Why do people support capitalism?

[The Tenth Jellian Republic]

Jesus christ this is a wild argument. Lmao.

Maybe I'll come back to this. Strange idea that working 12 hours a day 6 days a week in the gilded age wasn't improved in part by unions is fuckin craaaazy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton ... ive_agency)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

Unions fought and bled.

[Khardsland]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

Unions fought and bled.

And still do today. They're striking to stop arms shipments. They're striking to not let LLMs steal their jobs.

[The Bordirigist Republic]

bold of you to assume folks on the internet click links

Some of them had known better.

[The Lazarene Republic]

Unions in the late 19th/early 20th century were not much stronger than they are today, and widely suppressed on top of that, sometimes violently. OTOH, living standards were quite high around the peak of union power in the 50s, unions have always provided some improvement in wages and benefits, and highly unionized nations have relatively equal income distributions, even without extensive redistributive policies. As a general rule, you can't have social democracy without labor unions, so beyond securing immediate concessions for workers, they are also a precondition for more ambitious reforms.

On the decline of unions, it's worse than offshoring. The real threat to manufacturing employment is automation, and there isn't much you can do about that. Reindustrialization isn't possible in the US either, but at least tariffs and subsidies are in the realm of policy. At the end of the day, labor unions are dinosaurs fossilized by a partly outdated, partly malicious legal framework, but some form of organized labor is still needed to save capitalism from itself. Or maybe we start the biggest, most beautiful world war in the history of world wars to increase consumption without wealth redistribution. But neither of these strategies are as doable as they were in the 1930s.

According to the WEF, average wages (accounting for inflation) starting from the late 60s rocketed, reached an all time peak in the 70s, then cratered, reaching an all time low around the dot com bubble, then gradually reached a peak again in 2019. All of these were in an era where unions were weakening and then lost what little power they had. I really can't believe that they were the drivers of wages when the evidence seems to indicate that economic prosperity is the bigger driver of wages.

Source: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/04 ... one-chart/

In regard to living standards, that is a bit of a vague term that many people interpret differently with some just looking at it through purely economic terms like wages and workforce participation, while others seem to include other statistics like literacy, healthcare coverage, and other stats. The best source I could find for this for the US was from Pew Research which showed that standards of living have for the most part been on the increase throughout the years, with median income increasing dramatically throughout the years, with married college educated adults seeing bigger amounts of them becoming part of the upper class, with 4/10 of them being part of the upper class, though the middle class has shrunk with the lower and higher class marginally increasing, with the income gap between them and the upper class exploding.

None of this suggests that living standards when unions were at their peak were better. This doesn't mean that unions themselves were making things worse, but they certainly weren't making things better.

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... e-decades/

Unions (as part of the New Deal) contributed to the rise of the consumer economy, and the consumer economy killed unions. How? The New Deal was the greatest redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor in the entirety of human history, and part of that was giving workers the leverage to demand higher wages. This created a large middle class who both worked and owned property, and also a new economy to accommodate this. The rich don't spend most of their income on consumer goods and services, and when they do, its luxuries. So this shift grew the service sector, creating more numerous, complex, and productive jobs than existed before and ushering in the Golden Age of Capitalism. Or the Golden Age of COMMUNISM, if socialism is when the government does stuff.

This is why China has an underdeveloped service sector despite being a wealthy nation. China lacks independent unions and an adequate welfare state, so Chinese people can't afford as much as people in developed nations. Of course, China has maintained strong economic growth because of other forms of state intervention, but living standards are lower than they could be.

Anyways, private sector unions are structured around industry, so the relative decline of industry was a relative decline in union membership, although it wasn't sudden but was cushioned by the rise of public sector unions from 1960-1975ish. But the gist is, unions were successful in changing the economic realities they were formed in response to, and in doing so, abolished their own relevance. So now they're either a business service that augments pay and benefits in exchange for dues, or a quasi-governmental apparatus in the case of teachers and cops. Not because unions don't work, but because they did work.

