- cross-posted to:
- flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/36828107
ID: WookieeMark @EvilGenXer posted:
"OK so look, Capitalism is right wing.
Period.
If you are pro-capitalism, you are Right Wing.
There is no pro-capitalist Left. That’s a polite fiction in the US that no one can afford any longer as the ecosystem is actually collapsing around us."
Wrong. Capitalism is not defined by its criticisms nor by any eventual outcome. Everything OP said is the definition of capitalism. Everything you’re saying are the criticisms of Capitalism which state that eventually, Capitalism will lead to that. Early capitalism does not have a small few controlling the majority of the means of production, but it is still capitalism.
That’s like saying Communist governments are defined by never reaching full communism, or that a First Past the Post voting system is defined by a two party system. Those are not what define those things, but they are the criticisms of them and their eventual outcomes without something new implemented to correct it.
It’s not like they reset the fucking market when they boot up capitalism. The king had the most money, the king’s heirs and friends still have most of the money. The small ruling elite come with the system, because they brought it.
Nothing you underlined indicate that it’s owned by a small number of people, just that’s privately/corporate owned.
1 person can own one business in a market, and a separate person can own a second business in the market. A million different people can own a million different businesses in that market. All are privately or corporate owned.
Please look up “wealth inequality over time”, or watch this video on the topic https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EdqxBNgnmxU
Wealth directly represents control over resources and ownership of the economy. The more wealth you have, the more power you have (under capitalism) so massive disparities in wealth are also massive disparities of power
I’m well aware of wealth inequality and how bad it is right now. Those that seek wealth and power will abuse any form of government they can to exploit it and give themselves more wealth and power. It is not inherant to the system of government exploited, it’s inherant to human nature. How many communist governments have had leaders exploit the system to give themselves wealth? This has nothing to do with the conversation you’re replying to lol.
With what money do they start these businesses?
The way to uncover the nature of domination and exploitation, to prove that it isn’t just an economic system, is to instead of thinking of it as an objective thing with certain defining characteristics, but instead look at it as interconnected relationships that drive infinite growth, then it becomes apparent how it actually functions as a mechanism of class domination. The way you look at it, you only see the appearances of capitalism, you have an idealist view.
This is why so many people say things like “such a policy doesn’t make sense, its irrational.” But when viewed as a class struggle, it makes perfect sense, the system exploits the problems created by the relentless search for profit, by exploiting those problems for profit. Its the system that is irrational, and your desire to make it rational is well intentioned, but is basically just naval gazing. “This is what I learned it is so that’s what it is”. Its easier to see the illusions of capitalism for what they are than to hold on to them, but because they are a part of our identity, how we evaluate the world and our place in it, we don’t want to let them go. This is understandable.
But the stakes are higher than ever and the system is destroying, not building, killing and starving, not emancipating. This isn’t progress, its suicide.
The way anyone here looks at Communism is idealistic and Communist governments never fall into that ideal definition. Does that mean Communism is a bad thing? No. It simply means we haven’t found a way to make it work. Is Capitalism a bad thing? No. It can be great when it works. It’s just not working right now in Amurrica.
That would be great if it weren’t definitively proven to be otherwise. Just because you aren’t familiar with Karl Marx doesn’t mean he didn’t write extensively on the subject. Specifically you could look at critique of the Gotha Program by Karl Marx, Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg and State and Revolution by Lenin for comprehensive arguments against your view.
Even the ruling class, which once had many socialist-y sentiments among them, hasn’t subscribed to your views since WW2. I used to make arguments similar to yours, but if I followed through and tried to prove those views the only “evidence” was either just experts making claims to that effect, or people literally misconstruing data to suit that assumption. Its almost as if the consensus reached by the experts is itself a way of hiding the true relationships produced and reproduced for and by capitalism.
Not arguing, just not quite understanding what you mean when you said, “That would be great if it weren’t definitively proven to be otherwise.” Which part of my comment(s) are you referring to?
I appreciate the way you’ve written your reply. Too many here (and in the world) are hostile and combative with their words, whereas you’re seeking actual discourse, and I thank you for that. The world, and especially the USA, needs more of that. I also appreciate the book recommendations - I like to challenge my views and the views of others, for it’s not entirely beneficial to be trapped within an echo chamber. I’m aware of Marx and Lenin, but not of Luxemburg. Thank you again.
Appreciate your response, and I agree: there’s like a toxicity on the left. Some of it I can try to account for, Mark Fisher wrote about it a good deal in some of his essays, but confronting it I have the same problems that you might, I get banned from left spaces or dogpiled. From my investigations, I would say that a great deal of this framing, often bearing the title of “Marxist” is anything but, which isn’t a condemnation of anyone’s beliefs, since most people on the left, including progressive liberals are moved by deep injustices in society. And anyone moved by injustice is my comrade, of not today then surely in the future. But I do think the point of Marx has been lost, since so many Marxists deploy a sort of reasoning that Marx himself criticized and all but condemns.
Its true we all have an ideology to reckon with, I think its a consequence of the world we live in vs our ability or willingness to live with it. Its a big question that has plagued me for over a decade, but also driven much of my intellectual development. I hope the challenging and development of your ideas on your journey is just as fruitful, and maybe a little easier or more pleasant than I’ve experienced. Unfortunately, the times being what they are, many lessons will come hard for all of us, I’m afraid.
Sorry for any ungenerous interpretations of your intentions or intellect or anything like that. Its not my intention to like win debates or be petty, but being someone who thinks about politics a lot, it comes with the territory, I’m afraid. I try and improve.
Thanks for the discussion!
I think the critical difference is that communism has never had a chance to be tried without capitalist countries attacking them. Capitalist Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union and then the Capitalist USA forced the USSR into an economic cold war. Then the US bombed the shit out of socialist countries for 50 years. Communist China was threatened with a economic cold war if they didn’t join the “free market”.
But we have tried capitalism for 300 years and it produces horrible atrocities: leaded gasoline, mass starvation in 3rd world countries, child sweat shops, slavery, sex trafficking, destroying the planet for profit, billionaire oligarchs destroying democracy, etc