CascadeOfLight [he/him]

  • 1 Post
  • 206 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: May 13th, 2023

help-circle

  • In addition to the answers already here, Southern slave plantation owners controlled the largest swathes of prime agricultural and cotton growing farmland. Almost the only cost of maintaining a slave is food and a little clothing, so as an industry the plantations were essentially self-sufficient just from their own produce. This meant that, as they were not paying money for food and clothing, they could keep prices for food and clothing high, draining money out of the industrializing North.

    Capitalists, slightly contrary to other answers here, do actually need to pay their workers - at minimum - enough to reproduce their labor (at least until the extreme short-termism of neoliberalism arises) so high prices for food and clothing means paying workers more, which means setting higher prices for goods to keep the same profit margin, which means being outcompeted in the world commodities market by countries in which food is cheaper.

    It’s also impossible to mechanize farming on a slave plantation, for the obvious reason that people forced into slavery will gladly sabotage your expensive machines. So, unlike capitalist firms, plantations are not in a race for automation to cut labor costs and outcompete each other - each plantation simply produces as much food as it has land available, which has the effect of preventing the rate of profit for farming as a whole from falling.

    To explain: in each particular capitalist field of industry, each firm within it is trying to undercut the others by lowering its prices, which (if it wants to also make profit to spend on future expansion) it can only do by lowering its costs. And as all the firms are buying their input materials on the same market for the same price, the only way to lower costs is to spend less on paying workers - whether by reducing their wages, making them work more for the same wage, or, most significantly for the long term development of capitalism, by replacing them with machines.

    Each firm is therefore in a race against the others to automate away as much of the workforce as they possibly can, with steam engines, spinning jennies and every other form of industrial machine - but as we know, profit can only come from the surplus value created by workers, meaning that, as the number of workers in an industry undergoing automation falls, so does the overall rate of profit for that industry.

    However, in contrast, farming as a slave-based industry is able to maintain ‘ownership’ (in every sense) of a far larger fraction of the total number of workers in society - and therefore a much larger fraction of the total surplus value created by society - than farming under capitalism, meaning plantation owners as a class have much greater wealth, relative to industrialists, than they would as owners of farms under capitalism.

    But of course, this situation harms the Northern industrialists, because high food prices mean they can’t compete on the world market. The logic of capitalism - the logic of the current level of development of the means of production - demands that farming be subject to mechanization. Slavery is outmoded, not because society has reached a higher level of moral and ethical development, but because it interferes with the seeking of maximum profit.

    For as long as industries were competing with each other on the same continent, all suffering under the same prices for food, slavery as the primary basis for agriculture could carry on - but as soon as capitalist firms have eaten their local competition and started seeking out new markets on foreign shores, slave-agriculture becomes a fetter on accumulation that Capital must abolish. Under other circumstances, capitalist farms would simply appear and undercut the prices demanded by the plantation owners, but in the US the monopoly that the Southern slavers had over huge tracts of much higher quality farmland in a much better climate made this impossible. So, in the face of these totally incompatible material interests, the only possible outcome was the violent overthrow of the regressive class and the dissolution of their obsolete mode of production.




  • ‘Building socialism’ and ‘actually existing socialism’ are pretty much synonyms, because the terms for the transition stage between capitalism and communism are vaguely defined.

    Some call the end point of a “classless, moneyless society” communism, some call it socialism - and some call the transition period, where a society still has features of capitalism alongside features of communism, socialism.

    Ultimately it comes down to: who holds political power in a given society, how strong is their grip on it, and how forcefully are they pushing in the direction of communism?

    For myself, I would use the word ‘socialist’ for any country that’s somewhere along the transition stage, with whatever features are peculiar to that particular country’s history, as long as it’s controlled by a Dictatorship of the Proletariat led by committed communists.

    So for instance, I would call the USSR, China, the DPRK, Cuba etc. “Actually Existing Socialism” whereas countries with ‘socialist policies’ (basically, pro-welfare and pro-development) but no DOTP like Venezuela are less clear. Conversely, imperialist nations with big welfare states, like Norway for example, despite being called ‘socialist’ all the time in the capitalist media are very certainly not.





  • Russia and Ukraine have a long and bloody history

    No they fucking don’t! They have an extremely short history of conflict, this shit kicked off literally just ten years ago!!

    In 2014, the US launched a coup against Ukraine to replace the democratically elected government with Nazis (and I don’t mean that hyperbolically, I mean actual Hitler-worshipping Nazis) who immediately started persecuting the minority of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. After eight fucking years of doing nothing as the Ukrainian Nazis constantly escalated, Putin finally got it through his thick skull that the west was never going to treat them as an equal and launched an incredibly restrained military action to knock the coupists out of the Ukrainian government and protect the now-autonomous Russian-speaking regions.

    The result is this:

    When a peace deal was about to be signed in April 2022, Boris Johnson personally flew to Kiev and through a combination of lies and threats convinced Zelensky to tear up the deal and continue fighting.

    The unfathomable devastation, the destruction of enormous swathes of infrastructure and the catastrophic death toll of Ukrainian men are squarely the fault of the Nazi regime in Kiev and their western - let’s not beat around the bush - their US handlers. Ukraine had a peaceful and beneficial relationship with Russia from independence all the way up to the moment the US took direct control of it and suicided it into Russia for their own geopolitical gain.





  • The optics of having to kill dozens and dozens of zombies that were formerly African civilians, in scenes reminiscent of the horrid racism of Black Hawk Down, are pretty hard to get past… but the actual story is of a western megacorporation, owned by a council of fucked up ultra-wealthy eugenicists including several aristocrats, coming to Africa to steal a local resource, ignoring the warnings of the locals as to its danger, then performing horrific medical experiments on the locals culminating in giving all of them the zombie virus by lying that it’s a vaccination program.

    In RE4 the threat was native to the area of the outbreak, but in 5 the villain is very clearly plundering, racist, capitalist white guys trying to advance their genocidal ambitions.


  • First, I would say: same, way more money goes in subsidies and pseudolegal tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy than on welfare.

    Second, I would try to explain that that’s not actually how taxes work anyway. The government doesn’t gather all the tax money into a big pile, count it all up, and then make a budget to decide how to spend it. Instead, money collected as taxes basically just ceases to exist - it’s deducted from your account and disappears. Separately to this, the government simply creates as much money as they want to fund their budget. (At least, any government with currency sovereignty does - this excludes Eurozone countries and many local or municipal authorities, who actually do have to make a money pile, or else borrow it from somewhere.)

    Printing too much money can have inflationary effects - prices increase because there’s more money around to buy things - so taxing away and destroying some money is necessary, but if the newly printed money is spent to develop economic activity then you can actually safely print more than you tax by quite a large margin. Neoliberal economists are incapable of/choose not to understand this because it leads to higher wages, lower unemployment and increased bargaining power for the workers, which could ultimately lead to greater political power. Instead they preach austerity doctrine, telling the lie that governments need to cut services and reduce spending to ‘reduce their deficit’, selling off public goods and services to the private sector so they can extract a profit - at the expense of the nation’s people.