u/dumbandasking

Capitalists for a followup later I wanted to collect your opinions on this,

Is the government from the market, part of it, or is it separate?

This is because I ran into a definition of the free market that said it is when two parties voluntarily exchange without third party intervention.

Is the government always 'third party intervention'? What if they are the only representative agency left for some poor individuals?

Hello,

Me and a good friend me and her were talking about things but she asked a question that had me stuck so I wanted to bring it up here.

Assume a large community of people already freely exchanging goods and services,

What would ever compel them to eventually come up with banks?

I feel like talking about why money was made is relevant too.

Ok but I'm stuck. Why did banks ever come up to begin with?

The best I had to say was that I thought banks allow you to lend so this means that you can have things now and pay later?

I asked this here because the discussion did eventually get into how banks might not be necessary and then an eventual change into a moneyless society could happen. The thing is I still thought banks serve something necessary for society but if I can't exactly imagine how it originated then maybe I'm in the wrong?

Hello,

I ran into a definition where capitalism is defined as where the means of production are owned by private individuals rather than the state, and things are ran for profit.

The state fails all the time,

Someone asked where's the exploitation in capitalism?

When you think about at will employment, if you sign into a really bad wage then that's the wage you signed into. Your rights are that you can leave any time because you sell your labor.

But can the profit motive serve social good, why or why not? For example an economics professor told me self interest is not the same as selfishness, And that it's not the benevolence of the butcher but self interest, and then talked about how capitalism made sure cows are still around.

But beef is expensive now in the US

Either way can self interest or the profit motive become oriented towards social objectives such as wanting national healthcare coverage that is good for even people who are unproductive or disabled, good housing Options for the same demographic, and jobs anyone can do at wages people decide?

Instead of the government doing it, it could look like individual activists starting local companies offering health or housing cleaning services. Or a market where price signals are used to help serve the underserved. The problem is that this might still be called capitalist. However, this is in contrast to a moneyless economy. Could we have an honest discussion about this?

Hello socialists,

I was randomly wondering about a specific job. Imagine a salesperson who sells a product and if they sell more than one of this product they are able to collect more commissions pay. This means some sales people will earn more than others. If you sell $10,000 worth of products and earn a 5% commission, you get $500.

But under socialism,

How would this job be organized differently along with the sales company?

Even if you disagreed with Charlie Kirk him dying wasn't a good thing. As he was killed now he is made relevant everywhere. In comparison, are people forgetting who Alex Jones is? So when someone is killed there are consequences. I'm not sure what we think is being achieved when we make fun of him or celebrate his death if you happen to disagree with him. What is that achieving?

It makes you look insensitive to people who support him, or even to those who are not well educated on what he did or was about. And then for those who don't even like him, what are you doing other than keeping him relevant and making yourself bait for people to say "Oh the Left is so insensitive over someone dying". It's like the freest bait you are taking. Why? Especially with midterms coming up is it really a good look? The alternative was: "It is not good that he died because look how his death became weaponized.". You could go with that. Joking around go ahead offline but why even bother posting so much attention towards him online?

No I am not a Charlie Kirk supporter. The fact some would've kneejerked and accused me of that is exactly why polarization is a big issue.

I used to watch him when I was younger. Then I see he wasn't honest in how he engaged, or he said very controversial things. I see that people also lie and pretend he was a civil rights leader even though he didn't like the Civil Rights Movement. I can see that and he said things that weren't good.

So I just stopped watching his content. That's it!

Now at the same time, I don't think he should've been shot. Apparently this is too nuanced to exist. Ever since he got shot, people who I know who don't even know what Charlie Kirk is or was about, now they know about him. Just think about that. So if you disagree with what he was about, was it really a good outcome he was shot? I don't think so..

Hello,

A critique I've heard a lot is that hierarchy, in all its forms, is bad or coercive. Is this really true? Are there not any hierarchies that might surprisingly be important or just important enough to not abolish?

For example is it wrong if we had hierarchies where the customer or client or in other contexts, the patient, has more power? What about when it is the other way around, where a doctor might need to have a bit more say than the patient, maybe it is for vaccination or certain interventions.

I understand that a boss or CEO is upsetting because they can allow themselves 200x pay. What about other contexts?

