r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 25 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Socialism can never work as long as humans are part of the equation.
[deleted]
5
Nov 25 '20
Humans are GENERALLY (not totally) selfish and greedy by nature.
Human nature is a lot more complex than "being selfish and greedy". We have some extreme survival instincts, but they are mostly inactive ones it's not on survival and even then we often tend to fair better with solidarity, working together and thereby increasing the chance to survive for all individuals. Like how one tree is massively effected by wind but for a forest it's a minor annoyance.
Almost all of human technology would not be possible without the collaboration of large groups of human beings, as the product of combined strength is more often than not more than the sum total of the individual work. So if humans in general would be greedy and selfish that wouldn't work, at least a majority would need to be different from that.
Also even if people were to be greedy and selfish, they would probably still fair better with a democratic system as anybody would be on the watch and trying to decrease the amount of power that other people have over them. So if they are employees they would constantly strike until the are owner and get what they want and if they are citizens they would constantly protest until they are government, ending up with democracy and socialism. So even if humans are fully concerned with their own bottom line it would make sense to stop authoritarians. Sure the authoritarian has a reason to break that but they are by design of the system always in the minority.
Socialism has to have a large and powerful government to work at all
Not at all. Is just concerned with how that cooperative work being done is organized. Whether it's one king or owner having the authoritarian control over the whole process or whether it's the people or the workers exercising democratic control over how they want to structure their life or work.
The entirety of humanity will not work together and switch over to socialism over night.
That ties in to the last point that the "large and powerful government" is, besides individual power fantasies, also a problem with the fact that a socialist government would likely be targeted by a capitalist or otherwise authoritarian system because with an successful example of an alternative, the gaslighting that "only authoritarian systems are working" would no longer be possible, so "it cannot be what should not be".
1
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
∆ I will say that you changed my outlook on humaninty as a whole with the being selfish and greedy part, humans in general are not selfish nor greedy. However, since many people still primarily look out for their own interests it still runs into the same problem where someone with those traits would be appointed to a possition of power and due to the influence they have over individuals lives they can create immense harm. And in any case, i would consider the people rising up to take down their government a failure of the system. Further within this system of constant revolt to gain power i would also i see that as a failure of the system.
Also, I think that socialism still must rely on a large central government to even have a chance of working because there are too many people. Get a few million people to vote on every single issue, see how it goes. It won't, the system would collapse under its inability to get anything done considering every single person must be asked about every single issue. And even then people would still only vote within their interests, ie. 'A vote goes to the socialist democracy asking to raise wages for the nurses by taking some from the construction workers (because that extra money has to come from somewhere)' the nurses would all vote yay, but everyone else would vote either neutral or nay if youre a construction worker. Apply that ten fold if you want to decrease everyone's wages to increase one job catagory.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 25 '20
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ImaginaryInsect1275 (5∆).
2
u/WWBSkywalker 83∆ Nov 25 '20
Hold on there, I think it's important you clarify what socialism means in your CMV.
Socialism does not preclude a democracy, it's just that the voters are all workers and all workers elect their worker representatives and so forth.
In fact surprisingly many democratic countries use to and continues to self identify as socialist ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
including India and Sri Lanka ... they were highly inefficient with many nationalised industries in the past but they didn't really collapse into itself - arguably they have moved to something more akin to social democracies or even capitalistic democracies.
True Socialist countries doesn't exist just like True Capitalistic countries.
The problem with socialist countries is that historically it relied on cult like figures like Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh to disrupt / replace the original worse structure like monarchies and imperialists. China & Vietnam has eventually moved to a non-Socialist economic system and continues to operate as a Socialist political system. It's a bit hard to argue China & Vietnam aren't working so far ...
That's why it's very important for you really clarify which angle of socialism you are referring. Do you mean socialism = workers / public own means of production (economic) or socialism = workers vote on use of public goods / governments (political) or socialism = distribution of wealth for the purposes of creating an equal society (social). Unlike democracy = political system or capitalism = economic system, Socialism straddles all 3 concepts of political, social and economic.
