this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
1121 points (87.2% liked)
Political Memes
5426 readers
2224 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you go far enough on the left sector then yes, they may say they want to "ensure the working class needs" but are so full of shit that they strike down anything that differs slightly from their views. We need part of a personal incentive and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people. Communism might just ensure the bare minimum. Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.
Thank you for agreeing with my point that self-described leftists don't want to experience the consequences of ensuring everyone's needs are met.
Communism isn't against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don't know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity. If by "incentive" you mean "the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness", then speak openly. How funny that people aren't willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.
The needs of the people in developed capitalist societies are best met in socialized services such as public education, public healthcare, and public pensions. Typically, it's individual-based (i.e. private) sectors of the economy like housing (or healthcare and education in the US) that give the worst crises and stress to people, and the ones that ensure highest inequality between rich and poor.
It might seem abstract to you but if you are valuable to the company and another company offers you more money your pay is adjusted based on your economic productivity
Why should I speak openly if I support a social safety net that ensures a basic standard of living and housing during times of unemployment?
None of this needs a communist state
Meritocracy in capitalism is a myth. Low-wage workers often work harder than anyone else, and get no rises or other jobs for doing so.
Sure, the capitalist west is doing so well electing the far right to erode our already-eroded social rights even more.
Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company. Actually Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are some of the happiest countries on earth with the highest standards of living so I'd say they're doing pretty well. I know that there are a lot worse capitalist countries but I specifically focus on a social market economy and the potential. I am not defending the lack of social welfare in the US.
Nordic European countries have rather decent social welfare, agreed, but their economy is as sustained on unequal exchange as those of the rest of the developed world. In the case of Norway arguably more since they're oil exporters. My point being, not every country, not even most countries, can be like Scandinavian countries because they rely on exploitation of people outside their borders.
How's that not a bad thing to reward people based on? We saw during the pandemic that the actually important jobs in our society are the ones that pay jackshit and are easily replaceable. Shouldn't these people get a better life?
I get your point. It's sad that for example football stars get millions a year while the people required to run a country don't get a good pay. But large parts of a society for example highly value those stars which is why they're so well-paid.
In an ideal world we could do that, but only because you put a lot of effort into something doesn't mean it is of higher value to society. If its standard stuff someone else could do or you just aren't better than many others you don't get valued as much. If everyone worked the same job (Its a ridiculous example, I know but stick with it one second) and worked their ass off it would just be nearly worthless since all the other jobs would be empty. Thats how the economy allocates the work force.
This might be true, but even more industrialized countries like Germany or the Netherlands have a decent welfare state. They export a lot as well, yes, but I don't see it as much of an issue if the other countries were more industrialized and had higher pr capita productivity which would leave more things for everyone involved.
Again, ESSENTIAL jobs during the pandemic. They are the ones of highest value to society, to the point that it would crash without them.
I'm fully aware that's how it works now, I argue that it shouldn't be like this.
Again, that's not how it works. If you allow currently poor countries to develop, they'll stop providing cheap labor and raw materials to wealthy countries, and stop buying expensive manufactured products like cars and planes at a premium. That's what the western welfare state relies on: exploitation through unequal exchange of the poorer regions of the world
I don't agree with that assessment. I believe that the amount of manual labor and cheap outsourcing isn't needed for wealth. I believe we could all increase our standards of living
I believe that too, I just don't believe it can happen equitatively between countries in Capitalism. I'm not making up this "import raw materials, agricultural produce, cheap labor; export high added-value goods and services" approach to the economy, it's been there alive and kickin' since neocolonialism and the industrial revolution, and it's the boot that has been keeping the poor countries poor with the help of the CIA and the IMF. Countries that dare elect leaders who want to invest the surplus of the resources of their countries into modernizing them and into improving the lives of their citizens, are declared enemies of the west, like Venezuela (as bad as its policy may have been), like Libya under Gaddafi, like Iran under Mosaddegh, or like Patrice Lumumba in Congo. The list is truly endless. And simply by partaking in the system of international trade established by the western countries, who claim to want the best for everyone through free market but apply sanctions and economic warfare when their strategic economic sectors are threatened (see the current import taxes to Chinese EVs), the exploitation takes place and perpetuates itself. It's the reason why 1h of labour of Finnish or Swedish or Danish worker can be paid at 10 times the rate of that of a Congolese one.
The chinese government heavily subsidises EVs in a way unsuitable for the EU for example. I think 100% on top is too much but I guess that was Biden's gambit for not losing the public to Trump's protectionist agenda. Also, china has really done a bad job diplomatically to place itself as a rival of the US with their wolf warrior diplomacy.
How exactly else do you think other industrialised societies have developed high-tech manufacturing? South Korea, Japan, the former USSR... All of it was through protectionism, you can't outcompete a historically more developed industry (UK, Germany, USA) in the free market. The neoliberal dogma is that countries should focus on the sectors in which they're competitive even if they're low value-added, the reality is very different if we look at history.
Not happy with protectionism, though, the US and EU are now outright applying sanctions and bans to the Chinese economy, such as preventing them from importing high-tech lithography systems and technology. It's an economic war with China because the western hegemony is finally coming to an end and the west doesn't want that.
China placed itself as a rival of the US? The US is literally propping Taiwan, an island full of US military bases, and regularly sailing their warboats between the island and mainland China. Can you imagine if China had military bases in Cuba and they sailed warboats between the island and Miami? Or in Mexico and central America? Because the US has military bases all over southeast Asia. It's not "china placing itself as a rival of the US", it's simply the US imperialism resisting being overtaken.