Fascists in a nutshell, also happy 4th!
"Facts don't care about your feelings." - The fascist doing the exact opposite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime
Look at this, men are much more likely to commit crime. That means we should ban men from our countries.
Crime rate for immigrants is lower than the crime rate for the average member of the population in any given country, and people they do in poverty often need to commit crimes just to survive. So even if you do think crime is bad for those in poverty, they haven't done anything over that arbitrary social line that automatically makes them "bad" people.
what is really happening is fascists are choosing feelings over facts to deny people the literal right to live, and justifying it with the social system.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/30/upshot/crime-immigration-myth.html
Speaking of arbitrary social rules that we punish people for breaking. A women broke her leg to the point where the bone was literally sticking out. She was sitting there begging people not to call the ambulance, because it was too expensive and she couldn't afford it. This is the shit that happens when you put social rules above individuals.
"anarchist" capitalist is not fucking freedom. Freedom is when you ignore all of the social rules preventing people from working together, the state is just one small part of the equation. Anarchy is the destruction of hierarchy, and you put money above people like its your god.
Welcome to the land of the free, happy 4th of July!
Could you also calculate how many lives are saved annually by Capitalism not standing in people's way of effectively distributing such essentials as shelter and food that's of actual and wholesome health-value?
How about the massive improvement of third world status on literacy and access to water and food, is that a result of communist hard earned efforts donated for unselfish causes?
"How about the massive improvement of third world status on literacy and access to water and food, is that a result of communist hard earned efforts donated for unselfish causes?"
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
This book goes into detail on how capital accumulation means that giving away money to anything other than revolution will reduce our ability to help people in the long run. Please give it a look.
this goes into why even if people did do that capitalism would be forced to destroy them.
Regarding the first video, third world countries are not disregarded because there is no profit to gain there, exactly the opposite, there are huge investments in third world countries precisely because it's a rising market where new players can prosper without giant corporations controlling the market.
The helicopter guy example is not of Capitalism but if greed, the capitalistic logic here is that he has a right to individually consider his choice in this situation and so do his future coworker and clients on whether to work with him at all.
The entire video talks about Capitalism as if it's a standard way of thinking, a bottom-linism when we all know that some people do choose to give millions to charity, not as an anti capitalistic action but because Capitalism doesn't stand in people's way, if people want to give charity they can, if people want to evaluate charity-givers they do.
Also it makes zero sense to put so much responsibility over people's lives on Capitalism, simply because Capitalism doesn't hold the power, people do.
Sorry, I won't read the book, I'm sure it had much valuable information but I asked a specific question reacting to a specific argument. If you have read it, I'd be glad if you could give the relevant quote or at least direct us to an exact page so we can share it here with everyone else.
About the second video, it seems to show what a capitalistic society would do to preserve itself.
It doesn't address that at all, as if communism is synonym with pacifism - so I'm asking you - how do you think the communist side of the island would react if demographical changes were to threaten their survival?
If we adhere to the rules of capitalism specific events will always happen, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, capital accumulation, imperialism, etc.
All of these things are done in an attempt to prolong capitalism, so we must destroy the people doing so. Your statement changes nothing
I agree with you that these actions that masses of individuals take can be even considered imperialism and attempts to prolong Capitalism, as long as we agree that they are voluntary actions.
In my opinion these actions could not be completed without major contributions from the third world.
That's why it is most horrible to see you end that sentence with "so we must destroy the people doing so.".
My statement changes nothing, yours seems to explain the black book.
super-profits, and there is no profit in feeding the starving masses. There is major profit to be made oppressing them though.
Letting them starve is unethical. Giving them opportunity is so low for your standards so you call it oppression.
