Communism is just utopia. It’s the fantasy of a German man from a bygone era of how he thought a perfect society should look like. It’s not a realistic or practical ideology, and never was. This is why every single attempt at achieving it in history results in failure and it’s the reason why that’s always going to be the case.
You can’t run an economy based fictional utopias or treating some German philosopher’s subpar ideas as gospel. The economy, like with anything else in society, has to be run pragmatically. It needs to be studied like any other academic subject, and the research should be used to organize and refine what’s been proven to work and what doesn’t. Likewise, people who are experts on the subject should be the ones drafting guidelines that drive the economy, and the advice they give should be based on their society’s current problems. If it’s makes sense for their country’s economy to have socialized healthcare then they should do that, if it makes sense for their country to privatize their country’s musical instrument industry then they should do that. This idea that we have to box ourselves and our economies into some ideological box never made sense to me.
You didn’t answer my question and you ignored my point.
Communism can mean many things, and many things that call themselves communism have very little to nothing to do with what Marx wrote about. As an aside, Marx was not just a grumpy philosopher, he was also an economist who laid the foundation for thinking of the economy in terms of power, ownership and democracy. The Marxian school of economics is still influential today.
Your ramblings about “communism has always failed” leads me to believe that you are talking about Marxism-Leninism, which I also believe is outdated and dominated by dogmatic thinking, but I digress. Let’s increase our scope to socialism as a whole. Now let me rephrase: Existing socialism has worked many times, but has always been stomped out by brutal capitalist imperialism. A brief look at the history of central and south america, and all other colonially exploited areas should show you that the system that has produced the most suffering, destroyed the most democracies, is capitalism. Let me rephrase: Capitalism has never worked.
So again, what kind of economic system do you advocate for?
Communism can mean many things, and many things that call themselves communism have very little to nothing to do with what Marx wrote about.
I’m talking about the original communist ideology as derived by Marx himself. I’m not talking about people like Stalin or Xi Jinping here who could be argued as not communist even though they described themselves as much.
As an aside, Marx was not just a grumpy philosopher, he was also an economist who laid the foundation for thinking of the economy in terms of power, ownership and democracy. The Marxian school of economics is still influential today.
Influential doesn’t mean it’s correct or has any actual value. His analysis was flawed and his proposed solutions were even worse. His work can only make sense if you accept his assumptions as axioms. A lot of people did, but when they tried to carry out what he prescribed… things didn’t go as planned because, well, his assumptions were flawed. Not every philosopher deserves respect just because they’re influential. Mussolini also invented a very influential ideology that’s unfortunately still popular today, but that doesn’t mean he and his ideology are above criticism or worthy or respect just because.
Your ramblings about “communism has always failed” leads me to believe that you are talking about Marxism-Leninism, which I also believe is outdated and dominated by dogmatic thinking, but I digress.
If you’re going to reduce my criticism to “ramblings” then you’re already in engaging in bad faith. You can’t seem to accept that the core idea itself is flawed. It doesn’t matter what flavor it comes in, the result will inevitably be the same.
Now let me rephrase: Existing socialism has worked many times, but has always been stomped out by brutal capitalist imperialism.
Why are you moving the goal posts? Communism is a specific ideology, socialism is just a general economic model. These are not the same thing. With that being said pure socialism in any form hasn’t worked either. What examples do you have to prove this? Just start listing them. I’m positive that your list won’t be based on actual results but on speculation and assumptions.
Also, this idea that the reason why socialism has never worked is because of US or Western intervention is pure cope. Not only does this ignore all the instances where socialism collapsed in on itself, but also ignores the fact the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent China, also tried to brutally stomp out capitalism all around the world. They toppled democratically elected government, they installed puppet dictators, they committed genocides, they invaded countries, they employed propaganda campaigns, they’ve done it all. Marxists always conveniently forget about the other half of the cold war. Regardless, capitalism survived the onslaught, socialism didn’t. This is because socialism is simply a more fragile system that can’t withstand disruption.
A brief look at the history of central and south america, and all other colonially exploited areas should show you that the system that has produced the most suffering, destroyed the most democracies, is capitalism. Let me rephrase: Capitalism has never worked.
