Sure you can make that argument under capitalism, where people are deprived of the value their labor created in order to force them to work more so they may survive. Hence why people should strive for communism. If everyone lived vegan people would be compelled to work as they are able in order to not cause undue burden on others, which again would not be vegan.
“From each according to their ability to each according to their need.”
If everyone lived vegan people would be compelled to work as they are able in order to not cause undue burden on others, which again would not be vegan.
i don’t quite get your last sentence. what if the person themselves doesn’t want to work?
If the person doesn’t want to work how will they sustain themselves? They have to rely on other peoples labor without contributing their own. If people don’t want to subsidize someone else then that person would either have to start working “against their will” or take other peoples labor without consent, which you have already pointed out, is not vegan. So if everyone were vegan that person would be compelled to work as they are able in order to be able to remain vegan.
Idk its kinda tortured logic when spelling it all out lol
Nature compells us to work for food anyway, that’s not exploitation and coercion, that’s just survival.
The construct of society is predicated on the idea of “from each… to each…” That saying often gets conflated with left-wing politics, but that’s just the point of animals (humans included) grouping together; after all, what’s the point of living in society if it doesn’t convey any benefits to the individual that they could not provide for themselves? That would be exploitative of the individual. But if they are benefitting, then it is only fair and just to also give back to the society one extracts benefits from, otherwise it is exploitative of the others.
Put another way: no one should be obligated to participate in society, but then society should likewise have no obligations to the non-participants.
Put another way: no one should be obligated to participate in society, but then society should likewise have no obligations to the non-participants.
funnily enough, that is exactly what capitalism postulates. that those who don’t work, don’t deserve to eat. “useless eaters” and all that, my mother can (sadly) give you a long and stern lecture about that (she is very much what you would call a “conservative”).
capitalism re-formulates that by saying that you need money to buy food, but to get that money, you have to work. in other words, who doesn’t work, doesn’t get food. that’s why many people say it’s cruel and inhumane because it makes people suffer who don’t work. and that’s exactly why we have things such as social safety nets etc. where the state gives money to people sothat they can buy basic stuff with it if they are poor. because society at large revolts against the concept of “who doesn’t work, shouldn’t eat”. or at least that’s how it is in most (civilized) countries, except of course in america people don’t always see things that way.
funnily enough, that is exactly what capitalism postulates.
Well yes and no. I guess it comes down to how you define participation in society. Capitalism only accepts production of commodities, whereas I meant it in a more broad sense. E.g. non-monetized hobbies are classified as entirely consumptive behaviors by capitalist societies, but if you look at the benefits conveyed by an open-source, volunteer project like lemmy you quickly see how much of a misclassification that is.
Even not in the extreme there are broad misclassifications under capitalism. You bring up the example of those of us on welfare; capitalists might agree with you that they are non-participants, whereas I don’t think it’s illogical to claim that services like raising children or advocating for change or community-building or maintaining a home or even just providing emotional support are ways that people contribute to and participate in society. I’d even go so far as to boldly claim that welfare is simply the way the bourgeois convey wages to such people, and then they have the gall to propagandize it as charity to make themselves look better, while simultaneously vilifying this subset of the working class
Nature compells us to work for food anyway, that’s not exploitation and coercion, that’s just survival.
Not all of us ahem bourgeoisie ahem
The construct of society is predicated on the idea of “from each… to each…”
of course, however what makes a societies differ is exactly what gets filled in to the “…”
“from each slave to each slavemaster” -> slavery
“from each serf to each lord” -> feudalism
“from each worker to each owner” -> capitalism
“from each person (according to their ability) to each person (according to their need)” -> socialism 😄
I meant moreso that it compels us outside of the structure of a society, which also precludes any social classes. One cannot be bourgeois if one does not live amongst others whom they can subjugate.
of course, however what makes a societies differ is exactly what gets filled in to the “…”
Ha! I was trying to refer to the idiom without being verbose, not leaving those blanks as variables.
