It’s not really capitalism anymore when the government keeps bailing out businesses that are supposed to fail.
This happens when capital owners get enough wealth and influence to capture government regulatory agencies. This is what any attempt at capitalism will build to.
At least the no true communism people use the actual definition of the system in their argument. What you’re describing is literally capitalist organizations acting on the incentives inherent to the system.
You’re being ridiculous. Greed is the “inherent incentive” that leads to regulatory rapture under capitalism and authoritarianism under communism (which one could argue to be the same thing in essence).
The solution is a government of the people, for the people, a.k.a. democracy. Which can choose whichever economic system it damn well pleases, as long as it keeps greed in check through taxation, public services, strong welfare, social discourse, etc. Like social-democratic countries in Europe have been doing for decades. Or try a version of that for communism, I don’t care.
Even so, those countries in Europe are still capitalist. They’ve just tempered it with government policies that restrain it to adequate levels.
In that sense I suppose “this is the least worst system” isn’t technically true. Unbridled capitalism from the industrial revolution is incredibly different from restrained European capitalism after all.
I did not say, nor do I think, that capitalism is “the least worst system”. I’m sure we could do better in many regards, but that’s quite irrelevant to the point anyway.
America’s version of capitalism isn’t the only cannon version of capitalism (and I could write a whole-ass essay about how the current state of affairs in the US goes back decades, and is fundamentally unfixable due to the federal nature of the country with its urban/rural divide mixed in with Electoral College and FPTP voting essentially preventing any meaningful structural reform).
There’s no need to dismiss neoliberal social-democracy, just because it’s “different” from the mess that America got itself into. Europe’s achievements stand on their own, and America’s systemic failures being blamed on “muh capitalism” completely misses the point, and the actual root cause of the democratic back-sliding which is corrupting the system in favor of the elites.
I completely agree actually. Blaming it on capitalism is reductive and masks the actual root causes, and what sort of solutions we need.
And then when capitalists turn news into an entertainment business you’ll vote for their victory while thinking you’re a populist.
Your solution requires a fair playing field, especially with information and people with wealth and power will work to limit that info. Fox News and it’s ever expanding right wing influence sphere show how much money there is in convincing the average voter to vote to further empower the capital class.
You equate the two but I don’t think you actually understand the fundamental core of these ideas. In capitalism, gathering wealth is the basic core foundation of the system. The hierarchy is spelled out and requires a vast underclass who prop up the lifestyles of those on top with their labor. In communism, the fundamental idea is that hierarchy should be dismantled. The system that was initially labeled communism was described as stateless, classless, and moneyless.
Corrupt individuals can turn literally any government into authoritarianism if given the chance, that’s not inherent to communist ideology. Especially when you consider all the dictators the US has cozied up to for natural resources and such. When billionaires say “we coup who we want” you can’t single communism out for creating authoritarian institutions. It shows a lack of perspective.
Lol dude, this is what happens to virtually every major system. It’s just corruption, plain and simple.
Only if you sand off the details. The corruption here is directly incentivized as a way to become more successful in the system. Its incentivized to a much larger degree than any other system based on where power is derived from.
Yeah, ok sure.
That’s how capitalism has always worked in practice, though.
Well it’s an interesting idea on paper anyway
Of course it is. Capitalism, especially neoliberal capitalism, needs the state to support it. Without the state, who will arrest people who go against the wishes of capital? If there isn’t one already, capital will become the state.
That is indeed still capitalism
No, that is corporate socialism.
Socialism is not when the government does things.
Its not? Every definition of socialism I’ve ever heard of is exactly that.
For instance:
“Socialism is, broadly speaking, a political and economic system in which property and the means of production are owned in common, typically controlled by the state or government.”
What’s your definition?
That is not what those words mean.
deleted by creator
Do you want the explanation?
neoliberal governance is an extension of capitalism, change my mind.
it is when the richest people have already paid off the government to bail them out, when the time comes, with our tax dollars.
The system wouldn’t work without bailouts. It’s a feature, not a bug.
In my experience, the people who work retail and food service are more likely to favor socialism and collective action. But not all of them, of course.
