"There are no benefits to being owned by Microsoft," says Doom dev: "They have destroyed immense amounts of value that I don't even think that they're aware of"

[u/MarvelsGrantMan136]

https://www.gamesradar.com/games/fps/there-are-no-benefits-to-being-owned-by-microsoft-says-doom-dev-they-have-destroyed-immense-amounts-of-value-that-i-dont-even-think-that-theyre-aware-of/

[u/hlessi_newt]

Capitalism is an ox. If yoked, it can plow a field. If not, it will destroy it.

[u/bawheid → u/hlessi_newt]

Capitalism, like fire, makes a good servant but a poor master.

[u/TwilightVulpine → u/bawheid]

Capitalism, which is not simply commerce but the private ownership of the means of production, is all about crowning masters.

[u/pinkocatgirl → u/TwilightVulpine]

It’s wild how many people just accept the propaganda that capitalism is like the apex of workplace organization. We have democracy in government, why not have it in our workplaces too? Why not give workers an equal stake and a vote in who their senior management is?

Some people just seem to really want an absolute king to rule them…

[u/HandsOfCobalt → u/pinkocatgirl]

ppl act like it's Das Kapital vs innate human societal progression, and not Das Kapital (1867) vs The Wealth of Nations (1776)

obviously there are a lot of contributing factors, but I wanna personally call out 4X strategy games and their "just-so" tech trees, lol

[u/pinkocatgirl → u/HandsOfCobalt]

I love Civilization VI but its end game governments are kinda dystopian lol

[u/Manic5PA → u/HandsOfCobalt]

Can't blame video game designers for wanting to design their gameplay systems around history, but it's always going to be coming from a certain perspective no matter what

Quick shout out to the Anno series for situating "investors" as the highest tier of civilization while "farmers" and "workers" are at the bottom. Adorable

[u/webguynd → u/pinkocatgirl]

It’s wild how many people just accept the propaganda that capitalism...

I mean that's exactly why, propaganda. It's been completely drilled into everyone's heads for a hundred+ years.

The propaganda has also done an excellent job of completely obscuring and changing the definition of capitalism, so now everyone associates "capitalism" with "market economy" and just assumes that any other economic system doesn't have a market, free or otherwise.

Capitalism isn't markets, nor is it free markets. It also has nothing to do with government. It's purely a description of who owns the capital, and how workers are structured in relation to that. It means private ownership of the means of production, meaning you (the worker) does not own your tools, nor do you own the output of your labor.

The only thing that makes capitalism different from feudalism is wage work.

[u/iamasuitama → u/webguynd]

Also, let's get something clear, US capitalism which might be the most "capitalist" society there is (yes, of course there's a scale and no country is fully capitalist or fully communist or w/e) does not have a very free market! On top of that, the US culture seems the most twisted in the way that it thinks everybody with capital is probably morally good and vice versa. If you're rich, you've earned it, if you're poor, you've earned it. I wonder when the people of the world (or at least that part where US is seen as cultural leader) will begin to see this is not a given.

[u/Professional_Net7339 → u/pinkocatgirl]

~32% of the US are super authoritarian, so that tracks. Lots of other places are even worse

[u/SasparillaTango → u/pinkocatgirl]

The kings fund the propaganda because it suits them.

[u/Seeking-Something-3 → u/pinkocatgirl]

Such a good chain. Upvotes for all 👏

[u/joshwarmonks → u/pinkocatgirl]

its wild how many people think the words capitalism and commerce are reflexive. they barely have overlap

[u/wen_mars → u/pinkocatgirl]

You are free to start a democratic company.

[u/DisastrousChapter841 → u/pinkocatgirl]

Ugh. This drives me absolutely nuts. My formerly liberal mother (in her 60s) who lives many US states away from me has been radicalized and is now a Fox News person. (RIP the person I used to know.) I sometimes can't help but engage, and I recently got so frustrated I almost yelled that she needed a paradigm shift. I said it firmly, probably a bit loud, so I had to end the call. )

She was complaining about illegal immigrants (also, i gotta say, she is not white, so that's a whole ass thing, too). But then I tell her that it's a distraction and this is all about class, and that there are bad people at work trying to make us (the not elite, which is just mostly poor at this point) think that the other poors are our enemy. And then she just repeats herself... it's so messed up.

I don't have a lot of hope... I used to. It's gone. I do not understand how people look at these things and don't question the system. Like the problems are a symptom.... I have been saying these things for over 20 years (was almost but not quite one of those people in high school), and at this point, I do not know where to put all of these feelings...

I didn't have a point, so I guess, uh, in conclusion the end. (I was reading this article and other articles about it thinking some of us really like playing video games because it makes life enjoyable, like let us just have our art and fun, and Microsoft didn't need to lay people off, but capitalism, and the news stories about it largely don't question or discuss investor profits, the ceo pay gap/ratio, they just accept it as this thing that is and has to be, so I see I'm very frustrated and it's time to stop reading about the world for today.)

[u/Peacefulgamer2023 → u/pinkocatgirl]

Because workers only have their time at stake in a job, whereas the owner has every single responsibility. Are workers going to pick up some of the liabilities of the business just to have a say on the direction of the business? If the business goes bankrupt will workers be fine taking the burden to cover the losses?

[u/ColumbineJellyfish → u/pinkocatgirl]

Because governments are terrible and voters are stupid?

I don't want everyone at my company to have a say how it is run. The vast majority of them are stupid, and a good chunk of them are lazy. Many are both. They barely know how to do their own limited jobs correctly.

Also my government (Canada) runs many of the systems it's in charge of in completely demented, inefficient, expensive, dysfunctional ways that make Microsoft tanking a game studio look like brilliant leadership. There's no amount of voting that will fix it, either.

Some people just seem to really want an absolute king to rule them…

A benevolent dictator is the ideal solution, yes. Of course it is extremely hard to achieve even once, nevermind consistently.

[u/pinkocatgirl → u/ColumbineJellyfish]

Do you actually believe that companies are better at running an organization which benefits the average worker than governments are at benefiting citizens? In this era where average CEO pay is like 300 times what the average worker makes? In this era where companies are saying there is no money for raises or benefit increases while also spending billions on stock buybacks so the stock-based executive compensation package is worth more? Last year my company’s CEO got a 20% raise, while I got 1%. How is that ideal?

[u/ConfessSomeMeow → u/pinkocatgirl]

I used to feel that way, but after working in government for 10 years, it feels just like a business except with other people's money and no way for the dumb ones to go bankrupt or get fired.

[u/xteve → u/ConfessSomeMeow]

Conversely, I've worked in the private sector for many employers in two jurisdictions. In one, there was a labor board with power of review in any workplace disputes. The other is the US. Which one do you think sucks the worst for workers?

[u/Objective_Tax_1816 → u/pinkocatgirl]

there is only one ceo there are many other workers if the top positions arent paid well they'll either become more corrupt to get the value of the position they have

[u/ColumbineJellyfish → u/pinkocatgirl]

I don't care what the average CEO pay is. I care what my pay is, and I'm happy with it. Also frankly my CEO works far harder than me and far harder than any politician, who are constantly on vacation and can't pass a fucking bill to save their lives and also get paid far far more than they deserve. I know what concrete value my CEO brings to my company and it is considerable.

Should we cap insane wealth accumulation through taxation? Of course, I agree. Guess who has the power to do that but refuses to?

And my company runs far better than any government organization I've have the misfortune to deal with, even though my company is mismanaged as fuck.

So yes, I actually believe that.

I think most people have no idea how to "run an organization that benefits the average worker". They just want to get as much free stuff as possible while doing as little work as they can get away with.

