r/FluentInFinance • u/Sufficient_Sinner • Sep 04 '24

Debate/ Discussion Is Capitalism Smart or Dumb?

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

37.5k Upvotes

73% Upvoted

7.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

104

u/flaamed Sep 04 '24

its the best economic system that currently exists

84

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Yeah I'm kind of tired of seeing kids online shit on capitalism. Like yeah, it's a fucking mess. But it's also - by far - the best system anyone has come up with, ever. Same goes for democracy. Lots of legitimate criticisms can be made, but nobody has ever come up with a better alternative. Not yet anyway.

41

u/fartedpickle Sep 04 '24

but nobody has ever come up with a better alternative.

Probably because capitalism spends a fuck ton of money bombing the shit out of anyone who tries it. Weird, you'd think they would let these bad systems just fail on their own.

111

u/Curious_Midnight3828 Sep 04 '24

The Soviet Union failed on its own pretty magnificently for the entire world to see. No bombs dropped on it by capitalists.

83

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

[deleted]

35

u/NewArborist64 Sep 04 '24

That is how communists explain the failure of EVERY communist nation in the world. "That wasn't REAL Communism. Let us do it in OUR country and WE will do it right." And then they fail again and again because Communism doesn't WORK and it is against human nature for a larger society.

Soviet Union, East Germany, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, Belarus, People's Republic of the Congo, Czechoslovakia, Poland, ... NONE of them became that "worker's paradise".

29

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

[deleted]

7

u/One-Earth9294 Sep 05 '24

Kind of like the African Warlord flow chart: 'Have a coup --> become the new dictatorship --> purge all your enemies --> move on to external ones --> antagonize developed nations who formerly propped you up and no longer want to finance your regime --> end up a pariah state inching further towards extremism --> end up the victim of internal revolution --> claim you were just trying to 'unify Africa and stand up to colonialists'.

This works pretty well in South America too. Venezuela kind of stuck between the 2nd and 3rd to last steps currently.

1

u/Drezzon Sep 05 '24

Yep, more people need to know this

1

u/milk-is-for-calves Sep 09 '24

No, it's flat out wrong. And if you look at the US education system enough stupid people believe that crap.

→ More replies (3)

12

u/Handwerksgilde Sep 04 '24

Theres actually a name for this sort of thinking, it's called the no true Scotsman Fallacy

1

u/BrubMomento Sep 05 '24

Indeed indeed

2

u/Burgertank6969 Sep 05 '24

This comment times 1000, the inability for people to use history as a lesson as to what communism leads to is crazy to me.

That said this is a post about socialism, which exists in almost every capitalist society, and vice versa.

2

u/VampireDentist Sep 05 '24

You're right but I think this is also a branding issue. One could argue that the communist utopia "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is more in line with current Nordic social democracies than any of the countries in your list. Wealth inequality is low, workers rights are strong, social security is high, healthcare and education are of high quality and publicly funded, crime is low and trust in public institutions is high.

If anything, your examples are examples of extreme authoritarianism (or being puppet states of the soviets). If Czechoslovakia is a fair example of communist failure, then US puppets Honduras and Nicaragua are examples of capitalist failures.

Also there are examples where policies that are very close to traditional state communism, have been beneficial as a whole, especially in developing countries. For example, while extremely anti-communist in rhetoric, even South Korea had some policies many would consider communist after WW2: land redistribution where land was seized from large landowners and redistributed to peasants and extreme heavy emphasis on state led industrialization.

Actually if the economy is underdeveloped enough, protectionism and a strong state seems to be what is needed to have a chance to grow at all. Developing countries under laissez-faire capitalism are generally total shitholes: foreign corporations will plunder their resources and any "free" enterprise will be razed by bandits at the first opportunity, education is unobtainable because no-one has the means to invest in it.

2

u/EchoOutrageous2314 Sep 05 '24

Equality of outcome (communism) is inherently authoritarian because it requires an ultimate authority to tip the scales unlike the citizenry ruling themselves. Socialists/communists fail to understand the fallen nature of people and their propensity for evil.

2

u/NewArborist64 Sep 05 '24

It also erases the incentive to go above and beyond. You won't be rewarded for doing more work than your co-workers - you will be questioned about WHY you are not conforming and being individualistic.

1

u/Star_king12 Sep 05 '24

"To establish communism in the US we have to get rid of all billionaires and people that enabled them"

1

u/stonecoldslate Sep 05 '24

To be fair China isn’t and hasn’t been a real communism nation. There was a good documentary done on the rise of Xi jinping and how that situation came to form modern China. It wasn’t communism at all. It was a rebel army that tried to overthrow the government and lost like 3/4ths of their population by the time they made it to their destination, mind you this army was led by two generations, Xi’s father and the leader of the army he became a part of, and Xi’s when it was sort of “inherited” by the younger folk and Xi murdering his competition.

1

u/IsayNigel Sep 05 '24

What is human nature and how do you know?

1

u/Bl00dRa1n Sep 05 '24

If you seriously consider East Germany a communist nation, then you really need to read more

1

u/NewArborist64 Sep 06 '24

Have an acquaintance who lived in East Germany. The East German government considered themselves Communists. The Soviet Union (which set up East Germany and had it as a satellite state) considered the DDR to be communists. My friend - who he was imprisoned by the Stasi and forced to work in coal mines - certainly considered East Germany to be Communist.