I guess my take is that what determines a society is more how “ability” and “need” are defines, that way the social structure is not oversimplified to a single one-sided relationship. E.g. a feudalist would claim the serfs need protection from thieves and bandits, and a lord has the ability to provide such protection; the lord, conversely, needs grain and the serfs have the ability to farm it
This comment got a bit away from me lol, I just love talking about marxism too much I guess 😁 Please do tell me if it’s just too long for you to read or doesnt make sense or whatever.
A society is defined by how it produces and survives. When we talk about an “agrarian society” or “nomad society”, “hunter gatherers” etc. we talk about how a group of people produced food. When we talk about slave or feudal or capitalist society we talk about the relationships that people enter into in order to produce. It is not possible to work, or be compelled to work outside of society. Until we have socialism nothing compels us to work outside of social classes. I wouldn’t be working if my bourgeois didn’t compel me to. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
The great leaps in society have all been defined by changes in how we produce which compelled us to reorganise ourselves. Once we learned to domesticate wheat we stopped wandering and settled. We learned to make stone, bronze, iron tools and every time society was restructured. The steam engine revolutionized (literally!) our whole society since suddenly the work had to be divided into smaller parts. No longer could one laborer own all the tools required for their work themselves, they had become too expensive. The spinstress on the farm could no longer compete with the machines and so people began migrating to the cities since that is where the work was. This gave rise to the merchant class who became more powerful the more they gained control over the means of production until they overthrew feudal society for a more liberal approach at organising production. But as the wealth and control is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, as the petite bourgeois “middle class” shrinks and is thrown into the proletariat we will soon have to reorganise our society again. Especially since the global south is starting to band together and awakens as to where their oppression comes from. What will we do without our cheap labor?
“One cannot be bourgeois if one does not live amongst others whom they can subjugate” indeed! Now you’re thinking in dialectics 😁 We define social classes in terms of eachother and liberation of one is done by abolishing the other. There are no slaves if there are no slaveowners which is why people fought the slaveowners in order to free the slaves. No serfs where there is no nobility and no proletariat (employees) where there are no employers (bourgeoisie).
Ha! I was trying to refer to the idiom without being verbose, not leaving those blanks as variables.
My point was that you took out the most salient part of that quote. That communism is defined not by social classes but by “ability” and “need” is its defining characteristic. Because at the moment people are not getting what they “need” but rather what they “earn” which in the best of cases matches up, but does not always (or indeed not often, if we look at most capitalist societies currently in existence). And what they “earn” is defined by the contract they entered into with their employers. This means that the laborer wants to maximise what they sell their labor power for, whereas the employer wants to minimise what they buy the labor power with. This is what is called a contradiction in dialectics.
These contradictions are how we define social classes and the resolvement of these contradictions (their “synthesis”) is what we are most interested in. The merchant class and the feudal class for instance were marked by the contradiction that the merchants wanted to be able to sell to whomever they pleased (they wanted a free market), whereas the feudal class wanted to amass without having to buy. Whoever was under their jurisdiction had to give them a share, was taxed simply for being within their jurisdiction. Which differs from taxes today which have to justified by how they are necessary for the survival of the government and the state. The lords didn’t need such a justification, “my land my rules”. This contradiction came to a head and got resolved by the abolishment of the feudal class (or at least by bringing it to heel and under the rule of the bourgeoisie). The synthesis of feudal society was a capitalist one.
I guess my take is that what determines a society is more how “ability” and “need” are defines, that way the social structure is not oversimplified to a single one-sided relationship.