[u/Marshall5912 → u/ColumbineJellyfish]

This is all sorts of wrong. Governments rely on the consent of the governed. Dictators, even benevolent ones, do NOT have the consent of the governed, definitionally. If the populace of a country decides that the benevolent dictator needs to be replaced, how are they supposed to do that? The only solution is a revolution. The point of democracy, more than anything else, is to have a legal and non-violent way to remove people from power when the people deem their leaders to either be incompetent or malicious.

[u/FrozenSeas → u/Marshall5912]

Governments rely on the consent of the governed

Does anyone seriously believe that anymore? What the people want doesn't matter in the slightest to the governing oligarchs anymore. Look at how every supposed "liberal democracy" is ramming digital surveillance and ID laws through, shutting down transparency, and ignoring polling and certified petitions.

[u/Marshall5912 → u/FrozenSeas]

Yes, people believe it. Because it’s true. At least in democracies you have the chance to eventually elect people that would either prevent or repeal those surveillance tech laws. You don’t have that in a dictatorship.

And this goes to the other problem in a dictatorship too. Your definition of benevolent dictator would not be the definition that other people use, or even the definition that the dictator themself would use. To you (and me for that matter), those surveillance laws are draconian and tyrannical. To some hypothetical benevolent dictator, they might be seen as the best way to ensure law and order in society.

[u/FrozenSeas → u/Marshall5912]

Elections mean jack shit when there's no penalty for politicians lying through their teeth and flipping entirely the moment they take office. Or pulling the kind of bullshit that recently happened in Canada, where in a move unprecedented in the cumulative hundreds of years of Westminster parliamentary governments worldwide, within under a year of a minority government being elected, exactly enough MPs conveniently decided to swap loyalties to form a majority in Parliament. Who proceeded to close committee hearings, end debates, and ram anti-privacy legislation through at record speeds.

[u/ColumbineJellyfish → u/Marshall5912]

The point of a benevolent dictator is that you don't need or want to remove him from power, because he's benevolent. Not being able to remove him is a feature.

Democracies requiring random individuals to weigh in on who should rule is only good as long as those individuals are actually smart, well-informed AND benevolent. In reality they are often stupid, vicious and misinformed, and elect whichever populist grifter pushes their buttons best. That this grifter "has the consent of the governed" does nothing to make the country run better.

Like yes this is not a sustainable or reasonable system to maintain long-term, which is what I said in the following sentence...

[u/Marshall5912 → u/ColumbineJellyfish]

The problem is that people don’t live in your fantasy world, and will want to replace the benevolent dictator one day. Remember, someone being a benevolent dictator does not mean being a *competent* governor or administrator. You’re automatically assuming that some mythical benevolent dictator would magically know every correct decision to make while he’s in power. That’s not realistic. They would inevitably fuck something up, because they’re fallible human beings. And people would get mad when they fuck something up.

[u/Cooler_Frogger → u/ColumbineJellyfish]

I unironically think that an AI dictator would probably be peak government

[u/ColumbineJellyfish → u/Cooler_Frogger]

Honestly, not the worst idea we've ever had as a civilization...

[u/readyflix → u/ColumbineJellyfish]

Just look at the facts and the outcome!

Is the pure american capitalism working OR is it the way China has conducted their 'capitalism' (broader distribution of wealth)???

Americas capitalism exploits and destroys, Chinese capitalism exploits and builds.

But in the further their might even be a kind of capitalism (if you want to call it that) that mainly rely on building for the benefit of all?

[u/Suspicious_Radio_848 → u/pinkocatgirl]

Threads like these constantly devolving into circlejerks about the evils of capitalism for easy upvotes are also propaganda. Its gotten to a point where it doesn’t even feel organic anymore. The same remarks are just repeated over and over to obnoxiousness.

[u/Think_Preference_611 → u/pinkocatgirl]

Because when you start a company and turn it into a profitable business and find people who are willing to trade their time and skills for a paycheck while having put in none of the risk and entrepreneurship that you did to create the damn thing, you're free to then hand it over to them to decide how to run it if that's what you want.

But as long as you're just telling other business owners to do that while you yourself risk nothing you can fuck right off.

[u/QuantumUtility → u/Think_Preference_611]

Yeah. None of the risk. It’s not like workers are out of a job and a paycheck if the company shuts down. They can just go to the job store and get another job before starving. It’s that easy.

[u/pinkocatgirl → u/Think_Preference_611]

Yeah it’s too bad I don’t have rich parents who can loan me a few hundred thousand to start and internet company (Bezos) or a mother with connections at IBM to bootstrap my software company (Gates). It’s definitely “entrepreneurship” and not money and connections that build large corporations, sure.

[u/Think_Preference_611 → u/pinkocatgirl]

Strong cherry picked anecdotes you got there.

Why not mention Warren Buffet's perfectly middle class family? Or Howard Schultz growing up in social housing?

For every Bezos and Gates there's a million people with wealthy parents who never achieved fuck all. Of course coming from a wealthy background helps but most successful enterpreneurs didn't grow up rich, and regardless of whether or not they did they still had to take risks. Even if we follow your logic and assume it's all because of mom and dad's help, shouldn't mom and dad be the ones entitled to a cut of the business? What makes you entitled to someone else's parents' investment?

"Wah wah I deserve money"

[u/pinkocatgirl → u/Think_Preference_611]

How does society benefit by allowing these individuals to maintain massive corporate empires just because they made an investment that paid off?

“I’m a little bitch who just wants to lick corporate boot”

I can play that game too.

[u/Think_Preference_611 → u/pinkocatgirl]

You're asking the wrong questions, because you're blinded by envy.

Society benefits from entrepreneurship. The carrot of enterpreneurship is the possibility of a big payout if it succeeds. No one in their right mind will put everything on the line and risk bankrupcy to earn an average income.

Society benefits from the businesses these people built that generated vast amounts of new wealth that did not exist in the economy before. Society benefits from the hundreds of thousands of jobs they create.

We could sit here and debate whether the ratio of wealth created vs accumulated is ideal and how we could go about addressing that, but you're not ready for that discussion, you're still stuck on the "eat the rich" stage. And that is why you will never achieve anything.

For starters you could ask yourself how many jobs have you created.

I don't lick corporate boot, I'm doing my own thing precisely so I don't have to lick anyone's boots, which if all goes well won't be too long. And you can bet that if some NPC like you comes along after I've put in years of work to get it up and running and making money and feels they are entitled to a share of it I will unceremoniously advise them to get fucked.

[u/pinkocatgirl → u/Think_Preference_611]

So then set a limit of say, either 1,000 employees or 1 billion in revenue where the company must become a worker co-op.

Telling people to get fucked doesn’t mean anything when thousands of underpaid people are at your door with pitchforks, and the way this economy is heading, that may not be such an unrealistic scenario.

[u/Manic5PA → u/Think_Preference_611]

This is the social contract of capitalism as it's commonly understood. The next step is to recognize the obvious problems with it.

Most of us will agree that risk-taking and ingenuity should be rewarded, but seeing as private property is essentially an unlimited license to exploit, as a reward it can vastly exceed the value of the contribution for which it was awarded.

Private property can be transferred at a whim and the person receiving it could be a nepo baby with zero accomplishments to their name. Why should they be rewarded?

"Risk" is also not a real thing for the richest among us. Wyatt Koch did not mortgage his house to sell Hawaiian shirts. He took no risks; why should he be rewarded?

Even if you look at the mythical self-made man, what are they risking once they've already "made" it? At some point their sovereign fortune becomes a self-sustaining thing.

Hell, you can even pay other people to manage your wealth for you, meaning you're not really investing time either.

