OwenEverbinde

People's mistake is thinking fascism is an evil ideology that uses any tactics necessary to achieve its goals.

What they don't realize is that "ideology" and "tactics" need to be reversed in this statement: fascism is a cynical tactic that uses any ideology necessary to achieve its goals.

It will hate groomers on Tuesday and find grooming "the only way to raise responsible, patriotic citizens" on that same exact Tuesday, later in the afternoon.

It will hate nepotism and family connections in the same breath as it calls Ivanka "smart" for wielding her presidential clout to enrich herself.

It will defend the sanctitude of the life belonging to a fetus right up until the main threats to that fetus are poor access to medical care, financial stress leading to miscarriages, and our unsustainable car infrastructure killing off pregnant mothers right alongside every other type of person. THOSE fetuses were killed by the laws of nature of course, (and they certainly lack a level of sanctity that competes with Americans' right to be forced to drive twenty minutes to the nearest grocery store and ninety minutes to their place of employment on threat of homelessness. That "right" is inviolable.)

There's no ideology here. No utopia on the map. No belief about how to improve society. There is merely the last, dying , defiant warcry of a certain subset of corporations. A subset that profits more from maintaining underclasses than they do from providing a product to a stable society. A subset that needs to keep reminding black people that if they don't like working for dirt wages at Amazon, they can always get the police involved and die with a police officer's knee on their neck.

And the question isn't, "can our ideology defeat theirs?" Because there was never a single belief to defeat in the first place. The question here is "can democracy survive?"

And so far, it's holding up better than it did in Italy and Germay. 1930s Germany wouldn't have thrown the Patriot Front in jail. Wouldn't have convicted the Wolverine Watchmen, either. Certainly wouldn't be prosecuting the Proud Boys who showed up to Jan 6.

*whispers* I don't think he can accept that people like you are out there.

Look: I'm going to admit. Biden seemed to be the "establishment" pick (I was a Sanders supporter) and that vague, distant impression is why I didn't like him until he actually got elected and started passing his policy goals.

You might have known he was going to be doing things like passing the CHIPS Act and banning slave labor solar panel imports and ending ICE worksite immigration raids and keeping student loan payments paused.

But if you did, that's an impressive amount of political awareness. I'm genuinely not sure how one becomes that politically aware. And I think the person you're responding to might not accept that it's even possible.

What I was trying to explain is the “direct consequences of their labor” is the compensation they’re paid for providing said labor. You, as a worker, sell your labor for a price, same as any other transaction. If you will, your “sprocket” in this situation is the labor you provide.

I get that the worker is not the only reason the sprocket exists. I understand that he uses someone's else alloy-pouring lava-pitcher to pour molten steel into a sprocket cast someone else owns. Whoever owns those things and consented / instructed for them to be used in the above manner shares responsibility (might even be more responsible) for the creation of that sprocket. But the sprocket still doesn't exist until the worker poured the alloy.

The fact that the worker then didn't create a sprocket, or produce a sprocket, or cause a sprocket to exist -- is an alienating step only found in certain kinds of businesses. (And those are the kinds of businesses anti-capitalists dislike).

For example, a worker can walk into a worker co-op, pour the same kind of alloy heated in the same kind of furnace into a cast that is shaped the exact same, but the worker at this co-op (unlike the worker for the private company) has now created a sprocket.

I'm pretty sure you would agree, right? Because he co-owns the company and he had a democratic voice in the acquisition of the company's tools? He is responsible for all of the things that caused that sprocket to be created. No other factors were more involved than the worker-owner's contributions and decisions.

