Sometimes I envy them, sure, but envy is a great motivator. To me it’s very kind that they would start an enterprise at which I can work and be rendered payment for my services. The right by which someone usually comes to own the means of production is through purchase or gift or labor, though there are nefarious means. — NOS4A2

A lot of times its nefarious.. Haha, you would have LOVED my thread topic here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12347/a-ceo-deserves-his-rewards-if-workers-can-survive-off-his-salary

But, is it kind or just the fact that you don't like the idea of starving to death? We are all in the same boat.. it's just that some people own that boat and some people rent from those people to use it :lol:.

The problem is that without power, people won't get what they need or, if they do, it can be taken away. — T Clark

So you are on the side that owning the means of production is the only way to get this equality.. rather than being independent aspects of leftist goals.

Oh. I see the owners in place. But I don't see everyone living in houses and being entertained. If I missed that change then I'm very happy about it. I'm particularly glad those children don't have to scavenge off rubbish tips any more and the garment workers are all in with the cars and the entertainment goods. Great news. Thank you. But are you sure? — Cuthbert

Sure about what? This is a question to see if what is important is the means of getting economic well-being or the ends that people value more. If everyone gets what they want but there is still powerful business owners in this system of well-being.. what would be people's gripe, essentially. Is public ownership of means of production an end to itself? @StreetlightX that is another way I am putting it I guess.

Yeah I like your threads.

Well yes, I don’t like starving to death so I work. Having a place to work and receive payment for my work is therefor a benefit. Living off the land is at the time too difficult.

Well yes, I don’t like starving to death so I work. Having a place to work and receive payment for my work is therefor a benefit. Living off the land is at the time too difficult. — NOS4A2

Why just those two choices as default?

So you are on the side that owning the means of production is the only way to get this equality.. rather than being independent aspects of leftist goals. — schopenhauer1

I haven't provided any idea of how to give people the power they need to ensure a decent life. That's because....well, I don't know how it should be done.

"Capitalism" isn't like gravity or Newton's laws of motion. It was invented by people, and people wrote law to shape and manage the operation of capitalistic activity. The people who did this (over generations) started with the idea of ownership as a fundamental right and a justification for doing other things. Ownership was taken to be "natural". Ownership is its own justification. I can own land, buildings, machines, gold, jewels, ideas, and so on. I can even (in some past systems) own people. They were property just like cattle. I can hire you, Schop, to make widgets, and it will be me, Schop, and not you, who owns the widgets you make.

So get back to work, Schop: you are 20 widgets behind, and it's costing me money. What do you think this is, a fucking country club or something? I don't care that you are hungry, tired, bored, sore, lonely. You agreed to make widgets, and by god, I want them made! — Bitter Crank

Agreed agreed. Here is a hefty question.. What makes you think that this isn't a problem solved more by antinatalism than it does by communism? I am not trying to do a bait-and-switch to derail the topic..In fact you eluded to this idea in a post previously..

Antinatalism would basically say: In any system, there will be a widget-maker that reports to someone. Prevent this situation in the first place for someone else to deal with..

Communism will simply say: In our system, there will be a widget-maker that reports to someone.. but that someone is Joe Public Collective, rather than J.P Morgan or whoever.. Is there any substantial difference at this point?

I guess your retort would be that the main difference is not that there will be no widget-makers.. That is an unfortunate constant in life (so point to antinatalism), but that the wealth accumulated by JP Morgan types will be spread around so at least the widget maker might have enough to live comfortably, even though they can't overstep their comfort to the point of luxury (so point communism?). Does that sound about right?

Like I said, it's great to build social systems in the capitalist regime to allow people to live, but we also need stronger community building to show workers that safety nets can exist outside the state. Every socialist knows simply focusing on raising material conditions in capitalism will lead to those benefits getting chipped away. Then we're back where we started. That's essentially what happened in the late 70s and 80s, and what is still happening now (neoliberalization). The Scandinavian model is already starting to crack as more services are privatized. You have to remove the cancer at the root, not just put band aids over it that get slowly ripped off — Albero

Hey, I commend you for fully answering my OP, so thank you. That was a full response. So it does sound like well-being can never be the only goal.. The OP did however stipulate that all people would be living comfortable.. So I guess, is there a metaphysical problem with the idea of private ownership, above and beyond the idea that it contributes to some people not living comfortably? What does exploitation look like in an economy with fully comfortable people? Do they know they are "technically" being exploited at that point? I guess for this focus, let's just look at the Scandinavians and not the fact that they must use labor from the global south.. I get that.. But let's say that somehow it was the case that everyone were living like Scandinavians...that is to say relatively comfortably.

Why just those two choices as default?

As far as I can tell there are only two types of general “means” to acquire the wealth required to satisfy needs, namely, (1) through one’s own labor or the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, and (2) through the appropriation of the labor of others. One is just, the other unjust.

