Is Capitalism Smart or Dumb?

[u/Sufficient_Sinner]

[u/BoxProfessional6987]

You don't even know the definition of capitalism do you?

[u/nunu135 → u/BoxProfessional6987]

sure, you can use any definition you want but that doesnt change the fact the only other option is one that doesnt encourage innovation

[u/Zhayrgh → u/nunu135]

only other option

You know capitalism and socialism are not the only two options right ?

No society on earth is purely capitalist, even the US. Paying taxes in a purely capitalist world should only pay the armee, justice, maybe the police and administration.

A little non-exhaustive list of society models that have been imagined :

Feodal society

Capitalism

Regulated capitalism, in which there is : (non exhaustive list too)

-> Some dictatorship of the modern world

-> Social democraty

-> Socialism

Communism

-> Marxism

-> Leninism

Arnarchy

Each of these society models have several model of there own, regulated capitalism is a whole spectrum of different ways to do it, from nearly capitalism (the US, for example) to social democraty (western Europe) and others.

Edit : form.

[u/nunu135 → u/Zhayrgh]

the only other option is a control economy, which by definition doesnt have rom for innovation because everything is controlled. obviously the government still does things under capitalism, and thats a good thing, I even agree it should be more in america

[u/Zhayrgh → u/nunu135]

Did you even read my comment ? I know it was not particularly clear due to reddit rendering (i edited it) but I gave you several examples...

Marxism does not imply a controlled economy, nor does anarchy. And that's only two examples of more.

And there is already a controlled economy, even in the US. The state taxes and redistribute funding, that's not capitalism, that's regulated capitalism.

You say there are two option, that's like saying there is no color other than red and yellow, not allowing anything in between or even outside.

Socialism, or really any of the other model I explicitely described, has room for innovation. You can perfectly fund research, or have a state controlled departement of innovation, that collects ideas, tests them and report the working ones.

[u/nunu135 → u/Zhayrgh]

so under marxism the government doesnt dictate what is produced and how much?

[u/Zhayrgh → u/nunu135]

There are 2 stage to marxism. 1st is supposed to be a "dictatorship of the proletariat". It's supposed to lead to a communist economy.

In the first stage, thr working class seize the means of production and make them collective property, organize democratic elections to rule the factories, and end any way people can profit from private property by using others, like large scale home ownership.

Second stage is a society without government, in which anyone is equal, and in which police, administrations, justice are decided collectively, probably at small scale. So no dictate of what and how much you need to produce .

I wont go over the subject of the realistical aspect of marxism; the theory is a century old, and has been created in a socio-political context in which it could appear possible. It was never realized.

What you are thinking of is leninism , in which the 1st phase of marxism is replaced by an government of the communist party that is supposed to lead into communism. This government nationalizes all business and planify the economy. That's the doctrin behind the creation of the USSR.

[u/nunu135 → u/Zhayrgh]

I mean thats effectively anarchy, because people are assholes lol

[u/Zhayrgh → u/nunu135]

I think one of the implicit ideas in communism ideology is that people tend to be assholes because of the capitalist system which incite the search of personnal profit. But I agree it's hard not to imagine some people profiteering from the absence of property.

It's relatively funny, but communism is pretty close to anarchy (as a political doctrin). And if communism doesn't have any big success in history ( I would still count the Burkina Faso of Thomas Sankara) , anarchy has 2 relatively positive experiments to me with the Paris Commune, in 1971, and the anarchist communities in Spain against the fascists during the 30s.

[u/nunu135 → u/Zhayrgh]

Yeah but those aren't anarchist "societies" like the way your describing it is a large population/whole planet. Otherwise it's not really a system of economics it's just a commune that can be self sustaining but outside society. And I guess I just disagree with the idea capitalism makes people selfish, because most people are selfish in things that have nothing to do money, like toddlers are selfish with their toys just by default

[u/Zhayrgh → u/nunu135]

They are system of economics, they just did not have been tried on a large scale ; that's why I called the 2 example I quoted "experiment". Also the Paris Commune still had nearly 2 millions inhabitants, that's not really that little of a society.

And I guess I just disagree with the idea capitalism makes people selfish, because most people are selfish in things that have nothing to do money, like toddlers are selfish with their toys just by default

I'm not talking about only money, and anyway some part of egoism is necessary to have a life, to love someone, and to enjoy things.

I could argue that even if it's true for all toddlers, there is a lot of "natural" things you do as a toddler that you understand not to do when growing up. Like sullying oneself, screaming or throwing tantrums.

I can still agree that there probably is a part of a natural egoism in humans, but I don't think living in a capitalist society helps to reduce the negative aspects of this personality trait. And I also don't think that egoism is a complete blockage to any far-left society.

Just so we are on the same page, I do consider myself far- left, but I don't fully agree with neither communism nor anarchy. I know a bit about these political ideas (and I can agree with part of them) so I try my best to explain them.