Isn't a vanguard party going to cause hierarchy for example, but because there is a 'governing class'?

Then separately, aren't hierarchies naturally going to form depending on who has more access? For example a community that is open and anarchistic but developed around water is still going to have a material advantage over a landlocked community far from water. Would the removal of hierarchy imply that this community may be required to share that water to the landlocked community? This is because if the community around the water decides to have any controls where they prioritize themselves, couldn't this be framed as them attempting to privatize the water?

Socialists,

Would taxes exist in socialism? If that is true, what is the process for how that is decided. If the means of production are socially owned, and surplus is then managed, what is the basis to tax now?

This is because well if everyone's surplus is socially owned, what is the justification the state has to appropriate it? In fact, the state will be the last monopoly of accumulated money. A state can capture resources but workers might be unable to still do things with that.

If a central bureaucracy controls all investment then you might have a situation where workers own the means of production but if there's not clear terms on who gets to decide and why then it might mean they don't really control anything.

In my opinion I don't think true socialism should have taxes, because that would be exploitative at some point. It should have other mechanisms for money pooling. If workers already collectively own production why should the state be dependent on taxing workers in the first place? The state if it exists should just have its own collectively owned resources that it manages. Not collect from others and repeat the current economy's idea of 'you made private money then we take a share of it'. That will lead to abuse.

Hello,

Socialists and communists, especially anarchocommunists, I have seen over and over there is criticism over various 'solutions'

To the American US Economy,

For example trying to use the electorate is rigged, Trying to do this and that is rigged and 'not a complete solution'.

We can't use the current system to fully achieve a just society the system is too corrupt for that

Even if they succeed they will be corrupted too

And so on.

Yes ok so I believe it but then at some point what even is a 'complete solution' that is also Realistic?

Is it nothing because everything is a 'compromise with the Establishment'?

Or because doing anything will make you a social democrat?

I'm asking this because I'm frustrated. Went to an in person event for socialist discussions. Saw a pattern. I mean can you blame them? Life can be hard and it is easy to point problems, not so easy to come up with plans. Somehow it's tricky to say but it's like I want to believe in socialism having a working version, but why does discussing how it might work at all lead to so much cynical answers instead of some hopeful ideas on what we would actually do to make it happen? Ok time to change that what are your ideas of a 'complete solution' since so many are supposedly incomplete, a bad compromise, or rigged? And importantly.. how would you address the cynicism and doomerism that seems to run in socialist circles?? I think that's a real problem if you do care about society and socialism

Hello,

I was looking for if anyone knows an AI that can analyze whole videos.

Here is an example use case. I give it a song that does not have lyrics online. The AI Attempts to transcribe it. Now we have an attempt at figuring out the lyrics.

Another example. If I make a video of two objects dropping the AI can check the speeds and comment on how arbitrary this video is.

Anyone? I needed this for a project?

No way!

Is this real? Leftists for AI? I am new here. For so long I have been complaining a lot. You can check my post history.

I have said for so long that there is something suspicious about how some activism is approaching the AI issue. I have not denied the job displacement or the environmental impact. The thing that I have been suspicious about though is how reactionary some of Anti AI movements have been. For example, environmental issues have taught us not to take out our disappointment on the individual, but on the companies responsible. Just like how when we realized even if every individual household started to recycle, it wouldn't change that there are cargo ships contributing to a large share of the pollution, It seems like for AI even if everyone boycotted AI, it wouldn't change that many companies are still zoning recklessly.

It seemed strange to me we were attacking local artists, small businesses, friends and family for using AI. I thought as progressives we would be able to look at technology and say, 'who are the owners', 'who runs it', and start to be the ones who can dream the answers to the hard question of 'what is the better way', or 'how could this have been developed to help society instead'. When many people's analysis was just 'slop is slop', or I saw far leftists saying it's either dead end tech or produces nothing of value, I realized that the left isn't immune to attack or psyops from the media.. I say that because I think that the companies benefit from lazy analysis and slogans. By saying that the entire issue is just dismissable as slop is slop, now the technology is developed by anyone except the activists who are tricked into boycotting it. So I wanted to ask. What is your opinion on AI? Why are you a leftist but are supportive of AI when many people are convinced it is evil?

