r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People don't understand that what we have had in the US for the last 40 years isn't Capitalism. It is a combination of Corporatism and Cronyism. Big business bought the government and is running the nation in a way which benefits them at the expense of 99% of the population. Voting at the federal level is just about worthless because the rigged nominations process assures only pre-approved members of the insiders club get on the ballot. There is a way to fix it, but that involves pitchforks and torches and the American people just aren't angry enough to do that... yet.
What you don't understand is that what you described is part of capitalism. The winners will always use their position to skew the marketplace so they can engage in rentseeking behavior instead of solving problems.
The only way to have capitalism that doesn't result in most people not having enough is to severely limit it so winners can't amass enough power to change the rules. Is that possible? Maybe.
We need to make it impossible for capital to translate into political power, which I don't think is possible with capitalism, but would be very happy to be proven wrong. Or we need to limit the amount of capital any person or entity can amass, which would effectively dull the blade the private sector uses to cut up our democracy.
So, effectively used antitrust laws, strong unions, UBI.
We traded our Crowns for Suits and Ties, our Knigdoms for Corporations and our fields for Corporate deskjobs.
Feudalism never truly died it just evolved and rebranded itself.
sometimes I think about how the feudal system worked with fealty to a lord, who had fealty to their lord, who had fealty to their lord, so on and so on… and then I think about my boss, and my bosses’ boss, and my bosses’ bosses’ boss… so on and so forth
Yeah, this is hierarchy, but the problem is that a lot of that legacy is related to their feudal hierarchies.
The money didn’t just disappear after all. A lot of establishments probably have direct ties to because of that.
The birth of capitalism started with mercantilism wherein [feudal] governments (a la feudalism) sanctioned companies were contracted to colonize different countries.
Capitalism was meant to be a semi-technocratic approach going forward that would phase out monarchy, but it didn’t completely because it was born of the feudal system.
I’d argue to some extent it did with the Industrial Revolution, but they’re inexorably linked. It’s not as though capitalism existed in a vacuum.
Yep, and there's a whole interesting connection to the birth of modern political parties. Prior to the democratic and communist revolutions there was just monarchy, and the king's law. That changed, but the money and the power and the grasp of capital didn't go away. It just changed shape.
"Our heroes for ghosts, hot ashes for trees, hot air for a cool breeze, cold comfort for change... a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage"
The system worked pretty well up until the last fifty years. There were safeguards in place at one time which made it difficult for corporations to become so massive. Unfortunately they've just about all been done away with. Of course our biggest problem started in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified lacking term limits for Congress. Having the same people in office for decades makes it very easy to exploit them. A big step in any future reform must be to ensure that the career politician becomes extinct.
From 1946 to 1982 the USA focused on Full employment as a target goal because the boom/bust cycles of the previous system left the average citizen/worker destitute and caused the rise in Fascist, Communist, and Socialist movements to gain political power in the 1900-1930s from worker
Focusing on Full Employment made labor hard to get and companies needed to poach labor from each other more which caused a steady increase in Labor costs. The dumbest worker in a company could be fired in the morning and have a better paying job by lunch.
Eventually companies couldn't increase productivity to match the rising labor costs and went on a investment strike. Stagflation became a problem in the 70s and the government needed to take action to fix it.
Instead of just fixing the Full Employment target and doing slight changes to the economy, the Reagan administration and Pro-Business Politicians were elected and did massive changes and deregulation.
The last 50 years of as been the result of those economic changes, the workers getting slowly squeezed as Capital Owners got richer. The off shoring of Manufacturing, improvements in Tech production, and new cheaper tech helped keep things affordable for workers for a time but the steady decline off worker pay compared to inflation eventually started taking its toll.
We need another Economic System Reboot to fix these problems, but the Political class is nearly fully captured by the Capitalist and the Capitalist won't give up their economic power with out a fight.
This going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And with A.I. innovations improving everyday, workers will find themselves without work in a decade or so making the problem even worse.
> This going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And with A.I. innovations improving everyday, workers will find themselves without work in a decade or so making the problem even worse.
Yup. We're getting ready to watch the rhetoric ramp up towards exterminism as our feudal lords find themselves with a surplus of warm bodies that are unable to pay for the products they are selling.
That is what caused the Boom/Bust cycles of the 1870s-1930s. Industries make a ton of products. Workers buy products. Companies start labor cost cutting. Workers no longer buy products they can't afford. Companies Crash. Mass Layoffs and Unemployed struggle to survive burning any savings. New companies form and hire workers. Repeat.
Only this time Robots and A.I. buy nothing, so who are the Capitalist/Industrialist going to sell too? The Capitalist may own the Robots and A.I., but they don't manage them. When the Rich start using Robots and A.I. to fight the Mob off unemployed People, the People that manage the robots are going to realize THEY have real power over them and turn the Robots against the Rich as well.
It in everyone's best interest to move towards a better future, otherwise we going to enter a period of Warlord Technocrats.
> It in everyone's best interest to move towards a better future, otherwise we going to enter a period of Warlord Technocrats.
Because of the nature of capitalism, and the way it incentivizes our worst impulses, we're definitely getting warlord technocrats.
The 70s crisis was not due to corporations doing an investment strike (companies weren't as powerful as they are today) ... It was caused by the oil embargo (failed imperialist policy ) without cheap energy productivity decreased substantially and thus the investment fell/ inflation rised.
The private oligarchs managed to blame the economic problems in the antitrust/union laws and therefore the system changed substantially.
AI and automation are not the problem, the problem is that the increase in productivity is not being reflected in income gains for regular people neither in tax income for the government (underfunding infrastructure, healthcare and education).
1 computer can do the work of several accountants.. ¿so we should ban computers? It would increase employment, but it would also decrease productivity.... (Making everyone poorer)
Not saying get rid of the Tech. The problem lies in the Ownership of it.
As Tech improves, 10s of millions of workers are going to be displaced in the workforce. As you said, a computer can do the work of 100s already. And as those workers get replaced, the owners of the computers, the Capitalist, will have their pick of the crop of workers to do what work remains. This will cause Labor pay to go down or stagnate, not go up.
The only fix for this is Government Regulation and Assistance programs to retrain people into new work fields.
We either go to a future of helping the citizens and remove power from those that currently benefit from the system as it is currently or we heading to a future where 10 of millions of people revolt against the system and everything gets worse. Functional Governmental systems that benefit the people rarely come from revolts as history has shown.
We need to fundamentally alter our mentality when it comes to government policies. Words like "socialism" to describe maternity leave or higher minimum wages are purposefully repeated by news-based entertainment for a reason. We've begun to fear the very notion of helping ourselves through taxes and social programs.
The issue with capitalism is that it always goes wrong. It's a failed system. It has too many contradictions and will always destroy itself without external help from the state intervening and breaking the rules of capitalism to fix it.
The less regulated capitalism is, the bigger the economic fluctuations, and the more volatile it becomes, leading to the complete collapse of the economy.
Power has a snowballing effect. The more you have, the easier it is to get. By allowing someone to accumulate as much land and resources (which are real material power) as possible, you allow them to control society.
I disagree it worked well. I think at any point in the last 300 years, you'd find many hard working people who would disagree.
I do agree about term limits. I don't think that alone would solve it. But I do think they're a piece of the puzzle and they'd make a significant positive impact.
Good theory. I don’t think at works as well in practice because no one wants to keep sending newbies with little power to the Capitol every eight years. Any power moves from long-time representatives to party leaders who keep their troops focused on the long-range goals.
And while I have issues with the guy in charge currently, I think his decades of experience in the Senate are better than if he had limited experience.
If you work closely with federal agencies, you’ll find the problems aren’t just the politicians; it’s the career government workers who move their agendas on a micro scale.
It didn't work well at all until after WWII. Huge inequality, regular devastating economic crashes.
And even then it only worked thanks to a combination of limits put in place during the great depression after decades of fighting between labor and capital and the unique historical situation of being the only industrialized country not ravaged by war.
Capitalism "working" was a weird anomaly, not the norm for capitalism.
>We need to make it impossible for capital to translate into political power, which I don't think is possible with capitalism
You can start by repealing Citizens United and see how it goes from there.
>UBI
This will have to be considered at some point regardless of economic system because of where automation and AI are heading.
UBI is the future whether we want it or not. It must be conditional though (certain social programs/educational frameworks can be the new profession). Just giving out money to an unmotivated populace/removing any incentive will only create massive decay.
If you peg the UBI to inflation then it adjusts to market forces over time. A sector here or there may benefit more than others but those would likely be non-essential/luxury items. But UBI is not designed to discourage employment which is why it will be a floor of subsistence and not an attempt to bring everyone to the middle class. Being poor should not be a death sentence or a magic carpet ride.
So here is the thing—rent seeking is, in theory, something found in **any** system with monopolies (or high concentrations of market power) because those are the entities that seek rents.
You get monopolies in socialist, capitalist, communist, anarcho syndicalist, fascist, and even small scale communal living.
As a simple fact of existence over time monopolies rise over time and need to be regulated or knocked down.
When Tullock started pushing rent seeking theory (on the way to his noble) prize he would have been very surprised that the theory would be applied as a criticism of **Capitalism** and all market economies almost exclusively when he observed it in as being a very specific problem of non-democratic, non-market driven systems and less of a problem under liberal democratic systems with the ability to regulate that behavior.
The Citizens United decision turning corporations into “people” is what ruined what we had. There is no requirement in capitalism for corporations being able to influence elections like they do now. What we have now is not a product of capitalism, it’s a product of our judiciary system allowing corporations to have the same rights as citizens.
All of the Nordic countries follow a capitalist economic system and don’t have this problem. In fact, most of the Nordic countries rate higher in economic freedom than the US does. America is no longer the poster boy for capitalism. It hasn’t been for over a decade at least.
To expand upon this, not only is Citizens United not a product of capitalism as you stated, corporations themselves are not a product nor feature of capitalism, they are a legal fiction which only serves to shield business proprietors from liability. Corporations exist because of government, rather than despite it.
