Kapitalism
-
Is no one going to talk about how a rune pickaxe is WAAY more expensive than a bronze pick?
Not if you're using duplicate item cheats
-
Now compare democracy with both systems.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Democracy is a form of government.
Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems.
You could have a Democratic Socialist system, if the majority of people wanted it.
You could have an Authoritarian Dictatorship that allowed Capitalism.
It's a little more complex because people are used to living under Capitalism and many people don't really understand Socialism and would fight against their own interest to revert to the status quo, as a result some socialist philosophers have suggested not giving people a choice but to accept socialism, a so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat", but even in such a system you could have a constitution that enshrines socialism as the the economic system, while still giving people the ability to vote on everything else.
For example "Private Property" could be abolished. Factories and business could be owned by all of the employees as a whole and the profits shared equitably. After a short time living in such a system it would be unlikely that the majority of people would vote to return power back over to just a few individuals.
This would likely depend on the transition going smoothly. Give people a little hardship and the knee jerk/reactionary response would be to proclaim they were "better off" before.
The main problem with Socialism is that people are so used to having 'rulers', that they simply do not know how to act in their absence. This creates a seeming 'power vacuum'. Unscrupulous individuals can use that fact as a way to assume the roles vacated by the formerly rich and powerful in the name of being a force that maintains the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", when very often they seem to become dictators themselves.
In my personal opinion, violent revolution will always lead to that outcome. If we ever want to evolve as a society, people must first understand what Socialism actually is and why it's the best choice for the majority of people. We must freely choose it, because it's the right thing to do.
That is made extremely difficult because the rich and powerful like being rich and powerful, and will use every bit of their resources to ensure they stay rich and powerful. It's easier to convince cops to side with them to keep them in power by sharing a tiny bit of their wealth, than it is to convince them to do the right thing, when they aren't even sure what the right thing is.
There is a reason that Education is a political battleground in the US. If people were actually taught the truth, they probably would choose to do the right thing. The capitalists won't allow that to happen if they can help it.
Anytime you see someone trying to cut funding for education, or try to have a whitewashed version of history taught. This is the reason.
This is also the source of "Red Scare" propaganda and fear mongering. 'Keep people scared, ignorant, and confused' will probably be the subtitle of the last 100 years if they make a movie about it in the future, provided the Fascists and/or Capitalists don't win.
Edit: JFK once said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." I think there is a lot of wisdom in that and I wish people in power would take it to heart, though I know they wont.
-
In a classic example you have a village with 2 bakeries, one of the bakers came up with a machine to kneed the bread, so he can make more bread and sell it cheaper. This is sort of the story people tell to show how great capitalism is.
But we have reached a point where that one bakery now owns a chain of bakers, adds ingredients to the bread to make it more addictive, skips on actual ingredients needed for bread and replaces them with sawdust, made donations to the current political party so any competition has to jump through hoops to get a bakery license, etc.
Even in the best case s scenario - bakeries compete making uniform quality products without involving political shenanigans - the price of bread is independent of the cost of production.
What you're looking for as a business is the "clearing price", which is the price at which your (sales * price) generates the maximum revenue.
New capital that lowers per unit cost does not change the price. It raises profit margins. Only when multiple vendors in competition have access to this capital does the clearing price fall.
-
Capitalism only works if it's regulated. Unregulated capitalism just becomes feudalism again. In your example, the owner of the bakery chain no longer has to innovate or compete. They simply own something and wait for money to be delivered to them.
Of course, for the government to be able to regulate things, it needs to be bigger and more powerful than the businesses it's regulating. You can't have Amazon being worth 2.3 trillion because it can easily make itself immune from competition and immune from regulators.
A mixed capitalist / socialist economy is the best solution we've come up with so far that actually seems to work in the real world. Only the most insane would want things like fire services to be fully privatized, or for every road to be a privately owned toll road. But, a fully state owned economy didn't really work either. Trying that caused the USSR to collapse, and it caused China to switch to a different version of a capitalist / communist / socialist setup. The real issue is where to draw the boundaries. Most countries have decided that healthcare is something that the government should either fully control, or at least have a very strong control over. Meanwhile, the US pays more and receives less with its for-profit system. In England, they privatized water, and it seems to have been a disaster, meanwhile the socialist utopia of USA mostly has cities providing water services.
