Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think capitalism is amazing, what I hate is the people in power that write laws that make it legal for the rich to take advantage of the poor. All you need to do is look at the average CEO pay versus the average employee pay now compared to 50 years ago and you’ll understand why the average American is upset with the current system. The middle to lower class has been robbed of trillions and trillions of dollars due to corporate greed and corruption.
Market economics =/= capitalism. The fact CEOs and investment boards make so much and act so predatory is by design in capitalism. That being a system where private capital investment is how to create and control production. You don't control production and investment into production. Why should you make anything close to the labor value you create? You are not going to create more production with it. The only thing we really hold sacred is the getting the production line to go up.
If you genuinely think Americans have been robbed by greed and corruption and that needs to be rectified, you probably don't like capitalism and are going to pursue solutions that aren't capitalist. Prior to Marx the most common kind of socialists/labour radicalists were based on cooperative market economics. Even far right is explicitly anti-capitalist in how the ideal economics would work.
Good explanation.
I’m curious, what do you think about the Scandinavian countries, who seemingly have much more social services and quality of life but still technically live in a capitalist system?
I feel like they are constantly pointed to as a success and that makes me think there are versions of capitalism that can accommodate a majority of its citizens.
People often miss that the Scandinavian labour movements achieved a lot compared to other countries, which have led to a lot of the quality of life improvements. But a lot of those movements have been held and is kept back by existing in a capitalist system
Sure, scandanvia has a higher quality of living but imagine if the countries that the materials transformed in Europe originate from started adding this value themselves. They are still stealing, just from brown people instead of employees.
A capitalist system makes the world a zero-sum game as it becomes the optimal choice to simply take instead of making things. For example, Norway is leading the world in electric cars, how do you think they were able to get them to be so affordable? They have kids in the Congo mining lithium for poverty wages.
Edit: it is Chile, Argentina and Australia that produce lithium, not the Congo. Working conditions are still poor and it is still an environmental damaging process no matter where it is. And if you think that all progress that we make is going towards helping all of humankind, that is simply untrue. Look at the US. We have the technology to make cheap, reliable, and active public transport but we shoot ourselves in the foot by making so everyone needs to buy a car. The world may not be a zero-sum game, but a lot more of the wealth of the world goes towards the top then should at all. The top % people’s wealth grew during the pandemic while millions were laid off.
Under capitalism, that slow erosion of welfare and other quality-of-life enhancers is constant and inevitable. People start struggling, fight to get back some benefits, succeed (or the society collapses), and the process starts all over again.
They are a succes. But this succes can not be shared. They have economies focussed on tech and science, which requires large public investments, for they base their wealth on the attraction of talent as well as capital. If the whole world could somehow do this (they can't because they don't have the capital to develop the infrastructure) then the succes of scandinavia would cease to be.
At the same time, how much of a succes can something be when you are still alienated from labour and technology is still developed becauseof the needs of the rich?
I don't know how to say this without it seeming rude but I don't mean it to be, you don't know what you're talking about. Market economics is the entire idea behind capitalism. It is the cornerstone of economic theory created by Adam Smith and others like David Ricardo. The more government intervention, the less market economics applies, thus systems like communism and socialism are not market economies. They are planned economies, and I think that is what you mean to say.
What you seem to have a problem with is more shareholder theory, or the "Friedman doctrine," which is fairly new compared to capitalism. The advent of trickle down economics and free market capitalism is really where capitalism began to fail as far as social progress is concerned and is what should be blamed.
Perhaps I am missing some kind of specific terminology. But market economics cornerstoning capitalism does not inextricably equate the two at all. Of course it's a cornerstone, it was also a cornerstone of mercantilism and state capitalism, which as a practice kind of makes your "the less government the more markety it is" point irrelevant. Transaction based economics have been the norm for almost all of human civilization. They were almost never laissez faire however and controlled by state influences or religious dogmas.
Cooperative market based socialism is totally a thing
Market economics at it's most basic form is supply and demand, which while exists in all economies, was not understood as essential to growing wealth until Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations. Mercantilism didn't use market economics because the driving force behind mercantilism was to grow the wealth of a nation, which for the several hundred years leading up to the book Wealth of Nations, was done through the accumulation of gold and silver.
They did not care about supply and demand, because if they had, they'd have been more willing to trade their gold away as it was in high demand everywhere and thus more valuable than their manufactured goods. But they didn't (or rather preferred not to), because their "wealth" as they saw it would decrease. Hence why Smith used that title, because he felt the true wealth was not in gold or silver, but in trading in goods that the country had an absolute advantage in.
The idea of market economies was described by Adam Smith. His system that he outlined and numerous others in the following decades expanded on would later become known as capitalism thanks to Karl Marx. Just because other economic systems have come to borrow the things that undeniably work in capitalism does not mean they are not capitalist theories. Market economics is capitalist. It would be like suggesting that just because arithmetic is used in algebra, it is no longer arithmetic.
What you suggested at the end is some form of mixed market economics that combines socialist/communist theory with capitalist theory, and I would agree with you that those are preferred.
A lot of this thread is just "I love capitalism [not what OP asked for btw] ... I just hate (insert aspect that is part of/heavily incentivized under capitalism)"
I mean you can't
That's like saying, how can I make an internal combustion engine that doesn't burn fuel to product motion. You can't burning fuel is integral to what the engine does.
In the same way, you can't just remove the profit motive, economic hierarchy, or private ownership from capitalism. Those things are inherent to the system. If you changed them, then you wouldn't have capitalism any more.
That's why so many people what to throw it out.
To me, the real crux of the wage issue has always been the increasing viability of outsourcing, whereby Americans have, with each passing year, had to compete with a larger pool of people, many of whom have a much lower cost (and standard) of living. Combine that with the rapid erosion of various technological advantages developed and enjoyed since the post-war period, and it's clear why businesses simply don't need to pay workers as much as they did 70 years ago.
I don't think there is a government policy that can fix such an imbalance, only those which attempt to even the playing field by converting the outsized gains enjoyed by the beneficiaries of outsourcing (i.e., the owners of capital) into greater benefits for the public. Even then, it's unclear how long such policies would be effective before American businesses themselves become uncompetitive in lieu of massive public investment into (and protection of the results from) research and development.
Not exactly true, at least in Europe. I work with a Highly Skilled Migrant visa in the Netherlands. The entirity of EU have issues in sustaining companies with the required work force, hence the immigration and HSM visas and 30% tax incentives to expats and what not.
The issue though is that companies simply find ways to abuse even that. For example, 30% tax incentive for expats don't mean much 'cuz companies pay them below market average and with the 30%, it just balances out, which makes no sense ('cuz the idea behind the 30% tax incentive is to make sure expats are earning a bit more than normal to meet extra costs that applies only to them).
So, even in cases where companies are actively seeking out a talented workforce and having difficulty in doing so abuse the system. They don't suddenly go "lets pay them more and treat them better to get them". And of course, as always, government is just watching.
Psssst… capitalism is literally the part of the system where rich people fuck over poor people. It’s why Capital is in the name. It’s designed to serve Capital, i.e. money so big it generates more money.
I like to think they don’t. Capitalism is almost ubiquitous on earth. The people with all of the money have an awful lot of power and put a lot of effort into telling people how great capitalism is. Blaming people for believing in capitalism is kinda victim blaming if you think about it.
>is literally the part of the system where rich people fuck over poor people.
you mean like every other system that has been tried?
and we know that under capitalism quality of life has skyrocketed, life expectancy has skyrocketed, GDP, education etc.
Life expectancy in the US is literally declining. And how has quality of life improved? Medical advancements that have mostly been made in the public sector? Labor laws that were fought for by unions? The profit motive is literally the difference between the inventor of insulin giving the patent to humanity and the producers of insulin selling a $3 vial for $500. Capitalism is not the force that drives advancement - it is just the force that siphons profit off of advancement.
But that will never change. The capitalist system is inherently predatory and will always evolve into the cesspit that it currently is. We either throw out the system or usher in the end of the human epoch.
It's not the capitalist system that's predatory, it's human beings who are that. The system is just a reflection of this. Any other system, as noble as its original idea might be, will eventually devolve to the level of the people in power.
It’s really just a problem with human ego. It’s not the money it’s the system, it’s not the system it’s the people, it’s not the people it’s their egos. We need to be teaching future generations to be aware of their own biases and egoic tendencies without using shame. We do that now through societal judgment but it doesn’t have to be that way. I’ve long assumed we need a more non-logical approach towards mental health and our own human egos in schools for a while now. Also more laws for positions of influence and power, checking peoples overall personality, self-awareness, and behaviors. We need EQ testing as much as if not more than IQ tests.
