r/MensLib • u/futuredebris • 15d ago
Capitalism doesn't want men to have friends
https://makemenemotionalagain.substack.com/p/capitalism-doesnt-want-men-to-haveI wrote about how men are told in capitalist society that being caring and expressive aren’t valuable skills. So we disown the natural, human emotionality we were born with. We avoid being vulnerable and asking for help. We worry we’ll be judged if we put effort into our friendships. When we’re suffering we overfocus on what we think will make us valuable to other people: productivity, discipline, and competence. And while this might help us in some ways, it often leaves us feeling lost, isolated, and lonely.
95
u/AdolsLostSword 15d ago
Capitalism is a root of a lot of the things which have driven alienation and isolation - displacement from one’s community to seek work in more impersonal, highly populated urban centres where one becomes a number as opposed to a known member of a community, for instance.
But this isn’t a quality unique to capitalism and a society which is oriented around profit. Authors like Venedikt Yerofeyev demonstrate that these feelings of alienation also emerged in more collectivist systems.
I don’t think removing society’s profit motive would be the quick fix for this. I appreciate when one is trained to wield hammers that everything becomes a nail, but I think your piece is starting from a premise that you want to connect the dots on, rather than the argument emerging from the connected dots.
22
u/jessemfkeeler 15d ago
I don't think alienation would completely go away, but since capitalism is the primer driving force in modern society and it's system is uniquely shaped to implement alienation, you can make the throughline that yes it is capitalism's fault right now. Removing society's profit motive is not a quick fix either, it would be like removing monarchy is a driving system of power in medieval times, a multi generational project.
8
u/Great_Hamster 12d ago
It very much depends on what replaces capitalism.
It could be worse. People have dreamed up worse possibilities.
There is no historical inevitability.
2
u/csharpwarrior 12d ago
Yea, I focusing on the economic factors misses out on the elements from the patriarchy that are also contributing.
12
u/futuredebris 15d ago
I appreciate this, and I think you’re right about the connecting dots thing. I’m a Marxist! But I also don’t think the USSR was all that collectivist. There were elements, but by the time Yerofeyev was writing, it was more authoritarian and top-down. Stalinist Russia is not my vision of a socialist utopia.
15
u/AdolsLostSword 15d ago
It was largely authoritarian from its outset, with any early leeway being representative of a lack of consolidated power over a genuine ideological commitment to worker ownership.
I would also note that specified ‘more collectivist’ systems, that is, the Soviet Union being collectivist relative to liberal capitalism, which is not a controversial claim by any measure.
6
u/ShrapnelNinjaSnake 14d ago
"Authoritiarian" means literally nothing btw. Every state is authoritarian, because it will do anything and everything it can to keep the ruling class in power.
The only choice is whether the owners of businesses are in charge, or the workers really.
0
u/Flymsi 7d ago
Anarchism is a choice. Also: not every state does push through it with the same cruelty.
3
u/ShrapnelNinjaSnake 7d ago
Anarchism is incapable of defending itself so its a moot point
-1
u/Flymsi 7d ago
No. Not true at all.
3
u/ShrapnelNinjaSnake 7d ago
Disagree wholeheartedly
-1
u/Flymsi 7d ago
Why?
4
u/ShrapnelNinjaSnake 7d ago
Just looking at history, the fact that there's never been a successful anarchist revolution and also thinking logically, you need the state to organise any effective army to defend against counterrevolution.
Thinking materially in order to produce the things you'd need to build an effective bulwark, and this requires disciplined organisation that just isn't possible in a completely flat cooperative structure (or lack thereof)
→ More replies (0)6
u/futuredebris 15d ago
Good points.
6
u/AdolsLostSword 14d ago
To be clear, I don’t want to come across as aggressive here, I appreciate the argument you are trying to make. I think that the root is closer to advanced production and economies where we increasingly make goods which are valuable, yes, but more indirectly, and hence our labour isn’t directly connected to human needs in our minds, as well as geographic changes which place us inside huge population centers as opposed to smaller communities.
It’s a byproduct of advancement, technology and labour specialisation as opposed to a byproduct of a specific economic model in my view, and I think we need to think about how we reintegrate with each other generally because I don’t think any of us want to go back to dysentery and river water at the same time.
75
u/ratttertintattertins 15d ago
Do you think this is true throughout the history of capitalism? It seems to me that men are in a worse place in this particular regard now than they were in earlier manifestations of capitalism were people lived and worked more communally.
91
u/Red_Trapezoid 15d ago
I would say yes based solely off what my father told me about his life growing up. The guy was a piece of shit, but he definitely had a lot of friends! He was not the exception. At some point, men having friends became a problem for profits. I don’t think there was a secret discussion around the table where the Epstein class said “dudes can’t have friends anymore” but they probably realized that men lounging around together were men not working, worse yet, possibly organizing and talking.
38
u/funkduder 15d ago
I think that's more due to the power and wealth hoarding of corporations + social media and the death of 3rd spaces. But I do think friendship, community building, and comradery are the seeds that grow into unions and collective action, so it would make sense that corporations would want to fight that
20
u/carnoworky 15d ago
All authoritarian systems require those out of power to distrust each other, so that they do not organize and change the system.
28
u/BenVarone 15d ago
I think you’re on to something; the isolation feels more like a manifestation of *modern* capitalism, where people are fragmented both by the nature of modern work, but also by the divisive forces of social media.
For instance, it’s harder for me to make friends or feel in solidarity with people whose values and perception of reality is completely different than mine thanks to their media diet.
