this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
702 points (94.8% liked)

Political Memes

4605 readers
3630 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AIhasUse 5 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

What's the most amount of resources that it should be legal to acquire?

[–] Zehzin 7 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

The answer is either "None of it" or "No more than you need", depending on how based you are.

[–] AIhasUse -4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

No personal ownership at all? If someone likes that picture you drew, then they should have as much right to it as you?

[–] Zehzin 7 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Without going into the difference between personal and private property, yes, copyright law is bullshit

[–] AIhasUse 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree that copyright is bullshit. We've been watching it get the shit kicked out of it for 20 years. I can't imagine it's got much more fight in it. I think both personal and private property will not go down nearly so easily - people really really like their special purple pants and their cozy familiar bedrooms.

[–] AngryCommieKender 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Personal property = what you own personally.

Private property = what corporations own.

Public property = what we all own, and has been privatized (outright stolen) as much as possible.

The rich go out of their way to not actually "own" most of what they have stolen. Since even they acknowledge that it's not technically theirs, outlaw corporations that aren't worker owned, or nationally owned democratic co-ops and be done with the corrupt thieves at the top. Let them get a job for once.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I might be mistaken but this is almost right

Personal property = Things you own for personal use Private property = things you own that other people use public property = things we collectively own

It's not simply 'corporations' owning things, it's the relationship of who owns the thing (and has first claim to all the benefits) and who uses the thing

[–] AngryCommieKender 1 points 4 weeks ago

Yeah, I may have oversimplified that

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Accumulation should be removed, there should be no individual Capital Owners trying to collect more and more and more.

[–] AIhasUse 4 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Can you clarify a bit more? I have enough money where I could stop working for the next 8 or 9 months if I chose. Should I be allowed to keep this?

What about my neighbor, his house is 3x the size of my wife's and mine, and he lives alone. He could sell one of his three cars and survive for a year if he had to. I'm sure he has a savings that could last him 5 years or more. How much should he be allowed to keep? Or should he just be forced to take a vacation until he gets closer to average?

Or should the cap be more around one lifetimes worth of savings?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

We are within Capitalism, so without replacing it with a better system, we cannot remove accumulation.

I am not advocating for putting a cap on accumulation in Capitalism, I am advocating for replacing the entire Capitalist system with one where accumulation is not only impossible, but unnecessary and unwanted.

[–] AIhasUse 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Capitalism will naturally burn itself out by eventually resulting in such an efficient creation mechanism that there will be no more scarcity. Maybe this mechanism won't care about preserving humanity, though, so that might suck. I suspect that trying to replace capitalism with something else would just make it continue on in a different costume so it can continue its mission.

Capitalism is juat a reflection of human nature. Not many people are genuinely interested in living in a way that isn't selfish. It is a spectrum, but have you ever met anyone who always puts the necessities of everyone one else above at least some unnecessary pleasure for themself?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Capitalism will naturally destroy itself, yes. Socialism will then be the next step.

Capitalism isn't a reflection of human nature, it has been around for less than 1% of Humanity.

[–] AIhasUse 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Medical surgery is new, but it is also a reflection of human nature, and humans desire to learn about and control their environment and to survive. In the same way, capitalism is both new and a reflection of human nature. People are just getting better at manifesting their selfish desires. If you gave a chimpanzee the option to have herself and her offspring have absurd abundance at the expense of strangers, she'd absolutely go for it. It's just an issue of selfish gene survival. The same is true of us, and every generation since our common ancestors with chimpanzees, and way before that. It is just our increasing intelligence(individual and collective from our ancestors) that has made it so common now.

Capitalism will eventually evolve into techno-socialism. Premature, pipe-dream socialism would just cause societal decay. Capitalism is the long, hard walk to a better place.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Human Nature itself is a fallacy, what is considered Human Nature changes based on environment.

Why would Socialism cause decay? Why is Capitalism a road to a better place when it results in deliberate over-exploitation of the Global South, preventing development?

[–] AIhasUse 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Changing based on the environment doesn't make human nature a fallacy. Humans want their DNA to survive like any other animal, different environments just require different strategies.