Where do you draw the line? Personally, I think Northern Europe seems to have the best results. Strong labour protections, a lot of essential things owned by / provided by the government, but with space for for-profit private enterprise too.
Agreed. I feel as though capitalism is a good option for things which can have elastic demand. Luxury items, entertainment, etc can all benefit from a competitive market because I have the luxury of not needing to buy them. On the other hand, I do absolutely need food, housing, and healthcare in order to live. Applying supply and demand principles when demand must be inelastic only leads to people getting hurt.
My dream system would be one in which, as a baseline, all human requirements for survival are provided no matter the situation, and where currency is only used for luxuries.
-
Capitalists say the free market is king then they go and make laws to stifle and restrict it so they can make monopolies and gouge everyone out of their hard-earned income.
They are not Capitalists. In fact capitalism is a great idea, it just we don't have it.
-
Agreed. I feel as though capitalism is a good option for things which can have elastic demand. Luxury items, entertainment, etc can all benefit from a competitive market because I have the luxury of not needing to buy them. On the other hand, I do absolutely need food, housing, and healthcare in order to live. Applying supply and demand principles when demand must be inelastic only leads to people getting hurt.
My dream system would be one in which, as a baseline, all human requirements for survival are provided no matter the situation, and where currency is only used for luxuries.
I mostly agree with you, it's just that historically governments have been really bad at producing some necessities of life.
I really wouldn't want anybody other than a government providing clean drinking water. I think they've proven they're great at that, and private industries just mess it up in various ways. OTOH, governments historically haven't been very good at producing crops. It seems like every time a government wants to fully take over farming, the result is a famine. Having said that, farming subsidies, and programs where governments are guaranteed buyers of farmed stuff is pretty great.
It really pisses me off that some of the most right-wing, most anti-government people in the US are farmers, and farmers are absolutely supported by the government. There are certainly some flaws in the system. The corn subsidy being so high is ridiculous, and results in things like high fructose corn syrup being available nearly free, and so it's in everything. OTOH, it's thanks to government intervention that the US is absolutely secure when it comes to price shocks for food items. Almost everything is made domestically. And, while there can be quirks like egg prices being high (which again is due to unregulated / badly regulated monopolies) the overall system is very stable.
Housing is another thing that is iffy if it's 100% government made. The awful apartment blocks of former soviet republics are an example of that. But, unregulated housing construction is even worse. This is one where you need to find some balance between fully capitalist and fully government run.
Mostly though, right now, the governments of the world just need to start cracking down on capitalist businesses that are harming the public. The EU is at least trying, but the results have been mixed. The US was starting to do something under Biden and then Trump took over and... wowza. I think the recent NYC election shows that the population is well to the left of the democratic party establishment, and that cracking down on big business could be a huge win in future elections.
-
They are not Capitalists. In fact capitalism is a great idea, it just we don't have it.
Other way around. They're capitalists but don't support the free market. So they want the factory to be privately owned and run for profit, but they still want the government to interfere with patent-infringing sales.
And I'd argue that capitalism is an inherently bad idea, even in theory. Nobody deserves free rent just for owning something, like land or natural resources. Property manager is a job, landlord is not.
-
They are not Capitalists. In fact capitalism is a great idea, it just we don't have it.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Properly regulated capitalism isn't strictly horrible. The biggest issue we have is that first bit, unfortunately.
-Me, a dirty socialist
-
Other way around. They're capitalists but don't support the free market. So they want the factory to be privately owned and run for profit, but they still want the government to interfere with patent-infringing sales.
And I'd argue that capitalism is an inherently bad idea, even in theory. Nobody deserves free rent just for owning something, like land or natural resources. Property manager is a job, landlord is not.
So they want the factory to be privately owned and run for profit, but they still want the government to interfere
We should take a step back and recognize that they want the government to interfere by recognizing and enforcing their ownership of the factory in the first place.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Patents mean genocide.