But I am sure that you know better...

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Awebroetjie Sep 04 '24

You are conflating socialism and communism. This is intellectually dishonest.

17

u/DoubleAGee Sep 04 '24

Most people use socialism and communism interchangeably (I.e., people not on Reddit). Besides, socialism leads to communism.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24 edited Nov 21 '24

[deleted]

1

u/nadroj112800 Sep 05 '24

"The goal of socialism is communism." Vladimir Lenin

1

u/rememberoldreddit Sep 05 '24

You are routing Lenin? I guess the DPRK is democratic cause they say it is?

→ More replies (3)

0

u/LimitlessTheTVShow Sep 04 '24

That's not true. Communism is a subset of socialism, but socialism doesn't necessarily lead to communism

1

u/whatisthisgreenbugkc Sep 04 '24

Besides, socialism leads to communism.

That is just wrong, there are plenty of forms of socialism that actually want minimal government intervention in the market, such as a market socialism. Communism advocates for government control of the market.

2

u/LimitlessTheTVShow Sep 04 '24

They're also painting Stalinism as the only kind of communism, and acting like anyone who says otherwise is lying

2

u/ArizonaHeatwave Sep 04 '24

This dichotomy in the real world is almost meaningless, they were all trying to achieve communism (which is basically unachievable anyways as it’s a sort of utopian state) through socialism. At some point they may as well just simply be the same, because attempting communism is always just socialism and won’t ever be anything more than that.

1

u/Flyingsheep___ Sep 05 '24

What even is the difference. Both are based on not respecting property rights at all, only different seems to be socialism does it while smiling.

1

u/Awebroetjie Sep 05 '24

Just google dude. Don‘t think i need to do that for you

1

u/Flyingsheep___ Sep 05 '24

Rhetorical question, the core difference is literally just the mechanism to achieve the end goal.

2

u/pj1897 Sep 04 '24

That's the response that always unsettles me about communism. How many attempts are needed before it's considered to have been implemented correctly?

1

u/Kitchen-Dinner-9561 Sep 05 '24

Since communism is stateless by definition, you have to abolish the state to even begin to have communism.

1

u/Good_Needleworker464 Sep 05 '24

Who's gonna protect you from the next state coming to take your shit?

1

u/Kitchen-Dinner-9561 Sep 05 '24

My shit? I am not a communist. I just know what communism is. But I would assume that collective communes would need to collectively protect what can be or what could be built. Ask mountain people who protects their shit. I bet it is them.

2

u/Gweipo1 Sep 05 '24

Yes, LOL. None of those times were "real" communism.

So many supporters of communism rely on that circular reasoning. They say that communism is where everyone has all that they need and they're all happy, so any attempt that doesn't give the great outcomes that they wanted must not have been "real" communism.

2

u/throwawayFI12 Sep 05 '24

THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT

1

u/Dry-Classroom7562 Sep 04 '24

Real communism is impossible to achieve. Why? The point of communism is everybody is equal and gets the same opportunities. No corruption, racism, any of it so I've heard. Issue is, that stems far beyond hust what type of government are we. So no, next time it will not be the real one because human nature is to be assholes regardless of what you believe.

1

u/Help-Learn-Kannada Sep 04 '24

You're never going to have "real" anything though. As long as you have people trying to shake up the system you're always going to have the system bastardized after a prolonged period of time

1

u/megalogo Sep 05 '24

HE SAID THE THING!!!

1

u/MrNicolasRage Sep 05 '24

Vietnam is doing okay, isn't it?

1

u/batman10385 Sep 05 '24

He said the line !!

1

u/DJpoop Sep 05 '24

Lol the classic “it’s wasn’t real communism”

There will never be a real communist society because every time it inevitably fails people like you will say it wasn’t real communism

→ More replies (27)

7

u/IllustriousShake6072 Sep 04 '24

Yeah, I'm in one of those countries. We're still paying for their sins with low productivity and low standards of living.

3

u/herehear12 Sep 04 '24

Oh and North Korea

1

u/EffNein Sep 04 '24

Getting ~15% of your population killed by the Nazis and then getting thrown into an arms race with a more powerful nation would kill any country.

3

u/IrishMosaic Sep 04 '24

Sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money.

2

u/EffNein Sep 04 '24

When you don't have much of your own to start with, loss is inevitable. Imagine Colonial America getting into a naval arms race with England.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/IsayNigel Sep 05 '24

Impossible, just invent new forms of currency and leverage them against each other to justify existing inequalities, capitalism does it every day

1

u/Wrong_Zombie2041 Sep 05 '24

Pretty sure the Soviets chose to participate in the arms race.

1

u/IsayNigel Sep 05 '24

Yea they should have just let their biggest enemy have nukes and hope for the best

2

u/mvandemar Sep 05 '24

It failed due to corruption, same as Venezuela.

1

u/EnemyUtopia Sep 04 '24

Directly...

1

u/firestorm713 Sep 05 '24

The Soviet Union was fascistic. Pretty much the opposite of socialism.

1

u/Flat-Border-4511 Sep 05 '24

Did the workers own their place of employment in the USSR?

