3 ms·

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?
  - yetihehe 5y ago
    > 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. From what I've heard about China, it's not all roses there either. It's still better to disappear several thousand non-china citizens (or even some most prominent china citizens) than to admit non-ideality of rulers. It also meshes exactly with real-life communist-led acts I've heard from my parents (I'm several years too young to remember that). Yeah, some people think they had better living then than now and they are missing the times when everything was given to them (but they are not missing the times which came after, where you didn't have anything because the system ran out of "others' people money to give out"). The worst thing is - my country slowly descends back to that state of living, with wide handouts, but money is already starting to run out. They think they still live under capitalism, but it's only in name.
    - esarbe 5y ago
      Do you think that living under Capitalism is a good thing or would you maybe prefer other forms of market economies?
      - yetihehe 5y ago
        Now that you said it in other comment, market socialism looks promising. But I still prefer living under properly constrained capitalism to living under any other currently running system.
- esarbe 5y ago
  That's an interesting take. I personally think that where the 'classic' examples of Socialism or Communism failed is with regards to markets. Starting with the Soviet Union, most of these countries tried to do away with markets. At best they were able to integrate it somewhat haphazardly into official policies (North Korea with their food markets), at worst they drove them underground. Markets are not perfect, but they are - if controlled, constrained and guided - a pretty efficient tool for resource allocation. Trying to micro-manage the need for and production of every consumer good from toothbrushes to toilet paper is ridiculously inefficient; markets are better for that. Such a shame that only a few countries got to learn that. That, and democracy. There needs to be some form of democracy to keep the ruling elite in check.
  - yetihehe 5y ago
    Yeah, markets are good for resource allocation, but how do you allocate resources properly without money or how do you allocate that money? Typically more money is allocated to those who are more productive (contribute more back to markets), so you have inequalities now. Those who own their means of production are typically more productive (when people don't own your means of production or don't partake in results according to their work quality, they are too wasteful and don't really care, I've seen it too many times myself). Capitalism (owning means of production) seems like the best idea, the problem is that currently we have too few capitalists (the one-precenters) and too many serfs (almost all workers). I think it's just because people are not good at organizing themselves. Those who can organize other people can amass more productivity and therefore have more money. How to combat this simple formula which leads to increasing inequalities - probably some regulations, but currently regulators are part of the problem.
    - esarbe 5y ago
      Any system with a market needs some kind of exchange token. The fiat paper money we are using is nothing more than that and having a universally accepted token is a desirable thing. I would argue that some inequality is not only necessary but maybe even desirable since it provides incentives to interact with the market. Since we want our - tamed - market to be efficient in resource distribution, we need to maximize its reach. > Those who own their means of production are typically more productive [..] I think you are on to something here. Ownership - especially close ownership - fosters a certain interest that the thing owned is put to good use. That can in many ways lead to increased productivity. I don't think that a state-enforced market would be a good thing, but a tamed market with players like the Mandragora Corporation - which is successful in the current "capitalistic"[0] market and refrains from corporate management excesses - I consider a viable alternative. (Not that I see how such a transformation could be pushed.) > Those who can organize other people can amass more productivity and therefore have more money. Or it is the people that have money have access to the means of organizing other people and the necessary liquidity to setup and maintain an initial structure to profit from other peoples productivity. (Another factor is the tight social circles that these moneyed groups form; elite universities are not as much elite because of the quality of their education but because of the familiarity it breeds between the scions of wealth.) Humans are - in general - thrifty and entrepreneurial and creative; given that they don't have to put their and their families' livelihoods at risk. That risk-taking ability seems to me to be one of the deciding factors why wealthy people get wealthier: Even the most ingenious business idea might fail. For a rich family at worst a good business lesson. For a poor family at worst a catastrophe. [0] Quotes because our current crony-capitalism looks more like neo-feudalism than anything else.

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?
- yetihehe 5y ago
  > 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. From what I've heard about China, it's not all roses there either. It's still better to disappear several thousand non-china citizens (or even some most prominent china citizens) than to admit non-ideality of rulers. It also meshes exactly with real-life communist-led acts I've heard from my parents (I'm several years too young to remember that). Yeah, some people think they had better living then than now and they are missing the times when everything was given to them (but they are not missing the times which came after, where you didn't have anything because the system ran out of "others' people money to give out"). The worst thing is - my country slowly descends back to that state of living, with wide handouts, but money is already starting to run out. They think they still live under capitalism, but it's only in name.
  - esarbe 5y ago
    Do you think that living under Capitalism is a good thing or would you maybe prefer other forms of market economies?
    - yetihehe 5y ago
      Now that you said it in other comment, market socialism looks promising. But I still prefer living under properly constrained capitalism to living under any other currently running system.
esarbe 5y ago
That's an interesting take. I personally think that where the 'classic' examples of Socialism or Communism failed is with regards to markets. Starting with the Soviet Union, most of these countries tried to do away with markets. At best they were able to integrate it somewhat haphazardly into official policies (North Korea with their food markets), at worst they drove them underground. Markets are not perfect, but they are - if controlled, constrained and guided - a pretty efficient tool for resource allocation. Trying to micro-manage the need for and production of every consumer good from toothbrushes to toilet paper is ridiculously inefficient; markets are better for that. Such a shame that only a few countries got to learn that. That, and democracy. There needs to be some form of democracy to keep the ruling elite in check.
- yetihehe 5y ago
  Yeah, markets are good for resource allocation, but how do you allocate resources properly without money or how do you allocate that money? Typically more money is allocated to those who are more productive (contribute more back to markets), so you have inequalities now. Those who own their means of production are typically more productive (when people don't own your means of production or don't partake in results according to their work quality, they are too wasteful and don't really care, I've seen it too many times myself). Capitalism (owning means of production) seems like the best idea, the problem is that currently we have too few capitalists (the one-precenters) and too many serfs (almost all workers). I think it's just because people are not good at organizing themselves. Those who can organize other people can amass more productivity and therefore have more money. How to combat this simple formula which leads to increasing inequalities - probably some regulations, but currently regulators are part of the problem.
  - esarbe 5y ago
    Any system with a market needs some kind of exchange token. The fiat paper money we are using is nothing more than that and having a universally accepted token is a desirable thing. I would argue that some inequality is not only necessary but maybe even desirable since it provides incentives to interact with the market. Since we want our - tamed - market to be efficient in resource distribution, we need to maximize its reach. > Those who own their means of production are typically more productive [..] I think you are on to something here. Ownership - especially close ownership - fosters a certain interest that the thing owned is put to good use. That can in many ways lead to increased productivity. I don't think that a state-enforced market would be a good thing, but a tamed market with players like the Mandragora Corporation - which is successful in the current "capitalistic"[0] market and refrains from corporate management excesses - I consider a viable alternative. (Not that I see how such a transformation could be pushed.) > Those who can organize other people can amass more productivity and therefore have more money. Or it is the people that have money have access to the means of organizing other people and the necessary liquidity to setup and maintain an initial structure to profit from other peoples productivity. (Another factor is the tight social circles that these moneyed groups form; elite universities are not as much elite because of the quality of their education but because of the familiarity it breeds between the scions of wealth.) Humans are - in general - thrifty and entrepreneurial and creative; given that they don't have to put their and their families' livelihoods at risk. That risk-taking ability seems to me to be one of the deciding factors why wealthy people get wealthier: Even the most ingenious business idea might fail. For a rich family at worst a good business lesson. For a poor family at worst a catastrophe. [0] Quotes because our current crony-capitalism looks more like neo-feudalism than anything else.