They slow down adoption of innovation and raise prices to levels the market can afford. With the existential need to change and improve like 50% of all industrial processes, this results in too slow change. It never mattered if climate change is anthropogenic or not.
-
People work for material gain. By not entitling creators to the product of their labour you will discourage them from creating (and also be stealing from them). Patent law is exactly the kind of thing that protects the interests of working people but our current system is too weak to stand up to corporations.
What happens if the person who can solve climate change decides instead to trade stocks because saving the world doesn't put food on the table?
IP laws are not your enemy, corporations are.
wrote last edited by [email protected]People, in general, do not work for material gain. They work because they have to in order to live, procreate and raise their children. People want a minimum amount of prosperity and economic safety. Beyond that, they want to work in a way and a place that fulfills them. Work itself is fun when done right, and working with others is awesome. Not even the "smart ones" or whatever work mainly for material gain in general. There are an overwhelming amount of counter examples to any variation of your claim. It would be more accurate to say people work for fame and glory, or to get laid (again reproductive success).
But even if what you said was true, it does not justify a complete monopoly. You could have something like "congrats you patented a new idea - if it catches on you will get a free house as a price!"
Of course you know all this and are just arguing facetiously. If "the person who can solve climate change" does anything but trade stocks they would contradict your argument. There is no money in inventing climate solutions. But nice insult to the people who are working on things like that.
Your actual argument is that we reward gambling and non-productive activity too much. That the smartest people are not working towards the survival or wellbeing of humanity, but for... crumbs off the table of the capitalists. That our economic system is not efficient in working towards our shared human values.
-
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
-
I can't find a way to phrase this that's not offensive, so I'll just go ahead: Are you being obtuse or do you just not know what you're talking about? Because if it's the latter you should at least take a scroll down this Wikipedia page before you talk about this stuff. However, I will say that sacrificing millions of people for holy communism (which is what happened; the famine was a choice) isn't much better than sacrificing them for holy property rights. Not asking for foreign aid and denying a famine even existed was also inexcusable.
take a scroll down this Wikipedia page
I am once again asking liberals to stop treating Wikipedia as holy Scripture.
the famine was a choice
It was a result of bad policy, and that policy was a choice, but it's pretty misleading to try and spin that as making the famine itself "a choice".
-
I know enough
Translation: I saw it on Reddit
-
Surely anyone who dares criticize the great Soviets is a straight up Nazi! There can be no other explanation!
That's a strawman: they certainly didn't say all critism of the USSR is Nazi. Just that particular piece.
-
Are you a little bit slow?
did pay inmates a wage while they worked
In a form of a piece of lead in their heads, no doubt.
Really? The Gulags were all in Siberia?
Where did I say ALL gulags were in Siberia, sweetie?
The diet of the Soviet citizen was by the 60s
Stalin was alive in 60s? News to me.
Another tankie.
In a form of a piece of lead in their heads, no doubt
What a stupid argument. Literally just asserting you're right based on nothing.
Another fascist.
-
You could literally open up a book someday
That's what you should start with.
check your info, gulag inmates were paid.
Check, you i.. Tankie. Or just check another response to your moronic post.
cliche of "forced labor to the cold Siberia
Listen, you moron: millions of people died in Siberia, murdered by your beloved Stalin. Denying this is like denying holocaust. Go and fuck yourself you genocide denier.
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
-
thought stopper
I am pretty sure that would be a permanent condition you are suffering from.
When pressed, the anti communist reveals that insults and thought terminating cliches are all they have
-
Maybe i should rethink my stance.
Don't bother, you tankies are incapable of logical thinking.
You say that like you haven't been the one reduced to petulant insults.
-
People work for material gain. By not entitling creators to the product of their labour you will discourage them from creating (and also be stealing from them). Patent law is exactly the kind of thing that protects the interests of working people but our current system is too weak to stand up to corporations.
What happens if the person who can solve climate change decides instead to trade stocks because saving the world doesn't put food on the table?
IP laws are not your enemy, corporations are.
The people who create products don't own the IP, the company that employs them does.
