until people realize that there are no good billionaires and that they all exist at the expense of the majority of the population.
Mainly because the wealthy are the ones who co tell the flow of (dis)information and have been making full on attacks against the quality of education we as citizens receive.
When you don’t know any better, and you’re being told the sky is green and the grass is blue long enough, you start to believe it. Them in comes some know-it-all telling you you’re wrong and your belief system has been lying to you, and yeah you’re going to get mad at the know-it-all and cling tighter to your belief system.
It's not the billionaires doing the providing, it's just that the economic engine is locked behind a paywall and so instead of laborers getting the value and credit it's the owning class.
The laborers should be the owning class. This is the core idea of socialism. I don't get why "small government" types are so big on "own me harder daddy" when it comes to the economy. We spend most of our waking hours in dictatorships.
I don't get why "small government" types are so big on "own me harder daddy" when it comes to the economy.
Lots of these people are Petite Bourgeoisie, ie small business owners and the like. Their class interests align with larger Bourgeoisie, but the growth of larger Bourgeoisie pushes the Petite Bourgeoisie into proletarianization.
This is where fascism comes in, actually. The Bourgeoisie and Petite Bourgeoisie unite against the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat, along Nationalist lines, as a response to this proletarianization.
The Alt-Right Playbook does a good job of explaining it in this video, but basically what it comes down to is they believe in a rigid pyramidal structure, with everyone in their ‘proper place’. They also believe that, if we don’t have that rigid structure, our society will crumble.
That’s also why they’re against UBIs, DEI, and other things that ‘promote people beyond their means’.
But they took the risk. The risk of spending loaned money at minuscule interest rates and offsetting any real losses by petitioning the state for handouts. They took the risk of making guaranteed profits on political donations leading to regulatory capture.
The capitalism that people imagine (which I still wholeheartedly reject) isn't even the capitalism that's real in practice.
Even putting aside the inherent inequality of risk having a significant coefficient applied to it that diminishes when you come from generational wealth and a family with the right connections.
The myth of capitalist meritocracy is the most blatantly false myth that's ever been peddled but it works on so many people. It's mind boggling.
Ironically things like UBI might level the playing field a bit in terms of entrepreneurship becoming more accessible, but for some reason capitalism advocates don't actually want more people to be able to participate in capitalism.
Ironically things like UBI might level the playing field a bit in terms of entrepreneurship becoming more accessible, but for some reason capitalism advocates don’t actually want more people to be able to participate in capitalism.
Because the moment someone is given something like UBI to help lift them up and provide an equitable playing field for everyone, you get some asshole focusing on how they don't "deserve" it. As if the only thing you can possibly to in order to "deserve" to live is have a job where you are paid the bare minimum your company thinks they can get away with paying you so a few folks at the top get filthy rich and a few in the middle get rich enough not to think to much about the folks at the bottom.
Yep, and tell me how peopke born into richesses "deserve" it...
It's also the slippery slope towards the idea that some people are worth less and some more, as the rich worthless people with inflated egos needs to have something to project their useless souls onto, wanting to believe they are worth more "because they are inherently better". And we all know where that leads to.
your system is working as intended, every true democracy knows that lettings your politians get bought by corporation is a stupid idea, working exactky as written
Like, we won. We did it. We have enough food, we can build enough homes, we can build enough clean energy to fulfill our requirements if we're halfway smart about it. What the fuck are we doing?
This is what kills me about modern day living. What the fuck are we doing? Innovations (AI) dont fucking help people anymore. All we're doing is chasing profits and letting everything else rot. I feel like I'm living in some FromSoft game before the player comes in to clear out all the ancients holding onto the decay.
Innovations still help people loads, that's a crazy pessimistic generalization.
Yes of course the trashy tech bro nonsense isn't helping you, but what about RNA vaccines during covid? What about all of the medical work and innovation going into cancer treatment? What about all of the work and innovation going into reducing carbon emissions so we don't ruin our planet? I could go on for a long time.
Real innovation in mainstream tech may be mostly stagnant and lame, but there will always be useful and helpful innovation.
Of course, there still are helpful innovations. I guess I should say it's obvious 85% of corporations are just profit chasing and rent seeking at this point. There is no global drive forward anymore. Everything is about squeezing the most profit out of whatever. Our infrastructure alone is proof of that.
We've made farming a capitalist system. It only functions if there's scarcity. A farmer can't feed their family or farm their fields without paying bribes to machine companies.
And politicians vilify "subsidies" to farmers. Our society should be "funding" food production as a basic human right. It would take about 1% of the US military budget to completely socialize food production and feed everyone. It's disgusting.
I don't think capitalism is inherently evil. Just the people in control of the wealth.
Even worse, we have been producing, and throwing away, so much food that the US by itself could feed the entire world a couple times over. We don't need to spend more money to fix food production and healthcare, we need to spend less.
Yeah. This is wild. I bet it's very similar to solar or wind power production. The places where it's cheap to produce, doesn't have a lot of need. The places where it's needed, it's difficult to get.
There's probably a lot of logistical problems that need solving.. but that's easy stuff. Humans can catch fish in the north sea, send it to Malaysia to be cut and frozen and boxed, to be sold to a person in England within a few days...
Can we? So much of our modern standard of living comes from extractionary industry.
We pollute our waterways with our mining and drilling. We increasingly rely on prison labor for everything from agriculture to fire fighting. We've de-industrialized the Rust Belt so we could exploit low wage workers abroad. Our biggest sectors are Finance (which creates nothing material) and Tech (which increasingly focuses on Crypto and LLMs). Our airline industry is failing. Our semiconductor industry is failing. Our steel industry is being sold off to Japan.
That's before you get into how natural disasters routinely shut down major urban centers for days or weeks at a time. And how flooding is obliterating enormous chunks of our housing stock. And how our roads and bridges are decades past their expiration date.
Idk if we've won. I get the feeling that we're all living on borrowed time, and we've actually lost big relative to what we could have enjoyed.
The only country that did similar things was USSR.
The USSR by all accounts decreasingly relied on prison labor after WW2 and Stalinism ended. By the 60s, forced labor was anecdotic, and the conditions of people in the gulag system (which shifted from forced labor during Stalinism to mostly reeducation afterwards) were better than those in normal prisons to the point of prison being a punishment to rebellious gulag workers.
It's the problem of "political deactivation" it's in part a cultural issue, in part a byproduct of capitalism.
9-5 jobs kill a lot of political activism. Inculcation into cultural traumas that make the system seem unchangeable by "the little people"... These are the ingredients for "political deactivation".
People want to stay an alert and informed member of society, but that doesn't necessarily result in activism or change. In fact sometimes it makes people less likely to try to change things.
9-5 jobs kill a lot of political activism. Inculcation into cultural traumas that make the system seem unchangeable by "the little people"... These are the ingredients for "political deactivation".
Welcome to 1916 Russia, when all non-Imperialists(not only Bolsheviks) were saying, that 6-day work week prevents prevents people from becoming citizens. Next step would be mandatory education.
I feel like it was more learning to work together that's made us so successful compared to other animals. Not having to spend our lives solely dedicated to hunting/growing food for ourselves and our families has allowed people to specialize in other fields. The advancement of science wouldn't have been possible without people collaborating and working together, though conflict has also played a role as well. Ruthlessness only works for a small number of individuals who exploit the good will of others, but the whole thing falls apart if everybody was always ruthless.
That's patently false. Before agriculture, societies were just tribes of at most a hundred individuals, with not much in the way of hierarchy due to the lack of division of labor, essentially a very primitive form of anarcho-communism. Humans are extremely empathetic and there's plenty of evidence that prehistoric humans took care of people with disabilities or with serious injuries despite them possibly (not necessarily) being a liability for the tribe in terms of food-to-labor ratio.
So you agree that by human nature humans can do both good and bad things, and that society is the one that imposes which ones we do?
The taking care of your own when it’s a handful of people doesn’t scale up to millions
It kinda does, look at Cuba. Peaceful as it gets, extremely high number of doctors per capita to the point of exporting doctors in times of crisis in other countries, fastest country to vaccinate its population against COVID, guaranteed housing for everyone, really low crime rates and no mafias or drug cartels... You can accuse Cuba of many things, but it proves you can take care of millions of people
Damn dude. Why didn’t I think about that? All I have to do is work 80 hours a week at the gas station, send my kids to substandard schools, not buy decent food, not have access to public transit, not have access to decent medical care, not have any cultural options, be white since rural areas are not kind to people of color, drive 40+ minutes to anything worth driving to, not have municipal water or sewage or possibly trash pickup, etc.
Why do I keep wanting to live in places with services and good quality of life in a capitalist country where I make 3x the median wage and still can’t buy a house? Silly me.