Capitalism is leading to more and more efficient methods of creation. Eventually, the methods of creation will be so efficient that everything will be free. Historically, socialism has never led to any such thing because it crushes motivation. Pretty much nobody works extremely hard their whole life just to give everything away and never enjoy the fruits of their labor. These people exist, but they are a tiny percent of the population.

The Global South is way more developed than 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, etc. They are just not as developed as the Global North, but the gap is decreasing in recent decades.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Defending a system by saying it is Human Nature is the fallacy, not saying that people want to survive.

Capitalism is making goods cheaper, and is increasing exploitation. Wealth disparity is skyrocketing.

Socialism absolutely resulted in rapid development, and retains motivation. This is entirely ahistorical.

The Global South is not developing as quickly unless they throw off the Global North, like Burkina Faso is doing. The Global North exploits the Global South to retain cheap cost of labor and make more profits.

[–] AIhasUse -1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Capitalism is the result of individuals doing whatever they can to selfishly ensure the survival of their genes. Even if it is to absurdly selfish proportions.

Maybe I am wrong about socialism. Which socialist societies have resulted in rapid development? In your opinion, are socialist societies currently leading the way in innovation and growth?

Capitalism is resulting in cheap robot labor. It is also resulting in access to equal education in the form of global internet access.

One of the major things helping the Global South and equalling the playing field is a way to escape predatory fiat currencies, Bitcoin, and as it grows, the gap decreases. Anyone who wants equality should be encouraging the expansion of Bitcoin.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

No, Capitalism is the result of the Industrial Revolution. Trade itself is not Capitalism.

The USSR and PRC, despite all of their flaws, rapidly developed. The USSR even beat the US into space, despite being a feudal backwater 50 years prior. Both countries saw an end to famines, which were common, and thus a doubling of life expectancy and a tripling in literacy rates.

Did the USSR have flaws? Absolutely, as did and does the PRC, but they face different issues than Capitalist states.

Bitcoin is a sham and does not help the Global South.

[–] AIhasUse 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

So if the USSR was advancing so rapidly, then why did capitalism end up taking over?

It's so funny, when you talk to people in the 2nd and 3rd world that have used Bitcoin to escape the predation of corrupt fiat currencies, and you ask them why they think there are 1st world people that say it is a scam. They almost always say, "Of course they do. They are losing their power." The crazy thing is, that's not why people like you call it a scam. At least, I genuinely don't think that of you. I think that to you, like many, it's just that it's complicated, you dont need it yet, and you don't have the time to understand it, so naturally you are suspicious of it. On top of that, you probably have no idea how much it's being my used to escape oppressive regimes. It's literally like telling drowning people that life rafts are a scam. People are able to feed their children thanks to the value they are saving. To them, the scam claim is hilarious.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Capitalism didn't "take over" the USSR. The USSR was destoyed from within the party, and then after dissolving the state was chopped up and sold to what we now refer to as oligarchs.

The third world does need to escape the thumb of predatory Imperialists like the IMF, but it needs to do so at a state level, not by individuals buying bitcoin.

[–] AIhasUse 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

But what you are saying is that individual drowning people don't need life rafts, they need the people who are drowning them to decide to rescue them. It's like telling people fighting in self defense that the only weapon they have is a bad choice of a weapon. It's not even a take that causes pause for thought for people that are in the middle of it, it's just like an awkwardly timed bad joke.

I understand the weird situation you are in, you've been repeatedly told that Bitcoin is a vague evil ponzi scheme, so much so that you've believed it and started repeating it. When it turns out that in the real world, it is actively helping many people, it conflicts with the narrative that you've found yourself following along with, so you feel the need to brush it aside without a concrete reason as to why.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

No, I am saying that the people need to lose their chains to run free, not just pad their chains.

[–] AIhasUse 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Hopefully it won't be too long until the robots can do everything we don't want to do and give us everything we can imagine. Until then, it is very nice to have a currency that is not controlled by chain manufacturers.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It's better to actually break the chains, or else this near-feudalism will continue.

