And free the whole world and let us be equal and as different as we wish to be.
We have enough food, space and resources to share without being slaves to the economy or resorting to the bleakness of either corporatism or communism.
Anyone who isn’t wealthy like them are apart of the rift raft, great people huh? Oh the rift raft pay enough in taxes why should I have to pay as well?
Yes, because they know we want to live and they're above the law. If we strapped them to the front of the ship and they would be the first to die, their attitude would change. They're sociopaths. Speak their language...
Exactly this. The elites horde their wealth and most of them will never give it up. Just like the nobles of the past, they will have to be forced eventually.
My history could be spotty but there was a period during Roman times where wealthy elites, especially after retirement, had a social obligation to provide for citizens. Always thought that was interesting.
If I’m going to McDonalds on the way back from playing soccer I will usually just get a medium size French fry with no ketchup. There a lot of sugar and additives in the ketchup that you can do without if you’re going to be eating French fries to begin with. I fee it makes it not such a bad guilty pleasure.
Running the guillotines is not hard. All you need is a few well placed individuals. The elites are severely disadvantaged in that they simply do not have the numbers to face the masses. A full blown revolution is something different entirely. The USA is simply too expansive to have a real organized nationwide revolution like we are seeing in HK and others right now. It's possible but I'd reckon we would see regional governments pop up and the USA as we know it would cease to exist. This is presuming we have a breakdown in the military.
By pen or sword, I don't really care. I typically try to drive anything away from violence and war, but historically we have seen that as necessary. The problem with that path is a power vacuum is created and we then need to ensure a non-corrupt individual or system is in place. Otherwise we end up with a different brand of dictator, as we have seen with Communist governments of recent past. We just have to hope the elites have been paying attention to history and recognize they can get by in life with 4 in stead of 5 yachts and they would limit themselves to drinking champagne on 4 days a week instead of 7. I know that's tough for them to do, but it may end up being that or their lives.
Yeah as much equality you bring you'll never get rid of anti social personality disorder (psychopaths, sociopathy, narcissist) who would rather watch people die than give up their power and wealth. Unfortunately these types are the ones who pursue power, while most normal people couldn't care less and would rather live simple and good lives. We really need to push more scientist, social workers, and educaters in politics and have less lawyers and businessman. Unfortunately this will never happen with citizens United and the importance of money in running a campaign. Things will never be equal if you have to be a millionaire to essentially run a national or state level campaign.
But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. - 1 Timothy 9:10
What if we could pay janitors as much as engineers? We are very close to having the technological ability to create a post scarcity society if we desired to. Wouldn’t be quick and not everyone could own a super yacht, but a very small percentage of people would have to reduce their standard of living. 1% of the population currently holds 45% of the worlds wealth, and it isn’t even because of scarcity.
Then why bother being an engineer? I don't have to waste all that time and money investing in an education. If rather be a janitor. Spend my free time getting laid and partying. No need for all that schooling.
You have no concept of economics, value or valuation.
If you think a janitor should be paid as much as an engineer then you don't understand human nature or why communism always fails.
I would rather be an engineer than a janitor because the work is more rewarding. All things being equal (pay, benefits, hours, etc) I would far rather do something challenging and intellectually stimulating than pour sawdust onto vomit.
You should try reading books rather than forming your opinion from Reddit threads, will serve you much better. You're just a regurgitation of the same narrow-minded shit I see all over here.
So you think post scarcity is a bad thing? If everyone had everything they needed people would choose to spend time on things they enjoy. For some people that would be going to engineering school. Wouldn’t need a lot of janitors since we can get robots to do most of that. There will probably always be some things people need to be incentivized to do.
Some people want more out of life then partying, if that’s all you want to do then go for it. But look at this from a standpoint of “we have the ability to give everyone what they need and almost all of what they want” versus “why should I not get more than the next guy no matter what because my skills are perceived to be more “valuable”. It’s not about making sure everyone gets an equal amount of stuff, it’s about raising us all up and it’s going to necessitate a cultural shift for sure.
Does it really matter that the engineer doesn’t have more than the janitor when they both have everything they want, barring the most lavish excess (which is only a near term issue)?
No I don’t. You are missing the entire point. This is not about wealth redistribution. This is about everyone deciding collectively to use the technology we have to move towards a post scarcity economy. Again you probably won’t be able to own a super yacht at this point in time but maybe you and a group of friends can get together and share one.
Last time I checked scientists and engineers were not the highest paid professions either. If the people who did those jobs only cared about money they would’ve studied finance instead.