So even though the co-op worker did the exact same thing using the exact same kinds of machinery as the private company worker, would you agree that the sprocket (which only existed after he poured the alloy) was a direct consequence of the co-op worker's actions? (Whereas it was not a direct consequence of the private employee's actions)

Let's say:

• my bank account reads, "100 thousand"
• it costs me $5 million to build an oil rig
• your bank account reads, "$12 million"
• it costs you to $10 million to build an oil rig
  • and there's a reason: through corruption, backroom deals, and frivolous regulations, I have managed to raise your cost, but not mine

You can still build one. I still can't -- in any reasonable way -- poach whichever oil rig workers you choose to underpay. And this is true despite the fact that it's technically easier for me to build an oil rig. The only advantage you need to be above consequences for inefficient practices... is for your opponents to be too poor to afford startup costs either way.

No uneven playing field is necessary.

theoretically they could cooperate to build an oil rig and share in the returns.

United States tax dollars, in the form of DARPA grants, paid for the development of the internet. So there is precedent for extremely expensive operations to be successfully carried out under democratic control.

Also, since oil deposits are a natural resource, one could argue government ought to be involved in their collection.

I'm with J Lou. Even Marx considered capital a valid input to the production process. He just thought it was being misused.

He believed the workers should control capital democratically. He believed our current treatment of capital (what capital entitles a person to do under our current system) was destroying people's lives and hope and autonomy.

But Marx and Engels actually dedicated several paragraphs of the Communist Manifesto to explaining why capital should not be destroyed during the overthrow of the bourgeoisie -- indicating that they did believe capital to be valuable.

I see a lot of comments saying workers are not allowed to own what they produce. That their employer takes it from them. I feel this is flawed and possibly comes from a place of frustration.

That's not frustration. The viewpoint you are describing (that workers are not allowed to own what they produce) actually comes from a different definition of "capital" and "capitalism" than the one you are using. And that difference in definitions is why I created this post. And I appreciate your answer. It lets me highlight the differences in definitions and the consequences of those differences. Because in the case of capitalism, the difference in definitions are actually more important than any difference in values or priorities.

You noted that people are saying "workers aren't allowed to own what they produce in capitalism." But those people are not referring to capitalism as you have defined it.

Capital

Capital is a combination of property and money. Property being the things you own, with money being a measure of potential property you don’t yet own.

I'm sorry, but no one who disagrees with you thinks that the ability to accrue property and money deprive workers of control over what they produce. Not even Marx and Engels. Not even Mao or Stalin. Certainly, property and money can we wielded in such a way that they become capital. But until then, property and money are merely wealth.

The definition used by people like Marx and Engels -- or by the entire field of economics -- is: capital is property that allows or speeds up the production of goods. A mine. An oil rig. A McDonalds burger conveyor-belt-oven-thingy. A 3D printer. In other words, the word "capital" is about the function of the property. Not its value. A painting can cost $1,000,000 and still not become capital. Because no one will ever operate that painting to cook burgers. Or to mine ores.

Capitalism

Now "the ability to own commodity-producing property" is still not quite sufficient for a system to become "capitalism." In fact, Marx and Engels didn't want any capital to be destroyed at all in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Because even under the definition of "capital" that communists still to this day believe in, the existence of capital and ownership of it are still not inherently a source of coercion.

There's another crucial piece to the puzzle that leads to people complaining about the whole system:

In capitalism as a system, some form of employment contract always allows the owner of capital to own everything produced using that capital.

For example, the oil rig owner -- according to employment contracts -- owns all of the oil produced using the oil rig. But not only did the owner not need to work the rig to extract the oil: the owner also did not need to weld the seams or turn the screws to build the oil rig. All the owner needs is official ownership of the oil rig and a system that acknowledges their right to everything the oil rig produces, (regardless of who needed to input their labor to turn the oil rig into anything other than a metal sculpture in the ocean.) and with those two things, they are entitled to all of the proceeds of the rig.

Now, hopefully, you can see that, provided a worker has entered into such a contract, "workers are not allowed to own what they produce" is not a statement born from frustration: it's just true by definition. It's not saying "the worker is NEVER allowed to own anything they ever create in this society." It's saying: "within the relationship laid out by the employment contract, the worker who operates capital is not entitled to the direct consequences of their labor."

