The Capitalism Success Lie
Posted by desocupad0@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 68 comments
Isn't it funny how poverty definition excludes the ability to raise families - i.e. having humans on earth?
-sussy-wussy-@reddit
Hahaha! I love it when tankies blame one singular thing. We didn't even have a baby boom under USSR. Former republics, especially the more secular ones, have some of the lowest birth rates in the world.
Yes, we did retain a LOT of things, such as public transport, universal healthcare, a looooong as fuck parental leave (3 years) + unlimited times + impossible to fire during it. We also still retain legal abortion.
The deciding factor is women's education and access to the job market. Not a single country in the world has managed to reverse the falling birth rates without taking women's rights away and reducing is to livestock again.
Lastly, there are 8.4 billion humans and counting. We're not under any threat of extinction through underpopulation, if anything we will go extinct because of environmental destruction because there's just way too fucking many of us.
Our species has existed for about 100k-300k years. The humans that are alive right now constitute a whopping 8% of all humans who have ever existed at any point. Maybe, just maybe we need to stop growing like a cancer tumor.
The super-pollutants, such as the world logistics, agriculture and the world's manufacturing plant (China) only pollute so much... Because they need to provide for 8.4 fucking billion people. They aren't just producing and emitting carbon for the love of the game.
It's also incredibly ironic that you are spewing the capitalist propaganda yourself. The only beneficiaries of the oversized working class are the oligarchs. Remember that plague epidemic in the 13th century that wiped out 60% of European population? Guess when did the first ever labour movement began. That's right, after the prole stopped being so abundant.
Low_Complex_9841@reddit
> when tankies
I know today this term has quite prescie meaning - supporter of deadly military force as used by USSR mid XX century. But I often circle back to earlier years, like 1920x. Is it really hard to imagine why "Everyone contribute to our defence!" was popular, after damn Civil War, Intervention, and whole WW1 FAIL still fresh in people's living memory? It even come in handy when mustache dude decided "slavs" are better dead than alive .... I often wonder if USSR picked different, more argarian or at least less militaly-focused path - to what kind of outcome it will lead? Years of occupation and third world status foreva? Some kind of ninja partizans becoming legendary not due to their firepower but ability to resist deadly force when time come? With no Soviet block will neoliberalism run its course just much faster, eating and burning planet even before we come to our 20202s? There is no psychohystory, but sometimes IMO it worth it to try and plot various ...connections.
lorarc@reddit
The main benefit of russian revolution was that western countries shifted more towards democracy and then social democracy. Because the elites were afraid of their own lower classes getting ideas.
But it was bound to fail, even Engels wrote that a revolution in Russia will fail or degenerate and then it did. If you want to play whatif rather try thinking what if the revolution in Germany succeeded.
Low_Complex_9841@reddit
> what if the revolution in Germany succeeded.
In very weird way part of Germany was partitioned out as "soviet block East Germany"? But yeah, 25-30 years after 1917 .... With like "-10% population" and heavy destroy in WW2 .... Based proto-EU of course better than just СЭВ (note russian language article is much longer). I think there were fears of China joining soviet block as productive force, and it was used as reason for more nuclear arms production in USA in 1950s? But China-soviet (Moscow) split happened, and eventually China turned to limited (?) capitalist integration... so we have what we have. China did develop some tech base in last 50 years, but also integrated in this whole neolib order ...fueling profits over everything game. And all those economic booms do not last forever, so ...future is cloudy at best.
lorarc@reddit
I'm obviously not talking about that. There was a revolution in Germany in 1918 and a communist uprising in 1919.
And I have no clue why you would think comecon is proto-EU when European Community of Steel and Coal was started after war in western europe and EU comes directly from it. If anything you could call it proto-BRICS.
