Why are folks so anti-capitalist?
Hi all,
I'm seeing a lot of hate for capitalism here, and I'm wondering why that is and what the rationale behind it is. I'm pretty pro-capitalism myself, so I want to see the logic on the other side of the fence.
If this isn't the right forum for a political/economic discussion-- I'm happy to take this somewhere else.
Cheers!
450
Comments871
I'm really not trying to be a dick, but uhh... Look around? The world is literally on fire and efforts to put it out or even to stop pouring more gas on it are put down at every turn by capitalists in the never ending pursuit of more money for it's own sake.
Let's start here: are you a capitalist? Do you own any actual capital? I don't mean your own house or car, that is personal property not private property or anything resembling the means of production.
I ask because many people consider themselves capitalist when really they are just workers who happen to own a bit of personal property, and they make themselves essentially useful pawns for actual capitalists.
And, if you're not an actual capitalist, why are you so pro capitalism?
It's not illogical to be pro-Capitalism while not owning any "means of production" if it means you still have better outcomes.
There are no true Capitalist countries and no true Socialist countries. It's not even a spectrum; it's a giant mixed bag of policies. You can be for some basic capitalist principles (market economy, privately held capital) and for some socialist policies (safety nets, healthcare) and not be in contradiction with yourself. There's more to capitalism than the United States.
I think OP was seeing a lot of "burn the system down" talk. Revolutions aren't bloodless, instantaneous, or well directed. Innocent people will die and generations will suffer. It's stuff only the naive, the malicious, or the truly desperate will support. And if you're here posting it on the daily, I don't believe you're that desperate.
Global warming is upon us. If something doesn't drastically change, now, our entire species is going to die.
And some people will be hoarding money until the last, bitter second.
Hmmm, its those kinds of extreme statements that make me a bit suspicious. Is global warming really an extinction level event? I can imagine terrible civil wars over resources and increasing displacement from natural disasters, but total eradication of the human race is afaik not a possible result of global warming.
It's kinda like when they called it world war 1 and 2 - it didn't actually include the entire world, but it did include so many countries that people considered it to be the world. The amount of people that could die or be affected by global warming could kill billions. Billions.
Hmmm... words used in not-satiric circumstances where the true meaning isn't the intended meaning is a bit confusing...
If global warming doesn't completely wipe us out, we'll finish ourselves off with nukes.
I think this conflates capitalism with lack of coordination. We could fix global warming today via regulation. Even if our government was socialist, it would probably still not be curbing emissions due to trying to achieve some other non-capital goal.
Second, there isn’t any need to falsely imply our species is going to die because of climate change. No model points at that. Billions of people having crappier lives and dying sooner should be enough motivation.
We're ~ 5 degrees from mass crop failure and famine, and that's pretty well documented.
"Billions of people having crappier lives" is a weird way of describing starvation.
Because the models don’t support your statement.
Billions WILL have worse lives due to this. A very small subset of that will be because they are on the verge of starving.
Yup, that is the goal. Juuuuust short of desperate. That is where we are aiming for most of our population to live.
That’s way too simplistic. It’s not just big corporations that block each and every measure to mitigate climate change.
Ask a small home owner, or car owner, why they are against climate change measures. They will point out that their life would need to change, and that’s why.
Climate is fucked primarily because people are unwilling to look around the next corner. That corporations are the same is more a property of them being comprised of people rather than capitalism per se.
Capitalism would work with wind and solar parks just as well as with coal.
And yet, the giant oil corporations lied about climate change and subverted efforts to develop renewable energy back in the 80s when it could have actually helped. They did that to line their pockets, fucked over the entire world, and have had no repercussions for it. Don't act like it's the people's fault. A large large portion of the damage to the climate was done so executives could save an extra .1% of profit for themselves.
No, a large portion of the damage done was so regular people could keep driving their oversized cars, eat out of season food, and cheaply heat their homes. Socialism does not require good environmental policy. Capitalism does not prohibit it. Climate change is a human problem.
It's perhaps a little tangential to the "merits of capitalism" topic, but it's worth noting that the circumstances that caused such a large percentage of the U.S. population to own single-family houses or cars -- the Suburban Experiment -- is substantially the result of deliberate policy choices by the Federal government starting around the 1930s:
Euclid v. Ambler established the legality of single-use zoning, which enabled the advent of single-family house subdivisions that outlawed having things like front yard businesses, destroying walkability.
The Federal Housing Administration was created, which not only published development guidelines that embodied the modernist^1^ city planning ideas popular at the time (they literally had e.g. diagrams showing side-by-side plan views of traditional main-street-style shops and shopping centers with parking lots, with the former labeled "bad" and the latter labeled "good"), but also enforced them by making compliance with those guidelines part^2^ of the underwriting criteria for government-backed loans.
The Federal government passed massive subsidies for building highways, while comparatively neglecting the railroads and metro transit systems.
Of course, that isn't to say that there wasn't corporate influence shaping those policies! From the General Motors streetcar conspiracy to the General Motors Futurama exhibit at the 1939 New York World's Fair, it's obvious that the automotive industry had a huge impact. It's less obvious -- or perhaps I should say, less "provable" -- that said influence was corrupt (in terms of, say, bribing politicians to implement policies the public didn't otherwise actually want) rather than merely reflective of the prevailing public sentiment of the times, but I don't disbelieve it either.
TL;DR: I'm not necessarily taking a position on whether it was proverbial "big government" or "big business" to blame for America's car dependency, but I am saying that it's definitely incorrect to characterize it as merely the emergent result of individual choices by members of the public. Those individual choices were made subject to circumstances that both government and business had huge amounts of power over, and that fact cannot be ignored.
^1^ For more info on "modernist city planning" read up on stuff like the Garden City movement started by Ebenezer Howard, Le Corbusier's Ville Radieuse, and Frank Lloyd Wright's Broadacre City. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that Wright himself helped write those FHA guidelines, but I can't find the reference anymore. : (
^2^ It would be irresponsible not to point out that redlining and racial segregation were massively important factors in all this, too. However, this comment is intended to focus on the change in urban form itself, so hopefully folks won't get too upset that I'm limiting it to this footnote.
Oh I can assure you, the sentiments are no different here in Germany, where no such experiment has been done in any large scale.
I would reply asking if the people that are making these claims are actually the labor. Are service workers actually the ones producing anything? Western labor is compensated quite well relative to the rest of society which is why these ideas never go anywhere in the West. If you are not an actual laborer, why are you so pro-labor power?
Labor != Physical labor or producing physical things
Sure but in terms of a general strike, you will know the labor that really matters and what doesn't. Critical labor in the West is compensated accordingly by the market, even by Western standards.
Historically this has certainly been one of the biggest problems with anti-capitalist rhetoric; usually it's a bunch of fairly well-off college-educated intelligentsia telling labor that akshually their problems are caused by alienation and wage value theory!
The result in Russia was the Going to the People movement, which was a dismal failure and resulted in revolutionary vanguardism.
Well I mean it's unclear to me that we're much worse than previous points in history. I'd rather have the climate crisis over the nuclear one, or either of the world wars, or live under a feudal system where I'm owned by the local lord in his castle.
I sympathize (and agree) with the belief that the current system isn't serving everyone, much less serving everyone equally. But the world is a complicated thing and we've got >7 billion people to feed! I think we should be very careful before deciding "yeah it's time to tear down the existing systems and hope that there are better systems out there". It's easier to make things worse than to make things better.
I guess? I've wanted to start my own business a couple of times. I'm a programmer, so I've toyed with the idea and done some research into creating a few apps which I believe people would find useful, and might pay my bills. I don't own a house or a car-- I live in an apartment in a mid-size US city.
I'm guessing you'd consider me a pawn, but I don't. I fit your description of owning a bit of personal property, and being a worker. I've worked for some large companies in the past which are supposedly the "actual capitalists". But I promise they don't give two shits about social good (or social bad). They are just desperately trying to make products that people want to buy. In my view, it's a pretty good system which constrains huge organizations like Apple to making devices, when the alternative is that they could be setting up their own governments.
You'd rather have the climate crisis as it currently stands. I think you'll change your tune on that in coming decades but by then it'll be far too late to actually do anything about it. You're also more insulated to it's effects than many millions of people around the world who are already losing their lives, homes, livelihoods, etc and this is only a sniff of what's to come. Also, peasants in feudal times on average had more time off, made more money comparatively, and were able to travel more (yes, even serfs) than your average American currently. The chains just look a little different, they aren't gone.
We've got 8 billion people to feed and are doing a terrible job of it. Take under half of Elon's wealth alone and you could feed the entire world, yet instead we laud these modern day dragons for their "success," instead of slaying them for the good of the people. It's easier to make things worse for you, than better for you. Billions of people currently suffering terribly for the profit of others would vehemently disagree. Also, just because the unknown is uncertain doesn't mean it should be feared. We know capitalism isn't working for the planet itself, yet people would rather stick to it because it's enriched a small fragment of humanity. You happen to be in the side of the boat that isn't currently underwater, but make no mistake that the water is pouring in.
You are not a capitalist.
You are a worker, so why look out for the interests of an entirely different class that doesn't do the same for you?
Therein lies the exact problem: profit is the only motive. And to get profit, capitalists have shown they are willing to do everything, damn the consequences to others, to society, to the planet. Climate change isn't a whoopsie, starving, desperate people aren't a whoopsie, train derailments aren't a whoopsie, even most wars (every American involved war since WW2) are not a whoopsie. They are all the predictable results of capitalists choosing to rake in more profits at the expense of you and I.
Why would they need to set up their own governments when they control ours? How exactly are they constrained? Google is arguably more powerful than most nations' governments. Sure, most of that is soft power, but if trends continue it won't stay soft for much longer.
That's interesting, because to me it's very clear. After all, small isolated pockets of people ruining their economy and the environment they depend on is quite a bit different from all of humanity everywhere doing this.
That's an interesting perspective! Care to share some data?
Personally, I think the fact that the median person in capitalist nations has enough food to eat is a pretty big plus! I don't think that's been the case throughout most of history.
Well, of course the data on what our actions (much of which are due to and based upon capitalism) are doing to are environment and climate, and inevitably must lead to given the implicit but incorrect assumption of infinite resources of that system, is everywhere and basically impossible to ignore these days, isn't it? And, almost as easy to find is the data on other cultures killing themselves off (in the, at the time, limited scope of their part of the planet) due to their actions, such as Easter Island.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169
You don’t own your own home and you feel this way? Yeesh. Have fun paying your landlord’s mortgage for the rest of your life as buying a house becomes more and more difficult.
Not banking but transfer proxy space.
Yeah, and if they serve the needs of customers better, then they'll be given encouragement (money). If they don't, they'll be given discouragement (they lose their investments). Seems like a good system, no?
Of course, corruption and regulatory capture subvert this system and are bad for everyone, but those are subversions of capitalism.
Are they really subversions? A pure capitalist society is determined purely by incentives and the rules of economy (supply and demand and such). If it's in a business's best interest to do something unethical, they will do it. They will band together to price fix, they'll collaborate to pay workers the bare minimum, they'll create monopolys and duopolies to get the most money possible, because in a capitalist society, money is the #1 incentive. Government regulations are anti-capitalist policies to prevent these things from happening - although maybe not as effectively as they should be, given how things are.
Capitalism is defined as a set of rules/regulations that allows people to own the capital that they produce. Regulatory capture is when an organization gains control of the regulations to subvert other people's ability to own their capital. This is why I say that the more regulatory capture that happens, the less capitalist the system.
And yes! Capitalist systems heavily incentivize caring about money and nothing else. But the system also makes it so that when people act purely selfishly for money, that it results in good outcomes for everyone. That's why I think it's a good system.
For example, if organizations price-fix, it heavily encourages a third party to undercut them. If they try to prevent the third party by legal means, then that's not capitalism.
Nobody should take you seriously.
Boy, if their statement were true, we'd be living in paradise!
Isn't the prisoner's dilemma the exact opposite of this claim
Just chiming in to say that if organizations price fix, it's pretty rare a 3rd party can sustainably undercut them. The price fixers can agree to drop prices way lower, sell at a loss until the 3rd party is forced to price fix too or go out of business, and then resume the fixed price
So the outcome from a customer's perspective is that the price fixers have dropped their prices way lower? That's good, no?
And then once the 3rd party goes out of business and they resume their high price.... they're encouraging a new 3rd party to try again. So the prices lower again.
Meaning there's pressure on prices to be lower, which is what we want. Therefore, good system.
Of course, I'm not saying it's ideal. But is there a better system?
Good outcomes for everyone by acting selfishly? Oh boy! Let me tell you about the distant past of 2008 when selfish/greedy actions could have crippled the entire world economy but instead governments bailed out the selfish/greedy corporations and left all non-corporation people affected to flap in the wind.
And that's skipping over the COVID-19 capitalism fuckery, dot com bubble, healthcare, housing in 2020's etc.
Capitalism is a cancer and it is literally killing people for the sake of money. But here's a $1 so just forget about all those useless bad things.
Why do you think this??
Look at all the constant environmental disasters and harmful products that happen because corporations did the math and determined that paying a few million to lawsuits every once in a while is cheaper than being more careful. "Voting with your wallet" does not work because the big corporations undercut the competition and bombard us with advertising to ensure they will win no matter what.
Hell, most of us are on here because Reddit started doing scummy things in the name of money, and we're a tiny fraction of their userbase; Reddit is still unfortunately doing pretty much fine. Is that the best outcome for everyone?
And don't forget that there are a lot of regulations passed in the last hundred years that were necessary because corporations were doing stuff like dumping so many chemicals into our waterways that rivers would constantly catch fire. This is what happens with unfettered capitalism.
No, that is not the definition of capitalism. Where did you even hear that? So, in your vision of capitalism, the board of directors gets no money ever, because they produce nothing. The capital they have is produced by laborers.
You're forgetting economies of scale. Let's take phone plans. A few giant companies have infrastructure (cell towers) built across the country. Coverage is extremely important - a phone plan with coverage in a small area isn't anything anyone will want. How is a third party supposed to compete? They'd need enough money to set up nation-wide infrastructure, contracts with phone manufacturers to make sure phones are compatable, and they need to do all that before they even sell anything. Even if you try to compete, how do you make your prices competitive after spending that huge amount of money?
If the goal is profit, then using any means available to increase profit is the promoted method. This includes creating barriers to enter into competition. This could be things like temporarily selling at a loss until your competition runs out of money. It could also be using your money to influence politics to get laws in place that make it harder for others to compete with you. It could also be many other methods.
It also means increasing profits through other means, such as cooperating with other companies to not compete (this is called a trust, and it's supposed to be illegal, but we all know it isn't always, for example the oil industry). If they all agree to not lower prices to compete with each other then they all make more money at the expense of the consumer. Obviously this is bad, which is why most capitalist countries are supposed to prevent this by law (so, obviously capitalism isn't that great alone), with limited results.
Capitalism also assumes perfectly rational actors in order to have good outcomes. Anyone who's interacted with another person knows this isn't possible. Without perfectly rational actors, the "best" outcomes are not guaranteed. There are far too many ways to obfuscate information and manipulate people. For example, in the case of a trust forming the consumer likely has no way to recognize that in order to work for their own interest over the interest of the companies trying to screw them over.
Basically, capitalism leading to ideal outcomes is a fairytale told by capitalists to ensure they aren't questioned. They tell you that it'd your fault if you don't get the best outcomes, but this isn't true. They know it isn't true, but it's in their favor. They use their influence to make sure the fairytale stays intact though. Capitalism is the newest large religion. It asks for faith, takes your money, and provides you with nothing.
Either you're a dedicated troll or an absolute rube.
He's a mid-western rube living a padded life in the heartland of the empire.
You probably won't see this, but I hope you will amend your definition of capitalism:
You know this, right? We all know a trust fund baby is perfectly capable of using the wealth they were born into to buy a factory, mine, apartment complex, or shares in all of the above. (Hence profiting off of value they did NOT produce.) We all know capitalism does not distinguish in any way whatsoever between this form of capital ownership and the self-made variety.
"Capital they produce" and "capital they acquire / inherit / use stolen money to purchase" can both be wielded the exact same way. That's the point of capitalism.
