The Democracy of the founding fathers was Greek Democracy, predicated upon a slave society, and restricted to only the elite. This is the society we live in today, even with our reforms towards direct representation. The system is inherently biased towards the election of elites and against the representation of the masses. Hamilton called it “faction” when the working class got together and demanded better conditions, and mechanisms were built in (which still exist to this day) that serve to ensure the continued dominance of the elite over the masses. The suffering of the many is intentional. The opulence of the wealthy is also. This is the intended outcome.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The only part of this statement that is flawed is the part that states that the only course of action is to dismantle the system. It is also possible to reform the system so that it doesn't produce It's previous flaws.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Really? Where has this happened? Which countries have been able to reform away the exploitation and coercion inherent in the capitalist economic structure whilst maintaining it?

[–] colin@lemmy.uninsane.org 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

we’re conversing via a communications system where at least the very top portion is free of exploitation and coercion. probably lemmy.tf is hosted on an operating system also free from that coercion. not to be all techbro, but it’s kinda like we’ve achieved this in one specific niche and completely failed to apply it to anything real/useful (i.e. “the stuff that could kill you in its absence”).

i used to contribute a LOT to the 3d printing space ten years ago: at the time it seemed like the way to bridge that (half the parts in my machine were built with a friend using his machine). i still think there’s something “there”, that we can build parallel systems that won’t be captured or killed by the existing powers rather than solely embracing destruction, but it’s just a long game. how long has the capitalist system had to develop? anything else has to endure nearly that same amount of catchup until it can provide for us in any way you would embrace.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

3d printing is cool, and i agree, it is great for reclaiming things from the capitalist profit incentive structure. I print pretty much everything I can instead of buying it, and it’s great for fixing things that manufacturers don’t want you to fix.

It’s not really much in the way of reducing the exploitation of the working class though, nor its reliance upon coerced labor in order to maintain basic human living conditions. It’s also primarily being used by corporations to further increase profit margins.

There’s not many Vorons or Prusas. There’s a lot more profit seeking printing services than there are Print it Forward programs. This is inevitable under our current system. The resources available to those seeking to help humanity are far fewer than those seeking to exploit it.

Technology itself is not a solution. Technology only matters as much as how you use it. If the dominant forces in society are utilizing technology for profit, rather than to increase human dignity and freedom, then what you get is what we have; Machines that do the work of 1000 men, not so that 1000 men can focus on other things, but so that ONE man (or realistically, a group of shareholders and board members) can extract super profits from those workers. If technology was used in service of humanity, the majority of humanity would be working very little, and things like starvation and homelessness would only be possible under unexpected circumstances like droughts and after wildfires.

[–] colin@lemmy.uninsane.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If technology was used in service of humanity, the majority of humanity would be working very little, and things like starvation and homelessness would only be possible under unexpected circumstances like droughts and after wildfires.

this i agree with, but i don't take that all shapes of technology are equally susceptible to serving profit instead of people. in our case, the factory systems which allow for 1000:1 production are huge and costly and beyond the reach of the average individual or family or community. but that same technology in a different form could be made to be within reach of smaller communities.

If the dominant forces in society are utilizing technology for profit, rather than to increase human dignity and freedom, then what you get is what we have;

if a machine within the reach of your everday person could have that same 1000:1 production factor, then you don't need the dominant forces in society to be directed at human dignity. you just need them to be tolerant of benign alternatives, and only 0.1% of society needs to go along with you to allow that alternative to be reality. the bigger thing is that we've had 100+ years in which technology has been developed for that factory system with far less development catering to any alternatives, so the alternatives available legitimately do not have that same 1000:1 production. there's no way to get that outside of factories without playing catchup on the technology front. but catchup is possible without destruction because factorized production does incidentally create generalized tools that make the alternatives easier (your typical hammers and saws and all that).

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why does it matter that these machines are in factories? They should still be used for the benefit of mankind, or at the very least, the benefit of the workers at the factory. Currently, we have no democracy in the workplace, and no say in how new technologies are implemented.

