this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
719 points (90.3% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26922 readers
2613 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 28 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Still think something between communism and capitalism would be the best. Both show a lot of problems but both have benefits. A well regulated and equal competition with linear growth(not like capitalism with its exponential growth that produces musks and bezos') sounds right to me. I think UBI would be exploited so just give them the basics in food, shelter, internet access, etc. But of course in the hellscape called modern politics everyone has to be an extremist so only hardcore capitalism, hardcore communism, genocide, etc are represented.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 36 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Market economies are actually pretty great for a lot of things. The problems we have in capitalism are 1. the capitalist class, who make their living without contributing anything by min-maxing wages and prices, and 2. the privatization of necessities.

  1. A market economy for non-essentials would work splendidly so long as the income of each business was distributed to the people who actually did the work. The problem is non-working shareholders. Every worker should be a shareholder, every shareholder should be a worker. Market socialism is the way.

  2. Market economies cannot work efficiently for essentials. If the alternative to a purchase is death or serious injury, it ceases to be a voluntary purchase, the downward pressure of abstinence vanishes, and prices skyrocket. We've seen this in healthcare and housing. We need a public option for both.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 8 months ago

Profit motive still forces enshittification, unfortunately.

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

There's also a lot to be said about financial norms and systems, for instance regardless of the organization of labor the way we measure GDP is fundamentally a very flawed and arbitrary approximation of "wealth" yet it is the driver behind so many political decisions. My (admittedly unqualified) understanding is thst we could significantly improve quality of life and market efficiency by addressing some of these flaws.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

This is the way

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

I think if we can steer this burning trash pile into a regulated coop-based economy, with a star-based voting system (I'd settle for ranked choice at this point), whose economy isn't propped up by the cheap exploitation of developing foreign nations, I'll be much happier. While we're at it, solving homelessness and developing more sustainable infrastructures would be great.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 13 points 8 months ago

Capitalism is very clearly not a one-size-fits-all solution…but if there’s one thing capitalism hates, it’s competition.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

capitalism corrupts

Also there's nothing inherently wrong with extreme ideology as a concept. It's only a call for radical change to the current social order. Liberalism which is to say our modern "democratic capitalist" structure would have been considered extremism during feudal times.

The extremist boogie man is a lie peddled by those who benefit from the status quo to insure those who don't are too scared to change it

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Extremism usually relies on wishful thinking tbh. Also see this handy chart:

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 21 points 8 months ago (5 children)

The problem is that some of them don't have to wait for society to collapse, sometimes society is destined to decay into a specific form. The final stage of capitalism is fascism

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago (35 children)

Why not something like market socialism?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago (10 children)

Market Socialism is a great common sense first step, but it leaves enshittification because it keeps the profit motive. Ideally the profit motive should be phased out.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (34 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jbk@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] konalt@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

*and the same

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

Serious question not trying to troll here: Isn't everyone stuck in this hellish capitalist system part of that class?

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago (17 children)

No. Classes are determined by how you get your money and by how comfortable you are.

If you are working for a paycheck, you do not touch capital.

[–] metaStatic@kbin.social 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

there is no capital without labour

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Then maybe labor should organize its own capital and not some entitled prick of a class.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

It's not quite so black and white, though.

My spouse and I both work for a living, and we'd be in a hard spot if either of us lost our jobs. We also own 3 rental properties, and I have a military pension. We also own a farm where we raise 6 cows and enough chickens to have some eggs to sell.

So, we get most of our money from our labor, the rental properties pay for themselves most of the time but we don't pool that with our personal money...it's for the mortgages, taxes, maintenance and to cover for when we don't have renters (which is almost never...weird how that happens when you aren'tcharging exploitative rents).

We sell eggs and make a small profit on those, but not enough to support ourselves...same with the beef...it's mostly for us and family to eat (because fuck factory farming) but if we don't have the freezer space we'll sell the extra as well. That makes us both labor and capital... and my pension and military retirement benefits are basically as close to socialism as we'll get in the US anytime soon, the biggest difference being I had to earn it.

[–] erev@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

The landlord side of it is the murkiest imo. You having a military pension doesn't mean you're in the bourgeoisie, it just means you're getting paid for having given time from your life. Similarly, selling the surplus from your own agriculture doesn't place you in the class of controlling capital because you aren't using others' labor; you're creating something through your labor and when faced with having a surplus, are distributing your goods. Yes you sell them, but it's not fair to criticize you for trying to offset your costs while living under a capitalist system so long as the price isn't exorbitant.