And this is only half of why, "that they produce" doesn't work in this definition. The other half is that it contradicts the definition of "capital."
Capital is literally "any form of property that can be used to collect the value of other people's labor." That is the opposite of "ownership over the things you produce."
The exact opposite.
To "own the capital you produce" one must personally build the means of production. Otherwise, the owner is owning the capital someone else produced.
And you'll find the vast, vast, vast majority of almost every form of capital (patents, copyrights, factories, burger machines, server computers, office buildings, mines, mine equipment, oil rigs, oil tankers, power plants, land, the list goes on) does not belong to the people who turned the screws, drew up the plans, welded the seams, mined the materials, performed the research, wrote the movie script, poured the cement, or otherwise PRODUCED the capital.
It belongs instead to the people who funded it. The people who, under capitalism, own it.
Anti-capitalists are not against people owning what they produce. In fact, in America, there is a distinctly anti-capitalist business model that thrives in numerous cities called a "cooperative" (co-op for short) that is owned by either (a) customers, or (b) workers. And a worker co-op is literally workers "owning what they produce", but is considered market socialism by anyone who cares about using words correctly.
I would love if co-ops replaced corporations. Any anti-capitalist would. Even Maoists would tell you, "a society full of co-ops would be wonderful. The only reason I don't find that sufficient is because capitalists would use violence to crush co-ops just as they have used violence to crush governments that didn't favor US corporations."
All anti-capitalists want people to be able to own what they produce. The system that robs people of their control over what they produce is exactly what anti-capitalists have been struggling to overthrow.
(Aside: many anti-capitalists support a "corporate death sentence" where any company that commits a crime causing more damage than it can afford to repair can have its assets seized and turned into a cooperative and given to its workers. This allows a company deemed "too big to fail, because too many workers would lose their jobs" to be kept running and keep its workers employed while also punishing the people whose decisions caused the damage. The investors would lose their shares, and the CEO elected by the investors would lose their job and their shares. Everyone else would be fine.)
Main point: I think before asking,
You need to first ask,
If you have to work in order to pay your bills you are not a successful capitalist. And it doesn’t matter whether you freelance or not.
Why? Either way, everybody dies.
Instead of dying from mustard gas, we're all going to die from heat and starvation. Yay.
Today, you get to choose which lord owns you, and change lords on occasion, but other than that it's pretty much the same thing.
Give it a couple of years, because the world is going to get a lot, lot worse than it currently is (which is already pretty bad, for folks around the world). The World Wars will be nothing in comparison, and at least a nuclear war would be a relatively fast end.
Capitalism is just a continuation of the feudal system. Great for owners / gentry, bad for serfs /workers. Labor creates all value, and should be rewarded as such.
Why is capitalism so anti-folks?
The income gap between executive and median salary employees is around 32,000%. I guess the question is, what planet do you live on where a system that allows for this kind of inequity is okay?
Because it's objectively unsustainable? I don't really get what it even means to be "pro capitalist" at this point. We know, for a fact, that capitalism will lead to disaster if we keep doing what we're doing. Do you disagree with that? Or do you not care?
What is your general plan for what we should do when we can see that something we currently do and rely on will have to stop in the near future? Not that we will have to choose to stop it, but that it will stop because of something being depleted or no longer possible.
If you imagine that we're trying to find the best long-term system for humanity, and that the possible solutions exist on a curve on an X/Y plane, and we want to find the lowest point on the function, capitalism is very clearly a local minima. It's not the lowest point, but it feels like one to the dumbass apes who came up with it. So much so that we're resistant to doing the work to find the actual minima before this local one kills literally everyone :)
Capitalism itself isn't really the problem though, a free market economy should work. The issue is that the owners, be they corporate or private, don't view their workforces the same way.
The greed of those at the top is crippling the very people that are driving the economy.
Free market capitalism is inherently about generating wealth for primary stakeholders but externalizing the social and environmental costs. It's basically how the entire system works.
You are misusing terms, a stakeholder is anyone affected by a company's actions while a shareholder is anyone with ownership in a company. All shareholders are stakeholders, not all stakeholders are shareholders.
I was using the term in it's original sense, i.e. investors, employees, and suppliers.
I didn't want to say "shareholders" because not all businesses offer shares.
The greed is baked into capitalism, though, because it's fundamentally baked into humanity. This is what happens with the unregulated pursuit self interest, and that's what capitalism encourages.
Because markets inherently aren't "free". Real competition is an illusion because capitalism doesn't account for all the non-capitalist levers (e.g regulatory capture, cronyism, collusion, political lobbying, etc) that businesses will pull to serve their own interests.
Capitalism is an incredibly naive approach to economics because its ability to account for human behavior -- the fundamental driver of economic systems -- is rudimentary at best. And that's just one of its problems, really.
I agree with all of what you say except I think people are not as naturally greedy as we are led to believe. The idea that selfishness and greed are the sole or primary motivators of human action is capitalist propaganda. The idea that humans are "innately selfish" so an economic system built on selfishness is the only way to run society is capitalist propaganda. There are many other things that motivate us in our lives, and many motivations that would lead to more happiness than the pursuit of selfish goals, and we're quite capable of following those motives when we're not compelled by a greed-based society to continually scramble to grab what we can for ourselves.
I don't think it's that all people are greedy, but that a small minority of people are extremely greedy, and they will do anything for money and power. This breaks both capitalism and socialism from becoming the best version of what each could be.
I agree. Any arrangement of society that's going to work has to have some way to protect itself from this small minority of sociopaths. Unfortunately, in our current system they are firmly in charge.
I agree, and think this is closest to reality the way I've observed it. I think most people want more and better things for themselves - this part I believe is a natural instinct present in the majority of human, probably a result of some evolutionary survival mechanism. However, I think people generally also have some limits on what they are willing to do to advantage themselves over others around them. The problem is that this limit varies greatly among individuals. Some people are not willing to take advantage of a fly for self-gain, while others are willing to take advantage of anyone and anything for self-gain. It's a complex problem that I think is difficult to solve in communities, especially in large, more loosely-knit ones (i.e., anything larger than a tribe or village).
Yes, there are also research to back this up. We are tribalistic, and we tend to cover for our kin, even sacrifice ourselves for the betterment of the tribe. Issue is we are most divided at this point in history. There are so many layers of personal ID that we cannot find our kin. Then it just becomes only me, or only my family, or only democrats, or only lgbt, etc. We have been given so many IDs, from music, culture, sports, politics, ideology, education level etc, we can only care about so far.
Is greed really a part of human essence? I don't subscribe to that Hobbesian view.
No, it absolutely should not work. I can't even imagine what you are imagining when you say that. HOW could it possibly work long term? Are you familiar with any game theory?
I mean... it has, hasn't it? It's worked pretty well for the last ~200 years. Even in China, the successful parts are the capitalist parts.
Yes, it's costing us in terms of environmental sustainability. This is an externality which can be (but hasn't been) addressed. A failure of government, not a failure of capitalism.
You should know that most Marxists believe capitalism is an economic engine unlike anything that came before it. That doesn’t mean we can’t build a more rational system. If we wanted to approach the problem scientifically we would study capitalism, understand how it works and came to be, form hypotheses for how to build something better, and then experiment.
I’d also add that the formation of the modern government, ie liberal democratic states, and the development of capitalism are one and the same. Our totalizing market economy can not exist without governments ensuring conditions are right for market exchange to operate smoothly. As such, I don’t think it’s possible to say a failure of governments are not a failure of capitalism. It’s a package deal so to speak.
It’s not a failure of government when the government effectively serves the ruling class (i.e capitalists). It’s a feature, not a bug.
The problems you listed are a feature of capitalism. The rich owners have more power in the owner-worker relationship. Which means they get richer, which means they get more power, which means they get richer, which means they get more power, etc.
The only thing resembling some balance was unions, and they were gutted so that guess what, the rich child get richer. Which meant they got more powerful, and we're back to the cycle.
Free market works only to create monopolies because in the real world companies compete and then one gets gobbled up and these mega corps can gobble, out compete or lobby for barriers to market if there arent any already inherently. Imagine a new telecomp trying to start but its small then it need a huge investment to cover only a small area, how will that compete with a giant already established telecom? That happens in all businesses and sectora
Why should it work? Capitalism by definition works against the free market because it favors monopolization. You need heavy regulations to slow that down at the very least.
Oh FFS, the capitalist system shreds 'free' markets with abandon. Monopolies eliminate competition. Regulatory capture eliminates anti-monopoly regulations. Capitalism is the perpetual accumulation of more money by investing in the production of more commodities. It collapses when it cannot evolve to expand demand, as it did in the 1930's. As it is doing again now., although rather slowly, as it has learned how to use governments to mitigate financial collapse. It does indeed use 'markets' for exchanges, but it only cares about 'free' markets as an ideology. It's motivating force is accumulation. The 'greed at the top' is the system itself, not some bad apples.
Capitalism will always ensure that the greediest are seated at the highest point. Wanting more resources gets you more power under capitalism, so those who are willing to go to the greatest lengths to take capital from others are the ones who will end up with it all. That's a feature, not a bug. It's rotten to the core.
The idea that it "should work" is both controversial, and doesn't help. As wealth accumulates at the top, they have less reason to give to anyone else. Human greed is encouraged by capitalism, and you end up with massive inequality when it's left unfettered. We're moving towards having robber barons again (or already do, depending on your viewpoint).
Not to mention, capitalism depends on consumption, of everything, and we are actively consuming the things we need in order for us to continue living on the planet. Capitalism doesn't care because it's all about profit, specifically in the short term because humans have short life spans and shorter memory and foresight.
I don't think we know that. Indeed, what we're currently doing as a species to the environment is unsustainable. But it's not clear to me how it's the capitalism that's the unsustainable part. My understanding is that capitalism is a system which allows us, as a society, to produce things very efficiently, and to distribute resources. It hasn't failed in that role, has it?
I believe that, for example, if I wanted to open a bookshop, I should be able to. Or that if I wanted to rent a couple of 3D printers and sell widgets, that I should be able to. Or if I wanted to hire some dude on fiverr to write some music to my screenplay, I should be able to. This is capitalism. Do you disagree? This is what confuses me, and why I asked the question-- on my side of the fence, I don't really understand what it means to be anti-capitalist. Hence why I asked.
Well no need to be rude! Of course I care! And yes, we're headed towards disaster in terms of the environment. But I don't understand, like I said above, how capitalism is causing it and how not-capitalism would solve it. We have 7 billion people on the planet and they all need to be fed. Capitalism is the most efficient system we know of to create and allocate resources. Should we... move to a less efficient system? Wouldn't that be worse for the environment? How does that solve anything? This is my confusion.
This is an interesting question! I'm parsing it to mean "how can the current problems be solved within a capitalist system?". It's a good question, and I don't have a 100% guaranteed answer. But I don't see that any capitalism alternative has a good answer either, so still I don't see how capitalism is the "bad guy".
In any case, my answer is this: A side effect of all of capitalist driven efficient production is that the environment is harmed. Here, I think the governing bodies have failed in their roles: their role is to define what "capital" means and rules of ownership. They haven't done that for environmental concerns, which is why capitalism isn't taking it into account properly. My desired solution is that the government could define a "total amount of carbon emissions" that would be allowed by the country as a whole, and then distribute transferrable carbon credits on the open market. This turns "rights to emit carbon" into a form of capital, and capitalism will do what it do and optimize for it.
In essence, I believe that governments have done a bad job of using the tool of capitalism to solve the problem of pollution.
Great analogy! But.... have we seen a lower minimum? What's the rationale behind that system? That's my question
This isn't really capitalism, this is production/commerce. This is what capitalists (people who own capital) tell you capitalism is. Capitalism isn't you buying a tool and using it. It's buying the 3D printer, paying people to design and build widgets, paying people to sell the widgets, then taking most of the money for yourself. You might say you make and sell widgets for a living, but you don't. You own a 3D printer for a living, and exploit the people who make widgets for a living.
You can hate capitalism and still make stuff. Anticapitalists usually aren't interested in taking away your 3D printer. State Communism isn't the only alternative, and most leftists hate that idea just as much. Some alternatives include worker coops and mutual aid.
I hate that I can work (with others) to build a company from the ground up and have nothing to show for it, because the owner is using us to fund his lifestyle. I hate that landlords can buy up all the homes, driving up the cost to the point no one can afford one, then rent them out and sit on their ass while I pay their mortgage. That's capitalism. People profiting off of ownership. It inevitably ends with some people owning almost everything, and the majority owning nothing.
Yes, I agree that this should be possible. Of course, if I'm taking too much money, the capitalist system will encourage my competitors to defeat me. Meaning that there a dis-incentive in place for doing bad/selfish things. Sounds like a pretty good system!
Yes I agree! I hate these things too. But capitalism doesn't prohibit every bad thing. Bad things can still happen under capitalism. I'm just saying that such things are harder to do under capitalism than any other system. For example, you mention landlords have to buy up every home before they can take advantage of you through their monopoly. That's way harder than other systems, where the government already owns all the homes, and can simply drive up the cost whenever they want :/
When was the last time you voted for your landlord?
That would be the last time I moved, so about a year ago.
Also, I happen to very much like my landlord. This is because they're heavily incentivized to address my concerns because otherwise I'd leave a bad review which they care about. Examples are: they fixed a couple of times the laundry facilities were broken, they fixed broken windows a couple of times, etc. etc.
EDIT: Actually, you're making a very good point which I didn't address properly! You're saying that voting gives society more power than prices do. This is a good point, but I disagree. I think prices control production more than any government can, because it allows a much more granular decision-making. For example, every single individual can "vote" that their apartment is too expensive by leaving and finding cheaper places, driving prices down.
I'm glad you have enough financial stability where you can pick and choose your landlord. It's unfortunate that there are plenty of people who can't "vote with their wallet" on account of not having all that much cash in there. And plenty of landlords who don't fear bad reviews because there's no place they can even be reviewed at, and even if they were to receive such a review housing is an inelastic good and in too short of supply for people to be picky about it.
Additionally, the government has no incentive to charge you more that what it costs to run public housing, whereas the landlord has a profit motive. Even if the government charges you more than how much it costs to build and maintain buildings, this money isn't send to a pit - it is used to build roads, railroads, sidewalks, provide healthcare, and to build so much more infrastructure and provide various different essential services. If you give it to a landlord, it's used to fund martinis and vacations on Ibiza. What's the better deal?
Respectfully I think a point that is often missed with your mindset is how your capital is giving you your voting power. Market Socialist policy aims to even out that exact voting power and more labor focused socialism does the same without market forces. The issue is the hoard and the power that hoard is giving individuals (and firms) over us.
I'm in a similar position to you and I can see many of these policies would hurt me directly, but can also see the historical patterns and current material conditions. We need to build a future for everyone, everyone who agrees with that is a socialist if you argue with them long enough
The TLDR:
They hate capitalism because they're losers and they think that under a different system they wouldn't be such a loser. But they would be.
You'd like Marxism. The whole point is that Capitalism is our dominant ideology because it was more efficient than feudalism, but now e have the tools to build a system more efficient than capitalism and we should build that instead. Capitalism is the most efficient system we've built so far, but it's very obviously not the most efficient system we can build.
How would that system work and how would it account for minorities? Should people be allowed to do as they see fit even if the majority determines it to be a waste of time or resources? The second you start getting into areas of central planning is when the oppression starts. If your proposed system is more smaller communities, that is when the famine starts.
I know it seems old to say that this has all been tried before but it really has. The USSR started as a unity of small communities (soviets) and they found that they could not run a society that way so they centralized planning. Racism played a part with the Holodomor, literally taking food from the most fertile region in the USSR and ensuring that Russians had enough. Anyone who was not Russian was worse off under the USSR which is why you see the eastern European former Soviet block countries be so anti-communist and so anti-Russia. It is also why you see the Russians remembering it fondly. They were the benefactors as the majority in the system. They also left the USSR rather than be in a majority Muslim USSR as Eastern European countries split off.
So, that's all fine and well you might say but that's not true Marxism because they centralized planning. The Chinese agreed with you which is why they refused to centralize for decades causing huge famines. They too eventually centralized planning. They too have used this economic power to oppress minorities.
