7 ms·

So, the Luddites were proto-socialists and not so much against machines as against capitalism?

by esarbe 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
krageon 5y ago
Demanding decency is not being against capitalism, just recognising that your wallet is less important than your neighbour.
yetihehe 5y ago
They were against stealing wages by owners. It's separate from capitalism (but very often *isms lead to that anyway).
- esarbe 5y ago
  > stealing wages by owners Isn't that capitalism? Exploitation of labor by the owners of the means of production? To quote: > Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
  - yetihehe 5y ago
    It's a non sequitur for me. Does it mean that because I have lots of tools in my garage (I own means of production) and I can create company which makes some furniture, that I do need to exploit workers?
    - MWil 5y ago
      Reading both your comments, the one way I'm interpreting is OP is saying "the true consequence of any capitalist system is..." and you're saying "capitalism doesn't necessarily include..." If it's not clear, I agree with OP. The complaint is valid because it's the "real world" consequence of applying the theory of capitalism. Not in 100% of cases but in the "it's inevitable to exist" fashion.
      - yetihehe 5y ago
        I would like to see a real world social system which did not end with "owners exploiting workers" in some fashion. As I said, MOST "*isms" did end with some class of people being exploited, typically by those wealthier people. It looks like exploiting people to generate wealth for yourself is default state of social systems and capitalism is not a solution for that.
        MWil 5y ago
        A real world system of "all co-owners" would be my first guess but I will be honest I am not as educated on this overall topic as I would like
        esarbe 5y ago
        Have a look at what the Mondragon Corporation is doing.[0][1] This is an attempt at Syndicalism (sorry, another *ism). So you have (free) markets and you have exchange of labor for salary, but profit is reinvested and shared between the shareholders which are the workers of the cooperative. https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/[0] https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Cor...
    - becquerel 5y ago
      Marxism argues that yes, if you aim to make a profit in that scenario, you can only do so by exploiting your workers.
      - yetihehe 5y ago
        Another *ism, which ended with almost everyone fscked up. I know what those ideologies (I count capitalism here too) want to achieve and what they achieve in reality. And I don't think capitalism is good (idea-wise marxism sounds nicer), only that it fared better in practice (real world implementation) than marxism.
        drekk 5y ago
        Well of course, in practice you don't have the CIA couping countries because they became capitalist. Unfortunately for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Panama (formed by the US for obvious interests in the region), Cuba, Peru, etc. if you want to democratically elect someone who isn't super capitalist your country gets invaded / blockaded / sanctioned. In the "real world", it's better to disappear a few ten thousand non-US citizens than it is to have a visible competing hegemony. The only countries to survive that pressure (China, DPRK) have only done so because of nuclear armaments which the US (the only country to nuke a city, let alone two) opposes. Are you sure you know what they achieved? Or are you just repeating the same tired history that was written by the victors of the Cold War, who only had to destabilize the entire middle east by funding the Mujahideen in order to collapse the USSR? Because I look at lifespan and infant mortalities in Cuba, a tiny country not even a fraction of the US in size or wealth, and they're doing better than the US! In most metrics, the US is near dead last. Why do we pretend like our system works the best? You can say most stable, I'd say the largest standing army in the history of the world is to blame there. Having an economic crisis every decade or so doesn't seem like the system is working. Other "capitalist" countries doing well, like Germany, were similarly colonial powers that got all the "capital" to invest by yoinking it from slaves they worked all over the globe. The value of silver and gold extracted from Latin America was worth more than all existing capital expenditures in Western Europe up until that point. 8 million natives died in Potosí alone extracting that wealth. Did the system work for them?
    - zajio1am 5y ago
      That is loaded question based on implicit assumption about what wages are 'fair' and what are 'exploitative'. But it is hard to claim that market rate accepted without coercion is not 'fair'.
      - drekk 5y ago
        There is always coercion. Low wage is better than no wage, and you can choose which capitalist you must sell your labor to (or try your own hand at becoming a capitalist) but you cannot exit the economic system willingly. A "fair market rate" is still paying the worker less than the value of their labor. In no career is a worker owning the full fruits of their labor, and in many cases it's barely even a fraction. Is it fair that workers subsidize businesses of every size with poverty wages? "The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: "I feed on your energy." " —Frank Herbert, Dune Messiah
        esarbe 5y ago
        > A "fair market rate" is still paying the worker less than the value of their labor. In no career is a worker owning the full fruits of their labor, and in many cases it's barely even a fraction. Is it fair that workers subsidize businesses of every size with poverty wages? That for me is the real issue. Globalization of means of production on one hand and laws limiting unions have cut short the bargaining power of workers in the last forty years by quite a bit. I think it would be desirable for many workers to return to the profit-sharing agreements between workers and management that were in place in the industrialized nations in the 1960ies. The amount of cream skimmed by management these days is absurd.
        yetihehe 5y ago
        > The amount of cream skimmed by management these days is absurd. THAT is the real issue with a system we know currently as capitalism. Those at the top skim so much, that those at lower levels can't even support themselves properly and many many people just hit poverty. It's "let them eat cake" again, this time aristocracy is disguised as meritocracy.
    - Proven 5y ago
    - esarbe 5y ago
      > It's a non sequitur for me. What? How? We were talking about the exploitation of workers and how that is a core principle of capitalism (Fixed wage labor). How is that a non sequitur? > that I do need to exploit workers You don't need to, but in Capitalism it is the logical consequence of profit optimization. If you - despite your ownership of tools - let the workers that build the furniture partake in the whole non-reinvested profit to fair shares, it isn't Capitalism anymore, it's rather a form of Market Socialism[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    Only if you accept the inherently emotionally manipulative absurd communist definition of "exploitation". To be frank its economic ideas can only be described as certifiably insane. If I buy a large log from you for $10 and burn it the deal is fair. If I pay someone $100 to carve it into a statue for display or burn it as an offering it is fair. If I sell that statue for $450 suddenly I am exploiting parasitic scum who harmed both lumberjack and sculptor.
Nasrudith 5y ago
Eh more a relatively priveledged few selfishly demanding protection of the status quo at the expense of everybody else. What they fought for was the "right" to keep jobs from less skilled work and more expensive fabrics for everyone else. What precisely is the difference between the luddites and a price fixing cartel or an extortionist? Both make things more expensive for everyone else using the threat of violence against those who don't cooperate. The status of paupers also wasn't an issue until their own living was threatened by theirs improving slightly. Socialism would imply society as a whole (or at least whomever they consider "real people").