Hello,

Very short text for a simple discussion question I've always wanted to ask both sides about.

How real is wage slavery, and what should be done?

Have you heard of a wage slave? The discussion I wanted to bring up is whether or not you believe it is a serious concept, and what should be done about it.

If you do not think wage slavery is real can you explain your view and your alternative analysis on what should be done?

I opened this question up because I believe I am not exposed to the issue from the perspective of others enough. So I want to see if I might learn something new.

In case you need some additional ideas to help discuss wage slavery, I want to also ask have you heard of the concepts race to the bottom? About learning something new; have you encountered this viewpoint before:

> the anarcho-capitalist economist Walter Block go further and maintain that all rights are in fact alienable, stating voluntary slavery and by extension wage slavery is legitimate.

Did you also know this isn't necessarily a modern critique either?

> Similarities between wage labor and slavery were noted as early as Cicero in Ancient Rome, such as in De Officiis

I hope we can discuss this. Please express what you really think.

You can still see it now. We can't say abducted! That's associated badly! You can't say suicide! That's associated with bad things! Say 'disappeared'. Say 'unalived'.

Sometimes that just comes off like someone wants to control the definitions again by tricking you. They trick you by making you look at how the word is associated badly so that you will instead use a word they made the definition for.

What's a communist? What's a socialist? What's AI? What's profit?

The thing is many don't actually know the definition for each, and they react on the associations.

Communist? USSR. OK? USSR is an association. What's the definition of it? Finding out would help one understand the 'failure' of the USSR.

What's a socialist? Marxists. OK? That's an association. What's the definition of it? Finding out would help one realize some Marxists are disliked in some socialist circles.

What's capitalism? Elon Musk. OK? That's an association. What's the definition of it? Finding out might help you criticize Elon Musk more.. maybe might even make you question the government more.

What's AI? Slop is slop. OK? That's again an association. Always reacting to the worst use cases will make you forget what it is even for. What's the definition of AI? If we took the time to find out, we wouldn't have had commenters saying 'Oh fuck, I realized there's machine learning and then there's GenAI'. We would probably have people being more specific on how to make the tech less shitty and unethical.

What's profit? Greed. Yet again an association. Did you know you can share profits?

By looking at definitions and ignoring the associations once in a while, it can lead to simple but novel ideas. "Profit? That's surplus. Ok what if we share it?"

The funny thing is, is that capitalist, socialist, or communist, to share that surplus? No one will know anymore. Someone already yelled "That's Communist!!" The truth is that it can happen in all three.

These days it feels like everyone's just arguing but to avoid being associated with things, rather than trying to find the true solutions.

Socialists,

What would be the processes or definitions used in the transition from capitalism into socialism and then into communism to distinguish a real laborer and someone who isn't. For example landlords will disappear but who else and how did you determine that? What happens to small business owners, or petty bourgeois? Does a shop owner with less than 50 employees have to register as a co-op or could we go after the companies that we find are causing societal harm? Do you just want to come after Amazon instead of several small property owners? Or is there an advantage to trying to let intermediate groups transition first?

I just realized,

How would socialism interact with the part of the economy that exchanges and produces drugs? For example, in mixed economies today you saw how drugs were handled. Some are legal some are not.

However in a socialist society that starts anew,

If there were drug productions starting up how would that be handled? Would some be considered illegal? But on what basis?

Or in other words, would you claim that socialism actually would have handled the drugs scenario better than capitalism? But how would it do that?

Would it struggle with it more? In capitalist countries we saw that the government can collect tax on drug sales even if it is still federally questionable. In socialist countries, they would.. do what better?

Capitalists,

Technology has come far and innovation is happening. Look at how there is AI or how there are cars driving themselves. It looks like companies can clearly deliver novel solutions to problems some might have dismissed.

However,

There is clearly a huge demand for green products, green processes.

It's popular opinion to say 'oil companies bad'.

Green capitalism comes to mind, so I looked it up:

> Green capitalism, also known as eco-capitalism or natural capitalism, is an economic approach that seeks to resolve environmental issues by integrating ecological concerns into the logic of the free market. It operates on the premise that private property, entrepreneurial freedom, and market exchange are the most efficient mechanisms for managing natural resources and reducing environmental degradation.