You can argue that Marxism is more of an ideal that you are striving towards (and Marx himself did argue that) and that is the current CCP argument. They have a mixed economy like any other but they do not allow any party other than themselves which provides no check on power at all. It begrudgingly allows businesses but has no checks on their power until it endangers the efforts of the state. As long as the state, people, and businesses align in efforts, they are more efficient...and we're unironically at the definition of National Socialism.
I think these conversations died a long time ago so people forgot how to have them and relate to them in a way that they can understand. I also think that way too many people view socialism as a catchall for forcing through the changes they would rather see in society instead of doing the groundwork to actually change society. Giving more economic power to the majority won't make it less racist, you just gave the racists more power.
I don't see how that's obvious. Can you give me the rationale for this other system?
The rationale for capitalism is, essentially, the information problem. Basically, no one person has enough information to decide where a society's resources should be distributed. An analogy I've heard is: how should society decide whether they should build a bridge or a tunnel (one takes more wood, the other takes more steel)? The answer is extremely complicated, depending on society's capacity for producing wood and steel, people's desire for either a bridge or tunnel, and future expectations of the need for wood or steel. The answer is given by prices, which encode this information and incentivize making the right choice.
If wood is cheaper, it means there's more wood available and no one expects a huge need of wood to pop up soon. The same for steel, labor, land, and all the other resources that go into building a tunnel or bridge. Society is incentivized to build it for the lowest cost, which also happens to be the most efficient way to do it.
Is there a system which can do better? Would love to hear about it.
And also, I'm very scared when people suggest "down with capitalism!" because it's a pretty decent system and I worry about tearing society down unless we have very good reasons to believe it'll be better for it.
This is a great rationale for markets and prices, but it isn't a rationale for capitalism per se. It is possible for non-capitalist systems to use markets and prices.
I am not a Marxist.
There is a different philosophical rationale for what is wrong with capitalism and why an alternative is necessary. I can provide links to the comments in this thread where I try to explain it if you are interested. I am on Mastodon, so I have a character limit to deal with
Other than the decent system ruining our future, because a preventable catastrophe has been left to unfold because of corporate greed, the analogy is senseless from a pure logical sense. Of course you aren't just gonna pick the cheapest option when deciding to plan a tunnel or a bridge, you go with the option that makes the most sense. The information problem is of course more about how we knoe the desires to be fulfilled, but even there, don't you think, that most desires, that capitalism fullfills are nothing more but artificial. Nodoby would desire a bigger car, if a bigger car would not exist. And while it is true that former socialist countries had that problem, of not meeting peoples desires, new forms of socialism could utalize the internet to have a democratic edge on that for example. I would highly recommend you, to step out of your neoliberal bubble, and read Thomas Piketty's "A quick history of equality", and look up PlasticPills on Youtube, he has some really interresting videos on how capitalism forges us.
The issue is profit motive is inherent in capitalism. Businesses and government work on the same resources (money in this case). Businesses do everything they can to maximize profits, then they use the profits to buy government and ensure they keep business as usual. Power corrupts. So they don't offer living wage, they cut costs, they pollute and they collude. And in law, these businesses are legal entities too. They are afforded the legal status yet if an actual person did what a business does, he would be put away for a long time. Businesses act as psychoes yet people glorify being a successful business owner. Being successful in this system means that you exploited the most and you are the most psycho. Congrats then I guess.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" - Jiddu Krishnamurti
I'm not sure why you think this is inherently only possible in a capitalist economy. In a more socialist or even communist economy, you could still do all of that. The only difference would be that all the workers there (if there is more than just you working at said business) would be paid equal to the amount of labor they put in, as opposed to now where the majority of workers are paid less than what their labor is worth.
Read about externalities.
And the radium girls.
Yes! I'm aware of externalities, and agree that these are a side-effect of capitalism. My belief is that externalities are failures of the governing bodies to correctly define the "rules of ownership". Once that's done, the externality is resolved. This is an ongoing effort that's necessary to properly use capitalism.
In my opinion, saying "capitalism is bad because of externalities" is like saying "I used an electric saw without installing the safties and it had bad side effects".
Quoting my response (link: https://programming.dev/comment/1167093) for how I believe that environmental concerns are an externality that can be addressed here:
It's not a side effect, it's an effect. It's a feature. If companies could, they would externalize everything they could. Including paying workers as little as they can (or not at all, see slavery), or externalizing the health problems with the work (see radium girls), etc, etc,
What you place as failure of the governing body is actually a success of the lobbying industry. You know, capitalism.
By the way capitalism wants no governing body. You are putting in a factor (govt) which unfettered capitalism does not want to have and (effectively) actively tries to get rid of. And the fun part is you ascribe the failures of capitalism to the government. Funny how that works, huh.
How would giving complete economic power to the government eliminate special interests? Sure, it lowers their economic power in dollar terms but it does not lower their influence or incentives.
It's funny that people think it needs to be 100% one way government has "complete economic power", or 100% the other way unfettered capitalism, absolutely no rules, no regulation, free for all.
The short answer is: we need regulation. Businesses can run, but they shouldn't decide the rules.
Regulation is still capitalism. People in the western left and right seem to have forgotten this. The means of production are owned by private individuals. That's just laws. It's an equal playing field. Government programs are where it starts to get muddied.
Right, but they can't! That's the whole point of capitalism! Slavery is the pinnacle of anti-capitalism, because slaves don't own their own capital! It's explicitly not capitalist.
Holy mental gymnastics, Batman
Please explain-- what gymnastics?
Wikipedia definition of capitalism:
If slaves don't have private ownership.... then they're not living under a capitalist system. Right? What am I missing?
I think I see the problem: You think you have capitalism in the US. You do not have capitalism in the US (or Canada, or Europe). You have regulated capitalism.
The more capitalism you have, the fewer rules and regulation.
Capitalism in its true, unfettered form with no rules will give you everything I said: Externalize everything, low/no pay, unsafe conditions, poison your workers, etc, etc,
But we have regulated some bad parts. This regulation is not the result of capitalism. It expressly goes against capitalism.
They can't because we (unions/govt) said hey we need rules on this capitalism, because look at the effects of capitalism.
So we're back to the funny part. Now you ascribe the success of unions/government to be the success of capitalism. Funny how that works huh. You're full package:All the problems of capitalism, you ascribe to government. And all the success of unions/government, you ascribe to capitalism. You have now turned around everything to fit your narrative.
Slavery, child labor, killing your workers (I don't think you've read about the radium girls) is literally the pinnacle of capitalism. It's literally what capitalism resulted in, it's all over history.
Ah yes of course, that must be why no one ever finds people under working conditions analogous to slavery under capitalist states. Ever. Never happened.
I’m trying to take this thread seriously, but my man you sound so naive it hursts. I live in a global south country and the ammount of damage done to my society due to both capitalism and imperialism (which benefit from each other, you can’t fully separate them) is revolting. You need to read more and travel more.
The slaves don't own capital because they are the capital!
Nowhere in the definition of capitalism does it require that everyone owns capital; in fact it's much more the opposite.
Chattel slavery was and is a stage of capitalist development.
First, no alternative is required for something to be unacceptable to continue. This is a very common line of reasoning that keeps us stuck in the local minima. Leaving a local minima necessarily requires some backsliding.
Capitalism is unsustainable because every single aspect of it relies on the idea that resources can be owned.
If you were born onto a planet where one single person owned literally everything, would you think that is acceptable? That it makes sense that the choices of people who are long dead and the agreements between them roll forward in time entitling certain people to certain things, despite a finite amount of those things being accessible to us? What if it was just two people, and one claimed to own all land? Would you say that clearly the resources of the planet should be divided up more fairly between those two people? If so, what about three people? Four? Five? Where do you stop and say "actually, people should be able to hoard far more resources than it is possible for anyone to have if things were fair, and we will use an arbitrary system that involves positive feedback loops for acquiring and locking up resources to determine who is allowed to do this and who isn't".
Every single thing that is used in the creation of wealth is a shared resource. There is no such thing as a non-shared resource. There is no such thing as doing something "alone" when you're working off the foundation built by 90+ billion humans who came before you. Capitalism lets the actual costs of things get spread around to everyone on the planet, environmental harm, depletion of resources that can never be regained, actions that are a net negative but are still taken because they make money for a specific individual. If the TRUE COST of the actions taken in the pursuit of wealth were actually paid by the people making the wealth, it would be very clear how much the fantasy of letting people pursue personal wealth relies on distributing the true costs through time and space. It requires literally stealing from the future. And sometimes the past. Often, resources invested into the public good in the past can be exploited asymmetrically by people making money through the magic of capitalism. Your business causes more money in damage to public resources than it even makes? Who cares, you only pay 30% in taxes!
There is no way forward long term that preserves these fantasies and doesn't inevitably turn into extinction or a single individual owning everything. No one wants to give up this fantasy, and they're willing to let humanity go extinct to prevent having to.
Yes there is! This system is at least feeding most people in most countries. I refuse to say that "because this system is not ideal, we must destroy the system which is feeding billions of people without an alternative in mind". Are you arguing that it should be okay for people to die?!?
It has to be okay for people to die, because ALL PATHS FORWARD INVOLVE PEOPLE DYING. Any choice you make involves some hidden choice about who gets to suffer and die and who doesn't.
But no, that's not what I was saying. Also, are you aware that extinction also involves lots of deaths? Have you thought about what does and doesn't count as "death" to you? What about responsibility for that death? How indirect does it have to be before you're free from responsibility? Is it better to have fewer sentient beings living better lives, or more beings living worse lives? Does it matter how much worse? Is there a line where their life becomes a net positive in terms of its contribution to the overall "goodness" of the state of the universe? Once we can ensure a net positive life for people should the goal to be for as many to exist as possible? Should new people only be brought into the world if we can guarantee them a net positive life?
But hey, thanks for the very concrete example of how being in a decent local minima is very hard to break out of.
When you look at the growing wealth inequality over the past 70 years, it's pretty easy to argue that it is failing at that role currently. I see where you're coming from though, as overall, capitalism / free markets are a powerful decentralized system for resource allocation, but they have a lot of problems that aren't being addressed and there are some fundamental issues with how they apply to the information age.
Externalities like environmental damage aren't accounted for, anti-competitive behaviour (like Apple's walled garden) prevent fair competition and resources being allocated to the right spot, same thing goes for advertising and marketing which are by and large exercises in using money to psychologically manipulate people instead of making a better product. When wealth concentration is not reinvested in the product / business for societal betterment but is instead hoarded for personal gain (as we see at the investor / c-suite level) it causes resources to be spent on frivolous rich bullshit (yachts instead of food), and possibly one of the biggest issues is that capitalism has no inherent mechanism for caring for the less useful and those unable to work.
Yes it sounds great when you frame it in the context of a business making a better product getting more money, but it sounds a lot more soulless when you're talking about someone being born a little slow having to live a shit life just because of how their dice were rolled.
Even if you correct for all of these, capitalism falls apart in an information economy. At a very fundamental level, capitalism and trading is based on the idea of things being finite and increasing in scarcity when used up. Mass and material / energy does this. If you possess an object, I cannot possess it, so the more of it that is used up, the more valuable the remaining pieces become, to copy it takes a lot of energy or duplicate resources as the original. But information doesn't work the same way as matter / energy. Information can be duplicated and replicated instantly, across impossible distances, and our technology to do this has gotten so advanced and global that we can now duplicate basically any information an infinite numbers of times anywhere around the globe nearly instantly. In this context, capitalism falls apart, because as soon as information is created, there's no reason for it to be scarce, meaning it has zero value.
In this light we created copyright and patent systems to assign ownership of information, but what these systems really do is create artificial scarcity where there is no need for scarcity, just so that they can fit into a capitalist model. Do you know what would be better for overall useful economic growth? If all companies open sourced all their software. You know what won't happen because capitalism is the only system we have for assigning resources? That.
A couple notes on this. Firstly, just as an argument perspective, this is a burden of proof fallacy. Just because "not-capitalism" may not have a good answer, doesn't mean capitalism has a good one or even just a better one. I could be mischaracterising your argument, if so my bad, this is just how it reads to me. Secondly, I personally believe that socialism offers a better answer and a good one at that, which all revolves around incentives. A collective-ownership structure has more incentive for social well being, such as avoiding climate disaster, than a purely capitalist structure does.
As a side-note, I also think you're mischaracterising capitalism by including governing bodies, but you're doing it in a manner that's only one logical step away from socialism. By a government placing restrictions on a market or producer, say by defining a carbon emission cap, the market is no longer operating at true efficiency. While not fully capitalist anymore, that's still okay though as it's serving a social purpose. Zoom out a little and you can see other markets in which the government should set limits in. Now the whole economy isn't operating as a true free market. In this case, the government is defining what the social good is, and (at least in democratic nations), the government defines that based on the voice of the people. The problem with this is that it's reactive. I can pass as many laws as I want saying you can't emit carbon above a certain level, but I can only enforce it after you've gone over that cap at which point the damage is done, and some may make the economic calculation that it's worth it if you get more profits (fines are in essence "legal for a price" after all). If the government owns the industry, this can be prevented before happening.
Also free markets can exist without capitalism. I think another person somewhere on this thread mentioned worker co-ops, which are not a capitalist institution.
As a parting thought, I would also point out that one of if not the most efficient energy companies in the United States (in terms of energy produced per dollar input) is the TVA, a state-owned enterprise.
How is it efficient to throw away 40% of food produced rather than let it go for cheaper or free? How is it efficient for Nike and nearly all other clothing companies to massively overproduce their products and then cut them up and trash them at the end of the fashion season? How is it more efficient to create massive animal agriculture torture chambers that require massive monoculture farms to feed than to grow food crops and eat them directly?
Pretty simple really: capitalism requires infinite growth. We have finite resources. The world is literally melting around us due to unsustainability.
The pet peeve of many people is the greed (of billionaires, politicians, global companies, etc) for wealth (paper, essentially) yet not giving a flying fuck about the anyone else or the rest of the planet.
Capitalism sold us a fairy-tale.
Companies compete for customers, they improve products so it breeds innovation and they also compete for workers, so it gets better for everyone! Except it doesn't.
The reality is quite the opposite. Here's what happens. They want to maximize profits so that the owners of the company get more money. How do you maximize profits?
So what you end up with is low quality products, it's a race to the bottom of who can make the crappiest product that the customers are still willing to pay for.
And for the workers? Well, they don't earn much, we outsourced their work to overseas or replaced them with machines and computers. All the money went into the pockets of the owners and now the workers are poor. They're desperate to even find work, any work as long as it allows them afford rent and barely not starve. If one of them has concerns about the working conditions, fire them, somebody else is more desperate and willing to accept the conditions.
So capitalism is destined to make us all poorer. It needs poverty as a "threat" to make you shut up and do your work "you wouldn't want to be homeless, would you?"
The problem is not money itself, it's not stores or being able to buy stuff. That's an economy you can have an economy without capitalism. The problem is that the capitalists own the means of production and all the profits flow up into the pockets of the owners. And often the owners are shareholders, the stock markets, they don't care if a company is healthy, or doing well by their employees, all the stock markets care about is "line go up", and it's sucking the working class dry.
Regulation can avoid some of the worst negative effects of capitalism. Lawmakers can set a minimum wage, rules for working hours, paid time off, health and safety, environmental protection etc. Those rules are often written in blood. Literally, because if not forced by law, capitalism has no reason to care about your (worker or customer) life, only profits.
Oppose that with some ideas of socialism. aka. "The workers own the means of production" This is something some companies practice, Worker cooperatives are great. The workers are the owners, if the company does well, all the workers get to enjoy the profits. The workers actually have a stake in their company doing well. (Technically if you're self-employed you're doing a socialism) Well, that's utopia and probably won't happen, maybe there's a middle ground.
Unions are a good idea. Unions represent many workers and can negotiate working conditions and pay with much more weight than any individual worker can for themself.
Works councils are also a good idea, those are elected representatives of the employees of a company. They're smaller than trade unions, but can still negotiate on behalf of the employees of the company. Sometimes they even get a seat on the board of directors so they have a say in how the company is run.
