What are the contradictions of capitalism?
What are the contradictions of capitalism?
Other urls found in this thread:
it sucks but people still support it
i want more moni
my boss want more moni
fug who gets the moni
The socialized character of production and the private appropriation by capitalists
The antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat
Capitalists want to make as much money as possible and pay the lowest wages possible, workers want enough to get by comfortably
companies have to innovate and adopt new technology to compete, which means more automation
more automation means that the workers job is replaced by machines
with no jobs the worker doesn't have enough money to buy the companies product
without a consumer base the company can't make money
capitalists can try and delay this process in all sorts of different ways but they're just delaying the inevitable. this is literally part of the reason why you keep seeing headlines about millennial "killing" businesses
There are loads and loads. Some examples:
It's important to understand that the "contradictions" are not strictly logical contradictions like saying A =/= A. The idea of contradictions within a system is inhereted from Hegel's method, which was used to examine ideology. Marx applied Hegel's method to material relationships and kept a lot of terminology. The "contradictions" of capitalism are internal conflicts that cause instability in the system as it's pulled in different directions. Liberals tend to contextualize inner conflict as "balance of powers" or "checks and balances."
3rd positionist here, there are contradictions in marxism too that prevents me from accepting its doctrine
If your economic model requires working class solidarity, isn't there ample incentive to defect? Marxists are correct that capitalism is a fragile system, pulled apart by too many conflicting interests, and many economists actually agree with this. Game Theory is what they call it, where companies try to make profit playing mindgames with consumers and other producers.
However, I see similar weaknesses in marxism that causes it to fail internally, not from any outside source (although the US government certainly tries to make them fail), but because communist leaders end up defecting from their marxism. Most marxist theory is still economic theory, and based around serving greed. When the working class seizes the means of production and eats the rich, it posits that the working class has wealth to gain, to take back. It all still revolves around economic wellbeing, albeit a different vehicle to achieve wellbeing.
Thus, when someone achieves power, they can satisfy their greed by fucking over everyone else. Once they are rich, they have no working class solidarity anymore. There is no incentive to help the working class at that point, and another despot with corrupt cronies takes power. In a way, I see capitalism more stable (but still cancerous) than marxism, because capitalists will admit their corrupt nature and call it normal, that way they can account for it ahead of time. I saw Ocasio Cortez sell herself out the moment she got into power, because why wouldn't she become rich and powerful? If the end goal is material wealth and power, there is no reason to refuse it.
In this way, I see the same contradictions in marxism that I see in capitalism, because it in a society that serves greed, Greed is what you will get.
This is the almost verbatim the libertarian/anarchist critique of state socialism. The only part you differ on is when you say
you are assuming that the vanguard is still working class after they take power. The piece you're missing is that materially, structurally, the moment power is taken is the moment that they are separate from the working class and have different material interests.
I only see that as an argument against marxism. In a power structure, the motivation has to be something other than greed.
What does that even mean? If there's any kind of power imbalance there are different material interests for people in different positions. Anybody who has more power has the ability to take more for themselves, including more power.
I want to avoid us talking past each other. I'll clarify, people have differing interests for material gain, we agree on that. I'm saying people need an alternative motive that makes them disregard greed.
I seek a spiritual revolution, not a material revolution. What Stirner calls spooks are actually the best motivation against capitalism. Christians will donate their excess capital to the poor because they believe in a spiritual cause. While I am not christian, I see this spirituality as the best antidote for capitalism.
Having another motive doesn't get rid of the motive to be greedy. For that to work it would have to motivate them toward contradictory action and be more powerful than their self-interest.
They mostly do that because either they see it as an investment in the afterlife (expectation of personal material gain, even if it's false) or they want social credit for it (personal material gain). The ideological justifications aren't the motivator. They're just a way to explain behavior that makes it appear less cynical.
Sorry, I don't buy this conspiracy theory saying christians donate for social status, especially when they donate anonymously, and their messiah tells them to not wear a chip on their shoulder publicly. And no, gain in the spiritual world is not gain in the material world.
Such a dehumanizing way to see humanity, an empty existence.
How well do you know christians? I used to be one as a kid. They're a bunch of dishonest cynical hypocrites and social climbers regardless of denomination.
The distinction is arbitrary if you believe you are going to reap actual rewards personally. Drawing that line is a transparent attempt to excuse selfishness.
Religious behavior and humanity aren't synonymous. You're just spouting cliche christian apologetics.
Fuck off fascist
Pic related. When it hits zero, and we haven't already converted to socialism, shit is going to get real.
Generally good infographic, but it needs to incorporate aubaine (I forget what Marx called it) tbh desu.
The biggest one right now? Probably moderators
Can you talk about anything else? This is a board about leftism, not whatever autism you want to ramble about today
Are you sure droit d'aubaine is what you're thinking of? I'm not a frog, so you might also be using the term in a way I'm unfamiliar with.
