Not only in the US, it is a universal fiction
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/36828107
ID: WookieeMark @EvilGenXer posted:
"OK so look, Capitalism is right wing.
Period.
If you are pro-capitalism, you are Right Wing.
There is no pro-capitalist Left. That's a polite fiction in the US that no one can afford any longer as the ecosystem is actually collapsing around us."
(Michael Perenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism)
Let's wittle down our coalition until it's the size of the student communist group from disco elysium
This thread is exactly why leftist unity communities need to make it clear to liberals that they aren't leftist.
Because otherwise you end up with what you see in these comments: a bunch of people in your "movement" who are completely willing to acquiesce to Capital
capitalism is right wing, correct.
but not all pro-capitalists are capitalists.
a pro-capitalist could be right wing, or they could be a victim of the powerful capitalist propaganda machine. this is how we get “bootlickers” and “temporarily embarrassed billionaires.”
more generally, OOP commits the sin of trying to wedge a specific category with economic meaning into a broad unspecific category which can have various economic manifestations depending on who you ask and at what time.
it’s an okay post. not particularly insightful and could use some workshopping.
object oriented programming <3
The down votes just mean it needed saying
"People saying I am wrong prove I'm right!"
When the topic is "people are overwhelmingly misinformed on this specific issue", then yeah basically that's how it goes.
If I made a meme about how too many people associate vaccines with autism or whatever, and I got a bunch of comments from anti-vaxxers saying just that, then yeah I think the comments would provide additional evidence, yeah.
I'd say the downvotes are because it's so obvious it's not even fiction
That's the Overton Window I'm talkin' about
Acting as if the terms left and right aren't completely arbitrary.
They aren't. Right wing is oriented to tradition and hierarchy while left wing is oriented to progress and equality. This has been understood since the concept originated during the French Revolution.
I was told it was because of the French revolution. Imho, I think the terms are mostly rigid concepts.
LEFT...LEFT...LEFT, RIGHT 'O LEFT, RIGHT, LEFT...
This isn't changing people's minds about crapitalism. Amerikkkans will keep calling liberals, "the left," and liberals will keep loving crapitalism. This only shows how right wing Amerikkka is as a country. Liberals would much rather be forced to identify as right wing than as anti-crapitalist. These distinctions only bother the keft as we get conflated with liberals constantly. Nobody else gives a shit.
The number of defensive whining from libs in the replies to the OP beg to differ lol, they clearly very much do give a shit. So you keep slapping them in the face with reality until they can't hide from it anymore, and they have to make a choice, pick a side, and be comfortable with their own decision, and the consequences it brings (including shock horror*, being called what they choose to be - right wingers and fascism enablers, meanwhile the rest of us have the consequences of said fascism to face).
Leftists coddling liberal feeling is just as productive (E: to progress) as liberals coddling fascist feelings, that is to say - it isn't, at all. We're long past the point of prioritising privileged feelings over marginalised lives.
man i love satire, satire is my favorite.
Calling liberals and progressives pro-capitalist is less true than calling self-proclaimed leftists tankies.
The tankies are the ones making shit up and painting liberals as the bad guys and the tankie movement will remain a joke for as long as that continues.
At least libertarians had the balls to go try libertarianism, sure it results in bears but tankies will never try because it's a victim mentality.
The anti liberal stuff seems the same kinda brainrot trumpers have. Or as i like to call it The Dead Brain Sickness
Disagree, but I propose this: the universe is infinite, maybe then we should just have a planet where the socioeconomic system is capitalist, and another one where the socioeconomic system is communist/marxist. I don’t care about winning or being right. I want to live freely, and I want that for others as well.
Better nations on Earth already use what’s known as the Nordic model to help offset the adverse effects of capitalism. Cue (and queue) people who’ll say that “that only works because the ‘imperialists’ exploit the global south”. So again, let’s just make it easier for people who don’t want to live in a world like that.
