this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
46 points (80.3% liked)

Memes

45719 readers
855 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheBroodian@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The bias is justified. The left is correct. Markets don't create wealth without necessarily simultaneously creating poverty

[–] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For more information, research "surplus army of labor", "primitive accumulation", and "accumulation by dispossession".

Primitive accumulation is a bad term. It works if you've read the theory behind it, but otherwise it sounds like someone saving up a bunch of money then starting a successful business compared to what it is which was colonial genocide, enclosure of the commons, and mass starvation as people were ripped from agricultural labor and cast into the factories and mines to work for feudal lords turned industrial capitalists.

[–] grilled_cheese_eater@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuh, uh. Markets controlled by Oligarchs who spend billions to erode social safety nets do. A market socialist economy with strong regulations and systems like a UBI wouldn't create poverty, while still being a market (albeit a very different one to what we have today). Albeit I do think that for many things (like healthcare) having a market of any kind is just dumb.

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Markets controlled by Oligarchs who spend billions to erode social safety nets do.

And where do these billionaires come from? Do they just spring out of the ground?
Oligarchs are a feature of capitalism, not a flaw.
A market with a UBI would simply increase rent by the UBI amount. Markets in capitalism exist to extract wealth, it is what they encourage. Thus they will support those that are best at extracting wealth, which leads to the creation of those billionaires.

[–] grilled_cheese_eater@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I said market socialist. In a market socialist economy there would be no billionaires. Also housing is an absolute necessity, which means it shouldn't be governed by a market at all, no matter the economic system. Only things outside of staple foods, a roof over your head, utilities, drinking water, healthcare and other things absolutely necessary for your continued survival, can (not should) be governed by a market, and one that doesn't funnel money upwards.

Capitalism in any form is absolutely horrible and should not exist.

Also, creating artificial demand should be banned.

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

There's already one long-ass discussion about market socialism in this thread, so I'm not gonna start another, but glad to hear your perspective!

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A market with a UBI would simply increase rent by the UBI amount

*Correction: an unregulated market with UBI would.

In a regulated market, those corporations can either follow the guidelines or fuck off the market.

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Or they can enjoy the fact that they have regulatory capture and change the regulations, as has been seen historically.
For practical observance: Denmark pays a wage to university students. The function of this wage is to make sure the students can focus on their studies, instead of having to have a job that demands time from them, which would lower the quality of education.
Students also need housing, which the private sector provides in the form of "student housing", which requires you to be a student in order to live there. This "student housing" has a rent that is usually, approximately right around the student wage - thus meaning the student needs to take a job in order to afford things such as "food" and "electricity". This state of affairs occured despite regulations.

[–] brain_in_a_box@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Or just change the regulations

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (30 children)

Well that's just bullshit. Markets have brought more people out of poverty than anything.

[–] city_watch@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Capitalism literally requires poverty to even function.

[–] KurtVonnegut@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Lib - "Markets make everything cheaper, which is good."

Leftist - "But if there is a labor market, won't that make labor cheaper?"

Lib - "Yes, and that is good."

Leftist - "How is that good?"

Lib - "It leads to more profits."

Leftist - "But why is it good to have more profits?"

Lib - "Because a good country is when corporations make profits, and the more profits the corporations make, the gooder the country is."

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Love to spend insane amounts of resources on creating a phone that has the same tech and capabilities as all the other phones, but I can't just get access to their research and they can't just get access to mine.
Love to spend insane amount of time working up a cure to covid, but I can't share my research with others and they can't share it with me, yay this is awesome.
Love to spend insane amount of resources working out how to make people want to buy a sugary drink and then spend even more to make them want to buy my drink specifically.
Love to build empty houses and love to create 1.21 times more food than we need.
Love to do all this as the world is burning and people are starving.
Capitalism is the most efficient distribution of resources

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Leftist - “But if there is a labor market, won’t that make labor cheaper?”

A third person - "Not necessarily. If the demand for labor is bigger than the supply then markets make labor more expensive.

Leftist - " How is that possible? "

A third person - " There are various ways. Workers could start more cooperatives or invest their savings in new companies"

Leftist - "But why should I care about markets when it is easier to change the political system?"

A third person - "Is it easier?"

[–] Mog_Pharou@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Damn this third person never heard about the reserve army of labor, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, and like all of American history showing the hollowing out of working class power. JUST INVEST YOUR NON-EXISTENT SAVINGS INTO NEW COMPANIES ITS SO EASY. And please how will your worker coop survive in this hellscape with a bourgeois state over it? It will be outcompeted and swallowed immediately by corporations who have no qualms over worker or environmental rights. This isn't china, Huawei (a worker coop) is villified and attacked at every turn here. xigma-male You know maybe you have a point, let's be more like China.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Kid: "Mommy, what's a strawman?"

Mother: "Take a look a this post here. See how they speak for both sides of the argument?"

Kid: "Yes, they're arguing with themselves."

Mother: "Exactly, and they can make their opponent say what they want."

Kid: "That seems like an easy way to make your argument look good"

Mother: "Yes. It's like fighting someone who can't put up any resistance. They could be made of straw. A strawman. "

Kid: "Oh, I see."

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You didn't engage with their argument, but good try nonetheless. It's nice to see you cling to a fallacy rather than engage in good-faith discussion of an argument clearly illustrated for you to relate to.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is no point in engaging with someone playing such games. They're not going to be convinced when they're already putting words in the opposition's mouth.

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

They're not going to be convinced

A good faith discussion is not about convincing another, but instead about having an open exchange of information.

They're not going to be convinced when they're already putting words in the opposition's mouth.

They're illustrating a point which you failed to engage with. In no way did it put words in your mouth. The fact that you choose to be insulted by the way they decided to illustrate that point rather than engage with them in good faith says a lot more about you.

To reiterate: You didn't engage with their argument, but good try nonetheless. It's nice to see you cling to a fallacy rather than engage in good-faith discussion of an argument clearly illustrated for you to relate to.
Do better.

[–] Nagarjuna@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, but please don't say that too much, we don't want to carry water for the CCP

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Nagarjuna@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think you got the joke

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah it completely wooshed over my head, I thought you were serious

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No it hasn't, socialist agitation in the teeth of capitalist opposition did that

Without it westerners would still be working 16 hour days seven days a week without any safety nets while dying of lead poisoning

[–] Flinch@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Wrong, that would be China, under the direction of the CPC denguin

[–] jabrd@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Deng literally introduced market reforms to do so. This is not the own you think it is

[–] RuthlessCriticism@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Obviously it is a counterfactual but no serious leftist would say that China without market reforms wouldn't have eradicated poverty, and moreover done it faster and more completely. The seeds of poverty alleviation were planted during the Maoist era; improvement in health, education improvement, and industrialization.

[–] jabrd@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

To corroborate your point you can just look at life expectancy in rural communities to see that it rose steadily throughout the Maoist period and then froze during the Dengist reforms

[–] Flinch@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For the sake of simplicity, please enjoy the following meme:

deng-cowboy

load more comments (25 replies)