Which version of capitalism would you prefer? Does it still involve the private ownership of the means of production?
I think concern is placed on the wrong end, at least in terms of criticality.
I am less concerned about "maximums" right now. I know that's going to set off all kinds of alarm bells right now, but bear with me.
The two are intertwined for sure, but I'm mostly concerned with "minimums". If we had a society with Universal Basic Income, housing and Healthcare for everyone, and people had a safety net to pursue their passions, then I'm far less concerned about if someone has a billion dollars.
Again, they are both part of the same problem, but it's the focus. If billionaires were no longer allowed, and the money was re distributed amount people with 9 figure net worth already, it doesn't solve anything.
So yeah if people have the mobility to move from jobs, housing and Healthcare taken care of, and their basic needs met, I think it solves a lot of labor exploitation right away.
From there we can continue the debate, but I'm more concerned about taking care of everyone who is closer to the floor then worrying about the ceiling. I think there are capitalist ways that continue to reward actual breakthroughs and risks rather than the exploitation we have now.
I think that capitalism as we have it, but with a solid welfare state as you describe, is pretty close to my ideal society. But when I think about how such a system evolves over time in the presence of privately owned businesses, it seems to me that it is an unstable equilibrium. That is, it has an inherent tendency to break down the welfare state. I'll sketch the argument.
The first ingredient is that the owning class has an outsized influence on politics. This happens through a number of means, including:
Through these means they can influence politicians to pass laws that benefit the owning class. Note that it is not beneficial to politicians to do something about this. This is their bread and butter.
The next ingredient is that the welfare state as you and I would like to see it (UHC, UBI, and so on) is detrimental to the owning class. A solid welfare state means that workers have a much stronger position to negotiate from. Without UHC, refusing a crappy offer is much riskier since your health is at stake, for example. That is to say, the welfare state drives up operating costs for the owning class. As such, it is in their best interest to fight tooth and nail against the welfare state.
Combine these two ingredients, and you see that in the presence of privately owned businesses, you eventually lose whatever kind of welfare state you had. A similar argument shows that moving towards such a welfare state from our current system is very unlikely.
I would add that this isn't just speculation, it has historical precedent. The US created a powerful welfare state under FDR and it was slowly destroyed in exactly the way that you described. It's also important to note that it was racism that provided the owning class with the narrative they needed to convince the working class to support the erosion of their own welfare. The creation of the welfare state began with the compromise that the benefits would not extend to non-white Americans. When the civil rights movement successfully forced the issue and demanded that the benefits be universalized the owning class was able to ride the wave of the racist backlash all the way to a near-total rollback of the welfare state.
Ensuring that welfare for the people lasts requires that we directly and conclusively address the underlying causes of the inequality it is meant to alleviate. We must recognize that private ownership of the means of production is the direct cause of this inequality and will always reproduce it if it is not eliminated. And finally we must also address the social causes of inequality - racism, bigotry, xenophobia, sexism, etc. - so that they cannot be used as justification for the reconstruction of a system of inequality. Alongside an economic and political revolution we also need a cultural revolution.
If billionaires were no longer allowed, and the money was re distributed amount people with 9 figure net worth already, it doesn’t solve anything.
How exactly does wealth redistribution not solve anything? The disparity is the problem.
if people have the mobility to move from jobs, housing and Healthcare taken care of, and their basic needs met, I think it solves a lot of labor exploitation right away
And how are you going to pay for that without wealth redistribution?
Yes, the disparity is the problem. But it needs to actually be spread out. Things like universal health care do that inherently if they properly raise taxes on the rich.
Redistributing wealth from the top 0.1% to the top 1% doesn't accomplish anything meaningful.
And yes, paying for it will come from taxing the rich. None of that has to do with capitalism exclusively.
I feel like we're after the same thing but you're more interested in attacking my idea than building something together or proposing something different. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but your questions are quite loaded and you didn't offer anything of substance yourself. The only thing you didn't deflect back to me was saying "the disparity is the problem", and that is precisely the point I was making. I'm specifically pointing out that it's about the full disparity.
Having a small business or store doesn't require capitalism.
Yeah. You can have a left based on a version of 'value' where the productive apparatus is made for the benefit not of all, or the benefits of those who do the work, but for those who 'own', who reign, who hold dominion over.
I really don't see how this is so hard for these people to understand.
What are your skull measurements, BTW, fellow leftie?
Yeah, money is a great way of communication and valuation of work and goods over vast distances
I'm all for an easy token to valuate something and that's ok
But as you say, what we're doing now, is just not future proof
It doesn't even seem current proof lol
I think you kind of missed the point. What we're talking about is reality right now where in fact there are two dominant parties and two dominant voter bases in the US. In fact, most politicians at the national level situate themselves in one of those two groups.
All of the nuance that you described exists. It's absolutely real. And so is the above paragraph, so go back and read the original post and maybe you can uncover some meaning.
Left and Right are relative, not absolute terms.
Left and Right were absolute terms in the Girondine Convention. It just got passed down on to us.
In other words: they are relative.
Absolutely true statement. Capitalism may be nuanced and politics may be, but support for capitalism is not pro-left in the least.
How about he Sherman Antitrust Act. It is obviously left wing to oppose monopolies, and yet it fit into and supports a capitalist system. Even communist China has significant capitalist elements. Most notably, in "post capitalist" Star Trek, Jean-Luc Picard owned a fucking vineyard in France. You telling me everyone who wanted a French Vineyard got a French Vineyard?
Correct, China is socialist, the intermediary step between the capitalist mode of production and the communist mode of production.
If China is not communist, then America is not capitalist
(neither passes the purity test per definition)
I get it but it’s semantics and the way they use it is relative. We need to fight for the things that matter and avoid petty pitfalls.
No, see, its not semantics.
What are these things that matter that we are fighting for?
Preserving capitalism, just you know, we'll fix it this time, we just have to do (thing that is guaranteed to be undone by capitalism)!...
Or... not that, instead, identifying the instinct to do that as the entire main problem that causes or exacerbates all the other problems?
Its only semantics if you're in full-on capitalist realism mode, where the apocalypse is easier to imagine than the absence of capitalism.
That's how you get the Fallout timeline.
I hope we understand that the Fallout timeline is bad.
Smearing around the meaning of words is actually exactly how propoganda works. If you literally can't even know what someone is talking about or means, well, then you basically just make stuff up willy nilly, confusion increases, meaningful discussion becomes more and more impossible, and the status quo wins.
See no true scotsman.
Don't make me pull out the leftists, liberals, and conservatives Venn diagram.
Edit: Pulling it out.

The terms left and right are only useful until they are not.
These days you need to dig down into peoples ideology until you ask the question, should all people be cared for by society? I dont know how many levels up from that we skate around on but its almost insane how we are scaffolded over real human principles.
Its as if we have a bunch of people yapping, jumping into every conversation, with no idea about the pillars we are build on.
Maybe it's just me but it really bothers me that the far right is on the left of the diagram, and yet, I think it would also bother me somewhat if it were rotated 90 degrees so the the far right was on the right but then liberals would be on top. Also, it doesn't make sense that the part where all three overlap says "hate leftists" which would mean that leftists hate leftists and ah ok I see that checks out.
Only relevant to the progressive bent of neoliberalism, which is just rebranded conservatism.
Man people can't seem to get their terms together. Some people define left as communist/anti capitalist. Some define it as just anyone who wants equity for minorities. Some people define it as anyone they don't like and them damn hippies.
People use "The Left" contextually. See the Overton window for reference.
liberals are right wing.
even democratic socialists? genuinely curious, trying to map your spectrum
Kind of splitting hairs at this point, but if the defining feature of capitalism is the private ownership of business, then I'd say demsocs would still qualify as capitalists. But maybe we have different notions of capitalism.
Most leftists are literally pro-capitalism though, not in the idealized sense of "we want free markets NOW!!" but viewing ideal society as capitalism but with welfare (self-described socialist/DSA/socdem types). No matter how you rename such society, it doesn't change what it's mode of production in reality is.
Lots of leftists can't even define what capitalism is either, which also puts their opposition to capital into question...
viewing ideal society as capitalism but with welfare (self-described socialist/ D SA/soc dem types)
Democrats, mob rule, is not liberatory: leftist.
Americans are illiterate fucks, no need to spread their dissonances.
Imma be real, if you truly think that US are some backwards savages and the rest of the world is any better then maybe you're due for a break from the US-centric news cycles who only report on what's going on in the US. It really warps one's perspective on the current state of the world, xenophobia and bigotry runs everywhere and it's getting worse as profit rates and standard of living drops.
Besides, leftism as a term at first referred to anti-monarchist liberals. It's an insanely large and diverse camp in terms of views, vast majority of whom are pro-capitalist but don't market themselves as such since their focus is reformism and making lives better within capitalism like trans rights or "fair wage". Actual anti-capitalists (i.e. communists aligned with left opposition who are vehemently against commodity form) are insanely rare and often don't even identify themselves as leftists since they have very little in common with left wing of capital.
