4 ms·

It's capitalism: cannibalize and sell-out the commonwealth, extract monies to the detriment of externalities borne by citizens on the vague, unfulfilled promise

It's capitalism: cannibalize and sell-out the commonwealth, extract monies to the detriment of externalities borne by citizens on the vague, unfulfilled promises of jobs and tax paying workers because corporations own the political class. Welfare for the rich, crushing austerity and paycheck-to-paycheck 3 jobs/sleepless "trickledown" lies for everyone else. Income inequality is so obscene that it's far worse than the Gilded Age. Watch this infographic chart video showing the current distribution: https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

jopsen 8y ago
Capitalism doesn't have to cannibalize. Often it works to everyone's benefit. Unions is also a legitimate force in capitalism. In many ways it could be good for Amazon. If gives them a way to deal evenly with their employees. Of course, a union has to recognize that it's not blindly serving its members, if it drives companies out of business. Like hindering technological advancement by refusing automation.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > Unions is also a legitimate force in capitalism. In many ways it could be good for Amazon. If gives them a way to deal evenly with their employees. This. Capitalism is all about freedom of association. Unions only start to become incompatible with capitalism if they start to force themselves as a monopoly to control who may or may not work for a company.
  - cmrdporcupine 8y ago
    I like to make the distinction between guilds (limiting access to professions and employers and controlling seniority and positions) and unions (collective bargaining). In most western countries the line between the two is heavily blurred, to the detriment of the union movement which has suffered heavily over the last 40 years.
thanatropism 8y ago
Income inequality is not the issue here or in the Gilded Age. It's monopoly power. Of course, in the Gilded Age monopoly power was enabled and defended by capital concentration. Not so now: global interest rates are at a historical low, often pushing the negative barrier, and capital is so swamped that its owners are begging any fool with anything that call itself an idea to take it. The microeconomic issue in each case is increasing returns to scale, which builds huge protective moats around the big industrial players. But now increasing returns to scale are enabled by nearly-free technology - industrial production in the gilded age required expensive and heavily patented machinery, while now every relevant tool is at hand, either for $0 or for peanuts. It's not "monopoly capital" as made famous by American marxists such as Paul Sweezy. It's quickly drifting away from "capitalism" as defined by K. Marx himself. We need to understand the differences if we're going to protect and improve the lives of those less empowered to escape drudgery and the rat race.
geezerjay 8y ago
> It's capitalism: Actually, it's not. It's a page taken out of the old soviet playbook, where factory workers were pushed to increase production through means other than pay increases or productivity rewards, and played with psychological tricks such as appealing to nationalism or even conformance with the regime's ideal. The exploitation trick is as old as time, but it's not specific to an economic system.
- ams6110 8y ago
  > means other than pay increases Hence the saying: "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I always tell people that working in a big Corp feels like walking around in Eastern Germany while the wall was still up. Same kind of posters, 5 year plans, top down propaganda that has little resemblance with reality, "rewards" like T-shirts with motivational messages.
  - jahaja 8y ago
    This is the reason why some people called it state capitalism, since the only difference for the workers is who's the boss.
    - geezerjay 8y ago
      > This is the reason why some people called it state capitalism Actually, it's not. State capitalism has absolutely no relation to how workers were used and abused by communist regimes.
      - jahaja 8y ago
        Care to explain? For example, the following is from "The Failure of the Working Class" by Anton Pannekoek in 1946: The workers of the world nowadays have two mighty foes, two hostile and suppressing powers over against them: the monopolistic capitalism of America and England, and Russian state capitalism. The former is drifting toward social dictatorship camouflaged in democratic forms; the latter proclaims dictatorship openly, formerly with the addition "of the proletariat," although nobody believes that any more.

jopsen 8y ago

Capitalism doesn't have to cannibalize. Often it works to everyone's benefit. Unions is also a legitimate force in capitalism. In many ways it could be good for Amazon. If gives them a way to deal evenly with their employees. Of course, a union has to recognize that it's not blindly serving its members, if it drives companies out of business. Like hindering technological advancement by refusing automation.

geezerjay 8y ago
> Unions is also a legitimate force in capitalism. In many ways it could be good for Amazon. If gives them a way to deal evenly with their employees. This. Capitalism is all about freedom of association. Unions only start to become incompatible with capitalism if they start to force themselves as a monopoly to control who may or may not work for a company.
- cmrdporcupine 8y ago
  I like to make the distinction between guilds (limiting access to professions and employers and controlling seniority and positions) and unions (collective bargaining). In most western countries the line between the two is heavily blurred, to the detriment of the union movement which has suffered heavily over the last 40 years.

thanatropism 8y ago

Income inequality is not the issue here or in the Gilded Age. It's monopoly power. Of course, in the Gilded Age monopoly power was enabled and defended by capital concentration. Not so now: global interest rates are at a historical low, often pushing the negative barrier, and capital is so swamped that its owners are begging any fool with anything that call itself an idea to take it. The microeconomic issue in each case is increasing returns to scale, which builds huge protective moats around the big industrial players. But now increasing returns to scale are enabled by nearly-free technology - industrial production in the gilded age required expensive and heavily patented machinery, while now every relevant tool is at hand, either for $0 or for peanuts. It's not "monopoly capital" as made famous by American marxists such as Paul Sweezy. It's quickly drifting away from "capitalism" as defined by K. Marx himself. We need to understand the differences if we're going to protect and improve the lives of those less empowered to escape drudgery and the rat race.

geezerjay 8y ago

> It's capitalism: Actually, it's not. It's a page taken out of the old soviet playbook, where factory workers were pushed to increase production through means other than pay increases or productivity rewards, and played with psychological tricks such as appealing to nationalism or even conformance with the regime's ideal. The exploitation trick is as old as time, but it's not specific to an economic system.

ams6110 8y ago
> means other than pay increases Hence the saying: "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."
maxxxxx 8y ago
I always tell people that working in a big Corp feels like walking around in Eastern Germany while the wall was still up. Same kind of posters, 5 year plans, top down propaganda that has little resemblance with reality, "rewards" like T-shirts with motivational messages.
- jahaja 8y ago
  This is the reason why some people called it state capitalism, since the only difference for the workers is who's the boss.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > This is the reason why some people called it state capitalism Actually, it's not. State capitalism has absolutely no relation to how workers were used and abused by communist regimes.
    - jahaja 8y ago
      Care to explain? For example, the following is from "The Failure of the Working Class" by Anton Pannekoek in 1946: The workers of the world nowadays have two mighty foes, two hostile and suppressing powers over against them: the monopolistic capitalism of America and England, and Russian state capitalism. The former is drifting toward social dictatorship camouflaged in democratic forms; the latter proclaims dictatorship openly, formerly with the addition "of the proletariat," although nobody believes that any more.