If that is how you read that exchange then so be it. — StreetlightX

What do you mean "that's how you read that exchange"???? I frigging quoted them!!! You are saying you have different ways of reading quoted material? that's absurd, too.

What if everyone were magically making enough income to be middle class.. all retail workers, factory workers, construction workers, agricultural workers, etc.. Everyone was making a decent enough salary to live in a house, buy some entertainment goods, a car, had all their daily living met.. — schopenhauer1

I don't care if you call it "middle class," or something else. No society can call itself good if it doesn't provide access to a decent way of life to everyone. A decent way of life includes enough to eat; a safe and clean place to live; health care; a decent, humane job; education; the opportunity to have and raise children; and basic human freedoms. If that's what you're talking about then, yes, that would satisfy me.

“Capitalism” has always been a collectivist bugaboo, anyways, forced into the economic lexicon and seemingly left there. So it’s strange to see those who abhor collectivist projects fall into using it to describe the present system. But really, a system that doesn’t consider managing capital is unimaginable, and a system that is not capitalist has never existed. Had they named it better the problems with the present system might be more apparent. At least we’d know, as you said, what about the present system is the more important enemy, and we could work to rectify it. Until then I guess we have to engage in a naive form of class struggle.

From young age on we are stimulated to gather marbles. The bigger your collection, the better. If you take the marbles from other children and are able to increase your marble capital, you are considered intelligent.

"Look at my boy! Already now he has that cleverness to pull the legs of his peers. He could just have taken their marbles by force, but instead uses smart tactics to gather them. He even gives his dumb friends the opportunity to continue playing the marble game by providing them with marbles, when they are out of them. Wanting them back with a few extra ones only. Clever little bastard!"

It is told to the children that everybody should get the same and everybody is the same. Considering marbles though some children will have more than others. Because they simply have the cleverness to take them from other people.

"How clever my boy is! Look at him! He offers that little prick of the Watsons marbles to shine his mega bumblebees, red devils, and even his commies! Why he doesn't want his clambroth to be polished too? When he gets home we have to sit down and talk about that!"

We grow up and we are forced to learn the stories about the marbles. What they are, the different kinds, how to create new ones, how to collect as many as possible, how to manipulate people by luring them with small uniform marble collections to get as many in return, ways to automate the marble game, and to partake in a world ruled by the great Marlblerers.

We are considered ignorant and are filled with knowledge of the marble and how to increase possession of the holy spheres and are investigated on progress in knowledge by exams and IQ tests, where IQ is defined as the knowledge how to solve abstract problems as fast as possible and which bear importance for the real life gathering.

Everyone is forced to participate in the construction of the Behemoth Alabaster, the ultimate expression of the ultimate power of the Marble Elite, a select autocratic society controling the governing powers behind the scenes, making use of their collection of holy marbles and praying to the Grand Alabastar. All people are equal, as long as you conform to the rules of the marble game. Black and white, gay or a-sexual, the religeous and the atheists, left and right, tall or small, all of people have the same rights to participate in the universal game of The Marble. Everybody is equal, except that some owe a lot of marbles and some barely enough to play. What great equality...

Games different from the marble game are squashed and quelled by deploying the submissive power of the marble. In lotteries, a chance is offered to the marble poors to immerse oneself in a holy Jacuzzi filled with the Aggie, the Alley, the Ade, the Mica, the Beachball, the Lutz, the Cat's eye, the Oily, the Opaque, the Plaster, the Crock, the Jaspar, the Princess, the Swirly, or the Shooter, and when you are very lucky you may even have a close encounter with a golden magical Bennington, but the absolute jackpot is the Behemoth Clambroth, an incarnation of the great Alabaster, whose true nature remains unknown, but it is a wide held belief that true knowledge about it gives one eternal enlightenment and happiness. The marble game is played vigorously around the world to contemplate the true nature of the Alabaster.

Opals, glimmers, bloods, rubies, deep blue seas, blue moons, green ghosts, or brass bottles, are offered to those coming up with the perfect marble or the description of the True and Fundamental basic Marbles. Knowledge of the Marble is power. Who doesn't long for it?

