And slavery isn’t capitalism? Or is that cooperative because the slaveholder says “I have a knife and will kill you” and the slave says “I don’t want to die” so it’s mutual collaboration where the slave doesn’t die but also is a slave?
Debt and capitalism are not the same thing if that’s what you’re insinuating. Markets are not a feature of capitalism either, they are simply tools for economic control.
What do you mean not allowed? Just go do it. Defense is by it’s very nature much much harder than offense. You could probably kill a few CEOs with $1000 and some travel expenses. Just go do it if you think it’s so important to bash heads in.
Came here to say this, the problem is the system of government because everyone can be bought. We need direct democracy where there are no representatives that can be bought
A lot harder to buy off the general population than it is to buy single representatives, everyone would have to know about the corruption and anti corruption watchdogs would have plenty of evidence
No, it’s not hard, it happened many times in Greek cities. Polish noble democracy in Commonwealth also became corrupted in exactly this way. You can see it even nowadays in the part of bourgeois democracies that are direct, for example European presidental elections, “vote x no matter what” blocks are found and it result in electing such people like Nawrocki in Poland. I mention him because he’s incredible example, barely anyone ever heard of that guy before elections (except prosecutioner) but the magical hand of PiS chairman marked him as the desired candidate and suddenly he actually won against very well known liberal politician Trzaskowski (and Trzaskowski was least horrible lib in Poland).
Sure, the base will shape the superstructure. Any levers that can be pulled within capitalism will either be destroyed or nerfed if proven too effective at gaining what workers want.
The government is tied to the mode of production, it isn’t above it. When capital owners hold sway over how society functions, it isn’t through bribes alone that this happens. Control of media, control of the state, administration, cultural hegemony, etc all influence it. As such, no direct democracy could really exist in capitalism.
Even an honest and well meaning politician will be blocked at every step. Like corporations and big businesses sabotaging key supply chains, media engaging in character assassination, and if all that fails then either a military coup or a literal assassination (like they did to Salvador Allende in Chile). Unless the politicians try to gain concessions from the ruling class in exchange for complacency, which means we still have our status quo.
That still doesn’t guarantee the military won’t take over, reactionary sentiments spread through propaganda, etc. Without a revolution there will never be true democracy.
They don’t, there is an empty void in them, typically from an insecurity in child hood. For example I know a very successful guy whos goals are amassing wealth because he said as a kid they were poor and it made him feel insecure and unsafe. So now his happiness is earning more and more. Billionaires have this trait. Whether that be financial, or I have to be better than the next guy to feel like I’m not a failure.
If life is happiness and living and not economic success, you’d see that billionaire trait die out, its a selfish trait that serves no need in a community
Yeah of course, this meme is meant to be making fun of the idea that “human nature” (whatever that may be lol) in any way disproves communist or anticapitalist theory
You’re right that the best arguments against Marxism are the falsity and over-simplification of economic determinism, and the falsity and over-simplification of the labour theory of value.
This is kind of the elephant in the room that every large scale political/economic model like to ignore.
While I don’t agree with a lot of what he writes about, Murray Bookchin makes some pretty persuasive arguments about how hierarchical structures themselves are an issue no matter what system theyre found.
No matter how many wish communism to work and devote themselves to it, it will fail. They can hold back agorism indefinitely by great effort, but when they let go, the ‘flow’ or ‘Invisible Hand’ or ‘tides of history’ or ‘profit incentive’ or ‘doing what comes naturally’ or ‘spontaneity’ will carry society inexorably closer to the pure agora.
This is a deeply idealist view of production. There is no “invisible hand,” no universal Spirit of Hegel. Trade and industrialized production gives way to centralization and the death of competition, and it makes more and more sense economically to plan production and collectivize it as this competition dies out of itself. Communists aren’t “holding back” trade, trade naturally gives way to the very structures that compel communism and kill off trade.
You know that humans lived in communal societies for a long fuckin time before all the bullshit we know today, right?
Human nature is not greed. That’s capitalism.
And slavery isn’t capitalism? Or is that cooperative because the slaveholder says “I have a knife and will kill you” and the slave says “I don’t want to die” so it’s mutual collaboration where the slave doesn’t die but also is a slave?
Mesopotamians tracked agricultural debt on clay tablets in 3000 BC
Debt and capitalism are not the same thing if that’s what you’re insinuating. Markets are not a feature of capitalism either, they are simply tools for economic control.
