Why do peeps want socialism/communism? - Zoomer Delusions

queerape

Gorilla gorilla goes Gorillaz
kiwifarms.net
There are income based payment plans and deferments for financial hardship, programs abound for refinancing, etc.. Education is an investment in your future. It's going to cost you something. If you choose to live frugally during your time at college, including having a part time job, you can come out with very little debt even in today's fucked up pricing. You can reduce this further by going to a community college for the first half of the degree. A lot of high school systems also partner with community colleges so you can start earning credit, even to the point of finishing high school with an associates degree. Or you don't even have to go to school full time. Work full time and take night classes and pay your way through. Our system is amazingly accommodating for all walks of life. All of these things require extra time and effort, however.

But if you agree people should not face the consequences of their spending and want a college degree to become the new lowest common denominator, you don't need to wait until the government forces you via taxes. You can donate to scholarship programs, or just go to any of these riots and offer a random kid money for their education. I'm sure they'll use it wisely.
A lot of these people don't understand basic finacial planning. I feel bad for a lot of actually disadvantaged people, but if you wasted your time on a bachelors in feminist dance theory, live off off maxed out credit cards, and call anyone who dares invest in assests like stocks and real estate a capitalist pig while refusing to understand how any of that works then you brought it upon yourself. Millenials aren't uniquely screwed, a whole ton of them just made shitty choices and tried to copypaste their parents strategies instead of finding one for themselves and then tried to blame everything but themselves. There's a viable path for the middle class person if you aren't a fucking brainlet. They have a totally irrational hate for real estate investing too, even for private investor landlords. Not everyone wants to be an owner, the more possible arrangements the better.
 

Qajinima022

Sweets Lover
kiwifarms.net
I wonder why I want America to become Socialist as well, which wouldn't really happen tbh. And most individuals who want communism in America they hate money that much and want the government to take care of them. I'm just spit balling here at this point. This is a millennial saying this, I'm dissapointed in myself for having Social views.
 

Syaoran Li

Goth Mom Resurrection
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Cause they're disillusioned with capitalism?
Except communism is worse in every way for them and a lot of them are delusional and naive in their adherence to the cult.

Trying to address the flaws of crony capitalism by going full-tilt into communism or anarchism is like getting severe radiation poisoning because you didn't like your haircut and wanted to shave it completely.

Capitalism has its flaws, but communism is hell on earth and it doesn't exactly have the best track record, even when compared to the admittedly shitty corporatism.
 

Erischan

chaos goddess
kiwifarms.net
I wonder why I want America to become Socialist as well, which wouldn't really happen tbh. And most individuals who want communism in America they hate money that much and want the government to take care of them. I'm just spit balling here at this point. This is a millennial saying this, I'm dissapointed in myself for having Social views.
You can fix that by killing yourself.
 

Dandelion Eyes

kiwifarms.net
Except communism is worse in every way for them and a lot of them are delusional and naive in their adherence to the cult.

Trying to address the flaws of crony capitalism by going full-tilt into communism or anarchism is like getting severe radiation poisoning because you didn't like your haircut and wanted to shave it completely.

Capitalism has its flaws, but communism is hell on earth and it doesn't exactly have the best track record, even when compared to the admittedly shitty corporatism.
Well, I'm pretty sure a lot of them would be glad to live in a social democracy(aka capitalism with regulations and welfare), but it often gets referred to as "socialism" by both sides of the discourse, that it muddies the water.
 

Drain Todger

Unhinged Doomsayer
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
As multiple posters have already said, what we have in modern American society is a problem with kids going to college, being essentially indoctrinated in left-wing philosophy by their professors, getting a degree, and then getting out into the workforce only to find out that they’re in the hole for tens of thousands in college debt, and they can barely find a job making $36k to start. Half of their wage is going into their housing, and most of the other half is going into food, bills, Netflix, whatever. These kids are getting degrees in Communications, Business Administration, Law, and so on, and they’re finding that there aren’t any jobs available for these easy degrees that don’t involve difficult math or using your brain too hard (watch them screech when you suggest that the liberal arts are of limited practical value in a society where technical management is usurping social management).

All of the decent-paying factory jobs have been outsourced. A lot of the trades involve navigating a complex maze of credentialing and closed union shops and whatnot, and in the end, you’re stuck in a sausage party with a bunch of abrasive macho men that would make most of these college kids wilt with just one look, doing jobs that involve power tools, loud noise, and grease under your fingernails every single day. What they imagined would happen, of course, was that they’d land a cozy office job making $60k, maybe $80k a year straight out of college and be able to pay off their tuition fees in a reasonable timeframe. Instead, they usually end up flipping burgers or serving espresso for the people who do those jobs.