Natalism: it's okay to procreate if most people are happy with their lives.

Capitalism: it's okay to exploit workers if most people are well-off and middle-class.

Am I reading in to things here?

Some kind of overhaul & revision of our values would be necessary, one that justifies equal and good pay for a doctor, a mechanic, a barber, etc. you get the idea. Basically, your health = your car = your hair = ...

Thought it was a dying breed. — Raymond

It pretty much is.

The government and NGOs, as well as survey companies keep track of all sorts of statistics about stuff that can be counted. The government is the starting source for a lot of the stats one reads, about everything from vegetable consumption to wealth distribution: The Bureau of Labor Statistics; the US Census Bureau; The Federal Reserve (quasi-governmental organization that manages the banking system); the Department of the Treasury; the Department of Labor; and the Agriculture Department all look at population and income.

The government publishes the information it gathers. The Federal Reserve, for instance, is charged with maintaining employment at a high level and maintaining inflation at a low level (about 2%). It does this with, among other things, the Prime Interest Rate -- the rate it charges banks to borrow money. In order to do this effectively, it has to know what is happening within the economy on a fairly detailed level. Hence, it's statistical output.)

All the statistics that are turned out do not have the same status as The Word of God, but for all practical purposes, it's the next best thing. The graph below is based on the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances, 2017. "Equitable Growth" is an NGO and is not the source of the table's data.

:100: Bravo!

Why should I really abide by that defintion? Am I not at liberty to subscribe to any other classification of how people relate to wealth in society, and how their lot in life is determined by that? — god must be atheist

Liebchen, you can subscribe to whatever system of classification you want. There are market research systems of classification that divide the population up into as many 40 classes, depending on where they live, what they buy, what their aspirations are, who their neighbors tend to be, and so on. Could you use those? Sure! It's just unwieldy to deal with a system of 40 different classes. Some sociologists have subdivided the 3 main groups into 9 classes -- lower working class, middle working class, upper working class, lower middle class, on up to upper upper (the top).

One of the problems of "working class" is that it takes maybe... 290,000,000 people (just in the US) and puts them all in the same class. As "employees" of "capitalists" (maybe... 30,000,000 people in the US) all these people have many, many different characteristics above and beyond being exploited. An atheist gay exploited worker living downtown probably looks at the world differently than a fundamentalist married exploited worker with 5 children living in the suburbs. At least, I most sincerely hope the gay guy looks at the world differently.

So, lumping a few billion souls into "worker" obviously misses a lot. So, liebchen, why do we do it, anyway?

Because "working" is such a fundamental part of life. The terms under which we do it makes a tremendous amount of difference in the way we live our lives. A small farmer might be considered a small businessman. Or he might be considered a slave to the inflexible needs of his 35 cows, the schedule of crop planting, cultivation, and harvest, and the market. A low level functionary in any organization (millions of people) has a different experience than the few million night guards who have a little more executive autonomy.

Per @Schopenhauer1, life sucks. It will always suck to some extent no matter what kind of econo-socio-politico system we have, because the means of existence have to be extracted from the earth by hard work, whether you own it or not.

The hope of socialists, communists... whatever, is to eliminate the portion of hard work that goes to producing a profit for people who don't do a whole lot of work at all.

“Capitalism” has always been a collectivist bugaboo — NOS4A2

to the same extent that "Socialism" has always been a capitalist bugaboo.

But really, a system that doesn’t consider managing capital is unimaginable — NOS4A2

Absolutely. A socialist system would have to manage it's capital resources too -- mines, factories, land, ports, and so on. The difference is that socialists manage resources for the common wealth, and capitalists manage resources for the creation of their own wealth.

Yes, if my unmanageable hair gets into my eyes and causes me to crash my car, then bad hair = bad health.

Absolutely. A socialist system would have to manage it's capital resources too -- mines, factories, land, ports, and so on. The difference is that socialists manage resources for the common wealth, and capitalists manage resources for the creation of their own wealth.