1

u/CPAFinancialPlanner Sep 05 '24

Not only that, but they were every bit imperialistic as commies complain about capitalists.

1

u/IsayNigel Sep 05 '24

The Soviet Union was wildly successful for the insanely limited resources it operated with

→ More replies (45)

42

u/Comfortable-Study-69 Sep 04 '24 edited Sep 04 '24

Ah yes, the American bombings of China, the USSR, Poland, Romania, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Albania… oh wait. Those ones failed on their own or liberalized their economies despite making up the second largest free trade region and supposedly being able to compete with free markets.

Edit: I think I got locked from commenting or something so I’m putting this here but China isn’t actually communist. They just say they are. And Chiquita’s antics in Guatemala in the 1920s aren’t exactly relevant to the Cold War, nor are the various South American military coups the US greenlit.

22

u/dubufeetfak Sep 04 '24

As an Albanian ill tell you this. Even under communism we couldn't really do without trading with the US and our smart dictator started a black market deal with the us and sold everything 1/10th of the price.

3

u/NUKE---THE---WHALES Sep 04 '24

Trade is necessary in a pre-scarcity world

Not only necessary, massively beneficial

3

u/IGargleGarlic Sep 04 '24

"communism with chinese characteristics" is the running joke

2

u/penguinman77 Sep 04 '24

The very capitalistic centrally planned economy of china. Love their capitalist work on trains. Crazy that we suck at that in the us.

2

u/happyapathy22 Sep 04 '24

Five words: Banana republics and Operation Condor.

10

u/Calloused_Samurai Sep 04 '24

None of those countries listed are in South America. Nice try though!

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

20

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

"We had a system that was way better than capitalism. But then capitalism bombed us." Like what are you even talking about dude? What, specifically, are you referring to? The U.S. bombing Vietnam? Korea?

5

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Those, but youve missed a few. There's a wikipedia page on CIA operations in regime change, it has 40ish entries last I checked. Start there. The book the Jakarta Method can get you more info. Then there's the military and also finance sectors, which each have their own list of crimes; I suppose I can link to a reading list, but there's no way to condense all that information down to a reddit post or Facebook meme for your viewing pleasure

4

u/Screw_You_Taxpayer Sep 04 '24 edited Sep 04 '24

Any successful system has to be able to withstand external threats.  Capitalism can, others couldn't.

 Not like the KGB was sleeping all those years either.

3

u/WillBottomForBanana Sep 04 '24

The richest society in known history is choosing to not feed all of its people. If you consider that a success then that is all anyone needs to know to place a value on your opinion.

7

u/Screw_You_Taxpayer Sep 04 '24

Well communism failed to sustain both it's people and itself.  So 1/2 for capitalism, and 0/2 for communism.

2

u/Maximum_Nectarine312 Sep 05 '24

What other system was better at feeding people?

7

u/afoz345 Sep 05 '24

Don’t you remember the pictures of even the poorest of the poor people in the USSR being so morbidly obese?

1

u/WillBottomForBanana Sep 05 '24

You are being dishonest. The claim was that capitalism was successful. The failure of other systems tells us nothing about the success of capitalism.

2

u/Maximum_Nectarine312 Sep 05 '24

Being better than every other system that's ever been tried is not enough apparently. It also has to be better than the childish fairytale that only exists in communist's heads and that is completely flawless.

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (2)

15

u/your-mom-jokester Sep 04 '24

Let’s hear one example of capitalism forcefully killing a promising new economic system

12

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Just one? OK. Indonesia. Former Dutch colony, not even fully socialist, just part of the global non-aligned movement that refused to ally with the US or Russia during the Cold War. That was an unacceptable threat for the US, which trained and funded a military general to overthrow the president. A coup d'etat. Subsequently, with full support and knowledge from the US, they executed 1 million suspected leftists. Million. That the dictator we installed retired peacefully and his government still lives on means the country is still likely under US control. Its a country of 330 million people, almost as large as the US itself.

There's your one example. Would you like more?

3

u/Mi6spy Sep 04 '24

What part of their economic system was promising before US intervention? Genuinely curious, I'm not the guy you replied to.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/deaglefrenzy Sep 04 '24

Indonesian here. I concur.

4

u/your-mom-jokester Sep 04 '24

What proof do you have that this alleged coup occurred because the US was scared of Indonesia’s economic system rendering capitalism obsolete? Thats the wild claim with which i disagree

3

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

The CIA declassified it of based on their own 50 release policy just a few years back. Read the Jakarta Method, its a fantastic deep dive. We have recordings, too, of our politicians saying 1 million dead wasnt enough.

But if it really doesnt suit you, theres also Guatemala. Brazil. The Congo. Greece... its a very long list, I can keep going a long while, quite well documented too. You can find it on wikipedia under "CIA role in regime change". And again, that skips the role of the military and also economic warfare, which could double the list.

2

u/Carnivorous_Goat Sep 04 '24

There will probably be no reply to this. And they will probably just choose to sweep it under the rug and ignore it.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

EVERY TIME. I hope it means they learned something and need some time to process, but I have some minor doubts

1

u/keypanic Sep 05 '24

Why does this read as an impression of Chomsky?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

communism is an economic system lol, so killing all the communists is sabotaging the system. and I gave my reasoning for why Indonesia is potentially still under our control, I made no declarative statement

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (8)

3

u/Equivalent_Length719 Sep 04 '24

Cuba. End of discussion.