A machine costing a lot of money, only matters when most of the money is hoarded by a few individuals. Had we workplace democracy, those same machines, in those same factories, would be used for the good of the workers, rather than the good of the shareholders.

The factory is part of the community. It’s emissions effect the community, it’s output and profits effect the community, it’s size effects the community, it’s investment or lack of investment in the community effects the community. In fact, I can’t think of a single aspect of a factory that does not directly rely upon or impact the community immediately surrounding it. And yet, people in suits a thousand miles away in board rooms in skyscrapers, get to determine how that factory effects that community, and the community gets no say, because “private property”.

We don’t need to take the machines out of the factory to make them help people. We need to return the factories to the people and allow them to help themselves.

[–] colin@lemmy.uninsane.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

alright, you've made a pretty solid case there. one single nit:

A machine costing a lot of money, only matters when most of the money is hoarded by a few individuals.

"power corrupts", as it goes. if there's a single lever that could be pulled to enrich the few, then they will try, and the many have to remain vigilant. better many small levers than a handful of large levers where possible, since that's just more difficult for any small self-interested group to control. but i'll take democratic workplaces over the existing.

so: how to get there? like, what do you or i do, aside from just considering these things as we navigate our careers? if someone else has done a good job with the deeper writing here before, i'll take a book rec. there's space on my non-fiction shelf.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 4 points 1 year ago

Well, I’m not sure this will get a good response, but I highly recommend reading the works of successful revolutionaries. Guevara, Lenin, Mao, Nkrumah, etc.

Those peoples books fucking blew my mind. They enacted revolution, and then spent a long time reflecting upon them. There’s decades of works from each, except Nkrumah :(

I’d say the first thing to do is to join a local socialist organization and get active in organizing in your community. Direct action groups are good too, but mostly serve to cauterize wounds inflicted by capitalism, rather than actually healing them, so they’re best used in tandem with direct organization. Unionize your workplace if you can. If we get massive union movement again, those unions can collaborate to massively extend our power. A hundred individual unionized factories mean little, but 100 unionized factories acting as one, that will get some movement. You can look to the UAW for the power of collective unionism. It’ll be even more powerful if we become so unionized that we can use solidarity strikes regardless of the oppressive laws against it.

Know that nothing will be won without blood though. You cannot ask a man to give up his immense privilege without expecting him to try to stop you. People died to win us the 40 hour week. People died to win us Overtime. People died for the 8 hour day and unemployment insurance and an end to company scrip. We will have to be willing to make that same sacrifice in order to win our current battle. Nothing will be won tomorrow either. This is a struggle. Every day, for as long as it takes. Take the concessions when you win them, but do not be satisfied, for they are only that, concessions, and concessions can be taken away as easily as they were given. We must continue through, until we reach the finish line. And once we do, the real race starts. We have to avoid the mistakes of movements in the past like the CNT, and USSR, and various other countries, while still looking to their successes with a clear mind.

Cheers.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Quite frankly, first of all, that's not the statement being discussed.

The statement in the meme is that if a system deprives people of something necessary for life it should be dismantled. Doesn't even mention capitalism.

A system that deprives people of what they need was say the healthcare system, but it was reformed to better provide people what they need instead of being dismantled. In the abstract, the idea that every broken system, or system producing a non-perfect outcome needs to be dismantled is one rooted in simple minded black and white thinking, instead of understanding the system at play.

If you want to make a separate argument that capitalism is a system that resists change and that it thus cannot be changed or reformed to produce the outcomes you want, then you can make that argument, but 'no one has done it yet' after a generation or two of half hearted trying, is not a convincing argument that it's an impossible task.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 11 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Capitalism has been dominant for over 4 centuries, and has murdered hundreds of millions of people in that time to maintain its dominance. It’s not only resistant to change, it actively kills those who try to change it for the better.

