Support NeoGAF

[Cocaloch]

I am probably wrong (please be gentle if I'm wrong), but this is from what I understand.
Capitalism:
"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
Without any regulations, monopolies can run rampant, workers rights are gone, most companies are only ever going to be interested in profit.

The government has stepped in, to improve many of these. There's an issue with wealth inequality.

Capitalism works best when there are some regulations. If there are none, then we could have an environment where things are monopolized. Companies sell products like oil, food at enormously inflated prices because they can. With enough competition, companies can't do this.

The other thing is that there are people that struggle to take care of their families, people that struggle to pay for taking care of their health.
If everything is privately owned, like healthcare, then these people want to make money.

In the US, we pay much more for healthcare than any of the European countries.

Europe utilizes capitalism much like we do. Where does the socialism come in?

This is the definition of socialism:
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism


None of the European countries are "socialist." Businesses aren't collectively or governmentally owned in Europe, except for certain small aspects. Plenty of businesses are owned privately in Europe, they are Capitalists just like we are.

Are those small aspects so fundamentally different from what we have in the US?

They really aren't.
Most roads are owned by the government and taken care of by the government. We could basically consider that a socialist expenditure.
Public schools are owned by the government and taken care of by the government. We could also consider those basically socialist expenditures.
There are tons of things that could be put under the socialist brand, mail, police force, every government agency, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc, etc.

The biggest difference is that in the US, healthcare (in general) is not covered under this wing. I don't understand why people are so against including it. A lot of people seem to imply that doing this means we lose freedoms. Someone even said they'd rather die than lose those freedoms. And a handful of people made it sound like robbery, literally saying that it's stealing with a gun pointed at them. I don't know who is pointing guns at these people, but for whatever reason people are vehemently against general health care being included in this.

Much of Europe and Canada has healthcare included under that brand, and it seems because of it, they are spending far less money on the matter.

This is a pretty loose definition of Capitalism. Under this we would find Capitalism for pretty much all of human history, instead of coming into existence around the 16th and 17th centuries.

I think I'd agree that most of the European states that Americans sometimes call socialist are not in fact socialist, but they certainly aren't Capitalistic in my view either.

 

[MotionBlue]

Capitalism leads to innovation, but also abuse and classism. Ideally government takes the role of regulation and stabilizes the extremes.

Socialism is morally responsible, but risks stagnation of society. Ideally the government subsidizes innovation and progressive change.

Fascism is just bad.

I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate, or correct. Like most things in life, moderates tend to be the collective best, and the utilitarian approach.

 

[Chichikov]

Of course I can back it up, in every country that experimented with communism they ended up with hellish Soviet style totalitarian governments that imprisoned millions and caused nothing but poverty and misery. Now you'll probably retort in the same manner as everyone else when given such facts, "but, those weren't true communist societies". Well, sorry but, yes they fucking were! They were communist entities and they were abysmal failures that came crashing down in flames and the world is better off for their departure from this world.

The USSR was communist, North Korea is communist. China ISN'T communist though. They were smart and dumped that failed ideology and embraced capitalism. It's worked wonders for them.

I was born in a Kibbutz, it's a commune, read up on that, it ain't perfect, it got some issues for sure, but it certainly didn't devolved into a hellish nothing, it provided comfortable life to people, without real poverty or the threat of poverty.

And again, I don't want to get to the semantic discussion of what is or isn't communism/socialism, but let me be clear about what I am saying -

I don't think capitalism is the endgame of human civilization, I do not believe this is the best possible system. I do believe that people who identified themselves as socialists or communists had some good idea that can be adopted in today's society.
Let me give you two examples -
I think that a model where the workers own (in part or in full) the company they work for and get to enjoy a respectable cut of the fruits of their labor is generally superior to the model where companies are owned by rich investors who reap most of the benefits.
I think that the fact that there are people in this world who generate a whole lot of money without doing any work is problematic, and something that should be addressed.

I don't want a soviet style system, I don't think it's desired, and the practical steps I would take to achieve the two goals I listed (and others) are not likely to lead to a dictatorship or a hellish anything (I'm taking about mostly changes to the tax code).

Now, it's fine to argue against that, but I'm not sure what you can learn from the Soviet experiment, historically, there is really very little similarities.

Maybe a pedantic point, but I'd argue the EIC doesn't fit under most people's notion of Capitalism.

