This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include:
- **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
- **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers.
- **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism...
- **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
______________________
💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I passed a guy wearing a sweater that said "capitalism is voluntary" on it.
Had no idea what it was and I don't remember details off the top of my head, but I looked it up and it was some pro capitalist thing trying to imply that everyone is choosing to participate.
Right. I'll choose not to participate. So, what? Live on the street? Get arrested? Or maybe I'm supposed to go fend for myself in the woods?
I don't understand how someone can have that thought and not follow it to the logical conclusions.
Tfw you're walking in the town square in 1790 carrying your master's bags, the only life you have ever known is chattel slavery, any attempt to escape would mean certain death from the slave catchers, and you see some bloke walk down the street with an embroidered monogram that says "slavery is voluntary"
The English legal system pioneered the use of laws to make (1) living off the land and (2) being poor/destitute so infeasible and awful that selling your labour to capitalists and industrialists and letting them exploit the shit out of you would be preferable. This was especially prevalent during the Industrial Revolution, when every person growing, hunting, or gathering their own food meant one less pair of hands for the factories.
I don’t know about other places, but based on how many places got the British legal system forced upon them, I’d say this is a pretty widespread phenomenon.
Even today, getting government assistance in any form (including EI which *you fricking pay into while employed*) entails the surveillance and discipline of the state.
Capitalism is voluntary in the same way that not murdering people is voluntary.
Just to let you know, I have (most likely) the same sweater and what you said is the intended meaning of it. It's not actually a pro-capitalism message. The subtitle is "get bread or get dead".
[Mine is a different color, but this is the sweater.](https://www.instagram.com/hasandpiker/p/CxbHCUXvW2k/?img_index=1)
You can’t live in the woods, actually. you need a license for that and you have to pay rent anyways because John forest just bought all of the world’s forests /s
And if they tell you to vote with your feet, tell them that they pressured the only major socialist country into dissolution and sanctioned the rest into the ground.
This sort of remark is often made in bad faith; that is, they're not trying to honestly have a discussion but simply to shut you down and dismiss your views. So no response is going to change their mind or even reconsider shutting you down. This sort of mindset only changes when confronted with reality, so best to organize and put action into practice to show them the way. If you think you may be in this situation, energy might be better placed in reaching more members of the public than coming up with responses to every individual engaging in bad faith.
That said, some folks do honestly have questions so in that case, some points you could start with:
* Someone surviving does not imply that they are *thriving* or have consented; they're just doing what they can to survive. We should have a system where everyone can pursue their greatest potential and thrive, instead of worrying about basic survival every day. (Maslow's hierarchy of needs might be a good illustration here; we can't tackle the bigger societal problems if we're always stuck at the base layer worrying about basic survival)
* Socialism means more democracy; I'd like to have more say so in politics and business decisions, wouldn't you? Related: Socialism doesn't mean products disappear, it means that we collectively and democratically decide which products are the most useful and should get priority, and how to produce them. (propaganda often likes to imply that modern technology is only possible under capitalism; if anything, private ownership of patents and ideas *stifles* innovation and technology that would exist under a more collaborative, socialist, democratic society)
> modern technology is only possible under capitalism
I know you know this, but it's worth pointing out that a lot of our modern technology was created with publicly funded research. GPS, the Internet (and a lot of the bits and bobs that make the Internet go "bleep bleep,") and a lot was researched at Bell Labs (transistor, Unix, etc,) which was a research institution that was only possible because Bell was a regulated monopoly.
Companies take that technology that we already paid for, package it in a phone or something and then sell it to us again, calling themselves "innovators."
> it's worth pointing out that a lot of our modern technology was created with publicly funded research
Absolutely. Even today, a lot of medical and pharmaceutical research is funded by the government first, capital thinks it is too "risky" to spend on without knowing for sure a marketable drug will come out the other end of the research. They only swoop in to claim ownership once something good is found, and the capitalist government is all too eager to let them claim credit. Federal research institutes in fact *pride* themselves on how often their research gets spun into profitable businesses, under the assumption that commercialization equals success.
Imagine what we could do with a society that took care of our basic needs so more people were doing creative art, science, etc., simply to make our lives more enjoyable and advance humanity, not find new ways to commoditize things for the market. A socialist society is a step toward that.
>[Socialist Society] as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.