Low_Complex_9841@reddit
well, discourse on reddit (or other "social" sites) fragmented, so I answered not only your comment directly but whole idea what "communism in one country is impossible". Well, USSR was like 14 countries in trenchcoat, and there was some kind of Soviet/socialist block lately. I also hardly can imagine Stalin just saying yo, world revolution is delayed at best, go back to capitalism everyone. So, building _something_ in one *group* of countries worked mid-term but failed longer-term ...... Germany-lead block probably had a bit better chance at being attractive in high-quality technology/design, but I am not sure how scalable it is? I think Actually Existed Socialist block failed to update what IS progressive (like ecology, minorities ...), and also failed to at least lessen this alienation between worker and work. People were working not for each other, but for abstract entity feeding them via money. So if socialism was supposed to be 1st stage in two stage rocket ....it failed mid-flight before second stage had its chance to ignite or at least emergency abort whole project .....
-sussy-wussy-@reddit
Nowadays this is often referring to Westerners who are, for some bizarre reason, fans of Communism. I, for one, am glad they didn't "win" and fell apart.
From uravnilovka and the caste system to colonialism (towards every single republic not belonging to the titular nation) to genocide (Holodomor) to GULAG to total isolation and ideological control when abroad to general incompetence and disregard for human life (of its own citizens) in every single military conflict. "Бабы еще нарожают". And then there are the other similar movements that metastasized from this cancer (Juche, for instance).
Same attitude is present in Russia right now, fully on display as it terrorizes my country. All a result of negative selection during Soviet times. Whole block is still 70 years behind the first world because of that. Yesterday's nomenclature and KGB became the modern-day oligarchs and politicians. The way I see it, it was just another iteration of the Russian empire, its successor in many ways, even though it proudly claimed it was anything but.
Low_Complex_9841@reddit
> as it terrorizes my country.
As you can see here USA (top) quite successfully terrorizes USA (bottom) ... States do this, as noted by Anarchists. Feel free to explore what history may look like if Anarchism was guiding principle during those century-old times .... Despite existence of Anarchist Library actual implementations rarely depicted adequately IMO.
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
USA is terrorizing everyone, as always. specially anyone seeking an alternative to it.
I think most communists don't see USSR as the only possible path to communism that's why they don't feel that hatred. Russia seems fucking nuts in everyway it ressembles the USA.
Keep in mind that the Korea has been split, razed and embargoed since 1950. And the whole world is complicit due the "UN veto power". Cuba is (apparently) a more sympathetic victim since 1960 with the world seeing the vetoed motion to lift that embargo - which became a medieval siege this year.
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
If it was less military - it probably would suffered as much as Korea suffered. Every building razed and proxy governments aligned with foreign interest.
The (military) choice was imposed by an external pressure. But then after it was forcefully disolved - it became quite similar to the USA - a big arms and weapon related industrial conglomerate.
Low_Complex_9841@reddit
well, by 1991 Red Army was not People's army already, otherwise they ought to stop restoration of capitalism (I am fairly sure link to document trying to figure out "excess' deaths in 1990 was circulating here on reddit - number was in tune of millions. Hey, my mother disappeared in this time! speaking about personal anecdata ...). I obviously dislike whole ...militarization of psyche that, after end of full generation (70 years) turned out to be ....just not helping? So probably there is lesson somewhere in there (prof. revolutionaries better to watch for their ...professional deformation?) , but I am not sure it can be actualized by current and future people ....
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
You went on several angles there I blame this partially on the ambiguity in my presentation.
But even your current society and the previous USSR regime still have/had those life essential things commodified (and scarce).
I didn't make any claim about who benefits from the worker labor - but you correctly pointed at the oligarchs.
The logical thing is that the worker labor should have been have be used for the worker's benefit, yet the worker (or even person without work) is not getting it (that's why I listed things beyond childcare).
Alphatron1@reddit
Don’t forget the whole raising your kid for 15 years and then they get shot at school while the police wait outside because theyre scared
Coco_Cannibal@reddit
Or die of preventable diseases or accidents, because healthcare is either too expensive or too slow/far away/overcrowded
Untura64@reddit
Sir, not everyone here is from America.
Coco_Cannibal@reddit
Dying because the ambulance is too late, because the healthcare has been stripped starting DURING COVID is a German thing though.
