• volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    “we’re gonna make sure everyone’s needs are met” is literally a general leftist thing

    Pretty sure most people who consider themselves leftists in western countries don’t agree with the implications of this. Guaranteeing housing for everyone implies hard policy against landlords (including expropriation), construction of dense public housing… Guaranteeing equal rights in education means eliminating private education, and the same can be applied to medicine.

    As for the human rights of people outside the western world, ensuring their human rights would imply stopping the abusive trade relations that they’re forced into partaking. No more unequal exchange, so now chocolate is 5-10€ a piece. We also can’t export our trash anymore to poorer countries. Good-bye to 3000€/month salaries in so-called “high added value” sectors of the economy when you submit to the reality that a western worker’s hour shouldn’t be paid at 5-times the rate of a non-western worker.

    We need to degrow economically in order to preserve the climate, so the purchase power of people must be reduced when it comes to many consumer products which aren’t basics. No more luxury vehicles (possibly restrictions on purchase of cars), no more buying clothes twice a month, and compulsory reduction of meat consumption.

    Now, try to do all of those things within the logic of capitalism. Most self-described leftists don’t see the logical and historical impossibilities of guaranteeing the needs of everyone within a capitalist system. So yeah, virtue-signalling and good intentions are good, but more than that is needed to actually achieve the goals in mind. The far-left is just aware of this.

    Assuming you’re trying to portray tankies and fascists

    Wait. Fascists are left-wing now? Fascists want to “ensure working class needs”???

    • timestatic@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      If you go far enough on the left sector then yes, they may say they want to “ensure the working class needs” but are so full of shit that they strike down anything that differs slightly from their views. We need part of a personal incentive and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people. Communism might just ensure the bare minimum. Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.

      • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.

        Thank you for agreeing with my point that self-described leftists don’t want to experience the consequences of ensuring everyone’s needs are met.

        We need part of a personal incentive

        Communism isn’t against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don’t know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity. If by “incentive” you mean “the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness”, then speak openly. How funny that people aren’t willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.

        and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people.

        The needs of the people in developed capitalist societies are best met in socialized services such as public education, public healthcare, and public pensions. Typically, it’s individual-based (i.e. private) sectors of the economy like housing (or healthcare and education in the US) that give the worst crises and stress to people, and the ones that ensure highest inequality between rich and poor.

        • timestatic@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Communism isn’t against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don’t know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity.

          It might seem abstract to you but if you are valuable to the company and another company offers you more money your pay is adjusted based on your economic productivity

          If by “incentive” you mean “the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness”, then speak openly. How funny that people aren’t willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.

          Why should I speak openly if I support a social safety net that ensures a basic standard of living and housing during times of unemployment?

          None of this needs a communist state

          • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            and another company offers you more money your pay is adjusted based on your economic productivity

            Meritocracy in capitalism is a myth. Low-wage workers often work harder than anyone else, and get no rises or other jobs for doing so.

            Why should I speak openly if I support a social safety net that ensures a basic standard of living and housing during times of unemployment?

            None of this needs a communist state

            Sure, the capitalist west is doing so well electing the far right to erode our already-eroded social rights even more.

            • timestatic@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company. Actually Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are some of the happiest countries on earth with the highest standards of living so I’d say they’re doing pretty well. I know that there are a lot worse capitalist countries but I specifically focus on a social market economy and the potential. I am not defending the lack of social welfare in the US.

              • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                Nordic European countries have rather decent social welfare, agreed, but their economy is as sustained on unequal exchange as those of the rest of the developed world. In the case of Norway arguably more since they’re oil exporters. My point being, not every country, not even most countries, can be like Scandinavian countries because they rely on exploitation of people outside their borders.

                Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company.

                How’s that not a bad thing to reward people based on? We saw during the pandemic that the actually important jobs in our society are the ones that pay jackshit and are easily replaceable. Shouldn’t these people get a better life?

                • timestatic@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I get your point. It’s sad that for example football stars get millions a year while the people required to run a country don’t get a good pay. But large parts of a society for example highly value those stars which is why they’re so well-paid.

