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? — Rob

I didn't say they don't matter simpliciter. In fact the dilution of the worker-capitalist distinction is precisely one of the reasons that solidarity is so hard to come by. All the little sub-categorizations that pit workers against each other, all the better to suck energy out of the only class war worth having: that against owners of capital. Funnily enough, the class most aware of the importance and centrality of the distinction is none other than the capitalist class itself, which it why it spends enormous amounts of money and time trying, precisely, to cast it into obscurity with shitty ideas like 'the middle class'.

The lack of solidarity among the workers is matched by the lack of solidarity among the capitalists. The capitalists are constantly engaged in squeezing out other capitalists from their market shares to increase their own. As Engels said, they don't only engage copulating with females of the workers class, but they make a sport of stealing sex from each other's wives as well. That is not solidarity.

They are not even united against the workers. The oppression does not come heavy-handed or via military or police enforcement; it comes by paying the workers a wage that allow them a so-called middle class lifestyle. The capitalists compete against each other (again, lack of solidarity) by pay-wars among themselves, to get the wanted workers work for them.

Is the workers' aim to topple this arrangement? what is bad about this arrangement? Provided, like someone said in the OP, that every worker without exception will be able to attain a comfortable, sustainable, and pleasant lifestyle.

Whether it's a conspiracy among capitalists to tune down the ideal of class struggle, or else it is the apathy of the workers, what precisely is it in the arrangement (ideal arrangement) that would necessitate the further struggle between worker's class and capitalists' class?

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

Yes...well...why didn't I think of that?

Dunno. You tell me.

I do wonder how many corporately controlled private platforms you have to rely on in order for your business to function — StreetlightX

Eh, none are essential and 99% of what I use is open source. But how is that important? The big bad evil corporations have to rely on an ecosystem too, they tend to be less independent than a small timer because their needs are so much greater.

the structural impoverishment of vast swathes of the Earth under capitalism. — StreetlightX

Yeah, you can really see how capitalism has made everyone so much poorer than before and they just keep on plummeting. And the USSR grew so much faster, so that's the ticket to better results:



Not that those numbers really matter. Once you make enough money to cover your needs, likely around $10K/yr with no subsidies in an average market, more money doesn't make you happier -- increased control of your life does. And capitalism is the system most capable of generating the revenue to subsidize everyone to that level.

There are factory workers making your shoes who do not have the luxury of refusing to work for someone else. — StreetlightX

Under communism, they literally have no choice but to work for someone else. Work is obligatory under that system, and knowing that the shoe factory is a collective doesn't make them feel any better about having to meet quota.

Capitalism at least provides options. The factory worker can go try something else without getting permission from anyone. The factory worker can learn to code and be their own boss, as many people in impoverished countries have done. The factory worker can invent a new job that didn't exist before. It won't be easy for most, but there's no system under which it is.

Yeah, you can really see how capitalism has made everyone so much poorer than before and they just keep on plummeting. — Paul

You can indeed, once you realize that GDP numbers are basically meaningless without accounting for who has captured all this wealth. Hint: it isn't the majority of people:

Indeed, the share of income presently captured by the poorest half of the world’s people is about half what it was in 1820, before the great divergence between western countries and their colonies. In other words, the rise of imperialism as the ‘latest stage’ of capitalism has delivered increased inequality of income globally. The personal income share of the poorest 50% of the world’s adults or around 3bn people is half what it was in 1820! So much for even and combined development after 200 years of capitalism.

Back to wealth, the WIR notes that while “Nations have got richer — governments have got poorer”. Wealth, both tangible and financial, is not held commonly at all. “Over the past 40 years, countries have become significantly richer, but their governments have become significantly poorer. The share of wealth held by public actors is close to zero or negative in rich countries, meaning that the totality of wealth is in private hands.

--

Under communism, they literally have no choice but to work for someone else. Work is obligatory under that system, and knowing that the shoe factory is a collective doesn't make them feel any better about having to meet quota. Capitalism at least provides options. The factory worker can go try something else without getting permission from anyone. The factory worker can learn to code and be their own boss, as many people in impoverished countries have done. The factory worker can invent a new job that didn't exist before. It won't be easy for most, but there's no system under which it is. — Paul

I'm not entirely sure what to say about this propaganda, because I can't argue against whatever boogey-men you conjure up. For myself, I mostly believe in abolishing work, or at least as much of it as possible. I can say, however, that it is not a boogey-man that the idea that 'capitalism provides options' is mostly a myth. Social mobility has basically stalled since the 90s, and class war by the rich has mostly made it so that the poor remain poor by miring communities and countries in debt, while commodifying opportunity such that only those with means can, for the most part, continue to accrue more means. There is a reason that the concentration of global monopolies have exploded in the last few decades, precisely on account of the fact that capital attracts capital, acting like a centrifuge to expel all those who do not already have it.

The platformization of goods means that more and more, we don't even own our own stuff: we rent our (access to) music, our TV shows, our phones, our software, our homes, and even our household goods and cars (and jobs, in the case of uber and food delivery). If you're concerned about autonomy - and you should be - you ought to watch where the wind is blowing. And increased autonomy isn't the direction. Dependency has skyrocketed under capitalism. And this is all to say nothing about (forced) geopolitical dependency cutting across the Earth. And in any case, what I'm arguing for is more autonomy on the part of workers, not less: control over the means by which we reproduce our daily lives, so far sequestered to a small cabal of what are effectively private governments.

Sure about what? — schopenhauer1

Are you sure that things would be "Just like now" as suggested in the OP? In the OP scenario, there would be no poverty or misery and there would still be capitalism. But in the world that is "just like now" - this actual world - there are both poverty and misery and there is also capitalism.

I would be in favour of abolishing the police, if there were no crime. It doesn't follow that I'm in favour of abolishing the police.

The question at issue is whether capitalism is the cause of poverty and misery or whether they merely happen to co-exist. So the OP begs the question.

Too muuuuch...

I think I'll go for the free health care, welfare state and universal education. If I can have all that without military music and wild slogans I'll be delighted. If I'm a Marxist I'm probably more Groucho than Karl.

This is why 'soft left' pop economists like Piketty, Kelton, or Mazzucato are so de jour right now. — StreetlightX

Shit I just got a book by Piketty from the library. Haven't started it yet but it was recommended by a few people. Why do you say he is a pop economist? Is it not even worth reading?

Piketty is an excellent scholar, maybe one of the best when it comes to inequality, and no one else has combed through the data on inequality like he has. But he is a scholar of inequality, not capitalism, and as such, he takes the former to be the issue to tackle without investigating its relationship with the latter. Piketty ultimately wants a more equitable capitalism - capitalism with a human face as it were. Not unlike what is suggested in the OP. But to the degree that capitalism is rotten to it's core, the focus on inequality will not cut it. It's a focus on symptoms, and not causes. Definitely read Piketty if you have your hands on it. Even studying the symptoms is a good step.

thanks.