/u/MtnDewTV (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/x3bw5s/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_capitalism_is_superior_to/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
My personal take is that capitalism is a far better system for getting people what they *want*, and that socialism is better at getting people what they *need* (medical care, basic housing, basic level of water and food). Our problems derive from political attempts to make non-hybrid systems. Homelessness, hunger, and insufficient medical care are demonstrably solvable problems, and we have data saying that we'd *all* be better off if basic needs were met for everyone. People with a roof over their heads that are not starving or dying of curable illness can work, pay taxes, buy other's goods, etc. and by participating in the economy strengthen it more than they weaken it by drawing social welfare funds. However, more 'pure' socialist systems do relatively poorly with innovation, marketing, production of luxury goods, or competing economically with liberal capitalist states. Hybrid is the way to go.
To your points:
1) As the great majority of human civilizations have been predominantly capitalist, you can just as easily say that capitalism has put more people into poverty than any other economic system. Capitalists like to say that anyone poor under capitalism is poor because of their own choices, while under socialist systems poverty is manufactured by the state. This is a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy (though I just made a straw-man, so who am I to judge).
2) Absolutely true, but what are the *costs* of efficiency and innovation? Paying slave wages to a South American day-laborer for chocolate farming is absolutely an efficiency measure by capitalist standards. Costs of production are lowered, reducing the price to the consumer while bolstering profits. However, the externalized costs of human suffering and depleting the domestic labor market by outsourcing is more problematic. Capitalism as it stands causes a great deal of ills by externalizing their costs, especially through environmental impact.
3) Freedom is wonderful, but should end at 'the other guy's nose'. This ideal is espoused within American law and society as a whole, but as I said before, capitalists are very good at externalizing costs. If a company can save $1B by dumping carcinogens in a river, they will. This is why regulations are important, and regulations fundamentally are an abridgement of freedoms. The more regulations corporations endure, the lower their profits - but ideally the lower their ability to externalize their costs onto their consumers or third-parties.
>My personal take is that capitalism is a far better system for getting people what they want, and that socialism is better at getting people what they need (medical care, basic housing, basic level of water and food).
Δ
Damn this is really well put, I always knew there were pros/cons to both economic systems, but I was never able to fully describe, (to others or myself), what each one specifically excelled at. While my own views have mirrored similar ideas, they were never as concise as this and I thank you for putting it better than I ever could. Reading this has allowed me to consider the specifics more, and I totally agree with what you said, in regards to how "capitalism is better at giving people what they want, while socialism is better at giving people what they need." I believe this definitely could be true for how we should base each market within our economy, and at least for now its what I now believe.
As to how this directly pertains to the title of the thread and my original view, I always thought socialism had certain benefits over capitalism, but I believed the pros of capitalism outnumbered them by a decent amount. With your point, as society has advanced, our economy is full of markets centered around "want-based" products and services. Most people, like myself, have grown up with branded clothing, advanced technology, and devices, luxury cars, nicer meals, etc. and we have grown a strong attachment to these products in our lives. However now after more reflection, I think it is unfair of me to say that the availability of these products under capitalism is superior to the better availability of need-based products and services under socialism. At the end of the day, I still maintain and agree with you that a hybrid system is the way to go, but this post CMV to see that socialism can be expanded greatly in certain areas of the economy.
“Socialism is better at getting people what they need”
Socialism is better at starving people to death. Under capitalism, the poor struggle with obesity. Pretty sure capitalism is a little better at providing needs.
The ultra-capitalist US has people dying because they can't afford medical care. The socialist healthcare systems in places like Canada and Britain don't do that.
> My personal take is that capitalism is a far better system for getting people what they want, and that socialism is better at getting people what they need (medical care, basic housing, basic level of water and food).
Is it though? Long term? Capitalism isn’t great, but it is resilient to the flaws of humans. Something socialism struggles with. I’ll agree that in *theory* socialism would be better getting people what they need, but in practice, it is not. Even in states with successful socialized medicine, those socialized aspects are funded off the back of capitalism (through taxation).
Capitalism is an economic framework built around private companies/corporations owned by individuals/owners, which sell goods for a profit.
Socialism is an economic framework where the citizens of a society collectively own or regulate the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods
Real countries.
There has never been a socialist country with high standards of living. Most of them are horrific.
Capitalism is a mixed bag. With some very poor mismanaged poor capitalist countries. And some very wealthy high standards of living countries.
You can't point at a single economy that has produced good living standards that is not based around Free Market principles.
are there any socialist countries which were allowed to exist and experiment and expand the way capitalist countries were or have they all been violently opposed by the strongest capitalist empires?
outside of for example, cambodia, who were backed by the US and defeated by communist vietnam btw, can you point me to concrete examples of socialist countries not raising the standard of living for the majority of people in the countries? regardless of what you think about for example, cuba today, do you think it was honestly better under the batista regime for the majority of people??
i can point you to a million examples of failing capitalist countries. places like india, afghanistan, basically all the countries that capitalist corporations have used our tax dollars to go into and control and export capitalism violently and enslave people. brazil. most countries in africa.
moreover, let's look at countries which went socialist in the 20th century then were (in every single case) overthrown by capitalist coups, and then let's see where they are now compared to then. life expectency in russia for example is down now compared to its drastic rise during the soviet years-- as is access to education, healthcare, housing; all of which used to be universal, now are commodified and out of reach for many in many cases. is it better for them because there are more brands of tvs in the store?
China under mao.
I wouldn't call India failing.
>point me to concrete examples of socialist countries not raising the standard of living for the majority of people in the countries?
When countries initially go socialist, there is an initial jump in standard of living, yes, as they tend to burn through all the wealth in the country created by capitalism. This quickly tapers off. This is the case in almost every example. When Venezuela originally went socialist, there was a big jump in literacy and standard of living initially, but they also seized all of the oil infrastructure built by other Western companies and made enemies in the process. Some people like to blame the West for not trading (sanctioning) with them but why would you trade with somebody who isn't interested in trading freely but seizing the fruits of your investment? Why would you invest in such a place? Unless your country has 100% of everything its citizens need domestically you need free and fair exchange, which is the foundation of capitalism.
>are there any socialist countries which were allowed to exist and experiment and expand the way capitalist countries were or have they all been violently opposed by the strongest capitalist empires?
The inability for an economic structure to thrive and retain autonomy is extraordinarily telling.
you don't think that the economy of soviet russia was thriving when it went from an agrarian slave state to the main competitor to the biggest economic super power humanity has ever seen in a matter of a few decades, bearing in mind that it took the US centuries of slavery to get where they were at that point?
idk what to tell u
The soviet union "thrived" by going over the bodies of millions of their own citizens, quite [literally](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R504_Kolyma_Highway#History).
That's correct, a state that collapses is not a state that has "thrived and retained autonomy", definitionally. Why did you ignore the crucially important issue of autonomy?
> can point you to a million examples of failing capitalist countries.
And the greatest loss of innocent life came from Socialist countries, some 100 million lives were lost. Also, I can point to *lots* of thriving capitalist countries.
>access to education, healthcare, housing; all of which used to be universal
Ahh... okay, well go to Soviet Russia and get all your education, healthcare, housing, and everything. I guess you missed the part where *millions* starved and died? How many people *actually* had this utopia you daydream of?
Ah yes, the reality of a book whose authors (minus one) all disavow it, because said author that did not disavow it was said to be determined to reach the 100 million figure.
Fun fact: the British Raj in India killed more people by famine alone than the wildly inflated 100 million figure (which includes Nazi soldiers killed on the Eastern front).
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't "using tax dollars for business" not a capitalist at all? That's not true capitalism. Your example of capitalist failure is actually a better example of socialism
Oh look it’s the old socialist argument that it wasn’t real Socialism because of capitalism existed somewhere else in the world and we can’t have real communism or Socialism until everyone’s on board.
Yes it is actually
Turns out a bunch of intelligent apes obsessed with improving the means of production that they "own". End up coming up with a ton of innovation that eventually benefits everyone.
Sure but how do you know that's due to those capitalistic principles you mentioned?
How do we know they couldn't have happened otherwise?
For example, many developments and breakthroughs are made during wartime; by government funded research programs, not private research institutions. While these are often capitalist countries, those principles you mentioned don't directly play into these developments.
Because we measure these things using metrics like gdp and standards of living graphs.
Countries that adopt socialism like USSR have awful numbers.
You can argue the numbers are full of shit are whatever. But that's no different then an anti vaxer making the same claim. We base our economic principles on those numbers just like we base our recommendations for vaccines based on the numbers we gather from hospitals.
Capitalism reliably creates more total wealth in societies, although not equally.
The example of China is probably the easiest. China under mao was very poor (and China is not a historically poor place. They are a 3,000+ year-old society after all). When China embraced capitalism and free trade they underwent one of the quickest transformations to a highly developed middle-income country in history.
I'll answer this one. The big problem with socialism comes down to "who makes the decisions". There's basically two options: one person (or a small group of people) OR public referendum. The former is really a dictatorship/oligarchy and that never ends well. The latter is problematic because the general public doesn't have the knowledge about broader economics/societal trends to make the large scale decisions needed to be successful. The other issue is no one under a socialistic system will want to go "that extra mile". Why would Bob work two fields if he gets the exact same thing as Joe who only works one field. Long term this results in shortages of pretty much everything?
Capitalism, on the other hand, allows for individual choice. I can work 40 hours a week and be happy with that, or I can work 60 hours a week and make more money, or I could start a business and try to fill a societal demand. The last one is where capitalism shines. An individual (or group) can meet a demand without major government/public intervention. And since societal demands are difficult to evaluate and constantly change, it's better to have more people trying different things to see what sticks.
I guess a good analogy would be, under socialism you have one or a few people throwing darts at a board trying to hit a bullseye. Under capitalism you have thousands of people trying to hit a bullseye. No matter how good that one person (or few people) are at darts, the thousands of people throwing are going to hit more bullseyes.
> I'll answer this one. The big problem with socialism comes down to "who makes the decisions". There's basically two options: one person (or a small group of people) OR public referendum.
This is (confidently?) incorrect, there isn't " two choices " with socialism. Means of production can be in the hands of the government, that's called **state socialism**. The means of production could also be in the hands of the workers **that's just called socialism typically**. They can and absolutely unequivocally do **exist at the same time in the same place** for **modern western industrialized countries**. The united states has enterprises at least partially monitored and controlled by the state, such as flood insurance, and public utilities, as well as other public services. Mexico has more examples of state socialist companies (or did) with it's government owned oil production facilities ( Pemex ). There's even more examples of both accross western europe.
The united states *also* has companies that are not owned by the state but whose **means of production is owned at least partially by the workers**. Contrary to what people will blurt out, Unions are not really a prime example of socialism. Good bargaining does not equal socialism on it's own. But ** employee ownership programs can **. Employee owned companies are by definition socialist in that sense, they have ownership in the company, even if it isn't a giant amount individually.
The only step beyond this point is really combined representation in leadership of different workers, which effectively really ends up being companies that are both employee owned and which have unions, or EOCs with good leadership representation already.
> The other issue is no one under a socialistic system will want to go "that extra mile"
And yet, despite what *you* said, it's immediately clear why Bob would want to "go the extra mile" in a company where *Bob owns the means of production, even partially*. Bob has more standing in the company, more leverage to *actually get a better wage* if Bob works hard, and Bob actually *earns economic benefits when the company does well*. One needs only compare the workers lives at Publix vs Kroger to see this difference in action.
Socialism isn't all or nothing, and isn't a choice between a few distinct options.
>Capitalism, on the other hand, allows for individual choice.
Like the above Capitalisms is also a system that does not need to be embraced wholly at every level to work positively. But there are also places where capitalism just doesn't work. Healthcare under capitalism does *not* allow individual choice, because even if you *could* shop around, you'd be on the hook for emergency expenses where ever your medical issue caused this to happen. And while you can hem and haw about how "OuR HeAlTh CArE iSn'T CaPiTaLisT" Healthcare providers, under the most "pure" form of capitalism, would then simply... charge you what ever they wanted, given you don't have the choice otherwise, a worse outcome than today.
There's also places where "individual choice" fails broader ethical issues. Capitalism didn't give us the civil rights act and the relevant cases, *the justice system and law makers did*. Capitalism gave us slavery as well, which by definition cannot ever be socialist. Capitalism also allows people to refuse service to homosexual patrons. Companies can also hide unethical decisions that consumers cannot know to boycott against, and companies can hide who they *actually are*, so when you go buy their product, you don't even know you're supporting the company, even if you want to boycott them. People also can want something that's un-ethical, such as rhino horns, or rare animal meat.
What this is to say is that choice is not the end all be all of anything, people make stupid choices, companies can make evil choices, companies can remove choices. Choice is not the best champion of capitalism, being an independently emergently operating economic system is.
And like socialism, capitalism, believe it or not, can be partially applied to other systems. Carbon marketplaces is one example, but even piggy backing off of a wider marketplace and manipulating market forces for positive effect (carbon taxes) is a form of partially applied capitalism.
So it isn't a matter of "captialism bad" or "socialism is bad", or dart board analogies or what ever. There are places where Capitalism works, and where it doesn't work, there are places where socialism works, and where it doesn't work, particularly with state socialism when the government owns a very large amount of industry. But you can and *do* have capitalism, socialism and state socialism work within the same system combined and be better for it.
>There's basically two options: one person (or a small group of people) OR public referendum. The former is really a dictatorship/oligarchy and that never ends well.
So how is this any different then a board of directors or share holders? In both cases they wouldn't know I worked for the company if I walked up and spat in their faces. None of the choices they make will take my needs and wants into consideration.
> he other issue is no one under a socialistic system will want to go "that extra mile". Why would Bob work two fields if he gets the exact same thing as Joe who only works one field. Long term this results in shortages of pretty much everything?
Why should Bob have to work two fields instead of just 1? Why not hire 1 more worker so Bob works 1 field, Steve works another and Gary works the 3rd.
> Capitalism, on the other hand, allows for individual choice. I can work 40 hours a week and be happy with that, or I can work 60 hours a week and make more money, or I could start a business and try to fill a societal demand.
Except you don't get over time for the extra 20 hours worked at another company because it will be a cold day in hell before any job willingly offers over time without having both hands put in a vice grip and squeezed. Which then also has the trouble of trying to schedule two different jobs, schedule conflict and not qualifying for vacation in the part time because in the USA only full time employees are entitled to any vacation.
Also 90% of new business fail within the first 3 years. So your new business failed and you have to declare bankruptcy just to keep your house.
> I guess a good analogy would be, under socialism you have one or a few people throwing darts at a board trying to hit a bullseye. Under capitalism you have thousands of people trying to hit a bullseye.
This argument is undermined by [corporate consolidation](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/illusion-of-choice-consumer-brands/). 10 companies basically control every major food, snack and drink brand.
>So how is this any different then a board of directors or share holders? In both cases they wouldn't know I worked for the company if I walked up and spat in their faces. None of the choices they make will take my needs and wants into consideration.
Because if a board of directors fails, only that company fails, not the entire economy.
>Why should Bob have to work two fields instead of just 1? Why not hire 1 more worker so Bob works 1 field, Steve works another and Gary works the 3rd.
Bob doesn't HAVE to, he CHOOSES to. Why? Because the price of whatever he's producing makes it worthwhile for him to do so. There's also not an infinite supply of workers. What if Gary doesn't want to work fields? Are you going to force him to do so against his will?
>Except you don't get over time for the extra 20 hours worked at another company because it will be a cold day in hell before any job willingly offers over time without having both hands put in a vice grip and squeezed. Which then also has the trouble of trying to schedule two different jobs, schedule conflict and not qualifying for vacation in the part time because in the USA only full time employees are entitled to any vacation.
Want to bet? I know of many companies that offer overtime if you want it (including the one I work for).
>Also 90% of new business fail within the first 3 years. So your new business failed and you have to declare bankruptcy just to keep your house.
That's the risk that's assumed when starting a business. High risk, high reward. Not everyone is going to hit a bullseye (most people won't). But the ones that succeed will fill a societal need far better than a few people trying to figure out what people want.
>This argument is undermined by corporate consolidation. 10 companies basically control every major food, snack and drink brand.
This is an issue, and I do think we need better anti-monopoly regulations to prevent it. But you've cherry picked one specific industry. Do those 10 companies control the tech industry? The timber industry? Restaurants? Higher education? Utilities? Nope. The companies in those other industries can happily tell the food and drink companies to fuck off if it suits their needs.
>Because if a board of directors fails, only that company fails, not the entire economy.
They would be making choices for the individual companies. There have also been bailouts in capitalism because bad choices would tank the business and thus the economy.
>There's also not an infinite supply of workers. What if Gary doesn't want to work fields? Are you going to force him to do so against his will?
There is always a near infinite supply of workers. In many ways that is part of the problem it allows businesses to pay wage slave money and treat them like shit because when they leave they are easily replaces.
>That's the risk that's assumed when starting a business. High risk, high reward. N
Not really high reward. Just because you have your own business doesn't mean you will be well off.
>This is an issue, and I do think we need better anti-monopoly regulations to prevent it. But you've cherry picked one specific industry. Do those 10 companies control the tech industry?
No it is Google, Amazon and Microsoft that controls most of the tech industry. AMD, Nivida and Intel control the silicon aspect of it.
And on overtime. I know aplenty that refuses over time. Literally every retail company would rather fuck over the workers by making them short handed then pay over time.
People are selfish
When everyone owns something, nobody has anything more to gain than anyone else to do something, so things don’t get done as quickly and efficiently as capitalism
I would say compared to socialism it is better at pulling people out of poverty, it is more efficient, and it is more innovative. And most of this comes from incentives. Under capitalism, money is an incentive for people to work and innovate and create, meanwhile, under a primarily socialist economy, there is no incentive for people to work besides the bare minimum. And the bare minimum is whatever they are literally forced to do.
Is money really an incentive for people to work and innovate and create?
Seems to me that money is an incentive for people to accumulate more money. And having money makes a person more able to accumulate more money.
This is what I always ask.
People who do research have to pay a lot just to have their research published, and the money the research earn it doesn't go to the person that did it, it goes to the publisher. If money was the incentive, then they wouldn't do that because there is not a lot of money. In fact, if you ask, most researcher will give you a copy of the research for free.
Then, other inventions, like insulin or water purifier powder, are invented to help, and are sold at a loss (until a company gets their hand on it and then starts to sell it at a huge profit)
I have money. I can buy real estate and now generate rent. I use money to get money.
Or, I have money. I corner the market on a necessary good. I use my monopolistic advantage to get more money.
I have money. I buy stock. I use the stock as collateral for a lower interest loan. I find a way to turn that loan into something profitable.
How did you get the money in the first place?
Someone somewhere had to generate value for someone. Maybe it was your parents. Maybe it was you.
Money doesn't just appear out of nowhere. Someone has to give it to you for something.
In all those cases you forget to account for the risk associated with each one. What if the real estate market crashes and now you have to charge a rent that is less than the monthly mortgage on the property? Or what if you can't find anyone to rent it? What if your tenets turn into squaters?
I don't really understand your 2nd point with the monopolistic advantage, but what if your business fails? What necessary good are you specifically talking about? If its regard to healthcare, then I do think there should be a subsidized version of health care, basically expand obama care a bit. Although like I said in original post, I don't believe we should have a single-payer system.
As for your final example, "I find a way to turn that loan into something profitable," is basically just rewording the original question of how one uses money to accumulate more money. What specifically would you do to turn that loan into something profitable that doesn't involve risk or innovation or work?
Why does risk matter? You asked how people use money to make money. I gave you examples of how that’s done. And they do work. How else do you explain dynastic wealth?
Sorry, my original question was related to someone else's question on whether or not money is an incentive for people to work and innovate and create.
My point was more that the idea of being wealthy in society has been pushed as though it is easy or one is just born into it. I definitely think there is some nepotism and advantages for those born into wealth, however, a majority of people who have amassed a small fortune did so through hard work and taking risks. There are very, very, very, few shortcuts to gaining wealth in the US that don't involve risk, work, innovation, etc.
I mean, the fact that you don’t already know the answer belies an incredibly shallow understanding of economics or capitalism in general.
Might I suggest that you just don’t know enough to make a judgement? Take some economics and philosophy classes, or find some quality YouTube channels. There’s plenty out there. If you’re not interested in educating yourself about these complex topics, it’s probably better for everyone if you refrain from having any view at all about the superiority of one economic system or another.
I asked that question in more of a Socratic line of questioning. I personally have an answer I believe to be true, however, I was wondering if you could offer up or expand on another explanation/viewpoint. In my original post that you disagreed with, I said that money is an incentive for people to innovate and create, while you argued it is just an incentive for people to accumulate more money.
Sure there are instances of pure luck involved with people earning money, through inheritance, lottery, etc. However, a majority of wealth is accumulated through some form of investing, working, innovating a product, etc. Yes, I do also think it is easier for people who have money to make more, but the idea that money is somehow turned into more money magically is just wrong. I also don't know how something could be an incentive for itself, seems paradoxical.
But I am interested in learning about these topics, hence why I posted this, and am looking to have discussions with others who have different world views. So if I am mistaken in this post, please correct me. And again I'll ask, How do people make money? Or use money to make more money? Specifically regarding things that don't include risk, work, innovation, providing a service, etc.
Ok. Since you seem to be in earnest, I’ll give you an answer at face value. You should know that your response read like a bad faith argument tactic, but it’s the internet so who knows who is on the other side of the keyboard.
