sj_zeroI'm of two minds in this regard. On one hand, the people who are pushing for "a growing economy" usually are worried about rich people's yacht money. OTOH, the economy makes things like the ways we feed ourselves, and the way we heat our homes, and other stuff we need to not die.
It seems like too many people are focused on the evils of the former without considering the evils of harming the latter. Having to choose between freezing to death and starving to death isn't a good place to be.
JasmineExcept for the fact that people are already doing that. Capitalism is cruel and barbaric. Our species survived 295,000 years prior to the advent of money. 5,000 short years later, capitalism has destroyed our planet. Money is the root of all evil and the cause of our extinction.
I think you're mistaking capitalism for something else, and ascribing all the sins of humanity to what is an extremely recent and limited phenomenon.
Throughout most of human history, societies were not primarily organized around the principles of capitalism, which include a market economy based on the exchange of goods and services for profit, private ownership of the means of production, and the pursuit of individual wealth and accumulation. Instead, many societies were organized around different economic systems, such as command economy, feudalism, communitarianism, tribal communism, or some hybrid of several economic systems.
Capitalism as a dominant economic system only began to emerge in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and it was not until the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries that it became the dominant economic system in the Western world.
Most societies historically were centered around different forms of strong central state control. The creation of a strong central state is often associated with the development of agriculture, as agriculture requires a complex system of organization and regulation to support large-scale food production. A strong central state is able to provide the infrastructure and resources needed to support agriculture, such as irrigation systems, transportation networks, and markets.
Agriculture is typically more productive than hunting and gathering, and it allows societies to support larger populations and create a more stable and reliable food supply. As a result, agriculture often crowds out hunting and gathering as the dominant mode of food production, as it allows societies to support larger populations and to produce a more diverse range of foods.
However, the adoption of agriculture also has a number of consequences for societies, including changes in social and economic organization, the development of social hierarchies, and the loss of traditional ways of life. In many cases, the adoption of agriculture has led to the displacement of hunter-gatherer societies, as they are unable to compete with the productivity of agriculture and are often forced to adapt to new ways of life.
Overall, the creation of a strong central state is often associated with the development of agriculture, as it provides the resources and infrastructure needed to support large-scale food production. However, the adoption of agriculture also has significant social and economic consequences, and it can lead to the displacement of hunter-gatherer societies.
There are a number of examples of economies that are explicitly non-capitalist where environmental and human rights abuses took place.
The forests England were heavily exploited during the medieval period, as the demand for wood and other forest products increased with the growing population and the development of the economy. This led to widespread deforestation, as large areas of forest were cleared to meet the demand for timber, fuel, and other products. The deforestation of England had significant environmental consequences, including soil erosion, loss of habitat, and the decline of many species.
Easter Island in South Asia was an island where the people were apparently wiped out as the people focused all their resources on building giant stone heads. The economy of Easter Island was based on a system of subsistence agriculture and fishing, and the island's resources were collectively owned and managed by the community as a whole. The Rapa Nui people did not engage in trade or commerce with other societies, and there was no system of money or currency on the island.
The Mayan civilization was formed from people who diverged from eurasian civilizations 20,000 years ago and despite that had its own set of environmental and human rights issues. Some of the environmental problems faced by the Maya civilization included deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution, which were the result of the civilization's reliance on agriculture and urban development.
The Maya civilization also had a hierarchical social structure, and it is believed that there were significant inequalities in terms of wealth, power, and access to resources. The ruling class of the Maya civilization, which included the nobles, priests, and rulers, enjoyed a higher standard of living than the common people, who were often subject to harsh working conditions and had few rights or protections.