Anyways, as far as economic systems go, Justice is the prevailing ideal for me. All others, like charity, community, wealth equality, are better left to ethics and matters of personal conscience.

Anyways, as far as economic systems go, Justice is the prevailing ideal for me. All others, like charity, community, wealth equality, are better left to ethics and matters of personal conscience. — NOS4A2

I think many people would say it's all connected.. Economics IS people.. not its own entity.. Unless you believe so which would be a fun one to read...

As far as I can tell there are only two types of general “means” to acquire the wealth required to satisfy needs, namely, (1) through one’s own labor or the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, and (2) through the appropriation of the labor of others. One is just, the other unjust. — NOS4A2

Marxists would say that capitalists, by mere fact that they own the means of production are exploiting the labor of others as they hold the means, and the others simply rent out their labor. Do some people deserve to own the means by which we all need to survive being roughly the same human animal that just wants to live reasonably comfortably in the world without too much want of basic needs?

Not only Marxists, but Georgists believe in roughly the same thing regarding exploitation. But Henry George was able to devise a far more just system. (It’s a damned shame Americans prefer German socialism to Henry George’s ideas, which are these days relatively unknown).

For me, I don’t see how a relationship of voluntary exchange can be the same as exploitation proper, for instance in slavery. It is because the capitalist is the same human animal that I see them as an opportunity. They want and need things, as well, and I can provide it to them in exchange for some of their capital. Perhaps the Marxist should learn to exploit them.

But it isn’t “really” voluntary as the capital is accumulated by one person and then doled out to the suckers..Um I mean workers. So your point is that since most people don’t have the means/luck/contingency to accumulate wealth to make others exchange their labor for..that is just? Contingency is almighty?

It’s completely voluntary, and the opportunities myriad, far more than would be available to him should the the capitalist be absent. We could exploit some patch of land somewhere and through toil accumulate enough to make a living, but exploiting capitalists is far easier. We could also live off the toil of others, but that would be unjust.

How about everyone owning and working for everyone?

@StreetlightX or @Bitter Crank any response to NOS idea that it is the workers “exploiting” the capitalist. I’m sure you all love that idea :lol:.

What I’d worry about, though, is what you’d do to those who don’t want to take part in it, or seek to make their living from your property. — NOS4A2

One would hope that such an idea would be as disreputable as statism is to you. If "the revolution" was successful--and not just a rearrangement of the deck chairs--people's thinking would be different.

I do not look to the USSR as a model to emulate, rather as a model to avoid. Ditto for China, Cuba, Albania, etc.

I don't think there is any metaphysical or moral problem when it comes to private ownership. I don't think it's about "who deserves" to own the means of production, nor do I think Marx was trying to "wake up" the proletariat. Rather, I think he was showing that even if we are completely comfortable, we could be even MORE comfortable if workers owned the means of production. The Scandinavian model might be a boat that's shiny, but probably has holes underneath that tend to spring spring leaks. Beside it is the "workers own the means of production" boat which is more difficult to obtain, but comes with the benefit of never having holes in it (For the record I'm not saying socialism is when our problems go away, we're human after all but this is just for the sake of the analogy), so I interpret Marx as someone who isn't giving commands necessarily, but is saying "seems to me option B is better than A, wouldn't it make more sense to go for B?" If you ask me, I understand your question of " what is being exploited even when we don't feel exploited" to look like how many of the people in the West are: living decent lives that could be better. I don't wanna go on some psychoanalysis diatribe, but I think the main reasons people don't think socialism would make their lives better is because the ruling class has a HUGE propaganda mill that's been churning since the 1920s against the "evils" of communism, but that I can't really add much on

(It’s a damned shame Americans prefer German socialism to Henry George’s ideas, which are these days relatively unknown). — NOS4A2

I'm not familiar with Henry George; I'll check him out. Are you familiar with Daniel DeLeon, an American socialist; started the Socialist Labor Party, which in some sort of embalmed state still exists. DeLeon believed that democratic nations offered democratic avenues to socialism -- the revolution could be accomplished through organization, politics, militant unionism, and the vote.

I learned about DeLeon through the New Union Party (defunct after 25 years or so). Another American socialist Eugene Debs, who was actually a popular socialist--just not among the Wall Street set.

American Capitalists were united in detesting, abhorring, and hating socialist ideas and through various means, many foul, did everything they could to discredit and suppress socialist organizing (and this separate from Communist Party-USA suppression which was even more aggressive). American Capitalists have also been united in wishing that their workers were not, or never would be unionized, and they have made continuous efforts to discourage, disrupt, or if need be, destroy unions.

So, there are reasons why so few workers are unionized; so very few people have read any socialist theory (like Debs, Deleon, et al). There are reasons why people have difficult even imagining an economy not organized around capitalism.