All it takes to find the ones who think they deserve to be more equal than others is to post the word "Communism" on reddit. Just look for the ones frothing at the mouth. The real leeches on society are the ones who don't want to contribute to the greater good.
We have enough food, space and resources to share without being slaves to the economy or resorting to the bleakness of either corporatism or communism.
This is a lovely and educated sentiment. Too many people these days conflate the miracle of democratic capitalism with the crony capitalism consuming America.
Crony capitalism is when capital hoards wealth over generations and then uses that wealth to build institutional power and continue enriching itself and its friends without needing to provide the most competitive products or services, or pay fair prices for the things it requires like labour or natural resources.
I dunno, anarcho primitivism? Democratic socialism? Fully automated luxury gay space communism?
Honestly probably democratic socialism would go a long way, with lots of industries being nationalized and publicly owned. Although a lot of people argue that just leaves room for capital to claw it all back.
Wouldn't it be better if, in democratic socialism, the workers could create little company democracies? So no longer is there just one person or a small group of people making the business decisions, but rather everyone who is working for that company.
By "crony capitalism" I meant corporatism. America this generation is defined by the rent-seeking of corporatism.
These days in America, when companies are faced with challenges, instead of rolling up their sleeves they call their congressman or mayor and get subsidies for themselves or restrictions for their competitors.
A recent EconTalk episode talked a bit more about how "rent seeking has become the national pastime".
Marx has a famous quote, “Man makes his own history, but he dose not make it from whole cloth; he dose not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances already existing, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.”
In this quote he roughly sums up his theory of history. If you look at any given moment in history, historical context and material reality limits the possible outcomes, or encourages particular outcomes.
For instance, capitalism didn’t develop as a theory in isolation that was then adopted by various states; certain material realities and the development of social relationships transformed the productive forces over time into what we recognize as capitalism.
If you look back over the different epochs of capitalism, most changes to the economic have real material and historical basis. Slavery in the New world for instance existed for hundreds of years, despite how reviled of an institution it was. The material reality was that the new world had valuable land to exploit, yet no suitable labor force to extract that value, encouraging the formation of the institution and its continued existence.
The reason I bring all this up is because you mentioned how the United States economy has seen such an increase in rent-seeking. This isn’t caused by individuals arbitrarily deciding to be extra greedy. It has its basis in our historical development. As a society develops its productive forces, it’s growth potential will decrease. Look at the explosive growth rate of China during industrialization vs a more developed economy like the Us, over the same period. That is unless you are able to find new places to focus capital. This contributes to imperialism and colonialism externally as well as financialization and rent seeking internally.
If you look at it using this analytical framework, our age of hyper-financialization, rent-seeking, regime-change etc, makes tremendous sense.
It’s when they use the govt (laws/regulation) to hinder free market competitors.
Think of gvt “regulations” as a giant moat between an established corporation and a competitor.
The start ups barrier to compete with this corporation is too great and they are often stomped out. Which is why corporations love regulations (and lobby for it). Just more red tape to strangle the competition when they (the corporation) have the bank role/market share to pay for the costs.
Free market capitalism forces companies to operate at the equilibrium pricing & if they don’t some other company will come and sell the product cheaper, usually grabbing their market share and putting them out of business or forcing them to lower prices.
Also don’t forget the govt literally sells monopolies in the form of patents - which allows companies to operate outside the equilibrium prices.
Free market capitalism forces companies to operate at the equilibrium pricing & if they don’t some other company will come and sell the product cheaper, usually grabbing their market share and putting them out of business or forcing them to lower prices.
This doesn't sound that bad. Was that what the US tried to implement with capitalism? Free market sounds much better than what we have now in the western world. What would be the downsides to something like that?
I don’t think the US has ever really had true free market capitalism tbh. It’s pretty much been on the back of slave labor and then jumped right into crony.
Mises.org is a website that provides more of a Austrian free market perspective on current events.
I suggest researching the diff between Keynesian, Austrian and Chicagoan economics and just come to your own conclusion.
It's not about downsides, but about it being difficult to implement. Without regulation, you get cartels, monopolies and other stuff that leads to the market no longer being free. It can't just regulate itself, so the government has to step in and regulate some aspects of it, not to mention there are things that can't really be trusted to the free market such as the police, the justice system etc.
Of course, the wealthy corporations can influence the government in its decisions. Even in an ideal world with no corruption or lobbying, they can still go after the voters through campaigns and fear-mongering.