Now all that being said, I don't mean to insinuate that capitalism is an economic system without sin either. England under industrialist capitalism also suffered deforestation and the london fog was a result of mass air pollution from burning coal, and the industrial revolution may have led to massive increases in quality of living, but it also led to massive wealth inequality and injustice. Today, we live with many legacies of pure greed, including the bulk of the United States being a fundamentally different ecosystem then it would have been prior to colonization, and I would argue the United States is one of the most capitalist civilizations in history so it can't be discounted. Clearly there's a lot of issues with wealth inequality there too, and it's indisputable that compared to the post baby boomer economic boom the average worker and the average CEO have much different lives comparatively speaking. That said, I don't need to prove capitalism is a system without faults to prove that it is not the root cause of all problems in the world.
The pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power are two different goals that have driven human behavior throughout history. Both the pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power can be motivated by a desire for advantage and a desire to gain power and control over others. No matter what economic system people live under, individuals will always crave advantage compared to others and will use the systems available to them to achieve that end.
In capitalist societies, the pursuit of money is often seen as a primary goal, and people may use their wealth and resources to gain influence and power. In non-capitalist societies, the pursuit of political power may be more important, and people may use their connections and influence to gain control over resources and decision-making.
Ultimately, the pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power are both driven by a desire for advantage and a desire to gain power and control over others. While the specific systems that people use to achieve these goals may vary, the underlying motivations are often the same.
tl;dr: why would anyone write this much about something nobody is going to read, and even if they read it their opinion isn't likely to be changed? Oh well, it was fun to research and write.
Throughout most of human history, societies were not primarily organized around the principles of capitalism, which include a market economy based on the exchange of goods and services for profit, private ownership of the means of production, and the pursuit of individual wealth and accumulation. Instead, many societies were organized around different economic systems, such as command economy, feudalism, communitarianism, tribal communism, or some hybrid of several economic systems.
Capitalism as a dominant economic system only began to emerge in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and it was not until the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries that it became the dominant economic system in the Western world.
Most societies historically were centered around different forms of strong central state control. The creation of a strong central state is often associated with the development of agriculture, as agriculture requires a complex system of organization and regulation to support large-scale food production. A strong central state is able to provide the infrastructure and resources needed to support agriculture, such as irrigation systems, transportation networks, and markets.
Agriculture is typically more productive than hunting and gathering, and it allows societies to support larger populations and create a more stable and reliable food supply. As a result, agriculture often crowds out hunting and gathering as the dominant mode of food production, as it allows societies to support larger populations and to produce a more diverse range of foods.
However, the adoption of agriculture also has a number of consequences for societies, including changes in social and economic organization, the development of social hierarchies, and the loss of traditional ways of life. In many cases, the adoption of agriculture has led to the displacement of hunter-gatherer societies, as they are unable to compete with the productivity of agriculture and are often forced to adapt to new ways of life.
Overall, the creation of a strong central state is often associated with the development of agriculture, as it provides the resources and infrastructure needed to support large-scale food production. However, the adoption of agriculture also has significant social and economic consequences, and it can lead to the displacement of hunter-gatherer societies.
There are a number of examples of economies that are explicitly non-capitalist where environmental and human rights abuses took place.
The forests England were heavily exploited during the medieval period, as the demand for wood and other forest products increased with the growing population and the development of the economy. This led to widespread deforestation, as large areas of forest were cleared to meet the demand for timber, fuel, and other products. The deforestation of England had significant environmental consequences, including soil erosion, loss of habitat, and the decline of many species.
Easter Island in South Asia was an island where the people were apparently wiped out as the people focused all their resources on building giant stone heads. The economy of Easter Island was based on a system of subsistence agriculture and fishing, and the island's resources were collectively owned and managed by the community as a whole. The Rapa Nui people did not engage in trade or commerce with other societies, and there was no system of money or currency on the island.
The Mayan civilization was formed from people who diverged from eurasian civilizations 20,000 years ago and despite that had its own set of environmental and human rights issues. Some of the environmental problems faced by the Maya civilization included deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution, which were the result of the civilization's reliance on agriculture and urban development.
