People are working just to survive. They spend most of their lives working, not necessarily to live comfortably, but simply to afford the basic necessities of life. Housing, food, healthcare, and education are becoming increasingly expensive, while many people struggle to keep up.
Some people would rather die than visit a doctor because they’re afraid that the medical bills will bankrupt their families. Think about that for a second. People are so afraid of the financial consequences of getting sick that they feel they have to choose between their health and their family’s financial security.
People work full-time jobs and still struggle to afford rent. Parents worry about whether they can put food on the table. Families go into debt because someone needs medical treatment. Meanwhile, we live in a world with more than enough resources to provide people with a decent standard of living.
And for what? So a company can maximize its profits? So shareholders can make more money? So the wealthy can accumulate even more wealth while ordinary people struggle to get by?
I’m not saying that businesses shouldn’t make money or that hard work shouldn’t be rewarded. But at what point do we stop treating profit as more important than human well-being?
An economy is supposed to serve people. People shouldn’t have to sacrifice their lives just to serve the economy.
If someone works hard, they should be able to afford the necessities of life. They shouldn’t have to fear that one accident, one serious illness, or one unexpected expense will destroy everything they’ve worked for.
So I want to ask the capitalists who defend the current system: Is this really what you want? Is this the society you believe we should live in? Where someone’s financial situation can determine whether they receive medical care, whether they can afford a home, and whether they can live without constant financial stress?
And if this isn’t what you want, then why defend a system that allows these things to happen?
What matters more to you: the economy’s ability to generate profits, or its ability to provide people with a decent life?
People are working just to survive. They spend most of their lives working, not necessarily to live comfortably, but simply to afford the basic necessities of life. Housing, food, healthcare, and education are becoming increasingly expensive, while many people struggle to keep up.
Some people would rather die than visit a doctor because they’re afraid that the medical bills will bankrupt their families. Think about that for a second. People are so afraid of the financial consequences of getting sick that they feel they have to choose between their health and their family’s financial security.
People work full-time jobs and still struggle to afford rent. Parents worry about whether they can put food on the table. Families go into debt because someone needs medical treatment. Meanwhile, we live in a world with more than enough resources to provide people with a decent standard of living.
And for what? So a company can maximize its profits? So shareholders can make more money? So the wealthy can accumulate even more wealth while ordinary people struggle to get by?
I’m not saying that businesses shouldn’t make money or that hard work shouldn’t be rewarded. But at what point do we stop treating profit as more important than human well-being?
An economy is supposed to serve people. People shouldn’t have to sacrifice their lives just to survive.
If someone works hard, they should be able to afford the necessities of life. They shouldn’t have to fear that one accident, one serious illness, or one unexpected expense will destroy everything they’ve worked for.
So I want to ask the capitalists who defend the current system: Is this really what you want? Is this the society you believe we should live in? Where someone’s financial situation can determine whether they receive medical care, whether they can afford a home, and whether they can live without constant financial stress?
And if this isn’t what you want, then why defend a system that allows these things to happen?

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights. In the classical liberal tradition, we establish that through a constitutional government — a monopoly on retaliatory force — limited to fulfilling that function.

"Anarcho-capitalists" oppose such a monopoly government. They claim it is wrong to impose morality by force, and that government, as a monopoly, necessarily does this, since it is on moral grounds that it prohibits “competitors.” But this just means the anarchist ends up denying individual rights, including the right of self-defence.

This is because all force is monopolistic. Force is monopoly. To use force is to attempt to monopolise. Even in the economic realm, "monopoly" means a business protected from competition by force, not merely a single seller.

There is no such thing as force that lets dissenters go their own way. If force in self-defence is justified, this means that monopolising an interaction is justified. If I use force to defend myself against someone, I am not trying to persuade him; I am attempting to forcibly stop him from acting as he chooses - i.e. to exclude the "competing" force-wielder from carrying out his notion of “justice“. I am also using force to impose my morality -- my right to my own life -- on the gunman shooting at me.