That's how you can have capitalism but also avoid the worst effects of treating workers and customers badly. Anyway, unchecked capitalism is not a great idea. The USA would be an example of such unchecked capitalism.
Especially when you know that money equals power and the wealthy can buy their politicians through the means of "campaign donations" and now the owners of companies control the lawmakers who write the laws these companies have to abide by … From Europe we look at the USA and are mortified, but let's not make this even more political.
Man this debate is so US centric - as if there is only two choices: Unhinged, raging, exploitative, robber-baron capitalism OR Bolshevik Communism.
Typing this from one of the richest, strongest market economies in the world, which provides free health care, free education and generous e employment protections in the world. Everyone is happy, everyone is healthy, broadly, and capitalism exists next to a system of government that regulates to ensure the well-being of their citizens.
Social democracy people, it’s for real!!
Capitalism rewards exploitation.
You've probably heard "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" - and historically speaking, and in my experience, this holds to be true. I couldn't be typing this on my glass god rectangle if there weren't some children in a cobalt mine somewhere - at some rung on the ladder, people are dying, because where's the incentive to lift others out of poverty? Why would any capitalist elevate their source of cheap labour and materials out of the blood and sand?
There's also the interaction we have between the capitalist and socialist aspects of our society - for instance nationalised healthcare cannot be administered by capitalists because there is no incentive for the system to function for the good of the patients, but eventually the system will be optimised out of existence (by which I mean, broken into smaller units for budgetary reasons, small units degraded continually until they are canned, and the whole system is sunset because of "sound economic decisions").
Capitalism is the antithesis of what I think any reasonable person wants in society save for those with an amount of blood on their hands. Capitalism is a Mad Max dystopia where a handful of people live as deities whilst the rest of us kill each other in the streets for scraps.
Capitalism might have seemed viable when everyone was suffering from lead poisoning, but it's killing us today, and I support any means to remove this cancer and push for a more equitable life for everyone.
“Free market” Capitalism is self-destructive. As the wealthy build and consolidate power, more and more resources get funneled to the top while the people at the bottom actually creating those resources go with less and less, and it’s unsustainable.
Being a billionaire is a moral failing. To have the ability to do something about all the suffering and death in the world, and to choose to do nothing borders on sociopathy. The systems designed to allow for billionaires to exist ensure that they don’t pay a fair share of their taxes, and they contribute nothing to society. They are leeches, feeding off the working class and giving nothing in return, when they have so much more to give than anyone else.
For us young people: Because the system feels broken, and that there's little future to grow towards.
I grew up privileged, I attended private school until 5th grade before moving to one of the best public schools in a US state known for having good education. I've had a safety net my entire life, and that has allowed me to take risks, and end up homeless, that otherwise could have permanently screwed me over.
I, only a few years later, finally feel somewhat stable with the path I've pursued. For me stable means ~2 months emergency savings, probably not getting evicted by my batshit landlord anytime soon, and only having to work 2 jobs.
If that is what it takes to feel stable, then I can only feel like the system is screwed. I will never have the money to buy a house anywhere near where I work, near being defined as within an hour. I spend my days working for people who can drop more than what I make in a year on vacations. People who live in neighborhoods where the 'cheap' houses start at $10 million. And I work with some amazing down to earth people. If I'm one of the lucky ones, and I definitely am for where I live, how can the system not be broken?
Our climate is fucked, my only hope of every owning property is a massive market crash, I will likely have to keep working till I'm close to dead, vacations are a distant dream, allwhile I make my landlord richer, the corporations take all my money, because I can't afford good, organic or local food, and the people at the top get even richer.
Our system has incentived turned all the workers into profit. At work we're measured by the value we add to the company, never officially, but punished for missing work or being sick, and at home we're measured by the value we add to corporations through our purchases. Even our attention has become a product. How long can companies get us to stare at their product, mindlessly consuming and being served ads.
Even in our own homes we are a product. We are an unwilling cog in a machine that makes us poorer and those with the power richer. The government should be here to protect the common man and woman. For every example of the gov. doing the right thing to protect us from monopolies and predatory practices, there are 10 or 100 examples of the opposite.
No change will come about under our current socio economic system, and you need to remember. I'm one of the lucky ones.
Let's say you have a cow. The cow had a baby, and it's producing milk, but more than the calf or your family need. So you start selling the excess milk.
It's good money! Soon you buy another cow, and another. Eventually you can't take care of them all, so you hire people to help you. Yay!
After a while you realize that waiting for the cows to be impregnated by your bull means they are not producing milk as much as they can. So you start forcefully impregnating the cows so they are always pregnant or producing milk.
The calves are drinking a lot of your milk, so you decide to kill them as soon as possible. You don't know what to do with the dead calves, so you start marketing them as "veal", a delicacy!
A lot of your process is still manual, so you buy machinery that increases your productivity by 100x. You're still paying your workers the same amount, even though they're now responsible for producing 100x more.
One day you realize there's too much milk in the market. If you sell it all, the price will drop too much. So you dump thousands of gallons of milk in the river, to keep the prices stable. You couldn't give them away to people in need, that would still affect the market!
You're still not selling enough (though you have more money that you could spend in your lifetime). So you buy some politicians so the government says that milk is essential, the only way to absorb calcium, and it should be in every school. People are convinced they need milk, even though it's from another species and even though humans don't need milk after a couple years of age.
That's why I hate capitalism.
Capitalism has given a lot of people out there a raw deal: low wages, increasing gap between the rich and the poor, home ownership is out of reach to many, healthcare is unaffordable to many, having a family is prohibitively expensive, we own almost nothing and rent almost everything, even basic necessities like food, water and clothing are painfully expensive. What's more, when you look at the systems in place today, it appears that these aren't bugs, but features.
I'm a socialist because I believe that society ought to use its collective power and money to guarantee all of its people a minimum of the basic, essential things that they need to live, by subsidizing food, water, shelter, clothing, heat, electricity, data, education and healthcare.
Outside of those crucial things, capitalism is just fine, as long as people are being paid fairly for their time. And, as we've all seen, capitalism needs strict rules and guard rails to make sure that workers aren't being constantly exploited. If capitalism was working well for everyone, we were all getting paid fairly for our time, and people could take care of their needs (not to mention their wants), then nobody would have any reason to care or complain about capitalism. But sadly, as it is today, capitalism is just not working for a lot of people, and many people out there are not even having their basic needs met (even despite getting an education, taking out loans, getting a job, getting a second job, working hard, etc.).
To me, creating a prosperous and happy society is much more complex than picking capitalism or socialism, and some mix of both is probably the best of both worlds.
Lots of good answers in here already.
Some stuff that's colloquially seen as capitalism is okay. Me paying someone to clean my house because I hate that chore is fine with me.
It quickly becomes Not Fine when you add in all the "if they don't clean up my shit, they risk starving", "they work for a boss who takes most of the money I pay", and "none of us pay for externalized costs like using toxic chemicals for cleaning" parts. Other things too I can't think of right now n
Left alone, nothing stops capitalism from selling you bread made with sawdust. People might say "well the market would reject an inferior product" but that's not necessarily true. Monopolies and cartels form. People might not know a product is harmful until it's too late.
Blah blah blah. Fittingly, I have to go back to work now.
Capitalism is inherently evil, you can only make money if you already have it
As the natives said, how can your way be better when those who have nothing give to those who have everything?
But the greedy in charge lie and say it's better, and they control ALL aspects of life because they have the money, news, police, etc.
Capitalism is slavery and is NOT in the constitution.
Capitalism is flawed and has outlived it's usefulness just as every preceding economic system has. One of the more poignant Marx quotes puts it well
Capitalism is based on the accumulation of resources known as the "means of production". As time goes on, those with capital are able to leverage it to further subjugate the working class as they amass a disproportionate amount of wealth and capital. The average worker is worth far more than they are paid, while the capitalist who they work under continues to pocket the majority of that profit.
For a working class person to begin to earn their fare share they have a few ethical options, be self employed, unionize to collectively bargain for a larger piece of the pie, join or form a co-op (effectively a small scale form of socialism).
The last point I'd bring up that is more central to my own politics is the inherent link between capitalism and imperialism. Even in a capitalist country where you may be able to comfortably live as a member of the working class, the global third world is often footing the bill in order to lower the cost of goods. Examples would be clothing, chocolate, coffee, etc where most of these are made in desolate conditions and sometimes with slave labor.
That being said, there are many reasons to be against capitalism and it is hard to express in a single comment. I highly recommend Lenin's State and Revolution to anyone interested.
Climate change cannot be addressed under capitalism.
The top 10% of Americans own 70% of the country's wealth.
Have you ever stopped to consider the logical conclusions of that? If they lived at the same standard as the average American, we would only need to use 30% of the resources we're currently burning through. It's grossly inefficient. We waste more than 2/3rds of our resources so that rich assholes can live in $100 million mansions and fly around on private jets.
Say you're an American working a 9 to 5 job. Once you hit 1 pm on Tuesday, you've done enough work for the week to meet all the actual needs for society. The rest of Tuesday, all of Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday are all just to pay for rich assholes to take a "hunting" trip to Africa and needlessly slaughter native wildlife. Or to buy the 400th car in their special collections that they've nearly forgotten about. Etc. Etc.
70% of the irreplaceble oil being drilled? Flushed down the drain just so that rich assholes can horde wealth. 70% of the pollution in the air? Put there so that billionaires can have parties on a private island. So that they can fly their private jets to private retreats and pretend to be outdoorspeople for a weekend. 70% of the new extreme weather being caused by anthropogenic climate change? All so that rich assholes can do things like jet around the world so they can say they've played a round of golf on 7 different continents in 7 days. Etc. Etc.
It's nowhere near sustainable.
Capitalism is just diversified feudalism.
Instead of owning 100% of a district and everything the peasants on it produce, the aristos worked out that they could diversify their portfolios and thin out the risk.
So now they own a thousandth part of the product of a thousand districts instead.
Now if plague wipes out a village or six, you don't have to care, you're only losing a tiny chunk of your income. Now the welfare of the peasants isn't your problem, because they're not, like :douchebro sniff: exclusively your peasants.
The rich produce nothing, they add no value, they perform no labour. It's just predatory rent-seeking: the poor still do all the work, produce all the goods and provide all the services, but now somehow 99% of the value they generate goes to some smirking freeloader instead, who can just plough it into acquiring more and more peasants. They only thing they ever provided was a chunk of startup cash, which they got from exploiting other peasants in the first place.
And of course, none of that cash goes to the people whose income it supposedly buys. It's not a fair trade, it's not a trade at all, they aren't a party to it. Workers are just bought and sold over their heads, like dairy cattle. They get milked just the same, and some other fat bastard gets all the cream.
The whole system is rigged to concentrate power and wealth into the hands of the super-rich, stripping it away from everyone else and leaving them struggling to survive - and keeping the ladder well and truly pulled up so nobody else gets into the treehouse.
Libertarian types like to claim that taxation is theft, but taxation is a spit in a hurricane compared to the industrial-scale looting that goes on every day. Take the profits of any corporation, and divide that by the total salaries of the workers that actually generate revenue. Theft? You don't know the meaning of the word. What percentage of the value you generate goes in shareholder pockets? How would you feel about taxation at that level, funding not roads and schools and hospitals, but yachts and mansions and private jets for a bunch of one-percenters?
How are you not angry?
Look around you -- capitalism is literally burning our ecosystem to transfer wealth into the hands of the rich. If you are "pro-capitalism" you are either ignorant of physical reality or you are selfish and think you can "make it" and be one of the tiny minority that actually benefits from the system, to the detriment of almost every other living being on the planet.
As was already stated, capitalism is unsustainable. It seeks infinite growth in a world of finite resources. Capitalism will almost always place short term financial gain over long term issues.
There are only two financial classes. The owner class and the working class. It doesn't really matter if you make 30k a year or 300k a year. If you sell hours of your life for a salary, you are part of the working class. Capitalists make passive income off others labor. Being "pro-capitalism" is essentially saying that you're okay giving all but the littlest amount of value you produced to someone else. This is paraded as a good thing in the United States.
Simply because it's a system based on infinite growth in a finite world.
Look at what the greed of capitalism is doing to our planet.
In a perfect world where humans aren't greedy, maybe it could work, but humans are evil and greedy and it'll never work.
Capitalism requires coercion to function. Capitalists openly admit this by being staunchly against removing 'incentives' (read the coercion) to work. The 'incentive' is goddamn starvation and being exposed to the raw elements with no shelter. And apparently, if this was a basic human right provided to everyone, we'd all stop working over night and become lazy. It's just such an ass-backwards way to look at the world. People are not inherently lazy. But they need to be forced to work shitty jobs under unacceptable conditions. That's the crux of the matter. The ultra-rich require wage slaves. Not free-thinking, educated people who go after their own interests and are productive in their own ways. I'm interested to see how the system will hold up when all the shitty jobs have been automated away. My guess is that the rich will flee to some kind of Elysium type paradise, while robot police keeps the masses in check and 'poor' people, aka 99% of humanity goes extinct.
Capitalism is just feudalism with better marketing. A system that values property more heavily than the wellbeing of the overwhelming majority of the human race is objectively morally repugnant.
Capitalism is a tool. Being pro-capitalism is like being pro-circular saw.
What you see as “anti-capitalism” is people pointing out that using one tool for everything is, at best, inefficient… and, at worst, dangerous.
Insisting that everything must be quantifiable and min/maxed according to market demands is nonsense, and hurts people.
There are things we value which are not profitable. There are things that are profitable but not valuable.
It's pretty basic. At this point in time we can see what the promise of trickle down economics was, and we can see where the country is, compared to before, for the middle and lower classes. Even without blaming capitalism for this, we can see that giving wealth to the top fails more people than just paying people a decent wage.
The people claiming most to be pro-capitalist between the major two parties in the US are saying to stay the course and go even further.
I would like a return towards the capitalism of the 1950's-1970's. But that is generally considered to be socialist by the party seeking to keep going in the direction that has failed most Americans.
I would also like to emulate the whole of Western Europe in hopes of having a larger middle class as a by product of tax collection and spending, rather than paying for-profit entities, to get guaranteed services that support basic daily life. Capitalists do not want that because they cannot profit off of services provided by the government to anywhere near the same extent.
It's simple, the type and level of capitalism currently in place in America makes life unnecessarily difficult for the citizens of America.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty for a basic rundown - in short, empiric data over the last 250 years show that unregulated capitalism concentrates wealth at a rate that is larger than the economic growth.
"Profit" is just another word for "unpaid wages."
I like buying shit as much as the next person, I also don't think endless growth for shareholders is a laudable goal and is likely dangerous. I also don't think that essential services should be run for profit, but then I am from a country with proper government health care. Government should set a baseline, not a company.
But as I said, I still like buying shit
*gestures vaguely at everything*
I'm not even full on anticapitalist but come on that's just obvious.
Gesturing vaguely at everything is not an argument for anything. Supposing the person you're talking to agrees that everything is bad, then it's simply an argument for radicalism, not necessarily anticapitalism or whatever your particular strain of belief is. Someone could, while gesturing vaguely, just as easily argue that it's because of moral decline, that society isn't capitalist enough, for race realism, for the need for a strongman to take over, or really anything that'd promise (but almost certainly not deliver) to vaguely fix everything.
Quoting my reply to a similar sentiment: (link here: https://programming.dev/comment/1167202)
Yes, and capitalism works to deny those people as much food as possible, to give it to others who can pay more. If you buy groceries and literally throw them away, that's better for the companies selling the food than you using it. We've known for 50 years that climate crisis was coming, but in order for capitalism to keep expanding, they kept pouring (literal) fuel onto the fire.
Worse for whom? We're literally looking at unlivable temperatures popping up all over the globe, not to mention the storms, land erosion, lack of water, and the fact that soon, we won't even be able to grow food like we do now. You think we'll have cattle farms in 50c heat?
We don't need a new system, we have one: Socialism. Not communism, socialism. Governments should exist to enrich and help their people, not to enrich a tiny percentage of them at the expense of everyone else.