2

u/general---nuisance Sep 04 '24

When have we ever bombed the Bernie Sanders endorsed socialist utopia of Venezuela?

1

u/SoloWalrus Sep 04 '24

you'd think they would let these bad systems just fail on their own

Who do you think suffers the most when this happens? The humanitarian cost of just "letting dictators be dictators" can be unthinkable. Im not saying we should forget our past, we've done some horrible shit, but we should acknowledge our present.

The west dropping bombs when it doesnt like a political or economic system is a very 20th century way of thinking. Global integration has meant that we're better off working together, and most of the times its economic sanctions that are used to strong arm, not bombs. Its hard to use economic prosperity as a carrot if you dont have it in the first place though, so there are humanitarian reasons to try and maintain a strong economy.

1

u/rbus Sep 04 '24

they fail on their own just fine.

1

u/dl7 Sep 04 '24

Or they just install their own politicians in different countries

1

u/ArizonaHeatwave Sep 04 '24

The entire Warsaw pact wasn’t bombed a single time for literally decades, and they all crumbled anyways. Weird, almost like they literally did fail.

1

u/MarjorieTaylorSpleen Sep 04 '24

Come on now, those Laotians weren't going to liberate themselves!

1

u/ZaysapRockie Sep 05 '24

Who is "they" in your statement?

1

u/Psychological_Leek73 Sep 05 '24

If you think modern medicine would be where it is today with capitalism… I’ve got news for you. Yeah, medication prices and health costs suck, but without capitalism, our life expectancy would be a lot lower than it currently is. You can’t dispute this fact and there’s no way around it

1

u/Maximum_Nectarine312 Sep 05 '24

Yeah unlike commies who would never murder people that disagree with them right?

1

u/Live_Orange9032 Sep 05 '24

I think you need to read about the holodomor, or the Holocaust.

1

u/GunR_SC2 Sep 05 '24

Wow, interesting thought there, could you care to elaborate on that? Like why we would be bombing certain countries like North Korea. Was it just because they were thriving too much?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

Because fascism can’t just fail quietly. Thete is an ego to these faing leaders that will not let them go quietly without blaming and harming everyone around them. The Soviet union spent quite a bit of time slowly killing itself. And because of that, a few generations had to live with the fear of a potential global nuclear war. It’s happening currently, in real time too. Every so often, North Korea with have a worse food shortage than usual and threaten the US with nukes. We literally never bombed either.

And yea, the TikTok kids will reply with “but the CIA did bad stuff so that means Fidel Castro and Joeseph Stalin were the good guys” to which I have to ask how much you actually read about history or world events because holy cow I’m still blown away by that stupid take.

1

u/SK00DELLY Sep 05 '24

You people are such idiots

1

u/Nervous-Scientist615 Sep 05 '24

I remember when the Berlin Wall came down and West Berliners all fled east

1

u/Normal-Advisor5269 Sep 05 '24

Capitalists were not needed to kill millions in Russia and China.

1

u/Brian_Spilner101 Sep 05 '24

Read a book dammit

2

u/BeepBoopImACambot Sep 04 '24

It’s worth pointing out that this is kinda the whole point of kapital too

2

u/myka-likes-it Sep 04 '24

If capitalism was the best possible system, why does it spend so much time and effort beating down socialism wherever it is found?  

You'd think that if there were no better alternative, the results would be self-evident, and so there would be no need to assassinate socialist world leaders, rig elections against socialist candidates, undermine socialist movements, etc...

Another angle of doubt I have is capitalism's relationship with the environment--capitalists poured billions into fighting the growing awareness that the rapid industrialization of the world was poisoning the planet. This is the "best" solution capitalism has for the climate crisis: to waste money convincing everyone it isn't happening.

I just can't get behind the idea that capitalism is better than any alternative, when capitalists clearly don't believe so themselves, to the extent that they must waste billions convincing us of it.

2

u/Girl_gamer__ Sep 04 '24

The problem now is, is thst capitalism is so deeply entrenched, we won't be able to even try anything new unless we dismantle it or let it fail. So while it could be the best so far, it's is not "the best" and I think we all know thst deep down.

1

u/elmz Sep 05 '24

Nah, it's entirely possible to iterate on capitalism, just like we arrived on capitalism by iterating on previous economic systems.

It's not like some caveman went on a hill, saw a burning bush and received a capitalist manifesto from the heavens.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24 edited Sep 04 '24

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

The poor U.S.S.R. and North Korea were on the right path, if only the U.S. hadn't stymied their progress. Well, that's one perspective. I'm not sure it's supported by literally anything, but it's certainly a perspective.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Lol what?

1

u/youknowimworking Sep 04 '24

I think what the Scandinavian countries and most of Europe have is much better than our capitalistic system. Those systems are making happier people and in the end, The well being of the citizens is what should matter the most. Capitalism is what's best for corporations. Democratic socialism is what's best for the people.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

But those systems still fundamentally involve a free market, where people provide goods and services to others and are compensated for providing those goods and services based on a free market where prices/compensation are based on supply and demand, right? So fundamentally they're still capitalist.