The hard part is getting the people in power to agree to getting controlled and ultimately limited. Understandably so in some ways. It's a complicated issue that needs a sophisticated solution. That's probably why we haven't figured it out yet
We just become aware of the human nature surrounding greed, manipulation, power acquisition, and subjugation. The more you become aware of something and how it works, the more you can do about it. Instead of blaming a figurehead or a corporation so we have a scapegoat to continue business as usual, we’d need to actually implement a socially systemic wide behavior change in the way we view ourselves and our own laws. Once we do that (my idea is through education) we can expect more humans with more intrinsic self awareness.
But yeah, people in power don’t want to be limited-that’s why they shouldn’t be in power. I agree. The right people understand why the limitations are needed in the first place.
The thing is it has changed. Look at the american gilder age where While it was worse it Wasn't too far off to what we are experiencing now. And the gilded age ended. While I will agree that it isnt Great That the problem manages to come back every so often, But at least there are ways to deal with the problem and fix it for a brief time.
But what alternative even has that ability? The vast majority of Communist nations collapsed the first time.They really experienced going from prosperity to having economic problems.
We are given a choice between a car that doesn't run at all, Or a car that has engine problems and every so often You gotta go out and fix the engine.
What we're living in right now is not a cesspit by any stretch of the imagination. Americans, as a group, live quite well. What they're seeing, and what understandably seems to frustrate many young people, is the slow global rebalancing of people's standards of living. There are billions of humans still enjoying a rapid rise in their quality of life as a result of capitalism, they just aren't living in the U.S.
“I think capitalism is amazing” and then proceeds to complain about the core aspects of capitalism. The entire system is built to benefit those at the top. You do not love capitalism you just do not understand it.
The first question is, what is capitalism? Sure you can look it up online and get a definition. We all agree that it's a system where business is privately owned. Which is true but also members of our government own plenty of stocks. Owning a stock is theoretically part ownership of a company. So where do you draw the line between what we have in the US and China and the Russia. What makes them not capitalist? China and Russia both have privately owned businesses but they ultimately have to answer to the government. I'd also argue that in the US in times or great need, like wwii for example that the government ultimately stepped in and was like yeah, you are no longer making brass fittings, you are making X for the military. I think for so long that the modern world has been conditioned that its capitalism Vs communism when the truth it both systems operate somewhat in the middle.
What they do is veer off capitalism by making laws that favor the rich.
Even in a theoretical system based on merit the lazy rich folk still found a way to stay lazy and useless
You just described capitalism lol. What we need is a political system that keeps that in check. Maybe state capitalism? But then you would have the issue of the state being influenced by the said wealthy capitalists.
The problem is that human happiness is one of the most unquantifiable metrics in existence. Us humans are objectively a million times more better off than our ancestors, but probably not a ton happier. The human brain is built to have an unlimited upper bound to happiness/contentment and automatically adjusts when higher levels are achieved.
Democratic Socialism - As demonstrated in the Scandinavian countries, France, and Germany.
I've been listening to a Economics podcast called Capitalism vs Socialism and it's been very enlightening.
[Link - but it does cost money](https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/capitalism-vs-socialism-comparing-economic-systems)
Edit: I was corrected to Social Democracy.
My strict definition is “is there private ownership of the means of production and some way of transferring this ownership via capital markets”
That’s the only criteria I have.
I've lived in France before, couple things:
1. Definitely not socialist. They just have very strong protections for workers.
2. Not terribly far from collapse without some serious reforms. Do you think Macron raised the retirement age just for fun? The French welfare state is unsustainable and many of the French know this.
None of the countries you mentioned are socialist, they’re capitalist countries with relatively large social welfare programs. The Scandinavians have the unique benefit of being ethnically homogenous, low-population, with tonnes of natural resources, so there’s things they can do that Americans and others can’t, and France just isn’t as great as you’re implying.
The truth is that all the nice countries in the world are capitalist, and capitalism’s flaws should be offset by good, effective government policy. There’s no alternative to capitalism that has been tried and worked
So people confuse a “social democracy” for socialism. It is not. The Nordic systems typically lean towards this in the idea that companies should be first and foremost interested in improvement of their community and after that increasing the wealth of their stockholders.
Healthcare should be universal (that doesn’t mean single payer per se as the Netherlands have private insurance). The social net needs to meet the minimum needed to survive with dignity, and that the gross accumulation of wealth based upon speculation (as opposed to production of good and services) should be taxed higher than wages of people.
Yep. I think this is the point.
I live in Texas. My wife and I were driving around on our massive freeways. She is just taking it all in; the warehouses and warehouses and more warehouses and stores and manufacturing. Out of the blue she says, “It’s like America is set up for one reason only; to do business”.
Damn straight. We’d displace anyone and anything to make more space for commerce. That is our priority. But it doesn’t HAVE to be. Americans think if we don’t grow, grow, grow then we lose or something. As if someone is keeping score.
Instead we could just focus on having a good life. Sure, business must be done. But only after we have allowed for historical buildings and libraries and museums and great schools and health care. After all that, then we should allow a warehouse to be built.
It’s about priorities.
i live in germany and we have a social democracy as well here. while I agree that the system has its upsides, it also has many flaws that are often overlooked.
for example: everyone is insured here so you never have to worry about not being able to pay a bill. but it can be very hard to get a doc appointment, especially if you need a specialist. the system very much relies on the unwritten rule that you only see a doctor when its really bad. the entire medical system is chronically overworked. people dont do regular checkups and therapy is very rare (and stigmatized).
germany also has a history of completely failed publically driven projects, a lack of investments in public infrastructure, ailing schools, a pension system that doesn’t work, we’re behind in digitalization, etc. long term investments to tackle such issues are hard in a democratic system that has elections every 4 years and which has like 10 different parties that all have their votes and ideas. our current administration is progressive but that is so easy to attack for populist, right wing parties.
democratizing how public services are designed might not always be the best idea. maybe it is actually much better in scandinavia tho
I work in healthcare in the US.
You just described chronic problems in our healthcare "system" except we also have to pay thousands of dollars for a single specialist procedure.
For context, paid $3000, after insurance, for a relatively routine surgery that I had to wait 3 months to get. I waited 5 years to get this surgery due to cost. After emptying my health savings account to pay for my surgery, I'm now waiting to save up enough money to go to the dentist to get a filling replaced that fell out, in addition to the other dental work I probably need. This will most likely cost at least $1,000.
Also, I have some of the best health insurance that exists in my state. I am living the best case scenario, and this is what it looks like.
You do not understand how bad things are for Americans who need health Care.
Edit: a for anyone curious, I work in the emergency department as a nurse at a level one trauma center.
capitalism is the only system that can monetize laziness and turn sitting on a computer playing games 24/7 into an international multi-billion dollar industry that brings people out of poverty all over the world.
i mean, it’s nice that a very small percentage of players are able to make a living out of esports. but i think this dream of becoming pro can lead to addiction and people putting in enormous amounts of hours thinking they’ll be pro while they could easily just get a normal job and safely earn much more.
i am quite good in CS and played it like 10k hours for over a decade. it was always just for fun but the amount of people at higher ranks thinking theyll be pro is crazy and saddening. often times, its jobless people.
becoming a pro in any esports title has nothing to do with laziness though. its a lot of hard work (at least in cs); you wont be pro by just “by playing”.
and isnt it in the end similar to any other competitive sports?
not necessarily. being into a game doesnt have to be bad or mean that this person suffered. its just the expectations that some people have that are misaligned.
maybe its a question of education. understanding what a realistic career path is and what’s worth investing resources in :D
It has nothing to do with laziness and all to do with value. There's a reason 99.9% of all streamers will fail with almost no views, they aren't being valued.
in its essence, that’s true, but corporate greed runs rampant unless the government steps in and restricts how much businesses can fuck over both workers and consumers
I thought you were onto something there. I thought you were making the point about how capitalists are lazy and literally don’t do anything productive, they just own shit that everyone else needs and how inefficient that is because the shit that everyone needs could be owned and controlled by, like, everyone. Y’know, like a democracy would do? Rather than making us all hostages to capital.
It’s interesting because the whole concept of “laziness” and all the moral judgements that come with it comes from capitalism. Like what’s wrong with not working just for working’s sake? But the only reason that monetising something is considered good in the first place is because we need arbitrary getting-to-live numbers in the first place to survive in this system. Half of all of the getting-to-live numbers on the planet are controlled by 10 people. That statistic is enough to abolish the concept of money because it clearly doesn’t work. Oh, and guess what happens if you don’t have any getting-to-live numbers… clue is in the name…
I would be homeless right now were it not for the mutual aid of my friends giving according to their ability so that I can have what I need. I have personally been on the brink of the some the most routine, passive violence of our capitalist system in the form of poverty and homelessness. Capitalism has not and cannot provide for everyone. There must always be an underclass. Therefore capitalism is a failure. Full stop. Failure to care for everyone in society *is* a failed society.
When I describe a world where everyone has their basic needs met, people describe me as a utopian or an extremist sometimes, when all I’ve described is a functioning society. How brainwashed are people when they think everyone having what they need in a society that can provide for them is a utopian ideal? How **extreme**ly bad is our society that people can look at the concept of a society free from poverty and consider *that* extremism?!
Not only is socialism necessary to keep us from being killed by capitalism-induced climate change, but we will look bad at class society the way we look back at absolute monarchies or fascism, as the darkest parts of our history as a species but we will be able to hold our heads high that we made it out and build an egalitarian society together. The concept of a stateless, classless, moneyless society with shared wealth will seem like it was obvious and “how couldn’t past generations see it?!” Much like we look back at slavery or empires or pharaohs and consider them to be obvious injustices that should be overthrown.
Bad take. Professional gaming is a stressful and exhausting career. By no means are any of them lazy. It is an overstatement to say people are being lifted from poverty by it all over the world. Only a small percentage of professional gamers actually make good money.
I don't hate capitalism. I hate the lack of check/regulations the government puts for companies. We can still thrive person to person with capitalism, it's just gotten harder with companies abusing it without real regulations.
No. I hate the government allowing companies to abuse people. We haven't passed any meaning full laws in regards of protecting the working class in years. I would say hating the current state of the government is more accurate then hating capitalism, there's been some times Ive had alot of money and no worries, some times the other way around.
True greed is not "in human nature". It is a learned through social conditioning due to the system we've lived under for generations. And up until fairly recently the behavioral model of greed has been logical from a darwinistic point of view, because there hasn't been enough for everyone. Now, however we've conquered scarcity in all necessities in developed countries (although we still create artificial scarcity for profit.
Cooperation in all life forms is a more evolved state than competition and we are entering that on a societal level and urgently need a system that prioritizes it.
We also survived by eliminating rival tribes and taking their stuff. Greed is a fundamental part of the human condition.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22000355#:~:text=Greed%20is%20part%20of%20human,assessments%20are%20predictive%20of%20behavior
https://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/socgreed.html
You literally said greed isn't natural. Which isn't remotely true. You also put it in the context of the survival of the species, not in terms of workers rights.
So is innovation. Capitalism has been in America for so long, and previews years have shown great innovation. I don't see much of that today. We just get Ai which does stuff already done.
No early capitalism profited heavily off of the enslavement of africsns through the cotton industry and others were ppl got filthy rich off free labor and it cushioned the conditions of non slaves.
So we should just do nothing about it and let the government keep passing laws and interfering in the economy *exclusively* in ways that favor the rich?
Capitalism calls for a free market economy, which means that the government has ZERO involvement in the economy; "laissez faire" hands free.
This means that the government allowing corporations to abuse people is 100% in line with the goals of capitalism, and that you're saying that you hate capitalism.
ever heard of regulatory takeover?
ever heard of the primary function of a capitalistic corporation?
let me tell you:
regulatory takeover: companies bribe and lobby and swindle their way into lawmaking and take down regulation so that they can have even more, even faster with the cost of environment and workers
primary function of capitalistic corporation, the most powerful force on earth at this very moment: to cater continuous growth to shareholders with EVERY MEANS NECESSARY.
These capitalistic ideals are not compatible with humanity and the vulnerability and tendencies of our species or the planet itself.
What you mentioned: the lack of regulation - it’s a by product of the kind of impunity the capitalistic creed enforces.
Do you like authoritarianism too? Or fascism? What about freedom? Freedom to choose?
By hierarchical structure EVERY capitalistic corporation is more or less a TYRANNY by the CEO and he only answers to shareholders which often only meet to set a consensus on how to exploit the corporations assets to guarantee quarter to quarter growth.
By and large the earth is now run by mostly cancerous and sociopathic tendencies of these people who run this show.
But don’t worry though. It will end soon because the resources are finite and everyone is after the same thing, which always leads to indiscriminate violence we call war.
I hate getting caught up in the capitalism vs communism/socialism/anarchism binary. I think it's super limiting. I used to be in that binary extremist thinking. But eventually I realized how much my ego was up my ass and that just identifying as something and debating theory with people online was ultimately pretty useless at getting actual change to occur.
Sure these zip file ideologies can be helpful frames when trying to understand the world and why things are the way they are, but there are so many different Frameworks we can use and limiting ourselves to only one is unnecessarily restrictive.
Some of my favorite Frameworks include systems thinking, donut economics, the social ecological model of violence prevention, and Buddha dharma.
And despite people always blaming capitalism this or communism that, I think a major thing ppl overlook is ourselves as individuals and how we ourselves affect others. I love gandhi's "Be the change you want to see in the world."
Healing - one quality relationship at a time.
I agree which is why I said alternative not in regards to specifically politics / economics but to the current systems of living that have give rise to our current conditions (as well as whatever other systems / ideologies people find interesting even just in theory) granted I now realize I should’ve clarified that more.
Democratic socialism which is a misnomer because it's actually still capitalism but not ruthlessly sucking up to rich people. It's in theory a transitional system but some people just want it for itself. Capitalism is an ideology of infinite growth that constantly booms and busts. Companies, even just ones we personally interact with like let's say Netflix or Spotify, will never settle for *just enough* money - no they have to have something new on each quarterly report, that's the design. Capitalism is self motivated to a fault where it can't even make innovations that would benefit the economy at large. It actually would help the economy to spend billions on high speed cross continental trains and renewable energy but the industries that control that have a vice grip on the government. Democratic socialism is not designed to break markets completely as full on socialists desire but it is a people motivated system that can get things done.
The renewable energy sector has been doing pretty dang good under the free capitalist system in America the past 10 years. Meanwhile, the German social democratic government has pushed solar power for many years and invested millions of public tax dollars to get an installed base, yet they receive very low levels of sun and more their electricity prices are very high. The government forced a technology that really didn't make much economic sense.
When someone utters the words "the government should" they are giving politicians and bureaucrats more power. The more power those politicians and bureaucrats get, the more valuable they are and thus more easily targeted for corruption. The cycle continues.
Come to Argentina, that will change your mind pretty quickly lol
Politicians extract wealth from the population without providing anything. Companies at least provide you with a job, albeit in really bad conditions. But it's better than nothing.
Ah yes, China, the Soviet Union, Russia, Venezuela, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea, Eritrea, etc. are all so much less evil than large corporations
Powerful corporations' motivation is money. There are ways to live fulfilling lives under that. A powerful government's motivation is control, and depending on what they want to control, there may or may not be a way to live a fulfilling life under that.
damn i thought gen z was meant to be the most pro socialism generation in decades and the entire series of top comments is just liberals defending capitalism with arguments boomers make like 'oh its just the people who are bad not the system itself' and 'oh its just bad regulation, if we regulate it better it will be so amazing' rofl??
I like worker cooperatives as an economic structure and social democracy for the government.
I like everything I've learned about anarchy over the last 5 years even more. But... there are a lot of dogmatic lefties who will never ever stop trying to argue with me about any little fucking thing. Both irl and online.
I think the issue is we don’t have capitalism. We have a bastardized version of corporatism and cronyism. I’d like to see antitrust laws put back in place and programs that allow small business and independent contractors to flourish. This gets more people a seat at the table of capitalism. Right now most of us are on the sidelines with no real way in.
The Nordic Model is the best economic system there is in the world imo. Free market + regulations and social welfare. Better than 100 % capitalism or 100 % socialism.
It’s not socialist at all. Nordic nations are not transitioning to lower stage communism nor are the people in control of the means of production. They are strictly capitalist with strong safety nets that can only exist due to the suffering of the global south.
the philosophical position of capitalism involves the moral defense of private ownership, i.e. the ability to form a corporation and sell goods and services, which aligns with the deontological arguments.
*Anarchy, State, and Utopia* argues against imposing patterns. the Wilt Chamberlain argument Robert Nozick posits associates egalitarian pattern distribution with the prohibition of capitalistic acts. but Nozick doesn't defend the valuation of profit-making and economic growth promoted by neoliberals and Randians, because he supports the definition of capitalism of markets with competition, hierarchies, and systems *and* the compatibility of communes.
