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!

  • 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?

    •  steltek   ( @steltek@lemm.ee ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      471 year ago

      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.

        • 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.

        •  persolb   ( @persolb@lemmy.ml ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          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.

    •  o_o   ( @o_o@programming.dev ) OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      231 year ago

      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.

      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.

      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 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 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?

      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.

      • Well I mean it’s unclear to me that we’re much worse than previous points in history.

        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.

        •  o_o   ( @o_o@programming.dev ) OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          171 year ago

          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.

          •  Zamboniman   ( @Zamboniman@lemmy.ca ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            26
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s an interesting perspective! Care to share some data?

            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.

      • 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.

        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.

        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.

        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.

        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.

        You are not a capitalist.

        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.

        You are a worker, so why look out for the interests of an entirely different class that doesn’t do the same for you?

        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.

        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.

        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.

        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.

      • I’d rather have the climate crisis over the nuclear one

        Why? Either way, everybody dies.

        or either of the world wars

        Instead of dying from mustard gas, we’re all going to die from heat and starvation. Yay.

        or live under a feudal system where I’m owned by the local lord in his castle.

        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.

      • 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.

        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.

    •  redballooon   ( @redballooon@lemm.ee ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

  • 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.

    • What about capitalism requires infinite growth? And what does it require infinite growth in? What happens when growth stagnates in a capitalist system? Does it suddenly not become capitalist anymore?

    • This isn’t a property of capitalism, though. It’s a property of humanity, and really of life. What capitalism did was just to efficiently provide food and medicine to people, and the population graph turned into a hockey stick.

      Is starvation and infant mortality preferable? Do you think if people had found some (as yet unknown) economic system that was as effective at supplying food and medicine, people wouldn’t have had kids? And if they did keep having kids, wouldn’t that have taxed the planet like capitalism has done?

      •  Communist   ( @communist@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        People have tried alternate systems, some have even gone extremely well until they are destroyed by capitalists

        The fact of the matter is, the only reason there isn’t another system is because capitalists have gone out of their way to destroy every other system that has been tried.

        You can’t make a fair comparison when you factor in that capitalists already control the world.

        Even democratically elected communists were destroyed by the US government.

        • Alternative systems such as…? I can think of several, but none I’d describe as ‘successful’.

          It’s kind of a red flag (no pun intended) when your preferred system can be destabilized with some money stuffed in the right pockets, isn’t it? Most failed systems that were ‘undermined by capitalists’ mostly involved funding and support, not invasion or anything. Meanwhile, democracy and capitalism emerged in the midst of hostile aristocracy and royalty, and survived decades of attempts by the USSR (and now Russia) to undermine it.

          My personal opinion is that those systems were doomed from conception, though I don’t deny that the US certainly engaged in speeding their demise.

          Anyway, that’s all beside the point. Both populations and consumption increased under the Soviets, and any other system you care to name, proportionate to their effectiveness at keeping people fed and healthy.

          •  Communist   ( @communist@beehaw.org ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Undermined by stuffed pockets?

            None of the systems I advocated were undermined by stuffed pockets, they were undermined by a capitalist country militaristically destroying a new nation, a capitalist country that has 50 percent of the ENTIRE WORLDS military spending.

            That’s an important detail not to gloss over.

            Revolutionary Catalonia had a wonderful system, the zapatistas have a wonderful system, neither were undermined by what you claim. I’m anti-red fascism, the Soviet union was evil. You just boldly assumed anarchists don’t exist, I agree that they were fundamentally doomed, but anarchists have no such fuckups.

            Furthermore do you honestly believe capitalism is not susceptible to stuffed pockets??

      • You are objectively wrong that capitalism offers an effective system at distributing medicine and food amongst societies. I’m amazed you’ve come to that conclusion when hundreds of millions of people die every year because they can’t AFFORD TO BUY food or medicine… Further more the world is melting because of horrific mismanagement by the elite class and not much else. The technology, money and resources exist to solve most problems on earth but the monetary COST is deemed too high. See capitalists and capitalism will always choose wealth over human life, always, it’s literally how capitalism began with old mate Columbus and the new world slave trade. From top to bottom, start to finish, capitalism is fucking shit and irredeemable.