What is taking so long then? Why is the climate change problem worsening instead?

But a more important question for capitalists is,

I am sure we're going to say government is part of the problem. But I am highly interested in YOUR approach to the whole situation.

> What type of economy is best for society?

If it is capitalism, then what is capitalism's approach to climate change and the regulatory capture scenario?

I ask this because capitalists rejected socialist solution of abolishing private property and where workers owning the means of production then are claimed to lead into better practices.

If this is rejected what is the better way? This is a discussion post part of my journey to honestly learn. I hated when people will ask this but just to gotcha. No. Maybe capitalists have novel ideas. Can we hear it?

No, I'm not a right winger. I'm a leftist too.

I feel like my own side needs better messaging already. We can keep saying over and over how bad the right wing is and how they are morally corrupt or whatever. The thing is, who's messages are being practiced? Who's messages are being remembered? As much as I can already see how controversial some takes are, the thing is that what is really being achieved if activists for example decide that with the 'truth', they will just deliver it in a way that makes everyone offput. Then that means the truth is lost on people!

Have you ever been 'educated' by a leftist, only to be so offput that this is actually why you are either centrist or on the right wing?

I feel like that's something important but my own side will just sometimes act like that is not a big deal. Ok so here is an example.

Did language policing help people understand movements, or did it push them to just react against it?

I think it pushed them to just react against it. "Anti woke" comes to mind.

While I was reading Marx I was wondering, is time a commodity?

So when I looked it up I got this result:

> time is chopped into labor hours for sale, transforming it from a natural flow of life into a commodity with exchange value, often summarized by the adage "time is money."

However, I got interested when I saw this part too:

> Critics argue that this view is a delusion that objectifies human existence, turning life’s essence into a marketable resource. They suggest that reclaiming time involves rejecting this commodified framework to restore time as a medium for authentic experience and community rather than profit.

Socialists, what exactly would the decommodification of time lead to? The commoditization of things is one thing I remember socialists are wary of. With that said, while I have heard of trying to deal with money itself, what about time?

What exactly is the commodification of time, then what happens when society decides to decommodify it, and would that be worth our time at all?

Capitalists,

This is a shorter post but I wanted to get straight to an issue that confuses me. There is a model of firms, the co-op. To be simple and straightforward, I've heard of proposals to make all firms become co-ops. What confuses me is what about the traditional model is important, or what of importance would be lost, if such a thing happened? I believe if there was an honest discussion about this then there could be real understanding. So far all I see is just it must be one way or the other without even understanding why each side wants what they do.

I have heard of why socialists want co-ops but I realized I haven't paid attention enough. What about what the capitalists are saying? What are your reasons that you might reject a switch to the co-op model and what might be some advantages of the traditional model you see? Rather than the disadvantages of co-ops.

Socialists,

There are many versions of you but I'm trying to open up honest discussions because I was only recently aware of the ML segment being disliked but ML's are welcome to reply,

I am getting bored seeing the same kind of discussions so I'm trying to do an honest attempt to see 'who is who' in a sense. Who here has actual theory or practical ideas compared to I guess who is only here to fight. So please I want to learn socialism, ever since I learned the ML branch is controversial here it is again trying to relearn from square one.

If anyone is interested I was thinking of documenting this journey but I am not sure if everyone is happy to be seen on a video.

Ok this aside, I am most interested from a modern perspective, because reading the original texts sometimes it can be difficult to know how it translates into modern life. So since socialists here have more experience I was looking for help to understand the following:

How do you valuate things? For example I've heard of 'socially necessary labor time' and LTV but the thing is how exactly would one determine if an item is more valuable than the other? Wouldn't it be that naturally the one that is demanded more is more valuable irregardless of the labor spent into it? The reason I ask this is because I look at art. Many times we have complained about putting hours of labor into something only for it to not be desired somehow. I always thought this was a marketing problem. However does socialism have an alternative way to valuate that could help?

What is this mudpies argument I keep hearing about too? I'm new so there's been a lot of narratives I've been given. Which are real and which are dishonest?

Anyways I keep cycling around this issue because I sincerely feel like socialism does address things but for some odd reason I keep anticipating the return of 'money'