Home ownership isn’t a guarantee, even for people who work 80 hours a week. Maybe you think the people who work 80 hours a week aren’t smart enough to deserve a home, they’re just doing “unskilled” labor and that on its own isn’t enough. An issue with that is it’s not skill that determines wage, it’s market value (we could also get into why liberals think a skilled individual deserves housing while an unskilled individual deserves to be destitute). I make $150,000 a year as a 26 year old who didn’t go to college because I have a particularly strong interest in programming that I’ve been cultivating for the last 14 years.
I know people who have similar interests in art, have put in similar amounts of time and effort, and can’t make more than 60k a year. In the next decade that’ll be me too, I’m in my mid 20s and I realize these are my peak earning years because AI is going to destroy the labor market for programmers. I’ll be lucky if I can make over 50k a year by the time I’m 40 doing this kind of work. I’ll likely be working at Walmart or a similar retail outlet if I’m lucky.
This is all good and well for capitalism. My labor serves the interest of capital as long as I’m not being outperformed by some automated system. My value as a human goes down as technology improves, so I’ll eventually be making less and less until I get pushed out of this market entirely.
The alternative world where everyone has access to a home regardless of their social status is better. People shouldn’t lose access to their homes when technology improves and pushes people out of work, but that’s what will happen.
Unemployment will skyrocket, housing scalpers will continue to demand rents, and the reserve army of labor will grow as the needs of capital get increasingly served by automation.
Capitalism will continue to serve the interests of capital until it literally collapses society. If enough of the economy is automated away at that point, the bourgeois class will have a utopia, and the rest of us will waste away by slowly starving to death or being outright killed if we attempt a revolution to seize the means of automated production.
That quote is from Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”. Thoreau was an American essayist, poet, and philosopher known for his writings on nature and his advocacy for civil disobedience against unjust laws. In “Civil Disobedience”, he discusses the individual’s responsibility to prioritize conscience over the dictates of laws and the role of the state in relation to the individual. The quote reflects his belief in the rights of the individual and his skepticism about the finality of democratic governance as we know it.
Using the term “personal freedom” in a liberal environment is deceiving, because often “personal freedom” also entails rights to property and other methods the bourgeoise use to oppress the working class.
Liberals have successfully merged ideas of personal freedom and capitalist freedom. It’s important that people have access to homes (which liberals call private property). It’s bad to have a leech class scalp homes (which liberals also call private property) and use their excess supply of that necessity to make a profit off working class people.
Conflating ideas is an important rhetorical strategy for capitalists that allows people to easily stomach exploitation in the name of basic personal freedoms.
I’m glad you brought this up, because yeah we’re all selling our bodies and time. I wouldn’t say this means we consent, though. We don’t need to change what consent means to make capitalism sound better than it is.
If you’re “incentivized” (e.g will be starved and punished otherwise) by a system to do something you hate, you can’t call that consent.
If you had a system where women were raised and then presented with the option of either having sex with you & being allowed to participate in modern society, or being discarded in the wilderness, not being allowed to even build anywhere/make it on your own because all the land is owned by either private individuals or the government, then those women aren’t free.
As we agree, just by changing the demand from “have sex” to “do manual labor” or “rent out your mind so someone else can own the product of your thoughts (IP)” doesn’t change whether or not it’s consensual.
What’s actually being punished? Would she have been sentenced to 8.5 years in prison if she pushed an 87 year old who was slightly less frail and instead of dying sustained major injuries? Would she have been sentenced if she pushed an extraordinarily healthy 87 year old who knew how to gracefully fall and sustained no serious injuries?
It seems that the act of pushing alone isn’t enough to sentence a person to nearly a decade in prison. There was likely no intention to kill, though that was the outcome. What if she sneezed on the 87 year old, and in a fit of panic the 87 year old fell over and died? Again, no intention to kill, though that would still be the outcome.
I think it’s clear this should be punished more intensely than sneezing, pushing an old person would very commonly result in serious injury, so this is definitely assault.
Yeah choosing to abstain from eating certain animals for moral reasons (dogs/cats/cows/horses) and not others (pigs/chickens/fish) is definitely weird. Though the majority of people in western society fall into this category, you just moved one more animal across the boundary due to normalization. If you were brought up with pigs, chickens, and fish you’d probably abstain from those too.
The real question to ask though is despite normalization, what’s actually the right thing to do? Is it actually okay that some people eat dogs, cats, and cows? Or is it wrong to do this?
People should put more effort into reconciling this dissonance, because slaughter and oppression is not a matter we should leave up to the normalization of society to decide. Society has countless times normalized immoral things.
“post-scarcity” in this context doesn’t mean “everyone gets everything they want whenever they want it”. Maybe I want to own a planet, but there aren’t enough planets to go around, and nobody actually believes in a future where everyone can get their own planet.
