[video=youtube;lOJWP_e3EVA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOJWP_e3EVA[/video]
When you look at its core, there are just 2 classes. Those who live on others work and those who work to live.
[QUOTE=RB33;52418565][video=youtube;lOJWP_e3EVA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOJWP_e3EVA[/video]
When you look at its core, there are just 2 classes. Those who live on others work and those who work to live.[/QUOTE]
When you look at it through a marxian lens*
And actually not even that. Bourgeoisie do work to live, often very hard (esp. petit bourgeoisie.) Even Marx says this and they do face unique problems. The distinction is those who own means of production, and those who don't.
[sp]badmouse gets a winner for the tankie/toothbrush jokes lol[/sp]
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52418602]When you look at it through a marxian lens*
And actually not even that. Bourgeoisie do work to live, often very hard (esp. petit bourgeoisie.) Even Marx says this and they do face unique problems. The distinction is those who own means of production, and those who don't.
[sp]badmouse gets a winner for the tankie/toothbrush jokes lol[/sp][/QUOTE]
The capitalist doesn't have to work though, he's already well-off and can rely on his ownership and the workers to make him money. The workers have no other choice, they don't become capitalists or no longer rely on the system, just because they wish so.
Armchair communists who think they're extremely informed while spouting mountains of simplistic ignorant crap is like an internet pass time.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52418735]Armchair communists who think they're extremely informed while spouting mountains of simplistic ignorant crap is like an internet pass time.[/QUOTE]
Well, the right is no saint in that regard. Actually it's a whole lot worse.
[QUOTE=RB33;52418722]The capitalist doesn't have to work though, he's already well-off and can rely on his ownership and the workers to make him money. The workers have no other choice, they don't become capitalists or no longer rely on the system, just because they wish so.[/QUOTE]
There's people who don't work and aren't bourgeoisie, such as sick people/terminal people who can't work and survive off of the labour of their spouse/family/etc., that's why your dichotomy doesn't work for these purposes. It doesn't fit the bourgeoisie/proletariat mold.
The idea that rich business owners don't work is nonsense in the first place.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52418912]The whole sick and bedridden is some major straw picking, up there with "I have a snowball so climate change is a hoax."[/QUOTE]
How?
I'm saying that "Survives off the labor of others" = bourgeoisie and "Works to live" as proletariat isn't fitting. There's that case, people like the petit bourgeoisie, small stock owners technically, and others. It's not even a rare phenomena.
You can keep the means of production distinction because it works somewhat.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52418900]There's people who don't work and aren't bourgeoisie, such as sick people/terminal people who can't work and survive off of the labour of their spouse/family/etc., that's why your dichotomy doesn't work for these purposes. It doesn't fit the bourgeoisie/proletariat mold.[/QUOTE]
If they aren't capitalists, they are workers. Even if they can't work, they are just being taken care of by those who can. If they could work, noone would doubt them being workers.
[QUOTE=RB33;52418924]If they aren't capitalists, they are workers. Even if they can't work, they are just being taken care of by those who can. If they could work, noone would doubt them being workers.[/QUOTE]
Because they would then be workers.
You can classify it as a subdivision of proletariat if you really want to like the lumpenproles, salariat, etc.. You can also use a different definition, one I've heard is instead of just being a worker/not a worker, you enter bourgeoisie territory if you own enough means of production to purely survive off of that.
The whole thing with treating the rich like some stereotypical money bags seems incredible short sighted, immature, and ignorant to me.
[editline]30th June 2017[/editline]
Capitalism isn't a bad word.
[QUOTE=OvB;52418939]The whole thing with treating the rich like some stereotypical money bags seems incredible short sighted, immature, and ignorant to me.
[editline]30th June 2017[/editline]
Capitalism isn't a bad word.[/QUOTE]
They are not the ones who have to put up with bad healthcare, housing crisis, far too low wages or unemployment. The system rewards the rich, gives whatever remains to the poor, while trying to get away with giving as little as it can.
[QUOTE=RB33;52419002]They are not the ones who have to put up with bad healthcare, housing crisis, far too low wages or unemployment. The system rewards the rich, gives whatever remains to the poor, while trying to get away with giving as little as it can.[/QUOTE]
[sp]funnily enough that also describes most attempts at socialism[/sp]
This too doesn't describe the bourgeoisie properly as many members of the proletariat don't put up with those either. Actually, the majority don't in western countries. For those that do, things have been improving greatly over the last century in particular.