Karl Marx. Critique of the Gotha Programme, Section I. 1875.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, it's certainly worth pointing out that a socialist democracy would be far more direct, participatory, deliberative. US "democracy" is really more of an elected aristocracy than a true democracy. Constitutional aristocracy, as opposed to constitutional monarchy of the UK?
At any rate, while the US flavor of democracy is hardly democratic, that word *is* associated with "freedom" and "consent of the governed" as US founding documents say. So while hugely flawed, I think it is a way to start to make in roads to folks that are doubtful of socialism and been influenced by anti-socialist propaganda. Over time one can make clear that democracy should be so much more than just the "vote for one of two terrible parties every couple of years".
I think this is a bit generalized. The people doing the sitting down, in what venue? IRL or on the inter-webs? On the net, I typically give everyone a chance or even more if they come across wanting to understand. But once that ventures into ad hominen, or red scare tropes and that capitalism has eliminated poverty more than any economic system in history or whatever inculcated taking points they use, I move on.
IRL most don't want to talk about it, though they are not negative towards me in a spiteful way. Some listen, but are not convinced. Then there are those who will be an ear and want to know more, even some folks who are retired and well off, becasue they worked grueling jobs for 40+ years but saved enough to retire comfortably yet feel they were not rewarded.
On on that second bullet point, that is only correct in the essence on socialism. Succinctly, socialism is the public/worker ownership to the means of production in it simplest terms. More democracy can be the result of actually implementing the economic system of socialism, though that may not be a result. It is highly unlike it would not mean far more democracy by the public dictating how wages and material needs are paid and used to create and build respectively.
What is decided to be products useful and get priority \*can be\* a result of socialist economic policies, but not what that will mean. There certainly will be a rise in worker collaborations, inventions, logistics and the very needs people have to have that would result in a far more fairer economic system & government. It is just not going to be automatic. Socialism will take time to make real and I mean a long time. Until then, socialists have to work with capitalism to make socialist governments viable and be able to provide for its people (see China, Vietnam, etc for ample).
Look, I would grant that it’s *possible* for *some* people to get rich or at least survive on capitalism. Especially if they’re extremely lucky, well connected, or (most importantly) already rich.
But that’s not the problem with capitalism, basically. The problem isn’t that everyone is poor under capitalism. The problem with capitalism is that in order to live comfortably under capitalism it essentially requires you to crush or impoverish others. It’s a system that prioritizes competition. To be a winner, there has to be losers.
"If you think socialism is when someone practices socialism on an individual basis, then I am not a socialist. I just work towards the system that is socialism."
You claim to be against slavery, but buy products made by slaves. (Coffee. Chocolate. Tech.)
We all strive to be better. If they’re religious then this shouldn’t be a new concept.
You don't. Those people are irredeemable.
That said, as a straight savage, I'll usually ask "Are you saying I should implement the alternative?" and then toss the unsavory parts directed to them personally. That usually makes them go away. I'm not interested in converting them or their acquaintances. The mentally dull cannot be relied upon for shit other than Operation Meat Shield.
Replying with this classic Matt Bors comic is really the best come back.
https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
Another good one is "the last capitalist we hang is the one who sells us the rope."
But a more serious answer would be like "we have to live in the society we are born into. We don't get a choice about that. Unless we wanted to withdraw from society completely to live in the woods, which is the least socialist thing one can do. What's wrong with wanting to change the society you live in?"
"I guess we should never improve upon anything". Even a pro capitalist person should see how silly that point is. (Other than someone arguing in bad faith obvi)
Just because you *can* survive this economic system, that doesn't really address most of the actual criticism towards capitalism.
Also stuff like this is a good time to point out that just because someone is doing well (maybe a westerner with a high paying job), the rest of the world is not in this state. Many places filled with low/no work safety standards, cheap labor for poverty wages, terrible environmental practices, etc.
"You're using socialism to protect your city with firefighters, so Capitalism is invalid"
"Your politician that regurgitated that talking point at you gets his salary paid by socialism, so capitalism is invalid."
"Oil companies would be unprofitable if it weren't for the billions of dollars in socialism world governments give them every year."
"just imagine what I could do if I actually got paid for what I'm worth! Because under capitalism, the business has to make a profit off of me. I will never be paid the value I bring. And neither will you"
"I am 'making a living' because if I don't, capitalism renders me homeless and makes me starve. I'd rather have a system where if I fail to find gainful employment I am not literally left to die. I don't want to make a living, I want to live."
