I don’t understand the message. Of course it was not voluntary, no drastic change in social structure is
as Cowbee wrote: the ‘free market’ narrative assumes the market is participatory, and that you can simply opt out (‘go live in the woods’).
but capitalism doesn’t work without a labour market, and the labour market isn’t stable without a buffer of un[der]employment. so living outside the market — and general ‘propertylessness’ — is criminalised or made so inconvenient/unsustainable that you’re left with ‘the choice’ between peonage or starvation. the people who fall into homelessness and houselessness serve as a warning to anyone who might consider ‘opting out’.
i don’t think anyone genuinely believes this is a real choice, but i’ve experienced this narrative being used to dismiss critiques of capitalism and wage slavery.
Fair enough
A persistent Liberal narrative is that Capitalism is a system based on voluntary contracts, and therefore participation is voluntary as well.
Fair enough
Life was also never voluntary.
Capitalism isn’t some unchanging and never-ending fact of existence, it can be replaced.
It can absolutely be superseded, but the concepts underlying it cannot be destroyed, and it cannot be simply erased. Rather, those underlying dynamics must be incorporated into our larger body of concepts. Similarly, capitalism cannot simply erase the foundations of earlier systems, it must adapt to incorporate those concepts, and meet the needs which those systems met - or else those needs will become great enough that they impact or temporarily displace it.
Sure, nobody said otherwise. When Socialism comes, it will be born out of Capitalist society, just as Capitalism emerged out of Feudalism, and Communism will emerge out of Socialism.
For an idea that has come before, and has difficulty “being done right”, the idea that socialism and communism is what comes next seems excessively optimistic - unless you mean in some dualistic or otherwise cyclical kind of sense.
What do you mean when you say Socialism “has difficulty being done right?” How familiar are you with Marxism?
I mean that socialism sounds great on paper, but actual attempts fail terribly, and it’s always someone else’s fault, or this or that extenuating circumstance.
If socialism works, I encourage you to go about living a socialistic life. Which is difficult in many environments, because it’s a difficult thing to implement well - whereas for capitalism, you just need to offer to trade people this for that, and things snowball.
That said, capitalism sucks, and we need to do things in a way that actually meets the needs that socialism promises to fulfill, but does poorly at actually fulfilling.
I mean that socialism sound great on paper, but actual attempts fail terribly, and it’s always someone else’s fault, or this or that extenuating circumstance.
What specifically do you mean when Socialist attempts “fail terribly?” I am not going to erase the struggles faced in AES countries, but I am also not going to erase their successes. Do you have examples you want to look at, specifically? Vague gesturing isn’t helpful. What “sounds great on paper,” but doesn’t work in reality, specifically?
If socialism works, I encourage you to go about living a socialistic life. Which is difficult in many environments, because it’s a difficult thing to implement well - whereas for capitalism, you just need to offer to trade people this for that, and things snowball.
What good would this do? Marxism rejects this kind of moralistic utopianism, simply acting in a Socialist manner will not eliminate Capitalism nor would it bring about Socialism. I think this reveals a lack of understanding of what Socialists want, and why.
That said, capitalism sucks, and we need to do things in a way that actually meets the needs that socialism promises to fulfill, but does poorly at actually fulfilling.
Again, why do you say Socialism does “poorly at actually fulfilling” needs? Do you have examples with metrics we can look at?
Every self professed attempt in history to enact socialism either has already been declared not good enough to count as socialism, or will be declared as such in the future, when it gets even worse.
The labor theory of value is so poor as to be indefensible, and scarcity is a property of nature, rather than capitalism.
Every self professed attempt in history to enact socialism either has already been declared not good enough to count as socialism,
Who is doing that?
or will be declared as such in the future, when it gets even worse.
What is getting worse, and why would it? Socialist States can and do improve over time, sometimes massively.
The labor theory of value is so poor as to be indefensible
Why?
and scarcity is a property of nature, rather than capitalism.
Who said it wasn’t?
You’re figthing ghosts and strawmen that are not here.
Every self professed attempt in history to enact socialism either has already been declared not good enough to count as socialism, or will be declared as such in the future, when it gets even worse.
Declared by who? I would much rather be living in a tier 1 city in China right now personally. Or in Cuba if the US ever stopped strangling it.
The labor theory of value is so poor as to be indefensible
I agree, David Ricardo was incorrect, and Marx’s refutation in his theory of value explains the creation of value much better. (Imagine reading Marx and not Wikipedia on Marx)
and scarcity is a property of nature, rather than capitalism
Scarcity is a property of nature and artificial scarcity is a product of commodity fetishism (necessary for capitalism to function)