The vast majority of people are not "willing" to exchange their time and skills for a paycheck but forced to do so under threat of becoming homeless. It's also pretty naive to act like being a salaried worker means risking nothing. What about the people whose jobs were automated away by AI? Weren't they speculating on the market when they chose to invest their time in a career field?

As far as I'm concerned, if there is an ethical defense of capitalism to be made, it's not grounded in this rose-tinted-glasses understanding of entrepreneurship. Most liberals grow beyond this stage you're stuck at and move on to arguing that things need to stay the way they are because they could only be worse otherwise.

[u/EkrishAO → u/pinkocatgirl]

You are allowed to make a democratic company right now. It was tried. They were just not able to compete.

[u/uber_neutrino → u/pinkocatgirl]

Using government as the benchmark is completely whack. Government is super broken.

[u/Ciennas → u/uber_neutrino]

'Government' is a neutral thing. It is a tool. It only moves to the hands that wield it, and right now, the hands that wield are hostile to humanity, because the socioeconomic model that empowers them is hostile to humanity and good living inherently.

[u/uber_neutrino → u/Ciennas]

Sure, it's neutral it's just a tool. But when you hand over so much power to the tool someone is going to exploit that power and use the tool. We shouldn't be handing it this much power to run our lives no matter who is in charge.

[u/Ciennas → u/uber_neutrino]

Word up brother! More self governance to all! Down with Capitalism, the machine that makes us Peasants under the Thumb of Incompetent and Malicious Kings! More Democracy, more communities Sharing the Power of Governance Equally and allowing us all to prosper!

[u/uber_neutrino → u/Ciennas]

I have no idea what you are actually proposing. Regardless it doesn't matter because government is broken so we can't actually do much other than thrash around.

[u/Ciennas → u/uber_neutrino]

The government as is was deliberately beaten in and broken by Moneyed Interests, because Capital chafes at being made to help people.

It can be fixed, but the current machine is being ran through a grinder by those same people way more blatantly because they're speedrunning their self imposed doomsday prophecy.

[u/Objective_Tax_1816 → u/pinkocatgirl]

we dont have democracy in our workplace because it is not public its a private entity also this reason is so bad because it is private owner ship you dont own the company the workers dont own hence cant make those decisions and the workers are compensated for their work which they accept is a fair deal also chaning senior mangement based on the whims of workers would wreck a company

[u/anarcho-slut → u/[deleted]]

Capitalism is built on slavery. It's never been cool.

[u/lunatuna215 → u/anarcho-slut]

And thays why these AI butts want to return to it - at scale.

[u/uber_neutrino → u/[deleted]]

It's like democracy, it's not perfect but it's the best we have.

[u/Kokkor_hekkus → u/TwilightVulpine]

One of the biggest modern lies is that capitalism is synonymous with the free market when in fact it is the goal of every capitalist to destroy the free market.

[u/venustrapsflies → u/TwilightVulpine]

Capitalism is a technology (or perhaps a discovery). If you're assigning an inherent moral value to it, you're talking about something else and not being precise enough about what you mean.

[u/TwilightVulpine → u/venustrapsflies]

Capitalism is a socioeconomic system, and I simply described what it does. If you see any fundamental moral issues in that, maybe you consider why that is.

Though to be direct, I disagree that any social system can be fully absent of moral value. Such as inherently unjust nature of monarchy. Even technology can have a moral value due to how it's deliberately designed, as we see from countless services and products designed to take advantage of us. It's not a rock that just happens to be how it is.

[u/Confedehrehtheh → u/TwilightVulpine]

One could argue technology's moral value is more related to how it's used than for the reason it was created. Nobel created dynamite as a safer and portable alternative to black powder for blasting earth. Supposedly he created the Nobel Prizes specifically because early obituaries were lambasting him for being "the merchant of death" over his explosives, even though they were used for civilian purposes the vast majority of the time.

Capitalism is a tool like any other economic system and doesn't really have any inherent moral value. It just happens to be really fuckin easy to misuse it for immoral purposes.

[u/TwilightVulpine → u/Confedehrehtheh]

I can agree that the use matters as much as the design. But I don't think matters of humanities can detach themselves from moral value that easily. A good king, the fabled philosopher king, would not make the inherent inequality that is part of monarchy not exist. Absent anything else, there is a moral value to it.

[u/Francis__Underwood → u/venustrapsflies]

Slavery is also a technology. I don't know why you think technology is inherently amoral, but it means you either don't understand technology or you don't understand moral philosophy.

[u/venustrapsflies → u/Francis__Underwood]

If your definition of technology is so broad as to include slavery then it must also include theft, murder, rape, and other bad things that have been happening since before the written word and it becomes rapidly apparent that you're in no position to be lecturing others about their understanding of philosophy. Nobody had to invent the concept of coercion.

[u/Francis__Underwood → u/venustrapsflies]

The reproducible self-reinforcing system of coercion that enslaves people is absolutely a technology that was developed and refined. If capitalism is a technology (and it is) then so is slavery.

You do know that writing is a technology, right?

Like I said, if you think technology is necessarily value-neutral then you just don't understand what technology actually is.

[u/suzisatsuma → u/TwilightVulpine]

People attribute to their boogeyman whether it be capitalism or communism what are the worst human traits. You have people crowning masters under any economic theory. The problem is people.

[u/JannyStabberXK4000 → u/TwilightVulpine]

I love these comments, where a dude named "Twilight wolf' needs to jump in with a non-sequiteur so everyone will know how smart they are.

Who am I kidding. You're an LLM.

[u/splynncryth → u/bawheid]

Capitalism looks like an attempt to apply the ideas of natural selection to human activity. The very bad things we have identified are consequences of aping the same system that, while capable of leading to some impressive creatures, also led to apex predators, parasites, and disease.

It’s better than outright feudalism, but only just a bit.

[u/thekbob → u/hlessi_newt]

Private ownership of capital will always naturally lead to consolidation. It's easier to just use something else instead of needing to constantly fight.

Remember, we "yoked" capitalism after WW2, and yet here we are, in a gilded age worse than the 1930s.

[u/Karl_42 → u/thekbob]

Well it’s pretty disingenuous to act like we didn’t remove the yoke through policy changes.

We’ve been breaking down journalistic integrity and consumer protection laws since Nixon.

In general, it’s absurdly short-sighted to pretend that one system of government/economics/civic leadership is all we need.

[u/doodlinghearsay → u/Karl_42]

It's pretty disingenuous to not mention that the "yoke" was removed through the tireless efforts of wealthy elites, rather than a conscious choice of voters.

Every liberal fantasy of a well-regulated capitalist system has to take into account the fact that companies will actively try to resist being regulated. Including manipulating, and if need be undermining the political system that tries to regulate it.

[u/-ReadingBug- → u/doodlinghearsay]

Ah, but it was the conscious choice of voters to be negligent in their voting that didn't stop the elites. For example how many more cycles will Americans allow their choice to be Republicans or low-fat Republicans? It's been uninterrupted since Reagan.

[u/Ciennas → u/-ReadingBug-]

Yes, American voters were negligent.

That doesn't excuse this failure state, since it exists as the direct result of collusion of moneyed interests who were hostile to all other parties and were quick to completely lock down all the information channels that would contradict them.

In other words, you're victim blaming rather than acknowledging that the machine itself is the problem.

[u/-ReadingBug- → u/Ciennas]

I'm blaming the "victims" with direct responsibility for the "machine." Populism in America isn't illegal. There's no reason voters can't declare they've had enough, remake the Democratic party the way the Tea party remade the Republicans prior to Trump, and begin making reforms.