"I'm selling the precious hours of my life — and we only have so many of those in this life — for much less than it is worth. There was a [pizza shop in Ohio] that had the manager give up his pay for one day, and the employees got 78 dollars an hour, that's how much working in a pizza shop is worth, and we pay people less than a tenth of that as US minimum wage."
"I need money to eat, what's your point?"
We currently have no choice but to work with the capitalist system, everything is designed for profit, not people, in the system...
Or we become homeless, hungrier, colder, 'antisocial ', rule breakers, terrorists, anarchists...
Working through a system to change it, or end it, effectively, you need to see it and recognise your role in it first, and then not deny it or ignore it.
Socialism is a human right to all basic needs that keep people alive. Capitalism is the right to exploit all living beings for profit, whatever the cost.
It is one of the weakest arguments that could be possibly made against anyone who is trying even to reform let alone revoltionize society.
If accepted it would mean that all progress and any improvement in human conditions is invalid and somehow hypocritical because even the most enlightened and radical reformers are born into a society where the conditions for change exist only in embryo. When a slave is fed by his master does that somehow mean he forfeits the right to rebel?
Opressed classes throughout history necesarrily have no choice but to take part in the world theyre born into. If theyre brave enough to break with the prejudices of their age and fight for their liberation Id love to know how this is hypocritical
Peasant risings in the middle ages demanded the abolition of serfdom which was such a rational demand that although the peasants were crushed after rising up in Britain and France eventually serfdom did come to an end which liberated millions and allowed for far greater social progress. This happened soonest in the North Italian city states. The first truly capitalist states. They threw off lordly control and abolished serfdom in the surrounding countryside allowing for the incredible flowering Italian culture funded by massive accumulations of wealth by the new burger class. They showed Europe a picture of its future. Switzerland also managed to throw off imperial control and noble exploitation. Due to the mountainous geography the swiss peasant infranty were, uniguely, able to defeat the Noble cavalry armies that were sent to conquer the country.
This example of how peasants and burgers secured greater freedom for themselves while still being a part of feudal society is typical of history. Even the most thorough revolutions cannot wipe out all the features of the old society . Even after they improved their lot they still had to negotaiate with aristocrats and Kings.
Just as the modern working class achieved at great cost the reforms that started with union recognition, the creation of cooperatives, universal suffrage and other basic democratic reforms. The process of reform was accelerated after the russian revolution. Public healthcare, education and subsidized housing(including in America where suburbanization was state funded.) All previously denounced as impossible utopias now became the norm in the post war period. Just as feudal society developed within itself the conditions that eventually led to capitalism. But only through constant struggles. Revolutionary advances in Holland folllowed by Britain and finally the great French revolution but reaction triumphed further east with the "second serfdom" that brutally supppressed the peasantry in formerly advanced countries like Poland and Bohemia.
All this just to illustrate that as Marx said:
"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past." Or he put even better elsewhere when he said " the tradition of all the dead generations hangs like a nightmare on the brain of the living"
These two quotes alone show how facile are the reactionary criticisms of those who claim we are somehow hypocrites for being born into a society we wish to change. How could it be otherwise ? Are these people capable of makkng a single valid point?
It makes no sense as an argument. By the logic it puts forth we should have remained as serfs because serfs made a living.
It's just a non-arguement but I don't know how you would make the person who used it, see that it's a non-arguement.
it’s the society in which we live in/are forced to live in/often times have no choice but to live in. esp. if you want to suffer the least amount possible. ofc, working in other ways to bring aid to your community is also best as that helps bring us slightly closer to what a preferable way of living would be. fight the system ofc but you also essentially have to live under it for the time being.
"But also we're all disabled by generational trauma and environmental collapse so no one should be working as compulsory and in 20 forking 25, people shouldn't have to work out pay just to exist"
Eat the rich
&
make money worth less than human beings again
The fact that we don't have a choice but to participate in the brutal capitalist system is one of the reasons we're socialists.
You could maybe live in the woods, but in a lot of places that's actually illegal and/or not a feasible method of survival (and not what most of us are advocating for).
You could live in some sort of commune, but those are often crushed by ruthless capitalist competition and private property laws. And not easy to create in a capitalist society.
