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.
Why would anyone grow food for a living if they couldn't sell their produce at a profit?
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.
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.
This is exactly why the dismantling of capitalism in a post authoritarian world has so far always resulted in starvation. You have no sufficient answer to this question that addresses actual human behavior. It inevitably results in forced labor and oppression in the name of humanity.
Lmaoo. Mass starvation happens in this world under capitalism The Israelis are purposefully inflicting it upon Palestinians. The US is purposefully attempting to inflict it upon Cuba. So when starvation is the intended outcome, it’s okay? But when it is an accidental consequence of industrializing a nation of uneducated peasants with a less than 30 year life expectancy, and is followed by decades of life expectancy increases and increases in quality of life and equality of rights, that’s not okay?
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?
I don't think you realize how quickly things devolved into starvation under the Soviet Union or early CCP. They then very quickly shifted to centralized planning. This isn't a question of scale or perception. It was immediate and required a change very quickly.
Yes, centralized planning is significantly more efficient both materially and in terms of labor. Thus why most modern mega corporations are run as planned economies within themselves. There’s entire books about it, if you care to read them. The first one I read on the subject is called “The Peoples Republic of Wal-Mart”.
Yes, take out the checks on power inherent within private corporatism and you get full on communism. It's not better. Add in racism and you make genocide extremely efficient as the state controls all resources.
Tell me what’s happening in Gaza again?
What economic system do the countries currently perpetrating genocide have again?
How is that relevant though? They're acting in response to an atrocity committed by the government of Gaza, capitalism has nothing to do with it.
And we both know that plenty of people starved under communism.
That’s delusional. They’re furthering their settler colonialist system at the expense of a subjugated minority. They’ve admitted as much on National TV. Their intention is genocide. Definitively. The Palestinians have a international law stating that as occupied peoples, they have the right to resist their occupation, up to and including through violent means. What international law gives the Israelis a right to genocide them? The US and Israel are the only countries in the world in support of this genocide.
People under communism starved through droughts, or poorly thought out Five year plans. People under capitalism are starved intentionally, whether by failure to provide resources to those unable to secure adequate work (over 25% of US children are food insecure, almost a million people are homeless), or through policies like the settler colonial policies of apartheid Israel or apartheid U.S.
That doesn't really have anything to do with capitalism.
Settler-colonialism is a capitalist ideology. It has everything to do with capitalism.
I don't think that's an inherent truth. Just look at Koenigsberg/Kaliningrad. After WW2 the local Germans were expelled and the city and adjacent lands were completely resettled by Russian settlers. You could try to justify it in a million ways, although I don't know if ethnic cleansing can ever have a justification, but that's what happened in the end, in Communist USSR, under Stalin. The reason why today's old Prussia is Russian instead of German, or Polish or Lithuanian.
And the USSR did the same thing in many other places like Poland, DDR, Moldova, Ukraine etc. Settler-colonialism has nothing to do with capitalism or communism. It has more to do with power and controlling the land.
I appreciate that insight, and while I don’t agree, it does give me something to chew on for a while, and another excuse to read the soviet archives to see what they were discussing internally at that time. That archive is a godsend, it’s how you can prove definitively that the Holodomor was not intentional, and that attempts were made to not only ease it, but to preempt it from happening. Attempts which were sabotaged by a class of people who wanted to keep their privileges and place above the ordinary people.
Political archives where there is an incentive to cover up your own actions and lie about production is not an inherently trustworthy source. There were no third party validation of the narratives that corroborate them but plenty that poke holes in them. The reason why the West seemed so untrustworthy relative to the East at the time was due to a relatively free press. Amazing how checks on power degrade trust in one faction but also keep it relatively honest.
I bet you are thinking of the great leap backwards, in which tens of millions died of hunger due to that little accident in judgment, all the while Mao kept insisting that the uneducated peasants on the brink of starvation were hiding all their surpluses from the state.
But that's not the only example. The Holodomor comes to mind, the artificial result of Soviet rule in Ukraine, where millions died of starvation and the main authoritarian government pushing for the collection of non-existent "surpluses" apparently hidden by the starving peasants. Or the North Korean famines, explained perfectly in this video by asianometry.