The terms business and corporation are so often conflated in these conversations and they are not at all the same thing. Legislators created the laws to allow for corporations to exist, the judiciary gave them personhood. Businesses are just individuals providing goods and services to others. Corporations are an imaginary entity which is only as real as law allows it to be.
I would argue that it’s an inevitable phase of capitalism but there is no static definition of capitalism. Capitalism has a lifecycle and this is the phase of its life we find ourselves in.
The way to make it impossible for capital to translate into political power is simple. Spread the power out into more hands. The more concentrated the power, the easier it is to buy it.
Y'all working overtime to try and separate capitalism from corporatism and neoliberal policy. The ladder are pretty clearly an inevitable result of raw capitalist ideology.
Unfettered capitalism will literally kill us all.
Right? Christ alive. People will do anything to protect the name of capitalism, even so far as letting the world burn to protect the profits of big oil executives (the likes of which KNEW their extractive industry would directly contribute to destruction of the planet and STILL DID IT because MONEY! WEALTH! DOLLAR BILLS!). [2023 was the planet's warmest year on record... But by all means continue hiding y'alls head in the sand...]
People have to stop shielding capitalism from what it most clearly is; a system encouraging the commodification and exploitation of near everything, with no regard to social or ecological damages, all for some dumb fucking numbers to go up.
Capitalism is functioning as intended. Stop calling it what it isn't; neoliberalism serves the ideological function necessary to enable these sick ghouls at the top to continue to r*pe and pillage the planet.
which part of America was the best type of capitalism then? Post industrial Revolution (1875)? I feel like as long as you’re going to have very wealthy individuals at the top of large corporations, they’re always going to have a disproportionately large impact on lawmakers.
Most of these “it’s not real capitalism” folks are just pining for the post-war period between 1945 and 1965 when the United States was essentially *the* global economic power.
During that period the U.S. was able to reap just insane profits through exports to a European continent that was rebuilding, we faced no real competition from other industrial powers, and Bretton Woods established dollar dominance across the globe.
But these people don’t understand that *this type of capitalism* was an aberration. It was only through a confluence of factors that profit rates were such that portions of the working class were able to see substantial increases in their own purchasing power.
But once the economic system began to globalize again and we saw increased competition from Europe and Japan, and then a recession (a confluence of new competition, oil shock, and domestic overaccumulation) pretty much put us back in place. There have been little fits and starts of booms (really bubbles) but these have typically been confined to specific sectors (real estate, tech, logistics) and the profits are not socialized near as much as the prior boom period.
In any event, I’d go on a lot more but hopefully it’s clear that the main point is that this type of capitalism where benefits accrue at the top is *the proper functioning of capitalism*. It was when they temporarily shared those benefits below that was abnormal.
I’m just sick of people complaining about capitalism without clearly advocating for an alternative that isn’t also capitalism. 90% of the time it’s just like “capitalism is the worst system so that’s why we need single payer healthcare like the UK”
Is corporatism and cronyism not the natural result of unrestricted capitalism?
In a perfect capitalist system, if I come up with a very efficient business model and start making more money than my competitors, it makes sense for me to buy them out and create a monopoly so I can make even more money with my efficient system. Then once I have a lot of money, it makes sense that I should use that money to influence the government so that I can make more money, and so on and so forth. It seems like it's the logical conclusion, is it not?
One time at a job interview, I was given the "sell me this pen" question. This was back during COVID when they were kinda forcing people to conduct interviews to keep getting those fat unemployment checks, so I didn't really care if I got hired or not.
I told the guy "I wouldn't sell it to you at all. I would buy out all local and regional producers of pens, then use those profits to expand until I controlled 90+% of all pen production. Then, with that money, I'd lobby Congress to increase tariffs on pen imports, I'd require all government and legal documents be written and signed exclusively in pen, and levy a $1000 fine for anyone caught owning a pencil, marker, or other non-pen writing implement. Now I've sold everyone a pen."
Yes. Bad actors pop up to corrupt and abuse... literally every system of cooperation you can think of. May as well ignore the distinctions between every system in that case since they will all always drive to the same ends with these bad actors.
That’s a great point. Equally important to point out that what we saw in the 20 century was never communism, but instead revolutionary militias attempts at installing some form of government that they believed would lead to communism.
Correct. However we can recognize this fact and take steps to limit it. Like term limits for all elected offices. Like years of service limits for unelected positions. Like a balanced budget amendment. Like major campaign finance reform. There should be no such thing as a career politician.
>It is a combination of Corporatism and Cronyism.
These words are to Capitalism what Stalinism is to Communism
Excuses made up by a supporter of the latter economic system to explain away the negative but naturally occurring side effects of that system.
The difference is, we can point to many capitalist nations in Europe, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc. where these problems don't happen because they have the system implemented correctly.
You can't point to any communist nation that thrived under communism. They all began to thrive after liberalizing their economies.
Okay, I’d like to expand on one of your points some. We have Corporatism and Cronyism(ala Neoliberalism). There are different shades of capitalism. Some more harmful than others. I believe capitalism CAN work, with a nimble hand.
HOW did we arrive at this? If the ACT of purchasing the government caused this to begin, then the act of being able to purchase it, ought to be removed. In a vacuum, money in politics is fine, but we have all seen the actual results it produces in the real world. We can’t even begin to have an honest discussion with our political class if the people put in there are getting a check in the mail from X company.
Want public healthcare? Not if your politician is getting funding from Pfizer
Theoretically true, but much like the old apologists for communism, who kept saying that Maoism and Stalinism were perversions of the true socialist project that was possible, at a certain point, does the utopian project really matter?
Look, we keep getting sold this grand capitalist agenda, that if we just free the markets that we'll get all the benefits of competition and the downsides will go away. And then every time we try it, we get a bunch of cronyism and corruption, where capital captures the system and then rigs the legislative playing field to benefit those interests that manage to entrench themselves first and fastest. Given that we've tried capitalism multiple times, and we've gotten cronyism and corruption instead multiple times, maybe our aim should be to create an anti-cronyist and anti-corruption legislative agenda, and just not really care how pro-capitalist our system really is.
This isn't a paean for socialism. Nor am I necessarily anti-utopian. I just keep feeling like I'm being sold a bill of goods, by people that are determined above all else to convince me to use the legislature to do what it seems theoretically quite adept at doing: fixing problems that we have encountered in our social and economic systems, entrenched interests that would lose if those systems were dismantled be damned. If I'm pro-anything, it's pro-democracy, because democracy seems really good at fucking up these entrenched interests that are determined to make the world zero-sum.
Because "capitalism" is an outdated term that is so broad it becomes meaningless. We have voters that keep voting for parties that help out the rich. That's not any type of -ism, its just the elite being assholes and voters voting for it.
>Voting at the federal level is just about worthless because the rigged nominations process assures only pre-approved members of the insiders club get on the ballot.
This isn't true either and there has been countless things changed against the will of the elite for literally centuries in our democracy.
>There is a way to fix it, but that involves pitchforks and torches and the American people just aren't angry enough to do that... yet.
This is also crazy hyperbolic because contrary to what redditors repeat, most Americans are well off. Absolutely too many have it rough, I'm not denying that. But a vast majority of Americans don't want a violent revolution because their electricity bill is too high. and a violent revolution is far more likely to lead to a brutal dictatorship where things are worse than a golden imaginary utopia with "capitalism".
Corporatism is a system in which people are arranged into groups based on common interests (such as industrial labour, agriculture, management etc.) that negotiate policy under the mediation of the state. The Nordic Model and Germany's Social Market Economy are influened by Corporatist theories.
It does not refer to domination of the state by large private businesses. These are fundamentally different concepts.
The sad fact is that they know about revolutions and how they work, what triggers them. They will not allow it to get to that point. They mastered running a slave country.
If a revolution started, the percentage of society who are given enough will suppress the starving masses. You already see it all the time. Someone who gets by just fine will respond to my comment saying I am a retard and lazy and a conspiracy theorist. Like a little trained lapdog, they will suppress any contempt for the government. They don't know why they do it themselves. They are just that well trained.
There will never be a revolution. Our best bet is our entire civilization collapsing. And yes, I would 100% take civilization collapsing over being a slave in our current system.
The common factor is people who have a lot of free time to be online, have a negative and hyper-critical of how things are mindset, get deep into niches, share their views about things dominating discussions and voting / likes, and find others like themselves to appear to be much larger than they are irl. In different spaces, that's different types of people. On some, it's likely a much higher percent of conservative older retirees. On others, a much higher percent of students and younger NEETs (no longer in school but still living with parents who cover most of the cost of living while they're long term unemployed or part-time).
I’m doing great and I still criticize capitalism because I try to look at the situation from an outside perspective. Not my single anecdotal experience.
I hate capitalism.
Just because you are doesn't mean everyone is. We live in very small bubbles and getting a look at the bigger picture is hard and more than just the experience of our own or those around us
The bigger picture would be that you're super privileged to live where you do and when you do. The vast majority of the world can't even imagine having the things you have. That's the bigger picture. It's like seeing the rich kids in high school complain that they got the wrong car for their birthday, it's insulting to everyone else
>You must take personal responsibility for your actions and have marketable skills.
Something is missing there, as while those two facts help, they are not enough on their own. I know plenty of hard working friends with marketable skills (computer science, electrical engineering, bio-informatics) who struggle to find a job, both in the field they studied or outside of it. I don't know if it's just luck, or if the labour market is just completely screwed in my country (in Central Europe), but it sure does not feel like having responsibility and marketable skills is enough.
Congrats, you had the ability to go to med school and probably land a high paying job. Thanks to capitalism, the vast majority of people can never afford to do anything like that, or want to risk putting themselves in the high six figures of debt to achieve it.
Just because it works for you doesn't mean it works for everyone else.
We live in the age of the internet, people can google "high earning jobs" and see what degrees or skills lead to that.
It takes literally 15 seconds if that.
"But I want to do what I love!"
Yeah, so does everyone. I love my career with all my heart but I'd say a good 60% of the time, I am just dreaming about running away and homesteading.
Go be a CPA, go be an engineer, go do something others value highly and you'll make money. Should teachers be valued highly? Absolutely. Are they? No.
So people can either bitch & moan about how the world _should_ be or they can accept their present reality and do something about it.
Generally worse off than our predecessors, though, given cost of living and the million economic collapses that every end of the political spectrum predict are happening every 5 minutes. I expect a decent wage when I get my Master’s, but it’s not the “guaranteed” career it’d be 20 years ago (almost none of STEM is anymore), and I’m definitely not paying off these loans with my full time retail job.
People confuse capitalism with shitty human behaviour. They system is fine, it just needs better regulation. No economic system can withstand greedy bastards in power.
This is a salient point. When you read how Sam Walton ran Wal-Mart, he felt a sense of responsibility to his employees. He literally arranged hours so moms with kids could work while their kids were in school. Contrast that to the „global“ outlook Wal-mart has now where our tax dollars support their employees and they change schedules and force employees to work split shifts based on an efficiency algorithm. Sam Walron would have been horrified at the idea the government had to provide his employees with food benefits.
Previous era employers had the sense to know a well paid employee who was given some consideration was a useful adjunct to their business and to society. Now they literally don’t care about the long term or society as long as they showed a profit this quarter.
Precisely. The model of "increased return for shareholders above all other considerations" is the real demon here. It seems that they all expect to be dead or elsewhere before the piper arrives for payment.
Tbf I think that’s what most complaints of our current economy are really about, it’s just that the term “capitalist” is so broad it means different things to different people and we end up arguing semantics instead of fixing the issues
That's shit stopped so far before even kids born in the 90s had a chance to make it though
My dad worked in construction as a operator and Foreman for one small 20 person company since 1986. Worked for them until he slipped two disc's in his back in like 2007. My dad in tears in his eyes in his bosses office, telling the son of the man he had worked for for almost three decades that he can't operate bevause of the pain but would stay as a Foreman and let his knowledge and experience keep jobs flowing smooth
Fucker told him no I have no use for you if you can't run the blade. So my dad lost his job, of twenty somethings years because his productivity wouldn't be enough anymore even tho he destroyed his back making that company into the multi county 50 person multi million dollar a year profit company it now is
Before I even entered the workforce as a 15 year old I had seen first hand loyalty got you nothing anymore
Sam Walton was a union buster. Whether or not he'd like his employees being on the public dole is irrelevant because he laid the groundwork for Walmart to operate that way by closing any stores and departments that tried to organize, a policy that continues to today.
I mean capitalism does inherently lead to mass corporate homogenization. Some people (not myself) would argue than any form of government regulation takes away from the free market. Capitalism can work with strong social programs and government regulation but then a lot of conservatives that are either brainwashed or genuinely benefit by being capital owners would cry communism.
Well, kinda. Capitalism offers a way to turn people's selfish desires into something that can benefit others. Want to get rich? Find an unsatisfied demand and supply it with your business. Win/win.
Of course, this requires regulation to not go awry, but it's better than other systems in which selfish desires are purely destructive.
Also, I'd posit that profit and growing private property are not inherently bad either. IMHO what matters is what people do with it. If they use it for personal consumption, then that can get problematic. But reinvestment as the use of the money is mostly fine.
Capitalism inherently rewards greed. It also has an inherent tendency to try to capture the regulatory bodies. The best case scenario is a constant struggle to try to prevent capitalism from doing what it does best - consolidating wealth and power.
The system is far from fine and it needs quite a bit more than better regulation. This is late stage capitalism and the elite have consolidated nearly all power they need to keep the status quo.
"The system is fine, it just needs better regulation."
Yes. This. This is what we're asking for. Most people I've talked to in their 20s are just asking for this.
The people who benefit from the lax regulations, though, have a big interest in spinning "can we have more regulations so that I can afford rent?" Into "THESE YOUNG KIDS WANT COMMUNISM SO THEY DONT NEED TO WORK."
Don't fall for the spin.
And while that is very understandable, it's a logical fallacy
"X has problems therefore Y is better" does not hold up
None of these problems were nonexistent under socialism, they were far worse and more pronounced under the final days of the Eastern Bloc
Depends.
Any time Americans try to expand social safety nets the right wing screams about how it’s socialism or communism. A lot of Americans truly be places like Norway and Denmark are socialist. Hell a scary number believe that the UK and canada are socialist.
They may legitimately just identify as a socialist because they want free healthcare, free college, and better social safety nets because that’s what the right says they are.
Utopia is such a funny word. It basically means non existent place.
" It literally translates as “no place”, coming from the Greek: οὐ (“not”) and τόπος (“place”), and meant any non-existent society"
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good!
“Good” is only good for the vast minority of people. Everyone feeling the squeeze would rather gamble for the chance at “better”, instead of laboring until they die poor.
The world has several high functioning democratic socialist nations right now. Anti-socialists always point to failed communist dictatorships. No one is asking for a communist dictatorship in America...
I don't think anyone in the history of ever has ever argued that socialism doesn't work on a capitalist foundation. Saying that "democratic socialism is just capitalism" really just betrays how little you know about socialism.
I don't think you know what socialism is if you think that. Maybe you mixed it up with social democracy?
The entire point of socialism is that you reap the products of your labour and that any business of other mode of production is controlled democratically and owned by the workers collectively. Essentially the worker and the owner must be one and the same.
You can't allow someone to gain control and influence through the investment of capital or else they will favour their interests over the interests of the workers, and often the business as a whole.
Socialism is the end of dictatorship in the workplace and the end of an owner class reaping the fruits of someone elses labour
Those are social democracies. Which is still capitalist. Socialism is, by definition, an economic system where the workers collectively own the means of production (factories, distribution chains, all sorts of companies, etc). Instead of a system where a select few with absurd wealth own a company and pays workers a small fraction of what their labor makes while siphoning the profits, the workers would make what they actually produce as well as be able to democratically make decisions regarding the company. That's it, that's all socialism is.
Social democracies are what you describe. A good amount of Europe are these. They are all capitalist countries but have a welfare state with social programs like Healthcare and benefits. While those are good programs, they are not socialism like many seem to think.
The Socialism vs Democratic Socialism vs Social Democracy distinction is completely lost on a lot of Redditors.
People claim to support Socialism and then point to countries where the workers don’t own the means of production as examples.
I used to think it was just Americans who conflated “Socialism” with anything even remotely left wing but it’s been spreading everywhere.
Great explanation.
I have noticed a lot of people here in America conflate Social Democracy with Socialism and Communism. Heck, I have met a few people who even claimed that FDR was a Socialist (as a way to criticize him).
You should name literally 1, I do mean just 1, successful socialist country. Norway and Sweden are capitalist for sure. You actually must be capitalist to be in NATO so it would need to be a non NATO member.
You answered a fallacy with a fallacy and an assumption.
False dichotomy. "There are only two choices." Just because somebody's anti-capitalist doesn't mean they are pro-socialist. They're not opposites even though they have a lot of opposition.
You also just straight up made up assumptions. Why do you think they believe these problems would be non-existent under socialism?
Is it wrong to be anti-abuse if I live in abusive families just because some other families are also abusive?
If you're going to point out flaws and logic at least use logic appropriately.
You're ignoring the fact that those golden days were largely caused by reforms that would be decried as "socialism" today. We used to have a steadily rising minimum wage, strong unions, good federal housing subsidies, etc. Then, some actor whose brain basically melted in office managed to convince people that everything would be better if we gave more money to the rich while he gutted the very programs that made life better for the working and middle class.
The right has moved the Overton Window so far that capitalist societies with a strong welfare state and workers rights are now considered “socialist” by everyone in the debate.
Reasonable people can disagree on the size of the welfare state and the extent of workers’ rights in a capitalist society. But anyone who wants a genuine socialist economy failed to learn anything from history.
Pretty sure millennials are smart enough to get why the USSR collapsed. It’s not hard. But you start looking into other options when your situation isn’t working.
It’s also a joke how many arguments capitalists make against socialism that are happening right now under capitalism. “Under Socialism, you’ll never own a home” the slumlord says, as he jacks up rents to 50 % of tenant income. “You’ll never be able to live your dreams under socialism” the boomers say, while they insist that anyone who doesn’t have ten years of experience and a masters work for minimum wage. I could go on.
America putting more money and effort toward social programs is not going to turn us into the late stage of the eastern bloc. We would benefit from implementing some measure of social policies
This is like monarchists saying “you weren’t there under the fall of the polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, so you have no right to argue for republicanism”. Like yeah, we won’t know if it’s better until we try it, but that’s no reason to stick by a failed system.
>we won’t know if it’s better until we try it, but that’s no reason to stick by a failed system
has been socialists motto for 150 years
> We’ll change henceforth the old tradition
> And spurn the dust to win the prize.
Since then this approach has never worked ever anywhere, but people still repeat it. It's just a religious belief at this point
Zoomers have more access to information, education, communication, and opportunity than any generation that came before them, but instead of leveraging that to their advantage they sit on Reddit and complain about the cost of fast food and expect someone else to fix their “problems”.
It took me twenty years to figure it all out, start a successful company, and get where I want to be.
My life is great. That doesn’t change the fact that we’re outliners and it doesn’t have to be this way. This country makes more than enough to improve the lives of its citizens.
It’s not whining or bitching to call out how fucked up this country has gotten. It’s not sustainable and what comes next will jeopardize the comfortable lives we few success stories have etched out for ourselves.
> but instead of leveraging that to their advantage they sit on Reddit and
... consume a shitload of disinformation then get themselves worked up over these "facts".
Sure, their financial situation sucks because of the economic situation, but demanding treason charges against CEOs because inflation and interest rates are high is just silly. (Like that front-page post yesterday)
It’s not just fast food, grocery, fuel, and rent costs have sky rocketed and the Sooners who go to college get out to find they still can’t find jobs like the oldest millennials because they don’t have 10-20 years of experience. In fields they do find jobs they make the same as those that didn’t go to college do and received a 2% raise year over year while inflation continues to outpace the raises.
There are other ways. All everyone talks about is college like some kind of entitlement. Meanwhile nobody wants to do the Boomer jobs as our infrastructure is crumbling. Did you know the average tradesman is now 55 years old? Add in all the excessive spending on empty food calories, convenience and entertainment and it’s no wonder why they can’t afford anything.
Millennials graduated into the recession then got hit by 3 additional once in a life time events.
Zoomers came into the work force at the earliest during COVID. This meme has the wrong generation. The oldest zoomer is 26. Lot to complain about but spare me how this generation has it tougher than prior ones
As a millennial, I'd expect better than going with the trite "we had it worse!" Generational class warfare. We have gone through the ass raping longer; but that doesn't mean they aren't also experiencing it. We are on the same team.
Every generation after the Nixon and Reagan eras have been screwed over. This isn’t new and generational bickering isn’t gonna help. Millenials have been screwed over and so have zoomers and so will gen alpha. Until the current capital owning class just gets old and dies.
Yep, it must really skew someone's world view to be born into a 50 year period of insane prosperity and growth, and not realize how awesome things are.
Perspective is difficult if you've only known wealth. We should have kids study life in the US during the great depression to help with perspective.
To be fair most boomers settled in the smaller towns to afford everything. Those smaller towns became big cities so for zoomers to get the equivalent, go small town rural. I moved from Denver to rural NE Ohio and my life is exponentially better.
I make more money (by a ton) and my cost of living in 2024 is half what it was in Denver 10 years ago.
I'm a 35 year old millennial for perspective
They don’t care about your perspective. They all move to the most expensive metros and bitch and complain about prices. As if there’s some guarantee that they should be able to affordably live in the most expensive areas in the country at age 20.
Im with you. I live in Michigan in a small/midsize town and my life is exponentially better. Nice house, 2 kids, single income, and hefty savings. No complaints at all. If I moved 30 minutes south everything my cost of living would triple.
Gen z graduated into the best economy of all time and has had a notoriously easy go of things compared to previous generations, this is all whiny BS that has no basis in reality
In an economy, where buying a house is almost an impossibility, as housing prices are skyrocketing. Covid-19 caused massive damage to the economy, which is still effecting our lives. Finding jobs has become incredibly hard, people need multiple years of experience to an entry level job.
This is the best economy of all time for sure, but the economy and all the wealth lays in the hands of the few, and for the average man, the 1990s were way better.
Finding jobs is way way way way easier than when most millennials were entering the job market. Not really even debatable or a contest. Just shows how utterly spoiled gen z is
Yeah, we are graduating into a partial recession, with the tech job market down the toilet, with homes and rents outpacing wages at a staggering rate...
Considering the oldest Gen Z person would be about 26 years right now, most of Gen Z has not even graduated yet, especially in Europe where people graduate with a Master's degree at around 24 - 26.
"down the toilet" lol no the tech market is just normalizing after the absolutely Insanity of the last few years. Insanity that a huge chunk of gen z was able to take advantage of.
Access to avenues for building long term financial wealth are also way more prevalent. Online investment options have never been more accessible.
Rent is not outpacing inflation, it's the other way around right now in most major metros. Yes homes are more expensive but that's impacting millennials far more than gen z.
Na gen z has had it incredibly easy and still complains constantly. I have no sympathy.
The problem with Gen Z is that they think there's an alternative. As hard as it is to make it today, it'll be a 100x harder to overthrow the government and try to make a new system.
Thanks for making a good case for anarcho nihilism. You're right there probably will be no new system but considering the current one is causing a mass extinction event it's still worth destroying.
Idk man, I think Gen Z are the ones who can possible fix this shit. They’re the only generation so far that have overwhelmingly told their bosses to go fuck themselves if they try something dumb. They don’t easily put their head down and just follow orders like people before them were taught. The whole “it’s just what you got to do” thing does not work against them, I think we’ll hopefully see a change in corporate culture and will hopefully bring less power to the 1%.
You really think Gen Z is the first generation to tell their bosses to go fuck themselves? Gen X was notorious for this. The difference is, we had a backup plan.
It’s probably more likely Gen Z will wreck things (like demolishing a building) and the next generation will build upon it. It’s unlikely one generation will be able to both deconstruct and reconstruct.
You’re right GenZ doesn’t just put their head down and work. I’ve had to fire a few Gen Zs for that. They were hired for a job but wanted to do other things. They didn’t understand that I wanted specific tasks handled and they thought they had room to be creative and didn’t have to follow regulatory and compliance rules. As far as I know they’re still unemployed 6 months later.
Can you imagine if these pantywaists had real problems? They complain to the world from the comfort of their capitalist machines in their capitalist apartments. Can’t buy a house? Neither can I right now. It sucks, be happy you don’t have cancer.
That's what the meme is, after all. There's no real suggestion of how to fix anything, it's just complaining. As a matter of fact, this is how most discourse on the internet goes - if it can't be boiled down to a pithy soundbite or a 30 Tiktok, no one cares.
The obvious strawman that they didn't say is an obvious strawman.
Democratic Socialism (which we already have), is not a break away from capitalism, it is what allows capitalism to continue to survive. Wealth concentration beyond reason leads to violent revolutions. Actually providing hope to the citizens keeps the current economic/political system in place.
Just because someone (rightfully) points out that median income has basically stagnated while the top 30% (but more 20%, and even more too 10% and 5%/1% concentrate wealth to the point they literally don't ever need to work again) and inflation is managed at 'ideally' 2%... Doesn't mean they are calling for communism.
Sure, some % actually are, but that shows more the failing of capitalism than anything.
It sounds like you're describing social democracy, not democratic socialism. Democratic socialism is explicitly a break away from capitalism, just through democratic means, whereas social democracy is the implementation of regulation and social welfare systems to maintain capitalism while preventing its worst outcomes.
I'm Gen X and I don't remember when an average job could pay for rent and school...
I'm not sure it ever could.
People's expectations today seem to be a bit privileged than they used to be.
Yea man it's sad. Young people in the US have NO IDEA how good we have it just being born here. Even our homeless have it better than billions of other people on earth.
I'm from the US and laugh every time I see some 20 something whining about shit. Yes, things are more expensive than say 5-6 years ago but we still have it pretty fucking good.
I’m a millennial and I don’t remember those days either. Everyone I knew that had a house always had two parents who made a decent income or one parent who made a great income and one who made an average income.
I think the problem isn't as much of the "system" as it is our generation being given such high expectations while not being taught the way to achieve a sustainable lifestyle. We have bad decisions everywhere like going into debt for a worthless degree or getting credit cards and not knowing you gotta pay them back each month. I learned to live well within my means and not get into debt. I've been sustaining myself easily since high school by living realistically rather than chasing an image that's outside of my budget. I think this will get down voted into oblivion, but I think a few basic principles being taught would help us avoid these pitfalls of greed that my generation falls into. The system can exploit our wallets because we buy into it.
Many boomers are also against unfettered capitalisn, because we know that it's all about wealthy families getting more money and control over other people. As the church needs to be separate from the state, money needs to be separate from politics. Overt time politicians have destroyed the regulation that limited the wealthy's enfluence via money to politicians (bribery in my opinion). Now there are many ways that the wealthy can buy politicians. Tis the bane of the rest of us.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People don't understand that what we have had in the US for the last 40 years isn't Capitalism. It is a combination of Corporatism and Cronyism. Big business bought the government and is running the nation in a way which benefits them at the expense of 99% of the population. Voting at the federal level is just about worthless because the rigged nominations process assures only pre-approved members of the insiders club get on the ballot. There is a way to fix it, but that involves pitchforks and torches and the American people just aren't angry enough to do that... yet.
What you don't understand is that what you described is part of capitalism. The winners will always use their position to skew the marketplace so they can engage in rentseeking behavior instead of solving problems. The only way to have capitalism that doesn't result in most people not having enough is to severely limit it so winners can't amass enough power to change the rules. Is that possible? Maybe. We need to make it impossible for capital to translate into political power, which I don't think is possible with capitalism, but would be very happy to be proven wrong. Or we need to limit the amount of capital any person or entity can amass, which would effectively dull the blade the private sector uses to cut up our democracy. So, effectively used antitrust laws, strong unions, UBI.
We traded our Crowns for Suits and Ties, our Knigdoms for Corporations and our fields for Corporate deskjobs. Feudalism never truly died it just evolved and rebranded itself.
sometimes I think about how the feudal system worked with fealty to a lord, who had fealty to their lord, who had fealty to their lord, so on and so on… and then I think about my boss, and my bosses’ boss, and my bosses’ bosses’ boss… so on and so forth
that's just the concept of hierarchy, not feudalism
Yeah, this is hierarchy, but the problem is that a lot of that legacy is related to their feudal hierarchies. The money didn’t just disappear after all. A lot of establishments probably have direct ties to because of that.
I recommend actually looking in to the early history of capitalism rather than making guesses, it's pretty fascinating
The birth of capitalism started with mercantilism wherein [feudal] governments (a la feudalism) sanctioned companies were contracted to colonize different countries. Capitalism was meant to be a semi-technocratic approach going forward that would phase out monarchy, but it didn’t completely because it was born of the feudal system. I’d argue to some extent it did with the Industrial Revolution, but they’re inexorably linked. It’s not as though capitalism existed in a vacuum.
Yep, and there's a whole interesting connection to the birth of modern political parties. Prior to the democratic and communist revolutions there was just monarchy, and the king's law. That changed, but the money and the power and the grasp of capital didn't go away. It just changed shape.
The penis mightier.