Yes! Welcome to dialectics!! It is indeed not a one-sided relationship! The employer needs our work and we need access to the means of production! This mutual need is how capitalism operates.
first of all, labor seems to be the constant in your worldview that everything revolves around. do you believe (or think that it’s possible / desirable) that we will eventually have a fully automated luxury society?
if yes, how would you call such a system?
secondly, it seems to me that the point that “bourgeoisie” doesn’t work is a big problem to you. mind explaining why? is it because society desperately needs that 1% extra labor output? is it because of some “work is a moral must” mindset (quasi-religious)? is it for some other reason?
thirdly, it seems to me that you’re defining communism socialism as essentially our current society, just that CEOs don’t get huge bonuses and shareholders don’t skim company profit. so, in other words, our current world minus the stock market: every company has to emit zero profit (such that no shareholders gain from it) and all the money must instead be spent on the business itself: wages to workers and resource acquirements.
did i understand that correctly? would you add anything? do you think that this setup is already feasible in today’s legal framework through worker-owned businesses? (“co-ops” and what they’re called)
I didn’t mean to be curt with my other reply I hope it didn’t come across that way, I just don’t know what you mean by most of your questions. So I will answer as best as I understand them
first of all, labor seems to be the constant in your worldview that everything revolves around. do you believe (or think that it’s possible / desirable) that we will eventually have a fully automated luxury society?
The process by which we produce the things that keep us alive, how we work, define how we relate to one another and how society is structured. The relation between slave and slavemaster, serf and lord, employee and employer are fundamentally different and shape all of society. Society at it’s core is defined by it’s mode of production. In that sense “labor” is indeed what my worldview revolves around, but I wouldn’t say it’s a constant. How we labor and what we do constantly changes. Whether we will eventually have a “fully automated luxury society”, I don’t know. Luxury is having a very comfortable life (relative to others) and what we consider comfortable and how we enjoy things is again defined by society around us so I’d say no, or it depends on what you compare luxury with since it’s a relative term.
We already live in a luxury society compared to even 100 years ago. Even once we are able to do it without oppressing the global south I don’t think our quality of life would significantly diminish. The reason we don’t consider having comfortable transportation, (theoretically) good healthcare, the sheer wealth of information we can access in instant with a rectangle we carry around or our multi-roomed homes with running hot water, a fridge, washing machine and dishwasher a luxury is because everyone has them. To the average laborer from 100 years ago however these things would surely look like a “fully automated luxury society”. Imagine being able to access a whole library from a single portable device and just print whatever you want?? 🤯
Fully automated is also too nebulous a term for me, presumably we will still cook our own food, raise our own kids what I would consider inevitable is how we relate to our labor and how we perceive it. For instance people might do gardening where they raise crops as a fun neighborhood activity, where everyone is welcome to pluck the crop as they need or wish. This is for instance very common in Viet Nam. Farming communes were already wide-spread before sanctions and capital reimposing itself on society forced them to introduce companies again.
secondly, it seems to me that the point that “bourgeoisie” doesn’t work is a big problem to you.
It’s not so much that the bourgeoisie doesn’t work. It’s that they are parasitic on others labor. They take without consent. That’s my main issue. “From each according to their ability…” is not a call to make everyone work as much as possible but rather a call to share what we can.
thirdly, it seems to me that you’re defining communism socialism as essentially our current society, just that CEOs don’t get huge bonuses and shareholders don’t skim company profit. so, in other words, our current world minus the stock market: every company has to emit zero profit (such that no shareholders gain from it) and all the money must instead be spent on the business itself: wages to workers and resource acquirements.
Absolutely not, communism is a classless society, socialism is the intermittent period. Shareholders or other forms of passive income are antithetical to that.
This socialist ideal of providing luxury goods to the poor masses for cheap is exactly the problem. If the world would be more capitalist, we wouldn’t subsidise the meat industries and the poor would be forced to buy beans.
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall will soon mean that an industry will stop producing said commodity. It can’t anymore if it’s unprofitable. This is where the state has to step in and start subsidizing that industry or buying the commodity themself in order to articially inflate demand in order to keep that industry afloat. See e.g. the “butter mountains” of the EU.
That wikipedia article on “The tendency of the rate of profit to fall” is a horrible introduction btw. If you want to know more you can read “Arbeitslohn und Kapital”/“Wage labour and capital” by Marx himself, much more digestible. And rather short.