That’s such an odd, vague, and cherrypicked statement that proves nothing but makes a bunch of declarations. Why focus on South America and not the world at large? Capitalism has done wonders for China, India, Poland, Romania, Spain, Ireland, the Baltic countries, Germany, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Botswana, and the list goes on and on. Actually even in South America, countries like Chile and Uruguay have had their best economic stretches under capitalism while countries like Venezuela declined substantially under socialism. It’s silly to try and reduce an entire continent to a single misguided soundbite.
Capitalism is a very flawed system, but it is pure objective fact that it works, maybe a little too well. The criticisms of capitalism were never that it didn’t work, but that it has no breaks, it keeps going until things break. In terms of pure functionality, capitalism has been proven to take any economy and turn into something that’s much more efficient, wealthy, and overflowing with surplus of goods. Capitalism can increase the industrial capacity of any country that let’s it do it’s thing. Pretending that capitalism never worked is simply just a false statement.
So again, what kind of economic system do you advocate for?
I gave you my answer, you just refuse to accept it.
Pure objective fact lmao cmon. Okay I hear you though, I wasn’t sure what you meant by communism but I think I get what you mean now. I’m only something of a Marxist and I don’t really consider myself a communist in that sense If you’re interested in a discussion let’s try to find some common ground. What aspects of capitalism do you like? Markets and decentralized production? I like those too, although I think they should be used as means to an end, not worshipped as the end itself.
If you want to argue against facts then go ahead and actually do it. Trying to laugh it off doesn’t make you right in the slightest nor does it disprove what I said in any way, shape, or form.
What aspects of capitalism do you like?
There’s a few:
It works: That already puts it above it’s competition as it has been proven to actually sustain economies and generate wealth. Basically it’s been shown to work multiple times across multiple eras in multiple vastly different societies.
Economic growth: Market competition and profit incentives push businesses to expand output and invest, which tends to increase overall wealth and GDP over time.
Innovation: This is something we never saw from the Soviet Union or Maoist China or any other socialist country. There’s a lot to criticize the for profit system for, but one of the things it does extremely well is come up with new ideas and better products.
Efficiency: This is one of the biggest strengths in capitalism. When it comes to generating the most value out of something, no other system deliver the same levels of efficiency, especially if there’s a healthy amount of competition that’s enforced.
Consumer choice: Under a socialist system, for example, there’s no such thing as consumer choice. The “public” (aka the government) decides what gets produced for everybody, and that’s all you get. If you don’t like it then that’s too bad, and if you want to make changes then you have to go through gauntlet of government bureaucracy. Under capitalism, the economy is both unplanned and has for profit competition, therefore, there should always be variety in the markets… at least in theory.
Adaptability: Fairly straight forward, capitalist economies tend to adjust relatively quickly to changes in demand, technology, or global conditions because decisions are decentralized.
Resource allocation: People often think that this is a strength of a socialist system because the government can move resource where they’re needed the most, but I disagree. We’ve seen this not be the case one to many times. Supply and demand is simply a much simpler, much more effective way of resource allocation.
Wealth creation: Capitalism has been shown time and time again that it’s very effective at generating large amounts of total wealth, raising average living standards in many countries.
That being said, I don’t think pure capitalism is a good system. Capitalism requires strong checks and balances that make sure it’s running correctly. There needs to be a strong government that effectively regulates harmful practices, enforces contracts, enforces competition, and protects the environment, workers, and consumers. There also need to be an active and educated public that holds corrupt politicians and bad companies accountable. Capitalism by itself is a good tool, but it’s not a solution for everything. There still need to be government programs on top of it all to fill the gaps. Imo a well regulated capitalist economy with a strong safety net that’s governed by a free, fair, and secular democratic government is the best system humanity has produced to date. This is what the best countries in history have, and this is what we should strive for.
I think they should be used as means to an end, not worshipped as the end itself.
I already told you that I’m not married to any system multiple times, you just refuse to accept my answer. I don’t think any system should be worshiped. Things like economic models shouldn’t be seen as religions, but rather as tools. Societies can and should mix and match whichever ideas meet their needs and work best for them. Things only start being a problem when a society becomes dogmatic with this sort of thing or some people try to force ideas that have been proven to be failures.
By what metric does capitalism “work”? From my perspective capitalism has
repeatedly led to fascism
always subverts democracy by creating parallel power in the hands of the rich
kept poor countries poor no matter what economic model they adapt
been destroying the planet while everybody knows it’s happening for the last 40 years
I’m not saying nothing about capitalism works, but you can’t just say that it works as a blanket statement.
Growth on its own is not an end, it can only be a means to an end. Looks like you’re worshipping here too.
Just wrong. Like plain lie, the soviets were the first in space.
Not necessarily. A short read of On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs might change your mind, but if you don’t have time, just look at the advertising industry. In theory it should inform consumers about the market, but in practice we know that’s not what’s happening, it’s all subliminal influence and inducing demand. Capitalism needs to keep inventing new ways to do dumb shit to get more growth. We are in the middle of the AI revolution, the dumbest and least efficient downgrade yet.
I agree here, although this isn’t exclusive to capitalism. There are many forms of socialism that include markets and avoid central planning. I am a proponent of that.
Sure capitalist economies can adapt without government intervention, but the only mechanism is prices. For example take an oil crisis. Oil prices will go up until people use less oil, and then it stabilizes. This sounds great on paper, but in reality it means people can’t drive to their jobs, and even if they still can, they spend less money on other goods, resulting in economic downturn. Without intense government intervention, markets are naturally instable. As proof, research any economic crash in recebt history.
I agree here, markets are a useful tool.
Sure we’ve seen wealth creation but capitalism also fails to recognize many forms of wealth. Especially care work typically done by women such as raising children and caring for the elderly. Having free time is wealth. Having a say at your workplace is a form of wealth. But capitalism only measures wealth as exchange value.
But let’s get back to finding common ground. What do you think about socialist market economies, where groups of individuals can start businesses just like in capitalism, but these businesses are always collectively owned by their workers? Existing worker coops have shown to be more stable and often more efficient than privately owned enterprise.
Present me something better and I’ll change my mind. Otherwise, I’ll go with whatever is best.
By what metric does capitalism “work”? From my perspective capitalism has
Let me run through your list real quick:
repeatedly led to fascism
There’s this false notion that Marxists tend to have where they think that capitalism and fascism have some sort of innate connection, when they don’t. Fascism as an ideology has no preferred economic model. Historically, all of the famous fascist regimes were flexible on their economic policy. They would allow the free market to run when it was beneficial and nationalized entire industries when they saw it beneficial.
If you’re going to make a claim like this then you’re going to have to provide specific examples. Otherwise, this is just nonsensical logic. Take Poland for example, the freest and most democratic era in the country’s entire history is the past 30 years under capitalism. According to you, Poland has fascism waiting around the corner, but it doesn’t.
always subverts democracy by creating parallel power in the hands of the rich
This is only partially true. This is only the case when the government corrupted and toothless. A country like Finland doesn’t have a parallel power in the hands of the rich. There are rich people and they have influence, but they don’t run the country, the people do. Clearly, this indicates that the model of government matters just as much as the economic model in a society.
kept poor countries poor no matter what economic model they adapt
Like where? I can offer plenty of counterexamples:
Botswana and Zimbabwe
South Korea and North Korea
China before and after Mao
The Baltics before and after the Soviet Union
East and West Germany
In each of these examples, you have either the same state split into a capitalist and non capitalist model, or the same state changing their economic model to capitalism, or very similar neighbors going down different routes. In every case, the capitalist version always does vastly much better than the other models. History indicates the opposite of your claim is true, so I’m curious where you’re getting this notion from.
been destroying the planet while everybody knows it’s happening for the last 40 years
This is true, but there’s more nuance to this than you make it out to be. For example, capitalism has also been a big component in driving the green revolution. Free market competition has made solar and wind more economical than fossil fuels, while also providing consumer with options that are a lot more environmentally friendly. There are also countries like the ones in Northern Europe that have very little pollution and environmental destruction despite being capitalist, and countries like China and the Soviet Union who’ve had great levels of pollution and environmental destruction. Famously, the destruction of the Aral Sea was caused by the incompetence of the Soviet Union.
So if we circle back to your original question, in what ways does capitalism work? Well history, as evidenced by the examples I gave earlier, seem to show that capitalism is a reliable way for a society to raise its standards of living. Capitalism does make an economy more efficient, it does breed innovation, it does create jobs, it does mass produce goods for the masses well, it does lead to specialization that leads an economy to move up the value added chain, it does adapt well to changes, and the list goes on and on. I think it’s perfectly valid to argue that it’s a flawed system, because it is, but it’s pretty self evident that it does work.
Growth on its own is not an end, it can only be a means to an end. Looks like you’re worshipping here too.
You’re being disingenuous here. I clearly meant that capitalism is able to produce growth, which IS something that is important to any economy. You can’t raise your standards of living if you don’t have new wealth to use on infrastructure, social programs, tax benefits, and so on. I never said that growth is an end or that infinite growth is a goal, I just said that capitalism is able to produce growth, which it does.
Just wrong. Like plain lie, the soviets were the first in space.
I did not lie, your example just makes no sense. Just because capitalism breeds more innovation than other economic models, that doesn’t mean societies that aren’t capitalist have zero innovation. Besides, the space race was entirely run by state science agencies who were funded by their government to compete with the other. That’s not a statement for socialism or against capitalism as it had little to do with economic models. It would make a lot more sense to compare what Soviet supermarkets looked like vs American supermarkets or what consumer technologies were available to Americans vs Soviets or the quality of everyday goods that people in Moscow had vs New York. You get that idea, these would be much more relevant comparisons, and I think it’s pretty clear which system produced more innovation.
Not necessarily. A short read of On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs might change your mind, but if you don’t have time, just look at the advertising industry.
I read the paper, and while it was a fun read, I don’t think it presents a particularly strong argument. There’s nothing academic about it. There’s no sources, no statistics, no data, no facts, nothing. It’s literally just some guy’s opinion and his only evidence is a couple of anecdotes from people he knows. While I agree with his some his criticisms against the giga rich, how certain types of workers deserve better pay and benefits, and how we should have shorter work weeks, I can’t help but imagine this guy to be some grumpy old boomer shaking his fist in the air because kids these days don’t have “real jobs”. He has this false assumption that jobs whose impacts aren’t seen directly are bullshit jobs and that any job that isn’t strictly necessary is also a bullshit job.
Like I’m sure there are some jobs out there that shouldn’t exist. However, the industries that he pointed as examples of this do in fact have value. The people in these jobs do generate real value even if some individuals feel otherwise. There are people willing to pay other people to do this kind of work. If there wasn’t value in them, they wouldn’t exist. Companies wouldn’t hire all these people if they didn’t see a benefit to it. Something doesn’t need to be “essential” to exist, there a lot of things that we don’t need that exist just because there’s demand. Like we don’t need the entertainment industry, but it is nice to have. We don’t need luxury apparel industry, but there are people willing to spend that much for status. We don’t need the beauty industry, but a lot of people want to cover up their insecurities. The same goes for advertising, health administration, and corporate law. These industries only exist because there’s demand for them.
I agree here, although this isn’t exclusive to capitalism. There are many forms of socialism that include markets and avoid central planning. I am a proponent of that.
Like what?
Sure capitalist economies can adapt without government intervention, but the only mechanism is prices. For example take an oil crisis.
I mean you’re right, but I had something different in mind for adaptability. I was referring to how the market is able to adapt on its own. Take for example the iPhone, when it came out the standard for phones at the time was physical keyboards, not touch screens. Yet after seeing how disruptive the iPhone was to the market, all of Apple’s competitors switched to touch screens on their own without any coordination or government push.
I agree here, markets are a useful tool.
Well, that’s some of the common ground you were looking for :)
Sure we’ve seen wealth creation but capitalism also fails to recognize many forms of wealth. Especially care work typically done by women such as raising children and caring for the elderly. Having free time is wealth. Having a say at your workplace is a form of wealth. But capitalism only measures wealth as exchange value.
I think this is more cultural than it is economic. Economic models only deal with material wealth. Other types of labor and wealth can only be given value either socially or politically.
What do you think about socialist market economies, where groups of individuals can start businesses just like in capitalism, but these businesses are always collectively owned by their workers? Existing worker coops have shown to be more stable and often more efficient than privately owned enterprise.
I don’t have an issue with co-ops, I think they’re great. However, can you provide any examples of entire economies being run by co-ops? I feel like co-ops can only ever be local businesses, you can’t run a complex corporation like an Apple or Amazon as a co-op. I feel like at a certain point, you will need a hierarchical structure and clear chain of command to maintain organization, order, and efficiency. It’s simple to run a grocery store as a co-op, but it’s borderline impossible to do with a company like McDonald’s. I think the better alternative here is to have strong labor unions and mandate corporations to compensate their workers with shares of the company they work in on top of their salaries.
Communism is just utopia. It’s the fantasy of a German man from a bygone era of how he thought a perfect society should look like. It’s not a realistic or practical ideology, and never was. This is why every single attempt at achieving it in history results in failure and it’s the reason why that’s always going to be the case.