In case you didn’t pick up on it, I’ve lived in rural areas previously, and I’d rather rent for the rest of my life than ever do that again.
US Democrats are the equivalent to our countries conservatives, and US Republicans are basically our rightwing/neo-nazi party pedant. It is noteworthy here that this Republican-equivalent rightwing party here is under active surveillance by the national security agencies for being a threat to our democracy.
And people still wonder why the US f-ups their people up and down.
As a European, I wish you were right. Europe hasn't recovered from the austerity policy imposed in the post-2008 crisis. I'm Spanish so I can tell you about my country. Job termination payment was halved and hasn't recovered, firing people became easier and cheaper, stricter laws against protesting were created ("ley mordaza" or gag law) which enabled more police violence and increasingly violent mall-cops, and we're right now suffering the rise of the far right in Europe with Meloni winning in Italy, Marine LePen close to doing so in France, and rising AFD in Germany (many other countries as well).
Its less democratic, but not completely undemocratic.
It's completely undemocratic. Public opinion has no influence on policy whatsoever. Most Americans are in favour of Medicare for all, of legal abortions, of rising taxes on corporations and the most rich people, and much much more. But study after study shows that public opinion has no influence on policy, as in, they're not even correlated.
Yeah, I wasn't referring to the concept of representative democracy itself, I was referring to the particular case of the US (though I'd extrapolate it to most liberal democracies in western countries)
It is an indirect democracy, rather than a direct one.
Ahem. Indirect democracy AKA representative democracy AKA republic is political system, where laws are voted by representatives who are elected by citizens. USA is indirect indirectracy. Or idiocracy. Like Putin's Russia, but with bells and whistles.
Direct democracy is rare beast. In it laws are directly voted by citizens on referendums.
Can't have a view that matters when you are hungry, stressed, are left with like 1 hour a day to yourself, and with constant other random threats to your existence you get to manage.
The system is working as designed, ppl forget how much work such a system needs to sustain itself actually.
And one of the constant maintenance being performed to sustain it is convincing us how sustainable and overall the best thing ever possible it is - how at the same time it has by default only one single goal, a goal of which by default the only end-game of a properly working system is a single complete concentration of power, yet it is widely "believed" how much that is in everyones best interest.
My partner used to do 60 hour weeks. She was working outdoors, in the desert (41°c on average), and only worked 4 days a week. The work culture in this country sucks...
I know its just a meme and I think you're right to point it out but I feel bad for laughing.
In the UK, as one example, its default unlawful to work more than 45 hours a week. You have to choose to sign this away. Refusal to agree can't be used as a reason to fire you or choose not to hire you, unless its like the police or army or something.
The UK is worse in different places and has this too. So, its not about being superior or any of that BS. But the US is full on, mask-off, you are cattle and the mega rich are your ranchers. You can't even just simply move to a different country to escape paying for gargantuan corporate benefits. They own you and they don't care if you know it.
There's functionally no enforcement of what was formerly the EU working time directive being voluntary to opt out of. If a company wants you to sign (and in some fields, they will, even if they've got no reason to) they can always pretend to have found some other reason not to hire you.
I worked 12h shifts for 7 days a week, as a european. Hoping to gather enough money to buy a house...guess what, my 40h job barely covers the cost of living nowadays and i'm not fit to work more hours. Plus i ended up running short with every passing year, when i needed a 200€ wage increase to afford a mortgage by the time i got that i needed another €150 wage increase.
A single family home used to be 150k, now those go for 500k and my wage ended up in the exact same spot where i started at the age of 21. (Before that it was a youth wage and surprise surprise i could rent a bigger house back then than i currently am on my adult wage)
Somedays i just want to stop showing up for work and stop paying rent, weaponize myself and keep the house by force.
Except people are getting squeezed on housing and the basic necessities now, people are having to work long hours just to live. I can't even imagine how my young adult life would play out if I were experiencing it now, paying ridiculous rents and making the shitty wages. Sharing an apartment and affording anything else was hard enough back then, I can't even imagine how people are making it out there nowadays. I got lucky and got into a home when prices were semi-decent, it'd be a severe strain on finances if I had to pay current rates.
Because mEriTocRacY, those wealth thieveshoarders aggregators worked sooooooooooo hard for their money, they totally deserve every penny. If only people would work as hard as them, they wouldn't be hungry or cold!
My understanding is that issues like universal healthcare and paid leave for parents poll at around 80 percent. The reason the US doesn't have those things is not because the people don't want it. So the representation we elect are center right and don't actually support the will of the people. They represent the will of their donors.
They've been telling us the so-called "invisible hand" will deliver something worthwile for almost 250 years now... so the time must be almost here! I cannot contain my excitement!
Hey, you have to break eggs to make an omelette - the destroyed lives of hundreds of millions of working-class and colonized peoples is nothing compared to the miracles the "invisible hand" will be delivering any day now!
Edit: the answer here is that some jobs are still necessary and the ruling class hasn't found yet a way to motivate people to carry out those necessary jobs, if not by keeping everyone on the edge of starvation. If food and habitation were to become free, people would just stop being the useful tools they are supposed to be. That's why ubi is never going to take off.
Edit 2: Am i been downvoted by the ruling class? Actually, maybe it's because i said i don't think the ubi is going to stick. If that's the reason, I want to clarify that i believe ubi is going to be necessary in the long term, though I also believe it's just a piece of the puzzle. Another piece would be limiting resource usage by accounting for externalities through a system like carbon credits, but with more types of resources (not just co2) and for individuals. It should be a system that lets the normal person live almost normally, but stops the rich from doing the fuck they want just because they have money. At least they would have to buy credits from other people and pay them if they can get them.
I'd like to see someone try a UBI system that was genuinely universal. Literally everyone gets it, employed or not, regardless of income level, but at the same time minimum wage is removed because your living expenses are already ostensibly covered. So if a business can get someone to come in for $1/hour, or even for free, great. All wages just become "gravy" if someone wants luxuries above and beyond basic living expenses.
Under such a system I'd be interested to see how much what are currently minimum wage jobs would need to offer on top of UBI to get people in the door. I could absolutely see things like hobby shops employing people for pennies who'd be happy to be there just due to interest/passion in the subject of their work. Conversely I could see the wages for dreary or abuse prone jobs like gas station attendant or fast food cashier going up because no one in their right mind would want to do it for a pittance if their basic needs are already covered.
This is A very interesting thought. I think you might be not to wrong with your assumptions about jobs. I also would really like to see this in practice.
It is really simple if you eliminate social welfare and make UBI part of taxes, you free up a lot of money. Everyone gets $35 000 a year or does not pay any tax on their first $35k.
This creates a system that is already less expensive to operate than the current mess and injects a lot of money into an economy.
The ruling class hate this idea because if people are not jammed into a corner living paycheck to paycheck or worse, they tend to quit their jobs where their employer was abusing them and get a better education. Or say fuck you to your employer and live poor until you get a new job.
It's paradoxical, though, because anti-labour tactics make those jobs paid so badly that it is not worth automating e.g. trash collection, packet delivery, cleaning staff.
In fact, I've heard people most likely worked less back in the olden days pf pre-industrial scarcity, or at least took entire seasons off when the crops they grew weren't expected to yield anything.
Probably, the only real intensive labour times were sowing and harvest. Apart from that, I can't fathom what would possibly justify 40 hrs/week work times the rest of the year.
I'm guessing farmers didn't waste their time not working when in low season, but rather did other stuff like making furniture, clothing, building, ropemaking, these sorts of manual labor. It's just a guess though, I'm no historian
That's certainly not my intention, however the point must be confronted, why is it that working hours have not been reduced to, say, 4 hours daily, 5 days a week? Or 3 8 hour days? The answer lies in the fact that "standard living conditions" will always be regulated around maximizing time to work, minus time to survive and raise the next generation of workers, under Capitalism.
But that's not a unique feature of capitalism. Serfdom, even communism had it. The powerful will always seek to exploit the labor of the masses, under any economic system.
Think about all the power we generate to mine bitcoin. That could power HVAC for a small country. So, bitcoin exists to create a decentralized currency to prevent government from regulating the currency so the advent of a financial clapse bit coin holders will be able to keep the power on. The very power being spent to generate bitcoin. Add on the extra carbon emissions from running the power plants and you have an equation for certain clapse.
Well..... Yeah. 70% of the global population utilizes some sort of traditional banking system compared to the 2.74% of the global population that utilizes crypto.
It's not a brag to consume 4 times less power than traditional banks when you only serve a tiny fraction of the population.
What is the comparison of how many people it's serving? Either way you don't have to convince me that Banks are a drain on society.
Edit:
Did some looking into this. Claims that traditional markets use 50x more electricity than bitcoin are coming from bitcoin analysts. Did not find any university funded studies. The figure they are giving is annual and looking at a global perspective.