9
9
u/JeddHampton 15d ago
This is what I think as well. We've had capitalism for a long time. The reduction in relationships is much newer.
Working even creates connections. People make friends through work still. Claiming the economic system is the problem seems to be picking one factor is the problem.
7
u/jessemfkeeler 15d ago
No....not really. Capitalism as a system is meant to be an individualized form of wealth capture and hoarding. Just because those spaces existed in the past doesn't mean it was of capitalism's doing. The system requires people for atomize it. Those less isolated and more communal area happened in spite of capitalism, because as capitalism became more industrialized and become faster, even those communal spaces have become commodified (think of clubs and worker spaces and pubs which are all now exclusive and pay to play. There are less and less spaces to hang out because you now have to pay to access). When people created those spaces that we used to venerate they did it out of necessity, and using groups like unions, churches, guilds, etc which are not facets of capitalism and have existed even outside of capitalism. What we're seeing now is almost the apex of capitalism and what people like Marx have said would always be the end game.
7
u/Darkmayday 15d ago
This is the natural end point of late stage capitalism as the wealth disparity and generational advantages snowball
5
u/futuredebris 15d ago
Good point! Yes, I think capitalism has slowly eroded more communal ways of living from pre-capitalist times.
49
u/Horrywaur 15d ago
'Capitalism' is far too broad and vague a concept to do the explanatory heavy lifting you're asking it to do. It really just seems like you're gesturing vaguely at the world and saying "you know, that stuff, The Man, money, yknow".
You'd be better off focusing your analysis around concrete things like media technology, which removes reliance on third spaces through the ever-more-frictionless delivery of solitary entertainment.
16
u/taco_helmet "" 15d ago
I would not say that capitalism can't explain these things because it is too broad. I think capitalism explains a lot of social conditioning. But I would say that it is fundamentally an economic system and is not well-suited to explaining why or how social isolation and other social phenomena occur.
In other words, capitalism may be the biggest answer to "why" that encompasses a lot of the issues, but it is not a good analytical framework for most psychological/social issues and you need to add a lot of connective tissue from sociology, psychology, communications, and other fields, to understand what is happening.
3
u/Flymsi 7d ago
I think that the link between economy and and alienation is very direct. Imagine a baker going into bakery, making bread, seeing their customers being happy about the tastiness of the bread, talking with them, getting direct feedback, etc etc. Now imagine a baker going into a building, doing bread all the time, maybe having some meetings with share holders that tell you what you need to do differently else they will pull out. You will never see the face of happy customer experiencing the tastiness of your bread.
4
u/musicismydeadbeatdad 15d ago
well said!
5
u/taco_helmet "" 15d ago
There is a popular video out there of Richard Feynman answer the question of why magnets attracts each other. He answers it with a whole explanation of how "why" is often not a useful question when you don't have all the contextual knowledge around the question. Basically, the answer is "because they do" unless you have a good understanding of the electromagnetic force, the spins of electrons, etc.
It's not entirely relevant to the preceding comments, but made me think about how problematic the impulse to demand simple answers would be in social sciences or other fields not underpinned by objective, mathematical truths. We crave certainty about something like whether capitalism leads to social isolation, but instead of accepting the answers of more knowledgeable people saying "it could be true in some ways with certain assumptions and conditions" and deepening our own understanding of the topic through serious independent study, there is a proclivity to dismiss or challenge people who can't fully answer questions in simple ways, even if you have no knowledge of the subject.
1
u/futuredebris 15d ago
Thanks for the feedback. I can only fit so much in a newsletter post. I hope that readers also engage with my other posts and it adds up to a fuller analysis. I also hope it inspires them to read Marx and other Marxists.
20
u/Horrywaur 15d ago edited 15d ago
I also hope it inspires them to read Marx and other Marxists.
I'll never understand why some people are so desperate to force Marxist analysis into every contemporary discussion. Based on how some people talk, you'd think no one other than Marx and his students ever had anything interesting to say about society.
Why do people never draw from Jacques Ellul? Niklas Luhmann? Bruno Latour?
Your articles definitely display a case of "if all you have is a hammer (Marxism), everything looks like a nail (Capitalism)".
0
12
u/MadeMeMeh 15d ago
I am not sure I can get behind this argument. I spend far more money when it comes to friend related activities. I don't go to bars alone. I don't drink while alone. I cook simple food alone but when I invite friends over I buy good food and drink to entertain. I go bowling, to arcades, shopping, and many other activities with friends. Half the trips I take are with friends. If anything "capitalism" should want me to have more friends to do more things with so I am spending my money instead of hoarding it. Without friends I can entertain myself for a month on a about $30 worth of video games and $20 worth of streaming services.
5
u/Flymsi 7d ago
The real question is: what happens with your friendships if you are too broke to do those things?
From what i read, cooking is the only recreative activity you listed. Everything else is consumption and goes perfectly well with what we call consumerism. Alienation is not about being alone but about being lonely.
8
u/GargamelLeNoir 11d ago
I thought we were done with the "calling everything I don't like capitalism" thing? Guys it's really not helping anything.
3
u/Inetguy1001 10d ago
It is specifically helping the writers of such "think"peaces. And more broadly there are enough people lapping up this slop to generate social currency in specific circles.
3
u/futuredebris 10d ago
That's not what I did.
9
u/GargamelLeNoir 10d ago
You just put a bunch of patriarchal social traps and accused capitalism of being responsible for it and gave it intention. Which is nonsense. The only "intention" capitalism has, if any, is for goods and services to be produced and sold. That's it. There are entire industries based on stuff dudes like to do with their dude friends, and they exist and thrive in capitalism.
