No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
A farmer selling their produce is not necessarily a capitalist. A farmer toiling on their own field sells the fruit of their own labor, so to speak. One step up are what Marx calls "Little Masters": They own and work their means of production, but sometimes have employees such as farmhands or apprentices (Think companies where the owner still works in the workshop). Actual capitalists are detached from the production process: They no longer work, but simply own the so-called means of production and exploit others by buying their labor force for less than their produced result is worth.
If we are going by the original definition of the word, it is. The farmer here is growing produce to sell it in exchange for money; they are not sharing it with their community, bartering with it, growing it to eat themselves, or giving it to their liege lord.
I'm not sure why people always insist if money is involved that it's capitalism. Money is an abstract form of trade. No one is suggesting that trade will cease to exists in a world without capitalism.
It's not about money, it's about private ownership of capital. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capitalism
Well, if you assume the farmer excludes others from using the means of production i.e. the fields, then yes you can argue that they are acting as capitalist. But you have to make the distinction between private and personal ownership: Private ownership of the land and personal ownership of the produce. The former is what communists reject. The latter is fine in their books.
Well, I'd say that the definition of capitalism changes depending on if you're talking about capitalism as opposed to feudalism (original/historical definition) vs capitalism as opposed to communism (modern definition).
What resources would you recommend to someone wanting to learn about this?
I.e. the TV channel Arte, which is a cooperation of French and German state media has a multipart documentary called Work, Salary, Profit that touches on a lot of fundamentals.
Of course there is always the option just to straight up read the original works by Marx, Smith and so on, but they are not for the feint of heart.
People frequently conflate capitalism with enterprise, not seeing the distinctions.
An economic model that includes capitalism explains a lot of the world including having some close process analogs in nature.
A capitalist sounds like a label you're trying to apply in an attempt to label someone as being maximally for profits. A lot of companies admittedly work that way and it's important to include that concept.
By my reading you're taking the use of the first term and then saying they are using the second term. I think this is called equivocation.
All companies work that way, or they risk to fail. The maximization of profit stems from the need to stay competitive. If your competitor can produce the same amount of goods for a lower price, you won't be able to sell yours for a cost-covering price and therefore go bankrupt. Instead, you then have to find a way to be more efficient by investing in your business. To be able to invest, you have to have created profit. Once you have done that, your competitor has to do the same and the cycle starts anew. That's the idea of modern capitalism.
I am not sure what you mean by that. I tried to show that just because someone sells something, they are not necessarily a capitalist.
The question says capitalism (not so loaded term) your answer said capitalist (more loaded term and you've taken time to use the loaded part of the term).
That said, I accidentally replied to a question in lemmy.ml so the person asking the question is probably more aligned with your way of thinking and explaining than I am. Sorry about that
Well, to me that sounds a little like you prefer the term swimming over being called a swimmer.
Oh, I didn't say I had a preference. And I see your point that one is just a conjugation of the other. I've just seen capitalism as a term used more for explanation and when I've seen capitalist said it tends to have a negative connotation at best but more often it is half spat out
If you want to nitpick, I never said farmer. Also, farmers have inputs, so your comparison is wholly removed from reality.
Edit: also, Marx? JFC, Thoreau is a better example of 19th century philosophy about labor, as he actually did real work in life which is why he manged to influence Tolstoy, who the eurdite Soviets tried to retcon into being a socialist because they were arrogant tools who didn't understand his work well enough to realize that his critiques were often of people just like them. And just like Marx who also had very little contact with real life.
Marx can suck a fuck at the tomato stand, my friend.
What does a farmer having inputs have to do with my argument being removed from reality?