The Maya civilization also had a hierarchical social structure, and it is believed that there were significant inequalities in terms of wealth, power, and access to resources. The ruling class of the Maya civilization, which included the nobles, priests, and rulers, enjoyed a higher standard of living than the common people, who were often subject to harsh working conditions and had few rights or protections.
Now all that being said, I don't mean to insinuate that capitalism is an economic system without sin either. England under industrialist capitalism also suffered deforestation and the london fog was a result of mass air pollution from burning coal, and the industrial revolution may have led to massive increases in quality of living, but it also led to massive wealth inequality and injustice. Today, we live with many legacies of pure greed, including the bulk of the United States being a fundamentally different ecosystem then it would have been prior to colonization, and I would argue the United States is one of the most capitalist civilizations in history so it can't be discounted. Clearly there's a lot of issues with wealth inequality there too, and it's indisputable that compared to the post baby boomer economic boom the average worker and the average CEO have much different lives comparatively speaking. That said, I don't need to prove capitalism is a system without faults to prove that it is not the root cause of all problems in the world.
The pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power are two different goals that have driven human behavior throughout history. Both the pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power can be motivated by a desire for advantage and a desire to gain power and control over others. No matter what economic system people live under, individuals will always crave advantage compared to others and will use the systems available to them to achieve that end.
In capitalist societies, the pursuit of money is often seen as a primary goal, and people may use their wealth and resources to gain influence and power. In non-capitalist societies, the pursuit of political power may be more important, and people may use their connections and influence to gain control over resources and decision-making.
Ultimately, the pursuit of money and the pursuit of political power are both driven by a desire for advantage and a desire to gain power and control over others. While the specific systems that people use to achieve these goals may vary, the underlying motivations are often the same.
tl;dr: why would anyone write this much about something nobody is going to read, and even if they read it their opinion isn't likely to be changed? Oh well, it was fun to research and write.
No honš¤£ You're brainwashed š¤£
MozzieBytes š¤ āøļø š·@sj_zero @dbattistella @MysticaRose I read it, I enjoyed it. thank you. Not going to agree with it all carte blanche but given a world limited by character counts that was a pretty good little piece
Matthew Humphreys
Timo Tiuraniemi@sj_zero wrt agriculture: your material determinism is outdated. Graeber and Wengrow lay out many counter-examples to your claims in The Dawn of Everything.
Wrt "individuals will always crave advantage over others": again, you induce from cherry-picked examples a universal, but ignore periods and societies that do not have that craving.
Wrt ecological disasters: many known societies have lived in harmony with nature.
There's no unstoppable historical force that denies political imagination.
Zeeshan Ali Khan 
šŗš¦@zeenix Surely after a dominating period hierarchical societies with individual ownership and fast population growth, there are no historical blueprints that we could take into use.
However, from the examples anthropology has provided, it is clear that the well of new social inventions is not dry. It is the job of our generation to have the imagination to think of new ones and make them a reality.
There are after all innumerable alternatives to late stage capitalism.
Im not proving that there is a perfect all encompassing model of history, I'm proving the opposite. I'm proving my original point that you can't just blame one phenomenon for all the ills of the world, particularly a very recent phenomenon such as capitalism as an entire economic system.
I will say that if you think that there was ever a period in history where individuals didn't crave an advantage over others, put the textbook down and go be with people for a while, you've become disconnected from humanity.
I will say that if you think that there was ever a period in history where individuals didn't crave an advantage over others, put the textbook down and go be with people for a while, you've become disconnected from humanity.
@sj_zero Char limits.
There are ofc well-identified anomalies like psychopathy, where craving advantage over others is dominant. What I'm saying is that there is no historical force that necessitates that a society should cater to such dominating behavior. Co-operation has a much sounder biological foundation.
Anticapitalism, understood graciously, is much more than "not capitalism". It's about creating a better, totally new kind of egalitarian society with no historical precedence.