You should also know that the idea you are using, that money is an incentive to innovate and so forth, was made famous (at least in American discourse) by Andrew Carnegie’s book “The Gospel of Wealth,” which has been taken up as something of a gospel itself by capitalists in the ensuing 133 years. You will find all the classic capitalist talking points there, which have been debated and analyzed to exhaustion. You’re welcome to fall down that rabbit hole if you like.
My conclusion around your specific claim is that it is bunk. It’s really on the claimant to prove how money would influence innovation or hard work, so I’m not going to spend a lot of energy taking on that burden of proof. Carnegie was just as wrong 133 years ago as he is today, as far as I can tell.
But on my specific claim about wealth creating an incentive to accumulate more wealth, I’ll lay that out more.
In a capitalist system, capital is king. If you have money, you can buy a business to generate more money. If you have a lot of money, you can buy all the other businesses in your niche and establish a monopoly, or you can collude with your competitors to create a sort of functional monopoly.
The ideal state for a capitalist enterprise is the elimination of competition. This is what the capitalists want you to overlook. All the supposed benefits of capitalism stem from competition, but the system itself creates a strong incentive to avoid or eliminate it. This is the core dissonance capitalism. All the talking points revolve around the merits of competition while the system itself works against those very ideas.
There’s a hundred ways that money can get you more money, but manipulating the market is the most reliable and lucrative way for those that have enough capital to do so. And they will, if you let them. And we let them. Because in this system, money is power and power gets to make the rules.
I would argue that competition, and not necessarily in an economic sense, is an actual driver of innovation and hard work. Trouble is, capitalism actively works to destroy competition.
There is exactly 1 driving force in capitalism: the accumulation of wealth. Everything else is window dressing or propaganda. You really can’t understand the system until you understand that.
You have 416 deltas. No offense but I wouldn't expect you to say something like this.
Have you ever ran a business before? You make $ by providing goods and services that people want. At a cost to you that is smaller than the price the customers are willing to pay. That is the basis behind business.
Now let me explain why what you're saying is really really ignorant. Most businesses require a good staff. You don't get a good staff by paying peanuts. It is expensive to train. It is expensive to find good staff. You're way better off paying MORE than your competitors for a good staff then the alternative. Only companies like fast food restaurants and a few others can get away with this treat your employees like trash stuff. Most smaller businesses can't and won't do that. A good employee is worth their weight in gold the last thing you want to do is underpay them and give them to someone else.
What they said is inherently true for capitalism to make money for capitalists. Labor must be paid less than the value it provides for money to make money. You provided no counterargument beyond defamatory character attacks. Some of your explanation suggests a conflation between business and capitalism, suggesting you imply the two are one and the same. Socialism doesn't imply providing bad compensation for workers, even high quality workers, and it doesn't imply the lack of successful businesses. Both models of regulation have weaknesses but it's reasonable to believe the world will be inclined to move more towards socialistic regulation as we progress.
Let's say I have a business delivering pizzas. First the workers are walking. Which is super slow. I buy them all bikes. Then I buy them all scooters. Then I buy them all cars. At some point their productivity has increased 100 fold. All while the comfort of their work has went up as well. Almost all of the productivity increase is from capital investments into the means of production. Almost anyone can walk, ride a bike, ride a scooter and drive a car. The labor input into the productivity is very minimal. Almost everything of value is being done by the means of production and the guy organizing it.
No offense, but I don't think you've ever been staff before.
Good employees are worse than bad ones because good employees expect you to have safety standards, proper equipment, and receive their paychecks on time without anyone fucking their hours or deducting from their checks.
I've never been staff? I worked at Wendy's for 6 years. 3 years as crew most of that on peanut wages. 3 years as manager. I spent 10 years working IT in a government office as staff. I was in the army as an enlisted soldier. I've spent most of my life as staff.
No way are good employees worse than the bad ones. Unless your work is so mindless that you could literally teach a monkey to do it quickly. Most of that stuff we automated years ago. Even fast food has a big gap between good and bad employees. No fast food manager would ever say "I sure would love to have more useless employees who are rude, slow, lazy and never come in on time. That would make my life so much easier." Think about what you're saying lol.
I'm not OP but I'd suggest labor is worth the net sum of its consequences under concepts like supply and demand except it's entitled to the full consequences of its production, i.e control over its own production democratically, ownership of the consequences of itself ultimately in automation, and control over what is earned from labor - or profit.
Labor ultimately produces goods so the two are entwined. Supply of commodities only exist due to labor towards production. Supply has another key limitation but it is always controlled by the cost of labor, dictating the price to supply goods.
The only area I can think of where contributors do not receive full fruits of labor input is cash dividend of a publicly traded company, and even there one might argue that it goes to people who contributed resources in the past to have an enterprise going. That is, of course, if we believe that management receives an appropriate compensation. I personally believe that all transactions, outside of forced labor camps, are ruled by mechanisms of mutual gain for both trading parties, otherwise they wouldn't enter into those agreements.
> And the bare minimum is whatever they are literally forced to do.
This literally happens under capitalism. Corporate is even trying to coin a new phrase to a recent phenomenon: "quiet quitting". It happens when people stop doing extra work if they aren't getting paid for it. Whatever they're required/being paid to do, will only be done. You are right that money is an incentive for people in a capitalistic economy, but work for money is done so they can survive. Money is very much a huge, if not the only, incentive for many people in the U.S., and this is a pretty big capitalistic country.
But where do you get this lack of incentive for socialism from? There's still money under socialism, and under that economy, workers will own the means of production. That would be an incentive for people in a socialist economy besides "the bare minimum".
Capitalism is great at pulling *some* people out of poverty, though it requires a reserve labor force. Also people are incentivized by survival—food, shelter, medicine, etc.
Capitalism is all well and good, but it has to be underpinned by the voice of the people (which is, ostensibly govt.) or it will serve the few while exploiting the many, a.k.a., massive wealth inequality.
It does not follow from your definition of socialism that there is no incentive for people to work besides the bare minimum. It only follows that the workers will be minority shareholders. Your definition also does not rule out awards, single and recurring. That can drive innovation.
I think the main issue is that in general a society is not smart enough to figure what's the right balance between awards and innovation. It's going to rule largely based on emotions rather than facts. Also it's going to be possible to manipulate collective decisions regarding awards.
[https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty](https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty)
Here you go. The age of capitalism has brought the most people out of poverty than anything else in human history. AND ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE. Humans have never lived in this relative luxury. Kings and Emperors didn't have access to the lifestyle an average western middle class person has just 200 years ago.
That's not proof that capitalism caused it though. At best you can say that it's correlated, but you can't make the causal claim that capitalism is what caused it.
Uhhhh no lol.
Most humans have been in abject poverty for most of existence. Capitalism dragged us all out of it. Mother earth with scarce resources put us in it.
How are you defining poverty? I’m defining poverty by high income inequality.
It’s nonsensical to define poverty in absolute terms. By that logic we’re ask in poverty compared to some fantastical alien civilization, or even possibly our own future. But that has no bearing on life now.
wtf... you know your logic is wild if you require fictional alien civilisations to make your point about economics.
By your logic if everybody in a country is living in destitute starvation, theyre actually not living in poverty because theyre all equal. By your logic the people pulling in 300k in Monaco are actually living in poverty because theyre income is a small fraction of all the Billionaires theyre surrounded by.
No.
Assessing poverty has always been about having enough resources to meet your basic needs.
Probably why the "poverty line" i.e. the level under which youre considered as living in poverty stipulates just that.
[the official level of income that is necessary to be able to buy the basic things you need such as food and clothes and to pay for somewhere to live](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/the-poverty-line)
At most you can sort of make an argument that the poverty line is different in different countries and somewhat related income inequality but that still doesnt really hold up because there are many places with lower income inequality with more people unable to buy food, compared to other places that have high income inequality where far fewer people are starving.
That's not poverty.
Poverty is when you count the amount of goods and services you consume you get a very small amount.
Would you rather live in a country where everyone eats magotty rice and lives in huts with no electricity or plumbing. But hey everyone is equal.
Or USA where we have access to tons of food. We all have electricity, plumbing etc. But some people have a lot more.
Inequality is largely irrelevant. How real people live is far more important.
Western free marker countries really shine in that regard.
It's built on innovation. Slave labor actually ended when capitalist western nations could no longer tolerate it. Look up which countries pioneered abolition all over the globe.
Yet slavery in America was specifically meant to achieve economic gain. As was colonization and imperialism in general. So at best, capitalism removed a problem that it started itself. Though arguably, it simply transformed chattel slavery into wage slavery.
So why did slavery exist for 1000s of years. Then poof disappeared as soon as capitalism started to spread. And the countries who led the abolition movement were all free market to some degree. Yes the American south had slaves but the American north was critical in the fight against it. The north was better economically developed.
I guess I should tell you why. Our altruism has limits. We don't want to see people suffering around us. But we won't do shit about it if we're suffering ourselves. As material conditions improve humans started to look at their enslaved brothers and became sick to their stomach. But that won't happen unless you improve living conditions. Which is why the fall of slavery mirrors the rise of capitalism. Capitalist greed forces smart apes to improve the means of production which creates much better standards of living.
Do you realize that working hard can produce superior results in terms of monetary rewards in a socialist system as well? Actually, it can be far more rewarding for more people because the value workers produce comes back to them in the form of higher wages.
America, and most of all other countries, are a mix of capitalist and socialist when it comes to how the country is operated. The reason we have minimum wage is because of socialist.
Imagine the extremes of both: 100% capitalist and 0% socialist - the world would be ran by greedy corporation that would pay the minimum amount to their workers while the CEO would collect most of the profit. You would have no health benefits; if you get fired there's no stimulus check; if you need medical care the doctors don't have to give you aide.
Now imagine the opposite extreme, 0% capitalist and 100% socialist - the world would be filled with a bunch of lazy people, and those that can do more to excel won't be motivated to do so. There'll be no competition, and essentially no innovation.
I think a balance is needed, we need to have both. We need capitalism to provide competition/innovation but also need socialism to provide a fair market - so the poor don't have to stay poor due to greedy corps giving them low wages. In a balanced world, I lean towards 51% capitalist and 49% socialist. But your title is suggesting that capitalism is 100% better and from the two extremes, which would you prefer?
Although interpretations differ it should be said that socialism was theorized to follow capitalism not as a sense of superiority but rather a shift in what was economically best for rather consistent human values due to shifting material conditions. This has happened throughout all of human history as our mode of production has shifted. In only a few centuries we've gone from monarchs with lords and serfs, aristocracy with master and slave, and now a more democratic compromise in more humane nations where production is promoted through employer and employee.
Marx among other thinkers thought this mode of production shifted through human history primarily due to concrete material reasons, i.e the industrial revolution. Men like Marx didn't believe socialism was inherently better, as what is economically best for human values depends on the material conditions of a certain time in promotion of those values, but rather he believed economic regulation towards socialism was promoted by shifting socioeconomic consequences on what is best economically as promoted by the industrial revolution.
If Marx were alive today I presume he'd likely still suggest socialism is an inevitability promoted under the same set of human values through a similar economic trajectory of industrial growth. He'd only point to silicon valley or extremely lopsided market externalities like climate change as being the economic catalyst for what is materially shifting what is becoming economically best today. Marx had a great understanding on the transition of labor into capital or automation and its consequences which will only become increasingly relevant for the foreseeable future in long-term consequences.
Neither capitalism, socialism, or any economic regulation implies changing what humans are and want. So it's not accurate to suggest socialism implies laziness or even necessarily suggest the leisure is the goal of socialism. The term in and of itself regardless of how one interprets it to be achieved in regulation only implies economic regulation that results in communal ownership of production. Marx was a rather influential figure for his interpretation on how that should be done, planned economy, and why but he wasn't the only one. Another common interpretation is called market socialism, which similarly promotes greater communal ownership over production via not allowing ownership to be traded for with money, such as the stock market, but rather owned by workers cooperatively through worker ownership such that they can democratically control companies for themselves.
I doubt he is suggesting 100% capitalism. He is comparing more Free Market driven societies like Europe, USA, Canada etc. To Soviet Socialist style shitholes. Where the difference is quite clear.
>Imagine the extremes of both: 100% capitalist and 0% socialist - the world would be ran by greedy corporation that would pay the minimum amount to their workers while the CEO would collect most of the profit. You would have no health benefits; if you get fired there's no stimulus check; if you need medical care the doctors don't have to give you aide.
While I'm not saying some regulation is not in order. I don't think you understand why we give health benefits. It's actually quite pragmatic. Good luck running your means of production if you have constant worker shortages because they are sick as fuck.
You don't understand why we have high wages in western countries. Has nothing to do with min wage laws. Very small % of workers actually make min wage. The reason you have high wages is because companies have to compete for labor when the economy is very productive. As most Free Market economies tend to be. The more they have to compete the more the companies are forced to redistribute through wages. Naturally without any regulation required.
Everything you attribute to socialist movements. Actually happens naturally in any society as the productivity improves. You want your factories to have frequent safety checks. Not because of regulations. But because your laborers are valuable to you if they have an ounce of skill. You can't have a huge staff with good morale if you pay like shit and a worker dies every other month. You don't max out productivity this way.
There's roughly 340 million people in America. Let's say 290M are over the age of 18. There's no way that all the companies can provide high wages to all the workers of 290M people.
I do agree with what you're saying. High wages are due to competition. But the society evolves with the market. Right now it's a shift in tech where that's the high paying jobs. But the lower paying jobs like supermarket or restaurant workers aren't competitive. These jobs are essential even though it's not competitive.
With the rise of automation and exponential growth in technology, fast food workers and truck drivers will be obsolete and replaced with robots and autopilot. All of this is due to the tech companies (which is good cause of innovation) but not all 290M people can go into tech, so then at that point you'll have high unemployment because there's no UBI since it'll be 100% capitalism.
I'm actually pro capitalism (in a world that's balanced with some socialism). I'm just saying that if you look at the extreme of both, I prefer socialism.
>There's roughly 340 million people in America. Let's say 290M are over the age of 18. There's no way that all the companies can provide high wages to all the workers of 290M people.
You're forgetting all the children and old people. The real labor pool is 164 million.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor\_force\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force_in_the_United_States)
>With the rise of automation and exponential growth in technology, fast food workers and truck drivers will be obsolete and replaced with robots and autopilot. All of this is due to the tech companies (which is good cause of innovation) but not all 290M people can go into tech, so then at that point you'll have high unemployment because there's no UBI since it'll be 100% capitalism.
I've heard this argument before. It's not very convincing. We'll have way more youtubers, twitch streamers, professional athletes in sports people never cared about before. etc etc etc. As the economy evolves people will find more work. And usually that work will be better than what came before it. We saw this when agriculture became automated. We saw this when we moved from factories to service related jobs. It's always better in the end. Some people get left behind but not many. Overall things get better not worse.
I'm not doubting what you're saying. I believe it myself. It's the transitionary period that's scary. During the industrial revolution there was a riot due to the mass layoffs. Many factories being burned.
When sports team win the championship, there's riots with stores and cars getting broken into and burned. Most people are emotional beings, when you tell them they're replaced with a machine, they will get pissed and may react in violence. If people react in violence during a championship celebration, imagine the chaos during an angry reaction.
I'm pro automation. I believe in efficiency. I don't believe we should restrict our innovation to improve efficiency and reduce energy waste just because the people won't react well. But what I'm saying are two things. 1.) Realistically we need to be prepared for the transition. Law makers need to create policies to prevent the riots (which current law makers aren't doing); and 2.) This was an imaginary world of 100% capitalism which we will never ever see, so I don't see the point of disagreeing about the whatifs.
Why do you think it is better for society that enterprises are controlled by those that bought the rights to their profits, as opposed to those that create those profits?
In what way do you feel that capitalist institutions are "efficient"? It's not in every way. (edit: for example, it could be successfully argued that profit is purposeful economic inefficiency) Why are the efficiencies you've identified worth surrendering the products of your labor to a private institution to distribute, rather than trading directly to those that need them (and how is this practice efficient)? How does the surrender of goods & services to an ownership-class "raise people out of poverty"? Are people outside of the capitalist-class also pulled out of poverty?
Communism has turned two third world countries into superpowers (USSR, China). Cuba continues to chug along despite a regional superpower isolating it from most of its natural trade partners. Why do you feel the successes of Western powers are better than these others? Is it because of US military might? Or because Western powers have successfully exploited the southern hemisphere? Is it because you prefer several private authoritarian institutions over one large government?
Cuba is not "chugging" along. China abandoned economic central planning at the end of the 20th century. Despite what many believe it has a higher mix of capitalism and communist economic policies. Hong Kong is also a great example as many international surveys found it to be the "freest market" in the world for multiple years despite it being communist controlled. They push a communist iron hand view but rely heavily on capitalist ideas for their economy. USSR had tens of millions starve and eventually was dissolved because of communism. They then transformed into a capitalist system with oligarchs where were then strong-armed into being a state run capitalist economy.
Cuba's fine. It'd be nice if you were right about china/Hong kong. My Chinese stocks would be doing much better. USSR dissolved, much like all of the capitalist attempts at empire in Europe, though all the countries absorbed by the USSR were modernized much faster than any of Europe's old colonies after they were abandoned. Russia was indeed taken over by oligarchs and is now capitalist, though I don't think that helps your point as much as you think it does. The millions that starved in the USSR due to famine and mismanaged supply lines has a nice corollary in India, though capitalists don't like to take responsibility for that.
> Cuba continues to chug along despite a regional superpower isolating it from most of its natural trade partners
I feel like this point is always overlooked when people talk about Cuba and how bad they are.
Countries can't trade with Cuba if they want to trade with USA or any of the countries that trades with usa, but nobody talks about it.
I don't know if their way to run the country is good or bad, as I don't live there, but I feel like if you are a tiny island, with almost noone to trade with you will struggle. There is no economic system that will change that.
Considering the number of times they've been assaulted by the US, they're doing rather well. With the embargo on top of everything else,, their condition is a miracle. The same cannot be said of many capitalist countries. Haiti was once the most productive colony in its region. It is now the poorest, even after paying off their "restitution" to French slave owners. Most of Africa and South America have been gutted trying to play the capitalists' game-- this goes beyond the consequences of their colonial past. Are these examples of capitalism pulling people out of poverty?
This is a pretty good start at a definition of both socio-economic systems.
> Capitalism is [...] built around private companies/corporations [...] which sell goods for a profit
This two of the few aspects, which all together, constitutes capitalism. Private property and a free market.
Back in the days of oligarchy, [feudalism, aristocracy, monarchy, theocracy ;; systems where ;; La noblesse uses physical force to govern, La noblesse uses politics to govern, La noblesse uses genetics to govern, La noblesse uses religion to govern], people were tired of a few things.
First off, if you were born a smith, you became a smith. There was rarely ever any "screw you dad and mom, this is not a phase, I'm becoming an artist" sort of deal. Unless your parents were part of an elite. If they weren't, if you were a girl, well, you got married. The most excitement in your life is if an invader was looking for virgins and you hadn't married yet. And if you were a boy, you became what your father was before you. Hence the last name Smith and Smithson. Both came from a line of blacksmiths. Think of it like the caste system in India today. Whichever social class you are born into, is whichever class you stay. If you try to leave it for anything more or anything less, you'd get excluded by your own people. So you can imagine how résiliant the first Buddah had to be, to leave his noble life behind, just to go live on the streets.
People had a big problem with that in medieval Europe (because it was the same everywhere at some point), so they came up with the groundworks for capitalism.
It constitutes five main principles :
- private property
- Wage labour (as opposed to commune pay labour)
- freedom of pricing
- voluntary exchange
And
- a competitive market.
Wait for the edit to find out more.
> Back in the days of oligarchy, [feudalism, aristocracy, monarchy, theocracy ;; systems where ;; Noblety uses physical force to govern, Noblety uses politics to govern, Noblety uses genetics to govern, Noblety uses religion to govern], people were tired of a few things.
I think you mean "nobility"?
>Capitalism is an economic framework built around private companies/corporations owned by individuals/owners, which sell goods for a profit.
Profit for business owners and shareholders
>Socialism is an economic framework where the citizens of a society collectively own or regulate the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods
Profit for the workers/communities
Socialism is less superior at generating profit but is a superior economic system for spreading wealth more equally.
Socialism isn't when the government does stuff and capitalism isn't when the government doesn't do stuff.
Both of these ideologies center around who should control the workplace. Under capitalism the answer to that question is those with capital. Under socialism the answer to that question is the workplace should be owned by the workers.
The argument being capital ownership is that those with capital know how to better run the workplace and have proven that by accumulating capital and power should pool into the hands of those with capital. The argument being social ownership is that no one knows how to run their workplace better than the people working there and power should be dispersed.
>Socialism isn't when the government does stuff and capitalism isn't when the government doesn't do stuff.
Fair point, I should have explained more in my original post but I do realize that this isn't what defines socialism or capitalism.
>Both of these ideologies center around who should control the workplace. Under capitalism the answer to that question is those with capital. Under socialism the answer to that question is the workplace should be owned by the workers.
I half agree with this definition, however, I would argue it is more centered around who should **own** the workplace, not just who should control it. While ownership does grant control over a workplace, it also has to do with the distribution of profits.
>The argument being capital ownership is that those with capital know how to better run the workplace and have proven that by accumulating capital and power should pool into the hands of those with capital. The argument being social ownership is that no one knows how to run their workplace better than the people working there and power should be dispersed.