        • Then what’s your explanation for the huge rise in life expectancy and food availability–starting in capitalist Western countries, and then spreading to the rest of the world along with the market economy?

          Capitalism is certainly imperfect at distribution of food and medicine. As the saying goes: it’s the worst system, aside from every other that has existed. And the margin isn’t particularly close.

          You date the origin of capitalism to Columbus? Seems pretty arbitrary. Markets date back thousands of years, and recognizably capitalist forms of government emerged in the 18th and 19th century at the earliest. Columbus was sponsored by a king seeking new land, not capitalists seeking new markets.

    •  vegai   ( @vegai@suppo.fi ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      capitalism requires infinite growth. We have finite resources.

      But growth includes things that are not finite, or at least where no clear limit is anywhere visible. Like technological improvements.

      • Feel free to be pedantic, but my point remains: historically and currently capitalism strives for infinite growth and cares not for resource limitations.

        Now, can capitalism serve both purposes? Of course. Technological improvements developed by capitalism can (and must) improve environmental and resource impacts of population needs. Does it currently? Not nearly enough. How to direct capitalism to become a better steward for the planet and its resources is a separate topic and discussion. OP asked a question that I was answering without getting into the weeds.

  •  frustbox   ( @frustbox@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1031 year ago

    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?

    • You can advertise, and attract more customers. Alright, but eventually everyone has a widget. Maybe you can poach some customers from a competitor, but ultimately the market is saturated. Things get replaced as they break there’s a natural equilibrium. How do you increase profits?
    • You can charge more. Raise the price. That only works so far before you lose customers to your cheaper competition, again you reach an equilibrium. How do you increase profits?
    • You can innovate! Oh yes, that’s what capitalism is all about, improve your production, instead of 5 parts that need to be screwed together, now it’s just one part that falls out of a machine. You spend less time making each widget so you make more profit. But eventually there just isn’t any room to innovate any more. How do you increase profits?
    • You can use cheaper materials. But here again, you bump against an equilibrium, the cheaper materials often break more easily - sometimes that is wanted (planned obsolescence) but your customers will notice the drop in quality and eventually they’re not willing to pay as much for your widget any more. How do you increase profits?
    • Well, the last big item on your list: payroll. Do more work with less staff, or in other words pay staff less.

    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!!

    •  Obi   ( @Obi@sopuli.xyz ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      261 year ago

      I had to stop trying to engage in any political discussion online because it’s so dominated by Americans and trying to talk some sense into them is like taking to an antagonistic, raging, gun-toting brick wall. I just got frustrated and it never goes anywhere, they’re incapable of seeing past their blue Vs red and biased viewpoints.

    • Maybe this is the trauma from the unhinged, raging, exploitative robber barons talking, but…

      I can’t in good conscience support any economic system that ties political power to economic power. One extreme will always do their best to accrue and centralize that power, and will be effective by virtue of the fact that the power creates more opportunities and ways to accrue more power. The other extreme will always be ineffectual because they shun that power, seeing the necessary rejection of certain values as inherently corrupt. The middle will struggle against both to maintain a status quo that always has a stronger pull toward the former group, effectively recreating the political ratchet.

      I can’t in good conscience support a system that allows people to effectively own others, regardless of how well they treat the people they own, regardless of how many owners one of the owned has to choose from. The dynamic has a strong tendency in favor of the owners and requires a lot more effort from the owned to fight that.

      I can’t in good conscience support a system that allows people to own pstches of the earth, especially beyond those which they occupy or personally use. Yes, I want everyone to have somewhere to live, and have that place be free from unwanted interference by others. No, i won’t support a system that in theory has no hard limits against someone powerful enough buying up all the land and then renting it out to everyone else for a profit.

