Late Stage Capitalism

I have no idea who this is, and thought It was just some dude saying some based shit... Then I read the blurb at the bottom...

I'm guessing he meant this ironically?

This is Democracy Manifest!

But trans people would get healthcare too and we can't have that. /s

A lot of people think that specifically is not the government's duty, though. You'd have to first convince them that the government's duty isn't simply to defend against invasion, or enforce the will of the people, or whatever else they believe.

We have the right to lofe liberty and the persuit of happiness.

Not having proper healthcare coverage is literally against that right.

And they’re making damn sure that keeps happening.

I think it could be argued that you have a right to a "purpose". For some people that may be a job. And some may choose to not have a purpose. But no one should be denied a purpose if they want one - even if it involves goals they will never succeed at.

Jobs are fine. It’s for-profit companies that’s the problem. Why does a company need profits (outside of maybe emergency capital)?

No company needs to profit by billions/trillions.

Humans find jobs for themselves and their community all the time, but not fucking bullshit jobs like data entry technician or call center technician.

I fucking hate cleaning, but I will happily help a friend or family member clean their house or their apartment because we thrive in a community.

Not getting the humanity squeezed out of us for a few cents more.

Someone has to grow the food. That's a job.

Either nothing humans do is natural, or everything is.

Democracy and human rights aren't natural. Capitalism isn't natural. Or they both are.

People do like to work, the caveat being that they generally don't want to work with virtually nothing to show for it. The modding community is massive, and they almost never get paid. People love to bake, or draw, or garden, or volunteer, all without fiduciary compensation.

But when people make it where they have to "get a job" to survive, the love of the labor disappears.

Who's going to provide your food, shelter and clothing if no one is working?

Yes, if you want to live in a society, you must contribute. Even if you live in a village with no government or economic system, people have to haul water, catch fish, grow crops, make charcoal, weave baskets, 1,000 other jobs.

And to care for the people too elderly or disabled to care for themselves, you must work harder than merely providing for yourself.

Oh, were you thinking rich people could just give us money? Where do you think they get that money? Hint: It comes from our labor, which you propose shouldn't exist.

If you don't like any of that, go homestead. Dick Proenneke left for Alaska in his 50s, single-handedly built a nice cabin and lived there alone for 30 years.

Ol' Dick didn't have a filthy job, unless you count survival. If a middle-aged man can do it with 60s tech and gumption, so can you!

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

This. As automation increases, fewer of us should have to work. A significant issue with the Soviet Union and their legendary inefficiency is that every one had the right to a job even if there were no jobs to be done. Leading to them creating unnecessary intermediary positions at every level of the system.

Basic income, sure. And people should be educated. But beyond that, encourage the people who don't need to work to pursue art or other ends. Get them involved in community activities. But work towards a society of leisure if possible.

In the Middle Ages and the Ancient era in many places the nobility were seen as also being stewards of the underlings and HAD to make sure they didn’t completely fall into shit.

This strikes me as a touch revanchist.

Middle Ages / Ancient Era nobility operated on a patronage system for their courtiers and military officers, sure. But they obtained the surplus to satisfy the duties of the patrician class by looting and pillaging neighboring city-states or by taxing the working people inside their domain.

Even the original robber barons funded medical research, and built theaters and libraries and other cultural stuff for the society they lived in.

They bought bread and built circuses for the artisan class that they sought to cultivate in their immediate vicinity. But their largesse was very geographically limited. The farther from the center of power you got, the more you suffered and the less you benefited.

Communities on the periphery were as heavily exploited then as they are now. Only the limits of technology kept that frontier relatively close by, with innovations like Roman roadways and early Medieval shipbuilding technologies pushing those frontiers outward.

The Vikings were not funding medical research in Angland. The Romans were not building libraries in the Black Forests along the Danube. The Columbian Era Spanish were not bringing Renaissance art and culture to the Aztecs and Incas or sending over architects to build beautiful stained glass churches in what would be Texas and Florida.