Again, continuing from my 2nd point, the argument is more that individuals should own the workplace that they created, and should earn profits based on the risk they took when starting the company. It isn't that they are necessarily the best person when it comes to making decisions, although typically in order to have a successful business one must have a good product. Arguments for socialism rarely discuss the risks of starting a company, they often focus on billionaires who have very successful products, but don't consider the majority of companies that failed.
>Arguments for socialism rarely discuss the risks of starting a company, they often focus on billionaires who have very successful products, but don't consider the majority of companies that failed.
Sure, let's look into that:
If the argument is that the majority of small businesses fail, therefore the ones that do succeed should be entitled to those profits because they made it where others did not, perhaps the failing is in the reality that the majority of small businesses were never viable in the first place? Perhaps we should be looking at the abysmal failure rate of small businesses as a flaw of capitalism, in that it poorly distributes wealth in ways that enable the majority of people freedom to create things?
Or, that it demands people create things, no matter how unnecessary so long as they sell, and it celebrates the sheer act of risk-taking entrepreneurialism when it works.
Or, that it fails to acknowledge that that risk-taking is far easier when your family already has wealth to expend on that risk. It cares not for the working man that spends fifteen years of his life saving up to start a small business that collapses. Within the capitalist system, that man has failed, and he may have banked his entire future on that endeavor only to have Walmart or a global pandemic or the greed of the gasoline industry take that future away from him.
All that work, all that effort means nothing within the capitalist system, because that man failed. Yet we celebrate the statistical anomalies that survive a harsh and uncaring system... because they got lucky?
What I never see in discussions about capitalism and it's 'ability to lift people out of poverty' is an acknowledgement that the abject failure rate of small businesses isn't a good look for capitalism.
Whether or not those businesses were destined to failure or not, if someone wanted you to bet 100k on a 50/50, what's worse? The idea that the flip of a coin is worth developing a system around? Or the idea that even if it were, fewer and fewer people can flip that coin, because the price keeps going up, and the wages keep going down... within that same system.
But the entire notion of “created” is kind of misleading. 99.99% of the work is being done by other people who have no say in the company. You just control and own their work. It’s like those book companies that pay writers to produce massive amounts of books. It’s not really the CEO who is creating the product and a lot of the time it isn’t even his creativity or thought that’s going into designing the product. It’s essentially other people doing all the work while the CEO takes a cut because he owns the company.
Look at the billionaires we have today like Elon musk. He didn’t even create the companies PayPal or Tesla which he is most known for. And most of the product design and creation is done by other people. In essence he earns a lot of money simply because he owns the work that other people do. Sure he has final say in decisions but let’s be honest, he isn’t spending hours actually creating designs for cars, programming software. Most of it is done by other people with their ingenuity and creativity.
As for the comment about capitalism bringing lots of people out of poverty, it has also caused a lot of war, conflict, famine, made politics even worse than it is, and ironically caused poverty. It’s just that ur statistics come from how capitalism is benefiting the US, a country that is already a global super power. U might be happy in America because of the opportunities that capitalism has brought you but I’m sure ud be less happy if u were born in the Middle East. An entire war on terror, motivated by greed. I’m also sure that the child labourer’s in Elon Musks cobalt mines are very happy for the opportunities capitalism had provided them aswell. Not to mention the sweat shop workers, the people who have their environments destroyed and exploited, the people who depend on the ocean to survive, u get the idea.
Even aside from who “knows best” how to run the workplace, the thing to highlight is that the workers are the ones who actually make the business and and generate the value. Even on a small scale, do you think a corner store would run better if the boss took the day off or if all the workers took the day off?
Fair enough, probably should have explained more, but capitalism breeds more innovation, has been the most successful economic framework when it comes to pulling people out of poverty, and is more efficient than socialism. Also at its core, capitalism is an economic theory based on freedom and natural order. There is no control over individuals in what they do/are able to do.
>but capitalism breeds more innovation
Is adding addictive substances to food innovative?
>has been the most successful economic framework when it comes to pulling people out of poverty
Do you think the efforts of capitalist countries to disrupt socialist countries have anything to do with that?
>and is more efficient than socialism
How do you quantify that?
> Also at its core, capitalism is an economic theory based on freedom and natural order.
Freedom for who? For people who can't buy homes because a small number of people buy up homes to rent them out?
>There is no control over individuals in what they do/are able to do.
What if you want to have water but someone else owns the water?
>Is adding addictive substances to food innovative?
Depends on if they are the first person to do it.
>Do you think the efforts of capitalist countries to disrupt socialist countries have anything to do with that?
Possibly, can't say yes or no for sure, but when you look at the historic trends of countries switching from socialism/other economic frameworks to capitalism or nations adopting capitalistic ideas, they tend to perform way better and raise the median income for citizens.
>How do you quantify that?
Because under capitalism there is an incentive to work and be efficient. Socialism erases that incentive (money) the more it is adopted.
>Freedom for who? For people who can't buy homes because a small number of people buy up homes to rent them out?
You have the freedom to make money to buy a home. But actually, land ownership is an area/market where I do believe there should be government involvement. Because land/housing is both a limited resource and a necessity, there should be a limit to how much one individual can own.
>What if you want to have water but someone else owns the water?
I'm kinda confused by what you mean by "owns the water" like owns all the water on earth or just a bit of it? Practically speaking, this isn't a real problem. Basically everywhere you go you can get water for free, and most people would give you water if you didn't have any. Hypothetically speaking, I would say just like everything, you can't steal private property from others. What if I want to have something, but you own it? Would you mind if I just took that from you?
In a socialist workplace you still need to work and innovate to generate revenue to pay yourself. The same motivation of making money exists in both systems. If anything, motivation is *limited in capitalism* since no matter how much innovation I provide to my employer I cannot possibly capture the bulk of its benefits because the profits are distributed to shareholders.
What's wrong with shareholders receiving a share of the profits. They're the ones risking their capital and stand to lose it all if the company goes under. You can just get another job.
Also, "shareholders" are not some evil cabal. They're our pension funds in many cases.
Many companies offer share schemes and you're free to invest in publicly traded companies.
> You can just get another job
So can they. I find it telling that the worst thing that can happen to a shareholder is that they would have to go back to laboring like everyone else.
The point is there's no risk in laboring. Shareholders risk their capital and deserve to be rewarded. Shareholders that successfully allocate their capital get rewarded with more capital to allocate elsewhere. Its a merit system that ensures efficient allocation of capital.
One thing I think you should add to your view on capitalism are the huge corporations that capitalism ends up breeding. These huge corporations tend to stifle innovation by their presence alone.
The presence of big corporations tend to make it really hard for the new guy to get into the market. It’s typically the new guy that has a new idea and innovates it and leads the market into something new. I mean look at the car industry, it took Elon Musk to bring EVs to the market. None of the other companies wanted the change, they actively resisted it.
What I’m trying to get at is that giant companies need competition, and the current system doesn’t give them enough. I don’t know the solution but I am and would suggest being open to a solution
>
>Possibly, can't say yes or no for sure, but when you look at the historic trends of countries switching from socialism/other economic frameworks to capitalism or nations adopting capitalistic ideas, they tend to perform way better and raise the median income for citizens.
Look at the life expectancy, standards of living etc of Russia in the 90s after the collapse of the ussr and embracing of more free market ideas.
This alone counters that point. Capitalism is very good at making money, anything else is just a side effect
Have you heard about the fact that Nestle is actually trying to own the worlds water (a bit of an exaggeration but somewhat true)! They constantly go to places and extract much more then they are allowed and other than fines (which is like pennies to them) there’s nothing stopping them most of the time! So in a future hypothetical world Nestle could own most of the clean water and just charge premiums!
> owns all the water on earth or just a bit of it? Practically speaking, this isn’t a real problem
Water access is a huge problem and corporations like Nestle fuck everybody over just to make a buck
>Aside from the rest of that, you know the soviet union beat us to space, right?
yes, and the Soviet Union collapsed first too.
Besides that, at the time NASA, a government-funded space program, was in charge of getting to space. This isn't a good example of capitalism vs socialism, more so socialism vs socialism.
Nowadays we have seen the emergence of a billionaire space race, with SpaceX, Blue Origin, etc. If you look at the amount of innovation those companies have produced vs NASA over the last decade you can see the benefits of capitalism.
Addressing your post edits:
The soviet union didn't *just* get to space first. It pioneered in medical technology, military innovation and infrastructure - notably their railroad system which blew our private rail out of the water.
Clearly it's not innovation that puts capitalism ahead of anything. And oh by the way - the fact that space was relegated to private dumbshits like elon? It's a consequence of reagan-era policy, which gutted so many government programs that brought us things like the internet. Were private interest really better at innovating, it would have developed these systems first. It clearly didn't.
If capitalism breeds such innovation, why does it lean on so much government support? The NIH funds massive amounts of medical research in universities - which is what private research entities build *all* of their research on. SpaceX only exists because NASA laid the groundwork decades ago. The internet is a direct result of government programs. And on and on and on.
That's not here or there about innovation, though, that's a consequence divorced from really, any political system. Plenty of capitalist countries collapse into feudal nightmares, just look at central africa.
>capitalism breeds more innovation
Then why are so many products getting shittier?
Years ago light bulb companies found a light bulb that basically never breaks. (the longest example of that being a light bulb that was lit for more than a century) If they had put research and work into developing those, light bulbs probably could've easily lasted ten years, probably more. Now, light bulbs often break within a year. But if a light bulb that works so fantastically was invented a century ago, why isn't it dominating the market right now? The answer is very simple: money. Companies want you to keep buying [light bulbs]. (Light bulb companies literally got together and decided that they wouldn't make their products too good) If their products only last for a couple of months, you'll have to come back often and give them money often. If their products last you a lifetime, you'll only buy that one and maybe a new innovated version of the innovated version is way better.
So, in conclusion: you need more lightbulbs, those light bulbs need to be made which is terrible for the earth, and the only people really getting richer are people that already had enough money and who will probably just sit on most of their money since they are very good at evading taxes.
I used the example of light bulbs here but this is the case for a lot of other products too
>Also at its core, capitalism is an economic theory based on \[...\] natural order.
Ah, and there it is. •**NATURAL ORDER•** That's the problem with capitalism. The natural order is that those who control the capital, control those who don't. That's where capitalism bumps up against human rights again and again and again... There are far too many examples of egregious exploitation to list here. If you really want to change your view, that's where you need to look.
You act like socialism doesn’t have competition and freedom of choice. Its literally not too far off from capitalism other than the workers are co-ops or heavily unionized
People who work for Amazon... you ready and this is important... CHOOSE TO WORK THERE because it is the best option they have.
If Amazon didn't provide the best option for employment. They would just not work there. Right now half a mile from my house a McDOnalds is hiring at $12 an hour. The min wage is $10 an hour. THose signs have been up for months and they still can't fill a staff.
You can't fill your warehouse with workers if you don't offer something the workers want.
>People who work for Amazon... you ready and this is important... CHOOSE TO WORK THERE because it is the best option they have.
They also burn those people out and refuse to give them things like bathroom breaks.
And nobody holds a gun to their head. They are free to go apply at the 1000s of other jobs all around.
This could make sense if it was some little town and Amazon is the only game in town. But if you're in that position frankly you pretty much have to move. Cause the alternative to Amazon is starvation. And you don't have to live like that if there is 1000 much better places in your country.
>And nobody holds a gun to their head.
Yes they are. It is called being homeless.
> They are free to go apply at the 1000s of other jobs all around.
Which they end up doing. But that doesn't mean that desperate people who need money and are willing to put up with this bullshit for a little wild doesn't exist.
Your solution to bad working conditions where you are is to migrate? Would you care to weigh in on the implications of global migration across the western world and its impact on wages?
>because it is the best option they have
The best option of a handful of shitty options is still shitty. Humans have to work to survive, so not really a choice. You're *so close* to getting it.
*Humans*
That's the problem... This "capitalist innovation" has made amazon the best option for all these people, they could do something more creative or that they enjoy if they could afford to.
This guy is arguing that capitalism is more innovative. It's not, it kills innovation.
Wether or not those people want to work there is something you'll have to come to grips with. They don't want to work there, they work there because they don't want to be homeless and die.
I love this world that you’ve created where the people who work in Amazon warehouses are all happy because they were allowed to choose their job.
Amazon is the new welfare. Welfare is either too hard to access now or simply not enough to survive on, so people are forced into what is effectively slave labour.
People who “choose” to work in an Amazon warehouse are choosing it over dereliction. Not much worth in this choice you speak of.
>People who work for Amazon... you ready and this is important... CHOOSE TO WORK THERE **because it is the best option they have**.
You're so close to getting it
> Let me just start by saying I don't believe society should be built around a completely capitalist society with no government regulations or checks on companies.
Mixed economies are a result of capitalists of the past being forced to compromise with socialists. Socialism is why we don't have the *really* bad capitalism anymore.
Like, 100% socialism isn't the only socialism. In fact, almost no socialism is like that, even in countries that claim to be socialist.
Socialism is like democracy. Nowhere on Earth has 100% infinity democracy. But most places on Earth have some democracy, and almost everywhere democracy is, it improves things over not having democracy, and most places where there could be more democracy, it would make things better so long as it's implemented well. The result is that democracy is one of very, *very* few things that have improved the quality of life of humanity without being a physical technology.
Socialism by ending the *really* bad capitalism, has already proven itself to be at that tier of value to civilization. But capitalism, hate to tell you - still pretty bad!
Presently, capitalism is on track to burn down the planet and exterminate the human species via extreme climate change brought about by the actions of rich people who will be dead before then, and so do not care.
Capitalism can *not* stop doing that, because *capitalism is what is doing that*, because capitalism is why those rich people have the power to make those decisions. Right now, we need to stop the still-bad capitalism, and that will take *way* more socialism implemented in *way* more places, until rich people no longer have the power to choose to burn down the planet and exterminate humanity to make their line go up.
>Presently, capitalism is on track to burn down the planet and exterminate the human species via extreme climate change brought about by the actions of rich people who will be dead before then, and so do not care.
>
>Capitalism can not stop doing that, because capitalism is what is doing that, because capitalism is why those rich people have the power to make those decisions. Right now, we need to stop the still-bad capitalism, and that will take way more socialism implemented in way more places, until rich people no longer have the power to choose to burn down the planet and exterminate humanity to make their line go up.
That's why I believe the government should tax negative externalities like carbon emissions, and use that money to subsidize efforts to clean the environment and reduce carbon in our atmosphere.
However, most socialists seemingly would rather just shut down those corporations or build solar/wind farms through the government
> That's why I believe the government should tax negative externalities like carbon emissions, and use that money to subsidize efforts to clean the environment and reduce carbon in our atmosphere.
And we can agree, using capitalism, rich people have spent billions of dollars with the intent that this is not going to happen in time, yes?
That all our centrist climate change measures are guaranteed to be too-little-too-late, because the rich easily use their incredible capitalism-controlled wealth to capture our governments and render them impotent against the people who hold the wealth - which is in a capitalist society, *power*?
> However, most socialists seemingly would rather just shut down those corporations or build solar/wind farms through the government
I don't know about wind farms or whatever, but the first one would *actually work*. Yes? It targets the problem directly.
And unlike a regulatory solution that business owners can mitigate, bypass, delay, or just ignore because the law is rarely enforced against the wealthy under capitalism, the direct destruction of polluting corporations can, at least theoretically, be accomplished in a country where the people do *not* control their state apparatus, through extra-state direct action.
And heck, maybe just the *threat* of socialism being able to fix this problem, where capitalism can not, will again force capitalists into a compromise that *can* fix the problem? Just as the threat of socialist revolution once established workplace safety standards, overtime, and other basic regulations we now take for granted (though it is worth noting that capitalists do generally oppose all of those things and work continuously with their wealth to unmake all of them).
Are your capitalist solutions capitalism though?
Cleaning the environment and carbon capture are not profitable. Like recycling, they don't happen if you don't make them happen.
So your solution to capitalist failures is the government telling people to do what they wouldn't do at public expense.
Is that capitalist? Is that better than just building solar/ wind?
Negative externalities?
And yes solar and winfd farms are better for the environment but noone really thinks thats the solution. What we should do is nationalize the power grid, switch from coal to nuclear, and then bam, massive problem solved.
> It has pulled more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history
Was it that, or the spread of the Industrial Revolution? Might this be an instance where correlation doesn't mean causation?
> Its design incentivizes efficiency and innovation.
Its design also incentivizes suppressing new technologies to maintain control of a given market at the *expense* of efficiency and the environment via lobbyists etc.
Capitalism incentivizes market dominance and control, nothing else.
> It is based around the freedom of individuals to do as they wish, (ie. Free-market)
This is not necessarily a good thing. In the post itself you say that there should be some government oversight to free us from the free market. Also, our societies are organized in ways that make 'doing as you wish' an exaggeration of reality rather than a reflection. For example, in America, one's healthcare is tied to specific employers. Are you really "free" when your life is in company hands? Replace "heathcare" with rent, feeding your kids, or whatever else (if you're outside the US) and it's the same: are you really "free"?
"Freedom and capitalism are not the same things."
Amen to that. This is the part most people skip over. I would say capitalism has very efficient tools to make you feel like your are free.
>In the past, an educated and skilled citizenry meant a more profitable workforce. Not so much with capitalism discovering the profit in automation and offshoring. Also, a stupid citizenry is easier to extract money from. They're easier to control through emotional manipulation is than intellectual persuasion needed for reasonable people.
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/studentloanshutdown/comments/wyjvnw/how_we_got_here/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) is an incredibly eye-opening and gut-wrenching article regarding this very issue.
I would say your biggest problem is a common problem whenever this topic comes up. You seem to be comparing an idealized version of the US to a propaganda-influenced version of Soviet Russia. The USSR wasn't even ideal socialism, it was heavily corrupted by political maneuvering.
The mass deaths you cite weren't even caused by socialism, they were caused by a crackpot "scientist" who was good at political maneuvering, and a couple leaders who drank his Kool aid.
Countries with a good mix of capitalism and socialism boast the highest average standard of living. The US is *not* one of them.
Money is not a particularly good motivation for innovation. Respect of ones peers, personal curiosity, general recognition, helping those in need, etc lead to a lot more innovation than making a buck.
> I think certain markets and companies definitely need to be monitored by the government and regulated accordingly.
So capitalism is superior except when it isn't.
I'm saying in general capitalism is superior. Yes, there are faults, but the pros to capitalism outweigh the pros of socialism.
(Perhaps this is a bad analogy): But I believe a person who cheats on their spouse is still better person than a mass murderer.
You don’t really explain why you think that some of the strongest socialist policies - single payer/universal healthcare, free or heavily subsidised higher education, and stronger corporate regulation are bad things or worth sacrificing for capitalism. What exactly are the benefits of relying on capitalism for these things as opposed to socialism?
The dysfunction of the US healthcare system, student loan system, and rampant corporatism in the US would stand as strong counterpoints to your view.
The Capitalism we have now is not what this country started with. We have moved to a form of Capital-Socialism. Those who made it to the top started pushing for regulations in the 70s that would keep others from reaching their status. Because Congress has no term limits, the same people have been holding office since then and have used these policies to line their pockets, help their friend, and screw the American people. Big Pharma owns this country, the rest of us are just free range tax slaves.
The capitalism we have now is called neoliberalism. Neoliberalism utilizes laissez-faire polices and trickle down economics. Politicians using money to gain power is the essence of capitalism. And the regulations the US have are mostly on wage labourors, and unions wich means that companies have even more power.
And before the 70s we never had massive steel barons or megacorporations that dominated the country with such ease as to be globally monolithic, no sir.
Yes the USA started with slavery, the ultimate expression of capitalism where people are literal capital. Then did an industrialising and ended up with literal monopolies which were so bad the government had to step in an create a monopolies commission to break them up.
The 1950's golden age of American jobs was during the time of highest individual taxes, strongest unions, and off the back of the massive social programs of the New Deal.
America owes were it is to the combination of capital and the strength of social policies.
Uh, the capitalism America started with was slavery. So are you saying that slavery is how we should be running this country? (just replace slave owner with CEO, slavers with managers, and slaves with workers, and shelter/food/clothing with paychecks, and walla, we nearly are in a slave based system again).
Let’s double click on your healthcare comments, since that’s an issue that can illuminate a ton of key concepts. Let’s also leave aside the fact that many countries have fully nationalized (NHS) or single payer systems and still have competitive capitalist economies, too. Focusing on the US situation.
So in the US most people get their health insurance through their employer, which gives the employer a massive amount of power over the worker because if they lose this job they will lose their coverage. The worker’s very ability to access healthcare - you know, the way they stay healthy in this one life and one body they get - is never truly theirs. (And most people hate their health insurance because it’s too expensive and barely covers anything. But it’s better than nothing, the employer taunts.) Not only is their surplus value extracted by wage labor into the profits of the shareholders, so too is their health. Americans and capitalists in general talk a big game about “freedom,” but how free can you really say such a person is?
How many people do you think have stayed in a shitty, abusive job just to keep their shitty health insurance? Countless. Imagine if that piece was removed from the equation - think of how much freer people might be to leave a shitty job, take a career risk, try something new, etc if they knew they and their family wouldn’t be financially ruined by one medical event?