Honestly, this would be a really hard thing to know because financial industries don't track this data. Either way the estimates are superfluous and do not account for scale.
If you estimate current wallets with bitcoin the number might be 60-100 million. As we all know, the number of people participating in some form of traditional currency around the globe is everyone (8 billion). If you are thinking of ignoring the people who don't have any money to speak that would be a disservice because those people are the most effected by the banking industry.
Work is not completely obsolete, since there's plenty of stuff that can't be automated, but imagine if we paid living wages for growing food and build infrastructure. We could afford to eliminate all the useless shit jobs, like middle managers and marketing executives.
I'm not really sure about that - I'd say in the US reactionary politics is just far more overt than it is in other places that self-describes (optimistically) as "democracies."
Not really -- MAGA-esque neofascism is just as overt in many European countries.
What makes the Overton window shifted towards the right in the US, IMO, is that (unlike Europe) the socialist Left never got a foothold in politics at the national level. This, plus years of Cold War, propaganda, allowed collectivist ideas like nationalized industries and universal healthcare to be branded as "Soviet" and somehow Un-American.
To this day, there are people on the Right in the US who believe that advancing any tax-paid public services is tantamount to communism, whereas in Europe there is broad support for the public sector on both sides of the political spectrum.
Nationalized industry (or healthcare) is neither a leftist idea nor a collectivist one. It's merely bog-standard nationalism and perfectly compatible with concepts of "social democracy," which, if you know your history, you already understand isn't leftist at all - it was literally invented by Otto von Bismarck as a way to protect against socialist revolution.
A leftist accepts that state-control of services is still a lot better than privatized control... but it is still a very, very distant second-best to socialized control.
Yeah, nationalization can be a right-wing thing but it generally isn't. Also, I wouldn't say that control by the state is less left-wing than control via worker collectives; that's just the difference between authoritarian and libertarian socialism.
Social democracy, as it is typically understood, is absolutely leftist since it is based around government regulation, social justice, economic equality, and a strong welfare state.
Bismarck also didn't "invent it"; his government was more just a welfare state. Social democracy itself came about through various 19th Century thinkers, such as Eduard Bernstein.
Social democracy, as it is typically understood, is absolutely leftist since it is based around government regulation, social justice, economic equality, and a strong welfare state.
That isn't what most people consider Leftist. Leftism refers to Socialism, not Capitalism with welfare.
Social Democracy is based on class colaborationism between the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie against the proletariat, similar to fascism but without the mass xenophobia or total erosion of worker protections.
The Nordic Countries in particular get much of their income from Imperialism, subsidizing cost of living off the backs of workers in the global south.
Also, I wouldn’t say that control by the state is less left-wing
Control by the state is still anti-socialist - it doesn't matter how much Marxist-Lenninists protest otherwise. There is only one type of "worker's state," and that is one where the means of production is actually democratically controlled by the working class - not a pack of bureaucrat party-parasites pretending to "represent" the working class by waving little red flags at every occasion.
Social democracy, as it is typically understood, is absolutely leftist
There is nothing leftist about social democracy - it's warmed-over liberalism that serves no other purpose other than protecting the liberal order from working class revolt. And, like all forms of liberalism, it's proponents will happily hold hands with fascism as soon as it's precious status quo is threatened from below.
Bismarck also didn’t “invent it”;
"Invent" is a strong word, I suppose... but it's a question of six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. They both serve the exact same purpose and deliver the exact same result. The truth about this ideology remains the same - it is thoroughly ant-socialist and pro-capitalist... and there is nothing leftist about it except in the minds of those whose brains have been addled by "red scare" and "free market" propaganda.
Control by the state is still anti-socialist - it doesn't matter how much Marxist-Lenninists protest otherwise. There is only one type of "worker's state," and that is one where the means of production is actually democratically controlled by the working class - not a pack of bureaucrat party-parasites pretending to "represent" the working class by waving little red flags at every occasion.
I think you're confusing what a State is, in Marx's words. Marxism is not anti-government, or anti-central planning. Marx specifically used the term State to refer to the elements of government that uphold class society, ie private property rights. Marx was not an Anarchist, he argued against Anarchism vehemontly. Critique of the Gotha Programme is worth visiting, if you haven't already.
It's in this manner that the state "whithers away." Not via the government intentionally eroding itself into Anarchism, but via a lack of maintenance of Capitalist institutions. Socialism appears from Capitalism, just as Communism emerges from Socialism.
This isn't analysis unique to Lenin, this is straight from Marx himself.
The rest of your comment is generally true though, such as analysis of Social Democracy.
Yes, I know - and his arguments against anarchism is still just as as hollow as the statists that came after him.
government that uphold class society, ie private property rights.
Yes, I am perfectly aware of how dead wrong Marx was about the nature of the state.
It’s in this manner that the state “whithers away.”
There is no such thing as a "withering state" and there never will be. It's no less ridiculous and esoteric wishful-thinking than Smith's "invisible hand."
but via a lack of maintenance of Capitalist institutions.
As has been thoroughly demonstrated now, any state institution can easily be returned to use by capitalists - Marx was dead wrong about the state because he rejected the anarchist critique of hierarchy (the only thing the anarchists have that is really worthwile) which has, so far, proven airtight. There will never be a "lack of maintenance" of such institutions as long as hierarchical society exists - the political police in a Marxist-Leninist state will happily play political police for capitalists in a liberal society a decade later and vice-versa.
Socialism appears from Capitalism, just as Communism emerges from Socialism.
Not true at all - socialist movements was appearing long before capitalism did. Socialism is not a response to capitalism. It is a response to hegemony - of which capitalism, together with it's twin sibling, fascism, are merely the most immediate and modern expression.
Yes, I am perfectly aware of how dead wrong Marx was about the nature of the state.
Marx was not wrong about the "nature of a state," but used a different, non-Anarchist interpretation. This doesn't make Marx "dead wrong" for not being an Anarchist, but a separate type of Leftist with different critiques.
There is no such thing as a "withering state" and there never will be. It's no less ridiculous and esoteric wishful-thinking than Smith's "invisible hand."
The state whithers all the time, in the UK the Monarchy is a continuously vestigial element of their government structure. Moving through class society causes the elements of previous society to whither and decay. Socialism works the same way with respect to Capitalism, and Communism the same way with respect to Socialism.
As has been thoroughly demonstrated now, any state institution can easily be returned to use by capitalists - Marx was dead wrong about the state because he rejected the anarchist critique of hierarchy (the only thing the anarchists have that is really worthwile) which has, so far, proven airtight. There will never be a "lack of maintenance" of such institutions as long as hierarchical society exists - the political police in a Marxist-Leninist state will happily play political police for capitalists in a liberal society a decade later and vice-versa.
Not quite accurate, Marxism is specifically about working towards ending class society. Anarchist critique of hierarchy is idealist, it doesn't really get at the heart of why systems work the way they do.
Not true at all - socialist movements was appearing long before capitalism did. Socialism is not a response to capitalism. It is a response to hegemony - of which capitalism, together with it's twin sibling, fascism, are merely the most immediate and modern expression.
Not quite what I meant. Primitive Communism and systems like Owenism aren't the same as modern Socialism. Capitalism necessarily creates within it the mechanisms for moving onward to Socialism.
Nationalized industry (or healthcare) is neither a leftist idea nor a collectivist one. It's merely bog-standard nationalism and perfectly compatible with concepts of "social democracy," which, if you know your history, you already understand isn't leftist at all - it was literally invented by Otto von Bismarck as a way to protect against socialist revolution.
Nationalising industry is a very leftist and collectivist idea, the more democratic the state the more collectivist. Social democracy protects against socialist revolution by making concessions to socialists, therefore these concessions are necessarily leftist. The fact that fascists sometimes employ national industry or infrastructure is just a matter of the fact that it's more efficient, not out of leftist ideology. They know that in order to have a functioning society that brings profit to their capitalist owner friends, there need to be paved public roads and a functioning electric grid.
A leftist accepts that state-control of services is still a lot better than privatized control... but it is still a very, very distant second-best to socialized control.
If the state is truly democratic and acts on behalf and in the interest of the workers, it can be better than direct control by workers. I don't want my hospital workers striking for higher wages than the rest of workers out of egoism, I want the public (and thus practically through the state) to have a say on that. My best bet would be some sort of dual-power structure in which the people in general (as represented by a democratic state, including things like local councils or other regional subdivisions of the state) need to reach agreements with representatives of the workers (possibly through unions).
collectivist ideas like nationalized industries and universal healthcare to be branded as "Soviet" and somehow Un-American.
If they are so soviet, then why Supreme Soviet Congress doesn't legislate them into existance? Or if Soviet is so Un-American, then why America has parlaments in the first place?
"sovie" isn't just a council, it's a worker's council. That's why the US institutions aren't soviets, they don't even pretend to represent the workers in particular
You guys should be railing against the central banks, but instead you say how stupid the libertarians are. If you want to change join the correct fight not just yell about how rich people are bad.
Not entirely certain why you're being downvoted. This is the most sane take I have seen from you. I guess it's because of the second sentence. We can fight multiple battles at the same time. FSM knows, I do.
I get the hate of rich people, but I am rather rich and I did nothing wrong. They just dont understand they are being taxed the most its just via inflation and wage devaluing.
Unless you are in the $100,000,000+ range, we aren't talking about you. I classify as "rich," but I absolutely hate the fuckers that control billions and use their money to harm everyone else.
Is it pretty common for people to work 60 hours to pay the bills? I’m not disagreeing with you — no one should have to work that much — i’m just saying the way they worded it as if “we all work 60 hours” seems strange, but maybe i’m just ignorant and the odd one out.
It's not uncommon for people 20-45osh to work over 40hrs especially over 40 hours at 35 hr part time jobs which leaves then working 70hrs a week and still not qualify for employer insurance or benefits.
Thank you! That’s definitely not cool, if you work around 40 hours you should be set, and if you CHOOSE to work over that you should be, well… MORE than set. Hopefully we can get these kinds of changes made… just need to kick out the MAGA trash that has a stranglehold on this country first.
Well to be fair it's the thought that it's a Republican issue, it's not. Both parties are ran by business monsters and lean right and center right respectively.
I'd say yeah because even if you make enough money to live comfortably(100k usd), the type of jobs that are employing you at that rate are going to squeeze every dollar value out of you. I've been doing 60+ hour weeks for about two years now thanks to my first six figure job.
Don’t forget that scarcity is literally the goal of many people trying to make sure we avoid climate change.
It’s not my view, but many many people are talking about “reducing consumption” for humanity. They never come out and acknowledge that their economy-shrinking tactics are making life miserable for poor people, but they’d have to be blind not to understand it.
There are many, many different ways in which the economy could be shrunk. Many have the downside which you mention; making life miserable. But also many, other ways avoid this problem. A few examples how this could look like:
reduce consumption of the super rich
reduce production of trash products like plastic toys or single use vapes
remove laws which enforce waste, such as minimum parking spots
in urban design: prioritize mass transit, biking and walking over motorized individual transportation
When discussing these things, we should never forget that too little, too late action will certainly lead to what you wanted to avoid; making life miserable for poor people.
reduce consumption of the super rich - interesting idea. sci fi at this point. all the consumption-reduction is hitting the poor so far
reduce production of trash products like plastic toys or single use vapes - eliminating those jobs, removing choice from people over what they use
remove laws which enforce waste, such as minimum parking spots - agree, zoning in general means enormous deviation from market equilibrium, meaning tons of economic value wasted
in urban design: prioritize mass transit, biking and walking over motorized individual transportation - as usual, ignores the time cost to people. Time is people’s most limited resource. Taking away people’s time makes them poorer
Ideally what we'd do is shift from polluting to non-polluting forms of consumption - such as by switching from coal and natural gas to renewables. Some would claim this is "economy shrinking" because we'd be pushing people away from one and towards the other by artificial means like taxes and subsidies.
But what these arguments fail to recognize is that we're already doing that. We can't pretend that the government has nothing to do with setting incentives when it lets coal plants pollute for free, and also gives them free police and military protection to stop any citizens or foreign countries that may be on the less beneficial end of that pollution from doing anything about it. So in essence discouraging and eventually ending the burning of fossil fuels is putting an end to the tax we all already pay in the form of bad health outcomes and lost current and future land value from pollution.
I'm reasonably certain they were being sarcastic in an edgy way, that said, I'm not checking their post history for fear that they may have meant the other potential meaning.
No shit, the most left-wing politician in the US would be considered a far-right fascist dictator in Europe.
In the US there’s no left, because left would imply socialism that eventually lead to communism and that goes against the ideia of America, the American dream, the constitution etc. The entire country was built and maintained on the ideia of being against any form of communism.
Well, yeah, no point in getting semantic, I did mean that it wasn't founded on anti-communism because it predates most communist movements, but ofc it developed in anti-communism.
Sorry, I'm Spanish and too lazy to watch a 30-min video about American presidents from 100 years ago, I have enough American presidents on the internet lately for the following... forever? I'm so tired of the fucking bidenkamalatrump thing, I don't see why as a Spanish person I should even know who Justice Alito is when I can't name the literal president of the UK. I'd rather blame it all on capitalism since it's the same everywhere.
Long story short that particular president used his Yale historian credentials and the presidency to push Southern Revisionism, which he wrote, and his racist ideas to fuck up this country a ton, and the rest of the world by refusing to join WWI, and thereby single handedly causing the European theater of WWII, Stalin's rise to power, Hitler's rise to power, and the eventual anti communist rhetoric that permeates the US to this day.
As to why you as a Spaniard may want to know this, it helps explain why the most powerful nation in the world keeps having apoplectic seizures, diplomatically speaking.
Explaining how all of that is literally one guy's fault is why the video is 30 minutes long. Well, that and something like a 4 minute ad in the middle.
the most left-wing politician in the US would be considered a far-right fascist dictator in Europe
I live in Europe. Someone like Bernie would be a labor leftie in every European country. Europe isn't the leftist walhala you think it is. Or do you really think fascists like Wilders or Meloni would be considered left wing in the US?
yeah and I could point to his right wing non-economic views
For example? Legit question, I’ve heard him being pretty supportive of stuff like LGBT rights, Climate activism, Gun laws and legalization of Marijuana, but I’m European so I might not have the full picture.
Pro guns - while he supports some restrictions, he is still pro gun
pro war - supported bombing Yugoslavia and invading Afghanistan
pro gender - supports gender identity/roles rather than abolishment
pro oil - recently voted against replacing oil with nuclear for power generation
Anti-illegal immigrant - not really a problem itself but in 2006 he voted in favour of indefinite incarceration. Also tried to make it illegal for the US to notify Mexico about private militias that patrol the border to kill anyone sneaking across
Drug policy - he only supports legalizing cannabis and blames pharmaceutical companies for the opioid crisis but I couldn’t find anything about giving mental healthcare to addicts or treating them like humans not criminals
Well, most of these positions are shared across the political spectrum even in Europe. (Also apparently he regrets his decision about Afghanistan). I’d still say that would place him left/center left in most of the continent, imo.
Thanks for the list though, I rarely see people bring out legit points against Bernie, it’s good to have a nuanced discussion.
Because even the people who are the most negatively affected by wealth centralization will defend the billionaires that provide them with stuff they like, we'll never escape that system until people realize that there are no good billionaires and that they all exist at the expense of the majority of the population.
Mainly because the wealthy are the ones who co tell the flow of (dis)information and have been making full on attacks against the quality of education we as citizens receive.
When you don’t know any better, and you’re being told the sky is green and the grass is blue long enough, you start to believe it. Them in comes some know-it-all telling you you’re wrong and your belief system has been lying to you, and yeah you’re going to get mad at the know-it-all and cling tighter to your belief system.
Big Scary Man Bad.
It's not the billionaires doing the providing, it's just that the economic engine is locked behind a paywall and so instead of laborers getting the value and credit it's the owning class.
The laborers should be the owning class. This is the core idea of socialism. I don't get why "small government" types are so big on "own me harder daddy" when it comes to the economy. We spend most of our waking hours in dictatorships.
Lots of these people are Petite Bourgeoisie, ie small business owners and the like. Their class interests align with larger Bourgeoisie, but the growth of larger Bourgeoisie pushes the Petite Bourgeoisie into proletarianization.
This is where fascism comes in, actually. The Bourgeoisie and Petite Bourgeoisie unite against the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat, along Nationalist lines, as a response to this proletarianization.
The Alt-Right Playbook does a good job of explaining it in this video, but basically what it comes down to is they believe in a rigid pyramidal structure, with everyone in their ‘proper place’. They also believe that, if we don’t have that rigid structure, our society will crumble.
That’s also why they’re against UBIs, DEI, and other things that ‘promote people beyond their means’.
They are literally parasites.
But they took the risk. The risk of spending loaned money at minuscule interest rates and offsetting any real losses by petitioning the state for handouts. They took the risk of making guaranteed profits on political donations leading to regulatory capture.
The capitalism that people imagine (which I still wholeheartedly reject) isn't even the capitalism that's real in practice.
Even putting aside the inherent inequality of risk having a significant coefficient applied to it that diminishes when you come from generational wealth and a family with the right connections.