And most socialists/communists argue (even in this very thread) that Stalin's USSR does not follow under their notion of communism (it certainly wouldn't fall under Marx's definition - communism is the post-scarce Star Trek like end game - a stateless, , moneyless, free associating society which have more in common with anarchists' vision than the soviet union).
Still, the East India Company is a product of capitalism, it couldn't have existed without it and such entities did not existed before it (and they started to appear almost immediately after Capitalism was born).
Now again, I like to stress that I think it's intellectually dishonest to use that example to argue anything and everything Capitalist is bad, I was using it as a counter point to arguing that the USSR is proof that anything socialism/communism can't work.
Though if we are to get pedantic, if anything, my example carry a tad more weight (though still, not too much) as you have serious political actors (or quasi-serious, depending on your political leaning) who advocate radical free market solutions that could in theory lead to similar issue.
Though once again, I don't think that line of criticism is particularly fair.

 

[RiccochetJ]

well yes but people are getting what communism and socialism are completely wrong.

In theory or what history tells us actually happens?

 

[prag16]

In theory or what history tells us actually happens?

Like somebody said earlier. Their argument is just the no true Scotsman fallacy over and over ad nauseum.

 

[sphagnum]

In theory or what history tells us actually happens?

You could use this exact same argument about liberal democracy during the late 18th and early 19th centuries when it was still new, with Napoleon even pulling the same trick that the communist dictators did. The difference is that liberal democracies eventually overtook monarchies and had time to sort out a lot of their early problems and socialism has so far had less than half that time.

It's not 'no true scotsman' when the goddamned fundamental principle of what makes something 'socialist' was never achieved (workers controlling the means of production). What you are arguing against is violent revolutions and the effects stemming from them, not socialism itself. There is nothing about socialism that means that by default it has to follow the tenets of Marxism-Leninism.

 

[Relentless 757]

Like with many things, a purely capitalist society would never work, especially in a country as large as the US. The same goes for socialism. This is why most of modern society works in a mix.

A pure free market society would work in a perfect society theory: everyone would have high morals, strong desire to innovate with hopes of better themselves and the world. Greed wouldn't triumph due to the existence of a supposed "invisible hand".

There is a problem with this statement.

In a hugely capitalist society, being greedy is practically characteristic of it. There is no "invisible hand". Let's take a look at one of the richest person to exist in history: John D. Rockefeller. Standard Oil wasn't regulated because one day this man had a moral revelation and realized that the monopoly was wrong. No, Standard Oil was regulated, and rightfully so. Socialists in an idea, sure.

To say that capitalism was a "mistake" and is purely bad is incredibly short-sighted. Many things we have in our world now we owe partly due to the market economy, and the need to innovate. Let's taking NeoGAF, a largely gaming form. Capitalism, in essence, is why we have the video games and consoles we do today!

With all this said, I reiterate that a perfect free market society would be disastrous. Same for socialism. The USA could absolutely use some new socialist ideas (hello Bernie Sanders), but to completely dismantle the market economy would be catastrophic.

 

[Cameron122]

A person's needs should be met by the State, luxuries should be in a sort of capitalist system.

Now defining needs and luxuries? That could be trouble?

You could use this exact same argument about liberal democracy during the late 18th and early 19th centuries when it was still new, with Napoleon even pulling the same trick that the communist dictators did. The difference is that liberal democracies eventually overtook monarchies and had time to sort out a lot of their early problems and socialism has so far had less than half that time.

It's not 'no true scotsman' when the goddamned fundamental principle of what makes something 'socialist' was never achieved (workers controlling the means of production). What you are arguing against is violent revolutions and the effects stemming from them, not socialism itself. There is nothing about socialism that means that by default it has to follow the tenets of Marxism-Leninism.

Sir your profile picture enflames the byzantinophile in me, I dig it!

 

[RetrospectiveLamb]

I'm all for capitalism with regulation; it has built United States to what it is today. It definitely has an aspect of unfairness to it, but I like the idea of being rewarded for hard work.

 

[Cocaloch]

And most socialists/communists argue (even in this very thread) that Stalin's USSR does not follow under their notion of communism (it certainly wouldn't fall under Marx's definition - communism is the post-scarce Star Trek like end game - a stateless, , moneyless, free associating society which have more in common with anarchists' vision than the soviet union).

I think if you read what I wrote directly above what you quoted you'll see that I said this.

Still, the East India Company is a product of capitalism, it couldn't have existed without it and such entities did not existed before it (and they started to appear almost immediately after Capitalism was born).