You can’t run an economy based fictional utopias or treating some German philosopher’s subpar ideas as gospel. The economy, like with anything else in society, has to be run pragmatically. It needs to be studied like any other academic subject, and the research should be used to organize and refine what’s been proven to work and what doesn’t. Likewise, people who are experts on the subject should be the ones drafting guidelines that drive the economy, and the advice they give should be based on their society’s current problems. If it’s makes sense for their country’s economy to have socialized healthcare then they should do that, if it makes sense for their country to privatize their country’s musical instrument industry then they should do that. This idea that we have to box ourselves and our economies into some ideological box never made sense to me.
You didn’t answer my question and you ignored my point.
Communism can mean many things, and many things that call themselves communism have very little to nothing to do with what Marx wrote about. As an aside, Marx was not just a grumpy philosopher, he was also an economist who laid the foundation for thinking of the economy in terms of power, ownership and democracy. The Marxian school of economics is still influential today.
Your ramblings about “communism has always failed” leads me to believe that you are talking about Marxism-Leninism, which I also believe is outdated and dominated by dogmatic thinking, but I digress. Let’s increase our scope to socialism as a whole. Now let me rephrase: Existing socialism has worked many times, but has always been stomped out by brutal capitalist imperialism. A brief look at the history of central and south america, and all other colonially exploited areas should show you that the system that has produced the most suffering, destroyed the most democracies, is capitalism. Let me rephrase: Capitalism has never worked.
So again, what kind of economic system do you advocate for?
I’m talking about the original communist ideology as derived by Marx himself. I’m not talking about people like Stalin or Xi Jinping here who could be argued as not communist even though they described themselves as much.
Influential doesn’t mean it’s correct or has any actual value. His analysis was flawed and his proposed solutions were even worse. His work can only make sense if you accept his assumptions as axioms. A lot of people did, but when they tried to carry out what he prescribed… things didn’t go as planned because, well, his assumptions were flawed. Not every philosopher deserves respect just because they’re influential. Mussolini also invented a very influential ideology that’s unfortunately still popular today, but that doesn’t mean he and his ideology are above criticism or worthy or respect just because.
If you’re going to reduce my criticism to “ramblings” then you’re already in engaging in bad faith. You can’t seem to accept that the core idea itself is flawed. It doesn’t matter what flavor it comes in, the result will inevitably be the same.
Why are you moving the goal posts? Communism is a specific ideology, socialism is just a general economic model. These are not the same thing. With that being said pure socialism in any form hasn’t worked either. What examples do you have to prove this? Just start listing them. I’m positive that your list won’t be based on actual results but on speculation and assumptions.
Also, this idea that the reason why socialism has never worked is because of US or Western intervention is pure cope. Not only does this ignore all the instances where socialism collapsed in on itself, but also ignores the fact the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent China, also tried to brutally stomp out capitalism all around the world. They toppled democratically elected government, they installed puppet dictators, they committed genocides, they invaded countries, they employed propaganda campaigns, they’ve done it all. Marxists always conveniently forget about the other half of the cold war. Regardless, capitalism survived the onslaught, socialism didn’t. This is because socialism is simply a more fragile system that can’t withstand disruption.
That’s such an odd, vague, and cherrypicked statement that proves nothing but makes a bunch of declarations. Why focus on South America and not the world at large? Capitalism has done wonders for China, India, Poland, Romania, Spain, Ireland, the Baltic countries, Germany, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Botswana, and the list goes on and on. Actually even in South America, countries like Chile and Uruguay have had their best economic stretches under capitalism while countries like Venezuela declined substantially under socialism. It’s silly to try and reduce an entire continent to a single misguided soundbite.
Capitalism is a very flawed system, but it is pure objective fact that it works, maybe a little too well. The criticisms of capitalism were never that it didn’t work, but that it has no breaks, it keeps going until things break. In terms of pure functionality, capitalism has been proven to take any economy and turn into something that’s much more efficient, wealthy, and overflowing with surplus of goods. Capitalism can increase the industrial capacity of any country that let’s it do it’s thing. Pretending that capitalism never worked is simply just a false statement.
I gave you my answer, you just refuse to accept it.
