this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
2196 points (92.8% liked)
Microblog Memes
5731 readers
2915 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Of the two, one is still far more realistic than the other.
I'll bite. Until we have machines doing most things, communism is unlikely to work, especially in post agrarian societies. We need to first fully realize not just post scarcity, but post work. In theory it seems like things like anarcho syndicalism and basic communism should work, but I don't think they really function at a large scale. Socialized democracy and worker owned cooperatives within a capitalism system gets the closest to solving the problems imo. I like the idea of anarcho syndicalism the most, but I just don't see how it can survive in todays world.
With all systems the same problems crop up. Powerful people seek to exploit ANY system to their benefit, and unmotivated people seek to do the least to get by. Who cleans toilets in a equitable communist country, who picks up the trash? Do we force people into job roles to fill the need? Without economic incentives I don't see how the system stays healthy. Removing class barriers to some jobs does not always make them desirable enough to fill the need. Capitalisms structure inherently results in people that are strongly incentivized into those roles, because the wage will usually rise to meet the demand for employees. (Low educated citizens seeing opportunity in jobs that make a living wage.)
Currently the biggest problem we have, imo, is really that people with power expend tremendous resources on controlling the flow of information, and that has left a lot of people very misinformed. No matter the system, those same people will be fooled into voting for things that benefit the powerful to the detriment of the rest of us. That's not so much a capitalism problem, but an information problem. That's a problem we have no solution for. It has been an issue with humans since civilization has existed. We can't individually know everything, so we rely on others to fill in the gaps in our thinking and assumptions, and many of those people have a motive to only give you the information that benefits them, or worse off just lie. A lot of peoples anger towards capitalism, is a result of unbridled capitalism in a world where most people have incomplete information to make good decisions at the voting booth. We only have unbridled capitalism because of misinformation, not because capitalism is inherently bad.
I AM left wing, have read about many social theories in my life all over the spectrum. There isn't much one can do to distill that down to one post. Not one of the solutions to communisms problems I've seen in my lifetime are ever very fair or realistic. It comes with all of the same problems as capitalism as it pertains to power and it is infinitely less agile than capitalism. You can get to nearly the same place that communism wants to get, by adapting socialist ideals into capitalism while keeping capitalisms agility in the marketplace of needs.
Who manages that? Who decides what resources goes to who and how much time people work? There are a lot of answers to those questions, often solved with central planning that can't possibly keep up with ever shifting needs. This gets directly into your 4th question, whether you've realized it or not.
Its one of the silliest things on the left, that a lot of people like you think that everyone to the left of them is an extremist and everyone to the right of them is a right-winger or Nazi. It's exhausting to say the least. Most of my political understanding drives me towards socialist mechanisms within a capitalist system. To call that right wing is to be intentionally obtuse and ideologically ridged to say the least. Certainly the USA, where I am, is further right than most places, but even in the most left wing countries I would still be on the left. To call that "centrism" or "a right-winger" is just trying to be willfully ridged to move the goalpost to exactly where you stand. It's an entirely semantic argument of your making, but it's not in line with how people generally view the political spectrum.
Powerful people have exploited every system the world has ever created, including the half assed attempts at communism. You are living in a dream world if you truly think that powerful people won't exploit their decision making authority to drive the conversation to their benefit under communism. It's one of the primary reasons communism could never get off the ground. Because people opted the quick way of trying to arrive at it by force and centralizing power in the hands of the few. But even if we try to get their slowly, the same thing will happen. Powerful people will exploit their power to prevent progress to their benefit. Power, and the ability to obtain it, objective negates the ability to create true communism.
