3 ms·

Careful with that line of thinking. If the justification of getting more resources to consume is violence, then unarmed, poor and concentrated urban populations

Careful with that line of thinking. If the justification of getting more resources to consume is violence, then unarmed, poor and concentrated urban populations are going to be the victims, not the perpetrators. The workers of the world may think the chains were made to bind them, but in truth the chains bind the military and security apparatus. And this has happened before. The Roman emperor Caracalla once described his policy on taxes and welfare thus - "None should have money but I, so I can bestow it to soldiers."

feedforward 3y ago
> The workers of the world may think the chains were made to bind them, but in truth the chains bind the military and security apparatus. The last quarter millenia of history stands in contradiction to this. The country with the most extensive security apparatus in 1916 was Russia, and that did not help the czar and his family in the end. Among the young in the US, socialism is now as popular as capitalism ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capitalism-among-young-adults.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capita... ). As Marx predicted, short sighted big business functionaries yet press ahead with removing the few scraps they toss from the table in response. It is not the working people who have to fear, but the aristocracy. Besides, the enlisted soldiers abandoning the front and marching back to St. Petersburg and Moscow is what really ignited the revolution.
- tmaly 3y ago
  Have you read Burnham's The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World? I often wonder if what we have today is really capitalism or rather it is something much worse.
  - slowmovintarget 3y ago
    We have Oligarchy marching around in capitalist skin suits.
- wakawaka28 3y ago
  The young are simply told that socialism is the cure for their problems, when it isn't. In fact our problems with "capitalism" are general problems with corruption and competition with other countries. Not capitalism in and of itself. Prosperity requires hard work, and capitalism encourages that push for excellence more than socialism ever could. Socialism tends to degrade into communism and authoritarianism, with lots of corruption, because the notion of giving away everything to the state goes against human nature.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    What even is socialism and capitalism except overloaded labels to throw around? Show me policies! :-)
    - wakawaka28 3y ago
      Bruh, it's not the place for a dissertation. But it suffices to say that capitalism in this context is a tendency toward free market, and socialism is a tendency for the government to provide everything (after taking it from workers and businesses, of course). I think we need a little of both but putting the government in charge of anything warrants a thorough examination of any viable alternatives.
- username332211 3y ago
  I mean, that's a weird example to pick. Tzarist Russia is the second best police state in 20th century Russia. That doesn't make it very notable, except by the standards of pre-WWI Europe. And the fact that soldiers abandoned the tzar only serves to demonstrate he didn't use this lever of power. If the tzar had plundered the workers and peasants to pay his soldiers, he would have undoubtedly survived. When Ukrainian pleasants were starving in 1932, did it cause any sort of disturbance? No. Why? Because the soft and pathetic Okhrana was replaced by the effective and ruthless Checka.
- Aloisius 3y ago
  I have my doubts that the socialism that is popular with genz/millenials has much to do with the actual economic system. The same poll showed free enterprise still wildly popular with the same group after all. Rather I think it more likely that the concerted effort to brand welfare and regulated capitalism as socialism for decades has finally succeeded.
foofie 3y ago
> If the justification of getting more resources to consume is violence, (...) You picked a very peculiar weasel word to refer to being fairly compensated by the value you create. As if workers who scramble to make ends meet while working for the wealthiest organizations ever devised by man were actually wasting resources that can only possibly be used wisely by billionaires. And by the way, I recommend you check out the french revolution, and what the urban plebes did to their old masters.
- username332211 3y ago
  Didn't you read the post I'm replying to? It's referring to a guillotine. A method of public executions. Unless you believe executions to be a non-violent affair? As to the French revolution, who ended up being the master of the French plebes at the end? Could it be a certain military officer named Napoleon and his marshalls?
  - foofie 3y ago
    > Didn't you read the post I'm replying to. It's referring to a guillotine. A method of public executions. Unless you believe executions to be a non-violent affair? I'm not sure if you are being disingenuous, but you should pay attention to what I said and understand that my comment was on your adoption and use of the weasel word "justification of getting more resources to consume". As if actually paying workers a living wage is somehow destroying resources. Either the company's profits go for the billionaire's pockets, or it is transfered to the worker's salary as part of the fair compensation for making everything happen. It's curious how you only see "destruction of resources" when profits don't line up a billionaire's pockets. Do you understand what I said?
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    As opposed to the violence done to them by the wealthy? In comparison it was quite surgical. That Napoleon managed to run off with it is an error but that wasn't the only possible outcome and even today France has some of the strongest social fabrics that traces its threads straight back to those guillotine ropes.