The people who justify capitalism tend to work in higher paid office or managerial jobs. Not all of them, of course, as I am an example, and as are the ton of lower paid office workers that hate their jobs.
Turns out, the people for whom capitalism worked out, tend to like it. Those being crushed by the weight of unsustainable consumption tend to hate it. Go figure.
I see it as an incentive structure problem. Capitalism in itself isn’t inherently evil, but what we’ve created is a system of perverse incentives, where the closer to the top you get, the more incentive there is to fuck everyone below you, and the more capable you are of doing it. People will mostly go for what benefits them most, or at least is perceived to benefit them most. If there was a much larger cost to fucking front line workers, for those in charge, things would change tomorrow. The other part of the problem is the people at the top now have so much influence they can stop changes to the incentive structure.
The word you’re looking for is “regulation”.
Capitalism’s only job is to be a paper clip factory. All they will ever care about is making paper clips. If left unchecked, they will run amok and fill the universe with paper clips.
It’s government’s job to provide the walls and the rules and the guidelines that protect its people and prevent that from happening.
But the paper clip factory managers started running for office. And duped people into voting for them. And now the halls of congress and governor mansions and parliments and white houses etc. are filled with paper clips and now nobody can get anything done.
Most reasonable people are in favor of better wages and working conditions, but they’re also in favor of capitalism because it works. Socialism is a failed ideology time and time again. It will never work and never has. There’s a reason why every single Marxist attempt failed. They all either collapsed or adopted a form of capitalism.
I think you’re confusing socialism with communism.
Most western nations use some hybrid of capitalism and socialism. Pure capitalism doesn’t work. Pure socialism doesn’t work. But together they check and balance each other.
The only debate is around “how capitalist” or “how socialist”.
For example, the industry that provides internet access is an example of where capitalism has failed. We gave them an unfettered free market and they wrote their government contracts to give themselves fiefdoms and consolidated to the point that there is no competition. This is the endpoint of pure capitalism - feudalism.
The “pure capitalist” approach would be to throw up your hands and give up. The free market has spoken.
Hybrid approach #1 could be to use government regulations to break up the fiefdoms and somehow force competition. This is still a hybrid approach, but closer to the capitalist side of the spectrum.
Hybrid approach #2 would be to acknowledge that a competitive landscape may never develop over such a required piece of infrastructure and instead turn the industry into a public utility. This is much closer to the “socialism” side of the fence as they may still allow private companies to run the utility, but the government controls many parts of their business practices.
The pure socialist approach would be to have the government take over internet infrastructure and provide it as a public good paid by tax dollars. Which has its own pros and cons I suppose. The government running internet infrastructure is a bit of a black box - we don’t really know how it’d go - but its hard to imagine the pace of innovation and support being worse than it is today.
Regardless, this only applies to an industry that currently lacks innovation. There are plenty of industries where a free market does work in the public’s favor. But not all of them. And that’s something the hybrid model acknowledges.
I’ve thought about this a lot. I wonder if a good compromise would be a requirement for maybe 10-20% of all issued and outstanding shares of publicly traded companies to be owned by non-officer employees. It doesn’t even have to be given away freely. They could be sold to employees and/or given as part of their total comp. Just enough to get a seat on the board elected by them. Seems reasonable.
Like Germany
Capitalism is great for handling things that are relatively unimportant. So you don’t want it for medical, education, infrastructure (including utilities), etc. Its fine for things like fashion or the various things might have around the house. Even then it must be highly regulated.
Taxing rich people to pay for good paying jobs in healthcare, education, and utility/infrastructure maintenance would help everyone.
Economies need to be a cycle. If the rich just hoard and don’t spend then we can’t spend either.
So if they won’t pay a liveable wage, tax them heavily and start paying liveable wages with the money.
Definately. One problem with money is it has no inherent value. It only has value when it is utilized. So hoarding essentially removes money from the economy. Its like potential and kinetic energy.
I think worker cooperatives could handle those things better. It sounds like you’re just looking at the outcomes for consumers, not workers.
Child repeating what their parents and society has told them.
Vs.
Adult who has started to live the reality.