Pure objective fact lmao cmon. Okay I hear you though, I wasn’t sure what you meant by communism but I think I get what you mean now. I’m only something of a Marxist and I don’t really consider myself a communist in that sense If you’re interested in a discussion let’s try to find some common ground. What aspects of capitalism do you like? Markets and decentralized production? I like those too, although I think they should be used as means to an end, not worshipped as the end itself.
If you want to argue against facts then go ahead and actually do it. Trying to laugh it off doesn’t make you right in the slightest nor does it disprove what I said in any way, shape, or form.
There’s a few:
That being said, I don’t think pure capitalism is a good system. Capitalism requires strong checks and balances that make sure it’s running correctly. There needs to be a strong government that effectively regulates harmful practices, enforces contracts, enforces competition, and protects the environment, workers, and consumers. There also need to be an active and educated public that holds corrupt politicians and bad companies accountable. Capitalism by itself is a good tool, but it’s not a solution for everything. There still need to be government programs on top of it all to fill the gaps. Imo a well regulated capitalist economy with a strong safety net that’s governed by a free, fair, and secular democratic government is the best system humanity has produced to date. This is what the best countries in history have, and this is what we should strive for.
I already told you that I’m not married to any system multiple times, you just refuse to accept my answer. I don’t think any system should be worshiped. Things like economic models shouldn’t be seen as religions, but rather as tools. Societies can and should mix and match whichever ideas meet their needs and work best for them. Things only start being a problem when a society becomes dogmatic with this sort of thing or some people try to force ideas that have been proven to be failures.
You sound pretty married to capitalism.
I’m not saying nothing about capitalism works, but you can’t just say that it works as a blanket statement.
Growth on its own is not an end, it can only be a means to an end. Looks like you’re worshipping here too.
Just wrong. Like plain lie, the soviets were the first in space.
Not necessarily. A short read of On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs might change your mind, but if you don’t have time, just look at the advertising industry. In theory it should inform consumers about the market, but in practice we know that’s not what’s happening, it’s all subliminal influence and inducing demand. Capitalism needs to keep inventing new ways to do dumb shit to get more growth. We are in the middle of the AI revolution, the dumbest and least efficient downgrade yet.
I agree here, although this isn’t exclusive to capitalism. There are many forms of socialism that include markets and avoid central planning. I am a proponent of that.
Sure capitalist economies can adapt without government intervention, but the only mechanism is prices. For example take an oil crisis. Oil prices will go up until people use less oil, and then it stabilizes. This sounds great on paper, but in reality it means people can’t drive to their jobs, and even if they still can, they spend less money on other goods, resulting in economic downturn. Without intense government intervention, markets are naturally instable. As proof, research any economic crash in recebt history.
I agree here, markets are a useful tool.
Sure we’ve seen wealth creation but capitalism also fails to recognize many forms of wealth. Especially care work typically done by women such as raising children and caring for the elderly. Having free time is wealth. Having a say at your workplace is a form of wealth. But capitalism only measures wealth as exchange value.
But let’s get back to finding common ground. What do you think about socialist market economies, where groups of individuals can start businesses just like in capitalism, but these businesses are always collectively owned by their workers? Existing worker coops have shown to be more stable and often more efficient than privately owned enterprise.
Present me something better and I’ll change my mind. Otherwise, I’ll go with whatever is best.
Let me run through your list real quick:
There’s this false notion that Marxists tend to have where they think that capitalism and fascism have some sort of innate connection, when they don’t. Fascism as an ideology has no preferred economic model. Historically, all of the famous fascist regimes were flexible on their economic policy. They would allow the free market to run when it was beneficial and nationalized entire industries when they saw it beneficial.
If you’re going to make a claim like this then you’re going to have to provide specific examples. Otherwise, this is just nonsensical logic. Take Poland for example, the freest and most democratic era in the country’s entire history is the past 30 years under capitalism. According to you, Poland has fascism waiting around the corner, but it doesn’t.
This is only partially true. This is only the case when the government corrupted and toothless. A country like Finland doesn’t have a parallel power in the hands of the rich. There are rich people and they have influence, but they don’t run the country, the people do. Clearly, this indicates that the model of government matters just as much as the economic model in a society.
Like where? I can offer plenty of counterexamples:
In each of these examples, you have either the same state split into a capitalist and non capitalist model, or the same state changing their economic model to capitalism, or very similar neighbors going down different routes. In every case, the capitalist version always does vastly much better than the other models. History indicates the opposite of your claim is true, so I’m curious where you’re getting this notion from.