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall will soon mean that an industry will stop producing said commodity. It can’t anymore if it’s unprofitable. This is where the state has to step in and start subsidizing that industry or buying the commodity themself in order to articially inflate demand in order to keep that industry afloat. See e.g. the “butter mountains” of the EU.
ahem i just so happen to be very familiar with the whole concept of the tendency of rate of profit to fall (TRPF) and you’re misunderstanding it here. it turns to be unprofitable in the sense that the profit rate approaches zero (for example, exponentially), it does not go negative! companies continue to produce stuff as long as the profit is larger than zero, which it always stays. so they continue to produce stuff indefinitely, according to the model. even though they make less and less profit with it. no state subsidizing involved here.
this is maybe a subtlety here. something can converge towards zero while also always staying positive. check out this function:
ahem I know about e-x and convergence thanks, I had some math in high school too.
I don’t know what it means for the tendency of the rate of profit to be negative (or positive, or 0 for that matter). It’s not a number. If you’re talking about the rate of profit of course that can go negative. I think what you mean is that it will be balanced out, but not as high as it was before. Here is how its explained in Wage labour and capital, emphasis mine
We have just seen how the fluctuation of supply and demand always bring the price of a commodity back to its cost of production. The actual price of a commodity, indeed, stands always above or below the cost of production; but the rise and fall reciprocally balance each other, so that, within a certain period of time, if the ebbs and flows of the industry are reckoned up together, the commodities will be exchanged for one another in accordance with their cost of production. Their price is thus determined by their cost of production.
If you want to illustrate this movement a function like cos(x)/x would be more prudent. Here is 10*cos(x)/x to make it “pop” more:
Remember that convergence doesn’t necessarily mean monotone convergence, and you’ll be hard pressed to find a monotone graph in economics 😄 Here is a more illustrive graph for TRPF
You also say that “companies continue to produce stuff as long as the profit is larger than zero, which it always stays” which is absolutely false! A companies profit absolutely can be zero, or even negative! Remember profit = m - m’, where m’ is the money you have after selling the commodity. Or in more plain words, if you have less money after selling than before producing you made negative profit. If you didn’t get your investment back, you didn’t make profit.
Thats the exact opposite of capitalism. Unprofitable business go bankrupt. Then their possessions and their labor force gets absorbed by other companies.
This is to align work with reality.
If politicians would artificially decide what companies to keep someone would have to pay for their mistakes. Markets are much better at this (just read “the use of knowledge in society” by Friedrich von Hayek)
Just like the suffering of animals is unnecessary to feed the planet, we now have to pay for the costs of climate change, because people want to life in a socialist fantasy.
Ok so unprofitable businesses keep going bankrupt, get gobbled up by a bigger corporation until one corporation has a monopoly. That’s the trend we’re seeing right? How many corporations for food are there left now? Nestle, Unilever, Coca Cola, Mondelez and that’s pretty much it right? Well what happens when the tendency of the rate of the profit to fall forces them to no longer produce food. Do we just go extinct?
This (in case of the “butter mountains” and in general) isn’t some politicians deciding which companies to keep, this is the state intervening to save itself. They have to prop up an entire industry that cannot reduce costs any further which means that the price keeps fluctuating around 0 profit which means the entire industry goes extinct. That’s why there is a fixed price on milk, not to save some companies, but to prop up the entire industry. Capitalism will devolve sooner or later into state planning since without this state intervention industries start collapsing.
Could you imagine the ramification of the entire dairy industry dying out? (😸) The economy would go haywire, entire villages depend on their dairy farming, they would revolt it would be pandemonium. This is where capitalism finally leads.
Veganism is simply not taking part in animal suffering, you’re thinking of “animal liberation” which is the active part.