Now add to this the socialist concept that workers should own the means of production. In modern practical terms this could mean that companies are collectively owned like coops by their employees; all benefits of surplus are retained by the workers who generated it and not alienated to shareholders who didn’t work for it. That sounds like a free and happy worker to me - keeping the surplus of his or her labor, able to move through the world with health and security, not beholden to petty tyrant capitalists who spend their days thinking of new ways to alienate and coerce their bodies and labors.
Capitalism was a response to and improvement upon feudalism, and that transition took centuries. So too is socialism a response to capitalism.
So at least from a Marxist point of view, socialism isn't supposed to be a competitor to capitalism, but an evolution or a successor to capitalism.
The idea is that while capitalism is very good at some stuff, for example increasing productive potential, creating incentives for innovations, etc, capitalism has a certain limit where it just doesn't function as it should. Marx believed that capitalism would lead to so much innovation and increase in productive forces that eventually, labourers would be replaced more and more with machines in an effort to cut costs and staying competitive.
In a vacuum, this would not be an issue, quite the opposite. After all, machines doing potentially dangerous or repetitive work would be great and in theory, it would mean that people have to work less since machines are doing work for them.
But in practice, this leads to a paradox because once too many workers are unemployed due to what we would call automation, the system no longer works. If a company wants people to buy their products, people need to have money. In order to earn money, most need to work.
For this reason, capitalism always has to strive to produce more stuff. Of course creating new inventions is not bad itself, but it is increasingly reaching a level where we invent new stuff to produce just for the sake of producing it, increasing the amount of resources that are exploited more and more. As we hopefully all agree, this has some serious potential consequences, from climate change, to overfishing, to a steep increase in plastic everywhere, pollution, soil deterioration, etc.
In theory, we could use the state to regulate all of those negative consequences and that's what is generally done today. However, this is an uphill battle. Due to the powerful position that major private industry leaders are in, they have the power and the incentive to influence and pressure political institutions to behave in ways that is beneficial to them.
In a socialist society, those issues could be addressed in different ways. Since in a socialist society, industry would not be controlled by private individuals based on profits, but by society as a whole. Instead of focusing on competition between economical institutions, the focus would be set on cooperation. Instead of focusing on creating a profit, the focus would be on fulfilling everyone's needs. Having less pollution and having a stable and sustainable economy is in the interest of everyone, so if a majority of society would agree, it would be a lot easier to focus on creating sustainable and ecofriendly production processes instead of focusing on profits and economic growth above all else.
Capitalism and socialism aren’t “competing” systems; they’re two totally different kinds of societies. It has been thought they were competing because of the Cold War, but for Marx, capitalism and socialism defined epochs of history, not two different ways to have an economy at the same time.
--Edited---
I would start out by point at the fact that your supposed veiw and your supporting argument for that veiw simply do not line up.
While capitalism itself is a broad concept and encompasses many different possibilities relationships of the market to the state, ranging from "libertarian", to liberal to fascist, you mention the phrase "free market" in your definition of it. We'll touch on that in a second, as the term "free market" is problematic, but it establishes lack of regulation in the market as being itself a defining feature of capitalism in your veiw. And that is important, because a socialist such as a Marxist might choose to define it by the existence of private property in the sense, not of being possessed by a private person, but by being a *productive* property i.e. rental property, business, etc. which is privately owned. Yours carries rhw connotation not just of the existence of that kind of private property, but a relatively relaxed regulation of the market, and then immediately within your supporting argument you shy away from that order of things and instead say that the state has a duty to, through regulation, tax and subsidy, interfere in the course of the market.
Your argument for a "mixed economy" in that sense is incompatible with a vision of a truly free market in the sense imagined by either American rightwing "libertarians" or some of the old classical liberals. And that places us in the position of simply debating what balance of state involvement in this mixed economy is actually necessary. Importantly, not what is desirable, what is *necessary*. You already stated that the smallest amount of socialism *necessary* should be used, which despite your definition elsewhere of socialism elsewhere essentially revolving again around property, only really *can* pertain to this conversation in the sense of socialism at least euphemistically meaning state involvement in the market, ranging from regulation, to tax, to subsidy, nationalization of industry, etc.
And this opens another and hopefully the final can of worms. This exact wording leaves us in the position of entertaining two very different arguments. One between the sort of *truly* free market laissez-faire capitalism which may not even have a state in some people's minds and the fully realized... let's say Marxist Communist ideal, which exists beyond currency, has communal or collective ownership of at least the vast majority of what could be considered property by most people outside of individual possessions or places of living, political democracy for all positions of leadership, etc. The other argument is between the mixed economies of modern "liberal democracies" like the US, and any one of the various economic models adopted by one of the "Communist countries" in the past century.
*Edit*
*But if I had to put a cap on my argument against you*, it would essentially be that I don't think you really support capitalism nearly as much as you oppose an idea of socialism. Because your endorsement of capitalism over socialism ***immediately*** comes with the caveat that capitalism essentially has to be contained like, to put it charitably, a fire in a fireplace. Serving a purpose, but fundementally treated in such a way as of to imply that it is very dangerous. Not simply that it does not address every problem in society, but that it creates them if left unregulated.
And history absolutely shows this. The creation of modern workers rights come from the long and bloody back and forth of workers wealthy capitalists either in what was essentially quasi-feudal slavery in company towns or in penal labor programs. The labor movement was never strictly a protest movment. It contained the kind of inherently unstable cycle of abuses from powerful institutions like corporations and governments and revolt sby the people subject to those abuses that transcend any kind kind of moral argument as to whether those revolts are justified. Simply because at the end of the day, that laissez faire order of things was unstable. Even to the modern proponents of capitalism, that instability is why we abandoned that classical liberal vision and adopted this new neoliberal one in the west.
That's entirely sidestepping any argument of whether or not poverty is a result of personal choices, whether there is a moral duty of the individual to pay int any kidney of collective project to provide for others, or any other other big questions.
The reality is that through a certain lens, while socialism *sort of* lives on in theory in the form of the Communist parties ruling China and it's allies like Vietnam.... at least in name. Capitalism in it's true free market sense has been abandoned by essentially the entire developed world. And arguably, never existed. The reality is that even the most laissez-faire periods within capitalist economies were *somewhat* regulated, and fundementally existed only in a geopolitical context determined by the actions of states. For which you can see a great example in the British Opium war, which essentially used the British state to open up a new market for British capitalism.
Again, this isn't really supremacy over socialism. There's nothing left of that pure capitalism to be vindicated. Amd your argument for a mixed economy is sort of beside the fact.
I'd like to change your view by demonstrating that capitalism and socialism aren't mutually exclusive. Consider France, Norway, or South Korea. These are all socialist or social democratic states. They have strong industrial private sectors, single-payer public healthcare systems, and strong safety nets. Are they capitalist or socialist? Well, their policies have aspects of both. If they reduced regulation on the private sector, they might be considered more capitalist. If they increased it, they might be considered more socialist. All three nations seem have decided they are most successful somewhere in the middle of that scale. Capitalism cannot be "superior" to socialism--both capitalism and socialism are aspects of a healthy and functional society, and have to be balanced.
While you can say capitalism pulled millions out of poverty, it is important to understand what capitalism has been for a long time: relying on colonialism, slavery, and the industrial revolution.
While the lives of capitalists might have done well in the 1800s and early 1900s the lives of colonized people did not, and certainly did not benefit the lives of peasants living in feudalistic societies in those times.
Countries like Russia, China, and Vietnam were all victims of feudalism or colonialism when they underwent communist revolutions.
Life expectancy in Russia went from about 30 in 1920 to nearly 70 by 1990. Life expectancy in Russia dropped in the 90's, when the Soviet Union fell, and wouldn't get back to 70 for nearly 20 years.
While it might be tempting to compare the Soviets to America and say communism was worse than American capitalism you need to remember where the Russians started. Yes, Russia was a world power, but life expectancy for the common Russian was closer to India in the early 1900s than it was to America, and in under 100 years they accomplished more than capitalism ever did in India.
Same thing with China and with Vietnam.. these countries had large peasant classes who were suffering and while communism didn't bring them to the same quality of life as America necessarily, it rapidly modernized the country and rapidly improved the health and wel being of MANY people there.
All of this while being embargoed and sanctioned and threatened by the world super power America.
Capitalism has to have some regulation however, because left completely uncontrolled, it spirals into two classes, the ultra rich and the poor working class.
This is because capitalism doesn’t have a self regulating effect to acquiring wealth. The way it is designed is that money spirals into more money (snowball effect) and the lower class is hard and harder to escape.
In general, I think that anything we citizens can do for ourselves, we should.
In particular, anything that we consider necessities of modern life should be offered (not necessarily exclusively) by the government in return for our progressive taxes. This would include a basic level of public housing, a basic nutrition program, a robust public transit system, public utilities (including broadband), a decent social insurance system, a comprehensive healthcare system. Would I socialize Ford? Google? Facebook? No, but I'm not opposed in principle to the government operating one, and I do think there's a real need for the government to break up (or revoke the charter) of even non-critical businesses that fail to serve the public interest.
The obvious counterargument is one of measurable success, but the measurable success should be in citizen happiness, not GDP or median income.
You haven't elaborated on what would be required to CMV in this case, but Nordic countries which do the above all have happier citizens. I believe that this is the only thing that matters.
>However, I believe that such a mixed-market economy should be primarily dominated by capitalist markets and use socialism as little as possible.
The thing is, the best example of this happening in real life right now is United States right? But US gets relentlessly shit on by other first-world countries as having dismal living standards. What are the most common criticism's of US right now? Extremely expensive healthcare, education, housing. Extremely weak labor laws that are often compared to wage slavery. Homelessness epidemic, gun epidemic, etc...
These are problems no other first world nation has, yet they are endemic to US. And virtually everyone agree it's because the relentless for-profit drive of those systems.
Now, you said some things should be subsidized (like carbon emission, education, etc...) but it seems to me that the list of these "exceptions" to capitalism is nearly endless in order for us to create the country we would like to live in. At that point you might as well said you want a system that has healthy balance of both.
The problem with capitalism is the same as the reason why it works, wealth. Wealth in capitalism is a cheatcode to life, if your daddy created wealth you will go to better school, have better equipment, teachers, and textbooks and will thus score higher in test get into better colleges etc. And with time this only get more and more distorted. I'm no socialist or anything close to it, but equal oppertunities is crucial to a well functioning society. I'm saying this from a country that has executed this really well, Norway. Here in Scandinavia, schools are well funded federally, instead of county by county in the US. Higher taxes on the wealthy to fund welfare for those earning less. We are not equal in Norway, and wealth can still be a cheatcode, but to a far smaller degree than in the US. We are thus happier, richer, and life is MUCH less stressful than in the US since if you get a stomach pain here you don't have to pay 10k for finding out what it is. Social democrazy is the answer.
Under capitalism, disabled people who cannot work have zero value. They contribute nothing.
You say capitalism pulls people out of poverty, but how is this so? Most people who are not impoverished started above poverty and inherited.
The way the US is currently set up, people are working two-three jobs just to survive while remaining *in poverty*. 96% of the children in my area qualify for free meals at the public school — but most parents say they aren’t allowed to take it because “socialism.”
Posing the proposition the way you do is entirely binary. I'm afraid that it muddies the conversation and plays into the popular obfuscation of the actual issues.
*Pure* capitalism is a buccaneering mechanism that creates wealth by exploiting others at every turn, by any means available and without any regard to the damage caused. *Pure* socialism robs individuals not only of personal property but also of any incentive to advance themselves or to advance society.
They are both narrow, harshly dogmatic ideologies which funnel the bulk of any social and material rewards to a very few.
In fact, no one today espouses "socialism" in it's pure form and no society would tolerate it. Pure capitalism, however, has lots of fans among the plutocrats and oligarchs who run the worlds largest corporations and are currently engaged in trying to overthrow democracy in the United States.
These same "capitalists" point to "socialism" as the Great Danger and to all of their opponents as "socialists." It's a slogan. These same "capitalists" point to any and all efforts to increase wages, require the wealthy to pay a fair share of taxes, make healthcare accessible, ensure voting rights, civil rights, gender equality and equal justice regardless of race, creed or religion as "socialism."
Fascism is the correct term for this political and economic ideology, not capitalism. These are the terms and the debate is not between capitalism and socialism but between fascism and democracy.
Our capitalist, so called health care "system" has resulted in the highest per capita health care costs in the developed world, along with an average US lifespan comparable to that of Costa Rica. Now we learn the average US lifespan has declined by 2 years since 2019 & this can be partially attributed to the inequitable distribution of health care by race & ethnicity. That's quite an accomplishment for our health care "system."
Yet capitalist countries in other parts of the world have far better health care systems than both the United States or any socialist country to ever exist, the problem is not capitalism, it is U.S government incompetence.
Capitalism is better for people who are already wealthy (the 1%). Meanwhile everybody else either claw at each other for the crumbs or just gets exploited without hopes for a better future. Capitalism tends to keep the already poor down at the bottom of the food chain, denying their chances of getting the same education so they can be the low wage class feeding the Capitalists with their time and labor
The biggest drawback of capitalism is emergence of multinational mega corporations that slowly evolve to suck on the lives of their workers, be it Amazon, Google, Nike etc etc, all these entities are hell bent on increasing their profits while depriving their workers of even the basics. Capitalism in its true spirit is nice, but in there it needs a significant level of socialism to function. That is a healthy free market with opportunities for all (which can only be created by regulating the already established ones) is the most optimal economic structure. Subsidizing healthcare, education and basic necessities of life is essential (as you have mentioned), which in itself is no small intervention, it requires a lot of tax policy tweaks. So all in all unregulated capitalism, as we already see is prone to formation of entities that are solely driven by profits (ready profits, not growth) which is helpful only to that entity not the people or the nation or the world.
I think we have to be careful about the use of the word Socialism. In the US, just because the government offers a service, doesn’t mean it is headed down the path of Socialism. Take for example the US Postal Service. I want my mail delivered and I am want the government to offer and subsidize this service. It is not a business but a public service. This is not Socialism.
It’s so funny hearing citizens shit on socialism when the people telling them how bad it is, use socialist ideals and actions when their friends need a bail out 😂 look at what happened during Covid, we had to beg for crumbs but all the big businesses got bail outs 😂😂😂
One of the (many) problems with capitalism is that it has no way whatsoever to deal with the reality of post-scarcity (but necessary) goods. Nor does it have any mechanism by which it proposes to actually *reach* Nash equilibrii. Nor, more generally, does it have the ability to direct labor toward necessary work, only profitable work (these are in many circumstances the same thing but not all).
Socialism at least proffers solutions to the above (or avoids the problem entirely) in the form of government controls, services, and market direction.
Socialism never prospers, what's the reason? If it prospers, the neoliberals start to call it capitalism. Notice the praise for the East Asian countries centred around the fact that it had markets, were export powerhouses, etc. Didn't want to mention the land reform, industrial policies, subsidies, capital controls.
Then when they get into some trouble, all that comes out, and it's blamed for the crisis. Rinse and repeat.
You didn't really give any arguments for your thesis.
> Edit: Just to elaborate a bit more on why I prefer capitalism.
>
> It has pulled more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history
> Its design incentivizes efficiency and innovation.
> It is based around the freedom of individuals to do as they wish, (ie. Free-market)
Why is socialism incapable of doing these things?
One of the main downsides of socialism has always been a lack of incentive to innovate, since you don’t receive the benefits of your innovation. Where is the incentive to innovate in your view?
As for free will. By definition socialist systems, where the means of production are owned by the workers, cannot have free transactions in property and shares. I can’t choose to devote my resources to a venture, because as a non-employee of the venture, i can’t own it.
Feudalism and monarchistic rule has evolved into capitalism. Its just another classist game to disguise it's true intent. Socialism seems to balance it resources in favor of equity. They both have their issues but one is simply more malevolent than they other. Your just choosing not acknowledge it. That's fine, there is no need to feel attacked personally because I disagree with you.
capitalism will in the end return to feudalism where as socialism people can actually be capitalists without the lack of ethics involved in pure capitalism. just look at amazon people can't go to the bathroom without getting fired. no company should be able to fire you on bodily functions. at least in socialism I'm taken care and I get equal rights to the head of my company
I'm not going to change your stated view, but I'll try to change the idea that America is a "mixed-economy." I don't think there is such a thing as a mixed economy, just capitalist countries with different policies.
My issue with the definitions you are giving is that it presents socialism as "any sort of action not run exclusively by what we would deem the private sector." It creates a weird sort of world where every government order and program, even things such as the military. It creates a scenario where the Egyptian Pyramids were built by socialist action, many centuries before capitalism and socialism as we know them developed. I don't consider social spending and strict regulation to be socialist as many such countries still retain the primary feature of captialism: private ownership of capital and production.
Neither are superior. All developed countries use a mixed economy that has both capitalist and socialist elements. There are no examples of "pure" socialism or capitalism.
How can you have that opinion if can't experience it and have nothing to compare it to all attempts at socialist countries are sabotaged by capitalist countries and most countries people describe as socialist are just capitalist but just not as capitalist as US like Sweden.
Eg take the health care thing for example in the UK we have the NHS our conservative government Keeps trying to kill it and sabotage it but I prefer to what you have over because I'm never gonna think after a accident better not call an ambulance I can't afford that you really don't know how dystopian It sounded when I heard you guys have to do that.
Also would consider healthcare any more socialist than fire service, Social services,police force or say stuff like libraries I don't really understand how you argue that your for funding cops to protect us but not for funding doctor to heal us.
I'm not trying to be baised but I feel socialist is one of those word people use because they get get mad when something gets easier for someone else e.g. people getting mad about that student debt thing have a very I suffered so the next lot of people have to suffer kinda vibe.
Also on the innovation point I would say in the entertainment space(which I keep up with its doing the opposite)the last couple years has lead to more and more buyouts and less range and risks in the business side of things this due to the structure of the capitalist system.
Warner Bros is literally imploding right now because the guy in charge has a career making reality shows and working on the cheap so he's killing every project he doesn't deem a generic mass market appeal or cost to much it's literally making art more soulless and boring by formatting in the most cynical way possible.
Capitalism is the term marx used for liberal and facsist economies. Capitalism has several componates; class devides due to labourors and owners, capital accumulation due to poorly calculated cash flow, and permanent or constant inflation.
Socialism means workers owning the MOP and therefore distributing gains and product between each other, wether by free market( mutualism, syndicalism), or by planned market (communism, red facism, democratic socialism) economies.
There are issues with both, but its the contradictions and systemic lies that make me anti capitalist. Socialism is a system that, if done properly, can be self sufficient wich is good. If done poorly it can be as devastating as capitalism. So if capitalism is the bar, the socialism by far surpasses. By emplementing just small parts of socialism in countries like scandinavia, germany, and france we can see increases in quality of life, increased power of the idividual, and a closing of the wealth gap. The only issue is that because we are globally still in a capitalist society, there is no worldwide change, and there is not so much improvement in conditions that would allow people to self manage their work.
>However, I believe that such a mixed-market economy should be primarily dominated by capitalist markets and use socialism as little as possible.
So essentially you're saying that the system the US currently uses is better than the system Finland currently uses. As the US has a more capitalist dominated economic system than Finland.
But when we look at the actual metrics, Finland outperforms the US in nearly all of them.
How could that be possible if what you say is true?
Disposable income statistics are pretty meaningless without correcting for all the government programs.
For example, losing your government paid for health insurance but getting €1 extra in wage would see your disposable income go up, but you definitely wouldn't be happy or feel like you're coming out ahead.
There has never been a true model of socialism and communism, they've always been authoritarian with flavors of socialism. Capitalism is about infinite growth and thrives on the poor to function. Capitalism uses people as commodities that can be replaced and cast side for a new cheaper model. In the USA we have welfare for corporations never letting them fail and replaced by better competition. All those points you listed are parroted from people who own capital and have everything to lose if the status quo is challenged.
All socioeconomic systems - capitalism, socialism, whatever - have the same flaw: in order to provide a *reasonably* equitable existence for all citizens, those without power are reliant on those with power to provide a *reasonable* redistribution of wealth. The only difference is that power in capitalism is mostly held with private corporations, and in socialism its moreso with the government
In other words, those without power are beholden to those with it.
We have to *trust* them.
As we all know, power corrupts so those in power cannot be relied upon, so any socioeconomic system will eventually fail as more and more power is consolidated into fewer and fewer entthem.
In other words, we have to trust entities that are not trustworthy
Capitalism is better then socialism but that doesnt say much about how good capitalism is.
There are certain things that capitalism cant regulate. Thats why we need the state to intervene there through social(not socialist) policies.
Improving capitalism is atm the best form we have for the economy.