This leads to a whole lot of resentment, and most of that resentment isn’t even exactly of the unreasonable sort. They paid for a product; their education and their degree. They expected to receive a return on their investment, and yet, they did not. Right out of the starting gate, they are swindled out of a substantial sum of money and forced into debt servitude by over-education and under-employment. This is why many millennials still live with their parents and haven’t really started families of their own. That, in turn, leads to all kinds of emotional troubles.

But the attraction of communism runs deeper than mere practical concerns of this nature. A lot of people are increasingly skeptical of the general manner in which capitalist society is structured. Consider, for a moment, the average office job. A typical office worker spends a considerable amount of time, every workday, commuting and getting ready for work. So much of their time is occupied, they turn to fast food and other services to fulfill tasks that they don’t have enough free time to do on their own. When they get to their cubicle, about 3 hours of the time spent behind their computer, on average, is actual work. The other 5 hours is spent merely passing the time. Ritualized self-imprisonment for a wage. Not to mention, most of what they do could easily be done by telecommuting instead, given how ubiquitous internet access is in most first-world nations, so technically, their commute and all the services between them and their workplace are unnecessary frivolities.

David Graeber, who recently passed away, was an anthropologist and one of the leading figures in the Occupy Wall Street movement. He wrote a book called Bullshit Jobs where he described people relating anecdotes to him about how useless their jobs were.


The author contends that more than half of societal work is pointless, both large parts of some jobs and, as he describes, five types of entirely pointless jobs:
  1. flunkies, who serve to make their superiors feel important, e.g., receptionists, administrative assistants, door attendants
  2. goons, who oppose other goons hired by other companies, e.g., lobbyists, corporate lawyers, telemarketers, public relations specialists
  3. duct tapers, who temporarily fix problems that could be fixed permanently, e.g., programmers repairing shoddy code, airline desk staff who calm passengers whose bags do not arrive
  4. box tickers, who create the appearance that something useful is being done when it is not, e.g., survey administrators, in-house magazine journalists, corporate compliance officers
  5. taskmasters, who manage—or create extra work for—those who do not need it, e.g., middle management, leadership professionals[2][1]
His argument was that these jobs take an emotional toll on the people who perform them, when those people realize that what they do for a living is essentially useless and their job does not need to exist. He also argued that this form of compulsory employment is actually a hallmark of socialist societies; pointless and Sisyphean tasks akin to digging a ditch and filling it in over and over again, just like in a gulag.

Another factor is the increasing influence of the FIRE industry on society’s affairs; Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, in other words. Finance and insurance, in particular, are not actually real goods of any physical substance or use-value, but are “virtual” goods represented by the wholly imaginary value of money and debt. The larger the share of the market occupied by finance (i.e. paper-shuffling and making money with money), the less of it is occupied by other things (i.e. real industries that produce real goods that people can use and enjoy), however, this is relative. In most instances, Finance serves to increase growth and liquidity of the overall market, insurance acts as a hedge against risk, and real estate offers investors the opportunity to invest in, and reap the rewards from, rents on properties.

When people have no assets and they rely entirely on wages to make their money, they grow resentful towards people who have assets, of course. This is because, as Thomas Piketty put it, R > G. The return on capital investment is inevitably higher than the growth of wages. What this means is that capitalist societies are inevitably unequal, in the sense that those with no assets are at a strict disadvantage compared to those who have them. A lot of people don’t understand how finance works. A lot of these people have never invested in their lives, and recoil in horror at the idea of owning stock. I’ve owned stock. It’s not a big deal. When these college kids hear that Jeff Bezos is worth $131 billion dollars, they imagine a literal Scrooge McDuck swimming pool of money, filled with that exact sum. Many of them don’t understand that his wealth is locked up in his assets, and if he were to sell his Amazon stock, the value of the company would shit itself and he’d be taxed on the proceeds, so basically, he has every incentive to keep holding stock in his own company. The more clever communists note that Jeffy B. can basically use his stock as collateral in a very low-interest loan of any size, so he could technically buy, oh, I dunno, a private submarine and an underground sub pen, or whatever the hell he wanted.

Another thing is that people with a high net worth do indeed have an outsized level of influence on politics, through their many charitable organizations, think tanks, and lobbying groups. In other words, they can use their financial power as a lever to nudge society in the direction they wish, usually in the direction that nets them more profit and minimizes the wages and labor protections of their employees.

Furthermore, it is arguable that a lot of what capitalism promotes is essentially wasteful consumerism. Past a certain point, there is such a thing as uneconomic growth. Capitalism is stuck in a cycle of endless growth. Under capitalism, economic contraction of any kind, even the kind required to lessen the burden on the environment, is a failure mode. There is such a large web of debts and obligations and contracts under capitalism, all it takes to bring the whole thing to a screeching halt is a large number of people suddenly defaulting on a bunch of loans. Growth is necessary, because it feeds back into the cycle of parasitical usury that underpins much of our financial system. If someone says they want to save the environment with an alternative energy source or material, usually, what they really want is to sell you a fancy new product.

