This is what’s frustrating about trying to talk to people about socialism. It’s everything that liberal capitalist democracy claims to be but isn’t. They’ve just been brainwashed into thinking it just means authoritarianism.
Democracy: You want a government by the people, of the people, for the people? Well a system that lets the rich and powerful pour their vast resources into corrupting it doesn’t allow for that. And that’s before we even get into the explicit ways in which US “democracy” was set up to be resistant to popular influences. Also, in a less direct way, the more of society that is privatized, the less in under the preview of whatever semblance of democratic control we do have.
Freedom: Under capitalism, your freedom is directly proportional to your wealth. Rich people and corporations can do whatever the hell they want and can often do things that infringe on the freedoms of others, but if you’re poor, or even just not super rich, your ability to make choices in life is heavily constrained by what the market offers and what you can afford. If you can’t afford to lose your job, you have to follow what your boss tells you. But hey, that’s not a government, so it doesn’t count right?
Meritocracy: People want to be rewarded for their hard work and keep that reward? Well capitalism doesn’t reward hard work. It rewards having enough money and power to siphon the value of other people’s hard work. It doesn’t matter what people did to get to the top, they could have inherited it, they could have done crimes, etc. They could be completely undeserving of it and still be put in charge and still take your money.
Innovation: Capitalism doesn’t promote innovation as anything more than a byproduct of a different force. ANYTHING that makes profit is incentivized, regardless of how productive it is for society. Sometimes that’s new tech, but things that are equally valid under capitalism include: Weapons, cheap plastic crap, getting people addicted to things, finding ways to offer less and charge more, suing others to try to stop them from using anything vaguely similar to what you own IP for (regardless of if you were even the ones to originally make the thing instead of just acquiring the IP) etc. Under this framework, you can even consider lobbying the government as profit generating activity. You spend some money to get the government to do things that will allow you to make more money in the future.
I could go on, but you get the idea. It’s just really hard to make the jump from having people agree with these things to realizing that the system itself is to blame and that in order to do better we need to change it.
They’ve just been brainwashed into thinking it just means authoritarianism.
Idk if I’d even call it “brainwashing” per say. A lot of it boils down to mass media exploiting ethnic and economic bigotries. Just stimulating the very human impulse to be afraid of other people - especially people who don’t look or speak or act like you. Then asserting that these Other People are trying to Take Over.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
For a lot of these core ideas, the very pitch-line for them is corrupted. Even removing the question of rich people having an edge, you have these core messages that only justify the status quo.
Democracy as a system of surveying the public mood and mapping policies is great. Democracy as a means of putting arbitrary lists of policies to a vote and then blithely executing the majoritarian opinion isn’t great. At some level, you have to recognize that “Two wolves and a sheep voting for dinner” isn’t going to end well for the minority, even if the proverbial Two Wolves are wearing different team jackets.
Similarly, Freedom v Tyranny is often couched within the (very deliberately mischaracterized) Ben Franklin quote “Those who value safety over liberty deserve neither”. But a better analysis might be “Freedom protects but does not bind, Tyranny binds but does not protect”. Because you need safety in order to be free. Freedom of choice is predicated on available choices not being harmful. All too often, policies that serve to protect the weakest members of society are pitched as somehow being tyrannical to the strongest, strictly because they prevent one group from bullying another.
Meritocracy is also larded up with an innate fondness for eugenics and other Social Darwinism. There’s this idea that a meritocratic society will subtly weed out the undesirables via a system that leaves no single individual culpable for social murder. “Hey, you’re homeless because you’re physically disabled or mentally ill? That’s not my fault, because I have proven myself to have merit and you clearly haven’t.” Again, even if we were rewarding hard work, we’d just be punishing the weak and promoting the strong in a Might Makes Right bureaucratic system.
So-called Innovation rewards growth at all costs. Exploitative change is championed purely on the basis that the “innovator” generates profit. Even as we do build things, we focus entirely on the upfront costs versus long-term revenues, without respect for the core function of the system or the long term sustainability of the project.