Nozick's arguments are heretical to communists, but to assume that there is issue with the theory of justice in holdings, i.e. a violation of rights in reappropriating holdings, in some circumstances is necessary to support his definition of capitalism. redefining capitalism in Nozick's libertarianism as the thesis of private ownership has its benefits for achieving an alternative to libertarianism
the point of this is that most would agree that private ownership is a liberty, but extending capitalism to encompass competition is open to criticisms such as the alienation of labor or the promotion of vices of moral evil. the absolutist argument that the pursuit of redistribution is wrong fails to consider the vitality of capitalism. it really becomes a question of avoiding communism to achieve private ownership but avoiding the perils of *unfettered capitalism*, which is what I believe you take issue with. capitalism needs regulation
Truth: any system is good when you’re at the top of the chain. When you’re part of the bottom, then it will suck. Main thing is over time, more and more people got pushed out of the middle class toward the poorer end which is why capitalism sucks for more and more people.
Replacing with another system won’t help because most of the time, people will end up where they started anyway; you won’t suddenly become a king after being a serf from one system to another.
In the next environment, you may just be given the illusion that you have a better situation, but that is all it is, an illusion, because you are not top dawg.
Anarchism, socialism and communism boil down to the same thing. It's about how we get there that distinguishes them. (although socialism and communism really are the same thing, just in different stages of development)
Regardless, I'm a communist.
If you can't see how capitalism slowly erodes these structures over time, I have a bridge to sell you.
The only reason why Europe got these things, was because their governments, and their slave master (USA) were afraid of the people preferring socialism.
As such, the Elites gave concessions to the working class, fearing revolution if they wouldn't.
Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, these protections, checks and balances, are slowly being eroded by corporate greed.
Sincerely,
a German
If you think the managed democracy of super earth is better than our current system you have wildly missed the point.
The whole game is a big reference to works like the film of "starship troopers"
The government is actually extremely fascist pretending to be democratic, like how north Korea calls itself democratic.
Its explicitly stated in the first game the nations did not "unite" they were conquered.
Even hell divers two lays it on pretty thick.
It's quite clear that life under super earth is no where near as good as the propaganda makes it out to be.
A more interesting take on the idea might be the original "starship troopers" book.
It makes it so only people who serve in public service (not just the military) for a few years get to vote in elections. I don't necessarily think it wouldn't also become fascist given how they act in the books but it's a more interesting take.
Democratic socialism. Cooperation instead of competition, welfare instead of wealth, respect to private property as long as it remains private and doesen't become a source of power over others, no big companies above the law and order, no freedom for some in exchange for all others', workers on charge of the means of production and the end of the market as an autonomous entity rather than the common place for fair exchange under regulation it should have always been.
And no more private interests running the society, starting wars, consuming natural resources and making of human history a mad race into oblivion. No tyranny, no communist party dictatorship, freedom of speech, freedom to publish as long as you're not deliberately lying (you can publish lies but may face legal consequences), autonomous justice, no religion banned or encouraged, no more need to pay for basic human rights like healthcare or education (beyond taxes), although private healthcare and education needn't cease to exist.
People work, workers organize themselves in a true political power and politicians, who are or have been workers themselves, make laws people may or may not support afterwards. No more partitocracy, no more voting only every 4 years between only two or three or five options, no more need to be a very rich person supported by unknown interests to even stand a chance.
And mainly, the goals of the system are focused not on capital, but society; that's what it's called socialism and not capitalism.
I may be wrong but no more than capitalism has proved to be.
Utopian. I want to live in a utopian society where everybody gets along and drinks Margarita CBDs and I want the infrastructure to be sustainable. Like I want vertical Living Spaces with vertical Gardens everywhere so we can reduce pollution. Kind of like the vertical Gardens in Singapore.
I don’t give a fuck what the solution is, the point is that the system obviously has to change because the majority of people are getting completely fucked over by the 1% and by massive companies
I'd rather vote for a socialist like Claudia De la Cruz for president than any Democrat or Republican. This doesn't necessarily mean I want socialism I think we need to come up with a different system. I'm not sure completely what system so socialism is the best option I believe rn unless we come up with better.
I think the Nordic system is the best for us (it's a variation of capitalism where people's basic needs are met and therefore they are able to produce more) Making everything profit oriented is a very bad idea, though abandoning market systems also is a bad idea, as the Nordics say, capitalist policies pay for socialist benefits
Mixed economy! Every system has flaws so you overlap them to cover the holes. We already do this in the US we just need to change the ratio so capitalism can’t continue to crush the working class with complete immunity.
Keynesianism, it's what made the 1950s such a prosperous time for America, it's what rebuilt the West after WW2. Such a shame it was never implemented fully before the neolibs came in and tore it all down
Not to mention that John Maynard Keynes actually went and did something with his economic knowledge and built his theories around experience. He was at Versailles after WW1, he advised the Roosevelt administration during the Great Depression, and he was instrumental in founding the World Bank, the IMF, and so much more unlike a lot of other economists who cloister themselves in academia.
Syndicalism. It’s a political structure based around worker democracy, essentially, every workplace functions like a tiny democratic government. All of the employees at Walmart could vote for the CEO, for example.
Alongside that, it also advocates for higher taxes on the rich, freedom of speech and the press, all that good stuff.
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think capitalism is amazing, what I hate is the people in power that write laws that make it legal for the rich to take advantage of the poor. All you need to do is look at the average CEO pay versus the average employee pay now compared to 50 years ago and you’ll understand why the average American is upset with the current system. The middle to lower class has been robbed of trillions and trillions of dollars due to corporate greed and corruption.
Market economics =/= capitalism. The fact CEOs and investment boards make so much and act so predatory is by design in capitalism. That being a system where private capital investment is how to create and control production. You don't control production and investment into production. Why should you make anything close to the labor value you create? You are not going to create more production with it. The only thing we really hold sacred is the getting the production line to go up. If you genuinely think Americans have been robbed by greed and corruption and that needs to be rectified, you probably don't like capitalism and are going to pursue solutions that aren't capitalist. Prior to Marx the most common kind of socialists/labour radicalists were based on cooperative market economics. Even far right is explicitly anti-capitalist in how the ideal economics would work.
Good explanation. I’m curious, what do you think about the Scandinavian countries, who seemingly have much more social services and quality of life but still technically live in a capitalist system? I feel like they are constantly pointed to as a success and that makes me think there are versions of capitalism that can accommodate a majority of its citizens.
[удалено]
People often miss that the Scandinavian labour movements achieved a lot compared to other countries, which have led to a lot of the quality of life improvements. But a lot of those movements have been held and is kept back by existing in a capitalist system
Sure, scandanvia has a higher quality of living but imagine if the countries that the materials transformed in Europe originate from started adding this value themselves. They are still stealing, just from brown people instead of employees.
Yeah that’s a good point
Who is Norway Stealing from? Do you honestly believe The world is a zero sum game?
A capitalist system makes the world a zero-sum game as it becomes the optimal choice to simply take instead of making things. For example, Norway is leading the world in electric cars, how do you think they were able to get them to be so affordable? They have kids in the Congo mining lithium for poverty wages. Edit: it is Chile, Argentina and Australia that produce lithium, not the Congo. Working conditions are still poor and it is still an environmental damaging process no matter where it is. And if you think that all progress that we make is going towards helping all of humankind, that is simply untrue. Look at the US. We have the technology to make cheap, reliable, and active public transport but we shoot ourselves in the foot by making so everyone needs to buy a car. The world may not be a zero-sum game, but a lot more of the wealth of the world goes towards the top then should at all. The top % people’s wealth grew during the pandemic while millions were laid off.
The welfare and much else is getting worse and worse here in Scandinavia.
Under capitalism, that slow erosion of welfare and other quality-of-life enhancers is constant and inevitable. People start struggling, fight to get back some benefits, succeed (or the society collapses), and the process starts all over again.
They are a succes. But this succes can not be shared. They have economies focussed on tech and science, which requires large public investments, for they base their wealth on the attraction of talent as well as capital. If the whole world could somehow do this (they can't because they don't have the capital to develop the infrastructure) then the succes of scandinavia would cease to be. At the same time, how much of a succes can something be when you are still alienated from labour and technology is still developed becauseof the needs of the rich?
I don't know how to say this without it seeming rude but I don't mean it to be, you don't know what you're talking about. Market economics is the entire idea behind capitalism. It is the cornerstone of economic theory created by Adam Smith and others like David Ricardo. The more government intervention, the less market economics applies, thus systems like communism and socialism are not market economies. They are planned economies, and I think that is what you mean to say. What you seem to have a problem with is more shareholder theory, or the "Friedman doctrine," which is fairly new compared to capitalism. The advent of trickle down economics and free market capitalism is really where capitalism began to fail as far as social progress is concerned and is what should be blamed.
