-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Capitalism - Yay or Nay?
- Thread starter mid83
- Start date
- Status
Germany is a deeply capitalist society, people still enjoy universal health care and a wider safety net.
Personally, I want capitalism. I just want it to be rigged towards the people, not corporations.
jackissocool
Member
The key is to abolish bosses. They are the issue - they extract profit they do not earn from laborer.s
Collectivizing the fruits of private ownership is what makes it not socialism. Private ownership is the opposite of socialism. What capitalism does is privatize the value generated by laborers, putting it in the hands of the owning capitalist class. Those programs just return a fraction of what was stolen and only do so at the whims of the ruling class. It would only be socialism if that ruling class middle man was removed and power was given directly to the people.
Nah, capitalism is just broken. It's no longer a system that empowers the private citizen with wealth ownership to compete fairly in the market. It's now a system where established capital masses have legislated and codified their position. The only time you see new money created is when a new market opens and the little guy get's there first.
God Dayumm
Banned
Monopolies are a result of government intervention on the free market. Eliminate patents, allow piracy, stop bailing out corporations, and you get a nice competitive free market
Don't eliminate patents. Reset patents and prevent patent hoarding.
Iorv3th
Member
This is the most asinine thing I have read in this thread. Not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic or what, but you do not have to be rich to live well.
ugaboga232
Member
I see a lot of people thinking capitalism = markets which is not true (you can have markets that are socialistic though marx probably would slap you for saying that).
Capitalism may work well in the ideal world where all of its assumptions of us being infinitely patient immortal robots that are purely logical hold true but in this world, capitalism just generates a lot of profit and not much else. A lot of great stuff has happened when a lot of countries were capitalistic but to say capitalism is responsible is a big logical leap. Governmental research probably did more for poverty/increasing standard of living. Many of the fundamental underpinnings of capitalism don't really hold true so a better model is needed.
Capitalism may work well in the ideal world where all of its assumptions of us being infinitely patient immortal robots that are purely logical hold true but in this world, capitalism just generates a lot of profit and not much else. A lot of great stuff has happened when a lot of countries were capitalistic but to say capitalism is responsible is a big logical leap. Governmental research probably did more for poverty/increasing standard of living. Many of the fundamental underpinnings of capitalism don't really hold true so a better model is needed.
jackissocool
Member
Probably like ten more years, if that. Wealth is concentrating very very rapidly right now.
thelatestmodel
Junior, please.
No it's not. That's an extreme generalization.
The best way forward is a balance - capitalism in the sense that you are free to start your own business etc, but with some restrictions, i.e. you have to pay a fair, livable salary and limit pay for CEOs. Some socialism is required. It can work but right now the system is completely fucked in favour of the rich, to the point where something major is going to have to happen to force the wealth out of their cold, grasping hands. Greed is always going to be there so we need to have some protections in place for ordinary working people.
But it's a pipe dream. I don't think we'll ever get to a utopia where everyone is happy and well cared for.
EnlightenedMint
Member
Nay, no matter how much you regulate Capitalism the workers will still end up being exploited.
gutter_trash
Banned
Norwegian style = Yay
American style = Nay
healthcare should be a right, not a privilege
American style = Nay
healthcare should be a right, not a privilege
jackissocool
Member
Yup. Here's an accurate representation of trying to regulate the issues of capitalism:
https://i.imgur.com/UNhWQiV.webm
Can't embed webms why
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
Regulation of capitalism isn't the only way a government can mitigate its negatives, though. You can have a largely capitalist economy, but socialist programs and progressive taxation can significantly reduce the impact of that exploitation. We just aren't there yet in the US.
Er, I mean I agree that patent laws should be changed and corporations making money hand over fist shouldn't be bailed out or subsidized by the government...
But how are monopolies not a result of the free market doing its thing the vast majority of the time? Business has slightly more successful product than competitor --> uses profits to limit competitors' success or buy out some competitors outright--> makes even more money --> buys lawmakers so that they can't be punished for anti-competitive behavior --> monopoly
Government's only problem here is that they're not harsh enough on business practices that can lead to a monopoly.
jackissocool
Member
Why have exploitation at all? Why are we just accepting back some of what was stolen from us in the first place? Why not just abolish the exploitative ruling class?
Tomasoares
Member
I do think everyone should have access to healthcare, but public healthcare? No way, I think it is better if the goverment gives vouchers to the poorer so he can have as good healthcare as the richer one (who can afford by himself)
ugaboga232
Member
That's the same thing basically as single payer (no one is making healthcare providers public yet).
Poodlestrike
Banned
The employer/employee relationship is not inherently exploitative. As with any deal, ideally, both parties feel they're getting the better end of it; the worker values their pay more than their labor, and the employer values their labor more than their pay.
Your argument is silly.
Are there exploitative relationships? Yes. But that can be corrected. It's not inherent to the system.