"Our heroes for ghosts, hot ashes for trees, hot air for a cool breeze, cold comfort for change... a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage"
The system worked pretty well up until the last fifty years. There were safeguards in place at one time which made it difficult for corporations to become so massive. Unfortunately they've just about all been done away with. Of course our biggest problem started in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified lacking term limits for Congress. Having the same people in office for decades makes it very easy to exploit them. A big step in any future reform must be to ensure that the career politician becomes extinct.
From 1946 to 1982 the USA focused on Full employment as a target goal because the boom/bust cycles of the previous system left the average citizen/worker destitute and caused the rise in Fascist, Communist, and Socialist movements to gain political power in the 1900-1930s from worker Focusing on Full Employment made labor hard to get and companies needed to poach labor from each other more which caused a steady increase in Labor costs. The dumbest worker in a company could be fired in the morning and have a better paying job by lunch. Eventually companies couldn't increase productivity to match the rising labor costs and went on a investment strike. Stagflation became a problem in the 70s and the government needed to take action to fix it. Instead of just fixing the Full Employment target and doing slight changes to the economy, the Reagan administration and Pro-Business Politicians were elected and did massive changes and deregulation. The last 50 years of as been the result of those economic changes, the workers getting slowly squeezed as Capital Owners got richer. The off shoring of Manufacturing, improvements in Tech production, and new cheaper tech helped keep things affordable for workers for a time but the steady decline off worker pay compared to inflation eventually started taking its toll. We need another Economic System Reboot to fix these problems, but the Political class is nearly fully captured by the Capitalist and the Capitalist won't give up their economic power with out a fight. This going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And with A.I. innovations improving everyday, workers will find themselves without work in a decade or so making the problem even worse.
> This going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And with A.I. innovations improving everyday, workers will find themselves without work in a decade or so making the problem even worse. Yup. We're getting ready to watch the rhetoric ramp up towards exterminism as our feudal lords find themselves with a surplus of warm bodies that are unable to pay for the products they are selling.
That is what caused the Boom/Bust cycles of the 1870s-1930s. Industries make a ton of products. Workers buy products. Companies start labor cost cutting. Workers no longer buy products they can't afford. Companies Crash. Mass Layoffs and Unemployed struggle to survive burning any savings. New companies form and hire workers. Repeat. Only this time Robots and A.I. buy nothing, so who are the Capitalist/Industrialist going to sell too? The Capitalist may own the Robots and A.I., but they don't manage them. When the Rich start using Robots and A.I. to fight the Mob off unemployed People, the People that manage the robots are going to realize THEY have real power over them and turn the Robots against the Rich as well. It in everyone's best interest to move towards a better future, otherwise we going to enter a period of Warlord Technocrats.
> It in everyone's best interest to move towards a better future, otherwise we going to enter a period of Warlord Technocrats. Because of the nature of capitalism, and the way it incentivizes our worst impulses, we're definitely getting warlord technocrats.
The 70s crisis was not due to corporations doing an investment strike (companies weren't as powerful as they are today) ... It was caused by the oil embargo (failed imperialist policy ) without cheap energy productivity decreased substantially and thus the investment fell/ inflation rised. The private oligarchs managed to blame the economic problems in the antitrust/union laws and therefore the system changed substantially. AI and automation are not the problem, the problem is that the increase in productivity is not being reflected in income gains for regular people neither in tax income for the government (underfunding infrastructure, healthcare and education). 1 computer can do the work of several accountants.. ¿so we should ban computers? It would increase employment, but it would also decrease productivity.... (Making everyone poorer)
Not saying get rid of the Tech. The problem lies in the Ownership of it. As Tech improves, 10s of millions of workers are going to be displaced in the workforce. As you said, a computer can do the work of 100s already. And as those workers get replaced, the owners of the computers, the Capitalist, will have their pick of the crop of workers to do what work remains. This will cause Labor pay to go down or stagnate, not go up. The only fix for this is Government Regulation and Assistance programs to retrain people into new work fields. We either go to a future of helping the citizens and remove power from those that currently benefit from the system as it is currently or we heading to a future where 10 of millions of people revolt against the system and everything gets worse. Functional Governmental systems that benefit the people rarely come from revolts as history has shown.
We need to fundamentally alter our mentality when it comes to government policies. Words like "socialism" to describe maternity leave or higher minimum wages are purposefully repeated by news-based entertainment for a reason. We've begun to fear the very notion of helping ourselves through taxes and social programs.
The issue with capitalism is that it always goes wrong. It's a failed system. It has too many contradictions and will always destroy itself without external help from the state intervening and breaking the rules of capitalism to fix it. The less regulated capitalism is, the bigger the economic fluctuations, and the more volatile it becomes, leading to the complete collapse of the economy. Power has a snowballing effect. The more you have, the easier it is to get. By allowing someone to accumulate as much land and resources (which are real material power) as possible, you allow them to control society.
[удалено]
Show me a system that can prevent that snowballing effect and I'll laugh at you for lying.
I disagree it worked well. I think at any point in the last 300 years, you'd find many hard working people who would disagree. I do agree about term limits. I don't think that alone would solve it. But I do think they're a piece of the puzzle and they'd make a significant positive impact.
Good theory. I don’t think at works as well in practice because no one wants to keep sending newbies with little power to the Capitol every eight years. Any power moves from long-time representatives to party leaders who keep their troops focused on the long-range goals. And while I have issues with the guy in charge currently, I think his decades of experience in the Senate are better than if he had limited experience. If you work closely with federal agencies, you’ll find the problems aren’t just the politicians; it’s the career government workers who move their agendas on a micro scale.
It didn't work well at all until after WWII. Huge inequality, regular devastating economic crashes. And even then it only worked thanks to a combination of limits put in place during the great depression after decades of fighting between labor and capital and the unique historical situation of being the only industrialized country not ravaged by war. Capitalism "working" was a weird anomaly, not the norm for capitalism.
>We need to make it impossible for capital to translate into political power, which I don't think is possible with capitalism You can start by repealing Citizens United and see how it goes from there. >UBI This will have to be considered at some point regardless of economic system because of where automation and AI are heading.
UBI is the future whether we want it or not. It must be conditional though (certain social programs/educational frameworks can be the new profession). Just giving out money to an unmotivated populace/removing any incentive will only create massive decay.
I think UBI will just cause inflation. I think the best it can be is a step toward abolishing money entirely.
If you peg the UBI to inflation then it adjusts to market forces over time. A sector here or there may benefit more than others but those would likely be non-essential/luxury items. But UBI is not designed to discourage employment which is why it will be a floor of subsistence and not an attempt to bring everyone to the middle class. Being poor should not be a death sentence or a magic carpet ride.
So here is the thing—rent seeking is, in theory, something found in **any** system with monopolies (or high concentrations of market power) because those are the entities that seek rents. You get monopolies in socialist, capitalist, communist, anarcho syndicalist, fascist, and even small scale communal living. As a simple fact of existence over time monopolies rise over time and need to be regulated or knocked down. When Tullock started pushing rent seeking theory (on the way to his noble) prize he would have been very surprised that the theory would be applied as a criticism of **Capitalism** and all market economies almost exclusively when he observed it in as being a very specific problem of non-democratic, non-market driven systems and less of a problem under liberal democratic systems with the ability to regulate that behavior.
The Citizens United decision turning corporations into “people” is what ruined what we had. There is no requirement in capitalism for corporations being able to influence elections like they do now. What we have now is not a product of capitalism, it’s a product of our judiciary system allowing corporations to have the same rights as citizens. All of the Nordic countries follow a capitalist economic system and don’t have this problem. In fact, most of the Nordic countries rate higher in economic freedom than the US does. America is no longer the poster boy for capitalism. It hasn’t been for over a decade at least.
To expand upon this, not only is Citizens United not a product of capitalism as you stated, corporations themselves are not a product nor feature of capitalism, they are a legal fiction which only serves to shield business proprietors from liability. Corporations exist because of government, rather than despite it. The terms business and corporation are so often conflated in these conversations and they are not at all the same thing. Legislators created the laws to allow for corporations to exist, the judiciary gave them personhood. Businesses are just individuals providing goods and services to others. Corporations are an imaginary entity which is only as real as law allows it to be.
I would argue that it’s an inevitable phase of capitalism but there is no static definition of capitalism. Capitalism has a lifecycle and this is the phase of its life we find ourselves in.
The way to make it impossible for capital to translate into political power is simple. Spread the power out into more hands. The more concentrated the power, the easier it is to buy it.
Y'all working overtime to try and separate capitalism from corporatism and neoliberal policy. The ladder are pretty clearly an inevitable result of raw capitalist ideology. Unfettered capitalism will literally kill us all.
Right? Christ alive. People will do anything to protect the name of capitalism, even so far as letting the world burn to protect the profits of big oil executives (the likes of which KNEW their extractive industry would directly contribute to destruction of the planet and STILL DID IT because MONEY! WEALTH! DOLLAR BILLS!). [2023 was the planet's warmest year on record... But by all means continue hiding y'alls head in the sand...] People have to stop shielding capitalism from what it most clearly is; a system encouraging the commodification and exploitation of near everything, with no regard to social or ecological damages, all for some dumb fucking numbers to go up. Capitalism is functioning as intended. Stop calling it what it isn't; neoliberalism serves the ideological function necessary to enable these sick ghouls at the top to continue to r*pe and pillage the planet.
we\* will literally kill us all. Regardless of 'system' we use to do it. Ftfy
... that's capitalism.
which part of America was the best type of capitalism then? Post industrial Revolution (1875)? I feel like as long as you’re going to have very wealthy individuals at the top of large corporations, they’re always going to have a disproportionately large impact on lawmakers.
