this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
1519 points (97.6% liked)
Political Memes
5510 readers
3187 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow 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
view the rest of the comments
no the risk of losing money. are you talking a system where money does not exist as a means of trade?
If a Capitalist loses money, they risk becoming a Worker like everyone else.
if a worker loses money they risk becoming a poorer worker. is the worked paid? do they have money? what level of money makes one a capitalist? in your world. I had someone else come along with similar concerns but they seemed to just be talking about corporations which I kinda get then but commerce happens on all levels.
Workers work for wages, Capitalists recieve profits off of ownership. This isn't "my" world, this is the world.
so workers do not own anything they make profit off of? Like a car they use to do uber rides? in this world. that is what you think? you think that is reality?
Uber drivers are gig workers, and firmly in the Proletariat. They ultimately use and depend on Uber's infrastructure and Capital. Owning a car for personal use and also using it for your job you work for a wage for does not mean you profit off of ownership in the manner a Capitalist profits off the work of others.
This is, in fact, reality.
Ill accept it for the arguments sake. How about a homeowner that rents out a room and they only advertised with a sign in the window they bought themselves. They also have a job keep in mind. The rent from the room does not exactly pay all their needs it just offsets the mortgage. Are they workers?
Petite bourgeoisie. Capitalists that do not drive enough income to survive without working. It's a bit muddier than this, with respect to their personal job their power dynamic is clearly Proletarian, but they are attempting to escape that dynamic and become full bourgeois via landlording.
ok. so if they did not rent the room and the would be tenant stays homeless then they are good workers or whatever foreign word you use for them. so bad if the one guy has a roof over his head but good if he does not?
I am not making a moral judgement on what happens within Capitalism, I am stating that Capitalism itself should be replaced with a collectively owned system. Microcosms do not represent the system as a whole, nor represent the average.
In a better scenario, landlording would not need to be a necessary evil to give this person a home, when public housing can be an option.
yeah this is much bigger topic and I doubt I would change your mind on that level. For myself I have never seen any indication that would work but also for extreme capitalism (old libertarian thought although as a movement its way away from its roots) and believe elements of both make a good society. We have way to much private ownership right now though and way to little publically ownership so I would be in favor of more changes toward your paradise but if its all or nothing then I would be against them.
Why? In what manner is Private Ownership better, at a systemic level?
Well one. Its worked and has been shown to work and work well provided its limited and regulated. I like having my own room. Going further I like having my own home. If I could I would have some property. This is space where no one else is allowed to be except by my permission. That in a nutshell is what private ownership is. Its things that other people are not allowed to use except by the owners permission. If your allowing that but not calling it private ownership you are fooling yourself as that is what that is.
Define "worked" and "works well." Disparity is rising, safety nets are eroding, wages are stagnating with respect to productivity, people are homeless despite a surplus of houses and people starve despite a surplus of food. It does not work for anyone except the wealthy.
You can own a home for personal use in Socialism, you just can't be a landlord. That is Personal Ownership, not Private Ownership, you aren't seeking an income from the labor of others, justified by your ownership.
I am not fooling myself, I just know what I am talking about with respect to Socialist theory. I'm a nerd like that.
its personal ownership rather than private ownership? yup. im done.
Clearly, you never cared about learning and only wished to preserve your fragile world view.
Call it whatever the fuck you like, in Socialism you can have your own home or live in publicly owned housing.