[thumb]http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/033015Global-poverty-chart.png[/thumb]
and they've even been gaining greater say in their lives and countries as well
[thumb]https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Share-in-Democracies-since-1816.png[/thumb]
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52419016]
The idea everyone being able to eat and have access to education and healthcare is a fucking controversial one in the United States, and that kind of thinking is being bankrolled by wealthy people who live wildly beyond their means. Captalism isn't a bad word, but the American definition of it kills people and forces hard working people to live on scraps in the most wealthy country in the world.[/QUOTE]
It's not controversial. The means by which it is done and the details are controversial.
[QUOTE=RB33;52419002]They are not the ones who have to put up with bad healthcare, housing crisis, far too low wages or unemployment. The system rewards the rich, gives whatever remains to the poor, while trying to get away with giving as little as it can.[/QUOTE]
You're problem seems to be with freedom and money as concepts. There's no such thing as a system with both totally equal outcomes and freedom of choice.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52419020][sp]funnily enough that also describes most attempts at socialism[/sp]
This too doesn't describe the bourgeoisie properly as many members of the proletariat don't put up with those either. Actually, the majority don't in western countries. For those that do, things have been improving greatly over the last century in particular.
[thumb]http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/033015Global-poverty-chart.png[/thumb]
and they've even been gaining greater say in their lives and countries as well
[thumb]https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Share-in-Democracies-since-1816.png[/thumb][/QUOTE]
There are explainations for failures of socialism, some because of internal authoritarianism, others because of outside hostility.
I wasn't saying that that was the definition of the proletariat. There are more and less well-off proletarians. Called middle class by some. The 2 class definition doesn't bother with wealth levels, just if you own wealth-generating property and live off that or not.
Things are getting better, it still took us 100 years. When we could have radically improved lives 100 years ago.
[editline]30th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;52419027]You're problem seems to be with freedom and money as concepts. There's no such thing as a system with both totally equal outcomes and freedom of choice.[/QUOTE]
Capitalism have an issue with freedom, it actively restricts it. If we don't work, we starve. Is that freedom? True freedom is the flexiblity of not working at all times while never worrying about your next meal, your house or bills.
[QUOTE=RB33;52419067]There are explainations for failures of socialism, some because of internal authoritarianism, others because of outside hostility.
I wasn't saying that that was the definition of the proletariat. There are more and less well-off proletarians. Called middle class by some. The 2 class definition doesn't bother with wealth levels, just if you own wealth-generating property and live off that or not.
[B]Things are getting better, it still took us 100 years. When we could have radically improved lives 100 years ago.[/B][/QUOTE]
those are some VAST alt-history assumptions about both economics and politics. I can very easily instead say that we'd have a prosperous and liberal Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc. if Lenin just stayed in law school. A fractured but relatively free China, a united korea, etc..
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52419080]those are some VAST alt-history assumptions about both economics and politics. I can very easily instead say that we'd have a prosperous and liberal Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc. if Lenin just stayed in law school. A fractured but relatively free China, a united korea, etc.. Or that in your time line we have several sino-soviet splits as socialists in different countries had very different beliefs e.g. the Spartacists vs. Leninists.[/QUOTE]
Socialism adopted in a democratic way in a major western country could have succeeded. It never happened, instead we got a bunch of backwater eastern countries with an obsession for authoritarianism.
[QUOTE=RB33;52419067]
Capitalism have an issue with freedom, it actively restricts it. If we don't work, we starve. [B]Is that freedom[/B]? True freedom is the flexiblity of not working at all times while never worrying about your next meal, your house or bills.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is freedom under any normal understanding of the word. The fact that we die without food, and that food takes work to make, doesn't make you a slave. It makes you a living person. You aren't describing capitalism, you're describing life in the real world.
Freedom is the idea that you are free to do what you want without any other person coercing you. It doesn't mean you get all the comforts of life for free.
This video is obviously shit
But what I don't get about how our system currently works is how productivity has gone up for 5 decades as wages fall. Hardline right wingers act like this is a good thing. How is it?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52419140]Yes, that is freedom under any normal understanding of the world. The fact that we die without food, and that food takes work to make, doesn't make you a slave. It makes you a living person. You aren't describing capitalism, you're describing life in the real world.[/QUOTE]
Everyone is not a farmer, this isn't the 1800s anymore. You're likely not making the food, so why should you starve? Why be forced to work in order to pay for it, when we can simply provide everyone with free meals?
[QUOTE]Freedom is the idea that you are free to do what you want without any other person coercing you. It doesn't mean you get all the comforts of life for free.[/QUOTE]
There is no freedom when you're forced to work for others profits. Instead of having the choice to work for the gain of the community, not filling the pockets of already wealthy people.