This is true, but there’s more nuance to this than you make it out to be. For example, capitalism has also been a big component in driving the green revolution. Free market competition has made solar and wind more economical than fossil fuels, while also providing consumer with options that are a lot more environmentally friendly. There are also countries like the ones in Northern Europe that have very little pollution and environmental destruction despite being capitalist, and countries like China and the Soviet Union who’ve had great levels of pollution and environmental destruction. Famously, the destruction of the Aral Sea was caused by the incompetence of the Soviet Union.
So if we circle back to your original question, in what ways does capitalism work? Well history, as evidenced by the examples I gave earlier, seem to show that capitalism is a reliable way for a society to raise its standards of living. Capitalism does make an economy more efficient, it does breed innovation, it does create jobs, it does mass produce goods for the masses well, it does lead to specialization that leads an economy to move up the value added chain, it does adapt well to changes, and the list goes on and on. I think it’s perfectly valid to argue that it’s a flawed system, because it is, but it’s pretty self evident that it does work.
You’re being disingenuous here. I clearly meant that capitalism is able to produce growth, which IS something that is important to any economy. You can’t raise your standards of living if you don’t have new wealth to use on infrastructure, social programs, tax benefits, and so on. I never said that growth is an end or that infinite growth is a goal, I just said that capitalism is able to produce growth, which it does.
I did not lie, your example just makes no sense. Just because capitalism breeds more innovation than other economic models, that doesn’t mean societies that aren’t capitalist have zero innovation. Besides, the space race was entirely run by state science agencies who were funded by their government to compete with the other. That’s not a statement for socialism or against capitalism as it had little to do with economic models. It would make a lot more sense to compare what Soviet supermarkets looked like vs American supermarkets or what consumer technologies were available to Americans vs Soviets or the quality of everyday goods that people in Moscow had vs New York. You get that idea, these would be much more relevant comparisons, and I think it’s pretty clear which system produced more innovation.
I read the paper, and while it was a fun read, I don’t think it presents a particularly strong argument. There’s nothing academic about it. There’s no sources, no statistics, no data, no facts, nothing. It’s literally just some guy’s opinion and his only evidence is a couple of anecdotes from people he knows. While I agree with his some his criticisms against the giga rich, how certain types of workers deserve better pay and benefits, and how we should have shorter work weeks, I can’t help but imagine this guy to be some grumpy old boomer shaking his fist in the air because kids these days don’t have “real jobs”. He has this false assumption that jobs whose impacts aren’t seen directly are bullshit jobs and that any job that isn’t strictly necessary is also a bullshit job.
Like I’m sure there are some jobs out there that shouldn’t exist. However, the industries that he pointed as examples of this do in fact have value. The people in these jobs do generate real value even if some individuals feel otherwise. There are people willing to pay other people to do this kind of work. If there wasn’t value in them, they wouldn’t exist. Companies wouldn’t hire all these people if they didn’t see a benefit to it. Something doesn’t need to be “essential” to exist, there a lot of things that we don’t need that exist just because there’s demand. Like we don’t need the entertainment industry, but it is nice to have. We don’t need luxury apparel industry, but there are people willing to spend that much for status. We don’t need the beauty industry, but a lot of people want to cover up their insecurities. The same goes for advertising, health administration, and corporate law. These industries only exist because there’s demand for them.
Like what?
I mean you’re right, but I had something different in mind for adaptability. I was referring to how the market is able to adapt on its own. Take for example the iPhone, when it came out the standard for phones at the time was physical keyboards, not touch screens. Yet after seeing how disruptive the iPhone was to the market, all of Apple’s competitors switched to touch screens on their own without any coordination or government push.
Well, that’s some of the common ground you were looking for :)
I think this is more cultural than it is economic. Economic models only deal with material wealth. Other types of labor and wealth can only be given value either socially or politically.
I don’t have an issue with co-ops, I think they’re great. However, can you provide any examples of entire economies being run by co-ops? I feel like co-ops can only ever be local businesses, you can’t run a complex corporation like an Apple or Amazon as a co-op. I feel like at a certain point, you will need a hierarchical structure and clear chain of command to maintain organization, order, and efficiency. It’s simple to run a grocery store as a co-op, but it’s borderline impossible to do with a company like McDonald’s. I think the better alternative here is to have strong labor unions and mandate corporations to compensate their workers with shares of the company they work in on top of their salaries.