What makes you think that this isn't a problem solved more by antinatalism than it does by communism? — schopenhauer1

Antinatalism solves all problems by eventually eliminating the species that thinks about problems. I'm in favor of being. Were I in favor of non-being I could become a militant anti-natalist. I don't equate anti-natalist with some sort of death wish. Apparently you do not either, since you are an active forum participant when you could be, with just a little effort, in a box 6 feet under.

@Schopenhauer1 Most of my work years were spent in non-enterprise operations: non-profit agencies, universities, and the like. Only occasionally did I work in business and that was through temp agencies. Most of the time I didn't like the jobs I had. If they lasted more than a 3 or 4 years, they became routinized and boring. I liked starting things better than maintaining them.

But whether a workplace was business or non-profit made little difference. Employees were generally viewed as interchangeable means rather than ends. Hierarchy worked exactly the same in both kinds of employment. Control was the name of the game. A lot of work was terminally boring and tedious, and should have been performed by machines. (As time goes on, more of it IS being done by machines.)

Work seemed like a theft of my time. Much of the day (more than 8 hours, more like 12) was spent getting ready for work, getting to work, working, returning from work, and unwinding from work. That left too little time to just BE.

The job that I liked the most combined the joy of being with the satisfaction of collaboration at work and recognition. It involved outreach work in the gay community during the early years of AIDS. The job was fairly difficult, loosely supervised (of necessity, it involved outside work away from the agency office), and was very fulfilling. it was a fulfilling place for most others, as well. We didn't feel exploited.

Exploitation of workers (by corporation, state, or non-profit) requires everything that makes work unpleasant: hierarchy, control, tedium, devaluation. Management theory recognizes the fact that if managers don't keep a tight grip on the work place, the workers will take control (bit by bit, not a revolution). Hierarchy and control will be lost. Crackdowns will be required to regain control; people will be fired (not just at the bottom of the heap); and production (of widgets, statistics, paper flows... something) will be lost.

The Great Question is this: Can one have a socialist workplace without hierarchy, control, tedium, and devaluation of workers? IF you can't, then there much less reason to hope for the revolution.

Everyone was making a decent enough salary to live in a house, buy some entertainment goods, a car, had all their daily living met.. — schopenhauer1

Imagine using this argument in defense of the system of slavery. Would this satisfy you regarding slavery?

I'm more interested in the quality of the classes. If you're poor, and live in homeless squalor because of it, I think there's an issue. I'm also not worried about the middle class. There will always be different reward structures for different jobs. The question is the floor. What I want is for anyone who is able to work 40 hours a week should be able to afford a basic life with water, electricity, and internet without need for government assistance. That is not middle class. But it is a minimum standard I would like the world to live by.

Ok, so pro well being above capitalist structure as the ends.

This is going to be a bit long-winded, but hopefully valuable in getting on the same wavelength.

Capitalism is only one system among others throughout history, defined by private ownership and the relationship between masters owners (employers) and slaves workers (employees). It has its roots in the middle ages and accelerated in the industrial revolution. It's largely replaced slavery and feudalism.

There are many variants of capitalism. Saudi Arabia is capitalist. China is capitalist. Sweden is capitalist. Most nations are "mixed economies." The United States is a state-capitalist system, and around 40 years ago, in the 70s and early 80s, began shifting from an era of "regimented capitalism" (managerialism) which existed from roughly the 1940s, to a neoliberal program. "Government is the problem."

If you agree that what I've just described above is correct, then you have your answer: yes, during the 1950s and 60s, there was a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and a larger "middle class." Is that preferable to the neoliberal era we've been subjected to? Yes. Does that mean we're happy with capitalism? No.

FDR and the New Deal was fine, but didn't go nearly far enough. Capitalism should have simply been abolished.

There was also a violent (but forgotten) fight against the New Deal policies, and right away there was a backlash. The owners of this country always resented it, but couldn't do much about it. The late 60s was the last straw for them -- that "excess of democracy" of some black people getting rights and students protesting and so on. Too much to bear.

You see the thought process laid out clearly in the 1970 Milton Friedman NY Times article about corporate governance, and the 1971 Powell memo to the US Chamber of Commerce (and, later, the Trilateral Commission's Crisis of Democracy). The OAPEC oil embargo of '73 and the "stagflation" of the mid 70s provided enough of an opening to start a push for what was always wanted: dismantling the New Deal, shrinking government (tax cuts, deregulation, privatization), and crushing unions. I assume you're aware of most of this.

So -- giiven all this, the question:

I am just wondering what about capitalism is the more important enemy.. the inequality/instability of income or the power differential? — schopenhauer1

is a false one. The power differential between owners and their employees is not just an unequal one, it's also a morally illegitimate one. Just as in the the system of slavery and the system of feudalism.