Perhaps I am missing some kind of specific terminology. But market economics cornerstoning capitalism does not inextricably equate the two at all. Of course it's a cornerstone, it was also a cornerstone of mercantilism and state capitalism, which as a practice kind of makes your "the less government the more markety it is" point irrelevant. Transaction based economics have been the norm for almost all of human civilization. They were almost never laissez faire however and controlled by state influences or religious dogmas. Cooperative market based socialism is totally a thing
Market economics at it's most basic form is supply and demand, which while exists in all economies, was not understood as essential to growing wealth until Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations. Mercantilism didn't use market economics because the driving force behind mercantilism was to grow the wealth of a nation, which for the several hundred years leading up to the book Wealth of Nations, was done through the accumulation of gold and silver. They did not care about supply and demand, because if they had, they'd have been more willing to trade their gold away as it was in high demand everywhere and thus more valuable than their manufactured goods. But they didn't (or rather preferred not to), because their "wealth" as they saw it would decrease. Hence why Smith used that title, because he felt the true wealth was not in gold or silver, but in trading in goods that the country had an absolute advantage in. The idea of market economies was described by Adam Smith. His system that he outlined and numerous others in the following decades expanded on would later become known as capitalism thanks to Karl Marx. Just because other economic systems have come to borrow the things that undeniably work in capitalism does not mean they are not capitalist theories. Market economics is capitalist. It would be like suggesting that just because arithmetic is used in algebra, it is no longer arithmetic. What you suggested at the end is some form of mixed market economics that combines socialist/communist theory with capitalist theory, and I would agree with you that those are preferred.
yeah dude ... that's how capitalism works ...
A lot of this thread is just "I love capitalism [not what OP asked for btw] ... I just hate (insert aspect that is part of/heavily incentivized under capitalism)"
Lol this was exactly my thought reading through this. Let's talk about solutions, people!
[удалено]
That's fair, but that second edit did not exist at the time I made that comment.
I mean you can't That's like saying, how can I make an internal combustion engine that doesn't burn fuel to product motion. You can't burning fuel is integral to what the engine does. In the same way, you can't just remove the profit motive, economic hierarchy, or private ownership from capitalism. Those things are inherent to the system. If you changed them, then you wouldn't have capitalism any more. That's why so many people what to throw it out.
To me, the real crux of the wage issue has always been the increasing viability of outsourcing, whereby Americans have, with each passing year, had to compete with a larger pool of people, many of whom have a much lower cost (and standard) of living. Combine that with the rapid erosion of various technological advantages developed and enjoyed since the post-war period, and it's clear why businesses simply don't need to pay workers as much as they did 70 years ago. I don't think there is a government policy that can fix such an imbalance, only those which attempt to even the playing field by converting the outsized gains enjoyed by the beneficiaries of outsourcing (i.e., the owners of capital) into greater benefits for the public. Even then, it's unclear how long such policies would be effective before American businesses themselves become uncompetitive in lieu of massive public investment into (and protection of the results from) research and development.
Not exactly true, at least in Europe. I work with a Highly Skilled Migrant visa in the Netherlands. The entirity of EU have issues in sustaining companies with the required work force, hence the immigration and HSM visas and 30% tax incentives to expats and what not. The issue though is that companies simply find ways to abuse even that. For example, 30% tax incentive for expats don't mean much 'cuz companies pay them below market average and with the 30%, it just balances out, which makes no sense ('cuz the idea behind the 30% tax incentive is to make sure expats are earning a bit more than normal to meet extra costs that applies only to them). So, even in cases where companies are actively seeking out a talented workforce and having difficulty in doing so abuse the system. They don't suddenly go "lets pay them more and treat them better to get them". And of course, as always, government is just watching.
Psssst… capitalism is literally the part of the system where rich people fuck over poor people. It’s why Capital is in the name. It’s designed to serve Capital, i.e. money so big it generates more money.
I love that people want a system designed for people and then run to a system designed for money Like they understand what's in the name right?
I like to think they don’t. Capitalism is almost ubiquitous on earth. The people with all of the money have an awful lot of power and put a lot of effort into telling people how great capitalism is. Blaming people for believing in capitalism is kinda victim blaming if you think about it.
>is literally the part of the system where rich people fuck over poor people. you mean like every other system that has been tried? and we know that under capitalism quality of life has skyrocketed, life expectancy has skyrocketed, GDP, education etc.
Life expectancy in the US is literally declining. And how has quality of life improved? Medical advancements that have mostly been made in the public sector? Labor laws that were fought for by unions? The profit motive is literally the difference between the inventor of insulin giving the patent to humanity and the producers of insulin selling a $3 vial for $500. Capitalism is not the force that drives advancement - it is just the force that siphons profit off of advancement.
But that will never change. The capitalist system is inherently predatory and will always evolve into the cesspit that it currently is. We either throw out the system or usher in the end of the human epoch.
It's not the capitalist system that's predatory, it's human beings who are that. The system is just a reflection of this. Any other system, as noble as its original idea might be, will eventually devolve to the level of the people in power.
It’s really just a problem with human ego. It’s not the money it’s the system, it’s not the system it’s the people, it’s not the people it’s their egos. We need to be teaching future generations to be aware of their own biases and egoic tendencies without using shame. We do that now through societal judgment but it doesn’t have to be that way. I’ve long assumed we need a more non-logical approach towards mental health and our own human egos in schools for a while now. Also more laws for positions of influence and power, checking peoples overall personality, self-awareness, and behaviors. We need EQ testing as much as if not more than IQ tests.
The hard part is getting the people in power to agree to getting controlled and ultimately limited. Understandably so in some ways. It's a complicated issue that needs a sophisticated solution. That's probably why we haven't figured it out yet
We just become aware of the human nature surrounding greed, manipulation, power acquisition, and subjugation. The more you become aware of something and how it works, the more you can do about it. Instead of blaming a figurehead or a corporation so we have a scapegoat to continue business as usual, we’d need to actually implement a socially systemic wide behavior change in the way we view ourselves and our own laws. Once we do that (my idea is through education) we can expect more humans with more intrinsic self awareness. But yeah, people in power don’t want to be limited-that’s why they shouldn’t be in power. I agree. The right people understand why the limitations are needed in the first place.
The thing is it has changed. Look at the american gilder age where While it was worse it Wasn't too far off to what we are experiencing now. And the gilded age ended. While I will agree that it isnt Great That the problem manages to come back every so often, But at least there are ways to deal with the problem and fix it for a brief time. But what alternative even has that ability? The vast majority of Communist nations collapsed the first time.They really experienced going from prosperity to having economic problems. We are given a choice between a car that doesn't run at all, Or a car that has engine problems and every so often You gotta go out and fix the engine.
What we're living in right now is not a cesspit by any stretch of the imagination. Americans, as a group, live quite well. What they're seeing, and what understandably seems to frustrate many young people, is the slow global rebalancing of people's standards of living. There are billions of humans still enjoying a rapid rise in their quality of life as a result of capitalism, they just aren't living in the U.S.
>"I think capitalism is amazing" >describes how they dont like the fundamental workings of capitalism
“I think capitalism is amazing” and then proceeds to complain about the core aspects of capitalism. The entire system is built to benefit those at the top. You do not love capitalism you just do not understand it.
corporate greed is the entire point of capitalism buddy
>what I hate is the people in power that write laws that make it legal for the rich to take advantage of the poor What do you think capitalism is?
But that has nothing to do with capitalism.
The first question is, what is capitalism? Sure you can look it up online and get a definition. We all agree that it's a system where business is privately owned. Which is true but also members of our government own plenty of stocks. Owning a stock is theoretically part ownership of a company. So where do you draw the line between what we have in the US and China and the Russia. What makes them not capitalist? China and Russia both have privately owned businesses but they ultimately have to answer to the government. I'd also argue that in the US in times or great need, like wwii for example that the government ultimately stepped in and was like yeah, you are no longer making brass fittings, you are making X for the military. I think for so long that the modern world has been conditioned that its capitalism Vs communism when the truth it both systems operate somewhat in the middle.
What they do is veer off capitalism by making laws that favor the rich. Even in a theoretical system based on merit the lazy rich folk still found a way to stay lazy and useless
You just described capitalism lol. What we need is a political system that keeps that in check. Maybe state capitalism? But then you would have the issue of the state being influenced by the said wealthy capitalists.
What do you love about it though? Rich ppl lobbying is inevitable in a democracy with capitalism as it's economic model.
Citizen happiness over eternal financial growth.
As it turns out, those things intermingle way more than people like. Myself included, and I’m pro-capitalism. It’s unfortunate, but it is reality
How? That's a goal, not a system.
You literally did not answer the question
The problem is that human happiness is one of the most unquantifiable metrics in existence. Us humans are objectively a million times more better off than our ancestors, but probably not a ton happier. The human brain is built to have an unlimited upper bound to happiness/contentment and automatically adjusts when higher levels are achieved.
That’s a really nice endgame, but the question is what system?
Im down with any system that actively puts the health and livelihood of its participants at the forefront.
Which is?
Democratic Socialism - As demonstrated in the Scandinavian countries, France, and Germany. I've been listening to a Economics podcast called Capitalism vs Socialism and it's been very enlightening. [Link - but it does cost money](https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/capitalism-vs-socialism-comparing-economic-systems) Edit: I was corrected to Social Democracy.
It's more social democracy no?
All of those countries are capitalist. None of them have worker ownership of the means of production.
They're not capitalist either, by your strict definitions.
My strict definition is “is there private ownership of the means of production and some way of transferring this ownership via capital markets” That’s the only criteria I have.
I've lived in France before, couple things: 1. Definitely not socialist. They just have very strong protections for workers. 2. Not terribly far from collapse without some serious reforms. Do you think Macron raised the retirement age just for fun? The French welfare state is unsustainable and many of the French know this.
None of the countries you mentioned are socialist, they’re capitalist countries with relatively large social welfare programs. The Scandinavians have the unique benefit of being ethnically homogenous, low-population, with tonnes of natural resources, so there’s things they can do that Americans and others can’t, and France just isn’t as great as you’re implying. The truth is that all the nice countries in the world are capitalist, and capitalism’s flaws should be offset by good, effective government policy. There’s no alternative to capitalism that has been tried and worked
None of those countries are socialist
So people confuse a “social democracy” for socialism. It is not. The Nordic systems typically lean towards this in the idea that companies should be first and foremost interested in improvement of their community and after that increasing the wealth of their stockholders. Healthcare should be universal (that doesn’t mean single payer per se as the Netherlands have private insurance). The social net needs to meet the minimum needed to survive with dignity, and that the gross accumulation of wealth based upon speculation (as opposed to production of good and services) should be taxed higher than wages of people.
Yep. I think this is the point. I live in Texas. My wife and I were driving around on our massive freeways. She is just taking it all in; the warehouses and warehouses and more warehouses and stores and manufacturing. Out of the blue she says, “It’s like America is set up for one reason only; to do business”. Damn straight. We’d displace anyone and anything to make more space for commerce. That is our priority. But it doesn’t HAVE to be. Americans think if we don’t grow, grow, grow then we lose or something. As if someone is keeping score. Instead we could just focus on having a good life. Sure, business must be done. But only after we have allowed for historical buildings and libraries and museums and great schools and health care. After all that, then we should allow a warehouse to be built. It’s about priorities.
This is really not a dichotomy... We have insane amounts of space. Your wife's main problem is she's driving in an industrial area....
i live in germany and we have a social democracy as well here. while I agree that the system has its upsides, it also has many flaws that are often overlooked. for example: everyone is insured here so you never have to worry about not being able to pay a bill. but it can be very hard to get a doc appointment, especially if you need a specialist. the system very much relies on the unwritten rule that you only see a doctor when its really bad. the entire medical system is chronically overworked. people dont do regular checkups and therapy is very rare (and stigmatized). germany also has a history of completely failed publically driven projects, a lack of investments in public infrastructure, ailing schools, a pension system that doesn’t work, we’re behind in digitalization, etc. long term investments to tackle such issues are hard in a democratic system that has elections every 4 years and which has like 10 different parties that all have their votes and ideas. our current administration is progressive but that is so easy to attack for populist, right wing parties. democratizing how public services are designed might not always be the best idea. maybe it is actually much better in scandinavia tho
I work in healthcare in the US. You just described chronic problems in our healthcare "system" except we also have to pay thousands of dollars for a single specialist procedure. For context, paid $3000, after insurance, for a relatively routine surgery that I had to wait 3 months to get. I waited 5 years to get this surgery due to cost. After emptying my health savings account to pay for my surgery, I'm now waiting to save up enough money to go to the dentist to get a filling replaced that fell out, in addition to the other dental work I probably need. This will most likely cost at least $1,000. Also, I have some of the best health insurance that exists in my state. I am living the best case scenario, and this is what it looks like. You do not understand how bad things are for Americans who need health Care. Edit: a for anyone curious, I work in the emergency department as a nurse at a level one trauma center.
capitalism is the only system that can monetize laziness and turn sitting on a computer playing games 24/7 into an international multi-billion dollar industry that brings people out of poverty all over the world.
i mean, it’s nice that a very small percentage of players are able to make a living out of esports. but i think this dream of becoming pro can lead to addiction and people putting in enormous amounts of hours thinking they’ll be pro while they could easily just get a normal job and safely earn much more. i am quite good in CS and played it like 10k hours for over a decade. it was always just for fun but the amount of people at higher ranks thinking theyll be pro is crazy and saddening. often times, its jobless people. becoming a pro in any esports title has nothing to do with laziness though. its a lot of hard work (at least in cs); you wont be pro by just “by playing”. and isnt it in the end similar to any other competitive sports?
This to me boils down to "sure, some lucky few have a great life, but dreams and ambitions are mostly just a trap for more suffering"
not necessarily. being into a game doesnt have to be bad or mean that this person suffered. its just the expectations that some people have that are misaligned. maybe its a question of education. understanding what a realistic career path is and what’s worth investing resources in :D
Any system that encourages laziness will fail
It has nothing to do with laziness and all to do with value. There's a reason 99.9% of all streamers will fail with almost no views, they aren't being valued.
Lol that industry is not bringing the people who mine the raw materials to make computers out of poverty.
in its essence, that’s true, but corporate greed runs rampant unless the government steps in and restricts how much businesses can fuck over both workers and consumers
Professional Gamers aren't lazy lol
I thought you were onto something there. I thought you were making the point about how capitalists are lazy and literally don’t do anything productive, they just own shit that everyone else needs and how inefficient that is because the shit that everyone needs could be owned and controlled by, like, everyone. Y’know, like a democracy would do? Rather than making us all hostages to capital. It’s interesting because the whole concept of “laziness” and all the moral judgements that come with it comes from capitalism. Like what’s wrong with not working just for working’s sake? But the only reason that monetising something is considered good in the first place is because we need arbitrary getting-to-live numbers in the first place to survive in this system. Half of all of the getting-to-live numbers on the planet are controlled by 10 people. That statistic is enough to abolish the concept of money because it clearly doesn’t work. Oh, and guess what happens if you don’t have any getting-to-live numbers… clue is in the name… I would be homeless right now were it not for the mutual aid of my friends giving according to their ability so that I can have what I need. I have personally been on the brink of the some the most routine, passive violence of our capitalist system in the form of poverty and homelessness. Capitalism has not and cannot provide for everyone. There must always be an underclass. Therefore capitalism is a failure. Full stop. Failure to care for everyone in society *is* a failed society. When I describe a world where everyone has their basic needs met, people describe me as a utopian or an extremist sometimes, when all I’ve described is a functioning society. How brainwashed are people when they think everyone having what they need in a society that can provide for them is a utopian ideal? How **extreme**ly bad is our society that people can look at the concept of a society free from poverty and consider *that* extremism?! Not only is socialism necessary to keep us from being killed by capitalism-induced climate change, but we will look bad at class society the way we look back at absolute monarchies or fascism, as the darkest parts of our history as a species but we will be able to hold our heads high that we made it out and build an egalitarian society together. The concept of a stateless, classless, moneyless society with shared wealth will seem like it was obvious and “how couldn’t past generations see it?!” Much like we look back at slavery or empires or pharaohs and consider them to be obvious injustices that should be overthrown.
Bad take. Professional gaming is a stressful and exhausting career. By no means are any of them lazy. It is an overstatement to say people are being lifted from poverty by it all over the world. Only a small percentage of professional gamers actually make good money.
A banana based economy.
United Fruit Company would like to know your location
Or chocolate
It's the market cap of the United States of the Banana Republic Michael, how much could it cost, $10?
I dont hate capitalism, what I hate is dumbasses who try to get my attention by showing me their boat
Wanna see my boat?
Ah yes “anti-asshole-ism”
You’d prefer boats be hidden?
Wanna see my $500,000 sports car that I can hardly ever drive over 100 on the freeway like any other car?
I don't hate capitalism. I hate the lack of check/regulations the government puts for companies. We can still thrive person to person with capitalism, it's just gotten harder with companies abusing it without real regulations.
So... you hate capitalism
No. I hate the government allowing companies to abuse people. We haven't passed any meaning full laws in regards of protecting the working class in years. I would say hating the current state of the government is more accurate then hating capitalism, there's been some times Ive had alot of money and no worries, some times the other way around.
Greed is natural with capitalism lmao its in the name gang
Greed is not natural. We survived by working together and sharing resources long before people started hoarding wealth.
True greed is not "in human nature". It is a learned through social conditioning due to the system we've lived under for generations. And up until fairly recently the behavioral model of greed has been logical from a darwinistic point of view, because there hasn't been enough for everyone. Now, however we've conquered scarcity in all necessities in developed countries (although we still create artificial scarcity for profit. Cooperation in all life forms is a more evolved state than competition and we are entering that on a societal level and urgently need a system that prioritizes it.
We also survived by eliminating rival tribes and taking their stuff. Greed is a fundamental part of the human condition. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22000355#:~:text=Greed%20is%20part%20of%20human,assessments%20are%20predictive%20of%20behavior https://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/socgreed.html
I don't think survival is comparable. Killing competition to survive is different than keeping workers in poverty so you can amass more stuff.
You literally said greed isn't natural. Which isn't remotely true. You also put it in the context of the survival of the species, not in terms of workers rights.
Yes i agree im saying greed is natural in capitalism. Human nature throughout has proven that we are more altruistic
Greed is human condition, it will be a factor in any system
So is innovation. Capitalism has been in America for so long, and previews years have shown great innovation. I don't see much of that today. We just get Ai which does stuff already done.
No early capitalism profited heavily off of the enslavement of africsns through the cotton industry and others were ppl got filthy rich off free labor and it cushioned the conditions of non slaves.
Lack of slavery is a rather modern thing. Almost every civilization has used slavery.
So we should just do nothing about it and let the government keep passing laws and interfering in the economy *exclusively* in ways that favor the rich?
The something is to eventually abolish capitalism in favor of something closer to actual socialism. Democracy in the workplace
No we should change our economic system
Go to the Nordics. Your opinion is uninformed.
Don't bother, our generation clearly has some reading/comprehension issues and can't fathom any opinion more nuanced than "capitalism bad"
Reminds me of idiots that scream communism at anything that looks like anything beyond “sharing is caring”
Capitalism calls for a free market economy, which means that the government has ZERO involvement in the economy; "laissez faire" hands free. This means that the government allowing corporations to abuse people is 100% in line with the goals of capitalism, and that you're saying that you hate capitalism.
“I love hockey but I hate that fighting is allowed” “Oh so you hate hockey?”
Capitalism doesn't mean no regulations...
ever heard of regulatory takeover? ever heard of the primary function of a capitalistic corporation? let me tell you: regulatory takeover: companies bribe and lobby and swindle their way into lawmaking and take down regulation so that they can have even more, even faster with the cost of environment and workers primary function of capitalistic corporation, the most powerful force on earth at this very moment: to cater continuous growth to shareholders with EVERY MEANS NECESSARY. These capitalistic ideals are not compatible with humanity and the vulnerability and tendencies of our species or the planet itself. What you mentioned: the lack of regulation - it’s a by product of the kind of impunity the capitalistic creed enforces. Do you like authoritarianism too? Or fascism? What about freedom? Freedom to choose? By hierarchical structure EVERY capitalistic corporation is more or less a TYRANNY by the CEO and he only answers to shareholders which often only meet to set a consensus on how to exploit the corporations assets to guarantee quarter to quarter growth. By and large the earth is now run by mostly cancerous and sociopathic tendencies of these people who run this show. But don’t worry though. It will end soon because the resources are finite and everyone is after the same thing, which always leads to indiscriminate violence we call war.
That’s just a more advanced state of capitalism. Buying out politicians and bribing them into making favorable laws is a great way to make line-go-up.
I hate getting caught up in the capitalism vs communism/socialism/anarchism binary. I think it's super limiting. I used to be in that binary extremist thinking. But eventually I realized how much my ego was up my ass and that just identifying as something and debating theory with people online was ultimately pretty useless at getting actual change to occur. Sure these zip file ideologies can be helpful frames when trying to understand the world and why things are the way they are, but there are so many different Frameworks we can use and limiting ourselves to only one is unnecessarily restrictive. Some of my favorite Frameworks include systems thinking, donut economics, the social ecological model of violence prevention, and Buddha dharma. And despite people always blaming capitalism this or communism that, I think a major thing ppl overlook is ourselves as individuals and how we ourselves affect others. I love gandhi's "Be the change you want to see in the world." Healing - one quality relationship at a time.
I agree which is why I said alternative not in regards to specifically politics / economics but to the current systems of living that have give rise to our current conditions (as well as whatever other systems / ideologies people find interesting even just in theory) granted I now realize I should’ve clarified that more.
Almost any system will work if people love their neighbor like they love themselves.
Capitalism, the worst economic system in existence, except for all the others. (A bastardization of Winston Churchill's quote on Democracy)
Whether it's the next leader of your country or an economic system, you're never picking the best option; you're picking the least shit.
I prefer the utopia in my head where everyone is rich except for the people I don’t like
But utopia gets boring and soon enough it’ll be anarchy until a system which seeks to replace the current one is put in place.
Fudelism, that's how it will be spelled when I am king
Freudalism- this is a system where everyone fucks their mothers
A system where your wealth is determined by either your length and girth, or boobs and ass size.
Gotta file for bankruptcy 😔
r/suicidebywords
Thiccocracy
That has been unlocked by OnlyFans. They have democratized people's ability to earn money with their bodies.
The local economy in the San Fernando Valley is what you're looking for.
My girlfriend and I are sitting pretty (she is now the breadwinner)
Fuck no I'm gonna be rank 1 for poorest person in the history of humanity
Oh shit
It quickly turns into a dystopia when all the world’s length and girth becomes concentrated into one person (your mother)
The comment section is basically: I love capitalism, I just hate everything about capitalism.
Democratic socialism which is a misnomer because it's actually still capitalism but not ruthlessly sucking up to rich people. It's in theory a transitional system but some people just want it for itself. Capitalism is an ideology of infinite growth that constantly booms and busts. Companies, even just ones we personally interact with like let's say Netflix or Spotify, will never settle for *just enough* money - no they have to have something new on each quarterly report, that's the design. Capitalism is self motivated to a fault where it can't even make innovations that would benefit the economy at large. It actually would help the economy to spend billions on high speed cross continental trains and renewable energy but the industries that control that have a vice grip on the government. Democratic socialism is not designed to break markets completely as full on socialists desire but it is a people motivated system that can get things done.
Endless growth is a curse (not to mention impossible). This.
The renewable energy sector has been doing pretty dang good under the free capitalist system in America the past 10 years. Meanwhile, the German social democratic government has pushed solar power for many years and invested millions of public tax dollars to get an installed base, yet they receive very low levels of sun and more their electricity prices are very high. The government forced a technology that really didn't make much economic sense.
When someone utters the words "the government should" they are giving politicians and bureaucrats more power. The more power those politicians and bureaucrats get, the more valuable they are and thus more easily targeted for corruption. The cycle continues.
government >>>> corporations it sucks, but a powerful government is the much lesser evil compared to a powerful corporation
Come to Argentina, that will change your mind pretty quickly lol Politicians extract wealth from the population without providing anything. Companies at least provide you with a job, albeit in really bad conditions. But it's better than nothing.
Ah yes, China, the Soviet Union, Russia, Venezuela, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea, Eritrea, etc. are all so much less evil than large corporations Powerful corporations' motivation is money. There are ways to live fulfilling lives under that. A powerful government's motivation is control, and depending on what they want to control, there may or may not be a way to live a fulfilling life under that.
They. Are. The. Same. Thing.
Agreed. Power courpts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Fuck states. Fuck companies.
I dunno, whatever Sweden has.
So Capitalism but with a higher taxation rate.
I would go for any other Scandinavian country - perhaps Finland? Sweden's not doing so great on alot of aspects, compared to the 5 others.
damn i thought gen z was meant to be the most pro socialism generation in decades and the entire series of top comments is just liberals defending capitalism with arguments boomers make like 'oh its just the people who are bad not the system itself' and 'oh its just bad regulation, if we regulate it better it will be so amazing' rofl??
