6 ms·

My problem is, I'm kind of anti-capitalist, to make it short. Labor and capital and not just production factors, but they constitute a power relationship (and o

by ok2938 5y ago

My problem is, I'm kind of anti-capitalist, to make it short. Labor and capital and not just production factors, but they constitute a power relationship (and often a quite asymmetric one). I cannot bring myself to "invest" in something or believe that "my money works for me" - that's delusional. Money does not "work". People get all upset about the stance, but all I am saying is that everyone wants to profit off someone else' work and I do not think that's the best way forward. Especially not in an era, where labor overall will decrease in value (we will continue to automate more and more) - which just means poverty for anyone w/o capital (it's that simple). Edit: Also, I'm not speaking as a "loser" of this system - but on track to the first million - it's just that I can imagine another world and so many people take the "capitalist framework" as a given - which it just not is. There are ways to think about society in a more nuanced way, without losing all the competitive niceties of capitalism.

brianwawok 5y ago
So if you don't invest, do you just save money in a savings account? Over a 50 year career S&P Index Fund vs stuff in a savings account is the different between... having 20k a year to pull from savings, vs having 100k a year to pull from investments. It's a pretty stark portfolio difference.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Ironically if you put the money in a savings account, someone much richer than you is going to be investing it on your behalf and taking the lion's share of the interest that you're leaving on the table.
  - brianwawok 5y ago
    Right. Can't really escape the game.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
robertlagrant 5y ago
> Money does not "work". This seems an overly literal diversion from the point of that phrase.
Scalestein 5y ago
As a fellow anti-capitalist I struggle with how to live in a clearly capitalist world. I'm currently on track to retire at an average age or earlier and cynically view it as buying freedom from the system. In reality it reminds me of the old company store at coal mines. Paying workers in currency which can only be spent at their own store. Breaking out of the capitalist cycle seems quite difficult to do while still maintaining a decent quality of life.
- kansface 5y ago
  > Breaking out of the capitalist cycle seems quite difficult to do while still maintaining a decent quality of life. I would suggest that's because its capitalism that provides that quality of life.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Indeed, it seems like the parent thinks that if it weren't for capitalism no one would need to work for their food, shelter, healthcare, etc. When in reality "in order to have basic necessities one must labor" is a natural law and capitalism seeks to minimize the amount of labor required to achieve that decent quality of life. Further, the parent describes himself as participating in capitalism precisely because it is the easiest way to achieve his "decent quality of life". This seems like the fundamental misunderstanding that anti-capitalists make--everyone wants to minimize the labor required to achieve a decent quality of life, but anti-capitalists uniquely (seem to) believe that capitalism is the reason we have to labor in the first place.
  - daptaq 5y ago
    I am not interested in descending into an idealogical argument here, but most (serious) anti-capitalist criticisms will acknowledge that capitalism has brought the hitherto highest quality of life, just that it is self-constrained by the necessity to produce for profit. Socialism is then understood as the overcoming of this constraint, but as always if you ask n socialists/communists you get m answers, where m > n. It is messy and tiresome to discuss, especially when everyone insists that their personal understandings of what terms mean are the only real ones. More so when you've heard every position a dozen times already...
someguy321 5y ago
You have an explicit choice to either not invest or invest. If you spend all your money instead of investing it, you're still making somebody work for you- they're immediately being made (although I'd disagree with this portrayal that it's involuntary, you may not) to serve you a plate of lunch or manufacture a new car for you. Your attitude seems to be financially masochistic to me and possibly a way to justify your own actions.
aidenn0 5y ago
Given that if you don't invest, someone else will (and get marginally higher returns on average), consider investing and donating all of the returns to a labor organization? I'm not an expert on ethics, but it seems that the captured excess productivity is liberated from the worker regardless of whether you invest or not and if you donate 100% of your profits to labor organizations, you are merely redistributing the money back.
throwaway894345 5y ago
Your investment pays someone's wage, and in exchange for your investment you get interest. This doesn't seem exploitative at all, and moreover I don't know of any economic system that has the ability to minimize poverty and maximize human rights than capitalism.
daptaq 5y ago