BitchfulThinking@reddit
Or be kidnapped and trafficked, since the world is run by sick pedos
lorarc@reddit
USA has (and had in the past) higher fertility rate than scandinavian social paradises. 3rd world countries has higher ferility rate than 1st world countries. Generally the worse the conditions the more the kids.
It's not about poverty, though it doesn't help, it's about expectations. People were okay living with 6 kids in one room, not they want each kid to have their own room. People were okay with sending 4 year old kids to play alone outside, now they are expected to watch the kids every seconds until they are teens and even then they need to chauffeur them around until they're adults. It's not about money, it's about time.
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
The redefinition of poverty to include the capacity for social reproduction (raising a family without structural squeeze) shifts the entire debate from narrow economic metrics (caloric intake, infant mortality) to a biological and social standard: can a society reproduce itself under dignified conditions? By that standard, neoliberalism has produced not poverty reduction but a new, more insidious form of impoverishment – one that even the global north cannot escape.
Vendrah@reddit
I think - no, I am actually somewhat confident over this - that this is related to how job works under societies under this form of capitalism we know. Many traditional societies have one partner (commonly the mother) semi-jobless to take care of the child and some other house affairs, while the other works outside of home a lot (commonly the father). This formation did allowed to have a parent with the child basically all the time, which in the end is essential to the children in their firsts years no doubt.
Then, the inclusion of women on the labour market wasn't compensated in any ways to compensate the parent absence, nor did anything changed so the father can take more care of the children and replace the mother's absence. With both partners working outside at the same time, the children lacks a supporter. This inclusion also masked work hours in terms that they had a drop in average yet in real terms, people in general are working more. Now instead of one partner working around 50 hours outside, we have two working normally 40 hours outside (with a new total of 80 hours of work). With the absence of a child caretaker that is actually a parent, new costs comes with the need to hire either another childcare taker or even to drop kids to institutions of care, and these cost money, are potentially less reliable (although of course not all the time). This combined with high increase of costs you pointed (which reduces REAL purchase power - that in no way is income alone), did caused the demographic drops.
Workers today have even less right than they used to - at least in my country but probably in many places around. No compensation was ever made for this shift - there is no such transition to a 30-hour standard combined with a law that guarantees workers with child to have one parent to work on the morning and the other working on afternoon to guarentee the children the presence of one of them all the time. Nor works really allow their children to stay with them and be giving attention while they work. This shift made children caretaking and "creation" to be way more complex, and even exhausting and costy (since the absence of a caretaker at mid-day in the least means an extra cost to putting the kid at an instituition to take care of), meawhile some "primitive" nations still have actual flexible work in many possible ways, which includes "informal" work with real flexible hours on the side of the worker and/or a "full-time" parent.
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
If also add that the old total also was 80. And poor people always had mothers working outside more often than not.
Vendrah@reddit
But with that comparison, you have the premise that today no one works at home, which is completely false. And I also meant both parents in the role, if mothers working outside, than a parent or at least a relative could take care of the kid. Today, almost everyone is busy at 9am-5pm.
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
Many house work activities are much faster, but woman are disproportionately making the double shift with these .
Vendrah@reddit
Much faster? I highly doubt that. I am pointing facts, actually. its not about if I am against or pro women on the job labour market. Its this change without any compensation that is related to the issue.
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
Dish washer, washing machines, robot vacuum, tap water, electric shower, microwave, food processor, modern cleaning supplies, fridge, modern ovens, shaker, toaster, supermarket
Those things honestly made life easier. But then we also have new needs. And social parasites sucking out time out of us.
cdulane1@reddit
This is an extremely interesting viewpoint. Thanks for sharing.
DCrebuilds@reddit
I don't think you used this meme correctly
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
How would you have done it? (it's literally the second meme i made in my life)
The-Real-Lucifer-666@reddit
You are claiming that a DECREASE in poverty leads to a DECREASE in fertility in the first panel. You said LESS POOR PEOPLE MEANS LESS BABIES. Even capitalist propaganda isn't that dumb.
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
If you literally type this things in mentioned in caps, a text generator will spew "yes".
And frame it as a choice priorization, woman emancipation, reduction in child labor relative value. It's really dumb propaganda as you have put.