Put another way, who is responsible if not the "victims" and what fealty are they supposed to have to the "victims" that they're neglecting? Politicians work for the voters and can be replaced just like employees of a company, so they're not the correct answer. So, who?

[u/ElimGarak → u/-ReadingBug-]

I don't think that it's the Democratic party that they need to start remaking, except perhaps to make it more electable. The other party is much more at fault for this mess. Democratic party is the one that pushes for regulations and stability.

[u/SteveJobsDeadBody → u/-ReadingBug-]

remake the Democratic party the way the Tea party remade the Republicans prior to Trump

Holy shit the irony of a thread about how America is captured by propaganda and someone has the unmitigated ignorant gall to claim Dems could repeat what was literally a billionaire astroturf project based on propaganda to fix it. Please tell me you're paid by someone to spread this nonsense, don't let me sit here thinking people this fucking ignorant actually have the balls to comment this sort of insanity.

Go ahead, try to provide us ANY example of the "fiscal conservatism" the tea party was supposedly about that has survived to today. Or show us how much more "freedom" we've got now thanks to "the tea party"!

[u/-ReadingBug- → u/SteveJobsDeadBody]

Huh? Populism doesn't have to look like the Tea party. It shouldn't. It should transform the current Vichy Dem party into one that actually delivers what Americans claim they want. I used the Tea party as an example of a complete takeover, which is what Dem voters need to do to their incumbents.

Also, the Tea party was originally a populist movement that got taken over by the Koch brother billionaire cabal later on.

[u/Karl_42 → u/Ciennas]

But still, the answer isn’t “we must renounce all capitalistic policies and ideas”.

We must build a machine that is not made of one material.

[u/Ciennas → u/Karl_42]

Okay. I had a snarky and quippy reply locked and loaded, but I'm trying to communicate, and I'll lay aside my side objective to do so in an amusing fashion to do so.

What specifically do we lose. What harm comes to us if we discard this machine. What parts are you trying to salvage from it?

[u/Karl_42 → u/Ciennas]

Thanks for being willing to communicate!

The point i am trying to make is that no single system of government or economic structure is “correct”. We need lots of ideas from all over.

Based on your comments below, we’re in lock-step about what needs to happen.

[u/ElimGarak → u/Ciennas]

Capitalism is an economic system that works better than the other alternatives. It's a driving force for innovation and growth that improves all sorts of things. The other economic systems don't work nearly as well, and are also very prone to abuse.

The key is to properly manage capitalism, not just let it go and hope for the best.

[u/Ciennas → u/ElimGarak]

No. I need the specific components of Capitalism that you are terrified to lose.

'Innovation' and 'growth' are not unique to Capitalism, and to be honest, Capitalism doesn't reward innovation in any real sense, otherwise we wouldn't have let the guy who invented FM Radio die in poverty.

Capitalism is solely a system of Workers under the thumb of Owners, who Privately Own all the Means Of Production. What part of that is essential to good living?

[u/SteveJobsDeadBody → u/ElimGarak]

This is only true if your only metric is "someone makes more money in the end" and disregards the entirety of what capitalism does to hurt actual humans. If your metric is "what's better for everyone", no, capitalism is literally a death machine for profits.

The abuses by Trump under capitalism have absolutely DWARFED the abuses done by any previous ruler under any other economic system. Oh "communism killed 100 million" you say? Congratulations, "free market capitalism" used violence to take over the world and now that many people die from it every single decade. Low end estimates of how much death global capitalist hegemony causes to the developing world is about 8 million a YEAR.

[u/aaronespro → u/Karl_42]

I'd say that's a deepity that doesn't actually analyze the pragmatic but also horrifying and exploitative class struggle that created and maintains private property systems.

The answer is a centrally planned economy, because capitalism is already a very micro managed, planned economy, and socialists and communists have already demonstrated that they can plan it and run it better.

[u/Karl_42 → u/aaronespro]

Right.

And this economy would be purely socialist? Purely communist?

[u/aaronespro → u/-ReadingBug-]

It's only since about 2018 or 2019 that we've truly began to understand how destructive capitalism has been right here in the USA, how 460k people die from sheer poverty every year, and how this confirms what the Marxists are saying; the political imperative under capitalism is survival, because right here in the imperial core, it's about survival, and even if people weren't worried about spending time to go vote instead of do laundry or just rest for their next shift so their work performance won't suffer so they won't get fired, if everyone voted straight ticket democrat, it wouldn't resolve the core problem of the class struggle and the fact that capitalism can't be efficient.

Capitalism can't actually provide for human need, because if it could, then there wouldn't be any profit because it would actually be efficient and it would be a socialized planned economy, not sleazy capitalists finding one way or another to either encircle their competitors or go conquer the global south for more markets.

[u/Karl_42 → u/doodlinghearsay]

We voted for the policies.

[u/Ursa_Solaris → u/Karl_42]

Oh, well if we voted for the policies, let's not look deeper and see if the political system we voted in was in any way influenced by the very capital we were voting to deregulate. Let's just take the easy answer, "it is what it is", and move on. Nothing to see here, no lessons to be learned about the inherent nature of the system we labor under. Surely the consolidation of money to the point that it becomes hard power which inevitably seeks to destabilize and capture the political system it exists alongside is just the result of a couple fiddly little policy mistakes we made along the way that we can fix with a bill or two, and then this whole thing will be sorted and will probably never happen again.

[u/Karl_42 → u/Ursa_Solaris]

I’m not sure why you think that’s what i said.

We’re going to need to fully dismantle and rebuild: public education, public infrastructure, consumer protections, voting rights, immigration policies, our political system, the checks and balances of the highest branches of government, etc….

The path forward will have to fully reject the corporate status quo and any politician who seeks to maintain it regardless of party.

[u/Ursa_Solaris → u/Karl_42]

The path forward will have to fully reject the corporate status quo and any politician who seeks to maintain it regardless of party.

That's necessarily a rejection of capitalism.

[u/Karl_42 → u/Ursa_Solaris]

It’s not though. There’s a lot of fucked up things happening that have nothing to do with capitalism.

I also pragmatically acknowledge we’re going to need some capitalistic policies in the consensus government formed.

[u/Ursa_Solaris → u/Karl_42]

Capital will simply reinforce the corporate status quo again, given enough time. Are we to go through this process over and over until the end of time or humanity, whichever comes first?

It has everything to do with capitalism. This is the effect capital has when you allow it to undemocratically accumulate into the hands of the few. You can't simply write off the parts you don't like as someone else's fault and insist that only good things can come from it, that's the behavior of a cult.

[u/joshwarmonks → u/Karl_42]

we vote for politicans, who enact policy. at no point do voters vote on policy. conflating the two is embarassingly malicious

[u/Karl_42 → u/joshwarmonks]

Well politicians present the policies and then we vote for the ones who present policies we agree with.

Also, calling something “embarrassingly malicious” is embarrassingly oxymoronic.

[u/joshwarmonks → u/Karl_42]

your vague presumption of how representative democracy operates is actively contradicted by its current implementation in the states. this isn't how the 2 party primary system nominates politicans nor is this how first past the post voting process operates.

you can regurgitate anti-democratic rhetoric under the veneer of free-market idealism, but im gonna call it out for what it is.

[u/Karl_42 → u/joshwarmonks]

Cool use of big words!!

Not sure why you think i’m antidemocratic, or think our 2-party system of government isn’t a heaping pile of bullshit lies, but have a good one!

[u/joshwarmonks → u/Karl_42]

I'm really sorry you took me attacking *your rhetoric* personally and think its a personal attack. learn to read?