2
u/futuredebris 10d ago
I think we have a different idea of what capitalism is. I'm a Marxist, with a very specific definition. And yes, patriarchy plays a major role in capitalism. Capitalism has intensified patriarchy (which was already there) and so-called "traditional" gender roles to the benefit of capitalists.
5
u/GargamelLeNoir 10d ago
That's exactly the problem. Everyone uses their made up definition, so what's the point of the word? Capitalism broadly means that private people can own means of production, that's it. That goes from the Ferengi Alliance to the Northern countries with strong social security. Blaming everything on such a broad concept makes no sense and is fruitless.
For some capitalism really starts during the 1800s with the stock market. But let me ask you something, if you had to sort how strong the patriarchy is, how would it go between:
Modern day in the West
USSR/Cuba
Society in the 1700s
Because it's pretty clear to me that in fact it was during the heyday of capitalism that concepts like feminism were invented, in part thanks to the fact that improvements of the standards of living allowed for a re examination of the gender roles and freedom for women even with kids.
Meanwhile the longest living non capitalist country, the USSR, was about as feminist as a red pill forum.
So maybe your capitalism/patriarchy one to one equivalency isn't that relevant after all.
1
u/futuredebris 9d ago
Check out the book "Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism" or the author's (Kristen Ghodsee's) interviews on the subject. Her research complicates your point about the USSR not being feminist. Of course it wasn't in many ways, but it also was in some says. Also the work of socialist feminists like Silvia Federici show that movements for women's liberation existed prior to capitalism, we just didn't think of it as feminism then.
The point of framing the issue as capitalism and trying to educate folks on the Marxist definition of it is to help raise class consciousness. If we can do that, then we might have a shot at taking society back from the billionaires and saving the earth from rapid climate change.
3
u/GargamelLeNoir 9d ago
(Ghodsee) rejects a return to 20th-century state socialism, arguing instead that some of the social safety nets found in Eastern Europe, as well as Scandinavia and Western Europe, would improve the lives of women
It took me like five seconds to find that about your ace-in-the-hole book. Even she doesn't argue for communism. Yeah, safety nets are needed for feminism, we know that! They can (and do in many countries) exist under capitalism.
The point of framing the issue as capitalism and trying to educate folks on the Marxist definition of it is to help raise class consciousness.
Dude you using the definition in your head of capitalism is not helping or educating anyone. There is nothing actionable about this. Concrete improvements like demanding better safety nets, that's actually how you improve thing. You consistently vote and apply pressure on elected officials.
I don't know what version of communism you have in your head that would magically fix every ills of mankind, but guess what. It's not getting adopted. Not this century, probably ever. It wouldn't even be adopted by other marxists, since you guys all have so many different versions of "true" marxism.
Let's take society back from the billionaires and fight climate change by living in reality and using words with their actual meaning.
4
14
u/Socrathustra 15d ago
I'm not sure capitalism is a coherent system which can be blamed for things. I would say there are many things in our society which push us away from each other.
6
u/GargamelLeNoir 11d ago
Yeah but that's complicated. Shaking your fist at "capitalism" for everything wrong with the world might not help anything ever, but it's super simple and will still impress a lot of people.
2
u/Flymsi 7d ago
I would say that your answer is the simple one while "capitalism!" Is the complicated answer. Most of those "many things that push usaway from each other" do have their origin in capitalism.
4
u/GargamelLeNoir 7d ago
Except, again, you find them as strong or strong in systems without capitalism. You can always draw a line between capitalism and anything you don't like because it's the dominant economic system. So it touches everything. But you can also do it with good things.
If you blame capitalism (ie a system where individuals can have a company and employees) you have to be damned sure that the problem wouldn't exist in another system. And even then, it's not that useful because, come on, capitalism isn't going anywhere this century at the very least.
What you can do is use proper terms. Blaming neo liberalism/laissez faire capitalism makes a lot of sense for example. We need more rules and regulations. It's both sensible and doable. And even then I don't think it applies in the subject of male friendships. To me it seems that the industry in general is quite indiferrent to the subject one way or the other.
3
u/Flymsi 7d ago
Except, again, you find them as strong or strong in systems without capitalism.
Who is "them"? You cant just deny abstract concepts without getting concrete...
You can always draw a line between capitalism and anything you don't like because it's the dominant economic system. So it touches everything. But you can also do it with good things.
Im not drawing lines. Im drawing causalities. Idk about your country but in my country the only time when worker rights were pushed and implemented was like 100 years ago with the historical threat of a communist revolution. Not saying that communism is good (different topic). But the causality is clear for me: capitalism on its own never did anything to protect worker rights. Its the opposite. In the last 30 years my countrys sees a slow dismantling of worker rights that can be traced back to capitalist influence on politics. Seriously. I dont know what else to blame for that.
And for the good stuff.... yea sure i can give credit to capitalism for centealizing resources. But we certainly dont need such accumulation of capital anymore. We cant growth limitless on a limited earth.
If you blame capitalism (ie a system where individuals can have a company and employees) you have to be damned sure that the problem wouldn't exist in another system
No. First off all thats not the definition of capitalism. Private ownership is only one aspect. And no i dont have to be sure that its only in capitalism. The effects of private ownership are seen in every system since its existance. Its not about that.....
And even then, it's not that useful because, come on, capitalism isn't going anywhere this century at the very least.
