It always irks me when people insist on munging all their ideologies together. Whether or not capitalism is a good or bad idea smashing it isn't part of the notion of feminism. Just because you think two movements are good things doesn't create any relationship between the concepts and pretending it does creates problems that prevent activists from acknowledging genuine tradeoffs.
I snorted when I read this "I believed that capitalism was the source of all greed, inequality, and destruction in the world,”
This is bad. It's bad that people are getting this exactly backwards. HUMANS are the source of greed and inequality, and capitalism* is a useful system for channeling that into something productive.
I also sincerely think all these Millennials and Gen Zers need to learn more about communism in the 20th century and how that turned out.
*capitalism with government regulation for things like labor and environmental standards....
No one believes anything if they don't live it themselves. We can't even get left people to stop voting third party despite regaling them about the story of Al Gore and Iraq.
Eh... humans are not so special. I think even naked mole rats and other similarly freaky mammals can be greedy and inequitable! To say nothing of the gluttonous and controlling (literal) queen bee of the hive, that BITCH.
I think this was one of the more useful takeaways from The Selfish Gene. When you reframe everything not around societies or families or even individuals but the minuscule unit of the gene locked in competition against other genes....everything else is just epicycles upon epicycles built around that.
We need to get much more DGAF about that stuff, as we used to. Our pronunciation of Deutschland, for example, is so weird it sounds like a whole different word!
more mind blowing perhaps to realise plattsdeutsch (low[lands] German and nederlands (lowlands) deutsch were more or less same thing but for Martin Luther triggering German standardisation centered around his highlands (hoch deutsch) dialect. So Dutch and Deutsch (platts both)
Trump's efforts to literally purchase the Hungarian election continue apace, but something that I fundamentally do not understand is why Hungary is still sitting around blocking the EU from doing things in the first place. They're obviously in violation of dozens of treaties about democracy and human rights; why have they not been expelled years ago?
One of the things that makes me doom over the long-term viability of liberal institutions is that they are so incapable of dealing with cuckoos in the nest. This is related, I think, to the fact that Democratic Party honchos keep telling us to support and fund candidates who then turn around and betray us afterward (there are far more party switches from Dem to Rep than vice versa).
The simple answer is 'there is no mechanism in EU law for expelling a country'. There *is* a mechanism for suspending a country's voting rights, but it requires unanimity among the other members and either Poland or Slovakia or both have always made clear they would not support its deployment. So instead the EU has withheld billions of euros of funding from Hungary instead.
A: What Honchos are "telling you" anything? What fictional universe is "PartyHonchos"(who the fuck are they) Small Donors? You people show no sign of actually following anything but Vibes. big Donors... same. email blastings and online campaigns for funding show no particularl signs of following any orders (from what apparatus with what actual powers?_
B: if more party switches are to R versus D I would suggest (as a non-D and never have been one) that one needs to look at D Own culture for explanation.
As an observer who has never been party-political - the Demorats purity pony habits and quasi Torquemada attitudes towards the unclean heathen converts from another group - versus the Rs who generally give few fucks at all and quite more broadly cheer even opportunistic conversions - is not in any way promoting
It's the same problem with everything else in the EU. When you require unanimity nothing will ever get done, especially as they keep expanding member states.
I’ve been struggling with a knee injury for almost three months, brought on by trying to get back into running after giving birth to Little Velociraptor, and I just learned that I’ll need to have surgery to repair a torn meniscus. Thankfully they were able to fit me in quickly. I’m having the surgery on Monday.
The recovery sucks, because I can’t put any weight on my right leg for four weeks after the operation, and walking around on crutches is slow and awkward as hell. Also, for the first week I won’t be able to drive, because I need my right foot to press the pedals.
This sucks extra hard while trying to look after an infant (can’t carry her and use crutches at the same time). My mom offered to stay with me for a few weeks to help me. She’s awesome.
It will feel great once I’ve recovered and can build up my strength again!
Anyway, either I’ll fall off the surface of Substack next week or I’ll post more than usual to distract myself from pain post-surgery, we’ll see!
Ugh, sucks to hear. At least they are able to repair the meniscus. In some cases the damage is so great that the meniscus has to instead be trimmed. The short term recovery is shorter, but there is a long term increased risk of arthritis.
The only reason I know this is because a torn meniscus is a common injury in football. In the past, most players chose a trim to get back on the field sooner. But that has started to shift to repair as they think of their long term health.
I pooched my own meniscus a few months back, and the doc was refreshingly honest after looking at the MRI--basically that soft joint tissue is black magic, the span of injuries to the structure is not well characterized, and all else being equal if things seem to be getting generally better and not worse, let's not touch it and see how it progresses.
Ah, you're a runner, great. You used to run five miles a day. If that hurts, stop that and try four. If that's still causing trouble, let's check back in.
I wish the commentariat engaged a bit more with the girlboss vs feminist distinction Halina laid out, because it was new to me and not "woke" or "cringe" but straightforwardly well put!
Also, I didn't read this as Halina being anticapitalist but just articulating Amoruso's philosophy. I disagree with the anticapitalist bit just like the rest of you, no point relitigating it
" Feminism, at its most expansive, is about possibility. It asks for a world in which women can move freely between roles that were once rigidly divided."
I agree there is a historical version of feminism that is about that. But most modern versions go WAY WAY beyond it, and as you note later are often critical of women who make more traditional choices.
As an ignorant male, I have many battle wounds over trying to figure out what the opposite sex wants to be called as a group. I found the most peace via "gal" as a corollary to "guy", but it was by no means unanimous.
I'm genuinely shocked at the statement, "I found the most peace via 'gal' . . . ." Using "gal" at most places I've worked in the past 25 years would be a career-ending, if not life-ending, decision.
I call everyone guys. all female team, guys - like "Okay guys we need to get lending numbers over the the [master bank]"; mixed team, guys, only guys team (okay I don't have any, but if I did, guys)
I still resent Steyer for overstaying his welcome in the POTUS race. Any time there's a close one, it's hard to say whether any one particular camel broke the straw back...but that doesn't excuse any given camel. Pointlessly setting money and attention on fire when both are limited qualities is Bad, Acktually.
But, yeah, if he moves up from 3rd place to 2nd or 1st in the polls, I'll be happy. Porter delenda est.
Counterpoint: rich dudes who refused to drop out in 2020 had very nice spreads at their events (Bloomberg would bring in deli catering!) , this is why I'm getting on the Steyer Victory Train
I will concede this narrow point. My journalist roommate often gets sent out to cover Snowball McHell candidate events...which are boring and pointless, but the free food is a nice bonus perk. Same with doing weddings and food photography. That P-card only goes so far!
Spicy tuna take: electoral votes should be allocated based on the quality of candidates' craft services tables. Take the Iowa State Faire experience national!
