You can tell that this audience is primarily American because they still defend capitalism, even after being shafted by it over and over. Careful everyone, big bad socialism is going to take your kids and your wife!
Don’t dare dream of something better, instead keep swallowing the propaganda of the state and its controlling elites.
Man socialism keeps sounding better and better they will even take those pesky wife and kids off my hands/s.
But in serious most Americans don’t know shit about socialism our capitalism they live under. Dumb fucks look at you with surprise when you mention our highway system would be considered socialist program.
Roads and streets are funded 100% from taxs which make them a social program. I know not true 100% socialism but it’s as close as the United States will allow.
Also most Americans always going on especially fucking Republicans and their voter base about how the government should be run like a business. But don’t realize the government should never be ran as one.
which make them a social program. I know not true 100% socialism
This is part of the problem of people not knowing what socialism even is. Even the ancient slavery systems could have social programs (for example famed Roman grain handouts in Rome), and the first modern, universal state funded social programs were introduced in 1889 in German Empire. neither of them was by any means socialist because socialism is not when the government does stuff.
The closest you get in America to socialism is public libraries and free school meals. And they managed to make the latter controversial and, if not, incredibly shitty.
Who paid for the roads, fire department, police, Military, postal service, bridges, dams… Shall I go on?
You think taxing people and using that money to fund public infrastructure and services is pure capitalism that’s operating without socialist principles?
Most socialist states are better after their revolutions as opposed to before. The USSR went from a borderline feudal society to putting people in orbit in 50 years. Additionaly, socialist states outperform capitalist ones in similar wealth categories.
That would be a decent question if we had examples of socialist experiments that were actually left alone to develop and not invaded 2 sevonds after america heard about them
Most socialist states are better after their revolutions as opposed to before. The USSR went from a borderline feudal society to putting people in orbit in 50 years. Additionaly, socialist states outperform capitalist ones in similar wealth categories.
Depends on what you mean by socialism. All systems have upsides and downsides. Late stage capitalism in the US has a lot of downsides, but workers taking over the means of production does not have a good track record.
Why complain when capitalism ruins something that it created? Isn’t that how it works? Something else will come along and don’t better or differently and people will flock to it until it sucks too.
Because it’s unsustainable and actively degenerates everything in its environment in pursuit of an insatiable need for capital growth.
Saying capitalism isn’t that bad is like saying early stage cancer isn’t that bad. It doesn’t change the nature of the cancer and what it will become unabated.
Going with the cancer metaphor, what does “late-stage” capitalism look like? How do we know that it will happen? Are there any other possible timelines that has something resembling capitalism but is not terrible? Capitalism is a pretty broad term that can describe all types of economies from the american gilded age to modern social democracies, and while I would certainly consider various forms of extreme capitalism to be cancerous to a functioning society, are they truly representative of all types of capitalist systems?
Anti-capitalism is centered around removing power from holding capital. By tying power to capital, there is an incentive to accumulate capital in disproportionate exchange.
Anti-capitalism is NOT anti-market. Markets are an economic tool used in all economies. Socialism is offered as an alternative to shift power to collective agreement through direct vote (direct democracy) or reprentative agreement (republic). By not granting economic goverance to a democratic government, there is a limitation on the ability to keep commodities responsibly sourced and consumed.
Capitalism means that we vote with our dollar and when those with capital have more votes and those without, they control policy generation and governance.
Based on your definition of what it means to be “anti-capitalist” vs “anti-market” I think there may be a difference between the definitions of capitalism we are working under. Could you give me your definition of capitalism?
While I do understand that non democratically accountable forms of economic activity may harmful or explotative in many situations, I do also see the argument for private ownership of “the means of production”, in so far as it can be beneficial to the overall effectiveness and efficiency of production and innovation. I don’t think anyone can scientifically or even philosophically completely justify one economic system over the other, and that so far, a mix of the two has been what most countries have settled on.
Capitalism means that we vote with our dollar and when those with capital have more votes and those without, they control policy generation and governance.
One last thing I’d like to point out, while in capitalism, the collective choices of those with money decide what products are made and services provided, this decision power doesn’t (and shouldn’t!) in well-functioning democracies extend to the government. I do understand the concern of large accumulations of wealth causing large imbalances of power which then affects government policy, and I believe this is a major problem (especially generational wealth). But I do not believe it is one that cannot be prevented and protected against, nor do I believe it is a defining property of “capitalism”.
The article seems to characterize efficiency solely in the context where it optimizes a process to the detriment of other useful aspects of the process (i.e. removing redundancy makes a system more “efficient” in some sense, while also making it more prone to disruption).
Putting aside the article’s weird definitions, I do like the article’s overall message: grow slow and sustainability rather than as “efficiently” as possible. I can see how the impulses of growth at all costs and short term efficiency gains at the cost of long term stability might be related to certain forms of capitalism, however capitalism is not defined (as in the definitions given in your other comment) by rampant disregard for caution and sustainability, (there are capitalist societies today known for their careful planning and risk management!). Capitalism as a concept is only defined via private ownership of capital, so I think my original comment still stands: capitalism is good, sometimes.
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
noun An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
from The Century Dictionary.
noun The state of having capital or property; possession of capital.
noun The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
noun An economic system based on predominantly private (individual or corporate) investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and wealth; contrasted with socialism or especially communism, in which the state has the predominant role in the economy.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
noun politics, uncountable a socio-economic system based on private property rights, including the private ownership of resources or capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
noun economics, uncountable a socio-economic system based on the abstraction of resources into the form of privately-owned capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
noun countable a specific variation or implementation of either such socio-economic system.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
noun an economic system based on private ownership of capital
Most of these definitions (with the exception of the Century Dictionary) would suggest a definition for “anti-capitalism” as primarily being against an economic system based on private ownership of capital, not the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. While these two things are compatible and perhaps even causal, they don’t inherently require each other. You can have extreme wealth in a non capitalist system, or a capitalist system with strong caps on wealth accumulation. Perhaps a better description for your position would be “anti-extreme wealth” rather than “anti-capitalism”?
Communism does not have a good track record in places like Poland. After the absolute shithole that the PRL was, I dont kniw how you except people to defend communism.
Did they say communism? I don’t think they said communism. In fact, I’m pretty certain they said socialism, which is not the same thing unless you’re a propagandized American who licks boots.
Communism is not the only alternative to capitalism, my dude.
You can tell that this audience is primarily American because they still defend capitalism, even after being shafted by it over and over. Careful everyone, big bad socialism is going to take your kids and your wife!
Don’t dare dream of something better, instead keep swallowing the propaganda of the state and its controlling elites.
Man socialism keeps sounding better and better they will even take those pesky wife and kids off my hands/s.
But in serious most Americans don’t know shit about socialism our capitalism they live under. Dumb fucks look at you with surprise when you mention our highway system would be considered socialist program.
Sounds interesting, what does that mean?
Roads and streets are funded 100% from taxs which make them a social program. I know not true 100% socialism but it’s as close as the United States will allow.
Also most Americans always going on especially fucking Republicans and their voter base about how the government should be run like a business. But don’t realize the government should never be ran as one.
The corruption already bad enough.
This is part of the problem of people not knowing what socialism even is. Even the ancient slavery systems could have social programs (for example famed Roman grain handouts in Rome), and the first modern, universal state funded social programs were introduced in 1889 in German Empire. neither of them was by any means socialist because socialism is not when the government does stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq0EYo_ZQVU
Just wanted to put the clip here. :D
They should be forced to run their businesses as businesses - no more bailouts
All these big names seriously run their businesses like social programs.
Yeah, run America like Elon runs Twitter. Absolutely brain dead
The closest you get in America to socialism is public libraries and free school meals. And they managed to make the latter controversial and, if not, incredibly shitty.
And the GOP and their far right cronies are trying to get public libraries shut down.
American here and fuck capitalism.
Hey now, that’s unfair!
As à Canadian, I can attest that we also blindly defend capitalism.
We are poor and our freedoms are exploited, but at least we’re free!
That’s right, real freedom is being able to scream into the void without actually having the power to improve your material conditions. :)
Is there a communism society that has succeeded? Lol
Can you name a pure capitalist state that’s succeeded without socialist elements keeping it afloat?
Follow-up: Why hand money to the leeches that do nothing but own shit rather than the workers that fuel the economy?
Well I’m not starving and I can choose how to live my life.
I’m not currently dying, so that’s about as much as I can ask for.
You do see how cucked you are, right?
You didnt answer my comment.
If you can’t point to an actual capitalist society that’s succeeded, why would there be any meaning in pointing out a communist one that has?
Look around you
Who paid for the roads, fire department, police, Military, postal service, bridges, dams… Shall I go on?
You think taxing people and using that money to fund public infrastructure and services is pure capitalism that’s operating without socialist principles?
😂
Feel free to try again… I’ll wait.
Maybe solution is somewhere in the middle, not one of extremes?
We’ve already tried the middle
This
Most socialist states are better after their revolutions as opposed to before. The USSR went from a borderline feudal society to putting people in orbit in 50 years. Additionaly, socialist states outperform capitalist ones in similar wealth categories.
The USSR collapsed and it was later discovered that it had major internal issues
who says the only alternative to a shafting capitalism like you have in the states is pure communism?
This instance
Where?
Lemmy.ml
That would be a decent question if we had examples of socialist experiments that were actually left alone to develop and not invaded 2 sevonds after america heard about them
Most socialist states are better after their revolutions as opposed to before. The USSR went from a borderline feudal society to putting people in orbit in 50 years. Additionaly, socialist states outperform capitalist ones in similar wealth categories.