So what? You don't like the voluntary exchange of goods and services? Trade = capitalism. Furthermore you'd rather trust the government than the average individual? Yeah I get the desire for socialized medical care and welfare. Whatever. But even countries with socialized public services have private sectors. So let's get more fundamental.
Capital = having money. Capitalism = engaging in trade, that is exchanging one asset or services for another for mutual benefit. Fascism != Capitalism. Government != Fascism Fascism = government + capitalism. More specifically there are certain hallmarks of fascism that sadly are showing up in western society. But capitalism alone does not equate to that. You don't get an authoritarian regime by engaging in trade. You need to pass laws in order to get that. You wouldn't even have corporations without government support.
So again I'm hesitant to throw in with the pro government movement when half of this whole fascism/corporate problem is government. I mean I'm against the whole monopoly on violence to begin with but saying voluntary interaction is bad but violence is good seems rather counterintuitive to me. You don't need government to decentralize things or return the means of production to the people or whatever but still such things should be voluntary. That's why open source is so revolutionary. It's essentially a gift economy and doesn't use transactions or violence. People give their time and labor away and everyone benefits. Code ensures transparency and decentralized distribution. Furthermore without patents and copyright from the private sector we wouldn't have copy left and open source software. Just some food for thought there.
Capitalism is not defined by free trade. Capitalism is defined by the ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is a system in which Capitalists, or investors, own the means of production while they purchase labor from workers to operate the means of production on their behalf. Socialism is a system in which the workers themselves own the means of production. Free trade may exist in either system.
Uh no. Where are you getting these definitions?
The workers are private individuals, they own property privately. So even if they are part of a cooperative and each own a share of the company and all vote on its direction for example that's still capitalism. The means of production is still privately owned.
Socialism is defined as a society with social ownership. You can do this a couple different ways. You can use the GPL model and licence something free for everyone. You can do what Canada has done with its water and other crown assets and declare they belong to everyone (which is why Nestle is trying to exploit it and American Nestle food products are going to go up in price thanks to terrifs). You can tax everyone and redistribute the assets in services and public works (but this requires a monopoly on violence). Or your culture can simply declare some or many things just can't be owned. But the more collective ownership you have the more risk you run of dictatorship. No communist country has managed to pull off its classless ideal. In fact the closest examples I can think of are the First Nations with their various models of living in harmony with nature and not taking ownership of it in the first place. How can you own land if you constantly move around, let alone owning land in absentia. In fact I think Equador outlawed owning land in absentia outright so the concept isn't that radical. But my point is social ownership isn't just grabbing the means of production. A worker IS a capitalist. A business owner is a capitalist. A self employed independent contractor is a capitalist. Capitalism is not limited to big corporations and fat cats earning million dollar paycheques. Socializing ownership doesn't negate that.
When does one stop being a "worker" and start being a "capitalist"? When they start their own business? When they make more than $15/hr? When they hire their first employee? When they bring in more than poverty wages? When they earn $10k a month? 50k? 500k? 1M? When does an individual trading goods and services become a "capitalist"? When do these "capitalists" seize the means of production if not through trade? And how would you propose to decentralize said means of production without violence save by through trade and innovation once more?
In short how would you propose to achieve decentralized ownership without the use of a monopoly on violence?
Nah. It's a form of economics that rewards supply following demand. I'm pretty lefty liberal and I'm 100% in favor of fair capitalism. For most things.
Capitalism is just a machine, a system, and I fully believe in intelligence and hard work being rewarded over sitting on your couch playing video games. Capitalism also requires a well regulated system, progressive taxes, safety nets,etc. There are also some areas where capitalism doesn't work and another system should be used, such as health care, police, fire, etc.
However the idea that capitalism is right wing is bullshit. Maybe uncontrolled capitalism is right wing, but I take strong issue with the most effective economic system in the world being considered "right wing", it's not.