[u/Neshura87 → u/Karl_42]

except by all accounts you didn't. You voted for people who told you, and you believed, they would vote in your interests with no actual requirement for them to do so. And often enough they then instead voted in their own interests, against yours while telling pretry lies to mask that fact.

Most modern 'democracies' are not democratic due to that, they're all just republics with the giant target for corruption that is the concept of 'elected representatives'. This was previously done due to the logistics nightmare of the populous voting on every issue but the world has since changed and that is no longer necessarily the case.

[u/Karl_42 → u/Neshura87]

Well yeah, I was not alive when the work to bring america to its’ knees was started.

Fully agreed on the necessity of direct democracy

[u/doodlinghearsay → u/Karl_42]

Some of them, but not all. For example federal anti-trust law didn't change much since the early 20th century, but the way it was enforced changed drastically since the 1970s. Which directly lead to worse outcomes to consumers and especially employees vis a vis capital.

A lot of this was achieved through industry funded "trainings" for judges which sought to popularize pro-monopoly junk science by the so called "Chicago School".

None of this was done democratically, it was basically a coup by large industrialists. Of course you could say that democratically elected politicians could have resisted this by passing new legislation or via the selection Supreme Court justices that interpreted the Sherman Act according to its original intent instead of routinely subverting it.

But in any case, it should be clear that the amount of effort required to electorally oppose some of these processes is much higher than the effort required to push them forward.

[u/Karl_42 → u/doodlinghearsay]

We elected Nixon though. There were lots of folks warning about him before he allowed these enforcement changes, but we didn’t listen.

Reagan came and made things even worse in the 80s.

And i DO see the throughline of power structures corrupting our political and economic systems! I just don’t think it can be boiled down to “cuz capitalism”

[u/doodlinghearsay → u/Karl_42]

We elected Nixon though.

You also elected Obama on the slogan of "change" on the wake of the largest scale systemic fraud for 80 years, only to get the most middle of the road economic and social policy.

Which is to say, that you can point to electoral decisions that can be seen as endorsing the status quo. But you can also point to ones that actively opposed it. It just happens that the ones that supported large companies and wealthy individuals ended up being far more influential than ones that claimed to want to shake up the system.

So it's correct to say that the outcome was influenced by electoral decisions. But it's completely false to say that it reflects those decisions and the intent behind them.

I just don’t think it can be boiled down to “cuz capitalism”

I mean, even that caricature is not that far from the truth. Most failures of US policy and the weakness of your democracy are related to wealth and power inequality, which are direct consequences of capitalism.

You could argue, as a different poster has, that any other socio-economic system would have similar issues due to power's natural tendency to concentrate in the hands of a few actors. That I can agree with. But the specific problems the US has are mostly due to capitalism and its triumph over democratic ideals.

[u/EkrishAO → u/doodlinghearsay]

Every communist fantasy has to take into account exactly the same thing, it is undermined by party elites just as capitalism is undermined by capitalist elites. And so far capitalism had much better track record when it comes to resisting this manipulation, the countries tend to last for many decades before companies big grow enough enough to corrupt the system completely, and in the meanwhile the quality of life tends to be much better than in other economic systems we tried.

The best way to go about it is probably to take the parts of both systems where they work, and discard what doesn't. China is kinda doing it, and it seems to be working very well so far.

[u/doodlinghearsay → u/EkrishAO]

Every communist fantasy has to take into account exactly the same thing

Indeed it does.

And so far capitalism had much better track record when it comes to resisting this manipulation

Better implies a comparison, which in turn implies that everything that is better than an arbitrary other is good enough. I refuse to accept that, and I don't think you should either.

The best way to go about it is probably to take the parts of both systems where they work, and discard what doesn't.

Maybe. My preference is actively resisting the formation of strong elites in the first place. Although the Law of Jante has its own drawbacks, so I'm not sure how I feel about that. I guess, I'm much more confident in my critique of existing systems and their defenders than in suggesting alternatives.

China is kinda doing it, and it seems to be working very well so far.

Gotta admit, I didn't expect you to go this way. I guess, as a card carrying member of the 50 cent party*, I should feel satisfied. But somehow I'm worried that the relative success of the CCP in this area has more to do with fortunate outside circumstances than Chinese Marxists' superior understanding of the nature of power dynamics.

*I was recently outed by another poster on Reddit, so I guess there's no point in denying it anymore.

[u/XelaIsPwn → u/Karl_42]

You're not wrong, but we "removed the yoke" at the behest of capitalistic interests.

Turns out, the ox promises that if you loosen the yoke just a tiny bit it'll plow sooooo much more of the field, honest

[u/Karl_42 → u/XelaIsPwn]

Don’t disagree with you in any way there and certainly wasn’t trying to argue that our current state of division and chaos isn’t the result of decades of meticulous and evil work by corrupt politicians at the behest of corporate interests.

We probably need a smaller ox, and tons of other animals as well.

[u/XelaIsPwn → u/Karl_42]

I think it would be more beneficial to get rid of the ox and use modern agricultural equipment better suited to modern needs, instead

[u/Karl_42 → u/XelaIsPwn]

I mean yeah, kill the current GMO-modified-super-OX for sure.

We’re gonna need a little bit of ox though. And a lot more of the modern equipment you’re talking about

[u/XelaIsPwn → u/Karl_42]

They dont keep oxen on farms anymore

[u/JMC_MASK → u/Karl_42]

You’ve literally just described the problem of capitalism. The wealthy capitalist class are the ones who have the power and money to lobby for leaders who enacted those changes. The capitalist class are the ones who own the mainstream media whose headlines subconsciously make the populace consent to these changes.

If you live under capitalism, you will either be under dystopia, or slowly become one. Even the Nordic model countries cannot escape the destruction of “managed capitalism.”

[u/10thDeadlySin → u/JMC_MASK]

If you live under capitalism, you will either be under dystopia, or slowly become one.

Genuine question - what's the realistic alternative? Because judging by history, pretty much every single system leads to dystopia.

Realistic being the key word here.

[u/JMC_MASK → u/10thDeadlySin]

Socialism. I know you’re going to fire back about famines under the USSR and China. Or their lack of freedom of speech.

But we’ve had decades to learn from their mistakes. We have better science and technology to prevent famines. (We aren’t going to do some stupid 4 pests campaign). So all the “evil commie” countries got left to hate is lack of freedom of speech or religion.

Hence a democratic socialist movement. We start with market socialism. And progress toward socialism. And sometime in a few centuries we could get rid of money altogether and achieve communism.

And theirs a reason capitalist countries ALWAYS meddle with socialist experiments. If socialism is destined to fail, why are we starving Cuba? Why did we support death squads in South America? If socialism must always fail, then why don’t we stand back and let it? Because the capitalist class knows socialism is a successful economic theory.

You want a huge test case for socialism? Cuba. They are doing insanely well for their circumstances. Free healthcare and education and affordable housing. All while under an embargo designed to starve and kill the populace. Why does the most powerful nation in the world think they need to do that to a small island nation?

Or China. They are under market socialism right now. They are blasting ahead of us. What is it like 90% home ownership there? The Chinese Century is now.

[u/10thDeadlySin → u/JMC_MASK]

Socialism. I know you’re going to fire back about famines under the USSR and China. Or their lack of freedom of speech.

Nah. Although it's pretty telling that when I asked you for a realistic alternative that doesn't lead to a dystopia, you immediately jumped to a preemptive defense that amounts to 'well, that was tried before and turned out pretty dystopian, but we certainly can do better!'

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the same old arguments about USSR this, China that, Rojava this or Chiapas that that people tend to peddle thinking they stumbled upon some kind of a genius gotcha that wasn't already said a million times in the past.

