this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
290 points (90.5% liked)
Leftism
2184 readers
38 users here now
Our goal is to be the one stop shop for leftism here at lemmy.world! We welcome anyone with beliefs ranging from SocDemocracy to Anarchism to post, discuss, and interact with our community. We are a democratic community, and as such, welcome metaposts that seek to amend the rules through consensus. Post articles, videos, questions, analysis and more. As long as it's leftist, it's welcome here!
Rules:
- Absolutely no fascism, right wing extremism, genocide denial, etc.
- Unconditional support of authoritarians will not be tolerated
- Good faith discussion about ideologies is encouraged, but no sectarianism
- No brocialism/sexism
- No ableism
- No TERFs/ anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric
- No racism
- No trolling
- No insults, dunking, or personal attacks
- No posting of misinformation, disinformation, or fake news
- Mods have final say
Posting Expectations:
- Comics/memes/shitposts/propaganda are only allowed on weekends
- Try to avoid liberalism unless discussing electoral politics. Even then, try to focus on tactical agreement towards leftist goals
- Only one meta post seeking consensus per person per day
- Posts about a particular ideology are ok, but remember the rules above
- Remember that there is no “right way” to implement leftist theory. This rule does not prevent academic criticism.
- Try to avoid extremely sensitive topics unless approaching them with appropriate care for intersectionality. Use your best judgement, and be prepared to provide respectable sources when having these discussions. Wikipedia is not an acceptable source in these cases.
- Post titles must be meaningful and relevant, except on weekends
Sister Communities:
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Solarpunk memes [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not a fan of the modern version, it's way too visually busy for my tastes. Thanks for the link though, I knew it was from the greatest era of the IWW, but I didn't think it was that old
I agree that it's a bit much visually, I think the original format of it was a pretty big poster which makes it easier to take in, but I think the added detail is worth the slight visual clutter. It could always be more nuanced of course, but the point of an infographic is to get the basics across, not teach an entire doctrine..
The simple version may be most effective for a general audience not necessarily familiar with the concepts. The additional detail may be valuable for someone already having developed sympathies or curiosity with respect to the theme.
That's considerably worse than the original.
Hey! I just took a picture of this at the MOHAI and was going to share it on Lemmy, but couldn't figure out where I should share it. Is that where you got this picture?
Nope I just found this online, but I've seen it many times. It actually originated from a union called the International Workers of the World before world war 1
Yup! I saw one of the originals at the Museum of History and Industry in Seattle a few months ago. I tried to upload it right now, but it won't let me for some reason.
While it’s true that an oligarchical government can emerge in certain circumstances, it’s not necessarily the direct result of well-regulated capitalism. Capitalism, as an economic system, focuses on private ownership, free markets, and competition. The emergence of an oligarchy often has more to do with how political power is distributed and regulated within a society.
In a well-regulated capitalist system, there are mechanisms in place to ensure fair competition, prevent monopolies, and promote economic opportunity for all. These regulations are intended to create a level playing field and minimize the concentration of wealth and power.
When an oligarchy forms, it’s usually due to deficiencies in the political and regulatory aspects of a society, such as campaign finance laws, lobbying influence, or corruption within the political system. Oligarchies can occur in various types of economic systems, not just capitalism.
So, while capitalism and oligarchy can coexist, they are distinct concepts. The presence of an oligarchy is often more a reflection of the effectiveness of a country’s political and regulatory institutions than a direct result of capitalism itself.
Also, capitalism and religion can intersect, capitalism itself is an economic system, and the extent to which religion plays a role in it can vary widely across different societies and individuals. Whether or not religion is being used to manipulate the masses is a matter of political and social analysis and should be considered separately from the economic system of capitalism.
I love the nuanced, good faith engagement; however I'd disagree on one small aspect. The goals of capitalism and the goals of government are diametrically opposed. Free market competition also has to be propped up by government, because the end result of competition is one winner (monopoly) and a multitude of losers (failed/acquired companies). This incentivizes business executives to influence government to break down regulations. Oligarchy is capitalism working perfectly, not a failure.
The comment may represent good faith from the standpoint of its author, but worth noting is that fallacious premises, often ones widely proliferated, tend to sneak their way into discussions.
From left-liberal rhetoric, we are now accustomed to phrasings akin to that of "well-regulated capitalism". Such appeals to purity simply misdirect substantive analysis away from the true causes for the outcomes they claim to antagonize.