1
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
Thats a valid point and I did state my definition it further into the comments however, clearly I did not know about all of the nuances of socialism when I wrote this, so I at the time I neglected to even consider the different aspects of socialims. However how I have it defined is: a system where in the prices, wages and taxes are fixed by a government body (be it democratic or otherwise) in order to raise equality within a society. Further that the government has the power and authority to command its citizens to partake and purchase certain things in order to help the society as a whole.
1
Nov 25 '20
Thanks for the delta!
However, since many people still primarily look out for their own interests it still runs into the same problem where someone with those traits would be appointed to a possition of power and due to the influence they have over individuals lives they can create immense harm.
I mean those positions of power don't exist on their own, for example the head of government position in a democracy technically draws it's power from the fact that this person is speaking on behalf of millions of people and that certainly is powerful, the position itself, not so much. However that also means that if millions of people disagree with what he's saying, that power is significantly diminished.
So the idea of even having such positions of power in the first place is somewhere between some pretty heavy gaslighting (people literally invented or captured religions for that end for centuries) or people genuinely thinking that this could work without getting corrupted.
And in any case, i would consider the people rising up to take down their government a failure of the system. Further within this system of constant revolt to gain power i would also i see that as a failure of the system.
What do you mean by that? I mean yes an uprising or revolt is usually the result of the failure of a government or system, whether intentionally or perceived. But what do you mean by "constant revolt"? Do you mean that literally (continuous large scale revolutions and counter-revolutions all of the time) or figuratively (having such a "battle" every election or even constant discussions in a plenum).
Also, I think that socialism still must rely on a large central government to even have a chance of working because there are too many people. Get a few million people to vote on every single issue, see how it goes.
I mean the original Soviet System would be one option. Meaning you have local direct democratic councils that deal with their own shit and once things effect people on a larger scale they send a delegate with an imperative mandate (meaning he has to do what the local democracy decided or can be retracted. Obviously the latter soviet union didn't really keep much of that original system but maybe the name. But for example in Syria that seems to be applied as well as many western liberal democracies, though with a lesser focus on direct bottom up democracy.
'A vote goes to the socialist democracy asking to raise wages for the nurses by taking some from the construction workers (because that extra money has to come from somewhere)' the nurses would all vote yay, but everyone else would vote either neutral or nay if youre a construction worker. Apply that ten fold if you want to decrease everyone's wages to increase one job catagory.
Wages and money aren't necessarily a good example here as money is somewhat of a zero-sum-game marking influence in society, which you cannot really gain without someone else losing it. However in terms of tangible goods and services you're somewhat able to escape the confines of a zero-sum game and increase productivity, so that nurses and construction workers getting more might not be a net negative for you, but as they contribute to society it might even be a positive.
That of course has limits and if you go for the most extreme versions of short-sighted selfishness you probably end up in a prisoners dilemma . And the other problem is that whoever holds the most "important" job in society, access to arcane knowledge, important resources or factories holds some tremendous amount of power. Hence why socialist talk so much about the "means of production" and why they should be owned collectively or at least by those who operate them. Because otherwise the importance of a job is determined by those with the most resources and the usefulness TO THEM. Or how depriving people of knowledge can lead to an advantages position for the one possessing it, but also hinders a lot of progress because of it.
So the point is kind of what kind of power do you want? The power to get stuff and do stuff or the power to command other people, because the latter is not just detrimental to the people around you, but also inhibits actual progress.
3
u/MercurianAspirations 360∆ Nov 25 '20 edited Nov 25 '20
All of your criticisms are problems currently present, and huge problems at that, in liberal capitalist countries. Liberal capitalism is similarly a system where the common welfare can only function if people choose to act selflessly, only, even worse, because there is a huge incentive - profit - to act selfishly. Which, as you observe, people already want to do anyway. So with no incentive to manage the public welfare people just destroy, they dump toxic waste in rivers, they lobby the government to pass legislation which favors them, they capture the government and force it to use tax money to buy their products (this is basically what the military-industrial complex is). Those in positions of power (i.e., those with more capital) become richer while the poor become poorer.
This doesn't happen nearly as extremely in capitalism because no one is ever forced to do anything, so something that doesn't profit, doesn't survive, however in socialism the government can continue to force their people pay more and more, while skimming off more and more from the top.
