feminism, not Marx, has shown me that socialism under capitalist rule is fundamentally broken:— The Wrath of PB™ (@hirojin) March 11, 2015
inequality is capitalism's very foundation.
yup. While Marx might have laid out the ground-work with one of the best documentations of capitalism, it’s feminists who keep pointing out the dismal state of affairs. While most of my communist⚡feminist rants go uncommented, this one was met with a reply
@hirojin how so? As a capitalist, it is to my detriment that half of the population are less motivated to work for my company.— Sam Bashton (@bashtoni) March 11, 2015
I tried to clarify,
@bashtoni yes. but the existing structures that promote inequality are very slow to change bc existing money (& power) is better than…— The Wrath of PB™ (@hirojin) March 11, 2015
@bashtoni than the promise of future maybe money (& potentially less power).— The Wrath of PB™ (@hirojin) March 11, 2015
see also the “discussion” around “climate change”.
Sam had a reply for this,
@hirojin but socialism under capitalism advances all by asking everyone to share the costs of empowering this uncertain, more equal future— Sam Bashton (@bashtoni) March 11, 2015
So i promised him a longer, more coherent reply. Three or so days ago. let’s see if I can distill my thoughts on the subject, while making myself understood:
First off, I disagree with Sam, that “socialism under capitalism advances all by asking everyone to share the costs”. And the reason why I disagree is that taxes primarily target work, never capital. Capital has a way of protecting itself, justifying its own existence…
If we consider the point I was trying to make that “capitalism is fundamentally built on inequality”, and when we look at how this supposedly, and actually pans out:
existing inequality is supposed to “incentivise” (holy fuck do I hate this word) a rise from the bottom to the top.
this rise is made extraordinarily hard by the fact that work is taxed, while capital is not
this is easy to forget, and remain forgotten, thanks to survivor bias: once a capitalist made it, they are convinced that the system works
There is that saying that “time is money”, and, for the poorest of the poor that is definitely st definitely true:
People earning minimum wage often find themselves unable to afford public, or any kind of transport; this forces them to walk to work. These walks can get quite long, when you consider where the poorest of the poor live vs where jobs exist. Those poorest of the poor, are the only ones “willing” to take on minimum wage jobs. If we allow for “willing” to mean “having no other choice but”… and these people live in vastly different areas of a city, thanks to city planning.
Poor people are also the last people to be involved in city planning. Not just because they have no “influence”. Influence isn’t just money to afford a bus-ride to attend a town-hall meeting. It’s also a connection to anyone, who has information about when such meetings take place, where we will discuss the gentrification of yet another ghetto area (and the displacement of all of its inhabitants). Finally, influence also means having been around for a while.
People who have to walk to a shitty, low-paying job, for which they are still taxed, don’t have a voice in how we’re shaping our communities, because they don’t have money, time, connections, information, and, education.
This is why i disagree with “sharing” in capitalism. That’s why i think that capital is built on inequality, and why i merely think that, while the incentive to rise to the top is a noble idea, which in the past has brought us interesting results. The same past has also showed that capital must protect itself. (if you’re not into Marx, go read Piketty). These protection mechanisms have societal consequences:
- displacement for cheep realestate
- slave-like labour at farms in, e.g., spain, mostly by undocumented people - these people too, like the ones in my above example cannot rise from their position. they can only survive.
- the potential for “rising” also has consequences: education is constantly under-funded, while jobs require hire, and hire qualifications
It’s interesting how capitalism relies on labour so much, while devaluing at any front possible. minimum wage means exactly that…
It’s to keep the poor poor. To keep a work-force around. Both, in form of wage slavery for the “gainfully” employed, as well as in the form of a reserve army of labour for the unemployed. The latter is fascinating, and worth a read.
Yes, but what about Deleuze?
.@bashtoni short blog part upcoming (later today). warning: might contain Deleuzinan philosophy— The Wrath of PB™ (@hirojin) March 11, 2015
How does Deleuze’s nomadology fit into this?
I dunno, it’s probably got to do with vectors…