So, the Luddites were proto-socialists and not so much against machines as against capitalism?

by esarbe 5y ago

So, the Luddites were proto-socialists and not so much against machines as against capitalism?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

krageon 5y ago

Demanding decency is not being against capitalism, just recognising that your wallet is less important than your neighbour.

yetihehe 5y ago

They were against stealing wages by owners. It's separate from capitalism (but very often *isms lead to that anyway).

esarbe 5y ago
> stealing wages by owners Isn't that capitalism? Exploitation of labor by the owners of the means of production? To quote: > Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
- yetihehe 5y ago
  It's a non sequitur for me. Does it mean that because I have lots of tools in my garage (I own means of production) and I can create company which makes some furniture, that I do need to exploit workers?
  - MWil 5y ago
    Reading both your comments, the one way I'm interpreting is OP is saying "the true consequence of any capitalist system is..." and you're saying "capitalism doesn't necessarily include..." If it's not clear, I agree with OP. The complaint is valid because it's the "real world" consequence of applying the theory of capitalism. Not in 100% of cases but in the "it's inevitable to exist" fashion.
    - yetihehe 5y ago
      I would like to see a real world social system which did not end with "owners exploiting workers" in some fashion. As I said, MOST "*isms" did end with some class of people being exploited, typically by those wealthier people. It looks like exploiting people to generate wealth for yourself is default state of social systems and capitalism is not a solution for that.
      - MWil 5y ago
        A real world system of "all co-owners" would be my first guess but I will be honest I am not as educated on this overall topic as I would like
      - esarbe 5y ago
        Have a look at what the Mondragon Corporation is doing.[0][1] This is an attempt at Syndicalism (sorry, another *ism). So you have (free) markets and you have exchange of labor for salary, but profit is reinvested and shared between the shareholders which are the workers of the cooperative. https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/[0] https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Cor...
  - becquerel 5y ago
    Marxism argues that yes, if you aim to make a profit in that scenario, you can only do so by exploiting your workers.
    - yetihehe 5y ago
      Another *ism, which ended with almost everyone fscked up. I know what those ideologies (I count capitalism here too) want to achieve and what they achieve in reality. And I don't think capitalism is good (idea-wise marxism sounds nicer), only that it fared better in practice (real world implementation) than marxism.
      - drekk 5y ago
        Well of course, in practice you don't have the CIA couping countries because they became capitalist. Unfortunately for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Panama (formed by the US for obvious interests in the region), Cuba, Peru, etc. if you want to democratically elect someone who isn't super capitalist your country gets invaded / blockaded / sanctioned. In the "real world", it's better to disappear a few ten thousand non-US citizens than it is to have a visible competing hegemony. The only countries to survive that pressure (China, DPRK) have only done so because of nuclear armaments which the US (the only country to nuke a city, let alone two) opposes. Are you sure you know what they achieved? Or are you just repeating the same tired history that was written by the victors of the Cold War, who only had to destabilize the entire middle east by funding the Mujahideen in order to collapse the USSR? Because I look at lifespan and infant mortalities in Cuba, a tiny country not even a fraction of the US in size or wealth, and they're doing better than the US! In most metrics, the US is near dead last. Why do we pretend like our system works the best? You can say most stable, I'd say the largest standing army in the history of the world is to blame there. Having an economic crisis every decade or so doesn't seem like the system is working. Other "capitalist" countries doing well, like Germany, were similarly colonial powers that got all the "capital" to invest by yoinking it from slaves they worked all over the globe. The value of silver and gold extracted from Latin America was worth more than all existing capital expenditures in Western Europe up until that point. 8 million natives died in Potosí alone extracting that wealth. Did the system work for them?