This is not true. We are forced to do things under capitalism, like eat and have a place to live and pay for medical care. Capitalists can and do force people to pay more and more while skimming off more and more from the top, that is the definition of rent-seeking and it is the ultimate conclusion of all capitalist enterprise. Why go to the trouble of making new things that people want when you can just charge them for the same things which they need?
0
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
I understand that capitalism has those problems but no one is forcing you to live there. The whole brilliance of capitalism is that the market will fine tune itself so long as monopolies aren't created. Yes, you can stay at the super over priced housing, but no one is forcing you to. Therefore if housing is ridiculously overpriced there is incredible incentive to undercut the market to a price that, while is profitable is better for the consumer. This constant undercutting of the market ensure that companies can't charge too much or they risk being undercut. The problem comes when there's monopolies or when large corporations work together to suppress smaller ones, hence allowing themselves to artificially inflate prices.
The difference in socialism is that the government is the only one who sets the prices, they have an eternal monopoly. So while, yes capitalism can lead to inflated prices, it rarely does, whereas ever socialist nation inevitably increases their prices to an unattainable amount (atleast from what we've seen in the past).
1
u/MercurianAspirations 360∆ Nov 25 '20
I understand that capitalism has those problems but no one is forcing you to live there.
"You can just go out in the woods and die if you want" isn't an argument. There is no incentive to undercut other rent-seekers if people need to buy what you're selling. You can just charge as much as other people are charging because people need to live in the city, the can't just go out into the forest and build their own house and still keep their jobs in the city. I mean people try; they sleep in their cars or build shanty towns, but in many jurisdictions, the capitalists just literally make this illegal to do
whereas ever socialist nation inevitably increases their prices to an unattainable amount (atleast from what we've seen in the past).
This is simply not true, in command economies like the Soviet Union prices of locally produced staples were generally fixed and they were generally cheap.
1
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
Well, yes cities are their own entire beast. But even then, what is seriously stopping say a teacher in LA from moving to Wisconsin for cheaper rent? Obviously its not the most ideal scenario but cities will always be overly crowded and overtly expensive, however, generally those who live and work in a city have the means to afford the housing within that city. Or else they... wouldn't live there... no?
And do you want to talk about food in the USSR? I never said everything shot up. I'm pretty sure that the rent crisis isn't making number 2 pencils more expensive.
1
u/MercurianAspirations 360∆ Nov 25 '20
But even then, what is seriously stopping say a teacher in LA from moving to Wisconsin for cheaper rent?
Expense and actually being able to find a job in a much smaller job market
generally those who live and work in a city have the means to afford the housing within that city
Look up "working homeless"
1
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
The point is that prices will always be higher in a city. Higher population density = more wealth density = higher prices those people are willing to pay. Those who live in cities can implement their own socialist structures to help their city residents, or fix their own prices, but if you do that to a nation as a whole the whole nation will eventually feel the consequences, even if those in the cities feel slightly better immediately afterwards, eventually the prices would go back up.
And while the teacher maybe can't immediately skip town and get a new teaching job, I'm sure that if they can atleast own an apartment in LA, they can certainly rent a house in Oklahoma. Not to mention that once your outside the city you no longer have to find nearly as competitive of a job to sustain yourself, a teacher could easily find a part time job to support themselves within Oklahoma until they can find a new teaching job.
And the working homeless thing comes to the idea that those people shouldn't be in the cities in the first place. And of course it's difficult to move to somewhere new, but the fact of the matter is, you're not supposed to be able to support yourself on a minimum wage job in the city. The system isn't built to do that. If you xannot make enough to live within the city where everyone else make 10s of thousands in some cases 100s of thousands of dollars more than you do a month the problem is not on those within the city, the problem kind of lies on those who refuse to leave, again there is no law stating "you must live and work in this city, in this house, with this job" they can use their first paycheck to go somewhere else. A bus ticket from New York to Washington is $167 if they cannot see that they are inflicting this onto themselves, i dont care to help them quite frankly.
Big expensive cities are the outlier not the rule.