[–] AIhasUse 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The problem isn't that people have a convenient method of facilitating trade. The issue is that people obsessed with power have a stranglehold on it. Sure, in a distant tech-utopia where robots can do everything we don't want to do, we will need no currency, but trying to get rid of currency now would just retard the process.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago

I didn't say we should get rid of currency right now. I want Socialism now.

[–] ynazuma 1 points 4 weeks ago

Yeah, everything before it has proven worse

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I think this is where capitalist understanding of capital goes into contradiction with marxist understanding of capital. I won't go over everything in Das Kapital that relates to this topic, but I'll give the short gist. Capitalism takes a very general "everything is capital" approach which means whatever money you collect is capital. Marx defined capital different to show the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system. From the point of view of money it becomes capital when you use that money for the specific purpose of making more money.

Let's say you give someone the tools to make a thing and then you pay them $40 to make that thing. You then sell that thing for $50 making $10 for yourself from that. If we imagine this as a black box, you put in $40 and you get $50. Collect until you have $80 and then you get back $100. That is capital. You do nothing but you make money and you use that money to make more money.

What isn't capital is if it costs you $40 to make something, you sell that thing for $50, you take that $10, collect until it's a million and then buy a house or something. That is not capital because that's the product of your labor and that money returns into circulation.

You're allowed to keep your money because you've earned it. Your neighbor is allowed to keep his house, his cars and all the savings assuming he did the worth to earn it. There is no actual cap beyond what you're capable of earning from your labor. I won't get into the "what if he didn't earn it" or the "Person X made billions of their own work" discussions because I'm not here for that. I'm here to give a quick explanation to your questions because we're not taught Marxism. The outcomes of Marxism comes across as very nonsensical and puzzling, when all you've been taught is capitalism. If you don't care to read Das Kapital this is a good summary where the 4-5th video starts to get into the meat of the subject

[–] AIhasUse 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Thanks for the videos.

It would be amazing if there really was a black box that could guarantee $40 in and $50 out! Sign me up, lol! As it is, the best capitalism has done is ($40 and research in) and (a chance at $50 out). If that first box existed, then everyone would use it. Many people think it exists, and then they are confused when the box just eats their money. That's because they naively neglected the research input and didn't realise that it was only ever a chance at $50.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It does exist, it's called being the owner of a company or in modern times, being an investor.

From Marxs critique those people were factory owners. The factory made X amount of money and the owner chose how it gets split between him and the workers. The factory owners only input in the labor process is owning the tools, they themselves don't put any labor into what the factory produces.

In modern times you still see the same thing in some companies that are big enough that the owner doesn't do any work but small enough to not be publicly traded (obviously with some exceptions like Valve corporation), but usually the "owner" is replaced by a board of investors. The investors don't do any actual work, their input is cash and in return they get more cash back. And what's the requirement to be an investor? To already have a large amount of money. That's why everyone can't do, because they don't have that kind of money and they never will.

This is why leftists are against billionaires and such, because they're essentially leeches. The vast majority if not all of them didn't earn that money, their wealth comes from the collective pocket of the workers like you and me. We do the work, we make the money and they take a part of it because they own our workplace.

[–] AIhasUse 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you think that everyone who starts a business or invests in companies is guaranteed to make a profit? I don't think so, but I have no idea what percent end up profitable. It seems like a big gamble to me, so I can't help but wonder if the ones that we see and pay attention to just so happened to be the ones that either chose really well or got really lucky. I have no idea which is more common.

I do know that there are a shitton of trust fund kids that don't end up as billionaires. If it really was just as simple as having "lots" of money automatically gets you way more money, then it seems like there would be a runaway affect where there would just have to be more and more money created at a faster and faster rate in order to keep paying off all these rich people and their black boxes. There is something about that that doesn't seem quite right to me, like just on a mathematical level, doesn't it seem like the amount of money in existence would have to be going up exponentially in order for this story to be true?

I don't know, I'm not an economist, it's just that something feels a bit off to me in this narrative.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you think that everyone who starts a business or invests in companies is guaranteed to make a profit? I don’t think so, but I have no idea what percent end up profitable. It seems like a big gamble to me, so I can’t help but wonder if the ones that we see and pay attention to just so happened to be the ones that either chose really well or got really lucky. I have no idea which is more common.