The myth of capitalist meritocracy is the most blatantly false myth that's ever been peddled but it works on so many people. It's mind boggling.
Ironically things like UBI might level the playing field a bit in terms of entrepreneurship becoming more accessible, but for some reason capitalism advocates don't actually want more people to be able to participate in capitalism.
Because the moment someone is given something like UBI to help lift them up and provide an equitable playing field for everyone, you get some asshole focusing on how they don't "deserve" it. As if the only thing you can possibly to in order to "deserve" to live is have a job where you are paid the bare minimum your company thinks they can get away with paying you so a few folks at the top get filthy rich and a few in the middle get rich enough not to think to much about the folks at the bottom.
Yep, and tell me how peopke born into richesses "deserve" it...
It's also the slippery slope towards the idea that some people are worth less and some more, as the rich worthless people with inflated egos needs to have something to project their useless souls onto, wanting to believe they are worth more "because they are inherently better". And we all know where that leads to.
So they are not just useless, but also dangerous.
your system is working as intended, every true democracy knows that lettings your politians get bought by corporation is a stupid idea, working exactky as written
The older I get the more I agree with this.
Like, we won. We did it. We have enough food, we can build enough homes, we can build enough clean energy to fulfill our requirements if we're halfway smart about it. What the fuck are we doing?
Making the shareholders rich.
This is what kills me about modern day living. What the fuck are we doing? Innovations (AI) dont fucking help people anymore. All we're doing is chasing profits and letting everything else rot. I feel like I'm living in some FromSoft game before the player comes in to clear out all the ancients holding onto the decay.
That might just be because conservatives and liberals, have always been those ancients holding back society.
In 1776 the conservatives were Loyalists, the progressives were Patriots.
In 1789 the conservatives were Right Wing, the progressives were Left Wing.
In 1860 the conservatives were Confederates, the progressives were The Union.
In 1940 the conservatives were The Axis, the progressives were The Allies.
Innovations still help people loads, that's a crazy pessimistic generalization.
Yes of course the trashy tech bro nonsense isn't helping you, but what about RNA vaccines during covid? What about all of the medical work and innovation going into cancer treatment? What about all of the work and innovation going into reducing carbon emissions so we don't ruin our planet? I could go on for a long time.
Real innovation in mainstream tech may be mostly stagnant and lame, but there will always be useful and helpful innovation.
Of course, there still are helpful innovations. I guess I should say it's obvious 85% of corporations are just profit chasing and rent seeking at this point. There is no global drive forward anymore. Everything is about squeezing the most profit out of whatever. Our infrastructure alone is proof of that.
We've made farming a capitalist system. It only functions if there's scarcity. A farmer can't feed their family or farm their fields without paying bribes to machine companies.
And politicians vilify "subsidies" to farmers. Our society should be "funding" food production as a basic human right. It would take about 1% of the US military budget to completely socialize food production and feed everyone. It's disgusting.
I don't think capitalism is inherently evil. Just the people in control of the wealth.
The Nature of Capitalism https://youtu.be/WseyrYuD8ao
Even worse, we have been producing, and throwing away, so much food that the US by itself could feed the entire world a couple times over. We don't need to spend more money to fix food production and healthcare, we need to spend less.
Yeah. This is wild. I bet it's very similar to solar or wind power production. The places where it's cheap to produce, doesn't have a lot of need. The places where it's needed, it's difficult to get.
There's probably a lot of logistical problems that need solving.. but that's easy stuff. Humans can catch fish in the north sea, send it to Malaysia to be cut and frozen and boxed, to be sold to a person in England within a few days...
Once anyone understands this , nothing else politically matters. There is no left or right. There is no tankie or liberal.
There is only rich.. and poor.
So you're left?
Feel like you didn't understand the message
I’m not rich 🤑
Can we? So much of our modern standard of living comes from extractionary industry.
We pollute our waterways with our mining and drilling. We increasingly rely on prison labor for everything from agriculture to fire fighting. We've de-industrialized the Rust Belt so we could exploit low wage workers abroad. Our biggest sectors are Finance (which creates nothing material) and Tech (which increasingly focuses on Crypto and LLMs). Our airline industry is failing. Our semiconductor industry is failing. Our steel industry is being sold off to Japan.
That's before you get into how natural disasters routinely shut down major urban centers for days or weeks at a time. And how flooding is obliterating enormous chunks of our housing stock. And how our roads and bridges are decades past their expiration date.
Idk if we've won. I get the feeling that we're all living on borrowed time, and we've actually lost big relative to what we could have enjoyed.
Only USA does. The only country that did similar things was USSR. It was. Now USA the only is.
Even EU has better standards of living AND not use slave labour of prisoners.
Assuming you are from USA, your semiconductor industry is just fine.
Americans are the most propagandized people on earth.
I would think that's North Korea, but that's kinda a given.
The USSR by all accounts decreasingly relied on prison labor after WW2 and Stalinism ended. By the 60s, forced labor was anecdotic, and the conditions of people in the gulag system (which shifted from forced labor during Stalinism to mostly reeducation afterwards) were better than those in normal prisons to the point of prison being a punishment to rebellious gulag workers.
It's the problem of "political deactivation" it's in part a cultural issue, in part a byproduct of capitalism.
9-5 jobs kill a lot of political activism. Inculcation into cultural traumas that make the system seem unchangeable by "the little people"... These are the ingredients for "political deactivation".
People want to stay an alert and informed member of society, but that doesn't necessarily result in activism or change. In fact sometimes it makes people less likely to try to change things.
Welcome to 1916 Russia, when all non-Imperialists(not only Bolsheviks) were saying, that 6-day work week prevents prevents people from becoming citizens. Next step would be mandatory education.
What made us successful as a species, required us to be ruthless by design.
I feel like it was more learning to work together that's made us so successful compared to other animals. Not having to spend our lives solely dedicated to hunting/growing food for ourselves and our families has allowed people to specialize in other fields. The advancement of science wouldn't have been possible without people collaborating and working together, though conflict has also played a role as well. Ruthlessness only works for a small number of individuals who exploit the good will of others, but the whole thing falls apart if everybody was always ruthless.
That's patently false. Before agriculture, societies were just tribes of at most a hundred individuals, with not much in the way of hierarchy due to the lack of division of labor, essentially a very primitive form of anarcho-communism. Humans are extremely empathetic and there's plenty of evidence that prehistoric humans took care of people with disabilities or with serious injuries despite them possibly (not necessarily) being a liability for the tribe in terms of food-to-labor ratio.
Tribes that fought each other for hunting grounds
The taking care of your own when it’s a handful of people doesn’t scale up to millions
So you agree that by human nature humans can do both good and bad things, and that society is the one that imposes which ones we do?
It kinda does, look at Cuba. Peaceful as it gets, extremely high number of doctors per capita to the point of exporting doctors in times of crisis in other countries, fastest country to vaccinate its population against COVID, guaranteed housing for everyone, really low crime rates and no mafias or drug cartels... You can accuse Cuba of many things, but it proves you can take care of millions of people
I take it that you’ve never been there
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/7/19/as-cubas-private-sector-roars-back-choices-and-inequality-rise
https://raceandequality.org/where_we_work/cuba/
A comment as smart as your username. Why take actual data when you can take personal experience, amirite?
Edit: my comment was written before links were provided through an edit to the previous comment
Oh you got me sir, well played being the one of us to cite sources
Psychopathy
Nonsense.
Somebody read and agreed with Might is Right…
What made us successful as a species is our societies and those came as a direct rejection of ‘ruthlessness’. Society is built on cooperation.
Sure, we’re still bloodthirsty monsters. But that will be our downfall.
A mortgage (not rent!) for a 3 bedroom house is $1,400. Live somewhere cheaper, you don't need to live in/near a city.
If you do, that's fine, just recognize that is something you are choosing to pay for.
Damn dude. Why didn’t I think about that? All I have to do is work 80 hours a week at the gas station, send my kids to substandard schools, not buy decent food, not have access to public transit, not have access to decent medical care, not have any cultural options, be white since rural areas are not kind to people of color, drive 40+ minutes to anything worth driving to, not have municipal water or sewage or possibly trash pickup, etc.
Why do I keep wanting to live in places with services and good quality of life in a capitalist country where I make 3x the median wage and still can’t buy a house? Silly me.
In case you didn’t pick up on it, I’ve lived in rural areas previously, and I’d rather rent for the rest of my life than ever do that again.
I don’t really understand how you don’t understand that buying a house requires cash on hand.
Closing costs can be rolled into the mortgage and PMI drastically reduces how much is required for a downpayment.
Rents are also much cheaper in these areas too, which makes it much easier to save up for a PMI lowered downpayment.
You have no idea what people’s economic situation is like, do you?