The crackup between Trump and the right-wing podcasters is interesting because it illustrates the internal tension within conservatism over which is the bigger priority: opposing those who are most culturally alien, or opposing liberalism (democracy, political liberty, women's rights, religious pluralism, etc). Trump straddles that line but falls more in the former camp, while the podcasters are more in the latter camp. Vance is also more in the latter camp, which makes me wonder if he's capable of achieving a rapprochement with the Iranians where they prioritize their shared hatred of the libs over their differences. Ideologically they have some things in common! But that might well put him into conflict with Trump. On one hand, Trump was able to take a similar approach with North Korea, but Muslims are more of a cultural bogeyman than old-school Communists are these days.
People also probably forget that NK is nominally communist. Brutal dictatorship, sure, but it's really too weird with all the family's divine mythology.
Thoughts on the breaking-news sexual impropriety allegations against Swalwell? It's not good, obviously, but big-picture anything that helps consolidate the D field is probably preferable...even given Trump's probable own-goal with endorsement.
(I'll still vote whoever the D ends up being, but...please, please don't make me vote Porter. Fine with appointing Rs to smaller local offices, don't trust them at the gubernatorial level. Not under this POTUS who keeps throwing federalism under the trolley.)
Receipts seem to be in order and the Dems REALLY needed to trim the field before the primary. Would not be surprised if this was an open secret since the timing was a bit too perfect for multiple reasons. Especially after Trump did the own goal of endorsing.
I'm not sure any of the low-polling candidates can resuscitate their campaigns (which would just create the same crowding problem). Most likely, it's going to be Steyer and Porter heading forward. And, I guess, I'd choose Steyer in the primary. Was probably going to choose Swalwell before this.
I was definitely on Team Warren and Porter a few years ago, but can't say I like how that movement evolved. But I'm for whatever keeps a Republican out. We have enough moderate Democrats in California that I don't care if the state Republican Party just turns out the lights and shuts down.
Feel ya there. I voted Bernie in 16 and 20, and...well...look at me now, on the centre-right (or far-right by CA standards). Don't love everything the CA Dems do, sometimes even the moderate bulwark lets stupid shit happen; the fact that this retarded wealth tax, with signatures aggressively recruited by pay-to-play masked buskiers, has real legs at all is a serious failing. And of course we still piss away tons of the world's 3rd largest economy's GDP on progressive windmill tilting to featherbed the NGO-industrial complex while the provision of basic government services limps along.
There's a lot of ruin in a state, to be clear, I just wish we could be extremely rich *and* a shining model of successful blue governance instead of extremely rich *and* the butt of decades of jokes about leftist mismanagement. That's where a not-insane not-totally-packed-in CA GOP would nominally come in. Alas. Don't think the timing lines up to call the flaccidity of the Republican Party out west a bellwether for the national party also not being able to raise real politicians, but it's not unrelated either. It's hard to imagine another Reagan happening. (Not in the sense of condoning The Gipper's politics, but that when we send our best to Washington, their jibs are always gonna be cut one way now.)
I'm still quite liberal (really wish I could still identify as a progressive). As for the GOP in California, they only exist to raise cash for the national operation due to the state's population and relative wealth. They have no intention to become relevant here.
"This Swalwell situation was … shall we say widely rumored and it’s interesting that the gossip doesn’t seem to have made its way to all the big shots out west."
We just need to make sure our promising presidential prospects have a clearly defined sexual orientation. The gay men get all-female staffers; the straight men get all-male staffers, etc. Presto, no inappropriate workplace affairs....
I hate to be that guy, but is this really the standard we're adhering to, going forward? Swalwell denies any wrongdoing. Is he lying? I don't know. If I had to guess, I'd say yes. But the evidence against him is either hearsay or circumstantial, and I'm not comfortable with the idea that accusations like this should immediately end a politician's career.
The receipts are pretty solid here with lots of screenshots. Seems likely that this was a bit of an open secret so the "case" was probably built up beforehand. It might be a coordinated hit job, but it has the virtue of being true.
I don't think anyone's called on him to resign from the House, just to stop taking up space in the governor's race. This is definitely not the Al Franken era anymore.
We have two accusations of sexting from adult women who, by their own admission, freely participated in it. Is that sexual misconduct?
We have one accusation where the woman was so inebriated she doesn't seem to remember what did or did not happen; the only clear allegation she's making is that he touched her leg and kissed her without her permission. Is this sexual misconduct? Should it end a politician's career?
The one accusation of rape comes from a woman who again was so intoxicated she doesn't remember how she got to his hotel room. It's totally possible that Swalwell took advantage of the situation and raped a drunk woman. It's also possible that she's misremembering what happened, or has a score to settle, or some of both. The fact she told friends and family at the time doesn't prove anything.
Is "believe women" really the standard we're adhering to, going forward? And do you not see that shit like this is exactly why so many people don't trust Democrats in power?
Seeing as how the current trajectory of Swalwell's career is "making it much more likely that the next governor of California is a Republican," I am pretty comfortable with ending it by any means necessary. With extreme prejudice.
I'm not a professional at hot takes, but I think that Trump endorsing Hilton over Bianco is actually a pretty smart move.
Bianco is the more bombastic and naturally recognizable MAGA, make-libs-cry, character and I feel like sans-endorsement from Trump he would consolidate the CA GOP around him. But endorsing the milder Hilton keeps him in the race and raises the possibility that we end up with Hilton + Bianco top two which would be an incredible outcome for the GOP as opposed to the default of Bianco taking 30%, Porter 15%, and Hilton 14%. If not for how bad Trump is, I would actually wish for the dumb top-two system (with no write-in option!) to take an all-time bite out of the Dems behind.
Yeah...with a different monarch at the top of the ticket, I'd maybe even consider throwing a vote to Hilton (anyone related to Paris can't be that bad!), just because it seems incredibly hard to steer the CA Dem ship rightwards unless it crashes outright into a GOP iceberg. Happy that there's some possibility of reforming the much-abused ballot initiative process, and SF in particular might consolidate more power into the Mayor instead of the Board being the viziers behind the throne. But some levers can only be effectively pulled from the state-level Mansion, unfortunately.
In direct years? No, I suppose The Governator was not so long ago, and I did not hate everything he did back then + since then. But then we had another rerun of Governor Moonbeam, and then Newsome survived a recall against a hilariously crowded field, and...bunch of other stuff happened. Life comes at you fast now more than ever.
I'll regret asking this - but what do they propose replacing capitalism with? Are we back to the Hallmark Movie town economy of vegan restaurants and feminist bookstores that somehow keeps everyone in upper middle class modern comfort?
How about a society where we work fewer hours, waste fewer resources on empty consumerism, and have more time for the really good things in life: love, nature, curiosity, family, friendship, adventure, creativity, rest, and reflection?
Make the reduction of the working week an actual policy priority, try different things, see what works. The 40 hour work week is not an essential pillar of civilization.
No, it isn't an essential pillar of anything. In many contexts it is outdated or actively counterproductive. And I agree that's a great idea for a *goal* or *aspiration* that a policy or plan or society could have.