The Albatross
Member
Yup. Here's an accurate representation of trying to regulate the issues of capitalism:
https://i.imgur.com/UNhWQiV.webm
Can't embed webms why
Get neogaf webm for chrome friend.
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
Because it is entirely unrealistic that such a society (pure equality of wealth and everything that entails) would ever actually come into being, let alone function for any extended period of time.
careless mango
Member
Pretty much this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy said:
diffusionx
Gold Member
Patents actually do serve a useful purpose. But more generally, the idea of pure capitalism/libertarianism/whatever is as fanciful as the idea of true communism. It's never gonna happen, so we should think about how to make the best system for people (as opposed to the best theoretical example for perfectly rational actors).
jackissocool
Member
What's silly is ignoring the context of capitalist society and pretending that deals between employers and workers are made on balanced terms. That displays an astounding level of naivety about the way the world works. There are no equal contracts between kings and peasants.
You don't need pure equality of wealth to not have exploitation. Why would you? And why is it impossible?
Capitalism is bad and good. It still runs on slave labor, all the third world sweat shops, and its the only system that has ever managed to severely damage the Earth's climate. When its properly regulated and income redistribution is enforced it actually works fairly well though, but its very easy for corporations to start gaining too much power and subverting governments.
Communism does not state that people should not have personal property. When communists use the phrase "private property" they are referring to productive property that is used socially but controlled privately, i.e. the means of production. It's a terminology difference stemming from Marx's works that doesn't translate well into English and confuses everyone.
We don't want to take away your toaster or your tv or whatever, we want our workplaces to be democratically controlled. How you go about doing that is what is always up for debate among socialists.
I constantly see people say "communism was tried and it failed therefore it's all bad!" but this is nonsense. What was tried was Marxism-Leninism and the various strands of communism that branched off from it, for the most part. That was an ideology that was born out of certain circumstances and, being the first and most powerful socialist state, it went on to influence - whether through force or soft power - other socialist states to be born in its image. That was an ideology that was tried and did not survive, and so it is the task of socialists to learn from it what worked and what failed. Could socialism not made in the style of MLism have succeeded? Hard to say when the Soviets kept beating down pro-socialist-but-anti-Soviet uprisings like in Hungary!
One of the main problems with the USSR and everything that came after it was that it was not socialist enough, that is to say the working class did not have enough say in the economy. It was party dictatorship rather than proletarian dictatorship, and I don't think the original concept of the soviets (workers councils) was a bad one. It's unfortunate that we can't see what the USSR would have been like had the Old Bolsheviks gotten their way instead of Stalin murdering them all, but what we're left with is a malformed state nearly strangled after birth by internal and external forces, leaving it paranoid and aggressive in its attempt to survive. With the US being much further economically and technologically advanced than Russia was at the time of its revolution, and with a much stronger democratic tradition stuck in the minds of its people, if were we able to achieve socialism here it would probably go much more smoothly and in accordance with actual socialist principles.
entremet
Member
But that's not capitalism.
Capitalism is about investing profits for greater growth. That is capital. You're taking about greed.
We had greed before capitalism. You think upper class communities shared their wealth in the feudal age?
At least with capitalism that reinvestment creates economic opportunity for lower and middle classes, while improving their social standing.
Greed and envy will always be with us. The issue is what system handles that innate human issue best.
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
I can't think of any example in which this is accurate. The type of exploitation you are talking about is a direct result of the inequality caused by disparities in wealth. Whether that wealth is money, land, or any other desirable thing someone can have more of than someone else. Unless wealth inequality itself was abolished (an impossibility, if we are being realistic), there is always going to be some potential for someone who has more to exploit someone who has less.
jackissocool
Member
Very well put, comrade.
You only need equal control of productive property. Put personal wealth can vary based on the work someone puts into society.
Contracts don't need to be equal for the system to be fair. Workers need to make living wages. They need to be properly compensated for their time. Ideally private companies should be offering ESOPs. Why are you being so patronizing? You're just speaking in platitudes and postures.
Ok, then what are they? They sure aren't capitalism. And what we have isn't pure capitalism either. Sure, maybe they aren't a pure definition of socialism. But that goes back to my thing, pure capitalism and pure socialism aren't good. I don't think it should be all one way or all another. And I think it's ridiculous to think that it should be all one way. I think one needs to be flexible, see what works for something and what doesn't. And realize that just cause it works for one thing doesn't mean it will for another. The best way is to not be so rigid in it having to be one way or the other but use what works best for that particular thing.
entremet
Member
I believe Norway also has lower corporate taxes and less red tape than people know.
Casting Scandinavia as this pure socialist utopia is naive.
jackissocool
Member
They aren't necessarily one or the other. But they are only necessary because capitalism creates poverty. Capitalism = private ownership of the means of production. Socialism = worker ownership of the means of production. Everything else in society is built around that fundamental system of ownership.
