lingling-oMay 20, 2024
Since I seem to have caused an amount of consternation, I feel like I should say that as someone who has spent a large proportion of my life working on social justice issues, I frequently get exasperated with people who characterize the society in which we live as a "capitalist" society and blame all the ills of our society on "capitalism".

This is such a naïve mischaracterization of how modern human civilization is constructed and how it functions, and it all stems from the overwhelming and completely unwarranted influence that Marxism has had on higher education since the late 19th Century. Too many people cannot conceive of anything other than this false dichotomy of "socialism v. capitalism", and it contaminates any hope of thinking critically about what exactly "socialism" and "capitalism" entail, what they are based upon, what they are at their cores, and blots out any opportunity for insightful analysis as to the problems we face and what we ought to do about them.

These misconceptions so pervade our society because they are endlessly uncritically repeated, accepted as "received wisdom" without verification of fact or evidence, and they are fundamentally disastrous for humanity. They are quite literally killing people every day in every nation on Earth.

We have the power to stop this. But if we remain wallowing in ignorance, we will never find the will to stop it.
Show thread Mima-sama
@linglingo Yes, I do think blaming it all on #capitalism is oversimplistic as well, and unfortunately too many #anarchists are falling for this leftist trap, even the anti-left / post-left ones.

This can be seen for example in one of our homeland's decades-long problem: the constant delays of #jeepney modernization. It can be easy to blame foreign capitalists, deregulated oil prices, and lack of support from the government. Sure they are factors, but all of them miss the point. Some leftists do see the main cause: jeepney operators and drivers cannot afford the newer compliant models of modern jeeps / minibuses. But for ideological reasons they cannot see the real solution which is to stop imposing artificially low maximum fare prices jeepneys can charge. And no, simply making the LTFRB raise the fare will not resolve this, as long as oil prices remain deregulated. The real solution is to let jeepneys charge however they want, i.e. a free market (as long as they let passengers clearly know how much their set fare is ofc, that should be the only "regulation" as well as an SRP that is truly just a "suggestion" where passengers are entitled to pay if the jeepney doesn't put up its own prices). If that means commuters will have to pay more, so be it, but I don't see any other good enough solution here where jeepney drivers aren't essentially slaves who cannot invest into better jeepneys and will forever be pitted against commuters who simply (and rightfully) want a better commuting experience. And no, government subsidies aren't enough (and they're doing it already anyway) nor are they sustainable (we have so many other shit to fund). But leftists don't want this because they want to keep consumer goods and services low by any means, even if it doesn't make any logical sense market-wise. Consumers cannot just dictate through force what the prices should be; it should be decided together with the sellers, and on equal footing (which the LTFRB clearly doesn't do). It's only through that way that we can get fair prices for all.

It really is a great injustice when oil barons get to charge all of us whatever they want while public transport workers have to put up with pennies everyday. And you don't have to muddle the waters with buzzwords like "capitalism" to see that.
May 21, 2024 at 1:48amWeb
Show threadlingling-oMay 21, 2024
@mima I want to be clear that in no way am I attempting to say that a capitalist economy has no problems, but that we don't actually live in a capitalist economy, we live in a neoliberal neofeudalist economy, where those who obtain artificial monopoly power are enabled thereby to extract unearned economic rents and distort the market.

There is really no such thing as an entirely free market. All markets require regulation to maintain maximal freedom for all market actors, because of the facts of asymmetrical information flows that prevent demand customers from making informed, consensual choices regarding supply that satisfies their needs. A manufacturer is ultimately the original source of information about the products they are offering for sale, and manufacturers often omit information that would be germane to customer choice.

But, the larger problem is that by establishing "ownership" of location, both Labor and Capital have no choice but to pay whatever the Landlord demands for the privilege of remaining in the market, and the Landlord is enabled to charge the highest rate that will not drive both Labor and Capital out of business.

Neoclassical economic theory conflates Land with Capital and posits Labor and Capital as inherently antagonistic, and that is just simply not the case. Because of land monopoly and landlordism, Labor has no leverage against Capital in most markets, because once all the land is "owned", Labor is deprived of the ability to labor on its own behalf, and must then accept whatever rate Capital offers and pay whatever rate Land demands, or literally starve to death.

The solution to this, as Henry George rightly pointed out, was to simply tax away all unearned artificial monopoly benefits accruing to Land, and distribute that equally to the community, thus driving landlords out of business, and placing Labor and Capital on a level playing field.
Show thread Mima-samaMay 21, 2024
@linglingo Yeah I think we're on the same page on many issues here, like land (I do think we should keep the rent as low as possible, and I can agree with the nationalization of land ownership as Georgists want IIRC). I also think regulation here and there is still necessary, especially on monopolistic businesses like electricity and water services (they probably should be nationalized as well, but if a cooperative is possible that would be preferable, only go for fully private as last resort but regulate the hell out of them). When it comes to small retail (consumer goods and services) though, I tend to prefer deregulating. I do recognize that a truly "free market" is just impossible (bad actors are always going to game the system), but I still think we should aim for it as an ideal.

TLDR: regulate the capital/producer goods, deregulate the consumer goods and services
Show threadlingling-oMay 21, 2024
@mima Like Henry George, I am for nationalization of natural monopolies, but I do not think the state has any legitimate authority to create an artificial monopoly for itself when entering the market in sectors where there is no natural monopoly.

That being said, I think it would require some fairly extraordinary circumstances for the state to legitimately enter any market that is not a natural monopoly. Healthcare is, I think one of them. Thet state need not create an artificial monopoly in healthcare, because it already has inherent efficiencies which the private sector cannot match. Social security is another such area. The US government is so much more financially efficient in that regard than any private concern could ever possibly hope to compete with.

On the subject of jeepneys, I won't pretend to have any particular expertise, but I will say that I have lived a good portion of my life in the Atlantic City, NJ area, where we have what are called "jitneys", but which historically have operated much like jeepneys. There are other cities in the US where this is also true. In Atlantic, City, the jitney operators eventually formed an organization which provides a quasi-public, standardized service, without being an actual department of the city government.

The jitneys, like the jeepneys, have a long history and are part of the cultural landscape of Atlantic City.