But, it is not a plan, or a policy, or a structure within which people can try plans and policies. In order to get to that goal, there needs to be an actual system that results in real humans doing the actual things that need to happen to produce and sustain that society, and prevents them from doing the things that would destroy it.
Separating employment from health insurance would have a ton of benefits in terms of stuff like added mobility.
I had a coworker for many years whose family owned a small business. She worked for us as a secretary because she had a diabetic child and couldn't afford health insurance on her own. This was a great deal for us (she was very smart and capable), but it surely didn't make any sense in the grand scheme of things for her to do office work for us instead of her family business just so her kid could get medical care without bankrupting her family.
I think most people don't realize how much health insurance as a part of employment chains people to their current jobs and prevents entrepreneurship. It's a kind of invisible tax on people with families leaving large businesses/government agencies to start their own businesses, retire early, etc.
I don't think anyone suggested it was an impossible ideal. These are all straightforwardly good or at least arguably good policy recommendations whether they lead towards the end goal under discussion or not.
However, if we want to make it to a point where everyone enjoys (the useful aspects of) upper middle class living standards (what @BronxZooCobra mentioned) with time to focus on love, nature, curiosity, family, friendship, adventure, creativity, rest, and reflection (your stated objective) this won't get us there, or anywhere close. That will take much, much deeper changes that will be very controversial, especially in terms of when and how they get implemented, because along the way they will empower and disempower various groups heavily invested in the status quo, including often to their own long-term detriment.
What do they propose replacing it with? Generally, they don't. This isn't a positive ideology of economics and governance. It's about tearing bad things down, not building good ones up, while denying the bad things have associated good things that will also get torn down.
*Any* real system would most likely fail to be acceptable, and would need to be taken down in turn, until and unless all humans become angels and no longer need systems. Or they pretend to make a proposal with too few details but which would very obviously fall apart in ten minutes in the hands of actual humans.
The libertarian catch phrase for this idea is "utopia is not an option." Basically, you have to compare your proposed system or policy to stuff that exists in the real world, not to the ideal world you can conjure up in your head.
I think they propose an economy of tradwife influencers making some side money selling the goods they make on their farm, but making their real money running seminars on how to become a tradwife influencer making some side money selling the goods you make on your farm, while making your real money running seminars on...
Most people are confused by capitalism, which is why I like the term free markets better. Capitalism or free markets at it's heart is people being free to buy and sell with whom they want and keep the fruits of their labor.
Moreover, capitalism and free markets ARE compatible with regulations to keep abuses of the system in check such as monopolies or worker protections as basically every developed country has already proven.
But alternatives to capitalism haven't faired so well in the wild. They don't scale well for the simple reason that people won't work hard if they can't keep the fruits of their labor.
I certainly know I wouldn't. If I can't get ahead why bother. Like we told the kids the other day, life's a competition. If you can't win, then you won't play
Agreed, I don’t know why defenders of capitalism would use that term. The term by its own name suggests you’re shilling for capital! “Free markets” sounds much better. And there are situations with things like monopolies or protectionism or various forms of regulatory capture where the interests of “capital” do not align with “free markets”.
It’s also confusing when discussing with people on the left because many people on the left include things like colonialism within capitalism because a lot of the colonial empires were internally capitalist (leading to a discussion on a thread on this blog a few days ago!) even though most people don’t consider colonialism to be part of capitalism. It’s just a confusing term and “free markets” is less confusing if what you mean is just you want less government regulation.
I mean, capitalism is fundamentally about someone *else* (viz., the shareholders) keeping the fruits of your labor…equity is essentially a claim on proceeds.
As Nikuruga points out indirectly, you confuse "shareholder corporations" with "capitalism"- a frequent innumeracy. As a general matter the vast majority of businesses in any given economy, including US, are not shareholder corporations, but varying things like Partnerships, Mom&Pops sole proprietorships (often not even organised as a company), etc.
Mistaking a sub-set of companies that employ ~a third of employees for Capitalism is a error from the get go.
The fact the equity owner has brought tools and money - capital to work with makes in a modern economy the labor possible and more valuable. It is literally why we are all vastly richer, even in the poorest countries, than we as a species were in the 18th or 19th centuries, despite now having a populatoin of 8odd billion versus under 1
In theory, yes, but in practice publicly traded corporations typically award employees with equity more so and can feel less hierarchical than a lot of manager-owned firms like law firms.
It's literally the opposite. Under capitalism you negotiate with someone else what your labor is worth and get paid a market compensation for it. The fruits of your labor are worth what you're selling your labor for.
Under communism you get told what to work on by someone else and your compensation has no relationship to the value it provides. If it's more valuable than you're being paid someone else is literally keeping it.
Firstly, I was not contrasting this communism, but rather the state of nature prior to the existence of joint-stock companies. The essence of capitalism isn't "not communism" it's "the separation of ownership from control and the sale of equity to fund enterprises in the form of a claim of on enterprise profits and/or proceeds of enterprise sale."
Secondly
>>If it's more valuable than you're being paid someone else is literally keeping it.>>
This is also how it works under capitalism. You're not employed unless your employer generates an economic surplus from your employment, which doesn't happen unless the value created exceeds your wage. If you work in the oil patch and the price of oil goes up, that doesn't mean your wage does.
>>your compensation has no relationship to the value it provides>>
Sort-of true under capitalism depending on definitions used except that as the value provided is a ceiling on compensation and anything below that is a potential bargaining range. You're competing with other labor suppliers to provide the highest value to the employer at the lowest marginal price, which doesn't have any necessary relationship (other than the aforementioned wage ceiling) to the level of surplus provided. Farm laborers literally provide the food that keeps people from starving--basically the highest subjective surplus around after oxygen--and they're paid peanuts, because they compete with numerous others independent of the surplus they create.
"The essence of capitalism isn't 'not communism' it's 'the separation of ownership from control and the sale of equity to fund enterprises in the form of a claim of on enterprise profits and/or proceeds of enterprise sale.'"
No. The essence of capitalism is property rights. If you make a thing, you own it. If you own a thing, you may do with it what you wish.
I would accuse you of being simple, given your apparent mistaking of me for a Marxist and your conflation of whether capping upside returns for lower downside risks is likely be positive-sum for whether it’s consisent with “keeping the fruits of your labor.” You are mistaking a descriptive claim with a normative one.
The fact that labor creates a surplus in excess of its wage is just a precondition of employment: worker that produces $14 of value per hour at a wage of $20 per hour does not remain employed ( nor in the general case can they and the enterprise remain solvent).
And the fact that the value created has no necessary connection (other than as a ceiling) to wages is just an effect of competition and marginal effects: food has high subjective utility but low price due to high competition and low input costs, production of food has low input costs in part because farm labor has very low pay, in turn because there are lots of bidders to sell their labor (who implicitly don’t have higher-return markets in which to sell, or else Baumol effects or market exit would elevate wages) — conditions that are all independent of the surplus value created by labor whether conceived of as subjective use-value or as exchange-value (the gap between which comprises the sale bargaining range). It’s just more interesting for goods with high subjective use-value becuase the intrinsic demand is self-evident so it’s clearer that the effects on price are dominated by competitive equilibria rather than by total surplus value created. It’s no particular surprise that a peddler selling knickknacks on the side of the road makes a poor wage, because there’s limited demand for the product. If you want to use a market with a high prices and revenues but a low prevailing wage there’s always acting, finished textiles or handbags or other LVMH-type products, electronics assembly, or adjunct-taught academia.
Pre-capitalism wasn’t everyone running a small business; it was mostly people working for feudal lords who were both the owners and controllers of capital. People enjoyed even less of the fruits of their labor under the pre-capitalist system, and even Marx considered capitalism an improvement over previous feudalism. Modern businesses that don’t separate owners from controllers from large law firms to family-owned restaurants tend to be significantly worse places for non-owner employees to work than comparable publicly traded corporations where the managers are not the owners but also are accountable to shareholders.
Yes, quite right although one need not even go to feudal lorders, if one was in crafts one was generally subject to being under a Master craftsman and nothing in the historical record suggests that was a wonderfully free and enabling experiene, quite the contarary, I think grindingly exploitive would be the phrase.
Of course even in free-peasantry lands, most farmers labored for other larger farmres or did quasi-feudal other labor (as returns on small farms are shit, and
The early colonial mass exodus (mass relative to being able to afford to get a spot on a ship, even allowing for becoming a quasi-serf to pay that off) to get land in the Americas from W. European countries without fuedal lands says much.
The price of oil can also go down and the company makes a loss. Does that mean that the service that the laborer provides is negative?
In a free market the economic surplus from labor should be theoretically low. If there's a large difference you could go to a different employer or start your own business and get around that. I recognize that it's more complex in the real world, but it is more fair than alternative systems.
The only objective way to assess value is on economic terms. We can argue more about subjective measures. But a society that, say, paid teachers more than succesful entrepreneurs would end up with both poor teachers and poor entrepreneurs.
Pop quiz time! Without looking it up, guess who said the following:
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Which, of course, it has. Capital accounts for about 20-25% of GDP. The rest is labor, which keeps a much larger share of the total. Without capital, labor would produce much less per unit of effort. You can tell by looking at how our ancestors lived, back when they had to make literally everything within a small band of people on unimproved land. In modern terms, the raw productivity of labor without capital is maybe just around $1,000/yr. Some capital is human capital, which the laborer owns. The rest is physical capital, or more abstract forms of property, which they generally don't.
And the real return on capital, as Piketty showed us, has averaged 4-5%/yr since antiquity. If returns rise (either because capital is scarce, or because someone opened up a new way to make more productive capital) then investment/savings rise and bring it back down. If it falls, people don't bother saving as much and it rises.
(I don't remember if this part was in Piketty, but it seemed natural to me to assume that this rate was a stable attractor state because it meant an owner could enjoy the full value of their savings and then pass it on undiminished to their children ~14-20 years later, or about one biological generation for most of history)
"Are we back to the Hallmark Movie town economy of vegan restaurants and feminist bookstores that someone keeps everyone in upper middle class modern comfort?"
You forgot architecture studios and handcrafted carpentry workshops, but yes.
That's almost exactly what I've said about the frequency with which (virtually always male) architects turn up in (almost always) romantic/romantic comedy movies -- it's an "artistic" profession, but "manly" because it allows the character to usually have a scene where he's wearing a hardhat and work clothes when visiting a job site, and it popularly codes as an upper middle class profession.
I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions OF that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting--by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
We will all live on a collective farm. I shall write poetry, and you shall weave tapestries. No one will ever have to grow food, unless they want to do gardening as a hobby.
It always irks me when people insist on munging all their ideologies together. Whether or not capitalism is a good or bad idea smashing it isn't part of the notion of feminism. Just because you think two movements are good things doesn't create any relationship between the concepts and pretending it does creates problems that prevent activists from acknowledging genuine tradeoffs.
Isn't it Bette Davis (not Betty)?
It's a different Davis per an exchange below (or above, depending on how you sort the comments).
I'm guessing we aren't getting a Saturday thread? :-(
In paragraph 14, Bette Davis' name is spelled Bette Davis, not Betty Davis. It's a little thing, but so is credibility.
It's a different Davis per an exchange below (or above, depending on how you sort the comments).
Great job reporting, clarifying, and going back to the original sources on this Halina!
I snorted when I read this "I believed that capitalism was the source of all greed, inequality, and destruction in the world,”
This is bad. It's bad that people are getting this exactly backwards. HUMANS are the source of greed and inequality, and capitalism* is a useful system for channeling that into something productive.
I also sincerely think all these Millennials and Gen Zers need to learn more about communism in the 20th century and how that turned out.
*capitalism with government regulation for things like labor and environmental standards....
Heh. A friend with a 16-year-old daughter told me that her daughter said, "But *real* communism has never been tried!"
Ah, to be a teenager again.
Aw man. I feel there should be a quote for this, something about not remembering the past....
Yes, a time machine back to Sov to get a taste.
As a GenX who had the odd opp to do student exchange to E. Germany before the wall fell...
Or if one can still read, reading the literature like Milovan Djilas New Class to see the same patterns emerging in the Sov new classes.
No one believes anything if they don't live it themselves. We can't even get left people to stop voting third party despite regaling them about the story of Al Gore and Iraq.
True, true. We are but chimps in the end with delusions of philiosphising grandeur papering over our little chimpy band brains.
The Chernobyl miniseries was pretty good
Yes, actualy was, I should rewatch.
Eh... humans are not so special. I think even naked mole rats and other similarly freaky mammals can be greedy and inequitable! To say nothing of the gluttonous and controlling (literal) queen bee of the hive, that BITCH.
Yeah the basic animal need to survive and reproduce....
But the queen bee does sound like a jerk.
post 1970s starry eyed idealisation - our chimp cousins are right nasty bastards.
I think this was one of the more useful takeaways from The Selfish Gene. When you reframe everything not around societies or families or even individuals but the minuscule unit of the gene locked in competition against other genes....everything else is just epicycles upon epicycles built around that.
Non sequitur: the real pronunciation of Qatar is garbage; something more akin to kuh-tarr is just way more metal.
The real pronunciation is uncomfortably close to the handle of a scatalogic MAGA Twitter account...
They should just own the letter Q as branding. Like on Qatar Airlines the food is labeled “Quisine”
And the only thing they serve is Quizno’s. I’m game, so long as they bring back the weird commercials with the rat things
I don't understand why those people don't just speak English, including in spelling their country.
They can speak whatever language they like, provided it's sufficiently metal.
Qätär.
We need to get much more DGAF about that stuff, as we used to. Our pronunciation of Deutschland, for example, is so weird it sounds like a whole different word!
It blew my mind when I first learned that the Pennsylvania “Dutch” are actually “Deutsch”!
more mind blowing perhaps to realise plattsdeutsch (low[lands] German and nederlands (lowlands) deutsch were more or less same thing but for Martin Luther triggering German standardisation centered around his highlands (hoch deutsch) dialect. So Dutch and Deutsch (platts both)
Trump's efforts to literally purchase the Hungarian election continue apace, but something that I fundamentally do not understand is why Hungary is still sitting around blocking the EU from doing things in the first place. They're obviously in violation of dozens of treaties about democracy and human rights; why have they not been expelled years ago?
One of the things that makes me doom over the long-term viability of liberal institutions is that they are so incapable of dealing with cuckoos in the nest. This is related, I think, to the fact that Democratic Party honchos keep telling us to support and fund candidates who then turn around and betray us afterward (there are far more party switches from Dem to Rep than vice versa).
The simple answer is 'there is no mechanism in EU law for expelling a country'. There *is* a mechanism for suspending a country's voting rights, but it requires unanimity among the other members and either Poland or Slovakia or both have always made clear they would not support its deployment. So instead the EU has withheld billions of euros of funding from Hungary instead.
A: What Honchos are "telling you" anything? What fictional universe is "PartyHonchos"(who the fuck are they) Small Donors? You people show no sign of actually following anything but Vibes. big Donors... same. email blastings and online campaigns for funding show no particularl signs of following any orders (from what apparatus with what actual powers?_
B: if more party switches are to R versus D I would suggest (as a non-D and never have been one) that one needs to look at D Own culture for explanation.
As an observer who has never been party-political - the Demorats purity pony habits and quasi Torquemada attitudes towards the unclean heathen converts from another group - versus the Rs who generally give few fucks at all and quite more broadly cheer even opportunistic conversions - is not in any way promoting
It's the same problem with everything else in the EU. When you require unanimity nothing will ever get done, especially as they keep expanding member states.
A better question: why hasn't some enterprising European spook poisoned Orban with polonium or novochok(sp)?
Google Translate tells me that Hungarian for "Nine Familial Exterminations" is "Kilenc Családi Kiirtás."
I’ve been struggling with a knee injury for almost three months, brought on by trying to get back into running after giving birth to Little Velociraptor, and I just learned that I’ll need to have surgery to repair a torn meniscus. Thankfully they were able to fit me in quickly. I’m having the surgery on Monday.
The recovery sucks, because I can’t put any weight on my right leg for four weeks after the operation, and walking around on crutches is slow and awkward as hell. Also, for the first week I won’t be able to drive, because I need my right foot to press the pedals.
This sucks extra hard while trying to look after an infant (can’t carry her and use crutches at the same time). My mom offered to stay with me for a few weeks to help me. She’s awesome.
It will feel great once I’ve recovered and can build up my strength again!
Anyway, either I’ll fall off the surface of Substack next week or I’ll post more than usual to distract myself from pain post-surgery, we’ll see!
Sorry to hear that! I hope your recover is quick and easy.
Your running days might be behind you.
That sucks. Here's to a speedy recovery and a rapid return to your *real* family here at SB.
(Fact check: not your real family but we'll still miss you)
Ditto that
Ugh, sucks to hear. At least they are able to repair the meniscus. In some cases the damage is so great that the meniscus has to instead be trimmed. The short term recovery is shorter, but there is a long term increased risk of arthritis.
The only reason I know this is because a torn meniscus is a common injury in football. In the past, most players chose a trim to get back on the field sooner. But that has started to shift to repair as they think of their long term health.
I pooched my own meniscus a few months back, and the doc was refreshingly honest after looking at the MRI--basically that soft joint tissue is black magic, the span of injuries to the structure is not well characterized, and all else being equal if things seem to be getting generally better and not worse, let's not touch it and see how it progresses.
Ah, you're a runner, great. You used to run five miles a day. If that hurts, stop that and try four. If that's still causing trouble, let's check back in.
To be twenty again.
Wishing you a speedy recovery!
Really enjoyed this, Halina! Also, I believe it’s “Bette Davis”, not Betty. Edit: I am wrong.
I wish the commentariat engaged a bit more with the girlboss vs feminist distinction Halina laid out, because it was new to me and not "woke" or "cringe" but straightforwardly well put!
Also, I didn't read this as Halina being anticapitalist but just articulating Amoruso's philosophy. I disagree with the anticapitalist bit just like the rest of you, no point relitigating it
That's what I thought too! The description didn't seem wrong about Bette Davis.
Relieved to hear I wasn’t the only one confused about that. I also thought it didn’t sound implausible for Bette.
I had to confirm myself.
I think this is the Betty Davis in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Davis
I stand corrected!
" Feminism, at its most expansive, is about possibility. It asks for a world in which women can move freely between roles that were once rigidly divided."
I agree there is a historical version of feminism that is about that. But most modern versions go WAY WAY beyond it, and as you note later are often critical of women who make more traditional choices.
plus I'm ready for the end of the phrase "girl boss" after we tried so hard to not be called girls.
The term strikes me as being a lot more about style than dignity.
As an ignorant male, I have many battle wounds over trying to figure out what the opposite sex wants to be called as a group. I found the most peace via "gal" as a corollary to "guy", but it was by no means unanimous.
Folks.
I know some people hate it, and it feels artificial for others, but it works easily for me after enough repetition.
Works for plural, not so much for singular.
gyaldem
I'm genuinely shocked at the statement, "I found the most peace via 'gal' . . . ." Using "gal" at most places I've worked in the past 25 years would be a career-ending, if not life-ending, decision.
You're furthering my point--I just can't win.
I call everyone guys. all female team, guys - like "Okay guys we need to get lending numbers over the the [master bank]"; mixed team, guys, only guys team (okay I don't have any, but if I did, guys)
"hey, all"
We could use "y'all", but I guess that's redneck-poisoned. Too bad, it's a good contraction.
Oh yes, many other battle wounds over "you guys is sexist" vs, as you say, "y'all is redneck poisoned".
I still do " you guys"
Sometimes even to a group of girls
My standard. Guys is now unisexed. (Gal I guess could work but then I sound like I stepped out of a 1930s movie)
You lost that one long before girl boss.
Take hotter than the center of the Sun: CA Dems should just all mob up behind Steyer, win, and go eat In-N-Out like so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaSVXIAKnoE
I still resent Steyer for overstaying his welcome in the POTUS race. Any time there's a close one, it's hard to say whether any one particular camel broke the straw back...but that doesn't excuse any given camel. Pointlessly setting money and attention on fire when both are limited qualities is Bad, Acktually.
But, yeah, if he moves up from 3rd place to 2nd or 1st in the polls, I'll be happy. Porter delenda est.
Porter is actually smart, whereas Steyer's a rich dolt. Had I my druthers, not a tough call.
Unfortunately, the insanity of the top-two primary means that strategic voting is much more important than my druthers.
Counterpoint: rich dudes who refused to drop out in 2020 had very nice spreads at their events (Bloomberg would bring in deli catering!) , this is why I'm getting on the Steyer Victory Train
I will concede this narrow point. My journalist roommate often gets sent out to cover Snowball McHell candidate events...which are boring and pointless, but the free food is a nice bonus perk. Same with doing weddings and food photography. That P-card only goes so far!
Spicy tuna take: electoral votes should be allocated based on the quality of candidates' craft services tables. Take the Iowa State Faire experience national!
If you can feed em', you can lead em'
The crackup between Trump and the right-wing podcasters is interesting because it illustrates the internal tension within conservatism over which is the bigger priority: opposing those who are most culturally alien, or opposing liberalism (democracy, political liberty, women's rights, religious pluralism, etc). Trump straddles that line but falls more in the former camp, while the podcasters are more in the latter camp. Vance is also more in the latter camp, which makes me wonder if he's capable of achieving a rapprochement with the Iranians where they prioritize their shared hatred of the libs over their differences. Ideologically they have some things in common! But that might well put him into conflict with Trump. On one hand, Trump was able to take a similar approach with North Korea, but Muslims are more of a cultural bogeyman than old-school Communists are these days.
People also probably forget that NK is nominally communist. Brutal dictatorship, sure, but it's really too weird with all the family's divine mythology.
The Divine Right of Kims
A much better article on girlbosses: https://glosswitch.substack.com/p/silly-little-women-with-their-silly?r=4sew0j&utm_medium=ios
I disagree on "much better" -- I read Slow Boring for articles *not* made entirely of snark.
It clearly is not 'made entirely of snark', you're either reading it very uncharitably/carelessly or you have problems with reading.
Thoughts on the breaking-news sexual impropriety allegations against Swalwell? It's not good, obviously, but big-picture anything that helps consolidate the D field is probably preferable...even given Trump's probable own-goal with endorsement.
(I'll still vote whoever the D ends up being, but...please, please don't make me vote Porter. Fine with appointing Rs to smaller local offices, don't trust them at the gubernatorial level. Not under this POTUS who keeps throwing federalism under the trolley.)
Receipts seem to be in order and the Dems REALLY needed to trim the field before the primary. Would not be surprised if this was an open secret since the timing was a bit too perfect for multiple reasons. Especially after Trump did the own goal of endorsing.
I'm not sure any of the low-polling candidates can resuscitate their campaigns (which would just create the same crowding problem). Most likely, it's going to be Steyer and Porter heading forward. And, I guess, I'd choose Steyer in the primary. Was probably going to choose Swalwell before this.
I was definitely on Team Warren and Porter a few years ago, but can't say I like how that movement evolved. But I'm for whatever keeps a Republican out. We have enough moderate Democrats in California that I don't care if the state Republican Party just turns out the lights and shuts down.
Feel ya there. I voted Bernie in 16 and 20, and...well...look at me now, on the centre-right (or far-right by CA standards). Don't love everything the CA Dems do, sometimes even the moderate bulwark lets stupid shit happen; the fact that this retarded wealth tax, with signatures aggressively recruited by pay-to-play masked buskiers, has real legs at all is a serious failing. And of course we still piss away tons of the world's 3rd largest economy's GDP on progressive windmill tilting to featherbed the NGO-industrial complex while the provision of basic government services limps along.
There's a lot of ruin in a state, to be clear, I just wish we could be extremely rich *and* a shining model of successful blue governance instead of extremely rich *and* the butt of decades of jokes about leftist mismanagement. That's where a not-insane not-totally-packed-in CA GOP would nominally come in. Alas. Don't think the timing lines up to call the flaccidity of the Republican Party out west a bellwether for the national party also not being able to raise real politicians, but it's not unrelated either. It's hard to imagine another Reagan happening. (Not in the sense of condoning The Gipper's politics, but that when we send our best to Washington, their jibs are always gonna be cut one way now.)
I'm still quite liberal (really wish I could still identify as a progressive). As for the GOP in California, they only exist to raise cash for the national operation due to the state's population and relative wealth. They have no intention to become relevant here.
Matt's take: https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/2042950405257138206
"This Swalwell situation was … shall we say widely rumored and it’s interesting that the gossip doesn’t seem to have made its way to all the big shots out west."
When I went to the brewery, I saw one accusation, and now it's ballooned into four. The odds of invoking of the Bill Cosby Rule increase....
Maybe Pete has an advantage here as a candidate. (He just needs to stay away from any really young staffers, which is what got our gay mayor.)
We just need to make sure our promising presidential prospects have a clearly defined sexual orientation. The gay men get all-female staffers; the straight men get all-male staffers, etc. Presto, no inappropriate workplace affairs....
I hate to be that guy, but is this really the standard we're adhering to, going forward? Swalwell denies any wrongdoing. Is he lying? I don't know. If I had to guess, I'd say yes. But the evidence against him is either hearsay or circumstantial, and I'm not comfortable with the idea that accusations like this should immediately end a politician's career.
The receipts are pretty solid here with lots of screenshots. Seems likely that this was a bit of an open secret so the "case" was probably built up beforehand. It might be a coordinated hit job, but it has the virtue of being true.
I don't think anyone's called on him to resign from the House, just to stop taking up space in the governor's race. This is definitely not the Al Franken era anymore.
Normally I would agree, but the CNN reporting is very thorough and pretty damning. They covered their bases on this one.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/10/us/eric-swalwell-sexual-misconduct-allegations-invs
We have two accusations of sexting from adult women who, by their own admission, freely participated in it. Is that sexual misconduct?
We have one accusation where the woman was so inebriated she doesn't seem to remember what did or did not happen; the only clear allegation she's making is that he touched her leg and kissed her without her permission. Is this sexual misconduct? Should it end a politician's career?
The one accusation of rape comes from a woman who again was so intoxicated she doesn't remember how she got to his hotel room. It's totally possible that Swalwell took advantage of the situation and raped a drunk woman. It's also possible that she's misremembering what happened, or has a score to settle, or some of both. The fact she told friends and family at the time doesn't prove anything.
Is "believe women" really the standard we're adhering to, going forward? And do you not see that shit like this is exactly why so many people don't trust Democrats in power?
Seeing as how the current trajectory of Swalwell's career is "making it much more likely that the next governor of California is a Republican," I am pretty comfortable with ending it by any means necessary. With extreme prejudice.
Agreed that hopefully it spurs a crackup that breaks the gubernatorial race impasse and gets others to drop out once a clear leader emerges.
You're telling me that the guy who got honeypotted is a sex pest? Can't be.
Porter + wealth tax just became more probable.
I'm not a professional at hot takes, but I think that Trump endorsing Hilton over Bianco is actually a pretty smart move.
Bianco is the more bombastic and naturally recognizable MAGA, make-libs-cry, character and I feel like sans-endorsement from Trump he would consolidate the CA GOP around him. But endorsing the milder Hilton keeps him in the race and raises the possibility that we end up with Hilton + Bianco top two which would be an incredible outcome for the GOP as opposed to the default of Bianco taking 30%, Porter 15%, and Hilton 14%. If not for how bad Trump is, I would actually wish for the dumb top-two system (with no write-in option!) to take an all-time bite out of the Dems behind.
Yeah...with a different monarch at the top of the ticket, I'd maybe even consider throwing a vote to Hilton (anyone related to Paris can't be that bad!), just because it seems incredibly hard to steer the CA Dem ship rightwards unless it crashes outright into a GOP iceberg. Happy that there's some possibility of reforming the much-abused ballot initiative process, and SF in particular might consolidate more power into the Mayor instead of the Board being the viziers behind the throne. But some levers can only be effectively pulled from the state-level Mansion, unfortunately.
Was it that long ago that Arnie was gov?
In direct years? No, I suppose The Governator was not so long ago, and I did not hate everything he did back then + since then. But then we had another rerun of Governor Moonbeam, and then Newsome survived a recall against a hilariously crowded field, and...bunch of other stuff happened. Life comes at you fast now more than ever.
I'll regret asking this - but what do they propose replacing capitalism with? Are we back to the Hallmark Movie town economy of vegan restaurants and feminist bookstores that somehow keeps everyone in upper middle class modern comfort?
How about a society where we work fewer hours, waste fewer resources on empty consumerism, and have more time for the really good things in life: love, nature, curiosity, family, friendship, adventure, creativity, rest, and reflection?
That sounds great as an outcome. How do you structure society to achieve that in a way that doesn't immediately fall apart?
Make the reduction of the working week an actual policy priority, try different things, see what works. The 40 hour work week is not an essential pillar of civilization.
No, it isn't an essential pillar of anything. In many contexts it is outdated or actively counterproductive. And I agree that's a great idea for a *goal* or *aspiration* that a policy or plan or society could have.
But, it is not a plan, or a policy, or a structure within which people can try plans and policies. In order to get to that goal, there needs to be an actual system that results in real humans doing the actual things that need to happen to produce and sustain that society, and prevents them from doing the things that would destroy it.
Here are some ideas that might help:
1. Decoupling healthcare provision from employment
2. Strengthening unions
3. Tax incentives to encourage part-time and remote work
4. Labor protection laws for employees who want to reduce their hours
5. Basic Income
6. Treating “leisure growth” as a measure of economic success that competes with GDP
7. Relatedly, accepting slower growth or even economic contraction as desirable if it leads to more leisure
8. An educational system that emphasizes curiosity, learning, and personal growth over preparation for employment
This is not an impossible ideal I’m suggesting. Many European countries already have shorter workweeks. We can look to them as policy models.
Separating employment from health insurance would have a ton of benefits in terms of stuff like added mobility.
I had a coworker for many years whose family owned a small business. She worked for us as a secretary because she had a diabetic child and couldn't afford health insurance on her own. This was a great deal for us (she was very smart and capable), but it surely didn't make any sense in the grand scheme of things for her to do office work for us instead of her family business just so her kid could get medical care without bankrupting her family.
I think most people don't realize how much health insurance as a part of employment chains people to their current jobs and prevents entrepreneurship. It's a kind of invisible tax on people with families leaving large businesses/government agencies to start their own businesses, retire early, etc.
I don't think anyone suggested it was an impossible ideal. These are all straightforwardly good or at least arguably good policy recommendations whether they lead towards the end goal under discussion or not.
However, if we want to make it to a point where everyone enjoys (the useful aspects of) upper middle class living standards (what @BronxZooCobra mentioned) with time to focus on love, nature, curiosity, family, friendship, adventure, creativity, rest, and reflection (your stated objective) this won't get us there, or anywhere close. That will take much, much deeper changes that will be very controversial, especially in terms of when and how they get implemented, because along the way they will empower and disempower various groups heavily invested in the status quo, including often to their own long-term detriment.
What do they propose replacing it with? Generally, they don't. This isn't a positive ideology of economics and governance. It's about tearing bad things down, not building good ones up, while denying the bad things have associated good things that will also get torn down.
*Any* real system would most likely fail to be acceptable, and would need to be taken down in turn, until and unless all humans become angels and no longer need systems. Or they pretend to make a proposal with too few details but which would very obviously fall apart in ten minutes in the hands of actual humans.
The libertarian catch phrase for this idea is "utopia is not an option." Basically, you have to compare your proposed system or policy to stuff that exists in the real world, not to the ideal world you can conjure up in your head.
If they just let us have cats at big businesses we wouldn’t need to shop at independent bookstores
"what do they propose replacing capitalism with?"
Kickboxing.
I think they propose an economy of tradwife influencers making some side money selling the goods they make on their farm, but making their real money running seminars on how to become a tradwife influencer making some side money selling the goods you make on your farm, while making your real money running seminars on...
"Under capitalism, man exploits man, but under socialism, it's just the opposite."
Most people are confused by capitalism, which is why I like the term free markets better. Capitalism or free markets at it's heart is people being free to buy and sell with whom they want and keep the fruits of their labor.
Moreover, capitalism and free markets ARE compatible with regulations to keep abuses of the system in check such as monopolies or worker protections as basically every developed country has already proven.
But alternatives to capitalism haven't faired so well in the wild. They don't scale well for the simple reason that people won't work hard if they can't keep the fruits of their labor.
I certainly know I wouldn't. If I can't get ahead why bother. Like we told the kids the other day, life's a competition. If you can't win, then you won't play
Agreed, I don’t know why defenders of capitalism would use that term. The term by its own name suggests you’re shilling for capital! “Free markets” sounds much better. And there are situations with things like monopolies or protectionism or various forms of regulatory capture where the interests of “capital” do not align with “free markets”.
It’s also confusing when discussing with people on the left because many people on the left include things like colonialism within capitalism because a lot of the colonial empires were internally capitalist (leading to a discussion on a thread on this blog a few days ago!) even though most people don’t consider colonialism to be part of capitalism. It’s just a confusing term and “free markets” is less confusing if what you mean is just you want less government regulation.
I mean, capitalism is fundamentally about someone *else* (viz., the shareholders) keeping the fruits of your labor…equity is essentially a claim on proceeds.
As Nikuruga points out indirectly, you confuse "shareholder corporations" with "capitalism"- a frequent innumeracy. As a general matter the vast majority of businesses in any given economy, including US, are not shareholder corporations, but varying things like Partnerships, Mom&Pops sole proprietorships (often not even organised as a company), etc.
Mistaking a sub-set of companies that employ ~a third of employees for Capitalism is a error from the get go.
The fact the equity owner has brought tools and money - capital to work with makes in a modern economy the labor possible and more valuable. It is literally why we are all vastly richer, even in the poorest countries, than we as a species were in the 18th or 19th centuries, despite now having a populatoin of 8odd billion versus under 1
In theory, yes, but in practice publicly traded corporations typically award employees with equity more so and can feel less hierarchical than a lot of manager-owned firms like law firms.
It's literally the opposite. Under capitalism you negotiate with someone else what your labor is worth and get paid a market compensation for it. The fruits of your labor are worth what you're selling your labor for.
Under communism you get told what to work on by someone else and your compensation has no relationship to the value it provides. If it's more valuable than you're being paid someone else is literally keeping it.
Firstly, I was not contrasting this communism, but rather the state of nature prior to the existence of joint-stock companies. The essence of capitalism isn't "not communism" it's "the separation of ownership from control and the sale of equity to fund enterprises in the form of a claim of on enterprise profits and/or proceeds of enterprise sale."
Secondly
>>If it's more valuable than you're being paid someone else is literally keeping it.>>
This is also how it works under capitalism. You're not employed unless your employer generates an economic surplus from your employment, which doesn't happen unless the value created exceeds your wage. If you work in the oil patch and the price of oil goes up, that doesn't mean your wage does.
>>your compensation has no relationship to the value it provides>>
Sort-of true under capitalism depending on definitions used except that as the value provided is a ceiling on compensation and anything below that is a potential bargaining range. You're competing with other labor suppliers to provide the highest value to the employer at the lowest marginal price, which doesn't have any necessary relationship (other than the aforementioned wage ceiling) to the level of surplus provided. Farm laborers literally provide the food that keeps people from starving--basically the highest subjective surplus around after oxygen--and they're paid peanuts, because they compete with numerous others independent of the surplus they create.
"The essence of capitalism isn't 'not communism' it's 'the separation of ownership from control and the sale of equity to fund enterprises in the form of a claim of on enterprise profits and/or proceeds of enterprise sale.'"
No. The essence of capitalism is property rights. If you make a thing, you own it. If you own a thing, you may do with it what you wish.
Under this definition homo habilis making stone handaxes were capitalists.
Your analysis is shot through with errors, of which the idea that labor surplus, a typical marxian simplicity.
Of course one could work in pure Partnerships form where one takes on 100% of the equity risk of laboring - no profit, no money.
that most people don't opt for such - because outside of abstraction by Marxian innumeracy, it is sucky high risk - is a general indicator
I would accuse you of being simple, given your apparent mistaking of me for a Marxist and your conflation of whether capping upside returns for lower downside risks is likely be positive-sum for whether it’s consisent with “keeping the fruits of your labor.” You are mistaking a descriptive claim with a normative one.
The fact that labor creates a surplus in excess of its wage is just a precondition of employment: worker that produces $14 of value per hour at a wage of $20 per hour does not remain employed ( nor in the general case can they and the enterprise remain solvent).
And the fact that the value created has no necessary connection (other than as a ceiling) to wages is just an effect of competition and marginal effects: food has high subjective utility but low price due to high competition and low input costs, production of food has low input costs in part because farm labor has very low pay, in turn because there are lots of bidders to sell their labor (who implicitly don’t have higher-return markets in which to sell, or else Baumol effects or market exit would elevate wages) — conditions that are all independent of the surplus value created by labor whether conceived of as subjective use-value or as exchange-value (the gap between which comprises the sale bargaining range). It’s just more interesting for goods with high subjective use-value becuase the intrinsic demand is self-evident so it’s clearer that the effects on price are dominated by competitive equilibria rather than by total surplus value created. It’s no particular surprise that a peddler selling knickknacks on the side of the road makes a poor wage, because there’s limited demand for the product. If you want to use a market with a high prices and revenues but a low prevailing wage there’s always acting, finished textiles or handbags or other LVMH-type products, electronics assembly, or adjunct-taught academia.
Pre-capitalism wasn’t everyone running a small business; it was mostly people working for feudal lords who were both the owners and controllers of capital. People enjoyed even less of the fruits of their labor under the pre-capitalist system, and even Marx considered capitalism an improvement over previous feudalism. Modern businesses that don’t separate owners from controllers from large law firms to family-owned restaurants tend to be significantly worse places for non-owner employees to work than comparable publicly traded corporations where the managers are not the owners but also are accountable to shareholders.
Yes, quite right although one need not even go to feudal lorders, if one was in crafts one was generally subject to being under a Master craftsman and nothing in the historical record suggests that was a wonderfully free and enabling experiene, quite the contarary, I think grindingly exploitive would be the phrase.
Of course even in free-peasantry lands, most farmers labored for other larger farmres or did quasi-feudal other labor (as returns on small farms are shit, and
The early colonial mass exodus (mass relative to being able to afford to get a spot on a ship, even allowing for becoming a quasi-serf to pay that off) to get land in the Americas from W. European countries without fuedal lands says much.
The price of oil can also go down and the company makes a loss. Does that mean that the service that the laborer provides is negative?
In a free market the economic surplus from labor should be theoretically low. If there's a large difference you could go to a different employer or start your own business and get around that. I recognize that it's more complex in the real world, but it is more fair than alternative systems.
The only objective way to assess value is on economic terms. We can argue more about subjective measures. But a society that, say, paid teachers more than succesful entrepreneurs would end up with both poor teachers and poor entrepreneurs.
Pop quiz time! Without looking it up, guess who said the following:
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Which, of course, it has. Capital accounts for about 20-25% of GDP. The rest is labor, which keeps a much larger share of the total. Without capital, labor would produce much less per unit of effort. You can tell by looking at how our ancestors lived, back when they had to make literally everything within a small band of people on unimproved land. In modern terms, the raw productivity of labor without capital is maybe just around $1,000/yr. Some capital is human capital, which the laborer owns. The rest is physical capital, or more abstract forms of property, which they generally don't.
And the real return on capital, as Piketty showed us, has averaged 4-5%/yr since antiquity. If returns rise (either because capital is scarce, or because someone opened up a new way to make more productive capital) then investment/savings rise and bring it back down. If it falls, people don't bother saving as much and it rises.
(I don't remember if this part was in Piketty, but it seemed natural to me to assume that this rate was a stable attractor state because it meant an owner could enjoy the full value of their savings and then pass it on undiminished to their children ~14-20 years later, or about one biological generation for most of history)
Abraham Lincoln.
Keynes?
"A disloyal portion of the American people have, during the whole year, been engaged in an attempt to divide and destroy the Union."
Friedrich Hayek.
Adam Smith
No, I think the prose is too modern for that, but you're sort of on the right track.
"Are we back to the Hallmark Movie town economy of vegan restaurants and feminist bookstores that someone keeps everyone in upper middle class modern comfort?"
You forgot architecture studios and handcrafted carpentry workshops, but yes.
My wife had the discussion about the architects in movie's the other day. It straddles the line between manly construction, but creative artist.
That's almost exactly what I've said about the frequency with which (virtually always male) architects turn up in (almost always) romantic/romantic comedy movies -- it's an "artistic" profession, but "manly" because it allows the character to usually have a scene where he's wearing a hardhat and work clothes when visiting a job site, and it popularly codes as an upper middle class profession.
I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions OF that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting--by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
Be QUIET! I ORDER you to be QUIET!
We will all live on a collective farm. I shall write poetry, and you shall weave tapestries. No one will ever have to grow food, unless they want to do gardening as a hobby.
those non-existent fairy tale towns are such an uplifting fantasy though don't burst my bubble!