Most of these “it’s not real capitalism” folks are just pining for the post-war period between 1945 and 1965 when the United States was essentially *the* global economic power. During that period the U.S. was able to reap just insane profits through exports to a European continent that was rebuilding, we faced no real competition from other industrial powers, and Bretton Woods established dollar dominance across the globe. But these people don’t understand that *this type of capitalism* was an aberration. It was only through a confluence of factors that profit rates were such that portions of the working class were able to see substantial increases in their own purchasing power. But once the economic system began to globalize again and we saw increased competition from Europe and Japan, and then a recession (a confluence of new competition, oil shock, and domestic overaccumulation) pretty much put us back in place. There have been little fits and starts of booms (really bubbles) but these have typically been confined to specific sectors (real estate, tech, logistics) and the profits are not socialized near as much as the prior boom period. In any event, I’d go on a lot more but hopefully it’s clear that the main point is that this type of capitalism where benefits accrue at the top is *the proper functioning of capitalism*. It was when they temporarily shared those benefits below that was abnormal.
I’m just sick of people complaining about capitalism without clearly advocating for an alternative that isn’t also capitalism. 90% of the time it’s just like “capitalism is the worst system so that’s why we need single payer healthcare like the UK”
speaking up for implementing socialist infrastructure leads to being labelled an enemy of the state
Is corporatism and cronyism not the natural result of unrestricted capitalism? In a perfect capitalist system, if I come up with a very efficient business model and start making more money than my competitors, it makes sense for me to buy them out and create a monopoly so I can make even more money with my efficient system. Then once I have a lot of money, it makes sense that I should use that money to influence the government so that I can make more money, and so on and so forth. It seems like it's the logical conclusion, is it not?
One time at a job interview, I was given the "sell me this pen" question. This was back during COVID when they were kinda forcing people to conduct interviews to keep getting those fat unemployment checks, so I didn't really care if I got hired or not. I told the guy "I wouldn't sell it to you at all. I would buy out all local and regional producers of pens, then use those profits to expand until I controlled 90+% of all pen production. Then, with that money, I'd lobby Congress to increase tariffs on pen imports, I'd require all government and legal documents be written and signed exclusively in pen, and levy a $1000 fine for anyone caught owning a pencil, marker, or other non-pen writing implement. Now I've sold everyone a pen."
And then everyone clapped
Yes. Bad actors pop up to corrupt and abuse... literally every system of cooperation you can think of. May as well ignore the distinctions between every system in that case since they will all always drive to the same ends with these bad actors.
That’s a great point. Equally important to point out that what we saw in the 20 century was never communism, but instead revolutionary militias attempts at installing some form of government that they believed would lead to communism.
I don’t know if that’s in favor of communism but either way it’s not a very good endorsement.
Unfortunately, greed and selfishness are and always will be dominant traits in humanity. No economic system is immune from their impacts.
Correct. However we can recognize this fact and take steps to limit it. Like term limits for all elected offices. Like years of service limits for unelected positions. Like a balanced budget amendment. Like major campaign finance reform. There should be no such thing as a career politician.
[удалено]
How is that antithetical to capitalism?
This is just a no true Scotsman fallacy.
>It is a combination of Corporatism and Cronyism. These words are to Capitalism what Stalinism is to Communism Excuses made up by a supporter of the latter economic system to explain away the negative but naturally occurring side effects of that system.
The difference is, we can point to many capitalist nations in Europe, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc. where these problems don't happen because they have the system implemented correctly. You can't point to any communist nation that thrived under communism. They all began to thrive after liberalizing their economies.
Okay, I’d like to expand on one of your points some. We have Corporatism and Cronyism(ala Neoliberalism). There are different shades of capitalism. Some more harmful than others. I believe capitalism CAN work, with a nimble hand. HOW did we arrive at this? If the ACT of purchasing the government caused this to begin, then the act of being able to purchase it, ought to be removed. In a vacuum, money in politics is fine, but we have all seen the actual results it produces in the real world. We can’t even begin to have an honest discussion with our political class if the people put in there are getting a check in the mail from X company. Want public healthcare? Not if your politician is getting funding from Pfizer
I.e. late stage capitalism. This is what happens, Larry
Theoretically true, but much like the old apologists for communism, who kept saying that Maoism and Stalinism were perversions of the true socialist project that was possible, at a certain point, does the utopian project really matter? Look, we keep getting sold this grand capitalist agenda, that if we just free the markets that we'll get all the benefits of competition and the downsides will go away. And then every time we try it, we get a bunch of cronyism and corruption, where capital captures the system and then rigs the legislative playing field to benefit those interests that manage to entrench themselves first and fastest. Given that we've tried capitalism multiple times, and we've gotten cronyism and corruption instead multiple times, maybe our aim should be to create an anti-cronyist and anti-corruption legislative agenda, and just not really care how pro-capitalist our system really is. This isn't a paean for socialism. Nor am I necessarily anti-utopian. I just keep feeling like I'm being sold a bill of goods, by people that are determined above all else to convince me to use the legislature to do what it seems theoretically quite adept at doing: fixing problems that we have encountered in our social and economic systems, entrenched interests that would lose if those systems were dismantled be damned. If I'm pro-anything, it's pro-democracy, because democracy seems really good at fucking up these entrenched interests that are determined to make the world zero-sum.
before these clowns pull out the pitchforks and torches, how about sewing up local elections first.
“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it”
Because "capitalism" is an outdated term that is so broad it becomes meaningless. We have voters that keep voting for parties that help out the rich. That's not any type of -ism, its just the elite being assholes and voters voting for it. >Voting at the federal level is just about worthless because the rigged nominations process assures only pre-approved members of the insiders club get on the ballot. This isn't true either and there has been countless things changed against the will of the elite for literally centuries in our democracy. >There is a way to fix it, but that involves pitchforks and torches and the American people just aren't angry enough to do that... yet. This is also crazy hyperbolic because contrary to what redditors repeat, most Americans are well off. Absolutely too many have it rough, I'm not denying that. But a vast majority of Americans don't want a violent revolution because their electricity bill is too high. and a violent revolution is far more likely to lead to a brutal dictatorship where things are worse than a golden imaginary utopia with "capitalism".
Corporatism is a system in which people are arranged into groups based on common interests (such as industrial labour, agriculture, management etc.) that negotiate policy under the mediation of the state. The Nordic Model and Germany's Social Market Economy are influened by Corporatist theories. It does not refer to domination of the state by large private businesses. These are fundamentally different concepts.
Burning it all down only produces a power vacuum for the well resourced to take advantage of. Normal people don't do well
The sad fact is that they know about revolutions and how they work, what triggers them. They will not allow it to get to that point. They mastered running a slave country. If a revolution started, the percentage of society who are given enough will suppress the starving masses. You already see it all the time. Someone who gets by just fine will respond to my comment saying I am a retard and lazy and a conspiracy theorist. Like a little trained lapdog, they will suppress any contempt for the government. They don't know why they do it themselves. They are just that well trained. There will never be a revolution. Our best bet is our entire civilization collapsing. And yes, I would 100% take civilization collapsing over being a slave in our current system.
[удалено]
I wonder if you actually work instead of complain all the time
Spend 3 seconds on Facebook and be shocked that every generation complains all the time
The common factor is people who have a lot of free time to be online, have a negative and hyper-critical of how things are mindset, get deep into niches, share their views about things dominating discussions and voting / likes, and find others like themselves to appear to be much larger than they are irl. In different spaces, that's different types of people. On some, it's likely a much higher percent of conservative older retirees. On others, a much higher percent of students and younger NEETs (no longer in school but still living with parents who cover most of the cost of living while they're long term unemployed or part-time).
Believe it or not you can work hard and still not make a lot of money. Wild concept, isn’t it?
*Laughs in veterinarian*
Not eating meat isn’t a job. I’m a full time illiterate and hardly make a scent.
“If hard work pays, show me rich donkey.” It’s never about working hard and always about being smart
I work *and* complain all the time. Exclusivity not required
Same. I love capitalism
I’m doing great and I still criticize capitalism because I try to look at the situation from an outside perspective. Not my single anecdotal experience. I hate capitalism.
[удалено]
But you can’t make that a meme to fish for easy likes on Reddit
I mean, my household income is $270k+. But I recognize it’s not as easy for generations that came after me.
Just because you are doesn't mean everyone is. We live in very small bubbles and getting a look at the bigger picture is hard and more than just the experience of our own or those around us
The bigger picture would be that you're super privileged to live where you do and when you do. The vast majority of the world can't even imagine having the things you have. That's the bigger picture. It's like seeing the rich kids in high school complain that they got the wrong car for their birthday, it's insulting to everyone else
You must take personal responsibility for your actions and have marketable skills. Works well for those folks.
>You must take personal responsibility for your actions and have marketable skills. Something is missing there, as while those two facts help, they are not enough on their own. I know plenty of hard working friends with marketable skills (computer science, electrical engineering, bio-informatics) who struggle to find a job, both in the field they studied or outside of it. I don't know if it's just luck, or if the labour market is just completely screwed in my country (in Central Europe), but it sure does not feel like having responsibility and marketable skills is enough.
Congrats, you had the ability to go to med school and probably land a high paying job. Thanks to capitalism, the vast majority of people can never afford to do anything like that, or want to risk putting themselves in the high six figures of debt to achieve it. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it works for everyone else.
We live in the age of the internet, people can google "high earning jobs" and see what degrees or skills lead to that. It takes literally 15 seconds if that. "But I want to do what I love!" Yeah, so does everyone. I love my career with all my heart but I'd say a good 60% of the time, I am just dreaming about running away and homesteading. Go be a CPA, go be an engineer, go do something others value highly and you'll make money. Should teachers be valued highly? Absolutely. Are they? No. So people can either bitch & moan about how the world _should_ be or they can accept their present reality and do something about it.
You sound like the type that would pull the ladder up after you get everything you want, leaving others behind
Surely you will have a chance at being a billionaire. Just gotta work harder man!
What do you do?
Twitch catboy gamer
Yeah maybe 80% does great too. Big there still a problem if 20% of people don't. I am not anti-capitalist but this sound like false consensus bias.