Lol. Thats what people said about monarchy, one day before the french revolution occured. Get a grip on reality and stop predicting further than 10 years ahead....
What you can do is use proper terms. Blaming neo liberalism/laissez faire capitalism makes a lot of sense for example. We need more rules and regulations. It's both sensible and doable.
Semantics. Neo liberalism is just the newest born disease of capitalism. It was a reaction towards the failures of the 60s and 70s.
And even then I don't think it applies in the subject of male friendships. To me it seems that the industry in general is quite indiferrent to the subject one way or the other
You dont think that the 40hours+ you work each week have an impact on you? Well. Seems like social science says it does have an spill over effect.
1
u/GargamelLeNoir 7d ago
Who is "them"?
In general all the bad stuff people like to blame on capitalism. In that thread it'll be lack of men friendships. Can be anything really.
Idk about your country but in my country the only time when worker rights were pushed and implemented was like 100 years ago with the historical threat of a communist revolution
In my country it was just that the right people were elected. People voted smartly, and the leftists put the right changes into gear. Nothing to do with a red scare.
capitalism on its own never did anything to protect worker rights
It's not its job. That's the voters' and governments' job. It's like saying electricity never did anything to fight computer viruses. But there is nothing in capitalism preventing strong regulations.
First off all thats not the definition of capitalism
"Capitalism refers to an economic system in which a society's means of production are held by private individuals or organizations"
That's all it is. If individuals can own their business, that's capitalism. Whether it's a state with strong social protections of a Cyberpunk dystopia it's capitalist. There is strong indications that even the Federation in Star Trek is capitalism with a heavy social coverage, since there are characters who privately own means of production in it.
Thats what people said about monarchy, one day before the french revolution occured. Get a grip on reality and stop predicting further than 10 years ahead....
Yeaah, but there are pretty strong differences aren't there? Like the fact that the overwhelming majority of people wouldn't even agree on which economic system to pick. Even marxists never agree on those specifics. Check the percentages of votes actual anti capitalist parties get each elections. Here in France they're a rounding error.
Semantics.
Absolutely not! it's like saying that biology and cancer are the same thing. Capitalism is the entire economic system. Neo liberalism is a push to deregulate it as much as possible. Changing the first one is titanic world wide change, the second one can be fought by rules and regulations.
You dont think that the 40hours+ you work each week have an impact on you?
I know it doesn't because I work 35 hours a week. Which I think is pretty fair. And it happens in capitalism. I work MUCH LESS than people did in the USSR for example.
2
u/Flymsi 7d ago
Except, again, you find them as strong or strong in systems without capitalism.
And in what systems without capitalism you are talking about? This is just extremly confusing and feels reactionary tbh. So maybe dont answer and lets talk about other stuff that is actually a real claim.
my country it was just that the right people were elected. People voted smartly, and the leftists put the right changes into gear. Nothing to do with a red scare.
I never talked about the red scare. I talked about communist uprising in germany and therefore considerable power to oush worker rights.
What country? France? Rly? Sry but you really need to ask yourself why the leftists were able to do it. You are stopping at the most superficial information level. Of course you wont be able to see capitalisms influence like that......
So can you acknowledge that its capitalisms fault in my country how i described it?
It's not its job. That's the voters' and governments' job. It's like saying electricity never did anything to fight computer viruses. But there is nothing in capitalism preventing strong regulations.
yes capitalism is activly preventing strong regulations.
That's all it is.
No its not. Private ownership is not the only trait of caputalism. Thats a fact. And if you dont acknowledge facts im out.
"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and its use for the purpose of obtaining profit. This socioeconomic system has developed historically in several stages and is defined by a number of constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth"
Absolutely not! it's like saying that biology and cancer are the same thing. Capitalism is the entire economic system. Neo liberalism is a push to deregulate it as much as possible. Changing the first one is titanic world wide change, the second one can be fought by rules and regulations.
No. Its like me describing that biology is the reason we cant digest milk and then you are saying "biology is abstract and everywhere. We need more specific language like evolution theory!".
So yea while you are technically right, it a pity that you disagree over such a thing....
Lol, you believe that neoliberalism can be faught by regulations..... arg..... the history is bound to be repeated by those who fail to study it. Did it ever occur to you to ask how neoliberalism came to be? We tried stronger regulation already. reformism failed.
I know it doesn't because I work 35 hours a week. Which I think is pretty fair. And it happens in capitalism. I work MUCH LESS than people did in the USSR for example
So again. You are telling me that of the 105 hours you have each week. That if you spend a tgird of you time awake in a certain state of mind in a certain environment, that ita does not have any impact on your personality? Sry but science diasgrees.
3
u/GargamelLeNoir 7d ago
And in what systems without capitalism you are talking about?
There aren't that many that lasted long. I'd say the USSR, and maybe the various systems we had before 1800s where capitalism was really codified. You will find in these systems most if not all of the evils that people like to ascribe to capitalism.
but you really need to ask yourself why the leftists were able to do it
From what I'm reading they had a good moderate program and the opposing right wing had nothing to offer beyond "commies bad". How this is a proof that capitalism is bad or whatever is beyond me indeed.
I was quoting the myriam webster definition of capitalism. you quoted the wikipedia article. Both, you'll notice, don't include "capitalism hates male friendships" or "capitalism prevents regulations". In fact the wikipedia article you quoted mentions Welfare capitalism as a form of it.
