this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
279 points (96.0% liked)

politics

25548 readers
2044 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

No other liberal news outlets are covering this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Juice@midwest.social 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

True but the problem isn't just money, its private property. Money is how social relations under capitalism are managed. It isn't the root of the problem, but it creates lots of avenues for exploitation. I would like to live in a world without money but we have to organize and fight for it.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think the way forward is to create a hybrid of socialism and capitalism - the social to address all basic needs of people, such as healthcare, generic food, a boring car, free shelter, utilities, ect. Capitalism should be solely reserved for luxuries, such as yachts, vacations, fancy meals, figurines, art, media, and so on.

It is my belief that capitalism is an optimization method, but like all optimizations, it can detract from the results if it exists for its own sake, rather than to facilitate the goal. In the case of society, that would be to promote goods and services that help individuals grow as humans.

We don't want merch of a given fulfillment to be given to everyone, because not everyone is a fan of HP Lovecraft or My Little Pony, so that would waste lots of resources if we didn't have capitalism to adjust their supply for cultural demands. However, all humans need to eat, rest, and have agency. In such a case, it is much better to "waste" resources to make sure everyone does alright.

[–] Juice@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think there are some misunderstandings about what capitalism is and how it actually works as a mechanism of class rule and oppression rather than a neutral system. I absolutely think your heart is in the right place, but I'll try to help clear up common misunderstanding.

First, you are confusing capitalism with markets. Capitalism isn't markets, that would be like marketalism or something. Capital is assets that that produce more than they cost to maintain. Basically its stuff that creates profit, not stuff that is sold on a market, though it is the market where a particular transformation occurs, its where potential profit is transformed into real profit.

But what is done with the extra is the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. The production process is socialized, which means that it is many people involved. But the excess, the profits, are individualized, not socialized.

Because of this dynamic, capitalism is not an optimization. It is not efficient, it extracts social productive value, and shunts it into private coffers, or more accurately, private bank accounts. Those banks are part of a global system of finance, that every country in the world is paying into in various ways. In endless ways these banks distribute resources according to a particular set of rules that benefit a particular sort of set of incentives: the incentives of imperialist capitalism.

Every link in the chain of production bleeds money. A parts manufacturer has to turn a profit, those parts are shipped to an assembler that has to turn a profit, the assembled commodities have to be sold on a market that had to earn a profit. The shipping companies that are moving parts and commodities, has to turn a profit. The warehouses that store the goods have to be profitable. Does an object have to be profitable in order to exist in the real world? Absolutely not. Things have to be profitable in order to fulfill a certain set of obligations imposed on the real world.

You want to separate socialism from capital, the social from the economic. This way of thinking creates illusions. Capitalism is not rational, it's anarchistic. Things are not created and distributed according to human needs, they are created according to the desire for profit. The competitive drive for profit eliminates firms who fail to take more profit, which leads to monopolization, vertical integration, etc., Large firms are able to influence legislation, to create laws which are enforced with violence to make the consequences real.

Your view is not unique. It was the view of the capitalist class during the heyday of the new deal. After pushing workers to the brink of actually overthrowing the capitalist system (see 1934 nationwide rail strikes) in 1935 we got our new deal, and the capitalists were all saying "we just need responsible, kinder capitalism. Social democracy will be a big improvement!" But 90 years later, the new deal is a done deal. Even European social democracies are at least majorly funded by defense industrialists that extract value from the 3rd world, and are experiencing waves of well funded and politically organized fascist movements, like ourselves. There is no profit in social democracy, and it only came about in the first place because of the global expansion of socialism, which actively fought to eliminate capitalism but was defeated in various ways.

Capitalism is in fact extremely wasteful, and is optimized only to move value from workers to owners. A recent study shows that a better way of life for everyone, secure safe housing, healthcare, quality education; could be achieved with 1/3 of our current global productive capacity. That means there is in fact room for luxuries! But not under capitalism. We will have to dramatically change the global order, by the workers coming together and organizing for our own benefit, at the expense of capital and private property. We will have to seize the means.

I think the sort of compromise that you are trying to make is actually a historically settled issue. Concern about what to do about demand for luxury goods is very correct IMO, as well as is the belief that the economy should be organized around human need rather than the hunt for profit. This is one of the pillars of socialism! And I welcome you as a fellow traveller in these spaces. But there will be no compromise with capitalism this time. The new deal saved the ruling class of capitalists from extinction. And that view of having a good capitalism was the justification of the ruling class for their own parasitic existence. The sun has set on even the feasibility of a middle way.

I think if you want to join the movement for democratic socialism, you'll be able try and work with others for ways to make sure that human needs such as housing, food, education, healthcare are not commodified on a market. But there will be no compromise. That happened before we were even born. Capitalism is more than just markets, it is the way that the ruling class is organized against the working class. This IMO is the missing piece from your analysis, the class analysis. But we live in a time where the class character and distinctions between the owning capitalists and the workers is becoming clear to many many more people. I def sympathise with your urge to find a compromise, I think it is admirable and a quality that our movements desperately need.

But in this particular instance, it is not possible to strike a compromise between the people who get their wealth from stealing the value of others work, and the people who are having their work stolen.