Capitalism is much bigger and more insidious than just a economic system. Despite irrefutable proof to the contrary, people still look at the world in this very limiting way that allows them to see capitalism as just this little neutral effective economic system. Its intellectualizing and abstracting reality to fit a narrative. The fact that you look at things in this narrow way, despite centuries of evidence to the contrary proves capitalism is not only an economic system but an ideology as well. And if it is both an economic system and an ideology, then where does the ideology come from?
Liberal ideology covers up the worst abuses of capitalism, fixates on the individual, guarantees rights it can't protect in the face of capitalist expansion.
Liberal isn't even an economic category to a liberal, it is a set of ideals that protect freedom and guarantee safety, prevent against corruption. Never mind that people have always been oppressed under liberalism, always been enslaved under liberalism. Liberalism is, and always has been a set of economic beliefs, that claim to guarantee certain human rights, through the individual ownership of private property.
I'm sorry, because I know that many liberals are extremely well meaning people, leftists who genuinely care about those rights. These people are exactly the ones this ideology hopes to trick. I'm sure that you personally are a good person with lovely friends, who donates to good causes, maybe shows up to a demonstration or two, votes for Democrats and believes in fair rational governance. But capitalism is just another form of class domination, one that hides its incredible cruelty through its total domination of every part of our lives.
The fact that you can't see it should concern you. I assure you I am a rational and well meaning person. I'm an organizer and work hard to understand the forces at work, I'm not just repeating stuff I heard on the internet or whatever. Some of these thing I worked out when I was a well meaning liberal, whose curiosity unravelled my worldview. I can't say that my views are perfect while yours are flawed, that's not what I'm trying to accomplish. I just ask that rather than dismissing me and other critics of liberalism who are also on the left, consider that your very narrow view might be why you believe what you do. The same is consequently true of me too, its a basic philosophical problem. But i question myself on my views constantly, and I understand your tradition and history. I just wish you and other well meaning liberals understood it a little better.
Okay instead of walls of text speak plainly what do you mean?
Look the problem with ideological folks like you is you go off on rants and never clearly define your terms. (I've talked to a couple different people like you so the whole wall of text thing is kind of familiar and I'll admit I do it myself from time to time but I do try to clearly define terms.) Then when people debate with you you get all worked up. I may or may not agree with you but I have no idea at this point since your terminology is all over the place.
In as much as I'm able to gather from what you're talking about yes there is a core ideological divide. Though I wouldn't say it's between rationalism and capitalism. More between democracy and imperialism, or decentralized and centralized power systems. Money is just one way to obtain and utilize power. But if your core goal is to build an empire as opposed to establish a decentralized cooperative say or some other egalitarian system then the structure your business takes will be massively different even if the same amount of money is accumulated. Capitalism isn't the problem it's what people are doing with it. Money is just power. So what are people doing with their power? Most people structure their families as dictatorships and their businesses as extensions of those familiesm. And a kingdom of empire is just a family with a lot of accumulated power. It takes quite a bit of thinking to get people to want to redistribute power out to the whole community. Or you have to start from the ground up. How do you structure your families and communities? How do you treat those around you? Do you take care of those around you or only look after your own? Potluck or private dinner? Basic stuff. So instead of getting angry about politics maybe try something smaller. Host a potluck dinner and invite a bunch of friends. Teach people about gardening and maybe get together to start a community garden or an initiative to help one another with various projects. Mutual support on a local level is just as much a part of decentralization as trying to wrench production back from big corporations. I mean if you grow your own food and make your own stuff won't that add up? But again you don't need to be all angry about it. Just help people.
I’m 100% in favor of fair capitalism.
How funny! I am 100% in favor of magic pixie dust!
None of that is capitalism.
Capitalism is when a small number of people (an elite, by definition) control the majority of the Capital, which is property that can be used to conduct business and make money. What lefties call "the means of production." Capital is things like factories, data centers, power plants, mines, large acres of land used for farming, and so on.
