that's the problem, there is no perfect system. capitalism sucks for sure, but it's the best one we have (imo)

that's the problem, there is no perfect system. capitalism sucks for sure, but it's the best one we have (imo)

I just don't see how it's possibly the best. What does it succeed at? What benefits does it provide that are desirable from a purely human standpoint, rather than a standpoint manufactured by capitalism itself (e.g. "I can buy a new fast car" or "I can collect more green paper than the other guy", things that are fundamentally meaningless and distracting)

I don't think there's any proof that greed is a more powerful motivator than empathy, but even if that's true doesn't it sort of seem like something we shouldn't lean into?

This post was last modified: Dec 22, 2020 at 9:36 PM by Spritanium.

Like, I think the appeal of capitalism is supposed to be "trickle down" theory which has been demonstrated to be false many times. When corporations increase profits through more sales, tax cuts, whatever, they don't spend that money on raising wages or hiring more employees. They buy back their own stocks and automate jobs away. This is because the motivator in capitalism is profit, profit, and more profit. There is no incentive under capitalism to work toward the common good or improve the state of humanity in any way. So it requires a shitload of regulations to even approach something that works - which might be fine if politicians' campaigns weren't funded by the same people who are in charge of corporations lol

that's the problem, there is no perfect system. capitalism sucks for sure, but it's the best one we have (imo)

I just don't see how it's possibly the best.

Well, what others economic systems are there and what are their track records?

The only leverage regular people have under capitalism is their labor, and in like 20 years that'll be obsolete. So how could this possibly be a good system, let alone the best one

If we continue under this framework we're going to need UBI just so people actually have money to spend on the shit these corps and their robots are producing. So we're looking at a destiny where our whole existence is being a billionaire's sugar baby with no hope of ever becoming self sufficient. That sounds like it sucks to me

that's the problem, there is no perfect system. capitalism sucks for sure, but it's the best one we have (imo)

I just don't see how it's possibly the best.

Well, what others economic systems are there and what are their track records?

Maybe if the US would fairly compete with a communist country without wasting a bunch of our money on stopping them, we could find out

I mean it seems like if an idea is really good, it should work on its own without needing to literally crush alternative solutions in totally unrelated places before they pick up too much speed

Even if it was true that no economic system is perfect, capitalism clearly isn't working. People are suffering under the boot of their corporate overlords rn.

You're right, but I would argue that capitalism is actually working perfectly at its intended purpose, which is a race to the bottom to see how much we can possibly reduce wages + the quality of products to provide greater profits to stockholders

Even if it was true that no economic system is perfect, capitalism clearly isn't working. People are suffering under the boot of their corporate overlords rn.

It isn't, but would you exchange that for an extremely controlling government's boot instead?

Even if it was true that no economic system is perfect, capitalism clearly isn't working. People are suffering under the boot of their corporate overlords rn.

It isn't, but would you exchange that for an extremely controlling government's boot instead?

The thing is we already have an extremely controlling government, and it's one with no direct democracy and no focus on the issues common working people are facing. I can deal with a bunch of rules and protocols and committees (I'm already doing it right now) if they are decided democratically, whereas right now they're decided by people who have a ton of money

Socialism/communism get treated as the antithesis of democracy and I don't really get why. In theory these ideas are just applying democracy to an economy, where it is sorely needed. In practice, well, who knows, because the US keeps stomping on everyone's sandcastle for like 100 years

Even if it was true that no economic system is perfect, capitalism clearly isn't working. People are suffering under the boot of their corporate overlords rn.

It isn't, but would you exchange that for an extremely controlling government's boot instead?

The thing is we already have an extremely controlling government, and it's one with no direct democracy and no focus on the issues common working people are facing.

be glad you don't live in europe

Europe is big on social democracy which has a historical tendency to just sort of allow fascism to take hold in the interest of not offending bigots

Im also not an expert on the whole "minutae of how every little aspect of a society is structured" thing but from where I'm standing the solution to the "big scary oppressive government" problem regarding socialist society is organizing the systems of government in a horizontal, decentralized manner where hierarchy is limited wherever possible and individuals operating within the systems aren't given the ability to manipulate the powers they're given through a combination of term limits and giving the populace the power of recall. Having singular leaders/chains of successors essentially christened by the previous leader is a Genuine Problem that flys in the face of the entire core ideals of striving for a non-heirarchal, classless society, and likewise the idea that "the state'll just get rid of itself when it's not needed anymore" is laughable

It’s probably true that structuring a socialist society would be more difficult than structuring a capitalist society, but that's not an excuse to keep a society built inherently on oppression and the theft of the value of labor around. Putting caulk on a rotting foundation might temporarily keep People able to walk on it, but it's only delaying the inevitable before the floor eventually gives out

that's the problem, there is no perfect system. capitalism sucks for sure, but it's the best one we have (imo)

I just don't see how it's possibly the best. What does it succeed at? What benefits does it provide that are desirable from a purely human standpoint, rather than a standpoint manufactured by capitalism itself (e.g. "I can buy a new fast car" or "I can collect more green paper than the other guy", things that are fundamentally meaningless and distracting)

depends how specific you get. is capitalism a "for profit society" and communism a "for the people society"? well then yeah people are better than profit.
but there has never been and will never be a for profit country or a for people country. countries that are referred to as capitalist still take non-profitable actions like building roads, providing unemployment checks, funding health care etc. communist countries famously slaughter their own in droves and clumsily attempt cover-up.
the comparison doesn't quite make sense then. are you comparing a real country, say the United States, to a fictional country? are you comparing two fictional countries of Money Land and People Land? how do you know that the fictional country is one that could actually exist? are there people both willing and able to run a country solely for the needs of their countrymen with the resources required to pull it off?
that point about ability is very important. looking at Mao Zedong's infamous "Great Leap Forward" we see tens of millions dead as a result of awful, impractical governance in the name of creating a functional communist society. the problems of impossible requests, fear that failure would be tantamount to treason, and simply nonsensical beliefs about the basics of running a country led to mass deaths. pol pot's communist government in cambodia fell to almost the exact same problems.
theoretically, if you had a more intelligent humanitarian, and collaborative group of people band together in a government you could maybe sidestep those problems. but where are they going to come from? there's not a whole lot of unclaimed land left. are they going to seize power from an existing government?
if that's the case, you end up with a country run by a private militia. skipping the actual war part which is impossible in many parts of the world, seizing power by military force inherently means your leader firmly believes in and has a history of murdering his political opponents. it would seem to be an inevitability that the Stalins and Pol Pots and Zedongs of the world are the only ones who could take power over an existing country.
if you aren't willing to engage in terrorist action or civil war, you're not taking over an established country. those people work in government, or with universities that cooperate with government, or private organizations that influence voter opinion. that method is infinitely slower than violent revolution, of course, but every single civil right we have was guaranteed through those processes, not by the slaughter of the Ruling Elites.

You've described realistic concerns that can only be explored once people look beyond the dismissive "communism has never worked" attitude. The problem I have with that statement in particular (and I know you didn't make it yourself) is that it's not much of a statement at all, because it doesn't assign a standard for what "working" means. It has worked in the past at usurping plutocratic empires, that much is certain

I'm concerned about the examples you've used in your argument. Building roads, providing unemployment checks, and healthcare are all things a capitalist country CAN do if it feels like regulating capitalism. The mantra of the economic system itself is to maximize profits, so already we can see a divide between the priorities of capitalism and the priorities of good people. This is a system that can only work if it is restrained, i.e. disallowed from fully accomplishing what it's meant to do

Meanwhile, those same things are all things a communist country would be doing by default, with no restraint required. The economy would be planned to make sure people have access to these things. If it fails at doing so that's another issue entirely, but I would take a government that fails in an honest shot to provide, over a government that succeeds at trying no such thing

Then we get to slaughtering citizens in droves, which has nothing to do with any economic system on earth, except perhaps capitalism which requires the implicit threat of death in order to function. I don't want anyone to die at all, but is slaughtering someone because they dissented from collectivist thought really worse than letting somebody die because they dared catch an illness? I think it's a wash; both of these things are awful to do. The difference is only one of these things is a natural result of the economic system it takes place within. Slaughter of citizens is not required by communism in theory. Letting unprofitable citizens die to make an example out of "lazy" people is more or less required by capitalism at a fundamental level

I would rather trend toward communism, a theory that revolves around collective ownership, than toward capitalism, a theory that is all-encompassing, injects itself into every facet of our lives, and has the potential to kill the shit out of you whether or not you decided to play by its rules

if you aren't willing to engage in terrorist action or civil war, you're not taking over an established country. those people work in government, or with universities that cooperate with government, or private organizations that influence voter opinion. that method is infinitely slower than violent revolution, of course, but every single civil right we have was guaranteed through those processes, not by the slaughter of the Ruling Elites.

I'm gonna focus in on this part in particular but consider this a response to your general post
1) I think you have the misconception that historically, revolutions are things that individual people will into happening, rather than a last resort reaction by a populace who have suffered oppression after oppression and are driven into a corner. I agree with you that movements being headed by individuals isn't exactly the ideal, as any movement that puts power into the hands of an individual runs the risk of that power being abused.
2) You also have a deep misconception about how social change has actually been achieved throughout history. Appealing to the conscious of the ruling class doesn't work because they have the power to say "no" and are opposed to what you want due to their material position. Working from the inside doesn't work because it both requires generations of waiting to actually get any meaningful change (in the meantime, the oppression continues) and additionally, individuals opposed to the actual demands of the masses have a tendency to make decisions "on behalf" of them, coopting the movement and defanging it so as to not threaten the powerful, and leaves what little progress does get made in the position to be overturned promptly when the other guys are in power. Protesting "the right way" does next to nothing because again, they just ignore that shit.
Additionally, the statement "every single civil right we have was guaranteed through those processes, not by the slaughter of the Ruling Elites" is proof how effective the historical revision is when a movement that *did* use violence and/or destruction of property actually leads to results. Slavery was ended after a fucking war. Labor rights were fought for tooth and nail by organized, armed labor unions who were gunned down by a combination of police, military, and private security forces. The civil rights movement was organized through direct, illegal action against racist institutions, including both peaceful protests AND riots, and when MLK was assassinated there was a straight week of rioting and the most intense civil unrest the country had seen since the Civil War, before the government's hand was forced and the Civil Rights Act was rushed through.

I think we're approaching the point where this is less policy discussion and more history which is a definitely citation needed per the op in the thread

I think discussion of history is fine, considering how much of it has been covered up or twisted on behalf of protecting the current social order. It's useful to clear up misconceptions about history

I welcome it, but you need sources unless you want to encourage us to trust randos online