It depends on whose definition of Capitalism. For Braudel the EIC and VOC are essentially the very definition of Capitalism. That being said I think may would not consider it a very capitalistic enterprise, especially not once it transitioned into a state, since what it is doing is fundamentally different than extracting surplus labor directly from works. In many ways it was functioning as simply a pre-capitalist state. Especially in the case of Bengal, its actions, or should I say its agent's actions, have directly political and not economically calculated purposes. Though it's been a few years since I've read the relevant primary literature, so I might be forgetting something big.

Like with many things, a purely capitalist society would never work, especially in a country as large as the US. The same goes for socialism. This is why most of modern society works in a mix.

A pure free market society would work in a perfect society theory: everyone would have high morals, strong desire to innovate with hopes of better themselves and the world. Greed wouldn't triumph due to the existence of a supposed "invisible hand".

There is a problem with this statement.

In a hugely capitalist society, being greedy is practically characteristic of it. There is no "invisible hand". Let's take a look at one of the richest person to exist in history: John D. Rockefeller. Standard Oil wasn't regulated because one day this man had a moral revelation and realized that the monopoly was wrong. No, Standard Oil was regulated, and rightfully so. Socialists in an idea, sure.

To say that capitalism was a "mistake" and is purely bad is incredibly short-sighted. Many things we have in our world now we owe partly due to the market economy, and the need to innovate. Let's taking NeoGAF, a largely gaming form. Capitalism, in essence, is why we have the video games and consoles we do today!

With all this said, I reiterate that a perfect free market society would be disastrous. Same for socialism. The USA could absolutely use some new socialist ideas (hello Bernie Sanders), but to completely dismantle the market economy would be catastrophic.

As much as I agree the heavy regulation is necessary you are competently missing what Smith, and frankly everyone I've ever heard use the term, mean by the invisible hand. Market forces often can generate positive outcomes. Smith certainly wasn't arguing that they always do. It's why he wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

I'm all for capitalism with regulation; it has built United States to what it is today. It definitely has an aspect of unfairness to it, but I like the idea of being rewarded for hard work.

Capitalism is a a system that rewards the prudent, highest capital return on investment, allocation. Sometimes befitting hard work is a side effect.

 

[ibyea]

Nay. It's a system that has sidelined billions of people around the world into poverty, benefiting the lucky few in the first world countries. Even then many of the first world countries are unable to control capitalism to benefit the people. leaving many in those countries poor.

 

[RiccochetJ]

You could use this exact same argument about liberal democracy during the late 18th and early 19th centuries when it was still new, with Napoleon even pulling the same trick that the communist dictators did. The difference is that liberal democracies eventually overtook monarchies and had time to sort out a lot of their early problems and socialism has so far had less than half that time.

It's not 'no true scotsman' when the goddamned fundamental principle of what makes something 'socialist' was never achieved (workers controlling the means of production). What you are arguing against is violent revolutions and the effects stemming from them, not socialism itself. There is nothing about socialism that means that by default it has to follow the tenets of Marxism-Leninism.

Your idea only works if the world devolves into a clan type system. Even then it would be ripe for warlords who ignore your clan's ideal situation. And you're trying to do it with a country of hundreds of millions? Oh hey, all of a sudden you're deciding that there should be a central power to enforce your pretty pearl. Next thing you know, you're instituting remote bases that will enforce your pretty pearl idea. Unfortunately for you, Jenna (whom you've put in charge,) doesn't think that her sister should be working in the fields. So Jenna promotes her to a government position.

etc. etc. etc.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Like somebody said earlier. Their argument is just the no true Scotsman fallacy over and over ad nauseum.

No it's not.

 

[Cocaloch]

Your idea only works if the world devolves into a clan type system. Even then it would be ripe for warlords who ignore your clan's ideal situation. And you're trying to do it with a country of hundreds of millions? Oh hey, all of a sudden you're deciding that there should be a central power to enforce your pretty pearl. Next thing you know, you're instituting remote bases that will enforce your pretty pearl idea. Unfortunately for you, Jenna (whom you've put in charge,) doesn't think that her sister should be working in the fields. So Jenna promotes her to a government position.

etc. etc. etc.

What are you even talking about here? Is this just a general comment about how you feel about Communism? If so why did you quote him?

Like somebody said earlier. Their argument is just the no true Scotsman fallacy over and over ad nauseum.