Our society also happens to discard tons and tons of its wealth in the trash. Planned obsolescence means that people buy things that were designed to expire, become unfashionable, or break after a short while, guaranteeing their re-purchase and a constant stream of revenue. Unfortunately, this means everyone has to work like dogs to keep re-creating the wealth that was lost, for if they were to hoard that wealth instead and stop buying and trading things, the resultant illiquidity would destroy the markets. As a rule, capitalism discourages frugality and encourages extravagant spending, hence consumerism. Of course, many of these young millennials are fooled into becoming quite consumerist themselves, mainly to fill the void left by their unfulfilling and pointless jobs; in this schema, luxuries like streaming subscription services are merely there to make the moral and spiritual bankruptcy of their existences more tolerable.

So, in a sense, there are a number of reasonable anti-capitalist arguments out there that lure people into communism’s arms. Unfortunately, none of these solve the essential problem of socialism; it transfers the unearned influence and power of an unaccountable and shady army of businessmen to an equally unaccountable and shady political party, one who has no real competitors and may torment the citizenry at their leisure.

At least businessmen are occasionally divided against one another, and make no mistake, the only guarantor of liberty for the plebeian masses in a functioning society is an upper class divided against itself. That’s why we have anti-trust laws. That’s why we have government as a check against corporate power. Unfortunately, our government doesn’t always hold up its end of the bargain; once the rich get rich enough, they simply pay government to let them get away with murder.


If the minimum wage in the US had kept up with our increase in productivity, it would be $24 an hour right now. If the minimum wage was actually $24 an hour, companies would be employing half as many people to try and balance their books, and any wage surplus would soon be eaten up by the increased price of goods and the increased cost of living, as the ones selling those goods would detect that their customers have the ability to pay more.

Most millennials who are attracted to communism don’t actually want to work like a dog, like people did in old Soviet Russia. They envision a society with more or less the same amount of wealth, but less laboring overall and more time for leisure (a.k.a. ”please gimme Patreonbux for my shitty art”), either due to automation or the elimination of unnecessary, environmentally destructive, and emotionally taxing work. The goal isn’t to “have free things”. The goal is to get rid of work, which is the one thing standing between them and a permanent childhood.
 

Pickle Dick

boy do i wish it was 2016 again
kiwifarms.net
As multiple posters have already said, what we have in modern American society is a problem with kids going to college, being essentially indoctrinated in left-wing philosophy by their professors, getting a degree, and then getting out into the workforce only to find out that they’re in the hole for tens of thousands in college debt, and they can barely find a job making $36k to start. Half of their wage is going into their housing, and most of the other half is going into food, bills, Netflix, whatever. These kids are getting degrees in Communications, Business Administration, Law, and so on, and they’re finding that there aren’t any jobs available for these easy degrees that don’t involve difficult math or using your brain too hard (watch them screech when you suggest that the liberal arts are of limited practical value in a society where technical management is usurping social management).

All of the decent-paying factory jobs have been outsourced. A lot of the trades involve navigating a complex maze of credentialing and closed union shops and whatnot, and in the end, you’re stuck in a sausage party with a bunch of abrasive macho men that would make most of these college kids wilt with just one look, doing jobs that involve power tools, loud noise, and grease under your fingernails every single day. What they imagined would happen, of course, was that they’d land a cozy office job making $60k, maybe $80k a year straight out of college and be able to pay off their tuition fees in a reasonable timeframe. Instead, they usually end up flipping burgers or serving espresso for the people who do those jobs.

This leads to a whole lot of resentment, and most of that resentment isn’t even exactly of the unreasonable sort. They paid for a product; their education and their degree. They expected to receive a return on their investment, and yet, they did not. Right out of the starting gate, they are swindled out of a substantial sum of money and forced into debt servitude by over-education and under-employment. This is why many millennials still live with their parents and haven’t really started families of their own. That, in turn, leads to all kinds of emotional troubles.

But the attraction of communism runs deeper than mere practical concerns of this nature. A lot of people are increasingly skeptical of the general manner in which capitalist society is structured. Consider, for a moment, the average office job. A typical office worker spends a considerable amount of time, every workday, commuting and getting ready for work. So much of their time is occupied, they turn to fast food and other services to fulfill tasks that they don’t have enough free time to do on their own. When they get to their cubicle, about 3 hours of the time spent behind their computer, on average, is actual work. The other 5 hours is spent merely passing the time. Ritualized self-imprisonment for a wage. Not to mention, most of what they do could easily be done by telecommuting instead, given how ubiquitous internet access is in most first-world nations, so technically, their commute and all the services between them and their workplace are unnecessary frivolities.

David Graeber, who recently passed away, was an anthropologist and one of the leading figures in the Occupy Wall Street movement. He wrote a book called Bullshit Jobs where he described people relating anecdotes to him about how useless their jobs were.