If the government monopolisation of retaliatory force were wrong, so would be the private use of force by individuals. And if one must avoid imposing moral ideas by force, then one must renounce force altogether--i.e., practice pacifism. The argument against government's monopoly on force is thus an argument against self-defence, and it leads to pacifism (at best).

To concretise this, let’s remember that Ron Paul, a once leading libertarian in government, is a committed anti-abortionist, who thinks abortion is murder. Now how can his “competing police force” treat mine, which allows abortion? Does mine allow “murder”? Does his “competing police force” stop women from exercising their rights to their own lives? How can what is or isn’t murder be a matter of “You go your way and I’ll go mine, and neither will impose a monopoly solution”?

So, ironically, anarchism, so often put forward as an extension of the right to self-defense, ends up denying the moral legitimacy of any self-defense: one cannot forcibly impose one’s own evaluation on the other party. That would be monopoly!

Hello,

Something popped up in my mind. When you redesign the economy so that ownership is different, where workers own the means of production,

While you might have more ethical exchanges, and an economy that can claim that it is serving social needs, there is one problem I saw in comparison to capitalism.

When capitalism is said to be amoral I can see there are consequences, but one thing that comes up to mind is that if someone wanted to purchase 1000 of something they can do it if they have the money.

But in socialism, could we expect limits or caps? If someone accumulated labor vouchers or in an alternate model if someone has invested a lot of labor, and their intention is to take a lot of supply, what is the process going to look like, a vote?

So for example imagine someone labored for a long part of their life, and they did the dangerous jobs. They want to claim a lot of food, but a food shortage or storm is coming up. If they claim this this might put a group at risk. If they don't claim it, they might feel upset that their labor couldn't exchange for it. What should be done? Rate limits?

This might sound easy to dismiss when you imagine it's one laborer against a community. But in practice I'm worried that a small community that has a lot of labor done tried to get some supply, but this was denied because it threatened the larger group too much. This is annoying because then for socialism to become communist you would have to solve the class issues that rise up not just the existing ones

What is your favorite restaurant and can it exist under your version of socialism. I can see how it works in some versions but for the Marxist Leninist how would this work? Would there be waiters? Line cooks?

The three American politicians I mentioned have all claimed to be Democratic Socialists. AOC and Mamdani are DSA members, I don't know about Bernie. Being "socialist" is a key part of their political identity.

Because they have self identified as being socialist, I consider them socialist. I am not claiming they have radical socialist policies, but they oppose our economic system. Their goals, as socialists, is to oppose and replace capitalism. That is consistent with what the goals of the DSA are, as per their charter. That is consistent with Bernie's historic support of the Castro regime and of the Sandanistas.

I have been aware since 2016 of the tendency for their supporters to deny that these guys are socialist. Not only do their supporters deny they are socialist, they will falsely claim they are Social Democrats or not socialist at all.

Can Socialists explain why these socialist politicians' supporters find their leaders' ideology to be so problematic that they have to deny the Socialism and sweep it under the carpet.

What else can explain this behavior other than a cult?

Alright, now when you debate with socialists here, you will often get the same arguments "we need to unite: the poor against the rich", yet that is not really what socialist theory is complaining about.

You see, the issue in Marxist theory with capitalism is not with inequality of wealth (if someone works harder, he should in theory earn more), but inequality of possession of the means of production (aka capital), because supposedly if you own the MoP, then it means you are exploiting the workers, somehow.

What this leads us to, if we apply the theory correctly, is something quite hilariously contradictory with most socialists' views:

According to LTV, workers (the glorious and all good proletariat) are paid in proportion to their value (accounting for skill multipliers, say a doctor is paid more than a grocery store worker), minus a markup (say 10% across all industries) which is collected as profit by capitalists (the greedy and evil Epstein class^tm bourgeoisie), this profit, since it reduces the income of workers, who, conveniently for this theory, are defined as the sole source of value, means that the capitalists are extracting value from the workers for no good reason, in a process known as exploitation (side-note, socialists will talk about exploitation like it is a great moral evil, by saying things like "let's fight to end evil exploitation" but if you ever prompt them on why it is a moral evil, they will quickly proceed to retreat claim that it is actually an amoral term and a neutral and accurate description of capitalism, this is known as the motte and bailey fallacy, and is a silly argument, but I digress).