The act of managing resources for the common wealth would require a monopoly on the resources, a cabal of managers to govern it, and an army of workers to till for it. I’d prefer the voluntary system, myself.

and a system that is not capitalist has never existed. — NOS4A2

Read a history book.

I don't care if you call it "middle class," or something else. No society can call itself good if it doesn't provide access to a decent way of life to everyone. A decent way of life includes enough to eat; a safe and clean place to live; health care; a decent, humane job; education; the opportunity to have and raise children; and basic human freedoms. If that's what you're talking about then, yes, that would satisfy me. — T Clark

Ok cool. So needs met is more important than power differentials (only a few owners own the means of production)?

Yes, if my unmanageable hair gets into my eyes and causes me to crash my car, then bad hair = bad health. — Bitter Crank

I didn't realize this before but it seems that just like one picks up a habit like smoking, one also becomes accustomed to think in certain ways. Authoritarian regimes are in the know about this and use it to their advantage (psychological manipulation/so-called reeducation camps).Habits, though some have a good rationale, are not necessarily that. Therein lies the rub.

So needs met is more important than power differentials (only a few owners own the means of production)? — schopenhauer1

These two things cannot be treated separately, except as an intellectual game. Capitalism is not just any power differential: it is an accumulative one which consistently requires growth without which it will fail. Its closest analogue is the malignant tumor: it will - and has - eroded all capacities to meet needs in search of that growth. This is why class war is one of its most symptomatic phenomena: its growth literally feeds on the lives of the working class, and the continued suppression of the latter is one of its conditions of growth. If you cannot eliminate the particular kind of power differential that capitalism is, any effort at ensuring 'needs met' will fail. At best, one will secure temporary reprieves, and even then, usually at displaced costs - as with the much celebrated 'Scandinavian model' which relies upon planet killing extractive industries, or else the inhumane exploitation of third-world labour to produce its products on the cheap in order to keep costs down and living standards high.

There's a reason why Marxism is a 'materialist' theory of the world: it looks at how the world actually functions, rather than playing abstract games about 'whether power differentials are more important the needs met'.

The act of managing resources for the common wealth would require a monopoly on the resources, a cabal of managers to govern it, and an army of workers to till for it. I’d — NOS4A2

The USSR was a monopolistic state capitalist organization. So, we know something about that kind of organization. Workers didn't have any more power there than they had in the anti-labor USA.

Managers there will be; last I heard, "manager" was not an obscenity.

A production council, an elected body, will set production objectives. X number of wind turbines, X number of storage batteries, X miles of transmission lines and so on. A socialist factory making large storage batteries, owned by the workers, will have to assign skilled workers to the tasks of procurement -- cobalt, lithium, other metals, plastics, chemicals, and so forth. They would liaise with workers' organizations who specialize in procurement.

Just as in a capitalist economy, there would be material flows through the country. Unmilled wheat from North Dakota to New York; bagels from New York to Chicago. Lox from Alaska to Chicago. Cream cheese from Wisconsin to Chicago. All for the purpose of offering you a bagel with lox or cream cheese.

How would a workers' food service in Chicago know how much lox to order? Demand. Supply. Food service workers in Waco, Texas wouldn't bother ordering lox. Nobody in Waco has ever heard of lox. Bratwurst from Sheboygan, certainly. And bathroom fixtures from Sheboygan too -- from the worker owned former Kohler porcelain factory.

I don't see a monopoly in this -- or capitalism.

Natalism: it's okay to procreate if most people are happy with their lives.

Capitalism: it's okay to exploit workers if most people are well-off and middle-class.

Am I reading in to things here? — _db

I am not putting a value one way or the other right now. I wanted to get other people's values who were left leaning. Is it the idea that communism is the only way that all people will be able to have a livable wage or is it that communism is just one avenue and if capitalism can provide it, then the exploitation factor is not as big a deal.. In other words, is it that the exploitation creates the inequality, or is it a separate monster? If it wasn't about haves and have nots, but about haves and have mores, would that change things for what people cared about?