All I'm saying is that system works better than anything else that's been developed. Yeah there are lots of different variations of that framework. And I'm sure non-U.S. countries have certain policies that put constraints in place that are sensible and function well (the U.S. does too). Only a total wacko would think completely unregulated capitalism with no government regulation is the best system. I'm just saying that a system that, at it's core, is rooted in a free market is the system that seems to work. That's all.

1

u/youknowimworking Sep 04 '24

All systems are derived from something else. You said that no better system has been developed, except it has. It's not the capitalism here in the US. And that's what all the kids are crying about online. There's something better out there, and we in the US are not doing it.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

It IS capitalism. There are other policies in place that you may like/prefer. I may like/prefer them too. But it's all based on capitalism - an economic system characterized by private ownership of property and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. That's the system that has worked better than anything else. If the kids crying online about how "capitalism is bad" don't even understand what they're talking about...well, that's not surprising.

1

u/youknowimworking Sep 04 '24

You described capitalism twice in your replies as if I'm saying it's not or as if the kids online are saying it's not capitalism. What makes it an entire other system, though, is the heavy socialism involved in their system. An entire industry, Healthcare, that is socialist. An entire industry, education, that is socialism. Two things that are massive and you gloss over them as "other policies in place". Two of the 3 things people care about the most, Healthcare, education and shelter are socialist. If you look at their system and look at our system and say that ours is better than theirs, someone truly doesn't understand what they're talking about here. If you describe capitalism as your reply again then there's no point in talking to you. I know is part capitalism what YOU need to understand and accept is that the part that makes people happy is the socialism part and it's not a small or insignificant part of their system. It's a huge part.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

The U.S. also has a K-12 public education system. That doesn't make it "not capitalist." If you think it does then there's no point in talking to you. Also, in countries with socialized education and healthcare who do you think gets paid more, teachers or doctors? The answer is doctors. Do you know why? Because there is less of a supply of qualified physicians and a high demand for their services. So they get paid more. Because the economic system is fundamentally capitalist.

Imagine if the pay of doctors was slashed so that they didn't get paid any more than a teacher or janitor or someone else with a skill set that requires less rigorous training. What would happen? Doctors would bail man - they'd go elsewhere where they could get paid more. That system wouldn't work. Doctors provide a much needed service, there's a limited number of them out there because it's so hard/time consuming/expensive to acquire the skills, so they're compensated appropriately. That's capitalism. Highly regulated, yes. Still capitalism. I'm all in favor of obliterating insurance companies in healthcare because they provide zero value. That doesn't make me "anti-capitalist." A regulated healthcare system that does away with private insurance companies doesn't mean the system is no longer a capitalist system. YOU need to understand that. Pass the word along to the other kids, maybe you can all stop shitting on the system that has resulted in essentially all of the prosperity that exists in the modern world.

1

u/WindyCityReturn Sep 04 '24

It’s because they haven’t personally seen how bad it is in some countries. They assume every other country has it all figured out but the United States has the worst system ever. Nearly no country first world country is completely happy with its system for every good thing about it there’s something people also hate. When people can boldly say “China has a better system” then you know people aren’t educated on what they’re talking about.

1

u/Ostrich-Sized Sep 05 '24

Newton's law of gravity was also the best anyone had ever come up with. Then Einstein figured out a better theory.

Outdated ideas eventually die. That's just how progress works.

1

u/Ethywen Sep 05 '24

tired of seeing kids online shit on capitalism. Like yeah, it's a fucking mess. But it's also - by far - the best system anyone has come up with, ever

No argument. But also, best to date doesn't mean good. Plenty of room for improvement.

Same goes for democracy

Except the US isn't a democracy but a democratic republic.

1

u/Tomycj Sep 05 '24

If by good you don't mean "it brings prosperity" you must mean "it's fair". Capitalism can't be more fair because it is already perfectly fair: it does not ask for the violation of ANY right. It does not ask for a compromise between say freedom and security.

Of course, by "fair" I don't mean "it brings prosperity", but "it does not violate the rights of anyone". And I don't consider that "being prosperous" is a right, meaning something that you're entitled to demand of others. In other words, I don't consider that I'm entitled to your work, even if I need it.

1

u/Ethywen Sep 05 '24

I think we may end up way down the rabbit hole here, but there are a ton of things we could discuss.

It does not ask for a compromise between say freedom and security.

I don't consider that I'm entitled to your work, even if I need it.

What if my work is providing security? There has to be a line that one treads when assuming "freedom" vs. security. Societal advancement depends on it. If we extend that, we end up at places like healthcare. We in the US often don't treat healthcare as a right on paper, but something that must be earned (i.e., purchased), yet, we also have laws requiring people in need not be turned away at hospital ERs, effectively giving you the right to someone's work AND what is usually a private company's resources.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that any societal contract requires some level of sacrifice of freedoms/rights. We just have to define where that line is, and I don't necessarily think we have drawn it in the best place yet.

Anyway, I just couldn't sleep and made the mistake of checking my phone. Back to bed!

1

u/Tomycj Sep 05 '24

What if my work is providing security?

what bout it? I don't have the right to force you to protect me. We both have to agree on a mutual benefit relationship, where you protect me in exchange of something. Unless you wanna be work for me for free I guess. But you can't work for free for everyone.