Leaving it for communism to magical make it an utopia for everyone including the illiterate and uninformed - that's the right thing do. And it's ok if some people starve on the way there because the utopia is worth so much more.
capital accumulation ---> tenancy of the rate of profit to fall ----> lowering wages or lowering profit ----> market crash after market crash ----> rise of unions ----> wages rise ---> crashes and threat of crashes become much worse ---> capitalists and gov work together to reduce wages ----> gov runs out of options, resorts to imperialism to combat lowering rate of profit ---> runs out of countries ---> more market crashes ---> ww2 ---> market boom ---> invasion and oppression of third world countries to keep wages artificially low to keep the system alive
For the book, it also goes over things like how monopolies will always form under capitalism.
read the top comment on their video. The communists would rise up because the capitalists would rise up "theoretically". That means its a fight to the death between freedom and capitalism
So if it's a fight to the death, what is the video about? Two ideologies fighting?
Ok, so who cares?
Those who lost but still have the freedom of speech to express their dissatisfaction with the ruling class.
"The entire video talks about Capitalism as if it's a standard way of thinking, a bottom-linism when we all know that some people do choose to give millions to charity, not as an anti capitalistic action but because Capitalism doesn't stand in people's way, if people want to give charity they can, if people want to evaluate charity-givers they do."
They give millions when they have hundreds of billions. It's pocket change to them. 5 people own more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population
Yes, exactly so. And the great thing is that anyone can become rich and donate 99% of their wealth using their final will or something like that. Just like a small minority of them do, as you would expect from people who are not forced to choose one way or another.
You could too by the way, I take it to be infinitely more effective than hoping that one day AI could play the perfect party leadership or what have you.
ah yes, because most people get a choice in what job they take lmao. Have you even stepped outside your bubble?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-employees-engaged-work.aspx
take a look at these polls. If jobs were voluntary, don't you think people would enjoy them? Let me guess "its corporatism not capitalism". lmao
Yes, people have that choice because nobody stands in their way. They have to consider it alongside the rest of the factors in their life. That's as much choice as life can give you.
Is it Capitalism's flaw that you have yet to manage your situation to gain enough financial freedom so that you could have total freedom over where you work and where you would not, so now must give up on some of your values in some choices you have to make - you take that untilized freedom to be a system flaw?
I don't think so, but look! You are free to think so even if everyone considered it logical fallacy.
Thanks.
No one is obligated to have his obligations outgrow his agility. I personally hope that if the communist utopia ever takes over - it'd have parents take lengthy tests to get a parenthood licence. But I value personal freedom more so, you know, you have to make compromises.
http://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/
its more efficient to pass off costs of something like police to the workers. This was done by the capitalists when they got tired of paying for a private force that did essentially the same thing as police today. Take a look at history lmao
Am not a libertarian, would like the police, healthcare, firefighters and much more welfare. Do I still need to read it?
Let's go over ownership.
ownership doesn't exist, we adhere to these rules because of the monopoly of violence enforcing capitalism. The basis of capitalism is violence. This violence is what forces 20 million to die of poverty a year when we produce much more food than we need as a species.
capitalism puts the people that would enforce its existence into power. This means we must destroy every aspect of capitalism in society to be free from it, there is no other way.
Ownership doesn't exist exactly the way rights don't exist.
You and this video describe ownership as if it could come from above, and we made some compromise along the way. I'm now riding a train with my bag alongside me, no one around me needs any government to tell them that taking my bag is theft. It's constructed but we practice it together, because it makes sense this way, universally.
That mystical thing that connects me and my belongings is what I did to obtain it, and it's no one's business, until I have to prove it.
I am familiar with the concept of "property is theft", and to sum it up I'd say that property and theft are both matters of consent. If no one caught you stealing, you own what you took, that's sad but it has nothing to do with ideology.
If you are looking only for intrinsic values, you are going in for some bad time, it's a philosophical trap basically.
I don't see how this ties to Capitalism being responsible for lives outside of the main centers of capitalistic activities.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
that is a link to a nice book that goes over historical examples of what happens whenever people reject capitalism.
Gets the popcorn as I am waiting for the great ancap mass of Steemit to flood this post any time now with random shit
Liked your post because it is well written and with a few sources of information.