To show my cards.. I am against the exploitation ala Marxist ideas of this, but wondering how other people answer it when it is not longer a "have and have not" thing but just about gradations of livable conditions. Are people "hardcore" enough to still call for an overthrow, not because of material conditions, but because the idea that one group owning the means of production is unjust.. It is very relevant with all these debates.. Because people muddle the idea of communism to create equity versus communism to create a more just power sharing.

The hope of socialists, communists... whatever, is to eliminate the portion of hard work that goes to producing a profit for people who don't do a whole lot of work at all. — Bitter Crank

Just wondering.. can you have a hardworking owner/executive class though? Is it just "hard work" that justifies ownership? That is what this implies.. that profit can be had if they work hard.. Perhaps some do, so they are the good ones? I do understand that Marxist thought is such that, owners (regardless of working habits) by definition of their relation to the worker as gaining more than their labor value is worth.

The comparison doesn't appear to be quite accurate because I don't think that the lack of exploitation would somehow make most people irredeemably derprived, and I believe that there is a difference between intentional harm (that also doesn't lead to greater happiness for the people concerned), and creating a positive that doesn't depend on the person directly harming someone else whilst also seeking to minimise the harms that tragically do exist as much as possible (which is why I support ideas such as the RTD). As I said in my discussion with Schopenhauer1 on the global warming topic, I simply disagree with the idea that preventing all good is justifiable for the sake of preventing the negatives. A world where there are ineffable goods and harms (which don't need to remain at the same level, since we have managed to eradicate issues such as smallpox) isn't necessarily a world wherein the good exists directly because of the negatives. Hatred isn't an inextricable desideratum for love. I do agree that there is a lot of exploitation in the world, which is also why I am against mindless procreation before we can adequately address issues such as climate change and rising inequality. Nevertheless, there are also empathetic people like you and Schopenhauer1 who demonstrate that cooperation can and does exist. But I won't start the same discussion again here, so I shall move on.

I do think that our contemporary consumerist system can blind people to the issues we face, which is what leads to scenarios such as the ones mentioned by S1, wherein people's harms aren't addressed but made fun of. I am not even sure if people who do have wealth are always happy, since I have seen many people in the "third world country" that I reside in who are happier than the "affluent" despite not having a lot. Contentment is generally preferable for existing beings than unnecessary needs. Hopefully, we will be able to find a more appropriate arrangement someday.

you either own capital, or are a worker. — StreetlightX

Lots of us these days are online sole proprietorships. I work for myself doing what I choose when I choose to. I own my means of production, but it has no resale value.

I'm also classified as in poverty and live in low income housing. Which I don't mind at all, frankly. Owning things beyond basic needs is unimportant. (I've been middle class before, and the only thing I miss about it is having a dishwasher. But that doesn't keep me up at night.) Having control over your own life is important. I would refuse to work for somebody else for a billion dollars a year, if quitting was not an option.

Unfortunately, communism doesn't give people any more control over their lives -- it just moves the power over you to a collective and shuffles around irrelevant pieces of paper called money.

It's cool that you are largely in control of your own means (although I do wonder how many corporately controlled private platforms you have to rely on in order for your business to function). The point would be to scale this kind of thing up on a society - in fact world - wide level, while allowing people to flourish as they do. I don't doubt that all sorts of really cool stuff happens in the interstices of capitalism which give people all sorts of measures of control of their lives - but the point isn't to encourage more of these as a solution, because the imperatives of capital accumulation simply means that such enterprises are always swimming upstream. Your own life situation, whatever you feel about it, does not answer to the structural impoverishment of vast swathes of the Earth under capitalism. There are factory workers making your shoes who do not have the luxury of refusing to work for someone else. Even your standard of living is underwritten by others.

Unfortunately, communism doesn't give people any more control over their lives -- it just moves the power over you to a collective and shuffles around irrelevant pieces of paper called money. — Paul

Maybe, maybe not. But the capitalist realism which says that this is the best possible world has to remain blind to the suffering of hundreds of millions if not billions that can be directly attributable to capitalism.

can you have a hardworking owner/executive class though? Is it just "hard work" that justifies ownership? That is what this implies. — schopenhauer1

Every society has hardworking people in it, whether the society and its economy are primitive, pre-industrial, post-industrial, agrarian, nomadic capitalistic, urban, rural, socialistic--what ever the organization and level of development. Working hard--stretching one's self--is something that some people want to do--and do do. Back in the day, some people made more and better stone tools than anyone else. They happened to be very good at it. Capitalism didn't invent hard work and striving.