@sj_zero wrt "go be with people for a while"
A disingenuous quip, but I'll bite.
Most people around me don't crave an advantage of any kind. They are loving, caring people who put the wellbeing of others at the same level as their own.
Also: neoliberal ideology ingrains competition into us. In cultures where competition isn't taught, people have a very different outlook life.
Determining the potential of humanity only from how people next to you act, is blinding.
If only people like you were in charge of the world, everything would just be so much better. Right?
@sj_zero If only people like you had the courage to snap out of lazy cynicism, everything would be so much better. Right?
p.s. I am not advocating for oligarchy of any kind, just plain old democracy. So no, I don't dream of people like me being in charge of anything.
Humility is not cynicism. It's important to have the humility to recognise the many factors of our humanity. It is hubris to assume that we have transcended negative parts of our humanity, and people who claim to have done so are being deceptive, perhaps even with themselves.
Taking the long view of history, within every human neccessarily lies a light side and a dark side, because human beings are fragile, and the human race is fragile. All humans have one recent common ancestor called Mitochondrial Eve because humanity was driven to the edge of extinction at one point in history, and the brutal history that brought us near extinction many times forced humans to employ many strategies on an individual for the human race to survive.
Everyone who came before you had to survive, and the needed to reproduce. Anyone who didn't survive long enough had their bloodline ended, and anyone who didn't reproduce had their bloodline ended. There's a lot of stuff written into your blood that you don't even realize is there because it's ingrained into you by millions of years of our different ancestors who survived and reproduced being the ones who passed their genetics down, and both light and dark traits result.
Selfishness may sometimes be beneficial for an individual's own survival and reproduction, but it may also have negative consequences for others in the group. On the other hand, selflessness and cooperation can also be beneficial for the survival and reproduction of a group, but they may sometimes come at a cost to the individual. Aggression can be useful for defending oneself or one's group, but it can also be destructive if it leads to unnecessary conflicts. Cooperation can help individuals and groups work together to achieve common goals, but it can also lead to exploitation if not properly managed. Risk-taking can lead to new opportunities and innovations, but it can also be dangerous if it leads to reckless behavior. Short-term thinking can help individuals make quick decisions in times of danger, but it can also lead to neglect of long-term consequences. Long-term thinking can help individuals and groups plan for the future, but it can also lead to inaction in the present. All of these traits must exist in one person, and individuals and societies must find ways to balance them in order to achieve long-term success.
Making things more complicated is interplay between dark and light traits such that one can express positive traits for inherently selfish reasons. For example, by helping and protecting members of their own family, an individual is more likely to ensure the survival and reproduction of their own genes, which are shared with their family members. Similarly, by forming cooperative relationships with others and helping to protect and support the group, an individual can increase their own chances of survival and reproduction by being part of a stronger and more cohesive unit. In this way, selflessness can be seen as a strategy for promoting the individual's own long-term survival and reproduction, even though the immediate actions may not be directly focused on the individual's own interests. We've seen this in particular during this generation with "Nice Guy" syndrome, where an individual with motives that are from the darker side of the spectrum pretends to be a "nice guy" to get the rewards of access to sex, and when that reward isn't immediately apparent the true motives end up revealed.
You may support democracy today because you feel it adequetely represents your interests and values at this time, but I suspect you will become less supportive of it in the future if you feel that the system is not adequately representing your interests or values. For example, if the dominant ideology of society shifts in a direction that is opposed to your beliefs, you may feel that the democratic process is no longer serving your needs and may become less supportive of it as a result. As well, it's common to get frustrated by the limitations of democracy, such as the inability to pass desired policy changes, which often results in calls to streamline what is ultimately a messy system that works slowly.
You may not be aware, but a number of people who will preach all day about democracy have violated the law (Specifically the first amendment, this isn't related to alleged voting fraud) to swing elections in a direction they'd prefer. Their justification is that the people who won elections that they don't like are so evil that the rules must be bent to prevent them from winning, even if that win is legitimate.
tl;dr: Why do I keep doing this to myself? Stop writing Essays, SJ!