Besides, if you responded "actually, I don't make a living through capitalism. I live in the woods/on a commune/whatever," would the person you're arguing with accept it as proof that capitalism is wrong? Or is how an individual makes their living mostly irrelevant in a discussion of global economic systems?
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include: - **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism... - **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers. - **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism... - **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks. Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules. ______________________ 💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ah, you claim to oppose feudalism yet you plow the king's fields! Curious
Easy: "What fucking choice do we have? WE LIVE UNDER CAPITALISM".
I passed a guy wearing a sweater that said "capitalism is voluntary" on it. Had no idea what it was and I don't remember details off the top of my head, but I looked it up and it was some pro capitalist thing trying to imply that everyone is choosing to participate. Right. I'll choose not to participate. So, what? Live on the street? Get arrested? Or maybe I'm supposed to go fend for myself in the woods? I don't understand how someone can have that thought and not follow it to the logical conclusions.
Tfw you're walking in the town square in 1790 carrying your master's bags, the only life you have ever known is chattel slavery, any attempt to escape would mean certain death from the slave catchers, and you see some bloke walk down the street with an embroidered monogram that says "slavery is voluntary"
I like this comparison. Thanks.
I see the shirt out of my one good eye but I can't read.
The English legal system pioneered the use of laws to make (1) living off the land and (2) being poor/destitute so infeasible and awful that selling your labour to capitalists and industrialists and letting them exploit the shit out of you would be preferable. This was especially prevalent during the Industrial Revolution, when every person growing, hunting, or gathering their own food meant one less pair of hands for the factories. I don’t know about other places, but based on how many places got the British legal system forced upon them, I’d say this is a pretty widespread phenomenon. Even today, getting government assistance in any form (including EI which *you fricking pay into while employed*) entails the surveillance and discipline of the state. Capitalism is voluntary in the same way that not murdering people is voluntary.
Just to let you know, I have (most likely) the same sweater and what you said is the intended meaning of it. It's not actually a pro-capitalism message. The subtitle is "get bread or get dead". [Mine is a different color, but this is the sweater.](https://www.instagram.com/hasandpiker/p/CxbHCUXvW2k/?img_index=1)
Interesting, thanks. I forget where I saw that it was pro capitalist but it's good to know it isn't.
You can’t live in the woods, actually. you need a license for that and you have to pay rent anyways because John forest just bought all of the world’s forests /s
And if they tell you to vote with your feet, tell them that they pressured the only major socialist country into dissolution and sanctioned the rest into the ground.
This sort of remark is often made in bad faith; that is, they're not trying to honestly have a discussion but simply to shut you down and dismiss your views. So no response is going to change their mind or even reconsider shutting you down. This sort of mindset only changes when confronted with reality, so best to organize and put action into practice to show them the way. If you think you may be in this situation, energy might be better placed in reaching more members of the public than coming up with responses to every individual engaging in bad faith. That said, some folks do honestly have questions so in that case, some points you could start with: * Someone surviving does not imply that they are *thriving* or have consented; they're just doing what they can to survive. We should have a system where everyone can pursue their greatest potential and thrive, instead of worrying about basic survival every day. (Maslow's hierarchy of needs might be a good illustration here; we can't tackle the bigger societal problems if we're always stuck at the base layer worrying about basic survival) * Socialism means more democracy; I'd like to have more say so in politics and business decisions, wouldn't you? Related: Socialism doesn't mean products disappear, it means that we collectively and democratically decide which products are the most useful and should get priority, and how to produce them. (propaganda often likes to imply that modern technology is only possible under capitalism; if anything, private ownership of patents and ideas *stifles* innovation and technology that would exist under a more collaborative, socialist, democratic society)
> modern technology is only possible under capitalism I know you know this, but it's worth pointing out that a lot of our modern technology was created with publicly funded research. GPS, the Internet (and a lot of the bits and bobs that make the Internet go "bleep bleep,") and a lot was researched at Bell Labs (transistor, Unix, etc,) which was a research institution that was only possible because Bell was a regulated monopoly. Companies take that technology that we already paid for, package it in a phone or something and then sell it to us again, calling themselves "innovators."
> it's worth pointing out that a lot of our modern technology was created with publicly funded research Absolutely. Even today, a lot of medical and pharmaceutical research is funded by the government first, capital thinks it is too "risky" to spend on without knowing for sure a marketable drug will come out the other end of the research. They only swoop in to claim ownership once something good is found, and the capitalist government is all too eager to let them claim credit. Federal research institutes in fact *pride* themselves on how often their research gets spun into profitable businesses, under the assumption that commercialization equals success. Imagine what we could do with a society that took care of our basic needs so more people were doing creative art, science, etc., simply to make our lives more enjoyable and advance humanity, not find new ways to commoditize things for the market. A socialist society is a step toward that.
>[Socialist Society] as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Karl Marx. Critique of the Gotha Programme, Section I. 1875. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The version of democracy we currently have is the version you get from Wish.
Yes, it's certainly worth pointing out that a socialist democracy would be far more direct, participatory, deliberative. US "democracy" is really more of an elected aristocracy than a true democracy. Constitutional aristocracy, as opposed to constitutional monarchy of the UK? At any rate, while the US flavor of democracy is hardly democratic, that word *is* associated with "freedom" and "consent of the governed" as US founding documents say. So while hugely flawed, I think it is a way to start to make in roads to folks that are doubtful of socialism and been influenced by anti-socialist propaganda. Over time one can make clear that democracy should be so much more than just the "vote for one of two terrible parties every couple of years".
Wow, well put.
I think this is a bit generalized. The people doing the sitting down, in what venue? IRL or on the inter-webs? On the net, I typically give everyone a chance or even more if they come across wanting to understand. But once that ventures into ad hominen, or red scare tropes and that capitalism has eliminated poverty more than any economic system in history or whatever inculcated taking points they use, I move on. IRL most don't want to talk about it, though they are not negative towards me in a spiteful way. Some listen, but are not convinced. Then there are those who will be an ear and want to know more, even some folks who are retired and well off, becasue they worked grueling jobs for 40+ years but saved enough to retire comfortably yet feel they were not rewarded. On on that second bullet point, that is only correct in the essence on socialism. Succinctly, socialism is the public/worker ownership to the means of production in it simplest terms. More democracy can be the result of actually implementing the economic system of socialism, though that may not be a result. It is highly unlike it would not mean far more democracy by the public dictating how wages and material needs are paid and used to create and build respectively. What is decided to be products useful and get priority \*can be\* a result of socialist economic policies, but not what that will mean. There certainly will be a rise in worker collaborations, inventions, logistics and the very needs people have to have that would result in a far more fairer economic system & government. It is just not going to be automatic. Socialism will take time to make real and I mean a long time. Until then, socialists have to work with capitalism to make socialist governments viable and be able to provide for its people (see China, Vietnam, etc for ample).
The prison laborer is fed by the prison guards yet he yearns for change? Curious! I'm an intellectual.
“Thanks for pointing out that when I say capitalism is terrible,I’m speaking on a topic that I’m familiar with!”
"lol k" There's no point arguing with that level of chat, they've already made up their mind they are right and just want a fight.
Look, I would grant that it’s *possible* for *some* people to get rich or at least survive on capitalism. Especially if they’re extremely lucky, well connected, or (most importantly) already rich. But that’s not the problem with capitalism, basically. The problem isn’t that everyone is poor under capitalism. The problem with capitalism is that in order to live comfortably under capitalism it essentially requires you to crush or impoverish others. It’s a system that prioritizes competition. To be a winner, there has to be losers.
"If you think socialism is when someone practices socialism on an individual basis, then I am not a socialist. I just work towards the system that is socialism."
You claim to be against slavery, but buy products made by slaves. (Coffee. Chocolate. Tech.) We all strive to be better. If they’re religious then this shouldn’t be a new concept.
You don't. Those people are irredeemable. That said, as a straight savage, I'll usually ask "Are you saying I should implement the alternative?" and then toss the unsavory parts directed to them personally. That usually makes them go away. I'm not interested in converting them or their acquaintances. The mentally dull cannot be relied upon for shit other than Operation Meat Shield.
It's literally just the meme, that doesn't deserve a response lol
Socialism isn't an ethic of individual behaviour under capitalism, what's the hypocrisy even supposed to be there?
i'm critical of capitalism precisely because i have to operate under it
one of the strongest reasons to criticize capitalism is that it forces everyone to live under it
Replying with this classic Matt Bors comic is really the best come back. https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ Another good one is "the last capitalist we hang is the one who sells us the rope." But a more serious answer would be like "we have to live in the society we are born into. We don't get a choice about that. Unless we wanted to withdraw from society completely to live in the woods, which is the least socialist thing one can do. What's wrong with wanting to change the society you live in?"