Imo being a landlord is usually the scummiest, but if you're charging rent at a price set to maintain the buildings and ensure that your tenants still have housing, then I don't think you're exploiting anyone. Imo the more profit you take from your rental properties, the more it moves out of the grey area. It sounds however like you don't take profit or take a very minimal amount, and that you price your property so that it's self sufficient but not much more. In that case then you aren't really exploiting your tenants. Are they still being exploited? Yes, by the system that forces them to pay for housing. Do you have a hand in that exploitation purely by being their landlord? Yes, however if you aren't trying to extort them for money so they have housing, then I wouldn't say you're exploiting them more than just owning their housing. Theres a reason that leftists tout that theres no ethical consumption under capitalism; even in trying to help people or do the right thing, you are still feeding into a system of exploitation and extortion. That doesn't mean you still aren't trying to do the right thing or be genuinely helpful, it just means that unless we find an alternative system then we will all continue to exploit each other and be exploited. This is why the proletariat must be unified as otherwise, we will never shake the binds of our collective oppression.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Congratulations, you're one of an extreme few still living in the middle class.

Now realize how minority your experience is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Based on my definitions. Owning the 3 rental properties makes you owner class as that is private property, also when you pay off the mortgages you are going to be in a great spot right?

Farms are weird, if you only had the farm and have hired nobody else to help you run it then working class. If you hire people, well then you are owner class.

You both also have jobs on top of running a farm? Out of curiosity how do you have the time to manage your farm and work at the same time?

[–] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

My BIL lives on the farm and takes care of feeding the livestock and keeping the pasture cleaned up. Otherwise, it's just family helping family. We're in the middle rebuilding part of the chicken coop now on the weekends. I say farm, but it's more a ranch... we only grow hay and its only about 10 acres, so it's not a huge burden with all of us working together.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 8 months ago

No.

Basic and simplified class analysis is about shared interests based on similar social relations to Production.

The Workers do not own Capital, at least not in significant amounts.

Capitalists own Capital. They pay Workers wage labor to create commodities for sale.

There are other classes, but that's the long and short of it.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The actual specific class you belong to can be tricky because there are sub-classes and shit like that but generally speaking you can simplify class dynamics into the owning class (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat). If you own the means of production, the actual property such as land or machinary required to produce things, and you buy others labor to produce these things that you then sell, you are bourgeoisie. If you sell your labor then your are proletariat. You'll find that the interests of these classes are in opposition; the bourgeois wants to increase profit through any means so as to provide for themselves and for investors while the prole wants a better standard of living, a safe work environment, and less work hours among many other things I need not name. These interest come into direct conflict when the capitalist runs out of ways to externally increase profit controlling a certain market niche, there is only so much demand. When this happens the capitalist looks inward at their company and wonders if they can increase profit through other means like cutting pay, skirting around safety regulations, finding ways to get around providing benefits, cutting pensions, etc etc. The really big bourgeoisie also look towards the legal system, if it only cost them 60mil of lobbying to change a law that makes them billions then that law is dead. The profit motive kills

[–] gerryflap@feddit.nl 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How does this work for the modern world though? Many of the people who make the financial decisions for the company that I work for are also normal people with a normal income. Their job is to maximize profit for the company under certain constraints, but it's not like they directly get that money for themselves. The image of the proletariat working ungodly hours in dangerous factories while a few rich fat capitalists claim all the money is often quite far from reality in my experience, apart from the ultra-rich CEOs like Musk and Bezos. And I don't disagree that we should regulate the income disparity or anything, I just think that these classes don't really make that much sense anymore

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Apologize in advance if I over explain somethings or repeat myself with different wording, I'm not infantilizing you I'm just trying to be very clear.

I use industrial and agricultural labor as examples because they are typically more dangerous work and often more heavily exploited but even your manager is technically a prole. You're friends that manage a finances are proletariat. If you sell your labor and the person purchasing that labor makes extracts surplus value from your labor, you are a proletariat.

Specifically, the capitalists who run the company you work at purchase the labor of those finance managers and extract a profit from their labor while doing essentially nothing other than being the person who owns the business and the capital required to produce whatever it is their workers produce.