I don't care for talking past each other. To reiterate, people need a different motive than greed, or else the system will fail. Marxism is correct in its breakdown of why capitalism doesn't work, but it shows why marxist states fail for the exact same reasons.
The only successful communist/socialist countries are also nationalistic, Kerala is one example.
We know Jim isn't fond of women and rightfully so as far as liberalism goes, but actually the anti moderator thing is an inherent flaw in the modern capitalism design
You have this band of hoodlums in charge of "protecting' viewers from content deemed offensive or bad
However they're the ones deciding what is offensive or bad, not the community at large. This creates a vacuum and at one point or another we are all bad somewhere. Hell leftpol exists solely as "the bad people from leftypol"
This segregated attitude creates unnecessary conflict among class equals, even the bourgeois like how Alex Jones got delay formed when he was just doing his job as a capitalist appealing to the alt-right as someone has too.
Everyone top and bottom is facing consequences for values nobody holds and no laws have been broken. And as Jim says time and time again in his videos, the only ones BREAKING any laws or moral codes are the very moderators themselves but somehow that's irrelevant and people just write that off as hearsay.
If armed vigilantes went around just killing people we deemed bad would we accept it? I mean maybe. That's kind of the premise of Islamic fundamentalism. So while its a bit of a click bait manuever, Jim isn't even wrong in calling them terrorists because that's how Isis or the Taliban operate. Completely ignoring the laws and even their own supposed moral standings for some great good noone asked for.
Our terrorists don't use guns because they don't need too. We live in a cushy society where it's much more efficient to just shut you up, get you fired, or close all potential doors for you in the future. Who needs death when in the first world it's play along with these ever changing rules or work at McDonalds?
What communist / socialist countries aren't patriotic or nationalistic in some way? You can want the best for country and have a connection to its culture and still follow a policy of internationalism. There is a difference between this kind of nationalism (perhaps better called patriotism) and the xenophobic, narrow-in-outlook varieties of nationalism such as those pursued by fascists
what is your argument? Mass immigration is the hot topic of every political spectrum, and workers especially don't want mass immigration into their nations. I also never said I support imperialism or sweat shops oversees. That exploits slave labor in another nation, so that the bourgeois middle class can have wealth while working class people in the same nation lose their wages.
Fascists aren't conversatives, we don't support the military industrial complex and don't support war mongering. You can find plenty of Neoconservatives that support war, but they are constantly attacked from this dissident right. Many Trump supporters got mad at Trump for the syrian missile strikes, and Trump faces a lot of backlash from establishment republicans and democrats for not going to war with North Korea, Assad, etc.
I wonder who fed them that opinion?
You need a citation that immigration is talked about a lot?
Doesn't anti-war sentiment on the right originate mostly from isolationism among lolberts?
It's literal fear-mongering from right-wingers about muh evil barbarians are coming. Solidarity with the working class, regardless of origin is the only way forward.
I'm referring to Proudhon's use of it (which really should have been déshérence, literally escheat, since it's closer to that). Basically, by working together, workers produce more value than the sum of what they all would produce individually. Under capitalism, this value goes to the owner of the workplace by default, a sub-right of the right of private property which Proudhon called the droit d'aubaine, in reference to the original feudal right of the same name (again, the droit de déshérence is a closer analogy).
To quote Proudhon: "private propriety of the means of production authorizes the capitalist to compensate the worker solely on the basis of what he would produce if placed outside the collective force of production". This difference, which goes to the capitalist before any surplus value extraction occurs, is called aubaine, and is the reason why even in some fantasy land where capitalists were forced to not extract surplus value, they would still be making a profit and would still be the beneficiaries of an unfair system. In effect, it's important for arguing against bosses *as such*, rather than what bosses *do*. Marx did incorporate it at some point IIRC, but Marxists have an annoying tendency to forget it.
America shouldn't be the world police, and we shouldn't support countries like Saudi Arabia who are starving Yemen with their blockade. Countries should work together and make deals to help their working class. China will pay for its aging population to have free college, yet the US has usurious student loans. I don't support everything China does, but at least they give a fraction of a shit about their people.
video related. Ignore the working class at your own risk.
Blame the system that causes the inequality and underdevelopment which fosters migration, don't blame the people who come looking for a better life. I'm not saying "let everyone in, no matter who they are" but there's no need to screech about "muh immigrants are coming! muh other cultures!"
Why the fuck is the entirety of the middle east entitled to european countries? Workers get shafted, and then see welfare for immigrants who don't work. That's why workers are turning towards nationalism, and not communism.
Also, why the fuck do you support porky? Every major media corporation and the entire political establishment wants more migrants, why are you on their side?
Is this a shill?
Sorry, I'm retarded.
The idea that immigrants don't work is patently absurd. If they didn't, porky wouldn't want them. We support immigrants because they're human beings and proletarians who deserve our support. Porky wins either way - if immigrants come in he gets cheap labor, if they are kept out, nationalism rises - so we may as well help immigrants organize to get better conditions, as that's the only thing that's actually going to hurt Porky.