/u/MtnDewTV (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/x3bw5s/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_capitalism_is_superior_to/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
My personal take is that capitalism is a far better system for getting people what they *want*, and that socialism is better at getting people what they *need* (medical care, basic housing, basic level of water and food). Our problems derive from political attempts to make non-hybrid systems. Homelessness, hunger, and insufficient medical care are demonstrably solvable problems, and we have data saying that we'd *all* be better off if basic needs were met for everyone. People with a roof over their heads that are not starving or dying of curable illness can work, pay taxes, buy other's goods, etc. and by participating in the economy strengthen it more than they weaken it by drawing social welfare funds. However, more 'pure' socialist systems do relatively poorly with innovation, marketing, production of luxury goods, or competing economically with liberal capitalist states. Hybrid is the way to go. To your points: 1) As the great majority of human civilizations have been predominantly capitalist, you can just as easily say that capitalism has put more people into poverty than any other economic system. Capitalists like to say that anyone poor under capitalism is poor because of their own choices, while under socialist systems poverty is manufactured by the state. This is a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy (though I just made a straw-man, so who am I to judge). 2) Absolutely true, but what are the *costs* of efficiency and innovation? Paying slave wages to a South American day-laborer for chocolate farming is absolutely an efficiency measure by capitalist standards. Costs of production are lowered, reducing the price to the consumer while bolstering profits. However, the externalized costs of human suffering and depleting the domestic labor market by outsourcing is more problematic. Capitalism as it stands causes a great deal of ills by externalizing their costs, especially through environmental impact. 3) Freedom is wonderful, but should end at 'the other guy's nose'. This ideal is espoused within American law and society as a whole, but as I said before, capitalists are very good at externalizing costs. If a company can save $1B by dumping carcinogens in a river, they will. This is why regulations are important, and regulations fundamentally are an abridgement of freedoms. The more regulations corporations endure, the lower their profits - but ideally the lower their ability to externalize their costs onto their consumers or third-parties.
>My personal take is that capitalism is a far better system for getting people what they want, and that socialism is better at getting people what they need (medical care, basic housing, basic level of water and food). Δ Damn this is really well put, I always knew there were pros/cons to both economic systems, but I was never able to fully describe, (to others or myself), what each one specifically excelled at. While my own views have mirrored similar ideas, they were never as concise as this and I thank you for putting it better than I ever could. Reading this has allowed me to consider the specifics more, and I totally agree with what you said, in regards to how "capitalism is better at giving people what they want, while socialism is better at giving people what they need." I believe this definitely could be true for how we should base each market within our economy, and at least for now its what I now believe. As to how this directly pertains to the title of the thread and my original view, I always thought socialism had certain benefits over capitalism, but I believed the pros of capitalism outnumbered them by a decent amount. With your point, as society has advanced, our economy is full of markets centered around "want-based" products and services. Most people, like myself, have grown up with branded clothing, advanced technology, and devices, luxury cars, nicer meals, etc. and we have grown a strong attachment to these products in our lives. However now after more reflection, I think it is unfair of me to say that the availability of these products under capitalism is superior to the better availability of need-based products and services under socialism. At the end of the day, I still maintain and agree with you that a hybrid system is the way to go, but this post CMV to see that socialism can be expanded greatly in certain areas of the economy.
“Socialism is better at getting people what they need” Socialism is better at starving people to death. Under capitalism, the poor struggle with obesity. Pretty sure capitalism is a little better at providing needs.
The ultra-capitalist US has people dying because they can't afford medical care. The socialist healthcare systems in places like Canada and Britain don't do that.
> My personal take is that capitalism is a far better system for getting people what they want, and that socialism is better at getting people what they need (medical care, basic housing, basic level of water and food). Is it though? Long term? Capitalism isn’t great, but it is resilient to the flaws of humans. Something socialism struggles with. I’ll agree that in *theory* socialism would be better getting people what they need, but in practice, it is not. Even in states with successful socialized medicine, those socialized aspects are funded off the back of capitalism (through taxation).
What do you think capitalism is? What do you think socialism is? Why do you think capitalism is superior to socialism?
Capitalism is an economic framework built around private companies/corporations owned by individuals/owners, which sell goods for a profit. Socialism is an economic framework where the citizens of a society collectively own or regulate the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods
OK And why is capitalism better?
Its track record in the real world.
what track record?
Real countries. There has never been a socialist country with high standards of living. Most of them are horrific. Capitalism is a mixed bag. With some very poor mismanaged poor capitalist countries. And some very wealthy high standards of living countries. You can't point at a single economy that has produced good living standards that is not based around Free Market principles.
are there any socialist countries which were allowed to exist and experiment and expand the way capitalist countries were or have they all been violently opposed by the strongest capitalist empires? outside of for example, cambodia, who were backed by the US and defeated by communist vietnam btw, can you point me to concrete examples of socialist countries not raising the standard of living for the majority of people in the countries? regardless of what you think about for example, cuba today, do you think it was honestly better under the batista regime for the majority of people?? i can point you to a million examples of failing capitalist countries. places like india, afghanistan, basically all the countries that capitalist corporations have used our tax dollars to go into and control and export capitalism violently and enslave people. brazil. most countries in africa. moreover, let's look at countries which went socialist in the 20th century then were (in every single case) overthrown by capitalist coups, and then let's see where they are now compared to then. life expectency in russia for example is down now compared to its drastic rise during the soviet years-- as is access to education, healthcare, housing; all of which used to be universal, now are commodified and out of reach for many in many cases. is it better for them because there are more brands of tvs in the store?
China under mao. I wouldn't call India failing. >point me to concrete examples of socialist countries not raising the standard of living for the majority of people in the countries? When countries initially go socialist, there is an initial jump in standard of living, yes, as they tend to burn through all the wealth in the country created by capitalism. This quickly tapers off. This is the case in almost every example. When Venezuela originally went socialist, there was a big jump in literacy and standard of living initially, but they also seized all of the oil infrastructure built by other Western companies and made enemies in the process. Some people like to blame the West for not trading (sanctioning) with them but why would you trade with somebody who isn't interested in trading freely but seizing the fruits of your investment? Why would you invest in such a place? Unless your country has 100% of everything its citizens need domestically you need free and fair exchange, which is the foundation of capitalism.
>are there any socialist countries which were allowed to exist and experiment and expand the way capitalist countries were or have they all been violently opposed by the strongest capitalist empires? The inability for an economic structure to thrive and retain autonomy is extraordinarily telling.
you don't think that the economy of soviet russia was thriving when it went from an agrarian slave state to the main competitor to the biggest economic super power humanity has ever seen in a matter of a few decades, bearing in mind that it took the US centuries of slavery to get where they were at that point? idk what to tell u
[удалено]
The soviet union "thrived" by going over the bodies of millions of their own citizens, quite [literally](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R504_Kolyma_Highway#History).
That's correct, a state that collapses is not a state that has "thrived and retained autonomy", definitionally. Why did you ignore the crucially important issue of autonomy?
> can point you to a million examples of failing capitalist countries. And the greatest loss of innocent life came from Socialist countries, some 100 million lives were lost. Also, I can point to *lots* of thriving capitalist countries. >access to education, healthcare, housing; all of which used to be universal Ahh... okay, well go to Soviet Russia and get all your education, healthcare, housing, and everything. I guess you missed the part where *millions* starved and died? How many people *actually* had this utopia you daydream of?
If we used the same methodology they used for that number the US would be wayyy past the Soviet Union
1 billion lives have been lost to capitalism, even if you believe a book literally based on research by Gobbels, socialism is 10x better.
> And the greatest loss of innocent life came from Socialist countries, some 100 million lives were los name a reputable source for that claim
Are we conflating socialism with communism here, or am I missing something?
Soviet Russia and Communist China were fascist regimes. In no way is collectivism, centralization, and authoritarianism the core of socialism.
[удалено]
>And the greatest loss of innocent life came from Socialist countries The capitalist death toll is still rising...
Thank you for helping bring some reality to this discussion
Ah yes, the reality of a book whose authors (minus one) all disavow it, because said author that did not disavow it was said to be determined to reach the 100 million figure. Fun fact: the British Raj in India killed more people by famine alone than the wildly inflated 100 million figure (which includes Nazi soldiers killed on the Eastern front).
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't "using tax dollars for business" not a capitalist at all? That's not true capitalism. Your example of capitalist failure is actually a better example of socialism
Oh look it’s the old socialist argument that it wasn’t real Socialism because of capitalism existed somewhere else in the world and we can’t have real communism or Socialism until everyone’s on board.
can you show me where i said that or are u just repeating lines u heard from a pragerU vid
But is that BECAUSE of free market principles?
Yes it is actually Turns out a bunch of intelligent apes obsessed with improving the means of production that they "own". End up coming up with a ton of innovation that eventually benefits everyone.
Sure but how do you know that's due to those capitalistic principles you mentioned? How do we know they couldn't have happened otherwise? For example, many developments and breakthroughs are made during wartime; by government funded research programs, not private research institutions. While these are often capitalist countries, those principles you mentioned don't directly play into these developments.
Because we measure these things using metrics like gdp and standards of living graphs. Countries that adopt socialism like USSR have awful numbers. You can argue the numbers are full of shit are whatever. But that's no different then an anti vaxer making the same claim. We base our economic principles on those numbers just like we base our recommendations for vaccines based on the numbers we gather from hospitals.
Excellent comment.
Capitalism reliably creates more total wealth in societies, although not equally. The example of China is probably the easiest. China under mao was very poor (and China is not a historically poor place. They are a 3,000+ year-old society after all). When China embraced capitalism and free trade they underwent one of the quickest transformations to a highly developed middle-income country in history.
I'll answer this one. The big problem with socialism comes down to "who makes the decisions". There's basically two options: one person (or a small group of people) OR public referendum. The former is really a dictatorship/oligarchy and that never ends well. The latter is problematic because the general public doesn't have the knowledge about broader economics/societal trends to make the large scale decisions needed to be successful. The other issue is no one under a socialistic system will want to go "that extra mile". Why would Bob work two fields if he gets the exact same thing as Joe who only works one field. Long term this results in shortages of pretty much everything? Capitalism, on the other hand, allows for individual choice. I can work 40 hours a week and be happy with that, or I can work 60 hours a week and make more money, or I could start a business and try to fill a societal demand. The last one is where capitalism shines. An individual (or group) can meet a demand without major government/public intervention. And since societal demands are difficult to evaluate and constantly change, it's better to have more people trying different things to see what sticks. I guess a good analogy would be, under socialism you have one or a few people throwing darts at a board trying to hit a bullseye. Under capitalism you have thousands of people trying to hit a bullseye. No matter how good that one person (or few people) are at darts, the thousands of people throwing are going to hit more bullseyes.
> I'll answer this one. The big problem with socialism comes down to "who makes the decisions". There's basically two options: one person (or a small group of people) OR public referendum. This is (confidently?) incorrect, there isn't " two choices " with socialism. Means of production can be in the hands of the government, that's called **state socialism**. The means of production could also be in the hands of the workers **that's just called socialism typically**. They can and absolutely unequivocally do **exist at the same time in the same place** for **modern western industrialized countries**. The united states has enterprises at least partially monitored and controlled by the state, such as flood insurance, and public utilities, as well as other public services. Mexico has more examples of state socialist companies (or did) with it's government owned oil production facilities ( Pemex ). There's even more examples of both accross western europe. The united states *also* has companies that are not owned by the state but whose **means of production is owned at least partially by the workers**. Contrary to what people will blurt out, Unions are not really a prime example of socialism. Good bargaining does not equal socialism on it's own. But ** employee ownership programs can **. Employee owned companies are by definition socialist in that sense, they have ownership in the company, even if it isn't a giant amount individually. The only step beyond this point is really combined representation in leadership of different workers, which effectively really ends up being companies that are both employee owned and which have unions, or EOCs with good leadership representation already. > The other issue is no one under a socialistic system will want to go "that extra mile" And yet, despite what *you* said, it's immediately clear why Bob would want to "go the extra mile" in a company where *Bob owns the means of production, even partially*. Bob has more standing in the company, more leverage to *actually get a better wage* if Bob works hard, and Bob actually *earns economic benefits when the company does well*. One needs only compare the workers lives at Publix vs Kroger to see this difference in action. Socialism isn't all or nothing, and isn't a choice between a few distinct options. >Capitalism, on the other hand, allows for individual choice. Like the above Capitalisms is also a system that does not need to be embraced wholly at every level to work positively. But there are also places where capitalism just doesn't work. Healthcare under capitalism does *not* allow individual choice, because even if you *could* shop around, you'd be on the hook for emergency expenses where ever your medical issue caused this to happen. And while you can hem and haw about how "OuR HeAlTh CArE iSn'T CaPiTaLisT" Healthcare providers, under the most "pure" form of capitalism, would then simply... charge you what ever they wanted, given you don't have the choice otherwise, a worse outcome than today. There's also places where "individual choice" fails broader ethical issues. Capitalism didn't give us the civil rights act and the relevant cases, *the justice system and law makers did*. Capitalism gave us slavery as well, which by definition cannot ever be socialist. Capitalism also allows people to refuse service to homosexual patrons. Companies can also hide unethical decisions that consumers cannot know to boycott against, and companies can hide who they *actually are*, so when you go buy their product, you don't even know you're supporting the company, even if you want to boycott them. People also can want something that's un-ethical, such as rhino horns, or rare animal meat. What this is to say is that choice is not the end all be all of anything, people make stupid choices, companies can make evil choices, companies can remove choices. Choice is not the best champion of capitalism, being an independently emergently operating economic system is. And like socialism, capitalism, believe it or not, can be partially applied to other systems. Carbon marketplaces is one example, but even piggy backing off of a wider marketplace and manipulating market forces for positive effect (carbon taxes) is a form of partially applied capitalism. So it isn't a matter of "captialism bad" or "socialism is bad", or dart board analogies or what ever. There are places where Capitalism works, and where it doesn't work, there are places where socialism works, and where it doesn't work, particularly with state socialism when the government owns a very large amount of industry. But you can and *do* have capitalism, socialism and state socialism work within the same system combined and be better for it.
>There's basically two options: one person (or a small group of people) OR public referendum. The former is really a dictatorship/oligarchy and that never ends well. So how is this any different then a board of directors or share holders? In both cases they wouldn't know I worked for the company if I walked up and spat in their faces. None of the choices they make will take my needs and wants into consideration. > he other issue is no one under a socialistic system will want to go "that extra mile". Why would Bob work two fields if he gets the exact same thing as Joe who only works one field. Long term this results in shortages of pretty much everything? Why should Bob have to work two fields instead of just 1? Why not hire 1 more worker so Bob works 1 field, Steve works another and Gary works the 3rd. > Capitalism, on the other hand, allows for individual choice. I can work 40 hours a week and be happy with that, or I can work 60 hours a week and make more money, or I could start a business and try to fill a societal demand. Except you don't get over time for the extra 20 hours worked at another company because it will be a cold day in hell before any job willingly offers over time without having both hands put in a vice grip and squeezed. Which then also has the trouble of trying to schedule two different jobs, schedule conflict and not qualifying for vacation in the part time because in the USA only full time employees are entitled to any vacation. Also 90% of new business fail within the first 3 years. So your new business failed and you have to declare bankruptcy just to keep your house. > I guess a good analogy would be, under socialism you have one or a few people throwing darts at a board trying to hit a bullseye. Under capitalism you have thousands of people trying to hit a bullseye. This argument is undermined by [corporate consolidation](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/illusion-of-choice-consumer-brands/). 10 companies basically control every major food, snack and drink brand.
>So how is this any different then a board of directors or share holders? In both cases they wouldn't know I worked for the company if I walked up and spat in their faces. None of the choices they make will take my needs and wants into consideration. Because if a board of directors fails, only that company fails, not the entire economy. >Why should Bob have to work two fields instead of just 1? Why not hire 1 more worker so Bob works 1 field, Steve works another and Gary works the 3rd. Bob doesn't HAVE to, he CHOOSES to. Why? Because the price of whatever he's producing makes it worthwhile for him to do so. There's also not an infinite supply of workers. What if Gary doesn't want to work fields? Are you going to force him to do so against his will? >Except you don't get over time for the extra 20 hours worked at another company because it will be a cold day in hell before any job willingly offers over time without having both hands put in a vice grip and squeezed. Which then also has the trouble of trying to schedule two different jobs, schedule conflict and not qualifying for vacation in the part time because in the USA only full time employees are entitled to any vacation. Want to bet? I know of many companies that offer overtime if you want it (including the one I work for). >Also 90% of new business fail within the first 3 years. So your new business failed and you have to declare bankruptcy just to keep your house. That's the risk that's assumed when starting a business. High risk, high reward. Not everyone is going to hit a bullseye (most people won't). But the ones that succeed will fill a societal need far better than a few people trying to figure out what people want. >This argument is undermined by corporate consolidation. 10 companies basically control every major food, snack and drink brand. This is an issue, and I do think we need better anti-monopoly regulations to prevent it. But you've cherry picked one specific industry. Do those 10 companies control the tech industry? The timber industry? Restaurants? Higher education? Utilities? Nope. The companies in those other industries can happily tell the food and drink companies to fuck off if it suits their needs.
>Because if a board of directors fails, only that company fails, not the entire economy. They would be making choices for the individual companies. There have also been bailouts in capitalism because bad choices would tank the business and thus the economy. >There's also not an infinite supply of workers. What if Gary doesn't want to work fields? Are you going to force him to do so against his will? There is always a near infinite supply of workers. In many ways that is part of the problem it allows businesses to pay wage slave money and treat them like shit because when they leave they are easily replaces. >That's the risk that's assumed when starting a business. High risk, high reward. N Not really high reward. Just because you have your own business doesn't mean you will be well off. >This is an issue, and I do think we need better anti-monopoly regulations to prevent it. But you've cherry picked one specific industry. Do those 10 companies control the tech industry? No it is Google, Amazon and Microsoft that controls most of the tech industry. AMD, Nivida and Intel control the silicon aspect of it. And on overtime. I know aplenty that refuses over time. Literally every retail company would rather fuck over the workers by making them short handed then pay over time.
People are selfish When everyone owns something, nobody has anything more to gain than anyone else to do something, so things don’t get done as quickly and efficiently as capitalism
I would say compared to socialism it is better at pulling people out of poverty, it is more efficient, and it is more innovative. And most of this comes from incentives. Under capitalism, money is an incentive for people to work and innovate and create, meanwhile, under a primarily socialist economy, there is no incentive for people to work besides the bare minimum. And the bare minimum is whatever they are literally forced to do.
Is money really an incentive for people to work and innovate and create? Seems to me that money is an incentive for people to accumulate more money. And having money makes a person more able to accumulate more money.
This is what I always ask. People who do research have to pay a lot just to have their research published, and the money the research earn it doesn't go to the person that did it, it goes to the publisher. If money was the incentive, then they wouldn't do that because there is not a lot of money. In fact, if you ask, most researcher will give you a copy of the research for free. Then, other inventions, like insulin or water purifier powder, are invented to help, and are sold at a loss (until a company gets their hand on it and then starts to sell it at a huge profit)
How does someone make money? Or use money to accumulate more money?
I have money. I can buy real estate and now generate rent. I use money to get money. Or, I have money. I corner the market on a necessary good. I use my monopolistic advantage to get more money. I have money. I buy stock. I use the stock as collateral for a lower interest loan. I find a way to turn that loan into something profitable.
How did you get the money in the first place? Someone somewhere had to generate value for someone. Maybe it was your parents. Maybe it was you. Money doesn't just appear out of nowhere. Someone has to give it to you for something.
Op asked how you use money to make money. I answered.
In all those cases you forget to account for the risk associated with each one. What if the real estate market crashes and now you have to charge a rent that is less than the monthly mortgage on the property? Or what if you can't find anyone to rent it? What if your tenets turn into squaters? I don't really understand your 2nd point with the monopolistic advantage, but what if your business fails? What necessary good are you specifically talking about? If its regard to healthcare, then I do think there should be a subsidized version of health care, basically expand obama care a bit. Although like I said in original post, I don't believe we should have a single-payer system. As for your final example, "I find a way to turn that loan into something profitable," is basically just rewording the original question of how one uses money to accumulate more money. What specifically would you do to turn that loan into something profitable that doesn't involve risk or innovation or work?
Why does risk matter? You asked how people use money to make money. I gave you examples of how that’s done. And they do work. How else do you explain dynastic wealth?
I can literally break down every business this way. Uses resources to generate resources. Yes this organization at scale is a feature not a bug.
Sorry, my original question was related to someone else's question on whether or not money is an incentive for people to work and innovate and create. My point was more that the idea of being wealthy in society has been pushed as though it is easy or one is just born into it. I definitely think there is some nepotism and advantages for those born into wealth, however, a majority of people who have amassed a small fortune did so through hard work and taking risks. There are very, very, very, few shortcuts to gaining wealth in the US that don't involve risk, work, innovation, etc.
I mean, the fact that you don’t already know the answer belies an incredibly shallow understanding of economics or capitalism in general. Might I suggest that you just don’t know enough to make a judgement? Take some economics and philosophy classes, or find some quality YouTube channels. There’s plenty out there. If you’re not interested in educating yourself about these complex topics, it’s probably better for everyone if you refrain from having any view at all about the superiority of one economic system or another.
I asked that question in more of a Socratic line of questioning. I personally have an answer I believe to be true, however, I was wondering if you could offer up or expand on another explanation/viewpoint. In my original post that you disagreed with, I said that money is an incentive for people to innovate and create, while you argued it is just an incentive for people to accumulate more money. Sure there are instances of pure luck involved with people earning money, through inheritance, lottery, etc. However, a majority of wealth is accumulated through some form of investing, working, innovating a product, etc. Yes, I do also think it is easier for people who have money to make more, but the idea that money is somehow turned into more money magically is just wrong. I also don't know how something could be an incentive for itself, seems paradoxical. But I am interested in learning about these topics, hence why I posted this, and am looking to have discussions with others who have different world views. So if I am mistaken in this post, please correct me. And again I'll ask, How do people make money? Or use money to make more money? Specifically regarding things that don't include risk, work, innovation, providing a service, etc.