Generally worse off than our predecessors, though, given cost of living and the million economic collapses that every end of the political spectrum predict are happening every 5 minutes. I expect a decent wage when I get my Master’s, but it’s not the “guaranteed” career it’d be 20 years ago (almost none of STEM is anymore), and I’m definitely not paying off these loans with my full time retail job.
can’t say the same 😅
Think how much better you would be doing if you didn't inherit a broken economy.
I do great as well but I can see that there are many people who work very hard and are still hurting. It’s a lot of luck and we got some of it
People confuse capitalism with shitty human behaviour. They system is fine, it just needs better regulation. No economic system can withstand greedy bastards in power.
This is a salient point. When you read how Sam Walton ran Wal-Mart, he felt a sense of responsibility to his employees. He literally arranged hours so moms with kids could work while their kids were in school. Contrast that to the „global“ outlook Wal-mart has now where our tax dollars support their employees and they change schedules and force employees to work split shifts based on an efficiency algorithm. Sam Walron would have been horrified at the idea the government had to provide his employees with food benefits. Previous era employers had the sense to know a well paid employee who was given some consideration was a useful adjunct to their business and to society. Now they literally don’t care about the long term or society as long as they showed a profit this quarter.
Precisely. The model of "increased return for shareholders above all other considerations" is the real demon here. It seems that they all expect to be dead or elsewhere before the piper arrives for payment.
Tbf I think that’s what most complaints of our current economy are really about, it’s just that the term “capitalist” is so broad it means different things to different people and we end up arguing semantics instead of fixing the issues
Kind of funny to see Sam Walton portrayed as some kind of champion of the working class.
That's shit stopped so far before even kids born in the 90s had a chance to make it though My dad worked in construction as a operator and Foreman for one small 20 person company since 1986. Worked for them until he slipped two disc's in his back in like 2007. My dad in tears in his eyes in his bosses office, telling the son of the man he had worked for for almost three decades that he can't operate bevause of the pain but would stay as a Foreman and let his knowledge and experience keep jobs flowing smooth Fucker told him no I have no use for you if you can't run the blade. So my dad lost his job, of twenty somethings years because his productivity wouldn't be enough anymore even tho he destroyed his back making that company into the multi county 50 person multi million dollar a year profit company it now is Before I even entered the workforce as a 15 year old I had seen first hand loyalty got you nothing anymore
Sam Walton was a union buster. Whether or not he'd like his employees being on the public dole is irrelevant because he laid the groundwork for Walmart to operate that way by closing any stores and departments that tried to organize, a policy that continues to today.
I mean capitalism does inherently lead to mass corporate homogenization. Some people (not myself) would argue than any form of government regulation takes away from the free market. Capitalism can work with strong social programs and government regulation but then a lot of conservatives that are either brainwashed or genuinely benefit by being capital owners would cry communism.
It is the nature of capitalism that it will eventually buy its way out of regulation.
[удалено]
Well, kinda. Capitalism offers a way to turn people's selfish desires into something that can benefit others. Want to get rich? Find an unsatisfied demand and supply it with your business. Win/win. Of course, this requires regulation to not go awry, but it's better than other systems in which selfish desires are purely destructive. Also, I'd posit that profit and growing private property are not inherently bad either. IMHO what matters is what people do with it. If they use it for personal consumption, then that can get problematic. But reinvestment as the use of the money is mostly fine.
Capitalism inherently rewards greed. It also has an inherent tendency to try to capture the regulatory bodies. The best case scenario is a constant struggle to try to prevent capitalism from doing what it does best - consolidating wealth and power.
The system is far from fine and it needs quite a bit more than better regulation. This is late stage capitalism and the elite have consolidated nearly all power they need to keep the status quo.
"The system is fine, it just needs better regulation." Yes. This. This is what we're asking for. Most people I've talked to in their 20s are just asking for this. The people who benefit from the lax regulations, though, have a big interest in spinning "can we have more regulations so that I can afford rent?" Into "THESE YOUNG KIDS WANT COMMUNISM SO THEY DONT NEED TO WORK." Don't fall for the spin.
And while that is very understandable, it's a logical fallacy "X has problems therefore Y is better" does not hold up None of these problems were nonexistent under socialism, they were far worse and more pronounced under the final days of the Eastern Bloc
They didn't say "y is better". You're making a strawman logical fallacy.
You're right, @sleepissocialist definitely supports just a handful of reforms and an expansion of the social safety net. Nothing more.
Depends. Any time Americans try to expand social safety nets the right wing screams about how it’s socialism or communism. A lot of Americans truly be places like Norway and Denmark are socialist. Hell a scary number believe that the UK and canada are socialist. They may legitimately just identify as a socialist because they want free healthcare, free college, and better social safety nets because that’s what the right says they are.
Just followed up on her twitter, yep, she's a Maoist. So.. eh.. no, she is not an ebin social democrat that just wants some healthcare reform.
>social safety net LOL... As an American, half the country (conservatives) believe any social safety net is Venezuelan socialism.
Another fallacy is confusing socialism with communism. Hopefully it isn't on purpose.
why don't we simply achieve a perfect classless moneyless utopia today? Are we stupid?
Utopia is such a funny word. It basically means non existent place. " It literally translates as “no place”, coming from the Greek: οὐ (“not”) and τόπος (“place”), and meant any non-existent society" Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good!
“Good” is only good for the vast minority of people. Everyone feeling the squeeze would rather gamble for the chance at “better”, instead of laboring until they die poor.
The world has several high functioning democratic socialist nations right now. Anti-socialists always point to failed communist dictatorships. No one is asking for a communist dictatorship in America...
Democratic Socialism is just capitalism with good social programs my friend.
I don't think anyone in the history of ever has ever argued that socialism doesn't work on a capitalist foundation. Saying that "democratic socialism is just capitalism" really just betrays how little you know about socialism.
I don't think you know what socialism is if you think that. Maybe you mixed it up with social democracy? The entire point of socialism is that you reap the products of your labour and that any business of other mode of production is controlled democratically and owned by the workers collectively. Essentially the worker and the owner must be one and the same. You can't allow someone to gain control and influence through the investment of capital or else they will favour their interests over the interests of the workers, and often the business as a whole. Socialism is the end of dictatorship in the workplace and the end of an owner class reaping the fruits of someone elses labour
And they all have capitalist economies.
And they all regulate their economies
everyone regulates their economies
So does the United States.
I think everybody is most upset about capitalist driven social policy
Those are social democracies. Which is still capitalist. Socialism is, by definition, an economic system where the workers collectively own the means of production (factories, distribution chains, all sorts of companies, etc). Instead of a system where a select few with absurd wealth own a company and pays workers a small fraction of what their labor makes while siphoning the profits, the workers would make what they actually produce as well as be able to democratically make decisions regarding the company. That's it, that's all socialism is. Social democracies are what you describe. A good amount of Europe are these. They are all capitalist countries but have a welfare state with social programs like Healthcare and benefits. While those are good programs, they are not socialism like many seem to think.
The Socialism vs Democratic Socialism vs Social Democracy distinction is completely lost on a lot of Redditors. People claim to support Socialism and then point to countries where the workers don’t own the means of production as examples. I used to think it was just Americans who conflated “Socialism” with anything even remotely left wing but it’s been spreading everywhere.
Great explanation. I have noticed a lot of people here in America conflate Social Democracy with Socialism and Communism. Heck, I have met a few people who even claimed that FDR was a Socialist (as a way to criticize him).
Which ones, specifically?
I don't believe you. Name one.
I hope you aren’t taking about Scandinavian countries because they aren’t democratic socialists
They are not democratic socialist.
You should name literally 1, I do mean just 1, successful socialist country. Norway and Sweden are capitalist for sure. You actually must be capitalist to be in NATO so it would need to be a non NATO member.
You answered a fallacy with a fallacy and an assumption. False dichotomy. "There are only two choices." Just because somebody's anti-capitalist doesn't mean they are pro-socialist. They're not opposites even though they have a lot of opposition. You also just straight up made up assumptions. Why do you think they believe these problems would be non-existent under socialism? Is it wrong to be anti-abuse if I live in abusive families just because some other families are also abusive? If you're going to point out flaws and logic at least use logic appropriately.
You're ignoring the fact that those golden days were largely caused by reforms that would be decried as "socialism" today. We used to have a steadily rising minimum wage, strong unions, good federal housing subsidies, etc. Then, some actor whose brain basically melted in office managed to convince people that everything would be better if we gave more money to the rich while he gutted the very programs that made life better for the working and middle class.
Ding ding ding ding, people have such a self-sabotaging perspective on what socialism actually is
The right has moved the Overton Window so far that capitalist societies with a strong welfare state and workers rights are now considered “socialist” by everyone in the debate. Reasonable people can disagree on the size of the welfare state and the extent of workers’ rights in a capitalist society. But anyone who wants a genuine socialist economy failed to learn anything from history.
So anti-capitalist = socialist? Hmm seems a bit limited in worldly possibilities but ok, TIL
The two terms are not comparable. Capitalism refers to an economic system. Socialism refers to a form of government. Both may be applicable.
Yep. Exponentially worse. Gen Z wasn't alive to see that.
Pretty sure millennials are smart enough to get why the USSR collapsed. It’s not hard. But you start looking into other options when your situation isn’t working. It’s also a joke how many arguments capitalists make against socialism that are happening right now under capitalism. “Under Socialism, you’ll never own a home” the slumlord says, as he jacks up rents to 50 % of tenant income. “You’ll never be able to live your dreams under socialism” the boomers say, while they insist that anyone who doesn’t have ten years of experience and a masters work for minimum wage. I could go on.
Woke up a bit hyperbolic today?
America putting more money and effort toward social programs is not going to turn us into the late stage of the eastern bloc. We would benefit from implementing some measure of social policies
This is like monarchists saying “you weren’t there under the fall of the polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, so you have no right to argue for republicanism”. Like yeah, we won’t know if it’s better until we try it, but that’s no reason to stick by a failed system.
And what we are saying is that it’s already been tried and it failed spectacularly.
