It’s the best system when combined with strong regulation and good social safety nets. I wish everybody would focus on those things falling down and needing to be fixed instead of pretending we’re going to throw the whole system out tomorrow.
It’s the best system when combined with strong regulation and good social safety nets.
Both regulation and social safety nets run counter to the concept of a free market and a free market is central to the definition of Capitalism.
That’s like saying “The best form of travel is unrestrained forward acceleration” with the caveat that it must be combined with the ability to break and steer.
No, it’s like saying that the best form of transportation is some form of forward locomotive force kept in check by brakes and steering. Like, you know actual cars.
Basically you’re looking at a Toyota Corolla and saying “What? Some of its parts move it forward, and some of its parts stop it from moving? That’s a total contradiction! It’s central to the definition of a car that it move forward!”
Yes regulation and social safety nets run counter, that’s the point.
There’s no one concept which makes for a good system in a totally undiluted form. Pure centralized economy: disaster. Pure capitalism, disaster.
Capitalism tempered by regulation and socialism: a balance of economic dynamism and humanist restraint.
The core of your argument seems to be that the only form of capitalism is unrestrained capitalism and we just don’t agree on those semantics. I believe a free market system can be governed and taxed to support social welfare. You believe that capitalism can only be unrestrained. Well, my version of reality is everywhere we look: both Europe and the US are examples of free market economies with some safety net and regulation attached. Europe is stronger on the latter two but the US is hardly at zero.
Capitalism is inherently about vice exploutation and getting around rukes, though. You can’t say ‘capitalism but virtuous’; that’s nonsense. ‘Capitalism but restrained’ translates to reality as ‘caputalism but only fir the first five minutes before breaking everything’.
You believe that capitalism can only be unrestrained.
I believe that the modern proponents of capitalism are fighting tooth and nail against any kind of restraint and that they are winning. I believe that the inherent premise of capitalism - that private ownership of capital and self interest will lead to market forces creating competition and the optimisation of the economy - are naive and false.
Yes, Europe has caged the leopard of capitalism with regulation and social welfare programs. It’s just silly to me that so many sing the praises of a leopard when it must be kept caged at all times and watched constantly. Still in this form, it occasionally manages to devour a face or two before it’s shoved back in its cage and the bars are repaired. Orbit gets out and rampages for a while, like is happening in the US. Clearly, powering your economy via caged leopard only way to do things.
There’s no one concept which makes for a good system in a totally undiluted form. Pure centralized economy: disaster. Pure capitalism, disaster.
If you think socialism necessarily means a centrally planned economy then you understand socialist movements about as well as you understand the superiority of capitalism.
It’s honestly just a flipping of the premises of capitalism. That public ownership of capital and a focus on collective welfare and democracy rather than self interest is a better central pillar for an economy. The premise is that private ownership of capital driven by self interest will always gain a disproportionate amount of power and work against the public good.
What’s really frustrating is that the disproportionate power granted to capitalists under capitalism has allowed them to undermined any attempts to try anything else. Every single time any government has turned to socialist values, whether by coup or peaceful elections, capitalists have used every power at their disposal to sabotage it. It reminds me of places like Haiti - the slaves overthrew their masters and the world made their lives hell for it… for generations.
If the capitalists don’t manage to outright overthrow the government of the socialist state, the capitalists band together against it to such an extent that the socialist state often turns to authoritarian tactics to try and keep it’s ideals. I’m not here to defend those tactics, just lament that the capitalist forces are so capable of preventing any real experimentation with socialism. It’s a plague to them because it threatens their power. Seriously - look up any socialist state and I’m positive you’ll find capitalist powers trying to overthrow or sabotage them.
Yes, there are also self proclaimed communist/socialist states that are closer to dictatorships. The Nazis also claimed to be socialists in order to get the support of the people. Clearly an unfortunate circumstance that muddies the water. No true Scotsman and all that.
People have a natural desire to pursue their own interests. Capitalism takes advantage of this and thereby fuels the most dynamic economies in the world. Even China’s success only took off once they started allowing entrepreneurial enterprises some breathing room.
When you’re stuck in a collective system where everyone gets the same regardless of what they do, you get a bunch of unmotivated people who don’t do much. Why should they?
This is the age old debate. Pure communism sounds like a paradise: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. So fair! So inclusive! But in practice it is a nightmare and lead la to famine every time.
In this thread we have a bunch of Americans who complain that capitalism is robbing them blind for the benefit of billionaires, but those same Americans doing all the whining are still wealthier than than 90% of the globe for 90% of history. The fact that someone is obscenely rich doesn’t take away from the fact that you are fed and housed and employed. And those things can’t just be taken for granted. Learn history. A lot of people have suffered without them.