His argument was that these jobs take an emotional toll on the people who perform them, when those people realize that what they do for a living is essentially useless and their job does not need to exist. He also argued that this form of compulsory employment is actually a hallmark of socialist societies; pointless and Sisyphean tasks akin to digging a ditch and filling it in over and over again, just like in a gulag.

Another factor is the increasing influence of the FIRE industry on society’s affairs; Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, in other words. Finance and insurance, in particular, are not actually real goods of any physical substance or use-value, but are “virtual” goods represented by the wholly imaginary value of money and debt. The larger the share of the market occupied by finance (i.e. paper-shuffling and making money with money), the less of it is occupied by other things (i.e. real industries that produce real goods that people can use and enjoy), however, this is relative. In most instances, Finance serves to increase growth and liquidity of the overall market, insurance acts as a hedge against risk, and real estate offers investors the opportunity to invest in, and reap the rewards from, rents on properties.

When people have no assets and they rely entirely on wages to make their money, they grow resentful towards people who have assets, of course. This is because, as Thomas Piketty put it, R > G. The return on capital investment is inevitably higher than the growth of wages. What this means is that capitalist societies are inevitably unequal, in the sense that those with no assets are at a strict disadvantage compared to those who have them. A lot of people don’t understand how finance works. A lot of these people have never invested in their lives, and recoil in horror at the idea of owning stock. I’ve owned stock. It’s not a big deal. When these college kids hear that Jeff Bezos is worth $131 billion dollars, they imagine a literal Scrooge McDuck swimming pool of money, filled with that exact sum. Many of them don’t understand that his wealth is locked up in his assets, and if he were to sell his Amazon stock, the value of the company would shit itself and he’d be taxed on the proceeds, so basically, he has every incentive to keep holding stock in his own company. The more clever communists note that Jeffy B. can basically use his stock as collateral in a very low-interest loan of any size, so he could technically buy, oh, I dunno, a private submarine and an underground sub pen, or whatever the hell he wanted.

Another thing is that people with a high net worth do indeed have an outsized level of influence on politics, through their many charitable organizations, think tanks, and lobbying groups. In other words, they can use their financial power as a lever to nudge society in the direction they wish, usually in the direction that nets them more profit and minimizes the wages and labor protections of their employees.

Furthermore, it is arguable that a lot of what capitalism promotes is essentially wasteful consumerism. Past a certain point, there is such a thing as uneconomic growth. Capitalism is stuck in a cycle of endless growth. Under capitalism, economic contraction of any kind, even the kind required to lessen the burden on the environment, is a failure mode. There is such a large web of debts and obligations and contracts under capitalism, all it takes to bring the whole thing to a screeching halt is a large number of people suddenly defaulting on a bunch of loans. Growth is necessary, because it feeds back into the cycle of parasitical usury that underpins much of our financial system. If someone says they want to save the environment with an alternative energy source or material, usually, what they really want is to sell you a fancy new product.

Our society also happens to discard tons and tons of its wealth in the trash. Planned obsolescence means that people buy things that were designed to expire, become unfashionable, or break after a short while, guaranteeing their re-purchase and a constant stream of revenue. Unfortunately, this means everyone has to work like dogs to keep re-creating the wealth that was lost, for if they were to hoard that wealth instead and stop buying and trading things, the resultant illiquidity would destroy the markets. As a rule, capitalism discourages frugality and encourages extravagant spending, hence consumerism. Of course, many of these young millennials are fooled into becoming quite consumerist themselves, mainly to fill the void left by their unfulfilling and pointless jobs; in this schema, luxuries like streaming subscription services are merely there to make the moral and spiritual bankruptcy of their existences more tolerable.

So, in a sense, there are a number of reasonable anti-capitalist arguments out there that lure people into communism’s arms. Unfortunately, none of these solve the essential problem of socialism; it transfers the unearned influence and power of an unaccountable and shady army of businessmen to an equally unaccountable and shady political party, one who has no real competitors and may torment the citizenry at their leisure.

At least businessmen are occasionally divided against one another, and make no mistake, the only guarantor of liberty for the plebeian masses in a functioning society is an upper class divided against itself. That’s why we have anti-trust laws. That’s why we have government as a check against corporate power. Unfortunately, our government doesn’t always hold up its end of the bargain; once the rich get rich enough, they simply pay government to let them get away with murder.


If the minimum wage in the US had kept up with our increase in productivity, it would be $24 an hour right now. If the minimum wage was actually $24 an hour, companies would be employing half as many people to try and balance their books, and any wage surplus would soon be eaten up by the increased price of goods and the increased cost of living, as the ones selling those goods would detect that their customers have the ability to pay more.

