I think a perspective shift is necessary.
“Destroy the economy” is about sabotage.
“Work for each other and against wealthy investors” would result in a smaller economy, but the focus is on the positive thing built, instead of just sabotage.
“Smaller” if you’re a billionaire. When they say “the economy” just insert “rich people’s wealth”. It wouldn’t be a smaller economy in reality, because what drives a healthy economy is people spending money. Rich people don’t spend money, regular people do. Regular people getting paid more and having a larger piece of the pie, counterintuitively means there’s more pie.
Thank you.
The problem is wealth concentrating in too few hands. And those hands are greedily reaching for more and more wealth.
We simply need systems to redirect the wealth from the 0.1%.
would result in a smaller economy
Only to the extent that withheld labor during a strike affects it. Once the strike(s) are over, an economy that puts more spending money in more pockets will be a bigger one
It turns out that the size of the economy is related to how well-distributed the wealth in it is. If most of the money goes into wealthy pockets and everybody else lives in a sort of poverty-imposed austerity, that depresses a lot of that economy’s potential.
What the UAW are after is not a smaller economy, but a more-robust (likely larger) one that includes more people in it.
We’re destroying the world through overproduction and over consumption.
I see a future where people can work less, instead of an attempt to keep people working full time.
That would be smaller, with less waste at the top.
I like where you’re going with that!
I think the problems (of high inequality, of unsustainable resource use) are distinct, but related and can probably be gone after by targeting the same things: price gouging and suppressing wages.
If capital can’t do those things, labor will have the choice to work less if it doesn’t need the money to survive. We’ve long-since passed the point Keynes predicted (at which, productivity would be high enough to support people at a high standard of living without them working full time) in terms of production, the obstacle to that happening is that capital gets to allocate those surpluses and it keeps most of them
I’ve spent my career in the tech industry, specifically around open source software.
Corporate powers helped fund the work of individuals for their own purposes, but I can ways we can use them to rebuild local economies instead.
We just need to change how we’re using the tools. This can be done by existing skilled workers who are willing to make new choices around who to work for, or by motivated new engineers who have access to the free tools and free training material.
Where do I sign up
At your local union hall!
If you aren’t rich, you have already signed up
That… is a very…VERY BAD IDEA.
Billionaires have enough money to survive an economic crash without batting an eyelid. Do you?
Most billionaires aren’t billionaires in cash. If the market crashes, so do they. Now they might be reduced to “only” a hundred million or so but that can be catastrophic when your personal finances depend on billions in stock backing up a series of long term rotating loans.
They wanted to use the market to exploit the people. But that makes them vulnerable in a way rich people didn’t used to be vulnerable.
Yeah, but that “catastrophe” you and I won’t see it. We would have died already out of hunger or disease. You cannot survive only on hate itself.
Edit: typo
Eh, when food gets scarce there’s a few ways things can go. Usually the people in charge try to stop those kind of extreme events by handing out food. It’s when there’s a dust bowl at the same time that things get nasty.
Yeah, go ahead and think you can live on handouts from the rich and powerful, whose economy you’re trying to wreck.
That’s uhh not how real life works. It ain’t a story where morality (yours or mine) matters. Hungry humans get very desperate and has been the cause of more than one period of extreme violence. That’s why people get fed when governments can do it. Not because of any sense of charity.
In a wrecked economy the government can’t do it. Because the government is not a magical entity. Then what?
The government is more real than the economy. It’s made of actual people doing actual things. In a total economic collapse but with a good food supply government ration stamps become the new form of pay. Again. This has happened before. They can’t wave a magic wand but they can physically work together in their pre-existing hierarchy.
Yeah if we keep basing everything on money! We need to go back to bartering
Only problem with this is that this doesn’t even hurt the ultra rich - every catastrophe is just a new investment opportunity for them. E.g. after Brexit they just moved their money and businesses out of the UK, leaving the poor schlebs who live there to deal with it.
True, which is why change should be for the people, not against the fuckheads (except for keeping them the hell out of power and fortune).
Okay, let’s do nothing then… /s
✊
🖖
Wasn’t it that same episode where Rom basically says word for word that he doesn’t support unions because one day he might own Quark’s bar and then he’ll be able to oppress people too? What a great show, some people dislike the ferengi episodes but they’re some of my favorites in the series.