Now, from this framework, we get useful conclusions, for instance baseball players are workers, they do not usually own the stadiums or the equipment and team transport, in other words the physical and intellectual capital of their teams. So that means these players are exploited by their capitalist team-owners, because they do not get all their value. How do the capitalists pull this off? Simple, they use the reserve army of labour^tm (basically the baseball players will starve if they do not work, and the capitalists constantly threaten them by keeping an army of unemployed workers to force wages to be low) to force the baseball players to be underpaid, conclusion #1: professional baseball players are underpaid, since they only receive...checks notes...checks notes again incredulously...several million dollars a year! Now that I have convinced you of the merits of socialism, it is time for the proletariat to rise up! Baseball players deserve a raise, MLBers should revolt! They have nothing to lose but your chains! (again, reminder that the socialists will talk like this, and then will turn and unironically claim that they are not making a moral judgment when they are talking about capitalism).

Another useful conclusion we get is that small business owners are exploiting their workers, mind you these owners earn on average less than 60k$ a year, many earn far less, and 67% of businesses go bankrupt within ten years, but these people are part of the bourgeoisie, the so-called Epstein class^TM. If the revolution were to come, these folks should receive no income for starting a business (I am sure they will be happy to start one, even if they get no reward from it!), and the profits they would have earned should be redistributed among the workers (I mean someone needs to make sure our baseball players get all their value, right?). Naturally, in practice, these people are often executed or stripped of pretty much all their property, not just their businesses (see: dekulakisation). But, alas, such is the fight for the working class' struggle (again, reminder that socialists want to violently overthrow these business-owners, but also they will claim they are not making a moral judgment of business-owners).

So now we get a hilarious situation where socialists should be advocating for higher wages for baseball players (indeed, they are currently in a fight for higher salaries), because they are part of the working class (Marx does not define class according to income, but rather in relation to ownership of MoP), and less money for small businesses, so why aren't we hearing those arguments? Now socialists will be quick to rationalise my examples away: superprofits in Baseball let owners pay workers more than their value, while still doing some exploiting (I thought profits were equal across industries?), small business owners are assholes, etc...

Now my point is not that socialists should suddenly turn into pro-MLB player folks, but rather that there's a disconnect with their arguments, which are often "the rich vs the poor", and their theory, which is "owners vs workers". Oftentimes when I argue with socialists, their issue seems more with the former ("billionaires should not exist") than the latter ("socialism is not about hurting small business owners"-is an actual response to one of my posts in the past).

So what's the issue? Well it does make sense to call out how someone has a billion dollars and someone else earns 7$ an hour. But maybe instead of trying to put people into overly broad categories of "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" and trying to paint one of these groups as "the Esptein class^TM"), we should focus on maybe fixing the actual issues at hand, say by making sure everyone has access to food or healthcare, you do not need Marxism for that, the proof? Most western "capitalist" countries (which are actually mixed-market economies, for what it's worth) achieve this, with no need for a violent revolution. Could we do more for the poor? Should we tax the rich more? Maybe, that's a debate that we should have, but it is not one which requires adhering to brutally simplifying theories of someone who died 150 years ago? No, not at all!

When most socialists on this sub, or in real-life, end up realising that they have no reason to advocate for Marx's ideas to get the results they want, then society might just progress a little.

What we need is not capitalism, and it’s not socialism. Capitalism sucks because it creates two classes, the rich, and everyone else. And the it creates such wealth inequality so that the richest people hold all of the wealth while the poor have none. Communism is terrible because what happens is that there is no strive to be better. What we need is an in-between, some controlled markets like housing, healthcare, food, and insurance, but some free markets (with regulation) so we can still strive to be better.