Think about how a business is run. You have workers, the proletariat, who provide their labor in whatever form required whether physical or mental in exchange for a wage that they can then use to buy whatever necessities they need and extras they can afford. These workers are alienated from the product of their labor; they do not own the product nor do they own the means of production, they are also paid less than the product they created is worth so that the capitalist who does own the product and the means of production can extract a surplus value. In the case of your financer the product of their labor is literal money, they produce money for the capitalist and see very little of it. Their wage is what the owning class allows them to have. In a cruel twist of fate they are then required to give that wage back to the capitalist class in exchange for food, housing, electricity, sometimes water.

We still do have proletariat working ungodly hours in dangerous factories though, they are often just immigrants and minorities, sometimes children. I'd link a source for that but honestly just look up working conditions of abattoirs, specifically Tyson chicken. Or the laborers being exploited in that manner are just in another country worker for the same capitalist and getting paid less than the US minimum wage because it means the capitalist can extract more surplus value.

The problem with regulating capitalism is the that under capitalism wealth accumulates into fewer and fewer hands over time. This happens for a number of reasons but the primary being that wealth is easier to accumulate when you have it. A bigger business can buy or outcompete a smaller business, sure we can bust monopolies but it doesn't really matter if every company in every industry is primarily owned by a few people. Creating a society where capitalism is more heavily regulated and with social safety nets would only be temporary. This is seen in Nordic countries where in the pursuit of profit their capitalist class is lobbying against any further nationalized industry and actively attempting to roll back those social safety nets. The only reason those places were even able to develope social democracy is because of the giant red superpower right next to them at the time. Had the USSR not been their to provide Nordic proletariat with the threat of a supported revolution the capitalist class would never have given those concessions.

Das Kapital explains it better than I can if you're that invested into the topic but it's a tough read.

the Marxist project is also a great start from an academic lense and is easier to digest

Sorry for the abundance of text lmao, I have no idea if it's coherent because I wrote it sporadically over the course of an hour and it's like 3 am

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jmanes@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

The definitions are tricky based on how you read them, but no. Your role in society is to perform labor (I'm assuming), and the fruits of that labor are then forfeited to those above you for a wage. Thus they have the capital and would belong to the "capitalist class."

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The idea of there being a form Capitalism which is not corrupt is about as ill-informed as the idea that there can be a World were everybody has the same as everybody else for ever and ever (i.e. the Utopia called Communism, which is not at all the same as the political bullshit out there called thus) and for the same reason: human Greed.

For there to be Capitalism there have to be Laws (the bare minimum being Contract Law and Property Law, and if you want things like ownership of ideas then also Intellectual Property Laws, plus indirectly the whole edifice of Criminal Law to make sure that violence is not used to force some for the profit of others).

Laws have to be made and ajusted as times change as well as appropriate punishments defined; there has to be Oversight to see if Laws are abidded by or not; there has to be Judgement of people's actions with regards to those Laws; there has to be enforcement of the punishments for breaking the Law. Lets call the people who do all this Lawmakers and Law-enforcers.

How can anybody expect that Lawmakers and Law-enforcers, at the very least when such things impact profit making, under Capitalism where "Greed is Good" and wealth is the most important measure of a man, to not serve their own personal greed first and foremost, which in such positions often means being corrupt?!

Even if magically we started with squeaky clean Lawmakers and Law-enforcers, many people outside who are not squeaky clean and are looking to enrich themselves would be attracted to such positions were they can sell their control of the powers of law-making and law-enforcement to the highest bidder so you would always end up with corruption in Politics and the Judiciary as the crooked replaced the honest.

It's frankly hilarious to expect that in Capitalism everybody would be looking out for numero uno except for those responsible for making and enforcing the framework of Laws that is the only difference between Capitalism and Anarchy, with those people expected put first and foremost the interests of Society above their own (in other words, be Socialists).

In summary: Capitalism naturally breeds corruption because maintaining and applying the very framework of rules that supports Capitalism without becoming corrupt would require in the right places a special group of impeccably honest people not influenced by the very Capitalist Spirit that pervades the rest of Society, along with a system making sure any replacement for those people are also of the same kind, all of which is impossible.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

To be fair, Communism doesn't assume everyone gets the same. In fact, that's a big part of why Marx doesn't say "Communism is when everyone is the same and gets the same forever."

From Critique of the Gotha Programme:

"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Essentially, Communism is a goal to work towards, a final step for humanity to cross over. It isn't when everyone gets exactly the same for unequal work, it's when everyone can give what they can and get what they need. If someone wants more, they can get more.

[–] Apeman42@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

This also works with cops.

[–] lugal@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

It was the system, not the individuals, all along?

[surprised pikachu face]

load more comments
view more: next ›