Every supermarket that throws unsold but edible food into a dumpster at the end of the day and pours bleach onto it to prevent the hungry from eating it is reminding us, over and over, that capitalism is not “trade” or “commerce” but rather *sabotage.*
Capitalism isn’t about producing and selling things; it’s about setting up toll booths.
@HeavenlyPossum
I don’t quite agree. I think your real problem is the lack of regulation. You have a weak government when it comes to this sort of thing. You (as a country) need to vote in better people. You also need to sort your media out as it gets bad people elected and does not present the bleach pouring as a national scandal. It is effectively, accepted behaviour. It’s de facto ok due to a non-objection from the people. (In case it’s not clear, bleach pour is despicable behaviour and it should be named and shamed).
I totally agree capitalism isn’t something to be held up as the Wunder Pferd but without it we wouldn’t have these phones we use.
The state is not some neutral institution; it’s the coercive and bureaucratic arm of the capital class.
We don’t have phones because of capitalism; we have phones because of the intellectual and physical labor of workers.
@HeavenlyPossum
That is what I am saying too. The state is not some neutral institution. It is the exact opposite.
Also capitalism is the exchange of intellectual and physical labor of workers.
It’s not the capitalist elite, it’s the powerful elite. Money is just one neutral leaver, along with the law, the police, the army, etc. How these ideas are used cannot be neutral. Capitalism is politically neutral as it’s just a logical process but people wielding money are not.
A rock is neutral. The object can be. The choices around it cannot be neutral.
I don’t blame capitalism for the hiking of insulin. The blame the person who did it and the law makers that allowed it. I will not let them have a pass by blaming the leaver they pulled. Get out and vote everyone!
Anyway, that’s my take and we might just have to disagree on this one.
"I think your real problem is the lack of regulation"
"That is what I am saying too. The state is not some neutral institution. It is the exact opposite."
Can you clarify how you reconcile these two statements?
The powerful elite are powerful because they serve Capital. Capital is politically neutral because it is served by all sides, that doesn't make it benevolent or even justified. In fact Capital, the true god of this world, is a toxic, cancerous concept that is dragging humanity into oblivion, bringing the biosphere along with it.
As you asked, I think your premise is wrong. The powerful don’t serve capital. Capital serves the powerful. It also serves you but much lesser. The government could redistribute wealth. To do this it would use law, as enforced by the courts who are in turn enforced by the police. It doesn’t. The problem is the government acting for the powerful (unneutral).
If you blame the tool, you excuse the person.
The problem isn’t capital or you wouldn’t be demanding a fair wage, you’d be demanding communism. If you are advocating for communism then this isn’t the right medium for me explain why that is a really bad idea.
I am an anarchist communist, yes.
The state does not use the law to create fair wages because the state is the bureaucratic and coercive arm of the capital class.
To the extent that the state intervenes with capital, it’s in an effort to maintain overall stability in the capitalist system, not to make things “fair” for anyone.
Capitalism is always and everywhere a creature of the state; it has never existed and could never exist without constant, massive, pervasive state violence.
@HeavenlyPossum @taatm @RD4Anarchy
As usual, Possum, you cut right to the heart of the matter: The state is the coercive arm of the capital class and it intervenes to preserve systemic stability. I wonder if Taatm's point is consistent with this if read right and so whether the argument is more semantic than substantial?
Taatm says capital serves the powerful and that government serves the powerful, also that government is a tool. When you say "capital" do you mean more than a big pile of money? There are a lot of synecdochic uses of the word and what you mean specifically isn't clear to me. If the word is used in the larger sense then the question of whether capital serves the powerful or vice-versa is empty since the two words mean the same thing. If capital means nothing more than a pile of money then it's true that the powerful don't serve capital and it's true that capital serves the powerful, but it doesn't seem worth arguing over maybe?
My premise is that human beings can work things out together without being forcefully coerced by a small privileged class of owners/rulers.
I believe that every premise #capitalism is based on is false, perhaps even *intentional* lies. These premises include empirical claims that have been disproven.
Capitalism is a tool designed only to do despicable things. We could eliminate capitalists but if we don't overthrow the idea of Capital itself we would soon find ourselves enslaved again.
There is no such thing as a "fair wage" because the whole system of capitalism and private property is deeply and inherently unfair, morally unjustified and based on horrendous acts of violence, cruelty and genocide.
What is the right medium to explain your idea of why communism is bad? Why can't you explain here why you are opposed to a stateless, classless society?
HeavenlyPossum
The Animal and the Machine
RD
Adrian Riskin 