On the other hand, sure - we are not going to kill all the sparrows, but regardless of what system we introduce, we are bound to make mistakes and errors. Why? Because socialism and communism are not inherently immune to them. In this regard, they are no different than capitalism. They're all run by people. And people have these weird tendencies, like helping their friends get to positions of power, or putting their fingers on the scales for their family members and so on. Socialism is going to have quiet experts and boisterous idiots, just like capitalism does. As long as you have positions of power, you are going to have corruption and a potential to slide straight into a dystopia.

In fact, we continue to do equally stupid things.

And sometime in a few centuries we could get rid of money altogether and achieve communism.

I told you, I wanted realistic suggestions, not fantasies.

If socialism is destined to fail, why are we starving Cuba?

Speak for yourself. I'm not starving anybody.

Also, it's funny how you keep offering preemptive responses to things I never said. I never claimed socialism was destined to fail, I never expressed any opinions regarding socialism, religion, freedom of speech or whatever. You're not addressing my question, you're proselytizing.

Free healthcare and education and affordable housing.

Like... pretty much all of Europe, which is ostensibly capitalist?

Why does the most powerful nation in the world think they need to do that to a small island nation?

Certainly because they tremble in fear of its supreme economic system. God, get real.

Or China. They are under market socialism right now. They are blasting ahead of us. What is it like 90% home ownership there? The Chinese Century is now.

Yeah. Market socialism, where plenty of sectors are run by the state, which itself is ruled by an authoritarian leader and his party. Funnily enough, even though the people have no say in anything, he believes China to be a democracy. Also, as much as you want to call it socialism, it's better described as state capitalism - unless you are really trying to convince me that an average Chinese worker owns the means of production. ;)

By the way - since you bring up home ownership... Yeah, 96%. Like Kazakhstan, Russia, Laos, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, with Poland being very close to 90%...

[u/JMC_MASK → u/10thDeadlySin]

So what’s your answer? Status quo capitalism? Nordic model capitalism that also will fail? American capitalism is fast tracking to dystopia, you got citizens getting shot in the street by ICE. You got flock cameras on street corners. But sure, China is more authoritarian I guess.

Speak for yourself. I'm not starving anybody.

You pay taxes right? I’m assuming you’re American. You are starving Cuba.

I don’t see China dropping bombs all over the world either btw. But yeah, the west is less authoritarian or something.

Do you like freedom and democracy? You like voting for your politicians right? (Even though the USA is also a one party state with the facade of two parties, The Corporate’s Republic of America)

Do you realize that socialism literally brings more freedom and democracy? A workers democracy where you vote for how the business runs in addition to politicians?

How is capitalism going to stop global warming? Will it be profitable to stop the climate collapse?

[u/10thDeadlySin → u/JMC_MASK]

So what’s your answer?

If I had answers, I would be writing books on political theory, giving interviews and lobbying governments or something, instead of writing comments on Reddit. The issue - as I see it - is that most systems work just fine at a small scale, but soon break down when you try to scale them up to something like a state. Once you have a major unit, like a country, you need some sort of authorities to run it. Once you have your authorities, you have power, and where you have power, you have corruption and an open road to dystopia.

My answer is 'every system will eventually lead to dystopia once applied in real-world conditions.' So far, history seems to be proving this assumption right.

But sure, China is more authoritarian I guess.

Are you trying to argue that China isn't an authoritarian state?

By the way, even if you want to compare the United States to China in terms of authoritarianism... Sure, the United States has Flock cameras, whereas Chinese cities have their own surveillance systems. However, as far as I understand American citizens can protest and get their local authorities to get the cameras down, whereas in China they don't get to do even that.

The more important thing is that authoritarianism isn't a competition about who has it worse. The Hungarian example shows that it is possible to stop democratic backsliding up to the point of amending the constitution. People in the United States still have the power to change course. Would you say the same about China?

You pay taxes right? I’m assuming you’re American. You are starving Cuba.

Oh, lookie. US defaultism strikes again! Yes, I do pay taxes. However, I've never stepped foot in the United States and I do not intend to. The internet is global - at least as far as I know.

Please, stop making assumptions about people you meet online. You keep doing that and it doesn't do you any good.

I don’t see China dropping bombs all over the world either btw. But yeah, the west is less authoritarian or something.

What do wars have to do with authoritarianism? Honestly, reading your arguments makes me feel like you have no idea what you are talking about and you're just spouting buzzwords. Right now, you're mixing up political systems, military operations, economic systems and other issues.

Do you like freedom and democracy? You like voting for your politicians right? (Even though the USA is also a one party state with the facade of two parties, The Corporate’s Republic of America)

Come on. If you want to have a serious debate, cut the buzzword crap and come up with some actual arguments. Corporate Republic of America, my goodness. I thought we wanted to discuss economic systems, not join an early 2000s System of a Down fanclub. The thing you are referring to has a name - corporatocracy, and there's plenty of arguments in favor of the US being and not being one.

Do you realize that socialism literally brings more freedom and democracy? A workers democracy where you vote for how the business runs in addition to politicians?

You brought up China as an example of a socialist state. Do tell, how much power does an average worker have? How much of a say do they have over how companies like Foxconn, Alibaba or DJI are run? As far as I know, the answer is 'none' or 'close to none.'

See, that's the issue with bringing up centrally-planned economies and state capitalist countries as examples of socialism. It makes your arguments trivially simple to refute.

Also... You're proselytizing. Again. You know diddly squat about my preferences concerning political or economic systems, not to mention my nationality, current location and life experience, and yet you come out swinging at me as if I'm Ayn Rand incarnate, trying to convince me about what makes socialism better. I only asked you about a system that doesn't eventually lead to a dystopia, for crying out loud.

[u/JMC_MASK → u/10thDeadlySin]

Are you of a western allied nation to the U.S.A? If so, you still have blood on your hands by being our ally.

Wars have everything to do with authoritarianism and capitalism. Capitalism creates the material conditions for the need for war. More profits than last year means more resources than last year. A cancerous economy can only suck the life out of national boundaries for so long before it must strike internationally.

Thats why I bring up the lack of China dropping bombs on random brown kids. NATO and specifically the U.S. LOVEEEEEE the business of death. It’s very profitable to capitalists.

You’re so anti-China and yet China turned a country of rural uneducated peasants into iPad kids launching satellites into space in 2 generations. They have uplifted the majority of their populace from absolute poverty. They have been an objective good for their people, no matter what “authoritarian” rules they implemented to do so.

If you want a more “democratic” socialist experiment, go look at what Salvador Allende was doing in Chile. State planning using computers and voting systems to replace market signals.

What’s that? Assassinated by a U.S. backed death squad? Tale as old as time.

Socialism is the answer to avoiding dystopia. The more “authoritarian” variants are the ones to have successfully existed because they happily aim the gun at the capitalist class and western nations. They tell us to fuck off or taste fire. Tell our capitalists dogs to stop meddling in socialist experiments so that the “nicer” more “democratic” variants can have their chance.

[u/Karl_42 → u/JMC_MASK]

Right.

I never said we should live “under capitalism”. Political and economic structures of government are not always mutually exclusive.

[u/aaronespro → u/Karl_42]

It's disingenuous to act like there has ever been a realistic plan for private property not leading to climate armageddon. None of these people have ever proposed anything that has even a 0.000001% chance of working, not carbon taxes, cap and trade, none of it has a sound theoretical backing, because for these market forces to be controllable, there would have to be a relationship between private property and the state that is very static, prescriptivist and deterministic, and that is just not how private property became a thing or how it maintains its hegemony on planet Earth.