North Korea/South Korea is an interesting case study, where after the war the North found itself near the two biggest communist powers and still managed to struggle to get basic products like food, while South Korea, an ocean away from their main ally and on terrible terms with all local powers (still hated Japan and at war with China) still managed to rebuild and, since the end of the dictatorship, managed to grow an impressively big economy.
That’s an objectively false read on the holodomor and can be easily verified by simply reading the first hand sources from the time, such as the letters from Stalin where he urged the Ukrainian SSR that the Russian SSR believed that the grain shortage was far worse than they were admitting, or the one where he sent massive food aid. Or that there were a class of people who in order to attempt to maintain their privilege and position in society were actively destroying grain.
You know what also gets left out in that conversation, is that the western power had made a unified pact that no one would accept ANYTHING from the USSR as payment for industrial products except grain. Actually, first it was grain, and lumber, but when they realized that grain shortages were coming to the USSR, they restricted it to grain only, as an attempt to prevent the industrialization of the USSR.
North Korea /South Korea is an interesting one. But, I would like to know where you’re getting your information, because despite 98% of all buildings in the north being bombed by the US (we dropped more bombs on Korea than were dropped in all of WWII), the North was more developed until the 80s.
It’s also funny, how the country the US sided with was a military dictatorship for decades, while the north had human rights exceeding those present in the US, including the right to food, shelter, and education, and despite being blockaded by the western world, STILL managed to outdevelop the South who was backed by the US (on the order of billions a year for multiple decades straight).
I bet you don’t know that their nuclear program was a direct result of the Axis of Evil speech by Bush, did you? They didn’t have one before that, and if they hadn’t started one then, they’d have ended up like the other two countries in the “Axis of Evil”. It’s funny how the Axis of Evil was two countries that hate each other and one on the opposite side of the world, huh?
I didn't say it was an intentional policy by the USSR or Stalin, but that, in the end, the famine was artificially caused by the reckless policies of the USSR. It's not a coincidence that it happened just after the first five year plan was implemented in the whole USSR and the famine propagated throughout the whole union.
Please provide sources, I couldn't find any. Also, talking about the "western powers" before WW2 is just an historical inaccuracy. In the 1930s the soviet union did indeed export large quantities of grain to pay for heavy machinery, but afaik there was no coercion in this. Among other trade commodities exported by the USSR there were oil, timber, furs, minerals and other raw materials, which were traded primarily with Britain and Nazi Germany (culminating in 1940 with the German-Soviet commercial agreement)
What information? That the SK economy is doing a lot better than the NK one? By the way, while NK was cut off from western trade and western aid, it did have full access to the other communist and third world countries, including China and the USSR, which sent significant aids after the end of the war to help reconstruction, canceled or postponed their debts and gave lots of money and equipment. On the other hand SK was also heavily propped up by the US and at the same time was cut off from communist trade and aid. The USSR recognized SK only in 1990, before collapsing and China only did so later in the 90s, with trade happening some time before that in the 80s.
And in all of this I'm not saying that the US were always right in their actions or judgement, or that their form of rabid capitalism is the ideal economic policy, far from it. But from there to say that communism is great or even the answer to societal problems is really misguided. Communism as predicated by communist countries wasn't really that great. Also it always regressed to some form of authoritarianism.
Which countries do you think did to do communism really well and should be an inspiration for other countries to follow?
If we look at the material conditions of people living in what became communist countries before and after revolution, every single one has been a success. Life expectancy in pre-soviet Russia was under 30. Similar in pre-CPC China. Hell, even NK under its blockade as a tiny country has increased the life expectancy of its citizens by over 20 years. The average working hours in Russia were more than cut in half, and wages more than quadrupled. Wages in China have quadrupled in just my lifetime. At the time of the revolution Russia had one of the least educated populations in the world, and now have one of the highest, even decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hell, to this day there are still more women as a percentage in science than in my own country.
China was by definition the poorest country in the world at the time of its revolution, and now it is legitimately the number 2 superpower, and outputs more STEM grade a year than any other country. There is not a single objective metric by which you can measure either country that would reveal anything other than a success, and not only a success, a massive success.
If you’re genuinely interested in learning what the USSR was allowed by capitalist powers to export, the soviet archives are exceptional, but I can also see if I can find a video or something for you, no promises, I read most of my information.