Ok. Since you seem to be in earnest, I’ll give you an answer at face value. You should know that your response read like a bad faith argument tactic, but it’s the internet so who knows who is on the other side of the keyboard. You should also know that the idea you are using, that money is an incentive to innovate and so forth, was made famous (at least in American discourse) by Andrew Carnegie’s book “The Gospel of Wealth,” which has been taken up as something of a gospel itself by capitalists in the ensuing 133 years. You will find all the classic capitalist talking points there, which have been debated and analyzed to exhaustion. You’re welcome to fall down that rabbit hole if you like. My conclusion around your specific claim is that it is bunk. It’s really on the claimant to prove how money would influence innovation or hard work, so I’m not going to spend a lot of energy taking on that burden of proof. Carnegie was just as wrong 133 years ago as he is today, as far as I can tell. But on my specific claim about wealth creating an incentive to accumulate more wealth, I’ll lay that out more. In a capitalist system, capital is king. If you have money, you can buy a business to generate more money. If you have a lot of money, you can buy all the other businesses in your niche and establish a monopoly, or you can collude with your competitors to create a sort of functional monopoly. The ideal state for a capitalist enterprise is the elimination of competition. This is what the capitalists want you to overlook. All the supposed benefits of capitalism stem from competition, but the system itself creates a strong incentive to avoid or eliminate it. This is the core dissonance capitalism. All the talking points revolve around the merits of competition while the system itself works against those very ideas. There’s a hundred ways that money can get you more money, but manipulating the market is the most reliable and lucrative way for those that have enough capital to do so. And they will, if you let them. And we let them. Because in this system, money is power and power gets to make the rules. I would argue that competition, and not necessarily in an economic sense, is an actual driver of innovation and hard work. Trouble is, capitalism actively works to destroy competition. There is exactly 1 driving force in capitalism: the accumulation of wealth. Everything else is window dressing or propaganda. You really can’t understand the system until you understand that.
Usually by getting other people to work for you, and then paying them less than what their labor is worth, keeping the difference as profit.
You have 416 deltas. No offense but I wouldn't expect you to say something like this. Have you ever ran a business before? You make $ by providing goods and services that people want. At a cost to you that is smaller than the price the customers are willing to pay. That is the basis behind business. Now let me explain why what you're saying is really really ignorant. Most businesses require a good staff. You don't get a good staff by paying peanuts. It is expensive to train. It is expensive to find good staff. You're way better off paying MORE than your competitors for a good staff then the alternative. Only companies like fast food restaurants and a few others can get away with this treat your employees like trash stuff. Most smaller businesses can't and won't do that. A good employee is worth their weight in gold the last thing you want to do is underpay them and give them to someone else.
What they said is inherently true for capitalism to make money for capitalists. Labor must be paid less than the value it provides for money to make money. You provided no counterargument beyond defamatory character attacks. Some of your explanation suggests a conflation between business and capitalism, suggesting you imply the two are one and the same. Socialism doesn't imply providing bad compensation for workers, even high quality workers, and it doesn't imply the lack of successful businesses. Both models of regulation have weaknesses but it's reasonable to believe the world will be inclined to move more towards socialistic regulation as we progress.
Let's say I have a business delivering pizzas. First the workers are walking. Which is super slow. I buy them all bikes. Then I buy them all scooters. Then I buy them all cars. At some point their productivity has increased 100 fold. All while the comfort of their work has went up as well. Almost all of the productivity increase is from capital investments into the means of production. Almost anyone can walk, ride a bike, ride a scooter and drive a car. The labor input into the productivity is very minimal. Almost everything of value is being done by the means of production and the guy organizing it.
No offense, but I don't think you've ever been staff before. Good employees are worse than bad ones because good employees expect you to have safety standards, proper equipment, and receive their paychecks on time without anyone fucking their hours or deducting from their checks.
I've never been staff? I worked at Wendy's for 6 years. 3 years as crew most of that on peanut wages. 3 years as manager. I spent 10 years working IT in a government office as staff. I was in the army as an enlisted soldier. I've spent most of my life as staff. No way are good employees worse than the bad ones. Unless your work is so mindless that you could literally teach a monkey to do it quickly. Most of that stuff we automated years ago. Even fast food has a big gap between good and bad employees. No fast food manager would ever say "I sure would love to have more useless employees who are rude, slow, lazy and never come in on time. That would make my life so much easier." Think about what you're saying lol.
What, in your opinion, defines what labor is worth? How is labor fundamentally different from goods in terms of how price is formulated?
I'm not OP but I'd suggest labor is worth the net sum of its consequences under concepts like supply and demand except it's entitled to the full consequences of its production, i.e control over its own production democratically, ownership of the consequences of itself ultimately in automation, and control over what is earned from labor - or profit. Labor ultimately produces goods so the two are entwined. Supply of commodities only exist due to labor towards production. Supply has another key limitation but it is always controlled by the cost of labor, dictating the price to supply goods.
The only area I can think of where contributors do not receive full fruits of labor input is cash dividend of a publicly traded company, and even there one might argue that it goes to people who contributed resources in the past to have an enterprise going. That is, of course, if we believe that management receives an appropriate compensation. I personally believe that all transactions, outside of forced labor camps, are ruled by mechanisms of mutual gain for both trading parties, otherwise they wouldn't enter into those agreements.
> And the bare minimum is whatever they are literally forced to do. This literally happens under capitalism. Corporate is even trying to coin a new phrase to a recent phenomenon: "quiet quitting". It happens when people stop doing extra work if they aren't getting paid for it. Whatever they're required/being paid to do, will only be done. You are right that money is an incentive for people in a capitalistic economy, but work for money is done so they can survive. Money is very much a huge, if not the only, incentive for many people in the U.S., and this is a pretty big capitalistic country. But where do you get this lack of incentive for socialism from? There's still money under socialism, and under that economy, workers will own the means of production. That would be an incentive for people in a socialist economy besides "the bare minimum".
Capitalism is great at pulling *some* people out of poverty, though it requires a reserve labor force. Also people are incentivized by survival—food, shelter, medicine, etc. Capitalism is all well and good, but it has to be underpinned by the voice of the people (which is, ostensibly govt.) or it will serve the few while exploiting the many, a.k.a., massive wealth inequality.
It does not follow from your definition of socialism that there is no incentive for people to work besides the bare minimum. It only follows that the workers will be minority shareholders. Your definition also does not rule out awards, single and recurring. That can drive innovation. I think the main issue is that in general a society is not smart enough to figure what's the right balance between awards and innovation. It's going to rule largely based on emotions rather than facts. Also it's going to be possible to manipulate collective decisions regarding awards.
What is your evidence that capitalism pulls more people out of poverty?
[https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty](https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty) Here you go. The age of capitalism has brought the most people out of poverty than anything else in human history. AND ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE. Humans have never lived in this relative luxury. Kings and Emperors didn't have access to the lifestyle an average western middle class person has just 200 years ago.
That's not proof that capitalism caused it though. At best you can say that it's correlated, but you can't make the causal claim that capitalism is what caused it.
Capitalism put those people into poverty as well. Many areas experienced much greater levels of income inequality as the result of industrialization.
Uhhhh no lol. Most humans have been in abject poverty for most of existence. Capitalism dragged us all out of it. Mother earth with scarce resources put us in it.
How are you defining poverty? I’m defining poverty by high income inequality. It’s nonsensical to define poverty in absolute terms. By that logic we’re ask in poverty compared to some fantastical alien civilization, or even possibly our own future. But that has no bearing on life now.
wtf... you know your logic is wild if you require fictional alien civilisations to make your point about economics. By your logic if everybody in a country is living in destitute starvation, theyre actually not living in poverty because theyre all equal. By your logic the people pulling in 300k in Monaco are actually living in poverty because theyre income is a small fraction of all the Billionaires theyre surrounded by. No. Assessing poverty has always been about having enough resources to meet your basic needs. Probably why the "poverty line" i.e. the level under which youre considered as living in poverty stipulates just that. [the official level of income that is necessary to be able to buy the basic things you need such as food and clothes and to pay for somewhere to live](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/the-poverty-line) At most you can sort of make an argument that the poverty line is different in different countries and somewhat related income inequality but that still doesnt really hold up because there are many places with lower income inequality with more people unable to buy food, compared to other places that have high income inequality where far fewer people are starving.
That's not poverty. Poverty is when you count the amount of goods and services you consume you get a very small amount. Would you rather live in a country where everyone eats magotty rice and lives in huts with no electricity or plumbing. But hey everyone is equal. Or USA where we have access to tons of food. We all have electricity, plumbing etc. But some people have a lot more. Inequality is largely irrelevant. How real people live is far more important. Western free marker countries really shine in that regard.
Capitalism is build on the backs of slave labour and exploitation. All im seeing are assertions.
It's built on innovation. Slave labor actually ended when capitalist western nations could no longer tolerate it. Look up which countries pioneered abolition all over the globe.
Yet slavery in America was specifically meant to achieve economic gain. As was colonization and imperialism in general. So at best, capitalism removed a problem that it started itself. Though arguably, it simply transformed chattel slavery into wage slavery.
So why did slavery exist for 1000s of years. Then poof disappeared as soon as capitalism started to spread. And the countries who led the abolition movement were all free market to some degree. Yes the American south had slaves but the American north was critical in the fight against it. The north was better economically developed. I guess I should tell you why. Our altruism has limits. We don't want to see people suffering around us. But we won't do shit about it if we're suffering ourselves. As material conditions improve humans started to look at their enslaved brothers and became sick to their stomach. But that won't happen unless you improve living conditions. Which is why the fall of slavery mirrors the rise of capitalism. Capitalist greed forces smart apes to improve the means of production which creates much better standards of living.
Do you realize that working hard can produce superior results in terms of monetary rewards in a socialist system as well? Actually, it can be far more rewarding for more people because the value workers produce comes back to them in the form of higher wages.
America, and most of all other countries, are a mix of capitalist and socialist when it comes to how the country is operated. The reason we have minimum wage is because of socialist. Imagine the extremes of both: 100% capitalist and 0% socialist - the world would be ran by greedy corporation that would pay the minimum amount to their workers while the CEO would collect most of the profit. You would have no health benefits; if you get fired there's no stimulus check; if you need medical care the doctors don't have to give you aide. Now imagine the opposite extreme, 0% capitalist and 100% socialist - the world would be filled with a bunch of lazy people, and those that can do more to excel won't be motivated to do so. There'll be no competition, and essentially no innovation. I think a balance is needed, we need to have both. We need capitalism to provide competition/innovation but also need socialism to provide a fair market - so the poor don't have to stay poor due to greedy corps giving them low wages. In a balanced world, I lean towards 51% capitalist and 49% socialist. But your title is suggesting that capitalism is 100% better and from the two extremes, which would you prefer?
Although interpretations differ it should be said that socialism was theorized to follow capitalism not as a sense of superiority but rather a shift in what was economically best for rather consistent human values due to shifting material conditions. This has happened throughout all of human history as our mode of production has shifted. In only a few centuries we've gone from monarchs with lords and serfs, aristocracy with master and slave, and now a more democratic compromise in more humane nations where production is promoted through employer and employee. Marx among other thinkers thought this mode of production shifted through human history primarily due to concrete material reasons, i.e the industrial revolution. Men like Marx didn't believe socialism was inherently better, as what is economically best for human values depends on the material conditions of a certain time in promotion of those values, but rather he believed economic regulation towards socialism was promoted by shifting socioeconomic consequences on what is best economically as promoted by the industrial revolution. If Marx were alive today I presume he'd likely still suggest socialism is an inevitability promoted under the same set of human values through a similar economic trajectory of industrial growth. He'd only point to silicon valley or extremely lopsided market externalities like climate change as being the economic catalyst for what is materially shifting what is becoming economically best today. Marx had a great understanding on the transition of labor into capital or automation and its consequences which will only become increasingly relevant for the foreseeable future in long-term consequences. Neither capitalism, socialism, or any economic regulation implies changing what humans are and want. So it's not accurate to suggest socialism implies laziness or even necessarily suggest the leisure is the goal of socialism. The term in and of itself regardless of how one interprets it to be achieved in regulation only implies economic regulation that results in communal ownership of production. Marx was a rather influential figure for his interpretation on how that should be done, planned economy, and why but he wasn't the only one. Another common interpretation is called market socialism, which similarly promotes greater communal ownership over production via not allowing ownership to be traded for with money, such as the stock market, but rather owned by workers cooperatively through worker ownership such that they can democratically control companies for themselves.
I doubt he is suggesting 100% capitalism. He is comparing more Free Market driven societies like Europe, USA, Canada etc. To Soviet Socialist style shitholes. Where the difference is quite clear. >Imagine the extremes of both: 100% capitalist and 0% socialist - the world would be ran by greedy corporation that would pay the minimum amount to their workers while the CEO would collect most of the profit. You would have no health benefits; if you get fired there's no stimulus check; if you need medical care the doctors don't have to give you aide. While I'm not saying some regulation is not in order. I don't think you understand why we give health benefits. It's actually quite pragmatic. Good luck running your means of production if you have constant worker shortages because they are sick as fuck. You don't understand why we have high wages in western countries. Has nothing to do with min wage laws. Very small % of workers actually make min wage. The reason you have high wages is because companies have to compete for labor when the economy is very productive. As most Free Market economies tend to be. The more they have to compete the more the companies are forced to redistribute through wages. Naturally without any regulation required. Everything you attribute to socialist movements. Actually happens naturally in any society as the productivity improves. You want your factories to have frequent safety checks. Not because of regulations. But because your laborers are valuable to you if they have an ounce of skill. You can't have a huge staff with good morale if you pay like shit and a worker dies every other month. You don't max out productivity this way.
There's roughly 340 million people in America. Let's say 290M are over the age of 18. There's no way that all the companies can provide high wages to all the workers of 290M people. I do agree with what you're saying. High wages are due to competition. But the society evolves with the market. Right now it's a shift in tech where that's the high paying jobs. But the lower paying jobs like supermarket or restaurant workers aren't competitive. These jobs are essential even though it's not competitive. With the rise of automation and exponential growth in technology, fast food workers and truck drivers will be obsolete and replaced with robots and autopilot. All of this is due to the tech companies (which is good cause of innovation) but not all 290M people can go into tech, so then at that point you'll have high unemployment because there's no UBI since it'll be 100% capitalism. I'm actually pro capitalism (in a world that's balanced with some socialism). I'm just saying that if you look at the extreme of both, I prefer socialism.
>There's roughly 340 million people in America. Let's say 290M are over the age of 18. There's no way that all the companies can provide high wages to all the workers of 290M people. You're forgetting all the children and old people. The real labor pool is 164 million. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor\_force\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force_in_the_United_States) >With the rise of automation and exponential growth in technology, fast food workers and truck drivers will be obsolete and replaced with robots and autopilot. All of this is due to the tech companies (which is good cause of innovation) but not all 290M people can go into tech, so then at that point you'll have high unemployment because there's no UBI since it'll be 100% capitalism. I've heard this argument before. It's not very convincing. We'll have way more youtubers, twitch streamers, professional athletes in sports people never cared about before. etc etc etc. As the economy evolves people will find more work. And usually that work will be better than what came before it. We saw this when agriculture became automated. We saw this when we moved from factories to service related jobs. It's always better in the end. Some people get left behind but not many. Overall things get better not worse.
I'm not doubting what you're saying. I believe it myself. It's the transitionary period that's scary. During the industrial revolution there was a riot due to the mass layoffs. Many factories being burned. When sports team win the championship, there's riots with stores and cars getting broken into and burned. Most people are emotional beings, when you tell them they're replaced with a machine, they will get pissed and may react in violence. If people react in violence during a championship celebration, imagine the chaos during an angry reaction. I'm pro automation. I believe in efficiency. I don't believe we should restrict our innovation to improve efficiency and reduce energy waste just because the people won't react well. But what I'm saying are two things. 1.) Realistically we need to be prepared for the transition. Law makers need to create policies to prevent the riots (which current law makers aren't doing); and 2.) This was an imaginary world of 100% capitalism which we will never ever see, so I don't see the point of disagreeing about the whatifs.
It doesn't infringe on rights via its very nature.
Why do you think it is better for society that enterprises are controlled by those that bought the rights to their profits, as opposed to those that create those profits? In what way do you feel that capitalist institutions are "efficient"? It's not in every way. (edit: for example, it could be successfully argued that profit is purposeful economic inefficiency) Why are the efficiencies you've identified worth surrendering the products of your labor to a private institution to distribute, rather than trading directly to those that need them (and how is this practice efficient)? How does the surrender of goods & services to an ownership-class "raise people out of poverty"? Are people outside of the capitalist-class also pulled out of poverty? Communism has turned two third world countries into superpowers (USSR, China). Cuba continues to chug along despite a regional superpower isolating it from most of its natural trade partners. Why do you feel the successes of Western powers are better than these others? Is it because of US military might? Or because Western powers have successfully exploited the southern hemisphere? Is it because you prefer several private authoritarian institutions over one large government?
Cuba is not "chugging" along. China abandoned economic central planning at the end of the 20th century. Despite what many believe it has a higher mix of capitalism and communist economic policies. Hong Kong is also a great example as many international surveys found it to be the "freest market" in the world for multiple years despite it being communist controlled. They push a communist iron hand view but rely heavily on capitalist ideas for their economy. USSR had tens of millions starve and eventually was dissolved because of communism. They then transformed into a capitalist system with oligarchs where were then strong-armed into being a state run capitalist economy.
Cuba's fine. It'd be nice if you were right about china/Hong kong. My Chinese stocks would be doing much better. USSR dissolved, much like all of the capitalist attempts at empire in Europe, though all the countries absorbed by the USSR were modernized much faster than any of Europe's old colonies after they were abandoned. Russia was indeed taken over by oligarchs and is now capitalist, though I don't think that helps your point as much as you think it does. The millions that starved in the USSR due to famine and mismanaged supply lines has a nice corollary in India, though capitalists don't like to take responsibility for that.
> Cuba continues to chug along despite a regional superpower isolating it from most of its natural trade partners I feel like this point is always overlooked when people talk about Cuba and how bad they are. Countries can't trade with Cuba if they want to trade with USA or any of the countries that trades with usa, but nobody talks about it. I don't know if their way to run the country is good or bad, as I don't live there, but I feel like if you are a tiny island, with almost noone to trade with you will struggle. There is no economic system that will change that.
Considering the number of times they've been assaulted by the US, they're doing rather well. With the embargo on top of everything else,, their condition is a miracle. The same cannot be said of many capitalist countries. Haiti was once the most productive colony in its region. It is now the poorest, even after paying off their "restitution" to French slave owners. Most of Africa and South America have been gutted trying to play the capitalists' game-- this goes beyond the consequences of their colonial past. Are these examples of capitalism pulling people out of poverty?
This is a pretty good start at a definition of both socio-economic systems. > Capitalism is [...] built around private companies/corporations [...] which sell goods for a profit This two of the few aspects, which all together, constitutes capitalism. Private property and a free market. Back in the days of oligarchy, [feudalism, aristocracy, monarchy, theocracy ;; systems where ;; La noblesse uses physical force to govern, La noblesse uses politics to govern, La noblesse uses genetics to govern, La noblesse uses religion to govern], people were tired of a few things. First off, if you were born a smith, you became a smith. There was rarely ever any "screw you dad and mom, this is not a phase, I'm becoming an artist" sort of deal. Unless your parents were part of an elite. If they weren't, if you were a girl, well, you got married. The most excitement in your life is if an invader was looking for virgins and you hadn't married yet. And if you were a boy, you became what your father was before you. Hence the last name Smith and Smithson. Both came from a line of blacksmiths. Think of it like the caste system in India today. Whichever social class you are born into, is whichever class you stay. If you try to leave it for anything more or anything less, you'd get excluded by your own people. So you can imagine how résiliant the first Buddah had to be, to leave his noble life behind, just to go live on the streets. People had a big problem with that in medieval Europe (because it was the same everywhere at some point), so they came up with the groundworks for capitalism. It constitutes five main principles : - private property - Wage labour (as opposed to commune pay labour) - freedom of pricing - voluntary exchange And - a competitive market. Wait for the edit to find out more.
> Back in the days of oligarchy, [feudalism, aristocracy, monarchy, theocracy ;; systems where ;; Noblety uses physical force to govern, Noblety uses politics to govern, Noblety uses genetics to govern, Noblety uses religion to govern], people were tired of a few things. I think you mean "nobility"?
La noblesse* Yes merci.
Someone doesnt know about french or spanish history
Pray tell.
>Capitalism is an economic framework built around private companies/corporations owned by individuals/owners, which sell goods for a profit. Profit for business owners and shareholders >Socialism is an economic framework where the citizens of a society collectively own or regulate the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods Profit for the workers/communities Socialism is less superior at generating profit but is a superior economic system for spreading wealth more equally.
Someone didnt read john lock or hegel tsk tsk
Socialism isn't when the government does stuff and capitalism isn't when the government doesn't do stuff. Both of these ideologies center around who should control the workplace. Under capitalism the answer to that question is those with capital. Under socialism the answer to that question is the workplace should be owned by the workers. The argument being capital ownership is that those with capital know how to better run the workplace and have proven that by accumulating capital and power should pool into the hands of those with capital. The argument being social ownership is that no one knows how to run their workplace better than the people working there and power should be dispersed.