  - zajio1am 5y ago
    That is loaded question based on implicit assumption about what wages are 'fair' and what are 'exploitative'. But it is hard to claim that market rate accepted without coercion is not 'fair'.
    - drekk 5y ago
      There is always coercion. Low wage is better than no wage, and you can choose which capitalist you must sell your labor to (or try your own hand at becoming a capitalist) but you cannot exit the economic system willingly. A "fair market rate" is still paying the worker less than the value of their labor. In no career is a worker owning the full fruits of their labor, and in many cases it's barely even a fraction. Is it fair that workers subsidize businesses of every size with poverty wages? "The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: "I feed on your energy." " —Frank Herbert, Dune Messiah
      - esarbe 5y ago
        > A "fair market rate" is still paying the worker less than the value of their labor. In no career is a worker owning the full fruits of their labor, and in many cases it's barely even a fraction. Is it fair that workers subsidize businesses of every size with poverty wages? That for me is the real issue. Globalization of means of production on one hand and laws limiting unions have cut short the bargaining power of workers in the last forty years by quite a bit. I think it would be desirable for many workers to return to the profit-sharing agreements between workers and management that were in place in the industrialized nations in the 1960ies. The amount of cream skimmed by management these days is absurd.
        yetihehe 5y ago
        > The amount of cream skimmed by management these days is absurd. THAT is the real issue with a system we know currently as capitalism. Those at the top skim so much, that those at lower levels can't even support themselves properly and many many people just hit poverty. It's "let them eat cake" again, this time aristocracy is disguised as meritocracy.
  - Proven 5y ago
  - esarbe 5y ago
    > It's a non sequitur for me. What? How? We were talking about the exploitation of workers and how that is a core principle of capitalism (Fixed wage labor). How is that a non sequitur? > that I do need to exploit workers You don't need to, but in Capitalism it is the logical consequence of profit optimization. If you - despite your ownership of tools - let the workers that build the furniture partake in the whole non-reinvested profit to fair shares, it isn't Capitalism anymore, it's rather a form of Market Socialism[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  Only if you accept the inherently emotionally manipulative absurd communist definition of "exploitation". To be frank its economic ideas can only be described as certifiably insane. If I buy a large log from you for $10 and burn it the deal is fair. If I pay someone $100 to carve it into a statue for display or burn it as an offering it is fair. If I sell that statue for $450 suddenly I am exploiting parasitic scum who harmed both lumberjack and sculptor.

Nasrudith 5y ago

Eh more a relatively priveledged few selfishly demanding protection of the status quo at the expense of everybody else. What they fought for was the "right" to keep jobs from less skilled work and more expensive fabrics for everyone else. What precisely is the difference between the luddites and a price fixing cartel or an extortionist? Both make things more expensive for everyone else using the threat of violence against those who don't cooperate. The status of paupers also wasn't an issue until their own living was threatened by theirs improving slightly. Socialism would imply society as a whole (or at least whomever they consider "real people").