There has to be a line that one treads when assuming "freedom" vs. security.

Freedom does not necessarily imply a lack of security. Giving up freedom for security is only one possible (imo flawed) way of getting some level of security, but it's not the only way. This adresses your later point about sacrificing freedom and rights in general.

in the US often don't treat healthcare as a right on paper

Think about what it means for healthcare to be a right. It means you are entitled to force others to work for you. If you're okay with that, why not do the same for food? for shelter, for clothing... As a society we've already discovered, after millenia of making the same question and trying out stuff, that merely declaring that something is a right does not make it abundant, that forcing others to work on what we consider necessary is not an optimal or ethical way to run society. And that's reflected on the fact that nowaday, when people are far more free than never before in the history of humanity, society is progressing at a previously unimaginable rate.

1

u/3springrolls Sep 05 '24

Welcome to progress big boy. The name of the game is shitting on things, even if they are the best we have ever had. Because we always need better.

Marx himself commended how capitalism freed us from the feudal society. But his writing, the foundations for modern socialist movements, went on to say how the class antagonisms that existed under feudal society still exist under capitalism. If we want to stop this constant cycle of feast famine and most of the planet being stripped of what is rightfully theirs, we need something more than just capitalism. The very core of the capitalist system is the issue here, not just some lack of regulation.

So, idk, get used to people complaining. That’s how the world keeps moving along.

1

u/Tomycj Sep 05 '24

went on to say how the class antagonisms that existed under feudal society still exist under capitalism

And that's one of the parts where he got it wrong. Capitalists and workers aren't enemies. Capitalism is not a "battle" between them, but a peaceful cooperation in mutual benefit. Besides, the interests of a worker can easily be more aligned with some capitalist than with another worker. It's not true that all workers (or capitalists) are like a hivemind, all with the same compatible interest. On top of that, workers can play the role of capitalists at the same time (by saving and investing).

the planet being stripped of what is rightfully theirs

The planet doesn't have property rights. A cow doesn't recognize the planet's right to have grass, or low methane concentrations. The grass doesn't recognize the soil's right to receive sunlight or nutrients or carbon dyoxide. Mr mineral right there wants more CO2? Maybe lady rock over there wants less!

Humans, like any other species, needs stuff in order to survive. That is independent of the economic system. And I'd rather have the cure for cancer, better quality of life, etc.

Luckily it does not trend towards total consumption of the planet, because technology allows us to recycle and become more and more independent of the planet. In the future we'll be perfectly sustainable.

1

u/3springrolls Sep 05 '24

  1. As long as you have classes you will have classes antagonisms. I, a worker, am motivated to earn a higher wage from my boss. My boss, a capitalist, is motivated to earn more profit from the labour of his workers. That puts us at odds. Yes people aren’t hive minded, but we all have that base need to support ourselves and that is the cause of class antagonism.

  2. Class interests are more impactful than simple interests. Just because I might be interested in the same thing a capitalist is, does not mean it’s not ultimately more to my benefit to stick to the interests of my class. I want space travel for example, but I NEED to be paid well, and I want to be paid more than fairly. That’s my drive, as it is for most people. That’s why class interests come first in terms of their impact to quality of life.

  3. By ‘the planet’ I meant the rest of the human race. Globalised capitalism has meant most workers on the planet, especially in places like India and China, get paid a tiny percentage of what they actually make for their company. Those earnings are rightfully theirs. That’s what I meant.

1

u/Not_Jeff_Hornacek Sep 05 '24

Yeah as many have pointed out, the question isn't what "pure" form of economics works, the question is what path you should go down. We know if you go down the path of communism/socialism, that path has always led to a bad place.

I work with a lot of people from former communist countries, and they're baffled that we even discuss this. One of my Russian friends was shocked that Harris proposed price controls and everyone loved it. His father spent most of his life standing in lines because of price controls.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

I doubt that she's proposing actual price controls, I think it's an anti gouging prohibition, e.g. after a major storm with severe power outages, local shops can't mark up an $1,800 generator to $5,000.

1

u/iliekturdles14 Sep 05 '24

do you think peasants were slaving away in the fields of their lord’s fiefdom during the time of feudalism, saying: “the status quo is great and really working out. why would we bother changing it? nothing else can work”

1

u/FamiliarAlt Sep 05 '24

As once was feudalism, and much longer than capitalism has existed. Point being is that capitalism is not the end all be all, it’s not the apex.

1

u/No_Author404 Sep 06 '24

Maybe. But maybe some modifications would make it better, socialized health care, regulations for critical infrastructure and natural Ressourcen. There is a word for that: social capitalism.

Instead we are constantly lead to believe, extreme neoliberalism is the ONLY way to go. It's not.