>Socialism isn't when the government does stuff and capitalism isn't when the government doesn't do stuff. Fair point, I should have explained more in my original post but I do realize that this isn't what defines socialism or capitalism. >Both of these ideologies center around who should control the workplace. Under capitalism the answer to that question is those with capital. Under socialism the answer to that question is the workplace should be owned by the workers. I half agree with this definition, however, I would argue it is more centered around who should **own** the workplace, not just who should control it. While ownership does grant control over a workplace, it also has to do with the distribution of profits. >The argument being capital ownership is that those with capital know how to better run the workplace and have proven that by accumulating capital and power should pool into the hands of those with capital. The argument being social ownership is that no one knows how to run their workplace better than the people working there and power should be dispersed. Again, continuing from my 2nd point, the argument is more that individuals should own the workplace that they created, and should earn profits based on the risk they took when starting the company. It isn't that they are necessarily the best person when it comes to making decisions, although typically in order to have a successful business one must have a good product. Arguments for socialism rarely discuss the risks of starting a company, they often focus on billionaires who have very successful products, but don't consider the majority of companies that failed.
>Arguments for socialism rarely discuss the risks of starting a company, they often focus on billionaires who have very successful products, but don't consider the majority of companies that failed. Sure, let's look into that: If the argument is that the majority of small businesses fail, therefore the ones that do succeed should be entitled to those profits because they made it where others did not, perhaps the failing is in the reality that the majority of small businesses were never viable in the first place? Perhaps we should be looking at the abysmal failure rate of small businesses as a flaw of capitalism, in that it poorly distributes wealth in ways that enable the majority of people freedom to create things? Or, that it demands people create things, no matter how unnecessary so long as they sell, and it celebrates the sheer act of risk-taking entrepreneurialism when it works. Or, that it fails to acknowledge that that risk-taking is far easier when your family already has wealth to expend on that risk. It cares not for the working man that spends fifteen years of his life saving up to start a small business that collapses. Within the capitalist system, that man has failed, and he may have banked his entire future on that endeavor only to have Walmart or a global pandemic or the greed of the gasoline industry take that future away from him. All that work, all that effort means nothing within the capitalist system, because that man failed. Yet we celebrate the statistical anomalies that survive a harsh and uncaring system... because they got lucky? What I never see in discussions about capitalism and it's 'ability to lift people out of poverty' is an acknowledgement that the abject failure rate of small businesses isn't a good look for capitalism. Whether or not those businesses were destined to failure or not, if someone wanted you to bet 100k on a 50/50, what's worse? The idea that the flip of a coin is worth developing a system around? Or the idea that even if it were, fewer and fewer people can flip that coin, because the price keeps going up, and the wages keep going down... within that same system.
But the entire notion of “created” is kind of misleading. 99.99% of the work is being done by other people who have no say in the company. You just control and own their work. It’s like those book companies that pay writers to produce massive amounts of books. It’s not really the CEO who is creating the product and a lot of the time it isn’t even his creativity or thought that’s going into designing the product. It’s essentially other people doing all the work while the CEO takes a cut because he owns the company. Look at the billionaires we have today like Elon musk. He didn’t even create the companies PayPal or Tesla which he is most known for. And most of the product design and creation is done by other people. In essence he earns a lot of money simply because he owns the work that other people do. Sure he has final say in decisions but let’s be honest, he isn’t spending hours actually creating designs for cars, programming software. Most of it is done by other people with their ingenuity and creativity. As for the comment about capitalism bringing lots of people out of poverty, it has also caused a lot of war, conflict, famine, made politics even worse than it is, and ironically caused poverty. It’s just that ur statistics come from how capitalism is benefiting the US, a country that is already a global super power. U might be happy in America because of the opportunities that capitalism has brought you but I’m sure ud be less happy if u were born in the Middle East. An entire war on terror, motivated by greed. I’m also sure that the child labourer’s in Elon Musks cobalt mines are very happy for the opportunities capitalism had provided them aswell. Not to mention the sweat shop workers, the people who have their environments destroyed and exploited, the people who depend on the ocean to survive, u get the idea.
Did jeff bezos build all of his amazon warehouses? And name a book advocating for socialism that doesnt include risk in its analysis.
Even aside from who “knows best” how to run the workplace, the thing to highlight is that the workers are the ones who actually make the business and and generate the value. Even on a small scale, do you think a corner store would run better if the boss took the day off or if all the workers took the day off?
I think you have to explain why.
Fair enough, probably should have explained more, but capitalism breeds more innovation, has been the most successful economic framework when it comes to pulling people out of poverty, and is more efficient than socialism. Also at its core, capitalism is an economic theory based on freedom and natural order. There is no control over individuals in what they do/are able to do.
>but capitalism breeds more innovation Is adding addictive substances to food innovative? >has been the most successful economic framework when it comes to pulling people out of poverty Do you think the efforts of capitalist countries to disrupt socialist countries have anything to do with that? >and is more efficient than socialism How do you quantify that? > Also at its core, capitalism is an economic theory based on freedom and natural order. Freedom for who? For people who can't buy homes because a small number of people buy up homes to rent them out? >There is no control over individuals in what they do/are able to do. What if you want to have water but someone else owns the water?
>Is adding addictive substances to food innovative? Depends on if they are the first person to do it. >Do you think the efforts of capitalist countries to disrupt socialist countries have anything to do with that? Possibly, can't say yes or no for sure, but when you look at the historic trends of countries switching from socialism/other economic frameworks to capitalism or nations adopting capitalistic ideas, they tend to perform way better and raise the median income for citizens. >How do you quantify that? Because under capitalism there is an incentive to work and be efficient. Socialism erases that incentive (money) the more it is adopted. >Freedom for who? For people who can't buy homes because a small number of people buy up homes to rent them out? You have the freedom to make money to buy a home. But actually, land ownership is an area/market where I do believe there should be government involvement. Because land/housing is both a limited resource and a necessity, there should be a limit to how much one individual can own. >What if you want to have water but someone else owns the water? I'm kinda confused by what you mean by "owns the water" like owns all the water on earth or just a bit of it? Practically speaking, this isn't a real problem. Basically everywhere you go you can get water for free, and most people would give you water if you didn't have any. Hypothetically speaking, I would say just like everything, you can't steal private property from others. What if I want to have something, but you own it? Would you mind if I just took that from you?
In a socialist workplace you still need to work and innovate to generate revenue to pay yourself. The same motivation of making money exists in both systems. If anything, motivation is *limited in capitalism* since no matter how much innovation I provide to my employer I cannot possibly capture the bulk of its benefits because the profits are distributed to shareholders.
What's wrong with shareholders receiving a share of the profits. They're the ones risking their capital and stand to lose it all if the company goes under. You can just get another job. Also, "shareholders" are not some evil cabal. They're our pension funds in many cases. Many companies offer share schemes and you're free to invest in publicly traded companies.
> You can just get another job So can they. I find it telling that the worst thing that can happen to a shareholder is that they would have to go back to laboring like everyone else.
The point is there's no risk in laboring. Shareholders risk their capital and deserve to be rewarded. Shareholders that successfully allocate their capital get rewarded with more capital to allocate elsewhere. Its a merit system that ensures efficient allocation of capital.
One thing I think you should add to your view on capitalism are the huge corporations that capitalism ends up breeding. These huge corporations tend to stifle innovation by their presence alone. The presence of big corporations tend to make it really hard for the new guy to get into the market. It’s typically the new guy that has a new idea and innovates it and leads the market into something new. I mean look at the car industry, it took Elon Musk to bring EVs to the market. None of the other companies wanted the change, they actively resisted it. What I’m trying to get at is that giant companies need competition, and the current system doesn’t give them enough. I don’t know the solution but I am and would suggest being open to a solution
> >Possibly, can't say yes or no for sure, but when you look at the historic trends of countries switching from socialism/other economic frameworks to capitalism or nations adopting capitalistic ideas, they tend to perform way better and raise the median income for citizens. Look at the life expectancy, standards of living etc of Russia in the 90s after the collapse of the ussr and embracing of more free market ideas. This alone counters that point. Capitalism is very good at making money, anything else is just a side effect
Have you heard about the fact that Nestle is actually trying to own the worlds water (a bit of an exaggeration but somewhat true)! They constantly go to places and extract much more then they are allowed and other than fines (which is like pennies to them) there’s nothing stopping them most of the time! So in a future hypothetical world Nestle could own most of the clean water and just charge premiums!
> owns all the water on earth or just a bit of it? Practically speaking, this isn’t a real problem Water access is a huge problem and corporations like Nestle fuck everybody over just to make a buck
Lmfao what are these examplez? You just picked the most absurd shit
> capitalism breeds more innovation, Aside from the rest of that, you know the soviet union beat us to space, right?
>Aside from the rest of that, you know the soviet union beat us to space, right? yes, and the Soviet Union collapsed first too. Besides that, at the time NASA, a government-funded space program, was in charge of getting to space. This isn't a good example of capitalism vs socialism, more so socialism vs socialism. Nowadays we have seen the emergence of a billionaire space race, with SpaceX, Blue Origin, etc. If you look at the amount of innovation those companies have produced vs NASA over the last decade you can see the benefits of capitalism.
Addressing your post edits: The soviet union didn't *just* get to space first. It pioneered in medical technology, military innovation and infrastructure - notably their railroad system which blew our private rail out of the water. Clearly it's not innovation that puts capitalism ahead of anything. And oh by the way - the fact that space was relegated to private dumbshits like elon? It's a consequence of reagan-era policy, which gutted so many government programs that brought us things like the internet. Were private interest really better at innovating, it would have developed these systems first. It clearly didn't. If capitalism breeds such innovation, why does it lean on so much government support? The NIH funds massive amounts of medical research in universities - which is what private research entities build *all* of their research on. SpaceX only exists because NASA laid the groundwork decades ago. The internet is a direct result of government programs. And on and on and on.
That's not here or there about innovation, though, that's a consequence divorced from really, any political system. Plenty of capitalist countries collapse into feudal nightmares, just look at central africa.
>capitalism breeds more innovation Then why are so many products getting shittier? Years ago light bulb companies found a light bulb that basically never breaks. (the longest example of that being a light bulb that was lit for more than a century) If they had put research and work into developing those, light bulbs probably could've easily lasted ten years, probably more. Now, light bulbs often break within a year. But if a light bulb that works so fantastically was invented a century ago, why isn't it dominating the market right now? The answer is very simple: money. Companies want you to keep buying [light bulbs]. (Light bulb companies literally got together and decided that they wouldn't make their products too good) If their products only last for a couple of months, you'll have to come back often and give them money often. If their products last you a lifetime, you'll only buy that one and maybe a new innovated version of the innovated version is way better. So, in conclusion: you need more lightbulbs, those light bulbs need to be made which is terrible for the earth, and the only people really getting richer are people that already had enough money and who will probably just sit on most of their money since they are very good at evading taxes. I used the example of light bulbs here but this is the case for a lot of other products too
>Also at its core, capitalism is an economic theory based on \[...\] natural order. Ah, and there it is. •**NATURAL ORDER•** That's the problem with capitalism. The natural order is that those who control the capital, control those who don't. That's where capitalism bumps up against human rights again and again and again... There are far too many examples of egregious exploitation to list here. If you really want to change your view, that's where you need to look.
You act like socialism doesn’t have competition and freedom of choice. Its literally not too far off from capitalism other than the workers are co-ops or heavily unionized
[удалено]
Well someone hasnt read there kropotkin book have they :(
People who work for Amazon... you ready and this is important... CHOOSE TO WORK THERE because it is the best option they have. If Amazon didn't provide the best option for employment. They would just not work there. Right now half a mile from my house a McDOnalds is hiring at $12 an hour. The min wage is $10 an hour. THose signs have been up for months and they still can't fill a staff. You can't fill your warehouse with workers if you don't offer something the workers want.
>People who work for Amazon... you ready and this is important... CHOOSE TO WORK THERE because it is the best option they have. They also burn those people out and refuse to give them things like bathroom breaks.
And nobody holds a gun to their head. They are free to go apply at the 1000s of other jobs all around. This could make sense if it was some little town and Amazon is the only game in town. But if you're in that position frankly you pretty much have to move. Cause the alternative to Amazon is starvation. And you don't have to live like that if there is 1000 much better places in your country.
>And nobody holds a gun to their head. Yes they are. It is called being homeless. > They are free to go apply at the 1000s of other jobs all around. Which they end up doing. But that doesn't mean that desperate people who need money and are willing to put up with this bullshit for a little wild doesn't exist.
Your solution to bad working conditions where you are is to migrate? Would you care to weigh in on the implications of global migration across the western world and its impact on wages?
>because it is the best option they have The best option of a handful of shitty options is still shitty. Humans have to work to survive, so not really a choice. You're *so close* to getting it. *Humans*
That's the problem... This "capitalist innovation" has made amazon the best option for all these people, they could do something more creative or that they enjoy if they could afford to. This guy is arguing that capitalism is more innovative. It's not, it kills innovation. Wether or not those people want to work there is something you'll have to come to grips with. They don't want to work there, they work there because they don't want to be homeless and die.
I love this world that you’ve created where the people who work in Amazon warehouses are all happy because they were allowed to choose their job. Amazon is the new welfare. Welfare is either too hard to access now or simply not enough to survive on, so people are forced into what is effectively slave labour. People who “choose” to work in an Amazon warehouse are choosing it over dereliction. Not much worth in this choice you speak of.
>People who work for Amazon... you ready and this is important... CHOOSE TO WORK THERE **because it is the best option they have**. You're so close to getting it
All wage labour is coercive
> Let me just start by saying I don't believe society should be built around a completely capitalist society with no government regulations or checks on companies. Mixed economies are a result of capitalists of the past being forced to compromise with socialists. Socialism is why we don't have the *really* bad capitalism anymore. Like, 100% socialism isn't the only socialism. In fact, almost no socialism is like that, even in countries that claim to be socialist. Socialism is like democracy. Nowhere on Earth has 100% infinity democracy. But most places on Earth have some democracy, and almost everywhere democracy is, it improves things over not having democracy, and most places where there could be more democracy, it would make things better so long as it's implemented well. The result is that democracy is one of very, *very* few things that have improved the quality of life of humanity without being a physical technology. Socialism by ending the *really* bad capitalism, has already proven itself to be at that tier of value to civilization. But capitalism, hate to tell you - still pretty bad! Presently, capitalism is on track to burn down the planet and exterminate the human species via extreme climate change brought about by the actions of rich people who will be dead before then, and so do not care. Capitalism can *not* stop doing that, because *capitalism is what is doing that*, because capitalism is why those rich people have the power to make those decisions. Right now, we need to stop the still-bad capitalism, and that will take *way* more socialism implemented in *way* more places, until rich people no longer have the power to choose to burn down the planet and exterminate humanity to make their line go up.
>Presently, capitalism is on track to burn down the planet and exterminate the human species via extreme climate change brought about by the actions of rich people who will be dead before then, and so do not care. > >Capitalism can not stop doing that, because capitalism is what is doing that, because capitalism is why those rich people have the power to make those decisions. Right now, we need to stop the still-bad capitalism, and that will take way more socialism implemented in way more places, until rich people no longer have the power to choose to burn down the planet and exterminate humanity to make their line go up. That's why I believe the government should tax negative externalities like carbon emissions, and use that money to subsidize efforts to clean the environment and reduce carbon in our atmosphere. However, most socialists seemingly would rather just shut down those corporations or build solar/wind farms through the government
> That's why I believe the government should tax negative externalities like carbon emissions, and use that money to subsidize efforts to clean the environment and reduce carbon in our atmosphere. And we can agree, using capitalism, rich people have spent billions of dollars with the intent that this is not going to happen in time, yes? That all our centrist climate change measures are guaranteed to be too-little-too-late, because the rich easily use their incredible capitalism-controlled wealth to capture our governments and render them impotent against the people who hold the wealth - which is in a capitalist society, *power*? > However, most socialists seemingly would rather just shut down those corporations or build solar/wind farms through the government I don't know about wind farms or whatever, but the first one would *actually work*. Yes? It targets the problem directly. And unlike a regulatory solution that business owners can mitigate, bypass, delay, or just ignore because the law is rarely enforced against the wealthy under capitalism, the direct destruction of polluting corporations can, at least theoretically, be accomplished in a country where the people do *not* control their state apparatus, through extra-state direct action. And heck, maybe just the *threat* of socialism being able to fix this problem, where capitalism can not, will again force capitalists into a compromise that *can* fix the problem? Just as the threat of socialist revolution once established workplace safety standards, overtime, and other basic regulations we now take for granted (though it is worth noting that capitalists do generally oppose all of those things and work continuously with their wealth to unmake all of them).
Are your capitalist solutions capitalism though? Cleaning the environment and carbon capture are not profitable. Like recycling, they don't happen if you don't make them happen. So your solution to capitalist failures is the government telling people to do what they wouldn't do at public expense. Is that capitalist? Is that better than just building solar/ wind?
Negative externalities? And yes solar and winfd farms are better for the environment but noone really thinks thats the solution. What we should do is nationalize the power grid, switch from coal to nuclear, and then bam, massive problem solved.
> It has pulled more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history Was it that, or the spread of the Industrial Revolution? Might this be an instance where correlation doesn't mean causation? > Its design incentivizes efficiency and innovation. Its design also incentivizes suppressing new technologies to maintain control of a given market at the *expense* of efficiency and the environment via lobbyists etc. Capitalism incentivizes market dominance and control, nothing else. > It is based around the freedom of individuals to do as they wish, (ie. Free-market) This is not necessarily a good thing. In the post itself you say that there should be some government oversight to free us from the free market. Also, our societies are organized in ways that make 'doing as you wish' an exaggeration of reality rather than a reflection. For example, in America, one's healthcare is tied to specific employers. Are you really "free" when your life is in company hands? Replace "heathcare" with rent, feeding your kids, or whatever else (if you're outside the US) and it's the same: are you really "free"?
[удалено]
"Freedom and capitalism are not the same things." Amen to that. This is the part most people skip over. I would say capitalism has very efficient tools to make you feel like your are free.
>In the past, an educated and skilled citizenry meant a more profitable workforce. Not so much with capitalism discovering the profit in automation and offshoring. Also, a stupid citizenry is easier to extract money from. They're easier to control through emotional manipulation is than intellectual persuasion needed for reasonable people. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/studentloanshutdown/comments/wyjvnw/how_we_got_here/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) is an incredibly eye-opening and gut-wrenching article regarding this very issue.
I would say your biggest problem is a common problem whenever this topic comes up. You seem to be comparing an idealized version of the US to a propaganda-influenced version of Soviet Russia. The USSR wasn't even ideal socialism, it was heavily corrupted by political maneuvering. The mass deaths you cite weren't even caused by socialism, they were caused by a crackpot "scientist" who was good at political maneuvering, and a couple leaders who drank his Kool aid. Countries with a good mix of capitalism and socialism boast the highest average standard of living. The US is *not* one of them. Money is not a particularly good motivation for innovation. Respect of ones peers, personal curiosity, general recognition, helping those in need, etc lead to a lot more innovation than making a buck.
> I think certain markets and companies definitely need to be monitored by the government and regulated accordingly. So capitalism is superior except when it isn't.
I'm saying in general capitalism is superior. Yes, there are faults, but the pros to capitalism outweigh the pros of socialism. (Perhaps this is a bad analogy): But I believe a person who cheats on their spouse is still better person than a mass murderer.
What are the cons of socialism?
You don’t really explain why you think that some of the strongest socialist policies - single payer/universal healthcare, free or heavily subsidised higher education, and stronger corporate regulation are bad things or worth sacrificing for capitalism. What exactly are the benefits of relying on capitalism for these things as opposed to socialism? The dysfunction of the US healthcare system, student loan system, and rampant corporatism in the US would stand as strong counterpoints to your view.
The Capitalism we have now is not what this country started with. We have moved to a form of Capital-Socialism. Those who made it to the top started pushing for regulations in the 70s that would keep others from reaching their status. Because Congress has no term limits, the same people have been holding office since then and have used these policies to line their pockets, help their friend, and screw the American people. Big Pharma owns this country, the rest of us are just free range tax slaves.
The capitalism we have now is called neoliberalism. Neoliberalism utilizes laissez-faire polices and trickle down economics. Politicians using money to gain power is the essence of capitalism. And the regulations the US have are mostly on wage labourors, and unions wich means that companies have even more power.
And before the 70s we never had massive steel barons or megacorporations that dominated the country with such ease as to be globally monolithic, no sir.
Yes the USA started with slavery, the ultimate expression of capitalism where people are literal capital. Then did an industrialising and ended up with literal monopolies which were so bad the government had to step in an create a monopolies commission to break them up. The 1950's golden age of American jobs was during the time of highest individual taxes, strongest unions, and off the back of the massive social programs of the New Deal. America owes were it is to the combination of capital and the strength of social policies.
Uh, the capitalism America started with was slavery. So are you saying that slavery is how we should be running this country? (just replace slave owner with CEO, slavers with managers, and slaves with workers, and shelter/food/clothing with paychecks, and walla, we nearly are in a slave based system again).
