About defending capitalism (and not billionaires - who more often than not abuse this system). Some of us lived in other systems. And we understand any other system is way way way way worse.
There are however a lot of problems with capitalism and should be held on a very short leash. Or else monopoly happens. The most effective actions to keep capitalism at bay: strong anti-trust laws, strong worker protection (this includes a lot of stuff), wealth tax.
And be aware there are many flavours of calitalism. Most commonly people in USA are the most extreme where you have really “long leash”. And people see such capitalism as failing and want to replace whole system.
There are however a lot of problems with capitalism and should be held on a very short leash. Or else monopoly happens. The most effective actions to keep capitalism at bay: strong anti-trust laws, strong worker protection (this includes a lot of stuff), wealth tax.
Capitalism eats the leash, you can’t avoid this.
This is simply not true. And whole EU is doing this more or less effectively. But your government has to be very very careful since this sure can happen.
In recent years we have seen degradation of this leash. But EU commission started keeping up with global monopolies.
I believe also in USA they are making some antitrust changes after a few decades of sleeping.
In recent years we have seen degradation of this leash.
Proving me correct.
Read all my statements again. And apply strict mathematic logic.
Few years of degradation of antitrust laws and some effective reforms in this year alone does not in any way prove your point.
As the above commenter mentioned it is possible to stop it eating the leash so to speak. The main problem is keeping all of those protections actually in place. We don’t seem to want to codify worker rights or anything else important to the constitution.
because the idea of being super rich is awesome and i want to be super rich. so much bills i wouldnt have a thought about 😂
Billionaires and capitalism isn’t the same problem. We have billionaires because anti-monopoly committee isn’t working :) that’s a main reason why they’re existing :)
Implied in your question is the notion that a billionaire or corporation can never be right about a given topic. That just isn’t true.
Also, on any given topic people will have differing opinions for different reasons. Having an opinion that happens to align with a billionaire or corporation isn’t the same as defending those entities. Often you’re stuck siding with one of those entities no matter what side of an issue you fall on.
I like Mark Cuban’s efforts to lower prescription costs. Does that mean I’m siding with a billionaire? If you don’t agree with me should I be able to dismiss your opinion as support for the pharmaceutical industry?
Life isn’t black and white. Opinions can be nuanced and complex. I rarely see any comments defending companies for the pure love of capitalism. Reducing people’s opinions to an easy-to-villainize stance is just that – reductive. It doesn’t aid in meaningful conversation.
I guess the central premise of capitalism is that while every society has its haves and have nots, capitalism is supposed to encourage the haves to invest in the economy rather than hoarding their wealth. In return, they stand to get even wealthier, but a stronger economy ought to generate more employment and generally improve the lives of commoners as well.
Unfortunately, in a never-ending quest to make wealth-generation more efficient and streamlined, employment is being eliminated through automation, outsourcing, etc. and the system is eating itself out from the inside. I doubt it can persist much longer, but what will replace it remains unclear. I pray that it will be something sensible that ensures everyone has their basic needs met and can still find rewarding pursuits in life. But there are so many ways it could go very wrong, and that includes staying on the current course.
I guess the central premise of capitalism is that while every society has its haves and have nots, capitalism is supposed to encourage the haves to invest in the economy rather than hoarding their wealth. In return, they stand to get even wealthier, but a stronger economy ought to generate more employment and generally improve the lives of commoners as well.
Nitpicky, but that’s the premise of Liberalism, not Capitalism. Capitalism emerged not because it was an idea, but an evolution in Mode of Production. Liberalism is the ideological justification.
Unfortunately, in a never-ending quest to make wealth-generation more efficient and streamlined, employment is being eliminated through automation, outsourcing, etc. and the system is eating itself out from the inside. I doubt it can persist much longer, but what will replace it remains unclear. I pray that it will be something sensible that ensures everyone has their basic needs met and can still find rewarding pursuits in life. But there are so many ways it could go very wrong, and that includes staying on the current course.
Have you read Marx? He makes the case that due to Capitalism’s tendency to centralize and form monopolist syndicates with internal planning, the next mode of production is Socialism, ie public ownership and planning of the syndicates formed by the market system.
Many reasons. One major factor imho is the belief or illusion to be living in a meritocracy. Which would mean, that someone who’s rich has to have earned it and therefore criticism must stem from envy or jealousy. The same belief fuels the ideology of thinking of poor people to just be lazy leeches on society.
