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.
I’m fine with discussing politics here, but I’d rather the post be funny. There’s plenty of jokes you could make about this, but this post is just a wall of text.
Ok. Well I’ll be sure to change what I’ve been doing for months to cater to your desires. Thanks for letting me know!
You cannot even define the difference between capitalism and fascism. I do think you should change what you are doing.
Go simp for more genocidal masters, I’m sure they’ll never turn it against you.
Bro, I’m a primary source. Have fun not impacting the world at all.
There’s only one side in this conflict claiming death to one side and it’s not Israel. When a group tells you who they are, you should believe them.
Yep. When the Israelis say their intention is to push all palestinians in Gaza into the Sinai Peninsula, I believe them. Which is by definition genocide.
Scumbag zionists using Hitler tactics.
Yeep. If they’re really a “primary source” (read: Israeli Colonizer), they’re likely personally harmed Palestinians if they’re old enough for their mandatory service.,
Got a primary source for that?
Several. I have spoken to many family friends, one of whom is an Israeli journalist. Do you have a complex perspective or just meaningless grandstanding based on your own infallibility. This is what this has always been, horny trans memes with a heavy tilt against systems of oppression and genocidal governments. This is not equatable to supporting those systems, because one hurts people and one offends you. Hamas is not Palestine, civilians are not militants, only one group here has been occupying land and displacing innocents for generations.
Their former UN envoy is on record saying Palestinians are animals. Not hamas. Palestinians. If you don’t see what they’re trying to do, you don’t have your eyes open.
I’m not familiar with that record but I’m sure that if it is true it has something to do with the former title. People get emotional sometimes. That doesn’t make it policy.
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.
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?
Where has dismantling worked without giving way to exploitation and coercion?
Exploitation and coercion exist now. So, that would be a maintanence of the status quo, not “giving way” to it. But we can look at the by every single measure that we have objectively better lives of the vast majority of people in countries where they have dismantled capitalist systems. The average life expectancy in pre-revolution Russia was less than 30 years. Before the Communists started their labor struggles, the average work weeks was over 100 hours. The average literacy rate was among the lowest in the world, as was the education attainment rate.
They by any and all measures reduced exploitation by entire orders of magnitude. They reduced coercion, especially on women, by granting equal rights(5 decades before the us even attempted to do so, btw), and by making housing, food, and education legal rights that ALL citizens are entitled to. When your basic needs are met, then and only then are you even capable of laboring without coercion. Meaning, coercion is already a driving force behind our entire economic system, and exploitation is literally, not figuratively, LITERALLY the entire basis upon which capitalism rests. The extraction of profits is known as the process of exploitation.
Good points
Thanks, it means a lot coming from you, Mr. Pants. Seriously though, your username is great.
I’d say dismantling the German Reich was a great improvement albeit the successor states weren’t without exploitation.
Same for dismantling the US confederation, all the independence wars against colonizers, many revolutions and so on.
You cannot demand dismantling to only lead to a perfect solution, while any form of reform is okay with even the most miniscule improvement.
Both have their place and time. But you will always need to dismantle, when the problems are intrinsic to the system.
Those were both dismantling from the outside. Outside powers prevented power vacuums from forming which could be exploited by the least scrupulous people. I can’t think of many times where government has collapsed that didn’t lead to enormous turmoil.
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.
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.
Thank you for saying this. ❤️
I do not understand people apologizing for capitalism ever.
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.
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.
How the hell do you have the time for this? If you add together all your comments, you’ve basically written an essay arguing with strangers on the Internet.
Get a hobby, FFS.
You posted the same comment twice.
And?
Just letting you know, since it’s typically considered a faux pas.
How the hell do you have the time for this? If you add together all your comments, you’ve basically written an essay arguing with strangers on the Internet.
Get a hobby, FFS.
I have multiple. I work out for an hour a day, learn Chinese for an hour a day, do martial arts for 3 hours a week, read around 100 books a year, play every new video game that I want to, hike about twice a month, woodwork, 3d print and design my own 3d models to print, solder professionally as a side job, and all this while working a full time job in robotics and helping to take care of my young family members. Maybe you just have poor time management skills.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Yeah farmers shouldnt profit, they’re our food slaves!
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/
So let’s make ANY chance of profit, what, illegal?
How about we don’t base policy on propaganda cartoona
How about we spread out the work and spread out the profit among people who do the work.