feedforward 3y ago

> The workers of the world may think the chains were made to bind them, but in truth the chains bind the military and security apparatus. The last quarter millenia of history stands in contradiction to this. The country with the most extensive security apparatus in 1916 was Russia, and that did not help the czar and his family in the end. Among the young in the US, socialism is now as popular as capitalism ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capitalism-among-young-adults.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capita... ). As Marx predicted, short sighted big business functionaries yet press ahead with removing the few scraps they toss from the table in response. It is not the working people who have to fear, but the aristocracy. Besides, the enlisted soldiers abandoning the front and marching back to St. Petersburg and Moscow is what really ignited the revolution.

tmaly 3y ago
Have you read Burnham's The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World? I often wonder if what we have today is really capitalism or rather it is something much worse.
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  We have Oligarchy marching around in capitalist skin suits.
wakawaka28 3y ago
The young are simply told that socialism is the cure for their problems, when it isn't. In fact our problems with "capitalism" are general problems with corruption and competition with other countries. Not capitalism in and of itself. Prosperity requires hard work, and capitalism encourages that push for excellence more than socialism ever could. Socialism tends to degrade into communism and authoritarianism, with lots of corruption, because the notion of giving away everything to the state goes against human nature.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  What even is socialism and capitalism except overloaded labels to throw around? Show me policies! :-)
  - wakawaka28 3y ago
    Bruh, it's not the place for a dissertation. But it suffices to say that capitalism in this context is a tendency toward free market, and socialism is a tendency for the government to provide everything (after taking it from workers and businesses, of course). I think we need a little of both but putting the government in charge of anything warrants a thorough examination of any viable alternatives.
username332211 3y ago
I mean, that's a weird example to pick. Tzarist Russia is the second best police state in 20th century Russia. That doesn't make it very notable, except by the standards of pre-WWI Europe. And the fact that soldiers abandoned the tzar only serves to demonstrate he didn't use this lever of power. If the tzar had plundered the workers and peasants to pay his soldiers, he would have undoubtedly survived. When Ukrainian pleasants were starving in 1932, did it cause any sort of disturbance? No. Why? Because the soft and pathetic Okhrana was replaced by the effective and ruthless Checka.
Aloisius 3y ago
I have my doubts that the socialism that is popular with genz/millenials has much to do with the actual economic system. The same poll showed free enterprise still wildly popular with the same group after all. Rather I think it more likely that the concerted effort to brand welfare and regulated capitalism as socialism for decades has finally succeeded.

foofie 3y ago

> If the justification of getting more resources to consume is violence, (...) You picked a very peculiar weasel word to refer to being fairly compensated by the value you create. As if workers who scramble to make ends meet while working for the wealthiest organizations ever devised by man were actually wasting resources that can only possibly be used wisely by billionaires. And by the way, I recommend you check out the french revolution, and what the urban plebes did to their old masters.

username332211 3y ago
Didn't you read the post I'm replying to? It's referring to a guillotine. A method of public executions. Unless you believe executions to be a non-violent affair? As to the French revolution, who ended up being the master of the French plebes at the end? Could it be a certain military officer named Napoleon and his marshalls?
- foofie 3y ago
  > Didn't you read the post I'm replying to. It's referring to a guillotine. A method of public executions. Unless you believe executions to be a non-violent affair? I'm not sure if you are being disingenuous, but you should pay attention to what I said and understand that my comment was on your adoption and use of the weasel word "justification of getting more resources to consume". As if actually paying workers a living wage is somehow destroying resources. Either the company's profits go for the billionaire's pockets, or it is transfered to the worker's salary as part of the fair compensation for making everything happen. It's curious how you only see "destruction of resources" when profits don't line up a billionaire's pockets. Do you understand what I said?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  As opposed to the violence done to them by the wealthy? In comparison it was quite surgical. That Napoleon managed to run off with it is an error but that wasn't the only possible outcome and even today France has some of the strongest social fabrics that traces its threads straight back to those guillotine ropes.