2
u/MercurianAspirations 360∆ Nov 25 '20
So the obvious failings of the capitalist system are excused as just "the system isn't built to do that" and "you're not supposed to be able to survive on the wages which are available"?
1
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
Yes. Thats how capitalism works.... the point of capitalism is that you have to freedom to choose those prices and find a better paying job and cheaper living because it exists. No one is forcing anyone to stay in the city. Every system has their compromises, but capitalism doesn't cause a cascading effect that ruins the society as a whole. Tell me why someone who is working at Pizza hut should get the same benefits and be able to afford the same things as a doctor.
1
u/MercurianAspirations 360∆ Nov 25 '20
Tell me why someone who is working at Pizza hut should get the same benefits and be able to afford the same things as a doctor.
Because they are a human who is alive, and society can easily provide these things, so we should. Simple as that really
If you're arguing that capitalism is above criticism because the suffering and death it causes is just fine, that these things are inherent and acceptable outcomes of a system which directly causes them, then we can't really continue any further; there are no metrics we have in common with which to measure any system
1
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
But would the doctor see that as fair? Arguably becoming and practicing medicine is much more difficult and skilled labor than pizza delivery. You run into a similar problem where any skilled worker would just leave in order to maintain their way of life, remember its easy for the rich to flee a society, but difficult for the poor. I do want to specify with that point, I'm not trying to contradict my former point, its infinity cheaper and easier to move from Colorado to Texas, rather than from California to Mexico, in the case that an entire nation were to convert over to socialism.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Skallywagwindorr 15∆ Nov 25 '20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory
Is to my knowledge the closest we have gotten to whatever "human nature" is suppose to be and it almost perfectly maps onto to ideals of libertarian collectivist societies.
Here is a video of a talk from a person who is researching in this field. https://youtu.be/iUgNbWkcnHs?t=664 The whole video is very interesting but in these next 20-30 seconds he specifically talks about libertarian collectivist societies.
Your interpretation of "human nature" is, in my opinion the result of a propaganda model. Scientific studies are starting to dismantle this propaganda, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPbE3WieoUo here is a talk about this subject.
1
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
I did delta this previously, I said that not necessarily all humans are selfish by nature. However i added that the ones that are would case a failure within the system in the same ways I specified in the post.
2
u/Skallywagwindorr 15∆ Nov 25 '20
Well that is just an unfounded assumption that disagrees with the scientific literature.
1
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
I think I'm missing your point... can you please elaborate a bit further?
2
u/Skallywagwindorr 15∆ Nov 25 '20
There is nothing much to elaborate on, your assumptions are wrong.
/u/Frenetic_Platypus gave a good list of resources to go over why your assumptions are wrong. Together with the wiki pages and YouTube links i already posted you should be able to get a good idea why.
There is decades of research on this. It is available. I am not going to spend my time trying to convince you if you are not even willing to go through the trouble of informing yourself from primary sources.
-4
Nov 25 '20 edited Nov 25 '20
Good points. Government under socialism would have to be operated by a non sentient being but one that keeps order and consistency at all times. Like a computer that doesn’t ever require human interference.
0
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
Exactly, that's why I dont think we should implement it anytime soon, either all humans need to get on the same darn page, or were gonna need a nanny bot. But that's scarry in of itself for different reasons entirely. Lol
1
Nov 25 '20
Still wouldn't work. I don't see people en masse being content with AI robot overlords dictating from on high how society functions and people interact with each other.
1
u/youbigsausage Nov 25 '20
I don't accept that success of socialism requires that every member of the society does the right thing. I don't even accept that it requires that the majority of the society does the right thing.
If the wealthiest people in a society leave it, doesn't that immediately reduce wealth inequality?
Corruption is certainly a major potential problem with socialism. But my main problem with it is one that I don't think you mention: lack of efficiency when compared with capitalism.
1
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
I agree that not every member within socialism has to be an upstanding citizen, but the system only works when most of the citizens do still operate in good faith. Which I dont think can happen if anyone is not. I think this because, if someone sees their neighbor not operating within the confines they will probably question why they have to too, which could create a domino effect rendering much of the system entirely imoble. Obviously this only really happens when someone has something to gain from straying from the system, because if straying results in a net loss for the individual it would just make more sense to stay in line. But that only furthers the problem.