I don’t think even Hitler held the land and the earth and humanity in general with that level of contempt.

The Scorched Earth tactics of the World Wars were pioneered a century earlier. General Custard and King Leopold II absolutely employed wholesale destruction of the agricultural basis of local communities as a means of enslaving or exterminating native people.

The English and Portuguese would employ opium addiction as a means of expanding their empire along the Pacific Rim. The French would make an industry of trapping and killing wild game that wiped whole species out of the New World. Their commercial farming practices in Africa and Southeast Asia would obliterate local biomes for private profit.

This is just more of the same short-term profit oriented expansionism. The machines are bigger and the damage more expansive, but the intent and the incentives are all the same.

while there's good points, the last sentence is out of place.

That guy was contempt manifest. In the end he ordered the destruction of the oh so beloved country

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Decree

Hey, fellow communist here and Hexbear enjoyer.

Communism isn't really when all workers get the same regardless of the work done, the difference with social democracy is in who owns the factories and buildings and machines and computers that we work with, who decides how and what work is done, and who decides the prices and the salaries.

In social democracy, people maintain the right to own capital (i.e. to privately invest their money in a business expecting a return, and to hire others through this ownership of capital). In communism, workers collectively (whether directly through coops or indirectly through the state) collectively own the factories and buildings and computers that are used to actually produce goods and services).

This doesn't just translate to formal ownership, but to actual decision making in the workplace and to salaries. In capitalism (social democracy is a type of capitalism), a company owner will only hire someone if they can profit from it, which means they're getting a part of the worker's production and appropriating it for themselves, which communists call by the word "exploitation". In communism, since the capital is owned collectively, so are the fruits of labor. This doesn't mean everyone earns the same, it's not the case in theory nor in practice. If workers elect a manager to direct some things at the company, the manager may make more in the form of for example increased production bonuses, or if a worker exceeds the quota, they can also very bonuses, as well as salary increases with different positions and level of training, studies and experience. As an example, a university professor in the soviet union made maybe 3 times as much as an entry level job at a supermarket. If you care about salaries per profession, Albert Szymanski's "human rights in the soviet union" does interesting analysis of the evolution of salaries by sector in th USSR over the 50s and 60s.

Regarding innovation I have to disagree. In my opinion, innovation is mainly led by the investment in innovation that you make and how you manage the investment. Most innovation in the world for example already comes from the public sector: universities, research institutes, military, space agencies... It's just that when some publicly researched concept gets profitable after all the research, a company will pick it up, make some improvements through investment, patent it, and live the good life of the monopoly. Then again I'm a communist and that's my view, but looking at things like the transistor, the internet, the space sector, medicine, biology, astrophysics, material science... Most of those are advancements and disciplines either completely or overwhelmingly public funded in their inception and still today. It's just that we experience a bias in consuming technology ultimately researched by companies because we live in a system where almost all we consume is by definition made by companies. Research and innovation can happen, in my opinion arguably better, under communism than capitalism.

Regarding the basic material needs as you mentioned: healthcare, housing, nutrition, even energy for heating and cooking, mobility with public transit, fuck, the right to work! All of those should in my humble opinion be guaranteed for everyone. Again, I could point to historical examples like the Soviet Union: housing costed 3% of the average household income on average and homelessness was entirely abolished, healthcare and education were completely free to the highest level and of excellent quality, especially for the level of development; public transit never changed prices from the 40s to the 70s, basic foods were heavily subsidised and very affordable, entertainment and sports were widely available through unions, everyone had paid vacation, the retirement age was 60 for men and 55 for women... My point with this isn't "all hail Stalin". My point is, if a socialist system born from the violence of tsarism and World War 2 such as the soviet union achieved all of that by 1970, what the fuck are we doing?

I could go on to talk about the problems with social democracy and imperialism in the third world, but I think this is a long enough comment. Please let me know it you find it interesting or wanna discuss anything inside