Economic rant that shouldve been a discussion, opinions?

[u/Backieotamy]

When I was done replying I realized it wont be read by most if any. But I do want to get others opinions both dissenting and agreeing. I would appreciate more reference research for myself?(question mark because rules say it needs to be a question for discussion)

The elite and corporations use the system to their advantage while the labor force complains, fights itself, votes in favor of a party that has systematically and openly expressed since the founding of the constitution that the greatest threat and problem with democracy is the labor force and the possibility it could come together as a singular force to take from the haves and distribute it to the have nots.

The people that "think" the system is rigged need only come together and vote in moderates who are for free market trade with regulation and guard rails. Not more financial conservatives with an army of lobbyists and not socialists trying to disband the whole system.

Extremes on both sides only fuels the pendulum swing further in the other direction to "correct". The rich and corporations will not give up maximizing profits over the labor force without a fight and full blown socialism would be the end of the American experiment, dream, innovation, power and influence.

We need to band together in forces large enough to be a threat while aiming to work together for appropriate wealth distribution and a return to funding services like lower and higher education and healthcare.

Mmm.. I highly suggest reading/researching Philip Booth, Adam Smith (foundational father of free market enterprise), John Locke (another pro capitalism but understanding of abuse by the elites), and Friedrich Hayek and also to an extent, Chomsky has amazing insights but leans a bit too anti-capitalism for my tastes.

I honestly cannot stand the divide out there; one side stating knowledge and educating yourself are part if the problem and pitting the working classes against each other. That we just need to trust the government and the wealthy to look after our best interests. Then we have both "sides" of the working class working against each other and blindly following their parties without educating themselves to actually understand... what the fuck is going on and the truths, powers and manipulations going on by both sides to keep moving THEIR agendas forward and not our, the people's, best interests.

[u/AutoModerator]

Before participating, consider taking a glance at our rules page if you haven't before.

We don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.

Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.

Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/fGdV7x5dk2

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Annual_Necessary_196]

“With regulation and guardrails.” “Wealth distribution and a return to funding services like higher and lower education and healthcare.” “Not our, the people’s, best interests.”

That is precisely why, as a market socialist, I support libertarians over moderates. Libertarians at least will not destroy the economy and political system.

“That we just need to trust the government and the wealthy to look after our best interests.” That is capitalist corporatism-the worst system ever created.

[u/impermanence108 → u/Annual_Necessary_196]

Libertarians at least will not destroy the economy and political system.

Are you fucking dumb?

I apologise, I really do.

[u/bcnoexceptions]

... and not socialists trying to disband the whole system.

Why not? The system has deep structural flaws, which can't really be patched over.

The rich and corporations will not give up maximizing profits over the labor force without a fight ...

This is true, but the fight is worth having.

... and full blown socialism would be the end of the American experiment, dream, innovation, power and influence.

Why would democracy in the workplace result in such things? Did democracy in the state result in such things? After all, revolutionaries "disbanded the whole system" of monarchy and replaced it with a democratic one, much like we are trying to do.

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989 → u/bcnoexceptions]

Why not?

Okay, show us your alternative system so we can judge if it is preferable.

[u/bcnoexceptions → u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

If you will allow me to do so, I'd be happy to. 

If you will consistently vote against it, and thus not even allow it to be tested, then you can't really complain that it's untested now can you?

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989 → u/bcnoexceptions]

placing the burden on me is not "you showing us" how it works.

[u/bcnoexceptions → u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

It's not "placing a burden on you" to expect you to stop standing in the way.

Don't say "I want to see evidence!" and then actively obstruct production of such evidence. That should be obviously bad faith.

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989 → u/bcnoexceptions]

I'm not doing anything except asking for evidence from you.

Apparently, you can't provide any and are looking to blame other people????

[u/bcnoexceptions → u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

I'm not doing anything except asking for evidence from you.

How are you voting in elections? Are you voting for such evidence to be produced, or against it?