One quick peek at my profile and you’d learn super quick I’m extremely varied, global, and intersecting as most anarchists go.
leftism as a term at first referred to anti-monarchist liberals
By whom exactly🙃
Actual anti-capitalists (i.e. communists aligned with left opposition who are vehemently against commodity form) are insanely rare and often don’t even identify themselves as leftists since they have very little in common with left wing of capital.
I feel like you believe this is /c/liberalism@lemmy.world and not /c/Socialism@lemmy.dbzer0.com.
Could you reframe you scopes a little broader, as actual anarchists engaging in honest conversation? ’Cause anarchism is completely against all forms of capital: the privatization of goods, services, tools, land, etc.. You don't have to be furtherest liberating (Monarch’s “left of privatization”), and fall back into communitizing all means of production (communism).
I am not your typical black anarchist.
...are literally to the right of Democrats in the US. They're just technically not as far right as most Republicans. They occupy that tiny slice of space between the two kinds of conservatives.
Either you're talking of libertarians like me. People just shy anarcho-communist (Or at least far cry of capitalist). Or self proclaimed anti-state lassiez-faire capitalism advocating folks. Which don't even fit the critieria for centre-left or centre even.
There are plenty of Corporations that lean hard left. Capitalism is far better then socialism. It encourages choice and opportunity in better products. Economic diversity and stronger individual wealth. Problem is the consumer mentality, everyone wants convenience. Taxes are astronomical in many places, and every government agency provides nothing in promoting independence in individuals they "help". Every single tool of the rich is available to all. No body is taught a thing how to be responsible or harness the vast array of tools.
Also both the right and left seem to have forgotten polictians are our common enemy. None of them are trust worthy and they wealth they gain in office, the fraud they commit is swept under the rug.
Why are we grouped up and colored red or blue? Because war is peace for them. 1984 is already here. The left are the fascists with their politically correct and willful segregation practices. While many of the right are no better and fascists in their own right. Independent thought doesn't exist anymore. Not in any meaningful capacity.
There are plenty of Corporations that lean hard left.
What do you mean by this? I've never seen a corporation run democratically by the workers from the bottom up; it's always the opposite. Or is your idea of a "left" corporation one that puts a rainbow on their logo in June and engages in identity politics?
polictians are our common enemy
Agreed. We need to abolish the state.
The left are the fascists with their politically correct and willful segregation practices.
You seem to be describing liberals here(?) Liberals are not left, they're on the right. Also, you sound like a Republican.
Hey buddy, you're in the wrong community.
@lemmy.dbzer0.com
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of "ML" (read: Dengist) influence. This is a place for undogmatic and constructive discussion from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
A certain knowledge of socialism is expected, if you are new to/interested in socialism, please visit c/Socialism101 before participating here. Socialism101 will gladly help you by answering questions, providing resources etc.
Memes go in c/Lefty Memes
Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, upvoting good contributions and downvoting those of low-quality!
Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism
as well as condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavour.
That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" (read: Dengist) (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).
The only dangerous minority is the rich.
We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.
(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Xenial Xerus" when answering question 2)
Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.
(This is not a definitive list, the spirit of the other rules still counts! Eventual duplicates with other rules are for emphasis.)
go to feed...
@lemmy.dbzer0.com
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of "ML" (read: Dengist) influence. This is a place for undogmatic and constructive discussion from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
A certain knowledge of socialism is expected, if you are new to/interested in socialism, please visit c/Socialism101 before participating here. Socialism101 will gladly help you by answering questions, providing resources etc.
Memes go in c/Lefty Memes
Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, upvoting good contributions and downvoting those of low-quality!
Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism
as well as condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavour.
That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" (read: Dengist) (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).
The only dangerous minority is the rich.
We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.
(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Xenial Xerus" when answering question 2)
Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.
(This is not a definitive list, the spirit of the other rules still counts! Eventual duplicates with other rules are for emphasis.)
go to feed...
I mean if you're talking about this version of capitalism, sure. But capitalism is more than one thing. These monolithic ideas that you are either capitalist or socialist or something else really downgrades the debate.
I have no love for what we have today. But there's a version of capitalism I could live with - it's just a far cry from what we have.
These overly simplistic memes don't do any favors, in my opinion. Saying if you believe in capitalism you are right wing is more alienating than galvanizing, and it reduces so many concepts down to such basic ones that there's no real meaning left.
save