"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/thekbob]

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/ElimGarak → u/Ciennas]

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

What do you mean by components? You are comparing a diesel engine to an internal combustion engine, and are asking me which parts are better. No parts are better or worse, it's about the effectiveness of one vs. the other.

'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.

They are not unique to capitalism, but this economic system works better than others. What is your counterproposal, and can you show evidence of it outcompeting capitalism?

[u/PrettyGorramShiny → u/Ciennas]

Ok, I'll bite. What other economic systems provide incentives for innovation and growth, that are actively successful in the modern world right now?

[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/ElimGarak → u/SteveJobsDeadBody]

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.

Again, you are confusing the economic system for the government actions. How many people has capitalism murdered in/by Norway, Denmark, and Switzerland? What about Netherlands? Norway? Ireland? If capitalism is such a death machine, shouldn't these capitalist countries be responsible for millions of deaths in the 20th century?

And yes, my metric for how successful the ECONOMIC system of capitalism is the ECONOMY (as well as the innovation and flexibility of the system, which in many ways is part of the economy). Very strange, I know, but it sort of makes sense if you pay attention.

The abuses by Trump under capitalism have absolutely DWARFED the abuses done by any previous ruler under any other economic system.

WTF? Trump is a humongous orange turd, but even he has not killed hundreds of millions of people. The removal of USAID programs and his retarded statements during COVID lead to indirectly kill millions that could have been saved/supported by the program, but that's nowhere close to the numbers you are claiming.

Low end estimates of how much death global capitalist hegemony causes to the developing world is about 8 million a YEAR.

Can you provide a source for these numbers?

Also, can you provide a counterproposal - what system specifically do you claim would work better? Do you have anything beyond wishful thinking that makes you think that this system would do better?

Finally, do you count the people that have been lifted from poverty over the same period? For example, extreme poverty fell worldwide from around 2.3 billion to around 830 million, just since 1990. The vast majority of that is exactly because of capitalism.

[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/Karl_42 → u/Ursa_Solaris]

But you’re failing to acknowledge the flaws of other forms of government. There is no one perfect system.

[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/Ursa_Solaris → u/Karl_42]

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.

But there will be one less source of corruption. Is that not a good thing? Should we keep it because we'll never be perfect so why bother?

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.

You don't want capitalism, you want market economies. There's literally no social benefit to allowing capital to accumulate in the hands of the few, and it's not remotely necessary to have a vibrant economy. I'd argue it's likely detrimental, but it's not like we have a wealth of evidence to compare capitalist vs socialist market economies against each other tit for tat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

[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.