And yes one way to reduce animal suffering is to leverage basic market laws about supply and demand. But buying and selling isn’t capitalism. People in every socialist nation ever have bought and sold stuff, and when stuff wasn’t in demand the supply reacted accordingly. If you want an introductory book I can recommend some (earnest, not trying to be mean, it just seems like you don’t know the definition of the terms you’re using).
But there is also direct action, adoption of rescued animals and maybe some other stuff I can’t remember right now that people that take part in animal liberation do.
Buying and selling with a currency is capitalism. If I would just get a meal ticket from the communist party, I might trade away more of my belongings, but thats not the same market vegans try to address.
This is not how communism works, how any socialist society operates, I’m sorry but you’ve completely fallen for the propaganda and are living outside of reality.
The fact that “Buying and selling with a currency” is not capitalism is also very clear from the fact that we were buying and selling with a currency under feudalism, under slavery, currency predates capitalism by millenia.
Sure you can make that argument under capitalism, where people are deprived of the value their labor created in order to force them to work more so they may survive. Hence why people should strive for communism. If everyone lived vegan people would be compelled to work as they are able in order to not cause undue burden on others, which again would not be vegan.
“From each according to their ability to each according to their need.”
Would not be vegan. Are you starting a religion?
i don’t quite get your last sentence. what if the person themselves doesn’t want to work?
If the person doesn’t want to work how will they sustain themselves? They have to rely on other peoples labor without contributing their own. If people don’t want to subsidize someone else then that person would either have to start working “against their will” or take other peoples labor without consent, which you have already pointed out, is not vegan. So if everyone were vegan that person would be compelled to work as they are able in order to be able to remain vegan.
Idk its kinda tortured logic when spelling it all out lol
Nature compells us to work for food anyway, that’s not exploitation and coercion, that’s just survival.
The construct of society is predicated on the idea of “from each… to each…” That saying often gets conflated with left-wing politics, but that’s just the point of animals (humans included) grouping together; after all, what’s the point of living in society if it doesn’t convey any benefits to the individual that they could not provide for themselves? That would be exploitative of the individual. But if they are benefitting, then it is only fair and just to also give back to the society one extracts benefits from, otherwise it is exploitative of the others.
Put another way: no one should be obligated to participate in society, but then society should likewise have no obligations to the non-participants.
funnily enough, that is exactly what capitalism postulates. that those who don’t work, don’t deserve to eat. “useless eaters” and all that, my mother can (sadly) give you a long and stern lecture about that (she is very much what you would call a “conservative”).
capitalism re-formulates that by saying that you need money to buy food, but to get that money, you have to work. in other words, who doesn’t work, doesn’t get food. that’s why many people say it’s cruel and inhumane because it makes people suffer who don’t work. and that’s exactly why we have things such as social safety nets etc. where the state gives money to people sothat they can buy basic stuff with it if they are poor. because society at large revolts against the concept of “who doesn’t work, shouldn’t eat”. or at least that’s how it is in most (civilized) countries, except of course in america people don’t always see things that way.
Well yes and no. I guess it comes down to how you define participation in society. Capitalism only accepts production of commodities, whereas I meant it in a more broad sense. E.g. non-monetized hobbies are classified as entirely consumptive behaviors by capitalist societies, but if you look at the benefits conveyed by an open-source, volunteer project like lemmy you quickly see how much of a misclassification that is.
Even not in the extreme there are broad misclassifications under capitalism. You bring up the example of those of us on welfare; capitalists might agree with you that they are non-participants, whereas I don’t think it’s illogical to claim that services like raising children or advocating for change or community-building or maintaining a home or even just providing emotional support are ways that people contribute to and participate in society. I’d even go so far as to boldly claim that welfare is simply the way the bourgeois convey wages to such people, and then they have the gall to propagandize it as charity to make themselves look better, while simultaneously vilifying this subset of the working class
Not all of us ahem bourgeoisie ahem
of course, however what makes a societies differ is exactly what gets filled in to the “…”
“from each slave to each slavemaster” -> slavery
“from each serf to each lord” -> feudalism
“from each worker to each owner” -> capitalism
“from each person (according to their ability) to each person (according to their need)” -> socialism 😄
I meant moreso that it compels us outside of the structure of a society, which also precludes any social classes. One cannot be bourgeois if one does not live amongst others whom they can subjugate.