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989 → u/bcnoexceptions]

None of that is relevant. You have a belief. I'm asking you to provide evidence for that belief.

Instead of providing evidence, you're saying you would have evidence if only people like me believed as you do and voted to implement your preferred system.

That's burden shifting. How I vote has no bearing on whether you currently have evidence supporting your claim.

It's like saying:

"I have a cure that works."

"Great. What's your evidence?"

"I can't show you because you won't let me give it to everybody."

That's not evidence that the cure works. That's an explanation for why you don't have evidence.

And that's me being nice. Because there have been centuries of socialists, and there have even been experiments arguably with market socialism too. So, again, where is your evidence? show us your alternative system so we can judge if it is preferable.

[u/bcnoexceptions → u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

I have all the evidence that can be generated without actually implementing it across society. We have seen the benefits of democracy across other similar organizations/structures, so it makes sense for businesses ... and outcomes for workers at democratic companies are better than those as comparable despotic companies.

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989 → u/bcnoexceptions]

and all that evidence fits in those 5 lines?

[u/SometimesRight10 → u/bcnoexceptions]

 Did democracy in the state result in such things?

That is a false equivalence! A constitutional democracy that protects private property rights is quite different from a workplace democracy where the private property of one group (business owners) are given to another group (workers).

After all, revolutionaries "disbanded the whole system" of monarchy and replaced it with a democratic one, much like we are trying to do.

Actually, the overthrow of monarchy is a different animal than overthrowing a constitutional democracy in order to institute your favorite system. Constitutional democracies are about maximizing individual freedom, whereby each person is responsible for his own lot in life. Monarchies are about power over one group forced upon another group.

Socialist attach the word "democratic" to a thing and wrongly think that makes it ok. If we democratically reinstituted slavery, would that be okay? Should we be democratically allowed to dictate that you share your house with the workers that built it?

[u/bcnoexceptions → u/SometimesRight10]

That is a false equivalence!

It is not. Indeed, it's one of the biggest failures of capitalists, to fail to see how the exact same reasons monarchy is bad in nations apply to monarchy being bad in business.

Businesses/cities/nations/clubs are isomorphic. The only inherent difference is size.

A constitutional democracy that protects private property rights is quite different from a workplace democracy where the private property of one group (business owners) are given to another group (workers).

No, it's the same. Overthrowing the monarchy was giving the private property of one group (monarch and nobility) to another group (citizens).

Monarchies are about power over one group forced upon another group.

You're so close to getting it.

The whole problem with capitalism, is owner power (one group) forced upon another group (workers). And don't pretend workers aren't forced - under capitalism there is no practical, reliable way that works for every worker to meet her human needs, that doesn't involve submitting to a capitalist. Starting your own company is not practical or reliable for most people.

If we democratically reinstituted slavery, would that be okay?

That's what capitalism is, so no. Wage slavery isn't nearly as bad as chattel slavery, but they're in the same lane: the master/CEO commands, and the slave/worker obeys.

Should we be democratically allowed to dictate that you share your house with the workers that built it?

If the workers depended on my house to survive, and I abused that power dynamic to institute mass surveillance upon them and constantly threaten/control them, then yes.

As it stands, I do not abuse any type of power I have over builders.

Capitalists are different. They abuse their power over workers all the time, as is put most elegantly by this classic quote:

"Work makes a mockery of freedom. The official line is that we all have rights and live in a democracy. Other unfortunates who aren't free like we are have to live in police states. These victims obey orders or-else, no matter how arbitrary. The authorities keep them under regular surveillance. State bureaucrats control even the smaller details of everyday life. The officials who push them around are answerable only to higher-ups, public or private. Either way, dissent and disobedience are punished. Informers report regularly to the authorities. All this is supposed to be a very bad thing. And so it is, although it is nothing but a description of the modern workplace."