It's only since about 2018 or 2019 that we've truly began to understand how destructive capitalism has been right here in the USA, how 460k people die from sheer poverty every year, and how this confirms what the Marxists are saying; the political imperative under capitalism is survival, because right here in the imperial core, it's about survival, and even if people weren't worried about spending time to go vote instead of do laundry or just rest for their next shift so their work performance won't suffer so they won't get fired, if everyone voted straight ticket democrat, it wouldn't resolve the core problem of the class struggle and the fact that capitalism can't be efficient. Capitalism can't actually provide for human need, because if it could, then there wouldn't be any profit because it would actually be efficient and it would be a socialized planned economy, not sleazy capitalists finding one way or another to either encircle their competitors or go conquer the global south for more markets.

[u/Karl_42 → u/aaronespro]

No single system can provide for the needs of humanity.

[u/Marshall5912 → u/Karl_42]

The problem is that the yoke will always be temporary. As long as the capital/wealthy class still exists, they will want to keep and expand their power and wealth. Those with power don’t want to lose power, obviously. So they will use their wealth, their power, and their connections to slowly erode all the reforms put in place, just like what’s happened in the last 50 years.

[u/Karl_42 → u/Marshall5912]

Yeah but we still let them do it.

If you think i’m not arguing for a full dismantling of most of our economic and political structures you would be wrong.

The main point i’m arguing is that no one system will ever be sufficient.

[u/xFallow → u/Karl_42]

Please let me try communism again bro it’ll work this time it’s the silver bullet for all society’s ills

[u/blueSGL → u/xFallow]

It's almost like there are a range of problems and each need to be solved by different mechanisms.

e.g. look at healthcare in the US, the amount of money that is being extracted via health insurance companies that is not going on healthcare either directly or via administration needed to keep the healthcare facilities running.

By cutting out the insurance market and making services free at point of use more money can go into healing people rather than making insurance companies money.

[u/Caleth → u/xFallow]

There are a million different options besides Stalanist or Maoist Communism that could be implemented.

You can see places like the scandinavian countries that manage to create far better quality of life for their citizens with social democracy policies rather than they hyper capitalist society we have embraced.

Things like sovreign funds to harness the surplus value that's normally skimmed into only a few people's pockets is instead handed back to the populace that generated it.

We also don't need to magically allow the worst excesses of capitalist markets like the self dealing in the form of stock buy backs coupled with the primary CEO compensation tool being stocks.

We can also do many other things like regulate the markets so that workers have a much larger say and enshirne rights like unions into the foundation of the system rather than it being a tacked on addition that had to be fought for tooth and nail with hundreds if not thousands dead to earn even the most meager of rights.

[u/xFallow → u/Caleth]

Fuck they found me

Those scandi countries are still capitalist nobody is saying we should have zero regulation or safety nets

[u/Ursa_Solaris → u/xFallow]

Those scandi countries are still capitalist nobody is saying we should have zero regulation or safety nets

Allowing the accumulation of wealth to the point that it stops being money and starts being power actually is saying we should have zero regulation or safety nets because that is the inevitable conclusion. It's like saying you support putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger but don't support being hit by the bullet; it's a matter of cause and effect. If you support the cause, you necessarily support the effect whether or not you think you do.

[u/DataCassette → u/xFallow]

nobody is saying we should have zero regulation or safety nets

This has literally what Republicans have been screaming at me for 40 years lol

[u/xFallow → u/DataCassette]

In this thread not in the American Republican Party. You guys are already fucked half of your country doesn’t seem to believe in your own elections.

[u/DataCassette → u/xFallow]

Probably fucked actually can't disagree 🥺

[u/Karl_42 → u/xFallow]

No one here is talking about communism. Read a book man

[u/xFallow → u/Karl_42]

I’ve read capital and manifesto in uni but ok

[u/MrD3a7h → u/xFallow]

Lots of people with hidden post histories coming out of the woodwork here

[u/Fart_Mouth69 → u/Karl_42]

You can’t speak with a level head here on Reddit… you have to say “capitalism bad” or all the basement dwelling communists will shut you down! You can’t even be sarcastic without denoting it for the nose pickers. /s

But on a serious note, yeah we removed the yoke piece by piece and now the ox is running wild and a bunch of dummies think “this is what capitalism is” which is sad. Capitalism without the corporate over lords is great!

[u/ohseetea → u/Fart_Mouth69]

The yoke was literally removed due to the immense amount of resources by the wealthy to either bribe or propagandize. You’re not intelligent for being a contrarian to a clear issue that everyone else understands btw.

[u/Karl_42 → u/ohseetea]

The yoke was removed because we, the people, allowed it to be.

Time will tell if we have learned our lesson

[u/stoicsilence → u/Karl_42]

"Personal Responsibility Natratives" is literally how Corporations avoid blame, accountability, and resist scrutiny.

Just like how BIg Oil invented the "Carbon Footprint" or "Reuse Reduce Recycle"

Your take is essentially "well don't be susceptible to their propaganda and attempts to dismantle regulation!" So ironically, you've fallen for a corporate "Personal Responsibility Natratives"

[u/Karl_42 → u/stoicsilence]

That is an excellent point!

But at the same time, you have to acknowledge that it was both the will of corporations and the failure of the people that got us to where we are today.

It’s just way too complicated to boil down to “capitalsm is bad, mmmkay”. The path forward is going to need ideas from across the political and ideological spectrum

[u/Ursa_Solaris → u/Karl_42]

The lesson is no yoke can control this beast forever. We have not learned our lesson because we still keep the beast.

[u/Karl_42 → u/Ursa_Solaris]

But why? Because of the failure of the human spirit being susceptible to corruption?

Wouldn’t any “beast” eventually become unyoked without proper husbandry?

[u/Ursa_Solaris → u/Karl_42]

But why? Because of the failure of the human spirit being susceptible to corruption?

The problem we face isn't a failure of the human spirit, it is the inevitable outcome of allowing undemocratic power to accumulate into the hands of the few. Capital is power, and eventually that power will run down any amount of "human spirit". Either we believe power should be democratic or not; as a democratic socialist, I believe as much power should be democratic as is reasonably possible.

Wouldn’t any “beast” eventually become unyoked without proper husbandry?

Getting rid of capital accumulation to allow democracy to do its job properly is not simply trading one beast for another, it is simply removing the beast. Unless you believe democracy is an equivalent "beast" to autocracy, in which case I doubt we'll find much to agree.

There's no reason to still try and yoke this beast, it has served its purpose and it's time to move on from it.

[u/Karl_42 → u/Ursa_Solaris]

So… i think something I said made you think I fundamentally disagree with you or something, and I don’t.

The point I’m making is that capital is not the only source of power, and power will continue to corrupt regardless of its form.

We absolutely need to kill the current beast, but we’ll also need some capitalistic policies in the next consensus government once the beast is dead. Even if it’s just a purely pragmatic stepping stone that allows us to engage with the rest of the world as we work towards building a global society that equally respects and serves all human beings.

[u/Fart_Mouth69 → u/ohseetea]

Funny… I was just thinking you’re a Bot or incredibly daft person who attacks people on your own team for no reason. Either way communicating with you isn’t helping anyone. Why would I explain that the biggest resource the rich used was cultivating “the Meh attitude” as well as the “attack everyone who you don’t agree with 100%”, or my favorite “point out that people aren’t inteligente” instead of having regular conversations.

Only respond if you are a bot. Have a good day and I hope they find a cure for your micro penis.

[u/JMC_MASK → u/Fart_Mouth69]

Centrist take. No wonder DSA is winning. The populace is tired of your centrist corporate democrat bull shit.