Because you're leaning on Marx for definitions, who was famously out of touch with reality as well,
because ALL small business owners need inputs, and labor is only one of them, so inventing the vendor as now a farmer to attempt a workaround is disingenuous,
you also had made the tomato vendor into a farmer in hopes of having a point that fits into a poorly crafted 19th century framework, and don't know enough about how farms anywhere on earth to realize how blatantly wrong you are,
your definition of capitalist is factually incorrect,
read my edited comment above, which I edited while you wrote this,
a farmer is no different, functionally in a minimalist sense, from a person making jam as a cottage industry, who buys fruit and processes it at home, making a farmer's field not magic but simply a location where work is done,
I said tomato seller, which is someone that spends their labor time buying tomatoes from farms as a risk and selling them in the market. They own means of logistics, which for anyone not stuck in 1862, would consider essentially a means of production as well, as it takes an input and renders is viable to trade for a medium of exchange. Does a fisherman owning a boat mean she owns the means of production when it's fish spawning grounds that make fish? It's a stupid argument to cling to one you've already written your first PoliSci paper about it and get it.
Look, everything is connected, and there is no terminal point of anything from which anarcho-socialist magic can magically arise and flow down to make some post-consumption utopia. It's a circle with no beginning and no end. You can't force economic change to change human behavior, and Marx's ideas have famously failed hard. Over and over. Spectacularly.
You're taking about a 30 generation cultural change that you won't ever see.
It would certainly help a lot if you could tone down your condescending attitude a little.
I fail to see where anything you write is an actual argument against my distinction between different forms of working with the means to produce something. Yes, I've misread your vendor as a farmer, but that's not a reason to go ad hominem.
Marx's definition of "the means of production" is both not in tune with how anything has ever worked, and ignores that Marx basically used real estate as the definition because he was closer to European feudalism than us. Marx grew up and spent his uni years as a subject of the Prussian Kingdom, and industrialization and land ownership were entirely different in his time.
Context matters. And apologies for being condescending, but it pisses me off to no end when people wax poetic about some pastrolaist socialist agrarian sunshine butterfly state when if you've never experienced it, actually sucked and everyone hated it who was in it, even in the modern era.
Bro what?
Are we just supposed to believe what you're saying? Because I have easy counter-argument. You're out of touch with what Marx wrote and if say-so if enough proof then this statement is proven and you're wrong. Now, unless you can actually prove this statement we can argue this point.
This literally does not change the original argument. Do you think farmers do not need an input? What disqualifies a farmer from being a small business owner?
Do you think they didn't have food vendors in the 19th century? Do you think a tomato vendor is a 20th or 21st century concept that invalidates this supposed 19th century argument?
I guess this is another "we just have to believe you" points. Just because you don't understand Marx's definition of capitalism doesn't mean it's wrong.
Why is this even a point?
I'm not 100% sure what you're even trying to say here but if you're saying what I think you're saying, Marx would agree with you here.
I guess you also don't believe logistics existed before 1863. Also your logistics argument doesn't contradict Marx. And a fisherman owning a fishing boat would mean they own the means of production because the boat is A TOOL to catch fish. The fish don't magically jump into the fishermans hands. They need to be caught, which requires labor and to ease that labor tools are used. Fish existing doesn't make a fisherman a fisherman, otherwise I'd be a lumberjack simply because there's a forest near my home.
I suggest you actually try to understand Marx before you start mindlessly criticizing something.
I understand Marx fine. He was an academic who grew up the privileged son of a lawyer, and never spent a day of his life worrying about how he was going to feed his family by working on a farm or in a factory.
His ideas about land alone being enough to be considered "means of production" are informed by 19th century feudalist-cum-post-feudaliast Europe, and the transition point between the Prussian Kingdom and a unified and nascent German state as it industrialized.
His view of industrialization is like that of Upston Sinclair: "Holy shit, WTF? This is terrible." Trauma and secondary trauma informed by other people. But as an academic his understanding of how the economy works at the level of what was a rapidly changing factory scene. 21st century economics don't fit 19th century ideals.
And you as a lumberjack is the perfect example. You might own a saw and live near a forest. Cut all the trees you want. Who will buy them without access? So now you need a road. But your 19th century horse cart can't drag a 400kg log anywhere to sell it, so you now need to buy a truck and loading system. Only now too you have an actual logging setup that gets your product of raw timber to a mill for sale. Marx calls all these things the means of production, which is cute, but he assumes that the social whole is different.