Capitalism is about exponential growth, on a planet with finite resources. Eventually, you get to where we are now: End Stage Capitalism. A tiny number of people have a bulk of the wealth of the world. The game is over, they won. They made the planet unlivable for humans in a few generations in order to do it, but they won. Congratulations (confetti)
Ok so if you agree that everything is fucked idk why you'd take issue with my answer being "because everything is fucked." I already said I'm not a full on anticapitalist so idk what your point in telling me we shouldn't throw the whole thing out is, I don't think that in the first place.
Because people these days have lived through their parents losing a lot during the housing crash while wages continue to get lesser, prices continue to get greater, and rich people continue to get richer.
Also the planet being destroyed, with no end in sight as long as the entire society is organized around the sole purpose of enabling those with the most money to have more money, rather than anything actually meaningful or beneficial for those who live on the planet.
Quoting my reply to a similar sentiment: (link here: https://programming.dev/comment/1167202)
Dude, in this case what make it hard is not nature, is not our technology or even the will of most people.
We have means to feed everyone on this planet. Make clean water available to everyone. To make everyone have a house. And to revert clima change.
What is stopping that to happen? Most people here will answer "capitalism", but explain and prove that is not so simple because, as you said, the world is complex and we live inside the system. Think about how someone on ancient times trying understand a critique about their own society made by an outsider. Not that easy. And to make that even harder, we feed get propaganda from all sides.
I suggest you to make more basic/small questions. Like "why food companies don't donate excess food for people in need instead of trashing it?", the answer will be an excuse about risk of being sued. That's not true, the are laws in US to protect companies donating food in good faith.
Or maybe "Are there options to capitalism? What is socialism? What is communism? Why do they failed? Did they failed? What can we learn with history? Where can I find good sources?"
Are you a billionaire? Or at least a +100millionare? If not, you are not pro-capitalism you are brainwashed
Seems to be an extremely inefficient resource distribution system, where a few people end up with most resources while a shit ton of people lack basic needs stuff. There are some good existing work arounds, like social market economy - which tries to combine socialist and capitalist element in an unholily dialectic alliance.
Capitalism destroy people first, relationships and societies then, and the land and the world finally. It's not an accident, because if you want to fight that, you'll be destroyed too.
Another way to see it is that it's the opposite of society and civilization. It's the law of the jungle. Competition applied to everything will only destroy everything. Civilization is when you stop to see the other as an opponent and you cooperate with it instead. Capitalism is seeing those people as opponents in a life or death competition, and making everything so that society is a life or death competition between them. It's not pragmatic, it's death.
I'd argue it should be the default position.
Why should I respect this elaborate system of property rights that was largely built by and for terrible human beings who actively sought to tyrannize others for their own gain?
How much of the wealth held today can be traced back to morally illegitimate if not outright criminal beginnings?
Some great answers here so I'll do something different and I'll give myself as a real-world example.
As a young adult, through a twist of luck, I found a cheap place to rent, so was able save a good amount of my income. I used that saving to get a loan, buy property, and used that property to get a loan and buy a property, and then do it once again. A short while later I now have no debt, can sit on my arse browsing lemmy in Bali (exploiting geo-arbitrage), and live off the market-rate rents my tenants pay back home.
If my tenants didn't have to pay market-rate rents, they too might be able save some cash and become capitalists themselves. I could lower the rent, but then I would have to get a job and actually earn my living again. People born into wealth can even skip that step of having to earn their initial capital.
But whats the point of owning income producing assets (like property, or business) if you're not improving your situation with it? The ONLY benefit of the capitalist system is that it allows the capitalist to reap the benefits of other's work, thus reducing the burden of the capitalist to work themself.
It's a ridiculous situation, I should not be able to live as I do, simply because I got a lucky break at the start of my working life, an opportunity that is given to the very few. The system should change.
Capitalism makes me feel like I don't deserve a good life because I'm not very competitive.
Capitalism is an amazing engine to produce wealth. But it's also extremely opposed to the idea of distributing it.
Ever play Monopoly?
A system based on perpetual growth has reached the limits of that growth and is now actively and manifestly shredding the planetary ecosystem., This isn't a question of anything other than the survival of human civilization. Your political views are irrelevant. The system is at its terminal point. In some other timeline we reformed the postmodern capitalist system and regulated it to prevent ecocide. That is not this timeline. That's because, concurrent to the shredding of the ecosystem, the culture of end stage capitalism, a culture evolved to make us all obedient consumer-workers, has further evolved to make us delusional, psychotic, fascist, it has shredded the collective unconsciousness of humanity and resurrected fascism as a way to defend the system as it self-destructs.
The fediverse is largely populated by 2SLGBTQIA+ people and people of colour who are oppressed by capitalist regimes. The other big contingent is marxists and people who like FOSS. FOSS, at its core, is anti-capitalist.
You're in a place founded by anti-capitalism, that exists in spite of capitalism, asking "why is there so much anti-capitalism here?"
I find that many people conflate capitalism with free markets. They are different things.
Free market economies are ones where many businesses which provide competing products can use price as a parameter on which to compete. Even in famously free market economies, e.g, the United States, some things have prices regulated by the government. Think electricity, certain prescription drugs, other things deinfed in the arena of "utilities" or "necessities" for the general public.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is where there is an ownership class (which does little or no labor) and a labor class (which does most or all of the labor), and an portion of the compensation for the value that the labor class produces is redirected to the ownership class. Some of that is reasonable; I think it's true that putting capital at risk in order to start and operate a business should come with some kind of reward.
However, the amount of reward that the ownership class realizes is often far more than is reasonable, and the effect is that the labor class is drastically undercompensated. This amounts to wage theft, above and beyond the already common kind of wage theft that includes unpaid work hours or withholding agreed upon compensation for unjustifiable reasons. Furthermore, again in the US, the amount of risk that owners assume when staking their capital is very low or nonexistent; profits are privatized, losses are socialized. The labor class gets the double whammy of being undercompensated on one side, and paying for business failures on the other.
Under capitalism, value is extracted and concentrated. That in turn means that your employer is motivated to get as much value out of you as they can. Companies are motivated to charge you as much as they can convince you to pay.
Think about a friend who might ask to buy something of yours; let's say it's a sofa. If we apply that same logic of capitalism, you should try to get as much money as possible. I don't know about you, but I don't like the way that it feels.
I have a very pragmatic view on capitalism. It isn't inherently good or evil. Social democracy provides the best compromise where regulated capitalism generates wealth and funds innovation while responsible democratic government protects employees and the environment and provides services that have a strong social benefit.
Unfortunately social democratic policies are undermined in many countries and resisted in others to the point where some young people become frustrated and look to answers in hateful extremist politics which really is a horseshoe.
Capitalism is fine as long as its well-regulated and is only one component of a larger system. It's no accident that the best countries in the world to live in all rely in part on well-regulated capitalism together with robust democracy and relatively high levels of what in the US would be called socialism.
For all of the benefits and blessings that capitalism has given us, there are several things people need to realize:
When we talk about all the good that capitalism has done for us, that's a vanishingly small us. There are literally billions of people in the world today who are languishing in poverty that makes first-world poverty look downright lavish. Then there are those first-world impoverished, who doubtlessly do live lives of fruitless toil and abject misery. And now think about the people in centuries past -- the serfs, the slaves, the child laborers... The fact that capitalism has managed to give some comfort to some of us in some countries in the past century does not negate the immense, incalculable suffering it took to get here. And as I said, very many people today, even in modernized nations, are suffering immeasurably still.
Capitalism has overstayed its welcome regarding global crises like climate change. The profit motive seems not to be working at all, let alone with the appropriate urgency, toward the goal of saving us from the consequences of climate change. The scientific consensus largely appears to be that we're too late to sidestep a cataclysm, but this is still not enough to prompt world leaders (i.e. the rich and powerful) to step up their game.
On a more high-minded level, capitalism is inherently repugnant because the people at the top can only enrich themselves by skimming off of the rightful earnings of the ones at the bottom. This is unavoidable; how could the CEO get so rich if 100% of the laborers' value was given to them? This goes beyond the natural reality that labor is required to survive. The issue here is that rather than having organized our economy around people laboring together for their own mutual benefit, we've organized our world such that the vast majority of us labor for the benefit of the few elites who only deign to pass on a pittance once the laborers become too uppity. People who oppose capitalism do not oppose labor; they oppose the way our global society has decided to distribute its results.
Capitalism, at least in its cutthroat, largely unrestrained, American fashion, is by no means the only option we have. European countries demonstrate that capitalism can be moderated to work better for the masses, and there is no reason to believe even they've gone as far as they can. People love to jeer at communism for its many failures in implementation without seeming to realize that, as expressed above, countless people all over the world are currently suffering and starving and languishing under capitalism too.
Is this bait?
Capitalism isn't necessarily bad, but unregulated capitalism encourages the most cut throat to thrive.
Capitalism is a great economic model when you can have a competitive market, but oligopolies, monopolies, and monopsonies are natural. After you have no where else to go, labor is a cost, and capitalism encourages the cut throat to minimize that by any means.
Also, even right wing economists agree there are some market failures within capitalism. It encourages you to not consider the economic impact outside of your company. These are typically referred to as negative externalities.
Smokers are a negative externality to the health care system. When a corporation gets hacked, their clients suffer the consequences for when their stolen data is abused. No corporation can stop all other corporations from polluting with cheaper energy, and the most cost effective will thrive in a capitalist system. So all corporations have to choose dirtier cheaper energy.
These are all examples of market failures. Regulation compatibile with capitalism include taxing negative externalities and using that money to subsidize positive externalities.
Tax smokers and use the money to fund health care. Fine corps for getting hacked and subsidize hackers to pen test systems. Tax dirtier forms of energy and subsidize greener sources.
The reason as to why here relative to elsewhere is probably because people here tend to be more into free software and privacy and things like that, and caring about those things tends to have an anti-corporate aspect, because of the way corporations tend to act, and aligns pretty well with wider anticapitalist beliefs
Also the devs and pre-Reddit influx population are anticapitalist so that kind of helps influence the trajectory a bit
In order to call yourself a capitalist, you have to own capital.
It doesn't qualify if you have a mortgage to your capital or debt to your capital. You have to own the thing or property outright and completely in order to say you have capital.
The majority of us are not capitalists because we don't own capital.
We may advocate for it but it's like arguing for your banker to stay perpetually wealthy and even more wealthier through your debt.
Not capitalism, but hating on corporations and on unregulated capitalism. Imagine having one commercial entity more powerful than many of the states in the world, then having them abuse that kind of power given by money to supress the rights of people in the weaker states. The government should act as a staunch and uncorruptible protector of the people against these kind of big economic legal or illegal entities
I just don't like greed. No, scratch that. I just don't like greedy people! I don't mind capitalism, as long as it doesn't produce greedy people. I know.. it's tough to even imagine such a thing...
What do you actually like about it? Unless you are rich, it works against you in every way and is actively chipping away at your quality of life. The free market isn't free and meritocracy doesn't exist so it's hardly the fair competition capitalists make it out to be.
I'll be willing to talk to you eye to eye when no one in the world has a personal networth above 275 million dollars.
I'm just gonna tell you what happens when pure capitalism would exist in a country.
There would be no taxes. That sounds alright, but listen: Everything is on a market. Healthcare, education, everything. There is competition for everything. That means companies will have to do stuff to win you as a customer. One big company in every industry sector will win and buy all the other companies that have gone bankrupt. Then, we have monopolies and the big companies can raise their prices however they want and control us in every way they want.
I don't own capital, so that would be contradictory for me to support capitalism. It's likely I will never be rich, like the rest of the 99%, so there's no reason to support the system in hopes of being among the ones at the top.
Also capitalism is inherently immoral, coercive, unsustainable and all around nasty.
McCarthy era red scare and the elimination of socialist parties by Woodrow Wilson before him (among a lot of other things) contributed to US citizens having very little understanding of systems beyond capitalism. The imperial core mentality is real and we are not immune.
Read Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher on this phenomenon. wikipedia page
One thing is that capitalism is poorly defined. Is it markets? Is it companies over some certain arbitrary size? Is it private ownership of the means of production, like Marx said, and if so how do you define "means of production"?
I think when people say they're anti-capitalist, what they usually mean is they're unhappy with the system and find private actors to be the most destructive actors, at least currently in their home location.
PS, lemmy.ml stands for lemmy.marxist-leninist. The instance has seemed mostly general audience since I joined after the Reddit blackout, but it is run by communists.
A valid question.
"Capitalism" is a huge umbrella term so means many different things to many different people. And as an extension of this, a lot of the things that are underneath that umbrella are inarguably ... extremely bad. Environmental devastation, the oppression and wage slavery of the third world, the existence of multi-million-dollar worthless baubles when people still die from lack of affordable health care... Even if you're very pro-capitalist it would be tough to argue that all aspects of capitalism are great for humans and humanity. Capitalism optimizes for economic performance, not human happiness.
Also a lot of people's only experience with oppression is through capitalism. Here, I am talking about the alienation of workers from their labor (or, put more plainly, "shitty jobs"). It's pretty bad for the soul to work as a wage slave in Amazon Fulfillment Warehouse #143249 earning $14/hour while bosses so removed from you they may as well be on another planet earn roughly $14,000,000/minute for doing nothing more than sitting in an office for 2 hours a day and sexually harassing their hot secretaries. Obviously there's more to it than this for those of us who are more pro-capitalism, but I think it's easy to see how some people get very angry about these conditions very rapidly.
Personally, despite these problems, I am more pro-capitalist than not, but it is because I experience (and have experienced) a fair amount of non-capitalism-related-oppression. As I have said numerous times capitalism is not perfect and is far from perfection. Nevertheless, it is the only economic system under which minorities such as LGBTQ+ people have been able to advance their agendas and see a modicum of gains in the field of civil rights. People hate on rainbow capitalism but I personally love it (and, by extension, fear Target and other companies caving to Republican pressure campaigns). The alternative to rainbow capitalism is companies and people hating LGBTQ+ people... and that is a far, far worse outcome for me than Northrop Grumman having a float in a Pride parade.
This is also a pretty typical leftist divide though. Those of us more on the "identity politics" side tend to see communists as white bros with bad beards whose only experience of adversity is that they're jealous of how much money their bosses make. On the other hand, communists see identity politics proponents as wanting more gay disabled Black trans drone pilots. Both these critiques are obviously basically true because everyone is problematic.
But I think that's basically where the capitalism hate on the Internet comes from.
At least, in the United States, I think what most people actually hate is “Reaganomics”. That’s a form of capitalism that greatly benefits the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
Before Reaganomics, the US had a thriving middle class. That was under FDR’s version of capitalism.
Capitalism is inherently contradictory to my basic values, terrible at efficient economic allocation, actively destroying everything, and is built on a foundation of war and genocide.
I believe that everyone should have as much autonomy as possible. Capitalism's basic premise is that economic allocation is determined by those who own capital, allocation of the resources communities and individuals use is an autonomy problem. Since Capitalism concentrates power among a very few, it is actively limiting the autonomy of literally billions of people for the benefit of less than a thousand.
The allocation of resources itself, the basic purpose of any economic system, is incredibly inefficient undee Capitalism. Take food, vast amounts are produced, enough to feed everyone, yet people starved to death while I was writing this. Not only that, food itself is peoduced in such a way as to maximize profit. This comes at the expense of local food systems, which have been in large part dismantled by environmental damage. It comes at the expense of vast CO2 emissions to run the machines that mine phosphorous, manufacture fertilizer and pesticides, run the various pieces of farm equipment, process food, and the planes, ships, trucks that ship it to stores. It comes at the expense of soil health, which monocropping, tilling, fallow, and agrochemicals all harm. This is just food, look at any other sphere of human activity and you will find a similar story. Meaningful measures of efficiency and system health are ignored to pump out as much profit as possible, and this gets called "efficient".
Capitalism is the great machine that is destroying everything. Under it's logic of endless expansion we have seen entire ecosystems bulldozed and turned into suburbs, watched millions of people be enslaved even in the present day, witnessed war and genocide on a scale never before fathomed. Both world wars happenned under Capitalism, and war has continued unabated ever since. The so-called United States is the dominant Capitalist power on Earth, and holds millions of people in legal slavery, if you don't believe me read the 13th amendment to its constitution. Many other people are describing the results of ecosystem destruction, the Climate Catastrophe, as their primary reason for anti-capitalist beliefs.