Unless your opposition to capitalism is based on idealistic notions of morality, you have to accept that it is the predominant mode of production that society involuntarily finds itself in. Marx was financed by Engels, a factory owner and capitalist, and if he had refused to do so on principle, he would have probably never gotten around to write any of his theory (regardless of what one things of it). Money disassociates social relations under capitalism. You fear wanting to pay people to work for you, but they too just work for the money. There is nothing ethical or unethical about that, it is just how the structure of capitalism influences the production and reproduction of society. You might want to study theory or history, engage in labour actions, teach, help the needy, etc. but the system doesn't privilege anyone unconditionally. To have the opportunities to do what you find important, you need the resources: education, money and also time. So it is up to you, to live by the standards of an ideal society or to exploit the current circumstances as best you can.
- ok2938 5y ago
  Yes, true - many societies are using this configuration for hundreds of years. My issue is not based on morality, but on the fact that we as humans are capable of reflecting on our existence. And that each of our lives is determined by a large amount of luck. I could be born smart, ill, rich, poor and so on. Does some accidental property give me more rights and opportunities than others? My western net worth would allow me to retire right now in many parts of the world - but did I earn this privilege? Of course not, it was pure accident. My issue is that people take a huge amount of lucky accidents as a justification of all kinds of power grabs and entitlements. And capitalism just has the potential to magnify this effect - e.g. by letting the "smart" and "lucky" control the "less smart" and "less lucky" and call it all "natural" and without alternative.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Virtually no one likes inequality, but we really really don't want mass poverty, starvation, disease, etc that accompany alternative systems. Capitalism is how we minimize for poverty by tolerating some acceptable degree of inequality (it's a tricky but necessary calibration endeavor).
300bps 5y ago
Imagine a community of elderly people who are physically incapable of cutting their lawn on a weekly basis. A neighbor sees their predicament and thinks if he could only buy a lawn tractor he could help them out. But he doesn’t have the money. So he borrows the money at 5% interest, buys the tractor and offers to cut their lawns at a low rate. He uses the money he makes from his customers to pay the payments on the tractor and even reinvests some of that to buy a truck with a plow so he can plow their driveways when it snows. He’s happy, his customers are happy, the bank that loaned him the money is happy. It seems like putting “money to work” in this way seems like a good thing to me but maybe I’m missing something.
splistud 5y ago
Clear away the clutter. Are you able to sell things for more money than you bought them for and still honor your personal values? If you can, then do so. Forget the slogans, descriptions and tortured analysis. Can you as a human sell things to another human for more than you paid for them in a situation where you are both happy with the price? If so, do so. If not, I suggest you take a look at what is motivating your feelings.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Can you as a human sell things to another human for more than you paid for them in a situation where you are both happy with the price? I would be really interested to understand how someone can exchange a good for someone else's labor (which is what you're describing above) but they can't invest--which is merely paying someone's wage in exchange for a share of the profits. In both cases the participants in the exchange find the agreement to be mutually enriching, so it's not like either is particularly inherently exploitative.
- ok2938 5y ago
  Yes, that's fine - I'm doing that. My goal is simple: try not to make things worse.
tryingtogetback 5y ago
"anti-capitalist" - how does one become an "anti-capitalist" when it's abundantly clear that, even though it's not a perfect system, it's the best system there is? It's the system that facilitates competition, social progress, scientific advancements etc etc I'm thinking "anti-capitalist" attitude is usually a result of the poor decisions in early adulthood (decisions regarding education, reproduction, career, social circles). When these choices don't pay off, failure to recognize that and self-correct early enough builds resentment. Since the system doesn't reward poor decisions (works as designed) it's very common to shift the blame from yourself (your incapability to adjust, adapt, improvise, and overcome) onto the system and characterize it as "exploitative"
- ok2938 5y ago
  Let me ask you, why aren't more workers "happy capitalists" and praise this way of living? Why aren't the warehouse workers more happy? Or the people soon displaced by computers and algorithms? Why aren't they look forward to a life of less chore and more free time? Why do so many people protest against climate change? Why is it ok for corporations to externalize costs? Why is all the considered good? I'm all for competition and fierce fights, but let just not forget that we live in a "society" and not in a box, everyone for themselves.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Let me ask you, why aren't more workers "happy capitalists" and praise this way of living? Many are. The others don't understand economics, i.e., they don't understand that capitalism minimizes the amount of work required to meet their needs/desires, not least of all because of the sheer amount of misinformation.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      If you mean “subscribe to the ideology of the Austrian school” when you say “understand economics”, the above makes some sense.