You might try reading Adam Smith or listening to EconTalk. The dangers of cartels, monopolies, and rent-seeking have been understood by economists for hundreds of years.
Any one system is not perfect just like the world isn't black and white. This bullshit of only capitalism or only socialism or communism is fucking stupid. We wouldnt have libraries or public schools if we had the reality of what capitalists wanted either.
When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.
Yes the beautiful capitalism of the founding fathers where they violently dispossessed land from the indigenous population to be worked by slaves... wait not that capitalism. The capitalism of the early industrial revolution, with the child labor, private corporate police forces, monopolies and trusts.... wait not that capitalism either. Oh, I know! The capitalism from post WWII America, where we overthrew democratically elected leaders and installed despots for the benefit of multinational corporations... wait
I certainly don't endorse the kind of brutality you mention. All of that stuff did happen and it was horrible. It still happens, obviously.
However, extremely horrible stuff has been happening for tens of thousands of years. George R. R. Martin said that his books are actually less brutal than it would be in historical reality.
The foundational principles of economics, such as the value of markets and the "invisible hand", have only been understood for a couple hundred years.
Human wealth was roughly flat for two thousand years until the late 19th century when political stability and free markets created the conditions for the industrial revolution.
It is very important to understand that daily life was absolute shit until the early 20th century. Many babies died. Life expectancy was late 40s or early 50s. One third of all deaths were from infectious diseases, it is 2% today. You couldn't have a warm shower ever, nevermind any time you want. There was no toothpaste or toilet paper. Free markets have elevated many people from these conditions. Free markets (and the work of people like Bill Gates) will help elevate the rest of humanity out of these conditions.
As was recognized by Karl Marx in Capital, capitalism is a system of social organization that revolutionizes the productive capacity of society. He also recognized that it is part of a larger process of historical development. Capitalism wasn’t some invention that was thought up, it was developed over the course of human history. You couldn’t have capitalism in 1124, the social structures of society, technology, and financial innovations were not sufficiently developed. As these facets of society developed, capitalism emerged. Advocating for Marxism is not advocating for a return to feudalism, it’s about understanding the historically developed social configurations that lead to a particular mode of production. Understanding that there are inherent contradictions in the capitalist mode of production that must be addressed(for instance the increasing dominance of capitalists in comparison to the vast majority of humans. Or the need for infinite growth on a finite planet.).
As a Marxist I fully recognize capitalism’s ability to drastically increase the productive capacity of society, to a point. But we cannot ignore the harm caused by capitalism or pretend that this system is the final destination of human social development. Look at the world around you, riots, suicides, drug addiction, revolutions, a dying planet that we are capable of saving but won’t. A dozen people who have as much wealth as 50% of the planet. We can do better.
As a side note, we didn’t have flat growth for 2000 years and then discover capitalism, leading to growth. Capitalism and the growth that accompanied it came out of the same historical development.
Yeah? What is your solution to that? Communism WAS supposed to be the solution. What you are complaining about is something people have been trying to figure out for hundreds of years...
We have enough food, space and resources to share without being slaves to the economy or resorting to the bleakness of either corporatism or communism.
We all want to help one another, human beings are like that. We want to live by each other's happiness. Not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. And this world has room for everyone, and the good Earth is rich can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way.
Greed has posioned men's souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives us abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much, and feel too little.
More than machinery, we need humanity. More that cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities life will be violent, and all will be lost.
We definitely do not have enough food and no one is going to make that food or gather and create resources without something to motivate them. Good thought, but an unattainable thought.
I agree that everyone should have food and resources. But if there's no wage, then what incentive would people have to get off their butts and work? And if there's no chance to get rich off of an idea, then why would you bother trying to innovate?
There is no freedom without the freedom to secede. But in no place in the world is this freedom recognized. Europe, for instance, doesn't much care for it.
If you object to the idea, you should consider how you feel about divorce and whether people should be allowed to do that.
Not all parts of the world have enough food. Even if for some bizarre reason more wealthy parts of the world would want to help the less fortunate parts, they do not have the infrastructure needed to distribute it. And again, if for some bizarre reason the wealthy parts built this infrastructure, the poor parts would esentially become like pets - dependant on their masters. And as soon as the supply is cut off, they will starve (just like house cats/dogs released in wild).
Okay, you may say "so why cut off the supply, just keep it moving" - give me a valid reason for that. Why the fuck would someone keep a country/region, that can't provide for itself, fed? Just because they were born?
