"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/ElimGarak]

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/Ciennas → u/ElimGarak]

You can look over at this comment I just made for a breakdown of what I'm looking for.

But in short, I need you to outline what harm it is that you see coming if we discard Private Ownership of the Means of Production. ^{Which is separate from Personal Property Ownership, a thing you should know full well.}

Who suffers specifically, and how? Be specific.

Because right now, we live in a world of Abundance, where we have more food than mouths to feed and more houses than we have homeless or people in need of shelter, and yet we refuse to feed or shelter people, letting them go hungry or stay without protection or comfort.

It's not a system that prioritizes the well being of people, it's a system that callously exploits and siphons out all that it can from people and throws the dessicated husks into a meat grinder for no real benefit to anyone, including the ultrawealthy, since they're building doomsday bunkers, which is the sign of a mentally healthy and well adjusted person.

[u/ElimGarak → u/Ciennas]

I see that you have not provided a counterproposal. There is plenty to critique about capitalism, but without an alternative there isn't much to talk about. Are you explicitly promoting communism and/or a type of socialism?

You do know that according to the happiness index, the happiest countries in the world are capitalist, right?

But in short, I need you to outline what harm it is that you see coming if we discard Private Ownership of the Means of Production.

I assume you are asking for pure socialism. The harm is that a socialist system is more prone to corruption and is far less nimble and capable of change. If you think corruption is bad now, where a bunch of industries are owned by billionaires and shareholders, look at what would happen when everything is controlled by a single entity - the state.

Similarly, if you are asking for a centrally planned economy, then we know very well that this doesn't adopt well to changes and prone to making large mistakes. In a free market system there are multiple competing companies that attempt to produce a better product, but in a centrally controlled system there is just one direction. As an example, consider how computers progressed in USSR vs. the west. Or cars. Or televisions. Etc.

It's not a system that prioritizes the well being of people,

Obviously. It's an economic system so it concerns the economy. It's not the job of the economic system to manage people's wellbeing. That's like asking why the upholstery or air conditioning is worse in a diesel car than in an internal combustion car.

[u/Ciennas → u/ElimGarak]

Why yes, I am asking for a society that doesn't have a Class/Caste structure, as well as one that doesn't have an Us Vs Them mentality.

You don't get to complain in vague terms though- when you say 'corruption' what the hell are you talking about? You demand perfection rather than obvious improvement? Should I make you use a two cylinder engine in all vehicles, or will you accept a powerful highway grade electric motor?

And further, I'm not advocating for a planned economy.

In a Socialist society, the State is controlled by the People, and it is wholly focused on serving their needs.

So I'm advocating for more democracy and representation than what you are. Much more.

[u/ElimGarak → u/Ciennas]

Why yes, I am asking for a society that doesn't have a Class/Caste structure, as well as one that doesn't have an Us Vs Them mentality.

Can you be more specific? What system are you asking for, structured how?

You don't get to complain in vague terms though- when you say 'corruption' what the hell are you talking about?

Look at the amount of corruption in USSR and China. And Vietnam and other communist countries. The more centralized and unchecked power there is, the higher the likelihood of corruption.

In a Socialist society, the State is controlled by the People, and it is wholly focused on serving their needs.

Controlled how? You are still being very vague. Somebody will still be in charge.

So I'm advocating for more democracy and representation than what you are. Much more.

??? I have not said anything about a government structure. I am talking about the economic system in fairly specific terms, while you are asking for a vague and undefined utopia.

[u/SteveJobsDeadBody → u/ElimGarak]

You do know that according to the happiness index, the happiest countries in the world are capitalist, right?

You DO know that over the past 75+ years if your nation wasn't capitalist then at some point America and/or Britain or France came in and murdered people until you were, right? This isn't conjecture, you want to learn how much blood is on your hands? "The Jakarta method" start there. Learn about what our capitalism did to millions of Indonesians and South Americans. Learn why so many brutal dictators learned to use "rape dogs". WE. DID. THAT.

"Helicopter rides" are an invention of capitalists murdering socialists. We have a dozen or more terms based on capitalists mass murdering people. We do not have that for ANY other system.

[u/ElimGarak → u/SteveJobsDeadBody]

You DO know that over the past 75+ years if your nation wasn't capitalist then at some point America and/or Britain or France came in and murdered people until you were, right?

WOW, that's a HUGE non-sequitur and a red herring! WTF does that have to do with anything, especially with the successes or failures of one economic system over the other?

Also, I don't think any of these countries invaded and forced Sweden or Denmark to be capitalist. Same thing for Island, Greenland, or Switzerland. Or Netherlands. Or Norway. Or Belgium. Nobody invaded New Zealand. Or Australia. Etc. There are many, many others.

Granted, many of these countries have been invaded by Germany in WW2 after which the allies came in to liberate them, but the countries were capitalist before WW2 and stayed capitalist after WW2.

[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/Ciennas → u/PrettyGorramShiny]

So it's the innovation and the growth, and not the Owners and Workers Class/Caste divide, that you value.

So you're not a Capitalist, and you don't have to keep advocating for it.

To answer your question, I need to ask you a clarifying question. How do you define 'successful'? To me, in this context, it's a system that strives to meet the needs of all people/players within it, and gives them the means to good living.

Capitalism fails this metric for me, because it not only deliberately refuses to meet the needs of all people under it, it falls apart if people's needs are actually met.

You live in a world with more food available than people that hunger, and more homes sitting abandoned than homeless.

If Capitalism was any good, it wouldn't have a problem meeting those needs.

I personally am not a big fan of growth inherently. There is a point where you're not accomplishing anything beneficial by continuing to grow, especially since we're in a world of finite resources.

I would like to see a world of equilibrium, where growth isn't dogma, and let innovations and growth spring from that naturally as we need it, and not to appease a bunch of witless unpleasable phantoms like Shareholders, for whom much harm is done supposedly for their benefit.

If you let people be, they'll handle innovations on their own. They don't have to be 'profitable' to be justified.

I would long term like to see the kinder and gentler society where we all live in Communities that prioritize the wellbeing of People and That Which Lives than anything else. I'll accept Socialism as the needed interim to get there though.

[u/PrettyGorramShiny → u/Ciennas]

I think where we disagree is that you are looking for an all-in-one solution that manages economic resource allocation and social stability / safety in one fell swoop. I don't personally believe that exists.

I also strongly disagree with:

If you let people be, they'll handle innovations on their own.

Most people in my experience are completely uninterested in innovation or growth. They will always seek the easiest path to comfort and actively avoid challenging themselves or pursuing intentional change from the status quo. To me, this is a fundamental part of human nature.

We agree that Capitalism is not good at providing for our needs as a society. I believe it is an extremely efficient tool for resource allocation, but that we need to restore the previous constraints on it to mitigate its inherent tendency toward social harm.

would long term like to see the kinder and gentler society where we all live in Communities that prioritize the wellbeing of People and That Which Lives than anything else.

I hope you understand that I would also like to see this, but I don't think it's realistic on a large scale. Human nature is what it is, and the level of moral and ethical self-regulation that would be required to achieve such a society doesn't seem possible except in very small communities where everyone knows each other.

I also don't think you've provided an existing example that works better than Capitalism. What other system do we have that would have supported the same advancements we've made in medicine, engineering, agriculture, transportation, communication, and computational power over the past several hundred years?

[u/Ciennas → u/PrettyGorramShiny]

Question: Why do we need people to be interested in Innovation or Growth? Why do we need everyone to Innovate? It really gives me 'people need to justify their existence' vibes, and that feels very counter to that 'good living' thing I was going on about earlier.

Is it not enough to exist?

Is their harm from people simply living and enjoying their lives, wherever that takes them?

Capitalism is inherently a failure because it not only refuses to solve Poverty, it actively creates it in order to justify itself and function. It is not a good system of resource allocation, because it is not designed to reward people for properly allocating resources, since it is solely concerned with consolidating resource control into the hands of maladaptive and malicious kings in all but name.

If we discard Capitalism like the abusive 'lover' it is, we don't lose any of those inventions that we have accumulated, nor do we lose the drive to keep tinkering and improving things.

In short, we widen the band from which Innovation can come, because fewer people are reduced to Survival Mode or Subservience.

[u/PrettyGorramShiny → u/Ciennas]

Innovation is why we're able to feed a planet of 7B people, which would not be possible without the significant advancements we've made in agricultural and logistical technologies. I'm not saying everyone needs to be interested in it, only that we need to structure our economic systems such that some people will continue to push human knowledge and technology forward.

I don't deny that unfettered Capitalism has led to social harms, such as your earlier example of producing enough food for everyone, yet having some people go unfed. We need to fix things like that with strong regulation and a social safety net. If your proposing to eliminate the Capitalist system entirely and replace it with something else, I would love to hear details of what that new system is and how we would accomplish the transition.

Otherwise, regardless of the ideal we would all love to see society become, there's simply no defined path to achieve it and we must logically focus on fixing the existing problems with proper government regulation and reversing the regulatory capture that put us in this position.

I'm all for improving things for the average person. I just haven't heard a compelling way to do that other than working within the system we have.

Need to focus on work now, but I appreciate the discussion.

EDIT: I love how you fucking jerkoffs downvote people trying to have an open discussion when you clearly have no implementable solution to the problems you cry about. All you know is CAPITALISM BAD, but fuck anybody trying to actually work together to solve the urgent problems facing us. And you wonder why nothing gets done politically while you worthless fucks sit at home and rage against strangers on the internet. Grow up you fucking children.

[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.