Capitalism as a system grew under feudalism before supplanting it, and directly springboarded off of Colonialism to become the dominant economic system of this world. The horrors of colonization follow(ed) a similar logic of expansion to capital, exploiting millions of people through slavery and genocide, spreading plagues that have killed countless individuals and entire cultures, introducing poverty to places where the concept had not preciously made sense. Capitalism cannot be separated from its historical roots, if you want to learn more about this I recommend the, "A ______ People's History of the United States" series of books. I'd prioritize the Indigenous and Black histories.
This is an indictment of Capitalism, but presents no alternatives. I will do that here.
Indigenous cultures had/have land-based economies that center care. This is not an alternative, it is thousands of them, each adapted to a local ecosystem. In order to survive we need to localize resource production, and land-based economies are the way to do that. I would recommend learning about how Indigenous people groups in your area thrived before Colonialism forcibly severed many of their connections to place, how they survive today, and how they are working to heal their relationships to the land. A related concept is that of the gift economy, a common practice for many groups world-wide, the particulars of which are as diverse as our species. Look into it, gift economies work, and operate on principles that are essentially as "anti-capitalism" as one can get.
Commons-based peer production is another, complimentary option for future economic systems. It is directly born out of the open source software movement, and imagines structuring all production around simular principles. People produce for themselves and their peers, keeping resources in common to ensure equitable allocation. If you do not believe commons can work, I would recommend looking into Ostrom's eight principles for managing commons, just highlight that phrase and paste it into a search engine. A related concept is that of "cosmo-local production". The idea is that physical production is localized to reduce impact on the planet (local), while information on process is shared freely with everyone (cosmo). This ties into the idea of "donut economics" which is basically the idea that we should meet human needs while staying within planetary boundaries, the inside and outside of the metaphorical donut respectively. Look up any of these terms and you will find loads of thought-provoking writing, imagining a better world. Plus many of the people doing the theorizing are programmers like you, I'm sure you'll find ideas that resonate with you if you look for them here.
It took courage to make this post, thanks for starting some interesting discussions. I might believe you are wrong about Capitalism, but I respect your honesty and willingness to engage with other ideas here. I would strongly encourage reading further to understand these concepts on a deeper level than a Lemmy comment can give you, especially the economic alternatives, I basically just skimmed over a whole field of emerging theory.
Edit: accidentally posted before I was done, added 3 paragraphs.
I asked my co-admin once if he thought Capitalism was evil, he's usually extremely careful with his words. He responded with "it might be".
It seems to have a lot of real problems, wealth inequality, human exploitation, environmental destruction. I think countries that have a mixed system, where it's part capitalist and part socialist tend to do better in most metrics. I wouldn't want to live in a country without socialised medicine, socialised education and pretty strict environmental restrictions.
Personally I am against filthy rich. I don't mind people having money and owning property. It's when they habe way more than they could ever spend, that I am against it. There I no reason to have that much value/money
Capitalism has been working so far because the economy has been growing, so even if you are poor right now and someone is filthy rich, you are still guaranteed to be better off in the not-so-distant future. However, the world's growth is slowly stagnating, and already has stagnated or even reversed in many developed nations. That spells doom for anyone who was not able to climb out of the economic pit. Living in a stagnant world ruled over by a handful of oligarchs for the rest of eternity, or until the next economic boom (unlikely) is not a pretty prospect.
For me personally, I’m not necessarily anti-capitalist as a whole; I think it has its place. I think people incorrectly place how old capitalism actually is. Sure in the Medieval Period, people bought and sold goods like how we think of markets, and they even had currency to exchange for it, but it was still much more of a bartering based system. Capitalism itself is also a very cultural phenomenon, only emerging out of Europe (in India for example, capitalist thinking was anathema to the cultural norms and took many years to take hold once the British invaded). In reality, there was a period of time in which all of a sudden, resources in Western Europe and the Americas become suddenly abundant and a system had to be put in place to handle that, and the system was capitalism. Here’s some of the main problems, some of which have been pointed out by others:
Capitalism is based off of a system which inherently assumes infinite growth which is not possible
Free markets require easy and free access to information to govern things like price setting, but that information is almost impossible to obtain accurately
Capitalism even in its purest form is not a complete enough theory for governing an entire economy. Capitalism only has mechanisms for providing resources (money) to workers and capitalists (owners) which leaves out a full third of the population. That last third are non-workers, primarily made up of the old, the disabled, children, students, home caregivers, and temporarily unemployed
Capitalism enforces power imbalances in a population that make capitalism less effective. For a market to work most effectively, all parties involved (buyers and sellers) should be on equal footing, but they never are and never can be
Less of a functionality point, but I personally believe that there are some things that morally shouldn’t be governed by a market structure such as healthcare or food access
As parting thoughts, I would say that capitalism is not a bad thing in the short term. It’s effective at getting a country going to the point where they can become socialistic in the future. Karl Marx himself based his theories in “The Communist Manifesto” and “Das Kapital” on Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”. He also said that “capitalism is pregnant with socialism”. Capitalism is a tool to get to an end goal, it isn’t the end all be all system it’s made out to be though, and it’s also not the only tool that can get you there (see the economic theory of developmentalism).
Sorry for the long post, but I thought the detail was necessary.
TL;DR: Not a bad thing in and of itself, but a flawed system it’s time to move on from
I am anti- wealth and power concentration, and believe that proper compensation for labor is a requirement for a healthy and functioning society.
Money is supposed to flow, through the regular purchase of goods and services. Therefore, siphoning off wealth and hiding it is unhealthy for the economy.
Call it capitalist, socialist, communist, anythingist, whatever. If it aids and abets wealth and power concentration, it's bad, and there is no ideological wordplay that can make it otherwise.
A lot of people here are giving various answers, and that's for 2 reasons. You asked a very loaded question in a lemmy instance that started with an explicitly socialist bend, and you're essentially asking people about very personal reasons they hold a political belief.
Everyone's political beliefs are shaped by the conditions of their life. For example, I grew up poor on a rural farm in the Midwest of the US. Over time due to various things, I had several life situations impact my views on politics and the world. I started to learn things, things that didn't make sense, things that challenged my world view, things that I knew were wrong but didn't know why they happened. Eventually, I rejected liberalism and needed to find something else. That something else came in the form of a walkout at my workplace. I was thrust into the labor movement. Now I'm an anarcho-syndicalist (I believe all hierarchy is bad including capitalism and governments, and the people should govern themselves through unions and other forms of organizing).
This is a very, very brief description of my life from when I was born to literally right now, and how it impacted my beliefs. This process of life impacting personal political beliefs is called our "material conditions". People may have similar material conditions and completely disagree, or drastically different material conditions and agree on everything. More and more Americans are seeing and feeling the dramatic impacts of capitalism and the power of a few people on the top. That is driving people both to the anticapitalist left and to the fascist alt-right. Whatever reasons you read here, know that they're justifications for their material conditions causing them to take a radical position.
The real question is: how are you NOT?
I care about sensible regulations for health and safety, I care about the enormous wealth gap where money is hoarded by the rich while fellow citizens struggle. Honestly the class war is about to pop off.
I'd sum it up as capitalism requires egoism, and not of the healthy kind.
My stance on this starts with the things that a lot of people for the most part can admit are problems. Corporations with the power and wealth of small countries, concentration of money in the hands of a few, absurd costs of living, decreasing access to education, the environmental crisis, constant wars that destroy poorer countries, and in many countries poor healthcare outcomes. And this is by no means an exhaustive list.
Now why do these things happen? In my opinion the origin of these issues comes down to private ownership of vitally important organizations and infrastructure, and the resulting profit seeking regardless of the consequences. This also is how I would define capitalism, because capitalism is at its core only a way of organizing the economy.
There are then multiple answers to how we should address them. Regulating companies and reforming capitalism without addressing the root issue are a common one, and in some cases somewhat effective. However, in most cases such movements(which I would call social democratic) have a tendency to quickly walk back their achievements. For example, Tory attacks on the NHS in the UK have contributed to its reduction in quality. Or the walking back that the Mitterand administration did in France. Or the deregulation of trucking in the United States which led to substantially lower wages. This is also a western-centric argument on my part, because social democracy also relies on ruthlessly exploiting poorer countries' workers but that's a whole separate can of worms.
One could think of this backtracking as faults in the political system, which they perhaps are, but I think they are inherent to capitalism, because when you have such overwhelming power in megacorporations, they will inevitably eventually get their way as long as they exist. It's the equivalent of being surprised that you will eventually burn up if you try to stand on the sun despite your thermal shielding or other mitigations. Which isn't that absurd of a comparison because the sun's surface is only ~15 times hotter than a human if you measure from absolute zero.
The next answer is to try to, through monopoly breaking or other means, to revert capitalism to a former state of less concentrated capital. This is a fool's errand and a reactionary stance in most cases, because monopolization is inherent to capitalism, especially now that companies' fixed costs are immense, but the marginal cost of each new unit(be it a package sent through a carrier or a complex electronic device) is nearly negligible in comparison, making a monopoly the inevitable outcome.
And about at this point in my political development I found out about Marxism and it's overall proposal for an alternative to capitalism, and I found it the most compelling. The history of Marxism is also a whole separate can of worms so I won't go too far into it, but I agree with the Marxist class analysis that there are owners(most of which aren't even individuals anymore) and workers, and that workers' main political strength are their numbers. And a lot of capitalism reform proposals do actually rely on mass political organization of workers. Now what I say is, I think we can be more imaginative as to what that power can be used for. I don't think what comes next after capitalism will be perfect, but I think we can do much better.
I think it's okay as long as it's heavily regulated, and the core stuff- health, education, transportation, housing, energy + utilities (including internet) all has a public component creating competition. When people have alternatives, society can progress.
Society becomes worse when any number of these get depleted or captured. You see healthcare diminish in the UK and Canada. You see things like STD rates skyrocket in the US when sex ed is torn out in favor of religion. You see it in the regulatory capture of Canadian cell providers. You see everyone in Texas suffer when private electrical companies dictate prices on power and can't keep their services running in extreme temperatures.
All this pales in comparison to authoritarian counties though. China's completely muzzled internet, insane tracking, concentration camps, authorities welding apartment buildings shut. Russian oil companies lining their pockets while corruption depleted their military and made it a joke (no flare systems on helicopters? Is this WW2?) At least we have the freedom to move countries, move states, and choose where we work and live, and who we get to love.
The Achilles heel of humanity is greed. Doesn't matter what goverment or economy style. Greed will fuck everything up. At the same time, don't lose sight of the positives. Most people get to live normal, healthy lives. We have modern medicine. Generally things are pretty peaceful. Crime is low. The economy is decent. We have ways of communicating instantly and are closer than ever to exploring space.
“I’m pretty pro-capitalism myself…” is one of the weirder things I’ve read on here. Socialist or not, that’s weird to me.
While this has turned into a fantastic discussion, I don't have the bandwidth to handle some of the nastier comments. I'm going to lock it now.
The community choice was fine. The only challenge is that we don't have bandwidth to mod contentious discussions, usually those related to politics and other sensitive topics. Because the quality of the discussion tends to be high, I'm happy to let these go until I notice too many comments that cross the line.
In general: when you come across comments that break the rules (see the sidebar) please do report them. There's a lot of content here and we may not see everything.
This is a decentralized platform meant to be a social media system without the corporate power inherent to all the others. The developers of Lemmy for example have essays on Maoist China being hosted on their Github.
By its very nature, it's going to attract people who are trying to get away from corporate influence. It's essentially why I'm here and not on reddit. I don't want a company profiting off of my content.
There's space for pro-capitalists as well though. I believe in the open market of ideas - listen to what people have to say and share your bit. Engage genuinely and you'll learn something and maybe teach someone else something.
What's the alternative?
A more highly regulated capitalism with high business taxes and no loopholes so companies pay their fair share for operating in a market that provides them their revenue.
There should also be nationally controlled resources instead of privatizing them (internet should be included with water and power).
That would be a good start.
To my dying day, I won’t understand why anyone (who doesn’t benefit from it) could think that privatised utilities are a good idea. The last forty years have seen a steady decline in, well, every aspect of formerly publicly owned industries in the UK, but stans for capital still wang on about how publicly owned utilities in the 70s were crap.
Crap, maybe, but a damn sight fucking cheaper.
im here with you. capitalism is fine in cases were there is significant and robust competition. for things that are not necessities and in all cases there should be significant oversight and regulation by a democratically elected goverment over it.
Common ownership of the means of production
Please identify where this concept currently exists in the real world and is currently successful.
Edit: I'm a socialist, and yet all the hypocritical communists here that are using devices made using capitalist infrastructure with the money they earned participating in a globalized capitalist market are coping by down voting me and rather prefer not answering the question.
Worker cooperatives (and often cooperatives in general) are an example of this. They almost always exist within a capitalist system, so are not able to completely separate themselves from all aspects of capitalism, but they are definitely examples of common ownership of means of production.
Specifically you can look up the Mondragon Corporation which is probably the biggest/best known example of a workers cooperative but there are many others. There are lots of variations on this same concept - one where risk, rewards, and decision-making are shared more equitably among everybody participating. I think the most interesting are food co-ops (and sometimes CSAs), utility cooperatives, and housing cooperatives. These are all over the place and are often quietly successful examples of common ownership.
It's hard to when any of those experiments have been met with bombs, embargoes, coups, and other fuckery
Asking why collective ownership of the means of production does not exist in our "globalized capitalist market," while denying or ignoring the efforts of the Unied States and other rich capitalist nations to actively prevent any such nation from ever existing, is disingenuous at best. The United States in particular has a long history of involvement in regime changes / coups of left-wing governments, even those instituted by entirely democratic means.
Ok, so throughout the several tens of thousands of years of modern human civilization, there have been different kinds of economic systems, all of which had cultures that were supported by them and utilized their economic systems to attack each other relentlessly.
Why has free market globalized capitalism survived so well consistently the entire time?
Are you seriously trying to argue here that communism is so weak it can't survive attacks from the outside by a fragile failure that is capitalism?
May sound good on paper, but everywhere where it was tried, nothing good happened. There is something in human nature that makes it inefficient and have tendency to become dictatorial state. Socialism (in classical sense) is just worse system in practice, as many countries in 20th century demonstrated.
If I try to grow some tomatoes, and by the time they're sprouting out of the ground, my neighbor tramples them and lights them on fire, does that mean that I can't ever grow tomatoes and they're doomed to fail?
Who trampled on the Russian tomatoes? (Don't say the Nazis, they trampled on everyone's tomatoes including their own) For Russia, there was some small scale support for the whites during their civil war, but otherwise trade between the Soviets and the west increased year by year during the NEP period until Stalin purposely contracted it (if someone knows more about this period, feel free to correct me. I'm working off of information I learned in classes years ago and this article that matches with what I remember). I'd propose that the Soviet issues were internal due to blindly ideological governance that crippled their economy and society. They didn't have to make such an insane number of nukes, create the culture that caused Chernobyl, nor invade Afghanistan.
Otherwise, who trampled the Mainland Chinese tomatoes? They basically won their civil war, their only issue was blind allegiance to chairman Mao that resulted in disaster after disaster. The West didn't force them to try the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the Down to the Countryside 'Movement,' nor the One Child Policy. The CCP did those to themselves, and they only found success once Mao died and they made their economy more capitalistic.
And then once more, who trampled on the North Korean tomatoes? At the beginning of their war, they tried to crush the South's tomatoes until a UN authorized force pushed them to the Chinese border and then a Chinese force counterbalanced to the current borders, but otherwise the North was economically better off once the stalemate began (the Japanese centered their industrial developments in the north). North Korea failed because of dramatic mismanagement and a ideology of constant militarism while the South, with ups and downs, prospered.
Sure, there were military actions, police actions, and garden trampling that harmed both sides during the Cold War, but you can't just blame your enemy for beating you, you have to recognize why you lost.
In regards to the USSR, it's probably the most complex example, but if you don't think there was plenty of pressure on Russia from the West that wasn't direct warfare (cold war as an incredibly basic example). Here's a fun video on reasons why it fell that isn't through a US centric lens
China is also complicated an I'm not going to speak to it.