This mofo saying that living in a city (56% of humans, 4.4bn people, live in cities) should be a luxury.
US Democrats are the equivalent to our countries conservatives, and US Republicans are basically our rightwing/neo-nazi party pedant. It is noteworthy here that this Republican-equivalent rightwing party here is under active surveillance by the national security agencies for being a threat to our democracy.
And people still wonder why the US f-ups their people up and down.
I keep trying to tell people this but they don't want to hear it.
Because it’s actually a corporate oligarchy
Capitalism in decay.
I think the most damning thing is that the US is regressing where others are progressing.
DeSantis Signs Anti-Worker Bill Against Heat Regulation in Florida
UAE's midday break for outdoor workers begins on June 15
As a European, I wish you were right. Europe hasn't recovered from the austerity policy imposed in the post-2008 crisis. I'm Spanish so I can tell you about my country. Job termination payment was halved and hasn't recovered, firing people became easier and cheaper, stricter laws against protesting were created ("ley mordaza" or gag law) which enabled more police violence and increasingly violent mall-cops, and we're right now suffering the rise of the far right in Europe with Meloni winning in Italy, Marine LePen close to doing so in France, and rising AFD in Germany (many other countries as well).
We're all fucked, buddy.
Work is punishment for original sin.
You mean breaking away from the UK?
No, we meant throwing away good tea.
I do not think that the US is a democracy. The electoral college is not in any way democratic.
It is an indirect democracy, rather than a direct one. Its less democratic, but not completely undemocratic.
That being said, I do think the system is broken in another fundamental way.
It's completely undemocratic. Public opinion has no influence on policy whatsoever. Most Americans are in favour of Medicare for all, of legal abortions, of rising taxes on corporations and the most rich people, and much much more. But study after study shows that public opinion has no influence on policy, as in, they're not even correlated.
I feel like that's less of a problem with the way a representative democracy works, but rather with corruption and thus capitalism
Yeah, I wasn't referring to the concept of representative democracy itself, I was referring to the particular case of the US (though I'd extrapolate it to most liberal democracies in western countries)
Ahem. Indirect democracy AKA representative democracy AKA republic is political system, where laws are voted by representatives who are elected by citizens. USA is indirect indirectracy. Or idiocracy. Like Putin's Russia, but with bells and whistles.
Direct democracy is rare beast. In it laws are directly voted by citizens on referendums.
FPTP?
Gerrymandering, vote caging, mass disenfranchisement, consolidated power in appointed positions...
A very curious was to run a republic.
Propaganda is one hell of a drug
Can't have a view that matters when you are hungry, stressed, are left with like 1 hour a day to yourself, and with constant other random threats to your existence you get to manage.
The system is working as designed, ppl forget how much work such a system needs to sustain itself actually.
The problem is that Capitalism, and by extension Imperialism, is unsustainable and constantly decaying.
Yes.
And one of the constant maintenance being performed to sustain it is convincing us how sustainable and overall the best thing ever possible it is - how at the same time it has by default only one single goal, a goal of which by default the only end-game of a properly working system is a single complete concentration of power, yet it is widely "believed" how much that is in everyones best interest.
The Nature of Capitalism https://youtu.be/WseyrYuD8ao
*60 hours a week
Laughs in European
Right. I work 37.5 hours a week in a job I love and I hate working. I can’t imagine doing almost double.
My partner used to do 60 hour weeks. She was working outdoors, in the desert (41°c on average), and only worked 4 days a week. The work culture in this country sucks...
I know its just a meme and I think you're right to point it out but I feel bad for laughing.
In the UK, as one example, its default unlawful to work more than 45 hours a week. You have to choose to sign this away. Refusal to agree can't be used as a reason to fire you or choose not to hire you, unless its like the police or army or something.
The UK is worse in different places and has this too. So, its not about being superior or any of that BS. But the US is full on, mask-off, you are cattle and the mega rich are your ranchers. You can't even just simply move to a different country to escape paying for gargantuan corporate benefits. They own you and they don't care if you know it.
There's functionally no enforcement of what was formerly the EU working time directive being voluntary to opt out of. If a company wants you to sign (and in some fields, they will, even if they've got no reason to) they can always pretend to have found some other reason not to hire you.
It's 5 hours more than in Russia. Please fix.
I worked 12h shifts for 7 days a week, as a european. Hoping to gather enough money to buy a house...guess what, my 40h job barely covers the cost of living nowadays and i'm not fit to work more hours. Plus i ended up running short with every passing year, when i needed a 200€ wage increase to afford a mortgage by the time i got that i needed another €150 wage increase.
A single family home used to be 150k, now those go for 500k and my wage ended up in the exact same spot where i started at the age of 21. (Before that it was a youth wage and surprise surprise i could rent a bigger house back then than i currently am on my adult wage)
Somedays i just want to stop showing up for work and stop paying rent, weaponize myself and keep the house by force.
Fuck this shitshow we are in.
The fact that my wage has no value or that i want to go nuts?
Except people are getting squeezed on housing and the basic necessities now, people are having to work long hours just to live. I can't even imagine how my young adult life would play out if I were experiencing it now, paying ridiculous rents and making the shitty wages. Sharing an apartment and affording anything else was hard enough back then, I can't even imagine how people are making it out there nowadays. I got lucky and got into a home when prices were semi-decent, it'd be a severe strain on finances if I had to pay current rates.
Because mEriTocRacY, those wealth
thieveshoardersaggregators worked sooooooooooo hard for their money, they totally deserve every penny. If only people would work as hard as them, they wouldn't be hungry or cold!I have no idea how this isn't the standard view. Technology is often used as a carrot on a stick.
My understanding is that issues like universal healthcare and paid leave for parents poll at around 80 percent. The reason the US doesn't have those things is not because the people don't want it. So the representation we elect are center right and don't actually support the will of the people. They represent the will of their donors.
I’m sure the invisible hand will figure it out.
They've been telling us the so-called "invisible hand" will deliver something worthwile for almost 250 years now... so the time must be almost here! I cannot contain my excitement!
And when it doesn't deliver, it's clearly the big bad gubmint's fault. Who needs laws and regulations, amirite?
Hey, you have to break eggs to make an omelette - the destroyed lives of hundreds of millions of working-class and colonized peoples is nothing compared to the miracles the "invisible hand" will be delivering any day now!
Invisible hand that masturbate shareholders
I keep telling you, people.
Edit: the answer here is that some jobs are still necessary and the ruling class hasn't found yet a way to motivate people to carry out those necessary jobs, if not by keeping everyone on the edge of starvation. If food and habitation were to become free, people would just stop being the useful tools they are supposed to be. That's why ubi is never going to take off.
Edit 2: Am i been downvoted by the ruling class? Actually, maybe it's because i said i don't think the ubi is going to stick. If that's the reason, I want to clarify that i believe ubi is going to be necessary in the long term, though I also believe it's just a piece of the puzzle. Another piece would be limiting resource usage by accounting for externalities through a system like carbon credits, but with more types of resources (not just co2) and for individuals. It should be a system that lets the normal person live almost normally, but stops the rich from doing the fuck they want just because they have money. At least they would have to buy credits from other people and pay them if they can get them.
I'd like to see someone try a UBI system that was genuinely universal. Literally everyone gets it, employed or not, regardless of income level, but at the same time minimum wage is removed because your living expenses are already ostensibly covered. So if a business can get someone to come in for $1/hour, or even for free, great. All wages just become "gravy" if someone wants luxuries above and beyond basic living expenses.
Under such a system I'd be interested to see how much what are currently minimum wage jobs would need to offer on top of UBI to get people in the door. I could absolutely see things like hobby shops employing people for pennies who'd be happy to be there just due to interest/passion in the subject of their work. Conversely I could see the wages for dreary or abuse prone jobs like gas station attendant or fast food cashier going up because no one in their right mind would want to do it for a pittance if their basic needs are already covered.
This is A very interesting thought. I think you might be not to wrong with your assumptions about jobs. I also would really like to see this in practice.
Suddenly every bodies rent goes up about as much as their ubi check
Except a UBI doesn't necessarily cover all living expensives. It's just a little boost to help people out.
It is really simple if you eliminate social welfare and make UBI part of taxes, you free up a lot of money. Everyone gets $35 000 a year or does not pay any tax on their first $35k. This creates a system that is already less expensive to operate than the current mess and injects a lot of money into an economy. The ruling class hate this idea because if people are not jammed into a corner living paycheck to paycheck or worse, they tend to quit their jobs where their employer was abusing them and get a better education. Or say fuck you to your employer and live poor until you get a new job.
It's paradoxical, though, because anti-labour tactics make those jobs paid so badly that it is not worth automating e.g. trash collection, packet delivery, cleaning staff.