The healthcare system despite its centuries of reforms still serves the needs of the wealthy over the needs of the many. Even in countries with socialized healthcare but capitalist economics, elites are able to use their wealth to purchase higher quality of care than the average persons. Not to mention that those systems are being strangled to death the world over by governments in service of wealth, including the biggest success stories, the UK, and Canada.

In my country, it was never even reformed, and millions of people still have absolutely no way to receive healthcare without bankrupting themselves.

The concessions won are slowly taken away, bit by bit. We installed the 40 hour week and minimum wage as a de facto living wage and maximum working time. How many people work 60 hours today and still don’t have living wages? Because the concessions were just that, concessions, and as such, they can and are taken away as soon as it inconveniences the ruling class. Child labor laws are being stripped, because they’re inconvenient to those who seek to profit off of it. Socialized Healthcare systems are being dismantled, because they’re inconvenient for those who wish to profit off of it. Every area where we have won concessions has experienced a rollback when those concessions are maintained by a capitalist run state.

Its naive to think that you will be able to reform a system predicated on mass exploitation for most and orgiastic privilege for others to somehow be equitable while maintaining the private property systems at the root of all of the issues with it.

[–] Machindo@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you for saying this. ❤️

I do not understand people apologizing for capitalism ever.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's been around for four centuries as the dominant form of resource allocation and is thus also responsible for most of the western world's relatively high standard of living, and increasingly the rest of the world.

Im not defending it whole hog, but it's absurd to not be able to understand it's appeal.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 3 points 1 year ago

Capitalism was an important development in humankind that indeed increased the productive capacity of the world in many meaningful and positive ways. It has outlived its usefulness though, and now serves to prevent the kind of meaningful change needed to tackle 21st century problems.

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why would anyone grow food for a living if they couldn't sell their produce at a profit?

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

If a person would rather allow land to go fallow purely because of profit incentive, and that fallow land will result in the suffering of others, the only moral thing to do is dispossess them of that land. They weren’t using it anyway apparently, in this hypothetical.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the only moral thing to do is dispossess them of that land.

And give it to who? Who's going to farm that land when they're not allowed to make a profit from it? It's not easy work.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 11 points 1 year ago

Maybe some of the millions of people who are currently unable to even afford adequate food for themselves because of the profiteering of these very landholders, who engage in such sabotage as mass slaughter and burial of animals to prevent price drops. You know, profits are after wages, right? Profits aren’t wages. You only make profits after you pay wages and costs. So… you pay wages.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

My government actually pays mostly corporate (but not all) farmers not to produce or actively destroy their products, rather than buy it and have communities freely disperse it.

[–] essellburns 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Farming requires a lot more than land

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You’re right, it requires people! It’s too bad there’s not an army of people underemployed in exploitative jobs that do not meet their basic needs along with an army of unemployed and often even unhoused people... We could just… pay them living wages to farm… there’s an idea!

[–] essellburns 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Excellent, so we'll need some profits on that food then, to pay them?

Let's keep going with this thinking. We're inventing a system from first principles

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Profits aren’t wages, you obviously haven’t read much economics. Profits are what’s left AFTER wages and costs.

[–] essellburns 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're failing to differentiate between gross and net profits.

Ever run a business?

How is everyone going to afford this food if you're selling it for a gross profit? I believe that was your original point.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, I have run a business haha. Profit doesn’t mean either gross or net profits, it means, and I quote from the dictionary,

“Profit: The amount by which revenue from sales exceeds costs in a business”. Profit: a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.

That is profit. Now, people can break it down further, but, when someone is referring to profits, you should assume they mean the dictionary definition of profits.

[–] essellburns 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I should, should I?

You previously suggested I've not read enough economics, so should I assume you have? Do they all use that word with that meaning?

Also, I'm wondering if you have an answer to the other question. How is everyone going to afford this food that's being sold even if it doesn't have a markup?

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How is anyone going to afford the food that is no longer being marked up? If the food is cheaper, somehow less people will be able to afford it than now? Is that the position you’re coming from?

