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.
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.