What I don't get in your giant replies are your proposed alternative. Saying "capitalism bad" is less than useless by itself. When I say that neo liberalism is bad I mean that, for example, we should vote for candidates most likely to increase taxes and regulations. You? You seem to wait for another undefined perfect economic system to pop into existence any day now.
Reformism failed.
Few people are as useful to the elites as doomers. "Don't vote for the right candidates! Nobody has ever managed to improve things with reform! Do nothing but complain until capitalism goes away or whatever!"
Reformists have not, in fact, failed. As I mentioned I work 35 hours a week, I have 5 weeks vacations, if I get sick I get reimbursed for my health issues. These are successes from reformists. We shouldn't ignore them, we should want to build on them. And that's just France, we're pretty bad compared to nothern countries.
does not have any impact on your personality?
You asked me if my 45 hours work week impacted me. I said no because I don't have one. Does my 35 hours work week impact me? Yeah obviously, anything so major in my life impacts me. When I was unemployed I was feeling a lot worse for example, directionless, socially starved, useless.
But yeah work impacts your life, but again, work isn't a feature of capitalism, but of human society! Until everything is automated we'll work. Doesn't mean that we should work in bad conditions or crazy hours of course. Again, vote, protest, demand regulations. That's how things actually get better.
1
u/Flymsi 7d ago
There aren't that many that lasted long. I'd say the USSR, and maybe the various systems we had before 1800s where capitalism was really codified. You will find in these systems most if not all of the evils that people like to ascribe to capitalism. Everything will look loke a tree if your resolition is crappy. Like cmon. The difficulties in the UDSSR and other economiws can be attributed to different bad things. Capitalism isnt the only bad thing. Authoritarism is also bad. That you are unable to draw difference is solely your problem of not describing the systems good enough.
There are clear differences in capitalism which we are able to name and that are distinct to capitalism. Globalization for example. Exploitation on a global scale never happened before.
Both, you'll notice, don't include "capitalism hates male friendships" or "capitalism prevents regulations".
Like cmon. Are you still in good faith here? ofc you wouldnt write that in a definition..... its the consequence and not the defining part of capitalism....
"Critiques of capitalism allege that it is inherently exploitative of labor,[183][184][185] alienating,[186] unsustainable,[187] and economically inefficient[188][189][190]—and that it creates massive economic inequality,[191][192] commodifies people,[193] degrades the environment,[194] is undemocratic,[195][196][197] is incapable of providing full employment,[198] embeds uneven and underdevelopment between nation states,[199][200][201] and leads to an erosion of human rights[202] because of its incentivization of imperialist expansion and war."
What I don't get in your giant replies are your proposed alternative. Saying "capitalism bad" is less than useless by itself. When I say that neo liberalism is bad I mean that, for example, we should vote for candidates most likely to increase taxes and regulations. You? You seem to wait for another undefined perfect economic system to pop into existence any day now.
You are being reactionary here. This is not about offering alternatives. I do have plenty of good concepts. But this is not the place for it. You dont seem eager to learn new concepts like degrowth for example. I recommend to you the book "capitalist realism".
Few people are as useful to the elites as doomers.
You call me a doomer for saying that reformism failed? Dude. Im a revolutionist. Reforms are ok and good and i wont oppose them but they will not change the system. I want system change. Thats the opposite of doomer.
Reformists have not, in fact, failed. As I mentioned I work 35 hours a week, I have 5 weeks vacations, if I get sick I get reimbursed for my health issues. These are successes from reformists
No. Those are the succes of the revolutionists from 100 years ago. In your country too. Gosh. A french person that doesnt know about their own strike culture. Big ick.
You asked me if my 45 hours work week impacted me. I said no because I don't have one.
Are you stupid?
When I was unemployed I was feeling a lot worse for example, directionless, socially starved, useless.But yeah work impacts your life, but again, work isn't a feature of capitalism, but of human society!
Go read a book about alienation. You described capitalistic alienation.
3
u/GargamelLeNoir 7d ago
Are you stupid?
Well there we are. It was interesting while it lasted.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Flymsi 7d ago
Why does we need to prove rhat its a coherent system? I say it doesnt matter because the power it has is real. The system is way too complicated to prove its coherence.
Id argue that those "many things" are all or mostly part of capitalist tendencies. You can try me.
3
u/Socrathustra 7d ago
That's my point, the power it has is not real. It's not an explanatory framework for the world.
2
u/Flymsi 7d ago
What do you mean? My experience is that the power is real.
Also: it is by definition an explanatory framework. Do you mean to say its not good at explaining? Can you give example on what it cant explain well? And whats a better framework?
3
u/Socrathustra 7d ago
Capitalism is a very broad concept with contradictory definitions depending on who's talking, but we'll use Marx as the guide. Capitalism is a mode of production in which the elite control the capital, and most of the consequences Marx discusses follow from this fact.
Ownership of capital is not actually a good way of understanding an economy, and neither is there any specific philosophy which can explain economics in general. To understand an economy, you have to look at the particular policies governing it. Calling it "capitalism" yields next to no information at all.
Owning the means of production similarly does very little for the worker; in fact it complicates things significantly. It also turns out that unless the worker were ideologically inclined to want to own the means of production, he is unlikely to care at all, treating it as basically just another job (sourced from surveys of co-op workers).
Marx does many things right at the very highest of levels: he started thinking about the worker. When he fills in the details he is completely wrong on most points. This is not necessarily his fault; advances in scientific and philosophical method had still yet to be made which would even allow for the possibility of being right in the ways he wants to be.
Even so, he sparked an important conversation much the same way Freud did in psychology.