Sure, there were some nice masters and lords. There are some nice employers today. So what? Ditto for a more "equitable" distribution. The very system is unjust and illegitimate.

Capitalism also stems from a very strange concept of "liberty" and "individuality" that is, at bottom, anti-social (not simply anti-socialist). It has its roots in ideas about human nature -- elevating "self-interest," "selfishness," and "greed" as primary motives. It's more of a psychological sickness than a philosophy. In my opinion. It all reeks of both intense social phobia and anti-social personality disorder.

One would hope that such an idea would be as disreputable as statism is to you. If "the revolution" was successful--and not just a rearrangement of the deck chairs--people's thinking would be different.

I don’t think a system of voluntary cooperation is as disreputable as statism, because statism is a system of compulsory cooperation. That’s why I wonder if your system would be compulsory or not, and what you’d do to those who refuse. If it’s voluntary, it’s just; if it’s compulsory, it’s unjust.

I’m familiar with Debs but only vaguely with DeLeon. I’ve read Debs, his free speech trial, but only know DeLeon through his criticisms of George. Both were contemporaries of George, though. If I remember correctly Debs praised George and Deleon excoriated him. But those debates during those times, between the socialists and the Single Taxers, were fascinating to read about, and represent an exciting moment in American political theory.

I’m well aware of the treatment of socialists in the early 20th century and beyond, Debs included. It’s embarrassing that a country so adamant about freedom and free speech would violate these principles due to fear of ideas. I wager had they left them alone, socialism and communism would have fell out of favor in America long ago.

I wonder if your system would be compulsory or not, and what you’d do to those who refuse. — NOS4A2

The Revolution has to occur before one can think about creating an economy based on voluntary cooperation. Without a prior revolution of thinking among the people, cooperation will end up being forced. You don't want that / I don't want that.

I come from a religious upbringing, and to me "a voluntary cooperative economy" has the same rhetorical flavor as the Kingdom of God. It would be the final and best arrangement for humankind, Despite a religious upbringing, I do not expect God to intervene on socialism's behalf and assist in the establishment of socialism -- or to even lift so much as a hair on our behalf. Humans have to do this on our own, period.

We are capable of conducting voluntary cooperation in a small group for a limited period of time (maybe 3 dozen people for a week or two). We have not evolved the ability to do this in a population of several hundred million. Lock 36 people into a room and they will quickly conclude (with Sartre) that hell is other people.

Our hunter-gatherer forebears were apparently able to sustain voluntary cooperation for millennia. They had a couple of things going for them that we do not: a) they had lots of space to spread out in; b) they weren't compacted enough to get on each other's nerves. c) They presumably had pretty clearly defined roles -- one hunted (roles with that) or one gathered (roles within that). c) Because they were mobile, they didn't accumulate a lot of stuff or to have arguments about who owned what. d) Life presented enough outside threats (lions, tigers, and bears...) to help maintain solidarity. e) On the other hand, life was (apparently) good enough that they didn't have to work all that hard to be healthy (their bones indicate good health).

We predictably get on each other's nerves; our roles are fuzzy or conflicting; we are burdened with stuff; clear and present existential threats are much less common for us than vague, impending forms of possible doom, under which solidarity cracks; we work very hard (probably to no good end much of the time) and are often kind of sickly. We suspect that we are going to get preternaturally screwed.

You'll be a lot happier if you give your marbles to someone else. I'm someone else.

I don't give a damn about marbles. In modern society it seems all is about them. And you have to play along.

But aren't the class interests of say the professionals/managers quite distinct from the wage earners beneath them? They don't direct nor own the means of production, and they are not only purely valued by their labor power like the proletariat. It's a different social relation and that engenders particular social values that can be at odds with the working class. It's why solidarity cannot be achieved with them. I don't see how the professional/managerial class suffers from false consciousness.

What's interesting to me is if you say these distinctions don't matter, and its reduced to simply worker vs. capitalist, then why is class consciousness difficult for the majority of workers? Why is there a lack of solidarity that stretches beyond so many different occupations?

I haven't provided any idea of how to give people the power they need to ensure a decent life. That's because....well, I don't know how it should be done. — T Clark

Why should it be given? They should just take it.

I'm afraid Yuval Noah Harari (re his book Sapiens) wasn't as right as I thought he was. He makes the claim that the gobal pie has increased in dimensions; thus, he says, each person gets a larger slice.

The actual situation is that, as I showed in my calculations (see my last post), there's just too many people (overpopulation) for that to be true and the income categories poor, middle class, rich & super rich, are the result of uneven distribution of wealth.

The champagne glass (vide Champagne glass effect), if broken and reshaped, would result in a fine strand of glass with which you can do absolutely nothing.

The (hard) choice (for us): Distribute the wealth evenly and make everyone poor & miserable OR accept the inequality and let some of us (the 1%) have (all the) fun. Sacrifice time!