But North Korea? You mean the country we absolutely turned to rubble through bombing campaigns to destroy ~85% of it's buildings, and then on top of it cutting them off from most of the rest of the world from trade? That's probably the most prime example of how we've trampled a country. Blowback has a deep dive into the history there and it's great.
And here's a holistic video in case you care to hear the exact argument broken down
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=w72mLI_FaR0
https://piped.video/watch?v=nFUC0UWgdGY
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Yes, until you do something about your neighbors.
In case of (classical) socialism, since it is tried in many countries, I will argue it will fail again, unless something is changed. And I am arguing that that something is human nature. So, while we are the same humans, this will not work as effective as capitalism.
Ironically, I think Karl Marx understood this. This is why he was arguing for world-wide revolution. But Lenin changed this into "building communism in a single country". Since half of the developed world continued to be capitalistic, it become quite obvious that people in capitalist countries live better (on average), and the soviet empire disintegrated.
Marx definitely did not believe capitalism would produce more surplus than scientific socialism. However, I doubt he believed it was a switch you could throw and suddenly have a more productive economy. His point was that you could approach the problem scientifically. Through hypothesis testing and experimentation you could develop something more rational than the anarchy of the market.
That said, communist governments haven’t ever found themselves in a position where they can safely experiment with a planned economy. The USSR was struggling for decades to defend itself from foreign adversaries. That’s why it developed a tightly controlled and powerful bureaucracy which eventually led to it’s downfall. It’s also why China and Vietnam decided it was safer to experiment with market reforms given that they are at an economic disadvantage to capitalist countries. Other attempts at building a socialist economy have been thwarted by either US backed coups or sanctions, as was the case with Chile and Cuba.
No, but that's not quite an accurate portrayal of the history of collectivist governance.
So this is just a coincidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaASqPnpq5Y
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=PaASqPnpq5Y
https://piped.video/watch?v=PaASqPnpq5Y
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
The Lemmy developers are very anti-capitalist and this is one of the first instances, the one that they are most liked to. Like attracted like, leading to a lot of users being anti-capitalist.
Other instances have different internal cultures due to how and why they were formed.
Capitalism is just based on mass exploitation and the only ones that really benefit from that are the rich that are exploiting the masses (the bosses of the big companys). Cannot see why you should like such a system other than you got brainwashed. On the other hand i dont know if there is currently anything better than the capitalist system because every other system failed if we look back in history. In my opinion combining aspects of socialism and capitalism to a "controlled and regulated capitalism" is the current best solution. I recommend to you to read Karl Marx to get and idea of what the "other side of the fence" look and get an idea of some critical view points of capitalism.
There are a lot of good answers here. My perspective is that captialism generally doesn't serve the common person, and that essential services should under no circumstances be privatized.
Captialism is a race to the bottom in terms of cost, but this can only be achieved by sacrificing quality of goods, or by underpaying workers after a certain point.
For instance, look at the vape industry as a microcosm for captialism. A new need/desire was identified by the market. Everyone and their dog tried to capitalize on this by creating shops that met this demand. Shop owners took out ridiculous loans, didn't get their supply chains organized etc. Eventually the ones that were smart or lucky enough survived, while everyone else lost their shirts. Tada. Streamlined industry. Now that this is achieved, and vape juice is highly substitutable, the only way to compete and still make the same amount of revenue is to:
Lower prices in hopes of attracting customer while providing the same product. This is risky, so generally not done.
Find cheaper products of poorer quality and sell them hoping your consumers don't notice or don't care.
Underpay your workers.
Eventually, you end up with an Amazon esque scenario where workers are paid in dog shit, and products suck. while you get a streamlined production line, a lot of people get hurt establish it and maintaining your competitive advantage. Finally, the vape market crashed after the hype and even more people lost money.
Now repeat this process with something as vital as healthcare (which again is relatively substitutable). The system only worships the allnmighty buck and doesn't give a shit for people's well being.
Capitalism is currently causing vastly more problems than it is solving. It is concentrating wealth and resources in the hands of the few while the poor and working class suffer.
In addition to sustainability concerns others have mentioned, capitalism is also inherently unjust. You earn money by having money and many of those who work the hardest are also the poorest.
I guess most pro-capitalism people don't mind corporate-controlled social media, and so have stayed on reddit. I don't know why there aren't more anti-monopolistic pro-capitalism libertarians here, though...
The only thing people can point and do point to is “oh but more people have more cheap commodities.” Great! At the expense of the common dignity of man and the ecosystems in which he depends, an ever smaller class of bloated egotists has gotten rich beyond comprehension while the rest of the world literally burns and melts in the name of increasing fortunes already beyond any and all conception of need. At the same time, the life of the average person is marked by degraded environments, exposures to industrial toxins, has their profession increasingly made precarious, has the cost of living increase while wages stagnate or shrink, and now is plagued by disasters directly resulting from the climate change a fossil carbon economy has caused.
What about any of that should I like? That I can eat a hamburger for $10 that is mostly ammonia-cleansed meat filler…?
Capitalism is just feudalism with extra steps.
Add time goes on, capitalism constantly needs more and more restrictions placed on it to not utterly destroy society. Child labor laws, minimum wage, worker rights... capitalism is inherently against all of that because it makes less money.
Even today the rights that have been fought for over the past century, capitalism is trying to erode away, all in the name of greater profits. Child labor is back on the menu in some states. Minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. In the USA they've discovered that dying people are a captive audience, so they can charge them ridiculous money out the ass for whatever will keep them alive. Like, what are they going to do, go home and do surgery themselves? Wait until Black Friday for a sale on MRI scans? lol.
Nearly every right and freedom for anyone below the top 0.1% of earners is a continuous battle against capitalism to maintain.
You seem to have arrived late to the party and just assumed 21st century Western society is just the natural state of capitalism. No, this is capitalism after centuries of people fighting for their rights. Seriously, you need to study some history. Especially what life was like in the Victorian or early industrial era.
I started off as capitalist. I believed the fairy tales from silicon valley: If I work hard enough, I might be able to rise to the top, not only able to leave my hometown or my country, but also I might even able to buy a cheaper sports car. Used, but it might be fun to refurbish, or even customize. I even had a paranoid fear of communism, due to fear mongering from the right.
Then reality hit hard. First, I had to learn that the people I idolized didn't just make some mistakes, but were outright evil, while the competition isn't much better. Then I had struggle with trying to find a job, especially due to my inability of making up a story of long time employment history and achievements. And then I had to drop out from college, because I couldn't do my mandatory internship time.
When I said we should at least do some regulations to not let these things to run amok, the answer was that it would be "communism", and instead we should left it up to the free market. And if the market doesn't have problem with it, then I'm in the wrong.
Then I found Libertarian Socialist Rants on YouTube, the forerunner of what we know as "lefttube". The rest is history.
Have you not played Bioshock?
Anyway, any extreme "ism" is inherently unstable without the other side balancing itself. That's cos humans are greedy, selfish fucks. The free market doesn't work because humans are greedy, selfish fucks. Pure capitalism will eventually eat itself. On the flip side, pure socialism doesn't work cos humans are greedy, selfish fucks. Pure socialism will eventually reify itself into complete inertia. Capitalism needs the inherent brakes that socialism provides; while socialism needs to incentives capitalism provides. Pure capitalism causes massive boom/bust cycles. Before the Great Depression, there were the Panics that happened about ever 20-30 years, where, similarly to the Great Recession, banks would overleverage themselves, and go bust. What ended up stopping those kind of panics were the socialistic programs of FDR and the New Deal.
Free markets only work when they're actually free, that means no monopolies. We're in an extreme stage of capitalism right now with monopolizes all over the place. There is no free market. Ppl like to say "late stage capitalism" but it's more more similar to the laissez faire capitalism of the robber-barons of the late 19th century. Monopolies everywhere, wealth concentrated in the <1%, etc. Profits at any cost, including human life. Extreme capitalism is also tied into conservativism. This results in "rules for thee, not for me" circumstances. In other words, capitalists and conservatives believe laws should protect them but not bind them; while poor ppl, minorities and women should have laws binding them, but not protect them. This, of course, leads to massive social inequities and social unrest.
For more context, read the the Wikipedia articles on the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, child labor in the Appalachian mines and how many children died from it, the Pinochet regime, etc. And, more recently, the actions at Amazon by not letting their employees evacuate or shelter from the horrific tornadoes that ripped through IL and collapsed a warehouse where 6 employees were killed (Amazon is being sued for it). The maquilladores in northern Mexico (thanks NAFTA!), child slavery in South and SE Asia (don't buy Nike), and the general destruction of the environment. Hope you're enjoying your heatwave!
Because the unintended consequences of capitalism, due to human psychology, are the destruction of the substrate it relies upon and that humans require for survival (as is so very demonstrable right now), and (again, due to human psychology and our tribal and hierarchical nature) the increasing imbalance of wealth (and therefore power) to a select few (who are generally making the former issue far worse).
Under capitalism, big companies can get together and raise prices arbitrarily simply to raise profits. In theory, customers would switch to less greedy companies but in reality big companies hold larger market advantages. Fuck greedy capitalism.
Capitalism is a system that will always result in long-term oppression of the workers and consumers, corruption of governing bodies, and environmental destruction.
This is because the base idea is wrong. Adam Smith and the Capitalist theorists that came after him claimed that the invisible hand of the market would trend towards better outcomes for the workers and consumers. This would be true if the best way to be profitable was to do good, but that isn't the case.
More often than not, it is more profitable to do harm than good. Firms that seek to always increase profits, which is the fundamental goal of a Capitalist system, will always be incentivized to get as many people as possible to pay as much as possible for as little as possible.
This has been demonstrated over and over again. Think about software platforms for the most recent example. Netflix has only gotten more expensive with worse content and harsher usage rules. Same with YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc. This is called "enshitification." Companies always want to make more money, that can only happen by charging more, giving less, or creating some kind of production efficiency. And what's the quickest way to make production more economically efficient? Fire workers and make the remaining/replacement ones work harder for longer with the same or worse pay.
Those are some of the practical reasons Capitalism is bad. The theoretical reasons have to do with the way Capitalism tries to justify private ownership and the employee/employer relationship.
How is it ethical that a man who has never set foot on a factory floor, never operated a machine, never worked a double shift because he needed to feed his family, to reap a majority of the produced value of that factory simply because he owns it?
How is it ethical that a man simply because of his privilege of upbringing, can "earn" 100-200-300X more than his average workers? Does he produce 300X more value? Does he work 300X as hard? Is his position 300X more difficult to perform? No, it's because Capitalism justifies such grievous disparities and in fact, rewards them.
Answer this: The person who is told, "you are free to either be abused, or to die." Is that person free in any significant sense?
I used to be a Capitalist, hardcore one actually. But slowly I came to realize that it can only result in one thing long term, collapse and dystopia. I'd be happy to discuss this stuff further with you, just DM me, maybe we can chat more on Discord or something.
Idk people didn't ask for existence so why should they suddenly pay for it
Capitalism is literally making our environment uninhabitable.
The actual reason in most cases is because they think that abolishing capitalism would benefit them personally. Whether this is true or not is debatable, but that's ultimately beside the point.
pretty sure OP is literally Ben Shapiro lmfao
Getting fucked by capitalism will do that.
Unchecked capitalism allows for the snowballing consolidation of wealth and power, and is therefore inherently authoritarian/exploitative of others. It is possible to have markets that encourage and reward creativity, novelty, and competition without allowing any person or entity to become too powerful (mind you, wealth and power are always the same thing - or more specifically - two sides of a single coin).
This is also why you will see leftists attacking liberals - because liberalism is simply an extension of capitalism: the allowance and encouragement of inequitable consolidation of wealth and power. An egalitarian ends must actively oppose, prevent, and even correct such consolidation. Capitalism and liberalism are the enemies of freedom, liberty, and justice.
When you have a system that values profits over everything, it tends to (either by accident or design) exploit workers and destroy the middle class.
With capitalism, you’ll pay the absolute minimum needed to get workers, regardless of the value they create for the business and regardless of how much profit your business is making. You’ll collude with other businesses to keep wages down, because again that’s a way to increase profit. You WONT support any worker rights laws like weekends, PTO, benefits, minimum wage, etc.
You can argue that the free market takes care of itself, but we’ve seen that isn’t true. Companies constantly exploit customers and workers. They will raise prices and lower wages in ways that a pure “free market” theoretically wouldn’t allow.
Now this isn’t to say capitalism is all bad. I do think smart people and hard working people should be rewarded. But any sufficiently large system is going to have some corruption. I’d like to have a reasonable minimum standard of living for everyone before we run off and let capitalism give us multi-billionaires. If everyone was guaranteed enough for a decent standard of living, I’d be fine with the rest being as capitalistic as anyone wants. But we dont have that. Minimum wage is $7. Healthcare is shit and tied to employment. Etc. etc.
I think that I hear the argument against capitalism the most from people who reference unskilled labor. Sure, the person working in a warehouse is getting screwed wage-wise because the company is greedy and they doesn't have a unique skill set. But the guy in the office that is maintaining a proprietary piece of software has the leverage to demand a higher wage. I think when it comes down to it, capitalism is just another version of the economic "game". I prefer this game to socialism (or really any other economic philosophy) as I know how to work the current system better. Don't want to get screwed in your career? Specialize! I understand a lot of people don't want to hear this as it puts the impetus on us instead of the rich,, but that's how the system works (for now). I will always be on-board with people wanting to better themselves and their situation (especially at the expense of the rich) but getting something for nothing just isn't realistic without massive mobilization of the lowest wage earners. Not to mention the hurdles in our government.
Pure capitalism allows many to abuse the system and that results in what we have today here in the us. Overtime politicians have continued to do patchwork to simply get by for the next one to take over and scrap whatever agenda the previous one had in play. Which makes the problems worst and in turn takes longer to address.
We need both legislation and accountability for alot of things but it seems to be impossible to get both of those things. Hell, I dont care that your rich. Just dont bring everyone down with you when you take that one gamble and it causes everything to crash!
It's easy to blame capitalism when you're an American who has never traveled to a country with strong social safety nets and checked capitalism. I also assume most people who call themselves communists aren't actually communists though, they just want stronger systems in America to help the poor (Healthcare, education, etc)
Nothing substantial to contribute ... just wanted to say that I came in here expecting a shit show (maybe I've been on mastodon too much :) ) and am genuinely impressed to see a bunch of polite and good discussion, not least from the OP!!
Pure capitalism favors the wealthy and the unscrupulous. That is if there are no laws in place protecting peoples rights then the business owners have little incentive to treat there employees well (they will trade short term profits over long term stability.
On the flip side a pure communist system favors the lazy since there is little to no reward for doing more than the minimum. That is to say the status quo is unchanging.
This is why we have government, to correct the selfish nature of capitalism, while hopefully still retaining the innovation and drive that it produces (winner take all is a strong motivator).
This only works in the long term if government is fair and balanced, looking out both for the interests of business and society (the poor, the environment, the common spaces, etc). And where an idea like socialism actually strikes a good balance between both extremes.
The idea that the markets will sort themselves out is a fever dream thought up by the right. The markets will quickly consolidate into monopolies and then exploit there power. It is only fair competition that produces benefits. And that is an unstable balance that must be carefully maintained by outside forces (government).
I think people often mix up capitalism with market-based economies. The former describes social relations while the former describes how commodities are distributed.
I'm personally not a fan of either. A planned economy geared toward people's need, with the withering away of socio-ecomic classes (no more worker and capitalist distriction) just makes better sense to me.
Capitalism isn't the problem. The problem are too big to fail SROs. End central banking and aggressively pursue antitrust to break up mega conglomerates like Citadel, Blackrock, Vanguard, Meta, Google, Microsoft, etc, so we can actually have a sane and open society rather than this corporate/media/government bloc that is currently running the world to ruin.
I'm a bit libertarian leaning myself, but I do believe capitalism requires moral constraints on external, societal costs that are not included in market forces (e.g. environmental pollution).
In short, capitalism's greatest benefit it is also it's greatest issue: it delivers most efficiently exactly what people want, but without any evaluation whether those wants are beneficial.