Taking the long view of history, within every human neccessarily lies a light side and a dark side, because human beings are fragile, and the human race is fragile. All humans have one recent common ancestor called Mitochondrial Eve because humanity was driven to the edge of extinction at one point in history, and the brutal history that brought us near extinction many times forced humans to employ many strategies on an individual for the human race to survive.
Everyone who came before you had to survive, and the needed to reproduce. Anyone who didn't survive long enough had their bloodline ended, and anyone who didn't reproduce had their bloodline ended. There's a lot of stuff written into your blood that you don't even realize is there because it's ingrained into you by millions of years of our different ancestors who survived and reproduced being the ones who passed their genetics down, and both light and dark traits result.
Selfishness may sometimes be beneficial for an individual's own survival and reproduction, but it may also have negative consequences for others in the group. On the other hand, selflessness and cooperation can also be beneficial for the survival and reproduction of a group, but they may sometimes come at a cost to the individual. Aggression can be useful for defending oneself or one's group, but it can also be destructive if it leads to unnecessary conflicts. Cooperation can help individuals and groups work together to achieve common goals, but it can also lead to exploitation if not properly managed. Risk-taking can lead to new opportunities and innovations, but it can also be dangerous if it leads to reckless behavior. Short-term thinking can help individuals make quick decisions in times of danger, but it can also lead to neglect of long-term consequences. Long-term thinking can help individuals and groups plan for the future, but it can also lead to inaction in the present. All of these traits must exist in one person, and individuals and societies must find ways to balance them in order to achieve long-term success.
Making things more complicated is interplay between dark and light traits such that one can express positive traits for inherently selfish reasons. For example, by helping and protecting members of their own family, an individual is more likely to ensure the survival and reproduction of their own genes, which are shared with their family members. Similarly, by forming cooperative relationships with others and helping to protect and support the group, an individual can increase their own chances of survival and reproduction by being part of a stronger and more cohesive unit. In this way, selflessness can be seen as a strategy for promoting the individual's own long-term survival and reproduction, even though the immediate actions may not be directly focused on the individual's own interests. We've seen this in particular during this generation with "Nice Guy" syndrome, where an individual with motives that are from the darker side of the spectrum pretends to be a "nice guy" to get the rewards of access to sex, and when that reward isn't immediately apparent the true motives end up revealed.
You may support democracy today because you feel it adequetely represents your interests and values at this time, but I suspect you will become less supportive of it in the future if you feel that the system is not adequately representing your interests or values. For example, if the dominant ideology of society shifts in a direction that is opposed to your beliefs, you may feel that the democratic process is no longer serving your needs and may become less supportive of it as a result. As well, it's common to get frustrated by the limitations of democracy, such as the inability to pass desired policy changes, which often results in calls to streamline what is ultimately a messy system that works slowly.
You may not be aware, but a number of people who will preach all day about democracy have violated the law (Specifically the first amendment, this isn't related to alleged voting fraud) to swing elections in a direction they'd prefer. Their justification is that the people who won elections that they don't like are so evil that the rules must be bent to prevent them from winning, even if that win is legitimate.
tl;dr: Why do I keep doing this to myself? Stop writing Essays, SJ!
midway@ttiurani @sj_zero
And there is nothing wrong with thatā¦
I donāt think there is a one size fits all system for everyone. Itās good to have different places with different cultures who can build systems that work for them.
The key is that people need to be free to leave and pursue a life under a different system if they choose and can find a culture and system that will accept them. Thatās where communist systems tend to fall over. If you arenāt allowed to leave, your system is fundamentally flawed.
And there is nothing wrong with thatā¦
I donāt think there is a one size fits all system for everyone. Itās good to have different places with different cultures who can build systems that work for them.
The key is that people need to be free to leave and pursue a life under a different system if they choose and can find a culture and system that will accept them. Thatās where communist systems tend to fall over. If you arenāt allowed to leave, your system is fundamentally flawed.
@midway @sj_zero Indeed, what happened in the name communism in the totalitarian oligarchies with growth economies of the 20th century was a complete failure.
As said, it's clear that we need new social inventions, the name really doesn't matter. And I agree that the goal should be a pluriverse of different models.
What's clear to me though is that the completely groundless dichotomy of "capitalism or Stalin" needs to be rejected.
@sj_zero @ttiurani
I disagree that what happened was āin the name of communismā. That is what is necessary to do for communism at scale. You have to solve for the free loader problem. If everyone is promised as a right everything they need, a large number wonāt work and need to be forced to work or the whole system collapses. So for communism to work at scale you need a literal slave class which is ironic since the stated goal of Marx was to get rid of classes. This has happened everywhere Communism has been deployed at a national level. Itās also why they have horrible shortages.
At a very small scale it works. Families work this way. We donāt let our children starve because they arenāt productive. Resources are distributed by need. You can make this work in a small community of dedicated people. But as the size gets bigger, the whole thing collapses. This has been proven so many times that itās crazy that people still argue for it.
You can say that it was just the wrong people in charge. I argue that this is inevitable. When the state runs everything competition is banned so you have no good reason way to correct it. And the bigger the state the harder it is to change course.
I disagree that what happened was āin the name of communismā. That is what is necessary to do for communism at scale. You have to solve for the free loader problem. If everyone is promised as a right everything they need, a large number wonāt work and need to be forced to work or the whole system collapses. So for communism to work at scale you need a literal slave class which is ironic since the stated goal of Marx was to get rid of classes. This has happened everywhere Communism has been deployed at a national level. Itās also why they have horrible shortages.
At a very small scale it works. Families work this way. We donāt let our children starve because they arenāt productive. Resources are distributed by need. You can make this work in a small community of dedicated people. But as the size gets bigger, the whole thing collapses. This has been proven so many times that itās crazy that people still argue for it.
You can say that it was just the wrong people in charge. I argue that this is inevitable. When the state runs everything competition is banned so you have no good reason way to correct it. And the bigger the state the harder it is to change course.
MrsMurilloToYou@sj_zero
I read it all and appreciate you posting it. Thank you for the context.
I read it all and appreciate you posting it. Thank you for the context.
Josje Toorop@sj_zero I read it Thanks.
Billy Smith@sj_zero @dbattistella @MysticaRose
All of the examples you describe are the different extensions of the pack-hierarchical power-dynamics found, on a small scale, in troupes of monkeys.
Transcending our genetic heritage is a continuing work-in-progress for everyone. :D
If you think capitalism is cruel and barbaric, try talking to someone who lived under communism.
Money is simply an efficient means of exchange. Thatās it. Money doesnāt cause anything. Peopleās pursuit of money can cause all sorts of things. Sure, we could go back to bartering. I hope you have skills to produce things that your local stores need though. Otherwise, youāre SOL. Thatās what money actually is. Itās just a means to take unmatched skills and allow people to trade.
Money is simply an efficient means of exchange. Thatās it. Money doesnāt cause anything. Peopleās pursuit of money can cause all sorts of things. Sure, we could go back to bartering. I hope you have skills to produce things that your local stores need though. Otherwise, youāre SOL. Thatās what money actually is. Itās just a means to take unmatched skills and allow people to trade.
@sj_zero @dbattistella @MysticaRose
Call me any name you likeā¦but Iām not wrong. Money is neutral. Neither good not evil. Itās just an efficiency tool. Try living in the days before money. You wouldnāt like it.