      I can’t in good conscience support a system that allows people to own ideas, and even necessitates them doing so to “earn their keep” (worth as a citizen/right to survive). I feel like I’m in bizzaro world when i think about how there are people oddly comfortable with the fact that people have put patents on living things, or that there are people who can tell you when, where and how you’re allowed to express certain ideas/arts/mechanisms/songs/images/sounds/formulae under threat of being stripped of power you managed to accrue (whether or not it came from aforementioned ideas), imprisonment, and in some cases slavery.

      I won’t support any political system that doesn’t give me at least as much power as everyone else. I have enough emapthy to realize that pure democracy is a better compromise than authoritarianism, especially considering most other people either feel the same or just want a system where their needs get met.

      But mainly, it’s just plain illogical ti support any given political system as an ends when 1. The world is a constantly changing place, and any rigidly defined system will inevitably fail regardless of how well it fits to the context in which it was created. And 2. I am aware of better alternatives—to paraphrase what some stranger once said to me: idealism is what we aim for, reality is the compromise we make; in other words: if politics is a negotiation, why lead with a compromise?

      Hopefully this isn’t too Murrica-brained. When I see news of proto-fascist movements on the rise in the UK, Brazil, Italy and Australia, or extreme class disparity in Singapore, China, and Japan, or ethnic “cleansing” in China, Turkey, Rwanda, and Liberia, or just something as simple as how common scams and fraud are from places like India and Nigeria—indicating a need to resort to intercontinental theft to survive—I feel like my experience of politics and economics isn’t as limited to my geographic region as I’d like to believe.

    •  pazukaza   ( @pazukaza@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      I see a fellow social democrat and I upvote.

      People here think that if you agree with private property and private incentive then you suck billionaires d*cks.

      Man, there is a whole spectrum that is much more realistic than pure communism or socialism.

    • Did anyone actually say they wanted specifically Bolshevik communism? Personally I just want to be free of all hierarchy which is almost like the absence of dogmatism in my opinion. Coercion still exists in social democracies by the way but I agree it’s much better than the US.

  • “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.

    • I agree with your point of view, and I think the solution is more governmental regulation. Billionaires and companies keep leeching for infinite growth, and I believe our system can work (and has proven it can work), if we allow a free market within reason.

      • Some example where it works? Because where I live (EU), stuff is regulated and no one of my generation can buy shit. I pay so much for rent that I can’t save money to buy something of my own. While the owner of the company has luxury cars. We’re all wage slaves. Sadly, everything else is doomed to fail as well, so even the fabled communism of Soviet bootlickers won’t save us.

      • It does match exactly what’s happening though. Others have mentioned housing cost which is a clear example, but you can also look at income inequality. Here’s an article which cites data from the congressional budget office https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/

        It shows up to 500% growth since 1979 in the earnings of the .01% while the 99% of earners are only making about 50% more than in 1979. That data makes it clear that wealth is being concentrated, and that people at the bottom are going with less. Especially considering inflation since 1979 has been 320% (source)

        • Not to mention that people in America and Europe aren’t necessarily at “the bottom”. A lot of today’s wealth is built on the backs of poorer countries that make even less than we do, or nothing at all, or by exploiting them by coming in and privatizing something as basic as water.

          • @Crankpork
            Debt and giving weapons to extremist factions, like druglords, are the big ways that the extraction/pillage/theft happens.

            BTW corporatism (aka #neoliberalism) is not capitalism. Capital (including money) is supposed to deplete when bad decisions are made in capitalism. Also capitalism was defined to have protections and a publicSector to counteract so-called ‘externalities’ (ie. bad stuff) a corporation might produce as a by-product.

            Both are clowned w neoliberalism
            @local_taxi_fix

            • Being removed from reality is a form of insanity itself.

              A lot of people die from hunger daily in my country and different parts of the world. If you’re speaking about growing wealth in developing countries, you should go look at the people holding these wealth, most times, it’s an even smaller group of elites than in the USA.

              Capitalism is wielded in a much worse manner in underdeveloped and developing countries, the elite and people in power don’t care about the citizens, they want to hoard as much wealth as they can and they would do so in any way they can. What’s worse, they take these wealth to already wealthy countries to further develop them while intentionally destroying theirs. Your should follow the flow of wealth from the global south to the north the west in particular.

              Yes, in these countries there’s a growing middle class, but what can they buy or do with the little wealth they hold? They’re stuck in an endless struggle against totalitarian governments who are themselves stooges to global neocolonialist and imperialistic countries powers like the USA and European countries.

      • There’s more overall for everyone, but the people at the bottom are getting a smaller and smaller share, and a lot of important things, like housing, not to mention with things like streaming, and online stores, we don’t really “own” most of the media we consume anymore, we just pay forever to rent it. Fast fashion and planned obscelescence means that our clothing is worse than what people used to have, and our machines don’t last as long, so we have to keep replacing both of those.

        What we do have is designed not to last, and more meaningful, life-long purchases are out of reach. Meanwhile the people at the top of the pile who do literally nothing but “have wealth” sit around on their yachts blissfully ignoring the people starving to death on the streets.

  •  doot   ( @doot@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    731 year ago

    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.

    • OP, read this person’s post and realize they are a few months away from being totally fucked and yet are the lucky one.

      They work two jobs, and they are the lucky one.

      In countries with actual social safety nets people can afford to work one job, they take vacations, they don’t have to struggle to afford medical care, it is covered because it is a human right.

      Those countries aren’t suffering because they are completely capitalistic, companies in these countries are prospering and yet they help their population prosper as well.

  •  Beto   ( @beto@lemmy.studio ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Huh? How do you explain the ban on ozone-depleting gasses? How do you explain carbon trading?

      Of course climate change can be addressed under capitalism. It just can’t be addresses without regulation.

      •  prole   ( @prole@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        The only reason we successfully banned CFCs, is because the more environmentally friendly replacement was cheaper.

        If the motivations for fighting climate change (or any problem, really) don’t align with the profit motive of the affected corporations, nothing will be done.

    •  shirro   ( @shirro@aussie.zone ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Regulated capitalism can direct capital to innovation in low/zero emission technologies and disincentivize investment in polluting technology very effectively,. More effectively than a corrupt command economy could do it. Fossil fuel companies have fought against interventions to push the market towards alternatives but the biggest failure has been on the political class and voters who haven’t done enough to push the market in the correct direction. Photo voltaics, storage technology and wind turbines have received a lot of investment and are growing rapidly despite the work of the big polluters to stall action.

      • Sure, it directs money towards alternatives, while doing absolutelyfucking nothing about actually reducing the harmful technologies. We may have more solar and wind (neither of which is perfect, nothing is), which is then used as propaganda to show “Oh, look at all the progress we’re making!”, while still mostly keeping oil and coal.

        And, of course, everything is the fault of regular people, struggling to get by, companies are blameless.

  • 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.

    • There is actually not much separating capitalism and socialism other than workers being in control of the means of production.

      Socialism doesn’t have anything against markets. Socialism doesn’t have anything against organizational structures. What it does have issue with is workers not having any democratic say in how their workplaces operate and who they choose to do business with.

      That’s the thing, not a lot would have to change, other than putting legal protections and norms in place for workplace elections and so on.

      • To me, this is obvious. Most people agree some form of democratic control is good as far as the government goes. They don’t see the logical extension that it should apply to the workplace if it’s good as well. They haven’t seen that as an option. They’re told there’s one hierarchy businesses can have and don’t question it.

      •  steltek   ( @steltek@lemm.ee ) 
        link
        fedilink
        9
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        not a lot would have to change, other than putting legal protections and norms in place for workplace elections and so on.

        I definitely don’t identify as a Socialist but even still, I would have added, “tax the fuck out of the rich”. Income inequality is the root evil for most people today.

        • If workers own the means of production, wouldn’t the rich fat cats cease to exist as they’ve functionally been replaced?