Billionaires are doing their part to fix this problem! In the next 50 years you wont be able freeze to death with rising global temps. Problem solved!
In fact, I've heard people most likely worked less back in the olden days pf pre-industrial scarcity, or at least took entire seasons off when the crops they grew weren't expected to yield anything.
Yeah, I've thought similar.
Probably, the only real intensive labour times were sowing and harvest. Apart from that, I can't fathom what would possibly justify 40 hrs/week work times the rest of the year.
Oh well, I guess you're right about that.
I'm guessing farmers didn't waste their time not working when in low season, but rather did other stuff like making furniture, clothing, building, ropemaking, these sorts of manual labor. It's just a guess though, I'm no historian
That's a dangerously naive view of history.
It's true, though. As industrialization occured, people began to work more, as more profit could be made.
I guess I should say, dangerously reductive.
It's reductive, but not dangerously so. It calls into question why humans are working so many hours, and the answer is Capitalist profit.
I guess that's a matter of opinion. I think you're downplaying the negative aspects of pre-industrial life too much.
That's certainly not my intention, however the point must be confronted, why is it that working hours have not been reduced to, say, 4 hours daily, 5 days a week? Or 3 8 hour days? The answer lies in the fact that "standard living conditions" will always be regulated around maximizing time to work, minus time to survive and raise the next generation of workers, under Capitalism.
But that's not a unique feature of capitalism. Serfdom, even communism had it. The powerful will always seek to exploit the labor of the masses, under any economic system.
Some people have become so ingrained into the system, that they will even fight to defend it.
Think about all the power we generate to mine bitcoin. That could power HVAC for a small country. So, bitcoin exists to create a decentralized currency to prevent government from regulating the currency so the advent of a financial clapse bit coin holders will be able to keep the power on. The very power being spent to generate bitcoin. Add on the extra carbon emissions from running the power plants and you have an equation for certain clapse.
Wait till you hear about traditional banking using 50x more energy.
Well..... Yeah. 70% of the global population utilizes some sort of traditional banking system compared to the 2.74% of the global population that utilizes crypto.
It's not a brag to consume 4 times less power than traditional banks when you only serve a tiny fraction of the population.
What is the comparison of how many people it's serving? Either way you don't have to convince me that Banks are a drain on society.
Edit:
Did some looking into this. Claims that traditional markets use 50x more electricity than bitcoin are coming from bitcoin analysts. Did not find any university funded studies. The figure they are giving is annual and looking at a global perspective.
Honestly, this would be a really hard thing to know because financial industries don't track this data. Either way the estimates are superfluous and do not account for scale.
If you estimate current wallets with bitcoin the number might be 60-100 million. As we all know, the number of people participating in some form of traditional currency around the globe is everyone (8 billion). If you are thinking of ignoring the people who don't have any money to speak that would be a disservice because those people are the most effected by the banking industry.
Wait until you hear about other cryptocurrencies that use a ton less power then Bitcoin. I seriously don't understand why Bitcoin isn't obsolete now
If markets were rational, I wouldn't be a socialist.
Work is not completely obsolete, since there's plenty of stuff that can't be automated, but imagine if we paid living wages for growing food and build infrastructure. We could afford to eliminate all the useless shit jobs, like middle managers and marketing executives.
Seriously, I can't be the only one who thinks there's a better possible society than 1/3rd of workers doing excel sheets
Way, way to the right.
We don't need to, we're forced to because a minority of ultra rich hold all the power.
Correct.
Now wait for raid from twitter canceling you for hurting feelings of rich minority.
This is the standard view of the majority under 50
I'm not really sure about that - I'd say in the US reactionary politics is just far more overt than it is in other places that self-describes (optimistically) as "democracies."
Not really -- MAGA-esque neofascism is just as overt in many European countries.
What makes the Overton window shifted towards the right in the US, IMO, is that (unlike Europe) the socialist Left never got a foothold in politics at the national level. This, plus years of Cold War, propaganda, allowed collectivist ideas like nationalized industries and universal healthcare to be branded as "Soviet" and somehow Un-American.
To this day, there are people on the Right in the US who believe that advancing any tax-paid public services is tantamount to communism, whereas in Europe there is broad support for the public sector on both sides of the political spectrum.
Nationalized industry (or healthcare) is neither a leftist idea nor a collectivist one. It's merely bog-standard nationalism and perfectly compatible with concepts of "social democracy," which, if you know your history, you already understand isn't leftist at all - it was literally invented by Otto von Bismarck as a way to protect against socialist revolution.
A leftist accepts that state-control of services is still a lot better than privatized control... but it is still a very, very distant second-best to socialized control.
Yeah, nationalization can be a right-wing thing but it generally isn't. Also, I wouldn't say that control by the state is less left-wing than control via worker collectives; that's just the difference between authoritarian and libertarian socialism.
Social democracy, as it is typically understood, is absolutely leftist since it is based around government regulation, social justice, economic equality, and a strong welfare state.
Bismarck also didn't "invent it"; his government was more just a welfare state. Social democracy itself came about through various 19th Century thinkers, such as Eduard Bernstein.
That isn't what most people consider Leftist. Leftism refers to Socialism, not Capitalism with welfare.
Social Democracy is based on class colaborationism between the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie against the proletariat, similar to fascism but without the mass xenophobia or total erosion of worker protections.
The Nordic Countries in particular get much of their income from Imperialism, subsidizing cost of living off the backs of workers in the global south.
Fair enough -- "left of centre" then, if we are defining Leftist strictly as just socialist/communist.
Why would it be "left of center" if its Capitalist, not Socialist? It would be right of center.
Because in the centre you have neoliberalism and so on.
If you simply define left as anti-capitalist and right as capitalist then what's in the center?
Control by the state is still anti-socialist - it doesn't matter how much Marxist-Lenninists protest otherwise. There is only one type of "worker's state," and that is one where the means of production is actually democratically controlled by the working class - not a pack of bureaucrat party-parasites pretending to "represent" the working class by waving little red flags at every occasion.
There is nothing leftist about social democracy - it's warmed-over liberalism that serves no other purpose other than protecting the liberal order from working class revolt. And, like all forms of liberalism, it's proponents will happily hold hands with fascism as soon as it's precious status quo is threatened from below.
"Invent" is a strong word, I suppose... but it's a question of six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. They both serve the exact same purpose and deliver the exact same result. The truth about this ideology remains the same - it is thoroughly ant-socialist and pro-capitalist... and there is nothing leftist about it except in the minds of those whose brains have been addled by "red scare" and "free market" propaganda.
Ok, so if we agree to define Leftist strictly as anti-capitalist, then fine. I was using it to mean more "left-of-centre".
If you are pro-capitalist you are a right-winger - no ifs, ands or buts. Not "centrist" or "left-of-center."
There is no debate to be had here.
So what's in the centre then?
I think you're confusing what a State is, in Marx's words. Marxism is not anti-government, or anti-central planning. Marx specifically used the term State to refer to the elements of government that uphold class society, ie private property rights. Marx was not an Anarchist, he argued against Anarchism vehemontly. Critique of the Gotha Programme is worth visiting, if you haven't already.
It's in this manner that the state "whithers away." Not via the government intentionally eroding itself into Anarchism, but via a lack of maintenance of Capitalist institutions. Socialism appears from Capitalism, just as Communism emerges from Socialism.
This isn't analysis unique to Lenin, this is straight from Marx himself.
The rest of your comment is generally true though, such as analysis of Social Democracy.
No. I'm not.
Yes, I know - and his arguments against anarchism is still just as as hollow as the statists that came after him.
Yes, I am perfectly aware of how dead wrong Marx was about the nature of the state.
There is no such thing as a "withering state" and there never will be. It's no less ridiculous and esoteric wishful-thinking than Smith's "invisible hand."
As has been thoroughly demonstrated now, any state institution can easily be returned to use by capitalists - Marx was dead wrong about the state because he rejected the anarchist critique of hierarchy (the only thing the anarchists have that is really worthwile) which has, so far, proven airtight. There will never be a "lack of maintenance" of such institutions as long as hierarchical society exists - the political police in a Marxist-Leninist state will happily play political police for capitalists in a liberal society a decade later and vice-versa.
Not true at all - socialist movements was appearing long before capitalism did. Socialism is not a response to capitalism. It is a response to hegemony - of which capitalism, together with it's twin sibling, fascism, are merely the most immediate and modern expression.
Marx was not wrong about the "nature of a state," but used a different, non-Anarchist interpretation. This doesn't make Marx "dead wrong" for not being an Anarchist, but a separate type of Leftist with different critiques.
The state whithers all the time, in the UK the Monarchy is a continuously vestigial element of their government structure. Moving through class society causes the elements of previous society to whither and decay. Socialism works the same way with respect to Capitalism, and Communism the same way with respect to Socialism.