                  How’s that not a bad thing to reward people based on?

                  In an ideal world we could do that, but only because you put a lot of effort into something doesn’t mean it is of higher value to society. If its standard stuff someone else could do or you just aren’t better than many others you don’t get valued as much. If everyone worked the same job (Its a ridiculous example, I know but stick with it one second) and worked their ass off it would just be nearly worthless since all the other jobs would be empty. Thats how the economy allocates the work force.

                  Nordic European countries have rather decent social welfare, agreed, but their economy is as sustained on unequal exchange as those of the rest of the developed world. In the case of Norway arguably more since they’re oil exporters. My point being, not every country, not even most countries, can be like Scandinavian countries because they rely on exploitation of people outside their borders.

                  This might be true, but even more industrialized countries like Germany or the Netherlands have a decent welfare state. They export a lot as well, yes, but I don’t see it as much of an issue if the other countries were more industrialized and had higher pr capita productivity which would leave more things for everyone involved.

                  • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    In an ideal world we could do that, but only because you put a lot of effort into something doesn’t mean it is of higher value to society

                    Again, ESSENTIAL jobs during the pandemic. They are the ones of highest value to society, to the point that it would crash without them.

                    If its standard stuff someone else could do or you just aren’t better than many others you don’t get valued as much

                    I’m fully aware that’s how it works now, I argue that it shouldn’t be like this.

                    This might be true, but even more industrialized countries like Germany or the Netherlands have a decent welfare state. They export a lot as well, yes, but I don’t see it as much of an issue if the other countries were more industrialized and had higher pr capita productivity which would leave more things for everyone involved.

                    Again, that’s not how it works. If you allow currently poor countries to develop, they’ll stop providing cheap labor and raw materials to wealthy countries, and stop buying expensive manufactured products like cars and planes at a premium. That’s what the western welfare state relies on: exploitation through unequal exchange of the poorer regions of the world

    • cristo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      Esperanto
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Fascists want to ensure working class needs for the right working class people. Fascism is difficult to define, you can argue for it being either a left wing or a right wing ideology depending on the perspective of analysis.

      • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        God you’re a fucking clown. Please tell me which fascist regime supports universal, free education for all children, universal social healthcare, or guaranteed housing. And tell me which fascist regime wants to ensure these rights for subsectors or the working class like racialized minorities or different ethnicities. Or women. Or queer people. “Fascism can be both described as left or right wing”. Infuriatingly stupid take.

        • cristo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Esperanto
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Unnecessarily angry reply. If youve taken a course on definitions of fascism youd understand what Im talking about. Quantifying the totality of what defines fascism is incredibly difficult considering the many forms it has taken throughout history. Hitler Naziism did have some social programs but not really enough to look at it from the perspective of left wing politics, therefor it is a majorly right right political movement. The current government of China and Maoism you can argue is both left wing and fascist due to the extremely strong social programs, rejection of western style capitalism, and the various slow genocides against non Han Chinese ethnic groups, such as the Uyghurs.

          • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            My response is angry because I’m Spanish, so I have good reference of what fascism is like, and you saying that it can be categorised as leftist when it’s literally a reactionary movement that defends capitalist elites against rising leftist movements, is extremely apologetic of fascism.

            The current government of China and Maoism you can argue is both left wing and fascist

            Please tell me where’s the militarisation of society. Please tell me where’s the hierarchization of society. Please tell me where’s the adoration of the distant idealized past. Please tell me where the anti-communist reactionaries are.

            slow genocides against non Han Chinese ethnic groups, such as the Uyghurs.

            “Genocide is when reeducation camps for 3-4 years as a response to domestic terrorism”. Sorry mate, 4 years ago people bought this rhetoric. Now that people see what actual genocide and apartheid looks like (Palestine), and now that it’s patently obvious that a few anonymous testimonies aren’t a reliable source of information for such serious accusations, people don’t actually defend that there was genocide. There’s no genocide in China against Uyghur.

