Paul Krugman
Guy Standing
Joseph Stiglitz
Diedre McCloskey
Shoshana Duboff
Yanis Varoufakis
Mariana Mazzucato
Slavoj Žižek

All proletarians are wage-laborers, but not all wage-laborers are proletarians. — Moliere

I include anyone who makes a wage and isn’t an owner part of the proletariat. There can be gradations, but it’s on par with white and blue collar, upper middle and middle class, etc.

M'kay, let's work with those terms then. I'm not finicky when it comes to terms.

Wage-laborers are proletarians, and proletarians are wage-laborers. The abolition of capitalism is the abolition of the wage system in any capacity, so co-ops count as a sort of abolition-in-miniature.

I would assert that the current international economic system, at the scope of nations, relies upon exploitation, and there is a bottom class on this scale. On the top, it seems, we are in agreement -- the bourgeoisie.

Do you disagree with my characterization of that class? Or are we in agreement there?



On the bottom, so I'd say, there's the global south and the whole history of colonialism to account for -- material resources have been plundered the world over using the mechanisms of the economic system we live with now.

So abolish capitalism in miniature -- or even lets say at a certain scale? -- and there's still this past and current history of nations exploiting, externalizing the bottom-labor to other national markets to protect their own. This exploitation will continue to exist, and that's the one I care about.

So abolish capitalism in miniature -- or even lets say at a certain scale? -- and there's still this past and current history of nations exploiting, externalizing the bottom-labor to other national markets to protect their own. This exploitation will continue to exist, and that's the one I care about. — Moliere

Utopia in miniature is a step toward larger scale change. Focus on the world around you. Engage it with your vision in mind. Allow the bigger world to unfold according to its own inner logic. Know you're making a difference by starting small.

Do you disagree with my characterization of that class? Or are we in agreement there? — Moliere

So I clearly had to think on that a bit. Namely, for the last 4 years. Now I’m ready to respond.

Just kidding. I was re-reading this (still interesting) thread and realized it left off rather abruptly. Not sure why.

Yes, I do agree. Looking back, I’m not sure where the disagreement really arose from. I still remain firm: remove the capitalists, you remove capitalism. It’s true that private property, profit, and markets still remain — but they all predated capitalism in the sense I mean anyway, and are upstream from it.

Btw, this video is what led me to remember this thread:

It’s good to see @Streetlight’s byline back on the front page.

This ‘impersonal’ aspect of markets is what makes it different to say, gift economies, where gifts might be exchanged in order to keep up good relations between tribes. Or else different to relations of patronage or villeange, in which labour or goods are exchanged for protection or use of land. — Streetlight

Very interesting subject. I have a question. In the systems of patronage or villeange, what would prevent exploiting others? I think I see in your thread the difference between good and evil.

t is at this point, where the general mode of production becomes geared towards the market, that capitalism proper can be said to come into being. And this, ultimately is the difference in kind between markets and capitalism — Streetlight

I wonder how communism fits into your understanding of capitalism.

He was banned 3 years ago.

He was banned 3 years ago. — Tom Storm

It still makes me sad, although those fucking Australians are always causing trouble.

We’re not all post-modern mercurial geniuses down here, I can tell you.

He was banned 3 years ago. — Tom Storm

-Interesting. Perhaps we should ignore that this is an old thread? @"Mikie reactivated the thread by replying to @Moliere, whose last post was 2 years ago, I think?

I like Mikie's posted video explaining capitalism, and I went from that explanation to another one.



There is hardly anything more important to think about than capitalism, and whether it is time to change how we manage it.

I don’t think we live in capitalism as such, more a capitalist inspired clusterfuck of earth raping corporate barbarism. In theory it is possible to have more compassionate capitalist systems that avoid destructive oligopolies. But in practice I think we’ll need a nuclear holocaust before there’s change. But I’m a pessimist, a defeatist and an indolent former wannabe Marxist who is too tired to spend time on such grandiose themes as world economic reform.

Whoo, those were some pretty strong words. I hope you keep sharing because I would like to know more. I dropped my interest in communism when I learned they "liberated" women with a campaign to make everyone think women should be working. You know, like in the US when stay-at-home homemakers became "just housewives". I think we should be free to self-actualize and I also think the most important thing women can do is be good homemakers and community volunteers.

When the USSR liberated women, the economy grew as more people were in the workforce. So did the abortion and divorce rate grow, and women were not doing as well as men because they became single parents and did not have the support of men with wives. I love talking about this and hope if you do reply it is respectful and not hostile.

I want greater awareness of the negative consequences of not valuing homemakers. Also, I posted the history of capitalism and an explanation of the commons. There is so much we can talk about. Not only did divorce and abortion increase in the US, but so did the number of women and children involved in crime increase, for female victims and perpetrators but the cost of housing greatly increased because now families had two incomes and more people could buy housing, and boy, are we in a banking and housing mess now.

Bottom line, giving women the freedom of barbarians may not be the best move for civilization, and I don't think anyone failing the value full-time homemakers is thinking about what is good for humanity.

I think we should be free to self-actualize and I also think the most important thing women can do is be good homemakers and community volunteers. — Athena

Excellent.

Bottom line, giving women the freedom of barbarians may not be the best move for civilization, and I don't think anyone failing the value full-time homemakers is thinking about what is good for humanity. — Athena

Incredible (absolutely no negative valence to this at all).

What are you thoughts on the current trend which says that traditional values are radicalizing women to the right

Personally, I see the argument. I think its coming from jealous, historically ignorant, and ideologically captured fools.