unregulated anarcho-free market capitalism. THAT’S the problem.
In a real free market, the banks that committed so much fraud in 2008 that they crashed the economy wouldn’t have gotten bailouts.
GM and ford both went bankrupt multiple times from their own greed and stupidity. In a real free market, they wouldn’t have gotten bailouts. Or the airline companies, no bailouts for them in a free market either.
that wouldn’t be a free market. The idea of a free market means that working hard makes you go farther. But our economy punishes hard work and rewards constant failure.
I understand what you’re saying, but what a free market is supposed to be on paper isn’t what we have. What we have is an oligarchy dicatorship.
No, in a real free market the banks would lobby to be bailed out. Removing even more regulation from it would result in more lobbying. Even with anti-corruption measures, without worker ownership or massive Unionization, eventually these protections will slide back once someone more opportunistic takes office.
Worker Ownerhship and decentralization are the correct path, rather than antidemocratic Capitalist production.
Capitalism acts like a car hurtling down a highway with no brakes, powered by the roaring engine of industry.
Its insatiable thirst for growth and profits accelerates industrial activity to reckless speeds, steamrolling environmental concerns in its pursuit of relentless expansion.
Industry isn’t the villain; it’s merely the engine being pushed to its limits by capitalism’s uncontrolled, destructive momentum.
Whatever social economic model which can funnel power and authority to the very top is bond to ruin us. Humans are too greedy to sit at the top of such hierarchies.
Yep, that’s why decentralization is so important, and why leftist organizational structure ie decentralization and democratization of production is going to be so critical moving forward.
Besides what another commenter noted about indistrialization being product of capitalism and then fierce competition, here’s one more thing:
Do you see all those green activists buying reusable bags? Taking their bottles, recycling everything? Well, this has already been there in the past, and most notably - in socialist countries. Pretty much till its death USSR, for example, heavily favored reusable things, there just weren’t plastic bags and plastic bottles and all that waste, and recycling, especially of glass and metal and paper, was a super normal thing and people got money/trade-in for that.
What kind of f*cked up argument is that? I don’t think the climate models were quite as advanced back then.
They had no idea that influencing the global climate was even a possibility, so you can hardly judge the morality of their decision-making by how much CO2 they produced. Or do you want to blame them for not building enough solar panels as well?
The problem with capitalism in this regard is not that it produced a lot of CO2 back in the days, but that it won’t stop even after learning about the destructive effects.
The USSR totally knew about climate change being a thing. Climate change is not a “new thing”. Oil companies have known about it for almost a century now, they built their oil rigs to withstand rising sea levels for example.
Fedorov’s article appears to be one of the earliest direct engagements with the problems associated with climate change and, more specifically, anthropogenic climate change in the Soviet Union. However, this theme received more concerted discussion and debate from the early 1960s. Two meetings of particular note took place in Leningrad in April 1961 and June 1962, both of which were organised by the Main Geophysical Observatory in tandem with the Institute of Applied Geophysics and the Institute of Geography and brought together a range of Soviet scientists, including geographers, in order to discuss the ‘problem of the transformation of the climate’ (see Gal’tsov, 1961; Gal’tsov and Cheplygina, 1962).
Capitalism provides incentives to externalize as many costs as possible (such as pollution), and incentivizes and cannot even function without growth (which leads to more resource usage and pollution). Just because the forms of government/society under Stalin and Mao were also bad for people, doesn’t mean capitalism is not also bad for people.
Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution are inseparable from one another. The failure of 20th century Socialist states to adequately address green energy goals can be attributed to rapid industrialization to attempt to keep pace with Capitalist entities.
Going forward, the reason why Green Energy isn’t the standard in the US is due to oil companies, not efficiency. The profit motive stands in direct confrontation with the good of all.
That’s just Climate Change, too. Capitalism’s failures of hierarchical and consumerist nature will exist as long as Capitalism exists.
Not every problem is because of Capitalism, but many are, and at the end of the day this is just a meme.
Many people have problems related to income inequality. We went to college, got good jobs, and we still don’t have enough money to maintain the lifestyle we were promised. We don’t live in a socialist country, we live in a capitalist country.
What were you promised? Like, owning a home? Home ownership rates in the US have been in the 63-70% range during all of 1966-2023, almost completely stable. Local purchasing power is #5 in the world for americans. What exactly is the problem over there?
We in Europe are having it much worse if you look at the data, especially now when Russia is being fucking Russia.
So 30% of people can’t afford their own house and that doesn’t seem like inequality to you?
Income inequality is a completely different thing from home ownership. Also, some of those 30% choose to not own a house. Also further, the average home ownership rate in EU is almost exactly the same as in the US, but our local purchasing power tends to be quite a lot worse.
Perhaps things are different where you live, but where I live, there’s always a significant additional bureaucratic cost when selling a house and buying another one. Because of that, renting has at least a single clear benefit beyond just being able to afford it: greater flexibility. Also, the financial risk is almost zero when you rent.
there’s always a significant additional bureaucratic cost when selling a house and buying another one.
This really only affects landlords and estate agents. Most people looking for a home are looking for a place to stay for life, and any “bureaucratic cost”, if you’re purely talking about red tape, form-filling, phone calls etc, is more than worth it for a lifetime home. Again, citation needed. If you’re talking about a literal monetary cost… whoa, look at that - capitalism!
renting has at least a single clear benefit beyond just being able to afford it: greater flexibility
“Flexibility” is a daft measure, only useful for people who plan to move often, which, again, is not common, except in the case of people needing to move often for work, which - hey, it’s capitalism again!
Also, the financial risk is almost zero when you rent.