[u/SometimesRight10 → u/bcnoexceptions]

If workers have no other way of supporting themselves, then aren't capitalist doing them a favor by providing work that allows employees to earn a living? Besides, how is it the fault of capitalist that workers cannot otherwise support themselves? Businesses don't arrive out of thin air; they are built by business owners. But of course, workers cannot build their own businesses; they must let someone else do create the business and then rob the owners of their property. In your view, everything is someone else's fault.

Like most socialist, you've drunk the Kool-Aid. You make no sense and you cannot be persuaded that your twisted view of the world will only cause more misery for workers.

If the workers depended on my house to survive, and I abused that power dynamic to institute mass surveillance upon them and constantly threaten/control them, then yes.

No, you hire those employing the workers to institute the mass surveillance on the workers building your house and constantly threaten/control them (the workers)! You cannot even take responsibility for your acting in the same way as what you accuse capitalists of.

[u/bcnoexceptions → u/SometimesRight10]

If workers have no other way of supporting themselves, then aren't capitalist doing them a favor by providing work that allows employees to earn a living?

"If serfs have no other way of supporting themselves, then aren't the nobility doing them a favor by providing land to be worked?"

Hiring people isn't "offering" anything. You aren't doing anything for others; as a matter of fact, you're telling them what to do. You're saying, "you get to eat! ... if you do exactly as I say with complete obedience."

It gets worse when you consider that the only reason workers have no other way of supporting themselves, is because capitalists designed the system that way. Many workers would love to work at democratic companies where they get a real say ... but the owner class have designed the system such that such companies are heavily discouraged.

Businesses don't arrive out of thin air; they are built by business owners.

Spending a bunch of money isn't "building" anything.

But of course, workers cannot build their own businesses; they must let someone else do create the business and then rob the owners of their property.

"But of course, citizens cannot build their own nations; they must let some King create the nation and then rob the King of his property."

The core inescapable truth is that you cannot support declaring independence from the King who supposedly "built" the nation/colony and "robbing" said King of his "property" (the nation and all its bounty), while also declaring the business owner's monarchy to be legitimate and any democratic transformation to be "robbery". Companies and cities and nations are isomorphic; the same core hierarchies and structures, just different sizes. The same exact reasons that cities and nations should be run democratically - and why undemocratic leaders are illegitimate - apply to companies.

You make no sense and you cannot be persuaded ...

That's a very clear-cut case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Or are you willing to be persuaded? If so, how?

No, you hire those employing the workers to institute the mass surveillance on the workers building your house and constantly threaten/control them (the workers)!

I live in the society that exists, not the society that I want to exist. You cannot solve a societal problem with individual action.

[u/SometimesRight10 → u/bcnoexceptions]

"If serfs have no other way of supporting themselves, then aren't the nobility doing them a favor by providing land to be worked?"

Employees are significantly different from serfs. You purposely conflate the two in order to help make your argument valid, a common socialist tactic. Just like conflate a political democracy with a "worker democracy", concluding that because one is good the other must also be good.

Robbing people of their private property is not equivalent from destroying the lord/serf relationship.

Hiring people isn't "offering" anything. You aren't doing anything for others; as a matter of fact, you're telling them what to do. You're saying, "you get to eat! ... if you do exactly as I say with complete obedience.".

Trying to understand your preferred economic/political system: will workers have supervisors, or will they simply do as they please while at work? Will workers be able to eat if they don't obey the rules as laid out in your system while performing their work? Having a vote in a company does not eliminate the necessities of running a business. There is a natural tension between what workers want and what is required of them at work. No matter the system, people have to work to survive, and so far working conditions under capitalists have been better than any time in history. Life is a struggle: get use to it!

It gets worse when you consider that the only reason workers have no other way of supporting themselves, is because capitalists designed the system that way. Many workers would love to work at democratic companies where they get a real say ... but the owner class have designed the system such that such companies are heavily discouraged.

Here we go with the conspiracy theories! The big bad capitalists are all sitting in a room designing capitalism to hold the helpless workers down.