by ok2938 5y ago

brianwawok 5y ago

So if you don't invest, do you just save money in a savings account? Over a 50 year career S&P Index Fund vs stuff in a savings account is the different between... having 20k a year to pull from savings, vs having 100k a year to pull from investments. It's a pretty stark portfolio difference.

throwaway894345 5y ago
Ironically if you put the money in a savings account, someone much richer than you is going to be investing it on your behalf and taking the lion's share of the interest that you're leaving on the table.
- brianwawok 5y ago
  Right. Can't really escape the game.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

robertlagrant 5y ago

> Money does not "work". This seems an overly literal diversion from the point of that phrase.

Scalestein 5y ago

As a fellow anti-capitalist I struggle with how to live in a clearly capitalist world. I'm currently on track to retire at an average age or earlier and cynically view it as buying freedom from the system. In reality it reminds me of the old company store at coal mines. Paying workers in currency which can only be spent at their own store. Breaking out of the capitalist cycle seems quite difficult to do while still maintaining a decent quality of life.

kansface 5y ago
> Breaking out of the capitalist cycle seems quite difficult to do while still maintaining a decent quality of life. I would suggest that's because its capitalism that provides that quality of life.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Indeed, it seems like the parent thinks that if it weren't for capitalism no one would need to work for their food, shelter, healthcare, etc. When in reality "in order to have basic necessities one must labor" is a natural law and capitalism seeks to minimize the amount of labor required to achieve that decent quality of life. Further, the parent describes himself as participating in capitalism precisely because it is the easiest way to achieve his "decent quality of life". This seems like the fundamental misunderstanding that anti-capitalists make--everyone wants to minimize the labor required to achieve a decent quality of life, but anti-capitalists uniquely (seem to) believe that capitalism is the reason we have to labor in the first place.
- daptaq 5y ago
  I am not interested in descending into an idealogical argument here, but most (serious) anti-capitalist criticisms will acknowledge that capitalism has brought the hitherto highest quality of life, just that it is self-constrained by the necessity to produce for profit. Socialism is then understood as the overcoming of this constraint, but as always if you ask n socialists/communists you get m answers, where m > n. It is messy and tiresome to discuss, especially when everyone insists that their personal understandings of what terms mean are the only real ones. More so when you've heard every position a dozen times already...

someguy321 5y ago

You have an explicit choice to either not invest or invest. If you spend all your money instead of investing it, you're still making somebody work for you- they're immediately being made (although I'd disagree with this portrayal that it's involuntary, you may not) to serve you a plate of lunch or manufacture a new car for you. Your attitude seems to be financially masochistic to me and possibly a way to justify your own actions.

aidenn0 5y ago

Given that if you don't invest, someone else will (and get marginally higher returns on average), consider investing and donating all of the returns to a labor organization? I'm not an expert on ethics, but it seems that the captured excess productivity is liberated from the worker regardless of whether you invest or not and if you donate 100% of your profits to labor organizations, you are merely redistributing the money back.

throwaway894345 5y ago

Your investment pays someone's wage, and in exchange for your investment you get interest. This doesn't seem exploitative at all, and moreover I don't know of any economic system that has the ability to minimize poverty and maximize human rights than capitalism.

daptaq 5y ago

Unless your opposition to capitalism is based on idealistic notions of morality, you have to accept that it is the predominant mode of production that society involuntarily finds itself in. Marx was financed by Engels, a factory owner and capitalist, and if he had refused to do so on principle, he would have probably never gotten around to write any of his theory (regardless of what one things of it). Money disassociates social relations under capitalism. You fear wanting to pay people to work for you, but they too just work for the money. There is nothing ethical or unethical about that, it is just how the structure of capitalism influences the production and reproduction of society. You might want to study theory or history, engage in labour actions, teach, help the needy, etc. but the system doesn't privilege anyone unconditionally. To have the opportunities to do what you find important, you need the resources: education, money and also time. So it is up to you, to live by the standards of an ideal society or to exploit the current circumstances as best you can.