The-Real-Lucifer-666@reddit
Your English is horrid first of all. Second off all your literary are an imbecile if you think for a moment you would realize that literal math is calling you an idiot. It's an inverse relationship. Do you know what inverse means or are you dumber than a 5th grader? People have more money therefore can afford more children in theory not the other way around. Do you need it explained in a different language? What language do fools speak? Seems it is broken English based off what you typed.
More resources = More people you can care for
If you are gonna make a joke at least make it make sense.
collapse-ModTeam@reddit
Hi, The-Real-Lucifer-666. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/collapse for:
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Unequal_vector@reddit
“Total demographic collapse” should be the pink giant. The yellow ball’s text should remain unchanged in both panels.
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
I see - the usual interpretation is the person getting the ball, not letting it go but then the pink monster prevents them from grabbing it.
pocketgravel@reddit
Here's an example
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
That would be a much more consistent use of the meme. Feel free to repost it.
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
Yet i was spot on :p
WildFlemima@reddit
Your idea as explained in your comment is spot on, your idea as explained in this meme is suboptimally presented
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
I took the interpretation of the change of light in the bottom panel as both a reframing from the top propaganda and the true nature of capitalism (which is why the text overlaps both the octopus and the system).
My first meme was an "it's fine" with a similar message, 5 minutes earlier.
PenaltyFine3439@reddit
There's many reasons people aren't having kids today.
Many of us, myself included, aren't emotionally mature enough to attract a loving partner to start a family with in the first place.
I also can also only afford the one bedroom apartment I live in, the single gas efficient small car I have and the food I need to eat to survive. There's no room in the budget for feeding a wife and children too.
It just is what it is. And I'm ok with that.
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
So the system convinced you that the problem is either your fault or your choice? Is being a working adult and unable to afford family is very normal given our productivity rates compared to the past?
PenaltyFine3439@reddit
I'd say yes. But I know plenty of people with less than me that have 6 kids. They are getting government assistance, but their kids are not living a life that I would want for my own. But, they're doing it.
Is being a working adult and unable to afford a family a bad thing? Is there maybe another purpose for us besides procreation on a seemingly overpopulated planet?
new2bay@reddit
Funny you should mention government assistance. If you’re only considering direct assistance programs like SNAP, WIC, and TANF, the total benefit amount isn’t even enough for me to consider raising a dog, much less a human.
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
I have a kid, i never wanted a kid. and I still don't want a kid. (I can afford it tough). The ability to reproduce is a basis for biological life - we have this whole societal organization that prevents it instead of promoting it - and it frames this as "poverty reduction".
So I say, yes, the existence of a society where being unable to afford a family is common place is a bad thing. Like we see in the worldwide demographic collapse.
It won't be a "old rich people die and wars end scenario" it will be a "mad orange man authorizes nukes and invades countries as the country has been doing over the last 100 years".
PenaltyFine3439@reddit
Even if I had the perfect wife, perfect job, I was the best father I could be - I still don't think I have any chances of raising the genius we need to save the world.
The worlds problems are far too complex and I'm not even going to try to solve them. Just live while I'm here and hopefully die as painlessly as possible.
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
That reminds me of the voluntary human extinction groups from orkut. (through not reproducing, not self harm)
Personally - I hope this meme can help in a way - decommodification of life essentials (and fending off Capitalism) can help - depending on how the collapse occurs.
new2bay@reddit
I just don’t believe it’s ethical to bring life into the world.
Grand-Page-1180@reddit
How do you define emotional maturity?
PenaltyFine3439@reddit
People who aren't emotionally mature have drug or alcohol problems, trauma they haven't worked through properly and they can't maintain healthy relationships with people.
I'm an alcoholic, but I'm at least clean and sober now. I'm not wired for relationships. I struggle with my own problems. So, I stay single.
WildFlemima@reddit
A lot of opportunity to grow into emotional maturity can only be accessed when one is secure in other tangible respects
Own-Medium5232@reddit
There's no need for humanity to continue.