Most millennials who are attracted to communism don’t actually want to work like a dog, like people did in old Soviet Russia. They envision a society with more or less the same amount of wealth, but less laboring overall and more time for leisure (a.k.a. ”please gimme Patreonbux for my shitty art”), either due to automation or the elimination of unnecessary, environmentally destructive, and emotionally taxing work. The goal isn’t to “have free things”. The goal is to get rid of work, which is the one thing standing between them and a permanent childhood.
so in short, there are legitimate criticisms to be had with capitalism, but most of the people that are criticising it are lazy bums that dont actually want to work at all and instead want free stuff from the government? that seems about right.
 

Xerxes IX

Neko Atsume cat named Sargon of Aclawed next?
kiwifarms.net
so in short, there are legitimate criticisms to be had with capitalism, but most of the people that are criticising it are lazy bums that dont actually want to work at all and instead want free stuff from the government? that seems about right.
Especially when these capitalism critics see no problem with wasteful consumerism and planned obsolecense. They keep buying into those things while shaking their fists and cursing capitalism. Some use the "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" meme line to mean basically the same thing as a religious person going "well I WOULDN'T be committing sin if the temptation didn't exist" If one of the reasons you hate capitalism is it costs too much to replace your old iphone with the new one, you have officially lost the plot.
 

ImBatman

kiwifarms.net
so in short, there are legitimate criticisms to be had with capitalism, but most of the people that are criticising it are lazy bums that dont actually want to work at all and instead want free stuff from the government? that seems about right.
Well, basically. I find it very difficult to find people who are 100% satisfied with capitalism. The problem is that communism is a nuclear solution that doesn't make things better - but it's propagandized as a magical, silver spoon solution that will fix everything. Anyone who buys into something like that isn't thinking too hard about it and is thus most likely lacking in the willpower to truly educate themselves, and that lack of willpower is also apparent in their desire to do virtually anything else.

I hate the way the world is right now. I would do anything in my power to change it for the better if I could. But I can't, and because of that, I'm fine with just accepting the way things are and working hard to ensure my own personal success. I imagine that many people who dislike communism would agree with the sentiment. No one wants to work, no one wants to abandon their hobbies or passions for something that they find to be useless or soul-crushing, and yet it's only through conceding to that you can ever find some happiness in life. And yet, it's like the mere idea of admitting that a perfect world is a pipe dream and trying to adjust to our own, imperfect society is sinful to them.
 

PaleTay

kiwifarms.net
As multiple posters have already said, what we have in modern American society is a problem with kids going to college, being essentially indoctrinated in left-wing philosophy by their professors, getting a degree, and then getting out into the workforce only to find out that they’re in the hole for tens of thousands in college debt, and they can barely find a job making $36k to start. Half of their wage is going into their housing, and most of the other half is going into food, bills, Netflix, whatever. These kids are getting degrees in Communications, Business Administration, Law, and so on, and they’re finding that there aren’t any jobs available for these easy degrees that don’t involve difficult math or using your brain too hard (watch them screech when you suggest that the liberal arts are of limited practical value in a society where technical management is usurping social management).

All of the decent-paying factory jobs have been outsourced. A lot of the trades involve navigating a complex maze of credentialing and closed union shops and whatnot, and in the end, you’re stuck in a sausage party with a bunch of abrasive macho men that would make most of these college kids wilt with just one look, doing jobs that involve power tools, loud noise, and grease under your fingernails every single day. What they imagined would happen, of course, was that they’d land a cozy office job making $60k, maybe $80k a year straight out of college and be able to pay off their tuition fees in a reasonable timeframe. Instead, they usually end up flipping burgers or serving espresso for the people who do those jobs.

This leads to a whole lot of resentment, and most of that resentment isn’t even exactly of the unreasonable sort. They paid for a product; their education and their degree. They expected to receive a return on their investment, and yet, they did not. Right out of the starting gate, they are swindled out of a substantial sum of money and forced into debt servitude by over-education and under-employment. This is why many millennials still live with their parents and haven’t really started families of their own. That, in turn, leads to all kinds of emotional troubles.

But the attraction of communism runs deeper than mere practical concerns of this nature. A lot of people are increasingly skeptical of the general manner in which capitalist society is structured. Consider, for a moment, the average office job. A typical office worker spends a considerable amount of time, every workday, commuting and getting ready for work. So much of their time is occupied, they turn to fast food and other services to fulfill tasks that they don’t have enough free time to do on their own. When they get to their cubicle, about 3 hours of the time spent behind their computer, on average, is actual work. The other 5 hours is spent merely passing the time. Ritualized self-imprisonment for a wage. Not to mention, most of what they do could easily be done by telecommuting instead, given how ubiquitous internet access is in most first-world nations, so technically, their commute and all the services between them and their workplace are unnecessary frivolities.

David Graeber, who recently passed away, was an anthropologist and one of the leading figures in the Occupy Wall Street movement. He wrote a book called Bullshit Jobs where he described people relating anecdotes to him about how useless their jobs were.