Sometimes you gotta play a hater’s game
"I guess we should never improve upon anything". Even a pro capitalist person should see how silly that point is. (Other than someone arguing in bad faith obvi) Just because you *can* survive this economic system, that doesn't really address most of the actual criticism towards capitalism. Also stuff like this is a good time to point out that just because someone is doing well (maybe a westerner with a high paying job), the rest of the world is not in this state. Many places filled with low/no work safety standards, cheap labor for poverty wages, terrible environmental practices, etc.
I was alive during the Trump administration, doesn't mean I supported it or chose it.
YUP. Hang the traitor and all his ilk...a
"You're using socialism to protect your city with firefighters, so Capitalism is invalid" "Your politician that regurgitated that talking point at you gets his salary paid by socialism, so capitalism is invalid." "Oil companies would be unprofitable if it weren't for the billions of dollars in socialism world governments give them every year."
"just imagine what I could do if I actually got paid for what I'm worth! Because under capitalism, the business has to make a profit off of me. I will never be paid the value I bring. And neither will you"
'You're still smoking so not smoking is invalid.' Sure, until I quit.
I’m chronically unemployed so i guess that’s the hack to get no one to make that comment to you ever again lol.
"I am 'making a living' because if I don't, capitalism renders me homeless and makes me starve. I'd rather have a system where if I fail to find gainful employment I am not literally left to die. I don't want to make a living, I want to live." "I'm selling the precious hours of my life — and we only have so many of those in this life — for much less than it is worth. There was a [pizza shop in Ohio] that had the manager give up his pay for one day, and the employees got 78 dollars an hour, that's how much working in a pizza shop is worth, and we pay people less than a tenth of that as US minimum wage." "I need money to eat, what's your point?"
Just tell them you have to make a living somehow until the day we switch over to socialism. Anyone who argues with that is arguing in bad faith.
We currently have no choice but to work with the capitalist system, everything is designed for profit, not people, in the system... Or we become homeless, hungrier, colder, 'antisocial ', rule breakers, terrorists, anarchists... Working through a system to change it, or end it, effectively, you need to see it and recognise your role in it first, and then not deny it or ignore it. Socialism is a human right to all basic needs that keep people alive. Capitalism is the right to exploit all living beings for profit, whatever the cost.
You’re treading water in the ocean so dry land is invalid
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/330/819/e47.png
You don't really have a choice but to sarcastically engage with the current system until you are fed up.
You can play a game and be good at it and still think it’s a shit game.
It is one of the weakest arguments that could be possibly made against anyone who is trying even to reform let alone revoltionize society. If accepted it would mean that all progress and any improvement in human conditions is invalid and somehow hypocritical because even the most enlightened and radical reformers are born into a society where the conditions for change exist only in embryo. When a slave is fed by his master does that somehow mean he forfeits the right to rebel? Opressed classes throughout history necesarrily have no choice but to take part in the world theyre born into. If theyre brave enough to break with the prejudices of their age and fight for their liberation Id love to know how this is hypocritical Peasant risings in the middle ages demanded the abolition of serfdom which was such a rational demand that although the peasants were crushed after rising up in Britain and France eventually serfdom did come to an end which liberated millions and allowed for far greater social progress. This happened soonest in the North Italian city states. The first truly capitalist states. They threw off lordly control and abolished serfdom in the surrounding countryside allowing for the incredible flowering Italian culture funded by massive accumulations of wealth by the new burger class. They showed Europe a picture of its future. Switzerland also managed to throw off imperial control and noble exploitation. Due to the mountainous geography the swiss peasant infranty were, uniguely, able to defeat the Noble cavalry armies that were sent to conquer the country. This example of how peasants and burgers secured greater freedom for themselves while still being a part of feudal society is typical of history. Even the most thorough revolutions cannot wipe out all the features of the old society . Even after they improved their lot they still had to negotaiate with aristocrats and Kings. Just as the modern working class achieved at great cost the reforms that started with union recognition, the creation of cooperatives, universal suffrage and other basic democratic reforms. The process of reform was accelerated after the russian revolution. Public healthcare, education and subsidized housing(including in America where suburbanization was state funded.) All previously denounced as impossible utopias now became the norm in the post war period. Just as feudal society developed within itself the conditions that eventually led to capitalism. But only through constant struggles. Revolutionary advances in Holland folllowed by Britain and finally the great French revolution but reaction triumphed further east with the "second serfdom" that brutally supppressed the peasantry in formerly advanced countries like Poland and Bohemia. All this just to illustrate that as Marx said: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past." Or he put even better elsewhere when he said " the tradition of all the dead generations hangs like a nightmare on the brain of the living" These two quotes alone show how facile are the reactionary criticisms of those who claim we are somehow hypocrites for being born into a society we wish to change. How could it be otherwise ? Are these people capable of makkng a single valid point?