[Unogonduria]

Perhaps I was too harsh on communism.

[The Bordirigist Republic]

Unions (as part of the New Deal) contributed to the rise of the consumer economy, and the consumer economy killed unions. How? The New Deal was the greatest redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor in the entirety of human history, and part of that was giving workers the leverage to demand higher wages. This created a large middle class who both worked and owned property, and also a new economy to accommodate this. The rich don't spend most of their income on consumer goods and services, and when they do, its luxuries. So this shift grew the service sector, creating more numerous, complex, and productive jobs than existed before and ushering in the Golden Age of Capitalism. Or the Golden Age of COMMUNISM, if socialism is when the government does stuff.

This is why China has an underdeveloped service sector despite being a wealthy nation. China lacks independent unions and an adequate welfare state, so Chinese people can't afford as much as people in developed nations. Of course, China has maintained strong economic growth because of other forms of state intervention, but living standards are lower than they could be.

Anyways, private sector unions are structured around industry, so the relative decline of industry was a relative decline in union membership, although it wasn't sudden but was cushioned by the rise of public sector unions from 1960-1975ish. But the gist is, unions were successful in changing the economic realities they were formed in response to, and in doing so, abolished their own relevance. So now they're either a business service that augments pay and benefits in exchange for dues, or a quasi-governmental apparatus in the case of teachers and cops. Not because unions don't work, but because they did work.

There is really no 'golden age' of communism or capitalism.

[Khardsland]

Perhaps I was too harsh on communism.

Everyone goes through that phase. Rest assured, you shall learn to be a revolutionary too.

[The Bordirigist Republic]

Everyone goes through that phase. Rest assured, you shall learn to be a revolutionary too.

No. Larp is all there was.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

Unions (as part of the New Deal) contributed to the rise of the consumer economy, and the consumer economy killed unions. How? The New Deal was the greatest redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor in the entirety of human history, and part of that was giving workers the leverage to demand higher wages. This created a large middle class who both worked and owned property, and also a new economy to accommodate this. The rich don't spend most of their income on consumer goods and services, and when they do, its luxuries. So this shift grew the service sector, creating more numerous, complex, and productive jobs than existed before and ushering in the Golden Age of Capitalism. Or the Golden Age of COMMUNISM, if socialism is when the government does stuff.

This is why China has an underdeveloped service sector despite being a wealthy nation. China lacks independent unions and an adequate welfare state, so Chinese people can't afford as much as people in developed nations. Of course, China has maintained strong economic growth because of other forms of state intervention, but living standards are lower than they could be.

Anyways, private sector unions are structured around industry, so the relative decline of industry was a relative decline in union membership, although it wasn't sudden but was cushioned by the rise of public sector unions from 1960-1975ish. But the gist is, unions were successful in changing the economic realities they were formed in response to, and in doing so, abolished their own relevance. So now they're either a business service that augments pay and benefits in exchange for dues, or a quasi-governmental apparatus in the case of teachers and cops. Not because unions don't work, but because they did work.

There is really no 'golden age' of communism or capitalism.

Most Golden Ages are either incredibly subjective or flatly made up.

[Unogonduria]

Perhaps I was too harsh on communism.

Everyone goes through that phase. Rest assured, you shall learn to be a revolutionary too.

That is not to say I am a communist, tho. Had that phase in 5th grade.

But it's not like the stores were as empty as some people portray them to have been, at least in Bulgaria. Call me a schizo, but ex-CIA Director James Woolsey admitted to the US meddling in other countries' elections in order to "keep the communists from taking place", listing Greece and Italy as examples. Maybe, just maybe, the reason communism didn't work is not economic, or at least purely an economic one.

[Khardsland]

But it's not like the stores were as empty as some people portray them to have been, at least in Bulgaria. Call me a schizo, but ex-CIA Director James Woolsey admitted to the US meddling in other countries' elections in order to "keep the communists from taking place", listing Greece and Italy as examples. Maybe, just maybe, the reason communism didn't work is not economic, or at least purely an economic one.