It’s just really hard to make the jump from having people agree with these things to realizing that the system itself is to blame
I think there is a general recognition that our economic system is broken. But time and again, we’re limited in the remedies we’re allowed to discuss by individuals invested in perpetuating fascist policies.
And when the contradictions of the system mount, we’re told that we must overlook them in order to defeat The Evil Outsiders - Russia, China, Mexico, Iran, Somalia… And that any effort to buck existing policies or curb fascist impulses is a tacit alliance with the Villainous Foreigners Who Want To Destroy Our Way of Life.
Then asserting that these Other People are trying to Take Over.
Yeah that’s a more accurate analysis I think. When most people reject socialism out of hand, I don’t think they’re really engaging with any of it’s actual ideas, they’re just associating it with scary foreigners.
For a lot of these core ideas, the very pitch-line for them is corrupted. Even removing the question of rich people having an edge, you have these core messages that only justify the status quo.
Yeah. I do get that. There are plenty of these aspects of society that I would want to change to be more fair, compassionate, etc. But when it comes to discussing these ideas with regular people, you need some kind of starting point and using the system’s own premises against it I think is a reasonably effective tool to do that. Once we have a political and economic system free from the control of a handful of greedy people, I think it’ll be a lot easier to take the next steps.
That’s what we call a branding problem. Capitalism is also really really good at branding and it is also really really good at propagandizing in a way that makes other ways of life seem scary so we continue to do capitalism.
I mean, Marx went on a tear about the unleashing of productive forces under Capitalism. It’s a significant meaningful improvement over the absolute monarchies and fractured feudal territorial economies that came before.
Throwing “God” into the equation is definitely fucked. But there’s a lot to be said for the benefits of laisse-faire capitalism if the only thing you care about is economic growth. Humans fully divorced from a social code and empowered with industrial technology can make so many fucking paperclips.
To be fair you’re really not supposed to agree with Tanya. “Capitalism is God’s greatest gift to mankind” sounds about right for an unapologetic psychopath.
This is what’s frustrating about trying to talk to people about socialism. It’s everything that liberal capitalist democracy claims to be but isn’t. They’ve just been brainwashed into thinking it just means authoritarianism.
Democracy: You want a government by the people, of the people, for the people? Well a system that lets the rich and powerful pour their vast resources into corrupting it doesn’t allow for that. And that’s before we even get into the explicit ways in which US “democracy” was set up to be resistant to popular influences. Also, in a less direct way, the more of society that is privatized, the less in under the preview of whatever semblance of democratic control we do have.
Freedom: Under capitalism, your freedom is directly proportional to your wealth. Rich people and corporations can do whatever the hell they want and can often do things that infringe on the freedoms of others, but if you’re poor, or even just not super rich, your ability to make choices in life is heavily constrained by what the market offers and what you can afford. If you can’t afford to lose your job, you have to follow what your boss tells you. But hey, that’s not a government, so it doesn’t count right?
Meritocracy: People want to be rewarded for their hard work and keep that reward? Well capitalism doesn’t reward hard work. It rewards having enough money and power to siphon the value of other people’s hard work. It doesn’t matter what people did to get to the top, they could have inherited it, they could have done crimes, etc. They could be completely undeserving of it and still be put in charge and still take your money.
Innovation: Capitalism doesn’t promote innovation as anything more than a byproduct of a different force. ANYTHING that makes profit is incentivized, regardless of how productive it is for society. Sometimes that’s new tech, but things that are equally valid under capitalism include: Weapons, cheap plastic crap, getting people addicted to things, finding ways to offer less and charge more, suing others to try to stop them from using anything vaguely similar to what you own IP for (regardless of if you were even the ones to originally make the thing instead of just acquiring the IP) etc. Under this framework, you can even consider lobbying the government as profit generating activity. You spend some money to get the government to do things that will allow you to make more money in the future.
I could go on, but you get the idea. It’s just really hard to make the jump from having people agree with these things to realizing that the system itself is to blame and that in order to do better we need to change it.
