this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
451 points (76.1% liked)
Asklemmy
44151 readers
1691 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes it’s true that the current system has lots of rules but just because there are lots of rules doesn’t mean they’re effective. They do a poor job of limiting capitalism’s negative effects. Which is what they’re supposed to do. Quantity but not quality.
The rules aren't intended to limit negative effects, for the most part. Instead, as you know, the rules are focused on transactions and contracts and making sure property rights are prioritized over all other rights. My objection was to your characterization of the system as 'capitalism without rules', and that somehow 'Capitalism is meant to have rules to make it fair and prevent anarchy'. Meant by whom? Certainly not by the neoliberal ideologists. Certainly not by the oligarchs ruining the planet. The era of 'fair capitalism', what has been labeled the 'fordist era', the New Deal era in the USA and the social democratic era of the european democracies, that is now long past.
However, even under social democratic reform, capitalism requires perpetual growth, it is a system of accumulation that rewards growth and growth alone. A system that is sustainable, that is not dependent on growth, that allows human civilization to exist in harmony with its environment, such a system would not be capitalism.
Good points. Yes I obviously agree that rules to keep capitalism less unfair could not be - almost by definition - implemented by neoliberals. Even Adam Smith declared that free and fair markets can only exist with the oversight of governments who keep the public interest as priority. BTW I’d push back on the idea though that new deal-type economies are completely dead as some countries especially those with strong labor movements still have aspects of fairness.
But your bigger point relates to growth. And I agree that this is a massive problem, probably the most important problem for humanity to deal with. But growth is not a UNIQUE characteristic of capitalism. Socialist economies also concern themselves with growth. What’s unique to capitalism is that the rewards of growth accrue to the private owners of the engines of growth. In socialist economies, growth can still be an economic objective but the rewards of growth (are supposed to) accrue to workers or society at large. Growth is not uniquely capitalist.
Anyway, this is getting a little bit off the OP’s original ask. From a definitional standpoint, I view the OP’s question about why lemmy users lean toward anti-capitalism as “why do lemmy users lean against private ownership of the means of production?” which makes sense coz we’re on a decentralized system, dislike centrally owned systems like Facebook, Reddit, etc. I don’t think s/he was asking why lemmy users are anti-growth. Although that’s an interesting issue to discuss too.