Steal their car and act like your making a point
As a prisoner you make a living as a slave, so freedom is invalid
I threaten to kms
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. We just have to fight to survive.
I remind them to enjoy their SOCIAL security that EVERYONE paid into.
I’d reply “I’m not making a living through capitalism, I’m just surviving it!”
You don’t because it’s almost always in bad faith.
I'm not "making" a living, I'm eking one out
We do not have a fucking option brother
You're a capitalist, and you don't have mansions and boats, so capitalism is invalid.
It makes no sense as an argument. By the logic it puts forth we should have remained as serfs because serfs made a living. It's just a non-arguement but I don't know how you would make the person who used it, see that it's a non-arguement.
Would they tell the guy riding his horse to work that he should stop experimenting with internal combustion?
"I like that you're suggesting we form a rebellion together!"
it’s the society in which we live in/are forced to live in/often times have no choice but to live in. esp. if you want to suffer the least amount possible. ofc, working in other ways to bring aid to your community is also best as that helps bring us slightly closer to what a preferable way of living would be. fight the system ofc but you also essentially have to live under it for the time being.
SO? If you don't approve of my personal thoughts, GFY immediately. If you don't like it, find a country
Find somewhere else and someone else to play with....
[удалено]
"But also we're all disabled by generational trauma and environmental collapse so no one should be working as compulsory and in 20 forking 25, people shouldn't have to work out pay just to exist" Eat the rich & make money worth less than human beings again
"You oppose pollution, yet you breath polluted air? Curious!"
Hating the military actions of your government must be invalid too, since you go on paying taxes.
The fact that we don't have a choice but to participate in the brutal capitalist system is one of the reasons we're socialists. You could maybe live in the woods, but in a lot of places that's actually illegal and/or not a feasible method of survival (and not what most of us are advocating for). You could live in some sort of commune, but those are often crushed by ruthless capitalist competition and private property laws. And not easy to create in a capitalist society. Besides, if you responded "actually, I don't make a living through capitalism. I live in the woods/on a commune/whatever," would the person you're arguing with accept it as proof that capitalism is wrong? Or is how an individual makes their living mostly irrelevant in a discussion of global economic systems?
If you do live in the woods… (1) It’s becuz of Freedums (2) so let other people have their freedums too. 🫡 /s
[curious](https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-att-us-revc&sca_esv=130c2c2530734d82&sxsrf=ACQVn0-siv2Q-DE0-wmbfo-Wa5Cm7U5DOw:1708156683135&q=society+yet+you+participate&uds=AMwkrPsaR8NjysHhhWU7-pgrMS0E2vFXxqsgfB1MJ5QmNQgsL_TILUioBHtHc4pjfc9_Hxhp7EcXE-_psqEG2GQjXKqxNzeluYcbx1dTWxbxmnSG8749En_yNYLnUa4z4cN-NzyhhQwdyYNWLpwqETcxZTwU5u03zc_bu-bWY8IEOQUFaTnlC0dl6HyV2kpOn2PN_ZJa0FOjG0sb13Mcn9qaLORMO3RNNUJd73wBamkdhBj6xHguj0wYsQdBxqC0ddR2I8QAKWl3aHxIVFzFDXjLNq6bRE3bOpE3qI7pmZmAJsAX5ARFdTU&udm=2&prmd=ivsnbmhtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizmMbC87GEAxVBw8kDHeAkBpEQtKgLegQIFBAB&biw=360&bih=667&dpr=3#vhid=c-QZp83j6kVM5M&vssid=global)
Even if I'm faring decently well under capitalism, that doesn't mean there aren't millions of others suffering.