this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
414 points (75.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43810 readers
1 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Most people who hate capitalism are focusing in on its evil brother, "unfettered capitalism". UC is a shit show which has created many of the problems we see today and is the unholy unity created when big business and the government combine. When done right, capitalism pushes to lower costs and improve services for consumers. Companies competing is a good thing. Unfortunately the greed of corporations knows no bounds which is when UC enters the picture and fucks everything up.
But where capitalism is fettered there is tremendous incentive for any successful capitalist to.. defetterate, that is to intervene politically to undo the restraints holding them back from making more money, and conversely to seek regulatory frameworks which restrain potential competitors. It's possible to have markets and competition, arguably the only features of capitalism that are even a little good, under other systems.
I agree... there is always the incentive and that is there we need politicians who aren't so morally bankrupt that they bendover backwards and sell the people out and give these companies these sweetheart deals. And nothing keeps politicians more honest than an engaged public and a news media that is willing to report on these issues. That's kind of where all this starts to fall apart.
And nothing keeps politicians dishonest like giant piles of money under the control of just a tiny handful of individuals, nothing keeps the media in line like those same piles of money and allowing journalists to schmooze a bit with the upper class, nothing keeps the public disengaged like a media landscape under the influence of capital.
Has it ever been done right though? A capitalist entity's mandate is to grow itself to extract maximum profit. It is obliged to become as unfettered as possible to achieve that. This is inheritly unsustainable and in conflict with the interests of society and the environment at large.
Which is where laws and regulations step in. People act like capitalism is some kind of lawless world. The CEOs might want that, but no one is saying we have to give it to them.
You say unfettered capitalism but then say that big businesses and government have combined. Those seem contradictory, do you think it was better when the government wasn't involved?
The government should be on the side of consumers/workers/the nation at large. Government is the only entity large enough to tame these larger corporations. You don't want them dictating the color and trim packages of Ford F150 that are produced, but you need government telling them that "hey, maybe dumping unfiltered burnt leaded gsoline into the air ain't such a good idea".
Unfettered Capitalism is, in part, when the government is on the side of big business to the determent of everyone else. In that case, the government is actively giving blank checks to these mega corporations - look at the Military Industrial Complex for examples. Or when sweetheart deals are made which blindly favor one company because the CEO is cousins with some lawmaker.
Companies cooperating always lead to better results. That's why they do it. If they would cooperate with society also, everyone would win.
Capitalism is cancer. It pushes everyone to fight society for itself.
Define "better".
Better for whom exactly? Shareholders? Workers? Consumers? CEOs? Companies cooperating is good when you are talking about USB and ANSI and ISO standards and such. Where having one cohesive set of rules makes sense.
For most other things, companies competing with each other is far better for everyone involved. Competition breeds innovation.
That's plainly wrong, any kind of capitalism has to end up with the rich eventually owning everything.