In socialist theory it is exploitative because the workers themselves should simply be in control of the means of production and therefore don't need some external bosses offering them wages. The ultimate goal of communism is the abolition of private property and wage labor, when the productive forces are so highly advanced that labor is no longer necessary for each worker to perform but something that they can do of their own accord. Or as Marx would say:
We don't believe that businesses/enterprises/whatever you want to call them should be privately owned. If the workers feel they need to continue using money until the post-scarcity economy (should a thing be achievable) be reached, then it should be up to them to democratically determine their wages.
Concessions by capitalists to keep the proles from revolting. Nationalization isn't inherently socialistic if the working class is not in power. It's not about whether it's distributive or not, it's about who controls it. In the Roman Empire they freely distributed grain and oil for bread. Does this mean the Romans had a socialized food plan? No, of course not. Distribution in and of itself does not equal socialism, it's just an element of communism. Some socialists don't even agree with it and go for "market socialism" instead but that's controversial among socialists. Socialism is 100% entirely about power relations - who controls the means of production. That's the defining principle.
gutter_trash
Banned
Truth for real
entremet
Member
Although I do like capitalism, fetishizing the Free Market annoys me to no end.
For example, a common talking point from pure free market advocates is that if you believe you're getting underpaid to quit and find another job.
However, if companies collude to keep wages down, finding another better paying job is not a guarantee.
Moreover, wage fixing is still happening!
Apple and Google, now huge rivals, colluded to keep wages low amongst tech workers for years.
An unfettered free market is not a solution to corporate excess.
This is where I disagree with some on the Right and Randian libertarians.
For example, a common talking point from pure free market advocates is that if you believe you're getting underpaid to quit and find another job.
However, if companies collude to keep wages down, finding another better paying job is not a guarantee.
Moreover, wage fixing is still happening!
Apple and Google, now huge rivals, colluded to keep wages low amongst tech workers for years.
An unfettered free market is not a solution to corporate excess.
This is where I disagree with some on the Right and Randian libertarians.
Orthogonal
Member
Are you trolling now? Cant believe you would say this with a straight face. Not even Karl Marx would agree with that statement. Historical Materialism, a foundational pillar of Marxism states that Capitalism was a necessary and important evolution of human society to lay the foundation of the structure of production and abundance for the creation of Communism.
shadowsdarknes
Member
That's a bit dramatic and simplistic.
There is a reason why it doesn't make sense for workers to organize themselves, and that's because they can't. They will elect one of their own to direct them. As they go off and figure out how to best engage with the world at large, they meet with other organizations of labor. Then concessions must be made between the other organizations of labor. Some of which control more valuable resources, which is ultimately decided by the demand that the labor force puts on it through their socio-economic behavior. It becomes impossible for labor to set their own wages.
Giant Panda
Member
What do you mean by bosses? Do you mean the capitalists? They are not being exploitative by getting profit. Without the workers, capital/machines/equipment, would be worthless. Without the capital, the workers would be much less productive. They both play a role so they both get paid. Workers get wages, and capitalists get profits. Workers' wages are based on the demand and supply for labor. The demand for labor is based on how productive they are.
When you say workers are being exploited, you really mean you think too many workers aren't being paid enough. If wages are low due to supply, then this will correct itself in time as the low wages drive workers to look for employment in other industries. If low demand is causing low wages, then that means workers aren't productive enough to be worth higher wages. If a worker is creating $3 of value, it doesn't make any sense to pay them $4. That would be a waste of resources, and society would be better off if that money went to an activity that did create value.
Chezzymann
Member
What if there's no other options? If they are easily replaceable, someone else will just replace them and then they end up just being unemployed.
Your system assumes that everyone has good intentions and that no one would be good at manipulating others and getting themselves put on top.
Look, no system is perfect. There is always a way to exploit it. Which is why it's ridiculous to think that we should all go one system or other for everything. Use what works in the area it works in. use something different in a different area. Our system already shows you can have different systems working with each other (our system is definitely not pure capitalist).
Yes, capitalism does need checks. But honestly, of all the systems, the ideas behind it are probably the best to keep human nature in check. But we do need regulations on it because there are definitely ways to still exploit it. And it's not good for everything (stuff like health insurance or stuff like roads just don't work so well that way).
Pure capitalism would probably work fine if everyone was good natured and wanted the best for everyone. But they don't. And that's the same problem with going to your system. Except that your proposal has even less balances to keep these people from finding ways to abuse/exploit it.
This is why soviet (workers' councils) democracy was conceived, so that these things could be determined by a government controlled by the working class.
Of course, that has its own problems. But it's not the sort of thing that socialists don't debate about. You've also got the anarchist faction who just want to leapfrog past wages immediately, for example.
This is actually an argument in favor of socialism, which spreads out power democratically rather than controlling it in relatively few private hands. It's kind of strange to say "people aren't honest, therefore we need to stick with the system that rewards dishonesty and try to regulate it" instead of "people are dishonest, so we should try to implement a system in which it is harder for power to coalesce in a few hands". It also relies on beliefs about human nature, which many Marxists will dispute.
- Status