The problem with No True Scotsman is that you are moving the goalpost. One isn't a Scot by one's actions, one is a Scot by ethnicity or culture. No state has ever existed that fulfilled the definitional requirements to be a communist state. That isn't moving any goalposts; it just means that nothing has ever reached them in the first place.

 

[Condom]

Your idea only works if the world devolves into a clan type system. Even then it would be ripe for warlords who ignore your clan's ideal situation. And you're trying to do it with a country of hundreds of millions? Oh hey, all of a sudden you're deciding that there should be a central power to enforce your pretty pearl. Next thing you know, you're instituting remote bases that will enforce your pretty pearl idea. Unfortunately for you, Jenna (whom you've put in charge,) doesn't think that her sister should be working in the fields. So Jenna promotes her to a government position.

etc. etc. etc.

Sounds like Jenna needs Gulag

 

[Izuna]

For those saying that "working" communism is better in a world of automation... What are you saying exactly?

You wake up in the morning, and go to collect an equal amount of food that is enough for you?

Is it possible for everyone to over-indulge in food, or is everyone's food regulated to what they "need"?

Maybe in a world RICH of resources? Production of food and energy is cheap, easy... Then what? It's end-game? What would drive someone, in this utopia, to ever try something new?

Food, energy, everyone has enough. Now, you go out and... You meet with you friends? You go drinking and maybe Karaoke, let's say. Are we all provided with just enough alcohol to get drunk? Or can we all over-indulge?

So, assuming resources are infinite. What is no one wants to serve the drinks? How do you choose, in the next generation, who is obligated for such an act?

What about the anti-social man who can't leave his home but loves to play games and is very good at doing so?

He streams his gameplay. Can we all do this, even if our streams are shit and no one wants to watch it?

Who is delivering the food when this man wants to order pizza? Do we take turns in these roles?

Or are robots literally doing ALL of shit for us.

You see, with capitalism, with each of these needs you can give someone a salary to fulfil this role. They can discover their more efficient way because work is ass, and thus progression happens.

Talk me through how in this perfect utopia, it's fine for me to choose to play the guitar because I figure being an Engineer isn't what I want to do after University? Who makes and provides this guitar to someone like me, who isn't a musician. Do I enrol, or are there already more guitars than there are people?

Would it be goverment that decides to make let h3h3 make hilarious reaction videos?

--

Honestly, and I may be stupid and misinformed here, but I think there is no policy possible that is designed to "keep the bad people in check" that doesn't fuck with the freedoms of individuality. The super rich that "do fuck all but have it all" can't have their shit forcibly taken from them with any policy. It's not physically possible to cause this. And as someone who isn't rich but knows people who have grown up so, they're not happy to do "nothing" but consume.

Would you remove the toilet in your house and shit in a hole? You can't go back in lifestyle, and in real terms, that's what would have to happen (in how it feels) to take the privilege of inheriting capital from the young. Who is happy in this scenario?

It's human nature to yearn for what separates us from others and find our place, of our own accord. A communist society fucks with that.

Now honestly, I have been fucked over for growing up in a struggling family. I would love to be able to get a job and make more than what it barely costs to live in a single room, but at least I can have aspirations to work hard/get lucky/whatever that would allow me to one day take my girlfriend to see a successful chef so he can cook us a beautiful meal. Maybe if I earn enough, we could visit another country and take in foreign nature, see some trees that don't grow where we live.

And fuck me, I know that some people are born into having all of this already. But you know what? Despite there being a chance for me fail and never being able to afford any of these things, if the EU became communist, I would never have those things.

I am clearly no economist, but it seems evident to me that capitalism is about being the best... It makes "sense".

If humans were truly all born on equal footing, every single time, you'd be pissed if you worked hard on anything or improved the lives of mankind and yet your reward was the same as your bully's. Don't lie.

So disturbing.

EDIT: This post might embarrass me to the grave, but at least I'd get to read why. I haven't slept in about 27 hours so forgive me. 😂 I stayed up to make a snazzy birthday invite for soke new friends I made.

Oh, that was with InDesign CC btw, a product of capitalism. Fucking remarkable app.

EDIT2: Oh I forgot my point. The cure to the evils of capitalism is good people. That's pretty much it. Whether corruption affects goverment or the super rich, this is an issue with people, not whatever society you have in place.

 

[Cocaloch]

For those saying that "working" communism is better in a world of automation... What are you saying exactly?