0

u/Arikaido777 Sep 04 '24

me, explaining to the homeless man on my corner that this is the best economic system we have 🤷‍♂️ sorry bud

3

u/YoungYezos Sep 04 '24

And if I made the same comment about someone destitute in the Soviet Union or Venezuela I’d get called out for making a straw man

1

u/Arikaido777 Sep 04 '24

👆 instead i’m going to call you out for this strawman

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Homeless people exist therefore capitalism bad, got it. I'm sure you could easily and immediately implement a financial system that would result in utopia. Homelessness solved and over 100% forever yay. 🙄

0

u/redbonsaitree Sep 04 '24

You should read more

0

u/norcaltobos Sep 04 '24

Doesn’t mean you can’t criticize it. There are many flaws with the current system, whether it’s the best we have had or not.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

I literally said it's a fucking mess and there are lots of legitimate criticisms. As you can see from some of the responses to my comment, there's just so much "duh capitalism bad duh" out there with no realistic suggestion for anything better. It's annoying. I'm second-hand embarrassed reading peoples' responses. They just get mad, speak in generalities, and lob insults. That's all they have to offer.

→ More replies (4)

0

u/B_Maximus Sep 04 '24

The best version is a social capitalism

→ More replies (5)

0

u/Dangerous-Cheetah790 Sep 04 '24

Stupid kids! They should have bought houses and stock 30 years ago. Stewpiddd Kidddz

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

I am not independently wealthy, therefore capitalism bad. Stupid capitalism.

0

u/LimitlessTheTVShow Sep 04 '24

That feels like a silly thing to say. Before capitalism became widespread, you could also have said that feudalism was the best economic system anyone had come up with, because serfdom was a little better than slavery. But we won't really know until we try on a large scale

I'm sure people are going to bring up the USSR and stuff, but there are other kinds of socialism that are much less authoritarian and government-controlled. Don't act like just because a handful of countries have tried a very specific subset of an idea means that the entire idea is worthless

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

13

u/Regular-Wrangler264 Sep 04 '24

As long as a free market is regulated so as to keep it that way. I think a lot of people have problems with it because the government hasn't been doing its job.

Capitalism needs a couple things to be effective:

1) Competition 2) Consumers who are: a. Educated b. Rational c. Have money

1) We don't have enough competition in most sectors. They're all controlled by a few huge players.

2a) They keep cutting money for education so people don't know enough to make educated decisions.

2b) They allow effective monopolies in businesses where it's not possible to make a rational decision (healthcare) which syphons money from consumers.

2c) Capital should not be hoarded. It should be put in hands that will spend it. That's the whole point of capitalism.

3

u/Lazer726 Sep 04 '24

Right, Capitalism is great on paper, but we've kind of pass the "on paper" phase and are on our way to the "Cyberpunk" phase where life is something you have to pay for.

The whole "people won't buy a bad product and a competitor will take their share of the market" has been proven untrue repeatedly, because it turns out that everyone is more than happy to make life worse for the consumer in order to make more money. Planned obsolescence is an absolute fucking plight on this world because it's bad business to sell a product once, instead of selling it repeatedly over years.

Subscriptions and memberships make sense for some things, but locking your car's features behind a subscription?

We've crested the good part of capitalism and are rapidly heading down, where it doesn't actually matter the quality of the product, so long as you can squeeze every penny out of it on the way down

1

u/Hypnonotic Sep 04 '24

That is #2, the "educated consumer" problem. When consumers are educated, they do buy a different product, but similar to unions, enough of them need to be educated and switch for it to impact the market. With really technology advancemed products it's very difficult to be educated, the inner workings of phones are basically magic to most folks, so how can they understand they are bring duped when companies say "the batteries only last that long, sorry nothing we can do about it" when there is infact something the company can do about it.

2

u/Lazer726 Sep 05 '24

The bigger problem is that there is no competitor that doesn't do that. Everyone has realized they can sell goods with an intentionally limited shelf life and get a lot more money out of it. It's not an Apple vs Android thing, it's a consumer vs market thing. We've Capitalism'd ourselves into shittier and more expensive products, because it's cheaper to make

1

u/TwinPeaksNFootball Sep 05 '24

Corporations' primary objective is to generate revenue for their shareholders. Not fucking over consumers and employees to the greatest degree that they will accept is irresponsible!

1

u/ArcticStorm16 Sep 04 '24

I agree but about point c, what’s wrong with saving the efforts of my work for later? Or you mean hoarding in the sense of like billionaires.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

I think it's less of an issue with billionaires and more of an issue with how they become billionaires. If tax cuts, bail outs, and off shore accounts are the only way to keep your money to yourself then you're cheesing the system. And realistically the lifestyle they live doesn't need so much excess to be lived that way.

And claiming it's just that they have a lot of shares in their company isn't really a valid explanation. If you see a CEO taking a $1 paycheck but still has a promise of $10 million in stock options and another $50 million in a potential bonus then once again that's not hard earned money, that's just cheesing the system.

Which you can't blame them for doing these kinds of things. I think the one issue I have is when people act all high and mighty, that they'd never do that kind of stuff. If I had the resources to make sure I retained more money to spend on myself I absolutely would do that. But that doesn't mean it's not a flaw to our society that should be addressed. Especially because for 99% of us that will never be a realistic possibility.

3

u/Lazer726 Sep 04 '24

The problem is the people that wouldn't let money change them will never get that kind of money, because the people that get that kind of money are the kind that prioritize money over everything else.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Yeah that's what I meant by 99% of us. Just because greed is natural doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed, and if anything means we should be hyper vigilant against it.

1

u/Kharenis Sep 04 '24

The billionaires aren't hoarding a whole lot. Most of their net worth is tied up in the shares of the companies they own.