Idk if I’d even call it “brainwashing” per say. A lot of it boils down to mass media exploiting ethnic and economic bigotries. Just stimulating the very human impulse to be afraid of other people - especially people who don’t look or speak or act like you. Then asserting that these Other People are trying to Take Over.
For a lot of these core ideas, the very pitch-line for them is corrupted. Even removing the question of rich people having an edge, you have these core messages that only justify the status quo.
Democracy as a system of surveying the public mood and mapping policies is great. Democracy as a means of putting arbitrary lists of policies to a vote and then blithely executing the majoritarian opinion isn’t great. At some level, you have to recognize that “Two wolves and a sheep voting for dinner” isn’t going to end well for the minority, even if the proverbial Two Wolves are wearing different team jackets.
Similarly, Freedom v Tyranny is often couched within the (very deliberately mischaracterized) Ben Franklin quote “Those who value safety over liberty deserve neither”. But a better analysis might be “Freedom protects but does not bind, Tyranny binds but does not protect”. Because you need safety in order to be free. Freedom of choice is predicated on available choices not being harmful. All too often, policies that serve to protect the weakest members of society are pitched as somehow being tyrannical to the strongest, strictly because they prevent one group from bullying another.
Meritocracy is also larded up with an innate fondness for eugenics and other Social Darwinism. There’s this idea that a meritocratic society will subtly weed out the undesirables via a system that leaves no single individual culpable for social murder. “Hey, you’re homeless because you’re physically disabled or mentally ill? That’s not my fault, because I have proven myself to have merit and you clearly haven’t.” Again, even if we were rewarding hard work, we’d just be punishing the weak and promoting the strong in a Might Makes Right bureaucratic system.
So-called Innovation rewards growth at all costs. Exploitative change is championed purely on the basis that the “innovator” generates profit. Even as we do build things, we focus entirely on the upfront costs versus long-term revenues, without respect for the core function of the system or the long term sustainability of the project.
I think there is a general recognition that our economic system is broken. But time and again, we’re limited in the remedies we’re allowed to discuss by individuals invested in perpetuating fascist policies.
And when the contradictions of the system mount, we’re told that we must overlook them in order to defeat The Evil Outsiders - Russia, China, Mexico, Iran, Somalia… And that any effort to buck existing policies or curb fascist impulses is a tacit alliance with the Villainous Foreigners Who Want To Destroy Our Way of Life.
Those are some good points/better ways to say it.
Yeah that’s a more accurate analysis I think. When most people reject socialism out of hand, I don’t think they’re really engaging with any of it’s actual ideas, they’re just associating it with scary foreigners.
Yeah. I do get that. There are plenty of these aspects of society that I would want to change to be more fair, compassionate, etc. But when it comes to discussing these ideas with regular people, you need some kind of starting point and using the system’s own premises against it I think is a reasonably effective tool to do that. Once we have a political and economic system free from the control of a handful of greedy people, I think it’ll be a lot easier to take the next steps.
That’s what we call a branding problem. Capitalism is also really really good at branding and it is also really really good at propagandizing in a way that makes other ways of life seem scary so we continue to do capitalism.
Its why I stopped reading The Saga of Tanya the Evil, she starts espousing about how capitalism is “gods greatest gift to mankind”…
I mean, Marx went on a tear about the unleashing of productive forces under Capitalism. It’s a significant meaningful improvement over the absolute monarchies and fractured feudal territorial economies that came before.
Throwing “God” into the equation is definitely fucked. But there’s a lot to be said for the benefits of laisse-faire capitalism if the only thing you care about is economic growth. Humans fully divorced from a social code and empowered with industrial technology can make so many fucking paperclips.
Before that you thought that the literal Nazi protagonist had good morals?
& the fact that it’s you know a Japanese anime. Japan is peak hyper-capitalism
To be fair you’re really not supposed to agree with Tanya. “Capitalism is God’s greatest gift to mankind” sounds about right for an unapologetic psychopath.