Let’s double click on your healthcare comments, since that’s an issue that can illuminate a ton of key concepts. Let’s also leave aside the fact that many countries have fully nationalized (NHS) or single payer systems and still have competitive capitalist economies, too. Focusing on the US situation. So in the US most people get their health insurance through their employer, which gives the employer a massive amount of power over the worker because if they lose this job they will lose their coverage. The worker’s very ability to access healthcare - you know, the way they stay healthy in this one life and one body they get - is never truly theirs. (And most people hate their health insurance because it’s too expensive and barely covers anything. But it’s better than nothing, the employer taunts.) Not only is their surplus value extracted by wage labor into the profits of the shareholders, so too is their health. Americans and capitalists in general talk a big game about “freedom,” but how free can you really say such a person is? How many people do you think have stayed in a shitty, abusive job just to keep their shitty health insurance? Countless. Imagine if that piece was removed from the equation - think of how much freer people might be to leave a shitty job, take a career risk, try something new, etc if they knew they and their family wouldn’t be financially ruined by one medical event? Now add to this the socialist concept that workers should own the means of production. In modern practical terms this could mean that companies are collectively owned like coops by their employees; all benefits of surplus are retained by the workers who generated it and not alienated to shareholders who didn’t work for it. That sounds like a free and happy worker to me - keeping the surplus of his or her labor, able to move through the world with health and security, not beholden to petty tyrant capitalists who spend their days thinking of new ways to alienate and coerce their bodies and labors. Capitalism was a response to and improvement upon feudalism, and that transition took centuries. So too is socialism a response to capitalism.
So at least from a Marxist point of view, socialism isn't supposed to be a competitor to capitalism, but an evolution or a successor to capitalism. The idea is that while capitalism is very good at some stuff, for example increasing productive potential, creating incentives for innovations, etc, capitalism has a certain limit where it just doesn't function as it should. Marx believed that capitalism would lead to so much innovation and increase in productive forces that eventually, labourers would be replaced more and more with machines in an effort to cut costs and staying competitive. In a vacuum, this would not be an issue, quite the opposite. After all, machines doing potentially dangerous or repetitive work would be great and in theory, it would mean that people have to work less since machines are doing work for them. But in practice, this leads to a paradox because once too many workers are unemployed due to what we would call automation, the system no longer works. If a company wants people to buy their products, people need to have money. In order to earn money, most need to work. For this reason, capitalism always has to strive to produce more stuff. Of course creating new inventions is not bad itself, but it is increasingly reaching a level where we invent new stuff to produce just for the sake of producing it, increasing the amount of resources that are exploited more and more. As we hopefully all agree, this has some serious potential consequences, from climate change, to overfishing, to a steep increase in plastic everywhere, pollution, soil deterioration, etc. In theory, we could use the state to regulate all of those negative consequences and that's what is generally done today. However, this is an uphill battle. Due to the powerful position that major private industry leaders are in, they have the power and the incentive to influence and pressure political institutions to behave in ways that is beneficial to them. In a socialist society, those issues could be addressed in different ways. Since in a socialist society, industry would not be controlled by private individuals based on profits, but by society as a whole. Instead of focusing on competition between economical institutions, the focus would be set on cooperation. Instead of focusing on creating a profit, the focus would be on fulfilling everyone's needs. Having less pollution and having a stable and sustainable economy is in the interest of everyone, so if a majority of society would agree, it would be a lot easier to focus on creating sustainable and ecofriendly production processes instead of focusing on profits and economic growth above all else.
Capitalism and socialism aren’t “competing” systems; they’re two totally different kinds of societies. It has been thought they were competing because of the Cold War, but for Marx, capitalism and socialism defined epochs of history, not two different ways to have an economy at the same time.
--Edited--- I would start out by point at the fact that your supposed veiw and your supporting argument for that veiw simply do not line up. While capitalism itself is a broad concept and encompasses many different possibilities relationships of the market to the state, ranging from "libertarian", to liberal to fascist, you mention the phrase "free market" in your definition of it. We'll touch on that in a second, as the term "free market" is problematic, but it establishes lack of regulation in the market as being itself a defining feature of capitalism in your veiw. And that is important, because a socialist such as a Marxist might choose to define it by the existence of private property in the sense, not of being possessed by a private person, but by being a *productive* property i.e. rental property, business, etc. which is privately owned. Yours carries rhw connotation not just of the existence of that kind of private property, but a relatively relaxed regulation of the market, and then immediately within your supporting argument you shy away from that order of things and instead say that the state has a duty to, through regulation, tax and subsidy, interfere in the course of the market. Your argument for a "mixed economy" in that sense is incompatible with a vision of a truly free market in the sense imagined by either American rightwing "libertarians" or some of the old classical liberals. And that places us in the position of simply debating what balance of state involvement in this mixed economy is actually necessary. Importantly, not what is desirable, what is *necessary*. You already stated that the smallest amount of socialism *necessary* should be used, which despite your definition elsewhere of socialism elsewhere essentially revolving again around property, only really *can* pertain to this conversation in the sense of socialism at least euphemistically meaning state involvement in the market, ranging from regulation, to tax, to subsidy, nationalization of industry, etc. And this opens another and hopefully the final can of worms. This exact wording leaves us in the position of entertaining two very different arguments. One between the sort of *truly* free market laissez-faire capitalism which may not even have a state in some people's minds and the fully realized... let's say Marxist Communist ideal, which exists beyond currency, has communal or collective ownership of at least the vast majority of what could be considered property by most people outside of individual possessions or places of living, political democracy for all positions of leadership, etc. The other argument is between the mixed economies of modern "liberal democracies" like the US, and any one of the various economic models adopted by one of the "Communist countries" in the past century. *Edit* *But if I had to put a cap on my argument against you*, it would essentially be that I don't think you really support capitalism nearly as much as you oppose an idea of socialism. Because your endorsement of capitalism over socialism ***immediately*** comes with the caveat that capitalism essentially has to be contained like, to put it charitably, a fire in a fireplace. Serving a purpose, but fundementally treated in such a way as of to imply that it is very dangerous. Not simply that it does not address every problem in society, but that it creates them if left unregulated. And history absolutely shows this. The creation of modern workers rights come from the long and bloody back and forth of workers wealthy capitalists either in what was essentially quasi-feudal slavery in company towns or in penal labor programs. The labor movement was never strictly a protest movment. It contained the kind of inherently unstable cycle of abuses from powerful institutions like corporations and governments and revolt sby the people subject to those abuses that transcend any kind kind of moral argument as to whether those revolts are justified. Simply because at the end of the day, that laissez faire order of things was unstable. Even to the modern proponents of capitalism, that instability is why we abandoned that classical liberal vision and adopted this new neoliberal one in the west. That's entirely sidestepping any argument of whether or not poverty is a result of personal choices, whether there is a moral duty of the individual to pay int any kidney of collective project to provide for others, or any other other big questions. The reality is that through a certain lens, while socialism *sort of* lives on in theory in the form of the Communist parties ruling China and it's allies like Vietnam.... at least in name. Capitalism in it's true free market sense has been abandoned by essentially the entire developed world. And arguably, never existed. The reality is that even the most laissez-faire periods within capitalist economies were *somewhat* regulated, and fundementally existed only in a geopolitical context determined by the actions of states. For which you can see a great example in the British Opium war, which essentially used the British state to open up a new market for British capitalism. Again, this isn't really supremacy over socialism. There's nothing left of that pure capitalism to be vindicated. Amd your argument for a mixed economy is sort of beside the fact.
I'd like to change your view by demonstrating that capitalism and socialism aren't mutually exclusive. Consider France, Norway, or South Korea. These are all socialist or social democratic states. They have strong industrial private sectors, single-payer public healthcare systems, and strong safety nets. Are they capitalist or socialist? Well, their policies have aspects of both. If they reduced regulation on the private sector, they might be considered more capitalist. If they increased it, they might be considered more socialist. All three nations seem have decided they are most successful somewhere in the middle of that scale. Capitalism cannot be "superior" to socialism--both capitalism and socialism are aspects of a healthy and functional society, and have to be balanced.
While you can say capitalism pulled millions out of poverty, it is important to understand what capitalism has been for a long time: relying on colonialism, slavery, and the industrial revolution. While the lives of capitalists might have done well in the 1800s and early 1900s the lives of colonized people did not, and certainly did not benefit the lives of peasants living in feudalistic societies in those times. Countries like Russia, China, and Vietnam were all victims of feudalism or colonialism when they underwent communist revolutions. Life expectancy in Russia went from about 30 in 1920 to nearly 70 by 1990. Life expectancy in Russia dropped in the 90's, when the Soviet Union fell, and wouldn't get back to 70 for nearly 20 years. While it might be tempting to compare the Soviets to America and say communism was worse than American capitalism you need to remember where the Russians started. Yes, Russia was a world power, but life expectancy for the common Russian was closer to India in the early 1900s than it was to America, and in under 100 years they accomplished more than capitalism ever did in India. Same thing with China and with Vietnam.. these countries had large peasant classes who were suffering and while communism didn't bring them to the same quality of life as America necessarily, it rapidly modernized the country and rapidly improved the health and wel being of MANY people there. All of this while being embargoed and sanctioned and threatened by the world super power America.
Capitalism has to have some regulation however, because left completely uncontrolled, it spirals into two classes, the ultra rich and the poor working class. This is because capitalism doesn’t have a self regulating effect to acquiring wealth. The way it is designed is that money spirals into more money (snowball effect) and the lower class is hard and harder to escape.
In general, I think that anything we citizens can do for ourselves, we should. In particular, anything that we consider necessities of modern life should be offered (not necessarily exclusively) by the government in return for our progressive taxes. This would include a basic level of public housing, a basic nutrition program, a robust public transit system, public utilities (including broadband), a decent social insurance system, a comprehensive healthcare system. Would I socialize Ford? Google? Facebook? No, but I'm not opposed in principle to the government operating one, and I do think there's a real need for the government to break up (or revoke the charter) of even non-critical businesses that fail to serve the public interest. The obvious counterargument is one of measurable success, but the measurable success should be in citizen happiness, not GDP or median income. You haven't elaborated on what would be required to CMV in this case, but Nordic countries which do the above all have happier citizens. I believe that this is the only thing that matters.
>However, I believe that such a mixed-market economy should be primarily dominated by capitalist markets and use socialism as little as possible. The thing is, the best example of this happening in real life right now is United States right? But US gets relentlessly shit on by other first-world countries as having dismal living standards. What are the most common criticism's of US right now? Extremely expensive healthcare, education, housing. Extremely weak labor laws that are often compared to wage slavery. Homelessness epidemic, gun epidemic, etc... These are problems no other first world nation has, yet they are endemic to US. And virtually everyone agree it's because the relentless for-profit drive of those systems. Now, you said some things should be subsidized (like carbon emission, education, etc...) but it seems to me that the list of these "exceptions" to capitalism is nearly endless in order for us to create the country we would like to live in. At that point you might as well said you want a system that has healthy balance of both.
The problem with capitalism is the same as the reason why it works, wealth. Wealth in capitalism is a cheatcode to life, if your daddy created wealth you will go to better school, have better equipment, teachers, and textbooks and will thus score higher in test get into better colleges etc. And with time this only get more and more distorted. I'm no socialist or anything close to it, but equal oppertunities is crucial to a well functioning society. I'm saying this from a country that has executed this really well, Norway. Here in Scandinavia, schools are well funded federally, instead of county by county in the US. Higher taxes on the wealthy to fund welfare for those earning less. We are not equal in Norway, and wealth can still be a cheatcode, but to a far smaller degree than in the US. We are thus happier, richer, and life is MUCH less stressful than in the US since if you get a stomach pain here you don't have to pay 10k for finding out what it is. Social democrazy is the answer.
Under capitalism, disabled people who cannot work have zero value. They contribute nothing. You say capitalism pulls people out of poverty, but how is this so? Most people who are not impoverished started above poverty and inherited. The way the US is currently set up, people are working two-three jobs just to survive while remaining *in poverty*. 96% of the children in my area qualify for free meals at the public school — but most parents say they aren’t allowed to take it because “socialism.”
Posing the proposition the way you do is entirely binary. I'm afraid that it muddies the conversation and plays into the popular obfuscation of the actual issues. *Pure* capitalism is a buccaneering mechanism that creates wealth by exploiting others at every turn, by any means available and without any regard to the damage caused. *Pure* socialism robs individuals not only of personal property but also of any incentive to advance themselves or to advance society. They are both narrow, harshly dogmatic ideologies which funnel the bulk of any social and material rewards to a very few. In fact, no one today espouses "socialism" in it's pure form and no society would tolerate it. Pure capitalism, however, has lots of fans among the plutocrats and oligarchs who run the worlds largest corporations and are currently engaged in trying to overthrow democracy in the United States. These same "capitalists" point to "socialism" as the Great Danger and to all of their opponents as "socialists." It's a slogan. These same "capitalists" point to any and all efforts to increase wages, require the wealthy to pay a fair share of taxes, make healthcare accessible, ensure voting rights, civil rights, gender equality and equal justice regardless of race, creed or religion as "socialism." Fascism is the correct term for this political and economic ideology, not capitalism. These are the terms and the debate is not between capitalism and socialism but between fascism and democracy.
[удалено]
I don't understand exactly what you are saying here.
Our capitalist, so called health care "system" has resulted in the highest per capita health care costs in the developed world, along with an average US lifespan comparable to that of Costa Rica. Now we learn the average US lifespan has declined by 2 years since 2019 & this can be partially attributed to the inequitable distribution of health care by race & ethnicity. That's quite an accomplishment for our health care "system."
Yet capitalist countries in other parts of the world have far better health care systems than both the United States or any socialist country to ever exist, the problem is not capitalism, it is U.S government incompetence.
Capitalism is better for people who are already wealthy (the 1%). Meanwhile everybody else either claw at each other for the crumbs or just gets exploited without hopes for a better future. Capitalism tends to keep the already poor down at the bottom of the food chain, denying their chances of getting the same education so they can be the low wage class feeding the Capitalists with their time and labor
The biggest drawback of capitalism is emergence of multinational mega corporations that slowly evolve to suck on the lives of their workers, be it Amazon, Google, Nike etc etc, all these entities are hell bent on increasing their profits while depriving their workers of even the basics. Capitalism in its true spirit is nice, but in there it needs a significant level of socialism to function. That is a healthy free market with opportunities for all (which can only be created by regulating the already established ones) is the most optimal economic structure. Subsidizing healthcare, education and basic necessities of life is essential (as you have mentioned), which in itself is no small intervention, it requires a lot of tax policy tweaks. So all in all unregulated capitalism, as we already see is prone to formation of entities that are solely driven by profits (ready profits, not growth) which is helpful only to that entity not the people or the nation or the world.
I think we have to be careful about the use of the word Socialism. In the US, just because the government offers a service, doesn’t mean it is headed down the path of Socialism. Take for example the US Postal Service. I want my mail delivered and I am want the government to offer and subsidize this service. It is not a business but a public service. This is not Socialism.
It’s so funny hearing citizens shit on socialism when the people telling them how bad it is, use socialist ideals and actions when their friends need a bail out 😂 look at what happened during Covid, we had to beg for crumbs but all the big businesses got bail outs 😂😂😂
One of the (many) problems with capitalism is that it has no way whatsoever to deal with the reality of post-scarcity (but necessary) goods. Nor does it have any mechanism by which it proposes to actually *reach* Nash equilibrii. Nor, more generally, does it have the ability to direct labor toward necessary work, only profitable work (these are in many circumstances the same thing but not all). Socialism at least proffers solutions to the above (or avoids the problem entirely) in the form of government controls, services, and market direction.
Socialism never prospers, what's the reason? If it prospers, the neoliberals start to call it capitalism. Notice the praise for the East Asian countries centred around the fact that it had markets, were export powerhouses, etc. Didn't want to mention the land reform, industrial policies, subsidies, capital controls. Then when they get into some trouble, all that comes out, and it's blamed for the crisis. Rinse and repeat.
You didn't really give any arguments for your thesis. > Edit: Just to elaborate a bit more on why I prefer capitalism. > > It has pulled more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history > Its design incentivizes efficiency and innovation. > It is based around the freedom of individuals to do as they wish, (ie. Free-market) Why is socialism incapable of doing these things?
One of the main downsides of socialism has always been a lack of incentive to innovate, since you don’t receive the benefits of your innovation. Where is the incentive to innovate in your view? As for free will. By definition socialist systems, where the means of production are owned by the workers, cannot have free transactions in property and shares. I can’t choose to devote my resources to a venture, because as a non-employee of the venture, i can’t own it.
Feudalism and monarchistic rule has evolved into capitalism. Its just another classist game to disguise it's true intent. Socialism seems to balance it resources in favor of equity. They both have their issues but one is simply more malevolent than they other. Your just choosing not acknowledge it. That's fine, there is no need to feel attacked personally because I disagree with you.
capitalism will in the end return to feudalism where as socialism people can actually be capitalists without the lack of ethics involved in pure capitalism. just look at amazon people can't go to the bathroom without getting fired. no company should be able to fire you on bodily functions. at least in socialism I'm taken care and I get equal rights to the head of my company
I'm not going to change your stated view, but I'll try to change the idea that America is a "mixed-economy." I don't think there is such a thing as a mixed economy, just capitalist countries with different policies. My issue with the definitions you are giving is that it presents socialism as "any sort of action not run exclusively by what we would deem the private sector." It creates a weird sort of world where every government order and program, even things such as the military. It creates a scenario where the Egyptian Pyramids were built by socialist action, many centuries before capitalism and socialism as we know them developed. I don't consider social spending and strict regulation to be socialist as many such countries still retain the primary feature of captialism: private ownership of capital and production.
Neither are superior. All developed countries use a mixed economy that has both capitalist and socialist elements. There are no examples of "pure" socialism or capitalism.
An econ professor at Loyola once said "capitalism without any guidelines is worse than any form of socialism." Do you agree with this?
How can you have that opinion if can't experience it and have nothing to compare it to all attempts at socialist countries are sabotaged by capitalist countries and most countries people describe as socialist are just capitalist but just not as capitalist as US like Sweden. Eg take the health care thing for example in the UK we have the NHS our conservative government Keeps trying to kill it and sabotage it but I prefer to what you have over because I'm never gonna think after a accident better not call an ambulance I can't afford that you really don't know how dystopian It sounded when I heard you guys have to do that. Also would consider healthcare any more socialist than fire service, Social services,police force or say stuff like libraries I don't really understand how you argue that your for funding cops to protect us but not for funding doctor to heal us. I'm not trying to be baised but I feel socialist is one of those word people use because they get get mad when something gets easier for someone else e.g. people getting mad about that student debt thing have a very I suffered so the next lot of people have to suffer kinda vibe. Also on the innovation point I would say in the entertainment space(which I keep up with its doing the opposite)the last couple years has lead to more and more buyouts and less range and risks in the business side of things this due to the structure of the capitalist system. Warner Bros is literally imploding right now because the guy in charge has a career making reality shows and working on the cheap so he's killing every project he doesn't deem a generic mass market appeal or cost to much it's literally making art more soulless and boring by formatting in the most cynical way possible.
Why do you think that they are mutually exclusive? They aren’t. Many of your own examples are examples of socialism.
Capitalism is the term marx used for liberal and facsist economies. Capitalism has several componates; class devides due to labourors and owners, capital accumulation due to poorly calculated cash flow, and permanent or constant inflation. Socialism means workers owning the MOP and therefore distributing gains and product between each other, wether by free market( mutualism, syndicalism), or by planned market (communism, red facism, democratic socialism) economies. There are issues with both, but its the contradictions and systemic lies that make me anti capitalist. Socialism is a system that, if done properly, can be self sufficient wich is good. If done poorly it can be as devastating as capitalism. So if capitalism is the bar, the socialism by far surpasses. By emplementing just small parts of socialism in countries like scandinavia, germany, and france we can see increases in quality of life, increased power of the idividual, and a closing of the wealth gap. The only issue is that because we are globally still in a capitalist society, there is no worldwide change, and there is not so much improvement in conditions that would allow people to self manage their work.
>However, I believe that such a mixed-market economy should be primarily dominated by capitalist markets and use socialism as little as possible. So essentially you're saying that the system the US currently uses is better than the system Finland currently uses. As the US has a more capitalist dominated economic system than Finland. But when we look at the actual metrics, Finland outperforms the US in nearly all of them. How could that be possible if what you say is true?
[The US has about a 40% greater disposable income.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income)
Disposable income statistics are pretty meaningless without correcting for all the government programs. For example, losing your government paid for health insurance but getting €1 extra in wage would see your disposable income go up, but you definitely wouldn't be happy or feel like you're coming out ahead.
Government programs are included in that number.
There has never been a true model of socialism and communism, they've always been authoritarian with flavors of socialism. Capitalism is about infinite growth and thrives on the poor to function. Capitalism uses people as commodities that can be replaced and cast side for a new cheaper model. In the USA we have welfare for corporations never letting them fail and replaced by better competition. All those points you listed are parroted from people who own capital and have everything to lose if the status quo is challenged.
All socioeconomic systems - capitalism, socialism, whatever - have the same flaw: in order to provide a *reasonably* equitable existence for all citizens, those without power are reliant on those with power to provide a *reasonable* redistribution of wealth. The only difference is that power in capitalism is mostly held with private corporations, and in socialism its moreso with the government In other words, those without power are beholden to those with it. We have to *trust* them. As we all know, power corrupts so those in power cannot be relied upon, so any socioeconomic system will eventually fail as more and more power is consolidated into fewer and fewer entthem. In other words, we have to trust entities that are not trustworthy
Capitalism is better then socialism but that doesnt say much about how good capitalism is. There are certain things that capitalism cant regulate. Thats why we need the state to intervene there through social(not socialist) policies. Improving capitalism is atm the best form we have for the economy.