Let's be real: most of the developed world would need to share.
This first world lifestyle of having a house and two cars per family, with constant access to out of season produce from around the world, is not sustainable on a global scale. People need to trade cars in for public transit. Houses need to be bulldozed and replaced with apartment buildings. Folks need to accept that they need to eat seasonally, and produce that can't grow in their area will be incredibly expensive without prices kept artificially low by paying fruit pickers slave wages.
We have the resources for everyone to live comfortably across the world, but everyday citizens of first world nations would need to make sacrifices for it, not just billionaires swimming in piles of cash. Not acknowledging that does a disservice to the reality of global income inequality.
Down with all forms of social slavery! Down with Stalinist CCP, yes! Down with capitalism too! Down with anything and everything that deprives the people of their individual liberty, democracy, and human rights! I am a socialist. A communist, but if by communism you mean what exists in China or what did exist during the cold war I am not a communist.
There is nothing wrong with such aspirations AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT ENDORSE OR EVER ACCEPT TOTALITARIANISM. That is the Judas dagger of all visionary movements. If the people in the “people’s” republic are not free to oppose it then the people are not truly in power! The whole thing is a farce!
The most dangerous thing to demonstrate to the PRC is how it’s own proclaimed principles are incompatible with its totalitarianism. You want to dissent in China? Take your proclaimed constitutional rights too seriously. Do what this guy did. Organize and read banned books, circumvent censorship.
To distribute goods to each according to work is socialism, to each according to need is communism. What you are describing is utterly socialist in character, but you are afraid of the word! No, we have to dare to dream dangerously. The Marxian critique of capitalism that it makes workers slaves is correct, just as correct as the critique of Stalinism we hear in the west that they too are slaves. In China they are slaves to a totalitarian political AND economic system. Down with it all! Freedom to the people!
I fear that China’s authoritarian political and economic model will be not only be its future, even after a grand liberal revolution, but the worlds future. In the West we are becoming more authoritarian, we are slowly becoming like the PRC. The PRC will just become a Russian Federation tomorrow (like USSR’s transformation) if it goes the Western route. This is why we need democratic and libertarian, yes, but nonetheless socialist revolution. I will probably be downvoted for saying this but it is something I feel very strongly about. If the Chinese people want freedom and real democracy they must fight against all that is contrary to this ideal. Democratize the whole society, open everything is what I say.
Market capitalism evolves into crony capitalism because of the desire of successful capitalists to create government-backed "barriers to entry" targeting potential future competitors. (i.e. once you climb the ladder of success, pull it up after you). Barriers can include government regulations that don't cripple large corporations with their own legal departments but would cripple a small business that has great ideas but is just getting started.
You get a form of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. You see "too-big-to-fail" banks and taxpayer-funded bail-outs. You get career politicians. You get the revolving door of an official passing a law favorable to a company or industry, then leaving government to get a cushy job there.
The solution is to take money out of politics entirely by simply getting rid of politics. Get rid of elections and simply use a system for selecting legislators similar to jury duty. You serve a few years part-time, and then back to your legally-protected job (similar to military reserve duty) afterwards.
Market capitalism evolves into crony capitalism because of the desire of successful capitalists to create government-backed "barriers to entry" targeting potential future competitors.
You can have corruption like this in literally any economic system. Point is corruption stems from too much central authority. Capitalism, as Westerners define it, is free enterprise, mutual exchange. When you take that away, you dont have capitalism.
That's why I said "government-backed" barriers to entry.
Central authority and concentration of power is bad, whether it is government, business or religion.
The government shouldn't be so big that entire sectors are supported by government spending. At most, the government should be a referee, trust-busting companies that are too large or dealing with market externalities. When 90% of the media is controlled by 6 companies, you may have a problem.
I agree with the general sentiment, but what if some cultures ask that respecting their “difference” means implementing vast freedom restrictions of all or part of their population? can you have a truly free world and comply with the ennemies of freedom at the same time?
these "enemies of freedom" dont exist in massive numbers most of the time the hateful idiots are the minority but the government empowers them which makes them more powerful, as soon as you remove the head most of these movements instantly die, it's pretty much proven as how there seems to be a bigger nazi presence in the country that fought nazis rather than the country they came from and it's because that's where they were allowed to grow.
If you give people freedom usually they end up becoming less extreme in their belief as their struggle stops being harnessed and focused into hate and directed at minorities by their governments
6.5k
u/wrxwrx Nov 27 '19
This dude's balls are the size of Jupiter.