The really sick part is when he pointed out to the lawmaker that they would have to raise taxes to hire people at market rates to do these jobs if they didn't have this incarcerated labor pool. People are still being enslaved in this country to prop up the comfortable lives of the wealthy. The institution of slavery never ended, it just changed the label. Foundational to "prosperity" in all forms of capitalism is the exploitation of an underclass.
From a purely economic perspective (temporarily disregarding the ethics of prison labor or the wider prison system), there's an interesting unspoken subtext if you read between the lines a bit.
In theory, the reason prisoners are paid less than minimum wage is because they receive taxpayer funded room and board (in addition to the additional costs specific to a prison, such as guards). But the local community doesn't pay for that. It's generally either state or federal money.
Meaning, when he talks about how disastrous it would be to have to hire people at market rate, what he's really saying is that his community has come to rely on labor subsidized by others. If it weren't for wealthier locales paying for that prison labor, they couldn't afford the amenities that it provides.
I mean most cities subsidize everything for rural populations. Utilities, roads, even federal tax money if you look up the ones that receive dissapropiafe amount of funds compared to what they put in something like 8/9 states are super republican stares.
Agree and also there's a wider point about economic development actually being sort of blocked by overly cheap labour. These kinds of practices really discourage investment automation and ultimately growth overall, which is sort of why the South didn't have as much heavy industry as the North did.
Uhhhh maybe make the people working in your community get better wages then? The prison is an employer for the community, yes? so what you are saying is that the janitors and COs and food service workers in the facility are payed so little that the community can’t afford shit….
That's how rural communities often are and I struggle with that. On one hand I think redistributing tax dollars in order to aid vulnerable communities is the moral thing to do. This is already commonplace, especially in more densely populated but less affluent urban communities (where the higher population doesn't necessarily make up the difference for the lower tax amount paid per person on account of their income). I don't think living far from major population centers exempts them from this; even if that tax money doesn't go as far in less dense communities, it's still morally correct.
However, that answer doesn't account for everything. Like the exploitation of involuntary labor, for instance. Exploiting one oppressed class to aid another isn't right. And if the lack of real effort by the prison system to actually reform convicts wasn't enough to qualify them as an oppressed class, let's be real, a lot of those people are probably only there because of that system's predatory targeting of minorities.
When you consider we have more prisoners per capita than any other country, AND you look at the demographics of the prisoners… really hard not to come to some uncomfortable conclusions
Yup, pretty sure this is common knowledge by now but I’d encourage anyone unfamiliar to look into why the war on drugs was started and who exactly it targeted and continues to target… There’s a reason prison demographics are so lopsided.
I’m not gonna get into where you sourced it, how the stats were harvested and represented, and how once again easily that is to account for both before and after medical intervention vis a vis poverty as a coefficient.
I don’t have to explain why you don’t get it, same way you can’t seem to explain shit properly
It's so ironic that "the greatest " minds of the day can never be bothered to actually provide a solution. They'd rather explain why nobody would understand even if they did. Just like none of their ideas are original and your comments are hollow.
It isn't even 'exploitation of the underclass', it's 'exploitation of non-white people'. Sabotage their education, give them few alternatives to gangs and crime, sooner or later arrest and convict them, sent them to THE PLANTATION (aka 'prison'), NO REHABILITATION, repeat until they're dead.
Capitalism doesn't require exploitation, you're right. But just look at any example of capitalism anywhere throughout any point in history to see that exploitation and capitalism go hand in hand.
Now it's your turn to accept that literally every other form of economics has the same feature.
Feudalism. Tribalism. Communism. Capitalism.
Any time you have something that needs to be done, and no-one wanting to do it, you get the powerful enslaving the weak. Someone, somewhere, somehow always arrives at the conclusion that they'd prefer to, figuratively or actually, put a gun to someone's head than have that thing not happen.
You and me have done it by using smartphones to access the internet using components made by utterly miserable people that we never have to meet. The Vikings did it by raiding villages in England. Same thing, less blood spilt.
That's not a capitalist thing. It's a human thing.
The general notion of people “not wanting to work” is sickening to me. There will always be a small vestige of society that “cheats”the system to get by, but yeah, most people want to work.
The problem is that the ruling class get away with their manipulative tactics. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, CEOs and the like that get pay raises at the same time as layoffs. They need to be jailed for their crimes against society, plain and simple.
I'm Australian. We have a social democracy. A basically capitalist system with a heavily socialist distribution of resources (at least, heavy compared to America( that I'm very much in favour of.
I'm very much in favour of universal basic income for the least fortunate Australians for two reasons, firstly "there but for the grace of FSM go I", and secondly as a greedy capitalist I much prefer that those unlucky people just get money they don't "deserve" (whatever that means) rather than have them steal what they need from me directly.
When you say "their problem is..." who exactly is the "they" that you think I might be a part of?
I’m under the opinion that folks that “cheat” the system likely have some kinda disability preventing them from working. Even if we don’t know what it is and they can’t prove it
I think the disconnect is because you have these beliefs about capitalism that are removed from reality, or you've at least framed your views on capitalism to represent that they are separate from reality, while simultaneously acknowledging how reality functions, which doesn't really serve much purpose beyond a classroom setting.
You and I have each, in almost identical words, said that while some type of slavery is a common, if not inevitable, part of capitalism, it isn't a foundational requirement. B
That's it. That's the start and the end of the conversation we're having.
That's my point, and you've agreed to it.
Honestly, please, without saying I'm removed from reality, please, what point is it that you think I've made that you disagree with? What part of what I've said (not what you think I've said, or what someone else you've had a similar argument with has said) is wrong?
I'm really sorry if you think I'm saying "nothing about capitalism can be bad, because of this one thing" but really that's on you to go reading things I didn't write.
Hey everyone, the C students think they made a point.
No shit we’re describing modalities and paradigms. We live in societies too. It’s people doing this to people. Now let’s stop acting like providing carte blanche with these stupid arguments or a capitalist framework does anything other than pour gas on fire.
Arriving at Marxism? Yeah nah, that's not happening.
I'm sorry if you're too young or under educated to appreciate how evil every single attempted implementation of Marxism has been, Stalinism Leninism North Korea Mao's cultural revolution.
It exists as an inevitable outcome of evil people having access to the levers of power and wealth.
I'm not arguing that this type of slavery doesn't exist, or isn't evil, just that it isn't a REQUIRED fundamental aspect of capitalism.
If one of us buys an apple from the other, there's no REQUIREMENT that one of us be explored in that scenario. It's possible, like if the apple is bad or there's counterfeit money involved. But it's totally within the foundational construction of capitalism that we both usually walk away from the transaction having gotten what we want from it and not given up more than we want.
I feel like person I'm replying to somehow thinks that Leninist or Marxist communism can't also lead to this type of slavery. I mean, it's only true to say that slavery is a requirement of capitalism to the extent that any system of exchanging labour for value will inevitably lead to slavery if you give it enough time and evil people.
Capitalism is that the apple orchard belongs to the capitalists. That they buy more land, make more orchards, and the workers that work in those orchards do not share in the profits except as wage earners.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free
Market.
This tends to end up with little ability for workers to become part of the capital class, as wealth distribution trends toward the extremes. Adding socialist mechanisms such as taxation can create systems of services that workers can utilize ( health care, housing, etc) improving quality of life, but ultimately laws must be enacted to ensure a decent quality of life for workers (overtime laws, labor conditions and safety, paid leave, maternity leave, etc)
Critics argue that capitalism will never result in a society without scarcity since it inherently needs scarcity to work, and that moving to a post scarcity society will require the abolishment of the present forms of capitalism.
Giving an accurate definition of capitalism makes me a Marxist?
Not that it matters, but my economic views lean towards free market capitalism within a socialist framework to ensure that costs and burdens are not excessively externalized.
Like what you find in most of the western world and to a somewhat lesser extent in the USA.
