4 ms·

Its already you, but capitalism. It'll be this soon enough if republicanism continues.

HappyPanacea 1y ago
Capitalism is just a reflection of people being self-interested which you can't prevent without being authoritarian which will inevitably leads also to surveillance.
- cassianoleal 1y ago
  > Capitalism is just a reflection of people being self-interested I don't think that's the case. I think most people are not self-interested, or at least not in the selfish sense. I think most people are more than willing to sacrifice _some_ direct personal gain for better community gains. The problem is that capitalism only allows selfish self-interest to flourish, so it incentivises even the more community-oriented people to always put themselves first, a lot of the time even in detriment to their immediate vicinity. Capitalism is a form of authoritarianism in that it really only serves a few, and everyone else is just constantly fighting for survival. > being authoritarian which will inevitably leads also to surveillance That's exactly where capitalism is taking us.
  - randomcarbloke 1y ago
    >or at least not in the selfish sense Wasn't a requirement, self interest doesn't imply malice. >capitalism only allows selfish self-interest to flourish How's that then? >Capitalism is a form of authoritarianism in that it really only serves a few You're cooked, market liberalisation has led the world from >80% in poverty to <10% in under 40 years, even removing huge entities like China.
    - grafmax 1y ago
      Poverty reduction has largely been the result of China’s mixed economy not unbridled capitalism. Guided markets have played a role there - but that’s because they were guided. We don’t have to accept the authoritarianism or any of other effect of markets, simply because markets have played a role in some of the positive outcomes of the past. In fact for the last 50 years in the global north, roughly the same timeframe, productivity has continued to grow but most of that growth has accrued to the wealthiest and relatively little of that benefit has been seen by the median worker.
      - randomcarbloke 1y ago
        as I said if you remove china from the data the trend is identical. But regarding China specifically it has been the gradual transition to a more market led economy.
        grafmax 1y ago
        To say it’s identical is an overstatement, but markets have been part of China’s policy, and part of the policies many other formerly impoverished counties. Without government policy intelligently choosing how to utilize markets (which is what happened in most of these formerly impoverished countries like the “Asian tigers”), markets alone could not have have brought the gains that they did. Markets have many downsides to them as well. Additionally non-government, non-market factors like unionization contributed to the rise out of poverty as well. And in the global north, “markets” have been fairly ineffective at raising the standard of living for the median worker. They have been effective at enriching the already rich however, contributing to wealth power-concentration and de-democratization.
        randomcarbloke 1y ago
        no it is an identical plot on the graph, not an overstatement at all. The standard of living for the median worker has improved significantly in forty years let alone two hundred, lifestyle inflation is definitely rapid as you would expect with progress, wage growth has outpaced inflation for everyone but public sector workers. Bad as things may seem now, we are all richer than ever before.
        grafmax 1y ago
        Productivity has grown. But that has more or less stopped going to the median worker since mid-70s (post inflation). This is known as the pay-productivity gap. There has been some increase, but most of the gains have gone to the wealthiest. Our issue today isn’t productivity. It’s redistributing the gains from the wealthy minority who have received the lion’s share to the rest. And you mention being richer. We also have an unfolding climate crisis, authoritarianism, mass surveillance, and the real possibility of imminent nuclear war (brewing now with China). All these things are the result of a wealthy minority controlling policy for their own interests. And the wealthy minority has gotten there through the same market mechanisms that exploit workers and concentrate wealth. Are we better off when we are much closer to our own self destruction? It’s this wealthy minority that has brought us here. Their relative power continues to grow. In fact, many of the gains in wealth we have seen are not the result of markets but either savvy government policy or the result of people pushing back on the power of the ruling class. Markets have good and bad sides. It’s best to take off our rose colored glasses and see markets for their good and bad.
spwa4 1y ago
It's scary how this is actually being called out as a problem of capitalism ... when anyone can look up history and see communists were actually doing this in 1946. Not just phones, they were doing it on the street, going as far as sending out people to listen in on conversations everywhere. Makes sense, I guess: there were barely any phones to tap when communists started doing this. In case you don't know mass phone tapping didn't start in the US until decades (plural) later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_East_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_East_Germ... Not that I have experienced socialists/communists reacting positively to being proven wrong much before. Even when proven wrong by their own historical record (yes, they PROUDLY published they were doing this in 1946, after all, that's what Marx instructed them to do). Yes, the need for mass surveillance of the masses is actually in Marx and Engels's work. In fact it was a part of Marx's work in much the same way as you are arguing it here: he was falsely accusing capitalist and bourgeoisie of mass surveillance, even while he was trying to do it himself. But yeah, Marx is Marx. His whole work, a pamphlet discussing massacring the bourgeoisie ... when, of course, both he himself and his family (up and down, his parents, he himself, his wife, his children) were very much part of the "hated" bourgeoisie. But, of course, in his mind he was excluded. He himself was very much not the evil he was trying to fight, and that every description he published said otherwise ... Very on-brand for communists, that.
- ta988 1y ago
  I would really much want to see which Marx (with Engels or not) writings advocate for mass surveillance. I would also like to see a reference of when did he call for a bourgeoisie massacre.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    Then I suggest you actually read the manifest. Oh, I should probably declare you technically correct. He does not call for a massacre, just a violent revolution. These are technically not exactly the same. They turned out the same in practice though.
    - grafmax 1y ago