Capitalisms core mechanism is supply and demand, that applies to workers as well. If a job needs to be filled, the system adjusts to fill that demand. If no one wants to pick up trash, wages have to go up to meet demand. That's effectively what unions do, they put pressure on the supply and demand curve by striking and removing the supply of workers. The same thing happens with products themselves, if the market is missing something, then it gets expensive, causing a strong incentive for people to make that thing, which after the market adjusts and creates more products, causes the price to go down and availability to the masses to go up. Some of the things we produce are imperative to survival, like food. Capitalistic markets handle that naturally by adjusting quickly to those demands. People want to make money, so they put their effort towards the highest demands and the largest profitability. Communism is entirely supply based, and demand is centrally planned by some person making well educated guesses on how much of x the market needs. This is functionally not agile, it requires bureaucracy to manage demand and have a flawless picture of exactly what the demands are day to day, it's impossible to be as agile as a system that adjusts as fluidly as capitalism, imo, and it is the biggest downside of communism. Central planners can literally make one mistake and the whole country starves to death.
At no point did I state that this was my goal, and you know that.
Stateless societies are functionally impossible in the modern world. If we press reset on the world today and removed nationhood, within a decade those with power will have grabbed up most of the land in the world, through massive bloodshed. This is why any stateless society can't work, it creates a power vacuum that will necessarily be filled, and it will be filled by people that don't care if you are alive or dead. Whether we like it or not, power exists, and some of those that wield more of it will always use that power to grab what they can. Nationhood is the assurance of less war. Despite all of the things wrong in the world today, we have the lowest portion of our society dying from wars in world history since we drew clear borders everywhere, a fairly modern thing. Borders used to be very fluid, and sometimes some areas were basically a collection of city states with undefined borders shifting every day. As much as the news seeks to tell you otherwise, this is the safest point in human history. stateless, classless, and moneyless societies would be the most vulnerable societies to power. Welcome to mad max express edition.
Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive, whoever told you that is a next level moron. Both exist on a continuum. Additionally, capitalism is an economic system, while socialism is both an economic and political system. Social democracies are a blend of systems.
Worker cooperatives are an inherently socialist ideal and function perfectly well under capitalism. Social programs that seek to redistribute a portion of the wealth to those most in need are also socialist in nature. The fact is there are some things central planning does a better job at and there are other things that markets do a better job at. I certainly think that more central planning is good for specific things. Like the fact that we pay for internet is moronic, it should be entirely socialized. But centralizing food production would likely result in mass starvation eventually. And even if by some miracle it didn't, it would greatly reduce choices. But I don't need choices for electricity, water, sewer, etc. I just need them to exist and function properly. For internet, I want it to be fast, but a nationalized system could probably build that out generation to generation if collective society deems that necessary.
I've read Marx. Every smug comment you continue to make just show how incredibly insecure you are about your beliefs. Stay on topic and stop wrapping your ego up into the conversation. Just because I don't buy every single argument made, doesn't mean I'm not well read, two people can read something and come to different conclusions. Maybe you should try reading things OTHER than Marx and see a multitude of perspective before you die on your hill. There is an immense portion of communisms ideals that is in line with what I believe in, but I am not someone that just rides an ideological train without addressing each things on it's own merits. Applying ideology to everything instead of addressing each thing on it's own merits is the antithesis of progress. You sound more like Communism is your religion than it's a structural concept.
Same problem, lack of agility. Worker councils in a system that has no money, or incentives to produce goods at the rate of demand, won't meet demand. Worker councils would inherently be more concerned with the impact to them (the workers) than the impact to demand, and therefor the broad society at large. Again, people would starve.
You don't just get to change how words work because you want to parrot what Marx said word for word like everything he wrote was the word of god. In a modern context calling someone who believes in worker cooperatives, a broad social safety net, workers unions, and heavily regulated capitalism "right-wing" is objectively dishonest.
Sure, you will have those worker councils until someone with power convivences a bunch of scared people that they need control and then they slowly take over everything. Congrats, you had worker councils for 1-10 years. Welcome to the shortest "utopia" in the world. The lack of centralization is exactly what creates vulnerability. Why do you think Genghis Kahn existed? He saw the power vacuum that decentralized power created in Mongolia, and hated all of the war that it caused, and he incorrectly believed he could have the war to end all wars. One of the larges extermination events, by population percentage, in human history was caused by decentralized power, and that's not exactly the first time. Are you expecting worker councils to stop some dude rolling up in a tank to take over?
It is functionally impossible to recreate the agility of capitalism within worker councils. Especially in todays globalized systems. It doesn't matter how you do the planning, its the same issue, the incentives are not placed on demand. The incentives only meet what the workers want to supply.