The road needs to be graded and maintained, your saw oiled and sharpened, your truck maintained. Which all also needs labor to happen. As was the cries of trucking unions when the Teamsters formed, you are just part of the machine. Which means that when you get down to it and nitpick, everything and everyone is a part of the means of production of something else. There are no gaps and no bourgeoisie locking up every critical aspect of the social whole, and small businesses as the largest employer in the US mean that Marx's theory doesn't stand up to reality anymore. The end user and end consumer provides demand, which is as necessary as the road and truck and mill for you as a faux lumberjack. Demand is a human non-labor aspect of the social whole we all have, which is more important than the means of production. Just ask the bourgeois board of Blockbuster Video, or a small local newspaper.
Right. There's so much wrong here that I won't even bother correcting you on everything. You start off not by addressing his points but by trying to character assassinate so you wouldn't have to address his points. Absolutely disingenuous.
Then between your ramblings you make statements that Marx would disagree with (like land alone being enough to be the means of production) or you try to disprove Marx by stating something Marx himself used as a foundation for the criticism of capitalism (like everything and everyone being a part of the means of production of something else). And finally you make apparently clear you have not read even a summary of his biggest works, Das Kapital, because you say stupid shit like this:
Das Kapital goes into great lengths specifically to prove those "non-existent" gaps exist. They existed 2 centuries ago and they still exist. And the fact that you think his criticism does not apply to small businesses is just another example of how little you actually understand what Marx wrote.
Well, I doubt we were ever going to agree, even to disagree.
I will say that Marx's ideas have been tried and tested and have never held up to real world application. Bemoan capitalism all you like, then explain how the Holodomor happened.
Anyways, have a pleasant day.
Of course we not going to agree. The only way we could ever come to an agreement is if you acknowledge that you're talking out of your ass and considering you haven't gotten that memo yet I doubt you'll ever get it.
Oh really, what ideas exactly?
I'll bemoan capitalism all I like and I don't need to explain how Holodomor happened because I'll happily bemoan Holodomor as well. Just because the soviets were pieces of shit doesn't mean I have to be team capitalism.
Well, let's take 3 non-standard examples:
Yugoslavia nationalised industry and introduced worker self‑management after it broke away from Stalin and the USSR. Loads of collaboration with post-colonial Non-aligned Movement African nations that wanted to dabble in socialism but didn't have a popular movement or resources or planning to back it. Taking refugee in capitalism, like China recently started to do as well, is what let thinks work for a time. Tito, however, was the only thing that held the county together, and once he was gone, the whole place collapsed slowly over a decade. There was no evidence that the "best" socialism in the region (best, as in least totally shit) was worth keeping on its own or valuable enough to try and keep.
Albania imposed strict state ownership, collectivised agriculture (the gulags are basically Woofing, yaay!), and a hard‑line Stalinist-style paranoia-fueled regime. It assigned jobs; no one not official given the job of "driver" by the state could operate a vehicle. And it fucking shows still to this day. Hoxha held the county together with fear alone because nothing of socialism was worth keeping on its own, or valuable enough to the average person to keep.
Bulgaria did a decent job replicating Soviet central planning, collectivisation, and political control. It all sucked and the Yugoslavs loved to leverage economic disparity over them because it was so fucking bleak in Bulgaria for theor entire stint as socialists. Which is part of why Bulgaria is shitting on their neighbors now about EU accession, they finally have the advantage and a grudge that survived 40 years because of socialists caused economic disparity. They happily joined the EU a generation after realizing that nothing of socialism was worth keeping on its own, or valuable enough to the average person to keep. But they have decent freeways now.
Despite three very different attempts to try socialism as a means to the end of communism, only Belgrade and it's immediate suburbs really had a decent quality of life. Everyone else had a well-documented traumatizingly bad time.
And while I'll happily admit that I haven't needed a more than cursory remembrance of Marx since 2002, that literally billions of people have proven time and again that Marx's ideas are pure fantasy, and that 19th century ideals about economies that have just stated industrialization are not needed in the 20th century any more than Adam Smith has been relevant once advertising manipulated simple supply and demand, because humans are not rational actors.
You said Marx's ideas have been tested and I asked for those ideas, not about which countries tried to adopt a certain style of socialism.