In some circumstances hard work in the form of fighting has justifies ownership. "This land is our land, it's not your land, stay the fuck off this land, else we'll put a rock/spear/arrow/bullet through you!"

Outside of force, which is hard to argue with, I am not sure how we justify the relationship that we call "ownership", "possession". Clearly this is not something that 99.9% of the G20 countries' people worried about. It's taken for granted -- like the existence of "states". We could say it comes from God, but let's not. Let's move on.

"Capitalism" isn't like gravity or Newton's laws of motion. It was invented by people, and people wrote law to shape and manage the operation of capitalistic activity. The people who did this (over generations) started with the idea of ownership as a fundamental right and a justification for doing other things. Ownership was taken to be "natural". Ownership is its own justification. I can own land, buildings, machines, gold, jewels, ideas, and so on. I can even (in some past systems) own people. They were property just like cattle. I can hire you, Schop, to make widgets, and it will be me, Schop, and not you, who owns the widgets you make.

So get back to work, Schop: you are 20 widgets behind, and it's costing me money. What do you think this is, a fucking country club or something? I don't care that you are hungry, tired, bored, sore, lonely. You agreed to make widgets, and by god, I want them made!

We know that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wrote socialism into law and declared in their constitutions the abolition of capitalism, private property, and economic exploitation. Every country that has ever declared these kinds of things have often struggled, imploded, or gone the way of the dodo bird. Is this system so worth it, even if many countries have hardly risen from its rubble?

But the so-called liberal democracies are not much better, in my mind, to the point that I can only differentiate them by rhetoric and other superficialities these days. They’ve turned every contingency into a resource for accruing power in the government, as Madison once wrote. They’re all strands of the same collectivist statism—I don’t know what else to call it. At least there are some encouraging signs of people thinking in terms of freedom again.

I swear that if I ever saw something like your kind of socialism I would applaud it, at least as a feat of organization, and because it isn’t of the German variety. What I’d worry about, though, is what you’d do to those who don’t want to take part in it, or seek to make their living from your property. There is always that problem of individuals believing they know how to run their own lives better than some central committee.

This is for all you commies. — schopenhauer1

I'm not a commie but can I join in?

What if ....Everyone was making a decent enough salary to live in a house, buy some entertainment goods, a car, had all their daily living met.. Would that satisfy you about capitalism, if it offered that to those willing to work? The capitalist owners are still in place and are much more wealthy is the catch.

OK so far.

Just like it is now

Oh. I see the owners in place. But I don't see everyone living in houses and being entertained. If I missed that change then I'm very happy about it. I'm particularly glad those children don't have to scavenge off rubbish tips any more and the garment workers are all in with the cars and the entertainment goods. Great news. Thank you. But are you sure?

There is always that problem of individuals believing they know how to run their own lives better than some central committee. — NOS4A2

Problem is origination of capital. Not everyone starts equally. Not everyone has the chances to put the resources together. The Marxist would ask, by what right does one human own the means of production over another if we all have the same goal of survival? In other words besides words like freedom, do you like the idea that some people own how we survive and some people have to sell their labor to them?

@Bitter Crank I answered I hope acceptably.

Ok cool. So needs met is more important than power differentials (only a few owners own the means of production)? — schopenhauer1

The problem is that without power, people won't get what they need or, if they do, it can be taken away.

Problem is origination of capital. Not everyone starts equally. Not everyone has the chances to put the resources together. The Marxist would ask, by what right does one human own the means of production over another if we all have the same goal of survival? In other words besides words like freedom, do you like the idea that some people own how we survive and some people have to sell their labor to them?

Sometimes I envy them, sure, but envy is a great motivator. To me it’s very kind that they would start an enterprise at which I can work and be rendered payment for my services. The right by which someone usually comes to own the means of production is through purchase or gift or labor, though there are nefarious means.