Did they get to the moon? /s
Anyway they aren’t around today without capitalism (modern russia) so your point is kind of useless
Depends on what you mean by socialism. All systems have upsides and downsides. Late stage capitalism in the US has a lot of downsides, but workers taking over the means of production does not have a good track record.
Why complain when capitalism ruins something that it created? Isn’t that how it works? Something else will come along and don’t better or differently and people will flock to it until it sucks too.
I like capitalism. It is cool sometimes.
(Comment gets downvoted to oblivion)
Edit: would someone care to explain why there are no cases in which capitalism is cool?
Because it’s unsustainable and actively degenerates everything in its environment in pursuit of an insatiable need for capital growth.
Saying capitalism isn’t that bad is like saying early stage cancer isn’t that bad. It doesn’t change the nature of the cancer and what it will become unabated.
Going with the cancer metaphor, what does “late-stage” capitalism look like? How do we know that it will happen? Are there any other possible timelines that has something resembling capitalism but is not terrible? Capitalism is a pretty broad term that can describe all types of economies from the american gilded age to modern social democracies, and while I would certainly consider various forms of extreme capitalism to be cancerous to a functioning society, are they truly representative of all types of capitalist systems?
Edit: spelling
Careful this sub is full of people who are actual communists.
I like communism too, it can be cool sometimes as well.
Anti-capitalism is centered around removing power from holding capital. By tying power to capital, there is an incentive to accumulate capital in disproportionate exchange.
Anti-capitalism is NOT anti-market. Markets are an economic tool used in all economies. Socialism is offered as an alternative to shift power to collective agreement through direct vote (direct democracy) or reprentative agreement (republic). By not granting economic goverance to a democratic government, there is a limitation on the ability to keep commodities responsibly sourced and consumed.
Capitalism means that we vote with our dollar and when those with capital have more votes and those without, they control policy generation and governance.
Based on your definition of what it means to be “anti-capitalist” vs “anti-market” I think there may be a difference between the definitions of capitalism we are working under. Could you give me your definition of capitalism?
While I do understand that non democratically accountable forms of economic activity may harmful or explotative in many situations, I do also see the argument for private ownership of “the means of production”, in so far as it can be beneficial to the overall effectiveness and efficiency of production and innovation. I don’t think anyone can scientifically or even philosophically completely justify one economic system over the other, and that so far, a mix of the two has been what most countries have settled on.
One last thing I’d like to point out, while in capitalism, the collective choices of those with money decide what products are made and services provided, this decision power doesn’t (and shouldn’t!) in well-functioning democracies extend to the government. I do understand the concern of large accumulations of wealth causing large imbalances of power which then affects government policy, and I believe this is a major problem (especially generational wealth). But I do not believe it is one that cannot be prevented and protected against, nor do I believe it is a defining property of “capitalism”.
On the topic of efficiency: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/3/17/the-tragic-downside-of-efficiency
The article seems to characterize efficiency solely in the context where it optimizes a process to the detriment of other useful aspects of the process (i.e. removing redundancy makes a system more “efficient” in some sense, while also making it more prone to disruption).
Putting aside the article’s weird definitions, I do like the article’s overall message: grow slow and sustainability rather than as “efficiently” as possible. I can see how the impulses of growth at all costs and short term efficiency gains at the cost of long term stability might be related to certain forms of capitalism, however capitalism is not defined (as in the definitions given in your other comment) by rampant disregard for caution and sustainability, (there are capitalist societies today known for their careful planning and risk management!). Capitalism as a concept is only defined via private ownership of capital, so I think my original comment still stands: capitalism is good, sometimes.
These seem good: https://www.wordnik.com/words/capitalism
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
from The Century Dictionary.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
Most of these definitions (with the exception of the Century Dictionary) would suggest a definition for “anti-capitalism” as primarily being against an economic system based on private ownership of capital, not the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. While these two things are compatible and perhaps even causal, they don’t inherently require each other. You can have extreme wealth in a non capitalist system, or a capitalist system with strong caps on wealth accumulation. Perhaps a better description for your position would be “anti-extreme wealth” rather than “anti-capitalism”?
Finnish person here to say fuck socialism.
What are your criticisms of how Finland is run?
Communism does not have a good track record in places like Poland. After the absolute shithole that the PRL was, I dont kniw how you except people to defend communism.
Did they say communism? I don’t think they said communism. In fact, I’m pretty certain they said socialism, which is not the same thing unless you’re a propagandized American who licks boots.
Communism is not the only alternative to capitalism, my dude.
Absolutely correct.
If I don’t swallow the propaganda, I don’t swallow anything. We’re hungry, man.
You can swallow my 🍆 instead 😉