Who could dislike the Ferengi episodes??
People with the same mindset as Ferengi and who don’t like to be called out for their shit.
Ikr? Some people hate 'em. They’re really goofy and cartoonish so I guess I get it. Profit and Lace is pretty tough to watch. The Magnificent Ferengi is my personal favorite (Iggy Pop guest stars too, what a treat!) And I quote the Rules of Acquisition in real life somewhat regularly, heh
Don’t be shocked when the billionaires get bailouts to the tune of 10X what they lost and we get fucked whenever you decide to do that.
I vote for wrecking the rich’s yachts. There’s even a great capitalist reason to do it: the companies that build them might make new sales! Win-win!
Do a new Boston Tea Party except this time we launch barrels of tea at yachts.
When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.
It’s like trickle down economics, but we gotta shoot some holes in the water tower to make it trickle down.
When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.
People who think the rich just have vaults full of money are so fucking ridiculous.
Poor people sit on cash. Poor people hide cash in their house. Almost the entirety of any rich person’s wealth is invested, because rich people generally pay smart people to handle their money.
“We were very wealthy,” says Errol Musk. “We had so much money at times we couldn’t even close our safe.”
With one person holding the money in place, another other would slam the door.
“And then there’d still be all these notes sticking out and we’d sort of pull them out and put them in our pockets.”
You are willfully ignorant.
Holy based, I didn’t know there were any unions with a backbone left in America
What the UAW is doing here is fighting for all workers. This sets precedents that ripple across all industries. What formed the UAW back in 1937 took some balls, and so does this.
It’s not communism to fight for dignity and a living wage. We’re practically fighting for some more table scraps, but the rich are acting like we’re threatening social fabric.
Go and get it Shawn, this is exactly what we all need right now. Support the UAW.
In the last 20 years, we’ve seen the most rapid rise in productivity since the industrial revolution, and just like in the wake of the industrial revolution, there was massive worker exploitation that led to reforms and eventually unionization that ushered in a golden age of labor in America where workers were fairly compensated for the work they provided, so much so that it was easy for a salaryman to support a nuclear family on his single paycheck.
Since then, the business owner class has been working hard to dismantle unions while refusing to pay their fair share of the massive profit windfalls to the bottom rung workers. We are long overdue for sweeping multi-industry unionization effort. Only then will we start seeing something more than just table scraps.
Fighting for dignity actually is literally communism. It’s capitalist propaganda that has you convinced otherwise.
I mean, I can see a utopian vision of Communism where dignity is forefront, but I’ve also seen where it’s dystopian. Correct me if I’m wrong but the basis is to each according to their need and from each based on their abilities. Dignity isn’t mentioned, but the happiness and contentment of all is the goal so I suppose it’s inferred but not specified.
Either way, it doesn’t have to be viewed with any kind of social opposition. If we keep following the slippery slope of late game capitalism, who’s to say companies don’t just purchase legislation that re-establishes full on slavery? We have a fucked up oligarch system, and moments like this where workers unite is a good thing in any system. Free market my ass, and this is a moment where arguing for semantics is a side-discussion, for now it’s us against the oligarchs.
I think a better way to describe the essence of communism is an end to dominance hierarchies. Authoritarians often use leftist rhetoric to gain power, which is why so many of them have called themselves socialist or communist, while being the exact opposite of the ideals they claim to support.
You are 100% correct, it is us against the oligarchs. That’s also the entire basis of communist theory, btw. Regardless of terms used though, we are on the same side of this fight, and I am glad that we are.
Communism provides a theoretical framework to advocate for those things, but it is not the same as doing those things. I think the distinction is important because it allows you to have a plurality or support
That’s like saying physics only provides a framework for experiment.
You don’t seem to understand that your distinction between the theory of communism, and communism as practiced, are both equally valid and accepted uses of the word. One is a theory, one created reeducation camps and killed millions of their own people. It is not capitalism that convinced me of this.
Your comment is fair, but please allow me to deflect for a moment with a few questions:
The nazis called themselves national socialists, do you believe they were socialists?
The north korean government has called their country a democratic republic, do you believe that?
I’m guessing you answered no to both. If that’s the case, why do you believe the ussr and the ccp when they say they were/are practicing communism?