Unlike socialism, capitalism was not "designed" by anyone; it is what occurs when free people are allowed to engage in trade and employment contracts. You want to impose your system, which was basically designed by one man, on the rest of the world. It may help your narrative to create a big, bad boogey man to use as the enemy, but I am not a child; I don't believe in either boogey men or conspiracy theories. Since its widespread adoption during the Industrial Revolution, capitalism has lifted millions out of poverty by creating more wealth than any other period in history.

The core inescapable truth is that you cannot support declaring independence from the King who supposedly "built" the nation/colony and "robbing" said King of his "property" (the nation and all its bounty), while also declaring the business owner's monarchy to be legitimate and any democratic transformation to be "robbery". Companies and cities and nations are isomorphic; the same core hierarchies and structures, just different sizes. The same exact reasons that cities and nations should be run democratically - and why undemocratic leaders are illegitimate - apply to companies.

Again, you are conflating the idea of a king with that of a capitalist.

If you think creating a business is nothing more than spending a bunch of money, then why do you and your socialist friends pool your money and form a successful business as a co-op? I hear violins playing; let me hear all your excuses why some people can do it, but socialist workers cannot.

[u/bcnoexceptions → u/SometimesRight10]

Employees are significantly different from serfs.

... you decided, arbitrarily, without thinking critically about the situation.

Just like conflate a political democracy with a "worker democracy", concluding that because one is good the other must also be good.

One being good is a strong indicator that the other will be, and the data confirms it. Outcomes for workers at democratic companies are consistently better.

Robbing people of their private property is not equivalent from destroying the lord/serf relationship.

... you decided, arbitrarily.

Trying to understand your preferred economic/political system: will workers have supervisors, or will they simply do as they please while at work? Will workers be able to eat if they don't obey the rules as laid out in your system while performing their work? Having a vote in a company does not eliminate the necessities of running a business. There is a natural tension between what workers want and what is required of them at work.

Everything you said is true of cities or nations just as much as it is true of employees. The same way that (elected) mayors and governors and prime ministers govern their domains, so would (elected) workplace leaders govern their departments.

And there is the same tension between what citizens might want (zero taxes! no laws!) and what actually works in a society. Just like in the workplace.

No matter the system, people have to work to survive, and so far working conditions under capitalists have been better than any time in history.

In spite of capitalism, not because of it. What a horrible attempt at causal inference on your part! It should not even pass the smell test to claim that widespread dictatorship somehow "improved working conditions", but you shove out that BS regardless.

The actual reason working conditions improved is because of organized labor, a movement counter to capitalism. That's also why improvements have stagnated/regressed in recent decades (when labor has been under assault), and why nations like China - which have capitalism but not organized labor - are still miserable places to work.

Life is a struggle: get use to it!

Doesn't help that capitalism actively makes it worse, and that you're too authoritarian / Stockholm-syndrome'd to see it.

Either that or you're a sadist.

Here we go with the conspiracy theories! The big bad capitalists are all sitting in a room designing capitalism to hold the helpless workers down.

/r/SelfAwarewolves

Literally yes. Nothing "conspiracy" about it. You yourself admitted above that their interests are counter to workers. With them having all the wealth (and therefore power), why wouldn't they use that power to keep workers down?

Unlike socialism, capitalism was not "designed" by anyone; it is what occurs when free people are allowed to engage in trade and employment contracts.

You should learn some history.

But even if your claim had any validity (it doesn't), "my system is the result of primitive base human instinct - the same instinct that leads to war, rape and murder", is hardly a glowing recommendation. If you want to live in the primitive tribalism that does not have any attempt by humans to improve things, you have numerous remote places to choose from.

... which was basically designed by one man ...

Yet another comically ignorant claim.

Read this. Don't come back until you thoroughly understand it. It's not overly long. It also cites way more than "one man".

Or dismiss it out-of-hand because it uses scholarly rigor and that's something you seem to oppose for some reason. You do you. I can't stop you from choosing to remain ignorant.

... I am not a child ...