Ha! I was trying to refer to the idiom without being verbose, not leaving those blanks as variables.
I guess my take is that what determines a society is more how “ability” and “need” are defines, that way the social structure is not oversimplified to a single one-sided relationship. E.g. a feudalist would claim the serfs need protection from thieves and bandits, and a lord has the ability to provide such protection; the lord, conversely, needs grain and the serfs have the ability to farm it
This comment got a bit away from me lol, I just love talking about marxism too much I guess 😁 Please do tell me if it’s just too long for you to read or doesnt make sense or whatever.
A society is defined by how it produces and survives. When we talk about an “agrarian society” or “nomad society”, “hunter gatherers” etc. we talk about how a group of people produced food. When we talk about slave or feudal or capitalist society we talk about the relationships that people enter into in order to produce. It is not possible to work, or be compelled to work outside of society. Until we have socialism nothing compels us to work outside of social classes. I wouldn’t be working if my bourgeois didn’t compel me to. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
The great leaps in society have all been defined by changes in how we produce which compelled us to reorganise ourselves. Once we learned to domesticate wheat we stopped wandering and settled. We learned to make stone, bronze, iron tools and every time society was restructured. The steam engine revolutionized (literally!) our whole society since suddenly the work had to be divided into smaller parts. No longer could one laborer own all the tools required for their work themselves, they had become too expensive. The spinstress on the farm could no longer compete with the machines and so people began migrating to the cities since that is where the work was. This gave rise to the merchant class who became more powerful the more they gained control over the means of production until they overthrew feudal society for a more liberal approach at organising production. But as the wealth and control is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, as the petite bourgeois “middle class” shrinks and is thrown into the proletariat we will soon have to reorganise our society again. Especially since the global south is starting to band together and awakens as to where their oppression comes from. What will we do without our cheap labor?
“One cannot be bourgeois if one does not live amongst others whom they can subjugate” indeed! Now you’re thinking in dialectics 😁 We define social classes in terms of eachother and liberation of one is done by abolishing the other. There are no slaves if there are no slaveowners which is why people fought the slaveowners in order to free the slaves. No serfs where there is no nobility and no proletariat (employees) where there are no employers (bourgeoisie).
My point was that you took out the most salient part of that quote. That communism is defined not by social classes but by “ability” and “need” is its defining characteristic. Because at the moment people are not getting what they “need” but rather what they “earn” which in the best of cases matches up, but does not always (or indeed not often, if we look at most capitalist societies currently in existence). And what they “earn” is defined by the contract they entered into with their employers. This means that the laborer wants to maximise what they sell their labor power for, whereas the employer wants to minimise what they buy the labor power with. This is what is called a contradiction in dialectics.
These contradictions are how we define social classes and the resolvement of these contradictions (their “synthesis”) is what we are most interested in. The merchant class and the feudal class for instance were marked by the contradiction that the merchants wanted to be able to sell to whomever they pleased (they wanted a free market), whereas the feudal class wanted to amass without having to buy. Whoever was under their jurisdiction had to give them a share, was taxed simply for being within their jurisdiction. Which differs from taxes today which have to justified by how they are necessary for the survival of the government and the state. The lords didn’t need such a justification, “my land my rules”. This contradiction came to a head and got resolved by the abolishment of the feudal class (or at least by bringing it to heel and under the rule of the bourgeoisie). The synthesis of feudal society was a capitalist one.
