this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
451 points (76.1% liked)

Asklemmy

43958 readers
2170 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hi all,

I'm seeing a lot of hate for capitalism here, and I'm wondering why that is and what the rationale behind it is. I'm pretty pro-capitalism myself, so I want to see the logic on the other side of the fence.

If this isn't the right forum for a political/economic discussion-- I'm happy to take this somewhere else.

Cheers!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 115 points 1 year ago (4 children)

“Free market” Capitalism is self-destructive. As the wealthy build and consolidate power, more and more resources get funneled to the top while the people at the bottom actually creating those resources go with less and less, and it’s unsustainable.

Being a billionaire is a moral failing. To have the ability to do something about all the suffering and death in the world, and to choose to do nothing borders on sociopathy. The systems designed to allow for billionaires to exist ensure that they don’t pay a fair share of their taxes, and they contribute nothing to society. They are leeches, feeding off the working class and giving nothing in return, when they have so much more to give than anyone else.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

It doesn't border on anything, they are straight up psychopaths. You can't do what they do if you have a conscience.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I agree with your point of view, and I think the solution is more governmental regulation. Billionaires and companies keep leeching for infinite growth, and I believe our system can work (and has proven it can work), if we allow a free market within reason.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Since the current system allows the people who make the rules to be bought, I think we'd have to start over entirely from scratch for it to work at all.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I think realistically the only way to fix that flaw would be starting over. Unrealistically, a constitutional amendment could solve a lot of those issues.

[–] jake_eric 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Regulations are indeed an important part of managing our system as it is, but they're fundamentally a bandaid to the problems of capitalism.

You gotta catch the corporations doing a bad thing and then tell them not to do it, meanwhile they're buying politicians to fight against you on it. And it still doesn't stop them from committing actions that are horribly unethical and extremely damaging to our society and to the environment, they just tone it down a bit at best, or occasionally they'll have to put a small fraction of their money into a lawsuit without actually changing their behavior.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, the relationship betweens corporations and our government absolutely has to change. I totally agree that the system is not at all working in that regard. It especially pisses me off when corporations break the law and the fines amount to nothing except the cost of doing business.

[–] jake_eric 3 points 1 year ago

Yup. If we're talking regulations then regulations on how much corporations can donate to politicians should be top of the list (and ideally that amount should be zero), but obviously both the politicians and the corporations like that donations are totally allowed, making it difficult to pass such things...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Some example where it works? Because where I live (EU), stuff is regulated and no one of my generation can buy shit. I pay so much for rent that I can't save money to buy something of my own. While the owner of the company has luxury cars. We're all wage slaves. Sadly, everything else is doomed to fail as well, so even the fabled communism of Soviet bootlickers won't save us.

[–] bouh 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you think EU is regulated, you have no idea what regulation should be. EU is merely preventing capitalism from self euthanasy at this point.

And I am a firm supporter of Europe.

[–] jerrimu 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Soviet system was communism with bosses, bosses duck up everything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that's looking for scapegoats. Truth is you always need some kind of a boss.

Let's imagine the fabled True Communism™. So everyone goes to vote for everything, everyone has a say in everything and everything is owned by everyone. Someone has to organize the elections. And because it's unrealistic for millions of people to go to one voting booth, you need local elections, pretty much what democracy looks like now. And there you go - you have your local leaders, those who organize elections. Your bosses are back and True Communism™ devolves back into the "communism with bosses".

Or let's say we come with a magical solution to that problem. Your country doesn't have money to build only luxury houses or flats, there need to be some smaller and shittier ones. Who decides who lives in the villa and who lives in the small apartment? There are these solutions:

  • you only build shitty apartments for everyone - yay, communism wins again!
  • people who are "more equal" than the others get them, for example for their service to the country and lo and behold, bosses are back!

Communism doesn't work and cannot work, simply because of human nature.

[–] Dyson -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All forms of power are self destructive. Greedy humans will want more of and will exploit others to get it.

Capitalism isn't immune to that, but does provide a bit of a wildcard that other forms of government don't have. Mark Zuckerberg controls, frankly, more of the world than anyone should be comfortable with, and the reason it's him and not someone else is mostly dumb luck. If he plays his cards right, he can build a Zuckerberg dynasty, and his descendants will have power by birth, but him being in power is capitalism. Some random person can obtain mass power.

All other feasible economic systems centralize power by design, and centralized power is, historically, rife with corruption and dynasties. Hell, the US presidency alone is usually a race between two people that the majority isn't happy with. Our election system is one of the fairest (far from perfect) and we still have crap options. You can pick your favorite color, so long as it's black or white.

I'm all for exposing and discussing the issues with capitalism, but it's still better than most other systems. The general check to capitalism is government regulations, which works on paper, but not in reality. Our current government system is pay to play, so if you have enough money, the regulations don't effect you, they affect your competition, its the worst form of free market. Get money out of politics and maybe regulations will work. Until then, they mostly make it worse.

If we wanted to explore other options, like socialism, it still boils down to corruption in the government. If its not money, it's something else. At the end of the day, leaders need support to get elected, and they will pimp themselves out for that support. If we look at an extreme example of "All jobs pay the same", within a decade, all desirable jobs, such as hiring managers, will be held by children of politicians and allies. Corruption won't go away just because money does, but money gives an ordinary person a chance at obtaining power.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

At least in the US, there hasn't been much of a history of successful dynasties. Fortunes do get passed down, but not for long. Take the Vanderbilt family. There are few famous Vanderbilts in modern day US life. The one I find most recognizable is Anderson Cooper, and he got his millions from working, not inheriting. Of course, there's a constant attempt from the Republican Party to repeal the estate tax, so that might change.