You wake up in the morning, and go to collect an equal amount of food that is enough for you?

Is it possible for everyone to over-indulge in food, or is everyone's food regulated to what they "need"?

Maybe in a world RICH of resources? Production of food and energy is cheap, easy... Then what? It's end-game? What would drive someone, in this utopia, to ever try something new?

Food, energy, everyone has enough. Now, you go out and... You meet with you friends? You go drinking and maybe Karaoke, let's say. Are we all provided with just enough alcohol to get drunk? Or can we all over-indulge?

So, assuming resources are infinite. What is no one wants to serve the drinks? How do you choose, in the next generation, who is obligated for such an act?

What about the anti-social man who can't leave his home but loves to play games and is very good at doing so?

He streams his gameplay. Can we all do this, even if our streams are shit and no one wants to watch it?

Who is delivering the food when this man wants to order pizza? Do we take turns in these roles?

Or are robots literally doing ALL of shit for us.

You see, with capitalism, with each of these needs you can give someone a salary to fulfil this role. They can discover their more efficient way because work is ass, and thus progression happens.

Talk me through how in this perfect utopia, it's fine for me to choose to play the guitar because I figure being an Engineer isn't what I want to do after University? Who makes and provides this guitar to someone like me, who isn't a musician. Do I enrol, or are there already more guitars than there are people?

Would it be goverment that decides to make let h3h3 make hilarious reaction videos?

--

Honestly, and I may be stupid and misinformed here, but I think there is no policy possible that is designed to "keep the bad people in check" that doesn't fuck with the freedoms of individuality. The super rich that "do fuck all but have it all" can't have their shit forcibly taken from them with any policy. It's not physically possible to cause this. And as someone who isn't rich but knows people who have grown up so, they're not happy to do "nothing" but consume.

Would you remove the toilet in your house and shit in a hole? You can't go back in lifestyle, and in real terms, that's what would have to happen (in how it feels) to take the privilege of inheriting capital from the young. Who is happy in this scenario?

It's human nature to yearn for what separates us from others and find our place, of our own accord. A communist society fucks with that.

Now honestly, I have been fucked over for growing up in a struggling family. I would love to be able to get a job and make more than what it barely costs to live in a single room, but at least I can have aspirations to work hard/get lucky/whatever that would allow me to one day take my girlfriend to see a successful chef so he can cook us a beautiful meal. Maybe if I earn enough, we could visit another country and take in foreign nature, see some trees that don't grow where we live.

And fuck me, I know that some people are born into having all of this already. But you know what? Despite there being a chance for me fail and never being able to afford any of these things, if the EU became communist, I would never have those things.

I am clearly no economist, but it seems evident to me that capitalism is about being the best... It makes "sense".

If humans were truly all born on equal footing, every single time, you'd be pissed if you worked hard on anything or improved the lives of mankind and yet your reward was the same as your bully's. Don't lie.

So disturbing.

EDIT: This post might embarrass me to the grave, but at least I'd get to read why. I haven't slept in about 27 hours so forgive me. �� I stayed up to make a snazzy birthday invite for soke new friends I made.

Oh, that was with InDesign CC btw, a product of capitalism. Fucking remarkable app.

EDIT2: Oh I forgot my point. The cure to the evils of capitalism is good people. That's pretty much it. Whether corruption affects goverment or the super rich, this is an issue with people, not whatever society you have in place.

Oh jeez, this is a hell of a post to work with. The most obvious point being that you seem to have really internalized the Spirit of Capitalism here.

People existed for the vast majority of our history without the kind of live to work mindset you have here. You can find a meaning in your life outside of production for production's sake I assure you.

As to about half of your points, work still exists in a communist or socialist society.

Your point about progress seems rather simplistic. Smithian growth is not the main sort of growth in the modern economy. Industrial growth is not based on your example here of people looking for ways to work more and get less. In actuality such an idea has actually tended to incentivize the depression of wages.

Capitalism is not a system about being the best, it is a system about endlessly producing for production's sake. it is about being the most competitive perhaps, but not necessarily the best.

As to your second edit that is not a good way to look at corruption. There will always been shitty people. The best way to deal with it is to set up a system that stops their shittyness from affecting others. As a result if there are shitty people doing shitty things that are causing problems there is a problem with our society. Here our system is not working as well as it could, and the best way to change that is to fix whatever in the system allowed for that shitty person to do that shitty thing.