Additionally, who benefits more than capital if you believe socialism and communism equal authoritarianism?
If you guys understood marketing, you’d stop insisting on your version of the word being the one people should embrace. Socialism sells way better than communism even though it still gets people as riled up as Sen Kennedy reading “not all boys are blue” while pretending that it’s legally mandated to be given to white Christian boys at birth. 9/10 you guys rail against European social democracy, regardless of the fact that it would be a far easier reach for the US and would dramatically improve the lives of workers.
Always play offense. Useful tactic, but easily avoided. Bye!
MOD NOTE: BE NICE.
It’s ok to disagree, it’s not ok to insult or threaten other posters with violence.
Way to go. Bring them down on their knees. Force them to share. They’ve proven they will never share the wealth with the workers unless forced to.
That is something I wonder about. Inflation makes the poor poorer but when asked, economists are like “trust us, inflation is good”.
A small amount is good. Deflation makes it so not spending money is more beneficial. The longer you wait to spend the more the money is worth. This causes fewer products and services to be purchased, which pays for wages. Inflation makes the opposite true. The longer you wait to spend your money the less it’s worth. It encourages spending, not saving. Inflation that outstrips increases to pay is obviously very bad though.
Does deflation decrease all spending or just luxury and investments?
Just luxury spending and underperforming investments. Essential spending can’t be deferred, and worthwhile investments will outpace any natural rate of deflation. Forced inflation drives conspicuous consumption and malinvestment, but in doing so it increases monetary velocity, which helps bankers and tax collectors extract higher rent from the economy.
Inflation reduces the value of money at the bank: the money saved as well as the money borrowed.
In an ideal world, wages are indexed on inflation (way of calculating inflation in this context can be discussed), and inflation is kept above present targets levels (central banks try to keep it at 2% these days).
That makes your debts easier to reimburse, and limits returns on savings. Have you ever noticed that people who keep talking about the “value of work” actually push for low wages and no or low taxes on capital gains, so actually wants the capital to make more money than work?
A low inflation allows big money to hoard more and more. Higher inflation means money that’s not actively contributing to the economy will lose its value over time, and that’s exactly what you, at the bottom of the ladder, want (and considering top of the ladder is hundreds of billions of $, ever 6 figures employees are bottom of the ladder).
Too high inflation leads to an uncontrolled spiral. Deflation is also very bad (no investment will ever happen if your money just appreciate by doing nothing). But the 2% target is not to protect you. It’s made for money to make more money.
But about the link between wages and inflation: what we have today is a situation where we let cost of life dramatically outpace wage growth. So where did the inflation come from? Profits! That needs to be rebalanced.
From 1945 to the early 80’s (before the €), France and some other countries minmum wages were indexed on inflation. If doing so would instantly crash an economy, we would have noticed…
That’s red hot commie stuff right there. I like it :)
Isn’t that what they want you to think? Throwing around words like communist and making it seem like a bad thing to share wealth?
Exactly. Unions exist in Liberal and Social Democracies, too. They want to keep us on this Neoliberal path, because it’s so very exploitable. Unions are just a drop of democracy, but for your workplace, or sometimes renting and transit systems.
There is nothing communist about that. He’s not advocating abolishing private ownership. Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.
The free market doesn’t exist in a communist economy. Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers. This eliminates workers’ leverage over employers.
There is nothing communist about that.
Seeking a new economy, based on the challenge that the current one serves the owning class, is the very essence of the communist movement.
He’s not advocating abolishing private ownership.
Billionaires are the owners, and they are being challenged, as well as the system that serves them.
Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.
No. Markets confer freedom only to those who enter them already having the more advantageous position.
The free market doesn’t exist in a communist economy.
You previously gave an accurate definition of communism. Markets are not specifically or fundamentally rejected by communism, even though many would wish to see their eventual abolition.
Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers.
Communism seeks direct control of the economy by workers.
This eliminates workers’ leverage over employers.
Workers have no leverage over employers, because employers already own everything. Workers have only the power to withhold their labor, though doing so carries great risk.
How does the working class not realise that the wealthy are the sodden bitch in a bog handing out the sword? Jeeebus
Fuck yea, love to see militant labor fighting for what they need
