• invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Primitive accumulation is a bad term. It works if you’ve read the theory behind it, but otherwise it sounds like someone saving up a bunch of money then starting a successful business compared to what it is which was colonial genocide, enclosure of the commons, and mass starvation as people were ripped from agricultural labor and cast into the factories and mines to work for feudal lords turned industrial capitalists.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well that’s just bullshit. Markets have brought more people out of poverty than anything.

        • KurtVonnegut [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lib - “Markets make everything cheaper, which is good.”

          Leftist - “But if there is a labor market, won’t that make labor cheaper?”

          Lib - “Yes, and that is good.”

          Leftist - “How is that good?”

          Lib - “It leads to more profits.”

          Leftist - “But why is it good to have more profits?”

          Lib - “Because a good country is when corporations make profits, and the more profits the corporations make, the gooder the country is.”

          • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Love to spend insane amounts of resources on creating a phone that has the same tech and capabilities as all the other phones, but I can’t just get access to their research and they can’t just get access to mine.
            Love to spend insane amount of time working up a cure to covid, but I can’t share my research with others and they can’t share it with me, yay this is awesome.
            Love to spend insane amount of resources working out how to make people want to buy a sugary drink and then spend even more to make them want to buy my drink specifically.
            Love to build empty houses and love to create 1.21 times more food than we need.
            Love to do all this as the world is burning and people are starving.
            Capitalism is the most efficient distribution of resources

          • trailing9@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Leftist - “But if there is a labor market, won’t that make labor cheaper?”

            A third person - "Not necessarily. If the demand for labor is bigger than the supply then markets make labor more expensive.

            Leftist - " How is that possible? "

            A third person - " There are various ways. Workers could start more cooperatives or invest their savings in new companies"

            Leftist - “But why should I care about markets when it is easier to change the political system?”

            A third person - “Is it easier?”

            • Mog_Pharou [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Damn this third person never heard about the reserve army of labor, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, and like all of American history showing the hollowing out of working class power. JUST INVEST YOUR NON-EXISTENT SAVINGS INTO NEW COMPANIES ITS SO EASY. And please how will your worker coop survive in this hellscape with a bourgeois state over it? It will be outcompeted and swallowed immediately by corporations who have no qualms over worker or environmental rights. This isn’t china, Huawei (a worker coop) is villified and attacked at every turn here. xigma-male You know maybe you have a point, let’s be more like China.

          • wewbull@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Kid: “Mommy, what’s a strawman?”

            Mother: “Take a look a this post here. See how they speak for both sides of the argument?”

            Kid: “Yes, they’re arguing with themselves.”

            Mother: “Exactly, and they can make their opponent say what they want.”

            Kid: “That seems like an easy way to make your argument look good”

            Mother: "Yes. It’s like fighting someone who can’t put up any resistance. They could be made of straw. A strawman. "

            Kid: “Oh, I see.”

            • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You didn’t engage with their argument, but good try nonetheless. It’s nice to see you cling to a fallacy rather than engage in good-faith discussion of an argument clearly illustrated for you to relate to.

              • wewbull@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                There is no point in engaging with someone playing such games. They’re not going to be convinced when they’re already putting words in the opposition’s mouth.

                • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They’re not going to be convinced

                  A good faith discussion is not about convincing another, but instead about having an open exchange of information.

                  They’re not going to be convinced when they’re already putting words in the opposition’s mouth.

                  They’re illustrating a point which you failed to engage with. In no way did it put words in your mouth. The fact that you choose to be insulted by the way they decided to illustrate that point rather than engage with them in good faith says a lot more about you.

                  To reiterate: You didn’t engage with their argument, but good try nonetheless. It’s nice to see you cling to a fallacy rather than engage in good-faith discussion of an argument clearly illustrated for you to relate to.
                  Do better.

      • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No it hasn’t, socialist agitation in the teeth of capitalist opposition did that

        Without it westerners would still be working 16 hour days seven days a week without any safety nets while dying of lead poisoning

      • KurtVonnegut [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Markets have brought more people out of poverty than anything.

        Yes, just like the Irish people who were “helped” by the free market in the 1840s. Or the Indian people who were “helped” by the free market in the late 1800s. You might be interested in this book by the late, great Mike Davis which completely refutes your ideas with hard evidence that the free market can be used (and has been used) as a tool of genocide: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/7859

          • RuthlessCriticism [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Obviously it is a counterfactual but no serious leftist would say that China without market reforms wouldn’t have eradicated poverty, and moreover done it faster and more completely. The seeds of poverty alleviation were planted during the Maoist era; improvement in health, education improvement, and industrialization.

            • jabrd [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              To corroborate your point you can just look at life expectancy in rural communities to see that it rose steadily throughout the Maoist period and then froze during the Dengist reforms

      • forcequit [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry

            • Joe@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Is that another circle-jerk response? Say something useful (ie. that has significance outside of your circle), please.

              • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why should they? You do not engage with any of the responses of substance. When you choose not to engage in good-faith discussion, why you believe you deserve anything other than ridicule?

            • Joe@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              If only the dead could argue their case…

              I think it is important to take a critical look at past tragedies and mistakes, and work hard to avoid them in the future. Unfortunately I fear that many people would repeat them if given the opportunity and it served their idealogical and/or selfish interests, unless it was more convenient to do the right thing.

              • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah I also think we should look at the past and the present in order to create a better future, which is why I say one famine once is better than constant famines like we have now. How many millions die of hunger each year? How many have died at the hands of capitalism? How many are dying? While we have food available. This isn’t even to count for the famines that were enacted on purpose like those the british did in Ireland and in India.

                Meanwhile both the USSR and China managed to eliminate famine in regions that had been plagued by it since history could account for it. Were the countries perfect? Far from it. Pretending that they are somehow worse for eliminating famine while people are starving in countries with food on the shelves is ridiculous.

                • Joe@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They eliminated famine in their own borders … after causing famine in their own borders. Congratulations, I guess?

                  International efforts to deliver food aid to those most in need are typically hampered by war, not by a lack of food. Real supply & demand issues caused by poor yields, conflicts & other supply chain disruptions often drive up prices which hits the poor the hardest, but we haven’t had a global food shortage in a long time.

                  • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Both imperial Russia and Qing China were plagued by frequent famines, I don’t see how it is damnng that the PRC and the USSR had a famine in their early years of existence (after they’d fought long and drawn out wars), when they then never had famines again.
                    There a millions of people starving in the us today, in Europe, in africa, in south America, in the middle east, in India. There is more than enough food, but somehow these capitalist countries have millions starving. The us has kids missing lunch in school, despite food being available in cafeterias.
                    If one famine once in a region that used to be plagued by famines is too much for you, what does this ever-present famine then mean to you? What system do you suppose we make use of? Surely you cannot be a capitalist, since you are so staunchly against people starving

              • KurtVonnegut [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think it is important to take a critical look at past tragedies

                Those who care more about past tragedies than current tragedies don’t care at all. They’re just looking for some excuse to feel self-righteous.

      • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Did you know that China is responsible for 75% of the global poverty reduction over the last 40 years?

        Over the past 40 years, the number of people in China with incomes below $1.90 per day – the International Poverty Line as defined by the World Bank to track global extreme poverty– has fallen by close to 800 million. With this, China has contributed close to three-quarters of the global reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty. At China’s current national poverty line, the number of poor fell by 770 million over the same period.

        https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience

        https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/e9a5bc3c-718d-57d8-9558-ce325407f737/content

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you know how China got such a huge poverty by the 1980s? Do you know how China got the wealth to start impacting it’s poverty?

          Hint: the CCP took power in 1949. The Maoist era ended 30 years later, and massive economic liberalisation reforms started.

          China today is a world trade powerhouse governed by an elite class (The CCP) with the proles given just enough to keep them where they are. It’s lifted them out of poverty, but it is the shining example of a totalitarian capitist state. If anybody thinks the proletariat have power in China, and it is therefore a socialist state…or that it’s classless with no elite and a communist state… well… You need to talk to some Chinese people.

          • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You need to talk to some Chinese people.

            You mean the Chinese people that overwhelmingly.support the CPC and their government? Ok

            • wewbull@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, even those ones. I’ve met a few and the stories they tell send shivers down my spine. They think they’re telling me good thing about their country, and I listen respectfully. However, it sounds like being caged in a zoo. The keepers provide your essentials, but you have no freedom.

          • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Glad to see Liberals busting out the good old “it’s not real socialism!!111!!” to cope with China’s success :’)

    • grilled_cheese_eater@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuh, uh. Markets controlled by Oligarchs who spend billions to erode social safety nets do. A market socialist economy with strong regulations and systems like a UBI wouldn’t create poverty, while still being a market (albeit a very different one to what we have today). Albeit I do think that for many things (like healthcare) having a market of any kind is just dumb.

      • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Markets controlled by Oligarchs who spend billions to erode social safety nets do.

        And where do these billionaires come from? Do they just spring out of the ground?
        Oligarchs are a feature of capitalism, not a flaw.
        A market with a UBI would simply increase rent by the UBI amount. Markets in capitalism exist to extract wealth, it is what they encourage. Thus they will support those that are best at extracting wealth, which leads to the creation of those billionaires.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          A market with a UBI would simply increase rent by the UBI amount

          *Correction: an unregulated market with UBI would.

          In a regulated market, those corporations can either follow the guidelines or fuck off the market.

          • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Or they can enjoy the fact that they have regulatory capture and change the regulations, as has been seen historically.
            For practical observance: Denmark pays a wage to university students. The function of this wage is to make sure the students can focus on their studies, instead of having to have a job that demands time from them, which would lower the quality of education.
            Students also need housing, which the private sector provides in the form of “student housing”, which requires you to be a student in order to live there. This “student housing” has a rent that is usually, approximately right around the student wage - thus meaning the student needs to take a job in order to afford things such as “food” and “electricity”. This state of affairs occured despite regulations.

        • grilled_cheese_eater@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I said market socialist. In a market socialist economy there would be no billionaires. Also housing is an absolute necessity, which means it shouldn’t be governed by a market at all, no matter the economic system. Only things outside of staple foods, a roof over your head, utilities, drinking water, healthcare and other things absolutely necessary for your continued survival, can (not should) be governed by a market, and one that doesn’t funnel money upwards.

          Capitalism in any form is absolutely horrible and should not exist.

          Also, creating artificial demand should be banned.

          • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s already one long-ass discussion about market socialism in this thread, so I’m not gonna start another, but glad to hear your perspective!