However, I would also like to say -as the libertarian I am -:
If you think capitalism is the cause of so many deaths in the world, what are you doing here in Steem when you could do the same for free in other platforms? Real question. I am not asking you to quit, of course.
Any non capitalist form of anarchy is just communism: a society without money and without State. I could be wrong here. Maybe you could help me scape the confussion.
Posted using Partiko Android
also, capitalism is not anarchist. Looking at the labor theory of value, all value comes directly from human labor and the difference in value comes from a difference in labor required to produce it. (Even adam smith admitted this.) Private ownership of the means of production is the method in which the capitalist controls the workers in such a way that they are unable to labor without giving up the majority of their labor as profit, directly to the capitalist. You may argue that this can be voluntary, but that is incorrect. If we look at the parable of the divided island, the capitalists must destroy any functioning non-capitalist society in order to keep workers, as there is no possible way they would make more under capitalism because of the nature of profit.
There is also the argument of land use "rights". When humanity first evolved nothing was "owned", that came later. Ownership is recognised control of the means of production, which mostly came around during the enclosure acts. This was a violent action by the state to privatise formerly collective land, in order for capitalism to expand. This means the private ownership of the means of production that capitalism is based on, only came into existence because of the state. That's not even to mention that the violence of the state is the only thing that allows its continued existence.
There is also this post I made on the topic a while back
https://steemit.com/politics/@anarchyhasnogods/a-communist-definition-of-property
Fascism is capitalism in decay, the inherent contradictions within capitalism mean that it must turn to imperialism and war just to survive. Capitalism is not just "money" it is a system of direct domination over the workers that uses a market to justify its existence
"If you think capitalism is the cause of so many deaths in the world, what are you doing here in Steem when you could do the same for free in other platforms?"
I see a few main points here. Commodification, and a complete non-understanding of socio-economic systems.
Capitalism must turn everything into a commodity to be sold, capitalism cannot exist without continuing to create new markets that can be exploited. LGBT pride has been consumed by this, with all these neo-liberal corporations putting pride colors up and being praised for it, even though they didn't actually do anything. Commodification does not only make everything fake, it also lowers its social value, because it must be turned into a form that is exploitable.
Capital gains are not the only reason people do things. People create art because they like art, people become doctors because they like helping people. I am on steem because I have a chance to use capital to grow power and spread knowledge faster than other social media. If I found another that was better, but had no profit, I would jump ship in a heartbeat.
People need money to survive under capitalism. You can't just "do stuff for free", thats not how it works. To quote the million ancaps on this platform "learn economics". (A joke.) Communism isn't doing everything for free, communism is planning how to most effectively distribute resources between workers. The most common form of this is simply being able to take what you need and giving what you can, which is much different from working "for free" under this economic system.
I cannot just wish capitalism away, working towards it through my own labor in small ways (like writing for free) is not realistic. I think this video below sums it up nicely
also, many non-capitalist forms of anarchy have money. You don't seem to understand what capitalism is. You see the root of the word "capital" applies to private ownership of the means of production, not the existence of money.
Although I still am a communist
Yes. Socialdemocratic societies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
why dont you read this
Collectivist anarchism
Collectivist anarchism (also known as anarcho-collectivism) is a revolutionary anarchist doctrine that advocates the abolition of both the state and private ownership of the means of production as it instead envisions the means of production being owned collectively and controlled and managed by the producers themselves.
For the collectivization of the means of production, it was originally envisaged that workers will revolt and forcibly collectivize the means of production. Once collectivization takes place, money would be abolished to be replaced with labour notes and workers' salaries would be determined in democratic organizations of voluntary membership based on job difficulty and the amount of time they contributed to production. These salaries would be used to purchase goods in a communal market.
collectivism, market socialism, and mutualism actually. (as just a few examples)
Social democracy is still capitalism
you ever see this picture before?
(commented with my main acc)