*edit: I'm not necessarily advocating for any of this, but these points are all pretty low hanging fruit.

 

[lednerg]

Local governments should be helping cooperative businesses flourish. Co-ops are worker-owned (and/or consumer-owned) businesses which, by their very nature, keep wealth, resources, and well-paying jobs contained within the communities they reside. There should be all sorts of funding available to them, and public education should be teaching these kinds of alternative economic concepts. The co-op model bypasses the all too common, inhumane traps of capitalism.

Here's a YouTube playlist about a grocery co-op aimed at helping the struggling community of Greensboro, NC called Renaissance Community Co-op.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Slavery is capitalism.

Nay.

 

[daviyoung]

Capitalism is for the impatient.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Here's an experiment.

Find 100 people who grew up in countries that were not capitalist but now live in America. Ask them which they prefer.

Grass is always greener on the other side...

there's a reason everyone comes to the west (whether it be America, England, or wherever else) in search of a better life.

 

[ibyea]

Here's an experiment.

Find 100 people who grew up in countries that were not capitalist but now live in America. Ask them which they prefer.

Grass is always greener on the other side...

there's a reason everyone comes to the west (whether it be America, England, or wherever else) in search of a better life.

Firstly many of those poor countries are capitalists. Secondly the poverty of many of the poorer countries was engineered by capitalist countries for resource exploitation.

 

[lednerg]

there's a reason everyone comes to the west (whether it be America, England, or wherever else) in search of a better life.

Because we're incredible assholes. Congratulations to us. Trump 2016

 

[OrlanisWorks]

In it's current state: absolutely nay. As long as people have to "earn" and pay for the right to live, this world is in the negative. Especially with people living month to month while assholes make millions carrying a ball.

/rant

 

[cpp_is_king]

In it's current state: absolutely nay. As long as people have to "earn" and pay for the right to live, this world is in the negative. Especially with people living month to month while assholes make millions carrying a ball.

/rant

You have to "pay for the right to live" anywhere in the world. I mean unless you're self sufficient and live off the land, doesn't everyone kind of need to make money somehow in order to survive? That's called society, not capitalism.

 

[Izuna]

.

 

[ErasureAcer]

You have to "pay for the right to live" anywhere in the world. I mean unless you're self sufficient and live off the land, doesn't everyone kind of need to make money somehow in order to survive? That's called society, not capitalism.

Didnt Switzerland pass Universal Income a few years back? At least it was discussed.

 

[lednerg]

You have to "pay for the right to live" anywhere in the world. I mean unless you're self sufficient and live off the land, doesn't everyone kind of need to make money somehow in order to survive? That's called society, not capitalism.

At what point would it become capitalism?

 

[Izuna]

Didnt Switzerland pass Universal Income a few years back? At least it was discussed.

Only discussed.

EDIT: Basic income is not better than socialism because people are fucking idiots. The few that would spend their basic income and blow it would fuck themselves over and it would be far too much work to solve these issues on a case-by-case basis with bailouts and financial training. Especially in a world where hikkomori spend all of their money on IAPs and software not originating Swiss.

 

[Orthogonal]

Nay. It's a system that has sidelined billions of people around the world into poverty, benefiting the lucky few in the first world countries. Even then many of the first world countries are unable to control capitalism to benefit the people. leaving many in those countries poor.

Would you prefer the world return to the Pre-Industrial Revolution phase of human history? When the world over was so much more prosperous?

 

[lednerg]

Would you prefer the world return to the Pre-Industrial Revolution phase of human history? When the world over was so much more prosperous?

Is that our only choice?

 

[Orthogonal]

Is that our only choice?

What other realistic choice is there if Capitalism has been so disastrous to "Billions".

 

[mozfan12]

Nay. Only works with an unlimited amount of resources and in a perfect meritocracy, otherwise we have a world in which 2/3 of the population lives in misery and only very few are winners.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

In my personal opinion, socialism is just like the models for Egalitarian/Anarcho societies, they work fairly well when applied to a small scale but really fall apart when you try to take it to the large scale.

 

[RiccochetJ]

No it's not.

Yea, it is. You're coming across as if it's, "Hey everyone! It'll be different this time! I promise!"

 

[lednerg]

What other realistic choice is there if Capitalism has been so disastrous to "Billions".

You could choose to use capitalism only when it actually makes sense, as opposed to all the time.

 

[dapperbandit]

This thread went in the direction I assumed it would.