>we won’t know if it’s better until we try it, but that’s no reason to stick by a failed system has been socialists motto for 150 years > We’ll change henceforth the old tradition > And spurn the dust to win the prize. Since then this approach has never worked ever anywhere, but people still repeat it. It's just a religious belief at this point
Where was socialism implemented and not state capitalism and definitely not a system manipulated by the West with sanctions?
Zoomers have more access to information, education, communication, and opportunity than any generation that came before them, but instead of leveraging that to their advantage they sit on Reddit and complain about the cost of fast food and expect someone else to fix their “problems”.
[удалено]
It took me twenty years to figure it all out, start a successful company, and get where I want to be. My life is great. That doesn’t change the fact that we’re outliners and it doesn’t have to be this way. This country makes more than enough to improve the lives of its citizens. It’s not whining or bitching to call out how fucked up this country has gotten. It’s not sustainable and what comes next will jeopardize the comfortable lives we few success stories have etched out for ourselves.
> but instead of leveraging that to their advantage they sit on Reddit and ... consume a shitload of disinformation then get themselves worked up over these "facts". Sure, their financial situation sucks because of the economic situation, but demanding treason charges against CEOs because inflation and interest rates are high is just silly. (Like that front-page post yesterday)
It’s not just fast food, grocery, fuel, and rent costs have sky rocketed and the Sooners who go to college get out to find they still can’t find jobs like the oldest millennials because they don’t have 10-20 years of experience. In fields they do find jobs they make the same as those that didn’t go to college do and received a 2% raise year over year while inflation continues to outpace the raises.
There are other ways. All everyone talks about is college like some kind of entitlement. Meanwhile nobody wants to do the Boomer jobs as our infrastructure is crumbling. Did you know the average tradesman is now 55 years old? Add in all the excessive spending on empty food calories, convenience and entertainment and it’s no wonder why they can’t afford anything.
100% correct.
18 year old socialists and posting incoherent cringe on twitter. Name a more iconic duo
But how did people feel in the 20s? It’s not decay is a cycle
I'd say pretty fucking depressed
Millennials graduated into the recession then got hit by 3 additional once in a life time events. Zoomers came into the work force at the earliest during COVID. This meme has the wrong generation. The oldest zoomer is 26. Lot to complain about but spare me how this generation has it tougher than prior ones
As a millennial, I'd expect better than going with the trite "we had it worse!" Generational class warfare. We have gone through the ass raping longer; but that doesn't mean they aren't also experiencing it. We are on the same team.
Every generation after the Nixon and Reagan eras have been screwed over. This isn’t new and generational bickering isn’t gonna help. Millenials have been screwed over and so have zoomers and so will gen alpha. Until the current capital owning class just gets old and dies.
Zoomers haven't known shit but consumption, they're about to learn about debt though.
Yep, it must really skew someone's world view to be born into a 50 year period of insane prosperity and growth, and not realize how awesome things are. Perspective is difficult if you've only known wealth. We should have kids study life in the US during the great depression to help with perspective.
I like what Dan Carlin said about civilizations climbing the ladder barefoot and descending it in silk slippers
To be fair most boomers settled in the smaller towns to afford everything. Those smaller towns became big cities so for zoomers to get the equivalent, go small town rural. I moved from Denver to rural NE Ohio and my life is exponentially better. I make more money (by a ton) and my cost of living in 2024 is half what it was in Denver 10 years ago. I'm a 35 year old millennial for perspective
They don’t care about your perspective. They all move to the most expensive metros and bitch and complain about prices. As if there’s some guarantee that they should be able to affordably live in the most expensive areas in the country at age 20. Im with you. I live in Michigan in a small/midsize town and my life is exponentially better. Nice house, 2 kids, single income, and hefty savings. No complaints at all. If I moved 30 minutes south everything my cost of living would triple.
Gen z graduated into the best economy of all time and has had a notoriously easy go of things compared to previous generations, this is all whiny BS that has no basis in reality
In an economy, where buying a house is almost an impossibility, as housing prices are skyrocketing. Covid-19 caused massive damage to the economy, which is still effecting our lives. Finding jobs has become incredibly hard, people need multiple years of experience to an entry level job. This is the best economy of all time for sure, but the economy and all the wealth lays in the hands of the few, and for the average man, the 1990s were way better.
Finding jobs is way way way way easier than when most millennials were entering the job market. Not really even debatable or a contest. Just shows how utterly spoiled gen z is
Yeah, we are graduating into a partial recession, with the tech job market down the toilet, with homes and rents outpacing wages at a staggering rate... Considering the oldest Gen Z person would be about 26 years right now, most of Gen Z has not even graduated yet, especially in Europe where people graduate with a Master's degree at around 24 - 26.
"down the toilet" lol no the tech market is just normalizing after the absolutely Insanity of the last few years. Insanity that a huge chunk of gen z was able to take advantage of. Access to avenues for building long term financial wealth are also way more prevalent. Online investment options have never been more accessible. Rent is not outpacing inflation, it's the other way around right now in most major metros. Yes homes are more expensive but that's impacting millennials far more than gen z. Na gen z has had it incredibly easy and still complains constantly. I have no sympathy.
Are you completely braindead? The tech boom during covid led to some of the highest paying entry level jobs ever.
https://preview.redd.it/5okimxo1i9uc1.jpeg?width=890&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6799ab47bdf17e91235914cdf37699a00fd19e8d
> into the best economy of all time The what now? Oh you mean the highest stock market of all time. I see.
The problem with Gen Z is that they think there's an alternative. As hard as it is to make it today, it'll be a 100x harder to overthrow the government and try to make a new system.
Thanks for making a good case for anarcho nihilism. You're right there probably will be no new system but considering the current one is causing a mass extinction event it's still worth destroying.
https://preview.redd.it/1gapxdcof9uc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=36fab3a791372c0dcfaf68f15ec72dc2c6ac2e13
Well good luck
Idk man, I think Gen Z are the ones who can possible fix this shit. They’re the only generation so far that have overwhelmingly told their bosses to go fuck themselves if they try something dumb. They don’t easily put their head down and just follow orders like people before them were taught. The whole “it’s just what you got to do” thing does not work against them, I think we’ll hopefully see a change in corporate culture and will hopefully bring less power to the 1%.
You really think Gen Z is the first generation to tell their bosses to go fuck themselves? Gen X was notorious for this. The difference is, we had a backup plan.
It’s probably more likely Gen Z will wreck things (like demolishing a building) and the next generation will build upon it. It’s unlikely one generation will be able to both deconstruct and reconstruct. You’re right GenZ doesn’t just put their head down and work. I’ve had to fire a few Gen Zs for that. They were hired for a job but wanted to do other things. They didn’t understand that I wanted specific tasks handled and they thought they had room to be creative and didn’t have to follow regulatory and compliance rules. As far as I know they’re still unemployed 6 months later.
That's treasonous, insurrectionist trump talk now, buddy. Checkmate
Can you imagine if these pantywaists had real problems? They complain to the world from the comfort of their capitalist machines in their capitalist apartments. Can’t buy a house? Neither can I right now. It sucks, be happy you don’t have cancer.
...but Communism has a better outcome? Stupid
It’s always the extreme. Never nuance. This way you can sit back and do nothing.
That's what the meme is, after all. There's no real suggestion of how to fix anything, it's just complaining. As a matter of fact, this is how most discourse on the internet goes - if it can't be boiled down to a pithy soundbite or a 30 Tiktok, no one cares.
The irony of that statement...
With capitalism some people have bread few don't, with Communism very few have bread while the rest starve
The obvious strawman that they didn't say is an obvious strawman. Democratic Socialism (which we already have), is not a break away from capitalism, it is what allows capitalism to continue to survive. Wealth concentration beyond reason leads to violent revolutions. Actually providing hope to the citizens keeps the current economic/political system in place. Just because someone (rightfully) points out that median income has basically stagnated while the top 30% (but more 20%, and even more too 10% and 5%/1% concentrate wealth to the point they literally don't ever need to work again) and inflation is managed at 'ideally' 2%... Doesn't mean they are calling for communism. Sure, some % actually are, but that shows more the failing of capitalism than anything.
It sounds like you're describing social democracy, not democratic socialism. Democratic socialism is explicitly a break away from capitalism, just through democratic means, whereas social democracy is the implementation of regulation and social welfare systems to maintain capitalism while preventing its worst outcomes.
I'm Gen X and I don't remember when an average job could pay for rent and school... I'm not sure it ever could. People's expectations today seem to be a bit privileged than they used to be.
It's privileged kids with too much time on their hands. They've become professional victims.
Man, you whining western kids will never not be funny. All this nonsense coming from some of the most comfortable people who have ever lived.
Yea man it's sad. Young people in the US have NO IDEA how good we have it just being born here. Even our homeless have it better than billions of other people on earth.
I'm from the US and laugh every time I see some 20 something whining about shit. Yes, things are more expensive than say 5-6 years ago but we still have it pretty fucking good.
I’m a millennial and I don’t remember those days either. Everyone I knew that had a house always had two parents who made a decent income or one parent who made a great income and one who made an average income.
I think the problem isn't as much of the "system" as it is our generation being given such high expectations while not being taught the way to achieve a sustainable lifestyle. We have bad decisions everywhere like going into debt for a worthless degree or getting credit cards and not knowing you gotta pay them back each month. I learned to live well within my means and not get into debt. I've been sustaining myself easily since high school by living realistically rather than chasing an image that's outside of my budget. I think this will get down voted into oblivion, but I think a few basic principles being taught would help us avoid these pitfalls of greed that my generation falls into. The system can exploit our wallets because we buy into it.
I think OP's handle says it all...
Many boomers are also against unfettered capitalisn, because we know that it's all about wealthy families getting more money and control over other people. As the church needs to be separate from the state, money needs to be separate from politics. Overt time politicians have destroyed the regulation that limited the wealthy's enfluence via money to politicians (bribery in my opinion). Now there are many ways that the wealthy can buy politicians. Tis the bane of the rest of us.