404
There is no pro capitalist left (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/actualsocialism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
91 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think concern is placed on the wrong end, at least in terms of criticality.

I am less concerned about "maximums" right now. I know that's going to set off all kinds of alarm bells right now, but bear with me.

The two are intertwined for sure, but I'm mostly concerned with "minimums". If we had a society with Universal Basic Income, housing and Healthcare for everyone, and people had a safety net to pursue their passions, then I'm far less concerned about if someone has a billion dollars.

Again, they are both part of the same problem, but it's the focus. If billionaires were no longer allowed, and the money was re distributed amount people with 9 figure net worth already, it doesn't solve anything.

So yeah if people have the mobility to move from jobs, housing and Healthcare taken care of, and their basic needs met, I think it solves a lot of labor exploitation right away.

From there we can continue the debate, but I'm more concerned about taking care of everyone who is closer to the floor then worrying about the ceiling. I think there are capitalist ways that continue to reward actual breakthroughs and risks rather than the exploitation we have now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    I think that capitalism as we have it, but with a solid welfare state as you describe, is pretty close to my ideal society. But when I think about how such a system evolves over time in the presence of privately owned businesses, it seems to me that it is an unstable equilibrium. That is, it has an inherent tendency to break down the welfare state. I'll sketch the argument.

    The first ingredient is that the owning class has an outsized influence on politics. This happens through a number of means, including:

    • threat of capital flight ("if you pass this bill I don't like, I will take my gizmo factory abroad")
    • direct bribes / lobbying ("if you pass this bill I like, I'll give you a nice cushy job at my gizmo factory", and also campaign donations)
    • ownership of the media that completely shape the opinions of the electorate

    Through these means they can influence politicians to pass laws that benefit the owning class. Note that it is not beneficial to politicians to do something about this. This is their bread and butter.

    The next ingredient is that the welfare state as you and I would like to see it (UHC, UBI, and so on) is detrimental to the owning class. A solid welfare state means that workers have a much stronger position to negotiate from. Without UHC, refusing a crappy offer is much riskier since your health is at stake, for example. That is to say, the welfare state drives up operating costs for the owning class. As such, it is in their best interest to fight tooth and nail against the welfare state.

    Combine these two ingredients, and you see that in the presence of privately owned businesses, you eventually lose whatever kind of welfare state you had. A similar argument shows that moving towards such a welfare state from our current system is very unlikely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I would add that this isn't just speculation, it has historical precedent. The US created a powerful welfare state under FDR and it was slowly destroyed in exactly the way that you described. It's also important to note that it was racism that provided the owning class with the narrative they needed to convince the working class to support the erosion of their own welfare. The creation of the welfare state began with the compromise that the benefits would not extend to non-white Americans. When the civil rights movement successfully forced the issue and demanded that the benefits be universalized the owning class was able to ride the wave of the racist backlash all the way to a near-total rollback of the welfare state.

    Ensuring that welfare for the people lasts requires that we directly and conclusively address the underlying causes of the inequality it is meant to alleviate. We must recognize that private ownership of the means of production is the direct cause of this inequality and will always reproduce it if it is not eliminated. And finally we must also address the social causes of inequality - racism, bigotry, xenophobia, sexism, etc. - so that they cannot be used as justification for the reconstruction of a system of inequality. Alongside an economic and political revolution we also need a cultural revolution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

    If billionaires were no longer allowed, and the money was re distributed amount people with 9 figure net worth already, it doesn’t solve anything.

    How exactly does wealth redistribution not solve anything? The disparity is the problem.

    if people have the mobility to move from jobs, housing and Healthcare taken care of, and their basic needs met, I think it solves a lot of labor exploitation right away

    And how are you going to pay for that without wealth redistribution?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yes, the disparity is the problem. But it needs to actually be spread out. Things like universal health care do that inherently if they properly raise taxes on the rich.

    Redistributing wealth from the top 0.1% to the top 1% doesn't accomplish anything meaningful.

    And yes, paying for it will come from taxing the rich. None of that has to do with capitalism exclusively.

    I feel like we're after the same thing but you're more interested in attacking my idea than building something together or proposing something different. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but your questions are quite loaded and you didn't offer anything of substance yourself. The only thing you didn't deflect back to me was saying "the disparity is the problem", and that is precisely the point I was making. I'm specifically pointing out that it's about the full disparity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    I think I actually misinterpreted your original comment because of the typo in this sentence:

    If billionaires were no longer allowed, and the money was re distributed amount people with 9 figure net worth already, it doesn’t solve anything.

    (I now realize you probably meant to write "among".)

    I didn't realize you were saying, "it doesn't help if you redistribute wealth to the wrong people". And that sort of set the tone incorrectly for the rest of your comment. That materially changes how I read your comment, and I do mostly agree with your points.

    I'm not sure I agree that this isn't exclusive to capitalism though. If you impose a tax that effectively caps wealth, then you are inherently compromising one of the core tenets of capitalism: private ownership of means of production. And I'm also not sure that this type of tax even goes far enough to prevent worker exploitation, but I guess we'll see if it ever actually happens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Got it, apologies on the typo and subsequent misunderstanding.

    I think we're both after the same thing - I guess I'm just trying to get the safety net before attacking the "top" of what is reasonable.

    And I'm kind of OK with a nearly infinite top... As long as the tax rate makes sense. If you're at a 95% tax rate (and loopholes aren't rampant... Lot of ifs here) then go nuts. You'll be supplying a good life for many people, by force, as a result of good taxes and public policy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent