Hi all,

I’m seeing a lot of hate for capitalism here, and I’m wondering why that is and what the rationale behind it is. I’m pretty pro-capitalism myself, so I want to see the logic on the other side of the fence.

If this isn’t the right forum for a political/economic discussion-- I’m happy to take this somewhere else.

Cheers!

    • cannacatman@kbin.social
      7·
      1 year ago

      A more highly regulated capitalism with high business taxes and no loopholes so companies pay their fair share for operating in a market that provides them their revenue.

      There should also be nationally controlled resources instead of privatizing them (internet should be included with water and power).

      That would be a good start.

      • DJDarren@beehaw.orgEnglish
        5·
        1 year ago

        To my dying day, I won’t understand why anyone (who doesn’t benefit from it) could think that privatised utilities are a good idea. The last forty years have seen a steady decline in, well, every aspect of formerly publicly owned industries in the UK, but stans for capital still wang on about how publicly owned utilities in the 70s were crap.

        Crap, maybe, but a damn sight fucking cheaper.

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        3·
        1 year ago

        im here with you. capitalism is fine in cases were there is significant and robust competition. for things that are not necessities and in all cases there should be significant oversight and regulation by a democratically elected goverment over it.

      • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
        4·
        1 year ago

        Please identify where this concept currently exists in the real world and is currently successful.

        Edit: I’m a socialist, and yet all the hypocritical communists here that are using devices made using capitalist infrastructure with the money they earned participating in a globalized capitalist market are coping by down voting me and rather prefer not answering the question.

        • planetaryprotection@kbin.social
          5·
          1 year ago

          Worker cooperatives (and often cooperatives in general) are an example of this. They almost always exist within a capitalist system, so are not able to completely separate themselves from all aspects of capitalism, but they are definitely examples of common ownership of means of production.

          Specifically you can look up the Mondragon Corporation which is probably the biggest/best known example of a workers cooperative but there are many others. There are lots of variations on this same concept - one where risk, rewards, and decision-making are shared more equitably among everybody participating. I think the most interesting are food co-ops (and sometimes CSAs), utility cooperatives, and housing cooperatives. These are all over the place and are often quietly successful examples of common ownership.

        • NewDark@sh.itjust.works
          3·
          1 year ago

          It’s hard to when any of those experiments have been met with bombs, embargoes, coups, and other fuckery

        • linuxoveruser@lemmy.ml
          1·
          1 year ago

          Asking why collective ownership of the means of production does not exist in our “globalized capitalist market,” while denying or ignoring the efforts of the Unied States and other rich capitalist nations to actively prevent any such nation from ever existing, is disingenuous at best. The United States in particular has a long history of involvement in regime changes / coups of left-wing governments, even those instituted by entirely democratic means.

          • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
            2·
            1 year ago

            Ok, so throughout the several tens of thousands of years of modern human civilization, there have been different kinds of economic systems, all of which had cultures that were supported by them and utilized their economic systems to attack each other relentlessly.

            Why has free market globalized capitalism survived so well consistently the entire time?

            Are you seriously trying to argue here that communism is so weak it can’t survive attacks from the outside by a fragile failure that is capitalism?

      • MxM111@kbin.social
        2·
        1 year ago

        May sound good on paper, but everywhere where it was tried, nothing good happened. There is something in human nature that makes it inefficient and have tendency to become dictatorial state. Socialism (in classical sense) is just worse system in practice, as many countries in 20th century demonstrated.

        • NewDark@sh.itjust.works
          5·
          1 year ago

          If I try to grow some tomatoes, and by the time they’re sprouting out of the ground, my neighbor tramples them and lights them on fire, does that mean that I can’t ever grow tomatoes and they’re doomed to fail?

          • MxM111@kbin.social
            1·
            1 year ago

            Yes, until you do something about your neighbors.

            In case of (classical) socialism, since it is tried in many countries, I will argue it will fail again, unless something is changed. And I am arguing that that something is human nature. So, while we are the same humans, this will not work as effective as capitalism.

            Ironically, I think Karl Marx understood this. This is why he was arguing for world-wide revolution. But Lenin changed this into “building communism in a single country”. Since half of the developed world continued to be capitalistic, it become quite obvious that people in capitalist countries live better (on average), and the soviet empire disintegrated.

            • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
              3·
              1 year ago

              Marx definitely did not believe capitalism would produce more surplus than scientific socialism. However, I doubt he believed it was a switch you could throw and suddenly have a more productive economy. His point was that you could approach the problem scientifically. Through hypothesis testing and experimentation you could develop something more rational than the anarchy of the market.

              That said, communist governments haven’t ever found themselves in a position where they can safely experiment with a planned economy. The USSR was struggling for decades to defend itself from foreign adversaries. That’s why it developed a tightly controlled and powerful bureaucracy which eventually led to it’s downfall. It’s also why China and Vietnam decided it was safer to experiment with market reforms given that they are at an economic disadvantage to capitalist countries. Other attempts at building a socialist economy have been thwarted by either US backed coups or sanctions, as was the case with Chile and Cuba.

          • ExecutiveStapler@kbin.social
            1·
            1 year ago

            Who trampled on the Russian tomatoes? (Don’t say the Nazis, they trampled on everyone’s tomatoes including their own) For Russia, there was some small scale support for the whites during their civil war, but otherwise trade between the Soviets and the west increased year by year during the NEP period until Stalin purposely contracted it (if someone knows more about this period, feel free to correct me. I’m working off of information I learned in classes years ago and this article that matches with what I remember). I’d propose that the Soviet issues were internal due to blindly ideological governance that crippled their economy and society. They didn’t have to make such an insane number of nukes, create the culture that caused Chernobyl, nor invade Afghanistan.

            Otherwise, who trampled the Mainland Chinese tomatoes? They basically won their civil war, their only issue was blind allegiance to chairman Mao that resulted in disaster after disaster. The West didn’t force them to try the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the Down to the Countryside ‘Movement,’ nor the One Child Policy. The CCP did those to themselves, and they only found success once Mao died and they made their economy more capitalistic.

            And then once more, who trampled on the North Korean tomatoes? At the beginning of their war, they tried to crush the South’s tomatoes until a UN authorized force pushed them to the Chinese border and then a Chinese force counterbalanced to the current borders, but otherwise the North was economically better off once the stalemate began (the Japanese centered their industrial developments in the north). North Korea failed because of dramatic mismanagement and a ideology of constant militarism while the South, with ups and downs, prospered.

            Sure, there were military actions, police actions, and garden trampling that harmed both sides during the Cold War, but you can’t just blame your enemy for beating you, you have to recognize why you lost.

          • Bipta@kbin.social
            1·
            1 year ago

            No, but that’s not quite an accurate portrayal of the history of collectivist governance.