How about we definitely never do commie shit or we’ll end up like Russia
The government should pay them.
A profit?
Profit is revenues after wages and expenses. PAYING SOMEONE WAGES ISNT PROFIT. Jesus fucking Christ. At least read the rest of the thread where this has already been addressed. Or just google the definition of profit.
I understand. What’s wrong with farmers making a profit?
That they engage in tactics such as mass slaughter and burial of pigs and destruction of food in order to ensure prices maintain a level that is profitable for them.
That they prioritize crops that ensure good returns rather than prioritizing crops to ensure healthy diets.
That profit driven agriculture is the primary reason for mass industrial monocultures, which are inherently destructive to the environment.
And that profit driven agriculture relies on massive infusions of petroleum products in order to maintain production levels and prevent crop failures due to depleted soil. Issues which regenerative and sustainable permaculture do not have.
Small farmers typically don’t really profit per se. They make enough to maintain their farms through federal subsidies because the federal government at least recognizes the importance of having a steady food supply, regardless of market prices. It just doesn’t take the logical next step and recognize the importance of everyone having adequate nutrition, and so we’re in the situation we are now, where 25% of US children don’t have access to adequate nutrition.
So you’re telling me work as hard as a farmer my whole life and I don’t get to retire with millions in the bank account?
Pass
That’s already how it happens, unless the farmer sells the land, which usually actually happens when he dies, because their kids don’t want to be farmers. Most farmers aren’t rich Lmao, corporate industrial farms make big bucks, but Billy’s Lima Bean Farm isn’t raking in millions in profit. Millions in revenue, maybe, but margins for individual food producers are pretty damn low already.
Even those who retire and have savings to live off aren’t necessarily profiting. Ensuring the ability to retire is part of a living wage.
I don’t give a damn if you become a farmer or not. It’s not like we have a shortage of people already working on these farms for exploitative and sometimes even slave wages and living in plantation style housing on the farm. Those people wouldn’t say no to a living wage, they’re already doing all the actual hard work on the farm, they might as well be entitled to the full value of the products. Cutting out the billionaires and rent seekers in the middle, they’d be able to raise their wages to sustainable levels.
I mean, yeah. They’re farmers, they provide a necessary service. Their labor should be rewarded. That’s not mutually exclusive with food being provided to citizens for “free” (I.e. Paid for with taxes).
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.
That’s exactly what is written on the image. You are so right.
What if I told you all of nature was a system where if you lack resources you die.
hierarchies and competition and the weak dying off while the strong oppress them…thats all a feature not a bug
Am I reading this correctly by interpreting this as “Poor people should die because in nature the weak die ?”.
Also, you know that’s a point of view that automatically places yourself in the strong, right ? Like, you’re not going to place yourself as a “weak” individual. You think you’ll “oppress” the weaker than you, and succeed. Were you not raised with empathy ?
Imagine this. You’re working at some firm, you make quite a bit of money, your significant other is waiting at your home every day and you love each other tenderly. You even have kids.
One day, they all get in a car crash (not unlikely at all, is it?) and die. All of them. You are alone. The thoughts, the pain, the wanting to kill yourself, the anger, you can’t cope. You’re a mess. Your whole family, gone. You break down doing minor tasks. You can’t work.
Because of that, you get fired. You’re without a job now, and you just want to kill yourself but you don’t. You tell yourself you’re weak. Without a job, how will you pay for the family house ? You sell your car. Life is spiraling down faster and faster and you can’t seem to make the pain stop. You’re homeless, jobless. Nothing makes sense anymore. You’ve come to terms with their death, but how do you even get back after going so low ?
Now, you would tell me, face to face, that you deserve to die for being weak.
They’re basically saying life’s tough, not that the weak deserve to perish. You absolute weirdo.
I’m not the one following other people’s comment history 🤨 creep
Dafuq you on about?
No such thing as “deserve”. You get what you can.
Also, yeah man, every weak animal gets preyed upon. It’s not a tragedy. I say grind up the homeless and feed them to vegans.
The principles of economic choice and voluntary exchange are paramount to a functioning free market. If the alternative to a purchase is death, then the free market doesn’t function as such, it approaches racketeering.
This sounds like some right libertarian capitalism apologia, is that what it is meant to be?
He’s basically agreeing with you.
In a way, I can see that. But, his use of free market ideology reflects a vast gap between our actual messaging. “Free markets” inevitably result in monopolization. It’s not just critical industries, every industry is inevitably drawn towards monopolization under capitalist economics.
We can fight it off temporarily with reforms and regulations, but those too, inevitably will be co-opted by the monopolies and used to their advantage. (And then it’s not a free market…)
“Free market” have USA too big to fail and PPP.
The idea of a free market is that there aren’t any regulations or laws regarding enterprise, so monopolies would be more difficult to establish because there aren’t any legislative or regulatory hurdles that a newcomer has to overcome. If the monopoly still manages to survive despite competition, then the monopoly is earned because the company is obviously still able to maintain a stranglehold on the market despite competitors popping up.
Ignoring the ramifications it’d have on healthcare and food quality, on paper this isn’t the worst idea that’s ever been had, because while it does allow for monopolies, it also means that companies can’t claim patents, copyright, trade secrets, or strangle the competition with regulatory or legislative capture.
In reality it requires an educated consumer that always does their research before buying a thing. That’s not realistic as the average consumer wants to be able to just walk into a supermarket, buy some groceries, and walk back out again. Unsurprisingly, no one wants to go through three search engines and a bunch of research papers from their local library to figure out whether or not their frozen waffles contain asbestos.
If the monopoly still manages to survive despite competition, then the monopoly is earned because the company is obviously still able to maintain a stranglehold on the market despite competitors popping up.
In practice, the dominant player in the industry can operate at a loss to drive the upstart competition out of business, buy their assets for pennies on the dollar, then jack their prices up again when there are no alternatives. Or, if you don’t like that one, choose any of the numerous anti-competitive strategies in use today.
If people collectively saw that behavior and said “We’re not buying from you anymore”, they could put that company out of business, but that simply isn’t realistic when dealing with such a large number of individuals. So it continues to work.
Without regulating anti-competitive behavior, monopolies are inevitable and competing without an initial bankroll capable of operating at a loss for as long or longer than the existing monopoly is impossible.
The idea is cool in theory - that anyone who doesn’t like how the current monopoly is operating can simply open their own competing business, be more consumer friendly, and steal the market share - but that’s simply not the reality we live in.
was what i understand too, idk i’m too dumb for this site lol
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.
Just as I thought I escaped to greener grass on the other side, everyone else had the same idea and now the grass is no longer greener
Amen
Why would anyone grow food for a living if they couldn’t sell their produce at a profit?
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.
I’m perfectly happy not spending 90% of my time and energy feeding my family. You may think that would be a better life but industrial farming does have a lot of benefits, through either command or liberal economics. It’s there that the liberal system shines bright as a command economy requires local production to motivate workers for the above reasons.
Jesus christ, you people and your text walls.
Be Concise.
You asked a question that couldn’t be answered both concisely and accurately so I chose accuracy.
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.
You saw 4 paragraphs and decided to not even try ? Education really got bad
I could, I just don’t want to.
No I don’t think you could
I’ve read plenty of commie diatribes on Lemmy, you’re all the same. Expect everything for free, outraged that you have to do something productive for society, think that you could all go live in a commune somewhere.
Heard it all before.
And how have you inferred all that, O wise one ? I must be a commie for not wanting people rich enough to buy a country, that tracks. Why is that always this with you people ? “You know you have to work in society, you can’t expect to get things for free” tf kinda strawman are you doing ? Who’s saying that ? People in your deranged little mind that’s who.
Removed by mod
-
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…
You are simply ignorant of human nature, I think.
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.
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.
Farming requires a lot more than land
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!
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
Profits aren’t wages, you obviously haven’t read much economics. Profits are what’s left AFTER wages and costs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When you place economic decisions from a profit driven one into the hands of the politician, you get just as perverse incentives. What’s even worse is that the government cannot fail so the system just gets progressively worse until the entire system collapses. I’m good with a liberal system as is with some moderate reforms to account for externalities.
I will just copy and paste part of my comment that I made to another, because your final argument is the same.
I get it, suffering is okay if it’s the status quo, but if it happens in service of doing better, that’s not okay, so we should just be happy with the status quo, where the vast majority suffer daily indignities and violences, and are forced into exploitation by coercive structures.
You benefit from the current system, so the suffering of the many NOW is less real to you than the potential suffering of yourself in a situation that when enacted had objectively raised the quality of life for the vast majority of people who live in the societies where it was enacted, by all objective measures. Is that it?
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.
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.
Why use Finn without a mention to scrat scrobblin?
.