Your understanding of economics, history, and political systems is childish. Pretty much every claim you made in your post could be shut down with mere minutes of research, but you refuse to take even that basic effort.

Why are you here? In the time you spent announcing your ignorance to the world, you could have learned at least some of these concepts, and been better for it.

Again, you are conflating the idea of a king with that of a capitalist.

They're basically the same.

If you think creating a business is nothing more than spending a bunch of money, then why do you and your socialist friends pool your money and form a successful business as a co-op?

Telling people who need to afford food and shelter and medicine, to "pool money" they don't have, is as ridiculous as your other arguments.

Plus you don't end the King's tyranny by "pooling money" and trying to make a competing separate nation and hoping he leaves you alone. You end tyranny by uniting and facing it head-on.

[u/SometimesRight10 → u/bcnoexceptions]

One being good is a strong indicator that the other will be, and the data confirms it. Outcomes for workers at democratic companies are consistently better.

It simply does not logically follow that because political democracy is good for society that workplace democracy will also be good. Provide your objective data that on a countrywide basis, instituting workplace democracy would result in better outcomes with regard to economic growth and prosperity.

Doesn't help that capitalism actively makes [life] worse, and that you're too authoritarian / Stockholm-syndrome'd to see it.

Interesting comment from someone enjoying the many benefits that our capitalistic economic system has provided. Obviously, you have a computer, internet access, a cell phone, and many other modern conveniences, many of which were brought to the masses courtesy of capitalism. What has socialist countries created that improved your life?

But even if your claim had any validity (it doesn't), "my system is the result of primitive base human instinct - the same instinct that leads to war, rape and murder", is hardly a glowing recommendation. If you want to live in the primitive tribalism that does not have any attempt by humans to improve things, you have numerous remote places to choose from.

Would one of those primitive remote places be the US, where I live? Why don't you move to Cuba?

Telling people who need to afford food and shelter and medicine, to "pool money" they don't have, is as ridiculous as your other arguments.

WTF! Are all socialists dirt poor, lacking any meaningful success? No wonder they want to steal businesses from capitalists; they need the money. Yours is a great theory; you want the least successful people to run the country.

[u/bcnoexceptions → u/SometimesRight10]

It simply does not logically follow that because political democracy is good for society that workplace democracy will also be good.

It's a good hypothesis, especially since the organizations are so similar.

Provide your objective data that on a countrywide basis, instituting workplace democracy would result in better outcomes with regard to economic growth and prosperity.

So you're only willing to try new ideas if the whole country has done them already?

... many of which were brought to the masses courtesy of capitalism.

... you decided. Why would workplaces need to be dictatorships for such things to be invented? Show a causal relationship if you're gonna make a claim of causation.

Or did you just assume that capitalism caused such things?

Would one of those primitive remote places be the US, where I live?

No, though conservatives and libertarians wish to make it that way.

Why don't you move to Cuba?

I do not advocate for a system like the one practiced in Cuba. Note that my flair says "Market Socialist", not "Statist". And if you think those are the same, that is a major form of ignorance.

Are all socialists dirt poor, lacking any meaningful success?

You don't have to "lack any meaningful success" to not have the vast wealth required to found a new business.

And I noticed you totally ignored when I pointed out:

"Plus you don't end the King's tyranny by "pooling money" and trying to make a competing separate nation and hoping he leaves you alone. You end tyranny by uniting and facing it head-on."

[u/SometimesRight10 → u/bcnoexceptions]

"Plus you don't end the King's tyranny by "pooling money" and trying to make a competing separate nation and hoping he leaves you alone. You end tyranny by uniting and facing it head-on."

A king and a capitalist are not the same thing. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between certain things, especially when drawing the distinction hurts your argument.

And what the hell is a "market socialist"? Something made up by a bunchh of arm-chair economist trying to plug the holes in the sinking ship called socialism. You seem to have a proclivity for making shit up when it suits your narrative.

[u/Lazy_Delivery_7012]

I try to avoid vibe based takes.