ok2938 5y ago
Yes, true - many societies are using this configuration for hundreds of years. My issue is not based on morality, but on the fact that we as humans are capable of reflecting on our existence. And that each of our lives is determined by a large amount of luck. I could be born smart, ill, rich, poor and so on. Does some accidental property give me more rights and opportunities than others? My western net worth would allow me to retire right now in many parts of the world - but did I earn this privilege? Of course not, it was pure accident. My issue is that people take a huge amount of lucky accidents as a justification of all kinds of power grabs and entitlements. And capitalism just has the potential to magnify this effect - e.g. by letting the "smart" and "lucky" control the "less smart" and "less lucky" and call it all "natural" and without alternative.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Virtually no one likes inequality, but we really really don't want mass poverty, starvation, disease, etc that accompany alternative systems. Capitalism is how we minimize for poverty by tolerating some acceptable degree of inequality (it's a tricky but necessary calibration endeavor).

300bps 5y ago

Imagine a community of elderly people who are physically incapable of cutting their lawn on a weekly basis. A neighbor sees their predicament and thinks if he could only buy a lawn tractor he could help them out. But he doesn’t have the money. So he borrows the money at 5% interest, buys the tractor and offers to cut their lawns at a low rate. He uses the money he makes from his customers to pay the payments on the tractor and even reinvests some of that to buy a truck with a plow so he can plow their driveways when it snows. He’s happy, his customers are happy, the bank that loaned him the money is happy. It seems like putting “money to work” in this way seems like a good thing to me but maybe I’m missing something.

splistud 5y ago

Clear away the clutter. Are you able to sell things for more money than you bought them for and still honor your personal values? If you can, then do so. Forget the slogans, descriptions and tortured analysis. Can you as a human sell things to another human for more than you paid for them in a situation where you are both happy with the price? If so, do so. If not, I suggest you take a look at what is motivating your feelings.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> Can you as a human sell things to another human for more than you paid for them in a situation where you are both happy with the price? I would be really interested to understand how someone can exchange a good for someone else's labor (which is what you're describing above) but they can't invest--which is merely paying someone's wage in exchange for a share of the profits. In both cases the participants in the exchange find the agreement to be mutually enriching, so it's not like either is particularly inherently exploitative.
ok2938 5y ago
Yes, that's fine - I'm doing that. My goal is simple: try not to make things worse.

tryingtogetback 5y ago

"anti-capitalist" - how does one become an "anti-capitalist" when it's abundantly clear that, even though it's not a perfect system, it's the best system there is? It's the system that facilitates competition, social progress, scientific advancements etc etc I'm thinking "anti-capitalist" attitude is usually a result of the poor decisions in early adulthood (decisions regarding education, reproduction, career, social circles). When these choices don't pay off, failure to recognize that and self-correct early enough builds resentment. Since the system doesn't reward poor decisions (works as designed) it's very common to shift the blame from yourself (your incapability to adjust, adapt, improvise, and overcome) onto the system and characterize it as "exploitative"

ok2938 5y ago
Let me ask you, why aren't more workers "happy capitalists" and praise this way of living? Why aren't the warehouse workers more happy? Or the people soon displaced by computers and algorithms? Why aren't they look forward to a life of less chore and more free time? Why do so many people protest against climate change? Why is it ok for corporations to externalize costs? Why is all the considered good? I'm all for competition and fierce fights, but let just not forget that we live in a "society" and not in a box, everyone for themselves.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Let me ask you, why aren't more workers "happy capitalists" and praise this way of living? Many are. The others don't understand economics, i.e., they don't understand that capitalism minimizes the amount of work required to meet their needs/desires, not least of all because of the sheer amount of misinformation.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    If you mean “subscribe to the ideology of the Austrian school” when you say “understand economics”, the above makes some sense.