Correct. Moreover, whenever a country has a communist, or even a basic anti-imperialist revolution, the Western states hurry to place absolutely crippling sanctions on the country, denying millions access to basic food and medicine. Moreover, regime change operations are planned 24/7.

Here's a very simple question: If communism is destined to fail, why can't it fail on its own? Why must billions be poured into funding coups, wars, and imposing sanctions?

[Fjolmidlum]

Here's a very simple question: If communism is destined to fail, why can't it fail on its own? Why must billions be poured into funding coups, wars, and imposing sanctions?

This is the same rhetoric neo-Nazis use about the Third Reich. It's kind of weak sauce.

[ML Library]

As an ideal, communism meaning classlessness is the best you can think of.

The law of value always applied in so called socialist countries with a communist party.

They had to compete with the capitalist world to survive, whose laws are ruled by capital. They need to compete so the other isn't eaten, and this inevitably, independently of communists' or a group of businessmen in a bloc will... makes the opposed country need to uphold the law of value. That is, much of the criticism that can come towards the so called communist countries can be done from this perspective, but this is a feature imposed that doesn't depend on political will until we reach world socialism.

The workers under the guidance of the communist party still will have to compete economically to maintain a strong army that can repel the capitalist armies, overcome them technologically and propagate people's war abroad.

Leftcoms think this is still capitalism and nothing can be done about it but "correct" the concept, still capitalism but under a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Here's a very simple question: If communism is destined to fail, why can't it fail on its own? Why must billions be poured into funding coups, wars, and imposing sanctions?

This is the same rhetoric neo-Nazis use about the Third Reich. It's kind of weak sauce.

The nazis had to invade to maintain their economy and were fed by American corporations before World War 2.

[Asukalia]

As an ideal, communism meaning classlessness is the best you can think of.

The law of value always applied in so called socialist countries with a communist party.

They had to compete with the capitalist world to survive, whose laws are ruled by capital. They need to compete so the other isn't eaten, and this inevitably, independently of communists' or a group of businessmen in a bloc will... makes the opposed country need to uphold the law of value. That is, much of the criticism that can come towards the so called communist countries can be done from this perspective, but this is a feature imposed that doesn't depend on political will until we reach world socialism.

The workers under the guidance of the communist party still will have to compete economically to maintain a strong army that can repel the capitalist armies, overcome them technologically and propagate people's war abroad.

Leftcoms think this is still capitalism and nothing can be done about it but "correct" the concept, still capitalism but under a dictatorship of the proletariat.

This is the same rhetoric neo-Nazis use about the Third Reich. It's kind of weak sauce.

The nazis had to invade to maintain their economy and were fed by American corporations before World War 2.

The Soviet Union was sustained by vassals and annexed states that left as soon as they had the opportunity. What's your point?

[Unogonduria]

As an ideal, communism meaning classlessness is the best you can think of.

The law of value always applied in so called socialist countries with a communist party.

They had to compete with the capitalist world to survive, whose laws are ruled by capital. They need to compete so the other isn't eaten, and this inevitably, independently of communists' or a group of businessmen in a bloc will... makes the opposed country need to uphold the law of value. That is, much of the criticism that can come towards the so called communist countries can be done from this perspective, but this is a feature imposed that doesn't depend on political will until we reach world socialism.

The workers under the guidance of the communist party still will have to compete economically to maintain a strong army that can repel the capitalist armies, overcome them technologically and propagate people's war abroad.

Leftcoms think this is still capitalism and nothing can be done about it but "correct" the concept, still capitalism but under a dictatorship of the proletariat.



The nazis had to invade to maintain their economy and were fed by American corporations before World War 2.

The Soviet Union was sustained by vassals and annexed states that left as soon as they had the opportunity. What's your point?