It may seem pleasant to assert the possibility of a capitalism in some ideal form, somehow absolved of the indictments directed at its true manifestation, but doing so is only avoiding the deeper and essential structural criticism.
I listed clear policy steps that can be taken to ensure a fairer system. This definitely doesn’t seem fallacious.
Your response sidesteps the objection.
No particular policy would overcome the fallacy in your argument, because any failure of some particular capitalist society could be dismissed as attributable to improper regulations, instead of to intractable dysfunction of the system at large, of capitalism itself.
Coming to your argument about policy, you have not responded to my concerns.
Regulation, including antitrust laws, is not something separate from capitalism but rather a component of it. To ensure fair competition and prevent monopolistic practices that could stifle competition, governments often enact regulations like antitrust laws. These laws aim to maintain a level playing field and protect consumers from monopolies or anti-competitive behavior. So, regulation is a tool used within the framework of capitalism to promote competition and prevent abuses of market power.
I can provide you with a detailed list of ways that government can reform to protect itself from the rich and corporate entities breaking down these regulatory systems. This list does include throwing away capitalism.
While it’s true that an oligarchical government can emerge in certain circumstances …
It tends to emerge in most circumstances, and avoiding it requires constant and vigorous opposition from the state and the public.
The presence of an oligarchy is often more a reflection of the effectiveness of a country’s political and regulatory institutions than a direct result of capitalism itself.
However, it would be extremely naive to think that economic power does not bring with it a significant amount of political and regulatory power, not to mention cultural power (e.g. through ownership of the media) and the support of the local religions.
I would suggest the framing that avoiding the worst expressions of oligarchy requires vigorous opposition from the public, including through an organized public leveraging state power toward its own favor and against the oligarchs.
Agreed. The state can be a force for good or for harm. In the worst cases, the state can even act as an arm of those in power.
Well, ultimately the state is the structure of greatest power, and power functions above all else to reproduce itself despite whatever harm it may inflict on the disempowered. Therefore, the power of the state, and the remainder of society, who are disempowered by the state, have mutually antagonistic interests.
The powerful outside the state, by their power, have more power over the state, and therefore the state is never neutral, but rather an organ of empowerment for the powerful.
Ultimately oligarchy produces the state and the state produces oligarchy. They are one in the same, as a class, the oligarchs, the rulership, the owners, the corporations, the shareholders, the landlords, the politicians, the bosses, the fat cats, the bourgeoisie, are all the same as a class.
The base of the population may seek to utilize the state toward its own interests, but can never benefit from the occurrence of the state, only struggle against it.
The disempowered as class may only gain power by abolishing power.
Power protects itself, not the disempowered.
Instead of seeking to eliminate the super-rich, which would involve extreme measures and likely lead to societal instability, most societies focus on implementing measures to ensure that wealth and power are not concentrated to the detriment of the broader population. This typically involves implementing policies and regulations that promote economic fairness, reduce income and wealth inequality, and prevent the undue influence of the super-rich in politics and governance.
Efforts to address income and wealth inequality often include measures such as progressive taxation, social safety nets, education and workforce development programs, and policies that promote fair competition and economic opportunity for all. The aim is to strike a balance where individuals can accumulate wealth through entrepreneurship and hard work but within a framework that prevents extreme disparities and ensures that the benefits of economic growth are broadly shared.
Eliminating the super-rich as a goal is not compatible with democratic principles and the rule of law, which protect individual rights and freedoms. Instead, societies strive to create a fair and just system that allows for wealth creation while preventing abuses of power and wealth concentration.
A handful of individuals owning the entire world is against democracy and is creating instability. They write the policies they prefer, and ignore the rest.
You seem to regard the state as some kind of transcendental or otherworldly power, above and beyond the control over the material basis of society wielded through the construct of private property.
Eliminating the super-rich as a goal is not compatible with democratic principles and the rule of law, which protect individual rights and freedoms.
What type of elimination are we talking about here? Jail? Exile? Execution? Or just having their excess wealth taken away, so they are no longer super-rich?
Being extremely wealthy is, by itself, not a crime. But it would not be unreasonable to tax all income (or even wealth) above a large threshold at 50%, or even 90%. This would 'eliminate' the super-rich while not physically harming or punishing them.
Capitalism, as an economic system, focuses on private ownership... The emergence of an oligarchy often has more to do with how political power is distributed and regulated...
Ownership of private property is political power, and always has been.
Liberal society is sustained by the fiction that economic power is separate and distinct from political power, even while no society ever has occurred in history, nor possibly could be formed, following such an ideal.