Call me any name you likeā¦but Iām not wrong. Money is neutral. Neither good not evil. Itās just an efficiency tool. Try living in the days before money. You wouldnāt like it.
zemsgram@midway @dbattistella @MysticaRose @sj_zero the reference was specifically to the economy which very specifically favors the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
@MysticaRose @sj_zero @dbattistella @zemsgram
And what specific economy is that? One that now spends over a trillion dollars a year on welfare programs? One that still draws economic migrants from all over?
The wealthy will always have advantages. But to say that the US economy only favors the wealthy is just factually wrong. You can certainly advocate for spending more on the poor if you like but to say their interests are not considered is simply wrong.
And what specific economy is that? One that now spends over a trillion dollars a year on welfare programs? One that still draws economic migrants from all over?
The wealthy will always have advantages. But to say that the US economy only favors the wealthy is just factually wrong. You can certainly advocate for spending more on the poor if you like but to say their interests are not considered is simply wrong.
Sibrosan@MysticaRose @midway @dbattistella @sj_zero
Recourse to ad hominems is almost always an indication of lack of sensible arguments.
@midway So basically you equate āthe economyā with capitalism. Do you subscribe to the idea that raising interest rates and also raising the unemployment rate is the only fix for inflation? And do you also support the outlawing of homelessness while the wealthiest buy houses as investments intended to increase their wealth? Capitalism that favors the wealthy at the expense of the poor really is no better than communism that favors the party elite over everyone else.
@zemsgram
I sincerely hope you get your straw men wholesale because at the rate you use them it would be a shame to pay retail for them.
Capitalism is an economic system. Our economy is based on it but has deviated quite a bit from it.
Slowing down the economy is certainly one way to handle inflation. Massively cutting government spending (which was a huge factor in this current inflation increase would also help and keep it away longer term. Traditionally raising interest rates had been how we have tried to slow down the economy which was running on a sugar high of free money for a very long time. The problem is that w canāt raise rates high enough to really tame it because the government would go broke. The current rate hikes are an attempt to try and slow things down some and hope we can wait it out. It might work. But rate hikes alone canāt do it. Having a gridlocked federal government may help slow down the spending which will also help. I hope we can do that but Iām not certain if it. Time will tell.
As for the rest of your rant I have made no statements to those points and, to be honest, they just look like talking points.
As for communism being no better than here. Tell that to the folks from places like Cuba who risk their lives to try and get here. Tell that to the folks who risk their lives to cross out boarders every day. Funny how I donāt see poor people going the other direction. Wonder why that is? Maybe the system we have here isnāt so bad compared to the alternatives. I donāt need to have a theoretical conversation about that. People are voting with not just their feet but their lives. I presume they are doing this for good and rational reasons.
I sincerely hope you get your straw men wholesale because at the rate you use them it would be a shame to pay retail for them.
Capitalism is an economic system. Our economy is based on it but has deviated quite a bit from it.
Slowing down the economy is certainly one way to handle inflation. Massively cutting government spending (which was a huge factor in this current inflation increase would also help and keep it away longer term. Traditionally raising interest rates had been how we have tried to slow down the economy which was running on a sugar high of free money for a very long time. The problem is that w canāt raise rates high enough to really tame it because the government would go broke. The current rate hikes are an attempt to try and slow things down some and hope we can wait it out. It might work. But rate hikes alone canāt do it. Having a gridlocked federal government may help slow down the spending which will also help. I hope we can do that but Iām not certain if it. Time will tell.
As for the rest of your rant I have made no statements to those points and, to be honest, they just look like talking points.
As for communism being no better than here. Tell that to the folks from places like Cuba who risk their lives to try and get here. Tell that to the folks who risk their lives to cross out boarders every day. Funny how I donāt see poor people going the other direction. Wonder why that is? Maybe the system we have here isnāt so bad compared to the alternatives. I donāt need to have a theoretical conversation about that. People are voting with not just their feet but their lives. I presume they are doing this for good and rational reasons.
