bbddg

I'm fully agreed with this. The question is then what are the ways we can improve the working/living conditions of people around the world. The way workers around the world have fought for better conditions is by using their ability to withhold labor and collectively bargain with the capitalist class.

What has more concentration of power, monarchies or representational democracies?

I'm suggesting that we can create a new form of governing that further decentralizes power.

So "stagnant wages" was what you called an inaccurate catchphrase?

>housing and healthcare, are the defacto most intervened and regulated markets of all. It is the state, in its magnificent regulatory capture, that its pushing poverty unto people.

I won't defend much of anything about the state of housing or healthcare in the US. The government is certainly a huge part of the problem, I have no issue accepting that.

Here's the thing: I don't think that all government programs are good. Some are designed to push poverty unto people like you said. But the solution isn't to get rid of all regulation or the idea that government can be used as a tool for the masses.

We need to have a government that is much more aligned with the interests of the people than the interests of large corporations and capital. To me the way to do that is to expand the limits of democracy to include how the economy is run, how natural resources are used, and what the relationship between capital and workers should be.

An Amazon warehouse being there is the reason they don't have many other options.

Uber for Unions :)

> The problem with such nice catchphrases that are repeated over and over by interest groups is that they are inaccurate, and often end up advocating for even higher inequality.

What specifically is an "inaccurate catchphrase" in what I've said?

I don't really know anything about the situation in Argentina but I don't think Unions are an unequivocal good no matter what form they take. Unions in many cases have leadership that don't have the interest of the workers at heart. What I really mean is that workers organizing together and using collective bargaining is a proven way to increase worker conditions and pay.

Well now you're conflating extreme poverty with poverty. There are millions of people living in poverty in the united states. And you don't really need someone to be in complete poverty to exploit them.

Also, the direction currently is towards stagnating wages and growing wealth inequality.

> Under capitalism there is no comparable tradition of massacring political enemies

Are you saying there has never been a dictatorship or authoritarian government with a capitalist economy?

Capitalism and socialism are economic systems, not necessarily ways of organizing a government. You can have capitalism with or without democracy. Democracy is the true tool against authoritarianism, not capitalism. And I don't think the people in this thread that are arguing on behalf of marxism want to do away with democracy.

I was just questioning the ideology of the person I replied to, not making a statement on the current situation. I'm trying to get people to see that the current situation is the result of organized labor, not some natural condition we happen to find ourselves in.

So you are against things like paid time off, 40-hour work week, weekends off, workplace safety/health standards, ect.?

Do you believe there should be minimum standards for working conditions?

How much do you think raw materials are going to cost in a world with free labor? What's to stop rich people from just buying up all the resources? With free labor they can use as much resources as they get their hands on.

There are structural problems in our society that cannot be solved with new technology.

It might have had some effect but decline in Union membership and collective bargaining power are much more important. After all, we're seeing record profits and a massive transfer of wealth to the top 1%. If workers could effectively organize, the increase in workforce wouldn't matter.

Well maybe the problem is that you own part of the company instead of the people who actually work there.

Extreme poverty is defined as someone living on less than $1.25 a day. Do you think that exploitation isn't occurring as long as someone isn't living in extreme poverty?

This implies a world with unlimited energy and natural resources?

The fact that people are taking this memo at face value is insane. Facebook is obviously much more interested in making money off of people's data through advertising than to connect people. Further, it's dangerous to even rely on such a centralized system for so much of our communication. Especially when it's an organization with an astounding amount of power and money.

I don't think he was even under oath.

I would point to Scandinavian countries as probably the best functioning economies in the world right now. They aren't socialist, but they're closer than the US is. The fear of Authoritarianism is a real threat under any system. There is a certain level of authoritarianism that we live with here in the US I would argue. I don't think that socialism has to mean "large-centralized government". I look at it more like extending democracy to include the workplace and the economy.

As for what that means exactly, I don't have a good answer for you. I'm trying to find answers myself. Maybe every business needs to be a worker-owned co-op. Maybe we should have a "National fund" that replaces private banks and investments in which every member of society would have equal ownership of. Maybe we should all live in communes in the woods.

I guess I should explain why I think this is even necessary. If the only issue was poverty, we could probably just make do with the social-democratic, Scandinavian style economy. However, to really challenge climate change and automation I think we might need more radical solutions.

Yeah thanks, I understand how it works. I happen to think it is a bad thing.

There's a difference between saying "Capitalism in America" vs the whole system of capitalism. That aside it's probably hyperbolic for me to claim that it "might not have even been possible."

My point is that people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism. I'm sure there's equally biased pro-socialist rhetoric but since we live in a capitalist society the scale is not even remotely the same.

The last thing I want to do is ignore what has happened when countries have tried socialism. I want to be clear that horrible things have happened in socialist countries, but I don't think that is sufficient reason to throw out all of the ideas and philosophy behind socialism.

I'm not advocating for turning the US into the USSR. There are lessons to be learned, good and bad, from experiments in socialism. The US is turning into an Oligarchy and we can't even get socialized healthcare because people have such a knee-jerk reaction to anything that dares challenge any free market.

Back when people were trying to overthrow monarchies to introduce democracy and capitalism it didn't exactly go smoothly either. Capitalism in America might not have even been possible without the extensive use of slave labor and the genocide of an entire continent of people. There is such an ahistorical bend to anti-socialist rhetoric that is so pervasive in our society it's nearly impossible to see.

Yeah I don't think you're individually wrong either, sorry if I came across that way. You're acting rationally in the world that we live in.

I know socialism is a dirty word (especially around here) but I think as a society we need to be open to the possibility of an economy that is fundamentally different from capitalism.

You don't think the constant drive for profit encourages people to indulge their worst qualities? I'm not saying that people can't be naturally selfish and narcissistic, but people can also naturally be kind, generous, and compassionate. If there was an economic system that didn't put profit above all else I think you would see more of the latter qualities.

If that's true shouldn't we try to create an economy that doesn't actively reward those behaviors?

He doesn't pay them how much their work is worth. He pays less, that's how he makes money.

Certainly lots of technological progress has been made through exploitation but as we see automation taking more and more jobs, maybe we can end that cycle.

This is how progress in society is made. See a problem in the world and try to make it better. I don't think we need to have people working such degrading jobs to have technological progress, but you need it to have this many billionaires running around.