            • cristo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              Esperanto
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              The militarization of society is not a marker of every form of facism, facism comes in many different flavors. Neither is hierarchization of society, that has existed in all forms social organization including communism, socialism, feudalism, etc. China does have a meritocratic system, exactly like the rest of the world for the most part. Another example of this could be the caste system of India, although I am not as familiar with that as I am with Chinese history and politics, so it is hard for me to make the fascist determination; although it does have the markers. Now for the adoration of the distant past, that is also not a marker of fascism, more so a marker of conservatism, but I will humor you. Have you heard of something called Shen Yun? It is an organization that puts on plays around the western world that focuses on glorifying the past of China prior to communism. It is no longer really supported by the CCP because of political disagreements, but is still a glorification of the past. Come on, dont say that fascism requires anti communism, thats just close minded and anti nuance. You need to look at fascism separately from the economic organizations of society: communism, socialism, capitalism. As for your point on the Uyghurs, if you think that rounding up an ethnic group and putting them in re-education, forced reproduction, and prison camps is not genocide, I dont know what to tell you. There were also hundreds more ethnic groups in China that have been culturally and literally genocided in recent history. We agree that Israels government is organized into a fascist apartheid state, Palestine is under a true attempted genocide. That doesnt mean, though, you should ignore what is happening and has happened in societies that are not strictly capitalist.

              • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                The militarization of society is not a marker of every form of facism, facism comes in many different flavors

                Now for the adoration of the distant past, that is also not a marker of fascism

                Come on, dont say that fascism requires anti communism

                You can just say “I’m using my own definition of fascism which doesn’t agree with the general consensus of what fascism is, to refer to any regime I consider loosely authoritarian”.

                You need to look at fascism separately from the economic organizations of society

                “You need to look at the socioeconomic system separately from the economic organizations of society”. Fucking lol.

                As for your point on the Uyghurs, if you think that rounding up an ethnic group and putting them in re-education

                Agreed, that’s very sus and not a policy I support, even in the context of prior terrorist attacks.

                forced reproduction, and prison camps

                I assume you mean forced sterilization. Sorry, but there’s no serious evidence for that. The best you can point to is an inform by Amnesty International that is based off anonymous interviews. There’s nothing pointing towards mass forced sterilisation of Uyghur people, in fact they were mostly left out of the single-child policy that China adopted unlike Han people, which explains partly why Uyghur went from being a minority to the majority ethnicity in Xinjiang. What a weird genocide, where the supposedly oppressive ethnicity is displaced in numbers by the supposedly oppressed ethnicity.

                There were also hundreds more ethnic groups in China that have been culturally and literally genocided in recent history

                I’d love to read on that, can you send me a source?

                That doesnt mean, though, you should ignore what is happening and has happened in societies that are not strictly capitalist

                I’m not ignoring it, I’m looking at the available evidence and determining that there’s no active genocide. It’s these types of false claims that were used to justify military intervention in other countries. Remember Nayirah’s testimony used to justify in the US military action against Iraq. Or the exaggerated calls of genocide in Yugoslavia that were used to allow NATO to bomb the shit out of it and break it up into a collection of weak states, separating families.

                • cristo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  Esperanto
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I believe you are misunderstanding a lot of what I am writing. And I don’t think much of your reply to my comment has been constructive or an attempt to retort any of my opinion, just a “lol ur wrong” statement on all of it which in no way proves you right or me wrong. I am not using my own definition of fascism, if you read what I wrote, I am saying that what you are asking me to find in modern chinese society is not a marker of every form of fascism, and to quantify fascism by only those parameters is distracting from every other form of fascism that has been present in history. Its possible to be fascist and communist at the same time, its possible to be fascist and capitalist at the same time.

                  • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Yeah no, I’m not misunderstanding. And no, I’m not doing a constructive answer because you’re keen on talking about a definition of fascism that most people would disagree with, especially those who’ve spent a minute researching the origins of fascism and why it’s an intrinsically reactionary movement that pops as a response from capitalism to threatening leftist movements.