What you're failing to describe properly is Markets. Markets aren't evil, free trade between well-informed parties isn't evil. Money, in fact, is the root of all evil but is not in itself evil. None of those things are Capitalism.
Wrong. Capitalism is not defined by its criticisms nor by any eventual outcome. Everything OP said is the definition of capitalism. Everything you're saying are the criticisms of Capitalism which state that eventually, Capitalism will lead to that. Early capitalism does not have a small few controlling the majority of the means of production, but it is still capitalism.
That's like saying Communist governments are defined by never reaching full communism, or that a First Past the Post voting system is defined by a two party system. Those are not what define those things, but they are the criticisms of them and their eventual outcomes without something new implemented to correct it.
Capitalism is just a machine, a system,
Yeah, a machine that produces extreme wealth disparity that the 1% then use to buy politicians, all our media, and fund neo-fascist groups that want to destroy democracy.
Capitalism is also a machine poisoned the entire US with a very nasty neurotoxin known to greatly reduce intelligence and increase violence. And for what? To sell more cars. Capitalists put a nasty neurotoxin in gasoline just to make a quick buck.
Capitalism is also a machine that is destroying the planet and driving a mass extinction event that could potentially wipe out humanity.
Capitalism requires indefinite growth.
We have a word for something that grows indefinitely. It's called "cancer", and it eventually kills whichever organism it's a part of by stealing nutrients designed for other parts of the system. The only way for an organism with cancer to survive is if the cancer is killed off before the organism dies.
That's where we're at. Capitalism might have gotten us this far, but the same can be said about any person with cancer. What worked for us in the past isn't guaranteed to work for us in the future, and could actively be what's killing us.
We have to adapt.
100%
Uh oh, something not blatantly anti-capitalist! Here comes the down votes!
You could also be called a biologist. Capital is the equivalent of teeth and claws.
Capitalism is like fire. Unchecked, it will happily consume your house. Never the less, it's an excellent tool for certain tasks. It must be handled with care and contained appropriately.
Right now, a lit of the world looks like London during the great fire. Capitalism has been allowed to run unchecked, and has gotten completely out of control. The massive dilemma is how to reign it in, without collapsing large chunks of society.
Abandoning Capitalism completely is almost as bad as letting it run unchecked.
Marx identified that capitalism by necessity leads to an endless cycle of collapses. There is no way to avoid suffering under capitalism.
A fully planned system has also shown to become highly inefficient.
The the key phrase there is "under capitalism". My point is capitalism can't be the top level. If it is, then it will run away, exactly as Marx saw.
At the same time, it's an incredibly effective tool. It allows for dynamic value assessment in a system that has minimal trust. It's a perfect method of fairly distributing luxuries. It's akin to a fire being useful when trapped in a fireplace, or a blast furnace. The problems occur when it's allowed to run amock.
How would you go about fairly distributing limited luxuries, particularly when the value to a given person varies?
Tf is this nonsense? Why do you think "a little capitalism" is a good thing? Just a sprinkling of exploitation to keep things spicy?
That's some fine hamburger intellectionlism, right there. Crass, to the pont, confidently incorrect and with a hint of ignorance of anything un-American.
Seeing a lot of that right now; i.e., incendiary, unidimensional, nonsensical hot takes. I think it’s best to ignore them, because there’s IRL work to be done and all this type of person does is blather for attention online.
True enough
Greed is really the problem. Capitalism is just another apparatus without the means to solve it.
I'd say that Capitalism encourages greed and amplify it.
I think this is not really true. Capitalism means that even if you are not greedy you are forced to destroy all rivals and collect all capital for yourself... otherwise you will be destroyed.
yeah uh, that's why we invented government homie.
Yes, i believe: war is inherently a right-wing thing, and capitalism is the moral equivalent of war, just channeled into formulas.
I also believe that war is inherently unstable and only an unavoidable side-effect of technological progress. It decays naturally into peace, at which point left-wing takes over.