Both egoism and altruism are human nature. We are capable of both (for the most part). Currently, we have a socioeconomic system that rewards and encourages primarily the former. Why not try it the other way and see where that brings us?
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
276 points (90.4% liked)
Memes
45738 readers
453 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I'd like to point out the viability of cooperatives to accomplish this. A co-op is defined by the seven Rochdale Principles. Among those is open and voluntary membership, democratic member control, cooperation among cooperatives, and concern for community.
Its a stateless form of socialism that gives workers ownership to the means of production and doesnt have to necessarily negate private ownership. They can simply be incentivized by the state similar to how tax breaks and subsidies currently work or by providing workers the framework for which to purchase a company in the case of failure (like after the 2008 financial crash - when competition, greed, and capitalism failed).
Why would they be incentivized by the state that exists to uphold capitalism? Read state and revolution.
Just what ive decided might be the best, or quickest, path to achievement. Wishful thinking, idealist, idea worth spreading. I see cooperatives as a form of peaceful revolution, but how best to achieve a cooperative economy when so few are aware of what it means? One way, I suppose, is for elected officials to advocate for it. Its hard but not impossible to imagine. I suppose there are multiple steps in between that would make that more tangible, and one of those is awareness. There's already a lot of us in support of socialist ideas where one of the biggest criticisms is for a planned economy, so why not advocate for a stateless form of socialism that expands, rather than possibly, or arguably, restricts, individual and collective freedoms?
Was Lenin aware of cooperatives when he wrote the state and revolution? Its not a theoretical idea. Its already a proven and successful form of enterprise. Why do some of our representatives advocate for workers unions when their existence goes against capitalist exploitation of workers? Seems totally possible to advocate for worker cooperatives in a similar vein.
There’s already a lot of us in support of socialist ideas where one of the biggest criticisms is for a planned economy
Planned economies are good actually, there is a reason semi-feudal russia was able to go to space in 40 years after the revolution, while beating off imperial superpowers like Germany and Britain.
Was Lenin aware of cooperatives when he wrote the state and revolution? Its not a theoretical idea.
Yes lol: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1917/a-meeting.html
There can be no such thing as peaceful revolution, if your political movement is getting anywhere the bourgeoisie will send their dogs to destroy it, and it will be violent. You must only look to history to see how easily the mask of civility slips away and the inhuman, bloodthirsty face of capital is revealed.
I had an ex help organize an event to great success, ultimately accomplishing more than they were asking for from the powers at be. Organizers in the area tried to shut it down, or take over, however because it wasn't how protests are typically done.
I don't know enough about Lenin, but do we need violent revolution to advocate for cooperatives and elect officials that will help support them? With the right state sponsored incentives, cooperatives can be a great stepping stone for a peaceful transition of power giving workers ownership to the means of production. I struggle to understand how someone can argue against this idea. Maybe I need to learn more history, or maybe we need to be collectively more optimistic and united. I don't know how to accomplish this aside from trying to feebly spread the idea here and in my own life. I'm involved and trying to be more involved in the small cooperative movement.
to advocate for cooperatives and elect officials that will help support them? With the right state sponsored incentives, cooperatives can be a great stepping stone for a peaceful transition of power giving workers ownership to the means of production. I struggle to understand how someone can argue against this idea.
So basically the state exists in order to defend capitalism from internal and external threats, and a cooperative movement growing too big is a threat that it is going to respond to violently. Hell, union struggles led to literal battles and aerial bombings, and they only wanted better conditions working for the capitalists.
Right I see. Co-ops are a threat to a capitalist that wants to exploit their workers, and if co-ops got big enough to strain the system I imagine there would be some push back from someone with money.
But co-ops can exist outside the system so it shouldn't matter, and theyd have the power in numbers. Cooperation among cooperatives is one of the defining principles of a cooperative. So if a housing co-op gets their food from a food co-op who gets their food from a farmers co-op and they all get there energy from an energy co-op, what is a capitalist to do? Its like a free market and if the capitalist fails, that's just competition.
All that would need to be done is for there to be more co-ops and more people that understand and want them to exist.
I mean if we want to overthrow the system violently, or reject it with violence, we can but I see an alternative here if somehow people can unite on an idea. I don't know how to do that though.