Yugoslavia paved its own way with Titoism which Leninists would probably go as far as to not even call socialism. If you're going to call it an example of Marxism failing you need to be more specific on which Marxist idea failed because Tito also rejected quite a lot of Marxists ideas.
As for Albania and Bulgaria both of them followed Leninism, Albania in particular went so deep with Leninism they started calling Krushchev a revisionist. Leninism does takes ideas from Marxism but the vanguard party idea makes it also very different from what Marx had talked about. I personally view Leninism as something not representative of Marx's vision of the future and instead a derivation of Marxists ideas. So once again, you need to more specific on what Marx's ideas failed.
If I'm going to make the arguments for you then you could say central planning is a failed idea because the USSR showed how easy it is to misallocate resources and the top-down bureaucracy leads to an inflexible economy. And in case it's not clear I would 100% agree that a planned economy is not a good idea.
All I see here is whining about "uh, guys, no one did it perfectly right 100% the first time, so it doesnt count." Like what a child says when playing a game.
Like how all y'all didn't vote for the nice Black lady because of not being perfect enough to your privileged liking on Gaza, then seem to not able to connect your actions to the repercussions which are what that one douche is enabling in Gaza.
Sorry, but it's just a bunch of tankie apologist BS, and a perfect example of why no one takes full communism or socialism seriously in any country that isn't already a single party state, corrupt to the maximal extent possible and unable to waiver from the party line. The Communist Manifesto might as well be some conceptual only scifi fictional government document, like the Star Trek reference to the Fundamental Declarations of the Martian Colonies or the United Federation of Planets Constitution. Plot devices for the individual, wholly useless to society as a whole.
Which also does a huge disservice to anyone pushing for a blended system that is known to work well in limited circumstances.
You're playing a disingenuous game from the start. You talked shit about Marx without knowing anything about Marx. Now you're talking shit about Socialism in the context of it not working once when you have examples of capitalism not working either. The US is currently bailing out Argentina after their capitalist endeavors failed. I don't see you calling capitalism a failure.
First of all this is going to come to you as a shocker but not everyone is American. And as a non-American I told Americans they should still vote for Kamala and then focus on fixing their political landscape (including telling Israel to fuck off) because if Trump gets re-elected there won't be anything left to fix.
I'm not a tankie you moron. I'm well aware of the issues socialism has ran into in the past and I'm not going to defend that. Yet I'm still a socialist because you'd need to have your head pretty far up your ass to not see how capitalism has ran its course.
You're doing a disservice by defending capitalism.
OK, I will absolutely apologize for assuming you were American. I try not to creep on people's post history unless necessary, and didn't double check. That's on me, and I'm genuinely sorry for that.
Though, I'm not defending capitalism, other then to try and find the minimal threshold necessary to fulfill it in the original comment. I respect you sticking to whatever politicial or economic stance you want, and I was being a dick yesterday and I'll blame wine and sun for that. Mostly wine.
As a sorta-kinda economist, the point on which I have settled from seeing a lot of people on several continents live their lives, is that communal living and resource allocation is suitable for emergencies and basic survival in small and rudimentary settings. That is well documented in the anthropological record.
Beyond that, humans have a tendency towards transactionalism, often somewhat incorrectly termed capitalism, because transactions don't require saving money for capital to be used later. There's a great book called African Friends and Money Matters that is a frustrating look at a Westerner in Senegal trying to explain how the fundamentals of resource application work. It summarizes perfectly how most of African village level communities work, and I hope fascinating to someone who wants to start from a point of communal resource allocation.
But, my personal opinion is that we grow from that point outward to transactions while luxuriated and well-resourced, and capitalism past that in habitual abundance. So Marx proposing such limitation and hemming people in to a command economy seems counterintuitive simply from the perspective of trying to get people to participate willingly.
That's not a defense of capitalism, but simply pointing to where it naturally crops up. I can't abide Marx, so if there's a third option other then radical agrarian anarcho-syndicate communes and basic cooperatives, that has seen success, I would be interested to hear it. But those, much like Yugoslavia, are also very personality dependent and so not likely to last longer than 60-80 years or so.