In theory, how would a different system really help?
Currently the people in power manipulate and circumvent the system, do they magically disappear?
There is this belief by so many that somehow, if you create the perfect system, it will somehow overcome human nature or that humans will somehow starting acting collectively altruistic with the right political model.
In most cases, they also imagine themselves in a position of power in this new government, either up in an upper “leadership” class or somehow silently leading “but I’m not a leader”, as if somehow the idea itself is so potent that people will just, you know, execute it flawlessly without intervention.
In most cases, they also imagine themselves in a position of power in this new government
Where are you even pulling this from
If you had a point it got lost in this fantasy claim you’ve made up here
Have you ever met a teenager?
Oh that makes sense. The OP is about teenagers, but this comment thread wasn’t necessarily, so I didn’t catch your context
No worries, I just assumed we were continuing the context from the OP
This is a dumb argument. There are clearly better and worse ways to organize a society. There’s no reason to believe capitalism is the best and plenty of reasons to believe it’s not.
I haven’t heard of a better method than (properly regulated) capitalism. I’m open to one though.
Communism and anarchism demonstrably don’t work, so don’t go there with me.
Socialism I would consider a form of Capitalism (imo the best one).
Saying socialism is a form of capitalism is…unconventional. I think very few people would agree. Personally I see socialism as something that can be blended with capitalism, but doing so results in a less capitalist system. And when I see someone advocate for capitalism, I assume they mean the mostly unregulated kind like you see in the US, and which is forced in a lot of poor countries under the guise of “economic development”.
I consider myself a socialist so I guess we’re not as far apart as it seemed at first.
But anyway, the point I was originally trying to make is more general: the best system might not even exist yet. In medieval Europe they thought feudalism was as good as it got, and ideas like capitalism and socialism hasn’t been invented.
I agree with all of that.
My view is, capitalism is an economic program, and socialism is a societal program, and like you said they can be blended. Pure capitalism would have essentially NO societal program (ie no regulations) and would look something like libertarianism.
Then why support capitalism?
In a non-hierarchical system, yes they do magically disappear.
And in fairy land, we can eat candy all day and get no cavities
Okay kid.
Can you give one example of a long-term, large scale, non-hierarchical system in human society?
do they tho
This is the first time I’ve seen someone directly admit to being in the grip of magical thinking.
Magical thinking, i.e. they don’t agree with our current flawed system and can see the potential of a better way?
Well if that’s your first time, I feel sorry for you. You must hang out with some truly shitty people.
You literally said people will “magically” go away. If you have no system to prevent people from forming power structures, some of them will. If you do have one, it’s a power structure in itself.
#‘#I’m14aandthisisdeep’
Can you give one example of a long-term, large scale, non-hierarchical system in human society?
Yes, but it’s still better than being in the exact same position but having to join a ten year waiting list for a Lada.
I love the smell of false dichotomies in the morning!
I’ve never seen an adolescents defend capitalism. They tend to be either apolitical or anarchists.
This has to be a lie. I’ve never seen a single kid educated enough to even know what anarchy is. But they’re definitely dumb enough to parrot their parents.
You’ve never seen a group of adolescents punks? Have ever been outside?
Adolescent punks have zero idea what anarchy is. They just hate their dads
deleted by creator
Almost anything but capitalist, yes. But apperently America (USA) is different. Which also kind of makes sense.
deleted by creator
So you never learned what socialism and communism were… you were always a lib, and you’re a lib now lmao
deleted by creator
Literal Nazi propaganda, not gonna argue with you.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I mean… I fucking hate it, but I haven’t seen anything better actually in practice yet. Pretty words on paper, maybe, but not in fucking reality.
Oof, please don’t let lemmy become a place full of Communism apologists.
Still in stage one huh bud?
Anticapitalism is not equivalent to Comminism.
Image Transcription:
Wojak in a bow tie with the text 'Adolescent people defending capitalism as “the best system we got”
Depressed wojak wearing a MacDonald’s employee hat, with the text ‘Those same people after just a few years of experiencing the capitalist job market’
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
deleted by creator
I feel personally attacked.