Bob Jamieson@midway @dbattistella @MysticaRose @sj_zero Capitalism is not about a means of exchange. That is money, tokens, animal hides, shells, whatever people have used to facilitate barter. Capitalism is offering shares in an enterprise in order for those engaging in the enterprise to become very rich. In certain limited circumstances it can be useful under strict controls. It is the antithesis of communism where for the most part possessions are held in common. You refer to totalitarianism.
Capitalism is about private control of property, including companies which can be done with shares whether privately sold or publicly sold. This allows companies to raise capital and allows capital to flow to companies based on what people want. It does offer a chance but not a guarantee of getting rich.
Communism doesnāt use a means of exchange at all. Ideally everything is freely given based on need. However in practice everything is allocated by the state which must be totalitarian in order to enforce their rules. If people canāt own anything they produce they have to be made to work by force for free. Itās ironic that the Communist Manifesto calls for workers to rise up to break free of their chains when in reality it makes people literal slaves of the state.
You can dislike capitalism to your heartās content but history has shown that people who have actually lived under communism will risk their lives to flee to capitalist countries. The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in. The US has to build walls to keep out. That is quite telling.
Communism doesnāt use a means of exchange at all. Ideally everything is freely given based on need. However in practice everything is allocated by the state which must be totalitarian in order to enforce their rules. If people canāt own anything they produce they have to be made to work by force for free. Itās ironic that the Communist Manifesto calls for workers to rise up to break free of their chains when in reality it makes people literal slaves of the state.
You can dislike capitalism to your heartās content but history has shown that people who have actually lived under communism will risk their lives to flee to capitalist countries. The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in. The US has to build walls to keep out. That is quite telling.
Astrid den Distel@midway @dbattistella @MysticaRose @sj_zero Capitalism pur sang is just as cruel. It just does not work without any limiting tunes and entities.
Just like the other ideologies don't work on itself. They are models, not a workable reality.
Just like the other ideologies don't work on itself. They are models, not a workable reality.
@dbattistella @MysticaRose @sj_zero @tureldriet
I never claimed any system was perfect. Any system involving people at scale will have issues.
That being said far more people when given a choice choose systems more aligned to capitalism than communism. History has shown this quite clearly.
Itās fair to argue about what tweaks we should make to a capitalist based system. You may want more, I may want less. Those are value based arguments and values are subjective. But communism belongs in a dumpster fire. You are starting from a ridiculous premise that doesnāt work at scale.
I never claimed any system was perfect. Any system involving people at scale will have issues.
That being said far more people when given a choice choose systems more aligned to capitalism than communism. History has shown this quite clearly.
Itās fair to argue about what tweaks we should make to a capitalist based system. You may want more, I may want less. Those are value based arguments and values are subjective. But communism belongs in a dumpster fire. You are starting from a ridiculous premise that doesnāt work at scale.
V.K. Farfalle š¦ (He/Him)@MysticaRose @sj_zero @dbattistella
In 5,000 short years money has taken us from primates in the wild to having the industrial capacity TO destroy our planet... and also feed a greater percentage of our population a more consistent diet than ever before, invent life-saving medications to treat diseases we just died from, enable global transportation and telecommunications and the existence of the entire concept of LITERATURE.
You're the one who's been brainwashed, "hon".
Sally Strange@vkfarfalle @MysticaRose @sj_zero @dbattistella Our ancestors have not been "primates in the wild" for 200,000 years. How dare you disrespect their millennia of creativity & refined survival tactics
@SallyStrange @sj_zero @dbattistella
I'm sure they'll get over it. The people who would be killed if we actually paid attention to this kind of vapid primitivist nonsense, on the other hand, might take a little bit longer.
I may not like late-stage capitalism very much, but every alternative to it that DOESN'T involve an extinction-level event... involves money.
@vkfarfalle @sj_zero @dbattistella You're sure our dead ancestors will get over it? OK. But the point of not disrespecting them is so you can learn from them.
You seem to be mistaking "the economy" for "money" here