When talking about these things, it’s best not to assume the most ridiculous interpretation of what the other person is saying. e.g instead of reading “post-scarcity” to mean “everyone gets everything all the time no matter what”, read it to mean “everyone gets what they need”.
also for what it’s worth, I’ve been an ethical vegan for several years after being a die-hard meat eater and literally convincing people close to me to move away from veganism/vegetarianism exactly for health reasons (I had the same misconception you did about veganism). After actually going vegan, doing absolutely no meal planning, no exercise, no calorie counting, still eating mostly frozen food and pickup, my blood pressure as a lean 6’1 mid 20s male has gone from pre-hypertension to normal levels. I get my blood checked regularly and I’m far healthier than I was when I was downing popeyes, jersey mikes, and five guys several times a week. And I’m not just eating salads or whatever, I’m usually having vegan buffalo “chicken” or beyond burgers.
I don’t advocate veganism based on health benefits (veganism is an ethical philosophy), but vegan diets are baseline much healthier than the baseline for non-vegan diets. You can’t go as wrong with them as the vast majority of Americans do with their diets.
As an extension to this comment, digital media is a perfect example of pure artificial scarcity. You can at least imagine a world where food or homes are scarce, it’s not our world, but it can be imagined. The same is not true of distributing digital media, and yet it’s still artificially scarce.
Without scarcity in capitalism things lack value. That is extremely problematic.
Within the context of one person’s career, socialism on its own can do quite a bit to transform people’s relationship to their workplace. No longer would your job be at risk because you’ve all done too well and it’s to “cut labor costs” while profits soar. No longer would you be worried about automating away your job, instead you’d gladly automate your job away and then the whole organization could lower how much work needs to be done as things get more and more automated.
Democracy would massively improve work-life balance.
Of course this comes with problems, all of which exist in capitalism (how do we care for people outside of these organizations who won’t have access to work, for example). But if I had to choose between market socialism and capitalism, the choice is pretty clear, and it’s something much easier for liberals to stomach.
I didn’t compare capitalism to slavery. I said the word slavery. The first paragraph wasn’t demonstrating a comparison, it was demonstrating a principle (principles are universalized, comparisons aren’t). The idea that every system has positives, but those systems can still be horrifically bad.
I don’t know if it’s emotion that’s clouding your reading comprehension, I hope it is, because then you can calm down and have a reasonable conversation. If it’s not, then this conversation isn’t worth having because you won’t understand half of what I’m saying. Literally 50% of your last message was you misrepresenting what I was saying.
A capitalist society cannot enact socialist policies. It can enact “social” policies. These policies are inspired by socialism, and often advocated for by socialists, but the policies themselves are not socialist policies. Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, and socialism is an economic system where the means of production are socially owned. If private (not personal) property exists, it’s not socialism. It’s not necessarily capitalism (you could have other systems with private property), but in our world it always is.
Welfare capitalism, where these social policies exist, is a well established ideology that has been around for about 80 years in any serious form, and yeah welfare can be used to address some of the negative tendencies of capitalism, but it doesn’t fix them. It’s applying a band-aid fix, not addressing the problem. In the real world what this means is there’s a class of people always working to remove those regulations and welfare because their class interests are opposed to ours.
Class distinctions cannot be solved with a regulation, they have to be solved with a societal restructuring. Our legal system does not support the idea of abolishing private property and by extension classes.
If by “have merit” you mean “has some positive aspects”, sure. Every system has merit. Slavery had merit (slave owners got cheap cotton). The Holocaust had merit (antisemites felt better). The issue is weighing the merit against the negatives. You can’t just say two systems have positive aspects and call it a day.
Are you a fan of democracy or authoritarianism? Capitalism is a system where productive forces are driven undemocratically, in the name of profit instead of by worker democracy. The commodification of everything exists in a world of private property:
our bodies (labor power)
our thoughts (intellectual property)
the specific ordering of bits on a hard drive you own (digital media, DRM)
the means of production (which exist as a result of collective knowledge, infrastructure, and labor)
These things being commodified and privatized are ridiculous in any democratic, non-capitalist system.
However, these ridiculous conditions are absolutely necessary in a capitalist society. Without them the system falls apart. And as society continues to progress, the situation gets more and more ridiculous.
What about when AI “takes away” jobs for 50% of Americans (as in capitalists fire humans in favor of AI)? That’ll collapse our society. Less work would be a good thing in any reasonable system, but not in capitalism. Less work is an existential threat to our society.
If we ever have an AI that is as capable as humans are intellectually, the only work left for us will be manual labor. If that happens, and robots get to the point of matching our physical abilities, we won’t be employable anymore. The two classes will no longer be owners and workers, they’ll be owners and non-owners. At that point we better have dismantled capitalism, because if we don’t then we’ll just be starving in the street, along with the millions who die every year from starvation under the boot of global capitalism.
Surprised this is getting as many upvotes as it is. It totally depends on context. I’ve seen posted 35 mph speed limits on 6 lane roads where every is going minimum 50mph, even with cops in the flow of traffic. I’ve also been on 2 lane roads (e.g opposing traffic is directly next to you) and the posted speed limit is 55mph.
If you’re doing the speed limit in the second one, well done. If you’re going 15-25mph below the flow of traffic in the middle or fast lane, because of a posted speed limit, that’s a problem.