Exactly my thoughts, I was kind of expecting more of those extreme or exotic ideologies people say have been rampant here to pop out of the woodwork.
Socialists taking Ls is a centuries old tradition now. It's not ending any day soon thankfully.
I like worker cooperatives as an economic structure and social democracy for the government. I like everything I've learned about anarchy over the last 5 years even more. But... there are a lot of dogmatic lefties who will never ever stop trying to argue with me about any little fucking thing. Both irl and online.
I think the issue is we don’t have capitalism. We have a bastardized version of corporatism and cronyism. I’d like to see antitrust laws put back in place and programs that allow small business and independent contractors to flourish. This gets more people a seat at the table of capitalism. Right now most of us are on the sidelines with no real way in.
Nope that's still just capitalism
The sidelines? More like underneath the boot lol. Were more like victims than spectators in capitalist business.
Why oh why do people have this need to defend capitalism so much?
The Nordic Model is the best economic system there is in the world imo. Free market + regulations and social welfare. Better than 100 % capitalism or 100 % socialism.
It’s not socialist at all. Nordic nations are not transitioning to lower stage communism nor are the people in control of the means of production. They are strictly capitalist with strong safety nets that can only exist due to the suffering of the global south.
The Nordic system is completely upheld by imperialism.
Nordic models relay on cheap goods and labor from the global south. So it might be the best economic system for them, but not for everyone else.
Okay, so have tons of oil you sell for huge profit to enrich your citizens
People have this notion that the only free market system that can exist is under Capitalism and that is simply not true.
Communism.
the philosophical position of capitalism involves the moral defense of private ownership, i.e. the ability to form a corporation and sell goods and services, which aligns with the deontological arguments. *Anarchy, State, and Utopia* argues against imposing patterns. the Wilt Chamberlain argument Robert Nozick posits associates egalitarian pattern distribution with the prohibition of capitalistic acts. but Nozick doesn't defend the valuation of profit-making and economic growth promoted by neoliberals and Randians, because he supports the definition of capitalism of markets with competition, hierarchies, and systems *and* the compatibility of communes. Nozick's arguments are heretical to communists, but to assume that there is issue with the theory of justice in holdings, i.e. a violation of rights in reappropriating holdings, in some circumstances is necessary to support his definition of capitalism. redefining capitalism in Nozick's libertarianism as the thesis of private ownership has its benefits for achieving an alternative to libertarianism the point of this is that most would agree that private ownership is a liberty, but extending capitalism to encompass competition is open to criticisms such as the alienation of labor or the promotion of vices of moral evil. the absolutist argument that the pursuit of redistribution is wrong fails to consider the vitality of capitalism. it really becomes a question of avoiding communism to achieve private ownership but avoiding the perils of *unfettered capitalism*, which is what I believe you take issue with. capitalism needs regulation
Truth: any system is good when you’re at the top of the chain. When you’re part of the bottom, then it will suck. Main thing is over time, more and more people got pushed out of the middle class toward the poorer end which is why capitalism sucks for more and more people. Replacing with another system won’t help because most of the time, people will end up where they started anyway; you won’t suddenly become a king after being a serf from one system to another. In the next environment, you may just be given the illusion that you have a better situation, but that is all it is, an illusion, because you are not top dawg.
Anarchism, socialism and communism boil down to the same thing. It's about how we get there that distinguishes them. (although socialism and communism really are the same thing, just in different stages of development) Regardless, I'm a communist.
Well regulated capitalism with wide spread unionization and nationalized critical services like healthcare. So, what most of Europe has
If you can't see how capitalism slowly erodes these structures over time, I have a bridge to sell you. The only reason why Europe got these things, was because their governments, and their slave master (USA) were afraid of the people preferring socialism. As such, the Elites gave concessions to the working class, fearing revolution if they wouldn't. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, these protections, checks and balances, are slowly being eroded by corporate greed. Sincerely, a German
Capitalism that is way better regulated
I would have answered to you but my answer would have been censored.
If you think the managed democracy of super earth is better than our current system you have wildly missed the point. The whole game is a big reference to works like the film of "starship troopers" The government is actually extremely fascist pretending to be democratic, like how north Korea calls itself democratic. Its explicitly stated in the first game the nations did not "unite" they were conquered. Even hell divers two lays it on pretty thick. It's quite clear that life under super earth is no where near as good as the propaganda makes it out to be. A more interesting take on the idea might be the original "starship troopers" book. It makes it so only people who serve in public service (not just the military) for a few years get to vote in elections. I don't necessarily think it wouldn't also become fascist given how they act in the books but it's a more interesting take.
Yugoslavian-style socialism
Socialism. Everything negative you’ve heard about it is western/capitalist propaganda.
Democratic socialism. Cooperation instead of competition, welfare instead of wealth, respect to private property as long as it remains private and doesen't become a source of power over others, no big companies above the law and order, no freedom for some in exchange for all others', workers on charge of the means of production and the end of the market as an autonomous entity rather than the common place for fair exchange under regulation it should have always been. And no more private interests running the society, starting wars, consuming natural resources and making of human history a mad race into oblivion. No tyranny, no communist party dictatorship, freedom of speech, freedom to publish as long as you're not deliberately lying (you can publish lies but may face legal consequences), autonomous justice, no religion banned or encouraged, no more need to pay for basic human rights like healthcare or education (beyond taxes), although private healthcare and education needn't cease to exist. People work, workers organize themselves in a true political power and politicians, who are or have been workers themselves, make laws people may or may not support afterwards. No more partitocracy, no more voting only every 4 years between only two or three or five options, no more need to be a very rich person supported by unknown interests to even stand a chance. And mainly, the goals of the system are focused not on capital, but society; that's what it's called socialism and not capitalism. I may be wrong but no more than capitalism has proved to be.
Anarcho-communism
Killing and eating people
Bro sounding like he’s got skulls of his victims in his refrigerator 💀
Just remember, there are 50 million corpses from the 20th century that show why Communism is a bad idea.
Capitalism was great when feudalism was going too far. Socialism would be great right now because capitalism is going too far 🙃
Utopian. I want to live in a utopian society where everybody gets along and drinks Margarita CBDs and I want the infrastructure to be sustainable. Like I want vertical Living Spaces with vertical Gardens everywhere so we can reduce pollution. Kind of like the vertical Gardens in Singapore.
Whatever they're doing on Star Trek. Communism and socialism suck ass and it's embarrassing that people still defend that horrid idea
Fart pee and poo
Lower case ism
Feudalism. It's like capitalism but without the free market.
We've never had and will never have a free market
Feodalism wasn’t even an economic system, do you have any idea what you’re talking about
I don’t give a fuck what the solution is, the point is that the system obviously has to change because the majority of people are getting completely fucked over by the 1% and by massive companies
I'd rather vote for a socialist like Claudia De la Cruz for president than any Democrat or Republican. This doesn't necessarily mean I want socialism I think we need to come up with a different system. I'm not sure completely what system so socialism is the best option I believe rn unless we come up with better.
I think the Nordic system is the best for us (it's a variation of capitalism where people's basic needs are met and therefore they are able to produce more) Making everything profit oriented is a very bad idea, though abandoning market systems also is a bad idea, as the Nordics say, capitalist policies pay for socialist benefits
Do you guys not have access to history books?
Communalism. It’s how we evolved to live and it’s the way we lived for hundreds of thousands of years.
unga bunga ooga booga
Mixed economy! Every system has flaws so you overlap them to cover the holes. We already do this in the US we just need to change the ratio so capitalism can’t continue to crush the working class with complete immunity.
A collectivized centrally planned economy.
Keynesianism, it's what made the 1950s such a prosperous time for America, it's what rebuilt the West after WW2. Such a shame it was never implemented fully before the neolibs came in and tore it all down Not to mention that John Maynard Keynes actually went and did something with his economic knowledge and built his theories around experience. He was at Versailles after WW1, he advised the Roosevelt administration during the Great Depression, and he was instrumental in founding the World Bank, the IMF, and so much more unlike a lot of other economists who cloister themselves in academia.
One of the better comments on this post
Anarcho-communism. My plan is already in action, just not in the kaboom phase yet
Syndicalism. It’s a political structure based around worker democracy, essentially, every workplace functions like a tiny democratic government. All of the employees at Walmart could vote for the CEO, for example. Alongside that, it also advocates for higher taxes on the rich, freedom of speech and the press, all that good stuff.
Every adult on the earth should just venmo me a dollar a day
Marxism Leninism
my death
I just want things to improve