Low_Complex_9841@reddit
Aah, this too :( I thought yesterday that if we somewhat imagine perfectly anarcho-communist solarpunk Earth for 1 billion of humans who can do tech, art, and talking with dolphins without coercion ... this society better to have some engineered stability for both relatively sharp population increase AND decrease. If only 10% out of 1 billion had additional kid - you look at 100 mil more lives (? check my math), and if same 10% had one kid LESS - you look at minus 100 million humans! It even bigger at 2 billion, or 4.
I think modern educational system works as a sieve, filtering small numbers of "professionally capable" to run hi tech sectors. I am not sure this method, inequal as it is, can survive total population reduction down to 1 billion ....... even if this reduction plays over centuries "naturally" (? if man-made climate change squize humans deadly for centuries to come - is it natural at all? ) . I wish we learn how to care about complex systems, like forests, rivers, communities and space-flight capable civilizations ... But well, /me is not unicorn.
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pENUV9DLa2g
It took Adam 2 other atempts to get there.
ddgr815@reddit
https://www.alexnowrasteh.com/p/the-culture-crutch
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
I didn't like the tone the site uses while strawmaning social science. While it had a fair point "saying culture is the cause of something is often a non-explanation of that phenomena" it derailed from it at every point.
To put it bluntly the opportunity cost mentioned in the site is at every cost mentioned in the meme (which led to a few people paradoxically seeing this meme as motivating something the regime wants but doesn't really incentives - self preservation).
If anything "people don't have babies because they are actually relatively poorer and (have to) pay (individually) for a lot things" - the meme message - should be somewhat in line with what the sites underlies as an actual worthwhile explanation rational economic explanation.
commesicetaithier@reddit
That's a huge cope. Third world hellholes have plenty of babies. Women simply don't want to be baby factories, and that's a good thing, a society thinking about its future would focus on improving qualify of life and preventing aging instead of making more slaves for oligarcha in a demographic pyramid scheme.
BillieRubenCamGirl@reddit
It is wild how much you have to abuse a mammal to make it or want to breed.
That is happening to us. Silently. All the time.
BellaRyder2505@reddit
I hope the populations go down more and more. 😊
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
Have you already picked up on old person habits? because most people will be old.
Justdowhatever94@reddit
Its ok, Canada has Maid
BellaRyder2505@reddit
Okay and?? 😂
AttitudeSure6526@reddit
Agreed. The planet can not sustain the current population numbers.
HardNut420@reddit
I don't think the economy has anything to do with people not having kids poor people typically have more kids anyways and also there was more abject property in the past and people still had kids if anything being more poor might mean you are more likely to have kids
AttitudeSure6526@reddit
There were also far fewer means of safe, effective, and accessible forms of birth control.
Ree_For_Thee@reddit
Random Q: What do you think are some good complementary subs to this one?
I'm on r/skeptic but I'll take tips.
desocupad0@reddit (OP)
I like r/debatecommunism. That makes me more idealistic than the average person here.
r/antiwork has a very compatible frame of mind. It leans more on annoyance, desperation than apathy.
StatementBot@reddit
The following submission statement was provided by /u/desocupad0:
The redefinition of poverty to include the capacity for social reproduction (raising a family without structural economical squeeze) shifts the entire debate from narrow economic metrics (caloric intake, infant mortality) to a biological and social standard: can a society reproduce itself under dignified conditions? By that standard, neoliberalism has produced not poverty reduction but a new, more insidious form of impoverishment – one that even the global north cannot escape.
It's a society that cannot care to biological reproduction. I say capitalism is a "memetic virus" in every sense of the word. And like any virus, it is killing the host.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1suwzr8/the_capitalism_success_lie/oi43njo/
StatementBot@reddit
Hi, thanks for your contribution. Your post requires a submission statement (a comment on your own post) of at least 150 characters. It looks like you included text in the post body, but this is too short.
Since post text can't be edited, please add a comment instead. Your submission statement should summarize the content and explain why it's relevant to our sub.
If a submission statement is not added, your post will be automatically removed.
This is an automated message. Responses to this comment are not monitored. Please message the moderators if you believe this was an error.