You also misread, my post said that NK was more developed than SK until the 80s, not that it’s economy is doing well now. It’s been under a brutal embargo for decades after that Axis of Evil speech, but still somehow has life expectancy trending up, which would be definitionally impossible if things were half as bad there as my news says.
I definitively live under authoritarianism capitalism. Maybe you don’t notice it because you have some privileges I don’t, whether that be your race or class, but I do. I am harassed every time I see a policeman. I’ve been pulled over and held at gunpoint because I looked like some other brown person. I’ve seen my friends houses raided and families harassed because they dared to report police brutality. I’ve been held in a chokehold by the police until I passed out for the crime of playing Pokémon go after dark and refusing to provide my ID. I have had friends murdered for being brown in public, and other friends who were beaten for the same. Thousands of people are in jail without being charged as we speak.
I think the obsession many westerners have with “authoritarianism” is extremely telling of their privilege. We live in authoritarianism capitalism. Authority exists, and currently it is primarily used to oppress the working class and minorities. It will continue to exist, and just because you are in a position of privilege doesn’t mean that hundreds of thousands if not millions of others do not suffer nearly daily abuses at the hands of the system, just within the U.S, but if we include the rest it is billions every single day.
The US the HIGHEST PRISON POPULATION IN KNOWN HISTORY, BOTH AS A PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION AND AS RAW NUMBERS.
What myself and other people want is that authority to be vested in service of the people, rather than in service of capital. We want a government that, instead of restricting the rights of their people or encouraging abuses of minorities, uses it’s power to oppress the oppressors. So put the Walton kids in prison, and return their ill gotten goods to the people. They deserve it, genuinely, so do many many other horrifically sick people who predate on the working class in order to line their already huge pockets.
China arrests their billionaires and executes them for exploiting the working class, we name colleges after them.
Nailed 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.
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,
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.
I should, should I?
You previously suggested I've not read enough economics, so should I assume you have? Do they all use that word with that meaning?
Also, I'm wondering if you have an answer to the other question. How is everyone going to afford this food that's being sold even if it doesn't have a markup?
How is anyone going to afford the food that is no longer being marked up? If the food is cheaper, somehow less people will be able to afford it than now? Is that the position you’re coming from?
I’d like to answer your question, it’s just… not really a question that makes any logical sense.
And yes, you should. I can provide plenty of economic texts if you would like to come to understand the economic system you live under. We can even start all the way back with Adam Smith, and move up from there. Like the part where he says that someone holding land without working to improve it does not deserve the land, and should not be allowed to keep it.
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.
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.
Are enough altruism-motivated do-gooders able to support everyone in a large society? Or would people starve?
Just maybe the other person is referencing the selfish tendencies of humanity rather than being a projecting bootlicker.
I suspect if we banned the ability to earn profits from farming, there wouldn't be many people who would want to farm. Personally, I'd rather choose an unprofitable job that was less exhausting, like being a starving artist.
So something that always sort of happens in these conversations is when someone says "we should remove X" people go "well then X would be removed!".
Like you're right, if nothing else changed and tomorrow we just said to farmers "grow food or don't lmao up to you" that wouldn't work. But we're not saying "abolish capitalism and then do nothing" we're saying "we need to abolish capitalism and replace it with a more humane system".
That means some things like that farming would need to look different, the horribly alienating and environment destroying model of farming largely driven by debt would indeed not make the transition. That doesn't mean nobody has ideas on how to grow food.
There are all sorts of models from everyone having rotations in hard jobs, to giving people certain privileges for doing them (e.g. farmers are honoured with a festival holiday after harvests etc). Societies have found ways to get people to do hard work that aren't just predicated in violence.
Lots of people aren't opposed to doing hard work, we generally enjoy feeling useful and helping our communities. What makes hard work unappealing is stuff like "do this for me, I won't ever respect you for it, and if you try to stop you will be starved or shot".
Say it again from the rooftops!
you seem cool. From one earthling to another: thanks for advocating for a softer world.
Individual farmers do tend to lose money. It’s a lifestyle, not a job. It’s hard, in extreme weather, and day off? Those are days you’re mending and tending to things you didn’t have time to on your working days. And yet they do it. And survive with theirs and neighbors products, and some subsidy in some form of other, perhaps not always legal. Kinda like any other wage slave that actually likes what they lucked into doing to survive.
Exactly, farming is hard work, and very few people would do it when they could do something easier for the same reward.
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.