I don't remember expressing support.
EVERY major media corporation, huh? I didn't even say I necessarily wanted more – I have no problem with immigrants coming to my country. Just because I'm not attacking people for coming here just because they don't belong to my nationality doesn't mean I am suddenly a friend of the capitalist class. You are the reactionary for labeling foreign working-people as the unwitting dupes of capitalist machinations, mere unthinking machines serving their will. These are people seeking work to provide for themselves or are fleeing wars.
Ah, yes, the oldest reactionary meme in the book. MUH WELFARE LEECHES
The falling rate of profit. Eventually you reach a poont where you lose money when trying to sell a product competatively.
I addressed your point, m8. I think your premise is dead wrong. That's not talking past you. It's disagreement.
People are going to look out for their material interests in any system. The trick is to have a system where everyone is in the same boat, so doing right by each other is self interest. Most traditional pre-class societies work that way.
Are there any contradictions of capitalism that were also present in feudalism and slavery?
In dialectics contradictions are not resolved by eliminating the opposing pole(s), but by including them in a broader concept that allows them to freely circulate each other. For example the contradiction in is resolved by the existence of business: despite their contradictory interests in distributing the profits, both the worker and the boss are interested in the success of the venture, since both of their survival depend on it.
tenants, landlords, and the rentier system are all remnants of feudalism so if that's what you mean than yes
What are the contradictions of those?
landlords (any really anyone in real estate) profit off of property by the simple fact that they claim legal ownership of it without actually performing any labor. They generate revenue for themselves by demanding rents from the people who actually live in the apartment, while doing their best to minimize costs(IE spending money to improve the rented property) which can easily be compared to the boss taking your surplus value. There's a reason why Adam Smith thought that landlords were scum and considered them the last remnants of a backwards economic system that was based on feudal ideas of land ownership
We all know the rentier class has been the enemy of civilization since it started, but what is the contradiction here? It seems like driving people into debt peonage so they can buy up all their land and extract even more value from their labor actually worked out pretty well for them.
It doesn't. Post discarded.
Agreed, all landlords are scum/ propriety is theft.
My grandma rents a room to a couple for actually a "small price", little does she know she is a porky exploiting the proletariat. She should either let them live there for free or not at all!(to bad she needs the rent money to buy meds so she won't die haha).
It is the definitively adversarial relationship between renter and landlord. Their inherently opposed interests places each in perpetual conflict with the other (renters seek lower rents and better maintainance of their homes while landlords seeks higher rents and lower overhead), and this opposition can only be resolved by their eventual categorical destruction and replacement by something different.
Found the actual problem.
But do you seek a spiritual revolution by political means?
The problem with this, as Ret'd Col. Michael Aquino (and Temple of Set founder) once said, is "things get very evil very quickly."
Nothing to say you shouldn't learn the runes, do some yoga, etc. - more power to you.
But personally, I'm in favour of a "value neutral" material revolution.
The only proviso being not exploiting anyone else, then you can do what you want.
You'd need a framework, of course.
perhaps after the defeat of "platform capitalism" we could just use retooled Uber tech! Just apply a fresh lick of retro-futurist/Russian Cosmist paint while removing exploitation.it's just one idea. When you feel like going on a road trip, just log on, see what interesting people want to go with you, or what boring people who who you can nevertheless bring out of their shell. No need to "embrace the grind" as Uber drivers presently say, you just go on the road when you *really* only want to.
Stirner's an empty vessel. "There is nothing more to me than myself." I think that's one of his lines. yrs but what is yourself mister? there's a philosophical P. O. V. which says we're like cells, cells in a bigger organism:
."..the theory that the organelles inside eukaryotic cells were once independent creatures before later becoming subordinate components of the unified cell… One of the highlights of this theory…is its suggestion that the gradual shaping of the gene pool through natural selection is a less important evolutionary force that the watershed symbioses of distinct organisms. The idea has obvious value beyond the sphere of evolutionary biology: in human biography, for instance.We find that the key moments in a human life rarely result from introspective brooding in one's private chambers. Instead, they happen most often through symbiosis with a person, a profession, an institution, a city, a favourite author, a religion, or in some other life-changing bond. Even in those cases where great events do happen inside one's private head, this takes the form of symbiosis with a crucial idea or decision to which one is henceforth dedicated Despite the co-operative -sounding etymology of the term, symbiosis is often non-reciprocal: it is easy to recognize moving to Cairo in the year 2000 as a turning point in my own life, without being tempted by narcissistic delusions that Egypt's storied capital entered a new stage upon my arrival." (P.45-6)
"… symbiotic change is not always a question of human devotion, since it affects even the lazy shuffler who may not remain faithful to the love affair, religious conversion, political revolution, or business merger he has perhaps entered irreversibly anyway.."(p.47-8)
Graham Harman, Immaterialism