All I said was "You can get to nearly the same place that communism wants to get", I admit that was too broad in hindsight. What I meant is workers controlling the means of production and better outcomes for labor. A worker cooperative can exist within capitalism. The overarching system is capitalism, the micro system is socialist in nature. If I work for a factory that I and everyone else that works for it owns, then I work for a factory that operates on socialist principles. That factory can exist in a capitalist economy.
So worker cooperatives don't exist in capitalist economy's? That's news to me, I must be delusional then! Only in their absolute forms could one argue they are opposed, and even then I think that gets into semantics that favor a strictly communist perspective. To anyone who isn't breathing communist propaganda, socialism is both economic and political, and tends to be used in a lot of contexts. People don't get to claim words for themselves, words have the meanings that society generally agrees it has. You might not like it, but playing these semantic games to redefine things to your worldview isn't doing you any favors. You can search nearly any academic publication and you will get that answer, that Capitalism and Socialism are not diametrically opposed because they are not in the same category, they seek to define different things. But we don't have absolute capitalism anyway, and you are well aware that I wasn't stanning for absolute capitalism. But this is a tired semantics argument if your only point in this conversation is to rigidly define words only the way propagandists define them, and not how academia, and the general public defines them. If that's your purpose, then this conversation is entirely pointless. I mean, it's pointless anyway, but it's even more pointless considering your goals of word definitions rather than substance of outcomes.
You have yet to debunk a single thing, all you've done is regurgitate propaganda.
I think capitalists would let literally everyone starve if they didn't need the labor. But the system is self correcting, if food is in demand, then people see the opportunity and meet the demand. Because under capitalism people will always fill a void with their own desire to make a profit. You still have not given a single reason why workers councils would raise to that level of agility.
Right wing is political, capitalism is economic. Again, I repeat, you don't get to define words, society as a whole has a mutual understanding of what words mean. Right-wing is an inherently political determination, not an economic system. Within that system people who are right-wing tend to be anti-communist, and to that extent you're right I am anti-"pure communism" at least. Because I think it's impossible. But that doesn't make me right wing, it's like saying Greg wears a blue hat and Greg is a jerk therefor all people in blue hats are jerks, it's an enormous logic leap.
It's global but decentralized, you still need to address the glaring flaws of a power vacuum. At no point in human history has a power vacuum not been filled with power. You're asking me to trust on faith that suddenly humans would stop being human.
You seem to have entirely missed my point.
Yes that was my point, I'm glad to see you are finally listening. You were claiming that they can't exist at the same time, while in fact the most certainly can and do.
Wish we'd see that someday
Get into anarcho-syndicalism. Form and join existing anarcho-communist worker's associations. The only sustainable way for us to end capitalism is if we start collectively associating and operating outside the framework of capitalism today.
Exactly. No revolution occurred because everyone wished really hard it would happen but still played by the oppressor's rules.
Human nature is a mf though
I'm a fan of pragmatism: real solutions to real problems.
Yeah, but I don't think communism is a bulletproof solution either. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.
The real issue is that people think the disparity in wealth should grow instead of shrink.
Maybe there's a sweet spot in between Capitalism and Communism. They are basically the 2 extremes of the political spectrum after all. Surely there's a spot on the spectrum that embraces worker's rights while also incentivising commercial enterprise. Checks and balances are always necessary, even in a utopia.
This is the essence, corruption.
I think many of the socialist states of Asia and Eastern Europe are or were ridiculously corrupt. How democratic those were is of course questionable.
I meant that it wasn't really very resistant to corruption.
I'm not sure even that is true. Not sure how you can even really measure that. Or do you mean it could theoretically be?
What do you feel was the reason that the corruption was so high in Eastern European socialist states?
I don't think it's corrupt vs non-corrupt but about the level of corruption
That does seem fair
There was never socialism in Asia or Eastern Europe. At no point have the workers seized the means of production and had a dictatorship of the proletariat.
You can apply this No True Scotsman logic to capitalism, too. Its biggest fans say True capitalism has never been tried, either.