What would you think if I said "Real Fascism has never been tried or never been allowed to succeed. Some mistakes were made in the 20th Century but we can learn from them and it's ignorant to assume the same mistakes would be made again. Whether you want to believe it or not the NSDAP enhanced the lives of working people."

 

[Orthogonal]

I'm continually amazed at the number of posts claiming Capitalism has impoverished the world over. This is madness. People that are "victims" of Capitalism today, what would their lives look like had there been no Industrial Revolution?

You can argue exploitation and out of control consumption all day, but to claim that quality of life on the whole is not vastly improved for everyone over what came before is insanity. People may live "shitty lives" today, but it is still infinitely better today than how shitty life was before.

This doesn't happen because everything went to shit:

You could choose to use capitalism only when it actually makes sense, as opposed to all the time.

What does this even mean? How could society possibly decide this.

 

[RiccochetJ]

What does this even mean? How could society possibly decide this.

I think that everyone agrees that people should have access to healthcare. The emergency room once things have gotten so bad is not an adequate substitution.

 

[Liljagare]

Nay, my region with its mix of sociopolitics has done well, Scandinavia.

 

[lednerg]

What does this even mean? How could society possibly decide this.

Well, are you forcing a false dichotomy in which we either do nothing but capitalism or ditch it entirely?

 

[danthefan]

I'm pretty passionately against capitalism and believe in abolishing private property, money, wage labor, and markets. I identify as an anarchist communist. Unfortunately, I think I'm in the extreme minority on that both on GAF and elsewhere.

Can you give a single example of a instance where this system has worked?

 

[curls]

'Free' energy will be the big revolution. It will be the key to moving humanity out of the gutter.

 

[Orthogonal]

Well, are you forcing a false dichotomy in which we either do nothing but capitalism or ditch it entirely?

I'm asking you to clarify what times/instances Capitalism is good to use and when it is not and how you decide?

 

[Nivash]

Nay, my region with its mix of sociopolitics has done well, Scandinavia.

You do realize that we're 90 % capitalist though, right? We've just mixed it with progressive taxation and letting the government run some essential societal functions like healthcare.

 

[uncleniccius]

Not necessarily my view but an illuminating video, the drawing is nothing to do with the speech but the speech is super interesting. https://youtu.be/qOP2V_np2c0

Essentially, he argues that capitalism is fundamentally flawed, something that it is hard not to agree with based on what he is saying. What we don't have however is a better alternative.

 

[The Incarnation]

We need to get corporations breeding humans for the sole purpose of labour.

Pay them off with money to keep them happy and distracted.

 

[EGM1966]

Yay and nay like a good European.

Long term it will have to go the way of the dodo but mild, regulated capatilism is a decent anchor currently for society along with democracy it seems.

 

[HarryHengst]

It's quite clear we are arguing that the only forms we've ever seen pragmatically approached have failed miserably and lead to horrible labor exploitation and labor failures. Don't think for one second that the people who first championed it were incompetent. There are numerous challenges that require the direct control and limiting of humanity freedoms.

You know, this basically describes capitalism, even though it wasnt your intention.

First I'd like to hear one communist or socialist propose a system for allocating production resources in the absence of price signals. Without that I am 100% confident in saying that communism will never ever work.

The labor theory of value doesn't tell you how many TVs you should build for the next year, even if it were an accurate economic theory(it isn't).

There exists something named market socialism, which is *gasp* socialism but with markets!

 

[ChetWilson]

Here's an experiment.

Find 100 people who grew up in countries that were not capitalist but now live in America. Ask them which they prefer.

Grass is always greener on the other side...

there's a reason everyone comes to the west (whether it be America, England, or wherever else) in search of a better life.

I was going to ask something in a similar vein.

You can interview those people that came to the west searching for a better life, and they can spit out 10-15 horror stories on command about how they personally suffered due to the inefficiencies, power abuses, and otherwise criminal actions and results of their non-capitalistic society.

The majority of complaints posted so far about capitalism seem to come from indoctrinating textbooks, and/or political propaganda. Buzzwords, conflict avoidance words, theoretical bullshit by people either economically or mathematically ignorant, shit in movies, and made up problems are pretty much par for the complaints.

I haven't seen much if any true to life victimization by capitalism posted at all here. Genuine bad results free markets and free interactions between people.


Could anyone please share a story of how living in a mainly capitalistic system ruined their life?