I have always believed that the majority of the world's problems stem from almost all of the world's countries rely on a private bank to print and regulate their money. Those banks aren't capitalistic, but I bet the people behind them are the richest in the world.
People have different definitions of capitalism, and cound different side effects into that definition.
While you are correct in your claims, it does look like you are not seeing negative effects it has on society and economy.
Similar thing happens with the other side, they usually put criminal activities (like corporations poisoning people) into definition of capitalism or they directly blame it for that kind effect on humans.
I think that is just not really accepting the nature of humans.
Shit will happen in every *isam and each one will be good for something.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge everything that we see as bad, and there is no need to make those classifications.
It is like politics, looks like you can not be for lower taxes and support same sex marriage at the same time, even thou there are people with those options.
I think people in this thread is generally see capitalism as the reason for inequity and people's misfortune with medical bills etc. As a resident of a Scandinavian country this strike me as odd. All Scandinavian countries are for sure capitalistic but we pay high taxes and get for instance free education, free healthcare, retirement pension etc. in return. The opposite to this is not capitalism, but liberalism, in the sense that society should stay out of people's business and "freedom above everything else". Countries where things goes to hell need to give up some freedom to benefit the greater good which I'm turn is going to help themselves.
Capitalism is built on the exploitation of others. Slavery, Homelessness, and Pollution are all side effects of a profit driven market without restrictions.
There is a difference between capitalism and capitalism-without-rules (which some might call libertarianism). Capitalism is meant to have rules to make it fair and prevent anarchy, just like, say, football has rules to make it fair and prevent anarchy. The rule makers are the government and the rule enforcers are/is the legal system (like in football, the FA makes the rules and the Referees and others enforce those rules). So while capitalism incentivizes business creation and innovation in the name of money-making, there are supposed to be checks and balances to make it fair and in the best interests of all citizens.
Capitalism today especially in the United States is practiced more like capitalism-without-rules where the government is owned by capital owners and therefore does a poor job of making rules that are fair for all and a poor job of curtailing unbridled capitalism. It also appears that the highest level of the legal system in the US is also heavily influenced by capital owners.
I suspect what the “hate” is about is the way capitalism is practiced today.
If capitalism was being practiced responsibly with checks and balances by well-functioning governments and judiciaries, then there would be less hate. This will only happen if people hold governments accountable through protest. Voting is not enough because capital can “buy” all voting options/parties. Protest has brought many civilizing changes to capitalism, especially in the US in the 60s, but the pendulum has swung back to the public not being organized enough or not caring enough to force governments to do their jobs.
The Fediverse is dominated by hackers, who by their nature are incompatible with existing systems such as capitalism.
You know that the .ml in lemmy.ml stands for "Marxist-Leninist", right?
It's actually the domain name for Mali, but that's allright. Just like how be in youtu.be is simply the domain name for Belgium
some people just like to "know the secret meaning that you dont know but im gonna tell ya". if youtu.be wouldn't be on their likening, the .be domain could easily disclose as butt-eating or whatever two word combination would go along as "meaningful" to smear.
i simply choose to believe it means bagel enjoyer
What are your favorite bagels? Good New York bagels are great! I also really enjoy a Montreal bagel sometimes. I'm in Texas where bagels are mostly from national chains or the grocery bakery, which are ok because you can usually get a jalapeno cheddar.
my food preferences have not changed since i was a child so i like cinnamon raisin
.ml stands for Mali.
.ee stands for Estonia.
.tv stands for Tuvalu
Just like .ca stands for Canada.
Why .ee stands for Estonia? Where's the 2nd e?
This sounds like a really dumb rumor. Do you have evidence?
I don't know if there's any "evidence" but it's well known that the devs of Lemmy are Marxist-Leninists, and that's the reason for many choosing to use Lemmy.
I don't mean evidence for their political convictions, I mean that they chose .ml specifically because it could stand for Marx and Lenin.
Because they've never seen well regulated Capitalism nor been educated on it as all we get in the US is Corporate propaganda on Capitalism to justify the hellscape the wealthy make the most money from.
Capitalism is the worst economical system, but there is no better alternatives, as a ukrainian watching other developed countries i feel sad about my cumminist in the past country
Lemmy.ml was started by tankies so that would be why there is little love for market capitalism on this server. Oddly enough, many seem perfectly fine with state capitalism like China has.
I think capitalism is fine to an extent. It's when companies become too large that their scale and power enshittify things.
The problem is not 'Capitalism'. It's the JACK WELCH brand of Capitalism, the one that tears apart the soul of any company that produces goods and turns it into a robot for profit with the sacrifice of any meaningful corporate planning or infrastructure (including workers) investment.
Until THIS ends, Capitalism is, in fact, an evil.
Edit: Honestly. Please. Look up what Welch did to GE and how it spread to every other corporation. It's EYE opening.
It isnt about capitalism or sociallism but the education level of people running the system.
I'd say that unless you are pretty wealthy then you're pro- something designed to optimally exploit you while making you think that it's the greatest system on Earth and that society can't possibly do any better.
No, Clyde - lick the boots of parasites if you want... but you are the one that needs to justify your beliefs. We who have seen through the fairy tales have no need to justify anything to the likes of you.
Comments on a self-professed tankie instance
"BuT wHy Is EvErYoNe RiDiNg TaNkS"
This is LEMMY.ML, mister. Also, everything everyone else is saying.
I don't get the same impression in my community. I'm pretty sure that we all love capitalism in "[email protected]" What communities do you waste your time on?
Because basic economics is never taught properly in schools. People don't understand what free healthcare/education/whatever costs. Because, at least in the US, universities are heavily politicized by anti capitalist mentality.
Socialism doesn't scale up. Capitalism doesn't scale down.
Because the ml in lemmy.ml stands for Marxist-Leninist, and this instance is populated mostly by a banned reddit community of pro-CCP Marxists. You should join a different instance.
edit: You know down voting something doesn't make it untrue? This is true whether you like it or not.
Every time I ask for "capitalism" problems I get answers about what the government does.
"too big to fail"? Government bailouts.
"antitrust"? Government granted monopolies and making the laws so that barriers to entry are too big.
"police shootings" Government gang.
"inflation"? Government monetary policy.
"colonization"? Government expansion
"not enough social programs"? Government policy.
Then you've got the sub-70s who go on about "exploitation" which is rooted entirely in fiction.
Life requires work. All life everywhere. Humans aren't exempt from this; demanding that others do all your work and provide for you or free isn't going to work.
Some of these people would complain that they have to chew their own food.
People forget that capitalism has lifted literally billions of people out of poverty, it's advanced our technology to where it's basically magic. It increased the amount of food we can grow with fewer people allowing people to move past subsistence farming (which many socialist countries reverted to).
Capitalism uses people greed to provide better, cheaper, faster versions of things..
Then the government gets involved and instead of blaming the government they're told to blame capitalism, so they do.
Most people who hate capitalism are focusing in on its evil brother, "unfettered capitalism". UC is a shit show which has created many of the problems we see today and is the unholy unity created when big business and the government combine. When done right, capitalism pushes to lower costs and improve services for consumers. Companies competing is a good thing. Unfortunately the greed of corporations knows no bounds which is when UC enters the picture and fucks everything up.
Ehh it's probably mostly kids who have been handed everything to them their entire life and when they realize they need to start providing for themselves after their parents kick them out of the basement they get mad because they don't want to do anything but play videogames and get paid. They don't realize the only reason they have videogames to begin with is because of capitalism.
Because it's fashionable and people are trying to be edgy
Most folks have taken things for granted for too long. Throughout the course of our history, we human have never been wealthier, healthier, and happier. Our stomachs have never been more filled. People have forgotten how we get here. It is not dynastic empires, Soviet Republics, nor facist dictatorships that bring us the quality of life we all enjoy. It is rather tragic to withness the spread of the anti-capitalism ignorance.
The things you stated are not because of our financial system, but rather the scientific advances made. Scientific advances are not limited to capitalist systems.
Science cannot exist without finance. Science and its practitioners do not exist in a vacuum. Who are going to feed the "scientists"? Or who are going to be the "scientists"? It takes time and resources to train "scientists". It also takes time and resources to ensure knowledge is inherited and shared. That is why renaissance and enlightenment is such a big deal in history.
That is why renaissance and enlightenment is such a big deal in history.>
Umm...capitalism didn't exist in the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations wasn't published until 1776. Most of Europe was still feudal during the Renaissance and Enlightenment. England is the exception, but England was always the exception. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The Royal Society, for which Newton, Hooke, Halley, etc., were all members of, was funded by the Crown, hence the name, "Royal Society". The European savants all had royal patrons, like Leibniz, Brahe, and Huygens, that funded their livelihoods.
For note, I am a published historian by education that specialized in Tudor England.
Capitalism as a classification/concept did not exist does not mean the practice did not exist. Capital (both in kind and in mind) accumulation has been occurring since even the stone age. Of course we would not call those societies capitalistic.
Plus I am replying to the comment that tries to dismember science from finance/economy.
Nope. What you mean is science cannot exist without resources. In wartime, countries switch to a production economy and finance is not executed when building all the war supply. The country simply has the resources to execute the production directly. It could also execute science as well, as seen in the manhattan project. It could also ensure the knowledge transfer and upbringing of future scientists too. But when government is for sale, laws protect the interests of the buyer. Simple as that.
And please enlighten me on where the resources come from and how they are allocated. Do the coal/oil/gas buried deep under earth dig themselves out or the cattle/pigs/chickens will automagically grow and serve themselves on our dinner table? Command economies can only work spontaneously. The Nazi and the USSR both did have made spectacular achievements over the course of their existence. But is the process sustainable? No. That was why they both failed eventually.
The US did not become the arsenal of democracies by centralizing all the industries during the second World War. The private industries involved a lot. You can say that paved way for the future military-industrial complex. Even the secretive Manhattan project had a number of corporate partners.
What a simplistic, solipsistic, history-blind take! Do you have no knowledge of the 19th century? Arguably, before the Civil War was the prime time of truly "free markets" and pure capitalism in the US. It was also a time of drastic wealth inequality, exploitation of anyone that wasn't a white, male landowner, to say nothing of slavery. How many thousands died creating the railroads in the US? All of those millionaires like Carnegie, JP Morgan, Vanderbilt, Rockerfeller, all made their money on the backs and deaths of poor people.
Prior to FDR and the New Deal, we'd have Panics, where there'd be massive bank failures about every 20-30 years because of unfettered capitalism. And, just like the Great Recession, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. It was the New Deal and the FDIC that stopped the cycle.
Workers rights are antithetical to capitalism. Triangles Shirtwaist Factory Fire, children in the coal mines in Appalachia, coolie labor building the railroads.
We are not "wealthier, healthier, and happier" because of capitalism. It was the New Deal that helped shape the world the US has now, for which conservativism has been chipping away since Nixon. Socialistic practices like labor unions, collective bargaining, etc., brought wealth and stability, and created the massive middle-class that we have now. There had been no real middle-class before that, historically, just the rich and the poor. FDIC stopped the Panics; labor unions and collective bargaining brought wealth and education the working class, thus elevating and creating the massive middle-class we have now. Prior to the Great Depression, life was pretty awful and hard if you weren't rich in the US.
I'm not shitting on capitalism, but it needs the limitations that socialism brings to keep it in check, to keep it accountable, and not run roughshod over minorities, women, and children.
Also, scientific advancements actually came a lot from war, sad to say. The exponential growth of computers, GPS, obviously nuclear technology, a lot of medicine and medical procedures (thanks MASH units in Korea!) all came out of war. As for later 20th century advancements? All funded by the government. I'd suggest reading Neil DeGrasse Tyson's book, Accessory to War.
So are you saying, after the New Deal, the US was/is no longer practicing capitalism? I am afraid I have to disagree.
The US government did not produce all the technologies. Many of them are from private companies. Yes the government funded them with public money, public money paid by the taxpayers.
Unfortunately, your reply ignores the increasing, and increasingly destructive and fatal (for all), short, mid, and long term consequences of doing this. Yes indeed, for an unfortunately small overall percentage of all of humanity, we've never been wealthier, healthier, and happier. Very true! And for those of us, me included, that are enjoying the fruits of that (middle class and above in the world's wealthier countries, which is also the demographic that is far more likely to be reading and commenting here) it is really easy to ignore, deny, and pretend those consequences are not rearing their heads both now and in the future. However, for the sake of our species we cannot ignore this.
"Thing could be worse" is not a valid argument against improving things.
"Improving things" is not a justification for ignorance. I have never seen things getting "improved" by someone ignorant of the building blocks or even worse motivated to destroy the building blocks on which we all stand.
Feudalism was once a part of building blocks upon which we all stood.
Yes so we need to understand it. You don't think our countless historians and social scientists are doing their work purely for fun or do you?
Sure. I never said we shouldn't understand it.
Understanding != continued existence.
But with that said, capitalism has proven itself to be unsustainable and in need of replacement. The longer we take to replace it the worse things are going to be.
This is certainly true. But it is also inarguable that capitalism has problems. I think we can talk about those problems without engaging in anti-capitalist ignorance.
It’s because everyone here has only ever lived under capitalism, and they see all its issues and think socialism/communism would solve them.
I used to work with two former USSR expats - one Polish, one Russian. (I was 30 years younger than them.) We were a small crew and would work away from home for weeks at a time, so we’d spend a lot of our down time talking. They did sometimes reminisce about the things they liked from the old country, but they were very clear that their live was so much better once they left.
People on Lemmy have this romantic idea of communism. That you’ll work 15 hours per week doing something the like, like selling old books or gardening, and the state will provide everything you need. But in reality, under communism you will be assigned a job, assigned a house, and you’ll be happy about it. And if you complain, the state will take things away from you, because the state controls everything - your job, your house, your savings - they’re all government controlled. You can’t have freedom under communism. Don’t like your job - too bad, you’ll do it until you retire. You can’t take a gap year to find yourself (unless you count the compulsory military service), you can’t move to another city because you prefer the vibe there, you can’t start a business because you had a good idea.
Communism only sounds good if you’ve never lived it, and never really spoken to someone who has.
(Being Lemmy, I fully expect someone to respond saving that the USSR wasn’t real communism, and that they could design a communist system better than Marx or Lenin.)
I'm an immigrant that has worked extensively in the legal community with immigrants. I'm more than aware of what other regimes are like.
That being said, what I'd like to see is more nuance. There's this bizarre belief, and I'm not sure if it's age or lack of education, that says that only pure capitalism or pure socialism is BEST. When, in actuality, I don't think a healthy society can exist without the other. Pure capitalism will eat itself without the checks socialism brings; whereas pure socialism will reify itself into inertia without the incentives capitalism brings. The trick, of course, is finding a balance.
Unless you're an insane person like Maggot Trash-Garbage, I don't think anyone thinks the FDIC is bad, or government funding for new antibiotics, or NASA, or necessary municipal utilities like sewage systems or fire fighters. All of that stuff is socialism, and they work great along side capitalism. I also don't think the average person thinks breaking up monopolies is bad. Anti-trust laws and legislation are also socialism, remember.
Anyone who wants a free-market completely devoid of government intervention has clearly never studied economics.
The most important book regarding capitalism is “The Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith. It’s the first book any education on economics will ask you to read. It in, Smith states that the role of government should be 3 main points: defence, law and order, and public services. So the person regarded as the father of capitalism would consider NASA, firefighters and sewerage to all be government responsibilities.
The Wealth of Nations was written at a time when government intervention was the cause of monopolies, not a solution to it.
As the free market was embraced in different countries, economists saw it operating and built on Smiths work. Pigou wrote about “externalities” (such as pollution) where the person benefiting is not paying all the costs of production, and that this required government intervention to correct the imbalance this causes in the free market.
I am pro-capitalist myself because there is literally no evidence for anything else working well on earth. Capitalist systems (albeit with regulations to maintain free markets - ie snuff monopolies and anticompetitive practices) have improved the standard of living for people more than any other system ever has. But I full expect flurries of downvotes because of where I am and the group think circle jerk here.
Because they're poor and they're mad that people are richer than them. And with the economy getting worse, the envy will only intensify.