Whole Foods' Co-Founder John Mackey: "Why Intellectuals Hate Capitalism"

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I don't believe in private property.

Word? Lets really see how far you go with this concept

I'm not saying how he should spend his money. I'm saying he has no right to own others work. I'm saying that's not his money.

The organization of labor sustains the continued employment of those working in the deli and the cashiers.

Did you forget this?

I'm using his numbers.

Nationalism and nation states are directly responsible for countless deaths and will be responsible for many, many more. How are they good or desirable?

Pros and cons my man.

Gotta drop this fairy tale where intimidation and leverage doesn't exist.

In as much as you want to live in this ideal bubble where your own section of the world does well, you'll suffer from the ambitions of your neighbors and limitations within your own borders.

A la, North Korea

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I find it REALLY hard to respect someone who says they don't believe in private property

I hope you're not out of college in the real world yet...

You don't even have to be in the USA...in fact, i'd rather you at least have a few passport stamps so you can get some perspective out here

@Swavy Karl Marx

 

[King Kreole]

Crony capitalism is pure capitalism. That's what capital does, it expands, it seeks control. It'll create a government in its image, with no exception. Stalinism and Maoism are doctrines that are theoretically for transitionary periods. They aren't meant to be communism in the actual sense. That's what The Great Leap Forward was about, trying to get to communism.

Regardless, they don't operate under a socialist means of ownership. The people who work the factories don't own the factories. The men who plow the fields don't own the fields. It's theoretically public ownership but state ownership usually doesn't work that way.

I don't care about his compensation, I care about the idea that someone can "own" a company. He who works the fields owns the fields.

Communism has a habit of ending up in tolitarianism for a couple reasons. The first being Lenin's idea of a vanguard party. The most important being Stalin's hijacking of the party's machinery and making it into a rubber stamp congress. The final being the western and Soviet worlds propaganda of this being true communism.

- I'm not sure if i'd say that crony capitalism is pure capitalism. Capitalism is a broad ideology and often times can allow for a strong state to regulate market rules. In fact, big businesses illicitly using political influence to rig the game to their benefit is anti-Capitalist because it ends up stifling innovation, which is the engine of progress in a Capitalist society. Who was calling for bailouts and promoting the idea of "too big to fail"? It wasn't Capitalist purists.

- It looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree about ownership. I don't think the person doing low skilled labour is as valuable to the enterprise as the person who created the idea and is overseeing the totality of its operation, so I don't think they should receive the same benefit. Most left-wingers have this romantic idea of doing hard labour and really earning it through back breaking labour. I think Steve Jobs is far more useful and valuable than Mike in the factory who is picking up boxes. It's the difference between working hard and working smart. Both are admirable, but the latter is more useful.

- Western propaganda has it's place in the discussion of the historical evolution of communism, but there's a reason why actual people were on mass looking to leave these "Communist/Socialist/Totalitiarian" regimes, often risking life and limb. And it happened over and over again. I'm talking China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Pull up a list of of countries that have embarked on this journey and see how many you would have rather lived in than the countries that have used Capitalism as their organizing ideology. It's easy for us to sit in Starbucks and pontificate on the unfair shake that these nations have encountered and how terrible Capitalism is, but the situation on the ground in these countries was fukking dire.

 

[Tate]

I'll simplify even more, all he's saying is:

"Those who can't do, teach"

And thats probably why he feels such...disdain, if not ...aversion to perceived "highfalutin intellectualism"

And he's idiotic to say that. He likes Friedman, he just doesn't like what most intellectuals have to say. His trying to tie intellectuals with aristocrats is funny if one has even a microcosm of knowledge of history.

No.

Just.

No.



Specialization of labor GAVE some of these fieldworkers jobs. NEVER forget that.

Specialization of labor is great. Control of others labor not so much.

Pros and cons my man.

Gotta drop this fairy tale where intimidation and leverage doesn't exist.

In as much as you want to live in this ideal bubble where your own section of the world does well, you'll suffer from the ambitions of your neighbors and limitations within your own borders.

A la, North Korea

I would weigh the rape of Africa, genocide of America, and subjugation of Asia a little heavier than the contributions of nation states

I find it REALLY hard to respect someone who says they don't believe in private property

I hope you're not out of college in the real world yet...

You don't even have to be in the USA...in fact, i'd rather you at least have a few passport stamps so you can get some perspective out here

@Swavy Karl Marx

You understand by property I mean economic tools correct? Not your home or clothes or toothbrushes.

 

[JahFocus CS]

When I refer to "pure communism" i'm referring to ideology, not practice. It's reasonable to believe that the Soviet Union and China never achieved "true" communism, my question is why that is? My hypothesis is that it's not possible because of certain, endemic factors in humanity. I think it's better to work with those factors to create a society that is as progressive and prosperous. To keep pining for this hypothetical eden is foolish, especially when we've tried it and it's almost always ending in total disaster. Also, the Soviet Union didn't have worker ownership and management of production? This is the first time i've heard someone claim that the Soviet Collectivization process is a myth.

Of course the battle over crony capitalism is between small business owners/purists and big business owners/bureaucrats. The small business owners have more to gain from a competitive marketplace than big business guys. It's up to the government to enforce the fair play rules. Naturally, when the small business owners become big business owners, they will flip and try to rig the market for their own interest. Yet again, a strong system is needed to enforce the rules. This is all acknowledged and built into capitalistic theory.

It's not so much Communism that is genocidal/racist, it's the regimes that attempt to implement it that invariably become so. Can you name one medium-to-large scale historical civilization or society that you would consider truly on the way to communism, or is this something that is going to be perpetually out of reach? And if it's the latter, perhaps we should think about why it is so.

It's not simply "reasonable to believe" that the Soviet Union or China never achieved communism, it is a fact. They didn't even achieve socialism. How could they reach a stateless, classless society?

Communism exists on the horizon of socialism, not because of "certain, endemic factors in humanity," but because of resource scarcity. Communism requires us to overcome scarcity. Until that point, we have to take stock of what we have, decide what we want, and do the best we can with that.

State control does not equal worker ownership and management of production. The breh @Swavy Karl Marx pointed this out earlier if I'm not mistaken.

States are not neutral arbiters. They are instruments of class rule. This is why the petit bourgeoisie has a vision that leads nowhere: a) capital will always push toward "crony capitalism," even if we had that starting point of just small business owners with a "disinterested" government; and b) when challenged by the working class, the bourgeoisie (petit or otherwise) will resort to force and beef up the state.

I don't think in the same terms breh. Socialism is a global project of the working class. There have been experiences that the class can take lessons from - the Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, Cuban Revolution, the Black Power Movement, etc., etc., These have revealed important lessons, like socialism in one country isn't feasible, how the working class and peasantry can build an alliance and how that alliance is sustained or subverted, etc.

 

[Tate]

E

- I'm not sure if i'd say that crony capitalism is pure capitalism. Capitalism is a broad ideology and often times can allow for a strong state to regulate market rules. In fact, big businesses illicitly using political influence to rig the game to their benefit is anti-Capitalist because it ends up stifling innovation, which is the engine of progress in a Capitalist society. Who was calling for bailouts and promoting the idea of "too big to fail"? It wasn't Capitalist purists.

- It looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree about ownership. I don't think the person doing low skilled labour is as valuable to the enterprise as the person who created the idea and is overseeing the totality of its operation, so I don't think they should receive the same benefit. Most left-wingers have this romantic idea of doing hard labour and really earning it through back breaking labour. I think Steve Jobs is far more useful and valuable than Mike in the factory who is picking up boxes. It's the difference between working hard and working smart. Both are admirable, but the latter is more useful.

- Western propaganda has it's place in the discussion of the historical evolution of communism, but there's a reason why actual people were on mass looking to leave these "Communist/Socialist/Totalitiarian" regimes, often risking life and limb. And it happened over and over again. I'm talking China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Pull up a list of of countries that have embarked on this journey and see how many you would have rather lived in than the countries that have used Capitalism as their organizing ideology. It's easy for us to sit in Starbucks and pontificate on the unfair shake that these nations have encountered and how terrible Capitalism is, but the situation on the ground in these countries was fukking dire.

Capital inevitably seeks to dominate the state. Free marketeers are hopelessly optimistic. Under any circumstance, capital will attempt to set society to benefit itself, the government included.

I don't disagree that idea guys are more valuable than ditch diggers. I don't see why the idea guy gets to decide what the ditch digger receives for labor but the inverse isn't true.

I'm talking about the western propaganda that said Stalinism was communism. The west spent hundreds of years beating on people than started telling them communism was evil and capitalism was good and that the west was capitalism the soviets(the guys advocating for the beatees freedom) were communist. Not hard to see how the world ended up with so many mini stalins.

 

[King Kreole]

It's not simply "reasonable to believe" that the Soviet Union or China never achieved communism, it is a fact. They didn't even achieve socialism. How could they reach a stateless, classless society?

Communism exists on the horizon of socialism, not because of "certain, endemic factors in humanity," but because of resource scarcity. Communism requires us to overcome scarcity. Until that point, we have to take stock of what we have, decide what we want, and do the best we can with that.

State control does not equal worker ownership and management of production. The breh @Swavy Karl Marx pointed this out earlier if I'm not mistaken.

States are not neutral arbiters. They are instruments of class rule. This is why the petit bourgeoisie has a vision that leads nowhere: a) capital will always push toward "crony capitalism," even if we had that starting point of just small business owners with a "disinterested" government; and b) when challenged by the working class, the bourgeoisie (petit or otherwise) will resort to force and beef up the state.

I don't think in the same terms breh. Socialism is a global project of the working class. There have been experiences that the class can take lessons from - the Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, Cuban Revolution, the Black Power Movement, etc., etc., These have revealed important lessons, like socialism in one country isn't feasible, how the working class and peasantry can build an alliance and how that alliance is sustained or subverted, etc.

- Isn't collectivization of property one of the fundamental socialist tenets and a large steps on the path to Communism? We agree that the Soviets and the Chinese never achieved communism, but surely they are the 2 pre-eminent examples of states that have attempted the transition, no? I mean, they collectivized 90+% of their agricultural lands, organized their political systems around worker's dominance to an unprecedented degree, strictly enforced economic central planning, and had worker veneration as the central social ideology. What other state or civilization could claim to have given Communism a more thorough try than these guys?

- Resource scarcity is not an excuse for the failure of these communist states any more than running out of tarmac is an excuse for a plane failing to take off. When they embarked on their Communist experiment, these states had just as many resources as many capitalist states that have prospered. The problem is they didn't allocate their resources efficiently because of their ideology. Central planning made their resources inflexibly allocated and very susceptible to stagnation. Free markets are simply far more efficient when it comes to economic prosperity.

- I agree that states are often not perfectly neutral arbiters, but that's just an example of our imperfectability. It's the goal of a capitalist purist to promote state neutrality and enforcement of equal market rules. Otherwise you get crony capitalism and the system becomes gummed up and less efficient than it could be. I'm sure there will always be some degree cronyism in capitalism, just like there will always be crime. But that doesn't mean we admit policing to be a useless venture and shut down the force. If challenged by workers, yes, the bourgeoisie does have a tendency to utilize whatever power is at their disposal to fight it, but the workers use whatever power is at their disposal to fight their battle too. The history of worker-owner relations is a constant back and forth, and that's not a bad thing. It prevents stagnation and promotes competition. Neither side should be all powerful. I have no problem calling out a too-dominant bourgeoisie, like what happened during the bailout.

- I'm fine with the idea of Socialism as a global project, I just haven't seen anything in history that has convinced me that the basic elements that Socialism has struggled with can be overcome. I prefer the tried and tested system of Capitalism that has provided the biggest gains in human history. That doesn't mean we should stop trying to make it an even more efficient system, just that we already have a great framework to use.

 

[Tate]

State domination isn't workers domination. How many times does it have to be restated?

 

[JahFocus CS]

I'm gonna have to take a break for a few hours and come back to this thread. There are just some basic, foundational things that aren't being grasped in here.

 

[King Kreole]

E


Capital inevitably seeks to dominate the state. Free marketeers are hopelessly optimistic. Under any circumstance, capital will attempt to set society to benefit itself, the government included.

I don't disagree that idea guys are more valuable than ditch diggers. I don't see why the idea guy gets to decide what the ditch digger receives for labor but the inverse isn't true.

I'm talking about the western propaganda that said Stalinism was communism. The west spent hundreds of years beating on people than started telling them communism was evil and capitalism was good and that the west was capitalism the soviets(the guys advocating for the beatees freedom) were communist. Not hard to see how the world ended up with so many mini stalins.

- I agree that capital inevitably seek to dominate the state, but that greed is already accounted for in capitalist theory and doesn't nullify the gains to be made. In fact, it enhances them, given there is a functioning government in place. Cronyism is but a leaf on the tree of prosperity that grew from the seed of greed that was watered by capitalism. It's important to prune the leaves attentively, but we shouldn't be cutting down the tree.

- The west has definitely utilized propaganda, and there is obviously a well documented history of geopolitical manipulation in the Cold War battles has, but that doesn't excuse the logic gaps in Communist theory.

 

[King Kreole]

State domination isn't workers domination. How many times does it have to be restated?

how exactly are you defining worker domination and can you provide an example of such on a national level?

 

[Tate]

how exactly are you defining worker domination and can you provide an example of such on a national level?

Workers domination is workers control of their labor. A factory worker in Detroit controls their share of the car they built. A textile worker owns the shirt they sew.

- I agree that capital inevitably seek to dominate the state, but that greed is already accounted for in capitalist theory and doesn't nullify the gains to be made. In fact, it enhances them, given there is a functioning government in place. Cronyism is but a leaf on the tree of prosperity that grew from the seed of greed that was watered by capitalism. It's important to prune the leaves attentively, but we shouldn't be cutting down the tree.

- The west has definitely utilized propaganda, and there is obviously a well documented history of geopolitical manipulation in the Cold War battles has, but that doesn't excuse the logic gaps in Communist theory.

So if cronyism is but one leaf, are racism, fascism, genocide, colonialism, and terrorism leaves as well? Does genocide warrant a singular leaf or a separate leaf each time?

To me they read more like saplings, making up the glorious forest of pseudo-free markets.

You are not understanding my point. I'm not saying we think Stalinism was bad because of propaganda. I am saying that people commonly view stalinism as communism because of western and soviet propaganda.

 

[Madvillain]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

And he's idiotic to say that. He likes Friedman, he just doesn't like what most intellectuals have to say. His trying to tie intellectuals with aristocrats is funny if one has even a microcosm of knowledge of history.

but thats his opinion though, but being an intellectual doesn't mean any realistic implication of said ideas is equally valuable.

Specialization of labor is great. Control of others labor not so much.

Whats the difference?

I would weigh the rape of Africa, genocide of America, and subjugation of Asia a little heavier than the contributions of nation states

These have nothing to do with the discussion.

We're talking about the division of labor and the compensation for work, not geopolitical conflict. Stop straw-manning with emotional genocide pleas. Its corny...and you're better than this.

You understand by property I mean economic tools correct? Not your home or clothes or toothbrushes.

You should use your words more carefully then.

You said specifically you don't believe in private property...economic tools now? Word? Because if my "economic tool" is copyrighted, then what say you then?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

It's not simply "reasonable to believe" that the Soviet Union or China never achieved communism, it is a fact. They didn't even achieve socialism. How could they reach a stateless, classless society?

Communism exists on the horizon of socialism, not because of "certain, endemic factors in humanity," but because of resource scarcity. Communism requires us to overcome scarcity. Until that point, we have to take stock of what we have, decide what we want, and do the best we can with that.

State control does not equal worker ownership and management of production. The breh @Swavy Karl Marx pointed this out earlier if I'm not mistaken.

States are not neutral arbiters. They are instruments of class rule. This is why the petit bourgeoisie has a vision that leads nowhere: a) capital will always push toward "crony capitalism," even if we had that starting point of just small business owners with a "disinterested" government; and b) when challenged by the working class, the bourgeoisie (petit or otherwise) will resort to force and beef up the state.

I don't think in the same terms breh. Socialism is a global project of the working class. There have been experiences that the class can take lessons from - the Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, Cuban Revolution, the Black Power Movement, etc., etc., These have revealed important lessons, like socialism in one country isn't feasible, how the working class and peasantry can build an alliance and how that alliance is sustained or subverted, etc.

The black power movement had nothing to do with socialism.

Social equity is not the same as economic equity and you'd be foolish to assert this or even think it was in the remotely same realm.

Socialism isn't a working project of everyone. Damn near everyone has a side hustle these days, in your communist paradise the aren't permitted.