His argument was that these jobs take an emotional toll on the people who perform them, when those people realize that what they do for a living is essentially useless and their job does not need to exist. He also argued that this form of compulsory employment is actually a hallmark of socialist societies; pointless and Sisyphean tasks akin to digging a ditch and filling it in over and over again, just like in a gulag.

Another factor is the increasing influence of the FIRE industry on society’s affairs; Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, in other words. Finance and insurance, in particular, are not actually real goods of any physical substance or use-value, but are “virtual” goods represented by the wholly imaginary value of money and debt. The larger the share of the market occupied by finance (i.e. paper-shuffling and making money with money), the less of it is occupied by other things (i.e. real industries that produce real goods that people can use and enjoy), however, this is relative. In most instances, Finance serves to increase growth and liquidity of the overall market, insurance acts as a hedge against risk, and real estate offers investors the opportunity to invest in, and reap the rewards from, rents on properties.

When people have no assets and they rely entirely on wages to make their money, they grow resentful towards people who have assets, of course. This is because, as Thomas Piketty put it, R > G. The return on capital investment is inevitably higher than the growth of wages. What this means is that capitalist societies are inevitably unequal, in the sense that those with no assets are at a strict disadvantage compared to those who have them. A lot of people don’t understand how finance works. A lot of these people have never invested in their lives, and recoil in horror at the idea of owning stock. I’ve owned stock. It’s not a big deal. When these college kids hear that Jeff Bezos is worth $131 billion dollars, they imagine a literal Scrooge McDuck swimming pool of money, filled with that exact sum. Many of them don’t understand that his wealth is locked up in his assets, and if he were to sell his Amazon stock, the value of the company would shit itself and he’d be taxed on the proceeds, so basically, he has every incentive to keep holding stock in his own company. The more clever communists note that Jeffy B. can basically use his stock as collateral in a very low-interest loan of any size, so he could technically buy, oh, I dunno, a private submarine and an underground sub pen, or whatever the hell he wanted.

Another thing is that people with a high net worth do indeed have an outsized level of influence on politics, through their many charitable organizations, think tanks, and lobbying groups. In other words, they can use their financial power as a lever to nudge society in the direction they wish, usually in the direction that nets them more profit and minimizes the wages and labor protections of their employees.

Furthermore, it is arguable that a lot of what capitalism promotes is essentially wasteful consumerism. Past a certain point, there is such a thing as uneconomic growth. Capitalism is stuck in a cycle of endless growth. Under capitalism, economic contraction of any kind, even the kind required to lessen the burden on the environment, is a failure mode. There is such a large web of debts and obligations and contracts under capitalism, all it takes to bring the whole thing to a screeching halt is a large number of people suddenly defaulting on a bunch of loans. Growth is necessary, because it feeds back into the cycle of parasitical usury that underpins much of our financial system. If someone says they want to save the environment with an alternative energy source or material, usually, what they really want is to sell you a fancy new product.

Our society also happens to discard tons and tons of its wealth in the trash. Planned obsolescence means that people buy things that were designed to expire, become unfashionable, or break after a short while, guaranteeing their re-purchase and a constant stream of revenue. Unfortunately, this means everyone has to work like dogs to keep re-creating the wealth that was lost, for if they were to hoard that wealth instead and stop buying and trading things, the resultant illiquidity would destroy the markets. As a rule, capitalism discourages frugality and encourages extravagant spending, hence consumerism. Of course, many of these young millennials are fooled into becoming quite consumerist themselves, mainly to fill the void left by their unfulfilling and pointless jobs; in this schema, luxuries like streaming subscription services are merely there to make the moral and spiritual bankruptcy of their existences more tolerable.

So, in a sense, there are a number of reasonable anti-capitalist arguments out there that lure people into communism’s arms. Unfortunately, none of these solve the essential problem of socialism; it transfers the unearned influence and power of an unaccountable and shady army of businessmen to an equally unaccountable and shady political party, one who has no real competitors and may torment the citizenry at their leisure.

At least businessmen are occasionally divided against one another, and make no mistake, the only guarantor of liberty for the plebeian masses in a functioning society is an upper class divided against itself. That’s why we have anti-trust laws. That’s why we have government as a check against corporate power. Unfortunately, our government doesn’t always hold up its end of the bargain; once the rich get rich enough, they simply pay government to let them get away with murder.


If the minimum wage in the US had kept up with our increase in productivity, it would be $24 an hour right now. If the minimum wage was actually $24 an hour, companies would be employing half as many people to try and balance their books, and any wage surplus would soon be eaten up by the increased price of goods and the increased cost of living, as the ones selling those goods would detect that their customers have the ability to pay more.

