-32
There's Nothing Green About Socialism - HumanProgress
(www.humanprogress.org)
Welcome to Lemmy.World General!
This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.
🪆 About Lemmy World
🧭 Finding Communities
Feel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!
Also keep an eye on:
For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!
💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:
Rules
Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.
0. See: Rules for Users.
You should look a bit more into the world if you didn't notice how good capitalism is at making the poors poorer.
There's tons of data showing that capitalism actually makes the average joe a lot richer.
And how many homeless does the US have?
Prior to capitalism, the homeless would just die every winter, so I think any number >0 is actually an improvement
I know, the US is just a little socialist, just enough to avoid having to see elderly and poor dying in the streets
I mean that's not really something capitalism did, it's just that the country is so big that it has places with mild climates. Well, I guess paying for homeless peoples' bus tickets to actually go to those places is a thing, but not quite positive especially when you look at the context of it.
Mild climates like Chicago and New York?
Like California, which has the most homeless per-capita.
Though those places certainly don't have the worst winters (like Minnesota), and NY (after CA w/homelessness) does have milder winters than Chicago. In either case summers are on the mild side, too (for comparison, being homeless in Arizona summer heat would not be good).
Also, from wiki:
Exactly. And the homeless people do not all die off every winter in Chicago. Hence my point. Improvement.
Is the US the only example of a capitalist country you know about?
It's the exact most capitalist
Considering capitalism is based on the concept of separating average Joe from the actual value of his work, I can't see this being true unless it has some major caveats that only make it sound good when unspoken (like comparing capitalism to some undeveloped country and saying "look, poor people live better in capitalism").
What do you think is the mechanism by which "undeveloped" countries become "developed" countries rofl
I'll give you a hint, it starts with "CAPITAL" and there's an "-ism" at the end.
There have been empires that didn't rely on capitalism and were successful. Comparing a country with no infrastructure to one that does and saying it's only because of capital is not how logic works. I had a headache one day due to a hangover, your logic dictates if someone else has a headache, it must be due to a hangover. That's fucking idiocy and you should feel bad for thinking it.
Ok, explain to me how mercantilism and feudalism is better than capitalism
Not that either is even feasible nowadays but I'll entertain it.
Did I say those are better?
The empires you reference were built on those two systems
I'm saying comparing capitalism to the lack of a system is not a fair comparison. Read better.
What would be a fair comparison? I've compared capitalism to the lack of a system, which leads to miserable poverty and short life spans. I've compared capitalism to other highly successful systems, which lead to even worse inequality and oppression.
Do you not understand what the point being proven is or what you're trying to pick a part? The claim is capitalism makes the average joe richer. But there's no baseline where that makes sense as there's no such thing as a baseline. Everything is relative. It's claim is in response to another claim of how it treats poor people. There's immense data that poor are getting poorer. The wealth is undeniably concentrating into a smaller group than before. This is objective fact. You can't start pulling out relative comparisons to try and disprove an objective observation of capitalism. Many of the benefits of capitalism are even at play with socialism. I'm not talking about a specific flavor of socialism either, but just straight up, people getting the full value of their work. You can't tell me wealthy people skimming the top of off other folks work is somehow good for these people. It's usually done by poor people who've accepted the lie.thst the problem isn't with the wealthy, but other people in their own class or shitty business owners who fancy themselves economical experts but will never achieve the level of wealth they've been convinced to defend by the truly wealthy people.
So, tldr, I was pointing out comparisons aren't actually useful and why it's likely wrong, but sure, continue trying to make comparisons in the face of that. So to be clear, the comparisons don't work because it's not comparing things that make sense. So just stop it. It's like arguing with a fifth grader.
Those data are carefully crafted to create that narrative. It's pretty easy to say you've "lifted so many out of poverty" when you define the term to suit your needs.