Yes! Welcome to dialectics!! It is indeed not a one-sided relationship! The employer needs our work and we need access to the means of production! This mutual need is how capitalism operates.
ok so what you’re describing here is that …
secondly, it seems to me that the point that “bourgeoisie” doesn’t work is a big problem to you. mind explaining why? is it because society desperately needs that 1% extra labor output? is it because of some “work is a moral must” mindset (quasi-religious)? is it for some other reason?
thirdly, it seems to me that you’re defining
communismsocialism as essentially our current society, just that CEOs don’t get huge bonuses and shareholders don’t skim company profit. so, in other words, our current world minus the stock market: every company has to emit zero profit (such that no shareholders gain from it) and all the money must instead be spent on the business itself: wages to workers and resource acquirements.did i understand that correctly? would you add anything? do you think that this setup is already feasible in today’s legal framework through worker-owned businesses? (“co-ops” and what they’re called)
I didn’t mean to be curt with my other reply I hope it didn’t come across that way, I just don’t know what you mean by most of your questions. So I will answer as best as I understand them
The process by which we produce the things that keep us alive, how we work, define how we relate to one another and how society is structured. The relation between slave and slavemaster, serf and lord, employee and employer are fundamentally different and shape all of society. Society at it’s core is defined by it’s mode of production. In that sense “labor” is indeed what my worldview revolves around, but I wouldn’t say it’s a constant. How we labor and what we do constantly changes. Whether we will eventually have a “fully automated luxury society”, I don’t know. Luxury is having a very comfortable life (relative to others) and what we consider comfortable and how we enjoy things is again defined by society around us so I’d say no, or it depends on what you compare luxury with since it’s a relative term.
We already live in a luxury society compared to even 100 years ago. Even once we are able to do it without oppressing the global south I don’t think our quality of life would significantly diminish. The reason we don’t consider having comfortable transportation, (theoretically) good healthcare, the sheer wealth of information we can access in instant with a rectangle we carry around or our multi-roomed homes with running hot water, a fridge, washing machine and dishwasher a luxury is because everyone has them. To the average laborer from 100 years ago however these things would surely look like a “fully automated luxury society”. Imagine being able to access a whole library from a single portable device and just print whatever you want?? 🤯
Fully automated is also too nebulous a term for me, presumably we will still cook our own food, raise our own kids what I would consider inevitable is how we relate to our labor and how we perceive it. For instance people might do gardening where they raise crops as a fun neighborhood activity, where everyone is welcome to pluck the crop as they need or wish. This is for instance very common in Viet Nam. Farming communes were already wide-spread before sanctions and capital reimposing itself on society forced them to introduce companies again.
It’s not so much that the bourgeoisie doesn’t work. It’s that they are parasitic on others labor. They take without consent. That’s my main issue. “From each according to their ability…” is not a call to make everyone work as much as possible but rather a call to share what we can.
Absolutely not, communism is a classless society, socialism is the intermittent period. Shareholders or other forms of passive income are antithetical to that.
no, I’m a marxist and leninist, not a social democrat
what you’re describing is just capitalism with extra steps
This socialist ideal of providing luxury goods to the poor masses for cheap is exactly the problem. If the world would be more capitalist, we wouldn’t subsidise the meat industries and the poor would be forced to buy beans.
not necessarily, very abridged version:
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall will soon mean that an industry will stop producing said commodity. It can’t anymore if it’s unprofitable. This is where the state has to step in and start subsidizing that industry or buying the commodity themself in order to articially inflate demand in order to keep that industry afloat. See e.g. the “butter mountains” of the EU.
That wikipedia article on “The tendency of the rate of profit to fall” is a horrible introduction btw. If you want to know more you can read “Arbeitslohn und Kapital”/“Wage labour and capital” by Marx himself, much more digestible. And rather short.
ahem i just so happen to be very familiar with the whole concept of the tendency of rate of profit to fall (TRPF) and you’re misunderstanding it here. it turns to be unprofitable in the sense that the profit rate approaches zero (for example, exponentially), it does not go negative! companies continue to produce stuff as long as the profit is larger than zero, which it always stays. so they continue to produce stuff indefinitely, according to the model. even though they make less and less profit with it. no state subsidizing involved here.
this is maybe a subtlety here. something can converge towards zero while also always staying positive. check out this function:
ahem I know about e-x and convergence thanks, I had some math in high school too.