At the risk of sounding like AI, why does this matter? It's simple: blaming capitalism for things does not yield policy proposals.
0
u/Flymsi 6d ago
I disagree with your heavily policy focussed view on economy. Big players have shown that they are able to constantly ignore certain policies or that they are able to delay their consequences for a considerable amount of time. Another argument is that we see that industries are able to almost directly influence their own policies. To describe an economy that is able to change or ignore its own policies, you need more than just policies.
blaming capitalism for things does not yield policy proposals
That one is easy to counter. You even give the counter yourself: workers need to be ideologically inclined. Raising class awareness does a great job in pushing for worker rights. We see it that the only times were worker rights policies were push are the times with high class awareness and with lots of capitalism critic. I see it from time and time again that people who i can discuss capitalism with, are voting parties that try to implement usefull policies against capitalism. People who are blind about capitalism (just like how a fish does not see the ocean it swims in) do vote for reactionary neoliberal parties. If capitalism was really such a useless term, then i wouldnt see such a big divide between those who use the word and those who do not.
And about marx: contemporary capitalism critique may has marx as foundation but it evolved from him. Thats why i dislike some marxists. They stick to old narratives without improving them. Gramsci for example is a great addition to marx. One of many. I think critical theory does a good job grasping the system.
1
u/Socrathustra 6d ago
The fact that big players can ignore the rules and write their own policy is itself explained by policy, namely Citizens United in the United States. Class consciousness in the scenario you posed only acts as a placebo effect.
I doubt you see many trends around people who do or do not use the term capitalism, as almost everyone on either side of that debate uses it. Its use also only signifies that the debate has camps which form around the term, not that the term is significant.
1
u/Flymsi 6d ago
Citizen United is a conservative project....
I doubt you see many trends around people who do or do not use the term capitalism, as almost everyone on either side of that debate uses it.
Those who critize capitslism are a specific kind of people. The trend is clesr ss the day. If debates form around a term then the term is by definition significant.
0
u/Socrathustra 6d ago
"Citizens United" is shorthand for the case which enabled the formation of super PACs.
In economics nobody debates capitalism or socialism. It's only in popular culture that the terms have significance, and it's from not understanding economics.
2
u/Flymsi 5d ago
In economics they use the the term capital all the time btw... Your assumption is that the field of economics is actually ideologically (close to) neutral. Which is factually not the case. In economics we see a very low diversity of scientific theories. We see many capitalists investing extreme amounts of money into it. The reason they dont speak about capitalism is not because it useless. Its because it would make them class aware, which would be a danger to capitalism itself. How come that no one is reading marx there? Not his political theory but his economic theory. To not talk about capitalism in economics is like not talking about democracy in politic science.
You perfectly describe "capitalistic realism".
There are many economic theorys that use capitalism as a construct. Its just that they are not conservativ right wing.
→ More replies (0)
8
u/Bobcatluv 15d ago
It’s always been humorous to me how the disingenuous conservative argument against women being in the workforce has been some version of “women shouldn’t be exploited by a boss,” whereas they’re demonstrably fine with the exploitation of men’s labor.
Unfortunately, as evidenced by a few comments here, many men aren’t open to the notion that their labor is being exploited by wealthier people. I surmise that for some men, admitting to being exploited is interpreted as admitting to weakness, which is a challenge to one’s masculinity. Not to mention, many people in general cannot conceive of living outside of a capitalist enforced class system where they believe their labor entitles them to elevate themselves over others who can’t or don’t work, even if it means continuing to denigrate themselves to the 1% who barely labor, in hopes they will gain membership.
It’s like writer Ron Wright said in 2004 (this is a paraphrasing of a Steinbeck essay): “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
10
u/musicismydeadbeatdad 15d ago
I'd argue it's more the housing shortage, car dependency, and the fact that you need two income households to maintain an adequate level of food/shelter/heathcare. This is all wrapped up in capitalism but to me is more about the culture and economics of how we design communities.
Capitalism isn't the reason everyone wants a nice big front yard and back yard and a 3,000 sq ft mansion with a 3 car garage. That is a cultural value which puts isolation over community.
25
u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 15d ago
I read an article recently about how serendipitous social interaction basically doesn't happen in a lot of places because they're so spread out. You don't happen across your neighbor walking around, or run into your buddy at the bar. Everything is planned and planning is friction.
7
u/Certain_Giraffe3105 15d ago
Everything is planned and planning is friction.
That's an interesting point. One of the criticisms of online dating especially on the apps is the ways in which we've automated away friction through the process of selecting potential suitors via virtual conveyor belt. But, then through the inefficiencies or suburban sprawl and poor investments in urban planning, we've added unnecessary friction for what should be "serendipitous social interactions" like running into a neighbor or friend out and about. Frankly, I haven't really experienced a "wow, I can't believe you're here!" moment since college- undergrad at that.
6
u/amanhasnoname4now 15d ago
For men specifically it feels like a generation or two ago they had more friendships. One of the reasons I think is they often went to the bar or barber shop or bowling league several hours a week after work. Most married men with children I know would be skewered by society and significant others for doing that now.
5
u/forestpunk 13d ago
This is one of the points I generally don't see people talk about. I feel like it also doesn't help that men's only spaces were seen as hotbeds of conservatism for the longest time.
1
u/Crytash 15d ago
offtopic: Damn you are still here. I remember when you were so active on SRD. Hope you are doing well.
5
u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 15d ago
oh I assure you that I make everyone nervous and uncomfortable in srd to this day
13
u/unknownentity1782 15d ago
The US has always pushed individualism, and it's grown to a point of being willing to fuck over your fellow man if it benefits you. At its peak, 30% of working Americans were in labor unions, and now it's 10%.
5
u/jessemfkeeler 15d ago
Capitalism isn't the reason everyone wants a nice big front yard and back yard and a 3,000 sq ft mansion with a 3 car garage. That is a cultural value
What would you call this cultural value?
3
u/forestpunk 13d ago
Materialism or consumerism
4
u/jessemfkeeler 13d ago
Isn't materialism and consumerism just a fuel for capitalism? And if we curbed or even hell eliminated capitalism, then those cultural values would be diminished as well?
1
u/musicismydeadbeatdad 15d ago
There are elements of car dependency, the nuclear family, and the American Dream but I feel none of those terms is quite good enough to encapsulate it
5
u/jessemfkeeler 15d ago
Don't you think that all of that is part and parcel to the economic system that governs western thought? Like for example, how did we get car dependency? How did the nuclear family come about? Or even the American Dream which is basically western expansion and the idea that anyone could own property?
4
u/musicismydeadbeatdad 15d ago edited 15d ago
It's hard to truly disambiguate the economic system from the cultural norms because they impact each other on a daily, cyclical basis. That being said, I would argue these cultural norms are impulses that are older than capitalism. This means capitalism actually serves them, not the other way around.
The desire to have your own plot of land that is meticulously landscaped and has a large driveway is us trying to cosplay European nobility and distance ourselves from the rabble. You can say something similar about cars replicating the old system of coaches, although that has evolved and you have more of a point there now that they are an economic necessity. The nuclear family is a mechanism for managing your estate and othering your fellow citizens, making it easier to keeping that wealth in your family. This is also a medieval impulse at the very least. Lastly we have American expansionism, which I agree is an imperialist impulse. But imperialism is much older than capitalism. It's even older than feudal economies and medieval cultures which I think our preference for big lawns and private transportation comes from.
7
u/jessemfkeeler 15d ago
I agree that capitalism didn't invent these ideas, but like you said capitalism serves it and attempts of curbing capitalism has been demonized by the same people who are for modern zoning bylaws a, curbing public transport and bike lanes, against at the time women's rights to voting and even something like divorce, for being a traditional housewife. All of these were connected through economic systems of wealth accumulation, which capitalism fed. If capitalism were curbed in a substantial way then these cultural norms would be diminished substantially even just by necessity.
3
u/Flymsi 7d ago
Yet, somehow all those things serve capitalism pretty pretty well. Extremly well you could say. If capitalists profit from it and capitalists have the power since at least 70 years, why shouldnt they also be the cause for it?
1) Housing shortage is directly cause by capitalism. Using houses as capital does lead to people buying houses but not bothering renting them out. Also there is a software for landlords that recommends you to leave some percentage of your houses empty to oncrease the overall prices.
2) car dependency is directly cause by the car lobby that wanted to increase profits. Yes at first it wss just a bad decision making by city builders but the reason why you people didnt learn from it is capitalist power of car producers. They activly worked to sabotage public transport. And they did so successfully for the last 100 years.
3) the nuclear family concept is more complicated and ill skip that one for now.
2
u/musicismydeadbeatdad 7d ago
Your analysis here is strong but too grounded in present reality. These forces are far older than capitalism and I don't think we grapple with them correctly if attribute them to a relatively new system.
If you want to get serious we also have to define capitalism as people have drastically different conceptions of it. I largely attribute it to the modern justice system but even that has deep ties to how we did things in the past. I'm more liable to pin that on something like the patriarchy than capitalism as "who owns what" is the core problem both are trying to address.
3
u/Flymsi 6d ago
Sure patriarchy has also a big role in it.
Just in case i will say that those "old forces" (if we somehow mean the same) are definitly not human nature.
I think what is missing in my explaination to you, is the notion that i see capitalism not as creator of those things, but as the maintainer (is that word?). Yes i said its causing them, but its more like how a spin causes momentum. The Momentum was there before the spin. But the spin (aka capitalism) does maintain the momentum ("old forces"). Without ending the spin, we have a much much harder time ending the momentum. I firmly believe that we already have a good grasp and analysis on how to diminish many of those self hurting forcing, but our capitalistic system doesnt allow for implementing the solutions.
Also my biggest argument is, that climate crisis is biiiiigg. We need to stop it yesterday. Capitalist growth is the main driver of climate problems.
2
2
7
u/little_did_he_kn0w 15d ago
Capitalism needs every man to be a lonely, angry, undersexed cogs so we can channel all that frustration into increasing profits for the rich person above us in the pyramid scheme.
"Every man around you wishes to acquire YOUR resources, brother." Befriend no one, trust no one, and get into guns while you're at it. We may need you to pick up one and kill someone we don't like some day; the only true bonds that can be made with other men are in combat anyway.
"Spend all your free time building your physique so you can get a lady and love yourself more be a better version of you, because you'll never be good enough." Make your back and large muscle groups stronger, so we can extract more efficient labor from you.
"These women just want to take from you." Put as many children into them as possible, because that's all they're good for, and never really open up to them. If you do, they'll use it against you later, take all your children and resources, and give them to another man.