          I’m not against a fair taxation system, but the obscene wealth of CEOs is literally one of the many things that socialism addresses because you can vote on executive compensation as well as worker compensation. The people at the bottom have unique access via their voting power to prevent those at the top from achieving obscene wealth at the expense of the average worker (see: Bob Iger, who makes 400x his average employee).

          Yes, a better taxation rate is needed for the wealthy, but a lot of that wealth would get punched in the dick and be out of a job when voted out by their workers. They ain’t gonna be John Galting it and build a gleaming city on the hill because none of those rich twerps know how to do actual labor, so they would be out of work.

          Like seriously I can’t imagine someone like Elon Musk or Steve Huffman surviving a workers vote on the boss. If they can’t legally put their finger on the scale by using their wealth as a cudgel, fuck nobody would vote for these fuckers to be in charge.

      • There is nothing preventing anyone from starting a worker-owned collective. The fact that they don’t, while having the freedom to do so, indicates that the typical arrangement of wage labor is consensual. It’s what people choose.

        If socialism requires an arrangement other than the one they would freely choose, then socialism requires a non-free market where people are forced into economic arrangements they wouldn’t freely choose.

        So socialist may not in principle have anything against markets, but the fact that the implementation of socialism requires curtailing markets means it does have something against markets in practice.

        • The fact that they don’t, while having the freedom to do so, indicates that the typical arrangement of wage labor is consensual.

          It’s actually that most people simply don’t have the capital to do so while entrenched capitalist interests do. But I guess maybe you’re conveniently ignoring that wildly imbalanced scale to be able to say it’s consenual. Most people are only born with their labor to sell while the capitalist class hands off their wealth to their progeny, who can live without labor, and thus do things like start a business without fear of failure. More than half of new businesses fail within 10 years. For someone without oodles of capital to fall back on, that kind of failure can be financially devastating, which makes them less likely to choose to run their own business, because the risk is far higher. The risk to the nepo-baby is negligible, because they have capital to fall back on, so they are more likely to start their own business. This is obviously an unbalanced situation so calling it “consensual” is frankly bullshit. Also it ignores the coercive nature of the risk of homelessness if your business fails badly, once again something the capital-having nepo-baby doesn’t have to fear or risk.

          Like, it’s generally considered at this point that Monica Lewinsky didn’t have consensual sex with Bill Clinton simply because the power relations were wildly off. He was the President of the United States of America at it’s absolute zenith in history, while she was a random 20-something intern with no connections or power in the situation.

          Nice try, tho.

          • Like, it’s generally considered at this point that Monica Lewinsky didn’t have consensual sex with Bill Clinton simply because the power relations were wildly off. He was the President of the United States of America at it’s absolute zenith in history, while she was a random 20-something intern with no connections or power in the situation.

            That’s a bad example. As far as I know, Clinton is not of the “do me or you’re fired” persuasion, nor did Lewinsky ever say anything to that effect in the multiple decades since.

            • Monica Lewinsky in 2018:

              https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/monica-lewinsky-in-the-age-of-metoo

              Just four years ago, in an essay for this magazine, I wrote the following: “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.” I now see how problematic it was that the two of us even got to a place where there was a question of consent. Instead, the road that led there was littered with inappropriate abuse of authority, station, and privilege. (Full stop.)

              Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern. I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot. (Although power imbalances—and the ability to abuse them—do exist even when the sex has been consensual.)

              But it’s also complicated. Very, very complicated. The dictionary definition of “consent”? “To give permission for something to happen.” And yet what did the “something” mean in this instance, given the power dynamics, his position, and my age? Was the “something” just about crossing a line of sexual (and later emotional) intimacy? (An intimacy I wanted—with a 22-year-old’s limited understanding of the consequences.) He was my boss. He was the most powerful man on the planet. He was 27 years my senior, with enough life experience to know better. He was, at the time, at the pinnacle of his career, while I was in my first job out of college. (Note to the trolls, both Democratic and Republican: none of the above excuses me for my responsibility for what happened. I meet Regret every day.)