There are no guarantees in life. There's no guarantee that working for a company gets you paid either, the company could go bankrupt and all you have is a claim for unpaid work. And in that sense anyone who starts a business isn't likely to make a profit. Anyone investing, there are very safe investments that are essentially guaranteed to make money. If you want an easy example I'm sure your bank is happy to take your money, invest it, take the risk, and guarantee you something like a 2% payout on your money. My rainy day fund is currently invested by bank on a guaranteed 4% return to combat the inflation. Unless you're investing irresponsibly or with a very high risk it's as close to a guarantee to make money.

I do know that there are a shitton of trust fund kids that don’t end up as billionaires. If it really was just as simple as having “lots” of money automatically gets you way more money, then it seems like there would be a runaway affect where there would just have to be more and more money created at a faster and faster rate in order to keep paying off all these rich people and their black boxes. There is something about that that doesn’t seem quite right to me, like just on a mathematical level, doesn’t it seem like the amount of money in existence would have to be going up exponentially in order for this story to be true?

It's not about becoming a billionaire. Billionaire is a blanket term some people use to refer to the ultrawealthy. They don't need to be billionaires, they just need to be wealthy enough live off of investment returns. If I had 10 mil at hand I'd consider myself ultrawealthy, because I've done the math and if I invested that much money into a relatively safe investment I could spend the rest of my life living off the investment returns. I'd be set for life. And remember, 10 million is still more than 900 million away from a billionaire. At about 20 mil I'd be getting more from my investment returns than I do at my actual job, but I live in a relatively cheap area.

don't know where you're from so I'll use America as an example. 20 million at a 4% return in a year (which is what my bank gives me) is 80k a year. The average annual wage in the US in 2022 was 77k. Minus taxes at 20 mil on a 4% return you'll make just below what the average american makes, without doing anything. You can do a similar calculation for your country. Find out what's the safest maximum rate your bank provides (that will be the floor of how much you'd make investing), find out what's the annual average wage in your country (or better yet, use your own wage), find the tax rate, throw them all together and see how many millions you'd need to live the rest of your life without ever needing to work. From there you get a relatively good idea how much money you'd need for that runaway effect, where you can do pretty much whatever and you'll just keep getting richer. And if you to the calculation, maybe for you that number is 100 million. That's still 900 million away from a billionaire, just to remind you of how obsenely wealthy billionaires are.

[–] AIhasUse 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

That's really interesting. Thanks for taking the time to lay it all out like that. In the US, inflation is currently at 3.36% according to a quick search. Doesn't that mean that in order to actually be profiting 4% in terms of actual wealth gained, I would need to find a reliable investment that is paying out 7.36%? Or am I making some sort of error here?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago

I guess that's up to you how accurate you want to go with your calculations. If you also want to account for inflation go for it. I didn't account for inflation because I originally did the calculation out of interest to see if I was just safe investing at 4% how much money I'd need to cover my current expenses. Once I got the number I wasn't interest in going more specific because I instantly realized it would be effectively impossible for me to make that much money. For me that number was enough to get the ballpark of what it would mean to be the ultrawealthy, I wasn't looking for a specific threshold.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

You're assuming that all possible future economic systems would have to work the same way as our current one. Even in the current one eg. taxation could be used to limit wealth after some arbitrary amount of millions owned, but note that I'm not advocating for this, just illustrating the point

[–] AIhasUse 1 points 4 weeks ago

I assumed you meant we should be taxing people who make too much money or just not allowing them to acquire more resources. Although this stuff is easily beaten since the people who enforce the taxes are the puppets of actually powerful people who have lots of wealth. I was just curious where you thought that line should be.

I think the actual future will be much more like an AI-powered hippy commune where money is mostly just found in history lessons. Maybe the most powerful people/entities will have something like money in their negotiations, but not the average person. I think this will naturally come about as a result of our current system.

[–] damnedfurry -2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Good luck trying to enforce "this thing you purchased cannot under any circumstances appreciate in value", lol

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago

Why would I? I am talking about implementing Socialism, not simply trying to achieve Socialism within Capitalism.