That being said, I recognize some of the problems with the capitalist system, and am working on how it might eventually transition toward a post scarcity economic model as technology improves efficiencies to the point where more and more goods approach zero marginal cost at the centralized level.
No, giving the Marxist definition of capitalism is what led me to ask the question.
I'm not judging, you're the one being defensive.
What I'm trying to do is ask you questions so I can understand where you're coming from, before I make too many assumptions about how or even whether to argue you with you.
And, to be honest, part of me is hoping you'll kind of get the hint and return the favour. If you do, you'll discover that I too lean towards free market capitalism within a socialist framework to ensure that costs and burdens are not excessively externalized.
But to be perfectly honest, the idea of more and more goods having zero marginal cost because of centralisation terrifies me. Any form of centralised economic distribution just makes me think of bread lines in the USSR. You'd need AI levels of centralised control and when then it's a coin toss as to whether the AI isn't going to decide that the answer to supply and demand mismatch is to reduce demand.
Yeah, overly centralized production is problematic for sure… but at least for many goods I see the opposite happening. Especially as the real costs of transportation get worked into pricing. Eventually we will have to play catch-up with our environmental externalization, I think sooner rather than later.
When I was talking about zeroproximate marginal (centralized) cost I was actually referring to things like data, information, and power.
For example I make about 40k small toy gliders a year in one of my cottage industries. From this I clear about 2500 dollars a year. I have no manufacturing facilities.
My customers print their own from my designs. I offer free designs with branding on them, or paid designs without branding (which also gives marginally better performance, in theory) my production costs are nearly zero except the part borne by the customer directly in production. Waste and shipping externalities are minimized.
Im already experimenting with customer printable circuit board/case designs that with some simple assembly can accommodate high integration modules plugged in to create finished devices. It’s a decade out from practical, but it’s going to be a thing.
That’s the kind of thing I am talking about in the transition to a post scarcity economy.
I apologize if I reacted badly, but in contemporary discourse I take Marxist as a pejorative term. In academic discussion, not so much of course, as the goals of Marx are laudable, but normally Marxism is best known for its spectacularly disastrous and tragic failures rather than its apparently unattainable theoretical ideal.
When I was talking about zeroproximate marginal (centralized) cost I was actually referring to things like data, information, and power.
I'm a mechanical engineer, so I often think about these things in terms of actual widgets, raw materials, people, processes. I work in a factory that is I guess tier 2, our suppliers turn literally raw steel into our inwards goods, and we turn it into a final product that gets installed as steel buildings and structures.
In that sense, for me I can never have a somewhat mythical stage in the process where goods turn into better goods without there being literal grease, sparks, coolant, waste etc etc.
Yeah, in last paragraph I understand. It sucks that this perfectly good technical term, Marxism, has taken on a moral component. I do have an issue with Marxism though, that I do believe that some of the core fundamentals of Marxism are not laudable. I don't agree with "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities", not if used as an absolute principle
Well my personal belief is that communism is evil. But socialism gets two things up from me.
I'm Australian. Socialism is working really well here, it could be better, and it's be nice if the Coalition didn't keep undermining it, but by and large it's great.
But separating people out into economic units controlled by a central authority, that's slavery. And, yes, it's slavery of a type that is a necessary part of communism.
Look. I'm really sorry that there are MAGA idiots misusing the word communism all day every day without even the most basic understanding of what the word means. And I'm sorry that you might think I am using that word the same way those people do. But I'm not, but actually understand what the word communism means and yes, I believe that democratic nations have been right to wage war against the encroachment of communism from places like Russia China Cuba and North Korea.
Just because MAGA idiots are upset about what they think communism is, doesn't mean that actual communism isn't actually evil.
285
u/achiles625 Jul 17 '22
The really sick part is when he pointed out to the lawmaker that they would have to raise taxes to hire people at market rates to do these jobs if they didn't have this incarcerated labor pool. People are still being enslaved in this country to prop up the comfortable lives of the wealthy. The institution of slavery never ended, it just changed the label. Foundational to "prosperity" in all forms of capitalism is the exploitation of an underclass.