Pretty sure humans have been bashing in each others heads over resources since the dawn of humanity.
Capitalism made it worse and more efficient tho.
Half the problem with capitalism is that we aren’t allowed to bash in the heads of the people who took all the resources.
What do you mean not allowed? Just go do it. Defense is by it’s very nature much much harder than offense. You could probably kill a few CEOs with $1000 and some travel expenses. Just go do it if you think it’s so important to bash heads in.
I mean that you get arrested and go to jail.
Came here to say this, the problem is the system of government because everyone can be bought. We need direct democracy where there are no representatives that can be bought
Then the direct votes will be bought…
A lot harder to buy off the general population than it is to buy single representatives, everyone would have to know about the corruption and anti corruption watchdogs would have plenty of evidence
No, it’s not hard, it happened many times in Greek cities. Polish noble democracy in Commonwealth also became corrupted in exactly this way. You can see it even nowadays in the part of bourgeois democracies that are direct, for example European presidental elections, “vote x no matter what” blocks are found and it result in electing such people like Nawrocki in Poland. I mention him because he’s incredible example, barely anyone ever heard of that guy before elections (except prosecutioner) but the magical hand of PiS chairman marked him as the desired candidate and suddenly he actually won against very well known liberal politician Trzaskowski (and Trzaskowski was least horrible lib in Poland).
If large numbers of the general population sampled at random is corrupt, you’re utterly fucked
The mode of production takes priority, capitalism with direct democracy would still fall to the same problems intrinsic to capitalism.
That’s basically true, but I think capitalism would overthrow direct democracy.
People would vote for higher wages and then there’d be a coup.
Sure, the base will shape the superstructure. Any levers that can be pulled within capitalism will either be destroyed or nerfed if proven too effective at gaining what workers want.
How could corruption run rife when there are no bribable politicians?
The government is tied to the mode of production, it isn’t above it. When capital owners hold sway over how society functions, it isn’t through bribes alone that this happens. Control of media, control of the state, administration, cultural hegemony, etc all influence it. As such, no direct democracy could really exist in capitalism.
Even an honest and well meaning politician will be blocked at every step. Like corporations and big businesses sabotaging key supply chains, media engaging in character assassination, and if all that fails then either a military coup or a literal assassination (like they did to Salvador Allende in Chile). Unless the politicians try to gain concessions from the ruling class in exchange for complacency, which means we still have our status quo.
Direct democracy gets rid of politicians and the general population vote on each bill/law change
That still doesn’t guarantee the military won’t take over, reactionary sentiments spread through propaganda, etc. Without a revolution there will never be true democracy.
And compulsory voting?
So everyone who doesn’t care to do their own due diligence can vote how the media they consume pushes them to?
Yup. Works well for Australia.
All the best countries have it…
Thats the thing, if we build a system where all needs were met, it would seem that greed and bashing heads becomes unneccesary
He wealthiest already have all their needs met. Still greedy.
They don’t, there is an empty void in them, typically from an insecurity in child hood. For example I know a very successful guy whos goals are amassing wealth because he said as a kid they were poor and it made him feel insecure and unsafe. So now his happiness is earning more and more. Billionaires have this trait. Whether that be financial, or I have to be better than the next guy to feel like I’m not a failure.
If life is happiness and living and not economic success, you’d see that billionaire trait die out, its a selfish trait that serves no need in a community
They do have all their needs met, according to Marxism
I mean currently, not after growing up in a Marxist society that has healed generations of familial issues
Yeah of course, this meme is meant to be making fun of the idea that “human nature” (whatever that may be lol) in any way disproves communist or anticapitalist theory
You’re right that the best arguments against Marxism are the falsity and over-simplification of economic determinism, and the falsity and over-simplification of the labour theory of value.
But have humans have never had a non-hierarchical large scaled society?
This is kind of the elephant in the room that every large scale political/economic model like to ignore.
While I don’t agree with a lot of what he writes about, Murray Bookchin makes some pretty persuasive arguments about how hierarchical structures themselves are an issue no matter what system theyre found.
Sure, but we freely traded with each other.
This is a deeply idealist view of production. There is no “invisible hand,” no universal Spirit of Hegel. Trade and industrialized production gives way to centralization and the death of competition, and it makes more and more sense economically to plan production and collectivize it as this competition dies out of itself. Communists aren’t “holding back” trade, trade naturally gives way to the very structures that compel communism and kill off trade.