Now, whether the worker benefits from this arrangement is another picture, but in accepting an employment contract, the worker is entering into a dynamic where they do not own the outcome of their own labor.

Bonus Question #4

Which is why bonus question #4 (the difference between a workers' cooperative and a company that uses these employment contracts) is extremely important to understanding the consequences of the difference between these definitions. You even touched on its importance in your earlier replies, saying yourself:

If that worker is employed by a sprocket making company; they still make sprockets, but that’s not what they produce. They produce labor. Which they’ve chosen to sell to the sprocket company for money and/or other benefits

(Aside: what you're describing here is literally Marx's theory of alienation.) But more importantly,

I'm assuming the sprocket company "produces" sprockets by your definition of "produce." Well, in a workers' co-op, the workers vote in the decisions of the company. They elect the CEO (if there is one) and the managers. They take shares of the profits. They are the company. And if the workers are the company, and the company produces sprockets, then the workers are once again -- just like if they were self-employed, but with the benefits of efficiency and networking that come from being part of an organization -- producing sprockets. They are no longer (as Marx would say) alienated from the results of their labor.

In other words, the co-op is a form of self-employment according to the definitions you appear to be using. Which makes the distinction between cooperatives and other kinds of companies... massive.

The people saying, "capitalism strips workers of the results of their labor" love workers' co-ops. Love them. Despite you probably defining the workers' cooperative as "another example of capitalism", not even avowed Marxists would in any circumstance suggest that the worker co-op "disallows workers from owning what they produce." In fact, they strongly believe the opposite. To them (and to Marx himself) the worker cooperative operates under an entire opposing paradigm to the worker contract. And to them, it is therefore a rival philosophy to capitalism.

You don't have to accept their definitions. You don't need to believe Marxist definitions are correct. You can believe co-ops are capitalist all you want.

But please: try to understand that when people criticize "capitalism," they are (I 100% guarantee) referring to something far more narrow and far more specific than what you call capitalism.

Ah... good point. My description did nothing to distinguish capitalism from feudalism. There is necessity for some mention of who is allowed ownership of this form of property. (Or what is allowed ownership as is often the case.)

As for the word private though: I wanted to avoid more terms I would need to define that might obscure my definition. Also I'm not even sure what distinguishes private ownership from other kinds of ownership. Or what makes a private entity.

But thanks for the input. At some point I'll edit my definition.

It took me all day to understand this one, but that is an excellent point. We do mislabel the problem. Those employment contracts are indeed far more damaging than capital itself. Thank you for this perspective.

Oh. My apologies.

Wait! @[email protected] isn't wrong. Also, I think we are miscommunicating with pro-capitalists.

Granted, we both know capitalist propaganda labels basically everything positive about human interactions "capitalism" and then scaremongers about how "the left wants to take THIS away from you!" And that is the main source of our problems communicating with pro-capitalists.

But some responsibility (maybe 20% of the responsibility?) lies with the fact that we choose to label "capital" the problem instead of... you know... the fact that our laws and customs favor a zero-sum employment contract between capital owners and workers where there can be only one winner?

Of course the owner of more capital is always on the better side of this contract, (which is why we identified capital as the problem in the first place.) But labeling the problem "capital" makes it look like we don't see any value to capital. Which isn't true. Marx and Engels dedicated several paragraphs of their manifesto to explaining why the means of production should not be damaged, because the existence of capital leads to abundance, and the means of production is valuable. They didn't want the means destroyed: they simply wanted it democratically owned by workers' cooperatives and state socialism.

The problem is employment contracts that are part of how our society treats the individual, private ownership of capital. Not the idea that capital is a valuable contribution to the production process and deserves reward.

According to us anti-capitalists it predates capitalism. According to a good number of people, the definition of capitalism is basically... anything involving money.

Ideally, copyrights and patents would protect the small inventor and small musician. Unfortunately, wielding copyrights and patents in any useful way requires other forms of capital. (You have to have wealth in order to sue someone for infringement.)