“Almost” is doing a lot of work in this sentence. The risk of being made homeless by your landlord for petty reasons is a pretty clear risk. Having your rent hiked is a financial risk. Having to bite the bullet and choose an expensive place to rent because it’s the only one reasonably close to work is a financial risk. Being under someone’s thumb to provide them income is itself an inherent financial risk.
And by the way - what do you think causes the financial risk of home ownership, since you’re so intent on proving my point for me?
Try and think a little more deeply. An accident in itself is not a financial risk. Even flooding isn’t inherently a financial risk. Do you know what is?
Also, “market changes” is a part of what I’m pointing at ;)
Ok, so which multiple award-winning, widely respected PhD of Economics would you suggest instead? Or you just against things instead of having any positions of your own, like most other deep-end socialists are?
For one, I wouldn’t recommend a clown that supports removing the minimum wage, or argues that colonization was a good thing. Recommending a far-right Chicago economist, who is far-right even by Chicago school standards, is laughably absurd.
I have many positions of my own. Decentralization is key, as is democratization, and this extends to production. I think protecting worker power is key, and I think Imperialism and colonization are terrible. As such, I can’t agree with recommending Sowell.
All of those are reasons why I’m a leftist and am on Lemmy, rather than a Capitalist site like Reddit.
By the way - are you unaware of the incredible self own inherent in this? In your attempt to “recommend” a book for more information on these issues, you recommend “basic economics”. Well…
Makes bad jokes, doesn’t reply to actual content or even check out the book I recommended, assumes content from book title. Calls me a coward for making bad jokes.
Dude. It was entirely a deflection. Answer my fucking comment. I have literally no need whatsoever to respect your “recommendation”. It was an attempt to avoid answering my statements and nothing more than that. So go ahead, answer. Or are you too scared?
Also, I have Cowbee’s statements to lean on, which you yourself conceded to, to know what the book is like.
It’s also clear that people who deny the extent to which capitalism actually makes the world worse either a) don’t know what capitalism is, or b) are rent seekers
You weren’t replying to the meme, you were replying to someone else in the origin of this fork of the comment chain. I’m implying that you in particular have no nuance.
Fair enough, but again, you somehow had even less nuance and pulled the classic bit of feigning superiority.
Edit: oof, you unironically suggest Sowell in another comment as a good resource. Looks like I’m correct, the superiority was indeed completely unfounded.
Instead of berating him for not leaving a robust enough comment for your taste, why don’t you ask for more information? Calling capitalists uninformed or rent seekers is way more unfair than alluding to historical or economic evidence to the contrary. The latter clearly leaves itself more open to good faith discourse, getting nothing out of it has simply been a failure on your part
So the act of commerce is ethical but the source of the commerce might not be? I feel like I’m being really obtuse here and I apologize but goods and services could be stolen or forced and rarely is legislation enough. But I can totally see two unknowing people engaging in trade at their free will for items they don’t know are stolen.
I feel so pessimistic about the world at times that I find materialism and ethics just don’t mix.
Commerce deals with the distribution of value, production with the creation of it. So let’s say there is a widget factory. If one person “owns” it and thousands work to make widgets, their production is stolen through ownership, which causes deeper issues beyond the obvious as well.
Commerce doesn’t cause problems as it’s just resolving a situation of swapping the widgets you made for carrots. Barring some market-twisting forces like the stock market for example, a simple free market where you’re happy with the amount of carrots you get for the amount of widgets you get is fine.
The evil of capitalism is not that you can trade. The evil of capitalism is that you go to work, and receive a fraction of the product of your work while someone else who does not work at all receives a lot of it.
Technically the current capitalist western system would be socialist, if employment without ownership would be outlawed, and coops were the enforced norm.
I think you’re making a discussion into a spit fight for the sake of feeling better about yourself. I ask because I want to understand and for no other reason.
I think the ethical part may have to do with the following from Wikipedia on commerce:
The diversity in the distribution of natural resources, differences of human needs and wants, and division of labour along with comparative advantage are the principal factors that give rise to commercial exchanges.
I do not see how the commercial part is necessary for the distribution of goods though and recognize it as the main culprit in making such a system unethical. I.e., supplying needs is good and necessary, however a commercial platform is not.
Not only capitalism entirely based on the hierarchy of ownership, but it also reinforces already existing social hierarchies as those in power receive more profits and capital, and thus more power and influence in a broader society. You cannot say hierarchy is bad and be pro capitalism. Leftist ideologies are ways to try to democratize the economy, which flattens hierarchy. Anarchism is inherently anti capitalist.
Capitalism is fundamentally hierarchy established in property rights. Doing away with hierarchy does away with Capitalism. Unless, of course, you’re arguing for Anarcho-Communism or something.
This is the neuance. Could there be a fair form of capitalism? It depends upon the systems and the people that run them. Centralisation of ownership is the next step beyond the centralisation of power, because after a while they become intrinsically the same. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, absolute wealth corrupts absolutely.
But also, the stock markets which can be beneficial are also forms of glorified gambling where the house always wins, the commodification of the housing market, the silly notion of shell and shelf companies (easiest, most effective way of side stepping regulations and laundering money), debt slavery, the price gouging of life saving medicine, the race to the bottom where costs, quality of product and salaries need to be cut, where the line between product and service becomes thinner for every day to the point where you retain less and less ownership by each year, which you can’t really blame anyone for, because all of these systems are designed to be a constant, churning, soul killing rat race, turning the pace of life to a literally unlivable speeds, which also reveals that even the ones up in the hierarchy become degenerate with greed, mostly because they live so far up that their human brains can’t fathom the effect they have down the chain, because it goes against their interests.
Instead of then going on another witch hunt, we need to look at these systems and the effects they have on the human psyche.
No there cannot be a fair form of capitalism because it is centered on exchange. You have to center your life on turning your time into a profit to afford the whole rest of society’s product also sold at a profit, at its most basic level it is unsustainable.
Add comment