[editline]30th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52419145]This video is obviously shit
But what I don't get about how our system currently works is how productivity has gone up for 5 decades as wages fall. Hardline right wingers act like this is a good thing. How is it?[/QUOTE]
Because they can get away with it and people don't do enough to protest it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52419145]This video is obviously shit
But what I don't get about how our system currently works is how productivity has gone up for 5 decades as wages fall. Hardline right wingers act like this is a good thing. How is it?[/QUOTE]
Can you name a "right winger" who says that falling wages are a good thing? (Though "falling wages" isn't really an accurate picture of the last 50 years. Real income is up.)
Something happened in the 1970s that changed everything. Look at almost any chart on economics, social issues, etc. and you'll see some change in the 70s. Take a look at this chart, for example:
[IMG]https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/labor_gap/04e656c70.png[/IMG]
Notice how there's a constantly rate of growth until the mid 1970s. The productivity growth keeps going, but wages change significantly. I honestly don't know why more research isn't put into that very specific era to figure out what fundamentally changed. Here are some further charts showing the change both our economic and social structure:
Welfare spiked in the 70s:
[IMG]http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/reports/2010/b2427/b2427_chart1.jpg[/IMG]
Marriage rates started their decline in the 70s:
[IMG]https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/06/marriages_divorces_per_capita.png&w=1484[/IMG]
Wealth inequality started to spike in the 70s:
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cp6WS-6Kw1Q/UzocVDWImvI/AAAAAAAAZRY/ZLZsUhIA5Kw/s1600/Inequality1.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=RB33;52419106]Socialism adopted in a democratic way in a major western country could have succeeded. It never happened, instead we got a bunch of backwater eastern countries with an obsession for authoritarianism.[/QUOTE]
You can't make that assumption. Not a single one of the "real socialisms" ever both A. Ran on a large scale and B. Lasted long.
Most that have satisfied the first quality are brutal dictatorships and disasters like Venezuela. Probably the "best" that's been accomplished here is Yugoslav market socialism and Cuba. The former of which basically was drowning in debt to escape stagnation and had a massive chunk of its workforce having to work outside of the country, and the latter has large problems too and is slowly liberalizing away from socialism.
The second quality is also comprised of those dictatorships typically, all of which wound up liberalizing at the end. For anarchism we have the Zapatistas, who are pretty reclusive and poor. But they have lasted a generation at least. Oh, and there's the DPRK, and other tiny local communes which aren't relevant.
[QUOTE=RB33;52419153]There is no freedom when you're forced to work for others profits. Instead of having the choice to work for the gain of the community, not filling the pockets of already wealthy people.[/QUOTE]
You're not forced to work for others' profits, though. You're forced to work to make your own profits, so that you can maintain a comfortable lifestyle and not starve to death.
[QUOTE=RB33;52419153]Everyone is not a farmer, this isn't the 1800s anymore. You're likely not making the food, so why should you starve? Why be forced to work in order to pay for it, when we can simply provide everyone with free meals?[/QUOTE]
You, personally, are not growing food, but still pay for your food by providing some other service to society.
[QUOTE=RB33;52419153]There is no freedom when you're forced to work for others profits. Instead of having the choice to work for the gain of the community, not filling the pockets of already wealthy people.[/QUOTE]
Work is a mutual contract between you and an organization. You agree to give your labor to produce a product or service. In exchange for your labor you are given compensation in the form of wages, salaries, benefits, or ownership (stock option). Your labor produces an output that benefits the community. Your labor results in your community having access to goods and services. You're not pulling magical levers that make money fall into the fat cats pocket. It's a system that -when working properly- has a mutual gain around the system. You get a wage, the community gets a good or service, and the managers get a salary. Ownership in a company is simply a fact of freedom. If you claim to live in a free society, I have the right to get a group of people together and call myself an organization.
Does it have it's kinks? Absolutely. People often get paid shit. There needs to be a balance between capitalist ideals and socialist ones. Extremes on either end are undesirable.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52419160]Can you name a "right winger" who says that falling wages are a good thing? (Though "falling wages" isn't really an accurate picture of the last 50 years. Real income is up.)
Something happened in the 1970s that changed everything. Look at almost any chart on economics, social issues, etc. and you'll see some change in the 70s. Take a look at this chart, for example:
[IMG]https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/labor_gap/04e656c70.png[/IMG]
Notice how there's a constantly rate of growth until the mid 1970s. The productivity growth keeps going, but wages change significantly. I honestly don't know why more research isn't put into that very specific era to figure out what fundamentally changed. Here are some further charts showing the change both our economic and social structure:
Welfare spiked in the 70s:
[IMG]http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/reports/2010/b2427/b2427_chart1.jpg[/IMG]
Marriage rates started their decline, and divorce rates went up, in the 70s:
[IMG]https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/06/marriages_divorces_per_capita.png&w=1484[/IMG]
Wealth inequality started to spike in the 70s:
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cp6WS-6Kw1Q/UzocVDWImvI/AAAAAAAAZRY/ZLZsUhIA5Kw/s1600/Inequality1.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Welfare is interesting, but I don't see a relation.