I don’t know what it means for the tendency of the rate of profit to be negative (or positive, or 0 for that matter). It’s not a number. If you’re talking about the rate of profit of course that can go negative. I think what you mean is that it will be balanced out, but not as high as it was before. Here is how its explained in Wage labour and capital, emphasis mine
If you want to illustrate this movement a function like cos(x)/x would be more prudent. Here is 10*cos(x)/x to make it “pop” more:
Remember that convergence doesn’t necessarily mean monotone convergence, and you’ll be hard pressed to find a monotone graph in economics 😄 Here is a more illustrive graph for TRPF
You also say that “companies continue to produce stuff as long as the profit is larger than zero, which it always stays” which is absolutely false! A companies profit absolutely can be zero, or even negative! Remember profit = m - m’, where m’ is the money you have after selling the commodity. Or in more plain words, if you have less money after selling than before producing you made negative profit. If you didn’t get your investment back, you didn’t make profit.
yeah ok, i didn’t mean to belittle you by explaining convergence and such, it’s just that i wasn’t sure what level of math education you got.
Sorry maybe I overreacted, it just felt condescending, no hard feelings I hope
Thats the exact opposite of capitalism. Unprofitable business go bankrupt. Then their possessions and their labor force gets absorbed by other companies.
This is to align work with reality.
If politicians would artificially decide what companies to keep someone would have to pay for their mistakes. Markets are much better at this (just read “the use of knowledge in society” by Friedrich von Hayek)
Just like the suffering of animals is unnecessary to feed the planet, we now have to pay for the costs of climate change, because people want to life in a socialist fantasy.
Ok so unprofitable businesses keep going bankrupt, get gobbled up by a bigger corporation until one corporation has a monopoly. That’s the trend we’re seeing right? How many corporations for food are there left now? Nestle, Unilever, Coca Cola, Mondelez and that’s pretty much it right? Well what happens when the tendency of the rate of the profit to fall forces them to no longer produce food. Do we just go extinct?
This (in case of the “butter mountains” and in general) isn’t some politicians deciding which companies to keep, this is the state intervening to save itself. They have to prop up an entire industry that cannot reduce costs any further which means that the price keeps fluctuating around 0 profit which means the entire industry goes extinct. That’s why there is a fixed price on milk, not to save some companies, but to prop up the entire industry. Capitalism will devolve sooner or later into state planning since without this state intervention industries start collapsing.
Could you imagine the ramification of the entire dairy industry dying out? (😸) The economy would go haywire, entire villages depend on their dairy farming, they would revolt it would be pandemonium. This is where capitalism finally leads.
Veganism is extremely capitalistic, because it relies on supply and demand to change the amount of animal suffering that is/was produced.
Veganism is simply not taking part in animal suffering, you’re thinking of “animal liberation” which is the active part.
And yes one way to reduce animal suffering is to leverage basic market laws about supply and demand. But buying and selling isn’t capitalism. People in every socialist nation ever have bought and sold stuff, and when stuff wasn’t in demand the supply reacted accordingly. If you want an introductory book I can recommend some (earnest, not trying to be mean, it just seems like you don’t know the definition of the terms you’re using).
But there is also direct action, adoption of rescued animals and maybe some other stuff I can’t remember right now that people that take part in animal liberation do.
Buying and selling with a currency is capitalism. If I would just get a meal ticket from the communist party, I might trade away more of my belongings, but thats not the same market vegans try to address.
This is not how communism works, how any socialist society operates, I’m sorry but you’ve completely fallen for the propaganda and are living outside of reality.
The fact that “Buying and selling with a currency” is not capitalism is also very clear from the fact that we were buying and selling with a currency under feudalism, under slavery, currency predates capitalism by millenia.