But co-ops can exist outside the system
They straight up do not exist outside the system? I dont know why you think they exist outside the system.
I mean its the goal.. to avoid violent revolution. If it does need to turn to that though, then what will be there to replace capitalism?
Its literally an alternative where workers own the means of production. How is that not outside the system? They already exist in pockets around the world.
Its literally an alternative where workers own the means of production. How is that not outside the system?
Because capitalism isn't just individual companies, it is also the state, financial systems, markets, etc. If two out of 5 production systems become cooperatives the owners of the last 3 are gonna instruct the police to restore capitalist control to the two.
I wonder how well a system would work where you get more money, the more you help people/help solve problems (with problems i mean like pollution or something)
We should encourage that financially. I don't think communism is a viable solution tho
load more comments
(1 replies)
My response is always is it not human nature for many to be violent towards others and yet few would say that's ok. The answer is simple, humans are fundementally more then their base instincts and desires. If humanity were nothing more then animals then society as we know it would have never formed.
Based response, even though I wouldn't say I'm a communist, more social democratic
load more comments
(3 replies)
Exactly. Our ability to use language, create culture, abstract ideas and concepts and step outside of them are the ingredients that allow us to transcend our evolutionary instincts and urges, and that’s exactly what we should do when building a society and culture.
There is no such thing as human nature only human habit
I'm currently reading a book which argues that "most people, deep down, are actually pretty decent". It's really good, highly recommend to anyone. It's called "Human Kind" by Rutger Bregman
Game theorists in shambles
Communism is against human nature.
Along with every social construct that we make including laws and traditions. We make these rules precisely to counter the human nature in an attempt to create a better society, though not all are by intentional design. What is good for an isolated sole single individual is very different for a whole society and a prosperous society benefits individuals to have different opportunities than a lone actor. For example, a society where you aren't constantly worried about theft allows you to engage in trade more freely and thus able to trade more. The act of limiting personal freedom (nature) to steal, in turn, allowed society to have an increase in ability to trade.
What is closer to human nature is going to be more easily accepted by humans. And free market is closer to nature than communism. That is why it was invented first and what has set place first. If communism is indeed what society as a whole feels is better for society, they will constantly shift towards it. Some may argue similar to Canada or Scandinavian countries. Though I wouldn't define what they're shifting to as communism because countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc. score higher than USA in economic freedom index (free market). But, that discussion would go off course from topic of what is true communism which has no end.
Last 2 panels of the OP's memes refer more greatly to individual actions rather than societal actions. I'm sure certain individuals will help and be charitable. Though as a whole would be obviously less than communism since certain definitions of communism would be a mathematical maximum of reduction of poor due to equalization.
The last two panels refer to structuring society based on the expectation that wealthy people will share, which is basically the trickle down argument.
That interpretation seems more like your own opinion rather than the opinion of those who actually say that. I see little causal relevance between charity and trickle down economics.
You have to think more impartially to understand why these two train of thoughts have little to no intersection. Do you know why these people you're characterizing are saying "people are generous"? Because like you said, greed is simultaneously said. If you get it, you'll see it's not about trickle down.
Additionally the general right wing argument for the structuring society around volunteer charity over forced social care is that volunteer format is enough from the view of the giver, not that they will get enough from the view of the receiver. If that happens to be nothing, they're saying so be it. If that happens to be a lot, that's great. The argument is also about having the option to choose where they help rather than a government body choosing it... Though I don't think individuals could possibly know though to choose well.
I am not making an argument for the right or left. I'm just fixing the polarized viewpoint of the other party.
What I'm saying is that regardless how you frame this, what it comes down in tangible terms is trickle down. The argument is that it's fine for the wealth to become concentrated with a small minority of the population because they will share it voluntarily. This is demonstrably not the case in practice.
load more comments
(2 replies)
(You are mixing economic systems with market systems - as if communism can't have free markets or that capitalism can't come up with a law that 99% of the profits must be shared as bonuses to all workers)
How do you know free market is closer to human nature (which isn't a thing)?
Especially when more than 99% of the time humans lived is socialist communes (ie communism).
(Not to mention most animals live in communistic systems, and none have free-markets.)
And especially when even in free markets vast majority of the people (workers) don't really participate in it directly.
Also humans with their blood thought and achieved that free market isn't a thing, that we have governments that regulate at minimum things that just cannot ever work in a free market.
Thats a bit like a mediaeval peasant saying its 'human nature' to want feudalism.
And a bit like saying revolutions and socioeconomic system changes arent in human nature.
Even the argument of human greediness isn't an argument for capitalism - the system decides what you are greedy for (capital in capitalism, land in feudalism, commune (respect) in communism, seashells in seashellsism).
In each -ism you can be greedy.
... wELL teCHniCAllY nO mArKEt iS aCTUallY frEe
Complete communism can't have free market by definition. And complete free market can't have laws to redistribute profits. That is the definition of these words. The theoretical maximum definition obviously differs from actual application as nothing is applied in a complete sense.
Revolutions and socioeconomic systems aren't human nature. Along with all your above examples. My entire point is that there is a difference between individual human nature and the societal nature. Your point of human nature wanting feudalism is opposite of my point. I'm stating that EVERY SINGLE social construct you can imagine or think of is not of the individual nature but the societal one, including feudalism. And that less of construct you require is closer to human nature. More construct required is further away from human nature. That is, communism requires greater management by the society than the free market to exist, and thus is further from human nature. You may choose to define "human nature" differently, but this is how I see it.
I don't think you realise how much effort systems invest into their own existence. I don't know how to begin to compare that.
Do you equate free market (what market?) with lawlessness?
That is, is robbery part of free market then? Or why not?
Im assuming you mean taxes also arent free market? In which case I wonder why other infrastructure should be. Why would any laws or police be part of the free market?
In the basic sense communism is to share labour profits by default, and there are plenty examples of that in nature. On the other hand I can't really come up an example of free market - perhaps when they introduced money to monkeys and they immediately used it for sex (but I don't recall there being much talk about pricing). They did the same when birds and they just communismed it (or remained as communist as before within a certain group I assume, taking moneys just as one of the resources).
What is in human nature is to adapt to circumstances - which includes various systems and infrastructure.
And people adapt quickly to good things as well as to bad things. Shockingly quickly in both cases.
The same with animals.
What is much harder is to go against the system & change it (like the actual system, not just the leaders or vips).
Free market per wikipedia definition:
In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority. Proponents of the free market as a normative ideal contrast it with a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand by means of various methods such as taxes or regulations. In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants.
It's not equal to lawlessness, but it is lawless within market. These two are not equivalent. Still, that is not to say it is without order. Free market is entirely an economic system and not a social system nor any other plethora of systems in a country. So the topic of those other systems are simply out of the scope. Therefore, laws can exist in the society.
Robbery is part of the free market. Along with whatever happens like tornadoes, fire, murder, etc. Including the cost to hire your own security if necessary. Police is against free market because it is an intervention by the government. There does exist a grey area like if a robber becomes a gang and becomes a businesses' external authority. Then they are impeding on the free market.
This is how free market is defined. So, to reiterate, if there exists any body that is redistributing your profit, it is against free market.
Communism is not a share of labour profits. Communism is more than just an economic system. It's also a social and philosophical one. But assuming we're only talking about the economic parts, it still doesn't mean to share labour profits. Quoting wikipedia once again:
Communism is [...] a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need.
The keyword here is common ownership. Everyone owns the entire chain of production together. Your view on the concept of profit even existing is out of line with communism. From wikipedia:
Monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest, and wage labor would not operate and apply to Marxist socialism.
If we go with Marxist version, you already own everything together and nothing has monetary value. You can't have profit because there is no such thing as selling, and there is no money, so you can't profit on anything. The concept of the profit sharing would be anti-communism.
If we go with Lenin's view on state capitalism (which he said is not communism, but may be a necessary transition state to communism) where we accept that things have value but that only the state engages in capitalism, people still wouldn't get profit. Because people still wouldn't have money. You would simply have better status in livelihood in hopes that the state has used that money well for the benefit of the people.
Communism is not profit sharing, its very core purpose is to remove the concept of profit.
Sharing of labour profits at a nation level is called "labour share". And at a company level, it is called "co-operative business".
view more: next ›