this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
894 points (99.9% liked)

196

16459 readers
1752 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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?

[–] mrpants@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Where has dismantling worked without giving way to exploitation and coercion?

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] mrpants@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks, it means a lot coming from you, Mr. Pants. Seriously though, your username is great.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] colin@lemmy.uninsane.org 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] colin@lemmy.uninsane.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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).

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] colin@lemmy.uninsane.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Machindo@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you for saying this. ❤️

I do not understand people apologizing for capitalism ever.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You posted the same comment twice.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just letting you know, since it’s typically considered a faux pas.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Dismantle is a euphemism that can also include reform. It's used more to imply that every modern document of government is written in blood and to change it requires a blood sacrifice of a generally unwilling nature.

Even prohibition and especially prohibitions repeal have a body count, it's just how you change people's minds because we're dumb animals.