I think you know why. Is this a real question or are you just fishing?
I genuinely want to know from those that defend them.
Pretty sure its fishing.
I defend capitalism because it is the most equitable and productive economic system that has ever existed, lifting more people out of poverty than ever before.
Free markets create space for those who don’t fit in. As an autistic person, I appreciate a world where I can find a way to survive other than convincing a committee that I deserve to exist.
I don’t deserve billionaires per se, but I have nothing against their existence and I think that a billionaire under capitalism is more fair and more likely to have fairly and productively achieved their wealth than a billionaire under any other system.
And if you don’t think the other systems have billionaires, you’re blind.
Under a free market, one gets rich by providing value. Economic relations are mutually consensual. That’s the definition.
What is called “capitalism” these days is, generally speaking, the places where the free market has broken down. Slaves aren’t a free market scenario. Only having one available job isn’t a free market scenario. Big corporations controlling the government to prevent their competition from surviving or arising isn’t a free market scenario.
All the “worst aspects of capitalism” that people complain about are exactly the aspects of the world that most resemble capitalism’s alternatives like anarchy and centralized command economies.
We need more free market, not less. We need to let people buy a pack of cigarettes and then sell them for $2 a pop to make a profit, not kill them for doing this.
The anti-capitalist hate is the result of decades of anti-working class propaganda that has made generations of people dedicated to destroying the very thing that gives them hope and possibility in the world.
Biggest psy op in history, as Marx himself would be the first to recognize if he were alive and commenting today. I defend capitalism NOT because I want to fit in, but because it is the right thing to do.
If wealth is accumulated due to merit, why does wealth tend to accumulate within families? Are these families somehow more meritorious than the rest of the population? Is it perhaps the multi-generational connections made in industry providing additional benefit to those families?
As for the free market, the FDA was formed because bakers in the free market realized that sawdust was cheaper than flour. The free market also requires perfect information to function correctly, but even if you have that how will it help if there is no better regulation. Once upon a time the only kind of match you could buy were made with white phosphorus, despite how dangerous it was to work with. It took regulation to switch to red phosphorus, even though the expense was only slightly higher.
What’s your take on this video?
‘Is capitalism actually reducing poverty?’ w/ Richard Wolff
I defend capitalism NOT because I want to fit in, but because it is the right thing to do.
Talk about a hot take haha
I defend capitalism because it is the most equitable and productive economic system that has ever existed, lifting more people out of poverty than ever before.
Incorrect, Socialism gets that honor, the PRC is responsible. Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism.
Free markets create space for those who don’t fit in. As an autistic person, I appreciate a world where I can find a way to survive other than convincing a committee that I deserve to exist.
This is an absurd strawman of central planning.
Under a free market, one gets rich by providing value. Economic relations are mutually consensual. That’s the definition.
Even more absurd. Individuals get wealthy by exploiting laborers. Economic relations are enforced by the system itself, not consent. The Laborers must work to not starve.
What is called “capitalism” these days is, generally speaking, the places where the free market has broken down. Slaves aren’t a free market scenario. Only having one available job isn’t a free market scenario. Big corporations controlling the government to prevent their competition from surviving or arising isn’t a free market scenario.
Yep, Capitalism defeats itself. You can’t turn the clock back.
All the “worst aspects of capitalism” that people complain about are exactly the aspects of the world that most resemble capitalism’s alternatives like anarchy and centralized command economies.
Correct, Capitalism socializes itself and paves the way for central planning.
We need more free market, not less. We need to let people buy a pack of cigarettes and then sell them for $2 a pop to make a profit, not kill them for doing this.
An absurd comparison and a strange call to go back in time to less developed Capitalism.
The anti-capitalist hate is the result of decades of anti-working class propaganda that has made generations of people dedicated to destroying the very thing that gives them hope and possibility in the world.
Capitalism’s decay.
Biggest psy op in history, as Marx himself would be the first to recognize if he were alive and commenting today. I defend capitalism NOT because I want to fit in, but because it is the right thing to do.
Marx would be elated to be proven correct.
They sold a lottery ticket to the population and made it look like 99% of you can win when the odds are rigged like a gambling machine. Everybody would defend a gambling machine as “fair and balanced” with enough indoctrination. “The American Dream” was when everybody could afford everything on minimum wage but capitalism is a short term oriented goal where for profit is the only actual mission. Tell me how many people can be sacrificed for it and I would say everybody as climate change has proven and a trillion dollar industry has shown. These climate change activists are stupid enough to think they can take down big corporations with wallets older than some of them. Never in a million years as long as capitalism exists. Imagine 112 years of sitting on their asses and not until 10-20 years ago they decided to use tweezers to put some pressure on them. Now that the whole world is about to be changed completely and irreversibly they want to stop it. It’s basically a cancerous economy that only festers at the top of the economy sucking everything around it until theirs nothing left but the cancer.
The American Dream” was when everybody could afford everything on minimum wage but capitalism
Everybody except blacks of course…
Gold age of America wasn’t golden for everybody.
And after civil rights the regime punished the whites for siding with the blacks. So now we are all field ******
Brainwashed since birth. GI Joe had the American Express slogan in an episode (“never leave home without it.”). Alvin and the Chipmunks had a story about the Berlin Wall propagandizing communism. All the bad guys in Cobra have accents.
This shit is vile and it was on my morning cartoons.
Regulation is stripping freedom from people. We want freedom, we can’t regulate people.
I think that’s an argument.
Except without regulation businesses will do what they want and that usually isn’t the best thing for society.
We need a well regulated capitalistic society
It’s not because they think they can be billionaires, it’s because they’ve been taught (and in a minority of cases this is true) that they are better off going after the crumbs that billionaires leave them than trying some other system.
Because communism ≠ utopia. I only hate on shitty billionaires and ones that used shady methods to amass their wealth.
Can you name a billionaire who doesn’t match that description?
How about celebrities and not shitty CEOs. I’m generalizing towards multimillionaires as well as there aren’t that many billionaires. Unless the hate is specifically towards billionaires which I don’t think is the case.
However, i would put money on the off chance that there is at least one billionaire who wasn’t shady about their wealth accumulation - think Steve Jobs. Unless you consider holding companies to be shady.
How about celebrities and not shitty CEOs. I’m generalizing towards multimillionaires as well as there aren’t that many billionaires. Unless the hate is specifically towards billionaires which I don’t think is the case.
I just took what you put out there. Generally, I’m skeptical that celebrities will really withstand scrutiny, since they tend to be supported by production crew and lesser-paid artists (whether in music or movies) who get regularly screwed over. Perhaps you can make an okay argument with athletes despite them also being held up by the pipeline from the notoriously exploitative college sports industry, playing in stadiums that are mostly damaging to the city, doing merchandising produced from sweatshops, etc.
But I don’t really care about those arguments. The reason I don’t care is that the conversation is based on an obscurantist metric, that being income. Any decent anti-capitalist is not mainly concerned with how much money someone gets or has, but their relationship to the means of production. That is, they are concerned with whether this person subsists by owning or subsists by working. You displayed what I would consider a good intuition by shifting from CEOs (who generally subsist by owning) to celebrities (who at least kind of subsist by working). It seems somewhat plausible to me that there would be very wealthy athletes, say, in a socialist state, because their job requires a lot of work and, at the top levels, having the talent to accomplish what they can accomplish is rare!
However, i would put money on the off chance that there is at least one billionaire who wasn’t shady about their wealth accumulation
If a machine produces a thousand cubes but also produces at least one octahedron, what would you describe the function of the machine as being?
think Steve Jobs.
When I think of Steve Jobs, I think of someone who put a lot of money and dedication into PR.
As a starting point if you believe that, here’s an article that lightly goes over some of his controversies (ignore points 4 and 10). And here’s one that I think is somewhat more interesting that incidentally demonstrates how dependent he was on exploitation of the third world.
Unless you consider holding companies to be shady.
Owning a company is just a legal status, it’s what you do with it that matters. If what you do with it just happens to be amassing more wealth than many, many people could obtain in a lifetime of labor, you probably didn’t get there with clean hands.
I want to say that i appreciate your nuance on the subject. You have raised many good points, and i will take a lot of what you have said into consideration in my future discussions on the topic.
I also want to give kudos on your shift from focus on income to more the relationship with that income which i agree can create problems especially when it comes to power imbalances. The overfocus on the income is as you put it “obscurantist”.
If a machine produces a thousand cubes but also produces at least one octahedron, what would you describe the function of the machine as being?