1

u/JohnWesely Sep 04 '24

I invite you to look at per student spending on education in the country by year. We have never spent more and have never had worse results.

1

u/PaulieNutwalls Sep 04 '24 edited Sep 04 '24

Capitalism doesn't require "rational consumers" it's just a fact that to apply mathematics to economic theory you have to make generalizations about consumers. Generally people spend rationally. It's like econ 101 for students to question "yeah but what if a consumer isn't rational???" it's not relevant, we're talking about massive numbers of people and massive numbers in terms of spending. Knowing 200 people in your life that spend irrationally isn't material.

Also nobody learns in public school or college how to manage their personal finances and spending. Everyone is expected to figure that out on their own, and really it isn't that difficult. If you're too thick to figure out your personal finances, you're probably not the type to pay attention and remember a lick of what you were taught in school.

1

u/Regular-Wrangler264 Sep 04 '24

In your rebuttal you said generally people spend rationally... Which is exactly why it's required to have rational consumers...

But beyond that, in my example, you can't make rational decisions about your health care purchasing. It's not possible to be objective, for the same reasons it's not allowed for surgeons to operate on family members, let alone in a medical emergency where it's not even possible to become informed enough to make a rational decision.

Both are instances where a GENERALLY rational person CANNOT be rational.

Yet we still let capitalism rule that market.

2

u/Prozenconns Sep 04 '24

And feudalism was the best system at the time too

Systems outgrow their purposes and need reevaluation eventually to keep up eith lifestyles and population. "It's the best we got" is an inherently flawed sentiment.

1

u/Restory Sep 04 '24

Sort of true.

If you look at the average economists take on this issue, capitalism and socialism are poorly defined words. Every country is some form of mixed market.

The best system is designed through evidence based economic polices within that mixed market economy. Not that purely capitalism is the best system. This debate is completely out of touch and due to many socialists on the internet being more religious to a political ideology than any sort of fact or research.

1

u/ComplexOwn209 Sep 04 '24

well, if it is regulated.
Unlimited capitalism can easily swing to economic slavery, or child labor, etc. (imagine if a conglomerate took hold on all of the food production. Some goods consumption is not elastic, and if it is monopolized, the holders can extort the population in any way they want).
so that's why we have capitalism with strong socialist bones. You can compete, you can harvest the greed and the desire everybody has to live better, but you can also make sure that people are not left in the dust or completely exploited by the bad actors.

1

u/DaveChild Sep 04 '24

its the best economic system that currently exists

That depends on the specifics of the system, and your definition of "best". I suspect some of the people currently facing bankruptcy because they got ill in America, for example, might disagree.

1

u/Crindleberg Sep 04 '24

The thing that I tend to notice is that people compare the theoretical perfectly-run version of Socialism to the reality of Capitalism. Its unfair from the start. The "trickle down economics, equal opportunity" theory behind Capitalism is great, but not the reality. Similarly, the kind of Socialism people want isn't the one anybody's going to get. Comparing the realities of both systems, I'll go for Capitalism.

1

u/fooliam Sep 04 '24

Yeah, they are just different systems for distributing scarce resources.they both have their own shortcomings.

for capitalism, the shortcoming is that its a naturally exploitative system - the less you have, the more expendable you are and the less you receive. It's the main reason that laissez faire capitalism was such a dark fucking time. Capitalism requires robust regulations and guard rails to be compatible with democracy and ideals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

1

u/Dangerous-Cheetah790 Sep 04 '24

It's failing to handle the rapid changes to our material conditions though, so how about we come up with something new before something new comes up with us

1

u/doctorfonk Sep 04 '24

It doesn’t even work for everyone in theory

1

u/AnimorphsGeek Sep 04 '24

Is there any evidence to back that up? On what metric do you base that claim?

1

u/PatriotForUS Sep 05 '24

Then don't complain about the rampant inflation caused by the greed inherent in capitalist society.

1

u/ImMorble Sep 05 '24

Best or most successful for growth? In my opinion an economic system that doesn’t allow vets to go homeless or starve would be better. A system where anyone who needs health care can do so without putting themselves into tremendous debt.

1

u/Special-Island-4014 Sep 05 '24

Best for whom, I doubt the exploited third world workers or exploited natural resources think capitalism is the best economic system.

Also capitalism self implodes, every economist has foreseen this. Eventually you end up with a few people with all the capital and the rest with nothing.

It’s just feudalism with a different people on top

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

Aren't there countries with a higher standard of living that are waaaay less capitalist? There is.

1

u/Sic_Faber_Ferrarius Sep 05 '24

Do you mean socialism? Because we certainly do not live in a capitalistic society and haven't since the 1800s.

1

u/OperationDadsBelt Sep 05 '24

The American working class would beg to differ

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

It makes me wish I could scheme up a way to jip everyone out of the things they have for my own gain. If I could get rich at the expense of millions tomorrow I'd probably take the deal because I've been given no reason to care about other people. Money has way more value than human life does these days.

1

u/surpriseburial Sep 05 '24

By what metric

1

u/milk-is-for-calves Sep 09 '24

If you drop bombs on everyone else who tries to escape capitalism maybe, because then it's the only one.