              “This” (sigh) is as far as I’ve gotten in my re-evaluation; I want to be thoughtful. But I know one thing for certain: part of what has allowed me to shift is knowing I’m not alone anymore. And for that I am grateful.

              I—we—owe a huge debt of gratitude to the #MeToo and Time’s Up heroines. They are speaking volumes against the pernicious conspiracies of silence that have long protected powerful men when it comes to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and abuse of power.


              It’s not about whether or not he’s a “do me or you’re fired” type. To quote Dennis Reynolds, it’s about “the implication” about the mans power in the situation.

              • So, the truth of the matter is that she was young and naïve and he arguably took advantage and it’s complicated? Okay, that’s somewhat worse than I thought, but it’s still a bad example. You were talking about coercion, and that isn’t coercion. What Harvey Weinstein did is coercion.

          • It’s really not that hard to start a small business. There’s no grand shadowy conspiracy against your idea. If it was a superior method, it would see more widespread success. Bluntly forcing one business structure and removing freedoms when there are far less drastic tools is a big ask.

        • How do you get a loan to start a business if you don’t have enough capital to begin with? It’s not that simple, it’s not on the interest of banks to invest on small businesses, because it’s comparable higher risk and they are profit driven.

        • As someone who started and still works in a co-op, it’s because it’s hard. Banks don’t understand worker coops and won’t lend money to you without a real person to attach the risk to, which means founders have to take an enormous risk which it can be hard to compensate them for. The legal structure isn’t common so you are limited in the lawyers who can set one up for you. Others have mentioned the cost problems - I started a software dev coop so we didn’t have a large capital outlay but it did cost nearly 10k just in setup costs.

          It took a lot of work to get to where we are, with little supporting resources. In contrast, I started an LLC in half an hour and $150 registration fee to the government. So no, it not just “what people choose”.

  •  NotSpez   ( @NotSpez@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    59
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

    The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, that each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

    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.

    • Capitalism is misnamed. Marx’s analysis that capital has a special theoretical role in the system is wrong. Accepting the pie metaphor means falling for the capitalist framing. Capitalism is a property system, so criticize it in property theoretic terms. The problem with the system becomes clear as the capitalist legally owns 100% of the positive and negative product of the firm and employees own 0% of the product. Whole analysis doesn’t fit in a toot, so link: https://www.ellerman.org/rethinking-common-vs-private-property/

  •  ira   ( @ira@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    591 year ago

    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 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.

    •  Muetzenman   ( @Muetzenman@feddit.de ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Capitalism isn’t evil. It has no moral. It doesn’t feel anything and doesn’t care. There is only one golden rule “accumolate capital”. That’s it. It doesn’t matter how. Abduct people to force them in to slavery. Sent kids in coalmines for 12 hours a day. Burn down villages. The logical end for capitalism is one person owning everything.

      This isn’t evil or greedy. It is just people playing by the rules of the system. People aren’t bad people. It is the system that makes them act in evil or greedy ways. This is what capitalism wants us to act. This is how we are expacted to behave.

  • Imagine that the world of humans has been going on for 100s of thousands of years and the current system of economics that’s only been around for a couple of hundred years is treated like we’ve finally reached the pinnacle of how human beings should interact with each other to survive as a species, while we clearly see people in our species starving, being abused, being murdered for their race, etc.

    The lie is that “Capitalism benefits everyone. And those that it doesn’t benefit aren’t trying hard enough.” Fuck that. I’ve been working regular, full time jobs all my life, and the trade offs you have to endure to keep jobs and/or advance in jobs are for things like your time with your family, your time enjoying things, your time appreciating life and other people, your perspective and views set aside to tell lies to people that work for you so you can keep your job where you must constantly lie to people that make less money than you that are often equally or more skilled than you.

    Capitalism is a lie that is deeply highlighted in this thread. A lie of exploitation equaling opportunity. A lie of hoarders of wealth to convince others that they too hoard wealth at their level.

    It is deeply disturbing what level of loss of being a decent human being must be discarded to keep capitalism going.

  • 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.