this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
417 points (76.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43901 readers
1960 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod
14specks@lemmy.ml
417
Why are folks so anti-capitalist? (programming.dev)
submitted 1 year ago by o_o@programming.dev to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
887 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hi all,

I'm seeing a lot of hate for capitalism here, and I'm wondering why that is and what the rationale behind it is. I'm pretty pro-capitalism myself, so I want to see the logic on the other side of the fence.

If this isn't the right forum for a political/economic discussion-- I'm happy to take this somewhere else.

Cheers!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There is nothing preventing anyone from starting a worker-owned collective. The fact that they don’t, while having the freedom to do so, indicates that the typical arrangement of wage labor is consensual. It’s what people choose.

If socialism requires an arrangement other than the one they would freely choose, then socialism requires a non-free market where people are forced into economic arrangements they wouldn’t freely choose.

So socialist may not in principle have anything against markets, but the fact that the implementation of socialism requires curtailing markets means it does have something against markets in practice.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The fact that they don’t, while having the freedom to do so, indicates that the typical arrangement of wage labor is consensual.

It's actually that most people simply don't have the capital to do so while entrenched capitalist interests do. But I guess maybe you're conveniently ignoring that wildly imbalanced scale to be able to say it's consenual. Most people are only born with their labor to sell while the capitalist class hands off their wealth to their progeny, who can live without labor, and thus do things like start a business without fear of failure. More than half of new businesses fail within 10 years. For someone without oodles of capital to fall back on, that kind of failure can be financially devastating, which makes them less likely to choose to run their own business, because the risk is far higher. The risk to the nepo-baby is negligible, because they have capital to fall back on, so they are more likely to start their own business. This is obviously an unbalanced situation so calling it "consensual" is frankly bullshit. Also it ignores the coercive nature of the risk of homelessness if your business fails badly, once again something the capital-having nepo-baby doesn't have to fear or risk.

Like, it's generally considered at this point that Monica Lewinsky didn't have consensual sex with Bill Clinton simply because the power relations were wildly off. He was the President of the United States of America at it's absolute zenith in history, while she was a random 20-something intern with no connections or power in the situation.

Nice try, tho.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like, it’s generally considered at this point that Monica Lewinsky didn’t have consensual sex with Bill Clinton simply because the power relations were wildly off. He was the President of the United States of America at it’s absolute zenith in history, while she was a random 20-something intern with no connections or power in the situation.

That's a bad example. As far as I know, Clinton is not of the “do me or you're fired” persuasion, nor did Lewinsky ever say anything to that effect in the multiple decades since.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Monica Lewinsky in 2018:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/monica-lewinsky-in-the-age-of-metoo

Just four years ago, in an essay for this magazine, I wrote the following: “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.” I now see how problematic it was that the two of us even got to a place where there was a question of consent. Instead, the road that led there was littered with inappropriate abuse of authority, station, and privilege. (Full stop.)

Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern. I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot. (Although power imbalances—and the ability to abuse them—do exist even when the sex has been consensual.)

But it’s also complicated. Very, very complicated. The dictionary definition of “consent”? “To give permission for something to happen.” And yet what did the “something” mean in this instance, given the power dynamics, his position, and my age? Was the “something” just about crossing a line of sexual (and later emotional) intimacy? (An intimacy I wanted—with a 22-year-old’s limited understanding of the consequences.) He was my boss. He was the most powerful man on the planet. He was 27 years my senior, with enough life experience to know better. He was, at the time, at the pinnacle of his career, while I was in my first job out of college. (Note to the trolls, both Democratic and Republican: none of the above excuses me for my responsibility for what happened. I meet Regret every day.)

“This” (sigh) is as far as I’ve gotten in my re-evaluation; I want to be thoughtful. But I know one thing for certain: part of what has allowed me to shift is knowing I’m not alone anymore. And for that I am grateful.

I—we—owe a huge debt of gratitude to the #MeToo and Time’s Up heroines. They are speaking volumes against the pernicious conspiracies of silence that have long protected powerful men when it comes to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and abuse of power.

It's not about whether or not he's a "do me or you're fired" type. To quote Dennis Reynolds, it's about "the implication" about the mans power in the situation.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

So, the truth of the matter is that she was young and naïve and he arguably took advantage and it's complicated? Okay, that's somewhat worse than I thought, but it's still a bad example. You were talking about coercion, and that isn't coercion. What Harvey Weinstein did is coercion.

[–] steltek@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago

It's really not that hard to start a small business. There's no grand shadowy conspiracy against your idea. If it was a superior method, it would see more widespread success. Bluntly forcing one business structure and removing freedoms when there are far less drastic tools is a big ask.

[–] mamotromico@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

How do you get a loan to start a business if you don’t have enough capital to begin with? It’s not that simple, it’s not on the interest of banks to invest on small businesses, because it’s comparable higher risk and they are profit driven.

[–] MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 year ago

As someone who started and still works in a co-op, it's because it's hard. Banks don't understand worker coops and won't lend money to you without a real person to attach the risk to, which means founders have to take an enormous risk which it can be hard to compensate them for. The legal structure isn't common so you are limited in the lawyers who can set one up for you. Others have mentioned the cost problems - I started a software dev coop so we didn't have a large capital outlay but it did cost nearly 10k just in setup costs.

It took a lot of work to get to where we are, with little supporting resources. In contrast, I started an LLC in half an hour and $150 registration fee to the government. So no, it not just "what people choose".