I highly doubt Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland, along with the post-WWII annexed by the Soviets states Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were the ones sustaining the USSR and not the other way around (especially the former)

[ML Library]

As an ideal, communism meaning classlessness is the best you can think of.

The law of value always applied in so called socialist countries with a communist party.

They had to compete with the capitalist world to survive, whose laws are ruled by capital. They need to compete so the other isn't eaten, and this inevitably, independently of communists' or a group of businessmen in a bloc will... makes the opposed country need to uphold the law of value. That is, much of the criticism that can come towards the so called communist countries can be done from this perspective, but this is a feature imposed that doesn't depend on political will until we reach world socialism.

The workers under the guidance of the communist party still will have to compete economically to maintain a strong army that can repel the capitalist armies, overcome them technologically and propagate people's war abroad.

Leftcoms think this is still capitalism and nothing can be done about it but "correct" the concept, still capitalism but under a dictatorship of the proletariat.



The nazis had to invade to maintain their economy and were fed by American corporations before World War 2.

The Soviet Union was sustained by vassals and annexed states that left as soon as they had the opportunity. What's your point?

Name them so we can check the bourgeois historical versions, vassalage relationships are feudal and anticommunist (also non capitalist). The nazis started WW2 invading Poland, not the USSR.

[Unogonduria]

The Soviet Union was sustained by vassals and annexed states that left as soon as they had the opportunity. What's your point?

Name them so we can check the bourgeois historical versions, vassalage relationships are feudal and anticommunist (also non capitalist). The nazis started WW2 invading Poland, not the USSR.

The USSR helped Germany partition Poland vro

[Khardsland]

The USSR helped Germany partition Poland vro

That is actually not true. In fact, the Soviets were keeping a section of Poland away from Nazi rule. Try overlapping an ethnic map of Poland with a map of the territory the Soviets took for me, will you?

[Somewherica]

The USSR helped Germany partition Poland vro

That is actually not true. In fact, the Soviets were keeping a section of Poland away from Nazi rule. Try overlapping an ethnic map of Poland with a map of the territory the Soviets took for me, will you?

Either way it was bad for Poland.

[Unogonduria]

The USSR helped Germany partition Poland vro

That is actually not true. In fact, the Soviets were keeping a section of Poland away from Nazi rule. Try overlapping an ethnic map of Poland with a map of the territory the Soviets took for me, will you?

What you said doesn't contradict my message btw.

[Fjolmidlum]

This is the same rhetoric neo-Nazis use about the Third Reich. It's kind of weak sauce.

The nazis had to invade to maintain their economy and were fed by American corporations before World War 2.

And?

[El Caldron]

Why do people are not part of the bourgeoisie support capitalism? It kills 20 million people a year, and is an inherently bad system. At the very, very, very least, it should be reformed. It’s better than feudalism, but it does not lift people out of poverty. It - at least in my opinion - does nothing that helps the proletariat. It also incentivises profit over anything else, and therefore under capitalism, hunger is not a bug, but a feature.

It's mostly brainwashed people (like reform UK supporters).

I really do hate it but that's how life is... I wish it could go poof! But that can't happen can it?

[Somewherica]

Correct. Moreover, whenever a country has a communist, or even a basic anti-imperialist revolution, the Western states hurry to place absolutely crippling sanctions on the country, denying millions access to basic food and medicine. Moreover, regime change operations are planned 24/7.

Here's a very simple question: If communism is destined to fail, why can't it fail on its own? Why must billions be poured into funding coups, wars, and imposing sanctions?

It is a choice between allowing a cancer to kill you in its own good time, or risking radiation treatment in the short term in hopes of a better situation long term.

I love the arrogant presumption that capitalist states are somehow morally and intellectually obliged to just sit back on their hands and allow the world around them to be subverted into dysfunctional hellholes.
Is imperialism a bad thing, or not?
Either way applies universally.

[The Teutonic Kingdom]

Becuz I can and I want too

[El Caldron]

Becuz I can and I want too

Hey don't I know you from somewhere?

somewhere called TNP?