Capitalism has ugly excesses, but they aren’t as ugly as the deprivations that communism has caused. Taming a tiger is dangerous, but I’d rather tame a tiger than try to get a dead corpse to plow the fields. In the same way, I think our best bet is to tame capitalism, even if it is dangerous and difficult. At least there’s something to work with. I mean really, look at the main problem that people have with capitalism: that it’s OBSCENE WEALTH isn’t shared equally. That does suck, but at least there is obscene wealth for us to fight over.
But it doesn’t do that. It motivates people to exploit, and we only get stuff as a side effect of scams. As the scams get more efficient, less stuff is produced, and all of it sucks more. It’s a system that literally runs on vice, but needs moral safeguards to function; it has a limited life even if you’re completely charitable to the idea.
Also, an attack on ((a straw man of) centralist authoritarian) communism is not a defense of capitalism.
when combined with strong regulation and good social safety nets
🤣 I’m not disagreeing with the sentiment but to think we’ll see those anytime soon is a bit of a sad joke. I think too many people in power have made too much money for anything but a sundering to change their minds and allow themselves to be regulated and work for the good of all, instead of themselves.
In a slightly different vein of thought, I think there is truth to the sentiment that fascists don’t cede power willingly. I get that we should focus on things we can change that aren’t unimportant, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a fascist government being voted out.
The only thing making stronger regulation impossible is self-defeating apathy.
The hard truth is that none of us here in this thread are out in the streets rioting because we are fed, housed, and have a job to get to. We talk about capitalism as if it only benefits Elon Musk but we’re all riding the same bus. He just has a better seat.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I have been to local protests (and the use of the word rioting suggests you might be of a different persuasion than me, and that’s ok). And for the record, I didn’t disagree with you. I grew up under capitalism and knew a brief period where capitalism wasn’t completely fucking over the lower and middle classes but that was before the US came out of the fascist closet.
I think we’re just tried of thinking we can fix the things falling down cuz the people in charge are perfectly happy getting rich AF right now. Why change anything?
Thinking you can fix the system is kinda laughable in 2025.
Not as laughable as thinking you can throw the system out. Incremental improvement is the only thing that has ever worked, and many generations have faced challenges. This is not the first time that wealthy interests have squeezed the working class. This is not the first time that politics has been dysfunctional.
It’s the best system when combined with strong regulation and good social safety nets. I wish everybody would focus on those things falling down and needing to be fixed instead of pretending we’re going to throw the whole system out tomorrow.
Both regulation and social safety nets run counter to the concept of a free market and a free market is central to the definition of Capitalism.
That’s like saying “The best form of travel is unrestrained forward acceleration” with the caveat that it must be combined with the ability to break and steer.
No, it’s like saying that the best form of transportation is some form of forward locomotive force kept in check by brakes and steering. Like, you know actual cars.
Basically you’re looking at a Toyota Corolla and saying “What? Some of its parts move it forward, and some of its parts stop it from moving? That’s a total contradiction! It’s central to the definition of a car that it move forward!”
Yes regulation and social safety nets run counter, that’s the point.
There’s no one concept which makes for a good system in a totally undiluted form. Pure centralized economy: disaster. Pure capitalism, disaster.
Capitalism tempered by regulation and socialism: a balance of economic dynamism and humanist restraint.
The core of your argument seems to be that the only form of capitalism is unrestrained capitalism and we just don’t agree on those semantics. I believe a free market system can be governed and taxed to support social welfare. You believe that capitalism can only be unrestrained. Well, my version of reality is everywhere we look: both Europe and the US are examples of free market economies with some safety net and regulation attached. Europe is stronger on the latter two but the US is hardly at zero.
Capitalism is inherently about vice exploutation and getting around rukes, though. You can’t say ‘capitalism but virtuous’; that’s nonsense. ‘Capitalism but restrained’ translates to reality as ‘caputalism but only fir the first five minutes before breaking everything’.
I believe that the modern proponents of capitalism are fighting tooth and nail against any kind of restraint and that they are winning. I believe that the inherent premise of capitalism - that private ownership of capital and self interest will lead to market forces creating competition and the optimisation of the economy - are naive and false.
Yes, Europe has caged the leopard of capitalism with regulation and social welfare programs. It’s just silly to me that so many sing the praises of a leopard when it must be kept caged at all times and watched constantly. Still in this form, it occasionally manages to devour a face or two before it’s shoved back in its cage and the bars are repaired. Orbit gets out and rampages for a while, like is happening in the US. Clearly, powering your economy via caged leopard only way to do things.
If you think socialism necessarily means a centrally planned economy then you understand socialist movements about as well as you understand the superiority of capitalism.
It’s honestly just a flipping of the premises of capitalism. That public ownership of capital and a focus on collective welfare and democracy rather than self interest is a better central pillar for an economy. The premise is that private ownership of capital driven by self interest will always gain a disproportionate amount of power and work against the public good.
What’s really frustrating is that the disproportionate power granted to capitalists under capitalism has allowed them to undermined any attempts to try anything else. Every single time any government has turned to socialist values, whether by coup or peaceful elections, capitalists have used every power at their disposal to sabotage it. It reminds me of places like Haiti - the slaves overthrew their masters and the world made their lives hell for it… for generations.
If the capitalists don’t manage to outright overthrow the government of the socialist state, the capitalists band together against it to such an extent that the socialist state often turns to authoritarian tactics to try and keep it’s ideals. I’m not here to defend those tactics, just lament that the capitalist forces are so capable of preventing any real experimentation with socialism. It’s a plague to them because it threatens their power. Seriously - look up any socialist state and I’m positive you’ll find capitalist powers trying to overthrow or sabotage them.
Yes, there are also self proclaimed communist/socialist states that are closer to dictatorships. The Nazis also claimed to be socialists in order to get the support of the people. Clearly an unfortunate circumstance that muddies the water. No true Scotsman and all that.
That’s pretty accurate, though…
Uh, why? What’s actually good about it? Like, what dies it do well?
It’s an incredible system for moving all the money to the top 0.001%
Okay, yes, point; very good at that. Do we want that? Is it wkrtg the cost if we do?
People have a natural desire to pursue their own interests. Capitalism takes advantage of this and thereby fuels the most dynamic economies in the world. Even China’s success only took off once they started allowing entrepreneurial enterprises some breathing room.
When you’re stuck in a collective system where everyone gets the same regardless of what they do, you get a bunch of unmotivated people who don’t do much. Why should they?
This is the age old debate. Pure communism sounds like a paradise: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. So fair! So inclusive! But in practice it is a nightmare and lead la to famine every time.
In this thread we have a bunch of Americans who complain that capitalism is robbing them blind for the benefit of billionaires, but those same Americans doing all the whining are still wealthier than than 90% of the globe for 90% of history. The fact that someone is obscenely rich doesn’t take away from the fact that you are fed and housed and employed. And those things can’t just be taken for granted. Learn history. A lot of people have suffered without them.
Capitalism has ugly excesses, but they aren’t as ugly as the deprivations that communism has caused. Taming a tiger is dangerous, but I’d rather tame a tiger than try to get a dead corpse to plow the fields. In the same way, I think our best bet is to tame capitalism, even if it is dangerous and difficult. At least there’s something to work with. I mean really, look at the main problem that people have with capitalism: that it’s OBSCENE WEALTH isn’t shared equally. That does suck, but at least there is obscene wealth for us to fight over.
But it doesn’t do that. It motivates people to exploit, and we only get stuff as a side effect of scams. As the scams get more efficient, less stuff is produced, and all of it sucks more. It’s a system that literally runs on vice, but needs moral safeguards to function; it has a limited life even if you’re completely charitable to the idea.
Also, an attack on ((a straw man of) centralist authoritarian) communism is not a defense of capitalism.
🤣 I’m not disagreeing with the sentiment but to think we’ll see those anytime soon is a bit of a sad joke. I think too many people in power have made too much money for anything but a sundering to change their minds and allow themselves to be regulated and work for the good of all, instead of themselves.
In a slightly different vein of thought, I think there is truth to the sentiment that fascists don’t cede power willingly. I get that we should focus on things we can change that aren’t unimportant, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a fascist government being voted out.
The only thing making stronger regulation impossible is self-defeating apathy.
The hard truth is that none of us here in this thread are out in the streets rioting because we are fed, housed, and have a job to get to. We talk about capitalism as if it only benefits Elon Musk but we’re all riding the same bus. He just has a better seat.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I have been to local protests (and the use of the word rioting suggests you might be of a different persuasion than me, and that’s ok). And for the record, I didn’t disagree with you. I grew up under capitalism and knew a brief period where capitalism wasn’t completely fucking over the lower and middle classes but that was before the US came out of the fascist closet.
I think we’re just tried of thinking we can fix the things falling down cuz the people in charge are perfectly happy getting rich AF right now. Why change anything?
Thinking you can fix the system is kinda laughable in 2025.
Not as laughable as thinking you can throw the system out. Incremental improvement is the only thing that has ever worked, and many generations have faced challenges. This is not the first time that wealthy interests have squeezed the working class. This is not the first time that politics has been dysfunctional.