You raise a very good point here as well. One which makes sense with your analogy.
I’ve also gone through the articles you posted, and there’s some pretty eye-opening stuff in there.
I guess this is in some ways an admittal of defeat. I do not know whether i completely subscribe to a “communism is the next best”. I think i still need to educate myself more on this topic.
I’m happy I could be helpful!
I guess this is in some ways an admittal of defeat
There’s no need to claim defeat or victory, we’re just talking; Success in communication is determined by the extent to which we are able to understand each other, and I think we did alright.
I think i still need to educate myself more on this topic.
I can’t claim to represent any perspective but my own, but the text that really helped me to begin to see things differently was Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Feel free to DM me/necropost here if there’s anything I can help with.
Thanks man. I’ll be sure to hit you up if i need help with anything!
Why give the regime whores a pass? They play a role within the system to pacify the plebs. They are not by any stretch on the peasant team.
Sure some deff stood tall. Carlin is an example I can stand behind but rest of them esp modern ones are just pathetic sell out.
Seeing Jon cena and one of the clown ba players apologizing to China for $$$
Fucking disgusting
ones that used shady methods to amass their wealth.
Can you provide an example of one who didn’t?
I guess there some celebrities now in that club… But I can’t even get behind these regime whores. They have no solidarity with the people from which they leech
Blaming individuals produced by the system and not the system itself is strange. That’s like saying the IDF isn’t the problem, the soldiers are.
I don’t know if billionaires are the product of capitalism per se. Billionaires are people who have found out how to exploit the current system the best. In a socialistic society there are plenty of opportunities for corruption and exploitation of the working class. The rules are just a bit different. Billionaires definitely will defend capitalism since it’s how they’re currently winning the game, but they’ll adapt as soon as they need to as well. That or the winners will be a different group of people. Either way, the most powerful will always look for ways to consolidate even more power.
That’s a fair critique. I don’t like the capitalism we currently practice. I prefer a blend of socialism and capitalism - a social democracy if you will. I don’t hate large corporations per se. I do hate those who commoditize basic necessities such as healthcare and housing. This is where i believe there should be no privatisation.
Social Democracy isn’t a blend of Capitalism and Socialism, it’s Capitalism with social safety nets.
Either way, what you describe maintains accumulation and monopolization, which results in more privitization and disparity, which we see in the Nordic Countries. There are no static systems.
So what does a blend of capitalism and socialism look like to you? I’m saying that sectors which can lead to unfair control over necessary resources should be solely controlled by the government.
And you say monopolization. Monopolization of what exactly? I don’t think you care too much for the monopolization of the gaming industry or the video streaming industry do you?
Also, you emphasize wealth concentration. What exactly do you dislike about it? Especially considering that under a social democracy wealth is only at that point luxury since there is welfare available.
So what does a blend of capitalism and socialism look like to you? I’m saying that sectors which can lead to unfair control over necessary resources should be solely controlled by the government.
There isn’t really such thing as a “blend,” systems are either controlled by the bourgeoisie or proletariat. A socialist country with a large market sector is still socialist, a Capitalist country with a large public sector is still Capitalist. I recommend reading Socialism Developed China, not Capitalism.
And you say monopolization. Monopolization of what exactly? I don’t think you care too much for the monopolization of the gaming industry or the video streaming industry do you?
Monopolization paves the way for socialization. Large, monopolist syndicates make themselves open to central planning and democratic control.
Also, you emphasize wealth concentration. What exactly do you dislike about it? Especially considering that under a social democracy wealth is only at that point luxury since there is welfare available.
Wealth concentration leads to influence, which results in further privitization and erosion of social safety nets, like we see in the declining Nordic Countries.
Interesting. I still disagree with the impossibility of “blends”, but i will take a look at that book you recommended. Thank you for the conversation.
No problem! Let me know if you have any questions.
The simple fact is that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty historically than anything else.
Is capitalism a perfect system? Of course it isn’t. But it’s the best one we’ve got.
Not true. Here you go…
The simple fact is that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty historically than anything else.
This is patently false, the PRC holds that record and it was due to Socialism, not Capitalism.
Lol. Firstly, China claims they’ve eradicated absolute poverty. Do you really believe that?
Secondly, China has opened its markets to the world and allowed a ton of private ownership and private companies to take on the global markets.
The only thing that isn’t capitalist about China is the word “Communist” in the ruling party.
Lol. Firstly, China claims they’ve eradicated absolute poverty. Do you really believe that?
Yes, why do you not?
Secondly, China has opened its markets to the world and allowed a ton of private ownership and private companies to take on the global markets.
Yes. Mao misjudged the level of productive forces and tried to establish Communism through fiat. Deng opened the markets to foreign Capital, where the CPC allows businesses to grow in a controlled and careful manner before “harvesting them” into the public sector once they grow sufficiently. The majority of the economy is publicly owned, operated, and planned.
The only thing that isn’t capitalist about China is the word “Communist” in the ruling party.
This is an absurd statement that could only be made by someone unfamiliar with Marxism. The presence of markets do not mean that the system isn’t Socialist. The economy is socialized by degree, not by decree! You can’t establish Communism through fiat, which is why the CPC has been absorbing more Private corporations into the Public sector over time, and exerting more control and planning on the Private sector.
Yes, why do you not?
This is a country where COVID originated and with a population of 1.4 billion, yet apparently only 5,272 people have died. They’re not great at telling the truth and are masters at propaganda.
This is an absurd statement that could only be made by someone unfamiliar with Marxism. The presence of markets do not mean that the system isn’t Socialist.
The profits from companies are retained by the companies. Isn’t the idea of socialism that the workers own the means of production and no companies profit? The Chinese economy is set up the exact opposite.
This is a country where COVID originated and with a population of 1.4 billion, yet apparently only 5,272 people have died. They’re not great at telling the truth and are masters at propaganda.
They took much stronger stances against COVID than the US. Not sure what numbers they actually have, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were low.
The profits from companies are retained by the companies. Isn’t the idea of socialism that the workers own the means of production and no companies profit? The Chinese economy is set up the exact opposite.
You have a fundamental misconception of what Socialism is. It isn’t an ideal to be forced on a society, but the result of markets coalescing and centralizing, to be planned. Additionally, the majority of the PRC’s economy is in the public sector. Private Property is abolished and absorbed by degree, not decree.
Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. I already recommended it, and you have not read it. Read it, it only takes 20 minutes.
TBH… It was due to free market reforms. Which in of itself is not capitalism though but normies can’t tell the difference.
They weren’t “free”-market reforms. A good, 21 minute read is the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. The PRC brought back markets because they tried to achieve Communism through fiat, without letting markets adequately coalesce into monopolist syndicates ripe for socialization. The Dengist Reforms brought stability to growth and prevented recession, but the bulk of the economy is publicly owned and centrally planned.
Lack of successful alternatives? It’s easy to find flaws with capitalism but every other system has its share of problems too.
Socialism is the successful successor to Capitalism. Socialism isn’t an idea you implement, but a consequence of markets coalescing into monopolist syndicates that make themselves ripe for public ownership and planning.
This is the case only if you believe in Marx
Marx has the best content on the topic, shit is so good it triggers daddy owners to this lol
I kinda like Marx sooo…
I would say I like some dead guy… But his work is foundational for any self respecting adult imho
With out Understanding these concepts you are ain’t fucking operating
Also, elites study him closely and a lot of the regime behavior is actually designed to suppress workers based on his writings.
Ohh the irony.
What do you disagree with here? The idea that markets trend towards monopolist syndicates, naturally centralizing production? Or the idea that the Proletariat should sieze these syndicates and plan production democratically and centrally?
I’m not really disagreeing with you to be honest. I’m only saying that your views are the central idea of Marxism. Only Marxists believe in the conflict theory. I’m not a Marxist, but i do think socialism is the next most likely economic stage considering the current capitalist landscape. Whether it is the best path is what i don’t know.
I’m a Marxist-Leninist, correct, but the point of Marxism is that it doesn’t matter what individuals believe, Capitalism itself paves the way for Socialism just like Feudalism paved the way for Capitalism.
Hmm i don’t know about that. Saying that this one theory explains social change is kinda restrictive. There are other valid ideas that aren’t the conflict theory that might also result in social change. Think of idealist theories such as Hegel’s dialectical process which involves a thesis and antithesis. These theses eventually contradict each other to form a synthesis which eventually becomes its own thesis and vice versa.
I just like to keep an open mind about this stuff, as i don’t think social change boils down to just one theory.
Idealism is wrong, though, so focusing on it is useless IMO.