Most millennials who are attracted to communism don’t actually want to work like a dog, like people did in old Soviet Russia. They envision a society with more or less the same amount of wealth, but less laboring overall and more time for leisure (a.k.a. ”please gimme Patreonbux for my shitty art”), either due to automation or the elimination of unnecessary, environmentally destructive, and emotionally taxing work. The goal isn’t to “have free things”. The goal is to get rid of work, which is the one thing standing between them and a permanent childhood.
I'd take Graeber's argument further and Buckminister Fuller actually made many of the thoughts I've had about society decades ago. Fuller believed that there's no merit to the idea that people had to earn a living, as technology should evolve to make that idea obsolete and people should focus on human advancement in one way or another. I think many jobs' existence in one form or another stand in the way of progress. A secondary point of the bullshit jobs is to prevent the intelligent people from revolutionizing humanity to various degrees as jobs need to exist and they need to be simple enough that the masses can do them.

I think it goes beyond the cage of time that you're trapped in, in say an office job, but there's also a chaining of skill that restricts talent or personal growth. There's no reward for finishing your work in an hour, in fact there may be a punishment. I will say university graduates deserve better in many solely for having intermediate computer skills, it's unacceptable that so many people still struggle with basic computer tasks and refuse to improve.

There's not a lot of point in hiring most middle class jobs, but sometimes you are forced to for practical or legal reasons. A lot of jobs do not provide the individual with much value. I cannot simply hire a tradesman/mover, someone in real estate or finance, or someone in IT and expect them to be competent and charge me a fair price, I have to know enough about their job to ensure they're competent and acting in my interest.

I do consider restaurants wasteful consumerism and constitute a large chunk of the economy, yet many simply appeal to those who cannot cook.
 

Wilhelm Bittrich

It's not fun to be sober!
kiwifarms.net
Of course, you have the idiots who think any concession to the working class is "Marxist", which is amusing. I mean, look at that raging commie who came up with the idea of government healthcare, Otto von Bismarck! 😆
Tbh, it was Bismarck with great support of the then Kaiser Wilhelm I.
". . .those who are disabled from work by age and invalidity have a well-grounded claim to care from the state." - Emperor Wilhelm I.
The invention of the German social security net was a classic "revolution from above".

Timeline of the development of the German Social Security System:
1883: Sickness Insurance Law (Health insurance)
1884: Accident Insurance Law
1889: Old age, widow's/widower's, orphans and disability pension insurance law
1927: Unemployment insurance law
The first three insurance laws were mandatory for people with an yearly income of less than 2,000 Reichsmarks and by 1925 two thirds of the labor force were covered.
White collar workers added by 1911.
100% coverage of workforce by 1957.
1971 University students are covered too.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Syaoran Li

Drain Todger

Unhinged Doomsayer
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I'd take Graeber's argument further and Buckminister Fuller actually made many of the thoughts I've had about society decades ago. Fuller believed that there's no merit to the idea that people had to earn a living, as technology should evolve to make that idea obsolete and people should focus on human advancement in one way or another. I think many jobs' existence in one form or another stand in the way of progress. A secondary point of the bullshit jobs is to prevent the intelligent people from revolutionizing humanity to various degrees as jobs need to exist and they need to be simple enough that the masses can do them.

I think it goes beyond the cage of time that you're trapped in, in say an office job, but there's also a chaining of skill that restricts talent or personal growth. There's no reward for finishing your work in an hour, in fact there may be a punishment. I will say university graduates deserve better in many solely for having intermediate computer skills, it's unacceptable that so many people still struggle with basic computer tasks and refuse to improve.

There's not a lot of point in hiring most middle class jobs, but sometimes you are forced to for practical or legal reasons. A lot of jobs do not provide the individual with much value. I cannot simply hire a tradesman/mover, someone in real estate or finance, or someone in IT and expect them to be competent and charge me a fair price, I have to know enough about their job to ensure they're competent and acting in my interest.

I do consider restaurants wasteful consumerism and constitute a large chunk of the economy, yet many simply appeal to those who cannot cook.
That's the way I've always seen it, too. The abolition of work - especially of meaningless make-work variety - should be seen as a way to free up labor for other, more productive things. If people are toiling unnecessarily at an assembly line, doing a job that a robot could do, or if they're busy bean-counting, I can tell you what they're not doing; writing a book, or learning the guitar, or painting a picture, or doing valuable research. It is a waste of mankind's vast potential to employ us doing pointless, rehashed tasks over and over again. If we want to be frugal, then we need an economy that can withstand people purchasing more durable goods that last a long time and not purchasing them again for a good ten or twenty years. For that, we must eliminate planned obsolescence. One of my favorite analogies for this is the razor. Back in the day, a straight razor was an heirloom item. It took skill to use without cutting oneself, but always afforded the user the cleanest possible shave. If properly maintained, it could last basically forever. People collect and use restored straight razors that are easily a century old. Compare and contrast with the modern disposable razor. Safe and easy to use, sure, but it rusts and dulls after only a few weeks of steady usage. Which would you rather have? A $1.32 razor that lasts 3 weeks before you throw it away, or a $150 razor that lasts 5,200 weeks and which you can pass down to your children? There are a lot of things in society that have become disposable like this. Eliminating consumerism and the throw-away society is about more than just protecting the environment and achieving degrowth. It's about eliminating uneconomic growth and keeping mankind's wealth and congealed labor from being unjustly discarded.