I definitely don't see a relation between productivity and marriage
But wealth inequality? That's likely involved somehow.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52419227]Welfare is interesting, but I don't see a relation.
I definitely don't see a relation between productivity and marriage
But wealth inequality? That's likely involved somehow.[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying that something big changed somewhere around the late 60s to the early 80s that fundamentally change the way our society worked, both economically and socially.
It can't be a coincidence that a huge number of economic and social trends all started within 5-10 years of each other. What caused it all? I really don't know. It's so hard to pick apart the causes from the effects when there are SO many convoluted statistics with high correlations.
[editline]30th June 2017[/editline]
If I were an economist or sociologist, trying to figure out this confluence of change would be my life's work. I feel like it's key to understanding where we are today.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52419167]You can't make that assumption. Not a single one of the "real socialisms" ever both A. Ran on a large scale and B. Lasted long.
Most that have satisfied the first quality are brutal dictatorships and disasters like Venezuela. Probably the "best" that's been accomplished here is Yugoslav market socialism and Cuba. The former of which basically was drowning in debt to escape stagnation and had a massive chunk of its workforce having to work outside of the country, and the latter has large problems too and is slowly liberalizing away from socialism.
The second quality is also comprised of those dictatorships typically, all of which wound up liberalizing at the end. For anarchism we have the Zapatistas, who are pretty reclusive and poor. But they have lasted a generation at least. Oh, and there's the DPRK, and other tiny local communes which aren't relevant.[/QUOTE]
Venezuela isn't trying to be proper socialists or else the private economy would already be disolved. They are calling themselves socialists and at the same time not taking the necessary steps to continue and is just in a kind of semi-socialist/capitalist authoritarian mess without any control.
I will make that assumption, because all the other countries, you mentioned are not proper industrialized western countries. In which socialism was intended to implemented in.
[editline]30th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52419170]You're not forced to work for others' profits, though. You're forced to work to make your own profits, so that you can maintain a comfortable lifestyle and not starve to death.[/QUOTE]
So if I work for the wealthy business owner, he doesn't make any profits because of my work? They can both be true.
[editline]1st July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;52419176]You, personally, are not growing food, but still pay for your food by providing some other service to society.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but I don't have to work my ass of under dehumanizing conditions. Socialism doesn't strive for profit, it strives for good living standards. Profits (if they even exist) can be lowered to a minimum in order to provide good living standards. People can work less, share the burden and stop wasting time on unneccesary work. Society will be more optimized and efficiently run.
[QUOTE=RB33;52419257]So if I work for the wealthy business owner, he doesn't make any profits because of my work? They can both be true.[/QUOTE]
Yes, they are both true. And I'm completely okay with that. Running a business isn't as simple as pushing the "make free money from thin air" button every morning, you know. Business owners pay a fuckload of taxes, especially in the EU where you are, and you as a laborer are entitled to a minimum wage. With that in place, there's only so much money a business owner can pocket. Not to mention that running a business isn't the easiest job either.
[QUOTE=OvB;52419207]Work is a mutual contract between you and an organization. You agree to give your labor to produce a product or service. In exchange for your labor you are given compensation in the form of wages, salaries, benefits, or ownership (stock option).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Your labor produces an output that [B]benefits[/B] the community.[/QUOTE]
This is very subjective. What is a benefit? Making useless toys which nobody really wanted until they were hyped up in viral market campaign? Wearing expensive diamonds and driving overpriced supercars? It only benefits the few people with vasts amounts of money to spend, not benefiting the community as a whole. Things like water access, electricity and healthcare benefits everyone.
[QUOTE]Your labor results in your community having access to goods and services. You're not pulling magical levers that make money fall into the fat cats pocket. It's a system that -when working properly- has a mutual gain around the system. You get a wage, the community gets a good or service, and the managers get a salary. Ownership in a company is simply a fact of freedom. If you claim to live in a free society, I have the right to get a group of people together and call myself an organization.
Does it have it's kinks? Absolutely. People often get paid shit. There needs to be a balance between capitalist ideals and socialist ones. Extremes on either end are undesirable.[/QUOTE]
Large wage gaps will always be unacceptable. If money is your worth, the rich guy will be worth thousands times more than the average guy. Is that an acceptable form of inequality? Most will work their asses off as hard (and often harder) and will never acheive the same wealth. That isn't just and not the basis of a good society.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