Capitalism is just a reflection of people being self-interested which you can't prevent without being authoritarian which will inevitably leads also to surveillance.

cassianoleal 1y ago
> Capitalism is just a reflection of people being self-interested I don't think that's the case. I think most people are not self-interested, or at least not in the selfish sense. I think most people are more than willing to sacrifice _some_ direct personal gain for better community gains. The problem is that capitalism only allows selfish self-interest to flourish, so it incentivises even the more community-oriented people to always put themselves first, a lot of the time even in detriment to their immediate vicinity. Capitalism is a form of authoritarianism in that it really only serves a few, and everyone else is just constantly fighting for survival. > being authoritarian which will inevitably leads also to surveillance That's exactly where capitalism is taking us.
- randomcarbloke 1y ago
  >or at least not in the selfish sense Wasn't a requirement, self interest doesn't imply malice. >capitalism only allows selfish self-interest to flourish How's that then? >Capitalism is a form of authoritarianism in that it really only serves a few You're cooked, market liberalisation has led the world from >80% in poverty to <10% in under 40 years, even removing huge entities like China.
  - grafmax 1y ago
    Poverty reduction has largely been the result of China’s mixed economy not unbridled capitalism. Guided markets have played a role there - but that’s because they were guided. We don’t have to accept the authoritarianism or any of other effect of markets, simply because markets have played a role in some of the positive outcomes of the past. In fact for the last 50 years in the global north, roughly the same timeframe, productivity has continued to grow but most of that growth has accrued to the wealthiest and relatively little of that benefit has been seen by the median worker.
    - randomcarbloke 1y ago
      as I said if you remove china from the data the trend is identical. But regarding China specifically it has been the gradual transition to a more market led economy.
      - grafmax 1y ago
        To say it’s identical is an overstatement, but markets have been part of China’s policy, and part of the policies many other formerly impoverished counties. Without government policy intelligently choosing how to utilize markets (which is what happened in most of these formerly impoverished countries like the “Asian tigers”), markets alone could not have have brought the gains that they did. Markets have many downsides to them as well. Additionally non-government, non-market factors like unionization contributed to the rise out of poverty as well. And in the global north, “markets” have been fairly ineffective at raising the standard of living for the median worker. They have been effective at enriching the already rich however, contributing to wealth power-concentration and de-democratization.
        randomcarbloke 1y ago
        no it is an identical plot on the graph, not an overstatement at all. The standard of living for the median worker has improved significantly in forty years let alone two hundred, lifestyle inflation is definitely rapid as you would expect with progress, wage growth has outpaced inflation for everyone but public sector workers. Bad as things may seem now, we are all richer than ever before.
        grafmax 1y ago
        Productivity has grown. But that has more or less stopped going to the median worker since mid-70s (post inflation). This is known as the pay-productivity gap. There has been some increase, but most of the gains have gone to the wealthiest. Our issue today isn’t productivity. It’s redistributing the gains from the wealthy minority who have received the lion’s share to the rest. And you mention being richer. We also have an unfolding climate crisis, authoritarianism, mass surveillance, and the real possibility of imminent nuclear war (brewing now with China). All these things are the result of a wealthy minority controlling policy for their own interests. And the wealthy minority has gotten there through the same market mechanisms that exploit workers and concentrate wealth. Are we better off when we are much closer to our own self destruction? It’s this wealthy minority that has brought us here. Their relative power continues to grow. In fact, many of the gains in wealth we have seen are not the result of markets but either savvy government policy or the result of people pushing back on the power of the ruling class. Markets have good and bad sides. It’s best to take off our rose colored glasses and see markets for their good and bad.

spwa4 1y ago

It's scary how this is actually being called out as a problem of capitalism ... when anyone can look up history and see communists were actually doing this in 1946. Not just phones, they were doing it on the street, going as far as sending out people to listen in on conversations everywhere. Makes sense, I guess: there were barely any phones to tap when communists started doing this. In case you don't know mass phone tapping didn't start in the US until decades (plural) later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_East_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_East_Germ... Not that I have experienced socialists/communists reacting positively to being proven wrong much before. Even when proven wrong by their own historical record (yes, they PROUDLY published they were doing this in 1946, after all, that's what Marx instructed them to do). Yes, the need for mass surveillance of the masses is actually in Marx and Engels's work. In fact it was a part of Marx's work in much the same way as you are arguing it here: he was falsely accusing capitalist and bourgeoisie of mass surveillance, even while he was trying to do it himself. But yeah, Marx is Marx. His whole work, a pamphlet discussing massacring the bourgeoisie ... when, of course, both he himself and his family (up and down, his parents, he himself, his wife, his children) were very much part of the "hated" bourgeoisie. But, of course, in his mind he was excluded. He himself was very much not the evil he was trying to fight, and that every description he published said otherwise ... Very on-brand for communists, that.

ta988 1y ago
I would really much want to see which Marx (with Engels or not) writings advocate for mass surveillance. I would also like to see a reference of when did he call for a bourgeoisie massacre.
- spwa4 1y ago
  Then I suggest you actually read the manifest. Oh, I should probably declare you technically correct. He does not call for a massacre, just a violent revolution. These are technically not exactly the same. They turned out the same in practice though.
  - grafmax 1y ago