There is a text from the 1930s by a man named Bernard London, a Freemason, that directly opposed this point of view and advocated for more planned obsolescence to end the Great Depression.


People everywhere are today disobeying the law of obsolescence. They are using their old cars, their old tires, their old radios and their old clothing much longer than statisticians had expected on the basis of earlier experience.

The question before the American people is whether they want to risk their future on such continued planless, haphazard, fickle attitudes of owners of ships and shoes and sealing wax.

What the people can afford is very different at a time when the majority are gainfully employed than it is in a period when perhaps ten million are without gainful employment. The job of modern management is to balance production with consumption – to enable one large group, like the factory workers in the cities, to exchange the products of their hours of labor for the output of farmers. The prevailing defeatist assumption that depression and unemployment must continue because we have too much of everything, is the counsel of despair.

Society is suffering untold loss in foregoing the workpower of ten million human beings. The present deadlock is the inevitable result of traveling along blind alleys. Chaos must unavoidably flow from an unplanned economic existence.

In the future, we must not only plan what we shall do, but we should also apply management and planning to undoing the obsolete jobs of the past. This thought constitutes the essence of my plan for ending the depression and for restoring affluence and a better standard of living to the average man.

My proposal would put the entire country on the road to recovery, and eventually restore normal employment conditions and sound prosperity. My suggested remedy would provide a permanent source of income for the Federal Government and would relieve it for all time of the difficulties of balancing its budget.

Briefly stated, the essence of my plan for accomplishing these much-to-be-desired-ends is to chart the obsolesce of capital and consumption goods at the time of their production.

I would have the Government assign a lease of life to shoes and homes and machines, to all products of manufacture, mining and agriculture, when they are first created, and they would be sold and used within the term of their existence definitely known by the consumer. After the allotted time had expired, these things would be legally “dead” and would be controlled by the duly appointed governmental agency and destroyed if there is widespread unemployment. New products would constantly be pouring forth from the factories and marketplaces, to take the place of the obsolete, and the wheels of industry would be kept going and employment regularized and assured for the masses.

I am not advocating the total destruction of anything, with the exception of such things as are outward and useless. To start business going and employ people in the manufacture of things, it would be necessary to destroy such things in the beginning – but for the first time only. After the first sweeping up process necessary to clean away obsolete products in use today, the system would work smoothly in the future, without loss to harm to anybody. Wouldn’t it be profitable to spend a sum of—say—two billion dollars to buy up, immediately, obsolete and useless buildings, machinery, automobiles and other outworn junk, and in their place create from twenty to thirty billion dollars worth of work in the construction field and in the factory? Such a process would put the entire country on the road to recovery and eventually would restore normal employment and business prosperity.
He advocated literally rounding up all the "junk" that people were keeping past its prime and destroying it, just to ensure that people would work and grow the economy. Though it seemed a somewhat fanciful idea at the time, in many ways, this resembles our current economic system. People buy new smartphones once every year or two, and the old phone ends up in a landfill. I know people who lease a new car every year because they need that kind of constant novelty and have grown bored with what they already have.


Thorstein Veblen was one of my favorite writers. He was the one who coined the term "conspicuous consumption". That's when someone buys something just to keep up with the Joneses, and not because they actually need it; the token of wealth is valuable to them simply because it demonstrates their wealth to others, socially. If you buy a Rolex and flash it to people, that's conspicuous consumption.

What I argue is that conspicuous consumption and planned obsolescence form a vicious cycle that depletes natural resources and destroys our wealth, forcing us to work to replace the lost wealth, when we could be working to advance the sciences and our culture instead. The throw-away society is essentially an empty ritual that serves nothing. It's basically a collective, planetary-scale engagement in absurd performance art, and all it really does is enrich a tiny handful of already very rich bankers.
 

Soulless4510

kiwifarms.net
What I argue is that conspicuous consumption and planned obsolescence form a vicious cycle that depletes natural resources and destroys our wealth, forcing us to work to replace the lost wealth, when we could be working to advance the sciences and our culture instead. The throw-away society is essentially an empty ritual that serves nothing. It's basically a collective, planetary-scale engagement in absurd performance art, and all it really does is enrich a tiny handful of already very rich bankers.
The problem with that is it would take at least 2-3 generations IMHO to unlearn conspicuous consumption as it is so ingrained in all of us so deeply that people would lose their minds if this system were to fade away right now
 
Tags
None