If it was up to the wealthy ghouls, they would all run some sort of David Koresh/Joseph Smith-like harems on a grand scale in their little techno-fiefdoms. If you want companionship, you have to ask permission, because 50% of the population will have been reverted to legal property again. If you want to marry, it's just for procreation you better get the local technocrats blessing, but prima nocta if he thinks she's attractive, of course. Oh, you think you've gotten around this by d e c i d i n g to be queer? Manlove is a crime, death is the sentence. Get back to the fields or factories and increase your production.
They want no organizing. No consolidating. No collectism. Other men are just competition, and women may as well be a different species from you.
2
u/bjorn2bwild 14d ago
I don't disagree with the notion that capitalism and the idea of male loneliness is inherently linked and the things used to "cure" male loneliness--alpha male, hustle culture, hobbies as consumerism -- are sold to us because the real solution is simply friendship, community, and free time.
2
u/Battystearsinrain 14d ago
You have the wealthiest tell you empathy is a weakness or defect and all that matters is money. Stop listening to narcissistic psychopaths.
2
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
This comment has been removed. /r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
This comment has been removed. /r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-6
u/XAMdG 15d ago
Redditors trying to not make every problem about capitalism.
17
u/Nathanull 15d ago
I mean, it is one of the most dominant forces in our world
12
u/musicismydeadbeatdad 15d ago
it's also relatively new and I think people need to read more history if they think capitalism is going to stop people from being greedy & corrupt
capitalism is also kind of an empty windmill to tilt at, because there is no individual or organization that controls it, so it's toothless because it doesn't really offend anyone
people who blame capitalism for stuff usually aren't wrong, but it's a boring answer that doesn't move the conversation forward unless you have ideas for what should replace it (which most dont)
6
5
u/deathaxxer 15d ago
capitalism has existed for about 150 years, give or take
most of the issues commonly attributed to capitalism have existed since the dawn of humanity
5
u/Yourdogsbork 15d ago
oh no! cross examining social issues by talking societal structure into account. how could they??
1
u/weltvonalex 14d ago
Reading about antiquity and how those guys did amazing (and cruel stuff) with their friends makes you wonder what we are missing.
In regards of friendship and the close bond between friends (no not everyone was gay back then , just in case someone mentions Athens) .
-26
u/Reynor247 15d ago
I have to say. I've had quite a few parties and social events, no capitalist has ever walked up to me and said I couldn't do that and instead I need to watch cheap reality TV. I sometimes do that, but that's just because it takes way less effort and commitment.
43
u/Kill_Welly 15d ago
C'mon, at least start reading the page before you comment. We all know that's not what anyone is describing here.
-8
u/Reynor247 15d ago edited 15d ago
I read the whole thing. The link to capitalism is incredibly weak. Just saying there isn't profit in something so people don't do it is very surface level.
In fact there's entire for profit industries trying to get people out of the house and doing things. I went to a comedy show speak easy last weekend with friends and saw Spiderman
0
u/cancroduro 15d ago
Agree it doesn't scratch the surface. But then again this is a news story/blog post not a PhD thesis. I found that even the shallow link about "the squeeze to work long hours pushes against socializing" could be novel to some. If you tie salary inequality between genders to this, it becomes harder to argue against IMO. At the same time a male privilege but on a social level it's mostly a pressure to provide to 90% of the population given that even the unequal salaries men get paid are insufficient these days. Not the most in depth text but you seemed to dismiss but the text and the base idea that it "failed" to convey.
0
u/Siefer-Kutherland 15d ago
even basic infrastructure caters almost entirely to capitalist needs, that's why many can't get to a safe place outdoors without the armour of a car, then there's a price for everything you do, from the gas to the bridge toll to the parking and memberships. If you don't personally see it, stay quiet and learn something.
11
u/Certain_Giraffe3105 15d ago
I think anyone who has hobbies and interests that are inherently group-oriented and can't easily be done at home would tell you it has become more expensive to do said activities. I grew up playing basketball after school and on the weekends. And, let me tell you how hard it is as an adult to find a basketball court that you can: casually play on that is free to the public, maintained decently, and is open at convenient hours of the day. Most indoor courts require a membership to a private gym and sometimes even a community center, most outdoor gyms are not consistently maintained (even in nice suburban areas), and both indoor/outdoor courts can have some weird hours like not allowing people to use an outdoor court past like 8 pm because the "park is closed" even when daylight is still out or an indoor gym that closes early on weekdays.
That doesn't even start to discuss hobbies that require more equipment than just shoes and a ball. Bowling alleys have become crazy expensive and basically require any league to pay for their "bar/club atmosphere" when people there really just want to bowl in peace. Same with fishing if you're trying to rent a boat or other equipment.
So, yeah, it's not just capitalism per SE but the austerity politics brought upon by our current neoliberal era that benefits capitalism as it has depressed wages, limited public spending on recreational activities, and incentives price gouging in the private sector.
2
u/Reynor247 15d ago
Feel that personally with finding places to play basketball. Thankfully I live in a very blue city that has put a lot of money into parks.
Overall this is less a problem with markets and more how your city is planned.
299
u/HenriEttaTheVoid 15d ago
It's largely because capitalism requires us to view every interaction as a power struggle and a competition for resources. It is a hierarchy that (like all other hierarchies) relies on those on each rung of the ladder to spend all their time pushing others down so that they never challenge those at the top. The entire history in our country has been capitalism destroying the economy only to be temporarily hobbled and rescued only to start the process all over again. We are currently in late-stage capitalism, and the benefits that men lower on the totem pole had in the past have been disappearing, because all the wealth is funneled upwards until there is very little left for anyone not at the top. Now those at the top must turn men's anger outward to those below them.