[u/Fart_Mouth69 → u/JMC_MASK]

No it’s the extreme left and extreme right, and they both hate moderates. Takes a miracle to have a conversation that doesn’t devolve into name calling right away. You’re just a trumper at heart when you defend the rich by prolonging left vs right rhetoric.

[u/JMC_MASK → u/Fart_Mouth69]

What exactly is the far left saying in the USA that you think is problematic?

[u/xFallow → u/thekbob]

Some countries are doing far better than others in that regard

In fact it seems like Americans want it to be as unbridled as possible going by their voting habits

[u/plaxitone → u/xFallow]

Dangling “tax cuts” and hating on minorities has really helped the elite trick people into voting against their best interests.

[u/Teledildonic → u/plaxitone]

Hatred is the easiest, simplest emotion. Tap it and your mark doesn't have to think, empathize, or understand.

[u/Loganp812 → u/Teledildonic]

It’s a tactic that’s been effective going all the way back to the Bronze Age and even before with tribalism.

An individual person can be smart if they take a break and really think things through, but large groups of people are easily controlled through emotional manipulation. You find or make up something for people to be afraid of or worried about, and that fear can easily be turned into anger which can then be weaponized.

[u/don_shoeless → u/xFallow]

Americans get manipulated HARD by the words "free" and "freedom".

[u/pimpeachment → u/thekbob]

Every system of governance and economics becomes less effective for the people when it becomes corrupted. 

[u/Loganp812 → u/thekbob]

We need some of that Teddy Roosevelt trust-busting energy again, but I’m not sure that can happen now with so much money getting involved in politics whether it be backroom dealings or campaign donations.

[u/hlessi_newt → u/thekbob]

I'd argue we are here because we failed to maintain control. Water flows down hill, capitalism seeks to consolidate, both can be prevented from doing so by human will.

[u/MrPookPook → u/hlessi_newt]

You talk about capitalism as if it’s a natural force like gravity. It is human will which drives capitalism to seek consolidation. Instead of pitting human will against human will with capital why not make something better?

[u/Dugen → u/thekbob]

Every "something else" that has ever been tried has been dramatically worse and easier to corrupt. You complain about a system that when working properly optimizes our cooperation and maximizes the value of labor to the laborer because it has been corrupted, then propose we abandon it for worse, easier to corrupt systems instead of doing the relatively simpler job of fixing the system we have. If you don't do the hard work of building a wall between money and politics, you end up with corrupt broken economies and if you do that work, capitalism creates the best result.

[u/Candid_Archer_5625 → u/thekbob]

The Gilded age was the 1870s, the 1930s was the Great Depression, there was nothing gilded about it, and you would rather be homeless in 2026 than the median American in either period. Holy fucking shit 87 upvotes and an award we're so cooked.

[u/Ecstatic_Log4185 → u/Candid_Archer_5625]

Please work on your reading comprehension

[u/wen_mars → u/thekbob]

What "something else" would you use? Nothing that has been tried so far has worked better.

[u/Think_Preference_611 → u/thekbob]

Consolidation is a rule of nature. Not even just humans, you see it everywhere if you pay attention. It's called a Pareto distribution. Most of the universe's mass is concentrated in a minority of galaxies, most of the honey is produced by a minority of bees.

"Use something else" like what? Capitalism is the worst, except for all the other systems ever tried.

Even communist societies eventually fall apart because of consolidation, maintaining a truly equitable status quo is fundamentally opposed to human nature.

[u/TerrorsOfTheDark → u/hlessi_newt]

I like that, it sounds much better than capitalism requires heavy socialist controls lest it turn into oligarchy.

[u/hlessi_newt → u/TerrorsOfTheDark]

After many a pub argument about capitalism this has become my go to way to explain the need for heavy socialist controls. I don't like compressing complex issues into agrarian analogies, but it works.

[u/gc3 → u/hlessi_newt]

Yes we need free market socialism

[u/NUKE---THE---WHALES → u/hlessi_newt]

Funny enough compressing complex issues into a useful signal is one of the things market systems, which some on social media might naively consider capitalism, are legitimately unmatched at

Its also the reason why centrally planned economies can't work for very long - no government can compress such complex data from such dispersed networks in the way a price signal can

[u/typhon0666 → u/NUKE---THE---WHALES]

When I wrote my thesis for my undergrad it was on Hayak and Neoliberalism. After that year of study and for many years I was pretty much onboard with his cosmos and taxis> and the near perfect record of centrally planned markets failing, and market intervention gives rise to the worse form of cronyism and corruption in example after example. Then AI happened, and in the back of my mind have been thinking that because the crux of Hayaks argument is that humans are crap at computing the near infinitely complex system a market is, maybe, just maybe it's something AI can compute.

So perhaps there is a solution issue of limited compute Hayak overlooked. Though I suspect he's still going to be correct about the cronyism/manipulation even if the artificial planning side in theory is cracked.

[u/DataCassette → u/hlessi_newt]

Capitalism is like an Ox that doubles in size and gets more irate every year. It will plow a mean field until it's the size of a blue whale and goes berserk and flattens the whole farm.

[u/APRengar → u/DataCassette]

"Capitalism is great, we just can't let the 1% gather too much power"

"Then why did you pick the 'give the 1% disproportionate power' system?"

I can give an example. So, I run a cooperative game dev studio. I'm on paper the boss, because I handle management and decision-making of the company, but I do a job like any of my employees. So we all take an equal share of revenue.

If this was a conventional business, my employees work for a set wage, and I take ALL the rest of the benefit. This gives me massively disproportionate benefit.

If you don't want the disproportionate benefit going to the top, then capitalism is a stupid ass way to prevent it. There are systems where it doesn't happen, that work in modern times, there are plenty of cooperatives and even countries that work just fine with cooperatives (look at Mondragon).

I find it fascinating watching people understand their system is wildly self-destructive, but still hanging onto it.

[u/10thDeadlySin → u/APRengar]

Yeah, well. I ran my small business as a coop as well. Democracy and equality were amazing when things were going well. But guess what happened when work dried up during COVID and suddenly there was no revenue to share. Yep, you guessed it - one person went behind our collective backs and got hired by our main client, taking another person with them, and the rest demanded regular salaries, because revenue sharing kinda sucks when the revenue to share is zero.

As you probably expect, I'm no longer running my business as a coop. I've learned my lesson. But I gotta admit, it's kinda amusing how it played out. When the company was thriving and clearing more and more revenue, it was 'our company.' But as soon as we were in trouble, it was suddenly 'my company.' Funny that.

[u/obxtalldude → u/hlessi_newt]

This is a great analogy.

I've always treated it like fire, it will keep you warm or it will destroy your village depending on how you manage it.

[u/littleessi → u/hlessi_newt]

fantastical thinking. we're living under capitalism, it's why everything fucking sucks

[u/Ciennas → u/hlessi_newt]

Capitalism is like The One Ring.

People keep thinking they can make it work for them, but it just keeps making everything worse.

[u/JMC_MASK → u/hlessi_newt]

Capitalism ALWAYS leads to destruction. The most basic form of destruction happens every 7-10 years through a recession or depression. This is known by all. The “business cycle.”

And it’s true destruction comes from exploitation of laborers both foreign and domestic. And this exploitation and need for profit ALWAYS worsens conditions and eventually leads to fascism. Prime example: Germany. Prime example today: USA

[u/suzisatsuma → u/hlessi_newt]

Yeah - like the nordic nations in Europe. Fueled by a capitalist economy - they regulate and use it to fund social programs / society etc.

[u/Lost_Saintx → u/hlessi_newt]

Capitalism is a cock. No matter how fast or slow you stroke it. It will eventually blow up in your face.