I’d like to answer your question, it’s just… not really a question that makes any logical sense.

And yes, you should. I can provide plenty of economic texts if you would like to come to understand the economic system you live under. We can even start all the way back with Adam Smith, and move up from there. Like the part where he says that someone holding land without working to improve it does not deserve the land, and should not be allowed to keep it.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You said it yourself: for a living.

Growing food with a main goal of profits in a private enterprise rather than just sustenance or profit through government grants without private market interference has a lot of downsides, including to farmers themselves.

For example, optimisation for profit means a lot of waste:

Perfectly healthful produce with aesthetic faults has to be left to rot on the ground as it won't sell and nobody's going to collect it for those that need it but can't afford to pay the "market price"
If you have an exclusive deal with a grocery store or other intermediary, the excess of an unexpectedly good crop yield will likewise in most cases have to be destroyed because the buyer can't receive all of it and you're not allowed to sell to their competitors.
Likewise, any excess of a particular good harvest across a crop will also be destroyed to avoid losing money on the market value of the crop dropping due to increased supply.

All of this while a few megacorps sit between farmers and consumers paying the same or less to farmers and charging much more of consumers while the cost of living and business expenses of farmers keep rising, making it harder and harder to make ends meet if you're not the aforementioned megacorps.

And that's not even mentioning all the issues of long hours and some of the worst working conditions of any industry, all to save a buck or two to stave off bankruptcy and eventually starvation for a little longer while the megacorps and their billionaire owners and executives gobble up almost all the value of what you produce.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Jesus christ, you people and your text walls.

Be Concise.

[–] queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

I'm sorry right wing thought can be put down into 3 words for a sound bite, and actual thoughts and explanations take longer. I guess reading beyond 6th grade is communism now.

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 year ago

You asked a question that couldn't be answered both concisely and accurately so I chose accuracy.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You not understanding why someone might want to do good for others simply for the sake of doing good, and/or never being able to bring yourself to do so, doesn't mean no one else does.

As always with bootlickers, it's projection all the way down...

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are simply ignorant of human nature, I think.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That’s the excuse people always give. Human nature is a lot of things. Greed, avarice, jealousy, definitively part of that. Just as much a part though, are empathy, caring, and selflessness. Human nature isn’t a fixed predetermined set of rules. If it was, there would be no variability in humanity whatsoever. Human nature as used here is just another thought terminating cliche designed to stop intelligent conversation.

The material conditions within a given society determine the most likely expressions of human nature within that society. Of course a society structured around elevating greed, violence, misogyny, etc, would see that reflected in its institutions and among its people. Materialism is a science, “human nature” is pop culture.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 8 points 1 year ago

The problem isn't the profit per se rather it's the maximization of profit favoring capital over human beings that's the problem. The meme strikes me as extreme.

[–] kleenbhole@lemy.lol 5 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Yeah farmers shouldnt profit, they're our food slaves!

[–] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Farmers are already food slaves under the current system

https://modernfarmer.com/2020/11/study-finds-1-percent-of-farms-own-70-percent-of-worlds-farmland/

[–] kleenbhole@lemy.lol 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So let's make ANY chance of profit, what, illegal?

How about we don't base policy on propaganda cartoona

[–] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How about we spread out the work and spread out the profit among people who do the work.

[–] kleenbhole@lemy.lol 3 points 1 year ago

How about we definitely never do commie shit or we'll end up like Russia

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Individual Farmers often don’t profit. They survive through subsidy. The grocers who hold monopoly on supply chains and corporate industrialized farms with near-slave immigrant laborers make the majority of the profit. Also, paying yourself a wage isn’t profit. They can pay themselves a living wage that allows them to thrive, no one is calling for enslavement lmao.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] NAM@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Me when I had to go to 3 gas stations last night to find one with a functional air pump for my tires, and the one that was working was not automated, and it even cost me 2 dollars for the privilege of reading that stupid analogue gauge in the dark.

The broken free ones were automated.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Amen

load more comments