Not quite accurate, Marxism is specifically about working towards ending class society. Anarchist critique of hierarchy is idealist, it doesn't really get at the heart of why systems work the way they do.
Not quite what I meant. Primitive Communism and systems like Owenism aren't the same as modern Socialism. Capitalism necessarily creates within it the mechanisms for moving onward to Socialism.
Nationalising industry is a very leftist and collectivist idea, the more democratic the state the more collectivist. Social democracy protects against socialist revolution by making concessions to socialists, therefore these concessions are necessarily leftist. The fact that fascists sometimes employ national industry or infrastructure is just a matter of the fact that it's more efficient, not out of leftist ideology. They know that in order to have a functioning society that brings profit to their capitalist owner friends, there need to be paved public roads and a functioning electric grid.
If the state is truly democratic and acts on behalf and in the interest of the workers, it can be better than direct control by workers. I don't want my hospital workers striking for higher wages than the rest of workers out of egoism, I want the public (and thus practically through the state) to have a say on that. My best bet would be some sort of dual-power structure in which the people in general (as represented by a democratic state, including things like local councils or other regional subdivisions of the state) need to reach agreements with representatives of the workers (possibly through unions).
If they are so soviet, then why
Supreme SovietCongress doesn't legislate them into existance? Or if Soviet is so Un-American, then why America has parlaments in the first place?"sovie" isn't just a council, it's a worker's council. That's why the US institutions aren't soviets, they don't even pretend to represent the workers in particular
Your basic bitch Walmart laptop is now a few times more powerful than IBM's deep blue.
You guys should be railing against the central banks, but instead you say how stupid the libertarians are. If you want to change join the correct fight not just yell about how rich people are bad.
Not entirely certain why you're being downvoted. This is the most sane take I have seen from you. I guess it's because of the second sentence. We can fight multiple battles at the same time. FSM knows, I do.
I get the hate of rich people, but I am rather rich and I did nothing wrong. They just dont understand they are being taxed the most its just via inflation and wage devaluing.
Unless you are in the $100,000,000+ range, we aren't talking about you. I classify as "rich," but I absolutely hate the fuckers that control billions and use their money to harm everyone else.
I could bypass that amount by the time reach end of life, what would I have done that is so wrong?
Hoarding. You are hoarding resources that you don't need that others do. That's called unmitigated greed.
Do you really think the Scrooge McDuck vault is real?
No, and why are you resorting to fallacy rather than addressing my point?
They say this like EVERYONE is working 60 hours, like some kind of… reverse strawman? Weird statement to make.
NO ONE should have to work 60 hours to meet those goals.
Is it pretty common for people to work 60 hours to pay the bills? I’m not disagreeing with you — no one should have to work that much — i’m just saying the way they worded it as if “we all work 60 hours” seems strange, but maybe i’m just ignorant and the odd one out.
It's not uncommon for people 20-45osh to work over 40hrs especially over 40 hours at 35 hr part time jobs which leaves then working 70hrs a week and still not qualify for employer insurance or benefits.
Thank you! That’s definitely not cool, if you work around 40 hours you should be set, and if you CHOOSE to work over that you should be, well… MORE than set. Hopefully we can get these kinds of changes made… just need to kick out the MAGA trash that has a stranglehold on this country first.
Well to be fair it's the thought that it's a Republican issue, it's not. Both parties are ran by business monsters and lean right and center right respectively.
I'd say yeah because even if you make enough money to live comfortably(100k usd), the type of jobs that are employing you at that rate are going to squeeze every dollar value out of you. I've been doing 60+ hour weeks for about two years now thanks to my first six figure job.
Don’t forget that scarcity is literally the goal of many people trying to make sure we avoid climate change.
It’s not my view, but many many people are talking about “reducing consumption” for humanity. They never come out and acknowledge that their economy-shrinking tactics are making life miserable for poor people, but they’d have to be blind not to understand it.
There are many, many different ways in which the economy could be shrunk. Many have the downside which you mention; making life miserable. But also many, other ways avoid this problem. A few examples how this could look like:
When discussing these things, we should never forget that too little, too late action will certainly lead to what you wanted to avoid; making life miserable for poor people.
reduce consumption of the super rich - interesting idea. sci fi at this point. all the consumption-reduction is hitting the poor so far
reduce production of trash products like plastic toys or single use vapes - eliminating those jobs, removing choice from people over what they use
remove laws which enforce waste, such as minimum parking spots - agree, zoning in general means enormous deviation from market equilibrium, meaning tons of economic value wasted
in urban design: prioritize mass transit, biking and walking over motorized individual transportation - as usual, ignores the time cost to people. Time is people’s most limited resource. Taking away people’s time makes them poorer
Yeah monopolies are really bad. Which industries do you believe are monopolized right now?
Ideally what we'd do is shift from polluting to non-polluting forms of consumption - such as by switching from coal and natural gas to renewables. Some would claim this is "economy shrinking" because we'd be pushing people away from one and towards the other by artificial means like taxes and subsidies.
But what these arguments fail to recognize is that we're already doing that. We can't pretend that the government has nothing to do with setting incentives when it lets coal plants pollute for free, and also gives them free police and military protection to stop any citizens or foreign countries that may be on the less beneficial end of that pollution from doing anything about it. So in essence discouraging and eventually ending the burning of fossil fuels is putting an end to the tax we all already pay in the form of bad health outcomes and lost current and future land value from pollution.
what an antisemitic question
What?
I'm reasonably certain they were being sarcastic in an edgy way, that said, I'm not checking their post history for fear that they may have meant the other potential meaning.
No shit, the most left-wing politician in the US would be considered a far-right fascist dictator in Europe.
In the US there’s no left, because left would imply socialism that eventually lead to communism and that goes against the ideia of America, the American dream, the constitution etc. The entire country was built and maintained on the ideia of being against any form of communism.
No, it wasn't built that way, the US as a country predates strong communist movements
You can build after you founded.
Well, yeah, no point in getting semantic, I did mean that it wasn't founded on anti-communism because it predates most communist movements, but ofc it developed in anti-communism.
You can thank Woodrow Wilson for the anti-communist stuff.
https://youtu.be/hLiI6kXZkZI?si=C60tiHTgjLsvhiRR
Sorry, I'm Spanish and too lazy to watch a 30-min video about American presidents from 100 years ago, I have enough American presidents on the internet lately for the following... forever? I'm so tired of the fucking bidenkamalatrump thing, I don't see why as a Spanish person I should even know who Justice Alito is when I can't name the literal president of the UK. I'd rather blame it all on capitalism since it's the same everywhere.
Long story short that particular president used his Yale historian credentials and the presidency to push Southern Revisionism, which he wrote, and his racist ideas to fuck up this country a ton, and the rest of the world by refusing to join WWI, and thereby single handedly causing the European theater of WWII, Stalin's rise to power, Hitler's rise to power, and the eventual anti communist rhetoric that permeates the US to this day.
As to why you as a Spaniard may want to know this, it helps explain why the most powerful nation in the world keeps having apoplectic seizures, diplomatically speaking.
Explaining how all of that is literally one guy's fault is why the video is 30 minutes long. Well, that and something like a 4 minute ad in the middle.
I live in Europe. Someone like Bernie would be a labor leftie in every European country. Europe isn't the leftist walhala you think it is. Or do you really think fascists like Wilders or Meloni would be considered left wing in the US?
I doubt Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren would be considered far right.
They aren’t, Bernie is centre right
No…? 4-day work week with no reduction in pay is very much a left/far left concept even in Europe.
yeah and I could point to his right wing non-economic views
That’s why he ends up a centrist which is far from the guy’s claim of being alt-right
For example? Legit question, I’ve heard him being pretty supportive of stuff like LGBT rights, Climate activism, Gun laws and legalization of Marijuana, but I’m European so I might not have the full picture.
Pro guns - while he supports some restrictions, he is still pro gun
pro war - supported bombing Yugoslavia and invading Afghanistan
pro gender - supports gender identity/roles rather than abolishment
pro oil - recently voted against replacing oil with nuclear for power generation
Anti-illegal immigrant - not really a problem itself but in 2006 he voted in favour of indefinite incarceration. Also tried to make it illegal for the US to notify Mexico about private militias that patrol the border to kill anyone sneaking across
Drug policy - he only supports legalizing cannabis and blames pharmaceutical companies for the opioid crisis but I couldn’t find anything about giving mental healthcare to addicts or treating them like humans not criminals
Well, most of these positions are shared across the political spectrum even in Europe. (Also apparently he regrets his decision about Afghanistan). I’d still say that would place him left/center left in most of the continent, imo.
Thanks for the list though, I rarely see people bring out legit points against Bernie, it’s good to have a nuanced discussion.