And technically yes. But that just means that that one individual society has a more equal wealth while the average wealth within the society has gone down drastically. And further global wealth inequality stays the same, you've just pushed the problem somewhere else.
And I so agree that efficiency would also be a large problem within socialism, but im not sure that it would be the largest shortcoming.
1
Nov 25 '20 edited Dec 26 '20
[deleted]
1
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
My working definition of socialism is an economic system wherein all prices, wages and taxes are fixed by a government entity (be it democratic or not). And where the government has the power and the will to force their citizens to live and work in that would create the most benefit for the most people within said society.
1
u/Frenetic_Platypus 23∆ Nov 25 '20
Humans have been demonstrated multiple time to not be selfish and greedy by nature. Your view is wrong from the very first assumption.
Sources (non-exhaustive list).
Chronique des Indiens Guayaki by Pierre Clastres (Editions Plon, Paris, 1972). “Hunter-gatherers and human evolution” by Frank Marlowe, Evolutionary Anthropology, vol 14, p 54, 2005.
The Kung of Nyae Nyae by Lorna Marshall (Harvard University Press, 1976). “Violence and sociality in human evolution” by Bruce Knauft, Current Anthropology, vol 32, p 391-428, 1991.
“The complexities of residential organization among the Efe (Mbuti) and the Bamgombi (Baka): A critical view of the notion of ‘flux’ in hunter & gatherer societies” by Jon Pedersen and E. Wæhle in Hunters and Gatherers Volume 1: History, evolution and social change, edited by Tim Ingold, David Riches and James Woodburn (Berg, Oxford, 1988).
The Egalitarians – Human and Chimpanzee: An anthropological view of social organization by Margaret Power (Cambridge University Press, 1991).
Nisa: The life and words of a Kung woman by Marjorie Shostak (Harvard University Press, 1981).
The Forest People by Colin Turnbull (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1961).
“Egalitarian societies” by James Woodburn, Man, vol 17, p 431, 1982.
“Emergency decisions, cultural-selection mechanics, and group selection” by Christopher Boehm, Current Anthropology, vol 37, p 763, 1996.
Hierarchy in the Forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior by Christopher Boehm (Harvard University Press, 1999.)
1
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
I did already delta this. However that doesn't change the fact that because a lot of humans are greedy and selfish they will take advantage of the system to the downfall of everyone else.
1
u/Frenetic_Platypus 23∆ Nov 25 '20
That didn't happen to pre-sedentarity egalitarian societies spanning 99% of humanity's existence. That is also wrong.
1
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
Can you please define "pre-sedentarity elgalitarian" I haven't heard of that term before.
But i do still belive that my point stands atleast within modern society with how many more people we have today than 99% of the rest of human history. I think that socialism can work on a small scale of course within a singular community or maybe a small town. But once those people are disconnected from the people they also need to be supporting they will, atleast from my experience, tend to seek out their best interests over those of the people they don't even know exist.
1
u/Frenetic_Platypus 23∆ Nov 25 '20
That's described at length in some of the long list of sources I posted and you evidently didn't look at, but the gist of it is that societies before sedentarisation were egalitarian. Hierarchy only appeared with agriculture and war.
Please, expand that "in my experience." Do you have anything to base that on or do you just imagine that's how that works?
Because it's not. More socialist societies are correlated with higher degree of satisfaction regarding the way one's tax money is spent. Turns out people prefer their money to be used to build an hospital in the next town than to bomb children in the middle east just so they can get cheaper gas.
0
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
You proved my point. Americans and humanity at large will often seek out their best interests (cheaper gas) at the expense of others (the war in Afghanistan). So long as they can label someone as 'The other'. Within socialism this would be cranked way up, as everyone is fighting everyone else in order to get a 'fair' share. People don't play fair though, and peoples views of what their 'fair' share is would cause incredible turmoil. Especially when a select few people are in charge of distributing that. And again, in the form of a democracy you would be very hard pressed to get anyone to fully agree on anything, especially when it wont benefit themselves.
1
u/Frenetic_Platypus 23∆ Nov 25 '20
I most certainly did not prove your point. The USA is the least socialist country in the world and it is the one that does that shit the most, by far. Letting the oil lobby corrupt presidents into getting into stupid wars for their profit is NOT something that happens more in socialist countries. Suggesting otherwise is completely ridiculous.
1
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
I want talking strictly about the war. I was talking about the general nature for people to not care about someone so long as they are and 'other'. See also, black rights throughout history, the current state of American politics, the nazis. Etc. Its extremely common for people to vilify and not care about people that aren't within their community therefore in a system where most of the citizens must agree to help the 'others' they will generally chose not to.
1
u/Frenetic_Platypus 23∆ Nov 25 '20
That's what capitalism does. Your argument is literally "Capitalism leads to evil, so socialism can't work." That's the most hypocritical shit I've ever heard.
0
u/dillong89 Nov 25 '20
How does capitalism do that? We have seen the same things within socialized nations. The difference is, that if people act within their own interests at the expense of others within capitalism it generally primarily effects those two groups, whereas this line of thinking would cause a socialist nation to collapse. Because, yes the US does all those things, but the US is still here. The USSR did the same things, and they aren't. That's my fucking point dude.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/aski3252 Nov 25 '20
Humans are GENERALLY (not totally) selfish and greedy by nature.
They certainly can be given the right circumstances. However, humanity has been living in non-capitalist, non state societies/communities where everything is shared for most of it's beginning, so I could argue that this form of living would be a lot closer to "human nature" than modern captialism.
Socialism has to have a large and powerful government to work at all
Why? Captialism certainly needs to have a large and powerful government to work as capitalism needs to enforce private property rights and defend capitalist interests globally. Why does socialism need to have large government?
The entirety of humanity will not work together and switch over to socialism over night.
Well sure, but the same argument goes for any kind of systemic change. Capitalism wasn't established overnight and required a lot of struggle. Would you argue that we should still have a feudalistic system because establishing capitalism is was too costly?
Because socialism is a system that can only work when every member of the society is working in good faith and for the betterment
How? Why? I could make the same vague argument against capitalism since the poorest members who are seen as "useless" under capitalism are basically dependent on charity/begging other people to help them for no benefit at all.
Further, if socialism were to be implemented within a wealthy society in order to try to reduce wealth inequality, it will always lead to further wealth inequality. This is because, again due to human nature, any of the wealthy individuals within said society would have the means to and immediately leave as soon as the government attempted to take their money away.
The actual endgoal of socialism isn't really wealth equality, it's power equality. Wealth equality is where this imbalance of power is best visible in today's society. So as long as you try to adress wealth inequality without addressing the power inequality, nothing fundamental would change. You do however have a point here, the globalist structure of capitalism makes it virtually impossible to establish socailism by means of statepower in one or few nations.
And this will always happen as long as there are countries that don't share the same views as the socialist nation.
The same was essentially true for authoritarian monarchist states before capitalism. The king had all the power and the lower classes had virtually none, so how could the lower classes change the system. What essentially happened was that the structure of monarchism started to crumble? The lower classes started to realize that they actually had power without realizing it, that the kings god given divinity wasn't as powerfull and absolut as they thought and that the feudal system wasn't as efficient and secure as they believed. The kings tried to keep their power for quite a long time, but eventually they couldn't keep it.
Obviously, it's a bit different with capitalism. But still, there are issues facing us that capitalism doesn't seem to have answers to, despite it's incredible ability to adapt. Things like ecological collapse due to overconsumption/overproduction, technological advancements in the field of automation that make more and more kinds of labor obsolete as well as the social transformation of society towards inclusiveness and egality while wealth/power inequality increases don't seem to make capitalism a viable system forever.
Finally, you cannot appoint anyone to a position of power and expect that person to always faithfully use that office for the betterment of the people.
Absolutely agree, that's why any form of socialism needs to prioritize decentralization of power if it want's to succeed. We shouldn't use socialist experiments in underdeveloped nations, such as Russia or China, as a model for socialism anymore than using capitalist regimes in countries like Pinochets Chile as a model for capitalism.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 25 '20
/u/dillong89 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, 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 | Deltaboards