449
submitted 1 year ago by o_o@programming.dev to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

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
[-] TheRealGChu@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Have you not played Bioshock?

Anyway, any extreme "ism" is inherently unstable without the other side balancing itself. That's cos humans are greedy, selfish fucks. The free market doesn't work because humans are greedy, selfish fucks. Pure capitalism will eventually eat itself. On the flip side, pure socialism doesn't work cos humans are greedy, selfish fucks. Pure socialism will eventually reify itself into complete inertia. Capitalism needs the inherent brakes that socialism provides; while socialism needs to incentives capitalism provides. Pure capitalism causes massive boom/bust cycles. Before the Great Depression, there were the Panics that happened about ever 20-30 years, where, similarly to the Great Recession, banks would overleverage themselves, and go bust. What ended up stopping those kind of panics were the socialistic programs of FDR and the New Deal.

Free markets only work when they're actually free, that means no monopolies. We're in an extreme stage of capitalism right now with monopolizes all over the place. There is no free market. Ppl like to say "late stage capitalism" but it's more more similar to the laissez faire capitalism of the robber-barons of the late 19th century. Monopolies everywhere, wealth concentrated in the <1%, etc. Profits at any cost, including human life. Extreme capitalism is also tied into conservativism. This results in "rules for thee, not for me" circumstances. In other words, capitalists and conservatives believe laws should protect them but not bind them; while poor ppl, minorities and women should have laws binding them, but not protect them. This, of course, leads to massive social inequities and social unrest.

For more context, read the the Wikipedia articles on the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, child labor in the Appalachian mines and how many children died from it, the Pinochet regime, etc. And, more recently, the actions at Amazon by not letting their employees evacuate or shelter from the horrific tornadoes that ripped through IL and collapsed a warehouse where 6 employees were killed (Amazon is being sued for it). The maquilladores in northern Mexico (thanks NAFTA!), child slavery in South and SE Asia (don't buy Nike), and the general destruction of the environment. Hope you're enjoying your heatwave!

[-] LazerFX@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire
Maquiladora
NAFTA
No great single resources for Nike / Child Slavery but... just search for it there are too many to link
I really shouldn't have to link to the environment, right?

[-] SoSquidTaste@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I really shouldn't have to link to the environment, right?

ACKSHUALLY CAN I GET A SOURCE FOR THIS

Non-shitpost edit: Thank you for pulling up those links!

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Free markets" do not exist nor work. Period. Even Wealth Of Nations says so.

Without regulatory control, they become rapidly captured by capital interests that push anticompetitive practices to tie up the market.

To prevent this, all societies, to some degree or another, impose regulations on the markets. They do so in a variety of ways for a variety of philosophical reasons and to varying degrees of success, but there exists no free market anywhere and never could. A truly "free" market would immediately be captured and exploited.

All modern countries but for a few theocracies and authoritarian states function on fundamental principles from socialism, not "capitalism". Even the ones that claim to be fundamentally Liberal or capitalist are still perfectly happy removing property from a person for the public good -- proving there is no fundamental belief in private property -- and will follow policies that may harm individuals but benefit the overall social good. And this is good and proper, because these truly "capitalist" principles cannot work in practice.

Let me just repeat for emphasis: free markets do not, have never, and could never actually exist. They just can't and don't. It's preposterous to pursue them. But it IS possible for a socialist to make use of property leases -- which look and feel the same as private property but aren't -- and markets to exchange them to give you something that "feels" like a free market but is actually just socialism.

this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
449 points (75.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43944 readers
876 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

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_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS